An Able Danger Question That Can Be Answered!

9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer asks a question about Able Danger that can actually be answered:

While making no judgment on the veracity of the claims, former commissioner Tim Roemer said inconsistencies are appearing between the story and the facts that the commission knows.

For one, Roemer asked how Able Danger got a photo of Atta in 2000 for its alleged chart of terrorists when he had not yet applied for a U.S. visa.     

Here is how the Times presented that in their opening story:

In the summer of 2000, the military team, known as Able Danger, prepared a chart that included visa photographs of the four men...

...He said that he delivered the chart in summer 2000 to the Special Operations Command headquarters in Tampa, Fla., and said that it had been based on information from unclassified sources and government records, including those of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

...Mr. Atta arrived in Newark from Prague on June 3 that year [2000].

OK.  Since "summer" starts on June 21, a chart prepared over the summer could have included a visa photograph.

Now to flag Andrew McCarthy.  [Kevin Drum does a first-rate job on this question.]

MORE:  Not so fast!  Per the 9/11 Commission statement of Aug 12, it *appears* that the photo may have been from the spring of 2000, but we can spin that.  Here we go:

On July 12, 2004, as the drafting and editing process for the Report was coming to an end (the Report was released on July 22, and editing continued to occur through July 17), a senior staff member, Dieter Snell, accompanied by another staff member, met with the officer at one of the Commission’s Washington, D.C. offices. A representative of the DOD also attended the interview.

According to the memorandum for the record on this meeting, prepared the next day by Mr. Snell, the officer said that ABLE DANGER included work on “link analysis,” mapping links among various people involved in terrorist networks.

According to this record, the officer recalled seeing the name and photo of Mohamed Atta on an “analyst notebook chart” assembled by another officer (who he said had retired and was now working as a DOD contractor).  The officer being interviewed said he saw this material only briefly, that the relevant material dated from February through April 2000, and that it showed Mohamed Atta to be a member of an al Qaeda cell located in Brooklyn.

The officer complained that this information and information about other alleged members of a Brooklyn cell had been soon afterward deleted from the document (“redacted”) because DOD lawyers were concerned about the propriety of DOD intelligence efforts that might be focused inside the United States. The officer referred to these as “posse comitatus” restrictions. Believing the law was being wrongly interpreted, he said he had complained about these restrictions up his chain of command in the U.S. Special Operations Command, to no avail.

Ahh!.  Just because the original chart was dated April 2000, it does not follow that this Naval officer (now known to be Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott) *saw* it in April; nor does it mean that the chart was never updated.)

In other stories, the WaPo tells us more emphatically today what the NY Post told us yesterday - Lt. Col. Shaffer is getting his information second-hand. 

The Wapo also tries to probe Rep. Weldon's memory:

Time magazine reported last week that Weldon said he is no longer sure that Atta was included on the chart he gave Hadley. But Weldon's chief of staff said yesterday that Atta was on the chart and that it was produced in 1999. Representatives for Hadley, who is now President Bush's national security adviser, have declined to comment on Weldon's claims.

Weldon did not respond to a request for an interview yesterday.

Weldon may not have responded yesterday, but he responded to Eric Umansky of Slate, and told the world that he only learned that Able Danger ID'ed Atta in June 2005.  My gloomy thoughts here.

BONUS PUZZLE:  Per the Commission statement about Phillpott's briefing, the names were redacted shortly thereafter.  Well, as we wondered when the Commission's statement was first reported - when Gen. Shelton was briefed in Jan 2001, were the names still redacted?

We ask because we are still grappling with this from the Aug 12 Times:

In an interview this week, a former senior military officer disputed that the unit members had ever presented to their superiors information that identified Mr. Atta or other suspected members of Al Qaeda.

Weldon didn't know about the Atta ID until 2005, Shaffer didn't know until after 9/11, Gen. Shelton may not have been told at all - I can see why the Pentagon is taking so long to respond to this.  So far, the WaPo has this:

A Pentagon official said yesterday that although the investigation into the allegations is still ongoing, "we're not finding information that substantiates these claims."

The Pentagon presumably has folks engaged in a heroic attempt to prove a negative.  We are stalled because no one wants to be the poor fool to say "There are no relevant Able Danger documents", because they know what will be found five minutes after those words leave their mouth.

However, they can't find anything.  Or, they have found the smoking chart, and are now scrambling to marshall a cover-up an explanation.

Comments

[TexasToast]

Why so gloomy? Is discrediting the 9/11 commission more important than the, er, facts?

[TM]

Good point! Actually, finding out (for the umpteenth time) that our elected reps are delusional, self-promoter is troubling.

[Mark Coffey]

Tom, as you've said here in another post, I'm still of the mind that a Senate investigation is in order...let's see where the chips fall when we gather all the relevant parties together and put them under oath...

[j.foster]

this is good. nobody screeching or demanding that people be hunted down. we can afford to be a bit obsessive when it comes to our security. if there is no story ok we looked. and i know i should be tired of saying this , but heck , they had photos and activity time lines of atta, on or around sept. 12th. there i torment you with that factiod once again. but at least it seperates me from the tin foil gang.

[Ambiorix]

Just to give my 2 cents!

I think having read that in cases in which the DoD thinks that they might have crossed the "Posse comitatus" rigths of an individual, their policy is to destroy any info relative or erase any reference to that individual. Could this be the reason for the "redacting" of the names as mentioned above, and the "inability" of the DoD to find any reference to Atta and his "friends" in any of the Able Danger documents at this time?
Does this make sence or am I all wet?

There are also many allusions to the "Gorelick Wall" in the blogs. I think that is should more correctly be referred to as "the Clinton Wall". I believe that Gorelick was the "architect commissioned by President Clinton" to erect the wall.
Washington being a "company town", I also believe that the effect of the "wall" was more intrusive than just a barrier, it was a "culture" that ended up permeating all government agencies as inevitably, lawyers from all agencies heard of it as well as of who enginneered and enforced it.

I pray that the Able Danger documents corroborating the Able Danger team members will be found so that we might actually move forward. Otherwise, with all the CYA going on if all we end up with is the word of the AD team members (even if they all come forth), I am afraid that the bureaucracy will find it a vindication to keep sitting on their hands and obstruct any progress.

[Thomas Jackson]

I remember that documents that government found to be embarassing had an unusual habbit of disappearing. Especially documents that weren't on general distribution that might not be recovered.

Anyone who believes that two military men are risking their careers just to smear the commission might be interested in some swampland I have for sale that would be perfect as a vacation home site.

[syn]

It would be helpful to know what Sandy Berger stole from the National Archives.

[kim]

Hang him from his thumbs until his tongue loosens. He has not been sentenced yet.

It makes little sense that Berger risked shame, imprisonment, and ruination of career to hide the extemporaneous ramblings of Clinton's inner circle about the Millenium plot, even if there were damning information and information we need for our future safety. Since we don't know what he took, for our own safety, he must say. The fact that he took stuff is admitted. What he took is not certain. I don't know how you make certain that he reveals what he took, but he should not circulate in civilized society until it is all hashed out.

Does anyone know if any Able Danger stuff was in the Archives? Did Able Danger identify the Millenium Plotter? Anyway to find out?
================================================

[MaidMarion]

I doubt it. From my read of the tea leaves, the ABLE DANGER files would be located inside DIA. If the 9/11 Commission only requested AD files from SOCOM, then it's no wonder they came up empty-handed.

[kim]

But with respect to the Millenium plotter Clinton's national security clique may well have discussed issues tangentially noted by Able Danger. Let's not forget that the Berglery happened just as the 9/11 Commission was becoming aware of AD. At least at the time that the STAFF becoming aware. Presumably Zelikow and others(data was requested) had already heard but the significance then might have been lost in the noise of combat.
===================================================

[clarice]

How Able Danger could have uncovered Atta's name and obtained his photo and a question: Isn't is possible other intel data mining operations did this, and had this info too?

[b]First, if Able Danger cross-referenced Arab males who flew to Pakistan in 1999 and Arab males who subsequently requested a replacement passport and then applied for a US visa, it would have come up with a list of Arabs possibly seeking to hide trips to al-Qaeda facilities in Pakistan and Afghanistan from US authorities. Such a list would include both the names of Atta and al-Shehhi.

Next, if the resulting list was cross-referenced with applicants to US flight schools, Atta's name would come up 31 times, as he applied to 31 flight schools. The reason Able Danger might elect this criteria was the 1998 accounts that Osama Bin Laden planned to train pilots for crop dusting and other agriculture tasks.

On that short list now would be Atta and Shehhi and if Able Danger had a liaison with German intelligence, it could further learn the address both men used, 54 Marienstrasse in Hamburg, had been under police surveillence for possible extremist Islamic activities.

Finally, if the short list had been cross referenced with US visa applications in 2000– Able Danger would have turned up the person that Atta and al-Shehhi gave as their point of contact in America. If that name had also been given by other suspects, Able Danger would have reason to consider that Atta and al-Shehhi were coming to America to join a conspiracy. The visa applications could also explain how Able Danger had Atta’s photograph on its chart of the cell, as described by Captain Phillpott. (The 911 Commission had no opportunity to examine Atta and al-Shehhi’s visa applications because in 2001 they were destroyed "according to routine document handling practices" by the Department of State.)[/b] [link=http://edjayepstein.blogspot.com/ newwindow]edjayepstein.blogspot.com/[/link]

[kim]

Woof!
=====