Anthrax Frame-Job (Updated Post)

Update: Since I posted the following, CNN has pointed out that the FBI used "hardball tactics" to try to get a confession from him or to bribe his family into testifying against him. Reading between the lines, the article seems to suggest the FBI may well have driven an innocent man to suicide.

By now, you've probably read something about how the leading suspect in the Anthrax mailings from 7 years ago apparently committed suicide, and as such the government has closed it's case on the investigation. Since he's no longer alive to mount a legal defense, they are attempting to convict him in the court of public opinion. Dead people have no 4th, 5th, or 6th amendment rights, so they don't have to prove a damn thing now.

Never mind that one month ago, Press Secretary Dana Perino "didn't know" if President Bush had had an update on the investigation. (This question was asked because Bush had said in a speech "We are grateful that there has not been another [terrorist] attack on our soil since 9/11." Which is, of course, an outright lie. The Anthrax mailings can't possibly not fall under the government's very broad definition of terrorism. I'll get back to the point about lying later.) The Press asking about that (in an election year where the Republican candidate is campaigning based on national security and war issues) couldn't possibly have lead to Bush putting pressure on the FBI to wrap things up (aka: find a scapegoat), could it?

Never mind that Ivins was a registered Democrat, and voted in every Democratic Primary, including the ones since the anthrax mailings happened. I mention this since every single target of an anthrax letter was a progressive Democratic politician. Seems strange that a progressive Democrat would target his own, doesn't it? Or that a disgruntled democrat who was trying to kill his party leadership would still attend the primaries?

Never mind that their previous suspect before Ivins, a man named Stephen Hatfill, got a $5.8 MILLION dollar settlement of his lawsuit against the US. The Justice Department publicly named him as a suspect, and did not have the evidence to back it up, so he sued. Doesn't it seem relevant that they'd previously mismanaged the investigation to such an extent they had to pay millions of dollars to a disproven suspect?

Never mind that Ivins didn't have access to powdered anthrax, only the liquid form used at his job (which, for the record, was making anthrax vaccines). Nor, according to his coworkers, did he have access to the machinery and skillset necessary to convert the liquid to powdered anthrax. Since his workplace had anthrax-detectors, and the government says he had no conspirators, shouldn't we be asking where the powdered anthrax came from?

Never mind that this administration has an established track record of lying about the Anthrax mailings. They claimed they were linked to Iraq back when they wanted to convince congress to approve the invasion of Iraq. Why should we believe a damn thing this administration or it's justice department says?