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

Skip to comments.

Some Fort Detrick Labs Closed
WJZ ^ | Jul 20, 2004 10:25 am

Posted on 07/20/2004 1:43:56 PM PDT by maquiladora

/table>

Some Fort Detrick Labs Closed 10:25 AM


Jul 20, 2004 10:25 am US/Eastern
Frederick, MD (WJZ)

Federal agents are combing a number of laboratory suites at Fort Detrick in Frederick for evidence of the 2001 anthrax attacks.

Fort Detrick spokesman Charles Dasey says the labs have been closed since Friday at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, home to the Army's biological warfare defense program.

A law enforcement source tells The Associated Press that the activity is related to the anthrax mailings that killed five people and sickened 17 in October of 2001.

FBI agents have frequently visited Fort Detrick since the
unsolved attacks amid speculation that the deadly spores or the person who sent them may have come from Fort Detrick.



(© 2004 CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. )



TOPICS: Anthrax Scare; News/Current Events; US: Maryland; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: amerithrax; anthrax; anthraxattacks; antraz; fortdetrick; usaamrid; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-296 next last
To: Khan Noonian Singh; Allan; Shermy
Whatever event is the reason for targetting Daschle and Leahy, must be from before everything was chronicled on the World Wide Web. Puts it in the 80's, maybe early 90's. Could go back earlier.

That's interesting. A couple of threads back, I suggested that whoever selected NBC, CBS, and ABC as targets is roughly middle-aged or older. After all, these were "The Three Major Networks" up until cable became prominent, but they are no longer anything special.

If someone wanted to hit the major broadcast news media, "The Three Major Networks" would be the natural choice for anyone around 30-40 years old or older. (I know, the low end of the range isn't really middle-aged yet, but I think this is a little more accurate.)

A younger person, though, would have a different view on what constitutes the major broadcast news media. There's no uniformity of opinion any more, due to the fragmentation of the broadcast industry, but certainly CNN would be included. Maybe Fox, MSNBC, and/or CNBC would be included. Perhaps some or all of the old-fashioned networks would be omitted.

Anyway, when did cable really take off and CNN really start to supplant the "Three Major Networks"? If I had to pick a date, I'd say January, 1991, at the time of the (first) Gulf War.

So we're looking at the 1980s or earlier. The person who selected those targets was very probably an adult already in that decade. His thinking was molded then (or earlier). His selection of "The Three Major Networks" as targets in 2001 was an anachronism.

A style of thinking going back to the 1980s or earlier is, of course, consistent with Khan's theory that the motivation stems from that same era.

21 posted on 08/04/2004 11:45:17 PM PDT by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Khan Noonian Singh
Since you are analysing this logically, there are 2 more possibilities - Foreign terrorists not assoc with 09-11... - Domestic terrorists assoc with 09-11... Care to rule these 2 out?

I was really only proceeding semi-logically, organizing the arguments for and against the two main paradigms. There are people who support the second idea, e.g. an American militia group teaming with al Qaeda to fight the "Zionist Occupation Government".

For what are Daschle and-or Leahy famous, or notorious? ... If this guess is right, it must concern something from before the WWW. All connexions recent enough to be on the Web have been scoured exhaustively by amateur sleuthers.

On both sides, people try to explain it using recent events. One proponent of the "liberal targets" theory said to me that Daschle and Leahy were being attacked by Rush Limbaugh and other talk-radio hosts throughout 2001, I guess after Republicans lost control of the Senate. On the other side, you've probably seen Ross Getman's arguments about the "Leahy Law" and its role in counterterrorism assistance to states like Egypt, and that law dates from 1997. And I don't think there's been critical analysis of either of those arguments, really.

22 posted on 08/05/2004 3:32:38 PM PDT by apokatastasis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Allan
<<    Is LL < WWW ?    >>

That would be correct.

23 posted on 08/06/2004 12:04:17 AM PDT by Khan Noonian Singh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: apokatastasis
<< On both sides, people try to explain it using recent events. >>

With no success. It must not be a recent event.

<< One proponent of the "liberal targets" theory said to me that Daschle and Leahy were being attacked by Rush Limbaugh and other talk-radio hosts throughout 2001 >>

I'll pass on this would-be theory.

<< On the other side, you've probably seen Ross Getman's arguments about the "Leahy Law" and its role in counterterrorism assistance to states like Egypt, and that law dates from 1997. >>

Havnt seen it. Do you have a link?

24 posted on 08/06/2004 1:47:55 AM PDT by Khan Noonian Singh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Khan Noonian Singh; Allan
<< On both sides, people try to explain it using recent events. >>

With no success. It must not be a recent event.

I don't agree with this reasoning of yours. I have not seen any very analytical discussion of the "liberal targets" theory, for example. If you search backwards through Google's newsgroup archives, from September 10, 2001, for joint occurrences of "Daschle" and "Leahy", the first (i.e. most recent) occasion on which they are mentioned together is in a statement by a group called Traditional Values Coalition, complaining that the senators are removing the phrase "so help me God" from oaths made before Senate committees. So like it or not, the political targets of the anthrax letters may have been drawn from the enemies list of someone on the right.

What bugs me is the idea that this is the only reasonable interpretation. The proponents of this idea never seem to ask whether there might have been other political letters that were never recovered, whether Daschle and Leahy were targeted just because they were in charge of a whole branch of the US government (one which had just voted for war with Afghanistan), etc. The idea is either embraced or rejected, on the basis of political affiliation, but never discussed at length - that's my impression.

<< On the other side, you've probably seen Ross Getman's arguments about the "Leahy Law" and its role in counterterrorism assistance to states like Egypt, and that law dates from 1997. >>

Havnt seen it. Do you have a link?

He goes into some detail here, in the section on motive. Getman posts his theories in a wide variety of forums, but his latest essays don't go into as much detail about the law as he does in that article from 2002.

I thought, by the way, that Allan's "LL" must stand for "Leahy Law".

25 posted on 08/06/2004 4:06:56 AM PDT by apokatastasis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: apokatastasis; Khan Noonian Singh; Allan; Mitchell

I am new here, I have been reading through these threads, trying to comprehend what everyone is saying.

I don't understand the LL explanation.

Khan Noonian Singh - gotta love these names - and Mitchell said they were looking for something from before the saturation of the web and cable TV, early 1990s at the latest. Then Khan said LL < WWW. OK, LL may be what they are looking for.

Now apokatastasis says that the Leahy Law - LL - is from 1997. Isn't that way late?


26 posted on 08/06/2004 9:24:41 AM PDT by John Faust
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: John Faust; apokatastasis; Khan Noonian Singh; Mitchell; Allan; Shermy
<<
I don't understand the LL explanation.
Khan Noonian Singh - gotta love these names - and Mitchell said they were looking for something from before the saturation of the web and cable TV, early 1990s at the latest. Then Khan said LL < WWW. OK, LL may be what they are looking for.
Now apokatastasis says that the Leahy Law - LL - is from 1997. Isn't that way late?
>>

Leahy Law is way too late. Maybe others meant the Leahy Law, but I did not.

A misunderstanding - to me, LL means the incidents that gave the << Leaky Leahy >> monicker to the senator.

The << Leaky Leahy >> episodes are in the right time period.
27 posted on 08/06/2004 6:54:09 PM PDT by Khan Noonian Singh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: apokatastasis

Thank you for the Getman links. Tightly reasoned but I feel not compelling. If true, why would AQ not take credit?


28 posted on 08/06/2004 6:59:24 PM PDT by Khan Noonian Singh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Khan Noonian Singh

Thank You.


29 posted on 08/07/2004 1:12:50 AM PDT by John Faust
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Khan Noonian Singh

You are right. The Leaky Leahy incidents are too old for the original news to be on the web.

I looked for details. Newsmax published some articles on this in 2001. The sources Newsmax used were the Washington Times, the San Diego Union-Tribune, NBC, and the Washington Post.


Newsmax, Jan 31, 2001, http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/showinside.pl?a=2001/1/31/85757
Excerpts only....

But in his home state of Vermont, more than a few of his constituents remember him best as "Leaky Leahy," the one-time vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee who had to resign the post in disgrace 14 years ago after acknowledging he divulged secret information to the press....

"Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, inadvertantly disclosed a top secret communications intercept during a [1985] television interview," reported the San Diego Union-Tribune in a 1987 editorial criticizing Congress' penchant for partisan leaks.

"The intercept, apparently of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's telephone conversations, made possible the capture of the Arab terrorists who had hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered American citizens," the paper said, adding, "The reports cost the life of at least one Egyptian operative involved in the operation."

In July 1987, the Washington Times reported that Leahy leaked secret information about a 1986 covert operation planned by the Reagan administration to topple Lybian strongman Moammar Gaddhafi.

"I thought [the operation] was probably the most ridiculous thing I had seen, and also the most irresponsible," the leading Intelligence Committee Democrat allegedly said of the secret plan.

Unidentified U.S. intelligence officials told the Times that Leahy, along with Republican panel chairman Sen. Dave Durenberger, communicated a written threat to expose the operation directly to then-CIA Director William Casey.

Weeks later, news of the secret plan turned up in the Washington Post, causing it to be aborted....

But just a year later, as the Senate was preparing to hold hearings on the Iran-Contra scandal, the Vermont senator had to resign his Intelligence Committee post after he was caught leaking secret information to a reporter.

The ranking Intelligence Committee Democrat decided to let an NBC reporter comb through the committee's confidential draft report on the scandal. The network aired a report based on the inside information on Jan. 11, 1987.

