Posted on 04/13/2008 8:20:52 AM PDT by ZacandPook
On Friday, the government filed this statement of the facts in its memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment in a civil rights and Privacy Act lawsuit brought by Dr. Steve Hatfill.
“The anthrax attacks occurred in October 2001. Public officials, prominent members of the media, and ordinary citizens were targeted by this first bio-terrorist attack on American soil. Twenty-two persons were infected with anthrax; five died. At least 17 public buildings were contaminated. The attacks wreaked havoc on the U.S. postal system and disrupted government and commerce, resulting in economic losses estimated to exceed one billion dollars. The attacks spread anxiety throughout the nation – already in a heightened state of alert in the wake of the attacks of September 11 – and left behind a lasting sense of vulnerability to future acts of bioterrorism. Given the unprecedented nature of the attacks, the investigation received intense media attention. Journalists from virtually every news organization pursued the story, sometimes conducting their own worldwide investigation to determine the person or persons responsible for the attacks and the motive behind them.
A. Journalistic Interest In Hatfill That Predates Alleged Disclosures
Testimony has revealed that at least certain members of the media began focusing their attention upon Hatfill in early 2002 because of tips they had received from former colleagues of his who found him to be highly suspicious. Articles about Hatfill thus began to appear in the mainstream press and on internet sites as early as January of 2002, and continued until the first search of his apartment on June 25, 2002, which, in turn, led to even more intense press attention.
Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a Professor at the State University of New York, for example, complained in January and February 2002 on the Federation of American Scientists’ (“FAS”) website of the FBI’s apparent lack of progress on the investigation, and described generally the person she believed was the “anthrax perpetrator.” “Analysis of Anthrax Attacks,” Possible Portrait of the Anthrax Perpetrator (Section IV.6), Defendant’s Appendix , Ex. 1. Rosenberg did not identify Hatfill by name, but described him in sufficient detail: a “Middle-aged American” who “[w]orks for a CIA contractor in Washington, DC area” and [w]orked in USAMRIID laboratory in the past” and “[k]nows Bill Patrick and probably learned a thing or two about weaponization from him informally.” Id. In his amended complaint, Hatfill states that “Professor Rosenberg’s ‘Possible Portrait of the Anthrax Perpetrator’ . . . described [him].”
In addition to her postings on the FAS website, Professor Rosenberg also presented a lecture on February 18, 2002 at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, entitled “The Anthrax Attacks and the Control of Bioterrorism.” Ex. 2. During the course of her lecture, Rosenberg stated that she had “draw[n] a likely portrait of the perpetrator as a former Fort Detrick scientist who is now working for a contractor in the Washington, D.C, area[.]” Ex. 3. Rosenberg also commented upon Hatfill’s whereabouts on the date of the attacks, stating that “[h]e had reason for travel to Florida, New Jersey and the United Kingdom” – where the attacks had been and from which the letters had been purportedly sent – that “[h]e grew [the anthrax], probably on a solid medium, and weaponised it at a private location where he had accumulated the equipment and the material.” Id. Rosenberg also stated that the investigation had narrowed to a “common suspect[,]” and that “[t]he FBI has questioned that person more than once[.]” Id. Former White House Spokesperson, Ari Fleischer, immediately responded to Rosenberg’s comments, stating that there were several suspects and the FBI had not narrowed that list down to one. Ex. 4. The FBI also issued a press release, stating that it had “interviewed hundreds of persons, in some instances, more than once. It is not accurate, however, that the FBI has identified a prime suspect in this case.” Id. Rosenberg’s comments and writings were subsequently pursued by The New York Times (“The Times”). In a series of Op-Ed articles published from May through July 2002, Nicholas Kristof, a journalist with The Times, accused Hatfill of being responsible for the anthrax attacks. Kristof wrote on May 24, 2002 that the FBI was overlooking the anthrax perpetrator, noting that “experts” (Professor Rosenberg) point “to one middle-aged American who has worked for the United States military bio-defense program and had access to the labs at Fort Detrick, Md. His anthrax vaccinations are up to date, he unquestionably had the ability to make first-rate anthrax, and he was upset at the United States government in the period preceding the anthrax attack.” Ex. 5.
Hatfill first noticed the Kristof columns in May 2002. Hatfill Dep. Tran. in Hatfill v. The New York Times, No. 04-807 (E.D.Va.), Ex. 6, at 13: 3-6. According to Hatfill, “[w]hen Mr. Kristof’s article appeared, it was the first [time] that [he] realized that [his] name [was] in the public domain with connection with an incident of mass murder.” Id. at 16:15-18. Hatfill has charged that The Times began the “entire conflagration and gave every journalist out there reason to drive this thing beyond any sort of sanity. Mr. Kristof lit the fuse to a barn fire and he repeatedly kept stoking the fire.” Id. at 43:19 - 44:1. In July 2004, Hatfill thus filed suit alleging that these articles libeled him by falsely accusing him of being the anthrax mailer. Complaint, Hatfill v. The New York Times, No. 04-807 (E.D.Va.), Ex. 7.
Hatfill alleges in that lawsuit that “Kristof wrote his columns in such a way as to impute guilt for the anthrax letters to [him] in the minds of reasonable readers.” Id. ¶ 12. The articles, Hatfill claimed, which described his “background and work in the field of bio-terrorism, state or imply that [he] was the anthrax mailer.” Id. ¶ 14. Hatfill specifically alleged that statements in Kristof’s articles were false and defamatory, including those that stated that he: (1) “‘unquestionably had the ability to make first-rate anthrax’”; (2) “had the ‘ability’ to send the anthrax”; (3) “had the ‘access’ required to send the anthrax”; (4) “had a ‘motive’ to send the anthrax”; (5) “was one of a ‘handful’ of individuals who had the ‘ability, access and motive to send the anthrax’”; (6) “had access” to an ‘isolated residence’ in the fall of 2001, when the anthrax letters were sent”; (7) “‘gave CIPRO [an antibiotic famously used in the treatment of anthrax infection] to people who visited [the ‘isolated residence’]”; (8) his “anthrax vaccinations were ‘up to date’ as of May 24, 2002”; (9) he “‘failed 3 successive polygraph examinations’ between January 2002 and August 13, 2002”; (10) he “‘was upset at the United States government in the period preceding the attack’”; (11) he “‘was once caught with a girlfriend in a biohazard ‘hot suite’ at Fort Detrick [where Hatfill had concedely worked] surrounded only by blushing germs.’” Id. ¶ 16 (brackets in original). Hatfill alleges in his lawsuit against The Times that “[t]he publication of [Kristof’s] repeated defamation of [him] . . .gave rise to severe notoriety gravely injurious to [him].” Id. ¶ 29. The injury, Hatfill alleged, “was [made] all the more severe given the status and journalistic clout of The Times.” Id. This harm was compounded, Hatfill alleged, by the fact that these articles were “thereafter repeatedly published by a host of print and on-line publications and on the television and radio news” in the following months. Id., ¶ 30.
The case was initially dismissed by the trial court. Hatfill v. The New York Times, No. 04-807, 2004 WL 3023003 (E.D.Va.). That decision was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 416 F.3d 320 (4th Cir. 2005). Upon remand, the trial court granted The Times summary judgment, finding that Hatfill was a public figure and public official and had failed to present evidence of malice. Hatfill v. The New York Times, 488 F. Supp. 2d 522 (E.D. Va. 2007). In arriving at that conclusion, the court considered Hatfill’s repeated media interviews before the attacks; the fact that he had “drafted a novel, which he registered with [the] United States Copyright office, describing a scenario in which a terrorist sickens government officials with a biological agent”; and had lectured on the medical effects of chemical and biological agents. Id. at 525.
Although not recited by the district court in The New York Times litigation, Hatfill also talked directly to reporters about his suspected involvement in the attacks. Brian Ross of ABC News, and his producer, Victor Walter, for example, talked separately to Hatfill on two to three occasions as early as January and February 2002, Ross Dep. Tran., Ex. 8, at 263:14 - 270:1, and continued talking to Hatfill until May of that year. Id. Ross also spoke to Hatfill’s friend and mentor, William Patrick, about Hatfill. Id. at 287:9 - 295:12. These meetings were prompted by discussions ABC News had in January 2002 with eight to twelve former colleagues of Hatfill at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (“USAMRIID”). Id. at 242:7 - 246:14. Hatfill’s former colleagues found him to be “highly suspicious because of a number of things he had done when he worked at [USAMRIID], and this behavior was strange "and unusual and they felt that he was a likely candidate.” Id. at 242: 7-17. These meetings were also prompted by ABC News’s own investigative reporting into Hatfill’s background; the more ABC News learned “the more interested [they] became” in Hatfill. Id. at 264: 14-15.
Scott Shane of the Baltimore Sun also spoke to Hatfill in February 2002. Shane also spoke to USAMRIID employees who had worked with Hatfill. Ex. 9. These employees stated that they had been questioned by the FBI and “asked about a former Fort Detrick scientist” – Hatfill – “who returned a few years ago and took discarded biological safety cabinets, used for work with dangerous pathogens.” Id. at 1. These employees claimed that Hatfill “ha[d] expertise on weaponizing anthrax and ha[d] been vaccinated against it[.]” Id. Shane also called one of Hatfill’s former classmates, who was “plagued” by questions from the Baltimore Sun and others within the media regarding Hatfill’s “alleged involvement with the large anthrax outbreak in Zimbabwe[.]” Ex. 10. According to Hatfill, this classmate was told by Shane that Hatfill was purportedly responsible for “mailing the anthrax letters and also starting the [anthrax] outbreak in Zimbabwe/ Rhodesia twenty years before.” Ex. 11, at AGD29SJH00014; see also e-mail to Hatfill fr. DF Andrews, dated Mar. 1, 2002, Ex. 10. Hatfill told Shane in February 2002 that he had been “questioned by the FBI” and that “he considered the questioning to be part of a routine effort to eliminate people with the knowledge to mount [the] attack.” Ex. 9. Hatfill also confirmed for Shane that he had taken an FBI polygraph. Ex. 12, at 2. In March 2002, Hatfill left Shane a frantic telephone message reportedly stating how he had “been [in the bioterrorism] field for a number of years, working until 3 o’clock in the morning, trying to counter this type of weapon of mass destruction” and fearing that his “career [was] over at [that] time.” Ex. 13, at 2. According to Hatfill, Shane later Case 1:03-cv-01793-RBW Document 232-2 Filed 04/11/2008 Page 17 of 73
____ Hatfill did not sue either Shane or Rosenberg, even though Hatfill has stated that Rosenberg “caused” the focus on him. Ex. 14, at 10. Because Hatfill believed that the portrait Rosenberg painted at the February 2002 Princeton conference and in her website postings was so identifying and incriminating, however, Hatfill advised Rosenberg through his lawyers that “before [she] get[s] close to describing him in the future, by name or otherwise, [that she] submit [her] comments for legal vetting before publishing them to anyone.” Ex. 15. There is no evidence that the agency defendants bore any responsibility for the media presence. Information about FBI searches is routinely shared with a variety of state and local law enforcement authorities. Roth Dep. Tran., Ex. 16, at 163:5 -165:21; Garrett Dep. Tran. Ex. 17, at 79: 8-18. ______
compounded Hatfill’s problems by calling his then-employer, Science Applications International Corporation (“SAIC”), and accusing Hatfill of being responsible for the anthrax attacks, Ex. 11, at AGD29SJH00014, which, according to Hatfill, cost him his job as a contractor at SAIC. Id. 1
The media frenzy surrounding Hatfill intensified upon the search of his apartment on June 25, 2002, and the search of a refrigerated mini-storage facility in Ocala, Florida on June 26, 2002. Both were witnessed by the media, and the search of his apartment was carried live on national television. In addition to the television coverage, the searches generated a slew of articles about Hatfill throughout the media, one fueling the next. The Associated Press, for example, detailed in an article, dated June 27, 2002, Hatfill’s (1) work as biodefense researcher, including studies he had conducted at SAIC, and the work he had done at the USAMRIID; (2) his educational background; (3) where he had previously lived; and (4) security clearances he had held and the suspension of those clearances. Ex. 18. The Hartford Courant reported these same details, and additional information regarding Hatfill’s purported service in the Rhodesian army. Ex. 19. The next day -- June 28, 2002 -- the Hartford Courant reported details about Hatfill’s background in biological warfare, his vaccinations against anthrax, questioning that purportedly had occurred among Hatfill’s colleagues, his educational background (including the claim that he had attended medical school in Greendale), and lectures that he had given on the process of turning biological agents into easily inhaled powders. Ex. 20. None of this information is attributed to a government source.
B. Hatfill’s Public Relations Offensive
In July 2002, after these reports and after the first search of Hatfill’s apartment on June 25, 2002, Hatfill retained Victor Glasberg as his attorney. Glasberg Dep. Tran., Ex. 21, at 12: 16-19. Glasberg believed that “any number of people in the media [had] overstepped their bounds. . . . prior to July of 2002 .” Id. at 141:1 - 142:6. To counter this information, Hatfill set out on a “public relations offensive” of his own to “turn [the] tide.” Id. at 138: 20-21, 178: 12-13.
Recognizing that Hatfill “continue[d] [to] get[] killed with bad press, national as well as local[,]” Hatfill drafted a statement and Glasberg forwarded that statement in July 2002 to Hatfill’s then-employer at Louisiana State University (“LSU”). Ex. 11, at 1. The statement detailed Hatfill’s background, including his medical training and employment history, and provided details about Hatfill’s involvement in the anthrax investigation, including how he had been interviewed by the FBI and had taken a polygraph examination. Id. at AGD29SJH00002-13. Hatfill’s statement corroborated the conversations that Hatfill reportedly had with Scott Shane of the Baltimore Sun in February 2002, and how that interaction had purportedly cost Hatfill his job at SAIC in March 2002. Id. at AGD29SJH00014.
In his July statement, Hatfill was careful not to blame DOJ or the FBI for his troubles or for any wrongdoing for the information about him that had made its way into the press. He touted the professionalism of the FBI, noting that “[t]he individual FBI agents with whom [he had come] in contact during this entire process are sons and daughters of which America can be justifiably proud. They are fine men and women doing their best to protect this country.” Id. at AGD29SJH00016. Hatfill’s objection lay with the media, whom he labeled as “irresponsible[,]” for trading in “half-truths, innuendo and speculation, making accusations and slanting real world events . . . to gain viewer recognition, sell newspapers, and increase readership and network ratings.” Id.
As the investigation proceeded, however, Glasberg publicly criticized investigators on the date of the second search of Hatfill’s apartment, August 1, 2002, for obtaining a search warrant rather than accepting the offer Glasberg had allegedly made to cooperate. Ex. 22. So angry was Glasberg with investigators that he wrote a letter, dated the same day as the search, to Assistant United States Attorney Kenneth C. Kohl, denouncing the fact that the search had been conducted “pursuant to a search warrant.” Ex. 23. Glasberg forwarded a copy of this letter to Tom Jackman of the Washington Post, and to the Associated Press, the morning of August 1st. Glasberg, Dep. Tran., Ex. 24, at 265:12 - 266:5; see also Ex. 25 (Glasberg memorandum to file, stating, among other things, that Glasberg showed Jackman Kohl letter on August 1, 2002).
On the day of the search, an FBI spokeswoman at the Bureau’s Washington field office, Debra Weierman, “confirmed that the search was part of the government’s anthrax investigation.” Ex. 25. Weierman added, however, that “she was unable to confirm that [investigators were acting on a search warrant] or to provide any further information about the search.” Id.
The next day – August 2, 2002 – Glasberg faxed the Kohl letter to members of the media. Ex. 26. In the fax transmittal sheet accompanying the Kohl letter, Glasberg also advised the media that: Dr. Hatfill was first contacted by the FBI earlier this year, as part of the Bureau’s survey of several dozen scientists working in fields related to biomedical warfare. He was voluntarily debriefed and polygraphed, and voluntarily agreed to have his home, car and other property subjected to a lengthy and comprehensive search by the FBI. He and his lawyer Tom Carter were told that the results were all favorable and that he was not a suspect in the case. Id. at AGD16SJH03106. Subsequent to the fax transmittal by Glasberg, Weierman confirmed that the search had been conducted pursuant to a search warrant, but only after receiving appropriate authorization from her superiors. Weierman Dep. Tran., Ex. 27, at 93:16 - 94:14.
Hatfill had also accompanied Glasberg for his interview with Jackman the day before to address the “media feeding frenzy.” Ex. 28. Glasberg provided Jackman with the promise of an “[e]xclusive personal statement” from Hatfill and the promise of “[n]o other press contacts pending publication” of the article. Id. Glasberg thus provided Jackman background information about Hatfill, Rosenberg’s statements, and other publications. Ex. 25. Hatfill reportedly complained to the Washington Post in the interview about the media feeding frenzy, and about how his “friends are bombarded” with press inquiries. Ex. 29, at 1. Hatfill also complained about the “[p]hone calls at night. Trespassing. Beating on my door. For the sheer purpose of selling newspapers and television.” Id.
C. Attorney General Ashcroft’s Person of Interest Statements
Following this “media frenzy,” not to mention the two searches of Hatfill’s apartment, former Attorney General John Ashcroft was asked on August 6, 2002 (at an event addressing the subject of missing and exploited children) about Hatfill’s involvement in the investigation. Jane Clayson of CBS News asked General Ashcroft about the searches and whether Hatfill was a “suspect” in the investigation. Ex. 30, at 2. General Ashcroft responded that Hatfill was a “person of interest.” General Ashcroft cautioned, however, that he was “not prepared to say any more at [that] time other than the fact that he is an individual of interest.” Id. At the same media event, Matt Lauer of NBC News also asked General Ashcroft whether Hatfill was a “suspect” in the investigation. Ex. 31. General Ashcroft responded that Hatfill was a “person that – that the FBI’s been interested in.” Id. at 2. General Ashcroft cautioned that he was “not prepared to make a . . . comment about whether a person is officially a . . . suspect or not.” Id.
General Ashcroft made the same comments at a news conference in Newark, New Jersey on August 22, 2002, stating that Hatfill was a “person of interest to the Department of Justice, and we continue the investigation.” Ex. 32, at 1. As in his previous statements, General Ashcroft refused to provide further comment. Id. When asked upon deposition why he referred to Hatfill as a “person of interest” in the anthrax investigation in response to these media inquiries, General Ashcroft testified that he did so in an attempt to correct the record presented by the media that he was a “suspect” in the investigation, which he believed served a necessary law enforcement purpose. Ashcroft Dep. Tran., Ex. 33, at 81: 5-12; 103:18; 108: 9-13; 138: 5-7; 125: 18-21; 134:22 - 136:8. Prior to making these statements, General Ashcroft did not review or otherwise consult any investigative record, id. at 128:14 - 129:12, much less any record pertaining to Hatfill.
General Ashcroft’s initial statements on August 6, 2002 were followed, on August 11, 2002, by the first of Hatfill’s two nationally televised press conferences. Ex. 34. During his press conference, Hatfill lashed out at Rosenberg and other journalists and columnists who he believed wrote a series of “defamatory speculation and innuendo about [him].” Id. at 3. In apparent response to the “person of interest” statements, by contrast, he stated that he did “not object to being considered a ‘subject of interest’ because of [his] knowledge and background in the field of biological warfare.” Id. at 4. This was consistent with Hatfill’s statement to ABC News earlier in 2002 in which he stated that “his background and comments made him a logical subject of the investigation.” Ex. 35. As noted, moreover, Glasberg told the media -- almost a week before the first of General Ashcroft’s statements -- that “Hatfill was first contacted by the FBI [earlier that] year, as part of the Bureau’s survey of several dozen scientists working in fields related to biomedical warfare. He was voluntarily debriefed and polygraphed, and voluntarily agreed to have his home, car and other property subjected to a lengthy and comprehensive search by the FBI.” Ex. 26.
Hatfill’s second press conference was held on August 25, 2002. In the flyer publicizing the conference, Hatfill identified himself to the media -- in bold lettering -- as “the ‘person of interest’ at the center of the federal Government’s [anthrax] investigation.” DA, Exhibit 36.
D. Clawson’s “Sunshine” Policy
Patrick Clawson joined the Hatfill team in early August 2002 as spokesperson and “fielded hundreds of inquiries from members of the press worldwide regarding Dr. Hatfill[.]” Ex. 12, at 13. Clawson believed it best to employ a media strategy that would, in his words, “let it all hang out.” Id. at 50:10. Clawson felt that “permitting maximum sunshine into . . . Hatfill’s existence would do both him and the public the best good.” Clawson Dep. Tran., Ex. 37, at 50:16-18.
“The majority of Clawson’s communications with the press regarding this case have been oral and by telephone and he did not keep a press log or any other regular record of such contacts with the press.” Ex. 12, at 13. Clawson nonetheless admitted upon deposition that he revealed numerous details about Hatfill’s personal and professional background to members of the press (Clawson Dep. Tran., Ex. 37, at 101:9 - 105:21), including Hatfill’s professional expertise (id. at 103:10 - 105:21), use of Cipro (id. at 123:16 - 130:11, 248: 8-13), whereabouts on the days of the attacks (id. at 148:12 - 158:10, 361:15 - 362:3), expertise in working with anthrax (id. at 194:13 - 195:8), former service in the Rhodesian Army (id. at 210:9 - 211:10), and drunk driving arrest (id. at 795: 7-9, 798: 4-6). Clawson also told reporters what had been purportedly removed from Hatfill’s apartment during the two searches of his apartment on June 25, 2002 and August 1, 2002 (including medical books and a jar of bacillus thuringiensis (“BT”)) (id. at 121: 6-12, 131:2 - 131:12, 14:8 - 147:3, 313: 3-10). Clawson also freely relayed to the press that bloodhounds had been presented to Hatfill during the investigation (id. at 200: 15-19); that Hatfill had been the subject of surveillance (id. at 123:12-15, 428: 19-21); that Hatfill had taken polygraphs (id. at 135:16 - 137:17); and that he had submitted to blood tests (id. at 137:18-138:5, 347: 6-10).
In furtherance of Clawson’s “sunshine” policy, Hatfill, Clawson, and Glasberg, together, provided countless on-the-record, on-background (i.e., for use, but not for attribution), and off-the-record (i.e., not for attribution or use) interviews to counter misinformation. Although Hatfill repeatedly claimed upon deposition not to remember what he said during these interviews, he acknowledged in his responses to the Agency Defendants’ interrogatories having such conversations with, in addition to Mr. Jackman, Judith Miller of The New York Times, Jeremy Cherkis of the City Paper, Guy Gugliotta of the Washington Post, David Kestenbaum of National Public Radio, Rick Schmidt of the LA Times, Rob Buchanan of NBC Dateline, Jim Popkin of NBC News, Dee Ann David and Nick Horrock of UPI, Gary Matsumato of Fox TV, Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, and David Tell of the Weekly Standard. Ex. 12, at 3-4. With respect to the Matsumato interview, Glasberg warned Hatfill before the interview that he “should not be quoted, nor should Matsumato say or imply that he spoke with him.” Ex. 38, at 1. Glasberg warned Hatfill that “Matsumato must be willing to go to jail rather than reveal word one of anything [he] says on ‘deep background.’” Id.
All of these disclosures became too much even for Glasberg, who attempted to put a stop to them. In August, when Jackman aired his exclusive interview with Glasberg and Hatfill, Glasberg heralded the success of his public relations strategy noting that “Rosenberg, Shane and Kristof are, [each] of them, in varying stages of sulking, licking their wounds, reacting defensively and changing their tune.” Ex. 39. Slowly Glasberg advised both Hatfill and Glasberg to observe “the rule of COMPLETE SILENCE regarding anything and everything about the case[.]” Ex. 40 (emphasis in original). Ultimately, in September 2002, Glasberg ordered Clawson to stand down, noting “[w]hat you know, you know, and you have put virtually all of that into the public record. Fine. That is where we are, and for good or ill we can and will deal with it. But we must put a full stop to any further conveyance of substantive data about ANYTHING from Steve to anyone [but his attorneys].” Ex. 41 (emphasis in original). To no avail. On October 5, 2002, Hatfill and Clawson appeared together at an Accuracy in Media Conference. Hatfill was asked about the reaction of bloodhounds, and stated, I’m not supposed to answer things against . . . but let me tell you something. They brought this good-looking dog in. I mean, this was the best-fed dog I have seen in a long time. They brought him in and he walked around the room. By the way, I could have left at anytime but I volunteered while they were raiding my apartment the second time, I volunteered to talk with them. The dog came around and I petted him. And the dog walked out. So animals like me (laughter). Ex. 42, at 2.
Disclosures from the Hatfill camp to the media continued. For example, between late 2002 and May 8, 2003, Hatfill’s current attorney, Tom Connolly, and CBS News reporter James Stewart had multiple telephone conversations and two lunch meetings. Ex. 43. According to Stewart, Connolly told Stewart that the investigation was focusing on Hatfill, and detailed at great length the FBI’s surveillance of Hatfill. In virtually every one of these conversations, Connolly encouraged Stewart to report on these subjects. Id. at 96.
E. Louisiana State University’s Decision To Terminate Hatfill
At the time of the second search of his apartment in August 2002, Hatfill was working as a contract employee at the Louisiana State University (“LSU”) on a program to train first responders in the event of a biological attack. This program was funded by the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (“OJP”) as part of a cooperative agreement. Ex. 44. Under the terms of the cooperative agreement, OJP “maintain[ed] managerial oversight and control” of the program. Id. at 2. Following the second search of Hatfill’s apartment on August 1, 2002, Timothy Beres, Acting Director of OJP’s Office of Domestic Preparedness, directed that LSU “cease and desist from utilizing the subject-matter expert and course instructor duties of Steven J. Hatfill on all Department of Justice funded programs.” Ex. 45. LSU, meanwhile, had independently hired Hatfill to serve as Associate Director of its Academy of Counter-Terrorist Education. Following the second search, LSU placed Hatfill on administrative leave. Ex. 46. LSU then requested a background check of Hatfill. Ex. 47. During the course of that investigation, the University became concerned that Hatfill had forged a diploma for a Ph.D that he claimed to have received from Rhodes University in South Africa. Hatfill explained to Stephen L. Guillott, Jr., who was the Director of the Academy of Counter-Terrorist Education at LSU, that “[h]e assumed the degree had, in fact been awarded since neither his [thesis advisor] nor Rhodes University advised him to the contrary.” Ex. 48. LSU’s Chancellor, Mark A. Emmert, made “an internal decision to terminate [LSU’s] relationship with Dr. Hatfill quite independent of [the DOJ e-mail] communication.” Ex. 51.
Hatfill has now testified that in fact he created a fraudulent diploma with the assistance of someone he met in a bar who boasted that he could make a fraudulent diploma. Hatfill Dep. Tran., Ex. 49 at 19:20 - 20:12. Glasberg, moreover, has stated under oath that Hatfill’s earlier attempted explanation was untrue. Glasberg, Dep. Tran., Ex. 21, at 314:10 - 317:2. In a nationally televised 60 Minutes episode that aired in March 2007, Connolly confirmed that Hatfill forged the diploma for the Ph.D from Rhodes University. Ex. 50, at 3.
