Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt

Not to diminish the potential problems of overreach and mission creep, but as I have said before, if William Arkin had heard about Able Danger before 9/11 he would have been against it. In fact, it sounds like he still is today.

From Arkin's latest blog post:

But as I said yesterday, despite its name, CIFA is also a law enforcement organization, the super "defense criminal investigative" Czar, a new all-seeing, all-knowing entity that is constantly on the lookout for terrorists. The motto on the report's cover -- "Protecting the Homeland" -- is chilling to me because of the confusion with regard to the very definition of counter-intelligence. I'm not saying government lawyers aren't doing their jobs, or that CIFA isn't filled with patriotic and conscientious staffers who want no part of spying on Americans.

The problem is that there is good reason for a wall between law enforcement and intelligence, one that has been increasingly eroded since 9/11, and one that is falling in the military as well. I'm working on an NBC Nightly News piece that is scheduled to air later this week that shows how CIFA and the military "force protectors" are already poking their noses into places they shouldn't be.

UPDATE: I was going to send him a trackback ping, but he has disabled trackback now. I guess he wasn't happy with the earlier results. To be fair, he might just have been getting a lot of trackback spam. He still allows comments - so I was going to post one - but I saw that someone had already left this one, which says it all:

Mr. Arkin apparently knows little of counterintelligence let alone how it works to protect US national interests. Furthermore, whatever beef he has with the whole MI community and what he thinks is their foray into domestic law enforcement is clearly influenced by some leftist ideology that smacks of incredible ignorance on intelligence matters. Not only does he routinely quote information from joint pubs or DoD unclassified directives out of context but sadly the average lay reader might actually believe this guy might know what he's talking about. Fellow Americans, if you have questions about CI and so called domestic spying, just ask any true CI professional in any of the military services and they'll quickly advise you of just how much protections US persons have against domestic intelligence collection abuses. Don't believe the hype America from uninformed journalists who don't know diddly and seem to enjoy spreading fear about our military intelligence professionals and their mission. As an American and counterintelligence professional who also values privacy, civil liberties, etc......I can appreciate the safeguards in our directives and can assure anyone that 'we' are doing the right thing mindful of the law and respectful of American's rights. Anything published by a journalist like Mr. Arkin regarding 'abuse' and 'domestic spying' is total BS from a guy that makes a living creating hype where there is none. I trust Americans know better and when in doubt will do their own research rather than avail themselves of an idiot's rants and raves based on poor research and even worse writing.

Semper Fi,
Gunnery Sergeant of Marines
and Counterintelligence professional

Macsmind: Sign Up - Get the Truth

Posted by MacRanger:

Able Danger - Sign Up - Get the Truth

Per the Able Danger Blog (newly added link), get over to this petition and sign ur name. Again, if there is any chance of true bi-partisan hearings, the people are going to have to speak up and loud.

Just do it!

You can also read Mac's theory that Able Danger connected Mohamed Atta to Saddam Hussein. As far as I am aware, no who worked on Able Danger has said anything about this. Personally, I think Mohamed Atta, at 5'8", was a lot shorter, chunkier, and paler than the guy in the photo Mac highlights, but maybe that's just me.

Weldon Townhall Meeting

The Delco Times reports from Marple, Pennsylvania about a townhall meeting yesterday:

U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon, R-7, of Thornbury, told a packed house at the township library Tuesday evening about his concerns regarding the 9/11 Commission.

The congressman said the military intelligence unit Able Danger identified four Sept. 11 hijackers in 2000, more than a year before the attacks. He said the commission, charged with investigating intelligence failures, deliberately excluded the input from its July 2004 final report. Members of the commission have repeatedly denied the claims.

"I am convinced this is a bigger cover-up than Watergate," said Weldon. "More than 3,000 people were slaughtered and it deliberately kept the story from being part of its report because it would have embarrassed some of its members."

Louis Freeh on Lou Dobbs tonight

Specifically to discuss Able Danger at 6PM ET. If the pattern holds it will be in the second half of the show but that is just a guess. I probably won't be able to watch it myself tonight, but I'll still post the transcript sometime around 8PM ET. Watch for Freeh to respond to the Roemer and Gorton letter from November 21st. They implied that he was only criticizing them because they criticized him elsewhere.

UPDATE: Here is the transcript. Not many new facts, but he did offer this insight:

To say that they don't have any documents to prove their case, these aren't informants that we have to verify their credibility. We have testimonial evidence, which, as a prosecutor, that's more potent sometimes than documentary evidence.

From CNN:

DOBBS: Former FBI director Louis Freeh criticized the 9/11 commission, just as Congressman Weldon said. He joins us here tonight. Louis Freeh, it's good to have you here.

LOUIS FREEH, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: Good evening.

DOBBS: Why is there this reaction to what is called by more than half of our congressmen and women, to open up and to allow our elected representatives to know what happened?

FREEH: Well, it's a great question. I mean, the issue here, which was the issue when the 9/11 commission first responded to this, is they obviously missed something. They obviously didn't consider what at least is a very important allegation.

Their response to it, it was historically insignificant. Historically insignificant that an intelligence unit may have identified by name and photo, Mohamed Atta a year before the 9/11 hijackings as a member of al Qaeda in the United States.

DOBBS: Tim Roemer, Slade Gorton, other members of the 9/11 commission have said they just had no hard evidence to deal with here. How do you respond?

FREEH: I disagree with that. I was a prosecutor and an FBI agent for many, many years. I deal in facts. You have two witnesses. You have United States Naval Academy graduate, Captain Philpot, you have Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer, an army intelligence officer. These aren't data loaders, these are intelligence experts who both have said, unequivocally, this unit identified Mohammed Atta by name and possibly photo in mid 2000.

To say that they don't have any documents to prove their case, these aren't informants that we have to verify their credibility. We have testimonial evidence, which, as a prosecutor, that's more potent sometimes than documentary evidence.

DOBBS: You were director of the FBI until June of 2001. Were you ever aware of Able Danger? Was the FBI ever given any reason to sense that there was some military intelligence or military intelligence evidence or suggestion that there would be an attack or some relationship to Mohamed Atta?

