Jack Douglas of the Star-Telegram has a follow up to his original story about the halting of weapons screening at an Obama rally in Dallas this week. Readers have flooded the comments of the original article with stories of equally lax security at other Obama events (a few are below the fold).
It takes a lot to get the Secret Service to respond. Based on this statement, someone is not telling the truth, as the USSS challenges the veracity of the Dallas law enforcement’s observations reported in the Star-Telegram. Is this a satisfactory explanation? (UPI):
The U.S. Secret Service Friday denied reports that security measures at a recent Barack Obama rally in Texas were relaxed or deviated from established plans.More below the fold.Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren said there was no order from the Secret Service to stop screening people going to the Obama rally Wednesday at Dallas’s Reunion Arena. He said that the event’s security plans didn’t involve having each participant pass through a magnetometer, as may be the case at other events.
The Fort Worth (Texas) Star-Telegram reported that some police at the event expressed concern about people not passing through metal detectors.
“Any allegations to the fact that we had suspended screening or deviated from the original security plan would be entirely inaccurate,” Zahren said.
Of course this doesn’t address all of the stories about other venues where little or no screening occurred. Here’s one email I received today, it’s not unlike like some of the accounts reported by other folks in the DKos thread on this topic.Obama, D-Ill., spoke before some 17,000 supporters at the rally ahead of the March 4 primary election in Texas. There were no security-related incidents.
While stressing that security preparations are different for each venue and event, Zahren said officials were happy with the security plan for the rally at Reunion Arena and the way it was implemented.
Limited use of metal detectors “in no way constituted a security lapse at this venue,” Zahren said, adding that the security measures were developed with Dallas-area law enforcement personnel.
I’ve been reading your coverage of the Obama speech the Dallas, where they stopped checking the attendees for weapons. Earlier this month, Obama gave a speech at Boise State University. My girlfriend and I waited in line for more than two hours to get in and there were 14,000 people there for a 13,000 seat facility. I don’t know if they stopped checking people because of the line, or if there was any checking in the first place. There were no metal detectors that I could see and, while no one was allowed to bring drinks in, that was the extent of the security checking.Some of the comments flooding in on the original Star-Telegram article about lax security…What makes this even more unusual is about a year before, I had gone to see Jesse Jackson at the same venue. There were metal detectors, dogs sniffing people, and everyone’s purses or bags were searched. Thank you for covering this important story.
* The same thing happened at the speech in Virginia Beach, where we had 18,000 people. I was pretty surprised when they stopped screening and opened all the doors, and even if it’s a “friendly” crowd, it only takes one to cause a disaster.
* I went to Obama’s rally in St. Louis. We were just allowed into the arena. Our bags weren’t checked nor were metal detectors used. There were over 20,000 at that rally.
* The same thing happened in Green Bay, WI at the Kress Center on February 15. People were just waved through to the auditorium during the last 15-20 minutes - No visual checks whatsoever or passing through a metal detector. The goal was to start on time apparently, which the rally did.
* This is exactly what happened in NYC last fall when Obama made an appearance in Washington Square Park. They screened people with metal detectors for the first two hours, but when it became apparent that most of the crowd would not make it in for several more hours they just let everybody flood the park with no screening.
* When Hillary Clinton gave a speech in Salinas, CA the police did not scan either. There was an obvious S/S presence but it was all very casual. A local DNC woman just had the few of us at the door fill out a donation form. Then right in we went.
* Sam[e] thing happened in Houston. A friend and I arrived about 30 minutes before he spoke and walked right through the font doors of the Toyota Center without going through any medal detectors, wands, etc. Rediculous that the security is so weak and that our law enforcement is not taking the necessary steps to protect against anyone wishing to do him harm or wishing to do harm to the thousands that show up at these events to support him.
* The same thing happened at the Obama rally that I attended in San Francisco. We waited in line for hours and then suddenly the speed of the line picked way up and we walked right through the metal detectors which had been turned off. I would’ve much rather gotten into the rally late than had the individual who I hope will be the next President of the US endangered by “expediency” efforts.
