Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Idle Politics

Congress Suggests Moat, Electronic Fence To Protect White House 213

PolygamousRanchKid writes Acting Secret Service director Joseph Clancy on Wednesday faced a number of tough questions from the House Judiciary Committee about the fence jumper who made it deep into the White House. But along with the tough questions, Clancy fielded a couple eyebrow raising suggestions on how to better protect the president's home. "Would a moat, water six feet around, be kind of attractive and effective?" Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., asked with trepidation. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, asked: “Would you be in favor of removing the fence around the White House and having, maybe, a virtual or electronic fence around it?” Clancy liked the moat idea better than the electric fence. “My knee-jerk reaction to that would be no, sir,” he told Gohmert. “Partly because of the number of tourists that come up Pennsylvania Avenue and come up to that area.”
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Congress Suggests Moat, Electronic Fence To Protect White House

Comments Filter:
  • by Lilith's Heart-shape ( 1224784 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @05:43PM (#48421687) Homepage
    Why not just ring the White House with a fucking minefield?
    • by aardvarkjoe ( 156801 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @05:46PM (#48421707)

      So long as it is effective in keeping the President from escaping, I'm all for it.

      • So long as it is effective in keeping the President from escaping, I'm all for it.

        Haha. Pretty much this.

        The best way to make the White House safe is to put a President in it who people don't want to kill all the time.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They're just pointing out the hypocrisy of politicians being protected by guns and fences, while telling citizens they can't have guns and that a fence isn't needed on our nations borders (despite cartels and bad guys with known terrorist ties crossing daily).

      • They're just pointing out the hypocrisy of politicians being protected by guns and fences, while telling citizens they can't have guns and that a fence isn't needed on our nations borders (despite cartels and bad guys with known terrorist ties crossing daily).

        Downtown Washington is littered with dozens of federal buildings, each having its own set of trained security and metal detectors and the like. We spend a fortune on it.

        • You have to be careful where you stand in DC or you'll attract the attention of security. I was at the National Holocaust Museum and I had stepped outside to take a phone call. So I'm standing on the sidewalk, talking, and a guard marches over and orders me to leave. The museum is next to a Treasury building, and loitering near a government building is strictly verboten, plebeian. Seriously. You can't stand on a public sidewalk now.

      • They're just pointing out the hypocrisy of politicians being protected by guns and fences, while telling citizens they can't have guns and that a fence isn't needed on our nations borders (despite cartels and bad guys with known terrorist ties crossing daily).

        No, actually it's a bit worse than that. Their comments regarding the concern of tourist accessibility says far more about the priority of capitalism (tourism) than it does security.

        Either the White House is tourist attraction, or it is not. It's pretty damn black and white at this point. Either open it up or lock it down, but let's stop trying to meet somewhere in the middle before someone earmarks a billion or ten in taxpayer money, only to end up with a twenty-billion dollar moat that was defeated by

      • by Goonie ( 8651 )
        That has to be the stupidest accusation of hypocrisy I've heard in a long time. Apples and fucking oranges.

        The White House is a (relatively) small building which faces a real, live, no-shit security threat for which armed guards and big fences are a rational, effective, and cost-effective response.

        Big fences along the entirety of the United States land border and random citizens arming themselves to the teeth, by contrast, are dumb responses to the threats which the country, as a whole, faces - not leas

        • Statistically speaking, an average person in American is far, far more likely to be attacked and need to defend themselves than a federal building.

          Pretty obvious, since if you actually break down the "people shot" statistic you find the vast majority were felons to begin with.

    • by CaptainLard ( 1902452 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @06:07PM (#48421877)
      I get your point that congress should shut the fuck up and let the expert handle it. That session must have been like every engineering meeting I've been in where management suggests ways to "fix" a technical issue. Only this took place on the grandest scale.

      Oh, and it also reminds me of posts to technical /. stories that go "OBVIOUSLY this new thing won't work because they OBVIOUSLY didn't think of this OBVIOUS problem that I realized because I'm a genius and skimmed the summary". There's gotta be some syndrome that covers it....
    • Or instead of water, use lava.

    • Even better. Ever been to an airport in Mexico? I want that kind of heart-warming experience.

    • Because anti-personnel mines are now illegal, and anti-tank mines don't kill gunmen.
      • by guruevi ( 827432 )

        The International Campaign to Ban Landmines has sought to ban land mines culminating in the 1997 Ottawa Treaty, although this treaty has not yet been accepted by a number of countries including the USA. Matter of fact, the US is one of the largest producers of land mines.

    • I think pouring boiling oil from the roof would be effective. I mean would you try to make a run for it knowing that they would not just stop you but actually try to pour boiling oil on you? hell no.

    • Dropping boiling oil on people?

  • Just need this [blogspot.com].

    (BTW, I thought for several years that particular episode [blogspot.com] was the best thing ever on television to that point, until I realized it was blatant rip-off -- excuse me, homage -- of 2001.)

    • by mjwx ( 966435 )
      Whenever I see a challenge like electric fences and moats I always take a note from Jeremey Clarkson's book and say "how hard could it be"?

      It seems he's already answered, with the Toybota. [wikia.com]
  • by wkk2 ( 808881 )
    The moat would need to be heated to keep the alligators happy. Actually, mag-locks on the doors that get engaged on reports of someone on the grounds would cost a lot less.
  • by RevWaldo ( 1186281 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @05:52PM (#48421773)
    ...is a fearless tourist's lazy river ride.

    .
  • Or theyâ(TM)ll want a higher fence. Maybe they'll need a moat. Maybe they want alligators in the moat! They'll never be satisfied, and I understand that. That's politics. But the truth is the measures we've put in place are getting results."

    â" President Obama in El Paso, TX

  • Sharks (Score:5, Funny)

    by kwiecmmm ( 1527631 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @05:54PM (#48421791)

    This moat needs sharks with lasers attached to their heads!!

  • Install some trip wires to make you fall into the bushes and that is that.
  • Jefferson (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @06:12PM (#48421905) Homepage Journal

    Jefferson used to complain about the long line of people at the White House who were there to see him - most of them looking for a job hand-out, but some with legitimate issues for him to deal with.

    Perhaps Congress could start by dissolving the enivronment that has caused so many people to want to do antisocial things like harming a President, who is mostly supposed to be a CEO of the government, and occasionally lead a defensive war against the country.

    Oh, nm, that's just crazy-talk. Might as well fill the moat with hunter-killer boats from Lockheed.

    • So many? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jklovanc ( 1603149 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @06:34PM (#48422067)

      Perhaps Congress could start by dissolving the enivronment that has caused so many people to want to do antisocial things

      Between 2000 and now there have been 14 "intruders" [wikipedia.org] at the White House. Only one of which actually broke into the building. These intruders include a toddler who squeezed through the fence and a couple who crashed a Sate dinner. That is an average of less than one per year who had antisocial intent. From a population of 360 million less than one per year is not many.

      • Re:So many? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @06:54PM (#48422199)

        Perhaps Congress could start by dissolving the enivronment that has caused so many people to want to do antisocial things

        Between 2000 and now there have been 14 "intruders" [wikipedia.org] at the White House. Only one of which actually broke into the building. These intruders include a toddler who squeezed through the fence and a couple who crashed a Sate dinner. That is an average of less than one per year who had antisocial intent. From a population of 360 million less than one per year is not many.

        But you don't understand, in the post 9-11 world we don't assess the real risks. Only the imaginary ones.
        And end up paying billions/trillions of dollars for nothing.

  • by aevan ( 903814 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @06:22PM (#48421991)
    I suppose it makes sense, with laws painting us all as virtually terrorists.

    That said, I like Punji stake pits as an idea. Or high-tension trampolines that snap-release and launch plumetters back into the air. Hook it to a live web-stream.
  • This poor guy was simply looking for work in order to be able to support his family back home. All he wanted was a better life.. I'm sure he's a hardworking, industrious, salt of the earth type... the type who made this country great!

    Amnesty, a drivers license, and a green card folks. That's what this man needs, not a prison term.

  • Seriously, a news for nerds site can't get the word electronic correct in a article headline? Amazing editing going on there, Slashdot.

    • They got it right. Eletronic refers to the new state of the art robotic elephants. They look a bit like Chisulo in body armor, but with more electricity and less biology.

      • I was going to bitch about Slashdot editor qualifications, but yes, I do believe robotic elephants would be a suitable solution and will thus let the title stand. Long live our Eletronic guards! P.S. I love snarky Slashdot posters! That's why I come here folks! It's all about the snark.
  • It's just vanity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @06:53PM (#48422191)
    The politicians think they are irreplaceable. They should read a little history. I can't wait for the Praetorian guard to become powerful enough to start removing and placing politicians as they see fit. Did you know that the Roman Empire was auctioned to the highest bidder at one point?

    Seriously if the politicians are so afraid of "the masses" then maybe they should start actually representing those masses like they're supposed to.

    • For a country that believes so strongly in the free market, I can't see the economic logic behind providing any security for politicians. There's not exactly a shortage of candidates, so the correct free market response is to cancel all publicly-funded security for presidents, actual or potential, at least until the year of Cletus v Putin.

      And I'm sure in a free market society, simple vanity wouldn't trump anything so fundamental as basic economics, would it?

  • by l2718 ( 514756 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @07:01PM (#48422255)
    So when did these august Congresscritters aquire expertise in installation security? I have no opinion on whether a moats would be a good or bad idea, but surely the Congressmen have no idea either.
  • by jklovanc ( 1603149 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @07:13PM (#48422311)

    Personal security everywhere has a few conflicting objectives.
    - Protect the person from physical threats
    - Do not appear intimidating to the general public
    - React quickly to perceived threats
    - Do not overreact to perceived threats
    Sure you could put a concrete wall around the White House and shoot anyone who climbed over but that would be very bad.

    This incident [washingtonpost.com] has been blown way out of proportion. Lets look at what really happened.
    1. I guy jumps a fence.
    2. He runs across the lawn. He was seen at this point and an alarm was triggered (the problem is that the alarm was muted for some reason)
    3. He enters an unlocked door (Which would have been locked had the alarm sounded).
    4. He runs past a startled security guard (The one who would have locked the door if the alarm had sounded).
    5. He runs up the stairs and across a long room.
    6. He is tackled by a counterassault agent.
    The only people he encountered were security personnel and he did not damage anything and harmed no one.

    Lets look at what contributed to the incident.
    1. He was not shot as he had no visible weapons.
    2. The door to remain unlocked because the alarm was muted. The article claims that is was muted on the orders of the Usher's office
    3. The President was in the process of leaving the building. During movement security is concentrated around the president as that is when he is most vulnerable. That left the front lawn less protected as there was less there to protect.

    How to fix the issue?
    1. Never mute the alarms
    2. Connect the front door lock to the alarm so it locks when the alarm goes off.
    Those are simple solutions to a small problem.

    Mr Gonzalez is a Iraq War veteran with mental health issue. Though he had a knife on him he never brandished it and no one knew of it's existence until he was arrested. What do you think the comments would have been if it turned out that an unarmed Iraq War veteran with PTSD was shot dead while trying to enter the White House? So the Secret Service has to choose between being damned for letting someone into an an empty area of the White House or damned for shooting an unarmed Iraq War veteran with PTSD. You choose.

    • Dude, a guy with a knife and a limp ran several hundred yards, unhindered, into the most secure building on earth. They were Lucky he was mentally deranged and not really actually out to hurt anyone. Had he been, he could have easily taken out half the building with an ied.

      The secret service isn't being criticized for failing to do the impossible.
      They are being criticized for failing to stop just about the easiest to stop assailant you could imagine.
      They guy should have had a bullet in his chest before his

      • by guruevi ( 827432 )

        Ever been to DC? One could 'attack' the White House with an RPG, a short-range rocket or any number of short-medium range military equipment and do serious damage. The problem is there is not 'really' anything there to kill or damage, the true leaders are dispersed in offices on Wall Street.

      • by ihtoit ( 3393327 )

        uh, the most secure facility on Earth is Mount Weather. If you're not cleared to enter, they will kill you if you approach it.

    • Yup, what I read from it was "handled correctly & existing systems are effective".

      It's always good practice to do an incident review when something bad happens, to find gaps in existing processes and taking some time to reflect if there's any meaningful improvement that can be done.

      What I don't like is that the answer is never to leave things as is. Out of an incident review, on anything from IT to White House security, there is always enormous pressure to do *something* tangible, whether that so
  • What next? Will the President fart in our general direction?

  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @07:23PM (#48422375) Journal

    Do what the Brits do: create some fun and fanciful traditional-like uniform for the guards, and post 2 guards near the front gate, 2 near the front door, and one on each corner of the building.

    Maybe something like this:

    http://www.halloweencostumes.c... [halloweencostumes.com]

    (Without the boyish face, though.)

  • Mistakes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jklovanc ( 1603149 ) on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @07:29PM (#48422405)

    I love this quote from this article; [nytimes.com]

    “I worry about her whole approach,” said Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, who is the chairman of a subcommittee that on Monday scheduled a hearing on the incident for next week. “I do question the director’s leadership. This is a place where we can never, ever make a mistake.”

    This just shows how little Representative Jason Chaffetz actually knows about personal security. Security Agents are human and will make mistakes. Security systems are designed to take that into consideration by designing security in layers. One or more layers may be breached due to mistakes but unless the person being secured is harmed then the system worked. Lets look at what happened.
    1. He climbed the fence. While a security layer it is designed to deter entry not prevent entry. Layer worked as designed.
    2. He ran across the lawn and was seen by a security agent who sounded the alarm. Security layer worked as designed.
    3. He opened the door. Layer failed due to alarm being muted.
    4. He ran past startled security guard. Layer failed due to alarm being muted.
    5. He ran up some stairs and was tackled by counter assault agent. Security layer successful.

