Comments on: be reasonable http://www.manifestdensity.net/2010/04/13/be-reasonable/ Just another WordPress weblog Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:18:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: jeff http://www.manifestdensity.net/2010/04/13/be-reasonable/comment-page-1/#comment-13602 jeff Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:54:22 +0000 http://www.manifestdensity.net/2010/04/13/be-reasonable/#comment-13602 Amen to the last poster. Without knowing all the facts, we certainly cannot blame any individual involved in any part of this accident. What we can say safely was clear long before this accident occurred: If security is such a primary concern that the entire conference area (and a huge zone around it) is turned into a military zone surrounded by 5.5 tons military trucks and the like, downtown in the nation's capital, atop metro lines, is NOT the place to have it. Military bases, remote conference centers, and most of the rest of the United States might be. I would like to hear an explanation of why it was held here in the manner. It was either stunningly stupid, or arrogant or both. Amen to the last poster. Without knowing all the facts, we certainly cannot blame any individual involved in any part of this accident. What we can say safely was clear long before this accident occurred: If security is such a primary concern that the entire conference area (and a huge zone around it) is turned into a military zone surrounded by 5.5 tons military trucks and the like, downtown in the nation’s capital, atop metro lines, is NOT the place to have it. Military bases, remote conference centers, and most of the rest of the United States might be. I would like to hear an explanation of why it was held here in the manner. It was either stunningly stupid, or arrogant or both. ]]> By: 10 + L Resident http://www.manifestdensity.net/2010/04/13/be-reasonable/comment-page-1/#comment-13600 10 + L Resident Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:29:48 +0000 http://www.manifestdensity.net/2010/04/13/be-reasonable/#comment-13600 There's no question 46 world leaders in one place is a security risk. The debate here is over where they chose to locate those leaders. Essentially, they turned 10 square blocks of a major city into a de facto military base. Why not host this at a real military base then? That's probably more safe, definitely less disruptive, and certainly less expensive too. There’s no question 46 world leaders in one place is a security risk. The debate here is over where they chose to locate those leaders. Essentially, they turned 10 square blocks of a major city into a de facto military base. Why not host this at a real military base then? That’s probably more safe, definitely less disruptive, and certainly less expensive too. ]]> By: brif http://www.manifestdensity.net/2010/04/13/be-reasonable/comment-page-1/#comment-13599 brif Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:22:57 +0000 http://www.manifestdensity.net/2010/04/13/be-reasonable/#comment-13599 Don't you worry Tom, i've just talked to some very important people at the pentagon. we're going to have fort mcnair closed. it's kind of a shame though, the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment has been conducting operations in DC and the surrounding area for over 200 years. Obviously they couldn't possibly have experience working in urban areas. Don’t you worry Tom, i’ve just talked to some very important people at the pentagon. we’re going to have fort mcnair closed. it’s kind of a shame though, the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment has been conducting operations in DC and the surrounding area for over 200 years. Obviously they couldn’t possibly have experience working in urban areas. ]]> By: Stephanie http://www.manifestdensity.net/2010/04/13/be-reasonable/comment-page-1/#comment-13593 Stephanie Wed, 14 Apr 2010 15:18:28 +0000 http://www.manifestdensity.net/2010/04/13/be-reasonable/#comment-13593 Tom, you are right to be angry. But this incident, accident, whatever, was not the Summit's fault. It was precipitated by the Guard's presence due to the Summit but could have happened due to other reasons just as easily. Other locations are acceptable for events like the NS and should be considered, but c'mon. JT is right: we need to look at this to prevent other incidents from happening, regardless of who was driving the truck and who was on the bike. Tom, you are right to be angry. But this incident, accident, whatever, was not the Summit’s fault. It was precipitated by the Guard’s presence due to the Summit but could have happened due to other reasons just as easily. Other locations are acceptable for events like the NS and should be considered, but c’mon. JT is right: we need to look at this to prevent other incidents from happening, regardless of who was driving the truck and who was on the bike. ]]> By: Catherine http://www.manifestdensity.net/2010/04/13/be-reasonable/comment-page-1/#comment-13590 Catherine Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:44:46 +0000 http://www.manifestdensity.net/2010/04/13/be-reasonable/#comment-13590 Well remember a year or so back a young girl was killed while on a bicycle near Dupont Circle by a truck. It was an accident - anyway the truck didn't do anything wrong. Accidents happen whether or not there is a security summit. Truck drivers have very bad visibility and I think we have no reason to assume military drivers are worse than commercial drivers - indeed I might assume the opposite. I've been brushed by a truck while on a bike. When they stopped to park I caught up with the truck and yelled at the driver. He was horrified he'd almost hit and completely apologetic - I was stunned to realize he truly had not seen me at all - there was no denying how close I'd come to being smushed and how truly he was appalled he hadn't seen me. Cyclists need to be ultra aware of what they are doing. I'm not blaming her - it's just very sad. Well remember a year or so back a young girl was killed while on a bicycle near Dupont Circle by a truck. It was an accident – anyway the truck didn’t do anything wrong. Accidents happen whether or not there is a security summit. Truck drivers have very bad visibility and I think we have no reason to assume military drivers are worse than commercial drivers – indeed I might assume the opposite.

