archive-com.com » COM » A » ABLEDANGERBLOG.COM

Total: 571

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Able Danger Blog: Sandy Berger hosts fundraiser for Weldon's opponent
    lists Samuel R Sandy Berger as a host As a general rule campaigns don t comment on fund raisers or people who hold them said Sestak s campaign chairman Myles Duffy Unless of course their name is John Kerry From Sestak s website Two area military veterans hoping to unseat Republican members of Congress in November are getting a national plug from Sen John Kerry In an e mail to be sent today to three million people the former Democratic presidential nominee will urge support for three congressional candidates including Iraq war veteran Patrick Murphy and retired Vice Adm Joseph A Sestak Jr according to David Wade Kerry s press secretary The message asks for donations and says Tell Iraq war veterans that we ve got their back Remember Sestak did not actually serve in the Iraq War Anyway Judi McLeod has more details I don t know why this fund raiser is so secretive other than the fact that it is a fund raiser hosted by a convicted felon a man convicted of destroying information dealing with pre 9 11 intelligence said Russ Caso Weldon s chief of staff Last night s soiree held at the Connecticut Avenue law office of Harold Ickes and Janice Enright asked for individual contributions ranging from 250 to 2 100 Ickes a labor attorney and former top aide to President Clinton was a strategist for Hillary Clinton s 2000 Senate campaign Enright a lobbyist who works with Ickes is the treasurer of Sen Clinton s 2006 re election committee Like the proverbial dog with the bone Weldon keeps talking about Able Danger even though he s not getting much support to keep Able Danger before the public eye from his fellow Republicans In a February 2006 interview he told Canada Free Press I

    Original URL path: http://www.abledangerblog.com/2006/04/sandy-berger-hosts-fundraiser-for.html (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Able Danger Blog: More details on Able Providence
    Able Providence and Able Danger here and here Meanwhile stay tuned to Captain Ed for more information As much as I would like to believe that we have learned from the mistakes of 9 11 everything I ve seen around the Able Danger story leads me to believe we have not posted by Supporter 1 36 PM View our Able Danger timeline Read Tony Shaffer s testimony Listen to audio of the hearing Browse the hearing transcript Demand more news coverage Support a new investigation Add a banner to your site Disclaimer WWW Able Danger Blog About Us Vi is QT Monster Mike is TopDog08 Voxott is Voice of the Taciturn Email Us Contact at AbleDangerBlog Com Links Able Danger Overview Able Danger Twenty Questions Latest Able Danger Video Clips Able Danger Press Conference Able Danger Hearing Testimony Whistleblower Hearing Video Able Danger Timeline Able Danger on Google News Able Danger on Technorati Able Danger on Google Blogs Able Danger at Wikipedia Able Danger on CNN Congressman Curt Weldon Journalist Peter Lance Radiohost Dirk Thompson Intelligence Summit News Able Danger Video Links Able Danger Bloggers Related Books Related Blogs Armies of Liberation Gary Swenchonis Sr Haft of the Spear Tom

    Original URL path: http://www.abledangerblog.com/2006/04/more-details-on-able-providence.html (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Able Danger Blog: New article on Able Danger
    11 commission which ignored the Able Danger information So there are lots of people who want to sweep the scandal under the rug and who wish Shaffer and his whistle blowing colleague Navy Capt Scott Philpott would shut up and get out of the way But they won t So they have been harassed This is reminiscent of Harry Truman s admonition that if you want a friend in Washington get a dog One of the people who understands that warning very well is Congressman Curt Weldon who has been bird dogging the Able Danger scandal for months He has even written a book dealing with it But he has been in Congress for twenty years and is the second ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee So he at least has the clout to fight back against the stonewall though there is a special effort being made to unseat him in November That is a separate matter for a future column Shaffer and Philpott have no such clout Thus they depend on people such as Weldon and Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter to go to bat for them when things get especially nasty as opposed to regular nasty which is a day in day out occurrence for them right now Go read the whole thing posted by Supporter 2 05 PM View our Able Danger timeline Read Tony Shaffer s testimony Listen to audio of the hearing Browse the hearing transcript Demand more news coverage Support a new investigation Add a banner to your site Disclaimer WWW Able Danger Blog About Us Vi is QT Monster Mike is TopDog08 Voxott is Voice of the Taciturn Email Us Contact at AbleDangerBlog Com Links Able Danger Overview Able Danger Twenty Questions Latest Able Danger Video Clips Able Danger Press

    Original URL path: http://www.abledangerblog.com/2006/04/new-article-on-able-danger.html (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Able Danger Blog: What does it all mean?
