I imagine arresting teenagers and throwing them in jail for practising chemistry will continue to help the US's already stellar rankings in science compared to other nations...
We're getting awfully close to an upper class imposing lifelong penalties on lower class members for stepping out of line. A felony is a lifelong handicap to the working class.
How much longer until we're (figuratively) cutting off the hands of orphans for stealing loaves of bread?
Which teachers and administrators at the school do you feel are a part of this "upper class?" There are certainly no millionaires handing down decrees at the schools near me.
Just last week, this ASA decided not to prosecute a teenager named Taylor Richardson who accidentally shot and killed his younger brother with a BB gun.
The only reason this story is news is because, based on the info we have so far, it's appears to be a grand hypocritical overreaction. A kid mishandling a BB gun is arguably just as dangerous, or more so, than a kid playing with small amounts of household chemicals outside and away from others. The former killed someone and was not charged with anything, the latter harmed no one and gets felony charges.
The only difference is fear. People are not afraid of BB guns, but if you frame Drano+aluminum foil (from what I've read of the ingredients) in a small water bottle as a dangerous explosive or as a terrorist act, people will overreact and impose absurd punishments.
Do I really need to explain it? According to this attorney, accidentally setting off a small explosion that results in no physical harm being done warrants a felony while murder doesn't even warrant a slap on the wrist.
Zimahl, minutes after making the above comment: "a bomb is a bomb"
A bomb is a bomb. Whether it's thermonuclear or a "works bomb" is irrelevant. However, even killing someone isn't always murder.
How is popping a soda bottle equivalent to a brick of C4?
Not my words, I certainly didn't equate the two. But I also wasn't the one who equated a "works bomb" as you called it to popping a paper sack behind someone's head. My comment of "a bomb is a bomb" is in regards to the fact that she knew it was illegal because she knew it was a bomb. And everyone these days damn well knows you don't do that shit at school, nor even bring a rubberband gun to school. You'll get, at a minimum, expelled.
I never said I agreed with the felonies but this shouldn't be chalked up to some simple slap on the wrist. She knew what she was doing.
> A bomb is a bomb. Whether it's thermonuclear or a "works bomb" is irrelevant
Bull. Shit.
Is a dry ice bomb also "a bomb is a bomb" and therefore plainly as illegal as any other bomb? What if I use coke and mentos instead? What if I use alka-seltzer instead? What if I didn't use anything at all, and merely gave the bottle a good vigorous shake then slammed it down onto the curb? What if I use alka-seltzer but instead of a soda bottle use a film canister instead? What about popping a paper bag instead of a film canister?
Or is it merely the word "bomb" that makes something a considered a plainly illegal bomb to you? What if instead of a brown paper bag is is an origami paper bomb? Is a rubber water bomb now illegal? Is a non-pyrotechnic stink bomb a "bomb" on par legally with a hand grenade? Is making the hallway stink bad now a felony? Is itching powder a chemical weapon? Should students be wary of photo bombing each other?
This seemingly magical equivalence between "bombs" before the law only exists in your head. It is the product of an acceptance and internalization of the zero-tolerance mindset, not critical thinking.
> Not my words, I certainly didn't equate the two.
You sure seem to think they are equivalent before the law... You keep on mindlessly repeating "a bomb is a bomb", what else could you possibly mean?
You also seem to think the apparent illegality of the works bomb changes the situation for some unstated reason. Nobody is questioning that some seem to think it is illegal; obviously the prosecutor thinks that it was illegal. We all know this. What we are upset with is this plainly abusive application of the law. Officially, the validity of application of the law will probably be decided in a courtroom. Unofficially, everyone here but you seems to recognize it is abusive and absurd. If they get away with it, it will be a travesty.
> I also wasn't the one who equated a "works bomb" as you called it to popping a paper sack behind someone's head.
You're right, she didn't pop a paper sack near somebody's head. She popped a soda bottle near nobodys' head...
> she knew it was illegal because she knew it was a bomb
The first does not follow from the second, and she disputes the second. EVEN IF both of those are true, the reaction she has received is wildly out of line. Damn near everybody but you seems to realize this.
You are as naive as her to believe that setting this thing off at school shouldn't have consequences.
You also seem to think the apparent illegality of the works bomb changes the situation for some unstated reason.
I've never agreed with the felony charges. But you seem to think that because you think it's no big deal that there shouldn't be any punishment.
And you can keep twisting my "bomb is a bomb" quote into whatever you want but as far as the zero tolerance policy is concerned it doesn't matter. The problem with all you idiots on here defending her is that you are equating this to an anti-science thing where she's being kept down by "the man". One poster likened this to Socrates.
The other point is that she's an honor student yet didn't know it was dangerous and illegal? So what is she, the naive, stupid little fawn or the smart, intelligent student with a bright future?
Murder was the wrong word. I'm not a lawyer. I doubt it was premeditated. The fact remains that someone is dead, and the kid won't face any legal consequences and it was this ASA who made that decision. See the relevance? She can be as tough as she wants to and in the case of this curious 16 year old, she decided that trying her as an adult and bringing felony charges would be adequate. That's not right.
Other than the discourse that is usually followed on HN, comments typically need to be relevant to the conversation. An accidental shooting (with no link to any source BTW) is completely irrelevant to a bomb going off at school. The accidental shooting wouldn't even be relevant to a school shooting. The only link to either is a prosecutor that is deciding on the charges, which is again irrelevant.
Does anyone have any links to better articles on this situation? I feel like we've only heard one side of this from the media. Now, the media could just be portraying the truth or they could be distorting the facts. Here are the questions I've yet heard answered:
The actions were performed before school started (apparently). I call them 'actions' for a specific reason.
Were these actions sponsored by a teacher?
Were these actions an actual experiment?
Were these actions performed within a science lab or somewhere else on school grounds?
Were these actions associated with any curriculum the student was studying at the time?
Right now I feel that this could have very well be the scientific community rallying around someone who could've been doing something very dangerous that wasn't sanctioned by the school. I would love some answers so I could know whether the charge is fair or not.
From what I can tell, much of chemistry is highly dangerous. The only real question, afaict, is whether the person knows how to correctly handle the danger.
I absolutely am OK with students doing things on school grounds not sponsored by a teacher, not an actual experiment, and generally faffing about in the name of curiosity and learning. Schools shouldn't be running on a whitelist principle.
IMO, the only reason this student should be given a felony charge is if she was planning to perform a dangerous detonation with malicious intent to harm.
Even if she was being stupid and ignorant and planned to scare her friends, no harm was caused.
Harmless foolishness should not be a felony... harmless learning even less so!
I absolutely am OK with students doing things on school grounds not sponsored by a teacher, not an actual experiment, and generally faffing about in the name of curiosity and learning.
Really? I mean, it would've been OK if she did this in the middle of a cafeteria during lunch? And, yes, much of chemistry is highly dangerous and that's the reason it is done in a lab with fume hoods and safety equipment.
MO, the only reason this student should be given a felony charge is if she was planning to perform a dangerous detonation with malicious intent to harm.
The reason why I asked for more information is because we don't really know whether or not this wasn't her intent. Was she being bullied and was going to do this to someone else? I have a hard time associating this with 'science' because the narrative seems so one-sided.
> Really? I mean, it would've been OK if she did this in the middle of a cafeteria during lunch? And, yes, much of chemistry is highly dangerous and that's the reason it is done in a lab with fume hoods and safety equipment.
When I was in school stuff like this did happen in the cafeteria, though to my knowledge it only involved Mentos+Coke and no household chemicals. Kids would do it specifically to make a mess or prank other kids. But that's all it was, a prank, not a terrorist act.
Occasionally kids would mix household chemicals together outside to see what would happen. Families that hunted routinely had guns in their cars too. Nobody freaked out, nobody died, and the world kept spinning.
The narrative is indeed one-sided, and I look forward to hearing more from all sides of the story.
Again, barring malicious intent to cause significant harm, I don't think this is a felony.
The best punishment is, IMO, probably being stuffed in an AP chemistry class and taught how to do chemistry properly. If she likes it, good, if she doesn't like, well, she shouldn't have done dumb chemistry. :-)
I've seen one on Youtube and they are all fine and dandy when everyone is aware what is going to happen and moves away. Frankly, I wouldn't want to be anywhere next to one when they went off and possibly get Drano or toilet cleaner in my eyes.
Tin foil & toilet cleaner in a plastic bottle. Not sanctioned by the school, but not a tried-as-an-adult-felony. Quotes from her principal:
"She made a bad choice," principal Ron Pritchard told WTSP-TV on Wednesday. "Honestly, I don't think she meant to ever hurt anyone. She wanted to see what would happen and was shocked by what it did. Her mother is shocked, too." "She is a good kid," he added. "She has never been in trouble before. Ever. She told us everything and was very honest. She didn't run or try to hide the truth. We had a long conversation with her."
Everywhere you look lately, messed up adults are failing kids. Chew your Pop-tart into a gun shape? Suspension, because zero tolerance! Shake up some toilet cleaner? Expulsion, felony! Because...zero tolerance. Gangrape, humiliate, and bully? Hide that crap and try to cover it up until the community outrage gets too loud because...wait, what?
Regardless of whether it was sanctioned or not, this girl does not deserve to be expelled and tried as an adult for two felonies. There is no superlative to describe how idiotic this is.
If she had been trying to kill students, then sure. But if she was just satisfying her own curiosity, a slap on the wrist is more than appropriate.
None of that matters. Extracurricular schoolyard pranks with toilet bowl cleaner and aluminum foil do not rise to the level of a felony charge in any sane jurisdiction.
Extracurricular schoolyard pranks with toilet bowl cleaner and aluminum foil do not rise to the level of a felony charge in any sane jurisdiction.
Not in the USA and not on school grounds. The zero tolerance laws are enforced and have teeth. Just recently, an Eagle Scout and honor student was arrested and charged with a felony when he realized he left his hunting rifle in his car at school and did the right thing and called his parent to come pick it up[1].
Your "sane jurisdiction" might not be the same as others. Personally, I don't think experimenting with explosive devices on school grounds is any more appropriate than having a gun on school grounds.
I don't mind zero tolerance laws within reason. If a student forgets their hunting rifle in their car and tries to do the right thing I'm ok with giving them a pass. But a bomb is a bomb - hard to spin that to 'I didn't know any better'.
In the interest of balance, I'd like to point out that Ms. Wilmot was almost certainly intending to make an explosive (A weak one, but one nonetheless). Ie, this was not simply a science experiment gone wrong and she was not just "practicing chemistry". And intentionally creating an explosive on school grounds definitely merits punishment.
That said, felony charges are clearly ludicrous (The set of actions a teenager could commit, barring actual malice, that merit a felony charge is in my mind vanishingly small).
That is a meaningless statement by itself, and "making an explosion" does not merit punishment in and of itself. You may as well say "Stan was clearly intending to make a fire (A small one, but one nonetheless). ...intentionally creating a fire on school grounds definitely merits punishment)" What do we mean by fire? Did he set his desk ablaze, or did he light a wooden splint? "He intentionally set a fire" gives us no basis to make a blanket judgement.
Explosions do not inherently merit punishment, just as fires do not. The massive range of intended harm and magnitude that could be encompassed by the general description "explosion" or "fire" means that these acts cover everything deserving of "a stern look from the teacher" to "lock them away and throw away the key".
Edit to add: When I was in 10th grade my physics class was making alka-seltzer rockets in the football field. A few of us threw a bunch into a 12-oz pop bottle and blew it up. We got an eye-roll from our teacher; it wasn't even considered worth a comment.
I'm not sure fire is a great example. Fire can get out of hand and grow. Just as I don't want you playing with matches in my house, you probably shouldn't be playing with matches in school.
In the end, it all comes down to intent. If you lit some paper on fire and threw it in a trashcan to cause a disturbance that's an issue and a serious one. I am having trouble finding a good reason to light a fire in a school other than to light a Bunsen burner. shrug
The problem with an IED (perfectly fine name for what was made) is that it's affects are much less controllable. Many could be hurt and very quickly. I think it might warrant a very stern response and possibly legal punishment. Once again, to me it somewhat comes down to intent, although with IEDs I don't think the law really cares.
> I am having trouble finding a good reason to light a fire in a school other than to light a Bunsen burner. shrug
For highschool students I think the usual 'good' reason is "Well we already have this bunsen burner going for this lab, we are bored, we have all of these extra wooden splints, and we are teenagers." There really is little to no harm that is going to come of that sort of situation so, although the rules clearly forbid it, any reasonable teacher is just going to ignore them or tell them to knock it off. Zero-tolerance attitudes benefit nobody.
> IED (perfectly fine name for what was made)
You have got to be kidding me. The only reason to call it that is to invoke an emotional reaction.
You have got to be kidding me. The only reason to call it that is to invoke an emotional reaction.
IED stands for "improvised explosive device". It might be emotional to you, however, it's exactly what was made. It's a device that is improvised from household materials with the entire point of exploding. It explodes via pressure but in no way does the IED label require it to be a brick of C4 detonated via a burner cell phone.
Right, and lighting a cigarette with a $1 convenience store butane lighter can be described innocuously as:
Intentional ignition of an incendiary device via the combustion
of highly compressed explosive gas using a manually triggered
high voltage electrical discharge.
Edit: while you're technically correct that if what was made was designed to explode then it is an IED, you could also say that blowing air into a Ziploc bag, sealing it, and then stomping on it is also an IED. Are Ziploc bags designed for this use? No, thus it was improvised. Did it explode? Yes. Was it a device? Yes. The problem is that IED is such a loaded term and its use in this case can be quite misleading.
but... smoking at school is not allowed so it doesn't really matter how you describe it. Oh... unless maybe you were just conducting an experiment... then it would be ok... I guess?
Well then in that case lets arrest all of those delinquent smokers for attempted arson.
The issue here is proportionality of response (and, local to this particular thread, the use of absurdly loaded language to exaggerate the nature of an offense in order to justify disproportionate responses).
Again... there does not have to be an "all or nothing" situation. There is punishment less than felony conviction. I don't believe this girl is a felon and I don't believe she should go on without consequence.
If you honestly thought that was a perfectly innocent term for what was made, with no emotional baggage, you would not have immediately, preemptively, defended your use of the term.
I'm assuming you aren't an American because I have never heard the term "works bomb" before. It's also funny because on the first link from google[1] (below the youtube video) it clear states:
Warning! The Works bomb is illegal to make! Don’t do it! The information below is purely for educational purposes (such as research papers) and may leave ... crucial steps.
If you think IED has no emotional baggage, try the word "bomb". When I was in college I had the misfortune of being in a bathroom when a pipe burst in the ceiling. Just 1 idiot speculating and saying the words "cherry bomb" cost me 3 hours of questioning by police.
> I'm assuming you aren't an American because I have never heard the term "works bomb" before.
Funny, I was assuming the same about you... I am American, and so is everybody that I have ever known to play around with them. If you haven't heard of the term that is fine, but I do not believe for one second that you could not think of a more appropriate term than "IED".
> "It's also funny because on the first link from google[1] (below the youtube video) it clear states: Warning! The Works bomb is illegal to make! Don’t do it! The information below is purely for educational purposes (such as research papers) and may leave ... crucial steps."
Yes... and? What is your point?
> If you think IED has no emotional baggage
The opposite actually..
> Just 1 idiot speculating and saying the words "cherry bomb" cost me 3 hours of questioning by police.
So do you think that had to do with the term "cherry bomb" being used, or with the suggestion that perhaps you were responsible for vandalism?
> "It's also funny because on the first link from google[1] (below the youtube video) it clear states: Warning! The Works bomb is illegal to make! Don’t do it! The information below is purely for educational purposes (such as research papers) and may leave ... crucial steps."
Yes... and? What is your point?
Everyone knows that these (whether they be called "works bombs" or "Drano bombs") are illegal and you'll get in trouble if caught. And even though you say they're harmless, many other sources disagree - people can get injured.
So, my point is that you'd have to be naive to think there wouldn't be repercussions setting one of these off in a school.
> If you think IED has no emotional baggage
The opposite actually..
Typo. I incorrectly added the "no".
> Just 1 idiot speculating and saying the words "cherry bomb" cost me 3 hours of questioning by police.
So do you think that had to do with the term "cherry bomb" being used, or with the suggestion that perhaps you were responsible for vandalism?
No, they really didn't care about the pipe, those things happened in the dorms all the time. Kids passing basketballs around and hit a sprinkler, or kids goofing around and crunching up some drywall. Damage happens with 100 18-year olds on one dorm floor. But the questioning centered on causing damage with the "explosives".
> Everyone knows that these (whether they be called "works bombs" or "Drano bombs") are illegal and you'll get in trouble if caught.
I have addressed this already.
> And even though you say they're harmless, many other sources disagree - people can get injured.
Even if we accept that what she did was horrifically dangerous, that does not mean a felony charge is in order.
> those things happened in the dorms all the time. Kids passing basketballs around and hit a sprinkler, or kids goofing around and crunching up some drywall
You don't think that an apparent intentional act of vandalism is going to attract more attention than standard accidental damage?
> the questioning centered on causing damage with the "explosives".
I think you are either full of shit or simply mistaken, but even if you are neither that does nothing to say that the treatment of this girl is reasonable.
Yet you still seem to be shocked that she is being punished. Your previous posts equate this to just 'kids bring kids'.
Even if we accept that what she did was horrifically dangerous, that does not mean a felony charge is in order.
I have never once, in all my replies, said this deserves a felony. I have defended the zero tolerance policies in schools but I don't think an expulsion is the same as being a felon.
This might deserve a misdemeanor with a fair amount of community service. She should do it at a vet home to see the consequences of real explosives and why they aren't to be played with.
You don't think that an apparent intentional act of vandalism is going to attract more attention than standard accidental damage?
I think you are either full of shit or simply mistaken
I tell a personal anecdote and I'm either lying or mistaken? You are just being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. You couldn't possibly imagine that there were overzealous campus police when you are commenting on a story where we are obviously seeing overzealous prosecution? What a double standard.
Agreed. There were a number of times I intended to do something that was similar to this, and even at school without supervision. I was punished on occasion, I was rewarded at other times. This does not make it a felonious offense. I am grateful today to the educators I had at the time who understood I was intelligent, curious and, frankly, stupid. If they had done what this school has decided to do to Ms. Wilmot I would not be where I am today. I hope the spirit of justice will win out and allow this student to continue to study and learn, become a contributor to society, and hopefully make many more intended discoveries in her life, without a felony record or imprisonment.
Why do they just gloss over the location of this "experiment"? Was it in the science lab? doesn't sound like it. Was it out in the school yard? sounds like it. Was it being supervised by a teacher? nope. Was it assigned by a teacher? doesn't sound like it. I think context matters. I can think a few bad things to do that could simply be labeled as an "experiment" when you get caught.
I hate that we have two such extremes. On one end we have this hyper-militant, zero tolerance agenda that turns every little thing into a felony (kindergartners getting kicked out for gun shaped finger pointing). On the other side we have hyper sensitive, rights agenda that wants to let little billy express his creativity even if that means a few bottle bombs go off on school grounds once in a while.
Is this girl a felon? hell no. what a stupid over reaction. But let's not pretend she didn't do anything wrong.
She tried a fairly-safe experiment in an out-of-way place on school grounds. She's 16 years old, so old enough that she can do an experiment like this fairly safely, out of the way makes sense. What exactly did she do wrong? Was it her presumption that the school is a place for curiosity.
The only result of you "not pretending she didn't do anything wrong" is she becoming a felon.
You never support wrongful accusation on the matters that the person accused is guilty of "something".
That's what gets the person pronounced guilty and now you share this sin and is going to rot in hell and everybody loses: you, the society, the wrongfully accused.
I said the felony was an overreaction. Your statement really confuses me. Are you saying there is only two outcomes: 1) she suffers 0 punishment or 2) she is a felon
No there isn't unfortunately. Courts do not work that way. They either let you go or you suffer fixed punishment not necessarily related to severity of your crime. That's what killed Socrates.
Fixed punishment is tied to the level of crime you are convicted of. There are many levels of "crime" that this could fall into. I don't think it has to be felony or nothing.
These days of zero-tolerance (that is, most days on the planet except mid-twentieth century) it is too easy to just go with the flow and convict of whatever is brought to the eyes of justice. You need luck, good lawyer or both to get fair treatment, especially if the public thinks you're guilty of "something".
Well, the answer to zero tolerance is not "ALL tolerance". If those are my only choices and I am absolutely forced to pick one of those two sides, then I'm going to go with the side that doesn't foster an environment of "do as you please... we'll tolerate anything". That is a pretty slippery slope to get on. We have to have some amount of rules and punishment.
I think the charges are ridiculous. But I also think Hacker News can do better for content than hosting a link to every change.org petition that comes by, as the great majority of change.org petitions are a lot more ridiculous than this petition. And even when the petition urges a sensible position, the petition is almost never the best means to achieve the desired result.
From the Hacker News guidelines:
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
This story has been adequately covered by the TV news and by news outlets all over the world. The petition doesn't add any "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" value to the Hacker News community.
Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
If an article is on the front page it's because the community wants it on the front page.
I was not familiar with this type of explosive device, and this one one of the first things I found. I posted it because it has some good information including:
- a video of one being detonated
- information on the dangers of using these devices
- some historical background
- a list of cases where this type of explosive was found
Where I grew up local stores would not sell either dry ice or "the works" (the favored brand, apparently) to kids. The effect is the same, which you choose is probably just a matter of which is available.
When the thing bursts and sends liquid splattering all about... would you prefer it to be water with dry ice? or Drano? I know dry ice has some safety concerns but I can't imagine it is worse than getting sprayed with Drano. But I could be wrong about just how dangerous dry ice is.
I wouldn't want to be sprayed by drano, but I wouldn't want to be next to either anyway. I have never heard of anyone actually being hurt by these things. Considering how popular they are, if they presented any appreciable danger you would think lots of people would be getting hurt by them.
yes actually, I'd think about donating except that what would the US gov think of people donating money to a bomber? we all might get a check in our files for supporting terrorism... :(
I would guess that what she was doing was causing the bottle to pop by doing a chemical reaction inside it that creates lots of gas as a by product of the chemical reaction, enough to cause a significant increase in pressure until the bottle pops.
This is actually something that kids did when I was in high school 10+ years ago (although never at school or during school hours). I don't think it is a good thing for kids to be doing, but I do think authorities are over reacting (pun intended), it is not a real explosion or bomb, just a bottle popping. However I do think someone could get hurt if they were right next to it when it pops.
Like everyone else, I don't think this should result in a felony. But (apparently) unlike everyone else, I don't think it's particularly appropriate to build a small bomb at school, and I am pretty skeptical of the "I was just doing a science experiment" explanation.
I mean, when I was a kid we used to shoot stuff (with a pellet gun) and blow stuff up (with fireworks) because shooting stuff and blowing stuff up was cool. But we didn't try to pretend we were "doing science", and we were smart enough to do it in my backyard, not at school.
While I understand (and often share) your cynicism, change.org has won some victories in the past: http://www.change.org/victories
The level of the "victories" do vary. But, in this particular case, I think a mass expression of support for this girl could actually encourage the local DA and school reconsider moving forward with prosecution.
Perhaps steer clear of questioning whether he was correct to guess your meaning when following it with a line that confirms you were indeed being cynical. Not saying you are wrong to be cynical, but you are (as am I).
As I understand it, a big part of change.org's model is building a political mailing list, so they can follow up with you at election time and say, "you signed this petition that we sent to this politician, and they [did/didn't] do what you wanted." So even if the petition itself doesn't do anything, they can follow up with pressure at the ballot box.
A ton of mainstream product advertisements got pulled from conservative radio after Rush Limbaugh did that whole Sandra Fluke thing. That was spearheaded by change.org.
Agreed, I honestly don't think there has ever been any actual "change" occurring due to these petitions. They either are on the side of agreement with those in office, or they are not. The response is always a regurgitation of their current views on the matter.
Honestly, the best way to make a difference with local government is either to make a credible threat of suit or just make their lives miserable for a few weeks (by publishing their email addresses and phone numbers and sicking the internet on them).
I had a few altercations with my high school administrators. The first involved a student petition, the second involved formal letters from attorneys. Guess which one had more effect.
Edit: nevertheless, I have signed the petition in question.
Slactivists feeling good about themselves, primarily.
I say this not to tease about the goals and causes, but just that sending individual, targeted letters to the parties involved or a dollar to the family for their legal fund would do so much more. Internet petitions do nothing and are easily ignored.
I imagine that the abstraction of the reason is probably similar to the Fight Club quote about automotive recalls:
" A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."
It's a similar thing with politics.
Just change A out for either people in the voting body or lobbying body, multiply by B, the probable percentage of A that you'll lose with a specific decision, then multiply by C, the amount of money (weight of a specific vote) that the specific entity would lose you.
If X is enough money/votes to win the next election, then business as usual. Of course one could say that Obama is done after this term anyway, but I have a feeling that the PTB have their best interests in favor.
edit: You've gone and deleted your post. The general gist of the question was: "What are the political forces in play causing him to change his mind about GITMO?"
We have a hyper-sensitive populace and so-called educators and "authorities" that are continually trying to nanny-fy the U.S. Thirty years ago something like this would have been laughed at as jr. mad scientist kid doing what jr. mad scientist kids do.
Do they even sell those little chemistry labs in a box that you could buy 30 or so years ago, or has "homeland security" deemed that dangerous?
