in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. :)
| The Hill | 0 | |
| NBC DFW | Unreal: Accused Fort Hood Shooter Paid $278,000 While Awaiting Trial |
0 |
| WaPo | Fail: Protesters arrested after attempt to storm Justice Department |
0 |
| Kirsten Powers | Must-Read: How Hope and Change Gave Way to Spying on the Press |
0 |
| CNN | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Move Along:
""The whole issue of this - of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow. The whole thing defies logic. And the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations."
Pres. Obama on GOP demands for Benghazi answers, 5/13/2013
Operation Able Danger: A Lt. Col. steps forward
The crap is getting ready to hit the fan on this one, methinks:
Officer Says Pentagon Barred Sharing Pre-9/11 Qaeda Data With F.B.I.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 16 – A military intelligence team repeatedly contacted the F.B.I. in 2000 to warn about the existence of an American-based terrorist cell that included the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks, according to a veteran Army intelligence officer who said he had now decided to risk his career by discussing the information publicly. The officer, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, said military lawyers later blocked the team from sharing any of its information with the F.B.I.
Colonel Shaffer said in an interview that the small, highly classified intelligence program known as Able Danger had identified by name the terrorist ringleader, Mohammed Atta, as well three of the other future hijackers by mid-2000, and had tried to arrange a meeting that summer with agents of the F.B.I.’s Washington field office to share the information.
But he said military lawyers forced members of the intelligence program to cancel three scheduled meetings with the F.B.I. at the last minute, which left the bureau without information that Colonel Shaffer said might have led to Mr. Atta and the other terrorists while the Sept. 11 plot was still being planned.
“I was at the point of near insubordination over the fact that this was something important, that this was something that should have been pursued,” Colonel Shaffer said of his efforts to get the evidence from the intelligence program to the F.B.I. in 2000 and early 2001.
He said he learned later that lawyers associated with the Defense Department’s Special Operations Command had canceled the F.B.I. meetings because they feared controversy if Able Danger was portrayed as a military operation that had violated the privacy of civilians who were legally in the United States. “It was because of the chain of command saying we’re not going to pass on information – if something goes wrong, we’ll get blamed,” he said.
Sigh. So many missed opportunities. Frankly, I’m at a loss as to what else to say at this point about this.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it here again. We need to break out the summonses and get every one of the people involved with the Able Danger revelations in front of Congress and the American people, under oath. Nothing less will suffice.
Agreed.
Junkyard Blog comments on this and also discusses Shaffer’s believability. See Captain Ed for more as well. Mark in Mexico has a blogger round-up.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it here again. We need to break out the summonses and get every one of the people involved with the Able Danger revelations in front of Congress and the American people, under oath. Nothing less will suffice.”
We can start it with that congressman that’s making up what was in some chart he presented, but only had 1 copy of. funny stuff going on all right.
The fact that the 9/11 Commission totally ignored Able Danger doesn’t surprise me in the least. It’s just the latest in a long string of things they ignored because it would reflect badly on the Clinton administration, in their drive to figure out a way to blame Bush at least as much as Clinton for 9/11. I hit the major highlights of that list on my site earier tonight.
The legal community has spent decades twisting our laws to protect the “rights” of hoodlum organizations and murdering psychos and criminals.
Why am I not suprised to hear that such laws of course have also protected mass-murdering terrorists?
What’s even more insane: I’ve had some of these civil liberties idiots look me straight in the eye and tell me that my rights depend on keeping the streets safe for the mafia and Al Queada.
Cav: Got the email notification about your blog entry on this yesterday but haven’t had a chance to read it. I’ll definitely do so this evening. Can’t wait! It does seem that they strived for the “equal blame game” treatment rather than come down too harshly on one particular admin. More and more I’m coming to the conclusion that this group was more political than investigative … and there is a big difference between the two.
Tyler: It’s infuriating, isn’t it? In the meantime, the next attack we have (and I have no doubt that it’ll happen as we can’t make this country 100% safe) the same crowd will be complaining that we “didn’t do enough” – the same crowd who said “BUSH KNEW!”
Um, that’s, of course, only if it’s true.
Which, say, the guys at Powerline don’t seem to believe.
Just sayin’.
This is my post today—–
HATE TO TELL YOU THIS, BUT ANGEL DANGER WAS A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
0 comments Posted 1:11 AM by Howard
Able Danger clearly violated the law: and that is probably the reason nobody wanted to touch their output with a ten foot pole. Angel Danger was an ARMY unit spying on U.S. Citizens. Period. End of Story. Any and all evidence they obtained would not be admissible in any court in the land. It is precisely this type of domestic spying that the “walls” were designed to prevent. I don’t have any more to say, no seven paragraph ramble, no blah blah blah or but but but. The American Military cannot spy on American citizens. But they did it anyway.
I assume somebody will wake up to this in a week or so. Meanwhile, you read it here first.
#
Howard, the 9/11 perps weren’t US citizens.