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

  • Thread starter rootX
  • Start date
In summary: 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 :PHow ? He is already there, giving away his daughter, and I think there will be enough Monica invited as guests already
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #4
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.
 
  • #5
That's to keep Bill away from the bridesmaids.
 
  • #6
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.
 
  • #7
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
 
  • #8
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..
 
  • #9
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
 

Similar threads

News IS Hack of US Central Command's Twitter and YouTube accounts
    • General Discussion
Replies
17
Views
2K
Is Imposing Ideology on Children a Form of Child Abuse?
    • General Discussion
Replies
34
Views
6K
News Hillary Clinton Running for President
    • General Discussion
6
Replies
200
Views
16K
Should physician-assisted death be legalized in all countries?
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
"Arrivals" list inside secure airport terminals
    • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
2K
John Podesta's greatest regret - government silence on UFOs
    • General Discussion
2
Replies
69
Views
7K
The Mystery of Space-Time Slow Zones
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
4
Views
2K
Explore Weird Population Distrib. of China, India, USA, Russia, Canada
    • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
2K
Book Review: Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men
    • General Discussion
Replies
19
Views
2K
News Does 'pack journalism' shape the science news we read?
    • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top