    New York I knew but hadn t blogged about the odd story of Ramzi Yousef s relationship there with a jailed New York mobster named Gregory Scarpa Jr Scarpa while incarcerated in the same facility made friends with Yousef and received all sorts of extraordinary information from him information which he passed to the FBI in an effort to reduce his own sentence Among the tidbits in Scarpa s account was a claim by Yousef that al Qaeda was responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing the US gov t credits Saudi Hizballah with support from Iran and a claim that Yousef had warned various people to stay away from TWA aircraft on July 18 1996 The crash of TWA 800 which was officially ruled an accident was on July 17 1996 So then Able Danger comes along The Able Danger team had information about the presence of al Qaeda terrorists in the United States which contradicted the timeline in the 9 11 Commission s narrative but fit in a lot better with Ramzi Yousef s story And Dieter Snell was the guy who made sure Able Danger was left out of the Commission s report posted by Supporter 9 45 AM View our Able Danger timeline Read Tony Shaffer s testimony Listen to audio of the hearing Browse the hearing transcript Demand more news coverage Support a new investigation Add a banner to your site Disclaimer WWW Able Danger Blog About Us Vi is QT Monster Mike is TopDog08 Voxott is Voice of the Taciturn Email Us Contact at AbleDangerBlog Com Links Able Danger Overview Able Danger Twenty Questions Latest Able Danger Video Clips Able Danger Press Conference Able Danger Hearing Testimony Whistleblower Hearing Video Able Danger Timeline Able Danger on Google News Able Danger on Technorati Able Danger on

    Original URL path: http://www.abledangerblog.com/2006/04/what-does-it-all-mean.html (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Able Danger Blog: Opposition Filed on DoD Motion to Dismiss
    information so as to permit them to attend the closed classified portion of the hearing and have therefore deprived Shaffer of his right to assistance of counsel during said hearings Although the Subcommittees did not issue subpoenas it was made clear that were Shaffer or Smith to decline to appear voluntarily they would be compelled to do so Id at 29 Shaffer s credibility has been called into question and based on the official views of the defendants and other current or former Government representatives the claims he continues to make are nothing less than intentionally false Therefore Shaffer could potentially face prosecution should his answers to government investigators or even public statements be held to be either false or inconsistent thereby justifying and requiring effective and complete representation throughout every aspect of these matters Id at 33 ARGUMENT The defendants initially seek to dismiss this case not on substantive grounds but on alleged procedural defects regarding subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12 b 1 and service of process under Rule 12 b 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Both efforts should fail 8 Federal courts are of course courts of limited jurisdiction and the law presumes that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction Kokkonen v Guardian Life Ins Co of Am 511 U S 375 377 1994 St Paul Mercury Indem Co v Red Cab Co 303 U S 283 288 89 1938 see also Gen Motors Corp v Envtl Prot Agency 363 F 3d 442 448 D C Cir 2004 noting that a s a court of limited jurisdiction we begin and end with an examination of our jurisdiction Because subject matter jurisdiction is an Art III as well as a statutory requirement no action of the parties can confer subject matter jurisdiction upon a federal court Akinseye v Dist of Columbia 339 F 3d 970 971 D C Cir 2003 quoting Ins Corp of Ir Ltd v Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee 456 U S 694 702 1982 On a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12 b 1 the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has subject matter jurisdiction Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife 504 U S 555 561 1992 The court may dismiss a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief Empagran S A v F Hoffman Laroche Ltd 315 F 3d 338 343 D C Cir 2003 quoting Conley v Gibson 355 U S 41 45 46 1957 Because subject matter jurisdiction focuses on the court s power to hear the claim however the court must give the plaintiffs factual allegations closer scrutiny when resolving a Rule 12 b 1 motion than would be required for a Rule 12 b 6 motion for failure to state a claim Macharia v United States 334 F 3d 61 64 69 D C Cir 2003 Grand Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police v Ashcroft 185 F Supp 2d 9 13 D D C 2001 Moreover the court is not limited to the allegations contained in the complaint Hohri v United States 782 F 2d 227 241 D C Cir 1986 vacated on other grounds 482 U S 64 1987 Instead to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the claim the court may consider materials outside the pleadings Herbert v Nat l Acad of Scis 974 F 2d 192 197 D C Cir 1992 9 I THE PLAINTIFFS POSSESS STANDING TO PURSUE THIS CASE AND THEIR CLAIMS ARE RIPE FOR ADJUDICATION There is no disagreement regarding the nuances of well settled law regarding ripeness and standing The basic rationale behind the ripeness doctrine is to