Obama dismisses 12 secret service agents for frequenting Colombian prostitutes

[The Mikado]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LT_AMERICAS_SUMMIT_SECRET_SERVICE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

CARTAGENA, Colombia (AP) -- A dozen Secret Service agents sent to Colombia to provide security for President Barack Obama at an international summit have been relieved of duty because of allegations of misconduct.

The Associated Press received an anonymous tip that the misconduct involved prostitutes in Cartagena, Colombia, the site of the Summit of the Americas. A Secret Service spokesman did not dispute that allegation.

A U.S. official, who was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter and requested anonymity, put the number of agents at 12. The agency was not releasing the number of personnel involved.

This is the funniest news story in months.  Twelve Secret Service agents decided to make a group outing to a Colombian whorehouse? 

[So the Heroes Fall]

Bad decision. How does this affect their ability to perform their job in the Secret Service?

[Torie]

Assuming it was not done while on duty, just why is it "misconduct?" 

Sigh.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

It doesn't seem like they've been fired, at least not yet, just sent back home.

Those involved had been sent back to their permanent place of duty and were being replaced by other agency personnel, Donovan said. The matter was turned over to the agency's Office of Professional Responsibility, which handles the agency's internal affairs.

Most likely it'll just be a slap on the wrist for the agents and they may not be sent out of country again - Secret Service agents aren't that easy to replace given they have specialized training - at least as most of the details of the case stay swept under the rug.

I don't have a problem with prostitution so long as it involves consenting adults, but I can see why this was a potential issue diplomatically. The Secret Service agents were in Columbia to do their job, not to be on vacation, so if they cause a scandal it wouldn't be good for a diplomatic mission. It doesn't particularly matter from a diplomatic standpoint if they were on duty at the time or not. Also, the misconduct in question could involve more than just being with prostitutes, but could be some other trouble they caused while being with prostitutes, which would just make said misconduct all the more embarrassing. We're lacking on details, so it's hard to say.

[The Mikado]

It doesn't seem like they've been fired, at least not yet, just sent back home.

Those involved had been sent back to their permanent place of duty and were being replaced by other agency personnel, Donovan said. The matter was turned over to the agency's Office of Professional Responsibility, which handles the agency's internal affairs.

Most likely it'll just be a slap on the wrist for the agents and they may not be sent out of country again - Secret Service agents aren't that easy to replace given they have specialized training - at least as most of the details of the case stay swept under the rug.

I don't have a problem with prostitution so long as it involves consenting adults, but I can see why this was a potential issue diplomatically. The Secret Service agents were in Columbia to do their job, not to be on vacation, so if they cause a scandal it wouldn't be good for a diplomatic mission. It doesn't particularly matter from a diplomatic standpoint if they were on duty at the time or not. Also, the misconduct in question could involve more than just being with prostitutes, but could be some other trouble they caused while being with prostitutes, which would just make said misconduct all the more embarrassing. We're lacking on details, so it's hard to say.

From my thorough research (cursory Wikipedia glance) on the subject, it seems that A. (indoor) prostitution is legal in Colombia, but B. Cartagena in particular suffers from a high number of people in sex slavery and child prostitutes. 

In my view, as long as "B" doesn't come into play, "A" means that what they did, while stupid, shouldn't get them fired.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

It doesn't seem like they've been fired, at least not yet, just sent back home.

Those involved had been sent back to their permanent place of duty and were being replaced by other agency personnel, Donovan said. The matter was turned over to the agency's Office of Professional Responsibility, which handles the agency's internal affairs.

Most likely it'll just be a slap on the wrist for the agents and they may not be sent out of country again - Secret Service agents aren't that easy to replace given they have specialized training - at least as most of the details of the case stay swept under the rug.

I don't have a problem with prostitution so long as it involves consenting adults, but I can see why this was a potential issue diplomatically. The Secret Service agents were in Columbia to do their job, not to be on vacation, so if they cause a scandal it wouldn't be good for a diplomatic mission. It doesn't particularly matter from a diplomatic standpoint if they were on duty at the time or not. Also, the misconduct in question could involve more than just being with prostitutes, but could be some other trouble they caused while being with prostitutes, which would just make said misconduct all the more embarrassing. We're lacking on details, so it's hard to say.

From my thorough research (cursory Wikipedia glance) on the subject, it seems that A. (indoor) prostitution is legal in Colombia, but B. Cartagena in particular suffers from a high number of people in sex slavery and child prostitutes. 

In my view, as long as "B" doesn't come into play, "A" means that what they did, while stupid, shouldn't get them fired.

Agreed. Like I said, it'll most likely be a slap on the wrist for them. Even if they are fired I imagine they'd be given some rather nice severance packages, given that Secret Service agents probably know a good deal about many politician's dirty secrets that people would like to keep under the rug.

[dead0man]

They were in Columbia working on security, going to see prostitutes probably wasn't the best of ideas.  They knew that.  They probably didn't think they'd get busted for doing it because, hey, we're the Secret Service, who is going to catch us?  Having a security clearance means there are certain things you just.can't.do.  If you want to go see prostitutes in Columbia don't work for the Secret Service, or, if you do, don't do it when you're "on the clock".

[So the Heroes Fall]

Who cares? I doubt anything would've happened if it was learned they were calling DC escort services, which I have a tough time believing aren't heavily frequented by the Secret Service (or FBI, CIA...)

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Who cares?

Lots of people care, and many of them happen to be involved in politics. Welcome to Diplomacy 101.

[opebo]

It is sort of hard to imagine people like that attempting to have fun, but I suppose some minority of them do so attempt.  However it is not allowed.

[politicus]

It doesn't seem like they've been fired, at least not yet, just sent back home.

Those involved had been sent back to their permanent place of duty and were being replaced by other agency personnel, Donovan said. The matter was turned over to the agency's Office of Professional Responsibility, which handles the agency's internal affairs.

Most likely it'll just be a slap on the wrist for the agents and they may not be sent out of country again - Secret Service agents aren't that easy to replace given they have specialized training - at least as most of the details of the case stay swept under the rug.

I don't have a problem with prostitution so long as it involves consenting adults, but I can see why this was a potential issue diplomatically. The Secret Service agents were in Columbia to do their job, not to be on vacation, so if they cause a scandal it wouldn't be good for a diplomatic mission. It doesn't particularly matter from a diplomatic standpoint if they were on duty at the time or not. Also, the misconduct in question could involve more than just being with prostitutes, but could be some other trouble they caused while being with prostitutes, which would just make said misconduct all the more embarrassing. We're lacking on details, so it's hard to say.

From my thorough research (cursory Wikipedia glance) on the subject, it seems that A. (indoor) prostitution is legal in Colombia, but B. Cartagena in particular suffers from a high number of people in sex slavery and child prostitutes. 

In my view, as long as "B" doesn't come into play, "A" means that what they did, while stupid, shouldn't get them fired.

In a poor country like Colombia prostitution almost always include an element of exploitation.

[The Mikado]

It doesn't seem like they've been fired, at least not yet, just sent back home.

Those involved had been sent back to their permanent place of duty and were being replaced by other agency personnel, Donovan said. The matter was turned over to the agency's Office of Professional Responsibility, which handles the agency's internal affairs.

Most likely it'll just be a slap on the wrist for the agents and they may not be sent out of country again - Secret Service agents aren't that easy to replace given they have specialized training - at least as most of the details of the case stay swept under the rug.

I don't have a problem with prostitution so long as it involves consenting adults, but I can see why this was a potential issue diplomatically. The Secret Service agents were in Columbia to do their job, not to be on vacation, so if they cause a scandal it wouldn't be good for a diplomatic mission. It doesn't particularly matter from a diplomatic standpoint if they were on duty at the time or not. Also, the misconduct in question could involve more than just being with prostitutes, but could be some other trouble they caused while being with prostitutes, which would just make said misconduct all the more embarrassing. We're lacking on details, so it's hard to say.

