From films I understand the master criminal releases a quick acting gas that mysteriously fells everyone, then his glamorous female aide retrieves the suitcase whilst he exercises his smirking muscles and then they disappear either through the sewers or via a rope ladder dangled from a helicopter.
"Dah-ling…!
Muah… Mauh…!
Had the most Elegant Dinner in Mar-a-Largo until that Show Off
Donald arrived. Now he’s into short Asian middle aged men!
Oh, if that bed could talk, I Just Know it would be saying,
“Kill Me! Please!!!”
Donny was trying to show off his bossy pants; something
new special he was bragging about. “형제 공항. 곰은 독약을 사용합니다.”
Probably tastes Horrid!
Right about then, his Asian man-toy started rolling his eyes, but what does
Donny-Pee do to get attention back on himself?
Missile Command on a Laptop! Would you believe it???
Looks like a cracked game too. I took a screen-shot with my phone.
It looks like you type “!H3hj4$htJ5YY*8)!-0045” to get in.
It looks dulls-ville though.
Oh, the Neopolitan Chocalates are here! GTG!
Muah! Muah!
Haley Bichet-Biddle"
No, he doesn’t. It’s pretty early in the article, too. (italics original)
Only the President can authorize it, and there is a huge system to prove it is actually him. So no one can steal it and actually do anything.
Now, yes, it’s worrying that the President doesn’t have any apparent check on his power. But that’s a different issue than the OP.
I’m sorry but I’m really not seeing a problem here. A nuclear response was not on the cards, so why be concerned about it? This incident shows a President comfortable in control and in command, and that NK’s firing of the missile was not deemed serious.
My mistake, I should have made it clear that I was responding to this part at the end of **Shagnasty’s ** post:
No one in the chain is supposed to question a verified Presidential order to launch. In 1973 Major Hering was fired for simply asking a hypothetical question about this. As far as we know this is still the case.
Two world leaders reviewing what was undoubtedly classified information in the midst of a dinner club is a problem. Aside from the fact that they were surely discussing classified matters relating to the national security and intelligence capabilities of our two nations, conducting such conversations while being recorded by everyone with an iPhone is not a normal process for making very important decisions.
Huh…I would have thought you would have to do the Neutron Dance! 
So if the “football” is a case with nuclear launch procedures, what if the President gets separated from it? What if he doesn’t have a phone? With improved technology, you think it could be an self-powered launch initiation unit with some kind of verification scanner (facial recognition, iris, DNA). I realize that the government might keep some details of this secret, but Hollywood had some interesting ideas!
Politics aside, color me skeptical that this was a wise location to proceed with security briefing (or diplomatic talks). Mar-a-Lago is hardly Camp David or even a Georgetown restaurant; it’s far from Washington, in an unsecure location, and apparently lacks a discreet room to conduct state business. Color me also skeptical about carefully vetting guests and security measures (Mr. FB obviously didn’t get the memo). Mr. Trump is the private owner and is ultimately in charge of security there; I have a hard time believing the Secret Service can control what their boss does at his own club! Congress didn’t seem happy about it.
This is a thing that has happened. More than once.
It didn’t cause any long term issues, as the President has never (to my knowledge) needed to use the football. As such, we also don’t know what would happen if it he was separated from it at a time when he did. Theoretically there’d be contingencies for that, given the past separations, but that (for very obvious reasons) falls so far under the umbrella of national security that we wouldn’t even have access to relevant data to speculate on it.
You have a few more misconceptions here.
- Nobody said anyone was “vetted”. But since the Reagan shooting, even rope lines are screened for weapons. There’s no reason to believe this was any different, as it’d be a major breach in protocol.
That said, in a controlled environment, they may have used laxer standards, as they sometimes tend to do. The Secret Service does everything by perimeter, using what can best be described as concentric circles. The closer to the President, the higher the scrutiny.
Basically, the crux of it is that anything that can harm the President is able to be neutralized without harming the President.
-
I saw no indication that anything posted on FB violated any protection security measures. Congress was unhappy about the public location for that particular discussion–those concerns don’t fall within the umbrella of the concerns stated beyond the first sentence of the OP.
-
On matters of protection, the Secret Service is Trump’s boss, not the other way around. They are also the ones, to use your phrasing, ultimately in charge of security at whatever venue that the sitting President is at (regardless of who owns it).
In an episode of “The West Wing”, there’s a joke that, if the President had to go to the bunker, his feet may touch the ground a couple of times on the way there. It’s not inaccurate. The Secret Service gets final say on security matters related to protection. That’s not to say that the Secret Service and White House won’t work together to reach a solution of mutual benefit, but there is absolutely no way that such a solution involves scrapping weapons screenings.
At the end of the day, if something happens to the President, the buck stops with the Secret Service, regardless of whether or not the President wanted it or not. They learned that lesson with JFK & they aren’t going to forget it anytime soon.
I do want to specify, just to make this very clear, that regulating photography is outside the purview of the Secret Service. When it comes to protection, the general rule is that if you can see it, you can photograph it.
There’s also no problem with posting those photos on Facebook–I have plenty on mine, for example. One of my photos got me the stink eye from some very large men with a very impressive gun, but they had no cause of action against me for taking it. In fact, I made a point of clarifying that permission before I did so.
As entertaining as this thread has been, the topic ultimately boils down to one question, and one answer.
What happens if someone steals the nuclear football with the launch codes?
They change the codes!
I have to disagree.
The proper answer, I maintain, is to reject the premise of the question.
With regard to your “correct” answer, we don’t know that there’s a system in place to change things on demand like that. Buzz Patterson, who served under Clinton, has indicated repeatedly that, as recently as his time handling the football, there was not. We have no basis to assume if there is or isn’t one now.
Maybe in practice the President has deferred to the Secret Service, but factually this is inaccurate. The Secret Service is part of the executive branch of the government. The President IS the executive branch. He gives orders that even the Secret Service must follow.
I’m sure that if Trump said that he wanted to take a stroll down Pennsylvania Avenue all by himself, there would be a line of officials telling him “but, sir please” however at the end of the day, nobody has the authority to stop him from doing so.
I have to disagree with the idea that there is no check on the president ordering a nuke strike. The sec def is required to give his/her authorization without which the nukes stay where they are. The two man rule exists at all levels.
Really? Let’s have a cite that anything they discussed was classified. The launch itself was public knowledge, for instance.
Shades of The West Wing, right?
They’re within the Executive Branch because they fall under the Department of Homeland Security.
They have the authority to protect the President, however, because it’s required by law. As the law is understood, they not only have the power, but the requirement, to protect the President from any threat. He cannot just “opt out” anymore than they can.
Luckily we’ll never have a president dumb enough to try it, but, if we did, I can pretty much guarantee you that they’d themselves physically prevented from leaving the building if their intention was to do so in a manner that put themselves in danger.
The President is their boss in name only. Congress gave them a job to do and they’ll do it, no matter what the President wants. Trust me.
(As an aside, you know Colonel Tillman, as an active duty Air Force officer, refused direct orders from his C-i-C on 9/11, right? Bush wanted to land sooner than Col. Tillman deemed safe, and Col. Tillman flat out refused to allow it. Col. Tillman won that argument.)
Edit: To put it another way, when Congress makes a law dealing with a part of the Executive Branch, the President can’t just hand-wave it away because he’s their boss. It’d be no different than if the President told the IRS to stop collecting taxes. I’m sure you can see how such an order wouldn’t fly, despite the IRS being under the Treasury. Same situation here.
Have you got a cite for this? Wallerstein is very clear that the two man rule doesn’t apply a the presidential level.
He then goes onto to describe how this came to be. In a follow up Wallerstein has this to say about the Secretary of Defense’s role:
There are three. One is with the VP at all times and a spare back at the Whitehouse.
Do you really think there’s not a multitude of phones, along with other communications devices that don’t rely on the nearest cell tower being operational, in his entourage? 
Sometimes the President is separated from them too.
Ok, maybe not “sometimes”, but definitely at least once. It’s one of my favorite stories on these subjects.
When Leonid Brezhnev was visiting then-President Nixon in DC, they went to Camp David, where Brezhnev was presented with a car. He got in, with Nixon in the passenger seat, and, before anyone could stop him, he gunned it.
It’s one of the more entertaining “President was separated from the football” stories, made even more so by the fact that he was separated from his entire entourage–Secret Service included.
If a person physically restrained the President from going to a place where the President wanted to go and had a legal right to go, that person would be as guilty of a battery as would anyone who stopped me in a similar way.
Congress cannot imprison the President under the guise of protection, no matter the law passed. If the law that says a President is to be “protected” is construed as forcing him to comply with imposed restrictions on his freedom of movement it is wholly unconstitutional for a variety of reasons.
The analogy to the IRS refusing to collect taxes is not wholly apt. The President is to “take care” that the laws are enforced. If taxes are to be collected, he must collect them. However, the specific manner in which he does that would be a good constitutional debate (i.o.w. would it be in excess of Congress’ authority to decree the particular manner that taxes are collected), but as long as he collects taxes, he is doing his job.
However, you believe that since one part of the executive department is tasked by Congress with “protecting” the President, then if the President does not submit to any and all directives designed to protect him, he is not faithfully executing the law? That’s a stretch, to say the least, and would require a majority of the House and 2/3 of the Senate to enforce.