Slashdot Mirror
New Scientific Evidence Emerges In Anthrax Case
sciencehabit writes "A Science Magazine investigation uses clues from a key document unveiled last week to reconstruct the trail that led the FBI to Bruce Ivins. Among the revelations: Anthrax fingerprinting was not critical to the investigation, as many reports have suggested. Rather, brute-force genetic sequencing, with the help of the J. Craig Venter Institute, helped crack the case. New potential motivations by Ivins are also revealed."
It assumes competence. I could see something on the level of say, an anthrax attack being possible to arrange with a minimum amount of people involved. Most of the other events you mention would require too many participants to enforce secrecy. I've worked in classified settings for the government, and not to denigrate my coworkers in the least, but secrecy within an organization is a joke. While external secrecy is fairly good, the secrets aren't morally outrageous. I somehow doubt people would take their oaths particularly seriously if they discovered the U.S. government organized any of the above events.
Now if you want to argue that it was a sin of inaction, that someone high up knew an attack was coming and chose to do nothing, that might be plausible, since less people would need to be involved. I wouldn't rule it out completely, though my faith in humanity would be shattered if it were the case. I'm not inclined to believe even that much.
Personally, I think the attacks were unexpected. The people you accuse of conspiracy did not aid them in any way, they just took obscene advantage of the situation.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Well, from the evidence I've seen, whatever may tie Ivins to this crime, I've seen nothing to indicate that Ivins acted alone. The fact that they can't place him in the Princeton, NJ area at the time the letters were mailed is a huge problem in that regard, as is the question of who fed false information suggesting Iraqi involvement to ABC's Brian Ross. These facts are not consistent with the FBI's seeming desire to close this case based upon Ivins being the sole culprit.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
But Kemp said more than a hundred people had access to the flask
The flask? What is up with this? How in the hell can you chase the wrong guy for five years and then go back and get "The flask". WTF do they mean by this? I don't know anyone who has a single "flask" to maintain a culture. "The flask". I've been in this business for 15 years. I know of frozen culture stocks kept in cryo vials, or transferring a culture from several flasks to another several flasks (you'd be an idiot to have just one flask for a stable culture) indefinitely, etc. Also, it looks like you could keep a stable stock in an envelop if you really think about it (or else you couldn't have the anthrax attacks themselves). But "The Flask", like there is only one--this is pure ignorance or just made up for drama. I'm not saying anything about this case except that the language used to talk about it in the media and by the FBI is sophomoric. I wonder if the language is any indication of their understanding of the science behind this case?
Just callin' it like I see it.
So if we base a clever article on a leaked document, shouldn't we first assume that the document is truthful?
When a high-profile person commits suicide because of the pressure of an investigation, the authorities will always try to justify their action. This was observed many times. I do remember a big scandal where a perfectly honest corner shop owner was investigated by the IRS and harassed in the worst possible ways. He turned out that his books were perfectly clean, but there was nevertheless an attempt at a smear campaign against the poor guy after his death.
I am sure that this suicide is embarrassing some higher-ups at the FBI and that they will do their best to avoid being blamed.
So I'd take these revelations with a grain of salt.
Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
Not really, it only implies someone thought an attack using anthrax was possible. In other it means nothing except someone was intelligent enough to realize anthrax was a plausible biological weapon. Conspiracy theories exist because human brains are pattern matching machines and if you look enough at something you'll find some form of pattern by pure chance. Science and statistics exist because someone realized that without rigorous standards the conclusion we draw are often less than worthless.
How does an anti-terrorist bioweapons expert in the service of US military turn to a domestic terrorist right after terrorists attacked USA, and decide to launch a terrorist attack of his own?
All within one week, creating his own strain of anthrax, getting the stuff needed for manufacturing it and mailing it, all without leaving any evidence? Or was Ivins prepared to carry out the anthrax attacks even before 9-11 took place?
It is apparent that people with GOP connections received warnings and went on Cipro before any of the anthrax letters were even mailed.
Ivins was also a part of the investigation team, which would be standard CIA procedure, if this was a CIA op. (This is why FBI agents and coroners are used for assassinations inside USA, because they can be used to coverup the crimes.) Ivins would also likely have been easy to talk into the op since he was a rabid arab hater and neocon, as well as easy to blackmail later to take the blame, since he had a wife and 2 kids.
A lone person just doesn't spontaneously feel motivated to join al-Qaeda terrorist attacks against their own nation, especially if they work for the US military anti-terrorim team, even if their invention were to get more use.
This Salon guy has lots more discrepancies in the official story:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/index.html
It is clear to me that FBI is covering up one of the GOP's illegal Casus Belli operations for Iraq war. You can keep your head in the sand, while calling others paranoid, but it won't make you any more secure.
That was the worst straw-man argument I have ever read.
The parent post simply stated that the people in power wouldn't mind a few innocent people dieing if it served The Greater Good.
Obviously, this is the truth considering the US has been killing innocent people in Iraq for years now - all in the name of The Greater Good.