See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. The Jawa Report
2. A NEWT ONE
3. Friends of Mark Fuhrman - A lie told often enough becomes the truth. » BREAKING - FBI narrowing suspects in anthrax mail to Fort Detrick
4. Rocket's Brain Trust

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On March 28th, 2008 at 1:54 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

   Among the pool of suspects are three scientists — a former deputy commander, a leading anthrax scientist and a microbiologist — linked to the research facility, known as USAMRIID.

   How much you want to bet that someone will leak this information about WHO these people are from USAMRIID to the NYT?

   Like they say…it will be Deja Vu all over again.

   They never learn their lesson.

2. #2
   On March 28th, 2008 at 2:03 pm, zorro said:

   I always felt the 9/11 hijackers were involved in the anthrax mailings.

3. #3
   On March 28th, 2008 at 2:07 pm, Snooper said:

   In regards to the anthrax attacks in 2001, I find it curious that about one week prior, Iran and Iraq were on an “Anthrax attack alert”.

4. #4
   On March 28th, 2008 at 2:08 pm, Mister P said:

   I always felt the 9/11 hijackers were involved in the anthrax mailings

   Too much of a coincidence not to be.

5. #5
   On March 28th, 2008 at 2:15 pm, nyc123me said:

   Is there actually any legal ‘right’ to protect sources anyway?

   The press ruins peoples’ lives on a regular basis in order to sell copy, that is the reality of it - integrity be damned if there’s a dollar in it.

   It comes down to what will make more revenue - is it better for the bottom line to print and risk litigation and settlement, or to not print at all? Whichever makes the biggest income is the path followed, the truth and who gets trampled along the way is irrelevant.

6. #6
   On March 28th, 2008 at 2:16 pm, KaosKlerik said:

   I’ve always felt it to either be a lone nutjob or tiny group (2-4 people) of indigenous origin and/or a dry run. The reaction of the post-office and government in mail-handling made it unlikely to succeed in the future so the project was abandoned.

7. #7
   On March 28th, 2008 at 2:48 pm, Rusty said:

   Toni Locy is doing the right thing. If government sources aren’t protected, it makes it that much harder to expose actual wrongdoing. Her defense of journalistic integrity should be admired.

   I’ve mentioned it before, but one hero in this regard was, of all people, Larry Flynt. He obtained a video of FBI agents intimidating and blackmailing John DeLorean. “In the videos, upon arrest, the FBI is shown threatening DeLorean, in effect asking him whether he would like to choose between defending himself or having ‘his daughter’s head smashed in.’”

   Whoever got that tape to Larry Flynt did a great service. It probably wouldn’t have been released if the whistleblower weren’t protected by a promise of anonymity. These promises are important to the journalistic process. And I’m ecstatic that Locy understands that.

8. #8
   On March 28th, 2008 at 2:51 pm, WarTip said:

   The news media keep losing these cases, yet journalists semi-literate hacks and political cronies and their attorneys money-grubbing rats refuse to recognize reality.

   IMHO

   With apologies to the four-legged rats of course!

9. #9
   On March 28th, 2008 at 2:52 pm, Jim M. said:

   From the get go, the authorities were so convinced that this was not terror related, they completely ignored what in my mind were the more likely suspects.

   Newsmax and the Weekly Standard were wailing about these issues years ago.

   Apparently, the FBI may have had one of the prime suspects and let him get away.

   To refine anthrax to the point to where it becomes the consistency of a fine, non-sticking powder, it has to go through some processing that reduces the size of the spores while at the same time providing a coating to the spores that prevents them from sticking together.

   In July of 2001, a man named Abbas scammed two banks out of $100,000 through a check kiting scheme. The money from that scheme was used to buy, for cash, a fine particulate mixer used in food processing. These mixers are used to prevent foods like pancake mixes and flour from clumping together.

   If you recall, a mystery behind the anthrax mailings was the coating on the spores. If I recall correctly, it was silica or bentonite. A few years ago, I looked at the specs for these commercial particulate mixers and found, surprise, that they were coated with silica or bentonite. The action of the mixer in processing the contents would naturally coat the contents with the silica or bentonite.

   An interesting passage from NewsMax:

   A new and startling piece of information has now been brought to light by David Tell. Writing in the Weekly Standard on July 17, Tell revealed that a Pakistani named Syed Athar Abbas had agreed to plead guilty to check-kiting charges.

   “Abbas,” it appears, “from on or about June 7, 2001, through on or about July 10, 2001,” defrauded two banks, a Wells Fargo branch in Woodland Hills, California, and a Fleet Bank branch in Fort Lee, New Jersey, of slightly more than $100,000 – by manipulating three checking accounts he’d opened for a bogus Fort Lee business alternately known as “Dot Com Computer” and “Cards.Com.”

   So what did he have to do with anthrax? A lot.

   Tell reports that the FBI, “pursuing some thus far undisclosed lead, originally went looking for Abbas – in the first few days after September 11 – at his presumed address on the top floor of a commercial building in Fort Lee.” That city, Tell notes, “is thought to have been home at some point to Nawaq and Salem Alhamzi, both of whom helped fly American Airlines Flight 77 into side of the Pentagon.”

   The bureau couldn’t find Abbas. His former landlord told the FBI that the man had suddenly abandoned his Fort Lee lease more than a month before – and had disappeared without a trace. It turned out he’d gone home to Pakistan to care for his dying father. All in all, it would appear that Syed Athar Abbas is not that big a deal.

   He is. Thanks to a reporter named Rocco Parascandola, who covers law enforcement and the courts for Newsday in New York, we know why he’s a big deal.

   ‘Mix Chemicals’

   On Dec. 27, Parascandola noticed something very interesting about Abbas. When the FBI first sought to interview Abbas back in September, it did not discover that he was a run-of-the-mill check-kiting scam artist. What it did learn was Abbas was “an abruptly vanished fugitive” who, using an alias, had recently “arranged to pay $100,000 in cash” – roughly the amount he’d stolen from Wells Fargo and Fleet – for the purchase and shipment of a “fine-food particulate mixer,” a “sophisticated machine used commercially” to do various things you wouldn’t expect an outfit called Computers Dot Com to do.

   Such as “mix chemicals,” for example,” Tell writes.

   Parascandola reported that it’s been established Abbas did take possession of this machine at the “Computers Dot Com” offices in Fort Lee last summer, but had the thing “immediately transported elsewhere” before leaving for Pakistan.

   Federal investigators “have not been able to locate the industrial food mixer” in question, which problem continues to be of some “concern,” he reported. All the more so because, despite his guilty plea and promise of restitution to the banks he bilked, Abbas has “refused to cooperate with investigators trying to find out more about his accomplices or the mixer.”

   Oh.

   “The $100,000 particulate mixer Parascandola describes, incidentally, is the exact same technology commonly employed by major food and pharmaceutical manufacturers to process fluid-form organic and inorganic compounds into powder: first to dry those compounds; next to grind the resulting mixture into tiny specks of dust, as small as a single micron in diameter; then to coat those dust specks with a chemical additive, if necessary, to maximize their motility or ‘floatiness’; and finally to aerate the stuff for end-use packaging. In other words, this is how you’d put Aunt Jemima pancake mix in its box. Or place concentrations of individual anthrax spores into letters addressed to Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy.”

   This fits the pattern of Al Qaeda - use local resources, finance the operations through defrauding banks or the federal government (remember the cigarette smuggling operation in Charlotte, NC?), and exit the scene.

   There is a lot of information our there that law enforcement has seemingly ignored, like the links between the anthrax attacks and Iraqi Intelligence. It would seem that they were so focused on Hatfill, that all other avenues were ignored.

   http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/6/163931.shtml?s=lh

   http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/16/112941.shtml

   http://cryptome.org/alqaeda-anthrax.htm

   http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/470lfsdb.asp

   http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/147vnjgh.asp?pg=2

   And as if we did not need any more good news, that fine particulate mixer was never found.

10. #10
    On March 28th, 2008 at 3:19 pm, conservativesRus said:

    I’m sure glad “law enforcement” leaks this kind of stuff. Whoever in the government leaked the information to the press should be fired. Of course, government employees “circle the wagons” as soon as one of “their own” gets in trouble. The press does not have a “right to know”

11. #11
    On March 28th, 2008 at 3:25 pm, gandolphxx said:

    The reporter contributed to the destruction of this persons life - double the fine every day - enough of this crap.

    This is not some whistleblower thing, this is just a case of a reporter who did a half assed job and is hiding the ’source’, who may or may not even exist.

12. #12
    On March 28th, 2008 at 3:35 pm, publiuswarmac9999 said:

    The FBI and government agencies want to hide any terror attacks from the public to prevent an outbreak of panic and probable attacks on Islamic peoples and sites in this country. Hatfill was sacrificed for the greater good and possibly as part of a vendetta - but it is now time to pay him his just compensation.

13. #13
    On March 28th, 2008 at 3:39 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    Rusty,

    So if I were to write an article citing “unnamed” or “anonymous” government sources that claimed you were involved in acts of terrorism and that newsstory resulted in defamation of your character, a loss of your job, and damage to your livelihood - especially if NO EVIDENCE backed up my claims - would you still be so gung-ho about “journalistic integrity”?

    Would you not care that your career, your reputation, your life was damaged?

    Journalistic integrity implies that the journalist has some as well. Clearly Locy did not do due diligence to find out if the claim(s) of her source(s) was true.

    She has no journalistic integrity if she defends sources that so clearly were flat-out wrong.

14. #14
    On March 28th, 2008 at 3:40 pm, loob said:

    Wow…spooky. I was wondering this very morning if we would ever hear anything new on this.

15. #15
    On March 28th, 2008 at 3:59 pm, Mister P said:

    Has anyone proved that at least some of the hijackers were not already infected with Anthrax?

16. #16
    On March 28th, 2008 at 4:03 pm, Rusty said:

    EQ, if the DOJ suspected me of being a terrorist and someone leaked my name to a journalist, I would expect an article to be written about me.

    The reporter isn’t being accused of making anything up. The government felt that Hatfill was a person of interest. And Locy did a great job of getting that person’s name. It’s their fault for being wrong, not Locy’s.

17. #17
    On March 28th, 2008 at 4:09 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    And Locy is still protecting them.

    I refuse to believe you’d be okay with having your life ruined over someone’s accusations.

    Freedom of the press is a noble thing, but not when it damages lives.

18. #18
    On March 28th, 2008 at 4:47 pm, publiuswarmac9999 said:

    Interesting that the FBI is supposedly, and I use that term in its strongest meaning, focusing on folks at Fort Detrick. I find this either silly or a deliberate distraction. Almost anyone who has even a modicum of experience with the scientific community knows that these geniuses of science are about the worst when it comes to hiding stuff. They must share to get information on the latest theories and findings - and they do it at national and international conferences all the time.

    If I remember correctly, one of the 9/11 hijackers had been treated for skin anthrax (or maybe it was assumed that his skin problem was tied to anthrax.)

19. #19
    On March 28th, 2008 at 4:49 pm, Rusty said:

    “Freedom of the press is a noble thing, but not when it damages lives.”

    I disagree. I know it sounds harsh, but you have to crack a few eggs to make the omelette. These things are going to happen and the government should be ashamed of itself for leaking a name without any credible evidence.

    But once Locy talks, it will be harder to obtain information. We all lose in that scenario.

20. #20
    On March 28th, 2008 at 4:55 pm, Mister P said:

    But once Locy talks, it will be harder to obtain information. We all lose in that scenario.

    Meaningless information. If we don’t know the source the information has no credibility.

21. #21
    On March 28th, 2008 at 5:06 pm, Tipper said:

    She went to jail for contempt before finally acknowledging it was vice presidential aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

    This is not true. She agreed to talk only about Libby and was allowed to protect her actual sources of the information.

22. #22
    On March 28th, 2008 at 5:09 pm, Tipper said:

    Toni Locy is doing the right thing. If government sources aren’t protected, it makes it that much harder to expose actual wrongdoing. Her defense of journalistic integrity should be admired.

    Sorry Charlie. Reporters and newspapers should not be allowed to protect sources that provide false - and in this case devastatingly so - information.

    If Tony Locy were a principled reporter she would volunteer the info on the sources so “leakers” know they will be busted big time when they lie.

23. #23
    On March 28th, 2008 at 5:12 pm, Tipper said:

    Also - the “leakers” broke the law. I think they deliberately lied, but even If they believed the information was true at the time the broke the law to leak it. As it turned out is was BS and ruined a persons life, hence the importance to not leak information of a criminal investigation - it could be all wrong.

    They need to be held accountable.

24. #24
    On March 28th, 2008 at 5:15 pm, LarryD said:

    Protecting the guilty from prosecution is called Accessory after the Fact.

    A reporter citing only anonymous sources is indistinguishable from a reporter making it all up. (And we’ve seen a few of those cases in the last few years, as well. Remember Jason Blair?)

    Use of anonymous sources is contributing greatly to the destruction of the press’ credibility, consider the current case of Chuck Philips’ story in the LA Times. At least some journalists hold the view that a source that lies forfeits protection.

    The press would be better off following this rule: If you can’t cite an identifiable source, don’t print it.

25. #25
    On March 28th, 2008 at 5:58 pm, Boomer said:

    On March 28th, 2008 at 4:49 pm, Rusty said:
    “Freedom of the press is a noble thing, but not when it damages lives.”

    I disagree. I know it sounds harsh, but you have to crack a few eggs to make the omelette.

    Rusty the Marshall Davout of the internet. Sorry! Couldn’t resist.

    Freedom of the press is guaranteed, but there are also limitations on libel. With great freedom comes great responsibility and the members of the MSM are failing miserably to act responsible. The reckless disregard of the truth is only one of many reasons the MSM continues to circle the drain.

26. #26
    On March 28th, 2008 at 6:30 pm, Fineous Reese said:

    Rusty typed:

    I disagree. I know it sounds harsh, but you have to crack a few eggs to make the omelette.

    Does this mean you also support waterboarding?

27. #27
    On March 28th, 2008 at 9:52 pm, amigoneus said:

    Very nice point, Fineous Reese. Of course, knowing Rusty’s logic, he’d argue that waterboarding is torture, and this isn’t, so it’s not a comprable comparison. I, however, think you hit the nail on the head.

28. #28
    On March 28th, 2008 at 11:40 pm, granite said:

    On March 28th, 2008 at 2:08 pm, Mister P said:

    “I always felt the 9/11 hijackers were involved in the anthrax mailings
    Too much of a coincidence not to be.”

    Yep.

    I’ve thought that for the past 6 +1/2 years.

29. #29
    On March 29th, 2008 at 11:47 am, DBNinKY said:

    If there’s one thing the government will never run short of it’s squealers - Locy should talk.

    If for no other reason, she should feel ethically obligated to right her wrongs and help clear the name of her fellow citizen, Dr. Steven Hatfill, whose reputation she is directly responsible for destroying, by believing everything a government informant said, in her zeal to break the story.