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

* the NAS report regarding “Scientific Approaches used during the FBI’s Investigation of the 2001 Bacillus Anthracis Mailings” is due on October 24th … but it won’t be issued until at least the end of the year !!! … and now we hear the contract has been extended … why? until when?

Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 19, 2010

 

UPDATE … the NAS report on the FBI’s anthrax science

will NOT be issued on 10/24 !!!

******

10/26 … LMW to NAS … I’ve been told that the FBI/NAS contract has been extended. Is this true? Until when? At whose initiative? For what reason? When do you now anticipate the report will be released?

10/21 #3 … email FROM LMW TO Steven Kendall … STEVE … Thanks for responding. But why is the report not ready on October 24 as scheduled (ie, 18 months)? Don’t you think you owe us some explanation for your failure to meet your target? … LEW

10/21 #2 … FROM Steven Kendall, NAS Senior Program Associate … We anticipate that the report will be issued by the end of the year.

10/21 #1 … email sent FROM LMW to NAS … Will the NAS issue its report on October 24? If not, when?

******

  • the official title of the NAS study is … Review of the Scientific Approaches used during the FBI’s Investigation of the 2001 Bacillus Anthracis Mailings
  • The project began April 24, 2009 and has a duration of 18 months
  • The report is thus due on October 24, 2010
  • no announcement has been made that the report will or will not be issued on schedule
  • The last meeting of the NAS Committee was June 2, 2010,
  • It was a closed meeting, after which no announcement was made.
  • by the terms of the NAS contract with the FBI, which is paying for the review and has established the rules, the NAS is not permitted to draw any conclusions regarding the guilt or innocence of Dr. Bruce Ivins or any other person(s).

******

see the NAS project page at …

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/CommitteeView.aspx?key=49105

******

The FBI’s case against Dr. Ivins is clearly bogus: no evidence, no witnesses, an impossible timeline, science that proves innocence instead of guilt.

So what really happened? And why? The “fictional” scenario in my novel CASE CLOSED has been judged by many readers, including a highly respected official in the U.S. Intelligence Community, as perhaps more plausible than the FBI’s unproven assertions.

* buy CASE CLOSED at amazon *

 

Advertisements

46 Responses to “* the NAS report regarding “Scientific Approaches used during the FBI’s Investigation of the 2001 Bacillus Anthracis Mailings” is due on October 24th … but it won’t be issued until at least the end of the year !!! … and now we hear the contract has been extended … why? until when?”

  1. DXer said

    Ayman Zawahiri:

    If you don’t want to get into this business of your sister Heba teaching Tarek in the mid-1990s, maybe we could be more subtle and talk in code to fool the listening spies.

    This is what our mutual friends tell me what happened. In the next video, when you urge that all infidels be killed, just touch your forefinger to your chin if you agree.

    Then you can deny it publicly like you and Bin Laden for a time denied the 1998 embassy bombings and 911.

    The Infiltration of US Biodefense: Anthrax and Al Qaeda
    http://www.blurb.com/books/1443811

    http://www.newanthraxandalqaeda.com

  2. DXer said

    A new study, ‘Issues in biosecurity and biosafety,’ is now available. “The role of non-governmental organisations and other interested observers -civil society -has long been neglected by governments in the quest for a world secure from the threat of biological weapons or bioterrorism. New trends illustrate a greater appreciation of a strong need for a cooperative partnership,” investigators in the United States report (see also Antimicrobials).
    “Governments need to accept and embrace some of these new trends and new technologies. At least since 2001 and the Amerithrax anthrax letters, the USA has had a significant focus on biosecurity and the related subject of biosafety. Biosecurity has also been raised to a place of prominence in security discussions throughout much of the rest of the globe, largely through the mechanisms of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and related groups, but also through the World Health Organization and the implementation of the International Health Regulations, which is scheduled for 2012. Despite this attention, a clear understanding of the meanings of biosecurity and biosafety has yet to be achieved. Partly because of this lack of definition, and largely because of a broader understanding of the capabilities of the life sciences, many topics have begun to fall under the heading of biosecurity,” wrote B.D Nordmann and colleagues, Department of State.
    The researchers concluded: “This paper will not be able to explore all of these new topics but will instead attempt to present an overview of some of the issues at play today in the biosecurity dialogue.”
    Nordmann and colleagues published their study in International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents (Issues in biosecurity and biosafety. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 2010;36 Suppl 1():S66-9).
    For additional information, contact B.D. Nordmann, Office of Biological Weapons Affairs, US Dept. of State, Compliance and Implementation, Washington, Washington, DC 20520 USA

    • DXer said

      Brian D. Nordmann at the Department of State explains in the November 2010 issue:

      “4. The role of the scientist

      As the perception of the threat has evolved, so too has the perception of the best way to address it. The threat of terrorists acquiring and using pathogens has become the new paradigm. But few, if any, terrorist leaders have a background in molecular biology or epidemiology. Consequently, the concern is that well-funded terrorist groups may seek to use politicised life scientists or hire otherwise disaffected scientists to create a biological agent for use against the USA or others.

      As one response to that concern the field of bioethics has taken a leap to the forefront. Bioethics has been defined as encompassing the debate surrounding the social, cultural, legal and ethical implications of the new breakthroughs in the life sciences that are giving human beings ‘new power to improve our health and control the development processes of all living species’.

      It is theorised that if scientists were educated within a culture of responsibility then concern about their joining the terrorists might be attenuated, if not eliminated.”

      Comment: Would a biosecurity association espousing ethical principles do much to thwart the plans of a determined adversary like Ayman Zawahiri? Sometimes clarity of true crime and intelligence analysis — and a good spike mike over a pillow — is more important than big budgets and good intentions.

      The St. Louis brother, Khaled Hamid, who is very publicly anti-Israel in his blog and a good friend of the fellow supplied virulent Ames by Dr. Bruce Ivins, held a conference insisting that the Hippocratic oath forbade medical doctors from participating in terrorism. Ayman of course would have been unswayed. Although we may disagree with him, Ayman takes his guidance from other principles.

      Tarek Hamouda’s good friend, Dr. Khaled Hamid in St. Louis, when pressed to tell what he knew about a sleeper cell in the United States, publicly explained that he could not reveal a sleeper cell that he did not know about. Kim Bell in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported on that a group of about 20 Muslim physicians called a news conference organized by Dr. Hamid to condemn the terrorist attacks in Great Britain said to involve doctors and medical students. Bell reports that Muslim doctors in the Greater St. Louis area say they are “trying to be more vocal in denouncing terrorism. “As a community we are in pain. As physicians, we are in twice the pain,” said Hamid, a board member for the Council of American-Islamic Relations.

      Dr. Hamid’s brother in VA, “Tawfiq”, was the one who wrote a book INSIDE JIHAD describing Ayman Zawahiri’s recruitment of him at the medical school. The two brothers and Tarek, the scientist supplied Ames by Dr. Ivins, would go to the comic store when the young Hamouda would visit from Khartoum, Sudan where his mother was working as an accounting professor. When the three men then went to medical school together, Ayman would speak on Fridays at the medical school in a room set aside for the purpose and urge the medical students join the jihad. At last report, Khaled stopped talking to his brother “Tawfik” because — although once successfully recruited by Zawahiri — is now cooperating with intelligence agencies and law enforcement. (Anwar Aulaqi in 1999 in YouTube videos removed this week by YouTube would urge that no muslim should ever cooperate in a terror investigation).

      By analogy, Anwar Aulaqi, who was coordinating with Ali Al-Timimi according to Ali’s defense counsel, denounced 9/11 while privately he urged a hard line to his confidantes.* Anwar Aulaqi spoke with Ali at Toronto and London in July and August 2001. Both Anwar and Ali think that they are taking the ethical high road and it would take more than a $28 million budget at Department of State urging the golden rule to change their mind. What we needed was an investigation that was not riddled with conflict of interest and unproductive compartmentalization. We needed the NAS to comply with its obligation to provide timely production of documents that would have permitted meaningful participation in the matter (informed by the documents.

      Armed with such documents, for example, experts could have weighed in on the fact that the photocopier that the AUSA suggests was used by Dr. Ivins was in fact EXCLUDED by the forensics at a high level of confidence.

      We needed someone like FBI Agent Harry Samit who in warning of an attack on World Trade Center using a 747 understood the difference a day can make. Instead, we have Jennifer formerly of the FBI and CIA who does not want to do anything to undermine the FBI’s public conclusion.

      *
      Source: my interview of a fellow attorney who was Anwar’s roommate on pilgrimage in Saudi Arabi in Spring 2001.

      • DXer said

        We should know today the expected timing of the additional Ivins related documents from USAMRIID. JAG has not released them yet.

  3. DXer said

    This is the statutory requirement:

    “The Academy shall ensure that meetings of the committee to gather data from individuals who are not officials, agents, or employees of the Academy are open to the public, unless the Academy determines that a meeting would disclose matters described in section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code. The Academy shall make available to the public, at reasonable charge if appropriate, written materials presented to the committee …:”

    The Academy did not do this and is in violation of the statute. There was no statutory provision that under 552(b) exempted the documents from production “pending NAS review.”

    • DXer said

      A plaintiff does not have to file a formal request before bringing an action seeking remedy under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), including violation of the statute’s disclosure requirements. NRDC v. Johnson, 488 F.3d 1002 (2007).
      http://openjurist.org/488/f3d/1002/natural-resources-defense-council-v-l-johnson

      The scope of FOIA is narrower than the analogous requirements under FACA and thus compliance with FOIA will not moot the claim under FACA. Judicial Watch v. Dep’t of Commerce, 583 F3d 871 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

      Where NAS panel did not comply with FACA, FACA’s purposes would be advanced by not permitting the committee’s reports to be used by the agency in future decision-making. Idaho Wool Growers’ Association, 637 F. Supp. 868, clarified, 2009 WL 3863806371.
      See http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/wildlife/fs-ltr-gtr209_withdrawn_08.28.09.pdf

      Regarding duty to produce the documents, and the adequacy of the production, see generally Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, 643 F. Supp. 2d 43

      The NAS’ delay in producing the documents prevented the public and outside scientists from meaningfully participating, especially given the book on the subject going to press in November and the November 29, 2010 UCLA conference.

      • Anonymous said

        “especially given the book on the subject going to press in November”

        can you tell us what book this is?

        • DXer said

          The book going to the publisher is by a highly experienced medical anthropologist, a Professor of Sociology at Boston College and a senior fellow in the Security Studies at MIT. She is best known as an authoritative and unbiased writer on the history of biological warfare. Don’t judge a book by its cover until you’ve at least seen the cover.

      • DXer said

        For a quotable law professor on the issue, there is Professor Amanda Frost at American University.

        See also

        Amanda Frost, Presentation, The Federal Advisory Commitee Act: The Public Interest Perspective, the Federal Advisory Committee Act Training (Government Services Administration, Wash., D.C., June & Aug. 2001-04).

        • DXer said

          Professor Frost was the lead counsel for Public Citizen in some 1999 FACA cases against FDA (and it doesn’t get any better than Public Citizen on FACA, FOIA or any other issue). If National Academy of Sciences is going to be forced to comply with FACA, Professor Frost and her students would be the ones to do it.

          In Public Citizen v. FDA, No. 99-177 (D.D.C. 1999), Public Citizen challenged under FACA FDA’s practice of failing to make advisory committee materials available to the public before or at advisory committee meetings.

          In another case that year, 185 F.3d 898, Public Citizen sought access under FOIA to information in Investigational New Drug applications concerning drugs abandoned because of health and safety concerns.

  4. DXer said

    The National Academy of Sciences quotes the applicable statutory language regarding conflict of interest and production of documents:

    Requirements Relating to the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Public Administration

    Sec. 15. (a) In general.–An agency may not use any advice or recommendation provided by the National Academy of Sciences or National Academy of Public Administration that was developed by use of a committee created by that academy under an agreement with an agency, unless–

    (1) the committee was not subject to any actual management or control by an agency or an officer of the Federal Government;

    (2) in the case of a committee created after the date of the enactment of the Federal Advisory Committee Act Amendments of 1997, the membership of the committee was appointed in accordance with the requirements described in subsection (b)(1); and

    (3) in developing the advice or recommendation, the academy complied with–

    (A) subsection (b)(2) through (6), in the case of any advice or recommendation provided by the National Academy of Sciences; or

    (B) subsection (b)(2) and (5), in the case of any advice or recommendation provided by the National Academy of Public Administration.

    (b) Requirements.–The requirements referred to in subsection (a) are as follows:

    (1) The Academy shall determine and provide public notice of the names and brief biographies of individuals that the Academy appoints or intends to appoint to serve on the committee. The Academy shall determine and provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to comment on such appointments before they are made or, if the Academy determines such prior comment is not practicable, in the period immediately following the appointments. The Academy shall make its best efforts to ensure that (A) no individual appointed to serve on the committee has a conflict of interest that is relevant to the functions to be performed, unless such conflict is promptly and publicly disclosed and the Academy determines that the conflict is unavoidable, (B) the committee membership is fairly balanced as determined by the Academy to be appropriate for the functions to be performed, and (C) the final report of the Academy will be the result of the Academy’s independent judgment. The Academy shall require that individuals that the Academy appoints or intends to appoint to serve on the committee inform the Academy of the individual’s conflicts of interest that are relevant to the functions to be performed.

    (2) The Academy shall determine and provide public notice of committee meetings that will be open to the public.

    (3) The Academy shall ensure that meetings of the committee to gather data from individuals who are not officials, agents, or employees of the Academy are open to the public, unless the Academy determines that a meeting would disclose matters described in section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code. The Academy shall make available to the public, at reasonable charge if appropriate, written materials presented to the committee by individuals who are not officials, agents, or employees of the Academy, unless the Academy determines that making material available would disclose matters described in that section.

    (4) The Academy shall make available to the public as soon as practicable, at reasonable charge if appropriate, a brief summary of any committee meeting that is not a data gathering meeting, unless the Academy determines that the summary would disclose matters described in section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code. The summary shall identify the committee members present, the topics discussed, materials made available to the committee, and such other matters that the Academy determines should be included.

    (5) The Academy shall make available to the public its final report, at reasonable charge if appropriate, unless the Academy determines that the report would disclose matters described in section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code. If the Academy determines that the report would disclose matters described in that section, the Academy shall make public an abbreviated version of the report that does not disclose those matters.

    (6) After publication of the final report, the Academy shall make publicly available the names of the principal reviewers who reviewed the report in draft form and who are not officials, agents, or employees of the Academy.

    (c) Regulations.–The Administrator of General Services may issue regulations implementing this section.”.

  5. DXer said

    In “The Human Factor: Inside the CIA’s Dysfunctional Intelligence Center,” a former CIA operative describes how bureaucratic the CIA is. The CIA has sued him and is seeking an injunction.

    He describes how many layers of approval were necessary before he even made the basic contact abroad with a foreign WMD scientist.

    Under the cover of businessman, he was attending a scientific conference and eyeballing nametags, leaving his card, and indirectly arranging to meet with a scientist from Warsaw.

    In mid-June through mid-July 2008, numerous scientists were invited to a secret conference for 30 days (all expenses and salaries) in Florida. It was sponsored by the FBI and CIA. There was recruitment — some successful, some not.

    Did any of the NAS panel members attend? If so, I would disapprove on the grounds of conflict of interest and lack of transparency.

    As a general rule of thumb, if you saw the lead scientist, JB, in his bathing trunks — he presented on the Amerithrax science as I recall — that should be disqualifying both to serve on the panel and to review its draft report.

    And remember: I eventually will find out that you were a reviewer on the draft report and have a list of attendees to the conference.

    I or my friend will make it a point to make a tennis date with your secretary and she made your flight arrangements.

  6. BugMaster said

    I attended Dina Temple-Ralston’s lecture last week. Very little was about the anthrax case. When asked to respond to the recent news that the GAO was getting involved, she was rather dismissive of the new development. She feels very strongly that Ivins was guilty, and one reason she believes so was that “Ivins and Hatfill were co-workers for a period of time, and it was really Ivins who was responsible for all the FBI attention given to Hatfill”.

    Actually, it was media hype that played the main role in Hatfill’s vilification. Perhaps Temple-Ralston and others in her profession are taking a page from the FBI’s playbook: Blame It On The Dead Guy!

    Also, from Ms. Temple-Ralson:

    “All his co-workers think Ivins did it”.

    Really! What about Dr. Adamovicz, Dr. Heine, and Dr. Bryne?

    “Ivins had the skills to do it”.

    Not exactly. The skills to produce the raw material he certainly had, but to convert the wet spores into the deadly form sent to Senator Leahy (without contaminating the area where the material was being processed and killing the cat) would have required the knowledge of a protein chemist, not a microbiologist.

    Temple-Ralston does not have near the technical knowledge to be able to speculate how this crime was committed. And if she believes Ivins was guilty, fine, but as a NPR reporter, I still think she has an obligation to state actual facts, not exaggerations or FBI bullshit.

  7. DXer said

    The lead FBI forensics scientist — the one who coordinated the labs and collected the forensic evidence pointing, he says, to the Ivins flask and to Ivins — is Dr. Jason D. Bannan, who was a Collections Scientist in the Bacteriology Division of the company that co-sponsored Ali Al-Timimi’s program. He was the go-to guy for anthrax. Was he involved in deciding what documents to withhold from the National Academy of Sciences? Was he involved in the withholding of documents from the public for the past 2 years? Was he involved in the decision to withhold the documents until after the November 29 UCLA conference that was set to review the NAS report?

    http://www.atcc.org/Science/CollectionsResearchandDevelopment/Microbiology/tabid/849/Default.aspx

    Currently, the Bacteriology Division has three collection scientists. A collection scientist is who you contact in order to make a patent deposit.

    Dr. Bannan would have played a key role in responding to any subpoena directed to ATCC relating to Al-Timimi’s access to the Ames strain. The subpoenas directed identification of all researchers who did any research involving anthrax or any anthrax simulant such as subtilis.

    ATCC had research labs in the building, Discovery Hall, where Al-Timimi worked. Al-Timimi was coordinating with fellow Falls Church imam Anwar Aulaqi who is urging that people in Detroit rise up and attack the United States. Al-Timimi was a student in a program co-sponsored by ATCC.

    The Washington Post, in an article “Hardball Tactics in an Era of Threats,” dated September 3, 2006 summarized events relating to George Mason University to Dr. Ali Al-Timimi, a student in the program co-sponsored by ATCC:

    “In late 2002, the FBI’s Washington field office received two similar tips from local Muslims: Timimi was running ‘an Islamic group known as the Dar al-Arqam’ that had ‘conducted military-style training,’ FBI special agent John Wyman would later write in an affidavit.
    Wyman and another agent, Wade Ammerman, pounced on the tips. Searching the Internet, they found a speech by Timimi celebrating the crash of the space shuttle Columbia in 2003, according to the affidavit. The agents also found that Timimi was in contact with Sheikh Safar al-Hawali, a Saudi whose anti-Western speeches in the early 1990s had helped inspire bin Laden.

    The agents reached an alarming conclusion: ‘Timimi is an Islamist supporter of Bin Laden’ who was leading a group ‘training for jihad,’ the agent wrote in the affidavit. The FBI even came to speculate that Timimi, a doctoral candidate pursuing cancer gene research, might have been involved in the anthrax attacks.

    On a frigid day in February 2003, the FBI searched Timimi’s brick townhouse on Meadow Field Court, a cul-de-sac near Fair Oaks Mall in Fairfax. Among the items they were seeking, according to court testimony: material on weapons of mass destruction.”
    Al-Timimi had rock star status in Salafist circles and lectured in July 2001 (in Toronto) and August 2001 (in London) on the coming “end of times” and signs of the coming day of judgment. He spoke alongside officials of a charity, Islamic Assembly of North America (”IANA”) promoting the views of Bin Laden’s sheiks. Another speaker was Ali’s mentor, Bilal Philips, one of the 173 listed as unindicted WTC 1993 conspirators. Bilal Philips worked in the early 1990s to recruit US servicemen according to testimony in that trial and interviews in which Dr. Philips explained the Saudi-funded program. According to Al-Timimi’s attorney, Ali “was referenced in the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing (“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”) as one of seventy individuals regarding whom the FBI is conducting full field investigations on a national basis.” The NSA was intercepting communications by Fall 2001 without a warrant.”

    If it were to turn out that Al-Timimi, not Bruce Ivins, were involved, Dr. Bannan would be smack dab in the middle of things and the identification by him and his colleagues of all researchers who had done research with subtilis and anthrax would have had a central significance.

    Despite his good faith and expertise, he should not be heard to argue publicly that Bruce Ivins is guilty — heard to say, for example, that the inconclusive scientific evidence does not necessarily exonerate Dr. Ivins. Most of all, the appearance of a conflict of interest should have precluded him from causing the FBI to withhold any documents from the National Academy of Sciences.

    ATCC, Dr. Bannan’s former employer, allowed a committed Salafist coordinating with the 911 imam and Bin Laden’s sheik to have unfettered access to the largest and most diverse microbiological depository in the world.

    That is a lot more pertinent than whether someone is on anti-depressant medicine or likes reading bondage stories.

    The entire subject of the NAS review is largely irrelevant. In January 2002, they could narrow those with access to 1,000 scientists. In August 2008, despite US Attorney’s spin, they could narrow things to 100-300. That’s not a lot of return on the 7 years of scientific inquiry. If it were a Perry Mason episode, it would not be time to cut to commercial.

    The FBI reports that it found genetically distinct subtilis in the attack anthrax. Dr. Bannan says “We never found the equivalent B. subtilisat USAMRIID in any of the evidence that we had.” ATCC had lots of subtilis and its former collection scientist was in charge of the effort to characterize the subtilis found. Upon a failure to vet this sort of conflict of interest, Amerithrax was a mess dating back to Spring of 2002. It continued to be a mess because of such conflicts of interest.

    Despite his good faith and expertise, I move to disqualify Dr. Bannan as an expert in the court of public opinion from withholding any documents from the NAS because of the appearance of a conflict of interest.

    Here is an example of a patent deposit form for bacteria.

    http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:Qdkwj2VniCoJ:www.atcc.org/Portals/1/Pdf/DepositForms/Bact.pdf+ATCC+Bacteria+Deposit+Form&hl=en&gl=us

    ATCC’s return on its subpoena(s) will have to be sought by the GAO in its review of the NAS report.

  8. Anonymous said

    The AFIP data were released in response to a FOIA request and are viewable here:
    https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B7Vzv7IcODeVZmZiYmM0ZWYtN2E0MS00Y2YwLTkxMGQtNTI5ZjMyOWQyNDQw&hl=en

    The key to the sample ID numbers used in the AFIP data can be found at http://foia.fbi.gov/amerithrax/847545.PDF , page 112 for the Leahy, Daschle and NY Post samples; pp 121-123 for the others.

    The AFIP data shows (through a simulation) 30% silicon content in the NYP powder. One big question is – will the NAS anthrax report conveniently not mention the AFIP report?
    If the NAS anthrax report DOES include the AFIP report how are they going to explain 30% silicon in the NYP powder without deliberate addition of a silicon compound?
    They clearly have a dilema.

    • DXer said

      To take one of many examples, TK in Houston had a $100k grant in 2001 for the CIA to study the persistence of anthrax in soil.

      She studied the advantages of growth in sandy soil. Aafia’s sister-in-law, upon moving with Aafia’s brother in 2001 from Ann Arbor, had an office down the hall from TK when millions of gallons of water were dumped into the basement.

      That lab had upgraded to BL-3 in March 2001 at the same time Bruce Ivins fedexed to TK’s co-researcher Rick Lyons. It upgraded when graduate student Melissa Drysdale started reinserting missing x101 and x102 in avirulent strains, rendering them virulent.

      In June 2001, the lab was wiped out — lab animals killed. Doors propped open.

