I am bringing the whole article on site here as I see no reason not to.
Able Danger: Where's the Common Sense?
By Frank Salvato
Sep 22, 2005
Washington DC, a city that thrives on partisan politics, power plays and the satisfaction derived from the downfall of others. In this city cooperation is about as rare as a MoveOn.org fundraiser featuring Michael Moore without a deprecating comment about President Bush. But sometimes, even in our nation’s capitol, the pettiness of partisan politics needs to be set aside, if not for the good of the country, then to secure our very existence. Such is the case with the probe into Able Danger.
Able Danger was a secret military intelligence team charged with data-mining terror threats to the United States. Two military officers affiliated with the project, Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott, have come forward with claims that the US military identified four September 11 hijackers more than a year before the 2001 attacks. This identification incorporated a chart that not only made reference to Mohamed Atta but included his picture. Since Shaffer and Phillpott’s declaration the Pentagon has announced that three more people recall seeing the chart prior to the September 11 attacks.
These revelations incited a plethora of calls for a congressional investigation into whether information that could have prevented the attacks of September 11 was mismanaged, went unheeded or both.
On September 21 of this year, the Senate Judiciary Committee initiated open hearings into the issue of Able Danger, what they knew, when they knew it and to whom they conveyed their knowledge.
Set to testify before the committee were military intelligence officers and analysts involved in the Able Danger project, including Shaffer and Phillpott. These analysts used powerful computers to sift through public data in search of intelligence clues. This process is referred to as data-mining. Arguably, the information acquired during data-mining is sensitive, classified and in most cases top secret.
In light of the fact that the 9/11 Commission’s report omitted Able Danger entirely, Shaffer has said publicly that members of the team tried to pass the information they had uncovered about Atta and other 9/11 murderers to the FBI several times in September 2000. Two more members of the team have come forward to validate Shaffer’s claims.
In response to the committee’s request for testimony the Defense Department barred this slate of witnesses from testifying at the hearings citing the sensitive nature of the material in question. The only testimony given outlined how the Pentagon is squeamish about intelligence containing information on US citizens and the timetable used to destroy such information. There was nothing mentioned about Mohamed Atta, data-mining or Able Danger.
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld issued a statement saying that the Pentagon offered to hold a classified briefing on Able Danger to accommodate the Senate Judiciary Committee’s inquiries but refused to entertain the idea of participating in an “open hearing on a classified matter.”
Arlen Specter (R-PA), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, responded by saying, "That looks to me like it may be obstruction of the committee's activities, something we will have to determine."
Considering the sensitive nature of the information involved and the secret nature of the vehicle used to acquire the information, it is remarkable that a congressional committee would make such a poor choice of a venue for their inquiry. The choice of an open hearing effectively mandated redacted testimony, so much so that instead of hearing testimony into what may have very likely been serious intelligence communications mismanagement, the committee was met with a “wall of silence.”
I understand the cautionary tone with which the Pentagon is approaching this matter. It would be criminal to compromise what little clandestine intelligence we have in place considering the destruction our intelligence community underwent in the 1990s. While transparency in government is preferred, safeguarding the things that keep us safe makes a great deal of sense. Perhaps that’s why many in Washington and the mainstream media have a hard time grasping the notion.
The fact that such data existed before the attacks of September 11th and that nothing was done to thwart Atta’s actions is disturbing. So too is the fact that the September 11th Commission was more of a dog and pony show used to protect political legacies than to identify weaknesses in our intelligence system, a system meant to safeguard the American public from terrorist generated slaughter. But to think that testimony regarding critical information on the slaughter of over 3000 Americans is being obstructed because some politico didn’t have the sense to schedule a closed hearing instead of an open one is infuriating.
In the end the most important thing is to fix and refine our intelligence process so that Americans can feel safe about going to work, whether in Chicago’s Sears Tower or any of the myriad buildings that al Qaeda and the other cretins of the terror world salivate over destroying. Scheduling an open congressional hearing knowing full well that classified information cannot be shared in such a venue isn’t facilitating the refinement of our national intelligence process; it facilitates the continuation of an inept political process.
Government works at the competency level of the lowest common denominator. It validates the theory about the weakest link, be it at the federal, state, county or municipal level. But this issue is too important to settle for the ineptness of the political status quo. Our very existence could very well depend on it.
Frank Salvato is the managing editor for www.TheRant.us. He serves at the Executive Director of the Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan, socio-political education project
"The fact that such data existed before the attacks of September 11th and that nothing was done to thwart Atta’s actions is disturbing. So too is the fact that the September 11th Commission was more of a dog and pony show used to protect political legacies than to identify weaknesses in our intelligence system, a system meant to safeguard the American public from terrorist generated slaughter. But to think that testimony regarding critical information on the slaughter of over 3000 Americans is being obstructed because some politico didn’t have the sense to schedule a closed hearing instead of an open one is infuriating."
Maybe he's right. Maybe Specter is screwing us again.
more like Americans slaughtered because of politics in the first place