From my thorough research (cursory Wikipedia glance) on the subject, it seems that A. (indoor) prostitution is legal in Colombia, but B. Cartagena in particular suffers from a high number of people in sex slavery and child prostitutes. 

In my view, as long as "B" doesn't come into play, "A" means that what they did, while stupid, shouldn't get them fired.

In a poor country like Colombia prostitution almost always include an element of exploitation.

No doubt.  The question becomes, do you fire Secret Service agents for moral failings?  I mean, surely we don't hold bodyguards to the same standards as the people they guard.

[True Federalist]

Thing is, their visiting prostitutes leaves the agents open to blackmail, and thus a potential security risk.  The degree of the risk depends on whether they are married, a deacon or the equivalent in their church, and so forth.  Even if prostitution were 100% legal in both the United States and Colombia, those risks would remain, tho they would be lower.  It's not just the physical security of the President that would potentially be at risk.  Might not a hedge fund be interested in advance word of what will be announced at the next G-8 summit?

[So the Heroes Fall]

Thing is, their visiting prostitutes leaves the agents open to blackmail, and thus a potential security risk.  The degree of the risk depends on whether they are married, a deacon or the equivalent in their church, and so forth.  Even if prostitution were 100% legal in both the United States and Colombia, those risks would remain, tho they would be lower.  It's not just the physical security of the President that would potentially be at risk.  Might not a hedge fund be interested in advance word of what will be announced at the next G-8 summit?

By the same logic though, what if a closeted Secret Service agent was caught visiting a gay bar?

And actually, prostitution is legal in the United States, though I'm sure a Secret Service agent caught going to a brothel while Obama was visiting Nevada wouldn't be treated much better.

[True Federalist]

Thing is, their visiting prostitutes leaves the agents open to blackmail, and thus a potential security risk.  The degree of the risk depends on whether they are married, a deacon or the equivalent in their church, and so forth.  Even if prostitution were 100% legal in both the United States and Colombia, those risks would remain, tho they would be lower.  It's not just the physical security of the President that would potentially be at risk.  Might not a hedge fund be interested in advance word of what will be announced at the next G-8 summit?

By the same logic though, what if a closeted Secret Service agent was caught visiting a gay bar?

Their own reaction to their own behavior makes them a blackmail risk.  To avoid that, if that situation were to happen, then they should be offered a choice between resigning or coming out of the closet.  (Or being transferred to a position where they would have nothing to give up if they were blackmailed.)  I wish that a policy of "Do Ask and Do Tell" were not needed for such positions, but I feel that it is.

[dead0man]

Thing is, their visiting prostitutes leaves the agents open to blackmail, and thus a potential security risk.  The degree of the risk depends on whether they are married, a deacon or the equivalent in their church, and so forth.  Even if prostitution were 100% legal in both the United States and Colombia, those risks would remain, tho they would be lower.  It's not just the physical security of the President that would potentially be at risk.  Might not a hedge fund be interested in advance word of what will be announced at the next G-8 summit?

By the same logic though, what if a closeted Secret Service agent was caught visiting a gay bar?

You seem to understand blackmail as well as you understood the blackmarket.

[opebo]

Thing is, their visiting prostitutes leaves the agents open to blackmail, and thus a potential security risk.  The degree of the risk depends on whether they are married, a deacon or the equivalent in their church, and so forth.  Even if prostitution were 100% legal in both the United States and Colombia, those risks would remain, tho they would be lower.  It's not just the physical security of the President that would potentially be at risk.  Might not a hedge fund be interested in advance word of what will be announced at the next G-8 summit?

Yes I would like to ban Deacons from the Secret Service.  Too easily blackmailed.  Not to worry though, I think SS Agents are all Mormons, and obviously they're too shameless to be blackmailed.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

What a prude.

[asexual trans victimologist]

This thread speaks volumes about why we only have one female poster.

[Vermin Supreme]

This thread speaks volumes about why we only have one female poster.

Because we aren't bunch of prudes?

[dead0man]

This thread speaks volumes about why we only have one female poster.

I'm not following the logic here...