Curious to see the brave ideologues at the National Review and The Corner are wholly ignoring this story. Those "journalists" are partying hard about Rush Limbaugh's 20th anniversary, but finding the truth about the anthrax scare, bio-terrorism and the state of America's national defense are now largely distractions and inconveniences not worth mentioning.

....don't worry about Ross's future, he'll soon be "FOX news' newest coup: we stole Brian Ross from ABC, just like we got Brit Hume, two of the most respected journalists covering Washington....", and with a raise to boot....

The anthrax letters were addressed to Daschle and Leahy. Why those two in particular?

At the time, Daschle was the Senate Majority leader and Leahy was head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Both were identified in the media as holding up the proposed Patriot Act (signed into law on October 26, 2001) because of concerns that it would violate civil liberties.

Conclusion? Whoever did this was trying to push through the Patriot Act!

Now if somebody thought it was a good idea to have a “New Pearl Harbour” like 9-11, mightn’t they think that getting the Patriot Act though in the aftermath was also critically important?

If Ivins' name was "Abdul" or rhymed with "Hussein," the NRO would be screaming themselves blue in the face, and insisting their attention in no way derived from race or nationality, nuh-uh, that all they care about are grave threats to national security.

Today's article in the LATimes shows us one route to getting the FBI's information on the anthrax killings out into the open. It appears the only route left for many of the government's secrets, since Congress refuses to dig appropriately:

And the lawyer for the family of another victim, Bob Stevens, said they felt both vindicated at the apparent confirmation of their belief that a government biodefense worker was behind the attacks, and suspicious that Ivins might be a fall guy in a bungled investigation.

"He fits the profile that we had advanced, but they would like to see the evidence," said lawyer Richard D. Schuler, of West Palm Beach, Fla. He has filed a lawsuit, pending in the Florida Supreme Court, seeking damages from the government for the wife and three children of Stevens, a photo editor for the Sun tabloid who died after inhaling anthrax sent to the Boca Raton, Fla., offices of American Media Inc.

"The family definitely wants to be able to see the evidence that the FBI has accumulated, that they're not just trying to make this guy a scapegoat . . . allowing them to close their file and be done with it," Schuler said.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/5j2ucm

I fully expect the government to claim "state secrets" everywhere they can, but a lawsuit such as this may well be the best route to getting everything the FBI has put into the record. Ironically enough, I think that process gets easier if the FBI declares the case closed. They would have much less justification for withholding what they have.

Because of this lawsuit and the questions being raised by many outside the M$M, I would be very surprised if the FBI actually closes the case this week. If they keep the investigation open, they can claim that disclosing what they have will hinder the investigation.

Maybe retroactive immunity for everyone at Battelle and Ft. Detrick will be suggested by Cass Sunstein as a way for us to put this unfortunate event behind us. After all, we can't run around criminalizing the use of anthrax to get balky Democrats on board for important legislation.

Noted a comment that linked to a Judy Miller story.

Many simialr facets to this story.

Perhaps a hook to get MSM involved in the story is to suggest parallels to the Judy Miller case?

Journo's just LOVE writing about themselves.

Of course, this is case is far worse - murder investigations, obstruction of justice, and illegal domestic propaganda/PSY-OPS building cases for war and intimidation of Congress.

Glenn,

Excellent work!

You are in a very unique position to own this story. You can run with it as far as you want. The republican Party won't touch it because it completely destroys the "War on Terror" narrative. The democratic Party won't touch it because it gives credibility to 9/11 conspiracy, mocks the FISA "compromise", and marginalizes the Obama's "Look to future, not to the past" narrative to the point of caricature.

The MSM won't touch it because the democratic Party and the republican Party won't touch it.

I look forward to see where this goes. You have made one hell of a great start. Thank you.

----

To those that support a journalist shield law. The first question that must be answered before all others--

Do you support a law for the licensing and designation of "official" journalists by the government?

There is no other way to implement a "journalist" shield law. If it applies to everyone then it is just a "shield law" that will also completely destroy our current understanding of the judicial system and make it almost impossible for a court or government to compel testimony or evidence.

If you want the government to determine who is and who isn't a journalist, then this is not a bug in the "journalist shield law" but a feature.

If you see a journalist shield law as a way to limit government power, I see one hell of an uphill climb to find benefits that will outweigh the power granted to the government through the licensing of journalists.

Although given the forensic situation, technically there may have been no violation of confidentiality, Ms. Duley's behavior from a clinical and ethical perspective is certainly open to question. One of the reasons that confidence is so zealously protected is that patients in treatment frequently say things that could prove harmful or, at least, embarrassing if they were to became public. Furthermore, statements made in treatment reflect the patients perceptions, emotional status, and environmental pressures. They don't necessary reflect reality as others might see it. One of the tasks of the therapist is to help the patient sort out facts from often distorted perceptions. Thus, one tries to avoid damage to a patient by sharing the contents of sessions. This case raises some serious questions about the actions that Ms. Duley took and why they were even necessary. To some extent, her actions may have been the result of inexperience or lack of training. Although you refer to Ms. Duley as a "social worker" and she has been called that in some reports, as I mentioned in a prior post http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/permalink/a2a0481d5358c6907de2af42aa6e5594.html, I have found no documentation that she is, indeed, a social worker and she may have only undergraduate and some chemical dependency training.

These are some of the questions that I have:

1. Why was a restraining order/peace order on Dr. Ivins required? According to numerous reports, Dr. Ivins was under heavy surveillance and Ms. Duley was working closely and cooperatively with the FBI according to her own report. Given that level of federal protection, what was the purpose of seeking a PO with local police? Certainly they could have been alerted (and I hope were) but what was the specific need satisfied by a PO?

2. Given that she did go that route and her testimony contained substantial information that could be prejudicial in a trial, why did the judge not seal her testimony and associated documents? Why were copies of her request and audio recording given (or leaked) to the press? I won't even ask why the press released this information.

3. If she was working closely with the FBI, and supervised by an independent professional, why did they not warn her or the judge about the risks inherent in filing a PO. Note that although there are references to Ivins' "psychiatrist" lurking in the background, no such person has come forth with an independent professional evaluation.

Unfortunately, this disrespect for patient rights (whether inadvertent of deliberate) has left us with the press and cable channels spewing her complaints without caution or explanation and giving her credibility as his "therapist." This is trial in the Court of Public Opinion. The government has not yet made a convincing case for Dr. Ivins' guilt and Ms. Delay's testimony has not been challenged on cross examination. Dr. Ivins' suicide (if that is what it was) conveniently avoids the accountability of a court trail. That provides a compelling argument for a congressional hearing to determine the facts in this case and, if he was innocent as many people believe, to provide a means to clear his name and give some comfort to his family.