Why is protecting the U.S president important ?

[skrump]

Why is protecting the U.S president important ?
I mean really, the president is pretty expendable and easily replaced in my personal opinion.

Furthermore most presidents don't follow up on their campaign promises so as their term progresses their approval rating plummets so wouldn't it make sense to take away those armed guards once the approval rating drops below a certain point thus the fear of such a thing happening would help keep them honest and doing everything they could to remain popular with the people.

[Woebegone]

It would be rather detrimental to democracy if an elected official, whom some sixty million people or so voted for, could be removed from office with one bullet by one person.

At least that's the way I see it.

[Darsithis]

Since when was leadership based on the endpoint of a gun? Really? Take away protection for one of the most important positions in the country because their approval rating is low?

[Roose]

It is more like protecting our political system than simply protecting one man. Does not matter who is in office or how good/bad of a job they may be doing.

[poser765]

That is a very short sighted observation. The fact is there are probalby right now MANY people who would like to take a stab at the president. or any president. Just having the job makes you a target whether you keep campaign promises or not. Why would you NOT want to protect someone who is obviously at risk for violence?

[Kathandira]

Why is protecting the U.S president important ?
I mean really, the president is pretty expendable and easily replaced in my personal opinion.

Furthermore most presidents don't follow up on their campaign promises so as their term progresses their approval rating plummets so wouldn't it make sense to take away those armed guards once the approval rating drops below a certain point thus the fear of such a thing happening would help keep them honest and doing everything they could to remain popular with the people.

I'll bite.

Even if your approval rate drops, should be put in harms way?

If the approval rate drops, this means people aren't too fond of you. There are quite a few crazies out there would love to put a bullet in a presidents head. Should you open him up to such an attack?

Also remember, most of the things a candidate says they want to do are empty promises. It all depends what congress decides in the end. The president can't magically decide to make changes. Things have to go past many desks before it can be approved.

[Malkazam]

Because he the leader of the strongest country and millitary forces ?

[Elim Garak]

It would be rather detrimental to democracy if an elected official, whom some sixty million people or so voted for, could be removed from office with one bullet by one person.

Well, Secret Service does add some challenge. Makes it more, I don't know, interesting for the players? But, come on, trash harder than the boss - lame.

[Kraenen]

he could be held hostage or blackmailed or something of the sort, and put the whole country at risk

[Deleted]

It's not wise for the leader of a country to be unprotected.

[Mayhem]

that´s the spirit, let them live in fear of death if they don´t win the popularity event

[Dillon]

Killing a legally elected president would do far more harm than good.

You just made them a martyr, legitimizing everything you hated about them and turning them into a legend. You turned the vice president into acting president, no doubt a person equipped with lesser faculties. You also open the door for political crusades.

Unless said president is a tyrant, would it not be better to just wait four years?

[Darsithis]

he could be held hostage or blackmailed or something of the sort, and put the whole country at risk

This, too. He holds a lot of secrets...obviously, being the leader of the country. He also has command over our military forces to a degree, veto power, policy power, various legal rights and is the public face of the country's leadership.

[Verain]

I'll actually answer the question, even though, well, you know why that's mostly wasted on the OP.

1)- If the president was not protected, the quality of future presidents would be greatly diminished.
Being president, is, among other things, a position where some people would try to kill or injure you or your direct family. If being president implied this huge additional risk and society did not outlay extra resources to protect the president, you would be limited to presidents who lack the cognizance to recognize the risk, are so power-mad that that they do not care, are incapable of processing their own mortality, or are literally so deranged that they believe demonstrably untrue things (ie, invincibility). You would never have a sane or smart president if you did not offer him commensurate protection for his office.

2)- The president is trained up over some period to handle an extremely difficult job. Presidents dying in office would greatly stymie this, and you would not long have presidents able to perform the task for this reason, if (1) somehow was working for you.

3)- The president's job involves decisionmaking. If he himself is at great risk, he could be rendered unable to come up with any correct solution that would be unpopular. It would reduce the will of the office in being able to do essentially anything.

4)- The president is our leader (assuming you are American). He is also elected by the people (via a somewhat silly method). This means that an attack on him is an attack on you- and a successful attack on him would ultimately be bad for every American.


When you see proposals like "replace the presidents guards with gun-free zones", those are tongue in cheek. The petitioners there are not saying that the president is unimportant- they are saying that a "gun free zone" is ineffective, and is obviously not used to defend targets whose lives we value- with the implication that it should not be used to defend say, theaters and schools. The NRA's message was also along these lines- they are using reductio ad absurdem (because it would be absurd to leave the president with the protection of a yard sign, or his daughters in a school with no guards) to demonstrate a political point ("therefore we should defend ourselves and our children in like manner, because it is actually effective").

If you are actually serious about this question and this didn't clear it up, I could definitely post more. Those just struck me as the most important reasons- you couldn't have a good president, you couldn't have an experienced president, and an attack on the president is symbolically an attack on every American, so it would devastate the nation to not have a well defended president.

[mistuhbull]

Killing a legally elected president would do far more harm than good.

You just made them a martyr, legitimizing everything you hated about them and turning them into a legend. You turned the vice president into acting president, no doubt a person equipped with lesser faculties. You also open the door for political crusades.

Unless said president is a tyrant, would it not be better to just wait four years?

Of course it would be worse to wait four years, any politician whom I disagree with is a secret ______ and is actively attempting to destroy America and turn it over to their ______ Overlords. If we wait four years the country will be destroyed and all American Citizens will be slaves to that politician's Evil _______ Overlords

[Mihalik]

The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the single largest and most dangerous military force in the world. A military force that has at is immediate disposal an arsenal that can kill all life on Earth several times over at a moments notice. As Commander in Chief he has the autorithy to deploy the before said weapons to protect the United States from any immediate threat real or percieved.

Altought Congress must approve going to War and must finance it, the President has powers vested in him to go to war at a moments notice as in certain cases (like the Nuclear stand off with former Soviet Union) there would be no time to go trough a Congressional debate.

Additionally as the Head of the Executive branch, the President has acces on all levels to wide range of information that are matters of National Security, commercial, military, diplomatic etc.

This is why former Presidents still recieve Secret Service protection for the rest of their lives.

Would you want to risk losing such key information? Would you risk distrupting the operation of the executive branch or risk permiting the decapitation of the military chain of command? The President is not expendable. Literally almost every single other member of both the Legistlative and Executive branches are expendable, but the President, as he also has the power to rebuild the Executive branch in cases of Emergency untill, new elections can be held.

You clearly have no idea how your own Governament functions. This is coming from a European.

[Belloc]

If you are actually serious about this question and this didn't clear it up, I could definitely post more. Those just struck me as the most important reasons- you couldn't have a good president, you couldn't have an experienced president, and an attack on the president is symbolically an attack on every American, so it would devastate the nation to not have a well defended president.

Anyone who seriously has to ask the question is probably incapable of understanding the answer.

[Rukentuts]

he could be held hostage or blackmailed or something of the sort, and put the whole country at risk

If he was held hostage, they'd just terminate his position in office and he wouldn't have any power. Just as if he had a stroke.

[mistuhbull]

If he was held hostage, they'd just terminate his position in office and he wouldn't have any power. Just as if he had a stroke.

Now, I've been watching The West Wing, so I'm basically an expert when it comes to how the US government works at this point. But doesn't the President have to relinquish that power himself? I don't think there's anyone above him who can go "ok, you don't have your job anymore". Something about a signed letter or something.

[poser765]

If he was held hostage, they'd just terminate his position in office and he wouldn't have any power. Just as if he had a stroke.

But he will still have all the codes!!!

Isn't that what it's always about in the movies. Codes? Codes to launch missiles. Codes to secret government bank accounts. Codes to everyone's luggage.