Apparent Suicide In Anthrax Case 339
penguin_dance passes along the news that a respected anthrax researcher, about to be indicted, has committed suicide. The FBI has been investigating the case since anthrax-contaminated letters were sent to the media and various politicians in 2001. The AP's coverage mentions that prosecutors intended to seek the death penalty. The suicide was not the one you might imagine if you've been following the story. "A top government scientist who helped the FBI analyze samples from the 2001 anthrax attacks has died in Maryland from an apparent suicide, just as the Justice Department was about to file criminal charges against him for the attacks, the Los Angeles Times has learned. Bruce E. Ivins, 62, who for the last 18 years worked at the government's elite biodefense research laboratories at Ft. Detrick, Md., had been informed of his impending prosecution... The extraordinary turn of events followed the government's payment in June of a settlement valued at $5.82 million to a former government scientist, Steven J. Hatfill, who was long targeted as the FBI's chief suspect despite a lack of any evidence that he had ever possessed anthrax."
Oh, the irony (Score:3, Interesting)
A suicidal man getting the death penalty. If I rob a bank will they give me double the amount of the cash I steal?
When I die it will likely be a horrible death, like most people - cancer, heart disease, accident, violence, falling down in a nursing home, alzheimers, etc.
But a murderer gets euthanized, like a beloved pet is put down.
I want murderers to spend the rest of their lives horribly and end horribly, like most of us non criminals. I don't mind my tax money going to incarceration of violent people, but I do mind my government murdering in my name. We should join the civilized world and stop executing people.
Prepare a press leak, Smitty, we have a patsy (Score:5, Interesting)
I've grown increasingly cynical about government in recent years. I wonder, did the feds see that this guy knocked himself off and think, "Hey, here's a perfect target we can accuse and use to divert attention from the Hatfill mess and the fact that we haven't found anybody in 6 years."? Not saying that happened, but it's telling that it was the first thing that went through my mind when I heard this.
Misleading the investigation? (Score:5, Interesting)
Moreover, significant progress was made in analyzing genetic properties of the anthrax powder recovered from letters addressed to two senators.
I wonder if he faked his analysis and used it to frame Hatfill (the guy the Government had announced as a person of interest, sued the NYTimes and the Justice Dept. for libel and got a big settlement from the later) Also from TFA:
Soon after the government's settlement with Hatfill was announced June 27, Ivins began showing signs of serious strain.
Maybe he knew they were closing in on him?
Re:How do you spell, TERRORIST? (Score:4, Interesting)
Huh, funny. But he was a terrorist, right?
Maybe a relevant question is to ask his political affiliations. The contaminated mail was sent to Democrat Senators. You decide.
Motive? (Score:5, Interesting)
There's no mention of any potential motive for a "top government scientist" to start mailing anthrax.
Why did he (allegedly) do it? Why did it occur in the month following 9/11? What was his relation to the 9/11 terrorists [wikipedia.org]?
Bruce E. Ivins doesn't sound like a Muslim name. Did he have any friends or relatives in the Middle East? I'm disappointed that TFA doesn't address any of these questions. I wonder if they'll ever be answered.
Re:Prepare a press leak, Smitty, we have a patsy (Score:5, Interesting)
This doesn't directly address your question, but there's a great deal more to this story: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/index.html [salon.com]
Re:Is this News For Geeks? (Score:4, Interesting)
You may not have noticed the icons at the top of the story, but this was classified under "Government", "Biotech", and "Science". I think rightly in all 3 cases.
You could perhaps make a case for the argument that the "Government" stuff should not be on slashdot, but the other two categories certianly belong here.
I'd argue you the first one too though. Politics is most assuredly "stuff that matters". And if you don't think political people are "nerds", you clearly have never heard Markos (of DailyKos) speak.
Re:Is this News For Geeks? (Score:4, Interesting)
Let's see - this is about a mysterious case involving weaponized anthrax that had to be developed by someone with pretty specific technical knowledge. Futhermore, it involves the FBI, DOD biological weapons labs, conspiracy theories, etc. Seems to me to be pretty geeky.
Don't like it - don't read it.
Choice of targets and timing (Score:5, Interesting)
Before everyone runs off and drinks yet some more governmental press release kool aid, apply some normal flatfoot 101 to this situation, use a clean slate.
Look at who got the mailings, and when they got the mailings, and what was coincidently in the news at the same time, to establish a probable motive. Also note the "cover letters" which were meant to cast blame on "islamic terrorists", with a lot of death to the infidels and america and israel, etc nonsense written in pidgin misspelled english.
who = news media sources, and two *important* high ranking Dem senators. The first news media source, the tabloid writer in florida, who was infected and later died, is a wildcard, no ties whatsoever with the others for any apparent motive, except one. He was working on a story that dealt with a leadership position in a tangential way, something that would have embarrassed some powerful people. The other newsies were top dogs in their fields, meaning they have huge propaganda influence. Some of the letters were mailed, some hand delivered, but no one is saying by whom, this has never been publicly determined.
when and what = right before debate on the Patriot Act. How coincidental. congress gets shut down, hysteria in the news headlines, anthrax mailings happen, made to look like Abdul J. Jihad did it, patriot act passed easily, despite overwhelming and clearly just plain wrong big brother aspects to it.
So maybe he did it, maybe not, but there are some juicy bits there to think about. Maybe he was meant to be a patsy and fall guy, after first getting his cooperation by enlisiting his sense of "patriotism" and telling him "sometimes you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet" or call it "unfortunate collateral damage, but the strike had to be done". Maybe he was a manchurian brainwashed asset, maybe....but the timing and targets will remain highly suspicious, especially because of the obvious attempt at misdirection and the tremendous political and economic gains to be had by changing the direction of the US in a huge way. And there's your few trillion dollars in motive, along with control of the most powerful government on the planet, and the direction of mideast geopolitical and energy ppolicy, and increasing daily.
Next question: Who profits? Add it up.
Re:Conspiracy Theory: Allways kill the assisin (Score:5, Interesting)
It worked for Oswald only this time it was made to be a Suicide so we don't need a sick assassin to kill the assassin.
I find the Salon.com article much more interesting (Score:2, Interesting)
just a repost of the link: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/ [salon.com]
What's really interesting is the link between Ivins and his strong christian / anti-islamic beliefs that they outline via the letters to the editor he sent in to the Fredrick News Post. http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=78274 [fredericknewspost.com]
Never attribute to conspiracy ... (Score:2, Interesting)
... what can most easily be explained by human greed and selfishness.
In other words, the smart money's always on the lone gunman.
This guy could have been the patsy of a vast government conspiracy to terrorize the public by release of anthrax, yes.
But how's this for an alternative? Expert in bioweapons realizes that bioweapons are a serious terrorist threat. Wants to make sure the U.S. takes the threat seriously. Oh and by the way, "taking the threat seriously" happens to provide him with some serious job security. So he slips a little anthrax out of the lab and mails it off to some high-profile folks.
As for suicide versus murder: it's kind of a pain in the butt to force someone to swallow a bottle of pills. Maybe you can do it, but there's gonna be signs of a struggle.
And it's worth noting that he became emotionally unstable and started contemplating suicide, not after the Feds started accusing him of things, but right after his colleague Hatfield was cleared. An innocent man might be a little worried by that news, but a guilty one would be terrified.
Re:Clueless FBI (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, but an "accidental" contamination is a good cover for an intentional removal of samples to weaponize elsewhere. So they find spores outside of containment in your lab? "Oh, I had an accidental release a month ago - I got it right away with bleach, so I didn't botehr reporting it. Must have missed some."
Re:Strange case of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy? (Score:1, Interesting)
Except the anthrax spores were sent to individuals and organizations in such a way that the Republican party benefited primarily, Bush specifically. So, just a coincidence or just a murder dressed up as a suicide because (see some comments above) people think about-to-be indicted equals guilty? Plus with what Bush's government did in scapegoating Hatfill, they really needed someone to pin this on.
Re:Prepare a press leak, Smitty, we have a patsy (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not in a position to verify the facts in that Salon article, but the quotes from WP columnist Richard Cohen (about how the anthrax attacks influenced him to be pro-Attack-Iraq) bring up an interesting conspiracy theory question: Did whoever was behind all of this send anthrax to Tom Brokaw in order to try and spook major news columnists, and turn them into Iraq War cheerleaders?
If you buy Greenwald's premise -- that there was more to the whole anthrax episode than met the eye, more than just a Unibomber-type loner responsible for it -- then it doesn't take too many layers of foil on your hat to make that leap.
Re:How do you spell, TERRORIST? (Score:3, Interesting)
He didnt do it, for those who havent been following-
1. Ft. Detrick doesnt have the weaponization capability.
2. Illegal (i.e. violates the Biological Weapons Convention [wikipedia.org]) U.S. offensive anthrax weaponization is run out of Battelle Memorial Institute under Project Jefferson under the DIA.
3. The Anthrax letters were a copy of the CIA operation that used anthrax substitute in their tests.
4. The DIA comes under the DoD, the CIA under the White House, the only place those two mandates meet is at the pleasure of POTUS, like they said about Saddam, he killed his own people.
Re:Oh, the irony (Score:3, Interesting)
First, a murderer isn't civilized. Second, I never said "put him in a pound in the ass prison" like so many slashdotters do; I am appalled at the way US prisoners are treated (and I have one friend that was just released from Dwight Correctional last February). Prisons have guards, and there should NEVER be any crime whatever committed in a prison, period. If someone is raped in prison, some guard should have have severe disciplinary action taken against him.
I notice that the GP comment (mine) went from +3 insightful to 1 troll. Looks like some moderators have the same reading comprehension and logic problems you do, and jump to unwarranted conclusions. Wikipedia's definition of "troll" is a comment that is offtopic and inflamatory, mine was neither.
I'm astounded sometimes at the modwars some of my comments generate. I'm curious how this one wil turn out.
Re:Conspiracy Theory: Allways kill the assisin (Score:5, Interesting)
Its starting to come together a bit now. Quick, go skim this:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/index.html [salon.com]
But why use this guy?
What if, and I'm only putting it out there, he was about to come forward about something as-yet undisclosed?
Especially in light of his colleague winning his case and being exonerated, it seems plausible.
He was under pressure from somewhere to do/not do something. What's the most likely thing that could have been?
I can relate... (Score:5, Interesting)
Wars and causus belli in history (Score:3, Interesting)
Government arranging for a causus belli is the traditional way to start wars and drive people to support things. Even Sun Tzu taught this. - Is it so far fetched that the teachings of the holy book of US military might have been used in arranging for "a new Pearl Harbor"?
Apparently to you it is, but also Cheney seems to have done it again, just recently, concerning Iran:
To Provoke War, Cheney Wanted Navy Seals As Iranians [thinkprogress.org]
Now, how far fetched is it to bribe an anthrax scientist to send letters and then help cover up the deed inside the investigating team?
Do remember, Dick Cheney went on Cipro a month before the letters started.
Re:Motive? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:in this thread (Score:1, Interesting)
Absolutely, none of it is relevant at all to today's politics and is all just hand waving by the paranoid delusionals out there:
John McCain, on the David Letterman Show, October 18, 2001 (days before ABC News first broadcast their bentonite report that supposedly showed a potential link between the anthrax and Iraq):
LETTERMAN: How are things going in Afghanistan now?
MCCAIN: I think we're doing fine . . . I think we'll do fine. The second phase -- if I could just make one, very quickly -- the second phase is Iraq. There is some indication, and I don't have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may -- and I emphasize may -- have come from Iraq.
Why wait? (Score:4, Interesting)
If you check out the spin in the headlines [google.com] , you can already tell that they are trying to convict the dead guy for carrying out the attacks.
In a couple of days or so, they will spin it all as 'case closed', in the hope that everyone forgets the real story.
If the guy had been 'suicided' too early, that would have taken away the talking point that Iraq was behind the anthrax attacks.
Now, that the bush administration has declared 'mission accomplished', it may have been time to clean up loose ends.
</tinfoil>
Re:Choice of targets and timing (Score:3, Interesting)
Whatever the actual story is, the person who knows best is no longer in a position to say much about motivation, intent, process, or context.
The two senators intended to receive the toxic envelopes were, at the time, significant players in the politics of the day. Whether Ivins intended to implicate "Islamic terrorists" or merely encourage the raging paranoia of the U.S. political power players at the time, those anthrax letters likely had an effect on the politics relating to the passage of the U.S. PATRIOT act.
Its connection to the desperate politics of the day make it a story worth following even if it turns out, as is most likely, the act of a lonely lunatic.
Bad film noir at its best...
Re:Motive? (Score:3, Interesting)
Timothy McVeigh is what you'd call a right wing terrorist. He believed America was great and the federal government's expanding power was ruining America. He viewed the federal government, but not state and local governments, as evil. He has not ever claimed to be Christian or anarchist. He was a terrorist in that he targeted federal government buildings as a symbolic gesture.
Eric Rudolph is the abortion clinic bomber, and most certainly describes himself as Christian. His actions, of course, have been widely and loudly denounced by the Christian community worldwide. He is accurately described as a Christian extremist. He was also responsible for the pipe-bombing at the Atlanta games. He was a terrorist in that he intentionally bombed populated areas, in order to make a psychological spectacle of the carnage.
If someone were to kill another person because of the second person's job, they would be an assassin, and probably a murderer, but not necessarily a terrorist. Terrorists target a population wider than those they attack. They attempt to accomplish their goals by the intimidation of a group of people. Not every assassin or even murderer is automatically a terrorist.
The deliberate killing of a head of state, an abortionist, the president of a multi-national corporation, or even the guy down the street isn't terrorism unless the true target of your attack is someone other than your victim.
I'd say there's a good chance Mr. Ivins could fall into the murderer/assassin but not terrorist category.
Re:Oh, the irony (Score:4, Interesting)
Sadly, I doubt there is a society or a subset of society that ever existed which is civilized under your definition. Starting in kindergarden/gradeschool society, we are essentially taught that some people are worth treating with respect, and some are not (e.g., ones who follow rules are to be respected, ones that don't are shamed). Later on people who follow the rules are not respected, and the rule-breakers are admired. Then it's people who are good at sports, or math, or skateboard or use computers or have girlfriends or boyfriends or have a job, or have been on a cruise, or been to europe, or been to vietnam, or are married, or have kids or have grandkids or coloring your hair or just happen to be in the opposite set which are the complement of these things.
Societies are generally always structured into the conforming and the non-conforming outsiders. Generally the non-conforming outsiders usually get no respect or in many cases no rights at all (for example that will most certainly date me, on early usenet, some sites didn't allow newbies to post at all). The "in" crowd makes the rules, generally to differentiate them from the "outsiders" and create the exclusion set. More often than not, the rules also make provisions for transitioning members from the inclusion set to the exclusion set (e.g., excommunication, shunning, banning, blocking, voting-out, etc).
Although it's just a matter of degree, I doubt being 100% "civilized" by your definition would ever the goal of any actual society, lest they let the outsiders in and ruin it ;^)
Re:Prepare a press leak, Smitty, we have a patsy (Score:2, Interesting)
If you buy Greenwald's premise -- that there was more to the whole anthrax episode than met the eye, more than just a Unibomber-type loner responsible for it -- then it doesn't take too many layers of foil on your hat to make that leap.
And if you don't buy Greenwald's premise, you probably shouldn't be given the right to vote.
This story, this criminal case, makes no sense.
I quote Richard Cohen [slate.com], a small comment he made that he doesn't seem to realize the significance of:
Well, nothing to see here, move along.
You don't even have to postulate any sort of conspiracy, you don't have to jump to any conclusion. You just have to add one and one and one together and realize it is not, in fact, seventeen.
Someone in the US government getting a 'tip' about an anthrax attack by a terrorist and passing it outside channels is a security breach, but explicable. Someone in the US government getting a tip about a crazy person at a US lab stealing anthrax and going to mail it out is just inane. There's no possible way for the original source in the government to know that in advance without either being involved or trying to stop it.
1) According to the US government
2) According to ABC news, although they have, until recently, refused to admit it was a lie or even that it was wrong.
3) According to a writer for the Washington post.
Re:Motive? (Score:2, Interesting)