Understanding the Culture of the Secret Service
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-04-19/understanding-culture-secret-service
The Secret Service has announced the departure of three employees connected to a prostitution scandal involving members of President Obama's security detail. Eight others remain under investigation. The incident has focused attention on the training and oversight of Secret Service agents. It's also damaged the agency's reputation as an elite federal law enforcement team. After meeting with Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, Senator Susan Collins asked whether there was evidence of other misconduct -- and if the incident indicates a larger problem in the agency. Diane and her guests discuss the culture of the Secret Service.
Guests
Ronald Kessler
author of "In the President's Secret Service: Behind the Scenes with Agents in the Line of Fire and the Presidents They Protect."
Paul Rosenzweig
visiting fellow, The Heritage Foundation and former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department of Homeland Security (2005-9).
Michael Isikoff
national investigative correspondent for NBC.
Jon Adler
national president, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Wow Diane. Your first part of the morning show regarding the secret service really stooped to new lows. Thank you for avoiding my call. Who really cares about this? This is the oldest profession and your point about wasting an hour's time of Public Radio on this is what? Why are you and the rest of the media hyper sensationalizing this? Can't you come up with anything else? Isn't there a better use of public airwaves? I wish I could get a refund on my most recent donation to WAMU. I'll be sure to donate money elsewhere next time.
It is legal in the US - specifically the state of Nevada.
I just finished listening to the show. Ms. Rehm closed the show by suggesting that if the Secret Service had more women agents that they(the female agents) would be less inclined toward moral transgressions.
What a bigoted and "chauvinistic" statement from a program and host which regularly criticizes double standards and generalizations based on gender, race, age, etc.
How is it possible to promote fair and objective points of view when Ms. Rehm herself openly propagates such views on the air?
In my opinion, Ms Rehm, you owe your listeners an apology and you should probably do a bit of soul searching when it comes to your own attitude.
I don't listen to Rush and the other blowhards primarily because of their obviously prejudiced attitudes, please don't force me to add you to the "do not listen" list.
The question of whether this happened before came up a few times during the discussion. I'd like to know if this happened when the Secret Service was part of the Dept. of Treasury. The Secret Service became part of the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003. The DHS was created out of a knee-jerk response to 9/11 because the left hand of the intelligence community did not know what the right hand was doing. Rather than remedy the situation, the DHS has grown several more hands and they are all flailing wildly with the exception of a single hand whose sole function is to perpetually pat itself on the back. I am curious whether this incident is symptomatic of the DHS's leadership or lack thereof.
Diane: Thought you might find this letter to the editor of the Arizona Republic of interest:
"I worked as a military Spanish-language translator for a decade in Latin America.
"I worked with the National Security Agency, Drug Enforcement Administration and various U.S. dipolomatic employees.
"The behavior of the U.S. Secret Service agents and military personnel in Colombia is the norm, not the exception.
"Your tax dollars at work!
-- JD Ricks, Mesa
One of the requirements in obtaining a security clearance is that the person has good credit worthiness. If a person does not, they can be declined a clearance or lose one. Yet, to cheat on one's marriage vows is seen as a less offense and a clearance is not at risk with such actions. Perhaps if those granting security clearance put more thought into moral behaviors as they do in financial habits, such incidents wouldn't be as frequent. If one can not honor a marriage vow, why would it be expected that they would honor his/her professional commitments?
"We all (men) know what Colombia has to offer." Uh-huh. Maybe I'm just a naive female, but I doubt that to all men of all stripes, that would be among the things that would come to mind upon mention of the country of Colombia. Maybe all men in law enforcement? If so, that would be an interesting indication of the culture of this profession.
Secondly, I take issue and offense with people in the media using the term "women" to mean "prostitutes." Diane, with respect, this includes you.
The overall impression of this show was one of apology for the SS, except for DR of course. The conduct defies common sense, never mind morality. I worked for the feds for over 20 years and traveled many times on the taxpayer's dime. It never occurred to me that on those trips I was ever truly "off duty" and the rule of thumb was don't do anything that would make the government (your employer who paid for your trip) look bad. Questions of whether any particular conduct was legal or not misses the point by a mile. If you have to ask that question, you already know you should not be doing it, and you hardly need to be in law enforcement to know that. You just have to be a grown-up. That SS agents would lack this kind of judgment is appalling.
Picking on just one statement, re: John Adler's claiming the (agent's) Blackberry phones time out in 5 seconds and you need an 85 digit code to get back into it . . .
Really? After only 5 seconds of what? And an 85-digit code to get back in? If true, there are obviously short-cuts around it; no one could possibly manage that even in a low-stress situation. Plus, security details of that nature would almost certainly be classified at a fairly high level, so if true John has likely committed a security violation as well. Believability issues, anyone?
While I've heard similar unapologetic panelists in the past, I feel individuals presenting such forceful, unquestioning stances and attitudes actually provide a disservice to their position -- they are obviously so overwhelmingly biased as to pretty much lose all credibility.
Still, an informative, interesting discussion. Entertaining as well, especially at the conclusion of the program when Diane suggested perhaps (the service) needs more female agents: am I mistaken or was Diane a teensy bit offended by Michael Isikoff's response? She really doesn't believe that could happen?