White House Official Tracked Down and Fired Over Insulting Tweets

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

White House Official Tracked Down and Fired Over Insulting Tweets

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday October 23, 2013 @01:37AM from the calls-em-like-he-sees-em dept.

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "BBC reports that Jofi Joseph, a senior National Security Council staffer who was a key member of the White House team negotiating on Iran's nuclear weapons program, has been fired ... after a months-long probe into a barrage of tweets that included caustic criticisms of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and top NSC officials, especially Ben Rhodes – whom he accused of dodging questions about Benghazi. Joseph, who posted under the now defunct Twitter name @NatSecWonk, gave a lacerating commentary on anything from policy to personal appearance. 'Was Huma Abedin wearing beer goggles the night she met Anthony Weiner,' he tweeted, referring to the scandal-hit former New York mayoral candidate and his wife, a former aide of Hillary Clinton. He tweeted that Mrs Clinton 'had few policy goals and no wins' in the Middle East. He said Chelsea Clinton was 'assuming all of her parents' vices,' and targeted figures such as Republican commentator Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney's wife Ann for their looks and weight. Many in the foreign policy community reacted with shock to the revelation that Joseph was the mystery tweeter because Joseph was well known among policy wonks and his wife, Carolyn Leddy, is a well-respected professional staffer on the Republican side of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 'What started out as an intended parody account of DC culture developed over time into a series of inappropriate and mean-spirited comments,' said Joseph in an apology. 'I bear complete responsibility for this affair and I sincerely apologize to everyone I insulted.'"

145 of 208 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

For an archive of his account by barlevg · 2013-10-23 01:39 · Score: 5, Informative

Wayback Machine evidently doesn't bother with Twitter, but the page can still (for now) be found on the Google Cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://twitter.com/NatSecWonk
1. Re:For an archive of his account by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-23 01:45 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Finally the NSA archive of "everything" has paid off ... and it only took them a few months to find out who it was. No wonder we're harvesting anything and everything our citizens do.
2. Re:For an archive of his account by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-23 01:46 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  This proves that people who troll online are upstanding, well-adjusted individuals who release their negative energy in a healthy and creative manner, rather than beating their families or abusing their pets as many lesser-adjusted individuals do.
  So the next time you see an online troll, shake his hand and pat him on the back - he is doing the right thing and fighting the good fight, saying the things you want to say so that you don't have to.
  Nigger.
  -- Ethanol-fueled
3. Re:For an archive of his account by Mitchell314 · 2013-10-23 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  So you're saying your not a troll then, even though you act like one? I'm confused.
  
  --
  I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
4. Re:For an archive of his account by dyingtolive · 2013-10-23 02:03 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I think he's saying that he's not the troll Slashdot needs; he's the troll Slashdot DESERVES.
  
  --
  Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
5. Re:For an archive of his account by paiute · 2013-10-23 02:44 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I think he's saying that you go to Twitter with the troll you have, not the troll you might want or wish to have at a later time.
  
  --
  If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by nefus · 2013-10-23 01:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

Will all the secret public email accounts being used to pass information to the press and between departments... they fire a tweeter?
1. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by barlevg · 2013-10-23 01:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  To be fair, any corporation would have done the same thing. If Pepsi (say) discovered a Twitter account that repeatedly says that Pepsi tastes horrible, and it turned out that the owner of the account was one of their employees, it wouldn't matter if that employee never used his or her real name--he or she would be canned faster than, well...
2. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by duke_cheetah2003 · 2013-10-23 01:55 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Are you sure about that? What grounds would you fire such a person under? Is it against the law to criticize your employer? You just can't fire people for no reason (well, you're not supposed to.) I mean if an employee is doing their job, performing well, and secretly bashing you on twitter, is that really a legal ground for termination?
3. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Austrian+Anarchy · 2013-10-23 02:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Are you sure about that? What grounds would you fire such a person under? Is it against the law to criticize your employer? You just can't fire people for no reason (well, you're not supposed to.) I mean if an employee is doing their job, performing well, and secretly bashing you on twitter, is that really a legal ground for termination?
  It does not have to be against the law to criticize your employer for your employer to fire you over it. Your employer can fire you for just about any reason they like. Government as employer? Might take longer, but amass enough paper against you and eventually you go away. However, if your employer is the government you could easily be subject to jail and fines if you say the wrong things in the course of your criticism (not saying that applies in this case).
  
  --
  Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
4. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Threni · 2013-10-23 02:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  > What grounds would you fire such a person under?
  Doesn't every single employment contract in the world contain words to the effect that you'll be fired if you give the employer a bad name?
5. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by cold+fjord · 2013-10-23 02:02 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Apparently there are repercussions for criticizing the "most transparent administration ever" cover ups.
  
  For months, White House and State department officials searched for @NatSecWonk, a hunt that intensified after he repeatedly expressed doubts about the official administration accounts about the Sept. 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi.
  So, why did they force survivors to sign secrecy agreements?
  BenghaziGate: At Least 5 CIA Employees Forced to Sign Nondisclosure Agreements
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
6. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by SJHillman · 2013-10-23 02:02 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Here's a good rule of thumb: If you'd get fired for yelling it in the office, you'll get fired for doing it online in the office. If you'd get fired for yelling it on the street, you'll get fired for doing it online period.
  Most companies would fire someone for going around telling people in the general public that their company sucks. If nothing else, it's a big ol' conflict of interests.
7. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Tuidjy · 2013-10-23 02:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Who needs grounds? Employment at will - you can fire anyone as long as you are not firing him for belonging to a protected category, like being over a certain age. And of course, you CAN fire someone for anything, just do not tell anyone why.
  As for precedent, beer companies have fired their drivers for always drinking a competitor's brand, and that's a lot less damning in my book. And yeah, it was perfectly legal.
  
  --
  No good deed goes unpunished...
8. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by duke_cheetah2003 · 2013-10-23 02:06 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It does not have to be against the law to criticize your employer for your employer to fire you over it. Your employer can fire you for just about any reason they like. Government as employer? Might take longer, but amass enough paper against you and eventually you go away. However, if your employer is the government you could easily be subject to jail and fines if you say the wrong things in the course of your criticism (not saying that applies in this case).
  In this particular case of Joseph, yes, his position required a respectable public image. But I'm talking more about grunts, people not in the public eye. Taking the Pepsi example, I mean, do you really think that'd stand up in a court if the fired employee made a huge stink over it? There are laws against discrimination in hiring/firing practices. Those are all based on tangible qualities, such as age, race, gender, sexual orientation.. but then we get to.. religion. That's protected too. And that's an opinion, a preference. So seems to be you'd have a pretty nice wrestle in a court if you fought wrongful termination for personal opinions expressed in your offtime, against your employer (or anything else for that matter.)
  Enh, just more reason to cover your tracks as BEST you can when you post on the internet and worry someone might object to it.
9. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by TheCarp · 2013-10-23 02:07 · Score: 2
  
  Not sure many corporations would have bothered to put the effort in, even so, most corporations have not taken the mantle unto themselves to be the model for freedom and justice in the world (I know; stop laughing, I am trying to make a point here) .
  What others would do is immaterial, what they should have done is realized that part of their job is to set an example and that example includes respecting the right of people to freely assemble (even in new technological forms) and speak
  Given that whoever it was only spoke and gave away nothing that would otherwise constitute a crime, they should have not even attempted to discover who he was.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
10. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by ageoffri · 2013-10-23 02:13 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  There are a lot of States are At-Will. In this case you can quit for any reason and the company can fire you for any reason*. So yes the company can and should fire you for tweeting nasty things about the company.
  The only real issue here is that Obama promised the most transparent administration in history. Instead we have leak after leak showing that it is the most opaque administration. Not to mention corrupt and surprisingly the one area the Administrator isn't incompetent in, is the prosecution of killing terrorist.
  
  --
  -- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
11. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by LoyalOpposition · 2013-10-23 02:13 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, any corporation would have done the same thing. If Pepsi (say) discovered a Twitter account that repeatedly says that Pepsi tastes horrible, and it turned out that the owner of the account was one of their employees, it wouldn't matter if that employee never used his or her real name--he or she would be canned faster than, well...
  I think one difference might be that Pepsi can't use all the power of government to reveal who the tweeter was.
  ~Loyal
  
  --
  I aim to misbehave.
12. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Grishnakh · 2013-10-23 02:16 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  If an employer fired an employee for something like this, I think the employee would have major grounds to sue, not for wrongful termination, but for spying and violation of privacy. Employers don't go to the kind of trouble the Obama Administration went to to discover this guy's identity. From the article: "After a probe that included an investigation into Joseph’s travel and shopping patterns – parsed from over 2,000 tweets..." So they spied on the guy's shopping habits? How'd they do that exactly? If an employer somehow got your bank or Visa/Mastercard to give them access to your shopping information, and also somehow tracked your travel patterns, there'd be hell to pay. But Obama does it and it's just fine apparently. It's highly disturbing that this guy was found out at all; obviously he wasn't intending to divulge his identity, so there had to be some kind of illegal or unethical breach of privacy protections in order to discover his identity.
13. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Grishnakh · 2013-10-23 02:18 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The difference is that a normal employer would have no reasonable way of discovering the employee's identity. But with the NSA, Obama can find anyone in his staff who complains, and deal with them harshly, privacy be damned.
14. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by khr · 2013-10-23 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  he or she would be canned
  
  What would they label the can?
15. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by SJHillman · 2013-10-23 02:23 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Anonymity is just security through obscurity... it's nice when it works, but you really shouldn't count on it to do stupid shit.
16. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Kleen13 · 2013-10-23 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  And if they had to pay severance for doing so, it would likely be worth it to them.
  
  --
  That sinking feeling deep in your gut when you KNOW you screwed up bad summed up with: {head desk} {head desk}
17. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Austrian+Anarchy · 2013-10-23 02:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It does not have to be against the law to criticize your employer for your employer to fire you over it. Your employer can fire you for just about any reason they like. Government as employer? Might take longer, but amass enough paper against you and eventually you go away. However, if your employer is the government you could easily be subject to jail and fines if you say the wrong things in the course of your criticism (not saying that applies in this case).
  In this particular case of Joseph, yes, his position required a respectable public image. But I'm talking more about grunts, people not in the public eye. Taking the Pepsi example, I mean, do you really think that'd stand up in a court if the fired employee made a huge stink over it? There are laws against discrimination in hiring/firing practices. Those are all based on tangible qualities, such as age, race, gender, sexual orientation.. but then we get to.. religion. That's protected too. And that's an opinion, a preference. So seems to be you'd have a pretty nice wrestle in a court if you fought wrongful termination for personal opinions expressed in your offtime, against your employer (or anything else for that matter.)
  Enh, just more reason to cover your tracks as BEST you can when you post on the internet and worry someone might object to it.
  If you are talking about one of those non at-will States, or some foreign country, then the job for life no matter what comes into play. However, the issue is dissing your employer, which is the least "protected" version of speech out there. Then again, I am not sure who you are arguing against, since I don't think the Pepsi employee has, or should have, any chance of overturning a firing for that. Neither should the fed in question either.
  
  --
  Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
18. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by NatasRevol · 2013-10-23 02:29 · Score: 2
  
  You just can't fire people for no reason
  Unless you're in an at-will state. You know, most of them.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
19. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Diss+Champ · 2013-10-23 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, any corporation would have done the same thing. If Pepsi (say) discovered a Twitter account that repeatedly says that Pepsi tastes horrible, and it turned out that the owner of the account was one of their employees, it wouldn't matter if that employee never used his or her real name--he or she would be canned faster than, well...
  I think one difference might be that Pepsi can't use all the power of government to reveal who the tweeter was.
  ~Loyal
  They can, however, use all the powers of Pepsi to reveal who the tweeter was.
  Actually, that may mean they can use all the powers of government.
20. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by FriendlyLurker · 2013-10-23 02:34 · Score: 2
  
  Sure - but private companies cannot scour through the personal electronic information of the world to try and identify which employee is bad mouthing them like the NSA/gov can. Well, unless your company is Booz Allen Hamilton and ilk. Perhaps that will be a new service the NSA can sell to provate companies down the road... monitor every aspect of your employees lives.
21. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Dunbal · 2013-10-23 02:34 · Score: 2
  
  Is it against the law to criticize your employer?
  Actually it is, in most civilized countries. The law states that an employee must respect the employer, his property and his reputation. Of course I don't think such a law applies to telling the actual truth though. Certainly it's one for the lawyers and the courts.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
22. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by jratcliffe · 2013-10-23 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  Are you sure about that? What grounds would you fire such a person under? Is it against the law to criticize your employer? You just can't fire people for no reason (well, you're not supposed to.) I mean if an employee is doing their job, performing well, and secretly bashing you on twitter, is that really a legal ground for termination?
  Definitely. Most employment in the US (outside of union contracts) is at will - your employer can fire you for any reason they want, EXCEPT for some specific exclusions (race/ethnicity, sex, age, family status/pregnancy, and (in some states) political opinions or sexual orientation).
23. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by barlevg · 2013-10-23 02:40 · Score: 2
  
  "New Coke."
24. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by FriendlyLurker · 2013-10-23 02:43 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Just using the tools put in place. Evil, but hardly as evil as using the surveillance state to squash political dissent which received much less mass media attention that this internal witch hunt. Key OWS supporters lost their jobs, were put on no fly and do not employ lists but since they did not have big Washington insider status, they get no press.
25. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Cajun+Hell · 2013-10-23 02:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The story here isn't that he was fired. It's that the Whitehouse investigated him. He didn't accidentally leak his identity to some private sector reporter who put it in their article, and then the president saw it in a newspaper. They spent time and money on trying to figure out the identity of a totally irrelevant and unimportant Twitter user over a bunch of totally irrelevant and unimportant tweets. Like, this was important to them.
  At least Pepsi would be able to somewhat justify such an expenditure, since their marketing really is so important, and all Pepsi stockholders would agree that marketing is a good use of funds. But what say America's "stockholders," about our new "marketing counter-intelligence" program?
  They guy wasn't even saying stuff analogous to "USA sucks for tourists. Foreign tourists should take vacations somewhere else and spend their money there instead of in USA." or "You should buy used F-16s from Israel instead of from USA." He was just talking shit about shit. There's no legitimate reason for the government to have been working on this.
  
  --
  "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
26. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by CanHasDIY · 2013-10-23 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  > What grounds would you fire such a person under?
  Doesn't every single employment contract in the world contain words to the effect that you'll be fired if you give the employer a bad name?
  Not in At-Will states like mine* - there's no need to get that specific.
  * Either party can terminate employment at any time, for (almost) any reason, and nobody ever has to explain why, outside an illegal discrimination charge.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
27. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by mjwalshe · 2013-10-23 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  Bringing your employer into disrepute is gross misconduct.
28. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by mjwalshe · 2013-10-23 02:55 · Score: 2
  
  Your employer has every right to go through their equipment if they suspect you of serious misconduct. And twitter feed are public information so there is zero protection there.
29. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by CanHasDIY · 2013-10-23 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Is it against the law to criticize your employer?
  Actually it is, in most civilized countries. The law states that an employee must respect the employer, his property and his reputation
  Criticism and respect are not diametrically opposed.
  Hell, some of the criticisms I have for companies are because I respect them, and want them to do better.
  But no, at least in the US there is no law that says people cannot criticize their employers.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
30. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by bitt3n · 2013-10-23 02:56 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The other difference is that the ability to criticize one's government is different in kind from the ability to criticize a soft drink. It might not be unreasonable for Pepsi to attempt to keep its employees from undermining the company's success on their own time, given that someone who hates Pepsi can choose to work at another company. Contrarily, given that government is a monopoly, expecting an employee to give up his right to criticize it seems far more dubious, since, aside from voting (or emigrating), such criticism is his only means to effect changes in it. If a government employee were to limit himself strictly to criticizing government policy, and did so from an anonymous account, so not to lend to his comments the authority of his office, it seems questionable to punish him for it.
  
  --
  how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
31. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by BreakBad · 2013-10-23 03:02 · Score: 2
  
  To STFU or not to STFU..that is the question. Its simply a risk/reward analysis to be made by the employee. The reward being able to say "My company makes and eats dog poo" on twitter and keep your job. The risk not getting a paycheck for awhile and possibly having to be in close proximity with lawyers for length amounts of time, side effects include delusions and skin rashes.
32. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by JDG1980 · 2013-10-23 03:02 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Are you sure about that? What grounds would you fire such a person under? Is it against the law to criticize your employer? You just can't fire people for no reason (well, you're not supposed to.) I mean if an employee is doing their job, performing well, and secretly bashing you on twitter, is that really a legal ground for termination?
  Most private-sector jobs in the U.S. are "employment at will". That means employees can be fired for any reason or no reason, as long as it's not for a reason specifically prohibited by federal law (race, gender, etc.) I don't think this is good policy, but it is how things currently work in most places (pretty much all non-union shops). And one reason that it hasn't changed is that most Americans don't realize how bad it actually is: that as workers they essentially have no rights.
  Federal civil service jobs are different. A rank-and-file Federal employee can pretty much say anything he/she wants about the government, as long as it's not on the clock. But the most high-ranking staff members at government agencies don't have civil service protections; they are political appointees and are expected to support the administration's goals and objectives. A random clerk processing Social Security claims can tweet all he/she wants about politics, but if the Secretary of State shoots his/her mouth off against the President's wishes, they will soon be "asked to resign".
33. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by FriendlyLurker · 2013-10-23 03:10 · Score: 2
  
  Real Identity behind a twitter feed is NOT public information. You have to use goverment sanctioned surveillance to get that...
34. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by SJHillman · 2013-10-23 03:11 · Score: 2
  
  The government is acting as an employer in the decision to fire him. Any employer, public or private, should be allowed to fire an employee who is publicly criticizing it (with an exception for whistleblowing... which this wasn't). It's a giant conflict of interest, especially for a job with access to sensitive information. Punishment beyond firing him would be too far, of course, and then might run into First Amendment issues but just firing him seems like a reasonable response.
35. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by jodido · 2013-10-23 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  The guy worked for the National SECURITY Council at the pleasure of the President of the United States of America [background music "America the Beautiful" or equivalent]--what court do you think is going to back him instead of the White House?
36. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Grishnakh · 2013-10-23 03:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If you get caught because you screwed up somehow, that's perfectly understandable. But if you get caught because the country is spying on all its citizens with a program that would make the Stasi proud, then there's much bigger problems, for everyone.
37. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Grishnakh · 2013-10-23 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Mod up. This is something that doesn't get any attention at all.
38. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by luis_a_espinal · 2013-10-23 03:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Are you sure about that? What grounds would you fire such a person under? Is it against the law to criticize your employer?
  
  It is not against the law for an employer to fire an employee for criticizing him/her/it. Freedom of speech is not required to be defended within the premises of a private entity, nor does it give you ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY from the consequences of your actions. If you cannot make that distinction, you are an ignorant fool.
  Consider this, if you work for an employer, and you tweet "my employer sucks", do you honestly believe you are immune from getting fired (even if indeed your employer sucks)?
  The only things you cannot get fired for are already stipulated in federal and state laws. The typical protections against labor discrimination regarding gender, age, race, religion, political affiliation, retaliation over obeying the law, sexual harassment, and other protected statuses that emanate from them.
  The list sorely misses some important ones (say, sexual orientation), but that is not to say that bad mouthing or publicly criticizing your employee (or doing anything that gives a "bad" image, something that will most likely be in the employment agreement that you willing signed) should be protected against getting fired for it. That is just silly.
39. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by luis_a_espinal · 2013-10-23 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  It does not have to be against the law to criticize your employer for your employer to fire you over it. Your employer can fire you for just about any reason they like. Government as employer? Might take longer, but amass enough paper against you and eventually you go away. However, if your employer is the government you could easily be subject to jail and fines if you say the wrong things in the course of your criticism (not saying that applies in this case).
  In this particular case of Joseph, yes, his position required a respectable public image. But I'm talking more about grunts, people not in the public eye. Taking the Pepsi example, I mean, do you really think that'd stand up in a court if the fired employee made a huge stink over it? There are laws against discrimination in hiring/firing practices. Those are all based on tangible qualities, such as age, race, gender, sexual orientation.. but then we get to.. religion. That's protected too. And that's an opinion, a preference.
  An opinion is also a tangible quality. The opinion that all people are created equal is one that should never get someone fired, for example. Certainly a religion is an opinion and a preference as much as it is a preference to have a particular political POV. Just as it is unconscionable to fire someone from being, say, Republican, Democrat, independent or whatever, it should also be unconscionable to fire someone for choosing to profess a faith.
  Horrendous crimes have been committed against people for exercising a right to an opinion or preference (specially one so closely tied to a person's upbringing or culture.) The path down that road starts when such opinions are not conferred equal protection.
40. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Anti-Social+Network · 2013-10-23 03:56 · Score: 2
  
  Right. In any other case I might be shocked, but this guy presumably has a security clearance. Why would you expect NOT to have your life scrutinized on an ongoing basis when you're in the middle of such sensitive work? You know what it entails when you sign up.
  
  --
  Goddammit just when I get my first +5 the Beta rolls out and kills everything
41. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by hamburger+lady · 2013-10-23 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  dude has a high-level security clearance. you expect the government not to keep tabs on his behaviour?
  
  --
  
  ---
  Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
42. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by yurtinus · 2013-10-23 04:05 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The other other difference is that - according to TFS - this wasn't simply criticism of government policies, it was unprofessional comments on individuals in office - including petty insults on physical appearance. If it was criticism of government, we'd all rightfully be up in arms, but it is plain and simple unprofessional behavior. It doesn't matter where you work, making petty derogatory comments in public about other people in the organization is unacceptable.
  
  --
  +1 Disagree
43. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by pixelpusher220 · 2013-10-23 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  You just can't fire people for no reason (well, you're not supposed to.)
  depends on the State, I believe in VA it's quite easy to say "Hey it's Thursday, you're fired"
  
  --
  People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
44. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by bitt3n · 2013-10-23 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly it's not a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest would be if someone were paying him to criticize the government while the government itself is paying him to support its interests. He appears to be offering his criticism free of charge. While you can profess that a public employer, like a private employer, should be able to fire an employee for this reason, for the reason stated above, I do no think the case is so simple. (The guy in question was, however, doing more than just criticizing the government, so his particular case is more muddled.)
  
  --
  how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
45. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Grishnakh · 2013-10-23 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. I expect that everyone has an right to privacy in their personal lives, regardless of the job they do. Lots and lots of people have high-level security clearances; that doesn't mean their lives should be an open book for those in power to see, unless there's a valid suspicion of wrongdoing. Tweeting unflattering remarks about people is not a valid suspicion of wrongdoing, this was just a witch-hunt for someone who wasn't a yes-man.
  Getting a Top Secret clearance is (or at least used to be, I don't know about these days with the Stasi running things now) not that complicated a process, and mainly involves checking an individual's finances (to make sure he's not a compulsive gambler or in big debt, things that might make him susceptible to money bribes), background (to see if he might be involved in terrorist/anti-government groups etc.), sending someone to talk with his neighbors and family and make sure he isn't suspicious, etc. It doesn't (or at least didn't use to) involve spying on someone's every private communication; you need a warrant for that, and a suspicion of a crime having been committed. Again, tweeting unflattering remarks does not constitute a crime, unless you live in a totalitarian society.
46. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Grishnakh · 2013-10-23 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  If you're dumb enough to use your employer's equipment and network connection to communicate, then yes, they can discover you that way rightfully. If you use some other method to communicate (cellphone, internet connection at home), then no, they have no right. Presumably, this guy was not stupid enough to use government systems to make his tweets (otherwise he probably would have been found out much earlier).
  And as someone else said, no, the identities behind twitter feeds are NOT public info. If they can figure you out based on the text in your tweets, that's acceptable, but that's not what happened here. Again, there doesn't seem to be any indication that this guy was stupid enough to give himself away so easily.
47. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by bitt3n · 2013-10-23 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  This is why I said "if a government employee were to limit himself strictly to criticizing government policy," since the present fellow did not do this. Yet still there are people who disagree with this proposition.
  
  --
  how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
48. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by mjwalshe · 2013-10-23 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Not if you expose enough information in public to make identifying you trivial.
49. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by barlevg · 2013-10-23 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  From the article, it seems like this case is closest to Case 3: employee saying derogatory things about his employers, and he said them on his own (not voicing the concerns of his fellow employees). The NLRB said they supported that firing.
50. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by mjwalshe · 2013-10-23 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Why leaking insider information as a civil servant is quite a serious crime I suspect
51. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by mjwalshe · 2013-10-23 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Why would they do that don't spin doctors do this down the pub face to face or via an anonymous tip from a "friend" or "close personal friends say"
52. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Grishnakh · 2013-10-23 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  If that were the case here, then the guy would have been arrested. He hasn't been, ergo there was no "serious crime" involved. He just made unflattering remarks about people in the administration and other political people.
53. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by duke_cheetah2003 · 2013-10-23 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  If you are talking about one of those non at-will States, or some foreign country, then the job for life no matter what comes into play. However, the issue is dissing your employer, which is the least "protected" version of speech out there. Then again, I am not sure who you are arguing against, since I don't think the Pepsi employee has, or should have, any chance of overturning a firing for that. Neither should the fed in question either.
  I'm not really arguing for either side of this situation. I'm just curious how far it's going to go. We (humans, Americans in particular) seem to like playing with this thing we call the 'slippery slope.' Seem to like sliding down it in recent years too.
  So, ok, it's ok to give an employee the boot if he disses the company. What about an affiliate of the company? A subsidiary? A vendor? A supplier? Where does the employers *legitimate* right to make firing choices over an employee's offtime activities (mainly forming opinions and posting them on the internet in one way or another) end?
  How about this? A simple theoretical. I go over to Bob and say, "GAWD I hate our Hong Kong office, they're a bunch of total morons." I'm in our San Francisco office. Am I fired?
  We've already established you can be fired for any reason in many circumstances. That's fine, I'm just playing with when it becomes borderline-criminal/discriminatory, vs. valid legitimate grievance.
54. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-23 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  An employer should be able to fire an employee for any reason whatsoever and not be forced to reveal that reason, the same way any employee should be free to quit at any time, at any moment (save some scenario that would physically endanger others). Where are we going? The complete opposite where the police power of the state is used to force people to do business (including employment) with others against their wants.
55. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by fahrbot-bot · 2013-10-23 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Are you sure about that? What grounds would you fire such a person under? Is it against the law to criticize your employer? You just can't fire people for no reason (well, you're not supposed to.) I mean if an employee is doing their job, performing well, and secretly bashing you on twitter, is that really a legal ground for termination?
  In a "right to work" state, pretty sure OP is correct. Sure, unless it can be shown the person was fired "for cause", he/she will probably be eligible for unemployment pay, but it's unlikely that person would win in court as their termination was not illegal.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
56. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by bob_super · 2013-10-23 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Almost all companies will fire people who make bad comments about their co-workers.
  Case closed.
57. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by sumdumass · 2013-10-23 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if the real reasons are on the books. Where they cannot legally fie you for something, they just document your every mistake and use the culumative of that to find a reason. Very few people can refrain from violating some rules when they are being specifically targeted for enforcement.
  There is also something called constructive discharge that is extreamely hard to prove. This is where the rmployee makes an employee so uncomfortable working for them, they end up quitting instead of being fired.
58. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Alastor187 · 2013-10-23 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  But the analogy doesn't work, because the government is limited by a different set of laws than a private company. The government cannot censor the speech of an employee, not because of employer-employee relationship, but because of the limits placed on government in general. Therefore, it is important determine if the government, in general, has over stepped its bounds. Ken White had a good write up last month about the relationship of University Professors and the State: Pophat
59. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by mjwalshe · 2013-10-23 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  For gross misconduct firing is the normal penalty - though for civil servants there might well have been an actual arrestable offense I suspect he offered to fall on his sword to spare the administration the publicity and possibly to protect his wife's job.
60. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by cayenne8 · 2013-10-23 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Are you sure about that? What grounds would you fire such a person under? Is it against the law to criticize your employer? You just can't fire people for no reason (well, you're not supposed to.) I mean if an employee is doing their job, performing well, and secretly bashing you on twitter, is that really a legal ground for termination?
  Well, depends on if you're in a right to work state (I think most states are?)....you can be fired for any reason or no reason whatsoever as long as it isn't one of the few discriminatory reasons (age, sex, race)...but sure, you can be fired at any given time, and no reason has to be given in many/most states.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
61. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-23 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  I don't trust breitbart or anyone that does trust brietbart. But that's ok. You have been on my "That dude is nuts" list for a long time.
62. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Obfuscant · 2013-10-23 06:28 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  so it should never be allowed to fire employees who are critical of it.
  When his insults extended to the wives and children of the politicians, he went from "criticizing the government" to "unacceptable behaviour for a political appointee". And if he was leaking insider information about diplomatic negotiations, then he deserves to lose his security clearance, and with that loss goes his cushy job.
  The government is not a monopoly employer.
63. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by cold+fjord · 2013-10-23 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, but the news doesn't get better if you change the source. Could the issue be that you need your news politically vetted?
  Benghazi Providing Rich Material For An 'All the President's Men' Sequel?
  
  “Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency’s missions in Libya have been subjected to frequent, even monthly, polygraph examinations,” Drew Griffin of CNN Special Investigations Unit reported on August 1. (In the same report, it was revealed that 35 CIA agents were at the Benghazi compound that night.) One source, said Griffin, called this “an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency’s Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.” At the same time, some CIA operatives, it was reported elsewhere, were being forced to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA).
  “The reports on the non-disclosure agreements are accurate,” Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) told me at the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi conference, held at Heritage. Additionally, he said, he was called by “a person on the scene in Benghazi, asked to sign another NDA, and he wouldn’t do it, so therefore he has a lawyer downtown to fight this with regard to his career.”
  
  Rep Wolf Says Benghazi survivors were forced to sign non disclosure Agreements
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
64. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by atomicxblue · 2013-10-23 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  As for the sexual orientation thing, that's depends on which state we're talking about. It is still perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay in some parts of the US, sadly.
65. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by atomicxblue · 2013-10-23 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  One could argue that the First Amendment is exactly why he shouldn't have been fired. He didn't give up his citizenship when he started working for the government, so, as long as state secrets aren't being divulged, he should be afforded every opportunity to speak his mind. Every point, no matter how much you agree or how much it repulses you, should be given voice if we are to continue as a free society, or at least a close facsimile of one.
66. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by geekoid · 2013-10-23 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  It's not about criticizing, its about it being mean and lying.
  SO you can criticize something, but you can't spread lies and be mean and get away with it.
  FTR: Pepsi, and most private companies, would let you go if you criticized their product no matter who true it was.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
67. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by SJHillman · 2013-10-23 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
  They're not saying he broke any laws, they're just saying what he did was inappropriate and not in line with what he's expected to do as an employee. There's no First Amendment issue here because the government is acting as an employer... it's not using it's powers as the government in firing him.
68. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by sacrilicious · 2013-10-23 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Who needs grounds?
  If you're suggesting that the only relevant question is "was this firing legal", I'd say that's missing the more important question of "was this investigation (and firing) outrage-worthy"? (Hint: it is.)
  
  --
  - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
69. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by jimbolauski · 2013-10-23 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  The only things you can't fire a person for are religion, sex, race, and sexual orientation, everything else is fair grounds. An employer is not bound to keep you as long as you do your job just as you can leave the company you work for anytime you see fit.
  
  --
  Knowledge = Power
  P= W/t
  t=Money
  Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
70. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by betterprimate · 2013-10-23 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  so it should never be allowed to fire employees who are critical of it.
  When his insults extended to the wives and children of the politicians, he went from "criticizing the government" to "unacceptable behaviour for a political appointee". And if he was leaking insider information about diplomatic negotiations, then he deserves to lose his security clearance, and with that loss goes his cushy job.
  The government is not a monopoly employer.
  That's strange. Politicians and political parties do it all the time.
  I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that a government employee apparently requires more integrity than a politician holding high office.
71. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Grishnakh · 2013-10-23 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  Just pointing out how today's Democrats really aren't as different from the Tea Partiers as they think they are.
72. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Grishnakh · 2013-10-23 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Of course, they had to go slowly so it wasn't obvious that they used ubiquitous surveillance to catch him. Notice how there's no mention of the NSA in the press regarding this case, just some vaguery about shopping or travel patterns. The big difference between East Germany and the USA is that the US government can't be totally obvious about the use of surveillance to catch government criticizers, yet. But just look at what happened to this guy, and to the OWS protesters (lost their jobs, put on no-fly and do-not-employ lists, etc.), and then look at the public's response to this: they mostly support the government's actions. With a public this supportive of tyrannical government, the US will be like East Germany before you know it. And as long as the US doesn't try to commit mass genocide or something equally horrible, the misery of living in such a nation will only be lifted when the economy collapses due to competition from other nations and the government is forced to reform itself, which will likely take decades or more (East Germans had to live under that regime for around 45 years, for example).
73. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Obfuscant · 2013-10-23 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  That's strange. Politicians and political parties do it all the time.
  Do what all the time? It's impossible to figure out the antecedant here.
  
  I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that a government employee apparently requires more integrity than a politician holding high office.
  Politicians "holding high office" are not employees that can be fired without a very large amount of effort. Impeachment or recall. A political appointee job is at the whim of the person who makes the appointment.
  There are a large number of politicians who regularly get burned by stepping over the line, but yes, a large number that don't. I think you'll find that Weiner is currently being dogged by a lapse, as was Edwards in a recent presidential campaign, although neither are over insulting children. However, Sarah Palin's children were fair game.
74. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Obfuscant · 2013-10-23 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  Notice how there's no mention of the NSA in the press regarding this case, just some vaguery about shopping or travel patterns.
  It doesn't take NSA surveillance to identify someone by correlating their shopping and travel patterns with their tweets. After a while of someone publicly posting things like "Week in Italy at govt expense" and "Got a great deal at Macy's on shoes", and co-workers who notice that someone is gone to Italy for a week and wearing nice new shoes he says he got at Macy's... Yes, it will take more than two coincidences to create real suspicion, but it can and has been done before.
  The travel part can even be someone who doesn't know him at all, just the guy who processes his expense reports. Hmmm, this guy is putting in travel expenses for all the same places this "anonymous tweeter" is saying he's at and at the same time. Gosh, do you think?
  I don't know what this specific guy's tweets were, but if he's the type of person with the ego to BE tweeting in the first place, then he's probably not worried about telling his friends and co-workers all about things in his life too, and that creates the data to make the correlation.
75. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Obfuscant · 2013-10-23 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  Why would you expect NOT to have your life scrutinized on an ongoing basis when you're in the middle of such sensitive work? You know what it entails when you sign up.
  This. Especially for a security clearance, a common question is "what aliases do you now use and have you used in the past?" A twitter account name certainly counts as an alias. If he didn't reveal that on his clearance filing, then his clearance can and should be yanked. There goes his NSC job.
76. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Obfuscant · 2013-10-23 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't (or at least didn't use to) involve spying on someone's every private communication;
  Tweets on twitter aren't private communications, dipshit. He was posting publicly and doing it knowing that he had followers in the same government agency where he worked. He knew because you can see who follows you, and he was certainly hearing the buzz his tweets were creating.
  In other words, the same people he saw face to face on a regular basis were seeing his tweets. It doesn't take rocket science or ultra-invasive NSA spying for someone to correlate what they saw him doing with what the twit on twitter was tweeting about.
  
  Again, tweeting unflattering remarks does not constitute a crime, unless you live in a totalitarian society.
  He wasn't charged with a crime, dipshit, he was fired from his job because he was making inappropriate comments about his co-workers, his bosses, and their families. Get over it. It happens.
77. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Obfuscant · 2013-10-23 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  The government cannot censor the speech of an employee, not because of employer-employee relationship, but because of the limits placed on government in general.
  They fired him. He can still post crap as @NSCWonk or whatever it was. He can still do it for free. He's just not working for the people whose families he slandered anymore.
  Why is this such a big deal? He went out of his way to insult people who employed him, including their families, and he got fired for it. What do you think they'd do, give him a Freedom Medal and have him to tea at the White House so he can learn stuff about Malia and Sascha he could post about?
78. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by Zynder · 2013-10-23 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  Riiiiiight. As if a bunch of old rednecks dressed in Revolutionary War garments with bags of tea dangling from the brim of thier hats were any more noble. But they had rusty old muskets so everything was cool right?
79. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by cold+fjord · 2013-10-23 14:39 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure what I post looks "loony" to the loony left. And you've got it backwards, I'm the one that is often shooting down wacko conspiracy theories, such as 9/11 "Truthers" and various other bits of insanity. You should probably read my posts more carefully, follow the links, and reevaluate your views. If you think I'm loony level wrong, you're probably in the fever swamp.
  
  --
  much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
80. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by SeattleGameboy · 2013-10-24 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  They didn't need to. They just fed before different wrong information to people and watched to see which one came up on Twitter. That is how they found this guy, not by looking up his IP.
81. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by bmk67 · 2013-10-24 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  You just can't fire people for no reason
  I can assure you that where I happen to live, that is absolutely false.
82. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by jratcliffe · 2013-10-25 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if the real reasons are on the books. Where they cannot legally fie you for something, they just document your every mistake and use the culumative of that to find a reason. Very few people can refrain from violating some rules when they are being specifically targeted for enforcement.
  There is also something called constructive discharge that is extreamely hard to prove. This is where the rmployee makes an employee so uncomfortable working for them, they end up quitting instead of being fired.
  Certainly, sometimes, companies come up with "official" reasons to fire someone when they're actually being fired because they're a woman/black/gay/whatever. That said, if a company wants to fire someone because he's a Cubs fan, and the CEO loves the White Sox, that's (in the vast majority of cases) totally legal.
83. Re:Secret Emails and they fire a tweeter? by sumdumass · 2013-10-25 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  That said, if a company wants to fire someone because he's a Cubs fan, and the CEO loves the White Sox, that's (in the vast majority of cases) totally legal.
  Somewhat true. The issue is that in most states, if the reason for firing someone is not what they consider a valid reason, that employee is generally entitled to draw unemployment compensation. Now the states do it differently but some states require the employer to contribute a specific portion of the unemployment wages while others will just raise their insurance premiums a bit if they fire a lot of people like that.
  So yes, it is totally legal, but it isn't always without consequences. Sometimes people have to fight the state's industrial commission's ruling on the matter to see those consequences happening which could be burdensome without an income.
It must be said by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2013-10-23 01:43 · Score: 1

Was Carolyn Leddy wearing beer goggles the night she met Jofi Joseph?

--
#DeleteChrome
1. Re:It must be said by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2013-10-23 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  They both must have been, and in a low lit room at that.
  That, and I wonder which one has the larger penis.
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
2. Re:It must be said by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2013-10-23 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  You know what? I debated whether to check the Post Anonymously box.
  But then I figured, what the hell, the NSA knows who it is anyway. Why shouldn't all my fans on Slashdot?
  
  --
  If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Insults? by mrspoonsi · 2013-10-23 01:50 · Score: 2, Funny

Perhaps much of what he said is true...the truth should not be insulting. In these politically correct times, he should have changed:

Mrs Clinton 'had few policy goals and no wins' in the Middle East.

to:

Mrs Clinton was policy goal challenged.
1. Re:Insults? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-23 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  In these politically correct times
  ...and I stopped reading.
2. Re:Insults? by UnknowingFool · 2013-10-23 02:14 · Score: 2
  
  And his personal attacks on people not in politics like Chelsea Clinton, Liz Cheney, and Ann Romney could be spun how? Hey I'm all for criticizing politicians for their politics. Leave their families and personal attacks out of it.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
3. Re:Insults? by UnknowingFool · 2013-10-23 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  Liz Cheney and Ann Romney have supported their husbands but they themselves are not in politics. But your point is the same as mine. I should be able to disagree with any of them on their views and I support anyone's right to tweet their disagreement. Personal attacks on their appearance is crossing a line.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
4. Re:Insults? by CanHasDIY · 2013-10-23 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps much of what he said is true...the truth should not be insulting.
  You're right, it shouldn't be.
  However, remember the words of the great Robert Heinlein: "Being right too soon is socially unacceptable."
  Unfortunately for this gentleman, the social group which found him unacceptable just so happens to be the biggest, most paranoid government in the history of mankind.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
5. Re:Insults? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2013-10-23 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  the social group which found him unacceptable just so happens to be the biggest, most paranoid government in the history of mankind.
  Unfortunately the next administration will make this one's efforts seem like child's play.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
6. Re:Insults? by CanHasDIY · 2013-10-23 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  the social group which found him unacceptable just so happens to be the biggest, most paranoid government in the history of mankind.
  Unfortunately the next administration will make this one's efforts seem like child's play.
  Yea, it's a cascading failure. I weep for future generations who will live their entire lives under the boot of authoritarian fascism.
  
  --
  An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
7. Re:Insults? by Holladon · 2013-10-24 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Liz Cheney and Ann Romney have supported their husbands but they themselves are not in politics.
  Liz Cheney's husband is a partner at the law firm of Latham & Watkins. He used to be GC for DHS but he's not particularly political. Liz Cheney's father, on the other hand, is the former VPOTUS...
  Regardless, I agree with your overall point. Taking swipes at people's looks, whether they're in politics or not, is beyond immature. It has no place in grown-up conversation, and certainly not in politics.
8. Re:Insults? by KevReedUK · 2013-10-24 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  Personal attacks on their appearance is crossing a line.
  Not disagreeing with your opinion here, but there is ample precedent that making attacks against the appearance of people who are, however tangentially, in the public view is not only condoned, but in some sectors encouraged... just take a look at the front covers of (let alone what's inside) some of the trashier magazines at any newsstand and see comments about cellulite, fashion choices and other attacks of questionable morality. Again, I'm not saying it's right for these to be allowed / encouraged, but I also don't see them going anywhere soon!
  
  --
  Just my $0.03 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)
9. Re:Insults? by KevReedUK · 2013-10-24 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately for this gentleman, the social group which found him unacceptable just so happens to be the biggest, most paranoid government in the history of mankind.
  And perhaps even more unfortunately for this gentleman, the social group which found him unacceptable also happened to be his employer!
  
  "... biting the hand that feeds you" ringing any bells with him, you think?
  
  --
  Just my $0.03 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)
Re:Flash forward a few years by TWX · 2013-10-23 01:53 · Score: 1

More likely that he'll become an independent and speak at a GOP nominating convention...

Penny Arcade's thoughts on Internet anonymity come to mind...

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I can't believe ... by cascadingstylesheet · 2013-10-23 02:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

I can't believe that any prominent person tweets at all. The medium encourages inflammatory behavior and doesn't let there be any context. Recipe for disaster.
1. Re:I can't believe ... by avandesande · 2013-10-23 02:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I am not able to attribute the quote but it goes something like this- "you see a person's true face when they are wearing a mask..."
  
  --
  love is just extroverted narcissism
Inside the Bubble by Sponge+Bath · 2013-10-23 02:04 · Score: 1

This guy was so very impressed with himself and his insider status that he forgot to act like a professional. He got his free speech and the consequences of that speech. I'm sure his wife appreciates the celebrity he has brought them.
1. Re:Inside the Bubble by Grishnakh · 2013-10-23 02:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yes, and thanks to ubiquitous NSA spying, they were able to catch this dastardly man and put a stop to his treacherous activities. Aren't you glad Obama has the NSA to find out anyone who criticizes him?
2. Re:Inside the Bubble by Dunbal · 2013-10-23 02:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  But remember, it's only "metadata"!
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Re:Flash forward a few years by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2013-10-23 02:08 · Score: 1, Insightful

Read his posts. He's another left-wing obama bot who's been partially disillusioned, but still believes the same lies. He'll be on MSNBC in two years.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Just curious: how? by stevegee58 · 2013-10-23 02:13 · Score: 2

As a TrueNerd© I'd like to know precisely how this person was caught. Was he tweeting from work? If not, it makes me wonder...
1. Re:Just curious: how? by Dunbal · 2013-10-23 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  randomly found out
  Seriously, in a post Snowden whistelblower world, you think he was 'randomly' found out?
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
2. Re:Just curious: how? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2013-10-23 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  I think you forgot some air quotes around wonder.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
3. Re:Just curious: how? by bitt3n · 2013-10-23 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  Was he tweeting from work?
  I finally figured out what this "twerking" thing is all the kids talk about these days!
  
  --
  how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
Speaking of dodging questions. . . by smooth+wombat · 2013-10-23 02:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

especially Ben Rhodes â" whom he accused of dodging questions about Benghazi.

I find it amusing people focusing on an event which transpired over a few hours when absolutely no investigation or questions were raised about the two DAY refusal by the Bush administration to send in more troops to block the escape of Bin Laden.

For those that don't know, officers on the ground, both U.S. and British, made repeated requests over a two day period to have more troops dropped in to block escape routes for Bin Laden when they had him pinned down in Tora Bora. They could hear him over the radio telling his people the end looked near and he had failed them. According to one British source, they estimated the troops were within 2 kilometers of Bin Laden.

However, for those two days the Bush administration refused all requests for more troops, claiming the Afghan forces could be used instead of allied troops (which was a complete failure). As a result, Bin Laden ran free for another decade until the Obama administration was able to track him down.

Funny how not one person ever jumped up and said, "We need to investigate why Bin Laden, the man who planned the worst terrorist attack on American soil, was allowed to escape!", yet people are hellbent on talking about mistakes made over a few hours which somehow ranks higher in importance.

--
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
1. Re:Speaking of dodging questions. . . by FriendlyLurker · 2013-10-23 02:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  How can you have a "war on terror" if you quickly take out the high profile leader of your worst enemy? That was one long decade of profits that they bought themselves...
2. Re:Speaking of dodging questions. . . by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-23 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Well then, I guess that makes the Benghazi debacle okay.
3. Re:Speaking of dodging questions. . . by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-23 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  So you're saying the Magic Liberals in charge need not be held accountable or even answer questions because...BUSH!! It's the new moral wand of magicness. BUSH on you! be gone.
4. Re:Speaking of dodging questions. . . by smooth+wombat · 2013-10-23 02:46 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The only Congressional report on the events is this one which occurred in 2009, 8 years after the event.
  
  Unlike Benghazi, there was no drumbeat, from any source, on how Bin Laden was allowed to escape, no daily update from Fox on how the most wanted criminal in modern times was allowed to escape, no daily demands for Congressional hearings on the matter. None.
  
  There are no rose colored glasses on this event. There were no investigations, no cries of indignation or threats of impeachment. Instead, there was silence and when pressed, Bush refused to answer any questions. The same way he did when pressed to turn over documents on the 9/11 attack.
  
  You do know Bush turned over 1, ONE, document for the entire 9/11 Commission report. Both he and Cheney refused to appear before any Congressional hearing or provide information to any Congressional member without a lawyer being present and with no documentation of what took place.
  
  Imagine if this administration had done the same thing over Benghazi. The South most certainly would have risen, and the lynchings would have been fierce.
  
  --
  We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
malarchy...thats nothin. by nimbius · 2013-10-23 02:19 · Score: 1

Back in my day we'd track down and SHOOT the bastard ourselves.

-D Cheney

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
1. Re:malarchy...thats nothin. by idontgno · 2013-10-23 02:32 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Back in my day we'd track down, invite them to a duck-hunting outing, and SHOOT the bastard ourselves.
  FTFY.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
2. Re:malarchy...thats nothin. by freeze128 · 2013-10-23 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  ... in the FACE!
Chips by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-23 02:22 · Score: 1

Chips don't just fall where they may anymore. If there's a chip spinning on the ground in an uncertain way, you can bet someone with an agenda set it in motion.
The problem with wanting to rule the world is that everybody wants to rule the world.. and that is just not logistically possible.
Penny Arcade by dcollins · 2013-10-23 02:26 · Score: 3, Funny

It does lend credence to John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/

--
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Re:No worries by Chrisq · 2013-10-23 02:29 · Score: 2

He's not the only one: Tweet wishing children die of 'incurable diseases' leads to Democrat's resignation
Republicans call for Rep. Ryan Winkler to resign following "Uncle Thomas" tweet
but it's both parties:
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/gop_campaign_manager_resigns_after_fake_hurricane_sandy_tweets_20121031
He got fired, not imprisoned by sl4shd0rk · 2013-10-23 02:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

Dunno about you, but if I were to make comments like that where I work, I expect the boss to say something like 'I see you're really unhappy here, so why don't you take this box and clean out your desk'. Why is this a big deal? It's not like he got jail time out of it.

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
1. Re:He got fired, not imprisoned by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-23 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  It's more of the fact that the White House spent the time to track him down at all. They obviously knew it was someone close to them, but what risk did he pose, why did they need to spend the time to track him down?
2. Re:He got fired, not imprisoned by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-23 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  I think the point is that the Administration felt it was worth their time to figure out WHO this random twit (twitterer) was. Why did they feel it was worth their time to investigate the identity of this random griper. How many random gripers did they need to identify before they found one they could hurt (legally).
3. Re:He got fired, not imprisoned by KevReedUK · 2013-10-24 14:58 · Score: 1
  
  In the course of their investigations, officials told Joseph they suspected he was responsible for a second anonymous Twitter account, @dchobbyist, which included tweets that are more racy about sexual encounters, escort services – and the inner workings of the State Department.
  
  “Wow, you look amazingly sexy in this photo!” @dchobbyist posted on Oct. 5.
  
  “That was him,” a person briefed on the probe told POLITICO.
  Emphasis mine...
  
  Methinks this might have been the answer to the question "what risk did he pose"...
  
  Even if he wasn't responsible for @dchobbyist, their investigation of him in connection may have highlighted his identity as @natsecwonk, causing the focus of their investigation to move from "who is @dchobbyist?" (an investigation that perhaps was higher priority due to perceived security risk, but to which they have not announced any final conclusion), to "who is @natsecwonk?" (possibly not originally being investigated as it's more of a political risk than a security risk, but to which they now had the evidence for what they saw as a relatively quick and easy media coup). It would be interesting to see if they ever do announce the identity of @dchobbyist...?
  
  --
  Just my $0.03 (At current exchange rates, my £0.02 is worth more than your $0.02)
Everyone loses when we vote Repiblicrat by Cajun+Hell · 2013-10-23 02:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

While firing the unprofessional jerk after he was outed is perfectly defensible (I have no problem with it at all), the government did get caught working against America's interests again:

The website Politico said White House officials had worked over months to discover the identity of Mr Joseph - a key member of the team negotiating over Iran's nuclear programme.

It said his travel and shopping habits had been profiled by parsing over 2,000 tweets.
Why THE FUCK was the government spending time investigating this? And why the fuck is this not a big secret?
The BushBama whitehouse is seriously confused about what the country needs from its government, and over the last 12 years they have just gotten repeatedly more brazen and open about it. Is it simply that really, nobody cares?
I pay taxes in order for you to funnel them to obscurely-overbilling contractors for substandard work, so that they can then divert a portion of their obscene profits to the re-election campaigns of the people in congress and administration, who make the funneling happen. That is why we have government: to give crooks a non-violent outlet for their greed and need to victimize society. A few billion dollars here, a few billion dollars there .. we have a strong economy and can sustain that.
But I don't pay taxes for you people to spend it tracking tweets. That's not what government is for! All these crooks need to get out of the surveillance game and back into mainstream profitable corruption. And we voters should insist upon it. Please, everyone: stop voting Republicrat.

--
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
1. Re:Everyone loses when we vote Repiblicrat by Cajun+Hell · 2013-10-24 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  Lol. You got in line and voted for Obama like everyone else here.
  Like hell I did, you libelous snake.
  By 2008 I was old enough to have remembered the last Democrat president, who signed CALEA, DMCA, etc instead of vetoing them like any honest person would do. I fucking hate Democrats and think every one of them ought to burned at the stake. I just think they are decent, civic-minded, sensible, good conservative people, compared to Republicans. But I wouldn't want my daughter to date one, and I sure as hell never vote for a Democrat whenever there's another party on the ballot.
  And for presidential elections, there are always plenty of relatively good candidates on the ballot.
  Shame about Congress, though. If I lived in Illinois, then yeah, I might have voted for Obama in 2004. But I don't live there, so of course I've never voted for him.
  
  --
  "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Obama Administration Shill Alert by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-23 02:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Any time Benghazi comes up, it's imperative for shills to employee "but-but-but-Bush!"
Priorities by Mr+D+from+63 · 2013-10-23 02:58 · Score: 2

You can tell what the priorities of the Obama administration are by who they hold accountable. People can die in Benghazi, give guns to Mexican drug lords, abuse the powers of the IRS, but when it comes to tweeting, somebody has to go down.
Ships by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-10-23 03:34 · Score: 1

> "'Was Huma Abedin wearing beer goggles the night she met Anthony Weiner,' he tweeted"
Good question. I assume they were both building their political careers. Easy for him to fall in love with her, but her? His level is more Honey Boo Boo's mom.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Why is Hillary above criticism? Gov cover up? by walterbyrd · 2013-10-23 03:40 · Score: 1

I think his remarks about are probably accurate.
This is nothing but censorship. The government does not want us tax paying peons to know the truth about our exalted leaders.
So... by acoustix · 2013-10-23 03:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

We fire a guy for insulting tweets, but....
- We don't fire people for the Fast & Furious illegal gun running op.
- We don't fire people for the IRS scandal.
- We don't fire for the lies to the public regarding Benghazi
- We don't fire for the absolute disaster that is the Obamacare implementation
It's nice to see that our priorities are in order. It's also obvious that this administration is extremely thin skinned and cannot take any amount of criticism. They view their political enemies as a first priority and everything else be dammed.

--
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
1. Re:So... by geek · 2013-10-23 09:16 · Score: 2
  
  We fire a guy for insulting tweets, but....
  - We don't fire people for the Fast & Furious illegal gun running op.
  - We don't fire people for the IRS scandal.
  - We don't fire for the lies to the public regarding Benghazi
  - We don't fire for the absolute disaster that is the Obamacare implementation
  It's nice to see that our priorities are in order. It's also obvious that this administration is extremely thin skinned and cannot take any amount of criticism. They view their political enemies as a first priority and everything else be dammed.
  Those are called resume enhancers to Democrats. The more they fuck up the higher up the chain they go. Liberals protect their own at all costs with the help of their liberal media cronies.
Our tax dollars at work! by thestallion · 2013-10-23 04:39 · Score: 1

I for one find it infuriating that they can't balance the budget and must either raise taxes or cut spending simply because pointless expenditures like this apparently take precedence.
And sadly probably half the population is not the least bit upset, instead just thinking "good job guys! serves him right, that no-good trash-talking tweeter!"
Thank goodness they tracked down this awful threat by Mike+Van+Pelt · 2013-10-23 06:34 · Score: 1

No matter how many millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours must be diverted from inconsequential terrorist threats, perpetrators of this sort of lèse-majesté and thoughtcrime must be stampped out.
Dude is sorry he got caught! by Nyder · 2013-10-23 07:27 · Score: 1

What a wanker. You posted them, don't apologize. Say, "Fuck ya, I posted those. You like?"
Because I thought they were great myself. Sorry you lost a job, but in reality, you are better off.

--
Be seeing you...
Attention sheep: by Rob_Bryerton · 2013-10-23 09:08 · Score: 1

Attention sheep:

The truth is offensive.
Lying is Truth.
Consume.
Conform.
In New York this might even be a crime by Quixote34 · 2013-10-23 09:40 · Score: 1

Let's not forget that, in New York, this kind of pseudonymous online conduct is considered a "crime of deceit and provocation" that the Internet authorities can prosecute to the full extent of the law. See the documentation of one current case involving sock puppets and criminally deadpan "satire" at: http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/ and see how the NY Attorney General opened a fake yogurt shop in Brooklyn to get some of those scoundrels posting fake comments on Yelp: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24218139 (Let's hope they go after every single fake "best chiropractor" and "best probiotic" on Amazon too. This is a potential source of billions of dollars in fines.) It would not, of course, be surprising to see rampant criminal deceit and provocation even at the highest level of government, but we should at least be clear that if you use "sock puppets" or engage in "astroturfing" or send out deadpan "confessions" in someone else's name, at least in New York (a model in this respect for the entire country and especially for Washington), you are presumed to be a criminal. This latest incident should be thoroughly investigated at once by the appropriate Internet law enforcement authorities and the perpetrator, assuming he "crossed the line," should be brought to justice.
Re:There are a hundred governments by Grishnakh · 2013-10-23 09:47 · Score: 1

With this moronic logic, you probably don't think your local utility monopoly is a monopoly.
So what did it cost to find him? by godel_56 · 2013-10-23 10:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

From TFA:
"After a probe that included an investigation into Joseph’s travel and shopping patterns – parsed from over 2,000 tweets - lawyers from the White House counsel’s office confronted Joseph and ordered him to leave the executive complex, according to two sources familiar with the situation."
There's your tax dollars at work. Money well spent, I'd say. /sarcasm.
Re:There are a hundred governments by Obfuscant · 2013-10-23 11:34 · Score: 1

With this moronic logic, you probably don't think your local utility monopoly is a monopoly.
Well, when it comes to "employment", my local utility isn't a monopoly. Lots of people work other places. Only when it comes to the product the utility provides to the public is it a monopoly provider.
But then you've just pointed out the failure of your claim that the US government is a monopoly. It isn't a monopoly on employment to start with, and there are all kinds of other "governments" within the US if you really want to claim that "government employment" is a specific product the government provides to the customers. State, local, regional ... all are government employers.
No, the claim that the "government is a monopoly" in this context is a clear sign that you are one of the people who thinks everything good and nice is supposed to be provided by the government to the citizens. The truth is the government has no monopoly on employment, not even employment of "policy wonks".