Talk:Diplomatic Security Service/Archive 1

Archive 1

Courier, SEO, STS

I'd like to get your input in making some major changes to the DSS entry. DSS is composed of Special Agents, Diplomatic Couriers, Security Engineering Officers, Security Technical Specialists, and possibly (can anyone confirm?) Uniformed Security Officers. I suggest that most of this entry be expanded to include all roles of members of DSS and much of the information on this page be placed in its own entry for DSS Special Agent. Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkkv (talk • contribs) 16:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly there needs to be more information about SEOs and others. I will have to get an organization chart out to double check, because not all DS personnel are under the DSS. It may be that such information is better suited for the Bureau of DS article. Some DSS agents (a minority) are, in terms of how they exist in an office reporting structure, under DS and not under DSS. Yet these agents are still considered part of DSS (i.e. DSS agents). I think that the main information about DSS agents should always remain in the DSS article, and not under the Bureau of DS article. As for an expanded article just about DSS agents - I don't know. Are articles about SAs in other large Federal law enforcement agencies structrured the way you propose?Rockford1963 00:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not all DS employees are members of DSS, however the credentials issued to Couriers, SEO's, and STS's bear the DSS name, and the badges issued to Couriers and SEO's (STS's are not issued badges) have DSS imprinted around the center. As you pointed out, an SA assigned elsewhere on the org chart remain a part of DSS. Shouldn't the same standard apply to these others? Rkkv 02:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Expand the article, with subsections on SEOs, STSs, etc. However, a strong subsection on SA's should remain in this article.Rockford1963 12:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding this info here would only make the page inaccurate. DSS is only the agent portion of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. The couriers, for example, are part of the Diplomatic Courier Service which like DSS is a sub-unit of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (BDS). I haven't seen their badge/credentials before but if it actually says Diplomatic Security Service on it this probably has more to with convenience (templates already exist) than anything else. There is a badge that they use in their brochure but that may or may not be issued to them -Courier info. The badge in the brocure does not say Diplomatic Security Service. Sections on the couriers, SEOs etc. should be in the parent BDS article. A section could be created detailing the fact that everybody under the BDS umbrella just says that they work for DS (agents, SEOs, couriers etc) and the difference is technical and not normally acknowledged. If you want to mention the other groups here it should be to say that there is some mild resentment among the other members of the BDS over the fact that the agents generally run the show even though they are technically just a sub-unit. Agents can also generally rise higher within DOS than any of the other groups. Rsoandrew 06:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been searching for something official defining DSS, including who is (and is not) a member. You explanation doesn't make it clear to me that Agents are the only members off DSS. I am not clear why the word "Service" would infer that the other (non-agent) classifications wouldn't be included. I can't find any information on the subject beyond the official media issued by DSS. The DS training center issues these individuals shirts reading DSS at the beginning of their training programs. The definition of DSS seems to vary depending on who you ask. If you come across anything please link it up. Rkkv 20:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it seems more intuitive if you work here. The other issue is that nobody ever really refers to the Diplomatic Security Service (not as true since I was hired in '98, as we have more than doubled the number of DS agents). We all just say DS as in DS agents (see the discussion I tried to start below). Other non-DSS people refer to themselves as DS employees. Here's a link to a huge PDF from the Foreign Affairs Manual which is basically the Department of State's regulation book. Although the text of the reference describes the hierarchy, if you go to the last page of the PDF you will see an organizational chart for the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. Off to the left you will see the Diplomatic Security Service part of the organization. If you look down the center of the chart you will see the Office of Security Technology (DS/C/ST) the SEOs parent and the Diplomatic Courier Service (DS/C/DC) the couriers parent. To make matters slightly more confusing, many non-DSS offices have an agent assigned to the office as liaison or in a supervisory capacity. It’s only a one way street and part of the reason the Bureau of Diplomatic Security seems to be dominated by agents. As far as the use of the word "service." I've never heard an explanation but it is not too unusual for a federal law enforcement agency to have the word service in it. Secret Service and Marshalls Service jump immediately to mind.

Rsoandrew 13:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And to point out the obvious: The USSS and USMS also have non-agents working in various capacities for their organization. I don't think the articles for USSS and USMS talk too much about these support personnel or their functions. In any case the article on the Bureau of DS would be the best and logical choice for information on SEOs, STS's - at least on how they relate to and are part of the Bureau of DS. There probably deserves to be an article just on SEOs (or maybe ESOs?).Rockford1963 15:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think these are all relevant comments and observations. As you pointed out, the organization chart only adds to the confusion on the matter. I came across link which is worth a quick read, especially the last paragraph. While the primary focus of the DSS entry should be on the work performed by agents, I would like to see additions for the other DSS classes (assuming we can find more official word on the matter). Are there any contacts you have that could provide authoritative documentation? Rkkv 17:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The FAM is the most authoritative documentation around and I think it clearly delineates the organization. I think the organization chart is pretty clear; it is the non-standard implementation that confuses people. I reached out to a couple of friends. The couriers are issued the badge that is pictured on the Bureau of Diplomatic Security wiki site. They are not issued credentials. The SEOs are issued the same badge as DSS agents except where it normally says special agent it says security officer. Their credentials also similar but also say Diplomatic Security Service. The link you provide shows the trouble DS has. Throughout the speech, Taylor refers to DS, not DSS. But then ironically gives the SEOs badges and credentials that say DSS. I would say a paragraph about the confusion linking back to the BDS page is in order but to say that SEO, Couriers or other sub units of BDS are part of DSS is absolutely incorrect. Rsoandrew 08:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In 1985 the Inman Committee made a series of recommendations that were later adopted by Congress as the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986. This established the transformation of the Office of Security to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and created the Diplomatic Security Service. The Foreign Service members of the Office of Security included Security Officers, Security Engineering Officers, and Diplomatic Couriers. The Security Officer position became Special Agent, a bonafide Law Enforcement Officer within Diplomatic Security.

Part 4 of the Inman Report established the functions of couriers, security operations, engineering services, investigations, protection, etc. as a part of the Diplomatic Security Service. Special Agents and Security Engineering Officers were both Foreign Service and Diplomatic Security Service employees. Couriers maintained their identity with the Diplomatic Courier Service while serving with the Foreign Service as members of the Diplomatic Security Service. For approximately five years, Special Agents were employed as temporary couriers, after which time the Diplomatic Courier Service returned to hiring career couriers.

In the years after the passage of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, administrative reorganizations at Diplomatic Security have moved many original DSS elements to other organizational subunits, including the Diplomatic Courier Service and the Office of Security Technology. Special Agents, SEO's, Couriers, STS's, and certain other categories retain their inclusion in DSS even though many are now assigned to other components within DS.

12 FAM 372.2-4 provides clear reference to the members of DSS:

Special Agent, FS-2501;

Criminal Investigator, GS-1811;

Security Engineering Officer, FS-2550 or GS equivalent;

Security Technical Specialist, FS-2560;

Security Specialists, GS-080 and other security skill codes; and

Diplomatic Courier, FS-2580. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.1.16  (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse but 12 FAM 372.2-4 concerns the issuance of media jackets (raid jackets in agent vernacular). I hardly think that the Bureau's concern about how employees look on TV can be taken as a definitive source.Rsoandrew 21:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at 12 FAM 372.2-4 and it clearly refers to those groups as members of DSS. How and who represents the organization to the public is extremely relevant. To use your own words, "the FAM is the most authoritative documentation around..." and you cannot cherry pick which sections to disregard at your convenience. The FAM is the definitive source. Also for those on the department computer network, look in the FAH (Foreign Affairs Handbook) at protection where you will see the definition of SEO stating they are part of DSS. Clearly the evidence has been presented and unless you have tangible information to refute these references let us work together at correcting the DSS entry.Rkkv 21:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have but the facts are simply the facts. I've outlined most of them above. I also wrote a paragraph for the main page that discusses the confusion about DS vs. DSS. The other simple fact is that I work for DSS and I know the difference regardless of some inaccuracies in the FAM/FAH. Something just came to me that might make things seem more logical. If the SEOs and others were actually part of DSS then why would there be a parent organization called the Bureau of Diplomatic Security? Here's another thing to convince you. Follow this link to a PDF of an SEO pamphlet [1] that states that SEOs are part of the BDS and that they work closely with their special agent colleagues in DSS. Rsoandrew 06:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The link actually says "These highly skilled professionals and their Special Agent colleagues in the Diplomatic Security Service..." - the use of the word "colleagues" suggests both are members of DSS. Of course the 2nd page of the document clearly shows the SEO badge with the words "Diplomatic Security Service" written on it. But, since you claim to work for DSS you feel entitled to dismiss officially published policy and materials, nevermind disregarding the words written on the badge itself, and provide opinions without any credible references. Clearly there is a need for the administration to provide more clarification/education. Rkkv 17:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What it says if you include the first paragraph is "A challenging career awaits those select few who qualify as Security Engineering Officers with the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security. These highly skilled professionals and their Special Agent colleagues in the Diplomatic Security Service ..." There were be no need to mention DSS or the fact that the agents are part of DSS if it wasn't separate. Here's another pamphlet, this time on DSS [2]. Note that since this pamphlet is about DSS, they only mention agents. If you look at a DS pamphlet, they will mention the larger group. As I mention earlier, nobody in DS really cares as we all call ourselves DS and vary rarely do agents refer to themselves as part of the sub-unit DSS. As far as my "claim" to be an agent, not that it's definitive proof but if you click on the image of the two agents shooting M4's you'll see that I uploaded it and it's clearly a personal picture. Given the tone of your last response, I am starting to suspect that you are not sincere in you inquiries so this will be my final response on this topic. Feel free to believe what you choose. If you are so inclined, give DS public affairs a call and ask them - 571-345-2509. If you do, post the response here. Good luck. Rsoandrew 05:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That link may not be the one you intended... no mention of DSS in it, it's all about DS. Please double check your post. Incidentally, that brochure says "Diplomatic Security is dedicated to providing a secure living and working environment for its Foreign Service colleagues as they implement foreign policy and promote U.S. interests around the world." Note the use of the word "colleagues". Oh and not a single mention about DSS (yet covering all DSS functions), including listing the contact info for Bureau of Diplomatic Security Field Offices. Go figure...again more evidence that this is a confusing subject. By the way is DSS a "directorate" on the org chart? Rkkv 03:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the incorrect link. Here's the one I intended: [3] }}Unsigned|Rsoandrew|17:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)}}

Greg Star's Biography dated April 17, 2007 [4] "Mr. Starr serves concurrently as Director of the Diplomatic Security Service. In this position, Mr. Starr leads a force of Special Agents, Diplomatic Couriers, Security Engineering Officers, and Security Technical Specialists." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkkv (talk • contribs) 15:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Black Dragons

I have heard the term "Black Dragons" used in the State Department, more often by DSS agents, but also by others within the DoS. It is an interesting term that is largely but not wholly pejorative in its usage. It apparently refers to an insiders group of upper echelon State Department career officers that work, passively if not in a coordinated way, to prevent certain groups or types of people from rising to any significance or power within the State Department, or to prevent any changes to the State Department that the Black Dragons oppose. I did find one Washington Post article from December 1999 that refers to DSS agents calling State Deaprtment officials Black Dragons; the DoS officials in turn call DSS agents right wing zealots. The new Wikipedia article will reference this Washington Post article.

I am posting this talk page section to help determine the best name for the new article. Current articles in Wikipedia are Black Dragon Society (a Japanese ultranationalist group) and the movie Black Dragons from 1942. I have found that there are other criminal Asian groups, most notably from China, called Black Dragons which may or may not be connected to the much older Japanese Black Dragon Society. There was also a secret group within fascist Italy called Black Dragons.

I propose "Black Dragons (U.S. Foreign Service)", or alternately "Black Dragons (U.S. State Department)" as a way of differentiating form other usages of Black Dragon. Any other suggestions? After the article is created I think a small mention in this DSS article would be appropriate.Rockford1963 19:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be a good article for history’s sake but the term has fallen out of use due to the changes within the department. I would imagine that many younger agents would have heard the term but would never use it.

Black dragon was a term used by the guys in the Office of Security (SY) before it became DS. The personification of a black dragon was Anthony Quainton who had a real hatred for DS but was eventually made Assistant Secretary. An article on the ways he tried to eliminate DS would be really interesting – I think he only allowed one new class of incoming agents. He also tried to turn the agents over to the FBI until it was realized that they would have no control over agents that were not part of the Department.

As the old school foreign service types retire out of the ranks, there are fewer people who have problems with security and no outright suppression of security policies - at least overtly as in the past. Frankly FSOs are happy to let DS take the heat just as you’ve seen with the recent Blackwater scandal.Rsoandrew 12:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

DS vs. DSS

Maybe a small org chart might help? Mikebar (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

org charts are up Rsoandrew (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe in 1985/6 Congress established both the DS and DSS. DS (macro) and DSS (micro). DSS is made up specifically of the U.S. Federal Agents. In the past with the Bureau of Secret Intelligence and SY, the organizations were so small that the support units, law enforcment and security missions didn't have to be separate. DS now has approximately 34,000 personnel. Of this number, 1,500 are the U.S. Federal Agents of the DSS.

However, don't be confused, DS is responsible for all security related to the DoS and embassies and consulates overseas. DSS is the primary mechanism by which DS accomplishes this mission to include criminal investigations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawdog396 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Bureau of Secret Intelligence vs. Office of the Chief Special Agent

My understanding of the history of the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) is that it was known as the Bureau of Secret Intelligence at its inception (1916). Sources: Washington Post, Sept 2004, State's Security Bureau...by Robin Wright; (Book)2002 Relentless Pursuit: The DSS and the Manhunt for the Al-Qaeda Terrorists, Samuel M. Katz I assume that the name "Office of the Chief Special Agent", as it is being used by some sources and information portals to include this one and the DoS website, is due to the fear of falsely portraying the modern day mission to foreign contacts, of the DSS.200.121.6.176 (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I spoke with a guy who has been retired for about 10 years last night and asked about this. He did a lot of research into DS (office of SY) for 75th anniversary preparations. He said that at one time (before OSS and the CIA when only the military and DOS were doing intelligence) DS was known as the Office of Intelligence and Espionage. They were doing both including black bag jobs on other embassies (remember this is before the FBI was formed or were involved in intel). Apparently this name only lasted for a few years and the name was changed to the office of security. According to his recollection, it went; Office of the Chief Special Agent, The Office of Intelligence and Espionage, The Office of Security and Finally the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. One really interesting thing that came out of the conversation is that some Secretary of State (Probably Stimson who also pulled funding for the cyrpto branch MI-8 that was a joint DOS and Army project) didn't want them around and ordered the department to disband them. The powers that be were smart enough to know that they were needed and instead of getting rid of them they put them under consular and they became Consular and Security Affairs. They reported back to the Secretary that the Office of Security had been disbanded. What I found most interesting about this is that I always wondered why Robert Ludlum always claimed that there was an intel organization within Consular Affairs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsoandrew (talk • contribs) 04:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hillary

She would be protected by the secret service before as a former first lady but now she is secretary of state so DSS would protect her right? who will protect her?--Conor Fallon (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Organization

The article jumps around too much - history duplicates the history of Bureau of Diplomatic Security and why are fallen officers at the bottom - a fresh look at the ordering of the sections appears to be a good idea. Mikebar (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as duplication of information in the DS Bureau article, this is going to be tricky. Drawing the line between the two becomes difficult on a number of levels. For instance, what are we to think of SY, is it the predecessor to DS or DSS? - It is probably both. Would Otto Otepka be the equivelent of a DSS director or a DS Assist. Sec.? Also, anything that DSS does could be covered in the DS Bureau article since DSS is a subunit of DS. No solutions here, just pointing out the difficulties.

Rockford1963 (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wild suggestion - history broken out into a new article on SY, cuts both articles to reasonable length. Also, still need to figure out if an agent is in DS/C, is he/she a DSS agent as they are not under Greg in the org chart? Mikebar (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

All the agents assigned to positions throughout the Bureau of Diplomatic Security are Diplomatic Security Service Special Agents. There are, however, many positions in the Bureau that do not appear to fall under the director - DSS. As Greg Star is both the Director of the Diplomatic Security Service and the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau, the Agents do, technically, fall under his authority.

Rsoandrew (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If we can lay the issue of duplication of information between the DS and DSS article aside, and I suggest we do for now, how exactly is the DSS article poorly organized as the tag at the top suggests? I have no objection to a break out for a SY history which both the DS and the DSS article will reference and not duplicate, but that still doesn't fully answer how the DSS article is poorly organized.

Rockford1963 (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if we can get duplicate information settled, it needs to flow like a cohesive, flowing encyclopedia article and not a group of sections about desparate parts of DS. Maybe transitional paragraph(s) discussing that there are several divisions or duties would allow the reader to get down to the detail in a easy to digest fashion.

Mikebar (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

ARSO vs A/RSO

I fixed this error a few years back but noticed that it found its way back into the article. In DOS usage an 'A' followed by a '/' indicates that the person is 'Acting' or temporarily assigned to the primary position. So an A/RSO would be the acting RSO, typically the ARSO who is filling in for an RSO who is on vacation. There is no such thing as a D/RSO. Just as the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) is not the D/CM. Yes, your can find A/RSO usage out there but it is incorrect except in the instance I cited above. I'm not really sure how to do citations on this page but a simple google of the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) will find many instances of correct usage. You can find pages like this one where ARSO is correctly used in an official USG manual.ARSO search If you include the term A/RSO in the search your see that overwhelmingly the term ARSO is used at DOS.ARSO and A/RSO search Rsoandrew (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Regional Security Office title

While individuals may have issues with Regional Security Officer/Office, there are no current citations noting State or DSS is considering changes (too much to do in securing volitile countries). The State Department Sounding Board even picked up the discussion with no movement from State. So to say it is in flux is only opinion of the editor. Actually, due to the fine work of OSAC, the term RSO is well known as the person/org to go to in a country to get assistance with threat info. Changes could confuse DSS personnel with Legatts which have the agent titles perhaps? And few want anyone to think it is not DSS that is the lead service providing security in missions abroad. I'm not against a change mind you but there has to be balance in reporting and the paragraph leans to it happening actively which is not supported. Mikebar (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Caption

DSS Special Agents with M4s at range

These aren't M4s. Look at the picture at full size and you can see they have fixed A1 sights and no brass deflector, versus the detachable A2 sights and brass deflector of the M4. They look like Model 653s, 733s, or even XM177E2s with added M4 profile barrels. I'm changing the caption on the main page to link to Colt Commando, since the specifications of these carbines clearly pre-date the M4's design. Spartan198 (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that the caption hasn't been changed as of July 2013. I assume that is because the previous statement was in error but since it is my photo I figured I would state for the record, that we shot M4s that day. I'm not enough of an expert to comment on the accessories.Rsoandrew (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Seal

Please see DS talk page. There is no official seal for DSS.69.143.107.180 (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)J

Verbatim language

The section "Investigations: Fugitives" has verbatim content from US Counterterrorism Activities Handbook Volume 1 Strategy, Operations, Programs (Washington DC: International Business Publications, 2012 version). page 272. Does anyone have ideas for rewriting this section of the article? I happened to notice it here. Possibly other sections of the article are also copied. This also affects the Wiki article Bureau of Diplomatic Security. - Tuckerlieberman (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)