Posted on 08/10/2005 9:13:33 PM PDT by Pikamax
9/11 Commission's Staff Ignored Military's Early Identification of Chief Hijacker By DOUGLAS JEHL and PHILIP SHENON
WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 - The Sept. 11 commission was warned by a uniformed military officer 10 days before issuing its final report that the account would be incomplete without reference to what he described as a secret military operation that by the summer of 2000 had identified as a potential threat the member of Al Qaeda who would lead the attacks more than a year later, commission officials said on Wednesday.
The officials said that the information had not been included in the report because aspects of the officer's account had sounded inconsistent with what the commission knew about that Qaeda member, Mohammed Atta, the plot's leader.
But aides to the Republican congressman who has sought to call attention to the military unit that conducted the secret operation said such a conclusion relied too much on specific dates involving Mr. Atta's travels and not nearly enough on the operation's broader determination that he was a threat.
The briefing by the military officer is the second known instance in which people on the commission's staff were told by members of the military team about the secret program, called Able Danger.
The meeting, on July 12, 2004, has not been previously disclosed. That it occurred, and that the officer identified Mr. Atta there, were acknowledged by officials of the commission after the congressman, Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, provided information about it.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Jamie Gorelick, call your office. The wall is crumbling.
If the cell members lent or borrowed or traded cell phones and or credit cards, the data mining would show a hit for the person with the cell phone or credit card hit, NOT the physical person who may have used it.
Atta's cards or cell phones might have been used (getting hits on Able Danger's radar) with Atta not even in the country.
That would be nice .. but we can't .. it's against the law
Why do you think many of the Clinton people took Civil Servant jobs before he left office?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/09/AR2005080900661.html
Excerpt:
According to Weldon, Able Danger identified Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaf al-Hazmi as members of a cell the unit code-named "Brooklyn" because of some loose connections to New York City.
Weldon said that in September 2000 Able Danger recommended that its information on the hijackers be given to the FBI "so they could bring that cell in and take out the terrorists." However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers rejected the recommendation because they said Atta and the others were in the country legally so information on them could not be shared with law enforcement.
Weldon did not provide details on how the intelligence officials identified the future hijackers and determined they might be part of a cell.
Defense Department documents shown to an Associated Press reporter Tuesday said the Able Danger team was set up in 1999 to identify potential al-Qaida operatives for U.S. Special Operations Command. At some point, information provided to the team by the Army's Information Dominance Center pointed to a possible al-Qaida cell in Brooklyn, the documents said.
However, because of concerns about pursuing information on "U.S. persons" _ a legal term that includes U.S. citizens as well as foreigners admitted to the country for permanent residence _ Special Operations Command did not provide the Army information to the FBI. It is unclear whether the Army provided the information to anyone else.
The command instead turned its focus to overseas threats.
Just like that, they wave it away without investigating it any further. There could be many reasons why the dates and time didn't match -- how about using different passports for starters. Atta's name itself most definitely deserves further scrutiny -- but noooooooo they didn't like the dates so they just wave it off.
In translated Clinton speak, the quote above in bold should read:
"This information did not fit in with the conclusions we reached before the commission ever got started."
It's the same today. What's good for America, is bad for Democrats. What's bad for America, is good for Democrats.
I prey [sic] that Hillary runs in 2008.
Yea just like he took action on the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole
OF COURSE the commission ignored the information - - it would have reflected poorly on the Clinton Administration, but more importantly it would have ruined one of their own, Jamie Gorelick.
"History will show that Bush's greatest blunder, the thing about which he was most stupid, was his failure to purge EVERY Clintonista and ensure that no Clintonista ever had a role in his administration."
Been sayin' it from day one.
No decent person would work for the Slickmeister.
The 9/11 Commission KNEW about this all along but didn't even mention it in their report. Who did they cover up for? Bill Clinton, because it was the lawyers in his administration that cleared the path for the 9/11 hijackers.
Death , Dishonor, Destruction
Clintoon's 3D Legacy?
GORELICK GATE: Developing...
FR Archives Search Results for Gorelick Wall
How far these people have gone to cover-up the TRUTH about whose fault it was that 9/11 happened under BILL & HILLARY CLINTON'S watch. Just like they have about Sandy Berger STEALING classified information.
Travel records confirmed Atta had not entered the United States until June 2000???
So the 9/11 Commission had supposed that the leader of an al Quaida cell would be above doing something off the record? Atta could not possibly have entered the U.S. covertly at an earlier time with a fake passport??? It was impossible that Atta could have fooled U.S. agents by leaving a fake paper trail???
This is either really, really disgraceful logic, or the most incompetent attempt at a cover up I've ever heard in my life.
Where are the Jersey Girls? I thought they were out for the truth. I expect them to chime right in.
Let's say we drop the whole pre 9/11 event. What about the committee itself? Every little thing they said was politicized beyond belief last year. The very biggest intelligence lapse was this whole episode and we heard nothing about it from the committee at all. Why was that?
Who at the committee was aware of this whole episode and why was it that no testimony was heard publicly on this? I mean, please, nothing?
Obviously the best part of this story went down Sandy Burger's pants. He'll get his clearance back in time to serve her highness, Hillary Rotten. Don't forget her holding up the NY Post (with the headline Bush Knew, aug. 6 memo) and her asking "the president knew what?". All that was completely non specific.
Apparently the entire 911 committee was nothing but a scam and a fraud. The elephant they were looking for was in the room, the committee itself was surrounded by cover ups, felonies, etc. and we heard absolutely nothing. And to think they went over every little detail of irrelevant evidence, exposing much of it as political bombshell information, got testimony from scum like Dick Clark and ignored the elephant.
I feel gypped.
Able Danger, the 9/11 Commission & the Strange (But Now Explainable) Actions of Sandy Berger
By Sean Osborne, Senior Analyst & Military Affairs Expert
& Douglas J. Hagmann,Director
10 August 2005: Hey America… do you remember the strange actions of President Clinton’s national security adviser Sandy Berger during the 9/11 Commission investigation when he removed highly classified terrorism documents that should have been turned over to that independent commission? Did you ever wonder what Berger was attempting to hide and even more importantly, why? Did you also wonder why, even though he committed a felony, he received nothing more than a slap on the wrist while various political and intelligence officials played down his actions, wanting them to disappear as quickly as possible? It appears that we just might have discovered the answers to these and other troubling questions: Able Danger.
Able Danger is the code name of a secret team of U.S. Army military intelligence operatives created in 1999 under a directive signed by General Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to assemble information about al Qaeda networks around the world. In mid-2000, the Able Danger team discovered the existence of the key 9/11 terror cell of Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawar al-Hamzi inside the U.S. and recommended to their military superiors that the FBI be called in to “take out that cell,” according to Representative Curt Weldon, the Pennsylvania House member and vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. That information was presented in the summer of 2000 in the form of a chart complete with photographs of the terrorists to the Pentagon's Special Operations Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida. Our intelligence was dead-on accurate, but was not acted upon a full year before the 9/11 attacks.
In fact, Representative Weldon said Able Danger members had recommended that the information they uncovered be shared with the FBI, but the idea was rejected and they “were directed to take those 3M yellow stickers and place them over the faces of Atta and the other terrorists and pretend they didn’t exist.”
Despite the findings of Able Danger, absolutely no action was pursued to take out the cell during the weeks leading up to the 2000 presidential election, said Weldon. The reason? Mohammed Atta possessed a “green card” at the time. Under the rules of the Clinton Justice Department, lawyers working for Special Operations decided that anyone holding a green card had to be granted essentially the same legal protections as any U.S. citizen. They did not want to recommend that the FBI go after someone holding a green card, Weldon told his House colleagues on June 27, 2005 during a speech, known as a “special order,” which he delivered on the House floor. Defense Department lawyers were also said to be reluctant to suggest a bold action by FBI agents after the bureau’s disastrous 1993 strike against the Branch Davidian religious cult in Waco, Texas.
Read Curt Weldon’s June 27, 2005 Testimony
This week, Representative Weldon and a former defense intelligence official said they had spoken with three Able Danger team members, all still working in the government, including two in the military, and that they were consistent in asserting that Mohammed Atta's affiliation with a Qaeda terrorism cell in the United States was known within the Defense Department by mid-2000 but was not acted upon. Further and after the fact, the 9-11 Commission was reportedly never told about Able Danger or its findings.
Enter Sandy Berger – During the 9/11 Commission
While the investigation by the 9/11 Commission was in progress, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, who served as Clinton's national security adviser for all of President's Clinton’s second term, was caught removing documents from the national Archives – the very same documents that should have been turned over to the independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terror attacks. Berger ultimately admitted to intentionally taking and destroying various classified documents relating to terrorism collected under the Clinton administration. Berger and his lawyer said on July 19, 2004 that he knowingly removed the handwritten notes by placing them in his jacket, pants and socks, and also “inadvertently” took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio. Those documents reportedly included an assessment of America's terror vulnerabilities at airports, something very relevant to Able Danger’s findings and key to the 9/11 attacks. What Sandy Berger did was a felony, yet was allowed a generous plea agreement of a fine and a three-year suspension of his security clearance.
Under the prism of Able Danger, we are now able to make sense out of the previously curious actions of Sandy Berger.
Able Danger & the Saga of the 9/11 Commission; Warren Commission Redux
According to Weldon, staff members of the 9/11 Commission were briefed on the findings of the Able Danger intelligence unit within the Special Operations Command and about the specific recommendation to break up the Mohammed Atta cell, yet those members reportedly decided not to brief the commission’s members on those matters. Why not?
Clearer now is the conflict of interest of having Jamie Gorelick, the Assistant Attorney General under Bill Clinton serving on the 9/11 Commission. Ms. Gorelick worked directly for Janet Reno and was directly involved in matters that were under review by the 9/11 Commission.
Remember the reason the findings of Able Danger were not acted upon? In his testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Attorney General John Ashcroft stated the following:
"In 1995, the Justice Department embraced flawed legal reasoning, imposing a series of restrictions on the FBI that went beyond what the law required," he said. "The 1995 Guidelines and the procedures developed around them imposed draconian barriers to communications between the law enforcement and intelligence communities. The wall left intelligence agents afraid to talk with criminal prosecutors or agents. In 1995, the Justice Department designed a system destined to fail."
Continuing his testimony, Ashcroft stated:
"Somebody built this wall.” Ashcroft added: "The basic architecture for the wall . . . was contained in a classified memorandum entitled 'Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations. Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this Commission."
Ashcroft was referring to Jamie Gorelick, who served as Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration as well as general counsel at the Department of Defense. Both jobs put her at the very center of the former administration's anti-terrorism efforts. Consequently, her actions, as well as those of her superiors, were the subject of review by the very commission on which she is a member. Most assuredly, that is a huge conflict of interest. In her position at the Justice Department, Gorelick wrote a memo that provides a picture of the role she played setting policy for intelligence gathering and sharing during the Clinton Administration. The memo stemmed from the Justice Department's prosecution of the 1993 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.
Gorelick wrote in 1995:
“During the course of those investigations, significant counterintelligence information has been developed related to the activities and plans of agents of foreign powers operating in this country and overseas, including previously unknown connections between separate terrorist groups." We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."
And therein is the framework for the legal conundrum faced by Able Danger, and why Atta and his minions were free to hijack 4 airliners on 9/11.
I miss John Ashcroft. I love his voice. Hope he's well.
On Wednesday, however, Mr. Felzenberg said the uniformed officer who briefed two staff members in July 2004 had indeed mentioned Mr. Atta. Both Mr. Weldon's office and commission officials said they knew the name, rank and service of the officer, but they declined to make that information public."
This screams out at me that initially, Al Felzenberg was willing to lie his ass off. What does that say about his reliability? And Lee Hamilton's as well? He was all over television this week saying the commission didn't know anything about Atta being mentioned before 9-ll.
I'm watching a FOX & Friends report on this. The reporter said: The commission now explains they didn't include mention of Atta in their report because they got "conflicting information" on him, from different sources. Wanna bet this is another lie?????
Note to the paper: Nice try.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.