Newsfeed
Printer-Friendly ModeHomeland Security Advisory System change long overdue
September 28, 2009 —
Since March 12, 2002, the U.S. has been advised of the nation’s threat level via the Homeland Security Advisory System. You know, the box with five colors and five terms telling us what the current threat level is for the U.S.
The Homeland Security Advisory Council reviewed this box’s future in society this month. Its job was to determine whether to keep, modify or junk this system.
There are a few problems with the system as it stands today. The biggest problem is nobody cares. I bet if I went up and down the halls of SVSU for an hour I couldn’t find one person who knew what the terror level was. The council’s report states “At it’s best, there is currently indifference to the Homeland Security Advisory System and, at worst, there is a disturbing lack of public confidence in the system.”
To me, the reason there is indifference toward the system is since the inception of it, the terror level has stayed at yellow/elevated or orange/ high. These are “significant risk of terrorist attacks,” or “high risk of terrorist attacks.” Once, on August 10, 2006, it went to red/severe. The system has never been lowered past yellow to blue/guarded, or green/low. Really? Since 2002, has the United States been at risk of a significant terrorist attack every single day? If we are or have been, where is the threat going to strike and why? The terror level has stayed at a significant or high level for a long time. What information supports keeping it at this level? What constitutes significant?
I guess it really comes down to semantics. Do I think we are at a “significant risk”? No. Do I think we as a country should be cautious? Absolutely.
The report advised that the system be revised from five levels to three. Guarded, elevated and high would replace low, guarded, significant, high and severe. It also advised, among other things, a new practice of providing more specific information on threats and targeting a specific region of the country that is more susceptible to attack.
A new “guarded” level seems acceptable. I would agree with that as long as it came with the color green. The report was uncertain on the color-coding. They were divided on whether to revise the colors or keep them the same.
As an aspiring graphic designer I can tell you why green, yellow and red should be the colors associated with the system. Not yellow, orange and red.
Green often represents wellbeing, peace and stability. Yellow is often used as a warning to potential hazards. Red is a demanding color to view; it is not a calming color, but one that spells out danger.
The current system uses yellow/ significant for an everyday threat level. I think this is wrong. There simply cannot be a significant or potentially hazardous situation daily. I don’t think we need to fear for our lives on a daily basis as the current system suggests. In the past, this may be one of the reasons for people just not paying much attention to the system. As the days went by and nothing happened, people stopped looking at the system as a credible or valuable monitor.
The report describes what guarded should mean in the context of the system: “A constant state of vigilance to protect against a terrorist attack.” Instead of being told to fear for our lives, we are given a reminder to just stay aware.
It also goes on to say the level should stay at guarded as a “baseline” unless a real and increased threat presents itself. When the threat passes, the level should return to guarded and not be left at elevated or severe for weeks or months at a time.
Granted, these are only recommendations. Far be it for me to think my suggestions would ever reach anyone in office, but I do support the changes proposed by this report. If you would like to read the report, Click Here .