On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 8:47:37 AM UTC-8, harry wrote:
If I hire some jackleg from in front of Home Depot.
Take him to work with me to my client’s residence
and he f’s-up big time, guess who the owner is going to blame?
If a military officer puts a soldier with the rank of a private first class
where he has access to top secret documents the officer doesn’t get blame
d for any of it.
Maybe I should work for the military.
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:46:27 -0800 (PST), email@example.com
I'd say from your postings here you're way too big a pussy to work for
the military. I was an E-3 when I got my top secret clearance- but
as an E-5 supervised [drafted!] privates with top secrets-- and access
to nuclear warheads.
A private in the military has more power & responsibility than most
small business owners. and they're willing to pay the price for
On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:58:56 AM UTC-8, elbrecht wrote:
Don't put words into my writing that I never wrote.
I NEVER said Bradley Manning wasn't responsible for what he did.
I only said that the officers in charge of him should be
even more responsible for his actions
just as I would be responsible for people whom I hire.
On Feb 19, 3:23 pm, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Oh please. If you hire someone and they commit murder, arson,
espionage, or steal from the company are you responsible?
You going to jail?
If those superiors didn't run the proper security clearance checks,
reasons to know he was stealing classified information, etc, which
ignored, then they are responsible. Same as in a business.
On Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:44:38 PM UTC-8, email@example.com wrote:
It seems that for your little mind to comprehend I have to give you a very
specific example. How about if they go into my clients file cabinet while l
eft alone inside the house and steal and cause their personal information t
o be compromised.
On Feb 19, 7:29 pm, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
left alone inside the house and steal and cause their personal information
to be compromised.- Hide quoted text -
Then your client would have a civil suit against you.
You would not be criminally responsible. You would not,
as you claimed, have MORE responsibility for what
happened than your employee, which is what you claimed.
Maybe they would win, depending on the circumstances.
They would definitely win the case if they proved what
ocurred was due to your negligence.
Let's suppose you were the manager in a large
company providing that service where this theft
ocurred and the person reported to you. Would you
typically be fired, as you claim, because you were
MORE responsible? Not in my experience. Yes,
you would be fired if you didn't do the necessary
background checks or you didn't follow company
procedure in some way. But if you did everything
according to normal procedures and there was no
sign the guy was a crook, then you would not be
fired or disciplined.
You have any evidence that the military officers that
Manning reported to, didn't screen him properly? Or
that they violated their orders or military procedures in effect?
You seem to think that because someone is a private,
that means they should not have a security clearance.
In the real world, even janitors, , maintenance people
and yes even privates have security clearances.
It's funny how when you look at the *actual* EEOC notice they reference,
they don't say "conviction" they say "arrest" and rightfully point out than
an arrest is NOT a conviction:
<<Since an arrest alone does not necessarily mean that an applicant has
committed a crime the employer should not assume that the applicant
committed the offense. Instead, the employer should allow him or her the
opportunity to explain the circumstances of the arrest(s) and should make a
reasonable effort to determine whether the explanation is reliable.>>
source: (the one quoted in the nationalcenter piece):
That sounds like they are just reminding employers to be fair.
The actual EEOC site goes on to state that <<Several state laws limit the
use of arrest and conviction records by prospective employers. These range
from laws and rules prohibiting the employer from asking the applicant any
questions about arrest records to those restricting the employer's use of
conviction data in making an employment decision.>>
So now it's not so much the Obama administration, but "some states." Hmm.
Leave it to a partisan "news" organization to get enough wrong to change the
entire meaning of what was written. As for "thanking your administration
policies" it would be helpful to find out what they really are instead of
relying on secondhand, partisan distortions of fact because if not, the next
thing you know people like Dufas will go ballistic claiming that the sky is
falling and Obama is personally forcing employers to hire felons like these:
and convicts like former Republican House Majority Leader, Tom Delay. You
wouldn't want Tom not to have a fair shake at a new job, would you? (-;
I'd also like to know where in the EEOC document referred to it was ever
said that "This is, the EEOC says, because blacks and Hispanics are
over-represented among felons." Maybe I missed it, but maybe the National
Center made it up with regards to what the EEOC actually said. Is the
statement true? Yes. Did the EEOC say it? Not in the document
nationalcenter referenced, at least according to my brief search. More
likely it's typical shoddy partisan reporting that becomes self-evident when
you actually go look at the source material. It's probably not a good idea
to trust someone like natcen with an axe to grind to interpret government
press releases for you.
Check the above URL for their admitted biases at the above site. The more I
read the more convinced I am that I wouldn't trust them with a burned-out
match. The same goes for sites on the far left. The bigger the axe to
grind, the more distorted the basic facts become.
Plenty of people are arrested by mistake, yet if they don't mention that
arrest to their future employers, they can be fired for that omission. The
EEOC is about fairness. It protects not only minorities but anyone who's
been treated unfairly, and unfortunately that now includes a lot of
middle-aged white Americans who are being shoved aside to make way for
younger, cheaper workers.
Could be that Manning's living in luxury in private quarters somewhere after
helping the CIA achieve the cheapest set of revolutions ever fomented. The
Wikileaks cables served to ignite revolutions in the Middle East that are
still underway and barely cost us a dime. AFAIK, there was no real damage
done to any American interests as a result of the leaks. That tells me they
were carefully prepared to achieve a specific goal.
Could also be that Manning was an Oswald-like patsy in the whole scheme, and
given things to leak knowing that he would leak them.
Many of the cables showed foreign leaders in a very bad light. This trick
has been used by DA's for decades - make people think you've been talking to
the cops (or the US) and your buddies will take care of you. Sounds like
that's what's happened in the Middle East.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.