My thoughts on the secret service hooker fiasco

Bekenze

I don't care. Why should I? I've been watching news channel after news channel and they have yet to answer the only question that matters: were they wasting our tax-dollars? Did they do it on their own free time, with their own money, or on government's time with government money? If its the second one, why haven't they made it clear? If its the first one -WHY SHOULD I CARE? Why should I feel so offended that MY government's secret service members wanted to shag some foreign sex worker on their own time? Why should I feel so obligated to have justice and get these people fired? Why? Why? It doesn't make sense to me. Can anyone explain? It's their own personal life, on their own time with their money. If I don't agree with their lifestyle, I just won't do the same... but why should I demand they be fired for something that I simply don't agree with?

vinlyn

From a purely moralistic standpoint, I don't much care.

But they were in another country on formal governmental business...not on a holiday. And, once again, as I often saw while living in Thailand, what an American(s) does, does reflect on this nation. And in this case, because of the professional reason they were in that country, it reflects on our government and on the President. It's very much like most teachers or school administrators being covered by a "morals clause" in their contracts. Whether it was morally good or bad, their actions sidetracked and diminished the value of the conference that President attended, just as if a teacher is publicly found out to be a prostitute affects her ability to effectively teach in a classroom.

Second, it appears that official documents about the President were left out in the open in the room(s) that were used by the Secret Service agents for the sex rendezvous. In other words, the President was potentially put in danger by their negligence.

Third, based on the standard that you mentioned ("It's their own personal life, on their own time with their money") -- the trip was not a personal trip, it was paid for by the federal government. They were on a mission with one purpose, not a holiday junket. The lodging was being paid for by taxpayer money.

Zero

Why should I feel so obligated to have justice and get these people fired? Why? Why? It doesn't make sense to me. Can anyone explain?

The secret service is an extension of the justice / police / governing system - there are laws - one is that prostitution and eliciting prostitution is illigal - allowing officials to break laws just because it is in their personal life rather than their professional life undermines the entire system - if anything their punishment should be extremely severe to take account of their breach of duty as well as breach of the law.

To qualify for the secret service, a series of tests are required - one must have a clean record - one must be trustworthy - such behaviour undermines the authority and process.

Bekenze

there are laws - one is that prostitution and eliciting prostitution is illigal

Incorrect. It was legal in the country that it occurred.

vinlyn

there are laws - one is that prostitution and eliciting prostitution is illigal

Incorrect. It was legal in the country that it occurred.

It may be illegal in US law for a federal official to commit such acts. Not sure. But may be. Or, if not a law, it may be a US federal regulation.

Bekenze

Third, based on the standard that you mentioned ("It's their own personal life, on their own time with their money") -- the trip was not a personal trip, it was paid for by the federal government. They were on a mission with one purpose, not a holiday junket. The lodging was being paid for by taxpayer money.

Surely they weren't on the job 24/7, though. I am asking as to whether or not they were supposed to be "doing their job" when this occurred.

I only see the second point as being an issue (and a big one as well). Then again, I may be very "small minded." I am seeing this only as a "morals being injected into business" problem.

vinlyn

Third, based on the standard that you mentioned ("It's their own personal life, on their own time with their money") -- the trip was not a personal trip, it was paid for by the federal government. They were on a mission with one purpose, not a holiday junket. The lodging was being paid for by taxpayer money.

Surely they weren't on the job 24/7, though. I am asking as to whether or not they were supposed to be "doing their job" when this occurred.

I only see the second point as being an issue (and a big one as well). Then again, I may be very "small minded." I am seeing this only as a "morals being injected into business" problem.

I understand what you're saying.

We often see people in the military causing our government great problems in ways where morals affect the way a mission is perceived. It's sort of like the old proverb, that if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If that's the way you want to behave, then you probably don't belong in the Secret Service. There are expectations for that career, and undoubtedly some sort of pledge that is taken, which should not be done lightly.

Zero

Ah!

Tough one... I guess technically its not illegal... sooooo - they should be allowed to continue employment (bar other breaches) unless there is a clause in their contracts that they must adhere to the laws of the USA... hmmmm - if not then I guess it comes down to public perception - not illegal but undermines confidence in a whore mongering secret service...!!

What about the rationale for a law - its passed to protect society from an undesirable issue - should those involved in the 'system' break those laws when outside the jurisdiction or should they uphold the system by adhering to the laws wherever they are - what does it say when its illegal here but it is accepted that the only reason one should refrain is that it is illegal as when its not illegal somewhere else its ok... doesnt that also undermine the law?

federica

Surely they weren't on the job 24/7, though. I am asking as to whether or not they were supposed to be "doing their job" when this occurred.

