Did Army project identify Sept. 11 ringleader?

CNET News.com ^ | Sep 21, 2005 | Anne Broache

[blogblogginaway]

Politicians on Wednesday blasted the Pentagon for failing to supply clear answers about--or witnesses with intimate knowledge of--a data-mining endeavor believed to have identified a Sept. 11 ringleader before the attacks.

Known as Able Danger, the project was created by the U.S. Army in 1999 and used to compile primarily publicly available information in a computer program and later map out a network of people with ties to known terrorists. But sometime between December 2000 and March 2001, the project was disbanded--for unclear reasons--and up to 2.5 terabytes worth of records, both electronic and hard copy, were ordered destroyed by the Army.

Sen. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, convened a hearing Wednesday to ask whether Sept. 11 ringleader Mohammed Atta's photo was, in fact, part of that data, and, above all, why the data was not shared with law enforcement agencies but deleted instead.

But, in an 11th-hour decision that surprised and perplexed senators, the Defense Department prohibited five key witnesses from testifying at the hearing, citing concerns about classified information, Specter said.

Some of the witnesses were nonetheless present in the audience. At one point, Specter even asked them to stand and be identified. But the senators could question only people who said they could speak for those witnesses, including Mark Zaid, the attorney representing two men closely involved with Able Danger, and Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa.

Weldon initially brought Able Danger to light about three months ago and has long been pushing for greater intelligence data sharing among the Defense Department, CIA and FBI. In a June speech before the House of Representatives, he expressed dismay that Able Danger did not appear in the 9/11 Commission's report.

An audibly frustrated Weldon praised the effectiveness of the Army's data-mining tactics, which have since spread to law enforcement agencies. He described a situation in which he was able to get a greater volume of information about a Serbian individual involved in the Kosovo peace talks through the Army than through the CIA.

Zaid said his clients, seated behind him, would have told senators that the Able Danger project did identify four Sept. 11 hijackers, including Atta, in its extensive data-mining process. All the information came from sources such as Lexis-Nexis, Westlaw, other subcontractors and the Internet--not government databases or classified sources, he said. His clients made repeated attempts to set up meetings with the FBI to share their charts and data, Zaid said, but all of those commitments were ultimately cancelled.

But Zaid was quick to note that the people on the charts could have been "nefarious or innocuous," and that "no information obtained at the time would have led anyone to believe criminal activity had taken place or that any specific terrorist activities were being planned."

Erik Kleinsmith, a former Army major who now works for Lockheed Martin, said he was ordered in 2000 by an Army lawyer to destroy all the data used in Able Danger. The reason for the destruction, he said, was an Army regulation that prohibits retention of data about U.S. persons beyond 90 days unless it has been determined to fit into one of 13 categories related to counterterrorism investigations.

The rules in question were issued by the president--not Congress--in the early 1980s in response to prior misuse of intelligence to gather information on American civil rights protesters, anti-Vietnam War demonstrators and other activists, said William Dugan, the sole Defense Department representative who spoke at the hearing. "We place special emphasis on the protection of information about United States persons," he said.

But, Specter asked, was Mohammed Atta considered a U.S. person?

"No," Dugan replied, after some prodding.

Dugan acknowledged that the regulations probably would have permitted the information in question to be shared with law enforcement agencies before its destruction. "Why wasn't it done in this case?" he asked. "I can't tell you."

Sen. Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican, suggested that a legislative remedy may be in order. "If a lawyer was too aggressive in requiring deletion of things they shouldn't have," he said, "Congress should look into that."

Specter indicated that additional hearings may take place. "We are not dealing with a matter of minor consequence," he said, instructing Dugan to "talk to the (Defense) Secretary and tell him the American people are entitled to some answers."

[samadams2000]

Rumsfeld..Hear me. Do not bury this one. I dont care who it touches.

[blogblogginaway]

Erik Kleinsmith, a former Army major who now works for Lockheed Martin, said he was ordered in 2000 by an Army lawyer to destroy all the data used in Able Danger. The reason for the destruction, he said, was an Army regulation that prohibits retention of data about U.S. persons beyond 90 days unless it has been determined to fit into one of 13 categories related to counterterrorism investigations.

The rules in question were issued by the president--not Congress--in the early 1980s in response to prior misuse of intelligence to gather information on American civil rights protesters, anti-Vietnam War demonstrators and other activists, said William Dugan, the sole Defense Department representative who spoke at the hearing. "We place special emphasis on the protection of information about United States persons," he said. But, Specter asked, was Mohammed Atta considered a U.S. person?

"No," Dugan replied, after some prodding.

[Reactionary]

What? Are the swine in Washington afraid that it might upset the people of this country to know that Billy Boy, the traitor, *knew* who the terrorists were and did nothing to stop them?

I'm sorry, but our lives aren't something these bastards play with. This is our country. It doesn't belong to the Nazi Clintons.

[Peach]

Ditto that.

The way the last few articles have been written, it sounds like the Bush administration has something very serious to hide. They had better get out in front of this immediately.

But the PR framework within the WH is so bad, that I don't think they will understand the implications of this for weeks and by then, nothing they say will help.

And no matter where the fault lies, we need to know. Too many soldiers have died to protect us and if the Washingtonistas can't stand up and talk about the truth, then they are useless. Worse than useless.

[ravingnutter]

Peach, dear...this is a Karl Rove rope-a-dope. It had fallen out of the news cycle. You know what happens as soon as the Bush Admin stalls on info...the MSM start foaming at the mouth demanding that info. The Dems have taken the bait...I was at DU awhile ago and they are screaming "Cover Up!". They think that it is because Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened, but Schaffer said he did not take the info to Cambone until after 9/11, the evidence was destroyed in 2000. This will now get the media attention it deserves, just as planned. The Dems gonna get their collective arses handed to them just in time for the next election!

[HarleyLady27]

start sending emails to reps and senators from your states, let them know we want to hear this...

also, wouldn't hurt to send some to the WH and the DOD and Rummy himself...

We want the truth, we have to work for it...lets get moving!!!!

[Peach]

What I don't think we can let happen is for Rumsfeld to remain silent about this for long.

You know how people have short memories and by the time there is clarification that the administration didn't do anything wrong, it will be part of most people's DNA that Bush hid the truth.

As well, there was a briefing in January 2001 and again in March 2001, to the Joint Chief of Staff, I think, according to Weldon, and that will place some blame directly in the lap of the Bush administration.

[popdonnelly]

Dear Anne Broache: the answer to the question in your headling is YES.

[Bush 100 Percent]

I wish people would stop and think about what this is supposed to be about. The point is that the 911 commission did not uncover this program which showed how "the Wall" was detrimental in identifying terrorists before the fact.

If ANYONE thinks that MSM will EVER report this accurately, you are sadly mistaken.

Already this article above has morphed this into "But sometime between December 2000 and March 2001, the project was disbanded--for unclear reasons--and up to 2.5 terabytes worth of records, both electronic and hard copy, were ordered destroyed ...."

No matter what the "facts", the MSM will portray this as the Bush Administration knowing something about 911 (which isn't a part of the picture at all) before it happened.

From what I heard, the Senators, today, weren't interested in the original info re "the Wall" or in the 911 commission failure - Think about it. Why is it in the Judiciary Committee? Why not the Intelligence or Homeland Security Committees? If you trust these Senators to do a better job than the 911 commission on the facts, I think your are headed for a big let down. The fact that they'd rather have an "open" hearing to bash the Pentagon than find out the facts in a classified hearing for a start - IS NOT GOOD.

[strategofr]

"The way the last few articles have been written, it sounds like the Bush administration has something very serious to hide."

I agree completely.

"They had better get out in front of this immediately."

I find it hard to believe that the White House is not realizing that their cover-up is falling apart at this time (8:47 p.m., 9/21). At least, the initial 100% stonewall strategy has failed.

[Peach]

I'd like to see the administration get out in front of stories a little more often and go on offense, vs always playing defense.

Sadly, it's too late for this matter to be played on offense.

And, it was reported that 9/11 families were there today - at the hearings. What must they be thinking?

[strategofr]

"the MSM start foaming at the mouth demanding that info."

Except when the info is a relatively small bush mistake connected to a giant Clinton mistake. Then you have, what you've had this past week: complete MSM cover-up.

[strategofr]

"I'd like to see the administration get out in front of stories a little more often and go on offense, vs always playing defense."

Good general point, but this case is a little different. Bush had something to hide, less than Clinton I'm sure, but something. He thought he could stonewall. He was wrong.

[bmwcyle]

I don't care if they start impeachment. I want the truth!