How much longer will Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld be able to ignore the growing clamor in Congress over the Able Danger ‘information warfare’ controversy? Rumsfeld never responded to letters regarding the matter sent weeks ago by House Armed Services Committee heads Duncan Hunter and Curt Weldon. Now Weldon has secured the signatures of hundreds of colleagues from both sides of the aisle to yet another letter demanding that Rumsfeld allow Able Danger whistleblowers like Lieutenant Colonel Tony Shaffer to tell the story of how they identified Mohamed Atta and other 9/11 hijackers a year before the worst terror attacks ever on US soil.

As the latest letter to Rumsfeld notes, “Until this point, congressional efforts to investigate ABLE DANGER have been obstructed by Department of Defense insistence that certain individuals with knowledge of ABLE DANGER be prevented from freely and frankly testifying in an open hearing.” Weldon contends Shaffer and others have been silenced – and Shaffer smeared – by the Defense Department in an effort to cover up key aspects of the massive data-mining intelligence project.

DOD’s objection to open testimony by Shaffer, Navy Captain Scott Phillpott and other Able Danger principals is said to stem from security concerns. But as the letter to Rumsfeld notes, “Testimony from the appropriate individuals in an open hearing on ABLE DANGER would not only fail to jeopardize national security, but would in fact enhance it over the long term,” since “America can only better prepare itself against future attacks if it understands the full scope of its past failures to do so.”

The controversy came to a head two months ago, when the Senate Judiciary Committee conducted a hearing at which Shaffer, Phillpott and the others were not permitted to testify as scheduled. Representative Weldon spoke on their behalf, however, basing his testimony on information obtained directly from them. Since Acting Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Oversight William Dugan certified that the hearings did not reveal any classified information, it remains unclear what testimony from the Able Danger whistleblowers – who tried without success to bring their findings to the attention of both the FBI and the 9/11 Commissioners charged with investigating the attacks – would jeopardize.

Since basic elements of the Able Danger project are already well known, why is Rumsfeld so intent on forestalling public inquiry? Continued refusal to allow Able Danger participants to testify in an open congressional hearing, the letter to Rumsfeld notes, “can only lead us to conclude that the Department of Defense is uncomfortable with the prospect of Members of Congress questioning these individuals about the circumstances surrounding Able Danger. This would suggest not a concern for national security, but rather an attempt to prevent potentially embarrassing facts from coming to light.”

This interpretation is consistent with that offered by Representative Weldon, in his many media appearances on the subject, as he puts forth the well-known bureaucratic imperative known as CYA (‘covering your ass’) as the best explanation.

But others close to the investigation suggest a different motive for DOD’s intransigence: the lingering possibility that a copy of the missing and presumed destroyed Able Danger data set may yet come to light. Although Tony Shaffer, Scott Phillpott, and the other key Able Danger participants remain constrained from speaking out on what they know, if given the chance they may well expose at least one as-yet untold piece of the puzzle: ‘Able Danger II.’

A source familiar with the situation but barred from speaking out says ‘Able Danger II’ was created when the US Army’s Land Information Warfare Activity unit (LIWA) “backed out” of the original Able Danger program in early 2000. The US Army Special Operation Command (SOCOM), which along with LIWA and private contractors was involved in the first Able Danger operation, then funded an effort to move the program from its headquarters in Tampa, Florida to a secret ‘black’ facility in Garland, Texas.

In addition to Scott Phillpott and Tony Shaffer, other Able Danger participants (including an Army Lieutenant Colonel who was his Shaffer’s deputy, and a Reserve Major who was called to active duty to help) were deployed to work in the Garland facility.

This unit, known as Stratus Ivy, provided basic support necessary to allow for the “intelligence mechanisms” to function from the Garland site. A cover plan was devised, and in addition to helping to get the plan approved and providing manpower, the unit provided the Able Danger team with clandestine Internet capabilities to help perform “non traceable/non attributable” searches for the most sensitive data. Shaffer also served, while a reserve major on active duty, as one of the “planners” inside the facility.

Although DOD spokesmen report the Defense Intelligence Agency cannot find any information about the Garland unit in its files, several DIA analysts and officials toured the facility between August 2000 and January 2001. One, then chief of the Transnational Warfare Group, sent an aide to Garland in what was perceived by some as an attempt to undermine the ongoing effort in order “to buy time for them to create their own Able Danger-type capability,” as a source explained.

The Garland facility, run by defense contractor Raytheon, is among those facilities, informally known as “skunk works,” that are run by private contractors but used for clandestine government-related security programs. A special additional clearance from the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) is necessary even to enter.

Along with Dr. Eileen Preisser, who worked on re-creating the original LIWA suite of tools and technology used in Able Danger data mining, Dr. Robert Johnson was the primary scientist working on the effort at Raytheon’s Garland unit. Johnson is the son of Representative Sam Johnson, Republican of Texas, whose congressional district includes Garland. Johnson is among those who signed the latest letter to Rumsfeld, but his office declined to comment about the letter, the Garland facility, or his son’s involvement in the affair.

Nevertheless, it is known that in the summer of 2000, Robert Johnson reported to Congress that LIWA was destroying Able Danger data. This resulted in Representative Dan Burton, Republican from Indiana, issuing subpoenas to get it. As a result, much of the data was saved – at least at first. Since there was not enough room in the congressional warehouse in Suitland, Maryland much of it was left with DOD in its storage facility in Crystal City, Virginia. The data resided there until someone apparently destroyed it without permission within the past year.

Robert Johnson was unavailable for comment. But a colleague described his involvement in the project as “great - very insightful and helpful. He knew what we were trying to do and provided great assistance.” Although very little of the original 2.5 terabytes of information was transferred from LIWA to Garland, once operations there started in earnest, the original databases were recreated, and the information concerning Mohamed Atta was discovered again, along with information relating to other 9/11 terrorists.

Asked by investigators about Able Danger II and its findings, Johnson told two different stories, according to a Congressional source. “Originally, Johnson said he did recall that Atta was found in their new data runs in the fall of 2000,” says the source. “Subsequently he said he is not so sure.” Given the enormous pressure brought to bear on Tony Shaffer and others who have tried to alert authorities about Able Danger, says the source, “It’s not surprising that Johnson is having second thoughts. After what they’ve done to Shaffer, who would want to get out in front about this?”

“There IS a paper trail on all of this,” another source close to the investigation maintains. “The question is whether anyone still inside the Pentagon will permit it to come out. It is not classified at this point, but they will probably hide behind ’security’ as the reason they will not give up the info.

“There may be one database left of the information - that is what I’ve heard,” he continues. “I know that there is a quiet search for information as we speak. I’m convinced that someone has gone back and attempted to cover all the tracks at the Pentagon - they’ve know this was coming far too long to have done nothing - so I’m personally not sure the data will ever be found.”

Given the groundswell of congressional support, there is a chance of new Able Danger hearings when Congress returns next year from Christmas recess. Meanwhile, Representative Weldon says he has been given a guarantee by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England that DIA will “reinstate” Tony Shaffer – who is currently on extended ‘administrative leave” - at least while the DOD Inspector General investigates charges that the agency has improperly gagged and smeared the veteran of twenty two years of military service.

Meanwhile, Able Danger continues to its inexorable ascent into the mainstream media. Former FBI chief Louis Freeh has now joined those injecting the matter into public discourse – first in an appearance on Meet the Press, and most recently in the Wall Street Journal where he wrote: “The Able Danger intelligence, if confirmed, is undoubtedly the most relevant fact of the entire post-9/11 inquiry.”

As Tony Shaffer wrote recently in an email sent to his supporters, “No one to date has ever been held accountable for the failures that allowed the 9/11 terrorists to conduct a successful attack - yet there is growing evidence (beyond Able Danger) that the clues of the pending attack was very much within the U.S. Government’s grasp - but that the various bureaucrats within the intelligence and law enforcement community failed to act. Many of the very same people who made the pre-9/11 bad decisions remain in place - making the same bad decisions now. Plus the 9/11 Commission may not have ‘connected the dots’ as completely as they could and should have - and that is my concern - and the concern of others working this issue - what else have we missed? Where else are we vulnerable? Was there an effort to ignore specific information? Why is there the appearance of a cover-up?”

Good questions all. Isn’t it time for some answers, Mr. Rumsfeld?

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Editor’s note:

Raw Story has joined Media Is A Plural, MediaChannel, and the growing number of web sites and other outlets investigating the Able Danger cover up. A recent post offers a good explanation of the background of the story thus far:

Background

Able Danger, an open-source data-mining operation charged with identifying and targeting members of Al-Qaeda, was created in October 1999 upon the request of then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton.

The program made front page news and generated controversy in August in the wake of claims made by former members of the group that they had successfully identified Atta over a year prior to the attack. The operation also identified Marwan Al-Sheehi, the man believed to be the pilot of United Flight 175, which crashed into the South Tower; Nawaf Al-Hazmi, the man believed to be one of the hijackers of American Airlines flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon, and Khalid Al-Mihdhar, believed to have been involved in hijacking the same flight.

Charts, data and documentation from the program were destroyed in 2000 and 2004. The program itself was reportedly terminated in early 2001 after Able Danger liaison Lt. Col. Shaffer briefed General Shelton at one meeting and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Admiral Wilson, General Counsel Richard L. Shiffrin and then-Special Advisor to the Secretary of Defense, Stephen Cambone, at another. Cambone was later appointed by Douglas Feith to serve as Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence.

During the final months of the Clinton administration, the officers say Able Danger made three attempts to present their findings to the FBI, each aborted by Pentagon lawyers. They also claim they raised alarm two weeks prior to the October 12, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and that their warning never reached the ship.

On Sept. 25, 2001, just two weeks after the 9/11 attacks, Weldon, Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) and Chairman of the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security and Emerging Threats Christopher Shays (R-CT) met at the White House with then-Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. Weldon initially said he showed Hadley a copy of one of the charts generated by Able Danger, and left it for Hadley to show to the President.

When asked about the meeting this past September, Hadley spokesman Frederick L. Jones II said, “Mr. Hadley does not recall any chart bearing the name or photo of Mohamed Atta.”

Former 9/11 Commissioners, responding to a series of reports in the New York Times and elsewhere, varied their recollection of events a number of times before releasing a formal written statement saying that the program was “historically insignificant” and that they could find no evidence that the program had identified Atta.

There is no mention of Able Danger in the 9/11 Report.

Weldon expressed outrage at the Commission’s failure to examine Able Danger at a press conference last Friday insisting that “there was a deliberate attempt to not have their story told to the American people. There has been nothing but denial and spin since the story broke in the first week of August. The Commission has no credibility on this issue whatsoever.”

Shays told CQ Weekly Aug. 12, “If this wasn’t reported by the Commission, what else wasn’t reported?”

Pentagon identifies, gags ‘witnesses’

An informal inquiry by the Pentagon identified several additional witnesses who confirmed that in fact the program had identified Atta and three other eventual 9/11 hijackers. Fully a third (5 of 15) core team members including the team’s leader, Captain Scott Phillpott (set to take command of a Navy Destroyer in January,) have corrorobated the claims of Lt. Col Shaffer, insisting publicly and in interviews with Pentagon investigators that their data mining efforts yielded the names and photos of four of the 19 hijackers, including Mohamed Atta.

 

Just prior to their scheduled testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Sept. 21, Phillpott and Shaffer were given gag orders by Department of Defense.

Despite the loss of key witnesses, Sen. Specter held the hearing and heard from Weldon, Able Danger's legal counsel and a representative from the Department of Defense as well as senators expressing frustration and outrage over what they called a cover-up. A follow-up hearing was scheduled when it appeared the Pentagon had relented and would allow public testimony from Able Danger members. It was later canceled, with Specter citing a miscommunication between his office and the DoD. A source at Specter's office told RAW STORY the hearing will not be rescheduled before the close of the Senate session in December.

Mounting pressure on Secretary Rumsfeld

Pressure continues to mount for the Pentagon allow the Able Danger witnesses to testify. Last Friday, Weldon told CNN's Lou Dobbs he had secured 100 signatures from members of Congress calling upon Secretary Rumsfeld to allow the testimony of Able Danger team members. By Wednesday afternoon there were a total 150 signatories, including 90 Republicans and 60 Democrats. By 7 p.m., a press release posted on Congressman Weldon's website asserted that 202 members had signed.

Signatories include Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Inteliigence Jane Harmon (D-CA) and Katherine Harris (R-FL).

RAW STORY is told Weldon’s office expects to announce that they have secured the signatures of a majority of House members soon.

The letter follows.

#

The Honorable Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary
Department of Defense
Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301

Dear Secretary Rumsfeld:

We the undersigned are formally requesting that you allow former participants in the intelligence program known as ABLE DANGER to testify in an open hearing before the United States Congress. Until this point, congressional efforts to investigate ABLE DANGER have been obstructed by Department of Defense insistence that certain individuals with knowledge of ABLE DANGER be prevented from freely and frankly testifying in an open hearing. We realize that you do not question Congress's authority to maintain effective oversight of executive branch agencies, including your department. It is our understanding that your objection instead derives from concern that classified information could be improperly exposed in an open hearing. We of course would never support any activity that might compromise sensitive information involving national security. However, we firmly believe that testimony from the appropriate individuals in an open hearing on ABLE DANGER would not only fail to jeopardize national security, but would in fact enhance it over the long term. This is due to our abiding belief that America can only better prepare itself against future attacks if it understands the full scope of its past failures to do so.

On September 21, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary conducted a hearing on ABLE DANGER which Bill Dugan, Acting Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Oversight, certified did not reveal any classified information. Congressman Curt Weldon's testimony at that hearing was largely based on the information that has been given to him by ABLE DANGER participants barred from open testimony by DOD. Their testimony would therefore closely mirror that of Congressman Weldon, who did not reveal classified information. Therefore we are at a loss as to how the testimony of ABLE DANGER participants would jeopardize classified information. Much of what they would present has already been revealed. Further refusal to allow ABLE DANGER participants to testify in an open congressional hearing can only lead us to conclude that the Department of Defense is uncomfortable with the prospect of Members of Congress questioning these individuals about the circumstances surrounding ABLE DANGER. This would suggest not a concern for national security, but rather an attempt to prevent potentially embarrassing facts from coming to light. Such a consideration would of course be an unacceptable justification for the refusal of a congressional request.

Sincerely,

 http://www.roryoconnor.org/blog/index.php?p=150

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Support_grows_in_Congress_to_allow_1117.html