Able Danger Identified Atta 13 Different Times

The secret military intelligence unit operating within the United States codenamed 'Able Danger' identified 9/11 terrorist Mohamed Atta on 13 seperate occasions. Rep. Curt Weldon also told of how Able Danger was aware of a "problem" in Yemen prior to the U.S.S. Cole bombing where 12 US sailors died. In both instances the information obtained by Able Danger, via data mining, could of been used to prevent both terrorist attacks.



There are a few thing that strike me about the whole Able Danger affair.

1) Why was a military intelligence unit spying on US citizens, and on US soil?
2) Why is Able Danger not a house-hold name considering the gravity of the intelligence it gathered pre-9/11.
3) Why was Able Danger's repeated requests to the FBI "to do something" about Atta ignored?

The only thing worse than a tragedy such as 9/11 is finding out that it could of been easily been prevented. Atta could of been rotting in a jail cell some where now and over 2000 Americans could still be alive if only Able Danger's information was not purposely ignored.

Curt Weldon is not a crackpot, tin foil hatted conspiracy theorist. He is Vice Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. This issue is noting going away thankfully and with any luck Weldon can blow this whole issue wide open.

[edit on 24-9-2006 by asala]

I do hope that all who read this will understand the time line and come to grips that this was during the Clinton Adm.

The failure of the Clinton set the USA up as a target and has let numerous sleeper cell into this country. (See the book "
The Third Terrorist")

Roper

1) Why was a military intelligence unit spying on US citizens, and on US soil?

I don't understand this question. Who were the US citizens who were being spied upon on US soil in the "Able Danger" opereration?

Though you do need to balance, preventing a terrorist attack, and protecting valuable sources, you need to know where to draw the line and it is a dilemma.

It is easy to say that an attack could have been prevented, but often intelligence is flimsy at best. To act on every bit of information, you would be playing into the hands of the terrorists, evacuating buildings every five minuites.
This would lead to the situation where terrorists would have to attack, only put out false information, to cause terror and panic all over the world.

It is a very thin line to walk between source protection and preventing terrorism. A job I am glad i do not have to do.


Dan

i think you got it...

bigdanprice
...Though you do need balance, preventing a terrorist attack, and protecting valuable sources,
you need to know where to draw the line........it is a dilemma.

AbleDanger mission was to follow the routines, travels, contacts, etc
of suspect foreigners...and did not stop keeping a record of these individuals because they entered-departed-reentered the USA...

any US citizens listed/noted into the tracking of the movements of Atta or other people-of-interest, does not meet my definition of 'spying' on US civilians.

in my view AbleDanger, was like a Naturalist-Photographer with an assignment to keep a record of of a pride-of-lions (as an example)
the scientist-naturalist would not attempt to 'save' a calf or other animal which was being stalked for-the-kill...that action would change the action & series of events...the goal was to secretly, with disinterest, record the natural drama

its funny/odd that "Atta" is the only 9-11 name that was slipped to other Agencies of Intel & counterintelligence, CIA or FBI, as a person of 'interest'
I betcha, covert operations like AbleDanger, also had a good handle that flight schools were, for a long time, training a very large number of Saudi & middle-eastern Arab young men...who also had fundamentalist, Wahabbi, or Jihadist worldviews and had potential anti-american sentiments.
...but AbleDanger (and any others) mission was to track and keep-hands-off, let both the good guys & the bad guys go about their business, and just keep a record of information to be used in the future

perhaps the 3 questions in the thread started were sorta put into a perspective....if not, then so be it....

voted Yes

2) Why is Able Danger not a house-hold name considering the gravity of the intelligence it gathered pre-9/11.

NBC News did a bunch of stories/coverage on "Able Danger" - then they stopped talking about it all of a sudden. All of the other Mainstream Media do not seem to want to talk about it - Mysterious huh?

Well the article says that although nothing specific was found about the cole attacks, the terms "problem" and the port where the ship was docked came up, so what is so hard about increasing scrutiny at that point? Just increased vigilance instead of doing absolutely nothing

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
NBC News did a bunch of stories/coverage on "Able Danger" - then they stopped talking about it all of a sudden. All of the other Mainstream Media do not seem to want to talk about it - Mysterious huh?

There were also a couple of threads on ATS about Able Danger. I seem to remember that someone ordered a bunch of info that AD had collected to be erased from disk.

I seem to remember that someone ordered a bunch of info that AD had collected to be erased from disk.

OK the Sh*t hit the fan on 9/11/2001 obviously - they knew that the Investigations were coming. "Able Danger" was an Intelligence Operation ran by the "DIA" (= "Defense Intelligence Agency" - were you even aware that we had a "DIA" - the "CIA" gets most of the Publicity) - which is in turn ran by the Defense Department/Pentagon.

Anyhow - they were CAUGHT IN THE ACT of ERASING HARD DRIVES with said collected Intelligence/(& Now) Evidence.

This is what is known as a "Cover Up"!

[edit on 27-9-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

Yes, I've heard of DIA. They don't get the fanfare that CIA or NSA or FBI get. Neither does SOCOM.

Aproximately 2.5 terabytes of data that had been collected by AD was destroyed. That's a lot of data. It's one of those issues that people don't want to look at too closely. As they say, you'll never hear Clinton bring up the subject of AD.

you'll never hear Clinton bring up the subject of AD.

Lets not be Partisan here - the Cover Up this of this Liability is Bi-Partisan. I am sure that you will not hear the Bush Administration talk about "Able Danger" either.

You will hear them ask for continued extended powers to keep other programs like these going - I am for it as long as it is Regulated by Congress so that the Privacy of regular American Citizens is not Violated & no G.W. Bush saying "Take my Word for it" is NOT GOOD ENOUGH - but anyhow lets hope that they actually put the Data to good use this time!

[edit on 30-9-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]