July 10, 2013

Delightfully Chinese

By Mike

The first step of Recovery is admitting you have a problem.

But you have to admit it AS a problem… when do we as a country decide it IS a problem?

“Federal employees and contractors are asked to pay particular attention to the lifestyles, attitudes and behaviors – like financial troubles, odd working hours or unexplained travel – of co-workers as a way to predict whether they might do “harm to the United States.””- McClatchy Washington Bureau

The Full article is here.

But what strikes me from this article is the push to create greater penalties for those who fail to report certain behaviors exhibited by their government co-workers. Behavior monitoring is not the job of your typical Government Bureaucrat… but it will be now.

So why is that a problem?

It has long been the practice of Communist Countries, like China, to employ watchers who watch the watchers… spy on spy so to speak. It is needed there because Socialist forms of Government are built, and sustained, on the theory that oppression is needed and force is required. It is not designed to be an environment where the individual feels secure, so that Ultimate Minority of the Individual must always be watched… and the watcher must be watched, etc. etc. Oppression is the only thing Communists do well. And consistently.

It has also been the perceived practice of the United States that we do not need to do this because the benefits of being Free were self-evident and our security didn’t require multilayered paranoia built into the system. This approach has been extremely successful for us by any measure. At least in the sense of maintaining Individual Liberty.

All I can say is this must have recently changed.

“That is why the awareness effort of the program is to teach people not only what types of activity to report, but how to report it and why it is so important to report it.”- McClatchy Washington Bureau

The next step is political officers in your unit and block and precinct captains in your neighborhood. Just so you know who to go to if you become “confused” about what you can do without “asking”.

Is this what we want? Well… you’re getting it.

Could the real problem be more obvious?

“The U.S. government is one of the world’s largest employers, overseeing an ever-expanding ocean of information.” – McClatchy Washington Bureau

About Mike

Background is in Media with a little History Major thrown in just to be annoying. View all posts by Mike

This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 10th, 2013 at 9:45 am and tagged with China, CIA, communists, DHS, DIA, FBI, Federal Workers to spy on eachother, force, freedom, liberty, NSA, oppression, Progressives, snowden, socialists, TSA and posted in News, politics, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

9 responses to “Delightfully Chinese”

thirdnews
July 10th, 2013 at 11:12 am

The Federal Tort Claims Act (aka, FTCA)

LikeLike

Reply
- Mike
  July 10th, 2013 at 11:25 am
  
  The Federally Supported Health Centers Assistance Act of 1992 and 1995 granted medical malpractice liability protection through the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) to HRSA-supported health centers. Under the Act, health centers are considered Federal employees and are immune from lawsuits, with the Federal government acting as their primary insurer.
  
  A precedent?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - thirdnews
    July 10th, 2013 at 12:00 pm
    
    Sweet boy, there is a thing call lawyers and like STDs, they find a way….
    Google The Federal Tort Claims Act (aka, FTCA) exceptions
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    - Mike
      July 10th, 2013 at 12:20 pm
      
      Still not sure I get it… but that’s why I’m not a lawyer.
      
      Furthermore, the FTCA is limited by a number of exceptions pursuant to which the government is not subject to suit, even if a private employer could be liable under the same circumstances. These exceptions include the discretionary function exception, which bars a claim ‘based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.’ 28 U.S.C. S 2680(a).
      
      In order to determine whether conduct falls within the discretionary function exception, the courts must apply a two-part test established in Berkovitz v. U.S., 486 U.S. 531, 536 (’88). See Kennewick Irrigation Dist. v. U.S., 880 F.2d 1018, 1025 (9th Cir.’89). First, the question must be asked whether the conduct involved ‘an element of judgment or choice.’ U.S. v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 322 (’91) (quotation omitted). This requirement is not satisfied if a ‘federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow.’ Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 536. Once the element of judgment is established, the next inquiry must be ‘whether that judgment is of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield’ in that it involves considerations of ‘social, economic, and political policy.’ Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 322-23.
      
      Absent specific statutes or regulations, where the particular conduct is discretionary, the failure of the government properly to train its employees who engage in that conduct is also discretionary. See, e.g., Flynn v. U.S., 902 F.2d 1524 (10th Cir.’90) (failure of National Park Service to train its employees as to proper use of emergency equipment was discretionary).
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      - thirdnews
        July 10th, 2013 at 12:43 pm
        
        Simple language:
        
        Although the limitations and exceptions are too numerous to review in this article, here are some general guidelines regarding the limitations on FTCA claims:
        
        Only federal employees can be sued under the FTCA, not independent contractors hired by the federal government (unless they are treated like employees).
        The negligent or wrongful conduct must have been done within the scope of the defendant’s employment.
        In general, only claims of negligence — as opposed to intentional misconduct — are allowed (though some claims for intentional misconduct can be brought against certain federal law enforcement officers).
        The claim must be based on — and permitted by — the law of the state in which the misconduct occurred.
        
        Despite these and numerous other limitations on FTCA lawsuits, the federal government still pays out millions of dollars each year to compensate FTCA claims. So if you think you may have a valid claim, it may be worth pursuing.
        
        http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/suing-government-negligence-FTCA-29705.html
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
thirdnews
July 10th, 2013 at 10:49 am

Spying -and that is what this is- has never worked in catching saboteurs but I do think it will be interesting when the lawsuits fly over suicides? Divorces? Who knows where this Orwellian tactic will lead?

I hope people can live with the perniciousness of a mandatory government gossiping program

LikeLike

Reply
- Mike
  July 10th, 2013 at 10:53 am
  
  Can’t sue the Government… and they enjoy it.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  - thirdnews
    July 10th, 2013 at 11:10 am
    
    Coles v. Harvey, D.D.C. Civil Action No. 06-223 (RMC), 1/11/07
    http://www.fedsmith.com/2007/01/17/contractor-employee-sues-federal-agency-harassmentand/
    
    I believe it is made difficult but not impossible
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    - Mike
      July 10th, 2013 at 11:24 am
      
      The Army might see some hope in this from the court: “Defendant is free to raise its lack of jurisdiction argument again after a more complete factual record has been developed through discovery.”
      
      Interesting…
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply