Whores in Columbia? Say it ain’t so!

Hey, you. Yes, you. The guy over there, whining about the fact that some military members and Secret Service agents went whoring in Cartagena. (source) Come over here.

COCKPUNCH

There, that’s what you get.

Here is what the law should be: If your job is to take a bullet for another man, you have the right to go whoring the night before you might get shot — as long as you get a good night’s sleep and a shower afterward. (After all, we don’t want you all sleepy and sticky when you’re supposed to be protecting The Eagle). I don’t even mind if you use my taxpayer dollars for it. I’d even pay more taxes if it went into a “whores for the troops” fund. If you are in the military or the secret service, and you are not on duty at that moment, what’s the big fucking deal?

If you whine about it, seriously, fuck you as if you were dragged into a den of reavers.

That is what you deserve.

23 Responses to Whores in Columbia? Say it ain’t so!

  1. Z. says:

    What the agents did is not a big deal, out of context. The big deal relates to the fact that their asshat supervisors explicitly prohibited them from going out whoring. And when a bunch of whores and pimps and FARC agents and corporate paramilitaries and God-knows-who-else finds out that a bunch of Secret Service agents are out whoring around in Bogota, it gives them leverage they could use to try to blackmail the agents.

    And you know full well that ALL OF US have the same right to go out whoring as those brave men do. Are you trying to say we don’t? Huh? Huh? This isn’t some bullshit DSK story, it’s a story about a bunch of guys who knowingly signed up for a very important job with very specific rules. Most of those rules don’t have anything to do with whoring, but the agents broke the ones that did.

  2. dan says:

    its a security breach for sure. they brought uncleared people into a hotel that had been cleared. next time don’t get a room get another hotel FFS

  3. jikamens says:

    1. The agents in question were not on presidential protective duty.
    2. They brought unvetted personnel back to a hotel that had already been secured.
    3. The problem is not so much that they went whoring, but rather that they went whoring and then didn’t pay the prostitutes, so egregiously that one of them felt comfortable filing a police report about it. Not exactly honorable even for whoring.
    4. Regardless of who should and should not have the “right” to go whoring, the Secret Service code of conduct prohibited what they did. If they didn’t want to follow the rules, they shouldn’t have taken the job.
    5. Regardless of what you think people’s feelings _should_ be about Secret Service agents whoring, the _reality_ is that it is embarrassing to the Service, and one of the things that’s drilled into members of the Service over, and over, and over again throughout their training and service is that they aren’t supposed to do things that embarrass the Service.

    • Re #3, you have a really good point.

      • Clint says:

        And not #4? Really?

        • Not invalidating #4 by any means, but I think that #3 is his best point.

          Sometimes, I suppose, a job means that you don’t get to go whoring. But, the rule itself is stupid. #3? There’s really no excuse for not paying the hooker unless services were not rendered.

    • jdgalt says:

      #4 and #5 are stupid. If the Service has such a rule, it blows holes in their own security (by opening the possibility of blackmail) and needs to be abandoned yesterday. And if *anybody* involved feels embarrassed because people had consensual sex, their butthurt feelings are their own problem.

      • jikamens says:

        The threat of blackmail is not, “Do what I want or I’ll tell your superior officer that you brought a whore back to your hotel,” it’s, “Do what I want or I’ll tell you WIFE that you brought a whore back to your hotel.” That is not something that can be fixed by changing the Secret Service’s policies.

        As for your comment about #5, I believe I’ve already addressed it, but I’ll try again… The Secret Service does not live in a fantasy-land where they are free to ignore the opinions of the American public, nor do they have a magic wand they can wave to change those opinions. The REALITY of the world we live in is that many, perhaps even most, people have a problem with whoring in general, or with government officials whoring while on assignment in a foreign country, or both. This is not a reality that the Service can simply ignore because they disagree with the people who feel that way. That’s just not how the world works.

        • dan says:

          theres also the fact that they broke curfew. if you can’t break curfew without getting caught with your pants down just how good are you at doing your job?
          these guys are security risks.

        • jdgalt says:

          Why can’t they? Who’s going to make them behave differently? Not I.

  4. Gary says:

    “Reavers?” Really?

    • Jake-413451 says:

      Well he could have said your disapproval of their whoring has so annoyed me that if you were being drug off to be raped to death I could not be bothered to care.

      But that is just excessively wordy.

      • Actually, it would have been “your disapproval of their whoring has so annoyed me that if you were being drug off to be raped to death, your flesh eaten, and your skins sewn into clothing, whether in that order or not, I could not be bothered to care.

        and yes, excessively wordy.

    • Kasey says:

      Hey, any reference by Mr. Randazza to the Whedonverse is well accepted by me.

  5. Jay Wolman says:

    To add to the fray, prostitution in Colombia is legal. See, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/wha/119153.htm . I agree that, perhaps, bringing any guests might have been a security breach, e.g., women having sex for free, but that doesn’t seem to be the story. Nor is the failure to pay, though they are liable for theft of services and breach of contract. The only “story” is that it is salacious.
    If the agents brought back their accountants to work on their 1040s and didn’t pay them, would we even be talking about this? Same breach of security and contract, same legal activity.
    Oh, and as for Whedon creatures as punishment, I’d suggest, in lieu of reavers, the she-mantis. See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teacher%27s_Pet_(Buffy_episode) .

  6. Christoph says:

    I agree the sex with prostitutes wasn’t a big deal or surprising. I mean, they put their lives on the line and, more to the point, they are men — men who travel.

    But there’s no excuse to be inviting unknown women back to your room when you have the President’s schedule in it, etc. So their fucking should have been done “wheels up”.

    Marc, please don’t have me thrown in jail for saying fucking on your site!

    Have you seen this article?

    British Blogger sentenced to 6 months custodial sentence for calling a politician a cunt.

    I don’t even know the politician, and now I want to call him a cunt too. Out of principle.

    Melvin Seymour of Bexley: you’re a cunt.

  7. Here’s my meger take on it…

    Yeah, hooking is legal there. Awesome. God knows some women only have their bodies as assets, so they might as well make a living…

    But the fact that a secured location had unknown, unvetted people brought to it, and at least one of them was allowed to stay the night (where she concievably would have had access to classified, restricted information while the agent was asleep) is where I stop backing these guys.

    I’ll ignore the “maybe some of them could have been blackmailed, because they were married” angle, because I have no idea what their marriages were like – maybe some tail on the side is allowed when the husband is out of the country, who knows.

    But these are people who’s job it is to protect a President I actively loath. Do you have any idea how much shit we would have to put up with if something happened to the man?

    Punishing the hell out of these guys to prevent it from happening again is OK with me, if only to save myself the inevitable “your hateful, violent rhetoric caused the drug cartel to kill him!!!!” bullshit we’d end up getting.

    In the end, that’s my big thing. I don’t give a single ounce of a fuck is these guys were banging year old male farm animals. I just don’t want to be inconvienenced…

  8. Eddie says:

    A voice of sanity amongst the crazies. Too bad you are outnumbered 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1.

    • dan says:

      dont think hes so outnumbered. these guys were missing curfew and getting caught. That just goes against the whole ‘secret agent man’ vibe we expect of them. I think everyone who reads that will be against them.

      also… having one in the hotel room the following morning? for breakfast???????? and the hotel manager knows about it?
      real s.c.r.t. real s.m.r.t.

      can’t see anyone being on the soldiers side on this one.
      the only bad that comes out of it for the prez is he’s obv not paying his troops enough if even the elite on secret service detail can’t afford to pay their whores (or can’t afford to look sexy enough to pick up in the hotel bar underneath the chandelier ’cause thats how spies do it, right?)

  9. [...] Whores in Columbia? Say it ain’t so! « The Legal Satyricon. Share this:TwitterFacebookLinkedInStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. Permalink [...]

  10. New NYT article says the woman was demanding $800. I wouldn’t have paid her either!

    • Depends on what she was going to do and for how long, I suppose.

      • dan says:

        does it really matter? they broke curfew. how much they paid or overpaid is irrelevant. Im willing to bet none of us knows the price of an escort capable of getting into (and upstairs) a convention hotel in a major city anywhere in the world.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,810 other followers

%d bloggers like this: