By any theory of the Anthrax crimes I can think of, those who protect the names of the sources of the bentonite false leaks is complicit after the fact in a number of murders: 5 or thousands. I am making a moral, not a legal assertion.

IF Ivins was the Anthrax killer, It is clear that the origin of the leak was either Ivins himself (and I consider that unlikely, as it does not seem to make sense that a brilliant homicidal whackjob scientist would be so stupid as to make easily disproven assertions about a sample he himself tested) or somebody that had arranged with Ivins for him to keep quiet about the bentonite lie, and had a way to force the issue (like knowing Ivins was the killer). In either case, the bentonite leaker protected a murderer or arranged to promote a war that has killed countless and uncounted thousands. As that war was based in part on the knowing lie the bentonite leaker told, that leaker is morally responsible.

Remember that Ivins TESTED the Daschle sample, and would therefor know absolutely that the bentonite leak was false. Nothing reported has indicated his incompetence, so we may take that statement as true until disproven.

If Ivins was not the killer, he was almost certainly the origin of the bentonite leak, or decided to not dispute the bentonite leak, assuming moral responsibility in part for it.

Since there were four sources, three people who were either defruaded into leaking a piece of information used to help begin a war of aggression, or willingly and knowingly did so.

Those who are hiding the names of the bentonite leakers are defending MURDERERS.

Sorry but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

If there had been bentonite in the anthrax, the Iraqi invasion would have been Late 2001, early 2002 at the latest. All the need to get a UN mandate would have been moot. Iraq attacked the US with WMDs and we responded. End of discussion.

Perhaps there was supposed to be bentonite in the anthrax. Everyone got the word to proceed then, surprise, back come the lab tests: no bentonite.

Have you ever testified before Congress before? ... I think everyone should call Conyers .. Leahy .. & Holt on Monday .. and tell them that Glenn should be called to testify before Congress on the Anthrax investigation ... he can lay it all out for them ... and tell them about the TradMed's complicity .. especially ABC

Dont' bother. Even if it happened it would come to nothing.

The one and only meaningful action congress could possibly take would be the impeachment of Bush, because without that no other action is meaningful and can only serve to perpetuate the rabbit hole of dirty tricks, felonies, and cover-ups. And yet, that is the one action by congress it is not undertaking.

With impeachment there would at least be some hope that the rabbit hole the government is protecting could be uncovered, and then you could have investigations.

Given this Administration's record, both of manipulation of the press and 'black' practices, it seems more likely that your suspicions are closer to reality than not.

My impression is that the Ivins matter unfolded quickly with a pat analysis including - most significantly and publicly - the fact that he had been diagnosed as clinically homicidal.

If the press ever wants to unburden itself of complicity in the run-up to Iraq this is a very good place to start.

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.

Governments need to be able to keep some kinds of information secret. You can't, for example, be putting the capabilities of our high-tech military equipment and how those capabilities came to be in the public domain. Many kinds of negotiations can't be conducted in a TV studio. That said, there are literally no restraints on what the government classifies as secret. And there needs to be. There also needs to be strict limits on what the government can do if it wishes to use the so-called "state secrets" doctrine. Such a doctrine doesn't mean that the government can force the abrogation of a lawsuit because they don't want to reveal information; it means they automatically lose because they are unwilling to defend themselves.

As the Pentagon Papers caper revealed 30 odd years ago, the government can, has, and will classify information that has nothing to do with protecting our military capabilities or sensitive negotiations with other countries, or any other legitimate cause and has everything to do with concealing governmental behavior which is foolish, embarrassing, stupid, and/or illegal. A classic example is the CIA "black sites". Does the revelation of the existence of such sites compromise some unique American capability? Well, no, it doesn't. Many other repressive regimes maintain such sites although usually in their own countries. Even the locations of these "black sites" isn't particularly secret. A real investigative reporter could find them because while I may not know where they are, the people who live in the area would know that the Americans have some suspiciously secret facility in their area (even if they couldn't hear any screams).

One of the things that we need to push through the government is reform of how and what the government is allowed to classify.

Oh, and Dr. Ivins? Rumpole described the golden thread that runs through English Common Law as Innocent Until Proven Guilty. No amount of innuendo constitutes proof.