Talk:United States Secret Service/Archive 1

Archive 1

November 2002

Should be merged with Secret Service. Dominus 19:36 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)

This is highly questionable as there are other "secret services" besides the USSS (e.g. the British Secret Service of which 007 is an employee). --Daniel C. Boyer 17:48 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

In that case, Secret Service should not redirect to United States Secret Service. Dominus 10:30 20 May 2003 (UTC)

July 2003

I am unsure of the accuracy of the statement, "Because the President of the United States has nuclear weapons launch authority, s/he is protected with deadly force." Surely any bodyguard (under the principle of self-defence or perhaps more precisely defence of others) could use deadly force to protect a protectee should that protectee be facing imminent death or threat of grevious bodily injury. This statement could at least be edited for futher precision. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:56 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

I removed the sentence especially as the last several people to attempt to assasinate a President are all still alive. Rmhermen 00:35 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

5 August 2003 i

Removing mention of the Avakian situation and any allegation that the Secret Service is a secret police agency is a pro-USSS POV. Perhaps the article needs to be vetted again to present things in a more nuanced way, perhaps it now swings too far in the other direction, but eliminating these things is showing a form of bias in favour of the USSS. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:37, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I do not believe there was any corroboration of the Avakian allegations; without some sort of corroboration the allegations are meaningless. A claim that the Service is a "secret police" would require more evidence than I have seen, either in the article or elsewhere.

For POV reasons there should not be a claim in this article that the USSS is a "secret police agency"; people are (presumably) always going to have different opinions about this. But certainly some people believe the Secret Service to be a secret police agency, and in my opinion this belief should be acknowledged in the article. It doesn't have to be proven, because there is at least a certain part of it that eludes factual analysis; actions interpreted by some people as legitimate law-enforcement techniques or isolated mistakes are going to be interpreted by others as evidence that the Secret Service is a secret police agency. I admit that there is a more nuanced way to deal with this, which is perhaps better done by others. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:04, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Indeed, such a claim would not have to be proven. However, given the broad nature of the claim and the fact that virtually all law enforcement organizations are the targets of public ad hominem attacks by individuals who they have investigated or detained, it should at least be widely held. Or perhaps there should be evidence that the USSS is more of a "secret police" than other similar organizations either in the US or internationally. Perhaps it would be best of all to outline several example incidents and let the reader decide. Kat 19:20, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. The Avakian incident, for instance, should be explored more fully and if it can be discussed acceptably and from an NPOV, could be one of these examples. The claim about the USSS as secret police could be held off for now. Though I think you're using ad hominem incorrectly; it applies to the logical fallacy of making personal attacks on someone (or in this case an organisation) as a way of "arguing" against his (independent) point. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:31, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Service certainly has plenty of warts that could go in the article, if you really want to research them. There are any number of stories of overzealous handling of marginally mentally ill people who pose no real threat; conversely, there have been some genuine lapses in security. I seem to recall an incident several years ago where someone walked right up to former President Reagan while he was in the middle of a speech before the Boyz on the Detail woke up. There are also any number of examples where they have followed up with uncommon thoroughness to some mis-overheard supposed threat to the POTUS. And the time they left a classified document at a concession stand by accident during the Olympics in Atlanta. &c. Kat 22:19, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There was a cover article about misconduct in and the thorough incompetence of the Secret Service in U.S. News and World Report. About the Atlanta incident: is this correct? I know of an incident regarding a protection plan for Cheney at Salt Lake. --Daniel C. Boyer 22:26, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

5 August 2003 ii

Information about protection of spouse -- termination in event of remarriage should be included. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:41, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

6 August 2003

Can anyone find how many agents are assigned to protection and how many are assigned to fraud/counterfeiting? Rmhermen 19:27, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

January 2004

Most agents fulfill investigative duties much of the time and are on call for protection when needed. I don't have numbers but only a relative handful are permanently assigned to a detail.

I cut this text:

A U.S. News and World Report cover article detailed numerous allegations of incompetent, illegal or contrary to Secret Service regulations behavior by agents.)

It seems to me that, to be valuable as a reference, we would want a more specific cite, such as the date or at least year of publication. And, the summary seems to be a little one-sided. UninvitedCompany 00:18, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Did you even read the article in question? The summary of what the article said is hardly one-sided; whether the article was fair or not is another question. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:00, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

May 2004

So presidents get protection for life, do ex-vice presidents? Edward 09:37, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

October 2004

Should

Like other federal law enforcement organizations, the Service has its critics. Such critics may point, for example, to an incident where Steve Jackson Games was raided by (perhaps overzealous) Secret Service agents in a move that was later ruled to be illegal and unjustified.

read

Like other federal law enforcement organizations, the Service has its critics. Such critics may point, for example, to an incident where the home of Steve Jackson Games was raided by (perhaps overzealous) Secret Service agents in a move that was later ruled to be illegal and unjustified.

Paul in Saudi — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulinSaudi (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 October 2004 (UTC)

Following the link reveals that Steve Jackson Games is a company, not a person.

One-dimensional Tangent 18:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

November 2004

Someone please clarify this sentence: Congress informally requested Secret Service Presidential protection. A year later, it assumed full-time responsibility for protection of the President

Does this mean "Congress informally requested that the Secret Service provide protection for the President"?

Please clarify the use of "informally" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.223.203 (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph about relations w/ FBI

The Service and the FBI each see themselves as the most prestigious and capable federal law enforcement agency. (However, a June 17, 2002 U.S. News and World Report cover article detailed numerous allegations of incompetent, illegal or contrary to Secret Service regulations behavior by agents.) There is some animosity between the two organizations, and very few agents have served in both.

I removed the above paragraph from the history section because it doesn't seem like the tone of it fits in an ecyclopedia. Surely the SS and FBI don't officially state that they are the most presitgious and capable agencies? Feel free to discuss and/or reinsert it. 66.61.143.204 21:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's fair to discuss this and can be done similar to how the CIA's wiki article discusses its relationship with FBI. As someone who worked with both as an investigative support contractor there is some jurisdictional toe-stepping in ecrime / bank fraud. USSS overlaps due its anti money laundering/counterfeiting mission, but FBI does more work on that front. FBI and USSS both call themselves "premier law enforcement agencies", which carefully omits a relative ranking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.170.74.70 (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Why "Secret"?

Where does the name "Secret Service" come from? Neither of the Secret Service's two main tasks -- counterfeiting and bodyguarding -- seem particularly "secret", especially compared to other police organizations. --ESP 15:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Probabaly because they work both night and day, secretly guarding the President and protecting against counterfeiting... --KRB 09:26, 17 May 2006

(Don't know if this is true/possible urban legend): They used to be very secretive about themselves when dealing with counterfeiters, probably so as to not tip them off. 68.39.174.238 00:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

They can play another kind of task or errand, since they are a loyal servant they can be used (and abused) in different matters, usually preemptive actions.

They were originally formed to investigate currency counterfeiters, and they did not wear unforms. Thus they were "secret'. 69.121.234.112 (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

according to the National Geographic Society, the USSS originated in the 19th century in a time when one out of every two US monetary notes were counterfeit. The agents were dispersed around the nation to find the counterfeiters. They wore plain-clothes and their identities were kept secret. Thus "Secret Service."--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 17:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

yes the word "secret" and the term "secret service" comes from the days when financial crimes was their primary mission (among others); it has nothing to do with executive protection, although i suppose they can be undercover and "secret" in guarding the president —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.244.211.251 (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It may be similar to the meaning of the word 'secret' in Vatican Secret Archives:

The use of the word "secret" in the title "Vatican Secret Archives" does not denote the modern meaning of confidentiality. Its meaning is closer to that of the word "private", indicating that the archives are the Pope's personal property, not belonging to those of any particular department of the Roman Curia or the Holy See. The word "secret" was generally used in this sense as also reflected in phrases such as "secret servants"

- Ac44ck (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Abbreviation

I question the statement (added by Gilgamesh) that the US Secret Service is "often abbreviated S.S." I'm removing it from the article. "SS" means the Schutzstaffel, it is never used as an acronym for the US Secret Service. --JW1805 ^(Talk) 01:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I have seen Secret Service abbreviated as "SS" at least once, namely in Neal Stephenson's Zodiac (Chapter 29). The strong association of "SS" with the Nazis actually made me take awhile to recognize what was meant. This single use isn't enough to merit mention in the article, of course. Speight (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Limited protection

According to the President of the United States article, there was some law passed that all presidents post-Clinton will only have protection for ten years after they leave office (assumedly he was grandfathered in by some law passed while in office). Does anyone know what law this is, because if it's true it should probably be somewhere here. Staxringold 16:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The relevant statute is 18 U.S.C. 3056. A brief summary: the Secret Service provides lifetime protection to all former presidents who entered office before January 1, 1997 and their spouses. Surviving spouses receive protection until remarriage. As of the date of this post, former Presidents Ford, Carter, G.H.W. Bush, and Clinton and their spouses receive protection, as well as Lady Bird Johnson and Nancy Reagan. (Senator Clinton's protection is shared between the U.S. Capitol Police and the Secret Service, because both organizations have statutory responsibility for her protection.)

In 1995 the statute was amended, limiting Secret Service protection to 10 years for presidents (and spouses) who enter office after January 1, 1997. Spousal protection ends upon divorce, remarriage, or the death of the former president. Following the death of a sitting President, the spouse will receive Secret Service protection for one year. Protection for a former president's children lasts until they reach age 16 or for a period not to exceed 10 years, whichever comes first. Protection may be declined by an eligible person, and the Secretary of the Treasury can authorize temporary Secret Service protection at any time. [1] - BaseballBaby 06:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The article does not reflect the bit I've bolded, above; instead it mentions "elected" presidents. Fixing, as I confirmed it's in error here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3056-. (this limited, defined edit of anothers post is appropriate.--Elvey (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jasonuhl, in my additions to this article I want to show that the Secret Service acts in other states like in the United States. (Compare to the German article about the Secret Service). It should be clear that a US authority can not replace or give commands to German police, because Germany is a sovereign state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.137.50.60 (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Gründung

Ich habe heute den Film "Der Scharlachrote Rock" von John Struges gesehen. Dort heißt es im Vorspann, der Secret Service sei 1780 im Unabhängigkeitskrieg wegen des Falles Gustavus gegründet worden. 83.176.150.12 19:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent Allegations of Widespread Protective-Function Agents' Criminal & Professional Misconduct

This section seems somewhat far from NPOV to me. While there are undoubtedly allegations (and, from what I've read and heard, valid ones) of such actions, the phrasing needs to be toned down to approach NPOV. I don't have time to tweak it now, but I'll try to come back later and tone it down a bit. If someone beats me to it, that's fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Septegram (talk • contribs) 22:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is one of my comments. If so, I apologize for not signing it. El oops.

Septegram 15:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, guys. I just wanted to say I thought that section was really pointless. There was no proper referencing, just some allegations. I'm not even an American, and I think it sounded ridiculous. If there was some real evidence, even a proper reference, then perhaps it should be reinserted. But until then I think it damaged the article to have such hearsay in there. Cheers, John Smith's 14:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The Interpreter

The Interpreter - Nicole Kidman plays an interpreter at the United Nations headquarters in New York. Sean Penn plays the Secret Service agent protecting her.

I believe Sean Penn plays a Diplomatic Security Service officer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAlbano~enwiki (talk • contribs) 17:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Sean Penn plays a Secret Service Agent who is assigned to the Foreign Dignitary Protection division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.110.13 (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Sean Penn,as a USSS Agent, is investigating a threat against the president of "Matobo." The USSS would not provide protection for UN interpreters. Since the threat is against a head of state, the USSS would be the lead agency dealing with this threat. A Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) special agent, would handle threats against other dignitaries visiting the United States. Many people who are aware of DSS thought that the movie was technically incorrect by having Penn play a USSS agent. Rsoandrew (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not incorrect. This can fall under USSS jurisdiction. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy?

I have found numerous "facts" stated in the article to be grossly inaccurate. This article needs to be fact checked. I could be wrong but there are numerous errors and I am too busy to point them out (sorry if that sounds indolent and jejune, which I am sure it does) but its the truth. I hope somebody agrees with me and can help rectify the problem. Patbaseball2221 00:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we just need some citation or something. If this is from the Secret Service website you should say so. (gcilley)

Brilliant guys. You're spreading doubt instead of improving the article. Pick one inaccuracy, prove it inaccurate by citing a source, add it to the article, and then mention that there are others. But I am too busy to point them out after I have found numerous "facts" stated in the article to be grossly inaccurate is quite disturbing. Dscotese (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I dispute that one-third of the U.S. currency is counterfeit. There is not a citation of where this statement comes from and is likely entirely false. 70.170.125.247 (talk) 07:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

This bullet

When the Secret Service was established, their mandate did not include the protection of the president. Nine days later, Abraham Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth, and died the next day.

doesn't square with the dates cited under the History section, nor the last bullet in the Trivia section. Something is not right. I don't know what it is or I'd fix it. Sdpurdy 04:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Lincoln was actually assasssinated the day afetr he signed the bill creating the United States Secret Service Pat 12:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Role as viewed by Americans

As I view it (I'm a jus soli citizen of the US and have lived here all my life), if you asked most Americans to name the role of the Secret Service, their answer would be "protection of the President." Perhaps this could be reflected in the article somehow; though it's not critical to understanding the Secret Service and its full role, it does reflect how Americans see what is really a much larger government agency. --Southpaw018 09:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

assessment

A good B article at least, if it wern't for the fact that there is no reference section. These sections are very important for verification of statements.--SGGH 15:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection of Former Presidents and First Ladies

"Under this new law, individuals who are in office before January 1, 1997, will continue to receive Secret Service protection for their lifetime. Individuals elected to office after that time will receive protection for ten years after leaving office. Therefore, former president Clinton will be the last president to receive lifetime protection."

If Hillary becomes the president, the last sentence of this passage will not be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.106.212 (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You could actually argue that it will remain accurate. She will have lifetime protection. However, she'll get that due to her status as Bill Clinton's wife, not as President in her own right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.227.112  (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence would still be accurate as if elected, in either 6 or 10 years time she will be known as former president Clinton Pat 12:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Source

I would reccomend checking out the book The Secret Service : the hidden history of an enigmatic agency 363.283 MEL Jeff503 19:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit Link Problem

The Appearance (2nd) and History (3rd) sections Edit links are not appearing in the correct place. The misplaced links are appearing in the middle of the second sentence of the History section. There is no obvious (to me) cause for this in the text of the article. Perhaps someone with a better understanding of how the Edit links are generated could look into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LastBall (talk • contribs) 06:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Cultural References

The Agents in the Matrix series seem to come from a mix of the Secret Service and Men in Black.--Viridis 23:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

weapons used

this article, under 'Protective operations & protective-function training and weaponry' (which I edited) states the FN P90 as one of their weapons. Can anyone confirm this? I know they use a bunch of weapons, but the remaining examples of weapons listed (P229, 870, MP5, and Uzi) can be found on their website (Kid's FAQ), but not the P90. --Kevin23 03:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The P90 is a weapon that the are evaluating and have not fully deployed. --Rckyrccn 01:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

error?

coffelt was a white house policeman; he wasn't in the secret service--though the secret service website's FAQ says otherwise. i don't think any secret serviceman has been killed in the line of duty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucinum (talk • contribs) 14:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

-Coffelt was an Officer on the White House Police Force, which, after a couple of name changes, became what we now know as the USSS Uniformed Division. Quoting from the USSS Official website www.secretservice.gov, "(in) 1930 (the) White House Police Force was placed under the supervision of the Secret Service." That's a full 20 years prior to the shooting death of Officer Coffelt. His exact division has gone thru name changes, but to say he was not a USSS Officer is splitting hairs, to say the least. As a side note, the USSS honors Officer Coffelt's sacrifice every year with a ceremony in front of the Blair house. Also, to say "i don't think any secret serviceman has been killed in the line of duty." is sadly incorrect. Even wikipedia references the first agent to die in the line of duty in 1902. There's an unfortunately long list of names of employees who have died performing both investigations and protection. As an example, five USSS employees died in 1995 as a result of the Oklahoma City bombing. So, when you say you don't think anyone has been killed in the line of duty, instead, you should write "I haven't heard of any nor did I read the full wikipedia article, therefore it hasn't happened." 63.162.143.21 00:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Steve0

Civil War

The article says, "Prior to its formal establishment as a Treasury agency, during the Civil War the Secret Service, under the direction of detective Allan Pinkerton, was the espionage and counterespionage agency of the United States. It was the first domestic intelligence and counterintelligence agency."

The USSS official homepage traces its lineage to 1865, and doesn't mention anything about its putative role as a wartime intelligence agency. Should the wartime secret service be considered a separate agency? Was it even a formally constituted agency, or just a spy ring funded by Lincoln? Either way, this era of its history needs expansion, especially since it contradicts the first sentence of the paragraph in which it occurs. --VAcharon 01:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Youngblood?

The name of one of the US Secret Service agents recognized for bravery during the Kennedy assasination is named Youngblood? Is this real or is it vandalism? Jamesino 01:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

His name was Rufus Youngblood. From Time Magazine, Nov. 29, 1963: "Johnson called Secret Service Chief Jim Rowley to the house, told him how one of his agents, Rufus Youngblood, had acted heroically at the time of the shooting."[2] Related to this, I believe the following section on this page is in error. It reads, "following the assassination, reports that caused President Johnson to call agent Youngblood and threaten to replace the Secret Service with agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (The call was recorded and released several years ago.)" This section is uncited, and I believe it is a misinterpretation from another incident involving Johnson, Youngblood and the FBI. From another Time Magazine article: "At one point Johnson became so angry at Hoover and the bureau that he ordered his Secret Service detail chief, Rufus Youngblood, to go over to Justice and take over the FBI. Youngblood went there, wandered around for a few days, but the order was never formalized."[3] MarcelloRubini 05:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

controversy?

i just read an article on the ACLU page outlining several incidents in which the Secret Service has been involved in quieting protesters at functions being attended by prominent political figures. the article is here http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11419res20030923.html

since many wikipedia articles tend to cover or, at least mention, controversies associated with the article subject, would it not be prudent to mention this as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.0.41.114 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

This was me. --Arcalumis 20:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree, I was surprised to see no dissenting opinion whatsoever in this otherwise detailed article. It is certainly not NPOV to give such a one sided review of the Secret Service. I will begin stubbing out a "Controversy" section describing some of the more controversial actions of the Secret Service in recent years (silencing of protesters, protecting the presidents image at the expense of free speach, illegal arrests, the explosive expansion of the Secret Service budget, locking down major expressways and crippling cities for hours). DavesPlanet (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• You'd need a better source. Using the ACLU (an activist organization) to source their own complaint and calling it a controversy is not NPOV either. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

News evaporates from the net over time, what do we do with articles posted by a news source such as the Des Moines Register which get copied verbatim but which later don't exits on the original site? For example, the article at http://davesplanet.net/secretservice/ appeared in the Des Moines Register but is no longer available. What standard would I need to achieve to be able to reference a source such as this? Could I request a copy of the police report and present a scanned original as an adequate source? DavesPlanet (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• If the controversy is that notable, it should have other coverage. If not, then it Sounds more to me like someone made some little fuss on the small, local level, which means it's not that notable in terms of the organizations history. Items hosted on a site like yours wouldn't be sufficient. Neither would a scanned copy of a report. Your site isn't a reliable source. If the NYT scanned it, that would be one thing but hosting it on a non-RS is another. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• BTW, that link doesn't show any controversy at all. In fact it doesn't show any of those things you listed. He wasn't a protestor, there was no free speech issue, it had nothing to do with their budget and nothing to do with major roads being blocked. What is DOES show, however, is that you have a strong, negative opinion about the Secret Service and it makes it look more concern for neutrality look a bit suspect. Yeah, imagine the audacity of stopping an armed many who is within firing distance of the president. What gall. Get real. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I make no bones about my distaste for the many abuses of the Secret Service. Was the personal attack really necessary? DavesPlanet (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm also disappointed that you don't find the arrest of a law abiding citizen minding his own business in a public park to be an abuse of power by the Secret Service. It sets my blood on fire. I am interested in supplying counterweight to the overwhelmingly positive POV of this article, it is sorely in need of a well thought out and well documented controversy section. DavesPlanet (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• There was no personal attack. I correctly pointed out your obvious bias and said I am suspicious of your motives. It is not unreasonable to be suspicious and I make no apology for it. And that article doesn't say he was arrested. It says he was detained. There is a big difference between arrested and detained. I'm a huge supporter of the second amendment, but someone clearly isn't using their brain when they bring a gun around the president. They'd be derelict in their duties if they didn't question him to find out if he's up to something, if it was pure accident or if the man is just not using his head. I don't see this article as having a positive POV. The absence of manufactured controvery doesn't make it positive, it just makes it factual. Just adding the overblown rantings of some ACLU hacks and people with an axe to grind doesn't make it more neutral. Unless these "controversies" have had significant coverage by reliable third party sources, they don't belong in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

In point of fact I did not come here to start something. I came here for a well reasoned fact checked list of Secret Service controversies. There is hardly another government agency or person with such a full featured wikipedia entry that does not also list controversial issues. Being surprised to find none here, I suggested the creation of such a section. Yes, I am anti-secret service (actually anti-abuse, and I see the SS as having serious issues on that subject). That being said, I am not using wikipedia for any agenda, I am bringing clarity to a disturbing aspect of the secret service. If you doubt the legitimacy of the issue please feel free to google for "love america hate bush", "party crashers", "secret service" protesters, "secret service" free speech. Additionally I find the characterization of the ACLU as 'overblown ranting hacks' to be disturbing. The ACLU is a well established reference with many links and references to it. I believe you are trying to hold the section I propose to a higher standard than other wikipedia references, and I fully intend to use ACLU entries as partial references where necessary. DavesPlanet (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• It may or may not be true that you didn't come here to start something, but you can't call it a point of fact. Find my characterization of the ACLU disturbing if you want. I don't care. Actually, I could care even less than you think. The ACLU can't be used as the sole reference for a so-called controversy that they are involved in. They're not independent. They have an agenda. Find reliable third party coverage of what they are claiming and you'll have something. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

but they can and are used as a sole reference for a specific controversy that they are not involved in. If the ACLU is objecting to action by the SS, they are an uninvolved source. If they are involved in a lawsuit over the issue they are not. DavesPlanet (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• You'd have to show something specific and you'd have to show that the so-called controversy is notable. Notability would mean significant coverage by reliable third party sources. The simple fact that somewhere, sometime, someone complained/sued/griped/bitched doesn't make it significant enough to include. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

How many agents are there?

The text box says there are 2100 agents and 1200 uniformed officers, the main body of the text states 3100 agents and 1200 uniformed officers. Is the actual number of agents classified or secret, or can someone with definitive knowledge make the appropriate correction? (Is it 2100 or 3100 agents?) 74.134.59.45 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC) --Edited my own question for clarity... 74.134.59.45 01:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• TY to whomever made the edit, they're now within 100 (3200 box, 3100 article.) Comment above was mine. LaughingVulcan 01:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Secret Service involvement in rescue attempts during 9/11

AFAIK, almost all people involved in the first attempt to rescue die caused by the collapse of the tower. Or they did go after the collapse or they wasn't the first in respond, participate or worked any near of the site.

Anyways, over the rescue team, the team that managed to work after the collapse was an *unidentified group* that closed the site, disallowing not only curious people also the media and volunteers. Was a help? No, in fact was a illegal act.

--Magallanes 21:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Most of the first responders, in fact, survived and law enforcement controlling such incidents is not illegal. Rmhermen 18:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Where are you guys getting your info from? Dscotese (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Secret Service in popular culture

do we need this section. it's just trivia and a complete list of all appearances of a government agency in popular culture would take pages to document. Cryo921 21:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Be bold" Applies here I asume and I will remove this section. In relevance it is close to the infamous "wood in popular culture" spoof.

I actually think a pop culture section would be good here, if it was resticted to works in which USSS agents played a major role. Wolfview (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• I removed one of the entries about how they appeared in West Wing. The other examples are where they are the focus of the movie/show, but the West Wing was one of those "they appeared" entries. That's exactly how these sections get out of control. This is a particular concern with the USSS, since in many older (and even some newer movies), SS agents are portrayed doing things that have nothing to do with their real duties because the name "Secret Service" sounds cool and they're portrayed as guys who run around being an extension of the President, hiding aliens etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. Also in any movie featuring the president as a major or supporting character USSS agents are going to be hanging around. However in The West Wing they did play a major role in the stories. In one season an agent assigned to protect the president's daughter was killed in the line of duty. She had been built up as a major character in previous episodes. I will also keep an eye out for trash and trivia being added.Wolfview (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think she was killed. So far I am not able to confirm this. I will put The West Wing back, it is far more than trivial. Also the producers of the show took pains to base the material on reality, and consulted with real agents, besides it being a very popular and respected show.Wolfview (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not going to fight you on it, but I don't agree at all. The West Wing was had 156 episodes over 7 seasons. That an episode or two involved some Secret Service agents is trivial. Was there a single agent that had a recurring role for half the series? How many agents in the show even had a named role? Something like the film The Sentinel belongs on that list, but the West Wing thing...quick route to the slippery slope. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• You could be right. Maybe the fact that I'm a big fan of the show influenced me to think it's more important than it really is. Maybe a third person will chime in.Wolfview (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Secret Service was definitely an important feature of the West Wing. Previous references to the agent protecting president's daughter being killed and to agent protecting CJ Cregg were correct (episodes 88 and 66, respectively). In No Exit, Secret Service "crashes" the White House due to a biohazard. Chief of Presidential Protection Agent Ron Butterfield appears frequently, protecting both the Bartlet administration and the incoming Santos administration. USSS also plays a significant role in Season 1 finale and 2 opener, during the attempted assassination on Barlet. Docmcconl (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced article

Most agents don't work on protection details - yet the major work of this agency, investigating countereiting, seems to get only one line of text. Rmhermen 18:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect 80% of career agents are assigned to a protection detail at one time or another, it is done on a rotational basis. While most of an agents career eill focus on Financial Investigation protection is likely to feature aswell. Besides which protection is the only duty carried out by the Uniformed Division so should be featured rather prominently, though i do agree that the investigative work should be featured more in the article Pat (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the Secret Service's responsibility to investigate financial and monetary crimes isn't covered very much. (For example, I wanted to find out why the USSS seized the Toven Specimen and other US-minted coins, but no luck in this article. Perhaps a separate article on Financial Investigation by the US Secret Service? Mang (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

PID?

Why is there no mention of the Protective Intelligence Division and their investigations into threats against protectees? Pat (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If by "PID" you mean the PIAD (Protective Intelligence and Assessment Division, I'm not sure, but I will see if there are any good sources I can find and add a section about it.

- 174.98.203.124 (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Coffelt in Secret Service?

United States Secret Service states:

To this day, Coffelt is the only member of the Secret Service to die while defending a U.S. President against an assassination attempt.

Leslie Coffelt reads, as if Coffelt was a police officer. What is true? --Abe Lincoln (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Coffelt was a member of the USSS Uniformed Division. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I updated Leslie Coffelt, but the sections Leslie Coffelt#Killed in the line of duty and United States Secret Service#History still distinguishes between USSS agents an White House police officers, although the White House police was integrated in the USSS in 1930. Could anybody please correct this? Thanks. --Abe Lincoln (talk) 10:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Coffelt was a law enforcement officer in the employ of the USSS. Why need to differentiate between divisions. This would be like trying to make a difference between a uniformed US Customs officer and a Customs Special Agent (yes, I know they are with ICE now). Different divisions of the same agency. Your update is correct as is. No further deliniation is needed.Niteshift36 (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

But actually that's what I wanted to say...

Look at this sentence:

Torresola walked up Pennsylvania Avenue from the west side while his partner, Oscar Collazo, engaged Secret Service agents and White House policemen with his Walther P38 pistol from the east.

Shouldn't it be

Torresola walked up Pennsylvania Avenue from the west side while his partner, Oscar Collazo, engaged White House policemen and other Secret Service agents with his Walther P38 pistol from the east.

or something? I'm a little bit confused... --Abe Lincoln (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The White House Police was integrated into the US Secret Service in 1930, however it's officers were officers of the Washington DC Metropolitan Police on special assignment with the US Secret Service. There was no US Secret Service Uniformed Division until the 1970s.Cfagan1987 (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Protected persons

I've once read that former Vice Presidents are also enlisted to recevie USSS protection. What about this information.

And what about Speakers of the House? Darth Kalwejt (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

After their term is up, the only person to continue to receive protection is the president and only for ten years afterward. The last president and first lady to receive lifetime protection is Bill and Hillary Clinton. Reference the National Geographic Society: Inside the Secret Service.--Sallicio^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 17:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Vice Presidents get secret service for about 6 monthes after they leave office.

Also, please stop editing where I wrote " and people in the presidential line of succession receive protection " because they DO.

Pulled from Secretservice.gov

" The president, the vice president, (or other individuals next in order of succession to the Office of the President), the president-elect and vice president-elect "

So, please do NOT change what I write again.

Thanks

Irviding1 (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Image and infobox are too large!

It seems like the image of the Secret Service badge and the infobox it resides in is a little large. Shouldn't it be of reasonable size and on the right side of the page (the text can begin on the left). For example, look at the page for hte FBI. The FBI emblem is of reasonable size in a normal size infobox on the left side of the page. This is the format for infoboxes in most other articles on Wikipedia... Perhaps someone can shrink the badge image to a thumbnail size... ask123 (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It was much smaller. I don't know when it was changed, but I agree, it's too large. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not so saavy with programming the infobox. (Yes, I know, it's pathetic...) So can someone else handle this? Thanks! ask123 (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! It's been done! Problem solved! ask123 (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent controversies

There is very little mention of controversies on this article. There have been two significant controversies recently, one involving the Reverand Jesse Jackson and the other about some controversial and explicit e-mails directed I believe it was towards black people or other minority groups. Wondering if it merits to be in the article. Maybe someone else more familiar or has more info can add some of the material in a section. I have some sources that would back the facts so it would meet WP:RS and WP:NPOV. [4] [5] [6]. --JForget 02:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Tim McCarthy shot.jpg

The image Image:Tim McCarthy shot.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Secret Service UDBF" and National Collector's Mint

The same "National Collector's Mint" that was advertising the Liberian silver certificates celebrating commemorating the 9 + 11 attacks is now running ads with the same narrator claiming that an Obama coin was authorized by and benefits the "Secret Service UDBF" (Uniformed Division something something) Does that have anything at all to do with the Secret Service? Wnt (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikihumor

"Due to the discretion of this organization, many details about the Secret Service are currently secret.", I've never laughed before when reading a Wikipedia article... but this sentence and the fact that it remains shows a shred of a sense of humor for Wikipedia. I love it, and I laughed heartilly. Thanks to whomever wrote it! 216.136.4.136 (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

More on how the Secret Service protects?

Even though it's partly secret, the ways the USSS provides security seem like a fascinating case study in how to provide security (on a nearly unlimited budget).

For example, they screen venues, investigate reports of threats, have folks spread through the crowd at events, are involved with equipment like the President's car and Air Force One, and deploy countersnipers and helicopters and other fun stuff. They probably do background checks on folks who work in the White House or secured areas, and check supplies and such coming in. Perhaps I'd be better off researching and adding stuff than just wishing someone else would here, but seems like fascinating stuff. 24.7.68.35 (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No disrespect for the people who do it, but stagging on at airports and running background checks hardly sounds like a thrill a minute. Isn't the first rule of bodyguarding (which seems to be basically what Protective Service means) that if it gets exciting someone, somewhere, has screwed up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.146.97 (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Protects everyone in line of succession?

It says that the Secret Service protects everyone in the line of succession, this would include people like the agriculture secretary, so I doubt it is true.

It also says the Secret Service protects all children and grandchildren of former presidents until age 16. So if Amy Carter has a baby her child would get Secret Service protection? Seems unlikely. And more importantly isn't in alignment with what the Secret Service web site says.

So I'm removing the following text and replacing it with the governments own description.

In addition, they protect the Vice President, President-elect, Vice President-elect, past presidents and their spouses (except when the spouse re-marries), certain candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, children and grandchildren of current and former presidents until age 16, all people in the United States presidential line of succession, visiting foreign heads of state and government along with their spouses (all called "protectees"), other individuals as designated per Executive Order of the President, and National Special Security Events, when designated as such by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security

Hoping To Help (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, they do not protect everyone in the line of succession. People like the SecAG, SecHHS etc. have their own, non-USSS protective teams. I am curious what happened with Hillary Clinton, who still had USSS protection as a former first lady, but also gets her own (very skilled) team from the State Dept. :I suspect State handles her now. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Niteshift36, I'm curious -- does the SecAG have 24 hour protection from the State Department? It seems to me that they would only need protection during certain trips to hostile foreign countries. Hoping To Help (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Each federal agency (Agriculture, Education, HHS, Army, Energy etc) has sworn law enforcement officers of their own. The secretary's of those agencies normally have protective teams from their own agency (if they keep a team.). State only supplies protective personnel to the secretary (and those in the agency designated as high risk) and to visiting diplomats that don't get USSS protection. The SecAG would not have DSS protection in the US. Whether they got it overseas would depend on the particulars of the trip and what agreements they may have with place. Because of the limited number of DSS agents, their function is sometimes farmed out to other agencies too. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the Speaker of the House and President Pro tempore of the Senate recieve Secret Service protection while in office? 74.69.8.195 (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Rank and Hierarchy

I was wondering if there was any information that could be put on the article about the USSS agents ranks and hierarchy? Would this info be classified? From the various other US agency articles it does mention the ranks or structure of the agencies and are they "federal officers/agents" with different ranks. Thanks --Mikecraig (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The US Secret Service special agents use the usual special agent rank system; Special Agent, Senior Special Agent, Supervisory Special Agent, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Special Agent in Charge, etc. The US Secret Service Uniformed Division uses police type ranks such as Officer, Sergeant, Lieutenant, Inspector, Chief, etc but I am not sure of the exact system.Cfagan1987 (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Does the former First Lady have to stay married to keep her protection?

My understanding from the article is that she would keep her secret service protection even if she divorced, can anyone confirm that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.201 (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

And what if she was only First Lady for a week or so? How long does she have to be First Lady to get the 10 years worth of protection? And is it 10 years from the end of her husband's term, or from when she stopped being First Lady? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.63.201 (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"(a)(3) Former Presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes, except that protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage unless the former President did not serve as President prior to January 1, 1997, in which case, former Presidents and their spouses for a period of not more than ten years from the date a former President leaves office, except that—

(A) protection of a spouse shall terminate in the event of remarriage or the divorce from, or death of a former President; and (B) should the death of a President occur while in office or within one year after leaving office, the spouse shall receive protection for one year from the time of such death:" - directly copied from 18 USC 3056 (the empowering statute of the USSS). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.2.50 (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Infiltration of the Secret Service

Certain Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories involve the unusual claim that the Secret Service was somehow infiltrated by Kennedy's political opponents. This theory claims that Lyndon Johnson and his gang took control of the Secret Service and ordered it to shoot Kennedy in the back during his famous rally in Dallas. Perhaps it could be mentioned as part of the section on political controversies. [7][8][http://www.amazon.com/Best-Evidence-Disguise-Deception-Assassination/dp/0025718703] ADM (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Update photographs

Let's get these photographs of President Bush updated with President Obama, the article looks mighty dated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.124.127 (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of photographs, the pic of the Reagan assassination attempt carries this caption: Secret Service agents protect Ronald Reagan during the assassination attempt by John Hinckley, Jr. on March 30, 1981, but that's not what is depicted (the photo shows Brady and the police officer who was struck lying on the ground, not Reagan). Change the photo and/or caption? - 70.91.35.27 (talk) 20:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Tim

I went ahead and modified the caption to better describe the scene depicted. 70.91.35.27 (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Tim

Faking it

Given the Service's early & continuing emphasis on detecting counterfeiting, isn't there a branch dedicated to it? If so, what is it? (The website was unhelpful...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• A separate branch? No. It's the responsibility of the investigative division as a whole. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thx. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Weaponry

Listed are various weapons, but conspicuously absent are any mention of the rifles used. I've heard them referred to as "JARs" (Just Another Rifle), and that they're custom-designed, but there's no article info on caliber or otherwise. Daemon8666 (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That was a mention on The West Wing (TV show) that has seemed to take a life of its own. I was looking for credible sources off and on for some time, and they all seem suspect in one way or another. It's a real worry too, because appearing here in Wikipedia will eventually cause a cyclical reference storm that creates information out of nothing.

𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Scandals

Dear Sirs. I edit wiki on the many scandals that take place during the history of Service. For many years people can see that there are times when agent have drink, prostitute, fight with normal people. This happen since very long time. Some wiki people do not like the fact. I guess. I do not care. I am just for the fact. The people who do not like the fact change the edit. I say this is not freedom. It does bad information on wiki. Why do you not want there to be right information? Please pardon English not good for me. i try with edits though :) Assalaam alaykum, my friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• The problem is the weight you are giving these things. For example, you add a "scandal" about a single agent getting arrested. So what? In the big scheme of the agency history, an agent getting arrested for a misdemeanor is nothing notable. Similarly, trying to add up minor actions by individuals (like committing adultery or food stamp fraud) and make them significant gives them WP:UNDUE weight. Have you ever read WP:RECENTISM? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the anon editor that the recent accusation of prostitution deserves some mention in Wikipedia, either on its own page or here. If the allegations are true, this is bigger than just one agent's misconduct. I note that there are similar sections or pages relating to the alleged misconduct of other major law enforcement (see Los_Angeles_Police_Department#Controversy and New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct). The story is still developing but it doesn't appear to be going away. I suspect that others (like myself) have come to this page looking for information about the allegations and have left disappointed. A mention of the current controversy here does not look to be WP:UNDUE to me. It's pretty big news. (see http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/17/senator-20-or-21-women-in-secret-service-incident/)--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• I say good barnstar for the last Mister. In edit I make. You can see that it mention scandal in general. And it talked of scandal in history. I reference long investive book from US News and World Report. If I put in reference to old scandal like 3 month ago, it would be OK. But because there is something recent in Cartagena, you friends say "no good. Bad edit." Current meeting with prostitute is only one thing. And as the last Mister says, there are many important other wikis that talk of when things go bad. Please, Misters. We need to be correct and to help the people. I typewrite fast and no check with grammer book! Assalaam alaykum!

• I take this from something I put on to the second Mister's page. The second Mister took it down. Why that happens is not what I know! Here is the text: "Thank you Mister and hello. I see the article and I count the words for an article. I count (with the machine, of course!) 4356 words. My edit which is much small is only 132 words. For me I do not see a bad weight! It is a small weight! But if the information is true! That is the desire of a wiki! I see article from many places. The biggest Army man in the Army Martin Dempsey say that it is big deal. A Mister wrote a book about the service who is name Ronald Kessler. This Mister say that "biggest scandal" is prostitute from Columbia. There is much scandal and wiki says "no scandal." I read the wiki for truth. If you put not some truth in, the wiki is bad. Please pardon English. I learn through wiki. Assalaam alaykum my friend." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• The "Mister's" all have names. Please start using them. Yes, I took it down from my page because there is no point in having this discussion in 2 different locations. Kessler is an author and that is his opinion. What is currently a "big deal" may not be so in a historical sense. Again I refer you to the essay WP:RECENTISM. For example, two teams might be playing a big game this week and it is a "big deal". The game might be an intense rivalry and maybe it will determine who goes to a playoff game. This week, it is a "big deal". 10 years from now.....who will care? Lastly, number of words mean nothing in terms of undue weight. Look at the actual examples being cited: a single agent getting arrested for a minor offense or food stamp fraud. Nobody is saying that the Secret Service is flawless, but trying to spin a bunch of minor or inconsequential events into a fabricated "controversy" is just adding them for the sake of having a controversy section, which is something Wikipedia does not do. The current deal from Colombia may turn out to be something, but at this point, shoving it in before what happened has actually been determined is not only recentism, but acting like a newspaper. This is all still in the speculation and allegation phase. There is no time limit here, so waiting until we actually know something won't hurt. Remember, we are also dealing with BLP's. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I certainly don't mean to ignore the WP:Recentism concern. I suppose we should compare this scandal to the other U.S. Government scandal of the day, that being the Las Vegas party at the General Services Administration that is currently the topic of a Congressional investigation. Looking at that page, I see that there is a substantial controversy section that includes the scandal (see General_Services_Administration#Controversy). I certainly don't think that we should be removing cited information from several years ago. If there's an argument that it's WP:UNDUE on this page, it should go on its own page. The anon editor's additions should be restored.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Apparently I'm not being clear. I'm not saying it's all recentism, but that is a substantial factor here. Just because some article mentioned a number of small incidents in a single breath, doesn't mean we have a pattern of "controversy" that warrants recognition. Let me get this out of the way: What happens on the GSA page is of no concern to me or this article. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Additionally, the two situations are very dissimilar. If you remove the current situation (which is still a lot of speculation) what you have left is a handful of relatively unimportant events. If we were to transfer this thought pattern to other articles, we could end up with a section of US Navy sailors that have been arrested. The Navy is notable, it got mentioned in a newspaper somewhere, so every misdemeanor arrest must need mentioned, otherwise we are "covering up" the "scandal". Or maybe we should list Red Sox players that got traffic tickets. Taking a bunch of unrelated, relatively minor (non-notable) events and manufacturing a controversy section isn't right. And let's be real about it: Most of this stuff is old and nobody cared about it until this current thing came up. This is just being used as a way to shoehorn in the new material before we even know what happened. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• I concur with Cdogsimmons and 24.14.36.165 that there needs to be information about this topic on the wiki. The original edit was neutral and had sources going back a decade. I don't know about the Red Sox, but, for instance, if you look at History_of_the_New_York_Mets#1993 there is all sorts of discussion of employees engaging in non-work related behavior that negatively impacted the organization. With the Cartagena event in particular, it is different from the "Navy misdemeanor" example in that you have the top political and bureaucratic officials publicly discussing the topic. That by its very nature brings the recent incidents to a different level of consequence which should be noted in the wiki. The original anonymous edit was useful in that it gave context to the pattern historically. I don't know how these disputes are resolved, but count this Mister's vote for re-inserting the anon edit. NorthMike (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, I can't believe that people actually think that an agent getting arrested years ago for committing a misdemeanor is encyclopedic. Out of the thousands of things the Secret Service has done over the years, a guy committing a misdmeanor off-duty is what we feel the agency history needs to cover. Just amazing. None of you will convince me for a second that this isn't really about the recent events and that mentioning all these minor things from the past is anything more than a smoke screen to put the new stuff in. Do whatever you want. There is a point where the ignorance is insurmountable and what's right gets lost in what is popular. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Let's keep it civil. I agree with NorthMike that the cited material goes to the context of today's events, not only to the culture of the organization, but it probably sets a precedent for how the Cartegena scandal will be dealt with.24.151.124.17 (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• The first bunch of material deals with a few incident spread over a 10 year period and mostly not related to any sex angle. Then an isolated agent who solicited a hooker 4 years ago. That's not a "culture" of anything. By your logic, baseball has a "culture" of drunk driving because a small percentage of players across the league have been arrested for DUI in the past 5 years. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think second mister's edit warring of this material was inappropriate. The material was cited and relevant. It could have been written better, but it was of appropriate length for the article. There definitely should be mention of the current scandal, which I will add right now. Cla68 (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Edit warring? You clearly don't know what the term means. I removed it a SINGLE time. Removing once and then engaging in the discussion isn't edit warring. So you can start apologizing for your false allegation any time now. The material was initially removed by another editor and I see now that a third editor has removed your addition, making a total of 3 different ones that have removed it. So trying to act like this is just me is really not accurate. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see no information on the prostitution scandal in Columbia. Much less notable events are mentioned regularly in Wikipedia and events like this one often have their own pages. guanxi (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Note that the prostitution scandal is mentioned on both the Cartagena, Colombia page and 6th Summit of the Americas page but not here. The scandal is more notable than the Summit. guanxi (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• I restored the information on the scandal originally edited by Cla68. As he says, there is no question of its notability and the content is well-written and well cited. If people want to edit and improve it, that's one thing, but removing mention of the event is non-NPOV. As many have pointed out on this talk page, the absence of any negative information on the page is suspicious. guanxi (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Again, since 3 separate editors have removed it, there clearly IS a freakin question about the notability and inclusion. Your sweeping in here and declaring that it is "unquestionably notable" multiple times is insulting and totally ignores the fact that there have been questions raised. Further, just putting in criticism just because there is none is NOT being NPOV. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry it frustrates you and I'll be happy to discuss the issues calmly. guanxi (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what make you think that your arrogance frustrates me, but you give yourself far too much credit. Now, you blow in and makes changes, then start posting how it's "unquestionably notable".....now you claim you want to discuss it? What is there to discuss with you? You have declared your POV as "unquestionable". Niteshift36 (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Please, Misters, a way of peace is nice for this wiki! For my friends, I see that we made a edit to put material about history of scandal in secret service. Some Misters make idea that "No, we need clean history." My friends! We need true! In some things, true and clean are not the same things! In the wiki, when many people see a information to put in and when a person does not want to see a information point to be put in, what do we do? I say that the wiki is like a democracy! Please, let us make a true democracy! Assalaam alaykum, my buddy assistants! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.36.165 (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Learning English or not, you need ot stop making your allegations of bad faith. This is not a matter of saying we need to keep in free of controversy. Saying that once is a mistake. Repeating it borders on a lie. What is being disputed it how relevant some of this junk is, not whether or not the article needs to be "clean". And in case you didn't know, Wikipedia is WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• 24.14.36.165: Thanks for your statement and I think you make a great point that is relevant to this discussion. Wikipedia could be so much more, and we could all save much aggravation and time if we cooperated, acted in good faith and assumed good faith with each other. Good luck learning English; your positive attitude really comes through regardless. guanxi (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• How you can praise good faith while he is making bad faith allegations is beyond me and tends to indicate a bias on your part. If you are so interested in AGF, you should call out the lack of it on both sides of a discussion, not just the side you oppose.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Tell us more about the name please?

Why is it called the secret service? When what it does is not particularly secret? Its roles all seems to be "jigory pokery", meaning they are all over the place and completely unrelated to one another. Protecting the president of the United States is its most well known role but that has got nothing to do with counterfeiting or crimes of commerce.

I just don't get it. It's almost like this an agency of the US administration did not enough specifics to do and therefore was given new purposes as they arose. Hence the name of this unit itself bares little resemblance to either of its main jobs because the protection of the US president is always a high profile affair (hardly secret, as a show of strength is its clearest deterrent) and capturing counterfeiters is an investigatory process in its very nature.

In a bizarre way this article does little to address the very manner of what the US Secret Service is in relation to its name. Has anyone ever commented on how it's a cool-sounding organization is so unrelated to its very unglamorous jobs? Is that why the name has been kept because the Presidential Protection Squad of the Department of Homeland Security under the auspices of the United States Treasury Department really does not have much of a ring to it!!!86.184.124.37 (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Encountering a vehicle round the back of the White House that was indistinguishable from the average US police car except for having the words “UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE” written in large friendly letters along the bottom of the doors made this passing Briton think that this is indeed a curious form of secrecy. Mr Larrington (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Also most USSS agents get their name from their secret service, because they are secretly protecting the president, and they are the service of him. Also Secret Service is the highest law enforcement in the Goverment and Army issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.117.91 (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV and RS issues

This article is mostly a brochure for the Secret Service. A great many of the cites are to the Secret Service itself and more are to other government sources. The article contains no negative events in a 150 year old organization; the fact that the Columbia prostitution scandal was apparently removed seems to indicate how that happened. guanxi (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• I love how you declared it "unquestionably notable" while 3 separate editors have removed it. Apparently there IS some question and you just refuse to recognize that. Adding negative just because there is none isn't "NPOV', so don't pretend it is.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you guanxi. The solution is simple, create a new article called United States Secret Service controversies and expand there. If any one controversy is too long, split off to its own article. The thing not to do is cruft up this article with negative stuff as it comes across as politics and endless debates about weighting and notability. See Coca-Cola for example how to do it right. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Weight of scandal

Why is the weight of the scandal only two sentences, but Cartagena, Colombia#United States Secret Service prostitution scandal is a long paragraph with tons of sources? Seems backwards. Questionable it should be mentioned at all in the Cartagena,_Colombia article, other than because editors feel forced to edit there after being rejected here. Screwy stuff. Obviously a whole lot of editors feel this belongs on Wikipedia and it's leaking across in different articles. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• What other editors in other articles feel is relevant for that article has no bearing here. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. See above for a discussion of it. (It's also in 6th Summit of the Americas) guanxi (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• And now we have as much about this as we do on the entire history up to the Truman years AND the Truman assassination attempt combined. Go ahead, tell me there isn't a weight problem. Your historical perspective is stunted. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the latest round of news reporting. This is exactly what happens when you start editing based on current news reports. Every hearing, quote or policy doesn't need included. This isn't a newspaper and when you worry more about "being current" over historical signifigance, you start turning the encyclopedia into a newspaper. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If you feel the other section is short then add to it, that is not reason to remove POLICY changes. There are 2 editors who added here and one who removed, thats against your consensus, get consensus to change that then. The article is about the secret service so a notable policy change it certanly not news to eb added here. Further, WP is not a paprt eneyclopeadia.Lihaas (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you're being a bit myopic. Three separate editors removed the whole thing before. We quit removing a small section, but this things gets more and more bloated. You don't have a consensus, so don't act like you do. Whether Wikipedia is a paper encyclopedia or not is irrelevant, it is still an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. A policy change isn't that relevant. Policies get changed all the time. And even if the changed was relevant, a large paragraph about it, who testified, when etc is not....it's undue weight. Making another section bigger won't relieve the undue weight being given here. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Solution proposal: Let's move the Napolitano site to the 6th Summit of the Americas site as part of the American reactions, while retaining the Secret Service police changes behind the sentence: "As of April 24, nine employees had resigned or retired." as controversy conclusions by the agency. P3Y229 07:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P3Y229 (talk • contribs)

• If the policy change part was not written in the sensational style the earlier entry was, maybe. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If my recent edit regarding the policy change is written in sensational style, please correct it so that it meets wiki standards. What about moving the Napolitano Congress hearing content back to the 6th Summit of the Americas article? P3Y229 19:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P3Y229 (talk • contribs)

• I think the current one it much better. The only suggestions I'd make is that 7 sources for one thing are a bit much and I'd cut one part a little further. I'd take "In addition hotel rooms are off limits for foreigners, but this applies not to hotel staff or foreign law enforcement colleagues." and simply say "Additionally, it restricts who is allowed in hotel rooms". One other part "non-reputable establishments respectively alcohol consume ten hours before starting work." I edited for clarity.Niteshift36 (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• I made those edits. Let me know what you think. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Perfect. Straight to the point and more understandable than my version. I repeat my previous question: What about moving the Napolitano Congress hearing content back to the 6th Summit of the Americas article? --P3Y229 21:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• I really have no position on where it goes, aside from it not belonging here. The Summit article doesn't interest me and I'm not going to follow the info over there. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

From my point of view the El Salvador section can be transfered to another section or excluded, because it is not directly connected to the Cartagena controversy. However what conclusions the Secret Service draws from the Cartagena controversy should not be removed, because the controversy has an impact on the Secret Service and the impact is described in the policy changes undertaken by the Secret Service. Secretary Napolitano stated during her Congress hearing that in the last 2 1/2 no report of misconduct like the Cartagena incident has been reported. Therefore the incident sticks out. This is in my eyes a turning point in the agency's history and therefore the testify section should not be removed. P3Y229 21:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P3Y229 (talk • contribs)

Yep, this is a good accomodation. Shortening instead of removing, and also rewording to improve as opposed to removing. Seems sorted now?(Lihaas (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)).

For me: Yes, but for me the Napolitano content is now a reaction from an US official belonging to the 6th summit of Americas site where reactions by US officials are listed. I therefore placed the Napolitano content after rewording at the 6th summit of Americas site. --P3Y229 09:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by P3Y229 (talk • contribs)

The section as currently written seems fine to me. I suggest including a large number of citations in the footnotes so interested editors can hit the weblinks if they want to know more details on the whoremongering and subsequent reprecussions. Cla68 (talk) 09:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• There are 7 sources in the section already, as well as a hatnote to go to the more expansive other article. I don't see a need to add more for the sake of adding more. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Subsections

Why is "Summit of the Americas prostitution scandal" a subsection of "Expansion to electronic crimes in the wake of September 11, 2001"? The two seem unrelated to me. I would just fix it but I see this has been a touchy subject. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Rank structure

Recently an IP editor removed the graphics about the rank structure of the uniformed division. It was reverted, but I think that the removal merits discussion. This article already uses a number of graphics in it, but I'm not convinced those drawn represenations are actually contributing much to the article. Any opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Secret Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120818161655/http://www.secretservice.gov/USSS2010AYweb.pdf to http://www.secretservice.gov/USSS2010AYweb.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

How much protection does the SS offer to royal families and their members?

Does the US provide free protection every time a royal family or a member of a family enters the US? If so, why is it the obligation to protect royals if the US schools teach that our system is one that rejects royalty? We already provide for this service for presidents and prime ministers. Do we also provide it to dictators? Or only friendly dictators? What kinds of leaders and special figures are US taxpayers paying protection for? 203.131.210.82 (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

How many pictures

This article has a lot of pictures. At what point do we stop adding them? I honestly feel like we're past that point. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on United States Secret Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502012837/http://www.intelligence.gov/about-the-intelligence-community/ to http://www.intelligence.gov/about-the-intelligence-community/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323160603/http://www.ctia.org/media/press/body.cfm/prid/1 to http://www.ctia.org/media/press/body.cfm/prid/1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120806094838/http://www.secretservice.gov/ectf.shtml to http://www.secretservice.gov/ectf.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120915122628/http://www.secretservice.gov/press/GPA05-09_EuropeanECTF.pdf to http://www.secretservice.gov/press/GPA05-09_EuropeanECTF.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100323234945/http://www.secretservice.gov/faq.shtml to http://www.secretservice.gov/faq.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091224134022/http://www.life.com/image/first/in-gallery/37872/inside-the-secret-service to http://www.life.com/image/first/in-gallery/37872/inside-the-secret-service

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Secret Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120504215800/http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/secret-service-amends-standards-conduct-after-kiro/nMkQJ/ to http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/secret-service-amends-standards-conduct-after-kiro/nMkQJ/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Explanation for my recent edit

@Thewolfchild: I landed on this page because I'm on the Wikipedia Typo Team and the word 'technical' was misspelled as 'technicial'. When making that correction, I also deleted the jargon abbreviations nearby. (I now see that there are other jargon abbreviations that I should have also deleted.) All Wikipedia editors should keep in mind that Wikipedia is not for just the specialists or those already familiar with the subject material of an article (in this case, for example, perhaps other law enforcement organizations), but is meant for millions of readers of English, from age 10 to 90 and from the U.S. to Australia and everywhere in between. Unless these terms are part of everyday English or are needed or add to the understanding of the subject of the article, abbreviations and acronyms should not appear in Wikipedia articles. They are used by insiders familiar with the subject or organization, whether the subject is scientific, medical, political, or pro wrestling, and should be either deleted or replaced by formal terminology or words that belong in an encyclopedia and are familiar to the general readership. In addition to fixing the technicial --> technical, I hope you reconsider and avoid the jargon abbreviations and acronyms. Thanks for reading.

Ira Leviton (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

First off, I appreciate your efforts as part of the typo team to help improve the project. I would make the suggestion, however, to separate simple typo corrections from other edits with any kind of content change that is possibly to be challenged. You were correct, the word technical needed to be fixed. However, I don't fully agree with your content removal (by fully, I mean that though I restored the acronyms, I've since removed most of them and changed the few that remain, along with restoring your typo correction). The usage of "SAC" ('sack') and ASAC ('ay-sack') are common among federal agencies that have personnel titled as 'Special Agents'. You hear it often in film & television, the media, books, etc. These are also noted on the FBI page. I don't see this as needless technical jargon, but informative content. Readers of all ages are likely from time to time hear the tern "SAC", or "DSAC" ('dee-sack') and come here to see what that means, so I think it's worthwhile content. Anyway, have a look at the change I made, if you still disagree, let me know. If I don't hear from you, I'll take that as your approval. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 10:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Name and reason for 'Secret' Service

I have been unable to find an official reason for calling it the 'Secret' Service though it likely has something to do with the secret anti-counterfeiting measures taken after the boom in post-Civil War counterfeiting which caused the formation of the USSS. It would be useful to have an official reason for this most unusual and non-descriptive word in a democratic state's executive branch police agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.10.185 (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of new TV show

Warehouse 13 Should it be added to popular Culture/ TV??? If No, Then why?

Edited on desktop website Via mobile phone. Thedued (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Lincoln signing legislation

The article says,

"On April 14, 1865, the day he was assassinated, Lincoln signed legislation that created the Secret Service."

That appears not to be true. In her book Zero Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Secret Service, Pulitzer prize-winner Carol Leonnig writes:

"Over the years, a myth grew that Lincoln had signed legislation to create the Secret Service at a meeting with [Treasury Secretary Hugh] McCulloch earlier on the very same day he was fatally shot. It's a story rich with irony, but also an apocryphal one."

For my part, looking through the statutes at large for 1865, I see no such legislation.

In his article The United States Secret Service: An Administrative History, Norman Ansley cites to a September 11, 1946 Federal Register notice (11 Fed. Reg. 177A-101, September 11, 1946) from Acting Secretary of the Treasury Joseph J. O'Connell that gives a June 23, 1860 date for the legislation, appropriating $10,000 to create what would be known as the Secret Service -- five years before Lincoln's assassination. O'Connell's note in turn cites to 12 Stat. 102; and there it is, on page 12 (also found in volume 12 of the statutes at large for 1860-1861 (printed page no. 102, PFD page no. 124):

"For the detection and bringing to trial of persons engaged in counterfeiting the coin of the United States, to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, ten thousand dollars."

Based on the clear statement by Leonnig that the story is apocryphal, consistent with Ansley's published research, and the supporting documents in the Federal Register and Statutes at Large, I'm killing this. TJRC (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Also: Investigation of Executive Agencies of the Government: Report to the Select Committee to Investigate the Executive Agencies of the Government Pursuant to Senate Resolution No. 217: "The Secret Service Division of the Treasury Department, officially titled the United States Secret Service, started with an appropriation of $ 10,000 made in 1861 to 'detect, arrest, and prosecute counterfeiters of the coins of the United States.' The Division was organized and a chief appointed on July 1, 1865. First supervised by the Solicitor of the Treasury and later by an Assistant Secretary, the Division was instructed on November 22, 1933, to report directly to the Secretary of the Treasury." TJRC (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

References