| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Able Danger docs destroyed, claims employee |
| 2005-09-16 |
| WND = NaCl. Deleted stuff that Rantburgers already know. An employee of the Defense Department says he was ordered to destroy documents identifying Mohamed Atta as a terrorist two years before the 2001 attacks on the U.S., Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., announced today. According to the congressman, the employee is set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week and will name the person who ordered the documents destroyed. Weldon says the documents were extensive, making up 2.5 terabytes – which he says represents as much as one-fourth of all the printed material in the Library of Congress. I'm beginning to detect male bovine fecal material. That would be some 125,000 full-page 600 DPI bitmaps, or an astronomical number of pages of text. The Pennsylvania lawmaker has been revealing information coming from people involved in the Pentagon's "Able Danger" project, which, beginning in 1999, identified and targeted al-Qaida on a global basis using advanced technology and data analysis. Personnel involved in the project have said even though they ID'd Atta and three others two years before the 9-11 attacks, they were prevented from sharing the information with the FBI apparently due to the Clinton-era "wall of separation" between intelligence and law enforcement. The Associated Press reported that yesterday, former members of the Sept. 11 commission dismissed the "Able Danger" assertions. One commissioner, ex-Sen. Slade Gorton, R- Wash., said, "Bluntly, it just didn't happen and that's the conclusion of all 10 of us." This despite the fact Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, who was part of Able Danger, says he personally told 9-11 commission staff both about the project's findings and the fact personnel were prevented from passing along the information to federal law enforcement officials. "What we talked about to the 9-11 commission was we found that these guys matched a pattern that matched the Brooklyn location" of an al-Qaida sleeper cell, Shaffer told Fox News last month. |
| Posted by:Jackal |
| #14 LOL tu3031! |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2005-09-16 20:48 |
| #13 Several other blogs have covered this very well. (Captains Quarters Blog and Powerline are a couple.) The reason the Able Danger stuff is such a big deal is it potentialy destroys the 9/11 Commissions timelines and lays the groundwork for possible Iraqi connection,in addition to Iran questions that were ignored. Able Danger has Atta in the US before the Commission said he arrived. The Commission stated Atta only traveled under his own name. If it turns out Atta did travel under alias at times,the Commission report becomes junk,the Czech reports gain validity and the account of Atta visiting Germany gains credence. Germany is important because the Germans rolled up an Iraqi spy ring in spring/summer of 2001. Atta visited Spain shortly thereafter. Quite possibly to check and see if he was compromised or if the "muscle" was,and/or did they need a new route to US. If Able Danger was correct in locating Atta in the US when they say they did,the Commission report becomes junk,and that Iraq and Iran provided logistical support,knowing what the operation was,can no longer be ruled out,and is in fact likely. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2005-09-16 20:12 |
| #12 Maybe they're stuffed down Sandy Berger's pants? "Is that 2.5 terabytes of documents, or are you just glad to see me?" |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-09-16 13:25 |
| #11 People have been known to keep copies of interesting documents for personal reference long after "destroy by" dates. I have to assume that at least some DoD personnel are no different, thus obviating the contradiction. As for the objective in exposing this now, I wouldn't dream of venturing an opinion. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-09-16 13:20 |
| #10 Is Weldon attempting to expose the ineptitude of the Clinton-Era intelligence, the incompetence of the 9/11 commission, or a coverup. Or all of the above. At this point there doesn't seem to be a consensus that even if the information from Able Danger was properly utilized Atta would have been apprehended. Slade Gorton has said there wasn't enough credible evidence for the 9/11 commission to even pursue these assertions. Now Weldon holds a press conference to say an employee of the Defense Department says he was ordered to destroy documents two years before the 2001 attacks. Yet Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer claims he briefed the 9/11 commission staff about the project's findings, obviously years after the attack. Shaffers assertion would suggest that pertinant documentation supporting the validity of Able Danger did and still exists. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2005-09-16 12:00 |
| #9 I've read elsewhere one of the big reasons Able Danger was shut down was that a seperate division turned up embarassing information about technology transfers to China: WASHINGTON - More information is emerging about the secret military intelligence program Able Danger that uncovered the names of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers a year before the terror attacks. The unit that was looking for information on al Qaida uncovered the names of prominent American citizens and their questionable connections to China. Those individuals were never accused of any wrongdoing. "But what you don't know is all the other things that we've done that haven't come to light," says Able Danger team member J.D. Smith. Key documents related to those prominent individuals, including a university provost and a former high ranking government official, no longer exist. (cough) Sandy Berger (cough) "There were two individuals who were ordered by the Army to destroy the documents," says Mark Zaid, an attorney for several of the Able Danger team members. "I've spoken to one of them and confirmed that the documents were destroyed." Able Danger was shut down in part because of concerns about intelligence on Although the Able Danger intelligence pipeline has been terminated, Smith gives the impression that the China issue is still open. "In my personal opinion, the stovepipes are alive and well. And for those of us in the contractor world, we're very much aware of that," he said. |
| Posted by: Steve 2005-09-16 11:03 |
| #8 I deal with databases this size and larger all the time at work. For a large company (or a government), it is a lot, but not that much in the grand scheme of things.... |
| Posted by: Mark E. 2005-09-16 10:54 |
| #7 The destruction of the material makes sense for the time we are talking about. We are not allowed to keep intercepts of persons lawfully residing in the United States without the approval of the Attorney General. Janet Reno was too busy looking for white supremacist to care about a few Arabs. If after mining the date they didn’t find any illegal activity they would have had to destroy the material after a certain period of time. FYI 2.5 Tbs is a huge amount of data, but a Cray computer can mine that with minimal effort. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-09-16 10:47 |
| #6 I read it as he was destroying documents, not raw data. If the latter, then 2.5 TB is quite reasonable, but then I figure it would have said "deleting databases" or "destroying raw data." I suppose it's vaguely possible a reporter might not be perfectly knowledgeable of the topic on which he is writing. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-09-16 09:46 |
| #5 Article sez "destroyed", not "shredded". Changed title to reflect that fact, though I'm sure all paper copies were in fact shredded. 2.5 T is nothing these days, you can get a Dell XPS600 with 1.5T off the shelf. |
| Posted by: Steve 2005-09-16 08:58 |
| #4 Yep, Terrabyte DBs are largish for a single company, but,for a Fed data mining op? Not at all. And a "journalist" getting shredded and deleted confused? What's the odds? 100-1 in favor? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-09-16 08:34 |
| #3 I am sure phil_b is correct on this one. The raw data for such a project would tend to be pretty large. Shredding as opposed to wiping is most probably an error on the journalist's part. Terrabytes are not such huge numbers when transactional account information is involved. |
| Posted by: DanNY 2005-09-16 05:39 |
| #2 2.5 terrabytes would make sense as the size of the database assembled for data mining. A couple of years credit card transactions alone would get you up to that kind of size. By 'shredded', I presume he meant the data(base) was deleted. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-09-16 00:40 |
| #1 I think someone's confused megabytes or gigabytes (probably the former) with terabytes. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-09-16 00:24 |