Secret Service puts 3 on leave over gate crashing

[Cass]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON – The head of the Secret Service asserted Thursday that the security breach at last week's White House state dinner was an aberration but has put three uniformed officers on leave. President Barack Obama says his confidence in the agency remains unshaken.
...
Thompson, D-Miss., also said that Congress needs to talk not only to Tareq and Michaele Salahi, the couple who got in without invitations, but also to White House social secretary Desiree Rogers. All three have declined to appear. Thompson said he is likely to authorize a subpoena for the Salahis to testify.

Rep. Pete King, the panel's ranking Republican, accused the White House of "stonewalling" in not permitting Rogers to appear. The New York congressman said he thinks the White House is either afraid of something or doesn't want to take any heat for last week's incident.

Thompson said at midday that the Salahis could be cited for contempt of Congress if they continue to shun the committee's request that they proceed. He said he has asked staff to prepare subpoenas for the pair, and said "my door remains open." King indicated he would continue to press for Rogers to appear as well. The two appeared to differ on whether Rogers should be subpoenaed.


The Secret Service chief said the investigation so far has found three people from the agency's uniformed officer division responsible for the security breach and all three have been put on administrative leave. He added that the agency is still reviewing what security protocols weren't followed.

(more at link...)

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091203/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_uninvited_guests

[DontTreadOnMe]

1. OK, so when are the gatecrashers...

...going to lose their jobs?

Commit a crime... the police get fired?

[harkadog]

2. What was the crime?

[Sub Atomic]

3. Trespassing on Federal property for one.

I would think lying to a Federal official would play in there as well.

[harkadog]

4. They didn't trespass -- that is for sure

They were let in. That is not trespass in any court. Do you know what they said to the SS and what the SS said to them? No, because it hasn't been reported. Lying to a federal official has to be under oath to be prosecuted.

[blondeatlast]

28. Wrong--trespass means you enter property without authority, consent of the owner, or license.

thus, they committed trespass.

Good luck on your next attempt at the bar exam.

[harkadog]

29. The SS let them in.

That was consent. LOL on playing an internet lawyer. I would love to be opposed to you in court.

[me b zola]

10. The agents aren't "police"

They are charged with providing security to the President and they failed. I agree that there should be charges against the gatecrashers, but the agents need to lose their jobs.

[Mike Daniels]

22. I believe the gatecrashers are self-employed

And from what I've read they have enough legal troubles beyond this that I have a feeling that they're going to have a hard time generating income for some time.

[Hekate]

5. Good. As for the party crashers, I hope they'll get theirs soon. This is not funny. nt

[sendero]

8. It is funny..

... and they did the country a favor by showing how lax white house security is.

[onehandle]

6. Fine. Now Federal charges for the reality show fucks.

Guaranteed jail time.

[Xithras]

32. They committed no crime.

Hypothetical:

You don't know me, but you call a plumber to your house to fix your kitchen sink. While he's working on it, I knock on your front door and the plumber answers. I don't know either you or the plumber, but I ask the plumber whether I can come inside and take a nap on the couch. The plumber says yes, I come in, and go to sleep on your loveseat. 10 minutes later you walk in and find me there.

Am I trespassing?

Legally, the answer is NO. A person with perceived, or de-facto authority over the property gave me authorization to be there. Whether or not he had the authority to do so is legally a dispute between you and the plumber, not you and me. The plumber, whom you have granted authorized access to your property, has turned around and extended that authorization to another. I have received authorization to be on the property from a person who you authorized to be on the property, and therefore I legally have permission to be there.

From a legal standpoint, I'm not a trespasser unless you ask me to leave and I refuse.

Lesson: Make sure your plumber knows not to answer the door. And make sure the people running security at your party know who to allow in.

Of course, there's also a second aspect to this. Under the U.S. Code, ALL federal properties are open for public use and access unless specific legislation states otherwise, or they are specifically posted. That is why EVERY SINGLE fence around EVERY SINGLE military facility in the U.S. carries a sign designating it as a restricted access federal property. All federal facilities, including the White House, are open for public use unless specifically posted otherwise or unless they are limited by specific rules and regulations. In the case of the White House, those rules & regulations state that you must obtain authorization from the Secret Service or be part of a regular public tour group.

The Secret Service let them in. They satisfied the legal requirements for accessing the White House, and were granted authorization at the gate to access the facility. Once that occurred, there were no laws limiting their access to the facility. It's a public building, and they were granted access by those authorized to do so.

Unless they forged documents to deceive the Secret Service, there's nothing to charge them with.

[Hangingon]

7. Typical - lowest level blamed and punished.

[sendero]

9. Well...

.. if they did not follow established protocols THEY ARE TO BLAME. You think their supervisor should stand around every man 24/7 and verify that they are doing what they were trained to do? Get real.

[Hangingon]

12. The supervisor is always to blame when procedures are not followed.

That is reality.

[me b zola]

11. Who, in your opinion, should be blamed and punished?

[Hangingon]

13. Within Secret Service, management is responsible.

Within the White House, the Social Office has some responsibility

[me b zola]

15. SS management also has responsibility

but that will come after a review of the incident.

To say that the social office has any responsibility is ludicrous. The social office is there to make sure there are no social/diplomatic blunders. They are there to ensure that if there are any problems with any of the vips they get resolved. The Social Office is in no way responsible for security.

[Hangingon]

17. Part crashers ARE a social blunder.

[me b zola]

18. No, it is a security risk.

The social office facilitates people getting in that need to be there, not keeping people out who don't.

[Hangingon]

21. It is a security risk and a major social blunder.

Apparently the social office was more interested in going to the party than they were in giving the party.

[Mike Daniels]

24. While they are not responsible for security per se

Every other social secretary has had staff managing the entry points for the purpose of being able to help resolve issues like this.

For whatever reason the current social secretary saw no reason to follow long-running custom and by most accounts was acting more like a guest than a director of a state dinner event. While she is not directly responsible for the breach she wasn't following the standard protocols for her position either.

[GoCubsGo]

31. The management bears most of the responsibility, apparently...

I just heard a program on NPR, and Robert Kessler was a guest. He said that ever since the SS got moved to Homeland Security, they have been cutting corners. He suggested that the three agents who let the Salahis pass the check-in without scrutiny were probably doing so out of fear of reprisal for creating slowing the line down. Apparently, things like this have become the norm. When Joe Biden threw out the season's first pitch at the Nationals game this year, NO ONE in that whole park was required to pass through a magnetometer. The audio for this show will be up at 3PM ET, and is definitely worth hearing: http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/12/protecting-the-president

I agree that trying to peg any blame on Desiree Rogers and her office is ludicrous. Security is the job of the Secret Service, and them alone. There were staff from the social office on the premises, and it was not difficult to contact them. I saw a photo of one who was wired with a huge radio under her gown. If there was a question about a guest, that person could have been taken aside, and the social staff contacted by radio.

And, the complaints about Ms. Rogers being a guest at the dinner are nothing but sour grapes. She is a long-time friend of the Obamas. She was probably there for the same reason his sister and mother-in-law were invited. Because the Obamas wanted her there. This is all nothing but idiots like Peter King trying to make political hay where there is none.

[sattahipdeep]

14. Cheney

Mr. Sullivan was promoted into the federal Senior Executive Service in July of 2000, when he was selected as a Deputy Assistant Director in the Office of Protective Operations.

In 2002, he was reassigned to the position of Deputy Special Agent in Charge of the Vice Presidential Protective Division.

[sattahipdeep]

16. Before 9 11 attacks!

What’s next? A brave CIA/ISI operator admits ” 9/11 WAS an inside job”

[mstinamotorcity]

19. They lost their job

boo hoo.Look secret service has a job to do. They did not measure up to it. Now fired i think was a bit much at first,then i thought of all of the things that could have went wrong with that scenario and if it had of been me in charge of secret service they would have got an exit pass too.Our President and his family,Foreign Dignitaries,and all other VIP'S are supposed to be protected at all times.A social secretary is not the person in charge of protection. She probably should have had someone at the first check point,but remember the guest list was at the first check point.The funky Salahis got away with it this time. But you can bet they will be off the a-list for a whole lot of social elites. Because they consider it in very poor taste to show up to a social event uninvited.And as for the general public we will be pointing and laughing at them for months to come. Sometimes public humiliation is better than trumped up charges. love and peace to DU

[beyond cynical]

20. On paid leave...

and no one who works for the government is ever fired.

[Paladin]

25. Enjoy Your Stay Here At DU. (n/t)

[beyond cynical]

27. Please forgive me if I offended you.

I assume you have no issues with bungling and incompetent government workers who are never held accountable for their actions.

[Paladin]

30. Check Your Calendar. Ronald Reagan Isn't President Any More.

The kind of simplistic government bashing that you're spewing here went out of style years ago, unless you're a brain-dead Sean Hannity acolyte.

For the record, I think this trespass incident was extremely serious, and I think it proper that disciplinary measures have been taken. But if you want to use these circumstances to spew a bunch of anti-government hatred, I suggest you take it to a forum where it will be appreciated. God help us, there is no shortage of such venues.....

[beyond cynical]

33. Hatred...? LOL...!

You are serious, aren't you? You are too funny... :hi:

Actually, I don't know why everyone is making such a big deal out of this.

What needs to be done is this:

1. Find out who is responsible.
2. Fire them.

But, as I pointed out in my previous post--government workers do not get fired. Therefore, quite a few incompetent people work for the government. That is not hatred, that is merely stating the obvious.

[beyond cynical]

26. Self Delete

[raccoon]

23. Somebody's ass should be fired. nt