Showing posts with label assumptions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label assumptions. Show all posts

Friday, October 4, 2013

Washington DC: Evacuations, Pursuit, Death, and Assumptions

(From New York Magazine, used w/o permission.)
Miriam Carey, deceased.

Life, Death, and Opinions

A woman driving a car in Washington DC yesterday caused alarm by apparently attempting to run a barricade near one of the major buildings.

This action prompted a variety of security and law enforcement measures, including evacuation of some areas and pursuit of the vehicle which triggered the alert.

The car's driver, a woman, refused to stop for police and fled. At least two police officers were injured in pursuit of this vehicle. Police later shot and killed the driver. She did not have a firearm in her possission. A baby was found in the car and removed to a safe location.

That's what I'd heard and read in news reports as of early this morning. There was a great deal more, mostly about how folks felt about the situation: which I found interesting but not particularly informative.

This morning, someone drew my attention to an op-ed about Miriam Carey's death.

The op-ed told the story of a defenseless woman, confused by a big city and traffic. The writer went on to describe how she innocently encountered a barricade and was needlessly "surrounded by multiple police vehicles" and men with guns.

In a manner reminiscent of the heroine in an old-time melodrama, the woman fled in a panic-stricken effort to save her baby. Then the bad men shot her.

Dealing with Reality

I am sorry that Miriam Carey is dead.

I think it's possible that some folks driving in Washington DC may be unaccustomed to urban traffic. Some may even be unaware of events in 2001 which led to some of today's inconveniences, and encouraged authorities to take apparent attacks seriously. But my guess is that very few manage to trigger evacuations and injure law enforcement officials in a pursuit.

The account may be true, although the reporter was apparently able to interview a dead person.

Or the account may more accurately reflect the reporter's default assumptions.

I'm more inclined to believe the latter: particularly since it seems to reflect a belief that all police are evil oppressors.

Obama and a Dental Hygienist

Apparently Miriam Carey was justified in her actions yesterday: from her point of view.

From my point of view, this is sad:
"Miriam Carey Thought Obama Was Watching Her"
Joe Coscarelli, New York Magazine (October 4, 2013)

"The woman killed by police in Washington, D.C. yesterday following a car chase from the White House to the U.S. Capitol underwent a mental-health evaluation last year, CBS reports. As previously noted, 34-year-old Miriam Carey was believed to be suffering from post-partum depression. Her boyfriend contacted police about her condition in December, when she told officers in Connecticut 'that she was a prophet, that President Obama would place the city of Stamford under a "lockdown," and that he had her and her residence under electronic surveillance.'

"Despite the incident, she was not known to the Secret Service before yesterday, according to CBS.

"CNN reports that investigators found the schizophrenia and bipolar medication Risperidone at Carey's Stamford apartment, as well as the antidepressant Escitalopram and 'a letter addressed to the boyfriend ... [that] appeared to contain white powder.'..."
I don't know what Connecticut law enforcement policy is for dealing with folks who say that they're a prophet. Maybe they should tell the Secret Service about everyone who makes similar claims, or warns of coming government oppression. Then again, maybe not.

As for the "white powder," I'm pretty sure that someone will grab that factoid and spin a tale of conspiracy and bioterrorism. At this point, I think it's white powder: and that's all I know.

Mental Illness, an Inquiry, and Assumptions

I'd be surprised if folks in law enforcement didn't start an inquiry after an incident like yesterday's. There were too many loose ends: why did the woman try to get around White House security; is the dead woman actually Miriam Carey; could this incident have been avoided?

Unlike the 'victim of bad men' op-ed, this BBC News piece sticks fairly close to facts and reasonable speculation.
"US police launch inquiry after deadly car chase"
BBC News (October 4, 2013)

"An investigation is under way after a police chase through the heart of Washington DC ended with an unarmed woman shot dead and two officers hurt.

"The woman identified as Miriam Carey of Stamford, Connecticut, had a one-year-old girl in the car. She was unharmed.

