Opinion of lifetime Secret Service protection for former Presidents
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 11:16:33 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Opinion of lifetime Secret Service protection for former Presidents
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: FP or HP?
#1
Freedom Policy
 
#2
Horrible Policy
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 48

Author Topic: Opinion of lifetime Secret Service protection for former Presidents  (Read 2802 times)
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 02, 2013, 08:14:52 PM »

Obama recently signed a law reinstating lifetime Secret Service protection for former Presidents after it was cut to 10 years after leaving office in 1994.

IMO this is a pretty wasteful policy, especially with the budget crisis as it is now. Sure, it makes sense to protect the incumbent President, but once the President is out of office there isn't any great social benefit to doing so. So it's mostly just a perk, but it's a perk I highly doubt the former Presidents value at anywhere near the cost to the government (the article claims it to be in the "tens of millions of dollars a year" per President). How many people have really been scheming to kill (say) Jimmy Carter since 1991 anyway? And even if there have been one or two, is it really enough that a private bodyguard wouldn't be sufficient for?
Logged
Politico
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,862
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2013, 08:39:43 PM »

Limited protection for VPs, but I think POTUSs need lifetime protection. We cannot allow an easy target for terrorists.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2013, 08:40:34 PM »

Seems silly. It'd be better to give them the standard protection for 10-15 years ad then maybe supply a bodyguard or 3 after.
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2013, 09:00:46 PM »

Limited protection for VPs, but I think POTUSs need lifetime protection. We cannot allow an easy target for terrorists.

Is there any precedent anywhere for long-since retired politicians being assassination targets? And even if there some, surely it's much less than present-day politicians and recently retired ones.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2013, 10:22:11 PM »

The cost is minimal and the details for the former Presidents serve as good training and evaluation mechanisms for agents in relatively non-critical situations.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,241
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2013, 12:18:23 AM »

Limited protection for VPs, but I think POTUSs need lifetime protection. We cannot allow an easy target for terrorists.

Is there any precedent anywhere for long-since retired politicians being assassination targets? And even if there some, surely it's much less than present-day politicians and recently retired ones.

There was an assassination attempt on George H. W. Bush when he was visiting Kuwait a couple of years after leaving office.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,026
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2013, 12:30:05 AM »

Tjere have been several assassination plots against George W. Bush since leaving office (I think they even found a car bomb outside his house last winter), and Obama has received tons and tons of death threats.

It's really not that big of a cost, anyway. If the former President wants it, he should get it.
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2013, 12:39:50 AM »

Limited protection for VPs, but I think POTUSs need lifetime protection. We cannot allow an easy target for terrorists.

Is there any precedent anywhere for long-since retired politicians being assassination targets? And even if there some, surely it's much less than present-day politicians and recently retired ones.

There was an assassination attempt on George H. W. Bush when he was visiting Kuwait a couple of years after leaving office.

It was the same year he left office (1993). It's understandable that former leaders might face reprisals when the memory is still fresh. But over a decade later?
Logged
patrick1
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,865


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2013, 01:00:05 AM »

Limited protection for VPs, but I think POTUSs need lifetime protection. We cannot allow an easy target for terrorists.

Is there any precedent anywhere for long-since retired politicians being assassination targets? And even if there some, surely it's much less than present-day politicians and recently retired ones.

There was an assassination attempt on George H. W. Bush when he was visiting Kuwait a couple of years after leaving office.

It was the same year he left office (1993). It's understandable that former leaders might face reprisals when the memory is still fresh. But over a decade later?

Hi, I'm America. I have a lot of lunatics armed to the teeth and like to make many enemies on the world stage, have we met?
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2013, 01:38:55 AM »

It's really not that big of a cost, anyway. If the former President wants it, he should get it.

Why not give the President a larger pension and let them decide if they want to hire security or not? You could even let them hire the Secret Service. But I'm guessing they wouldn't hire anywhere near the same level of security if it was their own money to allocate.

About the only reason I can think of for why they shouldn't have this choice is that it might change the incentives of Presidents while in office, being selfishly concerned with maximising their own security by avoiding making enemies. But then again, this might be more of a feature than a bug if you think that the US already makes too many enemies.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 05, 2013, 11:00:37 AM »

The cost is minimal and the details for the former Presidents serve as good training and evaluation mechanisms for agents in relatively non-critical situations.
Logged
Sol
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,021
Bosnia and Herzegovina


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 05, 2013, 02:35:07 PM »

The cost is minimal and the details for the former Presidents serve as good training and evaluation mechanisms for agents in relatively non-critical situations.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,076
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 05, 2013, 03:13:08 PM »

I'd say it's essential, unless we all want them bumped off.........
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 05, 2013, 03:29:46 PM »

I think a President should know that he will be protected for life when he is making decisions about national security. Imagine if POTUS had to worry about whether or not attack on group A may get him killed after he loses his protection. You dont even want a glimmer of that thought to factor into decision making.

Plus cost is minimal.

The Federal government is not 'broke'. There are a million places to cut before this line item.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 05, 2013, 03:59:43 PM »

The cost is minimal and the details for the former Presidents serve as good training and evaluation mechanisms for agents in relatively non-critical situations.

This. Also, former Presidents are highly visible and sometimes contrversial public figures. You never know.

Former POTUS can voluntairy give up his protection, like Nixon did, but shouldn't be forced to.
Logged
Obamanation
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 411
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2013, 01:13:01 AM »

Terrible. After they leave office they get a pension and millions in speaking fees. We, the People, owe them nothing. If they want bodyguards, they can hire them. If not and they get bumped off, so be it.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,076
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 07, 2013, 09:09:37 AM »

Terrible. After they leave office they get a pension and millions in speaking fees. We, the People, owe them nothing. If they want bodyguards, they can hire them. If not and they get bumped off, so be it.

Unfortunately the body guards aren't wired to our intelligence/law enforcement network like the Silly Service is, but your'e certainly not alone in your viewpoint.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 07, 2013, 11:32:47 AM »

Terrible. After they leave office they get a pension and millions in speaking fees. We, the People, owe them nothing. If they want bodyguards, they can hire them. If not and they get bumped off, so be it.

Unfortunately the body guards aren't wired to our intelligence/law enforcement network like the Silly Service is, but your'e certainly not alone in your viewpoint.

I'd take two Secret Service guys over ten private bodyguards.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,039
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 09, 2013, 10:23:20 PM »

The cost is minimal and the details for the former Presidents serve as good training and evaluation mechanisms for agents in relatively non-critical situations.
Logged
Illiniwek
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,846
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: April 28, 2013, 02:25:52 AM »

I look at it this way. It would make them big targets, and lets say some foreign terrorist kidnapped Bush, could you imagine the amount of money and lives that would be spent finding the terrorist and then possibly going to war over the event? America would go nuts going after these guys and would spend millions and billions of dollars retaliating, and it would make the secret service costs look like pennies. So let's just protect the guys, there are much bigger burdens i our budget than this.
Logged
H. Ross Peron
General Mung Beans
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,406
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: April 28, 2013, 07:31:19 PM »

The cost is minimal and the details for the former Presidents serve as good training and evaluation mechanisms for agents in relatively non-critical situations.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,568


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: April 28, 2013, 07:54:40 PM »

In light of the sequester, HP.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,076
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: April 29, 2013, 01:04:02 PM »


Interestingly enough, jfern, Obama rescinded the 10 year limit on Secret Service protection that was to take place starting with W......

And Kal's right, two Secret Service over 10 bodyguards anyday.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.049 seconds with 14 queries.