| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Pentagon gags 'Able Danger' team |
| 2005-09-21 |
| Defense Department lawyers have blocked members of a data-mining intelligence team from testifying Wednesday before a congressional committee probing their claims that they identified the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 hijackers more than a year before the attacks. 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. He said that the team leader, Navy Capt. Scott Philpott, a civilian analyst named James Smith and other members of the team had all been denied permission to testify. No one at the Department of Defense or the Defense Intelligence Agency returned calls for comment Tuesday. Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Penn., who first put members of the Able Danger team in contact with the news media, was said by staff to be concerned about the move. "It is unfortunate that we're trying to get answers ... and the people who could help us get them are not going to testify," said Russ Caso, the congressman's chief of staff. The Able Danger team will not be the only witnesses missing from Wednesday's hearing. No one from the Sept. 11 commission will be present either, despite the fact that Weldon has publicly blamed them for -- in his words -- "ignoring" evidence about the project. Commission staffers say that after Shaffer told them about the project in 2003 they requested documents about it from the Defense Department, but found nothing to support claims that the team had nailed Atta. Former GOP Sen. Slade Gorton of Washington told United Press International that he had volunteered to testify, and had been invited to do so, but had to cancel at the last minute owing to an unexpected conflict. He said that he would be submitting a letter in place of his testimony, which would "answer, in detail, all the questions" that the committee had. Judiciary aides said Shaffer, Philpott and other Able Danger team members had been interviewed by committee staff, seeking information about a chart generated using Able Danger's computer software, and listing the names and connections of about 60 individuals thought linked to the al-Qaida network. Able Danger used data-mining on massive amounts of "open source" information: culled from the internet, purchased from credit rating bureaus or other data brokers or -- like phone and travel records -- obtained in some cases by means that are still classified. This is, if not the only reason for the gag, a legitimate concern. Congress leaks like a sieve when given classified info and would surely do so on a politically hot issue. According to Philpott, that chart -- produced in January or February 2000 -- bore the name and likeness of Mohamed Atta, and linked him to a mosque in Brooklyn which has been a center of Islamic extremism for more than 20 years. The Pentagon said earlier this month that three more people who worked on the project now corroborate Philpott and Shaffer's claims about the chart -- but that defense officials destroyed documents the project generated. Pat Downs a senior policy analyst in the office of Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Steven Cambone, told reporters at a Pentagon briefing on Sept. 1, that a search of "hundreds of thousands, probably" of documents and electronic files related to the project -- including those held by contractors who worked on the project -- had found no copies of the chart, and no documents referring to it. But she acknowledged that the chart could have been among documents from the project that were -- in accordance with regulations designed to prevent U.S. intelligence agencies spying on citizens -- destroyed. "There are strict regulations about collection, dissemination and destruction procedures for this type of information," she told a briefing for reporters at the Pentagon, "and we know that that did happen in the case of Able Danger documentation." She said that the regulations had been "very strictly interpreted pre-Sept. 11." "In a major data mining effort like this," she said, "you're reaching out to a lot of open sources and within that there could be a lot of more information on U.S. persons. "We're not allowed to collect that type of information." Weldon said that a defense contractor who would testify Wednesday planned to tell the committee that he was ordered to destroy data from the project. Weldon told UPI earlier this month that he does not believe the military's account of how the results of the project's work came to be destroyed. "I seriously have my doubts that it was routine," he said, adding that he had asked the Pentagon for the certificates of destruction military officials must complete when classified data is destroyed. He said that there had been "a second elimination of data in 2003," in addition to the destruction acknowledged last week. "For some reason, the bureaucracy in the Pentagon -- I mean the civilian bureaucracy -- didn't want this to get out," he said. |
| Posted by:lotp |
| #11 Channels. Gotta play it by the rules - or get burned. Guessing at a scenario that fits the facts... I'd wager that, after the 9/11 Circus, some of these guys did the "WTF?" email routine. That takes time. At some point, some agreed that it should be publicized that not everyone is a sucker and that 9/11 was a partisan joke - but they had a new punchline. Col Shaffer started up the chain with a request to come out of the closet. Somewhere upstream, someone who thought he could and should, said "Yes - go public... but don't expect 'official' Pentagon backing." The proviso added for political reasons. And so it began. One by one they came out - if they thought they could weather the storm and the MSM BS. Then, some legal beagles said, "Whoa, hold on there! This involves domestic turf, methods, sources - we have a lot of vulnerability, political sniping and potential losses with little upside, here. We don't need this shit. Where's the payoff, other than tweaking the noses of that coven of circus clowns? There isn't one - not worth it. Second-check that everything has been deleted / shredded. We're outta this. Let 'em squeal... no proof." And cold feet set in, from top to bottom. Who knows, but that makes a helluvalot more sense than calling an Army Colonel and a Navy Captain liars. Fire at will. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-09-21 23:47 |
| #10 If Atta had sold hashpipes we would have taken concerted action. What is happening now is that we will never know the truth only coverups of coverups. |
| Posted by: Gleregum Elmaimp9510 2005-09-21 23:38 |
| #9 Ever had a security clearance? One you sorta wanted to keep, not to mention stay out prison? I'm thinking no. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-09-21 23:31 |
| #8 I don't buy this, I just don't. When Atta first became known to be the ring leader Able Danger would have come out then, or in intel sessions following up, or any number or cases which tracked the where-abouts of any of the hijackers. That this is coming out now is too suspicious. |
| Posted by: Charles 2005-09-21 23:29 |
| #7 At this point I trust Congress more. Why would the Republicans block Able Danger whose origins were under the Clintonistas? Now this is a real conspiracy theory requiring answers. HMMMM! |
| Posted by: Art 2005-09-21 23:27 |
| #6 At this point I trust the Pentagon more than I do some congress critter or Senator. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2005-09-21 15:19 |
| #5 I don't blame the Pentagon for not trusting Specter & Co. to run public hearings on intelligence. Remember, leaky Leahy is the minority leader on the Senate Judical Committee. Still, the 9/11 Committee should rightfully be castigated for their arrogant denial. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-09-21 14:26 |
| #4 According to Philpott, that chart -- produced in January or February 2000 -- bore the name and likeness of Mohamed Atta, and linked him to a mosque in Brooklyn which has been a center of Islamic extremism for more than 20 years. See if the NYPD's intelligence unit has anything on Maggot boy hooking up with a Brooklyn mosque prior to 2000. I figure after the first WTC bombing they might've been real interested in what and was happening and who was showing up at the local mosques. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-09-21 13:09 |
| #3 In his statement this morning before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Congressman Curt Weldon said: âI have never alleged any wrong doing, conspiracy or cover-up. However, I have been bewildered by the response to Able Danger â both by the 9-11 Commission and the Pentagon.â âFundamental questions need to be answered: Why was Able Danger a historically insignificant event even thought we knew that Al Qaeda was responsible for the1993 Bombing on World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers, the Embassy Bombings in Africa, the USS Cole? Who ordered the destruction of 2.5 terabytes of data about Al Qaeda and why? And why wasnât the customer at SOCOM ever consulted or briefed? Who stopped the meetings between the FBI and Able Danger personnel in September 2000 and why? What was the extent of the 3-hour brief provided to General Shelton in January 2001 regarding Able Danger? Why did the 9/11 Commission change their response several times when queried about Able Danger and attempt to spin Able Danger based on misinformation? Why have threats been made to Able Danger witnesses who were simply telling their stories?â âAs it stands now, the 9/11 story has not been fully examined and told. The families of the victims and the American people deserve answers and we must not stop until we get them.â |
| Posted by: Steve 2005-09-21 12:54 |
| #2 "Defense Department lawyers have blocked members of a data-mining intelligence team from testifying Wednesday before a congressional committee probing their claims that they identified the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 hijackers more than a year before the attacks." It's a cover-up I tells ya! The media must be up in arms demanding to know why... oh, never mind... |
| Posted by: Hyper 2005-09-21 10:49 |
| #1 Congress has the authority to issue warrants and compel testimony. An officer's oath is to obey lawful orders. Lawful is the operable word. If the powers to be at the Pentagon are engaged in a coverup, then such orders are unlawful. 'Secret' and 'Classified' have far too often been used to cover bad behavior and incompetence and not real national security. Ever hear of a senior officer ever fired or disciplined for over classifying? If the Dem's ever wanted Rummey's head, this could be the opportunity. |
| Posted by: Hupaimble Elmolurt2226 2005-09-21 10:19 |