I am warning you now. I'm going to rant. If you don't like rants, if you think the anthrax story is "done and over", if you really hate being asked the "hard questions"; do not read this and move on to another diary.
I was all ready to, and did, examine all the facts only to find out something else tonight; something that should get everyone else as pissed off as I am.
ARRGGGG... onward... through the fog...
Ok, so anyone who has been reading my diaries knows that after I left the military I went into law enforcement. Yes, I have background in investigating crimes and for the past 6 1/2 years I've been in utter amazement how utterly Keystone Koppish the FBI has been handling the anthrax attacks after 9/11.
In April 2007, this diary was posted about how the Dept. of Justice and FBI were stonewalling Congress on the anthrax attack investigation:
On December 11, 2006, Holt and a bipartisan group of Congressmen requested that Attorney General Gonzales "direct the FBI to provide Congress with a comprehensive briefing on the status of the five year-old anthrax investigation." The DOJ refused.
So, why would the FBI refuse to give briefings? Well, maybe because what we were told from this diary:
"After sensitive information about the investigation citing Congressional sources was reported in the media, the Department of Justice and the FBI agreed that no additional briefings to Congress would be provided," wrote Eleni Kalisch, assistant FBI director for Congressional affairs, to Holt in what appears to have been the first official recognition of leak allegations.
This briefing shutdown has left some Members furious with the FBI, leading them to publicly and privately conclude that the investigation clearly has stalled.
Ok, so, in 2003, the FBI gave Congress a briefing and some sensitive stuff got leaked out. No problem! I'm with ya here!
What neither of those diaries explains, however, is why one of the premier investigatory agencies in the world ran around like the Keystone Kops for 6 1/2 years. This diary, however, might:
"I believe the FBI knows exactly who was behind these terrorist anthrax attacks upon the U.S. Congress in the Fall of 2001, and that the culprits were US government-related scientists involved in a criminal US government biowarfare program," Boyle said.
Dr. Francis A. Boyle is a Professor at the University of Illinois law school. Dr. Boyle went on to say:
Although only a "handful" of scientists had the ability to perpetrate the crime, the culprit among them may never be identified as the FBI ordered the destruction of the anthrax culture collection at Ames, IA., from which the Ft. Detrick lab got its pathogens ... and that destruction of the Ames anthrax "appears to be a cover-up orchestrated by the FBI."
We then got treated to this front page story about how the suspect killed himself:
A top government scientist who helped the FBI analyze samples from the 2001 anthrax attacks has died in Maryland from an apparent suicide, just as the Justice Department was about to file criminal charges against him for the attacks, the Los Angeles Times has learned.
Bruce E. Ivins, 62, who for the last 18 28* years worked at the government's elite biodefense research laboratories at Ft. Detrick, Md., had been informed of his impending prosecution, said people familiar with Ivins, his suspicious death and the FBI investigation.
Of course, we all know the FBI was going after Dr. Hatfill:
WASHINGTON -- The former Army scientist who was the prime suspect in the deadly 2001 anthrax mailings agreed Friday to take $5.82 million from the government to settle his claim that the Justice Department and the FBI invaded his privacy and ruined his career.
Dr. Steven J. Hatfill, 54, who was called a "person of interest" in the case by then-Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft in 2002, said that label and repeated leaks of investigative details to the media damaged his reputation.
So... let us revisit the known facts:
a) the anthrax used in the attacks was sent to the Ft. Detrick, MD, lab for analysis, and, some if not all samples were ordered destroyed.
b) emails obtained from scientists at Ft. Detrick, MD, give us cause to believe that the original anthrax that was used in the attack could have been made by one of their colleagues at the same lab who was tasked to examine the anthrax used in the attacks.
c) that 3 months prior to an election where the Democratic Party is poised to take the White House and widen their majorities in both the House and the Senate the next prime suspect who is about to be indicted commits suicide.
d) the suspect was "tipped off" that he was under investigation and about to be indicted by someone.
e) the DoJ "settles" with Dr. Hatfill, the person whose career was destroyed by leaks and innuendo, 5 months prior to the election after playing Keystone Kops for the past 6 1/2 years.
f) the suspect who was about to be indicted dies, and there will be no autopsy of the body, and, the FBI is contemplating closing the case with no known follow-up investigation.
Color me totally fucking pissed at this point! There is absofuckinglutely no reasonable explanation for why this investigation was handled this poorly for this long. I posted this in the comments section of Plutonium Page's story and I'll repost it here on how quickly this investigation should have gone:
- They had samples of the anthrax used and those would have been examined within days. Once the samples were identified as having come from a U.S. laboratory, the pool of the number of suspects that could have committed the crime would be drastically reduced.
- FBI field offices near each potential source laboratory could identify possible suspects in their own area laboratory, and, administer polygraph examinations to each individual in a matter of a few months. The exact source of the anthrax, whether determined by polygraph or sample examination itself, would be discovered. Every scientist and lab technician who works in these labs do so with a security clearance issued by the government. These people's jobs depend on that clearance, and, given the nature of the crime (terrorist attack using bio-weapon), they can be compelled to take a polygraph exam, or, lose their jobs when their clearance is subsequently revoked, or, be suspended pending further inquiry.
- Once the exact laboratory where the anthrax originated is established, any and all employees who had access to the anthrax at that lab could be interviewed and given polygraphs to narrow down which individuals could have been involved in the crime and identify your possible suspects in days. And yes, polygraphs can be used in some cases as evidence (note: while some states have absolute bans on the use of a polygraph in court, it is not universal. Also, a judge can order the polygraph exam be admitted as evidence into the case.)
Admissibility - Polygraph results (or psychophysiological detection of deception examinations) are admissible in some federal circuits and some states. More often, such evidence is admissible where the parties have agreed to their admissibility before the examination is given, under terms of a stipulation. Some jurisdictions have absolute bans on admissibility of polygraph results as evidence and even the suggestion that a polygraph examination is involved is sufficient to cause a retrial. The United States Supreme Court has yet to rule on the issue of admissibility, so the rules in federal circuits vary considerably. The Supreme Court has said, in passing, that polygraph examinations raise the issue of Fifth Amendment protection, [Schmerber v. California, 86 S. Ct. 1826 (l966).] The Supreme Court has also held that a Miranda warning before a polygraph examination is sufficient to allow admissibility of a confession that follows an examination, [Wyrick v. Fields, 103 S. Ct. 394 (1982).] In 1993, the Supreme Court removed the restrictive requirements of the 1923 Frye decision on scientific evidence and said Rule 702 requirements were sufficient, [Daubert v. Mettell Dow Pharmaceutcals, 113 S.ct. 2786.]Daubert did not involve lie detection, per se, as an issue, as Frye did, but it had a profound effect on admissibility of polygraph results as evidence, when proffered by the defendants under the principles embodied in the Federal Rules of Evidence expressed in Daubert, see [United States v. Posado (5th Cir. 1995) WL 368417.] Some circuits already have specific rules for admissibility, such as the 11th Circuit which specifies what must be done for polygraph results to be admitted over objection, or under stipulation, [United States v. Piccinonna 885 F.2d 1529 (11th Cir. 1989).] Other circuits have left the decision to the discretion of the trial judge. The rules that states and federal circuits generally follow in stipulated admissibility were established in [State v. Valdez, 371 P.2d 894 (Arizona, 1962).] The rules followed when polygraph results are admitted over objection of opposing counsel usually cite [State v. Dorsey, 539 P.2d 204 (New Mexico, 1975).] Primarily because of Daubert, as well as the impact the other cited cases have had, polygraph examination admissibility is changing in many states. Many appeals, based on the exclusion of polygraph evidence at trial are now under review by appellate courts.
Now, if you think these three above steps would, in this case, take 6 1/2 years, you are sadly mistaken. Here, let boil that down to you; within 6 months, the exact origin of the anthrax and a very small pool of suspects should have been established with one, or two, suspects becoming primary suspects immediately.
Did that happen?
One suspect, Dr. Hatfill, who had worked at the laboratory in Ft. Detrick, MD, had been identified as a suspect early. So, if we give the FBI the benefit of the doubt that it identified Dr. Hatfill from the MD lab very early it verifies all I have said so far. The problem that comes into play is Bruce Ivin's. When was he identified as a suspect? Was it at the same time as Hatfill? If so, why was only information leaking about Dr. Hatfill alone? If he wasn't identified as a suspect early on, when was he identified as a suspect? Remember that the court case initiated by Dr. Hatfill started in 2003 and five years later the government settled a damage award. So, I think we can reasonably guess that Ivin's wasn't even a suspect in 2003 when the information about Hatfill was being leaked.
Color me unconvinced that the FBI took this case "seriously" during its investigation so far. We are talking about a bio-weapons facility on a U.S. military installation right after 9/11 when security procedures and precautions were at their highest level. It's not like someone could simply walk into this lab at night and walk off without there being some evidence of after-hours entry. Even if we go on the theory that the samples were removed during normal work hours, there is still inspection and record keeping requirements to consider. Anything kept would have to be inspected and a physical accounting made of everything in storage (just as there is for munitions) on a periodic basis. You'd have security camera film, who gained access when, polygraph, among other ways to garner evidence.
There is also no reasonable explanation for why the initial anthrax samples were ordered to be destroyed since, as evidence, it would be paramount to the prosecution of the case during a trial. Chain-of-Custody and storage of the samples till then is easily done as they would simply be stored in a secure, approved place (any lab rated to handle that material) and the chain-of-custody closely monitored. By destroying the samples, the FBI possibly sabotaged any case they eventually tried to bring to trial.
Yet, after all of this...
We are to believe that for 6 1/2 years, the FBI couldn't find any evidence that would lead them to make an arrest until 3 months prior to the election when they had available to them; wiretapping, the Patriot Act's "sneak and peek" provision, polygraph, physical samples, handwriting analysis, etc?
You know that upcoming election: where the Democrats are poised to take the White House, extend their majority in both houses of Congress, would take over control of the Dept. of Justice, and would have the executive power to force the FBI's investigation (and the ability to remove anyone, including the Director of the FBI)... that election... and suddenly after 6 1/2 years of fiddlefucking around... one suspect (Hatfill) that is exonerated gets paid and the second suspect (Ivin's) gets "tipped off" he's about to be indicted and commits suicide.
We are left to believe that this case, which has been run by the Keystone Kops for 6 1/2 years, suddenly gets "solved" by a suicide, gets "closed" and pushed into oblivion 3 months prior to the election.
I'm not the only person who isn't convinced. The Washington Post raised questions about this as well, then, they scrubbed the story, only to re-raise questions.
No retraction or correction notice --- unethically, in our opinion --- was given for WaPo's odd swaperoo. The Friday WaPo story we linked to that day --- which was dated "Friday, August 1, 2008; 5:46 PM" and reported that that the purported "Anthrax Killer", Bruce E. Ivins "had no access to dry, powdered anthrax" at his U.S. Army bioweapons lab in Fort Detrick, MD --- was simply swapped out with a completely different story in its place on the matter, dated Saturday, August 2, 2008. The same URL was used for both stories, but the Saturday story didn't have the bulk of the reporting which quoted named experts and colleagues questioning Ivins' ability to even carry out such an attack.
After noticing the swap/excising of the original Friday story (hat-tip BRAD BLOG commenter Bruce Sims), we were set to run a story focusing on the spiked report, when we then checked today's paper to see that they were leading the Sunday edition with a story that raised many of those same questions from the Friday story again.
Hmmm... why would WaPo post that and then yank it? Were they "informed" that he did have access?
I'll add, for those who cry out, "what evidence do you have that the investigation may not have been run correctly?", this:
SIBEL EDMONDS SPEAKS TO UK SUNDAY TIMES: SAYS U.S. OFFICIALS INVOLVED IN RELEASE OF NUKE SECRETS TO TURKEY, PAKISTAN, IRAN, OTHERS, POSSIBLY EVEN AL-QAEDA
Former 'Gagged' FBI Whistleblower Alleges Pentagon, State Department Officials Overheard Receiving Payoffs in Exchange for Classified Info; Crimes Covered Up at Highest Levels of Government
U.S. Media Scooped Again, Failed to Air Claims After Offer of Disclosure by Edmonds in Recent BRAD BLOG Exclusives... [UPDATED SEVERAL TIMES]
-- By Brad Friedman
In late October, Edmonds had told The BRAD BLOG she was prepared to reveal the information to any major U.S. broadcast media outlet, after feeling that she had exhausted all efforts to see the disturbing information properly investigated by U.S. Government agencies. She had, in fact, spent years in classified interviews with high-ranking officials from the FBI, DoJ, 9/11 Commission and both houses of the U.S. Congress, in hopes of seeing accountability brought concerning the issues of national security, which the DoJ's own Inspector General had described as "credible," "serious," and "warrant[ing] a thorough and careful review by the FBI."
and this(also about Sibel Edmunds):
Even though she followed all appropriate procedures for reporting her concerns up the chain of command, Edmonds was retaliated against and fired. After her termination, many of Edmonds' allegations were confirmed by the FBI in unclassified briefings to Congress. More than two years later, in May 2004, the Justice Department retroactively classified Edmonds' briefings, as well as the FBI briefings, and forced Members of Congress who had the information posted on their Web sites to remove the documents.
The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) sued the Justice Department and Attorney General John Ashcroft in June 2004 claiming the retroactive classification of Edmond's testimony was a violation of the First Amendment. That lawsuit is still pending, although Ashcroft and the Justice Department have moved to dismiss the suit.
and this (the OIG report on Sibel Edmunds):
We found that many of Edmonds' core allegations relating to the coworker were supported by either documentary evidence or witnesses other than Edmonds. Moreover, we concluded that, had the FBI performed a more careful investigation of Edmonds' allegations, it would have discovered evidence of significant omissions and inaccuracies by the co-worker related to these allegations. These omissions and inaccuracies, in turn, should have led to further investigation by the FBI. In part, we attributed the FBI's failure to investigate further to its unwarranted reliance on the assumption that proper procedures had been followed by the FBI during the co-worker's hiring and background investigation, which did not include a risk assessment, contrary to FBI practice. We also found that Edmonds was justified in raising a number of these concerns to her supervisors. For example, with respect to an allegation that focused on the co-worker's performance, which Edmonds believed to be an indication of a security problem, the evidence clearly corroborated Edmonds' allegations.
and this (concerning the FBI handling of an "asset"):
In April 2003, Smith and Leung were arrested. FBI Director Robert Mueller asked the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to review the FBI's handling of Leung and the performance and management issues relating to her case, and to recommend changes to improve FBI procedures and practices where necessary. The OIG's investigation revealed that the FBI did little or nothing to resolve the numerous counterintelligence concerns that arose during Smith's handling of Leung. This report describes the OIG's investigation and provides recommendations designed to address the flaws we identified, including the FBI's failure to consistently document concerns about Leung, its failure to follow up when concerns arose, and its willingness to exempt Smith from the rules governing asset handling.
and this (.pdf format that cites LA Times article at top)
January 6, 2005
DENVER -— The FBI agent who led the raid on the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant in 1989 charged the federal government Wednesday with deceiving the public about cleanup efforts at the facility and said plans for a national wildlife refuge there were irresponsible. "Public recreation at Rocky Flats is a foolish idea driven by politics, not by facts," said Jon Lipsky, who took early retirement from the FBI to speak out against the refuge. "It’s dangerous and scientists say they can’t make it safe."
