* a few of the critical pieces of information the FBI/DOJ are still hiding in apparent violation of FOIA requirements to disclose
Posted by DXer on August 15, 2009
* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *
DXer writes (8/14/09) …
- An example of an item the FBI is keeping secret is the reason for the Silicon Signature in flask 1030.
- In violation of the Freedom of Information Act, they reportedly have removed all copies of Lab Notebook 4010 from USAMRIID.
- In violation of FOIA, the copy made of Lab Notebook 4010 made in Fall 2001 upon being first produced to the FBI has not been provided under FOIA. (That would not have been subject to seizure in November 2007).
- Similarly, the copy of RMR Record for flask 1029 made in Fall 2001 upon being first produced to the FBI has not been produced.
- That indicated the withdrawals from flask 1029. This would shed light on when the critical record was altered using white-out — in which the place where it was stored was changed from Bldg. 1412 to Bldg. 1425.
- It may even tend to prove that the entire second page of the flask 1029 is a “redo” — production of the documents may reveal the reason for the 100 ml discrepancy in the records.
- The FBI most notably has been keeping Bruce Ivins’ emails secret, especially from September and October 2001 period that would bear on his whereabouts.
- The buck for compliance with FOIA stops at USAMRIID. Review by US DOJ is not a reason for non-compliance.
- Of course, if the FBI is not confident in its conclusions, then the FBI should continue its confidential investigation with our blessing.
LMW COMMENT …
The FBI’s continued refusal to release information it is legally required to release is a travesty of justice, a holdover from the Bush-Cheney administration that the Obama administration should not permit to continue.
CASE CLOSED ... what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks? 
DXer said
Biosecurity experts met at the White House this week.
Here are the facts that have been public record since Fall 2001. A nerdy fellow named Bruce Ivins supplied the virulent Ames strain of anthrax to Ann Arbor researchers. One of the two lead researchers and a principal in the small company, Dr. Tarek Hamouda, obtained his PhD in microbiology from Cairo Medical in 1994. He and his wife came to the United States to settle that year. By 1998, he was working on a DARPA-funded project involving nanoemulsions and a biocidal cream. In December 1999, he and two colleagues traveled to a remote military installation in Utah to test its effectiveness in killing aerosolized anthrax surrogates. Genetically, in time, the attack anthrax used in the Fall 2001 mailings traced to a flask created by Bruce Ivins. The small company tested its decontamination agent in clean-up of the Capitol buildings and pitched a hand cream to postal workers.
The small company, NanoBio, has received $80 million in investment without having a product — $50 million was from a DC venture firm headed by Richard Holbrooke, #3 at the Department of State. Although biosecurity experts met at the White House this week, there is no indication that any of this came up.
But here is what any biosecurity expert visiting the White House should have known since 9/11. (From detailed email correspondence with Tara O’Toole in Fall 2002, I know she knew it.) Open source intelligence indicated in Fall 2001 that Ayman Zawahiri was going to rely on recruitment of specialists in using anthrax against US targets. He understood the koran, furthermore, to counsel using the weapons of your enemy. A family friend of Tarek Hamouda, “Tawfik” Hamid, had been recruited by Ayman Zawahiri while they both had been at Cairo Medical. To not seek answers to questions from Dr. Hamouda about any relationship with Ayman Zawahiri or Ayman’s sisters and father at medical school (they worked in pharmacology and antimicrobials) is to recklessly avoid issues requiring answers. Dr. Hamouda refuses to address the subject and the US DOJ is not free to discuss such matters.
We know that the DOJ subpoenaed LSU in Fall 2001 relating to the use of the B3 there by the University of Michigan researchers in connection with this research with which Dr. Ivins assisted. We also know that DOJ subpoenaed University of Michigan directly. But all reports are that the research involving Ames was done at USAMRIID and none was brought back to Ann Arbor. James Baker reports that the NanoBio microbiologist worked under the “direct supervision” of Bruce Ivins at USAMRIID. As for seeming contradictions in scientific presentations made by lab tech Michael Hayes, the University of Michigan under FOIA has not provided a copy of the report. The University similarly has not provided a copy of the presentations made by Dr. Hamouda to the ASM.
There is no reason to doubt that the FBI has considered any and all theories. Before they turned to their present sorority theory involving Dr. Ivins, the FBI and CIA was once concerned that there might have been unauthorized access to the Ames strain by someone associated by the man who had said he was going to infiltrate US biodefense. The DOJ aggressively prosecuted various matters related to Al-Timimi’s charity IANA charity which was in Ann Arbor 1 mile from the NanoBio office. Al-Timimi’s matter is currently pending and highly classified. Not even the Judge’s clerk or defense counsel has been allowed to see the recent filings by the prosecutor.
Before Ivins’ suicide, FoxNews reported that the suspects had been narrowed to four. A leading anthrax scientist, a former deputy USAMRIID Commander, a microbiologist and perhaps one other. IANA speaker Ali Al-Timimi worked in the same building as two other DARPA-funded researchers — famed Russian bioweapons scientist Ken Alibek and former USAMRIID Deputy Commander and Acting Commander Charles Bailey. Al-Timimi was a current associate and former student of Bin Laden’s spiritual advisor, dissident Saudi Sheik al-Hawali. Ali Al-Timimi preached on the end of times and the inevitability of the clash of civilizations. He was in active contact with the sheik whose detention had been the express subject of Bin Laden’s 1996 Declaration of War. At GMU, Dr. Bailey would come to publish a lot of research with the “Ames strain” of anthrax.
The anthrax used in the anthrax mailings was traced to Bruce Ivins’ lab at USAMRIID, where Ivins, according to a former colleague, had done some work for DARPA. The lyophilizer Ivins signed out had been used with the DARPA work done with Dr. Hamouda.
Al-Timimi would speak along with the blind sheik’s son at charity conferences. The blind sheik’s son served on Al Qaeda’s WMD committee. Al-Timimi’s mentor Bilal Philips was known for recruiting members of the military to jihad. The first week after 9/11, FBI agents questioned Al-Timimi. Ali’s graduate program was jointly run by George Mason University and the American Type Culture Collection (”ATCC”). Ali, according to his lawyer, had been questioned by an FBI agent and Secret Service agent in 1994 after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He had a high security clearance for work for the Navy in the late 1990s. The defense webpage reported he had once served as the assistant for the White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card. (Mr. Card had been Secretary of Transportation in 1992-1993; from 1993 to 1998, Mr. Card was President and Chief Executive Officer of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association.) As time off from his university studies permitted, Ali was an active speaker with the charity Islamic Assembly of North America.
A laptop evidencing Al Qaeda’s intent on weaponizing anthrax had been seized in Baku in July 1998. At about the same time, Dr. Alibek, then Program Manager, Battelle Memorial Institute, testified before the Joint Economic Committee on the subject of “Terrorist and Intelligence Operations: Potential Impact on the U.S. Economy” about the proliferation of know-how. Dr. Alibek noted that “[t]here are numerous ways in which Russia’s biological weapons expertise can be proliferated to other countries.” Indeed. Sometimes such proliferation is funded by DARPA and any student who wants to apply to work in the building can submit an application.
Ayaad Assaad, formerly of Ft. Detrick, was a Coptic Christian, a group persecuted by blind sheik Abdel-Rahman’s Egyptian Islamic Group. But the widely reported story of the letter sent to Quantico served well to make it politically incorrect to ask questions that need to be asked of Dr. Hamouda and Dr. Al-Timimi who not so long ago applied to be associated with US biodefense research efforts.
One applicant, Al-Timimi, was this Salafist preacher seeing signs of the coming day of judgment and the inevitable clash of civilizations. He had been mentored by the sheik named in Bin Laden’s declaration of war in 1996. In 1999, Al-Timimi had a high security clearance for work for the Navy. His father worked at the Iraqi embassy. If the US DOJ has had a difficult task, the challenge facing the White House was even more problematic and riddled with political pitfalls. It is also problematic for Tara O’Toole and her Administration colleagues meeting at the White House this week given that NanoBio was funded by Perseus, headed at the time by Richard Holbrooke. But the entire point of Obama taking the office was so that the right decisions and choices could now be made — despite the challenges and obstacles.
Senators Leahy and Senators Spectre were stunned at the US Attorney Jeff Taylor’s view of the evidence supporting an Ivins Theory. A year later, no additional evidence has yet been disclosed. The entire purpose of the previous briefings was to disclose the evidence that the government had. The only thing certain is that the case seems a difficult one to solve and the DOJ is going to be damned if they do and damned if they don’t. We should give everyone the benefit of the doubt while seeking answers. But we shouldn’t stop asking the questions until we get answers to the pending questions.
DXer said
Bugmaster now mentions that a member of Hatfill’s legal team noted the rumors of an indictment as reasons for the suit. That, too, requires a cited source. I give Ed a hard time about not correcting his webpage on the First Grader theory and not informing himself about Zawahiri’s anthrax planning as it relates to infiltration of US biodefense. But he has been very thorough in reading the press articles about the FBI’s Hatfill Theory. He recalls no article that had such a mention. Perhaps Bugmaster means counsel’s mention of the suggestion leaked to the press that would have charged some other crime absent proof on Amerithrax. Or perhaps she again means a comment that was not reported in the press.
By way of background, Hatfill was in virology which was located in Building 1425. The FBI in a sworn affidavit in support of a warrant of Hatfill’s apartment reports that Ames was kept in 1425 in an unlocked freezer. Separately, in a sworn affidavit submitted by Bruce Ivins, we know that he would even keep anthrax from flask 1029 on his desk while it awaited shipping. And so it is not a Hatfill Theory as such that should be faulted. The affidavits read very reasonably. It was the leaking by the lead criminal person at the US Attorney’s office that was the problem.
A district court judge wrote that the FBI had not presented a scintilla evidence of Dr. Hatfill’s guilt. That conclusion seems to have withstood the test of time. The lesson to draw, though, is that there are huge parallels between a Hatfill Theory and an Ivins Theory. Just as there was only a speculative theory about Dr. Hatfill, there is no evidence that has yet been disclosed establishing Dr. Ivins guilt. US Attorney Taylor’s “we excluded everyone else” is just breathtaking in its insufficiency to meet the government’s burden.
The Hatfill Theory was pursued by one of the two investigative squads (and a third squad addressed the science). The FBI would be subject to another privacy suit if it leaked other theories. The US DOJ does not have an enviable task. It seems that they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Outsiders also have an unenviable task in discussing the matter. For my part, all I can say is that unlike Ed or Mr. Kristof, I never write about a person without contacting them or their counsel first and asking them for their side of the story. And unlike Ed, I check my facts and correct any facts that are in error.
BugMaster said
“Bugmaster now mentions that a member of Hatfill’s legal team noted the rumors of an indictment as reasons for the suit. That, too, requires a cited source.”
It was briefly mentioned in an on-line news article soon after the settlement was announced. I don’t remember any more specifics, so I can’t cite the specific source here.
Maybe Ed could review some of the articles in his archives and help us out here.
