• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NIghtline Reporting up to a dozen Secret Service Agents sent home

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,389
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
From Columbia on the presidential detail for apparently engaging in prostitution
 
Meh. As long as they paid for the hookers out of their own pockets...

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that when the president is out and about...his secret service detail are on duty around the clock..and philandering with prostitutes isnt on duty. They are in for some more discipline that just losing their position.
 
I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that when the president is out and about...his secret service detail are on duty around the clock..and philandering with prostitutes isnt on duty. They are in for some more discipline that just losing their position.

For days at a time? I rather think not. They work in shifts like any other security personnel, and they're "on call" when they are not actively on-duty. As long as they were willing and able to respond to any situation that required their attention, their immoral extracurriculars had no bearing whatsoever upon their jobs.

And as justabubba has pointed out, they weren't in violation of local laws.

There are no grounds upon which to "discipline" them, and certainly none for them to be subject to any penalties beyond loss of employment.
 
there may be some divorces coming up... anybody know a good divorce lawyer who needs 12 clients?
 
For days at a time? I rather think not. They work in shifts like any other security personnel, and they're "on call" when they are not actively on-duty. As long as they were willing and able to respond to any situation that required their attention, their immoral extracurriculars had no bearing whatsoever upon their jobs.

And as justabubba has pointed out, they weren't in violation of local laws.

There are no grounds upon which to "discipline" them, and certainly none for them to be subject to any penalties beyond loss of employment.

I thought I remember "sex tourism" being illegal under some circumstances. Although come to think of it, that might just be for sex with minors. (the fact that such a law is required ...)
 
For days at a time? I rather think not. They work in shifts like any other security personnel, and they're "on call" when they are not actively on-duty. As long as they were willing and able to respond to any situation that required their attention, their immoral extracurriculars had no bearing whatsoever upon their jobs.

And as justabubba has pointed out, they weren't in violation of local laws.




There are no grounds upon which to "discipline" them, and certainly none for them to be subject to any penalties beyond loss of employment.



You misunderstood me...being on duty around the clock doesnt mean they dont sleep...what it means is they arent allowed to go off and do whatever...they have to be prepared to go when called...they arent allowed to go off drinking and carousing when that detail is active outside the whitehouse. Id bet that their sop and orders and they broke them....otherwise why would they have been pulled off and sent back to the states....they will be facing formal discipline....
Your also forgetting APPEARENCES on foreign soil....US Presidents security team is hawkin hookers? nah dont think thats allowed...
Oh and it being legal to hawk prostitutes in columbia or anywhere else has no bearing on the Presidents Detail disobeying orders and protocol...you can believe discipline will be forthcoming....
 
Oh and it being legal to hawk prostitutes in columbia or anywhere else has no bearing on the Presidents Detail disobeying orders and protocol...you can believe discipline will be forthcoming....
They would have been better off doing this with Bill in the Clinton administration.
 
They would have been better off doing this with Bill in the Clinton administration.
Bill would have taken the chubby ones!
I'm sure it will come out that these were Bush Secret Service agents.

There has been a follow up story that 5 marines were caught up in this as well. At the end of the day...PROVIDED that it was on their own dime and own time...I have a really hard time caring if all they did was got caught up with some hookers. Wouldnt be the first time it has happened. Wonder how much of the story will come out.
 
The secret services obtained by the Secret Service are no longer secret.
 
Meh. As long as they paid for the hookers out of their own pockets...

For days at a time? I rather think not. They work in shifts like any other security personnel, and they're "on call" when they are not actively on-duty. As long as they were willing and able to respond to any situation that required their attention, their immoral extracurriculars had no bearing whatsoever upon their jobs.

And as justabubba has pointed out, they weren't in violation of local laws.

There are no grounds upon which to "discipline" them, and certainly none for them to be subject to any penalties beyond loss of employment.

No grounds upon which to discipline them? You must be kidding. Jesus H. Christ.
 
I don't even understand what the problem is here. They did nothing illegal.

So you don't think that the President's Secret Service detail should be above reproach? That it's okay they engage in conduct that would make them susceptible to blackmail? That it's okay to let a protected space be infiltrated with prostitutes...who may or may not be prostitutes? Who may have other agendas? Ridiculous.
 
So you don't think that the President's Secret Service detail should be above reproach?

I don't see anything wrong with using prostitutes.

That it's okay they engage in conduct that would make them susceptible to blackmail?

Blackmail for what? They did nothing illegal. Other than their wives, if they're married, who would care?

That it's okay to let a protected space be infiltrated with prostitutes...who may or may not be prostitutes? Who may have other agendas?

That should be a problem no matter who they bring into protected space. Is that what they did? Bring unauthorized persons into protected space?
 
I don't see anything wrong with using prostitutes.

Would I be guilty of overstating the obvious were I to remind you that there are some perfectly agreeable gentlemen who would be quite willing to offer their services gratis?
 
I don't see anything wrong with using prostitutes.

I don't either, except when one is expected to protect the POTUS and secure a hotel.

Blackmail for what? They did nothing illegal. Other than their wives, if they're married, who would care?

Blackmail for violating their contract of employment. And, of course, blackmail if they're married.

That should be a problem no matter who they bring into protected space. Is that what they did? Bring unauthorized persons into protected space?

They were there to secure the space for the POTUS' visit. And, yes, it should be a problem no matter who they bring into that protected space.
 
Back
Top Bottom