There are active threads right now in GD and the Pit about Jenna Bush’s citation for underage drinking. As those threads have taken an ugly turn, I’ve decided to start a new thread about one aspect of the incident I think worthy of actual debate.
The news article on the incident alleged that Ms. Bush’s Secret Service detail were outside the bar where she was caught drinking, and was therefore unaware of what she was doing. When I read that, my eyes rolled so far back, I saw last week. The protective detail let their principal out of sight in a public place? I hope that’s not the case.
So, it’s very likely the Secret Service knew Jenna was drinking. Was it their duty to stop her/arrest her? The Secret Service is a law enforcement agency.
Where should the Secret Service draw the line concerning the conduct of the people they are protecting, be they the kids of the President or the President him/herself? Should the SS enforce the law, period? Should the SS ignore any criminal activity it witnesses, period? Is there a middle ground, and, if so, what is it?
It’s not like the Secret Service is charged with enforcing Texas law. On that count, the agents’ authority is no greater than any private person who wants to make a citizen’s arrest. The Secret Service may be a law enforcement agency, but it is not a Texas law enforcement agency.
As for where to draw the line on putting a stop to the protectee’s criminal behavior, I would think that the whole misdemeanor/felony distinction is an excellent place to start. Hell, Dubya’s little angel only got a ticket out of this. The Austin cops didn’t even bother to give her the “scared straight” routine by carting her underage butt down the street to jail.
Of course, the Secret Service guys might have looked a little silly standing around outside the jail cell.
(you forgot Milo’s GQ thread about if the SS had a duty to prevent her from breaking the law and/or arresting her) here’s a summation of duties
I recall discussions when Clinton’s SS detail was forced to testify, they didn’t want to, citing concern that the object of protection must feel safe with them. or something to that extent.
On the OP here’s the story. jeez. I would hope that if Jenna had wanted to drive the limo home while she was under the influence, they would have stopped her. But --here’s a wrinkle –
why should any specific citizen be garnered the ability to have their ill conceived actions prevented? Think about it. In a sense that allows her a protection others wouldn’t have unless they dragged mom with them 24/7, (and not just any mom, super mom).
Nah, I’m thinking they have a duty to protect her from others (primary), protect her from herself (secondary - the aforementioned driving while drunk thing), but in this case, although it’s a violation of local law, it’s not really a federal rap, I don’t see they have the obligation to prevent her from ‘committing’ the crime.
You guys are overlooking the aforementioned “identify fraud.” I would imagine this would include fake IDs, so in actuality, they DID have jurisdiction.
Nope, Munch, just not assuming that she used a fake ID in the first place (one would hope so, but tell ya the truth, having been in a college town I’m not assuming she was even asked for ID)
Yeah, I was just running on the mention of “identify fraud” in andros’ post. Seems that it pertains mostly to credit card fraud and the like. I believe the FBI would be in charge with a fake ID, no?
Just as an off-the-cuff observation, you probably have to commit a “fraud” to be charged with identity fraud, and I rather doubt that buying a beer with a fake ID counts.
Second, even if JB had a fake ID, I rather doubt she’d be showing it off to the Secret Service guys, who were, after all, stuck outside guarding the entrance.
Third, the Secret Service is a part of the executive branch, and as such, is subject to the direction of the president. Want to guess whether they’re going to be outside any more parties or bars Jenna happens to be in for the next couple years?
I agree on the ID thing, but it can’t always be that simple. I mean, these guys are professionals and law enforcement officers. Are they supposed to simply stand there stoically if one of their charges lights up a doob? Or bitch-slaps the RA? None of those is a federal crime, but surely they wouldn’t put up with it any more than any other authority figure.
I imagine that they sit down with their young (and older, hell I think Ron Reagan Jr. got protection, didn’t he?) charges and say, “Look, it’s like this.” and spell out exactly how much grief they are willing to put up with, and then advise them on ways they can discreetly be in a separate room from the agents if they want to cross the line.
The primary purpose of the Secret Service is to protect their charge. If they create a situation where the person they are protecting will want to ditch them (to grab a drink, a line of blow, an intern, etc) then it will make their primary duty much more difficult.
It would be pretty easy to lure a person away from their protectors in this atmosphere.
When that would be counter productive to their primary mission then yes. The intelligent thing to do would be to ignore it. I do think it is inconsiderate of her to put them in embarrassing situations like that but I certainly find no fault with their actions.
I tend to agree with Ned that you can’t be a good bodyguard if you are seen by your charge as a policeman. One the other hand, there clearly is a line where a SS officer would have to step in. That line is somewhere between Serial Killer and Jaywalker. Although I am sure this standard wouldn’t work in a court of law, I think that overall SS officers ought to report crime as they would were they a private citizen, not a cop. They should report crimes that a “reasonable” person would report. For example, if I am at a bar and a couple of girls at the table next to me look a little young, I’m not gonna do anything. If I am in the parking lot of a bar and I see someone sloshy drunk try and get into the driver’s seat, I’m gonna call 911 and have them pick the guy up. If I know someone frequesnt hookers, I am not gonna call the vice squad. If I suspect they are cutting those hookers into little pieces, I am gonna call somebody. “Reasonable” people standards are always a bitch, of course–some people would call the cops over someone smoking a joint in the park, though I can’t imagene doing so myself. But Ican’t think of any better system.
I had originally thought of the misdemenor/felony thing, but the problem with that is that drunk driving is a misdemenor, albeit one with a rather stiff penalty. And in my mind drunk driving is certainly something that the SS men should prevent a charge from attempting. (Mind you, the fact that they are there suggests that someone able to drive is handy.)
