Now I'm Confused

Mickey sends us to a new post by Edward Jay Epstein describing how a data mining operation might have picked up Mohamed Atta rather easily.  However, this bit leaves me at sea:

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.

OK, but... wouldn't Atta have been using a German passport, or at least, a non-US passport?  We have been told a million times in the last week that he was a non-US citizen, so that "The Wall" did not apply to him.

Is the redoubtable Dr. Epstein (who is very well-versed in this) assuming that the Able Danger team would have access to passport replacement requests made to other governments?  Or does he have something else in mind?  Here is an obvious alternative - note the issuance date on the passports of visa applicants, and cross-reference that.  Presumably this will capture new passports, although it won't separate replacement passports.  Or might there be an international registry for lost/stolen/cancelled passports that have been replaced?  There ought to be.

Per this CNN story, Atta *did* get a new passport, perhaps to conceal a trip to Afghanistan, but was it a US passport?  If it was, the German Interior Ministry seems to know a lot about the US passport process.

Puzzling.  But I have no plans to get rich betting against Dr. E.

Comments

[Forbes]

Atta traveled under an Egyptian passport.

The Tale of 2 Attas article referenced by Lucy, in an earlier post of yours--Able Danger-Muddying the Waters--indicates Atta had two Egyptian passports. One, with the Czech visa, was recovered (I assume from the rental car left at the Portland, ME airport), and the second passport authorites say was used to board the 9/11 flights.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

He would have been travelling on an Egyptian passport. Only American citizens have American passports, and they don't need visas to get into the U.S.

I'm sure that passports reported lost or stolen are shared internationally.

[TM]

I'm sure that passports reported lost or stolen are shared internationally.

The more I think about that, it makes so much sense it might even be true.

[BumperStickerist]

House Hearings on the topic.

Last month, the State Department announced a new program that would contribute to the security of our Nation. The U.S. will now participate in Interpol's stolen document database, which is available to border authorities worldwide.

Not only will this sharing of vital information curb the movements of organized criminals and terrorists, but it will significantly reduce identity theft problems, as well.

We laud the efforts of Interpol in taking the initiative by assembling a very useful tool to be used by the international community. I believe it will substantially contribute to the level of security that all nations desire to achieve

Unfortunately, the 'last month' in these hearings is May, 2004.

I skimmed through the hearing transcript - a lot of the discussion is the use of this type of information to border agents.

However, the availability of the Interpol database and other DBs to ABLE DANGER seems likely. Presumably a highly skilled data mining operation would be able to deal with the vagaries of individual databases.

ABLE DANGER wasn't going for a seamless integration of data presented to a harried border control official. It looks like they, at a minimum, they would have had access to raw data.

[j.foster]

passports , soc security cards , drivers lic. consulor cards. come to la. take your pick . this place is like ricks cafe american. i'm sure we could come up with letters of transit if we had to. i think some had uniforms and security cards on that day. was not one of them invited into a cockpit?

[John Thacker]

We have been told a million times in the last week that he was a non-US citizen, so that "The Wall" did not apply to him.

Totally wrong. "The Wall" applies to any "US person." "US Person" is defined as including any US citizen at home or abroad, and any person currently legally in the US. If he had a valid visa and was in the US, then he would count as a "US Person" and the intelligence agencies would NOT be able to pass on information obtained without a warrant to the FBI and other domestic organizations.

[John Thacker]

Well, to be more precise it has to be a visa that could possibly lead to permanent residency. Also corporations and some unincorporated associations which have a large percentage of their membership as US persons also count.

Also law and executive order can and has changed the extent of what is considered a US person.

[John Thacker]

To be even more precise-- I know people who did intelligence work during the Clinton Administration. At the time, anyone at all who was within US borders was considered a "US person," and the intelligence agencies could not gather any data about them without a warrant. Absolutely none at all.

This went farther than statute required, and was by policy and executive order of the Clinton Administration. It was reverted to only covering US citizens and permanent residents after the 9/11 attacks.

[kim]

After all, everyone is beautiful.
=================================

[Aaron]

Also, when you get a new passport there is often a line saying "This is a replacement passport" and for all I know the barcode says it too - that would be entered into the computer at the time the person applied for a US visa.

[Martin]

Now Colonel Crackpot is saying the chart got stuck to a wall. Is this for real?

[MJW]

A second military offier has come forward to say Able Danger identified Atta. The NYT article is here.

I offer no opinion on its significance. The whole Able Danger business just make me dizzy.

[MJW]

That's military officer, and makes me dizzy. (When I'm dizzy, I can't type.)

[Harry Arthur]

... Colonel Crackpot ... When the facts are inconvenient; when they don't fit the template; when they point where I wish they didn't ... Very cogent analysis.

But please don't forget to reference MJW's link to ...Captain Crackpot ... above.

It seems the real story here may involve the non partisan 911 commission.

[boris]

Every day in every way it just keeps getting stronger:

if Mohammed Atta really was in the United States in early 2000, he was traveling under another name--big shock, right?--and the September 11 commission's carefully constructed timetable under which, among other things, he couldn't possibly have traveled to Prague to meet with an Iraqi intelligence agent in 2001, is shot to hell.

John Hinderaker at Powerline

[syn]

Odd, the National Geographic's program aired Sunday (21st) and again on Monday (22nd) about the lead-up to 9/11 mentions a 'chart' identifiy four of the hijackers in 2000.

Perhaps the Commissioners and the Pentagon could ask the NG producers how they happened to make mention of such 'non-existant' chart. Interesting to note that NG completed this program, which referenced a 'chart' with pictures of four hijackers, long before Lt Schaffer came forward a couple of weeks ago.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

According to today's NY Times:

'Representative Weldon also arranged an interview on Monday with a former employee of a defense contractor who said he had helped create a chart in 2000 for the intelligence program that included Mr. Atta's photograph and name.

'The former contractor, James D. Smith, said that Mr. Atta's name and photograph were obtained through a private researcher in California who was paid to gather the information from contacts in the Middle East. Mr. Smith said that he had retained a copy of the chart until last year and that it had been posted on his office wall at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. He said it had become stuck to the wall and was impossible to remove when he switched jobs.'

Meaning it might still be on that wall?

[martin]

Forget the 9/11 commission.

What you wingnuts needs to confront is why is the Pentagon engaged in a coverup???

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

According to today's NY Times:

'Representative Weldon also arranged an interview on Monday with a former employee of a defense contractor who said he had helped create a chart in 2000 for the intelligence program that included Mr. Atta's photograph and name.

'The former contractor, James D. Smith, said that Mr. Atta's name and photograph were obtained through a private researcher in California who was paid to gather the information from contacts in the Middle East. Mr. Smith said that he had retained a copy of the chart until last year and that it had been posted on his office wall at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. He said it had become stuck to the wall and was impossible to remove when he switched jobs.'

Meaning it might still be on that wall?

[martin]

Obviously it's been whitewashed Sullivan.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

If it's been whitewashed literally, then it's still there and would probably be recoverable, Martin.

Speaking to what John Thacker said about Clinton era policy; that fits with what Herbert Romerstein (who was on Congressman John Ashcroft's staff in the late '70s) told Human Events shortly after the 9-11 attacks. That the intention of Frank Church, Otis Pike, et al was to treat anyone who'd entered the U.S. (even illegally) as a 'U.S. Person' under FISA. Thus, exempting them from intelligence gathering, unless you had 'probable cause' to believe they were up to no good.

Clinton was simply enacting the left's mindset into his intelligence agencies.

[syn]

Martin

If you will recall, the 2000 election fiasco delayed the incoming adminstration's transitional period. It is highly doubtful that the incoming adminstration would have had the time or people in place to have identified and dissolved a prototype miltary data mining program, particularly an operation conducted on a small scale.

As you will recall the Clinton adminstration considered Islamic terrorism to be a law enforcement issue, however, law enforcement did not have the capacity to data mine citizens, besides prior to 9/11 the political/civilian culture frowned upon the idea of citizen's being watched in such a way so, the adminstration went under the radar and authorized the military to conduct a data mining program.

I am inclined to believe that Able Danger was dissolved in order to hide from the public, and the incoming adminstration, the fact that the Clinton administration was conducting a data mining on US citizens created by military intel.

Remember, prior to 9/11 the American culture was not to keen on anything military involved in collecting data on citizens even those connected to Islamic-fascist terrorism holding US visa.

[kim]

Which brings up yet again, what was Berger hiding?
===================================================

[Martin]

Nope sorry Syn, Kim and other assoreted wingnuts-your timeline is off.

This Pentagon cover-up has to involve the Bush Administration. Can't have your paranoia cake and eat it too.

[Duffy]

Who dissolved Able Danger? When and with what stated justification?

If I missed this bit of important information, I apologize, but would still appreciate the education. Thanks.

[boris]

This Pentagon cover-up has to involve the Bush Administration

Not if the documents were shredded when the program was scrapped. Shaffer's claims involve a lot of resistance within DoD. It may suprise you to know that the entire organization does not lockstep POV with every administration change.

[Martin]

You're right Boris-so how do you know these Pentagon traitors were from the Clinton admin-and not the prior Bush?Reagan junta?

You don't you simpleton.

But answer Duffy's query-when was the program dissolved and by who's orders?

I say it was Cheney in February 2001-what say you?

[Duffy]

OK, answered part of my question. According to today's Philadelphia Times Herald, "A small group of Defense Intelligence Agency employees ran the Able Danger operation from fall 1999 to February 2001 - just seven months before the terrorist attacks - when the operation was unceremoniously axed, according to a former defense intelligence official familiar with the program. The former official asked not to be identified."

So it was after Bush admin took over. But doesn't say by who. How can we find a way to keep blaming this on Clinton?

[Aaron]

Because you can make a decision to axe a program and give it 9 months to wrap up. Or it just runs out of funds...it doesn't matter either way - we still want to know what happened. I don't care if it was Bush or Clinton - and I wouldn't blame either too much because of the pre 9/11 attitudes...

p.s. Clinton appointee's final action before leaving? all just speculation of course.