My son trained Feds - DEA, FBI, etc. - in CQB and MOUT (Close Quarters Battle and Military Ops in Urban Terrain) while he was with the Rangers in the 1990s. One of his favorite "students" was an 20 year FBI man who told him it stood for Fucked Beyond Imagination. But you have to understand he was referring to the politics and bureaucratic bullshit you'll find in any organization or agency. Even Wal-Mart. At the time my son was contemplating a career in FLE after his enlistment. His interest was in CASKU, The Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit, which is actually quite good. Like any organization, there are dedicated no nonsense professionals who don't give a shit about politiics and bullshit and just want to do their job. The breakdown is about 50-50. If you want to catch bad guys you can do that, but if you want to get promotions you have to kiss ass and become a jerk.

My son trained Feds - DEA, FBI, etc. - in CQB and MOUT (Close Quarters Battle and Military Ops in Urban Terrain) while he was with the Rangers in the 1990s. One of his favorite "students" was an 20 year FBI man who told him it stood for Fucked Beyond Imagination. But you have to understand he was referring to the politics and bureaucratic bullshit of any agency. At the time my son was contemplating a career in FLE after his enlistment. His interest was in CASKU. The Child and Serial Killer Unit, which is actually quite good. Like any organization, there are dedicated no nonsense professionals who don't give a shit about politiics and bullshit and just want to do their job. The breakdown is about 50-50. If you want to catch bad guys you can do that, but if you want to get promotions you have to kiss ass and become a jerk.

Given everything that has happened over the last seven years -- not just with the anthrax attacks but with countless episodes of Government deceit and corruption -- it's astonishing (and more than a little disturbing) how many people are willing, even eager, to assume that the Government's accusations against Ivins are accurate even without seeing a shred of evidence to support those claims.

I find it disturbing, yes, but I don't find it astonishing at all. Sure, there's a tradition in the US of stated distrust of the government, which can manifest in good ways or not-so-good ways. But most people very much want to trust both law enforcement and the military, because it's pretty disturbing to think they might not be trustworthy. First, that would cast doubts on those who are supposed to keep us safe from "the Other". Second, it would cause us to wonder whether we're safe from the protectors themselves.

Sure, US storytelling is full of "dirty cops" and "men in black" and so on. But for one thing, that's comfortable fiction. You turn the last page, or the movie theater lights go on, and the story is over, usually with a comforting ending. Also, in many of those stories, the untrustworthy elements are generally "rogues" and/or are breaking the rules in order to protect civilians. (Note that the Bush Admin and their apologists often invoke the latter storyline, subtly or otherwise.)

"Ivins had to go through a formal process to check out the lyopholizer, creating a record on which authorities are now relying."

If they are going to use that record as evidence then it better indicate that Ivins checked out that equipment immediately after 9/11. (BTW does anyone know if Ft. Detrick was closed down on or after 9/11 like many other government facilities?)

One thing the FBI has to prove is that Ivins created his spores and mailed them in 7 days, the first letter having been post-marked 9/18. Unless they want to allege that he had enginnered it prior to 9/11 which opens up a different set of questions.

Also, the new DNA testing was farmed out to private companies that have signed confidentiality agreements with the FBI, so watch for that as the excuse not to allow a "thorough review of its underlying data."

BTW, as I recently stated on the previous anthrax comments, as of this morning on the Today Show, NBC was still reporting the original sorority story describing the mail box as being near the sorority house. Pathetic.

We now know that some of the anthrax letters contained a novel, highly-weaponized form of anthrax that originated from a US military laboratory. Ask yourself this question. What's more likely?

a. This form of anthrax was designed by an alcoholic deranged lunatic, who was operating by himself and whose work remained undetected, despite the fact that he was operating right under the noses of a bunch of other anthrax researchers in a supposedly secure US military facility.

b. This form of anthrax was designed as part of a clandestine (and illegal) bioweapons program at a US military facility, and the government was willing to pay millions of dollars to an unwilling scapegoat (Hatfill) in order to shut him up, and now they're willing to blame the whole thing on some guy who just committed suicide.

Take your time making your choice.

it is great to see the msm's parroting of the FBI contrasted with outside sources. The FBI looks more and more like nothing more than brute enforcers, not a group that cares about the truth

(not that I thought they really cared about the truth... that Frontline documentary about J. Edgar Hoover is required viewing, and reiterates the idea that those who are foaming at the mouth about this or that issue may be actually talking about themselves, not their targets.)

The FBI looks, to me, like they're throwing accusations against the wall to see if any of them will stick. Porn, sororities, going postal... So my question is this: since the FBI has tried to create an image of him as a stalker/porn addict - how would any of these things reasonably connect to motives thus far ascribed to him (i.e. get money for research, show how easy it was to send/ not meant to kill anyone/ postal sorting made it lethal / other reasons given for sending anthrax. -- what, if any, correlation exists in research lit. between motives and his so-called obsessions?

Seems the FBI decided to go with the Hinkley/Chapman model.

Since Ivins did not fit any of the actual life characteristics of either of those guys - he held a stable job for years, published in scholarly journals, actually assisted in improving work at the lab -- I guess what I'm trying to ask is how realistic is this model?

It would seem to me that Robert Hanson (Hansen?) - the guy who was a double agent for years and years - would be a better fit. But then that would, again, imply more than one person involved in a conspiracy to commit murder.

anyone have any thoughts on this?