Pentagon Destroys Papers Regarding 9/11

[michaeledward]

I was pleasantly surprised to read this, this morning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger


Wiki's by their nature, are pretty limited to 'agreed upon' facts, because the 'other side' can also put in their two cents at any time.

Couple of points ....

Some of the controversy is that some claim they delivered information to the 9/11 Commission, which in turn, did not include it in the official report, and did not seem to follow up on this material. I seem to recall the 9/11 Commission made a big deal, when the official document was released, to have the document supported 'unanimously'. (the commission you will recall was independent and equally staffed by R's and D's).

There are some interesting items in the 'Skepticism' area, to cast doubts on some of the claims.

 

[michaeledward]

Definitely keeping tabs on this story! If anyone sees follow-ups, please post!

Saw this, reported elsewhere yesterday. Today, it is included with All the News that's fit to Print.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/21/politics/21intel.html

Pentagon Bars Military Officers and Analysts From Testifying

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 - The Pentagon said Tuesday that it had blocked several military officers and intelligence analysts from testifying at an open Congressional hearing about a highly classified intelligence program that, the officers have said, identified a ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks as a potential terrorist a year before the attacks.

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

...

They [a Navy Captian and an Army Lieutenant Colonel] said they tried to share the information with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the summer of 2000, more than a year before the attacks, but were blocked by Defense Department lawyers. F.B.I. officials, who answer to the jurisdiction of Mr. Specter's committee, have confirmed that the Defense Department abruptly canceled meetings in 2000 between the bureau's Washington field office and representatives of the Able Danger team.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Saw this, reported elsewhere yesterday. Today, it is included with All the News that's fit to Print.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/21/politics/21intel.html

It's interesting that this whole story got buried by the 9/11 commission for several years. The biggest irony is that it implicates at least one of the 9/11 commissioners as being partially responsible for creating the environment that allowed this to happen. Regardless of whether or not it was true, it would seem to have been a good idea for the 9/11 commission to have investigated, rather than dismissing whole sale.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I got a positive rating from someone based on my above statement. While I appreciate what was said, it might bear some explaining as my above statement was not clear. Apparently there is some confusion about Able Danger on the part of some people. It is suggested that 9/11 conspirators were identified as early as summer of 2000, and that it got buried. I'm not sure everyone has done the math to see who was allegedly responsible for burying the original Able Danger report and who is alleged to have buried the subsequent 9/11 commission response, but lets do lets make it clear. It was President Bill Clinton, not George Bush, who was president in summer of 2000. Further, this report got buried long before Bush ever took office.

Jamie Gorelick, former Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno and the Clinton administration, was a key member of the 9/11 commission. She further, is responsible for creating the intelligence environment that is alleged to have impeded the ability of Able Danger for erecting a "wall of seperation as a result of her March 4, 1995 memo to U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White and others, "disallowing the sharing of intelligence between law-enforcement agencies about terrorists in the United States."

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/1995gorelickmemo.pdf

A strong argument has been levied that this mindset toward terrorism had as much to do with allowing 9/11 to happen as anything else.

 

[michaeledward]

I got a positive rating from someone based on my above statement. While I appreciate what was said, it might bear some explaining as my above statement was not clear. Apparently there is some confusion about Able Danger on the part of some people. It is suggested that 9/11 conspirators were identified as early as summer of 2000, and that it got buried. I'm not sure everyone has done the math to see who was allegedly responsible for burying the original Able Danger report and who is alleged to have buried the subsequent 9/11 commission response, but lets do lets make it clear. It was President Bill Clinton, not George Bush, who was president in summer of 2000. Further, this report got buried long before Bush ever took office.

Jamie Gorelick, former Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno and the Clinton administration, was a key member of the 9/11 commission. She further, is responsible for creating the intelligence environment that is alleged to have impeded the ability of Able Danger for erecting a "wall of seperation as a result of her March 4, 1995 memo to U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White and others, "disallowing the sharing of intelligence between law-enforcement agencies about terrorists in the United States."

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/1995gorelickmemo.pdf

A strong argument has been levied that this mindset toward terrorism had as much to do with allowing 9/11 to happen as anything else.

Blah, Blah, Blah! ... Jamie Gorelick ... Blah, Blah, Blah.

Pentagon Lawyers (obviously, plants by Clinton confedant Wesley Clark) would not allow Pentagon analysts to meet with the FBI.

Pentagon personnel will not allow Pentagon representatives to testify before the Senate oversight committe ...

AND ITS ALL BILL CLINTON's FAULT.

It's so nice to hear how much respect the military is showing for President Bill Clinton, going through all of this to protect him.

Good Grief. ...

 

[sgtmac_46]

Blah, Blah, Blah! ... Jamie Gorelick ... Blah, Blah, Blah.

Pentagon Lawyers (obviously, plants by Clinton confedant Wesley Clark) would not allow Pentagon analysts to meet with the FBI.

Pentagon personnel will not allow Pentagon representatives to testify before the Senate oversight committe ...

AND ITS ALL BILL CLINTON's FAULT.

It's so nice to hear how much respect the military is showing for President Bill Clinton, going through all of this to protect him.

Good Grief. ...

Your attempt at covering with sarcasm aside, The Justice Department gives direction to Pentagon Lawyers. It wasn't Wesley Clark's decision. Further, these men were inside the United States during this time, and subject to civilian law enforcement (Posse Comitatus anyone) so the Justice Department had absolute authority to determine how much the Pentagon would share with civilian law enforcement. Gorelick (Blah blah blah) made that decision for the Clinton Administration Justice Department. Then, ironically, it any investigation of Able Danger was buried in 2003, without any real inquiry being made.

By the way, I find it ironic that you will condemn the current President for even the most asininely nebulous connection to anything, but you'll be the first to dismiss a direct connection between the policies of a former administration and the worst terrorist attack US history without even asking "What did they know, and when did they know it." Apparently you're only concerned with "What did Bush know, and what can we insinuate to hurt him" rather than the entire truth of what went wrong leading up to 9/11. Not that I expect any different. Blah blah blah.

By the way, they aren't circling the wagons to defend Clinton, they are circling the wagons to protect their own careers based on their actions during the Clinton administration. The same weasels who advanced their careers during the Clinton administration by being administration "Yes men" now fear having to explain their actions to the American people.

 

[michaeledward]

Your attempt at covering with sarcasm aside, The Justice Department gives direction to Pentagon Lawyers. It wasn't Wesley Clark's decision. Further, these men were inside the United States during this time, and subject to civilian law enforcement (Posse Comitatus anyone) so the Justice Department had absolute authority to determine how much the Pentagon would share with civilian law enforcement. Gorelick (Blah blah blah) made that decision for the Clinton Administration Justice Department. Then, ironically, it any investigation of Able Danger was buried in 2003, without any real inquiry being made.

By the way, I find it ironic that you will condemn the current President for even the most asininely nebulous connection to anything, but you'll be the first to dismiss a direct connection between the policies of a former administration and the worst terrorist attack US history without even asking "What did they know, and when did they know it." Apparently you're only concerned with "What did Bush know, and what can we insinuate to hurt him" rather than the entire truth of what went wrong leading up to 9/11. Not that I expect any different. Blah blah blah.

By the way, they aren't circling the wagons to defend Clinton, they are circling the wagons to protect their own careers based on their actions during the Clinton administration. The same weasels who advanced their careers during the Clinton administration by being administration "Yes men" now fear having to explain their actions to the American people.

Using the term 'Yes men' and 'Clinton' in the same sentence is, actually, very funny in light of the current occupation of the Administrative Branch of government.

But, what you're saying is that the 'Yes Men' under the Clinton pentagon, have risen to places of authority under the Bush pentagon where they can restrict and prohibit the Congressional oversight duties. I wonder which is the bigger crime.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Using the term 'Yes men' and 'Clinton' in the same sentence is, actually, very funny in light of the current occupation of the Administrative Branch of government.

