Why is No One Calling the Anthrax Suspect a Terrorist?

The FBI is saying Bruce Ivins sent the anthrax that wound up killing five and terrorizing the whole country. The deadly attack was aimed at some of our top politicians and media figures. If ever there was a terrorist attack, this was it. So, how come no one is calling Ivins a terrorist?

Let's get real. You know what the answer is. It's because he is white. It's also because he is Christian and right-wing, but I'll get to that in a second. Now, if you don't believe that they're not calling him a terrorist because he's white, let me ask you this question: What if his name was Sheik al-Abdullah Muhammad?

What if Sheik Abdullah had sent weaponized anthrax that killed people all across the country and targeted our top officials? Do you think they would have called him a terrorist then? You know they would have, you know it for a fact.

The FBI says one possible motivation Ivins had was that he was Catholic and fervently pro-life, so he hated Senator Leahy and Daschle because they were Catholic and pro-choice. Now, if Ivins was Muslim and sent Christian Right senators anthrax because of their religious beliefs, do you think he would have been called a terrorist?

Not one news story that I have seen has referred to Ivins as an alleged terrorist. Back when the government was pushing the idea that Iraq might have been responsible, there were plenty of news stories that said this was a terrorist attack. Since we found out the alleged killer was a white Republican, not one news story has called this an act of terrorism.

I know this is partly due to government propaganda. If the government calls it terrorism, so does the press. If the government doesn't, neither does the press. And this fact might be even more damning. Look at how much the press is affected by government press releases. But that's not the only answer. The media has to look in the mirror on this one. There is no good answer for why they have treated this story differently than other stories of terrorism. This blatant double standard makes a mockery of the whole concept of terrorism.

Watch The Young Turks Here

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks

Comments

[isis]

His connections with Right to Life are disturbing as is that group. They are in the churches in my town and do a good job of creating extremists. Here they are not violent extremists here but try putting out a yard sign for a political candidate who is not against abortion and it will disappear. Last election cycle some of them even called and asked for democratic yard signs with the intention of throwing them away to raise costs for the local candidates. It would not surprise me to see this played out at a larger level.

[Nooneyouknow]

I think if Bushco labeled Ivins a terrorist, it would detract from their story that Ivins was a mad-dog killer who also had a profit motive (even though he would have made very little money). Calling it terrorism would give the case the importance that it's due and call for a stringent examination of the facts behind the FBI's declaration that Ivins was the lone killer. I get the strong feeling that the FBI really doesn't want to talk about the facts behind their accusation, probably because the "facts" add up to a very flimsy case. Bushco wants to make the anthrax murders go away, which I believe gives away the truth of the matter.

[Michale32086]

@mabinog
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
umm, that is why I wrote; "If Ivins did it and he was who the FBI has portrayed him to be...." the key word being "IF".
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

My apologies...

I didn't connect the one statement with the "IF" in the previous sentence.....

Again, my apologies..

}}}}}}}}}}}
He was a victim of the overzealous and incompetent DOJ and FBI being pressured to convict someone.
}}}}}}}}}}}}}

That doesn't make any sense. Why would there be pressure NOW to convict someone??

But I do believe (as I have stated before) that something is not adding up. Ivins' "suicide" is extremely suspicious to me..

But, then again, I think there WAS a second gunman on the grassy knoll and there WERE aliens at Roswell... Soooooooooooo... :D

Michale....

[ThomasDoubting]

Many people felt that the anthrax attack was part of the terror of 911. Are we to assume that this right wing, anti-choice, Christian, Bruce Ivins, was on the same team, with the 19 Saudi Arabian guys with Koran's, box cutters, and amazing luck. Apparently they were lucky enough to get on the planes without tickets. They also got very lucky when they picked the time for the attacks, it just happened that the military was playing war games that day, which worked out well because the military did not attempt to interfere with the attacks.The pentagon recently admitted, that our planes did not even leave the ground, during those two hours. Many questions remain about what happened that fateful day, but people are researching 911, and seeing the videos. I'm surprised that Ivins did not leave a written confession, as part of the 'suicide' story.

----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------

[homesteader]

Actually I hadn't been wondering at all whether he was a terrorist, but whether or not this is a sweet package with the bow on it intended to "solve" the case. Even if the only real evidence around was that the guy killed himself.

I haven't been reading much about it, but there may be more to the case than that cynical comment.

[DLSteinhardt]

Whoever sent the anthrax letters clearly engaged in terrorism. It was a random act, political in nature, that caused death.

HuffPost blogger Larisa Alexandrovna has posted some other acts of domestic terrorism that don't get reported as such.

http://www.atlargely.com/2008/08/3-cases-of-real.html

She's also posted 7 aspects of the anthrax case that would seem to require more than one person.

http://www.atlargely.com/2008/08/more-terrorism.html#comments

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}}}}}­}}}}}}}}}}
Whoever sent the anthrax letters clearly engaged in terrorism. It was a random act, political in nature, that caused death.
}}}}}}}}}}­}}}}}}}}}}

You are making gross assumptions without any evidence.

The ONLY fact you have is that death was caused.. All the rest is supposition and speculation.

Michale.....

[Incredulous]

Is the title of your post a rhetorical question? Because clearly, he's American, and Americans aren't terrorists. (unless they're Muslim Americans of course...) How dare you suggest a white American male is a terrorist! You traitor! To Gitmo with you, you enemy of the State!

[Michale32086]

Ahem...

Timothy McVeigh

Eric Rudpolph..

Your political bigotry is showing...

It's also not in keeping with the facts...

Michale.....

[JBS]

Perhaps the problem isn't with Incredulous's "political bigotry", but with your inability to recognize sarcasm.

[Michale32086]

@shrinqrap

}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
@Michale. Of course this good pro-lifer who mailed deadly anthrax shortly after 9/11 - while our nation was still in the grips of acute fear - couldnt be a 'terrorist"
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

I am not saying he "couldn't" be a terrorist....

I am simply saying there is ZERO evidence to support the claim that he is a terrorist...

}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
After all, those notes he included with the anthrax - you know, the ones about 'death to Israel", etc - those were just, um, holiday greetings meant to inspire love, not fear.
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

In the Jon Benet Ramsey case, there was a "ransom note" note found, indicating that it was a kidnapping.. We know better now that it wasn't a kidnapping.

The note was obviously meant to fool investigators into thinking that there was a terrorist connection... Given the times, it's a logical way to mis-direct investigators..

}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
Mailing packets of a weapon of mass destruction - emphasis "mass" - no, that couldnt possibly be terrorism, if the mailer is a 'good' Catholic. Whats next - youre going to suggest the Inquisition was just a means of benign population reduction.
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

The choice of weapon is meaningless in the designation of terrorism.. Bio-agents have been used as murder weapons many times in the past.. Doesn't mean that the intent was terrorism..

Michale.....

[DickTater]

Wrong again Michale.

Terrorism is a subjective term. Just because you found a dictionary entry for the word doesn't mean that is how it is being used.
This administration is expert at making words mean other things.

They have never balked at calling someone a terrorist, whether they had any proof or not. So stop saying that Ivins had no proof of terrorism as why they won't use the word. They've used it to basically cover ANYONE who disagrees with them, and to hell with the dictionary def.

Certainly you are not going to argue the point, about what a wonderful and ambiguous term Terrrrsm is for the BushAdmin. They pull that word out and bludgeon ANYTHING that disagrees with them. Grannies against guns, peacemarchers, codepink, etc. Whole countries have been tarred with this brush....please stop acting like there is a rigid definition and measuring people/groups against that.....cuz that is not how the word is being utilized. It's being deployed as a catch-all phrase and applied enmasse.

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}}}}
Terrorism is a subjective term. Just because you found a dictionary entry for the word doesn't mean that is how it is being used.
}}}}}}}}

Actually my definition is my own and comes from almost a quarter of a century working in the fields as an LEO and FSO.

}}}}}}}}}
So stop saying that Ivins had no proof of terrorism as why they won't use the word.
}}}}}}}}}

Any form of bigotry is ugly, even if it is political bigotry. I am not saying that is why the Bush Administration is not calling Ivins a terrorist.. I am simply saying that there is no evidence to support the conclusion that Ivins is a terrorist...

}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
They pull that word out and bludgeon ANYTHING that disagrees with them. Grannies against guns, peacemarchers, codepink, etc
}}}}}}}}}}}}}

Of course, you can PROVE that, right??

Oh, sorry.. I guess you were absent the day the taught LAW at Law School...

The simple fact is, if the Ivins case is as is being reported, it is NOT a case of terrorism... Your political bigotry notwithstanding, the Bush Administration NOT labeling this act as terrorism is the right thing to do..

Michale.....

[jackstpaul]

It's very simple Cenk. Terrorism involves 3 factors.

Defined as: The use, thrust of use, and creation of the fear of use of Violence against Civilians for Political purposes.

The anthrax attacks lacked a political purpose. Hence, it was not a political act; it was a criminal act.

The importance of making the distinction between terrorism and crime is that it is inaccurate, is a step down a slipper slope in which the meaning of the label "terrorism" is diminished and denied its particular importance. Defining criminal acts as acts of terrorism as crimes is itself a political act, one in which the misuse and abuse of the label assigns political motives to criminal acts. The anthrax attacks were criminal attacks. The misuse of the terrorism label render meaningless the label "terrorism," if it ceases to be distinguished from "crimes."

It can argued that the attacks were not against "civilian" but merely citizens or humans generally speaking given the lack of a political dimension.

Please don't abuse and misuse the label of terrorism.

[mabinog]

If Ivins did it and he was who the FBI has portrayed him to be then he was a domestic terrorist. He was a mentally unstable rightwinger who did not feel the US was going fascist/au­thoritaria­n enough, fast enough to stave off the threat from Islam. So he sent anthrax letters to political figures (enemies) and the press opposing his ideological views posing as a Islamic extremist. He terrorized this whole country and killed several people who were exactly civilian, not "merely citizens or humans generally speaking" whatever that is.

If the FBI was wrong it was Muslim extremists then they were also exactly terrorists, no different than the OBL and those who flew planes into the World Trade Center.

For the conspiracy nuts, if this was a government false flag op, then anyone in the Bush Administration and Federal government who participated in it is a terrorist.

Oh and regardless of whether it was a political act or not it was a criminal act.

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}}}}}
He was a mentally unstable rightwinger who did not feel the US was going fascist/au­thoritaria­n enough,
}}}}}}}}}}

He was a registered Democrat who had voted DEM in every election since 1996...

There is ZERO evidence to support the idea that he sent anthrax to political or media "enemies".

Michale....

[DuPageDem]

Ivins could be just another Ollie North. Why wasn't North called a terrorist? If Osama's driver qualifies, than someone who sold hardware to our "extremist enemies" should too. But, to paraphrase Tricky Dick, when the president tells you to do it, it's not terrorism.

[syllepsis]

North was a terrorist, funded by the U.S. taxpayer. North did not act alone: The sectors of the Reagan Admin that supported him just kept it secret, as his actions were illegal, and yes, terroristic. I don't think Ivins operated like this, given that he hardly seemed to prosper after the attacks, had no known ties to the Admin, and no views that suggest he was an extreme right-winger with a crazed agenda.
If, as the affadavit seems to insinuate, he sent those spores to Leahy and Daschle because of their POLITICAL views, then we have terrorism pure and simple.
if, as people have long speculated, he (or whomever) did it as a means of warning the American people that bioterror threats were being ignored, so he was going to get in the game himself to give a not-so-friendly warning, then again, we have terrorism.

In any case, calling someone a "terrorist," as Richard Jewell found out, is not right unless one either self-proclaims it, plausibly (like bin Laden) or demonstrates it by blowing him/herself up, or is found guilty in a court of law.
i would certainly say, whoever mailed those packets is a terrorist.
Since there's no proof who did it, no one should be called one yet.
just like not everyone at Guantanomo is a terrorist.

I

[syllepsis]

Osama's driver is not a terrorist.
if he were, he would have been executed.

[antworks]

The alleged perpetrator of this crime, Mr. Ivins, does not look like the people George Bush and Dick Cheney want to brand terrorist. That is the answer to your question, quite simply! This entire war on terrorism has as one of its core purposes the demonization of a certain group of people in this world. The late Mr. Ivins is not among the group of people Bush/Cheney desire to demonize. I remember saying to a coworker when these attacks happened, "Don't be surprised if the culprit works for the U.S. Military". I felt certain these attacks were an "inside (the U.S.) job". That coworker reacted to my statement and guess something like this. "Why do you hate this country so much. That's an awful thing to say", to paraphrase him. Mr. Ivins, the alleged mastermind, is not called a terrorist for the same reason the KKK is not considered a terrorist organization. They don't resemble the people most politicians, here, want to label terrorist. Practically every war man has fought (especially, since WWI) involved propagandizing the enemy in a "demonizing manner". To kill and or anihilate a people, viciously in war, seems to require dehumanizing that population of people.

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}}}}}}}}
Mr. Ivins, the alleged mastermind, is not called a terrorist for the same reason the KKK is not considered a terrorist organization.
}}}}}}}}}}}}}

Yer kidding, right???

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=KKK+Terrorist+Organization&btnG=Google+Search

Probably the only group that DOESN'T consider the KKK a terrorist organization is the KKK itself.

Michale.....

[syllepsis]

Maybe Ivins should be called the first white, Democratic, liberal Catholic (he favored women in the clergy) terrorist.
Ahem. Alleged terrorist.

[Michale32086]

@mosh

You appear to be able think outside the political box... So, from a strictly apolitical point of view, consider this..

There is no ulterior agenda on the part of the Bush Administration and that the sole reason the BA not crying terrorism is because there is no evidence to support the label..

How Mandela was labeled by the totalitarian and oppressive regime of South Africa holds little meaning to me.. I don't base my beliefs on what others tell me and I am sure you don't either..

I don't think there is any element of racism in this case. McVeigh was as white as mayo on wonderbread. And there is no doubt that he was a terrorist...

No, I think that the only reason there are not cries of TERRORISM coming from the administration is that there is no evidence to support the claim...

Killing many people doesn't constitute terrorism. Many many people have killed many MANY more people and there was no terrorism involved..

Using a bio-weapon doesn't constitute terrorism. Any weapon can constitute terrorism.

Terrorism usually boils down to one thing and one thing only...

What is the intent... What is the goal...

Here, it APPEARS the intent was to get people sick and the goal was to test new vaccines...

Again, this is based on available evidence to date...

Michale....

[mosh]

Well, it will be interesting to see how this story plays out -

[doctorwang]

His intention was to terrorize the public so that his vaccine program would surely continue.

An act of terrorism does NOT have to serve to further a political or religious agenda.

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments"

[syllepsis]

His intention was to terrorize the public so that his vaccine program would surely continue.>>>

That is a plausible motive. For someone else.
Ivins' crimes, if he committed them, DID result in a lot of money spent on vaccines.
But Ivins did not get any of it, it seems.
Sure, if that was the motive, that would be terrorism, corporate-sponsored terrorism.
but if that was the actual motive, from the info we have, it rules out Ivins as the suspect.
(I assume they have already checked his bank accounts for mysterious deposits.)

[Michale32086]

Hmmmm That's a VERY good point.. Terrorism CAN have economic goals as well..

Ever read STORMING HEAVEN???

I'll have to add that to my definition..

But, as syllepsis points out, it's unlikely that this would have been Ivin's goal.

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@mosh

But, to answer your question, I would have to see some clear and convincing evidence that Ivins has links to or sympathies with a radical and/or extremist organization that has a history of violence and terrorism.. Think McVeigh or Rudolph...

Ivins was a registered Democrat who has voted Dem since 1996.. So there doesn't seem to be any political motivations for his attacks..

Again, I am not saying that Ivins ISN'T a terrorist.... I am simply saying that, based on the available evidence to date, there doesn't appear to be any terrorist connection..

Michale.....

[syllepsis]

You know, Michale, if there was evidence of such a connection, the Government would hardly release it.
I mean, having a researcher with unfettered access to the bioweapons program affiliated with terrorists would be an argument for shuting down the program NOW and major heads rolling in the Dept. of Defense.
Who knows where that scandal would end up?

[Michale32086]

That's a good point..

It's a hard call...

Would the ding that administration would get over giving a terrorist access to a bio-weapons program be offset by the advantage they would receive by being able to point to a scary domestic terrorist and the need for bigger and badder surveillance programs??

As I said, a tough call..

Michale....

[mosh]

That is an excellent point.

[Michale32086]

CONT

}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
I don't get it - what else would a person like Ivins have to do to be labeled a terrorist by you?
}}}}}}}}}}}}}

There is no evidence of a systematic and ongoing struggle against someone or something. Ivins was a registered Democrat so the liberal "ideology" doesn't appear to be relevant. There is NO evidence to suggest that Ivins was acting on behalf of any organization or ideology, whether real or imagined...

As I said earlier.. It might turn out that Ivins WAS a terrorist..

All I am saying is that there is NO evidence to support such a contention at this time..

Michale.....

[mosh]

michale - see my post below discussing how the administration viewed it at the time. At the time, they did label it a terrorist attack and tried to link it to Iraq. Now, of course, given the outcome in Iraq and that no WMD was found and that Ivins is an American and the FBI fumbled big time, they would just like this incident to fade away.

But, as I say below, when the government thought it was expedient to use it to make a connection to Iraq they did label it a terrorist act. What about that?

[Michale32086]

My point, as I address above.. (or below, not sure) is that, it still IS expedient and beneficial for the Bush Administration to label this an act of domestic terrorism.

This would, on the surface, appear to vindicate and justify the surveillance program on Americans and American soil..

Again, IF the Bush Administration is as the Left claims it to be, then making the Ivins case a case of terrorism would be of great benefit to the Bush gang...

Michale.....

[mosh]

I guess what I am arguing in my post (and what Cenk is arguing as well) is not whether Ivins himself was a terrorist or not, but why the government chooses to label an incident as terrorism or not. Clearly, when it was in their 'interest', i.e. to promote a war with Iraq, the government chose to label these incidents as terrorism and even suggested that they were perpetrated by Iraq.

So, the government is not above applying the label when it suits its purpose. As of now, it does not suit its purpose. It gains nothing by labeling ivins a terrorist, in fact, as I suggest below, it tends to dilute their 'brand' - that terrorists appear a certain way - i.e. muslim extremists.

Somehow I think the argument Cenk was making got lost in the debate about whether Ivins was indeed a terrorist. But terrorist is a term that does have political connotations, as you argue throughout, and right now the political aspect is no longer relevant. It is after all the government who decides who is a 'terrorist'. So, getting back to Cenk's contention - if it was a 'terrorist' event then, when it happened, why isn't Ivins a 'terrorist' now? Because he doesn't fit the profile and it serves no political purpose to the powers that be. The concept of terrorism is a term of art, or propaganda, used by all governments to frighten people - terrorism wouldn't work unless the government buys in?

[syllepsis]

Whoever mailed the spores is a terrorist. So is anyone who conspired to do so.
Ivins shouldn't be called one, simply because his guilt is far from established.
it is a terrible practice to label people as 'terrorists" when they have not been tried in a court of law, or their terrorism is self-evident (e.g., they have blown themselves up).
Once the label is on, it sticks, merited or not (see Guantanomo for many examples).

[mosh]

cont

Otherwise it would be just another crime. Don't you think, as Cenk suggests, there is an element of racism in who is labeled a terrorist - ? Mandela was labeled a terrorist by white south africa. Jefferson, et al, were labeled terrorists by the crown. Terrorism is a tool used by government to discredit a cause. Ivins doesn't rise to the level of a cause if the facts bear out.

[MissExcellence]

It still remains that we don't know his actual intentions or if there were indeed political, religious, or other ideological motivations that brought about his actions (and we may never truthfully and completely know such information). What we do know is that the government and media were quick to speculate and classify the attacks as being implemented by terrorists and those responsible for such attacks terrorists, until they discovered the alleged perpetrator of the acts. Had the perpetrator been Muslim or Middle Eastern/Arab American (or stereotypically ethnic), it is much more likely that the individual would have been classified as a terrorist. This goes back to the history and mentality of many in humanity to demonize and degrade those who are considered "others" or too racially/e­thnically/­religiousl­y distinct from their ethnocentric conceptions, especially when they find it most convenient.

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}}}}}
What we do know is that the government and media were quick to speculate and classify the attacks as being implemented by terrorists and those responsible for such attacks terrorists, until they discovered the alleged perpetrator of the acts.
}}}}}}}}}

Given the time frame (immediate aftermath of 9/11) such speculations and classifications are certainly understandable...

As I stated before, it's been a common belief amongst those associated with counter-terrorism that the 9/11 attacks and the Anthrax "attacks" were simply two facets of the same operation.

Of course, if things are true about Ivins, then obviously that belief is in doubt...

But, as I mentioned many times before, something is not adding up...

Michale.....

[Nooneyouknow]

Whoever sent the anthrax, and I doubt it was Ivins, intended to scare the hell out his victims to achieve an effect that extended to the population at large. That's terrorism.