Replies

We are all clamoring for more info about ABLE DANGER and what exactly happened with DOD lawyers, etc. Below is a more detailed account (about some aspects) than I have seen elsewhere, and the blog inteldump claims that they have learned that these comments come from Col. Shaffer himself!! The remarks below were posted by 'Anon' on Aug. 12, just when the story was breaking.

http://inteldump.powerblogs.com/archives/archive_2005_08_14-2005_08_20.shtml#1124340108

[INTELDUMP CLAIMS THEY HAVE CONFIRMED THAT THE FOLLOWING 'ANON' REMARKS WERE WRITTEN BY COL. SHAFFER]:

OK smart guys - with your "smell tests" and "Thats just flat out wrong" opinions shown above - I hope you don't mind, but let me clear up a few things - I was there and I lived through the ABLE DANGER nightmare.

First - yes - The lawyers involved in this (and similar projects) did interpret the 9-11 terrorists as "US persons" - so while you can second guess them all you want - but that was their "legal" call as wrong as it was and is. Unfortunately, the chain of command at SOCOM went along with them (and this, I expect, will be a topic that will become more clear in the near future).

And lawyers of the era also felt that any intelligence officer viewing open internet information for the purpose of intelligence collection automatically required that any "open source" information obtained be treated as if it was "intelligence information"...does this sound like idiocy to you? It did to me - and we fought it - and I was in meetings at the OSD level, with OSD laywers, that debated this - and I even briefed the DCI George Tenet on this issue relating to an internet project.

And yes, Virgina - we tried to tell the lawyers that since the data identified Atta and the others as linked to Al Qaeda, we should be able to collect on them based on SecState Albright's declaration of Al Qaeda as transnational terrorist threat to the US...well the lawyers did not agree...go figure...so we could not collect on them - and for political reasons - could not pass them to the FBI...I know because I brokered three meetings between the FBI and SOCOM to allow SOCOM to pass the informaton to the FBI. And, sadly, SOCOM cancelled them every time...

Oh - and as to your opinion that ABLE DANGER was a precursor to the IDC - you are flat out wrong - and obviously not keeping up with what is coming out in the press. ABLE DANGER partnered with LIWA/IDC to use the LIWA/IDC capability to obtain the data on Atta and the other 9-11 terrorists. I brokered the relationship...
And - wrong again on the IDC using only "classified" databases - IDC used 2.5 terabytes (a whole hell of a lot of data) - all open source - to identify Atta and the others that have been identified. Classified data bases were only use to "confirm" the links subsequent to the open source data runs.

Oh - and DATA MINING is not overt or clandestine - it just "is" - it is something that is done with either open source or classified information. ABLE DANGER used an array of both open and close databases...

So...good try, gentlemen - good to see there is intellectual rigor here...but before you start doubting the story, perhaps you need to do better research.
8.12.2005 11:27pm

Thanks on post 555. INTEL DUMP......statements made by LCT Schaffer. I also found Jon Holdaway, follow up statements rather interesting. His points about DoD justice department in general may end up proving not to Weldons likeing if I read it correctly, in essence indicating Jamie's wall did not directly affect the DoD decision to halt any interface between AD/FBI, but in essense it was the DoD's choice within their existing policies, etc.. This could prove a sticky point in what it appears Weldon is trying to accomplish. But perhaps I misread the Holdaway's statements. As usual I book mark them so I can return as required.
Gotta get some shut eye been a looooong day. Nighty night.

ABLE DANGER partnered with LIWA/IDC to use the LIWA/IDC capability to obtain the data on Atta and the other 9-11 terrorists. I brokered the relationship... And - wrong again on the IDC using only "classified" databases - IDC used 2.5 terabytes (a whole hell of a lot of data) - all open source - to identify Atta and the others that have been identified. Classified data bases were only use to "confirm" the links subsequent to the open source data runs.

Oh - and DATA MINING is not overt or clandestine - it just "is" - it is something that is done with either open source or classified information. ABLE DANGER used an array of both open and close databases...

The following is from http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/inscom/liwa/

As an analysis center, the IDC provides dedicated support to LIWA's deployed teams and the commands they serve. Tailored analytical products are generated, frequently on a quick-response basis, to meet a deployed team's immediate needs. The IDC also monitors potential trouble spots worldwide, preparing to support contingency operations with IO-related products should the need arise. The IDC uses high-capacity communications links to access selected information from a number of databases maintained by a number of other commands, agencies, and organizations. In addition to providing IO support to the operations process, the IDC provides an advanced environment to leverage new technologies and explore emerging concepts. The IDC is also prepared to provide support to exercises.

The IDC's communications capability serves both operational and analytical functions by using a variety of links to supported commands and deployed LIWA teams. The IDC also has access to DOD and non-DOD Government organizations participating in IO at the National level, and exchanges information with intelligence organizations possessing IO information and subject matter expertise. Collectively, the ability to communicate worldwide permits the small number of analysts resident in the IDC to provide tailored assessments rapidly and efficiently. Finally, in support of the Army Computer Emergency Response Team (ACERT), the IDC uses communications to flash computer intrusion alerts and countermeasures across the Army.

We can assume this about Shaffer. He's smart, able to connect dots, reactively fearless, honest, has strong beliefs about right and wrong, and understands too much at too deep a level. He's frustrated with those who can't see the obvious and who lack the courage to deal with reality as it is, rather than how it should be... He's a team player, but only to the point where team and country cross. And with much thought, and analysis, at the juncture, he chose "country". Why? What compromised his everything that he made him take such a risk? What pushed him over? Some piece of information was too much? Some rejection of what he understood was too outrageous. Some corruption he saw was too blatant? What? And what now?