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.
An officer who has claimed that a classified military unit identified four Sept. 11 hijackers before the 2001 attacks is facing Pentagon accusations of breaking numerous rules, allegations his lawyer suggests are aimed at undermining his credibility.
The alleged infractions by Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, 42, include obtaining a service medal under false pretenses, improperly flashing military identification while drunk and stealing pens, according to military paperwork shown by his attorney to The Associated Press.
Shaffer was one of the first to publicly link Sept. 11 leader Mohamed Atta to the unit code-named Able Danger. Shaffer was one of five witnesses the Pentagon ordered not to appear Sept. 21 before the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss the unit's findings.
The military revoked Shaffer's top security clearance this month, a day before he was supposed to testify to a congressional committee.
Mark Zaid, Shaffer's attorney, said the Pentagon started looking into Shaffer's security clearance about the time in 2003 he met in Afghanistan with staff members of the bipartisan commission that studied the Sept. 11 attacks and told them about Able Danger.
Zaid said he can't prove the Pentagon went after Shaffer because he's a whistleblower, but "all the timing associated with the clearance issue has been suspiciously coincidental."
"all the timing associated with the clearance issue has been suspiciously coincidental."
Originally posted by Jaryn
Of course, I'm just a stupid newbie, what the hell do I know....right?
Originally posted by Zaphod58
Didn't Bush come into office in 2000? So if he wanted Atta arrested in 1998, how could the current administration want to put a stop to it?
Originally posted by RANT
I don't throw around the term "neocon" lightly though and never use it to refer to an entire party, but when it comes to these people left over from the Nixon era that effectively ran the world into the ground in 5 short years and are currently imploding all around us, I simply don't know what else to call them.
Originally posted by RANT
Originally posted by Jaryn
Of course, I'm just a stupid newbie, what the hell do I know....right?
No, no, you're right in the sense I may not always be clear in my labored terminology or all the things I see and hear running around in my head.
I don't throw around the term "neocon" lightly though and never use it to refer to an entire party, but when it comes to these people left over from the Nixon era that effectively ran the world into the ground in 5 short years and are currently imploding all around us, I simply don't know what else to call them.
Originally posted by junglejake
Originally posted by Zaphod58
Didn't Bush come into office in 2000? So if he wanted Atta arrested in 1998, how could the current administration want to put a stop to it?
Yep.
Where is Rumsfeld on this? If the Republicans cant protect this guy who can we protect, Obviously no one. The Clintonites in the Pentagon are still running things and Bush is standing there with his thumb up his butt. He let Bubb a go with no prosecutions he let Gorelick off the hook and now he turns his back on this man.
It's been five years since Clinton was in office. We have nobody to blame but the losers that we worked so hard to hand the entire government over to.