I’ve been brushed by a truck while on a bike. When they stopped to park I caught up with the truck and yelled at the driver. He was horrified he’d almost hit and completely apologetic – I was stunned to realize he truly had not seen me at all – there was no denying how close I’d come to being smushed and how truly he was appalled he hadn’t seen me. Cyclists need to be ultra aware of what they are doing. I’m not blaming her – it’s just very sad.

]]>
By: ajw93 http://www.manifestdensity.net/2010/04/13/be-reasonable/comment-page-1/#comment-13588 ajw93 Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:28:57 +0000 http://www.manifestdensity.net/2010/04/13/be-reasonable/#comment-13588 I agree, it is over the top. It all started with closing Penna. and E, IMO. Searching me to go into my home? Ridiculous. Having this at the Convention Center was a mistake, when there are multiple facilities in and around town that are *already* much more secure! I think we can all agree that just having the motorcades would have been a PITA, but one that DC residents would readily deal with, as you point out. Yes, DC is a giant target. But here's the thing: that's not new. There have been MIRVs pointed at this city for more than fifty years. Suddenly in the last ten years people are acting like it *is* new. (I mean, obviously I know why, but I don't relate, is what I'm saying.) I agree, it is over the top. It all started with closing Penna. and E, IMO. Searching me to go into my home? Ridiculous. Having this at the Convention Center was a mistake, when there are multiple facilities in and around town that are *already* much more secure! I think we can all agree that just having the motorcades would have been a PITA, but one that DC residents would readily deal with, as you point out.

Yes, DC is a giant target. But here’s the thing: that’s not new. There have been MIRVs pointed at this city for more than fifty years. Suddenly in the last ten years people are acting like it *is* new. (I mean, obviously I know why, but I don’t relate, is what I’m saying.)

]]>
By: Tom http://www.manifestdensity.net/2010/04/13/be-reasonable/comment-page-1/#comment-13586 Tom Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:27:00 +0000 http://www.manifestdensity.net/2010/04/13/be-reasonable/#comment-13586 Well, I'd say that you're misinterpreting my position: I don't believe these kinds of events belong in the downtown area of any city. Summits with security requirements of this scale should be held in locations that are more easily secured and which will inconvenience fewer people. Your point about large vehicles is certainly worth considering. But I think there are a few factors making this situation distinct: by all accounts these military trucks have abnormally bad visibility -- spotters have to get out whenever they back up. It also seems safe to assume that their drivers have fewer hours behind the wheel of such vehicles than do most commercial drivers. Does the military's certification program for using these vehicles include training and testing in an urban environment? I have my doubts. Certainly it seems unlikely that they're taught to prioritize safety in the same way that commercial drivers are. Plus, trash trucks benefit from multiple employees at various points on the vehicle to identify danger. And all of those vehicles follow predictable patterns -- something that a security vehicle enforcing a roadblock cannot be counted on to do. So yes, accidents can happen under other circumstances, and do. It's hard to draw definite conclusions from a single incident, but I do think it's remarkable that even during this brief summit, someone was killed by security forces. Ask a military analyst: putting troops in urban areas and asking them to be on defense comes with risks. Well, I’d say that you’re misinterpreting my position: I don’t believe these kinds of events belong in the downtown area of any city. Summits with security requirements of this scale should be held in locations that are more easily secured and which will inconvenience fewer people.

Your point about large vehicles is certainly worth considering. But I think there are a few factors making this situation distinct: by all accounts these military trucks have abnormally bad visibility — spotters have to get out whenever they back up. It also seems safe to assume that their drivers have fewer hours behind the wheel of such vehicles than do most commercial drivers. Does the military’s certification program for using these vehicles include training and testing in an urban environment? I have my doubts. Certainly it seems unlikely that they’re taught to prioritize safety in the same way that commercial drivers are.

Plus, trash trucks benefit from multiple employees at various points on the vehicle to identify danger. And all of those vehicles follow predictable patterns — something that a security vehicle enforcing a roadblock cannot be counted on to do.

So yes, accidents can happen under other circumstances, and do. It’s hard to draw definite conclusions from a single incident, but I do think it’s remarkable that even during this brief summit, someone was killed by security forces. Ask a military analyst: putting troops in urban areas and asking them to be on defense comes with risks.

]]>
By: JT http://www.manifestdensity.net/2010/04/13/be-reasonable/comment-page-1/#comment-13584 JT Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:11:26 +0000 http://www.manifestdensity.net/2010/04/13/be-reasonable/#comment-13584 Just as an observation - there's nothing unusual about the mere size of these vehicles on the city streets. Our garbage is collected every day by trucks this size. Deliveries, moving trucks, and so on are handled by large box trucks and 18 wheelers that, yes, drive on city streets every day. I think that suggesting that large vehicles somehow place an undue burden on a city infrastructure is deflecting the issue. You can't blame this accident simply on the presence of large vehicles. While I disagree with your premise that this just should not happen in DC (but it would be OK in some other city, it seems), the accident was an accident. There's no reason to blame the convention (or the existence of such things, generally) for it. We in DC live with road closures, unusual traffic patterns, odd security configurations, and so on all the time. This one was a little different than a typical event, but so have been many other things in the past. These sorts of things aren't going to go away. There's no point in focusing on the summit itself as the cause of the accident. Instead we should be focusing on the big picture - how can we improve safety for future events? What factors led to the accident? As far as I know, nobody's really even said (in the press) exactly what happened here. Just as an observation – there’s nothing unusual about the mere size of these vehicles on the city streets. Our garbage is collected every day by trucks this size. Deliveries, moving trucks, and so on are handled by large box trucks and 18 wheelers that, yes, drive on city streets every day. I think that suggesting that large vehicles somehow place an undue burden on a city infrastructure is deflecting the issue.

You can’t blame this accident simply on the presence of large vehicles. While I disagree with your premise that this just should not happen in DC (but it would be OK in some other city, it seems), the accident was an accident. There’s no reason to blame the convention (or the existence of such things, generally) for it. We in DC live with road closures, unusual traffic patterns, odd security configurations, and so on all the time. This one was a little different than a typical event, but so have been many other things in the past.

These sorts of things aren’t going to go away. There’s no point in focusing on the summit itself as the cause of the accident. Instead we should be focusing on the big picture – how can we improve safety for future events? What factors led to the accident? As far as I know, nobody’s really even said (in the press) exactly what happened here.

