In a web only (read "free") piece over at TNR today, Michelle Cottle argues that state and local governments have too many conflicts of interest to be allowed to make their own decisions about whether and when to issue terror warnings.

The story Cottle uses to illustrate her point is pretty compelling. In 2002, federal officials informed California and Nevada that raids on Al Qaeda cells in Spain and Detroit had turned up evidence of a threat to several high-profile targets in their states. California's response, as you may recall, was swift, certain and public, while Nevada's was, well, not -- primarily due to Las Vegas' concerns about tourists and torts. Which leads Cottle to the heart of her argument:

Now, one could argue that Vegas officials would never be so stupid as to sit on information that, in the event of an attack, would come back to destroy them. But life in Vegas is all about playing the odds. And since tourism is what keeps Vegas from sinking back into the sand, it's not hard to imagine a scenario in which local officials would consider almost any risk worth protecting the city's economic lifeblood.

But for a moment let's set aside the question of whether Vegas authorities have been treating blissfully ignorant tourists (and residents) like so many poker chips. What I want to know is why the federal government didn't issue any sort of warning on its own. If the threat was credible enough to send the state of California into a tizzy, why on earth was the decision about whether to alert the fine folks of Vegas left to a bunch of local yokels with an obvious economic conflict of interest?

More importantly, is this delegation of responsibility happening elsewhere, and if so, how often? How clear and present does a danger need to be before the federal government takes matters into its own hands? Certainly, Las Vegas isn't the only town whose officials are more concerned about economic ruin than the admittedly slim chance of a terrorist attack.

She's right. National defense is Uncle Sam's job. And the Bush administration needs to be willing to set aside its states' rights rhetoric long enough to forcefully assert this uniquely federal prerogative.

--------