Monday, June 30
He hid his name....and they tried him in court????
I'm not so sure about this one; he applied for a job as a security guard at Andrews Air Force Base in Clinton, MD and in filling out the application, when he got to the part where it says "Have you ever been known by any other names?" he said no. He claimed that he thought it applied to a woman's maiden name. (Yeah right!) He is a Muslim, and does have a Muslim name, but the prosecution claimed that he just didn't want to be connected to an imam from SE Washington who has made inflammatory remarks about the US Government. Whatever his reason, I cannot believe they actually used taxpayer funds to try him in court! I can understand that what he did is wrong; he was charged with falsifying or omitting information from his application, but how many of us have done that and at most, when our 'crime' was discovered, we were terminated; we were not taken to jail and then tried in court. A 2005 background check; 3 years ago. 2 trials, because the first one ended in a hung jury. What was it they couldn't decide? Whether or not he omitted the name, whether he did it purposely or not, or why he omitted it? And how did they find out he had another name and what it was, how did that come up? Just seems like kind of a weird thing, unless they were doing some further background checking, in which case he shouldn't have been already hired. They put this man through training and everything and then come back and tell him "Well, we missed this the first time, we're going to have to fire you now." Of course, that's not their fault, he DID lie, plain and simple; but then, if this country wasn't so bigoted about Muslims and Arabs maybe he wouldn't have felt like he had to in order to get the job. So confusing.....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
My feelings towards this are similar to my feelings about the Clinton impeachment.
In the case of Clinton, the whole investigation was warrantless. President Clinton getting blown by an intern was inappropriate, but didn't rise to the level of criminal. But then the idiot had to lie under oath. Perjury, even for something inane, is illegal and subject to prosecution.
Likewise, it is wrong that we have created an environment where simply being Muslim or of Middle Eastern heritage is met with such suspicion and hostility. As a lesbian, I can empathize.
However, when you sign your name to a document, particularly a government security document, attesting at the risk of perjury that all information is complete and correct to the best of your knowledge, that's a serious matter.
It is equivalent to lying under oath as a witness in a criminal trial so as to avoid undue suspicion. Understandable, sure, but illegal nevertheless.
Does the government have a right to know the complete background of someone they are hiring for a security guard at a military base? Even as a champion for civil rights, I have to say yes.
You've got a valid point Dharma; he did sign his name, and I'm sure there was a blurb about "this is true to the best of my knowledge"; I guess that's why I said I'm not so sure about this one. On the one hand, I agree with you, the government has a right to know who they're hiring to protect their air bases, but on the other hand I keep thinking this wasn't a terrorist who lied about his name to hide criminal activity. He simply didn't tell them about a name he'd used because he didn't want to be connected to and misjudged on the basis of someone else. Then too I think about all that money spent to try him...I guess in these days of post 9/11 though, they really can't afford to be sympathetic, they have to go by the law.
Post a Comment