Last I heard:
this wasn’t a crime.:rolleyes:
Article from Aug. 15 WaPo:
Fraud.
That was directed to PhiloVance, of course.
Shoulda known better than to argue with a lawyer
:rolleyes:
Never get involved in a land war in Asia, either. 
Why? Because the FBI is using the results of the polygraph to try to convict Hatfill in the court of public opinion. Do you see how this might taint a possible future jury pool?
What’s more, by leaking the info to the press, they are effectively turning Hatfill into a pariah.
wring, to continue your hijack, no, I do not “wish to take you on”, nor, in fact, have I done so: Kindly scroll back to page 1 for a reminder as to which of us first addressed whom in this matter. You and I both have properly denounced convenient revisionism, and it’s a bit silly to try it in a medium where one’s previous statements are so easily and incontrovertibly retrievable.
Now, gawdamighty, child, if you’re going to flame anyone who you suspect of “jerkiness” at any time, you’ll never be done, and your personal credibility won’t last long. Gotta prioritize a little better, and establish some cutoff standards, ya know. And here’s a hint: The attempt at a parental approach doesn’t work until you do - it only comes off as common scolding.
Hmm, I hope december appreciates my agreeing with him on the OP issue. The unanimity of opinion in this thread, on any subject is rare, and to be cherished.
Elvis, kindly scroll back and note that I did not name you.
This is idiotic. Partisan knee jerking by anyone generally doesn’t get anyone anywhere good - note, for example, the train wreck currently going on to it’s 4th page here in the pit.
I choose to note it where I think it is most likely to have an effect. Most sorry that I was incorrect on that.
Elvis, let me try and say this without being parental… Um…
No, it’s no good; I can’t do it. Go to your room, young man! Your mo— I mean, wring was quite right to scold you. Your partisan shot on page 1 was irrelevant to the OP and unhelpful to the other “liberals” on this board. If your friends tell you your knee is jerking, you might oughta tie the thing down for a while.
I do appreciate it, Elvis.
BTW note the paragraph from the WaPo article cited above:
This may help to explain why Hatfill is being defended by conservative media and smeared by some (not all) liberal media. If a former Communist were the suspect, maybe the conservatives would be smearing him and the liberals might be defending.
(Yeesh.)
Maybe the so-called “liberal media” doesn’t have a “liberal” agenda here and just wants to sell papers/ad time, so they’re hopping on a hot story. This type of media frenzy happens all the time without partisanship entering into it. (See, for example, the Jon Benet Ramsey case.)
Seeing how most posters to this thread are in agreement (across party lines) that the FBI is being abusive, maybe you ought to think about giving the partisan angle a rest, huh?
To be honest, I didn’t find december’s last post to be partisan. He did say that if it’d been a former communist there’d be a smear campaign be conservative news outlets – i.e. that there’s bias on both sides of the fence.
It’s partisan because he’s assuming that the “liberal” media attacked Hatfill because he is “conservative.”
It’s partisan because he’s assuming the “liberal” media would jump to the defense of a Communist in the same position.
As I said in my last post, the media jumped on this story to sell papers and ad time, not because it was their duty as “liberals” to attack a “conservative.” Why try so hard to read partisan motives into it?
This article from the Wall St. Journal recapitulates the case, from a conservative POV. According to the WSJ,
-
Rosenberg’s campaign against Hatfill was a product of the “Federation of American Scientists mentality.” (“Its mission is promoting arms control with a scientific twist.”)
-
Her full agenda is to prove that Dr. Hatfill concocted his anthrax with the help of leading bioweapons scientists and in intelligence facilities. That is, that these secret facilities have been used to violate the Biological Weapons Convention.
-
The FBI was impressed by the FAS, but they paid less attention when a Florida physician said he’d treated one of the September 11 hijackers for a skin lesion the doctor now believes was anthrax.
Going beyond Hatfill’s guilt or innocence. there seem to be three leading theories about the source of the anthrax attack. Was it due to:
– An American scientist working alone (a la the Unabomber)
– An American scientist in cahoots with American intelligence agencies. (the FAS, tin foil hat theory)
– Al Qaeda terrorists. (The scariest scenario. It implies that there may be other terrorists in this country who have biological weapons and a desire to use them.)
I do not expect the FBI to ever formally clear Dr. Hatfill, unless they get definite evidence against someone else. However, every day that passes makes it a bit more likely that he’s innocent.
december, please go to the www.fas.org website and read Dr. Rosenberg’s analysis of the Anthrax attacks. There is absolutely nothing in there that says or implies that the attacks were the work of someone “in cahoots with American intelligence agencies”. And that same report shows that the FBI was NOT impressed by the FAS- which is why you’re reading about them investigating Hatfill close to a year after the attacks occured.
And since this is the Pit, fuck you for your condescending and flip “tin foil hat” theory comment when you’re the one claiming that the FBI and the “liberal press” are out to get him due to his beliefs on gun control. It sounds to me like you’re the one proposing that there’s a conspiracy and, in fact, your conspiracy makes no sense at all.
Mojo, please re-read my post. I claimed that the Wall Street Journal said so, and they did.
So, Mojo, before you started cursing, did you read WSJ article I cited and the Salon interview, which was the basis for it? Perhaps the WSJ read too much into that interview. It’s here, way down the page at VI 2.
I hadn’t read the Salon interview when I posted, just the WSJ. As I read the Salon interview, there is not a clear-cut statement that US agencies are covering up, but there are several suggestive statements or hints:
The accusation that the FBI knows who sent out the anthrax letters but isn’t arresting him because he knows too much sounds like an Alfred Hitchcock movie script to me. However, her vagueness about what the alleged perp supposedly knows makes it hard to be sure of what she means. YMMV.
I don’t think anyone believes the anthrax mailer was “in cahoots with intelligence agencies” in planning the attacks, rather that this individual is an angry lone nut with certain connections/ information some would prefer not come to light. Not at all implausible if you’ve read even a little about the history of US covert ops (COINTELPRO, anyone?).
Apparently you regard the theory that best fits the evidence as a “tin foil hat” theory. If that evidence is wrong (which would involve a massive disinformation campaign at this point), then why isn’t the Bush administration doing more to counteract it? Are you seriously suggesting the FBI is captive to the whims of one “liberal” scientist?
The WSJ is clearly embarrased that their “Iraq must have done it!” campaign – which they embarked upon (along with Richard Cohen at the WaPo) early and with far less evidence than we have for Mr Hatfill – is not panning out. Really, how can they have even a shred of credibility on this topic at this point? They accuse Rosenberg of having an “agenda” when their “agenda” – war with Iraq – was plain to see back when the WTC was still smoldering.
These really are Orwellian times.
AF, I assume you’re saying massive disinformation would be required because massive evidence exists. What massive evidence? I consider it outlandish to claim that the FBI knows the identity of the anthraxer, but they have chosen not to act because he knows too much. There is no evidence that the FBI knows who did it.
Sure. They have openly written editorial after editorial arguing in favor of this course. There’s nothing Orwellian about a newspaper openly editorializing for a policy they support. At leasts they haven’t twisted their news stories to support their editorial position, as the NYT has.
However, after re-reading the WSJ editorial, I realize that my summary with “in cahoots” was a bit too flip.
He is not being smeared by the media.
Yes, the FeeB’s were wrong to leak the info. But once they did, the media pretty much has to run with it. That is there job, after all. It’s what they are trained to do.
And it can not be considered a smear unless they say something that isn’t true.
You have a case against the FBI here, not the ‘liberal’ media.