Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Enabling Danger Part One (Kristen Breitweiser)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-21-05 03:48 PM
Original message
Enabling Danger Part One (Kristen Breitweiser)
(snip)

Specifically, Congressman Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) has gone public with accusations that the Pentagon had four of the 9/11 hijackers under its surveillance in December of 2000. Initial press accounts detailed that four of the 9/11 hijackers -- al Mihdhar, al Hazmi, al Shehi, and Atta -- were identified by a data mining operation (Project Able Danger) run out of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

The revelation of this new information is astounding for two reasons. First, if true, this would mean that four of the key hijackers in the 9/11 plot were in the cross-hairs of our Pentagon one year prior to the attacks during the summer of 2000. Second, it raises credibility issues surrounding the 9/11 Commission since the Commission’s Final Report does not mention—let alone report upon—the Able Danger operation.

Let’s address the concept that DIA had four 9/11 hijackers identified as al Qaeda operatives in 2000. First, why was this information withheld from the FBI when it was allegedly collected by DIA back in the summer of 2000? Second, if this information was not passed to the FBI, was any of this information passed on to the CIA? Third, what difference would it have made if DIA had informed the FBI about these four al Qaeda targets? Fourth, if it indeed exists, where is the Able Danger chart that allegedly contains Atta’s name, and most importantly, have we capitalized on any other information or names contained in that chart?

Withholding from the FBI:

News reports state that the information regarding the 9/11 hijackers was not passed onto the FBI because Pentagon attorneys believed that the targets of the data-mining operation (the four 9/11 hijackers) were green card holders thereby banning the passage of this information to the FBI since laws were in place during the summer of 2000 that banned domestic surveillance of Americans by the FBI. Of course, the DOD attorneys were patently wrong in their interpretation since the four 9/11 hijackers that were identified were merely U.S. visa holders (some of which had already expired and/or were illegal). These men were not U.S. citizens—therefore, the information could have been readily passed to the FBI with no worry of breaking any rules or laws. Nevertheless, the Able Danger information did not get shared with the FBI. (The identities and whereabouts of the DOD attorneys who provided such wrong legal counsel remains unknown—which raises the obvious question as to whether these individuals are still working at DOD and making the same erroneous and deadly decisions.)

(more)

The revelation of this new information is astounding for two reasons. First, if true, this would mean that four of the key hijackers in the 9/11 plot were in the cross-hairs of our Pentagon one year prior to the attacks during the summer of 2000. Second, it raises credibility issues surrounding the 9/11 Commission since the Commission’s Final Report does not mention—let alone report upon—the Able Danger operation.

Let’s address the concept that DIA had four 9/11 hijackers identified as al Qaeda operatives in 2000. First, why was this information withheld from the FBI when it was allegedly collected by DIA back in the summer of 2000? Second, if this information was not passed to the FBI, was any of this information passed on to the CIA? Third, what difference would it have made if DIA had informed the FBI about these four al Qaeda targets? Fourth, if it indeed exists, where is the Able Danger chart that allegedly contains Atta’s name, and most importantly, have we capitalized on any other information or names contained in that chart?

Withholding from the FBI:

News reports state that the information regarding the 9/11 hijackers was not passed onto the FBI because Pentagon attorneys believed that the targets of the data-mining operation (the four 9/11 hijackers) were green card holders thereby banning the passage of this information to the FBI since laws were in place during the summer of 2000 that banned domestic surveillance of Americans by the FBI. Of course, the DOD attorneys were patently wrong in their interpretation since the four 9/11 hijackers that were identified were merely U.S. visa holders (some of which had already expired and/or were illegal). These men were not U.S. citizens—therefore, the information could have been readily passed to the FBI with no worry of breaking any rules or laws. Nevertheless, the Able Danger information did not get shared with the FBI. (The identities and whereabouts of the DOD attorneys who provided such wrong legal counsel remains unknown—which raises the obvious question as to whether these individuals are still working at DOD and making the same erroneous and deadly decisions.)


The revelation of this new information is astounding for two reasons. First, if true, this would mean that four of the key hijackers in the 9/11 plot were in the cross-hairs of our Pentagon one year prior to the attacks during the summer of 2000. Second, it raises credibility issues surrounding the 9/11 Commission since the Commission’s Final Report does not mention—let alone report upon—the Able Danger operation.

Let’s address the concept that DIA had four 9/11 hijackers identified as al Qaeda operatives in 2000. First, why was this information withheld from the FBI when it was allegedly collected by DIA back in the summer of 2000? Second, if this information was not passed to the FBI, was any of this information passed on to the CIA? Third, what difference would it have made if DIA had informed the FBI about these four al Qaeda targets? Fourth, if it indeed exists, where is the Able Danger chart that allegedly contains Atta’s name, and most importantly, have we capitalized on any other information or names contained in that chart?

Withholding from the FBI:

News reports state that the information regarding the 9/11 hijackers was not passed onto the FBI because Pentagon attorneys believed that the targets of the data-mining operation (the four 9/11 hijackers) were green card holders thereby banning the passage of this information to the FBI since laws were in place during the summer of 2000 that banned domestic surveillance of Americans by the FBI. Of course, the DOD attorneys were patently wrong in their interpretation since the four 9/11 hijackers that were identified were merely U.S. visa holders (some of which had already expired and/or were illegal). These men were not U.S. citizens—therefore, the information could have been readily passed to the FBI with no worry of breaking any rules or laws. Nevertheless, the Able Danger information did not get shared with the FBI. (The identities and whereabouts of the DOD attorneys who provided such wrong legal counsel remains unknown—which raises the obvious question as to whether these individuals are still working at DOD and making the same erroneous and deadly decisions.)


(more)

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/enabling-danger-part-one_b_5951.html>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-21-05 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. 9/11 Commission: The official coverup guide
9/11 Commission: The official coverup guide

"As each day goes by," Cleland said, "we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before September 11 than it has ever admitted.... Let's chase this rabbit into the ground. They had a plan to go to war and when 9/11 happened that's what they did; they went to war."
The new booklet features articles about the Kean Commission's breathtaking conflicts of interest and complete failure to ask any of the questions about September 11 that really matter.


Full-

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040525104145424

====

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-21-05 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Al-CIAda, isn't there still a lawsuit that the 9/11 Families instituted
way back. Whatever has happened to it? I remember that the Lawyer in charge had been responsible for bringing the Big Tobacco Companies down and everyone thought he would do a great job. But, we've heard nothing. And wasn't Bush loyalist James Baker defending the Saudi's in the case?

Do you know any more about this. I forgot the lawyers name or I would Google it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-21-05 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. There are several cases, the status of any in particular
I am not informed about...Stanley Hilton case, or Ellen Marioni's lawyer?
Baker yes, he sucessfully thwarted justice for any attempt at compensation in a civil case against the Sauds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-21-05 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. no....it's not those I'm talking about....
but, whatever...I think I'll go do some Googling to see if I can find what it is..

thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-22-05 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-22-05 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-21-05 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. They probably felt that they might lose a couple of planes and
a few floors of the trade centers.... but they got more than they bargained for... a whole lot more, especially what they have brought down on themselves in the ME. Talk about the folly of man and here you have a wonderful example of getting what you wish for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-21-05 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
6. Is anyone suing Bushler for MIHOP yet? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-21-05 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
7. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-21-05 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
8. The last 4 paragraphs are DAMNING.
Surveillance of the Hijackers—the proof.

The speed by which our government was able to accumulate such a vast amount of information immediately following the 9/11 attacks (in less than 24 hours) is the most persuasive proof that our government had the hijackers under its surveillance. FBI agents descended upon the very flight schools (out of the thousands of flight schools in our country) that the hijackers attended within two hours of the attacks. They were seen removing files from the flight schools buildings. Furthermore, photos of the hijackers and details about their activities in the final days before the attacks were also immediately presented to the American people. I mean you are talking about an intelligence apparatus that according to official accounts was completely in the dark about the plotting and planning of the 9/11 attacks. They — our intelligence agencies — knew nothing about the operatives living in this country—the operatives that were fully imbedded and openly training in our flight schools, partaking in practice flights across this country, receiving wire transfers from al Qaeda sources, and repeatedly traveling in and out of this country to visit other terrorists and terrorist facilities. Yet, for a group of agencies caught completely flat-footed on the day of 9/11, they certainly were able to get their act together at a time when most—if not all-- of this nation’s citizens were brought to their knees.

Additionally, when one carefully reads the 9/11 chronology and information provided in the public record, it becomes increasingly clear that the CIA’s repeated failure to share information with the FBI about two of the 9/11 hijackers—al Mihdhar and al Hazmi-- was purposeful. There exists at least seven instances between January 2000 and September 11th, 2001, that the CIA withheld vital information from the FBI about these two hijackers who were inside this country training for the attacks. Once, twice, maybe even three times could be considered merely careless oversights. But at least seven documented times? To me, that suggests something else. (To read about these instances, I suggest you read 9/11 materials relating to the "watchlisting issue" involving al Mihdhar and al Hazmi which is a story so detailed, that it deserves its own lengthy blog.)

The 9/11 Commission

At a bare minimum, the 9/11 Commission is not being honest with the American people. First, the Commission feigned total ignorance about Able Danger. Then, they admitted that they remembered hearing something about it. Next, they acknowledged that they were briefed about the program but found a discrepancy in the dates provided by the Able Danger informant, and therefore decided that the information was irrelevant to their investigation. Convenient excuses. But, wrong. Because, I happen to be one of the 9/11 widows that received personal commitments from each of the 9/11 Commissioners that they would track down every lead, and turn over every rock so as to provide the most thorough and definitive account of the 9/11 attacks to the American people. Last week’s revelations about Able Danger prove that the Commission has not been above-board with their investigation. Nor has their investigation been anywhere near exhaustive.

Now, legally speaking, the 9/11 Commissioners were mandated to provide a full accounting of the 9/11 attacks to the American people. If the Able Danger operation and its accompanying information turn out to be true, then necessarily each Commissioner has broken the law in that they failed to fulfill their legislative mandate in providing a full and just accounting of the 9/11 attacks to the American people. However, if we also come to learn that Atta’s or any of the other hijackers names were mentioned in the Able Danger chart, I think this nation will have bigger problems to deal with than accusing the 9/11 Commission of not following their mandate in providing a full accounting to the American people. As with most things in life, only time will tell.


Negligence?

Sorry, that's the understatement of the millenium. Someone in our government Let It Happen On Purpose. And the 9/11 Commission refused to find out who.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-21-05 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
9. BLOWBACK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Al-CIAda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-22-05 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
10. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-22-05 01:55 AM
Response to Original message
13. crooks and liars
http://www.crooksandliars.com/


Kevin Drum: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_08/006945.php
"One of the key allegations made by Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer in the Able Danger affair is that even though he specifically told the 9/11 Commission that Able Danger had identified Mohamed Atta, they failed to follow up on it. Today he recanted that allegation. Here's the chronology


Atrios says: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_08/006945.php

They had some agenda for reviving this, and they figured they could do so by screaming ATTA! ATTA! despite the fact that they'd never bothered to tell anyone they'd identified him before. Now, it looks like they didn't. Oh well. Next story?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-22-05 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Shaffer now says he bases his current claims re: Atta on what others said
Officer Says 2 Others Are Source of His Atta Claims

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 19, 2005; Page A11

The former intelligence officer who says that a Defense Department program identified Mohamed Atta and three other hijackers before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks said yesterday that many of his allegations are not based on his memory but on the recollections of others. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR2005081801751.html

So now he didn't specifically tell the 9-11 Commission and what he's been claiming about Atta being identified is based what others supposedly told him after Sept 11? Not what he knew or saw himself?

Sounds like his credibility is not exactly high and he and Weldon have been trotted out for a particular purpose. Remember: 9-11, terror, Iraq, stay the course...the latest Bushco media campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-22-05 02:17 AM
Response to Original message
14. "Able Danger" is all about "Muddy Waters"
Edited on Mon Aug-22-05 02:17 AM by SoCalDem
The whole purpose for this coming out at just this moment is just to
"allow and encourage" more trash-talk about Clinton & Gorelik, and to try to remove junior's comlicity.

Anyone with half a brain, knows how hard it was to get congress to approve ANYTHING that Clinton had wanted to do regarding terrorism.

By the end of his presidency, the rightwingers had pretty much eviscerated him. so they knowingly or unknowingly allowed terrorism to grow because nothing could or would be done (of any consequence)..

This "report" also hurts the families who oppose W, because it takes them in yet another direction..

Just more distraction and deception.

I really with that BC would take the gloves off and clear the air about what he did-tried to do about terrorism...So far he's remained silent and is allowing the *² people to further define his presidency.:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-22-05 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. but it is a 'HUGH' opportunity for us to shine a BRIGHT LIGHT back on this
DEADLY SERIOUS ISSUE.

i am psyched :bounce:

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-22-05 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
15. kick
peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-22-05 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
17. we gotta keep this one kicked
from a punk philly kid to the jersey girls, with love :loveya:

peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-22-05 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
18. Great stuff!
Keeping it at the top :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bpilgrim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-22-05 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. back up
peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC