Grading the Secret Service
2014-10-02
There seems to be some criticism of the Secret Service recently,
perhaps more than is really justified.
I would like to state the criteria I think are important for judging its performance,
and give some highly subjective personal "grades" on how it is doing,
relative to my idea of an ideal performance.
Here goes:
Protecting the people it is charged with protecting
A. Who has been harmed since the Reagan shooting in 1981?
Not harming American's civil rights
A. I really haven't heard anyone complaining about this.
Integrity and Incorruptibility
A. Ever heard of anyone in the Secret Service being accused of shady financial dealings?
Me neither.
Apoliticalness
A. It would be all to easy for the Secret Service to start investigating people based on their politics.
See the Internal Revenue Service targeting scandal, for example.
Ever heard of the SS leaning on people based on their political views?
Me neither.
As to the deficiencies the SS has been accused of,
I certainly agree that the intruder getting into the WH is a very serious breach of security,
and whatever allowed that to happen needs to be corrected.
Likewise with the man with a gun allowed on an elevator with President Obama at the CDC.
Likewise there have been reports that high-rolling campaign donors at fund-raising events
may not be subjected to the full security screening.
That's a touchy matter: Big donors may feel insulted by what they view as too heavy-handed security procedures.
That needs to be dealt with by coordination between the SS and the political side of the WH.
But the other issues that have been used to bash the SS?
The bullets that struck the WH but were not discovered until four days later?
An issue, but not a huge issue.
SS agents patronizing prostitutes in Columbia, where prostitution is legal?
Please. These men are mature adults, and their sex lives needn't be micro-managed.
There really is no security concern there,
nor was the "image" of the United States damaged in any real manner.
I think the tsunami of bashing of the SS that has been going on lately,
and the wholesale change some are advocating,
risks damaging the good things the SS has been doing (see above),
while providing no significant benefits in return.
How about addressing some of the real problems these articles have brought to the fore,
like an inadequately manned, under-funded, over-worked work force,
led by people more interested in "friendliness" than security,
rather than the issues related to political correctness.
By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post, 2014-10-02
There seems to be some criticism of the Secret Service recently,
perhaps more than is really justified.
I would like to state the criteria I think are important for judging its performance,
and give some highly subjective personal "grades" on how it is doing,
relative to my idea of an ideal performance.
Here goes:
Protecting the people it is charged with protecting
A. Who has been harmed since the Reagan shooting in 1981?
Not harming American's civil rights
A. I really haven't heard anyone complaining about this.
Integrity and Incorruptibility
A. Ever heard of anyone in the Secret Service being accused of shady financial dealings?
Me neither.
Apoliticalness
A. It would be all to easy for the Secret Service to start investigating people based on their politics.
See the Internal Revenue Service targeting scandal, for example.
Ever heard of the SS leaning on people based on their political views?
Me neither.
As to the deficiencies the SS has been accused of,
I certainly agree that the intruder getting into the WH is a very serious breach of security,
and whatever allowed that to happen needs to be corrected.
Likewise with the man with a gun allowed on an elevator with President Obama at the CDC.
Likewise there have been reports that high-rolling campaign donors at fund-raising events
may not be subjected to the full security screening.
That's a touchy matter: Big donors may feel insulted by what they view as too heavy-handed security procedures.
That needs to be dealt with by coordination between the SS and the political side of the WH.
But the other issues that have been used to bash the SS?
The bullets that struck the WH but were not discovered until four days later?
An issue, but not a huge issue.
SS agents patronizing prostitutes in Columbia, where prostitution is legal?
Please. These men are mature adults, and their sex lives needn't be micro-managed.
There really is no security concern there,
nor was the "image" of the United States damaged in any real manner.
I think the tsunami of bashing of the SS that has been going on lately,
and the wholesale change some are advocating,
risks damaging the good things the SS has been doing (see above),
while providing no significant benefits in return.
How about addressing some of the real problems these articles have brought to the fore,
like an inadequately manned, under-funded, over-worked work force,
led by people more interested in "friendliness" than security,
rather than the issues related to political correctness.
2014-10-02-WP-pierson-failed-to-provide-fresh-start-for-secret-service-that-administration-wanted
Pierson failed to provide fresh start for Secret Service that administration wantedBy Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post, 2014-10-02
posted by KHarbaugh at 01:30
<< Home