http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/01/anthrax.death/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Prosecutors likely would have sought the death penalty against a researcher who killed himself after learning he was going to be charged in the 2001 anthrax killings, two sources told CNN on Friday.
Frederick, Maryland, police talk Friday with a woman they identified as Diane Ivins, the widow of Bruce Ivins.

Frederick, Maryland, police talk Friday with a woman they identified as Diane Ivins, the widow of Bruce Ivins.
Click to view previous image
1 of 3
Click to view next image

Three sources familiar with the investigation said the case soon will be closed because a threat no longer exists. No information has been made public about what charges were planned.

Authorities had been investigating Bruce Ivins, 62, a former researcher at the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, a bioweapons laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is still officially open. Ivins had been working at Fort Detrick trying to develop a vaccine against the deadly anthrax toxin.

A U.S. official with knowledge of the investigation told CNN on Friday that authorities were looking at whether Ivins released anthrax as a way to test his vaccine.

A spokesman for Maryland's medical examiner told CNN Friday the official cause of Ivins' death on Tuesday was suicide. One of CNN's sources said Ivins knew he was about to be charged.

The medical examiner's spokesman said he could not confirm a report in the Los Angeles Times that Ivins had taken Tylenol mixed with codeine. The Times first reported Ivins' death on its Web site early Friday.

Well, its too bad we didn't get the opportunity to tell if this man was the murderer. But it is good that we can close the book on another terrorist attack. Good job keeping up the hunt, FBI.

Still too many un answered questions for my taste. It's still strong in my memory how the govt. and the media convicted Hatfield and drug him through the mud.Funny how they exonerated him in june of this year and a month later they have a new suspect only this one can't challenge them. And what happened to all the Al Quida connections to this. They are painting him like a nut that had psychiatric problems and homicidal tendencies since his school days. If thats true we have a serious problem with the way our govt. doles out security clearances.They also say he may have been motivated to do the anthrax mailings to test his vaccine why didn't he try it on himself if he didn't care whether he lived or not? Just doesn't ring true to me but I guess we'll never know.

Nobody is interested in this?

They are painting him like a nut that had psychiatric problems and homicidal tendencies since his school days.

:huh: They are? All I've seen is that he supposedly did this to test his vaccine, which seems like the opposite of what you are claiming.

This whole thing smells fishy to me.

I don't trust what the government is telling us. They screwed up this investigation, and the bad guy out-smarted them this time.

This suspect is the scientist who performed the test which traced the anthrax to Fort Deitrich. Why would he do that if he was the perp? I never understood how they could be so certain it was theirs to begin with.

Still too many un answered questions for my taste. It's still strong in my memory how the govt. and the media convicted Hatfield and drug him through the mud.Funny how they exonerated him in june of this year and a month later they have a new suspect only this one can't challenge them. And what happened to all the Al Quida connections to this. They are painting him like a nut that had psychiatric problems and homicidal tendencies since his school days. If thats true we have a serious problem with the way our govt. doles out security clearances.They also say he may have been motivated to do the anthrax mailings to test his vaccine why didn't he try it on himself if he didn't care whether he lived or not? Just doesn't ring true to me but I guess we'll never know.

From the brief article I read in the newspaper, he stood to gain financially from selling the vaccine/antidote to the government. If he tested it on himself, that probably would not have been the smoothest move if his goal was to create publicity and outcry which would demand
production of a "cure."

At the time he was sending out 'samples' he wanted people to get sick and die so he could profit. Only now, when he was going to have to face punishment, did he took the cowards way out.

Since he stood to profit from the atrocious murderers of others for a possibility of profit,
it's entirely too bad we couldn't have tested it out on him - just to make sure it still worked,
and then "accidentally" lost his supposed vaccine. That way he could have seen his marvelous
creation at work.

The govt. owns the patent to the vaccine he and others developed so that story doesnt fit either.

:huh: They are? All I've seen is that he supposedly did this to test his vaccine, which seems like the opposite of what you are claiming.

You haven't read the varying stories that he was homicidal / suicidal and they've known this since his college days? How could somebody hold a top secret clearance in a biological weapons lab if they knew this to be true.Now they are reporting (from anonymous officials , because the source isn't allowed to speak publicly about it) that he was infatuated with kappa kappa gamma sorority girls ( who isn't) . When interviewed the sorority spokeswoman said she had to sign a non disclosure form with the FBI WTH

Nothing good ever comes out of working for the gov't... they will use you then lose you when they need ..

Sounds kinda like how we practice our foreign policies..too

You haven't read the varying stories that he was homicidal / suicidal and they've known this since his college days?

No, do you have any links? TIA.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Anthrax-Scientist.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/02/anthrax.suspect/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-daschle4-2008aug04,0,5569575.story

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/08/04/2008-08-04_anthrax_scientist_bruce_ivins_linked_wit.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121789293570011775.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop

...<Provided links>...

Thanks for the links, even though they don't really show what you were claiming. It never said the gov't was trying to label him as a "nut", but rather his phyciatrists did and his final therapist agreed with the label, so they had him removed from his job. And I didn't see anything about having those thoughts since his school days. But, again, thanks for the links.

Well I hope our gov't is happy, it driven another possibly Innocent man to kill himself and now the FBI are in a all out media frenzy trying to smear and ruin what good name this man had.. Way to go kick a man when he is down.. have our gov't no shame...

Maybe instead of trying to call him a nut and bribing his families with millions of dollars to make up and rat him out.. they might actually spend the money on investigating and admit that they are actually stumped... Try telling the truth ...but I guess that is even hard for our gov't to do these days

sorry but those were the only links I could find the story went the way I had stated but I couldn't go back and find them in fact most stories now seem to be exonerating him or at least giving some other views The last one I posted was an example..I guess it didn't sound plausable to some credible people

FBI was told to blame Anthrax scare on Al Qaeda by White House officials (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/08/02/2008-08-02_fbi_was_told_to_blame_anthrax_scare_on_a.html)
BY JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

Saturday, August 2nd 2008, 6:32 PM

WASHINGTON - In the immediate aftermath of the 2001 anthrax attacks, White House officials repeatedly pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller to prove it was a second-wave assault by Al Qaeda, but investigators ruled that out, the Daily News has learned.

After the Oct. 5, 2001, death from anthrax exposure of Sun photo editor Robert Stevens, Mueller was "beaten up" during President Bush's morning intelligence briefings for not producing proof the killer spores were the handiwork of terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden, according to a former aide.

"They really wanted to blame somebody in the Middle East," the retired senior FBI official told The News.

On October 15, 2001, President Bush said, "There may be some possible link" to Bin Laden, adding, "I wouldn't put it past him." Vice President Cheney also said Bin Laden's henchmen were trained "how to deploy and use these kinds of substances, so you start to piece it all together."

But by then the FBI already knew anthrax spilling out of letters addressed to media outlets and to a U.S. senator was a military strain of the bioweapon. "Very quickly [Fort Detrick, Md., experts] told us this was not something some guy in a cave could come up with," the ex-FBI official said. "They couldn't go from box cutters one week to weapons-grade anthrax the next."jmeek@nydailynews.com

We cannot have an independent investigation into this matter. NO WAY! :rolleyes:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/03/white-house-threatens-to-veto.html

Monday, March 15, 2010
In Bizarre, Soviet-Style Move, White House Threatens to Veto Intelligence Budget Unless FBI's Anthrax Frame Up Is Accepted

In a bizarre, Soviet-style move, the White House has threatened to veto the intelligence budget unless everyone accepts the FBI frame up of Dr. Bruce Ivins.

As Bloomberg writes (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-15/obama-veto-is-threatened-on-2010-intelligence-budget-measure.html):

President Barack Obama probably would veto legislation authorizing the next budget for U.S. intelligence agencies if it calls for a new investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacks, an administration official said.

A proposed probe by the intelligence agencies� inspector general �would undermine public confidence� in an FBI probe of the attacks �and unfairly cast doubt on its conclusions,� Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a letter to leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence committees.


Given that an FBI investigation into a specific crime has nothing to do with the budget or any of OMB's other core responsibilities, it seems that Orszag simply drew the short straw for this little assignment.


As I wrote Thursday:


The FBI says that the anthrax case is closed, and that they have proved that Dr. Bruce Ivins did it.

But Congress is not convinced.

On March 3, 2010, Representative Holt called for a new investigation (http://holt.house.gov/list/press/nj12_holt/030310.html):

Last week, [Congressman Holt] succeeded in including language in the 2010 Intelligence Authorization Bill that would require the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community to examine the possibility of a foreign connection to the 2001 anthrax attacks.

�The American people need credible answers to all of these and many other questions. Only a comprehensive investigation�either by the Congress, or through the independent commission I�ve proposed in the Anthrax Attacks Investigation Act (H.R. 1248)�can give us those answers,� Holt said in a letter to the Chairmen of the House Committees on Homeland Security, Judiciary, Intelligence, and Oversight and Government Reform.

[Here's the letter.]

Dear Chairmen Thompson, Conyers, Reyes, and Towns,

I am writing to ask that your committees, either individually or jointly, conduct a probing investigation of our government�s handling of what has been known as the �Amerithrax� investigation.

As you are aware, last week the Federal Bureau of Investigation announced it was formally closing its investigation into the 2001 anthrax letter attacks, commonly known as the �Amerithrax� investigation. The Bureau has maintained since his suicide in 2008 that the late Dr. Bruce Ivins was their principal suspect in the attacks, a conclusion reaffirmed by the FBI when it closed the case last week�despite the fact that the FBI�s entire case against Ivins is circumstantial, and that the science used in the case is still being independently evaluated.

To date, there has been no comprehensive examination of the FBI�s conduct in this investigation, and a number of important questions remain unanswered. We don�t know why the FBI jumped so quickly to the conclusion that the source of the material used in the attacks could only have come from a domestic lab, in this case, Ft. Dietrick. We don�t know why they focused for so long, so intently, and so mistakenly on Dr. Hatfill. We don�t know whether the FBI�s assertions about Dr. Ivins� activities and behavior are accurate. We don�t know if the FBI�s explanation for the presence of silica in the anthrax spores is truly scientifically valid. We don�t know whether scientists at other government and private labs who assisted the FBI in the investigation actually concur with the FBI�s investigative findings and conclusions. We don�t know whether the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. Postal Service have learned the right lessons from these attacks and have implemented measures to prevent or mitigate future such bioterror attacks.

The American people need credible answers to all of these and many other questions. Only a comprehensive investigation�either by the Congress, or through the independent commission I�ve proposed in the Anthrax Attacks Investigation Act (H.R. 1248)�can give us those answers.

As you may know, my interest in this matter is both professional and personal. The attacks originated from a postal box in my Central New Jersey congressional district and they disrupted the lives and livelihood of my constituents. For months, Central New Jersey residents lived in fear of a future attack and the possibility of receiving cross-contaminated mail. Mail service was delayed and businesses in my district lost millions. Further, my own Congressional office in Washington, D.C. was shut down after it was found to be contaminated with anthrax.

Given its track record in this investigation, I believe it is essential that the Congress not simply accept the FBI�s assertions about Dr. Ivins alleged guilt. Accordingly, I ask that your committees investigate our government�s handling of the attacks, the subsequent investigation, and any lessons learned and changes in policies and procedures implemented in the wake of the attacks.

The next day, Representative Jerrold Nadler - Chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties - joined in Holt's call for a new investigation: (http://nadler.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1400&Itemid=119)

Despite the FBI�s assertion that the case of the anthrax attacks is closed, there are still many troubling questions. For example, in a 2008 Judiciary Committee hearing, I asked FBI Director Robert Mueller whether Bruce Ivins was capable of producing the weaponized anthrax that was used in the attacks. To this day, it is still far from clear that Mr. Ivins had either the know-how or access to the equipment needed to produce the material. Because the FBI has not sufficiently answered such questions, I join Congressman Holt in urging an independent investigation of the case.

Maryland Republican Congressman Roscoe Bartlett and other congressmen have also joined in the call for a new investigation.

In fact, the only airtight case is against the FBI.

For more on the anthrax attacks, see this.

Update: Glenn Greenwald provides a concise summary of the issue:

The administration is ... threatening to veto the bill because it contains funding for a new investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks, on the ground that such an investigation -- in the administration's words -- "would undermine public confidence" in the FBI probe of the attacks "and unfairly cast doubt on its conclusions."

As I've documented at length, not only are there enormous, unresolved holes in the FBI's case, but many of the most establishment-defending mainstream sources -- from leading newspaper editorial pages to key politicians in both parties -- have expressed extreme doubts about the FBI's case and called for an independent investigation. For the administration to actively block an independent review of one of the most consequential political crimes of this generation would probably be its worst act yet, and that's saying quite a bit.


http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/16/obama/index.html

Obama threatens to veto greater intelligence oversight
Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 05:17 EDT

By Glenn Greenwald

(updated below - Update II)

One of the principal weapons used by the Bush administration to engage in illegal surveillance activities -- from torture to warrantless eavesdropping -- was its refusal to brief the full Congressional Intelligence Committees about its activities. Instead, at best, it would confine its briefings to the so-called "Gang of Eight" -- comprised of 8 top-ranking members of the House and Senate -- who were impeded by law and other constraints from taking any action even if they learned of blatantly criminal acts.

This was a sham process: it allowed the administration to claim that it "briefed" select Congressional leaders on illegal conduct, but did so in a way that ensured there could be no meaningful action or oversight, because those individuals were barred from taking notes or even consulting their staff and, worse, because the full Intelligence Committees were kept in the dark and thus could do nothing even in the face of clear abuses. The process even allowed the members who were briefed to claim they were powerless to stop illegal programs. That extremely restrictive process also ensures irresolvable disputes over what was actually said during those briefings, as illustrated by recent controversies over what Nancy Pelosi and other leading Democrats were told about Bush's torture and eavesdropping programs. Here's how Richard Clarke explained it in July, 2009, on The Rachel Maddow Show:


MADDOW: Do you think that the current system, the gang of eight briefing system, allows the CIA to be good at spying and to be doing their work legally?

CLARKE: I think briefings of the gang of eight, those very sensitive briefings, as opposed to the broader briefings -- the gang of eight briefings are usually often a farce. They catch them alone, one at the time usually. They run some briefing by them.

The congressman can�t keep the briefing. They can�t take notes. They can�t consult their staff. They don�t know what the briefings are about in advance. It's a box check so that the CIA can say it complied with the law. It's not oversight. It doesn't work.


To their credit, Congressional Democrats -- over the objections of right-wing Republicans -- have been attempting since the middle of last year to fix this serious problem, by writing legislation to severely narrow the President's power to conceal intelligence activities from the Senate and House Intelligence Committees and abolish the "Gang of Eight" process. After all, those Committees were created in the wake of the intelligence abuses uncovered by the Church Committee in the mid-1970s, and their purpose is "to provide vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States to assure that such activities are in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States." But if they're not even told about what the Executive Branch is doing in the intelligence realm, then they obviously can't exert oversight and ensure compliance with the law -- which is the purpose of keeping them in the dark, as the last decade demonstrated.

Yet these efforts to ensure transparency and oversight have continuously run into one major roadblock: Barack Obama's threat to veto the legislation. Almost immediately after leading Democrats on the Intelligence Committee unveiled their legislation last year, the Obama White House issued a veto threat with extremely dubious (and Bush-replicating) rationales: such oversight would jeopardize secrecy and intrude into "executive privilege." In response to Obama's veto threat, Democrats spent the last nine months accommodating the White House's objections by significantly diluting their legislation -- their new bill would actually retain the "Gang of Eight" briefings but impose notification and other oversight requirements -- and two weeks ago the House passed that diluted bill.

But no matter: as Walter Pincus reports today in The Washington Post, Obama is now threatening to veto even this diluted bill, and is echoing GOP talking points when doing so:


The White House has renewed its threat to veto the fiscal 2010 intelligence authorization bill over a provision that would force the administration to widen the circle of lawmakers who are informed about covert operations and other sensitive activities. . . .

In a letter sent to the senior members of the intelligence panels, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter R. Orszag said Gang of Eight notifications are made in only "the most limited of circumstances" affecting "vital interests" of the United States, arguing that the new requirement would "undermine the president's authority and responsibility to protect sensitive national security information."

Orszag also opposed a Senate bill provision that required notification of "any change in a covert action," which he described as setting up "unreasonable burdens" on the agencies, particularly the CIA . The House bill also requires notification of intelligence "significant undertakings," a term that Orszag described as "vague and uncertain."

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), ranking minority member of the House intelligence panel, noted that the White House objections were similar to those raised by Republicans, especially regarding notifications provisions. . . .

Orszag wrote that the notification provisions were one of three items in the bills that would draw a veto recommendation from the president's advisers. Another such provision would give the Government Accountability Office legal authority to review practices and operations throughout the intelligence community. The White House contends that broadening the GAO's purview would upset current relations with the office, which already has access to some intelligence activity, and adversely affect oversight relationships between the committees and the community. The provision would also permit any committee of Congress with an arguable claim of jurisdiction over an intelligence activity to request a GAO investigation of that activity.


In other words, the Obama White House -- just as was true for the Bush White House, and using the same rationale -- does not want any meaningful oversight (i.e., briefings beyond the absurd Gang of Eight sham) on whether it's breaking the law in the conduct of its intelligence activities. One of the Intelligence Community's most loyal Congressional servants -- Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein -- told The Post that she thinks a deal can be worked out with the White House, meaning that the bill needs to be diluted even further, to the point of virtual nothingness, in order for the White House to accept it.

It's critical to note that this is far from an abstract concern, because the Obama administration has almost certainly been hiding intelligence activities from the Intelligence Committees, thus ensuring it operates without oversight. Read this October, 2009 article from The Hill -- headlined: "Feingold sees similarities between Bush and Obama on intelligence sharing" -- in which Senate Intelligence Committee Member Russ Feingold explains "his suspicion that the Obama administration is continuing some of the stonewalling practices of the George W. Bush administration when it comes to providing full intelligence briefings to the relevant committees in Congress." And indeed, all year long, there's been a series of disclosures about highly controversial intelligence programs that appear to be "off-the-books" and away from the oversight of the Intelligence Committee. In late January, it was revealed that the President was maintaining a "hit list" of American citizens he had authorized to be assassinated far from any "battlefield," followed by yesterday's story describing the use of shadowy private contractors to collect intelligence in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

All of this is sadly consistent with the Obama administration's devotion to extreme levels of secrecy and resistance to oversight. Last month, Eli Lake reported that Obama has simply failed to make a single appointment to, or even activate the budget of, the The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the body created pursuant to the report of the 9/11 Commission to safeguard civil liberties in intelligence activities; it has thus been completely dormant. And, with a few very mild exceptions, Obama -- since he was inaugurated -- has affirmatively embraced one radical secrecy doctrine after the next that used to be controversial among Democrats (back when Bush used them).

The refusal of the Bush administration to brief the Intelligence Committees on its most controversial intelligence programs was once one of the most criticized aspects of the Bush/Cheney obsessions with secrecy, executive power abuses, and lawlessness. The Obama administration is now replicating that conduct, repeatedly threatening to veto legislation to restore real oversight.



UPDATE: Marcy Wheeler notes what is probably the worst part of all of this, something I consider truly despicable: the administration is also threatening to veto the bill because it contains funding for a new investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks, on the ground that such an investigation -- in the administration's words -- "would undermine public confidence" in the FBI probe of the attacks "and unfairly cast doubt on its conclusions."

As I've documented at length, not only are there enormous, unresolved holes in the FBI's case, but many of the most establishment-defending mainstream sources -- from leading newspaper editorial pages to key politicians in both parties -- have expressed extreme doubts about the FBI's case and called for an independent investigation. For the administration to actively block an independent review of one of the most consequential political crimes of this generation would probably be its worst act yet, and that's saying quite a bit.



UPDATE II: On the same day he threatened to veto this oversight and transparency legislation, President Obama issued a proclamation celebrating "Sunshine Week" and hailing himself and his administration as "the most open and transparent ever." He further praised himself as follows: "We came to Washington to change the way business was done, and part of that was making ourselves accountable to the American people by opening up our government."

On the same day he threatened to veto this oversight and transparency legislation, President Obama issued a proclamation celebrating "Sunshine Week" and hailing himself and his administration as "the most open and transparent ever." He further praised himself as follows: "We came to Washington to change the way business was done, and part of that was making ourselves accountable to the American people by opening up our government."

What a joke. I guess he can deem it so now.

This whole thing smells fishy to me.

I don't trust what the government is telling us.

:iagree:

This was awfully fishy. A scientist that has access to anthrax and other biotoxins kills himself with tylonol, he could easily have killed himself with something that would have been much quicker and more painless.

This was awfully fishy. A scientist that has access to anthrax and other biotoxins kills himself with tylonol, he could easily have killed himself with something that would have been much quicker and more painless.

Perhaps, but anthrax is not a quick death, and it may not have been a long premeditated suicide. I believe desperation set in and he grabbed whatever was readily available in his own home.

You haven't read the varying stories that he was homicidal / suicidal and they've known this since his college days? How could somebody hold a top secret clearance in a biological weapons lab if they knew this to be true.

When I had to get "secret" not "top secret" clearance, they did background checks, friends and family interviews, talked with my doctors and went through my bank accounts. I, also find it hard to believe they would overlook something like this for "top secret" clearance.

RISE, THREAD, RiiiiSE!

Because the FBI is still manipulating the truth regarding the matter:

F.B.I. Asks Panel to Delay Report on Anthrax Inquiry (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/us/10anthrax.html?_r=3)

Dr. Colglazier declined to say if the report was critical of the F.B.I.’s work but said it was “very direct.” The report sticks to science and does not offer an opinion on whether Dr. Ivins carried out the anthrax attacks, he said.

Read the entire article before commenting on it if being informed has any place in your life.

What that last bit says is: Just the facts, and that gives no place to metion Dr. Ivins' guilt alleged by the FBI?

the bureau “may be seeking to try to steer or otherwise pressure” the academy’s scientific panel “to reach a conclusion desired by the bureau.”

They should release both reports.

If not, American media should put in a FOIA request for the original.

They should release both reports.

If not, American media should put in a FOIA request for the original.

:iagree:

Or the White House should demand it.

This was awfully fishy. A scientist that has access to anthrax and other biotoxins kills himself with tylonol, he could easily have killed himself with something that would have been much quicker and more painless.One would think suicide with Tylenol is at least PAINless.

:)

:iagree:

Or the White House should demand it.

:crylol: They should, but we both know better than to expect that one to happen.