Posted on 04/13/2008 8:20:52 AM PDT by ZacandPook
“........the American public deserves a real investigation.”
http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/Connolly.pdf
Do you agree with Hatfill’s lawyer? Do we deserve a real investigation?
What do you think he meant by that?
You're not addressing the question. You're just rationalzing.
First, the spores were stuck together in a pellet before they went into the sieve. There's no reason to believe they ALL got unstuck and then some of them got restuck on the other side of the sieve. The clumps are small enough to get through the sieve AS clumps.
But second, and most importantly, the tiny clumps are not coated with silica. Why not?
Yes, I know that if there was silica between the spores, the spores would not stick together. But only PARTS of the spores are touching one another. Why aren't the spores totally coated with silica where they are NOT touching one another?
If you have two spores stuck together, are van der Waals forces different than for just one spore alone? On one spore alone, silica sticks to ALL SIDES. Why wouldn't silica stick to all EXPOSED sides of a 2-spore particle?
I think there has been a real investigation. I think they charged alternative crimes in neutralizing the threat. For example, in the case of Al-Timimi, who they suspected of accessing biochemistry information, they charged sedition.
It makes sense from a national security point of view (avoiding an attack). But they perhaps don’t appreciate that Zawahiri has won the media game which to him was always fully half the game. Allowing truther / French / BHR / Boyle/ TrebleRebel / Velis / EdLake / computerbytesman / Horowitz etc. type theories to proliferate has hurt America’s prestige and respect in the world. That greatly undermines “national security.”
One small thing they might have done different — and perhaps this rested solely with a personal judgment FBI DC Field Office Head Van Harp made — is that he should have fully cooperated with the leak investigation even after retired. His loyalty to US Attorney Roscoe Howard and his colleague, head of criminal prosecutions Daniel Seikaly, was understandable — but those under scrutiny will often have loyalty to others. If he believes in the FBI’s mission, he should, first, furthered that mission by voluntarily providing the waiver as to confidentiality such as Lambert did. (And he should have submitted to a polygraph even though polygraphs are unreliable).
For the US Attorney to talk about wanting to do a creditable job was total BS if he in fact did not tell Van Harp of his and his colleague’s contact with Newsweek.
I’m not concerned with whether there was any punishment for the 2002 leaks (even discipline). My point is that if a proper investigation had been done in August 2002 or immediately in January 2003, the leaks (Seikaly’s misdirection) would have stopped. Instead, if I am remembering correctly, leaks continued into June 2003. If the FBI couldn’t identify and be forthright about the leaks, what chance is there they can identify the anthrax mailer? It’s from the same Administration which brought you Condi’s “Who could ever have imagined that they would fly planes into buildings” when no imagination was necessary — just reading the intelligence about past plans and plots.
In an earlier draft of one of Locy’s article, she referred to a source as a senior FBI official. See Hatfill’s opposition to motion to stay pending appeal. So if ordered to name an additional source, I’m not sure who she’ll name.
Given that I think a Hatfill theory was plausible — and just mistaken — I have less difficulty in crediting the good faith of the investigation. It’s only that Mr. Seikaly’s leak and his daughter’s representation of Al-Timimi — the “POI” of the other squad — that could only occur in the inside-the-beltway culture. The media’s silence on the issue is deafening. Inside the beltway (or perhaps in government generally), the civil servants don’t need to care about the governmental mission so long as they land as head of corporate security of a major credit card company or partner at a DC law firm. Director Mueller’s legacy will be judged in part by Amerithrax and its final resolution. I have total faith but I see that the faith is blind. A blind man recently bowled a 300 game, so here’s hoping.
Ah, yes. Your old favorite: Hamaker's constant. The experts I've talked with say there is no way to calculate Hamaker's constant for an organic, living object like a spore. And I certainly couldn't do it. So, any argument that ends up at Hamaker's constant is a dead end argument.
Yes, I know you fantasize that Hamaker's contant would be the same for a spore as for a particle of lactose (or was it corn starch?) but fantasies don't solve scientific questions.
What I'm trying to do it define our exact point of disagreement. Look at it this way:
If you claim you can see city hall from the corner of 6th and main, and I claim you cannot, we could then go to the corner of 6th and main to see who is right.
If we get there and we cannot see city hall, then I am right.
If you then say, well, you can see it from the top of the Blake Building which is on the corner of 6th and main, we can climb up to the top and see. If we can see city hall from there, you would be right AFTER we clarified that you could not really see it from the CORNER of 6th and main but ONLY from the top of a building at that corner.
The argument would be resolved.
The dispute we have over van der Waals forces is similar.
You claim van der Waals forces act between molecules AND particles.
I claim that van der Waals forces act between molecules and between atoms of noble gasses. The interaction between particles is not really between particles, it's between the molecules IN the particles WHEN and at the point WHERE the particles are touching one another.
You claim that van der Waals forces are "universal." My understanding is that they are NOT universal. Since van der Waals forces act only between molecules and atoms of noble gasses, that leaves out such ordinary things as rocks, salts, and metals, which, according to Wikipedia, are composed of atoms or ions, and are not made of molecules.
Particles of gold or aluminum get bound together by metallic bonding, NOT by van der Waals forces.
So, what I'm trying to do is discuss our points of disagreement without getting into a Hamaker's constant dead end. And I'm also trying to do it without you just posting some link where there's something which YOU INTERPRET as proof of your argument, and if anyone disagrees, then you claim they just don't understand science as well as you. That's another dead end.
I'm trying to avoid the dead ends that we've been running into for the years we've been debating.
Comprendo?
The Toni Locy situation has been endlessly and thoroughly described in the media. I have no reason to spend money to get legal documents via PACER. It wouldn't accomplish anything.
The debate about the science of tiny particles CAN solve something because it's a scientific argument where facts can be determined and points of disagreement can be resolved.
On appeal, Hatfill theme is that the investigators came under tremendous public pressure to demonstrate progress toward solving the crimes, and that when genuine progress was not achieved, government officials sought to relieve that pressure by gradually making over one hundred leaks of investigative information to the media all suggesting that Hatfill was a murderer. Counsel claims that it made him “a pariah in the field that he chose to go into.” Appellee emphasizes that this case has nothing to do with shining an investigative light on government misdeeds — that was not the nature of the leaks. “The case involves government manipulation of journalists to disseminate “life-shattering” information about an innocent citizen in violation of federal law. Instead of disclosing government wrongdoing, counsel argues, the media ended up concealing governmental wrongdoing.
Now I’ve already overly belabored, perhaps, the point that Hatfill has not yet faced squarely the fact that he was made a pariah first by forging a PhD certificate and repeatedly falsely claiming he had a PhD in gaining access to the ebola virus and obtaining work in a governmental biolevel-4 lab (you know, the kind where you wear a space suit such as described in Preston’s HOT ZONE). Moreover, lying about having a PhD may also have implications for a standing as an MD if he were to seek to become licensed in some state. Any argument that does not address that difficult issue runs the risk that the decision-maker will place undo importance on the information not being disclosed.
I can’t say that the brief convinces on the issue whether Locy did anything wrong. She was just doing her job and had every reason to rely on the solid sources she was relying on. Of course, whether now she should be forced to disclose those sources is a separate and complicated policy question. People can disagree. But I don’t see how anyone can fault her reporting which was very balanced.
Now her performance at deposition was a little more problematic. Counsel argues: “She refused to disclose anything about where the fourth person worked and,in particular, whether that person was affiliated with DOJ. She invoked work product and refused to say whether she had sought waivers. At her second deposition she had just begun to reach out to people — when by then she should have had a firm response, yes or no, to a request for a waiver.
“Locy’s position seems to be that, because her financial means are modest, Hatfill should pay the price though loss of evidence. But why should a party already injured by her sources’ illegal disclosures have to do without relevant evidence so that she can enjoy the luxury of clinging to a legal position the court has rejected? The reality is that it actually is enormously costly to get evidence from reporters, because the reporters typically fight at every step of the process without any intention of complying with any contrary rulings.”
As counsel notes “Locy has it within her power to pay nothing.”
If the busy, timepressed, and underfunded media better understood what was going on in Amerithrax, and had not been misled by years of leaks by people in authoritative position, they would digest that their profession requires that they now expose the wrongdoing that occurred, which is entirely different from initial appearances. Their understanding of a matter should not have to rely solely on the spinning by an agenda-driven government official. That hardly is fulfilling the highest ideals of the Fourth Estate. They should now explore the motivation of the leaker and consider whether it was “personal” such as alleged by Van Harp at deposition.
Locy on appeal argues that the District Court’s opinion did not address her lack of memory. From the bench, however, the Court did say that, while crediting her good faith, if “I don’t remember” certainly would prove a convenient response by a reporter. Does anyone truly believe she does not know the fourth individual she declined to name? She reports that she had no schedule for throwing notes away but would discard them when her desk came to be cluttered. Those notes, she explains, if they existed at all, would have been discarded before Dr. Hatfill first raised these issues in his Amended Complaint. She was not required to reveal the identity of her confidential sources to her editors. (Since 2004, policies at USA Today have changed.) Now reporters are required to do so. She relied on a wide range of sources, and her sources were undifferentiated — that is, the same sources that might advise her on the subject of terrorism generally might comment on the Hatfill matter. She always contacted Hatfill’s representatives before writing a story — this is a lesson NYT’s NK should have followed before writing his early July 2002 column, if not before. She notes that Hatfill’s counsel complimented the balance of her coverage and lamented the lack of balance of some other coverage by others. She emphasizes that at her second deposition, counsel never asked her who gave her info about Hatfill specifically but was asking about who gave her information about anthrax generally.
She says the balance between the public’s need to know about terrorism and Hatfill’s rights, the balance tips against compelled disclosure.
I’m not sure I see why. I don’t see why prosecutors could not have provided information about leads they were pursuing, reasons for searches, etc., without having to do it on the condition of anonymity. We expect them to pursue leads. We assume a search, such as the search of several dozen scientists, is part of the investigation.
It is only when you have anonymous hyped stories that the investigation becomes less transparent, not more transparent. More things should be said in front of a podium, and less spun by anonymous senior officials obfuscating the source. Then, for example, when it turns out that gloves (see WP story) were not in fact found — or traces of anthrax were not in fact found — we know who to fault. We will know who to poke fun of when the “glove box” turns out to be a minnow trap. A minnow trap is a lot like being named a “person of interest”. The person can swim in but can’t swim out.
It will be very anticlimactic if and when Ms. Locy is ordered to name the source (with no further stay). We likely will learn a name. It will not at all surprise us. Nothing much will have been advanced either in the Hatfill suit or in the public’s understanding of Amerthrax. Like Ed’s discussion of the Hamaker constant, the Hatfill civil litigation and these First Amendment issues shed no light on the solution of Amerithrax.
AP is reporting on the oral argument that the federal appeals court “appears reluctant to uphold a contempt order.”
“Appellate judges on Friday questioned whether the order went too far or whether Hatfill even needs the information.”
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gvCt5W7XdTkiiE06HsUTwoBn1EEAD90I7LM8D
For a discussion of all the aspects of a “Hatfill Theory,” see the last sections at
http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com
So, instead of discussing this subject, you are doing as I figured you would: You post a link to an article which YOU INTERPRET as confirming your beliefs, and you consider anyone who does not INTERPRET that article the same way as having no scientific understanding. Is that about it?
I showed how that phrase in that article is misleading. Van der Waals forces act between molecules, and ONLY act between particles when the particles touch and the molecules can interact.
Finding a phrase in a paper that you can INTERPRET to mean otherwise, doesn't change anything. I can find a hundred articles where it says that van der Waals forces act between molecules and atoms of noble gasses.
You have this misconception about van der Waals forces. You have this conspiracy theory about the attack anthrax being coated. The basis for your conspiracy theory is your misconception about van der Waals forces. And you confirm your misconception by claiming that anyone who does not believe as you believe doesn't understand science.
What about van der Waals forces and particles of gold and aluminum? Are you going to just ignore that question?
If van der Waals forces work between particles in a way other than the way I describe, why don't you explain to us exactly HOW you believe van der Waals forces act between particles?
Or is a quote from an article all you know?
“You’ve got enough to go to trial. You think you can win,” Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg told Hatfill’s lawyer. “Why is more evidence critical to the case? That seems to be a contradiction.”
***
“I think you have an argument that the court didn’t do the necessary balance,” Judge Judith W. Rogers said.
Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, the third member on the panel, expressed skepticism that Locy had a constitutional right not to identify her sources. But he said she had a very strong case under a more general legal principle, known as common law.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2008-05-09-locy-appeal_N.htm
Comment: Nothing would prevent the appellate court from narrowing the District Court’s ruling and ordering Locy to compel the name of the fourth source. Courts on Appeal commonly engage in balancing and line-drawing when faced with an overbroad ruling by a court below.
ABC -
The three-judge panel seemed skeptical of Locy’s attorney’s claims that she couldn’t remember which of her sources had provided information on Hatfill. The judges said it was clear from previous hearings that she knew about four or five people who were the sources.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4823142&page=2
Will the judges annouce their decision today?
If they announce that she needs to pay the fines, will she file another emergency appeal with a higher court?
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/index.php?i=6743
“[Court of Appeals judge] Kavanaugh contended that leaving the existence of the privilege up to the “vagaries of a balancing test” applied by a “random district court judge” would do little to encourage and protect the communications between sources and journalists.
He added that there has been a material change from the time the Supreme Court rejected an absolute common law privilege in the early 1970s: 49 states have established either legislative or judicial rules protecting reporters from subpoenas. Given that the court looks to the states for guidance when establishing common law evidentiary privileges, that change could indicate that the current landscape demands an absolute privilege.
Leaving the courthouse, Locy said that she was “encouraged” by the morning’s hearing.
“I just wanted to get my day in court,” Locy ... said, adding that she thought the judges asked good questions during the oral argument.
In contrast to Ed’s candidate who he imagined to be a right-winger, but who along with his wife, was a staunch Gore supporter and focused on green issues, the documentary evidence shows that Ayman Zawahiri, as part of his weaponization of anthrax for use against US targets, sought to infiltrate US and UK biodefense establishment.
Among the supporters of these militant islamists were people like US scientist Ali Al-Timimi and Pakistan scientist Rauf Ahmad who blended into society and were available to act when another part of the network requested it. Two letters — one typed and an earlier handwritten one — written by a scientist named Rauf Ahmad detailed his efforts to obtain a pathogenic strain of anthrax. He attended conferences on anthrax and dangerous pathogens such as one in September 2000 at the University of Plymouth cosponsored by DERA, the UK Defense Evaluation and Research Agency. A handwritten letter from 1999 is written on the letterhead of the oldest microbiology society in Great Britain. The 1999 documents seized in Afghanistan by US forces by Rauf describe the author’s visit to the special confidential room at the BL-3 facility where 1000s of pathogenic cultures were kept; his consultation with other scientists on some of technical problems associated with weaponizing anthrax; the bioreactor and laminar flows to be used in Al Qaeda’s anthrax lab; a conference he attended on dangerous pathogens cosponsored by UK’s Porton Down and Society for Applied Microbiology , and the need for vaccination and containment. Rauf had arranged to take a lengthy post-doc leave from his employer and was grousing that what the employer would be paying during that 12-month period was inadequate. Malaysian Yazid Sufaat, who told his wife he was working for a Taliban medical brigade, got the job instead of Rauf.
I have uploaded a scanned copy of a typed memo reporting on a lab visit, which included tour of a BioLevel 3 facility, where there were 1000s of pathogenic samples. The memo mentioned the pending paperwork relating to export of the pathogens. The documents were provided to me by the Defense Intelligence Agency (”DIA”) under the Freedom of Information Act. I also have uploaded a copy of earlier correspondence between Rauf Ahmad and Dr. Zawahiri from before the lab visit described in the typed memo. The handwritten letter was reporting on a different, earlier visit where the anthrax had been nonpathogenic. Finally, on the same linked page, there are handwritten notes about the plan to use non-governmental-organizations (NGOs), technical institutes and medical labs as cover for aspects of the work, and training requirements for the various personnel at the lab in Afghanistan.
Ali Al-Timimi was a celebrated speaker with the Islamic Assembly of North America (”IANA”). I drove by the charity’s spin-off, Help The Needy, each day — it was about a mile away from me in Syracuse. Al-Timimi was a graduate student in the same building where famed Russian bioweapon Ken Alibek and former USAMRIID head Charles Bailey worked at George Mason University. The three worked at the secure facility at Discovery Hall at the Prince William 2 campus. Dr. Alibek and Dr. Bailey headed a biodefense program funded by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (”DARPA”). Al-Timimi had a top security clearance and had worked for SRA International doing mathematical support work for the Navy. In 2000 and 2001, Timimi was a graduate student in computational sciences. His field was bioinformatics. Al-Timimi tended to travel to give speeches on interpretation of the koran only during semester breaks. Al-Timimi spoke in very moderate, measured tones in the UK, Canada, and Australia — once even in China. He spoke against feminism, about the unfavorable treatment of islam in the secular media, about signs of the coming day of judgment, the correct interpretation of the koran and hadiths, and the destruction of the Buddha statutes by the Taliban. Locally, he spoke regularly at the Falls Church center that also housed offices of the charity, the Muslim World League. Timimi was associated with the charity Islamic Assembly of North America (”IANA”), based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The group had a spin-off in Syracuse focused on Iraq, called Help The Needy. Ali’s colleague from the small DC-based Society for Adherence to the Sunnah, Idris Palmer, served as Vice-President. Al-Timimi’s speeches are widely distributed on the internet and tend to focus on religious rather than political issues.
A district court judge would say that his later speeches tended to favor violent jihad. After 9/11, they were removed from the website of the Center he had founded. The night of 9/11, he got in a heated debate with some colleagues. He said while islamically impermissible, the targeting of civilians was not impermissible where they were used as a shield. Others thought that it was reckless to say that so soon after the 9/11 attack when emotions were so inflamed. Years earlier, the blind sheik’s son, Mohammed Abdel-Rahman was scheduled to come from Afghanistan to speak at the IANA 1993 conference alongside Ali Al-Timimi and former EIJ member Gamal Sultan. He spoke alongside the blind sheik’s son again in 1996, the year Bin Laden issued his Declaration of War against the United States. In July and August 2001, Al-Timimi spoke in Toronto and London alongside “911 imam” Awlaki and WTC 1993 “unindicted co-conspirator” Bilal Philips.
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.