| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
" Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
16 Aug 2005 11:04:36 AM |
| Object: |
"What me worry?" |
IS 'ABLE DANGER' ONE OF THE BIGGEST STORIES TO COME DOWN THE PIKE IN A
WHILE?
Boy, if Rep. Curt Weldon is right, a political earthquake is about to hit
Washington.
The gist:
The Sept. 11 commission will investigate a claim that U.S. defense
intelligence officials identified ringleader Mohammed Atta and three other
hijackers as a likely part of an al-Qaida cell more than a year before the
hijackings but didn't forward the information to law enforcement.
Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa. and vice chairman of the House Armed Services and
Homeland Security committees, said Tuesday the men were identified in 1999
by a classified military intelligence unit known as "Able Danger." If true,
that's an earlier link to al-Qaida than any previously disclosed
intelligence about Atta.
Sept. 11 commission co-chairman Lee Hamilton said Tuesday that Weldon's
information, which the congressman said came from multiple intelligence
sources, warrants a review. He said he hoped the panel could issue a
statement on its findings by the end of the week.
"The 9/11 commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior
to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohammed Atta or of his cell," said Hamilton, a
former Democratic congressman from Indiana. "Had we learned of it obviously
it would've been a major focus of our investigation." ...
According to Weldon, Able Danger identified Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid
al-Mihdar and Nawaf al-Hazmi as members of a cell the unit code-named
"Brooklyn" because of some loose connections to New York City.
Weldon said that in September 2000 Able Danger recommended that its
information on the hijackers be given to the FBI "so they could bring that
cell in and take out the terrorists." However, Weldon said Pentagon lawyers
rejected the recommendation because they said Atta and the others were in
the country legally so information on them could not be shared with law
enforcement.
Here's the fun part. The AP apparently confirmed at least part of this
stunning information.
Defense Department documents shown to an Associated Press reporter Tuesday
said the Able Danger team was set up in 1999 to identify potential al-Qaida
operatives for U.S. Special Operations Command. At some point, information
provided to the team by the Army's Information Dominance Center pointed to a
possible al-Qaida cell in Brooklyn, the documents said.
However, because of concerns about pursuing information on "U.S.
persons" - a legal term that includes U.S. citizens as well as foreigners
admitted to the country for permanent residence - Special Operations Command
did not provide the Army information to the FBI. It is unclear whether the
Army provided the information to anyone else.
The command instead turned its focus to overseas threats.
The documents provided no information on whether the team identified
anyone connected to the Sept. 11 attack.
If the team did identify Atta and the others, it's unclear why the
information wasn't forwarded. The prohibition against sharing intelligence
on "U.S. persons" should not have applied since they were in the country on
visas - they did not have permanent resident status.
If this checks out, it's going to have a lot of repercussions.
Clear-thinking folk will have to seriously reexamine 9/11 commission's work
and conclusions. Missing a key fact like this is inexcusible. Most
fascinatingly, it appears Commission staffers were told of Able Danger and
what it found, but never passed this information on to the commissioners
themselves. Why???
The dispute, as described by the New York Times:
The former intelligence official said he was among a group that briefed
the former staff director of the Sept. 11 panel, Philip D. Zelikow, and at
least three other staff members about Able Danger when the staff members
visited the Afghanistan-Pakistan region in October 2003. The official said
that he had explicitly mentioned Mr. Atta in the briefing as a member of the
American terrorist cell.
Mr. Kean, the commission head, said the staff members were confident that
Mr. Atta's name was not mentioned in the briefing or subsequent documents
from the Pentagon.
"None of them recalls mention of the name Atta," he said. "I think if that
had been mentioned, it would have been on the tips of their tongue."
Mr. Kean said he had asked the staff members to retrieve their classified
notes from government storage to be certain about not overlooking any
reference to Mr. Atta or to an American-based cell in any of the Pentagon
material.
Somebody's lyin.
If this checks out, a lot of folks left, right and center are going to have
to ask hard questions about what the heck Jamie Gorelick was doing on that
Commission instead of answering questions to it. The whole, "well, both
administrations were to blame, let's move on" conventional wisdom regarding
9/11 could be shot to hell, if it turns out the U.S. military intelligence
had these guys identified and located within NYC and an effort to capture
them was vetoed. Over a legal argument that seems flat-out wrong. Atta
wasn't a U.S. citizen; none of these guys were.
The Sandy Berger stuffing his socks has always looked like a deliberate
coverup, but now that slap on the wrist sentence he recieved looks truly
outrageous. And the defense of him from President Clinton - something along
the lines of, "oh, that's just absent-minded Sandy, we always laughed about
him walking off with papers" becomes supremely implausible. No, if Weldon's
account is accurate, this entire thing smells of a stunningly brazen
coverup.
By the way, the blogs are buzzing about Slate's dismissal of the story,
stating, "Weldon has a reputation for relying on iffy sources" and calls him
"a congressman known to make wildly dubious claims." They say that right now
it's the word of the 9/11 Commission vs. Weldon and one unnamed former
military intelligence official.
I don't know. Weldon seems to indicate he's got multiple sources on this,
according to the Times:
Weldon said in a telephone interview on Tuesday that he had spoken with
three team members, all still working in the government, including two in
the military, and that they were consistent in asserting that Mr. Atta's
affiliation with a Qaeda terrorism cell in the United States was known in
the Defense Department by mid-2000 and was not acted on.
This is in addition to the former intelligence official. Four government
guys, and a document shown to the AP? I don't know if everything is exactly
as Weldon says it, but there's clearly something here.
UPDATE: A thought provoking post here.
--
U.S.A.F. VET.
3rd LES CAB, PI
.
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: "What me worry?" |
16 Aug 2005 12:08:58 PM |
|
|
" Harry Hope" <THHjr@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:o8oMe.125599$Kp2.12467648@twister.southeast.rr.com...
IS 'ABLE DANGER' ONE OF THE BIGGEST STORIES TO COME DOWN THE PIKE IN A
WHILE?
Boy, if Rep. Curt Weldon is right, a political earthquake is about to hit
Washington.
The gist:
The Sept. 11 commission will investigate a claim that U.S. defense
intelligence officials identified ringleader Mohammed Atta and three other
hijackers as a likely part of an al-Qaida cell more than a year before the
hijackings but didn't forward the information to law enforcement.
Or the Bush white house, right? roflmao
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Pretzel" |
|
| Title: Re: "What me worry?" |
16 Aug 2005 12:13:46 PM |
|
|
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
What, me worry?
Re: Bu$h- Your Boys Die- What Me Worry??
Any democrats recall 9-11-01. "WHAT, ME WORRY?"
"What, me worry" Thats the baby game democrats play
"What, me worry?"
Re: Kerry - Your Lies are killing you - What Me Worry??
"What, me worry?"
Rummy nails it! Democrats go "what, me worry?"
| What me worry?, republicans
"What, me worry?"
Greenspan What me worry?
Clinton Adminsitrations utter incompetence. "what me worry?"
"what, me worry?" Looks like Bubba didnt care
"what, me worry" YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEA
"What, a democrat worry?"
|
|
|
