The Washington Post’s Carrie Johnson, Del Quentin Wilber, and Dan Eggen report on the big beltway news in an otherwise quiet Washington: the FBI has determined that Bruce Ivins, a former Army bioweapons scientist, acted alone in 2001 when he sent anthrax through the mail, killing five. Ivins committed suicide last week. Much of the FBI’s case revolves around a clear motive– Ivins was developing an anthrax vaccine.

Reaction has been mixed about the effectiveness of the FBI’s seven-year, $15 million investigation. One criticism from lawmakers is that nobody outside the investigating bureau can really account for what’s gone on since 2001.

The most urgent question now was expressed Rush Holt (D.-N.J.): "Why are investigators so certain Ivins acted alone?" Maybe a further accounting of the investigation can answer this.-MB

The New York Times’ William Glaberson reports on the military tribunal conviction of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a onetime driver for Osama bin Laden, for materially supporting terrorists. Hamdan, however, was acquitted by the six-member panel of military officers at Guantanamo Bay on the more serious charges that he conspired in Al Qaeda attacks against Americans.

The conviction is a new milestone in the administration-long effort to use military courts. The Supreme Court ruled the tribunals unconstitutional in 2006, noting that they are closed proceeding and made use of secret evidence. A then GOP-led Congress passed the Military Commissions Act essentially reversing the impact of the Court’s decision.

Considering that that law has also been partially overturned by the high court, and that Hamdan has proven to be no Al Qaeda mastermind, the conviction drives home not just the injustice of the "war on terror" but its aimlessness. Six years after his capture, no one seems to know if Hamdan was even aware of Al Qaeda’s most devious plots. Why has the administration devoted years torturing and then trying him in a military court?-MB

The Washington Post’s Holly Watt files from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, where heads of cities have united around the need for more federal money to fight crime. The mayors contend that since 9/11 too much federal money has been re-routed from urban crime prevention and response to the "war on terror." The mayor of Trenton, New Jersey argues that, "if Al Qaeda came into the country and was murdering 50 kids a day, we would have more money than we know what to do with."

It’s a fairly persuasive argument. One problem with the non-"war on terror" money that is spent is that the Dept. of Homeland Security and Justice Dept. has stressed enforcing immigration laws at the expense of dealing with other, often more violent, crimes. The emphasis on immigration is also unwelcome to many big city mayors who have more pressing problems than someone’s citizenship status.

In any case, hopefully the next administration can have a constructive urban agenda beyond rooting out Arab terrorist sleeper cells.-MB