Posted on 09/18/2002 5:52:28 PM PDT by Shermy
WASHINGTON - A Republican senator Wednesday questioned the Justice Department's actions against Dr. Steven Hatfill, who is categorized by the government as "a person of interest" in the investigation into the anthrax attacks.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, asked Attorney General John Ashcroft to explain the government policy that prompted the Louisiana State University Academy of Counter-Terrorist Education to sever its ties to Hatfill.
The scientist was placed on administrative leave the day after the Justice Department's Office for Domestic Preparedness e-mailed instructions to "immediately cease and desist" from using Hatfill on any DOJ contract. LSU fired him Sept. 3, saying it had to fulfill its obligations to funding agencies and maintain its academic integrity. The university said it was not making any judgment as to Hatfill's guilt or innocence regarding the FBI probe of the anthrax attacks.
Grassley also asked the attorney general to explain the policy by which he publicly identified Hatfill as "a person of interest" in the criminal investigation of the anthrax attacks.
"It is important that the government act according to laws, rules, policies and procedures, rather than making arbitrary decisions," wrote Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and drugs. The Justice Department declined comment on Grassley's letter, citing the ongoing investigation.
Hatfill denies any involvement in the attacks and says the Justice Department is ruining his life by linking him to the crimes. The FBI says Hatfill is among some 30 scientists and researchers with the expertise and opportunity to conduct the attacks.
Hatfill's lawyer, Victor Glasberg, said he is pleased that "a senator has stepped up to the plate" on Hatfill's behalf.
The scientist has filed a complaint with the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, saying departmental policies were violated regarding the designation of Hatfill as "a person of interest" and the loss of his job.
Mike
Gee, that sounds awfully familiar. JReno fans?
I guess flamboyant rightwingers are fair game if some proto Commie such as Barbara Hatch Rosenberg smears them.
Here’s my take on the theory it’s all due to Dr. Barbara Rosenberg’s doings. I’ll title it:
Portrait of a Possible Frame Job
1. FBI rushes out its “profile” last year. Seems to picture a conservative-like male. I question whether the background info that makes up the profile is biased by only including American instances of Anthrax mail hoaxes, which involved anti-abortion hoaxers and militia types. Hanging on to the profile provides CYA value for investigators. Also, perhaps a Clintonite “need” to frame this as right-wing domestic has been speculated - note that off the bat they named the investigation “Amerithrax.” Such spins the investigation from the beginning, also for the armchair investigators and journalists.
2. Last year “expert” Barbara Rosenberg begins her ever evolving research. Eventually she claims ability to “profile.” Clearly, she speaks to many in the industry, though, since she learns specs about Hatfill (he wasn’t the first insinuated). She says she has contacts inside the biowarfare industry, and outside. Not surprising.
3. Theories fly in the public. There’s Zack, the Egyptian guy, the Iraqi woman, etc.
4. About the same time these names come up, Rosenberg creates her latest “profile” in January 2002. A “profile” is supposed to match the psychological type of person whom presumably did the crime. Her “profile” seems more to pick out a certain person, with facts about him she learned that are not part of a profile of motivation, but just seem to pick him out. Her facts may be out of date, or assumed, about Hatfill. Below is her profile in bold face, with my comments. Please note that although she has referred to it as her profile, in print on her website she calls it a “possible portrait.” IMO, a portrait suitable for framing.
Possible Portrait of the Anthrax Perpetrator, by Barbara Rosenberg
Insider in US biodefense, doctoral degree in a relevant branch of biology
- Hatfill.
Middle-aged American
- If not Hatfill, what’s her psychological basis for picking out a “Middle aged” person, and “American”
Experienced and skilled in working with hazardous pathogens, including anthrax, and avoiding contamination
- Hatfill. But this really isn’t a requirement of sending some stuff in the mail.
Works for a CIA contractor in Washington, DC area
- Hatfill. Why not a university or some other place? Why is fact relevant in an unbiased “profile?” She’s picking out Hatfill.
Has up-to-date vaccination with anthrax vaccine
- Presumption, but wrong. Besides mentioning Barbara, Hatfill made a point in his speech that he had not had an innoculation in two years time. He knows Barbara’s “profile” and this is the one fact he could dispute, so he went out of the way to mention it.
Has clearance for access to classified information
- Hatfill. But, so many others, if it’s an “insider” case. If it’s an insider case, the point is obvious. And what information?
Worked in USAMRIID laboratory in the past, in some capacity, and has access now
- Hatfill, more or less.
Knows Bill Patrick and has probably learned a thing or two about weaponization from him, informally
- HATFILL. She knows that Hatfill, among his many other things done, worked on a paper with Patrick, the one allegedly about Anthrax in the mail, but was about many things, apparently.
Has had training or experience in covering evidence
- Use gloves, cellophane tape and leave no fingerprints? Learn that from any tv show.
May have had an UNSCOM connection
- Hatfill, maybe. “Just by coincidence” some information was floating around that he had been a member, and Barbara is hedging her bets, because her info is less than perfect. In August explained he was never a member, but was on a “standby list” - I guess like a substitute teacher. http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/08/01/anthrax.investigation/
Has had a dispute with a government agency
- HATFILL. He had a beef with his employment, failing a lie detector test on some irrelevant questions. Think about it, what has this to do with any unbiased profile? Nothing. She’s naming a person.
Has a private location where the materials for the attack were accumulated and prepared
- Anybody. What, do it in public? Perhaps this explains the repetitive investigations by the FBI of his storage space near his parent’s house in Florida. Maybe some Senate staffer said aha! He has a private location! It fits Dr. Barbara’s profile!
Worked on the letters alone or with peripheral encouragement and assistance
- Barbara the psychology-expert again. Loner. Ok, that’s what the FBI profile said.
Fits FBI profile
- Fair enough. What’s the profile? From link above:
Mueller said an FBI profile of the suspected anthrax mailer -- a lone person living within the United States with experience working in labs and smart enough to "produce a highly refined and deadly product" -- had not changed.”
- Why stick to a “profile”. Why not investigate all avenues? Has Atta’s old haunts (“private locations”) in South Florida been tested with the latest equipment, like those used at AMI last week?
Has the necessary expertise, access and a past history indicating appropriate capabilities and temperament
- Meaningless. Just reiterating Hatfill-like expertise.
Has been questioned by FBI
- Hatfill. And so, many others. This fact has no place in a “profile”. Just embellishment to make her “profile” look good.
________
That’s her profile/portrait. A picture of Hatfill.
5. In first part of 2002, Barbara makes the tour, touting her “profile”, numerous papers report of it, and her opinions. Naturally, people want the case solved. She repetitively claims she, or the insiders know who did it, and the FBI isn’t cooperating. Conspiracies and coverups are rumored.
6. In June, “Mrs. Rosenberg, chairman of the biological arms-control panel for the Federation of American Scientists, told The Washington Times she had been expecting a visit from the FBI since June, when she briefed staffers with the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees”
Rosenberg gets her chance with impressionable staffers, who know 99% less than any lurker here. Perhaps the staffers were impressed with her “erudition”, reported to the bosses, and they pressured the FBI to make arrests, and follow this scientific evidence as framed by Rosenberg. People want arrests, credit for pushing the FBI to move. Some in FBI, or at least the Justice Department, might have been impressed by this academic’s evidence. I recall pics at the time they were first searching his home, the Justice Dept. team was all smiles, like they made the case, and a certainty of their case. I’d bet that they were more impressed than the FBI which hadn’t been targeting Hatfill. They probably pushed the FBI to act against Hatfill more rigorously. (Obviously no freepers in that J.D. group, freepers “fisked” Rosenberg often.
8. Another push probably came from Nicholas Kristof’s articles in the NY Times. The NY Times carries weight, and is read much. Kristof’s articles were basically rehashes of Rosenberg for the “quality paper” crowd. Infamously, there is his “Mr. Z” portrait. The piece basically named Hatfill in Rosenberg fashion, colored with conspiracy and insinuations of FBI muddleheadness. At the time Hatfill’s name was already out there, so the secrecy was unneeded, yet lent credibility and authority to the story. And it’s the NY Times! I can imagine politicos in DC, unfamiliar with the details, were shocked, and wanted answers and things to get done, etc. Heck, it was in the NY Times!
9. Then came the searches, the focus on Hatfill’s name from the authorities, etc. You all know this story.
10. Many here have felt she was framing, or “pinning” Hatfill for a long time. Others agree (maybe we helped in the discussion):
Unconventional Detective Bears Down on a Killer (September 4)
”...That view still doesn't sit well with some scientists, although few are willing to criticize her in public. "My feeling is that if there is such a conspiracy, the FBI is not a part of it," says Steven Block, a biophysicist at Stanford University who has advised the U.S. government on bioweapons. Some scientists also felt that it wasn't a coincidence that Rosenberg's profile of the attacker fit one person. "She just seems to be too anxious to pin this on [Hatfill]," says Peter Jahrling, a senior USAMRIID researcher, who says Rosenberg's comments about the case led him to decide early on that she had Hatfill in mind. Rosenberg maintains that she never named Hatfill or anyone else in comments to the FBI or in her statements.”and
Both admirers and detractors agree that she has pushed the FBI forward. "Without question, she's influenced this investigation," says Block, who also strongly suspects that the culprit, if not a U.S. citizen himself, has ties to the U.S. bioweapons program.”
Luckily, the FBI, or a part of it, is considering whether Rosenberg was being set up to pin Hatfill (politely and tactically not mentioning of suspicion of bad intent on her part):
From August 2
Scientist says FBI asked about setup
A top microbiologist in New York says FBI agents interviewing her Thursday asked whether a team of government scientists could be trying to frame Steven J. Hatfill, a former Army researcher whose apartment in Frederick, Md., was searched for a second time by FBI agents on Thursday.If what I have said here is accurate, or somewhat so, why did she do this?"They kept asking me did I think there might be a group in the biodefense community that was trying to land the blame on Hatfill," said Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a microbiologist at State University of New York.
Mrs. Rosenberg said agents visited her hours before she learned Dr. Hatfill's apartment was being searched.
Hatfill speculated it was because he was against a treaty she was for, but I think he’s fishing there. She may have not liked his “type” she being a lefty, he allegedly fitting a “right wing” personality or something like that. Maybe lefties “contacts” led her down the wrong path. Don’t know. Maybe a law suit will find out.
Any ideas or suggestions about the above are welcomed.
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.