Able Danger and total awareness

The Washington Times ^ | 09-26-05 | Daniel Gallington

[sono]

The Suicide Ethos Regulations were not the reason Able Danger intelligence was purged. Andrew McCarthy After the worst domestic attack in the history of the United States, the constant refrain was that "9/11 changed everything." All "walls" were taken down. Intelligence agents and criminal investigators — until then hindered from cooperating — were now to work hand-in-hand. National security was in. Obsession over imaginary civil-rights violations was out. The message was clear: Gather all the information, get it into the right hands, and connect all the dots. Well it looks like the memo never made its way over to the Pentagon. In mid-2000, the Department of Defense (DoD) intentionally purged a gargantuan amount of intelligence about al Qaeda — the enemy that had just blown up our embassies in east Africa and was even then scheming to bomb a navy destroyer in Yemen. The materials were generated by the "Able Danger" program, which attempted to map al Qaeda by sophisticated data mining. Although that program was itself highly classified, it drew mostly on open-source (i.e., non-classified) information. According to participants, the effort yielded leads that might have uncovered the 9/11 plot if diligently followed. Regardless of the ultimate resolution of the controversy over whether Mohamed Atta and three other hijackers were identified by Able Danger long before the attacks, there is no defending the destruction of valuable data. Nonetheless, that's just what DoD is trying to do. And central to this dismaying effort, four years out from 9/11, is the revival — as if it ever really went away — of the spirit (or, better, dispirit) that pervaded the Justice Department in the bad old days of "the wall." Specifically, to justify what happened in 2000, DoD is today reading regulations that readily permit effective intelligence analysis as if acquiring information and, God forbid, sharing it, are the gravest of sins. I use "reading" with hesitation. For it's hard to understand how anyone literate in the English language could read the governing regulations to say what the Pentagon is reading them to say. The Able Danger team members who claim to have identified terrorists and to have been thwarted in their efforts to share their information with the FBI are generally well-respected. Yet, top Defense officials publicly cast doubt on their credibility for weeks, insisting that no corroborating documentation had been found despite what was described as an "aggressive" internal investigation. Finally on September 1, after the number of Able Danger participants supporting the Atta allegation had grown to five, the Pentagon called a news conference, at which a handful of mid-level officials were given the uncomfy task of confessing that much of the documentation generated by the program had actually been destroyed. Intentionally. Over five years ago. Understand what this entailed. Erik Kleinsmith, a retired army major who was directed to carry out the purge in mid-2000, told the Senate Judiciary Committee at a hearing last Wednesday that he and a colleague "were forced to destroy all the data, charts, and other analytical products that we had not already passed on to [the Special Operations Command] related to Able Danger." Congressman Curt Weldon, who has been the prime mover behind the startling Able Danger revelations, elaborated that the breadth of deleted data was 2.5 terabytes — a staggering amount that would fill several rooms. Why? Purportedly because of regulations. Here's how the matter was put by Pat Downs, a senior policy analyst who was among those dispatched to take the media heat at the press conference (emphasis is mine): There are regulations. At the time how they were interpreted, very strictly pre-9/11, for destruction of information which is embedded, I guess is the way I would say it, that would contain any information on U.S. persons. In a major data mining effort like this you're reaching out to a lot of open source and within that there could be a lot of information on U.S. persons. We're not allowed to collect that type of information. So there are strict regulations about collection, dissemination, destruction procedures for this type of information. And we know that that did happen in the case of Able Danger documentation. This is abject nonsense. The Pentagon is allowed to collect information on U.S. persons. Indeed, the very regulations Ms. Downs was referring to — Army Regulation 381-10, which is a regurgitation of DoD Regulation 5240.1-R — say so explicitly. Moreover, contrary to this gibberish, when language is "interpreted very strictly," that means you limit yourself to doing exactly what it says — no rhythm, no wiggle room, no going the extra mile. A "strict interpretation" does not mean something which says "you may do this" is somehow read as if it said "you may not do this." Unless of course, we are back to the antinomian heyday of Clintonism (when the purge at issue, not coincidentally, took place) — talking points in hand as we ask what the definition of "is" is. DoD refused to permit any of the Able Danger witnesses to testify before the Judiciary Committee (although it has now asked for a second chance, and Chairman Arlen Specter has agreed to hold a second hearing on October 5). The Pentagon did, however, send to last Wednesday's hearing William Dugan, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's Acting Assistant for Intelligence Oversight. Though not in a position to weigh in on Able Danger, Dugan is well-versed in the intelligence oversight regulations and the spirit in which they have been enforced lo these many years. His testimony proved to be an alarming eye-opener. First, Dugan made clear that, under the law, the term "U.S. person" essentially means an American citizen or a lawful permanent resident alien (i.e., a greencard holder) — or an organization dominated by either. It most certainly does not include al Qaeda (a global terror network) or people like Mohamed Atta, who may have been in the country legally but most surely were not lawful permanent residents. Let that sink in for a second. The rules that the Pentagon keeps talking about are aimed at regulating what information DoD may collect on U.S. persons. But if we are not dealing with U.S. persons, these regulations do not apply. There is no problem with the Pentagon collecting or keeping such intelligence. In other words, the regulations were not even germane, much less determinative of an obligation to throw out boatloads of data about our enemies. But let's play along for a moment. Let's pretend that al Qaeda and Atta were somehow U.S. persons, or that it was necessary, in the course of investigating them, to capture information about actual U.S. persons. Even under those circumstances, there was absolutely no problem under the regulations for the military to have gathered, maintained or disseminated this information. As Dugan acknowledged, there is no component of military intelligence that has a mission to spy on U.S. persons. He observed, nevertheless, that DoD has several intelligence missions that are critical to national security, "such as foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, counterterrorism, signals intelligence, and the like." In the Information Era, the world is increasingly small. Thus, in the course of carrying out those missions, it frequently happens that DoD intelligence services will incidentally capture information about U.S. persons. Does that mean these services need to shed that information, even if it could be vital to our safety? Of course not. The whole point of the governing regulations is to allow the military to keep intelligence that might save American lives. Read the whole thing ... http://nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200509260809.asp

[ravingnutter]

Links to the Testimony on AD - Sep 21, 2005

Links are in the sidebar, a webcast version is also available.

[smoothsailing]

Here sono, this should be a little easier on your eyes! ;)

Suicide Ethos

[tennmountainman]

"Sadly you are correct, I have NO faith in Arlen searching for truth, whatever he comes up with will serve his own purpose not to serve for truth."
___________________________________________________________

Thats because Arlen "Magic Bullet" Specter is the HIGH PRIEST of Gov Coverup, unlike the Amateurs on the 9/11 Commission. When the Gov needs areal professional whitewash, Arlen is the go-to-man.

[Just mythoughts]

"Thats because Arlen "Magic Bullet" Specter is the HIGH PRIEST of Gov Coverup, unlike the Amateurs on the 9/11 Commission. When the Gov needs areal professional whitewash, Arlen is the go-to-man."

Stupid silly republicans, got to make one wonder their level of competence.

[sono]

TY muchly *smile*

[strategofr]

"Able Danger has served as the basis for the latest flap surrounding the September 11 attacks. But there is a real possibility Mr. Specter's interest in it will have some larger and longer-lasting effects on our nation's security. For example, our ability to responsibly and effectively use all the information our government has about the threat from terrorism, whether "intelligence" or not, is essential."

This is quite true. The combination of data warehousing and artificial intelligence, represented by able danger is one of the most powerful tools available to corporations and has been for some time.

The CIA and FBI, however, did not like to use these tools. the reason they give for this is that they prefer to use only classified information. This is another way of saying, they are stupid. However, frankly, these people have been acting stupid for too long. I believe rather that these organizations are primarily under the control of traitors.

[strategofr]

"Arlen will discover what he chooses to discover."

I don't agree. I think it will be more like Pandora's box.

[strategofr]

"Arlen is a fascination, or a conundrum, or just a flat out out pain in the butt."

Remove the "ors".

[strategofr]

"Like Specter or not, he is an experienced guy, and I see no reason why he would short circuit this. Biden may also see political advantage in making himself the democrat that called it as he saw it, therefore can be trusted."

I happen to agree. I see Specter as an enemy, because his main goal is to preserve a Liberal Supreme Court. He's clever. When he saw that Robert's nomination could not be stopped, he started to act like a conservative. He's always been smart and clever this way. If Bush nominates another conservative, however, Specter will, in my opinion, do everything he can to defeat the nomination.

As despicable as this is, it does not mean that Specter will act as a bad guy in every area of government. My impression so far is that he wants to get to the bottom of Able Danger. Another thing to consider about Specter, is that he 77 years old, in ill health, and no one believes he will ever run for office again. He is really not afraid to make anyone, or any group of people angry.

[ScaniaBoy]

Excellent analysis by Andrew McCarthy (link in post#23).

Unfortunately I think he is correct. The "suicide ethos" which can be traced back to the 70s (Church committee etc) has struck again. In a way this is much more damming of the Clinton administration and the liberals than anything else.

Quite clearly the Democrats have shown themselves quite unsuitable to handle defence and security matters. Not so much for the short term decisions made by the policy makers, but for the climate they created, both during the Ford/Carter administrations and later during the eight years with Clinton.

Unfortunately, it is very unlikely that MSM media will pick up (and understand) what actually happened. But let's not lose faith. Hopefully some juicy truths will still be revealed during the October hearings.

[ScaniaBoy]

Rereading what I wrote I guess I should make one thing clear: Yes, I know that Ford was a Republican, but he was hamstrung by the Democrats who controlled both the House and the Senate, and of course the Watergate legacy.

[Peach]

From McCarthy:

The Pentagon is allowed to collect information on U.S. persons. Indeed, the very regulations Ms. Downs was referring to — Army Regulation 381-10, which is a regurgitation of DoD Regulation 5240.1-R — say so explicitly.

Moreover, contrary to this gibberish, when language is "interpreted very strictly," that means you limit yourself to doing exactly what it says — no rhythm, no wiggle room, no going the extra mile. A "strict interpretation" does not mean something which says "you may do this" is somehow read as if it said "you may not do this." Unless of course, we are back to the antinomian heyday of Clintonism (when the purge at issue, not coincidentally, took place) — talking points in hand as we ask what the definition of "is" is.

This is what I don't get. I don't get the CURRENT administration spouting the same sort of nonsense as the former administration. And not just nonsense. But outright lies.

[ScaniaBoy]

This is what I don't get. I don't get the CURRENT administration spouting the same sort of nonsense as the former administration.

This bothers me too - no end.

The one explanation that I can come up with is the that the lingering climate of political correctness makes it impossible for the Administration to make a stand for AD without taking on large parts of the intel and legal organization in Pentagon.

I've just reread Nigel West´s "The third secret" on the plot to assassinate the Pope John Paul II. Although the book was written before the latest revelations from the Stasi archives Mr West shows pretty conclusively that CIA and other Western intelligence agencies had enough data to conclude that KGB/DS- (Bulgarian Secret police) was behind the murder plot.

However, despite the fact that the DI William Casey was himself convinced that the Soviets had attempted this outrageous attack on the Catholic Church he could not get his own agency to accept this notion. Eventually one report, written 1985, did make the case for a Soviet involvement, but that report, even though it was couched in a very careful language, almost cost the then DDI Bob Gates his nomination to DI during the HW Bush administration.

The Senate confirmation hearings in 1991 became a "bloody affair" with Gates being accused of unduly influencing the conclusions of the analysts. This was totally unfair, since he had in actual fact been leaning backwards to stay neutral. In the end Gates was confirmed, in no small part thanks to a brilliant defence by Senator D'Amato.

This story just goes to show that the bureaucracies can be very tough to handle, and in the present situation it may just be a case of the Administration choosing which fight to take on.

PS: I have posted D'Amato's speech here (post #6): Crime of the Century (The plot to kill the pope: Willful CIA & MSM bungling)

The new findings re. the attack on the Pope has been published on FR, one thread is here: Italy revisits plot to kill Pope

[ScaniaBoy]

Although I still think McCarthy's scenario is the most likely one after you've read this article (and maybe my own ramblings) go to this thread and read post #29.

Ravingnutter, as usual, has dug up some very interesting quotes and connections. There just may be a chance that AD was known by people higher up in the food chain, and that it started to create problems for the policy makers.

[Peach]

I did see that post; it's on my calendar for October 5th to watch the hearings but I have an appointment at 11:00 that I can't change and may miss some of it. We will need good notes!

I'm just glad that Rumsfeld has reversed course on this!

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"Arlen is a fascination, or a conundrum, or just a flat out out pain in the butt."

And what exactly does that make Bush? He's allowing the persectution of patriots, while covering the tails of Sandy Berglar and other Clinton cronies, as well as calling Minutemen 'vigilantees'. He campaigned for Spectre too.

I am so very glad that Bush was not my first choice as president. He was crammed down my throat. And I only voted for the guy because Gore would definitely have been worse. There should not be a DNC anymore, if we had a stronger leader in the White House right now. The DNC was and still is, left wide open for destruction by a president with the brass to do it.

I'm not saying Bush is a bad man. He's a good humanitarian. But he is licking the Clinton's boots on this issue, and licking Fox's boot on the borders issue, even if it means terrible consequences to the US.