Talk:United States Secret Service
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of law enforcement. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. If you know of any articles that should be a part of this wikiproject, please place this banner - {{Law enforcement}} - on their talk pages, thankyou. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
Contents |
[edit] assessment
A good B article at least, if it wern't for the fact that there is no reference section. These sections are very important for verification of statements.--SGGH 15:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Should be merged with Secret Service. Dominus 19:36 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)
- This is highly questionable as there are other "secret services" besides the USSS (e.g. the British Secret Service of which 007 is an employee). --Daniel C. Boyer 17:48 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)
In that case, Secret Service should not redirect to United States Secret Service. Dominus 10:30 20 May 2003 (UTC)
I am unsure of the accuracy of the statement, "Because the President of the United States has nuclear weapons launch authority, s/he is protected with deadly force." Surely any bodyguard (under the principle of self-defence or perhaps more precisely defence of others) could use deadly force to protect a protectee should that protectee be facing imminent death or threat of grevious bodily injury. This statement could at least be edited for futher precision. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:56 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)
- I removed the sentence especially as the last several people to attempt to assasinate a President are all still alive. Rmhermen 00:35 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Removing mention of the Avakian situation and any allegation that the Secret Service is a secret police agency is a pro-USSS POV. Perhaps the article needs to be vetted again to present things in a more nuanced way, perhaps it now swings too far in the other direction, but eliminating these things is showing a form of bias in favour of the USSS. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:37, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I do not believe there was any corroboration of the Avakian allegations; without some sort of corroboration the allegations are meaningless. A claim that the Service is a "secret police" would require more evidence than I have seen, either in the article or elsewhere.
- For POV reasons there should not be a claim in this article that the USSS is a "secret police agency"; people are (presumably) always going to have different opinions about this. But certainly some people believe the Secret Service to be a secret police agency, and in my opinion this belief should be acknowledged in the article. It doesn't have to be proven, because there is at least a certain part of it that eludes factual analysis; actions interpreted by some people as legitimate law-enforcement techniques or isolated mistakes are going to be interpreted by others as evidence that the Secret Service is a secret police agency. I admit that there is a more nuanced way to deal with this, which is perhaps better done by others. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:04, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- Indeed, such a claim would not have to be proven. However, given the broad nature of the claim and the fact that virtually all law enforcement organizations are the targets of public ad hominem attacks by individuals who they have investigated or detained, it should at least be widely held. Or perhaps there should be evidence that the USSS is more of a "secret police" than other similar organizations either in the US or internationally. Perhaps it would be best of all to outline several example incidents and let the reader decide. Kat 19:20, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Agreed. The Avakian incident, for instance, should be explored more fully and if it can be discussed acceptably and from an NPOV, could be one of these examples. The claim about the USSS as secret police could be held off for now. Though I think you're using ad hominem incorrectly; it applies to the logical fallacy of making personal attacks on someone (or in this case an organisation) as a way of "arguing" against his (independent) point. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:31, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
-
-
- The Service certainly has plenty of warts that could go in the article, if you really want to research them. There are any number of stories of overzealous handling of marginally mentally ill people who pose no real threat; conversely, there have been some genuine lapses in security. I seem to recall an incident several years ago where someone walked right up to former President Reagan while he was in the middle of a speech before the Boyz on the Detail woke up. There are also any number of examples where they have followed up with uncommon thoroughness to some mis-overheard supposed threat to the POTUS. And the time they left a classified document at a concession stand by accident during the Olympics in Atlanta. &c. Kat 22:19, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- There was a cover article about misconduct in and the thorough incompetence of the Secret Service in U.S. News and World Report. About the Atlanta incident: is this correct? I know of an incident regarding a protection plan for Cheney at Salt Lake. --Daniel C. Boyer 22:26, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Information about protection of spouse -- termination in event of remarriage should be included. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:41, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Can anyone find how many agents are assigned to protection and how many are assigned to fraud/counterfeiting? Rmhermen 19:27, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Most agents fulfill investigative duties much of the time and are on call for protection when needed. I don't have numbers but only a relative handful are permanently assigned to a detail.
I cut this text:
- A U.S. News and World Report cover article detailed numerous allegations of incompetent, illegal or contrary to Secret Service regulations behavior by agents.)
It seems to me that, to be valuable as a reference, we would want a more specific cite, such as the date or at least year of publication. And, the summary seems to be a little one-sided. UninvitedCompany 00:18, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Did you even read the article in question? The summary of what the article said is hardly one-sided; whether the article was fair or not is another question. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:00, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
So presidents get protection for life, do ex-vice presidents? Edward 09:37, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Should
- Like other federal law enforcement organizations, the Service has its critics. Such critics may point, for example, to an incident where Steve Jackson Games was raided by (perhaps overzealous) Secret Service agents in a move that was later ruled to be illegal and unjustified.
read
- Like other federal law enforcement organizations, the Service has its critics. Such critics may point, for example, to an incident where the home of Steve Jackson Games was raided by (perhaps overzealous) Secret Service agents in a move that was later ruled to be illegal and unjustified.
Paul in Saudi
Following the link reveals that Steve Jackson Games is a company, not a person. One-dimensional Tangent 18:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Someone please clarify this sentence: Congress informally requested Secret Service Presidential protection. A year later, it assumed full-time responsibility for protection of the President
Does this mean "Congress informally requested that the Secret Service provide protection for the President"?
Please clarify the use of "informally"
[edit] Paragraph about relations w/ FBI
- The Service and the FBI each see themselves as the most prestigious and capable federal law enforcement agency. (However, a June 17, 2002 U.S. News and World Report cover article detailed numerous allegations of incompetent, illegal or contrary to Secret Service regulations behavior by agents.) There is some animosity between the two organizations, and very few agents have served in both.
I removed the above paragraph from the history section because it doesn't seem like the tone of it fits in an ecyclopedia. Surely the SS and FBI don't officially state that they are the most presitgious and capable agencies? Feel free to discuss and/or reinsert it. 66.61.143.204 21:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Why "Secret"?
Where does the name "Secret Service" come from? Neither of the Secret Service's two main tasks -- counterfeiting and bodyguarding -- seem particularly "secret", especially compared to other police organizations. --ESP 15:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Probabaly because they work both night and day, secretly guarding the President and protecting against counterfeiting... --KRB 09:26, 17 May 2006
- (Don't know if this is true/possible urban legend): They used to be very secretive about themselves when dealing with counterfeiters, probably so as to not tip them off. 68.39.174.238 00:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Abbreviation
I question the statement (added by Gilgamesh) that the US Secret Service is "often abbreviated S.S." I'm removing it from the article. "SS" means the Schutzstaffel, it is never used as an acronym for the US Secret Service. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Limited protection
According to the President of the United States article, there was some law passed that all presidents post-Clinton will only have protection for ten years after they leave office (assumedly he was grandfathered in by some law passed while in office). Does anyone know what law this is, because if it's true it should probably be somewhere here. Staxringold 16:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- The relevant statute is 18 U.S.C. 3056. A brief summary: the Secret Service provides lifetime protection to all former presidents who entered office before January 1, 1997 and their spouses. Surviving spouses receive protection until remarriage. As of the date of this post, former Presidents Ford, Carter, G.H.W. Bush, and Clinton and their spouses receive protection, as well as Lady Bird Johnson and Nancy Reagan. (Senator Clinton's protection is shared between the U.S. Capitol Police and the Secret Service, because both organizations have statutory responsibility for her protection.)
- In 1995 the statute was amended, limiting Secret Service protection to 10 years for presidents (and spouses) who enter office after January 1, 1997. Spousal protection ends upon divorce, remarriage, or the death of the former president. Following the death of a sitting President, the spouse will receive Secret Service protection for one year. Protection for a former president's children lasts until they reach age 16 or for a period not to exceed 10 years, whichever comes first. Protection may be declined by an eligible person, and the Secretary of the Treasury can authorize temporary Secret Service protection at any time. [1] - BaseballBaby 06:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Jasonuhl, in my additions to this article I want to show that the Secret Service acts in other states like in the United States. (Compare to the German article about the Secret Service). It should be clear that a US authority can not replace or give commands to German police, because Germany is a sovereign state.
[edit] Gründung
Ich habe heute den Film "Der Scharlachrote Rock" von John Struges gesehen. Dort heißt es im Vorspann, der Secret Service sei 1780 im Unabhängigkeitskrieg wegen des Falles Gustavus gegründet worden. 83.176.150.12 19:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hiram C. Whitley
Should be Hiram C. Whitley (1869 - 1874) - not Herman C. Whitley?
[edit] Recent Allegations of Widespread Protective-Function Agents' Criminal & Professional Misconduct
This section seems somewhat far from NPOV to me. While there are undoubtedly allegations (and, from what I've read and heard, valid ones) of such actions, the phrasing needs to be toned down to approach NPOV. I don't have time to tweak it now, but I'll try to come back later and tone it down a bit. If someone beats me to it, that's fine.
- I think this is one of my comments. If so, I apologize for not signing it. El oops.
- Septegram 15:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hey, guys. I just wanted to say I thought that section was really pointless. There was no proper referencing, just some allegations. I'm not even an American, and I think it sounded ridiculous. If there was some real evidence, even a proper reference, then perhaps it should be reinserted. But until then I think it damaged the article to have such hearsay in there. Cheers, John Smith's 14:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Interpreter
The Interpreter - Nicole Kidman plays an interpreter at the United Nations headquarters in New York. Sean Penn plays the Secret Service agent protecting her.
I believe Sean Penn plays a Diplomatic Security Service officer.
No, Sean Penn plays a Secret Service Agent who is assigned to the Foreign Dignitary Protection division.
[edit] Accuracy?
I have found numerous "facts" stated in the article to be grossly inaccurate. This article needs to be fact checked. I could be wrong but there are numerous errors and I am too busy to point them out (sorry if that sounds indolent and jejune, which I am sure it does) but its the truth. I hope somebody agrees with me and can help rectify the problem. Patbaseball2221 00:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Trivia
This bullet
When the Secret Service was established, their mandate did not include the protection of the president. Nine days later, Abraham Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth, and died the next day.
doesn't square with the dates cited under the History section, nor the last bullet in the Trivia section. Something is not right. I don't know what it is or I'd fix it. Sdpurdy 04:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Role as viewed by Americans
As I view it (I'm a jus soli citizen of the US and have lived here all my life), if you asked most Americans to name the role of the Secret Service, their answer would be "protection of the President." Perhaps this could be reflected in the article somehow; though it's not critical to understanding the Secret Service and its full role, it does reflect how Americans see what is really a much larger government agency. --Southpaw018 09:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
