Posted on 02/19/2008 10:08:32 AM PST by TrebleRebel
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge says he will hold a former USA Today reporter in contempt if she continues refusing to identify sources for stories about a former Army scientist under scrutiny in the 2001 anthrax attacks.
At a hearing Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said that reporter Toni Locy (LOW-see) must cooperate with Steven J. Hatfill in his lawsuit against the government.
Hatfill is suing the Justice Department, saying the agency violated the federal Privacy Act by giving the media information about the FBI's investigation of him.
In addition to Locy, the judge is considering whether to find former CBS reporter James Stewart in contempt of a court order requiring the reporters' cooperation in the lawsuit.
Locy also is a former reporter for The Associated Press.
ping
Are there any good opinions / theories of who actually did this?
Sick’em Tiger.
Hmmm. James Stewart was the author of an investigative book about the Clinton’s and Whitewater, remember? It was titled “Blood Sport”.
“Are there any good opinions / theories of who actually did this?”
Ed Lake suggests that maybe some of the reporters made up their government sources, which is possible. I think some govt. lawyers suggested that.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i4wzN5qdVilu_CGqxNINcfwz2czwD8UTHO881
Judge May Hold Reporter in Contempt
By HOPE YEN – 18 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge said Tuesday he will hold a former USA Today reporter in contempt if she continues refusing to identify sources for stories about a former Army scientist under scrutiny in the 2001 anthrax attacks.
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton said reporter Toni Locy defied his order last August that she cooperate with Steven J. Hatfill in his lawsuit against the government. Walton indicated he would impose a fine until she divulged her sources, but that he would take a few more days to decide whether to postpone the penalty as she pursues an appeal.
The judge is also considering whether to find former CBS reporter James Stewart in contempt.
“I will order she provide the sources of information,” Walton said during a hearing, as Locy, dressed in black, looked grim and slowly shook her head in disagreement.
“I don’t like to have to hold anyone in contempt,” the judge added, but when it comes to cases where a person says his reputation was destroyed because of stories published about him, “the media has to be responsible.”
Both Locy, who is also a former Associated Press reporter, and her attorney, Robert C. Bernius, declined to comment after the hearing.
Walton did not immediately indicate the amount of the fine. Hatfill’s attorneys have asked Walton to initially fine Locy $1,000 per day and to prohibit media corporations from paying the fines for her to force compliance. The proposed daily fine would have increased to $2,000 after a week and continue to increase $1,000 every week.
In Stewart’s case, Walton said he would take a few weeks to consider the reporter’s claim that divulging his sources was no longer necessary since several law enforcement officials had already acknowledged talking to reporters in the case about information similar to what Stewart reported.
Hatfill, who worked at the Army’s infectious diseases laboratory from 1997 to 1999, was publicly identified as a “person of interest” in the 2001 anthrax attacks. He is suing the Justice Department, accusing the agency of violating the federal Privacy Act by giving reporters information about the FBI’s investigation of him.
Walton previously ordered five journalists to reveal all of their sources. Stewart and Locy refused, saying Hatfill was partly to blame for news stories identifying him as a suspect after his attorney provided details about the investigation.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Bernius also argued that Locy could not remember who gave her information specifically about Hatfill and that she should not be forced to disclose the names of roughly 10 FBI and Justice Department officials who spoke to her generally about the anthrax investigation.
That immediately drew a skeptical response from Walton.
“I’m not suggesting that Ms. Locy would not be truthful, but it would be convenient for reporters in this type of situation to say ‘I don’t remember’ and then be off the hook,” Walton said. “That would be one way to avoid the serious consequences of the law.”
Walton’s move is the latest in a handful of cases nationwide, most notably in Washington, in which reporters have been held in contempt for failing to reveal confidential sources.
In 2004, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson fined five reporters $500 a day each for refusing to identify their sources for stories about Wen Ho Lee, a former nuclear weapons scientist once suspected of spying. After Jackson postponed the fines pending appeals, news organizations including The AP eventually agreed to pay Lee $750,000 as part of a $1.6 million settlement of his privacy lawsuit against the government after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear appeals in the case.
More recently, last year nearly a dozen of Washington’s best-known journalists took the stand during the CIA leak criminal trial, most of them unwillingly under court order by Walton, to recount confidential interviews. In that case, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was sent to jail for 85 days after refusing to disclose her sources.
That would make two of us.
The best news I’ve heard in quite a while. Judge Walton doesn’t kid around, and it looks like he’s not going to put up with the bullcrap from the government-media complex for much longer.
What's your definition of "good"?
My analysis says the anthrax letters were sent by a scientist who lives and works in Central New Jersey.
The depositions make it clear that the nonsense about bloodhounds getting Dr. Hatfill's scent off the anthrax letters was MADE UP by the FBI as part of a "sting" operation to find out who was leaking confidential information to the media. They caught the top man in the DOJ's Washington Criminal Division in their "sting" after Newsweek printed the bogus story.
Jail the reporters.
It's called a drip. To find a leaker, you invent a drip. The drip is fake. You only tell one office or one person.
If the drip then makes its way into the public domain, then you have found your leaker.
Ed I’ll take your word for it the Louisiana Denny’s adventure was bogus,
But I’m pretty sure “special” dogs trained to use “scent packs” were brought from California to Washington D.C.
The daughter of the leaker represents microbiologist Al-Timimi pro bono against charges of sedition.
The Motive of the Amerithrax Leaker
http://www.bloggernews.net/113913
The Washington Post reports that the FBI suspects Al-Timimi of being involved in the anthrax mailings.
Sometimes the Fourth Estate is more focused on striking a pose in defense of the First Amendment than in actually exercising it.
Judge said there wasn’t a scinitilla of evidence against Hatfill.
Eric Lichtblau, “Reporter Held in Contempt in Anthrax Case,” New York Times, February 20, 2008
Not too surprising, considering that there isn't, and never was! The worst things anyone has on Hatfill is that he was prone to exaggeration and self-prmotion, and that he puffed up his resume'. I've known guys who were like that, but being like that doesn't make one a mass murderer.
Maybe the scum in the so-called mainstream media will finally take this hint from Judge Walton and stop putting out these little hit pieces against Hatfill implying that he's guilty and the government needs to charge him right away. And I know some of them out there are reading this thread.
I don’t thiink the harsh language is warranted (although NK should have called Dr. H before running the July 2, 2002 column).
The NYT reports that the Judge indicated:
“There’s not a scintilla of evidence to suggest Dr. Hatfill had anything to do with it.”
That’s tough talk in legalese suggesting summary judgment would be warranted on the issue — that there is no triable issue of fact on the subject.
The reporting in 2002 and 2003 is perfectly understandable, however, given the high level of the position making the leaks.
Dr. H does not have a particularly strong footing on the moral high road given, his lawyer says, he falsely claimed he had a PhD in gaining access to dangerous pathogens.
The key omission or mistake is that NK did not call or contact Dr. H before the July 2, 2002 article.
The journalists are in the business of news, not analysis. On the rare occasion they are allowed to engage in analysis, and their editors authorize a budget that permits them to dig into and investigate the facts, they should pick up the phone and be sure they are giving the other side a chance to provide their input and clear up misunderstandings or mistakes.
Five years later, if we as a public can’t overcome the mistake — when the CIA director himself has published a book saying the anthrax planning was in parallel with the planning for the Planes Operation — then we have only ourselves to blame.
Background:
Press Release, “Judge finds Locy in contempt in Hatfill suit,” The Reporters Committee Freedom of the Press, February 19, 2008
http://www.rcfp.org/news/2008/0219-con-judgef.html
“The Go-To Lawyer of ‘Northern Virginiastan,’ ABA Journal, September 2007
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/the_go_to_lawyer_of_northern_virginiastan/
Mary Beth Sheridan, “Hardball Tactics in an Era of Threats,” Washington Post, September 3, 2006; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/02/AR2006090201096.html
Joby Warrick, “Suspect and A Setback In Al-Qaeda Anthrax Case: Scientist With Ties To Group Goes Free,” Washington Post , October 31, 2006; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103001250.html
If we really had an independent investigative media in this country instead of a bunch of lazy, agenda-driven lowlifes, they would be trying to find the answer to the REAL question in the whole sorry Steven Hatfill saga.
And that question is: just exactly why did that lady Barbara Hatch Rosenberg specifically point the finger right at Hatfill for being the killer with absolutely no real evidence whatsoever to back it up? There has to be some reason for why this all happened, but I have yet to see anyone so much as even raise the question!
So?
The bloodhounds were used to help find out where Dr. Hatfill was when the FBI lost track of him while he was driving back to Maryland from a visit to LSU in Louisiana. At the time, the FBI had 24-7 surveillance on him, and the conspiracy theorists would have gone ballistic if they had known the FBI lost their tail. So, the FBI made up stories about what the bloodhounds were being used for.
It's all described in detail in my book and on my web site page HERE.
She and other conspiracy theorists were talking about the case, trying to figure out who they knew about who could have done it, and Hatfill's name popped up because he was a strong Bush supporter and had been in the news talking about how easy it was for a terrorists to cook up bioweapons in an ordinary kitchen. The Bush administration had shot down the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention just a month or two before the attacks, and the conspiracy theorists believed that the attack was a plot by the Bush Administration to show that their point of view was correct -- that terrorists don't allow inspectors to inspect their labs, so why should the U.S. government allow inspectors into government labs?
The conspiracy theorists checked into Hatfill and found all kinds of "evidence" which seemed to show that Hatfill was a rogue CIA agent working for the Bush administration. But the "evidence" was mostly just innuendo and rumor, with a lot of totally BOGUS information thrown in. They believed he worked out of a safe house in Maryland (which turned out to be some friend's condo), they knew he had obtained some biosafety cabinets (which he gave to the military for training, so that they'd recognize such things). They thought he was up-to-date on his anthrax shots. He wasn't. Hatfill was a friend of William Patrick III, who worked with anthrax during the Cold War, etc.
The question has not only been asked, it has been thoroughly answered. I have a three chapters about it in my book, and I have a web page about it HERE.
Your analysis on this point sounds to me completely plausible. It would be nice if some day in the future we saw this spelled out in detail in a "mainstream" media news outlet though, because that's still where most people get there information from.
And one would think the press themselves would have a vested interest in figuring out their own mistakes, so that we don't end up with more Richard Jewells and Steven Hatfills. But they seem to me to be far more interested in covering their own asses than they are in truth and fairness.
That's a big part of it. But much of it was also the result of confusion and mistakes made in the early days of the case. At one point, the media was getting "experts" to give their opinion on information that was totally wrong. So, it was garbage-in, garbage out, but it fit people's beliefs.
It would be nice if some day in the future we saw this spelled out in detail in a "mainstream" media news outlet though, because that's still where most people get there information from.
Right. My web site and my book go through the whole thing in detail, but I'm still just "a guy on the Internet." It means nothing until the media gets some "recognized expert" to say the same things.
I’m really not following you.
I think you agree the dogs were used. Hatfill, the wife of his former superior, each mentions encounters with the dogs.
The dogs were trained with the dubious “scent pack” procedure. The handlers even advertise them so, and they claim use in other cases.
I can believe that possibly aspects of the dog story were fabricated to smoke out leaks, such as the Louisiana Denny’s story.
But the scent pack dogs were used in DC. I’m not sure you think otherwise or not.
Judge Walton had some cautionary words for journalists on Tuesday, but he saved his harshest judgments for the unidentified officials who linked Dr. Hatfill to the anthrax investigation in the news media.
“There’s not a scintilla of evidence to suggest Dr. Hatfill had anything to do with it,” the judge said, yet the public notoriety has “destroyed his life.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/us/20anthrax.html
That’s some strong language!!
There were two main theories pursued by two separate squads.
One was a “bioevangelist” theory (e.g., Hatfill).
One was US-based supporters of Al Qaeda.
A Hatfill Theory was a bioevangelist theory. A bioevangelist theory was unsound. It was promoted by folks who didn’t know anything about Ayman Zawahiri , his plans to use weaponized anthrax against US targets, the jihadists’ threat in late January 2001 to use mailed anthrax (see early Feb. PDB) , or the al Hayat letter bombs. The jihadis threatened to use mailed anthrax if bail was not granted an imprisoned EIJ shura member, who had managed OBL’s farm. His bail was denied on October 5 and so they immediately sent the real deal. Ed is the most prolific proponent of a bioevangelist theory.
The first proponent of the bioevangelist theory in mainstream media was the very learned Professor Boyle. (He notes to me he was first, before his former colleague BHR etc.). He has been legal counsel to the PLO and counsel to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Has worked for the impeachment of President Bush. I doubt he knew anything about Ayman’s work with anthrax even though it was in the Arabic press. His being listed on all the terror watch lists, no doubt, is just the result of his political advocacy.
And if he's really the guy who's most directly responsible for wrecking Steve Hatfill's life by making people believe that he's a mass murderer, then he's a despicable lowlife gutter rat, and he should be ashamed of himself.
Professor Boyle tells me he was the first to promote a bioevangelist theory, but he notes that he has never suggested Dr. Hatfill as the candidate.
The FBI lost their tail on Hatfill.
They couldn't tell people that. The conspiracy theorists would have gone ballistic.
The FBI brought in the dogs to sniff around the places where Dr. Hatfill was or might have been during the period he was missing.
The dogs sniffed around the Denny's where Hatfill was last seen. They verified that they picked up the scent there.
They sniffed around William Patrick III's home and found nothing, verifying that Hatfill hadn't gone there for some nefarious purpose. (The conspiracy theorists believe Patrick and Hatfill were working together.)
The sniffed around Dr. Hatfill's storage locker in Florida, and found nothing. (Proving he hadn't gone there for some nefarious purpose.)
They sniffed around the places of other "persons of interest" and verified that Dr. Hatfill hadn't met with any of them.
Finally, because it's all just a game to the dogs and they need to be rewarded for playing a good game, they were allowed to "find" Dr. Hatfill in his apartment, and they were then given a treat for a job well done.
Comprendo?
Theoretically, bloodhounds are capable of sniffing around a highway off ramp and detecting that their quarry passed by. (The scent materials exit through open windows and via vents.)
The FBI also impounded the car that Hatfill drove back and forth to Louisiana, which confirms that it was all about their losing his tail. They needed to check the car, too, to see if he had done anything sinister during the period he had gone missing.
If this is true, wouldn't these reporters plead the fifth -- self-incrimination?
Presumably, the scent pack contained some item of Hatfill's clothing. It was a scent pack for Dr. Hatfill NOT for the anthrax mailer.
Self incrimination for what crime? Bad reporting? Is that a crime? If so, why aren't nearly all reporters in jail? Everyone makes mistakes from time to time.
Some of the depositions SHOW that the reporters made stuff up by making ASSUMPTIONS which weren't true. Also, one CBS report was revised by some low-level jerk before putting a different version on the Internet. He evidently just thought his version made a better story.
NOVEMBER 2001 : (ANTHRAX LETTERS INVESTIGATION : FBI ISSUES SUSPECT PROFILE ID-ING THE LIKELY ATTACKER AS BEING A SINGLE ADULT MALE, PROBABLY AMERICAN WITH A SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND, LAB EXPERIENCE, POOR SOCIAL SKILLS & A GRUDGE) In November [2001], the FBI issued a suspect profile identifying the likely anthrax attacker as a single adult male, probably an American with a scientific background, lab experience, poor social skills, and a grudge. - "Anthrax: Look for International Terrorist Sources, Columnist Says," By Jonathan Rauch, National Journal via "This week's Biological Weapons stories for Thursday, June 6, 2002. "
OCTOBER 2003 : (REPORT : ALL QAEDA WANTED TO BUILD A BIOWEAPONS PLANT IN INDONESIA) Hambali, also known as Riduan Isamuddin, also has told agents al-Qaida wanted to build a bio-weapons plant in Indonesia to produce weapons to deliver the deadly biological agent anthrax. He revealed that the Islamic network of terrorist cells known as Jemaah Islamiah had recruited American-trained scientist Yazid Sufaat to oversee the project. He has studied chemistry at California State University in Sacramento and is under arrest in Malaysia. -------- Terrorist Hambali tells all (al-Qaeda wanted to build bio-weapons plant in Indonesia ) The Sunday Times ^ | October 12 2003 | LINCOLN WRIGHT
MAY 2007 : (FORMER CIA DIRECTOR TENET BOOK "CENTER OF THE STORM" -- AL QAEDA RESPONSIBLE FOR 2001 ANTHRAX ATTACKS) CIA Director has always thought Al Qaeda was responsible. See Woodward’s quote from the NSC meeting. In his May 2007 book, he writes:
“Al-Qa’ida spared no effort in its attempt to obtain biological weapons. In 1999, al-Zawahiri had recruited another scientist, Pakistani national Rauf Ahmad, to set up a small lab in Khandahar, Afghanistan, to house the biological weapons effort. In December 2001, a sharp WMD analyst at CIA found the initial lead on which we would pull and, ultimately, unravel the al-Qa’ida anthrax networks. We were able to identify Rauf Ahmad from letters he had written to Ayman al-Zawahiri. Later, we uncovered [Yazid] Sufaat’s central role in the program. We located Rauf Ahmad’s lab in Afghanistan. We identified the building in Khandahar where Sufaat claimed he isolated anthrax. We mounted operations that resulted in the arrests and detentions of anthrax operatives in several countries.” “The most startling revelation from this intelligence success story was that the anthrax program had been developed in parallel to 9/11 planning. As best as we could determine, al-Zawahiri’s project had been wrapped up in the summer of 2001, when the al-Qaida deputy, along with Hambali, were briefed over a week by Sufaat on the progress he had made to isolate anthrax. The entire operation had been managed at the top of al-Qai’da with strict compartmentalization. Having completed this phase of his work, Sufaat fled Afghanistan in December 2001 and was captured by authorities trying to sneak back into Malaysia. Rauf Ahmad was detained by Pakistani authorities in December 2001. Our hope was that these and our many other actions had neutralized the anthrax threat, at least temporarily.” —Former CIA Director George Tenet in his May 2007 book Center of the Storm24 posted on 07/06/2007 5:17:40 AM PDT by ZacandPook
...Jamil Qasim Saeed Mohammed [* My note: See the BLEEDINGHEARTATTACK keyword, and the CIA plane deportation trick] was a Yemeni microbiology PhD student in his final year who had been flown out of the country on a private jet operated by the CIA in late October 2001. He had assisted Malaysian anthrax lab tech Yazid Sufaat in setting up a lab that was intended to manufacture anthrax.
Jamil Qasim Saeed Mohammed was indicted along with Boston cab driver Hijazi and others in connection with the earlier Cole bombing.
Al Qaeda anthrax lab technician Yazid Sufaat was arrested in December 2001 when he tried to sneak back into Malaysia. ...-———— “Zawahiri’s Plan To Obtain the Ames Anthrax Strain,” Ross E. Getman, Esq. - VIA 4/15/2005 Global Politician, http://globalpolitician.com/articleshow.asp?ID=612&cid=11
* Mohamed Mansour Jabarah aka Sammy: ... Jabarah served as the go-between Khalid [S] Mohammed in Karachi and US-educated anthrax researcher Sufaat in Kuala Lumpur. .—— “Zawahiri Anthrax,” From an internet forum : http://www.sunspot.net/cgi-bin/ultbb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=033050 , Posted by : Ross , Member # 22156 ; Anthrax, Al Qaeda, and Ayman Zawahiri, http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com
Wow.
Thanks much.
Verrrrrrrrrry interesting.
If you're unsure, you could always try and contact her and ask. She has an feature on her web page to let people contact her by e-mail.
Don’t forget that Ed generally inkoves the complete opposite meaning of what people write in plain English.
When Malkin quotes “there is not a scintilla of evidence against Hatfill” Ed reads this as “I think Hatfill did it”.
When Judge Walton says “from what I’ve seen there is not an arrest in sight any time in the future” Ed reads “an arrest is imminent”.
When Michael Mason says “we failed to reproduce the anthrax” Ed reads “we succeeded in reproducing the anthrax”.
A DIA source says that Saed Mohammed was mainly just involved in procurement of equipment from Karachi. As you note, he was rendered in December 2001. After Hambali was harshly interrogated in 2003, two technicians were captured. One was named Barq and one was named Wahdan. One was from Egypt and one was from Sudan. Extremely virulent anthrax, Suskind says, was found in Afghanistan from pre-911. Tenet says that the startling revelation was that the anthrax planning was done in parallel with the 9/11 planning. This makes the anthrax spraydrying documents on al-Hawsawi’s laptop especially significant as he was helping the hijackers with logistics from the UAE.
Here is background on what the FBI/CIA currently suspects:
Mary Beth Sheridan, “Hardball Tactics in an Era of Threats,” Washington Post, September 3, 2006; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/02/AR2006090201096.html
Joby Warrick, “Suspect and A Setback In Al-Qaeda Anthrax Case: Scientist With Ties To Group Goes Free,” Washington Post , October 31, 2006; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103001250.html
Hawsawi, whose computer had the anthrax spraydrying documents on it, was KSM’s assistant in Zawahiri’s media organization called Clouds. He had managed the books in Sudan.
In January 2001, it was announced that Bin Laden’s farm manager in Sudan was going to have a bail hearing in Canada. His name was Mahjoub. EIJ shura member. The official in charge got a letter threatening that anthrax would be used if his bail was not granted. The threat was reported to the President in an early February 2001 PDB that is still classified. Mahjoub’s bail was denied on October 5 — the real deal was sent October 6. Hawsawi’s was Mahjoub’s colleague from Sudan.
The letter sending the first anthrax reportedly had clouds pictured on it. The flagship of American Media, Inc., National Enquirer, described the letter sent AMI as follows:
“Bobby Bender came around the corner with this letter in the upturned palms of his hands,” said photo assistant Roz Suss, a 13-year Sun staffer.
“It was a business-size sheet of stationery decorated with pink and blue clouds around the edges. It was folded into three sections, and in the middle was a pile of what looked like pink-tinged talcum powder.
In admitting that he had taken over supervising the development of anthrax for use against the US upon Atef’s death (in November 2001), KSM separately noted that “I was the Media Operations Director for As-Sahab or ‘The Clouds,’ under Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri.
Zawahiri worked with Atef in the anthrax planning. It was compartmentalized, Tenet says, at the highest levels. KSM took over from Atef when a missile dropped on Atef’s head in November 2001.
:)
LOL :)))
And don’t forget “We do know that we found silica in the samples” means “well we didn’t really find silica actually, and if you reproduce my words I’ll claim the media fabricated them”.
http://www.iwar.org.uk/homesec/resources/anthrax/briefing.htm
Also “It’s going nowhere” means “they are going to make an arrest within days”
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/17/politics/17anthrax.html
“Scanning electron microscopy–energy dispersive x-ray microanalysis detected the presence of silica, a potential additive in the weaponization process of B anthracis endospores. Atomic force microscopy, which provides a high-resolution image of the cellular surface, can be used to provide information on molecules adhering to the spores and on modifications to the exosporium caused by mechanical and chemical treatments during the weaponization process. Through the use of particle (proton)-induced x-ray emission and scanning transmission ion microscopy, the distribution of elements can be mapped within regions of a single cell. Raman and surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy probes molecular bond vibrations and rotations to produce characteristic spectra. This methodology has been used to distinguish between species of spores by probing the first few nanometers of the spore surface. Bioaerosol mass spectrometry has been developed for the rapid identification of individual cells or spores in an aerosol with many background materials in real time and without reagents. The mass spectral signature obtained reflects the intrinsic biologic agent and the matrix material in which it is embedded or coated. Time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry captures elemental data (to generate chemical maps) and molecular fragments (to generate mass spectra) on a depth-dependent basis (to generate a depth profile). This complementary technology also can detect the signatures of silica and other additives. Accelerator mass spectrometry combines mass spectrometry and nuclear detection to measure the concentration of an isotope in a sample. Accelerator mass spectrometry reduces the entire sample (<1 mg) to carbon before performing the analysis and provides the 14C measurements on the bulk sample. This can be used to determine the age of the material (ie, when the biologic agent was prepared). Finally, mass spectroscopic methods (eg, liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry and matrix assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight) also have been applied to the detection and characterization of toxins [84], [85].”
TrebleRebel, care to guess who said it?
Okay. The head FBI scientist, Dr. Budowie, along with a co-author from CDC, wrote that in 2006. That was too easy. I have no idea why Ed doesn’t disclose the article on his website given that he lives and breathes silica.
Who said this in connection automated anthrax smoke detector in connection with a November 2007 article.
Does it constitute misdirected research?
“Anthrax attacks were simulated using aerosolized Bacillus atrophaeus spores in fumed silica, and corresponding Tb-DPA intensities were monitored as a function of time and correlated to the number of airborne endospores collected. A concentration dependence of 10(2)-10(6) spores/mg of fumed silica yielded a dynamic range of 4 orders of magnitude and a limit of detection of 16 spores/L when 250 L of air were sampled. Simulated attacks were detected in less than 15 min.
Who funded the research? When will those rocket scientists start listening to Ed?
Would that be Budowle of the FBI?
Let’s analyze what we have here. Budowle quotes a paper that used XRD to unambiguously identify silica as an additive in a weaponized surrogate sample.
It was EXACTLY the same test that AFIP performed on the Daschle spores. And AFIP announced their results, in plain English. They clearly stated they found silica and it was a key aerosol-enabling component of the Daschle anthrax.
So, we have Budowle claiming that XRD is used to detect weaponized silica in BW samples - that it’s the STANDARD test to check for weaponization with silica. But then we have Beecher totally ignoring the AFIP results and writing that there were no additves in the Daschle anthrax.
Then when Beecher’s paper get’s pointed out to the media all hell breaks loose and we have congressmen writing to the FBI demanding explanations - and not getting them.
Because I suspect that Patrick Leahy, Tom Daschle, the democrats, the media, and Barabara Hatch Rosenberg are still going to want answers to the unresolved questions surrounding the so-called "Amerithrax" investigation. But instead of the evil George Bush, it will be one of their soul brothers in charge of the F.B.I. It's kind of fascinating to think about, and it will be fascinating to watch, should it actually happen.
I’ve thought about that - but you know what? I think little will change.
Maybe it’s just me, but I get the impression Daschle and Leahy haven’t tried quite as hard as they could have to get answers. On the face of it - surely they should both be going ballistic - bringing it up at every opportunity, issuing subpoenas. Instead, Holt and Grassley are making more noise (garnted Daschle is no longer in office).
But I get the feeling Leahy is OK with this thing quietly fading away.
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.