Able Danger: Pentagon Spikes Witnesses While Shaffer Reveals New Source

Captains Quarters ^ | September 20, 2005 | Captain Ed

[Peach]

Cheney's office had the plug pulled on AD? That takes it directly to the president's office and I think that's even worse, if true.

[bobsunshine]

I don't think the VP had the plug pulled, but acted to keep the information private. I heard yesterday that Rummy would allow the AD members to talk to the committee in private, due to national security issues. Since the gov. is still doing some sort of data-mining, various groups would file all sorts of lawsuits, etc. if it was known that some of the information was on private citizens (90 day window).

So, if the Gov. would allow the AD team to talk in private, then I don't think there is any "cover-up". Remember, if the committee issues subpoenas, the AD team would testify, then any "cover-up" would be blown. Also, most of the information by Shaffer and others has already been given to the public. Only one not heard from is Dr. Pricer.

If sources and methods are going to end up being revealed, I don't have a problem with this being done in private, mainly because if exposed in public, the current methods may not be as effective and more people may die.

I am not completely sold that this is what's going on but for the moment I'll give Bush and others the benefit of the doubt.

[Peach]

Since the 9/11 Commission was able to have months and months of mostly open hearings into all matters regarding intelligence and covert operations, I see very little reason why Able Danger, which relied on open sources and is said to not contain anything that would hurt national security, should not be similarly discussed in open hearings.

Some testimony may well be better suited to closed hearings, and that will be determined as questions are submitted, not determined in advance to the simple questions like:

1) Was Atta identified pre 9/11.

2) If yes, who was told about it/him and what was done.

There is no way that the answer to those two most pressing questions endangers national security. And since the AD guys have been on the airwaves for months now talking about these matters, I really don't see the problem.

Certainly the administration has my support and benefit of the doubt, but it's time they get out in front of an issue and play offense instead of their usual defense.

[bobsunshine]

Another point is that during the 9/11 hearings, Condi had to give hours and hours of open testimony. So I tend to agree with you that at least your two questions and another one should be addressed in open session, that is:

3. Why didn't the 9/11 commission, which was very open, investigate further the statements from the AD team. What did they do with the information presented to them.

In the next few days, I can see that Spector and others will talk to the administration and try to get some answers and what is the next step. The hearings have only been suspended to allow reopening at a later date.

I hope that the administration does start playing offense and move this forward.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

I cannot believe the President would be involved in a cover-up to save someone from legal prosecution. Especially in matters of National Security. It goes against what I believe to be the essence of his character.

The more I read, the more I think about it, I am convinced there may be several subplots to this we are not aware of.

My gut feeling is that this ties in with some stories we have posted about over the summer, how I do not know.

I have to go back and read the old articles and try to pull out some common threads. If I have time, I need to work on a timeline putting these stories together.

[Rocketwolf68]

I wonder if any anthrax info is involved.

[lawdog]

Heads should have rolled... 3,000 innocents paid the price.... the same target was attacked before... reports of airliners to be used as bombs since 1995... an informant in the PI's spills the beans ...and still nothing is done? This was the bigggest intelligence failure since Pearl Harbor... You sure as hell shouldn't trust the same folks again.

[Dolphy]

You sure as hell shouldn't trust the same folks again.

It's not an issue of trusting anyone for me. It was an issue of failed leadership and focus from the top down combined with a system that both by structure and laws was bound to fail, particularly from a non-state based threat.

Now if Weldon is going to show that someone deliberately stuffed and destroyed intelligence about training camps, illegal funding, plots, networks and otherwise prevented this threat from becoming part of the national dialog and focus of leadership, then that's a story. But right now all I have heard is that data mining uncovered Atta's name. Zaid said at the hearing that there was no information that would have led anyone to believe that criminal activity was taking place or that specific terrorist activities were being planned. How is that anything but a failure from the top to set priorities, failure of imagination of the possibilities and more evidence of the problem with the so called wall?

Finally, while I put enormous blame on Clinton, I think Weldon talking about his discovery of Able Danger in 1999 and how they had information that the CIA didn't is more damning evidence than what he's now chasing. How many in Congress detected and worked to overcome the wall and the disjointed intelligence operations they both funded and oversaw? How many articulated the threat we were up against?

[lawdog]

Some tried to "articulate" but managment did not listen or take the threats seriously. The initial possibility of an airliner attack was known approximately six years before it happened. The agency with the primary responsibilty for counter terrorism is known for it's inablility to think "outside the box"... personally having worked "with" that agency I don't have much confidence things have changed.