Paparazzi descend on LANL
America won the long struggles against totalitarianism. It defeated the Nazis and the Communists.
In boredom, it created a police state at home.
[ BTW where's the LANL feed? ]
Apparently there are documents showing that LANL government resources will be expended to photograph the faces of personnel attending a private memorial service.
We would hope that copies of these documents might be forwarded to the media or other interested legal counsel for purposes of preparing an investigation and discovery plan for potential litigation.
There are many strategies to discredit reasonable concerns. Recall, the definition of "paranoia" is an irrational fear. We've seen LANL management abuse the employees. It's reasonable to presume more. Indeed, one psychological warfare technique is to accuse the target of paranoia. If you would like to read more about false accusation of paranoia read the case of Diane Kleiman, former special agent with DHS.
The burden of proof rests with LANL management.
A disturbing LANL culture
Yet, we should not be surprised. LANL under Nanos turned into quite the cess pool of accusations, innuendo.
When all was said and done, there was no disk. Todd was fired without just cause.
Yet, the already-planned photography is disturbing. This seems reminiscent of the McCarthy-era Denver Spy Files case. Security personnel do have fake IDs used for counter intelligence.
Congress has an interest
There have been several questions raised. Yet curiously, when DoE or other government agencies are asked to explain themselves, the response is, "We can't talk about that" or "That's sensitive."
Let us ask this again:
Two realities cannot exist at the same time.
Either the event is public and the government needs to explain why it is interested; or the event is not public and the government has no business being there, taking photographs, or issuing workorders.
One or the other. Not both.
What line of non-sense will LANL management give to suggest that they alone live in a quantum world: Where they can claim an interested in a private matter; but then are above the public scrutiny for now demonstrating that interest?
Yet, it is disturbing, that as a potential government "solution" to this matter, the following have been raised:
This is absurd. Again, the government is the one that is issuing the workorder. Why would the government [that shows no interested in Todd until his death] have any say in a private matter?
Yet, we turn to a more disturbing line of questions. The potential that the media will be asked to take photographs and then turn that information over to law enforcement.
Surely, no one in law enforcement is hoping to create a disturbance in order to "justify" seizing cameras as evidence. It would be very disturbing if there were personnel from either LANL contractors who inject themselves into a private event to further disturb and disrupt Sara and the family.
It remains to be seen whether there is a cause of action for invasion of privacy for disclosing matters which are essentially private.
It is ironic that a man shunned by LANL management suddenly, in death, becomes "newsworthy."
However, what is curious is that LANL management has apparently issued a work order to have official government resources used to observe a private memorial service.
What seems curious is that LANL security seem very happy that Todd has passed; yet, suddenly management, through a photographer, wants to attend the funeral.
What is most ironic is that Todd was given nothing in return. Thus, there's no merit to the argument that this event warrants using government resources.
LANL Management should have spent the funds processing paperwork to reinstate Todd, not show up after the battle and shoot the wounded.
It remains to be seen whether the above proposed surveillance is part of a wider pattern of conduct which could bring a civil cause of action.
Regardless the potential civil action, let us simply recall how other photographs were used at Abu Ghraib.
This government has shown that it will collect photographs with the specific purpose of blackmailing people. Does the government plan to use the photographs to imply that they "know" that someone has been posting to the blog; and then turn around and say, "We won't rat you out if you cooperate."
I see no difference between taking photographs at Todd's memorial and the excuses for taking photographs of someone holding a leash on a prisoner's neck.
It is absurd to suggest, after this many months of ignoring Todd and doing nothing for him, that suddenly the government has an interest in the matter.
Congress needs to look into these matters:
A. Retaliating against witnesses; intimidating potential witnesses to unlawful conduct;
B. Dissuading personnel from speaking out about substantive issues of public policy; or
C. Dissuading witnesses and employees from sharing probative or factual information which may upset one of the contractor's chances of winning the LANL contract?
The government has no business being there. This is a private memorial.
The government lost an interested in the matter when it fired Todd. To suggest at this point the government need not respond asks that we embrace a double standard.
The Nanos Doppleganger continues to lurk.
Congratulations LANL management, you have successfully re-ignited the public interest into what could otherwise have been easily solved long ago.
A public act deserves public accountability. Explain yourselves.
Not to worry. You'll only feel slight discomfort.