Was the CIA responsible for mailing anthrax to American politicians?

Razer g2s at riseup.net
Wed Jul 5 19:59:16 PDT 2017

Actually, people who think the NY Times is a Communist steered agitrag
were responsible...

Just sayin'.


(Sorry about the top post... Not.)

On 07/05/2017 07:53 PM, Ryan Carboni wrote:
> It's hard to say whether it should be surprising that Operation
> Northwoods was committed to paper on government letterhead. An
> official government document proposing terrorism against the American
> people. And throughout history there were 53 admitted false
> flags: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/x-admitted-false-flag-attacks.html
> .
> So it becomes fair to wonder what was so big about anthrax, and why
> Matt deHart had to be arrested on trumped up charges.
> On Page 88 of Part 10 of 59 on the FBI's released Amerithrax
> investigation, a psychological profile without letterhead is provided.
> There are also presumably letters from Ivins against fat people near
> the beginning of the PDF file.
> But if the CIA was responsible, would the FBI know, or would they have
> been just doing their jobs? It's a pretty power argument for people
> just doing their jobs when virtually every Nazi gave it as a reason.
> You'd have the BAU giving facially a specific profile, but in reality
> about 1% or so would qualify, so it'd fall under Schneier's arguments
> for no terrorist catching system is effective (although clearly it
> won't be completely automated). Then you'd have field agents under
> pressure to solve the case, they might just be rationalizing why what
> their doing is correct. 
> For all it takes for Bruce Ivins to be falsely accused is for the CIA
> to stay mum, and for the FBI to do their jobs?
> In proportion to the punishment, murder convictions are inaccurate,
> one in nine are exonerated based on retested DNA evidence. The CSI
> effect is quite fortunate, or that rate would be higher, the police
> only gather enough evidence to ensure a conviction, not to ensure they
> don't have an innocent person. The probability that OJ was guilty was
> in all fairness, 40%. Another 40% it was Jason. 20% it could've been
> anyone else. Legally, no prosecution for murder should succeed by
> official standards.

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list