* The same thing happened at the outdoor Wilmington, Delaware rally I attended.
Over 12,000 folks showed at that one. It appeared the officers were overwhelmed with having to check so many people. What I really found interesting were the snipers and scouts on the roof of the old courthouse. I noticed two of them captivated by Obama’s speech and simply put their binoculars down. I remember praying, please don’t let anything happen.* This happened in Kansas City, Missouri, too, but only a few people - perhaps 100 or so - got in without being screened, including me. The few they let in without screening were among the last to be let in after metal detectors had been taken down, when they initially determined that the venue was full. Officials opened about a few more spots and we got in without any check at all.
26 Responses to “Secret Service responds to charges of lax screening at Dallas Obama rally”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I’m caught between being appalled at the lack of security vs. expediency and being appalled that Americans take metal detectors and screenings at large events as common and expected.
Brian Williams quickly asked someone about this just a few minutes ago on NBC Nightly News and the person pretty much said it was a non-event… (will check later on their site for more real info and not just anecdotal)
But checking CNN, FOX, etc online- NO MENTION.
Caren, my first thought was, “I get more thoroughly searched at an NHL game than that.” Didn’t even occur to me how odd it is that I get searched to enter an arena. It’s just become such a part of going to an event. Even when I go to a rally on the National Mall, there are now guards at the entrances from the street to the Mall, which is kind of stupid, because a smart criminal would know the places that are not guarded. It’s too big of an open area to guard it all. I’m not thinking from a criminal perspective, just someone who used to work in that neighborhood. I just they just weed out stupid criminals?
Shorter Secret Service: We have plans, we like our plans, and, oh, if youse gots a gun just turn up near the end of the line and be right friendly and all.
I wonder how many bloggers will sneak in with a phony weapon and blog about it now?
I cannot speak to the events mentioned above.
I sang at a fundraising event ($125/person IIRC) in the late 1990s where HRC spoke to specifically women at the Philadelphia Art Museum. I arrived at the venue early, and watched (and tried not to be obvious about it) what could only have been a security briefing taking place about 90 minutes before the event was to start; about 25 women, all of whom were carrying large purses, bags or briefcases of one sort or another. What finally clued me in was one woman carrying an oversized Strawbridge’s bag; by that time Strawbridge’s was no more.
The total present for the event had to be less than 500, and again, everyone paid to get in to what was an after-hours event. When HRC arrived, she came with obvious secret service personnel (suits and earpieces) in close proximity to her, but no more than 5 that I remember. It was interesting to watch the flow of people throughout that night as I recognized women who had been at the briefing that afternoon.
just because there is no visible security at the events listed above does not mean it was not present.
I’m seriously worry that Obama would be assassinated, /seriously/.
I mean, it’s an unpleasant truth, but America has a history of assassination, even John Lennon was killed by an American.
Since security will NOT be protecting Obama, the man need to wear a bulletproof vest, have his /own/ security details keep a look out, and maybe bulletproof the stand he speaks behind so he can duck under it if needed. Had I been Bhutto, I would have done that, and add a helmet beneath the headscarf because better safe than sorry.
Oddly, I think part of the problem here is that the Secret Service is no longer used to having to deal with large crowds of unscreened people.
Think about it: how long has it been since Dubya went to any event where the entire crowd was not pre-screened? Cheney doesn’t even appear in public at all.
Now they’re having to deal with large groups of enthusiastic people who actually want to see Obama or Clinton speak and they don’t remember what to do.
Not that mere incompetence will be much of an excuse if some asshole does sneak in with a rifle.
A friend of mine works for the Secret Service and has covered Obama. He reports that Obama gets near-daily threats, far higher than the typical candidate running for public office. McCain was offered SS protection and turned it down, which my friend did not think wise.
To me the Secret Service has always been highly regarded. I know they take threats to those they protect seriously. If they are being lax in their coverage of Obama that is very discouraging and of great concern.
I am trying to remember the 2004 election. Kerry held a rally in Civic Center Park here in Denver. I do not believe I had to go through a metal detector. I walked up to the park from the south and remember having to walk around to the north side for the entrance. They had a line and barricades up to direct foot traffic but I do not think they had metal detectors (I could be wrong). I remember looking at the roofs of the art museum, library, and city/county building and seeing the sharpshooters.
Metal detectors are only one level of defense to the USSS. As Cowboy Diva said just because there is no visible security at the events listed above does not mean it was not present. At any of these events they have their eyes on you. The invisible security is usually more effective than the visible. A metal detector might stop the clown who woke up in a bad mood and decided to make the headlines. The throngs of agents seeded throughout the crowd will stop the more serious threats.
Unless this is all drastically different from the security HRC and JM recieve I wouldn’t get to worried.
At tonight’s Obama rally here in Austin, security seemed reasonably thorough. TSA did the checking, and it was a bit like pre-flight screening. They used hand-held metal detectors and required everyone to show that their electronics worked. It did make for a slow process.
Amanda, did you get to go?
Back in 1992, when I attended a Clinton rally in Milwaukee, the security was similarly lax.
Now, admittedly, this was a decade and a half ago, and there weren’t the same concerns about safety as there should be with regard to the Obama campaign, but the Secret Service being less vigilant when it comes to candidates’ safety as compared to Presidential safety is hardly new.
TSA did the checking
Okay now I am concerned. TSA? Lowpaid rent-a-cops. The professionals at USSS I can trust. The part-timers at TSA will likely be selling French Fries next week.
I was listening to the radio the other day and the “question of the day” was about who you were going to vote for and why. I’m in Ohio, so we haven’t done primaries yet. Anyway, some woman called in and said that she was going to vote for McCain. She went on to say that although she did not like McCain, she liked Clinton far less. She did not feel that Clinton would be a good president because she will have to deal with nations whose leaders do not believe that women should be in positions of power. According to the caller, this means that countries in the middle east will be in full-out war mode and America will not be able to lessen the problem because their leaders will refuse to meet with Clinton. Which will cause a world war.
And although she liked Obama, she would not be voting for him. She said that if he wins the election, he will be probably be assassinated by racists. She said that if this were to happen, then the country would be thrown into an uproar and there would be a civil war. And if America turns against itself, it wouldn’t be long before other countries start fighting and trying to take each other over without America to step in. Which will cause a world war.
So this caller felt that McCain, by sole virtue of being an old white dude like all the other old white dudes we’ve had and thus non-threatening to hate-filled people, would promote world peace and an end of war. McCain for world peace. The same dude who thinks we should stay in Iraq for another
fiftyhundredthousandten thousand years, would promote world peace.re:
Her words crossed my mind, often, in your American politics, and in my Canadian politics…but then I remember history.
A lot of people wanted Empress Zetian and Queen Elizabeth I dead, a lot of people were resistant of their leadership…but they dealt with it. /This/ is a fight that has to be fought.
…and I remember the grandest Prime Minister that Canada has ever had;
“In Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Canada has at last produced a political leader worthy of assassination.” - Irving Layton
The danger was always there, PET could have been killed the way JFK was, and we got lucky. …but this is the gamble that must be made, at worse, with JFK, America lost that progress, but recovered. At BEST, what we must move towards, PET moved Canada forward.
Assassination (along with the history of an entire country being overtaken once the federal government has been stormed), is a great argument for decentralization of /authority/ and power, it’s not not pulling FEMA out…but step by careful step, enable every individual to care better for him or herself, to be more active in his and her governance. Alan Moore’s idea of ‘anarchy’ as presented by the man in room 5; Not without order, but with out leader.
Leadership is necessary, but leaders should be disposable in that they must plan for what happens should they be taken out of the picture so that the country’s lifeline isn’t tied to their one vulnerable lifeline.
Original Security Plan
Let the wacko get Obama.
One thing to consider is that a public venue is a terrible place to attempt an assassination. There are too many things that can go wrong.
What scares the hell out of security officials is those times when the person being protected is going to shake hands and such… that’s when some loon with a gun or knife could do some real damage.
It wouldn’t surprise me (NB: I’m not a security expert) if the heavy screening wasn’t mostly for show, or a CYA attempt. Even if it was “real”, it could well be that it’s mostly intended for the first part of the crowd anyway… the people who will be close enough that they could fire a handgun and have a chance of hitting.
(Given the circumstances - crowded venue, security guards present - “close enough” is probably a lot closer than most folks would think.)
Yeah, the security when he spoke in Madison, WI (on 12 Feb) was atrocious. No metal detectors at all, and only the most cursory of visual inspections.
As for the people who are appalled by our unblinking acceptance of metal detectors and security screening–are you serious? This is a country, you will recall, where public slaughtering of black people has occurred within living memory. To think that we don’t need to be on the lookout for armed nuts around a serious black contender for the Presidency is insanity.
At least that’s my take on it.
…and four out of forty three presidents had been whacked within just two hundred years. Why can’t Americans stick to pies?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entartistes
- Stats
Two words: Benazir Bhutto
Isn’t this how the assassins got her? The security people packed up and left early, letting some fanatics get close enough to rid President Musharif of an irritant?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23310295/
RIP, Ms Carr…
k, my trolly comment for the year - Obama is not BLACK. he is, i grant, a very attractive shade of brown. my boyfriend is a darker shade of brown. i have NEVER met a BLACK person, just shades of brown… and the only WHITE person i have me was an albino. (well, sorta. he was born”black” but had the whatever-it-is the african’s get where they lose their pigmintation…)
it’s just such a fucking stupid thing to worry about! who the hell CARES what “color” someone is?!?!?! all blood is the same color.
k, sorry, i just don’t get it.
and, from what i remember reading, the SS doesn’t even START to take the job seriously until A)at LEAST the primary is passed (and maybe not then) or B) person has one the election or C) there has been an actual attempt on a cadidates life.
and… well, i hate to say it… but the fact that is that Obama KNEW what he was getting into. i am not blaming the victim here, i am trying to praise his courage. he will have a much physically riskier time the HRC (women are less likely to be assassinated. its one of the few forms of violent death where thats true, but it IS true.) i actually think it was my realizing that he was knowing taking all the extra risk, beyond the high-profile risk any candidate takes, that finally finished swaying me to his camp.
we need more people who are willing to die to affect the changes the country need. we don’t need the DEATH, just the willingness
Much as I would prefer to believe in the Secret Service’s professionalism and sense of mission, the fact is, for the last 7 years, the Bush Administration has politicized and/or hollowed-out every American resource it could get its greasy palms on, and there’s no reason to believe that most of the normal people in the Secret Service haven’t been chased off and replaced by ‘winger nutcases.
He said that the event’s security plans didn’t involve having each participant pass through a magnetometer, as may be the case at other events.
Yeah, well screening the first half of the crowd ain’t exactly the same thing as every other person or random checks.
That’s a bullshit explanation.
denelian: loss of pigmentation is vitiligo, and it doesn’t just affect “africans”. “Black” is an acceptable way of describing people of African decent. All the people I know of that heritage call themselves black, including my dark, Nigerian husband. It’s an easy of distinguising between people of African decent and all the other “brown” people of the world, of which there are many ethnicities.
I have a minor beef with how Obama is consistantly called black because it leaves out the other side of his heritage. I would prefer he is called bi-racial, and that’s how I would like my future children to be seen, but I don’t get the feeling society is ready to do that.
Hmmm, I seem to recall not too long ago that wearing the wrong t-shirt or having the wrong sticker on your auto were grounds for arrest at Bush/Cheney rallies. Methinks this dost stinke
I wrote an email to Kevlar and Armani. I asked if they would collaborate on a suit for President Obama.
Who knows…they might just say, “YES, WE CAN!!”