(updated below)

[see post below for information on the Accountability Money Bomb]

__________________________

Initially, a moment of grieving is in order over the first tragedy suffered by our new Salon Radio Show. On Wednesday night, I had a 45-minute discussion with MIT Professor Noam Chomsky on wide-ranging matters, which was scheduled to run today, but a technical glitch destroyed all but the last six minutes of the recording. I won't bother trying to describe my reaction when I discovered this, but I will have Professor Chomsky on again once our still-evolving recording methods are stabilized.

Instead, I was able to have two separate discussions today regarding various aspects of the anthrax case. Those can be heard by clicking PLAY at the bottom of the post. The more one considers and examines what the FBI disclosed, the more questions that are raised. I spoke today with:

• Dr. Gigi Kwik Gronvall, an immunologist with the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh's Medical Center, an Assistant Professor of Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, and Associate Editor of the quarterly journal Biosecurity and Bioterrorism. That interview lasted roughly 20 minutes (the transcript is here).

  We discussed the impossibility of assessing the scientific validity of the FBI's assertions in the Ivins case due to their ongoing concealment of the underlying scientific data relevant to those claims; the numerous scientific gaps in the FBI's public disclosure of its case; and the multiple other private and public institutions where anthrax of the type sent by the attacker could very well be produced -- such as the Dugway Proving Ground in Utah and Battelle Laboarties (which, speaking of circumstantial evidence, is owned by a company -- Battelle Ventures, LLC -- headquartered in Princeton, NJ, where the FBI says all anthrax letters were sent).

  The now-forgotten though seemingly quite significant Judy Miller NYT article I discussed with Dr. Gronvall -- one that was published on September 4, 2001 and which reported that "the United States has embarked on a program of secret research on biological weapons that, some officials say, tests the limits of the global treaty banning such weapons" and "earlier this year, administration officials said, the Pentagon drew up plans to engineer genetically a potentially more potent variant of the bacterium that causes anthrax" and "Among the facilities likely to be open to inspection under the draft agreement would be the West Jefferson, Ohio, laboratory of the Battelle Memorial Institute, a military contractor that has been selected to create the genetically altered anthrax" -- can be read here. The highly secretive private/public bioresearch industry -- both in the U.S. and throughout the world -- is vast and contains numerous locales capable of producing high-grade anthrax strains. As Dr. Gronvall points out, the FBI has said nothing about how -- even if it were able to match the strain Bruce Ivins used at Ft. Detrick to the anthrax sent in the letters -- it was able to eliminate these other sources.

• Jay Rosen, current Professor of Journalism at NYU and former Chair of NYU's Journalism Department, regarding ABC News' bentonite story and the numerous reasons why Brian Ross' self-defense is so unconvincing and, at times, quite ludicrous (Professor Rosen wrote about that story here and here); that discussion lasted roughly 15 minutes and the transcript can be read here, and see more on the ABC/bentonite matter here.

As a result of all of these glaring holes in the FBI's scientific claims -- to say nothing of the even even more obvious holes in its circumstantial claims -- even establishment media organs from across the ideological spectrum agree on one thing: that what the FBI selectively disclosed on Wednesday is -- given the FBI's history, its one-sided disclosures, and the magnitude of this matter -- nowhere near sufficient to conclusively convince a rational person that the FBI's accusations are accurate, and a genuine, independent investigation is therefore necessary:

Wall St. Journal Editorial Page, today:

To resolve any remaining doubts, independent parties need to review all the evidence, especially the scientific forensics. The FBI has so far only released its summary of the evidence, along with interpretative claims. This is an opportunity for Congress to conduct legitimate oversight, instead of the usual partisan showtrials. After so long and so many missteps, the FBI's declaration of victory needs to be tried in the court of public opinion -- not least to restore public confidence in its credibility.

The Washington Post Editorial, 8/7/2008:

But as compelling as the allegations contained in the affidavits are, they have not been subjected to the rigors of a criminal trial, where Mr. Ivins might have called witnesses, explained seemingly bizarre behavior, questioned scientific methods used to identify the anthrax strain and attempted to impeach government witnesses. . . . Although it would be no substitute for the testing of a judicial trial, an independent third party should be tapped to perform that task, weighing the validity of government allegations and analyzing the legitimacy of government conclusions. Such a third party could also examine allegations that the FBI hounded Mr. Ivins; if the allegations are unfounded, an independent assessment would benefit the agency. . . . The government may have gotten its man. A thorough review of the evidence will help the victims, the public and Bruce Ivins's family know whether, in fact, it did.

New York Times Editorial, 8/7/2008:

The F.B.I. seems convinced that it has finally solved the long-festering case of who mailed the anthrax letters that killed five people in 2001. Yet its description of the evidence pointing to a mentally disturbed Army bioweapons expert as the sole culprit leaves us uncertain about whether investigators have pulled off a brilliant coup after a bumbling start -- or are prematurely declaring victory, despite a lack of hard, incontrovertible proof. . . .

None of the investigators' major assertions, however, have been tested in cross-examination or evaluated by outside specialists. It is imperative that federal officials make public all of their data so independent experts can judge whether the mailed anthrax was indeed identical to Dr. Ivins's supply and only that supply.

It is also critical for officials to explain more fully how they eliminated the many other people with access to the material. . . . But there is no direct evidence of his guilt. No witness who saw him pouring powdered anthrax into envelopes. No anthrax spores in his house or cars. No confession to a colleague or in a suicide note. No physical evidence tying him to the site in Princeton, N.J., from which the letters are believed to have been mailed. . . .

The bureau, unfortunately, has a history of building circumstantial cases that seem compelling at first but ultimately fall apart. Congress will need to probe the adequacy of this investigation -- and to insist that federal officials release as much evidence as possible, so the public can be assured they really did get the right person this time.

When Colin Powell, in 2003, went before the U.N. and made an extremely selective presentation of evidence which the Government claimed constituted proof that Iraq possessed WMDs, enormous numbers of people swooned that he had made an extremely compelling case, notwithstanding the fact that the Government alone possessed the relevant evidence, Bush officials were only selectively releasing what they had, and nobody was able to assess the validity of the claims because the underlying evidence remained concealed.

It's extraordinary how so many people learned nothing from that as they rush now to declare that the FBI has presented a persuasive case that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax attacker and acted alone. In light of the FBI's history, and in light of the glaring deficiencies in every aspect of the FBI's case, what minimally rational person would think they could form an opinion about Ivins' guilt without a full airing of all the evidence -- not just what the FBI has cherry-picked -- along with a full-scale and independent investigation? That is why Accountability Now has chosen as one of its first campaigns an ad campaign airing of all the unresolved questions in the anthrax case and highlighting the need for such an investigation.



UPDATE: I'm on NPR's On the Media Show this weekend discussing the media's coverage of the anthrax case, including the ABC/bentonite story and the media's reporting on the Ivins accusations. A portion of that interview can be heard here. Local listings for the show are here.