Rumsfeld says that 9/11 Commission briefed about Able Danger

FNC | August 23, 2005 | FNC

[Peach]

Rumsfeld is having a press conference. Under the Fox News Alert the big banner read:

Rumsfeld says that Able Danger briefed the 9/11 Commission.

Did anyone hear his remarks on this matter; all I've seen is the banner.

[Howlin]

And you wonder why the Clinton administration shut it down?

[Tymesup]

I remember being concerned about Buddy ??? being in charge of FEMA towards the end of Clinton's term. I can't remember his last name and hope I'm not getting confused with Buddy the dog.

[STARWISE]

No .. I think Deutsch asked him that. AND I'M SICK OF HOW KERIK IS RESPONDING .. HE'S DISSING SHAFFER... the putz. He only wants to "LEARN" .. how 'bout doing the forensic autopsy of what actually happened???

[popdonnelly]

I've been hoping that more evidence concerning the Atta in Prague story would turn up. The Czech government still stands by the story that Atta met with al-Ani. A search of Mohammad Atta and Prague will get you what's available.

[STARWISE]

I DO NOT have any wonder at all .. I just really wonder if what Shaffer says was found was known was actually reported all the way up the chain. If so, that means that "somebody" was actually keeping tabs on their conclusions and that also gives us some new fodder to ponder what the Burglar stole.

Shaffer is pushing hard .. he says he wants some accountability about who shut it down and why. I can't believe Kerik is being such a tool here ...disgusting. He's spinning like crazy.

[kabar]

Because 1 year before 9-11, the capability that special forces built actually identified to us the network of al Qaeda. And they went beyond that and gave us recommendations where we could take out cells to eliminate their capability. So for those pundits out there sitting in their armchairs criticizing President Bush, they have it all wrong.

If the Pentagon is conducting a cover-up, it is probably because they don't want to admit that they were operating a rogue program, which is why their lawyers did not want to share the information with the FBI. More than likely, Able Danger was shut down for that reason.

I suspect that the Pentagon set up Able Danger without getting Congressional and DOJ approval. Data mining was and is a controversial subject. DOD's Information Awareness Office is probably an outgrowth of Able Danger.Total (now Terrorism) Information Awareness (TIA) has been a lightening rod for civil libertarians.

Extensive criticism of the IAO in the traditional media and on the Internet has come from both left-wing and right-wing civil libertarians, who see the unprecedented systematic categorization and access to information that it will enable as a grave threat to individual liberties, and another step farther down the slippery slope to a totalitarian state.

On November 27, 2002, San Francisco Weekly columnist Matt Smith decided to illustrate the perils of information proliferation to John Poindexter personally by publishing a column containing Poindexter's home address and phone number, along with those of his next-door neighbors. The information quickly propagated through the Internet, and protestors created numerous web sites with this data, including satellite photographs of Poindexter's house.

[texasbluebell]

Is anybody as p*ssed off as I am right now?

Beyond p*ssed.

I'm so mad I could spit.

[Dat Mon]

THEY CAN'T TEST HOW GOOD THIS PROGRAM IS, BECAUSE IT NO LONGER EXISTS.

BINGO.

As Ive said...its not just the DOCUMENTS that are of interest now...it is the COMPUTER PROGRAM that produced them. They were IMO simply summary reports generated by queries to the system.

Its the terabytes of background data originally stored on secure redundant electronic media somewhere within a high security facility...that is the issue.

To destroy this program and archival info requires a definite high level chain of command order.

[popdonnelly]

"Kerik believes Ben Venista. Thinks if the Commission had info on Atta being watched a year before, they'd have explored that."

This is the Ben Veniste "Why didn't the Pentagon tell us" defense. Well, the Commission staff was told. And told. Why was it left out of the Commission report?

[b4its2late]

because she took Hubbell's place at Justice

Ironic in deed.

[penowa]

Thanks for the info maryz. I remember at the time thinking what a bunch of loser RINO's the Republicans picked and what a bunch of scheming crooks the Democrats chose.

[Ann Archy]

YIKES!! Good info...I am having trouble understanding it all.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There has been no case decided based upon International Law except perhaps early on using Nautical Law.

[concerned about politics]

He says the program was so incredibly good that it revealed some links between foreign governments and high government officials in OUR GOVT.

Clinton was bought and paid for since that Chinese restaurant started funding his campaigns in Arkansas. We can't forget his Chinese mafia , either, who's job it was to protect him as he rose to power.
China gate and the selling of our weapons technology was his repayment. I'll bet that was the deal. China couldn't get a missile 10 feet off the ground. They needed that technology. That wall was to stop our own security agencies from discovering what Clinton was doing.

[justshutupandtakeit]

As though the meaning of the term "unusual" can be correctly interpreted without wide knowledge of what is "usual."

[Enchante]

"HIGH AMERICAN GOVT. OFFICIALS LINKED TO FOREIGN ISSUES"

.... and since it was shut down so early in 2001, before most of the Bush appointees even took their positions in the Pentagon (many below Rumsfeld did not get confirmed until July 2001), think how high the probability must be that the sensitive 'issues' that arose were not only in relation to Clinton era officials but it was likely decided by a Clinton hold-over or Clintonlite General to do away with the program before the Bush team even knew about it..... the difficulties that the current Pentagon seems to have in locating info suggests that the records were really well-scrubbed....now I really smell COVER UP!

[Enchante]

"I'm so mad I could spit."

I'm so mad I DID spit -- my coffee -- all over the screen....... :^(

(a slight exaggeration, what Joe Wilson calls "literary flair")

[Cosmo]

When Sandra O'connor brings up International Law to support her arguments (see Lawrence v. Texas), I consider that the invocation of international law to support her opinion whether or not she claims to have other domestic legal reasoning to support her ruling . I did not say any case was decided based solely or even partially on international law. My point is simply that the issue conservatives currently have with SCOTUS et al. is that they would look to laws and customs outside the purview of the US in order to establish some level of precedent for their decisions when the Constitution and US legal precedent provide ample information for them to make correct decisions. O'Connor is quoted as saying that she forsees International law playing a bigger and bigger role down the road. To do this is nothing more than to abet the incremental ceding of state sovereignty to international opinion that we're already witnessing on the political level.

[texasbluebell]

Ha, literary flair!

[popdonnelly]

Thank you, I did the same and found nothing.