    There were probably a few more security layers between that point and the President. The only mistakes I see are the alarm being muted and the door not being automatically locked by the alarm. Would you rather have snipers shooting anyone who climbs over the fence?

  • I live in Tucson, Arizona. We have one air-force base and one army national guard base. Both have a moat around them and a fence on both sides of the moat, and a bridge to the inspection station.

    Here's a picture of the bridge over the moat [google.com].

    Note the lack of water. Tucson, Arizona. It's a dry heat.

    If it's good enough for military bases, it's good enough for the President. Also Congress. And if they continue to perform so well in representing us, they can be forced to swim it.

    E

  • Just move the president to Cinderella's Castle in the Magic Kingdom. No more fanciful than what passes for leadership inside the White House.

  • We should also have armed guards on the outside with orders to shoot anyone who tries to exit the White House grounds. Only then will we be safe.
  • What is this thread doing on /. anyway? Maybe is was the idea of an Eletronic fence, but why here?
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Postlady: When did you get a pool?
    Lois: Oh, it's a moat. I know it's silly but my husband thinks our family needs extra protection now that we're rich.
    Postlady: Does it work?
    Lois: Well... it does keep the Black Knight at bay.

  • This is Slashdot, so new we are rewarded with a litany of "look how stupid congress is" stories.

    The fact is, the conversation is clearly brainstorming, more of a signal that lateral thinking was welcome, as the secret service clearly hasn't thought if anything effective.

  • and immediately thought "Yeah, with sharks with fucking lasers mounted on their heads." ::Doctor_Evil_Laugh::

  • Can this virtual fence has virtual razor wire and sniper towers?
  • redundancy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Thursday November 20, 2014 @02:34AM (#48424215) Homepage Journal

    In tech, we solve single-point-of-failure issues with redundancy.

    You guys should have not one, but several reserve presidents, and a few reserve headquarters, and if one of them gets blown up, just don't make it a big deal.

    That sounds like sarcasm, but really, it's not. Just framed a bit tongue-in-cheek. But how often do you hear members of the senate being targets of assassination attempts? The senate is as important as the president, but thanks to using a highly distributed system with extreme redundancy, they are far less interesting targets.

    But I guess we as human beings still have minds from 50,000 years ago and we want to see a leader to our tribe. The concept of shared leadership is brilliant, but too advanced for our stone-age brains.

    • But I guess we as human beings still have minds from 50,000 years ago and we want to see a leader to our tribe. The concept of shared leadership is brilliant, but too advanced for our stone-age brains.

      I think the evolutionary psychology line is going too far. I don't think anyone is suggesting that losing the president will make us all leaderless and lost. Instead, that losing the president is a substantial blow that's best avoided. The reason for this is that the "shared leaders" you describe do not have equal seniority. So if you lose the top one, you still require a reshuffle and there will still be disruption. Further, the president is the figurehead of the nation and it is a blow to morale if he is

      • by danaris ( 525051 )

        I think the evolutionary psychology line is going too far. I don't think anyone is suggesting that losing the president will make us all leaderless and lost. Instead, that losing the president is a substantial blow that's best avoided. The reason for this is that the "shared leaders" you describe do not have equal seniority. So if you lose the top one, you still require a reshuffle and there will still be disruption. Further, the president is the figurehead of the nation and it is a blow to morale if he is taken out. For similar reasons, there was a big security boost around the statue of liberty following 9/11. Symbols matter, that's all.

        I think you misunderstood his point—though your point is good too.

        But what I read in Tom's post was that the reason we have a single President in the first place, rather than some sort of coequal ruling council, is because of our primitive desire for single, focused leadership.

        Dan Aris

  • The Knights Hospitalers (I think, could have been Templars) had a fortress that was never conquered. Attackers would be bottlenecked, relative to defenders, were forever being harassed on the flanks and faced numerous blind corners.

    Simply build a reproduction of this fortress around the White House. They can build a moat around it, if they like. Ringed by an electric fence. Oh, the moat needs sharks with lasers. Any suggestion for shark species?

    The great thing about this is that the White House can remain a

  • If they make to the Oval Office, they get to join the cabinet!
  • A moat is excessively expensive, really unnecessary, an eyesore, and is still not going to really stop or hinder a marine who is determined. Furthermore, the White House is supposed to be a place where people from the public can indeed come; it's not supposed to be a castle or an ivory tower. It should only be fort knox during those times when the president is home.

    As for ensuring the president's security; I suggest an additional wider perimeter with a triple-layer fence, with all vehicles and person

In the long run, every program becomes rococco, and then rubble. -- Alan Perlis

Working...