Hatfill v. US - DOJ and FBI Statement of Facts (filed Friday)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

I find the documents that Mr. Seikaly chose NOT to leak more interesting. His beautiful and accomplished daughter now represents Al-Timimi pro bono in connection with the sedition claim. Al-Timimi was a key “POI” of the other squad. If PhD certificate-forging Dr. Hatfill was of interest because he was close friends with William Patrick, Ali Al-Timimi was of interest because his religious mentor was Bin Laden’s sheik and he was in touch with the guy at the same time his desk was not much more than 15 feet from famed Russian bioweaponeer Ken Alibek and former USAMRIID Deputy Commander Charles Bailey. Hmmm... who is the better POI? The “bioevangelist” or the committed Salafist who has infiltrated biodefense establishment. Hm... right after 9/11 after Ayman Zawahiri promised he was going to use anthrax against US targets. That’s a toughie.

Al-Timimi was sentenced to life plus 70 years but the conviction has been set aside to permit discovery regarding alleged NSA interceptions in 2002. The defense is seeking NSA wiretaps from 2002 showing his communication with Bin Laden’s sheik leading up to his arranging for the hand-delivery of a letter to every member of Congress on the occasion of the first anniversary of the mailed anthrax to the Senators overseeing appropriations to Egypt and Israel (as well as the Department of Justice).

For example, Mr. Seikaly never leaked this document from 1999 — he never hyped this as an exclusive to NEWSWEEK. Mr. Seikaly came over from the CIA to his position at the DC United States Attorney’s Office on September 29, 2001. Ironically, he was in charge of investigating leaks of classified information at the CIA’s Inspector General’s Office.

I have uploaded most of the letter provided by the Defense Intelligence Agency to me under FOIA.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze43v8m/letters.html

I HOPE MY LETTER WILL FIND YOU IN THE BEST OF
HEALTH AND CIRCUMSTANCES BY THE GOD ALMIGHTLY.

I SUCCESSFUL ACHIEVED THE TARGETS DURING
MY VISIT TO [REDACTED]

THE CONFERENCE [REDACTED] WAS FOUND TO BE HIGHLY BENEFICIAL
FOR OUR FUTURE WORK [REDACTED]
[ANOTHER 7 OR 8 LINES REDACTED]
[REDACTED] THE COMPLETE UNIT OF FERMENTER [REDACTED] ALONG
WITH ACCESSORIES WAS IN ITS FINAL STAGES OF ITS COMPLETION. MOREOVER, A CERTIFICATE TRAINING ON ALL THE RUNNING UNITS OF [REDACTED] BIOREACTOR WAS COMPLETED. I FINALISED ALL THE ACCESSORIES REQUIRED FOR THE SMOOTH RUNNING OF OUR BIOREACTOR. I AM SENDING YOU A FINA[L] PRICE LIST OF ITEMS TO BE SHIPPED (EXCLUDING DUTY, CLEARANCE AND AGENT CHARGES)

[SKIPPED PAGE ]

THEN I WENT TO [REDACTED] TO MEET WITH DR. [REDACTED] INCHARGE OF [REDACTED]
IN ORDER TO SEE THE FACT OF OUR DEMAND OF CULTURES. I VISITED ALONG WITH ALL THE UNITS OF [REDACTED] INCLUDING THE SPECIAL CONFIDENTIAL ROOM IN WHICH THOUSANDS OF CULTURES ARE PLACED. HE ALSO SHOWED ME THE HIGHLY ADVANCED LEVEL-3 PATHOGEN LABORATORY. HE ALSO SHOWED THE REVALENT DCUMENTS FOR THE SUPPLY OF OUR CULTURES. THE [REDACTED] HAVE CONTRACTED THE [REDACTED] REGARDING THE EXPORT LICENCE AND THEY HAVE INFORMED THEM THAT THEY ARE GOING THROUGH EXTERNAL CHECKS.

DR. [REDACTED] ALSO POINTED OUT THAT I MUST HAVE A SHORT TRAINING IN HIS LEVEL-3 LABORATORY DEALING ALL TYPES OF DANGEROUS PATHOGENS.

THEN I WENT TO [REDACTED] IN ORDER TO ACQUIRE THE SUPPLY OF DIFFERENT VACCINES AGAINST A NUMBER OF PATHOGENS. THEY HELPED ME AND GAVE ME A NUMBER OF ADDRESSES FOR CORRESPONDANCE IN ORDER TO GET VACCINES.

I GOT MY ONE YEAR [REDACTED] LEAVE SANCTION FOR POST-DOC RESEARCH IN [REDACTED] I WILL ONLY GET [REDACTED] DURING FIRST 8 MONTHS OF MY LEAVE AND AFTERWARDS WITHOUT PAY AND WITH SERVICE BREAK. THIS IS HIGHLY OBJECTIONABLE. UNAFFORDABLE AND UNPRACTICABLE WITH ME. MOREOVER THE LEAVE SHOULD BE AVAIL VERY SOON OTHERWISE STANDS CANCELED.

THE BALANCE OF TOTAL AMOUNT LEFT WITH TME IS AS FOLLOWING:

THE PAYMENT IS DUE ON THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
I HAVE RECEIVED ITEMS FROM [REDACTED]OF
WORTH [REDACTED]
ITEMS FROM [REDACTED]
AUTOCLAVE [REDACTED]
CULTURE MEDIA, AIR CONTAMINATION DETECTOR
AND NCB RESPIRATOR: [REDACTED]

YOURS SINCERELY
[REDACTED]

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze43v8m/letters2.html

Here’s an earlier handwritten document from earlier in 1999 written by the same scientist helping Ayman Zawahiri infiltrate UK biodefense. It is written on the letterhead of the society for applied microbiology”:

[Redacted] Great regards,

“(1) I think, the invitation letter from [redacted] of my visit for the purpose of [redacted ] would be under process.

(2) To expertize our project [redacted] should be involved in the transportation of items and during this period I will make the purchase. We both do not want to involve a third person in this matter.

(3) All type of documentation (all recites, quotation, correspondence) with respect to purchase would be maintained by me.

(4) Locally fabricated/manufacture equipments and glassware are available at low price with low efficienyu or durability. I think we should go for quality and buy good quality efficient foreign equipment, but at comparatively high price.

(5) So you are requested to release of [redacted] as 1st installment for the purchase of equipment of glassware.

(6) Unfortunately, I did not find the required culture of B. anthrax i.e., pathogenic. The culture availablel n [redacted] is non-pathogenic, encapsulated strain used for vaccine (for animals) production. However, I have started correspondence with [redacted] for the supply of culture.

(7) Human vaccines for the protection against anthrax are not available here. This resulted a major obstacle for the iniation of our work.

(8) Therefore, keeping in view the above circumstances, a visit to [redacted] can be arranged for 10 days in the 1st week of [redacted].* This requires at least the air ticket expenses.

For this visit, I should be informed as early as possible.

Yours sincerely,
* There is a course in the 1st week of [redacted] at [ redacted]

“To: Muhammed Atef

From: Ayman al-Zawahiri

Folder: Outgoing Mail

Date: April 15, 1999

I have read the majority of the book [an unnamed volume, probably on biological and chemical weapons] [It] is undoubtedly useful. It emphasizes a number of important facts, such as:

1) The enemy started thinking about these weapons before WWI. Despite their extreme danger, we only became aware of them when the enemy drew our attention to them by repeatedly expressing concerns that they can be produced simply with easily available materials.

b) The destructive power of these weapons is no less than that of nuclear weapons.

c) A germ attack is often detected days after it occurs, which raises the number of victims.

d) Defense against such weapons is very difficult, particularly if large quantities are used.”

It continued: “I would like to emphasize what we previously discussed—that looking for a specialist is the fastest, safest, and cheapest way [to embark on a biological- and chemical-weapons program].”

Simultaneously, we should conduct a search on our own.*

** Along these lines, the book guided me to a number of references that I am attaching. Perhaps you can find someone to obtain them.”

A former leader of an armed Islamic group in Libya, Numan Bin Uthman, wrote a letter to al-Qaeda second in command Ayman al-Zawahiri telling him that Jihadi groups in Arab countries have failed and that Ayman’s plan to use WMD to deter invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was a failed strategy:

“Dear Doctor Ayman, as I told you during a meeting in Kandahar [in Afghanistan] in 2000, the experience of the Jihadi groups in Arab countries is failed and despite our appeals, the armed groups are divided and will not unite.”

“I ask you and whoever is behind you to review the way you behave because the Jihadi groups are acting very badly towards those who think differently from the way they do.”

“I ask you to stop the armed operations in the Arab countries, to guarantee the security of Muslims and to retract your threats toward the West, to take away from them the terrorism card used by some Western governments to hate Islam and Muslims.” .

“Only in this way, will it be possible to rebuild ties with other Sunni guerilla groups.”

Uthman reports that he had taken part in an important al-Qaeda summit in Kandahar, Afghanistan in 2000, in which al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had defined search for and use of weapons of mass destruction as a “Sharia obligation”.

“During this occasion, I had a strong dispute with the martyr Abu Hafs al-Kumandan, because he was heavily involved in acquiring weapons of mass destruction.” [Abu Hafs aka Atef was the former Cairo police sergeant who Ayman wrote the above memo to about his anthrax planning; the anthrax was sent from 4th Grade, Greendale School. 4th Grade is code for sergeant; Greendale School is code for the Egyptian Islamic Jihad; Ayman used “school” as code for EIJ in May 2001 correspondence to long-time followers explaining the merger with Al Qaeda]

“He wanted to use these weapons to dissuade the United State from attacking Afghanistan. And yet I knew that al-Qaeda did not have any strategic vision and would have used the weapons to kill indistriminately and not to dissuade”.

“After seven years since that meeting, my convictions on these issues have only grown stronger.”

“At that time I said that provoking the United States would turn them against the Taliban and by striking the country in an unconventional way would bring occupation to the entire Middle East and not only Afghanistan and that’s what’s happened.”

”Greendale School” is the return address of the anthrax letters to Senators Daschle and Leahy. In December 2002, the Arabic paper London Al-Sharq al-Awsat reported that correspondence on Zawahiri’s computer (which was obtained by the Wall Street Journal) shows Zawahiri uses “school” as code for Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The letter was found on Al Zawahiri’s computer. The letter was designed to look innocent. It was dated 3 May 2001 and signed “Dr. Nour, Chairman of the Company.” Nour is one of Zawahiri’s aliases. In this context, it was Egyptian Islamic Jihad, not Al Qaeda, of which he was Chairman.

“We have been trying to go back to our main, previous activities. The most important step was the opening of the school. We have made it possible for the teachers to find openings for profitable trade.”

The letter read:

“To: Unknown

From: Ayman al-Zawahiri

Folder: Letters

Date: May 3, 2001

The following is a summary of our situation: We are trying to return to our previous main activity. The most important step was starting the school, the programs of which have been started. We also provided the teachers with means of conducting profitable trade as much as we could. Matters are all promising, except for the unfriendliness of two teachers, despite what we have provided for them. We are patient. [This apparently refers to an internal dispute with two senior London Egyptian islamists].

As you know, the situation below in the village [Egypt] has become bad for traders [jihadis]. Our Upper Egyptian relatives have left the market, and we are suffering from international monopolies. Conflicts take place between us for trivial reasons, due to the scarcity of resources. We are also dispersed over various cities. However, God had mercy on us when the Omar Brothers Company [the Taliban] here opened the market for traders and provided them with an opportunity to reorganize, may God reward them. Among the benefits of residence here is that traders from all over gather in one place under one company, which increases familiarity and cooperation among them, particularly between us and the Abdullah Contracting Company [bin Laden and his associates]. The latest result of this cooperation is the offer they gave. Following is a summary of the offer: Encourage commercial activities [jihad] in the village to face foreign investors; stimulate publicity; then agree on joint work to unify trade in our area. Close relations allowed for an open dialogue to solve our problems. Colleagues here believe that this is an excellent opportunity to encourage sales in general, and in the village in particular. They are keen on the success of the project. They are also hopeful that this may be a way out of the bottleneck to transfer our activities to the stage of multinationals and joint profit. We are negotiating the details with both sides.”

The full message, decoded, is thought to say:

“We have been trying to go back to our military activities. The most important step was the declaration of unity with al-Qaeda. We have made it possible for the mujahideen to find an opening for martyrdom. As you know, the situation down in Egypt has become bad for the mujahideen: our members in Upper Egypt have abandoned military action, and we are suffering from international harassment.”

But Allah enlightened us with His mercy when Taliban came to power. It has opened doors of military action for our mujahideen and provided them with an opportunity to rearrange their forces. One benefit of performing jihad here is the congregation in one place of all mujahideen who came from everywhere and began working with the Islamic Jihad Organization. Acquaintance and cooperation have grown, especially between us and al-Qaeda.”

In December 2002, the Arabic paper London Al-Sharq al-Awsat reported that correspondence on Zawahiri’s computer (which was obtained by the Wall Street Journal) shows Zawahiri uses “school” as code for “Al Qaeda.”

Dr. Jean Rosenfeld, a researcher associated with the UCLA Center for the Study of Religion, and an expert on the symbolism of religious extremist movements, wrote me: “Greendale’ to me signified a conscious choice to use the symbolic color of Islam.” She explained that Al Qaeda “is rooted in Egypt and Salafism, not Saudi Arabia and Wahhabism. Al-Zawahiri, I believe, is intensely nostalgic for the Nile Valley.”

The CIA factbook explains that the color green — such as used by anthrax lab technician Yazid Sufaat in naming his lab “Green Laboratory Medicine,” and by the mailer who used the return address “Greendale School” is the traditional color of islam. Green symbolizes islam, Mohammed and the holy war. In its section on Saudi Arabia, and the “Flag Description,” the CIA “Factbook” explains that the flag is “green with large white Arabic script (that may be translated as There is no God but God; Muhammad is the Messenger of God) above a white horizontal saber (the tip points to the hoist side); green is the traditional color of Islam.”

An intelligence document first released in 2007 involves an operation by EIJ members headed by Atef and including Saif Adel in which the group headed to Somalia to work at developing a new base of operations. The group was called The Green Team. “Greendale School” was used as the return address in the letters and likely is code referring to the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. The stamp on the prestamped envelopes was of a green bird. For a video depicting the Green Bird’s point of view and invoking Allah’s guidance to “the straight path,” see this video “The 3D Kabah - A green birds eye view.” The koranic “Green Birds” reference is from the sentence relating to being set on “The Straight Path.” Timimi, the graduate student who had access to the Alibek/Bailey patent about concentration using hydrophobic silica, advised the EIJ founder Kamal Habib in writing for the publication called Assirat Al-Mustaqeem (“The Straight Path”).

Likely for the same reason, Al Qaeda anthrax lab technician Yazid Sufaat and Zacarias Moussaoui used the name Green Laboratory Medicine as the name of the company that he used, for example, to buy 4 tons of ammonium nitrate, and that he used to cover his anthrax production program. In a Hadith the Messenger of Allah explains that the souls of the martyrs are in the hearts of green birds that fly wherever they please in Paradise.

Green dale refers to green “river valley” — Egypt, Cairo, Egyptian Islamic Jihad and/or Egyptian Islamic Group. Put it all together and you have their new official name (though the American press does not use it) — Qaeda al Jihad. At the Darunta complex where jihadis trained, recruits would wear green uniforms, except for Friday when they would be washed.

In the conversations that the blind sheikh’s spokesman, Sattar, had with people like the blind sheik’s successor Taha, EIJ/Vanguards of Conquest al-Sirri, and the blind sheikh’s son, they used the same language found in emails between Zawahiri and the Yemeni cell in email. If a brother was in the hospital, it meant he was in prison. If he had an accident, it meant perhaps that Egyptian security services had killed him.

Given that using the same address helps the second recipient receiving the letter to identify it and avoid opening it, the perp would have no reason to use the same address unless he was communicating something and wanted to draw attention to it.

There was a filing unsealed today in the prosecution of Dr. Al-Timimi that discusses the USG’s suspicion of him regarding anthrax weapons. It copies the counsel of record who is the daughter of the Amerithrax prosecutor who was hyping the “POI” of the other Amerithrax squad. It explains that Ali’s name was mentioned in the August 2001 PDB and explains he was an anthrax suspect. He called Bin Laden’s sheik on 9/16 and 9/18 and met with “9/11 imam” Aulaqi to discuss the missive hand-delivered to every member of Congress on the first anniversary of the anthrax letters to the Senators.

“After this case was remanded for the specific purpose of allowing a review of withheld evidence collected under the NSA domestic surveilance program or any other undisclosed program, the government delayed consideration of withheld evidence until counsel received security clearances. Once security clearances were activated, however, the government refused to allow the counsel to review a single piece of withheld evidence or any of the in camera submissions to the Court — not even redacted or summary versions of the evidence or in camera submissions.”
***
“Despite repeated requests for an explanation from the government of why counsel cannot have access to material or review redacted or summary copies, the case has devolved into little more than a private conversation between the Court and shadow counsel.”

“The Court should reject the current posture of secrecy as preposterous and abusive. The government should have cleared counsel of record making these motions. The government should also explain why opposing counsel cannot have access under traditional classification rules or receive redacted or summary versions of these documents.”
***

“In his discovery letter, Dr. Al-Timimi, by counsel, gave the government a detailed request covering a limited number of individuals. Besides material on him and obvious members of the “Virginia Jihad” associated by the government with the Dar Al-Arqam Islamic Center, Dr. Al-Timimi requested material related to only eight individuals ***

***
“The government’s prior position was that any statements recollected or recorded by Dr. Al-Timimi on peace or war or Islamic duties were material. Thus, whether he was quoted or recorded on subjects of his views of religion or the United States, such statements were relevant to the question of whether “Timimi counseled and induced his followers to support terrorist groups that sought to destroy America.”
***

“The government concedes that any interceptions of Dr. Al-Timimi would have to be disclosed, but insists that it has done so. It, however, limits this representation to “all communications in which he was a party that were intercepted by the NSA. *** There is every reason to believe that he was subject to interceptions given the government statements that it long suspected him of ties to Al Qaeda and bin Laden as well as his numerous international calls from inside and outside the country. [redacted passages, presumptively IMO about Amerithrax investigation] At trial, FBI Agent John Wyman testified that “the ... investigation were conducting, we know of extensive ties between Timimi, Hawaali, and other elements of the broader Al Qaeda network.” Wyman Transcript at 1172.

“The evidence that Dr. Al-Timimi was subject to undisclosed surveillance is obvious. The government is suggesting that it does not have a single captured conversation for an almost seventeen month period between 9-11 — and February 1, 2003 — not to mention surveillance before 9-11. Yet, we know Dr. Al-Timimi:

* was interviewed in 1994 by the FBI and Secret Service regarding his ties to the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing;

* was referenced in the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing (”Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”) as one of seventy individuals regarding whom the FBI is conducting full field investigations on a national basis;

* was described to his brother by the FBI within days of the 9-11 attacks as an immediate suspect in the Al Qaeda conspiracy;

* was contacted by the FBI only nine days after 9-11 and asked about the attacks and its perpetrators;

* was considered an anthrax weapons suspect;

[redacted - passage presumptively IMO about Amerithrax investigation]

* was described during his trial by FBI agent John Wyman as having “extensive ties” with the “broader al-Qaeda network”;

* was described in the indictment and superseding indictment as being associated with terrorists seeking harm to the United States;

* was a participant in dozens of international overseas calls to individuals known to have been under suspicion of Al-Qaeda ties like Al-Hawali; and

* was associated with the long investigation of the Virginia Jihad Group.

It is facially absurd to suggest that the government does not have some of these communications. For years, the FBI has been asking about Dr. Al-Timimi and his associates. He was described as a terrorist suspect long before 9-11. It is preposterous to suggest that his many international and domestic communications were not intercepted. Notably, the government has never been required to submit confirmations of these interceptions and instead has continually hedged on whether they exist — referring to its view of materiality as relieving it of any need to disclose of such communications exist.

This is precisely the reason the Archives material was so important and the reason the defense sought to access to conduct its own search. There are numerous indications that Dr. Al-Timimi was under suspicion of these ties for years before his arrest. This is also the reason the defense has asked to see the FISA application.

***
The conversation with Al-Hawali on September 19, 2001 was central to the indictment and raised at trial. Al-Timimi called Dr. Hawali after the dinner with Kwon on September 16, 2001 and just two hours before he met with Kwon and Hassan for the last time on September 19, 2001.

“]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.”

[IANA head] Bassem Khafagi was questioned about Dr. Al-Timimi before 9-11 in Jordan, purportedly at the behest of American intelligence. [redacted -presumptively about Amerithrax] He was specifically asked about Dr. Al-Timimi’s connection to Bin Laden prior to Dr. Al-Timimi’s arrest. He was later interviewed by the FBI about Dr. Al-Timimi. Clearly, such early investigations go directly to the allegations of Dr. Al-Timimi’s connections to terrorists and Bin Laden — [redacted / presumptively IMO about Amerithrax]”

The letter by Al-Timimi’s counsel attached as an exhibit is equally meaty. An example of an additional detail is that in March 2002, Dr. Al-Timimi spoke with Dr. Al-Hawali (Bin Laden’s sheik who was the subject of OBL’s “Declaration of War”) about assisting Moussaoui in his defense.

Final note:

The filing and the letter exhibit each copy the daughter of the lead prosecutor in Amerithrax. That prosecutor has pled the Fifth Amendment concerning all the leaks hyping the “POI” of the other Amerithrax squad.

Here is the Consent to Unsealing:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
)
)
v. ) Criminal No. 1:04cr385
)
ALI AL-TIMIMI ) Hon. Leonie M. Brinkema

GOVERNMENT’S CONSENT TO MOTION FOR UNSEALING

On November 9, 2007, Al-Timimi filed a sealed opposition to the government’s motion to quash his discovery requests. On April 18, 2008, Al-Timimi moved for an order to unseal a redacted version of the opposition he filed under seal on November 9, 2007. Al-Timimi attached to his motion of April 18th a copy of the proposed redacted version of his sealed opposition of November 9th.

As Al-Timimi accurately stated in his motion to unseal of April 18, 2008, the United States consents to the entry of an order unsealing the version of his sealed opposition filed on November 9, 2007, redacted in accordance with the attachment to his motion of April 18th.

Respectfully submitted,
Chuck Rosenberg
United States Attorney

By: ___________________________
Gordon D. Kromberg
Assistant United States Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, this 21st day of April 2008, I caused a copy of the attached GOVERNMENT’S CONSENT TO MOTION FOR UNSEALING to be served first class mail, postage paid, addressed as follows:

Jonathan Turley
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Washington, D.C. 20052

Who is OBL’s brother-in-law Khalifa? Let’s review some background.

Al Qaeda’s regional operative, Hambali, was at the key January 2000 meeting and supervised anthrax lab technician Yazid Sufaat. KSM took over anthrax planning upon Atef’s death in November 2001. He was planning up follow-up attacks. Khalid Mohammed’s involvement dates back to Bojinka, as did Hambali’s. The money for Bojinka, a plot to simultaneously bomb airliners and to assassinate the Pope, went from Bin Laden’s brother-in-law Khalifa to the Abu Sayyaf Group, Al Qaeda’s primary Philippine affiliate, and then on to the cell that included KSM. An alternative plan in Bojinka was to use biochemical weapons in an attempt to free blind sheik Abdel-Rahman. When the blind sheik Abdel-Rahman was arrested, he had Khalifa’s business card along with $62000 in cash in a suitcase.

The US-trained Malaysian biochemist Yazid Sufaat met with 9/11 plotters and two hijackers in January 2000. Sufaat used his company called Green Laboratory Medicine to buy items useful to Al Qaeda. Zacarias Moussaoui, who had a crop dusting manual when he was arrested, stayed at Sufaat’s condominium in 2000 when he was trying to arrange for flight lessons in Malaysia. Yazid Sufaat provided Moussaoui with a letter indicating that he was a marketing representative for Infocus Technologies signed “Yazid Sufaat, Managing Director.” Sufaat had given Moussaoui an e-mail greenlab@usa.net that was accessed by authorities on September 19, 2001, one day before Al-Timimi was interviewed by the FBI. The crop dusters were to be part of a “second wave.” (Greendale School was the address used in the letter to the Senators).

When 9/11 hijacker Saeed Al-Ghamdi videotaped his will in 2000, he praised Saudi Sheik Al-Hawali. Telephone records for Mounir el-Mottasedeq, a Moroccan convicted in Germany of helping Mohammed Atta and other members of the “Hamburg cell” that planned 9/11, show that in the months prior to the attacks, he made repeated calls to Al-Hawali’s Riyadh offices. The other Saudi sheik mentioned as involved in the telephone calls in this week’s New Yorker calls was the other sheik, who along with al-Hawali and blind sheik Abdel-Rahman, were referenced in the 1996 Declaration of War and the 1998 claim of responsibility for the embassy bombings.

Ali Al-Timimi spoke alongside the blind sheik’s son Mohammed at IANA conferences in 1993 and 1996. The son was on Al Qaeda’s 3-member WMD committee. He recruited scientists. He was taken into custody two weeks before the FBI raided Ali’s residence looking, according to the warrant, evidence of WMD.

The late Khalifa owned a mighty fine fish restaurant in Saudi Arabia post-911 and stridently denied being associated with his friend and brother-in-law Osama.

Detrick Detox, Frederick News Post, April 25, 2008
http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_columnist.htm?StoryID=74188

“Detrick insiders protest Detrick knows its job when it comes to containment and security. But well-documented breaches have occurred at Detrick over the years, incidents publicized in the local and national press, underscoring the wisdom and necessity of the commissioners’ action.

FOX News reported last month that the FBI has narrowed its focus to “about four suspects,” at least three of whom are linked to USAMRIID, including a former deputy commander, a leading anthrax scientist and a microbiologist.

FOX talked to a bioterrorism expert who said the Detrick link points out “serious security deficiencies ... the ability of researchers to smuggle out some type of very sophisticated anthrax weapon and in some quantity.”

This revelation goes far beyond calling into question security at Detrick.”

[Then the journalist, unburdened by knowing of these shredded-banana peel type details, advances a “bioevangelist” theory]

It was more than a happy coincidence, however, for Ayman Zawahiri and Mohammed Islambouli (who led a key cell planning the attacks with KSM) that an active supporter of the Taliban and supporter of jihad was a US biodefense insider. Microbiologist Al-Timimi worked in the same building as famed Russian bioweapons scientist Ken Alibek and former USAMRIID Deputy Commander and Acting Commander Charles Bailey, who would come to publish a lot of research with the “Ames strain” of anthrax. Al-Timimi was a current associate and former student of Bin Laden’s spiritual advisor, dissident Saudi Sheik al-Hawali. He would speak along with the blind sheik’s son at charity conferences — the blind sheik’s son served on Al Qaeda’s WMD committee. Al-Timimi’s mentor Bilal Philips was known for recruiting members of the military to jihad. The first week after 9/11, FBI agents questioned Ali Al-Timimi, a microbiology graduate student in a program jointly run by George Mason University and the American Type Culture Collection (”ATCC”). Ali, according to his lawyer, had been questioned by an FBI agent and Secret Service agent in 1994 after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He had a high security clearance for work for the Navy in he late 1990s and in 1996 for two months had worked for the White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card when he was Secretary of Transportation. As time off from his university studies permitted, Ali was an active speaker with a charity Islamic Assembly of North America.

Ed frequently for years argued that if there US-based “accomplices” helping the 911 hijackers, the USG would be talking about it. When, actually, common sense is that instead they would proceed with electronic surveillance in a highly secret investigation. No banana peel would be safe from shredding. When, for example, the 911 Commission Report discussed the Falls Church “911 imam” who knew the hijacker from Kuala Lumpur in both San Diego and Falls Church, Ed just avoided discussing possible US-based supporters. It was easier to argue that the hijackers were “dead, dead, dead” and not explore alternative hypotheses to the Amerithrax crimes. Ed had what is known as “cognitive rigidity.”

Let’s just hope the USG doesn’t lose its — well, a peel.

Let’s break down Ed’s rationale.

“From the very beginning, the facts seemed to say: It wasn’t al Qaeda!”

Okay, so we know he is reaching his conclusion early on when little was known.

A key fact he relies upon is:

“Prime among the facts were all the precautions that the terrorist took to do minimal harm. That by itself said: NOT al Qaeda!”
He is mistaken. The hadiths REQUIRE that warning be given before poison is used.

Then he argues:

“To some diehards in Camp Jingo, any suggestion that the anthrax could have been sent by Americans was ‘anti-American’.”

So he turns to an ad hominem. His best argument is to accuse this leftist of accusing him of being anti-American when actually, for example, I just accuse him of lacking critical reasoning ability and failing to follow the evidence. He takes his opinions and calls them facts, and then capitalizes the word (”FACTS”). Like it is a FACT a first-grader wrote the letters.

Then he argues:

“For a long time after the anthrax attacks, the FBI was apparently in Camp Jingo, too.”

Oops. Ed has omitted on his webpage a link to the press conference where FBI Director Mueller described the motive: “Think 9/11. Think Oklahoma City.” Mueller specifically has pointed to a hatred of US policy as the motive. He specifically has pointed to the risk of theft of biochemistry information by a university grad student. And the FBI has expressly discussed searches in Kabul and Kandahar under a theory that anthrax was stolen from some place like Ft. Detrick and brought there.

Continuing his “ad hominem” labeling approach, Ed argues:

“All the “new” evidence that al Qaeda was behind the anthrax attacks pertained to people who died on September 11th! But to those in Camp Jingo, the fact that those terrorists were all dead is merely “proof” that there must have been an unidentified accomplice.”

Here he has combined his ad hominem approach with a “straw man” argument. He is insulting a scare crow.

Ed argues:

“This supposed “unidentified accomplice” even warned the media people receiving the anthrax that they should take penicillin, and he told the Senators that the powder in the letters was anthrax. This particular terrorist sends germs through the mail along with information about how to protect yourself from the germs! Clearly this accomplice must be the ‘white sheep’ of the al Qaeda terrorist family, since he tried in numerous and various ways to avoid hurting anyone!”

Not having bothered to read anything about the raging debate about targeting innocents and the tactics that are effective in jihad — or the desire of some to use political means — Ed mistakenly dismisses an Al Qaeda theory because he does not realize that some do not fully subscribe to Ayman’s fanatical approach to tactics. Ed also forgets that the perp(s) may have only had a small amount of anthrax to use.

“And, of course, as America retaliated for the 9-11 attacks, fellow al Qaeda members were being wiped out all across the globe, yet the peace-loving al Qaeda ‘white sheep’ member apparently couldn’t bring himself to again use the anthrax weapon he had used twice previously.”

Ed here might have overlooked that the CIA and FBI has been kicking butt in Amerithrax for years and Ed is just not very good at reading the banana peels.

Atef was blown to smithereens in November 2001. Anthrax lab tech Yazid Sufaat was captured in December 2001 etc

A robust debate of alternative theories is a good thing. (Ed’s entire approach to debunking a Hatfill Theory is an ad hominem approach to one of its proponents, BHR). Instead, we should follow the evidence. Which for starters requires considering the evidence supporting the alternative theories (without resorting to ad hominem argument which is logically fallacious).

But it’s not too late. Ed, you should explore the hypothesis that US-based supporters of the jihadists are responsible, as should you TrebleRebel. You’ve got silica on the brain. When the undisputed finding by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology that silica was detected merely is a key pointer to the access of know-how or product that occurred here (which is why the USG needed to allow the issue to be clouded/suppressed).

Ed stood ready to serve his country by so totally confusing the issue on silica. Ed, you are a True American.

For example, where has Ed addressed the question posed by a former State Department analyst?

“Was Abderraouf Jdey the Anthrax Mailer?”

http://www.scientiapress.com/findings/mailer.htm

Jdey was known to be part of the 911 planes operation. He was an accomplice — thus contradicting Ed’s entire theory that there no accomplices who were not “dead, dead, dead.” But then he was held back from that operation and disappeared. Why?

He was trained in biology and yet Ed has not displayed even passing curiosity as to his day job or the circumstances of his mysterious disappearance in October 2001.

The FBI issued a $5 million BOLO for him in connection with Aafia Siddiqui and Jafar the Pilot.

An AUSA has said in open court that Aafia was willing to participate in an anthrax attack if asked. Ed took no notice and clung stubbornly to his drunk bowler theory.

Jafar the Pilot corresponded and sent people to Midhat Mursi, the Egyptian chemical engineer who was part of Al Qaeda’s 3-member WMD committee with the blind sheik’s son. (See letter posted above). Jafar worshipped at the mosque from Franklin Park, the address in the code on the anthrax letters.

Al-Timimi’s mentor, Bilal Philips, has posted on Jafar’s (Adnan El-Shukrijumah’s) family webpage explaining that he is good friends with Adnan’s dad. Both were strong supporters of blind sheik Abdel-Rahman and Jafar’s Dad testified at the trial as a character witness. Bilal Philips has explained that he worked in the Philippines as part of Khalifa’s work and that he recruited men associated with the US Army to jihad.

Ed is a “true believer” (the label he uses) in a bioevangelist theory. He thus has not explored the hypothesis supported by the documentary evidence, testimony and government pronouncements relating to Al Qaeda’s weaponization of anthraxs for use against US targets.

Even when the CIA Director says that the anthrax planning was done in parallel with 9/11, he doesn’t take notice.

When a criminal defense lawyer says the government who prosecuted his client for sedition suspected him of being an anthrax weapons suspect — and the client was not much more than 15 feet from the leading anthrax scientist relied upon by Ed — Ed doesn’t even link the report.

It is Ed who is the True Believer. It is Ed who is the Conspiracy Theorist. It is Ed who is the Follower. It is Ed who doesn’t follow the FACTS.

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.