As the saying goes ‘Inquiring minds want to know’, and judge Reggie B. Walton wants to know. Specifically he wants to know who ex USA Today reporter Toni Locy got her information from in regard to some articles she penned about the 2001 Anthrax problem.

She has been sanctioned today by Judge Walton to a $500 a day fine for this week, $1000 per day fine next week, and $5000 per day the next week, until she spills the beans on who her secret source was inside the government about the 2001 anthrax attacks. To make matters worse he has also stipulated that the fines cannot be paid by family, friends, or ex employers.

Now I am not much of a Conspiracy Theory kind of a guy, I really don’t believe that there is a UFO at Area 51, but the Anthrax story is intriguing. The FBI and all of the other agencies involved have ‘huffed and puffed’ about the case, but done little else. The words ‘cover up’ scream at you. In fact one of our writers here at Blogger News received a couple of visits from the FBI because his articles intimated that he ‘knew too much’.

In this modern world of DNA samples, and who knows what else, we do know that the most likely suspect for the Anthrax attack was the government itself. The Anthrax had to have come from a government lab. I was at Wal-Mart last week and I asked a salesperson where the Anthrax was, they explained that they did not stock it!

Toni Locy wrote a few articles and quoted ‘unnamed sources’. this is not unusual in the press world. Not everyone wants to have their name as the sources. And it has been a reporters prerogative not to publish them. This case which is being labeled as terrorism seems to have invoked a different set of rules.

Oh, and to not get you confused, Tori Locy did not get her information from some shady terrorist group, she got it from Washington insiders. Reading between the lines they are now on a witch hunt to find the whistle blowers and beat them severely!

How ironic, the Feds want ‘transparency’ and more ‘open government’, they even sponsor ‘whistle blowing’, until it comes to a subject they do not want to talk about, then they seem to prefer ‘sweeping it under the carpet’.

Update – The fine has been stayed

Simon Barrett

Be Sociable, Share!