No terrorists for US prisons

Senate Democrats have promised to prevent detainees in the Guantánamo Bay facility from being transferred to prisons within the US. The ostensible reason is that they do not want the detainees to be released within the United States, which is patently ridiculous on its face: there is no way they could confuse transfer of prisoners to another detention facility with releasing them. There has got to be another reason.

In fact, I can think of two possible reasons. One is that Senate Democrats are very soft on terrorism: it would be very hard on alleged terrorists to be detained along with other violent and psychopathic criminals. How long do you think an alleged terrorist would last inside a maximum security prison? For that matter, Republicans must also be worried enormously about the safety of the alleged terrorists, given the same "not in my backyard" responses.

Or maybe Senate Democrats have something entirely different in mind: if the detainees can't be moved to the United States or any other country in the world, where can they be moved to? The answer should be pretty obvious: space! They must be taking a leaf from Britain and Australia, and they must be planning to ship them to a colony in orbit, the Moon, or even Mars. The prospect of a space colony really excites me, even if it is going to be filled with the psychopathic or the very unlucky rather than the best and the brightest.

Bush supporting terrorism?

This is a crazy paranoid conspiracy theory, but why is it that so much of what the Bush administration has done over the past eight years seems to have been geared towards increasing terrorism? The administration might not have directly supported terrorists, but it is a widespread opinion that the Iraq War and the way they condoned torture has been a great motivation and recruitment drive for terrorism. And now with the bombing of a bank in Oregon that killed two people, it occurs to me that the current economic meltdown might not just be the result of the Bush administration's incompetence and wishful thinking. For some reason, I wonder if it was deliberate so that people would have more reasons to commit terrorism.

Perhaps it is all a deliberate plan to somehow rule the world by taking advantage of terrorism. By doing so much on the international stage to turn around international sympathy after the 9/11 attacks into universal anti-American sentiment, the Bush administration has been pretty successful at motivating terrorism abroad. And not only by blatant disregard for the constitution, which Bush once called "just a goddamned piece of paper", but also by destroying the economy, the Bush administration may have done its best to spark domestic terrorism. Why else would a bank be bombed at a time like this? The timing suggests that it may have been motivated not only by the economic crisis, but also due to anger over bailing out financial institutions while so many resist bailing out industries that support the average workers.

Of course, it may just as well be that this is all a paranoid fantasy, and that the bank bombing was just part of an elaborate scheme to commit robbery or just a fun thing to do for some evil psychopath. Or at least it may have been a terrorist attack that the Bush administration hadn't been hoping to encourage. Hopefully we'll know what the real motivation for the bank bombing is soon enough, unlike the case of the anthrax attack that the FBI had been so eager to close despite the facts still being so murky.

Ivins deduced the anthrax attacker

In a bizarre twist in the anthrax case, Dr. Ivins seemed to have thought that he figured out who the culprit was in the anthrax attacks of 2001. From what I hear about him, he seemed to be an Internet troll and an eccentric, but this hardly makes a compelling case for Dr. Ivins being the perpetuator. And it's even harder to think so given that he emailed himself about figuring out who the actual perpetuator was.

It's odd that he failed to tell anyone about his suspicions, though. On the other hand, he may have indeed told the authorities and was harassed for it. Perhaps he was silenced and his death set up to look like a suicide to hide a conspiracy in the government. I've always thought that the FBI was scapegoating Dr. Ivins to avoid the political embarrassment of being unable to solve the case, but this new twist gives a little bit of credence to conspiracy theories that the anthrax attacks were orchestrated by the government.

Questionable media coverage of anthrax attack suspect

Glenn Greenwald wrote an excellent summary of certain facts concerning the anthrax attack suspect that killed himself. It highlights the fact that most media claims concerning his instability comes from a social worker who isn't terribly credible, especially when everyone else had a very different impression of him. It strengthens my suspicion that Dr. Ivins, the suspect for the anthrax attack, was an innocent researcher on whom the pressure from the FBI investigation drove him to suicide. However, I don't think the investigation was the main impetus for his suicide; it's more probable that it had merely aggravated an already existing mood disorder. Even if the social worker was telling only the truth, it could easily have been due to a depression made worse by the investigation, rather than him being psychopathic from birth.

Of course, I'm rather removed from all the facts and the above is largely speculation, but I think it's most likely. It's still entirely possible that he was indeed the perpetuator of the attacks or that he was murdered in a way to look like suicide so that the case could be officially closed. In any case, all the evidence that has been made available to the public so far is purely circumstantial; the FBI would have to reveal really strong evidence to convince everyone that the case should be closed.

Anthrax suicide: suspect or victim?

A possible suspect for the anthrax attacks in 2001 has apparently committed suicide. He was a researcher at USAMRIID working on biodefenses such as a vaccine against anthrax. He was being quietly investigated by the FBI, which is not surprising given what happened the last time a suspect's name was leaked to the public.

He had access to anthrax and lived within 200 miles from where the anthrax-tainted letters were apparently mailed from, so it's feasible that he was indeed the culprit, although not enough details are public to even form an opinion if it really could have been him. But if he was indeed the culprit, in which case I apologize to the FBI for saying they didn't have a clue, what would have been his motive? Was it a cynical attempt to get increased funding into anthrax research? Was it a severely misguided attempt at venting his frustrations? Or was he just a patsy for certain government agencies trying to ferment a climate of fear?

On the other hand, it's quite possible he's innocent. Losing his job and being harassed by the FBI could have made him depressed enough to commit suicide. Of course, this is assuming that it was suicide. For all we know, it could have been murder by the actual culprits of the 2001 anthrax attack, killing a known suspect and making it look like suicide in order to halt any further investigations.