Serious doubt cast on FBI’s anthrax case against Bruce Ivins

by Glenn Greenwald, Salon

…  yesterday, the National Academy panel released its findings, and it produced a very unpleasant surprise for the FBI (though it was entirely unsurprising for those following this case).  As The New York Times put it in an article headlined “Expert Panel Is Critical of F.B.I. Work in Investigating Anthrax Letters”:  “A review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s scientific work . . . concludes that the bureau overstated the strength of genetic analysis linking the mailed anthrax to a supply kept by Bruce E. Ivins“; while the panel noted that the genetic findings are “consistent” with the claim that Ivins mailed the letters and can “support” an association, the evidence is far from “definitive,” as the FBI had long suggested.  The report, commissioned by the FBI, specifically concluded that “the scientific link between the letter material and [Ivins'] flask number RMR-1029 is not as conclusive as stated in the DOJ Investigative Summary.”  This morning’s Washington Post article — headlined:  “Anthrax report casts doubt on scientific evidence in FBI case against Bruce Ivins” — noted that “the report reignited a debate that has simmered among some scientists and others who have questioned the strength of the FBI’s evidence against Ivins.”

… It is hard to overstate the political significance of the anthrax attacks.  For reasons I’ve described at length, that event played at least as much of a role as the 9/11 attacks in elevating the Terrorism fear levels which, through today, sustain endless wars, massive defense and homeland security budgets, and relentless civil liberties erosions.

… That there’s so much lingering doubt about who was responsible for this indescribably consequential attack is astonishing, and it ought to be unacceptable.  Other than a desire to avoid finding out who the culprit was (and/or to avoid having the FBI’s case against Ivins subjected to scrutiny), there’s no rational reason to oppose an independent, comprehensive investigation into this matter.

[read the rest, here]

Panel casts doubt on FBI scientific evidence in anthrax case

(So, the FBI did not have enough evidence to convict Bruce Ivins for the anthrax attacks. In fact their entire case was circumstantial according to a new study.)

from Raw Story

An independent panel of scientists has determined that the FBI did not have enough scientific evidence to produce a conviction in the case of the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people.

The National Academies of Sciences released a review Tuesday of the science used in the investigation. The $1.1 million report, which was commissioned by the FBI, concluded that the man accused in the case, Bruce Ivins, could have carried out the attacks, but the science alone did not prove it.

In October and September of 2001, letters containing anthrax killed five people and infected 17 others. Recipients included NBC News, The New York Post, Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT).

Even after over 600,000 investigator work hours spent by the FBI’s “Amerithrax Task Force,” the case against Ivins was largely circumstantial.

[read the rest, here]

False Flag Terror Coming to South Korea?

by Scott Creighton

After failing to provoke North Korea into retaliating for South Korea’s highly provocative live-fire drills in the disputed waters in the Yellow Sea this past Sunday, South Korean officials have claimed that the North’s remarkable show of restraint was simply “political posturing”, and now they fully expect large-scale “terrorist” attacks on their own civilian population centers to be carried out by the North in stealth.

In order to defend themselves from this possibility, South Korea is going to “strengthen” their intelligence services, like the CIA or the FBI.

If that doesn’t scare the shit out of every single South Korean, I don’t know what would.

Continue reading

Bruce Ivins’ attorney calls for case to be re-opened

(The 92 page report issued recently by the FBI relied heavily on conversations Ivins had with “a witness close to the suspect”. That “witness” was Jean Duley, the woman I and many others have written extensively about. She got paid by the FBi to set Ivins up then led him in carefully scripted secretly recorded phone conversations, on behalf of the FBI, while she was supposedly acting as his counselor in group meetings he was court ordered to attend. It was that betrayal that angered Ivins which was then used by the FBI to insinuate that Ivins was going to attack Duley.)

by Tina Redlup, BPW

An attorney for the alleged anthrax killer Bruce Ivins has said that he does not believe that the case against Ivins should not be closed.

“There’s not one shred of evidence to show he did it,” Paul F. Kemp, Ivins’ attorney, told AOLNews.com.

Continue reading

John Kiriakou Unwittingly Exposes Brian Ross as an ABC News “Mockingbird”

by Scott Creighton

The other day I posted an article about why I think Brian Ross should be fired from ABC News.

Time and time again Brian Ross has not only ended up on the wrong side of every single important issue since 9/11, but he also has a disturbing tendency to rely almost exclusively on unnamed sources to support his arguments (arguments that are almost always on the side of the CIA backed imperialist agenda). 1. The Iraq connection with the anthrax attacks (wrong, Mr. Ross), 2.  illegal use of torture as a justifiable and “useful” practice (wrong again, Mr. Ross), 3.  Iran having enough material to make a nuclear weapon by 2009 (so, so wrong, Mr. Ross), and finally what I pointed out as his latest forray into his imperialist collaborations… 4. the president  and possibly the CIA has the right to kill U.S. citizens at will (apparently this is a “law” that George W. Bush just made up after 9/11… but Mr. Ross fails to point out the root of this assumed presidential authority in his recent article).

You might start to think that Brian Ross is nothing more than the CIA’s man at ABC with all these pro-imperialist agenda positions Mr. Ross has been taking over the years. You think that might be possible? Is Brian Ross nothing more than a well-dressed over-paid Mockingbird? Inquiring minds want to know.

Continue reading

Anthrax War and the Peace Prize Winner

by Scott Creighton

As the Peace Prize winner ranted on about how wonderful and necessary it is to continue the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive, unilateral, elective warfare for “preventative” reasons against nations that “might” someday pose a threat of some kind (existential maybe?) or not, his administration had just refused to sign on to the Land Mine Ban treaty ensuring another couple years with the indiscriminate killers and at least a few more limbless children.

But as disturbingly ironic as that is, it’s actually the “feel good” story the week when compared with another little political development that took place.

You see, the Peace Prize winning Obama administration also refused to support UN Weapons inspections of biological warfare labs all across the world. It would seem that Obama doesn’t want UN weapons inspectors looking at our biological weapons programs?  Now who does that sound like?  I wonder why that is.

 “While the United States remains concerned about state-sponsored biological warfare and proliferation, we are equally, if not more concerned, about an act of bioterrorism, due to the increased access to advances in the life sciences,” she added, stressing the importance of bolstering the treaty.

However, the new US administration is still against an additional protocol that would authorize international inspections of biological weapons sites.

The Obama Administration will not seek to revive negotiations on a verification protocol to the Convention,” said Tauscher.

“We have carefully reviewed previous efforts to develop a verification protocol and have determined that a legally binding protocol would not achieve meaningful verification or greater security,” she added.

At BWC talks in 2001, the Bush administration scuttled negotiations for such a protocol, saying that intrusive checks could compromise US security and trade secrets.  Global Research

Here’s a great film called Anthrax War. It’s about the biological warfare industry. 

See if you can wrap your head around this: after the anthrax attacks of Sept. 2001, and we now know that the anthrax came from a strain created in our labs and probably weaponized in one of our labs, instead of cranking down on all of these labs and creating more oversight in the production and studying of these deadly materials, they actually used the attacks to justify MORE PRIVATE CONTRACTOR LABS to do more work with the weaponised anthrax. 

$50 billion was poured into the industry of biological weapons as a result of the anthrax attacks. Much of it to private contractors with little or no oversight.

The justification of these programs is the following: they work to produce the most horrendous viral weapons they can think of, because they figure “the terrorists” just MIGHT do it as well, then they figure out how to create an antivirus or something to counter it (Kinda like the Cipro doses given to members of the Bush administration prior to the anthrax attacks?).  Well, I don’t know how many multimillion dollar labs they have in the caves in Afghanistan (guess they got plenty of room since those “command bunkers” that Colin Powell described to the UN didn’t exist) but my guess is, not many.  So what exactly is the purpose of all these private contractors creating horrific viral weapons at the tax-payers expense?

And now, the Obama administration wishes to keep UN inspectors from looking at what these PRIVATE CONTRACTORS are actually doing with these biological weapons. The same administration that seems to have embraced the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive, first strike warfare? As the film points out, millions of our troops have already been given anthrax vaccines and we have hundreds of companies, at the cost of billions of dollars, doing work with weaponized anthrax that our White House doesn’t want the UN to inspect?  Under the new pre-emptive warfare doctrine, when does defensive bioweapons research turn into offensive bioweapons production?  What kinds of warning signs are there?  Have we already missed them?

Part 1

Continue reading

Scientific impossibility: Did FBI get their man in Bruce Ivins?

By Deborah Rudacille  Baltimore Examiner

mrs-ivinsBruce Ivins was a cold-blooded murderer, a deranged psycho-killer, who in the fall of 2001, cooked up a virulent batch of powdered anthrax, drove to Princeton, N.J., and mailed letters loaded with the lethal mix to five news organizations and two U.S. senators.

At least, that’s what the FBI says.

The letters infected 22 people, killing five, including two Maryland postal workers.

The sixth victim of the madness was Ivins himself, a 62-year-old biodefense researcher at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, who committed suicide rather than face charges.

Case closed? Neatly wrapped up? Not so fast.

Continue reading

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 954 other followers