Regarding Ivins and civil liberties, I would not take the FBI's reconstruction of Ivins as truth. Ivins wrote letters saying that he supported priests marrying and women being priests. He was a registered Democrat since at least the early nineties. Not the rabid reactionary, eh?

But even if he were, in America all people are supposed to get due process. Even people with reactionary politics.

Was Bruce Ivins a Roman Catholic Christian Zionist?

I find myself on the same page with a leading Jewish publication, JTA, in trying to get a handle on Bruce Ivins:

BEGIN ARTICLE

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/109782.html

Ivins believed Jews were God's chosen

Published: 08/04/2008

The government scientist who killed himself as he faced arrest for the 2001 anthrax attacks was an evangelical who believed Jews were God's chosen people.

The Frederick (Md.) News Post republished letters from Bruce Ivins in the wake of his suicide last week. Ivins was an anthrax researcher at the government's biological weapons research lab in Fort Detrick, Md.

In one letter he praises a rabbi for refusing to engage in dialogue with a controversial local Muslim cleric.

"By blood and faith, Jews are God's chosen, and have no need for 'dialogue' with any gentile," Ivins wrote in 2006.

Earlier letters suggest that he saw President Bush's re-election as a victory for evangelicals.

"You can get on board or get left behind, because that Christian Nation Express is pulling out of the station!" he wrote after the election.

Ivins killed himself as the U.S. Justice Department prepared to arrest him. Ivins' beliefs are significant because the 2001 attacker in notes appeared to be a radical Islamist, writing "Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah is Great."

The attacks, coming in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, helped galvanize support for the Bush administration's plan to invade Iraq.

END ARTICLE

Here we've got a clear IDEOLOGICAL MOTIVE for Ivins doing the deed (which doesn't prove he did the deed).

Glenn Greenwald hasn't addressed this issue yet, as far as I know. Christian Nation Express?

Took seconds on Google to verify that what Bruce Ivins wrote in his September 26, 2001 email was accurate. Ivins writes that he "heard tonight" that Bin Laden has anthrax and sarin gas. There was indeed such a report that day:

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-731.html

Bin Laden terror group tries to acquire chemical arms

By Bill Gertz

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

September 26, 2001

"Intelligence officials say classified analysis of the types of chemicals and toxins sought by al Qaeda indicate the group probably is trying to produce the nerve agent Sarin, or biological weapons made up of anthrax spores"

emptywheel over at fdl has commenced the beginnings of (a much needed) anthrax timeline.

thus far, from the timeline, things appear to be pointing to some very twisted narrative possibilities. . .

Suppose we take it that the FBI has proven their case.

Then the immediate question is - why should I believe that US bioweapons facilities are safe? At a minimum, every scientist with access to a lethal microbe should undergo screening for all of Ivins' peculiar traits.

if there will be a crisis of confidence in our intelligence agencies among Ivins's coworkers and peers, and if so, what effects that might have. I can't wish whistle-blowing on anyone, given the significant consequences, but you never know...

The name below the signature on the motion to unseal (www.usdoj.gov/amerithrax/motion%20to%20unseal.pdf) is Jeffrey A. Taylor. Some more on him, courtesy Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Taylor). Emphases mine:

From 1999 to 2002, Mr. Taylor served as majority counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee where he advised Chairman Orrin Hatch and drafted provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.[2]

Before his appointment as U.S. Attorney, Mr. Taylor served as Counselor to Attorneys General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales from 2002 to 2006 where he oversaw law enforcement operations by U.S. attorneys.[1] He was appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia by Alberto Gonzales on September 22, 2006 and was sworn in seven days later; interim U.S. attorneys do not need to be confirmed by the Senate.[1] Interim U.S. attorneys have no term limit, as a result of an amendment to the law governing interim attorneys included in the USA Patriot Reauthorization Act of 2005;[2] formerly interim appointees had a 120-day term limit, and could be re-appointed (without term limit) at the end of the 120-day term by the chief judge of the district court.

So an attorney who helped draft the Patriot Act, then later became the Patriot Act's beneficiary, is now seeking to close the investigation of the Anthrax attacks that secured passage of the Patriot act in the first place. At least if Wikipedia can be trusted (as we all now know, it is subject to edit wars, particularly regarding the history of sororities). This whole investigation - and its cast of official characters - feels like courtroom thriller written by a committee of 12-year-olds.

I just noticed that the tab adjacent to this Greenwald column's tab is the Bayard story about Suskind.

Paranoid that I am, I couldn't help wondering if Ivins so conveniently died just as Suskind's book...

Oh, pshaw! No, that couldn't be. How could I even think that?!

This motion gives no reason why it is appropriate to release this information at this time. I would have thought that the judge would have wanted a reason before going along with the motion. Did I miss something in that document?

Conservative Christians now feeling their oats

Originally published November 21, 2004

I would like to comment on the letter to the editor, "Wants off Christian Nation Express," of Nov. 12.

I am certainly pleased that the writer is dedicated to service in the love of God, even though I find her theological focus on agony and suffering rather than the hope, joy and salvation of the resurrection to be puzzling.

Whether Americans like it or not, the results of the presidential election have propelled charismatic and evangelical Christians into new heights of political power.(1) Many of those individuals would agree that the laws of this nation should be compatible with the Gospel, if not actually based upon it.

Whether we're on the "Christian Nation Express" or not, we all need to be ready for a wild political ride these next four years through a landscape of issues deemed important by conservative Christians.

— — —

All aboard!

Originally published November 09, 2004

I read Deborah Carter's column of Nov. 7, "Election blues," and I have three comments for the good woman, and for everybody else, as well.

First, it's clear that views like hers would put Jesus on that cross again. Second, thy loom and churn best be still, come the Sabbath. Third, you can get on board or get left behind, because that Christian Nation Express is pulling out of the station!

I'm far fron convinced he thought this "christian express" was, y'know, as martha stewart might say "a good thing." Sean thinks Ivins' letter indicate affiliation. I don't see it.

link to fredricks news at my sig.