Posted on 09/29/2005 6:37:50 PM PDT by strategofr
The Pentagon has decided to play games with the Able Danger story, virtually confirming the worst suspicions of just about everybody by first acknowledging that five of its team members recall identifying Mohammed Atta as a potential AQ terrorist a year prior to the attacks, and then forbidding these five witnesses from telling the Senate Judiciary Committee about the program.
The only thing that Donald Rumsfeld has accomplished with this strategy is to introduce real bipartisanship to the Judiciary Committee, which broadly scolded the DoD for pulling the witnesses from the hearing at the last minute:
The complaints came after the Pentagon blocked several witnesses from testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee at a public hearing on Wednesday. The only testimony provided by the Defense Department came from a senior official who would say only that he did not know whether the claims were true.
Five men and women in a highly-classified program, a status one only reaches by faithful and excellent service, tell the DoD that the program identified al-Qaeda's lead terrorists over a year prior to the attacks, and they're not sure whether it's true? That may be the most pathetic spin I've heard yet on Able Danger. If almost half the analysts in an intelligence group such as Able Danger cannot be trusted to remember something as significant as that, then the Pentagon has more problems than anyone realizes.
A Pentagon spokesman had said the decision to limit testimony was based on concerns about disclosing classified information, but Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said he believed the reason was a concern "that they'll just have egg on their face."
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, accused the Pentagon of "a cover-up" and said, "I don't get why people aren't coming forward and saying, 'Here's the deal, here's what happened.'"
Biden, as usual, speaks with equal disingeniuty. He understands perfectly well, at least in general, why the DoD won't produce the witnesses. It has little to do with specific intelligence exposure. After all, if the Senators want to discuss how the identifications worked, they would gladly go into closed session for that testimony.
What the Committee and the rest of us want is open testimony about what they found in relation to 9/11 and the known hijackers, who they identified, what they did with that information -- and who insisted on covering it up, both at the Pentagon and on the 9/11 Commission.
None of that comes under the heading of national security -- it falls into the category of covering some high-ranking ass.
Another reason for the sudden bipartisanship is the timeline of events, especially with the sudden stealth mode of Rumsfeld et al. The identification of the AQ operatives came in 2000, and the initial destruction of the data came in April 2000, as Eric Kleinsmith testified.
That would tend to point to the Clinton Administration as an obstructor. However, the program continued, allegedly predicting the USS Cole attack three weeks before it happened. Shaffer kept extensive files until February 2004, when they mysteriously disappeared after a dispute over a cell-phone bill with the DoD. That sequence happened on Bush's watch, and so does this ill-thought brinksmanship with the Senate.
The American people suffered the worst attack on our soil four years ago. We deserve answers about how that attack could have been prevented. The Pentagon has five witnesses that speak directly to that issue who have been prevented from speaking to the representatives of the people. Arlen Specter needs to subpoena those five witnesses, all of the senior officers in the chain of command for Able Danger, and Donald Rumsfeld himself to answer for why the Pentagon will not cooperate. Four years of hiding Able Danger is long enough. Thursday, September 22, 2005
I can guarantee you, that when you actually are aware of how our nation gathers national security information, the terrorists will be aware of it as well. This stuff is not anywhere close to being 'open' as you put it.
First of all I didn't know NSA was involved. Secondly, it wouldn't be the fact that NSA analyzed it, or even that they collected it. It's how they collected it that needs to be protected, and often just knowing that information was collected can enable determination of how, or at least lead to countermeasures that would deny us the ability to collect similar information in the future.
That's in general for foreign information. For US or friendly information stuff is classified because disclosure would help the other side. Such stuff as accuracies, throw weight, frequencies, modulation schemes, and as well as operational plans and such.
If, as advertised, the Able Danger info was based on "open source", that is available to most anyone, or at least unclassified and open to any one in the government (I'm think immigration records for example), and correlated by "data mining" technology. There is nothing to protect, neither sources and methods, nor information that would give the enemy something they don't already know.
Capt. Amercia...tell us your credentials for being such an expert on nat'l security and intel gathering.
Accountability? I call it finger-pointing. On this we'll simply disagree. Finger-pointing at pre-9/11 activities with a post-9/11 level of hindsight is, in my opinion, simply a waste of time. We've got more important things to do.
Maybe you could ratchet it down a couple of notches. I don't think PD is claiming anything of the sort. There's actually been a fairly interesting discussion going on around you and you're welcome to join it.
I guess that depends on how long a view one takes.
To protect sources of information, the British basically allowed Coventry to be bombed without any extra method being taken in it's defense. How much is it worth to protect the Republic from those who would overturn her?
The oath referred to "All enemies, foreign and domestic", did it not? Mine did.
But sadly, I'm not going to post my resume along with every thing I write on this forum. You are free to have whatever opinion about me you wish, and I will still sleep soundly.
But thanks for the new tag line.
Beyond measure, of course.
But there is a safer way of accomplishing the very same achievement. Keep liberals out of power. Let them whine, moan and attack, but don't let them run anything. Eventually, they will wither on the vine like the rotten bastards they are.
No but there are those who advise them that do have oxes that could be gored by this, and who are more interested in covering their own behinds. Neither Rumsfeld nor Bush have any real background in the technologies and methods involved, they have little choice but to trust their advisors, but those immediate advisors are generally in the same boat. You get a long ways down the feeding chain before you get to someone who really understands what is envolved.
But we have a Congress to provide the rules under which the executive branch operates and they have an oversight function, even, you might say especially, when matters of national security are involved.
I will no longer respond to anything less, dammit.
Don't believe it? Ask yourself if you ever thought you would see Rick Santorum actively supporting Arlen Specter. The dirty dealing and chits held in pockets for later recall keep Congress from ever becoming a clean defender of the Constitution. They all need to go. We need a citizen Congress made up of average Americans who serve a single term of office and then go home.
Only ignorant fools would want all of our techniques disclosed to our enemies -- just like the MSM do in Iraq telling the AlQaueda how and where and when all of our intelligence gatherin g was going to take place.
Cell phones and satelite phones are OPEN SOURCE - but telling the enemy that is trying to KILL us exactly how, when and where we are gathering information is TREASON! After those reports, the US military lost MOST of their intelligence concerning enemy movements and locations. That was OPEN SOURCE. AMERICANS DIED.
This even happened a couple days ago on tv on one of the alphabet morning shows where some bimbette talking mouth air-head tried to show her "superiority" over a police officer investigating a kidnapping by disclosing a largely UNKNOWN tracing method for cell phones - OPEN SOURCE again - STUPID and ASININE to disclose!! The cop glared at the bimbo knowing they had just LOST the kidnap victim - They should try that "reporter" for murder" now that the kidnap victim was killed soon thereafter.
Yes there are OPEN SOURCES that are classified just for the reasons I just said
Geraldo should have also been arrested and jailed for his OPEN SOURCE reports that gave the enemy the American's positions and plans. No telling How many American troops paid for Geraldo to look good in his own eyes.
BTW - I used NSA before simply as an example.
The Pentagon did not say they would not disclose anything, only that it should NOT be open to the public - only to the investigating committee.
Speaking of the committee - as far as our politicians are concerned - the next one that blabs out classified or restricted information to a reporter should be shot for the traitors they are. Republican or Democrat - it does NOT matter.
First of all, thanks to each of you for your service to your country.
Ramius is correct that this is an interesting, and I would add, an important discussion. We are indeed caught in a dilemma.
On the one hand, it is all too common for government officials to hide behind "national security" to evade accountability. To paraphrase the unlamented SC Senator Ernest "Foghorn Leghorn" Hollings, it's obvious there's "a whole lotta evadin' goin' on here". The stench is overwhelming.
Conversely, we have, collectively, allowed our "enemies domestic" to maneuver us into a position where we can't get at them to deal with them without their pulling a Sampson Option and wreaking destruction on everyone, even though, as El Gato has pointed-out, allowing them to continue to hold this Damoclean sword over our heads indefinitely will also result in the destruction of our freedom and the Republic.
I certainly don't have the solution - I just pray that our leadership can find it. Thanks again to each of you for your clear analyses and definition of the problem. That's the first step towards a solution.
I doubt you will find anything on this thread suggesting that FReepers should heed what I suggested because I am an 'insider' as you like to put it.
The reason that I share my perspective, is that those spineless weasels in Congress actually do pay attention to what folks like you say about them, and there are plenty of them who stand ready to do the wrong thing in exchange for your campaign dollar.
So, since they do listen, I think it is important to send them the right message, which is to leave Able Danger alone. You and others who might worry about the origins of my opinions, should simply consider them only that. I claim no special status or perspective which should cause my opinion to be considered more valid than anyone else's.
I hope that when I write or share something here, that I am able to convince or persuade based on the strengths of my arguments, instead of who you think I might know or have known. Plenty of FReepers know my background, but I hope that is not the reason they read what I write (or rant). I hope I effectively argue my points. If I don't, your job as a fellow freeper ought be to disagree. But I am sure you can do that without being an a-hole?
Wolf
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.