prevent the courts through avoidance of premature adjudication from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties Abbott Labs v Gardner 387 U S 136 148 49 1967 overruled on other grounds Califano v Sanders 430 U S 99 1977 A court may find challenges ripe for review after evaluating 1 the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and 2 the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration Nat l Park Hospitality Ass n v Dep t of the Interior 538 U S 803 2003 citing Abbott Labs 387 U S at 149 The D C Circuit has characterized the ripeness inquiry as a balancing test where the court balances the petitioner s interest in prompt consideration of allegedly unlawful agency action against the agency s interest in crystallizing its policy before that policy is subject to review and the court s interest in avoiding unnecessary adjudication and in deciding issues in a concrete setting AT T Corp v FCC 349 F 3d 692 699 D C Cir 2003 quoting City of Houston v Dep t of Housing Urban Dev 24 F 3d 1421 1430 D C Cir 1994 internal quotation marks omitted Under AT T s guidance the fitness for review prong consists of two considerations 1 whether the disputed claims are presumptively suitable for judicial review and 2 whether the court or the agency would benefit from postponing review until the policy in question has sufficiently crystallized by taking a more definite form 349 F 3d at 699 700 internal quotation marks and citations omitted Among other things the fitness of an issue for judicial decision depends on whether it is purely legal whether consideration of the issue would benefit from a more concrete setting and whether the 10 agency s action is sufficiently final Atl States Legal Found Inc v EPA 325 F 3d 281 284 D C Cir 2003 quoting Clean Air Implementation Project v EPA 150 F 3d 1200 1204 D C Cir 1998 If a claim rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated or indeed may not occur at all it is not ripe for adjudication Id In this Circuit the hardship prong of the Abbott Laboratories test is not an independent requirement divorced from the consideration of the institutional interests of the court and agency Thus where there are no institutional interests favoring postponement of review a petitioner need not satisfy the hardship prong AT T Corp 349 F 3d at 700 citation omitted From a standing perspective the analysis is quite similar To satisfy standing requirements a plaintiff must demonstrate that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury that is both real and immediate and not conjectural or hypothetical City of Los Angeles v Lyons 461 U S 95 101 02 1983 see also Northeastern Fla Chapter Associated Gen Contractors of Am v City of Jacksonville 508 U S 656 663 1993 to establish standing plaintiff must establish an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent not conjectural or hypothetical It is plaintiffs who bear the burden of establishing that they have standing to sue See Lujan 504 U S at 561 A Shaffer Has Standing To Challenge The Defendants Actions And His Claims Are Ripe For Adjudication Given The Interference With His Attorney Client Relationship The Scope Of Which Cannot Be Limited By The Defendants The defendants assert that an individual has no cognizable fight under the First Amendment to have his private counsel be given access to classified information for purposes of representing him when he appears as a fact witness at non adversarial congressional hearings and defendants denial of plaintiffs request for attorney access was consistent with DoD regulations Memorandum in Support of Defendants Motion to Dismiss at 2 filed April 7 2006 Defs Memo While the defendants articulation 11 of congressional interest and importance is misplaced and contributes to the reasoning as to why this Court should deny their Motion more importantly their restrictive depiction of the Shaffer s need for access is entirely inaccurate This alone must defeat their Motion particularly because this is a substantive argument regarding the merits of this case and is not determinative of standing or ripeness Shaffer has not isolated his argument to the premise that the sharing of classified information with his counsel relies solely upon the interests of Congress and the possibility of future hearings or meetings That was to be sure the predicate for the filing of the initial Motion for Temporary Restraining Order Preliminary Injunction filed February 15 2006 given that Shaffer was facing imminent participation in a classified session without counsel present before two Subcommittees of the House Armed Services Committee The defendants believe that u nless and until Congress actually compels plaintiffs to testify about classified matters this Court should avoid issuing an advisory opinion on matters that might never occur and should dismiss plaintiffs claims for lack of standing Def s Memo at 2 emphasis original However Shaffer s request for authorization to share relevant information with his attorneys and hence the need for this litigation has a scope that is far broader that defendants imply It should also be clear that with respect to the Administrative Procedure Act claims there has been final agency action in this case The defendants have twice affirmatively denied Shaffer s request to provide his counsel with access to classified information Exhibits 5 and 7 Nor is there any administrative policy that has not sufficiently crystallized itself Most of the claims in this case revolve around the Constitution and seek declaratory relief The defendants have failed to articulate any decisions that lack finality or crystallization At issue is whether or not the defendants can infringe upon Shaffer s First Amendment constitutional right to share classified or potentially classified information with his cleared counsel in order to obtain effective legal representation that would 12 permit adequate guidance and analysis on his legal choices and or claims in general This representation and the need for information is not contingent on the occurrence of any future events It exists now The administrative requests Shaffer submitted through counsel to the agencies were never limited to Shaffer s congressional involvement but merely cited to Congress as one tangible justification for why access was needed FAC 23 27 Indeed the relief sought by Shaffer in this litigation makes it quite clear that he is seeking to strengthen and protect from intrusion the entire attorney client relationship FAC at 12 relief requested in this litigation regarding sharing of allegedly classified information is not limited to congressional events 1 Congress Remains Very Involved With ABLE DANGER And Shaffer The defendants have undertaken a poignant effort to downplay the anticipated prospective role of Congress and its relationship to Shaffer s need for counsel s access to classified information As the defendants argue Shaffer s First Amendment and APA claims are based on the mere supposition that plaintiffs will suffer some type of injury by testifying under oath at Congressional hearings or by being interviewed by investigators of the DoD s Office of Inspector General OIG without their counsel being privy to classified information regarding ABLE DANGER Defs Memo at 10 Furthermore the defendants heavily rely on the argument that the absence of any allegation that Congress will compel their classified as opposed to unclassified testimony underlines the speculative nature of plaintiffs claims Id at 11 The defendants provide no factual but more importantly no legal distinction as to why this argument matters One would imagine there is little doubt that were an individual compelled to testify in any type of proceeding particularly where their legal interests were touched upon in some manner the right to effective counsel is quite heightened However the voluntary nature of a proceeding does not lead to the contrary conclusion that an individual therefore loses the need or right to obtain effective counsel 13 In any event the defendants claims about congressional intent or future plans with respect to ABLE DANGER and Shafffer have no basis in fact and are actually little more than supposition on the part of its counsel The defendants have provided no evidence from Congress that pertains to this case To the contrary Shaffer has direct evidence from a leading Member of Congress Curt Weldon whose Subcommittee has direct jurisdiction over the ABLE DANGER controversy Congressman Weldon has made it clear that Congress continues to be involved with ABLE DANGER in general and Shaffer in particular Declaration of Congressman Curt Weldon at infra dated May 12 2006 Weldon Decl attached at Exhibit 8 He also noted that while there are no hearings presently scheduled because of the speed in which the scheduling process often operates this Court might not have the time to render a substantive ruling if it agrees with the defendants arguments The controversy surrounding ABLE DANGER and the plaintiffs remain a priority for me and other Members of Congress The House Armed Services Committee and certainly the Subcommittee I chair remains seized of the matter and other Congressional Committees are very interested in the topic as well I fully anticipate that additional hearings will be scheduled by one or more Congressional Committees on the topic of ABLE DANGER and would likely require Lt Col Shaffer and possibly J D Smith to serve as a witness Moreover without a doubt there are Members of Congress and their staffs who serve in positions that have jurisdiction over ABLE DANGER issues and who wish to be briefed by Lt Col Shaffer in a classified environment In fact I am aware of current Members and or their staff who presently desire such a briefing Although it is true that no Congressional hearings are currently scheduled which involve ABLE DANGER such scheduling can occur with very little notice If that occurs this Court would likely not be in a position to timely act especially given the delicate issues of national security that do need to be considered Therefore adjudicating this issue now would seem entirely appropriate Id at 4 Therefore the only evidence in the record of congressional interest favors this Court s denial of the defendants Motion 14 2 The Legal Circumstances That Necessitate Shaffers Attorneys Access To Classified Information Extend Far Beyond Congressional Involvement Shaffer s legal dilemma has already manifested itself and he continues to face legal peril at the hands of the defendants He had his security clearance revoked and is facing termination from his employment with DIA for matters related to his work on ABLE DANGER FAC 26 Because of