Conservativeslayer

Does anyone know if it's standard procedure for the DOJ or FBI to tip off someone that they are about to be prosecuted? I just can't see an FBI agent saying hey we are about to charge you for with murder, don't you go no where now. It doesn't make much sense if they do.

I'd like to know the answer to this, too.

-- GlennGreenwald

I will second what a couple of commenters have already posted, that there is nothing necessarily suspicious about a target of an investigation being aware of an impending indictment.

As a New York prosecutor I'm not familiar with DOJ or FBI "standard procedure" but generally speaking there are two kinds of indictments: one is "silent" in that the target is unaware of the grand jury proceeding and only finds out about it post-indictment when he is arrested or asked (usually through his attorney) to surrender.

With the other kind of indictment, while still "secret" in that the content is sealed, as in all GJ cases, the target is aware of the GJ action (usually because he's been arrested, although Ivins had not been) and in fact may actually testify in the grand jury. (Remember, that's how Scooter Libby got into trouble.)

Silent indictments are actually pretty rare, at least in my practice.

News accounts about Ivins indicate he was participating in the investigation - probably being questioned by investigators and turning over subpoenaed documents. It seems that he was demoralized over the Hatfill settlement, an indication that he was becoming the prime suspect. The DOJ also may have said something to his attorney.

But I don't see anything unusual here.

This is a fascinating article, Glenn. Definitely keep up the pressure on ABC to reveal their "sources." And I'm glad you accepted the counsel to not assume Ivins' guilt - I thought your piece walked up to the line but didn't cross it.

Glenn, I believe there is a much higher imperative that Brian Ross be compelled to reveal his four Bentonite sources than you or Kevin Drum discuss.

In federal law, there is no journalistic privilege shielding a reporter from revealing a source who is a material witness in a criminal investigation, especially a capital murder case. For that reason, it's immaterial whether the sources appear to have provided false imformation. For that reason, Judy Miller was held in contempt, spent months in prison, and the US Supreme Court refused to hear her case.

If I understand correctly, the government's theory is that the anthrax came from the same lab that tested the samples recovered from the letters. The natural inference is Ross's four sources either worked at that lab or received their (mis)information from someone at the lab. Assuming the goverment's theory, the Bentonite story appears designed - at very least - to direct suspicion away from the true source of the anthrax.

That is prima facie evidence of obstruction of justice and a strong inference that Ross's sources are material witnesses, basis for a subpoena for him to reveal their identities.

Although grand jury proceedings are sealed, I think we have to assume Ross has not provided his sources to DoJ, otherwise I think ABC would have relied on that as their basis for denying your requests to reveal the sources.

While I agree with the rest of your well-reasoned article, I would suggest that the "material witness" case is the more compelling argument regarding Brian Ross's sources.

if ivins was the primary suspect in the anthrax terrorist attack...why was he not declared an enemy non-combatant and taken into detention where he could have questioned in detail and protected from suicide?

That's a pretty good question.

were they even forced to take lie detector tests?

I believe I read somewhere that one of Ivins' colleagues (possibly it was Hatfill?) said that they all took lie detector tests.

A suspect cannot be compelled to take a lie detector test. Well, at least in jurisdictions like mine where the fifth amendment is still good law. I'm not really sure what the feds are up to these days.

while it is true that you cannot compel a suspect to take a lie detector, i believe the government can and has compelled employees to take one as a condition of continuing to maintain secret clearances and continuing work on highly classified subjects.

Of course you are right about that, but I believe some scientists were investigated after leaving their positions with the government - certainly this was true of Hatfill.

i have read a lot about the anthrax investigation, and i do not recall reading that all scientists with access to government researched anthrax took lie detector tests.

I could have sworn I read it as part of the NYT series of pieces on the story in Saturday's edition. If I find it I'll let you know. I could not find it just now with Google News. The only mention I could find of someone taking a polygraph was Ken Alibek, originally reported by...Brian Ross.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9730 or click my sig.