Third Source Backs 'Able Danger' Claims About Atta

[Woodmonkey]

Click here for the source
of this article

[Toome]

This is certainly interesting. Already, an O-5 and O-6 have stepped forward with this information; not exactly the type of people with questionable credibility. However, there's an aspect to this that needs to be mentioned:

The media is portraying this as if the data alone from ABLE DANGER could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. This remains to be seen, and is quite difficult to prove without resorting to 20/20 hindsight.

I do not doubt that ABLE DANGER probably had information that Mohammed Atta was in the United States. What we are not seeing is how that information was conveyed in comparison to the multitude of other data that is passed along intelligence channels. As a general rule of thumb, intelligence analysts seek to confirm information with a second source before committing their analysis in a certain direction. Not saying that this is always the wisest way to examine intelligence data; however, it IS a fairly common practice accepted by intelligence producers AND consumers. IF analysts had received the ABLE DANGER data but was unable to confirm it through any other sources OR if other sources contradicted the ABLE DANGER information, then it is no surprise to me that it wasn't acted upon. Does this mean that the entire intelligence structure is broken? Not necessarily. It means that analysts sometimes have to look at the availble information and decide one way or the other. It's the nature of the beast.

However, personally, I believe that there probably was enough information for intelligence analysts to conclude that Mohammed Atta was in the United States; that he was part of a grand scheme to conduct a major terrorist act within the United States; that the scheme involved the use of passenger planes; and that Osama bin Ladin was behind the scheme. STILL, I seriously doubt that anything could have been done to prevent the 9/11 attacks. I seriously doubt there would have been enough evidence to convince a judge to issue an arrest warrant for Mohammed Atta. There's a world of difference between intelligence information and criminal evidence. Commanders rely on intelligence information to make decisions under battlefield conditions that can't wait for information that is beyond a reasonable doubt. Combat does not allow that luxury, so commanders go with the 60% solution, and many times with as little as a 40% solution provided by intelligence information. When it comes to the FBI taking action within the United States, it all has to meet the reasonable suspicion standard for judges to issue arrest warrants. Technically, we're talking about a 51% burden, and for some magistrates, they may demand a 60 or 75% burden of convincing suspicion.

At best, perhaps there would have been enough information to detain Atta and maybe even deport him. This may have neutralized one of the four teams that day; and even this is debatable because there are indications that back-up hijackers were available. One of the original hijackers was replaced because he had trouble getting his visa approved. What this means is that the 9/11 we know today may have been about how ONE of the World Trade Center towers was destroyed (Atta flew the first plane into the WTC), the attack on the Pentagon and the crash of Flight 93. Again, perhaps a substitute pilot would have successfully replaced Atta had he been arrested and, most likely, simply deported rather than convicted. There are too many unknowns to speculate.

My whole point is that while I believe the 9/11 Commission failed to gather all of the appropriate information regarding the 9/11 atrocities; and while I believe the Justice Department acted on an overzealous interpretation of EO 12333; I don't believe for a minute that the ABLE DANGER information alone could have or would have prevented the attacks. There was nothing about the exact date, exact target or exact method of attack. In fact, had the FBI been given the information, the ultimate irony may have been that it placed Atta under surveillance and watched him board that flight or maybe even had one of its agents on the same flight as it crashed into one of the towers.

I certainly want to find out the truth about ABLE DANGER and see corrections made about how information is supposed to be shared. However, I think there's a danger that people may conclude that 9/11 could have been prevented if only DoD was allowed to pass this information to the FBI. We don't know this; my experience in this arena tends to doubt that the outcome would have changed.

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by Toome

This is certainly interesting. Already, an O-5 and O-6 have stepped forward with this information; not exactly the type of people with questionable credibility. However, there's an aspect to this that needs to be mentioned:

<snip>

My whole point is that while I believe the 9/11 Commission failed to gather all of the appropriate information regarding the 9/11 atrocities; and while I believe the Justice Department acted on an overzealous interpretation of EO 12333; I don't believe for a minute that the ABLE DANGER information alone could have or would have prevented the attacks. There was nothing about the exact date, exact target or exact method of attack. In fact, had the FBI been given the information, the ultimate irony may have been that it placed Atta under surveillance and watched him board that flight or maybe even had one of its agents on the same flight as it crashed into one of the towers.

I certainly want to find out the truth about ABLE DANGER and see corrections made about how information is supposed to be shared. However, I think there's a danger that people may conclude that 9/11 could have been prevented if only DoD was allowed to pass this information to the FBI. We don't know this; my experience in this arena tends to doubt that the outcome would have changed.

Again, I learned a lot from one of your posts.

I think the 9-11 Commission's clay feet are being exposed. For some reason, the members chose to ignore and eliminate mention of Able Danger even though credible people say they were told. Why was that? What did they want to bury?

[blooper]

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

Again, I learned a lot from one of your posts.

I think the 9-11 Commission's clay feet are being exposed. For some reason, the members chose to ignore and eliminate mention of Able Danger even though credible people say they were told. Why was that? What did they want to bury?

I ran across an interesting article in a blog speculating about why info contained in the Able Danger records were never referenced. It had some of the other data that Able Danger collected and the reason Able Danger was terminated.

It's always difficult to to apply motive to a Commissions or Agency's actions but it may be that pegging Atta in 2000 and a failure to act is not the only reason for burying Able danger. For instance I ran across this extract from the NY Post.


Extract from the NY Post

The private contractors working for the counter-terrorism unit Able Danger lost their jobs in May 2000. The firings following a series of analyses that Pentagon lawyers feared were dangerously close to violating laws banning the military from spying on Americans, sources said.
The Pentagon canceled its contract with the private firm shortly after the analysts — who were working on identifying al Qaeda operatives — produced a particularly controversial chart on proliferation of sensitive technology to China, the sources said.

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, the veteran Army officer who was the Defense Intelligence Agency liaison to Able Danger, told The Post China "had something to do" with the decision to restructure Able Danger.

Sources said the private contractors, using sophisticated computer software that sifts through massive amounts of raw data to establish patterns, came up with a chart of Chinese strategic and business connections in the U.S.

A Pentagon official said last night that, while the canned contractors worked for Able Danger, the China project was separate from the counter-terrorism assignment.

The China chart was put together by James Smith, who confirmed yesterday that his contract with the military was canceled and he was fired from his company because the military brass became concerned about the focus on U.S. citizens.

"It was shut down in a matter of hours. The colonel said our service was no longer needed and told me: 'You just ended my career.' "

[Woodmonkey]

Originally Posted by blooper

The Pentagon canceled its contract with the private firm shortly after the analysts — who were working on identifying al Qaeda operatives — produced a particularly controversial chart on proliferation of sensitive technology to China, the sources said.

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, the veteran Army officer who was the Defense Intelligence Agency liaison to Able Danger, told The Post China "had something to do" with the decision to restructure Able Danger.

Sources said the private contractors, using sophisticated computer software that sifts through massive amounts of raw data to establish patterns, came up with a chart of Chinese strategic and business connections in the U.S.

China again.

Thanks, blooper.

[magic99]

Originally Posted by Woodmonkey

China again.

Thanks, blooper.

And now whats the problem with the Chineese? Don't tell me they are an 'enemy' as well.