Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is considering whether to restrict distribution of government documents that describe how to make germ weapons, White House officials said Sunday.
U.S. stockpiles of offensive germ warfare agents were destroyed nearly three decades ago as part of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. But the government kept the blueprints for manufacturing such weapons, and continues to sell them.
Homeland Security director Tom Ridge hinted that the administration is strongly considering placing new restrictions on the information.
"We are a very open society, and we’re very much an information society, and there are a lot of us that think that some of the information we share with the public probably should be restricted in some fashion," Ridge said on CNN’s "Late Edition."
Several agencies are weighing the level of danger and possible action, said John Marburger, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
"It is clear that they are based on a picture of biology that’s almost 50 years old," he said. "It’s not clear to me how useful they are."
The New York Times reported that despite their age, the manuals contain information that could help produce the kind of anthrax powder that infected at least 18 people and killed five in the United States last year.
According to the newspaper, federal agencies routinely sell the now-declassified documents to historians and researchers. The government provides more sensitive papers on the subject after Freedom of Information Act requests.
Dr. Harry Dangerfield, a retired Army colonel, is preparing a report for the military that will call for the reclassification of more than 200 reports that he told the newspaper are cookbooks for turning germs into weapons.
An executive order signed by then-President Clinton in 1995 bars reclassification.
Copyright ©2002 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.