Latest Threads
Greatest Threads
Home » Discuss » Journals » AntiFascist » Archives Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
Anti-Matter - Archives
Posted by AntiFascist in General Discussion
Sun Oct 16th 2011, 01:55 AM

did you notice the part where Frontline researchers had come across the original document that had been redacted from public view? It had to do with a (positive?) sample that Ivins had identified based on "Dugway Ames Spores". It's not clear to me the point being made in this section of the program, but they also mentioned 4 samples from the RMR-1029 flask being sent to the FBI and coming back negative. Interviewer: "How can this be?" Interviewee: "Exactly!".

It seems apparent that the government possibly wanted to keep USAMRID's relationship with Dugway secret and, perhaps, Ivins (when he was at first collaborating with the FBI investigation) may have discovered something incriminating?
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by AntiFascist in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sat Dec 20th 2008, 01:27 AM
In his interview with Campbell Brown on NBC's Dateline, Rick Warren made it clear that the problems with the economy are solely due to our lack of humility and the fact that "We have walked away from God's principles" which he claims include thrift and delayed gratification. "We buy things we don't need with money we don't have to impress people we don't like...when the chickens come home to roost we start to blame God for our economic problems."

Uh, and what about blaming the senators and presidents he likes to pal around with? Shouldn't McCain share some of the blame for deregulation and pushing Reaganomics? What about his friend George Bush who illegally started an incredibly expensive war? What about the corruption on Wall Street? Aren't the banks and big businesses at least partially responsible for pushing us to use credit cards, buy big gas guzzling cars, and take out sub-prime mortgages? What about those times when Bush was urging us to go shopping in order to teach the terrorists a lesson?

Regardless of how you feel about Warren's position on gay marriage, there may be an even greater danger in his relationship with Obama. If the economy gets worse during an Obama prsidency, and it likely will get worse before it gets better, then Rick Warren will always be there to tell his flock of evangelicals that all of the blame lies with them, and to deflect any blame away from the people who control most of the wealth and power and who truly deserve to be blamed.
Read entry | Discuss (26 comments)
Posted by AntiFascist in GLBT
Thu Dec 11th 2008, 01:24 AM
In the January 13th, 2009 issue of The Advocate ("Prop 8: Which Way Now?") Kenji Yoshino argues that there is a lack of legal precedent for overturning state constitutional amendments as revisions, and he also implies that state supreme court justices should fear the political consequences of overturning Prop. 8, possibly in the form of a recall election. He feels that civil rights "ultimately depend on the population at large, rather than the tiny sliver of us who are lawyers." He feels that it would be much better if Prop. 8 is overturned by putting another measure on the ballot, as early as 2010, but more likely in 2012 once we have time to organize and raise the necessary funds.

I am no attorney myself, but this type of thinking seems to go against the entire concept of the gay and lesbian minority deserving equal protection under the law! Is he trying to talk us out of this?

In the CA Marriage Ruling the CA Supreme Court ruled that sexual orientation is a Suspect Classification, in other words, we are a minority worthy of special legal protections. (See BlueDawg12's posting here for a thorough explanation of the Equal Protection Clause) If I'm not mistaken, the California ruling was also cited as a legal precedent in the Connecticut marriage ruling, and it will likely prove to be important in any eventual Federal Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage. The CA Supreme Court must seal this deal by proving that the gay and lesbian community is indeed worthy of protection from the tyranny of the majority. They should view Proposition 8 as a challenge to their authority in upholding the Constitutional duty of Equal Protection, and they should meet this challenge head on.

There may not be an abudance of precedent for overturning state constitutional amendments, but then there was also no precedent for establishing gays and lesbians as a protected minority in the first place. This was not activism on behalf of the justices, it was a logical legal conclusion whose time has come. (If you want to see activism, just wait to see what happens if Prop. 8 is not overturned.)

I have little doubt that a majority of the general population would eventually vote in favor of gay marriage in California, if indeed this is not the case already. My point is this: If the CA Supreme Court uses its judicial power in a way that demonstrates the value of the status of sexual orientation as a protected class (by overturning Prop. 8), then this might make a stronger statement, within the legal realm, toward bringing about marriage equality in other states and eventually the Federal government itself. Marriage equality may be right around the corner in California, but how close is it in the red states? Don't we ultimately need to depend on lawyers enforcing the Equal Protection clause before we can see this happen across the nation?

Read entry | Discuss (25 comments)
Posted by AntiFascist in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Tue Nov 18th 2008, 02:27 PM
The California Council of Churches, several Episcopal bishops, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ, the Northern Cal. Nevada Conference of the UCC, the Southern Cal. Conference of the UCC, the Progressive Jewish Alliance, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, and Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry California have filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate or Prohibition against Proposition 8.

"The religious institutions that file this petition - and their member congregations and parishioners - count on article XVIII to ensure that the California Constitution's guarantee of equal protection for religious minorities cannot be taken away without a deliberative process of the utmost care possible in a representative democracy. If Proposition 8 is upheld, however, the assurance will disappear - for, just as surely as gay men and lesbians could be deprived of equal protection by a simple majority vote, so too could religious minorities be deprived of equal protection - a terrible irony in a nation founded by people who emigrated to escape religious persecution."

This now makes a total of 3 additional petitions filed on behalf of racial minority groups, women's groups, and now church groups who feel that Prop. 8 will cause erosion of their own civil rights.

Read entry | Discuss (13 comments)
Posted by AntiFascist in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Wed Nov 12th 2008, 09:57 PM
The Anti-Defamation League, Asian Law Caucus, Bet Tzedek Legal Services, and Japanese American Citizens League and Public Counsel argues:

II. Prop. 8's validity is of sufficient public importance for the Court to exercise original jurisdiction.

III. ....

A. Prop. 8 threatens the permanent and abiding nature of the requirement that laws must apply equally to all - the most basic principle of democratic government. Respondents might argue that Prop 8 is a simple, one-sentence alteration of the Constitution and therefore is not sufficiently far-reaching to constitute a revision. But the simplicity of a constitutional provision says nothing of its scope. As this Court rightly observed, "even a relatively simple enactment may accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision." (Amador Valley Joint Union High School Dist. v. State Board of Equalization)....Under this Court's precedents, such a drastic alteration of the core principle of equal protection - which would open the door to evisceration of the protections of the suspect classification doctrine - is a revision, not an amendment. As such, Prop. 8 cannot be enacted through the typical initiative process. (Raven v. Deukmeijian; Livermore v. Waite).

1. The History of Discrimination against Disfavored California Minorities Underscores the Importance of the Constraints the People Placed on Themselves through Article XVIII

they then list a number of discriminatory measures from the past:

- tax statutes designed to drive Chinese immigrants from the state
- statutes prohibiting person designated as "black or mulatto...or Indian" from testifying "in favor of, or against, any white person"
- statutes and ordinances barring "Negroes, Mongolians, and Indians" from public schools.
- statutes prohibiting marriage between "white person negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race, or mulattoes."

the People have enacted similar discriminatory statutes through the initiative process, as well:

- an initiative that strengthened and expanded the so-called Alien Land Law, which prohibited certain immigrants who were ineligible for citizenship from owning agrigultural lands (enacted through a campaign with a bitter anti-Japanese flavor.)
- 1964 Proposition 14, which amended the CA Constitution to overturn recently enacted state laws prohibiting racial discrimination in housing. (this Court ruled that it violated the Federal equal protection clause and this decision was affirmed by the US Supreme Court.

2. Enforcing Article XVIII in This Case Preserves the Constitution as the Ultimate Expression of the People's Will

statutory measures enacted by initiative are subject to the same constitutional constraints as ordinary legislation. (in re Marriage Cases)...The suspect classification doctrine, enforced by the courts, thus safeguards the minority from the biases of the majority.

Quoting from re Marriage Cases: "the people of this state have spoken; they made it clear when they adopted article XVIII and made amendment relatively simple but provided the formidable bulwark of a constitutional convention as a protection against improvident or hasty (or any other) revision, that they understood there was a real difference between amendment and revision."

Though Respondents likely will argue that Prop. 8 must be upheld in order to carry out the People's will, the opposite is true. The People have distinguished between amendments and revisions in article XVIII and have imposed on their own initiative power an important restraint to be enforced by the courts.

<They go on to argue that the People are not prevented the power to change the ultimate expression of their will, but they must go through the deliberative process of extensive debate by the Legislature followed by a vote of the People>

B. Stripping Gay and Lesbian Individuals and Couples of Equal Protection with Regard to Marriage Jeopardizes Their Right to Equal Protection in All Areas.

these rights include: the right to parent, to work in certain professions, or even to enter into private consensual relationships...while it is true that measures might violate the federal Constitution, the People of California should not have to depend on the federal Constitution or federal Supreme Court to protect their basic civil deny gay and lesbian people equal protection with regard to the fundamental right to marry is to stigmatize them as unworthy of equal protection across the board...

<This is important here:> "there is a very significant risk that retaining a distinction in nomenclature with regard to this most fundamental of relationships whereby the term 'marriage' is denied only same-sex couples inevitably will cause the new parallel institution that has been made available to those couples to be viewed as of a lesser stature than marriage and, in effect, as a mark of second-class citizenship.'

...As the decision in Hall illustrates, when a law negates the inherent dignity and equality of a particular group in one area, that denial inevitably has far-reaching - and often devastating - effects. Prop. 8 supporters might sincerely wish to confine their discriminatory treatment of gay and lesbian people to marriage. Nevertheless, history - and this Court's suspect classification doctrine - teaches that such measures inevitably impose "the stigma of inferiority and second class citizenship."

C. Denying Equal Protection to One Group Undermines the Principles of Equal Protection for All.

Permitting Prop. 8 supporters to forego the revision process would jeopardize the freedom of all California minority groups...In light of the long history of descrimination against many groups in California, including persons of Asian and Pacific Island descent, this Court should not assume that introduction of such measures is far-fetched.

...Californians are entitled to the independent protections of their state Constitutions.

<amici: >

Read entry | Discuss (18 comments)
Posted by AntiFascist in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Tue Nov 11th 2008, 06:21 PM
and Lesbians" in a letter of support submitted yesterday before the CA Supreme Court:

Under Section B 3:

allowing voters to deprive same-sex couples of the right to marry would expose other fundamental rights of gay and lesbian people, as well as fundamental rights of other minority groups, to elimination by initiative. As this Court has reminded us, 'the traditional well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage (2) upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and (3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment"... Just because one may not foresee future instances of discrimination does not mean that they will not occur: "the expansive and protective provisions of our constitutions, such as the due process clause, were drafted with the knowledge that 'times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.'" ...

Thus, to characterize such a violent departure from the well-established function of equal protection as a mere amendment to the Constitution would set a precedent that would be very difficult to distinguish in future cases. Finally, as discussed below, characterization of Proposition 8 as an amendment and not a revision would divest the Legislature of its authority, in accordance with article XVIII, to subject future measures that eliminate fundamental rights of protected minority groups to the legislative process before placing them before the public.

Other sections point out:

A. The Court Should Accept Original Jurisdiction of the Petition

B. The Court's Vital Role In Ensuring Equal Protection Is Improperly Eviscerated by Proposition 8

1. The Court Has A Unique Role To Safeguard Equal Protection and Fundamental Rights.

2. Because Proposition 8 Violates the Equal Protection Guarantee and Unfairly Strips Away Fundamental Rights, it is an Invalid Revision of the California Constitution

3. <Quoted above>

C. Legislative Responsibility Has Been Foreclosed by Proposition 8

Read entry | Discuss (47 comments)
Posted by AntiFascist in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Wed Aug 20th 2008, 06:05 AM
if it was originally sent from Dugway Proving Ground then doesn't that implicate their lab as well, particularly since they already have the means for producing highly concentrated, powdered anthrax? If Ivins supposedly engineered his own genetic mutation, does he really have that capability?

By the way, Project Jefferson is no secret. The DOD announced it on this webpage:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 6, 2001 – The Defense Intelligence Agency hopes to grow a Russian-engineered variant of anthrax to test the effectiveness of the vaccine given to U.S. troops.

"We have a vaccine that works against ... all of the known anthrax strains. What we want to do is make sure we are prepared for any surprises," Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said Sept. 4.

The problem was that Russia claimed they never developed this strain, and then it was leaked out later that Dugway was already developing weaponized versions of the Ames strain.

Then there is this, published in the Wall Street Journal:

Investigators acknowledge their approach may not work. Access to anthrax was "absolutely so lax," as one senior FBI agent puts it, that even if the lab is identified, it may not be possible to discover where the terror strain was sent or who had access to it. At Dugway Proving Ground, a large military facility in Utah currently under investigation, a former scientist said security was slipshod. "Somebody could have walked out of a hot area with a couple of spores in a briefcase or lunch pail," he said. Officials at Dugway declined to comment.

Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by AntiFascist in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Wed Aug 13th 2008, 05:01 PM
In this landmark NY Times editorial published December 3, 2001, William Broad introduced the idea to the general public that the dry anthrax powder mailed to Senators was virtually indistinguishable from that produced by government military, but this was before it shut down its bioweapon program in 1969. (This is a critical propaganda point because around the same time, reports in the Baltimore Sun indicated that similar Ames strain weaponized anthrax were currently being produced for the Dugway Proving Ground, more on this later)

From the NY Times editorial:

A yardstick for measuring the quality of anthrax emerged more than two years ago when William C. Patrick III, a longtime federal consultant and one of the nation's top experts on biological weapons, wrote a report assessing the possible risks if terrorists were to send anthrax through the mail. Based on the difficulty of developing advanced anthrax, he predicted that the terrorist germs would be one-20th as concentrated as what the government developed and what recently turned letters into munitions.

"The quality of the spores is very good," said a federal science adviser who shared the Patrick report with The New York Times. "This is very high-quality stuff" - equal, he said, in concentration to that produced by the U.S. military before it abandoned germ weapons.


Ken Alibek, a former top official in the Soviet germ weapons program, who is now president of Advanced Biosystems, a consulting company in Manassas, Va., said that it was routinely possible to create dry anthrax that contained 100 billion spores per gram and that, with some effort, 500 billion was possible.


Still, the 500 billion figure is half the concentration that the American government and whoever sent the letters are said to have achieved. "I don't think they're manufacturing this in caves," Alibek said of the terror anthrax. "It's coming from another source."

Nine days later, December 12, 2001, this article appears in the Baltimore Sun:

For nearly a decade, U.S. Army scientists at Dugway Proving Ground in Utah have made small quantities of weapons-grade anthrax that is virtually identical to the powdery spores used in the mail attacks that have killed five people, government sources say.


But some experiments require live anthrax, milled to the tiny particle size expected on a battlefield, to test both decontamination techniques and biological agent detection systems, the sources say.

Anthrax is also grown at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, where it is used chiefly to test the effectiveness of vaccines in animals.

But that medical program uses a wet aerosol fog of anthrax rather than the dry powder used in the attacks and at Dugway, according to interviews and medical journal articles based on the research.

Half a year later, on June 1, 2001, this article appeared in the National Journal, where Alibek claims the concentrated form of anthrax could be made virtually anywhere:

If the U.S. anthrax was very pure but not specially weaponized, could it have been made by amateurs? In small quantities, yes, according to both Alibek and Meselson. It could be done, Alibek says, with "a very simple, nonindustrial process -- a very primitive process -- that could let you get a trillion spores in one gram. You can't make hundreds of kilos, but you could make hundreds of grams at this concentration."

Meselson concurs. "It's something that could be done by a fair number of people." The necessary glassware, culturing media, centrifuges, and so on "would exist in a large number of places, both hospitals and laboratories -- widespread."

Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Posted by AntiFascist in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Tue Aug 12th 2008, 01:51 PM
I just ran across this article which provides a history of bioweapons media spin and related government programs which could explain the FBI's inability to develop a strong case for the anthrax mailings:


By Jim Rarey

June 30, 2002



William Broad seems to be the favorite of "investigators" (read FBI) as he has written numerous articles on the anthrax mystery laying out the current "thinking" of those investigators, even when they contradict earlier "leaks."


The Patrick interrogation is curious in itself. Patrick is the inventor (or at least holds five secret patents) on the process that developed the unique anthrax spore concentration of one trillion per gram, the same concentration found in the mailed anthrax. He is the former chief of product development of bio-weapons at Ft. Detrick. Patrick also is a consultant to Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI); a CIA connected government contractor. (See this writerís three-part series, "Anthrax, GOCOís and Killer Germs" which covers BMI in depth including its involvement in managing or co-managing four secret government labs including the armyís Dugway, Utah facility where the anthrax is weaponized.)

Patrick is also a close friend and colleague of Ken Alibek. Alibek is the Americanized name of the former number two man in the Soviet Unionís bioweapon program. He "defected" to the U.S. in 1992. At the request of the CIA, Alibek was "debriefed" by Patrick and was subsequently welcomed with open arms into the U.S. intelligence community. Alibek is also a former employee of BMI.

On December 21, 2001 the Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch newspaper reported that FBI Director Robert Meuller had assured Senator Mike DeWine of Ohio that no one with or formerly with Battelle is a suspect. BMI headquarters is in Columbus, Ohio.

The article goes on to describe a puzzling Defense Department program (Project Bachus?) in Nevada, "whose only logical purpose was to buttress the FBI theory of lone individual perpetrators of chemical/biological events". This was disclosed by Judith Miller just seven days before the 9/11 attacks and two weeks before the anthrax mailing to NBC. Another stated objective was to see if a "homemade lab" would have an identifiable signature. The founder is a CFR member and consultant to the CIA.

This project was apparently a failure and was a far cry from making weaponized anthrax. ABC was also given permission to film the story, but they had never done anything with the film.

The article also describes the birth of the "Jefferson Project" where the CIA was tasked with developing a more deadly version of anthrax for testing vaccines, after Russia denied having ever developed such a strain. BMI was chosen to host the project which likely supplied the Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, and which then ultimately supplied Dr. Ivins at Fort Detrick. leveymg provides a detailed report on this here:

Finally the article describes the CIA's Clear Vision project which focused on weapons systems that would deliver the germs. BMI was again chosen for this project, and it is speculated that this is related to "dirty bomb" development.

The article makes the point that the CIA is off limits to the FBI, so all they can do is find a lone suspect who matches their profile.

Read entry | Discuss (23 comments)
Posted by AntiFascist in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sun Aug 10th 2008, 04:14 PM

Former Dugway scientist tells all
Tooele Transcript Bulletin Online Edition
August 7, 2003

by Michael Rigert
Staff Writer


Bienek, who now resides in Huntsville, Utah, told the Tooele Transcript-Bulletin of several instances where supervisors disregarded security protocols, lied in reports or presented conflicting information about anthrax and other weapons-grade germs and chemicals during his tenure at Dugway from 1989 to 1993.

“In one meeting, I was asked to sign a letter being sent to Governor Bangerter and the state of Utah which said that we weren’t producing any more than laboratory samples of anthrax. About five to 10 milliliters. After I signed the letter, they said ‘we want to produce 30 gallons of anthrax.’ I said, ‘you can’t lie to the governor and the people of Utah like that.’ Either we tell the governor about the 30 gallons or we tell them nothing,” Bienek said.


Dr. Bienek said organizational corruption flourished at Dugway under a system of cronyism where violations of policy were covered up, employees who didn’t go along with lies were removed and people who cow-towed to the corruption were promoted.

“I kept finding lies and discrepancies in meetings and written documents,” Bienek said.
When his supervisor and director of the Baker Lab learned Bienek wasn’t going to go along with the lies, Bienek said the director did everything in his power to silence him and get him off the base.

Much more at the link.

This may go much deeper than the Ivins case. What was all this anthrax going to be used for?

Read entry | Discuss (29 comments)
Posted by AntiFascist in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sun Aug 10th 2008, 02:05 AM
Searching the web, I've come across some interesting information regarding the nature of the anthrax traced to Dr. Ivins.

First of all, it may be important to note that Ivins co-authored a research paper outlining the use of aerosolized anthrax on rhesus monkeys, so in fact he was using live anthrax spores in aerosolized form on live subjects to test effectiveness of anthrax vaccines:


B.anthracis challenge

Spores of the virulent B. anthracis Ames strain
were harvested from shaking broth ... After minute respiratory volumes
were measured, animals were exposed in a head-only chamber to a spore
aerosol generated by a three-jet Collison nebulizer.

Note, this alone does NOT prove that Dr. Ivins handled powdered anthrax in his facility as part of his testing, but could he have been testing weaponized anthrax on the rhesus monkeys?

The following blog questions whether the material in the flask was already treated with advanced materials (weaponized):

Several crucial pieces of information are missing here. First, we don't have the amount of material that is in RMR-1029 or its status in terms of processing with regard to purity or possible processing to weaponize it. In later sections of the warrant, Ivins is said to also refer to this flask interchangeably as "Dugway Ames Spores -- 1997", so it is entirely possible that the spores in RMR-1029 are treated with advanced materials.


So we do know that the material in RMR-1029 is highly purified. We still don't know if it is treated in any way to make it more dangerous. We also know that the flask is "large" but still have no idea how much material is there.

This New Scientist article from 2002 notes:

So strain D seems to have come from Dugway. The difference between D and the attack strain is not great - there are 36 adenines in a row, instead of 35 - but Keim's team made doubly sure by sequencing that part of the D strain's genome.

This New Scientist article dated Aug. 7, 2008 notes that Ivins was the sole custodian of spores produced by the Army at Dugway:

Crucially, they say Ivins was "sole custodian" of a single batch of spores of the Ames strain of anthrax, produced at the army's Dugway facility in Utah in 1997 and stored in a containment lab at USAMRIID.

Then there is this odd claim!

The documents say little about the most difficult step in the process – producing a fine, dry spore powder. They say Ivins simply grew fresh bacteria from the batch for each round of mailings, then dried them.

Their only basis for this claim is that two envelopes addressed to the media also contained a common soil bacterium, which they say got in during culture.

There are other ways such a contaminant could get in, however. The Dugway material should already have been powdered, and the attacker could simply have packaged it, which would have required little skill.

Finally, as I have noted in previous posts, there is this Baltimore Sun article from 2001 where it is noted:

Most anthrax testing at Dugway, in a barren Utah desert 87 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, is done using the killed spores to reduce the chance of accidental exposure of workers there. But some experiments require live anthrax, milled to the tiny particle size expected on a battlefield, to test both decontamination techniques and biological agent detection systems, the sources say.


Anthrax is also grown at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, where it is used chiefly to test the effectiveness of vaccines in animals. But that medical program uses a wet aerosol fog <see research article above> of anthrax rather than the dry powder used in the attacks and at Dugway, according to interviews and medical journal articles based on the research.


Scientists familiar with the anthrax program at Dugway described it to The Sun on the condition that they not be named. The offensive program made hundreds of kilograms of anthrax for bombs designed to kill enemy troops over hundreds of square miles. Dugway's Life Sciences Division makes the deadly spores in far, far smaller quantities, rarely accumulating more than 10 grams at a time, according to one Army official.

Scientists estimate that the letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle originally contained about 2 grams of anthrax, about one-sixteenth of an ounce, or the weight of a dime. But its extraordinary concentration - in the range of 1 trillion spores per gram - meant that the letter could have contained 200 million times the average dose necessary to kill a person. Dugway's weapons-grade anthrax has been milled to achieve a similar concentration, according to one person familiar with the program.

Read entry | Discuss (19 comments)
Posted by AntiFascist in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Wed Aug 06th 2008, 02:31 PM
In this 2006 op-ed from the Baltimore Chronicle:

President Bush's $7 billion annual budget for bioweapons research will incite a brand-new bioweapons arms race, besides being a colossal waste of taxpayers' money.



The situation is ripe for biotech corporate profiteering, and political arm-twisting, to further warp the democratic process with pork and even germ scares for profit. The rampant corruption associated with the failures of reconstruction in Iraq and post-Katrina portends the development of a disease protection racket by contractors of Ft. Detrick.


CIA access to Ft. Detrick classified scientific information will continue the illegal use of pathogens for covert action and proliferation. The CIA was never punished for disobeying President Nixon’s 1969 order to destroy all U.S. biological weapons stocks. The CIA shared these weapons with Saddam Hussein on seven occasions between 1986 and 1988. The CIA has cultures of the Ames strain, the type used in the letters in October 2001 (Reuters News Service, Dec.16, 2001, JoAnne Allen.). The Agency has been conducting secret experiments with powdered germs since 1997 at Battelle Memorial Institute in Ohio (NYT, Dec.13, 2001). Battelle received the Ames strain from Fort Detrick in May of 2001 (The Plain Dealer, Nov.30, 2001; Washington Post, Steve Fainaru). The CIA said it was trying to develop defenses against anthrax, but did not explain why it was doing what other defense labs were set up to do. As of December 16, 2001, one FBI investigator said that the CIA’s anthrax project was the “best lead they have at this point” into the anthrax letter case (Washington Post, Rick Weiss, Dec.16, 2001). Does that explain why we have heard nothing more on the case?
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by AntiFascist in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Thu Jul 03rd 2008, 09:39 PM

Yes, I did use caps because this should be the central question of the FISA bill controversy. Was it anti-war groups? Was it liberal congresspeople? We will never know unless the telecoms are allowed to be sued so that we can see the records. This is precisely why Bush threatens to veto the bill unless it provides telecom immunity.

Is Obama willing to compromise on this issue? If so, then he may be following in the footsteps of Bill Clinton who allowed Iran/Contra and the BCCI scandals to slide with respect to George H. W. Bush and Reagan, which ultimately allowed Bush Senior's son to be elected to serve 2 terms.

Read entry | Discuss (43 comments)
Posted by AntiFascist in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Thu Jun 12th 2008, 06:24 PM
Is Dr. Sue Arrigo the same person as that in the OP?

She seems to be an accomplished AIDS researcher who has worked at UCLA.

Here is a paper published in the Journal of Virology that cites much her work:

Now here's the interesting part -

This body of work seems to demonstrate a genetic relationship with bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV). According to Dr. Cantwell:

There are some viruses in animals that cause very lethal cancer in those animals, but do not affect man or other animals. The bovine leukaemia virus (BLV), for example, is lethal to cows but not humans. There is another virus that occurs in sheep called sheep visna virus which is also non-reactive in man. These deadly viruses are "retro viruses" meaning that they can change the genetic composition of cells that they enter.

Apparently there is evidence being covered up that the HIV virus evolved from VISNA, a sheep virus originally being researched by Nazis. According to this researcher:

CLEARLY the VISNA virus is not endemic to Africa. If HIV is part nazi visna, and it is, then HIV like VISNA are both from the eugenics programs of the United States and Germany.

When the country's top Medical Officer for AIDS research (Dr. Cargill) learned of the VISNA component of HIV, she turned the science evidence over to Dr. Alan S. Rabson, Deputy Director of the National Cancer Institute.

The progress reports of the secret virus program implicate Dr. Rabson has having played a critical role in the development of HIV/AIDS. Consequently Dr. Rabson has supplied the authors of the HIV flowchart (Dr. Dick Rauscher and Dr. Lou Caresse) and nothing more. Although Dr. Rabson is the deputy director of one of the largest cancer research institutes in the world, he has stated that he can not provide leadership in review of the 6,000 pages of experiments and contracts and the 20,000 science papers contained in the fifteen progress reports of the federal genocide program (1962 - 1978). <identified under the code name MK-NAOMI>

Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Posted by AntiFascist in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Fri Feb 08th 2008, 04:33 AM
In a speech last August on counterterrorism policy at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Barrack Obama declared that he would use military force against Al Qaeda operatives hiding in tribal areas of Pakistan if that nation did not move more aggressively against them first:

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said. "But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."


His declaration also followed revelations last month that the Bush administration made a last-minute decision in 2005 to abort a special forces raid to capture senior Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan's tribal areas amid fears the operation might jeopardize relations with Pakistan. The disclosure stirred criticism of the White House, and in his speech Obama called the decision to abort "a terrible mistake."


"I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan," Obama said.

He outlined his views at a time when Senator Clinton sought to depict him as naive in international affairs.

Following Obama's speech, White House spokesman Tony Snow continued to defend President Bush's policy saying "We think that our approach to Pakistan is not only one that respects the sovereignty of Pakistan, but also is designed so that we are working in cooperation,"

A recent report by the World-Check Terrorism and Insurgency Research Unit entitled "Pakistan's Al-Qaida-Taliban Nexus" draws the following conclusion:

The Al-Qaida Pakistani Taliban nexus likely intends to
perpetuate terrorist violence both in Pakistan and in the
West in order to consolidate and secure its stronghold in
the Pakistani tribal region. Operations in Europe and the
US have certainly been planned and progressed to
advanced stages, and attacks in Pakistan continue to
take place regularly.

While it will be necessary to target the al-Qaida and
Taliban leadership that constitutes the locus of Jihad
globally, a military strategy to achieve this aim does not
seem likely and until another solution is found, the world --
West and East – can anticipate more terrorist violence to

The report discusses the assassination of Benazir Bhutto as a watershed in the political history of the country, and how this and other threats "signify that the Taliban are not randomly attacking people, but pursuing a broad agenda and employing a systematic strategy to eliminate secular political leadership in Pakistan.

As the events have played out in Pakistan, this report would seem to indicate that Bush's strategy is impotent and that the West and East can anticipate more violence as a result. If Obama's suggestions had been acted upon, then perhaps it could have helped to prevent the assassination and subverted al Qaeda's plans in Europe and the US which apparently have now progressed to "advanced stages".

Read entry | Discuss (20 comments)
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.