FREEH: Absolutely not. Myself, but also my former colleagues and current FBI colleagues, we read about this in the newspapers in August of this year. And what is very significant here Lou -- which is a point that has been made, and which I think you made -- we had officers at Able Danger who made appointments, actually made appointments to go to the FBI and share this intelligence in 2,000 and those appointments were canceled.

It had to be a very powerful stimulus, this intelligence and information, to make these officers want to really breach the chain of command and go directly to the FBI. We'd like to know why those appointments were canceled.

DOBBS: Now when you say they were canceled, you -- the FBI has corroborated that those appointments were made?

FREEH: Well, I think -- I don't know that for a fact, but I know the Able Danger officers, the two officers that we spoke about and their colleagues have said they made the appointments and the appointments were canceled.

And I don't know the rest of the facts, but that's enough to start an inquiry, which is what the 9/11 commission did not do, which is why I criticize them.

DOBBS: Why do you think the Pentagon has blocked those two officers from testifying before Congress or speaking out on this issue?

FREEH: You know, I don't know the inside facts. I know that the prohibition has been for them to appear in an open hearing. And I understand that, I testified in closed hearings over eight years because there are intelligence matters, there are sensitive matters that should not be held in a public hearing.

So if we're talking about having a closed hearing, that's something I know the 246 members of the Congress that you cite would like to know. I don't think it's important whether it's closed or open, but there should be an inquiry. We know now the Senate Intelligence Committee is conducting an investigation. Senator Specter tried to conduct a hearing, but the issue is why didn't the 9/11 commission do this? That's what we thought they were doing for two years.

DOBBS: Louis Freeh, we thank you very much for being here. Louis Freeh, former director of the FBI.

Shaffer's income and benefits were not stopped

UPDATE: Okay, I have more details now. Tony's lawyer Mark Zaid writes:

Tony Shaffer remains in full pay and benefit status with the DIA. Per order of the Director of DIA all potential or actual adverse personnel actions have been stayed pending the conclusion of the DoD OIG's investigation.

It sounds like the press release has outdated information. The OIG investigation must have postponed any such action. Here is the faulty press release.

From the Patrick Henry Center:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 /PRNewswire/ -- As of November 30, 2005 Gary Aldrich, President of the Patrick Henry Center (PHC) has taken Lt. Colonel Tony Shaffer of the Defense Intelligence Agency Operation Able Danger into the PHC WhistleBlower program. "We have agreed to help protect Shaffer," Aldrich explained.

"The Patrick Henry Center is helping Shaffer because he spoke up" (about government incompetence), Aldrich said. As a result of Shaffer asking the Federal 9/11 Commission to consider the Able Danger intelligence information on Mohamed Atta "his job and security clearance have been revoked," Aldrich observed.

Shaffer has been on forced administrative leave from the DIA, but on November 14, 2005 the DIA stopped paying income and benefits to him. Shaffer was formerly an undercover intelligence officer for the DIA. He chose to publicly disclose his identity in August of 2005 so, that he could address the misuse of the Able Danger intelligence gathered on the Brooklyn, New York cell of Al Qaeda before 9/11.

The Patrick Henry Center has hired Washington, DC attorney Michael A. Carvin to represent Shaffer as Congress continues to look into this situation. The WhistleBlower program is designed specifically to help people like Shaffer. "No Whistleblower should ever be worse off for telling the truth," Aldrich said.

For more information on The Patrick Henry Center visit http://www.thepatrickhenrycenter.com

The Patrick Henry Center is a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit, non-partisan organization located in Fairfax, VA and is supported by private tax-deductible donations. For more information about The Patrick Henry Center please visit http://www.thepatrickhenrycenter.com.

Curt Weldon on Lou Dobbs

I'll update this with the transcript when it's available, but the most important new detail today was that Weldon met with Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England again last week and England said he would personally meet with Rumsfeld to discuss the letter from Weldon. Congressman Weldon expects a response this week. I wouldn't count on it, but 246 members of Congress is a hard group to ignore.

UPDATE: Here is the transcript. Another interesting quote from Weldon:

What's the 9/11 commission trying to hide? Are they worried about their linkages, their consulting contract with the Defense Department and the intelligence agencies, or do they really want to get to the truth.

From CNN:

DOBBS: Congressman Weldon joins us from Wilmington, Delaware. First of all, you have to be at least gratified that Tim Roemer, a member of the commission, said we should get to the bottom of this?

REP. CURT WELDON, (R) HOMELAND SECURITY CMTE.: I appreciate Tim saying that. You know, it's amazing, Lou. We spent $15 million and they hired 80 staff people and yet the 9/11 Commission has been more involved with spin since the Able Danger story has broken than they have been at getting at the truth. American people want the truth. Now you have a 9/11 Commission where the 9/11 family members are saying we don't trust what you reported. We don't believe you. You have the FBI director Louis Freeh saying, if we had the Able Danger information, we might have been able to stop the hijackings.

What's the 9/11 commission trying to hide? Are they worried about their linkages, their consulting contract with the Defense Department and the intelligence agencies, or do they really want to get to the truth.

If they want to get to the truth, Lou, they'll stop talking about what they didn't do and start talking about getting to bottom of the whole story.

DOBBS: The whole story, according to several of the former commission members, is all about that chart. Is there any evidence that the chart did exist? And how do you respond to putting forward the chart as the basis to move forward?

WELDON: That's a red herring, it's not about a chart. The Able Danger team amassed 2.5 terror bytes of information about al Qaeda. That's equal to one fourth of all the printed material in the Library of Congress. This was a briefing that was given to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Sheldon.

It's not about a chart. That's their red herring to try deflect criticism away from them. It's about information about al Qaeda that we had before 9/11, and they owe it to the American people to help us find out the status of that information and why we didn't act on it.

DOBBS: You have more than half of the members of the U.S. Congress signed on with you, with your letter, seeking the opportunity for public hearings to free up the former members of Able Danger to testify before Congress, and the secretary of defense has not responded to you, what do you do now?

WELDON: I had a good meeting with the deputy secretary of defense, Gordon England. Rumsfeld was out of country last week and England told me that he would meet privately with Rumsfeld. I assume he did that over thanksgiving.

Gordon England and Rumsfeld are honorable men. I expect an answer this week, and this story's not going to go away. One hundred and three Democrats and 143 Republicans are saying we demand a public hearing, not a private session where people can hide or distort what's being said, an open public hearing.

Both the number two Democrat in the house Steny Hoyer, and the number two Republican in the House, Roy Blunt, signed this letter. It's time for us to get truth to the American people.

DOBBS: Congressman Curt Weldon, trying very much, trying as hard as anyone could to put forward the truth. Thank you very much for being with us, congressman.

WELDON: My pleasure.

DOBBS: We'll have much more on the Able Danger controversy tomorrow evening. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh will join us, he's blasted the 9/11 Commission as well for what he calls its incomplete investigation. He'll be our guest tomorrow night. Please be with us.

Able Danger Aficionados

Thanks to Tom Maguire and AJ Strata for putting us over the top yesterday with more than 1,000 unique visitors on Monday. For anyone looking for a summary of Able Danger, this interview with Tony Shaffer by Government Security News still provides the best overview of the Able Danger story that I have seen. I also need to thank our own QT Monster, and her friend Atlas Shrugs for helping promote the new online petition.

Remember, Weldon is on Lou Dobbs tonight. I'll post a transcript afterward.

In the meantime here is some interesting commentary, informed or not, from the comments section at Tom Maguire's blog:

The unspoken aspect of able danger was that it traced money. It is the easiest thing to follow by monitoring electronics.

It was too good because it never filtered out certain types of transactions.

It scared the bejeebus out of everyone in the know-as it could follow every bribe, foreign and domestic, and every intell op that had a budget. No secrets.

What is really scary is that it did work, and proved its accuracy in successfully targeting terrorists, but the other strands of info that would be available would implicate every system it came across.

It would be my hope that the info would be completely destroyed,but the cynic in me tells me that someone still has it.

Posted by: paul | November 28, 2005 at 04:21 PM



Ever see information destroyed? OK, yes. How about new knowledge?

Posted by: kim | November 28, 2005 at 05:42 PM



Remember the scene at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark? Sometimes destruction isn't necessary...

cathy :-)

Posted by: cathyf | November 28, 2005 at 07:34 PM



Were physicists left in charge of the decision to use atomic weapons?

Inventers of a technique commonly lose control of it's use. Potentially loose lips are no longer connected to ears hearing about Able Danger.

What have you heard about data-mining lately?

Let me put it this way. Is data-mining more effective if the objects are aware of it or not? Let's call on Heisenberg for a discussion of the effect.

Posted by: kim | November 29, 2005 at 01:29 AM



Hey you, get that officionado outa' here. What do I have to do to get a little privacy.

Posted by: kim | November 29, 2005 at 02:42 AM

Tim Roemer calls for public hearings

UPDATE: Here is the transcript from Lou Dobbs. I almost agree with Roemer for once on this part at least:

ROEMER: Well first of all, I'd say that gag orders should be issued by courts, not by the Defense Department on people that may or may not know something about the factual existence of a chart that identified hijackers a year before 9/11.

So I agree that one, Congress should continue to look at this. Two, the Senate Intelligence Committee should make public their findings, I think they're done.

And three, Secretary Rumsfeld should respond and Congress should -- they can compel people to testify before Congress. They can tell Mr. Rumsfeld to come and tell us everything he knows about this issue.

Remember that Weldon is on tomorrow, and Louis Freeh on Wednesday.

The full transcript from CNN:

It has been 10 days since Congressman Curt Weldon sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld demanding an investigation of Able Danger and a hearing in Congress. Weldon sent that letter Friday, November 18. And as of this broadcast, we understand that the defense secretary has not responded.

Almost 250 members of the U.S. House of Representatives signed that letter, along with Congressman Weldon. They are demanding that members of the Able Danger Army intelligence unit be allowed to testify about what they knew and what transpired in the year before 9/11, and to do so before Congress.

Able Danger officials claim to have identified 9/11 mastermind Mohammed Atta and other 9/11 radical Islamist terrorists more than a year before that attack. They say they were not allowed to share that information with the FBI. The FBI, of course, might have been able to do something to prevent 9/11.

You can read Congressman Weldon's letter to the defense secretary on our Web site, loudobbs.com. My next guest says there is no documentary evidence that Able Danger ever identified Mohammad Atta.

Tim Roemer is a former member of the 9/11 commission. He and other commissioners blasting Congressman Weldon and former FBI director Louis Freeh for accusations that the commission failed to investigate Able Danger. He joins us now from Washington. Good to have you here.

TIM ROEMER, FORMER 9/11 COMMISSIONER: Lou, always good to see.

DOBBS: Why do you think Louis Freeh, the former director of the FBI, would be so critical of the commission and so insistent that we need to know more about Able Danger, if there's nothing do it?

ROEMER: Well first of all, I think Director Freeh was a very good prosecutor, an excellent agent in the FBI before he was director. He knows that you need cold facts and hard evidence in those kinds of jobs.

Similarly, Lou, the 9/11 commission, we did public hearings, we wanted accountability, we wanted facts in evidence. We couldn't put a chapter in our book saying that people thought they saw a chart without having the evidence of that chart. So we need substantiation that there was a chart. This is about the evidence involved and factually presenting a chart that shows that Atta and the other terrorists were investigated or identified ahead of time. And finally, I'd say, let's get to the bottom of it, Lou.

We do need to make sure that Congress is doing its job of investigative oversight. The Senate Intelligence Committee has done a look at this Able Danger. I encourage to you have the chairman and vice chairman on your show and have them give you your take on Able Danger, too. Let's get to the bottom of the issue.

DOBBS: Certainly, I would like nothing better, but like you say, cold, hard facts are what I want, and what this audience wants, and we're not going to get it, frankly, from about third parties and what they decided to do or not to do, what they decided to look into and what not to.

The cold hard facts can only come, as I'm sure you would agree, Tim, by the secretary of defense, unleashing all of the members of Able Danger to state straightforwardly before our elected representatives in Congress, what they knew, when they knew it, and to demonstrate hard empirical evidence that they knew it. And were, as the allegation goes, blocked from sharing that information. Would you not agree?

ROEMER: Well first of all, I'd say that gag orders should be issued by courts, not by the Defense Department on people that may or may not know something about the factual existence of a chart that identified hijackers a year before 9/11.

So I agree that one, Congress should continue to look at this. Two, the Senate Intelligence Committee should make public their findings, I think they're done.

And three, Secretary Rumsfeld should respond and Congress should -- they can compel people to testify before Congress. They can tell Mr. Rumsfeld to come and tell us everything he knows about this issue.

DOBBS: Let me ask you two questions. Congressman Weldon as you know in that letter to former members of the commission on August 10th, he asked two questions. One, who decided not to pass the Able Danger information onto the FBI? And two, why did the 9/11 commission staff not pass that information onto the commissioners? Can you answer either of those questions?

ROEMER: I think I can answer both of them for you.

DOBBS: Good.

ROEMER: One, when the evidence came to us from Mr. Philpot, on I think it was on July 12th, 2004, two weeks before we issued our report, four years after 9/11. Before that name or recollection of the chart was mentioned to somebody on the commission, Lou. That was two weeks before we went to print.

DOBBS: I understand. ROEMER: And there was no evidence that this person had the chart. They didn't have the chart with them, they only recollected that they thought they saw the name. That's not evidence in the facts that you and I both want to see.

DOBBS: And as to why the commission staff didn't pass it onto the commissioners?

ROEMER: Because there was not the evidence that a chart was there. There were other agencies, Lou, like the CIA and DIA that were doing data mining, something similar to what Able Danger was doing.

DOBBS: So you would agree, then, with Congressman Weldon, that it's time to unleash whatever is known about Able Danger and the principal part -- as you referred to Mr. Philpot, Captain Philpot -- and his colleagues in Able Danger and let him speak to the American people, through at least a hearing in the U.S. Congress?

ROEMER: I would say this. As a private citizen, I'm no longer officially a part of the 9/11 commission, Lou. I think that the Congress needs to do its investigative oversight. We say on the 9/11 commission, oversight in Congress is dysfunctional and broken, they can have Mr. Rumsfeld come before them. They can have Steve Hadley, the national security adviser, who supposedly got a copy of this.

DOBBS: I think they just want to talk to the folks that made up Able Danger?

ROEMER: They could talk to any or all of those folks. I think they need to talk to top-level government people, they need to talk to the good and capable people at Able Danger.

They also, Lou, could talk to people at DIA and CIA who were also doing data mining, that is a very valuable tool in trying to fight terrorism.

DOBBS: Tim Roemer, as always, good to have you here.

ROEMER: Great to be with you, Lou. Thank you.

DOBBS: Thank you. We'll have much more on Able Danger and this controversy throughout the week, as we focus on the issue. Congressman Curt Weldon will be our guest tomorrow night.

Former FBI director Louis Freeh will join us as our guest here Wednesday. And our reporting will continue throughout the week.

Charleston Gazette: Terror warnings ignored

Some excerpts from the editorial:

On Nov. 18, more than half of the House of Representatives — 246 members — signed a letter to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, demanding that he let Able Danger agents testify before congressional hearings. Washington is awaiting Rumsfeld’s response....

Two West Virginia members — Republican Shelley Moore Capito and Democrat Nick Rahall — were among signers.

Americans need to know whether both of these terror attacks could have been prevented — and they need to know who blocked the advance tips. We hope all West Virginia members of Congress exert pressure to flush this information into the daylight.

Yes that means you, Senators Byrd and Rockefeller, too.

WTF IMI

When is data mining and information sharing a good thing? Apparently, after all hell has broken loose, “reform” has taken place, and there appears to be all the time in the world until the next attack against the homeland. What else to make of this latest gem from the Washington Post:

The Defense Department has expanded its programs aimed at gathering and analyzing intelligence within the United States, creating new agencies, adding personnel and seeking additional legal authority for domestic security activities in the post-9/11 world.

The moves have taken place on several fronts. The White House is considering expanding the power of a little-known Pentagon agency called the Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA, which was created three years ago. […]

The Pentagon has pushed legislation on Capitol Hill that would create an intelligence exception to the Privacy Act, allowing the FBI and others to share information gathered about U.S. citizens with the Pentagon, CIA and other intelligence agencies, as long as the data is deemed to be related to foreign intelligence. […]

One CIFA activity, threat assessments, involves using "leading edge information technologies and data harvesting," […]. This involves "exploiting commercial data" with the help of outside contractors including White Oak Technologies Inc. of Silver Spring, and MZM Inc., a Washington-based research organization, according to the Pentagon document.

MZM, the best contract support money can buy.

See, I’m confused: When data mining was carried out and attempts to share what – by all public accounts – was detailed and actionable intelligence information before all hell broke loose, such activities were a bad thing. Why else the madness surrounding Able Danger, as more recently captured by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

On Friday, Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., sent Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a letter signed by a bipartisan group of 246 lawmakers demanding that the program's officers and contractors be allowed to testify in open congressional hearings. […]

But others in Washington are scoffing at the request for an inquiry.

"By the way he talks about Able Danger these days, you'd think it would have prevented Pearl Harbor," said Timothy Roemer, a former Indiana Republican congressman and member of the 9/11 commission.

Class act Mr. Roemer. Tell me; do you shave yourself in the morning or do you have someone else do it for you? Because if I threw out callous and ignorant comments like that I’d have a hard time looking at myself in the mirror. Then again, I have always suffered from a bad case of consciousness that overwhelmed my under-developed political acumen.

If you needed further proof that the 9/11 Commission’s work in this area comes up short you need only read the last few lines of the piece, which tell us that:

Lee Hamilton, a former Indiana Democrat in the House who was cochairman of the 9/11 panel, said he worked closely with and respects Weldon because they share interests in defense and intelligence matters. But he said the commission investigated the Able Danger officers' claims exhaustively and could not find evidence to support them.

"We've asked for that chart repeatedly," Hamilton said in an interview. "The Pentagon cannot produce it, the White House cannot produce it, and Weldon cannot produce it."

They had access to the chart, if I am not mistaken, back when the investigation was going on. In every TV appearance I’ve seen Weldon in, charts abound. Does “the” chart show up? It does not look like it, but I’m not entirely convinced that it is gone for good. Remember, this is the program that DIA/Pentagon said didn’t exist, until they had to admit that it did. This is all based on data that was destroyed, until it was revealed that maybe it wasn’t. My own experience supporting searches of this type, and knowledge of how data like this is passed around, leads me to believe that no one is even scratching the surface of what still remains of Able Danger.

But no matter; all that took place before we cared. Talking about it now just ends up embarrassing those in power then (who are still in power now, only in different offices) and highlighting how broke-dick things were. Doing this sort of thing now is reforming and revolutionary and paradigm breaking . . . excuse me . . . I’m feeling queezy . . . must be too much turkey . . .

Show me the gag order?

Just to resolve a contradiction I ran across a few weeks ago.

From Rory O'Connor of Media Channel:

DIA spokesman Commander Terrence Sutherland denied that DIA had smeared or gagged LTC Shaffer. “Show me the gag order,” says Sutherland, who maintains that it is DOD, and not DIA, which is at the center of the Able Danger affair. And in response to my repeated queries, Commander Gregory Hicks, spokesman for DOD, could only tell me that, thus far, “I am not getting any responses yet. When I do, I’ll let you know.”

From Shaun Waterman of the UPI:

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary sought testimony from several members of the team -- code-named Able Danger -- as part of their investigation into claims that the project identified Mohamed Atta and three of the other 18 hijackers as linked to al-Qaida in early 2000, according to Senate staffers.

Mark Zaid, an attorney representing a liaison to the team, Army reserve Col. Tony Shaffer, told United Press International that a letter to his client gave no reasons for blocking the testimony.

The letter was signed by the principle deputy general counsel for the Defense Intelligence Agency, Robert Berry.

Zaid said the team members "were told verbally that they would not be allowed to testify," and that he had requested the decision about his client be put in writing.

It sounds like the spokesman for the DIA and the principle deputy general counsel for the DIA need to get their stories straight. They might also want to check in with Department of Defense spokesman Bryan Whitman:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 - The Pentagon said today that it had blocked a group of military officers and intelligence analysts from testifying at an open Congressional hearing about a highly classified military intelligence program that, the officers have said, identified a ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks as a potential terrorist more than a year before the attacks.

The announcement came a day before the officers and intelligence analysts had been scheduled to testify about the program, known as Able Danger, at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Bryan Whitman, a Defense Department spokesman, said in a statement that open testimony about the program "would not be appropriate - we have expressed our security concerns and believe it is simply not possible to discuss Able Danger in any great detail in an open public forum." He offered no other detail on the Pentagon's reasoning in blocking the testimony.

More coverage of Able Danger

James Rosen has two separate Able Danger stories out this weekend. In case you were wondering, the same company owns both papers. Here is the article for the Sacramento Bee:

It's either the grandest conspiracy since the JFK assassination and the grassy knoll or much ado about nothing.

Able Danger, a top-secret military program set up in 1999 to probe the al-Qaida terrorist network, is rekindling fierce debate about the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Military intelligence officers and contractors who ran the clandestine mission, a computer data-mining operation within the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, claim that more than a year before the attacks, Able Danger identified four of the plot's 19 hijackers and produced a chart that fingered ringleader Mohamed Atta, displayed a photo of him and contained the names of up to 60 al-Qaida operatives around the globe.

Those claims contradict the findings of the 9/11 commission set up by Congress, which in its final report last year spread blame for the attacks across the government but concluded that none of the 19 hijackers, some of whom had lived in the United States for months before Sept. 11, was identified until after the tragedy.

The other one is here for the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

In a speech on the House floor last month, Weldon suggested that information is being covered up. "I am not a conspiracy theorist," he said, "but there is something desperately wrong."

Weldon also accuses the Pentagon of engaging in a smear campaign against Shaffer, 42, since the colonel went public -- by revoking his security clearance, suspending him and leaking alleged details from his personnel file to reporters and congressional aides.

Among the slurs, Weldon says, are claims that Shaffer was having an affair with a Weldon aide, which Shaffer's lawyer vehemently denies.

In response to a request by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R.-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the Defense Department's inspector general is investigating the alleged smear campaign against Shaffer.

In the Senate, Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, accused the Pentagon of possible "obstruction of the committee's activities" after the Defense Department forbade Shaffer, Philpott and other Able Danger analysts from testifying before the panel. Specter and Pentagon officials are negotiating conditions for an open hearing.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, meanwhile, has heard closed-door testimony from Able Danger members and Pentagon employees and is nearing completion of a report.

Yeah, they have been "nearing completion" of that report for months now:

Report due in Able Danger probe
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 5, 2005

The Senate Intelligence Committee has taken closed-door statements in an inquiry that could clear up whether the intelligence program Able Danger identified September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta a year before the attack.

A spokesman said yesterday that the committee likely will release a report or a statement in the next two weeks that makes conclusions, or at least determines the facts.

Anyway, AJ has more excerpts from the Star Tribune piece here.

Investor's Business Daily takes an in-depth look at Able Danger, too:

Since then, others have come forward to confirm Weldon and Shaffer's revelation that 9-11 might have been short-circuited on Clinton's watch had this information been shared and acted upon. Witnesses include Capt. Scott Philpott, the Navy officer who managed Able Danger for the Special Operations Command.

But liberal Democrats and their allies in the media aren't interested, perhaps because the dots, when connected, point to Clinton and not Bush.

They are more focused on whether "Scooter" Libby engaged in political hardball than whether the U.S. could have prevented the attacks on New York and Washington that killed 3,000 people and started the war on terrorism in the first place.

With the "grassy knoll" on one hand and a liberal media cover up on the other, I think we can all agree on one thing. We need in-depth, open hearings on Able Danger.

Simple questions with simple answers

Did Able Danger identify Mohamed Atta in January 2000? Yes.

Did they figure out that he was in the US on their own? No.

Did they identify all members of the 9/11 plot who were in the US by June 2000? Yes.

Did they identify any members of the plot who entered the US at a later date? No.

Was Able Danger shut down before most of the 9/11 hijackers entered the US? Yes.

Did they share any information about suspected Al Qaeda members with the FBI? No.

Did they find out Mohamed Atta had met with the other leaders of the 9/11 plot? Yes.

Were they kept from sharing their data because the suspects were here legally? Yes.

Do we know if they were tracking the movements and travel of Mohamed Atta? No.

Do we know Able Danger connected Mohamed Atta to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden? Yes.

Do we know Able Danger connected Mohamed Atta or anyone in Al Qaeda to Iraq? No.

Was Able Danger kept from sharing data with the FBI in the Clinton years? Yes.

Is there any indication that President Clinton ever knew about Able Danger? No.

Was Able Danger shut down and its team members reassigned in the Bush years? Yes.

Is there any indication that President Bush knew about Able Danger before 9/11? No.

Comments or corrections?

Able Danger: Clear Thinking/Analysis

AJ Strata has done excellent work dissecting the 9-11/Able Danger timeline:

But Able Danger had identified the four key highjackers at the most critical juncture of their planning! So I agree with former FBI Director Freeh: had Able Danger been paid attention to 9-11 could have probably been averted.

Cross posted at QT Monster.

Updates

Blogging will be light to non-existant through the weekend. In the mean time, leave a comment if you prefer the white background you see here or the shade of blue that used to be the background color for this text area. Enjoy the holiday. Then watch for the media coverage of Able Danger to start building up in the next few weeks. Not that I have any inside knowledge, but 246 Congress members trump a blog any day.

UPDATE: Right as I posted this I got an email from John at Weldon's office, confirming the 9/11 Commission's response to Freeh ran in the Wall Street Journal letters section yesterday, and offering this preview of what to watch for next week:

ABLE DANGER on Lou Dobbs next week...
Tim Roemer (Mon)
Curt Weldon (Tue)
Louis Freeh (Wed)

Last parting shot from the 9/11 Commission

I would say "Don't let the door hit you on the way out" to Gorton and crew, but as 9/11 family member Debra Burlingame points out, they will probably use this as an excuse not to answer any more questions about Able Danger:

From a story in the Village Voice:

9-11 Probers Leave Questions Behind

The private watchdog group formed by the former members of the 9-11 Commission is closing up shop. The announcement of its last media event—a December 5 briefing where the 9-11 Discourse Project "will issue its final assessment of progress on all 9/11 Commission recommendations"—came today. This is no surprise: The project (funded by entities like the Carnegie Corporation, the Drexel Family Foundation, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund) was intended to last for just a year after the commission expired in August 2004, its mission to "educate the public on the issue of terrorism and what can be done to make the country safer." But even if this end was long planned, it doesn't mean everyone thinks the job is finished.

"I think it's really ironic that they are closing up shop at a time when their credibility is being called into question because of Able Danger," says Debra Burlingame, whose brother was pilot of the plane that hijackers flew into the Pentagon.

Able Danger is the secret military intelligence unit featured in stories published this summer in which military officers claimed that they had information about lead hijacker Mohammed Atta a year before the 9-11 attack. What's more, the sources of the story claim they told the 9-11 commission about it, but that information was left out of the final report. The 9-11 commissioners have dismissed the story as overblown, claiming in an op-ed piece just this week that their staff checked out the story and found no evidence it was true.

Here is the op-ed referenced. Apparently they felt they had to respond to the op-ed by Louis Freeh even though they have never responded to Curt Weldon's requests. I'm not sure if the Wall Street Journal ran this, but I hope they won't dignify it with that.

Letters to the Editor

No Evidence of Pre-9/11 Hijacker Discovery

The Wall Street Journal

21 November 2005

In his Nov. 17 editorial-page commentary "Why Did the 9/11 Commission Ignore `Able Danger'?" former FBI Director Louis Freeh charged the 9/11 Commission with a "failure to investigate" a military intelligence team named Able Danger. We understand that Mr. Freeh, like other federal officials whose agencies' pre-9/11 failures we documented, may not agree with the facts and findings in our report. To paraphrase our former colleague Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Mr. Freeh is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.

The 9/11 Commission's executive director and two senior staff members met with Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer in Bagram, Afghanistan, in October 2003. Lt. Col. Shaffer advised the group about the existence of a pre-9/11 Pentagon data-mining program called Able Danger, which our staff immediately proceeded to investigate. The commission requested a comprehensive list of all documents on the Able Danger program related to terrorism and Afghanistan. And the Pentagon confirms it provided all relevant Able Danger documents to the commission.

Lt. Col. Shaffer also claims he told the commission staff in that same meeting that Able Danger had identified Mohamed Atta. However, three commission staff members and a White House attorney who were present affirm that Atta's name was not mentioned. Atta's name did not appear in Lt. Col. Shaffer's own talking points for the meeting.

In the commission's review of Able Danger documents, there was no mention of Mohamed Atta. There were no charts, no data sets, and no analysis identifying Mohamed Atta or any of the other hijackers pre-9/11. There was no evidence that Able Danger identified Mohamed Atta as an individual of interest before he hijacked a plane on Sept. 11.

On June 12, 2004, Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott told the commission staff that during a meeting four years earlier he briefly saw Mohamed Atta's name and photo on a chart. Capt. Phillpott provided no documentary evidence -- no data, no analysis, no chart -- to support his account. He subsequently recalled that Atta had been part of a Brooklyn cell early in 2000. We know what Atta was doing at that time, and evidence we examined does not square with this account. That detailed evidence encompasses documents on Atta's travels, activities and entry into the United States, including INS and State Department records. As Mr. Freeh knows, investigators must substantiate eyewitness accounts with hard evidence and cold facts. With regard to this assertion, there is none.

Commission investigators had already reviewed all Able Danger documents related to al Qaeda and found no such evidence. In the absence of documentary evidence, the allegation that Able Danger had identified Atta before 9/11 remains unsubstantiated.

Rep. Curt Weldon claims in his book "Countdown to Terror" that in late September 2001 he gave a chart to then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, a chart made before 9/11 containing the name and photograph of Mohamed Atta. Mr. Freeh refers to this allegation in his commentary. Mr. Hadley remembers no such chart, and his office, after twice reviewing its records, has found no such chart. The Defense Department has found no pre-9/11 chart or document identifying Mohamed Atta in its exhaustive internal investigation of Able Danger. Rep. Weldon has not produced this chart, which he provided neither to the Congressional Joint Inquiry investigation, nor to the 9/11 Commission. In fact, he did not state publicly that Able Danger had identified Mohamed Atta before 9/11 until June 2005, nearly four years after his meeting with Mr. Hadley.

There is no documentary evidence that Able Danger identified Mohamed Atta as an al Qaeda operative before 9/11. The 9/11 Commission found no such evidence. The Department of Defense has found no such evidence in its internal review. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is now conducting its own investigation of Able Danger. We look forward to its findings, and any new facts it may uncover.

The 9/11 Commission held 12 public hearings over 19 days, interviewed more than 1,200 people, and reviewed more than two million pages of documents. Our findings are based on verifiable facts and documented with hundreds of footnotes. We encourage those who challenge our thoroughness and motives to meet the same standard.

Slade Gorton

Seattle

Timothy J. Roemer

Washington

(Messrs. Gorton and Roemer are former members of the 9/11 Commission and are currently members of the 9/11 Public Discourse Project.)

Weldon entered letter into Congressional Record

From Vi's list, Able Danger - Latest News:

Congressional Record: Weldon officially submits request to DOD for witnesses on Able Danger (HT: Free Republic) - "Further refusal to allow Able Danger participants to testify in an open congressional hearing can only lead us to conclude that the Department of Defense is uncomfortable with the prospect of Members of Congress questioning these individuals about the circumstances surrounding Able Danger..."

This happened on Friday, before they recessed. Here is the direct link to the GPO record as a PDF file. In addition to his own letter, Weldon also submitted for the record a copy of the Freeh op-ed, and letters from both a USS Cole family member and a September 11th family member.

Louis Freeh not on John Batchelor Show

UPDATE: The fourth hour is a replay of the first and no sign of Freeh. Apparently John posted this entry but never bothered to update it to say Freeh would not be on.

John Batchelor posts on RedState.org:

Louis Freeh on Able Danger: What is to be done?
By: John Batchelor

Louis Freeh talks with me tonight re his declaration that the 9/11 Commission deserves an incomplete grade for its investigation of the mysterious Able Danger program at the DoD.

From JohnBatchelorShow.com:

The John Batchelor Show is on Sirius and XM satellite radios. If you cannot find a signal locally or by satellite, the most dependable method is to listen by Internet to

WABC in New York (770 AM)
10 PM to 1 AM, Eastern Standard Time
3 AM to 6 AM Greenwich Mean Time

or WMAL in Washington, D.C. (630 AM)
9 PM to 1 AM, Eastern Standard Time
2 AM to 6 AM Greenwich Mean Time

Rory O'Connor scoops the media again

When it comes to being in the loop or out of the loop, he's definitely in the loop:

A source familiar with the situation but barred from speaking out says ‘Able Danger II’ was created when the US Army’s Land Information Warfare Activity unit (LIWA) “backed out” of the original Able Danger program in early 2000. The US Army Special Operation Command (SOCOM), which along with LIWA and private contractors was involved in the first Able Danger operation, then funded an effort to move the program from its headquarters in Tampa, Florida to a secret ‘black’ facility in Garland, Texas.

In addition to Scott Phillpott and Tony Shaffer, other Able Danger participants (including an Army Lieutenant Colonel who was his Shaffer’s deputy, and a Reserve Major who was called to active duty to help) were deployed to work in the Garland facility.

This unit, known as Stratus Ivy, provided basic support necessary to allow for the “intelligence mechanisms” to function from the Garland site. A cover plan was devised, and in addition to helping to get the plan approved and providing manpower, the unit provided the Able Danger team with clandestine Internet capabilities to help perform “non traceable/non attributable” searches for the most sensitive data. Shaffer also served, while a reserve major on active duty, as one of the “planners” inside the facility.

Although DOD spokesmen report the Defense Intelligence Agency cannot find any information about the Garland unit in its files, several DIA analysts and officials toured the facility between August 2000 and January 2001. One, then chief of the Transnational Warfare Group, sent an aide to Garland in what was perceived by some as an attempt to undermine the ongoing effort in order “to buy time for them to create their own Able Danger-type capability,” as a source explained.

Mac is also in the loop, just a different loop:

Since my last post I got razzed a little by other bloggers because of my previous posts in which I saw the story going "bye, bye". Now this wasn't a guess on my part, I got the information from a very high source that for all intents and purposes the story was dead. I was told in so many words, "It's not going anyway mac, people don't want to play the game anymore - time to move on."

Incidently that same source tells me even now, after the letter, the "status" hasn't changed, but that "the feeling" is that since the reporting on the story (though limited), that some type of hearings will be introduced. But there is a "But"

You must realize that hearings require witnesses and documents that have 'strings' attached. So be prepared to see for the most part 'closed meetings', so that testimony will be sealed or classified. Although I suspect that a few may try to get that lid taken off, these things are governed by rules and security. Also people will continually be told not to testify.

He also adds, as part of a response to a comment from me:

Yet, "Delay, isn't necessarily denial", and in Washington everything is about "timing".

It's sad, but true. The story will come out, but probably not until say,...next year or 2007-2008. There are people who are holding a lot of cards on this and they are all aces.

As for myself? I'm not in any loop, but maybe that's a good thing.

UPDATE: It is also worth noting in reponse to Mac's source that the only thing Weldon discusses in his letter is allowing public testimony in open hearings:

We the undersigned are formally requesting that you allow former participants in the intelligence program known as ABLE DANGER to testify in an open hearing before the United States Congress....

Further refusal to allow ABLE DANGER participants to testify in an open congressional hearing can only lead us to conclude that the Department of Defense is uncomfortable with the prospect of Members of Congress questioning these individuals about the circumstances surrounding ABLE DANGER. This would suggest not a concern for national security, but rather an attempt to prevent potentially embarrassing facts from coming to light. Such a consideration would of course be an unacceptable justification for the refusal of a congressional request.

Able Danger on Fox News Sunday

Maid Marion says in the comments Wallace asked Rumsfeld about Able Danger.

UPDATE: The show is still on, but the interview was at the top of the hour. They have the transcript online, though. Here it is:

WALLACE: Well, so it's not just Washington. But let me ask you one last thing. And I have to say, a lot of people wanted me to ask you about this. Able Danger, an intelligence unit in the Pentagon -- did they or did they not identify Mohammed Atta and some of the other 9/11 hijackers in the year 2000?

RUMSFELD: There are people that said they did. The year 2000 or earlier? I don't remember when it was.

WALLACE: No, the year 2000.

RUMSFELD: Was it? I wasn't in government at the time, obviously.

WALLACE: Right.

RUMSFELD: But there are some people who say that that's the case. There are other people involved who say it isn't. And the people in the Pentagon, I'm told, have spent just enormous numbers of hours digging into everything they can find and giving it to the appropriate committees of the Congress, and they have not been able to validate it.

WALLACE: I don't understand why it's so complicated. I mean, people are -- I mean, it's a fact. Why wouldn't you, as the secretary of defense, your people underneath you, be able to find out?

RUMSFELD: They've looked and they -- you can't prove a negative. They've looked and looked and looked and looked and found everything they could find. Cannot find validation of that, which doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You say you don't understand why it can't be done. But you couldn't do it either. You can't prove a negative. All you can say is we've looked and looked and looked. We can't say it didn't happen, but we also don't have evidence that it did.

WALLACE: All right. Thank you.

Well, that definitely clears things up.... Or not. The obvious follow up would have been, "Then why won't you let them testify?" Or maybe Wallace could have gotten a copy of the letter Catherine Herridge had yesterday, with 248 signatures from Congress in both parties - asking Rumsfeld to allow public testimony on Able Danger - and brought that detail to Rumsfeld's attention.

Weldon was on Fox News Saturday

Intelligence Summit has the video. Catherine Herridge deserves a lot of credit for following the story. She has been reporting on it since the start. The list of signatures is up to 145 Republicans and 103 Democrats now.

Editorial: Congress should hold ‘Able Danger’ hearings

From the Delco Times in Weldon's district:

The adage in Washington is that the cover-up is worse than the crime. That appears to be the case in the case of "Able Danger" and the case being built by our congressman, U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon. Mr. Weldon insists there was an Army intelligence operation within the Pentagon called "Able Danger" which identified Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammad Atta and others as terrorists intent on doing harm to America.

But when the 9/11 Commission presented its final report, there was never a word about "Able Danger" or the Pentagon operation or the clues that Atta and his men were in the United States, plotting their attack on the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon and the White House....

This week, Weldon petitioned fellow House members and obtained a majority in calling for open hearings on Able Danger and how much the Pentagon knew about the band of terrorists within our borders for a year before Sept. 11. He also wants to know why 9/11 Commission staffers covered up details of the special intelligence unit.

We support Congressman Weldon in his efforts and urge the House and Senate leadership to stage the public hearings and get to the bottom of the matter.

It’s only fair to the memory of those who died in the terror attacks in 2001 and for their families, who have been seeking the elusive truth for too long.

Comparing treatment of Plame and Shaffer stories

Columnist Jack Kelly in Toledo writes:

"Scandal with real victim ignored"

"The Able Danger intelligence, if confirmed, is undoubtedly the most relevant fact of the entire post-9/11 inquiry," wrote former FBI Director Louis Freeh in The Wall Street Journal.

A half-dozen former members of the Able Danger team are ready to back up Colonel Shaffer's story, according to U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon (R., Pa.), who first made Able Danger public.

But the Defense Department has prevented Colonel Shaffer and other Able Danger team members from testifying before Congress. And the Defense Intelligence Agency is trying to fire Colonel Shaffer on a variety of trumped-up charges, the most "serious" of which is that as a teenager, Mr. Shaffer stole note pads and pens from a U.S. embassy to use in his high school classwork.

Mr. Weldon has gathered the signatures from 201 colleagues for public hearings on Able Danger, but attracted next to no media attention.

Gallons of ink and hours of airtime have been devoted to faux victims Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson in a case that has much to do with politics and nothing to do with national security. Shouldn't journalists devote some attention to Tony Shaffer, a real victim and a scandal that really does involve national security?

UPDATE: I disagree that the Plame case has "nothing to do with national security" - we don't really know because the CIA never released a report. It seems to me like the issue with sources recruited by Brewster Jennings employees is real. However, we know exactly what happened and might have been prevented except for the problems Able Danger encountered. 9/11. You'd think someone could spare an investigative reporter or two to look into the Able Danger story, instead of leaving it up to Weldon to drive the story and coverage on his own.

List of 245 Congress members who signed

Here is a list of those who have signed Congressman Weldon's letter to Secretary Rumsfeld requesting open hearings for the ABLE DANGER team.

UPDATE: Weldon's site has been down most of the day Sunday. As of about 7pm it is back online. Here is the letter and list of signatures from Weldon's site. I think that 101 instead of 100 for the number of Democrats is a typo:

MORE THAN HALF OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WANTS OPEN HEARINGS ON ABLE DANGER

The Honorable Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary
Department of Defense
Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301

Dear Secretary Rumsfeld:

We the undersigned are formally requesting that you allow former participants in the intelligence program known as ABLE DANGER to testify in an open hearing before the United States Congress. Until this point, congressional efforts to investigate ABLE DANGER have been obstructed by Department of Defense insistence that certain individuals with knowledge of ABLE DANGER be prevented from freely and frankly testifying in an open hearing. We realize that you do not question Congress's authority to maintain effective oversight of executive branch agencies, including your department. It is our understanding that your objection instead derives from concern that classified information could be improperly exposed in an open hearing. We of course would never support any activity that might compromise sensitive information involving national security. However, we firmly believe that testimony from the appropriate individuals in an open hearing on ABLE DANGER would not only fail to jeopardize national security, but would in fact enhance it over the long term. This is due to our abiding belief that America can only better prepare itself against future attacks if it understands the full scope of its past failures to do so.

On September 21, the Senate Committee on the Judicia