nice abuse of power by the first lady

[Fashion Lad!]

No way they'd be taking my phone. I don't care, secret service or not. At worst, I'd leave with my phone in hand.

[Arcade Man D]

story here

Michelle Obama had the secret service confiscate the cell phones of the patrons in a restaurant she went to, "so her picture wouldn't be taken".

I'm sorry but that falls under illegal search and seizure unless they had warrants-i don't care who you are you do not get to take my personal property without a warrant.

She also sent 3 agents to the kitchen to ensure her burger was "properly cooked"-great nice violation of health codes on top of it.

No offense, BlaqueKatt, but the New York Post isn't news. It's 95% made up crap, and 5% Sports pages.

[Gravekeeper]

Yeah, that's the only article that mentions phone confiscation.

The Post and the NY Times both ironically say everyone was snapping photos like crazy, ehe.

[gremcint]

I'm not commenting on the cell phone thing especially now that it has become rather questionable as to whether it's true or not but as for the kitchen thing.

IT is the secret service's responsibility to protect government officials and their immediate family. That includes making sure they aren't poisoned by some member of the kitchen staff that doesn't like them so you know what they SHOULD go in the kitchen and watch the food.

She's just a regular person that happens to be married to the POTUS.

I'm sorry but you are wrong. First and foremost she is elected just as much as her husband, she scrutinized by the media and part of the good majority of the campaign. Palin's daughter affected her election chances. So the candidate's family has impact on whether or not the candidate is elected. She has to maintain just as much of a perfect appearance during that time as her husband. So she is just as much part of the candidacy as her husband was. And she is expected to represent her country at many important political functions. She doesn't just happen to be married to the POTUS she helped it happen.

Next she has the most influence with her husband than anybody else probably, any sort of leverage on her is going to affect the President. If something were to happen to her or the kids for that matter would the president be able to do his job to the best of his ability, can you be sure he is approaching situations with the proper objectivity when some terrorist may be holding his wife hostage. So again she's important and should be protected even if just for the sake of the president.

Further being the President isn't an easy job if you want to do a good job. In fact it's probably one of the most time consuming and stressful jobs ever. This person has not only said he is willing to do the job but put himself in harms way (the president is a target and there are wackos on every side of the fence) and even says he will put up with watching his name be dragged through the mud for the rest of his life (we still make fun of people who aren't president anymore). He has to live with the knowledge that one mistake could seriously damage the country to a point that could take years to recover. Add in on top of that, that his family now will have to go through all of the same things and you're saying they shouldn't have bodyguards? you're saying they shouldn't be protected? IF they weren't protected and were made to live elsewhere (they would have too to not be protected) then on top of everything else he would be fearing for the safety of his family every waking moment, which he probably does already to some extent but that would severely hamper his judgement.

So I'm sorry but the family of the president is not just a regular person that happens to be related, they are in fact almost as important as the preseident himself.

[Tanasi]

I'm not commenting on the cell phone thing especially now that it has become rather questionable as to whether it's true or not but as for the kitchen thing.

IT is the secret service's responsibility to protect government officials and their immediate family. That includes making sure they aren't poisoned by some member of the kitchen staff that doesn't like them so you know what they SHOULD go in the kitchen and watch the food.



I'm sorry but you are wrong. First and foremost she is elected just as much as her husband, she scrutinized by the media and part of the good majority of the campaign. Palin's daughter affected her election chances. So the candidate's family has impact on whether or not the candidate is elected. She has to maintain just as much of a perfect appearance during that time as her husband. So she is just as much part of the candidacy as her husband was. And she is expected to represent her country at many important political functions. She doesn't just happen to be married to the POTUS she helped it happen.

Next she has the most influence with her husband than anybody else probably, any sort of leverage on her is going to affect the President. If something were to happen to her or the kids for that matter would the president be able to do his job to the best of his ability, can you be sure he is approaching situations with the proper objectivity when some terrorist may be holding his wife hostage. So again she's important and should be protected even if just for the sake of the president.

