Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Remembering a humble giant of biological and chemical weapons control/ Bulletin Atomic Scientists

Well-known arms control/disarmament/nonproliferation expert Jonathan Tucker died last week at 56.  Paul Walker, who follows a similar career trajectory, as arms control advocate and expert, wrote about Tucker's life and accomplishments.  Regarding Tucker's views on the anthrax letters case, Paul wrote the following:
His intellectual and academic vigor, together with his journalistic instincts, were also stimulated by the 2001 anthrax attacks in Washington and elsewhere; he was skeptical of the FBI's pursuit of both Steven Hatfill and Bruce Ivins as lone culprits. Hatfill was eventually found innocent and won a lawsuit against the FBI; a recent National Academy of Sciences analysis of the FBI probe has raised serious doubts about Ivins's guilt. Finding Ivins's case to be circumstantial and too thin to base firm judgments on, Jonathan wanted more evidence to reach a conclusion about what really took place.

1 comment:

AnthraxSleuth said...

I tried to resist this. But, if your going to set it up for me I'll knock it out of the park every time.

So here goes:

"Hatfill was eventually found innocent"
I must have missed this fantastic trial. Can I get a link over here?

"and won a lawsuit against the FBI"

Now I did see this trial. This was the trial that showed the world that our FBI and DOJ are so corrupt that a self admitted murderer was able to launch a successful graymail suit against them.

Of course, bringing it in front of a judge that has not one scintilla of credibility helps. And it is interesting how this judge, who is the ONLY federal judge in history to conceal his financial records, gets all these cases that lead to government corruption.
This same ethically challenged judge oversaw the show trial concerning the outing of a CIA agent by the Bush administration. Which, we all now know that they all conspired to out said CIA agent and they all got away with it.
This same questionable judge also sat in front of the Sibel Edmonds debacle. Until Sibel's counsel challenged this joke of a judge on his financial records and he was forced to recuse himself.
But hey, when a supreme court justice can commit fraud for years with his financial disclosures and nothing happens what can you expect?
Now for the $64 question. Can you name the president that appointed both of these judges I mentioned here?
If you said the son of a Nazi collaborator then you win!