]]>
By: Tom http://www.manifestdensity.net/2010/04/13/be-reasonable/comment-page-1/#comment-13555 Tom Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:16:35 +0000 http://www.manifestdensity.net/2010/04/13/be-reasonable/#comment-13555 I appreciate the thoughtful responses, but I think you folks are too ready to accept the status quo. These sorts of summits don't have to happen in DC -- it'd be easy enough to find a conference center in the country that could be secured a la Camp David. Alternate venues like this exist -- I've been to them. Even securing a hotel would be preferable to shutting down the three blocks surrounding the convention center (the White House does this all the time on 15th street). Turtle Bay aside, running meetings of this scale in major cities strikes me as fairly unusual. I also think you're too easily accepting the idea that bigger vehicles and more closed streets equals more security. Why are SUVs sufficient for protecting the presidential motorcade, but we need multi-ton national guard trucks to protect the rest of the world's leaders? I'd add that the idea that killing world leaders would be a huge "get" strikes me as simplistic and juvenile. Terrorist organizations have specific grievances and specific aims. Simply killing leaders of democracies left and right is the sort of thing Lex Luthor might go in for, but it's kind of a ridiculous way to look at the world and the security threats it contains. I appreciate the thoughtful responses, but I think you folks are too ready to accept the status quo. These sorts of summits don’t have to happen in DC — it’d be easy enough to find a conference center in the country that could be secured a la Camp David. Alternate venues like this exist — I’ve been to them. Even securing a hotel would be preferable to shutting down the three blocks surrounding the convention center (the White House does this all the time on 15th street). Turtle Bay aside, running meetings of this scale in major cities strikes me as fairly unusual.

I also think you’re too easily accepting the idea that bigger vehicles and more closed streets equals more security. Why are SUVs sufficient for protecting the presidential motorcade, but we need multi-ton national guard trucks to protect the rest of the world’s leaders?

I’d add that the idea that killing world leaders would be a huge “get” strikes me as simplistic and juvenile. Terrorist organizations have specific grievances and specific aims. Simply killing leaders of democracies left and right is the sort of thing Lex Luthor might go in for, but it’s kind of a ridiculous way to look at the world and the security threats it contains.

]]>
By: me http://www.manifestdensity.net/2010/04/13/be-reasonable/comment-page-1/#comment-13554 me Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:08:28 +0000 http://www.manifestdensity.net/2010/04/13/be-reasonable/#comment-13554 i have lived here quite a long time and one of the only times i have seen military was for the inauguration and during the damn snow storms! but searching someone to get into their homes is a step beyond 'protecting the world leaders' don'tcha think? they LIVE there which brings me to living in trinidad in NE during the height of the roadblocks. that was intrusive and felt eerie and odd to be sitting on my porch after work with a corner full of police just sitting there, stopping black people and kids and talking on their damn cell phones. i was never searched but saw people who were...cars only because while the cops were 'trying' to keep guns and drugs and riff raff out, they could WALK up trinidad ave...they are there to instill fear and that's what keeps a country/a people complacent! and seriously, when was the last attack on US soil? i live in DC and i am aware of my surroundings. it's a "target" city if you will. do you realize how easy it would be to do something say on a metro train or perhaps the key bridge or anywhere else loads of people are? think about it. how much security is there really? pay attention, know your rights..... i have lived here quite a long time and one of the only times i have seen military was for the inauguration and during the damn snow storms!

but searching someone to get into their homes is a step beyond ‘protecting the world leaders’ don’tcha think?

they LIVE there which brings me to living in trinidad in NE during the height of the roadblocks.

that was intrusive and felt eerie and odd to be sitting on my porch after work with a corner full of police just sitting there, stopping black people and kids and talking on their damn cell phones.

i was never searched but saw people who were…cars only because while the cops were ‘trying’ to keep guns and drugs and riff raff out, they could WALK up trinidad ave…they are there to instill fear and that’s what keeps a country/a people complacent!

and seriously, when was the last attack on US soil?

i live in DC and i am aware of my surroundings. it’s a “target” city if you will.

do you realize how easy it would be to do something say on a metro train or perhaps the key bridge or anywhere else loads of people are?

think about it. how much security is there really?

pay attention, know your rights…..

]]>