Did Secret Service Compromise the Presidents Safety?

[righteousdude2]

I would have to say: YES!

What say you?

SEE:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...id10|htmlws-main-bb|dl5|sec1_lnk3&pLid=152252

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...rostitution-summit-of-americas_n_1426744.html

 

[billwald]

I say no. They were off duty.

 

[Tom Butler]

I say no. They were off duty.

Bill, based on what I've read, I agree. These were advance agents who've been there for quite some time preparing for the President's visit. They are not agents specifically assigned to protect the President.

That said, it is conceivable that security and logistical measures might be compromised if those prostitutes were willing agents (or dupes) of the President's enemies who had access to such information (by hook, crook, or seduction).

I'm almost certain none of that happened. But I've worked with the Secret Service before when I covered Presidents, Vice-Presidents, etc. They don't mess around with the President's safety.

These guys did something stupid, not treasonous.

 

[freeatlast]

Yes they compromised his security. It would be foolish to think this was the first and only time, but we will see. This kind of thing opens them to blackmail and other issues so yes they did compromise his security. They should lose their security clearance and never again be allowed in such a position.

 

[preachinjesus]

No, but they were violating clear rules of conduct and procedure.

 

[Don]

In this particular instance, no, security is not compromised (think about it: they got caught. Any security issues they addressed have already been re-assigned and re-examined).

In the Lord-knows-how-many previous incidents - yes, security may have been compromised, even if we didn't see a public result. We'll probably never know.

 

[Gina B]

I have no idea what standards they are held to, but they broke no laws of the country they were in by using prostitutes. Not paying them? Another story.

We can't force our morals on everyone, and having different morals isn't illegal. I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble for using a prostitute in places where it is legalized. It's even legal in some parts of the U.S.A., so it seems a bit odd that they would get in trouble for something that is not illegal. At least most pay for it when they do it legally, which in my mind is more respectable than cheating on a spouse with a whore who doesn't even bother getting paid for her nasty services. Both are sickening though...but not everyone is a Christian and not everyone who is a Christian follows the rules all the time. If it was legal, the only person they have to answer to is God, unless they have a contract that says otherwise.

 

[LadyEagle]

This is yet another distraction for media fodder. Watch the other hand...

 

[freeatlast]

In this particular instance, no, security is not compromised (think about it: they got caught. Any security issues they addressed have already been re-assigned and re-examined).

In the Lord-knows-how-many previous incidents - yes, security may have been compromised, even if we didn't see a public result. We'll probably never know.

That makes no sense. They clearly compromised their position. That means that security was compromised. The extent of that compromise may very well have been kept to a minimum, by how things developed but compromise was there.

 

[Don]

That makes no sense. They clearly compromised their position. That means that security was compromised. The extent of that compromise may very well have been kept to a minimum, by how things developed but compromise was there.

I understand what you're saying; and while I had originally intended to give a lengthy explanation of why I disagree, suffice to say that technically you're correct. Compromise has occurred. However, because it was discovered before security measures were required, security is actually now stronger (due to re-written procedures, policies, etc.).

 

[Scarlett O.]

If it was legal, the only person they have to answer to is God, unless they have a contract that says otherwise.

They also have to answer to their wives. Some of these guys are married. For them - prostitution being legal or illegal - is irrelevant.

 

[InTheLight]

This is yet another distraction for media fodder. Watch the other hand...

So let's see....At least 11 secret service agents (and 10 military personnel) go to a tacky strip club, get drunk on expensive booze and start blabbering about how they are in Columbia to protect the President of the United States. Then they each grab the most expensive prostitutes in the club and go back to the hotel where the President is staying. The hotel is a secured zone and certainly contains sensitive information. These agents certainly have the President's schedule, probably down to a minute by minute basis. So how far-fetched is it to assume one of these women could drug an agent, rifle through his belongings, steal his phone and sell sensitive information to a terrorist group or a drug cartel leader? Or use the embarrassing sex scandal to blackmail an agent into giving up classified material?

How soon we forget the uproar conservatives made about Monica Lewinsky possibly having access to classified information or using her s@x-capades as a method to blackmail President Clinton. Why was that an alarming scenario, but having 11 drunken secret service agents allow 21 foreign prostitutes access to the President's hotel isn't a big deal?

 

[mandym]

So let's see....At least 11 secret service agents (and 10 military personnel) go to a tacky strip club, get drunk on expensive booze and start blabbering about how they are in Columbia to protect the President of the United States. Then they each grab the most expensive prostitutes in the club and go back to the hotel where the President is staying. The hotel is a secured zone and certainly contains sensitive information. These agents certainly have the President's schedule, probably down to a minute by minute basis. So how far-fetched is it to assume one of these women could drug an agent, rifle through his belongings, steal his phone and sell sensitive information to a terrorist group or a drug cartel leader? Or use the embarrassing sex scandal to blackmail an agent into giving up classified material?

How soon we forget the uproar conservatives made about Monica Lewinsky possibly having access to classified information or using her s@x-capades as a method to blackmail President Clinton. Why was that an alarming scenario, but having 11 drunken secret service agents allow 21 foreign prostitutes access to the President's hotel isn't a big deal?

It is a very big deal

 

[LadyEagle]

Yes, it is a very big deal. When there is corruption, however, it starts at the top. This is the most corrupt administration this country has ever had in our history. To be shocked that evil and corruption would seep over into the Secret Service or any other government entity is being naive. It starts at the top. Morale in the SS is quite low, obviously. Ever wonder why someone who takes an oath to protect the POTUS would throw that oath and career away? Maybe they are a little bit more in the know about the goings on of this administration than what the American public is. And because of that, they no longer care. Not to condone their behavior, not to condone putting national security at risk, but who says our national security hasn't been put at risk by those at the very top? There is more to this story than what has been reported and maybe we won't know about it ever, but I still say....watch the other hand.

 

[billwald]

They spent their own money on their own time.

 

[Gina B]

So let's see....At least 11 secret service agents (and 10 military personnel) go to a tacky strip club, get drunk on expensive booze and start blabbering about how they are in Columbia to protect the President of the United States. Then they each grab the most expensive prostitutes in the club and go back to the hotel where the President is staying. The hotel is a secured zone and certainly contains sensitive information. These agents certainly have the President's schedule, probably down to a minute by minute basis. So how far-fetched is it to assume one of these women could drug an agent, rifle through his belongings, steal his phone and sell sensitive information to a terrorist group or a drug cartel leader? Or use the embarrassing sex scandal to blackmail an agent into giving up classified material?

How soon we forget the uproar conservatives made about Monica Lewinsky possibly having access to classified information or using her s@x-capades as a method to blackmail President Clinton. Why was that an alarming scenario, but having 11 drunken secret service agents allow 21 foreign prostitutes access to the President's hotel isn't a big deal?

Where are you getting this information? By all reports, they weren't in the hotel the President was in, weren't assigned to be, he wasn't even in the country yet, and nothing was said about secrets blabbed, any alcohol use, and if they weren't planning to pay anyhow, what gives you the idea that they chose the most expensive ones, especially since higher end prostitutes generally aren't found in tacky strip clubs?

If we start charging every military person who has slept with a prostitute in a foreign country, we'd likely lose around 80% of our military. People are awful naive, I'm really surprised that so many are actually surprised that this happened. The only reason it even came to light is because someone complained. If that hadn't happened, do you REALLY think nobody would have had a clue? Come on now...

 

[InTheLight]

Where are you getting this information? By all reports, they weren't in the hotel the President was in, weren't assigned to be, he wasn't even in the country yet, and nothing was said about secrets blabbed, any alcohol use, and if they weren't planning to pay anyhow, what gives you the idea that they chose the most expensive ones, especially since higher end prostitutes generally aren't found in tacky strip clubs?

I didn't say they blabbed secrets, didn't say anything about paying or not paying.

Most of what I heard was on the radio top of the hour national news segment over Monday and Tuesday. I did find this:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/329...-pleyclub-secret-service-scandal-colombia.htm

If we start charging every military person who has slept with a prostitute in a foreign country, we'd likely lose around 80% of our military. People are awful naive

You're moving the goal posts. This isn't any military person in any foreign country, these are secret service agents and auxiliary military personnel on a mission to protect the President while in Columbia. Also I doubt your 80% figure. I think you owe the veterans on this board an apology.

 

[HankD]

If the men involved were off-duty and the women involved were properly vetted then - No, there was no compromise of the president's safety.

HankD

 

[mandym]

I would have to say: YES!

What say you?

SEE:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...id10|htmlws-main-bb|dl5|sec1_lnk3&pLid=152252

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...rostitution-summit-of-americas_n_1426744.html

There seems to be a wrong assumption that so long as the security of the President is not compromised then there may not be an issue. This is wrong.

When men in this position engage in behavior like this, that they would not want anyone to know about, then they become compromised themselves. They can be blackmailed or forced to do things illegally to cover up their behavior. People in this kind of position must be pure as the driven snow in their current activities.

 

[InTheLight]

There seems to be a wrong assumption that so long as the security of the President is not compromised then there may not be an issue. This is wrong.

When men in this position engage in behavior like this that they would not want anyone to know about then they become compromised themselves. They can be blackmailed or forced to do things illegally to cover up their behavior. People in this kind of position must be pure as the driven snow in their current activities.

Absolutely correct.