I think the sexual harassment and alleged physical abuse of underlings, as well as covering up the unprofessional, even dangerous on-the-job behavior of agents, as described in the article, is much more important than the motives of the person who dug up the information.
The personal points of view of people like Daniel Ellsberg or Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning, or this “Texas Mom,” are absolutely irrelevant in the context of the information they uncovered regarding profoundly terrible behaviors funded by U.S. taxpayers.
If they were hiring escorts and being discreet about it, that by itself wouldn’t be scandalous. It’s that they’re hiring escorts and being complete douchebags while they’re at it.
Yeah, I mean how can any government document not be in the “public interest?” It is by definition in a democratic country. Well, security issues aside (which is used too f__king much).
US federal government employees working abroad are considered to be on-duty 24/7, for a number of reasons (insurance, public relations, contacts with foreign nationals, etc.). Thus a code of conduct appropriate to the workplace is expected. While I don’t much care from a personal point of view that the agents went to prostitutes, from a professional point of view it’s not good conduct. There are simply too many ways the agent could be compromised, especially since they are performing a security function.
I was a federal employee (an engineer) in a much less security conscious role, but I had to follow the rules while on international travel. I think visiting a prostitute would have been frowned on, had it come out. (I doubt that “don’t go to prostitutes” was explicitly in the rules, but I’m not stupid enough to imagine what it would be considered.)
It probably is in fact the judges place. I trust reimbursements on this sort of thing depend upon a finding by a judge that the work was done in the public benefit. Now the conclusion is wrong, but judges (or juries) are often the only people who do decide these sorts of things when the government is potentially to be told to disgorge money to a private citizen.
The replies to this have convinced me I really have to break my points down to bite-size, so people don’t latch on to the one part they don’t like. Nobody, among us bastions of morality, wanted to talk about why the gender of the female prostitutes wasn’t mentioned.
I assume you work for a private company. Do you want shareholders demanding the details of your personal life and finances to see how THEIR dollars were spent? Is the claim that SS agents actually billed prostitutes to the government? Why wasn’t that the headline? Being a government employee doesn’t make you a slave. You get paid your own money.
I’m not saying there aren’t legitimate points in her case, but the big bullet points seem kinda crap to me. If you do have the honest opinion that the stability of a family is relevant to an employer, then I have no argument right now. I am not saying sexual harassment is okay. I am saying I don’t quite trust this woman’s motives.
Actually no, that part I thought you had a good point. I don’t know the answer, so there didn’t any reason to reply to that part simply to be typing if I didn’t have anything to say. Oh, and I am most definitely no bastion of morality
As I said before, being an agent of the US Secret Service and working for a private firm aren’t the same. That in fact is a big reason why I’m generally opposed to the use of private security contractors by the armed forces, not because I’m opposed to mercenaries in principle, but because public servants work for we the people. But if they spent their own money and it was legal for them (not just in that country but as USSS agents), then there’s plenty of other misconduct to address. If they expensed any part of it, including transportation, that’s a problem. Even if they didn’t but they were under US jurisdiction and violated the law, that too is a problem. All that’s been covered by me and others in earlier posts.
Embarrassment of riches?
I can’t speak to that since I don’t know what they are. But I’m a brass tacks kind of person. If she followed the law bringing to public light widespread violations of the law by law enforcement agents, then that’s what matters to me.
Here’s why I don’t trust her or that article: I do know why only the gender of the male prostitute was mentioned. It’s a smear piece. That should be an irrelevant fact, but it was front-and-center. She’s seeking to embarrass that agency. I don’t believe she did demonstrate any sort of widespread or systemic abuses or illegal behavior.
The only claim she even made about any widespread attitude was the one about “rings off”, which falls just short of being libel/slander. You can call someone an asshole, but if you call them a criminal, you better be able to prove it. I thought it was a very sensationalistic piece, and I believe she was the driving force behind it from watching the videos. The only reason her voice is relevant is because she’s a millionaire CEO of hotels.com. That isn’t proof of noble intentions.
Also, I’m fine with holding government employees to a higher standard, but to say “our tax dollars” when you’re talking about the employees’ private time and savings, well… that’s just not accurate.
I don’t totally agree with your conclusions - or rather it seems like something for a court to decide and the information to do so isn’t in the article or video - but it’s food for thought. I will say that I’d be very surprised if the agents don’t expense their transportation costs.
We’re the court of public opinion. Which charges specifically seem like they are for a court to decide? Marital infidelity? For specific allegations of illegal acts, are you sure they weren’t already punished?
I would bet they drive pool cars and never fill them at a gas station.
I’m sure they expense costs incurred while on the clock. They may get a per-diem, and you could argue that they spent that on prostitutes (but you could also argue they spent their salary on that). Is there an accusation that they were having sex while on the clock?
I was referring to this from your earlier comment:
IANAL, but I don’t think it’s a matter of degrees. Defamation requires saying or writing untrue things about someone. I don’t see how there can be just short of in a binary legal standard. But again, I’m no lawyer and that would be up to a court to decide.
If they broke the law, the public has a right to know so we can hold the agency accountable through public pressure to reform. The article and video may be sensationalist in tone, but that in itself isn’t libel if the facts are correct. The story says she won her lawsuit. It didn’t say if she or the government brought the suit, but presumably the question of defamation would have come up on their side of the arguments if she had in fact done that.
I’m not quite sure why you think she and not the news program was the driving force behind the tone of the piece. I know from personal experience that journalists will routinely select the most sensational things someone says (when they’re not outright making quotes up) and report that. It seems unlikely she wrote the article herself. Which does not mean she disagrees with the writer’s tone.
Libel/Slander has almost a scientific definition in practice. You’re at risk of it if you make a falsifiable statement about somebody. “Asshole” is opinion. “Criminal” is fact (and you might have to prove it).
She’s a millionaire who probably has a publicist. Her views, opinions and findings were just shouted through this article. I’m not accusing it of being good journalism. I totally agree that the writer wanted a sensationalistic piece of news. The author let this lady write it for him. He didn’t do any critical thinking at all.
Because she so clearly wants attention. It’s an impression from the video and the bullet points. Go back and watch how she argues. It’s very much driven by emotion (her motives and my reaction). I wish I could snapily prove my point, but… well, I don’t trust the feds and my gut still went sour on this story. I don’t like that woman. Have you watched that video?
The first bullet point was about “wheels up; rings off”, which is not about anything illegal. If that’s the strongest point in the list, it’s a waste of time. It’s gossip, not hard-hitting journalism. It’s a vague accusation with no evidence. She talks about experiencing bad things in her “search for the truth” without providing a concrete example. There are no specifics in the whole piece.
Look at this:
"Why this matters
One word here: blackmail.
Misbehaving agents are put at risk, and to protect their careers they could be blackmailed, putting those they protect in an unforeseen vulnerability."
Garbage. Star Trek: Into Darkness had a more plausible plot about compromising trusted officials. Should we fire an agent for having a sick daughter?
Of course the question of why this matters had to be addressed, because it wasn’t self-evident. “Why I wrote this - because I needed 1,000 words for Monday morning” would probably be more accurate.
