In the weeks following Sept. 11, 2001, experts repeatedly warned of an unnerving prospect: another terrorist strike against a prominent national symbol with some security measures in place, but far fewer safeguards than other targets. One icon long considered a potential target for would-be mass murderers: the Smithsonian Institution — with its millions of visitors and the national treasures its museums house.
But the Smithsonian acknowledged to The Washington Examiner that its guards do not routinely monitor the metal detectors installed at some of its most visited museums, allowing visitors to enter largely unscreened and potentially leaving the facilities vulnerable to attack using a smuggled, undetected weapon.
A Smithsonian official said guards at the five museums with metal detectors — Air and Space, American History, American Indian, Natural History and Postal — only monitor the machines at random because officials want to ensure quick access for the people who make a total of 19 million visits to those museums annually.
| Holocaust shooting |
| Museum security in the nation’s capitol is not a hypothetical exercise. In 2009, an 88-year-old gunman entered the Holocaust Museum, long a facility with heightened security, and killed a guard before he reached the metal detectors. |
“They are not on full time,” Smithsonian spokeswoman Linda St. Thomas said. “We want to do a thorough check, but we also want people to get into the building.”
When the metal detectors — also called magnetometers — aren’t operational, guards perform what the Smithsonian describes as a “thorough but speedy hand-check of all bags.”
St. Thomas said the Smithsonian’s random deployment of magnetometers amounts to a layer of security.
“Random is actually a form of security because people don’t know when a test will be done, or people don’t know when it’s on, so it’s random intentionally,” St. Thomas said.
What’s unclear, though, is how often the Smithsonian performs the random screenings. During a series of 30-minute visits to the three most-frequented museums along the National Mall — Air and Space, American History and Natural History — an Examiner reporter observed guards as they rifled through bags but failed to keep watch on the metal detectors, allowing visitors to enter mostly unscreened.
One visitor questioned whether the random screenings are enough.
“It’s kind of surprising,” said George Li, a visiting student from an Atlanta suburb. “It probably would make me feel a bit better if they did turn it on every single time. I experience it everywhere else, so why not here?”
But some security experts say the randomized approach produces an appropriate balance of security and access.
“By having the randomness, nobody knows what they’re going to be doing, how extensive, when or where they’re going to be doing it,” said Lynn Mattice, a senior fellow at the George Washington University’s Homeland Security Policy Institute. “By deploying methodologies that are sound practices and allow the flexibility of an organization like the Smithsonian to have randomness allows them to really meet both sides of the spectrum and keep it into an environment that is inviting for people to want to come to.”
James Carafano, a homeland security researcher at the Heritage Foundation, said he backs the concept of random screening but that the museums remain vulnerable, partially because of the accessibility of the Smithsonian facilities.
“Most of the security at the Smithsonian is kind of nonsensical,” Carafano said. “It’s like security at mass transit: It doesn’t really work. You can’t have good security and control access like that.”
