Slashdot Mirror


Ricin Tainted Letter Sent to Senator and Possibly the President

An anonymous reader writes "A letter addressed to Senator Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) was tested and found to contain ricin, a highly toxic, inexpensive, and easily produced substance derived from castor beans. The letter was intercepted at the U.S. Capitol's off-site mail facility and nobody has been injured. The letter was postmarked Memphis, Tennessee, but listed no return address. Sen. Claire McCaskill told reporters that a suspect has been identified." And, this morning, a letter addressed to the President was discovered containing a suspicious substance. Update: 04/17 16:25 GMT by U L : And the substance is ricin. Apparently, air filters at another facility have also tested positive for ricin.

9 of 461 comments (clear)

  1. Profile of attacker already available.. by nweaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Its someone stupid enough to think a Senator opens his own mail. (Shamelessly stolen from Twitter)

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
  2. Wow ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I imagine he gets these every single day. It goes with the job.

    Oh, wait, we have to take advantage of the bombings! We're still at war with Eastasia, remember!

    This whole every-aspect-of-our-lives-must-be-in-the-context-of-1984 conspiracy stuff has really gotten out of hand ...

    1. Re:Wow ... by cffrost · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I imagine he gets these every single day. It goes with the job.

      Oh, wait, we have to take advantage of the bombings! We're still at war with Eastasia, remember!

      This whole every-aspect-of-our-lives-must-be-in-the-context-of-1984 conspiracy stuff has really gotten out of hand ...

      Has it? I think the actual government-using-1984-as-an-instruction-manual stuff has gotten far more out of hand than your particular gripe.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  3. Re:There is only one option. by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That... is really not true. A pretty decent chunk of business matters get handled via snail mail (not all or even most by any means, but enough to make it non-negligible). And also, people do still send personal mail (letters and such), as not everyone has internet nor wants to. Call them foolish if you want, but they are still using the service for non-spam reasons.

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  4. Re:Here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, it's obviously false flag. Or obviously Middle Eastern. Or obviously domestic. Or obviously FBI-inspired conspirators that they didn't stop in time. Or any other "obviously" thing. *eyeroll*

  5. Re:Here we go again by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm truly curious what background check will keep someone from stealing another person's legally obtained weapon?

    Are you suggesting that if you have a family member with issues (I wanted to type "crazy", but that's derogatory IMO) then you shouldn't be able to pass a background check? Where does this kind of logic end and what personal liberties are you willing to forgo to allow a database of this size to happen?

  6. Re:Here we go again by ubermiester · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You miss the point of background checks. It is not to stop individual crimes. It is to make it harder - ON AVERAGE - for people with a history of violent and/or criminal behavior to acquire firearms. Think abusive spouses who don't like their ex's being with someone new. Or a stalker who wants to take their obsession to the next level. Or a thug with a record who wants to pick up the latest in thug technology. WIthout a federal background check, states that allow people to carry concealed weapons into bars and schools in the name of "freedom" would do nothing to stop such individuals from acquiring firearms.

    The 20 children killed in the Newtown massacre (say that out loud if you are unsure of why people want action) are a drop in the bucket when it comes to gun violence. THOUSANDS have been killed by guns since then, and many of those crimes would almost certainly not have occurred if the US had two things: 1) effective and universal gun regulations, 2) a less fanatical obsession with violence as a solution to people's problems (think "War on ___" or how every "action" movie poster includes someone holding a weapon). I am not one to shy away from criticizing the entertainment industry for their pandering, and hope the increasing number of large-scale public tragedies involving guns will begin to turn the tide against this long-standing trend.

    But i digress.

    The ridiculous meme that says something like: "Chicago has strict gun laws and they have lots of gun violence" completely ignores the fact that many if not all of the guns used in Chicago come from outside the city's jurisdiction. The same goes for NY, Washington DC, Miami, etc. These cities know what the problem is, but they cant do anything about it because neighboring states ignore it in the name of "freedom". Recent studies have shown that a large percentage of the guns used in NY-Metro area crimes originate as legit purchases in states like Virginia where the gun lobby has fear-mongered the local legislature away from even the most basic regulations.

    Consider what would happen if you couldn't go to a "gun show" in someone's backyard and pick up a bunch of handguns to sell on the black market in Chicago. Where would the average street thug get their weapons? Russian arms dealers? 3D printing? Granted there are plenty of weapons already out there, but is "it's hard so what's the point" really an excuse?

    And background checks do not address the problem of what you can buy once you pass. Why would anyone need a semi-automatic rifle with armor piercing rounds and a 30-round magazine?!? For that entire heard of delicious armor-plated deer you ran out of standard rounds trying to slaughter? To shoot at UN tanks when they invade Idaho?

    Please explain...

  7. Re:Half-wits know better than this by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So the perpetrator was either immeasurably stupid and thoughtless

    Do you really think that is implausible?

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  8. Re:The real dissonance by Fjandr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Premeditated murder does not mean one is insane.