Researcher Fired At NSF After Government Questions Her Role As 1980s Activist 499
sciencehabit writes Valerie Barr was a tenured professor of computer science at Union College in Schenectady, New York, with a national reputation for her work improving computing education and attracting more women and minorities into the field. But federal investigators say that Barr lied during a routine background check about her affiliations with a domestic terrorist group that had ties to the two organizations to which she had belonged in the early 1980s. On 27 August, NSF said that her 'dishonest conduct' compelled them to cancel her temporary assignment immediately, at the end of the first of what was expected to be a 2-year stint. Colleagues who decry Barr's fate worry that the incident could make other scientists think twice about coming to work for NSF. In addition, Barr's case offers a rare glimpse into the practices of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), an obscure agency within the White House that wields vast power over the entire federal bureaucracy through its authority to vet recently hired workers.
Wrong Title (Score:5, Insightful)
Researcher Fired At NSF After Government Finds She Lied On Her Routine Background Check
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, Interesting)
Researcher Fired At NSF After Government Finds She Lied On Her Routine Background Check
Read TFA. It's a he said/she said deal. No real evidence has been presented that the researcher said anything that was untrue.
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, Informative)
And what are they accusing her of lying about anyway?
The two organizations in question-- one was called " Women's Committee Against Genocide" and the other is the "New Movement in Solidarity with Puerto Rican Independence." Sound pretty radical?
So how is what she said "being less than forthright" in her answer??
So wait-- she was part of a group that was-- at least from the name-- "against genocide". And because of "affiliation" to ANOTHER organization... she was lying?
They call her in again and grill her for four and a half hours:
Uh, this doesn't seem to be (from a sparse article that is probably not very complete) very clear cut at all, although I do see the easy potential for targeted politicization. Be on the lookout for political radio pundits to distort further and connect the dots with rampant speculation.
The /. title is also misleading.
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, Interesting)
She later admitted keeping contact with two members who had commited murder but claimed she was had no prior knowledge of their activities. I think she may be telling the truth but omitting the fact that she was continuing to contact those two is enough for them to take action. Lying on those forms or omitting facts like that is one of the things they really look for. You can have a clearance suspended for forgetting to mention minor financial debts.
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, Insightful)
I think she may be telling the truth but omitting the fact that she was continuing to contact those two is enough for them to take action.
How is it her fault they asked her the wrong question? Do you now have to be psychic to work for the NSF? They asked if she belonged to any groups "dedicated to the use of violence". She answered the question honestly. Do you really think she should have interpreted that question to mean "ever visit a dying person in jail who was convicted of murder"?
I think the OPM falsely claimed they rejected her for lying because the real reason tramples on her constitutional right to free association. The original question was about whether she herself ever had a personal dedication to the use of violence. I believe this is relevant to her suitability to work for the government. The unconstitutional question they did not ask, about her free associations, is not relevant by order of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Answering the question that was actually asked should be very easy for the vast majority of people. They need only search their own hearts. Answering the unasked question is much more difficult because you have to recall all of the people you have ever had an association with and search their hearts. It makes no sense for her to spend an hour (or ten minutes or whatever) to answer the very simple question they asked her.
To me it seems like the particular special agent who questioned her was effectively judging her on one question:
[ ] Are you now or have you ever been a liberal?
This is disturbing.
Re:Wrong Title (Score:4, Informative)
She knew they had commited murder. She visited one of them in prison. She knew they commited the act of murder as part of a terrorist organization and they were connected to the two groups she worked with. She failed to mention any of this. I can only surmise she didn't tell them because either she didn't think it mattered or she didn't think they'd approve of her aquaintances. Either way she failed to be entirely open. Evaluators frown on lack of openness. You may feel they were wrong but I can tell you from experience that they are consistent on this kind of stuff. They have no sense of humor and no real forgiveness for failure to be complete about all activity.
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, Interesting)
When I last filled in a security clearance form, there was a question asking whether I had used illegal drugs in the last 4 years. Was I failing to be entirely open by not confessing to have a friend who had an oxycontin prescription 6 years ago?
In a security clearance questionnaire or interview, the questions are very specific, and you answer those questions truthfully, not any others.
Re: (Score:3)
Now you're quibbling. You can nitpick with me all you want but never try that shit on a clearance form. You wont like it.
And this is why the clearance process should be changed. I have no doubt that everything that happened to this individual happens to people all the time.
Just one more reason why nobody competent wants to work for the government...
Re: (Score:3)
No, actually I don't. Regardless though, when you apply for a Federal job it's a lot like the scene in Who Framed Roger Rabbit where Bob Hoskins goes through the wall into Toon Town and all the laws of reality change. If you don't want to play, don't go there.
Re: (Score:3)
Sound pretty radical?
I admire your attempt to look at all sides before making judgements, and I fully admit I don't know what's going on in this situation, because news reports are usually wrong. However, let's see if there's any information that can be gathered about those organizations:
" Women's Committee Against Genocide"
The hint here is "committee." Who names their organization "committee"? Sure enough, this is what the internet comes up with [freedomarchives.org], it is a communist organization (nothing wrong with that), that praise Vietnamese women who tried to shoot down America
Re:Wrong Title (Score:4, Insightful)
If you look at the other documents that you find on the Internet about the Women's Committee Against Genocide, you'll see that many of them are involved in filmmaking.
This flyer is for a film series. The film series is jointly sponsored by the Moncada Library. So we don't know whether this is written by the Women's Committee or the Moncada Library.
The problem here is guilt by association. There's nothing to actually show that they or Barr were advocating violence. I bet the OPM is doing similar Google searches and drawing similar unsupported associations. At least you know your limits.
Filmmakers who run film series don't necessarily agree with the politics of the films they show. I ran a film series once and I showed Birth of a Nation, Triumph of the Will, and Potemkin. So would you conclude that I'm a KKK member, a Nazi, and a Communist? If I were applying for a job at the National Institutes of Health, and they asked me whether I had ever belonged to an organization that advocated overthrowing the government by violence, am I supposed to say, "No, but I showed Potemkin in my college film series"?
Here's what convinced me she's right (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a he said/she said deal in which the special agent who was responsible for the interview didn't make a recording of the interview, and destroyed the notes afterwards. The agent just gave his own subjective impression of what she said. Why don't they make recordings?
It's also an interview by an agent who thinks it's funny to beat up liberal professors. I wouldn't trust him to make fair judgments about "liberals." He shouldn't be working in government.
FTA:
http://news.sciencemag.org/peo... [sciencemag.org]
Barr was given a chance to appeal NSF’s decision, and on 11 August she submitted a letter stating that OPM’s summary report of its investigation “contains many errors or mischaracterizations of my statements.” (As is standard practice, agencies receive only a summary of the OPM investigation, not a full report, and lawyers familiar with the process say that an agent’s interview notes are typically destroyed after the report is written.)...
In her 11 August response, Barr questioned whether the special agent who conducted the investigation “can be an impartial evaluator of academic scientists, or anyone with liberal political beliefs.” As evidence, she points to a posting on a blog maintained by the agent, a veteran who served in Iraq, and his family. The item is a copy of a popular Internet meme about an incident that supposedly took place in an introductory college biology course.
According to the story, a “typical liberal college professor and avowed atheist” declares his intent to prove that there is no God by giving the creator 15 minutes to strike him from the podium. A few minutes before the deadline, a Marine “just released from active duty and newly registered” walks up to the professor and knocks him out with one punch. When the professor recovers and asks for an explanation, the Marine replies, “God was busy. He sent me.”
That agent may have served in Iraq, but he didn't serve to protect our freedom. He served to come back and establish a police state that's starting to adopt a lot of the characteristics of the Soviet Union.
There have been many prosecutions in which the government's star witness testified about the defendant's statements, and then the defense attorney found a tape and it turned out the defendant didn't say anything like that at all.
There's one reason why criminal investigators don't use recordings: So they can make up things and the defendant can't disprove them.
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, Informative)
Baloney. As someone who deals with the military industrial complex on a daily basis, I know for a fact that the forms you submit to the OPM ask you in plain English "have you ever belonged to an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the US government" and these forms are retained by the OPM for something like 7 or 10 years, after which you are required to resubmit them. If she said "no" to the question in question, but knew that her acquaintances went to jail, something objectively doesn't add up. The best possible excuse is that she's just pathologically oblivious, not that the OPM has trumped up charges out of nowhere.
I know it's almost too difficult, but really, read TFA. She did not lie on her forms. None of the groups she belonged to had any such agenda. The OPM made a connection between the groups to which she belonged and third violent group. There is (apparently) no evidence that she belonged to such a group, supported it in any way or would have supported such a group if she knew it existed and had a violent agenda.
Why don't you go beat up some grandmothers or something? That seems about your speed.
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, Insightful)
Guilt by association is a terrible and dangerous thing.
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, Interesting)
Knew her acquaintance through the group went to jail. Didn't connect it. Like I said, the best excuse is obliviousness.
Many years ago while traveling, I went to visit a friend of a friend. We hung out for a while and a neighbor asked her to watch her five year-old son for a while. We all chatted and (I don't remember what brought it up) I mentioned that I had never been to jail. The boy was shocked. He'd never met an adult male (apparently, his father was in stir) who had never been in jail.
So, by your logic, since he knew many who had gone to jail, that five year-old boy is probably a criminal and should be shut out of any future opportunities. What a fabulous world you'd make for us.
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, Insightful)
There is precisely zero logic in what you say, and if you don't know it, you should.
She worked for an organization which most certainly did NOT have a dedication to any of those things.
People who were also a member of that organization were members of a separate organization, which did. She did not make the connection, because in her mind the answer was emphatically "no, I certainly have not".
By your extension, if your pastor is caught fiddling with kiddies, you must be a rapist.
You sick bastard, why do you need to molest children? You should be castrated.
See, that's about the same a what you just said.
Or, you know, people she had a tangential relationship in an organization dedicated to one thing also had ties to people in another organization doing something else.
It's guilt by very indirect association, pure and simple. And, since they're not establishing guilt or innocence, they're saying she's politically tainted because of a tangential relationship.
But, hey, Bush was in business with the family of OBL ... so he was a terrorist too, right?
Give us a break.
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, Insightful)
But, hey, Bush was in business with the family of OBL ... so he was a terrorist too, right?
And, as the Republicans used to repeatedly hammer us over the head with, Obama was a member of an organization that included Weather Underground co-founder Bill Ayers [wikipedia.org]. While I'm no supporter of Bush, this kind of thing could get almost anybody.
Re:Wrong Title (Score:4, Informative)
By your extension, if your pastor is caught fiddling with kiddies, you must be a rapist.
No, but when you deny knowing the pastor when asked, red flags go off.
Every member of a Seal team (as an easy example) has certainly associated with someone who was 'dedicated to the use of violence' and attempting to overthrow the us government by loose definitions. That doesn't make them untouchable.
If they claimed they never knew anyone who was dedicated to the use of violence, THAT IS ANOTHER STORY.
Having worked for the government and filled out these same forms, all you have to do is answer honestly. I too know members of both groups (violence and anarchy/overthrow the government). I know KKK members, and I'm fairly certain I know a former member of the black panthers, though he won't admit it.
That didn't stop me from getting the job, because I told them. In fact, I told them more than they could find! And they found some things I forgot to mention, but as soon as they made the slightest mention of it, and I remembered, I TOLD THEM FULL DETAILS. Thats all it took.
Its not even a little bit hard unless you're intentionally trying to cover up something, and thats where they get pissy.
Don't lie (Score:5, Informative)
Just so.
Look, basically three things get you into trouble during a government background check:
1. You *currently* participate in an organization trying to harm the United States Government.
2. Anything about yourself or your family life leaves you vulnerable to blackmail.
3. You conceal relevant truth, lie, or exhibit a pattern of deceit and/or theft.
Pretty much nothing else disqualifies you for work for Uncle Sam. You can even get a security clearance.
So, DON'T LIE. Err on the side of telling the interviewer more than he asked. Especially if it's embarrassing. An open book is easy to read and it's incredibly hard to blackmail someone who is never too embarrassed to seek the local security officers' help.
Re: (Score:3)
Just so.
Look, basically three things get you into trouble during a government background check:
1. You *currently* participate in an organization trying to harm the United States Government.
2. Anything about yourself or your family life leaves you vulnerable to blackmail.
3. You conceal relevant truth, lie, or exhibit a pattern of deceit and/or theft.
Pretty much nothing else disqualifies you for work for Uncle Sam.
Bzzt. Wrong. Put down legal marijuana use in the last year, even if you have quit, and you are automatically disqualified from pretty much anything. The point is that the government (national, state, local) have more and more leverage to discount people for their LEGAL practices and viewpoints. In the 70's people would have been up in arms about this kind of thing. Now you quietly accept it as the status quo.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is that lying is worse. If they find out, not only did you break a federal law, but you lied about breaking a federal law when applying for a government job that asks a bunch of pretty serious questions and explains the possible penalties for dishonesty.
Also, other posters have mentioned that she visited some of these group members while they were in jail for murder. You neglect to mention that hey, you're kind of friends with a murderer when you're interviewing for a government job?
I did an OPM
Re: (Score:3)
They're in the business of assessing possible problems with people.
Too bad they get it wrong much of the time. These guys are pig-headed, simplistic thinkers. They are more interested in covering their asses than getting the facts right. They figure it's better to make connections that aren't there, no matter how stupid, than to miss something. If that catches a few innocents in the net, they accept it as unfortunate but a necessary price of security. What I found especially striking was that one of the groups is Communist. I thought we won the Cold War? What these
Re: (Score:3)
Irrespective of what OPM might think of who she visited and why, the fact that she at minimum failed to disclose it during the interviews is a red flag.
It could be that she is getting a raw deal and she really had no nefarious intentions at any point in her life, and this was an honest mistake and a reasonable person could have thought it couldn't have been relevant and no dishonesty was involved.
Or, it could be that OPM has done their job correctly and has identified someone who is a future liability becau
Re:Don't lie (Score:4, Insightful)
So, DON'T LIE.
Giving an incorrect answer isn't a lie. Deliberately giving an incorrect answer is a lie.
How do I know if the math club I was in during college 20 years ago is now considered a terrorist organization?
This sort of thing is over the top.
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, Interesting)
How about those guys who go around with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks?
The Confederacy did a good job of attempting to overthrow the government by force and violence.
"Aha! You're driving around with a Confederate flag on your fender. You're supporting an organization dedicated to the overthrow of the government by force and violence. You lied on your application. No security clearance for you."
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, Interesting)
I never thought about that aspect of skiing, surrounded by all white stuff. I still don't like to ski, or more like never ski'd in my life, nor would I want to. I used to go sled riding though as a kid, but I would not enjoy it anymore as an adult.
The 2nd amendment, right to self defense, is there for the very purpose of allowing the people to violently overthrow a corrupt government that has failed them. It did not make it to be the very first amendment, because free speech, freedom of expression is that much more important and has been curtailed that much more often. Of course a failed government, paranoid about being overthrown because of feeling their own ineptitude and losing control of the situation, will start witch hunting anyone with the slightest signs or tendencies to promulgate such actions. What else is new. Fuck da Man and all his bitches he pimped into the highest offices in the government! Power to da People!
Re:Wrong Title (Score:4, Informative)
It's mentioned several times in the Federalist Papers. From Federalist #28: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo."
Re: Wrong Title (Score:5, Insightful)
Jared Loughner (the man who shot Rep. Gabby Giffords) was a paranoid schizophrenic who was described by a classmate as being a hardcore leftist prior to manifesting his disease. Once his disease took hold, he became obsessed by conspiracies and hated all politicians but mostly the ones he knew of, like George W. Bush and Rep. Giffords. He was in no way a "tea partier" and had no knowledge of the "target ad."
Jared Loughner was a mentally ill person who tried to kill his local Congresswoman (among others). Had G. W. Bush or John McCain have been there, he would have shot them too. He was no more a tea partier than John Hinckley was an anti-Reagan Democrat. They were just both mentally ill and violent.
Re: (Score:2)
That's it, when you run out of logic reach for the smear tactics.
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong Title (Score:4, Informative)
That's not how the questions are presented by the investigators. Every time I've been asked it's always phrased as a question of affiliation with any anti-government group, violent or otherwise. I always truthfully denied it while pondering why they don't believe in the truly American, constitutionally backed principle of toppling an oppressive government.
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, Insightful)
Advocating peacable overthrow is completely ineffective ...
It is ineffective because it is supported by less than 2%. That is how many people typically vote for someone other than the two party hegemony. Most of those voted for either the Libertarians or the Greens, which have completely opposite views on almost every issue. If you want to overthrow "the system" you need to figure out what you intend to replace it with, and convince more than a tiny fringe to support you.
Re: (Score:3)
On the contrary, the Libertarians and Greens agree on several fundamental principles:
Re: (Score:3)
In every Federal election, either the Democrats or the Republicans advocate for peacable overthrow -- that's how elections work.
When people say "peaceable overthrow" they mean actual substantial changes in policy, rather than just rotating new people into position. There really aren't a lot of big differences between the parties. Obama has wound down the war, but with ISIS, now it looks like it will be wound back up. Gitmo is still open. Even Obamacare was designed by Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts.
But what the "overthrowers" fail to realize, is the reason there is little difference between the parties, is tha
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, Insightful)
Russia or USSR or the Soviet Union is notoriously more violent against all kinds of people, including their own people, than the USA or any of its past governments ever were. For instance, during the Stalinist purges 40,000 military officers were executed point blank. What a waste of talent, executing the best of the best of a population? I have yet to see the US government do anything like that, "purges," executing the best of the best in anything, on a massive scale, but the tone of the government is slowly shifting in such a direction.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, Interesting)
Russia or USSR or the Soviet Union is notoriously more violent against all kinds of people, including their own people, than the USA or any of its past governments ever were.
Except for negroes and indians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Wrong Title (Score:4, Interesting)
Advocating peacable overthrow is completely ineffective and is essentially a government mandate to control the populace by forcibly marginalizing differences of opinion.
I wish there was a way in a few sentences to make you understand how both right and wrong you were. The power of (presumably) our government is truly awesome in ways, thankfully, the vast majority of Americans will never understand. I have some personal experience on this issue, as I advocated a "revolution" by absolute and unflinching non-participation in all government interactions, that people just simply hold their own elections in their own communities and deal with things themselves. For many reasons, this became a giant mess for me and I ended up a target. It started off quite subtle and juvenile-- social media interference, attempts to discredit me, attacks against my employment, inferences that I was a cop/military/etc, but ultimately ended up with things that I do not believe were legal to do to a person in the least.
The short of it is, I truly comprehend the depth of what you're saying here in many ways that most could not really comprehend unless they've experienced it. So you're right, the non-violent are suppressed in some of the same ways, although I think they know how to handle the violent a bit better.
That said, you're absolutely, positively, without a doubt, factually wrong about the success rate and ability to change government via non-violent resistance. I think if you really actually looked, you'd find over the past 30 years or so more countries governments have fallen to non-violent revolutions than violent ones. Not only is non-violent resistance realistic, but it's also more effective, and there are cold hard facts to back this up. In Serbia (2000), Madagascar (2002), Georgia (2003) and Ukraine (2004Ã"05), Lebanon (2005), and Nepal
(2006) there was significant regime change through non-violent resistance, we could of course count Ukraine a second time as they successfully ousted the same politician a second time before Russia intervened. Non-violent resistance has a success rate from 1900 to 2006 approximately at 53%, relative to ~26% for violent conflicts and insurgencies or terrorism has fared even worse. (src: https://www.csun.edu/cdsc/Why_Civil_Resistance_Works.pdf )
And that's putting aside issues of humanity and morality-- as if you can teach people that brutalization and oppression is wrong by being more brutal and more oppressive while you reduce the local suburb to rubble. But the point I really want to bring home to you is that you are factually incorrect, not only does non-violent resistance work, it works better.. Read the book linked above.
Re:Wrong Title (Score:4, Informative)
Which is exactly why the U.S. government deserves to be overthrown. Unless they're going to welcome in their critics, they deserve destruction *by* their critics.
It has nothing to do with welcoming critics. It has to do with lying during the one step of getting hired where you absolutely shouldn't fucking lie.
My job requires government licensing, which includes a 10-year background check form in which we are to list things like arrests, charges, convictions, lawsuits, dispositions, , etc that happened in the past 10 years no matter how minor. Neglecting to mention anything, no matter how minor is immediate grounds for refusal of licensing. No license no job. Period.
The only thing I could have put on the form (in my case) that would have lead to a refusal of licensing is that I was convicted of specifically larceny (my job deals with very large sums of money.) I could have been an parole for the murder of a nun and that would have made no difference at all. My only job at that point of the hiring process was simply not to fucking lie.
I didn't. I got the license necessary to legally perform the job because I didnt fucking lie. Very fucking simple.
Wrong fucking argument (Score:5, Informative)
My reaction would have been much more polite if you had actually read and commented on the facts presented, instead of making up your own fairy tales to approve of a government action.
They did not ask her about criminal history in the last 10 years, read TFA! They asked her "if she had ever been a member of an organization “dedicated to the use of violence” to overthrow the U.S. government or to prevent others from exercising their constitutional rights." . Good grief man, reading is not that fucking difficult. The dismissal was based on a claim that she lied, because a group she was a member of 35 years ago was affiliated with a group that committed an act of terrorism 1 year after she stopped affiliating with the first groups. (emphasis mine)
Take the same logic to people. If you met someone in college and hung out 35 years ago, and 34 years ago that person met someone that committed a terrorist act you would have to know to claim "yup, I know someone affiliated with a terrorist" when asked the question today. And when you answer "no" they will grill you on that acquaintance from 35 years ago as if you had ESP and could know that they knew someone that committed a terrorist act a year after you last talked to them.
Re: (Score:3)
No, that's not the best ref. They don't even explicitly state that the New Movement espoused violence, and they quote an unverifiable, undated pamphlet that may or may not represent their actual position.
And who puts that wiki out? Where are they coming from? Their entry on Obama and the Communist Party http://keywiki.org/Barack_Obam... [keywiki.org] may give you an idea.
I wouldn't be surprised if the agent who interviewed her was getting his information from Wikis like that.
You realize you're accusing a scientist of bel
Re: (Score:3)
'Read TFA'? The one that is favorably disposed towards her and does zero reseach, analysis, or reporting of the root issue, which is the status and relationships of the organizations to which she belonged?
I really have to respond to this because I read Science every week and I know some of the reporters. So let me give you a quick lesson in Journalism 101.
Jeffrey Mervis, who I've been reading for years, didn't do "zero research." If you read the article again http://news.sciencemag.org/peo... [sciencemag.org] and count the number of people he either interviewed or attempted to interview, you'll see that he either quoted or got a no comment from every government agency and from as many people who knew her as he could reach by
Re: (Score:3)
This just speaks to the idiocy of the entire security clearance system. It's nothing more than witch hunting.
When a create a system where the only people who get through are those who game it, then the only employee you will have will be the ones you don't want.
This of course explains a lot about the government security industry.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The report is pretty clear.
In her original interview, she denies involvement:
Then, they actually checked what they told the interviewers. Despite being a self-described "worker bee," she had been involved with a groups actively dedicated to the use of violence to overthrow the government.
You can argue that she wasn't involved enough, or that the association was too distant, but she lied (by omission, at minimum), and that's what she got fired for.
No matter how you spin it, the headline in wrong.
No. She was a member of two groups (with no violent agenda) which OPM claims had ties to a separate, third group that did have a violent agenda. That's guilt by association -- i.e., You were a member of group. Other members of that group were associated with a separate group that did bad things. Therefore you're a bad person.
Last I checked, guilt by association was practiced by authoritarian regimes bent on maintaining their political power, not a free country. Oh, wait....
Re:Wrong Title (Score:4, Insightful)
The report is pretty clear. In her original interview, she denies involvement:
Then, they actually checked what they told the interviewers. Despite being a self-described "worker bee," she had been involved with a groups actively dedicated to the use of violence to overthrow the government.
Nope. Actually read the article, instead of just skimming. The two groups that she was involved with in the 1980s were not "dedicated to the use of violence to overthrow the U.S. government." That was a different group, which OPM said "had ties" to the organizations she'd belonged to. She wasn't a member of the third group, or, as far as I can tell, the OPM doesn't claim she was.
I don't know what "had ties" means. But, was she a member of a group dedicated to the use of violence to overthrow the government: apparently not.
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps if she had disclosed being prison pen-pals with one of the armored truck robbery murders from M19CO we wouldn't be discussing it.
That's probably "had ties," I guess.
Re:Wrong Title (Score:4, Informative)
She admits to having corresponded to a known terrorist. That may not be the letter of the law in regards to having been an member, but don't you think that she should have mentioned that particular fact, knowing that she was applying for government position that actually required more than a cursory background check?
Hell no. Not unless they asked her about it. She certainly should not have morphed the simple question they asked her about her own group membership into a much larger question about the group memberships of all the people she had ever had any contact with.
The fine article says:
... Balagoon died in 1986 of an AIDS-related illness. (Barr says she wrote to Balagoon occasionally while he was in prison---"it would have been reprehensible for me to drop my correspondence with a dying person," she explains---and visited him once.)
This has nothing to do with her own affiliations. It was also almost 30 years ago. If her association with this man was innocent (which no one is disputing) then it is very unrealistic to expect her to dredge up this old memory during the interview process when she is being bombarded with other questions. Expecting her to answer a complicated question when she is asked a simple question is also highly unrealistic.
I ran into a similar problem with the DIS (now the DSS). They got upset because I had associated with people they thought were communists when I was in graduate school. They were also upset because after grad school a couple of Russians, along with other foreigners stayed at my house for about a week after we all got to know each other working on a volunteer trail crew for a week or two. They were here as part of an exchange program. This was right around the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall when our relationship with Russia was still frosty.
I had answered all of their questions honestly. I was not aware of the political affiliations of all of the people I had worked with. It never occurred to me that doing my patriotic duty by showing a couple of Russians the benefits of the American system was of any interest to the DIS until they accused me of withholding this information.
If they had asked me directly about associating with communists in graduate school, I would not have been able to answer to their satisfaction because I just didn't know. If they had asked me directly if I ever had contact with anyone from a communist country then I might have remembered that short visit. But I might not have remembered even if they had asked because for me it was small, harmless, and inconsequential. When they asked me directly about that particular visit then of course I remembered.
I found the entire process rather intimidating. I was focused intently and racking my brain to answer all of their questions as honestly as possible. It never occurred to me to wonder about other questions they didn't ask that they might want answers to especially since the stuff they got so upset about was totally innocent and harmless. It was like dealing with a big angry girlfriend who expects you to intuit every possible thing she might get upset about even though she does not give you any clues about what those things might be.
Re: (Score:3)
You just fabricated an interview. Nobody knows for sure what the agent said and what she answered, because he destroyed the notes after he wrote his report.
And he didn't make an audio recording, which would have cleared up all the disagreements. Why don't they record interviews? Because this way they can "remember" anything they want.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Missing from the summary is what she was a member of: "the Women’s Committee Against Genocide and the New Movement in Solidarity with Puerto Rican Independence." I was a member of my high school's student parliament but wouldn't think to report that during a background check and wouldn't consider it any more relevant than what this woman did thirty years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
She stayed in contact with an associate who was in prison. I don't think she can claim innocence.
Re:Wrong Title (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't mean that she "belonged to an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the US government," which is what they're accusing her of.
What do you think she's guilty of?
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you think she's guilty of?
Believing that she lives in a free country.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I was a member of my high school's student parliament but wouldn't think to report that during a background check and wouldn't consider it any more relevant than what this woman did thirty years ago.
Was your high school's student parliament dedicated to the violent overthrow of the US government? Don't you think that's maybe the kind of student activity you might find rather difficult to forget? Then it's probably not the same thing.
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, Informative)
The New Movement in Solidarity with Puerto Rican Independence had as its clearly stated goals:
1) The first principle of our movement must be anti-imperialism.
2) In order to fundamentally change the whole system of military, political and economic domination, our solidarity movement must fight imperialism in its totality. .. By opposing the entire imperialist system, our solidarity movement can support the revolutionary forces and actually help them to win a new world order.
3) The independence struggle of Puerto Rico is a strategic wedge of Latin American revolution that penetrates into the U.S. itself... In response to US imperialism, 5 armed clandestine political-military organizations in Puerto Rico, and the FALN in the US are attacking key US military and corporate targets and leading a growing people's war. Through their struggle for independence these revolutionaries act in concert with the continental anti-imperialist strategy. In January, clandestine independent forces destroyed 9 US jets used to train for possible invasion of El Salvador, valued at $45 million, in solidarity with the revolutionary forces of people's war in El Salvador and in support of the 11 Puerto Rican Prisoners of War. The stance of these 11 patriots as Prisoners of War, and the US charges of seditious conspiracy against them, demonstrate that a state of war for independence exists in Puerto Rico and the US, and that this war has the capacity to cut to the heart of US imperialism.
So... they're advocating violent struggle against the imperialistic US government... and they're associated with M19CO, a designated terrorist organization... and she knew 2 of the Brinks Robbery perpetrators... and she kept in touch with them after they were arrested, convicted, and sent to jail.
But you're right - there's clearly no reason for her to write "Yes" in response to having been a member of an organization dedicated to violent overthrow of the US government, or having any ties to groups with such aims!
Re: (Score:3)
The article says that they asked her about a group affiliated to the two groups with which she associated, and specifically if she ever was part of a terrorist group.
I doubt she had any idea that the third group even existed. Not sure what to think, except her response must not have been to their liking.
Sucks to be her.
Re:Wrong Title (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt she had any idea that the third group even existed. Not sure what to think, except her response must not have been to their liking.
Sucks to be her.
At the time she filled in the form, she was obviously aware the third group existed as she had written to and visited one of its members in prison.
It is fairly obvious that her relationship with the "terrorist" organisation was very tenuous, but one point of a background check is a test of your willingness to be full and open about your past. In fact if she had given a full open answer, I suspect there would not have been a problem.
Despite conspiracy theories to the contrary, government agencies do not know everything about you. A background check will not necessarily find out everything about your past, but if it detects evasive answers then it is grounds for not employing someone in case there is more the potential employee is not telling or deliberately hiding.
Re: (Score:3)
From TFA: "Barr answered 'no' when asked if she had ever been a member of an organization 'dedicated to the use of violence' to overthrow the U.S. government or to prevent others from exercising their constitutional rights."
They didn't ask her if she "belonged to a group that may have been in some way affiliated with another group, some of whose members may have advocated the violent overthrow of the US." If you ask it that way, anyway that has ever joined the NRA might want to consider how they should ans
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, Informative)
FTFA:
Barr answered “no” when asked if she had ever been a member of an organization “dedicated to the use of violence” to overthrow the U.S. government or to prevent others from exercising their constitutional rights.
But since the government decided that the activist groups she had been a member of 30 years ago were "affiliated" with a terrorist group, they considered that a lie. Despite the fact that there is no evidence the groups she was a member of had any violent mission statements, actions, or tenets.
Unfortunately, there were terrorist groups whose members were also members of otherwise peaceful groups. If someone in your church/gaming guild/book club/political group/fantasy football league is also a member of a terrorist organization, your group is not necessarily also a terrorist organization.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, the form specifically asks in question 29.7: "Have you EVER associated with anyone involved in activities to further terrorism?"
She did not inform them of her continued relationship with two convicted members of a terrorist organization, including visiting one in prison. I'm not seeing a lot of gray here. She clearly should have answered yes to this question and explained her tenuous connection to these people. That she lied NOW is the problem, not that she was a minor activist in the 80's.
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, Informative)
Researcher Fired At NSF After Government Finds She Lied On Her Routine Background Check
Actually, it is more a matter of "Researcher Fired at NSF After Government Alleges She Lied On Her Routine Background Check." After reading the article, it appears to me that this is a story that bears paying attention to, but is probably not a scandal. The researcher in question did indeed have ties with a questionable organization. Since the article fails to name the two subsidiary organizations of which she was a member it is not possible to dismiss her claim that she was unfamiliar with their ties to the parent organization. On the other hand, the fact that she was a member of two separate groups which were fronts for a third group significantly increases the likelihood she was aware that they were affiliated with the parent group. Especially when you combine that with her knowing members of the group who carried out an attempted robbery of a Brinks' truck, one of them well enough to carry on correspondence with him while he was in jail.
It is still possible that she was unaware of the ties, but by the time she was interviewed for the background checks, she should have been. After all, at that point she spent a significant amount of time corresponding with a member of the group who went to jail for a highly publicized crime related to the organizations of which she had been a member. On the other hand, the article certainly makes it seem like the information against her is somewhat sketchy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Researcher Fired At NSF After Government Finds She Lied On Her Routine Background Check
Come on now. They asked her whether or not she was in any organizations that plotted against the US. She wasn't. But she is apparently in trouble because she was in organizations that may have been tangentially related to a terrorist organization in that some people from one group spoke with bad people a few times. So that's really stretching it on the Gov's part.
Then it turns out that she's a (lesbian) liberal college professor. And people involving in the ruling had blogs with cartoons about...conser
Re:Wrong Title (Score:5, Insightful)
Horseshit.
She didn't lie.
Have you ever known anybody who has committed a crime? Then you must be a criminal.
That's about the level of reasoning going on in this. She did NOT work for any such agency, she worked for a rights group, which some of the members were involved in another organization ... and that organization was doing illegal things.
This is guilt by association, pure and simple. There's no evidence to suggest she lied, only that an overzealous moron decided that her not making the connection to people she knew who knew other people who did things she didn't know or approve of therefore means she "lied".
This is pure and unadulterated crap.
So, if you have worked in the same building with anybody with a felony conviction (even if it happened after you were no longer there), then you by extension must also be a felon.
Tell me, have you stopped beating your wife?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about answering yes or no. It's about disclosure.
If you're not forthright in your answers, you're screwed.
We can argue about the links between the groups of which she was a member and their ties to actual blood-for-change groups, but she neglected to mention that she was PRISON PEN-PALS with one of the members of M19CO convicted of murder in the Brinks truck robbery.
And, FF
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly, but let me add... these background checks aren't so much about checking as to if you've lead a boring and uncompromised life... but more about gauging your integrity with regards to honesty and ability to be blackmailed.
Example: An old college of mine is now a feeder to a couple of government agencies which give out a few scholarships each year... which in turn require a background check. One of the questions that screws up most kids is "Hav
Re: (Score:3)
You know, the really pathetic thing about what you just said is that I've never illegally downloaded music or movies, and never cheated on my partner.
And you're seriously saying that will get flagged as a lie and make me untrustworthy?
Let me tell you this right now ... the people screening based on those things are morons unless they actually have proof to the contrary.
Because unless you have evidence, assuming everyone who answers no to those questions is lying is completely idiotic. Because, not everybod
Re:Wrong Title (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't accuse you of accusing me of anything. I'm saying in the abstract, that flagging those answers as untrustworthy is asinine and an utter fail in logic.
As a matter of fact, I have. To the best of my knowledge, they didn't inject their own stuff into my answers. They must not have, because I passed the screening.
I'm taking exception with the massive amount of idiocy and failure of logic inherent in:
Because if that's what these people are actually doing, I weep for the complete stupidity we've become subject to.
Because, really, if there are entities who take an honest answer and assume it's implausible, and therefore the respondent is untrustworthy, they're probably useless at their job.
Snowden (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA:
Cohen speculates that the massive leaks by Edward Snowden of national security secrets, which began in June 2013, could also have been a factor in NSF’s decision. “If it’s a matter of weighing the employee’s statement against what the investigator says he has found, agencies will resolve it in favor of national security,” Cohen says. “That’s just how it is, especially after Snowden.”
Confirmed my suspicion when I first read the summary. THIS will be the lasting legacy of Snowden's actions. Not increased government accountability or transparency, but a hellbent determination to make sure they will never be caught with their pants down again. Sigh.
Re: (Score:2)
This would show a change from the mostly digital state and federal search to a more intensive look at schooling, friends, family, teachers, reading material, net use, local court paper files and other local non digital investigations.
This would show a lot more funding is now been pushed into rebuilding peoples entire life story.
Re:Snowden (Score:5, Interesting)
Ehh.. That could be- but it could be a lot less.
I was once denied a security clearance because I didn't know my brother was arrested for drug paraphernalia and concealed weapons once in the 80s.Of course the reason I didn't know about this was because the weapons turned out to be a base ball, a bat, and a glove and the drug paraphernalia was one of those string of feathers with an alligator (roach) clip on the end that they give out as prizes in the games at the county fair. The cop that arrested him was the brother of the girl he just broke up with and the prosecutor ran as fast as he could to drop all the charges but the record was there and when I answered the question about drugs and knowing anyone who uses them, I didn't disclose that.
Anyways, didn't matter much to me, I found out the job really sucked and they did me a favor. But you wouldn't believe how anal they can be on stupid shit, let alone crap they think is terrorism related.
Woot! That's how we end domestic spying!! (Score:2, Funny)
Cool, that means all employees of the NSA, CIA, FBI and TSA are fired, as they are all members of radical terrorist organizations.
Let the terminations begin!!!
I need definitions (Score:5, Insightful)
You had to read further down the link (Score:5, Insightful)
Federal investigators say those groups were affiliated with a third, the May 19 Communist Organization (M19CO), that carried out a string of violent acts, including the killing of two police officers and a security guard during a failed 1981 robbery of a Brink’s truck near Nyack, New York.
She was not a member of a "terrorist group", but rather a member of groups claimed by someone to be affiliated. Further, the alleged acts of terrorism occurred a year after she was even involved in those 2nd hand groups.
According to the article, she did not lie either.
Federal investigators say those groups were affiliated with a third, the May 19 Communist Organization (M19CO), that carried out a string of violent acts, including the killing of two police officers and a security guard during a failed 1981 robbery of a Brink’s truck near Nyack, New York.
and
After again being asked if she had been a member of any organization that espoused violence, Barr was grilled for 4.5 hours about her knowledge of all three organizations and several individuals with ties to them, including the persons who tried to rob the Brink’s truck. (Four people were found guilty of murder in that attack and sentenced to lengthy prison terms, including Kathy Boudin, who was released in 2003 and is now an adjunct assistant professor of social work at Columbia University.) “I found out about the Brink’s robbery by hearing it on the news, and just like everybody else I was shocked,” she recalls.
Which of course corroborates her story more than the feds who removed her from the position.
In other words, yet another example of people abusing power.
James Clapper (Score:5, Insightful)
So why was he not fired when he was found to have lied under oath to congress ?
why are you volunteering information? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want a job that requires a background investigation, it seem to me that a lot of candor might be in your best interest, especially if your employment is conditioned on actually passing the background check. Remember, they TELL you before you get hired that you will need to pass the check, so it's not like you are being forced to disclose stuff any more than you are being forced to take the job.
However, if you DO fill out a form that asks you questions and you LIE on it in an attempt to hide or misle
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing she didn't lie, then. Neither group she was in was dedicated to the overthrow of the US government.
If they wanted to know if she was in a group that was affiliated with a group that had such goals, they should have asked that.
Idiocy ... (Score:5, Interesting)
So, it sounds like she answered honestly, was never part of any group with that as their mandate, but that somehow there was a tangential connection to the one she was a member of.
Welcome to the war on terrorism, it's the new McCarthyism.
This just sounds like a witch hint where we're supposed to proactively identify any and all tangential links to anybody who has ever done anything bad and exclude ourselves.
Such bullshit. In reading the article, there isn't a single shred of evidence to suggest she ever did anything illegal.
Hey, I know, Bush did business with the family of OBL, Cheney owned a private security firm which did war profiteering and possibly committed war crimes, and the CIA historically supported terrorists to fight regimes they didn't like .. can we conclude that all top government have ties to terrorism?
Or can we conclude the people in the OPM are fucking morons?
This is just stupid. She was never a member of an organization dedicated to the use of violence, overthrowing the US government or any of that crap. She was a member of a group pushing for the rights of women.
Give me your fucking papers, comrade.
Incorrect tense (Score:2)
"Valerie Barr was a tenured professor of computer science at Union College in Schenectady,"
is.
Unchecked governmental BS (Score:5, Interesting)
It is utterly offensive to me that the State Department gets to decide who and what groups are "terrorists". Free Association is one of the key tenants of a functioning Democracy.
I find the associations between lobbyists and government officials to be a clear and present danger to our country... but what can I do about it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I want them to be a whole lot more restricted in what they can do than "any other employer," because they're not "any other employer," they're a goddamn government!
Governments should be held to a much higher standard than any natural person or private organization. There is no such thing as "equal rights" for governments; governments have no rights. Governments are always "guilty
Missing Critical Information (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a shame that the summary and the article omit the most important information needed to judge whether this is reasonable or not -- details and evidence in support of the characterization of the groups Barr belonged as "linked" to the group responsible for the armored car robbery & murder. What does "linked" mean in this context: members in common? command structure? who knows? The article doesn't say, and without that information none of us can have a really informed opinion on the topic.
Since there's not much to discuss from TFA, I'm going to tell you a little story from back when I was in school, because it's conceivably relevant (but then, as I've said, we don't really have the details we need to know..
Annnnyyyyway.. Once upon a time, long ago (but still some years after this woman was in school) I was a student at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. During the time I was on campus there were a group of chuckleheads who fancied themselves the vanguard of the socialist revolution that was sure to sweep the country Real Soon Now (tm). They were the scourge of all of the small clubs on campus because of a trick that they pulled, over and over, quite successfully until the other student groups learned to defend themselves against it.
Here's what would happen.. A small, inoffensive campus group having little or nothing to do with the main goals of the revolutionary organization in question would have a meeting at the beginning of the year to welcome new members and to elect leadership positions for the coming school year. Let's imagine we're talking about the Campus Knitting Society.. Well, a group like that might have 8-10 members who attended meetings regularly, and a few more who would drop in when their schedules allowed. The Revolutionary Chuckleheads League (not their real name) would descend en masse on the Campus Knitting Society the week that group was electing new officers and since a lot of groups had open membership the RCL would nominate its own slate of officers and take over the Campus Knitting Society. They'd use the small budgetary stipend the group got from the student government activities fund to print up flyers and the next thing you'd know, every kiosk on campus would be covered with fluorescent orange flyers saying "U of M Campus Knitting Society DEMANDS AN END TO US IMPERIALISM" and "U of M Campus Society Says: Free Mumia!". Then the Revolutionary Chuckleheads League would abandon the burned-out husk of the club they'd taken over and move on to play the same trick on some other organization. The shellshocked original club members, if they weren't completely soured by the experience, might form a new club to replace the one that had been stolen from them, which is why from time to time you'd see flyers pop up on campus saying things like "First Meeting Sunday Night: Michigan Knitting Club (NOT THE Revolutionary Chuckleheads League)"
So.. I've got no idea from the article what Barr's politics were at the time, what they are now, and what her level of involvement with the banned group might be. But it wouldn't surprise me if there were a lot of people that I went to school with who belonged to perfectly harmless clubs who could conceivably fall afoul of the same shadow that blighted Barr's career just because they belonged to a club that got infiltrated and taken over by a group of radicals whose interests were only tangentially related to the club's original goals. I don't think that happens very often, but I would like for the government to have a higher standard than "affiliated" or at the very least to make clear what they mean by that.
Re: (Score:3)
It's called entryism.
Yet Ollie North still got a job (Score:4, Insightful)
a missing part of the story (Score:3)
So in August 2013 she took a leave from Union College to join the National Science Foundation (NSF) as a program director in its Division of Undergraduate Education.
So we have background checks concerning membership in terrorist organizations for this? Seriously? I can see some degree of care is required for jobs that have national security relevance, but this is stupid. If she doesn't have felony convictions in the past seven years, then that's good enough for me. I don't see that the feds even should have the authority to ask about association with terrorist groups in a situation like this.
For people who complain that she lied, well, maybe she did. But the employer should have an responsibility to not create the opportunity for such things. If they hadn't asked her, she wouldn't have allegedly lied, served her two years, and life would move on without an excess of drama.
Are they allowed.... (Score:3)
I don't philosophically agree with everybody who I'd even call a friend, let alone with everyone I ever have any association with... that doesn't stop me from associating with them in areas where we do agree.
Has /. turned into drudge? (Score:4, Insightful)
. /. to get away from the drudge-type sites.
I visit
Are these topics indicative of the course the new owners of /. are taking, now that they have found out they cannot change the look of the site?
Most disturbing bit (Score:3)
In her 11 August response, Barr questioned whether the special agent who conducted the investigation “can be an impartial evaluator of academic scientists, or anyone with liberal political beliefs.” As evidence, she points to a posting on a blog maintained by the agent, a veteran who served in Iraq, and his family. The item is a copy of a popular Internet meme about an incident that supposedly took place in an introductory college biology course. According to the story, a “typical liberal college professor and avowed atheist” declares his intent to prove that there is no God by giving the creator 15 minutes to strike him from the podium. A few minutes before the deadline, a Marine “just released from active duty and newly registered” walks up to the professor and knocks him out with one punch. When the professor recovers and asks for an explanation, the Marine replies, “God was busy. He sent me.”
This makes it look really like this was a single agent who was unhappy with the left-wing views she had. At minimum, it is wildly inappropriate for a government agent in such a position to have that sort of thing on their blog (aside from it being just stupid). That goes together with the statement in the article:
Attorney Joseph Kaplan, of the Washington, D.C., firm Passman & Kaplan, says that, in his experience, the most common reasons for a finding of unsuitability are lying about one’s educational background, one’s employment history, or one’s criminal record. “If OPM determines that the person has misled or provided false information,” he says, “they can be declared unfit for federal service.”
Kaplan says he’s never heard of anyone being drummed out for political activity that occurred decades ago. At the same time, he says, the government’s decision is based not on anything Barr did during the 1980s but on how she explained those activities to federal investigators after coming to work at NSF.
Together this paints a potential picture of a specific agent going after someone they didn't like due to their political views and a bureaucracy going into overdrive to protect that decision. On the other hand, it isn't like she had no connections to the third organization- she knew two of the people who were convicted of the murder and by her own description kept up a correspondence with one of them while he was in prison. But keeping up correspondence with someone in prison is not evidence by itself of any problem, and there's really been no evidence presented that she lied or attempted to mislead in any way.
The article notes that this may be due to more general post-Snowded reactions which are making these sorts of things more common. In that case, this is exactly the wrong response.
Before Nazi America (Score:3)
McCarthy was right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, in the end McCarthy was right. How about that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:McCarthy was right. (Score:4, Interesting)
If McCarthy was right, it was mostly by accident. The caricature in "The Manchurian Candidate" isn't too far from the truth, except probably not booze-soaked enough.
McCarthy was basically several years late to the game, and was taking advantage of a crises that had already dissipated for his own political ends. There was widespread Communist infiltration of the US government in the 1930s and 1940s - but they were largely purged during the Truman administration once the government realized how bad the problem was.
Re:McCarthy was right. (Score:5, Interesting)
Only if you use such a definition as was used to call the millionaire Charlie Chaplin a "Communist". Most of that "Communist infiltration" was just people who hated Fascism with a passion, which tagged them as "Communists" even though today we would look back at their ideals and even call some of those people "Republicans".
Re:Good we don't need no stinkin commies (Score:4, Insightful)
So, by your ridiculous logic, if you have ever worked at a place and co-worker was ever convicted of a crime, you too are a criminal?
Because, really, that's what's being described here.
So, can I conclude that all Catholics are pedophiles because some Catholics are pedophiles?
There is no substance to the statement she lied, because she wasn't involved in a group which was dedicated to any of those things. She was involved in a group fighting for women's rights, and encountered people who were much more radical.
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is immaterial. It's lying on the form...
For example: Police candidates are routinely asked in their interviews if they have ever had any involvement with illegal/illicit drugs or been in close contact with those who have. No sane interviewer expects the candidate to say "no." Although obviously some can say "no," saying "no" is a huge red flag that the candidate may be lying - since few of us haven't at least been exposed to a pot smoking college roommate.
They want to know if you're truthful,
Re:Good we don't need no stinkin commies (Score:4, Insightful)
Alright, so since EVERYONE MUST answer "yes" to that question just on the off chance that some random acquaintance might have done something at some point... in that case, WTF is the point of bothering to ask the question?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, who could forget famous terrorist organization, the "Women's Committee Against Genocide." It's so scary sounding!
Re:NSF? (Score:4, Funny)
A group labeled a terrorist gang by UNATCO.
Re: (Score:3)
Read the article. The terrorist group wasn't tangentially related to the organizations she belonged too, they were "affiliated." As in, "officially attached to or connected." Not "oh a few people were in both groups," like many people are suggesting. The article doesn't explain the connection, but presumably they were all of the same blanket organization. She visited a convicted terrorist from the group in prison, suggesting that she knew the terrorists and was in an organization that she knew was connected to terrorism, even if she herself did not assist with any terrorist acts.
Knowing terrorists and having been tangentially involved in a terrorist organization is not in itself a crime, but yes without a doubt that is something she should have disclosed. Essentially, she lied on her background check and got fired. Good.
Of course not everything should be asked on background checks. I think it's fair to say, sexuality shouldn't be asked, or political affiliation, or a number of other things. The potential for abuse is too high. But if you can't ask employees if they have a connection to terrorism, what are background checks for at all?
I read the article and I came up with the opposite conclusion. Did she know that the activist group she was working with/for had ties with a violent organization? Nope, why would she?. She was about women's rights mostly, and the organization dealt with that. She moved on, and probably didn't think much about it. I don't dwell on the stupid shit I did in the 80's.
This clearly is someone using the letter of the law to get rid of her, not sure of the motives, but she is purposely being targeted.