In The President's Secret Service - Book Review

[Carl Shawver]

.
.
In The President’s Secret Service by Ronald Kessler contains a mixture of historical retrospective of the agency, description of current agency responsibilities and activities, pointed criticism of agency management and outright gossip of the most detestable sort on the part of former and currently employed agents who should know better and should adhere to higher ethical standards than they demonstrated in contributing to this book.

Absent certain salacious disclosures and gossipy personal information about people protected by the Service, made primarily but not exclusively by unidentified agents, this book would probably experience minimal sales and most copies would quickly find their way to the remaindered tables in book stores. That explains author Kessler’s motivation for including the material. How certain agents could justify their participation in the production of this book is probably more nuanced.

Although some of the attributed stories were relatively innocuous, it was clear that many anecdotes were told for the specific purpose of embarrassing and getting even with someone who had inconvenienced or offended the agent who was recounting the event. Arguably such offenses might be considered justification for telling tales in other circumstances, but in the context of the relationship between Secret Service agents and those who they protect this is not only unprofessional, it is despicable!

A friend asked me if Secret Service agents were required to sign some document pledging not to disclose information such as that which appears in this book. My response was that in the past such pledges were not considered necessary. Personal integrity alone was considered sufficient. It appears that is no longer the case.

There are criticisms of Secret Service management sprinkled throughout the book, with particularly pointed attacks in the closing chapters. Using material directly from interviews he conducted with the Director and other headquarters officials, Kessler heartily condemns failures of leadership in the areas of adequate funding, proper personnel management, neglected refresher training, falsified training reports, exaggerated arrest statistics and inadequate protective measures.

Unattributed quotes from currently employed agents are used to document inadequate weaponry, insufficient staffing levels of protective details and serious lapses in perimeter security, particularly with regard to abandoning the use of magnetometer screening at the behest of the staff members of persons being protected.

When asked about these issues, neither the Director nor other headquarters spokesmen provided responses which Kessler considered adequate. In some cases he did not even get a response.

Although Kessler attributes many of the leadership problems of the Service to having been placed under the Department of Homeland Security, he closes out the book with a call for selecting the director of the Service from outside the agency. He says that until this is done its “culture of denial (regarding agency shortcomings) will remain intact.” He summarizes that “Agents who are concerned that the Secret Service is on the brink of a disaster say that only a director appointed from the outside can make the wholesale changes that are needed in the agency’s management and culture.”

In closing his book, Kessler casts himself as a patriot who has made public these serious shortcomings of the Secret Service as a public service in order to generate “reforms that could avert a calamity.”

The one shortcoming that he blithely overlooks, and in fact which he promotes, is the inexcusable breach of confidentiality that has taken place with the publication of information about the personal lives of the people protected by the Service which has been provided to him by those who are or once were certified to be “worthy of trust and confidence.”

Carl Shawver
.
.

[worfusa2008]

Carl,

Buddy, were you so isolated from reality that you could not see this? Those who talked to Kessler, with the blessings of the Director, told it like it was and still is - more's the pity. The Humps, past and present, have been so victimized by the culture of vindictive mismanagement that the only ones who don't see this are those inoculated by the steady diet of HQ kool-aid. From your post, I can only assume that you were not treated as shamefully as the rest of us who were busting their keesters to get the job done, for which middle and upper management took the credit. I can't believe that you have done such a 180 since I knew you. You were one who held their feet to the fire until you became a Boss. Sorry to see that you have gone over to the Dark Side. The Service desperately needs a law enforcement professional from the outside to run the outfit. His first job should be to fire or reassign to the closet every GS-15 and above in HQ and promote Street Humps whose primary concern is to look out for those GS-13 and below street humps. The fact, that you should have to rise to the defense of HQ, is indicative of the fact that something is not right there. It was a great job in the 70's and early 80's but some thing happened after that. Potomac fever, maybe? AD Burke retiring,maybe? Please don't let nostalgia blind you to reality. Applicants, whom I have interviewed, admit that they only look at the Service as job, nothing more and nothing less. If something better comes along, they're gone. They freely admit knowledge of the 3 - 5 year rule (gone after 3 and before 5). HQ hires them anyway. "Worthy of Trust and Confidence" has no meaning to them. Our outfit is in trouble.
As for the "breach of confidentiality", it was the Director who authorized active agents and supervisors ( and hence retired Agents and UD Officers) to talk to Kessler (What was he thinking?). In his mistaken decision to "open the books" to put a friendly face on the Service, he made the word "Secret", as in Secret Service, a non-operative word. For this, if nothing else, he should resign.

[Carl Shawver]

.
Worf, worf, worf………………………

I can’t believe that you so profoundly mis-read my book review. Perhaps a brief translation of each paragraph would clarify my view.
Here is a paragraph by paragraph translation of my book review (which I tried to make fair and even-handed.)

1. The book has two parts, fact and gossip. Shame on the people who provided gossip.

2. Without the gossip part the book probably wouldn’t have sold many copies.

3. Many of the insider stories were actually inoffensive, but some of them were clearly intended to inflict harm on the reputation of people who the Service protected as a way of getting even for offensive behavior on the part of the protectee. Shame on the people who told these stories.

4. Agents have never been required to sign pledges of secrecy regarding what they know of the private lives of protectees. Maybe it is time to start requiring such pledges.

5. In the closing chapters of the book Kessler documents in great detail many shortcomings and inadequacies of the leadership and management of the Service, using direct quotes from the Director and other high ranking headquarters officials to demonstrate both the deficiencies and the attitude of denial present at the headquarters level.

6. Unnamed agents who are currently assigned to protective assignments provide concrete examples of the inadequacy of the current level of security.

7. When asked specifically about inadequate security issues neither the Director nor other headquarters officials gave convincing responses. On occasion they did not respond at all.

8. & 9. Kessler calls for the appointment of a director from outside the agency and gives his reasons. He says active duty agents believe the agency would benefit from getting leadership from the outside. He gives his motivation for writing this material as a desire to avert a calamity.

10. In listing the shortcomings of the agency, the one that he serenely overlooks is the failure of former and current agents to maintain confidentiality about the private lives of those protected by the Service. Again, shame on them.


Now, worf, here is my question:

Where, in either the original review or this translation, do you get the idea that I spoke approvingly or defensively of the leadership or management of the Service?

I did, of course, condemn the disclosures about the private lives of Service protectees. I would be interested in your view of these disclosures. Do you approve and defend such disclosures? If so, on what basis?
.
.

[worfusa2008]

1. Defensively

2. While I don't approve, apparently the Director did. He opened the books, so to speak, by granting agents and supervisors permission to "tell all". By extension, retired agents, UD, and supervisors were thereby included.

I would like to answer your other points but I don't have the luxury of all the time on my hands that you seem to have.

Nice reply though, albeit a little condescending. Good Bye.

[Carl Shawver]

Hi Worf.

Apparently I didn't formulate my question well. I wasn't asking for a choice between whether you thought I had spoken of management EITHER approvingly OR defensively; I was asking for a quotation from my review of any example of how I might have spoken well of management AT ALL.

I certainly don't see where I did.

Perhaps you could also find a direct quotation anywhere where the director used the terminology "tell all." I simply don't believe it.

It's a shame that you disparage my attempt to clarify my review by denigrating the effort that went into it by implying that I don't have anything else to do while you are active and busy. Particularly since you know my identity and I don't know yours. Incidentally, have you opened the private message that I sent you via leoaffairs a few days ago?

I don't know where you got the idea that I'm a fan of headquarters. Do you have an HR-218 card in your pocket? You may not be aware that the original stance of the Service was that they would not issue the cards. After this decision was published by DD Riggs, I sent her an open letter (published on the association board as well) decrying the decision. After many more retirees joined my protest the Service changed their position and issued the cards. I was not well liked at headquarters.

Well, I know you are busy so I won't prolong this.

Keep on posting..............

:mrgreen:

1. Defensively

2. While I don't approve, apparently the Director did. He opened the books, so to speak, by granting agents and supervisors permission to "tell all". By extension, retired agents, UD, and supervisors were thereby included.

I would like to answer your other points but I don't have the luxury of all the time on my hands that you seem to have.

Nice reply though, albeit a little condescending. Good Bye.

Careful there WORUSA you are beginning to sound and respond like you are a member of AFAUSSS's BOD. Please attack the messege not the messenger. You can disagree without making personal comments regarding the OP's schedule busy or not. I most often agree with your postings but you definitely are out of line in your most recent posting.

[worfusa2008]

Careful,

You're right. Sorry Carl. I'll get my blood pressure medication adjusted. The last thing I want is to be thought of as one of The Suits.

[Carl Shawver]

Careful,

You're right. Sorry Carl. I'll get my blood pressure medication adjusted. The last thing I want is to be thought of as one of The Suits.

Our views almost always coincide so I was surprised you were unhappy with the book review. I was trying to give a balanced view of the book. If I had endorsed all of the criticisms of management listed in the book I would probably have been attacked as promoting sales of the book; which would be a major offense in the eyes of those who cannot separate the content of the book from their dislike of the author because of his misuse of our confidential membership list.

The translation was not intended to be condescending; it was an (apparently failed) attempt at wry humor.

.

The recent penetration of White House security by uninvited guests getting into an official State Dinner seem to make Kessler's criticism of the shortcomings of Secret Service more plausible.

ops: