Replies

By all means, compare his book to your BWCC page and tell me how they differ.

In the 139 page book, his analysis in Chapter 6. He reasons Al Qaeda could not be responsible because the guy coming from Kandahar in June 2001 with a leg lesion didn’t have the skills to weaponize anthrax. (See also April 2002 lecture online) Given that Professor B’s mission is political advocacy, not catching the bad guys, even five years later, he has found no cause for closer consideration. His close working ally, Sherwood, trots the argument from 2002 and sends it out at regular intervals. The pair nowhere address: the seizure of pre-911 anthrax in Kandahar, the seizure of the anthrax packets in 2007 claimed by the Afghan governor, the anthrax weaponization documents on al-Hawsawi’s computer (seized upon KSM’s capture), the documents provided by DIA about Ayman’s weaponization program, the infiltration of the UK biodefense establishment by a scientist working for Ayman Zawahiri, Al-Timimi’s high security clearance and access to cutting edge weaponization know-how and the most diverse biological collection in the world, or the content of the intercepts between Egyptian Islamic Group and Egyptian Islamic Jihad leaders. Because they are on a political mission. His other ally in the impeachment effort, the distinguished former US Attorney Ramsey Clark, represents Sheik Abdel-Rahman, the very fellow whose detention motivated the anthrax mailings.

Ed doesn’t address these issues because he has no answer. He sticks to his argument that the letters were written by a First Grader — see his block lettering argument.

Now all this would be fine — and it is wonderful that war criminals get the best minds like Ramsey Clark to defend them and we have Ed policing the playgrounds of America — except here the anthrax letters threaten an aerosolized anthrax attack on NYC and Washington, D.C. and the facts in no way support Professor Boyle’s or Ed’s theory. Only Professor Boyle’s political world view does. And Ed just adopted BHR’s theory who adopted Boyle’s theory — and then was pissed she didn’t suspect a guy from Wisconsin Brian Ross butchered a story about.

Rather than fusing a moralistic approach with legal advocacy, in this context Professor Boyle merely has supplanted leftist political advocacy for true crime analysis. Much like Justin Raimondo has done with his bonehead stupid Zack theory. The antiwar effort might have gained traction if it was based on a more solid and reasoned analysis of the evidence — whether relating to Niger and uranium, Atta and Prague, or Al-Timimi and anthrax. Kneejerk partisanship leads to muddy or superficial thinking. By way of example, to say “there was no connection” between AQ and Iraq is just wrong. Just flat out wrong. It’s when you get into the facts that you realize that the Salafists in Iraq may have been infiltrated by an Iraqi agent (Wael) but there was no collaborative relationship between Ayman/OBL and Saddam. At least no evidence of one.

A few days after 9/11, Professor Boyle was debating with Bill O’Reilly whether there was legal authority for the US to take action given that Bin Laden was merely a “suspect” in the attacks. What’s his argument going to be after the next 9/11 — if he continues to address the facts of the crime and seeks to pass off political advocacy as true crime analysis? He either needs to address the facts or sit quietly in the back of the classroom. Too much is at stake to get the facts wrong — or to put your head in the sand about those facts like Ed does. He hasn’t attempt to address an Al Qaeda theory since he divined that the hijackers were “dead, dead, dead” and thus AQ could not possibly be responsible or else the FBI would be talking about other operatives. Well... memo to Ed: the FBI is talking about them. Just read the indictments and BOLO alerts.

In light of this week’s news about the FBI wiretapping King’s widow some years after MLK’s death, it worth noting while US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark got into a famous showdown with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover when he attempted to block the Director’s wiretaps of MLK. Hoover ordered the wiretaps anyway without AG Clark’s approval. After he left the Administration, Ramsey Clark became counsel for anti-war protestor Philip Berrigan. I once was prowling around the FBI’s FOIA office in DC looking for fun stuff and came across a thick file on the Berrigans. I called up Philip’s sister-in-law, a close family friend, and asked if she wanted a copy. She said she wouldn’t bother to dignify what the FBI did. The Berrigans would be over to visit and would have to go down the street to use the pay phone to avoid a wiretap. Then the 80s saw Ramsey globetrotting with the likes of Qadaffi and representing Lyndon LaRouche back at home. In 1990, he accepted invitation to the National Coalition to Stop US Intervention in the Middle East by members of an orthodox Stalinist sect, the Workers World Party (WWP) He’s represented PLO leaders — just as Professor Boyle has been a legal advisor to the PLO. Most recently, he defended Saddam.

But when it comes to who sent an anthrax threat using potent anthrax, park your goddamn politics at the door and roll up your sleeves and study the facts. Ed is still stuck on silica and the writing of first graders — as if the couple dozen FBI agents have taken up knitting in the past half decade while he parses Ari Fleischer’s and General Parker’s comments for the 100th time.

Under one view of things, Professor Rosenberg just followed the lead of a lawyer advocating on behalf of the militant islamists. It’s just damn lucky the FBI recovered from the fog that enveloped it in 2002 due to political pressure. Although the Washington Post repeatedly has had some great reporting, by and large, on anthrax the media has been lame and is now gun shy due to the Hatfill litigation.

Amerithrax is actually related to a complex web of prosecutions, arrests and renditions and the FBI and CIA are taking no prisoners.

Okay, they are taking quite a few. Let’s hope they are well-represented and their civil liberties protected.