Why is No One Calling the Anthrax Suspect a Terrorist?

Email Print posted by Cenk 08/07/2008 12:59:12 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
The FBI is saying Bruce Ivins sent the anthrax that wound up killing five and terrorizing the whole country. The deadly attack was aimed at some of our top politicians and media figures. If ever there was a terrorist attack, this was it. So, how come no one is calling Ivins a terrorist?

Let's get real. You know what the answer is. It's because he is white. It's also because he is Christian and right-wing, but I'll get to that in a second. Now, if you don't believe that they're not calling him a terrorist because he's white, let me ask you this question: What if his name was Sheik al-Abdullah Muhammad?

What if Sheik Abdullah had sent weaponized anthrax that killed people all across the country and targeted our top officials? Do you think they would have called him a terrorist then? You know they would have, you know it for a fact.

The FBI says one possible motivation Ivins had was that he was Catholic and fervently pro-life, so he hated Senator Leahy and Daschle because they were Catholic and pro-choice. Now, if Ivins was Muslim and sent Christian Right senators anthrax because of their religious beliefs, do you think he would have been called a terrorist?

Not one news story that I have seen has referred to Ivins as an alleged terrorist. Back when the government was pushing the idea that Iraq might have been responsible, there were plenty of news stories that said this was a terrorist attack. Since we found out the alleged killer was a white Republican, not one news story has called this an act of terrorism.

I know this is partly due to government propaganda. If the government calls it terrorism, so does the press. If the government doesn't, neither does the press. And this fact might be even more damning. Look at how much the press is affected by government press releases. But that's not the only answer. The media has to look in the mirror on this one. There is no good answer for why they have treated this story differently than other stories of terrorism. This blatant double standard makes a mockery of the whole concept of terrorism.

Watch The Young Turks Here

< PLeeeease for the love of all things good! | US claims the surge is working...by working u mean >
 Display:
Why is No One Calling the Anthrax Suspect a Terrorist? | 30 comments (30 topical, 0 hidden)
Cenk, why do Republicans do anything? (none / 0)
MONEY$!$!$!$!$!$!$!

Yes in many ways this act was clearly a terrorist attack, however most terrorists have political motivations.  The motivations of these guys were clearly financial.  Do you have any idea how much we've spend on biodefense since 2001...expecially on vaccines?  What did this Ivins guy do again?  Thats right he developed vaccines!  Hmmmmm?

by alphasigmookie on 08/07/2008 01:36:28 PM EST

Hmmm indeed (none / 0)
In 1994 the Clinton administration released documents at the urging of Al Gore detailing the U.S. gov't's development of Anthrax as an offensive weapon through the 60's, 70's and 80's. These materials were later reclassified as top secret during the Bush/Cheney administration since they implicated Don Rumsfeld in the sale of Anthrax to Saddam in 1984.

There are inconsistencies in the record that are easily explained with this information. The FDA approved a better cure in 1985, a year after the sale to Saddam. This could easily be explained by a top secret offensive biological weapons program in the 70's and 80's which produced a more refined batch process.

Under the Clinton administration the process of refinement was stopped. However, the delivery system of air borne spores was improved upon. Studies found the exponential lethality compounded by aerosol.

To this end, tests were developed to start working on a new vaccine (which ended up in the gel developed by Ivans in 2005). However, Ivans was a bio-warfare expert, not an aerosol physics engineer. In 1996, a new aerosol delivery system was developed by DARPA and the DoD in a top secret program, unbeknownst to the public, congress and the White House.

In 1995, the NIST started working on a laser cooled atomic clock with Lucent and NASA. DARPA used the laser technology developed by Lucent to subcontract several firms bidding to win a more lucrative contract which eventually became the U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command Counter Proliferation Long Range—Biological Standoff Detection System, a method to use lasers to track aerosol clouds. And as part of this defensive system, more lethal offensive aerosol delivery systems were developed, by here-to-for unnamed defense contractors which is currently top secret. Probably one of the usual suspects, Hughes Aerospace or Raytheon Technologies or Aerodyne Research Incorporated or who knows.

I'd be suspect that we haven't continued our offensive bio-agents program and if it isn't even currently active at this moment and if Aerodyne wasn't involved with the development of highly lethal aerosol anthrax. The only reassurance I have against this is the fact that Mook tells me we stopped the offensive bio-agents program years ago and our government says we stopped it in the 1950's. Even though documents released during the Clinton Gore purge of secrecy directly contradicts both these statements. So I either believe Mook, Rummy, George Bush and Dick Cheney, or Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Hmmm?