DXer said
Let’s consider a Hatfill Theory for a moment as it relates to access to virulent Ames. The FBI in its affidavit:
“– While employed at USAMRIID in Frederick, Maryland, from 1997, Hatfill worked in the laboratory building in which the United States Army houses various biological agents, including the same “Ames” strain of Bacillus anthracis contained in the letters. Hatfill had access to the unlocked storage freezers in which the Ames strain of B.A. was then kept.”
To what building and unlocked freezers does this statement by the FBI refer?
Anonymous Scientist said
This is a very interesting observation. Not that I’m saying, of course, that Hatfill had anything whatsoever to do with the anthrax attacks. But from this it seems that there is no more reason to believe that Ivins is guilty over Hatfill – and, of course, hundreds of others who had access.
Indeed, Hatfill and Ivins have a lot in common. No spores were found in either of their homes. No spores were found in either of their cars. There is not a scintilla of physical evidence linking either of them to the anthrax attacks. Neither had a motive. Neither were linked to trip to Princeton at the time of the mailings. Both had access to the RMR-1029 flask in the time frame 1997 (when it was created) to whenever Hatfill left Detrick.
But there is one big difference between Hatfill and Ivins. Hatfill didn’t have a family to support and wasn’t a family man with an impeccable reputation in his community – a reputation that, once tarnished, would have devastating personal repercussions leading to suicide. But more importantly Hatfill was well connected and managed to secure the services of a fantastic lawyer who was willing to work for free until the government wrote a check. Ivins did not have these connections and had to pay legal bills of $68K and he knew he couldn’t afford to be indicted – his life savings was already almost gone.
DXer said
The FBI explains:
“During an interview with FBI agents on March 27, 2002, Steven Hatfill denied taking any Cipro during the months of September and October of 2001. However, a review of pharmacy business records reveals that exactly two days before the first anthrax letters were mailed (postmarked) on September 18, 2001, Steven Hatfill filled a prescription for forty 500 mg tablets of Cipro at the CVS pharmacy located near his home in Frederick, Maryland. Exactly two days before the second group of anthrax letters were mailed (postmarked) on October 9, 2001, Hatfill filled another prescription for thirty more 500 mg tablets of Cipro at the same CVS pharmacy. Additional Cipro prescriptions were filled by Hatfill on January 9, 2001 (20 tablets), July 1, 2001 (20 tablets), and November 10, 2001 (30 tablets).
Consider how Ed nowhere addresses this claim by the FBI that Dr. Hatfill falsely denied taking Cipro or this alleged purchase of Cipro beginning on July 1, 2001. Cipro was found in his girlfriend’s name hidden in the coffee.
DXer said
The FBI argues that “Hatfill is a protege of {the name of William Patrick is redacted; Dr. Patrick has explained that there is no one who knows more about anthrax as used as a weapon). Steven Hatfill’s curriculum vitae claims a “working knowledge of the former US. and foreign BW programs, wet and dry BW agents, … stabilizers and other additives, former BG simulant production methods….” Hatfill is believed to have experience working with various anthrax ‘simulants,” that is, other types of bacillus that mimic the properties of anthracis.
Yes, Anonymous Scientist. A Hatfill Theory, while lacking merit, was stronger than an Ivins Theory.
The $5.8 was paid on the privacy claim — and did not constitute a finding of innocence.
DXer said
Dr. Ivins had body armor — Dr. Hatfill had a silencer.
DXer said
The FBI explained:
“Hatfill produced a document purportedly showing the “LD-50” lethal dose rates of anthrax and other biological agents that was based on data he collected while working for the Selous Scouts in Rhodesia. (“LD-50″) is the amount of a solid or liquid material that it takes to kill 50% of the human population in a single dose.) Hatfill also boasted that he advised the Rhodesian Special Branch how to lace
clothing distributed in rebel-held provinces with a lethal mixture of Organophosphate pesticide and Dimethyl Sufloxide (DMSO) in order to kill rebel opponents. Hatfill claimed that his suggestion of adding DSMO made the mixture much more deadly and hundreds were killed as a result. [Redacted] the former head of the Rhodesian Central Intelligence Organization during the civil war, has publically admitted that the Rhodesian government deliberately distributed poisoned clothing that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of rebels and civilian.”
DXer said
The conference he set up was in June 2001. Not a stressor. (The earlier conferences of the same type attended by Dr. Ivins were also attended by Zawahiri’s first anthrax lab scientist who is an email correspondent of mine and a nice guy; US media is lame to not snag an interview).
As for 2008, the greatest stressor is being unjustly accused and unrighteously betrayed by people you thought were your friends.
The outrage and hurt would come over the unfairness of it all. I’ve separately suggested he was indictable if he altered the document or made a transfer without complying with post-1997 regulations — as an accessory before the fact. Altering documents would also make him an accessory after the fact and make him indictable for obstruction of justice.
He was on anti-depression medication as you point out, rather than anti-psychotics. Any sensible person would be just as depressed under similar circumstances.
On the mailings, he has an alibi. After the first mailing, he would never have left his house — where three adults slept (two were 17).
Even someone getting up to pee or get a drink of water then would have noticed he was gone and made the connection upon the following news. We know his wife thinks he is innocent from the final note.
The Bush Administration knows that the anthrax was sent *immediately* after the bail was denied for Vanguards of Conquest (EIJ) #2 — just as had been threatened. See CIA Feb. 2001 PDB to President Bush. Mr. Persichini should resign the day after he closes the case naming Ivins and then there should be a full-bore Congressional investigation with subpoena power. The WH national security person was US Attorney, head of the national security division at DOJ, and Mueller’s former chief of staff. And so Mr. Mueller perhaps is executing the play set in motion under the earlier Administration. Mr. Mueller told the Senate Committee that it would be reopened if new evidence came to light but that is bullshit given I can prove what evidence the FBI intentionally buried.
On the other hand, Brenda on CLOSER always had a few gambits up her sleeve and critics of her method would be softened by her successes in closing a case.
So I wish them well. PRIORITY MAIL illustrated the deception that was used in connection with mail bomber Walter LeRoy Moody.
DXer said
BugMaster says:
” Statement made by FBI agent during a late 2002 conversation, we were discussing Stephan J. Hatfill at the time.
Direct quote from FBI agent (who will not be named here)
‘There are indictments'”
Cool. The only time I’ve spoken with FBI agents is they asked me why Ed Lake would be motivated to make a false and malicious accusation.
I was glad to explain.
Anonymous Scientist said
“The only time I’ve spoken with FBI agents is they asked me why Ed Lake would be motivated to make a false and malicious accusation.”
So, Ivins is not the only person Ed Lake makes false and malicious accusations against? Interestingly a person with that sort of disorder is also prone to take part in “distortion campaigns”. Ed Lake’s website is certianly an example of a distortion campaign against Dr Ivins. I suppose people in the past who had this disorder would take part in “witch hunts”. Fascinating.
http://www.nook2.com/CommonBehaviors/FalseAccusations.html
False Accusations & Distortion Campaigns
Definition:
False accusations, distortion campaigns & smears are unwarranted accusations or exaggerated criticisms. The personality disordered individual fabricates inaccurate stories about a family member, partner or innocent third party or distorts the facts in reporting an event or situation.
DXer said
And one report said that they were considering charging Dr. Hatfill something that they could prove separate from Amerithrax.
Given that he had forged his PhD certificate in indirectly obtaining access to the deadly ebola virus, this was extremely aggressive intimidation.
Here, given the apparent alteration of documents, and the 100 ml discrepancy, Dr. Ivins apparently was subject to similar aggressive tactics even assuming an absence of evidence he did the processing or mailing. Leahy and Specter are experienced prosecutors and they received fuller briefings than the public — they said they were stunned by Taylor’s assertions and assessment of the evidence. Ed has no experience in legal matters, let alone a criminal prosecution.
Given that Dr. Ivins’ colleagues had been told not to talk to him about it, his career was ruined, he was out $68,000 in legal fees and still faced indictment, had substance abuse problems, and was unhappy generally… it would have driven anyone to the breaking point. Ed considers it sociopathic — when it would seem perfectly understandable that he was filled with rage at someone who he viewed as having made made false and malicious charges in such a case. (Ed doesn’t even know who his rage was directed at). Ed, having made similar false and malicious charges may have sensitivities on the subject.
BugMaster said
Let’s keep in mind one more thing, DXer
Ivins was taking at least one SSRI (paxil or similar) for his depression. He was also taking ambien.
I don’t know if you anyone who was on either medication and also consuming large amounts of alcohol at the time. It is a disasterous combination causing serious and unpredictable results.
I don’t particularly care what Ivin’s state of mind was in the 12 months prior to his suicide.
What is applicable here:
What was his state of mind around the time the anthrax was mailed?
Busy working on a frustrating problem (which in his business comes with the territory) and setting up some kind of conference is what I understand.
DXer said
Tarek Hamouda was supplied virulent Ames by Bruce Ivins for DARPA-research Bruce was helping with. The research was done at USAMRIID. Dr. Hamouda came to the US in 1994, after getting his PhD in microbiology at Cairo. He had received his MD at Cairo in 1982. He was in the Cairo area in the interim.
It appears that Dr. Bruce Ivins altered his record for RMR 1029 using white-out, although USAMRIID should produce a copy of the document as it existed in Fall 2001 to clarify the point. This would subject Dr. Ivins to indictment on a number of possible grounds.
My contact is named “Tawfik” Hamid. He was the one who was recruited by Ayman Zawahiri in the room set aside for the Egyptian Islamic Group at medical school. His older brother, an MD from St. Louis, and Tarek Hamouda graduated in December 1982.
This was the heyday of the Sadat assassination and mass arrests.
(http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com)
The name of the DC venture firm that supplied $50 million to Dr. Hamouda’s firm is Perseus. My friend Brian works there. Mr. Richard Holbrooke was head of it during the period $30 million of the $50 million was invested.
Mr. Holbrooke is now #3 or whatever at the State Department and is in charge of Afghanistan and Pakistan. This wrinkle apparently is just one of many things interfering with the smooth and correct resolution of Amerithrax.
Stuart had his insights about DARPA. Folks like Barry and Ike have their insights about profits associated with biosecurity. And I lived in Arlington, VA for 15 years — causing Zawahiri to appear in any Rorschach test involving anthrax, given he publicly said he was going to use anthrax and the documentary evidence shows he did.
Ed sees First Graders and spends all his waking hours looking at pictures of naked women. So let’s not get distracted on an issue of this importance and, like grown-ups, focus on the available intelligence and not fantasies about First Graders, whatever the motivation.
The following is a lengthy excerpt from Inside Jihad: Understanding and Confronting Radical Islam (2007) by Dr. Tawfik Hamid.
“[Born in 1961], I entered the medical school at Cairo University when I was 17 (Egypt didn’t have the same concept of ‘undergraduate’ typical of the West). Naturally I continued to pursue my recently acquired fervor for Islam. At the time, an Islamic organization called Jamaa Islamiya had been gaining a foothold at the school. Although it was later classified as a terrorist group, Jamaa’s activities were perfectly legal then. They began by receiving permission to build a small prayer room inside the medical school, which quickly developed into a small mosque. Shortly thereafter, a library was added to the “mosque” where Jamaa members promoted Salafist books.
Clearly, Egypt’s “Revival of Islam” had made its way to the medical school. Jamaa members would not only preach in their ‘mosque’. As its influence spread, the group started a tradition of meeting in the morning lecture hall 45 minutes before the teacher arrived, where they would lecture on Islamic topics from the podium. Most muslim students thought it a good thing, but more secular ones found it annoying, and Christian students were wholly intimidated into silence. ***
As its influence grew, Jamaa Islamiya began to intervene with the secular traditions of the medical school. They insisted on separate seating in the lecture halls for men and women, and sometimes forcibly separate students who did not comply. Occasionally, they would use violence to stop students from playing music or singing, activities the members considered “un-Islamic.”
One naturally asks, “Why medical students?” Westerns are often astonished to observe highly accomplished Muslim doctors in the terrorist ranks. These include Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri (surgeon) second in command of Al-Qaeda *** Doctors almost universally agree to the Hippocratic Oath and swear by another of Hippocrates’ maxims: “First, do no harm.” How then could a group like Jamaaa Islamiya gain traction in a medical school?
It is actually not a surprise to me that I became radicalized there. Our medical schools at that time were a vanguard of fundamentalism in most Egyptian universities.
***
Eventually in my first year I was approached by a promising member of Jamaa named Muchtar. He was in his fourth year and known in the group as amir, or “prince.” The title was short for “Prince of the Believers,” a term taken from early writings about the Islamic caliphate. Determination to serve Allah overcame my hesitancy that remained from witnessing the incident with Dr. Edward, and I agreed to join in what I thought would be a commonplace gathering for prayer. En route to the mosque, Muchtar impressed upon me a concept that he called al-fikr kufr — that one becomes an infidel (kufr) by thinking critically (fikr). One’s brain is similar to a donkey, he elaborated — you can ride it to the palace of Allah, but you must leave it outside when you enter.
***
Doctor “Ayman”
It happened one afternoon that a guest Imam came to deliver a sermon. His topic didn’t concern itself with dry details of prayer and fasting. He was fiery and charismatic; his passion was holy war. His topic didn’t concern itself with dry details of prayer and fasting. He was fiery and charismatic; his passion was holy war. It was to be fought on all fronts, against all non-believers, without compromise, until all people either converted, submitted to Sharia, or were slain. He made us feel that we could make the glorious days of the Islamic conquest return. After the sermon, a fellow member, Tariq Abdul-Muhsin, asked me if I knew the Imam. When I answered I didn’t, he told me that the speaker was Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Because I was a new member, Tariq offered to introduce me to him.
In person, Al-Zawahiri was very polite and decent with the members of Jamaa. It was hard to reconcile his fiery sermons with the quiet man before me.***
***
I remember feeling very proud when Zawahiri told me: “Young Muslims like you are the hope for the future return of Khalifa [Caliphate or Islamic global dominance].” He made me want to fight for him, to show him my courage and loyalty. Zawahiri himself came from a wealthy, well-known and well-educated family and was a top post-graduate student at the medical school. He was active in a number of Islamist groups so he did not devote all of his time to Jamaa. We used to call him “Dr. Ayman.”
***
He was a master of at attracting new recruits and inciting them to jihad. It is worthwhile studying his use of Islamic texts in terms of the phrases and tactics we have mentioned, particularly hatred, superiority and war.
***
Islamic Jihad … was extremely violent. They would concentrate on the assassination of important political leaders. Their violence was not diffuse, but highly targeted.
***
There remains, at last, Jamaa Islamiya (literally, “Islamic Group”). It concentrated on recruiting from society’s “best and brightest” by entrenching itself in universities and medical schools. Having done so, Jamaa prepare the theoretical foundation for jihad and propagated them to promising students who could best absorb them. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, Jamaa didn’t participate directly in terror — it would have been counterproductive to provoke a crackdown from school administrations. Jamaa was more of a ‘gateway’ groups, which, having indoctrinated recruits and equipped them with jihadist knowledge, encouraged them to assume leadership positions in Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood, or to practice jihad in other countries.
Intellectually, Al-Zawahiri was much affected by the teaching of a Muslim Brotherhood leader named Sayyid Qutb. He used to praise Sayyid by saying ‘Rahimahu Allah’ whenever he mentioned his name. The expression means, ‘May Allah show him mercy and kindness’. ***
***
Second Thoughts
My entire relationship with Jamaa Islamiya lasted for approximate two to three years (from 1979-1982). It took about six months to become sufficiently indoctrinated Over the next year, I became increasingly active in the movement. Eventually, my involvement reached the point where I thought myself prepared to train with jihadi groups in Afghanistan, to fight and kill in the name of Allah. It was at this time that my conscience began to awaken. ***
One episode in particular gave me second thoughts. It transpired that I overheard a conversation between Ahmed Omar and other members of the group. A fourth-year medical student, Ahmed was an “amir” of Jamaa. He was planning to to kidnap a police officer and bury him alive”. His exact word was netaweeh, which meant in Egyptian slang, ‘to dig a grave for someone and bury him alive”. The issue concerned a party that was planned that day at the medical school. Music and women singers were to be featured, and the view of Jamaa was, of course, that such an event was unIslamic. Members of the Jamaa gathered that day in thousands to protest the party and disrupt it by force. The police intervened and the medical school came under martial law.
***
By the late 1970s, Islamists had penetrated into every aspect of Egyptian life. *** In 1981, not long before I graduated, President Sadat was assassinated by a military lieutenant named Khaled Islambouli — a member of the Islamic Jihad. The Iranians were delighted at the assassination and named a street after him. Zawahiri was also a member of Islamic Jihad, and was indicted for the assassination, but his connection to it was never proven. He was released from prison in 1984. Today, “Dr. Ayman” is the second-in-command of Al Qaeda, and possibly its foremost leader.
***
The “Blind Sheikh”, Omar Abdel-Rahman was a spiritual leader ***. Americans will recognize his name — he resides now in the US, in solitary confinement, for conspiring to blow up the United Nations building, New York City FBI branch, and for attempting to destroy the World Trade Centers in 1993 — a job finished by al-Qaeda in 2001. Though estimates vary, it is thought that 75% of Al-Qaeda’s top leadership is Egyptian.”
DXer said
The Atlanta Journal Constitution:
“To the contrary, in the more than a dozen instances in which the documents explain how specific information was obtained, it is through standard interrogation techniques. Most often, it is because detainees were fooled into thinking that the information they were offering had already been obtained.
***
When KSM coughed up information about al Qaida’s anthrax program, “he apparently calculated — incorrectly — that we had this information already.”
Now let’s take the same approach regarding access to virulent Ames from flask 1029. I’ve explained that Bruce Ivins supplied virulent Ames to a former Zawahiri associate. The scientist and I have a mutual friend who consults with intelligence agencies. My “friend” was recruited by Ayman Zawahiri into the Egyptian Islamic Jihad but then withdrew when he got queasy about talk about burying an Egyptian security officer near the mosque. My friend has known the scientist supplied virulent Ames by Bruce Ivins since the man as a child would visit Cairo from Khartoum, Sudan where his mother was an accounting professor. They would go to the comic store with my friend’s older brother, an MD from St. Louis. Now my friend called the scientist supplied with virulent Ames up before 9/11 and asked him about patents. He called from abroad where he was living at the time. The scientist supplied virulent Ames by Dr. Ivins said “it is all in the marketing.” (The scientist’s firm in fact received $80 million in investment — $50 million from a DC venture firm headed by Richard Holbrooke, now in charge of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Now this sort of information is not easy to come by. And so if I know this, maybe KSM was right to be spooked and assume the CIA already knew all about Sufaat.
On the other hand, all Ed needed to do to confirm there were no First Graders at the home in Fall 2001 was to write a simple email.
Anonymous Scientist said
For the record – here is the actual written statement from Ivin’s attorney Kemp. FBI shill Ed Lake is, as usual, fabricating statements out of whole cloth that Kemp somehow stated the FBI had enough evidence to indict and convict him.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2008/08/anthrax-case-he.html
Lawyers for Dr. Bruce Ivins just issued a blistering attack on the Justice Department’s case againt their client:
“What the public demanded today was concrete evidence. Instead, it was deluged with everything but. The government released search warrants – investigative tools designed to discover evidence, not to serve as evidence and treated these warrants as smoking guns. The government’s press conference was an orchestrated dance of carefully worded statements, heaps of innuendo and a staggering lack of real evidence – all contorted to create the illusion of guilt by Dr. Ivins. The government would have the American people believe that after seven years and more than $15 million of taxpayer money, they have found the individual responsible for the heinous attacks of the fall of 2001. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In truth, Bruce Ivins was a devoted husband and father who worked for more than 30 years to defend his nation and its soldiers against the terrible effects of Anthrax. The statements of scientists and co-workers at Ft. Detrick are uniform in their support of Dr. Ivins, and that has been gratifying to his family. Just today, we were privileged to attend the memorial service for Dr. Ivins held at Ft. Detrick, MD. It was attended by hundreds of soldiers, scientists, and family members. Dr. Ivins was characterized by his commanding officer for his ‘openness, sharing, humor and curiosity’ and was lauded for the central role he has played in the protection of the American soldier. No one who attended that service could believe that Dr. Ivins committed any crime.”
Paul F. Kemp
Thomas M. DeGonia
Venable LLP
DXer said
Ed argues that it is 95% certain that a child “about 6 was used to do the actual writing on the anthrax letters.”
If one were to credit Ed’s argument, and given Dr. Ivins had no such contact with a First Grader, then the FBI will want to find a POI who did.
Anonymous Scientist said
FBI shill Lake writes:
“Finally, in recent months in particular, he has told co-workers and friends that he is a suspect in the investigation, even revealing to one friend a few weeks ago that his attorney has told him to prepare to be indicted for the anthrax attacks.”
Was this the same attorney who later released this statement?:
“The government’s press conference was an orchestrated dance of carefully worded statements, heaps of innuendo and a staggering lack of real evidence – all contorted to create the illusion of guilt by Dr. Ivins.”
But FBI shill Lake knows that in reality there is super-secret evidence of Ivin’s guilt that Ivin’s attorney was given by the FBI. This evidence is so super-secret that the FBI have not released it to anyone – even more than 1 year after Ivin’s death. FBI shill Lake is true believer, but he seems to have be over-indulging in that FBI Kool-Aid recently.
BugMaster said
Big deal.
As you may recall, Ed, in late 2002, at least one (and from what I understand, more than one) FBI agent stated that there were indictments against Steven J. Hatfill.
So that was compelling evidence of Hatfill’s guilt?
DXer said
Bugmaster, you would need a cite to support such a claim as neither Ed nor I recall that.
DXer said
Reports would say things (e.g., ABC) that investigators are convinced that they have their man.
BugMaster said
“Bugmaster, you would need a cite to support such a claim as neither Ed nor I recall that.”
Statement made by FBI agent during a late 2002 conversation, we were discussing Stephan J. Hatfill at the time.
Direct quote from FBI agent (who will not be named here)
“There are indictments”.
DXer said
BugMaster has provided her source. She says FBI agent told it to her personally in late 2002.
Ed argued for years that Dr. Hatfill was not a suspect but was mistaken. He was a suspect or POI — one that one of the investigative squads was focusing on. There was a list of people of interest and he was near if not at the top.
Ed argued that he had no drying skill and yet others pointed to the fact that he had a working knowledge of how to dry anthrax expressly listed on his resume — having learned from William Patrick.
Ed argued that “conspiracy theorists” were pointing to USAMRIID when all the FACTS, he said, pointed to access to Battelle. The FACT he said was there was a Battelle person (not a microbiologist) who had the PERFECT ALIBI and therefore most assuredly was the person who access the virulent Ames, even though all indications were that he thought anthrax was a virus. FBI Director Mueller immediately said the theory was baloney but Ed argued for the next 7 years that the FBI secretly believed that and they were just waiting for sufficient proof at trial.
Ed offers no evidence that the flask was not in Bldg. 1411 in 1999 when Dr. Hatfill was at USAMRIID or that the refrigerator was locked.
Dr. Hatfill acknowledges he forged his PhD diploma thus reflecting importantly on his character.
The FBI Task Force investigators would not have been doing their job if they did not thoroughly consider these facts.
Through all of this Ed argued that the FACTS proved a First Grader wrote the letters, apparently having no experience with the writing abilities of First Graders or their propensity to say the darndest things to whoever they are talking with. Knowing Ed, I can assure you that he has not read the authoritative treatises in the field or peer reviewed literature or consulted with experts on the issue.
Given Bugmaster was not relying on a news article and points to a conversation with an FBI agent, the best explanation is that she either misunderstood or that the agent was using deception. Her IP indicates her location which is not proximate to Dr. Hatfill but perhaps she had a connection in an earlier life. Agents will use deception in questioning, I believe, and it is permitted under US Supreme Court precedent. Personally, I think it is bad practice. But perhaps the agent just meant that there were draft indictments. In civil litigation, preparing draft complaints is common.
I belabor the speciousness of Ed’s views only because he stubbornly refuses to correct facts after they are pointed out to be mistaken — such as his front page claim that the daycare center existed at the time of mailings and the FACTS establish a First Grader wrote the letters. The reality is the facts don’t establish who wrote the letters. Even a first grader knows that. Ed is a true believer and yet uses his ad hominem achtick rather than addressing facts and taking care to get them right.
BugMaster said
DXer:
I don’t believe that FBI Agent Pup had any direct knowledge of any actual indictments. If he did so, by revealing them, he committed a felony, not just a misdemeanor violation of the privacy act.
This was just one of many of the indescreations mady by many FBI agents during the height of the “Hatfill Hysteria”.
As far as Agent Pup, I would say this was a case of youthful over-enthusiasm on his part.
BugMaster said
Ed:
I recall that soon after the Hatfill settlement was announced, one member of his legal team specifically mentioned the indictment rumours as one reason Hatfill sued the government.
BugMaster said
BugMaster wrote: “There are indictments”.
“Sorry, but you need to provide a source for that. It appears to be total baloney. I’ve never seen anything to even suggest that such a thing is true.”
So, Ed, you are saying I should disclose the name of the FBI agent that made this statement?
It’s past history, Ed. Not going to go there.
DXer said
Ed asks of BugMaster:
“You can’t tell anyone how or why the grand jury was going to indict Ivins without any evidence?”
It was weeks away from evidence even being presented and an indictment sought. Ed has no basis for assuming what a grand jury would do. He instead can only credit that the US Attorney’s office reports it was going to seek an indictment against Dr. Ivins. Ed didn’t even understand the central evidence in the case relating to genetics (he thought it limited things to Dr. Ivins rather than 8 known isolates to which 100-300 people had access).
A lawyer is doing his job in advising his client to be prepared. That same lawyer has emphatically said that there was no evidence, that Dr. Ivins had received a letter saying he was not a target of the grand jury, and that the FBI only had a speculative theory, not evidence, that Dr. Ivins mailed and processed the anthrax used in the letters.
DXer said
Ed refers to presentation of evidence to Ivins’ attorney.
Ivins attorney has said that the FBI has no evidence (and showed him none) — just its speculation.
Ed still — on the first page argues on his website
“17. His wife ran a day care center at the time of the attacks, Ivins had many contacts with children, and the facts indicate that a child of about 6 was used to do the actual writing on the anthrax letters.”
Ed has no regard for the facts and makes false charges without factual basis. She did not have the day care center until after the kids were grown. For the “devotion to children”(read First Graders), Ed relied upon was a eulogy that discussed the devotion to HIS children. When Ed can’t even get facts right when the authority is linked, and then does not make the corrections, he has zero credibility in characterizing “informed sources.”
DXer said
In August 2009, the FBI spokesman Dean Boyd said:
“The Justice Department and the FBI continue working to conclude the investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks,” department spokesman Dean Boyd said. …”
The FBI reports that it expects to close the matter shortly, which is what it expected 12 months ago.
Congressman Calls for Broader Probe in FBI’s Handling of Anthrax …
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/…/AR2009073103803.html
DXer said
Bugmaster asks if USAMRIID has produced any emails from 2001. The last I recall produced dated to April 2000. The US DOJ has to clear what USAMRIID has produced and it would have taken about a day to redact and produce the emails. It’s been a year. Thus, the FOI production is not being done in compliance with FOI because of the US DOJ’s interference. Selectively producing materials would have been fine if it had not been for the press conference they held accusing him. They should put up or shut up. Now, they should be sued under FOIA given the importance of the rule of law that DOJ is charged with vindicating — not obstructing. What the DOJ’s conclusion is seems pretty immaterial to the FOIA issue — just let USAMRIID turn over the documents as required by FOIA or have them respond by invoking the law enforcement exemption so the issue can be appealed and then litigated. The General in charge should order the FOI people to proceed.
DXer said
“‘Interrogators got valued info, could face charges,” Washington Times, August 25, 2009
By Ben Conery
Among the chilling details in the documents, titled “Khalid Sheikh Mohammad: Preeminent Source On Al-Qaeda” and “Detainee Reporting Pivotal for the War Against Al Qaeda”:
• The identities of key participants in an al Qaeda program to develop the ability to mount anthrax attacks.
This was first reported by Mr. Hosenball in 2004 in a Newsweek piece titled Interrogation and Anthrax. Rather than being a revelation, it is a measure of how little public understanding has advanced.
http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com
DXer said
DXer said
Ridge’s book due out September 1 chronicles his entire tenure as homeland security chief. The publisher summarizes:
“In this probing and surefooted memoir, Ridge takes us through the challenges he and his new department faced, including Anthrax scares and reports (both real and false alarms) of new Al-Qaeda operations sprouting up in the United States ….”
Um, why are former Administration officials being allowed to collect millions for disclosing information which is subject to disclosure under FOIA? Is secrecy a means of ensuring big book deals for former Administration officials? It’s time to review what might be gleaned what has been known about Al Qaeda’s anthrax planning.
DXer said
RELEASED: The Bush Administration’s Secret Legal Memos
On April 16, 2009, the Department of Justice released four secret memos used by the Bush administration to justify torture.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html
The Egyptian Salafist-Jihadis announced in advance that the reason that anthrax would be used against US targets was to retaliate for the rendering and torture of its leaders. The Bush Administration was not able to face this fact established by the plain statements of intent by Egyptian Islamic Jihad shura leaders in publicized statements in 1999. Senators Leahy and Daschle were targeted because symbolically they were in charge of appropriations to Egypt and Israel, including the appropriations to security forces who engaged in torture.
This documentary evidence illustrates why the Bush Administration would tend to favor a motivation relying on the location of a mailbox near a storage unit of a college sorority rather than the motivation for using anthrax announced by the lawyer for the blind sheik Abdel-Rahman — the torture and rendition of senior leaders of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (known as the “Vanguards of Conquest”).
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy would not support Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey because Mukasey hasn’t taken a firm enough stand against torture. Leahy said: “No American should need a classified briefing to determine whether waterboarding is torture.” Separately, Patrick Leahy at last report is very angry and not accepting of the Department of Justice’s explanation of its solution of the anthrax mailings. Senator Leahy repeatedly criticized Gonzales for allowing waterboarding. Judge Mukasey was in a difficult spot through no fault of his own. Senator Leahy, one of my favorite Senators, was targeted in Fall 2001 precisely because of this issue of torture. The folks connected to the WTC 1993 prosecution overseen by Judge Mukasey were responsible. History will Judge Mukasey’s tenure as Attorney General the resolution of Amerithrax — just as history will judge FBI Director Mueller and US Attorney Holder by the decisions they make now in moving forward.
After the assassination of Anwar Sadat, Cairo attorney Montasser al-Zayat first met blind sheik Abdel-Rahman after Montasser had been tortured for 12 hours. He was near a mental breakdown. Abdel-Rahman came over to where he was huddled in a corner of a cell, bent over and whispered: “Rely on God; don’t be defeated.” Mohammed had spoken the words in the Koran. Al- Zayat would become one of Sheik Omar’s most trusted legal advisers and a lawyer on the defense team of El Sayyid Nosair. Nosair was the Egyptian who served as Abdel-Rahman’s bodyguard and was tried in New York in 1990 for the murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane. In March 1999, attorney al-Zayat was representing defendants in a massive prosecution of jihadists in Cairo. He told the press that Ayman Zawahiri would use weaponized anthrax against US targets because of the continued extradition pressure and torture faced by Egyptian Islamic Jihad members. Two senior EIJ leaders then on trial were saying the same thing to the press and in confessions.
US Postal employee Sattar, who had been the blind sheik’s spokesman after his 1993 arrest, in a 1999 Frontline interview spoke of the role of appropriations and torture in fueling the islamist rage:
“this is the same old story happening again, and again, and again. American government don’t get it. The American government [is] deceiving the American people. They’re not telling them what’s really going on. You can kill Osama bin Laden today or tomorrow. You can arrest him and put him on trial in New York or in Washington.”
“Tomorrow you will get somebody else, his name probably will be different, Abdullah, or Muhammad. It’s not going to end. Until you, take a hard, and a good look at your policies in the Islamic world and the Muslim world, as long as you’re supporting dictators like Mubarak as long as you are giving aid to regimes that [are worse] to their people than Saddam Hussein, things will get ugly, and you cannot control the emotion of people when you are tortured in Egyptian prison by an American trained Egyptian officer. He is torturing you, and he is bragging that he was in the United States getting his training, when the equipment that he is using is American made.”
The founder of Egyptian Islamic Jihad Kamal Habib (who wrote for the quarterly magazine of the US charity Islamic Assembly of North America) told scholar Fawaz Gerges:
“The prison years also radicalized al-shabab [young men] and set them on another violent journey. The torture left deep physical and psychological scars on jihadists and fueled their thirst for vengeance. Look at my hands — still spotted with the scars from cigarette burns nineteen years later. For days on end we were brutalized — our faces bloodied, our bodies broken with electrical shocks and other devices. The torturers aimed at breaking our souls and brainwashing us. They wanted to humiliate us and force us to betray the closest members of our cells.
I spent sleepless nights listening to the screams of young men echoing from torture chambers. A degrading, dehumanizing experience. I cannot convey to you the rage felt by al-shabab who were tortured after Sadat’s assassination.”
While Kamal Habib wrote for the jihad-supporting Assirat, Al-Timimi was on the Board of Advisers.
In a videotape that circulated in the summer of 2001, Zawahiri said “In Egypt they put a lot of people in jails — some sentenced to be hanged. And in the Egyptian jails, there is a lot of killing and torture. All this happens under the supervision of America. America has a CIA station as well as an FBI office and a huge embassy in Egypt, and it closely follows what happens in that country. Therefore, America is responsible for everything that happens.”
An August 29, 2001 opinion column on Islamway, the second most read site for english speaking muslims, illustrates that the role of “Leahy Law” was known by educated islamists:
“There is an intolerable contradiction between America’s professed policy of opposition to state-sponsored terrorism, exemplified by the Leahy Law, and the U.S. Congress’ continuing sponsorship of Israeli violence against Palestinians.” The article cited “References: CIFP 2001. “Limitations on Assistance to Security Forces: ‘The Leahy Law’” 4/9/01 (Washington, DC: Center for International Foreign Policy) Center for International Foreign Policy Accessed 8/28/01.Hocksteader, Lee 2001.
The next day, in the same publication, there was an article describing the 21-page document released in Ottawa on August 29, 2001, in which the CSIS claimed that Canadian detainee Jaballah had contacts with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad leader Shehata and sought to deport Jaballah. Shehata was in charge of EIJ’s Civilian Branch and in charge of “special operations.”The nominal President of the Syracuse-based Help the Needy IANA spin-off was moderator of islamway for women. It would be seven more years — not until February 2008 — before the Canadian government for the first time revealed that after coming to Canada in 1996, Jaballah would contact Ayman regularly on Ayman’s Inmarsat satellite phone.
“They [Senators Daschle and Leahy] represent something to him,” says James Fitzgerald of the FBI Academy’s Behavioral Analysis Unit. “Whatever agenda he’s operating under, these people meant something to him.” To more fully appreciate why Leahy — a human rights advocate and liberal democrat — might have been targeted as a symbol, it is important to know that Senator Leahy has been the head of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, the panel in charge of aid to Egypt and Israel. In addition to the Senate majority leader, anthrax was mailed to the position symbolic of the 50 billion in appropriations that has been given to Israel since 1947 (and the equally substantial $2 billion annually in aid that has been keeping Mubarak in power in Egypt and the militant islamists out of power).
Within a couple weeks after September 11, a report in the Washington Post and then throughout the muslim world explained that the President sought a waiver that would allow military assistance to once-shunned nations. The militant islamists who had already been reeling from the extradition of 70 “brothers”, would now be facing much more of the same. President Bush asked Congress for authority to waive all existing restrictions on U.S. military assistance and exports for the next five years to any country where the aid would help the fight against international terrorism. The waiver would include those nations who were currently unable to receive U.S. military aid because of their sponsorship of terrorism (such as Syria and Iran) or because of their nuclear weapons programs (such as Pakistan).
In late September 2001, the Washington Post quoted Leahy: “We all want to be helpful, and I will listen to what they have in mind.” The article noted that he was chairman of both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Appropriations foreign operations subcommittee, which were considering the legislation. “But we also want to be convinced that what is being proposed is sound, measured and necessary and not merely impulsive,” said Leahy. “Moral leadership in defense of democracy and human rights is vital to what we stand for in the world. Acts of terrorism are violations of human rights. Now is the time to show what sets us apart from those who attack us,” he said.
The options being considered in response to the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington included potential cooperation with virtually every Middle Eastern and South and Central Asian nation near Afghanistan. “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists” would be the only test for foreign aid. The “Leahy Law” plays a key role in the secret “rendering” of Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Al Qaeda) operatives to countries like Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Algeria where they are allegedly tortured. Richard Clarke, counterterrorism czar during the Clinton Administration, has quoted Vice-President Gore saying: “Of course it’s a violation of international law, that’s why it’s a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.” Although humanitarian in its intent, the Leahy Law permits continued appropriations to military and security units who conduct torture in the event of “extraordinary circumstances.”
In an interview broadcast on al-Jazeera television on October 7, 2001 (October 6 in the US) — about when the second letter saying “Death to America’” and “Death to Israel” was mailed — Ayman Zawahiri echoed a familiar refrain sounded by Bin Laden: “O people of the U.S., can you ask yourselves a question: Why all this enmity for the United States and Israel? *** Your government supports the corrupt governments in our countries.”
A month after 9/11, late at night, a charter flight from Cairo touched down at the Baku airport. An Egyptian, arrested by the Azerbaijan authorities on suspicions of having played a part in the September 11 attack, was brought on board. His name was kept secret. That same night the plane set off in the opposite direction. Much of the Amerithrax story has happened at night with no witnesses, with the rendering of University of Karachi microbiology student Saeed Mohammed merely one example. Zawahiri claims that there is a US intelligence bureau inside the headquarters of the Egyptian State Security Investigation Department that receives daily reports on the number of detainees and those detainees who are released. At the time Ayman Zawahiri was getting his biological weapons program in full swing, his own brother Mohammed was picked up in the United Arab Emirates. He was secretly rendered to Egyptian security forces and sentenced to death rendered in the 1999 Albanian returnees case.
Throughout 2001, the Egyptian islamists were wracked by extraditions and renditions. CIA Director Tenet once publicly testified that there had been 70 renditions prior to 9/11. At the same time a Canadian judge was finding that Mahmoud Mahjoub was a member of the Vanguards of Conquest and would be denied bail, Bosnian authorities announced on October 6, 2001 they had handed over three Egyptians to Cairo who had been arrested in July. In Uruguay, a court authorized the extradition to Egypt of a man wanted in Egypt for his alleged role in the 1997 Luxor attack. Ahmed Agiza, the leader of the Vanguards of Conquest (which can be viewed as an offshoot of Jihad), was handed over by Sweden in December 2001.
One islamist, a Hamas supporter, summarized why the anthrax was sent in an ode “To Anthrax” on November 1, 2001: “O, anthrax, despite, your wretchedness, you have sewn horror in the heart of the lady of arrogance, of tyranny, of boastfulness!” In an interview that appeared in the Pakistani paper, Dawn, on November 10, 2001, Bin Laden explained that “The American Congress endorses all government measures, and this proves that [all of] America is responsible for the atrocities perpetrated against Muslims.”
At a December 2002 conference held by “Accuracy in Media,” former State Department analyst Kenneth Dillon noted that Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), the key component of al Qaeda under Dr. Ayman Zawahiri, head of al Qaeda’s biowarfare program, likely targeted Senator Leahy because of his role as head of a panel of the Senate Appropriations Committee that had developed the so-called “Leahy Law” in 1998. Dillon explained, “According to the wording of the Leahy Law, the U.S. Government was authorized to ‘render’ suspected foreign nationals to the government of a foreign country, even when there was a possibility that they would be tortured, in ‘exceptional circumstances.’ When the Leahy Law was applied to send EIJ members captured in the Balkans back to Egypt, Zawahiri fiercely denounced the United States. So Leahy was a high-priority target.”
That aid goes to the core of Al Qaeda’s complaint against the United States. (The portion going to Egypt and Israel constituted, by far, the largest portion of US foreign aid, and most of that is for military and security purposes.) Pakistan is a grudging ally in the “war against terrorism” largely due to the US Aid it now receives in exchange for that cooperation. The press in Pakistan newspapers regularly reported on protests arguing that FBI’s reported 12 agents in Pakistan in 2002 were an affront to its sovereignty. There was a tall man, an Urdu-speaking man, and a woman — all chain-smokers — who along with their colleagues were doing very important work in an unsupportive, even hostile, environment. The US agents — whether CIA or FBI or US Army — caused quite a stir in Pakistan along with the Pakistani security and intelligence officials who accompanied them. In mid-March 2003, Washington waived sanctions imposed in 1999 paving the way for release in economic aid to Pakistan. Billions more would be sent to Egypt, Israel and other countries involved in the “war against terrorism.”
The commentators who suggest that Al Qaeda would have had no motivation to send weaponized anthrax to Senators Daschle and Leahy as symbolic targets — because they are liberal — are mistaken. The main goal of Dr. Zawahiri is to topple President Mubarak. He views the US aid as the chief obstacle and is indifferent to this country’s labels of conservative and liberal.
Zawahiri likely was surprised that the plainly worded message of the letters accompanying the anthrax was not deemed clear. Perhaps the talking heads would not have been so quick to infer an opposite meaning if no message had been expressed using words at all. Perhaps the public the sender had relied only on what KSM describes as the language of war — the death delivered by the letters — the pundits would not have been so misdirected. But why was Al Qaeda evasive on the question of responsibility for the anthrax mailings, dismissing the issue with a snicker, and falsely claiming that Al Qaeda did not know anything about anthrax? Simple. Bin Laden denied responsibility for 9/11 until it was beyond reasonable dispute. On September 16, 2001, he said: “The US is pointing the finger at me but I categorically state that I have not done this. I am residing in Afghanistan. I have taken an oath of allegiance (to Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar) which does not allow me to do such things from Afghanistan.” Before that, Ayman had denied the 1998 embassy bombings too. On August 20, 1998, coincidentally on the day of strikes on camps in Afghanistan and Sudan, Ayman al-Zawahiri contacted The News, a Pakistani English-language daily, and said on behalf of Bin Laden that “Bin Laden calls on Moslem Ummah to continue Jihad against Jews and Americans to liberate their holy places. In the meanwhile, he denies any involvement in the Nairobi and Dar es Salaam bombings.” To Ayman, “war is deception.”
The targeted Senators have another connection pertinent to the Egyptian militants. The United States and other countries exchange evidence for counterterrorism cases under the legal framework of a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (”MLAT”). Egypt is signatory of such a treaty that was ratified by the United States Senate in late 2000. For example, when the Fall 2001 rendition of Vanguards of Conquest leader Agizah was criticized, the US explained that it was relying on the MLAT. In the prosecution of Post Office worker Ahmed Abdel Sattar, the MLAT was described. Sattar’s attorney Michael Tigar, at trial in December 2004 explained: “Now, that might be classified, it’s true, but we have now found out and our research has just revealed that on, that the State Department has reported that it intends to use and relies on the mutual legal assistance treaty between the United States and Egypt signed May 3, 1998, in Cairo, and finally ratified by the United States Senate on October 18th, 2000. The State Department issued a press report about this treaty on November 29th, 2001 and I have a copy here.” He explained that “Article IV of the treaty provides that requests under the treaty can be made orally as well as under the formal written procedures required by the treaty, that those requests can include requests for testimony, documents, and even for the transfer to the United States if the treaty conditions are met.”
Vanguards of Conquest spokesman Al-Sirri was a co-defendant in the case against post office worker Sattar. In the late 1990s Sattar and he often spoke in conversations intercepted by the FBI. Al-Sirri’s fellow EIJ cell members in London were subject to process under those treaties at the time of the anthrax mailings. Those London cell members had been responsible for the faxing of the claim of responsibility which stated the motive for the 1998 embassy bombings. A group calling itself the “Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Places” took credit for the bombings listing as among their demands “the release of the Muslims detained in the United State[s] first and foremost Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (the spiritual guide of the Gama’a Islamiya) who is jailed in the United States.” As reason for the bombings, in addition to the rendition recent EIJ members to Cairo and the detention of Blind Sheik Abdel-Rahman, the faxes pointed to the detention of dissident Saudi Sheik al-Hawali . Al-Hawali was the mentor of GMU microbiology student Al-Timimi who spoke in London in August 2001 alongside 911 Imam Awlaki (also from Falls Church) and unindicted WTC 1993 conspirator Bilal Philips. Al-Timimi was in contact with Saudi sheik Al-Hawali in 2002 and arranged to hand deliver a message to all members of Congress he had drafted in al-Hawali’s name on the first anniversary of the anthrax mailings to Senator Leahy and Daschle.
Michael Scheuer the former chief, Bin Laden Unit, eruditely defended the extraordinary rendition program he had launched at the request of President Clinton and his advisors before Congress in April 2007. There’s always been a huge irony in Michael Scheuer’s emphasis on how OBL is attacking the US for its policies without publicly acknowledging the importance of the rendition policy is to those planning the attacks. For the purpose of true crime analysis, it’s not rendition as a policy or human rights issue — or even a tactical issue — that is the question presented. It is walking in the shoes of your adversary (as expert Scheuer urged us to do in his 2002 book). The key is seeing things in terms of what motivates them to act. Sometimes it’s the only way to catch the bad guys — so that you then have the luxury of deciding how well you are going to treat them.
The Amerithrax Task Force imagines that Ft. Detrick anthrax researcher Bruce Ivins targeted Leahy and Daschle because they were Catholics who voted pro-choice in opposition to the beliefs of the Catholic Church. The affidavit regarding Dr. Ivins further explains:
“On September 26, 2001, in an email to a friend, Dr. Ivins writes: “The news media has been saying that some members of Congress and members of the ACLU oppose many of the Justice Department proposals for combating terrorism, saying that they are unconstitutional and infringe too much on civil liberties. Many people don’t know it but the official ACLU position to oppose all metal detectors in airports and schools and other public buildings. It’s interesting that we may now be living in a time when our biggest threat to civil liberties and freedom doesn’t come from the government but from enemies of the government. Osama Bin Laden has just decreed death to all Jews and all Americans, but I guess that doesn’t mean a lot to the ACLU. Maybe I should move to Canada…”
Ironically, it is the ACLU that now raises a key question. Can the Department of Justice consider these issues or is a Special Prosecutor necessary?
My own preference would be simply that the Department of Justice merely get things right in moving forward now that there is a new Administration.
DXer said
FBI Director Mueller is outraged over the release of the man convicted for participating in the Lockerbie bombing. He calls it a mockery and a travesty of the rule of law. He noted that he usually does not criticize the decisions of other prosecutors.
FBI Director Mueller should note that the rule cannot apply with respect to the decisions of US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor. Everyone better be correct in their Amerithrax decision-making because much will come out after it is closed (or upon it being closed). This will be the type of decision that will determine a person’s legacy. No official will be heard “Well, they never told me that” or “I wasn’t briefed on that” or “The FBI didn’t share that information with the CIA.”
My sense of Director Mueller is that he does, in fact, stand for the rule of law and justice. I see him as the Gary Cooper in HIGH NOON of the history of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. But that movie was quite the cliff-hanger, wasn’t it? And thank God that lady with the shotgun had a good aim.
Anonymous Scientist said
I was about to make a comment about Mueller’s letter to to the Scottish justice official myself. Mueller has been the recipient of quite a few letters himself from elected US officials concerning the lack of justice in the Amerithrax case.
The Libyans could learn some good tips from the FBI. If you are going to accuse someone of an act of terrorism, ensure they are dead first. That way their lawyers can’t ask awkward questions afterwards. The Libyan was about to have his case appealed which was apparently going to raise some embarrassing details that neither the US or UK governments were keen to have known.
Outraged letters of condemnation are always effective in shaping one’s public character.
DXer said
One science reporter, Bryant Furlow, requested of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency titles and dates of any and all lessons learned or after-action reports regarding participation in the 2001-2002 Capitol Hill anthrax letters investigation and remediation/decontamination efforts. It perhaps will be EPA production under FOIA that sheds the most light because, for example, the DTRA today reports that the “Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevent (BWPP) program” “had no role in the Capitol Hilll anthrax investigation.” As part of his request he asked for and received at no charge all DTRA FOIA logs. It seems that the DTRA response to the science journalist limited itself to the BWPP program rather than DTRA generally.
As a general matter, when the FOIA officers call, it is important not to inadvertently narrow your request and thus exclude documents of your interest I don’t know if that happened here or if the agency charged with Defense Threat Reduction just didn’t learn anything from the anthrax investigation.
Someone should submit a request to the CDC.
DXer said
The EPA already has processed thousands of pages available to review relating to its remediation of the Capitol. A highly effective FOI officer called and is working on the issue.
Anonymous Scientist said
It will certainly be interesting to see the EPA docuemtation. The EPA as well as other studies have stressed the need to understand the type of contaminant present. Weaponized (ie treated) spores require a quite different (and much more costly) remediation process than untreated spores. The official FBI position today is that the spores used were untreated – that they were simply raw dried spores. It will be interesting to read what the EPA concluded.
DXer said
Ed, on the first page of your website in the overview you write:
“17. His wife ran a day care center at the time of the attacks ….”
It goes to your central First Grader Theory you have continued to argue even after the DOJ’s announcements about Dr. Ivins. You argue it is 195# certain that Dr. Ivins did not write the letters and that instead a First Grader wrote the letters.
I have provided a document to you from the State of Maryland obtained pursuant to FOIA showing Mrs. Ivins did not, in fact, run a day care center at the time of the attacks and instead the day care center began operation in 2003. What evidence are you relying on in stating that she ran a day care center of the attacks in light of the contrary documentary evidence?
DXer said
An excerpt from a June 2003 GAO report titled “CAPITOL HILL ANTHRAX INCIDENT “EPA’s Clean-Up Was Successful; Opportunities Exist To Enhance Contract Oversight.”
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate United States General Accounting Office
GAO
June 2003
CAPITOL HILL
ANTHRAX INCIDENT
EPA’s Cleanup Was
Successful; Opportunities Exist to Enhance Contract Oversight
GAO-03-686
EPA spent about $27 million on the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup, using funds from its Superfund program. From the outset, many uncertainties were associated with the cleanup effort, including how to remove anthrax from buildings. EPA revised its November 2001 estimate of $5 million several
times during the cleanup as the nature and extent of the contamination became fully known and the solutions to remove and properly dispose of the anthrax were agreed upon and carried out. To conduct the cleanup, EPA relied extensively on the existing competitively awarded Superfund
contracts it routinely uses to address threats posed by the release of hazardous substances. Specifically, about 80 percent of the contract costs were incurred under 10 of EPA’s existing Superfund contracts. EPA dedicated significant resources to overseeing the many contractors
working on the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup—including about 50 staff from nine regional offices experienced in leading and overseeing emergency environmental cleanups.
***
Samples from 7 of the 26 buildings were found to contain anthrax, which required that these 7 undergo more thorough sampling, followed by decontamination, and followed then by resampling to confirm that the anthrax had been eradicated. In total, approximately 10,000 samples were
taken at the Capitol Hill site, about half of them from locations in the Hart Senate Office Building. EPA advised the Capitol Police Board’s incident commander about the extent to which buildings needed to be cleaned to make them safe. EPA, along with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and other relevant authorities, determined that the cleanup standard that would be fully protective of public health and the environment was “no detectable, viable
anthrax spores.” The seven buildings that required decontamination were the Dirksen, Hart, and Russell Senate Office Buildings; the Ford and Longworth House Office Buildings; the U.S. Supreme Court Building; and the P Street Warehouse. Six of the seven buildings were cleared for
reentry by the end of January 2002. The P Street Warehouse was cleared for reentry in March 2002.
***
EPA first authorized spending in excess of the $2 million statutory limit in a November 5, 2001, action memorandum. EPA adjusted its projections during the course of the cleanup as a result of a number of factors generally related to the uniqueness of the situation—
the first use of anthrax as a terrorist weapon in this country. EPA had not addressed anthrax contamination in buildings previously and protocols for responding to contamination by anthrax or other biological agents did not exist. In addition, some scientific and technical information needed to properly plan and conduct the anthrax cleanup was not readily available; and EPA did not, at that time, have registered antimicrobial agents approved for use against anthrax. Also, EPA had not compared the costs of candidate decontamination methods. Further, much was—and still is— unknown about the properties of lab-produced anthrax such as that used in this incident, which led to uncertainties about the health risks posed by the contamination and how it could spread. As a result, EPA and contractors had to develop plans for decontaminating large areas within buildings with limited practical knowledge; search for decontamination methods; assess their likely efficacy; implement them; and, at times, repeat the process if the methods did not work. Finally, EPA was one of a number of participants in the decisions made about the work to be done, the timing of the work, and the resources needed; it was not the primary decision maker as it would be in a typical Superfund cleanup. As EPA and contractor staff were beginning their work at the Capitol Hill anthrax site, the limitations of existing knowledge about the health risks associated with anthrax—such as what amount of exposure could cause illness or death—were becoming more clear. That the Capitol Hill site was potentially riskier than initially believed became evident when workers in the postal facilities where anthrax-laced letters were processed became ill; two of them subsequently died of inhalation anthrax. The scientific and medical information initially available to EPA and other agencies indicated that workers in postal facilities were not at risk of infection. Further, an elderly Connecticut woman—who may have been exposed to mail that had been contaminated with anthrax—died from anthrax inhalation, and a New York woman whose exposure to anthrax could not be linked to any mail or mail facilities also died.”
Anonymous Scientist said
Dx’er wrote:
“I have provided a document to you from the State of Maryland obtained pursuant to FOIA showing Mrs. Ivins did not, in fact, run a day care center at the time of the attacks and instead the day care center began operation in 2003. What evidence are you relying on in stating that she ran a day care center of the attacks in light of the contrary documentary evidence?”
I think maybe the answer to your question can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True-believer_syndrome
According to The Skeptic’s Dictionary, an example of this syndrome is evidenced by an event in 1988, when James Randi, at the request of an Australian news program, coached stage performer José Alvarez to pretend he was channelling a two-thousand-year-old spirit named “Carlos”. Even after it was revealed to be a fictional character created by himself and Alvarez, people continued to believe that “Carlos” was real.[5] Randi commented: “no amount of evidence, no matter how good it is or how much there is of it, is ever going to convince the true believer to the contrary.”[9]
BugMaster said
Dxer:
I also find Ed’s claim that a child wrote the letters absurd, but Ed is going to believe what he wants to believe until proven otherwise. Continueing to debate this is starting to sound like argueing over how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. It is a ridiculous discussion and we probably should’t waste any more pixels over it.
Ed also is convinced that the case is going to be closed this month, which means sometime this week.
In this case, in 7 days he will be proven wrong.
BugMaster said
Ed:
There has to be more going on here. The delay in closing the case has to be more than just some “last minute legal technicalities”.
Perhaps the FBI has realized it can’t close a case that is based on 100% circumstantial evidence?
And why don’t they want Ivin’s emails from September and October 2001 released if the case is about to be closed?
BTW, DXer, have you obtained ANY 2001 emails from Fort Detrick in response to your FIOA requests?
BugMaster said
Ed:
“If things don’t happen as quick as you expect them to happen, you believe that must mean something sinister is happening!!!???”
I wouldn’t say sinister, Ed. I would say, however, that the investigation is continuing, the case is ongoing and therefore far from closed.
You seem to agree yourself:
“The question answers itself. Anything that would be used as evidence in court is confidential until the case is closed”
BTW:
“Scientists are free to discuss the science, but they are NOT free to discuss any scientific finding that points directly to Ivins.”
A finding that points directly to Ivins, as in Ivins SPECIFICALLY would be DNA evidence recovered from the letters, fingerprints, finding the original letters when they searched his house.
There is NO “scientific finding” that points “directly” (as in specifically) to Dr. Ivins. And I don’t think many scientists are bothering to discuss something that doesn’t exist.
BugMaster said
“The investigation is NOT – REPEAT NOT continuing. The FBI has concluded its investigation. PERIOD. But, the case cannot be officially closed until the DOJ lawyers are certain that nothing will be released via FOIA requests that will result in lawsuits or violations of Grand Jury secrecy rules. The hangup is at the Department Of Justice, NOT at the FBI.”
You don’t know this, Ed, and either do I. But the most likely explaination here is that the case is in fact ongoing.
“You don’t know what they have. Neither do I. Bruce Budowle hinted that there’s some kind of evidence involving a sample that had THREE of the four mutations. The fact that it’s “scientific evidence” doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s conclusive “smoking gun” evidence of guilt. It probably just means it’s another item of circumstantial evidence that points to Ivins.”
If they are going to close this case, they need more than just “another item of circumstantial evidence that points to Ivins.”
So, at this point, I would say:
Case not closed!
DXer said
Ed is confused just as he was over genetics generally. Dr. Budowie’s reference to one that had 3 that might be of interest to the panel would mean that they would want to consider whether it should be included with the isolates that were matching — that is, whether the isolates known to be a “match” should be 9 rather than 8. Ed is the one whose opinion or professed “confidence level” did not even change when 10 months later he realized that there were 8 “matches” rather than 1. He insisted on his position even though Bugmaster tried to patiently explain things to him. He most definitely is not one to get interpretations from — he mischaracterizes articles and does not make corrections to his page when mistakes are pointed out. He stil has not corrected his false statements regarding Dr. Ivins’ devotion to his children (who were about 17).
BugMaster said
“Is there anything supporting your fantasies except your own beliefs?”
Yes, Ed, there is.
Although I would hardly use the term “fantasies”.
If I was going to come up with something to “fantasize” about, it sure as hell wouldn’t have been this!
Lew Weinstein said
ED You would be amazed how many people are indicted by grand juries with little or no compelling evidence. The grand jury in America is very much a tool of the prosecutor; neither the defendant nor a defense attorney is present. I have served on a grand jury, and I know that prosecutors fully and correctly expect to get indictments with comically inadequate cases. The common saying is that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich if he wanted to. On my grand jury, I didn’t let this happen, and the prosecutor was still talking about it 20 years later; instead of 95% indictments, on that grand jury he got less than 50%. The number of false convictions in the U.S. is also frightening; look how many murder convictions are overturned with DNA evidence. I wrote a novel about a young man who was convicted of a murder he didn’t commit by a prosecutor who knew he didn’t do it and who withheld the evidence which would have proven him innocent. It happens all the time. There is no chance the FBI would not have gotten an indictment of Dr. Ivins if they sought it, regardless of the evidence. Whether they would have found a jury to convict Ivins is a whole other story. Surely not on the evidence made public so far. Read my book – it’s called A GOOD CONVICTION – it will open your eyes. LEW
Anonymous Scientist said
Ed, do the FBI actually pay you to be their shill?
It’s apparent to anyone who has actually followed the FBI’s behavior over the past years, that they are more than capable of leaking innuendo to the media that they have got their culprit. But none of it was ever backed up by real evidence – just gossip and innuendo. You are truly fantasizing (or, I more suspect, outright shilling) to suggest that Ivin’s attorney Kemp has evidence of Ivin’s guilt in his possession and that the FBI have suppressed this evidence from everyone for more than a year after Ivin’s death.
This is what the FBI were capable of, before a judge finally got tired of their pure innuendo:
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a100704itswrong
October 7, 2004: Federal Judge Lambasts FBI for Leaving Anthrax Attacks Suspect Hatfill’s Status in Limbo Anthrax attacks suspect Steven Hatfill has sued the FBI and Justice Department for violating his privacy and other charges (see August 26, 2003), but the government has been trying to stall the court case, saying it would interfere with the FBI’s anthrax investigation. Responding to the latest request for a delay, US District Court Judge Reggie Walton says the government has stalled enough already. Walton says that Hatfill has “the right to vindicate himself, so he doesn’t have this taint hanging over his head.” He tells a federal prosecutor: “If you don’t have enough information to indict this man, you can’t keep dragging him through the mud. That’s not the type of country I want to be part of. It’s wrong!” Walton is a Republican appointed to the bench by the President Bush. [MSNBC, 10/7/2004] The FBI declared Hatfill a “person of interest” in August 2002 (see August 1, 2002) and will not officially clear him of any link to the attacks until August 2008 (see June 27, 2008 and August 8, 2008).
February 19, 2008: Judge Says There Is ‘Not a Scintilla of Evidence’ Linking Suspect Hatfill to Anthrax Attacks A judge says that the FBI has no evidence against Steven Hatfill, who has been the only publicly named suspect so far in the 2001 anthrax attacks (see October 5-November 21, 2001). Reggie Walton, the federal judge presiding over a lawsuit brought by Hatfill against the Justice Department and the FBI for damaging his reputation, says in court, “There is not a scintilla of evidence that would indicate that Dr. Hatfill had anything to do with [the anthrax attacks].” Walton has reviewed four still secret FBI memos about the status of the anthrax investigation. [Los Angeles Times, 6/28/2008] Later in the year, Hatfill will settle with the government and will be awarded $6 million (see June 27, 2008).
Anonymous Scientist said
Ed, the reason you are a shill for the FBI is that you are an apologist for their harrassment campaign against Hatfill. In your world the FBI is the “victim” here. In your warped and distorted world the poor FBI had no choice but to harrass Hatfill all because an 80 year old professor called Barbera Hatch Rosenberg “forced” them to.
Let me remind you of the defintion of a shill:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill
“Shill” can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws.
Your malicious campaign accusing Ivins of coercing a 6-year-old child from his wife’s imaginary 2001 day-care-group to write the anthrax letters borders on a serious disorder. Your blaming the FBI’s harrassment of Hatfill on “the media”, “the conspiracy theorists”, “politicians” ANYBODY but the FBI themselves – would lead any reasonable person to conclude that you are an FBI shill, or else you simply have some sort of mental disorder.
You also have a history of making malicious and extremely serious allegations against persons on the internet who disagree with you. Do you deny making allegations to the FBI?
BugMaster said
“Are you sure it’s a secret? It certainly appears that the answers would have to be some kind of dreamed-up fantasy.”
Ed! The case isn’t closed!
Let’s just give the Holder Justice Department time to sort this mess out!
DXer said
Ed, the eulogies referred to his devotion to his children, not the First Grader you imagine without any factual basis or inquiry wrote the anthrax letters.
Ivins’s Friends, Family Recall the Good Times; Eulogies for Md. Scientist Focus on His Devotion to Children, Serving Church
Diane Ivins, carrying flowers, attends the service for her husband, Bruce E. Ivins, at a church in Frederick. Friends and relatives remembered the Fort Detrick scientist as a funny and generous family man. (By Melina Mara — The Washington Post)
By Aaron C. Davis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 10, 2008; Page A05
Hundreds of friends, colleagues and fellow churchgoers who knew Bruce E. Ivins as a dedicated father, jokester and brilliant scientist — not as the government’s alleged anthrax terrorist — paid their final respects yesterday in Frederick.
The packed sanctuary where Ivins had played keyboards and piano for decades filled with laughter as friends and relatives recalled stories of Ivins losing backyard soccer games to his children, juggling and singing, and playing practical jokes on his co-workers. Diane Ivins, his widow, chose the eulogists, Bible passages and hymns, according to the pastor and others.
***
Another eulogist, Jerry Andrick, spoke about a little-known aspect of Ivins’s life, saying that it typified his warm and giving nature. Bruce and Diane Ivins had adopted their twins, Andy and Amanda, now 24. The Andricks were the twins’ pre-foster parents, but the Ivinses had invited them to share in the children’s birthdays and holidays for many years afterward.
Andrick said almost every get-together ended in a soccer match or football game in the Ivins’s back yard.
“It was the Geezers versus the Whippersnappers,” Andrick said, describing how he and Bruce never won a game against their kids.
Ivins’s brother, C.W. Ivins … He called his brother “a darn good father” who should be remembered for his hopes, dreams and all the good times.
DXer said
Ed uses this very article talking about his devotion to his children — the article merely drops an unnecessary word “his” in the headline — in arguing in support of his First Grader Theory that:
“14. The prime suspect had a lot of contact with children.
Eulogies for the prime suspect focused on his devotion to children.”
Ed is entitled to his own stupid theory — like his confusion for 10 months on the key genetics issue — but not his own facts.
Ed is still falsely claiming without factual basis contact with First Graders in Fall 2001.
Roberto said
He was so devoted to children he used one to commit mass murder?
I’ve never thought much of the child-letter theory; eulogies as evidence? C’mon.
But, I will admit it is possible that a 1st grader wrote the letter. But – assuming the kid was normal and healthy in 2001, and he’s be a normal and healthy (a big assumption, I know) 14 yr old now He would remember some wierdo asking him to copy a letter for him. Especially when he brought out the gloves (and mask?). There was zero biological evidence on them was there not? Most kids in the 1st grade can read… “you die now” might stick out in a person’s memory. Now if the kid were a foreigner…
Anonymous Scientist said
NAS has added a new section to their website. Not very informative.
Especially not informative is this part:
———————————————-
The following materials (written documents) were made available to the committee in the closed sessions:
The committee reviewed documents made available to it.
———————————————-
It seems the NAS committee is conducting their study in secrecy – they won’t even state what documents they are reviewing.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/meetingview.aspx?MeetingID=3658&MeetingNo=1
Closed Session Summary Posted After the Meeting
The following committee members were present at the closed sessions of the meeting:
Alice C. Mignerey
Thomas V. Inglesby
Richard M. Losick
David A. Relman
Karen Kafadar
David R. Walt
Adam Driks
Jed S. Rakoff
Arturo Casadevall
Nancy D. Connell
Murray V. Johnston
Alice Gast
Elizabeth Thompson
Bob Shaler
The following topics were discussed in the closed sessions:
Opening Remarks and Introductions
Discussion of Study Charge
Overview of the NRC Study Process
Confidentiality/Communications
Handling of Restricted Information
Security Related Issues
Review of Morning Session
Committee Member Presentations
Discussion of Future Meeting Schedule
Conflict of Interest/Bias/Balance and Committee Composition
Preliminary Evaluation of Documents
Discussion of Additional Data Needs and Future Speakers
The following materials (written documents) were made available to the committee in the closed sessions:
The committee reviewed documents made available to it.
Date of posting of Closed Session Summary: August 6, 2009
Anonymous Scientist said
One can also go to this link:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49105
and scroll down to: “Contact the Public Access Records Office to make an inquiry or to schedule an appointment to view project materials available to the public.”
DXer said
Anonymous Scientist,
I think perhaps instead there is simply a missing hyperlink with an additional list of documents not yet added. You might check.
DXer said
Speaking of documents subject to production under FOIA, if experience is any guide, the US government will produce more documents to the Russian FSB than to a FOIA requestor. 🙂
A helpful USAMRIID FOIA officer, though, did confirm today that the designation of the code form used for the second page of the RMR 1029 record has been in use since 1999 (and the “03” designation does not refer to the year 2003).
“FBI agent David Carroll testified in a federal hearing last month that his agency supplied copies of computer hard drives seized from Seda’s house to agents from the Russian Federal Security Service, the successor to the KGB, according to court documents filed Tuesday in Eugene.
While the hard drives contained evidence in the money-laundering and tax-fraud case against Seda, they also included personal information about Seda’s family — including his wife and former wife, defense attorneys claim in the filing.
They claim the Russians wanted information about someone who had lived with Seda and that U.S. agents providing that data went outside the scope of the search warrant.
Prosecutors countered in Wednesday court filings that the claim was moot. Yet those documents also reveal that Soliman Al-Buthe — Seda’s Al-Haramain partner and codefendant in the money-laundering case — corresponded with an Iraqi named Ali Al-Timimi, who was convicted in 2005 in Virginia for soliciting others to wage war against the United States and for assisting the Taliban.
“Al-Timimi contacted Al-Buthe to obtain Al-Buthe’s assistance in editing and publishing an anti-Semitic article glorifying the crash of the United States Space Shuttle Columbia as a sign from God that ‘overjoyed’ the ‘heart of each believer’ and signaled the end of American supremacy,” prosecutors wrote in court papers.
“Obviously, connections between Al-Haramain, Al-Buthe and terrorists such as Al-Timimi could be relevant” in the case, the papers state.”
Ike Solem said
P.S. The New York Times decided that the following comment was unacceptable – and then they closed their comment thread soon afterwards. Here’s the comment as it appeared on the web site after posting:
Ike Solem, CA
August 17th, 2009
9:29 am
Sebelius has not been a very good Health Secretary pick. Her comment is just one example of poor judgment, but that is dwarfed by her unquestioning support for the massive buildup in biological warfare research (of dubious value) that was ushered in during the post-anthrax-attack Bush era.
These include billions of dollars in funding channeled through HHS and other executive agencies under the guise of BARDA, the \”Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority\”, Project Bioshield (managed by BARDA), much of it aimed at developing vaccines for potential bioweapons made from relatively obscure pathogens – work that has dual-use biowarfare potential, as any user of bioweapons must also be vaccinated against them.
At the same time, HHS has reduced research into the three most deadly global killers – malaria, AIDS and drug-resistant TB, while at the same time promoting the swine flu scare, just as they promoted the Asian bird flu scare in 2005-2006. Even academic medical researchers have gotten into the act on that, first claiming that the 1918 flu was from birds (in 2005) and then claiming it was from pigs (in 2009). Coincidence? Or just part of the Tamiflu marketing campaign that has done such wonders for Roche and Gilead?
All told, this is not the person we should have running HHS. The most glaring issue is probably the conflict-of-interest involved in Sebelius’ push to build a $1 billion ‘agro-biodefense’ facility in Kansas that will study dangerous animal and crop pathogens – pathogens that if accidentally released in Kansas could easily do billions of dollars in damage to the state agricultural industry. In spite of that fact, both ex-Kansas governor Sebelius and Kansas Republicans like Brownback are working hand-in-hand to get the project in motion.
All told, it’s really a shame that the Daschle nomination was sabotaged by the Senate Finance Republicans and the health industry, leading to the Sebelius nomination – Daschle would certainly have taken a long hard look at the BARDA/Project Bioshield projects, instead of trying to steer those funds to his home state.
Truly, a disastrous choice for an important position – Sebelius also has little experience with the Congress, entirely unlike Daschle, who would have played a key role in getting Obama’s bill passed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/health/policy/18talkshows.html
Where did it go? The last comment was posted at 10:32…
Ike Solem said
P.S. “Bugmaster”
Try using your real name. It improves your credibility – here are the Jefferson references:
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_10/Tucker
Background:
“The BWC entered into force on March 26, 1975, during the administration of President Gerald R. Ford, with the United States as one of the original parties. On December 23, 1975, then-national security adviser Brent Scowcroft issued a memorandum providing policy guidelines for U.S. implementation of the BWC. According to the Scowcroft memorandum, biodefense activities permitted under the convention were limited to “[a]ctivities concerned with the protection of human beings, animals, plants, and matériel from the effects of exposure to microbial or other biological agents or toxins, including vulnerability studies and research, development and testing of equipment and devices such as protective masks and clothing, air and water filtration systems, detection, warning and identification devices, and decontamination systems.”[3] Significantly, the Scowcroft memorandum authorized “vulnerability studies” but not the creation of novel pathogens or weaponization techniques for purposes of threat assessment.”
The projects in question:
Project Jefferson, a plan by the Defense Intelligence Agency to reproduce a genetically modified strain of the anthrax bacterium developed by Russian scientists in the early 1990s, in order to determine whether or not the agent was resistant to the licensed U.S. anthrax vaccine.
Project Clear Vision, a project by Battelle Memorial Institute, under contract to the CIA, to reconstruct and test a Soviet-designed biological bomblet so as to assess its dissemination characteristics.
Where exactly were these two projects carried out, and who was involved with them?
BugMaster said
Ike:
I don’t think Project Jefferson (to be performed by Battelle) ever got past the planning stage.
One week after the publication of Miller and Broad’s NYT article came September 11.
Anonymous Scientist said
Only 23 days have passed since the media reported that the the FBI was “on the verge” of closing the anthrax case. Maybe it’s time to post one of these electronic countdown clocks with the message: “Time expired since the FBI announced they were “on the verge” of closing the anthrax case” .
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534882,00.html
U.S. on Verge of Closing Anthrax Mailings Case
Sunday, July 26, 2009
WASHINGTON — A year after government scientist Bruce Ivins killed himself while under investigation for the lethal 2001 anthrax mailings, the Justice Department is on the verge of closing the case.
Anonymous Scientist said
We are now at T+ 25 days since the FBI announced they were “on the verge” of closing the anthrax case – and counting.
Anonymous Scientist said
We are now at T+ 30 days since the FBI announced they were “on the verge” of closing the anthrax case – and counting.
Ike Solem said
NYC health officials drill for bioterror attack
August 15, 2009 By The Associated Press
NEW YORK (AP) — New York City is getting ready for a massive anthrax attack — even if it never happens.
“The Department of Health is conducting a drill Saturday to assess the city’s ability to quickly distribute medications to large numbers of New Yorkers. A school on the Lower East Side is being used for the exercise. During a major public health emergency or outbreak of disease, sites like schools would be used as hubs for distributing antibiotics or vaccines. Saturday’s scenario will depict a widespread airborne anthrax release across the city.”
Notice that this is a scaled-down version of a similar exercise conducted in the late 1990s, when the anthrax was laced with smallpox. The main problem was public panic as people fled the city in all directions. For anthrax, this is not a real problem since it is not transmissible, but with smallpox the disease rapidly spread and infected new people, leading to a complete breakdown of emergency services, bodies collecting in the street, and so on.
This is why we have international agreements that ban bioweapons, after all – they’re the next most devastating thing to a nuclear weapon. Spending billions on “Project Bioshield” hasn’t made anyone any safer, but has merely expanded the size of the pool of people who are familiar with bioweapon manufacturing.
By the way, how did those FOIA requests to Dugway and West Jefferson work out? Do they have security cameras? Records of transhipments of anthrax spores from Fort Detrick? That would seem to be the angle to take, wouldn’t it?
How about complete records of Projects Clear Vision and Jefferson, including where the work was done, and whether any of the resulting material was stockpiled anywhere? These are public-private partnerships, however – how does the FOIA work when a private contractor does bioweapons work for the federal government? Does the contractor get a shield?
Not being a lawyer, I don’t know myself.
BugMaster said
Ike:
Project Clear Vision as I understand it involved only the use of an anthrax simulant.
The so-called “Jefferson Project”?
Did it really exist, or was this a phase constructed by Miss Run-Amok Judith Miller?
I think the latter is true here.
Ike Solem said
What are you talking about? Project Jefferson was a Defense Intelligence Agency project to recreate strains of anthrax that could evade the anthrax vaccine. Project Clear Vision was a program to recreate a Soviet anthrax bomblet, including the aerosolized spore preparation, that was managed by the CIA.
DXer said
Ike,
I haven’t submitted a FOIA to Dugway or Battelle.
I have submitted a FOIA to Sandia (managed by Lockheed) and it is being processed. Numerous agencies have provided an initial letter response (to include such agencies as the DIA).
From Sandia, I asked for a power point at a recent conference relating to the silica forensics, given that the researchers have made dramatic efforts to publicize their findings and urge their interpretation (“spin”) of their findings that go beyond merely the results showing the location of the silicon. (IMO, any issue of production under FOIA under the Shelby Amendment relating to data has been avoided; but in any event most of the presentation would not implicate “data” as such but would cover the same issues presented in their YouTube video, NatGeo interview etc).
If you have a theory, by all means, submit a FOIA and seek information that supports at least the policy points you make. Since the anthrax mailings, many agencies accept electronic submissions. You are entitled to two hours free search and 100 free pages. I think you are addressing policy issues in a true crime matter — which is fine so long as you don’t confuse the two in your own mind. Nonproliferation issues do not bear on the “correct” solution of the “whodunnit.”
DXer said
On the question of the “Shelby” data, a researcher who has been funded taxpayers is required to provide data upon request. Data need not be produced until published but here it has been published upon presentation publicly at the conference and elsewhere. Most of the powerpoint was not “data” as such anyway.
BugMaster said
“Of course, if the FBI is not confident in its conclusions, then the FBI should continue its confidential investigation with our blessing.”
I have concluded, DXer, that this appears to be the case.
Time will tell.