Securing the Washington Monument
Good article on security options for the Washington Monument:
Unfortunately, the bureaucratic gears are already grinding, and what will be presented to the public Monday doesn’t include important options, including what became known as the “tunnel” in previous discussions of the issue. Nor does it include the choice of more minimal visitor screening—simple wanding or visual bag inspection—that might not require costly and intrusive changes to the structure. The choice to accept risk isn’t on the table, either. Finally, and although it might seem paradoxical given how important resisting security authoritarianism is to preserving the symbolism of freedom, it doesn’t take seriously the idea that perhaps the monument’s interior should be closed altogether—a small concession that might have collateral benefits.
[…]
Closing the interior of the monument, the construction of which was suspended during the Civil War, would remind the public of the effect that fears engendered by the current war on terrorism have had on public space. Closing it as a symbolic act might initiate an overdue discussion about the loss of even more important public spaces, including the front entrance of the Supreme Court and the west terrace of the Capitol. It would be a dramatic reminder of the choices we as a nation have made, and perhaps an inspiration to change our ways in favor of a more open, risk-tolerant society that understands public space always has some element of danger.
EDITED TO ADD (11/15): More information on the decision process.
Clive Robinson • November 10, 2010 7:47 AM
I think it can be safely said that any type of risk managment that allows even a semblance of avoidable risk is a political No No.
Thus I’m surprised that all security these days is not up to highlevel crotch grabbing TSA patdown (I wonder how long it will be before somebody aledges “digital rape” on such an intrusive pat down).