Sep 18 2005
Able Danger, Wild Speculations, 09/18/05
My post on the Weldon interview has been generating a lot of debate over at Free Republic (here). One comment caught my eye with an interesting theiory on what happened and is worthy of some contemplation. The portion that caught my attention was:
Any destruction of documents and the closing down of Able Danger before 9/11 was due to the fear in the Clinton Administration that it could turn up linkages between known Chinese operatives and illegal contributions to Slick’s campaign. After 9/11, they realized to their horror (with the Able Danger staff briefings to the Commission) that they had at the same time destroyed information that might have prevented 9/11.
This is not the first time this connection has been suggested. There simply is no proof outside the coincidence of the parallel studies: China Connections, Able Danger Terrorist Connections. But logically it is not out of the realm of possibilities. The administration’s reaction to the China analysis could have impacted the Able Danger findings. They all occur in the same time period.
Definitely something to keep in the back of one’s mind as the hearings unfold on Wednesday.
OK, time for some seriousness. In that post on the Weldon interview I wondered where was the mosque Atta was identified with and from where the photograph of Atta was obtained. I supposed it was oversees and in the GSN interview Lt. Col. Shaffer confirms the mosque information was oversees mosques:
Shaffer told GSN that one key to Able Danger’s success in identifying suspected terrorists was its willingness to buy information from brokers that identified visits by individuals to specific mosques located around the world. By crunching data about such visits during a six-month period, Able Danger’s data miners were able to spot illuminating patterns and identify potential relationships among alleged terrorists, Shaffer explained.
I wonder whether that broker still has the Atta information – including the photograph.
As I have previously mentioned, Weldon spoke on the record on the subject of the chart in May 2002. However note that he did not specifically mention Atta or anyone by specific name on the “chartâ€. Just odd that he does not mention any names on the chart nor identify the 5 cells? What is the Classified version?
Weldon has been pitching open source data mining a long time. How many charts are there? Classified/Unclassified? What happend to the chart over at Andrews AFB? How many saw the Smith’s chart?
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/h052102.html
Weldon: Congressional Record: May 21, 2002 (House)
…. here is the chart, the unclassified chart of what special forces command had 1 year before 9-11. Interesting. The entire al Qaeda network is identified in a graphic chart with all the linkages to all the terrorist groups around the world……
….. I got General Holland to bring his briefers up from Florida with special forces, I went in the Pentagon, went in the tank, and they gave me the briefing, as much as they could give me, because part of it is being used for our operational plan, why was that 3-hour briefing with the recommendations to take out 5 cells of bin Laden’s network condensed down to a 1-hour brief when it was given to General Hugh Shelton in January of 2001? And why were the recommendations to take out 5 cells not followed up on?…..
As I posted on CQ yesterday, The Fox story two days later adds to his speech on the floor…….
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200205/msg00146.html
Subject: Weldon: Clinton Official Ignored Program
Curt Weldon’s comments from the floor Tuesday night.
Fox News – Thursday, May 23, 2002
…… “In August of 2000, an Al Qaeda member had been interviewed by an Italian newspaper, and (it was) reported that Al Qaeda was training kamikaze pilots. The intelligence community and enforcement agencies don’t read open-source information,” he said…..
” “In August of 2000, an Al Qaeda member had been interviewed by an Italian newspaper, and (it was) reported that Al Qaeda was training kamikaze pilots. The intelligence community and enforcement agencies don’t read open-source information,†he said….”
Why wouldn’t they focus on ‘open-source’ info? Because of protocols created and implemented by Jamie Gorelick that were more concerned about ‘civil liberties’? And speaking of DOD lawyers, were any of the DOD lawyers that shot down LtC Shaffer sharing info with FBI linked to her tenure at DOD?
This is the DOJ press release when she left in 1997, with the relevant paragraphs:
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1997/January97/018dag.htm
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DAG
WENDSDAY, JANUARY 15, 1997
GORELICK TO LEAVE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Jamie S. Gorelick announced today that she will be resigning…
As the Justice Department’s number two official since March
1994…
As Deputy Attorney General, Gorelick introduced new
managerial structures to guide the Department in the midst of a
30 percent increase in the Department’s personnel and a 70
percent budget increase during her tenure.
One of Ms. Gorelick’s principal priorities was to help
prepare the Justice Department to be able to respond effectively
to the new challenges of transnational crime and terrorism. To
do this, she forged new relationships and administrative
protocols with the Departments of State, Treasury and Defense,
and with the intelligence community.
“In all of her work with law enforcement,” Reno added,
“Jamie displayed a sensitivity to the civil liberties of our
citizens that gave comfort to all of us who care deeply about the
Constitution.”
Before joining the Department of Justice, Gorelick served
from May 1993 to April 1994 as General Counsel of the Department
of Defense. As General Counsel, she supervised the government’s
second-largest “law firm,” consisting of 10,000 lawyers.
Separating fact from Able Danger fiction
Well, the speculation is running wild: Any destruction of documents and the closing down of Able Danger before 9/11 was due to the fear in the Clinton Administration that it could turn up linkages between known Chinese operatives and illegal…