After a six-month internal investigation, Leahy "voluntarily" stepped down from his committee post....

The Vermont Democrat's Iran-Contra leak was considered to be one of the most serious breaches of secrecy in the committee's 10-year history.

After Leahy's resignation, the Senate Intelligence Committee decided to restrict access to committee documents to a security-enhanced meeting room.

In fact, the final committee report turned out to be considerably different from Leahy's leaked draft....


Newsmax, May 17, 2001, http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/showinside.pl?a=2001/5/17/161146
Some extra info....

In a letter to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, Landmark President Mark Levin wrote Thursday:

"According to numerous published reports, including most recently in NewsMax.com, on multiple occasions Sen. Leahy was the purported source of, or involved in, several leaks of classified or confidential intelligence information in 1985 and twice in 1987. (See Exhibit A.) The Committee conducted a six month internal investigation, after which Sen. Leahy resigned from the Committee."

Landmark notes that the specifics of the investigation that led to Leahy's resignation remain under seal....


30 posted on 08/08/2004 2:18:00 AM PDT by John Faust
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Khan Noonian Singh

You are right. The Leaky Leahy incidents are too old for the original news to be on the web.

I looked for details. Newsmax published some articles on this in 2001. The sources Newsmax used were the Washington Times, the San Diego Union-Tribune, NBC, and the Washington Post.


Newsmax, Jan 31, 2001, http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/showinside.pl?a=2001/1/31/85757
Excerpts only....

But in his home state of Vermont, more than a few of his constituents remember him best as "Leaky Leahy," the one-time vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee who had to resign the post in disgrace 14 years ago after acknowledging he divulged secret information to the press....

"Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, inadvertantly disclosed a top secret communications intercept during a [1985] television interview," reported the San Diego Union-Tribune in a 1987 editorial criticizing Congress' penchant for partisan leaks.

"The intercept, apparently of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's telephone conversations, made possible the capture of the Arab terrorists who had hijacked the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered American citizens," the paper said, adding, "The reports cost the life of at least one Egyptian operative involved in the operation."

In July 1987, the Washington Times reported that Leahy leaked secret information about a 1986 covert operation planned by the Reagan administration to topple Lybian strongman Moammar Gaddhafi.

"I thought [the operation] was probably the most ridiculous thing I had seen, and also the most irresponsible," the leading Intelligence Committee Democrat allegedly said of the secret plan.

Unidentified U.S. intelligence officials told the Times that Leahy, along with Republican panel chairman Sen. Dave Durenberger, communicated a written threat to expose the operation directly to then-CIA Director William Casey.

Weeks later, news of the secret plan turned up in the Washington Post, causing it to be aborted....

But just a year later, as the Senate was preparing to hold hearings on the Iran-Contra scandal, the Vermont senator had to resign his Intelligence Committee post after he was caught leaking secret information to a reporter.

The ranking Intelligence Committee Democrat decided to let an NBC reporter comb through the committee's confidential draft report on the scandal. The network aired a report based on the inside information on Jan. 11, 1987.

After a six-month internal investigation, Leahy "voluntarily" stepped down from his committee post....

The Vermont Democrat's Iran-Contra leak was considered to be one of the most serious breaches of secrecy in the committee's 10-year history.

After Leahy's resignation, the Senate Intelligence Committee decided to restrict access to committee documents to a security-enhanced meeting room.

In fact, the final committee report turned out to be considerably different from Leahy's leaked draft....


Newsmax, May 17, 2001, http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/showinside.pl?a=2001/5/17/161146
Some extra info....

In a letter to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Shelby, Landmark President Mark Levin wrote Thursday:

"According to numerous published reports, including most recently in NewsMax.com, on multiple occasions Sen. Leahy was the purported source of, or involved in, several leaks of classified or confidential intelligence information in 1985 and twice in 1987. (See Exhibit A.) The Committee conducted a six month internal investigation, after which Sen. Leahy resigned from the Committee."

Landmark notes that the specifics of the investigation that led to Leahy's resignation remain under seal....


31 posted on 08/08/2004 2:18:13 AM PDT by John Faust
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: John Faust

Why is this here twice? Oh well, double the fun.


32 posted on 08/08/2004 2:22:02 AM PDT by John Faust
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: John Faust; jpl; apokatastasis; Shermy; Allan; Mitchell; TrebleRebel; Battle Axe
Part of the << Leaky Leahy >> article salient perhaps to the anthrax investigation -

<< The ranking Intelligence Committee Democrat decided to let an NBC reporter comb through the committee's confidential draft report on the scandal. The network aired a report based on the inside information on Jan. 11, 1987. >>

So now we have Leahy and NBC.

Who was the NBC reporter to whom Leaky Leahy provided access?

On what show did the report appear on 11 Jan 1987, and who reported the story? Tom Brokaw was already anchor of the NBC Nightly News by that time, having started in 1982.

The leak was of a draft version of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Iran-contra report, indicated to be "considerably different" from the final report. What was different in the draft version, and what exactamente was reported in the story?

Transcript from NBC News? Or a newspaper article on it from maybe 12 Jan 1987?

33 posted on 08/09/2004 12:55:34 AM PDT by Khan Noonian Singh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Khan Noonian Singh
Part of the << Leaky Leahy >> article salient perhaps to the anthrax investigation -
<< The ranking Intelligence Committee Democrat decided to let an NBC reporter comb through the committee's confidential draft report on the scandal. The network aired a report based on the inside information on Jan. 11, 1987. >>

So now we have Leahy and NBC.
......what exactamente was reported in the story?



The New York Times, Jan. 12, 1987.

Saudis' Aid to Contras Called Reagan Request

WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 - President Reagan asked Saudi Arabia last year to contribute money to the Nicaraguan rebels, who then received $31 million because of his efforts, according to a Senate Intelligence Committee report, NBC News reported tonight.

The network, citing a confidential report that it has obtained on the Iran arms sale affair, said the National Security Council decided in a meeting last May that the President should personally seek aid for the rebels from a certain party. The name of the party was blacked out in the version of the report obtained by the network, but NBC said sources identified the donor as Saudi Arabia.

As a result of Mr. Reagan's entreaty, $31 million was donated to the contras.

The funds were given in the following two months, the network said, at a time when Congress had cut off military aid to the contras. The United States had provided $27 million in aid that could be used only for nonmilitary purposes and equipment.

The money from Saudi Arabia was given to the United Nicaraguan Opposition, a political umbrella group for the contras, NBC reported. Contra leaders have said in the past that they believed they had received financing from the Saudi royal family.

34 posted on 08/10/2004 6:42:23 PM PDT by John Faust
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: John Faust; Shermy
Saudi Arabia..... intresting.

<< The name of the party was blacked out in the version of the report obtained by the network, but NBC said sources identified the donor as Saudi Arabia. >>

Who would you think told NBC it was Saudi Arabia? If I were still in my youthful gambling days, I'd put all my chips on Leahy as leaker not only of the draft report but also of this extra Saudi info.

Seeking intelligence leaks is dangerously highrisk. Who was pushing this story at NBC, who made it happen? The story had to have had a high muckymuck sponsor at NBC. Who?

35 posted on 08/11/2004 12:22:24 AM PDT by Khan Noonian Singh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Khan Noonian Singh
I'd put all my chips on Leahy as leaker not only of the draft report but also of this extra Saudi info.

Yeah, that would be my bet too.

Seeking intelligence leaks is dangerously highrisk. Who was pushing this story at NBC, who made it happen? The story had to have had a high muckymuck sponsor at NBC. Who?

There is reason to think it was Tom Brokaw.

36 posted on 08/11/2004 12:55:37 AM PDT by John Faust
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: John Faust
<< There is reason to think it was Tom Brokaw. >>

Okay I'll bite the fish. What is the reason?

37 posted on 08/11/2004 1:02:09 AM PDT by Khan Noonian Singh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Khan Noonian Singh
<< There is reason to think it was Tom Brokaw. >>

Okay I'll bite the fish. What is the reason?

When I was looking through old New York Times issues, before I found the article I posted earlier, I found that NBC had taken out a full-page advertisement in the Times in early January 1987, for four upcoming special NBC News Hours. One of the four is on the "Iran-Contra intrigue" and the ad for it singles out Brokaw by name:


38 posted on 08/11/2004 2:14:58 AM PDT by John Faust
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: John Faust
So this links Leahy, Brokaw, and Saudi Arabia. It might be a coincidence, can't be sure. I don't know if this road leads anywhere.

Did the New York Post say any words about Iran-contra that might have been thought to be inflamatory, whether by the Saudis or anybody else?

What was Daschle doing at the time?

Have any Saudi officials or princes or even any of the ex-Iran-contra figures made any noteworthy comments on the anthrax case?

39 posted on 08/12/2004 12:43:33 AM PDT by Khan Noonian Singh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: John Faust; Khan Noonian Singh; Allan; Shermy
The name of the party was blacked out in the version of the report obtained by the network, but NBC said sources identified the donor as Saudi Arabia.

It's deja vu all over again.

This was back in 1987, but exactly the same thing happened with the 2003 Congressional report on 9/11. That 2003 report had virtually an entire section redacted; the blacked-out material was widely reported to have been about Saudi Arabia, specifically about Saudi financing of al-Qaeda.

Here's a link: Bush Won't Reveal Saudi 9/11 Info, CNN, July 29, 2003.

40 posted on 08/12/2004 8:47:23 PM PDT by Mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-296 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