Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
In regard to the discussion Glenn had with NJ congressman Rush Holt who said that it is easy to for the FBI to stonewall when an investigation is ongoing. Anyone want to bet how long it will take for the investigation to be closed. I’m taking six months. Note the statement in bold face of the para in this latest AP story that talks about the possible closing.
Byrne, who retired from the lab four years ago, said FBI agents interviewed him seven to 12 times since the investigation began — and he got off easy."I think I'm the only person at USAMRIID who didn't get polygraphed," he said.
Byrne said he was told by people who had recently worked with Ivins that the investigation had taken an emotional toll on the researcher. "One person said he'd sit at his desk and weep," he said.
Questions about the FBI's conduct come as the government takes steps that could signal an end to its investigation. On Wednesday, FBI officials plan to begin briefing family members of victims in the 2001 attacks.
The government is expected to declare the case solved but will keep it open for now, according to two U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. Several legal and investigatory matters need to be wrapped up before the case can officially be closed, they said.
Some questions may be answered when documents related to the case are released, as soon as Wednesday. For others, the answers may be incomplete, even bizarre. Some may simply never be answered.
It is unclear how the FBI eliminated as suspects others in the lab who had access to the anthrax. It's not clear what, if any, evidence bolsters the theory that the attacks may have been a twisted effort to test a cure for the toxin. Investigators also can't place Ivins in Princeton, N.J., when the letters were mailed from a mailbox there.
Richard Schuler, attorney for anthrax victim Robert Stevens' widow, Maureen Stevens, said his client will attend Wednesday's FBI briefing with a list of questions.
"No. 1 is, 'Did Bruce Ivins mail the anthrax that killed Robert Stevens?'" Schuler said, adding, "I've got healthy skepticism."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080805/ap_on_go_ot/anthrax_investigation
The way Ivins' reputation has been savaged reminds me of the severe mistreatment that some whistleblowers receive. Character assasination and public humiliation are common retaliation tactics. So is searching for a person's weak points.
I wonder if Ivins ever speculated among his colleagues, or with the FBI initially, who the true culprit was.
... reliable sources informed ABC news today. The FBI, after being notified about this, has reportedly initiated a probe into possible profit motives, including whether Novak could have benefited from subsequent Iraq war news coverage. Friends close to the long-time political commentator have said privately that he was pressured into retiring immediately by officials in the bentonite industry, who demanded that he falsely leak the brain tumor story in order to cover his false leaking of the bentonite story. However prominent neuropathologists consulted by ABC news dispute this account, pointing out that outward manifestations have been consistent with his having had a brain tumor for years.
I think Glenn's points about your valuable contributions and Ed Lake are spot on.
I have never hesitated to point out that Ed lake is not a scientific expert, but I think he is a damn good researcher and the things I disagree with him about-- and there are many-- I had to work hard to be able to disagree. I consider that a testament to the general strength of his arguments.
His archive of news coverage on the anthrax attacks is invaluable, no matter what your positions on the issues.
Finally, in an era when we desperately need more citizen journalists, he has stepped up. Even if I disagreed with everything he said, I would still consider him somewhat of a hero.
We need more kooks with websites.
As much as I find it plausible, I'd like to see a link?
Has Ivins travelled abroad? If so, where?
Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal op ed page featured an anthrax scientist's comprehensive critique of the FBI's anthrax investigation.
This article, linked at my sig, repeatedly cites putative FBI statements from news media and other sources and purports to debunk every claim that the anthrax came from specific Army programs such as USAMRIID or the "now extinct U.S. Biological Warfare Program."
What's intriguing, though, is that author Richard Spertzel does not explicitly offer a general denial that the United States government could have made this anthrax. Spertzel only offers specific labs and programs that could not have made the anthrax (specifically, the Leahy-Daschle anthrax), in his opinion.
His article is sprinkled with references to news reports, third-hand sources and extraordinary insider revelations:
That's what was briefed (according to one of my former weapons inspectors at the United Nations Special Commission) by the FBI to the German Foreign Ministry at the time.
...
In meetings held on the cleanup of the anthrax spores in Washington, the product was described by an official at the Department of Homeland Security as "according to the Russian recipes" -- apparently referring to the use of the weak electric charge.
According to Wikipedia,
Spertzel held several positions in the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases including Deputy for Research, Deputy Commander, and Chief of the Animal Assessment Division.
So the coverup continues, and the Wall Street Journal is actively participating. At USAMRIID, Spertzel's primary duty was to keep secret the biological warfare capabilities of the United States, and today's Op-Ed can only be seen in that light.
I've been bothered by the then reported interference with UNMOVIC documentation shipped to the UN during the run up to the war. This has sort of disappeared from the web. I could swear that something was reported back Feb-Mch 2003. In the end they badgered everyone with porkies, but was anthrax to be the backup to nukes? Whatever was sought in the reports would have had to be pretty damn subtle, as opposed to cakes and tubes.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
