HUGE props to blogger AJ Strata, who noted a link between Mohammed Atta and the Blind Sheik that has now been confirmed by JD Smith of the Able Danger team.
OK, AJ - any picks for the Powerball? [Apparently not, but here is his latest on Able Danger, with a deeply buried lead - see my "UNBURIED", buried below. [Which is now "UNBURIED AND REVISED".]]
Fine, I'm green - but I did link to his post, so I know a psychic when I see one. And my explanation of why Atta was in the Brooklyn cell even though he wasn't in Brooklyn looks a bit better. [Laura Rozen has more on that as well.]
But I am still green. I may always be green...
More from Mickey.
AND MORE: From Fox, we have this cryptic offering:
Two sources familiar with Able Danger told FOX News that part of its investigative work focused on mosques and the religious ties between known terrorist operatives such as Omar Abdul Rahman (search), who was part of the first World Trade Center bombing plot in 1993.
What two sources might these be, why are they anonymous, and did Fox find them trhough Weldon? Fox runs through the Able Danger roster in their story, and the only person we have heard about that has not yet been identified is the civilian official (aka the female PhD).
On the other hand, in speaking to Fox Weldon added that at least five people on the federal payroll will testify under oath about the validity of the Able Danger intelligence. So perhaps we have two anonymous sources to go with the three that have been identified.
Or perhaps Weldon and Smith delivered that tidbit off the record, since, one might argue, gathering intel about religious activities and groups might be problematic.
Let's also note this:
Smith said data was gathered from a variety of sources, including about 30 or 40 individuals. He said they all had strong Middle Eastern connections and were paid for their information. Smith said Able Danger's photo of Atta was obtained from overseas.
That is not exactly public source data-mining, which is how Able Danger has been described. This sounds more like our spies were spying - not that there is anything wrong with that.
UNBURIED AND REVISED: AJ Strata has the excellent idea of following Rep. Weldon's home-town paper, which reported on this story before anyone else and provides a useful forum for Weldon's witnesses. But here is a shocker:
In Specter's letter to the FBI director, the chairman requested [FBI Agent] Mangum's correspondence with Shaffer, who attempted to arrange meetings at the FBI, according to the letter. The document request asks for "e-mail communication, notes, phone message slips, memos or any other supporting documentation" relevant to "Able Danger."
The letter also requested an interview with Mangum.
In June, Shaffer said he tried to "broker" a working arrangement between Special Operations and the FBI for the operation, but the effort failed.
After reading the letter Thursday, Shaffer said the text was at odds with what he told the committee.
"They got it wrong," he said.
Shaffer claimed he directed the committee to ask for information from an agency other than the FBI, which he refused to identify for The Times Herald.
"This (request) isn't going to get (the committee) the information they're looking for," he said.
Shaffer is scheduled to meet with the committee today, he said.
Hello - how could Specter's staff get that wrong? [See "REVISION]. And how did the Times get that wrong on Aug 9 when they met with Weldon and a fellow later revealed to be Shaffer? [Answer in "REVISION"] And might source credibility be a reason that the NY Times seems to have lost interest in this story?
As a communicator and liason, Shaffer may not have been a great first choice. One might almost wonder if the 9/11 Commission staffers are correct in saying Shaffer did not mention Atta to them in October 2003.
REVISION - Props to Captain Ed and others, who point out that Shaffer's story may have been simple and unchanging - Able Danger tried to liase with the FBI, but some third, currently unidentified agency blocked them.
Fair enough. Now, why did Specter's people not get that simple message? I will stand by my insinuation that Shaffer may not be a great communicator. However, to fully salvage Shaffer, one might point out that Specter's staff may be doing all they can - as noted earlier, this is the Judiciary Committee, with FBI oversight. However much they may want to grill agencies in the DoD, and however little hope they have for useful info from the FBI, this may be the best they can do.
That said, Shaffer should not be bad-mouthing Specter's staff to the press, and he ought to have left his meeting with them with an understanding of their limitations, so I do continue to question his interactive skills.