F. Hatfill’s Amended Complaint
Hatfill claims lost wages and other emotional damages resulting from General Ashcroft’s “person of interest” statements and other for-attribution statements by DOJ and FBI officials. He also seeks to recover for certain other alleged “leaks” by DOJ and FBI officials. Hatfill additionally asserts that the defendants violated the Act by purportedly failing to (1) maintain an accurate accounting of such disclosures, which he asserts is required by section 552a(c) of the Act; (2) establish appropriate safeguards to insure the security and confidentiality of the records that were purportedly disclosed, which he asserts is required by section 552a(e)(10); (3) correct information that was disseminated about him that was inaccurate or incomplete, which he asserts is required by section 552a(e)(5); and (4) establish adequate rules of conduct, procedures, and penalties for noncompliance, or to train employees in the requirements of the Act, which he asserts is required by section 552a(e)(9). Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.”
Oops, you meant Jack McCoy from L&O, not “Bones” from Star Trek.
Jack McCoy wrote the government’s reply brief in the Stevens matter:
“Holding a laboratory responsible for Mr. Stevens’ murder is no different from holding a gun owner (or seller) liable for the conduct of a murderer using a stolen (or purchased) firearm.
“Such an attack (which had never before occurred in the United States) was certainly less foreseable than a murder using a firearm, which occurs daily...”
Jack can make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
Your new argument is just as bogus as all your old ones.
It would be legitimate to reproduce simulants of what an adversary has developed - in order to test defenses against any new advance in technology.
The Alibekov anthrax would be a new advance in technology.
Weaponized spores are COATED with silica. You were wrong. Get over it.
The CBC story is WRONG. The reporter MISUNDERSTOOD. The Alibek process did NOT coat spores with resin OR silica. I specifically discussed this with Mr. Alibek, although I didn't realize at the time that it was the subject of a controversy.
The large balls of resin were MIXED with tiny particles of silica and anthrax spores in a way that helped disperse the weapon over a LARGER area. The idea that the resin was some kind of glue to hold the silica to the spores is just plain STUPID.
Ed, you are mistaken. Where a treaty allows you to make small amounts for defensive purchases and a defector comes over who knows how to make the product used by the Russians — known as the Alibekov formula — aren’t you allowed to make it? If not, what would be the point of paying Ken’s visa bill? Otherwise your defensive research would not be effective. Dugway started using simulants in 1992 — after Alibek defected.
The same logic has been used to develop genetically altered strains, I believe — on the grounds that they may be used in an attack.
After Dr. Zanders, I am about the most frequent participant on the BWPP board. So I’m not unacquainted with the very real concerns held by activists in the field.
So not only are you misconstruing language you nowhere cite, but you are putting words in Dr. Rebel’s mouth. You should drop the empty rhetoric of conspiracy theorists, etc. altogether. Your conspiracy theory has 4 people. The indictment, if one ever comes down, likely will contain conspiracy allegations.
Often in the area of biodefense you might be developing small amounts of weapon — a particular agent — for the first time.
Now I am not saying that this is sound policy. Or that it cannot be argued to be illegal. But don’t put words in TrebleRebel’s mouth. If he made that argument, by all means quote it back to him.
For example, by analogy, you argue against an Al Qaeda theory using the straw man argument it is made only by conservatives with a political agenda.
TrebleRebel, if you wanted clarification of Dr. A’s phrasing, you should have emailed him. It makes no sense instead to attack him publicly for a half decade using Ed as his proxy. Both of you are wrong, moreoever, to think it makes any sense, even if ineptly, to discuss how best to weaponize anthrax.
The role of the webposter, respectfully, is more limited.
For example, did Battelle have Ames? Yes.
Transfer records obtained by The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act show that USAMRIID, which is located in Frederick, shared the Ames strain last March with scientists at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, an Albuquerque research institute, and in May and June with the Battelle Memorial Institute, a Columbus, Ohio, corporation involved in anthrax vaccine and biodefense research.
Did Battelle in Columbus use the dry form? No. The dry form was only used at Dugway — at the Battelle Life Science facility there in Utah used for that purpose.
Was silica detected? Yes. See AFIP’s report.
So should any product that is held to be a close approximation should a similar spike on an EDX? Yes.
Should the product look like the SEMS Ed points to (rather than the ones pictured in the aerosol study that Dr. Rebel is point at?) Yes.
Now, beyond that, let FBI Director Mueller take it from here. He was channelling Jack McCoy himself when he told the House Judiciary Committee that they had identified Al Qaeda affiliates and cells in the US but that he couldn’t talk about it in open session.
To see what he said, you need to click here:
http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com
If you think the FBI are doing such a superb job why do you even comment on the investigation? Why not just put yourself in their very capable hands and go shopping at the mall with the comforting knowledge that they will keep you safe?
I've admitted that I was wrong about that. I've admitted it here and on my web site. It's in the "horse and buggy" analogy.
But that doesn't change the fact that your absurd conspiracy theories are also shown to be wrong.
When it suits your purposes, you claim the silica was glued to the spores with "polymerized glass."
When it suits your purposes, you claim the silica was glued to the spores with "organic resin."
When it suits your purposes, you claim there was some process involved which dipped the spores in liquid nitrogen to get the silica to stick to the spores.
When it suits your purposes, you claim that the silica sticks to the spores from van der Waals forces.
All you really care about is that there MUST be some illegal conspiracy involving the FBI and countless scientists where the sole purpose seems to be to prove you wrong in your beliefs.
I have never claimed that a liquid nitrogen process was used to make the senate spores. I have pointed out with examples that modern inhalational drug processing can create state-of-the-art aerosols with 1% or less fumed silica. Liquid nitrogen processing is not essential - and even it were it would be quite applicable to anthrax spores.
The silica in the Dugway spores ARE stuck there with van der Waals forces - the product isn’t too robust - the silica can fall off. The way around that is to chemically bind the silica to the spores. That would need a binding agent such as polymerized glass. This was also pointed out by Marilyn Thompson’s Detrick source in her book - that scientist eveidently agreed with me that a binding agent was used to attach the silica.
It’s far easier to neutralize the threat than to prove in court to a 100% certitude that someone processed some bacteria or dropped an envelope in the mailbox.
-They killed Atef within a month.
-They captured a key anthrax lab tech with two months.
-They captured a member of the 3-member WMD committee with 1 1/2 year (he was the one who would speak alongside Al-Timimi).
-They captured KSM, who had taken over from Atef, with 1 1/2 year.
-His regional operative Hambali within 2 years.
-Two additional lab techs within 2 years.
-The scientist who was infiltrating UK biodefense within the first year.
-Invading Iraq was a huge mistake.
