I’m confused about this scandal developing over Secret Service and U.S. military personnel paying for sex in a country where prostitution is legal.
Would it be all right with U.S. authorities and the media if the same personnel had non-commercial consensual sex with women in their hotel rooms?
What if the prostitutes were male?
Exactly what is the current ethos for sexual impropriety among Secret Service agents and U.S. military personnel in 2012?
For instance, is it all right for U.S. military service members to fool around with members of the same sex, but not the opposite sex?
Is the exchange of money the problem?
I don't know who wrote this since I didn't continue with the nonsense, but is he really that stupid?
ReplyDeleteI would ask "How much?" LOL
ReplyDelete2:13pm - Is that Jim?
ReplyDelete:)
Where is the confusion? The SS people were there on official Government business not to party and get whoopee. Besides, they were too cheap to pay the lousy $47 anyway so they likely violated Columbian law. One prostitute stayed past curfew time which made here an additional guest staying in the room and the SS guy didn't want to pay for that either.
ReplyDelete3:03 PM
ReplyDeleteShe stayed because he didn't want to pay her. He was trying to screw her twice.
She didn't leave on time. He wouldn't answer door for hotel. Hotel called cops.
America is embarrassed yet again.
The military (speaking firsthand) and I am assuming the SS recieve annual training on Human Trafficking. It does not matter if the military members were on duty, off duty, on official business, or on leave in Tailand, the rules are the same under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. No tolerance. As for the SS, I'm sure that departmental policy mirrors the UCMJ for the military. These guys knew that what they were doing was wrong, didnt matter whether the prostitutes had danglers, or ta-tas... Or both. Although I love the way the media spins these issues around to turn them into some type of civil rights infringement.
ReplyDelete