DEA Chief Explains Why She Can't Fire Agents Involved in Sex Parties Paid for by Drug Cartels

CNS News ^ | 4-15-15 | Susan Jones

[afraidfortherepublic]

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administrator Michele Leonhart said she is "offended by the behavior" of DEA agents who engaged in prostitution and sex parties while working on the taxpayers' dime.

But Leonhart told the House Oversight Committee on Tuesday there's nothing she can do about it except to write memos stating that "these kinds of behaviors require significant discipline."

If you can't fire the agents or even recommend that they be fired, "What the hell do you get to do?!" an exasperated Rep. Trey Gowdy asked her.

[DrDude]

You are totally correct. However, if this Boss could manage to charge these people with a crime then they would be gone. One would be “theft of time”, fraud(receipt of something of value), If sex was underage then they would be facing prison time. This stupid lady doesn’t want to know. Her underlings don’t want to know.
While it is very true you can’t get rid of gov’t employees easily, when they want someone gone they just do it. They don’t worry about the civil end. It is as simple as they approve of this behavior.

[sparklite2]

In 2011, the Washington Post reported that "994 people younger than 18 were killed in drug-related violence between late 2006 and late 2010" and that "[i]n 2009, the last year for which there is data, 1,180 children were killed, half in shootings."^[10] In response to these statistics, Leonhart declared that while it "may seem contradictory, the unfortunate level of violence is a sign of success in the fight against drugs.”[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Leonhart

[hattend]

Even National Park Service requires a secret clearance.

Really? Why?

[Zuben Elgenubi]

This article is a fine read, thanks for posting.

I especially like the last paragraph:

After the hearing, Chaffetz told the Associated Press it's time for Leonhart to step down or be fired. "I don't have confidence in her, nor does the majority of the committee."

[Fledermaus]

I’d fire them anyway and let them go bankrupt in court suing. Don’t give them their pensions too. F them.

[CommerceComet]

So you're suggesting the agents must also do drugs to maintain their covert status?

They might. If there is some action which the bad guys know that undercover cops won't do, it won't be too hard to figure out who is an undercover cop. Undercover cops are typically going to be involved with some illegal activity in order to catch bigger criminals. The question is where to draw the "do not cross" line.

[dragnet2]

The agents must also do drugs to maintain their covert status?

They might.

So DEA drug agents are doing drugs and banging prostitutes all provided by the people their investigating is all acceptable because they must maintain their secret agent status. No?

I guess the use of paid informants and electronic surveillance not quite as fun.

Look the war on drugs has been going on about 45 years now, costing tax payers tens of hundred of billions, and drugs literally everywhere. No? This has grown and expanded the size of government dramatically. Mountains of taxes are needed to fuel the WOD. No?

So what exactly are the DEA agents doing in venues like Columbia when their getting high on drugs and banging prostitutes? Government has not done anything to stop drugs or stop people from using drugs in 45+ years. And they never will. They never even put a dent in it.

So WTF is this really all about?

[CommerceComet]

So WTF is this really all about?

Good question. Apparently, you want to talk about the war on drugs in general. I was commenting on whether undercover law enforcement personnel have to perform illegal acts in order to maintain their cover. You can debate whether undercover work is necessary or effective but it is used. In order to work, law enforcement people will have to act like bad guys once in awhile in order to catch the real bad guys.

[dragnet2]

I was commenting on whether undercover law enforcement personnel have to perform illegal acts in order to maintain their cover.

Well, I think it's become inordinately clear many in government just do whatever they please. Those lower down on the pay scale just need to be a bit more careful.

You can debate whether undercover work is necessary or effective but it is used.

Yes it is.

I was referring to the 45 year long WOD with it's never ending epic price tag and how it's dramatically inflated the size and scope of government.

But I guess this is off topic...

Take care.

[Ken H]

The rules, guidelines, or whatever should be established before any agents are sent undercover in a drug cartel. If, e.g., attending sex parties is not acceptable, then the agents shouldn’t be sent undercover. Once undercover, they have to maintain their cover, or die. The agents need some latitude to protect their cover, or else they are likely to be killed. If agents aren’t allowed the latitude necessary to “fit in”, then don’t send them undercover.

What's that got to do with these cases? Everyone knew they were DEA agents, right?

Please, don’t assume that I’m defending the sex parties — or anything the cartel members get up to, for that matter.

Why did you even bring it up, then?

[dragnet2]

After the hearing, Chaffetz told the Associated Press it's time for Leonhart to step down or be fired.

It seems drug boss DEA Chief Ms. Leonhart's hearing did not go well.

She appeared ready to break down and cry. Maybe she's on drugs too. Then ya find they're paying her hundreds of thousands a year.

Over and out.

[norwaypinesavage]

"I believe George W. Bush put her in her position. George was clueless."

She was appointed by Obama on December 22, 2010. It seems that you're the clueless one.

[Ken H]

Since the resignation of Administrator Karen P. Tandy in the fall of 2007, Leonhart also served as Acting Administrator of the DEA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Leonhart

[boycott]

Read her wiki page. W was the first to put her in position. He did so that he could promote a woman .... If she was the best candidate or not.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Please read CommerceComet’s comment — #16 above. He gets it.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

I meant to add: if the DEA knows that there are rules, which could compromise an agent's safety; then don't send them undercover in the first place. Either that, or ask agents to volunteer for a suicide mission.

I put in the disclaimer (”Please don't assume ....”) in the off-chance that someone would misunderstand what I originally posted. It seems that I should have put in a second disclaimer to explain the first more clearly.

[Ken H]

Everyone knew they were DEA, so his comment is just as irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

These guys are just common whoremongers, acting as you would expect moral reprobates to act.

[PLMerite]

So they can be briefed on bigfoot...

Just kidding. Maybe.

[PLMerite]

“So you’re suggesting the agents must also do drugs to maintain their covert status?”

Yes. Some gangs are impossible to infiltrate because the price of admission is to commit a witnessed murder. Or so I have heard.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Who is this “everyone”? If the cartel knew, the agents would be dead. That’s the point.

If you want to call for an end to the disastrous “War on Drugs”, you won’t get any argument from me. However, we’re discussing rules-of-engagement with the enemy here; and covert operators have to blend in, or die. If you don’t want these covert agents to misbehave that’s fine — just don’t send them undercover in the first place. Use different investigative techniques.