Judiciary Report - More Criticism Over The FBI Anthrax Case

| |

More Criticism Over The FBI Anthrax Case

August 7. 2008

FBI director Robert Mueller

The FBI faced more criticism today over the Bruce Ivins Anthrax case. Victims voiced their dismay regarding being deprived of their day in court, with some even questioning the FBI's summary of what transpired in the case.

In looking at the summary of the FBI's evidence, several things become very apparent. One, they didn't release everything, which under the circumstances is inappropriate. Why are you always hiding evidence. Really, what are you protecting. The whole world is watching the case. Do the right thing for once and stop trying to cover up items, as that does not protect the nation's name - justice and transparency does.

U.S. Attorney General for the District of Columbia Jeffrey Taylor

Two, they'd been watching Bruce Ivins for quite sometime and had ample opportunity to take him into custody by way of a raid, but negligently did not. Someone that exhibited the psychopathy he did, should not have been a candidate for bail, rather confinement.

Three, an email Ivins sent illustrated his terrible mind set, and should have set off alarm bells at the FBI, that he needed to be removed from his job much sooner than they did a few months ago, as his work entailed handling deadly bio-chemicals at a U.S. base, making him a national security risk.

Yet, amazingly they left him in that high risk environment. I will never understand the reasoning behind that, other than labeling it extreme negligence.

Bruce Ivins

Four, Ivins displayed the hallmark of a careless scientist - wantonly adding items to drugs that were not required. That was a bad sign. He added an unnecessary component to the Anthrax vaccine he worked on, which inadvertently caused Gulf War Syndrome in lab results. He grew angry when his coworkers criticized him over it.

While, scientists sometimes encounter errors, some can be prevented with due diligence, as they could mean the difference between life and death. A good scientist or inventor would never seek to intentionally hurt people or create vessels that lead to others destruction.

Sometimes, I read product labels (medicine and other items) and think to myself when looking at the active ingredients, why did they feel the need to add some of these items to it.

A: It's not clear, but the documents mention the stress of his job and his poor mental state. Documents say Ivins was under pressure at work at the time of the attacks to assist a company that lost its federal approval to produce an anthrax vaccine the Army needed. Ivins believed the vaccine was essential for the anthrax program at his facility. He was criticized for his work with a vaccine additive that was suspected of causing Gulf War syndrome. Also he had said he had "incredible paranoid, delusional thoughts at times."

http://ap.google.com

"If he was psychologically unstable, he shouldn't be in an area where he's controlling some of the most dangerous substances on earth, that's for sure," Schuler said.

Not all the victims or relatives made it to the briefing, which was hastily arranged after news about Ivins broke late last week. One survivor said he stayed away because he does not trust the government.

"It's mainly a public relations thing for the FBI," said David Hose, 65, of Winchester, Va.

http://www.washingtonpost.com

Ivins Troubled But FBI Docs Fall Short

Ivins's death only makes it more difficult to resolve the lingering questions about the poison sent by mail in the fall of 2001 and, more broadly, about American justice.

His death deprives the Justice Department, the press and the public of the one thing that was most needed: a full-dress trial. That would have been the surest way to begin to remove the taint of suspicion and corruption that has attended the handling of the anthrax investigation and others like it.

And yet, in each of those cases, the government was wrong -- shaking public confidence even as it eroded individual civil liberties, produced groundless prosecutions and diverted precious time and resources in pursuit of bogus cases.

The anthrax case was particularly toxic to the integrity of prosecutorial standards and judicial process, a process warped by post-Sept.

Neither it nor the press, which was only too eager to link arms with the Justice Department in carrying the stories that stripped Hatfill of everything he had, has offered an apology or conceded wrongdoing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com