SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
What killed the computer hacker who turned in Chelsea Manning still a mystery
Forensic pathologists who performed Adrian Lamo's autopsy were unable to determine how the 37-year-old died in March in Wichita. His autopsy report, released Wednesday afternoon, lists Lamo's cause and manner of death as "undetermined." That means that after a thorough examination of his body, results of toxicology testing and information about Lamo's life and last hours, there is nothing that points to a specific reason he died.
"Despite a complete autopsy and supplemental testing, no definitive cause of death was identified," Scott Kipper, deputy coroner and medical examiner at the Sedgwick County Regional Forensic Science Center, wrote in the report.
Previously: Adrian Lamo Dies at Age 37
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Sunday June 10 2018, @03:19AM (4 children)
What words do you then have for those who not just let him serve, but put, and kept him in that position?
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 10 2018, @03:33AM (3 children)
That's a little bit difficult.
His immediate supervisors apparently tried to get rid of him. He was removed from duty, at one point in time, due to his discipline problems. The chain of command failed to back up those immediate supervisors. I might fix some small part of the blame on those immediate supervisors, for having failed to impress the higher-ups with the seriousness of Manning's situation. However, I've been in similar situations, and I don't have any working ideas for those supervisors. Sometimes, you're stuck with what you've got.
Words to describe those upper levels in the chain of command? I would need to know how much of which motivations went into their decision making - but they were definitely failures. I suspect that it was largely motivated by a shortage of personnel. That is a common theme, throughout the armed forces, in all times, and all places. You can't just call some temporary service, and have ten new faces in ranks tomorrow morning.
But, I wonder if some part of the decision making wasn't political. Manning, the gender bender, served during a period of time in which congress critters were pushing for unfit personnel to serve in combat positions. I can imagine some decision maker looking over Manning's service record. "Oh, this guy is a transvestite? Well, we can't get rid of him, he makes our numbers look a little better!"
I have no good words for the chain of command, regarding Manning. I just don't know which bad words to use for them. Incompetence will certainly be part of any fair description of them. They clearly dropped the ball, and allowed a discipline problem to fester, and grow into a much greater problem.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday June 10 2018, @05:39AM
Don't IP packet headers have fields for the classification and compartment?
And if they don't match on both sides of a router don't the packets get dropped?
Even if the state department and mannings boxen were both top secret shouldn't they have been in different compartments?
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 10 2018, @05:03PM (1 child)
> ...and allowed a discipline problem to fester, and grow into a much greater problem.
You mean like shooting non-combatants from helicopters. Then shooting the people that come to help them. I'd say that's more than a discipline problem.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 10 2018, @07:33PM
How 'bout you watch that video one more time. Keep in mind, that you are sitting in a nice comfy chair, and the scene has helpfully been narrated for you, repeatedly. Then, stop playing Monday night quarterback. Immerse yourself into the video. Forget today's date, your location, your job - forget everything, and immerse yourself into the situation.
You're in a chopper. You get a request for help from troops on the ground - they are taking fire from enemy located at blah-blah coordinates. You get there, and there are people on the ground, carrying weapons. You can identify half a dozen rifles, and one of the people is carrying something - looks like a shoulder fired rocket. YOU HAVE ZERO REASON TO BELIEVE OR EVEN SUSPECT THAT THERE IS A CAMERA CAMERA CREW ON THE GROUND!! You take them out. Everyone is down, a couple are moving some, when an unidentified, possibly enemy, vehicle pulls up to rescue one of the combatants. You take that vehicle out. Then, you hover, while your buddies on the ground arrive to secure the battleground.
Well, SHIT - there are kids in the damned van! WTF?
Try it. Listen to the radio chatter. It's tough, but listen. Those details are part of the chatter, but the people narrating the video to you don't want you to hear it, or pay attention to it.
The "noncombatant" reporter that you refer to, was EMBEDDED WITH an enemy unit. He was covering the war, just like our own reporters who were embedded with Army and Marine units. Do you understand what that means? It means, the reporter knowingly placed himself in the combat zone. He KNEW that he was in the field of fire. The men he was with were shooting at American troops, he KNEW that return fire would come, sooner or later. He took his chances, and the dice rolled against him.
I get so tired of you people parroting what you were told about that video. Watch it for yourself. Make at least a small effort to understand the context of what is happening. That won't make things any more palatable, but you can stop parroting nonsense.