|
|
Post by JP5 on Aug 24, 2013 23:42:40 GMT
.......and the Department of Homeland Security, no less. You simply cannot make this kind of stuff up. Almost unbelievable. The Department of Homeland Security said Friday that an employee who runs a racist website predicting and advocating a race war has been put on paid administrative leave. Ayo Kimathi, an acquisitions officer for Immigration and Customs Enforcement who is in charge of buying weapons and ammunition for the government, operates the website named "War on the Horizon." It includes descriptions of an "unavoidable, inevitable clash with the white race." Kimathi is black. Kimathi, who calls himself the "Irritated Genie," told his supervisors that the website was set up to sell concert and lecture videos. Kimathi has been with the department since 2009. His website criticizes whites, gays, those of mixed race, and blacks who integrate with whites. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups, earlier this week reported on Kimathi's role in running the site. The report showed the site's content strayed far beyond concert promotion, warning about a coming race war. The website declares, “in order for Black people to survive the 21st century, we are going to have to kill a lot of whites – more than our Christian hearts can possibly count,” the Alabama-based SPLC said in its report. One of Kimathi’s former supervisors at DHS told SPLC’s Hatewatch that, "Everybody is the office is afraid of him,” and that his co-workers are “afraid he will come in with a gun and someday go postal." Read more: www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/24/dhs-employee-behind-website-promoting-race-war-on-paid-leave/?test=latestnews#ixzz2cvohfkIK |
|
|
|
Post by 12th on Aug 25, 2013 3:28:17 GMT
I honestly had to look to be sure this wasn't something from the Onion. waronthehorizon.com/site/ is real though. Paid leave will just give him more time to spend on his website. Sheesh. What does a govt employee have to do to get fired these days? |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Aug 25, 2013 6:18:48 GMT
I honestly had to look to be sure this wasn't something from the Onion. waronthehorizon.com/site/ is real though. Paid leave will just give him more time to spend on his website. Sheesh. What does a govt employee have to do to get fired these days? Probably say something bad about Obama.....OR maybe start a conservative PAC?  |
|
|
|
Post by cenydd on Aug 25, 2013 9:03:56 GMT
He's clearly a nut, very possibly a dangerous one, and I would think going to be sacked as soon as the allegations are confirmed (and I've never seen anybody claim that there are no black racist lunatics, just as there are white racist lunatics). However, 'paid administrative leave' sounds to me like 'suspended with pay' (which is what it says in the Daily Mail report, for example). It could also at this stage be officially what is sometimes unofficially referred to as 'gardening leave' elsewhere - in other words, 'get out now this instant, and we'll deal with issuing it as a formal 'suspension' once you're gone, because that paperwork takes longer'. Either way I would think would be standard procedure for anyone who is undergoing investigation to find the evidence to sack them from a job with a government department (or many other large employers who want to avoid being accused of, or sued for, unfairness through an arbitrary, on-the-spot sacking). There's nothing wrong with that - sacking on the spot (or suspending without pay) could leave them open to all kinds of legal action if the allegations later prove to be false, so they send them home, do the investigation, and then sack them when they have evidence to do it - it's a pretty standard practise, and would probably apply to anyone in any government department (and many other large employers) accused of anything that would be likely to be seen as a sacking offence. |
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Aug 25, 2013 16:56:35 GMT
Well, we'll see. I will be following the case to see just what this administration does about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by 12th on Aug 25, 2013 21:17:35 GMT
Firing someone is not easy unless they actually broke the law. Depending on what they have in their employee handbook, he can sue them for unlawful termination.
|
|
|
|
Post by cenydd on Aug 26, 2013 10:45:21 GMT
Firing someone is not easy unless they actually broke the law. Depending on what they have in their employee handbook, he can sue them for unlawful termination. I would think that there would be something in the contract along the lines of 'bringing the organisation into disrepute' that will allow them to sack him on the basis of these allegations, should they prove to be supported by sufficient evidence after an investigation. I doubt he will need to have actually broken the law. |
|
|
|
Post by 12th on Aug 26, 2013 16:06:19 GMT
I don't think that would work. You are trying to use logic again. That never works in the federal govt. I didn't see if he used his real name and told of his employer on his website. I would not be surprised if they have to pay him off. To tell you the truth, it wouldn't surprise me if they kept him! |
|
newsman
Scribe
Posts: 37 
Politics: Independent
|
Post by newsman on Aug 26, 2013 16:07:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by 12th on Aug 26, 2013 16:25:03 GMT
Not exactly a good comparison. Kessler has been temporarily removed from office. His borough only has about 700 people. If that's who they want, it's none of my business. Kimathi, otoh, wants a race war and buys weapons and ammo for the federal govt. |
|
newsman
Scribe
Posts: 37
Politics: Independent
|
Post by newsman on Aug 26, 2013 18:15:18 GMT
Not exactly a good comparison. Kessler has been temporarily removed from office. His borough only has about 700 people. If that's who they want, it's none of my business. Kimathi, otoh, wants a race war and buys weapons and ammo for the federal govt. It is an apt comparison. They are both public employees who have crazy ideas about inciting violence against different groups of people. Also Kessler only got a 30 day unpaid suspension. He was not removed from office. |
|
|
|
Post by 12th on Aug 26, 2013 18:18:36 GMT
Not exactly a good comparison. Kessler has been temporarily removed from office. His borough only has about 700 people. If that's who they want, it's none of my business. Kimathi, otoh, wants a race war and buys weapons and ammo for the federal govt. It is an apt comparison. They are both public employees who have crazy ideas about inciting violence against different groups of people. Also Kessler only got a 30 day unpaid suspension. He was not removed from office. Kessler is a public employee for 700 people. It's their business. What 700 people do is not a precedent for the federal govt to follow. |
|
newsman
Scribe
Posts: 37
Politics: Independent
|
Post by newsman on Aug 26, 2013 18:31:59 GMT
It is an apt comparison. They are both public employees who have crazy ideas about inciting violence against different groups of people. Also Kessler only got a 30 day unpaid suspension. He was not removed from office. Kessler is a public employee for 700 people. It's their business. What 700 people do is not a precedent for the federal govt to follow. The size of the constituency is of little difference. The behavior of public servants is what matters. Anyone in the private sector who did what either of those two did would have been fired immediately. www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/01/pennsylvania-police-chief-suspended-over-profanity-laced-anti-liberal-gun-videos/ |
|
|
|
Post by 12th on Aug 26, 2013 19:26:52 GMT
I watched two videos of Mark Kessler. Perhaps you know of others? Neither of these two "suggested and armed rebellion against the govt". He did say, "come and take it".
You do realize that we are not British subjects, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by cenydd on Aug 26, 2013 21:29:08 GMT
I've just had a look at the Kessler stuff - it wasn't something I was aware of. While I do certainly fully support the principles of free speech, there is no doubt in my mind that he should also be sacked (as should Kimathi, assuming that the allegations are true - obviously there's no possible doubt in the case of Kessler) for something along the lines of 'conduct unbecoming a serving police officer'. Any normal citizen should have the right to say pretty much what they like in public (although inciting violence is not something that I think is appropriate), but a serving police officer is not a 'normal citizen', and should not be making public political statements in that way (regardless of what they are) in my opinion. Police officers shouldn't be using their office as a platform for their own political soap-boxing in that way - they can believe whatever they like, of course, but in public they should uphold the standards of their office and act in an appropriate and respectful manner at all times, and he certainly did not do that. Police officers are there to uphold the law, and therefore shouldn't ever be seen to be making personal public statements suggesting resistance to possible laws. Not ever - if they feel that so strongly opposed to a particular law that they cannot enforce it, they should obviously resign (and can then make whatever statements they want against it), but they should not enter the public political arena suggesting that a possible law should be resisted, or that he would resits a particular law. That is behaviour not appropriate to the office of a serving police officer. He should be sacked, not for believing what he believes, but for making the public statements that he did in the way that he did.
|
|
