Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hatfill v. US - DOJ and FBI Statement of Facts (filed Friday)
US DOJ and FBI Memorandum In Support of Motion For Summary Judgment (Statement of Facts) | April 11, 2008 | Department of Justice

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.”


TOPICS: Anthrax Scare; Breaking News; Extended News; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: amerithrax; anthrax; anthraxattacks; bioterrorism; doj; domesticterrorism; fbi; hatfill; islamothrax; kristoff; nicholaskristoff; trialbymedia; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 981-987 next last
To: TrebleRebel
When discussing powders the only relevant van der Waals forces are the particle-particle ones. The ones that science has known about and understood for decades - the ones that you appear to still deny the existence of.

Why is it that you feel you MUST distort the facts on everything in order to make your points? Is it because you cannot support your beliefs WITHOUT distorting the facts?

I do not deny the existence of particle to particle van der Waals forces. I described how they worked in an earlier post. They are the same molecule to molecule forces, they just involve molecules in different particles that are touching one another.

If you believe that there is some "particle to particle van der Waals force" that does NOT involve the molecule to molecule force, how does it work?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

601 posted on 05/10/2008 10:33:02 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
If you are just going to post articles and claim they are proof of something, why not post the article from Weekly Standard titled "Remember Anthrax? It says:

The science of environmental engineering, which hardly existed in the 1960s, has lately revealed a great deal of new information about the dispersal patterns of anthracis and other airborne microbes. As a consequence, old assumptions about the effect of electricity on the aerosolization of bacterial pathogens--like those from a just-opened letter--have been revised: Lethal quantities of lethally small anthracis particles can and do spread over a large area, on normal indoor air currents and in very little time, whether or not they have been treated with an anti-static compound.

...

Individual, free-floating anthracis spores are what those scientists look at every day. And it's hardly a secret. During a December 15 Centers for Disease Control-sponsored conference on post-exposure prevention of inhalation anthrax--you can find the transcript on CDC's website--Dr. Louise Pitt of USAMRIID discussed in considerable detail how her colleagues at Ft. Detrick do their anthracis research. The spores, she said,

"are diluted to the desired concentration in sterile distilled water, water for injection. Our aerosols are extremely well characterized and defined. The particle size of the aerosol has a mass-meeting-aerosol diameter between .8 and 1.4 microns. That means that the aerosols that we are generating are basically single-spore aerosols. There's very, very little clumping of two spores. They are single-spore aerosols."

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

602 posted on 05/10/2008 10:45:22 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel

Let’s consider one accomplice of the hijackers that Ed did not know about.

    Nawaf Al-Hazmi was one of the two hijackers who had been at the meeting at anthrax lab director Yazid Sufaat’s Malaysian condominium in January 2000.   Nawaf Hazmi and a colleague had arrived the previous year in San Diego, where they had been unsuccessful in learning to fly. Upon arriving in San Diego in 2000, he met with Imam named Aulaqi — perhaps even the same day as arriving. The 911 Commission Report said that Nawaf and his fellow hijacker and “developed a close relationship with him.”  The 911 Commission Report notes that “[a]lthough Aulaqi admits talking several times with Nawaf several times, he has said he does not remember what they discussed. Aulaqi in early 2001 moved to Falls Church. Several months later, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, who by then had joined them in San Diego in December 2000, also moved to Falls Church, Virginia.

     They had been joined in San Diego by Hani Hanjour, a good friend of Nawaf’s from Saudi Arabia. Hani was the pilot of flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon. Hani had been at al-Qaeda’s al-Faruq camp when Bin Laden or Atef told him “to report to KSM, who then trained Hanjour for a few days in the use of code words.” Hani then met with Aafia Siddiqui’s future husband al-Baluchi in United Arab Emirates. Al-Balucchi opened an account for Hani who then traveled to San Diego.

      On April 1, 2001, Nawaf al-Hazmi received a ticket for speeding in Oklahoma [where Zacarias Moussaoui was located], apparently while driving cross-country from San Diego to Falls Church, Virginia.

      Nawaf Alhazmi and Hani Hanjour rented an apartment in Falls Church, Virginia, for about a month, with the assistance of a man they met at Aulaqi’s mosque. They lived at 3355 Row St., Apt. 3 in Falls Church. The hijackers attended sermons at the Dar al Hijrah mosque, where Aulaqi was now located. Ali Al-Timimi attended the mosque until he established the nearby center. Police later found the phone number of the Falls Church mosque when they searched the apartment of 9/11 planner Ramzi bin al-Shibh in Germany.

      On May 1, 2001, Nawaf reported to police that men tried to take his wallet outside a Fairfax, Virginia residence. Before the county officer left, al-Hazmi signed a “statement of release” indicating he did not want the incident investigated. Hani and Nawaf then moved to Paterson, New Jersey, renting a one-bedroom apartment where they lived with some of the other hijackers. On June 30th, his car was involved in a minor traffic accident on the east-bound George Washington Bridge. Hani was stopped by police on August 1, 2001 for driving 55 mph in a 30 mph zone in Arlington, Virginia.

      On September 10, 2001, Hanjour, al-Mihdhar, and al-Hazmi checked into the Marriott Residence Inn in Herndon, Virginia where Saleh Ibn Abdul Rahman Hussayen, a prominent Saudi government official — who later was appointed to head the mosques at Mecca and Medina — was staying. He was the uncle of Sami al-Hussayen, the webmaster of the Islamic Assembly of North America (”IANA”). 

In October 2002, “911 imam” Aulaqi came back into the country and met with Al-Timimi to discuss the letter that would be hand-delivered to every member of Congress threatening dire consequences if the US invaded Iraq. The sheik was from Bin Laden’s sheik al-Hawali, who had been the subject of Bin Laden’s Declaration of War in 1996.

        Al-Timimi’s counsel explained in a court filing unsealed in April 2008: “]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.”

        Falls Church imam Awlaqi (Aulaqi), who met with hijacker Nawaf, reportedly was picked up in Yemen by Yemen security forces at the request of the CIA in the summer of 2006. British and US intelligence had him and others under surveillance. Al-Timimi would speak alongside fellow Falls Church imam Awlaqi (Aulaqi) at conferences such as the August 2001 London JIMAS and the August 2002 London JIMAS conference. They would speak on subjects such as signs before the day of judgment and the like. Dozens of their lectures are available online. Unnamed U.S. officials told the Washington Post in 2008 that “they have come to believe that Aulaqi worked with al-Qaida networks in the Persian Gulf after leaving Northern Virginia.” One official said: “There is good reason to believe Anwar Aulaqi has been involved in very serious terrorist activities since leaving the United States, including plotting attacks against America and our allies.” “Some believe that Aulaqi was the first person since the summit meeting in Malaysia with whom al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi shared their terrorist intentions and plans,” former Senate Intelligence committee chairman Bob GrahamGraham wrote in his 2004 book “Intelligence Matters.”

        Awlaqi had been hired in early 2001 in attempt by the mosque’s leaders to appeal to younger worshipers. Born in New Mexico and raised in Yemen, he had the total package. He was young, personable, fluent in English, eloquent and knowledgeable about Middle East politics. Hani Hanjour and Nawaf Al Hazmi worshiped at Aulaqi’s mosque for several weeks in spring 2001. The 9/11 commission noted that the two men apparently showed up because Nawaf Hazmi had developed a close relationship with Aulaqi in San Diego. In 2001, Awlaqi came to Falls Church from San Diego shortly before Nawaf did. Awlaqi told the FBI that he did not recall what Nawaf and he had discussed in San Diego and denied having contact with him in Falls Church. The unclassified portion of a U.S. Department of Justice memorandum dated September 26, 2001 states       

        “Aulaqi was familiar enough with Nawaf Alhazmi to describe some of Alhazmi’s personality traits. Aulaqi considered Alhazmi to be a loner who did not have a large circle of friends. Alhazmi was slow to enter into personal relationships and was always very soft spoken, a very calm and extremely nice person. Aulaqi did not see Alhazmi as a very religious person, based on the fact that Alhazmi never wore a beard and neglected to attend all five daily prayer sessions.”

        In March 2002, Awlaqi suddenly left the US and went to Yemen, thus avoiding the inquiry the 9/11 Commission thought so important. (Eventually Aulaqi would be banned from entering both the UK and US because of his speeches on jihad, martyrdom and the like). “Aulaqi attempted to get al Timimi to discuss issues related to the recruitment of young Muslims,” according to a court filing by Al-Timimi’s attorney at the time, Edward MacMahon. McMahon reports that those “entreaties were rejected.” The Washington Post explains that “After leaving the United States in 2002, Aulaqi spent time in Britain, where he developed a following among young ultra-conservative Muslims through his lectures and audiotapes. He moved to Yemen, his family’s ancestral home, in 2004.” Before his arrest in Yemen in mid-2006, Aulaqi lectured at an Islamist university in San’a run by Abdul Majid al-Zindani, who fought with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and was designated a terrorist in 2004 by the United States and the United Nations.

        In court documents in New York filed in 2004, the United States alleged that while in the US, Aulaqi served as vice president of a charity alleged to be a front that sent money to al-Qaeda. The Washington Post reports that tax records show that in 1998 and 1999, while in San Diego, Aulaqi served as vice president of the now-defunct Charitable Society for Social Welfare, Inc., the U.S. branch of a Yemeni charity founded by Zindani. Documents filed in 2004 in Alexandria, Va., recount that in 2002, Aulaqi returned briefly to Northern Virginia where he visited Al-Timimi and asked him about recruiting young Muslims for “violent jihad.”

        Law enforcement sources told the Post that Aulaqi was visited by Ziyad Khaleel, who the government has previously said purchased a satellite phone and batteries for bin Laden in the 1990s. The Post explains: “Khaleel was the U.S. fundraiser for Islamic American Relief Agency, a charity the U.S. Treasury has designated a financier of bin Laden and which listed Aulaqi’s charity as its Yemeni partner.  In what is another seminal article by Susan Schmidt, the Washington Post explains: “The FBI also learned that Aulaqi was visited in early 2000 by a close associate of Omar Abdel Rahman, the so-called Blind Sheik who was convicted of conspiracy in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and that he had ties to people raising money for the radical Palestinian movement Hamas, according to Congress and the 9/11 Commission report.”

        He now has been released. What did Awlaqi, detained in mid-2006 and held for a year and a half, tell questioners, if anything, about his fellow Falls Church imam and fellow Salafist conference lecturer Ali Al-Timimi? The Washington Post reports that in a taped interview posted on December 31, 2007 on a British Web site, “Aulaqi said that while in prison in Yemen, he had undergone multiple interrogations by the FBI that included questions about his dealings with the 9/11 hijackers.” “I don’t know if I was held because of that or because of the other issues they presented,” Aulaqi said. Aulaqi said he would like to travel outside Yemen but would not do so “until the U.S. drops whatever unknown charges it has against me.”


