Chelsea Clinton's High-Security Wedding: Why Was a No-Fly Zone Imposed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rootX
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the high security measures, including a no-fly zone, implemented for Chelsea Clinton's wedding, attributed to her parents' political prominence—her mother being the Secretary of State and her father a former President. Participants debate the necessity and implications of such security, with some arguing it reflects an abuse of power and a display of privilege, while others assert it is essential for the safety of public figures and their families. The conversation highlights the perceived risks associated with the children of politicians, emphasizing that they are often targets for crime due to their parents' status. Critics argue that the security measures should not extend to the offspring of politicians, suggesting that private arrangements would suffice. The legality of the Secret Service's protection for former presidents is also discussed, noting that it is mandated by law. Ultimately, the thread reflects a tension between public safety, personal privacy, and the responsibilities of those in power.
Physics news on Phys.org
It is, unfortunately, indispensable that children of prominent politicians is given a larger-than-usual degree of protection.

If they were not, you could be certain some would take advantage of that situation, to the detriment of the child and the parents.

There are risks that foreseeably will occur if you choose to become a politician, but it doesn't then follow that the outcome of such risks is not something we do not have a communal obligation to prevent.

While a politician most definitely can stop whining if he gets bad-mouther, or quoted-out-of-context, his effective protection against
criminal acts should be as great as that of an ordinary person.

Since his position indubitably increases the risk of being a crime target, he is entitled to more formal protection than the ordinary person, in order to maintain his personal safety on an acceptable level.

Same goes for his family members.
 
That's to keep Bill away from the bridesmaids.
 
arildno said:
Since his position indubitably increases the risk of being a crime target, he is entitled to more formal protection than the ordinary person, in order to maintain his personal safety on an acceptable level.

Same goes for his family members.


He, or her. Their offspring should not be. The offspring did not raised to a function of any importance in a democracy. Theoretically, they should receive no protection save the one offered to any citizen. And since police is not a protection agency, but a law enforcement one, they should hire private bodyguards to protect their offspring, and not abuse governmental power to hinder or forbidden traffic of any kind (road, railway, aerial).

If they feel there is a security risk they should marry their daughter in a private ceremony with no public exposure whatsoever.
 
Evo said:
Her mother is the Secretary of State and her father is a former President. No doubt a lot of political bigwigs and rich people that have power are there.

But, this is their personal event not state event. I see this more of an abuse of their power.





There was another expensive wedding which +$55m, I don't know if similar security measurements were taken:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3830009.stm

This wedding is "The wedding is expected to cost between $2m (£1.3m) and $3m (£1.9m), experts told the Associated Press news agency."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10828516
 
Theoretically, they should receive no protection save the one offered to any citizen.
Completely wrong theory, founded upon the wilful ignoring of unpleasant facts.

One of those unpleasant facts being that kidnappers do NOT "theoretically" disregard what status the parents have, or have had..
 
Jimmy Snyder said:
That's to keep Bill away from the bridesmaids.

How ? He is already there, giving away his daughter, and I think there will be enough Monica invited as guests already
 
  • #10
arildno said:
Completely wrong theory, founded upon the wilful ignoring of unpleasant facts.

Actually, no. The theory is not wrong. The practice is wrong.
 
  • #11
DanP said:
Actually, no. The theory is not wrong. The practice is wrong.
Sure the theory is wrong.

Since potential kidnappers (and other malefactors) do NOT regard the child's parentage irrelevant, neither should we.

End of story, refutation of silly theory.
 
  • #12
arildno said:
One of those unpleasant facts being that kidnappers do NOT "theoretically" disregard what status the parents have, or have had..


Who cares ? If they feel there is a security risk, they should marry their daughter in catacombs far away from worlds eyes and hire a private security detail.

Disrupting aerial traffic is something fit for the heirs of Rome's Imperators, not into a democracy :P
 
  • #13
DanP said:
How ? He is already there, giving away his daughter, and I think there will be enough Monica invited as guests already

:smile:
 
  • #14
arildno said:
Sure the theory is wrong.

Since potential kidnappers (and other malefactors) do NOT regard the child's parentage irrelevant, neither should we.

Tell this to the mothers who had children kidnapped on the streets of any city in USA or Europe, mon ami :P

End of story :P This is a big ********

PS.

I hope you don't equate the life of a politician offspring with any more value that the life of a poor , needy neighbor of yours.
 
  • #15
DanP said:
Tell this to the mothers who had children kidnapped on the streets of any city in USA or Europe, mon ami :P

And, your point being?
 
  • #16
arildno said:
And, your point being?

Prolly you'll learn it if you children will be kidnapped or otherwise harmed. You'll have the revelation.
 
  • #17
rootX said:
But, this is their personal event not state event. I see this more of an abuse of their power.
It has nothing to do with their power or any abuse. It's a law:

Public Law 89-186 said:
In 1965, Congress authorized the Secret Service (Public Law 89-186) to protect a former president and his/her spouse during their lifetime, unless they decline protection. In 1997, Congress enacted legislation (Public Law 103-329) that limits Secret Service protection for former presidents to 10 years after leaving office. 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 10 years after leaving office. Therefore, President Clinton will be the last president to receive lifetime protection.
http://www.secretservice.gov/faq.shtml#faq9"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
Jimmy Snyder said:
It has nothing to do with their power or any abuse. It's a law:http://www.secretservice.gov/faq.shtml#faq9"

"his or her / spouse". His legally responsible offspring should not receive protection. In any way not one payed from governmental money, and with flight interdiction.

You are afraid for her ? Very well. Any parent would be. Marry her in a private ceremony, protected by a private security detail at a unknown location.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
DanP said:
"his or her / spouse".
I'm not sure what you meant by this. Both Bill and Hillary would be protected by this law. If they show up for their daughter's wedding, the protection will be there too. In addition, there may be a law protecting the Secretary of State while she is in office as well.
 
  • #20
DanP said:
"his or her / spouse". His legally responsible offspring should not receive protection. In any way not one payed from governmental money, and with flight interdiction.

You are afraid for her ? Very well. Any apreant would be. Marry her in a private ceremony, protected by a private security detail at a unknown location.
Since they are in attendance, they are given protection. Chelsea has the right to have any type of wedding she wishes.

Not to mention the people that are in attendence. Wiping out all of those top US and foreign officials would be disastrous.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
arildno said:
Sure the theory is wrong.

Since potential kidnappers (and other malefactors) do NOT regard the child's parentage irrelevant, neither should we.

End of story, refutation of silly theory.

Then should there be a constant no fly zone directly above Chelsea Clinton at all times? She would be a lot more likely to be kidnapped at any other time than at a huge wedding.
 
  • #22
DanP said:
His legally responsible offspring should not receive protection.
She doesn't. The protection is for her parents, not for her. She just happens to be there. The same goes for the bridesmaids, the ones who need protection most. Presumably Bill will provide for that out of pocket.

Edit: For example, if you invite the Clintons to your wedding and they accept, then you get the no fly zone too. Don't bother inviting Chelsea, it won't work.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
DanP said:
I hope you don't equate the life of a politician offspring with any more value that the life of a poor , needy neighbor of yours.

I'm fairly certain arildno doesn't, but kidnappers sure as hell do.

If a kid of a politician were kidnapped the taxpayers would foot the bill for their safe return. Think of the extra security as an insurance policy.
 
  • #24
lisab said:
If a kid of a politician were kidnapped the taxpayers would foot the bill for their safe return.

Should they? What about the circumstances where the kid was kidnapped for money rather than political reasons?

While, I don't see big problem with putting one security car behind and one ahead of their black window bullet proof car but making it a no-fly zone and putting police all over the town seems bit too much.
 
  • #25
Jimmy Snyder said:
I'm not sure what you meant by this. Both Bill and Hillary would be protected by this law. If they show up for their daughter's wedding, the protection will be there too. In addition, there may be a law protecting the Secretary of State while she is in office as well.

Sure, afaik there is permanent no-fly order over Washington DC, no ??:P :devil:
 
  • #26
rootX said:
Should they? What about the circumstances where the kid was kidnapped for money rather than political reasons?

While, I don't see big problem with putting one security car behind and one ahead of their black window bullet proof car but making it a no-fly zone and putting police all over the town seems bit too much.

My bet is the no-fly zone was to keep paparazzi from circling helicopters overhead all day, not purely security per se. I don't have the slightest issue with it. Just think of all the fuel they aren't burning :-p.
 
  • #27
lisab said:
I'm fairly certain arildno doesn't, but kidnappers sure as hell do.

If a kid of a politician were kidnapped the taxpayers would foot the bill for their safe return. Think of the extra security as an insurance policy.

Irrelevant. We (the civilized world governments) don't negotiate with terrorists. Bad luck if they get kidnapped. Kids die every day. In wars, on streets, victims to drugs, whatver
 
  • #28
lisab said:
My bet is the no-fly zone was to keep paparazzi from circling helicopters overhead all day, not purely security per se. I don't have the slightest issue with it. Just think of all the fuel they aren't burning :-p.

Federal money to keep paparazzi away ? Hurting the private economy to keep paparazzi away ?
 
  • #29
Jimmy Snyder said:
The same goes for the bridesmaids, the ones who need protection most. Presumably Bill will provide for that out of pocket.
.

Is there a federal anti BJ policy the world didn't know about ?
 
  • #30
DanP said:
Federal money to keep paparazzi away ? Hurting the private economy to keep paparazzi away ?

Ah right, and we aren't getting tax money from the fuel that the paparazzi aren't burning either! Let's go get some torches and storm the place!
 
  • #31
DanP said:
Irrelevant. We (the civilized world governments) don't negotiate with terrorists. Bad luck if they get kidnapped. Kids die every day. In wars, on streets, victims to drugs, whatver

Well if the Bush twins or Obama's kids were kidnapped, I don't think government officials would be coming to you for guidance.
 
  • #32
lisab said:
Let's go get some torches and storm the place!

Why would would you do that ?
 
  • #33
lisab said:
Well if the Bush twins or Obama's kids were kidnapped, I don't think government officials would be coming to you for guidance.

They wouldn't, but its also irrelevant.
 
  • #34
DanP said:
Why would we do that ?

You're right. I don't give a rat sass.
 
  • #35
lisab said:
I don't give a rat sass.

But you should IMO. You should be concerned that your daughter does / will receive the same degree of protection from the *state* (private security not withstanding ) as does the heiress of a political family. Just in case the dark side does struck too close to the home :P
 
  • #36
DanP said:
But you should IMO. You should be concerned that your daughter does / will receive the same degree of protection from the *state* (private security not withstanding ) as does the heiress of a political family. Just in case the dark side does struck too close to the home :P

Guess I'm just too rational and pragmatic to think that; that kind of concern doesn't even cross my little mind. Besides, fame is way, way overrated, I'd truly hate to have to *need* that kind of security.

And yes, Chelsea does need it. I feel sorry for her, and all kids of famous people.
 
  • #37
lisab said:
Besides, fame is way, way overrated, I'd truly hate to have to *need* that kind of security.

You see, nobody needs security until a daughter or a wife get raped/killed/whatever by a lunatic 100meters from home. It happens. That's the wake up call.

And no, fame is not over rated. Its just a choice.
 
  • #38
DanP said:
You see, nobody needs security until a daughter or a wife get raped/killed/whatever by a lunatic 100meters from home. It happens. That's the wake up call.

And no, fame is not over rated. Its just a choice.

It's not the kids' choice.
 
  • #39
rootX said:
But, this is their personal event not state event. I see this more of an abuse of their power.
It really isn't. Former Presidents get secret service protection for life because they are just that vaulable. They know a lot of secrets that a lot of people would do very bad things to get.
 
  • #40
lisab said:
Guess I'm just too rational and pragmatic to think that; that kind of concern doesn't even cross my little mind. Besides, fame is way, way overrated, I'd truly hate to have to *need* that kind of security.

And yes, Chelsea does need it. I feel sorry for her, and all kids of famous people.

The thing is that it has very little to do with risk and very much to do with the perceived value of the individuals. Need is irrelevant. If I and my family have been receiving death threats on a daily basis and there were known individuals in our area who have explicitly made it aware that they plan to murder us TODAY we would receive only the tiniest fraction of police protection made available for the Clintons. And with all of those death threats and such if I were to decide to go to the store to pick up groceries I would be strongly advised against it and told it is on my own head if I decide to go out to pick up my necessities anyway. Yet the Clintons decide to have a big wedding for their daughter (painting a big target for anyone who may possibly conceivably decide to act upon it) and it is considered only natural that they will be given some of the best security the american people's tax money can provide.
 
  • #41
TheStatutoryApe said:
The thing is that it has very little to do with risk and very much to do with the perceived value of the individuals. Need is irrelevant. If I and my family have been receiving death threats on a daily basis and there were known individuals in our area who have explicitly made it aware that they plan to murder us TODAY we would receive only the tiniest fraction of police protection made available for the Clintons. And with all of those death threats and such if I were to decide to go to the store to pick up groceries I would be strongly advised against it and told it is on my own head if I decide to go out to pick up my necessities anyway. Yet the Clintons decide to have a big wedding for their daughter (painting a big target for anyone who may possibly conceivably decide to act upon it) and it is considered only natural that they will be given some of the best security the american people's tax money can provide.

Ape, most humans only realize what you wrote here only after they have a up close and personal experience with crime, misfortune, fatal illnesses and so on. It's almost funny how fast misfortune can wipe pragmatism ,rationality and smug smiles from the face of a person after it hits them / spouses / offspring. Like I said, wake up call .
 
  • #42
lisab said:
It's not the kids' choice.

Chelsea is no kid.
 
  • #43
Jimmy Snyder said:
It has nothing to do with their power or any abuse. It's a law:

In 1965, Congress authorized the Secret Service (Public Law 89-186) to protect a former president and his/her spouse during their lifetime, unless they decline protection. In 1997, Congress enacted legislation (Public Law 103-329) that limits Secret Service protection for former presidents to 10 years after leaving office. 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 10 years after leaving office. Therefore, President Clinton will be the last president to receive lifetime protection.

http://www.secretservice.gov/faq.shtml#faq9"

russ_watters said:
It really isn't. Former Presidents get secret service protection for life because they are just that vaulable. They know a lot of secrets that a lot of people would do very bad things to get.

Side note (not making any argument): Only for 10 years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
Dan, would you like a time out? Please stop trolling; it really gets old after awhile.
 
  • #46
And yes, Chelsea does need it. I feel sorry for her, and all kids of famous people.
I'll trade lives with her and give you a real reason to feel sorry for her. You may have to be on suicide watch after seeing the horrors I go through. Comparatively speaking.
 
  • #47
Evo said:
Dan, would you like a time out? Please stop trolling; it really gets old after awhile.

Actually, I can ensure you Evo that this is no trolling. It is my view of life. I can understand many of you don't like it, but you just can't say someone who thinks differently than you is trolling.
 
  • #48
Ah, the wedding day. This brings me back to my own. We were married twice in one day, first at the Taiwan city court house. The judge spoke to me in Chinese asking me to promise this, that, and the other thing. My wife translated for me which was a conflict of interest. Then we wed again at her eldest brother's house. There were lots of speeches with lots of translation. Some spoke in English, but I had an easier time with the translated Chinese. Then we went to a reception hall for the party. No security, no no fly zone, just two crazy love-birds and about 500 business and political associates of her brother. On my side was an acquaintance of mine that I had met in Japan and who later moved to Taiwan. He was my best man for lack of any other who could do it. Also, I had my mother shipped in for the affair. She spent the whole time in Taiwan looking for a Chinese take-out. There are no Phoenix Garden's in Taiwan. My advise to Chelsea and Marc is to get married in Taiwan if they want to skinny down the guest list.
 
  • #49
My goodness. It's the marriage that's important, not the wedding. Guess I have a problem with such focus on the latter with nothing said about the former. I mean look at the bride in today's news. She's just as happy as can be. They all are. Then what happens several years down the road? A good percentage, 50% at least, hate each others guts. Why? I tell you why. They're focusing on the wrong things, like the wedding.

What, two million for that wedding? How about spending that on marriage education instead or a good part of it at least. Yeah, I know, they'll grumble about it.

Couples just don't want to take the time to learn, and do what it takes to have a healthy marriage and all that fluff of the wedding isn't going to help one bit.
 
Last edited:
  • #50
DanP said:
Actually, I can ensure you Evo that this is no trolling. It is my view of life. I can understand many of you don't like it, but you just can't say someone who thinks differently than you is trolling.
When you misrepresent other peoples' posts and focus on irrelevancies, it gives the appearance of trolling. Ie, the bit about Chelesea not being a kid. If you seriously misunderstood that what was meant is that Chelsea is Bill's offspring, not whether she's legally a child, then you don't understand the issue well enough to be discussing it or are having serious comprehension issues. If you did understand what was really meant and argued it for the sake of arguing, that's trolling.

Either way, you're way off base in this discussion. It's not just "thinking differently", what you are saying is illogical/nonsensical. This is at least partly due to lack of comprehension: You've demonstrated that you misunderstand who is being protected and why. Since you don't understand these things, it can't really be said that you "think differently" because you don't even know what the mainstream thought is!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

News IS Hack of US Central Command's Twitter and YouTube accounts
Replies
17
Views
2K
Is Imposing Ideology on Children a Form of Child Abuse?
Replies
34
Views
6K
News Hillary Clinton Running for President
5
Replies
200
Views
18K
"Arrivals" list inside secure airport terminals
Replies
8
Views
2K
Should physician-assisted death be legalized in all countries?
Replies
38
Views
5K
John Podesta's greatest regret - government silence on UFOs
2
Replies
69
Views
8K
Explore Weird Population Distrib. of China, India, USA, Russia, Canada
Replies
19
Views
3K
News Stop "Fox News North" - Avaaz.org 21M Global Campaign Network
Replies
6
Views
3K
The Mystery of Space-Time Slow Zones
Replies
4
Views
2K
News Is the EMD Safety Bracelet an Ethical Solution for Airline Security?
Replies
28
Views
6K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top