Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Obama signs law giving himself, Bush, Others lifetime Secret Service guard. [View all]Blasphemer
(3,261 posts)50. It never should have been changed
The Nixon example shows that former POTUS can opt out if he or she chooses but it should always be available to them. Some may need lifetime protection less than others but it's impossible to predict the future events that would impact the necessity of this protection. Both Bush and Obama are examples of Presidents who will need protection beyond the 10 year point. They both are/will be high profile targets for international and domestic terrorists.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
54 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Obama signs law giving himself, Bush, Others lifetime Secret Service guard. [View all]
JaneyVee
Jan 2013
OP
i think this is a good thing. i was worried about what would happen because of this 10 year rule
samsingh
Jan 2013
#1
They did, it got turned off during the Clinton administration, and now it's back on.
jeff47
Jan 2013
#10
Whaa whaa whaaaaaaaa? What other president has ever had to give up Secret Service protection?
EOTE
Jan 2013
#20
He didn't have to. He voluntarily gave it up so he could hire his own protection. NT
EOTE
Jan 2013
#34
That was my question, too--the only one I know who gave it up did it voluntarily.
MADem
Jan 2013
#38
If I read this correctly, all Presidents since 1901 have been afforded a lifetime off SS detail.
NCTraveler
Jan 2013
#46
How is this a bad thing? Deranged people have been trying to kill this black man ever since he
Liberal_Stalwart71
Jan 2013
#19
Those who believe this is a bad thing (at least at DU) are in a very small minority. NT
EOTE
Jan 2013
#22
I don't have a problem with this at all. I thought it was odd when they changed it. n/t
BeeBee
Jan 2013
#23
I thought they wanted to cut spending - they are already rich and can pay for their own
2Design
Jan 2013
#31
It's a new world, and I agree--we should "revert back" to providing lifetime security.
MADem
Jan 2013
#37
I think this is needed in today's world. I do not think the threats to him and others are going to
jwirr
Jan 2013
#43
I have no problem with this, regardless of which former president it happens to be n/t
markpkessinger
Jan 2013
#44
I imagine there is a lot of desk work involved, sorting the real threats from the blowhard threats.
hunter
Jan 2013
#45
HR347 makes it a federal crime to protest where secret service are present. No protesting Bush!
Fire Walk With Me
Jan 2013
#47
GOOD, I always felt this law was passed for the specific purpose of making it easier for
kestrel91316
Jan 2013
#51