agE :smack:
I’ve always assumed they do. My understanding is that they’re charged with assessing every threat against the person of the President. If it turns out to be art, all well and good, close the file and move away. If it’s some guy in his basement obsessing over Jodie Foster, they open a file on the guy and keep an eye on him.
Exactly my point. So they talk to the artist, close the file, and move on. It sounds to me like that’s the case here - the artist wasn’t on their watch list, hence he was someone new to them; they needed to determine if he was a physical risk to the President.
The Secret Service is pretty apolitical, so far as I know. They assess threats to the person of the President, not his policies. They don’t care if we agree with the guy or not, or what we think if his actions; just so long as we don’t express our opinions as violence against him, they’re okay with it.
It may be that the Secret Service has been subverted by the Administration to intimidate their enemies; but the article in question doesn’t give any evidence for it, so I’m going to assume for now that they’re operating pretty much as they always have.
Related idle speculation: How many people have had to watch what they write on an electrionic bulletin board (such as this one) for fear that something they post – even in jest or hyperbole – might be construed as a “reasonable threat” by a spook somewhere in Langley and end up getting a visit from a few agents?
And before someone poo-poos this as paranoid speculation, let’s remember what happened to Barry Reingold, shall we?
It’s funny in that story it says that the rhetoric escalated, but never said what comments the rhetoric escalated into. I’m poo-pooing it as paranoid speculation right now. And I think Reingold’s probably a little whiner who most likely made a comment that he wouldn’t mind seeing Bush dead or that it was too bad Bush didn’t get killed in 9/11 or something like that and got reported for making a threat against the president. The FBI or Secret Service made a quick investigation and this baby reported about how he was being repressed in some manner. Whatever. I dismiss him completely.
The distinction you’re missing, however, is that the Secret Service doesn’t determine what is and what is not a reasonable threat until it sends agents over to investigate in person. No matter what. If I called up the Secret Service and say this guy scule has been making threats against the president, they’re going to show up at your door and ask you a few questions. That’s their job and that’s how they’re expected to do their job. If a bunch of over-sensitive lefties like apparently half the posters to this thread get their panties in a bind, too damn bad.
If you think what the Secret Service did was an attempt at deliberate intimidation of opposing viewpoints, then, quite frankly, I have little respect for you or your ability to interpret reality.
False dichotomy. It’s the SS (no pun intended :)) doing their job, as they would with any president during wartime or peacetime. The artist got some extra publicity, probably more than he deserves, and the matter is closed. Much ado about nothing.
Remember back when Clinton was president, and Jesse Helms said he’d better not visit any military bases without an armed escort? Helms got investigated by the SS for that. Do you think Helms, a senior US senator and one of the most powerful political figures in the country, was more or less likely to be a threat to the life of the president than some hack, no-name artist with a petty axe to grind?
Being paranoid is part of the job description for the Secret Service. Every threat, no matter how unlikely, gets investigated. No exceptions. It’s been their SOP for decades now, if not longer. There’s nothing politically motivated about this. It’s not an attempt to squelch free speech. The artist would have been treated the same no matter who was president, and no matter how many wars we were involved in overseas. This is no big deal, guys. It’s just how the SS operates.
I can understand their interest in the artist who made the stamps showing Bush with a gun pointed at his head. It doesn’t suprise me they might want to have a word with someone who created that. It does seem disturbing the Secret Service would request the names and addresses of all the artists in the exhibit. Why would they need that information? From what the article says none of the other artists presented any artwork that could be construed as a threat to the POTUS.
I guess that’s why it seems like an attempt to squelch dissent, at least to me.
Barry Reingold looks like a liar, to me. He claims in that he made the following statement in October 2001: "Bush is a bigger …hole than bin Laden will ever be because he bombs people all over the world for oil profits.” At the time, the war in Afghanistan (which has no oil) had just started, and Bush hadn’t bombed any other countries by this time in his 9-month old Administration. If he’s talking about Iraq, the war didn’t start there until March 2003, or 18 months after he allegedly make his remark.
So either he’s a fool, or he’s lying about when he made certain comments, or both.
Actually, do you have a cite that an investigation occurred? My understanding is that Helms didn’t get more than a cursory investigation (of the “Oh, Helms is just going nuts again” variety), if that much. He certainly didn’t get penalized or imprisoned or whatever for making said threat.
What’s that got to do with anything? The bigger issue is whether calling the POTUS a “bigger asshold than bin Laden” is sufficient cause to get the FBI sent to your door. Remember that it’s not even vaguely related to a death threat; it’s just one guy spouting a negative opinion – why does that warrant a visit?
I think there’s a bit of middle ground between the two perspectives here…
The Secret Service DOES have to investigate insignificant threats in order to establish that they are indeed insignificant.
The Secret Service has a strong motive to passively intimidate this artist and others in order to discourage more insignificant threats that they would have to waste more time investigating.
So I’m just saying that the “they’re just doing their job” and the “they did it to intimidate people” perspectives are not mutually exclusive. Carry on.
And was Al Brandtner penalized or imprisoned for his threat? No? So what’s your point?
“What it has to do with” is that the subject of your “cite” is lying, delusional, or both. So why would anyone believe that he was visited by FBI agents in the first place?
Except you don’t know what he said. From your own cite:
Calling Bush a bigger asshole than bin Laden is what he started with. Then it escalated. What did he say when it escalated? Did he say that the US would have been better off if GWB were assassinated or something? You’ve got one guy’s story, and he’s got an axe to grind. It surely couldn’t occur that he was downplaying what he said in order to make himself look more sympathetic, right?
So, we should automatically disbelieve Mr. Reingold until proven otherwise… why? Because he’s claiming something that reflects poorly on your candidate of choice? Because he didn’t sign a Bush Loyalty Oath? Because our nation now believes folks are lying until proven otherwise? Where was this level of skepticism during the buildup to the Iraq war, pray tell?
Reingold claims he trash-talked GWB, and got a visit from the FBI as a result. If you want to say he’s a pathological liar or that he did something more to justify such a visit, then then burden is on you to bring some evidence of that.
Well, apparently the argument Mr. Reingold was having ‘escalated’. The article doesn’t say what it escalated too. Whatever he said was apparently enough for someone from the health club to call the FBI. Note that, SOMEONE AT THE HEALTH CLUB CALLED THE FBI. It wasn’t like the FBI just picked the health club randomly and heard him talking about Bush. SOMEONE REPORTED HIM.
What we know. Mr. Reingold had an argument at a health club where he criticized Bush. The argument escalated. Someone at the club reported Reinngold to the FBI. What we do not know is what Reingold said, what ‘escalated’ means. We do know that whatever he said caused enough concern for someone to call the FBI.
Now, since we do not know what was said we cannot be positive that the person who reported Mr. Reingold to the FBI did so appropriately. But once a threat against the President is reported to the FBI the FBI has no choice but to investigate. End of story, no matter who the President is. They have to investigate.
And why should we automatically believe Mr. Reingold when there is no detail on what was said in the argument? All the article says is that it ‘escalated’. Why doesn’t he, or the reporter, describe the whole argument? Why doesn’t he say “I critized the President and that was it”? My best guess is that Reingold probably went off on how Bush should be dead or something similar. But that is a guess, I do not know that. If Reingold did not say anything that could be considered threatening then the person you should be upset with is the person who reported him to the FBI. The FBI doesn’t have the manpower or the time to go question everyone who criticizes the President. Whoever reported Mr. Reingold obviously told the FBI enough to get them concerned. Once the FBI is invloved it is their duty to investigate, even if the person turns out to be harmless. Why? Because not everybody is harmless. Ask Kennedy or Reagan.
Slee
Huh? It’s already been well-established in this thread that the investigation strategies and tactics of the USSS[sup]1[/sup] are independent of who is in office. One might reasonably argue that they go too far; that they are so zealous in their protection duties that they have this or that undesirable effect and that they should change their tactics even at the small increased risk of failing at their charge. I’d disagree, but I can see that argument. But why try to make something partisan when it clearly isn’t?
[sup]1[/sup]: *n.b.**: They really prefer USSS to SS for obvious reasons, thanks. 
Yes, yes, but Reingold has nothing to do with this incident.
It is no biggie if the Secret Service get a call from some hysteric, who asks them to investigate something offensive seen at a gallery somewhere. The SS can go out, see that it’s basically just a piece of paper, take a photo of it and maybe talk to the artist if they are still concerned. The artist will say “It’s art,” the SS checks their copy of the Constitution, cross-references with other examples of artistic freedom in the US, end of story. Uncommon, but it happens just like that.
Of greater concern is the information in the article that information about every artist in the show was demanded, and on the curator too - not just that of the one artist of the one artwork in question. This smacks of bullying and browbeating and the gallery director has every right to tell the SS to get bent in this situation. (And probably in general, for that matter.)
Eh. The curator is already a suspected asshole with his anthrax “prank.” So from the perspective of the USSS, you’ve got suspected asshole A and reported but cleared suspected asshole B. In this instance it makes sense for them to ask, “So as long as we’re in the neighborhood, is there anyone else we’ve got to worry about?”
This is exactly the same treatment that the artist got, as far as I can tell.
Is it just me, or do these instances of jackbootery seem pretty feeble? The thugs come marching down to intimidate and strip away our freedoms, then:
- take a look around
- write down your name and address
- say “Well, looks like there’s nothing to be concerned about, thanks for your cooperation.”
- leave
On the point of the other artists in the show, were they trying to show their work anonymously or something? Is the show not intended to publicize their names? I’m having a hard time getting outraged that the officers would ask for information that not only is public, but is intended to be broadcast as widely as possible. I would consider having complete information on the show to be just solid background in case something does come of the situation.
What’s the problem here?
The SS investigation will have two likely effects: (i) create enormous publicity for the art show; and (ii) add a certain resonance to the intended statement of the artwork. The SS’s action won’t serve to discourage artists; in fact, this is the type of validation an anti-government artist dreams of!
Seems everyone’s a winner.