Revised Sept. 11 Panel Report Released

[cato2]

Revised Sept. 11 Panel Report Released

By LESLIE MILLER
Tuesday, September 13, 2005; 10:17 PM

WASHINGTON -- A new version of the Sept. 11 commission's report on the four hijacked flights was released Tuesday with recently declassified information about terrorist threats and holes in airport security before the attacks.

At the request of the Sept. 11 commissioners, the Bush administration declassified much, but not all, of the material it had blacked out before turning the report over to the National Archives in January.

The new version provides fresh details on the repeated warnings about al-Qaida and its desire to attack airlines in the months before Sept. 11, 2001.

For example, on page 61 a previously classified section shows that the Federal Aviation Administration's intelligence unit received "nearly 200 pieces of threat-related information daily from U.S. intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI, CIA, and State Department."

Also unclassified was the conclusion that the domestic aviation system had, since 1996, "operated at a security level that was, in effect, a permanent code orange."

The new report revealed that the civil aviation system was under under "Aviation Security Alert Level III" on Sept. 11, which meant that screeners were supposed to hand wand or pat down suspicious passengers _ but only those who had checked their baggage.

Other details about security gaps before the attacks were also disclosed in the revised report. It described, for example, a report for the FAA in 2001 that showed "both carry-on and metal detection screening performance has declined significantly from 1999-2000."

Airport security has been tightened since then.

Many details were revealed in the original report about what happened on the four airplanes, but at least one detail was classified and then declassified: a knife concealed in a cigarette lighter was found at the crash site of United Flight 93, the one that crashed in Pennsylvania.

Former commission chairman Thomas Kean and former vice chairman Lee Hamilton said in a statement that they appreciated the Bush administration's making the information public.

"While we still believe that the entire document could be made available to the public without damaging national security, we welcome this step forward," they said.

The Bush administration has been criticized for its secrecy. Government watchdog groups this month said that federal agencies spent a record $148 last year creating and storing new secrets for each $1 spent declassifying old secrets.

___

On the Net:

To see the report: http://www.archives.gov/research/9-11-commission/

In that page you will find the link for the National Commission on Terrorist Attacts upon the United States.

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.

On July 22, 2004 the Commission released its public report, which is available for download from this site. The report is also available in bookstores nationwide and from the Government Printing Office.

On August 21, 2004 the Commission released two staff monographs, available for download along with other staff statements on this site.

The ten members of the 9-11 Commission announce the creation of the 9/11 Public Discourse Project.

The Commission closed on August 21, 2004.

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

[Woodmonkey]

Time will tell if this version is anymore credible than the original one. They somehow neglected to put anything in about Able Danger.

Third Source Backs 'Able Danger' Claims About Atta - Third Source Backs 'Able Danger' Claims About Atta

[Toome]

This is becoming a he-said-she-said episode. According to Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission, there were no indications that the US government knew about Atta prior to 9/11. According to Commission member, former Senator Slade Gorton, the ABLE DANGER data simply didn't exist; in other words, it wasn't there to be found.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/...,77114,00.html

According to Pentagon spokesman, MAJ Paul Sweirgosz, there's been an inquiry of sorts into the ABLE DANGER controversy, but "We've interviewed 80 people involved with Able Danger, combed through hundreds of thousands of documents and millions of e-mails and have still found no documentation of Mohamed Atta." Representative Curt Weldon, the person who is leading the attack against the 9/11 Commission for ignoring the ABLE DANGER intelligence, counters with an allegation that a high volume (2.5 terabytes) of information connected to ABLE DANGER were ordered destroyed. Sweirgosz explains that certain data had to be destroyed in accordance with existing regulations regarding "intelligence data on U.S. persons."

http://my.earthlink.net/article/nat?...915-1576183732

Here's my take on these two interesting developments:

1. IF ABLE DANGER analysts had identified Mohammad Atta as a person of interest but was told later to cease and desist because of intelligence oversight restrictions (see my earlier post explaining the intricacies of intelligence oversight Third Source Backs 'Able Danger' Claims About Atta), then it would make sense that the data was destroyed. The intelligence unit would have received a determination that it had no authority to collect, retain or disseminate any such information and would have been obligated to purge it. What does not make sense is that it would have been data in the significant quantities that Weldon alleges. In this case, it appears that Weldon is probably right in that over the years, ABLE DANGER data in the quantities he mentioned was probably destroyed; however, it appears that Weldon is either intentionally or perhaps unintentionally implying that ALL of that data pertained to Mohammad Atta. It simply doesn't work that way. When data is initially collected, before more of it can be collected, a determination has to be made if there's a question about the validity of collecting data on certain persons about any violations of intelligence restrictions. Either ABLE DANGER did collect data and determined that it was unauthorized to do so (thus there would be a minimal amount of data to be purged) or we've been misled, and ABLE DANGER aggressively collected data on Atta which was later destroyed under the pretenses of intelligence oversight restrictions. I seriously doubt the latter occurred; but I don't know enough facts to conclude it either way. My point is that IF there was a bona fide question about the legality of collecting data on Mohammad Atta, then whatever information that was collected would have had to be destroyed, and that would have been a small amount of data, NOT the "terabytes" that Weldon alleges or implies.

2. While field grade officers certainly enjoy a degree of automatic credibility by virtue of rank, I'd like to know more about LTC Anthony Shaffer and CAPT Scott Phillpott. Certainly, where there's smoke there's fire; however, if there was such a serious gap between the unit's mission and the validity of this intelligence information, I want to know why they waited until now to speak up and what they did/didn't do back then when this first became an issue. Did they know the ramifications of that data back then? Or is this a case of 20/20 hindsight when they didn't know it then but certainly see it now? I'm also curious if these two officers have any hidden agendas that benefit them by "speaking out." Again, not saying that I suspect them of anything; I'm just curious why we don't know more about them before we give them instant credibility for what amounts to some pretty spectacular and serious allegations. As for Weldon, that's a no-brainer: politicians ALWAYS have a hidden agenda.

3. I want to know what limitations were placed on the 9/11 Commission. Of course it makes sense that classified information would not be published or released to the public. However, I want to know more about the vetting process. Was there a litmus test applied? Or was there a blanket restriction based simply on the fact that information was classified? I believe the Commission had access to a reasonable amount of classified information, and the only restrictions would have been on the sort of intelligence that would have jeopardized the lives of any active intelligence assets still out there. Still, in my experiences dealing with intelligence oversight and Congressional inquiries, the doors are fully opened and virtually nothing is hidden from investigators. So the issue is if the Commission either failed to properly do its research, if it had the data but drew the wrong conclusions, or if there was a cover-up either by the Commission, the Pentagon or both.

Again, I still maintain that even if all of this information was available and even acted upon, there still would not have been anything to prevent the 9/11 attacks. I believe we still would have suffered the exact same results.