[ARCHIVED THREAD] - A Secret Service question ? (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 11/8/2004 4:21:18 AM EDT
|
Will Bush get SS protection after he leaves office ??? I heard someone say Clinton was the Last President to rate SS protection for life ??? |
|
thanks former Presidents, their spouses for their lifetimes, except when the spouse re-marries. In 1997, Congressional legislation became effective limiting Secret Service protection to former Presidents for a period of not more than 10 years from the date the former President leaves office So his kids get none whne he leaves office... Thats seems -- stupid.. |
Yes it does. It's not like the .gov can't afford it. 
|
He and his whole immediate family are cool for 10 years after he leaves, I see that changing though before Bush leaves office. Maybe not though, most people today wouldn't know Ford if he was behind them in line at the grocery. As of right now, that's true about Clinton. Clinton got cheap and took it away from everyone that comes after him. And yes, it's all very stupid |
|
Something tells me that W will likely be an exception to this rule. It's not like the entire world worships him like they do Carter or Clinton. W actually stood up to them and exposed them for the frauds they are. Then you have the terrorists, who much prefer being coddled (Carter) or ignored (Clinton) than to being bombed across half the planet (W). Then, last but not least, is the home-grown commie-pinko-socialist-scumbag-MM-is-god crowd..... No, I think W will be VERY well protected for the rest of his life.... |
Clinton got greedy . . . his 'rent' for the SS residence is enough to cover his mortgage . . . ergo WE are paying for the new Klinton residence in NY. 
|
| They (after 1997) get an automatic 10 years which can be extended if a threat assessment warrants protection beyond that decade. I'm guessing Bush will get an exception because every terrorist in the world has him number 1 on their target list and he is the single greatest threat to those scumbags in the history of mankind. Hold onto your hats, the next four years is going to be intense! |
That is what I was thinking ---and wondering about. Plus his children . |
Sorry, as much as I despise Clinton, that's an urban legend. www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/landlord.htm |
|
Read the federal statute: Powers, authorities, and duties of United States Secret Service Former Presidents, starting with W, only get 10 years of SS protection. This can be extended, as HiramRanger pointed out, by the Secretary of the Treasury. The reason for the change in the law is because modern Presidents have almost unlimited income potential, and can easily pay for their own protection. I happen to agree that taxpayers should not have to pay for this. |
|
Previously, you got secret service for life until and unless you personally dismissed them as your personal security. Now, unless someone threatens you, after ten years, you're fair game. Get your cousin Ted to make a bomb threat over the phone for another ten years of bodyguards.  You can slip him a $20 when the SS announces they're extending you another decade of protection. |
|
Actually I disagree with it. The knowledge a president has is priceless in terms of our national security. The briefings they receive hold relevance long past 10 years in many cases. They gaines this knowledge pursuant to their duties. They are also a potential target because of their service and actions they may have taken during that time. I think they should receive public protection for life. Widows on the other hand are another story. We don't have that many former presidents. Ford, Carter, Bush, Clinton... I really think the cost is justified in protecting these men whether you like it or not. We're not talking about protecting hundreds of members of congress past their retirement... we're talking about at most a half down former presidents at a time. Its really a small investment. |
|
The cost of Presidential protection is not the issue for me. It is the elitist mentality. Ex-Presidents are by definition ordinary citizens. They deserve no greater protection than does any one of us. Since they can make millions selling books and giving speeches, they can certainly afford to pay for their own protection. There is also that picky little Constitutional issue. There is no grant of power to the Federal Government to protect persons who are not current members of the government. Since I am a Constitutional absolutist, I have to stick with my principles. |
I disagree with you. In ten years, any info they may remember will be long since obsolete. Ten years is a looooong time for info to remain relevant. |
|
What about my uncle who is retired from the military. He was former Commander Military Intelligence Middle East out of MacDill and was Schwarzkoph's intelligence officer in the first Gulf War. After he left service he was still provided protection, especially when traveling abroad. The issue is not that a former president can afford security, the point is they need it because of the actions of their office. Paeber, would you opposed to police protection for government witnesses? I don't think it is elitist that former presidents receive Secret Service protection. To my knowledge they don't run red lights, they aren't running around in stretch limos, they aren't flying on government jets unless they are on a goodwill mission at the sitting president's behest. I've seen Bill Clinton out wit his detail in Chapaqua. They were in a black Suburban and a Crown Vic or some other sedan. No huge production. I can't stand the guy's politics or legacy, but I want to see him protected. You also are missing the point. A president has unlimited income potential, that does not mean they necessarily want to go on the speech circuit to raise the money to provide for their own security. If I was Secretary of the Treasury EVERY former president would receive protection if they wanted it. I wouldn't want to be in that position if anything happened to one of them after the 10 years was up. |
Unless I'm mistaken, there is no Constitutional grant of power to the Federal Government to protect persons who ARE current members of the government. If that's the case, we need to abolish the SS now.  Presidents are critical assets, even after they leave office. They should be protected. Period. Tell me..... It's been 12 years since Bush 41 left office. Do you think everything he saw and knew related to the Gulf War, the Triad, the CIA, terrorism, the NSA, etc., is all now invalid? |
Ummm sorry what are the words I'm looking for ummmm BULLSHIT... There are issues that are sensitive in terms of military and national defense, and then there are political sensitivities that go well beyond 10 years. It is my understanding that there are still classified documents from WWII that deal with political issues that could be embarassing to this nation or our allies. It was only recently that some of the Nixon tapes were declassified from the early 1970s. This nation has an interest in keeping these men, the few of them that there are, safe. |
Although I hate spending my tax dollars on people who could afford to buy a country, ex-presidents do have information that is best not to fall into potential enemy hands. IMHO, this duty is very important to the country and the ten year BS is just that BS. A missle silo isn't going to be moved after ten years. Tj |
The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to pass laws which carry out the powers laid out in the Constitution. Since the President is established by the Constitution, the federal government may pass laws to protect the person who occupies that position, or any other legally constituted office. You will search the Constitution in vain for the words FORMER President. It is a position without any force of law. Prior to 1913, even sitting Presidents did not have full-time Secret Service Protection. The provision of ANY SS protection to Ex-Presidents was only instituted in 1961. Lifetime protection of former Presidents was implemented in 1965. The 1997 law basically reversed an only 32 year old precedent. For 162 years former Presidents, starting with Washington, somehow managed to survive without ANY government protection whatsoever. |
Like what?  That U.S. has nuclear weapons, or space aliens.  What info from 1994 does the pres have, that they could not get from someone else. Want to know the true resolution of U.S. spy sats? Kidnap someone from the N.R.O. The pres probably has little info about the perticulars of any one thing, unless he just likes that subject, and after ten years it's either common knowledge, his knowledge is outdated, or there would be more accessable people to beat the information out off before the 10 years is up.
|
Well, if you ask me, the stuff rolling around in his brain still belongs to the United States. Unless you can develope a Normalizer, that data must be protected. To me, that's VERY Necessary and Proper!
They didn't have COUNTRIES full of batshit-nuts people actively hunting them, either.... |
|
Here is the key difference, everybody knows who the president is... not everybody knows which cubicle rats in the NRO know what. And it is not just military secrets, they know a great deal about diplomatic relations that were best kept secret. For example, let us assume that a president signed a finding allowing for the assassination of a foreign leader... and let's assume that went unknown as to who did it. Twenty years later we are attempting to broker a treaty with that nation but elements opposed to that treaty from the other nation suspect that the president might have ordered their former leader assassinated. To upset the process they kidnap the former president and torture him or her to extract a confession. The United States is now humiliated, treaty negotiations fall to pieces because of domestic pressure in the other nation and whatever objective we were trying to secure... trade, a military base on foreign soil... is now a failure. Far fetched? Who knows. Kennedy ordered several attempts on Castro's life. What if Kennedy had lived, lost his protection after 10 years and one night just disappeared only to surface in Moscow under the "care" of the former KGB? |
Kind of like how the military/scientists involved with the Japanese's biologic warfare program in WWII were not tried for war crimes because they just handed over their data/materials to the U.S. Army, so the Army could get a leg up on the Soviets. That type of thing. Which I'm all for doing, but lets not lie about it so we can denouce in others the very things we do ourselves. So to speak.
If relevent, it is one thing to keep the safe, something else to protect their image, for their own legacy. |
All of which boils down to: "I want this to happen, because I want it to happen." Your interpretation of the Constitution cannot be based upon the outcome of a particular instance, but in the actual meaning of the original text. To do otherwise is to engage in the same kind of outcome-based jurisprudence that angers us when done by our political foes. Don't fall into their trap. Finally, your implication that the government can "own" the knowledge one possesses is frightening in the extreme. |
They and their immediate families are granted Secret Service protection for Life. Whoever told you that should not be trusted on ANYthing they say. They can decline that protection, though. |
It's not an implication. It's a fact. I have knowledge rattling around in my head that I needed to perform my duties to Uncle Sam's Yacht Club. That knowledge is not mine, and the proof f it is that I STILL can't talk about it. It may not even be current (in fact, it probably isn't) but that doesn't mean it's MINE. It's THEIRS, and if I open my mouth and share it without appropriate permissions, I am GUILTY of a crime. Now, I was just some peon junior officer. Imagine what the PRESIDENT knows! Do you want to argue that the information does not deserve protection because the Constitution doesn't spell it out? I recognize that the Constitution is not some "living document" that should change every time we sneeze, but some issues arise which DO require change. A threat to a President, former or current, is a threat to National Security and must be addressed. And as for the "He's just another citizen" crap, NO HE ISN'T. He's a FORMER PRESIDENT, and as such has had access to information unavailable to the rest of us simple folks, and is the subject of threats we don't have to worry about. While I will certainly agree that he deserves no special protections FROM the law (i.e. - if he speeds, he gets a ticket like the rest of us), the fact is that he is NOT just an average Joe and DOES deserve the protection. I think it would be FOOLISH not to. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, nor is it a document that requires us to throw security to the winds in the name of freedom. Tell me, if one day we wake up and find Al Qaeda sawing off the head of Barbara, Jenna, and W on a videotape because we withdrew SS protection, will you wrap yourself in the Constitution and crow about how wonderful we are? |
But "they" are correct. The law was changed in 1997, and Clinton is the last US President to have lifetime SS protection. I linked to the actual LAW earlier in this thread. |
The law changed in '97. Ex-Presidents only get 10 years now. www.ustreas.gov/usss/protection.shtml
Av. |
What a silly position. The government does not own your knowledge, or that of the ex-President. The law makes illegal the divulging of this knowledge to people without the proper clearance. HUGE difference. And the former President IS just a private citizen. He has no position of authority under the Constitution, which is the way the Founders designed it. As for you last paragraph, do you really think Barbara, Jenna, et al will be without any protection? I hear there are some pretty good private security companies out there. You know, kind of like the ones that provide paid security for the interim leaders of Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are some pretty high profile people, and somehow our government believes these private agencies are up to the job. Get a grip on yourself and stop with the silly emotional arguments. |
Wait a minute. If there is a law making the divulging of information illegal, then how can that law be valid if the information is MINE? The reason there is such a law is because the information is specifically NOT mine.
These people are the family of the President. Since he and they are at risk because of his service, then the country should defend them, or at least the POTUS himself.
I have a perfect grip on myself, thank you, and my arguments are not emotional. They are based on reality. I have already shown that the ten-year limit is NOT valid from the standpoint that "enough time has pased to invalidate their knowledge". I have also established that the information in question is NOT theirs (otherwise, there could not be a law preventing its unauthorized release). Finally, I have raised the spectre of a former leader of this country being murdered on TV because this nation decided that they didn't deserve protection. As for private firms, it STILL is appropriate for the government to protect a former HEAD OF STATE. |
|
Uh huh... why would Jenna, Barbara, Laura and Dubya be at risk? Because Dubya was the president. In other words the threat is a direct effect of his service to the nation. As such we have an obligation to protect him and his family. Sorry paeb, the threat is directly associated with what he did while in office and the knowledge that he holds. As such we must protect it. Tell me what sense it makes to protect Carter or Ford for life, yet cut Bush off in 2018... when Carter or Ford might theoretically still be alive and under protection. I know you would take it away from all of them, but that is just plain silly. By your line of thought, the day Bush left office he should be without protection. Surely the day a new president is innaugurated the knowledge in Bush's head is still critical. You would deny him the second that the new president took his oath, and you would relegate his security to some hired guns. You are also assuming that they have the authority to conduct operations within this country - the ability to carry weapons everywhere, access to current threat assessments, travel abroad while armed, coordinate operations with the Secret Service... the list goes on and on. National Geopgraphic just did an excellent documentary on the Secret Service. If you haven't seen it, try to find it. A private security firm simply could not provide the level of protection that the Secret Service can. |
| In my opinion, all former Presidents AND their spouses and children, regardless of whether I voted for them or not, should have Secret Service protection for life. Yes, if they are "rich" they can afford their own bodyguards, but they deserve top notch protection by well trained agents, and all of the resources our government can bring to bear, if needed. That is just simple respect for the office of the Presidency. |
Well actually HR former Presidents are entitled to daily CIA briefing reports that the current President receives (they are entitled to get these - till the day they die.)--- one of the few that took advantage of that privilege was Bush Sr. So they have current National Security secrets even after leaving office |