Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hatfill v. US - DOJ and FBI Statement of Facts (filed Friday)
US DOJ and FBI Memorandum In Support of Motion For Summary Judgment (Statement of Facts) | April 11, 2008 | Department of Justice

Posted on 04/13/2008 8:20:52 AM PDT by ZacandPook

On Friday, the government filed this statement of the facts in its memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment in a civil rights and Privacy Act lawsuit brought by Dr. Steve Hatfill.

“The anthrax attacks occurred in October 2001. Public officials, prominent members of the media, and ordinary citizens were targeted by this first bio-terrorist attack on American soil. Twenty-two persons were infected with anthrax; five died. At least 17 public buildings were contaminated. The attacks wreaked havoc on the U.S. postal system and disrupted government and commerce, resulting in economic losses estimated to exceed one billion dollars. The attacks spread anxiety throughout the nation – already in a heightened state of alert in the wake of the attacks of September 11 – and left behind a lasting sense of vulnerability to future acts of bioterrorism. Given the unprecedented nature of the attacks, the investigation received intense media attention. Journalists from virtually every news organization pursued the story, sometimes conducting their own worldwide investigation to determine the person or persons responsible for the attacks and the motive behind them.

A. Journalistic Interest In Hatfill That Predates Alleged Disclosures

Testimony has revealed that at least certain members of the media began focusing their attention upon Hatfill in early 2002 because of tips they had received from former colleagues of his who found him to be highly suspicious. Articles about Hatfill thus began to appear in the mainstream press and on internet sites as early as January of 2002, and continued until the first search of his apartment on June 25, 2002, which, in turn, led to even more intense press attention.

Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a Professor at the State University of New York, for example, complained in January and February 2002 on the Federation of American Scientists’ (“FAS”) website of the FBI’s apparent lack of progress on the investigation, and described generally the person she believed was the “anthrax perpetrator.” “Analysis of Anthrax Attacks,” Possible Portrait of the Anthrax Perpetrator (Section IV.6), Defendant’s Appendix , Ex. 1. Rosenberg did not identify Hatfill by name, but described him in sufficient detail: a “Middle-aged American” who “[w]orks for a CIA contractor in Washington, DC area” and [w]orked in USAMRIID laboratory in the past” and “[k]nows Bill Patrick and probably learned a thing or two about weaponization from him informally.” Id. In his amended complaint, Hatfill states that “Professor Rosenberg’s ‘Possible Portrait of the Anthrax Perpetrator’ . . . described [him].”

In addition to her postings on the FAS website, Professor Rosenberg also presented a lecture on February 18, 2002 at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, entitled “The Anthrax Attacks and the Control of Bioterrorism.” Ex. 2. During the course of her lecture, Rosenberg stated that she had “draw[n] a likely portrait of the perpetrator as a former Fort Detrick scientist who is now working for a contractor in the Washington, D.C, area[.]” Ex. 3. Rosenberg also commented upon Hatfill’s whereabouts on the date of the attacks, stating that “[h]e had reason for travel to Florida, New Jersey and the United Kingdom” – where the attacks had been and from which the letters had been purportedly sent – that “[h]e grew [the anthrax], probably on a solid medium, and weaponised it at a private location where he had accumulated the equipment and the material.” Id. Rosenberg also stated that the investigation had narrowed to a “common suspect[,]” and that “[t]he FBI has questioned that person more than once[.]” Id. Former White House Spokesperson, Ari Fleischer, immediately responded to Rosenberg’s comments, stating that there were several suspects and the FBI had not narrowed that list down to one. Ex. 4. The FBI also issued a press release, stating that it had “interviewed hundreds of persons, in some instances, more than once. It is not accurate, however, that the FBI has identified a prime suspect in this case.” Id. Rosenberg’s comments and writings were subsequently pursued by The New York Times (“The Times”). In a series of Op-Ed articles published from May through July 2002, Nicholas Kristof, a journalist with The Times, accused Hatfill of being responsible for the anthrax attacks. Kristof wrote on May 24, 2002 that the FBI was overlooking the anthrax perpetrator, noting that “experts” (Professor Rosenberg) point “to one middle-aged American who has worked for the United States military bio-defense program and had access to the labs at Fort Detrick, Md. His anthrax vaccinations are up to date, he unquestionably had the ability to make first-rate anthrax, and he was upset at the United States government in the period preceding the anthrax attack.” Ex. 5.

Hatfill first noticed the Kristof columns in May 2002. Hatfill Dep. Tran. in Hatfill v. The New York Times, No. 04-807 (E.D.Va.), Ex. 6, at 13: 3-6. According to Hatfill, “[w]hen Mr. Kristof’s article appeared, it was the first [time] that [he] realized that [his] name [was] in the public domain with connection with an incident of mass murder.” Id. at 16:15-18. Hatfill has charged that The Times began the “entire conflagration and gave every journalist out there reason to drive this thing beyond any sort of sanity. Mr. Kristof lit the fuse to a barn fire and he repeatedly kept stoking the fire.” Id. at 43:19 - 44:1. In July 2004, Hatfill thus filed suit alleging that these articles libeled him by falsely accusing him of being the anthrax mailer. Complaint, Hatfill v. The New York Times, No. 04-807 (E.D.Va.), Ex. 7.

Hatfill alleges in that lawsuit that “Kristof wrote his columns in such a way as to impute guilt for the anthrax letters to [him] in the minds of reasonable readers.” Id. ¶ 12. The articles, Hatfill claimed, which described his “background and work in the field of bio-terrorism, state or imply that [he] was the anthrax mailer.” Id. ¶ 14. Hatfill specifically alleged that statements in Kristof’s articles were false and defamatory, including those that stated that he: (1) “‘unquestionably had the ability to make first-rate anthrax’”; (2) “had the ‘ability’ to send the anthrax”; (3) “had the ‘access’ required to send the anthrax”; (4) “had a ‘motive’ to send the anthrax”; (5) “was one of a ‘handful’ of individuals who had the ‘ability, access and motive to send the anthrax’”; (6) “had access” to an ‘isolated residence’ in the fall of 2001, when the anthrax letters were sent”; (7) “‘gave CIPRO [an antibiotic famously used in the treatment of anthrax infection] to people who visited [the ‘isolated residence’]”; (8) his “anthrax vaccinations were ‘up to date’ as of May 24, 2002”; (9) he “‘failed 3 successive polygraph examinations’ between January 2002 and August 13, 2002”; (10) he “‘was upset at the United States government in the period preceding the attack’”; (11) he “‘was once caught with a girlfriend in a biohazard ‘hot suite’ at Fort Detrick [where Hatfill had concedely worked] surrounded only by blushing germs.’” Id. ¶ 16 (brackets in original). Hatfill alleges in his lawsuit against The Times that “[t]he publication of [Kristof’s] repeated defamation of [him] . . .gave rise to severe notoriety gravely injurious to [him].” Id. ¶ 29. The injury, Hatfill alleged, “was [made] all the more severe given the status and journalistic clout of The Times.” Id. This harm was compounded, Hatfill alleged, by the fact that these articles were “thereafter repeatedly published by a host of print and on-line publications and on the television and radio news” in the following months. Id., ¶ 30.

The case was initially dismissed by the trial court. Hatfill v. The New York Times, No. 04-807, 2004 WL 3023003 (E.D.Va.). That decision was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 416 F.3d 320 (4th Cir. 2005). Upon remand, the trial court granted The Times summary judgment, finding that Hatfill was a public figure and public official and had failed to present evidence of malice. Hatfill v. The New York Times, 488 F. Supp. 2d 522 (E.D. Va. 2007). In arriving at that conclusion, the court considered Hatfill’s repeated media interviews before the attacks; the fact that he had “drafted a novel, which he registered with [the] United States Copyright office, describing a scenario in which a terrorist sickens government officials with a biological agent”; and had lectured on the medical effects of chemical and biological agents. Id. at 525.

Although not recited by the district court in The New York Times litigation, Hatfill also talked directly to reporters about his suspected involvement in the attacks. Brian Ross of ABC News, and his producer, Victor Walter, for example, talked separately to Hatfill on two to three occasions as early as January and February 2002, Ross Dep. Tran., Ex. 8, at 263:14 - 270:1, and continued talking to Hatfill until May of that year. Id. Ross also spoke to Hatfill’s friend and mentor, William Patrick, about Hatfill. Id. at 287:9 - 295:12. These meetings were prompted by discussions ABC News had in January 2002 with eight to twelve former colleagues of Hatfill at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (“USAMRIID”). Id. at 242:7 - 246:14. Hatfill’s former colleagues found him to be “highly suspicious because of a number of things he had done when he worked at [USAMRIID], and this behavior was strange "and unusual and they felt that he was a likely candidate.” Id. at 242: 7-17. These meetings were also prompted by ABC News’s own investigative reporting into Hatfill’s background; the more ABC News learned “the more interested [they] became” in Hatfill. Id. at 264: 14-15.

Scott Shane of the Baltimore Sun also spoke to Hatfill in February 2002. Shane also spoke to USAMRIID employees who had worked with Hatfill. Ex. 9. These employees stated that they had been questioned by the FBI and “asked about a former Fort Detrick scientist” – Hatfill – “who returned a few years ago and took discarded biological safety cabinets, used for work with dangerous pathogens.” Id. at 1. These employees claimed that Hatfill “ha[d] expertise on weaponizing anthrax and ha[d] been vaccinated against it[.]” Id. Shane also called one of Hatfill’s former classmates, who was “plagued” by questions from the Baltimore Sun and others within the media regarding Hatfill’s “alleged involvement with the large anthrax outbreak in Zimbabwe[.]” Ex. 10. According to Hatfill, this classmate was told by Shane that Hatfill was purportedly responsible for “mailing the anthrax letters and also starting the [anthrax] outbreak in Zimbabwe/ Rhodesia twenty years before.” Ex. 11, at AGD29SJH00014; see also e-mail to Hatfill fr. DF Andrews, dated Mar. 1, 2002, Ex. 10. Hatfill told Shane in February 2002 that he had been “questioned by the FBI” and that “he considered the questioning to be part of a routine effort to eliminate people with the knowledge to mount [the] attack.” Ex. 9. Hatfill also confirmed for Shane that he had taken an FBI polygraph. Ex. 12, at 2. In March 2002, Hatfill left Shane a frantic telephone message reportedly stating how he had “been [in the bioterrorism] field for a number of years, working until 3 o’clock in the morning, trying to counter this type of weapon of mass destruction” and fearing that his “career [was] over at [that] time.” Ex. 13, at 2. According to Hatfill, Shane later Case 1:03-cv-01793-RBW Document 232-2 Filed 04/11/2008 Page 17 of 73

____ Hatfill did not sue either Shane or Rosenberg, even though Hatfill has stated that Rosenberg “caused” the focus on him. Ex. 14, at 10. Because Hatfill believed that the portrait Rosenberg painted at the February 2002 Princeton conference and in her website postings was so identifying and incriminating, however, Hatfill advised Rosenberg through his lawyers that “before [she] get[s] close to describing him in the future, by name or otherwise, [that she] submit [her] comments for legal vetting before publishing them to anyone.” Ex. 15. There is no evidence that the agency defendants bore any responsibility for the media presence. Information about FBI searches is routinely shared with a variety of state and local law enforcement authorities. Roth Dep. Tran., Ex. 16, at 163:5 -165:21; Garrett Dep. Tran. Ex. 17, at 79: 8-18. ______

compounded Hatfill’s problems by calling his then-employer, Science Applications International Corporation (“SAIC”), and accusing Hatfill of being responsible for the anthrax attacks, Ex. 11, at AGD29SJH00014, which, according to Hatfill, cost him his job as a contractor at SAIC. Id. 1

The media frenzy surrounding Hatfill intensified upon the search of his apartment on June 25, 2002, and the search of a refrigerated mini-storage facility in Ocala, Florida on June 26, 2002. Both were witnessed by the media, and the search of his apartment was carried live on national television. In addition to the television coverage, the searches generated a slew of articles about Hatfill throughout the media, one fueling the next. The Associated Press, for example, detailed in an article, dated June 27, 2002, Hatfill’s (1) work as biodefense researcher, including studies he had conducted at SAIC, and the work he had done at the USAMRIID; (2) his educational background; (3) where he had previously lived; and (4) security clearances he had held and the suspension of those clearances. Ex. 18. The Hartford Courant reported these same details, and additional information regarding Hatfill’s purported service in the Rhodesian army. Ex. 19. The next day -- June 28, 2002 -- the Hartford Courant reported details about Hatfill’s background in biological warfare, his vaccinations against anthrax, questioning that purportedly had occurred among Hatfill’s colleagues, his educational background (including the claim that he had attended medical school in Greendale), and lectures that he had given on the process of turning biological agents into easily inhaled powders. Ex. 20. None of this information is attributed to a government source.

B. Hatfill’s Public Relations Offensive

In July 2002, after these reports and after the first search of Hatfill’s apartment on June 25, 2002, Hatfill retained Victor Glasberg as his attorney. Glasberg Dep. Tran., Ex. 21, at 12: 16-19. Glasberg believed that “any number of people in the media [had] overstepped their bounds. . . . prior to July of 2002 .” Id. at 141:1 - 142:6. To counter this information, Hatfill set out on a “public relations offensive” of his own to “turn [the] tide.” Id. at 138: 20-21, 178: 12-13.

Recognizing that Hatfill “continue[d] [to] get[] killed with bad press, national as well as local[,]” Hatfill drafted a statement and Glasberg forwarded that statement in July 2002 to Hatfill’s then-employer at Louisiana State University (“LSU”). Ex. 11, at 1. The statement detailed Hatfill’s background, including his medical training and employment history, and provided details about Hatfill’s involvement in the anthrax investigation, including how he had been interviewed by the FBI and had taken a polygraph examination. Id. at AGD29SJH00002-13. Hatfill’s statement corroborated the conversations that Hatfill reportedly had with Scott Shane of the Baltimore Sun in February 2002, and how that interaction had purportedly cost Hatfill his job at SAIC in March 2002. Id. at AGD29SJH00014.

In his July statement, Hatfill was careful not to blame DOJ or the FBI for his troubles or for any wrongdoing for the information about him that had made its way into the press. He touted the professionalism of the FBI, noting that “[t]he individual FBI agents with whom [he had come] in contact during this entire process are sons and daughters of which America can be justifiably proud. They are fine men and women doing their best to protect this country.” Id. at AGD29SJH00016. Hatfill’s objection lay with the media, whom he labeled as “irresponsible[,]” for trading in “half-truths, innuendo and speculation, making accusations and slanting real world events . . . to gain viewer recognition, sell newspapers, and increase readership and network ratings.” Id.

As the investigation proceeded, however, Glasberg publicly criticized investigators on the date of the second search of Hatfill’s apartment, August 1, 2002, for obtaining a search warrant rather than accepting the offer Glasberg had allegedly made to cooperate. Ex. 22. So angry was Glasberg with investigators that he wrote a letter, dated the same day as the search, to Assistant United States Attorney Kenneth C. Kohl, denouncing the fact that the search had been conducted “pursuant to a search warrant.” Ex. 23. Glasberg forwarded a copy of this letter to Tom Jackman of the Washington Post, and to the Associated Press, the morning of August 1st. Glasberg, Dep. Tran., Ex. 24, at 265:12 - 266:5; see also Ex. 25 (Glasberg memorandum to file, stating, among other things, that Glasberg showed Jackman Kohl letter on August 1, 2002).

On the day of the search, an FBI spokeswoman at the Bureau’s Washington field office, Debra Weierman, “confirmed that the search was part of the government’s anthrax investigation.” Ex. 25. Weierman added, however, that “she was unable to confirm that [investigators were acting on a search warrant] or to provide any further information about the search.” Id.

The next day – August 2, 2002 – Glasberg faxed the Kohl letter to members of the media. Ex. 26. In the fax transmittal sheet accompanying the Kohl letter, Glasberg also advised the media that: Dr. Hatfill was first contacted by the FBI earlier this year, as part of the Bureau’s survey of several dozen scientists working in fields related to biomedical warfare. He was voluntarily debriefed and polygraphed, and voluntarily agreed to have his home, car and other property subjected to a lengthy and comprehensive search by the FBI. He and his lawyer Tom Carter were told that the results were all favorable and that he was not a suspect in the case. Id. at AGD16SJH03106. Subsequent to the fax transmittal by Glasberg, Weierman confirmed that the search had been conducted pursuant to a search warrant, but only after receiving appropriate authorization from her superiors. Weierman Dep. Tran., Ex. 27, at 93:16 - 94:14.

Hatfill had also accompanied Glasberg for his interview with Jackman the day before to address the “media feeding frenzy.” Ex. 28. Glasberg provided Jackman with the promise of an “[e]xclusive personal statement” from Hatfill and the promise of “[n]o other press contacts pending publication” of the article. Id. Glasberg thus provided Jackman background information about Hatfill, Rosenberg’s statements, and other publications. Ex. 25. Hatfill reportedly complained to the Washington Post in the interview about the media feeding frenzy, and about how his “friends are bombarded” with press inquiries. Ex. 29, at 1. Hatfill also complained about the “[p]hone calls at night. Trespassing. Beating on my door. For the sheer purpose of selling newspapers and television.” Id.

C. Attorney General Ashcroft’s Person of Interest Statements

Following this “media frenzy,” not to mention the two searches of Hatfill’s apartment, former Attorney General John Ashcroft was asked on August 6, 2002 (at an event addressing the subject of missing and exploited children) about Hatfill’s involvement in the investigation. Jane Clayson of CBS News asked General Ashcroft about the searches and whether Hatfill was a “suspect” in the investigation. Ex. 30, at 2. General Ashcroft responded that Hatfill was a “person of interest.” General Ashcroft cautioned, however, that he was “not prepared to say any more at [that] time other than the fact that he is an individual of interest.” Id. At the same media event, Matt Lauer of NBC News also asked General Ashcroft whether Hatfill was a “suspect” in the investigation. Ex. 31. General Ashcroft responded that Hatfill was a “person that – that the FBI’s been interested in.” Id. at 2. General Ashcroft cautioned that he was “not prepared to make a . . . comment about whether a person is officially a . . . suspect or not.” Id.

General Ashcroft made the same comments at a news conference in Newark, New Jersey on August 22, 2002, stating that Hatfill was a “person of interest to the Department of Justice, and we continue the investigation.” Ex. 32, at 1. As in his previous statements, General Ashcroft refused to provide further comment. Id. When asked upon deposition why he referred to Hatfill as a “person of interest” in the anthrax investigation in response to these media inquiries, General Ashcroft testified that he did so in an attempt to correct the record presented by the media that he was a “suspect” in the investigation, which he believed served a necessary law enforcement purpose. Ashcroft Dep. Tran., Ex. 33, at 81: 5-12; 103:18; 108: 9-13; 138: 5-7; 125: 18-21; 134:22 - 136:8. Prior to making these statements, General Ashcroft did not review or otherwise consult any investigative record, id. at 128:14 - 129:12, much less any record pertaining to Hatfill.

General Ashcroft’s initial statements on August 6, 2002 were followed, on August 11, 2002, by the first of Hatfill’s two nationally televised press conferences. Ex. 34. During his press conference, Hatfill lashed out at Rosenberg and other journalists and columnists who he believed wrote a series of “defamatory speculation and innuendo about [him].” Id. at 3. In apparent response to the “person of interest” statements, by contrast, he stated that he did “not object to being considered a ‘subject of interest’ because of [his] knowledge and background in the field of biological warfare.” Id. at 4. This was consistent with Hatfill’s statement to ABC News earlier in 2002 in which he stated that “his background and comments made him a logical subject of the investigation.” Ex. 35. As noted, moreover, Glasberg told the media -- almost a week before the first of General Ashcroft’s statements -- that “Hatfill was first contacted by the FBI [earlier that] year, as part of the Bureau’s survey of several dozen scientists working in fields related to biomedical warfare. He was voluntarily debriefed and polygraphed, and voluntarily agreed to have his home, car and other property subjected to a lengthy and comprehensive search by the FBI.” Ex. 26.

Hatfill’s second press conference was held on August 25, 2002. In the flyer publicizing the conference, Hatfill identified himself to the media -- in bold lettering -- as “the ‘person of interest’ at the center of the federal Government’s [anthrax] investigation.” DA, Exhibit 36.

D. Clawson’s “Sunshine” Policy

Patrick Clawson joined the Hatfill team in early August 2002 as spokesperson and “fielded hundreds of inquiries from members of the press worldwide regarding Dr. Hatfill[.]” Ex. 12, at 13. Clawson believed it best to employ a media strategy that would, in his words, “let it all hang out.” Id. at 50:10. Clawson felt that “permitting maximum sunshine into . . . Hatfill’s existence would do both him and the public the best good.” Clawson Dep. Tran., Ex. 37, at 50:16-18.

“The majority of Clawson’s communications with the press regarding this case have been oral and by telephone and he did not keep a press log or any other regular record of such contacts with the press.” Ex. 12, at 13. Clawson nonetheless admitted upon deposition that he revealed numerous details about Hatfill’s personal and professional background to members of the press (Clawson Dep. Tran., Ex. 37, at 101:9 - 105:21), including Hatfill’s professional expertise (id. at 103:10 - 105:21), use of Cipro (id. at 123:16 - 130:11, 248: 8-13), whereabouts on the days of the attacks (id. at 148:12 - 158:10, 361:15 - 362:3), expertise in working with anthrax (id. at 194:13 - 195:8), former service in the Rhodesian Army (id. at 210:9 - 211:10), and drunk driving arrest (id. at 795: 7-9, 798: 4-6). Clawson also told reporters what had been purportedly removed from Hatfill’s apartment during the two searches of his apartment on June 25, 2002 and August 1, 2002 (including medical books and a jar of bacillus thuringiensis (“BT”)) (id. at 121: 6-12, 131:2 - 131:12, 14:8 - 147:3, 313: 3-10). Clawson also freely relayed to the press that bloodhounds had been presented to Hatfill during the investigation (id. at 200: 15-19); that Hatfill had been the subject of surveillance (id. at 123:12-15, 428: 19-21); that Hatfill had taken polygraphs (id. at 135:16 - 137:17); and that he had submitted to blood tests (id. at 137:18-138:5, 347: 6-10).

In furtherance of Clawson’s “sunshine” policy, Hatfill, Clawson, and Glasberg, together, provided countless on-the-record, on-background (i.e., for use, but not for attribution), and off-the-record (i.e., not for attribution or use) interviews to counter misinformation. Although Hatfill repeatedly claimed upon deposition not to remember what he said during these interviews, he acknowledged in his responses to the Agency Defendants’ interrogatories having such conversations with, in addition to Mr. Jackman, Judith Miller of The New York Times, Jeremy Cherkis of the City Paper, Guy Gugliotta of the Washington Post, David Kestenbaum of National Public Radio, Rick Schmidt of the LA Times, Rob Buchanan of NBC Dateline, Jim Popkin of NBC News, Dee Ann David and Nick Horrock of UPI, Gary Matsumato of Fox TV, Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, and David Tell of the Weekly Standard. Ex. 12, at 3-4. With respect to the Matsumato interview, Glasberg warned Hatfill before the interview that he “should not be quoted, nor should Matsumato say or imply that he spoke with him.” Ex. 38, at 1. Glasberg warned Hatfill that “Matsumato must be willing to go to jail rather than reveal word one of anything [he] says on ‘deep background.’” Id.

All of these disclosures became too much even for Glasberg, who attempted to put a stop to them. In August, when Jackman aired his exclusive interview with Glasberg and Hatfill, Glasberg heralded the success of his public relations strategy noting that “Rosenberg, Shane and Kristof are, [each] of them, in varying stages of sulking, licking their wounds, reacting defensively and changing their tune.” Ex. 39. Slowly Glasberg advised both Hatfill and Glasberg to observe “the rule of COMPLETE SILENCE regarding anything and everything about the case[.]” Ex. 40 (emphasis in original). Ultimately, in September 2002, Glasberg ordered Clawson to stand down, noting “[w]hat you know, you know, and you have put virtually all of that into the public record. Fine. That is where we are, and for good or ill we can and will deal with it. But we must put a full stop to any further conveyance of substantive data about ANYTHING from Steve to anyone [but his attorneys].” Ex. 41 (emphasis in original). To no avail. On October 5, 2002, Hatfill and Clawson appeared together at an Accuracy in Media Conference. Hatfill was asked about the reaction of bloodhounds, and stated, I’m not supposed to answer things against . . . but let me tell you something. They brought this good-looking dog in. I mean, this was the best-fed dog I have seen in a long time. They brought him in and he walked around the room. By the way, I could have left at anytime but I volunteered while they were raiding my apartment the second time, I volunteered to talk with them. The dog came around and I petted him. And the dog walked out. So animals like me (laughter). Ex. 42, at 2.

Disclosures from the Hatfill camp to the media continued. For example, between late 2002 and May 8, 2003, Hatfill’s current attorney, Tom Connolly, and CBS News reporter James Stewart had multiple telephone conversations and two lunch meetings. Ex. 43. According to Stewart, Connolly told Stewart that the investigation was focusing on Hatfill, and detailed at great length the FBI’s surveillance of Hatfill. In virtually every one of these conversations, Connolly encouraged Stewart to report on these subjects. Id. at 96.

E. Louisiana State University’s Decision To Terminate Hatfill

At the time of the second search of his apartment in August 2002, Hatfill was working as a contract employee at the Louisiana State University (“LSU”) on a program to train first responders in the event of a biological attack. This program was funded by the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (“OJP”) as part of a cooperative agreement. Ex. 44. Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, OJP “maintain[ed] managerial oversight and control” of the program. Id. at 2. Following the second search of Hatfill’s apartment on August 1, 2002, Timothy Beres, Acting Director of OJP’s Office of Domestic Preparedness, directed that LSU “cease and desist from utilizing the subject-matter expert and course instructor duties of Steven J. Hatfill on all Department of Justice funded programs.” Ex. 45. LSU, meanwhile, had independently hired Hatfill to serve as Associate Director of its Academy of Counter-Terrorist Education. Following the second search, LSU placed Hatfill on administrative leave. Ex. 46. LSU then requested a background check of Hatfill. Ex. 47. During the course of that investigation, the University became concerned that Hatfill had forged a diploma for a Ph.D that he claimed to have received from Rhodes University in South Africa. Hatfill explained to Stephen L. Guillott, Jr., who was the Director of the Academy of Counter-Terrorist Education at LSU, that “[h]e assumed the degree had, in fact been awarded since neither his [thesis advisor] nor Rhodes University advised him to the contrary.” Ex. 48. LSU’s Chancellor, Mark A. Emmert, made “an internal decision to terminate [LSU’s] relationship with Dr. Hatfill quite independent of [the DOJ e-mail] communication.” Ex. 51.

Hatfill has now testified that in fact he created a fraudulent diploma with the assistance of someone he met in a bar who boasted that he could make a fraudulent diploma. Hatfill Dep. Tran., Ex. 49 at 19:20 - 20:12. Glasberg, moreover, has stated under oath that Hatfill’s earlier attempted explanation was untrue. Glasberg, Dep. Tran., Ex. 21, at 314:10 - 317:2. In a nationally televised 60 Minutes episode that aired in March 2007, Connolly confirmed that Hatfill forged the diploma for the Ph.D from Rhodes University. Ex. 50, at 3.

F. Hatfill’s Amended Complaint

Hatfill claims lost wages and other emotional damages resulting from General Ashcroft’s “person of interest” statements and other for-attribution statements by DOJ and FBI officials. He also seeks to recover for certain other alleged “leaks” by DOJ and FBI officials. Hatfill additionally asserts that the defendants violated the Act by purportedly failing to (1) maintain an accurate accounting of such disclosures, which he asserts is required by section 552a(c) of the Act; (2) establish appropriate safeguards to insure the security and confidentiality of the records that were purportedly disclosed, which he asserts is required by section 552a(e)(10); (3) correct information that was disseminated about him that was inaccurate or incomplete, which he asserts is required by section 552a(e)(5); and (4) establish adequate rules of conduct, procedures, and penalties for noncompliance, or to train employees in the requirements of the Act, which he asserts is required by section 552a(e)(9). Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.”

TOPICS: Anthrax Scare; Breaking News; Extended News; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: amerithrax; anthrax; anthraxattacks; bioterrorism; doj; domesticterrorism; fbi; hatfill; islamothrax; trialbymedia; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 981-987 next last
To: TrebleRebel
The first question that I'd like to see answered is: What causes the silica to stick to the spore?

Van der Waals forces.

Ah! As usual, a declaration without any support. And you clearly expect everyone to just accept it.

Why not static electricity? The milling would indicate that a GREAT DEAL of static electricity was involved here.

If silica would stick to the spores due to van der Walls forces, why does the Gary Matsumoto article say that "polymerized glass" was used to bind the silica to the spores?

If the silica would stick to the spores due to van der Waals forces, why wouldn't the silica particles also stick to each other and result in total clumping of the whole mess due to van der Waals forces?

Ed at

361 posted on 05/01/2008 10:45:32 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: milford421; DAVEY CROCKETT; Calpernia; Velveeta; LibertyRocks


362 posted on 05/01/2008 11:26:48 AM PDT by nw_arizona_granny ( SURVIVAL, RECIPES, GARDENS, & INFO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

You need to read the paper I think. Especially since you have already called it “Bizarre”.
That was a little presumptive, having not read it.

Dried BaS spores were produced as follows: Ten liter (L) fermentation vessels were seeded (5% V/V) with overnight nutrient broth cultures of BaS. Spores were grown in G medium that consists of: yeast extract, 2.0 g L-1; NH4SO4, 2.0 g L-1; Dow antifoam 204, 0.3 mL L-1; MgSO4·7H2O, 0.2 g L-1; MnSO4·H2O, 0.038 g L-1; ZnSO4·7H2O, 0.005 g L-1; CuSO4·5H2O, 0.005 g L-1; FeSO4·7H2O, 0.005 g L-1; CaCl2·2H2O, 0.25 g L-1; K2HPO4, 0.500 g L-1; glucose, 1.0 g L-1. The pH was adjusted to 7.0 ± 0.1 and the glucose was added separately as a sterile solution after autoclaving.

The culture was incubated at 30°C in a 10 L fermentation vessel with an agitation rate of 250 RPM and an aeration rate greater than 0.5 volumes min-1. Sporulation was generally complete within 24 h. Spores were collected by simple centrifugation to remove spent media. The pelleted material was dried by a proprietary azeotropic method. Ten percent (by weight) of an amorphous silica-based flow enhancer was added to the dried spores. The dried material was milled using an exclusionary ball mill. In this process the material passed through a series of stages separated by increasingly finer mesh screens. In each stage 0.01 m diameter steel balls forced the product through the screen separators. A pneumatic vibrator actuated the entire mill.

BG was obtained from a commercially manufactured stockpile of dry spores (produced under contract in 1963 by Westco Chemical, Shafter, CO) that had been used in numerous tests and experiments. The manufacturing process paralleled that of the procedure described for BaS above. Twenty percent by weight of amorphous silica was added to enhance the flow characteristics of the BG preparation.

363 posted on 05/01/2008 11:29:55 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: EdLake; TrebleRebel

Ed, the GMU experts below (advised by the likes of Alibek and Patrick) have explained the reason for the silica. So you needn’t worry about the finer points or trouble Dr. Rebel for another half-decade explaining them to you.

Before the anthrax mailings, in an interview in September 2000, Dr. Ken Alibek addressed whether Bin Laden could make a “Alibek-caliber” powdered anthrax. Dr. Alibek was a colleague of microbiologist Ali Al-Timimi who was taught by Bin Laden’s sheik and actively communicating with him.

“HOMELAND DEFENSE: OK. Let’s say I’m an Usama bin Laden type individual. I have millions of dollars. Can I produce a high-quality “Ken Alibek-caliber” dry powdered anthrax?

KEN ALIBEK: In many cases it’s not likely. Of course, if you get hundreds of thousands of dollars and if you have a person who knows how to do this, you could make a highly effective biological weapon. But if you have a person with millions of dollars but has no idea how to do this, or someone with a bachelor’s degree in biology even, it’s not going to help. You need to have somebody with either practical knowledge or somebody with the right type of mind to do this. Unfortunately, this information is available now.

We just don’t understand that if your objective is to develop an effective biological weapon and to deploy it with an aerosol, all this information is available. It is a matter of time and effort in gathering this information. In many cases, it’s not necessarily the information that counts. It’s a matter of knowledge in microbiology and aerosol science and knowing how to build a more effective aerosol device. If you’ve got the money, and you’ve got the managerial skills to find the right people, the rest is just a matter of time.


HOMELAND DEFENSE: So the information is still in your head if you wanted to do this? If you wanted to go set up an offensive production capability, you could do it?

KEN ALIBEK: I have no such intentions.

HOMELAND DEFENSE: But the point is, you probably have that information. If terrorists get the right technical data, they can reduce their timetable, for example, shrinking it from three years to three months.

KEN ALIBEK: That is correct. But I don’t like it when someone says I can do this. I know I can do this, but I know I will never do this.

HOMELAND DEFENSE: Well, we’re very glad that you’re on our side now. On a different subject, is the U.S. government doing the right things now to protect the country?

KEN ALIBEK: For me, this is a most painful topic.”

After the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology detected silica, [USAMRIID Major General John] Parker disclosed that the anthrax in question contained silica, a common substance found in sand and quartz. Another department colleague of Bin Laden’s sheik’s protege — Dr. Alibek’s co-director of the Center for Biodefense at GMU –told a reporter that the presence of silica is significant, but he declined to say why, citing national security concerns.

”I don’t think I want to give people — terrorists — any information to help them, said Dr. Charles Bailey, a scientist at Advanced Biosystems Inc. at George Mason University and former commander of the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID).”

The problem was that a microbiologist trained in computer science and actively communicating with Bin Laden’s sheik, according to NSA intercepts, was working just feet away from both famed Russian anthrax bioweaponeer Ken Alibek and Dr. Bailey. Bin Laden’s supporters already had access to the information.

A key fact is that of the exosporium, which is a loose-fitting protein envelope surrounding about 7-10 spore coats that overlay the cortex, had traces of silica. The exosporium is the spore’s outermost layer. The silica was not dispersed inside of the B. anthracis spore coats and cortex under the exosporium. Ari Fleischer discusses the silica in the anthrax in his book Taking Heat. He reports that he had argued at length with ABC News over its story that the additive was bentonite (which arguably was characteristic of the Iraq program). He explained that from the start he had told ABC that it was silica, not bentonite, that had been detected. The suggestion that AFIP experts did not know the difference between silica and silcon is not well founded, and the scientist who performed the EDX specifically told the journalist that oxygen was also detected in ratios consistent with silicon dioxide.

A PhD student supervised by Matthias Frank, a big star at Livermore in developing the biosensor, addressed these issues in 2004. Lawrence Livermore lab was tasked with combating the Bin Laden anthrax threat in 1998 and is steeped in biodetection, the subject of the PhD thesis. LLNL researchers have developed advanced technologies to rapidly detect the airborne release of biological threat agents. The student cites Gary Matsumoto’s Science article and says:

“In the case of anthrax, it is known that Van der Waals forces cause unprocessed spores to clump together. Large particles are not deposited efficiently in human lungs and also settle rapidly from the air. Both are undesirable properties if maximal lethality is desired. Silica powers and nanoparticles have long been used to prevent agent particles from coming close enough together for Van der Waals forces to become significant.”

*** Military scientists have stated that the ‘weaponized’ anthrax letters sent to Senator Daschle’s office contained silica. In the Senate anthrax letter, there is also evidence that the bond between the silica nanoparticles and spores was further enhanced by the use of sol-gel or polymerized glass. Some believe that the spores may have even been electrostatically charged to aid their dispersal. At any rate, the end result of the processing was a powder far more potent than a simple combination of anthrax spores, cells and residual growth medium.”

Former Russian bioweaponeer Ken Alibek and Harvard biologist Matthew Meselson, however, have opined that there was no special silica coating observable in the Scanning Electron Microscope (”SEM”) images they saw. The presence of any silica, Drs. Meselson and Alibek say, may have come from the environment because of the special tendency of anthrax spore coats to attract silicon. (The lead FBI scientist Dwight Adams relied on the study provided the FBI by Meselson in briefing the Congress in November 2002.) Indeed, the silica may have been in the culture medium and then removed as described by a mid-March 2001 and related patent filed by researchers at Dr. Alibek’s Center for Biodefense at GMU. Dr. Alibek reports that, like Dr. William Patrick, he was also given a polygraph.

A scientist from the FBI Laboratory, Dr. Doug Beecher, in a July 2006 issue of “Applied and Environmental Microbiology” provided me a copy of his article that reports that:

“a widely circulated misconception is that the spores were produced using additives and sophisticated engineering supposedly akin to military weapon production. The issue is usually the basis for implying that the powders were inordinately dangerous compared to spores alone. The persistent credence given to this impression fosters erroneous preconceptions, which may misguide research and preparedness efforts and generally detract from the magnitude of hazards posed by simple spore preparations.”

The vague and ambiguous passage mere confirms Dr. Alibek’s point that a sophisticated product can result from a relatively simple method.

Harvard University Matthew Meselson reviewed the language in the FBI scientist’s article before publication. “The statement should have had a reference,” editor-in-chief of the microbiology journal told a trade periodical. “An unsupported sentence being cited as fact is uncomfortable to me. Any statement in a scientific article should be supported by a reference or by documentation.” The two passages, footnoted or not, essentially said what Dr. Alibek had been saying: “‘[J]ust because you have a sophisticated product doesn’t mean the technique has to be sophisticated.’ ” Silica in the culture medium would not be a sophisticated “additive” but would serve to concentrate the agent.

In a Letter to the Editor in Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Aug. 2007, p. 5074, titled “Unsupported Conclusions on the Bacillus anthracis Spores,” Kay A. Mereish, at the United Nations, reports:

“In a meeting I attended in September 2006, a presentation was made by a scientist who had worked on samples of anthrax collected from letters involved in the [anthrax letters] incident in October 2001; that scientist described the anthrax spore as uncoated but said it contained an additive that affected the spore’s electrical charges. (D. Small, CBRN Counter-Proliferation and Response, Paris, France, 18-20 September 2006; organized by SMi [”

Dr. Mereish tells me that her letter to the editor was not intended to agree or disagree with the FBI scientist. She merely notes that his two sentences that related to this issue of additive were not supported by the scientific experiment and data that he published. She relies on Dr. Small who made her statement based on her scientific research finding in connection with her work on the anthrax samples. Dr. Mereish’s letter, however, is another example where the use of “electrical charges” scientists as Dr. Patrick and Dr. Alibek are failing to distinguish between electrostatic charges and Van der Waals forces, thus resulting in some of the confusion in the press reports.

Kathryn Crockett, Ken Alibek’s assistant — was just a couple doors down from Ali Al-Timimi — addressed these issues in her 2006 thesis, “A historical analysis of Bacillus anthracis as a biological weapon and its application to the development of nonproliferation and defense strategies.” She expressed her special thanks to Dr. Ken Alibek and Dr. Bill Patrick. Dr. Patrick consulted with the FBI and so the FBI credits his expertise. “I don’t want to appear arrogant. I don’t think anyone knows more about anthrax powder in this country,” William Patrick told an interviewer. Dr. Alibek’s access to know-how, regarding anthrax weaponization, similarly, seems beyond reasonable dispute. Katie successfully defended the thesis before a panel that included USAMRIID head and Ames strain researcher Charles Bailey, Ali Al-Timimi’s other Department colleague. She says that scientists who analyzed the powder through viewing micrographs or actual contact are divided over the quality of the powder. She cites Gary Matsumoto’s “Science” article in summarizing the debate. She says the FBI has vacillated on silica. “Regarding the specific issue of weaponization,” Dr. Alibek’s assistant concluded in her PhD thesis, “according to several scientists at USAMRIID who examined the material, the powder created a significant cloud when agitated meaning that the adhesion of the particles had been reduced. Reducing the adhesion of the particles meant that the powder would fly better.” She explains that “The most common way to reduce electrostatic charge is to add a substance to the mixture, usually a silica based substance.”

On the issue of encapsulation, she reports that “many experts who examined the powder stated the spores were encapsulated. Encapsulation involves coating bacteria with a polymer which is usually done to protect fragile bacteria from harsh conditions such as extreme heat and pressure that occurs at the time of detonation (if in a bomb), as well as from moisture and ultraviolet light. The process was not originally developed for biological weapons purposes but rather to improve the delivery of various drugs to target organs or systems before they were destroyed by enzymes in the circulatory system” (citing Alibek and Crockett, 2005). “The US and Soviet Union, however, ” she explains, “used this technique in their biological weapons programs for pathogens that were not stable in aerosol form… Since spores have hardy shells that provide the same protection as encapsulation would, there is no need to cover them with a polymer. “ She explains that one “possible explanation is that the spore was in fact encapsulated but not for protective purpose. Encapsulation also reduces the need for milling when producing a dry formulation.” By reducing the need for milling, she means permits greater concentration of the biological agent. If the perpetrator was knowledgeable of the use of encapsulation for this purpose, then he or she may have employed it because sophisticated equipment was not at his disposal.”

One military scientist who has made anthrax simulants described the GMU patents as relating to an encapsulation technique which serves to increase the viability of a wide range of pathogens. More broadly, a DIA analyst once commented to me that the internal debate seemed relatively inconsequential given the circumstantial evidence — overlooked by so many people — that US-based supporters of Al Qaeda are responsible for the mailings.

364 posted on 05/01/2008 12:15:14 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: EdLake


In a June 2005 interview in a Swiss (German language) weekly news magazine, Neue Zurcher Zeitung, Ken Alibek addresses the anthrax mailings:

A. “What if I told you Swiss scientists are paid by Al Qaeda? You could believe it or not. It has become somewhat fashionable to disparage Russian scientists. Americans, Iraqis, or whoever could just as well be involved with Al Qaeda. Why doesn’t anyone speculate about that?”

Q. “But could one of your students build a biological weapon in the garage?”

A. “Let me reply philosophically: Two hundred years ago, it was unthinkable to believe that people would be using mobile telephones, wasn’t it? Everything changes. Our knowledge grows, and technology develops incredibly quickly. These days even high-school kids can breed recombinant microbial strains. I am not saying that a student is in a position to build a biological weapon all by himself. But the knowledge needed to do it is certainly there.”

No one who responded to my inquiries ever knew Al-Timimi to ever have been involved in any biodefense project. For example, former Russian bioweaponeer Sergei Popov did not know of any such work by Al-Timimi, and Anna Popova had only seen him in the hall on a very rare occasion. Dr. Alibek thought of him as a “numbers guy” rather than a hands-on type. Given that the FBI knows what Al-Timimi had for dinner on September 16, 2001 and lunch on September 17, it is very likely that the past years have involved a continued search for the mailer and/or processor. His attorney emphasizes that while they searched for materials related to a planned biological attack when they searched his townhouse in late February 2003, they came up empty.

Peter Leitner at GMU has supervised a 2007 PhD thesis by a graduate student that explores biosecurity issues at GMU. Other students took a “red cell” approach that have corroborated the findings of the thesis. The thesis points to a pretty big iceberg indeed. Proliferation leads to great risk of infiltration. LSU researcher Martin Hugh-Jones explained: “There were no more than ten labs in the nation working with the organism, and now it’s about 310—and they all want virulent strains. In the old days virtually everyone was paid by Department of Defense to do their research because that’s the only place where money came from because the organism wasn’t thought to be of economic importance. Now that it’s a bioterrorist threat and money’s available for research, experts have come out of the walls. The whole damn thing is bizarre.”

365 posted on 05/01/2008 1:15:33 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
You need to read the paper I think.

You haven't shown me where it says that the Sterne spores were created recently.

Presumably, the procedure for creating spores that you posted is Dugway's description of how they made spores back in days of yore. It's their contribution to the article.

What are you interpreting to mean that they manufactured the Sterne spores recently? How recently? Can you tell from whatever it is that you see?

Ed at

366 posted on 05/01/2008 1:42:19 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]


    While Al-Timimi was recruiting for the Taliban, he was also connected to one of the principals on Al Qaeda’s WMD Committee, Mohammed Abdel-Rahman. The CIA and FBI apparently have known this for years but have kept it secret as part of their ongoing confidential national security and criminal investigation. Mohammed Abdel-Rahman spoke at the first conference of the Islamic Assembly of North America (”IANA”) in 1993 and was noted to be from Afghanistan. Mohammed Abdelrahman spoke alongside Ali Al-Timimi again, for example, in 1996 in Toronto and again that December in Chicago at the annual conference. The December conference was held after blind sheik Abdel-Rahman was indicted. Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation was closely involved in the financing and promotion of IANA activities. Al-Buthi of Al-Haramain was in contact with Bin Laden’s sheiks and also his brother-in-law who had funded the KSM-led Bojinka operation. Global Relief Foundation participated in and sponsored a number of annual conferences. GRF sent money to IANA to offset the conferences’ costs. Mohammed Abdel-Rahman was close to bin Laden and was engaged in planning key operations. OBL considered him like a son. Mohammed was on the three member WMD committee with Midhat Mursi. Mohammed Abdel-Rahman ran a training camp that was part of the larger complex of several camps. He was an explosives trainer.

    The “Superseding Indictment” in United States of postal employee Ahmed Abdel Sattar et al., explains that on February 12, 1997, with Mohammed Abdelrahman back in Afghanistan, a statement issued in the name of the Islamic Group threatened, “The Islamic Group declares all American interests legitimate targets to its legitimate jihad until the release of all prisoners, on top of whom” is Abdel Rahman. Three months later, on May 5, 1997, a statement issued in the name of the Islamic Group threatened, “If any harm comes to the [S]heikh [,] al-Gama al-IsIalamiy[y]a will target [] all of those Americans who participated in subjecting his life to danger.” The statement also said that “A1-Gamaa al-Islamiyya considers every American official, starting with the American president to the despicable jailer [] partners endangering the Sheikh’s life,” and that the Islamic Group would do “everything in its power” to free Abdel Rahman.

    The same person who posted notice of the 1996 conference where Al-Timimi, Bilal Philips and Mohammed Abdel-Rahman spoke, then posted notice of a protest titled “STOP RAILROADING OF SHEIKH OMAR ABDEL RAHMAN - PROTEST US POLICIES AGAINST ISLAM.” The Rally was to take place on June 20, 1997 in front of the US Bureau of Prisons in Washington DC.

    An FBI affidavit, drafted in support of a warrant for the search of Post Office employee Sattar’s Staten Island apartment, explains that Sattar was the communications hub to and from the imprisoned Abdel-Rahman. The 42-year-old postal worker worked as a paralegal during the blind terrorist’s federal trial for attorneys Lynne Stewart and Stanley Cohen. Sattar was in frequent contact with IG leaders worldwide, including Rifa’i Taha Musa (”Taha”) and WMD Committee member Abdel-Rahman’s son Mohammed.

    Al Qaeda continued to seek religious approval from blind sheik Abdel-Rahman for its attacks. The US indictment of the Post Office worker in contact with Mohammed Abdel-Rahman alleged: “On or about June 19, 2000, one of Abdel Rahman’s sons, Mohammed Abdel Rahman, spoke by telephone with SATTAR and asked SATTAR to convey to Abdel Rahman the fierceness of the debate within the Islamic Group about the initiative, and said that “even if the other side is right,” SATTAR should tell Abdel Rahman to calm the situation by supporting “the general line of the Group.” The indictment of the US Post Office worker Sattar further alleges: “On or about June 20, 2000, SATTAR spoke by telephone with Mohammed Abdel Rahman and advised him that a conference call had taken place that morning between Abdel Pahman and some of his attorneys and that Abdel Rahman had issued a new statement containing additional points which made clear, among other things, that Abdel Rahman was not unilaterally ending the initiative, but rather, was withdrawing his support for it and “stating that it was up” to the “brothers” in the Islamic Group now to reconsider the issue.

    The indictment of the US Post Office employee Sattar further alleges: “On or about September 21, 2000, an Arabic television station, Al Jazeera, televised a meeting of Usama Bin Laden (leader of the al Qaeda terrorist organization), Ayman al Zawahiri (former leader of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad organization and one of Bin Laden’s top lieutenants), and Taha. Sitting under a banner which read, “Convention to Support Honorable Omar Abdel Rahman,” the three terrorist leaders pledged “to free Abdel Rahman from incarceration in the United States. During the meeting, Mohammed Abdel Rahman, a/k/a “Asadallah,” who is a son of Abdel Rahman, was heard encouraging others to “avenge your Sheikh” and “go to the spilling of blood.”

    In December 2001, the blind sheik’s lawyer Montasser Al-Zayat — the fellow in touch with US Post Office employee Sattar who claimed in March 1999 that Zawahiri was going to use weaponized anthrax against US targets — claimed that Mohammed Abdel-Rahman, 29, had died from wounds received during the bombardment of the Tora Bora caves in eastern Afghanistan. He said his information came from an Islamic activist in London. The report was false. Mohammed Abdel-Rahman was arrested in mid-February 2003 and Ali Al-Timimi’s townhouse was searched two week later.

    The FBI feels that they are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. They are criticized for making arrests too soon — other times they are criticized for not acting sooner. They are criticized when they don’t give out any information. They are criticized when they do. All the while, the public is seldom well-positioned to second-guess the issue.

367 posted on 05/01/2008 1:48:22 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
If silica would stick to the spores due to van der Walls forces, why does the Gary Matsumoto article say that "polymerized glass" was used to bind the silica to the spores?

If the silica would stick to the spores due to van der Waals forces, why wouldn't the silica particles also stick to each other and result in total clumping of the whole mess due to van der Waals forces?

I'm about to shut down shop for the day. I'm hoping that you will find the time to answer the above questions before very long. Ignoring them would just show that you have no answers to questions which might challenge your beliefs.

Ed at

368 posted on 05/01/2008 2:37:57 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: EdLake; TrebleRebel

Now that Ed has punched his clock, let’s get down to the relevant science that points to why Al-Timimi is not the processor (that is in addition to the fact that he is a “numbers guy,” not a hands-on guy).

The FBI scientists have been able to distinguish between water isotopes ratios in the anthrax. Brian Williams reports that investigators have told NBC that the water used to make the spores came from the Northeastern United States. Researchers have been able to establish that anthrax grown in water in the Northeastern United States is distinguishable from anthrax grown in water from the Southeast and Pacific Northwest. In one published anthrax study, researchers grew Bacillus subtilis, a harmless bacteria that resembles Bacillus anthracis, using local water from five different U.S. cities. The scientists were able to distinguish those grown in various cities. The method can be used to narrow the number of possible origins of the water based on the number of oxygen and hydrogen isotopes.  Interviewer Kestenbaum said: “Ehleringer is now creating a map showing how the isotope ratios of water vary anthrax was grown, it may rule some places out.” As defined by the Census Bureau, the Northeast region of the United States covers nine states: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. A scientist explained the research in an NPR interview in 2004. We thus apparently know from First Grade geography that Maryland-bound Dr. Steve Hatfill did not weaponize the anthrax.

 I infer from the NBC report that from the isotope ratios, authorities believe either that the anthrax was grown in one of the yellow (or perhaps light green) areas, but not one of the dark green, blue or red areas on Ehrlinger’s map. The yellow swath includes much of the Northeastern United States — places like Manhattan, and Syracuse, NY as well as places like Ann Arbor and Minneapolis. Islamabad and Baghdad can be excluded. Pretty much all foreign locations apparently can be excluded (except for parts of Canada), along with places with comparable oxygen isotope ratios such as Central New Jersey, Maryland and Ohio. Outside of the United States, pretty much only the adjacent parts of Canada above Northeastern US (e.g., parts of Ontario and Quebec) match the yellow swath that the scientists found distinguishing. The authors of one of the key articles specifically noted that they couldn’t distinguish between North Carolina and Ohio — the dark green. Similarly, they can’t distinguish between Central New Jersey and North Carolina (again, the dark green). The key studies in the peer reviewed literature indicate that they were funded by the Central Intelligence Agency.       

Ehleringer  and his colleagues published a March 2007 article titled “Stable isotope ratios of tap water in the contiguous United States” in “Water Resources Research.” The study was funded by the “federal government.” The raw data survey results have been embargoed by the federal government.” (The agency would usually be identified). In other water isotope ratio studies the funding agency was identified as the CIA or whatever agency it was — it varied. Perhaps this March 2007 study was funded by the Department of Justice/Federal Bureau of Investigation and was done specifically for the purpose of laying the scientific groundwork of a prosecution in Amerithrax.

Separately, a press release announced in September 2003 that University of Maryland researchers have developed a technique to help the FBI track the origins of deadly anthrax spores by identifying the medium used to grow it. The FBI asked Maryland professor Catherine Fenselau to turn her mass spectrometry lab to the forensic task of sleuthing how bacillus spores, such as anthrax, are prepared. While the Utah scientist in this study was looking at the tap water, Helen W. Kreuzer-Martin, the Maryland scientist in a study published in April 2007 titled “Stable Isotope Ratios and the Forensic Analysis of Microorganisms,” was looking at the nutrients in the culture. The DOJ/FBI likely hopes to put all the data together with the more familiar reasons to suspect someone (means, motive, modus operandi and opportunity), and put on a case that to a moral certainty proves it was committed by the perp(s). Absent the scientific evidence, there perhaps is a lack of a “smoking gun.” Here, based on this new science, hopefully there is a smoking petri dish.

By looking at the oxygen, hydrogen and deuterium geospatial distribution, authorities can more precisely identify where the water came from. For example, the deuterium map might be relied upon to eliminate an ambiguity left by the range indicated by the oxygen and hydrogen maps.

369 posted on 05/01/2008 3:41:02 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel

Let’s consider a DIA document from the late 1990’s first tipping off Defense Threat Reduction Agency off that Bin Laden planned to use charities as cover.

Question: Why did DARPA allow someone close to the Bin Laden sheik referenced in the 1996 Declaration of War work in the building housing the Center for Biodefense? The program had the biggest biodefense award (funding a contract with USAMRIID involving Ames) in history. Charles Bailey was the #1 guy in charge of biological threat assessment and head of the progam at GMU. Why did he allow a sheik talking about the end of times and destruction of Western Civilization to have an office 15 feet away? Did he at least lock his door at night? Who was in charge of biosecurity at the university?

    The document stated in part:









370 posted on 05/01/2008 4:26:11 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel

Here is an excerpt from the correspondence between the Pakistani scientist Rauf Ahmad (Abdur Rauf) and Ayman Zawahiri.

Rauf Ahmad was helping Ayman infiltrate UK biodefense establishment just as Ali had done even more spectacularly in the US.

The DIA gave me the correspondence under the Freedom of Information Act along with 100+ pages related to Al Qaeda’s anthrax planning.

Rauf Ahmad gave me his resume by email but years later the email and cell phone number no longer are current.


371 posted on 05/01/2008 4:26:18 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]


Two key articles:

“Suspect and A Setback In Al-Qaeda Anthrax Case,” Washington Post, October 31, 2006, A1

“Hardball Tactics in an Era of Threats,” Washington Post, September 3, 2006, A1

372 posted on 05/01/2008 8:11:18 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]


Ely Karmon, Ph.D., Senior Research Scholar and Internet Project Director, of the The International Policy Institute for Counter-terrorism (ICT)
published “The Anthrax Campaign: An Interim Analysis,” dated October 30, 2001. He thoughtfully addressed the various alternatives. What does Dr. Karmon think now?

The full report can be downloaded here.

Here is an excerpt:

“Bin Laden’s network the first suspect.

In an article published on October 16, 2001 by the Sunday Mail, British terrorism expert Simon Reeve claimed that al-Qaida agents in Albania had obtained vials of anthrax and botulinum toxin in the Czech Republic. Reeve referred to transcripts of Egyptian interrogations of captured members of al-Qaida. But according to the Czech media, U.S. experts investigating cases of occurrence of anthrax in the United States have not linked the origin of the substance with the Czech Republic.[14] Czech army medical service chief Jan Petras, said upon returning from a visit to the U.S. that according to his evaluation, supported by certain evidence, the anthrax used in the U.S. attacks was made in the U.S.[15]

The San Francisco Chronicle claimed that testimony given during a terrorism trial two years ago in Egypt was rich with details about bin Laden’s alleged efforts to acquire various germs. Among the biological agents purchased from countries in Eastern Europe by bin Laden’s top aide, Egyptian Islamic Jihad leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, were anthrax and the deadly Ebola virus, the Chronicle said.[16]

Significantly, recent reports in the British press, have claimed that followers of Osama Bin Laden planned to carry out a chemical weapon attack in Europe using a “poisonous invisible gas,” possibly cyanide.[17] Reportedly, Italian anti-terrorist police recorded conversations taking place in an apartment outside Milan that served as a safe house for an al-Qaida cell.[18] According to the Sunday Times, terrorists in Britain, Germany and Italy plotted to use tins of tomatoes to transport “a liquid that suffocates people”. The plan was foiled when a Libyan at the center of the plot was arrested in Munich.[19] One theory is that the group planned to spread the poison in an American government building in London or Rome.[20] Convicted Algerian terrorist Ahmed Ressam testified during his trial in the U.S. that experiments using poisonous cyanide gas pumped into an office building ventilation system took place at training camps run by bin Laden in Afghanistan.[21]

It is clear by now that some of the letters bearing anthrax in the United States were sent from Trenton, New Jersey. It should be remembered that Jersey City was the cradle of the plot for the first bombing of the World Trade Center, in 1993, by a cell led by Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. Likewise, the anthrax infection in Boca Raton, Florida, happened not far from the apartments where some of the hijackers of the September 11 planes lived and trained.
On September 28, U.S. government officials expressed concern about a plant located in Afghanistan that manufactures 34F2 Sterne, a non-virulent strain of anthrax, only suitable for use in the anthrax vaccine. The plant, which was renovated in 1997 with assistance from the International Committee of the Red Cross, manufactures about 10,000 doses of the vaccine per year. Officials are trying to assess whether the facility has the proper equipment and the lethal strains of anthrax necessary to produce biological weapons.[22]
The modus operandi used during the present campaign of anthrax letters is not a mass destruction attack but rather a series of symbolic attacks against individuals representing the media and American power centers. ***

What is clear at this stage of the investigation is that all the tainted letters sent within the United States—probably all from New Jersey—were sent to targets in the U.S., beginning a week after the September 11 attacks. As for the cases of anthrax in Florida, they could be the result either of a letter opened by an AMI employee but not reported to the authorities, or of another kind of direct infection which has not been yet proposed by the investigators.
The low level of technology employed, while using a relatively virulent strain of the bacteria, could imply that the perpetrators do not have the sophisticated means to disseminate the anthrax as an aerosol.

From the above it seems that the letters in New Jersey and Florida (if indeed there was a letter sent to Florida) were prepared and sent by a small cell or cells, perhaps even by one individual. And yet, this cell or individual had prepared the necessary technical infrastructure, decided on the targets and taken the necessary security measures (medical and operational) in order to be ready immediately after the attacks of September 11

Bin Laden’s network would have no difficulty preparing such an infrastructure, as it prepared the much more complex operation of the pilots training and hijackings in the U.S..

As long as there is no proof that bin Laden’s men or American extremist elements have developed the capability to produce advanced forms of anthrax—something that they have not had up to now—the Iraqi track is still valid.”

373 posted on 05/02/2008 6:50:14 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: EdLake; TrebleRebel

Ed and I both credit Dr. Alibek as highly expert.

Ed reports that when he spoke to Ken Alibek (in December 2004, I think it was), Ken thought supporters of the militant islamists were responsible. Ed purposely avoided transcribing and uploading that portion of the tape (and avoided mentioning the fact at the time).

When I emailed Dr. A once to ask if he knew Ali, he told me that the FBI suspected the GMU bioinformatics student. (Al-Timimi’s lawyer has now confirmed it). Ed has failed to transcribe and upload that portion of the tape even though Dr. A was not much more than 15 feet from the scientist the FBI considered an anthrax weapons suspect. Ken’s view is highly relevant because he has first-hand knowledge of the matter. Yet Ed does not upload it because it challenges his belief. I would ask that he transcribe and upload it as it would be interesting and perhaps informative. Ali was interviewed 7 or 8 times before October 1, 2004 and the indictment.

But let’s consider the broad reasoning of Ed’s key expert on technical issues.

” Alibek cites, among other issues:

The hijackers were looking for crop dusters. He says it’s hard to believe that they wanted to use crop dusters for attacking the World Trade Center.

The first cases of anthrax were in Florida, near where some of these hijackers lived. Also, there were reports about a strange anthrax-type ulcer on the leg of one of the hijackers before 9/11.

The timing of the attack in conjunction with 9/11 was “sort of a simultaneous attempt” to cause a greater fear and anxiety. “Sometimes, it seems to me, that somebody actually used this atmosphere of panic, anxiety for sending anthrax in which it could be a domestic case. There are many issues and questions that we still have unanswered, but you notice I don’t answer this question to say, ‘OK, it was a domestic war’ or ‘... a foreign case.’”

In one of the letters the word “penicillin” was misspelled. Hatfill, a medical doctor, would hardly have not known how to spell the word. “It’s hard for me to believe that somebody with medical background would make such a big mistake, if it’s not done intentionally, of course.”

The FBI failed to conduct an immediate search of the places where the hijackers lived in Florida. Alibek said that “when you do any investigation you shouldn’t get rid of any possible opportunity, any possible lead. If you took a week just to reach your conclusion, saying OK, domestic case or foreign case, you can lose some very important evidence. And specifically, if, for example, you narrow down your investigation, at the earliest stage of investigation and then you follow this path, for example, and just, in about six, eight or nine months or a year, you find out it was the wrong case, of course, it’s too late to go back to seek for some other cause ... because in many cases, people have short memories.”

Alibek said he didn’t buy the claims of FBI profilers who think the anthrax attacks were orchestrated by a patriotic American who wanted to warn Americans about the danger of bioweapons. He said those who concocted the anthrax mail attacks were simply cold-blooded killers.

Noting that the FBI early on devoted most of its energies and resources to tracking a domestic perpetrator, Alibek said: “For example, if you investigate something immediately after it happened, people still have something in mind, what they saw, what they knew, and so on and so forth.”

374 posted on 05/02/2008 10:46:12 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

Ken thought supporters of the militant islamists were responsible. Ed purposely avoided transcribing and uploading that portion of the tape (and avoided mentioning the fact at the time).

Oops. I misspoke. Ken said no such thing. I was going from memory instead of actually checking the interview, and I was thinking that because he's supposedly a Right Winger that he'd blame Muslims. He didn't.

Here's the part of the conversation where I asked who he thought sent the anthrax letters:

Lake: This might be out of line, but do you have any idea who you think did it?

Alibek: If I knew I would probably already have the 2.5 million.

Lake: Me, too. (Laughter from both) I have an idea. I’ve talked with the FBI about it several times. Nothing has proven me wrong yet, so I’m still waiting for my 2.5 million.

Alibek: (laughing) Oh, that’s great.

I apologize for my misstatement.

Ed at

375 posted on 05/02/2008 10:58:16 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: EdLake
He didn't.

He didn't say it in my interview with him. But, based upon the NewsMax interview, I was evidently right in assuming that, because he's probably a Right Winger, he'd blame Muslims.

Ed at

376 posted on 05/02/2008 11:07:12 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

Ed, you turned me into the FBI you moron, all because we kicked you out of our email group for discussing private emails and labeling Richard The Follower. Your discussions with the FBI have all been idiotic to include the one based on the ABC report that the FBI said was baloney. Your suggestion that Failey was involved is and was always baseless.

377 posted on 05/02/2008 11:46:01 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]


A “bioevangelist” theory was always crock, especially as to October 6, 2001 mailing. There was no need to “sound the alarm”. It had already been sounded. Only someone not informed as to the intelligence about Zawahiri’s anthrax planning would credit a bioevangelist theory.

“Bioterrorism: Next Threat?”, Time Magazine, September 24, 2001,8599,176066,00.html

“WHO warns of biowarfare threat,” MSNBC, September 24, 2001

David Siegrist, “The threat from biological terrorism,” CNN, September 20, 2001

“Crop-Dusters Thought to Interest Suspects,” Washington Post, September 24, 2001, A1

As an aside, in arguing that it is not feasible to disperse anthrax from cropdusters, Ed presumes he knows more than cropdusters than Michael Osterholm at UMn, where they have the only course of study on aerosol science. See Michael Osterholm’s 2000 book on subject with co-author NYT correspondent.

“U.S. Response: Washington Authorities Prepare for Biochemical Attacks,” Global Security Newswire, October 1, 2001

“Before Attack, U.S. Expected Different Hit: Chemical, Germ Agents Focus of Preparations,” Washington Post, October 2, 2001

“Over the past few years, elaborate multi-agency planning exercises with flashy names such as “Red Ex” and “Dark Winter” focused overwhelmingly on biological and chemical threats while experts urging preparations for a simpler, more conventional attack found it difficult to be heard.

Of the more than 201 federal planning exercises conducted in the late 1990s, two-thirds were aimed at defending the public against biological and chemical attacks, government records show, even as multiple studies concluded that bombings, hijackings and other low-tech missions were far more likely.”

Ed was entirely wrong about his belief — his assumption (unsupported by anything) — about Failey’s politics. He made the same reckless assumption about politics that proponents of a Zack Theory made about religion.

378 posted on 05/02/2008 12:31:51 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: EdLake; TrebleRebel

Zawahri’s intent to use anthrax against US targets was known to the USG but not Ed — and by December 2001 documents had been seized in Afghanistan that since 1999 Zawahiri had been moving toward his goal by infiltrating UK/US biodefense establishment. A female CIA analyst sounded the alarm in December 2001 upon finding the correspondence between Rauf Ahmad and Ayman Zawahir and email correspondence between Ayman and military commander Atef talking about the plan to use NGOs and Universities as cover.

1. “Islamic Jihad ‘Confessions’ Described,” London Al-Sharq al-Awsat, (FBIS translation) March 3, 1999

The first thread in this case came with the arrest of defendant Ahmad
Ibrahim al-Najjar in Albania, where he had fled after being sentenced to
death ***
Once al-Najjar was captured, members of the organization began to fall one
after another. He revealed the names of a large number of his partners
and gave detailed information about the support he got from the Islamic
Jihad Organization’s leaders, foremost among them Ayman al-Zawahiri,
‘Adil ‘Abd-al-Majid, and Tharwat Salah Shihatah, who lives in Britain.

Al-Najjar is among the 12 defendants accused of membership in the Jihad
Organization who were extradited from Albania to Egypt last July.

Nonconventional Weapons [subhead]

The most controversial point in the confessions of the defendants from
the Albanian fundamentalist group was the confirmation that pro-Bin-Ladin
elements had obtained germ and biological weapons by post at a cheap
price. Factories in the former Eastern Europe supply viruses that cause
fatal diseases, such as E-Coli and Salmonella, without checking the
identities of the purchasers. The important thing for them is payment of
the invoice in advance. One of the organization’s members secure an offer
to supply samples of anthrax gas [as published] and other toxic gases
from a factory in a Southeast Asian country. The germs were offered at a
price of $3,685, including shipping costs.

2. “Bin-Laden Men Reportedly Possess Biological Weapons,” Al-Sharaq al-Awsat, March 6, 1999 (FBIS/FTS 19990306000273)

[FBIS Translated Text] Confessions by defendants in the “Albanian Arabs”
case, which is being considered by the Egyptian Supreme Military Court at
Hykstap Base, northern Cairo, have revealed that elements loyal to
Bin-Ladin have obtained germ and biological weapons by post in return for
a small sum.

3. “Muslim Calls for Bio-Weapon Holy War.” Sunday Times , September 5, 1999

A MUSLIM cleric is running the risk of being deported after calling for attacks with biological weapons on west-ern targets. Omar Bakri Muhammad, a refugee and father of seven living in north London, has emerged as the extreme voice of international Muslim fanaticism. He is a friend of Abu Hamza, the mullah with metal claws for hands, who was linked to the Britons imprisoned in Yemen on terrorist charges.

In an open letter read out in mosques across Britain and published on the internet, Bakri called on Muslims to rise up in a jihad, or holy war, against America and its allies.

Bakri, who has claimed disability benefit and income support, addressed his call to Osama Bin Laden, the terror-ist suspected of bombing two American embassies and murdering 256 people. Bakri invited Bin Laden to “aim your weapons at occupying forces”.

4. “Cleric Urges Osama to Launch Biological War Against West,” Hindustan Times, September 6, 1999

“The paper also reported that the letter of Omar Bakri to Bin Laden was being studied by the Home Office. One official was quoted saying, ‘We do not discuss individual cases, but the Home Secretary has powers to refuse entry or deport nationals if he is satisfied that a person’s presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good.’

Omar Bakri’s recent utterings have been particularly fanatical. “’sing any biological weapons in self-defence is, in Islam, permissible, and I believe that we are currently operating under a defensive jihad... obviously we regret what happens to people but there are always people who are war casualties...’”

5. “Terror alert on anthrax,” The Sunday Age, April 6, 2000

“Confirmation to The Sunday Age from intelligence sources that bin Laden associates recently bought the deadly anthrax and plague viruses from arms dealers in Kazakhstan comes as Australian authorities prepare for the massive task of securing the Olympics from terrorism.”

6. Undated typed correspondence from Pakistan scientist Rauf Ahmad to Ayman Zawahiri (produced under FOIA)


7. Earlier undated handwritten correspondence from Pakistan scientist Rauf Ahmad to Ayman Zawahiri (and associated notes) (produced under FOIA)

“To expertize our project [redacted] should be involved in the transportation of items and during this period I will make the purchase. We both do not want to involve a third person in this matter.”

The correspondence was discussed in SCIENCE in 2002 but Ed didn’t notice.

379 posted on 05/02/2008 12:50:14 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]


An entire Amerithrax investigative squad (there were two investigative squads and one forensic science squad) was devoted to the theory and yet Ed never even read the stories let alone linked them at his website purporting to be about the investigation.

1. “No Return Address: Who Is Mailing Letter Bombs to America?” TIME, January 13, 1997,9171,1120662,00.html

“Among their top priorities, however, is looking into one of Leavenworth’s 1,867 inmates: Mohammed Salameh, who is serving a life sentence for his involvement in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City that killed six people and injured more than 1,000. Salameh is also linked to Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind Egyptian cleric convicted of conspiring to blow up the United Nations and several other New York landmarks.”

2. “Ex Us soldier admits embassy bombings,” BBC News, October 20, 2000

3. “Bacterial envelope mailed to minister,” Medicine Hat News, February 1, 2001

4. “Risk Assessment of anthrax threat letters,” Defence R&D Canada, September 2001

5. FBI 302 Interview Statetment of Ali Al-Timimi shortly after 9/11 (not yet made public)

6. “Terrorist Investigation Heads To Local Library,” Clickondetroit, October 5, 2001

Was that Canadian detainee Jaballah, the brother-in-law of Shehata, in charge of special operations?

It is a FACT that the terrorists have gone to the local library to research using anthrax as a weapon more often than Ed.

7. “Bin Laden group ‘has bio-weapons,” BBC News, October 9, 2001

8. “J.LoAnthrax Connection?” E! OnLine, October 9, 2001

By not reading Al Qaeda articles, Ed did not appreciate that Ramzi, who Tenet says had a CBRN role, used “Jenny” as code.

9. “British say Bin Laden Probably Has Acquired Bio, Chemical Agents; May Lack Means of Delivery,” Investor’s Business Daily, October 10, 2001

Despite the widespread consensus Bin Laden probably had anthrax, Ed argues AQ merely had an interest in acquiring anthrax.

10. “Cheney: Reasonable to assume anthrax cases linked to terrorists,” CNN, October 12, 2001

Cheney has never changed his view.

11. Safar al-Hawali, “Open Letter of Sheikh Safar Hawali to President Bush, October 15, 2001

Al-Hawali had been on the telephone with Al-Timimi, for example, on September 19, 2001 and September 16, 2001.

12. “Shift, Officials Look Into Possibility Anthrax Cases Have bin Laden Ties,” New York Times, October 16, 2001

13. “Gorbachev: Terrorist using anthrax,” CNN, October 16, 2001

14. “Link Suspected in Anthrax and Hijackings,” New York Times, October 19, 2001

15. “Newsweek Poll: Bin Laden to Blame For Anthrax,” MSNBC, October 20, 2001

16. “Did bin Laden buy bioterror? 1999 testimony says he did,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 21. 2001

17. “Gephardt thinks anthrax, terror attack linked,” CNN, October 23, 2001

If you believed US-based supporters of AQ was responsible, Ed reasoned it was because you were conservative. When it is Ed’s approach that is poiltical. (That’s an Obama bumper sticker on my car).

18. “Osama bought a batch for 10G,” New York Post, October 24, 2001

19. “Bin Laden Bought Anthrax, Coli and Salmonella, Aide Tells Court,” Mirror, October 25, 2001

20. “Al-Qa’ida bought anthrax spores, claims informer: Egyptian Connection,” The Independent, October 25, 2001

21. “Suspected hijacker may have transported anthrax,” AFP, October 25, 2001

22. “Bin Laden’s Biological Threat,” BBC, October 28, 2001

23. “Anthrax preparation indicates homegrown origin,” New Scientist, October 29, 2001

24. “Anthrax is ‘second wave’ of terrorism: Bush’s radio address,” Reuters, November 4, 2001

25. “Al Qaeda Sites Point to Tests of Chemicals,” New York Times, November 11, 2001

26. “Bravado and blood in Taliban territory,” U.S. News & World Report, November 12, 2001

27. “An al Qaeda operative at Fort Bragg,” Raleigh News & Observer, November 14, 2001
Understanding history has nothing to do with politics, Ed, it has to do with history.

28. “Scientists: Taliban took interest in lab that researches anthrax,” Associated Press, November 21, 2001

29. “Bin Laden’s Allies; An Investigation in Egypt Illustrates Al Qaeda’s Web,” New York Times, November 21, 2001

30. Kathy Gannon, “Taliban Showed Interest In Anthrax Research Lab. Scientists Say An Official Paid Frequent Visits,” Boston Globe, November 22, 2001

31. “Chilling evidence in the ruins of Kabul,” Economist, November 22, 2001

32. “Sketches of anthrax bomb found in Pakistani scientist’s office,”, November 28, 2001

33. “2 Pakistanis Linked to Papers on Anthrax Weapons,” New York Times, November 28, 2001

34. “Pakistan: Scientists Questioned About Anthrax Plans,” Global Security News, November 28, 2001

35. “Germ Weapon Plans Found at a Scientist’s House in Kabul,” New York Times, December 1, 2001

36. Press Release, “Terrorist Sleeper Cells: A U.S.-Based Al Qaeda ‘Sleeper Cell’ Was Poised to Launch a Post-Sept. 11 on a Major Washington Target; Would-Be Terrorists Went Underground or Fled U.S. Evidence Indicates Al Qaeda Had Russian Help Developing Anthrax; Al-Zawahir Believed Involved in Bin Laden’s Biological Weapons Program, “ Newsweek, December 9, 2001
This is an especially important one to read.

37. “Al Qaeda: Anthrax Found in Al-Qaeda Home,” Global Security Newswire, December 10, 2001

38. “FBI interviews Iowa State U. international students,” University Wire, December 11, 2001

39. “Al-Qaeda: New Evidence of Chemical and Biological Weapons Pursuit,” Global Security Newswire, January 2, 2002

40. “U.S. Says It Found Qaeda Lab Being Built to Produce Anthrax,” New York Times, March 23, 2002

41. “Al Qaeda-Anthrax Link?,” CBS News, March 23, 2002

42. “Report Linking Anthrax and Hijackers Is Investigated,” New York Times, March 23, 2002

43. “US says al-Qaeda weapons lab found,” BBC News, March 24, 2002

44. “Hijacker’s lesion deepens mystery,” Baltimore Sun, March 24, 2002

45. “Anthrax II: Officials Examine Sept. 11 Hijacker’s Connection to Disease,” Global Security News, March 25, 2002

46. “Spore Traces Found in Afghan Laboratory,” Myers Says,” Global Security News, March 26, 2002

47. Anthrax: Experts Debate Possible New Sept. 11 Connectionm Global Security, March 29, 2002

48. “Official: Unusual coating in anthrax mailings,” CNN, April 11, 2002

49. “A Sophisticated Strain of Anthrax,” Newsweek, April 15, 2002

50. “Al Qaeda’s Anthrax: Osama bin Laden behind the mail attacks?” Technology Review, April 16, 2002

51. “FBI ‘Amerithrax’ Investigation Focus Misguided, Commentator [David Tell] Says,” Global Security News, April 24, 2002

52. “Remember Anthrax?: Despite the evidence, the FBI won’t let go of its ‘lone American’ theory,” Weekly Standard, April 29, 2002

53. Jonathan Rauch, “Does Al Qaeda Have Anthrax? Better Assume So,” National Journal, June 1, 2002

54. “Anthrax: Look for International Terrorist Sources, Columnist [Rauch[ Says,” National Journal, June 4, 2002

55. Congressman Mike Pence, “Request for Update on FBI Anthrax Investigation,” June 11, 2002

56. “Their Faraway Eyes; In LAX Case, As In Anthax, FBI Averts Its Gaze,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 14, 2002

57. “Who Is Syed Athar Abbas?” Weekly Standard, July 17, 2002

58. “Anthrax: FBI Searches Homes of 15 People,” Global Security News, August 16, 2002

59. “Lab Suggests Qaeda Planned to Build Arms, Officials Say,” New York Times, September 14, 2002

60. “The Man Behind Bin Laden,” The New Yorker, September 16, 2002

61. “F.B.I. to question suspect in Malaysia,” New York Times, September 18, 2002
The FBI should explain why it took them 9 months to interview Yazid Sufaat. That is incredibly lame, Director Mueller.

62. “Alibek Doubts FBI Claims on Hatfill,”, October 3, 2002

63. “Top Pakistani doctor released,” BBC News, November 19, 2002
“His brother said the doctor had faced allegations that he’d supplied anthrax to al-Qaeda and the Taleban.”

64. Ross E. Getman, “Al Qaeda, Anthrax and Ayman: means, opportunities, motive and modus operandi,”, November 20, 2002

Because Ed wasn’t even reading the material, he missed the article that named the scientist helping Ayman infiltrate UK biodefense establishment that first appeared in 2002.

“Pakistan Security Authorities Arrest Doctor, Relatives for al-Qa’ida Links,” The News, December 20, 2002
(I believe this is the article I first learned the name of the Pakistani scientist helping Ayman but don’t have a link; the article, I believe, explained that the raid on the Khawaja compound followed from a string that stretched from the orthopedic surgeon Aziz above to PCSIR scientist Abdur Rauf).

380 posted on 05/02/2008 1:11:41 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 981-987 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson