[Stop the Poisons] new germ warfare effort by the bushies!!

[Guest guest]

At 12:16 PM 2/9/07, you wrote:

>. New Fort Detrick BioDefense Laboratory May Reflect Germ War Effort

>Posted by: " Fernwoods " Fernwoods fernwoods7

>Thu Feb 8, 2007 7:47 pm (PST)

>

>New Fort Detrick BioDefense Laboratory May Reflect a Bush Germ War Effort

>

>by Sherwood Ross

>

>_http://www.globalrehttp://wwwhttp://wwwhttp://www.globahtt & code=code=<WBR>R & <

>WBR>artic<WBR_

>(http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle & code=ROS20070205 & ar\

ticleId=4688)

>

>Global Research, February 5, 2007

>afterdowningstreet.afterdown

>

>Email this article to a friend

>Print this article

>

>Although no foreign power has threatened a bioterror attack against America,

>since 9/11 the Bush administration has allocated a stunning $43-billion to

> " defend " against one. Critics are now saying, however, Bush's newest

> " biodefense " initiative is both offensive and illegal.

>

>The latest development, according to the Associated Press, is that the U.S.

>Army is replacing its Military Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort

>Detrick, Md., " with a new laboratory that would be a component of a

>biodefense

>campus operated by several agencies. " The Army told AP the laboratory is

>intended to continue research that is only meant for defense against

>biological

>threats.

>

>But University of Illinois international law professor Francis Boyle charged

>the Fort Detrick work will include " acquiring, growing, modifying, storing,

>packaging and dispersing classical, emerging and genetically engineered

>pathogens. " Those activities, as well as planned study of the properties of

>pathogens when weaponized, " are unmistakable hallmarks of an offensive

>weapons

>program. "

>

>Boyle made his comments to Fort Detrick as part of its environmental impact

>assessment of the new facility. Boyle pointed out in his letter that he

>authored the 1989 U.S. law enacted by Congress that criminalized BWC

>violations.

>

>The Fort Detrick expansion is but one phase of a multi-billion biotech

>buildup going forward in 11 agencies sparked by the unsolved, Oct., 2001,

>anthrax

>attacks on Congress that claimed five lives and sickened 17.

>

>The attacks, and ensuing panic, led to passage of the BioShield Act of 2004.

>There is strong evidence, though, the attacks were not perpetrated by any

>foreign government or terrorist band but originated at Fort Detrick, the

>huge,

>supposedly super-safe biotechnology research center. Despite an intensive FBI

>investigation, no one has been charged with a crime.

>

>Referring to the work undertaken at Fort Detrick, Mark Wheelis, Senior

>Lecturer in the Section of Microbiology of the University of California,

>Davis,

>told the Global Security Newswire(GNS) as far back as June 30, 2004, " This is

>absolutely without any question what one would do to develop an offensive

>biological weapons capability. "

>

> " We're going to develop new pathogens for various purposes. We're going to

>develop new ways of packaging them, new ways of disseminating them. We're

>going to harden them to environmental degradation. We'll be prepared to go

>offensive at the drop of a hat if we so desire, " he told GNS.

>

>Alan Pearson, director of the chemical and bioweapons control program at the

>Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation Studies in Washington, told the

>Baltimore Sun government scientists must tread carefully lest they wind up

> " in essence creating new threats that we're going to have to defend ourselves

>against. "

>

>Richard Novick, a New York University microbiology professor has stated, " I

>cannot envision any imaginable justification for changing the antigenicity of

>anthrax as a defensive measure. "

>

>(That is, to create a new strain for which there is no known vaccine.)

>

>Milton Leitenberg, a University of Maryland arms control advocate, told The

>Washington Post last July 30th, " If we saw others doing this kind of research

>(Fort Detrick), we would view it as an infringement of the bioweapons treaty.

>

>You can't go around the world yelling about Iranian and North Korean

>programs, about which we know very little, when we've got all this going on. "

>One alarming example of such Federally-funded research reported in the

>October, 2003, issue of " New Scientist, " is the creation of " an extremely

>deadly

>form of mousepox, a relative of the smallpox virus, through genetic

>engineering.O

>

>Click to join catapultthepropaganCli

>

>_http://groups.http://grohttp://groups.<Whttp://grouphttp_

>(catapultthepropaganda/join)

>

>Click to join openmindopencodenewCl

>

>_http://groups.http://grohttp://groups.<Whttp://grouhttp_

>(openmindopencodenews/join)

>

>The publication warned such research " brings closer the prospect of pox

>viruses that cause only mild infections in humans being turned into diseases

>lethal even to people who have been vaccinated. "

>

>Edward Hammond, director of The Sunshine Project of Austin, Tex., a

>non-profit working for transparency in biological research, said the

>recreation of

>the deadly 1918 " Spanish flu " germ that killed an estimated 40-million

>world-wide, means " the possibility of man-made disaster, either accidental or

>deliberate, has risen for the entire world. "

>

>Richard H. Ebright, a Rutgers University chemist who tracks arms control

>issues, told The Baltimore Sun the government's tenfold expansion of

>Biosafety

>Level-4 laboratories, such as those at Fort Detrick, raises the risk of

>accidents or the diversion of dangerous organisms. " If a worker in one of

>these

>facilities removes a single viral particle or a single cell, which cannot be

>detected or prevented, that single particle or cell can form the basis of an

>outbreak, " he said.

>

>The current expansion at Fort Detrick flows from a paper penned by President

>Bush. His Homeland Security Presidential Directive, HSPD-10, written April

>28, 2004, states, " Among our many initiatives we are continuing to develop

>more forward-looking analyses, to include Red Teaming efforts, to

>understand new

>scientific trends that may be exploited by our adversaries to develop

>biological weapons and to help position intelligence collectors ahead of the

>problem. "

>

>Boyle said the Bush paper is " a smoking gun " fired at the BWC. " Red Teaming

>means that we actually have people out there on a Red Team plotting,

>planning, scheming and conspiring how to use biowarfare. "

>

>Boyle traces advocacy for aggressive biowarfare back to the neo-conservative

>Project for a New American Century(PNAC)Boyle traces advocacy for aggressive

>biowarfare back to the neo-conservative Project for a New American

>Century(PNAC)<WBR>, whose members, including Paul Wolfowitz, later

>influenced President

>Geoge Bush's military and fo

>

>Before the anthrax attacks on Congress, PNAC advocated " advanced forms of

>biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform

>biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool, "

>Boyle wrote

>in " Biowarfare and Terrorism, " (Clarity Press).

>

>Biological warfare inolves the use of living organisms for military

>purposes. Such weapons can be viral, bacterial, and fungal, among other

>forms, and

>can be spread over a large geographic terrain by wind, water, insect, animal,

>or human transmission, according to Jeremy Rifkin, author of " The Biotech

>Century " (Penguin)c

>

>Rifkin has written " it is widely acknowledged that it is virtually

>impossible to distinguish between defensive and offensive research in the

>field. " And

>Jackie Cabasso, of Western States Legal Foundation of Oakland, Calif., noted,

> " With biological weapons, the line between offense and defense is

>exceedingly difficult to draw. In the end, secrecy is the greatest enemy

>of safety. "

>

>She added, " The U.S. is now massively expanding its biodefense program,

>mostly in secretive facilities. Other countries are going to be

>suspicious. This

>bodes badly for the future of biological weapons control. "

>

>Critics following the biowarfare trail at Fort Detrick, are wondering if

>President Bush ---

>

>who scrapped the nuclear proliferation treaty and then had the Pentagon

>design new nuclear weapons --- isn't also ignoring the BWC in order to

>create new

>germ warfare pathogens.

>

>(Sherwood Ross is an American reporter and columnist. He worked for the

>Chicago Daily News and has written for wire services and national magazines.

>Reach him at _sherwoodr1_ (sherwoodr1) )

>

>Global Research Articles by Sherwood Ross

>

>