MORE FOR THE SKEPTICS: This NY Post story, via Mickey, raises questions and eyebrows. James Smith was fired from Able Danger in May 2000? But per Shaffer's original account to the Times, Able Danger did not approach the FBI, or whomever, until the summer of 2000.
Cyber-sleuths working for a Pentagon intelligence unit that reportedly identified some of the 9/11 hijackers before the attack were fired by military officials, after they mistakenly pinpointed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other prominent Americans as potential security risks, The Post has learned.
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.
...
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 Able Danger work was transferred to another Department of Defense contractor — and the program quietly expired later that year when it was completed, the official said.
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.' "
Smith also claims his team came up with 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta's name and photo in 2000.
Baffling. And Weldon's account to the Times Herald in June was that Able Danger was closed down in Feb 2001, not "later" in 2000.
You be green, I be stunned.
Need that scotch now.
Cheers!
Posted by: AJStrata | August 26, 2005 at 07:10 PM
aj-may i 2nd that .
Posted by: j.foster | August 26, 2005 at 11:22 PM
heh
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 Chin, the sources said."
"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.'"
They threw the baby out with the bath water.
Posted by: Lucy | August 27, 2005 at 11:12 AM
Why would Able Danger be looking at NY and Rahman?
During the 9/11 Commission hearings, the contents were declassified of the PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) of August 6, 2001, which stated:
"A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks."
"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists."
http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/31435.htm
Posted by: liontooth | August 27, 2005 at 11:22 AM
I believe Shaffer to be a credible witness. The Blogosphere is saying now that he is changing his story to say he tried to set up meetings with another agency other than the FBI. That is not what he is saying. He is simply stating that if the Commission and the Senate Staff want to get the informatio (data, records, etc.) they need to direct their inquiries to the people (Another Alphabet) that most likely possess them.
The FBI NEVER got any records from Able Danger. The meetings were all cancelled - by someone at one of the Alphabets. Shaffer was simply stating that the Specter sent the letter to the WRONG place! It does NOT mean that Shaffer did not tell them what he stated he told them. We DO NOT know whether Specter sent a second, third or multiple letters to various Classified Alphebets requesting data. All we know is that Specter requested the FBI to supply information. All he is going to get (if Shaffer is credible) is the information regarding the meetings that never occured.
Before we bury Shaffer, Philpot, etc. let's see what shakes out. In listening to Shaffer and reading transcripts of interviews, he has always been consistent. All he is saying is that someone other than the FBI (Another Alphabet) pulled the plug on the arranged meetings. That is consistent with what he has been saying all along.
Posted by: rls | August 27, 2005 at 12:49 PM
Tom, I cc'ed you on some e-mail to Power Line.
I think you misunderstood Shaffer's complaint about the Specter letter. Shaffer is not claiming that it was some different agency other than the FBI that he attempted (unsuccessfully) to tell about the identification of an al-Qaeda terrorist cell in Brooklyn, a cell that included Mohammed Atta. Shaffer is saying that Specter is asking information from the wrong agency to find out about this.
Which should be fairly clear, as the whole point was that the DoD prevented the FBI from finding out the information. Thus, the FBI would of course have no idea at all about Able Danger or what they were or were not trying to tell the FBI.
The key is in the paragraphs directly above your quotation from the Norristown Times Herald. Right before the part you quoted, the article says the following:
Then it continues where you pick it up:
(All the emphasis above is added by me.)
I think it fairly clear from context that Shaffer is saying that the correct agency for the J-Com to contact is not the FBI -- who do not of course know what information Able Danger was not allowed to tell them -- but rather the DoD General Counsel (Jamie Gorelick's successor), and that is the agency Specter should pursue.
In particular, Special Agent Xanthig Mangum might not even have known that Shaffer was with Able Danger, if the project itself was classified at the time. And in any event, she could not have any idea what he was going to tell her if they had met. Neither would the FBI have any records of conversations that did not take place. All that would be with the DoD's General Counsel.
