← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Quantrill
Thread ID: 20359 | Posts: 9 | Started: 2005-09-23
2005-09-23 15:37 | User Profile
This story has been completely buried by the media; I was not even aware of it until I saw it mentioned on Mark Godfrey's fine blog [url="http://www.markgodfrey.com/exen/"]Paleface[/url].
[font=Arial, Helvetica, Sans][size=3]Military Bars 9/11 Intel Testimony[/size][/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica, Sans][size=1]WASHINGTON, Sept. 21, 2005[/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, Sans][size=2]The Department of Defense forbade a military intelligence officer to testify Wednesday about a secret military unit that the officer says identified four Sept. 11 hijackers as terrorists more than a year before the attacks, according to the man's attorney.
In testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, attorney Mark Zaid, who represents Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, said the Pentagon also refused to permit testimony there by a defense contractor that he also represents.
The Judiciary Committee was hearing testimony about the work of a classified unit code named "Able Danger."
Zaid, appearing on behalf of Shaffer and contractor John Smith that Able Danger, using data mining techniques, identified four of the terrorists who struck on Sept. 11, 2001 ââ¬â including mastermind Mohamed Atta.
"At least one chart, and possibly more, featured a photograph of Mohamed Atta," Zaid said.
Maj. Paul Swiergosz, a Defense Department spokesman, said Wednesday that open testimony 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 any public forum," he said.
Swiergosz said no individuals were singled out not to testify.
"There's nothing more to say than that," Swiergosz said. "It's not possible to discuss the Able Danger program because there are security concerns."
Another Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman, said later that the Defense Department would be represented at the hearing by William Dugan, the acting assistant to the secretary for intelligence oversight. Whitman also said the Pentagon believes it has provided sufficient information on Able Danger to the committees with primary oversight responsibility for the Department of Defense: the Armed Services and Intelligence committees.
On three occasions, Able Danger personnel attempted to provide the FBI with information, but Department of Defense attorneys stopped them because of legal concerns about military-run investigations on U.S. soil, Zaid said in his prepared remarks, encouraging the panel to locate a legal memorandum that he said Defense Department attorneys used to justify stopping the meetings.
**Zaid also charged that records associated with the unit were destroyed during 2000 and March 2001, and copies were destroyed in spring 2004. **
"We recognized there are linkages and patterns of linkages to the al Qaeda leadership," [url="http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:vlaunch%28%27clip=/media/2005/08/17/video781658.rm&sec=500202&vidId=500202&title=Pre911TerrorAlertIgnored&hitboxMLC=earlyshow%27%29;"]Shaffer said last month on CBS News' Early Show (video)[/url]. "That's what our primary concern was at the time."
Rep. Curt Weldon. R-Pa., who was the first to come forward to assert that Able Danger had identified Atta and three others as being members of an al Qaeda cell, was also scheduled to testify.
**If Weldon is correct, the intelligence would change the timeline for when government officials first became aware of Atta's links to the terrorist network al Qaeda.
Former members of the Sept. 11 commission have dismissed the "Able Danger" assertions. **
Pentagon officials had acknowledged earlier this month that they had found three people who recall an intelligence chart identifying Atta as a terrorist prior to the Sept. 11 attacks.
In addition to Shaffer, another military officer, Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott, has come forward to support Weldon's claims. He was not on Wednesday's witness list. [/size][/font]
2005-09-23 15:39 | User Profile
Thanks for the link. This smells of cover up.
AE[QUOTE=Quantrill]This story has been completely buried by the media; I was not even aware of it until I saw it mentioned on Mark Godfrey's fine blog [url="http://www.markgodfrey.com/exen/"]Paleface[/url]. [font=Arial, Helvetica, Sans][size=2] [/size][/font][/QUOTE]
2005-09-23 15:53 | User Profile
I have been following this and despite Curt Weldon's involvement, I think it needs to be looked into.
I've heard Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer on a number of Neocon talk radio shows and there is one question they never asked for they were more interested in blaming Clinton for one more thing. Bob Barr had him on his radio program which prompted me to call in and ask the question that Sean, Michael, etc. wouldn't ask: [QUOTE]"... and Sir, what did the Bush Administration do with the information y'all discovered?"[/QUOTE] Shaffer's answer was along the lines of that he wasn't absolving the Bush Administration and that the Clinton Administration started to shut the operation down and this continued during Bush's term. The answer I found to be fumbling and obfuscating. I had a follow up question that I wasn't able to ask for I was dumped. My follow up would have been this: [QUOTE]"Why didn't you go to someone in the Bush Administation and tell them?"[/QUOTE] This stinks.
2005-09-23 16:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]I have been following this and despite Curt Weldon's involvement, I think it needs to be looked into.
I've heard Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer on a number of Neocon talk radio shows and there is one question they never asked for they were more interested in blaming Clinton for one more thing. Bob Barr had him on his radio program which prompted me to call in and ask the question that Sean, Michael, etc. wouldn't ask:
Shaffer's answer was along the lines of that he wasn't absolving the Bush Administration and that the Clinton Administration started to shut the operation down and this continued during Bush's term. The answer I found to be fumbling and obfuscating. I had a follow up question that I wasn't able to ask for I was dumped. My follow up would have been this:
This stinks.[/QUOTE]
Exactly right- it's damage control spin on a story that was already out in the open. Every reference I've heard to this makes it clear that the Clinton administration is to blame. Listened to Moikel Savage- for the five minutes I could handle- blame "liberal lawyers" within the Clinton DoD for the screwup brought about by the treatment of Able Danger. Which, by the way, only uses public domain data mining to develop intelligence. The FBI of the Clinton and Bush administrations would be sure to have some of the same information- and they did, if Coleen Rowley was correct: [url]http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html[/url]
Savage spinning this to blame Demcratic "liberal lawyers" guarantees this is a charade to:
-Advance Weldon's career -Protect neocons of both Clinton and Bush administrations -Take the heat off the Zionist elements of AIPAC/AEI etc./Mossad assets
2005-09-23 21:03 | User Profile
Reagan signed an EO that clearly stated that all manner of intelligence no matter what its origins, military or otherwise, is under the authority of the President of the United States. The bucks stops with him.
In that case, Clinton is certainly culpable along with Gorelick, who at the time, was an assistant or deputy something or other. Without Clinton's backing, she wouldn't have had the clout to set up the disastrous policy of disallowing the exchange of info. My guess is Clinton didn't want to handle this on his watch. Too open-ended, too close to the bone for him. He would have been forced to do something about terrorism, and as the USS Cole attack indicates, he wanted nothing to do with taking on terrorists. He let it slide.
Bush is another matter. There are enough neocons in important policy making positions in his admin. for me to wonder whether info was deliberately withheld from him in order to allow the 9-11 events to play out.
2005-09-23 21:09 | User Profile
DB,
Nobody's giving Clinton a pass with this. He has a lot to answer for. I should have made that clear. I want both of these administrations investigated.
2005-09-23 21:44 | User Profile
[img]http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040621/040621_clintonbush_bcol_1130a.small.jpg[/img]
Now this makes more sense.
[QUOTE=Sertorius]DB,
Nobody's giving Clinton a pass with this. He has a lot to answer for. I should have made that clear. I want both of these administrations investigated.[/QUOTE]
2005-09-23 21:46 | User Profile
BB,
Make that all three.
2005-09-23 21:48 | User Profile
[img]http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040621/040621_clintonbush_bcol_1130a.small.jpg[/img] The choice is up to 'Cos they come into classes Rhinestone shades and Cheap sunglasses! Bah duhm duhm duhm, duhm duhm, daaaaaah! :rockon: ZZ Top!
AE