Comments on: In Case of Terrorist Attack: Electoral College II http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/2111.html Some Chicago Boyz know each other from student days at the University of Chicago. Others are Chicago boys in spirit. The blog name is also intended as a good-humored gesture of admiration for distinguished Chicago boys including those pictured above. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:17:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Jay Manifold http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/2111.html/comment-page-1#comment-4731 Jay Manifold Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:18:22 +0000 http://www390.pair.com/chicagob/blog/002111.php#comment-4731 In terms of risk management, I see a couple of needs: Risk <i>mitigation</i> through providing robust physical security at the Mon 13 Dec election. Park an IL Nat'l Guard tank in front of the Capitol and ring the building with a platoon of soldiers with M-16s. Sweep the building for bombs. Declare an exclusion zone for aircraft, and have a fighter circling overhead. Risk <i>transfer</i> through development of constitutional mechanisms to ensure that the election will go forward even if risk mitigation fails utterly and all original Presidential electors are killed or incapacitated. The first method would be criticized as grandstanding -- especially by those who don't agree that "there's a war on," or think that it's all our fault -- and could plausibly be charged with drawing attention to the event in such a way as to make it a more likely target in future. So although risk mitigation would almost certainly be effective and not terribly expensive, since the duration of the event being protected is only a few minutes, risk transfer is politically safer. It could even make state legislators appear forward-thinking and responsible. And TM, that's <i>great</i> follow-up. Who knows? -- maybe something will actually be done. In terms of risk management, I see a couple of needs:
Risk mitigation through providing robust physical security at the Mon 13 Dec election. Park an IL Nat’l Guard tank in front of the Capitol and ring the building with a platoon of soldiers with M-16s. Sweep the building for bombs. Declare an exclusion zone for aircraft, and have a fighter circling overhead.
Risk transfer through development of constitutional mechanisms to ensure that the election will go forward even if risk mitigation fails utterly and all original Presidential electors are killed or incapacitated.
The first method would be criticized as grandstanding — especially by those who don’t agree that “there’s a war on,” or think that it’s all our fault — and could plausibly be charged with drawing attention to the event in such a way as to make it a more likely target in future. So although risk mitigation would almost certainly be effective and not terribly expensive, since the duration of the event being protected is only a few minutes, risk transfer is politically safer. It could even make state legislators appear forward-thinking and responsible.

And TM, that’s great follow-up. Who knows? — maybe something will actually be done.

]]> By: Jonathan http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/2111.html/comment-page-1#comment-4730 Jonathan Tue, 13 Jul 2004 21:48:28 +0000 http://www390.pair.com/chicagob/blog/002111.php#comment-4730 They should do something about it, but absent an impressive attack they may not want to bother. The argument against doing anything is that the risk of being attacked by terrorists who possess an intimate understanding of U.S. election procedures seems remote compared to the risk of other kinds of terror attacks -- e.g., against trains. Perhaps there is a lobbying role for the federal govt here. The Homeland Security Administration might invest some time and effort in raising these issues with the leaderships of the state legislatures. They should do something about it, but absent an impressive attack they may not want to bother. The argument against doing anything is that the risk of being attacked by terrorists who possess an intimate understanding of U.S. election procedures seems remote compared to the risk of other kinds of terror attacks — e.g., against trains. Perhaps there is a lobbying role for the federal govt here. The Homeland Security Administration might invest some time and effort in raising these issues with the leaderships of the state legislatures.

]]>