Posted on 09/10/2005 4:51:51 AM PDT by Perdogg
A Defense Department employee will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 21 that civilian superiors in 2000 ordered him to destroy a huge cache of data from a classified program that tracked al Qaeda, a congressman said Thursday.
"Another witness will testify that he was ordered to destroy 2.5 terabytes of data related to Able Danger and al Qaeda," said Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., referring to a now widely publicized "data-mining" program that gathered information about people from a host of sources to establish links and patterns that would not otherwise come to light. The amount of data obliterated is equivalent to 125,000 trees made into paper and printed, or a quarter of the print volumes in the Library of Congress.
"He was ordered to destroy the data or he would lose his job or go to jail," Weldon said of the Defense official, whom he did not name. "What were their motives? I think we have to find out."
News of the coming testimony about the destruction of Able Danger data is the latest development about the controversial and once-classified program. Five people who were connected to Able Danger said the program identified Mohammed Atta, the ringleader of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, as a potential threat more than a year earlier. Weldon and some of these people also said the Defense Department did not share with the FBI what it learned about al Qaeda as a result of Able Danger prior to the attacks.
"We have identified the FBI employees in the Washington field office who arranged three meetings [with Able Danger personnel] that were canceled," Weldon said.
"It was a very serious breach not to pass that information on and to have it shared," said Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., in an Aug. 31 statement about the Pentagon's withholding of Able Danger information from the FBI. "The consequences of not identifying them was that 9-11 might have been avoided."
Because the destruction of Able Danger data occurred prior to both Sept. 11 and the 2005 disclosure of Able Danger's existence, no one suggests the data was eradicated to cover up what the Pentagon knew about al Qaeda. But senior members of Congress from both parties are determined to learn why the Pentagon would destroy a massive trove of information about terrorism when it was even then a critical concern of U.S. national security agencies.
Destroyed Data Pentagon officials acknowledged at a Sept. 2 briefing that they destroyed the data. They said it was done as a matter of routine to protect the identity of "U.S. persons" citizens and those who were visiting the country legally.
But Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, an Army intelligence officer who worked on the program, said Thursday that before the Able Danger data was destroyed, he had briefed senior officials in the Pentagon and White House on ways to excise U.S. persons' names without losing the entire database. He said the Pentagon must have obliterated the data for another reason that it is not disclosing.
Sentence was imposed this week, lost in the post-Katrina Bush-bash. The judge fined Berger 50K and he was otherwised sentenced to two yrs. probation and given either 100 or 200 hours of community service. I heard it on Rush and Rush could not remember if it was 100 or 200 hrs.
Isn't his [Sandy Burgler] sentencing coming up soon?Go read this:
U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson handed down the punishment in federal court, stiffening the $10,000 fine recommended by government lawyers. Under the deal, Mr. Berger avoids prison time but must surrender access to classified government materials for three years
And for what it's worth, I found this via a search.
I think they were protecting themselves. They did not want information garnered by MI to go to the FBI because they were earball deep in the Chinese campaign money scandal (remember Loral?) That the terrorists were protected, was an unintended consequence of this Clintoon cover-up. IMO
And the elites keep on keepin' on!
Sorry Folks another false alarm, all the information destroyed and unless someone kept some copies somewhere this a lot of bluster that will get no coverage and just get the blood preesure of all freepers off the charts ,we will never see justice in this life I am afraid.
Can you say War Room and identify who was in charge?
Yep! As I've said on other threads, and roundly critisized for, this will go nowhere except down the memory hole.
My optimism level isn't all that high on this issue :(
Very big point! I also agree that Specter will say all the right things and undermine the whole effort. Also that we need the NAMES...
In case you have not seen.
" Notice that they weren't citizens but "persons."
Words mean things, especially in the law. Isn't a "person" different legally from a "citizen"?
" PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.
4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.
5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.
6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q. v.) and aliens, (q. v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.
7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.
8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into parents and children; hushands and wives; guardians and wards; and masters and servants son, as it is understood in law, see 1 Toull. n. 168; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1890, note.
CITIZEN, persons. One who, under the constitution and laws of the United States, has a right to vote for representatives in congress, and other public officers, and who is qualified to fill offices in the gift of the people. In a more extended sense, under the word citizen, are included all white persons born in the United States, and naturalized persons born out of the same, who have not lost their right as such. This includes men, women, and children.
2. Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president. The constitution provides, that " the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." Art. 4, s. 2.
3. All natives are not citizens of the United States; the descendants of the aborigines, and those of African origin, are not entitled to the rights of citizens. Anterior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, each state had the right to make citizens of such persons as it pleased. That constitution does not authorize any but white persons to become citizens of the United States; and it must therefore be presumed that no one is a citizen who is not white. 1 Litt. R. 334; 10 Conn. R. 340; 1 Meigs, R. 331.
4. A citizen of the United States, residing in any state of the Union, is a citizen of that state. 6 Pet. 761 Paine, 594;1 Brock. 391; 1 Paige, 183 Metc. & Perk. Dig. h. t.; vide 3 Story's Const. 1687 Bouv. Inst. Index, b. t.; 2 Kent, Com. 258; 4 Johns. Ch. R. 430; Vatt. B. 1, c. Id, 212; Poth. Des Personnes, tit. 2, s. 1. Vide Body Politic; Inhabitant.
I don't know why I did that.
Dude. What is going on here is legacy cleaning. It could alse be called a RICO offence, but it all about Clinton and the hidden agendas being protected.
The' Bizzaro Worlds' Agent Scully!
What ever was missed during the shredding, Sandy Burglar took care of.
Pray for W, NO, MS, and Our Freedom Fighters
Neither do I .
If all the info is destroyed there will be little SOLID evidence to do anything in this case. I'm also of the opinion it will all go down the memory hole and amount to nothing.
I tend to agree but there is no SOLID proof so it will amount to nothing.Clinton was very slick and I'm sure he covered his tracks ( or buried them if need be )
A belated welcome to Free Republic, old newbie.
I hope you are right about that.
Yup, that's the perp. She's being enabled by a host of others, who are all involved in the cover-up.
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.