The Real Secret Of The Secret Service?
Could it be that at least some of them are not too bright?
Seth Abramovitch posts on Gawker that a 13-year-old from Tacoma posted his observation (that's observation, not suggestion, or incitement) on Facebook that President Obama should be "careful because there could be suicide bombers" seeking vengeance for Osama bin Laden.
A week after writing that, Vito recalled for the local Fox affiliate, he was pulled out of class and brought to the principal's office:"A man walked in with a suit and glasses and he said he was part of the Secret Service. He told me it was because of a post I made that indicated I was a threat toward the President. I was very scared."After a half-hour of questioning, Vito was deemed not a threat, and was released.
While this seems like some dim agents at work, it fits a pattern of the constant and extremely worrisome degradation of and punishment for free speech that I see so frequently now.
Idiocy #1: That the Secret Service wastes time on something like this.
Idiocy #2: The commenters on the various articles are all in favor of it. An abundance of caution, and all that.
Can anyone comment on the legality of questioning a minor without first arranging to have his parents present?
In my experience, as far as competence goes, the Secret Service is no better or worse than any other law enforcement agency. They have some good people and some not-so-good people. However, they do stand out in one respect: they are very full of themselves. Any law enforcement agency tends to think "we can do no wrong", or perhaps better "anything we do is justified" - the Secret Service takes this kind of thought to a new level.
a_random_guy at May 18, 2011 4:34 AM
This has been standard protocol for decades. Yes, it's a little silly, but it's not anything new. When you threaten to kill the president, someone contacts you to ask if you meant it. Is a bratty 13 year old going to kill the president? Probably not, but the secret service doesn't know who he is, or whether he's the one who actually posted the threat.
jamie at May 18, 2011 6:05 AM
I blame public education. There is a difference between an observation and a threat. Making a threat against the president is illegal. Making a rather common sense observation is not - but I'm sure our government is working on it.
MarkD at May 18, 2011 6:13 AM
Y'know, a good schoolteacher could turn this into a teachable moment, as they say. Use it as an opportunity to teach something about terrorism, who our enemies are, what they believe and how they live. When I was that age, our teachers weren't shy about calling out the Soviet Union and telling it like it is. 13 is a good age to be teaching these kids about the real world.
Cousin Dave at May 18, 2011 6:35 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/18/the_real_secret.html#comment-2146941">comment from jamieProbably not, but the secret service doesn't know who he is, or whether he's the one who actually posted the threat.
It's not a threat; it's an observation.
Amy Alkon at May 18, 2011 8:19 AM
Meanwhile, don't flush your toilet if cops knock on your door...
BOTU at May 18, 2011 9:03 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/18/the_real_secret.html#comment-2147000">comment from BOTUActually, unless the cops have a warrant for your arrest or a warrant to search your house, you have no obligation to answer the door or say one word to them, and you compromise your safety and freedom if you do. I say that as somebody who respects and appreciates cops for keeping us safe. I'm putting a section about this in my manners book I'm writing now. Very important. I posted a video about it previously. I'll see if I can find it.
Amy Alkon at May 18, 2011 9:16 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/18/the_real_secret.html#comment-2147002">comment from Amy AlkonHere it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Amy Alkon at May 18, 2011 9:17 AM
Amy,
Don't know if you've seen it (since he mentioned it, BOTU has), the SC just came out with an 8-1 decision (Ginsburg(sp?) was the lone dissenter), that they can do warrantless searches, as long as they believe that on the other side of the door, someone is trying to destroy the evidence of a crime.
So all the cops have to do now, is say they thought they heard noises of the destruction of the evidence, and they can kick the door down and come on in. No warrant required.
I'll post the link shortly.
Steve at May 18, 2011 11:59 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/05/18/the_real_secret.html#comment-2147325">comment from SteveHideous, Steve. There is a distinct and constant pattern of the degradation of our Constitutional rights in this country and it scares the hell out of me. Meanwhile, the sheeple munch away quietly on Three And A Half Men.
Amy Alkon at May 18, 2011 12:01 PM
Sorry, warrantless searchs were allowed, under very tight restrictions. This opens the floodgates though.
http://www.npr.org/2011/05/16/136368744/in-warrantless-search-case-top-court-rules-for-police
Steve at May 18, 2011 12:02 PM
As jamie pointed out this is nothing new. The USSS have a reputation for having absolutely no sense of humour or proportion when it comes to anything vaguely resembling a threat to the POTUS. Which of course this wasn't.
Always makes me laugh - one phrase that entered Australian political discourse around 1996 in relation to a Prime Minister who was especially on the nose with the electorate was that "people in x state are waiting on their porches with baseball bats for him to come roundv campaigning". It's a cliched phrase in political analysis here now. John Howard got egged in public a few times too.
Ltw at May 20, 2011 1:35 AM
Leave a comment