|
fmd
Oct 4, 2006, 4:40 PM
Post #2 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 15, 2006
Posts: 656
|
It is all a conspiracy anyways. Right into the secret service agency. If they are so secrect, why do they wear $600.00 suits, dark sunglasses and always tallking into their wrists. If you ask me, that aint no way to be secrect.
|
|
|
|
|
blonde_loves_bolts
Oct 4, 2006, 5:07 PM
Post #3 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 2287
|
If that's what the Vice President considers to be assault, then the Vice President is a giant pussy.
Shit, now I'm being arrested on felony assault charges... somebody please hold my Starbucks!!!
|
|
|
|
|
slablizard
Oct 4, 2006, 5:26 PM
Post #4 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 5558
|
Shameful.
Cheney should apologize.
|
|
|
|
|
devkrev
Oct 4, 2006, 5:35 PM
Post #5 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 933
|
I would stay offa Cheneys bad side myself, didn't he shoot somebody with a shotgun?
:lol:
dev
|
|
|
|
|
robbovius
Oct 4, 2006, 7:09 PM
Post #6 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 8406
|
In reply to: If that's what the Vice President considers to be assault, then the Vice President is a giant sissy.
naahh. He's just corrupted by the power he wields. "hassle that guy, teach him a lesson!" once this get farther accross the media, it'll only help cement Cheney's reputation as an aloof power-mad asshole.
It is also possible that the SS yahoo that collared the dad did it on his own out of misguided "loyalty to the flag" ("He ragged on my boss! I'll teach him!"), and now the SS is covering his, and their, asses. Blue Code of Silence, kinda.
BTW, I know the connotation implied by my referring to the Secret Service as the "SS". heh.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Oct 4, 2006, 7:32 PM
Post #7 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: If that's what the Vice President considers to be assault, then the Vice President is a giant sissy.
Apparently, it's not:
In reply to: "We filed a motion to dismiss the charge... we had gotten word that the vice president did not wish to prosecute Howards."
I'm still trying to figure out what the Vice President should apologize for.... he didn't arrest the guy, the USSS did.
|
|
|
|
|
zozo
Oct 4, 2006, 7:36 PM
Post #8 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2004
Posts: 3431
|
What a lesson about the state of our democracy the young man has learned.
|
|
|
|
|
wideguy
Oct 4, 2006, 7:43 PM
Post #9 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 15045
|
In reply to: "We filed a motion to dismiss the charge because we didn't think we could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt because we had gotten word that the vice president did not wish to prosecute Howards, ...Originally, he was going to be charged with assault because the information we got from Secret Service was that he had pushed the vice president. We learned later that it had been only verbal."
Sounds like an agent who was on detail elsewhere in the mall acting on incomplete information. He was acting under the assumption there had been physical contact. Regardless, I highly doubt Cheney even knew it was happening until after it was over. The SS has protocols they follow, many of which their principles have no say in.
Fact is, public service announcment people, do not fuck with the SS. I have seen a man tackled because he shook Al Gore's hand too long, the SS interpreted it as "an attempt to impede his movement." You can say you think the war is reprehensible, but you better not make a physically aggressive movement towards a protectee because you will get an up close look at the sidewalk in a great big hurry. They have ZERO sense of humor.
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Oct 4, 2006, 7:52 PM
Post #10 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
Like wideguy said, if the guy had actually physically pushed the VP, he wouldn't have been arrested 10 minutes later. He would have had his ass handed to him on the spot.
|
|
|
|
|
rhaig
Oct 4, 2006, 9:06 PM
Post #11 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2006
Posts: 2179
|
In reply to: What a lesson about the state of our democracy the young man has learned.
ya posted it.... did you read the article? The "young man" was 54 years old.
at first glance it sounds like an abuse of power, once I read the article, it sounds like a miscommunication and that the guy has a case against the Secret Service.
and the text of the link you put up is incorrect. he was arrested for assulting the VP. Fact is though that the assult never happened. That's why he may have a case.
|
|
|
|
|
zozo
Oct 4, 2006, 9:10 PM
Post #12 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2004
Posts: 3431
|
In reply to: In reply to: What a lesson about the state of our democracy the young man has learned. ya posted it.... did you read the article? The "young man" was 54 years old. at first glance it sounds like an abuse of power, once I read the article, it sounds like a miscommunication and that the guy has a case against the Secret Service. and the text of the link you put up is incorrect. he was arrested for assulting the VP. Fact is though that the assult never happened. That's why he may have a case.
The young man Im refering to is his son who had to witness it and apparently had to be picked up by social services while his Dad was "Under Arrest"
And I never said the guy didn't have a case. So yeah I read the article,
|
|
|
|
|
elvislegs
Oct 4, 2006, 9:42 PM
Post #13 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 3148
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: What a lesson about the state of our democracy the young man has learned. ya posted it.... did you read the article? The "young man" was 54 years old. at first glance it sounds like an abuse of power, once I read the article, it sounds like a miscommunication and that the guy has a case against the Secret Service. and the text of the link you put up is incorrect. he was arrested for assulting the VP. Fact is though that the assult never happened. That's why he may have a case. The young man Im refering to is his son who had to witness it and apparently had to be picked up by social services while his Dad was "Under Arrest" And I never said the guy didn't have a case. So yeah I read the article,
pwned
|
|
|
|
|
rhaig
Oct 5, 2006, 3:26 AM
Post #14 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2006
Posts: 2179
|
In reply to: The young man Im refering to is his son who had to witness it and apparently had to be picked up by social services while his Dad was "Under Arrest" And I never said the guy didn't have a case. So yeah I read the article,
ah... I misunderstood. my bad
|
|
|
|
|
rhaig
Oct 5, 2006, 3:28 AM
Post #15 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2006
Posts: 2179
|
yeah, but the guy still wasn't arrested for "telling Cheney his opinion."
though that's the way I'm sure it would read if it is picked up by national news.
|
|
|
|
|
fmd
Oct 5, 2006, 11:25 AM
Post #16 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 15, 2006
Posts: 656
|
In reply to: yeah, but the guy still wasn't arrested for "telling Cheney his opinion." though that's the way I'm sure it would read if it is picked up by national news.
And just how do you know this. Of course they are going to try and justify why they arrested the guy.
|
|
|
|
|
rhaig
Oct 5, 2006, 2:15 PM
Post #17 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2006
Posts: 2179
|
In reply to: In reply to: yeah, but the guy still wasn't arrested for "telling Cheney his opinion." though that's the way I'm sure it would read if it is picked up by national news. And just how do you know this. Of course they are going to try and justify why they arrested the guy.
excuse me... "Legally speaking" he wasn't arrested for "telling Cheney his opinion" He sa arrested for Assult.
I didn't know you were amongst the crowds of conspiracy theorists.
of course you don't know any different either. Neither of us were there.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
Oct 5, 2006, 2:27 PM
Post #18 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Do you think the victims of Stalin's purges were arrested for speaking out against the party or against stalin?
Of course not. They were arrested for planning to attack stalin, or for assaulting party members, or for planning to attack or damage party property or people.
|
|
|
|
|
fmd
Oct 5, 2006, 2:27 PM
Post #19 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 15, 2006
Posts: 656
|
[quote="rhaig"]In reply to: In reply to: yeah, but the guy still wasn't arrested for "telling Cheney his opinion." though that's the way I'm sure it would read if it is picked up by national news. And just how do you know this. Of course they are going to try and justify why they arrested the guy.
excuse me... "Legally speaking" he wasn't arrested for "telling Cheney his opinion" He sa arrested for Assult.
I didn't know you were amongst the crowds of conspiracy theorists.
of course you don't know any different either. Neither of us were there.[/quote]
AHH....the point I was trying to make...... and no I am NOT a conspiracy theorist........just a realist.
|
|
|
|
|
traddad
Oct 5, 2006, 2:42 PM
Post #20 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2001
Posts: 7129
|
In reply to: I'm still trying to figure out what the Vice President should apologize for.... he didn't arrest the guy, the USSS did.
I think this comment is an example of the decent from Truman's "The Buck Stops Here" to the current whenever possible, shift the blame to "a few bad apples" plausible deniability strategy. For a party/group/organization that prizes personal responsibility, I find this telling. And just because Democrats do it doesn't make it OK.
Do you think for one moment that Cheney was not in charge in this situation? If someone in my organization, someone that I commanded did something wrong, it would be MY responsibility. Yes...the underling would reap my wrath, but his/her actions would be a reflection of my command.
Cheney should be sorry.
But he's not. It's not in his nature.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Oct 5, 2006, 3:02 PM
Post #21 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: In reply to: I'm still trying to figure out what the Vice President should apologize for.... he didn't arrest the guy, the USSS did. I think this comment is an example of the decent from Truman's "The Buck Stops Here" to the current whenever possible, shift the blame to "a few bad apples" plausible deniability strategy. For a party/group/organization that prizes personal responsibility, I find this telling. And just because Democrats do it doesn't make it OK.
Uh, ok?
In reply to: Do you think for one moment that Cheney was not in charge in this situation? If someone in my organization, someone that I commanded did something wrong, it would be MY responsibility. Yes...the underling would reap my wrath, but his/her actions would be a reflection of my command. Cheney should be sorry. But he's not. It's not in his nature.
1. The USSS is headed by the Treasury Dept., actually, not the VP.
2. The USSS arrests people quite frequently, and almost always without the President or VP knowing about it.
3. The USSS can arrest someone without the approval of the President or VP. They don't need anyone's approval first, IOW.
4. The USSS will not arrest someone just because the President or VP says "Arrest that man!!!"
So no, I do not believe that Cheney was "in charge" of the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
wideguy
Oct 5, 2006, 3:07 PM
Post #22 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 15045
|
In reply to: Do you think for one moment that Cheney was not in charge in this situation? If someone in my organization, someone that I commanded did something wrong, it would be MY responsibility.
Here's the essential problem, the assumption that the VP or POTUS or anyone else under USSS guard get to TELL the SS what to do. In fact, in cases of security it is the SS that tells the VP what to do. The protectee has very little say in alot of those matters. They get to say when and where they need to go, but what security will be used in their defense while they are there is simply not up to them.
Now was Cheney smirking and laughing at a detractor getting roughed up? Possibly. Did his not-so-secret power monger side get satisfaction from the exercise of force on his behalf? Likely. But did he have to issue some "order" for it to happen, absolutely not. It really could have happened completely independent of him. The way the structure is built he really could have known nothing until after the fact, at which time he did the right thing in not pressing charges.
|
|
|
|
|
traddad
Oct 5, 2006, 3:08 PM
Post #23 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2001
Posts: 7129
|
So, the Treasury Dept. is second in line to the presidency?
|
|
|
|
|
traddad
Oct 5, 2006, 3:13 PM
Post #24 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2001
Posts: 7129
|
In reply to: In reply to: Do you think for one moment that Cheney was not in charge in this situation? If someone in my organization, someone that I commanded did something wrong, it would be MY responsibility. Here's the essential problem, the assumption that the VP or POTUS or anyone else under USSS guard get to TELL the SS what to do. In fact, in cases of security it is the SS that tells the VP what to do. The protectee has very little say in alot of those matters. They get to say when and where they need to go, but what security will be used in their defense while they are there is simply not up to them. Now was Cheney smirking and laughing at a detractor getting roughed up? Possibly. Did his not-so-secret power monger side get satisfaction from the exercise of force on his behalf? Likely. But did he have to issue some "order" for it to happen, absolutely not. It really could have happened completely independent of him. The way the structure is built he really could have known nothing until after the fact, at which time he did the right thing in not pressing charges.
His remotness in the chain of command does not absolve him of the responsibility. Yes I know that the SS acts independantly and that their charge is to protect. I understand that Cheney probably couldn't have prevented the act, but he could apologize for something that was done on his behalf.....but he won't. Apologies are a sign of weakness.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Oct 5, 2006, 3:15 PM
Post #25 of 63
(1982 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: So, the Treasury Dept. is second in line to the presidency?
Huh?
Traddad, I don't think you need me to tell you the history of the Secret Service, but the mission profile of the USSS is two-fold: Protection detail (President, VP, various VIPs, foreign dignitaries, etc.) and financial crime investigation (mostly counterfeiting.)
Began in 1865 (I think... 1866, perhaps?), as a branch of the Department of the Treasury. Presidential Protection was added to the scope after McKinnley was shot (1901).
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