Further being the President isn't an easy job if you want to do a good job. In fact it's probably one of the most time consuming and stressful jobs ever. This person has not only said he is willing to do the job but put himself in harms way (the president is a target and there are wackos on every side of the fence) and even says he will put up with watching his name be dragged through the mud for the rest of his life (we still make fun of people who aren't president anymore). He has to live with the knowledge that one mistake could seriously damage the country to a point that could take years to recover. Add in on top of that, that his family now will have to go through all of the same things and you're saying they shouldn't have bodyguards? you're saying they shouldn't be protected? IF they weren't protected and were made to live elsewhere (they would have too to not be protected) then on top of everything else he would be fearing for the safety of his family every waking moment, which he probably does already to some extent but that would severely hamper his judgement.

So I'm sorry but the family of the president is not just a regular person that happens to be related, they are in fact almost as important as the preseident himself.

Actually you are wrong. In the grand scheme of things she no more standing under the Constitution than your or I. FLOTUS isn't mentioned in the Constitution therefore has no offical role.
Neither her, POTUS, or anyone else has the right to confiscate your personal property for any reason unless they have a warrent signed by a judge in good standing otherwise it's a violation of your 4th amendment rights. If one should ask for my phone or whatever property I have I'm going to tell them to buzz off.

[DesignFox]

I think the point, Tanasi, is that the information is inconsistent.

One article suggests that the phones were confiscated, the other article states the exact opposite.

gremcint was simply pointing out- and I happen to agree- the the secret service people were in the kitchen to make sure their food wasn't tampered with. Being the president's wife and kids and all, they do require added protection. Some scumpile might consider poisoning their food or trying to harm them some other way, so security must be in place. I don't care what the constitution says, I want my president focused on his work and not flipping a shit worrying about his family.

I happen to agree that they have no right to confiscate people's cell phones. But there is no proof that that actually happened. Since I have heard nothing more about the incident, and since article #2 clearly states that people were snapping away while the first lady and children sat and smiled, I'm gonna go with "it didn't"

[gremcint]

Actually you are wrong. In the grand scheme of things she no more standing under the Constitution than your or I. FLOTUS isn't mentioned in the Constitution therefore has no offical role.

so what? I didn't even mention the constitution, people can be important and need protection without being mentioned in the constitution.

Neither her, POTUS, or anyone else has the right to confiscate your personal property for any reason unless they have a warrent signed by a judge in good standing otherwise it's a violation of your 4th amendment rights. If one should ask for my phone or whatever property I have I'm going to tell them to buzz off.

not only did I not say that they have that power but I specifically said I wasn't commenting on the cellphones at all.

[Tanasi]

I think the point, Tanasi, is that the information is inconsistent.

One article suggests that the phones were confiscated, the other article states the exact opposite.

gremcint was simply pointing out- and I happen to agree- the the secret service people were in the kitchen to make sure their food wasn't tampered with. Being the president's wife and kids and all, they do require added protection. Some scumpile might consider poisoning their food or trying to harm them some other way, so security must be in place. I don't care what the constitution says, I want my president focused on his work and not flipping a shit worrying about his family.

I happen to agree that they have no right to confiscate people's cell phones. But there is no proof that that actually happened. Since I have heard nothing more about the incident, and since article #2 clearly states that people were snapping away while the first lady and children sat and smiled, I'm gonna go with "it didn't"

I do agree that FLOTUS and children deserve and need protection, I would hate for anything to happen to those precious children. That being said if I was the owner and didn't want the SS goons in my kitchen I would put them out and if they didn't like that then I'd put them out of my place of business. Regardless of who they are they have no right to go where they want when they want without a warrent signed by a judge or have probable cause.
Now I would let them come back the first time but afterwords I'd tell them don't expect such treatment in the future afterall it's rude in the least. My point is they or anyone else is no better than you, gremcint, or me, they have no right to assume they can do something they need to ask and be polite afterall the same would be expect or us should were invited to the White House.

so what? I didn't even mention the constitution, people can be important and need protection without being mentioned in the constitution.

not only did I not say that they have that power but I specifically said I wasn't commenting on the cellphones at all.

I was under the impression that we were discussing the whole OP and not just pieces and parts. As I previously said they do need protection but they ought not expect everyone to be so accomidating afterall with the Obama's being Christians I would expect they know what and live by the Golden Rule.

[DesignFox]

But we don't know that the secret service *wasn't* polite about having to enter the kitchen.

If they weren't polite, the business could ask the first family not to return. However, I'm sure that the kitchen staff probably had no qualms considering the circumstances, and I can't imagine any sane business owner turning away the First Family! The publicity, etc. must be great.

This is the family of a world leader we are discussing, not just anybody, and not just any celebrity for that matter! From the images/info presented in the second article, it seems like everything went smoothly.

[gremcint]

I'm going to be rather blunt throughout this post to be very clear.

I was under the impression that we were discussing the whole OP and not just pieces and parts. As I previously said they do need protection but they ought not expect everyone to be so accomidating afterall with the Obama's being Christians I would expect they know what and live by the Golden Rule.

I would direct your attention to:

I'm not commenting on the cell phone thing especially now that it has become rather questionable as to whether it's true or not but as for the kitchen thing.

Next I said an arguement that I summarize right now rather than quote the whole the whole post, but I would advise you go back and read it.

Basically The First Lady deserves protection because she is important to the president and the country for many reasons.

then you reply with:

Actually you are wrong. In the grand scheme of things she no more standing under the Constitution than your or I. FLOTUS isn't mentioned in the Constitution therefore has no offical role.
Neither her, POTUS, or anyone else has the right to confiscate your personal property for any reason unless they have a warrent signed by a judge in good standing otherwise it's a violation of your 4th amendment rights. If one should ask for my phone or whatever property I have I'm going to tell them to buzz off.

I will now summarize how this reads: you (me) are wrong. (means my point is wrong so you are saying that she doesn't deserve protection). She is not mentioned in the constitution and therefore is unimportant. Also I (you) will try to back up my arguement by bringing in something you (me) specifically said you weren't talking about (the cellphones).

Then I reply

so what? I didn't even mention the constitution, people can be important and need protection without being mentioned in the constitution.

not only did I not say that they have that power but I specifically said I wasn't commenting on the cellphones at all.

and I would like to add, she does too have more standing under the constitution than me as I am Canadian.


Then you write this:

I do agree that FLOTUS and children deserve and need protection, I would hate for anything to happen to those precious children.

so basically you say I'm wrong when I say that she should be protected and then turn around and say she should be?

So all of this makes me ask: did you actually read my posts or just read a sentence or two and fill in the rest in your head?


Now that I've finished that there a few things I'd like to say in regards to the discussion.

But we don't know that the secret service *wasn't* polite about having to enter the kitchen.

absolutely true.
So let me summarise: we don't know the secret service was rude, the cell phone confiscation sounds really fake (and in my opinion was bull), and The US lives by innocent until proven guilty. So therefore unless proof is offered to the contrary nobody actually did anything wrong as far as I am concerned.


Now you keep mentioning the constitution. True that she is not mentioned by know what? neither is the secret service, and neither is how the president is to be protected. The secret service did not even exist until 1865.

now if you read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Secret_Service

you'll notice this interesting passage:

The U.S. Secret Service has two distinct areas of responsibility:

Treasury roles, covering missions such as prevention and investigation of counterfeiting of U.S. currency and U.S. treasury bonds notes and investigation of major fraud.

Protective roles, ensuring the safety of national VIPs such as the President, past presidents, vice presidents, presidential candidates, their families, foreign embassies (per an agreement with the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) Office of Foreign Missions (OFM)), etc.[3]

So it is the duty of the Secret Service to protect her and they were doing that and didn't violate anyone's rights.

Edit: almost forgot this little gem:

Obama's being Christians I would expect they know what and live by the Golden Rule.

What does even have to do with anything? honestly there are things that I could say here but they would be an entirely different fratching thread.