"We were directed to take those 3M yellow stickers and place them over the faces of Atta and the other terrorists and pretend they didn't exist," the intelligence officer told GSN."
Watch it here:
C-Span 3
He is saying they are obstructing his committee. He is upset.
THis is outrageous!
Now Biden is on.
Background on the flip:
That Richard Clarke was never told has now been confirmed by his deputy at counter-terror, Roger Cressey, now an MSNBC consultant.
My opinion is that the neo-cons needed a Pearl Harbor-type event to occur so Iraq could be invaded, and thus Schoomaker and Franks and apparently others used a flimsy excuse to erase all info on Atta and the Gang so an al-Queda attack on American soil could proceed.
After the info was destroyed, then Able Danger itself was disbanded in Feb. 2001 by Bush and Cheney, officially ending it in May 2001. The surveillance of Atta had supposedly ended but that is unlikely, as Tommy Franks or Schoomaker or Cheney could have kept more secret tabs on Atta through NSA.
If the surveillance of Atta continued, the neo-cons would have seen that the four hijackers they were watching had all bought tickets for the morning of September 11 on different flights.
If true, the neo-cons would thus have known the exact time and date of the 9-11 Attack by Atta and the Gang.
Given the fact of Able Danger, this scenario is very likely--and the testimony coming up may help unlock who knew about Atta and who stopped it. That is the person who would have continued watching Mohamed Atta.
Here is JusticeWatch debunking the U.S Person "Wall" excuse that was used to block and destroy the Atta info:
From JusticeWatch.org:
The "Wall." The "wall" metaphor is shorthand for the recognition that separate authorities govern law enforcement and foreign intelligence investigations targeted against Americans. These authorities, designed to prevent a recurrence of domestic spying by the FBI and CIA, always recognized that international terrorism was both a law enforcement and intelligence matter. Contrary to the repeated mischaracterization by the Attorney General and others, the law never prohibited sharing information between law enforcement and intelligence communities; to the contrary, it expressly provided for such sharing. While the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was interpreted to mean that prosecutors could not direct foreign intelligence wiretaps, as opposed to criminal wiretaps, the 9/11 failures had nothing whatsoever to do with the inability of prosecutors to direct such surveillance. Justice Watch
You would have to believe that Schoomaker and Franks, later promoted heavily byn the Neo-Cons, were so concerned about the rights of known terrorists that they actually destroyed the info on Atta and the Gang out of that worry. THe above shows The Wall would not even apply to a foreigner, identified as a terrorist whose IMMEDIATE ARREST was being recommended by the DIA Able Danger team! A secret Neo-Con cell left over from GHW Bush used The Wall as an excuse, similar to so many other Neo-Con Lies as they cheat their way through history.
Here is Cressey revealing Clarke and Clinton were never told about the ID of Atta:
BREITWEISER: If I could just jump in--if I could just jump in for a second, I particularly would like to ask Roger directly if he had known about this operation. Clearly, he and Richard Clarke were in a position at the time that this operation would have been put in place to know of such a thing.
And, Roger, I`m just wondering, did you know this?
CRESSEY: No, not at all. This was not shared with the National Security Council staff.
(CROSSTALK)
CRESSEY: And, Kristen, let me say that, if this information is correct, the real--the central issue is, why was it not shared with the counterterrorism policy community?
(CROSSTALK)
CRESSEY: Because that was where this could be acted upon.
GREGORY: Let me just interject for a second.
Roger, why wouldn`t that be something that would be shared with you when you were doing that kind of work at the time?
BREITWEISER: Right.
CRESSEY: If this was an internal DOD effort and it was being done by SOCOM, then it would be up to the Pentagon itself to determine what came into the policy-making realm.
(CROSSTALK)
CRESSEY: And, if this is accurate, then this is a case where it wasn`t shared.
GREGORY: Right.
(CROSSTALK)
GREGORY: Kristen, isn`t--isn`t--isn`t the sad truth about all of this, as Roger points out, there are so many clear, glaring examples of information not being shared from the left to the right hand of the government, that this would be just another incredibly sad and devastating example of that, or do you think this is something completely unique?
BREITWEISER: You know, David, I think this takes the threshold beyond another mishap.
You`ve got situations with the CIA failing to give information to the FBI. You have testimony from FBI agents saying that everything that possibly could have gone wrong went wrong. I think we`ve passed the point of this being an institutional failure. These were failures on behalf of certain individuals.
It is startling to me to think that, if this operation did in fact occur, that someone with Roger Cressey`s credentials in his position didn`t know about it. I would like to know what level of secrecy this operation was carried out under.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8925092/
Update [2005-9-21 11:14:56 by Sherlock Google]: The neo-con Republicans (not Specter) are in full CYA, trying to say the Gorelick Wall prevented sharing the Atta info. TOTAL BS. The AD agents were recommending the arrest of Atta! The attorney for Shaffer, Mark Zaid, just laid out the Shaffer censored testimony.
Sessions is desperately trying now to defend Clinton ?!?!? No. He's trying to defend the neo-cons who covered up Atta from being revealed to Clinton and Clarke who would have had them arrested.
Update [2005-9-21 12:13:5 by Sherlock Google]: WOW! DoD said Atta NOT a US Person, so AD should have informed FBI!!!!!!! Here's the reg:
C. TYPES OF INFORMATION THAT MAY BE COLLECTED
ABOUT UNITED STATES PERSONS
Information that identifies a United States person may be collected
by a DoD intelligence component only if it is necessary to the
conduct of a function assigned the collecting component, and only if
it falls within one of the following categories: Note: Terms used in
this part are defined in appendix A and may differ substantially
from traditional Army usage.
1. Information obtained with consent. In may be collected about
a United States person who consents to such collection.
2. Publicly available information. Information may be collected
about a United States person if it is publicly available.
3. Foreign intelligence. Subject to the special limitations contained
in section E., below, information may be collected about a
United States person if the in constitutes foreign intelligence, provided the intentional collection of foreign intelligence about United States persons shall be limited to persons who are:
(a) Individuals reasonably believed to be officers or employees,
or otherwise acting for or on behalf, of a foreign power;
(b) An organization reasonably believed to be owned or controlled,
directly or indirectly, by a foreign power;
(c) Persons or organizations reasonably believed to be engaged or
about to engage, in international terrorist or international narcotics
activities. (See AR 190–52.);
(d) Persons who are reasonably believed to be prisoners of war;
missing in action; or art the targets, the hostages, or victims of
international terrorist organizations; or
(e) Corporations or other commercial organizations believed to
have some relationship with foreign powers,organizations or persons.
4. Counterintelligence. Information may be collected about a United States person if the information constitutes counterintelligence, provided the international collection of counterintelligence
about United States persons must be limited to:
(a) Person who are reasonably believed to be engaged in, or
about to engage in, intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign
power, or international terrorist activities. (See AR 190–52, AR
381–12, and AR 381–20.)
(b) Persons in contact with persons described in paragraph C.4.a.,
above, for the purpose of identifying such persons and assessing
their relationship with persons described in paragraph C.4.a., above.
5. Potential sources of assistant to intelligence activities. Information may be collected about United States person reasonably
believed to be potential sources of intelligence, or potential sources
of assistant to intelligence activities, for the purpose of assessing
their suitability and credibility. This category does not include investigations undertaken for personnel security purposes. (See subsection 8.)
6. Protection of intelligence sources and methods. Information
may be collected about a United States person who has access to,
had access to, or is otherwise in possession of, information which
reveals foreign intelligence and counterintelligence sources or methods, when collection is reasonably believed necessary to protect
against the unauthorized disclosure of such information; provided
that within the United States, intentional collection of such information shall be limited to persons who are:
(a) Present and former DoD employees;
(b) Present or former employees of a present or former DoD
contractor; and
(c) Applicants for employment at DoD or at a contractor of DoD.
7. Physical security. Information may be collected about the
United States person who is reasonably believed to threaten the
physical security of DoD employees, installations, operations or
official visitors. Information may also be collected in the course of a lawful physical security investigation. (See AR 381–12, AR 381–20,
AR 190–1, and AR 190–52.)
8. Personnel security. Information may be collected on a United
States person that arises out of a lawful personnel security investigation. This includes information concerning relatives and associates of the subject of the investigation, if required by the scope of the investigation and the information has a bearing on the matter being investigated or the security determination being made. (See AR 604–5, AR 381–12, AR 381–20, and AR 190–52.)
9. Communications security. Information may be collected about
a United States person that arises out of a lawful communications
security investigation. (See AR 380–53.)
10. Narcotics. Information may be collected about a United
States person who is reasonably believed to be engaged in international narcotics activities.
11. Threats to safety. Information may be collected about a United States person when the information is needed to protect the safety of any person or organization, including those who are targets, victims or hostages of international terrorist organizations. (See AR 190–52.)
12. Overhead reconnaissance. Information may be collected for
overhead reconnaissance not directed at specific United States persons.
13. Administrative purposes. Information may be collected about
a United States person that is necessary for administrative purposes.
Furthermore, someone here on a visa does not seem to be a US person:
27. United States person.
a. The term “United States person” means:
(1) A United States citizen;
(2) An alien known by the DoD intelligence component concerned
to be a permanent resident alien;
(3) An unincoporated association substantially composed of United States citizens or permanent resident aliens;
(4) A corporation incorporated intelligence the United States, except
for a corporation directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments. A corporation or corporate subsidiary incorporated abroad, even if partially or wholly owned by a corporation incorporated intelligence the United States, is not a United
States person.
b. A person or organization outside the United States shall be
presumed not to be a us person unless specific information to the
contrary is obtained. An alien in the United States shall be presumed
not to be a United States person unless specific information to the
contrary is obtained.
c. A permanent resident alien is a foreign national lawfully admitted
into the United States for permanent residence.
TopDog Blog
Spector is now wondering why Pentagon blocking the intel officers once more.
Update [2005-9-21 11:55:14 by Sherlock Google]: Spector just SUSPENDED the hearing due to lack of cooperation from Rummy...
Think about this Sherlock insight, Kossaks: if LIHOP is not true, why wouldn't Rummy let the Able Danger agents testify? They could just say Gorelick Wall, Gorelick Wall, Gorelick Wall, Clinton's Fault, Clinton's Fault, Clinton's Fault.
But Rummy silenced them because he knew the whole story: that there is a secret neo-con cell in the Pentagon, that the AD agents had recommended the arrest of Atta, negating US Personhood (and he was not a U.S. Person in the first place), AND THAT CLINTON WAS NEVER TOLD, NOR WAS CLARKE.
This will be the end of all hearings on Able Danger. Specter will be threatened and we will see what kind of cajones he has. He looks like he has cajones--but does he know how to use them, or will he use them after he is threatened?? They will tell him he will lose the Judiciary Chair, I'm sure.
Rummy will NEVER testify, as Specter wants him to.
Thank you for watching the greatest coverup in the history of the world--and Good Nite America!
Any Kossaks think this is not a big deal now?
I'm available to answer all Able Danger questions.
When O When will this be front-paged??
I seriously doubt it. And where was Kennedy and Leahy for Chrissakes!?!?!
Oh Well, maybe Sean Hannity will investigate Able Danger further. THat's my best hope I guess, because he's too dumb to stop digging once he's deep in a hole.
Update [2005-9-21 14:34:12 by Sherlock Google]: This is important. This is news! During the hearing today, the attorney from the Secretary of Defenseoffice, Dugan, clearly stated that Mohamed Atta cannot be considered a US Person, therefore Army Reg 381-10 does not apply, therefore the FBI should have been told to arrest Atta and the other 3 members, of which 2 were pilots on 9-11.
Whether you are LIHOP or not, this is news because at the least we have DoD confirming that the FBI and thus President Clinton should have been told by Schoomaker and Franks, and Atta should have been arrested--meaning 9-11 would never have happened.
Ooops! I don't think Rummy planned on this question being asked of Dugan. Now Specter will want Rummy to answer this himself!