Re: ot: where'd the anthrax come from?

The Librarian wrote:
For a useful jogging of the memory, plus some historical and legal
context, I recommend a short new book by Francis Boyle called
"Biowarfare and Terrorism." Boyle drafted the Biological Weapons
Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, which implemented the 1972 Biological
Weapons Convention, which bans the production of biological weapons
except for prophylactic or other peaceful purposes.

Such purposes do not include "defensive" purposes in the sense in which
the Department of Defense supposedly serves a defensive purpose by
developing new weapons and stockpiling them. Nor do they include
offensive purposes, aggressive attacks by the United States'
government. Yet planning for such attacks is official policy of the
Bush Administration.

For a country that attacked and is still attacking Iraq for possessing
nonexistent biological weapons, the United States has a strange
history. When Reagan was president, our country manufactured
biological agents and shipped them to Iraq for Saddam Hussein to use.
When Bush the First was in office, the U.S. military injected 500,000
US soldiers with experimental vaccines, without their consent and in
violation of the law, because Reagan's weapons could have been used
against Bush's soldiers in Gulf War I.

When Clinton was president all was good in the world and the United
States wisely led the international community down the path toward
peace. Just kidding! Clinton reactivated massive funding in the
Pentagon for dual-use (offensive and "defensive") genetic engineering
biowarfare. Of course, Bush Junior is outdoing Clinton.

As Boyle explains, developing biological weapons in order to develop
vaccines to counter them is done in exactly the same way, whether it's
for defense or offense. In an offensive attack, the vaccines are
needed to protect the attacking troops. And the development of these
weapons is very difficult and expensive. The most likely source of
biological weapons in a terrorist attack is a government lab that
developed the stuff for "defense."

Five labs traced the anthrax that was sent to Congress in 2001 to the
U.S. government biowarfare lab at Fort Detrick. The Washington Post
reported this in December, 2001. The FBI is not investigating, and has
destroyed the stock that was crucial evidence in this case. This does
not necessarily lead the conclusion that the FBI or the military was
behind sending the letters to Senators Daschle and Leahy. It is
important to remember that the lab at Fort Detrick is illegal and the
work done there illegal, under the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)
and under the U.S. law that implements it. So, any investigation that
led to one or more individuals working on biological weapons for the
U.S. government would reveal criminal activity by the government.
That's reason enough for the coverup.

The Bush Administration's September 2002 and December 2002 National
Strategy Directives establish a framework to initiate and "win" a war
of aggression by means of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.
In May 2004 the Pentagon published a Chemical and Biological Defense
Program which says that the mission of the Department of "Defense" with
chemical and biological weapons includes "warfighter missions," meaning
offensive attacks.

Weren't the recipients of all those anthrax letters Democrats???


Explains why that ***-show went the way of where's Amelia Earhart.
.

Quantcast