Posted on Mar 21, 2015
SSG Robert Burns
16.8K
162
67
7
7
0
Ss
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
Posted in these groups: Dept homeland security1 Homeland Security
Edited >1 y ago
Avatar feed
See Results
Responses: 37
SSgt June Worden
2
2
0
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.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
MSgt Electrical Power Production
2
2
0
Edited >1 y ago
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.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Small Group Leader
2
2
0
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.
(2)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
1
1
0
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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Explosive Ordnance Disposal Specialist
1
1
0
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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
PO1 James Booker
1
1
0
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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSgt Bob Connely
1
1
0
He may be the CiC, but he is not part of the Military.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Cannon Crew Member
1
1
0
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).
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Robert Burns
1
1
0
But we have MP's who have arrest authority. They are law enforcement.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Alex Toulomelis
1
1
0
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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close