[Athens]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Would it be ok if prostitution weren't illegal in the US?

It shouldn't be and in some states forms of it is legal like Nevada

And it shouldn't be here and I've been all for those sex trade workers in Ontario challenging it in the courts and here in BC too. The prohibition of it is what makes it dangerous. Should be a regulated industry like everything else.

[subego]

Sorry, no can do. Women aren't allowed to have control over their sexuality.

[turtle777]

It's really funny to see how those left wingers are all FOR liberalization of hookers, pot, drugs etc., because it makes it less dangerous.
And then they turn around and want stricter control on businesses, because that would make them less dangerous as well. Bullshit.

How about liberalization for all things?

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It's really funny to see how those left wingers are all FOR liberalization of hookers, pot, drugs etc., because it makes it less dangerous.
And then they turn around and want stricter control on businesses, because that would make them less dangerous as well. Bullshit.

How about liberalization for all things?

-t

Most people say one of the ways legal hookers and blow would be made safer is through government regulation, so I don't really see the inconsistency.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

Most people say one of the ways legal hookers and blow would be made safer is through government regulation, so I don't really see the inconsistency.

Uhm, yeah, and the other half of people say that unintended consequences of prostitution (like human trafficking) can be made "safer" by more regulation prohibiting it.

Point is, people pick and chose whatever regulation they like to fit their pet agenda.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Uhm, yeah, and the other half of people say that unintended consequences of prostitution (like human trafficking) can be made "safer" by more regulation prohibiting it.

So, how's that working out?

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Point is, people pick and chose whatever regulation they like to fit their pet agenda.

I understood. My point was you came up with a bad example.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Actually they were an advance team so they weren't traveling with the President. All of this went down before the President even arrived in Colombia. But your overall point is well taken.

OAW

Right... they station in advance of the President's arrival to ensure his path and stay is secure. Truth be told, probably an even more vigilant team in this regard as they must remain aware of the changing conditions of the President's destination. Oh well. It's obviously too difficult a situation for some to handle which is why we've likely not heard of this sort of thing very often.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It's really funny to see how those left wingers are all FOR liberalization of hookers, pot, drugs etc., because it makes it less dangerous.
And then they turn around and want stricter control on businesses, because that would make them less dangerous as well. Bullshit.

How about liberalization for all things?

-t

And, it's really funny to me to see right wingers who are all for free markets and smaller government try to defend practices prohibiting business models that conflict with their morals ... practices that necessitate bigger government to police morality.

[andi*pandi]

Normally I might make fun of things for always ending up being about Sarah Palin, but it sounds like the secret service has been this kind of class act since at least 2008 when they were guarding her:

Ousted Secret Service Supervisor Joked About Palin - TIME

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And, it's really funny to me to see right wingers who are all for free markets and smaller government try to defend practices prohibiting business models that conflict with their morals ... practices that necessitate bigger government to police morality.

Yes, that's stupid, too.

That's why I'm more leaning towards Liberitarianism.

-t

[Athens]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It's really funny to see how those left wingers are all FOR liberalization of hookers, pot, drugs etc., because it makes it less dangerous.
And then they turn around and want stricter control on businesses, because that would make them less dangerous as well. Bullshit.

How about liberalization for all things?

-t

Its not a contradiction because legalization of hookers, pot and other drugs would put those currently totally unregulated industries into regulation and under strict control.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Its not a contradiction because legalization of hookers, pot and other drugs would put those currently totally unregulated industries into regulation and under strict control.

Pretty simple concept right?

Too bad it's too difficult for turtle to understand.

[The Godfather]

If our service men and women can't get it, Nevada tourists should not get it either.

It is not federally illegal, or is it?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

If our service men and women can't get it, Nevada tourists should not get it either.

It is not federally illegal, or is it?

If you can drink in a bar, a trucker should be able to drink behind the wheel.

[ghporter]

This isn't about "personal liberty," it's about "drinking and fornicating on duty." Secret Service agents on the Presidential Protection Detail are either "on duty 24/7" (when preparing for the arrival of the president and while he's there) or they are basically on office hours. You don't want your airline pilot drinking on duty do you? Your physician drinking and fornicating just before he does your surgery? Prob'ly not...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

This isn't about "personal liberty," it's about "drinking and fornicating on duty." Secret Service agents on the Presidential Protection Detail are either "on duty 24/7" (when preparing for the arrival of the president and while he's there) or they are basically on office hours. You don't want your airline pilot drinking on duty do you? Your physician drinking and fornicating just before he does your surgery? Prob'ly not...

You realize i was being smarmy of course, or... maybe this wasn't in response to me. Otherwise, as you kind of said here there's a vast difference between a Nevada tourist and a Secret Service Agent. I certainly wouldn't want any of these things to occur in their respective occupations, particularly while on duty.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by subego 

And as I said, people can be trained to keep secrets from people without clearance, and be resistant to such manipulation.

It providers greater assurance to the organization not to have members exposed to such manipulation, rather than being resistant to it.

The 12 should be assigned to less sensitive Secret Service duties, like fraud investigation. The same sentiment that applies when someone is denied (re-)eligibility for a Personnel Reliability Program activity; it does not necessarily reflect unfavorably on the individual's suitability for assignment to other duties.

[subego]

Originally Posted by mduell 

It providers greater assurance to the organization not to have members exposed to such manipulation, rather than being resistant to it.

I'm not sure that's a given.

I mean, it's happening. You're kidding yourself if you think this is the first SSA to get a hooker on the job.

Is pretending it's not happening safer than a well thought out protocol?

[ghporter]

That is has happened in the past is a sign that the Agency is not, as a group, behaving the way the public expects them to behave. That there is some level of denial or coverup is worse.

As mduell says, (I think this was his meaning) not being in a position to be manipulated is infinitely superior to having to resist such manipulation.

I know of a guy who lost his Confidential clearance because he fibbed about a speeding ticket. (Confidential is the lowest level of classification in the DoD system.) The clearance wasn't pulled because the guy was caught speeding, but because he lied about it to his supervisor, his commander, and several other people. That's "making a false official statement," and got the guy demoted as well as losing his clearance. Now here we have people with very high level clearances who are potentially hiding a history of misbehavior while on duty. Sounds to me like it's time to reevaluate the whole annual review process for these agents...

[The Godfather]

Just the Secret Service, or the CIA, FBI, SEALs, TSA, Marines and SEC should have their review processes scaled up to 1950's expectations? You know, before they commit crimes of this caliber again.

[ghporter]

If a Marine is caught drinking on duty, he's going to get tossed in the can, probably be demoted, and get a crappy assignment-if he gets to stay in the Marines at all. Same for the SEALs. FBI has similar rules, but as they are not military, they are enforced somewhat differently; no FBI agent wants to go to prison. Think about it. TSA? Who is NOT in favor of firing a TSA screener ON THE SPOT if they are found to be drinking on duty? I'd suggest sending them to jail for that too, but I don't know what their actual rules are.

It's not 1950s vintage anything to expect people with serious, high intensity jobs to take those jobs seriously enough to NOT drink and carrouse WHILE ON DUTY.

[The Godfather]

The SS just issued a new rule, admitting that there is such a thing as OFF DUTY.
Agent who stiffed hooker and sparked prostitution scandal in Secret Service is identified as Arthur Huntington - NY Daily News

[ghporter]

There are different definitions of what counts as on and off duty, but this new rule is no different from military rules that put specific places/businesses off limits. In this case, it's part of the "conditions of employment" in the most elite US law enforcement agency. A Secret Service Agent does not have a wall between "public" and "private" lives in certain duty assignments. Of course it's unlikely that an agent that works on anti-counterfeiting in St. Louis is going to need telling that he shouldn't hang out in bars that serve as store fronts for prostitutes...

[subego]

Any reason we even have a Secret Service instead of just using Green Berets?

[subego]

Constitutional problems?

[ghporter]

The Secret Service has two basic roles: protecting our currency (and currency surrogates such as electronic banking infrastructure), and protecting heads of state and other dignitaries, starting with the president, VP, their families, and presidential/VP candidates and their families. The Green Berets are singularly inappropriate for such tasks. There is, in fact, no other agency that is appropriate for dignitary protection. Further, we have this thing called the Posse Comitatus Act, which severely restricts the use of military forces in law enforcement roles.

The Secret Service is a law enforcement agency with very specific and important, statutorily specified responsibilities and duties. Ideally, (and in most cases), this means that agents and officers pay attention to their jobs and don't use special taskings as an excuse to party. Unfortunately, the people that are put in position to travel and consider that sort of partying as "part of the perks" of the job, are those whose duties are among the most critical.

[subego]

First, I got my special forces mixed up. Whoops.

Second, I definitely get how the military isn't law enforcement, but saying dignitary protection is law enforcement seems a somewhat artificial distinction. Just as the military isn't (normally) set up for criminal investigation, law enforcement isn't (normally )set up for defense against assault.

Third, wouldn't a bunch of big, ape-sized, jarhead mother****ers (and I say that with complete and total respect) be a better deterrent than guys in suits?

[subego]

Chaperones among new Secret Service conduct rules

Seriously?

[The Godfather]

Entrevista de Dania Suárez en la W Radio - YouTube
Univision News - Secret Service sex scandal: her side of the story - YouTube
The press is going to squeeze this scandal for all it's worth.
Should some press regulations get written and passed to vanquish this?