So maybe the government had a good case against Bruce Ivins. Maybe he actually did it.
But even if they are right, there are still a couple of really big questions that must be answered.
For one, what about Stephen Hatfill? If the FBI had an unstable scientist with "delusional thoughts" and "paranoid" ideas, why was Hatfill still a person of interest after all these years? Maybe that's why the government settled a $6M law suit filed by Dr. Hatfill to clear his name. It would be so embarrasing to have this kind of stuff come out in open court.
The other thing is the FBI was going to indict Ivins. As Jacob Hornberger at the Future of Freedom Foundation notes:
Doesn’t that mean federal courts? Doesn’t that mean the Bill of Rights? Doesn’t that mean the presumption of innocence, right to counsel, right to be free from self-incrimination, protection from cruel and unusual punishments, right to bail, exclusion of evidence acquired by torture, coercion, or illegal searches, right to confront witnesses, right to summon witnesses, a public trial, and trial by jury?
For 7 years we've been told our courts and civil justice system are inadequate to handle terrorism cases. Yet Bruce Ivins was accused of killing 5 people and injuring many more by deploying a biological WMD on American soil and the FBI thought the courts would work just fine in his case.
You make sense of that, cause I can't. Maybe it's because "Bruce Ivins" is a better name than "Salim Hamdan".
And that McCain snark I promised you? An earlier version of the MSNBC story (since removed) noted that Ivins had degrading ideas about women. I wonder if they were this degrading: