Anthrax letters -- Are you kidding me?

[Magiver]

[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy]
I’ll let Glenn Greenwald do the heavy lifting here, but a few for starters:[ul][li]All the evidence is circumstantial and the release of the documents conveniently selective[]The “Death to America” smoking-gun is incredibly flimsy as proof[]There’s still nothing forensic that links him to the anthrax, and many questions remain unanswered about his alleged ability to synthesize it[*]No evidence was presented putting Ivins at the scene of any of the mailboxes in New Jersey where the letters originated[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
:smack: You’re posting something from Salon by an author who starts his article acknowledging he hasn’t reviewed the information? That would be the classic introduction to a rant.

I don’t think you know what the word circumstantial evidence means. It’s a collection of facts that, when brought together, lead to a conclusion. This is what is presented everyday in court. The forensic link is the strain of anthrax that Ivins was directly involved in. You have a mentally ill person who did not follow protocol regarding deadly biological agents, cannot account for his late night operations at work, and was immunized for anthrax weeks before the attack. Those are just a few of the items linking this case.

Looking at the Salon article, don’t you think many of the “unnanswered questions” might be answered if the author actually investigated the topic he is reporting on? :rolleyes:

[CaveMike]

@Magiver

When he started acting nutty he was pulled from access to anything dangerous. This was in direct response to feedback from his co-workers (thus sayeth the news reports).

His access was taken away on Nov 1, 2007, but in hindsight he seems to have had serious problems for years.

Consider this:

@LA Times

On Oct. 16, 2001, one of Ivins’ co-workers communicated to a former colleague that “Bruce has been an absolute manic basket case the last few days.”

and this:

@LA Times

From 2000 through 2006, Ivins was prescribed “various psychotropic medications including antidepressants, antipsychotics and anti-anxiety for his mental issues,” the documents showed.

I understand his co-workers might be reluctant to ‘tell on him’, but clearly they should have. Even if you were to assume that Ivins was not behind the attacks, his access should have been pulled.

[Magiver]

@CaveMike

His access was taken away on Nov 1, 2007, but in hindsight he seems to have had serious problems for years.

Consider this:and this:I understand his co-workers might be reluctant to ‘tell on him’, but clearly they should have. Even if you were to assume that Ivins was not behind the attacks, his access should have been pulled.

Absolutely. The minute they traced the strain back to his department they should have taken every employee into a little room and started asking questions. I bet his name would have risen to the top rather quickly. It may have also triggered him to panic as it appears he did.

[Cisco]

[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy]
I’ll let Glenn Greenwald do the heavy lifting here, but a few for starters:[ul][li]All the evidence is circumstantial and the release of the documents conveniently selective[]The “Death to America” smoking-gun is incredibly flimsy as proof[]There’s still nothing forensic that links him to the anthrax, and many questions remain unanswered about his alleged ability to synthesize it[*]No evidence was presented putting Ivins at the scene of any of the mailboxes in New Jersey where the letters originated[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

This conforms to the typical CTer strategy of attempting to poke holes in a viable theory, while refusing to produce a competing viable theory.

[dropzone]

(poking the fire a bit)

So, everybody who is on antidepressants is a potential terrorist? The guy had issues he was working on but that still means he’s a much more likely suspect than a co-worker who was afraid of getting the help she needed because of the stigma of mental illness?

[Marley23]

@dropzone

So, everybody who is on antidepressants is a potential terrorist?

The ones with access to anthrax, perhaps.

The guy had issues he was working on but that still means he’s a much more likely suspect than a co-worker who was afraid of getting the help she needed because of the stigma of mental illness?

His mental illness is only one of a number of factors being cited here, and if it had been mental illness that he himself hadn’t talked about in such dangerous terms we might be looking at it differently. “You think he’s a terrorist because he was mentally ill” is not even close to a fair reading of what’s happening here.

[dropzone]

@Cisco

This conforms to the typical CTer strategy of attempting to poke holes in a viable theory, while refusing to produce a competing viable theory.

That attitude is dismissive bullshit. You don’t need a fully-developed, viable theory of your own before you question someone else’s theory. Sometimes it’s enough for a bystander to say, “Sorry, but that outfit doesn’t look like anything at all, much less something that cost as much as the emperor paid for it.” Greenwald raises those questions to trigger a “Y’know, he might have a point” response. Sure, a lot of CTers will take it at face value, but other readers may be in a position to look deeper than an internet columnist. Would you be happier if Greenwald came up with an alternate suspect? The FBI already did that and paid $5M for the trouble they caused.

[Magiver]

@dropzone

(poking the fire a bit)

So, everybody who is on antidepressants is a potential terrorist? The guy had issues he was working on but that still means he’s a much more likely suspect than a co-worker who was afraid of getting the help she needed because of the stigma of mental illness?

You’re interjecting a hypothesis where none existed. Nobody is suggesting a singular fact leading to a conclusion. But this guy scared his therapist enough that she successfully sought out a restraining order. He broke protocol by not reporting an incidence where anthrax was in his office. The strain of anthrax was linked to his group. He was unstable enough that his fellow workers got him removed from handling dangerous material. According to his therapist he tried to poison other people.

These are the things that immediately come to the surface and they’re not abstract when looked at as a whole. . He appears to have the Manson sociopathic seal of approval. Frankly, if my cat pooped in his yard (knowing the above) I would move. I’m sure more will come out as the information is disseminated.

[CaveMike]

@dropzone

So, everybody who is on antidepressants is a potential terrorist?

I hope I don’t reflect on this in a few months and feel like I was over-reacting, but yeah, I think if you are being treated for a mental illness, including depression, then you shouldn’t have access to bio-weapons. Those that are untreated (because of stigma or for fear of losing access) would presumably be identified by either a co-worker or by periodic review. I realize that there are different ‘types’ of depression that are categorized, so perhaps not all of these would terminate access.

But keep in mind that Ivins was not merely depressed. He was being treated for a bi-polar and other illnesses. I got the impression that the DOD would not have originally given access to someone with these issues.

Of course, given the level of immaturity of the staff of at Fort Detrick, perhaps having a co-worker ‘tattle’ on their peers might not work.

[Cisco]

@dropzone

You don’t need a fully-developed, viable theory of your own before you question someone else’s theory.

No, and I didn’t say you did, but this follows a pattern, and the holes they poke are all too often much more innocuous than they seem at first glance.

[ul][li]All the evidence is circumstantial and the release of the documents conveniently selective[/ul][/li]It’s already been pointed out that circumstantial evidence is used all the time in court, and documents in federal criminal cases are always released selectively, if at all.
[ul][li]The “Death to America” smoking-gun is incredibly flimsy as proof[/ul] Opinion/irrelevent.[/li][ul][li]There’s still nothing forensic that links him to the anthrax[/ul][/li]The guy was a scientist. You wouldn’t expect him to leave a forensic trail in his wake.
[ul][li]and many questions remain unanswered about his alleged ability to synthesize it[/ul][/li]What questions? Who is asking them? This rings of when someone writes “too many extras to list!” in a free classified ad. You’re not paying by the word. List them.
[ul][li]No evidence was presented putting Ivins at the scene of any of the mailboxes in New Jersey where the letters originate[/ul][/li]What evidence would you expect? It’s not like people were watching mailboxes or Ivins at the time. No one knew it was coming.

@dropzone

Sometimes it’s enough for a bystander to say, “Sorry, but that outfit doesn’t look like anything at all, much less something that cost as much as the emperor paid for it.” Greenwald raises those questions to trigger a “Y’know, he might have a point” response. Sure, a lot of CTers will take it at face value, but other readers may be in a position to look deeper than an internet columnist.

Yes, to some extent you’re right, but I said what was posted follows a pattern, and it does. If it turns out to be right then I’ll send you a check for the money you’re out.

@dropzone

Would you be happier if Greenwald came up with an alternate suspect?

Well, yeah, of course. Having a viable alternate theory helps a lot. I already said that.

[dropzone]

@Marley23

The ones with access to anthrax, perhaps.

Which is why I specifically mentioned his co-workers, who ALSO had access yo anthrax…

“You think he’s a terrorist because he was mentally ill” is not even close to a fair reading of what’s happening here.

Yet news reports all harp on his medications and treatment. Then there are the FBI’s unnamed collegues who talk about what a not he was while others are happy to be named and quoted saying this was nothing like the Bruce Ivins they knew and worked with. Finally there’s that “therapist,” who is a piece of work herself and nowhere near qualified to judge his condition. According to the Washington Post, Duley is “licensed as an entry-level drug counselor and was, according to one of her mentors, allowed to work with clients only under supervision of a more-seasoned professional.” Just this side of hiring somebody off the street, at least comparing her credentials with those of a REAL therapist. But the FBI used that word for a reason, to give more credence to her complaint.

I agree that, in a perfect world, crazies and drunks should be kept away from bio-weapons, nuclear weapons, and the red phone in the Oval Office. With the not-bad record of the somewhat ill, most of whom never kill anybody, we really have no reason for that. However, when an already fragile person like Ivins gets hounded by the FBI, we shouldn’t be surprised when he cracks up.

[gonzomax]

The FBI said Richard Jewell fit the personality profile of a loner type bomber. It won him settlements . Many jumped on the bandwagon buying the FBI stories.
Hatfill got a few million for false accusations from the seemingly thorough FBI.
Now of course they got it right. …Sure. I will wait and will not be surprised if they have not blown it again.

[Oy]

What I’ve been hearing from some sources is that the transition from anthrax in a vial to anthrax in neat, mailable powder is just not as easy as they’re suggesting it is, and that a lyothilizer alone may not be enough to do it with. I’m not a bio-weapons expert at all, and I don’t know anything about it, but I’m getting the impression that getting these inhalable anthrax spores into an ignorable powdery substance is a pretty sophisticated thing to do.

There were two public health experts on Jim Lehrer tonight discussing this. Tara O’Toole was saying that more people having access to these governmental strains of access in order to develop vaccines and such wasn’t a big deal because, after all, anthrax is not so very uncommon in animals and someone could get some if they really wanted it. The other, Amy Smithson, said that it was important to not allow crazy people, and particularly drunks, to work on such projects. If my understanding about the difficulty of creating this particular form of anthrax is correct, it couldn’t have been done drunk or just by finding a sick sheep. Even it was a simple process, this was a well and coherently constructed plan that must have taken time and effort to implement - not the actions of a drunk or an opportunistic farmer.

The paranoia I could buy; paranoids often have very complex structures, plans and processes in their lives. But when you have a spokesman for the FBI reviewing what the FBI considers to be the best points of their case against him, I listen to what they’re saying and think “If they looked at my emails and day-to-day actions across several years, they could make them sound every bit as bad as this guy’s, if not worse.” It’s very easy to make a person sound terrible when you have access to every detail of his life.

If this guy really did it, he was a mass murderer who killed five and tried to kill quite a few more people, and they had no reason to believe he might not do it again. And yet they claim to have been getting ready to sit down and talk to him and his lawyer about his upcoming arrest, just as if he had been selling junk bonds. This says to me that they were trying to scare him into confessing, because their case against him was very weak. I’d bet you any amount of money (if I had any, which I don’t) that despite his having “sole control” of that flask, at least half a dozen, probably considerably more, people had innumerable opportunities to get at the contents of that flask. And if transforming it into powder was as easy as they seem to be implying it was, they probably could have done so right in front of people’s faces, and no one else would have noticed, because it would have looked like routine work with some other sample. It’s not like bacteria or spores are labeled with big orange signs; they’re just gunk.

I don’t have an alternative theory. I’m just not compelled by the evidence. I think if they staged a trial, with a good attorney representing Ivins and an Ivins actor brought in and seriously coached by a knowledgable professional Ivins-equivalent, there’s an excellent chance that Ivins would not have been found guilty, or would have been found guilty of conspiracy rather than of acting alone.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@CaveMike

Is there any reason to believe that it was carried out by more than one person? The logistics of the case are not that complicated. The most difficult component is having access to anthrax and having the knowledge to prepare it.

Based on the evidence released, I think the FBI knew they couldn’t move the case beyond circumstantial evidence and hoped that Ivins would ‘crack’ after they told him they were going to charge him.

1. Good question. I believe we have a conspiracy here: I believe that more than one person was involved in this.

Ivans had access to a flask of wet, liquid anthrax, but the stuff shipped to Daschle was a weaponized powder. Let’s see what the experts have to say:

What the FBI tells us is this: the anthrax started out in a wet, almost liquid form. Then somehow Ivins – and only Ivins – converted that into the fine, weapons-grade powder that was sent through the mail and killed five people.

That’s an exceptionally elaborate process for just one person, said Brenda Wilson, a microbiology professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She did post-doctoral research on anthrax.

“I don’t believe that he could do this all on his own. It does require more people than one,” Wilson told TPMmuckraker.

“First you have to lyopholize it,” Wilson explained. “Lyopholiziation is a drying process. But then after you dry it down, in order to make it weapons-grade, you have to do a lot of grinding and stuff – it’s like a milling process. And during the milling process you need to add substances to it, like sillica, that sort of coats the spores and makes them less sticky.”

“People would notice what he was doing. People would be aware of him doing it. I know what people are doing in my lab. Even if he wanted to be sneaky about it, people would know that things were done.”

See Oy!'s post for another expert POV, from Newshour.

2. If Ivins was so unstable, it was very odd that they permitted him to handle such biosubstances for so long. The card-keys showed that he was working late in the lab in August 2001. In March 2005, he told the FBI that he did so escape from an unpleasant domestic situation. The FBI apparently did not believe him, but waited two and a half years to search his home. Cite. If Ivins indeed is the man, there needs to be an investigation regarding gross incompetence by the FBI.

3. Interestingly Ivins’ son was offered $2.5 million --and a newwwwwww carrrrr-- for help with solving the anthrax case.

4. The FBI maintains that Ivins acted alone.

5. Separately, the Bentonite story may have involved a mistake in the lab. Or not. Let’s have an investigation.

---

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/

[Zoe]

I would like to know what ABC has done about their erroneous reporting on the source of the anthrax. Did they really not ever apologize and clarify? Since the anchor was Peter Jennings, will the four sources ever to known? And weren’t there still more sources beyond the original four?

Oy!: …he went into a mental facility in Jun or Jul but signed himself out 6 days later, so he can’t have presented too badly…

If he signed himself into the hospital voluntarily, then in most circumstances, the hospital would have to release him when he wanted to leave.

tagos: …but the wider point stands - there was a reason to think it could come from Iraq as the US Govt gave it to them in the first place.

I wonder what became of it. I don’t think we found any, did we? And the Iraqis hadn’t attacked us previously.

Cisco: Don’t tell me what I know, especially when you’re wrong. “I don’t believe in conspiracy theories” is pretty well accepted to mean “I don’t believe in bigfoot, UFOs, JFK, 9/11, etc.”

Cisco, don’t you remember G. Gordon Liddy? That man will keep you believing in conspiracies for the rest of your life.

It only takes one big indictment and conviction of “all the President’s men” as conspirators and the President of the United States designated as “an unindicted co-conspirator” and the words “conspiracy theory” no longer has the same meaning as “third rate burglary.” Please remember that for a long time we got our information from a source known only as “Deep Throat.” And all of it was for real.

One reason that so many people believed in a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy was that at the time it was not unreasonable and quite possible. You are able to view the assassination from an entirely different POV with science having improved considerably.

As for UFO’s – Have you forgotten what the letters stand for? Yes, I believe there are objects in space that are unidentified.

I don’t remember other things on your list, but from time to time government secrets are revealed and it is kind of interesting to know just how they pulled the wool over our eyes again. I live not very far from a BIG government conspiracy: Oak Ridge.

I guess everyone has his own sniff test. (No, I don’t believe in a pre 9/11 conspiracy by the administration to ignore terrorist plans for NYC.)

Pax

[Marley23]

@dropzone

Yet news reports all harp on his medications and treatment.

Which you’ve described as depression when it sounds more like a psychotic break. Yeah, the fact that he was apparently losing his mind is considered a pretty salient point. Why shouldn’t it be? If he was simply depressed I agree that this kind of treatment could be unfair, and if the evidence were weaker I would not be impressed just because he had some issues. But with all due respect to people who have serious mental illnesses, let’s not mix up “depressed” and “crazy.” Quoting from the Times story I linked to earlier:

“I get incredible paranoid, delusional thoughts at times, and there’s nothing I can do until they go away.”

“The thinking now by the psychiatrist and counselor is that my symptoms may not be those of a depression or bipolar disorder, they may be that of a “ ‘Paranoid Personality Disorder.’ ”

By December 2001, Dr. Ivins began writing poems to himself about what he said were the “two people in one,” meaning “me+the person in my dreams.” In one, he wrote:

I’m a little dream-self, short and stout.

I’m the other half of Bruce — when he lets me out.

When I get all steamed up, I don’t pout.

I push Bruce aside, then I’m free to run about!

That’s pretty scary shit on its own. When it comes from a guy who works with biological weapons, I don’t think mentioning it is unfair to other people with mental illnesses.

However, when an already fragile person like Ivins gets hounded by the FBI, we shouldn’t be surprised when he cracks up.

Sounds to me like he cracked up years ago.

[Oy]

Marley, if the FBI had access to every email and posting you sent/made over the past ten years, picked the craziest sounding quotes they could find, and presented them totally out of context, what do you think you would sound like? I don’t remember any specific line I’ve written, but I have a feeling I could be presented as batshit crazy any day of the week. Maybe this guy was. But what the FBI presented wasn’t a random sample of the man’s emails.

[Marley23]

@Oy!

Marley, if the FBI had access to every email and posting you sent/made over the past ten years, picked the craziest sounding quotes they could find, and presented them totally out of context, what do you think you would sound like?

They’d find that I’m a Pope in a chaos-oriented disorganized religion and don’t take a lot of things seriously. (Nothing too weird. :p) I suppose the most potentially incriminating thing is a chapter of a book I’ve written about a man who is planning to light himself on fire as a political protest, but that’s based on a real incident and is clearly not about me. If the distant third-person narration were ignored there are probably short bits that would sound bad.

My girlfriend tells me I’m crazy once or twice a week, and my emails and posts might support the notion that I’m a certain kind of crazy. But you know what? There’s nothing that would make me sound this type of crazy- particularly in emails to coworkers. I am whatever I am, but you wouldn’t find anything that made me sound like I was on the verge of having a psychotic meltdown.

[dropzone]

@Zoe

Cisco, don’t you remember G. Gordon Liddy? That man will keep you believing in conspiracies for the rest of your life.

It only takes one big indictment and conviction of “all the President’s men” as conspirators and the President of the United States designated as “an unindicted co-conspirator” and the words “conspiracy theory” no longer has the same meaning as “third rate burglary.” Please remember that for a long time we got our information from a source known only as “Deep Throat.” And all of it was for real.

Yes, but by Cisco’s lights it was a “conspiracy theory” on the same level as Bigfoot (that’s a conspiracy theory? what conspiracy? ) or UFOs until it got proven.

[Jackmannii]

@Oy!

Marley, if the FBI had access to every email and posting you sent/made over the past ten years, picked the craziest sounding quotes they could find, and presented them totally out of context, what do you think you would sound like? I don’t remember any specific line I’ve written, but I have a feeling I could be presented as batshit crazy any day of the week. Maybe this guy was. But what the FBI presented wasn’t a random sample of the man’s emails.

Well, taken together with the confessing to paranoid delusions he was having trouble controlling and the death threat stuff (among other things), I have no problem with the idea that maybe he shouldn’t have had unfettered access to anthrax cultures. Maybe have him work with Candida instead. :dubious:

While I can’t recall anything in my e-mails that’s all that lurid, I hope the contents of my Ipod never get splashed over the tabloids. There’s enough bizarro stuff there to land me in deep shit.*
*and to think that Diane Downs was effectively labeled as a crazed child-killer for being a fan of Duran Duran’s “Hungry Like The Wolf”.