Posted on 08/21/2005 2:52:23 PM PDT by wagglebee
Documents detailing the work of a top secret military intelligence unit that identified lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta before the 9/11 attacks have disappeared, according to the Defense Intelligence Agency's liaison for the group, code named Able Danger.
"There's some troubling things that have happened both to me and the way the [Able Danger] information [was handled]," Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer told C-Span's "Sunday Morning Journal." "Shortly after I talked to the 9/11 Commission, there was some issues going on about the documentation. Right now as it stands this minute, to my knowledge, the documentation I had . . . we don't know where it is."
"It's not where I left it back in March of 2003," Shaffer said, which was "in a Department intelligence facility in the Northern Virginia area."
Shaffer told C-Span he had "one full set of Able Danger documents in my holdings from the DIA."
The Able Danger whistleblower had said previously that a member of the team had delivered two briefcases full of documents to the 9/11 Commission - but Commission spokesman have said they have found nothing that mentioned Atta by name.
I think Newsmax got the info from the tony snow thread.I believe it was the day after he said his notes were taken that Tony said they have documents.
we don't need the raw data - just the final outputs that comprise the reports showing the highest ranking matches.
Certainly makes one wonder why 911 Commision member Tim Roemer seemed so cocky when he said on camera "So produce these documents. Where's the beef?"
NewsMax is quoting from a C-Span interview THIS MORNING.
I disagree. You need the raw data, every last byte of it. Anyone can get out a typewriter and make up papers. I would have thought a good freeper would have learned that by now.
Why?
http://www.ict.org.il/spotlight/archive_search.cfm?topic=interterror
Because this has gone on for a long time, and he knew it.
No Profiling allowed......says, Oil Bandit "INS" Nations....?
The Bergergate Investigation should reopen. Is that legally possible?
You seem to have ALL the "representives of the people" in Washington confused with someone who gives a shiite about you....
Some freeper called it...wish I could remember who....."The one party system in Washington with two facets...."
Kiss your ass goodbye...we have the ultimate "good cop/bad cop" going on.
JMHO
FMCDH(BITS)
That I don't know. But I do know, when classified terrorist documents go missing and they round up the usual suspects, Berger should be the first pulled in for questioning.
Well it makes more sense that they 'have them'. . .but should they be or be claimed to be otherwise. . .then I would grab the entire 9/11 Commission, for starters. . .and make them take a lie detector test. . .
. . .or put pins under their fingernails to get to the truth; where there is a will there is a way. . .the question seems to be. . .is there political will for this.
"Sandy wasn't doing anything illegal, he was just sloppy."
"That's good ole Sandy--he just sloppy."
"Sandy Burger didn't do anything for my campaign that violated any law as far as I know. He was just sloppy with some documents. That's all--sloppy.
"Nah, come on all yud Right Wing Wackos! Nuthin waz ILLEGAL heah! It wuz jus SLOPPY! Dats it! Sloppiness! Sloppy!"
"It's not where I left it back in March of 2003," Shaffer said, which was "in a Department intelligence facility in the Northern Virginia area."
What is not where you left it? A Single document? A box containing numerous documents? 15 boxes of copies of original documents?
"Shaffer told C-Span he had "one full set of Able Danger documents in my holdings from the DIA."
Does this mean "his full set" of all the documents are now missing from where he keeped them at the DIA?
This is either very sloopy reporting, or something is not on the level.
Furthermore as indicated by some, if the documents where typed on any word processor, that implies files that should be stored on one or more computers, perhaps in one or more directories on a system. It could even mean a group that worked on this project all have copies of the originals on other systems etc.. And of course if the particular systems are multiuser systems, e.g. UNIX, Linux or an IBM mainframe type OPS, there should be backups on other disks, tapes etc..
I am sure they where not working on just one windoze based system on this project. Or where they?
Something is truely not right here. If I was a system administrator on the projects computer(s), I would have made backups using programs that where secure, no body would have gotten at them unless they literally removed the whole hard disk's file systems(s), thereby destroying heaven know what other project data that would have been backed up on the same tar files or other tar files for instance. What the hell kind of people work at these facilities?
Does this mean "his full set" of all the documents are now missing from where he keeped them at the DIA?
I was wondering the same thing. I assume that if he had no idea where to locate a full set of documents, he would have said so.
Maybe they are hoping some doc-doctoring fool on our side will supply the fakes so they can expose him and thus discredit the Republicans in general. And of course GWB would be the ultimate target of that gambit.
Ok, maybe that's too paranoid. But do not tell me all copies are missing, all evidence gone. That just doesn't wash.
The Bush Administration is going to cover this up. Looks like they are well under way.
I recall he parsed that one very artfully, saying that what they gave the committee was only 1/20th of what they collected. In other words 19/20ths didn't go to the committee? It went to the landfill? To Vince Foster Park? He didn't say.
But it seemed to leave wide open the possibility that the pertinent Atta-nailing document was in the 19/20ths, rather than the 1/20th.
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.