Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
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 ... 721-740741-760761-780 ... 981-987 next last
To: EdLake
THE FACTS

Dwight Adams being deposed under oath in the Hatfill verus FBI lawsuit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attack

Connolly: Earlier you testified that regarding the scientific aspect of the investigation there was information that was simply in your view too sensitive to share to the public about the particular characteristics of the organism sent in the mail. Is that correct?

Adams: In so many words, yes, sir.

Connolly: I don't want to mischaracterize it. If you think I've mischaracterized it in any way then, please, put your own words on it.

Adams: No, that's fine.

Connolly: Did you feel like you had the same restrictions in informing the senate, congress, or their staff in terms of what it is you would reveal to them about the particular characteristics of the organism that was sent?

Adams: As I've already stated there was specific information that I did not feel appropriate to share with either the media or to the Hill because it was too sensitive of the information to do so.

THE SPIN

http://cryptome.quintessenz.at/mirror/anthrax-powder.htm

Sources on Capitol Hill say that in an FBI background briefing given in late 2002, Dwight Adams, one of the FBI’s topranking scientists, suggested that the silica discovered in the Senate anthrax was, in fact, silicon that occurred naturally in the organism’s subsurface spore coats. To support his thesis, Adams cited a 1980 paper published by the Journal of Bacteriology—a paper that Matthew Meselson, a molecular biologist at Harvard University, says he sent to the FBI. The authors reported that they found silicon, the element, in the spore coats of a bacterium called B. cereus, a close cousin of anthrax.
741 posted on 05/18/2008 1:09:44 PM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 717 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
The anthrax was like jumping beans

So, what's your point? The average 8-year-old has seen how static electricity will affect dust particles, causing them to jump around. The fact that Geisbert was excited about it just proves that he was inexperienced in working with dry anthrax powders. His boss, General Parker, stated that he was.

Everything in this section of Preston's book shows that they were working with something they had never seen before -- dry anthrax powders.

They mistakenly believed it required some kind of "trick" to make the spores jump around.

You might claim this makes them "baffoons," but all it does is show that they are human. When confronted with something new in a time of crisis, they'll imagine all sorts of terrible things are going on.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

742 posted on 05/18/2008 3:14:34 PM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 740 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

Mr. Michael Sheehan’s view (”Crush the Cell”) that the Salafi-Jihadists were not behind the anthrax has as its core assumption that Al Qaeda and its supporters would seek to maximize casualties.

In contrast, Al-Timimi spoke on the need for a fiqh (law of islamic jurisprudence) for the times.

What is his view of the revisions of Dr. Sayyed Imam El-Sherif, Zawahiri’s former mentor?

Jihad reconsidered, June 2007
http://www.egypttoday.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=7430

The founder of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, IANA writer Kamal Habib, discusses the revisions here. (Al-Timimi’s was IANA’s celebrated speaker). Al-Timimi was on the advisory board of Assirat, for which Kamal Habib wrote before turning to also write for IANA’s publication when Assirat folded.

Kamal Habib explains:

“Shariah accepts such reviews, so long as the ijtihad [quest for knowledge or interpretation] does not touch the basic core of Shariah. The door of review must always be open because this is fiqh with real-life impacts — people can be killed because of it. A group may launch a jihadi operation that could lead to the death of innocents, and this is a very sensitive issue for them. Intellectually, they believe it is not acceptable to harm or kill a Muslim — or even judge them as being apostates.”

IG had previously undergone this process of revision that had led to a cease-fire after the public relations disaster of Luxor. Now EIJ is undergoing the process led b senior detained leaders. Kamal Habib describes the difference between the EIJ and IG.

“Al-Jihad is a secret group made up of compartmentalized cells. People in one Jihad cell did not know those in others. It had diversity in its thought and inclinations. Al-Jama’a was a hierarchical group with one leader and a patrilineal, spiritual cast where all people were channeled toward one aim. In Al-Jihad, most members belong to the same age group and there was no clear leader.”

To assume that all supporters of the Salafi-jihadists view fiqh in the same way is mistaken.

And if you don’t understand your enemy, you can’t crush the cell.


743 posted on 05/18/2008 5:38:03 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 742 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

1. “Blacklisted by the Bush government,” Salon, May 19, 2008
Spying on Americans without warrants, charges based on secret evidence, a small town divided by fear. Welcome to the world of Bush’s “specially designated global terrorists.”
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/05/19/al_haramain/

Comment: Al-Buthe says it is guilt by association. In another recent article, he says he was talking to Bin Laden’s sheik and Bin Laden’s brother-in-law Khalifa. Khalifa funded, through a charity, the operation known as “Bojinka.” KSM and Hambali, both involved in Bojinka, came to lead an Al Qaeda effort to weaponize anthrax for use against US targets. Obama had 75,000 supporters in Portland today rally. Steve Novick stands poised to beat the DNC-backed contender in the Oregon primary. Both candidates are as smart as they are strong supporters of civil rights. But by being smart, they can take a moment to digest the facts relating to Bojinka and how the historical example bears. If Al-Buthe wants his public relations effort to be persuasive in the long-run, he should tell us more about contact with Khalifa, Al-Hawali, and Al-Timimi. (The Salon article reads persuasively but is subject to dramatic revelations by the government, depending on what the facts turn out to be),

2. “Purported bin Laden message: Liberate Palestine,” May 18, 2008
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/18/bin.laden.message/?iref=mpstoryview

Comment: What are Dr. Al-Timimi’s views on Middle East peaceful coexistence with Israel?

Establishing a center for Islamic education, al-Timimi contacted Egyptian-born Salafi Abd al-Rahman Abd al-Khaliq and translated his works into English. A London charity, JIMAS, at whose conferences Ali would speak, published the translation of al-Khaliq’s book. The UK Islamic charity published the book calling on Muslims worldwide to “overthrow” peace treaties between Arab states and Israel. He would give talks such as “Our Need for a Fiqh Suitable to Our Time and Place” at the 1997 conference in London or his “Cure for the Cancer of Globalization” or “The Position of Palestine in Allah’s Revelation” at a JIMAS conference in London. (Fiqh relates to the principles of islamic jurisprudence to include those governing warfare). Thus, although he spoke in moderate and measured tones, he was not at all a man of peace.

Sheikh Abdur Rahman Abdul Khaliq’s book published by JIMAS, The Islamic Ruling on The Peace Process, argued that “the Jews are the enemies of the Islamic ummah (nation).” The US government’s National Commission for investigating the 9/11 attacks listed the book as one of a number of texts “espousing violence and hatred towards the west and reinforcing the victimization of Muslims at the hands of the infidels.” “The Jews have been the enemies of the Islamic ummah since the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be on him, began his call to Allah; and their hostility to this ummah will continue till the Day of Resurrection.” The 911 Commission’s website quoted from the book. “War or Jihad is an obligatory duty which remains in force till the Day of Resurrection.” According to another version of the book made available by a separate jihadist website (currently offline), Muslims are completely prohibited from making peace with non-Muslims “except when the kafir (infidel) is humbled and surrenders”— which is exactly what Al-Timimi taught his young wards at summer camp at the Frederick, Maryland park where the FBI drained the ponds.

Any peace made by Muslim countries with Israel contravenes the Quran and must be reversed, the book argues. The author commands Muslims to “firmly believe in the invalidity” of peace agreements with Israel, and calls on them “to work towards overthrowing these treaties.” The letters to the news organizations were mailed — on September 17 or September 18, either the day the Camp David Accord was signed in 1978 or the next day when it was approved by the Israeli knesset. Abdel-Rahman, the blind sheik, in the early 1980s, said: “We reject Camp David and we regret the normalization of relations with Israel. We also reject all the commitments that were made by the traitor Sadat, who deviated from Islam.” He continued: “As long as the Camp David Agreement stands, this conflict between us and the government will continue.” The letters to the Senators were mailed on the date Sadat was assassinated, October 6, for entering the peace treaty with Israel. Al-Timimi had hand-delivered the letter from Bin Laden’s sheik to every member of Congress on October 6, 2002, the first anniversary of the mailing to Senator Leahy and Senator Daschle. The government’s indictment alleged that after the space shuttle disaster in February, Timimi said the United States “was the greatest enemy of Muslims.”

When pundits rely on the targeting of Senator Leahy as pointing away from militant islamists as responsible for mailing, it may be that they were just unaware that he had the single most important role in appropriations to Egypt and Israel as head of the relevant Senate subcommittee overseeing the appropriations. Moreover, anyone who still doesn’t know of his important role on issues such as torture as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee was not paying attention to the repeated tense exchanges between him and former Attorney General Gonzales on the subject.


744 posted on 05/18/2008 7:29:10 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 743 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

This weekend Bin Laden used Israel’s 60th birthday to send a message. The anthrax letters are best viewed as the sending of a message such as the al Hayat letter bombs. Anthrax was sent on the date of the Camp David Accord and the related Sadat assassination (Armed Forces Day). Expert Michael Scheuer, formerly with the CIA, has said that Al Qaeda does not plan attacks around important dates, so far as the CIA can glean. But take Ayman at his word when he says he at least plans some of his messages around anniversaries

    The FBI Counterterrorism Division sent out a warning to law enforcement in August 2001 that Al Qaeda or related groups might attack on an anniversary date.

NLETS MESSAGE (ALL REGIONS)

8/1/01

A MESSAGE FROM FBI COUNTERTERRORISM DIVISION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

***

AT THIS TIME, THE FBI DOES NOT POSSESS ANY SPECIFIC INFORMATION INDICATING THAT INDIVIDUALS SYMPATHETIC TO THE EAST AFRICA BOMBERS OR USAMA BIN LADEN ARE PLANNING AN ATTACK TO COINCIDE WITH THE THIRD ANNIVERSARY OF THE BOMBINGS. HOWEVER, IN RECENT WEEKS, THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN TRACKING AN INCREASED VOLUME OF THREAT REPORTING EMANATING FROM GROUPS ALIGNED WITH OR SYMPATHETIC TO USAMA BIN LADEN. THE MAJORITY OF THIS REPORTING INDICATES A POTENTIAL FOR ATTACKS AGAINST U.S. TARGETS ABROAD; HOWEVER, THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ATTACK IN THE UNITED STATES CANNOT BE DISCOUNTED.

CONCLUSION: RECIPIENTS ARE BEING NOTIFIED AT THIS TIME BECAUSE THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY CONSIDERS ANNIVERSARY DATES AS A KEY THREAT INDICATOR. ALTHOUGH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SECURITY PERSONNEL ARE CAUTIONED NOT TO EXCLUSIVELY RELY ON SUCH DATES TO ‘PREDICT’ ACTS OF TERRORISM, ANNIVERSARY DATES CERTAINLY WARRANT INCREASED ATTENTION IN ROUTINE SECURITY PLANNING.

RECIPIENTS WHO RECEIVE OR DEVELOP ANY INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS MATTER SHOULD CONTACT THEIR LOCAL FBI OFFICE OR FBI HEADQUARTERS IMMEDIATELY.

  Zawahiri issued messages in 2004 on the third anniversary of 9/11 and then in 2005 on the third anniversary of the transfer of prisoners to Guantanamo. He said: “These days we are marking three years since the transportation of the first group of Muslim prisoners was sent to the Guantanamo prison. “ The Vanguards of Conquest did the same thing in the late 1990s. Just as Zawahiri’s thinking on weaponizing anthrax was gaining traction in emails to Atef in the Spring of 1999, the Vanguards invoked an anniversary relating to the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty and issued a statement marking its 20th anniversary. The group said at the time it was reiterating its enmity toward the US and Israel to mark the 20th anniversary of the signing of the treaty in March 1979. Signed on March 26, 1979, the Egypt-Israel peace treaty was a direct result of the Camp David Peace Accords, signed in September 1978.

    The first round of letters was sent to ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Post, and the publisher of the National Enquirer and Sun. Letters were sent to Senators Daschle and Leahy in a second batch, using a much more highly refined product. The mailing dates were of special importance to the man in its December 4, 1998 PDB that the CIA told President Clinton was planning the attack the US using aircraft and other means — Mohammed Islambouli, the brother of Sadat’s assassin. The letters to the news organizations were mailed — coincidentally or not — on September 17 or September 18, either the day the Camp David Accord was signed in 1978 or the next day when it was approved by the Israeli knesset. Abdel-Rahman, the blind sheik, in the early 1980s, said: “We reject Camp David and we regret the normalization of relations with Israel. We also reject all the commitments that were made by the traitor Sadat, who deviated from Islam.” He continued: “As long as the Camp David Agreement stands, this conflict between us and the government will continue.”

    At the time of the anthrax mailings, Sadat’s assassination and the Camp David Accord still dominated Zawahiri’s thinking. In Knights Under the Banner of the Prophet, Al-Zawahiri argued in the Fall of 2001 that the Camp David Accord sought to turn Sinai into a disarmed area to serve as a buffer zone between Egypt and Israel. He cites the peace treaty between the two countries, particularly issues related to the armament of the Egyptian Army inside Sinai. He claims that Egypt has restored Sinai formally but it remains in the hands of Israel militarily. Al-Zawahiri cites many examples about the US flagrant support for Israel, including the US pressure on Egypt to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty at a time when Israel publicly declares that it will not sign the treaty because of its special circumstances.

    Despite this, Zawahiri says, the United States sympathizes with Israel and overlooks its actions. This means that the United States has deliberately left the nuclear weapons in the hands of Israel to threaten its Arab neighbors. Al-Zawahiri argues in his book that the western states have considered Israel’s presence in the region a basic guarantee for serving the Western interests.

     The Wall Street Journal explained in August 2002: “Oct. 8 last year was Columbus Day, a public holiday on which mail wasn’t collected from letter boxes. That may mean the letters could have been posted as early as the Saturday before.” Taking into account the fact that there was no mail postmarked with a Trenton postmark on Columbus Day, October 8, the letter to Senator Tom Daschle postmarked October 9 may actually have been mailed October 6. (The FBI, of course, may know the date it was mailed based on information that has not been disclosed.) (Some press reports, however, suggest that they are considering that the mailing may have been at anytime during the October 6-October 9 period). October 6 was the day Anwar Sadat was assassinated for his role in the Camp David Accord. President Sadat was assassinated on the national holiday called “Armed Forces Day.” He was killed during an annual holiday parade which marks the day, October 6, 1973, that Egypt made a critical successful surprise attack on Israel during the 1973 war.

     ”Death to Pharaoh!” the young Army officer shouted. He and his confederates jumped off the truck shot into the reviewing stand where Sadat had been watching the annual parade. “I killed the Pharaoh, and I do not fear death.” Sadat’s detention of Muhammad Shawqi al-Islambouli had spurred his brother, Khalid, to seize an opportunity presented on short notice to assassinate Anwar Sadat. Kamal Habib, founder of Egyptian Islamic Jihad and writer for the IANA quarterly magazine, who spent 10 years in prison in connection with the assassination, told academic Fawaz Gerges: “It was not a well-coordinated operation, and it succeeded by a miracle.” A street was named after Khalid Islambouli in Iran, with Iran having been upset at Egypt for granting the Shah safe haven. After leaving Egypt in the mid-1980s, Muhammad Islambouli operated in Pakistan recruiting Egyptian fighters for the war in Afghanistan, and headed a branch of Bin Laden’s Maktab al-Khidmat (‘Bureau of Services’) in Peshawar. Muhammad Islambouli was the subject of the December 4, 1998 Presidential Daily Brief — numerous motorcycles and related vehicles, complete with helicopter hovering overhead — titled “Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks” explaining that Bin Laden planned an attack on the US involving airplanes and that the motivation was to free the blind sheik Abdel-Rahman and a dissident Saudi sheik.

     US Postal employee Ahmed Sattar, in a 1999 interview, said of Sadat’s assassination: “ I felt good. It was a shock to me at first because I never expected the pharaoh to be assassinated in front of his army. Sure, the pharaoh, yes. And but really, after absorbing the shock, I said, “Well, that was well done.”

     The aide to blind sheik Abdel-Rahman explained: “What the Western mentality does not understand that your measurement is different — your measurement of good and bad. Yes, President Sadat was a media star as what you said. Civilized, smoking a pipe, always referred to Barbara Walters as “my friend Barbara,” and “my friend Carter” — they were all his friends. But what did he do to the normal man in the slums of Cairo or in upper Egypt? He deceived them. When he signed the peace treaty with Israel, he promised, “This will be the end of suffering. Things will change dramatically for the Egyptian people.” He promised democracy, freedom, and people believed him.”

    In his Fall 2001 Knights Under the Banner of the Prophet, Zawahiri explained that the US support for Israel (at Egypt’s expense) was well-illustrated by the historic 33-day airlift to Israel after this October 6 attack. He argues that the US support for Israel made the difference between success or failure for Egypt. Al-Zawahiri describes how the United States shipped weapons, ammunition, and tanks to Israel for 33 days, with the goal being to compensate Israel for its war losses and to swiftly upgrade the combat capabilities.

    He explained in his Fall 2001 book: “The animosity to Israel and America in the hearts of islamists is indivisible. It is an animosity that has provided the ‘al-Qa’dia’ and the epic of jihad in Afghanistan with a continuous flow of ‘Arab Afghans.’” Regarding the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, Zawahiri adds: “Whoever examines the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty will realize that it was intended to be a permanent treaty from which Egypt could not break loose. It was concluded in an attempt to establish on the ground, by force and coercion, a situation whereby it would be difficult to change by any government hostile to Israel that comes after Al-Sadat.” The militants were especially angry that Sadat had not fully implemented shariah law.

     Complicating consideration of the issue somewhere, on October 5, 2001, the shura member of EIJ and former head of Bin Laden’s farm in the Sudan, Mahjoub, had his bail denied on October 5. Mahmoud Mahjoub was second in command of the Vanguards of Conquest. A letter containing nonpathogenic bacteria had been sent in late January 2001 threatening use of mailed anthrax to the immigration minister signing his security certificate. Mahjoub was bin Laden’s farm manager in Sudan — al-Hawsawi, KSM’s assistant with the anthrax spraydrying documents on his laptop, kept the books.

The CIA and FBI analysts should have pored over translations of the journal Al-Manar Jadeed published by the Ann Arbor-based Islamic Assembly of North America from 1998 - 2002 by writers based in Cairo. It mainly concerned Egyptian politics and planned the strategy based on all that had ever gone on before. There was a change in tone between the first piece by Gamal Sultan and the second installment. The first (before his letter to Abdel-Rahman) urged a pluralistic tolerant approach to differing views while the second issue (after his letter to Abdel-Rahman) contained his piece that seems to have resorted to the familiar intransigent neo-Salafist view. Analysts should pay special heed to the terms dar al-harb (abode of war), dar al-salam (bode of peace) and dar al-’ahd (abode of the treaty). The religious doctrines were applied to the relationships between Islamic and non-Islamic countries. What the liberal and leftist antiwar activists who have rallied to support IANA defendants and al-Haramain defendants like al-Buthi do not realize is that the central belief of these Salafists is that Israel must be destroyed and there can be no peace with Israel. The Camp David Accords are central to the beef they have with the US. The neo-Salafists are not at all peace-loving. It’s just that the public relations debacle of the reckless invasion of Iraq played right into Bin Laden’s hands.

    The 2005 bombing in Egypt at a Sinai resort was on July 23, which is Revolution Day, a national holiday in Egypt celebrating the Egyptian revolution.  It commemorates the 1952 overthrow of King Farouk’s monarchy, led by Gamal Abdel Nassar.  Perhaps a holiday weekend was chosen in order to maximize the number of casualties.  The bombing last year at Taba resort in Egypt was on October 7.  

In September 2006 video, upon the 5-year anniversary of 9/11, Zawahiri explained:

“Among the most prominent of these conspirators are the rules of Egypt, the Arabian Peninsula and Jordan and the traitors in Iraq who shade themselves with the cross of America, the Great Satan... [For these regimes] the slogan ‘death to America, death to Israel’ has gone to be replaced by ‘rule from America and peace with Israel.’”


745 posted on 05/19/2008 2:43:12 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 744 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

I see on his webpage Ed is still on a quest to understand issues that were explained by scientists at the time of the mailings.

In an article he does not link,

“ST. LOUIS SCIENTIST’S RESEARCH MAY HELP EXPLAIN THE SPREAD OF SPORES:
Tina Hesman Of the Post-Dispatch.  St. Louis Post - Dispatch.  St. Louis, Mo.:Nov 11, 2001.  p. B.1 

ANTHRAX Tina Hesman reports on biotechnology for the Post-Dispatch.

***
While most experts who study anthrax confess that they are stymied by how big a threat a single letter has posed, one St. Louis University scientist’s research on dust could sweep away some of the confusion.

The research of Roger Lewis, an industrial hygienist at SLU, is aimed at learning how children and other susceptible people are exposed to allergens and lead, and how to clean up those harmful substances. Lewis’ rearch into the way dust particles travel may aid the understanding of the anthrax exposures.

***
Bioterrorism researchers have never studied how spores are released when a letter is opened, Clements said. No one knows how long the spores stay in the air, or how they move about the room, he said.

But Lewis has been studying how tiny particles circulate and sometimes hang in clouds. He also knows why the powdery mixture in the letters contained silica — the stuff that makes up sand and is used as a drying agent. Silica helps keep the spores from sticking together so they can fly about the room more easily.

Lewis adds powdery white silica to bags of dust sucked from carpets all around St. Louis. Silica lubricates the tiny particles of dust that Lewis and his assistants layer onto carpet squares in a basement lab at the Anheuser-Busch Institute.”


746 posted on 05/19/2008 2:57:25 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 745 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:LXh_KDyxHZIJ:www.stls.frb.org/publications/ar/2001/pages/text_only.html+%22Roger+Lewis%22+silica&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=27&gl=us

“Adapting to New Threats

Last October, Dr. Roger Lewis listened intently to a radio report about the anthrax spores enclosed with a letter addressed to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle.

The report mentioned that the anthrax was mixed with a substance called silica. The next day, Lewis read that the head of the laboratory examining the letter did not know why the letter contained silica. Lewis did.

An industrial hygienist and associate professor of Environmental and Occupational Health at Saint Louis University’s School of Public Health, Lewis often uses silica in his experiments with materials like lead, dust mite allergens and cat allergens. He studies how these particles accu-mulate on surfaces and become dispersed through the air, how people come in contact with them, and what are the most effective ways to remove them.

Recalling the events of last October, Lewis says: “I phoned Greg Evans, the head of the bioterrorism center at SLU, and I told him that I know why that letter contained silica. It’s because silica is a drying agent. I have used it for years to keep dust airborne. It keeps particles aerosolized and prevents them from clumping. It works fantastic.”

To Lewis, the presence of silica in the Daschle letter indicated a highly sophisticated perpetrator whose intent was for the spores to spread easily and cause as much harm as possible. Evans reported Lewis’ information to the FBI.”

Ed rather that quoting such research such as discussed in this explanation above, argues:

“The idea of coating spores to make them more “flyable” is absolute and total nonsense. It’s beyond that. It’s ridiculous and absurd. It’s just plain STUPID. *** coating spores makes them HEAVIER, and therefore LESS FLYABLE.”

Dr. Roger Lewis knows all about things being less floatable due to their added weight (such as dust with lead). Ed should link relevant articles on the issue if he is going to belabor the issue.


747 posted on 05/19/2008 3:14:02 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 746 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

errata —

Muslim American Society, “State Secrets,” April 24, 2008
http://www.masnet.org/views.asp?id=5050

“None of the lawyers for the charity who have seen the document would describe its contents. But Soliman al-Buthi and the two Washington lawyers, Asim Ghafoor and Wendell Belew, agreed to tell me what they were discussing on the telephone during March and April of 2004, when the surveillance appears to have taken place.”

“I asked whether Buthi might have mentioned any defendants who could have been of interest to U.S. intelligence. Buthi, Belew, and Ghafoor all volunteered the same names: Safar al-Hawali and Salman al-Auda, two radical clerics who have been publicly praised by Osama bin Laden; and Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, a Jidda businessman who was bin Laden’s brother-in-law and onetime best friend.”

Al-Buthi’s connection is ambiguous based on this article alone and so I overstated things in a post above. We know, though, that Al-Timimi was actively in contact with and working, for example, with al-Hawali. Ali spoke to him by telephone on 9/16/2001 and 9/19/2001. (On the latter date, he spoke to him at 11 a..m. EST)


748 posted on 05/19/2008 3:55:07 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 747 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

Who murdered Khalifa? Who has his laptop, cell phones and papers?

J.M. Berger, “Khalifa Murder Investigation Marked By Confusion, Unanswered Questions,” Intelwire, March 20, 2007
http://intelwire.egoplex.com/2007_03_20_exclusives.html

J.M. Berger, “U.S., Interpol Tracked Khalifa In Days Before Madagascar Murder,” Intelwire, February 16, 2007
http://intelwire.egoplex.com/2007_02_16_exclusives.html


749 posted on 05/19/2008 4:46:38 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 748 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK; EdLake; TrebleRebel

Ed,

Can you quote copiously from William Clark’s “BRACING FOR ARMAGEDDON”? He discusses all of these issues, including the anthrax attack, and assumes that an Al Qaeda supporter could not get his hands on the strain or know-how. Illustrating once again the perils of publication, Oxford University now has outdone even Harvard University which published the ridiculous “anthrax as fantasy” book on Amerithrax. Professor Clark just is not informed that the scientist working with Bin Laden’s sheik was 15 feet of the inventor of the Alibekov formula and the deputy commander of USAMRIID — who had the biggest biodefense award in history. Not informed that he was speaking in Summer of 2001 alongside the “911 imam” and jihad recruiter at conferences in London and Canada. Not aware that he was actively working with Bin Laden’s sheik. Academia has not distinguished itself in the area of true crime. Now if you are an immunology or epidemiology professor, it might pay to read outside your field before publishing on the subject of counterintelligence or true crime analysis. Is he right in making Leitenberg’s point about the greater risk of death from an influenza pandemic or cancer or flood or famine? Absolutely. Is he right in making Ebright’s point that proliferation just leads to a greater risk? Absolutely. Indeed, Ayman says they only turned to weaponizing anthrax because they kept being told by USG officials how easy it was to weaponize it. But is he right in not educating himself on the small matter of the infiltration that provably occurred here? No. And the failure is a failure of epidemiology as well. Milton Leitenberg’s chapter in the 2007 book, on the other hand, after discussing the limitations of Al Qaeda’s program in 1999, at least has him focusing on the effort to recruit specialists from the West. Professor Clark is interviewed in “Bioterrorism in Context: How and why the threat of bioterror has been so greatly exaggerated.” Ed, note especially with his discussion of the forensics. How does your discussion square with his treatment of the science?
http://www.miller-mccune.com/article/355


750 posted on 05/19/2008 5:51:00 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 749 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

Ed, it is available at the University of Wisconsin.

In the DC area, you can read it at GWU, Georgetown, University of Maryland, College Park, George Mason or the Library of Congress.


751 posted on 05/19/2008 6:01:37 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 750 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

For those interested in the counterterrorism/true crime matter, a more fruitful new book to read is ARCHITECT OF JIHAD by Brynjar Lia about Abu Mus’ab Al-Sur.


752 posted on 05/19/2008 6:13:56 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 751 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel

Alibek is at pp. 151, 153, 155, 177, 197

Ayman is just 3 pages away at p. 158.

American Type Culture Collection (at GMU campus) is down the hall at 37, 111-113, 162

Amerithrax is throughout at 32-35, 42, 44, 67, 110, 113, 117, 119, 169-170, 179

AMRIID is at 25, 35, 37, 42, 66, 153

Oops. No, Al-Timimi. Ali is not in the building.

Now, we’ve got Matsumoto at 29 but that is Chizuo, not Gary.


753 posted on 05/19/2008 6:50:57 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 752 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

The must-read is:

Reviews of Architect of Global Jihad: The Life of Al Qaeda Strategist Abu Mus’ab al-Suri by Brynjar Lia are here:
http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-70030-6/architect-of-global-jihad/reviews

See also back cover blurbs -
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/023170030X/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop?v=search-inside&keywords=anthrax&go.x=7&go.y=14&go=Go%21

Index
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/023170030X/ref=sib_dp_srch_pop?v=search-inside&keywords=anthrax&go.x=7&go.y=14&go=Go%21

From Columbia University Press:

Brynjar Lia reveals al-Suri’s skill for maximizing the political impact of jihadi violence. Lia provides the first and only English translation of two key chapters from al-Suri’s Global Islamic Call and exposes his methods for building successful, autonomous cells for “individualized terrorism.”


754 posted on 05/19/2008 7:28:18 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 753 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

Excerpts from Clark’s book -

1.
Some excerpts from Clark’s book bearing on TrebleRebel and EdLake narrow focus:

on Page 167:
“... is an important finishing step, which can be accomplished in a variety of ways, including coating the spores with electrostatic agents that cause them to repel one another and not form clumps. Single spores and small clumps of a few ...”
2.
on Page 170:
“... individual spores or very small clumps of spores prior to dissemination, although they appear not to have been treated with electrostatic agents. ...”


755 posted on 05/19/2008 7:52:52 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 754 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

on Page 170:
“... individual spores or very small clumps of spores prior to dissemination, although they appear not to have been treated with electrostatic agents. ...”

Is he talking about the attack anthrax here? Does he give a source on no additives?


756 posted on 05/19/2008 8:17:25 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 755 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel

William Clark describes the Dark Winter exercise from Summer 2000

“In what looks like a potential coup, the FBI has worked with Russian police and intelligence agencies to arrange a ‘sting’ operation that netted a senior Al-Qaeda operative as he was attempting to purchase fifty kilograms of plutonium in Russia. This individual had also made inquiries about obtaining certain biological warfare weapons produced some years earlier by Soviet Union laboratories. The United States needs to craft a careful plan about how much of this to make public and how much to keep under wraps. The Russians are already beginning to leak information that many on the U.S. side want kept classified.”

***

“The security advisor signals for the TV to be turned off. He sits down, and the President stands up and looks around the table.

“In view of the potential extreme urgency of the situation, I am setting tonight’s agenda temporarily aside. I talked just a few minutes ago with Secretary of the Health and Human Services, who confirms that we do indeed have smallpox in Oklahoma City. In fact the latest word I have is that there may be cases up in Pennsylvania and in Georgia as well, although these cases have not yet been confirmed to me by the Secretary. *** We are considering this a bioterrorist attack on the United States.”

Question: Did Ali Al-Timimi know the Dark Winter exercise scenario by reason of being at Discovery Hall of the DARPA-funded Center for Biodefense and sharing a fax and maildrop and water fountain with the leading anthrax scientist and the former deputy commander of USAMRIID? Did Hatfill know the Dark Winter exercise scenario? Did Berry?


757 posted on 05/19/2008 8:20:05 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 756 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

I just corresponded with Clark, he has a website - it’s VERY interesting what he just told me about the spores, that he got from insiders.

http://www.wrclarkbooks.com/


758 posted on 05/19/2008 8:49:52 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 757 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
Is he talking about the attack anthrax here? Does he give a source on no additives?

756 posted on 05/19/2008 8:17:25 AM PDT by TrebleRebel

it’s VERY interesting what he just told me about the spores, that he got from insiders.

758 posted on 05/19/2008 8:49:52 AM PDT by TrebleRebel

Hmm. Those 32 minutes between your posts must have involved a really intense and detailed discussion with Mr. Clarke. Care to share?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

759 posted on 05/19/2008 9:32:53 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 758 | View Replies]

To: EdLake; TrebleRebel

Ed,
Do NOT email the fellow. It’s actually what you’ve been telling TrebleRebel for years and TrebleRebel is just pulling your leg.

TrebleRebel,
This ARCHITECT OF GLOBAL JIHAD looks extremely meaty. Why don’t you read a book and get some education.

1. Introduction 7
Sources on al-Suri’s life 21
Who is Abu Mus’ab al-Suri? 22
...
4. Afghanistan: Land of Holy War 44
The Road to Afghanistan 44
From a Syrian to a Global Jihad 46
With Abdallah Azzam and Osama bin Laden 47
Training and Combat 50
From Military Instructor to Jihadi Intellectual 52
The Rise of the Egyptian Jihadi Trend in Peshawar 54
Introducing ‘A Global Islamic Resistance’ Concept 62
Leaving Peshawar 64
5. Behind Enemy Lines 66
Algeria: His Next Jihad 67
The GIA and al-Qaida in Sudan 75
...
6. A Media Jihadi in Londonistan 1994-97 87
In the Service of the Algerian GIA 89
Bin Laden’s Media Agent 93
Al-Suri’s Film on Channel 4 95
Facilitating CNN’s bin Laden Interview 96
...
Adil Abd al-Bari: a Fellow Jihadi journalist 120
Saad al-Faqih and Khalid al-Fawwaz: Acquaintances inside the Saudi Camp 122
...
8. In the Service of the Taleban 131
Leaving Londonistan 131
Taleban: the True Islamic Emirate 134
The Afghan Training Camps 140
The Ghuraba Training Camp 142
Teaching Jihadi Terrorism 147
Moroccan jihadis, Abu Layth al-Libi and Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi 150
Writer and Journalist 154
Al-Suri and the al-Qaida Leadership 157
A Secessionist Leader? 165
Weapons of Mass Destruction 168
The September 11th Attacks 176
9. A 5 Million Dollar al-Qaida Fugitive 179
New Books, a Reward, and Global Fame 179
His Activities and Whereabouts 182
Al-Suri, Al-Zarqawi, and the Iraqi front 185
Masterminding Terror? 187
A Message to the Europeans, July 2005 191
Al-Suri’s Testament 192
The Capture of Al-Suri 192
10. ‘The Global Islamic Resistance Call’ (Key excerpts) 195
11. Bibliography and Sources 196
Jihadi Online Sources in Arabic 196
Abu Mus’ab Publications - Compilations 196
Abu Mus’ab’s lectures, speeches and interviews 196
Abu Mus ‘ab al-Suri’s books and booklets 197
Selected Communiques and Articles 198
Miscellaneous 199
Abu Mus’ab al-Suri’s Official and Unofficial Websites 199
Selected list of relevant Jihadi websites, 2005-2006 200
English translations of excerpts of al-Suri’s writings 200
Court and police documents 201
al-Qaida Documents Reportedly Uncovered in Afghanistan 201
Selected reports by the Comisi¿n parlamentaria de Investigaci¿n del 11-M 202
Interviews 202
Islamists 202
Journalists and researchers 203
Investigators and counterterrorism analysts 203
Books and articles 203


760 posted on 05/19/2008 9:53:31 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 759 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 721-740741-760761-780 ... 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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