It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Officer Says Military Blocked Sharing of Files on Terrorists

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 03:45 AM
link   
Washington - A military intelligence team repeatedly contacted the FBI in 2000 to warn about the existence of an American-based terrorist cell that included the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks, according to a veteran Army intelligence officer who said he had now decided to risk his career by discussing the information publicly.



Colonel Shaffer said in an interview on Monday night that the small, highly classified intelligence program, known as Able Danger, had identified the terrorist ringleader, Mohamed Atta, and three other future hijackers by name by mid-2000, and tried to arrange a meeting that summer with agents of the Washington field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to share its information.

But he said military lawyers forced members of the intelligence program to cancel three scheduled meetings with the F.B.I. at the last minute, which left the bureau without information that Colonel Shaffer said might have led to Mr. Atta and the other terrorists while the Sept. 11 attacks were still being planned.

He said he learned later that lawyers associated with the Special Operations Command of the Defense Department had canceled the F.B.I. meetings because they feared controversy if Able Danger was portrayed as a military operation that had violated the privacy of civilians who were legally in the United States.

The account from Colonel Shaffer, a reservist who is also working part time for the Pentagon, corroborates much of the information that the Sept. 11 commission has acknowledged it received about Able Danger last July from a Navy captain who was also involved with the program but whose name has not been made public. In a statement issued last week, the leaders of the commission said the panel had concluded that the intelligence program "did not turn out to be historically significant."

Colonel Shaffer said he had provided information about Able Danger and its identification of Mr. Atta in a private meeting in October 2003 with members of the Sept. 11 commission staff when they visited Afghanistan, where he was then serving. Commission members have disputed that, saying that they do not recall hearing Mr. Atta's name during the briefing and that the name did not appear in documents about Able Danger that were later turned over by the Pentagon.

"This was a good news story because, before 9/11, you had an element of the military - our unit - which was actually out looking for Al Qaeda," he continued. "I can't believe the 9/11 commission would somehow believe that the historical value was not relevant."

Source:
New York Times

Well, Well, Well...

So the Information is Slowly coming out.

Again, so many questions, so little time, and probably no answers.

Why did military lawyers members of the intelligence program cancel three scheduled meetings with the FBI at the last minute?

So basicly everybody knew that 9-11 Will happen - and everybody know whois going to do it. But NOBODY did anything to prevent it.

The Official 9-11 Story, published by the Comission will soon be Denied - like the original JFK Single-Bullet-Theory.

It just takes TIME - and Men like Colonel Shaffer .


Able Danger
The claims have drawn denials from Pentagon officials that any Able Danger material named Atta. The claim that Atta was in the US before 2000 also conflicts with the timeline for the 9/11 attacks developed by the 9/11 Commission. Weldon has claimed that this intelligence was also provided to the Commission but Commission members Timothy J. Roemer and John F. Lehman have both claimed not to have received the intelligence.




posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 03:49 AM
link   
I think this is pretty much a repeat of

Clinton Lawyers: Mohamed Atta Off-Limits



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I think this is pretty much a repeat of

Clinton Lawyers: Mohamed Atta Off-Limits

Woops!

Didn't see that one.

Thanks for the Link!



[edit on 18/8/05 by Souljah]



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Woops!

Didn't see that one.

Thanks for the Link, Ed!


LOL. That wasn't Ed. But I agree, they are all the same.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by cargo

Originally posted by Souljah
Woops!

Didn't see that one.

Thanks for the Link, Ed!


LOL. That wasn't Ed. But I agree, they are all the same.

Woops!

It's too early for me - I must Wake up first.

I know whats wrong - I didn't have my Breakfast and Tea Yet!



[edit on 18/8/05 by Souljah]



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by cargo
LOL. That wasn't Ed. But I agree, they are all the same.


Wow, thanks cargo...I'm honored and humbled to be compared to someone as intelligent as ed!



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 05:45 AM
link   
You've gotta learn to aim higher, johnsto. We believe in you. You CAN do it.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 06:01 AM
link   
Officer Says Military Blocked Sharing of Files on Terrorists

As this fiasco continues to unravel, I think what is going to become more and more evident is that it was not the military, per se, that blocked the sharing of files and information on terrorists and their activities, but that it was Gorelick, being she held the #2 spot within the DOD as General Counsel before moving to the DOJ, and Reno, at the DOJ.

Question: was not Gorelick on the 9/11 Commission?
Oh my, perhaps that is one reason that the partisan 9/11 commission failed to include those 1996 documents that are currently being shoveled around the internet by Judicial Watch?

I'm assuming that there will soon be calls for a 9/11 Part Deux commission to investigate the original 9/11 Commission?






seekerof

[edit on 18-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
If it is true that the Files were blocked due to laws against spying and shearing info by military on people in the US legally then you have seen the ACLU at their best. So be sure to write them a letter for worrying so much about our privacy and keeping us safe.

[edit on 18-8-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
If it is true that the Files were blocked due to laws against spying and shearing info by military on people in the US legally then you have seen the ACLU at their best. So be sure to write them a letter for worrying so much about our privacy and keeping us safe.

[edit on 18-8-2005 by WestPoint23]


How is the ACLU involved in something that you are not sure happened? What would the letter say?

"I'm not sure what happened, or even if you were in involved, but..."



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 01:27 PM
link   
The ACLU had nothing to do with this.

Its called Posse Comitatus and it has been working well for over 100 years, friends.

The law was originally supported by southern legislators after the Civil War, whose states had been experiencing for many years the force of federal (northern) troops acting as federal law enforcement. The law prohibits military units from acting as law enforcement on US soil. The military cannot conduct arrests, searches and seizures, or otherwise act in a law enforcement capacity, except on their own posts. Only the USCG is exempt, and the National Guard under state control in emergency situations. It's what differentiates our democracy from police states and third world regimes, who use their military forces to enforce any policy they wish over their unarmed populace.

Now, while this policy can have a negative downside in some respects, you have to look at the big picture, and how scrapping Posse Comitatus would completely alter our way of life. I, for one, am not willing to deal with military check-points on my state roads, or submachine gun toting troops, saying to me "Papiere, mein herre". My opinion is that if these scumbags were in the US to commit acts of terrorism, then the FBI should have been looking for them, and if they missed them, then shame on them. Although it is a strech, in reality this situation is no different (from a legal point of view) then the prohibition of using spy satellites to search for pot fields in kentucky, using SEALS to serve search warrants, or using NSA listening posts to screen your cell phone calls.

The fact remains that even if the military was able to tip off the FBI to the presence of Atta or any other A/Q terrorists, its highly likely that they would not have been able to prevent the attack(s) in any event. No one had any idea of the scope or magnitude of the attacks, and I think that even the most ardent CI and LE people in the government has no clue that Bin Laden would try anything more exotic than a few well-placed car or truck bombs, which was his (up unitl then) well established MO.


The moment you give our military law enforcement requirements and missions - missions for which they are not trained and are counter to their basic philosophies - you begin a journey down a very slippery slope.......



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join