The Anthrax Letters: The Attacks That Shocked America (39 page)

“I am still always struck by how disturbingly ‘normal’ most terrorists seem when one actually sits down and talks to them,” Bruce Hoffman wrote in his 1998 book,
Inside Terrorism
.

Simply put, a single terrorist “personality” does not exist, which can compound the difficulties in identifying and finding a terrorist. But if personality type is elusive, patterns of motivation seem more accessible. As Hoffman suggests, the defining characteristic of terrorism is the quest for a political goal through violence or the threat of violence. The term “political” here has religious as well as secular connotations. A terrorist may use the same instruments as those of a lunatic killer—guns and bombs—but his motive is different. John Hinckley’s attempt to murder President Reagan in 1981 was not an act of terrorism. Rather, it was a perverted effort to impress the actress Jodie Foster. It was grounded in a wish for personal aggrandizement, not prompted by politics or ideology.

In contrast to Hinckley-type motivation, the terrorist is an “altruist,” Hoffman wrote. His action is aimed at achieving a greater good, not personal benefit. The cause may be overarching, such as remaking society, or it may be narrow, as in opposing nuclear power or abortion (a reminder, again, of anthrax hoaxer Clayton Lee Waagner).

During a conversation in early 2003, Hoffman expressed an elevated sense of frustration. He is the director of the RAND Corporation in Washington, and we met in his 8th floor office above Pentagon City Mall. In corduroy pants and shirtsleeves, Hoffman was comfortably informal as he responded to my question about who might have been behind the anthrax letters: “I have to say that after September 11 any terrorist analyst who ventures a call on this is on thin ice. September 11 wiped the slate clean of our assumptions. To me, on all aspects of the anthrax case, I’m completely agnostic.”

He was alarmed by the quality of the anthrax and the unanticipated effects it had when sent in the mail. “Before October 2001, we never thought that inhalation anthrax would be caused by the mail. Cutaneous maybe, but not inhalation.” He pondered as well the unexpected nature of the September 11 attacks—simultaneous hijackings by suicide terrorists. Those events, he said, undermined old assumptions about who might be a terrorist and how they would conduct their acts. It is clear now, if it had not been before, “that a lone individual can be a terrorist, not part of a group, though he might be animated by a political cause.” But Hoffman went no further and refused to offer an opinion about who was behind the anthrax letters.

Other terrorism experts feel less constrained, including Jessica Stern, a professor of public policy at Harvard. She has examined the motives of terrorists who would commit acts of “extreme violence,” such as the use of biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. These “ultimate terrorists,” as she calls them, are increasing in number. They have sidestepped the dictum made famous in the past by another terrorism expert, Brian Jenkins, who said that terrorists want “a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead.” For Stern the new type of terrorist is motivated by religious conviction or violent right-wing ideology. Prompted in some instances by desire for revenge, she believes, these individuals are more likely to use weapons of mass destruction.

In fact, Timothy McVeigh and the acolytes of Osama bin Laden nicely represent Stern’s two types of terrorists that revel in mass casualties. McVeigh, the right-wing extremist and bin Laden, the religious fanatic, both engineered attacks on core U.S. institutions. In 1995 McVeigh exploded a truck bomb at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people. In 1993 Islamic militants bombed the World Trade Center, causing the death of six. And in 2001 the bin Laden-inspired attack on the World Trade Center killed nearly 3,000. During the past decade many more terrorist acts could be traced to radical Islamic sources than to any other.

A year after the anthrax attacks, I asked Jessica Stern who she thought was responsible for the letters.

Stern does not rule out the possibility of an Al Qaeda connection, but she is doubtful because “nobody has provided us evidence that Al Qaeda was involved.” Stern’s suspicions are strongly influenced by her own interview experiences with right-wing extremists.

Another expert, Jerrold Post, brings to the discussion the perspective of a psychiatrist who has studied the motivations of terrorists. He agrees that they represent a “wide range of psychologies,” including many that seem normal. But he has the impression that a disproportionate number are narcissistic sociopaths who are selfabsorbed and have low tolerance for frustration. Post, who directs the Political Psychology Program at George Washington University, has a deep, gravely voice. “I’m probably the world’s leading terrorist interviewer,” he said matter-of-factly. He has interviewed 35 incarcerated Palestinian terrorists from Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah. And he has testified at several U.S. federal trials involving terrorism. When I asked his thoughts about the possible anthrax mailer, he began with a general assessment.

He believes that most terrorists feel constrained from using weapons of mass destruction. “For the large majority of terrorists, the goal of their act is to call attention to their cause and to win positive attention.” (Sounds like Brian Jenkins.) Many of the terrorists he interviewed said, in effect, “Just give me a good Kalashnikov assault rifle.” They think it might be nice to have a weapon that could kill 10,000, Post said, but the idea is also scary to them. He recalled that a religious terrorist had told him the Koran proscribes poisoning and that “it would be against our religious belief to get involved with that.”

Post thinks that two types of terrorists are less constrained about the use of weapons of mass destruction such as (potentially) anthrax: religious extremists and the “lone right-wing scientist with a gripe.” Therefore, he said, it is unlikely that Iraq was connected to the anthrax letters. Why not Iraq? Post explained:

Then who
would
try to terrorize by sending the anthrax letters? Post suspects that the motive might have been personal, perhaps a quest for revenge. He thinks the anthrax mailer had expertise in microbiology and harbored “some twisted places in his or her psychology.” Further, the mailer “probably has some dreams of glory, had not been achieving very much in life, but has gained profound satisfaction from what his few letters have accomplished.” Post’s description fits the FBI’s profile of the lone perpetrator.

A former high-level FBI official, an expert on counterterrorism, also thinks the disaffected loner theory is probably correct. I asked how he feels about Steven Hatfill. “He fits the bureau’s profile,” the former agent acknowledges, “but I don’t think he’s the guy.” Requesting anonymity, the ex-agent, who now works for a government defense contractor, says that he knows Hatfill. “I’ve traveled with him and I’ve socialized with him through work.”

After allowing that Hatfill impressed him as being an odd man, he described Hatfill as very patriotic. “Clearly, he knows the danger of mailing anthrax, but he doesn’t seem to me to be someone who could kill somebody.” The agent’s assessment stems from his long experience in criminal investigations.

What does the agent think of the unusual speed with which the FBI came up with its profile? He answered obliquely:

So who does this veteran counterterrorism expert think is responsible for the anthrax attacks? “I think the likelihood is in the following order. First, a loner. Second, Al Qaeda, in conjunction with the September 11 attack. Third, Iraq or another government.”

The former agent returned to Hatfill, expressing sympathy for his current situation. “I think Hatfill is unemployable now,” he said after alluding to the publicity given to the FBI’s investigation of him. The ex-agent does not exclude the possibility that Hatfill is guilty. “Look, he could have done it. He knows the scientific stuff inside and out. The question is, ‘Did he do it?’” “Basically, I’m 70 percent that he didn’t do it. But 30 percent that he might have,” said this counterrorism expert. He thinks the matter will be resolved some day but not necessarily soon. “Cases like this one can go on for years without being solved. Then a single break can come.”

In mid-2002, FBI director Robert Mueller denied that the bureau had ruled out any group or laboratory as the source of the anthrax letters. Still, a year later the FBI Web site on Amerithrax continued to display the profile it had posted back in November 2001. The focus remained on a probable domestic perpetrator—a nonconfrontational adult male who “prefers being by himself more often than not.” Is this tilt toward the lone operator, which has been endorsed by many others, warranted? Perhaps eventually it will prove to have been. Meanwhile, it would seem irresponsible to ignore the possibility of an overseas connection to the anthrax letters.

Dr. Larry Bush, the physician who diagnosed Bob Stevens’s anthrax, shakes his head in disbelief about the lone perpetrator theory. “For one thing,” he asked, “whoever heard of American Media?” He was referring to the company that publishes the
National Enquirer
and the
Sun
, which were targeted with anthrax. “I live in the neighborhood, and I didn’t know who published the
National Enquirer
. Who would know that?” he asked again. He ticks off some familiar coincidences: that several highjackers had lived a few miles from the American Media building and that the wife of the editor of the
Sun
had rented apartments to two of them.

Then there is the fact that in June 2001 one of the highjackers was treated at a Miami hospital for a black lesion on his leg. In hindsight the hijacker’s physician believed it was cutaneous anthrax. Finally, there was the extraordinarily brief period, only 6 days, between September 11 and the day the first letters were mailed. Bush offered a half smile. His expression was the same as the one he wore when telling me how people initially dismissed his diagnosis of anthrax. It was a wordless reminder that his suspicion turned out to be right after all. Then he said: “When I look at all this stuff about the hijackers, I say, ‘Well, wait a minute. This sure looks suspicious.’”

The notion of a connection between the September 11 terror and the anthrax terror remains speculative. But so is the case for a lone domestic perpetrator. Given the information that is publicly available, either maddening scenario seems possible.

For all the profiling and theorizing, it is quite possible that the anthrax mailer will never be found. In November 2001 the
Record
, a New Jersey newspaper, indicated that state authorities had investigated 178 reports of anthrax in the 3 years before September 11. All turned out to be hoaxes, and not a single culprit was ever identified.