[Freedom of Speech Wins]

Isn't the person who tells you a bridge may be attacked protecting you more than the person who hides this from you?

[onyx]

Isn't the person who tells you a bridge may be attacked protecting you more than the person who hides this from you?

Not when his info is NOT CONFIRMED!

[JD86]

Not in this case. There was no specific target mentioned. Davis accomplished two things by his press conference. He added to the fear level of the general public without giving them any specific guidance about areas of danger. And, more importantly, he announced to the world that the telephone conversations had been intercepted. That is not a source of intelligence that is probably no longer available thanks to his lack of foresight.

[gogov]

Isn't the person who tells you a bridge may be attacked protecting you more than the person who hides this from you?

Okay, there is a bridge near my house. It might be attacked. Consider yourself protected and me a buffoon for sounding such a rediculas alarm - all the more so if I was a grandstanding governor.

I am also quite certain at this point that even without an announcement there is no hiding anything from anyone these days. I'd say we've all been sufficiently forewarned without Governor Davis jumping into the fray.

[Dan Day]

Isn't the person who tells you a bridge may be attacked protecting you more than the person who hides this from you?

Not if by doing so they tip the terrorists that we're expecting an attack on the bridge, and the terrorists switch to some other unsuspecting target, whereas we would have had a good chance to spot them and apprehend them had they remained ignorant of our forewarned knowledge and made a try for the bridge.