Should the Secret Service (President Protection) be replaced by a Military Detachment? Every week there's another scandal.

2015-03-21T18:29:00-04:00

It seems like there's scandal after scandal with the secret service. Should a special operations detachment take on the mission of protecting the President? Not saying that the military doesn't have it's own discipline issues but it is almost unheard of in these kinds of units. Seems like a better job for the President's 100. What are your thoughts?
http://www.npr.org/2015/03/17/393646631/secret-service-director-grilled-about-agency-scandals-in-house-hearing

Secret Service Director Grilled About Agency Scandals In House Hearing

Secret Service Director Joseph Clancy faced tough questions about a string of agency embarrassments before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security Tuesday.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Mar 21 at 2015 6:31 PM

2015-03-21T18:31:15-04:00

I can see the arguments for both. This was not their original mission after all.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2015 6:46 PM

2015-03-21T18:46:11-04:00

I voted to keep the Service in place, if only because there are enough conspiracy theories as it is. Last thing the Army or US Government needs in general is some myth about how POTUS and the military are in cahoots to eliminate the other branches or something equally ridiculous.

I think the instance was blown out of proportion (if they weren't drinking which is unknown), but the advice they gave was sound. Don't try to adapt the culture slowly, get rid of the ones who think a culture of scandal is acceptable.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Mar 21 at 2015 6:51 PM

2015-03-21T18:51:25-04:00

The Secret Service really has suffered setbacks and disappointment after disappointment.

A military specialized unit would be much more disciplined that what we've seen from the current performance of the Secret Service. Take a look at the qualifications:

http://www.secretservice.gov/opportunities_agent.shtml

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Mar 21 at 2015 6:54 PM

2015-03-21T18:54:00-04:00

It's not like the military is well known for it's intense dislike of alcohol, partying and shennanigans...

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2015 7:13 PM

2015-03-21T19:13:34-04:00

Scandal... seems like the Army has enough of those already. The mission of the Secret Service isn't exclusive to the President. They just need to clean house.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2015 7:15 PM

2015-03-21T19:15:53-04:00

I don't see where the POTUS being protected by a military detachment would curtail the scandals. I mean look at the personnel in uniform getting hemmed up for SHARP violations.

It's either six of one or half a dozen of the other. You take your pick.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2015 10:24 PM

2015-03-21T22:24:31-04:00

Not our lane....we have no place on US soil by design. If we took over what else would we start taking over?

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Mar 21 at 2015 10:52 PM

2015-03-21T22:52:01-04:00

The Secret Service until recently has had a good track record overall. It is not the military's job since the Secret Service is after all a law enforcement agency with a protection mission. Posse Comitatus comes into play. For example, a secret service agent can arrest a would be assassin while protecting POTUS or VPOTUS but a member of the military would not be allowed.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2015 11:38 PM

2015-03-21T23:38:48-04:00

I think the military could take it over. It could be one of those specialized duties like guarding the Tomb of the unknown. Those men have a code they must follow through life (Society of the Honor Guard). Something similar could be accomplished with a protection detail.

And yes there is the Poose Comitatus Act. But Congress could modify the act to create a specialized military unit as the Presidents own protection detail. And still could keep the Secret Service for foreign dignitaries and other U.S. officials and let them handle the law enforcement duties.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 21 at 2015 11:46 PM

2015-03-21T23:46:38-04:00

This is another yes and no question.

The Army 701st MP Group already provides protective services for all the key members of DOD. They could handle the the president too. But, that is the mission of the USSS.

But, the secret service also does more than just PS. They are good at PS, and I think the media loves to blow this stuff out of proportion.

The secret service, like us, does a great job, so let's not throw the baby out with the bath water..

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Mar 21 at 2015 11:59 PM

2015-03-21T23:59:21-04:00

It's our SOP to erase video tapes after 72 hours...........um.......yeah. If we tried that stuff, we'd get booted through the goal posts of life.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2015 2:21 AM

2015-03-22T02:21:48-04:00

First off, Chief is spelled wrong in the other option for the poll.

We are not a government that has ever been linked to a military junta, I think if we were to go down this path you could see things trend more in that direction.

Next you have to get around Military actions on U.S. Soil. If someone attempted an assassination or succeeded, then the military detachment would probably want to take action.

We have constantly over the last 15 years taken on DoS responsibilities without proper training, and eventually got close to right or actually gotten the right answer. Why would we want to take on the responsibilities of another agency that would stress an already thin military.

Response by SSgt June Worden made Mar 22 at 2015 7:26 AM

2015-03-22T07:26:21-04:00

These recent breakdowns in discipline need to be addressed in a manner that shakes the SS at its core. Holding someone's pension or benefits over their head may be the most effective means of gaining their attention.

The fraternity like atmosphere needs to come to an end & professionalism restored!!! Eliminate the offenders & replace them with those most qualified.

Our military has their mission, as does the SS. Replacing the SS with the military because of a breakdown in discipline is a very slippery slope.

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Mar 22 at 2015 7:30 AM

2015-03-22T07:30:59-04:00

I believe the Secret Service should continue this mission. However, I caveat that by saying that it is time for a major top to bottom house cleaning (instead the "deck chair rearranging" that has occurred in the wake of every recent scandal).

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2015 8:02 AM

2015-03-22T08:02:34-04:00

Deal with the issues and not group the "bad eggs" with the entire organization.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2015 8:17 AM

2015-03-22T08:17:25-04:00

The president is in danger because the secret service has become tainted. The number of security breaches that have occurred in the last few years is terrifying. God forbid something happen to the man, Ferguson will look tame. It is imperative that we protect the man, and at this point I trust the Marine Corps a whole lot more than the secret service.

Response by MSgt Stephanie McCalister made Mar 22 at 2015 8:28 AM

2015-03-22T08:28:32-04:00

Let the Secret Service continue, I think a military detachment protection, would lend itself to portraying us as a 'police state', and possibly a more threatening presence in diplomatic situations that might need a more subtle approach. As military, we're the 'big guns' or the humanitarian options behind diplomacy. Let the Secret Service handle housekeeping security stuff. However, I agree, the Secret Service needs a complete overhaul, & perhaps the addition of some well trained umbrella standees for those rainy days?

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Mar 22 at 2015 10:21 AM

2015-03-22T10:21:21-04:00

It has to stay with te Secret Service. It is not the assignment for Marines or Army. Uniformed troops around the White House? That projects the wrong image.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Mar 22 at 2015 1:04 PM

2015-03-22T13:04:05-04:00

No. The Secret Service is, arguably, the most highly trained VIP protection in the World, so I don't know how our armed forces could do the job any better. Also, our armed forces are trained in use of force that is appropriate on a battlefield but not for providing civil law enforcement as it would violate many Constitutional protections. This is why it is a bad idea for our armed forces to be used as civil law enforcement as was shown during Hurricane Katrina. I read an article where it was alleged that Chris Kyle made a statement somewhere that he set up a sniper position on top of the Superdome in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina and killed a number of armed civilians. I don't know if it is true that he said or did that, but if it were true it would be a violation of those U.S. citizens Constitutional protections and would constitute murder. I hope it didn't occur, as it would deeply tarnish the reputation of not only Chris Kyle but our armed forces in general. But if it did occur, it wouldn't be unprecedented as Delta Force, shamefully and unlawfully, killed Branch Davidians at Waco and then their CO lied about being there to Congress while under oath during the Congressional hearings. We have a big enough problem in this country with civil law enforcement agencies acting as if they are the military. The FBI Hostage Rescue Team was known to have trained regularly with Delta Force, which may had a lot to do with the tragic debacle of Waco; it's pretty bad when the hostage rescue team kills all the hostages. Our armed forces need to stay out of civil law enforcement.

Response by PO2 Steven Erickson made Mar 22 at 2015 1:04 PM

2015-03-22T13:04:15-04:00

Three Words...

Posse Comitatus Act

18 U.S.C. § 1385 -- http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1385.html

18 U.S. Code § 1385 - Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus | US Law | LII / Legal...

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2015 5:58 PM

2015-03-22T17:58:56-04:00

I think Marines are best suited. Any I believe all secret service and most agencies other than the FBI should be disbanded. That said I think there should be trials to protect the president. I also believe the president has to have current u.s. passport and not have forged documents. Just my .02

Response by CW3 Bradley Keiser made Mar 22 at 2015 7:07 PM

2015-03-22T19:07:29-04:00

We're all grown-up adult-type people here. What ever happened to accountability? I know this is a novel concept, but punish the bad and reward the good. Hire competent employees and supervisors. Stop using government agencies as a place for your pals and supporters to be rewarded for kissing butt. The military has a mission. Leave them to it. The Secret Service has a mission, make them do it! If the military screws up we don't talk about having the US Marshals Service step in and take over for them. Why are we even discussing this? Are the lunatics running the asylum? Oh right, stupid question.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Mar 23 at 2015 11:19 AM

2015-03-23T11:19:06-04:00

I don't think they would have to be in uniform.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Mar 23 at 2015 12:32 PM

2015-03-23T12:32:27-04:00

I've never understood the link between counter-fitting and presidential security. Strikes me as a relic of a political maneuver.

Regardless of which organization controls this, there will be discipline problems, power tends to corrupt.

Late Republic-Early Empire Praetorians? Essentially elite soliders to body guard a general who became an emperor. Mid-late empire Pretorians: political, corrupt, nepotistic force. Oh history, you rhyme so.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Mar 23 at 2015 12:46 PM

2015-03-23T12:46:41-04:00

The Secret Service needs to be traveling to fraternities. They could put on a clinic on partying.

Response by LTC Stephen C. made Mar 23 at 2015 3:04 PM

2015-03-23T15:04:16-04:00

SSG Robert Burns, I think the Secret Service needs to clean house personnel (especially leadership)-wise and clean up their act, but I do think they should retain the mission of protecting the POTUS.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Mar 23 at 2015 3:04 PM

2015-03-23T15:04:43-04:00

It has been going on for years they just haven't been getting caught. Somebody needs to keep there mouth shut or Like I have always said. JUST DON'T DO IT! Keep it in your pants! Your there for protection, not wearing protection!

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Mar 23 at 2015 3:08 PM

2015-03-23T15:08:40-04:00

Id say outsource it to a few hundred of the illegals POTUS wants to "Dream" in.. after all they only want the jobs americans don't want..and I dont want to be on the POTUS's security detail so it would seem a match made solution.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2015 3:10 PM

2015-03-23T15:10:02-04:00

Certainly, this could be a route. However, given that the USSS has a traditional mission in law enforcement with specific regards to counterfeiting, maybe the better alternative would be to bring its protective services out from under USSS proper, and DHS by proxy. Thus, they would be a stand-alone agency or service. It would allow for more flexibility in budget issues, training, etc..

Response by SSG Alex Toulomelis made Mar 23 at 2015 6:15 PM

2015-03-23T18:15:33-04:00

The types of "scandals" that have hit the secret service are typical of behavior of Soldiers in almost any combat arms unit. Across the spectrum of professions both civilian and military if a group has a dangerous and/or physically demanding job the likelihood of "uncivilized" behavior goes up. The men and women of the secret service has volunteered to use their body as a shield to prevent harm to one individual, much like we in the military have volunteered to do the same for the nation. Jobs such as this are high in stress and physically demanding. Many decide to live as much as they can in the short time the believe they have. I was no different and neither were those that I served with. We lived by the adage work hard play hard. I would think that no matter what group you place in charge of protecting POTUS the results will be the same. I also do not believe that this behavior is a new thing within the Secret Service, but it is more easily reported in our society.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Mar 24 at 2015 1:07 PM

2015-03-24T13:07:14-04:00

But we have MP's who have arrest authority. They are law enforcement.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2015 2:31 PM

2015-03-24T14:31:12-04:00

IMO, Just like Air Force One (Presidential Plane) and Marine One (Presidential Helicopter) the Presidential Limo should be called Army One (Driven and maintained by the Army).

Response by SSgt Bob Connely made Mar 25 at 2015 3:56 PM

2015-03-25T15:56:37-04:00

He may be the CiC, but he is not part of the Military.

Response by PO1 James Booker made Mar 25 at 2015 5:41 PM

2015-03-25T17:41:03-04:00

C'mon...

Some may take offense to this...but it's true. Although the military often times strives for a higher moral/professional standard, often time it's also not "up to and touching". The Secret Service isn't doing anything that a military unit wouldn't do...THEY just got caught. In all actuality, the entrance/physical/mental eval/educational standards set by the SecServ are MUCH higher than that of most military detachments of this nature.

Tailhook ring a bell??

Anyone who's honest will agree. You KNOW in some cases where a little more "freedom" of choice and independence are afforded that some rules are stretched or broken. I've seen it...and you've seen it too.

They got caught, they'll be in the spotlight, people will be fired, policies will change...and they'll carry-on. It's really not a big issue.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2015 10:56 AM

2015-03-26T10:56:02-04:00

What the hell is a 'commander-in-cheif'?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2015 11:48 AM

2015-03-26T11:48:29-04:00

I can see arguments both ways. But let's not pretend that the military in general or the Army specifically is immune to these sorts of scandals. We have plenty of our own.

Right now the Secret Service detail is augmented by members of DoD. For having such a high-visibility mission, I'd say both parties do a pretty good job.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 26 at 2015 3:24 PM

2015-03-26T15:24:53-04:00

The Military serves the Constitution. The Secret Service (agency) serves the Executive Branch.

There is a potential conflict of interest having a military detachment guarding the President. Think "2 Bosses." No organization works well when you have two concurrent chains of command. Although the President is our Commander in Chief, we answer to the Constitution.