Posted on 08/30/2005 7:11:21 AM PDT by bw17
Intrigue Over Able Danger Grows Updated: Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005 - 8:42 AM
WTOP's J.J. Green looks into how Able Danger altered careers.
J.J. Green, federalnewsradio.com
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon appears to have reversed its position on Able Danger, the Army intelligence collection team. Smith says data was gathered from a variety of sources, including about 30 or 40 individuals, but one day it all came to a grinding halt. So why did that happen?
"The [b]I.G. (inspector general)[/b] came in and shut down the operation because of a claim that we were collecting information on U.S citizens," says Smith.
It turned out to be more than just a claim.
"On some of my charts I had links to U.S citizens," he says.
Smith notes that it's illegal for the military to collect intelligence on U.S. citizens.
Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., has alleged a Pentagon coverup regarding Able Danger and is seeking congressional hearings on the matter. Weldon has said coverup will "shake the country to its roots."
(Excerpt) Read more at wtopnews.com ...
Eleanor Hill served from 3/1/95 until 5/2/99. Joseph E. Schmitz served from April 2, 2002 until now. I couldn't find the name of the IG from '99 until 2002 (was there one?), but the Deputy Inspector General in early 2001 when Able Danger was shut down was Robert J. Lieberman.
In May, 2001, Mr. Lieberman issued a report to the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, Senate Armed Services Committee entitled: "Management of National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams".
I found a very interesting excerpt from the report: "...coordination with the Federal law enforcement community,a vital player in Consequence Management, needed improvement to ensure that WMD-CST mission definition and doctrine did not conflict with law enforcement agencies' plans and prerogatives."
Was the Able Danger program part of these Weapons of Mass Destruction - Civil Support Teams (WMD-CSTs)? Because if that's the case, then this is the smoking gun. Lieberman is on record stating that the WMD-CST mission definition and doctrine conflicted with law enforcement agencies' plans and prerogatives (evidence of the Gorelick wall!), and the program was dismantled.
Let's find out all we can about Robert J. Lieberman.
Here's a link to the May, 2001 report by Lieberman:
[url]http://www.dodig.osd.mil/audit/reports/fy01/01-113.pdf[/url]
Just in time for the 2006 election campagins. :-)
Here's more:
"On September 14, 2000, the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a memorandum to all of its field offices discussing the role of the WMD-CSTs. The memorandum states that it is the current policy of DoD and the Department of Justice that
U.S. military personnel, including active duty, Reserve Components and/or National Guard personnel will not collect evidence . . . unless specifically authorized by law enforcement and/or requested by the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] as the lead agency for crisis management. "
Source: Management of National Guard
Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams
Executive Summary
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2001/d-2001-043.htm
They had links to US citizens, and it's illegal for the military to collect information on US citizen.
This is such a dodge.
They were collecting information on Al Qaeda. The US links came about because of that effort. Any links to US citizens was not the focus of the original investigation, it was peripheral to it.
However, a priority document over such a law would be the US Constitution, which forbids treason against the US.
Addditionally, to be safe, Able Danger attempted to contact the FBI...which CAN pursue US citizens.
Was it Donald Mancuso? A Google search turned up a document from him here, dated 21 June 2000:
http://www.stormingmedia.us/94/9488/A948873.html
No, sorry, he was another deputy IG.
Not really. It is long standing policy! DoD may NOT collect information on US Persons! When an investigation leads to a US Person, the investigation STOPS. Any and all evidence is then reviewed (by lawyers [grrrr]) who then determine whether the information can be passed to the DoJ (specifically the AG) for further action. It was always extremely difficult to persue information regarding US Persons PRIOR to Gorelick's Wall. She raised the bar significantly!
Here's a list of the IG's since 1983:
Inspector General Appointed
Joseph E. Schmitz April 2, 2002 -
Eleanor Hill March 1, 1995 - May2, 1999
Susan Crawford Nov. 28, 1989 - Nov. 20, 1991
June Gibbs Brown Nov. 13, 1987 – October 19, 1989
Joseph H. Sherick May 2, 1983 – June 2, 1986
http://www.dodig.osd.mil/ig_s.htm
Bump.
Thanks for the ping!
I can tell that you don't like the Gorelick wall, and I agree with you.
However, intel gathering doesn't have to stop just because you connect to a US link when your study is about foreign enemies.
If the old Spetznaz had dropped a hit team into the US, and MI was collecting intel on them, tracking them, does anyone honestly think the law requires MI to cease just because the Spetznaz team spends the night at a complicit US home?
What is forbidden is making the US citizen the target of military collection.
Well technically.....they were not collecting information.....they simply were looking at ALREADY collected information....weren't they?
That is a very possible theory, EB. Thanks.
Here are the questions that I have:
Who appointed Robert Lieberman?
Who did he report to? (DefSec? Richard Clarke?)
Who ordered him to disband Able Danger in February 2001? Or did he act on his own?
If you remember, Richard Clarke was retained on an interim basis as national coordinator of counterterrorism and computer security programs at the National Security Council.
Able Danger was a counterterrorism computer security program.
This is NOT correct. Replace the word citizen with person and you would be correct. It is a BIG difference! (for more info on US Persons, see Title 50 USC 1801!).
If the old Spetznaz had dropped a hit team into the US, and MI was collecting intel on them, tracking them, does anyone honestly think the law requires MI to cease just because the Spetznaz team spends the night at a complicit US home?
The keyword here is complicit. Lets follow your example and change the home to a hotel/motel (also a US Person by law). If the Hotel/Motel knowingly aided the Spetznaz team - MI would have to IMMEDIATELY turn the investigation over to the FBI (if it hadn't already as the investigation would most likely be of a law enforcement nature and this prohibeted by Posse Comitatus). If, OTOH, the team merely checked in to a Motel 6 before moving on, the fact that a Motel 6 at nnn Something Street, Anywhere, USA could be included in the reports of the investigation. The fine line comes when determining the complicity of the Motel 6! How can you determine complicity without making the Motel 6, at least temporarily, a Subject in the investigation??
Finally, I have first hand knowledge of such investigations and the fact that they WERE halted as soon as US Persons became involved. Few, if any, were ever persued by the FBI due to the limitations put onto the sharing of the information (i.e. the FBI had to start from the beginning)
Unfortunately, yes, they WERE collecting according to the prevalent regulations at the time (the definitions of collecting etc.. are quite different from what most of us would consider them being).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.