603 posted on 05/10/2008 11:57:27 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 602 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

David Tell in the articles quoted by Ed above states:

“There is one known exception to this rule. Four months ago the Army’s Dugway Proving Ground in Nevada confirmed that in recent years it has conducted occasional, limited experiments with fully pathogenic anthrax powders—reportedly to test prophylactic measures against a frightening, vaccine-resistant strain of the bacterium thought to have been cooked up by Russian geneticists during the early 1990s. Here’s the thing, though: The Army is mum on the question, but there is no reason to think that Dugway’s virulent aerosols (every speck of them fully accounted for, laboratory officials insist) were prepared with silica, according to the rumored 1960s recipe. ***

So whoever was responsible for last fall’s bioterrorism wouldn’t have needed to add silica to his anthrax powder at all. But he—or she, or they—might have had use for it while manufacturing that powder to begin with.”


604 posted on 05/10/2008 12:03:19 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 602 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK; EdLake; TrebleRebel

Gentlemen,

I think there is a reconciliation of views revealed by the David Tell article quoted by Ed.

First, TrebleRebel is correct, under the article cited by Ed, that Dugway historically has used silica.

TrebleRebel is also correct that the AFIP detected the presence of silica.

But Ed is correct that Dr. A and Professor M. did not see silica on the SEMS. There is just no reason not to credit their report as the same SEMS were available for government experts to observe.

This article points to a reconciliation — where silica was not used in the manner historically used by Dugway but nonetheless would lead to silica being detected on the SEMS. Professor M’s broad authority about the tendency of the exosporium to absorb silicon actually provides support that silica could have been used (and absorbed) as part of an earlier step in the manufacture.

Dr. A for a long while thought a spraydryer was used. He later came to think a fluidized bed dryer was used. He explains this in a chapter of BIOHAZARD 2.

As noted above, the hijackers had gone to Paterson, NJ. David Tell also addresses Paterson, NJ and the food mixer that was delivered there 1 mile from the hijackers.

Paterson is in the news this week where the imam told the FBI in 2005 that he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. He faces deportation because he failed to disclose that he had been detained for 3 months for admitting he was a member of Hamas. The military’s interrogation tactics were later banned by a 1999 Israeli supreme court ruling that equated them with torture.

Imam’s defense: He was tortured into ‘confessing’ he joined Hamas
Deportation trial under way for respected Passaic cleric, Star-Ledger, May 10, 2008
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-10/121030776169890.xml&coll=1


605 posted on 05/10/2008 12:26:04 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 604 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK; EdLake; TrebleRebel

David Tell, “Who Is Syed Athar Abbas? And what was he doing with a $100,000 “fine particulate mixer” last summer?
Weekly Standard, July 17, 2002
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/470lfsdb.asp

“BACK IN APRIL, having marinated myself in a decade’s worth of published microbiology research and whatnot, I wrote a longish story for the Standard expressing near total bewilderment about the FBI’s investigation of last fall’s anthrax terrorism.
***

The Newark, New Jersey office of local U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie has kindly provided me a fax copy of the April 23, 2002 plea agreement—signed by Mr. Abbas on June 10—according to which said Pakistani gentleman now waives his right to prosecution by indictment and agrees, instead, to acknowledge guilt in connection with a one-count felony “information” alleging his participation in an elaborate check-kiting scheme. Abbas, it appears, “from on or about June 7, 2001, through on or about July 10, 2001,” defrauded two banks, a Wells Fargo branch in Woodland Hills, California and a Fleet Bank branch in Fort Lee, New Jersey, of slightly more than $100,000—by manipulating three checking accounts he’d opened for a bogus Fort Lee business alternately known as “Dot Com Computer” and “Cards.Com.”

**
None of which by itself makes Abbas particularly noteworthy or ties him, even inferentially, to the anthrax letters or any other form of terrorism. True, it turns out that the FBI, pursuing some thus far undisclosed lead, originally went looking for Abbas—in the first few days after September 11—at his presumed address on the top floor of a commercial building in Fort Lee. And Fort Lee is thought to have been home at some point to Nawaq and Salem Alhamzi, both of whom helped fly American Airlines Flight 77 into the side of the Pentagon. And the FBI could not locate Abbas at first because, so says his former landlord, the man had suddenly abandoned his Fort Lee lease more than a month before—and had disappeared without a trace.”

***
No, what the FBI discovered, instead, was that Syed Athar Abbas ***had recently “arranged to pay $100,000 in cash”—roughly the amount he’d stolen from Wells Fargo and Fleet—for the purchase and shipment of a “fine-food particulate mixer,” a “sophisticated machine used commercially” to do various things you wouldn’t expect an outfit called “Computers Dot Com” to do. Like “mix chemicals,” for example.”
***
Mr. Parascandola reports that it’s been established Abbas did take possession of this machine at the “Computers Dot Com” offices in Fort Lee last summer, but had the thing “immediately transported elsewhere” before taking off himself for Pakistan. Federal investigators, Parascandola adds, “have not been able to locate the industrial food mixer” in question, which problem continues to be of some “concern.” All the more so because, despite his guilty plea and promise of restitution to the banks he bilked, Abbas has “refused to cooperate with investigators trying to find out more about his accomplices or the mixer.”
***
The $100,000 particulate mixer Parascandola describes, incidentally, is the exact same technology commonly employed by major food and pharmaceutical manufacturers to process fluid-form organic and inorganic compounds into powder: first to dry those compounds; next to grind the resulting mixture into tiny specks of dust, as small as a single micron in diameter; then to coat those dust specks with a chemical additive, if necessary, to maximize their motility or “floatiness”; and finally to aerate the stuff for end-use packaging. In other words, this is how you’d put Aunt Jemima pancake mix in its box. Or place concentrations of individual anthrax spores into letters addressed to Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy.”

Now on the day and minute that Ali Al-Timimi’s residence was searched, the FBI searched the residence of two food researchers. One drying expert who was Sami al-Hussayen’s good friend and whose PhD had 350 pages of drying coefficients was searched at 4:00 a.m. in the morning. Another food researcher, a PhD animal geneticist, was arrested here, at the same time 100 federal agents fanned out simultaneously interviewing 150 people.

There are records for two Syed Athar Abbas. Both had home-based computer peripherals business that went defunct at the same time. One was in Cal/NJ. One was in Texas. The one in Texas could not be reached throughout the time the Cal/NJ was in jail. Are they the same person with different records resulting from one person using two different social security numbers?

It was about the day after TrebleRebel passed by the Texas Syed Athar Abbas’ home and observed a standard suburban lifestyle — swingset, two cars etc. — that someone (then unidentified) leaked the baseless, hyped story to Newsweek about the bloodhounds. Mark Miller had been looking into the Syed Athar Abbas issue but then the bloodhound story trumped any development along these lines. Coincidence? Okay, probably. Then let’s get back to the facts. What was the fine particulate mixer for and where is it?

This Texas Syed Athar Abbas had a home-based computer business from Karachi called Mixun Solutions. He lived near the Hamas-connected Holy Land Foundation in Texas. He had a different social security number according to the Newsweek researcher than the NJ/Cal. Syed Athar Abbas. He could not be reached by telephone throughout the period of the incarceration of the NJ/Cal Syed Athar Abbas.

The Syed Athar Abbas who went to prison for check kiting turned in two passports — but the judge denied bail because he was known to have three passports.

Who is Syed Athar Abbas and what was the fine food particulate mixer for? Is he the same Syed Athar Abbas who owned the home-based computer firm Mixun Solutions (with an office in Karachi) which then went defunct when the NJ/Cal. Syed Athar Abbas went to jail?

TrebleRebel was thrown off the scent by the outrageous hyped bloodhound story by the fellow born in Haifa in 1948 who came over to the US Attorneys Office from the CIA on September 29, 2001. That man’s daughter now represents “anthrax weapons suspect” Al-Timimi pro bono in the sedition case.


606 posted on 05/10/2008 1:00:27 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 605 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK; EdLake; Trebel Rebel

             Karachi, where Syed Athar Abbas’ computer peripherals had an office, was where KSM and As Sahab was located. KSM settled his family in Karachi in 1998. In April 2001, al Hawsawi, whose laptop contained the anthrax spraydrying documents, traveled to Dubai from Karachi at the direct of Qaeda’s Media Committee. Between September 11 and September 21, 2001, KSM and others at the guesthouse in Karachi, Pakistan recorded many news stories of the 9//11 attacks for future in As Sahab films.

             In “connecting the dots” one also would want to consider whether any supporter of the militants had access to the know-how of this encapsulation technique described in the PhD thesis by Ken Alibek’s assistant. She thanked William Patrick and Ken Alibek in the credits. She said that silica may have been used not for the purpose for which it traditionally has been used in Soviet bioweapons but for the purpose of “encapsulation,” thus permitting processing with less sophisticated equipment. I’ve posed the question whether Ali Al-Timimi had access to such know-how.  A supporter of the Taliban who was working with Bin Laden’s spiritual mentor,  Al-Timimi was a Salafist imam sentenced to life plus 70 years for sedition and exhorting some young men to go abroad and defend their faith. We might also consider, however, whether any supporter of the militants has expertise in such polymerization or encapsulation relating to drug delivery, such as biochemist Magdy al-Nashar. He studied in North Carolina in 2000 where Al-Timimi’s small D.C. group had a branch. His co-founder of that group was Vice-President of the IANA spin-off Help The Needy. Magdy Al-Nashar’s webpage at Leeds explained he was expert in functional polymers used in the delivery of drugs. He was represented by an attorney in Cairo who has been alleged as Ayman Zawahiri’s conduit to jihadists in Egypt and Iraq and elsewhere. Al-Nashar had the keys to the apartment used to make the London subway bombs and to store materials shipped to al-Zawahiri’s chief aide al-Hadi.

             Ali Al-Timimi was a graduate microbiology student at George Mason University, where famed Russian bioweaponeer and former USAMRIID Deputy Commander and Acting Commander Charles Bailey on March 14, 2001 filed a patent involving the use of hydrophobic silica in permitting greater concentration of biological agents. There is a related, more sophisticated, patent based on Dr. Alibek’s know-how published later (after the mailings). The First Floor that intermingled the Center for Biodefense/Hadron and the GMU/ATCC computational sciences people. Here, the government even allowed the method to be commercialized and be published in the public domain for use in a broad range of possible commercial applications. Perhaps the United States biodefense establishment should not let officials commercialize and disclose such dual use technology, whether the patent is assigned to a DARPA-funded program or not — and whether deemed “biofriendly” or not. (The patent, which is not classified, has been assigned to George Mason University). Earlier in this thread is a picture of the Floor Plan for the First Floor of Discovery Hall at George Mason University. FBI Director Mueller this Fall cautioned universities to guard against access to pre-patent, pre-classification biochemistry information.

             GMU microbiology grad Al-Timimi, who was working with and had been taught by Bin Laden’s sheik, did mathematical support work for the Navy that required a high security clearance, while working for a Beltway contractor. What did his work for the Navy involve?

             When pressed by the interviewer, “Does it nag at you in the back of your mind that possibly you do know [the anthrax processor]?” Dr. Bill Patrick said: “Possibly, possibly, I could have talked to these people. But it would have been within the context of their having a need to know.” He explained: “ Most of my discussions about the biological problem has been in secure conferences and meetings, and involve people with need to know, with security clearance and what have you. I don’t talk about ‘how to’, I don’t get into ‘how to’ with many people, no people other than the fact that those who really have a need to know.”

              Al-Timimi had a high security clearance for some of his work for the government. Why? When?

             As so well explained by Rutgers professor Richard Ebright, proliferation of know-how serves to proliferate opportunities for access to that know-how.


607 posted on 05/10/2008 1:46:43 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 606 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

“Journalist facing fines urges press to protect 1st Amendment,” Associated Press, May 10, 2008
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hr7kBnw1h4xjGbVWoCAtTcKc0VxwD90J162GG

“As we all know, the news business is on a collective nervous breakdown,” Toni Locy told a coalition of open-government and press groups. “It’s time to stop running. It’s time to turn and fight. If we don’t fight for the First Amendment, who will?”


608 posted on 05/10/2008 3:39:50 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

Film [”Secrecy”] Exposes the Seduction of Secrecy
By Jeff Stein, CQ National Security Editor
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=hsnews-000002721511&parm1=5&cpage=4

“Mahle describes how the CIA’s Somalia analysts were deprived of intelligence in other parts of the building because they didn’t have a “need to know.” As a result, they were unable to warn U.S. troops that the rag-tag bands ransacking Mogadishu had been trained up by al Qaeda.”
***

This vivid and disturbing exposure of the human dimension of the conflict between the government’s duty to keep secrets and the peoples’ right to know deserves a national audience.
***
Nor have I met an official who would blithely disclose such a secret, just for the hell of it.

But Levin told me that government officials sometimes disclose secrets inadvertently, because “they haven’t been properly briefed or indoctrinated” on how sensitive certain kinds of information is.

***
Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it? A government of men, as it were, not laws.

Which is why, of course, we need courts, and leakers, and those who midwife their secrets into print.

“I really resent accusations that we’re not patriots or that we are indifferent to the security of the United States if we publish things that the government says are secret,” Gellman says in the film.

“I think what I do is every bit as patriotic as what a soldier does or what an intelligence officer does. I think that people who look only at security are misjudging what kind of society they’re supposed to be defending,” he says. “And I think ultimately the idea that the president and the president alone can decide what we will know is profoundly un-American.”


609 posted on 05/10/2008 6:54:22 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991490

Anthrax preparation indicates home-grown origin

29 October 01
Debora MacKenzie

“Fluidising agent

***
For its weapon, say informed sources, the US added various molecules, including surfactants, to the wet spores so that when they were
dried, they broke up into fine particles within a very narrow size range of a few microns.”

Although the New Scientist article talks only about bioweapons manufacturing, the use of surfactants is definitely not something restricted only to bioweapons facilities.

These findings seem to confirm the working hypothesis in two ways: (1) It seems to confirm that the anthrax did not have to come from a bioweapons lab, and (2) it seems to confirm that the silica detected by AFIP was could be trace amounts of a surfactant absorbed from use before drying the spores. Surfactants are wetting agents that lower the surface tension of a liquid, allowing easier spreading, and lower the interfacial tension between two liquids.

The FBI suspects Al-Timimi of accessing this biochemistry information at the DARPA-funded Center for Biodefense.


610 posted on 05/10/2008 7:25:51 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

Ed,

“In the face of such a consensus, we had no choice but to ask ourselves, ‘Could the iron law of expertology — the experts are never right — be wrong?’”

See the chapter “Anthrax: ‘Let’s All Take A Deep Breath’” on anthrax in the 2008 book in MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! OR HOW WE WON THE WAR IN IRAQ: THE EXPERTS SPEAK

Let’s consider an early word from the experts.

“Outbreak: So who is terrorising America with anthrax?” The Observer (London), October 21, 2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/21/terrorism.anthrax

“Some of those Unscom officials now work at a joint ‘biodefence’ project between George Mason University in Virginia and Dr Alibekov’s company in the West, Advanced Biosystems - now, coincidentally, being consulted by the authorities and hosts to an international seminar on bio-terrorism next month.”
***
“In testimony to the House of Representatives last week, the man who had now changed his name to Kenneth Alibek recalled his time as Dr Alibekov, running the Soviet Biopreparat programme across 40 complexes.... The programme’s function, he said, was to ‘weaponise’ the germs - to stabilise, dry and mill them into particles for spreading by explosions - or just aerosol sprays and on air currents. The question now haunting the US authorities is whether the anthrax now blowing around the Capitol is of ‘weapons grade’ or not.” [Comment: Ed, note that Dr. A oversaw the production of anthrax not just for spreading by explosions but also in aerosol sprays and on air currents]

“From Stepnogorsk and Voz Island led a trail of proliferation - the former was employing 30,000 people when it was shut down in 1992, among them the bearers of know-how, secrets, weapons recipes. According to Alibek, 7,000 of them were trained in how to make a deadly weapon of one type or another. But direct connections between the anthrax leak to Islamic fundamentalists in states bordering ravaged Afghanistan were not the urgent concern of the US or Russian intelligence services - rather, their worries were over expertise to programmes already running in Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Dr Amy Smithson at the Henry L. Stimson Centre in Washington DC wrote a report in 1994 entitled ‘Toxic Archipelago’ in which she argued that once Soviet authority over Biopreparat ended, there were leaks across the Middle East, into territory where terrorists or their sponsors could easily obtain it. [Comment: such as the United States]
***
Investigators strongly believe anthrax exposure cases in New York, Washington and Florida are linked to the 11 September attacks and that remaining al-Qaida individuals or cells are behind them - but officials say they lacked concrete evidence or intelligence to explain who sent the anthrax-contaminated letters. [Comment: the FBI first questioned Al-Timimi 9 days after 9/11]
***

Moreover, at least six of the 11 September hijackers are believed to have lived in Paterson, including Hani Hanjour, who is understood to have steered the American Airlines jet into the Pentagon.

Lead hijacker Mohamed Atta, who expressed suspicious interest in crop dusters, bought a plane ticket to Spain from a Paterson travel agency, and Nawaq al-Hamzi, another Flight 77 hijacker, and Hanjour rented at least three cars from a dealership in nearby Wayne shortly before the attacks.” [Comment: we now know that Nawaf was connected to the “911 imam” who was working with GMU microbiology graduate student Al-Timimi, who came to have an office right next to Dr. Alibek]


611 posted on 05/11/2008 2:01:12 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 610 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK; EdLake; TrebleRebel

Now, turning to what the experts say, let’s go to the top experts testifying before a Congressional committee in 2005:

“Unfortunately, the negative kinds of activities that this
revolution in knowledge and capability constitute a sea change compared
to the abilities that powered the US and USSR offensive biological
warfare programs during the Cold War. Even through the early 1990s, a
great deal of the activity in programs such as the one Dr. Alibek
helped direct could be categorized as ``microbiological process
engineering’’, how to ``weaponize’’ germs and viruses, coat them with
agents that protected them from the environment, to make the disease
causing particles rugged and controllable.”
***
“In the last 8 years, particle physicists and pulmonary scientists have worked
together to improve the efficiency with which drugs reach the alveoli
of the lung, which is also the preferred target for the aerosolized
anthrax spore. A parallel advancement has occurred in the field of
immunology where new organic coatings have been invented which
dramatically increase the uptake of particles by the specialized cells
in the alveoli. Unfortunately these cells are also responsible for
providing the anthrax bacillus with a protected beachhead for
replication. The result is that two unrelated technologies, a method
for generating small drug and vaccine aerosols, and the development of
a specialized coating, are responsible for dramatically reducing the
number of spores required to produce a successful infection”.
Statement of Dr. Roger Brent, Director and President, Molecular Sciences Institute

“Just take a look at a simple example. A lady could die in
Connecticut. She was 94 years old. It was obvious the
infectious dose for this lady was much, much lower. She didn’t
require 10,000 to 20,000 spores to get infected.”

— Dr. Kenneth Alibek

Who do experts like Alibek conclude?

“Mr. Markey. Give us a warning today. Give us something.
Dr. Alibek. First of all, what I would like to say, of
course, I don’t want to be a kind of alarmist, but I strongly
believe it is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when, when
we are going to see the second attack. If you ask me what is
the probability of using different pathogens in terms of the
attack, in my opinion, anthrax will be again the weapon of
choice.
What kind of deployment? There are different scenarios. In
this case, one of the probable cases—again, maybe anthrax—but
the number of places to be mailed could be quite large.”

Who does Dr. Alibek consider to be the most expert?

“In this case, one more thing: In my opinion, we need to pay
attention to what DARPA is doing in the field of anthrax
protection. In my opinion, DARPA is the most sophisticated
entity at this point of time, and it knows what kind of
research and what kind of development needs to be done in this
field to protect against anthrax.”

[Comment: We are privileged to have a DARPA silica coating expert here today, Dr. TrebleRebel.]

Now who does Dr. Alibek fault for the lapse in good threat assessment?

“Dr. Alibek. Unfortunately, I don’t want to be over-
critical. In 1998 or 1999 when I testified first on the Hill, I
said if we don’t develop in the beginning our concept of
biodefense and agree to develop a good threat assessment in
terms of bioterrorism, we are going to suffer and we will never
have any appropriate defense. This suggestion, of course, my
testimony could be found in the archives.”

What does his co-panelist think on this issue of threat assessment?

“Dr. Brent. I think that having conventions that track down
technologies and look for particular things might well give a
false sense of security, so I don’t think you can do it like
that.
I think there is a great deal of value to be had in not
only criminalizing, but stigmatizing, maybe even hyper-
stigmatizing, deliberate research in biological weapons in the
U.S. and worldwide, the idea being to create a moral climate in
which if somebody down the hall was doing something sinister
and you were worried about it, you might drop a dime to your
local enforcement agency.”


612 posted on 05/11/2008 3:42:06 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

A 2008 treatise discussing the “super-anthrax” in Fall 2001 is John R. Cashman’s is the EMERGENCY RESPONSE HANDBOOK FOR CHEMICALAND BIOLOGICAL AGENTS AND WEAPONS (2d ed.) published by Taylor & Francis.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1420052659/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-9354752-9142328#


613 posted on 05/11/2008 4:35:41 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

Ed Lake: “No experts who examined the spore powders have actually said they SAW any silica”.

“Demon in Freezer”
October 24, 2001
Meeting with Attorney General and executive government officials.
Jahrling cleared his throat and directed everyones attention to Geisbert’s pictures of the anthrax skulls. (Staffers had passed them around.). He pointed out the freid-egg goop flowing off the spores in some photographs. This, he said, was probably an additive.
............
He said that by tomorrow the Army would have a better idea what the additive was.

October 25, 2001
Tom Geisbert drove his beat-up station wagon to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, in Northwest Washington, carrying a whiff of sterilized dry Daschle anthrax mounted in a special cassette. He spent the day with a gropu of technicians running tests with an X-ray machine to find out if the powder contained any metals or elements. By lunchtime, the machine had shown that there were two extra elements in the spores: silicon and oxygen.
Silicon oxide.
Silicon dioxide is glass.
The anthrax terrorist or terrorists had put powdered glass, or silica, into the anthrax. The silica was powdered so finely that under Geisbert’s electron microscope it had looked like fried-egg gunk dripping off the spores.


614 posted on 05/11/2008 7:34:30 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 612 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel

My consulting military scientist who makes anthrax simulant for a living (and I’ve shared the SEMS and other pictures with you) says the Daschle product likely was made from the use of siliconized solution prior to drying.