-Permitting a Salafist-Jihadist who was close to WTC 1993 co-conspirators and lecturing on the end of times to be 15 feet from the leading anthrax scientist and former deputy commander was a big mistake.
-Allowing a man whose family are Palestinian activists (according to what his sister-in-law told the WashPo) to be the key criminal prosecutor in Amerithrax was a huge mistake.
So as can be expected, there are pluses and minuses.
But they are light-years ahead in understanding the anthrax mailings when compared to the vast majority of public commentators — ahead of all those who don’t realize US-supporters of the Salafi-jihadits are responsible.
For you, for example, to have so astutely seized on the importance of presence of silica and the related signature, and yet not realize the significance of the fact that the man working with Bin Laden’s sheik and the 911 imam was just 15 feet away from Ken is just absolutely astonishing.
That’s because the man 15 feet from Alibek doesn’t know the first thing about making spores.
There are coincidences everywhere. Anthrax being sent to the lady who rented the hijackers apartment husband’s workplace. The arrest of the guy who co-authored a paper on the NY lady who died of anthrax.
I’m not saying Al-Timni wasn’t invloved - all I’m saying is being 15 feet from Ken isn’t any more of a coincidence than the two coincidences I cite above.
Or isn’t any more of a coincidence than Greendale school and Greendale in Rhodesia or Atta’s Jenny Lopez.
“That’s because the man 15 feet from Alibek doesn’t know the first thing about making spores.”
He’s not suspected of being the processor. He is suspected of having, for example, accessed the biochemistry information. When they sent 100 federal agents to simultaneously interview 150 people the day and minute they searched Ali’s residence, those people were supporters of Ali’s charity. Similarly, when they later obtained the health records of another pious fellow in North Carolina, where Ali’s DC group had a branch, they weren’t looking to see if he had measles. They were looking to see if he had been prescribed, for example, Cipro. Just as a single example, the man arrested here regularly mixed with silica which is how they made the Dugway simulant. By not reading outside your field, your conclusion was predetermined.
“There are coincidences everywhere. Anthrax being sent to the lady who rented the hijackers apartment husband’s workplace. The arrest of the guy who co-authored a paper on the NY lady who died of anthrax.”
To dismiss them as mere coincidences is unfounded given the connections that existed.
“I’m not saying Al-Timni wasn’t invloved - all I’m saying is being 15 feet from Ken isn’t any more of a coincidence than the two coincidences I cite above.”
And Ali Mohammed didn’t really have access to classified information at Ft. Bragg. Right. Those cables from the Joint Chiefs could just be left forgotten in the FBI storage warehouse. There is no mistake that the FBI can be deemed to have made — with the benefit of hindsight — that begins to compare with the mistake people are making when they overlook the infiltration that has occurred here. I mean how much plainer does Al-Timimi’s attorney have to spell it out?
“Or isn’t any more of a coincidence than Greendale school and Greendale in Rhodesia...” Greendale School was not a coincidence. It was the code known by the CIA to have been used by Ayman Zawahiri. In May 2001, in explaining what he was doing to longtime followers, he used “school” as code for EIJ as he commonly did. The Green Team was the code used for the team sent by military commander Atef to Somalia led by Saif Adel. It had been almost a decade since Stan Bedlington had been with the CIA — his interpretation of Greendale was wide of the mark. As for the Jenny code, that was in fact the code used by Ramzi and wedding in fact is the code for event. So it has always been either EIJ or someone knowledgeable enough to frame the EIJ — such as someone steeped in threat assessment. That includes two associated with widely publicized searches. But that’s why you don’t see them hassling drunk bowlers who didn’t know anything about Zawahiri’s plans to weaponize anthrax for use against US targets.
Although you won’t find it mentioned on Ed’s page in which he attempts to point the finger at the guy who thought anthrax was a virus, in a filing unsealed this month, Dr. Ali Al-Timimi’s lawyer wrote: “Al-Timimi “was considered an anthrax weapons suspect.” Dr. Al-Timimi’s counsel summarizes:
“we know Dr. Al-Timimi:
* was interviewed in 1994 by the FBI and Secret Service regarding his ties to the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing;
* was referenced in the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing (”Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”) as one of seventy individuals regarding whom the FBI is conducting full field investigations on a national basis;
* was described to his brother by the FBI within days of the 9-11 attacks as an immediate suspect in the Al Qaeda conspiracy;
* was contacted by the FBI only nine days after 9-11 and asked about the attacks and its perpetrators;
* was considered an anthrax weapons suspect;
[redacted - passage presumptively IMO about Amerithrax investigation]
* was described during his trial by FBI agent John Wyman as having “extensive ties” with the “broader al-Qaeda network”;
* was described in the indictment and superseding indictment as being associated with terrorists seeking harm to the United States;
* was a participant in dozens of international overseas calls to individuals known to have been under suspicion of Al-Qaeda ties like Al-Hawali; and
* was associated with the long investigation of the Virginia Jihad Group.
***
The conversation with Al-Hawali on September 19, 2001 was central to the indictment and raised at trial. Al-Timimi called Dr. Hawali after the dinner with Kwon on September 16, 2001 and just two hours before he met with Kwon and Hassan for the last time on September 19, 2001.
“]911 imam] Anwar Al-Aulaqi goes directly to Dr. Al-Timimi’s state of mind and his role in the alleged conspiracy. The 9-11 Report indicates that Special Agent Ammerman interviewed Al-Aulaqi just before or shortly after his October 2002 visit to Dr. Al-Timimi’s home to discuss the attacks and his efforts to reach out to the U.S. government.”
[IANA head] Bassem Khafagi was questioned about Dr. Al-Timimi before 9-11 in Jordan, purportedly at the behest of American intelligence. [redacted ] He was specifically asked about Dr. Al-Timimi’s connection to Bin Laden prior to Dr. Al-Timimi’s arrest. He was later interviewed by the FBI about Dr. Al-Timimi. Clearly, such early investigations go directly to the allegations of Dr. Al-Timimi’s connections to terrorists and Bin Laden — [redacted]”
The letter by Al-Timimi’s counsel attached as an exhibit is equally meaty. An example of an additional detail is that in March 2002, Dr. Al-Timimi spoke with Dr. Al-Hawali (Bin Laden’s sheik who was the subject of OBL’s “Declaration of War”) about assisting Moussaoui in his defense.
The filing and the letter exhibit each copy the daughter of the lead prosecutor in Amerithrax. That prosecutor has pled the Fifth Amendment concerning all the leaks hyping a “POI” of the other Amerithrax squad, Dr. Steve Hatfill.
Dr. Rebel, I know you’ve corresponded a lot with Zack over the years and I know he holds you in high regard. He enjoys his hijinks with in patiently explaining to Ed the error of his ways. But Zack has been far too ready to overlook your cluelessness on Al Qaeda.
Consider your failiure to realize that the FoxNews email best fits Ali’s and his colleagues — with his colleagues merely the focus of attention because they were the victims of the threat of biochemistry info (or product).
In an e-mail obtained by FOX News, scientists at Fort Detrick openly discussed how the anthrax powder they were asked to analyze after the attacks was nearly identical to that made by one of their colleagues.
“Then he said he had to look at a lot of samples that the FBI had prepared ... to duplicate the letter material,” “Then the bombshell. He said that the best duplication of the material was the stuff made by [name redacted]. He said that it was almost exactly the same — his knees got shaky and he sputtered, ‘But I told the General we didn’t make spore powder!’”
FOX News reports:
“The FBI has narrowed its focus to “about four” suspects in the 6 1/2-year investigation of the deadly anthrax attacks of 2001, and at least three of those suspects are linked to the Army’s bioweapons research facility at Fort Detrick in Maryland, FOX News has learned.
Among the pool of suspects are three scientists — a former deputy commander, a leading anthrax scientist and a microbiologist — linked to the research facility, known as USAMRIID.”
It was more than a happy coincidence, Dr. Rebel, for Ayman Zawahiri and Mohammed Islambouli that an active supporter of the Taliban and supporter of jihad was a US biodefense insider. Microbiologist Al-Timimi worked in the same building as famed Russian bioweapons scientist Ken Alibek and former USAMRIID Deputy Commander and Acting Commander Charles Bailey, who would come to publish a lot of research with the “Ames strain” of anthrax. Al-Timimi was a current associate and former student of Bin Laden’s spiritual advisor, dissident Saudi Sheik al-Hawali. He would speak along with the blind sheik’s son at charity conferences — the blind sheik’s son served on Al Qaeda’s WMD committee. Al-Timimi’s mentor Bilal Philips was known for recruiting members of the military to jihad. The first week after 9/11, FBI agents questioned Ali Al-Timimi, a microbiology graduate student in a program jointly run by George Mason University and the American Type Culture Collection (”ATCC”). Ali, according to his lawyer, had been questioned by an FBI agent and Secret Service agent in 1994 after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He had a high security clearance for work for the Navy in he late 1990s and in 1996 for two months had worked for the White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card when he was Secretary of Transportation. As time off from his university studies permitted, Ali was an active speaker with a charity Islamic Assembly of North America.
In April 2008, Dr. Alibek told me that has not seen anybody from the FBI for the last 6 years. He reports that has lectured/consulted for many government officials on these 2001-anthrax “issues” several times years ago. He says he can just assume there were some of them from FBI but that was the extent of his contact. Although he was polygraphed in early 2002 along with many others, Dr. Alibek assures me that he has never been asked to provide with his handwriting. Dr. Alibek last offered his help to them about 4 or 5 years ago — he was thanked and decided to leave the area of biodefense afterwards. Now he is working in the field of pharmaceutical development and spends his time developing and manufacturing cardio and cancer drugs. Ed may be comfortable with the FoxNews report and Ken may provide assurances now that Ali was just a fanatic, but once you study the fuller context of the FBI’s prosecutions over the past half-decade, you can see that what they’ve done is neutralized what they perceived as the anthrax threat by prosecuting other criminal violations.
You can continue to make Tetrahedron or BHR-like arguments if you like and be subject to Ed’s ridicule, or you can come over and join S.H.I.E.L.D.
IRON MAN just recently joined us.
— Pook
Interestingly, when I got home from doing errands a few minutes ago, I found a very nice email in my inbox from one of the authors of the Aerosol Science article. I haven't yet gotten permssion to quote him or identify him, but he tells me that there is no agreement between the authors of the article on what causes the silica to stick to the spores.
But don't let that dilute your absolute certainty.
1. The Sterne preparations WERE prepared shortly before they began their project. They were not the old stuff like the BG preparations. You were right about that.
2. The email also says that the were not in a position to know any details about the attack anthrax and just accepted what was in the media as being reasonable. I was right about that.
3. The person who wrote me says I shouldn't attribute anything in the article to any specific individual. So, he probably won't let me quote him. That means that this information from the email should be considered to be from everyone who participated in writing the article.
Dr. Rebel, let me try to summarize in a different way. The key in coating a chicken breast with bread crumbs is whole milk. Don’t use skim. Ali Al-Timimi had Ken’s recipes available to him if his security was no better that Dr. Patrick’s. It all was quite ridiculous for Ken even to be telling author Preston (you quote above) the Alibekov formula. We shouldn’t now fault him for not more clearly explaining things to Ed in the December 2004 conversation.
Ayman Zawahiri accomplished the attack on the US “structure” he intended. With the planes, Al Qaeda struck the US trade dominance (World Trade Center) and its military might (Pentagon). With the anthrax, some US-based supporter(s) of the goals of Zawahiri rounded out the field that they imagine provides support to Israel — the legislative branch and media. Analogous letter bombs were sent in connection with the earlier attack on the World Trade Center and the imprisonment of the Blind Sheikh and militant islamists responsible for that attack and a related plot. Thus, relying on the postal service to send its deadly missives in connection with an earlier attack of the World Trade Center is not only Al Qaeda’s modus operandi, it is its signature.
For Ed to argue that Ayman would only use a “big bang” is to be totally uninformed that targeted assassination is EIJ’s modus operandi.
Ayman’s plan established by the documentary evidence seized in Afghanistan was to use the cover of charities and universities. When you have the choice between relying on a Brian Ross report, Ed, and the documentary evidence, always go with the documentary evidence.
Al Qaeda’s Mohammed Abdel-Rahman had fellow IANA speaker Ali Al-Timimi available to recruit. A December 1998 PDB had said that Mohammed Islambouli was going to send someone to make contact with people in the US to carry out attacks. In mid-2000, KSM and Islambouli apparently eventually sent bio-chem operative from Saudi Arabia, where his family had moved from Doha, Qatar. Al-Marri had been with both KSM and Islambouli. After Al-Marri was done casing New York City targets with UK operative Dhiren Barot, he had his computer sent from Macomb, Illinois to Washington. In the summer of 2001 went to UAE to receive $13,000 from Al-Hawsawi whose laptop had the spraydrying documents. Upon returning to the United States from Pakistan the next year on September 10, 2001, Al-Marri maintained contact with Al-Hawsawi. Al-Hawsawi also handled financial logistics relating to the 9/11 hijackers. Like Tenet said, anthrax planning was in parallel with the 9/11 planes operation. To close the Amerithrax case, the key question: where in Washington did Al-Marri have his computer sent?
