Replies

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

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.

Able Danger is nothing more than data mining, and
"data mining" is not some kind of top secret government technology.

With yesterday's action...(the Pentagon barring these witnesses from publically testifying)... there can be no doubt an outrageous cover-up is underway.

Drudge has all but ignored Able Danger, so he doesn't even have this New York Times article highlighted. Weldon is already being attacked as a kook. With no open testimony by direct witnesses, the government will succeed in it's cover-up.

And if Spector doesn't supoena 9-ll Commission members, we can assume he's in on the cover-up.