Lipsky and other critics held a news conference Wednesday where they said the U.S. Department of Energy and the Justice Department had minimized the extent of radioactive contamination at the site to save money and not alarm local residents. Lipsky said radioactive ash, contaminated soil and water still posed hazards but were being ignored by the government. The 6,420-acre site is just west of Denver.
Federal officials deny the allegation.
Rocky Flats began making plutonium triggers for nuclear weapons in 1952. The FBI raided the facility in 1989 after reports surfaced of widespread radioactive contamination on the property. The FBI found numerous violations of federal antipollution laws including massive contamination of water and soil. The Department of Justice investigated but did not prosecute anyone from Rockwell International, which operated the plant for the government. Rockwell was fined $18.5 million.
Lipsky said the FBI muzzled him when he tried to discuss Rocky Flats and punished him with a transfer from Denver to Los Angeles after he testified before Congress in 1992 about the nuclear facility. He retired last week. A spokesman for the Justice Department was unavailable for comment.
and this (concerning FBI handling of informants):
By Shelley Murphy, Globe Staff | September 13, 2005
The US Department of Justice announced yesterday that the FBI has continued to violate informant guidelines adopted several years ago amid public condemnation over its mishandling of notorious Boston gangsters James ''Whitey" Bulger and Stephen ''The Rifleman" Flemmi.
A review of 120 confidential informant files at a dozen of the nation's FBI offices, including Boston's, found that agents failed to follow the rules in 87 percent of the cases, according to a 301-page report by Glenn A. Fine, the Justice Department's inspector general. The review was conducted between June and August 2004.
'These numbers are just extraordinary, and they're damning," said US Representative William D. Delahunt, a Quincy Democrat who participated in Congressional hearings investigating the FBI's relationship with Bulger and Flemmi.
''I think what they mean is legislation is now required to ensure compliance," Delahunt said yesterday. He said that he and US Representative Daniel E. Lungren, a California Republican and a fellow member of the House Judiciary Committee, will file a bill mandating that the FBI follow the guidelines and include sanctions for agents who do not.
The report cited agents' failure to report illegal activity by informants; failure to obtain authority to let informants engage in illegal activity such as buying drugs during investigations; failure to evaluate informants for suitability to work with the FBI; and failure to document when informants were deactivated, the report said.
The FBI is not the paragon of virtue some wish to believe. I, however, have no such delusions.
For the rest who cry, "what evidence that will hold up in a court of law do you have", I'll remind you that circumstantial evidence has sent people to death row:
Krone's original capital conviction was primarily based on circumstantial evidence, including inaccurate expert testimony claiming that bite marks on the victim matched Krone's distinguishing dental pattern. During his first trial, DNA evidence was not presented to the jury and test results obtained for Krone's second trial were inconclusive. Last year, defense attorney Alan Simpson secured a court order to test the physical evidence using the latest DNA technology. It was this test that vindicated Krone and was the basis for his release from prison on Monday, April 8.
Regardless, I'll agree with Plutonium Page... we don't need any "conspiracy theories" and with this case and I could come up with a few doozies... but, we can let the facts in this one speak for themselves... especially this fact that just came in:
Dozens of other researchers in Ivins' lab also had access to the type of Ames strain used in the attacks, the scientist said, meaning the DNA alone is not enough to prove his guilt.
Investigators have said they used other evidence to build the case against Ivins, including looking at who had access to the poison or the labs at the specific time it was mailed. Those details are expected to be spelled out in sealed court documents that are expected to be released this week if the Justice Department ends the investigation, possibly as early as Monday or Tuesday.
The scientist said the FBI knew the DNA evidence linked Ivins to the attacks for at least a year. However, prosecutors worried that because the genome technology was so new, it might be questioned and eventually thrown out if the case against Ivins ever went to trial. Researchers tested it for many more months to make sure its conclusions were reliable.
Hmmm... so, they "had evidence", but, were afraid to make the case, except, when they were going to make the case right before an election -- after running a clusterfuck for 6 1/2 years???? LMAO... righttttttttt.
Here, let me highlight this:
* The FBI couldn't get
enough evidence together to indict a suspect for 6 1/2 years... they had evidence and sat on it until
3 months prior to a Presidential election that they are bound to lose... and after 6 1/2
years of running a clusterfuck investigation and with
3 months till the election, they
finally thought they had
enough evidence to bring an indictment?
THAT speaks for itself!
This was a 6 1/2 year clusterfuck of an investigation (and, I'll repeat just for a select few) that reeks of a cover-up (note: for the asshats out there, notice I never speculate "of WHAT", "by WHO", and I make no "claims"). Frankly, I don't need to have shit scientifically examined before I sniff the air and say that it smells like shit to me.
It isn't like we haven't seen politically motivated cases being brought to trial during an election year... no... not at Gitmo... Seigelman... U.S. Attorney's being fired for not doing so... nope... rant now over...
UPDATE: (h/t to Jim P)
From WaPo:
Researcher Kept Security Clearance as FBI Closed In
On July 10, the day he was taken to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation, for example, Ivins spent part of the afternoon at a sensitive briefing on a new bubonic plague vaccine under development at the Army's elite biological weapons testing center, according to a former colleague who talked with him there.
Records that have surfaced since Ivins committed suicide last week show that Fort Detrick officials abruptly barred him from the base July 10, based on what a counselor called his deteriorating emotional condition. Until then, his security clearance gave him access to some of the most secure areas at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases, or USAMRIID. Months earlier, Ivins had become one of a handful of scientists regarded by federal investigators as the lead suspects in the unsolved killing of five people by mailed letters containing anthrax.
This answers a question; Ivin's wasn't even a suspect until late 2007/early 2008? Yet, the FBI knew that the Ft. Detrick lab was where the anthrax originated? Did I mention; CLUSTERFUCK?
It also brings up another question: Ivin's security clearance.
This is a scientist who worked at a government run research facility with a gov't security clearance. If he was unstable and making threats against people all the way back to 2000 as some "workers" have suggested, how did he keep his clearance (h/t again to Jim P)?
Keep in mind, we are talking an ARMY run research facility. Any complaints would have been forwarded by supervisor to ARMY law enforcement/intelligence for action. IF, in fact, Ivin's was making threats in 2000, his clearance would have been revoked then, and not on July 10, 2008 (per the WaPo article).
So, either; a) the "workers" are full of shit, b) the Army was aware of the threats and found him to be a non-threat letting him keep his clearance, or c) the "workers" never reported it to Army.
Caree Vander Linden, a spokeswoman for USAMRIID, said government rules bar her from discussing the security clearance of a specific employee.
"There are time-honored procedures to examine security clearances on a regular basis, to verify information provided by the security-clearance holder, and traditional steps to ensure that only the appropriate level of security access is granted, largely based on the nature of the person's government job," she said in an e-mail. It would not have been "unusual" for a scientist of Ivins's standing to attend a briefing on the unclassified plague-vaccine research program, she added.
This bullshit is a red-herring. What she is talking about are the routine recertifications of a clearance, not, when a situation arises that calls into question a persons ability to maintain his clearance.
Ivins himself had questioned the effectiveness of the fort's security procedures in interviews with reporters as long as six years ago. At the time of the anthrax attacks, only senior managers at USAMRIID were routinely required to obtain top-secret-level security clearances. Most scientists of Ivins's rank would be required to undergo a background check and would be cleared to see classified documents on a need-to-know basis, according to a former senior official at the lab.
The rules were tightened after 2001, with the addition of "biosurety" regulations that governed the handling of pathogens and required more extensive background checks for lab workers.
Ok, pardon me while I go... holyfuckingshit!!!... you have scientists working in an Army bio-weapons research center with anthrax who are not required to have anything more than a background check???? O>>M>>>G.
That means he was then cleared for his clearance in 2001 after the attacks, which means his security check for his clearance was total BS!!!
Did I mention: CLUSTERFUCK?