I see your comments as amounting to a powerful ambivalence, JS, but not necessarily an active malevolence. Without knowing expectations and capabilities of her own party's protection potential, and not knowing the complexities of the politics and personal resentments among the army who would be charged with her care, it is premature to come to a conclusion as to cause and effect. There are a lot of reasonable alternatives: from "screw them, they're on their own" to "we really can't control her political activities (we tried but were thwarted with house arrest)" to "rightfully, the tradition here is to provide your own security" to "what do you mean: we were on duty as directed but we just weren't really 'into it.'" That's why an independent investigation is so vital. You know, the truth shall set you free (but unfortunately not resurrect a reckless politician).