Secret Service: "You don't have any legal rights."

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I'm suprised this never got anyone's attention:

 

Secret Service Questions Students

 

Posted: May 7, 2003 at 6:18 p.m.

 

OAKLAND (KRON) -- Some teachers in Oakland are rallying behind two students who were interrogated by the Secret Service. That followed remarks the teenagers made about the President during a class discussion. The incident has many people angry.

 

For years the classroom has been the setting for the free expression of ideas, but two weeks ago certain ideas led to two students being taken out of class and grilled by the United States Secret Service.

 

It happened at Oakland High. The discussion was about the war in Iraq. That's when two students made comments about the President of the United States. While the exact wording is up for debate, the teacher didn't consider it mere criticism, but a direct threat and she called the Secret Service.

 

Teacher Cassie Lopez says, "They were so shaken up and afraid."

 

Now, other teachers are coming to the aid of the two students and crying foul.

 

"I would start with the teacher, she made a poor judgement," Lopez says.

 

Teacher Larry Felson says, "What we're concerned about is academic freedom and that students have the right to free expression in the classroom."

 

Even worse, they say, is the fact that the students were grilled by federal agents without legal counsel or their parents present, just the principal.

 

"When one of the students asked, 'do we have to talk now? Can we be silent? Can we get legal council?' they were told, 'we own you, you don't have any legal rights,'" Felson says.

 

"We don't want federal agents or police coming in our schools and interrogating our children at the whim of someone who has a hunch something might be wrong," Lopez says.

 

The union representing Oakland teachers requires that students be afforded legal counsel and parental guidance before they're interrogated by authorities. It's too late for the two involved in this incident, and teachers say it's something they'll carry with them for years.

 

"I tell you the looks on those childrens faces. I don't know if they'll say anything about anything ever again. Is that what we want? I don't think we want that," says Lopez.

 

(Copyright 2003, KRON 4. All rights reserved.)

 

I mean, seriously now...

 

we own you, you don't have any legal rights

 

WTF?!??!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

the teacher didn't consider it mere criticism, but a direct threat and she called the Secret Service

 

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I mean, seriously now...

 

we own you, you don't have any legal rights

 

WTF?!??!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean, seriously now...

 

Do you have ANY proof these words actually came out of ANYONE'S mouth?

 

No. You don't, do you? I'd say "WTF?" myself but I'm not surprised at all. You never have any proof. You throw out suppositions and accusations and slander and hearsay, get worked up about it, postulate it as fact, and expect other people to get worked up about it. Sorry. I've been dealing with the SFRC for the past fucking week and I don't have the energy.

 

the teacher didn't consider it mere criticism, but a direct threat and she called the Secret Service

 

The Secret Service investigates all threats made against the President. That is part of their job.

[Guest Anglesault]

That "we own you" phrase could have really easily been paraphrased and than exagerated to the point where it doesn't even resemble the original statement.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I know. No one TALKS like that. Real people just don't say "we own you." This is crap from cop movies, for chrissakes. It's painfully obvious the idiot kid made it up.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

This is crap from cop movies, for chrissakes. It's painfully obvious the idiot kid made it up.

Hmmm... It does sound like something out of a computer game.

 

 

~SS~>-{Anglesault}-: LOL n00b

Player: WTF?

~SS~>-{Anglesault}-: w3 ownz j00

~SS~>-{CancerMarney}-: fukin sweet ddod

- "Player" has been kicked and banned

 

 

 

....Okay, fair enough.

 

The Secret Service investigates all threats made against the President. That is part of their job.

 

Wow, I don't know much about the laws regarding this. So if I said, purely for example:

 

"I want to shit down Bush's gaping chest cavity."

 

What happens? I just commited a felony?

[Guest bob_barron]

Wow, I don't know much about the laws regarding this. So if I said, purely for example:

 

"I want to shit down Bush's gaping chest cavity."

 

What happens? I just commited a felony?

 

::contacts Secret Service::

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

::contacts Secret Service::

Somebody better stop those guys from making that JFK movie. I hear they said something about shooting the President.

[Guest Anglesault]

~SS~>-{Anglesault}-: LOL n00b

Player: WTF?

~SS~>-{Anglesault}-: w3 ownz j00

~SS~>-{CancerMarney}-: fukin sweet ddod

- "Player" has been kicked and banned

...

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I AM the law!

[Guest Anglesault]

I still don't get it.

[Guest EricMM]

I mean seriously, to accurately judge this whole thing, we'd have to know all the facts. If the kids were sitting in class talking about how they were going to shoot Bush or rape the two Bush daughters, I mean they could be considered threats.

 

I mean it's like shouting "bomb" on a plane, it's just not ok to do things like threaten the president's life.

 

Actually I have another issue, it said that the principal was the one who gave the secret servicemen the right to question the students. Is this part of the duties/responsabilities/abilities of the principal? I've read in certain places (fiction books but still) that a principal as well as teacher can act as a student's parent in the school setting. Any truth to this?

[Guest Anglesault]

I mean seriously, to accurately judge this whole thing, we'd have to know all the facts. If the kids were sitting in class talking about how they were going to shoot Bush or rape the two Bush daughters, I mean they could be considered threats.

 

I mean it's like shouting "bomb" on a plane, it's just not ok to do things like threaten the president's life.

 

Actually I have another issue, it said that the principal was the one who gave the secret servicemen the right to question the students. Is this part of the duties/responsabilities/abilities of the principal? I've read in certain places (fiction books but still) that a principal as well as teacher can act as a student's parent in the school setting. Any truth to this?

I've heard that a Guidance Counselor can.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I want to know what in the hell the students actually said that would warrant this obvious waste of time. I mean to think the secret service actually came to the school to bully some highschool kids.

[Guest NoCalMike]

I mean, seriously now...

 

we own you, you don't have any legal rights

 

WTF?!??!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean, seriously now...

 

Do you have ANY proof these words actually came out of ANYONE'S mouth?

 

No. You don't, do you? I'd say "WTF?" myself but I'm not surprised at all. You never have any proof. You throw out suppositions and accusations and slander and hearsay, get worked up about it, postulate it as fact, and expect other people to get worked up about it. Sorry. I've been dealing with the SFRC for the past fucking week and I don't have the energy.

 

the teacher didn't consider it mere criticism, but a direct threat and she called the Secret Service

 

The Secret Service investigates all threats made against the President. That is part of their job.

Wasn't he just pasting the story? I don't think he changed it around to make it sound worse!?!

[Guest Anglesault]

I want to know what in the hell the students actually said that would warrant this obvious waste of time. I mean to think the secret service actually came to the school to bully some highschool kids.

I could easily see it being

 

Stupid Hippie Fuck kid: How would the President like it if someone dropped bombs on HIS home?

 

Stupid Hippie Fuck Kid 2: Yeah!

 

Overly Concerned Teacher: ::faints::

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Being really liberal (pun not intended) with the hippie label anymore, aren't we?

[Guest treble charged]

I want to know what in the hell the students actually said that would warrant this obvious waste of time. I mean to think the secret service actually came to the school to bully some highschool kids.

Something like that actually happened at my high school, someone wrote up an e-mail to Clinton (not really sure what he said, but something threatening, I'm guessing) as a joke, but his friend actually sent it out. They didn't actually come to the school, though. It was all done over the fax machine and the phone, I think.

[Guest DrTom]

I want to know what in the hell the students actually said that would warrant this obvious waste of time.

If they threatened the President, even if it was in fun, then the Secret Service agents' visit was not an "obvious waste of time." They have to treat all threats against the President as serious especially at a time like this. Perhaps the teacher overreacted (I don't know, since I don't know what was said), but the Secret Service agents were just doing their jobs. And let's not forget it's the kids who mouthed off in the first place, so don't paint them as sweet, innocent angels just yet.

 

I mean to think the secret service actually came to the school to bully some highschool kids.

