The National Park Service is proposing a plan for Independence Park that would erect a seven-foot-high iron fence in the middle of Independence Square that will essentially bisect the park behind Independence Hall.
The plan is in response to a Department of Homeland Security directive to protect the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall from terrorist attacks.
I'd wager our founders wouldn't want a fence.
Posted by: BadIdeaGuy at August 15, 2006 10:03 PMquick-posted this and sent this in to the address you provided...I hope it helps.
I for one think the fence at Independence Square is a bad idea. For one, it signals to the terrorists that we are afraid. Two, it lets them know that they are winning. Three, it signals to those Americans at home who do not have the citizens' interest at heart that we are willing to give up anything for a false security. I would rather suffer the phantom plots of an useen enemy than lose the freedoms and liberty that make us uniquely American.
Sincerely,
Sgt Joe Duran
USMC
I believe the fence is a bad idea. I agree that it sends the wrong signal to both terrorists and our civilians. I don't believe a fence would do too much to prevent terrorism at all.
Posted by: Henry at August 17, 2006 03:38 PMAs the above passage states.... Symbols. This countries liberty/ freedom was not won by protecting stone figures and old brick buildings. It was won on the battlefields and in the trenches where our troops shed THEIR blood. It has been said and written about time and time again to support our troops and more funding is needed for the armed services but it cannot be stressed enough. We need to focus on people not items
Posted by: stephen roche at August 17, 2006 04:43 PMI just wanted to write in and say that as a citizen of Philadelphia, I'm
strongly opposed to a security fence around the liberty bell or Independence Hall. If we have to start living in fortress America then
what's the point of preserving the symbols of freedom.
Maybe it's not a popular view, but I understand freedom to come with a certain price. Not just the overly-glorified responsibility to defend
it, but also the fact that living in a free society has certain risks.
Crackpots have an easier chance to do bad stuff in a society that isn't on lockdown. That's true. It's a risk we all have to take. On the other
hand, the rest of us can go about our daily routine, have our personal lives and have our public lives in the ways that we see fit, if we are free.
The more walls and barriers we build, the more defenses we build, the less fun our nation becomes. Putting a fence around two very nice
patches of grass and architecture in center city would make this place much, much less fun. So I strongly oppose it.
In short, I oppose any new
security features at either site under the National Park's jurisdiction.
There are quite enough cameras, checkpoints, walls and turrets deployed
in this city already.
Stephen, well said! Hoorah!!!!!!!!!!
Sgt D
We show these losers everyday that they can win this battle. How? Go to the airport with a bottle of Gatorade and u will see. If u wanna put up a fence put it on the border. Or use the money to make some better gear for my brothers in arms in the suck!
Posted by: IGGYMON at August 18, 2006 04:43 PMHoorah IGGYMON. Looks like I will have to be drinking Blood Mary's and Genuine Draft on the flight instead. Shouldn't we be more worried about Snakes on the Plane than Gatorade?
Posted by: Joe at August 19, 2006 02:22 PMIsnt it interesting, the US wants to build a fence to keep citizens and visitors away from certain areas, but Israel wants to build a fence to keep killers out of their country and gets criticized.
Posted by: Steve at August 21, 2006 12:27 PMIn regards to the fence or any fence around a symbol of our national freedom; just goes to show you how many people trust our administration to make decisions for them pertaining to 'freedom'. The less rights you have the more 'freedom' you get. Perhaps hiring security or lighting the area better or even installing security cameras would put the Liberty Bell's financial capabilities in the red. I guess with all the cuts by the Dubya administration we may have to 'privatize' the presidency. What is next, making all the liberals wear an 'L' on their lapels? If they hadn't had a lax attitude pre-9/11 and folled Clinton's drone program and killed Bin Laden when they had a chance, maybe we wouldn't have to worry so much about terrorists destroying the Bell. But hey, when you are afraid to kill one of your business buddies because they're hanging out with terrorists, I guess that's a good enough reason. Thanks for the fence George!
Shaz
I think it's time for America to take a good long look at things and reevaluate how they feel about such items. When the World Trade Center bombings occured, American's wanted a reason as to why the Administration did nothing to prevent this, or why we were so "vulnerable". I agree with Joe and Stephen regarding the Administration's spending habits, and that they need to focus on people vice buildings, etc. But when the Adminstration starts to focus on people, and not the landmarks- American's want to cry out in anger. There really needs to be a comfortable medium. Both things need to be protected to a certain extent. I think it's absurd to put a fence around this landmark... not only will it destroy it's natural beauty- (like Joe said) it will send out a very bad message to our enemies. Thus, making our playing field "vulnerable" once again.
Posted by: Natalie Jones at August 23, 2006 04:19 PMNatalie, I agree with your comments. Reevaluation is an undervalued commodity these days as our leaders get "stuck on stupid" and "stay the course" far longe than is prudent. Well said.
Posted by: Morgan at August 23, 2006 05:38 PMI have not seen, read, or heard about any evidence from any organization that monitors terrorist activities that Philadelphia's historical sites are under threat of attack.
If we were to look at all the lists of potential targets compiled by Homeland Security and other security agencies, what's our ranking? Are we even in the top ten? I don't think so, unless someone else has other info.
Terrorists don't have the resources to waste their efforts on symbolic gestures. If they're going to attack, it has to be big, very deadly with a high body count, and have lasting repercussions either economically or politically.
Our historical sites don't fit the bill well enough to warrant building a compound. I'm not saying we don't have to try and play it safe, but let's have some sense of proportion, shall we?
I'm much more concerned about the terrorists currently running the streets with guns than I am about possible terrorists blowing up Independence Square, especially when there's no evidence that says it's even being considered.
Sometimes I wonder if this is really about our city gov't feeling dissed that terrorists don't find us important enough to want to blow up. How dare they? We're just as good as NY! Let's prove it by building a big ol' fence around our landmarks!
You know what guys...count your blessings that for once it's good to be inferior, save our money, and put more police on the streets.
Posted by: Donna at August 25, 2006 09:50 AM