Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 07-14-2018, 03:05 PM
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 28,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
Should there be laws for the FBI and law enforcement from making political statements of anger via emails or texts or not?

No, but I do think that political neutrality should be part of their contract of employment. So they are free to speak, but speaking should ordinarily cost them their jobs. Edge cases like whistleblowers will, of course, apply.
  #52  
Old 07-14-2018, 03:12 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 23,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
No, but I do think that political neutrality should be part of their contract of employment. So they are free to speak, but speaking should ordinarily cost them their jobs. Edge cases like whistleblowers will, of course, apply.
This is a horrible precedent for an imaginary problem. So much for the First Amendment.

Last edited by Ravenman; 07-14-2018 at 03:14 PM.
  #53  
Old 07-14-2018, 03:29 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 29,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
No, but I do think that political neutrality should be part of their contract of employment. So they are free to speak, but speaking should ordinarily cost them their jobs. Edge cases like whistleblowers will, of course, apply.
Part of their employment already includes not speaking publicly about politics (which is why he was removed from the case once his texts became public). Do you really believe they shouldn't be allowed to speak at all -- including in private?
  #54  
Old 07-14-2018, 03:34 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 19,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver lining View Post
I'm saying those conducting an investigation should not state their political opinions against someone with an ax to grind with co workers or other officials.
Clearly these people have opinions. Everyone does. They are American citizens and can (and do) vote. They have as much right to their political opinion as you do.

They bring that to work with them. Same as you do. There is no way around it.

It seems your complaint is that they should not discuss their opinions with anyone. Better to keep their bias hidden. If Peter Strzok had simply not talked to his mistress then no problem right?

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 07-14-2018 at 03:35 PM.
  #55  
Old 07-14-2018, 03:40 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 8,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Anyone here proud of Gowdy's performance yesterday?
I was proud of the blind squirrel that was trained to do his hair.

I mean, it's a pretty terrible 'do, but impressive work with those little paws.
  #56  
Old 07-14-2018, 04:11 PM
Aspenglow Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Clearly these people have opinions. Everyone does. They are American citizens and can (and do) vote. They have as much right to their political opinion as you do.

They bring that to work with them. Same as you do. There is no way around it.

It seems your complaint is that they should not discuss their opinions with anyone. Better to keep their bias hidden. If Peter Strzok had simply not talked to his mistress then no problem right?
Actually, most of them don't. They leave them home. This is drilled into every civil servant from the moment they swear their oath. Every LEO, lawyer, judge, lowly "deep state" clerk like yours truly understands this. We all have our opinions, but we are not permitted to let them influence the work we do.

I'm an atheist. But every single day I went to work as a judge's assistant, I was required to administer oaths to witnesses, jurors and interpreters that included the words, "so help you God." I would have been rightfully fired had I refused to utter these words based on my personal opinions/beliefs.

I am a liberal. Most of the judges I worked for were conservatives. We would often spar over whatever political issues were topical in the privacy of the judges' chambers. But we left those biases at the door when we entered the courtroom -- as did the bailiffs, court reporters, prosecutors, public defenders and everyone else involved in the justice system. That's the job. My goodness, however did we all manage to process justice for all those many years without purity tests to determine whether we brought our personal biases into our work?

Similarly, Peter Strzok went to work every single day and put his personal beliefs aside to do his job. There are safeguards in place to ensure that if his personal beliefs bled into his work, the bias would be ameliorated. He made this point clearly at the (sham) hearing. He also made the very important point that he was fired due to the appearance of bias -- not that any bias entered the work he had done as an FBI agent. And let's remember, FBI agents are very biased against criminals. Strzok's strong opinions about Trump appear to be motivated by his belief that a criminal might assume the presidency -- not by the fact that Trump ran as a Republican.

Peter Strzok's mistakes were not that he had personal opinions, or even that he expressed them in his private life. His mistakes were to use a work phone to communicate those opinions and assuming he had any expectation of privacy on that phone. Mueller immediately remedied the situation when Strzok's carelessness was discovered, by removing him from the investigation. It was the right decision, and even Strzok does not disagree.

k9bfriender, Gowdy's hair don'ts never disappoint, do they?
  #57  
Old 07-14-2018, 04:17 PM
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 5,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
No, but I do think that political neutrality should be part of their contract of employment. So they are free to speak, but speaking should ordinarily cost them their jobs. Edge cases like whistleblowers will, of course, apply.
But why should private comments cost them their jobs? I can see Mueller's logic in taking him off the case - that was the responsible decision to make. But fired for having a private opinion or making a private comment is dumb.
  #58  
Old 07-14-2018, 05:03 PM
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 28,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
This is a horrible precedent for an imaginary problem. So much for the First Amendment.
I disagree and I speak from experience. If you are a member of a government agency - local government in my case - you need to be able to work with politicians of all hues. They need to be able to trust you. Therefore you must remain politically neutral. If you stray from neutrality you are forever tainted.

As for the First Amendment, nothing is stopping you from speaking, but you have the responsibility of shouldering the consequences.

Last edited by Quartz; 07-14-2018 at 05:04 PM.
  #59  
Old 07-14-2018, 05:05 PM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
I disagree and I speak from experience. If you are a member of a government agency - local government in my case - you need to be able to work with politicians of all hues. They need to be able to trust you. Therefore you must remain politically neutral. If you stray from neutrality you are forever tainted.
I doubt there as many people in the United States with any clue about politics who have no opinion about whether Trump or Clinton would make a better president as we would need to staff all the federal agencies. Because we would need more than zero people.
  #60  
Old 07-14-2018, 05:17 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 29,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
I disagree and I speak from experience. If you are a member of a government agency - local government in my case - you need to be able to work with politicians of all hues. They need to be able to trust you. Therefore you must remain politically neutral. If you stray from neutrality you are forever tainted.
This is already required by the FBI and other governmental organizations. It's ludicrous to suggest that they not be allowed in their private lives to talk about politics.
  #61  
Old 07-14-2018, 05:42 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 23,605
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
I disagree and I speak from experience. If you are a member of a government agency - local government in my case - you need to be able to work with politicians of all hues. They need to be able to trust you. Therefore you must remain politically neutral. If you stray from neutrality you are forever tainted.

As for the First Amendment, nothing is stopping you from speaking, but you have the responsibility of shouldering the consequences.
I have extensive experience with the Federal government and also work with both parties (and those with no parties). The idea that the people I work with are without political opinions because we donít really talk about them during the workday is just... dumb.

The test I believe that people apply is whether oneís political opinions unfairly influence the job you are doing. And many times, when the political affiliations are well-known, doing a fair job for both sides is something that is frequently commended in DC.

Except in this case, where Republicans are demanding that someone do a job that is expected to result preconceived conclusion (Trump never did anything ever, witch hunt) and is using statements made outline of ones line of duty to disparage an investigator.

Itís totally fair that this investigator be removed in this case for the appearance of bias - even though an independent watchdog cleared him of bias in his work. But that does not mean that every civil servant must be prohibited from having political discussions outside of their official duties in all situations. Thatís a sign of totalitarianism.
  #62  
Old 07-14-2018, 08:48 PM
simster simster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,600
Its funny that we worry about people political leanings - but the OP says nothing about the religious leanings interfering.

(to wit, Pence, a county clerk in Ky, etc).
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017