ND Sol

The law only applies to those children under the age of 16, so it would be inapplicable to the Bush children. It is only by executive order that children would be included. What basis do you have to believe that an executive order is still in place for the Bush twins?

I think the extension of SS to Cheney says more about those that hate Cheney. And I think that extension ended years ago.

BTW, Laura Bush is known to be quite an avid hiker.

T.J. Bender

Truth.

chollie

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...06-503544.html

Clinton left office just before his daughter turned 20. He authorized extended SS protection for his daughter. Bush did the same thing for his daughters (no end date disclosed publicly for security reasons), but the link notes that it is still in effect for Jenna.

Well, since Obama signed off on both extensions of Cheney's SS protection (which Cheney could have afforded himself, and which had not been offered to any other VP in the past), I hardly think he did it out of hate. However, whether or not is fiscally responsible is an issue for OMNI. For the record, I don't think such protection should have been extended to Al Gore, nor do I think it should be extended to Joe Biden.

Sorry if you read something into my allusion to Laura 'lunching' instead of mountain biking with George. I knew they enjoyed different activities (Laura does not mountain bike) and I recall when she first went to the WH (actually, before that) she mentioned enjoying getting together with her female friends. My point was that it means two SS details must be available whenever husband and wife are pursuing different activities/in different locations at the same time. Just like the Fords, Bush 42's, Reagans, Clintons, etc.

ND Sol

The link is to an article written in March 2009, only two months after the Bushes left the White House. There is no indication that the order is still in effect well over three years later.

My point about Cheney was due to all the haters of Cheney based on what was perceived he did while in office, threats against him were more numerous than either Gore or Biden. Since this was work-related, I do see a legitimate reason to provide SS protection for some period of time thereafter. Do you think that the SS or private security would do a better job?

You state, "Well, since Obama signed off on both extensions of Cheney's SS protection (which Cheney could have afforded himself, and which had not been offered to any other VP in the past) . . . ", but I am only aware of one extension for Cheney. In addition, my understanding is that normally VPs have six months of SS after they leave office.

Laura Bush "getting together with her female friends" many times meant hiking with them. I do remember one trip where they a ways back in Glacier National Park, in the Belly River area if I recall correctly.

chollie

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040702389.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...ticle-1.428662

What's funny is how sloppy the media can be with reporting - this is a textbook example.

There are articles reporting that SS 'traditionally' protects the VP for 6 months after he leaves office. It is not 'traditional' - in fact, one reference actually says the tradition dates to DHS - which was created during Cheney's tenure. There was a bill in 2008 to make the 6 months SS post-office law, but it never went anywhere.

IOW, Cheney is the first (and to date the only) VP to receive SS protection after leaving office. He was the first to be granted 6 months, and Obama/Napolitano subsequently granted him another extension. In theory, he can continue to ask for extensions indefinitely.

I hope this 'tradition' ends with Cheney. This is simply not something the taxpayers can (or should) be expected to pay. They are elected officials, not royalty.

GUWonder

Not everyone with an armed LE escort is exempted. Some with armed escorts don't have armed escorts going airside and still get screened. Others with armed LE escorts get screened by the TSA because the escorted is not a designated protectee.

Both of the above paragraphs are incorrect. The consequence of this law signed yesterday is that the parties mentioned in my post as being exempted from TSA screening have indefinite exemption from screening as a result of this law change.

Former US Presidents and their spouse sometimes do travel commercially. I have been on commercial flights with all of the still living ex-Presidents, except the most recent one, and most of the ex-Presidents and spouses of ex-Presidents who have been living at any point in the past 20 years.

GUWonder

I am pretty certain that the current POTUS will be flying commercially at least sometimes after he leaves office. Even when their post-Presidency travel expenses for flights are covered by a party which contracts them, the travel won't always be contracted to be by private jet/full-plane charter.

It depends on the kind of armed escort and the escorted.

Pistole doesn't go through TSA screening whenever he flies. Often he does and other times he does not. He has an armed escort at least sometimes but not 24-7 wherever he goes.

littlesheep

Why in God's name does he need an armed escort?

Ari

Because people dislke him.

N1120A

I see nothing wrong with this, theoretically. The lifetime SS protection existed for years before Clinton and the mixed Congress removed it as a budget saving measure. Obama is returning the law to what it was before, and it makes a good deal of sense, though will be more costly.

He doesn't most of the time. In fact, I don't think he is high enough to even get AF travel most of the time. Usually, armed escorts are reserved for those in line for the Presidency (I sat next to the late, great Daniel Inouye's escort once when the Senator was flying on the same plane as I was) and those who have had threats made.

And Smoker.

GUWonder

Some people dislike me too, so can I have an armed government escort too to exempt me from the TSA dog and pony show? Please, pretty please.

ND Sol

So then this 2008 article and others are completely wrong?

Even yesterday's Houston Chronicle said:



What's your point? Even if this were true, why does it matter in the context of this thread?

sbagdon

Seem to remember that was once, and a goverment plane followed behind. It was a very symbolic act.

Often1

This whole thread is about nothing and is the product of the insidious practice of not clearly referring to the entirety of a statute (or rule). It's no different than the slug, "judge requires paraplegic to stand" because the general rule in that judge's court was that the public stands up when the judge enters the courtroom.

Here, all Congress did was extend lifetime protection to former Presidents. This only affects Presidents Bush (#2) and Obama, because Presidents before Bush 2 are already afforded lifetime protection. Presidents Carter and Clinton do not require a statute because they have it.

As to the Vice President, the question as it is with respect to all protective details is whether there is a threat to the individual. If there is because of former public service, it's entirely appropriate. Nobody on FT knows whether there is, so it's simply ignorant speculation as to whether it's appropriate.

As to the issue of screening exemptions, armed law enforcement officers don't go through it because it's meaningless. They have a firearm, it's legal, so it's silly to screen them to find the firearm which they are authorized to carry. At the same time, it's a little bit hard to provide protection for someone as they go through the checkpoint when you yourself can't.

And, on balance, there seems to be little risk in the exemption.

GUWonder

Congress introduced and passed legislation, which the President signed, that grants extended lifetime Secret Service protection to former and future Presidents, their spouses and any of their minor children under 16 years of age, thereby granting them an indefinite exemption from TSA dog and pony show should those granted protectee status will it.

This whole thread, excepting the metadiscussion that wants to disappear this thread, is exactly about everything mentioned in the OP and is not evidence of any insidious journalistic practice. There is no in accuracy in the first thread post nor title of the thread.