[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Pentagon linked to shaming attack on RMS

From: Jacob Bachmeyer
Subject: Re: Pentagon linked to shaming attack on RMS
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2021 17:10:11 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20090807 MultiZilla/ SeaMonkey/1.1.17 Mnenhy/

Jean Louis wrote:
* Jacob Bachmeyer <> [2021-04-03 05:17]:
Daniel Pocock wrote:
Its all in the last picture

Paul Tagliamonte, seconded the motion in Debian, with the co-founder of
Rebellion Defense and the top brass at the Pentagon.
I do not know where you are located, so perhaps you are unaware that that is
a fairly tenuous link in the USA -- the "military-industrial complex" that
President Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell speech has grown very
large and the "revolving door" between government and private industry has
been long-lamented and long-pilloried.

After more careful review of the hyperlink, if that email is genuine,
it is in my opinion against the mentioned law 5 CFR § 2635.702 - Use
of public office for private gain.

I believe the question would be what did he gain or intend to gain?

The context suggests a discussion about possible attempts by the government to infiltrate Debian, so revealing his status as a government employee would seem to be harmful to him in that context.

Tagliamonte, whose actions are legitimate to discuss because he has
publicly promoted a position on the issue, would have been hired in
2015, based on the email you quote in that article.

IMHO, when Tagliamonte during his employment mentioned his position in
government, he is in violation of the above law. Thus his work at
Debian IS INFLUENCED by person who worked in government, and it
represents conflict of interest.

The catch to a blanket statement here is that government employees do still have personal capacities in which they act outside of work, so he would almost certainly claim that that statement was made in his personal capacity. It was (presumably) a true statement (he was a government employee at the time) but he would almost certainly have been "off-the-clock" in that discussion.

As such, Tagliamonte would have been considered a civil service
employee, and was supposed to have been hired on an apolitical

The Federal Regulation does not mention differences on that page. It
speaks of employees regardless of the basis of employment.

The difference in this case is whether Tagliamonte may be more likely than average to hold certain political positions. The fact of his employment should *not* indicate anything about his views, but accusations of politicizing civil service employment are routinely thrown about in the USA. I get the sense that neither of you are Americans, so I am trying to explain how these things are seen here.

In conclusion, while asking his employer if they are being paid to
help instigate a mob against RMS seems to be an amusing example of
"sauce for the gander"

First time I have read your comment, and because did not find facts
(and still don't see enough) on the page, I was in agreement. Now I
see it right that Pockock points out to that violation, at least if
the email there is genuine, as that is clearly abuse of power.

If he is no longer a government employee, what power does he have to abuse?

Tagliamonte's previous government employment and trip through the
"revolving door" to the private sector does not stand out as reason
to suspect that the government is somehow behind the attacks on RMS.
The "revolving door" is simply too widespread to support a claim of
that type of corruption.

>From visits to many countries, even if one person employed in
government does some action, it is act of government, that is why
there is the regulation (law) to prevent the abuse of power. I just do
not see what would be the sanction for that.

Prohibitions may apply after the employment:

5 CFR § 2641.202 - Two-year restriction on any former employee's representations to United States concerning particular matter for which the employee had official responsibility.

That sounds suspiciously like Trump's executive branch lobbying ban. I am unsure how it would apply here. Is Tagliamonte suspected of lobbying the USA government for some purpose?

-- Jacob

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]