Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacNut, Apr 18, 2012.
Absolutely unacceptable conduct.
Fire all involved.
Find people who take that job seriously.
Yeah, no doubt! I know she spent the night, but my guess is no one ever agreed to $800 for prostitute in Columbia. My guess is what was eventually paid is far closer to the going rate. At least, so I've been told. She should have been arrested for attempted theft, and the agent left alone.
this is a joke, they should all be fired, no investigation, no questions, just fired.
Do I understand law enforcement got involved over a dispute over the fee for the hooker? That's interesting, really.
I agree, fire all agents. Their lives are hosed from here on out.
It wasn't illegal, so what are you planning on firing them for? There is an obvious security risk, but prostitution is legal there. Bad judgment? Yes. Something that should result in a termination of employment? Probably not. It would be better to reassign to a non-security position.
This is funny.
The fact they had a prostitute, paid or whatever, isn't really the issue.
Its the compromise of the security protocol, the potential risk of espionage, and jeopardizing the security of the president.
What easier way is there to penetrate security and get inside than connecting some women with a bunch of men thousands of miles away from their wives.
All involved should be reassigned as security guards for the smithsonians
I would bet it is against some code of ethics.
Having a contact in the SS myself I would imagine there is grounds for termination.
I think the prostitute should be fired.
But they are getting paid for GOOD JUDGEMENT. That's the whole point. That is the nature of their job. To get in there, secure the area and protect the POTUS. If there are lapses in judgement that undermine their prime directive, then they should be fired. Period.
In what way did their use of prostitutes undermine their ability to do the advance work ahead of the arival of the President? Obviously, it could have caused problems if a prostitute or a cartel tried to use their indescretion against them, but if that happened and the agent self-reported the issue, then what's the problem?
We have US companies doing things overseas that are illegal here, and the guys who run those companies get to run for president. If violating trust when you are getting paid to use good judgment is the standard, then how on earth can we allow the big oil companies to continue to operate? How can Mitt Romney be the nominee when he has hidden money overseas? How can we tolerate companies sending US jobs overseas?
They were in violation of the ethics agreement they signed to accept the secret service position.
Firing offense. Period.
Ok, so what about the fiduciary duties that are violated on a daily basis by corporate CEOs, boards, and other executives?
Two wrongs don't make a right. Simple but true.
Ok, so why tolerate one wrong that costs Americans jobs, money and who knows what else, and throw a fit about another wrong that didn't hurt anyone? Yes, no one doubts that it was a lapse in judgment, and exposed the agents to potential blackmail or manipulation, but that's not what happened. What happened is an agent did something legal in another country that we frown upon here.
We shouldn't tolerate either. But how many times can you say, well that was bad but this was worse and since we didn't do anything about that.... They are seperate issues. I would agree with you if, say, some Democratic senator got away with something illegal and then someone was complaining about a Republican senator who just did the same thing and wanted him to lose his job.
Damn, why didn't they just kill her and pin it on a drug overdose or frame some Colombian guy?
No matter the political party the Secret Service has to operate in an environment of "what if". That's the only way to truly keep the POTUS safe and it's the Secret Services main job.
Yeah, I know. I also have friends who work with them in a related field, and they are allowed free time. If in that free time they go out to the bars, meet a girl, have some fun, and in no way compromise their job, why are people seeking their termination?
(hint - politics?)
It's been reported that the agents had copies of Obama's schedule (and who knows what other confidential information) in the room while the prostitutes were there. That is a security risk, thus, they should be fired.
Also, there's a code of ethics most employers have. I'm just a lowly computer programmer, but I'm pretty sure that if I hired a prostitute while traveling for work, even if I was in a country where it was legal, I would be in big trouble if my boss found out.
It has nothing to do with whether or not it's legal. It's all about representing the company or organization you work for. If I traveled for work to meet with a client, and the client found out that I was spending my free time hiring hookers, it would reflect poorly on me and my employer and could jeopardize future business. Even though it might be legal, it's not exactly the most ethical behavior.
These are the guys that flunked-out out of Special Ops training.
You're missing a fundamental fact about how pricing in developing countries works.
If you want street food you pay a tenth of what you do in the UK, if you want to eat in a decent restaurant you pay about the same.
If you want a budget mobile phone you probably pay less in Columbia than you do in the UK, if you want an iPhone you probably pay more.
If you want a flight, then you probably pay more in Columbia as there aren't budget airlines.
While some things for the rich are cheaper in developing countries (e.g. servants) lots of stuff isn't.
All in all if you want a high end prostitute you are likely to be paying high end prices for their services, and you aren't going to pay far less than you would in the US or UK.
And a verbal contract is still a contract, in spite of one party being hammered.
It's a legal enterprise there, so who else would you call when you are getting ripped-off.
The police, natch.
Better yet, just string them from the nearest tree, lol.
The problem here is people in positions of responsibility putting themselves in compromised situations, where they can be manipulated, besides projecting what they are doing in the area.
Hello....blackmail? Loss of focus on what your job is? It's a distraction and security risk that is not needed. They are there to protect the President. Not get laid on taxpayer's dime.