If you trust your government when they've been proven to lie about these issues (yellow cake uranium, forged documents, torture) and if it was proven they lied about the offensive development of bio-warfare weapons agents through the 60's, 70's and 80's, why shouldn't we believe that it has continued till this very day?

by tiggerporn on 08/07/2008 04:19:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
addendum (none / 0)
Oh sorry KenTX, I mentioned Bill Clinton without saying Blow Job, my bad, mea culpa, how silly of me, what a faux pas. Obviously we can't trust any information from the Clinton Gore years because - we interrupt your regularly scheduled program for this important announcement: "Blow Job, Blow Job, 9/11, Blow Job, the surge, the surge, offshore drilling, the surge, 9/11, the surge the surge, blow job - Thank you" -

Fuck, where was I?

by tiggerporn on 08/07/2008 04:30:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What is an offensive program? (none / 0)
In your mind what is an offensive program?  In my mind it requires mass production of agent along with specially designed dispersal divices that can be filled and fielded nearly imediately.  We clearly had such a program at one point.  I find it highly unlikely that we still do.

That being said, there plenty of scientists in the US that have the knowledge to implement an offensive program if we decided to go ahead.  Then again so does Iraq and Russia to name just a few.  If you're trying to make that claim its quite a stretch. 

by alphasigmookie on 08/07/2008 05:46:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
do you know anything about encryption? (none / 0)
Paraphrasing Mook: Uh, well, we could if we wanted to, so just you watch yourself, but why the hell would we want to do that?

(Don't want to put words in your mouth, fair assessment?)

We had an offensive bioweapons program in the 70's and 80's, after we signed a ban. It was done in secret. During the Clinton administration, the truth came out in our governments own documents. This is fact and cannot be disputed. The program was started in the 50's and continued secretly in the 60's, and after the ban became top secret. Since the documents detailing the abuses have once again been reclassified as top secret (unless Clinton or Gore have access to them at Clinton's library for instance) the official story is that we haven't had an offensive bioweapons program since the 1950s.

It is fact that we had an offensive bioweapons program until the 80's, however it is in dispute, and perhaps unprovable at this time whether or not we had one into the 1990s. In light of the current crime or crime and cover-up though, perhaps the early documents need to be again declassified and then there probably needs to be more transparency with any programs which might have dealt with this, including DARPA and subcontracted firms up through 2000. Obviously Bush and Cheney are not going to declassify anything and will if anything shred documents if they are able, and continue their program of official denial coupled with top secrecy.

Are you disputing that we had an offensive bioweapons system into the 80's and going with the current official line that it ended in the 50's? Or are you merely disputing that we have one currently and that it continued into the 1990's?

Do you believe the administration's line on other issues such as torture, Valerie Plame and forgery, or do you recognize that theirs is a culture of secrecy and deceit to the highest levels of government including the presidency? If you do indeed recognize the fact that we had an offensive bioweapons program into the 1980's, would you acknowledge that it is at least possible it was continued after that point into the 1990's?

Also, for instance, if you are working on say Lasers for the NIST, perhaps even subbed out working in the private sector, you might think you're working on say the atomic clock or something neat. But then the patents might be used by DARPA for something like SDI Star Wars to say recognize the spin of the incoming warhead, and you might not ever be aware of that.
 
I'm not saying that there is a conspiracy in which hundreds of scientists are guilty of treason and were complicit, but that their research could be used by a few nutjobs like Poindexter for nefarious purposes. (Also, just pulled his name out of a hat, not suggesting he has anything what-so-ever to do with Anthrax.)

When you say - "if we decided to go ahead" whom are you referring to as "we" ?

Ya, no you're right Mook, I'm a leftwing conspiracy nutter, geez what was I thinking? Our gov't use its own anthrax that it said it didn't have on members of Congress to ensure passing the Patriot Act and then cover it up with the FBI's help and blame it on a guy of so-called weak moral fiber who liked sorority girls and porn featuring blindfolded women. I must still be living in the past with the grassy knoll. Boy, that is a stretch.

I mean cause our gov't wouldn't waste money on things like gay bombs, air dropped pamphlets, thousand dollar hammers, or do anything illegal like sell crack in the hood to finance terrorists.

Check Aerodyne Research's DARPA DoD defense contract.

You think it is a stretch because we are a moral upstanding people who wouldn't engage in such behavior or because the gov't couldn't get away with the funding for this kind of project and keep it secret? Do you know anything about encryption?

by tiggerporn on 08/07/2008 07:07:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Encription (none / 0)
I think its where things are illegible....like most of your posts.  all kidding aside, I do not believe we have an active offensive bioweapons program.  I'm not saying its not possible, I just don't believe we do.  I don't know anything about when we completed dismantling our offensive program, but I do know that once you sign a treaty, everything you had doesn't magically disapear.  We are still working on decomissioning our massive stockpiles of chemical weapons we built up durring the cold war, so it wouldn't be a stretch if it took a decade or two to get rid of all the bio stuff.  

