CASE CLOSED … what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks?

* Evidence that the FBI lied to obtain records it had no legal authority to have, and then covered up its illegal activities, does not build confidence that the FBI is telling the truth in its 2001 anthrax investigation.

Posted by DXer on January 28, 2010

CASE CLOSED is a novel which answers the question … Why did the FBI fail to solve the 2001 anthrax case?

Here’s what readers say about CASE CLOSED …

“CASE CLOSED is entirely too plausible”
“it’s probably just the tip of the iceberg on what else was covered up.”
“Fiction?? Maybe?? But I don’t think so!!”
“CASE CLOSED is a must read for anyone who wondered what really happened?


Evidence that the FBI lied to obtain records

it had no legal authority to have,

and then covered up its illegal activities,

does not build confidence

that the FBI is telling the truth

in its 2001 anthrax investigation


thanks to Chris for making me aware of this the article

FBI announces - August 8, 2008 - that Dr. Bruce Ivins is the sole perpetrator and the case will soon be closed

  • The Federal Bureau of Investigation used lies and trickery to illegally obtain thousands of records, then issued after-the-fact approvals in an attempt to cover it up, a Justice Department (Inspector General) investigation released on Wednesday revealed.
  • One of the main problems surrounds the FBI’s unlawful misuse of the already-unconstitutional informal requests known as “exigent letters” to demand information.
  • And they knew it was illegal.
  • According to the DOJ report agents repeatedly and knowingly violated the law by invoking non-existent “terror emergencies” to get access to information they were not authorized to have.
  • “We concluded that the FBI’s acquisition of these records constituted a complete breakdown in the required department procedures for approving the issuance of grand jury subpoenas to obtain reporters’ toll billing records,” said the Inspector General’s report.
  • The FBI acknowledged in a statement released after the Inspector General’s report was made public that “the Bureau did not have in place adequate internal controls to ensure that the appropriate process was used and that appropriate records were kept,” though it insists that it has taken steps to purge illegally obtained records and to prevent similar occurrences in the future.
  • Some members of Congress have already reacted to the report as well. “This was not a matter of technical violations. If one of us did something like this, we’d have to answer for it,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont. “This was authorized at high levels within the FBI and continued for years.”

Josh Meyer writes in the LA Times (1-21-10) …

  • FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III was unaware of the widespread use of the exigent letters until late 2006, when it was uncovered by the inspector general investigation, and he has since taken steps to correct the problem, according to the report and Mueller’s testimony Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  • Mueller acknowledged that there were “substantial weaknesses, substantial management and performance failures in our internal control structure as it applied to obtaining telephone records.” But he added that better internal controls and changes in policy and training have substantially minimized the possibility of similar errors in the future.
  • “We’ll look at the conduct and assign discipline as warranted,” Mueller said.

read the entire LA Times story at …,0,1861531.story


Read the Inspector General’s report on which these stories are based at …


Evidence that the FBI lied to obtain records it had no legal authority to have, and then covered up its illegal activities, does not build confidence that the FBI is telling the truth in its 2001 anthrax investigation. And, since Mueller admits he was aware of these matters in 2006, is it not time to ask if any discipline has been “assigned.”


6 Responses to “* Evidence that the FBI lied to obtain records it had no legal authority to have, and then covered up its illegal activities, does not build confidence that the FBI is telling the truth in its 2001 anthrax investigation.”

  1. DXer said

    There was testimony by a gun club instructor that here he remembers giving Aafia 12 hours of training in shooting a variety of pistols in 1992-1993 (where she shot 1000 plus rounds). This would be significant, if true, because it would establish a lie under oath. But is such a recollection, uncorroborated by other testimony or documents, at all sufficient to establish such point? While I place no stock in the veracity of Aafia or her mother or sister, and instead credit her ex-husband and her uncle S.H. Faruqi (especially her uncle who is her supporter and takes great care in setting out his facts), I think the government’s case has been filled with contradiction and wanting on important issues. The defense point about her being hit by a night stick by an Afghan policeman shortly before this gun incident leaves one asking: Might you have done the same thing in defense? If she was picked up in March 2003 as she claims, might there be a justification defense? Even if not, doesn’t the defense have a fair shot at jury nullification? While personally I think she grabbed the rife as she tried to escape, I would have done the same thing. I don’t see how the government can think it has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt when its case is replete with contradictions that seem to go beyond the usual differences in recollections relating to a dramatic brief event. Then there’s the related aspect that soldiers should not set down their automatic weapons within reach of a prisoner — without expecting an impetuous grab during an attempted escape. The bad public relations (there has been extensive inflammatory press in Pakistan) associated with the weak case presented has been worse and more dangerous for national security than this mother of three ever was.

    • Roberto said

      Seems to me there might be (for some) a benefit to trying and convicting Aaifa with attempted murder charges related to the rifle incident. There will be no testimony concerning why she was so interesting in the first place. There will be no evidence which could be concurrently embarrassing and dangerous. The rifle trial gets her off the streets with the least amount of commotion.

      I seem to recall that in the 1st WTC bombing trial an engineer testified that their Ryder truck bomb would never work, and that if they wanted to really bring down the WTC they should have used a planed loaded with fuel.

      • DXer said

        The guy driving the Ryder truck returned for his deposit! Let that be an indication of how clever he was. Ramzi Youssef groused to the agent bringing him back from Pakistan that it was a lack of money (funding) that led to not enough explosive being used. The government likely will expound in its sentencing report its reasons for being interested in Aafia Siddiqui. One Pakistan minister said in 2003 or 2004 that you would be astonished at her activities. In a 1995 internet post, Aafia commented in anger about the extradition of WTC 1993 plotter Ramzi Youssef and argued it related to appropriations.

  2. DXer said

    Bruce Ivins gave virulent Ames to Tarek Hamouda, who graduated from Cairo Medical in December 1982 and obtained his PhD from Cairo Medical in 1994. Dr. Hamouda was head of a DARPA project and being supplied virulent Ames by Bruce Ivins for the research within a few years. Did Dr. Hamouda know Dahab while at Cairo Medical school in the early 1980s? Dahab in the mid-1990s was trained in sending lethal letters by Al Qaeda/EIJ head of intelligence Ali Mohammed. Both were Silicon Valley residents. Ali Mohammed and Dahab reported to Bin Laden that they had recruited 10 sleepers in the US. Similarly, did Dr. Hamouda know Ali Mohammed while at Cairo Medical school in the early 1980s? Dr. Hamouda knew other members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad such as Dr. Tarek Hamid. Dr. Hamouda was Dr. Hamid’s childhood friend. Dr. Hamouda would visit from Khartoum where his mother was an accounting professor. Dr. Hamid, when I called him, explained to me that when he called Dr. Hamouda before 911 and asked a question about patents, Dr. Hamouda said that the success of patents was all in the marketing.
    Did Dr. Hamouda know Aafia Siddiqui who is associated with her brother’s address from the first half of 2001 at 1915 Woodbury in Ann Arbor? (According to one neighbor in Houston, Aafia frequently visited her brother and sister-in-law.)

    Dr. Hamouda’s company garnered $80 million in investment without a product. $50 million was from a DC venture firm Perseus, of which $30 million was invested while the group was led by a fellow now in charge of Pakistan and Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke. The lead CIA WMD person, who was at Department of Energy from 2005-2008 (leading the 600 employees seeking to secure loose nuclear materials), seems to understand the highly compartmentalized and parallel cell operations led by Ayman Zawahiri. The CIA person’s idea on nukes was to steal enriched uranium or obtain it on the black market and sneak it into the United States to test defenses and draw attention to the problem. See August 2009 interview. But given his quote in the recent Washington Post article by Joby Warrick, he seems not to appreciate that the 1997 Al Hayat letter bombs were the exact model for the anthrax mailings — with the targets being NYC and DC newspapers and people in symbolic positions relating to the detention of WTC plotters. He seems not to understand that there was a threat to use mailed anthrax if bail was denied for Vanguards of Conquest #2 Mahmoud Mahjoub. When that bail was denied on October 5, 2001, the anthrax mailer then rushed to mail the anthrax. The Senator targeted was in charge of appropriations to the security units of both Israel and Egypt.

    Follow the money.

    The FBI is constantly subject to criticism. But check out how many of those same people spell “Hatfill” “Hatfield.” Check out how many people like Barry base their criticism on political views rather than an analysis of the facts. Consider how many people address the science without hearing the audio presentations before the NAS or viewing the powerpoints. Consider how many people, like Ed Lake, who opine on Ayman Zawahiri’s anthrax recruitment efforts — and yet never go beyond his argument that “the hijackers were dead, dead, dead.” Consider how many – everyone — never taking the time to educate themselves on the history of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Ayman’s recruitment efforts using a cell structure compartmentalized at the highest levels. (In fact, the document titled “Cocktail” seized by the FBI from Ali Mohammed’s computer in a search under FISA shows that AQ central would not even know the identity of cell members). Consider how many people — which includes everyone — just ignore the announced intention by Zawahiri’s confidantes that Ayman intended to use anthrax to retaliate for the rendition of senior Egyptian Islamic Jihad leaders. The announcement was made after the rendition of the brother of Ayman Zawahiri and Cairo Medical Pharmacy professor Heba Zawahiri. The outside commentators, without exception, know far less and have far less astute analysis than the FBI.

    The Ivins Theory looks ridiculous only because the Task Force was compartmentalized into three squads and people in the other two squads were not privy to the other investigative information. That squad, for practical purposes, was focused on the origin of the anthrax that was used — with the flask and downstream isolates containing anthrax that was genetically identical. That narrowed the people known to have access from 1,000 to 100-300. This is a time for the Congressional candidates, political activists and other amateur sleuths and journalists to do research and study the facts and get answers to unanswered questions. I’m not asking you to credit what I’m saying. As a Harvard Law trained lawyer licensed in New York and the District of Columbia, I’m daring you to prove anything I’ve said wrong.

    Anthrax and Al Qaeda: The Infiltration of US Biodefense

    • DXer said

      She told jurors her case is an example of how authorities “frame people” and that she chose to testify because she alone “can end the war.”

      She said there were anonymous American agents acting against the interests of the U.S., people she called “fake Americans” who she could expose to end the war.

      “Let me talk,” she said, “I can bring you peace.”

      Comment: Nothing has prevented her from saying what she wants to say — nothing is preventing her from identifying the people she called “fake Americans.”

      Is she negotiating?

      • DXer said

        Siddiqui Denies Firing Weapon at American Troops in Afghanistan
        Voice of America – Larry Freund – ‎1 hour ago‎
        … afraid while recovering in the military hospital that she would be returned to what she called a secret prison run by what she termed fake Americans. ..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: