http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-anthrax2-2008aug02,0,4558967.story?track=rss

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.

The FBI has failed in its duty to persue this matter. Congress has failed in its duty to persue this matter. The traditional media have failed in their duty to pursue this matter, and are, indeed, complicit in its coverup.

It seems to me the only alternative is a Citizens' Investigative Panel. I know this sounds like a non-starter, but it would be better than what is going on right now. If the panel consisted of a few well known individuals, with legal background, and others who were qualified, at least that would be a start towards a genuine investigation. Is there any other choice?

Glenn, I hope that you will offer some news shortly on whatever campaign you and any colleagues you can muster to coordinate efforts to persuade someone in Congress to take this on...and provide public support for them! Let us know how we can help! My local paper has not printed a word about anything except the suicide, with clear intent to close the case as far as its readers are concerned. The administration will once again get retroactive immunity on this one if the press has its way...

While the gist of Greenwald's post is, I feel, spot on, and probably isn't in conflict with my comment, I think it's necessary to point out that journalists should not be compelled to reveal their sources by any government functionary such as the courts.

Clearly the media's obligation is to their readers and therefore have the ethical responsibility to expose those who would intentionally lie to the media in order to advance their agenda. But if it became acceptable for the government to compel reporters to reveal their sources for any reason, it undoubtably would be used to retaliate against whistleblowers rather than uncover liars.

The media should reveal sources when it's in their readers best interests, but only as an ethical responsibility rather than a legal one.

I have this image in my mind of all these top biochemical weapons labs in the US populated by shifty-eyed, unstable racists and xenophobes and religious zealots.

What sort of personality would YOU think is attracted to bioweapons researh?

Paranoia is the #1 job requirment.

The rest is details.

Great list of questions, Glenn.

I can't get all the way to Ivins as doing this on his own because of the targeting of Dashcle and Leahy. Causing a general panic, as seen in the targeting of the press, could be seen as creating support for development of his vaccine. However, as others pointed out already, he Ivins only stood to make tens of thousands of dollars off the patent while Battelle would have gotten revenues approaching a billion dollars. Targeting Dashcle and Leahy can only be seen as a ploy to get passage of the Patriot Act and I just can't see a connection between Ivins and the Patriot Act.

To Susan Sunflower: Yes, the major network infections were all cutaneous, but the first victim in Florida died of inhalation anthrax and the entire building where he worked was contaminated, so, even though the letter was not found, this was most likely weaponized. Whether it was at the incredible concentration found in the Leahy sample can't be determined. Also, I've seen at least one indication that the letter received at the New York Post had gotten wet at some point along the way--that would have changed the ability of the material to aerosolize and would have changed the appearance of the material considerably. Bottom line: all the samples recovered were shown by DNA to be from the same anthrax strain and the differences in handling prior to testing make it not at all clear to me that the letters had different grades of material.

I am completely convinced that at least the Leahy sample, which, at a trillion spores per gram was the highest concentration of anthrax ever reported, could only have been made at the Battelle facility at Dugway. I'll need strong evidence to show how material went from Dugway to Ivins before I believe he was involved.

The media should reveal sources when it's in their readers best interests, but only as an ethical responsibility rather than a legal one.

I understand your views, but what do you say, then, to people like Steven Hatfill, who have government officials lie about them and destroy their lives through illegal leaks to journalists, who then print those lies?

When people like Hatfill sue, what do you tell them -- too bad, but courts can't force journalists to reveal who illegally passed on these false smears (and courts can't even force journalists to prove they had a basis for what they print), and therefore, they have no recourse? What are your answers to the questions asked by Hatfill's lawyer in the WSJ Op-Ed I excerpted?

"This is all just an attempt to distract attention from the massively fraudulent Project Bioshield program..."

What attention exactly was Project Bioshield getting? In an era of war profiteering and insider exploitation most of which goes on completely in the open, Project Bioshield was hardly at the slightest risk of being recognized even as simply another face of corruption in the crowd, let alone as a potential scandal that was threatening to break through the media firewall. The information you provide is intriguing and worth knowing for sure, but I'm unconvinced by your conclusion.