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

[lisab]

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.

 

[DanP]

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.

 

[lisab]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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.

 

[DanP]

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 .

 

[DanP]

It's not the kids' choice.

Chelsea is no kid.

 

[rootX]

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"

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.

 

[Evo]

Dan, would you like a time out? Please stop trolling; it really gets old after awhile.

 

[BenVitale]

Chelsea Clinton's big fat leaked wedding

http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/07/29/chelsea

 

[leroyjenkens]

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.

 

[DanP]

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

 

[jackmell]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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!

 

[Evo]

I didn't realize that the groom was Jewish.

 

[GeorginaS]

I didn't realize that the groom was Jewish.

You missed the 'Mezvinsky' part?

 

[Evo]

You missed the 'Mezvinsky' part?

I don't think about religion. It wasn't until I saw the prayer shall that it dawned on me.