Michael Hastings told Wikileaks FBI investigating him hours before death.(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Michael Hastings told Wikileaks FBI investigating him hours before death.
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/347475869629022208
8 comments
Maybe, but cars just don't explode like that. Engines don't just fly dozens to a hundred feet from the vehicle. Given how the impact with the palm tree occurred, the engine should be under the passenger/driver. They are designed to break free and be pushed down under the car in high speed impacts so that they don't end up in the cabin and crushing the legs of the passenger or driver.
I'm actually very curious where the engine is relative to the car.
I'm actually very curious where the engine is relative to the car.
One woman in the area described it sounding “like a bomb went off in the middle of the night” & a man said “I couldn’t have written a scene like this in a move” with the engine flying 50-60 yards from the car.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-1KzlL9fJM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-1KzlL9fJM
Yes. That's what actual car accidents are like. The movies don't prepare you for that.
"Cars just dont explode"
http://automotivethinker.com/general/cars-just-dont-explode/
http://automotivethinker.com/general/cars-just-dont-explode/
But a collision with an object could sound like a bomb and have enough energy to cause an engine to fly 50+ yards.
Hastings ticked off some very powerful people in his short life. Ticking powerful people off is a good way to die in a plane wreck, a car wreck, a "fall" or any number of other accidents.
I'm not saying this is what happened, but it seems more likely than not that he was assassinated for his work.
I'm not saying this is what happened, but it seems more likely than not that he was assassinated for his work.
You know who else ticked off some powerful people? Daniel Ellsburg. Seymour Hersh. Bob Woodward. Julian Assange. Bradley Manning. All of whom are still alive.
Hastings wrote a magazine story that forced a general to retire. That general is now making a very cozy living as a speaker and consultant. Not exactly horrible stuff.
I just object to the mindset that ticking off powerful people is likely to lead to murder, when there is so much obvious counter evidence.
Hastings wrote a magazine story that forced a general to retire. That general is now making a very cozy living as a speaker and consultant. Not exactly horrible stuff.
I just object to the mindset that ticking off powerful people is likely to lead to murder, when there is so much obvious counter evidence.
Just like the guy that discovered Bush Jr's coke bust "committed suicide":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hatfield
This wasn't just a hit, it was personal. Someone really disliked Hastings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hatfield
This wasn't just a hit, it was personal. Someone really disliked Hastings.
You can go into a bookstore right now and find books calling Obama a muslim traitor and probably the antichrist. If the government actually killed authors who wrote negative things about presidents during their terms, it would be the second leading cause of death for American authors after alcoholism. Hating on presidents in the long form is practically an entire genre.
Sometimes, you know, people take too many pills and then they never wake up. Sometimes people get into car crashes. Sometimes things just happen, and death like life doesn't have to follow a neat and obvious narrative.
Sometimes, you know, people take too many pills and then they never wake up. Sometimes people get into car crashes. Sometimes things just happen, and death like life doesn't have to follow a neat and obvious narrative.
> You can go into a bookstore right now and find books calling Obama a muslim traitor and probably the antichrist.
But those things are untrue. There is no point in trying to silence — or to avenge the publication of — something that is (1) untrue and (2) does no measurable harm.
But those things are untrue. There is no point in trying to silence — or to avenge the publication of — something that is (1) untrue and (2) does no measurable harm.
Sure, but the administration already dealt with the book in the 'proper' way, which was to deny all allegations and discredit the author. I remember there being some jokes about it on late night television, but nothing major in terms of public relations fallout. I just don't see it as having been worth killing over, it was a minor though momentarily noteworthy event.
I definitely don't see it as corroborating evidence that presidents so routinely have their opponents and critics killed that Michael Hastings' car crash must most likely have been a bomb (or whatever), when the more reasonable explanation seems to serve perfectly well.
I definitely don't see it as corroborating evidence that presidents so routinely have their opponents and critics killed that Michael Hastings' car crash must most likely have been a bomb (or whatever), when the more reasonable explanation seems to serve perfectly well.
Ok, now the anecdotal data score is 2 to 5.
I've been wanting Freakonomics (or anyone, really) to systematically contrast death rates of more-powerful v.s. less-powerful parties* after it has become known that the more-powerful party has become significantly aggrieved by the less-powerful one.
*if it's possible -- I'm not certain that it is
*if it's possible -- I'm not certain that it is
Wait... more likely than not?
People die in crashes every day... fiery wrecks happen all the time... Parts fly out of vehicles in high impact collisions... None of these things are uncommon, so how do you possibly make the leap that it's 'more likely than not'?
People die in crashes every day... fiery wrecks happen all the time... Parts fly out of vehicles in high impact collisions... None of these things are uncommon, so how do you possibly make the leap that it's 'more likely than not'?
> how do you possibly make the leap that it's 'more likely than not'?
Because I'm not a coincidence theorist when it comes to how power operates. The Obama administration has publicly claimed the power to kill American citizens, the first administration to do so.
To ignore that consideration is just as shortsighted as saying, "A DRONE STRIKE DUN IT!".
Because I'm not a coincidence theorist when it comes to how power operates. The Obama administration has publicly claimed the power to kill American citizens, the first administration to do so.
To ignore that consideration is just as shortsighted as saying, "A DRONE STRIKE DUN IT!".
That still doesn't make it more likely than not. A regular car crash is still far more likely.
And if he fell asleep (he was driving at night) and mistook the accelerator for the brake, it's quite likely the impact could have been quite a high energy one, especially in a car that's well powered.
>> One woman in the area described it sounding “like a bomb went off in the middle of the night” & a man said “I couldn’t
>> have written a scene like this in a move” with the engine flying 50-60 yards from the car.
> Yes. That's what actual car accidents are like. The movies don't prepare you for that.
Eh... I don't know about that. For what it's worth, I was a firefighter for about a decade in the 90's and I personally responded to hundreds of car wrecks over that time. In my experience, engines do not leave the rest of the vehicle, fires are uncommon and explosions are essentially unheard of. Cars really do not just burst into flames with the slightest provocation, like in movies. If anything, movies dramatically overstate the fiery / explosive aspect of most car wrecks.
> Yes. That's what actual car accidents are like. The movies don't prepare you for that.
Eh... I don't know about that. For what it's worth, I was a firefighter for about a decade in the 90's and I personally responded to hundreds of car wrecks over that time. In my experience, engines do not leave the rest of the vehicle, fires are uncommon and explosions are essentially unheard of. Cars really do not just burst into flames with the slightest provocation, like in movies. If anything, movies dramatically overstate the fiery / explosive aspect of most car wrecks.
As a counter anecdote, I've seen that happen several times. A few months back, a truck struck a tree, the engine block was 50' away, and the transmission actually busted through a wall almost 70' away.
Post-crash fires are certainly not common, but I'm sure you'll agree they do happen.
I don't see any indication that there was an explosion (other than your typical bangs and pops as various gas cylinders detonate), and I wouldn't read too much into the quote about it sounding like a bomb. The initial impact could certainly have been loud enough to sound 'like a bomb'
Post-crash fires are certainly not common, but I'm sure you'll agree they do happen.
I don't see any indication that there was an explosion (other than your typical bangs and pops as various gas cylinders detonate), and I wouldn't read too much into the quote about it sounding like a bomb. The initial impact could certainly have been loud enough to sound 'like a bomb'
As a counter anecdote, I've seen that happen several times. A few months back, a truck struck a tree, the engine block was 50' away, and the transmission actually busted through a wall almost 70' away.
Interesting. I wonder what would account for the difference in experience? Maybe newer cars are more prone to that? Maybe traffic in your area is moving faster... are the accidents where you've seen this typically on a freeway / interstate, or a secondary road or what?
The initial impact could certainly have been loud enough to sound 'like a bomb'
Agreed, and that would be my default assumption, lacking any other evidence.
Interesting. I wonder what would account for the difference in experience? Maybe newer cars are more prone to that? Maybe traffic in your area is moving faster... are the accidents where you've seen this typically on a freeway / interstate, or a secondary road or what?
The initial impact could certainly have been loud enough to sound 'like a bomb'
Agreed, and that would be my default assumption, lacking any other evidence.
>Interesting. I wonder what would account for the difference in experience? Maybe newer cars are more prone to that? Maybe traffic in your area is moving faster... are the accidents where you've seen this typically on a freeway / interstate, or a secondary road or what?
I suspect that you're right that it's a combination of newer vehicle construction (cars designed to 'fail' in order to protect the occupants), and speed. Most of the collisions I've seen this happen on aren't on freeways, but they are on 55mph county roads (where the average rate of travel is often closer to 65mph).
I suspect that you're right that it's a combination of newer vehicle construction (cars designed to 'fail' in order to protect the occupants), and speed. Most of the collisions I've seen this happen on aren't on freeways, but they are on 55mph county roads (where the average rate of travel is often closer to 65mph).
I wonder what would account for the difference in experience? Maybe newer cars are more prone to that?
The 'crunches safely' approach to accident engineering in consumer vehicles is probably a whole lot less viable when you are at the front of a truck with hundreds of tons of mass. OTOH, I could be wrong.
The 'crunches safely' approach to accident engineering in consumer vehicles is probably a whole lot less viable when you are at the front of a truck with hundreds of tons of mass. OTOH, I could be wrong.
Collisions make a loud noise. I've seen a car crash like that. The person survived with minor injuries after being thrown from the wreck. Definitely the exception and not the rule.
The thing that makes me most skeptical of secret government hit squads is how totally unnecessary they are.
The US government can utterly ruin anyone's life through prosecution if it so chooses. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to think of all of the leakers, nonviolent noncompliers, and activist who have been targeted over the years. Prosecution is zero risk for the individuals ordering it. The brief flurry of attention the prosecuted receive is insignificant compared to the cost to them in time, credibility, and money. And prosecution sends a very clear message to deter others.
As a tool for punishing critics in a country like the US, prosecution is simply unmatched.
The US government can utterly ruin anyone's life through prosecution if it so chooses. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to think of all of the leakers, nonviolent noncompliers, and activist who have been targeted over the years. Prosecution is zero risk for the individuals ordering it. The brief flurry of attention the prosecuted receive is insignificant compared to the cost to them in time, credibility, and money. And prosecution sends a very clear message to deter others.
As a tool for punishing critics in a country like the US, prosecution is simply unmatched.
After Aaron Swartz's untimely death, Wikileaks had the good timing of making claims that could not be proved about their association with him. But if Hastings talked to a Wikileaks lawyer, than they should be able to prove that
http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/19/3893268/wikileaks-tweets-a...
http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/19/3893268/wikileaks-tweets-a...
You guys are all hilarious.
If a secret service had wanted Hastings dead they would have had some hoods break into his house, simulate a robbery/ransacking, stab him and run off.
Extra credit when they ensure the hoods are later arrested and brought on trial, only to have the case thrown out because evidence about the murder weapon gets thrown out because an investigating officer "accidentally" broke chain of custody.
If a secret service had wanted Hastings dead they would have had some hoods break into his house, simulate a robbery/ransacking, stab him and run off.
Extra credit when they ensure the hoods are later arrested and brought on trial, only to have the case thrown out because evidence about the murder weapon gets thrown out because an investigating officer "accidentally" broke chain of custody.
Maybe the methods would be tailored to the specifics of the person targeted. That makes a lot more sense than some sort of generic "send in the goon squad."
Yes, but people are saying that "someone" specifically tailored an unusually violent car wreck and fire to kill this guy. The key word is "unusual", which is what you would not see if the pros actually wanted him dead.
Unless the real message is "Yes, we will touch the media." which is relevant given the timing.
Cars don't burn like that when hitting a tree.
I've seen cars burn like that after hitting trees, guardrails, other cars... just about any high speed collision has the risk of starting a fire.
It's certainly not majority of wrecks, but it's a high enough percentage that most departments have an SOP that the first engine company in on the wreck will stretch a handline (they might not charge it, but fire is enough of a concern that they'll be ready to deal with it very quickly should the need arise).
It's certainly not majority of wrecks, but it's a high enough percentage that most departments have an SOP that the first engine company in on the wreck will stretch a handline (they might not charge it, but fire is enough of a concern that they'll be ready to deal with it very quickly should the need arise).
Yeah, fires definitely happen as a result of collisions, they just aren't terribly common. Or at least that's been my experience.
I think there's an NFPA (or IFSAC or similar) recommendation on the charged handline thing, but my department defaulted to stretching a line but not charging in most cases. But we did require a charged line in place on any extrication scenarios.
I think there's an NFPA (or IFSAC or similar) recommendation on the charged handline thing, but my department defaulted to stretching a line but not charging in most cases. But we did require a charged line in place on any extrication scenarios.
Sometimes they do. This is why both fire and ambulence are dispatched to accidents. Would you like me to start sending you all the nasty images from accident scenes that my EMT brother gets to go to?
I find it fascinating how quickly he's able to go from bouncing off the walls to stoic when he gets a single car accident call. They're never pretty.
I find it fascinating how quickly he's able to go from bouncing off the walls to stoic when he gets a single car accident call. They're never pretty.
>>This is why both fire and ambulence are dispatched to accidents.
I don't think you can make that claim necessarily. Firetrucks get dispatched for people experiencing health emergencies as well as ambulances just because they are often able to respond more quickly than EMTs. I know this from talking with my firefighter friends and experiencing it first hand with relatives that have passed.
Also firetrucks were always being dispatched to a retirement home where I grew up, not because there were fires or a likelihood of explosion.
I don't think you can make that claim necessarily. Firetrucks get dispatched for people experiencing health emergencies as well as ambulances just because they are often able to respond more quickly than EMTs. I know this from talking with my firefighter friends and experiencing it first hand with relatives that have passed.
Also firetrucks were always being dispatched to a retirement home where I grew up, not because there were fires or a likelihood of explosion.
It varies by jurisdiction. Some fire departments provide both fire protection / fire suppression and emergency medical response. Others do only fire. But even departments that are "fire only" (like the department I was with) are dispatched to most car accidents due to the fire risk. 50 times out of 100 we got there, did a quick size up, found no risk of fire, and returned to quarters, but on the more serious crashes, we would stay on scene while the medics were working. If there was someone pinned in a vehicle, we would pull a 1-3/4" handline and charge it and keep it in place in case anything happened during the actual extrication process.
This, seconded by a current firefighter / paramedic.
Any fluid leaking from the vehicle would cause us to charge a line. And was needed for suppression on multiple occasions.
Any fluid leaking from the vehicle would cause us to charge a line. And was needed for suppression on multiple occasions.
The Internet is beautiful. The tweet immediately fell into the pits of Biebermania somehow.
The degree of righteous indignation in Rob Bieber's reply was somewhat excessive, especially as I can find nothing in that troll's history that indicates he'd been trying to use Rob (apparently a relative) as a way to get Justin to Brazil before! It does seem as though other Bieber fans have been harassing him though.
[deleted]
I suspect this is Wikileaks making opportunistic inferences. If someone's being investigated by the FBI, their mind is going to be elsewhere. A distracted driver, possibly one that's also tired (I don't imagine he was sleeping well if this was the case) is more likely to have an accident. It's unlikely to be a hit job courtesy of the FBI!
Wikileaks needs to not descend to the Daily Mail's level. If they want the public to take them seriously they need to maintain a squeaky clean image, free from tabloid rhetoric. Ambiguous "teaser" tweets do nothing to bolster their image and only serve to undermine it.