Does a priest stop being a priest when he's outside of the church?
Does a doctor stop being a doctor once he steps outside his surgery?

A Police officer is never off-duty, even when he's not actually on his shift.

I only see the second point as being an issue (and a big one as well). Then again, I may be very "small minded." I am seeing this only as a "morals being injected into business" problem.

there are always unseen ripples in the pond... a stone does not only cause turbulence on the water's surface.
it goes deeper than that.

Tosh

Surely they weren't on the job 24/7, though.

Maybe this is a British "phnaar phnaaar" thing?

--------------------------

These guys are meant to be professionals and they've let themselves down. Sexual misconduct leaves people open to blackmail and that's dangerous for people privy to classified information.

I've been vetted to a high standard from my service days, and they do ask very personal questions about your sex life.

Using prostitutes or any form of extreme promiscuity would be frowned upon in such circles.

Dakini

"phnaar phnaaar"?? :scratch:

To answer the OP:

A) Multiple security breaches:
1) Foreign nationals were allowed into areas where the Pres. was staying, and they stayed overnight. The Pres could have been endangered.
2) They had easy access to classified info
3) As Tosh explained, the made themselves vulnerable to blackmail
4) This is one classic way that hostile gov'ts gain access to classified info or to high-ranking officials whom they may want to eliminate. My god, think about it! Straight out of the Cold War spybook. Embarrassingly cliche, but very real.

They were on a work-related trip, at a high-profile international venue, representing the US. This is not the image the US wants to put forward to the world. So, what--the Secret Service is just a bunch of Dominique Strauss-Kahn clones?! :wtf:

They were idiots. You have to be really stupid to pull a stunt like that, and think it's ok, or that you'll get away with it, while you're basically on duty. Secret service are on duty pretty much round the clock. Incredibly stupid. They know what the requirements and restrictions of their job are. They know. (It's pounded into them from the get-go, starting with the job interview and security check process.) They would also know that any misconduct by anyone in the service of any government attending the conference would be blown up by the media.

"Extremely poor judgment" doesn't begin to describe it.

vinlyn

^^ I must have missed this...of what country were the foreign nationals from?

Zero

@vinlyn http://www.news.com.au/world/hooker-scandal-forces-out-agents/story-fn6sb9br-1226333888656

@dakini http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finbarr_Saunders

vinlyn

I must be blind. I still don't see where it says they were not from Columbia.

Zero

Sorry, I misread your post.

Their nationality (and identity) is probably secret!

Can foreign nationals enrol in this type of close protection secret service work?

vinlyn

Actually, unless there is something I'm not aware of, by definition the Secret Service members were the foreign nationals. The hookers, at least from what I have read, were Columbians in their own country. If they were foreign nationals, that puts a whole different -- and much worse -- spin on things.

Dakini

Columbians (foreigners from a US security perspective, foreign nationals to the US-occupied and secured hotel complex to which they were admitted) were allowed access to a US high-security area. It depends on what perspective you're looking at it from.

vinlyn

No, it doesn't. In international law, foreign nationals are those people in a country who are not from that country. Look it up. But trust me, after going through the process of getting a retirement visa in a country other than my own, I know the definition. The secret service agents, the President, and all in his party were the foreign nationals in this incident. The hookers, as far as I have seen, were citizens of the country in which they lived -- Columbia.

Dakini

Fine, bicker about the use of the term "foreign national", if that makes you happy. The basic principle of in the response to the OP still stands--hookers of a nationality foreign to the US were allowed not only into a US delegation's extremely high-security area, they were allowed to spend the night. Serious damage of various sorts could have been done.

Dakini

In the news: "The House Committee on Oversight and Government reform, sought details of the Secret Service investigation. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the committee's ranking Democrat, said the agents 'brought foreign nationals in contact with sensitive security information'. A potential security breach has been among the concerns raised by members of Congress."

From a US perspective, the Columbians were the foreign nationals.

vinlyn

Okay, you cling to that, but from a legal standpoint, it's not the proper use of the term. I will say no more. You may have the last word.

ThailandTom

I like how you used the word 'shag'- how British I would feel in a similar way to you to be honest, when I went to look on a Thai news site about that monks death the other day, all I could find were people slaming the government, what teh government is doing, blablabla. Most of the people were foreigners so they do not even have a casting vote in this country.

vinlyn

I like how you used the word 'shag'- how British I would feel in a similar way to you to be honest, when I went to look on a Thai news site about that monks death the other day, all I could find were people slaming the government, what teh government is doing, blablabla. Most of the people were foreigners so they do not even have a casting vote in this country.

I know what you mean. Tom, do you ever read the ThaiVisa forums? I am shocked at what some of the foreign nationals in Thailand write there. Not so much that they like or don't like the government, but some say things that could probably get them kicked out the country.

They also have a sub-forum on Buddhism, but I find it (or at least when I was on it) to not be very friendly or broad-minded.

ThailandTom

I was actually speaking about thaivisa funnily enough. If I read a headline, I can predict what the responses are going to be like. They love slamming Yinluck, I can understand about her brother Thaksin, but EVERYTHING she does is wrong. If those people complain so much and cannot cast a vote, why not move eh?

vinlyn

I was actually speaking about thaivisa funnily enough. If I read a headline, I can predict what the responses are going to be like. They love slamming Yinluck, I can understand about her brother Thaksin, but EVERYTHING she does is wrong. If those people complain so much and cannot cast a vote, why not move eh?

I know. While I was on the forum I was often labeled as a "Thai apologist".

Dakini

Okay, you cling to that, but from a legal standpoint, it's not the proper use of the term. I will say no more. You may have the last word.

It's a matter of US law, though. A breach of US security by US security staff is an issue of US law and job regs. This is how the US gov't and its security agencies view the matter. This is the way they think. That is not open to public or international legal arbitration. Ask anyone who has ever worked in a gov't security-related job, or a foreign service job that requires a security clearance. It's not me that's clinging to this "view", it's Congress, the Presidency and the Secret Service (see relevant news reports). I'm just reporting it, and answering the OP. Don't shoot the messenger, please.

Lady_Alison

It's COLOMBIAN.

Columbians (foreigners from a US security perspective, foreign nationals to the US-occupied and secured hotel complex to which they were admitted) were allowed access to a US high-security area. It depends on what perspective you're looking at it from.

Lady_Alison

Considering how much we are in debt to ourselves...I could give a shit less who had their dangles feathered.

It was one expensive Hooker night...I want to see that fed bill for the million dollar toilet brush....were is our money going?

Invincible_summer

It's COLOMBIAN.

Thank you!! It was bugging me so much!!



My favorite part about this whole "scandal" is this quote from a trinket vendor -

"The Colombian prostitutes are very beautiful," said

Francisco Obeso, 52, who sells trinkets on the streets of the

old city. "Those guys fell to temptation."

federica

In the news: "The House Committee on Oversight and Government reform, sought details of the Secret Service investigation. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the committee's ranking Democrat, said the agents 'brought foreign nationals in contact with sensitive security information'. A potential security breach has been among the concerns raised by members of Congress."

From a US perspective, the Columbians were the foreign nationals.

No, from an American, ignorant of the correct terminology's perspective, the COlombians were foreign nationals. ...

He got it wrong.

Like so many Americans, he thinks everybody else is a 'foreign national' no matter where they are... and only Americans are Americans, wherever they are....

ThailandTom

lol, yes federica that seems to be a general trend doesn't it.

Dakini

This is how the gov't security organizations think, this is their perspective. Citizens of another country gained access to a secured area a US delegation was occupying. It's the Secret Service's job to prevent that from happening, not to facilitate it (ah, the irony!). That's the mindset. Just explaining how that turn of phrase was generated, that's all.

Mountains

Did they do it on their own free time, with their own money, or on government's time with government money?... WHY SHOULD I CARE?

That's far from the point. The Secret Service are tasked with direct protection of the President and other high officials. As such, they have virtually unlimited access to the most sensitive information, both personal (regarding the President and his family) and national security related. Having access to that kind of information places one in a completely different category when it comes to personal behavior. Whether they used their own money to buy hookers is irrelevant. The fact that they compromised themselves in a foreign country, exposing themselves to possible exploitation is the issue. Just because they were in Colombia doesn't mean the hookers were just honest Colombian working girls. It's entirely possible the agents were set up. It's a classic tactic of trade craft in the espionage business. It's called the "honey trap". The same rules apply whether you're in the Secret Service protecting the President, or whether, as I was, you're in the military intelligence services keeping an eye on the Soviet Union. Had I done what these folks appear to have done, I'd have had my security clearance revoked immediately and likely been drummed out of the service. It's been that way ever since we've had security clearances. That the people assigned to protect the President did it shows an almost incomprehensible lack of judgement. These people are vetted more than just about anyone on earth, and are instilled with a sense of duty that borders on the fanatical. I'm agog that agents at this level could have done something so monumentally stupid and dangerous.

These women are, by definition, "foreign nationals". That simply means they are not American citizens. It has nothing whatever to do with being an arrogant American in another country. You could be on Mars, and if you're not American, you're a foreign national. The term "foreign national" is not in *any* way derogatory. Americans are foreign nationals in every other country on earth as well.