"Authorities have searched a home in Stamford believed to be Ms Carey's.

"On Thursday, her car attempted to bypass a security gate at the White House, and police opened fire as she sped off towards Capitol Hill.

"'Mental illness'

"Ms Carey, a 34-year-old dental hygienist, was said to have suffered mental illness in recent months.

"Law enforcement officials suggested the incident may have stemmed from a delusional obsession with US President Barack Obama and a belief he was stalking her, local media reported.

"Chief Jonathan Fontneau of the Stamford police said that officers had been called to her home there 'at least once' but that she had no criminal background...."
The BBC also mentions that Miriam Carey was driving a black Infiniti sedan. Interestingly, I haven't run into an impassioned plea that black cars, sedans, or Nissan's Infiniti, be more heavily regulated: or banned outright.

On a more serious note, I think that people do things using technology; not that technology makes people do things. And that's another topic.

Related posts:
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Washington Navy Shipyard: Death, Security, and Voices

What happened at the Washington Navy Shipyard yesterday morning is starting to look less like a terrorist attack, and more like what the CDC calls workplace violence:
  • "Occupational Violence"
    Workplace Safety & Health Topics;
    The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH);
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
After killing a dozen people, Aaron Alexis was killed in a confrontation with authorities. Families are mourning their dead, law enforcement and national security outfits are working at sorting out what happened and why, and journalists are cranking out copy for news services.1

News and Views

I don't have a boss and a deadline, for which I'm duly grateful. I suspect that many reporters aren't as daft as their work suggests.

When your job depends on submitting a fixed number of words in less than enough time, researching a story could be difficult. Add to that the knowledge that editors expect to see 'proof' that whatever happened supports their preferred reality: I'm glad I'm not a journalist.

Happily, we no longer depend on old-school information gatekeepers. And that's another topic. (August 14, 2009)

I won't pretend to be "unbiased" in the sense of having underlying set of assumptions about reality. I do, however, try to distinguish between facts and assumptions. More topics.

He Heard Voices

It's possible that someone used Aaron Alexis, exploiting his reported mental problems. The Associated Press says he'd been treated for paranoia, had trouble sleeping and heard voices in his head. Someone like that could be encouraged to act against his own best interests.

Someone may be trying to convince others that Aaron Alexis was sent by the CIA, Big Oil, Al Qaeda, or lizard men. I don't think so, but I'm one of those folks who enjoy conspiracy theories in fiction: not as a basis for public policy

Applying Occam's Razor, I think it's much more likely that Aaron Alexis acted alone.

On the other hand, I hope that investigators are looking very carefully at Mr. Alexis' life, particularly the last few years. I don't think lizard men are behind those deaths: but as I said, someone could have used Aaron Alexis as a weapon.

Security

Aaron Alexis almost certainly got into one building using an employee pass, but had to shoot his way into another. The pass he apparently used was either his own, or one he shouldn't have had.

I've seen both possibilities reported as facts. Like I said, I don't have a boss and editors telling me what to write: so I don't know if he had a pass, and if so whose it was.

Either way, he shouldn't have been able to get onto a naval base with those weapons. Apparently employees don't have to go through a metal detector on their way in. That may have saved some money, and kept "privacy advocates" happy: but in this case it was a lethal oversight.

After what happened yesterday, it's obvious that Mr. Alexis shouldn't have been allowed into the Washington Naval Shipyard yesterday. He probably shouldn't have been allowed to get a job with a subcontractor that brought him to the base in the first place.

That's obvious today. How obvious it would have been when he was hired: I don't know.

Mr. Alexis' general discharge from the Navy was upgraded to an honorable discharge because there wasn't enough evidence backing up misconduct charges. Maybe the charges were bogus, and he really is a victim of discrimination: maybe not. I don't know.

However, if half of what's been reported about his background is accurate, Aaron Alexis shouldn't have been given clearance to work on computer upgrades at a major military base. With my background, I probably wouldn't get that sort of clearance: even if I had the necessary skills.

Computers, Guns, and Keeping Up

Since Aaron Alexis was working with The Experts on a computer upgrade, it's possible that he had the skills and access necessary to provide himself with a valid-looking employee pass that he shouldn't have had. If that's the case, The Experts, Hewlett Packard and the Pentagon should take a hard look at their security.

We use technology today that was literally science fiction in my youth. Thanks to my eclectic job history, I've kept up with most of the major developments. Folks my age, whose successful career paths led them to positions of importance? I'm not sure that some of them really understand the Information Age. Still more topics.

Unlike some of my contemporaries, I like tech: and think that people use tools to do things, not the other way around.

Technology and Free Will

I don't think guns made a sleep-deprive paranoiac kill a dozen people. Human beings were quite capable of acting badly for uncounted ages before firearms, and I think we'll continue to be trouble when an assault rifle is displayed alongside a crossbow and a palstave in some museum.

I have no problem with people using dangerous technology like LP gas, guns, or computers. I also think that every society needs to find common-sense ways to control how they're used. (June 27, 2008)

Somewhat-related posts:
1 From the news:

(FBI, via CNN, used w/o permission.)
"The FBI identified Aaron Alexis, a 34-year-old military contractor from Texas, as the dead suspect involved in the shooting rampage at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday, September 16. Authorities said at least 12 people -- and the suspect -- were killed in the shooting."

"Vetting military contractors: How did Navy Yard gunman get in?"
Josh Levs, with Drew Griffin, Mariano Castillo; CNN (September 17, 2013)

"The shooter at the Washington Navy Yard had a 'pattern of misconduct' as a Navy reservist, had sporadic run-ins with the law, and had contacted two Veterans Administration hospitals for apparent psychological issues, sources have told CNN.

"Somehow, none of that prevented Aaron Alexis from getting clearance to the Washington Navy Yard as a subcontractor.

"In the wake of the horrific incident that left 12 victims and the gunman dead, lawmakers and military experts are calling out the vetting process for contractors and subcontractors. Did the military even know the things about Alexis that news agencies managed to find out within hours?

"Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican who serves on the Intelligence Committee, said she now questions 'the kind of vetting contractors do.'

" 'Washington needs a lot more answers,' Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-Washington, said in an interview Tuesday with CNN.

"The incidents in Alexis' past 'should have been a red flag that maybe we need to delve a little deeper into this individual,' said retired Navy Cmdr. Kirk Lippold.

"The Navy had sought to give him a 'general discharge' due to at least eight incidents of misconduct while on duty, but ultimately had to give him an honorable discharge due to lack of evidence to support the sterner measure, a U.S. defense official said Tuesday.

"But he went on to work for a group called The Experts, which was subcontracting with Hewlett Packard on a large military contract.

"With security clearance, he worked from September 2012 through January in Japan. His clearance was renewed in July, and he worked at facilities in Rhode Island, North Carolina and Virginia for weeks at a time upgrading computer systems, according to Thomas E. Hoshko, CEO of The Experts...."
"DC gunman was suffering host of mental issues prior to shooting, report says"
FoxNews.com (September 17, 2013)

"Navy veteran Aaron Alexis, who killed 12 people at a Navy building in Washington Monday morning, had been suffering a host of serious mental issues, including paranoia and a sleep disorder, law enforcement officials told the Associated Press.

"Alexis had been hearing voices in his head and had been treated since August by the Veterans Administration for his mental problems, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the criminal investigation in the case was continuing.

"Alexis, 34, was discharged from the Navy two years ago after serving hitches in Texas and Illinois....

"...He most likely gained entry into the facility with a CAC card, or a common access card. The system does not require workers to pass through a metal detector and usually only requires employees to show the card. Senior military officials tell Fox News that he most likely shot his way into building 197, because that building requires a separate pass he did not have.

"Washington Mayor Vincent Gray said there was still no motive for the shootings and no indication of terrorism 'although we haven't ruled that out.'

"While some neighbors and acquaintances described him as 'nice,' his father once told detectives in Seattle that his son had anger management problems related to post-traumatic stress brought on by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He also complained about the Navy and being a victim of discrimination...."
"Navy Yard: Aaron Alexis 'treated for mental health' "
BBC News (September 17, 2013)

"The ex-US Navy reservist who killed 12 people and wounded eight at a Washington DC Navy installation had received treatment for mental health issues, US media have reported.

"Aaron Alexis, 34, was treated for paranoia, trouble sleeping and hearing voices, the Associated Press reported.

"A contractor for the Navy, he had a valid pass for the secure site at the Washington Navy Yard, authorities said.

"Alexis was shot and killed by police during the attack...."
"Authorities question vetting of Washington gunman who killed 12"
Mark Hosenball and Ian Simpson, Reuters (September 17, 2013)

"Washington authorities questioned on Tuesday how a U.S. military veteran with a history of violence and mental problems could have gotten clearance to enter a Navy base where he killed 12 people before police shot him dead.

"The suspect, Aaron Alexis, 34, a Navy contractor from Fort Worth, Texas, entered Washington Navy Yard on Monday morning and opened fire, spreading panic at the base just a mile and a half from the U.S. Capitol and three miles from the White House.

"Investigators are still trying to determine the shooter's motive. Alexis had been given clearance to enter the base on the Anacostia River, despite two gun-related brushes with the law and a discharge from the Navy Reserve in 2011 after a series of misconduct issues.

"A federal law enforcement source told Reuters Alexis had a history of mental problems but gave no details. CNN reported that Alexis had contacted two Veterans Administration hospitals recently and was believed to be seeking psychological help.

" 'It really is hard to believe that someone with a record as checkered as this man could conceivably get, you know, clearance to get ... credentials to be able to get on the base,' Washington Mayor Vincent Gray told CNN.

"He said automatic U.S. budget cuts known as sequestration could have led to skimping on vetting that would have barred Alexis from the heavily guarded base...."
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, June 20, 2013

TWA Flight 800, Assumptions, and Facts

I'm quite certain that hundreds of people died when TWA Flight 800 exploded off the Long Island shore.

Until late Tuesday, I was also fairly certain that a fuel-air explosion in one of the airliner's tanks caused the explosion.

'It Made a Good Story'

Ronald Reagan's "trust, but verify" quote apparently is from a Russian proverb: "Доверяй, но проверяй." I think it's good advice. I like to trust folks, but have been around long enough to realize that what some sincerely believe is not accurate: and a few folks deliberately lie.

The official explanation for TWA Flight 800's abrupt conclusion made sense, given what had been published about the incident. Jet fuel is notoriously easy to ignite, and accidents happen.

I was impressed at how many folks seemed convinced that they'd seen something heading toward the jet, or reported something else that wasn't consistent with an internal explosion. But eyewitness testimony is not particularly reliable.

Eyewitness Testimony?

For example, I saw "SAVING PRIVATE YARN" on a theater marquee downtown. I'd been driving by, not paying attention to the sign, and was past the theater when the words filtered into the parts of my mind that weren't driving.

That was a really odd title for a movie, so I drove around the block and took a look. "SAVING PRIVATE RYAN" was playing. I'm not particularly dyslexic: but I am a very fast reader. Something in my brain had taken the letters from "Ryan," and put them together as a word I'm more familiar with.

The point is that I'd 'witnessed' and remembered something that wasn't, quite, there.

I was willing to believe that the NTSB was right, and eyewitnesses remembered things in a curiously consistent, but inaccurate, way.

That was then, this is now.

Another Good Story

Maybe the eyewitnesses were right.
"...A group of former investigators ... argue that new evidence shows that an external force, from something such as a rocket or missile, may have brought down the Boeing 747 minutes after it left New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport.

"The petition claims 'new analyses of the FAA radar evidence demonstrate that the explosion that caused the crash did not result from a low-velocity fuel-air explosion as the NTSB has determined. Rather, it was caused by a detonation or high-velocity explosion.' ...

"People have come forward, 'all saying the same thing: that there was an external force -- not from the center wing tank, there's no evidence of that -- but there is evidence of an external explosion that brought down that plane,' ...."
(Los Angeles Times)

"... 'We don't know who fired the missile,' said Jim Speer, an accident investigator for the Airline Pilots Association, one of a half-dozen experts seeking a new review of the probe. 'But we have a lot more confidence that it was a missile.'..."
(FoxNews.com)
I put more, and longer, excerpts from the news are at the end of this post.1 They're interesting in several ways, and I'll get back to that.

Rip roaring good action-adventure stories can involve government conspiracies. There can be a good reason for keeping quiet about something monumentally newsworthy. Keeping something like "Independence Day's" undercover study of a crashed spaceship might be best kept quiet: if the only advantage humanity had was that the space-alien aggressors didn't realize that we knew they existed.

In general, though, I think it's a good idea to be open about why an airliner explodes. Particularly if there are people inside it at the time.

Obviously - - - This is Unsettling

Some folks seem to believe that 'the government' never tells the truth. Others seem equally convinced that the nation's leadership can do no wrong. Folks believing either extreme can be liberal, conservative, or simply crazy: depending on the individual, and who's in White House at the time.

TWA Flight 800 went down during the Clinton administration, which may or may not be involved in the disconnect between eyewitness accounts, the official explanation, and what some investigators are saying. Then again, maybe not. I really don't know.

I am very concerned that some of the folks involved in studying the wreckage of TWA Flight 800 are, 17 years later, saying that the investigation was botched: at best. "It's obvious that the truth was not allowed to be pursued...." When a professional who has retired - and doesn't have to worry about continued employment - says that, I'm quite willing to take the claim seriously.

News, Opinion, and Facts

Like I've said before: it's important to study the news, not just read it. Journalists are supposed to be be accurate, and 'unbiased.' However, it seems easy to mistake assumptions for facts. Particularly if 'everybody knows' that some unconsidered assumption is a fact.

On top of human shortcomings, like preconceived notions, news outlets inevitably have an editorial 'slant:' an attitude which they've found tends to attract more readers or viewers. Provided that reporters and editors don't deliberately lie, I accept this as part of the social and economic realities we deal with: and a reason to think about what we read.

Finally, I am not at all comfortable with the situation that we seem to have: where the NTSB is deciding whether or not the NTSB investigation of TWA Flight 800 should be reviewed.

In the news:
Related posts:
1 Excerpts from the news:
"What brought down TWA Flight 800? Group wants investigation reopened"
Michael Muskal, Los Angeles Times (June 19, 2013)

"Federal officials are weighing a request to reopen the investigation of the 1996 explosion and crash of TWA Flight 800 that went down off the coast of Long Island, killing all 230 people aboard.

"A group of former investigators, interviewed in a documentary to be released next month, have petitioned the National Transportation Safety Board for the new probe. They argue that new evidence shows that an external force, from something such as a rocket or missile, may have brought down the Boeing 747 minutes after it left New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport.

"The petition claims 'new analyses of the FAA radar evidence demonstrate that the explosion that caused the crash did not result from a low-velocity fuel-air explosion as the NTSB has determined. Rather, it was caused by a detonation or high-velocity explosion.'

"The theory of such a strike was heavily investigated by the FBI and other agencies at the time and found to be unsupported. The NTSB eventually determined that a center fuel tank had exploded when an electrical short-circuit caused a spark.

"Tom Stalcup, a coproducer of the documentary to be aired on the cable TV premium channel Epix next month, told CNN's morning show 'New Day' that there was radar and other evidence for an external explosion.

"People have come forward, 'all saying the same thing: that there was an external force -- not from the center wing tank, there's no evidence of that -- but there is evidence of an external explosion that brought down that plane,' Stalcup told the cable news program...."
"Filmmaker asserts new evidence on crash of TWA Flight 800"
Mike M. Ahlers, CNN (June 19, 2013)

"A documentary on the 1996 explosion that brought down TWA Flight 800 offers 'solid proof that there was an external detonation,' its co-producer said Wednesday.

" 'Of course, everyone knows about the eyewitness statements, but we also have corroborating information from the radar data, and the radar data shows a(n) asymmetric explosion coming out of that plane -- something that didn't happen in the official theory,' Tom Stalcup told CNN's 'New Day.'

"A number of people have come forward, 'all saying the same thing: that there was an external force -- not from the center wing tank, there's no evidence of that -- but there is evidence of an external explosion that brought down that plane,' Stalcup said.

"He cited 'corroborating information from the radar data' and complained that 'not one single eyewitness was allowed to testify -- that's unheard of.'

" 'The family members need to know what happened to their loved ones,' he said.

"Asked why such information might have been suppressed, Stalcup said, 'That's a question that should be answered when this investigation gets reopened.'..."
"Former investigators of TWA Flight 800 want new probe"
USA Today (June 19, 2013)
"Former investigators of the TWA Flight 800 crash off Long Island are calling on the National Transportation Safety Board to re-examine the case.

"The retired investigators claim that findings were 'falsified.' A documentary on the subject is coming out in July.

"The 1996 crash of the Paris-bound flight killed 230 people.

"Initial speculation ranged from maintenance problems to a bomb and even a meteorite. Some critics theorized that a Navy missile accidentally brought down the jetliner.

"The NTSB concluded that Flight 800 was destroyed by a center fuel tank explosion, probably caused by a spark from a short-circuit in the wiring...."
"Investigators want missile theory probed in '96 TWA Flight 800 crash"
FoxNews.com (June 19, 2013)

"A handful of aviation experts, including a number of investigators who were part of the original probe of TWA Flight 800, have come forward in a new documentary to say evidence points to a missile as the cause of the crash off the coast of Long Island 17 years ago.

"The New York-to-Paris flight crashed July 17, 1996, just minutes after takeoff from JFK Airport, killing all 230 people aboard. In the weeks that followed, the plane was reassembled in a hangar from parts retrieved from the sea. But the cause of the crash was not identified immediately, and after authorities said the crash was caused by static electricity ignited fuel fumes, many skeptics cast doubt on the theory. Adding to the controversy were multiple eyewitness accounts of a fireball going up from the ground and hitting the plane before it went down, accounts which the FBI dismissed at the time.

"The half-dozen investigators whose charges will be fleshed out in a documentary set to air July 17 - the anniversary of the crash - say they were never allowed to get at the truth. But they are confident a missile brought down the plane.

" 'We don't know who fired the missile,' said Jim Speer, an accident investigator for the Airline Pilots Association, one of a half-dozen experts seeking a new review of the probe. 'But we have a lot more confidence that it was a missile.'

"The group is comprised of people who worked for the National Transportation Safety Board, TWA and the Airline Pilots Association, all of whom have since retired. All six say that the evidence shows the plane was brought down by a projectile traveling at a high speed.

" 'It all fits like a glove,' said Tom Stalcup, a physicist who is considered one of the foremost independent researchers and participated in the documentary, said during a press conference on Wednesday. 'It is what it is and all the evidence is there.'

"Hank Hughes, a retired senior accident investigator for NTSB, said probers were not allowed to seek answers once the FBI took over the crime scene. 'We just want to see the truth come out,' Hughes said. 'We don't have hidden agendas. The only thing we are looking for is the truth.'

"Speer, who says he found explosive residue on a part from the right wing which also had three holes, agreed.

" 'It's obvious that the truth was not allowed to be pursued,' said Speer. 'A majority of people working in that hanger did not feel as if the evidence was properly being handled.'

"The NTSB said it will review the petition...."
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.