Presidential Security

[QMCO5]

Every time I watch “No Compromises” I become even more incredulous at the naïve idealism that JMS puts in Sheridan’s mouth when he gives his little speech to his friends about not postponing the inauguration ceremony. Sheridan is the only President in history without a body guard, let alone a Secret Service. If Sheridan’s principle was followed in reality our country would probably go through the entire line of succession in a few months. Sheridan’s logic is based on the assumption that a lone gunman committed to giving his life is unstoppable, which is patently false. Conversely, Sheridan’s friends become fixated on the inauguration when in reality the assassination attempt could occur any time any place, thus making the issue a straw man type of argument. All of their reasons to postpone actually allude to this reality, which should have forced them to the conclusion of going ahead with the inauguration as scheduled, but provide around-the-clock security.

QMCO5

 

[RW7427]

Perhaps he should have called Ta'Lon to be his bodyguard or ask G'Kar if he would provide some of the local Narns as a security detail like they helped out with security after they broke away from Earth.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

There is nothing "patently false" about the notion that an assassin willing to trade his life for the target's - one who doesn't have to worry about escape - is probably impossible to stop. John Kennedy recognized this fact and commented on it in almost exactly those words on the morning of his own assassination. It is a fact that the Secret Service lives with as well. That's why they mostly concentrate on preventing dangerous types from getting too close to the President. Because they know that keeping him totally safe at public events simply isn't possible. The President cannot both be as accessible to the people as a politician needs to be in a representative government and be perfectly safe.

And Sheridan didn't lack security at his inaugural, nor did he refuse security. What he did is refuse to cancel a major public event in the face of a threat - which was excatly the right thing to do. Instead he trusted to the very extensive security that he did have -- including the regular station security, Garibaldi and probably a few Rangers in plain clothes. He trusted them to do their jobs and insisted on doing his own. Which was exactly the right thing to do in the circumstance.

Regards,

Joe

 

[deaded]

He trusted them to do their jobs and insisted on doing his own. Which was exactly the right thing to do in the circumstance.

Well not exactly. He needed a mute telepath kid to save him.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Well not exactly. He needed a mute telepath kid to save him.

You misunderstood what I was trying to say. It was the right thing to do whether or not he got killed - and that's what he understood. Running scared and showing weakness in the first public act of the new Alliance would have fatally compormised it. Allowing one nut who made a threat to dictate their actions would have shown the galaxy that they were anything but a force to be reckoned with. If Sheridan had been killed, Delenn would have taken his place and the Alliance would have moved foreward.

You can never base policy on keeping everyone perfectly safe at all times because that simply can't be done. The false expectation that it could or should be done is one of the things that gives terrorism its power against open societies. Terrorists try to bring down governments by delegitimizing them in the eyes of their people: "See, they can't even protect you when you walk down the street - why are you loyal to them?" The fact that nothing short of a police state ever could provide (almost) completle protection, like the fact that the terrorists would impose (or restore) such a government themselves, is left studiously unmentioned. It is also why (smart) governments do not pay ransom to rescue kidnapped citizens - because to do so merely establishes the market price for an American, or a Brit (oI Italian ) and encourages the next kidanpping.

This also gets to Jimmy Carter's fudamental mistake in the Iranian hostage crisis. He went on national television (carried into other countries, of course) and announced that his first responsibility was to the (then) eighty-some hostages. He not only announced it, he believed it. Someone should have explained to him that, as President in the United States, his first responsibility to was to the 250 or so other Americans - the ones who hadn't been taken hostage, and the country he led. His weak and vacillating approach did nothing to free the hostages, confirmed the rest of the world in their post-Vietnam judgment that the United States no longer had the will to protect its own interests, much less stand by its commitments to defend other nations. (The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a direct result of Carter's failed policy, and that, in turn, set a whole other set of dominoes in motion)

Again, it was a matter of doing the right thing, not the safe thing. Sheridan knew the difference and acted on it, even though it meant risking his personal safety. It was a variation on Sebastian's test - are you willing to die, in public, in the full glare of pubilicity if to do otherwise would undermine the thing you are trying to create?

Regards,

Joe

 

[QMCO5]

There is nothing "patently false" about the notion that an assassin willing to trade his life for the target's - one who doesn't have to worry about escape - is probably impossible to stop.... It is a fact that the Secret Service lives with as well. That's why they mostly concentrate on preventing dangerous types from getting too close to the President.

I believe you've accorded the assassin a degree of invincibility not true to history. The stated assumption is false for the very reason you give related to the preventative work done by security details provided to national leaders. Many assassins have succeeded, but many have also failed. Security and assassination attempts are never fool-proof. While Sheridan did not refuse security he did not seem concerned about whether he had it and that reaction certainly rankled his friends.

QMCO5

 

[Flounder]

The fact that nothing short of a police state ever could provide (almost) completle protection, like the fact that the terrorists would impose (or restore) such a government themselves, is left studiously unmentioned.

The Islamist extremists, and maybe the animal rights activists, yes. But other terrorists have other goals not involving a police state. Such as getting the central government to leave so that the rebels can ethnically cleanse a province.

From what I remember of the episode, it was a good plan to flush out the assassin in an environment that was as controlled as they could make it while at the same time not giving in to the threat. The thing that made it a bit hairy was the Narn that had his own beef with G'Kar.

 

[Elenopa]

From what I remember of the episode, it was a good plan to flush out the assassin in an environment that was as controlled as they could make it while at the same time not giving in to the threat. The thing that made it a bit hairy was the Narn that had his own beef with G'Kar.

That's from later in season five. Still about an assasin though.

 

[Flounder]

Sorry about my confusion.

Hm, now I have a reason to watch some more B5

 

[deaded]

Well not exactly. He needed a mute telepath kid to save him.

You misunderstood what I was trying to say. It was the right thing to do whether or not he got killed -

No, I understood. I was just pointing out a perfectly valid perspective that places value on Sheridan staying alive.

 

[KoshFan]

This could be another example of Sheridan's arrogance. He's come through so much, been to Z'ha'dum and back, survived the full fury of EarthForce, and now he's going to run and hide because of one nutcase?

Also bear in mind that they held the ceremony in the Sanctuary. Only one door, as far as I recall, and a whole slew of Rangers between that door and Sheridan. The StarFury attack was definitely unexpected, and of course the Sanctuary was vulnerable to that... but short of that, how precisely would the assassin have gotten in? A bomb planted earlier might have been the most likely threat, and if you tell me Garibaldi didn't check for that whether Sheridan wanted it or not, then you'd better go watch the show again.

 

[Galahad]

There is nothing "patently false" about the notion that an assassin willing to trade his life for the target's - one who doesn't have to worry about escape - is probably impossible to stop. John Kennedy recognized this fact and commented on it in almost exactly those words on the morning of his own assassination. It is a fact that the Secret Service lives with as well. That's why they mostly concentrate on preventing dangerous types from getting too close to the President. Because they know that keeping him totally safe at public events simply isn't possible. The President cannot both be as accessible to the people as a politician needs to be in a representative government and be perfectly safe.

Yup, just watch them try and prevent 1 million G8 debt relief/fair trade protesters from getting to Edinburgh. I actually think Bob Geldof sjould stuff the whole Edinburgh thing and urge everyone to go to Gleneagles. If he gets the million people he's hoping for, there probably isn't a security force in the world that could hold them back. They would be completely reliant on the goodwill of the protesters. I don't think there is anything wrong with intimidating politicians. As JMS has often said, they try to makes us believe the lie that as individuals we have very little power. My father is a man who believes you get to have your say every four years at the election; whereas I believe we have the right to hold our political leaders to account on every decision we feel strongly about... and should demonstrate this when it matters.

Regards

Nick

PS It's interesting don't you think, that politicians use similar justification to the vorlons for holding less developed nations back. When they are politically ready, we will allow debt relief/ fair trade, but they under corrupt leadership, so their people must suffer. It's a vicious circle if you ask me.

http://spaces.msn.com/members/nuclearbunker

 

[Flounder]

They should build a fake movie set Edinburgh that the tourists of destruction could raze to the ground and riot in, and leave the city alone.

When it comes to one million showing up -- aren't these "million mom" marches named just for publicity? There's hardly ever a million that actually take part in them, but they're called million marches.

I think that the vast majority of protesters showing up, wouldn't be the kind that want to storm the convention centers and kill the politicians. The few that do, can be stopped by police because there's so few of them. There are considerably more people who would take part in storming a meeting to stop the meeting though, so the safest option is to evacuate the meeting before the situation becomes dangerous.

I remember seeing video from a such a political meeting being stormed by protesters. First, the security thought they would create a ring of guards to hold the protesters back, but they then decided to rather let the rioters break in to the meeting hall, and evacuate the meeting. The protesters broke in and sat at the negotiation table and shook hands, pretended to have a debate and took pictures of themselves. No people were harmed, and there wasn't much property damage either. By the, way the meeting was related to the end of apartheid in South Africa, and the protesters storming the meeting were white supremacists, complete with three-legged swastika flags and everything.

Peaceful protest is a good thing, but if you gather a large crowd it could become a danger to itself and to its surroundings. I just hope that the regular people protesting will not abide by the masked vandals among them, and stop them themselves.

 

[hypatia]

They should build a fake movie set Edinburgh that the tourists of destruction could raze to the ground and riot in, and leave the city alone.

That describes a scene right out of the movie "Blazing Saddles".