As for restarting an offensive program, that would be relatively easy and probably not take terribly long.  Then again the only way to prevent that is to take all the scientists out to a field and shoot them.  Even without prior knowledge, you could take a competent microbiologist and a chemical, mechanical or environmental engineer farmiliar with aerosols and mass transport and you could probably build a rudamentary program fairly quickly.  This is of course also the reason why having a decent defensive capability is so important. 

On the conspiracy side, I don't think it is too much of a stretch to believe that Ivins or whoever pulled off the attack didn't work alone and the people involved gained in some way politically or financially, but most likely it was about $$$$.  I don't however think Bush, Cheney or any secret government organization pulled off the attack. 





by alphasigmookie on 08/08/2008 03:40:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Aerodyne (none / 0)
enlighten my en aerodyne.  The only thing I could find with DARPA was a contract for working on some sort of small scale UAV.  The are doing all sorts of stuff there, but nothing that looked overly suspicious. 

http://www.aerodyne.com/def ault.htm

by alphasigmookie on 08/08/2008 03:53:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
excellent point (none / 0)

This is an interesting point.  What Ivins was practicing was in fact terrorism in every sense of the word, yet I saw not a single headline that read "Anthrax terrorist captured", not one.  Funny how that works, isn't it?

On a slightly different note, when Colin Powell held up that little vial of "anthrax" spores in front of the UN and implied that if we didn't invade Iraq we might start getting a whiff of those spores here and in other western countries, couldn't it almost be argued that he was practicing a sublimely subtle form of terrorism himself?  He was almost piggybacking on Ivins' success, using that fear to play up his point.  Wasn't he waving around anthrax to try and further a political goal?  Did it not get innocent people killed?  In a sense, wasn't Powell's (and Bush's) form of terrorism much, much more deadly and effective?

by bfaul on 08/07/2008 02:26:12 PM EST

I could swear I just explained this (none / 0)

The Republican definition of terrorism is the use of violence against innocent victims to promote a political agenda which you don't agree with.

Shoot up a church cause you're all hopped up on Hannity?  You are a person the liberal psychiatric field failed.

Blow up an abortion clinic?  You are a soldier of God.

Smithereenize some Palestinians in a shopping mall?  You need our military support to defend your family.

Drive Osama bin Laden to the airport?  You must be destroyed.

by ProfRich on 08/07/2008 10:26:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What if his name was Sheik al-Abdullah Muhammad? (none / 0)
He would be shtooping 77 virgins?

by MRFred on 08/07/2008 03:05:55 PM EST

Many reasons. (none / 0)

1. Since George Bush said that any state harboring a terrorist, labeling this guy as such would have made the US a terrorist state and we would have had to invade ourselves. And we all know our troops are stretched too thin to think about invading Yet Another Country (which doesn't start with "I") at this point.

2. Garsh, it would be embarrassing.

3. Presenting the "evidence" and binging all this to the forefront this week guarantees that the focus of the news cycles won't be on the Stupid Republican House Tricks, the inane Hamdan verdict, the anniversary of the "Osama Determined To Attack Within The US" PDB of 7 years ago, Ron Suskind's book, or any other of the fifty running scandals of the Bush administration.

by MedfordTim on 08/07/2008 03:12:05 PM EST

Gulp (none / 0)

labeling this guy as such would have made the US a terrorist state and we would have had to invade ourselves

Holy cow.  Does this mean we hate ourselves for our freedoms?

by bfaul on 08/07/2008 04:24:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wouldn't be the first time we invaded ourselves (none / 0)
See Virginia, 1861.

by ProfRich on 08/07/2008 10:35:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Tijuana or Bust! (none / 0)
I concur, let's plan the attack. But where would we invade from? I hear there's some weak spots in the border fence, but we'll have to watch out for those pesky Minutemen. Perhaps we can play like the DoD and subcontract out to Mexican druglords as military contractors? We could meet in Tijuana to iron out the details.

by tiggerporn on 08/07/2008 04:33:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Maybe from space? (none / 0)

by desertpear on 08/07/2008 10:14:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Addendum-my (none / 0)
"Since George Bush said that any state harboring a terrorist..."

Add the words "will be considered a terrorist state" if you'd like that sentence to be complete.

Sheesh!

by MedfordTim on 08/07/2008 03:39:08 PM EST

2 cents (none / 0)
In a similar vein, it's confusing how in most of the discourse concerning terrorism within the continental U.S., Timothy McVeigh is rarely referenced, out of the state of Oklahoma.  He committed one of the worst attacks on a homeland government building, but if you look at the details, he was also a right winged nut and white.  It's a matter of propaghanda and political motivation.  You can't very well be indignant to a culture with impunity when it's your own...

by elimenez on 08/07/2008 03:42:12 PM EST

You have to push this hard Cenk (none / 0)

You've hit the nail square on the head. You could not be any more right. %tages don't adequately describe how right you are.

You need to push this everywhere. This is the whole enchilada buddy. The guy that shot up that unitarian church last week, he was a terrorist. Ivins is a terrorist (if guilty). People who bomb abortion clinics are terrorists. Timothy McVay was a terrorist. Republicans who sympathize with these people are terrorist sympathizers (exemplified in this recent post).

Right-wingnuts in my family are always referring to animal-rights people as terrorists. Technically they're being accurate, but AR people mostly go after property, and when they've tried to hurt people have been largely unsuccessful (mailing razor blades etc.). I don't agree with animal rights people (I'm going to blog it out one day when I have the time to give it the treatment it deserves) but right wing terrorism in contrast has a very ugly face, and until we put a name to that face, we can't openly call George Bush what he is--an extremist.

"If you're not worried, you're not paying attention." --Cenk Uygur

by hazmat on 08/07/2008 03:58:43 PM EST

animal rights people (none / 0)

Your family is not alone.  Enviroterrorists are considered by Republicans to be the number one domestic terrorist threat.  Obama was on one of these domestic terrorism committees some years ago and spoke out against focusing on these groups when there are right wing groups that actually kill people.  I agree that they are extremists and do their movement no good, but not all people who are for animal rights support direct action by the extremist fringe.  So, when you do blog it out, I hope you make that distinction, as well as between animal rights activists and people who promote animal welfare. 

If this had been a bunny-hugging member of PETA with no criminal record, you can be sure they would be labeled a terrorist.  It's probably due to the pharmaceutical lobby, since animal rights activists are against vivisection.

by desertpear on 08/07/2008 10:24:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
no worries (none / 0)

I don't consider AR people, even the ALF real terrorists, obviously. Some of the stuff they do rises to the level of criminality, and they are responsible for some real tragedies, but even these types of actions are extremely rare. People who commit acts of lethal violence against other human beings as an alternative to civil discourse are terrorists. Such people tend to be right wing reactionaries in this country, not leftists.

I've dealt with PETA people alot over the years and consider them to be sincere though misguided. I don't work with "animals" as far as lay people are concerned, but it constitutes a large fraction of the field I'm in, so I don't have clean hands. And don't worry, I'm not going to steamroll anybody. I believe very strongly in the ethical treatment of animals. Since this is a lefty site I hope to get some good discussion going but HOLD!!! HOLD!!!

"If you're not worried, you're not paying attention." --Cenk Uygur

by hazmat on 08/07/2008 11:49:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
update (none / 0)

now that I've stuck my neck out and said something nice about PETA, they go and do something hideous. A guy in canada gets on a bus, beheads a fellow rider and starts eating his flesh in front of the other passengers. Here's what PETA had to say:

"While it isn't every day that a human is violently attacked and eaten by another human, it's worth noting that it is the norm for many people not to give any thought to the fact that restaurants are serving flesh that comes from innocents who were minding their own business before someone came after them with a knife."

"If you're not worried, you're not paying attention." --Cenk Uygur

by hazmat on 08/08/2008 03:14:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I know (none / 0)
The types of people that are attracted to PETA can be quite simple-minded, which can lead to dangerous extremism.  I agree with what you said and will hold.  I didn't know the tidbit about the guy eating that other guy's flesh.  Anyone for a little nap on the bus?

by desertpear on 08/08/2008 05:09:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I immediately regret (none / 0)
not referring to the canadian cannibal as "this gentleman" ala AK. Oh well, maybe next time.

"If you're not worried, you're not paying attention." --Cenk Uygur

by hazmat on 08/08/2008 05:19:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
and now I regret that post (none / 0)
that was a truly disturbing story if I ever saw one. Jokes have no place here.

"If you're not worried, you're not paying attention." --Cenk Uygur

by hazmat on 08/08/2008 05:21:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
well (none / 0)
It is hard to come up with a suitable reaction for things that are so bizarre.

by desertpear on 08/08/2008 08:06:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hold up. (none / 0)

As far as an explanation of the media's behavior goes, you may be right. But let us not get carried away in calling the man a terrorist - it is far from clear that Ivins is guilty of this crime. The evidence produced by the FBI is circumstantial or irrelevant. Go here for more.

This may be an attempt by the government to sweep this episode under the rug and move on. After all, a dead man cannot defend himself.

by Tullius on 08/07/2008 04:09:35 PM EST

boris and natasha (none / 0)
The effective story line that won the 2006 midterms was that it didn't matter if Bush was an evil mastermind or completely incompetent. Presented with the evidence it seemed like he was one or the other but since the two would seem to be mutually exclusive (with notable exceptions like Boris of Boris and Natasha) the republicans had been having their cake and eating it too, since they would argue he couldn't be both and they seemed to claim virtue in either by comparing it to the other. In other words, well, he might not be Pappy but at least he's straightforward and shoots from the hip (to say he's incompetent but not evil). Or the contrary, such as Bush belongs on Rushmore, he's pushed through a taxplan that bankrupts the federal gov't AND gives breaks to big oil while at the same time bombin' the fuck out of the world, giving foot massages to Angela Merkel and all in time to give Jenna away without breakin a sweat. He's an evil sombitch but I'm glad he's on our team, blah blah blah rhetoric.

Guys like Jim Webb effectively countered both these punches by ignoring whether he was either and saying that either way things were bad, with the economy, the war and international relations.

To apply that same lesson here, either scenario, one of our gov't nutjob scientists going apeshit evil and the FBI being too blinded by racism to do its job, or a giant conspiracy to create mass hysteria, are pretty much bottom of the barrel bad. The larger picture is that right now the House is going through impeachment lite and Rove still hasn't testified, based on a claim of executive immunity that the courts ruled didn't exist.

The story line should be that it was either evil genius or incompetence but that either way it is part of faulty intel, mismanagement of the war, halliburton excesses, valerie plamegate, the list goes on and on. Either they did it on purpose and should be impeached or they were so buttfucked confused they completely fucked up and they should be impeached.

Of course, later on in picking up the pieces it will be important to have full disclosure from the army, DoD. subcontractors, FBI and then have fixes put in place to make sure this does not happen again.

by tiggerporn on 08/07/2008 04:54:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
the usa is beyond reproach (none / 0)

the usa is the greatest nation on earth, and _guaranteed_ by the hand of god and manifest destiny from ever doing anything wrong.

as long as this narrative is accepted, implicitly or explicitly, by the populace, it is pointless to vent on why ivins is not being labeled a terrorist.

 

those who think that _they_ are beyond the biases of the riff-raff, and can recognize the foibles of their country, please first work on actually accomplishing a few simple tasks, before you complain about republicans, or about labeling:

* prosecuting bushco for their war crimes.

* getting rid of _all_ nuclear weapons in the u.s., unilaterally.

* getting rid of all u.s. military bases around the world, unilaterally.

* paying war reparations to iraq, and to every country invaded by the u.s.

i could go on with this list, but it should be obvious that even the most hard-core democrat will blanch at going anywhere _near_ these topics. as long as the u.s. feels that it can arm itself (while restricting the rest of the world), invading other countries on false pretexts and without consequence (while pretending to be the defender of freedom), failing to prosecute its own criminals (while labeling anyone who is not a u.s. lackey as a war criminal or a terrorist), it is not sensible to quibble about labeling.

 

this is not a liberal vs. conservative, or a democrat vs. republican, difference. _everyone_ (of any consequence in the public sphere) in the u.s. is far removed from any honest evaluation of their country and its place in history. those who do complain (chomsky is an example) are considered crazy kooks and marginalized.

by neo on 08/07/2008 06:59:33 PM EST

You guys are all nuts. (none / 0)
I'm thinking maybe some sanity has gotten back into the legal system.  Calling Ivins a terrorist would be abusing the word even for this administration.

Ivins was clearly mentally ill.  That's all there is to it.  There's no conspiracy, no cover-up, no ulterior motive.  Not even racism is at play here (please remember that we called the Oklahoma City Bomber, a white man, a terrorist).


Ivins was NOT a terrorist.  Let's not abuse the word, especially since it has never had a clear definition.


by EveningStarNM on 08/07/2008 11:36:01 PM EST

I think you are missing the point (none / 0)

First, I think all terrorists are mentally unstable so I don't know that I can accept that argument.

Second, we are reacting to the government's explanation for all these things, not our own.  The government is the one telling us it was politically motivated.

I think we generally don't entirely trust what we are being told.  We are just playing through the logic using the right wing framing.

by ProfRich on 08/07/2008 11:56:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Why is No One Calling the Anthrax Suspect a Terrorist? | 30 comments (30 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: