US begins building treaty-breaching germ war defence centre

Is anyone still wondering about what happens to the "investigation" of the anthrax outbreak in U.S. not long ago?

US begins building treaty-breaching germ war defence centre

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1833723,00.html

Julian Borger in Washington
Monday July 31, 2006
The Guardian

Construction work has begun near Washington on a vast germ warfare laboratory intended to help protect the US against an attack with biological weapon, but critics say the laboratory's work will violate international law and its extreme secrecy will exacerbate a biological arms race.

The National Biodefence Analysis and Countermeasures Centre (NBACC), due to be completed in 2008, will house heavily guarded and hermetically sealed chambers in which scientists simulate potential terrorist attacks.

To do so, the centre will have to produce and stockpile the world's most lethal bacteria and viruses, which is forbidden by the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. Three years before that treaty was agreed, President Richard Nixon halted the production of US biological weapons at Fort Detrick in Maryland. The same military base is the site for the new $128m (£70m), 160,000 sq ft laboratory.

The green light for its construction was given after the September 11 attacks, which coincided with a series of still-unsolved anthrax incidents that killed five people. The department of homeland security, which will run the centre, says its work is necessary to protect the country. "All the programmes we do are defensive in nature," Maureen McCarthy, director of homeland security research and development, told the Washington Post. "Our job is to ensure that the civilian population of the country is protected, and that we know what the threats are."

The biological weapons convention stipulates that the signatories must not "develop, produce, stockpile, or otherwise acquire or retain" biological weapons, and does not distinguish between offensive and defensive intentions.

A presentation given by Lieutenant Colonel George Korch said the NBACC would be used to apply "red team operational scenarios and capabilities" - military jargon for simulating enemy attacks.

Some analysts say the extraordinary secrecy surrounding the project will heighten suspicions of US intentions and accelerate work on similar facilities around the world.

 

What happened in China wrt the massive dog slaughtering was limited to a local government, in an effort to stop the rabies virus from spreading. The Chinese media exposed it and the central government also criticized the local government's belated action. I don't know how anyone with a brain can find fault with that, given the circumstance. I do find it amusing you are aligning yourself with PETA.

What the U.S. government is doing here on the other hand is a very serious offense, i.e., blatantly breaching the international BWC treaty to which it's a signatory. The U.S. goes around the world accusing Iran and NK developing nukes, and even invaded Iraq on bogus WMD claims. Don't you feel ashamed that U.S. as the most powerful nation is in fact the biggest "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" hypocrite on earth? Don't you have any concern this project operated in secrecy further undermines the Americans' already weak credibility in the world?

The fact that the Guardian picked up this is not ground for dismissal. Like it or not, the same story was also reported by Washington Post. Most US mainstream media, however, seem to see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.

 

LOL hayes, good to see you come out of woodwook. Didn't Iran and NK use the same claim and what are the international community fussing about them developing WMDs?

 

Just as the U.S. can claim that we are developing stockpiles of biological warfare agents for "prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes" per BWC, Iran can say the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty gives them the "inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes." I think everyone would agree the language in the third pillar of NPT in favor of Iranian's excuse is in fact much stronger that the provision in BWC used by the U.S.

How is this comparison flawed and irrelevant?

 

Well Sam, allow me to play the role of devil's advocate.

Even if Iran violated NPT guidelines, does that legally and/or automatically void their "inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes"?

I am not a lawyer, but I expect honest answer from you.

LOL... the good ol' "anti-imperialism" card. Nice. But unlike you and hayes, I am not a fortune teller.

Now here you are getting ridiculous. On the one hand you are saying stockpiles of biological warfare agents are needed to "phycially experiment" the effects of them, on the other hand you proclaim anti-nuclear bomb tests should only be conducted in test tubes. Did they really teach you this kind of logic in law school?

 

The author "clearly" -- as "clear" as your assertion that the U.S. is "clearly" NOT violating BWC -- implied the hypocrisy of U.S. "Do as I say but not as I do" policy with regard to the development of WMD.

The similarity lies in the perception of motivation. There is nothing inherently incorrect that the author took his position that the U.S. is treading water in a dangerously gray area. The claim that "we can do whatever we want because our intention is good" is clearly a double-edged sword for both the U.S. and anybody else, including our adversaries such as Iran and NK.

 

Thank you Sam for being honest. "The way I read this" means it's subject to interpretation.

I fully agree it's a grave concern to the world if Iran possesses nukes. But on the other hand do these "sweet deals" somehow limit the ability of Iran or preclude Iran from developing their own nuclear energy, seen by the Iranians as the infringement of their "inalienable rights", especially when the U.S. itself is practicing double standards?

I am against the proliferation of WMDs all along, regardless of "intentions."

The said "Centre" will have to produce stockpiles of the most dangerous biological warfare agents, according to the article. That's not disputed, Sam.

 

Uh, no.