Talk:2001 anthrax attacks/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Motives

I agree with user Harel who suggests motivation is important. I, however, removed that section because as it was introduced it was original research/analysis. If it is to be added to the article, it should be from referenced sources. --MartinezMD (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Motivation

User MartinezMD has edited out recent additions, and states that he is concerned that neither "original research" nor "personal analysis" is included. For my part, I should have taken more time to include some reference. However, virtually all of the statements are either easily referenced facts (in one case, the text from letters, facts referenced on this same page) and thus not 'original reserach'. Or else, logical tautologies (and hense are not original, or personal, in any sense).

For a major crime, or rather, series of high-profile crimes, it is a serious omission that there is no section on motives, motivation of the attacker(s). Given the particular circumstances, it is a glaring one. Taking the first few statements (now slightly modified) one at a time.

1. As with any criminal investigation, unearthing the motivation behind the terrorist anthrax attacks would be a crucial part any comprehensive investigation. The text of the Anthrax letters included the lines, "Death to America. Death to Israel. Allah is great."

Not "original resear". One possible reference is [1] although external ones. For example, one would use [2]

2. In slightly modified form, the next portion is a tautology:

Should an investigation conclusively find that the perpetrator(s) were Muslims violently opposed to the American and Israeli governments, motivation would be clear and transparent. If, on the other hand, the perpetrator(s) prove to be or include non-Muslim individuals, as recent investigations suggest may be the case, and the "Allah is great" line would, by definition, be a misrepresentation.

As phrased, this is a tautology, or automatically true, since it merely states that IF indeed a non-Muslim wrote the note, then it follows -- since the notes represent the writer as if the writer is a Muslim -- that the letter writer/s misrepresented himself (or herself, or themselves). That's true by definition.

Equally tautological is the rest, The investigation of the motives behind the anthrax attacks would then require finding other explanations for the actual perpetrators to falsely pin the blame on such Islamic groups,

Maybe we should stop here and agree on this much, before trying to hash out the rest of such a section on Motives. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not supposed to have a western-centric view, or nonmuslim bias. By this I mean that, it would be obvious to most of us that, were a serious terror attack taking place in some mostly nonchristian country like, say, China or India, with a note from the perpetrator that "Death to China! Jesus is Lord!" etc, and then the current main suspect (as well as the previous one) turned out to be someone who does not follow Jesus at all, clearly the natural question would arise, and certainly be mentioned in a section about motivations: "if the perpetrator turns out to in fact be X [a non-Christian]" the Wikipedia article would note the open question of "Why were the perpetrators trying to false represent themselves as Christian" Probably we'd use stronger language, stating that "if the perpetrator [turns out to be the main current suspect, who is non-Christian]" then the question naturally to ask is: "what were the motivations for trying to frame (falsely pin the crime on) Christians?"

Unless we apply the same standards here, we are not staying objective, fair, and impartial. So this should be remedied. (incidentally, I am not Muslim, and was born Jewish...it's been a long, long journey to reach the point of taking off blinders to such biases that, despite the best of intentions, sometimes creep into our western way of reporting on events).

With these clarificadtions for the section and item 2, with the reference for item 1 (thus not original research), I hope we can agree to adding something (possibly tweaked here or there) like the above italicized (in un-italicized form of course) to a Motivations section. Further discussion in the future cnad then determine what, if anything, could/should be added in further paragraphs, to such a section.--Harel (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I now see that not having the motivation section stands out. I was looking at the Reagan assassination attempt article and the first subheading is Motivation. I think that I could easily find other articles where this is true. Is this an opportunity to organize this Anthrax attack article differently? I wouldn't be opposed to that. E_dog95' Hi ' 02:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
My point is that we need a professional's analysis of motives, not an editor's. What does the FBI or the CIA, etc say about motive? What does an investigation say about motive? Not, what does a Wikipedia editor say about motive. Also, any assumption of Muslim vs Christian can be a little short-sighted. What if it is simply the result of mental illness? What if a dog (a la Son of Sam) told the perpetrator to do it and write the note? Let's get information from a reputable source before introducing this section. --MartinezMD (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
No one so far has insisted that we include our own thoughts on motive. What has been said, and what I find to be true, is that there is enough material in the existing references to produce a section on motives. E_dog95' Hi ' 01:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting we need additional references if we have good sources already. I'm only saying the analysis and opinion needs to come from them directly, not our interpretation of them.--MartinezMD (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha. I think we're on the same page :D If Harel wants to add material I would be willing to help with references. I am not strong with the material so I can only compare with what is said in the article to what is said in the ref. With that in mind, the addition of new material should be done in small increments with references added as they go. E_dog95' Hi ' 02:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Patriot Act

Resolved
 – Wikipedia does not lead, we follow what reliable sources state. -- Banjeboi 22:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see some mention of the fact that the second set of attacks was directly responsible for the passage of the Patriot Act. These attacks happened two weeks before a scheduled vote on that Act which was at that time expected NOT to pass. The anthrax attacks stampeded Congress into voting for this bill. 4.156.252.229 (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that says that it passed because of the attacks? I have never seen anything other than opinions that the act would have not passed without the second round of letters. Jons63 (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
This has been brought up before and no one has come up with anything credible. Some have gone as far as suggesting the fringe theory the attacks were intentional to make it pass. Unless something verifiable is discovered, this has no place in the article. The area for discussion on that is the Talk page for the Patriot Act article, as already mentioned several times (now in the archived section). --MartinezMD (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


The Patriot act was introduced on Oct 2, 2001, only a few weeks after 9/11. The white House wanted it passed in one week per below. On the Oct 9. ONE WEEK after the introduction of the Patriot act the Anthrax letters were mailed to two key democrats who were attempting to water down portions of the Patriot Act.

per this

http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/

When the legislative proposals were introduced by the Bush administration in the aftermath of September 11th, Attorney General John Ashcroft gave Congress one week in which to pass the bill -- without changes. Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, managed to convince the Justice Department to agree to some changes, and members of the House began to make significant improvements. However, the Attorney General warned that further terrorist acts were imminent, and that Congress could be to blame for such attacks if it failed to pass the bill immediately.

Extensive and hurried negotiation in the Senate resulted in a bipartisan bill, stripped of many of the concessions won by Sen. Leahy. Senator Thomas Daschle, the majority leader, sought unanimous consent to pass the proposal without debate or amendment; Senator Russ Feingold was the only member to object.

Minor changes were made in the House, which passed the bill 357 to 66. The Senate and House versions were quickly reconciled, and the Act was signed into law on October 26, 2001.


On Oct 4 the Washington Post runs a news story that shows continuing disputes between Democrats and the White over key provisions of the bill, with Daschle and Leahy both having issues with portions of the bill

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A2521-2001Oct3


The Anthrax letters were mailed on Oct 9, one week after the introduction of the Patriot Act to

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, both key Democrats who want changes made to the bill per above references

After the Anthrax attack passage of the bill is rushed. Congressman Ron Paul states that passage was so rushed that only 2 copies of the bill were made available to Congress and that nobody had time to read what they were voting on.

While it is LIKELY that some sort of legislation would have passed under the name Patriot Act, per the above, what was actually passed was a rushed version that nobody had time to read and DID NOT INCLUDE already AGREED UPON negotiated compromises to the bill.

In effect the Anthrax attacks are directly responsible for the passage of the Patriot Act and the language in it.

Does anyone have a problem with that statement? If not I would like to see it show up in the Article.

I won't go into what the odds are of Ashcroft giving Congress a one week deadline to pass the bill, and when that deadline passes, the two key opponents to the bill get sent letters full of WEAPONIZED Anthrax which is later traced to a US biological warfare center. 4.156.252.23 (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, what you have laid out is Original Research. To be included, a reliable source would have to say all of it, not three reliable sources. I admit it is possible that Ivins picked two Senators he viewed as holding up a bill to protect America, but a reliable source needs to say it for it to be in the article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming Ivans did it. The FBI case against him is so full of holes you could drive a supertanker through it.

I was asked to provide evidence for my belief that the Patriot Act was passed due to the Anthrax attacks. I believe I did so.

Do you have an issue with the evidence? and do you disagree in light of that evidence that the debate on the Patriot Act was cut short due to the Anthrax attacks on it's two most powerful opponents.?

I repeat

In effect the Anthrax attacks are directly responsible for the passage of the Patriot Act and the language in it.

4.156.252.155 (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Find me a reliable article quoting a senator/congressman saying one of them changed their mind/vote because of the anthrax, and I'll fully support it. While a lot of the legislation was written or finalized and voted upon after 9/11, some of the preliminary work had already been written over the previous year. It typically takes a few years, not 1 month, to get something through Congress so 9/11 spurred them to finish and vote quickly, along with added "anti-terrorist" provisions. They didn't need the anthrax to make it happen. Also, discuss it and get it mentioned first in the USA PATRIOT Act or History of the USA PATRIOT Act article before you try a flank maneuver like this. --192.77.126.50 (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The article above speciffically mentions that Leahy and Daschle sought changes to the bill. The vote on passage was 99 to 1 in favor. I don't have the names of those who voted handy, BUT I can assure you that if only ONE person votes against and TWO want changes, then at least ONE person changed their vote.

Please review above background. Nothing is normal about this bill. Ashcroft gave Congress 1 week to pass the Patriot Act and even with 9/11 it would not have passed in its submitted form as shown by opposition from Leahy and Daschle. To repeat from above, the bill voted on was not available to be read and did not include compromise language ALREADY agreed upon.

To repeat yet again, the version voted on was rushed through Congress specifically because of the Anthrax attacks. The Anthrax attack therefore was DIRECTLY responsible for the passage of the Patriot Act and the language included in it. At a minimum compromise language ALREADY AGREED upon would have been included in the final version of the bill. Per above references it was not.

Lastly, I see no need to get on OK from a group responsible for another article to have an addition made to THIS article. If I am wrong show me the wiki rule. 4.156.252.155 (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Your article doesn't mention anthrax, it doesn't mention a congressman changing their vote, it only mentions a special interest group not liking it. Get a good reference please. Everything else would be your unverified personal view. Also, you are trying to bring up an agenda in the wrong article/forum. --192.77.126.50 (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What special interest group you are making up?

The references I provided mentions that during the time of the anthrax attack both Leahy and Daschle were working on amending the Patriot Act. They are not a special interest group. One is the most powerful person in the Senate and the other heads a committee that the Patriot Act MUST get through before it can get voted on by the full senate.

To repeat the Act was submitted on the 2nd with Ashcroft giving Congress 1 week to pass. 1 week later it had not passed and on the 9th (see your own article) SOMEONE with access to weaponized anthrax mailed it to the two top opponents of the Patriot Act. The final Patriot Act language DID NOT include changes ALREADY agreed upon. Therefore

the Anthrax attacks were directly responsible for the passage of the Patriot Act and the language in it.Italic text

While I may need someone to support an "opinion" or point of view to get it included, I do NOT need someone to provide support for facts. Per wiki rules FACTS ARE FACTS and do not need support upon verification.

Please advise which of the above are not facts

Did or did not Ashcroft give Congress 1 week to pass the bill

Did on did not someone wait one week before mailing the Anthrax letter to the two top democratic opponents

Did or did not ongoing negotiations by Leahy and Daschle on the language of the Act stop after Leahy and Daschle received the letters and additional publicity about the other attacks fueled hysteria in Congress.

I can even point out that Leahy and Daschle were the only ones mailed weaponized anthrax. Per your own article the other attacks were with letters containing a less potent "clumpy" anthrax. Leahy and Daschle were sent letters with a more potent version and can therefore be considered to have been singed out for "special treatment". 4.156.252.190 (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The group referred to is the Center for Democracy and Technology mentioned in the article *you* have provided. That article does not have a single mention of anthrax. Are you referring to another article? Please keep the spam to yourself. You've repeated the same heated statements 3 times now. Find a reliable article quoting one of the politicians about it. Otherwise it is only your opinion. Maybe it was 9/11 that made it pass. You can't refute that either.--MartinezMD (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What the HELL are you talking about?

I provided a article from the WASHINGTON POST showing that negotiations on Patriot Act language were ongoing and that both Leahy and Daschle were among those who wanted changes to that language.

I further provided a link to a site with a general overview of the Patriot Act. I could as easily have used the wiki Patriot Act article. That site I referenced DOES mention the group you referenced, but only as as a resource site. A LINK to a resource has nothing to do with my argument.

What is relevant from that link to my argument, is not a link to a RESOURCE. but the following paragraph

When the legislative proposals were introduced by the Bush administration in the aftermath of September 11th, Attorney General John Ashcroft gave Congress one week in which to pass the bill -- without changes. Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, managed to convince the Justice Department to agree to some changes, and members of the House began to make significant improvements. However, the Attorney General warned that further terrorist acts were imminent, and that Congress could be to blame for such attacks if it failed to pass the bill immediately.Bold text

and the FACT that ongoing negotiation for changes to Patriot Act language STOPPED after the Anthrax attacks on Leahy and Daschle.

because negotiations STOPPED,and the bill put up for vote did NOT include already agreed upon changes, then the Anthrax attacks were DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the PATRIOT ACT IN THE FORM IT WAS PASSED.

Do you have an issue with that statement? 4.156.252.106 (talk) 14:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please keep personal attacks and offensive language to yourself. I read the article and the word "ANTHRAX" is not used; the terrorist attacks mentioned could still refer to the Trade Center attacks. Furthermore, the article does not state anyone changed their minds as a consequence of the attacks, or if it had been a close vote to have influenced a final vote even if that were the case. So yes, I have more than one issue with that statement. If you disagree, appeal it to an administrator. I'm not going to feed a troll. --MartinezMD (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


YOU were the one objecting to a source because of a LINK provided in that SOURCE. Why should I NOT have doubts on your mental state if you do something so contrary to wiki policy?

I am unaware of any wiki rule that disallows sources because those SOURCES provide LINKS where someone can look for additional material. If there is such a rule, please reference it.

Further why was I asked to get an OK from the editors of ANOTHER article before I could make a change to this one? That is ALSO most certainly not a wiki rule.

and I would most CERTAINLY like to see what a wiki referee has to say on those kinds of actions.

Let's try this yet again

I want a simple statement in the article that the Anthrax attacks were directly responsible for the Patriot Act, in the FORM IT WAS PASSED. I believe I have provides sufficient evidence to get such a statement included.

Do you have a problem with the addition requested above? and what specifically is it? 4.156.252.66 (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Get a few things straight: You don't need my permission to do anything. Second, my mental state is not one in question here. Third, the talk page is used to discuss the article. You asked if anyone had objections; I did and suggested you talk to an administrator to act as final arbitor if you had a problem with it. Last, the reference does support the "form it was passed" or similar language you suggested (I misread that part in your rambling) and I don't object to *that* part. If you have an agenda to prove the actual passage of the bill, etc you need more support. Other discussions on the Patriot act are not germaine to *this* article - that's why it has it's own. --MartinezMD (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


The talk page is used to discuss proposed CHANGES in the article and I am proposing a change.

I believe it is a matter of courtesy to check if there is opposition to a change that I would like made. When someone objects for a valid reason I will make an attempt to satisfy that objection.

However, when an objection is brought that is NOT reasonable I believe it is my right to bitch.

Someone objected to a LINK, not the SOURCE, not the material reference in the SOURCE, not the quote reference in the SOURCE but to a LINK for more material. That is NOT a reasonable objection and I bitched.

Further someone objected on the grounds that I need to get an OK from the referees of ANOTHER wiki article, in order to change this one. That is also not a reasonable objection and I also bitched there.

The article has several section about "related matters", so related matters are in fact allowed on this article. I will add the Anthrax under a new section called "related matters - Patriot Act. 4.156.252.204 (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a specific agenda that is not supported by the actual sources - i.e. to state that the act passed because of the anthrax. I certainly agree that the legislators were under pressure, but given the continued emotionality over 9/11, I know of no source saying the act wouldn't have passed in some form without the anthrax attacks. As an encyclopedia article, this cannot be a personal opinion piece.
As a constructive suggestion, I don't think it needs its own section. There is already a "political effects" section in the article.
Lastly, why don't you set up a user account instead of the anonymous and frequently changing IP addresses? It would certainly make communicating easier with you instead of cluttering the talk page here.--MartinezMD (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The language that passed was 100% due to the Anthrax attacks. 911 was enough to get the Patriot Act introduced, it took terror attacks on the two top Democrats opposing it to get it passed.

To repeat: ALREADY AGREED UPON changes were not included in the final version. Further, per Congressman Ron Paul, due to the rush to get it passed after the Anthrax attacks, only 2 copies of the bill were made available to Congress prior to the vote and NOBODY had a chance to read what language they were voting on.

4.156.252.99 (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it's pretty clear you and I disagree on this point. I'd suggest collecting your information and get a referee. A user account will be helpful for communication on it. --192.77.126.50 (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds to me that there's a good case that the anthrax attacks did indeed contribute to the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act. The IP editor above points to a number of various sources that many people would, upon reviewing, put them together and reach the conclusion that there was such a contribution. Unfortunately, this sounds like a classic case of WP:SYNTHESIS:

Material published by reliable sources can be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research....
Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be synthesis of published material which advances a position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

It sound like what we have now is A, the anthrax attacks; then B, a substantial revision of the Act after the anthrax attacks; and we are proposing including the conclusion C, that the anthrax attacks were the basis for the revision. That's probably true, but Wikipedia is not the place to advance that theory.

If you can find a reliable source that has done this sort of analysis, and that source has reached the conclusion that the anthrax attacks contributed to the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, it would be appropriate to include a passage saying so; that is, something like "Joe Blow, a political analyst for NBS News, claims that the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act is directly attributable to the anthrax attacks.[cite]" TJRC (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: SYNTHESIS and Original Research

Sorry, there is no evidence that I came up with this first

You can find comments from many people on the web who think that the Anthrax attacks helped pass the Patriot Act. There are also accusation of it being a "false flag" operation akin to Operation Gladio.

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0932863469?showViewpoints=1

The book also sheds light on the anthrax attacks against two of the leading Senators who might have impeded passage of the Patriot Act in the confusing aftermath of the 911 attacks.

There are a number of 'one week" coincidences which I MAY have been the first to have noticed

On 9/18/2001 One week after 911 the US attorney general asks for swift passage of the Patriot Act giving Congress 1 week to pass the bill

On that same day the first batch of Anthrax letters were mailed

On Oct 2 the Patriot Act is submitted to congress

On Oct 9, ONE week after being submitted the second batch of anthrax letters goes out, to the TWO MOST POWERFUL OPPONENTS of the Act.

makes you wonder doesn't it? 4.156.27.218 (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the article is protected from changes by nonmembers. Can someone unprotect it for a few days so I can add the above or would someone that is a member be willing to add it.

I have no objection to the addition being made in an already existing portion "political effects" of the article as recommended above by martinez.

4.156.252.181 (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


Here's the reference you are all looking for, or at least, one (major) one, coming directly from one of the Senators attacked..the Wikipedia article can quote Daschle's views:

As to a motive for the attacks, Daschle noted three possibilities:

  • "Ivins and his wife were 'vehement right-to-life advocates,' while

Daschle and Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat who also received an anthrax-tainted letter, are supporters of abortion rights.

  • that "Ivins did not believe Daschle and Leahy were sufficiently supportive of the Patriot Act, a controversial package of security measures approved by Congress

after the 9/11 terrorist attacks"

  • and that Ivins "did not believe the government was promoting [an

athrax vaccine Ivins was working on] adequately" and hoped to change that

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-08-13-anthrax_N.htm

To give further details of the timing,

  • September 17-18, 2001: First Wave of Anthrax Attacks Targets ABC, NBC,

CBS, New York Post, and National Enquirer

  • October 2-4, 2001: Senators Daschle and Leahy Raise Concerns about

Newly Introduced Patriot Act

  • October 6-9, 2001: Second Wave of Anthrax Attacks Targets Senators

Daschle and Leahy

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=complete_911_timeline_5567

I personally don't believe that Ivans had anything to do with the attacks. Sen Leahy also doubts this and considers it likely that the attack was done by a group of people.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1842100,00.html

At a hearing in front of his committee, the Vermont Democrat told FBI Director Robert Mueller that he thinks other people must have been involved.

Leahy did not say why he believed Ivins had help and he also cast doubt that the Army scientist was the attacker in the first place.

It is nice to see confirmation that the Patriot Act was considered a motive by a major paper and therefore fully answers the synthesis and original research objections.

I again ask that either the article be unprotected for a few days so I can add references to the Patriot Act, or that a wiki member add the material. 4.156.252.240 (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


Even though Leahy thinks it wasn't Ivins, Daschle (also a target) does (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-08-13-anthrax_N.htm). Regardless, none of the previous references links anthrax with the Patriot Act, so it would still be synthesis. Wikipedia is not a place to advance a personal opinion. It's meant to provide information in a NPOV. So I kept looking.

After searching for a while, I found the transcript of the Senate vote, where anthrax was mentioned. There is no way to say how the vote would have gone with or without the anthrax, but Tommy Thompson, one of Ashcroft's own aides, stated in 2001 that he felt it was a disgruntled American piggy-backing on the international terrorist act. Only the members of Congress can say how they would have voted without the anthrax attacks.

Regardless, I made mention of both acts of terrorism in the new paragraph, I included the references, and the individual reader must come to his/her own conclusion. I was unable to find a newspaper article etc otherwise linking anthrax and the Patriot Act. Here you can read the senate transcript and I included it as the reference in the article paragraph:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2001/s102501.html

--MartinezMD (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


Arguably the passage of the Patriot Act, in the form passed, was the single most important byproduct of the attacks and I believe it deserves more then a short paragraph.

Possible additions to flesh it out

A mention of the fact that "already agreed upon compromises to Patriot Act language were dropped and that the language voted on would not have been the language voted on absent the attacks" due to the rush to pass the Act. Reference to this was provided above.

This dropping could have been because of confusion, some sort of back room deal, or even some sort criminal conduct. I have not seen anything explaining why those "already agreed upon changes were dropped" from the final language. While adding speculation as the WHY these "already agreed upon changes were dropped" is probably against wiki policy adding the fact that they were dropped is a fact that can be added.

I believe that the fact that Leahy and Daschle were the two most powerful people seeking changes to the Act is also relevant as they were tho sole targets of the second set of attacks. That is obvious from their positions. One being the leader of the majority party and the other heading the committee which must first review and pass the Act before it can be voted on by the full Senate.

A time line showing that the first set of Anthrax letters were mailed on the same day that the Attn. Gen. Ashcroft "demanding passage of the Act within one week", and that the second set went out one week after the Act was introduced would also be germane because of timing. I'd prefer this to be where the Patriot Act is now mentioned, but a few additions to the already existing time line is acceptable.

If you feel particularly daring, you could add something to the effect that because of the timing of the attacks and the targets of the second mailing, it is possible that someone in the government wanted the Patriot Act to pass and took action to stampede Congress into doing so. This would belong under possible motives for the attacks. 4.156.252.152 (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2001_anthrax_attacks/Archive_2&oldid=1142748710"