But, what you're saying is that the 'Yes Men' under the Clinton pentagon, have risen to places of authority under the Bush pentagon where they can restrict and prohibit the Congressional oversight duties. I wonder which is the bigger crime.

The fact that you acknowledge that these were "yes men" under Clinton is amazing. The fact that you are trying to blame Bush, for these men covering up behavior conducted under the Clinton administration, is likewise amazing. Get back with me when you find some sense of perspective.

What has happened with the Able Danger story is that the left first tried to ignore it, then tried to bury it, now they are trying to spin it to avert any bad press for Former President Clinton and attempt to somehow deflect any negative fallout toward President Bush, despite the fact this occurred BEFORE President Bush even took office. Nice try guys.

 

[michaeledward]

The fact that you acknowledge that these were "yes men" under Clinton is amazing. The fact that you are trying to blame Bush, for these men covering up behavior conducted under the Clinton administration, is likewise amazing. Get back with me when you find some perspective.

I do not acknowledge these were 'Yes Men', the term is in quotes specifically to reference your words. I tend to define the anticedent of any pronouns I might use; so who were these 'Yes Men' to which you refered?

The 'Yes Men' to which I refered, under the Bush administration, I am thinking of, let's say, Secretary O'Neil or General Shinsecki. These gentlemen were ushered out of their positions for publically making statements against the White House position.

I do not believe that I am trying to blame President Bush for the withholding of information from the FBI (there are enough other items for which he is to blame). Also, I am not attempting to absolve the Clinton administration. It is my opinion that the decision to withhold information took place within the Pentagon without any guidence from White House Operations.

The question that does need to be addressed is if the withholding of data was malicious or not.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I do not acknowledge these were 'Yes Men', the term is in quotes specifically to reference your words. I tend to define the anticedent of any pronouns I might use; so who were these 'Yes Men' to which you refered?

The 'Yes Men' to which I refered, under the Bush administration, I am thinking of, let's say, Secretary O'Neil or General Shinsecki. These gentlemen were ushered out of their positions for publically making statements against the White House position.

I do not believe that I am trying to blame President Bush for the withholding of information from the FBI (there are enough other items for which he is to blame). Also, I am not attempting to absolve the Clinton administration. It is my opinion that the decision to withhold information took place within the Pentagon without any guidence from White House Operations.

The question that does need to be addressed is if the withholding of data was malicious or not.

That's a very long winded way of refusing to acknowledge the role Clinton Administration policy directly took, even at the admission of DOD Lawyers, in shaping DOD responses to information sharing.

The fact is, you are willing to blame Bush for what some grunt does in the middle of Iraq, yet you absolve stated, written policy decision made by the DOD lawyers, in direct response to a clearly stated policy decision by the Clinton Justice Department as being "Without the guidance of White House Operations"? That's rich.

 

[michaeledward]

That's a very long winded way of refusing to acknowledge the role Clinton Administration policy directly took, even at the admission of DOD Lawyers, in shaping DOD responses to information sharing.

The fact is, you are willing to blame Bush for what some grunt does in the middle of Iraq, yet you absolve stated, written policy decision made by the DOD lawyers, in direct response to a clearly stated policy decision by the Clinton Justice Department as being "Without the guidance of White House Operations"? That's rich.

Well, actually, I think it was a 'Carter Policy'. Now, maybe the policy was more clearly defined, or even expanded under Clinton. But even that is not the issue, as I see it. First we have to find out what was known, when, by whom.

Don't attempt to diffuse this issue with what 'Bush' and 'some grunt' does, or does not do.
​

The Pentagon did not share intelligence information with the FBI. Was this malicious? Was this territorial? Was this incompetent?

Regardless of which explaination you prefer, NOW, at this time, the pentagon is prohibiting the involved parties ('Yes Men' is how I think you described them), from testifying before the appropriate Senate committee.

So, even if the 911 commission F*ed Up .... let's find out what was known.

It is a Republican pentagon refusing to testify infront of a Republican lead Senate committee ... Today.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Well, actually, I think it was a 'Carter Policy'. Now, maybe the policy was more clearly defined, or even expanded under Clinton. But even that is not the issue, as I see it. First we have to find out what was known, when, by whom.

Don't attempt to diffuse this issue with what 'Bush' and 'some grunt' does, or does not do.


​

The Pentagon did not share intelligence information with the FBI. Was this malicious? Was this territorial? Was this incompetent?

No, it was a clearly defined policy of the Clinton administration. It was a written policy, furthermore.

Regardless of which explaination you prefer, NOW, at this time, the pentagon is prohibiting the involved parties ('Yes Men' is how I think you described them), from testifying before the appropriate Senate committee.

So, even if the 911 commission F*ed Up .... let's find out what was known.

It is a Republican pentagon refusing to testify infront of a Republican lead Senate committee ... Today.

Yes, the pentagon's refusal to testify in front a Republican lead committee, about actions taken as a "Democratic" pentagon. It's clear it isn't the decisions of a Republican commander and chief they are protecting, it's their own actions taken during a democrat administration that they are circling the wagons around. They know that, even if it was Clinton Administration policy, their own heads are going to roll.

 

[michaeledward]

No, it was a clearly defined policy of the Clinton administration. It was a written policy, furthermore.

Yes, the pentagon's refusal to testify in front a Republican lead committee, about actions taken as a "Democratic" pentagon. It's clear it isn't the decisions of a Republican commander and chief they are protecting, it's their own actions taken during a democrat administration that they are circling the wagons around. They know that, even if it was Clinton Administration policy, their own heads are going to roll.

Yawn !

The title of the policy in question is the 'Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978'. This is the legal document that created 'the Wall' between intelligence gathered among foreign focused agencies and domestically focused agencies.

Once again, when a claims is made that 'It's clear' ... usually, the claimant is trying to back up an argument with the famous 'because I said so' defense. Very little is clear in this case ... which is why the Congress wants to hold hearings. Public airing of a subject is certain to make things more clear.

However, and at the risk of being facetious, It's Clear that a government act titled with the date 1978 is not a policy of the Clinton Administration.

Back to my nap, now. night night.

 

[Tgace]

If I were to make a guess, the Pentagon is probably being so secretive because "able danger" most likely gathered intell on some US citizens with links to terrorism, which they are not supposed to be allowed to do.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Yawn !

The title of the policy in question is the 'Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978'. This is the legal document that created 'the Wall' between intelligence gathered among foreign focused agencies and domestically focused agencies.

Once again, when a claims is made that 'It's clear' ... usually, the claimant is trying to back up an argument with the famous 'because I said so' defense. Very little is clear in this case ... which is why the Congress wants to hold hearings. Public airing of a subject is certain to make things more clear.

However, and at the risk of being facetious, It's Clear that a government act titled with the date 1978 is not a policy of the Clinton Administration.

Back to my nap, now. night night.

Oh, Please. It was a memo about the interpretation of the 1978 Surveillance act, try to keep up.

It outlined the Clinton Justice Departments intepretation of that act, and how their attorney's should view it.

In further news, i'm not making the case that Clinton did anything wrong. What i'm saying is that whatever did or didn't happen, happened on Clinton's watch. Further, that the issue was buried by the 9/11 Commission, for whatever reason.

The fact that you want to deflect and spin this issue so that A) It becomes Bush's issue or B) At least lay the blame solely on the Pentagon so it doesn't damage the Clinton administration seems increasingly likely.

In light of past instances where you have alleged wrong doing on the part of the Bush administration on far more nebulous grounds, I find it odd that you don't want to know who knew what and when they knew it. If there were no mistakes on the part of the Clinton administration, so be it, lets find out.

Whatever the issue, it's important we know as much as we can about Who knew what, and when did they know, to prevent this from happening again. If you have a problem with that, it's likely the result of partisan politics.

At any rate, however, we'll see if the truth comes out. That's all that's important anyway. When more information becomes apparent we can debate this further.