No pattern of partying, skirt-chasing in Secret Service, Napolitano says

Janet Napolitano, whose department oversees the Secret Service, said Wednesday there is no evidence of a pattern of indiscretion among agents. Nine have left the service in the wake of the recent prostitution scandal.

Susan Walsh/AP
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano arrives on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, April 25, 2012, to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Secret Service prostitution scandal.

If there's a culture of hard partying and womanizing in the Secret Service, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano isn't seeing it.

"Every mother of a teenager knows a common defense is 'everybody else was doing it,' " said Ms. Napolitano at a Senate hearing on Wednesday. "Well, not everybody else was doing it."

The Secret Service prostitution scandal that originated in Cartagena, Colombia, ahead of President Obama's visit there for the Summit of the Americas, was the subject of another hearing on Capitol Hill as Napolitano, whose department oversees the Secret Service, went before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Over the past 2-1/2 years, Napolitano told the concerned senators, the Secret Service office responsible for tracking agent indiscretions had not received any similar complaints – a period that covered 900 foreign trips and 13,000 domestic trips.

"From that standpoint, there was nothing in the record to suggest that this behavior would happen," she said. "It really was, I think, a huge disappointment to the men and women of the Secret Service."

Of the 12 Secret Service agents implicated in the scandal, eight were fired or forced to resign, one received a permanent revocation of his security clearance (requiring the agent to leave the service without a successful appeal), and three were cleared of serious misconduct but will still face "appropriate administrative action," Napolitano said.

She fielded questions about the Secret Service among queries about other matters for which her department bears responsibility, such as immigration and cybersecurity. She also noted that she and President Obama have "full confidence" in Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan.

Senators asked whether the service could put in place better training or policing procedures and wondered whether the prostitution incident was part of a systemic problem of "wheels up, rings off," but they appeared to be mostly assuaged by Napolitano's promise that the agency's investigation "will leave no stone unturned" and that the problems probably don't run deeper.

"Nobody wants to see the president's security compromised; nobody wants to see the United States of America embarrassed," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) of Vermont, the committee's chairman. "I can't think of anything, aside from the personal tragedy, that would look worse to the rest of the world if something happened to either President Obama or Governor Romney."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.