Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Anyone know what Able Danger is all about?

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393

    Anyone know what Able Danger is all about?

    I can seem to find anything about this on cnn or the nyt.

    Since all you libs know it all, I figure one of you could fill us all in.

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    I thought for sure all you lefties would weigh in on a subject that could have save so many lives and prevented so much bloodshed.

    It's telling since Able Danger can't be laid on the back of GW.

  3. #3
    Here, we'll give them a head start:

    Able Danger was a small, highly-classified U.S. Army intelligence program under the command of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC), which allegedly had identified the 9/11 attack leader, Mohammed Atta, and three other 9/11 hijackers as possible members of an al Qaeda cell operating in the United States. The identification was allegedly made by mid-2000, more than a year before the attack. These allegations appeared to contradict the conclusion of the official 9/11 Commission that American intelligence agencies had not identified Atta as a terrorist prior to the attack, resulting in political controversy.

    The existence of Able Danger and its alleged identification of the 9/11 terrorists was first publicly disclosed in June 2005 by Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, in a special orders speech on the House floor. In his book Countdown to Terror Weldon asserted that an Able Danger chart produced in 1999 identifying 9/11 hijackers Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had been presented to then Deputy National Security Advisor Jim Steinberg and that Weldon himself had personally presented the chart to then-Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley days after 9/11. This allegation was picked up by national media in August 2005 after it was reported in Government Security News.

    Weldon claimed that the intelligence concerning Atta was provided to the 9/11 Commission, but Commission members Timothy J. Roemer and John F. Lehman both claimed not to have received it. The Commission later stated that it had received information concerning the identification of Atta by Able Danger, but it was consider not sufficiently credible to be included in the Commission's report or warrant further investigation. The claim that Atta was in the US before 2000 also conflicted with the timeline for the 9/11 attacks developed by the Commission.

    Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly and others have asserted that the Able Danger intelligence was suppressed as a result of 'the wall' a policy that alleged by then Attorney General John Ashcroft to have been introduced under the Clinton administration by Jamie Gorelick to prohibited sharing of terrorist intelligence within the federal government.

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger[/url]

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    It is a VAST right-wing conspiracy to cover-up the truth about 9-11......the real reason 9-11 occured is because George Bush was reading a story to children for seven minutes...WAKE UP!
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 08-28-2005 at 03:59 PM.

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]It is a VAST right-wing conspiracy to cover-up the truth about 9-11......the real reason 9-11 occured is because George Bush was reading a story to children for seven minutes...WAKE UP![/QUOTE]
    wow, for once ny is talking sense. what happened, did you get hit by a car?

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,531
    [QUOTE=Jetfan16]wow, for once ny is talking sense. what happened, did you get hit by a car?[/QUOTE]

    Maybe he read one too many of your verbal regurgitations...?

  7. #7
    Monday morning bump

  8. #8
    What's Able Danger? I don't think I got the memo.

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,531
    [QUOTE=sackdance]What's Able Danger? I don't think I got the memo.[/QUOTE]

    lol - Jamie Gashlick strikes again! :D

  10. #10
    Monday, Aug. 29, 2005 1:22 a.m. EDT
    Missing Able Danger 'Atta' Chart in 2002 Video

    A copy of the Able Danger chart that identified lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta as a terrorist operating inside the U.S. a year before the 9/11 attacks is clearly visible in a video of a 2002 speech by delivered by Rep. Curt Weldon to the Heritage Foundation.

    The Pentagon, the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee are currently seeking evidence that the bombshell chart, featuring a photo Atta, ever existed - as claimed by three members of the Able Danger team, along with Rep. Weldon. But so far, no physical evidence of the controversial document has surfaced.

    Until now.

    A third of the way through his May 23, 2002 address on data fusion techniques, the video shows Rep. Weldon unfurling a copy of the now missing document and displaying it to the Heritage audience.

    "This is the unclassified chart that was done by the Special Forces Command briefing center one year before 9/11," he explains. "It is the complete architecture of al Qaeda and pan-Islamic extremism. It gives all the linkages. It gives all the capabilities. . . ."

    Though Weldon never mentions Able Danger or Atta by name - and the video never zooms in on the chart to the point where Atta's photo is identifiable - it's clear from Weldon comments that the chart is the same one currently being sought.

    Since the Able Danger story broke three weeks ago, the Pennsylvania Republican has repeatedly insisted that he gave a copy of the chart shortly after the 9/11 attacks to then-Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley.

    In the 2002 speech, Weldon told the same story in greater detail, standing beside a copy of what he said he gave Hadley.

    "I went to the White House. I don't mean to embarrass this guy cause he's a good friend of mine. But I took a mini version of this chart in Nov. [2001] and I turned it over to him - Steve Hadley, who works directly for [then-National Security Advisor] Condi Rice."

    Weldon said Hadley was stunned after viewing the Al Qaeda-Atta document.

    "This is unbelievable - where'd you get this?" he wanted to know.

    After being told that the chart was prepared by military intelligence a year before the 9/11 attacks, Hadley said, according to Weldon, "I've got to show this to the man" - apparently referring to President Bush.

    In the same speech, Rep. Weldon also revealed that then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Hugh Shelton received a briefing on the Able Danger chart in the closing weeks of the Clinton administration.



    The Chart is probably in Sandy Burglar's pants.

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,531
    I don't want to sound too "X-Files" here, but anyone think it possible that the Left on the commission hid the AD stuff so that it wouldn't impact Hillary's run in 3 years? Slick Willie did get some blame in the final report, and if he got blamed for that, he could always claim "20/20 hindsight". But they ran the risk of a major scandal by totally discounting AD - strange. :huh:

  12. #12
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    4,117
    Here's a good one....

    [B]
    Jack Kelly: Able Danger -- now they tell us
    The 9/11 commission report, once much lauded, now has an awfully big hole
    Sunday, August 14, 2005

    The report of the 9/11 commission, once a best seller and hailed by the news media as the definitive word on the subject, must now be moved to the fiction shelves.


    Jack Kelly is national security writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio (jkelly@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1476).

    The commission concluded, you'll recall, that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon couldn't have been prevented, and that if there was negligence, it was as much the fault of the Bush administration (for moving slowly on the recommendations of Clinton counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke) as of the Clinton administration.

    Able Danger has changed all of that.

    Able Danger was a military intelligence unit set up by Special Operations Command in 1999. A year before the 9/11 attacks, Able Danger identified hijack leader Mohamed Atta and the other members of his cell. But Clinton administration officials stopped them -- three times -- from sharing this information with the FBI.

    The problem was the order Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick made forbidding intelligence operatives from sharing information with criminal investigators. (Gorelick later served as a 9/11 commission member.)

    "They were stopped because the lawyers at that time in 2000 told them Mohamed Atta had a green card" -- he didn't -- "and they could not go after someone with a green card," said Rep. Curt Weldon, the Pennsylvania Republican who brought the existence of Able Danger to light.

    The military spooks knew only that Atta and his confederates had links to al-Qaida. They hadn't unearthed their mission. But if the FBI had kept tabs on them (a big if, given the nature of the FBI at the time), 9/11 almost certainly could have been prevented.

    What may be a bigger scandal is that the staff of the 9/11 commission knew of Able Danger and what it had found, but made no mention of it in its report. This is as if the commission which investigated the attack on Pearl Harbor had written its final report without mentioning the Japanese.

    Weldon unveiled Able Danger in a speech on the House floor June 27, but his remarks didn't attract attention until The New York Times reported on them Tuesday.

    When the story broke, former Rep. Lee Hamilton, a Democrat from Indiana, co-chairman of the 9/11 commission, at first denied the commission had ever been informed of what Able Danger had found, and took a swipe at Weldon's credibility:

    "The Sept. 11th commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of the surveillance of Mohamed Atta or his cell," Hamilton said. "Had we learned of it obviously it would have been a major focus of our investigation."

    Hamilton changed his tune after The New York Times reported Thursday, and The Associated Press confirmed, that commission staff had been briefed on Able Danger in October 2003 and again in July 2004.

    It was in October 2003 that Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger stole classified documents from the National Archives and destroyed some. Berger allegedly was studying documents in the archives to help prepare Clinton officials to testify before the 9/11 commission. Was he removing references to Able Danger? Someone should ask him before he is sentenced next month.

    After having first denied that staff had been briefed on Able Danger, commission spokesman Al Felzenberg said no reference was made to it in the final report because "it was not consistent with what the commission knew about Atta's whereabouts before the attacks," the AP reported.

    The only dispute over Atta's whereabouts is whether he was in Prague on April 9, 2001, to meet with Samir al Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer. Czech intelligence insists he was. Able Danger, apparently, had information supporting the Czechs.

    The CIA, and the 9/11 commission, say Atta wasn't in Prague April 9, 2001, because his cell phone was used in Florida that day. But there is no evidence of who used the phone. Atta could have lent it to a confederate. (It wouldn't have worked in Europe anyway.)

    But acknowledging that possibility would leave open the likelihood that Saddam's regime was involved in, or at least had foreknowledge of, the 9/11 attacks. And that would have been as uncomfortable for Democrats as the revelation that 9/11 could have been prevented if it hadn't been for the Clinton administration's wall of separation.

    The 9/11 commission wrote history as it wanted it to be, not as it was. The real history of what happened that terrible September day has yet to be written.
    [/b]

    Paging Sandy Burger...please pick up the white courtesy phone...

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=Greenwave81]
    But acknowledging that possibility would leave open the likelihood that Saddam's regime was involved in, or at least had foreknowledge of, the 9/11 attacks. And that would have been as uncomfortable for Democrats as the revelation that 9/11 could have been prevented if it hadn't been for the Clinton administration's wall of separation.
    [/b]

    Is this last paragraph really relevant? "at least leave open the likelihood" who says that? what is that the nth degree of possibility?

    As far as I'm concerned blaming Clinton is old news. Really old news. WE all knew Clinton was asleep at the wheel in terms of foreign policy. But the Bush side of the story exists too and it is within the CIA branch of things. between Clinton not talking to the FBI and Bush not talking to the CIA 9-11 came about.

    here's my key response: Arrest Bin Ladin, Nabbing Atta, whoever else - that doesn't mean 9-11 doesn't happen. It would have just prolonged the event that woke people up. There were literally dozens of terrorist events before 9-11 but the American public didn't care. after 9-11 people, politicians included all of a sudded care about terror and security.

    If you want to take anything out of this story it should be the immegration issue, which no one really wants to deal with. Close the borders before the next 9-11 happens, don't waste resources and lives 6000 miles away.

    If 9-11 taught us anything its that it will be an inside job not an outside job. WHy are we fighting against outside jobs? We are at a point where winning Iraq is not winning the war on Terror. Not even close. I suppose Bush thinks we can democratize 47 Islamic nations? or just keep everyone busy until the oil runs out.

  14. #14
    [I]"The Sept. 11th commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of the surveillance of Mohamed Atta or his cell," Hamilton said.[B] "Had we learned of it obviously it would have been a major focus of our investigation."[/B]

    Hamilton changed his tune after The New York Times reported Thursday, and The Associated Press confirmed, that commission staff had been briefed on Able Danger in October 2003 and again in July 2004.[/I]

    Simply amazing, isn't it? Those looking for liars in high places need not look any farther than this election-time "commission".

    Funny, but AD has really taken the oomph out of that 'Who Fwamed Valewie Plume?' ghost-chase, hasn't it? For Democrats the only possible reaction to all Able Danger related treachery is a humiliated silence, with the reasonable hope that much of America doesn't notice or care. This "cover-up" within the heartfelt, fact-finding mission is so defenseless that any jackass attempting to excuse it will be tainted.

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,531
    [B]"The only dispute over Atta's whereabouts is whether he was in Prague on April 9, 2001, to meet with Samir al Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer. Czech intelligence insists he was. Able Danger, apparently, had information supporting the Czechs."[/B]

    The smoking gun regarding Iraqi involvement.

  16. #16
    I thought this was old news, honestly.

    I thought we all knew, and mostly all agreed, that the Clintonian "Wall of Seperation" was an abyssmal policy, and one that clearly led to the failures in intelligence that led to our inabillity to stop or minimize the 9/11 attacks.

    I'm not trying to say it isn't a worthy subject, because it is, but I thought this was already pretty much known way back when. I havn't read much on Able Danger lately, so I may not know enough to discuss it, but it seems from the reports that I have read that it merely documents the specific failures created by the "Wall of Seperation" policy.

    In any event, I think it is very clear that the "Wall of Seperation" is a clear reason we failed to protect ourselves for the 9/11 attacks.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us