Hatfill prepares suit while FBI continues anthrax investigation Congressman criticizes bureau

The Baltimore Sun | August 2, 2003 | By Scott Shane

[Princeton]

Nearly a year after Dr. Steven J. Hatfill went before the press to proclaim his innocence in the anthrax case and denounce FBI harassment, the bureau continues to focus its costly investigation on him but has not found evidence to solve the case.

Now, with no breakthrough from the $250,000 draining of a Frederick-area pond, Hatfill's lawyers are preparing a civil suit to fight back, a New Jersey congressman wants answers from the FBI and the bureau may be at a crossroads in the case.

Excerpt

[Princeton]

Hatfill Ping.

[LS]

This will be very interesting. Recall that it was Alger Hiss's suit against Chambers that undid his treason and espionage. But we'll see. Either he is indeed innocent, or, like Hiss, so deluded that he will overlook some key evidence that will incriminate him.

Indeed, just consider this: what if the FBI "knows" it is Hatfill, but so far can't turn up the goods. What if the goal was to incite him specifically into filing such a suit so that during "discovery" or other court-related practices the bureau can, in fact, get to the evidence it thinks it wants? Not saying this is the case, but it would sure be smart.

[Princeton]

Ping.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I suspect the FBI does know it's Hatfill, but knows it based on evidence that was obtained in a manner that wouldn't be admissible in court (and perhaps in a manner which is also illegal), so they can't use it or even let on that they have it. The FBI is far from perfect, but I can't believe they're so stupid as to undertake this exhaustive investigation, including the highly publicized and expensive pond-draining, unless they know beyond reasonable doubt that this is the guy. The feebies like to protect themselves, like any other bureaucrats, and many heads would roll if they did all this stuff focusing exclusively on Hatfill, and it was later proven that someone unrelated to Hatfill was responsible.

[Iris7]

Your desire to see the FBI as "smart" is most quaint. Or perhaps droll humor? (grin)

[CurlyDave]

I suspect the FBI does know it's Hatfill, but knows it based on evidence that was obtained in a manner that wouldn't be admissible in court...

Just like they "knew" it was Richard Jewel.

Just like they "knew" they were right at Ruby Ridge and Waco.

From what little I know of this case, it seems like most of those guys would have a hard time finding their own rear ends with both hands & a flashlight.

[Rome2000]

The USA can't admit it was successfully attacked with bio-weapons and doesn't have anybody to retaliate against, so it throws out Hatfield as a diversion.

All of the evidence points to Atta and the other hijackers having Anthrax.

The reason we got rid of Saddam is because rogue governments like his can make WMD available to terrorists and then deny responsibility when they are deployed against us.

[Rome2000]

Its amazing how easy it is for the feds to con people.

[Princeton]

FBI LOSES PERSPECTIVE IN INVESTIGATING TERRORIST

TIP FINGERED MAN READING "Weapons of Mass Stupidity"
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution | August 1, 2003 | Op/Ed - Cynthia Tucker


Posted on 08/01/2003 4:49 PM PDT by Princeton


In June, Marc Schultz, an Atlanta bookstore clerk, received a call at work from his mother. "The FBI is here," she said. "They say you're not in trouble; they just want to talk. They want to come to the store."

Schultz said he was puzzled but could only guess the FBI was performing a routine background check on a friend who had applied for a government job. He was wrong. The FBI was after him.

According to Schultz, two agents came to the bookstore and quizzed him about his brief stop at a coffee shop a few days earlier, asking whether he had been reading something while there. Nervous, as he remembered it, it took him a while to recall that he had been reading an article called "Weapons of Mass Stupidity: Fox News hits a new lowest common denominator," a scathing attack on Fox News written by columnist Hal Crowther.

Crowther is a left-leaning writer who frequently lambasts the establishment, but he can hardly be considered a terrorist. Apparently, however, Schultz's mere reading of Crowther's column prompted some bystander to report him to the FBI, who, astonishingly, queried him about it. Frightening, isn't it?

If you thought that alarmists were exaggerating the erosion of civil liberties since the terrorist attacks of two years ago, think again. One of many disturbing features of the Patriot Act, pushed hastily through Congress in the panic immediately following 9/11, is that it gives the federal government the authority to inspect or seize the reading lists of any library user or bookstore customer. The feds can get the go-ahead from a secret court without showing probable cause. And a gag order prevents librarians and book retailers from revealing to customers that the government is sifting through their reading lists.

Could George Orwell have been right, after all? Special Agent Joe Parris, spokesman for the FBI's Atlanta office, says the Schultz episode "is being misconstrued." While reiterating the FBI's standing order to investigate all terrorist leads, Parris insisted, "We are not thought police. We don't consider something a terrorist lead that someone is standing in a check-out line reading an article that might be misconstrued as critical of American foreign policy. That simply does not and will not happen." Yet that is exactly what happened.

According to Parris, the FBI "received a call from someone who said he was standing in line in a coffee shop behind a young man reading literature concerning WMDs. He attempted to cover up the reading material, and he seemed nervous. ... In the caller's mind, the totality of circumstances alarmed the caller."

That's nonsense. These days, newspaper headlines are full of the phrase "weapons of mass destruction." As it happens, however, Schultz was reading an article titled "Weapons of Mass Stupidity." The last I heard, that's not illegal.

Yet Parris insists that the FBI was compelled to investigate. "God help us if we don't, and it turns out to be the next Mohamed Atta. I think the public expects us in this day and time to be vigilant."

A 25-year-old college graduate who lives with his parents, Schultz says that he's liberal but not criminal. "I had a reckless driving ticket once," he offered.

He's bearded, but his only accent is Southern. He was born and reared in suburban Marietta, Ga. Since writing about the episode in an Atlanta alternative newsweekly, Creative Loafing, Schultz says he's spoken with many friends and acquaintances who are "pretty astonished," as he is.

Parris, on the other hand, is clearly exasperated by the continuing media inquiries. When I told him Schultz was the subject of my call, he responded, "Oh, God." The FBI needs to get a grip. Blindsided by Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) and criticized for ignoring critical leads that may have prevented the attack, the agency has responded by abandoning discretion and discernment and investigating everything, including crank tips and irrational suspicions. That wastes time while generating fear and ill will. Those tactics won't get Osama.

[MatthewViti]

are you a government shill?

[lelio]

including the highly publicized and expensive pond-draining

And what became of that?

[GovernmentShrinker]

They backed down on Richard Jewell very quickly. Waco and Ruby Ridge were incidents which went down pretty quickly, and plenty of officials involved readily admitted that mistakes were made. This Hatfill thing has been going on for a long, long time, and the related undertakings just keep getting bigger and bigger. I can't recall anything remotely comparable where the target didn't turn out to be involved in the crime.

[aristeides]

If Hatfill really were guilty, don't you think they would have found evidence by now?

Did you notice the recent news that the CIA now believes the Prague meeting between Atta and al-Ani occurred, whereas the FBI does not? Why is that, do you think?

[Princeton]

"I can't recall anything remotely comparable where the target didn't turn out to be involved in the crime."

Yup, this will be a precedent setter.

[GovernmentShrinker]

I didn't say the FBI never wastes time on wild goose chases. But the example you cite is typical -- it involved a couple of agents for a few hours, and then was dropped. The Hatfill investigation is very atypical.

[GovernmentShrinker]

That's certainly a possibility, but IMO hardly a sure thing.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Possibly. Another possibility is that the highest levels of government and FBI know exactly who did it, and it wasn't Hatfill, and it was somebody they simply can't afford to publicize right now, for reasons of maintaining global stability -- i.e. an official Saudi government-backed agent. That's the tin foil version, but not altogether impossible.

[muawiyah]

In all reality trying to get through to the FBI with really important information on a case underway is nearly impossible.

That's why I am inclined to disbelieve the story about the FBI agent coming out to question someone about having read an article in a coffee shop.

The FBI simply does not work that way, if at all!

It's the very reason they've made no headway in the anthrax case.

[Destro]

agreed.