What the hell are they hiding!?! Able Danger was a data mining operation in
the late 90's that supposedly ID'd Atta as a threat 1 1/2 years before 9/11.
The programs data (2.4 terabytes of it) was ordered destroyed in 2000. The
man who will testify that he was ordered to destroy it is now a civilian,
and will testify before the Senate today as to who told him to destroy it
and when.

Unfortunately, the DoD (possible Rumsfeld himself) has ordered the 4 other
witnesses *NOT* to testify before the Senate today.

Why is Rumsfeld protecting the details from a program that was destroyed
before Bush even took office? The Bush's and Clinton's sure spend a lot of
time covering for one another. Is it because of the amount of blackmail
dirt they have on each other?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 20, 2005
Pentagon Blocks Testimony at Senate Hearing on Terrorist
By PHILIP SHENON
WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 - The Pentagon said today that it had blocked a group
of military officers and intelligence analysts from testifying at an open
Congressional hearing about a highly classified military intelligence
program that, the officers have said, identified a ringleader of the Sept.
11 attacks as a potential terrorist more than a year before the attacks.

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

Bryan Whitman, a Defense Department spokesman, said in a statement that open
testimony about the program "would not be appropriate - we have expressed
our security concerns and believe it is simply not possible to discuss Able
Danger in any great detail in an open public forum." He offered no other
detail on the Pentagon's reasoning in blocking the testimony.

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the
committee, said he was surprised by the Pentagon's decision because "so much
of this has already been in the public domain, and I think that the American
people need to know what happened here."

Mr. Specter said in a telephone interview that he intended to go ahead with
the hearing on Wednesday and hoped that it "may produce a change of heart by
the Department of Defense in answering some very basic questions."

Two military officers - an active-duty Navy captain and a reservist Army
lieutenant colonel - have said publicly in recent weeks that they were
involved with Able Danger and that the program's analysts identified Mohamed
Atta, the Egyptian-born ringleader of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, by name
as a potential terrorist by early 2000.

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

The Pentagon has said that it has interviewed three other people who were
involved with Able Danger and who said that they, too, recalled the
identification of Mr. Atta as a terrorist suspect. But Defense Department
investigators said they could find no documentary evidence to back up the
assertion; they acknowledged that much of the information might have been
routinely destroyed.

Mr. Specter said his staff had talked to all five of the potential witnesses
and found that "credibility has been established" for all of them.

"There are quite a few credible people who are prepared to testify that
Mohamed Atta was identified long before 9/11," he said. "Now maybe there's
more than one Mohamed Atta. Or maybe there's some mistake. But that's what
we're trying to find out."

Mr. Whitman, the Pentagon spokesman, said that in place of members of the
Able Danger team, a senior defense official would be sent to the Wednesday
hearing to discuss "what the law and policies are on domestic surveillance
and to provide some insights about information-sharing between agencies."

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:29:04 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Why is Rumsfeld protecting the details from a program that was destroyed
before Bush even took office? The Bush's and Clinton's sure spend a lot
of time covering for one another. Is it because of the amount of
blackmail dirt they have on each other?

Uh perhaps, national security? Able Danger may be shut down, but the
techniques and capabilities are still being used elsewhere. Do you want
the world, and bin Laden, to know those capabilities just to
potentially embarrass a past President?

Or, there is nothing to Able Danger, and sunlight would prove it. You
should be grateful to Rumsfeld. This way, you can hold onto your deep,
dark, conspiracy theories. ;-)

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:29:04 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Why is Rumsfeld protecting the details from a program that was destroyed
before Bush even took office? The Bush's and Clinton's sure spend a lot
of time covering for one another. Is it because of the amount of
blackmail dirt they have on each other?

Uh perhaps, national security? Able Danger may be shut down, but the
techniques and capabilities are still being used elsewhere. Do you want
the world, and bin Laden, to know those capabilities just to
potentially embarrass a past President?

Or, there is nothing to Able Danger, and sunlight would prove it. You
should be grateful to Rumsfeld. This way, you can hold onto your deep,
dark, conspiracy theories. ;-)

Grateful? The conspiracy theories keep me up at night searching the
internet. I'd get a lot more sleep if he'd put those uncertainties to rest
by letting those guys speak.

Why is it OK to publish the PDB's leading up to 9/11 in the Commission
report, but not information that may have ID'd Atta 1 1/2 years before 9/11?
I hope that you now realize that the 9/11 Commission was a complete
whitewash of what really happened in the decade leading up to 9/11.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Grateful? The conspiracy theories keep me up at night searching the
internet. I'd get a lot more sleep if he'd put those uncertainties to
rest by letting those guys speak.


You need a referral to a good therapist?

I didn't think so until today. With Rumsfeld's gag order on the Able Danger
guys, I'm not so sure anymore.

Harry Krause wrote:

You need a referral to a good therapist?


Hey Krause, that's pretty rich coming from you. Ever heard of self
referral? But I forgot, your wife is a medical doctor. Perhaps she knows a
psychiatrist?

Cheers,
William

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:24:22 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Grateful? The conspiracy theories keep me up at night searching the
internet. I'd get a lot more sleep if he'd put those uncertainties to
rest by letting those guys speak.

It could be, potentially, embarrassing for all involved. It is illegal
for the Pentagon to spy on American citizens. Does data mining rise to
spying?

Why is it OK to publish the PDB's leading up to 9/11 in the Commission
report, but not information that may have ID'd Atta 1 1/2 years before
9/11? I hope that you now realize that the 9/11 Commission was a complete
whitewash of what really happened in the decade leading up to 9/11.

I don't see it as a whitewash, at worst, only incomplete. You make a big
deal of this Able Danger, but even if they did have Atta's name, it
doesn't make a conspiracy, it makes a typical, bumbling bureaucracy,
called government. History is full of these "what ifs". Look at Pearl
Harbor. If they had listened to the radar operator, if they had sent the
dispatch urgently, if . . . Able Danger isn't a conspiracy, it's your
government in inaction.

thunder wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:24:22 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Grateful? The conspiracy theories keep me up at night searching the
internet. I'd get a lot more sleep if he'd put those uncertainties to
rest by letting those guys speak.

It could be, potentially, embarrassing for all involved. It is illegal
for the Pentagon to spy on American citizens. Does data mining rise to
spying?

Why is it OK to publish the PDB's leading up to 9/11 in the Commission
report, but not information that may have ID'd Atta 1 1/2 years before
9/11? I hope that you now realize that the 9/11 Commission was a complete
whitewash of what really happened in the decade leading up to 9/11.

I don't see it as a whitewash, at worst, only incomplete. You make a big
deal of this Able Danger, but even if they did have Atta's name, it
doesn't make a conspiracy, it makes a typical, bumbling bureaucracy,
called government. History is full of these "what ifs". Look at Pearl
Harbor. If they had listened to the radar operator, if they had sent the
dispatch urgently, if . . . Able Danger isn't a conspiracy, it's your
government in inaction.


Even if we had Atta's name in 2000, that was long before we decided it
was OK to attack, assassinate, declare war (or make war without
declaration), or otherwise remove entities that might, maybe, could be,
someday, somehow, possibly, threaten the security of the US. There was
a time in the US when people were punished for crimes committed, not
proactively punished for crimes that they just might maybe, could be,
commit in the future.

Welcome to the realization that there isn't some binary divide of
good/evil
or patriotism/treason between the political parties. They are two
marionettes in the same show, operated by the same crew of puppeteers.
Those who blame all of our problems on party A or party B, or subscribe
with knee jerked enthusiasm to every proposal trotted out by party A or
party B have been duped very badly....and between the two major parties
that probably accounts for a majority of the electorate.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:24:22 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Grateful? The conspiracy theories keep me up at night searching the
internet. I'd get a lot more sleep if he'd put those uncertainties to
rest by letting those guys speak.

It could be, potentially, embarrassing for all involved. It is illegal
for the Pentagon to spy on American citizens. Does data mining rise to
spying?

Why is it OK to publish the PDB's leading up to 9/11 in the Commission
report, but not information that may have ID'd Atta 1 1/2 years before
9/11? I hope that you now realize that the 9/11 Commission was a complete
whitewash of what really happened in the decade leading up to 9/11.

I don't see it as a whitewash, at worst, only incomplete. You make a big
deal of this Able Danger, but even if they did have Atta's name, it
doesn't make a conspiracy,

The conspiracy is not in failing to connect the dots to prevent 9/11. ****
happens.

The ongoing conspiracy is the coverup by the 9/11 Commission and the DoD
and the FBI...and why they are working so hard to hide the Able Danger/Atta
information. It wasn't in the 9/11 report, so it's prudent to ask why it
was omitted.


it makes a typical, bumbling bureaucracy,
called government. History is full of these "what ifs". Look at Pearl
Harbor. If they had listened to the radar operator, if they had sent the
dispatch urgently, if . . . Able Danger isn't a conspiracy, it's your
government in inaction.

This is different. It would be similar to a post-Pearl Harbor Commission
burying the report by the radar operator.

wrote in message
oups.com...

thunder wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:24:22 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Grateful? The conspiracy theories keep me up at night searching the
internet. I'd get a lot more sleep if he'd put those uncertainties to
rest by letting those guys speak.

It could be, potentially, embarrassing for all involved. It is illegal
for the Pentagon to spy on American citizens. Does data mining rise to
spying?

Why is it OK to publish the PDB's leading up to 9/11 in the Commission
report, but not information that may have ID'd Atta 1 1/2 years before
9/11? I hope that you now realize that the 9/11 Commission was a
complete
whitewash of what really happened in the decade leading up to 9/11.

I don't see it as a whitewash, at worst, only incomplete. You make a big
deal of this Able Danger, but even if they did have Atta's name, it
doesn't make a conspiracy, it makes a typical, bumbling bureaucracy,
called government. History is full of these "what ifs". Look at Pearl
Harbor. If they had listened to the radar operator, if they had sent the
dispatch urgently, if . . . Able Danger isn't a conspiracy, it's your
government in inaction.


Even if we had Atta's name in 2000, that was long before we decided it
was OK to attack, assassinate, declare war (or make war without
declaration), or otherwise remove entities that might, maybe, could be,
someday, somehow, possibly, threaten the security of the US. There was
a time in the US when people were punished for crimes committed, not
proactively punished for crimes that they just might maybe, could be,
commit in the future.

You guys keep missing the point.

It's not the crime (of failing to act on the Atta intel), it's the coverup
(of leaving the Able Danger info off the 9/11 Report and then having Slade
Gorton and Tom Kean state unequivocally that Able Danger "just didn't
happen".)



Welcome to the realization that there isn't some binary divide of
good/evil
or patriotism/treason between the political parties. They are two
marionettes in the same show, operated by the same crew of puppeteers.

Yes, but who are the puppeteers? You're suggesting that there's truth to
the New World Order conspiracists' notion that our government is run by
shadow groups like the CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergs...and PNAC.
;-)

"NOYB" wrote in message
news

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Grateful? The conspiracy theories keep me up at night searching the
internet. I'd get a lot more sleep if he'd put those uncertainties to
rest by letting those guys speak.


You need a referral to a good therapist?

I didn't think so until today. With Rumsfeld's gag order on the Able
Danger guys, I'm not so sure anymore.




But....not long ago, Rummy was one of your favorite people. He could do no
wrong, even if every public appearance made him seem more and more like Dr.
Strangelove. Will you be writing to your president about your new concerns?