That is likely what Shaffer told Specter; and that is evidently the part Specter got wrong.
Dafydd
Posted by: Dafydd ab Hugh | August 27, 2005 at 05:36 PM
There seems to be some fire somewhere but there's a hell of a lot of smoke too. It also seems that many are leaping like lemmings to assumptions about conclusions and then when they pan out differently feeling they've been misled by changing stories.
Tracking from a less skeptical but conservative POV, the storylines from the original members hangs together pretty good. Reading between their lines leads folks astray, maybe understandable, but the reactive derision gets annoying at times.
Posted by: boris | August 27, 2005 at 07:07 PM
James Smith worked on the China connection study, which was separate to the Al Qaeda study. I discussed the details and references in the second half (post tin hat fun) of this post
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/581
Posted by: AJStrata | August 27, 2005 at 08:17 PM
specter got something wrong ? but but according to scottish law .
Posted by: j.foster | August 27, 2005 at 08:46 PM
OK, very good point that Shaffer wanted Specter to get info from some other group that blocked the meeting with the FBI.
And it answers a question I posed two posts ago, and promptly forgot:
So, read that way, Shaffer and I are on the same page - asking the FBI is a waste of time.
All that said - Shaffer met with Specter's people, and couldn't explain this to them?
I stand by my point that as a communicator, he is a bust.
Posted by: TM | August 27, 2005 at 10:18 PM
Tom:
I stand by my point that as a communicator, he is a bust.
Alternatively, Specter is not a good listener.
It's been my experience that a lot of bosses are so used to communication flowing from them to everybody else that they just don't listen (or read) with any real concentration. I don't know if Arlen Specter is that sort, but I wouldn't rule it out, either.
(That is one reason I like Bush so much, and why I grew to like Reagan -- in his second term, when I started to realize: Bush is, and Reagan was a very good listener. It's a rare talent, especially on Capitol Hill.)
Of course, both could be true: Shaffer could be a mediocre communicator, Spector could be a mediocre listener, and between the two of them, they lick the plate of incomprehension clean!
Dafydd
Posted by: Dafydd ab Hugh | August 27, 2005 at 10:40 PM
they lick the plate of incomprehension clean
Oh, no, I have gotten many scraps from that plate myself.
Posted by: TM | August 28, 2005 at 08:16 AM
Actually, a third, obvious explanation finally occurs to me - regardless of what Specter's staff heard or wanted to do, they are Judiciary, and may not be able to fire off requests to agencies in the DoD.
So they asked the only people under their purview.
Posted by: TM | August 28, 2005 at 08:45 AM
re: data mining
Strange that just asking the China question would have been enough to shut them down. Certainly everyone knew that business and political contacts were multiplying daily during the Clinton years and "who's talking to whom" people networking maps would have had all kinds of powerful and influencial people listed.
There must be something else. Perhaps this is related to the Deutch - Summers shutting down economic spying (i.e. no such thing as secret financial transactions given "financial inducements" to clerks in every multinational bank) in the mid-90s. And how much one party depended on both above board (legal) and less-than-legal financing from individuals and businesses that suffer significant financial impact from U.S. laws, taxes and regulation.
It's been this way for a century, ever since we-the-people decided to regulate business (irrespective of location), it's too bad that the party dominated by lawyers didn't have the "character" to admit it (continue this type of data collection) and get on with life, trusting that their secrets would remain secret in these agencies. But if their policy was to move towards a law-enforcement model of world governance (where this type of behavior would be exposed as, say, the FBI was shown this type of data), then they had no choice but to shut it down.
Also known as the Greek definition of a tragedy, that which we do to ourselves, wittingly. As this becomes commonly understood, I think it means the dems will be kept out of power for a century, i.e. until the people forget, and their childrens' children no longer hear these stories as bed-time (im)morality tales.
Posted by: Ari Tai | August 28, 2005 at 12:37 PM