Sunday, August 3, 2008

The Inmates Are Still Running The Asylum

That's all I can think after reading more stories about this anthrax case.

I mean, if Ivins did it, then how the f*** does a psychopath run free for seven years with all the Feds running around the place (actually taking "expert" advice from him) etc? I mean, this guy was right under their noses all along, and yet they chased one red herring after another, at the behest of some very "usual suspect" types (like Nicholas Kristol, who said he knew who did it).

And if Ivins didn't do it, why the f*** are the Feds fingering the wrong guy again, and letting the real killer(s) remain free, unless it's yet another massive cover-up (one lie leading to another)? And if that's the case, well, this case is a lot clumsier than the others. Is the thread unravelling?

Either way, the FBI investigation has been a f***ing disaster. Heads should roll.

The latest reports suggest greed was Ivins' motive: he stood to make "tens of thousands" if the US government aggressively produced his experimental anthrax vaccine (it was dropped after a 2 year study with no deal cemented). But while a social worked and an estranged brother take that "batshit crazy" line, friends and associates insist Ivins was innocent. So does his lawyer.

In cases like this, you have to accept that the Feds have access to a lot more info that you do, and until they make it public there is only so far you can go with speculation. But I'd like to know that Philip Zack is doing these days (strange how none of the media reports even mention him this week), and why Ivins - of all those who worked in his lab - was fingered.

Another big issue here is Qui Custodiat Custos? Is the USA's massive stockpile of weapons actually endangering its citizens more than the allegedly critical issue of foreign terrorists? The links above explore this (thanks again).

UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald has more today, including demands for a 9-11 Commission style (oh no!) investigation. Among Greenwald's list of questions:
If it's really the case -- as principal Ivins antagonist Jean Duley claims -- that Ivins, as far back as 2000, had "actually attempted to murder several other people, [including] through poisoning" and had threatened to kill his co-workers at his Fort Detrick lab, then why did he continue to maintain clearance to work on biological weapons, and why are his co-workers and friends, with virtual unanimity, insisting that he never displayed any behavior suggestive of being the anthrax attacker?
I noted (again) that Daschle and Leahy were targetted after media reports saying they were holding up passage of the Patriot Act, which was passed just a few weeks after the attacks.