      So one relevant hypothesis worth exploring is what happens when anthrax is grown in a soil suspension — such as the one JE provided Ames to the Edgewood researchers?

      • DXer said

        Aafia, her mom Ismaat, and her sister Fowzia, are all associated with the brother’s address in Ann Arbor. (He was there up to and including part of 2001). Her mom would come to live with them for months to babysit. Did they know Tarek, the former Zawahiri associate supplied virulent Ames by Bruce Ivins? In a recent article, a close relative said they were lying for some reason. S.H. Faruqi, Aafia’s uncle who she met in January 2008, has previously said that for reasons he did not understand they were telling stories. The article reports: “One of her close relatives told a Pakistani newspaper: “They’re all lying … there’s something about Aafia. And we don’t know about it.” Aafia refused to cooperate in her defense for reasons still unclear.

  9. DXer said

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Blotter/american-al-qaeda-now-pose-clear-threat-homeland/story?id=11972691

    American Al Qaeda May Now Pose Most Clear Threat to Homeland Security

    U.S. Authorities Worry Over Americans Rising to Leadership Roles in Al Qaeda

    By PIERRE THOMAS, JACK CLOHERTY and JASON RYAN
    Oct. 26, 2010

    “The stark reality that I shared with Congress recently – and that I’m sharing with you today – is that we at the Department of Homeland Security, and I venture to say the FBI as well, are operating under the premise that individuals prepared to carry out terrorist acts are already in the country, and may carry out these acts of violence with little or no warning,” Napolitano said.

    ***

    So who are these self-proclaimed traitors now in the Al Qaeda leadership? The Yemeni-American cleric Anwar Al Awlaki, once a propagandist, has now gone operational, and sources say Awlaki is emerging as a top threat to America, perhaps even enemy number one after Osama Bin Laden himself.

    Comment:

    Anwar Aulaqi was coordinating with his friend and fellow Falls Church imam Ali Al-Timimi, who shared a suite with the leading bioweaponeer in the world, Ken Alibek, and the former acting USAMRIID Commander and Ames researcher Charles Bailey. Southern Research Institute (“SRI”) was their contractor under a grant from DARPA. (Dr. Ivins’ colleague and chief accuser, Former Colleague #2, came to head the BL-3 lab there).

    In 2002, I laid this all out in 5,000 words to Dr. Tara O’Toole and had a fair amount of correspondence with her. She now in charge of biosecurity for Homeland Security.

    And so if the US is attacked in a mass aerosol attack, please, Secretary, spare the phrasing about how it was without warning. What does Zawahiri have to do? Issue regular videos on YouTube? Announce his intention to use anthrax against US in retaliation for the rendering of his brother and other senior EIJ leaders (to include the spiritual leader Blind Sheik Abdel-Rahman). Announce his intention to use anthrax if bail is denied the EIJ/Vanguards of Conquest #2 Mahmoud Mahoub in Canada.

    Oh, wait. He did all that.

    Tara’s observation, after hearing from a reader who then instead chose to publish his article about Iraq, was that 5,000 words was too detailed to publish in the inaugural issue of her journal.

    Well, ma’am, enough is at stake that it is worth learning about. The devil lies in the details.

    Downloadable documentary evidence:
    http://www.newanthraxandalqaeda.com

    Fully viewable 440 page analysis:
    http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/1443811

    • teegr said

      DXer…I have attempted to get the website that hosts your book to respond as to HOW exactly one downloads this book. Their FAQ’s seem to be geared towards the author uploading their book and payment of.

      Maybe I am misunderstanding the process and once a person puts the book into their shopping cart, THEN the process tells them the format and program one needs to download the book.

      • DXer said

        There are two URLs. One is a collection of 100 or so graphics at newanthraxandalqaeda.com It is slow loading but to download (for free) all the graphics you go to the upper left and click download. It is heavily document oriented — one document per graphic. There is no overarching organization as we address the documents as they come. The graphics have all appeared on this website.

        An overarching organization is in the fully online 440 page narrative. It would have been better if I could include an outline but there is the page limit and the outline/table of graphics is very long and there was no text I wanted to cut. To view the book fully and freely online, you click the word preview on the right, and then adjust it to full-screen. It is fully and freely previewable. To order a hard copy the cost is $12.95, I think. Coupons for free shipping are common upon a search (or for a 20% discount). But being frugal myself, and thinking delays in publishing immediately tends to doom discussion of current events, if something subject to revision is available for free, I just view it online (after enlarging to full screen). It is revised whenever there are developments and will be revised when NAS finally produces its documents. I make no profit — it is priced at cost. Some of the graphics on the newanthraxandalqaeda page serve as illustration. I am not at all artistically inclined. While I am solely responsible for the content of both the graphics and book, I take none of the credit for the graphic talent evidenced and am forever indebted to a friend.

        Similarly, the $100 new December 2010 book on Anthrax appears to be fully previewable (upon signing in) at Amazon. The chapter authors have previously published on the subjects and so the material will not be new to those who read the articles. But it certainly will be a premiere reference on anthrax and I don’t doubt that the NAS has had the benefit of the scholars. Indeed, Dr. Driks for example served briefly on the panel. Some of the others likely were reviewers.

        • DXer said

          Currently, for those not wanting to view the 440 page paperback online, the code for a %20 discount is PROMO leading up to Christmas which brings the cost, before shipping, to about $10.

          But as I said, I recommend reading it online because we are at a lull before the storm and there will be many dramatic developments and revisions.

          The Infiltration of US Biodefense: Anthrax and Al Qaeda
          http://www.blurb.com/books/1443811

          http://www.newanthraxandalqaeda.com

  10. DXer said

    As to the status of the documents being withheld by USAMRIID, the last batch of Ivins emails still awaiting public release was processed last week. It has been redacted and approved for release by MEDCOM but are waiting on OPSEC to release them. OPSEC is the logjam as those remaining emails.
    Will get a follow up with OPSEC today.

    There will be another batch of non-agency records — “Personnel” type emails that will be posted. They have not yet been received for redaction but are in the workstream. The emails are where they try to make seem Dr. Ivins unstable without noting that it was USAMRIID and JAG that caused the intense stress by not allowing his attorney to interview his colleagues.

    • DXer said

      From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
      RE: BSAT Inventory Audit Report (UNCLASSIFIED)
      Wednesday, July 09, 2008 3:09:43 PM

      (who will be taking over the strains currently in my name) will go in with and do a complete inventory check. Matieral which is totally missing or is lower in volume than it should be, should be assigned to the FBI confiscation of 1 NOV 2007.
      -Bruce

      Bruce Ivins

    • DXer said

      From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
      RE: BSAT Inventory Audit Report (UNCLASSIFIED)
      Wednesday, July 09, 2008 3:09:43 PM

      (who will be taking over the strains currently in my name) will go in with and do a complete inventory check. Matieral which is totally missing or is lower in volume than it should be, should be assigned to the FBI confiscation of 1 NOV 2007.
      -Bruce

      Bruce Ivins

      • DXer said

        From: Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID

        RE: BSAT Inventory Audit Report
        Wednesday, July 09, 2008 3:12:57 PM

        _______________ and _______________ will do a complete inventory of this material, since I am no longer allowed into the suite.
        -Bruce Bruce Ivins

    • DXer said

      From: To:
      Subject: Date:
      Ivins, Bruce E Dr USAMRIID
      RE: HOUSE DECONTAMINATION (UNCLASSIFIED) Wednesday, July 09, 2008

      Oh, my goodness, ! I thought from the title that YOUR house had to be decontaminated! (And that we would have a decontamination party instead of a Halloween party there this year! Speaking of Which…do you still have the picture of me at your party with either the fake bruise, fake mustache, fake blood, etc.?
      , do you remember last Halloween when I wore the fake blood into the suite and you were “startled,” to say the least?

      -Bruce
      Bruce Ivins

  11. DXer said

    Suit now should be filed in federal district court against the National Academy of Sciences for failing to provide the requested documents.

    There is no justification that would fly now that the 18 month term has expired.

    • DXer said

      Since my post earlier today, the head of the NAS study advises me that the contract has been extended and so the legal argument in the suit to have the documents produced is the same as in 2009 – that the withholding is unlawful and not justified by any exemption. My intelligence source says that the purpose in the delay was to delay the production until after the UCLA conference scheduled for November 29 which was to address the science.

      While she urges patience, that is what the FBI urged in Spring of 2002.

      Rather than depend on the kindness of folks that 2 years to produce a stack of emails, the production needs to made pursuant to court order and under court supervision.

      • Lew Weinstein said

        It is typical of the FBI and the NAS, as they collude to keep the truth from being known for as long as possible, maybe forever, that there was no announcement about an extension of the contract, even when I wrote to NAS and asked whether the report would be presented on October 24, as it should have been. The FBI waited until they had a dead suspect before charging him, thus avoiding the inconvenient need to prove their bogus case against Dr. Ivins in court. They will use every lever within their considerable power to keep us from knowing what really happened. We are still where we were in August 2008, when I started my novel CASE CLOSED, wondering whether the FBI has actually failed to solve the case or is covering up and protecting the real perpetrators. If there is a third alternative, I can’t think what it might be.

        • Anonymous said

          Did they tell you how long the contract has been extended by? Is there now a new date for the project ending? If so, what is that new date?

          I relaize the reality is “it’s extended for as long as we want it to be extended”.

        • DXer said

          She said late November or early December is when they’ll withhold the documents until — until after the November 29 UCLA conference.

          It’s a two-step dance:

          (1) Truncate the issues assigned and withhold documents so that the NAS review is meaningless and deals with arcane irrelevant issues… claim that this way the government will be better prepared.

          (2) Delay the production of documents until investigators and prosecutors and people withholding the documents are collecting their pension or moved to lucrative jobs.

          For example, the lead Amerithrax prosecutor, Daniel Seikaly, who went on to a high paying job charted the course on these issues, working closely with his subordinate Ken Kohl. The formerly high-ranking CIA official moved over to the position on September 19, 2001. His beautiful Palestinian activist daughter(if she follows the longstanding family tradition) represented anthrax suspect Ali Al-Timimi for free. Al-Timimi was the guy sharing a suite with Ken Alibek and former Commander Bailey. Ali’s proceedings have been highly classified for good reason. Ali’s defense counsel says he was coordinating with Bin Laden’s sheik and a guy named Anwar Aulaki. This coordination occurred dating back in 2000 and 2001 even though the public only recently has come to realize that the smooth-talking Anwar was not who he pretended to be. His roommate at Haj in Saudi Arabia, my friend Hal from San Francisco, could have told the FBI that in 2001.

          In short, to summarize: Ayman and Saif and Anwar and Ali are not confused. The FBI is. To allow the FBI to withhold the documents from the innocents on the NAS panel is to let Ayman and Saif and Anwar pull the wool over the US public’s eyes. It’s all motivated by an all-too-familiar revolving-door, CYA principle that dominates inside the beltway.

          The FBI has withheld thousands of relevant documents from the NAS that were relevant to even its circumscribed review. Now given such documents in the FBI’s system are batestamped and electronically categorized, it is a simple matter through the testimony of its lead paralegal to prove the scope of the FBI’s withholding from the NAS — and then hold the relevant folks accountable.

          Entire broad categories of documents, I’m told, were withheld.

      • DXer said

        The person who made the decision to withhold the documents until after the NAS issued its report has prevented others from pointing out the documents the FBI has withheld from the NAS. The FBI provably has withheld 1000s of pages of information pertinent and necessary, for example, to the question of contamination and the application of Daubert principles. Congress need only subpoena the lead paralegal formerly working on the matter for an authoritative explanation of his database and what it shows.

        What does it help to have an experienced member of the federal bench on the panel if the FBI failed to produce material documents showing, for example:

        The FBI’s lead genetics expert (KS) in charge of testing the sample provided by Bruce Ivins in 2002 provided a former Zawahiri associate (TH) — who was funded by DARPA — with a BL-3 lab to research virulent Ames.

        The FBI’s lead anthrax expert (JE) who collected the sample from Bruce Ivins’ lab was the one who made aerosolized Ames pursuant to funding by DARPA . The FBI did not disclose that Ames had been aerosolized and instead let General John Parker’s denials stand.

        The University of Maryland researcher (CF) whose sophisticated research was central to characterization of the anthrax was the one who was supplied the aerosolized Ames in order to test the effect of a sonicator and corona discharge.

        Now if documents pertaining to this were not provided the NAS — and they provably were not — then the old principle applies: garbage in, garbage out. But it is the plan that the point will be missed. Reporters will be simultaneously given lots of documents and a lengthy report — and will never have an opportunity to get what was withheld from the NAS.

        That would have only been possible if the person in charge of the NAS study had complied with the law and produced the documents subject to production under law. There is no statutory exemption that applies and that is why attorneys fees are due.

        The FBI has set the NAS up to look like fools once litigation forces disclosure of the additional thousands of pages of documents that should have been provided.

        But what does it matter, right? The budget was negotiated and increased, the money paid … why let the withholding of documents be made an issue? What’s the downside of getting Amerithrax so horribly wrong?

  12. DXer said

    My usual source of intelligence on these matters advises me that there is nothing in work email batch #87 that is remotely inculpatory of Dr. Ivins. All of the remaining emails — like all the work emails from start to finish — are either exculpatory or not pertinent. #87 is being processed and will be uploaded shortly.

    • BugMaster said

      So where in these documents (or any documents released by the FBI) does it state that Bruce Ivins was responsible for the FBI persueing Stephan J. Hatfill?

      Did we all miss something, or does Dina Temple-Ralston not know what she was talking about?

      • BugMaster said

        Fourth Estate My Ass!

        • DXer said

          Dr. Ivins no doubt discussed lots of people in the gazillion of FBI interviews. That was what the FBI was asking him. See redactions. Dr. Hatfill was a fine hypothesis that needed exploring given, for example, he listed drying know-how on his resume and had lied about having a PhD in gaining access to ebola. Ms. Temple-Ralston has the advantage of DOJ/FBI folks who point her to leads — as does Mr. Willman who broke the news of Ivins story ending with the news that investigators had concluded that Ivins was responsible.

          For example, Ms. Temple-Ralston was the first to interview Tom Ivins. He was the estranged brother who had lost contact in 1985 — last seeing Bruce at their parents’ funeral. He said that he was a man because he played football and Bruce was a wuss because he only ran track. I recently spoke to Tom and says he wants to “forget it.” He says he did not go to the funeral. But it was a powerful national story — brother thinks he did it. Speaking to Tom is a real treat. He told Bruce in 1985 to stop sending Pepperidge Farm at X-mas. Their brother Charles has no insights into why people do the things they do — why Tom has such hostility toward them. Tom, for his part, has indicated a focus on the fact that Bruce had a PhD and was favored by his mother. Mr. Willman has told the family that he wants to paint an empathetic portrait of Bruce Ivins. A focus on the merits would be nice too given that none of the science being reviewed points to Dr. Ivins in the slightest. They narrowed the 1000 with access to 300 based on the 4 morphs. Who cares?

        • DXer said

          And don’t get me started that the tech who selected the 4 morphs was JE’s assistant.

        • DXer said

          It is US Attorney Taylor who deserves to be run out of town on a rail. To suggest that they could eliminate everyone who had access — while overlooking something as basic as the fact that it was also stored in 1412 — was outrageous. Mr. Taylor couldn’t even tell you where Jdey (who was working with anthrax planners KSM and Hambali) was. How do you eliminate Jdey as mailer, for example, if at the time of 9/11 he left his apartment and is not to be found since? Did I mention Taylor’s connection to the Bush national security people and that Al-Timimi was Andrew Card’s former assistant?

  13. DXer said

    The closing of Amerithrax served as CYA for a host of government prosecutors and investigators. But they were aided by the absence of a follow-up attack. It would be ironic if the absence of a follow-up attack was due to Saif al-Adel’s house arrest in Iran for 9 years. He led the Green Team for Atef, to whom Ayman Zawahiri reported on anthrax planning, dating to 1993.

    Saif al-Adel Back in Waziristan
    A Top Terrorist Returns to Al-Qaida Fold
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,725181,00.html

    Authorities similarly lost track of anthrax lab tech Yazid Sufaat upon his release. What ever happened to McVeigh’s nifty suggestion of a tracking device in the butt?

    Realistically, it will never come out or be noticed a young AUSA working with AUSA Ken Kohl buried the fact that the xerox machine implied to have been used could be excluded by the forensics relating to photocopy toner. The National Academy has just overlooked the issue in its draft report that is being circulated.

    With Saif back in the saddle, if the United States is attacked — or rather when it is attacked, if it is with a mass aerosol anthrax targeting New York City and Washington, D.C. — it will seem an event unconnected with the decisions made by the young AUSA in writing her summary of the Ivins Theory. It will seem unconnected to the footnote she just dropped in the lengthy memo accusing, without evidence, Bruce Ivins. (And I mean ANY evidence). The relevant evidence is US Attorney Taylor’s FALSE claim that the genetics pointed to Ivins rather than up to 300. The relevant evidence is US Attorney’s Taylor’s FALSE claim it was stored in 1425 rather than also 1412 — that it was under Ivins’ “exclusive control” as if you have exclusive control over the orange juice in your unlocked refrigerator. The relevant evidence is US Attorney Taylor’s FALSE claim that the stamp traced to Dr. Ivins’ post office rather than post offices throughout Maryland and Virginia.

    The next attack on the United States will seem unconnected to the National Academy’s belabored exercise on irrelevant issues that only served the DOJ’s aim of keeping the probative documents from public view for over 2 years. The withholding of documents permitted investigators to move on with their careers. Although Ken Kohl and former field office head Persichini hit some bumps on the road, they never were called on to answer for getting Amerithrax so totally wrong.

    All people responsible for the continued delay of production of documents — from this moment forward — should be fired. There was no right to withhold the documents under any theory or legal authority past the date of the 18 month term of the NAS study.

    Saif was never confused on these issues — nor Ayman. So unfortunately it will be innocents who suffer the consequences for the decision of these US government-funded folks making bad decisions.

    It’s really quite simple — withhold the best evidence from the American public, be fired regardless of your funding.

    Amerithrax represents the biggest intelligence failure in United States history and it will go down as FBI Director Mueller’s legacy — because as he has explained the buck stops with him. So we don’t need to stop to consider whether this or that conflict of interest was the most important — or whether this or that person screwed the pooch. Ultimately, FBI Director Mueller has responsibility as he has oft explained.

    Just as Saif Adel was set free after 9 years — the truth will see the light of day also. Count on it and always assume a listening and tracking device was used.

    Unfortunately, it may very well be that you hear the truth first from Saif Adel.

    • DXer said

      In tracing Saif-Adel’s whereabouts — before he ended up under house arrest in Iran — note that he led the battle for Kandahar (using a remote device) and was at Atef’s side upon interviewing Australian Hicks. Atef placed great reliance on Saif Adel, a former Colonel in the Egyptian military. Now as I recall I’ve said Saif Adel was in charge of Special Operations and Ayman’s brother Mohammed was in charge of making connection with operatives in Egypt. (Ayman’s anthrax planning moved forward in earnest upon Mohammed rendering in Spring 1999). But closer to the time of the mailings, it was Egyptian lawyer Mamdouh Ismail who was conduit between Ayman Zawahiri and operatives in Egypt. He came to represent polymerization expert Magdy Al-Nashar who studied in North Carolina in 2000 where Al-Timimi’s DC charity had a satellite. Al-Nashar had the keys to the apartment used to make the 7/7 bomb. Without expecting people with different interests and agendas to sort out the whirl of Salafist-Jihadi names, the point is this: the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Egyptian Islamic Group is fishing in a relatively shallow pool for operatives (notwithstanding the great popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt). If you want to know the person who ultimately failed to solve Amerithrax, look to the guy at the head of the spear who let some young FBI investigators and AUSAs scratch their ass trying to figure things out without filling them in on a history that dates back to the late 1970s in advance of the assassination of Anwar Sadat. Why do people keep secrets? To advance themselves and make them more valuable in a bureaucracy? It was the compartmentalization of information — that continues to this day — that will allow the next 9/11 to happen.

      • DXer said

        History will show that Ayman Zawahiri wrote the mailer in early Summer 2001 explaining the reason for the merger between EIJ and Al Qaeda.

        The documentary evidence shows that he used the word “school” to refer to EIJ. “Teachers” and similar words were used. Saif Adel led the same players in 1993 and their group was called “The Green Team.” So to simplify things, the use of Greendale School was a tip-off to any one in the IC — or should have been — that the mailer was either EIJ/IG or had access to intel info and was trying to frame them. Bruce Ivins did not qualify because he did not have access to the fact that Ayman Zawahiri sent the early Summer letter to EIJ members using “school” as code.

  14. DXer said

    The computer folks at the FBI have spent the last decade and hundreds of millions of dollars trying to install a computer system that would be effective in their investigations. (You’ll recall that prior to 911, agents were not allowed to even use google).

    Are these the same computer folks who oversee the detection of steganographic images in videos?

    What do the analysts in charge of detecting Zawahiri’s coded messages see in this videotape that was uploaded here to test their ability to detect steganographic images?

    The draft report does not address the FBI’s capabilities in detecting steganographic messages — even though Zawahiri, who has led Al Qaeda’s anthrax planning, has issued numerous videos with coded messages.

  15. Anonymous said

    Here is more on the “lead in bullets” saga. The NAS were comissioned in early 2003 to carry out a 12 month project. They duly published that project report on February 10 2004. So what’s up with the anthrax NAS project? Why is it delayed? In fact why is just about everything that has ever been concerend with the anthrax attacks always been delayed, delayed, and delayed yet again? The list is almost endless – delaying Dr Hatfill’s lawsuit, delaying closing the case after announcing “the dead man did it”, delaying answering questions by Congress, delaying FOIA requests for Dr Ivins emails, etc, etc, etc.

    http://www.truthinjustice.org/FBI-crime-lab.htm
    More Wrongdoing Found at FBI Crime Lab

    April 15, 2003

    WASHINGTON (AP) – Reformed after controversy in the mid-1990s, the FBI crime lab is dealing with new wrongdoing by employees that has opened the door for challenges of the lab’s science in scores of cases involving DNA and bullet analysis, internal documents show.

    Adams, the lab director, said the FBI remains confident that its lead bullet analysis is based upon “a proper foundation” but nonetheless has asked the National Academy of Sciences to review the lab’s work.

    “We do anticipate some suggestions, ways to improve what we already do and we’ll gladly look at that,” Adams said. “We want correct and unassailable results and objective testimony, and to do that we’ve got to be open to outside scrutiny and outside review.”

    http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10924
    Date: Feb. 10, 2004
    Contacts: Bill Kearney, Director of Media Relations
    Heather McDonald, Media Relations Assistant
    Office of News and Public Information
    202-334-2138; e-mail

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    FBI Should Revise Approach to Bullet Lead Comparison
    And Carefully Limit Its Use in the Courtroom

  16. anonymous said

    Strange how the Lead in Bullet Analysis report (also commissioned to NAS by the FBI and only lasting 12 months instead of 18 months) managed to be released on time:

    http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/briefings/Forensic_Analysis.asp
    THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
    National Research Council
    Division of Earth and Life Studies
    Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology
    Committee on Scientific Assessment of Bullet Lead Elemental Composition Comparison

    ******

    Congressional Briefing
    Monday, February 9, 2004
    215 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg. — 1:30 p.m.

    on

    Forensic Analysis: Weighing Bullet Lead Evidence

    Requested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), this report looks at whether it is scientifically sound to compare the material makeup of lead bullets found at crime scenes with bullets in the possession of criminal suspects, and to use that comparison as evidence in court.

    This briefing was for members of Congress and congressional staff only. The report was publicly released on February 10, 2004 and can be found, in its entirety, on the Web site of the National Academies Press.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: