Posted on Mar 21, 2015
Should the Secret Service (President Protection) be replaced by a Military Detachment? Every week there's another scandal.
16.8K
162
67
7
7
0
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
http://www.npr.org/2015/03/17/393646631/secret-service-director-grilled-about-agency-scandals-in-house-hearing
Posted in these groups: 
Homeland Security
Homeland Security
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 37
0
0
0
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..
(0)
(0)
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.
(0)
(0)
SFC Jeremy Smith
Funny the cartoon did not depict a married man securing enough money to pay for his lady of the night
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
TSgt (Join to see)
That would be difficult to answer. The military can also be just as guilty as the Secret Service personnel for the things that have been reported. In fact, there is a long history of having bad apples in the military ranks. Depending on who the accused know or what their rank, there are times when they get away with it. The real issue is whether or not those in charge are really going to enforce discipline regardless of the situation.
(2)
(0)
1
0
1
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.
(1)
(1)
Cpl Mark McMiller
For whoever voted me down, I wish you would have at least left a comment so we could discuss what it was that you disagreed with. I guess you realized that even though you didn't like my comments, there was nothing you could say in rebuttal because you can't rebut the truth. I don't even like the truth of some of my comments, but that truth is easily confirmed with a Google Search. And I'm not going to shy away from that truth just because that truth isn't very popular with some if for no other reason than I don't ever want it to happen again.
(0)
(0)
PO1 James Booker
They CAN'T do better. The military has it's place. It's NOT protecting the President. There's actually a GOOD reason NOT to have the military guard him. Many even HERE are so blatantly personally prejudiced either politically or racially against him they would be a liability to ANY high profile assignment such as that. The active duty military today is overwhelmingly "right" of center. The Secret Service does MUST remain neutral...if even only in appearance.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
SGT Jim Z.
Their a difference between Civil Disturbance and an attempted assassination. Civil disturbance it riots, the hun for the Boston Bomber. The article even says the military tranfers the technology to the department it is supporting and does loan it. Therefore, my stance is they should not be the primary protection detail. So I may have been misinformed about PCA.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google