This guy also thinks the Anthrax used was of pretty high quality.
[quote]“In my opinion, there are maybe four or five people in the whole country who might be able to make this stuff, and I’m one of them,” said Richard O. Spertzel, chief biological inspector for the U.N. Special Commission from 1994 to 1998. “And even with a good lab and staff to help run it, it might take me a year to come up with a product as good.”
Ref.[/quote]
As for an official inquiry to why the evidence is unavailable (when and why were archives of Anthrax research deemed invaluable by the FBI and CDC and subsequently destroyed on Oct 10/11, 2001), we are still waiting.
[quote]Instead, suggested Spertzel and more than a dozen experts interviewed by The Washington Post in recent weeks, investigators might want to reexamine the possibility of state-sponsored terrorism, or try to determine whether weaponized spores may have been stolen by the attacker from an existing, but secret, biodefense program or perhaps given to the attacker by an accomplice.
The Defense Department and FBI refused repeated requests from The Post to discuss recent developments in the anthrax investigation. But in some important respects, the official version of events – developed in part during the early, frantic days of the probe – is at odds with the available evidence, the experts say.
The article also says this [quote]More recently, investigators appear to have abandoned the idea of an amateur attacker, but they continue to focus on a lone, domestic scientist, probably an insider[/quote]
How does one make the leap from unsolved, possibly a lone domestic scientist. To an inside job from the government?
How does one make the leap from unsolved, possibly a lone domestic scientist. To an inside job from the government?[/quote]
The very next paragraph… “Scientists suggested that the loner theory appeared flawed even in the opening days of the investigation.”
Not an amateur, according to ‘investigators’.
Not alone, according to ‘scientists’.
Would this qualify as a ‘professional conspiracy’?
So who was really involved?
That’s what a complete investigation would/should uncover.
With me so far?
[quote][quote]The alleged destruction of the anthrax culture collection at Ames, Iowa, from which the Fort Detrick lab got its pathogens, was blatant destruction of evidence. It meant that there was no way of finding out which strain was sent to whom to develop the larger breed of anthrax used in the attacks. The trail of genetic evidence would have led directly back to a secret government biowarfare program.
“Clearly, for the FBI to have authorized this was obstruction of justice, a federal crime,” said Boyle. “That collection should have been preserved and protected as evidence. That’s the DNA, the fingerprints right there. It later came out, of course, that this was Ames strain anthrax that was behind the Daschle and Leahy letters.”
Experts knew there are multiple Anthrax strains. But tracking down the exact strains to the ‘professional conspirators’ is the job of the very agency that was involved with the destruction of 70+ years of Anthrax research at Iowa State (Ames) University (Ref.).
Is it any wonder why the FBI trail is ‘cold’? Whoever obtained the Anthrax certainly was connected well enough to have the perfect cover… with the FBI and CDC erasing their tracks. Accident perhaps? Whatever their actual goals were, the letters ended soon after the Patriot Act passed and Afghanistan invasion began.
I already quoted one insider who has spoken out… Francis A. Boyle, ‘an international law expert who worked under the first Bush Administration as a bioweapons advisor in the 1980s, has said that he is convinced the October 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people were perpetrated and covered up by criminal elements of the U.S. government.’[quote]After realizing that the anthrax attacks looked like a domestic job, Boyle called a high-level official in the FBI who deals with terrorism and counterterrorism, Marion “Spike” Bowman. Boyle and Bowman had met at a terrorism conference at the University of Michigan Law School. Boyle told Bowman that the only people who would have the capability to carry out the attacks were individuals working on U.S. government anthrax programs with access to a high-level biosafety lab. Boyle gave Bowman a full list of names of scientists, contractors and labs conducting anthrax work for the U.S. government and military.
Bowman then informed Boyle that the FBI was working with Fort Detrick on the matter. Boyle expressed his view that Fort Detrick could be the main problem. As widely reported in 2002 publications, notably the New Scientist, the anthrax strain used in the attacks was officially assessed as “military grade.”
“Soon after I informed Bowman of this information, the FBI authorized the destruction of the Ames cultural anthrax database,” the professor said. The Ames strain turned out to be the same strain as the spores used in the attacks.
To go from ‘professional conspirators’ to ‘inside job’ isn’t really a leap at all.
I can’t think of a cover-up that didn’t attempt to hide criminal or politically embarrassing events. Can you?
Any order to destroy a criminal tracks qualifies to be called a ‘cover-up’ (wtc steel shipping without analysis, millions of emails purged, magical or super strength jihadist dna mysteriously on file for positive id checks against suicidal hijackers’, etc.)
The book “The demon in the freezer” (recently on sale in Costco) focused on one possible suspect (a scientist working on Anthrax in a govt lab), namd him, and the author managed not to get sued for doing so.
I think the case stalled due to lack of evidence, however the guy was unemployable well before the book got out.
[quote]Dr. Francis Anthony Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago and Harvard Law School. He also received a Ph. D. in political science from Harvard University.
Between 1988 and 1992 Boyle was a member of the board of Amnesty International USA. Boyle also charged that Amnesty’s staff had been infiltrated by US and UK security services (see Covert Action interview below) a claim hotly disputed by many in the human-rights community.
From 1991 to 1993, Boyle was a legal advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization. Boyle is currently attorney of record for the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and a member of the Nobel Peace Prize for Governor George H. Ryan Committee.
Professor Boyle is a controversial figure at the University of Illinois. He advocated for warmer US relations with Libya in the 1990s, and speaks fondly of his interactions with Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi. Professor Boyle has also made controversial comments about the Middle East, accusing Israel of committing “Nuremburg offenses” against the Palestinians, an allusion to the actions of Nazi Germany.
Boyle has also taken a strong stand in favor of Hawaiian independence and against a University of Illinois “pub crawl” that occurs on St. Patrick’s Day, arguing that the latter is offensive to persons of Irish nationality. In the former he uses a resolution signed by former U.S. President Bill Clinton apologizing for U.S. involvement in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy as justification for Hawaiian independence.
In 2002, Boyle protested a speech by Ruth Wedgwood, a law professor performing consulting work for the Bush administration, by equating her advocacy of military tribunals in the War on Terror to kangaroo courts. More recently Boyle has been on the vanguard of movement to impeach U.S. President George W. Bush. He had previously called for the impeachment of former U.S. President Bill Clinton.[/quote]
Elektronisk, I think Scholl is probably talking about a different Boyle, surely? One who isn’t so rabidly pro-Arab and a bit less of a complete and utter raving looney. Surely?
Sorry I wasn’t clear Mr He, I was responding to j.scholl about Boyle. Dr. Boyle looks like a flake and I was only pointing that out for emphasis.
[quote=“Mr He”]I think that FBI’s description is on the money.
The book “The demon in the freezer” (recently on sale in Costco) focused on one possible suspect (a scientist working on Anthrax in a govt lab), namd him, and the author managed not to get sued for doing so.
I think the case stalled due to lack of evidence, however the guy was unemployable well before the book got out.[/quote]
But thanks for citing the “The demon in the freezer” reference. The guy you are talking about is Dr. Steven Hatfill. Doing a quick look around these two guys are ripe for a movie. It is interesting to look into the background articles about Hatfill. It appears to be questionable actions on both sides (his and the CIA’s).
BTW he has sued a lot of people (it doesn’t look like he sued Preston) and his case against the NYT is still going on.
Wikipedia would appear to state that his case against the NYT was dismissed by the judge.
However, he still has one against John Ashcroft.
I think he’s likely to have done it based on the circumstances, note that once the truth about his photocopier PhD came out, he would have been unemployable in any case, at least in research.
[quote=“Mr He”]Wikipedia would appear to state that his case against the NYT was dismissed by the judge.
However, he still has one against John Ashcroft.
I think he’s likely to have done it based on the circumstances, note that once the truth about his photocopier PhD came out, he would have been unemployable in any case, at least in research.[/quote]
You are correct. The open case is against Ashcroft, et al.
Or could he really be an authority on bioterrorism who’s not afraid to speak out?
I read the same wiki before, and I have no reason to doubt he was really a legal advisor to the PLO, and he really is against St. Patty’s day pub crawls in Champaign-Urbana.
What wiki fails to mention is Boyle was enough of an expert to draft the U.S. Biological Weapons Convention of 1989 that was enacted by Congress, and enough of an expert to advise the FBI of who and what to look for when tracking down the Anthrax murderers (just before the FBI ordered the ames anthrax research archives destroyed).
What exactly discredits him from having applicable insight on the subject of the anthrax attacks?
Maybe his position on impeaching heros like Bush and Cheney?
[quote]Because of its “bogus investigation,” Boyle says, “the greatest political crime in the history of the United States of America since its founding on 4 July, 1776—the anthrax attacks on Congress, which served not only to deliver a terrorist threat on its members, but actually to close it down for a period—may remain officially unresolved forever.”
“Could it truly be coincidental,” he continued, “that two of the primary intended victims of the terrorist anthrax attacks — Senators Daschle and Leahy—were holding up the speedy passage of the pre-planned USA Patriot Act…an Act which provided the federal government with unprecedented powers in relation to U.S. citizens and institutions?”
…
Boyle’s views are contained in his book “Biowarfare and Terrorism”, published by Clarity Press, Inc., of Atlanta, Ga. His previously published titles include, “Foundations of World Order,” “The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence,” and “Destroying World Order.” Dr. Boyle holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude and a Ph.D. in political science, both from Harvard.
… A harsh critic of Pentagon biowarfare activities, Boyle points out in inflation-adjusted dollars the U.S. spends more on them today than it did on the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb in World War II. He has accused the Bush administration of diverting the bio-tech industry “towards biowarfare purposes” and of making corrupting payoffs to Academia to turn university scientists to the pursuit of biowarfare work.
Anyway, Boyle’s account, experience and obvious education make his views noteworthy on the subject of researching and investigating who the real culprits were.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]The reality is that anthrax, of the type found in the incidents, was available from various sources. It was controlled, but still available to those who were able to provide the required authorizations for purchase.[/quote]I agree. And tracking those ‘required authorities’ involves what exactly? Destroying the evidence that would actually link the crimes to the invisible perps? Surely not.
October 10~11, 2001 remains ominously damning towards a hijacked anthrax investigation. Accident perhaps? Or were there any hands that perfectly fit the glove? Better question… who stood to gain by the attacks?
Pardon…but the words are “…the required authorizations…”.
Not your posted “…tracking those ‘required authorities’…”.
This sleight of hand does change the context of the text. Although it does more conveniently dove-tail into your…ummm…lets say…hypothesis.
Recent news of this episode:
[quote]Judge holds reporter in contempt in anthrax case
By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — A federal judge held a former USA TODAY reporter in contempt of court on Tuesday for failing to identify sources who named former Army scientist Steven Hatfill as a possible suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people.
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said he would begin fining Toni Locy $500 per day, escalating to $5,000 per day, until she identifies the sources.
Hatfill’s lawyers asked that Locy — and not her former employer or others — be required to pay the fines.
The judge said he would consider postponing the penalty, however, to allow Locy and her lawyers to appeal the contempt ruling. Walton didn’t immediately decide whether Locy would be personally responsible for payment of the fines, if imposed.
At the same time, Walton delayed a decision on whether to hold former CBS reporter James Stewart in contempt for not disclosing sources for his reporting on the matter.
Hatfill, who was publicly identified in 2002 by then-attorney general John Ashcroft as a “person of interest” in the attacks, has never been charged. His lawyers have argued that news reports linking him to the federal investigation irreparably damaged his reputation.
“I don’t like to hold anyone in contempt,” Walton said. “I fully appreciate the importance of a free press. On the other hand, the media has to be responsible.”
Hatfill was not present at Tuesday’s hearing. His attorney, Patrick O’Donnell, declined to comment after the session.
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, described the judge’s order as a “drastic action.”
“Of all the federal court sanctions on reporters for refusing to reveal confidential sources over the past several years, this is perhaps the most disturbing,” Dalglish said.
“Toni Locy is being punished for doing what reporters are supposed to do: making sure important information gets to the public about whether the government had the investigation into a major public health threat under control,” she said.
Dalglish also urged Congress to take up proposed legislation that would shield reporters from being forced to identify confidential sources.
“Toni Locy faces possible financial ruin for doing her job and doing it well,” Dalglish said.
Locy is one of five reporters Hatfill has subpoenaed to disclose government sources who identified him as a possible suspect.
Now a journalism professor at West Virginia University, Locy has argued that she spoke to a number of officials regarding the anthrax inquiry, but she cannot remember which sources provided information linking Hatfill to the government’s inquiry during her reporting for USA TODAY.
I enclose this link, not as a commentary, but for the interesting note that it has images of the letters and envelopes that were sent to the senators and journalists (allegedly), ie. 1st hand evidence.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Pardon…but the words are “…the required authorizations…”.
Not your posted “…tracking those ‘required authorities’…”.
This sleight of hand does change the context of the text. Although it does more conveniently dove-tail into your…ummm…lets say…hypothesis.[/quote]
Understand your point… and I still agree, someone seemingly HAD to have required authorizations. I suppose that someone who had authorization to transfer military grade anthrax into the public realm would be referred to as having some grade of authority (clearance, ‘pull’, seniority, rank, etc).
Semantic revision:
[quote=“I could have”]And tracking (investigating, collecting and analyzing evidence, exposing) those who utilizedrequired authorization involves (procedurally includes, requires) what exactly?
Certainly such an important endeavor [tracking the anthrax murderers] would/should NOT include destroying the evidence that would/could provide genetic evidence linking the crimes to the invisible perps.[/quote]
That’s better, right? Reminds me a little of the Amplified Version.
Do you believe that SOMEONE had a relatively high level of clearance and authorization to obtain weaponized anthrax from the top U.S. bioweapons facility on Fort Detrick military base? With genuine certainty, yes, top secret facilities require top secret clearance, sometimes with additional escort.
Question: How would an honest investigator successfully track invisible anthrax murderers if the investigator’s own agency ordered reference and source evidence to be destroyed (70+ years of anthrax research stored in over 100 vials)?
My Answer: He couldn’t. Citing insufficient evidence the FBI’s investigation has gone cold. The whole Ames destruction event in itself appears worthy of punishment. Instead, the anthrax attacks helped justify major increases in funding.
Unless the FBI comes up with a new story after six years describing a secure lab break-in or theft, it remains that the removal of high quality anthrax occurred under some US authority.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”][quote]Judge holds reporter in contempt in anthrax case
…
Hatfill, who was publicly identified in 2002 by then-attorney general John Ashcroft as a “person of interest” in the attacks, has never been charged. His lawyers have argued that news reports linking him to the federal investigation irreparably damaged his reputation.
… usatoday.com/news/nation/200 … hrax_N.htm
[/quote][/quote]
Does Hatfill qualify to be called a patsy?
[quote]The DoD definition of terrorism is “the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”
TERRORISM DEFINED, U.S. Army, Field Manual 100-20, Stability and Support Operations, (Final Draft), “Chapter 8: Combating Terrorism.”[/quote]
Can we agree that the anthrax murderers were/are terrorists and deserve severest punishment?
Does it irk anyone that those whose jobs it is to protect Americans (FBI, CDC) actually covered the tracks of the in-home top-secret clearance terrorists who bought/stole/borrowed the Anthrax from DoD controlled facilities?
Maybe it would. Maybe it wouldn’t. And it would depend on whether it were true and by true, I don’t mean “true in the minds of fanatic conspiracists with tunnel vision” but actually really true.
‘’…investigation…among…highest…priorities"
What a pile. But its par for the empire.
Is there anyone else here who really cares that the anthrax attacks were apparently self-inflicted and used to perpetuate passage of the Patriot Act and invasion of Afghanistan?