In the Washington, D.C. area, Taliban supporter Ali Al-Timimi worked in the same building as famed Russian bioweaponeer Ken Alibek and former USAMRIID Deputy Commander and Acting Commander Charles Bailey, who had co-invented a process using hydrophobic silica to lead to greater concentration of a biological agent. “Encapsulation” was the reason for the detection of silica. Dr. Bailey has been a prolific Ames anthrax strain researcher. Dr. Alibek and Dr. Bailey had multimillion dollar grants from DARPA funding a contract with USAMRIID with Delta Ames supplied by NIH. NSA intercepts showed that Ali Al-Timimi was working with Bin Laden’s sheik al-Hawali, who had been the subject of Bin Laden’s 1996 Declaration of War and his 1998 claim of responsibility for the embassy bombings. Timimi has been sentenced to life plus 70 years before his conviction was reversed and remanded. Bilal Philips had been Ali’s mentor and the father of Jafar the Pilot had been Bilal Philips’ mentor. Ali Al-Timimi shared a fax machine with famed Russian anthrax bioweaponeer Ken Alibek and former USAMRIID deputy commander Charles Bailey, who is listed as an author on various articles reporting biodefense research using virulent Ames strain of anthrax.
Dr. Bailey had worked with the Defense Intelligence Agency (”DIA”) for years on threat assessment of biological weapons. Dr. Alibek had consulted for Battelle, world renown for its expertise on anthrax aerosols. Dr. Alibek and Dr. Bailey had co-authored the patent filed in mid-March 2001 on concentrating biological agents using silica in the growth medium that was still confidential as of Fall 2001. Ed’s theory that a surfactant was used prior to drying may come up along on the outside and overtake all the pictures of asperities and van der waals forces that Dr. Rebel cares to post.
Although Ed never mentions it, CIA Director Tenet, in a May 2007 book, notes that the CIA was startled to learn that the anthrax planning had been done in parallel with the 9/11 planning. Indeed, it was the laptop of Hawsawi, who was KSM’s assistant who sent and received money from the hijackers, that had the anthrax spraydrying documents on it. In fact, KSM was not really captured on March 1, 2003, when the laptop was seized, as the Pakistanis claim. He apparently instead was captured on or about February 13, 2001 at the time the blind sheik’s son was grabbed, based on a report Zahid Hussain sourced to a police official. Intelligence officials just wanted the two weeks to get leads on those planning attacks. The family members of the bacteriologist who owned the home where Hawsawi and the laptop were taken have always stridently claimed that KSM was not captured there. Two weeks later authorities raided Al-Timimi along with drying and processing experts. In June 2003, a UN report explained that Al-Qaeda “WMD Committee” — Mohammed Abdel-Rahman was one of its three members — “is known to have approached a number of Muslim scientists to assist the terrorist network with the creation and procurement of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons.” Al-Timimi apparently, the FBI suspects, was one such scientist.
Information permitting a resolution of the Amerithrax matter — the identity of the processor(s) and mailer — likely will come from the numerous individuals, now arrested, who may have played a role or known something. It likely will stem from those with a personal knowledge of Al Qaeda, and not those with an ideological or political axe to grind, whether against Iraq or militant islamists, in favor of establishing a Palestinian state, or against the US biodefense establishment or current federal Administration. The perps likely at some point have expressed upset at the detention of the Blind Sheik or been personally affected by the detention of friends or family.
Although the analysis by the Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR) in Rockville, Md. did not pinpoint the exact origin of the Florida isolate, the study showed how whole-genome sequencing technology and computational methods can be a powerful approach for analyzing anthrax and other bacterial outbreaks. BHR has always underestimated the usefulness of the genetic line of inquiry at narrowing the source of the anthrax. Similarly, while the anthrax perpetrator(s) may never be caught, the Amerithrax investigation was hard fought by investigators who realized that the next 9/11 might be at issue. As they heard Ayman Zawahiri’s recurring threats of attack, the Amerithrax investigators likely remained haunted by coincidences that they tirelessly pursued while they left no stone unturned. Amerithrax investigators emphasize that there is no cover-up — no conspiracy. The investigators at least once were under intense pressure to solve the case. Giving the government the benefit of the doubt, and putting aside whether anyone will be prosecuted criminally for leaks, the information that was withheld was presumably for reasons of national security and safeguarding the integrity of the confidential criminal investigation.
In 2003, anthrax lab tech Yazid Sufaat’s assistants were captured. “Extremely virulent” anthrax was found in Afghanistan after Hambali was harshly interrogated in Jordan. Ron Suskind in One Percent Solution reports that it was unweaponized but authorities knew it could be readily weaponized and had predated 9/11. It was highly concentrated. After these and other developments, conspicuous surveillance was called off on US scientist Dr. Steve Hatfill in late 2003. In the Summer 2006, the “911 Imam” Awlaki (Aulaqi) from Falls Church, Virginia was arrested in Yemen and held for 18 months. Awlaki met both in San Diego and in Falls Church with hijacker Nawaf who had been at the planning meeting in January 2000 at the condo of anthrax lab director Yazid Sufaat. 911 planner Ramzi Bin-al-Shibh had the telephone number of Awlaki’s mosque. CIA Director Tenet in his 2007 book says authorities were startled to find that the anthrax planning had been done in parallel with the 9/11 planning and that Ramzi Bin-al-Shibh had a CBRN role. (So, no, TrebleRebel, don’t be surprised that the “Jenny” used by Ramzi would be used.) The Falls Church “911 Iman” Awlaki would speak alongside fellow Falls Church imam Ali Al-Timimi and Bilal Philips about the signs of the coming day of judgment — for example, in August 2001, he spoke with Ali Al-Timimi in London along with unindicted WTC 1993 conspirator Philips.
The anthrax operation was likely led by Mohammed Islambouli, who had been in a cell with KSM in connection with the planned attacks on the US using aircraft and other means. Islambouli’s role and his planned visit to the US in preparation for the attacks was the subject of the December 4, 1998 Presidential Daily Brief by the CIA to President Clinton. If we don’t learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. The job of journalists, however, is news, not analysis. So journalists understandably need to wait until they are told these things by the government (or in this case, by a defendant’s counsel). Sometimes the government’s interest in the fruits of intelligence activity causes them to forego explaining what is really going on or in seeking a criminal prosecution. For example, the wiretap on Postal employee Sattar’s telephone permitted them to catch the head of the Egyptian Islamic Group in Egypt in October 2000. Similarly, by proceeding in great secrecy in Amerithrax, they have had numerous successes that otherwise would have eluded them. The solution to Amerithrax, however, has been there for all to see — most intelligence is open source. Amerithrax is best understood as a complex web of prosecutions. In the end Amerithrax will be known as a great DOJ/FBI success story.
The prosecution in the Al-Timimi matter only has a matter of days left to provide any discoverable evidence of interception.
I don’t know who you are corresponding with - but I have emails I’m also not allowed to quote from. But I can tell you that everyone in the N American aerosol BW community does not credit Beecher’s paper - they believe Beecher’s paper “slipped through the process” and the blame is on the reviewers. They don not believe it is possible to make a preparation based on only raw spores that could ever behave the way the Daschle powder was shown to behave by scientific study in the Hart Building (JAMA study).
Of course, Beecher did not respond to the rebuttal letter to provide his data, and that is basically the end of the matter.
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.