Friday, February 03, 2017 12:46:23 AM
Trump’s Private Security Force: an Operational and Legal Swamp
Manuel Madrid
January 20, 2017
Trump's precendent-breaking decision to retain a private security force raises troubling questions about transparency and accountability.
AP Photo/Gerald Herbert
Security personnel surround Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump as he
greets supporters after speaking at a campaign event in Tampa, Florida.
[...]
The retention of a private force, in any form, raises several operational and legal issues. A private security and intelligence force would not have to abide by the constraints and obligations of the Secret Service. There would be no transparency in how they were vetted, and there would be no committee overseeing them. If both Secret Service personnel and private bodyguards found themselves protecting the president at events outside the White House, it’s not clear how would they coordinate.
According to my sources, no previous president or president-elect has ever had private security. The last time a president tried to have a private, parallel intelligence staff was the case of Nixon’s plumbers. That did not end well. It was a major element in Nixon’s impeachment.
“The idea of Trump keeping his own private security force in some form, while being President, is both unprecedented and a bad idea,” says Peter Singer of the New America Foundation. Singer, who’s written extensively on privatization of national security functions, thinks a private force could be potentially used to bypass institutional and legal constraints. “These roles are best performed by law enforcement professionals responsible to the public and under public oversight.”
[...]
The problem of a private security and intelligence force does not end with potential operational interference. It could also be illegal. If President Trump pays for his own private security force after being inaugurated, he would be in violation of a provision of the Antideficiency Act, according to UCLA Law Professor Jon Michaels. “If Trump is paying for them [private security] out of his own pocket, or via third-party, and Congress hasn’t explicitly approved of it, it’s outside of appropriations and illegal,” says Michaels.
The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal employees from “accepting voluntary services for the United States, or employing personal services not authorized by law, except in cases of emergency involving the safety of human life or the protection of property."
“The only question would be whether they [private security force] are providing a service for the United States or whether he [Trump] can claim they are just a personal service,” explains Georgetown Law Professor David Super. A personal service would be something like the president hiring a bartender or getting a haircut—not exactly on the national agenda. The protection of the president, however, is a different story. “The safety of the president is a national priority and has been accepted as a function of the United States government,” Super says.
The statute goes on to say that ongoing government activities cannot be considered emergencies. What’s more, to claim that there was an emergency requiring private security would first require proof that the Secret Service is not up to the task.
According to Super, even if private security is only throwing protesters out, that’s still duplicating the function of the Secret Service, and as such, would need to be approved by Congress. “Protesters aren’t protesting Trump on just a personal level, they’re protesting him in his role as president. Just because private security is throwing out people that the Secret Service allowed to stay doesn’t mean that they’re not duplicating the function of the Secret Service,” Super says. “The only difference is their discretion in danger assessment.”
A potential violation of the Antideficiency Act might get lost in the tempest of recent Trump scandals, but it’s worth keeping an eye on.
[...]
There are two likely outcomes. Trump’s private bodyguards reporting to Schiller could remain disarmed and become part of the paid White House staff. Alternatively, Trump may insist on keeping a paid private security force for outside events; and, as Clancy has broadly hinted, the Secret Service will try to accommodate Trump to avoid a showdown between the legal presidential bodyguards of the Service and Trump’s private force. If this is the path Trump chooses, the illegality will become one more count in the Trump dossier.
http://prospect.org/article/trump%E2%80%99s-private-security-force-operational-and-legal-swamp
Manuel Madrid
January 20, 2017
Trump's precendent-breaking decision to retain a private security force raises troubling questions about transparency and accountability.
AP Photo/Gerald Herbert
Security personnel surround Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump as he
greets supporters after speaking at a campaign event in Tampa, Florida.
[...]
The retention of a private force, in any form, raises several operational and legal issues. A private security and intelligence force would not have to abide by the constraints and obligations of the Secret Service. There would be no transparency in how they were vetted, and there would be no committee overseeing them. If both Secret Service personnel and private bodyguards found themselves protecting the president at events outside the White House, it’s not clear how would they coordinate.
According to my sources, no previous president or president-elect has ever had private security. The last time a president tried to have a private, parallel intelligence staff was the case of Nixon’s plumbers. That did not end well. It was a major element in Nixon’s impeachment.
“The idea of Trump keeping his own private security force in some form, while being President, is both unprecedented and a bad idea,” says Peter Singer of the New America Foundation. Singer, who’s written extensively on privatization of national security functions, thinks a private force could be potentially used to bypass institutional and legal constraints. “These roles are best performed by law enforcement professionals responsible to the public and under public oversight.”
[...]
The problem of a private security and intelligence force does not end with potential operational interference. It could also be illegal. If President Trump pays for his own private security force after being inaugurated, he would be in violation of a provision of the Antideficiency Act, according to UCLA Law Professor Jon Michaels. “If Trump is paying for them [private security] out of his own pocket, or via third-party, and Congress hasn’t explicitly approved of it, it’s outside of appropriations and illegal,” says Michaels.
The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal employees from “accepting voluntary services for the United States, or employing personal services not authorized by law, except in cases of emergency involving the safety of human life or the protection of property."
“The only question would be whether they [private security force] are providing a service for the United States or whether he [Trump] can claim they are just a personal service,” explains Georgetown Law Professor David Super. A personal service would be something like the president hiring a bartender or getting a haircut—not exactly on the national agenda. The protection of the president, however, is a different story. “The safety of the president is a national priority and has been accepted as a function of the United States government,” Super says.
The statute goes on to say that ongoing government activities cannot be considered emergencies. What’s more, to claim that there was an emergency requiring private security would first require proof that the Secret Service is not up to the task.
According to Super, even if private security is only throwing protesters out, that’s still duplicating the function of the Secret Service, and as such, would need to be approved by Congress. “Protesters aren’t protesting Trump on just a personal level, they’re protesting him in his role as president. Just because private security is throwing out people that the Secret Service allowed to stay doesn’t mean that they’re not duplicating the function of the Secret Service,” Super says. “The only difference is their discretion in danger assessment.”
A potential violation of the Antideficiency Act might get lost in the tempest of recent Trump scandals, but it’s worth keeping an eye on.
[...]
There are two likely outcomes. Trump’s private bodyguards reporting to Schiller could remain disarmed and become part of the paid White House staff. Alternatively, Trump may insist on keeping a paid private security force for outside events; and, as Clancy has broadly hinted, the Secret Service will try to accommodate Trump to avoid a showdown between the legal presidential bodyguards of the Service and Trump’s private force. If this is the path Trump chooses, the illegality will become one more count in the Trump dossier.
http://prospect.org/article/trump%E2%80%99s-private-security-force-operational-and-legal-swamp
It was Plato who said, “He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing”
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
