Pentagon Blocks Testimony at Senate Hearing on Terrorist (Able Danger Hearing)

The New York Times ^ | September 20, 2005 | PHILIP SHENON and ANNE E. KORNBLUT

[4mor3]

September 20, 2005 Pentagon Blocks Testimony at Senate Hearing on Terrorist By PHILIP SHENON WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 - The Pentagon said today that it had blocked a group of military officers and intelligence analysts from testifying at an open Congressional hearing about a highly classified military intelligence program that, the officers have said, identified a ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks as a potential terrorist more than a year before the attacks.

The announcement came a day before the officers and intelligence analysts had been scheduled to testify about the program, known as Able Danger, at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Bryan Whitman, a Defense Department spokesman, said in a statement that open testimony about the program "would not be appropriate - we have expressed our security concerns and believe it is simply not possible to discuss Able Danger in any great detail in an open public forum." He offered no other detail on the Pentagon's reasoning in blocking the testimony.

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the committee, said he was surprised by the Pentagon's decision because "so much of this has already been in the public domain, and I think that the American people need to know what happened here."

[the_Watchman]

Finally, a voice of reason!

So many on this thread are making some pretty simplistic assumptions about how things work. Hasn't anyone seen "Yes! Minister!" on PBS during the 1980's? :)

The television show depicted the reality that elected officials temporarily preside over well entrenched bureaucracies. The level of "control" that they have is marginal. This cuts several ways. First, the bureaucracy has a "will" of its own. They will cover for themselves. This may not be a Republican or Democratic thing at all. It is probably a Department of Defense issue.

Secondly, yes Bush, or even Rumsfeld could step in and overrule the DoD policy that keeps these guys from testifying in an open hearing. However, Bush and Rumsfeld have to work with these guys. They cannot afford to expend political capital within the bureaucracy on something that may have "mixed" results.

The cover-up may lead no higher than some career generals. They may have their careers ruined if testimony indicates that they were gathering information in a way which was against accepted policy at the time it was done. It may not matter whether it was public information. It may not matter if it is accepted policy now. If it was against policy at the time, it could ruin careers. This is possible even if they were following orders by Clinton officials to break the law in order to gather the information.

Consider that the Clinton administration saw fit to dissolve the Able Danger unit. Perhaps everyone knew that they were into illegal territory to conduct such an investigation. We're not talking about Gorelick rules, here. We're talking about using military resources to snoop on U.S. citizens. That would not sit well in some quarters. However, it's difficult to be shocked over the actions of a prior administration when the current on has those same actions as sanctioned policy. No political points to score here and lots of "friends" in the DoD at risk.

Yes, it might be very interesting to find out what these guys knew about Atta. However, the current administration could conclude that the problems which could be fixed from the information is ALREADY fixed. Therefore, why expose the people involved to disciplinary action for practices which may be accepted now and expose our intelligence gathering and assessment technology? Is this worth a few political barbs to throw at the Clintons. Consider that even if it can be definitively proven that someone like Gorelick had been briefed on Atta, the MSM would let it drop like a rock. It may not be worth the other bodies that could be lost.

Rumsfeld and Bush are supposed to be running the government and protecting us. Not engaging in political posturing in order to embarrass the prior administration. Granted, we would all like to see Clinton drug through the mud in order to keep Hillary's hands away from the "controls". However, I would like to think that the integrity of intelligence operations is more important.

[RummyChick]

It is starting to look like to me that Atta was an asset at some point in time. Was he an asset at the time of the 9/11 who went "off the reservation"?

Something is amiss with all of this. It seems even the 9/11 commission doesn't want it known that Atta was in this country before a specified date.

Or maybe this whole thing is really just about protecting Clinton.

Whatever it is...something is very screwy about the whole thing.

[nopardons]

The whole thing is about protecting Clinton and his minions, some of whom are still in the Pentagon.

[RummyChick]

Then I guess we need to find out who told these people that they couldn't testify.

And if it is really just about Clinton's minions protecting him then Specter can issue a subpoena and make the men talk.

[P-Marlowe]

Nearly 3,000 Americans did not die in Watergate.

Perhaps not, but hundreds of thousands of Americans have died SINCE Watergate.

Coincidence?

I don't think so.

[ebiskit]

If this gets buried, I will have lost faith and it will be time to 'fully' exercise our rights as guaranteed by our Constitution because the 1st Amendment is falling upon deaf ears in DC. Thank you my God for the 2nd. It maybe the only voice left to speak. I vote, pay taxes, and peaceably participate in reasonable debate with those I disagree.

The very least I expect is respect for the dead of 9/11 and those fighting, dying for us. Their memories are being expediently pissed upon.

These actions by the Pentagon and by logic this Administration do not live up to the standards to which I hold them. Are not the Republicans supposedly the party of principle? My W sticker is about to be peeled off my car's back glass.

I am physically sick of the guilty getting away scot-free. Seeing J. Gorelick give her 'professional opinion' on national security and terrorism in various venues such as PBS tonight literally makes me vomit a little in the back of my throat. I think you all are familiar with the flavor of bitter bile quite well after the 8 yrs and more of the Arkansas Mafia.

It is time to rearrest control of this great land from the political fiefdoms made impenetrable from the outside by the lack of term limits, gerrymandered citadels of power, Amendment XVII, 'campaign finance reform' and lest ye not forget Kelo v. New London. peace....Deets

[Rennes Templar]

The going conspiracy theory is that Clinton and Bush knew but let these things happen so that they may pass Patriot Acts, etc. to further one-world gov't rule.

[nopardons]

Spot on; I agree.

[elfman2]

"Bush is covering for Clinton. Don't ask me why. "

I'll tell you, but you won't like it. It's as obvious as the nose on your face and it's not conspiratorial.

It’s because if anyone gets in trouble, they pull everyone in and it becomes similar to the Impeachment Hearings. And that kills progress on the Administration’s agenda, perhaps including the Judiciary appointments.

From the moment Bush took office, he set the pattern to kill any action against his predecessor, deciding that it’s not worth it. The opposition on the other had benefits from lack of progress, and pursues scandals.

[phelanw]

Atta was not an American citizen nor were the other hijackers. This operation was about ID'ing foreign born terrorists and following their activities. If American citizens were involved, well that does complicate things, doesn't it?

I strongly believe that the things Sibel Edmonds is hinting at are connected with the information collected by Able Danger. She is not under a federal gag order from Sentelle's court for nothing. The gag order is preventing her from naming names of American officials complicit in drug money laundering and connections to terrorist operations, the best I can tell. Able Danger was almost certainly privy to the same information. That information was prevented from wide dissemination in the FBI by the same people who got Edmonds fired.

[Crim]

"Consider that the Clinton administration saw fit to dissolve the Able Danger unit."

Did they?....well...we dont know that yet...

I'm just as curious as to who set it up in the first place...


"Perhaps everyone knew that they were into illegal territory to conduct such an investigation."

Or perhaps the admins got word of what AD was uncovering....like taking chinese money in campaign donations...

"We're not talking about Gorelick rules, here."

Well...we are...time line...

"We're talking about using military resources to snoop on U.S. citizens."

That may or may not have been committing treason or espionage...

"That would not sit well in some quarters."

I'm hip...those same quarters that may have ordered the purge....mighty convenient....aint it...

"However, it's difficult to be shocked over the actions of a prior administration when the current on has those same actions as sanctioned policy."

Really?...funny..I hadnt heard about GW signing a presidential waiver for Loral aerospace to go over and fix chinese rocket booster guidence because it didnt work right....to same boosters they launch nukes on(...let that sink a minute....that's right....thanks to bubba...china has functional nukes that would have previously failed in the 90% range)

Now if you are refering to the enhanced abilty to snoop on potential terrorists OR spies...the glaring question remains...Am I to believe that former administration started caring overnight about legalities?

I dont buy it for a second....they were only worried about getting caught red handed...

"No political points to score here and lots of "friends" in the DoD at risk"

Treason doesnt keep score....and "friends" like that should be swingin off the end of a rope in front of the white house.

[Crim]

And the real conpsiracy is more realistic....just another action in a long list of ass covering operations aimed at saving bubba's legacy...

An action that produced unintended consequences.....like most stupid actions do...

[PhilDragoo]

[nopardons]

Exactltly! That's perfect and I applaud you.

[carl in alaska]

"Yes, it might be very interesting to find out what these guys knew about Atta. However, the current administration could conclude that the problems which could be fixed from the information is ALREADY fixed. Therefore, why expose the people involved to disciplinary action for practices which may be accepted now and expose our intelligence gathering and assessment technology? Is this worth a few political barbs to throw at the Clintons. Consider that even if it can be definitively proven that someone like Gorelick had been briefed on Atta, the MSM would let it drop like a rock. It may not be worth the other bodies that could be lost.

Rumsfeld and Bush are supposed to be running the government and protecting us. Not engaging in political posturing in order to embarrass the prior administration. Granted, we would all like to see Clinton drug through the mud in order to keep Hillary's hands away from the "controls". However, I would like to think that the integrity of intelligence operations is more important."

I agree completely. The technological operations of the Able Danger unit absolutely should not be discussed in an open public hearing. These folks were using data processing technology that will be vital in the WOT in the centuries ahead. As technology in general continues its relentless advance, WMD will become easier to produce and the production facilities will become smaller and easier to hide. In the decades ahead, it will become increasingly important for us to be able to locate terrorist threats outside of our borders using all kinds of technology including the methods employed by the Able Danger unit.

Able Danger was using the kind of methods that could uncover a nuclear terrorist attack in its planning stage, and it's a very unwise, short-sighted tradeoff to expose any details of these methods just to nail Clinton here in the year 2005. Even if Clinton does get nailed for the Pentagon failing to listen to the Able Danger unit, the MSM will ignore this conclusion and this will never turn into another Watergate in reverse that could really benefit the GOP.

There's some possibility that these people could testify under strict restrictions about the content of questions and answers in order to protect their technological methods. Maybe Weldon can work that out, but I don't care if everyone decides to only discuss this issue in closed session. That's where this kind of subject belongs.

[ex-Texan]

I predicted this would happen today as I listened to Tony Snow's radio talk show. There is somebody at the top who is trying to CHA. People don't destroy classified documents that would fill a large library without tip top security clearance. Schaeffer and the rest better duck, cover and get out of Dodge.

[TexasCajun]

Somebody is forgetting who works for whom! Sorry SOBs.

[TexasCajun]

I am ashamed on behalf of FReeRepublic.

Don't be on my part, I'd like to learn the facts that you are content in not knowing.

[SpaceBar]

I read your post #175 and I'm inclined to agree with you that the exposure of sensitive technologies or intelligence assets may very well outweigh any short term political points of open hearings, however I do believe that something substantive needs to be done other than the "bipartisan" whitewash bs we've become so accustomed to. That game is getting pretty old.

[bIlluminati]

Check up on:
LORAL aerospace
COSCO shipping
BCCI bank
John huang
Charlie trie
Johnny chung
Bill Maher booking Barbara Olsen - did she knew where the bodies were buried? Morbid phrasing, I know...

Another thought: google offers organizing your personal e-mail. Is that part of the (still-existing) ABle Danger?
What would turn up on a google of the 2.5 terabytes.

BTW, Google kills certain news stories. A friend of mine searches for stories on a certain high-profile politician. Anything unfavorable on her (including public gaffes) gets killed within a few hours. No, it's not Hillary. How did a congresscritter first elected in '94 (yes I know there were a lot) end up number three in under ten years?