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

* The GAO Should Address And/Or Overcome The Obscuration Resulting From The FBI’s Overbroad Redaction Of Scientific Matters Under FOIA b6, b7C and b7D “Personal Privacy” Exemptions

Posted by Lew Weinstein on January 11, 2012

******

******

Advertisements

2 Responses to “* The GAO Should Address And/Or Overcome The Obscuration Resulting From The FBI’s Overbroad Redaction Of Scientific Matters Under FOIA b6, b7C and b7D “Personal Privacy” Exemptions”

  1. Witnesses to an alleged murder weapon do not have a right to privacy as to what they saw in relation to that alleged murder weapon. The DOJ said the specific flask in Suite B3 was the murder weapon. That means everything that happened inside Suite B3 relating to use, production, handling, cleaning, processing, application, etc of anthrax is not protected by privacy. That includes room numbers and names of witnesses.

  2. Sugel said

    There is a Maryland law that makes it a crime to identify any such lab in the State. So he perhaps felt that he could not have spoken the words Southern Research Institute even if he wanted to absent some sort of special clearance. SRI was doing the work with virulent Ames for the DARPA-funded Center for Biodefense at GMU under a multi-million contract, the largest in history up to that time. Bruce’s main accuser came to head the B3 lab there. She is not giving interviews but is the one to ask about the matter. She was his senior lab tech. She made a lot of virulent Ames that is missing.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: