Slashdot Mirror


Apparent Suicide In Anthrax Case

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."

76 of 339 comments (clear)

  1. Riiight. by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Suicide", eh?

    --
    "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    1. Re:Riiight. by AJWM · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Suicide", eh?

      Yep, shot himself in the back of the head.

      (No, I have not read TFA.)

      --
      -- Alastair
    2. Re:Riiight. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2, Funny

      Beat himself to death, with the blunt end of an axe?

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    3. Re:Riiight. by Facetious · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Newer rule: Anyone posting suggestions for changes to slashdot's moderation system must not post as AC.

      --
      Let us not become the evil that we deplore.
    4. Re:Riiight. by sm62704 · · Score: 3, Funny

      You must be new here.

      1. The guy was joking
      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 /. admin then you would have identified yourself and put the comment in the FAQ where it belomgs, not in a comment.
      6. Moderation is NOT for punishment; it is to weed out weak comments and promote good ones. When I make a weak comment (can't be on-topic and insightful or funny all the time) I appreciate a downmodding.
      7. Whoever moderated the above AC as "informative" (probably his own sock puppet) better hope I don't get them metamoderating. It was offtic, flamebait (the wikipedia definition of troll), and posted by an AC to boot.

      "No karma bonus" checked, but feel free to mod down further if you wish, as it is no more on-topic than the parent post.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  2. Oh, the irony by sm62704 · · 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.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    1. Re:Oh, the irony by mpapet · · 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?

      --
      http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
    2. Re:Oh, the irony by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Civilized people deserve civilized treatment. I guess that just about wraps it up.

      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.

    3. Re:Oh, the irony by RingDev · · Score: 2, 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 get executed.

      It's cheaper just to toss violent offenders into jail and lock them up for the rest of their natural lives.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    4. Re:Oh, the irony by Whorhay · · Score: 2, Informative

      What amazes me about that incident is that he had the time to do all of that. The article I read earlier today seemed to indicate that the other passengers noticed what was going on almost immediately and hustled off the bus pretty fast. But apparently no one tried to stop him from continuing his violence against that victim. They found weapons with which to keep him contained on the bus until the authorities arrived but there was no indication of anyone trying to stop him when he actually was in the act of killing that person.

    5. Re:Oh, the irony by cdrguru · · Score: 2, 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 people that unless they are isolated from all human contact are just going to abuse, destroy and kill.

      Jeffery Dalhmer, for example. He couldn't function in prison either. What exactly do we do with people like that? It has nothing to do with the "expense" of a life sentance. It has everything to do with the safety and wellbeing of the fellow prisoners and guards. If you have someone that is "in" for the rest of their life and other people mean nothing to them, what is there to stop them from killing other prisoners? What possible disincentive could there be? Beatings? Torture? Medical experiments? What?

      I will say that your average murderer generally doesn't fit this profile at all. But there is clearly a difference between someone that kills people the way others step on ants and a functioning, social person. If you can't discern between the two, there is a problem. Because you are going to set up a situation where the remorseless sociopath is going to be turned loose on people that have done nothing to deserve that treatment.

      So I guess you have to either find a way to permanently incarcerate people without any contact with others - so they can harm no one - or, you have to decide that society does not have the right to protect people from such danger. Most first-world countries other than the US have (a) very few sociopaths that need this sort of isolation and (b) decided the sociopath's rights outweigh those of other prisoners and society in general. The US has a confusing mix today, mostly from nobody wanting to really make a decision on this at all. In neither case is this a good outcome.

    6. Re:Oh, the irony by sm62704 · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    7. Re:Oh, the irony by sm62704 · · 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!

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    8. Re:Oh, the irony by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Jeffery Dalhmer, for example. He couldn't function in prison either. What exactly do we do with people like that? It has nothing to do with the "expense" of a life sentance. It has everything to do with the safety and wellbeing of the fellow prisoners and guards.

      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.

    9. Re:Oh, the irony by amRadioHed · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    10. Re:Oh, the irony by slew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      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 ;^)

  3. Strange case of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy? by bsharma · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "...injury is deliberately and gradually inflicted upon a person usually for gaining attention or some other benefit." He might have wanted his research to be better recognized and useful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchausen_syndrome_by_proxy

  4. Prepare a press leak, Smitty, we have a patsy by John+Jorsett · · 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.

    1. Re:Prepare a press leak, Smitty, we have a patsy by rpillala · · 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

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    2. Re:Prepare a press leak, Smitty, we have a patsy by oldspewey · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    3. Re:Prepare a press leak, Smitty, we have a patsy by Roberticus · · 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.

    4. Re:Prepare a press leak, Smitty, we have a patsy by demachina · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      @de_machina
    5. Re:Prepare a press leak, Smitty, we have a patsy by DavidTC · · 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, a small comment he made that he doesn't seem to realize the significance of:

      The attacks were not entirely unexpected. I had been told soon after Sept. 11 to secure Cipro, the antidote to anthrax. The tip had come in a roundabout way from a high government official, and I immediately acted on it. I was carrying Cipro way before most people had ever heard of it.

      ...so, the attack came from a US government lab (1), the same lab that apparently lied about bentonite in said attack (2), implicating Iraq, and the US government told journalists in advance to get anthrax antidote? (3)

      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.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  5. A little too easy... by jgarra23 · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:A little too easy... by topham · · 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.

  6. All a mistake really... by pwnies · · Score: 4, Funny

    He just accidentally mixed up his crack and his research material.

  7. Suicide is an option! by IronChef · · Score: 2, 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.

  8. Conspiracy Theory: Allways kill the assisin by chaffed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's the best way to maintain plausible deniability? Kill the person who actually committed the crime. Your patsy does the dirty work, then you dispose of them.

    --
    What could possibly go wrong?
    1. Re:Conspiracy Theory: Allways kill the assisin by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 4, 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.

    2. Re:Conspiracy Theory: Allways kill the assisin by BobMcD · · 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

      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?

  9. innocent til shown guilty by wherrera · · Score: 4, 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.

  10. Terrorism by mattpm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But Dubya told me the terrorists were in Iraq!?!

  11. Misleading the investigation? by dlgeek · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Apparently he helped the FBI in analyzing the samples in the initial investigation. TFA says the investigation shifted focus in 2006 and

    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?

  12. Re:How do you spell, TERRORIST? by LaskoVortex · · 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.

    --
    Just callin' it like I see it.
  13. Even more to ponder on this by Jeff1946 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Salon has a updated story today http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/
    relating to false information provided to ABC news early on about the investigation. Really makes you wonder what was going on here.

  14. Motive? by jtcm · · 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?

    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.

    --
    @ASP.NET's parent-teacher meeting: "Little Johnny.NET is very bright, but he doesn't play well with others."
    1. Re:Motive? by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    2. Re:Motive? by ofcourseyouare · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did he have any friends or relatives in the Middle East?
      Indeed he did - from TFA:
      "Ivins, the son of a Princeton-educated pharmacist, was born and raised in Lebanon"
      ...though if you're going to be pedantic that should be...
      "Ivins, the son of a Princeton-educated pharmacist, was born and raised in Lebanon, Ohio"

    3. Re:Motive? by oodaloop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I remember reading some analytical piece back in Fall 01 speculating about the motive. It was saying that the source was most likely from the defense industry, and so whoever sent it may have been trying to show how vulnerable we are to chemical attacks. It may have been a desperate attempt to get the kind of chemical/biological defense measures in place the sender was trying to implement in other ways.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    4. Re:Motive? by NorQue · · Score: 3, Informative

      Some of these Questions are kind of answered in this article: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/index.html It's the same as with Saddam Husseins WMDs or his link Al Quaida. Your Government and your Media lied to you.

    5. Re:Motive? by revmf · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to the AP story, they suspect he was trying to test his vaccine.

    6. Re:Motive? by Art+Deco · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One doesn't need to be Muslim to be a terrorist. Timothy McVeigh was a Christian. The terrorists who assassinate doctors who perform abortions are Christians. Wikipedia says Bruce E. Ivins was a Roman Catholic. Terrorists can be any religion.

    7. Re:Motive? by KenSeymour · · Score: 2, 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
      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 impression I get is that he had psychological problems that drew the attention of authorities. Those same problems may have
      made it hard to deal with the pressure of an FBI investigation of more then 12 months.

      There are reports of evidence that in he same time frame as the attacks, he removed anthrax material from work to do his own tests.
      These tests may or may not have been related to the attacks themselves. There are also reports that he was about to be indicted.

      --
      "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
    8. Re:Motive? by Frnknstn · · 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.

      --
      If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
    9. Re:Motive? by fataugie · · Score: 2, 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.

      --

      WTF? Over?

    10. Re:Motive? by Toonol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your Government and your Media lied to you.

      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.

    11. Re:Motive? by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    12. Re:Motive? by NorQue · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most of the time you're right. But in this special case, the one that Glenn Greenwald outlines, which involves those sources that confirm the Anthrax link to Iraq to ABC, someone lied. Either the Reporter who made up those sources, or the Sources themselves. It's hard to explain away this case with incompetence. I'd love to hear an explanation from ABC for that.

    13. Re:Motive? by CRCulver · · Score: 2

      Actually, Timothy McVeigh's religious beliefs are unclear, and he never ascribed himself Christian motives.

    14. Re:Motive? by Mr.+Beatdown · · 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.

      --
      My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
    15. Re:Motive? by Ardipithecus · · Score: 2, Informative
      Ivins was under treatment for depression, with suicidal tendencies, and had just been institutionalized; not done for folks who are merely sad. Serious talk of suicide with a therapist will get you right in the hospital. Removed from the lab by cops and family and under a restraining order from a coworker. Beyond geeky /. behavior.

      It is quite possible for someone highly depressed to continue functioning in technical professions ("I've heard").

      He was already a suicide risk. Whether prompted by the possibility of disgrace or by an "I can get out of all this bs" moment, we'll never know.

      "Mentally ill" is well within the ballpark.

    16. Re:Motive? by sir+fer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, McVeigh was solely responsible for the truck bomb AND to two unexploded bombs found in the Murrah building. McVeigh was what is called a "patsy".

      --
      Debian FTW ;o)
  15. Re:Is this News For Geeks? by T.E.D. · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I fail to see how this is relevant to the general slashdot content

    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.

  16. You can't trust the media or the FBI by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The media and the FBI are a combination made in hell for law and order and justice. Just ask Hatfill and Richard Jewell among many others. There's nothing quite like getting convicted in the court of public opinion thanks to the media for making the FBI's job easier, and there's nothing like a high profile FBI investigation to make a story for the media...

  17. Re:Is this News For Geeks? by ShibaInu · · Score: 3, 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.

  18. Clueless FBI by philspear · · 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.

    1. Re:Clueless FBI by R2.0 · · 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."

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  19. Re:How do you spell, TERRORIST? by faloi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It was to the Senate Majority Leader and the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that happened to be Democrats. Maybe it was because of their positions of power within the Senate? Maybe he was an anarchist that saw a great opportunity to sow the seeds of confusion and fear? Maybe he was a Bildeberger neo-con front man determined to make sure that the PATRIOT act got passed to usher in a New World Order by eliminating two prominent opponents? Maybe he was just a nut case with an axe to grind that saw an opportunity to get at a couple of people that "wronged" him in the aftermath of a terrorist act?

    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.

    --
    "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
  20. Choice of targets and timing by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Choice of targets and timing by lenski · · Score: 2, 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...

  21. I find the Salon.com article much more interesting by nawcom · · Score: 2, Interesting

    just a repost of the link: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/

    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

  22. Re:Is this News For Geeks? by NorQue · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Says here "news for nerds, stuff that matters". And this is definitely stuff that matters, IMHO.

  23. Never attribute to conspiracy ... by goodmanj · · 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.

  24. Re:How do you spell, TERRORIST? by faloi · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actualy... No.

    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.

    --
    "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
  25. Re:in this thread by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, 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.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  26. Re:How do you spell, TERRORIST? by xmedar · · 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) 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.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
  27. Re:in this thread by couchslug · · Score: 2, 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.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  28. From lying sources protected by ABC News by roystgnr · · 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?

  29. Re:oh, no strawman by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, 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 you, and I already said nevermind to that.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  30. no no you have it wrong by commodoresloat · · Score: 2, 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.

  31. Re: Statute of Limitations by m.ducharme · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or treason and sedition.

    --
    Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
  32. I can relate... by Joseph+Hayes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As someone that got his dick caught in a door by some cops using very very shady maneuvers.... The government zealously threatening to ruin your life as you know it can easily lead you to thoughts of suicide. I went as far as carrying a bottle of carbon monoxide and mask around in the spare tire compartment of my car in case things went south quickly during the legal process. I was not about to become someone's bitch for something I didn't even do, and apparently neither was Dr. Ivin. I honestly can't blame him. When I was in that situation suicide seemed like the wisest thing TO do considering how my life would be after going thru the prison system. I kept thinking that if I didn't kill myself now, I'd be sitting in prison, innocent!, and wishing I had. Luckily, I guess you could say, I was able to pay a lawyer THOUSANDS of dollars to eventually get the case thrown out on entrapment (after a year and a half of HELL). When you are a good person and get in a sticky situation with the chips stacked against you.... you mental health turns to the dark side rather quickly. May he rest in peace.

    --
    "The irony when tending a flock of sheep is the dogs you put in place to protect them are genetically mutated wolves"
  33. Wars and causus belli in history by Anonymous Coward · · 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

    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.

  34. Re:strawman? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, 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 your own idiotic false dichotomies and strawmen, not only can't see that, you aren't even mentally capable of addressing it. And yes, I have no respect for your self-imposed idiocy either. Prove you can do something other than babble at your imaginary enemy or you're as delusional as the conspiracy theorists you rail against.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  35. Why wait? by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 3, Interesting
    In the hopes that people would forget that the bush administration tied the anthrax to Iraq.

    If you check out the spin in the headlines , 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>

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  36. Re:How do you spell, TERRORIST? by rahvin112 · · Score: 2, 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 constructed in a 2 week period, a no bid contract and no public involvement or press coverage of any kind? Not only that but the military has expanded the base itself with new housing and buildings that quadrupled the staff size of the facility in the last 10 years? And this was a facility that when the major base closing were happening in the 90's scaled down to maybe a couple hundred people total, including all the guards. They don't need to do their illegal research anywhere other than dugway, nor would they. Dugway is the ideal location for this kind of research due to it's remote location, completely shielded from the public and based in a small town where what happens at the base would never become public.