Re: Kafka would have been proud ...

[Jeffrey Walton <noloader () gmail com>]

> That seems to indicate that she knowingly had ongoing ties with a known terrorist.

Well, its not clear to me she knew the affiliated organization (M19CO)
was a terrorist group. Its the first I've heard of them, but I was
pre-teen in the 1970s.

Lets call a pot and a kettle both black... Ronald Reagan was a
terrorist (and illegal arms dealer to boot!). George Bush was a
terrorist. Barack Obama is a terrorist... Just look at all the
violence these folks use to terrorize innocent victims in other
countries...

Article]] ... being asked if she had been a member of
Article]] any organization that espoused violence...

That's hardly an exclusive club - every US citizen is a member. Have
you seen what the US has done in the middle east? We have got to be
the biggest exporter of terror in history...

I hope the next set of airplanes fly directly into a sitting session
of congress while the president is addressing them. It would be
fitting for the assholes who created the mess with their foreign
policy. I'm tired of seeing innocent citizens suffering for these
assholes.

> But when you get caught lying, no matter how small the lie, the process abruptly ends and you [rightly] fail.

It hasn't slowed down the politicians one bit :)

Jeff

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Bill Terwilliger
<sideshowtwig () gmail com> wrote:
> Based on this paragraph, it seems that she is not worthy of passing her background check:
>
> “””
> Barr maintains that she had been truthful throughout both interviews, and that “there was no material fact about 
> these organizations for me to omit.” Barr says she was casually acquainted with two of the convicted murderers, 
> Judith Clark and Kuwasi Balagoon (née Donald Weems) but had no prior knowledge of their criminal activities. Clark 
> remains in a maximum security prison for women in New York state, and 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.)
> “””
>
> That seems to indicate that she knowingly had ongoing ties with a known terrorist.   She clearly had a relationship 
> if she was writing to them in prison and occasionally visiting them.  And she must have had some inclination that 
> they were classified as terrorist if she saw something on the news about their terrorist activities.  Her statement 
> about having “no material fact…” is odd to me.  Is she saying that she she didn’t have concrete evidence therefore 
> she wasn’t knowingly associated with terrorist?  Am I missing something else?
>
> Based on my experience, all the OPM cares about is honesty.  If she had admitted to the relationship during the first 
> interview, the process likely would have been longer and they would have dug deeper, but she almost certainly would 
> have passed in the end.  But when you get caught lying, no matter how small the lie, the process abruptly ends and 
> you [rightly] fail.
>
> —bill
>
>
> On Sep 11, 2014, at 3:09 PM, Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Hannah <rmslade () shaw ca> wrote:
>
> > http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2014/09/researcher-loses-job-nsf-after-
> > government-questions-her-role-1980s-activist

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.