Think the kids will do something like this again sometime soon? Me either.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Perhaps the teacher overreacted (I don't know, since I don't know what was said), but the Secret Service agents were just doing their jobs. And let's not forget it's the kids who mouthed off in the first place, so don't paint them as sweet, innocent angels just yet.

Frankly, a little common sense should come into play here. It wasn't a serious threat on the President's life and I don't think anyone can argue otherwise. Two 16 year's, stating it in an obviously joking manner? I don't think so. It sounds like these retards were just being smartasses in class, something 16 year olds are known for.

 

And those of you defending secret service hoods interrogating terrified 16 year old kids because of something (political) they said, after their teacher snitched them to the SS, are the same people who usually mouth off about OMG THE HORRORS OF LIFE UNDER THE BOOT OF COMMUNISM. You're funny.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

Do you have ANY proof these words actually came out of ANYONE'S mouth?

Why let facts get in the way of an ORWELLIAN 1984 SCARY~! situation?

[Guest DrTom]

It wasn't a serious threat on the President's life and I don't think anyone can argue otherwise.

That can't be determined until an investigation is done, which would require the Secret Service to interrogate the idiots in question. When a threat is called in against the president, IT IS THEIR JOB to investigate it. They don't know the nature or validity of the threat until they do that investigation. If you're going to be mad at anyone, be mad at the two cretins for running their mouths, or the teacher for overreacting.

 

And those of you defending secret service hoods interrogating terrified 16 year old kids because of something (political) they said, after their teacher snitched them to the SS, are the same people who usually mouth off about OMG THE HORRORS OF LIFE UNDER THE BOOT OF COMMUNISM.

"Hoods." You're funny, too. A pity I can't bring myself to laugh at it.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I never thought I'd have to post IndyMedia as a source. It's like the left-wing version of NewsMax. *sigh*

 

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/1607366.php

 

Two students at Oakland High School were interrogated last month by the U.S. Secret Service after allegedly threatening the life of President Bush in a classroom discussion, school officials have confirmed.

 

English teacher Sandy Whitney said she called the Secret Service after two boys in her English class, both 16, made comments about getting a sniper to "take care" of Bush.

 

Oakland High sophomores John and Billy, who did not want their last names published, said Friday that their comments were made in jest. They said the April 23 interviews with federal agents left them scared and upset.

 

Although John admitted he made an ill-worded comment about Bush, one that he didn't want to repeat Friday, Billy said his only remark was "Bush is wacked," slang for crazy or deranged.

 

After the meeting with Secret Service agents, "I was traumatized," John said. "I was just sitting in class, just looking at the door to see if they were going to come get me or whatever."

 

"I was just trying to be funny," Billy said.

 

The way Whitney remembers it, John "said something like, 'We need a sniper to take care of Bush,' and Billy said, 'Yeah, I'd do it.'"

 

The class in question is at times "challenging," Whitney said.

 

Whitney said she called the San Francisco office of the Secret Service, now under the umbrella of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, to ask what her responsibilities were if one of her students had made a threat.

 

Under federal law, making a threat against the president's life is a crime punishable by up to five years in prison.

Mok said the agents told him to pull the students out of their sixth period class. The agents grilled each one separately in a conference room with Mok present. The boys' parents were not called.

 

"I can't, in my position, determine what is or is not a national security threat," Mok said. "It is unusual (for the Secret Service to come to a school), but we don't get in the way of federal agents trying to do their jobs."

 

California law allows peace officers to question students on school grounds without notifying parents.

The boys said the agents asked questions such as, "Are you a terrorist?", "What is your opinion of the president?" and "What would you say to the president if he was here?" Both said they would apologize.

 

John said the questions were intimidating, and claimed the agents told him he had no rights after what he had said about Bush.

 

The agents asked whether his family had guns at home, and whether he considered himself a good shot, John said. He answered yes to the first question and no to the second.

 

Billy said the agents also wanted to know if he had a picture of Bush with a target on it, and if he had ever been to Washington, D.C.

 

"I was crying at the moment," Billy recalled. He has not returned to Whitney's class since the incident.

 

Okay, so now we know what they said, and yes they are morons for talking about that at school. I know I've discussed the President's security proceedures, potential vulnerabilities, etc (in a non-conspiratorial way, of course), but saying what they said in front of everyone is like yelling fire in a firehouse. That's stupid.

 

BUT STILL:

 

John said the questions were intimidating, and claimed the agents told him he had no rights after what he had said about Bush

 

That's wrong right there.

Edited May 13, 2003 by Jobber of the Week

[Guest DrTom]

Eh, I don't have a problem with it, really. There's no evidence (even from your admittedly very liberal source) that the Secret Service agents did anything wrong, violated the boys' rights, or acted outside the federal and state laws. It's quite likely that remark, if it was made, was made to scare the two morons into not flapping their gums like that again. And if it works, so much the better.

[Guest Powerplay]

BUT STILL:

 

John said the questions were intimidating, and claimed the agents told him he had no rights after what he had said about Bush

 

That's wrong right there.

You know, your right. I'm sure that the kid probably was yelling about how he has a right to say such a thing and the Secret Service man probably mouthed back at him to shut him the hell up. More power to them.

 

Or

 

The kid is just twisting the truth a bit to inspire some of the OMGODZ 1984 IZ HEREZ0R~! far leftists into screaming and bitching about the Secret Service is now able to prosecute all those who speak out about the President. I mean, who would you believe: A secret service agent or a 16 year old kid?

[Guest Vyce]

Two students at Oakland High School were interrogated last month by the U.S. Secret Service after allegedly threatening the life of President Bush in a classroom discussion, school officials have confirmed.

 

English teacher Sandy Whitney said she called the Secret Service after two boys in her English class, both 16, made comments about getting a sniper to "take care" of Bush.

Alright, please no one now even attempt to argue that these kids were innocent of any wrong doing. At the LEAST, they're profoundly naive to the point of actual mental retardation.

 

No matter how much you may dislike - or even hate - the president, if you say something like "I wish a sniper would take care of the president," you're going to have some trouble on your hands.

 

Maybe the teacher "overreacted" in the sense that these students did not have the ability to actually carry out any threat upon the president, but was it wrong for the Secret Service to interrogate them? Absolutely NOT.

 

John said the questions were intimidating, and claimed the agents told him he had no rights after what he had said about Bush.

 

Quick summary of 5th amendment rights: the fifth amendment right to counsel ONLY applies when there is a custodial interrogation, and only exists when the suspect specifically asks for counsel.

 

This would likely constitute a custodial interrogation. Miranda rights should have been given (there's no info that they were).

 

"When one of the students asked, 'do we have to talk now? Can we be silent? Can we get legal council?' they were told, 'we own you, you don't have any legal rights,'" Felson says.

 

If the kids specifically asked those questions, then by procedure, the agent should have stopped.

 

However, for any of you liberals out there hopping mad with outrage, let me say this: nothing will come of this, because believe it or not, it's MINOR. The kids were never ultimately charged with anything, so any possible fifth amendment violations are irrelevant. They could try and file a civil suit, I suppose, but it wouldn't likely go anywhere.......unless, of course, the liberal CA courts want to make an example of the feds.

 

This story is much ado about nothing. It really is. How can I say this? Because while I'm sure some of you are practically ejaculating with the prospect of voicing your OH MY GOD THE GOVERNMENT IS TOTALLY FASCIST THE PATRIOT ACT IS GOING TO DESTROY ALL OF OUR FREEDOMS rhetoric, keep in mind that things like this little incident have been happening in this country for well over a HUNDRED years.

 

Actually I have another issue, it said that the principal was the one who gave the secret servicemen the right to question the students. Is this part of the duties/responsabilities/abilities of the principal? I've read in certain places (fiction books but still) that a principal as well as teacher can act as a student's parent in the school setting. Any truth to this?

 

Yes. There's some fancy Latin word that goes along with it: in loco parentis or something like that. Teachers / day care workers / etc. have some rights to act as the parent or guardian of a minor and make decisions concerning them.

[Guest Vyce]

Should have tacked this on, but I just read Powerplay's post:

 

Yes, this article is incredibly one-sided. In the interest of fairness, I'd like to hear any comment from the agents in question.

 

I have trouble believing the veracity of these two kids (over a federal agent) when they can't quite seem to really get their story straight as to what exactly they said that got them in trouble.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

The kid is just twisting the truth a bit to inspire some of the OMGODZ 1984 IZ HEREZ0R~! far leftists into screaming and bitching about the Secret Service is now able to prosecute all those who speak out about the President. I mean, who would you believe: A secret service agent or a 16 year old kid?

So so far we've had the kid AND a teacher both say this happened. In fact, the teacher said it happened when someone asked about having some kind of legal council.

 

 

So either this did happen and, in addition, the parents didn't even know this was going on until the kid came home, which I personally find a Very Bad Thing, or there's some OMG VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY going on.

 

Vyce

No matter how much you may dislike - or even hate - the president, if you say something like "I wish a sniper would take care of the president," you're going to have some trouble on your hands.

 

Duh. That's like yelling "Fire!" in a movie house. But does that still excuse the "you have no rights?" thing that, so far, everyone has just tried to pass off as not credible?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

"Tried" to "pass off" as absurd and incredible? When was this supposedly said, in the first place, and to whom?

 

Directly to the kid?

"They were told, 'We own you, you don't have any legal rights'"

 

Or when someone else asked about legal counsel?

"In fact, the teacher said it happened when someone asked about having some kind of legal council"

 

Which was it? The first? The second? Both? Did the Service say to the unnamed "someone" in the second reference "We own them?" But the first reference is supposedly a direct quote, supposedly verbatim. It makes no sense in the second context. No one says "We own you" to anyone in reference to a third party, not even in really bad made-for-TV cop movies.

 

The more you talk about it, the less coherent this melodramatic fairy tale becomes. And frankly, it wasn't that convincing in the first place.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

I doubt the Secret Service can comment on these kinds of cases, although I'd love to hear their side of the story.

 

Regardless, this isn't standard operating procedure, or it better not be. And yet, someone defended it. Somebody else suggested a 16 year old kid was trying to turn Americans against the secret service, a theory that boggles my mind.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Although John admitted he made an ill-worded comment about Bush, one that he didn't want to repeat Friday, Billy said his only remark was "Bush is wacked," slang for crazy or deranged.

 

 

I think I figured it out:

 

John: "Someone should really take out Bush, like a sniper or something."

Billy: "Yeah, he's wacked, man."

 

Teacher thinks Billy said 'whacked' (as in, by a hitman).

Teacher interprets to mean "He's as good as dead" or words to that effect.

Teacher calls Secret Service.

Media, time, and faulty memory distort Billy's comment into "Yeah, I'd do it."

 

In other words: the teacher's probably a little bit on the overly paranoid side, and the Secret Service (if said "you don't have any legal rights" line is true) is full of idiots.

 

Making a threat against the president is not the same thing, in the legal sense, as saying "We need a sniper to take care of him." A threat is a man holding a sniper rifle in D.C. saying "I'm driving to the White House to kill the president!" There are gradients of threats, to be sure, but come the fuck on. These are stupid kids saying stupid things because they are kids – that much should have been obvious to the teacher; this simply wasn't a "threat" in the proper sense.

 

Even if the teacher took it seriously, the Secret Service ought to have been able to ascertain the comment's true nature without ever involving the students directly. That's the subtlety you miss Marney; the "interviews" were wholly unnecessary in this case. If mindless bureaucracy has yielded a standard operating procedure that doesn't take such things into account, then the procedures ought to be revamped to take such things into account.

 

This is just insane, and defies all rational defense. Way to go Secret Service agents – way to defend our national security by bullying high school kids. I hope it made you feel like big men!