Use of 10 or 20 percent amorphous silica would have resulted in pictures such as in Microbial Forensics and is not what was pictured in the SEMS seen by Alibek and Professor Meselson. To get something that appears to be “pure spores” but results in silica being detected, a surfactant is used prior to drying. This is what Ed has argued but then he would add a mistaken alternative about lab contamination, not realizing that Professor Meselson’s use of the 1980 study was just to explain why the solution gets absorbed in the exosporium is then detected by the EDX..

So Ed’s recent “horse and buggy” analogy is appropriate so long as he appreciates that the horse even then was Secretariat. And so long as he concedes the big sticking point and flaw in his undertanding concerning the usefulness of silica. But as the molecular biologist explained before the Congressional committee, this approach is an advance from what we’ll call the Soviet use of silica for bombs.

You folks should not get hung up on the word “coating.” One man’s coating is another man’s absorbed residue. The silica used in the Dugway simulant used in the Canadian experiment was mixed. Spraydrying was done in Denmark but mixing was done in Wisconsin. No coating was or could have been added after the dairy processor. Sequential filtering likely is what was done to “tweak” it.

Ed meets your quotes from “Demon in the Freezer” with his “To Err is Human” argument, so your quotes doen’t advance your disagreement with him. Instead, it will just result in repost of the same material you two have been posting for 5 years. The SEMS provided by the military scientist, however, do. Looking back at the reporting, it looks like Deb MacKenzie had it accurately stated within a few weeks of the mailing to the Senator without breaking into a sweat. So it’s not as if there is any new breakthrough in understanding.

But Matsumoto’s SCIENCE article is validated. The Congressional testimony by the molecular biologist is probably the most useful characterization — it is sophisticated but the nature of the advances in science are that the advances are occurring in other areas (outside of bioweapons). (So some might say they are not super-sophisticated).

It’s my understanding that this method was the biochemistry information that the FBI suspects Al-Timimi from accessing at the DARPA-funded Center for Biodefense. You two have been so overly focused on this narrow issue you have totally abandoned common sense true crime considerations of means, motive, modus operandi and opportunity.


615 posted on 05/11/2008 8:20:20 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 614 | View Replies]

To: ZACKandPOOK

Using 10% to 20% by weight of silica is not the optimum concentration - but if you use old processing technology you are forced to use a large excess of silica to ensure that you get a good coating.

The optimum concentration of silica is 1% or less - but more sophisticated processing is required to (1) Ensure that the silica is properly dispersed (one of the problems is that silica itself will agglomerate due to van der Waals forces) and (2) Ensure that the silica evenly coats every spore.

This can be achieved with modern processing methods.

These are outlined here:
http://web.njit.edu/~dave/Dry-Coating-Flow.pdf

1% or less of fumed silica evenly coats these powder particles - in some SEM micrographs the silica is difficult to see.

Why use silica? Actually, almost any material could be used - but it just so happens that silica can be obtained in a form of 10nm sized nanoparticles rather easily - it’s made by flame hydrolysis. These silica particles are about the same size as particles of smoke. They will rapidly clump up themselves in the bulk, and need to be dispersed (this means broken back down into hopefully their primary particle size) before they can be used to coat a larger particle. If they are not properly dispersed the product looks like “cotton candy”.


616 posted on 05/11/2008 8:35:42 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies]

To: TrebleRebel
If they are not properly dispersed the product looks like “cotton candy”.

As ZACKandPOOK says, you just endlessly use the same bizarre interpretations to make your arguments.

Tom Geisbert wasn't accustomed to working with dry spores, so he IMAGINED that the "goop" he saw oozing out the spores under high magnification was an additive. And when AFIP detected silicon and oxygen, he IMAGINED the "goop was some form of glass or silica.

That whole comedy of errors is described in detail in Chapter 15 of my book. That chapter is available for reading HERE.

I've been trying to get you to discuss science, but all you do is repeat the same nonsense over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

When I post questions you cannot answer without showing that your beliefs are nonsense, back you go to posting your interpretations of articles again.

This morning, I put my analysis of the physics behind the Dugway process on my web site. When I get some free time, I'll create a separate web page with illustrations to show in detail what my analysis indicates.

By putting this on my web site, I'm inviting everyone who comes to my site to challenge my analysis with SCIENTIFIC FACTS, not interpretations of articles as you always do.

My analysis shows that your beliefs about van der Waals forces are WARPED and UNREAL. You are also invited to use scientific facts to prove me wrong. But don't waste my time with more of your interpretations of what someone wrote in some article. We're past that now.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

617 posted on 05/11/2008 10:01:02 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 616 | View Replies]

To: EdLake; TrebleRebel

“Encapsulated bioactive substances”
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5190775.html

“1 wt percent of micron-sized silica was added as a flow agent.”


618 posted on 05/11/2008 10:48:21 AM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 617 | View Replies]

To: All
At the risk of TrebelRebel finding something in it that he can twist to support his beliefs, someone sent me a link to an article that might be of interest to others here.

The article is titled "Differentiating bacterial spores from hoax materials by Raman Spectroscopy" and can be viewed by clicking on that title.

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

619 posted on 05/11/2008 11:57:11 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 618 | View Replies]

To: EdLake

Turning to the physics of the “X-Files” Ed once again confuses the issue. He is totally overlooking the “spatial interphases” briefly connecting different dimensional planes, which make up otherwise “parallel universes.” We saw it when James T. Kirk slowly drifts in and out of this universe in “The Tholian Web” — much as he does when I try to bid on Priceline given my website is not configured correctly on this computer (or so the message advises me). Twice before in the series, Kirk encountered parallel universes to include one accessed via the transporter in “Mirror, Mirror.” In THE NEXT GENERATION, we have the Q-continuum, there is a nonlinear “window into other dimensions” (otherwise known by some as a 7-year totally botched criminal investigation) in which aliens, such as in-your-face infiltrator Al-Timimi can hide in plain view.

But fortunately, in the real world we have THE WAYBACK MACHINE that allows us to delve into the “hearts of green birds.”

It was widely published among the militant islamists that martyrs go to paradise “in the hearts of green birds.” The stamp’s image of a green-blue colored bird was designed by artist Michael Doret. Mr. Doret provided me “a file made directly from the original art [he] created, so the color is an accurate representation of the printed envelope.” Michael advises me that the color of the eagle is a “teal” or greenish-blue.

In the very interview with Al-Jazeera in which they admitted 9/11, and described the codes used for the four targets for the planes, KSM and Ramzi Binalshibh admitted to the Jenny code, the code for representing the date 9/11, and used the symbolism of the “Green Birds.” Osama Bin Laden later invoked the symbolism in his video “The 19 Martyrs”, describing a hijacker as “A man of worship who enjoined good and forbade evil. His body was on earth but his heart roamed with the green birds that perch beneath the Throne of the Most Merciful.” Isn’t “green birds of paradise” discussed in Abdel-Rahman’s 2,000 page PhD thesis on the chapter in the Koran called “Repentance,” which addresses the foreign policy and military affairs of the Islamic state?

A FAQ on Al Qaeda’s website, the Azzam Publications website, explained that “In the Hearts of Green Birds” refers to what is inside. The actual Arabic word used in the Hadith is not Qalb (heart) but it is Jowf which can mean any of interior, inside, or heart (as in center). There was a video based on the hadith with the title In The Hearts of Green Birds about foreign mujahideen that had been martyred in Bosnia. The audiocassette was created in August 1996 and its 3rd edition was released in January 1997. The azzam.org website selling the “In the Hearts of Green Birds” audiocassette was shut down after 9/11 because authorities thought it might contain codes and instructions to militants. British and US intelligence sources reportedly suspected that some of Azzam.com’s jihad photos and graphics contain messages embedded with a technology known as steganography. The code instead perhaps was there for all to see on the stamps of the lethal missives being sent.

In early Fall 2001, the Azzam.com website was mirrored by someone who lived 6 miles from the mailbox where the anthrax was mailed. He was indicted in Spring 2007 for income tax invasion. To the left of the advertisement for the “Green Birds” video, you’ll see the description of al-Hawali’s imprisonment. The imprisonment of al-Hawali and certain other scholars was the “Cover Theme” (which includes a related article on the torture of prisoners in Saudi prisons). GMU microbiology grad al-Timimi drafted a letter for al-Hawali and had it hand-delivered to every member of Congress on the first anniversary of the anthrax mailings.

Of course, given that the symbolism used in this regard in the anthrax mailings had an origin in religious writing, there is no direct tie with the website — the tie could be with the hadith. The London webmaster once said that the FBI allowed it to remain up (while it moved from server to server) for another year hoping to get leads on supporters.

Even Zarqawi invoked the imagery in a 60-minute audio message:

“The martyrs rejoice in the bounty provided by God. Their souls are inside the bodies of green birds that fly in heaven.”

Bin Laden was using “Green Birds” in the same way he used the repeated phrase “Looming Tower” to hint of what was to come with the planes attack on the World Trade Center. He would say:

      “Wherever you are, death will find you,

      even in the looming tower.”

In a prerecorded tape aired October 7, 2001, at the time of the anthrax mailing to the Senators, Bin Laden said “The winds of faith have come.”

An advertisement for “In The Hearts of Green Birds” sold by Al Qaeda’s website read: “In the Summer of 1996, Azzam Recordings released the first audio tape of its kind to be produced in English. The name of this tape was: ‘In the Hearts of Green Birds.’ It outlined some of the stories of these men. This tape was so successful, that it spread, by the Will of Allah, throughout many Muslim homes in the UK, North America and Australia. Due to popular demand, in the Summer of 1997, Azzam Recordings produced the sequel to this tape: ‘Under the Shades of Swords.’ We ask Allah to accept the Shuhadaa’ and shower His Mercy upon them.” (It appeared in the 21st issue of Nida’ul Islam magazine (http://www.islam.org.au), December-January 1997- 1998). The Virginia Paintball defendants really liked videos like “In the Hearts of Green Birds” and “Russian Hell” and found them inspirational.

In July 2002, the President of the Help The Needy (a medical technologist who was president in name only) posted a story titled: “Raising Mujaahideen” on an Islamway bulletin board (noted to be an IANA subsidiary) which invoked the “green bird” imagery. On 9/11, under the screen name islam_1981, she had posted an IANA announcement deploring the unfair suspicion fundamentalists might come over. Soon afterward, she posted an explanation that killing civilians was absolutely forbidden by the koran and that upon acceptance of a visa (and accepted in the country as a guest) a person is forbidden from attacking his host. In July 2002, however, she posted a story titled “Raising Mujaahideen” that (apparently consistent with the earlier posts) celebrated raising children to be martyrs — in the story the martyr’s “soul gently leaves his body to reside in the heart of a green bird in Jannah.” These positions were the same as Al-Timimi’s position. She was President and the Vice-President was Idris Palmer of Northern Virginia, who had co-founded the Society for the Adherence of the Sunnah with Ali Al-Timimi.

Ed would be much more likely to contribute to the solution of Amerithrax if he stayed in the real world. As former head of Amerithrax Michael Mason once said, true crime can be just as interesting as The X-Files. While in Buffalo, harking back to his days watching Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. on television, he addressed the portrayal of the FBI in “X-Files”, suggesting that reality was just as interesting.


620 posted on 05/11/2008 12:02:16 PM PDT by ZACKandPOOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600601-620621-640 ... 981-987 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson