Hacker News Reader

Comment by martyvis | Hacker News Reader

I was only commenting to my wife on how things are so much different here in Australia. Thankfully we have nothing of the threat model here (which primarily is the almost unfettered access to high powered firearms they have in the USA). Our Prime Minister was travelling in the state of Tasmania last week and I'd wager the security detail consisted of one or two standard state police motorcycles, one or two standard patrol cars, the PMs limo ( a pretty standard luxury sedan) and maybe a few unmarked cars like this one that had an awful accident. (I actually think maybe 10 years ago I passed the PMs car on a freeway and it was barely noticeable) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-14/prime-minister-electi...

View on HN

It isnt the guns. Canada has basically all the same guns and the Canadian PM doesnt travel with an army. It is about information. The US president's every movement is announced publicly days or weeks in advance. His advance team openly secures routes ahead of his convoy. They are effectively daring someone to try something. Cananda does it differently. Thier PM's exact moves are not announced to the world the week before. And when he goes somewhere he doesnt bring an army, rather he uses mostly local police who know the terrain. Thats the benifit of having a national police force (RCMP). The american secret service isnt integrated with the hundreds of different police agencies in the US. They dont trust them. So they bring thier own army every time, to face down all the potential troublemakers who know exactly where the president is going to be standing almost to the minute.

> all the potential troublemakers

Some of which may be part of those local police forces.

Even dead presidents get a substantial motorcade. They drove Reagan past where I was working a noon to midnight shift (on Wilshire Blvd), and all sorts of motorcycle police came and shut down cross traffic at the intersections so he didn't need to wait in traffic.

Living presidents are controversial, human, figures. Dead presidents are saints, almost martyrs to the cause of democracy irrespective of how they actually die. America builds temples to them (aka presidential libraries) to which some followers make pilgrimages. It is downright strange.

It’s not so he “didn’t need to wait in traffic”. It’s so someone can’t pull dump trucks in front of and behind his motorcade and create a kill box.

You can get basically the same thing when you die - just call the local PD. Stopping traffic for funerals is very common.

I’d argue that no one cares about the Canadian, Australian, etc leaders. When’s the last time one of them was assassinated? They don’t have a nuclear briefcase with them, they aren’t the ones leading military engagements across the world, they aren’t the ones with a super important economy.

1868. Thomas D'Arcy McGee, one of canada's founding fathers. Three years after Lincoln.

More recently, in 1995 an attempt was made against Jean Chrétien. Even more recently, in march of last year a deranged former soldier drove a pickup truck into the prime minister's residence. Canada has its own fare share of crazy people looking to attack politicians.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/military-reservist-who-rammed-...

>>OTTAWA -- A Manitoba man who rammed a gate at Rideau Hall before arming himself and heading on foot toward Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's home last July was sentenced Wednesday to six years in prison.

> Thankfully we have nothing of the threat model here (which primarily is the almost unfettered access to high powered firearms they have in the USA).

No offense to Australia, but the Aussie PM isn’t a continual worldwide target from every terrorism group and some nation states.

If you note, even when the US President is in a gun-free country, the motorcade and security processes are still at extreme levels. The motorcade is designed to withstand rocket propelled grenades, chemical weapons, and even EMP attacks. Weapons that nobody except terror groups or nation states have access to. While a lone gunman with a rifle is a legitimate threat, the motorcade is designed around a much more complicated threat model. Protecting against a guy with a gun is relatively easy.

The assassination of any US president would send world markets into immediate chaos as well as create a dire world security situation as “bad” countries and organizations would seek to exploit the situation.

Just as the World Trade Center attack was a symbolic action, taking out the US president would have a similar effect. While an assassination of the Australian PM would be tragic, it isn’t even close to having the same impact.

And prior to Australia having their gun ban, the Aussie PM still didn’t have the enormously protective motorcade of the US president.

It’s the US who should be offended at their president being the target of all those shenanigans ;)

Pretty much the only kind of firearms Australians have easy access to are high-powered. In most states a bolt-acton rifle is no big deal. But they can shoot very big bullets!

This is the type of individual small arm I'd assume is the most likely threat to someone in a presidential motorcade.

The guns thing is one of the go-to stereotypes about the U.S., but it isn't generally true or helpful.

It's mostly because Australia, like the UK and Canada, have a Prime Minister instead of a President.

In case of murder of a PM, the government will quickly select a new one in the matter of weeks. It is a silly political move to kill a PM.

In case of a President, there is a mandate from the population, because he/she was elected directly. And replacing the President is a matter of several months at least, or, in the case of the USA, not at all. And that sends a bigger message to kill a President.

I personally see both system (Prime Minister and President) have pros & cons that doesn't make one better than the other.

> In case of a President, there is a mandate from the population, because he/she was elected directly. And replacing the President is a matter of several months at least, or, in the case of the USA, not at all. And that sends a bigger message to kill a President.

We have a fairly well defined line of succession.

And even if you're talking just about mandate, if the president dies the VP often takes up the dead president's mandates. Like LBJ passing major civil rights legislation the year after JFK died, or Truman following FDR pretty closely. Although Andrew Johnson did the opposite of that and Gerald Ford (not following a death, fair) didn't do anything at all.

I agree that there is a line of succession, but those people "in line" are not directly elected representative. I know I'm being facetious, but my point is that the population have chosen their president, not the rest of the line. The VP becoming the Acting President is akin to a PM in parliamentary government.

Why would it take months for a new president? In case of the death of a president, the vice-president gets automatically sworn into office as fast as possible and in fact becomes a president. Now if the vice president also dies, you have a line of succession to act as a president.

I haven't found any information about the obligation to hold new elections in such event, but I could be wrong

Your parent has "in the case of the USA, not at all". I think what they're saying is that someone who becomes president by inheriting the role is not seen as a full president, even if they formally are one.

> inheriting the role is not seen as a full president

Just in the 20th century, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson directly contradict your statement.

Your statement does describe the most recent case, afore, but it’s such an oddball case it’s not surprising it’s an outlier.

Got it, but I think most democracies (for example US, Brazil, Argentina) have a line of succession either in their constitution or in the amendments that follow it. Whenever anyone takes the role of president next, they have full authority, power, and responsibilities of a president, even if in some cases they don't have the title of President.

I know of a few examples that it's required to have new elections months after a president step down, which is the case of India, but even then the acting president has the full power of a president.

You seem to think that a new election is required, but in the case of the death of a President, the Vice-president is sworn in pretty much as soon as they can get a judge available to do the swearing in which can be done in a matter of minutes to hours. Much faster than gathering a bunch of drunk member of Commons together and letting them boo each other while some chap screams "orduh". ;P

> Much faster than gathering a bunch of drunk member of Commons together and letting them boo each other while some chap screams "orduh". ;P

I know this is tongue-in-cheek, but it's worth noting that the Parliament has almost nothing to do with appointing a Prime Minister. In practice (in Australia) the majority party meets, picks a new leader, and then sends them to be appointed as PM by the Governor General. That's all that's needed.

In Australia there is always a Deputy Prime Minister available to fulfill the role of the PM in their absence because of illness, travel or leave. That said in the case of a coalition government, such as we have now, they are from the minority party in the coalition, and the deputy would unlikely to succeed as a permanent PM in the event of a sudden demise such as drowning in the surf - or taken by a Chinese submarine if you believe that. (For those not in the know this happened to Harold Holt, our PM in 1967l

I don't think this is about elections, but about how much people care about the leader as an individual versus a representative of a party? For example, in a traditional monarchy, even if you had a very clear successor (popular 60yo king with a popular 35yo eldest child etc) killing the king would still be a huge "message".

Pfffft.

Nobody is gonna successfully shoot at a presidential motorcade for the same reason nobody is gonna pull off another 9/11. The loophole could only be used once.

No, a bigger threat would be IED. Let’s ban all fertilizer. Somebody think of the children.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com