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."
Riiight. (Score:2, Insightful)
"Suicide", eh?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"Suicide", eh?
Yep, shot himself in the back of the head.
(No, I have not read TFA.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Beat himself to death, with the blunt end of an axe?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stabbed himself repeatedly. Again and again. About the head, neck, and shoulders. In the back, in the front, in the sides. It was an ugly scene.
*BOOM* The novelty of your joke just blew my mind. (Btw you forgot the part where he cuts himself into pieces and places his bits into several different closed trash bags)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You must be new here.
1. The guy was joking /. admin then you would have identified yourself and p
2. Most slashdot summaries are all one needs to comment
3. Many links in slashdot summaries lead to stupid blogs, or sites with fifteen one paragraph ad laden pages. Often the summary is superior to the article.
4. Many links in slashdot summaries don't say anything more than the summary does
5. Who the fuck gives an anonymous coward the right to make up rules as to how the rest of us should moderate? If you were a
Re: (Score:2)
It was either that, or he was shot trying to escape.
The report took a while to make sure.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, suicide"
"He was stabbed 16 times"
"He was very determined"
"IN THE BACK!"
"He was also double-jointed"
Hey. (Score:2)
Let's not get everybody all riled up because of yet another government cover-up.
I mean, you really want to start asking questions about JFK?!?
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Civilized people deserve civilized treatment. I guess that just about wraps it up.
Re:Oh, the irony (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you mean "Civilized people give civilized treatment". Otherwise, what marks them as civilized? Anyone can treat their own well - it's also treating those who are different that makes us a civilization and not a tribe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Specifically, people that (as in example below) behead someone on a bus for laughs may not be fit for any society at all, even a highly restricted one in prison.
A vital component of "humanity" is the ability to recognize that others exist apart from your own needs. When you have a person (?) that does not have the that functional capacity, is there really any point? Someone that places zero value on the lives of others is not going to be able to function in any society, especially ours. There are some pe
Re:Oh, the irony (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it doesn't. It has everything to do with the safety and wellbeing of the fellow prisoners, guards and Jeffrey Dahmer. Once you don't give him the same human rights as others, you're no longer acting civilized. Whether he himself has broken those rights is irrelevant -- our ability to not let that be a factor in how we treat him is what makes us civilized and unlike him.
If you let who people are decide whether you treat them with respect, you will quickly polarize the society into "those like us" and "those unlike us", and you'll be back to a tribal society, not a civilization. We're on the path there, I'm afraid.
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: (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
Re:Oh, the irony (Score:5, Insightful)
I want murderers to spend the rest of their lives horribly and end horribly
You conveniently ignore the fact that the law-enforcement system wrongly incarcerates many people, murderers included. We'll ignore your distopian ideal until they fix that glaring issue.
Given the overall tone of your post, may I suggest making some changes in your life to introduce a bit more positive attitude?
Re: (Score:2)
You conveniently ignore the fact that the law-enforcement system wrongly incarcerates many people, murderers included. We'll ignore your distopian ideal until they fix that glaring issue.
I'm guessing you conveniently ignored the rest of your parent's post, the part about how the death penalty is no good? If you are concerned about those wrongly convicted, wouldn't it be worse to slay them then to have them alive?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But a murderer gets euthanized, like a beloved pet is put down.
I've long been an advocate of bringing back crucifixion.
I want murderers to spend the rest of their lives horribly and end horribly.
Me too!
Re:Oh, the irony (Score:5, Funny)
by Reverend528 (585549) * on Friday August 01, @01:59PM (#24437215) Homepage
I've long been an advocate of bringing back crucifixion.
Seldom do I see a topic match a user's name so well!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, he would be tried, there would be an appeal, a new trial, another appeal, an appeal of the appeal, a sentencing, and appeal of the sentencing, and appeal of the appeal to the sentencing, an appeal to the SCOTUS, a lobbying effort at the state level to ban execution, a lobbying effort at the federal level to ban execution, pleas to the Governor and President to get his execution stayed, etc...
So that eventually, after 20+ years and millions upon millions of tax payer dollars are wasted, he might ge
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They got the things to use as weapons from a passing trucker who stopped, it's likely no one had anything with them on the bus.
Anyway, I don't know if they knew it at the time, but it's not likely confronting him right away would have changed anything. It doesn't take too many stabs to the chest with a hunting knife to kill someone.
Strange case of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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: (Score:2)
While I agree a lot of deaths are a bit too convenient, I have a feeling this wasn't one. Reason being, it's a lot less effective to point at a dead guy and say 'We think he did it.'
For someone to be an effective patsy, a strawman enemy to make you look like the hero, you need them to be alive, really. A dead enemy isn't a very effective manipulative tool; or at least, not as effective as a living one.
Re:Prepare a press leak, Smitty, we have a patsy (Score:5, Insightful)
A dead enemy isn't a very effective manipulative tool;
They don't need an enemy, they just need a distraction. Enemies (better still, the shadowy faraway kind who wear scary headgear) can be manufactured at will.
Re: (Score:2)
...A dead enemy isn't a very effective manipulative tool; or at least, not as effective as a living one.
Read up on how the Allies in WW2 used a dead body to mislead the Nazis into the invasion location. That dead body helped us win a war.
Re:Prepare a press leak, Smitty, we have a patsy (Score:5, Insightful)
You also have to worry that he was involved but that he had co-conspirators and his suicide may prevent the investigation from getting to them.
There is also the possibility the co-conspirators stood with a gun to his head and forced him to swallow the over dose so he would be the fall guy and would have no chance to expose them in exchange for a plea deal.
You hate to think your government would have perpetrated the Anthrax attacks on purpose to amplify the fear after 9/11 and insure the country would support invading Iraq, but everything that's been unveiled about the Bush Administration in the last few years you KNOW they are ruthless enough and may well have been willing to do such a thing to get their way, and seem to have a pretty low regard for the rule of law or the value of human life. Addington in Cheney's office in particular seem to be capable of just about any kind of atrocity. It appears he almost single handedly pushed the U.S. in to torturing people.
I find it a little odd the FBI would have been quite as blatant as they were in tipping their hand to him that he was going to be charged, going to be charged with murder and he might get the death penalty. Its kind of like they were trying to force him to either flee or kill himself.
A little too easy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't they confirm through investigative work that he did in fact commit these crimes rather than just assume since they were about to file charges & that he "committed suicide" that he did it? IT seems like poor reasoning on anyone's part to just assume this is the logical conclusion just because he offed himself before shit hit the fan. What if the suicide was for some completely different reason? Lots of people commit suicide for reasons other than legal troubles.
Re:A little too easy... (Score:5, Insightful)
What? You mean it might be possible that a depressed individual, accused of a crime, might commit suicide because of the pressure of the situation, and not guilt over getting caught? What!?
The FBI has obviously repeatedly targeted people without sufficient evidence in this case. Obviously the guys life would be ruined, guilt or innocence be damned.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the article does say that their last suspect had just gotten 5 mil for being falsely charged, when there was no evidence he ever had any anthrax.
So... yes, they should do some investigative work. It's been almost 7 years, you would think they could have found some time to actually work rather than just say "Hey, you're a microbiologist, you probably did it."
Hopefully I won't get charged, I did have a microbiology class at some point, and since they apperantly don't use evidence, that puts me on a lis
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully I won't get charged, I did have a microbiology class at some point, and since they apperantly don't use evidence, that puts me on a list probably.
I'm a big fan of the band Anthrax... hopefully myself & other fans won't be considered "persons of interest".
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe whomever mailed the anthrax ( obviously not too concerned with other people's lives )offed him to take pressure off of them?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd bet because those involved have been doing this a while and are tired and getting lazy. They want to do something else.
All a mistake really... (Score:5, Funny)
Suicide is an option! (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe this guy is innocent and when he saw the hell that Hatfill went through, he decided he'd rather check out instead.
Just kidding! ... but not really.
I haven't found it yet (Score:2)
As I sit here with my tin foil hat on - looking for the conspiracy theory that can explain this. So far the usual suspects don't have anything good. I'm quite sure some ex high level government intelligence agent that wants to do good is here on Slashdot. PLEASE - give us your best conspiracy theory and if you don't have one make one up! This story is RIPE for a good conspiracy theory and I bored.
- cluge
Conspiracy Theory: Allways kill the assisin (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the best way to maintain plausible deniability [wikipedia.org]? Kill the person who actually committed the crime. Your patsy does the dirty work, then you dispose of them.
Re: (Score:2)
"I kill the bus driver."
Re: (Score:2)
"Bus driver? What bus driver?"
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.
Re: (Score:2)
But why use this guy? we was a very valuable researcher.
Why wouldn't they have killed that guy that was making it in his garage and claim he did it?
Would have been clean, quickly closed the case, and almost nobody would have bother to question it.
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?
innocent til shown guilty (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately unless he wrote a confession note it's possible that he was simply depressed and the news of being prosecuted as his co-worker was acted as a last impetus to suicide. TIme will tell I suppose.
Huh, and I always thought it was Dr. Philip Zack (Score:2)
He also worked at Detrick for a while, but got canned after being busted for harassing a co-worker who was from Egypt. Considering he still had access to the bio labs after he stopped working there, he sure had the means and motive to smuggle out some anthrax for later use.
Guess I was wrong.
Terrorism (Score:3, Insightful)
no no you have it wrong (Score:3, Funny)
We're fighting in Iraq so we don't have to fight the terrorists here! This guy did the anthrax attacks before we invaded Iraq; once we invaded Iraq, he stopped the attacks. It's pretty obvious that invading Iraq stopped him from further anthrax attacks. My logic is impeccable.
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?
Even more to ponder on this (Score:3, Informative)
Salon has a updated story today http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/ [salon.com]
relating to false information provided to ABC news early on about the investigation. Really makes you wonder what was going on here.
From lying sources protected by ABC News (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really wonder what was going on when three or four "well-placed sources" claimed that government tests had linked the anthrax to Saddam. Just toss the deceit on the pile; I think there's some space in between the "Smoking Gun Mushroom Cloud" and the "Mobile Biological Weapons Laboratories".
What I wonder about is:
Why hasn't ABC outed the people who lied to them?
Why is Glenn Greenwald the only person who seems to care that ABC is protecting government insiders who lied about anthrax attacks?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Clueless FBI (Score:5, Insightful)
The article was, predictably, poor in science, but it sounds like the reason the FBI suspected him was that there was an anthrax contamination that he bleached but didn't report and didn't recheck to be sure nothing survived.
While that would have been a good step to take, anthrax microbes by themselves aren't harmful, in order to be a weapon it needs to be processed. Purified anthrax spores are what will send you to the hospital. I don't know how that's done, but the point is that anthrax growing on your lab bench is not the same as having plutonium all over your lab bench. Anthrax bacterial contamination in a fume hood would be an annoyance, not a serious safety issue.
Furthermore, bleach is a heavy duty sterilizing agent. You douse your bench in bleach and you really don't have to worry about residual contamination in most cases. Reswabbing is easy to do and would have been the right thing to do, but it's understandable that he didn't: it's kind of like checking for a pulse in someone you just burned at the stake.
We're of course not getting the full story, and it's more suspicious that his house was in the area the letters were coming from, but from what the article is saying, it sounds like the FBI may have harassed a man into suicide over "evidence" that would have been dismissed as unimportant if it were put into context.
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."
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: (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. PATRIO
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
I can relate... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:How do you spell, TERRORIST? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look hard enough for conspiracies, you'll find them. They may not really be there, but it's pretty darn hard to prove something doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look hard enough for conspiracies, you'll find them.
You definitely found a conspiracy, didn't you? My suggestion is that he might have been a republican and didn't like democrats, not that the republican party or anyone else had anything to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well...no. Actually, the anthrax thing happened at a time when the Senate was controlled by the Republicans, not the Democrats, so neither the Senate Majority Leader nor the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee were Democrats.
Perhaps you meant the Senate Minority Leader and the Ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee?
Re:How do you spell, TERRORIST? (Score:5, Informative)
However, when Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont announced in May 2001 that he was leaving the Republican caucus to become an independent and would caucus with Democrats, this returned control of the body to the Democrats and Daschle again became Majority Leader.
He was the Majority Leader during the anthrax attack because a Republican changed party affiliation and Daschle was the leader.
Re: (Score:2)
If one's goal were to help set national mood-lighting for war, the combination of liberal politicians and conservative press wouldn't be a bad choice. Hypothetically, of course.
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>
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:Motive? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no mention of any potential motive for a "top government scientist" to start mailing anthrax.
And yet all the suspects were top US government scientists.
Face it -- this terrorist attack came from a US citizen. Anthrax is hard to weaponize, and a US source was always the most likely origin.
The perpetrator probably had no relation to 9/11, or Iraq. In fact, his agenda may have been to increase domestic tensions to incite our invasion of Iraq. (Witness the spurious mention of bentonite, which was known to be an Iraqi addition to anthrax agents. It was not in the mailed anthrax, but plenty of news sources reported incorrectly that it was.) He might not have had any agenda; Ivins was obviously mentally ill.
No, sadly, I don't think these questions will ever be answered.
Re:Motive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ivins was obviously mentally ill.
Obviously? How do you figure that? All we know is that a dude who was sane enough for the FBI to work with for many months is now dead. Suicide has not been proved, and even suicide does not prove mental illness. Guilt has not been proved, and neither was the man ever formally charged. There is very little we know about this incident, and it is irresponsible of you to claim that anything is 'obvious' at this juncture.
Re:Motive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the article. He was going to a shrink for years, and admitted to thoughts of suicide. He died from an overdose of prescription medication. I think 'obviously mentally ill' is a valid supposition.
Whether he was guilty or not is another matter. That's why I used 'the perpetrator' in my post above.
Re:Motive? (Score:5, Funny)
Indeed he did - from TFA:
"Ivins, the son of a Princeton-educated pharmacist, was born and raised in Lebanon"
"Ivins, the son of a Princeton-educated pharmacist, was born and raised in Lebanon, Ohio"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think in regards to the anthrax, the Media was just stupid and unreliable (as normal), and the Government happily let them report every misconception and misunderstanding... perhaps to draw attention away from their own cluelessness.
Re:Motive? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Motive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's true, people miss that religion can be a cause, but more often than not, it's that the terrorist is a fucking prick who doesn't care about killing innocent people....and all religions have pricks as members.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that this has been a headline for at least 12 hours now, I did some reading.
A motive that was given in this news account [sfgate.com]
was that he was working on a vaccine for Anthrax and wanted to test it.
There was also some evidence that before the 2001 anthrax attack, he had conducted tests outside of normal work protocol. His attorney stated that he had been cooperating with the FBI for more than a year. There is also a report that he was forcibly removed from his job due to his becoming unstable.
The impressio
Re: (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 PO
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Please, everyone with brains knows all the biological "research" is done in Dugway Utah.
Can you think of any other reason the military would spend 10 million dollars to build a full passenger jet size (10000+ft long, 100' wide) asphalt runway (in 2006) at a facility with currently around 1000 employees that is in the remote desert of Utah? Keep in mind Dugway is around 100 miles from one of the nations large airforce bases (Hill Airforce Base) so access isn't really an issue. Add to that the runway being co
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome, Comrades! In Soviet Russia, ??? suicides you!
In Soviet Slashdot, your jokes don't finish you.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not as though anyone is ever going to do anything about this are they? How suspicious does it need to be?
I guess in 30 or 40 years (assuming there's any remnant of free media then) someone will make a movie about it, opening up all the questions again.
By then it will be too late though. What can we do to protect our freedom now?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:in this thread (Score:4, Insightful)
Um... you do realize that if this guy was responsible, that means that the anthrax came from inside one of the top anthrax researchers in a Army-run facility, sent with a clear intent to link the anthrax with Islamic terrorism in the wake of 9/11?
And if he didn't do it, what does that mean about the FBI investigation?
There is no good option here.
however, rabid, paranoid schizophrenic musings on all evil in the world falling at the government's doorstep
Oh. I recognize this strawman. Nevermind.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it's a strawman -- do you know what that means? Spend as long as you like defending it then knocking it down if that irrelevance is what is fun for you. Ignore the reality of who was accused and what they may have been trying to accomplish if the accusation is true, or what it means if it is false. In fact, pretend it was never even mentioned, like you did in the worthless post I'm replying to. Strawmen, platitudes, false dichotomy, and most of all deliberate ignorance are what pass for insight for
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
See, you can't even stop talking to your strawman for a single second.
All I said was that the deceased and accused was a top researcher at an army-run research lab, and that the attacks were designed so as to be linked with Islamic terrorism. These are both facts, not speculation, not conspiracy, they are proven facts.
And of course you ignore that, and turn that into "the gummint is responsible for all the evil in the world". But that's not what I said, implied, or am getting at. You, who cannot see past
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"however, rabid, paranoid schizophrenic musings on all evil in the world falling at the government's doorstep is not anywhere near the definition of "healthy distrust". more like pathological hobbling distrust"
Hobbling? If the gummint is responsible for all the evil in the world, and I have the special insight to see that, than everything is understandable. My special insight explains everything, and is more comforting than not knowing why some things happen. Uncertainty is terrifying.
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 hel
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there is a SoL on murder.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or treason and sedition.