Jump to content

Free The Colombia 12


Lucky
This topic is 4476 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

12 Secret Service agents have been sent home from Colombia after allegedly hiring hookers. What's wrong with that? Don't we do that sort of thing too?

So, why not support our fellow hooker hirers and urge Obama to pardon the 12 horny men who did nothing more than most men do, or want to do,when traveling

to an area where prostitution is legal. They take advantage of it!

So free the Colombia 12. Maybe we should even give them a Golden Zipper Award!*

 

*©Lucky 2012

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 29
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Articles I read didn't indicate that all 12 participated in the hiring. I believe it was 1 or 2. But, at least 2 supervisors knew and tried to cover it up.

 

The end result was that the entire team of 12 was sent home. I suspect most didn't do anything wrong. But, when you're part of a team with a problem, it seems easier to replace an entire team than selected members.

 

I have no problem with people hiring other people for "companionship". But, there is a correct time and place. It would be totally in appropriate for me to hire while I'm on the job. I would expect to be reprimanded for that. These guys were there to provide a pre-visit security for Obama. I think what they did was not in keeping with their job or objective.

 

I fully support their right to hire on their own time. But, I also support replacing the team while this whole mess gets ironed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There does seem to be some confusion as to how many guys hired girls. Here is an excerpt from the NY Times:

"...In addition, five United States military service members who were working with the Secret Service unit have been confined to quarters and are facing an investigation because they violated a curfew and might “have been involved in inappropriate conduct” in the same hotel as the agents, the military said.

 

The Secret Service employees, including both agents and officers, had been sent to Colombia to provide support to teams preparing security measures ahead of the president’s arrival. On Friday, the Secret Service abruptly replaced the entire unit.

Details about the episode, which took place on Wednesday night and involved at least two Secret Service supervisors, were coming into focus on Saturday night, though there were still some conflicting details in accounts of what had happened. Officials emphasized that the investigation was still in its early stages.

But in a phone interview, Representative Peter T. King, the New York Republican who is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, which oversees the Secret Service, said that he was told in a briefing that the 11 agents and officers were suspected of bringing women back to their rooms."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm so disgusted by this. Obviously I have no objection to hiring, being a member of this board, but, there is a time and place and these agents chose a very bad time. Now President Obama has to deal with this in addition to the already fraught talks about the "War on Drugs." Well, if some of these agents are relieved of their duties permanently, they can at least be comforted by the fact that they'll be free to hire whenever they please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we should even give them a Golden Zipper Award!*

 

*©Lucky 2012

 

You may be a bit late for a copyright. Use of the phrase Golden Zipper Award dates back at least to 3/27/11. http://www.lauras-playground.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=31249

 

Possibly it is still available as a trade mark, if you put it into commercial use before Miss Natasha Jade gets around to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This situation made me think about how I felt these agents were treated. I went back and forth about whether or not it is fair. I acknowledge that there is limited facts to go on but as a guy who hires, who am I to condemn their actions. So on one hand, I bristle at the thought of an intrusion into their personal lives where this presumably happened behind closed doors in the privacy of their own rooms, is not illegal (in Columbia) and it was on their own time and dime (I am assuming the tax payers didn't actually foot the bill for the companions directly). I am not really sure if on such an assignment if they have time when they are considered off-duty or not so that could be another issue for me to consider.

 

On the other hand, they are representing the President and the US and are part of law enforcement so it seems to be an issue for them to do something that would otherwise be illegal back here in the states. And in their roles, it isn't beyond being reasonable to expect them to be held to a higher standard of conduct. If such activities are a clear violation of theirs rules and regulations (for personal and professional conduct), then it is pretty much case closed. Finally, there is conceivably a security risk (i.e. potential blackmail).

 

So on balance, considering the seriousness of what the secret service is held responsible for, I think the decision to replace the team was the right one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to know if this was a "set up"... during the cold war, there were numerous attempts, and some were successful, to have spies on both sides attempt to seduce high ranking and sometimes low ranking officials and security personnel into situations like this where blackmail or attempted blackmail and violations of security or the passing of information were involved. Most of those involved in this episode are probably too young to remember or know about those situations, but in IMHO for a secret service person or member of the military on assignment with a presidential visit to a foreign country to engage in such behavior, even if legal in that country, is incredibly naive and stupid at the same time. I agree with jgoo, and while I do feel sorry for the guys, it seems to me that this was incredibly stupid, and why the supervisors would try to cover it up is even more stupid. Anyone involved in any way with the President is under incredible scrutiny at all times... and they should know that.

DD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to know if this was a "set up"... during the cold war, there were numerous attempts, and some were successful, to have spies on both sides attempt to seduce high ranking and sometimes low ranking officials and security personnel into situations like this where blackmail or attempted blackmail and violations of security or the passing of information were involved. Most of those involved in this episode are probably too young to remember or know about those situations, but in IMHO for a secret service person or member of the military on assignment with a presidential visit to a foreign country to engage in such behavior, even if legal in that country, is incredibly naive and stupid at the same time. I agree with jgoo, and while I do feel sorry for the guys, it seems to me that this was incredibly stupid, and why the supervisors would try to cover it up is even more stupid. Anyone involved in any way with the President is under incredible scrutiny at all times... and they should know that.

DD

 

I was on the fence on this one most of last night...but I think that DD is spot on with this one. When your in service to the President, especially when his security is the issue, I think there just needs to be a higher standard that you are held to. I think the behavior was grossly inappropriate, and as DD says...they most cetainly should have known better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may be a bit late for a copyright. Use of the phrase Golden Zipper Award dates back at least to 3/27/11. http://www.lauras-playground.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=31249

 

Possibly it is still available as a trade mark, if you put it into commercial use before Miss Natasha Jade gets around to it.

 

I should have known that you would be the one to bite on that. I Googled the phrase first, saw Laura's use of the term, and noticed that she did not claim copyright. So why not me? Not that it would make me a dime...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one article I read said (or suggested) this only even came out to the public because one of the guys didn't want to pay his girl, so she complained to the hotel (which was holding her ID as per "guest" rules), who then called the police....also, prostitution is quasi-legal in Colombia, so maybe these guys were thinking, "we're going to Colombia...PARTY!!".....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One issue certainly is what obligation the government personnel had to represent their country properly. But, if the one dude had paid his damn $47 without a fight, none of this would have come to light.

So, knowing that the activity was not likely to reflect badly on the country because it would not likely be discovered, who can complain other than the guys wives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have known that you would be the one to bite on that. I Googled the phrase first, saw Laura's use of the term, and noticed that she did not claim copyright. So why not me? Not that it would make me a dime...

 

LOL, did you also google 'copyright'? I did...(wait for it)... before I posted. :D

 

The trade mark part was from memory & subject to revision at a later date.

 

Bite on that! (hee hee hee)

 

"If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted." *

"This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise."

 

*Fair use quote from Ten Big Myths About Copyright Explained. http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not decided where I stand on this issue....perhaps due to not yet having enough information. I suppose I'm leaning more towards their behavior being innappropriate. It certainly is distracting attention from the actual presidential summit. Sending the guys home until an investigation is completed was probably the right action to take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My post is a bit tongue in cheek. Of course we support other guys who hire hookers, but not when they embarrass the whole country. Now jobs are at risk, and even marriages. But it still goes back to the one guy who wouldn't pay up, for whatever reason. He screwed everyone involved. He's the real villain of the piece.

And, MsGuy, did you truly think I wanted to copyright Golden Zipper? What would I do with it? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Lucky... I hope you mean your statement "tongue in cheek" I agree that not paying was incredibly stupid... but the whole affair was stupid... who is to know whether or not these girls were in the employ of some other government and "set a trap" to see how far they could get... loose zippers can cause as much trouble as loose lips... If you are that hard up (pun intended) to get your rocks off, use your hand or get some help from some of the other guys... we will probably never know the whole story until 50 years from now when when of these clowns decides to write a "tell all" book, or perhaps tries to sell the story to some movie house... the more I read about this, the less sympathy I have for the guys, and frankly I am quite happy that they were caught... maybe future secret service and military folks who guard and protect the President and other officials of high rank like the VP, Secretary of State, etc. will think in advance.... If you want the other side of service to our country, please get the book, "Mrs. Kennedy and Me" by Clint Hill... he is the one that jumped on the back of the limo when President Kennedy was shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The escort who caused the fuss has given an interview. She says she is not a prostitute, but an escort. She asked for $800 for her services despite the local rate being about $47.

The agent kicked her out of the room after giving her $30. I can see why he wouldn't want to pay her $800, but then again, she held all of the cards. Had he been more accommodating,

all of these guys might not be n hot water now. They could have divvied up the $800 and kept their jobs...and marriages.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/world/americas/colombian-escort-speaks-about-secret-service-scandal.html?hp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the reports said the money dispute was because there were 2 agents who were serviced by the same female escort, and the agents argued that they should split the rate. She argued they had to each pay the full rate. This sounds just like the kind of issue we deal with on these boards. Who was right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one article I read said (or suggested) this only even came out to the public because one of the guys didn't want to pay his girl, so she complained to the hotel (which was holding her ID as per "guest" rules), who then called the police....also, prostitution is quasi-legal in Colombia, so maybe these guys were thinking, "we're going to Colombia...PARTY!!".....

 

 

This case is about honor, discipline and ethical behavior by those who had made a vow to their country to uphold it. These men potentially compromised the President's security and ruined their careers for nothing but a hot piece of ass. They should have waited to party with prostitutes when they were not representing the U.S. Government in an official capacity and planning protection for the U.S. President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the reports said the money dispute was because there were 2 agents who were serviced by the same female escort, and the agents argued that they should split the rate. She argued they had to each pay the full rate. This sounds just like the kind of issue we deal with on these boards. Who was right?

 

I also heard this version of the dispute over money---two agents who wanted a "deal" because there was one prostitute. If this is the true scenario then I have lost most of the sympathy I had for the agents. The woman, according to reports, had a rate. She "serviced" two men. She had a right to expect and receive payment from both men. Sounds to me like a couple of men who are used to being "in charge" and think highly of themselves threw their weight around and tried it with the wrong woman. Good for her for standing up to them. Bad on those two for being cheap. As for the others??? Not against hiring sex workers obviously---but come on, there's a time and place. On the job, in Colombia??? Definitely not the time or place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People in the position of protecting the President of the Unites States must be beyond reproach (even more so when on foreign soil) and if they can't be that, they should get out of the business. Boys can't be boys when they are charged with protecting the leader of the free world. Heads do need to roll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...