ABLE DANGER both the clearance revocation and prospective termination are currently the subject of a DoD OIG investigation and all personnel actions against Shaffer have been stayed pending the conclusion of that investigation 3 Shaffer s actions have categorized him as a Whistleblower and as such he may or may not have certain legal rights that accompany such status He also holds potential claims against the U S Government under the Constitution and various regulations statutes the full extent of which cannot be ascertained without his counsel having access to the full panoply of relevant information and that certainly includes that which may be considered classified These are very real and immediate issues To argue that Shaffer s claims are not ripe or that he does not possess standing to raise his claims would eviscerate significant aspects of the very nature of the attorneyclient relationship that would permit clients to ascertain the extent to which they have been harmed or possess legal rights and potential remedies In Caplin Drysdale v United States 491 U S 617 1989 the petitioner which was a law firm contended that a statute infringed on criminal defendants Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice and upset the balance of power between the Government and the accused in a manner contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment The Court ruled that 3 While it is true that Shaffer s personal participation in the DoD OIG investigation which has included participation by his attorney has not involved a classified meeting classified information is a prominent aspect of the investigation Had Shaffer s counsel been permitted to participate in classified meetings in order to protect his legitimate legal interests Shaffer could have gone into more detail on his involvement and knowledge of ABLE DANGER activities and DIA retaliation For now the DoD OIG merely possesses some classified information from Shaffer as a result of observing his closed session congressional testimony 15 standing existed recognizing that the attorney client relationship was one of special consequence and that the statute at issue may materially impair the ability of attorneys to exercise their clients constitutional rights Id at 624 Clearly if standing existed for the third party law firm to protect the attorney client relationship from interference by the Government standing certainly exists for the harmed individual i e the client such as Shaffer to purse a similar claim The notion that individuals are entitled to obtain proper legal assistance and that interference with that process is a constitutional violation would seem unquestionable Determining the extent of that violation clearly confers standing and signifies ripeness For example in In re Primus 436 U S 412 1978 the Supreme Court also noted that efficacy of litigation as a means of advancing the cause of civil liberties often depends on the ability to make legal assistance available to suitable litigants Free trade in ideas means free trade in the opportunity to persuade to action not merely to describe facts Thomas v Collins 323 U S 516 537 1945 The First and Fourteenth Amendments require a measure of protection for advocating lawful means of vindicating legal rights NAACP v Button 371 U S 415 437 1963 including advising another that his legal rights have been infringed and referring him to a particular attorney or group of attorneys for assistance id at 434 Primus 436 U S at 432

    Original URL path: http://www.abledangerblog.com/2006/05/opposition-filed-on-dod-motion-to.html (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Able Danger Blog: New court filing by Mark Zaid
    adjudication Should this Court deny the Government s Motion it will be necessary to decide the substantive arguments regarding whether Shaffer s counsel s access to certain classified information is appropriate In my opinion recent events as described below that postdate the filing of Shaffer s Opposition submission pertain to all of the above 3 Shaffer and the undersigned counsel participated in interview sessions with the defendant Department of Defense s Office of Inspector General DoD OIG on May 16 2006 and May 24 2006 The DoD OIG is conducting an investigation into among other issues the factual circumstances surrounding ABLE DANGER and also whether the defendant Defense Intelligence Agency retaliated against Shaffer These two meetings as well as two others that occurred in November 2005 have all been conducted at the 2 unclassified level particularly apparently in order to allow the undersigned to participate 4 During both meetings and even during the November 2005 sessions but especially the interview held on May 16 2006 there were numerous instances where the conversation began to encroach upon out of bounds classified areas For all I know the conversations actually extended at times into the classified arena In any event it is clear to me that the primary focus and core issues at the heart of ABLE DANGER remain classified This is of concern to me and I believe should concern this Court for purposes of this litigation and present Motion on at least two levels 5 First I as Shaffer s counsel cannot adequately or effectively provide him sound legal advice since I do not know all the facts of the operation nor the full scope of Shaffer s role within the operation This was more than clear when the conversation involved specific questions and seemingly vague discussions surrounding the legality of operations that Shaffer and or ABLE DANGER might or might not have engaged in The investigator asking the questions and Shaffer in providing answers continually danced around the issue while at the same time ensuring it was abundantly obvious they both knew what they were addressing The conversation became so alarming to me that I was forced to specifically note on the record that I was concerned for Shaffer s legal well being and could not provide either adequate or effective representation and I advised that both this line of questioning and his answers cease I cannot judge at this time whether Shaffer is in legal liability or not because of the veil that the Government has purposefully placed over my face while at the same time continuing to pursue matters that potentially expose Shaffer to either administrative civil or even criminal penalties This scenario is completely unfair and inappropriate of the defendants to place Shaffer or anyone in 6 Second it is also clear that specific individuals and organizations due to their classified or protected nature are not being discussed or addressed in the investigation 3 again being danced around during interviews at least not with Shaffer who

    Original URL path: http://www.abledangerblog.com/2006/05/new-court-filing-by-mark-zaid.html (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Able Danger Blog: Triple Cross and Able Danger
    the Green Berets Investigative reporter Peter Lance returns to uncover the story of Ali Mohamed a trusted security advisor of Osama bin Laden who hoodwinked the United States for more than a decade As Lance reveals for the first time this one man served in a series of high security positions within the United States security establishment while simultaneously helping orchestrate the al Qaeda campaign of terror that led to 9 11 a feat worthy of John le Carre How did he move in and out of and around the U S How did he become a naturalized citizen marry an American woman and infiltrate three of America s top intelligence agencies the CIA the Defense Intelligence Agency and the FBI With utter complacence ruthlessness and ease and with no small amount of oversight from the outflanked U S intelligence community TRIPLE CROSS penetrates Mohamed s secret past to tell the story of the most dangerous triple agent in recent history Peter Lance is a five time Emmy Award winning journalist and the author of the groundbreaking 1000 YEARS FOR REVENGE COVER UP and the novel FIRST DEGREE BURN he is a former correspondent for ABC News and has covered hundreds of stories worldwide for 20 20 Nightline and World News Tonight ReganBooks Publication September 2006 SH Estimated length 320 pages with 16 page color insert Manuscript available May 2006 From Dingbat Magazine BAT It sure is You ve given the public plenty to be outraged about and maybe the government will start feeling the pressure Finally what are you working on now LANCE A new book called TRIPLE CROSS on the greatest enigma in the war on terror Ali Mohamed the al Qaeda spy who infiltrated the Green Berets at Fort Bragg the CIA and the FBI He s

    Original URL path: http://www.abledangerblog.com/2006/05/triple-cross-and-able-danger.html (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Able Danger Blog: Accuracy in Media addresses Able Danger
    the offing Congressman Todd Tiahrt a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence said he could not comment when AIM asked if that panel planned hearings on Able Danger Most of the Intel committee s hearings are behind closed doors In an updated interview with AIM his first was with Editor Cliff Kincaid months ago Weldon noted that at the hearing five very senior very trustworthy and well respected leaders in our military establishment swore under oath that the Able Danger team identified the cell members including Atta in January of 2000 and that in September of 2000 made three attempts to transfer the data to the FBI and were denied each time Then FBI Director Louie Freeh recently stated that if he had known of that Able Danger material the FBI may well have stopped the 9 11 attacks from ever happening Weldon also told us the 9 11 Commission said that the Able Danger task force members did not identify Mohammed Atta even though five people have testified under oath that they did The Philadelphia Inquirer in the congressman s backyard is part of the media whitewash That liberal paper is trying not only to discredit Weldon and the Able Danger team itself but also other threats the congressman has exposed over the years The article goes into a lot of detail on the Able Danger story Go read it They also suggest sending a friendly post card to the new White House Press Secretary Tony Snow He has covered Able Danger in the past and AIM suggests asking him to bring more information on the program to light Mr Tony Snow Press Secretary The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N W Washington DC 20500 posted by Supporter 6 25 PM View our Able Danger timeline Read

    Original URL path: http://www.abledangerblog.com/2006/05/accuracy-in-media-addresses-able.html (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •