Comments on: Able Danger Hearings Part II http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1345 High Flying Political Debate Fri, 25 May 2012 04:21:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: The Strata-Sphere » Blog Archive » Able Danger Hearings Part III http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1345/comment-page-1#comment-4466 The Strata-Sphere » Blog Archive » Able Danger Hearings Part III Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:41:31 +0000 http://strata-sphere.com/blog/?p=1345#comment-4466 [...] I decided to start a fresh post as a slog on through these hearings. You may want to check out Part I (which has nothing in it really) and Part II (which takes us through Cambone’s opening statement). As before, I am listening to part 1 of the hearings at QT Monster. As context I will use the post QT liveblogged as a reference. [...] [...] I decided to start a fresh post as a slog on through these hearings. You may want to check out Part I (which has nothing in it really) and Part II (which takes us through Cambone’s opening statement). As before, I am listening to part 1 of the hearings at QT Monster. As context I will use the post QT liveblogged as a reference. [...]

]]> By: The Strata-Sphere » Blog Archive » Fly By 2/17/06 http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1345/comment-page-1#comment-4445 The Strata-Sphere » Blog Archive » Fly By 2/17/06 Fri, 17 Feb 2006 14:28:47 +0000 http://strata-sphere.com/blog/?p=1345#comment-4445 [...] I also plan to finish reviewing the Able Danger hearings, what little there was to them. But something is not right and it looks like a standard DC cover up where everyone saves public face and the corrective actions are done behind the scene. At least one would hope they would be. The problem is someone went on a data purging rampage in 2000 starting with some politically uncomfortable results from a China infiltration study and then, for some obsessive reason, went on and deleted national security information on possible terrorists who ended up killing 3000 people. It seems this purging of embarrassing data happened again at DIA in 2004. The only thing I ever wanted out of Able Danger was assurances that no one could, in a fit of CYA, destroy valuable and critical data. That data is the property of the United States - it is the property of the people. It cannot be destroyed because someone’s career may be effected. But it seems the focus is on the retaliation by these people on those who called them on it. Which is good. Maybe actions are being taken to not allow this to happen again. [...] [...] I also plan to finish reviewing the Able Danger hearings, what little there was to them. But something is not right and it looks like a standard DC cover up where everyone saves public face and the corrective actions are done behind the scene. At least one would hope they would be. The problem is someone went on a data purging rampage in 2000 starting with some politically uncomfortable results from a China infiltration study and then, for some obsessive reason, went on and deleted national security information on possible terrorists who ended up killing 3000 people. It seems this purging of embarrassing data happened again at DIA in 2004. The only thing I ever wanted out of Able Danger was assurances that no one could, in a fit of CYA, destroy valuable and critical data. That data is the property of the United States – it is the property of the people. It cannot be destroyed because someone’s career may be effected. But it seems the focus is on the retaliation by these people on those who called them on it. Which is good. Maybe actions are being taken to not allow this to happen again. [...]

]]> By: Snapple http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1345/comment-page-1#comment-4440 Snapple Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:52:30 +0000 http://strata-sphere.com/blog/?p=1345#comment-4440 I was a bit disappointed with Shaffer's talk. He spent a lot of time on how he had been mistreated and didn't say too much about Able Danger. Maybe he just can't say too much. He did mention that they are charged with defending the US from enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. I was a bit disappointed with Shaffer’s talk. He spent a lot of time on how he had been mistreated and didn’t say too much about Able Danger.

Maybe he just can’t say too much.

He did mention that they are charged with defending the US from enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC.

]]> By: A Blog For All http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1345/comment-page-1#comment-4437 A Blog For All Thu, 16 Feb 2006 23:34:15 +0000 http://strata-sphere.com/blog/?p=1345#comment-4437 <strong>Able Danger Roundup</strong> For the latest blogging on Able Danger, see: Able Danger Blog, AJ Strata, Captain's Quarters, Flopping Aces, Mac's Mind, Tom Maguire, QT Monster, and Mark Tapscott. Able Danger Roundup

For the latest blogging on Able Danger, see: Able Danger Blog, AJ Strata, Captain’s Quarters, Flopping Aces, Mac’s Mind, Tom Maguire, QT Monster, and Mark Tapscott.

]]> By: liontooth http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1345/comment-page-1#comment-4436 liontooth Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:59:33 +0000 http://strata-sphere.com/blog/?p=1345#comment-4436 Here's an interesting China and CIA link to Able Danger: Shaffer said the CIA didn't want to share any bin Laden info because the CIA didn't want to share any of the credit. General Rod Isler told LTC Shaffer to end the LTC's involvement in the Able Danger program. General Roderick (Rod) Isler worked at the CIA in 1999 and approved the bombing target which turned out to be the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. The CIA counter proliferation division (Valerie Plame?) selected the target (link below). Why exactly was Isler brought over from the CIA to DIA after the bombing failure? http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/global/041700embassy-bombing.html "... the Central Intelligence Agency submitted its first targeting proposal of the war. It was selected by its Counter-Proliferation Division,..." "The C.I.A.'s assistant director of intelligence for military support, Brig. Gen. Roderick J. Isler, ultimately approved it, and it arrived at the European Command and the Joint Chiefs of Staff appearing to be a more advanced proposal than it was, the officials said." "This target came with an aura of authority because it came from the C.I.A.," said John J. Hamre, who recently stepped down as deputy secretary of defense. Here’s an interesting China and CIA link to Able Danger:

Shaffer said the CIA didn’t want to share any bin Laden info because the CIA didn’t want to share any of the credit.

General Rod Isler told LTC Shaffer to end the LTC’s involvement in the Able Danger program.

General Roderick (Rod) Isler worked at the CIA in 1999 and approved the bombing target which turned out to be the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. The CIA counter proliferation division (Valerie Plame?) selected the target (link below).

Why exactly was Isler brought over from the CIA to DIA after the bombing failure?

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/global/041700embassy-bombing.html

“… the Central Intelligence Agency submitted its first targeting proposal of the war. It was selected by its Counter-Proliferation Division,…”

“The C.I.A.’s assistant director of intelligence for military support, Brig. Gen. Roderick J. Isler, ultimately approved it, and it arrived at the European Command and the Joint Chiefs of Staff appearing to be a more advanced proposal than it was, the officials said.”

“This target came with an aura of authority because it came from the C.I.A.,” said John J. Hamre, who recently stepped down as deputy secretary of defense.

]]> By: peace http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1345/comment-page-1#comment-4434 peace Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:10:51 +0000 http://strata-sphere.com/blog/?p=1345#comment-4434 Check out this <a href="http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/02/tugging_on_the_.html">blatant propaganda piece</a>: William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security Able Danger and 9/11 Heartstrings Under Secretary of Defense Stephen Cambone testified before Congress yesterday that 90 people spent some 6,500 hours searching through documents and interviewing people involved in the Able Danger program and that they were unable to find any evidence that U.S. intelligence identified Mohammad Atta prior to 9/11. Cambone says that as part of its investigation, the Pentagon used state-of-the-art data mining capabilities to determine if there was any information about hijacker Atta resident in U.S. databases from before 9/11. No information was found. Cambone says his investigators found no deliberate restrictions on the transfer of any military intelligence information to the FBI. On all three counts, Cambone is being truthful. . . (much more at link . . .) Check out this blatant propaganda piece:

William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security

Able Danger and 9/11 Heartstrings

Under Secretary of Defense Stephen Cambone testified before Congress yesterday that 90 people spent some 6,500 hours searching through documents and interviewing people involved in the Able Danger program and that they were unable to find any evidence that U.S. intelligence identified Mohammad Atta prior to 9/11.

Cambone says that as part of its investigation, the Pentagon used state-of-the-art data mining capabilities to determine if there was any information about hijacker Atta resident in U.S. databases from before 9/11. No information was found.

Cambone says his investigators found no deliberate restrictions on the transfer of any military intelligence information to the FBI.

On all three counts, Cambone is being truthful. . .

(much more at link . . .)

]]> By: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Able Danger Hearings, Part II http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1345/comment-page-1#comment-4430 Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Able Danger Hearings, Part II Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:23:45 +0000 http://strata-sphere.com/blog/?p=1345#comment-4430 [...] And then you have AJStrata’s excellent rundown: Tenth Item: Cambone claims it was the LIWA Intelligence Oversight Officer who determined that the Able Danger data had to be destroyed (I guess along with the China study data). I seriously doubt that. The data was the property of a SOCOM general and no oversight officer is going to destroy a general’s data without telling him. Is Cambone being spun or is he doing the spinning? Cambone said the officer looked at LIWA support for SOCOM and determined this was not proper. Except JD Smith and others have said it was the China Study that triggered the purge, which I seriously doubt was for SOCOM. I mean 95% confident it was not. This is bogus and inconsistent with what the blogosphere has learned since last summer. It was not LIWA-SOCOM issues with data - why is Cambone making these inaccurate statements? [...] [...] And then you have AJStrata’s excellent rundown: Tenth Item: Cambone claims it was the LIWA Intelligence Oversight Officer who determined that the Able Danger data had to be destroyed (I guess along with the China study data). I seriously doubt that. The data was the property of a SOCOM general and no oversight officer is going to destroy a general’s data without telling him. Is Cambone being spun or is he doing the spinning? Cambone said the officer looked at LIWA support for SOCOM and determined this was not proper. Except JD Smith and others have said it was the China Study that triggered the purge, which I seriously doubt was for SOCOM. I mean 95% confident it was not. This is bogus and inconsistent with what the blogosphere has learned since last summer. It was not LIWA-SOCOM issues with data – why is Cambone making these inaccurate statements? [...]

]]>