Look I find it just a little disquieting that the Secret Service, which must cost the taxpayer (many of you should like that since all you seem to care about is taxes), are running around behind this young woman while she’s off at college having a blast. This latest incident isn’t that bad but why are these guys bailing her boyfriend out of jail? Oh that’s right, they have to accompany her everywhere. And she and the SS went to the rescue. I admit that this girl needs protecting, she’s the daughter of the president. She’s young and enjoying life too, like every 19 year old girl. However she does have, by virtue of who she is, have a compelling reason to behave a little more responsibly. She’s got a couple of well paid, well trained, guys following her around on these little excursions. Perhaps should should take their role a little bit more seriously and begin to temper her behavior.
Other than noting that the Secret Service has the duty to protect our financial system, no one brought up taxes or finances at all. More on the “running around” in a moment.
The story doesn’t say who paid the bail…if it was Jenna, the Secret Service, or her friend. All the article says is that she picked him up, and as you said, the Secret Service “have to accompany her everywhere”. Would you rather she didn’t get a friend of hers out of jail?
If you admit that she needs protection, then why is it a problem for you that the Secret Service, whose job it is to protect her, are doing that, by following her?
You won’t get any argument from me that it’s good to act responsibly, but the reason you give doesn’t seem to fit. She doesn’t seem to be endangering either her life or the lives of the Secret Service agents assigned to protect her, and I don’t see any indication that she is not taking their role seriously.
Her role as what? Following in her underachiever daddy’s footsteps. Yeah, I take exception to the fact the the Secret Service is around to bail her snotty little friends out of jail. If that were my kid, I’d be struggling to find a bail bondsman. But then her behavior doesn’t suprise me at all considering that her father is a drunk himself. (Don’t say X, everyone knows that a “recovering drunk” is always recovering, or at least that’s the theory.)
I wasn’t bashing the kid. She might just be headed down the same road her daddy staggered along. I just resent the hell out of him and his “family values”, “compassonate conservative” bullshit. While his child is being protected from her own “youthful indescretions” by virtue of her name and the Secret Service the rest of the nation’s kids who run afoul of the law will have to wait for federal aid to go to college. (And mind you they are the ones that need aid the most, Bush and his lot can afford to send their kids without loans and grants.) Because it’s OK to be a drunk and ruler of the free world but you can’t smoke a joint without losing your entire future. If you can’t see the hypocracy in this administration and it’s policies then, you’re one of them.
Oh and BTW…here’s someone that’s nastier about Gilligan and his cronies than I am.
Give it up, Needs. Your hypocrisy is mind-boggling. I have always respected you, but I’m losing it fast. Under what warped usage of the English language are the underlined passages NOT “bashing the kid”?
Add to that, since when is a former drinking problem just cause for bashing somebody, including Dubya? Let’s go mock Kitty Dukakis or Betty Ford - IIRC, they were never arrested for their drinking/drug problems.
Under what definition is a) receiving a citation for underage drinking and b) having that humiliation broadcast by the national media “being protected”?!! Hell, I spent every weekend, and a few nights a week, between 1986 and 1989 breaking the law by drinking illegally. I was “protected” better than Ms. Bush, as I never got arrested/cited for it.
I know you are not going to apologize for this stupidity, but at least stop digging your hole deeper. Or, at the very least, post this tripe in the thread you started, not mine. I started this thread to get away from your diatribes, and I’d thank you very much to stop infecting it.
That link didn’t say that the Secret Service bailed her friend out of jail. It said that she, and the Secret Service, who we agreed are supposed to follow her around to protect her, went to the jail to pick her friend up. We don’t know who actually bailed him out. We just know she gave him a ride.
How is she being protected from her “youthful indescretions”? The woman, along with the other underaged drinkers in the bar, received a citation. As for Bush being able to send his kids to college without loans and grants, more power to him. I wish my parents had been able to. The rest of your post doesn’t have anything to do with Jenna Bush, but I’ll address it anyway. It wasn’t the Bush administration that said that people convicted of drug or alcohol offenses could lose their federal aid. That goes back before he got elected. And, yes, a drunk can become President…we’ve had several. Andrew Johnson and Ulysses S. Grant come to mind, and there have been other presidents who, if they weren’t alcoholics, came close, like Warren G. Harding, not to mention the prodigious amount of liquor drunk by people like Washington, Adams and Jefferson. You know what, N2K? You can smoke a joint and wind up as president too. Bill Clinton showed that. You can wind up as president if you’re a natural born citizen over 35, have been a resident of the U.S. for 10 years prior, and get picked by the electoral college. Those are the only qualifications. There’s no morals clause. You don’t have to prove your chastity or take a drug test.
You brought up hypocracy, so lets talk about that for a second. Are you really demanding that our president, whoever he is, be perfect? Are you demanding that the president never have done anything wrong or made a mistake? Can you hold yourself to that standard? I defended Clinton, and I’m going to defend Bush. People do dumb things…they make mistakes, and there’s a lot to criticize about Bush without focusing on the actions of his daughter, or the fact that 20-30 years ago, he drank too much.
i was a bit surprized that the secret service was outside while she was inside. my understanding from when chelsea was followed about, was that an agent would be a wallflower somewhere in the room with her. there would be one agent with her in physical sight at all times. even if mirrors had to be involved. i was given the impression that the only time an agent wouldn’t be “in sight” would be where ever home was, after a search of home and an all clear.
when discussing this issue at work i posed the question: “what if ms bush was at the bank? would they stay by the doors and just wait for her? what if she decided to make a rather criminal withdrawl?”
