Talk:United States Secret Service

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	United States Secret Service is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

United States Portal

This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Secret Service in popular culture

do we need this section. it's just trivia and a complete list of all appearances of a government agency in popular culture would take pages to document. Cryo921 21:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] weapons used

this article, under 'Protective operations & protective-function training and weaponry' (which I edited) states the FN P90 as one of their weapons. Can anyone confirm this? I know they use a bunch of weapons, but the remaining examples of weapons listed (P229, 870, MP5, and Uzi) can be found on their website (Kid's FAQ), but not the P90.

--Kevin23 03:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The P90 is a weapon that the are evaluating and have not fully deployed.

--Rckyrccn 01:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] error?

coffelt was a white house policeman; he wasn't in the secret service--though the secret service website's FAQ says otherwise. i don't think any secret serviceman has been killed in the line of duty.

-Coffelt was an Officer on the White House Police Force, which, after a couple of name changes, became what we now know as the USSS Uniformed Division. Quoting from the USSS Official website www.secretservice.gov, "(in) 1930 (the) White House Police Force was placed under the supervision of the Secret Service." That's a full 20 years prior to the shooting death of Officer Coffelt. His exact division has gone thru name changes, but to say he was not a USSS Officer is splitting hairs, to say the least. As a side note, the USSS honors Officer Coffelt's sacrifice every year with a ceremony in front of the Blair house. Also, to say "i don't think any secret serviceman has been killed in the line of duty." is sadly incorrect. Even wikipedia references the first agent to die in the line of duty in 1902. There's an unfortunately long list of names of employees who have died performing both investigations and protection. As an example, five USSS employees died in 1995 as a result of the Oklahoma City bombing. So, when you say you don't think anyone has been killed in the line of duty, instead, you should write "I haven't heard of any nor did I read the full wikipedia article, therefore it hasn't happened."

63.162.143.21 00:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Steve0

[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)

They can play another kind of task or errand, since they are a loyal servant they can be used (and abused) in different matters, usually preemptive actions.

They were originally formed to investigate currency counterfeiters, and they did not wear unforms. Thus they were "secret'. 69.121.234.112 (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

according to the National Geographic Society, the USSS originated in the 19th century in a time when one out of every two US monetary notes were counterfeit. The agents were dispersed around the nation to find the counterfeiters. They wore plain-clothes and their identities were kept secret. Thus "Secret Service."--Sallicio 17:44, 13 March 2008 (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.

Sean Penn,as a USSS Agent, is investigating a threat against the president of "Matobo." The USSS would not provide protection for UN interpreters. Since the threat is against a head of state, the USSS would be the lead agency dealing with this threat. A Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) special agent, would handle threats against other dignitaries visiting the United States. Many people who are aware of DSS thought that the movie was technically incorrect by having Penn play a USSS agent. Rsoandrew (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not incorrect. This can fall under USSS jurisdiction. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[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)

Yeah, we just need some citation or something. If this is from the Secret Service website you should say so. (gcilley)

Brilliant guys. You're spreading doubt instead of improving the article. Pick one inaccuracy, prove it inaccurate by citing a source, add it to the article, and then mention that there are others. But I am too busy to point them out after I have found numerous "facts" stated in the article to be grossly inaccurate is quite disturbing. Dscotese (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2008 (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)

Lincoln was actually assasssinated the day afetr he signed the bill creating the United States Secret Service Pat 12:25, 19 February 2007 (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)

[edit] Protection of Former Presidents and First Ladies

"Under this new law, individuals who are in office before January 1, 1997, will continue to receive Secret Service protection for their lifetime. Individuals elected to office after that time will receive protection for ten years after leaving office. Therefore, former president Clinton will be the last president to receive lifetime protection."

If Hillary becomes the president, the last sentence of this passage will not be accurate.

You could actually argue that it will remain accurate. She will have lifetime protection. However, she'll get that due to her status as Bill Clinton's wife, not as President in her own right.

The last sentence would still be accurate as if elected, in either 6 or 10 years time she will be known as former president Clinton Pat 12:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Source

I would reccomend checking out the book The Secret Service : the hidden history of an enigmatic agency 363.283 MEL Jeff503 19:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Link Problem

The Appearance (2nd) and History (3rd) sections Edit links are not appearing in the correct place. The misplaced links are appearing in the middle of the second sentence of the History section. There is no obvious (to me) cause for this in the text of the article. Perhaps someone with a better understanding of how the Edit links are generated could look into this.

[edit] Cultural References

The Agents in the Matrix series seem to come from a mix of the Secret Service and Men in Black.--Viridis 23:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civil War

The article says, "Prior to its formal establishment as a Treasury agency, during the Civil War the Secret Service, under the direction of detective Allan Pinkerton, was the espionage and counterespionage agency of the United States. It was the first domestic intelligence and counterintelligence agency."

The USSS official homepage traces its lineage to 1865, and doesn't mention anything about its putative role as a wartime intelligence agency. Should the wartime secret service be considered a separate agency? Was it even a formally constituted agency, or just a spy ring funded by Lincoln? Either way, this era of its history needs expansion, especially since it contradicts the first sentence of the paragraph in which it occurs. --VAcharon 01:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Youngblood?

The name of one of the US Secret Service agents recognized for bravery during the Kennedy assasination is named Youngblood? Is this real or is it vandalism? Jamesino 01:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

His name was Rufus Youngblood. From Time Magazine, Nov. 29, 1963: "Johnson called Secret Service Chief Jim Rowley to the house, told him how one of his agents, Rufus Youngblood, had acted heroically at the time of the shooting."[2] Related to this, I believe the following section on this page is in error. It reads, "following the assassination, reports that caused President Johnson to call agent Youngblood and threaten to replace the Secret Service with agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (The call was recorded and released several years ago.)" This section is uncited, and I believe it is a misinterpretation from another incident involving Johnson, Youngblood and the FBI. From another Time Magazine article: "At one point Johnson became so angry at Hoover and the bureau that he ordered his Secret Service detail chief, Rufus Youngblood, to go over to Justice and take over the FBI. Youngblood went there, wandered around for a few days, but the order was never formalized."[3] MarcelloRubini 05:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] controversy?

i just read an article on the ACLU page outlining several incidents in which the Secret Service has been involved in quieting protesters at functions being attended by prominent political figures. the article is here http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11419res20030923.html

since many wikipedia articles tend to cover or, at least mention, controversies associated with the article subject, would it not be prudent to mention this as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.0.41.114 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

This was me. --Arcalumis 20:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many agents are there?

The text box says there are 2100 agents and 1200 uniformed officers, the main body of the text states 3100 agents and 1200 uniformed officers. Is the actual number of agents classified or secret, or can someone with definitive knowledge make the appropriate correction? (Is it 2100 or 3100 agents?) 74.134.59.45 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC) --Edited my own question for clarity... 74.134.59.45 01:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

TY to whomever made the edit, they're now within 100 (3200 box, 3100 article.) Comment above was mine. LaughingVulcan 01:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secret Service involvement in rescue attempts during 9/11

AFAIK, almost all people involved in the first attempt to rescue die caused by the collapse of the tower. Or they did go after the collapse or they wasn't the first in respond, participate or worked any near of the site.

Anyways, over the rescue team, the team that managed to work after the collapse was an *unidentified group* that closed the site, disallowing not only curious people also the media and volunteers. Was a help? No, in fact was a illegal act.

--Magallanes 21:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Most of the first responders, in fact, survived and law enforcement controlling such incidents is not illegal. Rmhermen 18:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Where are you guys getting your info from? Dscotese (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalanced article

Most agents don't work on protection details - yet the major work of this agency, investigating countereiting, seems to get only one line of text. 18:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect 80% of career agents are assigned to a protection detail at one time or another, it is done on a rotational basis. While most of an agents career eill focus on Financial Investigation protection is likely to feature aswell. Besides which protection is the only duty carried out by the Uniformed Division so should be featured rather prominently, though i do agree that the investigative work should be featured more in the article Pat (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PID?

Why is there no mention of the Protective Intelligence Division and their investigations into threats against protectees? Pat (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Coffelt in Secret Service?

United States Secret Service states:

To this day, Coffelt is the only member of the Secret Service to die while defending a U.S. President against an assassination attempt.

Leslie Coffelt reads, as if Coffelt was a police officer. What is true? --Abe Lincoln (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Coffelt was a member of the USSS Uniformed Division. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I updated Leslie Coffelt, but the sections Leslie Coffelt#Killed in the line of duty and United States Secret Service#History still distinguishes between USSS agents an White House police officers, although the White House police was integrated in the USSS in 1930. Could anybody please correct this? Thanks. --Abe Lincoln (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Coffelt was a law enforcement officer in the employ of the USSS. Why need to differentiate between divisions. This would be like trying to make a difference between a uniformed US Customs officer and a Customs Special Agent (yes, I know they are with ICE now). Different divisions of the same agency. Your update is correct as is. No further deliniation is needed.Niteshift36 (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

But actually that's what I wanted to say...

Look at this sentence:

Torresola walked up Pennsylvania Avenue from the west side while his partner, Oscar Collazo, engaged Secret Service agents and White House policemen with his Walther P38 pistol from the east.

Shouldn't it be

Torresola walked up Pennsylvania Avenue from the west side while his partner, Oscar Collazo, engaged White House policemen and other Secret Service agents with his Walther P38 pistol from the east.

or something? I'm a little bit confused... --Abe Lincoln (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protected persons

I've once read that former Vice Presidents are also enlisted to recevie USSS protection. What about this information.

And what about Speakers of the House? Darth Kalwejt (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

After their term is up, the only person to continue to receive protection is the president and only for ten years afterward. The last president and first lady to receive lifetime protection is Bill and Hillary Clinton. Reference the National Geographic Society: Inside the Secret Service.--Sallicio 17:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image and infobox are too large!

It seems like the image of the Secret Service badge and the infobox it resides in is a little large. Shouldn't it be of reasonable size and on the right side of the page (the text can begin on the left). For example, look at the page for hte FBI. The FBI emblem is of reasonable size in a normal size infobox on the left side of the page. This is the format for infoboxes in most other articles on Wikipedia... Perhaps someone can shrink the badge image to a thumbnail size... ask123 (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It was much smaller. I don't know when it was changed, but I agree, it's too large. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not so saavy with programming the infobox. (Yes, I know, it's pathetic...) So can someone else handle this? Thanks! ask123 (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! It's been done! Problem solved! ask123 (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent controversies

There is very little mention of controversies on this article. There have been two significant controversies recently, one involving the Reverand Jesse Jackson and the other about some controversial and explicit e-mails directed I believe it was towards black people or other minority groups. Wondering if it merits to be in the article. Maybe someone else more familiar or has more info can add some of the material in a section. I have some sources that would back the facts so it would meet WP:RS and WP:NPOV. [4] [5] [6]. --JForget 02:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)