638
The FBI Doubles Down on Easing ‘Bestiality’ Hiring Standards (www.wired.com)
submitted 4 weeks ago* by to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
193 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

“Why would you even get into bestiality?” he asked. “We’re not into bestiality,” said Patel.

In a further exchange, Patel explained to Senator John Kennedy, the Louisiana Republican, that previously, regulations had barred anyone who engaged in bestiality “on either side of it.”

“Either side of what, the bestiality?” asked Kennedy. “So you disqualified the animal?”

“We have great canines, but we’re not going to disqualify them,” said Patel.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children)

FBI background checks look into a lot more than just criminal records. A person doesn't have to be convicted or even charged with something in order for it to disqualify them. Some things that aren't even considered crimes can disqualify you. Having too much debt, being an alcoholic, having a family member with too much debt. Having a history of anything embarrassing that you could be blackmailed for. Et cetera.

They ask you questions about your past and strongly encourage you to tell the whole truth, then they interview people who know you in order to corroborate your telling of it. And since the job requires a TS clearance, you have to pass a polygraph test too in which they ask you questions specifically tailored to your past as it appears in the results of your background check.

It's not a simple matter of going to the local police station and asking for your rap sheet the way civilian job interviewers do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    I get all of that. I'm just saying if we are attempting to steel man Patel's argument. How would the concept of beastiality come up? If not through a conviction, or some sort of registry, do they specifically ask family/coworkers/acquaintances of the person applying whether they have reason to believe that person has had experiences with that in the past? Instead of just broadly asking for any information they should be concerned or informed about? I know personally, if I was privy to the information that someone went through that sort of thing, it certainly wouldn't be top of the mind of things I should be sharing as part of a background check. I know not every body thinks the same way, but sharing that someone was the victim of a crime isn't something that I would think is relevant unless specifically questioned about.

    Do they expect to find proof of this occurring on social media? I guess one way would be news stories if someone comes forward to talk about their experience of being trafficked/forced into that sort of thing. It just seems like if this is something that occurred it would be a pretty private issue and not something that they would go around openly talking about to every one.

    But like another commenter mentioned it would be much simpler to just add "willingly" to that guideline, in order to have the cut out they are looking for. And as fucked up as it is, wouldn't someone being a victim of trafficking also be disqualifying? It would leave them open to blackmail/intimidation due to their trauma no?

    The whole situation is just so strange to me, and the excuses given just really don't add up. In another comment further down the chain I bring up the fact that it seems weird to have this unequal enforcement where for some reason, beastiality specifically is something that they are willing to be lenient on and hear people out but with the other guidelines not so much. And yes I know there are other guidelines that they also loosened, but it seems like they are just blindly throwing darts at a board with their guidelines to choose what to lighten up on instead of easing guidelines across the board. Or more concerningly, they have an oddly specific list of things that they think are acceptable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    One of the questions on the polygraph test is "Have you ever lied on a government form?" That's kind of a catch-all because earlier in the process, they have applicants answer a long list of Y/N questions on the initial background screening form.

    That combined with heightening stress levels by continually reminding the applicant of how seriously they take perjury, combined with basically a promise to dig up anything they aren't forthcoming with, it's pretty common for candidates to tell them all their secrets, because you have a better chance of passing the screening or getting a waiver if you're honest and can demonstrate that it won't be an issue for you.

    Also, if it's the kind of dark secret that everyone in a small town knows but no one in the next town over does, then yeah that kind of stuff can come up when they're interviewing an applicant's acquaintances.

    I mean I'm not here to defend Kash Patel, I think he's unqualified, incompetent, and wouldn't pass a recruitment screening if he had applied for it instead of being appointed to the top post. He shouldn't have passed his senate confirmation hearing, and I still don't think he has a security clearance.

    But of all the things we could be knocking him for, easing a restriction to enable a former victim of human trafficking to pursue her dream job of taking down human traffickers isn't exactly something I can fault him for.

    That is, if his story is true... on the other hand, it could just be a lie so that he can hire a college frat buddy whom he's personally seen fucking a donkey or something like that. But I don't see how we would ever know one way or the other...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent