willpolice4food

If the TSA or the FAMS has "moved on," why are they still prosecuting someone whose disclosures were valid and had Thomas D. Quinn's inane policies revised?

Obviously they have not "moved on" and still hold a grudge against those who drowned them in egg...

willpolice4food

This morning's story with a poll:

http://bit.ly/3qxm3S

bbc1969

Several good people were screwed with and were forced out/ and or moved on of their own accord during those years. Some of them have/are fighting what was unjust. But I don't see them in/using the media. They are doing what they need to do, but keeping a low profile. I also feel some folks who put on the public face of being the "hero", who was looking out for his fellow employee's and public interest, were not entirely genuine and were also interested in doing what they did because it served "their" purpose.

This of course is just my opinion. If the guy gets his job back-good for him. But when he gets back into the office, I think he will find that things are not perfect (with plenty of room to improve) but still much improved over the "Quinn years". The rank and file employee does want continued improvement on several issues, what they don't want is self serving "s**t stirring.

perezoso

There should be two kinds of government information: Classified and Unclassified. Information that is so damaging that its release would cause great harm can and should be classified. Just about everything else should be freely releasable. (The small exceptions being obvious things like personal financial or contact details, credit card numbers, etc.)

All of these b•llsh•t information designations that were born or flourished post-2001, like "SSI" and "FOUO" (for official use only), are arbitrary and should be clearly deemed legally meaningless.

So unless the dude spilled classified information, which clearly he did not, then the government has zero case against him.

willpolice4food

I think it is safe to say that both Maclean and the TSA want nothing more to do with each other. If he were to come back, the situation would obviously be an explosive one: He would be a walking target and/or TSA managers would be tip-toeing on egg shells around him constantly. Given the fact his face has been blasted around the planet -- other air marshals won't want to fly with him.

I doubt he will win in this joke of a venue (Merit Systems Protection Board), but if he does, he needs to go someplace that everyone is content with.

Reading the pleadings, it is apparent that even the official (Frank Donzanti) ordered to fire Maclean is having second thoughts. This case should have been settled years ago, but the Bush appointees in TSA headquarters -- who do not have to face the public and have jobs waiting at places like the Heritage Foundation or the Federalist Society -- stirred this "sh*t-pot" into a national debate, and dumped this mess on career employees forced to clean it. This case will give lawmakers and Obama reason to pass the new whistleblower protection bill that will overload our district courts. Everyone knows what happened when the EEO law got passed: Someone cries "discrimination" now and gets an instant settlement.

TSA has only itself to blame for this case going from a blip on a radar screen to forcing unneeded major legislation down our throats.

willpolice4food

DELETED due to being re-posted

willpolice4food

The TSA NEVER had a case against him. Like a poster wrote in the comments section: If Maclean had a jury of his peers, this case would have been over with. Instead he is faced with the Merit Systems Protection Board, a tribunal with at-will administrative judges designated to protect the bureaucracies that keep them employed. There's a reason why federal district court judges are appointed for life and preside over jury trials.

The TSA is only fighting this thing to the bitter end because they have a very good chance of winning in this "Kangaroo Court."

willpolice4food

84% favor his reinstatement.

I just read Maclean's pleading: Despite Director Thomas Quinn swearing in his deposition that he never made a decision, LA Deputy Special Agent in Charge Frank Donzanti testified that Maclean forced everyone to rewrite schedules because new schedules were issued after a decision was already made. Seems Donzanti and Quinn forgot to get their stories straight...

No matter what is the outcome is of the judge's decision, the TSA has left a nice steaming turd for Erroll Southers to deal with early in his tenure. I'm sure he just loves the distraction.

I think he loses, then the media and congress dog-piles on TSA and DHS to no end. The public HATES the TSA, the TSA and the IRS compete annually for "Most Hated Federal Agency," and since everyone is broke or not making money, the TSA moves into 1st place.

willpolice4food

Orange County Register: "Fired federal air marshal should get his job back"

http://bit.ly/4z3Gnh

QUERY

Here is the link:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-94274109.html

Ari

Citizen Kang-- 139 - 0. That says something Perhaps most appeals to the MSRB are meritless-- no pun intended-- but you'd think in 139 cases, at least one would end in favor of the employee.

The numbers create a bad appearance.

willpolice4food

A true Franklin M. KANG -aroo Kourt:

http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.co...ers-say/57531/

willpolice4food

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/08/05/air.marshal.fired/

MaximumSisu

Helps to explain why our resident TSO's toe the line for their employer. TSA can do anything wrong they want --- but don't tell anybody about it.

Bart

Only in your mind, pal.

MacLean violated government policy when he went to the news media. He signed a form and swore an oath to not disclose information without the proper authorization, and he broke his end of the deal. There's a price to pay for that, and he's paying it.

Were there other avenues MacLean could have used to blow the whistle and still keep his job? Yes. The issue is not the substance of what he disclosed but the manner he chose to disclose it. He had the ability to still bring that information to the attention of the proper authorities and receive whistle-blower protection. All of that goes out the window when a person goes to an unauthorized agent.

I support his actions. I think he did what he had to do, and I wish him the best of luck.