Yesterday, The Daily Beast explained the findings of the investigation into the prostitution and security scandal that some of President Obama’s Secret Service were allegedly involved in:
Two of the agents have resigned while another two have been cleared of serious wrongdoing but could still face administrative penalties. And the fifth had his national-security clearance revoked, which is tantamount to being fired because he can no longer work at the agency.
Beast TV also offered this interview with Rep. Peter King, whom I’d previously never seen interviewed. Gotta say, King comes off really well in this interview as a no-nonsense truth-seeker.
What do you think? Could an investigation of this scale be adequately done in such a short time?
What do you think of the idea of a parallel investigation into this matter?
Is Susan Collins correct in asserting that the biggest problem with The Secret Service that it is 98% men?
About Joanna Schroeder
“Is Susan Collins correct in asserting that the biggest problem with The Secret Service that it is 98% men?”
Better question: why aren’t women turning out in droves for a job that requires them to lay down their life if necessary for the president? Oh yea, male disposability.
Is Susan Collins correct in asserting that the biggest problem with The Secret Service that it is 98% men?
No.
The first problem is that this assertion is being posed when only a small portion of that 98% was acting stupid (would it be right to assert that the biggest problem with child abuse is that 98% of primary caregivers are women?). It’s like she’s trying to make an end run around saying, “Would this have happened if there were more women around?”
Interesting how whenever a small portion of men get out of hand people go straight to wondering if the problem is men in general.
Secondly the actual problem is that that small portion is acting on some pretty incorrect masculinity.
Hiring hookers while you’re on duty, using taxpayer funds? Yes indeed, that was a huge mistake. You should always wait till you’re OFF duty to hire hookers, and pay out of your own pocket.
Oh, wait… they did.
Well, I guess you could still make the case that some sort of security risk might have been incurred, even though nothing of the sort actually happened.
Alright, if they were all off duty and if they hired them using their own money…then what the heck is the problem? Well, besides the fact that they were trying to get out of paying…
But otherwise…why the heck do we care?
It was my understanding that many soldiers who find themselves in foreign lands, isolated from family and social networks, will often seek intimate company from prostitutes. This is a well documented fact. Remember at the height of the Vietnam war, 1 out of 4 soldiers contracted sexually transmitted infections from sleeping with prostitutes. The actions of these Secret Service members should not be a surprise. They are, after all, soldiers in a foreign land who have been sworn to protect the president and his family wherever they go. These few agents were the small handful who were unlucky enough to get caught.
What I find to be most offensive about their actions is that many of them were carrying the president’s personal schedule while visiting with prostitutes. Considering that the Colombian and US governments are not on the best of terms, this is an immense security faux pas which could have put the president’s life in danger, and that is unacceptable. Wouldn’t it be a shame if prostitutes were given a bounty for obtaining information on where to intercept the president, targeting secret service agents who are vulnerable and immediate source of such intelligence. When the world’s greatest bodyguards are vulnerable, the president is vulnerable, and that is unacceptable.
@ Salvice:
co-sign 100%.
Ironically, the reason it was initially a big deal was because they Secret services agents underpaid the prostitutes. They agreed to $800 but instead left $30. After the prostitute complained to the police they gave another $225, but still a fraction of what they agreed to. I read an article that examined this through the lens of colonial oppression, noting that the U.S.A. and in particular the Banana industry has a long history of interfering in Central America. Unfortunately I can’t find the link!
Is this a matter of ethics or is it beyond that? Secret service …. Not so secret I guess? These are people who are hired and assigned to protect the president and his family. Damn straight I’d be angry if I were the president. Off time? Not sure if they have such a thing. I know that where I work, I have signed a contract that pretty much lays out what I can’t do outside my work, things that can potentially affect the credibility of the company I work for. The way I see it, these guys put the president at risk. It’s legal to hire whores in Columbia so what they did was legal. That being said, who knows who these whores are? This is Columbia, known for its drug trafficking. Ya really think this was a good idea on their part?
It is a shame that even the presidents men have turned to prostitution. They are suppose to have some of the best jobs in the country. How are children suppose to be inspired to become someone like them when they are doing stuff like this. We can thank German influence for this too. Prostitution is legal in Germany and they say it stimulates their economy. They even tax it. Is this event of our Secret Service men a hint of what Obama wants to do?