Biowarfare: Who Poses the Threat? by Francis A. Boyle

Summary	BIOWARFARE BULLETINS
This book outlines how and why the United States government initiated, sustained and then dramatically expanded an illegal biological arms buildup. Most significantly, U.S. expert Francis A. Boyle reveals how the new billion-dollar U.S. Chemical and Biological Defense Program has been reorientated to accord with the Neo-Conservative pre-emptive strike agenda—this time by biological and chemical warfare. Linking U.S. biowarfare development to the October 2001 anthrax attack on Congress—the most significant political attack on the constitutional functioning of democracy in the United States in recent history—Boyle sheds new light on the motives for the attack, the media black hole of silence into which it has fallen, and why the FBI may never apprehend the perpetrators of this seminal political crime of the 21st century. Biowarfare and Terrorism should raise public concern at what the vastly expanded US biowarfare research and purported civilian preparedness programs hold in store for America—and the extent to which the Bush administration is prepared to pursue them, irrespective of their incitement to a global biowarfare arms race, and likely exposure of the American people to future accidents and reprisals. *ISBN: 0-932863-46-9 $12.95 2005**	"At the National institutes of Health, research on bioweapons agents has increased 3,000 percent, from $53 million in 2001 to more than $1.6 billion in 2008." New York Times, Aug. 12, 2008. United States Army has developed and patented (US Patent #6,523,4) a new grenade that it says can be used to wage biowarfare. "Texas A&M University did not report to Federal authorities until April 10, 2007 (after prodding by the Sunshine Project) that an aerosol chamber mishap caused a biology student to be stricken with the bioweapons agent brucella in its laboratory for bioweapons agent research on February 9, 2006." The Sunshine Project, April 12, 2007 "NBACC says its work is defensive in character, but by secretly exploring potential offensive applications... NBACC will have helped to create the very threat it professes to counter" New Scientist, November 28, 2006 "[Project BIoshield is] a torturous labyrinth of federal fiefdoms into which billions disappear, but few antidotes have yet to emerge.” Representative Christopher Shays, NYTimes, Sept. 18, 2006. ************* "Only hours after sensors in a U.S. Senate office building detected a nerve agent, key Senators suddenly reversed direction and announced a capitulation to the White House's demands on the renewal and expansion of the Patriot Act." George Washington's Blog, February 10, 2006. *********** "The United States has remained the most vocal critic of reopening negotiations on a verification mechanism for the convention. Negotiations on such a protocol have been stymied since the United States abruptly withdrew its support on the last day of the treaty review conference in 2001." in "Europeans Seeknig to Strengthen BiWC" Michael Nguyen, Arms Control Today, April, 2006 *********** "The rapidity of elaboration of American biodefense programs, their ambition and administrative aggressiveness, and the degree to which they push against the prohibitions of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) are startling." "Biodefense crossing the line" Ambassador James Leonard, Head of the US Delegation to the BWC Negotiations, 1972, et al, FAS. *********** "Two nuclear watchdog groups made an emergency request of a federal appeals court Wednesday to block operation of a new biodefense lab at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, arguing that large earthquakes could release biowarfare agents from the facility." Oakland Tribune, February 17th, 2006. *********** "In a proposed law on the Senate floor, a giant new biodefense "sensitive but unclassified" (SBU) hole would be torn in the Freedom of Information Act, creating new secrecy at labs across the country..." "BARDA's Biggest Secret" The Sunshine Project, Feb. 2, 2006. *********** "The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it.** Now we know napalm and phosphorus bombs have been dropped on Iraqis, why have the hawks failed to speak out?" George Monbiot, The Guardian November 15, 2005 ************* "In addition to creating the [1918 Spanish flu] virus, the scientists said they would place the gene-sequencing information from the new research in GenBank, a public database... GenBank will allow some research groups to build their own[dreaded 1918 virus that killed millions...] rather than seek samples of what the CDC had created." "CDC May Distribute 1918 Killer Flu" Mike Stobbe, AP *********** "Despite the eradication of smallpox... [r]esearch is being done to develop even more deadly versions of the smallpox virus. The Department of Homeland Security claims they are experimenting with the virus in order to facilitate the development of vaccines to combat the possible use of smallpox in a terrorist attack. " Project Censored, November 9th, 2005. *********** The US used white phosphorous, a chemical weapon, in the rebel stronghold of Fallujah, not only against enemy combatants and guerrillas, but against innocent civilians. "Fallujah, The Concealed Massacre" Italian RAI News 24 November 8th, 2005 *********** "In February 2001 the DOE's own Office of Inspector General cited research scientists and administrators at labs across the country for systematic carelessness in handling the highly toxic organisms [anthrax, bubonic plague and botulism]." "BioWarfare and the Department of Energy" by Tim King Council for Responsible Genetics GeneWatch Volume 14 Number 6 November - December 2001 *********** A British Court has recognized for the first time that a former soldier was suffering from Gulf War Syndrome and should receive an invalid pension. The U.S. army has rejected this term for 14 years. "British Tribunal Recognizes Gulf War Syndrome" Agence France Presse, November 1, 2005 *********** “[W]e have determined that the reconstructed replication competent forms of the 1918 pandemic influenza virus containing any portion of the coding regions of all eight gene segments have the potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety.” Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta 42 CFR Part 73, Oct. 20, 2005. *********** Scientists at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and at Mount Sinai led some of the expeditions to dig up the 1918 victims of Spanish flu and genetically reconstitute the virus. Scientists at the University of Washington are now injecting this virus which killed millions in 1918 into monkeys. What can be the value of resurrecting and "learning more" about this long-dormant threat -- compared to the threat that the research and recuperation process itself poses? ************* The Red Cross warns that government biological weapons programs pose a bigger threat to the world than bioterrorism. m. Sept. 20th, '05. ************* "THE US military wants to buy large quantities of anthrax, in a controversial move that is likely to raise questions over its commitment to treaties designed to limit the spread of biological weapons." David Hambling, New Science, September 24, '05. ************* "Deadly Bacteria [Tularemia] Detected in US Capital During Anti-War March" Agence France Presse Sunday, October 2, 2005 *************** British Medical Association advises terrifying "ethnic cleansing" bio-weapons possible within ten years. Calls for International action to curb bioweaponry.
About the Author Francis A. Boyle is a leading American professor, practitioner and advocate of international law. He was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. He served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court. Professor Boyle teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign. He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University. From January 8-12 Francis A. Boyle served as the 18th Bertrand Russell Peace Lecturer at McMaster University in Canada. Previous Russell Lecturers have been E.P. Thompson, Elena Bonner, Edward Said, Ramsey Clark, Nobel Peace Prize Winner Joseph Rotblat, Johan Galtung, and Noam Chomsky. JONATHAN KING is Professor of Molecular Biology at MIT, and an authority on the genes and proteins of micro-organisms. Prof. King was a founder of the Council for Responsible Genetics and Co-Chair of its Committee on the Military Use of Biological Research. He has long been concerned with the social, economic and public health consequences of biomedical research.
Table of Contents FOREWORD by Jonathan King CALL FOR A BAN ON THE GENETIC ALTERATION OF PATHOGENS FOR DESTRUCTIVE PURPOSES INTRODUCTION CHAPTER ONE: THE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION Origins of the BWC Convention The BWC Loophole The Reaganite Neo-Cons CHAPTER TWO: MAKING BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS Stages of the Biological Weapons-Making Process CHAPTER THREE: U.S. GOVERNMENT BIOWARFARE CONTRACTS American Universities Line Up at the BDRP Trough Shaky Scientific Ethics a Biowarfare Problelm? The Need for Appropriate Biowarfare Contract Review CHAPTER FOUR: THE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 1989 The Biotechnology Industry Changes Course Governmental Resistance to Regulating Biowarfare Research The Neo-Cons under Reagan Violate the Biological Weapons Convention The Bush Sr. Administration Acts Responsibly on Biowarfare Primary Features of the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act Closing the Door on Biowarfare Research Loopholes CHAPTER FIVE: U.S. BIOWARFARE-RELATED VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Iraq: The Nuremberg Code on Medical Experimentation The Clinton Administration Violates the Biological Weapons Convention The George W. Bush Administration Repudiates the Verification Protocol of the BWC CHAPTER SIX: DOMESTIC TERRORISM: THE ANTHRAX ATTACKS ON THE U.S. CONGRESS The FBI Cover-Up: Motivating Factors Resounding Silence Linkage Between the Anthrax Attacks and 9/11? CHAPTER SEVEN: GEARING UP TO FIGHT AND “WIN” BIOWARFARE WMD Partnering: Nuclear and Bioweaponry PNAC Bombshell a Harbinger? The Bush Jr. Administrations Plans for Bio-WMD Wars of Aggression Bush Undersecretary of State for Arms Control Gung Ho for Bios To Fight and “Win” by Biowarfare: The Prerequisites The Smoking Gun: The Pentagon’s Chemical and Biological Defense Program The Offensive Nature of “Civilian Defense” More Criminal Exposure for the CBDP Can World War III Be Far Behind? Bush Jr.’s Banana Republic CHAPTER EIGHT: REINING IN BIOWARFARE RESEARCH: HOW IT CAN BE DONE / WHY WE MUST DO IT No Escape for U.S. in Misinterpreting BWC Obligations Activating the Biological Weapons Convention’s Complaint Procedure Filing a BWC Complaint for Investigation by the U.N. Secretary-General Hoisting the Bush Jr. Administration With Its Own Petard Further Recourse Through the U.N. General Assembly A Warning to Scientists Campaign for the Peaceful Development of the Biological Sciences Demand Letter APPENDIX I CRITIQUE OF THE PENTAGON’S BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE RESEARCH PROGRAM (1988) APPENDIX II BIOWARFARE RESEARCH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE APPENDIX III PROTOCOL FOR THE PROHIBITION OF THE USE IN WAR OF ASPHYXIATING, POISONOUS OR OTHER GASES, AND OF BACTERIOLOGICAL METHODS OF WARFARE APPENDIX IV CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OF THE DEVELOPMENT, PRODUCTION AND STOCKPILING OF BACTERIOLOGICAL (BIOLOGICAL) AND TOXIN WEAPONS AND ON THEIR DESTRUCTION ENDNOTES INDEX
Review Review by Meryl Nass, M.D. for GeneWatch So often you read or hear about government policies that don’t seem to make sense. I‘ve been assuming that the vast increase in biowarfare defense spending since 2001 had little to do with the risk of bioterrorism against the US. After all, the White House admitted shortly after the anthrax letters were sent that the anthrax came from a government lab. And GAO said the number of countries researching biowarfare did not increase between 1990 and 2000. I know how questionable the efficacy and safety are, of the anthrax and smallpox vaccines now being stockpiled for civilian use. Surely government scientists must know these products could not be relied upon, were we to face an actual attack? So I thought the biological research, development and production programs were designed simply to scare the public, and to transfer considerable sums of money to Bush-friendly contractors. But maybe notBoyle’s arguments force the reader into a profound shift in perspectiveand then so many curious actions and policies fall into place. Strap your seatbelt tight for a wild ride, as Boyle reviews US government actions bearing on the control of weapons of mass destruction over the past 37 years. Law professor Boyle builds his case with precision and clarity. No words are wasted: the book is only about 100 pages long. Your trip speeds through Nixon’s eschewing of biological and toxin warfare; the Reagan embrace of WMD; and Bush Senior’s return to a moderate Republican model, under which the CRG’s implementing legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention, authored by Boyle, was passed. (Under Bush I, the US, UK and Russia were even allowed to inspect each other’s biodefense facilities.) Then Clinton back-pedaled regarding strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention, while Bush Junior simply pretended it didn’t exist, transgressing and repudiating treaties right and left. Repeatedly, you will say to yourself, “I missed that,” as Boyle deconstructs the underpinnings of various government policies and doctrines. For example, I thought the anthrax letters were designed to increase anti-Arab hysteria; bring back the anthrax vaccine program, which a high level military review had recommended ending in August 2001; and push a scared Congress into jumping on the biodefense bandwagon. But Boyle saw that the letters also shut down the workings of Congress at a critical moment, ushering through the passage of the Patriot Act and related legislation in the absence of normal Congressional oversight. Was this a coup d’etat, the author poses? Why ask the nuclear weapons labs to develop a biodefense proficiency? As Boyle points out, will foreign states trust that Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos will refrain from becoming involved in the research, development, testing and offensive use of biological weapons, when those are precisely the actions they have taken with respect to nuclear weapons since the Manhattan Project? How much can an author fit into 100 pages? This small book was also designed as a handbook for legal challenges to the current Administration’s behavior vis a vis the Biological Weapons Convention. The appendices and text contain a lot of treaty language and discussion, but in easily understandable, lay terminology. Most readers will become better informed about our various treaty obligations, as well as how the US government is failing to fulfill them.