Secret Service Colombia Scandal

As you may have heard the President's recent trip to Cartagena, Colombia for the Summit of the Americas didn't go over so well. Not only did various Latin American leaders snub the US by refusing to attend or leaving early, some of those who did attend made it quite clear that if they had their way this would be the last such summit without a Cuban delegation attending. They took the US to task over the embargo and pointedly refused to issue any joint statement.

However all this was overshadowed by the alleged actions of some of the Secret Service advance security team, who upon arriving in Cartagena and being tasked presumably to scope out the area, determine the safest routes for the President to travel, and ensure the general safety and schedule for the President and his delegation, decided that they had some other things to do as well.

The incident came to light when a Cartagena prostitute refused to leave the hotel room occupied by a Secret Service agent until she was paid, said U.S. Representative Peter King, who heads the House Homeland Security Committee.The 11 agents, part of an advance security team that arrived before Obama, had brought women to their hotel blocks away from where the president stayed this weekend, said King. All have since been placed on administrative leave.At a press conference standing next to Santos yesterday, Obama said the investigation into the agents' actions is ongoing, "and I expect that investigation to be thorough and I expect it to be rigorous."If allegations are confirmed "then of course I'll be angry," he said. "We're representing the people of the United States, and when we travel to another country I expect us to observe the highest standards."

Link

It is completely unsurprising to me that people in a foreign land (even if they are Secret Service agents) would decide to take in some of the local sights and interact with the natives, so to speak. Men and women always find a way to get together. They always have and they always will. Prostitution is legal in Colombia. I really doubt that this is the first Secret Service detail to have allegedly engaged in such activities and I doubt it will be the last. I am a bit surprised though that professionals (I'm talking about the Secret Service agents, not the call girls) would let a situation get to this level. 

Discretion would seem to be the better part of valor here. Was this a new service? Who called the woman? Did the agent(s) who allegedly interacted with the woman know that payment was expected? Did an agent just come back in his room and find a strange woman demanding money? Did a pimp try to shake down an agent for more money than was allegedly agreed upon? Is this really a client/hooker exchange or is it a possible girlfriend trying to embarrass someone?  If it really is a hooker why didn't someone just pay her some money to go away quietly? Of the 11 agents recalled , how many of them had nothing to do with the situation but just had the bad luck to be in the same hotel suites when the stuff went down? Are any of these guys married? Perhaps they have some 'splainin to do...

All of those questions (and more) will be asked and answered in the coming investigation I suppose. People can and do compartmentalize actions and thoughts so it's possible, even quite likely that the President's security was never in question. On the other hand if you're busy thinking about the fun times you're going to have with Maria and Esmeralda perhaps you're not asking questions about why that fifth floor window in the next building is open. To quote Vito Corleone "What's the matter with you? I think your brain is going soft from all that comedy you play with that young girl. Now stop it and pay attention to business".

Questions
1) Is this much ado about nothing?
2) Does this feed into the image of The Ugly American?
3) Do you think this sort of alleged behavior is common for people traveling overseas?

Meet the New Boss: Obama and Domestic Spying

I'm your new boss. I'm SO happy to see you!!!

One of the most intriguing things about human nature is how we respond to surface changes while the substantive policy remains the same. In short, a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.

In New York City for example former Mayor Rudy Giuliani made no pretense of having much use for the black community or so-called black leaders. Under his leadership the NYPD was unleashed to harass and search black and Hispanic citizens, primarily men or boys, who could literally just be walking down the street minding their own business. Occasionally this aggressive attitude would lead to brutal or even deadly uses of force on citizens. People were outraged. They marched, protested and called the snarling churlish lisping Giuliani all sorts of nasty names.


Enter Mayor Bloomberg. Bloomberg is a "feel your pain" kind of guy. He's (usually) articulate, soft spoken, reasonable and can insult you in such a nice way that you'll thank him for doing so. He had no problem meeting with black leaders and making the requisite noises of regret any time there was a questionable NYPD incident. But the underlying policy of stop and frisk, agitate and intimidate wasn't changed. If anything, it expanded. But because Bloomberg's surface persona was much more pleasant than that of the belligerent Giuliani, much of the public controversy over police stops initially subsided. Now, however, thanks to Commissioner Kelly's pugnacity and the aggressiveness of the NYPD in crossing jurisdictional and legal lines, people may finally be starting to resist and fight back.

There's a lesson there. You may recall the Total Information Awareness Program that was aborted under then President Bush. Democrats and civil libertarians all of stripes raged against this in editorials. They thundered against it in on the airwaves. They called it creeping fascism. So the program was "dropped". Soon afterwards Hope and Change arrived.

And then people went back to sleep, content that they had stopped this wicked idea dead in its tracks. But much like the Terminator or the car Christine, ideas like this don't die. They just slowly and patiently rebuild themselves until they are reborn. Now they might have a modified name or use slightly different people as fronts. But that's all window dressing. The bottom line is government is " like fire, a handy servant but a dangerous master". The government will now be storing information on you for five years. The previous limit was 180 days.

The U.S. intelligence community can now store information on innocent Americans for up to five years under new Obama administration rules, expanding previous authority to hold details on individuals with no ties to terrorism.
The National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) was previously supposed to immediately destroy intelligence information about Americans when there were no clear ties to terrorism, but now new rules that basically justify spying on innocent Americans are being justified by terrorism fear-mongers.

But wait there's more!!! Behind door number two we have this prize for you!

NERMEEN SHAIKH: A new exposé in Wired Magazine has revealed new details about how the National Security Agency is quietly building the largest spy center in the country in Bluffdale, Utah, as part of a secret NSA surveillance program codenamed "Stellar Wind." According to investigative reporter James Bamford, the NSA has established listening posts throughout the nation to collect and sift through billions of email messages and phone calls, whether they originate within the country or overseas. The Utah spy center will contain near-bottomless databases to store all forms of communication collected by the agency. This includes the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases and other digital "pocket litter."

AMY GOODMAN: In addition, the NSA has also created a supercomputer of almost unimaginable speed to look for patterns and unscramble codes. James Bamford writes the secret surveillance program "is, in some measure, the realization of the 'total information awareness' program created during the first term of the Bush administration," but later killed by Congress in 2003 due to privacy concerns and public outcry.

Do you get this? EVERYTHING that you communicate electronically, everything that shows who you are, what you read, where you go each day, what sorts of purchases you make, etc is being gathered up in databases where it will be perused and sifted through by government agents.
Now how is this possible if we have a Democratic President, one that taught constitutional law, someone who theoretically has an understanding of the Bill of Rights, of privacy, of individual rights?

It's possible because the neither the Republicans nor Democrats have any real commitment to or understanding of the Bill of Rights. Sure both sides will mouth pious platitudes to certain constitutional guarantees when they are important for some other purpose or to a favored interest group (Republicans and the gun lobby or Democrats and the abortion lobby) but ultimately neither side could give a mosquito's tweeter about the Bill of Rights as a general limitation on the executive branch's ability to investigate, monitor, arrest or compel behavior by the individual. The current President may not have southern swagger or Texas twang or other characteristics or behavior patterns which some progressives didn't like. But when it comes to civil liberties, make no mistake, President Obama is just as dangerous as any right-wing zealot and perhaps more so. Too many people are willing to give him a pass on things they never would have tolerated from President Bush. For example, that recent Supreme Court decision that allowed strip searches of all people arrested, even those arrested for minor non-violent offenses, was supported by the Obama Administration. This cartoon puts it perfectly.

If the below bill were to be proposed today as is with no other changes I don't think it would get passed. I think that Republicans would openly oppose it as a law which protected terrorists. Democrats might say (in front of the cameras) it was a good idea in theory but in practice (once behind closed doors) would carve out so many exceptions while CLAIMING they supported the law that even if passed it would be meaningless.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What's your take?
Are you bothered by the government gathering information on you?
If Republicans were doing this would we have heard more outcry?

Why aren't civil liberties important to more people?