Talk:Able Danger/Archive 1

Archive 1

More Info on Able Danger?

The date Able Danger was officially terminated by DoD? -- Sadly, the article is missing this information.

---

Is Conspiracy debunked or not?

---

Boy reading this is more fun than listening to Chris Matthews or Sean Hannity. Anwyway, POV aside, are we going to get someone brave enough now to add current events? Last current event I see is the December 2006, is that it?

And does Tom get to assert that the Senate and DoD agreeing ends the controversy? Some believe Wheldon lost his seat over this...can that not be added as well -- the effects of pursuing a story the government MIGHT want to go away (avoiding POV)? I admit my POV, it only takes a look at my website -- I state it clearly.

I'd like to know how all the coincidences like DoD lettering up the potential witnesses and then backing down later? And if the DoD wanted to get the story straight, why didn't they just grant Philpot the right to draft a statement of what he saw and knew? Maybe with a warning about what was classified he couldn't talk about or perhaps (if it is true), state HE did not want to participate in a circus and the DoD respects that right to privacy in the workplace.

Adding some more...hope I am not breaking some protocol...Later in this long (too long?) tirade, is mention of the prosecutors not being allowed to pass information to the FBI or other intelligence agencies. Isn't it the other way around?

The idea is to keep domestic criminal affairs off the scope for the CIA who is not allowed to (notice the bold please) spy domestically on criminal cases (i.e. U.S. Citizens. In the past, and more or less now (after the Patriot Act), the CIA, when finding a "bad guy" in the U.S. was required to turn it over to the FBI who had ultimate responsibility for domestic counterintelligence (yes it is one word according to the FBI manual on writing style). Adding counterterrorism (also one word) to the FBI's mandate plus FISA makes it doubly important for the CIA to handoff. With Homeland Security supposedly providing the pass-through mechanism at the replacement for TTIC (NTIC???). Did I get all that right?

Point is...isn't the prohibited direction from CIA to Prosecutors? You don't want prosecutors (and I guess the FBI) going after U.S. criminals in domestic situations because the CIA is only supposed to look at foreign operators unless they get on a plane or cross the border and enter the U.S.

For instance, if the Klamath County D.A. wants to refer to the FBI he has every right and in fact is legally bound to do so when he notes a federal crime may be in process or has occurred and needs federal investigation.

Now...am I being too picky and everyone else understood G...what's his name meant when he got the direction wrong?

And yes this has to do with Able Danger, simply because that was the point of the destruction of data...they couldn't have intelligence agency data available on U.S. citizens cuz that is not legal for anyone but the FBI to have in their hands! Or so goes the excuse.

As if. According to both Shaffer and the fellow who did the actual deleting, the data on U.S. people came from public sources...public as in open-source and you can collect open source data on anyone you want, can't you? If it's public, it's public, you can't make it not so.

Anyway, lot's of fun.

--Mcrawford01 07:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Able Providence Link is Now Circular

Follow on to Able Danger has been removed

---

Oh, I left a note to Tom about his removal of the Able Providence article...now we have a circular link? Ooops! What was wrong with Able Providence...can't talk to that discussion page, cuz it vanished over the holidays without warning and with no talkie to Mikee, no talkie to article cuz it's like gone, dude! An explanation of what happened would be nice...it had pretty good references including some great pages (graphics) on a link to a blogger with inside scoop. All gone now, sigh.

--Mcrawford01 03:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In digging deeper (looking at the "diff" on the removed page in history), I see that Tom stated that the reason the page was removed was that a single source is not enough to enter an article...so the fact that four different people, Wheldon, Shaffer, the GCN writer Patience Wait, and the blogger all pointed to Able Providence (with actual slides in the case of the blogger) did not seem to be credible enough for Tom. Oh well.

I will fix the link to point to the MILNET page on Able Providence as an outside source, whether you "buy" the source or not, it is more information that proves valuable to the overall story.

--Mcrawford01 19:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Witnesses

Not 2, not 3, but 5 or 6 **"credible"** eye-witnesses? I wonder if that lying, whiney, paid political hack crackpot Gorgonzilla is as embarrassed as he ought to be. -- Swamp Foxx 138.162.0.37 14:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts at modifying the article for a more neutral tone by Physchim62 and other contributors since the article was unlocked. It was a very good effort that showed thorough study of details provided on this discussion page. - Honest Abe

Swamp Fox/Honest Abe have got their IP addresses mixed up here. Either they are the same person or they are working at the same navy base. in either case they should note that it is not permitted to use US government property to spread propaganda. --Gorgonzilla 17:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

POV lock

Your ideas might have been taken more seriously if you did not attack others as 'left-wing extreemists' and 'National Socialists' (NAZIs). See WP:NPA --Gorgonzilla 01:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

A list of some of the highly contentious and in some cases simply inaccurate claims this anon poster attempted to insert can be seen towards the bottom of the talk page. Four days later the anon poster has not bothered to answer any of the points raised. --Gorgonzilla 12:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Most "points" of that list were addressed earlier. All are addressed now.

BTW - You've been caught in yet another BAD FAITH lie, Gorgonzolla. You first made the 4 day claim here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Able_Danger&oldid=22171765 at 12:30 30 August 2005

You posted the list here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Able_Danger&oldid=21998082 at 01:36 28 August 2005

There were 2 days 10 hours and 54 minutes between these posts. You doubled the time in your BAD FAITH lie. Why did you lie yet again after already having been caught lying so many times? Are you a compulsive liar? Are you under a psychologist's care or treatment? - Honest Abe

If you continue to make attacks of this type you are liable to find that you are unable to post even after the lock is removed. --Gorgonzilla 19:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

How is the truth about your BAD FAITH LIES an attack? If you don't like being caught in LIES, stop lying! I can't image Wikipedia would rather keep a known and proven compulsive liar as a poster than someone who honestly exposes the lies. Perhaps you should watch out. But if Wikipedia would rather keep liars as contributors they are welcome to you. I wouldn't want to be associated with such a cesspool. - Honest Abe

____

Abe, First off, I think it's well established Gorgonzilla has told a series of lies and those lies can only be in bad faith given all the warings he's already received about them. But your posts bother me for several reasons.

1) Although you called Gorgonzilla a liar only in the oblique above, you stooped to actual name-calling earlier. That makes even the oblique off limits to you.

2) Your diagnosis of Gorgonzilla as a compulsive liar is done (presumably) out of field. Only a psychiatrist should be making such a diagnosis. It's entirely possible Gorgonzilla lies as a result of political zealotry rather than pathology. You should refrain from playing doctor.

3) Wikipedia is not a "cesspool." It's clear contributors like Gorgonzilla are an embarrassment and a tax on Wikipedia's reputation, but by and large the articles here are well done and those that aren't can usually be improved. The fact that this article can't be improved at the moment is probably due to Gorgonzilla's duping admin, as he was undoubtedly duped others, rather than a systemic problem with Wikipedia itself.

Gorgonzilla should be banned and Wikipedia should think seriously about banning you as well.

-- Swamp Foxx 138.162.0.46 14:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

1) Can't un-ring a bell, I suppose. 2) You're right. I have no idea why Gorgonzolla lies as often as he does. I probably shouldn't have said he was compulsive. But I do know he has trouble facing reality and is at the same time politically motivated. 3) Perhaps "cesspool" was hyperbole. Either way I did not intend to imply Wikipedia was currently a cesspool. I tried to convey that if liars and partisans are encouraged to post here Wikipedia would suffer and I wouldn't want to post in that kind of environment, so being banned wouldn't matter. - Honest Abe

He lied on my RFC too. He's a liar.

Update needed

This article appears quite old for a "current event" and reads like the 9/11 committee's initial denials. There have been quite a few developments since, including 3 witnesses that have now come forward and the announcement of hearings in the Senate under Arlen Specter as well separate hearings in the House. This really should be updated to reflect a more neutral tone.

http://www.timesherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15101660&BRD=1672&PAG=461&dept_i\d=33380&rfi=6 -- Swamp Foxx 138.162.0.37 15:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Two of the witnesses are in the article. The problem with adding the third was the anon poster's insistence on describing them as 'credible' and inserting numerous other POV references leading to the article being locked. At this point it is very clear that someone is lying but there is no documentary evidence to prove who that is. Describing one side as 'credible' in this situation is unacceptably POV. It is not an adjective I would apply to either side, it is certainly unnecessary. I happen to think that O.J. Simpson is a double-murderer, the evidence against him is absolutely overwhelming in my view. But I do not think that the Wikipedia article should start 'In 1993 O.J. Simpson murdered his ex-wife and her boyfriend but escaped justice by hiring a team of lawyers known as 'the dream team'. --Gorgonzilla 16:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

If you didn't like the word "credible," you should have explained why 3 military officers saying the same thing aren't credible on the discussion page and deleted the term in the article instead of your wholsale deletion of relevant facts. The anon poster appears justified in claiming this article does not have a neutral POV because of the action you took. -- Swamp Foxx 138.162.0.43 17:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The anon poster has not posted one word of justification for his edits. He has on the other hand made repeated personal attacks. His entire edit was intended to promote a particular point of view as fact and exclude all other views. Shaffer was put on leave for alleged dishonesty 18 months ago, long before his public statements. The edit was also confused and barely comprehensible, just like his posts to talk. If you think that the article should be changed then please join in the discussion attempting to arrive at a compromise. Also as a matter of fact there are only 2 military officers, Smith was a contractor. Their account is denied by their chain of command so it is 2 military officers against 20 or so. --Gorgonzilla 17:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You know, when I saw his posts below calling you a "liar" I was on your side. Name calling is difficult to tolerate. I assumed you were just grossly mistaken when you incorrectly said there were only 2 witnesses and also claimed he had not justified adding an NPOV warning on this discussion page. Yet when you claimed above "The anon poster has not posted one word of justification for his edits" that belief became very difficult for me to maintain. I don't know how such a "blunder" can be a simple mistake. The anonymous poster obviously justified his version with several links including one from the US Department of Justice, while one of yours came from a clearly liberal semi-blog called "Media Matters." If you had contradictory links they should have been placed in an edit of his version. You should not have deleted the relevant facts he included in his re-write of your version. I found his edit understandable yet needing more work. It's unfortunate you lacked the capacity for either comprehending or providing that work in an unbiased manner. If you think his article should have been edited, you should have edited it from his baseline and justified your edits here. Your original POV can't be taken in any way as neutral. -- Swamp Foxx 138.162.0.37 19:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Article cited as source by media organization

What can it mean for a Wikipedia article to be cited as a source by a media organization, when the contents of a Wikipedia article can be changed in any way by anyone at any time? Which version of this article did the media organization intend to refer to? It is impossible to know. If a media organization hasn't figured out by now that Wikipedia is inherently unreliable as a source of accurate information, their own reliability is highly questionable. Anonip 21:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Godwins Law

Honest Abe just called me a NAZI: "As much as you National Socialists hate the idea even FoxNews people have freedom to believe and vote as they wish. ". That is an unacceptable personal attack and this dialogue is terminated.--Gorgonzilla 04:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rule states: "Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary."

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes

Your claim/lie that there were only two witnesses despite my neutral revision clearly naming the 3 witnesses and linking articles describing IS clear evidence you are acting in the bad faith of your LW extremism as was your deletion without explanation of my NPOV warning a few days ago. Had you read the my neutral POV article before whining you would not have looked so foolish. If the choice is for this article to be worded so it is half way between a version with a neutral POV and your version with a LW extreme POV, this article should be deleted completely. Your attack on another poster as a "sockpuppet" was not only irresponsible and wrong, it was down-right stupid. Perhaps some day you will see beyond your extreme partisan prism, but I doubt that day will be very soon. - Honest Abe

No Personal Attacks, 'calling people a NAZI is a personal attack, you have just made yet more personal attacks.

Calling people a NAZI is clear evidence to the contrary at this point I am entitled to assume you are acting in bad faith.

If you flag NPOV you have to state what the issues are, you didn't, you just engaged in personal attacks.

There are in fact only 2 witnesses, Shaffer has stated he only got his info from Philpott.

There is this thing called projection, it is when someone who is behaving in a certain anti-social way accuses others of the exact behavior they are engaged in. You are the person who is attempting to bias the article to an extreme, radical point of view. --Gorgonzilla 12:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

ACT IN GOOD FAITH. Your Lies, Extremism and Vandalism is BAD FAITH. You earned the names. I clearly did state what the issues were. Try to keep up. Here is that discussion from this very page, yet again. Are you literate enough to read it? Your response was non-existant except to remove the NPOV warning without comment like the Partisan LW Extremist Hack you are and then run whining to Wikipedia for protection.

NPOV Discussion

This left wing spin of this article is a disgrace. It's present form is a complete whitewash of 3 brewing :scandals obviously for political spin. Example, 2nd paragraph a denial is presented without source or link before the charge is presented. WTF? Even the far left leaning New York Times has given the charges credence in todays paper yet Michael Savage is given top billing. Again WTF? This is why it has earned a NPOV warning. Honest Abe - 17 Aug 05

If I can interject here, I noticed that there is a series of citations to Fox News. Now, not to criticize the reliability of Fox News (and sometimes lack of later corrections) but corraborating sources should be cited, if any exist. -- --Bigdavediode 17:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Linuxbeak - If you lock the LW extremist vandalized and incorrect version of this article what motivation do LW extremists have to work out a compromise? Your action is a betrayal of Wikipedia's neutrality assertion.

Gorgon and other left wing extremists - Even the Pentagon reversed itself tonite and admitted Able Danger had data on Muhammed Atta at least a year before 9/11. If you continue to vandalize the neutral version without comment I will continue to restore it.

No, you won't. I protected it. You're not credible; you say "left wing extremists", which is POV. I'm letting you two hash this one out, because I'm sick of seeing this page on my RC patrol list. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 01:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

A "betrayal of Wikipedia's neutrality assertion"?! Oh please. Stop wasting my time arguing with me and talk to the guys on this talk page. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 01:35, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

that is a very POV statement in itself. Your assertion that the Clinton administration is responsible has not been endorsed by any non-partisan media source, or even for that matter the mainstream Republican party. It is a REPUBLICAN who is warning people not to 'hyperventilate' over this, it is a REPUBLICAN administration that is DENYING ALL THE ABLE DANGER THEORIES YOU ARE PEDDLING. As it happens, I am only repeating the Bush administration line here. --Gorgonzilla 01:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC) Gorgon and other left wing extremists - If you continue to vandalize the neutral version of this article I will continue to revert to the neutral version. - Honest Abe

You have not substantiated any of your POV vandalism to the article. in particular how do you claim that a guy who was put on administrative leave for fiddling expenses 18 months ago is 'credible'?

corroberation by 2 other eye witnesses makes him credible. Two witnesses are accepted in any court in the country as legal proof. in this case there are three eye-witnesses. You deny the legal proof because of your LW extremist POV. - Honest Abe

Name them. Shaffer has stated that he was told about the Able Danger identification of Atta by Philpott, Weldon by Shaffer. So you only have one independent witness. --Gorgonzilla 01:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

They were in my neutral revision along with links. If you had read it instead of acting out of LW knee-jerk extremism you would have seen them. Can you count to 3? From the revision:

Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer

After Weldon's assertions were disputed by the media Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a member of the Able Danger team identified himself as Weldon's source. Shaffer claimed that he alerted the FBI in September 2000 about the information uncovered by the secret military unit "Able Danger," but he alleges three meetings he set up with bureau officials were blocked by military lawyers. Shaffer, who currently works for the Defense Intelligence Agency, claims that the information was communicated to members of the 9/11 Commission, who chose not to include it in their final report.

Shaffer's lawyer, Mark Zaid, has revealed that Shaffer had been placed on administrative leave and had his security clearance suspended in March 2004 following a dispute over expenses. [7]

Navy Captain Scott Philpott

The Associated Press has reported that a member of the Able Danger team, Capt. Scott Philpott, an expert in futuristic naval warfare has also confirmed Shaffer's claims.

The group appears to be leaking additional information on Able Danger through the blog 'Voice of the taciturn' [8]

Mr. JD Smith

FoxNews has reported JD Smith, a contractor working for the Able Danger team, helped gather open-source information, reported on government spending and helped generate charts associated with the unit's work. [9]

According to Smith:

"I am absolutely positive that he [Atta] was on our chart among other pictures and ties that we were doing mainly based upon [terror] cells in New York City."

Smith also said data was gathered from a variety of sources, including about 30 or 40 individuals. He said they all had strong Middle Eastern connections and were paid for their information and said Able Danger's photo of Atta was obtained from overseas.

Well here is the problem I am having with the claims made by Smith. 'Able Danger' was originally purported to have been a data mining project, and a research project rather than a 'production' one at that. Now we have Smith popping up claiming that he was responsible for a HUMINT component of the project with 30-40 agents active. And this is all meant to be taking place under SOCOM without the participation of army intelligence or the CIA? And a project funded to that extent does not have procedures in place for handing over the information gathered? --Gorgonzilla 02:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Smith is also continuing to claim that Atta was identified by that name in 1999. None of the other sources shows Atta either in the US or using that name until applying for the Visa in 2000. --Gorgonzilla 02:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

You have no proof of this beside your BuzzFlash Cut & Paste.

Direct quotes don't need to be neutral but balanced. I have made no such statement about the Clinton Administration "responsibility" as you claim. The terrorists are responsible for their terrorism. The Clinton Administration's actions were irresponsible - not responsible. Your claim is not only yet another lie but a betrayal of Wikipedia's NPOV requirement. The fact that I left the Republican Gorton's statement in my neutral version is a clear indication of my neutrality and balance. I am a Libertarian not a Republican, BTW. You are a blind partisan LW extremist. "Bush Administration line?" What are you talking about? - Honest Abe

I think that it is premature based on reports limited to Fox News, the Washington Times and NewsMax to start hyperventilating here. I am aware that there is a story floating around that the Able Danger project was canned after it identified Condi Rice as a terrorist, I don't think it should go in the article yet though.--Gorgonzilla 02:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Gorgonzilla, There is no justification for suppressing news reports from Fox News, the Washington Times and NewsMax. (NewsMax cited NYT re Smith, BTW.) Please stop making inappropriate reverts. Anonip 03:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

AnonIP, If you think that describing a guy accused of THEFT as 'Credible' in the opening paragraph is NPOV then you are likely a sockpupet for honest Abe. I reverted because the editorial slant was clearly endorsing Shaffer/Philpott/Smith as telling the truth and by implication describing the Pentagon and the Bush Administration as liars. The story is currently being spun by a number of partisan news sources that do too have their Jayson Blair scandals, starting with Ailes giving political advice to Jeb Bush during the 2000 count. Reputable news organizations are not run by partisan political advisers. I don't care if the POV you are inserting is Republican or Libertarian. At this point nobody has produced documentary evidence that of the identification claim let alone evidence that it was suppressed by any party whatsoever. It is premature to integrate this into the unified right wing Clinton conspiracy theory. --Gorgonzilla 03:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Gorgonzilla, I do not object to your removing the word "credible" from the opening paragraph. I do object to your removing factual information regarding Smith's claims as reported by major media. There is no justification for that. It appears to be your POV that the allegations concerning Able Danger are simply part of a "unified right wing Clinton conspiracy theory". You are entitled to your opinion, of course. You are not entitled to impose it on this Wikipedia article, as you have attempted to do from the beginning. Please stop. Anonip 04:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

If someone posts a major change to an article that is 80% POV and don't substantiate any of the claims in talk. it is reasonable to revert. The vandal has since accused me of being a liar and an extreemist which are accusations that further demonstrate an intent to impose a particular POV. At this point the allegations are just that, allegations. The article has the Clinton-is-to-blame POV, that is far from the only POV likely to be asserted if it does turn out that it is possible to prove something here. --Gorgonzilla 04:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you cite FoxNews' Jayson Blair or Operation Tailwind-like scandal?

Sure Ailes giving partisan political advice, numerous silly statements by O'Reilly. Of course they are not major journalism scandals because Fox News is not held to that standard.

Ailes did no such thing through the network and you know it. As much as you National Socialists hate the idea even FoxNews people have freedom to believe and vote as they wish. As for O'Reilly are you referring to his support for Clinton's war on Kosovo or O'Reilly's opposition to the death penalty? Te fact is O'Reilly is opinionated but he has as many liberal positions as conservative ones. As a commentator rather than a Journalist he has as much riht to offer his offsetting opinions as Larry King has to advocate the LW ticket.

FoxNews has proven more credible than either the NYT or CNN who hosted those scandals, respectively. I haven't linked anything to NewsMax or the Washington Times. Your claim I did gives a clear view toward your lunatic LW partisan extremism.

More personal attacks noted.

No one and nothing identified Condi Rice as a "terrorist." Able Danger did identify her contacts with the Chinese through Stanford University, where she was Dean, as suspicious. Nothing surprising there Stanford had an academic agreement with China.

Look at what I wrote, what is interesting here is that someone is interested enough in Smith to slime them.

But it's an indication why the FBI needed to be the man in the loop. The man in the loop not only on Rice but on Muhammed Atta as well. It was a section of the loop the Clinton Administration denied the American public with the wall against passing data on terrorism the Jamie Gorlick fortified. - Honest Abe

Yet another repeat of a wingnut conspiracy. The partition of FBI data goes back to Chuch, the same rules were re-confirmed by Ashcroft himself when he took office. Stop obsessing about a cheap stunt that Ashcroft pulled when he was about to face a series of tough questions from the 9/11 commission. Ashcroft knew he was likely to be criticized by the commission report so he got his people to dredg up some dirt to throw.

Well first off you have accused me of being a left wing extreemist repeatedly and of telling lies. Those are personal attacks and actionable ones to boot.

You clearly did tell a lie claiming there were 2 witnesses when my linked post made t clear there were 3. I was a demonstrated, proved and obvious lie. If you don't like that label - Stop lying.

Secondly, is the Jayson Blair you refer to the one sacked by the NY Times for making up stories? I was not aware that Fox News employed him, I would not regard him as a reliable source regardless of where he works.

Right. Your trying to discredit FoxNews when they've experienced no such sJayson Blair scandal as has many of your favority LW sources was a crystal ball into your LW extremism.

Thirdly, what I was saying was that the information that has so far come to light on Smith comes from three partisan right wing sources and what appears to be a Pentagon source alleging that Smith screwed up big on another project. At this point I think it is too soon to form any opinion on whether the allegations against Smith are even reliably sourced let alone interpret them.

Nothing ties FoxNews to the right wing. Your claim, however, ties you to the extreme left wing.

Fourthly, there is a big difference between the facts that have been established and the spin that Weldon and other have been trying to place on it. Shaffer's original statements appear to suggest that the SOCOM lawyers were concerned that if they handed over the info that the result would be another WACO style FBI screw-up. Having dealt with Freeh myself I can sympathize with that view. At the time the Freeh's direct involvement in the scapegoating of Richard Jewel for the Olympic park bombing had many people in the federal government thinking he was an incompetent grandstander.

Where's your link on the Waco thing?

• The stories of Shaffer and co are incompatible with the Pentagon story, at least one group is lying.

You missed the Pentagon's latest statement saying they no longer doubt the story. Tune into FoxNews to get the latest. CNN wont cover it till later. It runs counter to their editorial policy.

• If the pentagon is putting out a smear campaign against Smith that is rather interesting, it certainly suggests that the Pentagon has something to hide.

I won't argue but I haven't heard the Pentagon try to smear him. To the contrary tonite they admitted his credibility.

• If there is a coverup it beggars beleif that the Bush administration would be attempting to protect Clinton, or for that matter the 9/11 Commission.

Not surprising. That was done before when the Bush Administration refused to release Clinton Administration documents.

• The inconsistency in the timeline has yet to be explained.

The inconsistancy in the 9/11 commissions claim they were never briefed on Able Danger and then their reversal saying they were briefed but didn't find the witness needs to be explained as well. Both inconsistancies were left in my neutral version.

Your accusations about the denial of Able Danger being LW extreemism are entirely off base. At this point the one thing we are sure about is that Bill Clinton is never going to run for President of the United States again. If Able Danger could be substantiated then it would argue for convening a second 9/11 commission with a wider scope, the LW is hardly opposed to that. It would mean that there was a coverup in the Pentagon under the Bush admin, hardly something the LW is opposed to discovering.

I'm not saying the denials represent LW extremism. I'm saying your supression of relevant facts represents LW extremism. I left the assertion and counter assertions to the Able Danger intelligence in place in my version. You deleted relevant facts. If Able Danger were substantiated it would lead to the questions:

1) Why did Clinton officials use "the Wall" to keep Able Danger staff from warning the FBI about intelligence on Mohammed Atta's intentions, despite the unit's charter to prevent terrorism? Why did Gorlick's interpretation of the wall go far beyond constitutional and legislative requirements?

2) Why was the 9/11 Commission *staff* briefed on the Able Danger intelligence yet the 9/11 commission members were either not briefed by the staff or the information was severely downplayed?

3) Why did Jamie Gorlick increase the effect of "the Wall" against sharing intelligence data on terrorists yet refuse to recuse herself from that portion of the 9/11 investigation?

Say!! This looks alot like the elements of scandal I cited.

The fact is that at the moment there really is not enough substance to the allegations being made to make this anything more than a conspiracy theory. Inserting POV edits such as describing the three project members as credible when one is on enforced leave for alleged dishonesty and another is allegedly incompetent does not improve the article or make it in any way 'Neutral'.--Gorgonzilla 03:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The fact is there are 3 corroberting witnesses. That's more than what is required as legal proof in any court in the US. The fact that those facts are inconvenient to your POV is obvious and immaterial. The facts in my neutral version should not be suppressed. We need to investigate the failures of the Clinton Administration w/o intimidation of staff by Gorlick and 1st 9/11 commission and let the chips fall where they may.

If you make major changes to the article without making any substantive explanation in talk expect your edits to be reverted

• In particular do not cut and paste material straight from CNN or any other news source, over half the article was a copyvio, thats why it was deleted.--Gorgonzilla 16:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Discussion

This left wing spin of this article is a disgrace. It's present form is a complete whitewash of 3 brewing scandals obviously for political spin. Example, 2nd paragraph a denial is presented without source or link before the charge is presented. WTF? Even the far left leaning New York Times has given the charges credence in todays paper yet Michael Savage is given top billing. Again WTF? This is why it has earned a NPOV warning. Honest Abe - 17 Aug 05

This article is a disgrace, first off the 9/11 commission flat out denies that it was told about Able Danger, the only information that there is on the Top Secret project is that it existed.

Weldon has a partisan motive here. The remainder of the article consits of exceptionaly POV speculation from the fringe wing-nut blogosphere. --Gorgonzilla 12:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to leave the false claims in with the information that refutes them. It is pertinent that such claims have been made but they have been refuted. However, I must also add that the 9/11 Commission has since acknowledged that they recieved information regarding Able Danger and didn't include it in the final report because it conflicted with other info they had concerning the timeline of Atta. Trilemma 15:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Gorgonzilla's pro-left revision was a disgrace and a violation of NPOV. Clear facts such as direct 9/11 testimony was deleted along with the 9/11 commission's confirmation staff was briefed on the Able Danger intelligence. Reverted to the previous and correct version. - Honest Abe

I think you both are skating on thin ice with NPOV, honestly. Trilemma 17:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The facts contained in this article were balanced in an NPOV by Gorlick's verbatim full exlanation of why she erected the "wall" protecting terrorists from US agencies sharing intelligence on them. Just as you wouldn't attack Jews as you were describing the Holocaust to present a neutral POV on Hitler, you don't suppress and disguise facts wrt the Clinton Administration's response on terror, or lack thereof, to present a NPOV on past action/inaction. Facts must be aired nomatter how inconvenient for one side or other. Opinions should be balanced by critical opinion as long as there is a critical mass who share the opposing opinion. The article does with Ashcroft's opinion countering Gorlick's - point/counterpoint. - Honest Abe 17:38 13 Aug 2005(UTC)

I've added a paragraph on rebuttals to the claims of the role the 'wall' played in Able Danger. Trilemma 18:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

+++ This kind of stuff is precisely why things like Wikipedia -- and amateur online media in general -- will never work.

Well, if you take that stance, then all history books are suspect and we shouldn't study them. Max Entropy

All history books are suspect. The winners write history you duche jse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.250.61 (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Gorelick text

The Gorelick issue is a claim that the 9/11 commission was biased. It has not yet been established that the 9/11 commission even saw the material from Able Danger. The 9/11 commission has issued a denial (I will post is soon).

The 911 Comission has recanted their denial and the 911 commission admitted they received information on Able Danger's intelligence --Swamp Foxx 138.162.0.46 16:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The Gorelick issue is thus two removes from the article, yet took up over a third of the text.

"Two removes," Too removed? Gorlick is an integral part of this growing scandal since she refused to recuse herself from review of her own policies -- Swamp Foxx 138.162.0.46 16:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

If the Ashcroft accusation is relevant it should be paraphrased here, not given verbatim. Posting four paragraphs before you get to the point is known as burying the lede. The reader should first be told the allegation then the evidence, it sounds as if the actual allegation here is that the FBI and intel did not exchange information. But the presentation makes it look like it is a bias/coverup allegation. The commission was appointed by Bush, not Clinton. --Gorgonzilla 18:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Again Gorgonzilla demonstrates he has "trouble" counting in single digit numbers. There was 1 very relevant paragraph in Honest Abe's version, not 4 as claimed. Maybe Abe needs to add a 9th element to his list. Here is that paragraph:

"In 1995, the Justice Department embraced flawed legal reasoning, imposing a series of restrictions on the FBI that went beyond what the law required," he said. "The 1995 Guidelines and the procedures developed around them imposed draconian barriers to communications between the law enforcement and intelligence communities. The wall left intelligence agents afraid to talk with criminal prosecutors or agents. In 1995, the Justice Department designed a system destined to fail. Somebody built this wall." Ashcroft added: "The basic architecture for the wall . . . was contained in a classified memorandum entitled 'Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations. Full disclosure compels me to inform you that its author is a member of this Commission."

From this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Able_Danger&oldid=21997336

-- Swamp Foxx 138.162.0.46 16:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

According to the 9/11 Commission article Ashcroft has withdrawn his accusation:

An unsorced/unlinked insertion in Wikipedia isn't worth the photons it is written on. No one has produced a credible link to any Ashcroft recantation. -- Swamp Foxx 138.162.0.46 16:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Jamie Gorelick's firm has agreed to represent Prince Mohammed al Faisal in the suit by the 9/11 families. The families contend that al Faisal has legal responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. According to Attorney General John Ashcroft in his testimony before the commission, Gorelick wrote a procedural memo that would have prevented communication between various government agencies (the wall memo[2]). Ashcroft later recanted this claim when it was pointed out that 'the wall' predated Gorelick's tenure by many years and his own Justice department had reaffirmed and strengthened the positions taken in her memo.

You'll notice "the wall" memo is linked here but the imaginary recantation is not linked. -- Swamp Foxx 138.162.0.46 16:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Able Danger Is TOP SECRET

Nobody here knows anything about Able Danger beyond the limited statement made by Weldon--Gorgonzilla 18:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no confirmed evidence from any source that Able Danger did report anything to anyone. This needs alleged.

Description of Weldon's Investigation

I am pretty sure that Weldon would not describe his investigation as an attempt to prove that the material was supressed. Members of congress don't announce the conclusion of their investigations when they start like that.--Gorgonzilla 18:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Fixing NPOV

RV'ing does not fix the NPOV problem here, it just fills the page up with unsubstantiated and incomprehensible blog theories. --Gorgonzilla 18:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I propose that the best way to fix the POV problem here is to redirect to a new article on 9/11 intelligence failures and look at all the intelligence failures at the SAME time. The 'Wall' claim is really separate if you know the details. There is also the daily presidential briefing issue, the richard Clarke claims etc.

• The wall claim was fundamental to the whole entire contraversy because it was the claim of Rush Limbaugh, etc. that the Clinton administration set up a figurative wall between intelligence agencies, born of legalise, that prevented information from being shared.

• I don't like the reverting here; while I agree that there is little truth in what the conservative pundits have been spreading, I feel their case still deserves to be made here, as does the case against what they're claiming.Trilemma 20:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• I think it woulod be more appropriate to discuss all the allegations about 9/11 intel failures in the same article. Then the Wall comment is put in context of other failures during the Clinton admin that are admitted. for example the total lack of analysis capability at the FBI. The 'Bin Laden to Attack' memo is also relevant. Unfortunately the article was VfD by a known VfD troll minutes after the first draft was put there. --Gorgonzilla 22:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

For the time being I put a link to the main 9/11 article. but there really needs to be one page. It is clear that the failures here did not start and end under Clinton.--Gorgonzilla 20:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Time claimed Weldon almost withdrew claim, then video surfaced debunking Time

Here's the video. 34 minutes into this Weldon shows the chart that clearly has Atta's picture. Premature grasping at straws indeed. http://multimedia.heritage.org/content/lect020523a.ram -- Swamp Foxx 138.162.0.37 14:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Time demostrated a clear inconsistency in Weldon's claims. Weldon has stopped claiming to have warned about Atta before 9/11. The video shows a chart, thats all. Weldon admits it is a reconstruction and as for the chart showing Atta, Weldon admits the chart was a "reconstruction from memory". The still shots I have seen from the video could be almost any male of middle eastern appearence. I don't see anything here to dispute Time's implication that Weldon is not very credible. --Gorgonzilla 15:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Whoa!! That video was filmed in 2002. The chart in the video is no reconstruction. The reconstruction was done recently. Why are you attempting to pettifog this? Time's charge against Weldon appeared partisan. Weldon denies he ever equivocated about the chart with the Time interviewer. That counterclaim and the video need to be added to the Time section or the Time section needs to be deleted in its entirity. Time's claim is no longer valid or operative. -- Swamp Foxx 138.162.0.44 16:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Read this before editing further. The source for the claim is clearly Weldon's book. And Weldon himself does not remember if he mentioned Atta any more. And he claims he handed over the only copy of the chart. The dog ate my list of terror suspects! The dog ate my list of terror suspects! [1] --Gorgonzilla 02:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Your derision appears to be premature. Anonip 18:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Time lied. Weldon debunked Time's assertion last night in an interview on FoxNews.

No, Weldon has changed his version of events. At this point however the actual staffers have spoken and they are rather more reliable than Weldon. --Gorgonzilla 20:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore reverting to a version of the story three days old does not help matters. You have not provided any link to spport your claim that Weldon has called Time magazine liars. Furthermore most people would consider Time a bit more reliable than Fox. --Gorgonzilla 20:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate reverts

Gorgonzilla, Please stop deleting appropriate material from this article. Thanks. Anonip 15:24, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I explained the reverts, the edits were never commented in talk whatsoever. Plus the cnn piece was a massive copyvio.--Gorgonzilla 16:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not the place to rehash the Gorelick argument, that should be considered in the separate 9/11 intel failures article, particularly since Ashcroft himself has withdrawn the claim and admitted that Gorelick was not the author of the policy as he had asserted but the policy actually dates back to the first Bush admin and before. If you want to explain why you think it is relevant here then argue the case in talk. Cutting and pasting large labs of text from conspiracy web sites does not make for a good article. --Gorgonzilla 16:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You deleted the external link to the NYT article that broke the story in the major media. There is no justification for that. I presume it was due to laziness or carelessness on your part, but that is no excuse. You should take care to make no reverts you can't justify. Anonip 16:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

If that's the case just re-add the link instead of whining about it. If your claim is correct the change will probably not be reverted. --csloat 16:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

If someone copies and pastes an entire CNN article into the story then they should expect it to be reverted. I looked over the article to see what substantive claims it seemed to make and provided a summary. If you think the link is important add it back in. --Gorgonzilla 17:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The NYT link I cited was only one of the things that were inappropriately reverted. Unfortunately, this is a constant problem with partisan editors who view Wikipedia as an ideological battleground and have no respect for other editors. There is no reason why I should have to waste my time correcting your inappropriate reverts. You have an obligation to take the time to execise due diligence on your reverts. If you're not willing to do that, don't do the revert. Anonip 17:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You have still failed to state a single reason why any of the material is relevant and not highly POV. --Gorgonzilla 18:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

How is a link to a NYT article concerning the Able Danger allegations irrelevant or highly POV? How is a link to a CNN transcript of an interview with Shaffer irrelevant or highly POV? How is a "See also:" section with a link to a related Wikipedia article irrelevant or highly POV? Anonip 19:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

When was Able Danger created?

What is the history of this group "Able Danger"? I think that is relevant to the entry.

-:QuestioningAuthority 17:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed relevant. Unfortunately, because the project was highly classified and its existence was only recently disclosed, little reliable information is currently available. I think I read that the group was created in 1999, but I can't confirm this. Anonip 17:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It was started in 1999 which is one of the reasons why the claim that they identified Atta in 2000 is a teensy weensy bit unbelievable. It was a relatively small operation with a staff of about 10 and it was an exploratory project to look into techniques rather than as an actual 'production' operation. If they really did have the goods they could easily have gone to Clarke who was running round with his hair on fire at the time. --Gorgonzilla 22:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks :QuestioningAuthority 18:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Useful Info Site

Most credible theory so far, SOCOM lawyers misapplied the law: [[2]] --Gorgonzilla 19:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Alleged Discrepancy in Shaffer's Story

[3]

First, from GSN two weeks ago:

[Shaffer] recalled carrying documents to the offices of Able Danger, which was being run by the Special Operations Command, headquartered in Tampa, FL. The documents included a photo of Mohammed Atta supplied by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and described Atta’s relationship with Osama bin Laden.

Second, from the New York Post on Thursday:

Shaffer said Atta's name didn't ring a bell when he learned the hijackers' names after 9/11. But he got "a sinking feeling in my stomach" when the woman Ph.D. in charge of Able Danger's data analysis told him Atta was one of those who had been identified as a likely al Qaeda terrorist by Able Danger.

"My friend the doctor [Ph.D.] who did all the charts and ran the technology showed me the chart and said, 'Look, we had this, we knew them, we knew this.' And it was a sinking feeling, it was like, 'Oh my God, you know. We could have done something.'"

Oh and according to Fox news Shaffer had his security clearance pulled for fiddling his expenses and is on administrative leave. [4]

What?? No Gorelick?

How do you have an article about Able Danger without a reference to Gorelick? Oh, wait, is that you Gorgonzilla? No wonder. This article has been Gorgonized.

LOL!! How did I know that you would be here? Homoneutralis 14:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually there is an entire article on Gorelick and the 'wall' under 9/11 Inteligence Failures. You are a week behind the story at this point. Plus Ashcroft himself withdrew the claim over the wall long ago. The time at which the Able Danger people are claiming to have identified Atta has varied, today it is April/May of 2000. --Gorgonzilla 19:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You've made the assertion Ashcroft recanted his claim about Gorlick many times, yet you've failed to link this "recant" even once. The Anon poster linked a Department of Justice memo signed by Gorlick strengthening "the Wall." Pardon me for doubting you but your credibility has taken a severe beating on this page due to no one's fault but your own. Do you have a link to your claim of a receant? -- Swamp Foxx 138.162.0.37 15:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you exercise some of your apparently endless powers of skepticism to consider the assertions being made by the protagonists in the article rather than try to endlessly dispute matters already settled? There are proposals to change this article at the end of the talk section and you appear to show no interest in discussing them. Instead you engage in these ad-hominem diatribes against anyone who disputes the world according to the wingnutosphere. -- Gorgonzilla 15:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Disgusting, unsolicited and personal attack noted. Are you the pot and Honest Abe the kettle or is it the other way around? -- Swamp Foxx 138.162.0.44 21:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not quite understand quite why the right wing blogosphere is quite so keen to promote a conspiracy theory that essentially accuses the Bush administration of failing to act on prior knowledge of 9/11 and orchestrating a coverup. --Gorgonzilla 20:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Atta boy Gorgie. That's the way to show 'em your neutrality. LOL! Homoneutralis 20:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Gorgonzilla, I don't see your logic on that. The Bush admin only officially entered office in January 2001 (followed by a few months of handing over time), and as such would have been in office only after the Able Danger information was allegedly quashed. In fact, so far as I can tell the criticism over the Able Danger story is being directed at those, specifically Gorelick, who essentially helped create the "wall" and therefore contributed to groups like Able Danger being unable to share their data with the FBI. Whether all this is true or not is the question, but the issue in essence has nothing to do with the Bush admin. Furthermore, if the Able Danger allegations are found to be true it doesn't incriminate the Bush admin in any wrongdoing at all. Impi 21:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The Bush Administration would have 100% responsibility for the coverup. At this point the denials out of the Pentagon are categorical. The attempt to spin the story into a uniquely anti-Clinton issue is an entirely partisan view. Moreover Ashcroft himself has admitted that the 'Wall' was actually created under Bush mkI and was not introduced by Gorelick as he claimed when he was trying to cover his own butt in front of the 9/11 commission. Bush appointed all the members of the commission in any case. If there is a scandal there it is a bipartisan one. It is just somewhat amusing to see conspiracy theorists out on planet wingnut who are so blinded by their ideology they cannot see that their accusations if true affect both sides. --Gorgonzilla 22:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

(from an earlier version of the article) "Jamie Gorelick's firm has agreed to represent Prince Mohammed al Faisal in the suit by the 9/11 families. The families contend that al Faisal has legal responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. According to Attorney General John Ashcroft in his testimony before the commission, Gorelick wrote a procedural memo that would have prevented communication between various government agencies (the wall memo[2]). Ashcroft later recanted this claim when it was pointed out that 'the wall' predated Gorelick's tenure by many years and his own Justice department had reaffirmed and strengthened the positions taken in her memo."

Most of the right wing blogs seemed to have abandonded this line of argument. If you think that it is worth re-establishing it despite Ashcroft's retraction then go ahead. Just make sure that the retraction is equaly prominent.--Gorgonzilla 22:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you folk out in right field now claiming that former Senator Gorton is also part of the conspiracy? I noticed that Bill O'Reilly has returned to the Gorelick claims which I guess is why you folk returned here. --Gorgonzilla 03:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh Gorgie, I'm just here to monitor the edits of a card-carrying member of Moveon.org, that's all. Homoneutralis 13:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

138.162.0.45 has a history of vandalism including inserting the word "fagtastic" into the Clinton article. I suggest that if he wants to debate the content of the article he do so here before reverting to a version that is a week out of date. Moreover describing edits by other editors as 'lies' does not assume good faith.--Gorgonzilla 22:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The Media Matters Take

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508230009

Claims that Shaffer identified Philpott as his original source. That would mean that we have one source, not two. Have not added it to the story, anyone got any confirmation? Philpott is still more credible than Shaffer given the expenses fiddling investigation. --Gorgonzilla 02:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

chickenhawk equivocators?

Warren P. Strobel, Lawmakers met with Iranian exile scrutinized over intelligence, Knight Ridder Washington DC Bureau, July 20, 2005

describes Weldon and Hoekstra secretly meeting in Paris with

"a longtime associate of Iranian arms merchant Manucher Ghorbanifar, the officials say. Ghorbanifar, a key figure in the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal, has had two CIA "burn notices" issued on him, meaning agency officers are not to deal with him."

Schaffer got greenlighted from Hastert and Hoekstra:

"I spoke personally to Denny Hastert and to Pete Hoekstra," Col. Shaffer said. Mr. Hastert, Illinois Republican, is speaker of the House, and Mr. Hoekstra, Michigan Republican, is chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

"I was given assurances by [them] that this was the right thing to do. ... I was given assurances we would not suffer any adverse consequences for bringing this to the attention of the public," Col. Shaffer said.

Shaun Waterman, Colonel got permission to disclose pre-9/11 data, United Press International(Washington Times), August 22, 2005

Ah, it's nothing more than the familiar call of the chickenhawk equivocators:

billydidit billydidit billydidit billydidit billydidit

Covering up their bare fat posteriors...

Some MMfA refs (not complete)

• Sen. Gorton's O'Reilly smackdown: "Nothing Jamie Gorelick wrote had the slightest impact on the Department of Defense or its willingness or ability to share intelligence"
• NY Times, Fox News falsely reported that second military official backed up Shaffer's Able Danger claim
• Memo to NY Post, et al: So-called Gorelick "wall" could not have been responsible for military failure to share alleged Atta intel
• NY Post editorial advanced Weldon's unsubstantiated claims on Able Danger, Atta, 9-11 Commission
• Conservatives baselessly linked Sandy Berger to Atta investigation
• Conservatives again misrepresented "wall" that purportedly inhibited intelligence sharing prior to 9-11
• Limbaugh falsely blamed Clinton administration for "wall" that purportedly prevented intelligence sharing about 9-11 hijackers

Don't be too sure there is nothing here, there might turn out to be something after all the blamestorming blows over. At this point I can't see how there is anything there that indicates incompetence by any party beyond the Pentagon. The 'wall' that people have been squawking over stops the intel agencies getting material from prosecutors. There is no prohibition on intel giving information to prosecutors.--Gorgonzilla 02:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Information flow

Gorgonzilla, You recently added the following: Gorton also asserted that 'the wall' was a longstanding policy that had resulted from the Church committee in the 1970s and that the policy only prohibits transfer of certain information from prosecutors to the intelligence services and never prohibited information flowing in the opposite direction.

What's your basis for this statement? Anonip 15:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

It was in the Gorton interview. I will try to find a transcript, should be one online by now. The Wall was DoJ policy dating back to the Ford administration to implement a Church commission reform to prevent the FBI being used to spy on US citizens. The SOCOM lawyers might have a similar policy but it would be a Pentagon policy, not a DoJ policy. --Gorgonzilla 20:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you may have misinterpreted what Gorton said. Please verify or remove. Thanks. Anonip 21:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Gorgonzilla, When I asked you to "verify or remove" I meant that you should remove your misinformation from the article, not this discussion of the issue from the talk page. Anonip 02:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Aw c@#&$*! Looks like I reverted the discussion page, not the article. Sorry, I had meant to revert the article. Tabbed browsing gets confusing sometimes. --Gorgonzilla 02:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Explanation accepted. Now please remove your misinformation from the article. Anonip 03:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

List of POV edits by "Honest" Abe:

• from which three credible former members or their contractors admit the program ha

As a matter of fact Shaffer is on 'administrative leave' for allegedly fiddling expenses for over 18 months. This is hardly a source that can be described as being 'credible' without qualification.

Already addressed. Two eye-witnesses are accepted as legal proof in any court in the country. The fact that there are three here all saying the same thing makes them credible. - Honest Abe

The fact that one is on a charge for dishonesty, one refuses to say more than that he was involved except to repeat the claim that 'Atta' was identified before he is known to have used the name and the other one was only a contractor means that there are serious reasons to doubt the story. Three members of the 9/11 commission have confirmed their story. Should we label the commission 'credible' as well? If not why not? Perhaps because it is clear that someone must be lying here?

How oddly hypocritically ironic you would argue dishonesty makes someone less credible given the string of lies you've been caught telling right here on this page. Yet you couldn't resist doing it again. Lt. Col Shaffer has not been charged with any crime. - Honest Abe

• yet Clinton Administration officials refused to allow the intelligence data to be passed to the FBI for further investigation

Cite a source for this, there is absolutely no evidence that the material was handed over to any Clinton administration appointee. The pentagon has denied that Able Danger produced any data to hand over. This is at best an unsupported claim.

My version of the article contains a link to Gorlick's reinforcement of the Wall. All you need do is click. - Honest Abe

• The existence of Able Danger and its identification of the 9/11 terrorists one year prior to 9/11 is confirmed by 3 credible witnesses

Again, a blatant POV edit, first there is only actually one witness since Shaffer says he got the info from Philpott and Weldon says he got it from first Shaffer then Philpott. so there is only actually one first hand witness. Second the claims made by the witness are disputed by the Bush administration. So your phrase is a blatant POV

Shaffer says nothing of the kind about Philpott. What is your source? He quite clearly says he was the go between in operations in Texas and Tampa while serving in Washington and he brought Philpott the information.

From GSN at: http://www.gsnmagazine.com/sep_05/shaffer_interview.html

"Shaffer No. This was simply a chart showing up with potentialities or clusters of information. That’s what it showed. I took a copy of those clusters of information, a copy of a chart produced by Smith and company which showed, early on in the process, the Atta guy and other terrorists. It was this sheet that I hand-carried personally from LIWA down to Tampa and gave to Captain Philpott." - Honest Abe

• A belief among some liberals that there should be a "wall" of separation between domestic

Another blatant POV edit, Ashcroft himself has admitted that 'The Wall' was created by the FORD administration, a REPUBLICAN, not a liberal. It was part of the implementation of the Church report.

As stated below this came out of the Church Committee. Church was a notorious uber-Liberal as was Gorlick. - Honest Abe

• Clinton Administration apparachik Jamie Gorlick

Ridiculous POV partisan terminology here.

I posted the definition of apparachik for you along with a link to Webster's online. It's unfortunate your power of retention does not allow you to remember this. - Honest Abe

Since that definition appears to have been deleted by a vandal here it is again:

Main Entry: ap·pa·rat·chik Pronunciation: "ä-p&-'rä(t)-chik Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -chiks also ap·pa·rat·chi·ki /-chi-kE/ Etymology: Russian, from apparat

2 : an official blindly devoted to superiors or to the organization

From Webster's online at: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=apparatchik

- Honest Abe

• The fact that Ashcroft has recanted his accusation and has accepted the fact that the Wall predates Gorelick has been deleted in another deliberate POV edit.

There is no such fact established. Your cryptic reference appears to indicate a claim by the 9/11 Committee. However their credibility is in jeopardy with their conflicting statements on whether they were given Able Danger intelligence. For this to be an established fact you'd need to provide it as a direct quote attributed to Ashcroft from a credible source. As it statnd, the best you have offered is a characterization from a source whose credibility is in doubt. - Honest Abe

• Able Danger had identified the 9/11 terrorist one year prior to 9/11 was picked up by national media in August 2005 because of three elements of scandal.

First it is alleged, secondly GSN is hardly the national media. The treatment of Able Danger in the real national media is considerably more skeptical. Time in particular were very dismissive but no major newspaper has yet called Able Danger a 'scandal'. This is a POV edit.

GSN? Able Danger identified this per 3 credible sources reported by several media sources in direct quote and video. Several were linked in my revision. As stated above only 2 eye-witness sources are required as legal proof in any court in the country. - Honest Abe

• The 9/11 Commission staff was briefed on the Able Danger intelligence yet the 9/11 commission members were either not briefed by the staff or the information was severely downplayed.

Actually the 9/11 commission has stated that they saw the Able Danger claim and dismissed it because 1) Atta did not apply for his visa to come to the states until after the alleged identification, 2) Atta did not begin using that name until after the alleged identification.

The commission also said they were never briefed per your own version of the article. Their inconsistancy is part of the problem with their credibility and makes my statement accurate. Nobody knows whether staff passed them the data or not. Nobody knows who incorrectly assessed Shaffer's credibility per the commission's revised statement. - Honest Abe

Ford administration?

Gorgonzilla, You wrote above:

Ashcroft himself has admitted that 'The Wall' was created by the FORD administration, a REPUBLICAN, not a liberal. It was part of the implementation of the Church report.

What is your source for this statement? Anonip 02:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The 9/11 Commission article in Wikipedia:

Jamie Gorelick's firm has agreed to represent Prince Mohammed al Faisal in the suit by the 9/11 families. The families contend that al Faisal has legal responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. According to Attorney General John Ashcroft in his testimony before the commission, Gorelick wrote a procedural memo that would have prevented communication between various government agencies (the wall memo[2]). Ashcroft later recanted this claim when it was pointed out that 'the wall' predated Gorelick's tenure by many years and his own Justice department had reaffirmed and strengthened the positions taken in her memo.

Gorgonzilla, Someone (not I) recently removed the statement you quoted concerning Ashcroft recanting his claim from the 9/11 commission article. But regardless, the quote you provided makes no mention of the Ford administration. And in any case, Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. You'll have to do better than this. Anonip 03:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

From [5], Sen. Lahey:

The Church Committee recommended a series of safeguards, including charter legislation to set standards and procedures for FBI domestic security and counterintelligence investigations and to restrict the collection of information about Americans by the CIA, the National Security Agency, and other U.S. intelligence agencies. Although charter legislation was not enacted, the Attorney General issued guidelines for FBI investigations and Presidents issued Executive Orders requiring procedures approved by the Attorney General for the collection and retention of information about Americans by U.S. intelligence agencies. These guidelines and procedures have served for the past 25 years as a stable framework that, with rare exceptions, has not allowed previous abuses to recur.

...The Congress has been cautious in the decades following the revelations of the Church Committee about allowing use of criminal justice information for other purposes and, specifically, on sharing such information with intelligence agencies. In 1979 Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights that the guidelines for "any dissemination outside the Bureau...will have to be very, very specific. We will have to be very certain the dissemination is lawful, meets the same standards of certainty, of intent, which is the basic reason for the collection of the information and the investigation...." On the issue of FBI sharing with the CIA, Attorney General Civiletti said "you have to be extremely careful in working out, pursuant to the law, the information which is being exchanged, what its purpose is, how it was obtained and collected, so that you are not inadvertently, out of a sense of cooperation or efficiency, perverting or corrupting the fact that the CIA’s main duty is foreign intelligence, and they have no charter, no responsibility, and not duty performance, no mission to investigate criminal acts in the United States."

Once again, the quote you provide makes no mention of the Ford administration. Benjamin Civiletti was Attorney General in the CARTER administration. Carter was a DEMOCRAT. (So was Frank Church, and so is Sen. Leahey.) Please try again. Anonip 04:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The Church commission was bipartisan and took place under Ford. That is how Mondale became Vice President, he was prominent on Church. The Ford admin accepted and endorsed the Church commission findings. So the policy does go back to Ford. Since Carter there were three Republican administrations that all endorsed the same policy, as did Ashcroft at the start of Bush-II. If you want to blame the real culprit for Church you should complain about Hoover and Nixon whose criminal abuses of the intelligence services and the FBI were the reason that both parties endorsed Church.--Gorgonzilla 12:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no doubt an extensive article on Gorelick and the Wall, there is no need to repeat that claim here, it does not enhance the story at all. If the issue is raised in the detail you appear to demand then the fact that the controls dat back to Church has to also be mentioned. It is not acceptable to start that section "Some liberals beleived that", --Gorgonzilla 12:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The Church committee investigation took place during the Ford presidency, but it wasn't under Ford or part of his administration. It was created by the Democrat-controlled Senate and run by a liberal Democrat senator with presidential ambitions. You have offered no substantiation whatever of your claims that the Ford administration accepted and endorsed and implemented policies or practices recommended in Church committee report concerning intelligence sharing. And as the procedures set forth in the Gorelick memo were in specific reference to the FISA Act of 1978, it is difficult to imagine how they could have originated in the Ford administration, which left office in 1977. Anonip 20:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thats pure sophistry. The real cause of the Church commission was one Richard Milhouse Nixon and the criminal gang he employed. The Ford administration was in no position to object to any proposals put forward by Church. Church was subsequently endorsed by REAGAN and Bush mk I. The point I made is that it is deceitful to describe the wall as having its origins under Clinton as some people have wanted to do. As you just admit the origin is Carter at the least and endorsed by subsequent GOP administrations. --Gorgonzilla 23:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just don't think you know what you're talking about. And endlessly repeating your Democrat talking points isn't going to change my mind. Until you're prepared to offer substantiation of your claims, don't expect them to be taken seriously. Anonip 00:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that what your game is here is to endlessly prattle and dispute minutiae oh and endlessly accuse others of being partisan as a way of pretending that you are not peddling a POV. The wall dates back to 1978 by your own admission and was an implementation of Church which was a bipartisan committee that reported under Ford. FISA was a partial enactment of reforms proposed by Church, the bulk of the Church reforms were implemented as executive orders and administrative orders. Church was bipartisan, Ford endorsed the major recomendations. He was hardly in a position to refuse. --Gorgonzilla 01:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

You obviously do not understand the difference between substantiation and repetiton. It is pointless for you to simply continue to repeat yourself. Anonip 02:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

According to the CRS, Pres. Ford's executive order setting guidelines for the intelligence community (E.O.11905) was actually issued prior to the Church committee findings and undertook to implement some of the more limited recommendations of the earlier Rockefeller and Murphy commissions. Your claim that Ford was involved in implementing the Church report is simply not accurate. Anonip 14:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The Condi Story

I think that this article has it right: [6]

I do not think that it is likely that Able Danger would have been shut down for identifying Condi Rice as a potential terrorist. The group probably would have been shut down if they were reporting a long list of people like Rice as potential terrorists but we don't at this point have a statement to that effect. I don't think it is very likely that a group would be shut down because their computer program spat out some apparently anomalous results. Politicians end up meeting a lot of unsavory charaters, it goes with the job. The purpose of something like Able Danger would be to identify possible leads.

At this point the Condi Story has not been widely reported enough to be notable reporting and it does not appear to be sufficiently credible by itself. If it turns up widely cited to a Pentagon source then it should go in as the off-the-record Pentagon line.--Gorgonzilla 02:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Heads Up

I come to this discussion as a neutral reader, since I have no prior knowledge of the material at all.

The article as written reads with clarity - when I say clarity I am not assessing validity - until I get to the Media Comment section and: "Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly and others have asserted.... " I am guessing that this in particular identifies where the editorial dispute begins in the article. I cannot really grasp in content to follow just what Bill O'Reilly's trying to instruct us so I would appreciate the Bill O'Reilly "faction" to bring me up to speed with content from his point of view:

just what would he/this faction tell me in an interview? "Able Danger was a project that ...., The Clinton Administration directed that ...., The result of the Clinton administration action was that...., The Kean Hamilton report on the Navy officer ....

Could you just write that out and let me read it without putting in any debate stuff that keeps me from getting the message.

I do caution that utilizing Bill O'Reilly as a news source can be a treacherous ride. Sorta the same with Larry King: altho when he has the interviewee sitting across from him he does do what journalist's do. O'Reilly may very well speak in facts, he certainly has the direct line to the West Wing. He certainly is passionate and when he is on target he gets us very quickly where he wants us to go. He certainly can validate what I want to believe, but that validation does not seem to come packaged up with reportable facts. As a journalist I just don't think he spends a great deal of time working the phones ferreting out the unknown, the unreported.

It's ok it you do not share my thoughts in the preceding paragraph about O'Reilly and King. Just say you do or don't - no need to put energy into it at this point.

But do give me the heads up on what I ask for in the first paragraph. And please, the other faction just let me read it without comment for a day maybe.Kyle Andrew Brown 04:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Kyle, I think O'Reilly is not being cited here as a source of facts, but rather as a source of the political controversy surrounding the Able Danger allegations. O'Reilly and others have suggested that Clinton administration policies concerning the sharing of intelligence data may have been responsible for the Able Danger information not being passed on to possibly prevent the 9/11 attack. Obviously this is a controversial position. That's why the Able Baker allegations are politically controversial. Unfortunately, it is impossible to describe the controversy in the article in any detail because of partisan editors. Anonip 05:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, so I'd be looking for the source of facts on the allegations I guess. O'Reilly is good at bringing controversys he is interested in to attention, yet I fear that he is too much used as a "source" when he often shields his sources (what all pundits of each party do when they hang up the White House phone) and the sources are not sources he indicates he double checks for accuracy and context.

The Goerlick memo is used in the content but I don't know from the content what the Goerlick dynamic is? Is it available? When was it written? What authority does the memo have as a implementer of policy? How was it obtained? This is a blind spot in content at least to me a first time reader.Kyle Andrew Brown 16:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Trying to wade through the Gorelick memo is it correct the intent of the content is to read:

I think that it is important that any political claims being made are attributed, otherwise we get into the Fox News "Some people say" riff that invariably is used to introduce partisan claims without the need for attribution. O'Reilly seems to be the most prominent prognosticator here, along with Weldon. --Gorgonzilla 17:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The Gorelick memo issue is only one of the reasons that has been alleged for the alleged blocking of the alleged identification. It is extreme conjecture that is not supported by any documentation. Shaffer himself originally stated that SOCOM lawyers blocked the memo fearing that the FBI would do another of their WAKO style screw ups. documentary evidence would be a contemporary memo from the SOCOM lawyers or another party stating the reasons for blocking the communication of the alleged identification. The Pentagton has not produced a memo of that type despite a clear partisan interest in producing the memo if it did exist. --Gorgonzilla 12:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Coming to consensus on Gorelick Wording

Understanding of Paragraph intent by KAB:

Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly and others have asserted that the domestic intellegence gathered by the DOD's ABLE DANGER project was suppressed by Attorney General John Ashcroft. A policy known as "the wall" was introduced by James Gorelick so as to prevent the sharing of intelligence across federal investigative agencies concerning domestic intelligence gathering which is prohibited by law.

Do we know that Ashcroft suppressed and that Gorelick prevented?Kyle Andrew Brown 17:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

This version fairly represents O'Reilly but repeats several unsubstantiated and wrong statements without any balancing comments:

• According to Sen Leahey, others, 'The Wall' was longstanding Doj policy proposed by Church under the Ford Administratipon and realized as a documented policy in the Carter Administration.
• No evidence has been produced to show that 'the Wall' was introduced by Gorelick or to disputer the claim that it was longstanding policy.
• No evidence has been produced to demonstrate that the SOCOM lawyers were reacting to 'The Wall'
• Shaffer himself has stated that the SOCOM lawyers were actually concerned that if the material was handed to the FBI the result would be another WACO style screw up.
• Many military intelligence units did hand over intelligence to justice on a regular basis despite the Gorelick memo. The SOCOM lawyers appear to have misread or misapplied the memo and/or Posse Commatatus if they did indeed conclude that handing over the intelligence was prohibited. 18:08, 28 August 2005 Gorgonzilla

It's kinda quiet on the other viewpoint....help me out here.Kyle Andrew Brown 23:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly and others have asserted that the domestic intellegence gathered by the DOD's ABLE DANGER project was suppressed under a policy known as "the wall". It is alleged that this policy was introduced by the Clinton administration by Jamie Gorlick, a member of the 9/11 Commission and that the 9/11 Commission supressed mention of Able Danger to protect the reputation of Gorelick and others.

These claims have been disputed by the 9/11 commission and others. Former senator Slade Gorton (R-WA), a member of the 9-11 Commission who said "nothing Jamie Gorelick wrote had the slightest impact on the Department of Defense or its willingness or ability to share intelligence information with other intelligence agencies." Gorton also asserted that 'the wall' was a longstanding policy that had resulted from the Church Committee established during the Ford administration to investigate abuse of intelligence gathering in the wake of Watergate.

There is a citation for Gorton somewhere, I was going to find it up to the point I was called a NAZI.

Gorgonzilla 01:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Kyle, There are three basic issues concerning Able Danger:

1. Are the claims that by mid-2000 Able Danger had identified Atta and other 9/11 hijackers as possible members of an al Qaeda cell operating in the United States true?
2. If true, why wasn't this information provided to the FBI for investigation and possible action against these terrorists, which might have averted the 9/11 attack?
3. If true, why wasn't the failure to provide the Able Danger information to the FBI thoroughly investigated and reported by the 9/11 commission?

At this point we don't have definitive answers to any of these questions.

With respect to question #2, O'Reilly and others have questioned whether the failure to provide the Able Danger information to the FBI was due to Clinton administration policies which restricted sharing of intelligence information. Cited as an example of such policies is a memorandum from Clinton's Assistant Attorney General Jamie Gorelick "clarifying" restrictions on and procedures for information sharing within the DOJ in the context of the criminal prosecutions for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. During the 9/11 commission hearings, critics claimed that these policies had the effect of discouraging legal intelligence sharing which might have led to discovery of the terrorists and averted the 9/11 attack. The Able Danger allegations have been portrayed as supporting these claims.

No one has suggested that Ashcroft suppressed the Able Danger intelligence. Rather, it was Ashcroft who called attenion to the Gorelick memo during the 9/11 hearings.

Does that help? Anonip 04:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

What part of what you have just written do you feel is not already said in the paragraph I suggested? I do not think that selecting quotations from the memo without providing the context in which it was written is NPOV. We could add a third paragraph to give some more in depth coverage of the Gorelick memo but as you just pointed out it is an application of an existing policy to a particular situation. There is a longstanding principle that material obtained by the FBI under court order cannot be shared for any other purpose. --Gorgonzilla 14:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There are also restrictions in the intelligence world but these tend to be more focused on protecting sources. The value of intelligence is lost if the other side know too much about how it is being gathered. This is why there are still (disproved) claims that Churchill allowed the Coventry bombing to protect the secrecy of ULTRA (the Enigma decrypts), the real reason is that Bletchly Park did not break the codes that day. Same with FDR and PURPLE, the Japanese trafic that was decrypted only said there was a fleet at sea, the target for the fleet was only mentioned in the diplomatic traffic and that was only broken after Pearl harbor. --Gorgonzilla 14:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

What I wrote above was addressed to Kyle. It was intended to correct his misunderstanding of the issue being raised by O'Reilly. I do not underdatnd your concern about NPOV in what I wrote. And I have no idea what ULTRA or PURPLE might have to do with this. Anonip 17:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The point is that conspiracy stories about failure to take intelligence seriously are very common. If the conspiracy is indeed true (sometimes happens) then the standard tactic for discrediting it would be to promote an inaccurate version of the conspiracy theory and then disprove that. --Gorgonzilla 18:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Kyle, I'd charge your paragraph this way:

Many including Attorney General John Ashcroft and Rep Curt Weldon have asserted the domestic intellegence gathered by the DOD's ABLE DANGER project was suppressed by Clinton Administration policy. A policy known as "the wall" was strengthened by Clinton Administration official Jamie Gorelick when she acted as the Pentagon's General Counsel. The wall was used to prevent the sharing of intelligence across federal investigative agencies concerning domestic intelligence gathering and was created as an outgrowth of the Church Committee hearings in 1974. The policy is not a requirement of law or the US Constitution but had remained in effect until passage of the USA Patriot Act following the 9/11 attacks.

Reasons No need to mention O'Reilly when Government officials have asserted this.

It's *Jamie* vs James Gorlick. Jamie is female.

The wall has been existence for a while but was reinforced by Gorlick.

- Honest Abe

OK lets loose O'Reilly. However I don't think that we have any statement by Ashcroft on Able Danger, only the 9/11 commission testimony. Your wording conflates the two. Rep Weldon is the most credible source and also the primary. I would also be careful attributing the comment about the interpetation of the wall to Weldon, I think he left that to the echo chamber. Also you have missed out the claim that the 9/11 commission was partisan and the fact that the 9/11 commission responded:

Rep Curt Weldon and his supporters have asserted the domestic intellegence gathered by the DOD's ABLE DANGER project was suppressed by Clinton Administration policy. In his testimony to the 9/11 commission then Attorney General, John Ashcroft claimed that a policy known as "the wall" was strengthened by Clinton Administration official Jamie Gorelick when she acted as the Pentagon's General Counsel. Supporters of Weldon have asserted that the wall prevented sharing of intelligence between federal investigative agencies and that the 9/11 commission conclusions are tainted by Gorelick's presence on the commission. The policy is not a legal or constitutional but remained in effect until passage of the USA Patriot Act following the 9/11 attacks.'

These claims have been disputed by the 9/11 commission and others. Former senator Slade Gorton (R-WA), a member of the 9-11 Commission who said "the wall was created by laws sponsored by the Church Committee back in the 1970s. And they went all the way through until after 9-11 was over. And that nothing Jamie Gorelick wrote had the slightest impact on the Department of Defense or its willingness or ability to share intelligence information with other intelligence agencies" [7]

Alternatively the first paragraph could start with the Aschcroft assertion and then continue with the application to Able Danger. As it is the article appears to suggest that Ashcroft has spoken directly to Able danger which I am not aware of to date.--Gorgonzilla 19:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe Gorgonzilla is right about this much: as far as I know, Ashcroft hasn't said anything about Able Danger. But I'm also uncertain about what's being attributed here to Weldon. Does someone have a source for this? Also, exactly who are the "supporters of Weldon" referred to here? Anonip 23:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

People objected to mentioning O'Reilly and co... Weldon is certainly the most prominent person pushing this but I get the feeling even he is smart enough not to make the conspiracy theory claims when others will do that for him. --Gorgonzilla 00:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. People objected to mentioning O'Reilly, so we're attributing things O'Reilly said to Weldon instead? That makes no sense. Did Weldon actually say this or not? Based on what source? And what are the "conspiracy theory claims" you refer to? Anonip 01:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Abe attributed the statements to Weldon and Ashcroft. I removed Ashcroft because I was pretty certain he didn't make those claims. I left in Weldon because he seemed to be sure about it and Weldon has certainly put a lot of effort into promoting the theory even if he leaves others to do the dirt. I am happy to return to attributing it to O'Reilly et. al. I don't think that there should be 'some say' statements in an encyclopedia (or a news station come to that). --Gorgonzilla 01:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Second Call for Comment

Wow, that sure captures alot of info for me.

Your second paragraph appears to provide the viewpoint of that side, and the first paragraph - especially when a citation is given for Gorlick - remains ready for that viewpoint to punch up -- which should be done in discussion format in TALK. The article was locked to encourage TALK on issues to avoid reverting.

So far, no one has stepped up to the plate to add citations to what O'Reilly is saying. I'm intrigued that there is no depth added in TALK to this position. I'm really very interested in that exploration. So at this point he reamins a stand alone punter. I remain intrigued that such a punch delievered by O'Reily remains from the vantage point of this article without additional investigation.

Nevertheless, this discussion has remained open in TALK for 24 hours so far. The purpose of TALK is to explore issues BEFORE they make thier way into the article. Once this content is explored in TALK it would be unfortunate to see it picked apart in the article. We're trying to have this article present itself to the Wiki community on the editorial side of the house as a model for treating ongoing news events in an equitable fashion. Kyle Andrew Brown 01:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The part that seems to cause objection is precisely the concise statement of the claims about Gorelick. The critics seem to want a long rambling discussion with a series of irrelevant lengthy quotes followed by a POV interpretation saying 'Clinton exclusively to blame'. Any attempt to introduce a concise statement of the claims or to mention the inconvenient facts is objected to as 'left-wing extreemism'. --Gorgonzilla 01:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The other issue that really needs some cleanup is mention of Smith's claims. There certainly seems to be evidence fro a whispering campaign against him which is probably significant, someone thinks he is worth discrediting. Or maybe the slime machine is just on autopilot. The actual statement that Smith has made is somewhat confused and I was hoping to see someone post a link to an actual transcript. --Gorgonzilla 01:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

The consensus amongst the left-wing blogs is 'wait and see'. But all make the point that if Able Danger were proved to be true that it would be further proof of 1) Bush administration failure to listen to warnings before 9/11 and 2) a Bush administration cover-up. --Gorgonzilla 01:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Kaus Summary

This is a pretty good summary of the inconsistencies etc in the story by Kaus. [8] Kaus is no Clinton lover.

209.247.222.81 Anonymous...

I guess you're unhappy about a revert but reading your paragraph I have no idea what's going on, where you want to take the reader. It's lost in your personal attacks, which are specifically not allowed here. Someones's liable to lock you out. (It won't be me, I just see it coming.) Come on, try and win me over and address my query above. Otherwise you risk just being dismissed as lacking credibility.Kyle Andrew Brown 22:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Updates Required

• Should add a paragraph on Smith.
• Should mention the fact that Specter is also planning hearings.

On the Smith issue I am still waiting for some sort of transcript of the press call. Does anyone know of one? All I have is second hand reports, some of which say Smith endorsed everything said by Shaffer, others say that he was unable to explain whether the group picked up the right Mohammed Atta, apparently there are now three separate individuals who used that name. Two of whom are known terrorists, another was associated with Sheik Rathman.

On the Spectre hearings, has anyone got a statement by Spectre's office on the hearings? It is interesting that Spectre would hold hearings since the affair would appear to be a military issue and Spectre chairs the Judiciary committee. But Spectre might be arguing that the controversy over Gorelick gives his committee authority, or he might have some other argument. --Gorgonzilla 17:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

You're "waiting." Go ahead and wait in a personal sense. If you find the transcript and see relevant fact there add it to a revision. In the meantime, the fact is Smith has supported both Shaffer and Philpott and that fact should not be suppressed. The Smith story was linked. That's clearly good enough. You also demand the fact that Arlen **Specter** (the James Bond reference is yet another insight into your shameful POV) is holding a hearing on the debacle created by the wall be suppressed. Nor should the Clinton Administration position on "the wall," which was the operative position when these events were occurring, be suppressed. Your disregard for and suppression of fact is shameful and clearly POV.

Actually I am not an admin so the article is just as locked for me as for you. As for spelling Specter I thought it went the same as centre.--Gorgonzilla 20:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Other Updates Needed:

Need description of Gorlick's involvement and conflict of interest charges with link to her memo on the wall

Need description of why this is on the media's radar screen - AnonIP's questions were good.

Is the article on the media radar screen? I don't think they have got beyond Katarina. Only 1072 hits on Google News, almost all from blogs. The recent mainstream reports are LA Times, Time, the rest are Washington Times, Fox News, NewsMax. If you want to examine why the media are covering this a NPOV answer would probably be that it is a Clinton hater thing. --Gorgonzilla 20:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Need a link to the video showing Atta on the chart presented by Weldon in 2002.

Agreed, but would much prefer to link to a JPEG of the key frame(s) rather than just the realplayer movie. I don't do realplayer it screws up the machine and downloads spyware. --Gorgonzilla 20:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

-- Swamp Foxx 138.162.0.38 16:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Should also add in the fact that the 9/11 commission denies Shaffer's claims over what he told them [9] --Gorgonzilla 20:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

WikiNews update required

• Article is locked; another WikiNews article needs to be added next to existing one. (SEWilco 17:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC))

Left Wing Spin developing on Condi!

This article should probably be added to the conspiracies category. It appears that the whispering campaign to discredit Smith has had an unexpected effect of starting a left wing Able Danger conspiracy story. I have not seen this mentioned by any of the big blogs yet but it is spreading through the comments. I don't think it rates a mention unless it is taken up by one of the big blogs.

This conspiracy theory goes that the Bush admin shut down Able Danger after discovering that the group had identified Condi as a 'terrorist'. As with the RW 'Clinton to blame' conspiracy theory it is rather short on facts. --Gorgonzilla 12:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

WP: NPA warning

209.247.222.98 'Honest' Abe keeps calling me a liar. It is a matter of fact that Shaffer's lawyer has admitted that he is on administrative leave following a dispute over expenses. That is a dishonesty charge. Do not call people a 'liar' for reporting facts that you do not like. Your behavior in this group demonstrates constant projection. --Gorgonzilla 16:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I never said or implied you are a liar over that claim. Although your now claiming I had is yet another bit of duplicity from you. Just so it's clear, here is a list of your lies (I reserve the right to add to the list in the future):

1) Your claim that there were only 2 witnesses to Atta's being on the chart when in fact there were 3.

2) Your claim you asked me to address crtain points 4 days before when in fact it was 2.

3) Your claim Shaffer received his information from Philpott and implictaion this was recent when, in fact, Philpott received information from Shaffer during the course of their investigation.

4) Your claim I used NewsMax as a source.

5) Your claim Gorlick did not fortify "the wall" even after I produced her memo from the Depatment of Justice.

6) Your claim Gorlick had nothing to do with Pentagon policy even after it was demonstrated to you she was the Pentagon's General Counsel.

7) Your claim I had not described my reasons for adding an NPOV warning to your biased version of this article on this page when quite clearly I had.

8) Your claim I had said your statement about Shaffer's travel claim was a lie when in fact I said your claim he had been charged was a lie. There are no criminal charges against Shaffer.

9) Your claim the John Ashcroft statement on Gorlick's conflict of interest was 4 paragraphs long in my unbiased version when, in fact, it was only 1. (thanks to Swamp Foxx)

Did someone say something about "burying the lede?" - Honest Abe

Shaffer's lawyer said the dispute involved "trivial matters" such as reimbursements for mileage and telephone charges. This would not necessarily involve a charge of dishonesty, but could be a disagreement over what expenses were authorized for reimbursement. Do you have a more specific basis for your allegations of dishonesty? Anonip 16:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Shaffer's lawyer also admitted that his client had been on 'administrative leave', i.e. suspended pending a hearing for 18 months. That does not happen over trivial accusations, to to a Lt. Col. Claiming expenses you are not entitled to is also a dishonesty charge. One could reasonably suspect that Shaffer might pursue the Able Danger claims in the hope of making it politically impossible to fire him, or that he his accusations are motivated by revenge. Regardless, inserting the adjective 'credible' in front of a protagonist in this affair is POV regardless of his military rank. The entitre conspiracy hinges on his credibility, inserting 'credible' essentially prejudges the issue. --Gorgonzilla 19:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Again you offer no substantive evidence, only your own extreme left-wing speculations and suspicions. It is your credibility that is in question here. Anonip 15:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Err where I come from we do not take statements from defence counsel as gospel truth. Go peddle your wingnut conspiracy stories elsewhere. --Gorgonzilla 18:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Your repeated use of the word "wingnut" is odd talk coming from someone so sensitive to personal attacks. Odd talk you would also use Shaffer's attorney's statement when it suits your purpose then say where you come from it's not gospel. What kind of game are you playing against Wikipedia? How do you justify your hypocrisy? -- Swamp Foxx 138.162.0.37 18:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Simple, when Shaffer's attorney confirmed that he has been on a disciplinary charge for 18 months he was credible because as his attorney he is most unlikely to make a statement of that type unless it is true. When he claimed that a Lt. Col. had been on admin leave for 18 months over a trivial issue he had no credibility, he is a paid advocate, Johnnie Cochran repeatedly said OJ was innocent. But regardless of whether or not the charge is true or not applying the term 'credible' to Shaffer is POV. --Gorgonzilla 01:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

So where is your link to support your claim Shaffer's lawyer used that language - "dishonesty charges?" Or is this another of your embellishments? Your FoxNews story certainly doesn't contain any quotes with that language. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166084,00.html -- Swamp Foxx 138.162.0.46 16:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

According to an interview to appear in Government Security News, Shaffer says his security clearance was suspended over $67 worth of disputed cell-phone charges, which he offered to pay just to get rid of the nuisance. Eventually the Army cleared him, but while his clearance was suspended his collection of information on Able Danger apparently disappeared. Also, Pentagon officials have announced that their investigation found three more people, in addition to Philpott and Shaffer, who recalled an intelligence chart that identified Atta as a terrorist a year before the 9/11 attacks. The officials said they consider the five people to be credible. But none of this information can be included in the Wikipedia article on Able Danger because Gorgonzilla, with the assistance of Linuxbeak, has blocked editing of the page. The current article is inaccurate, incomplete, and protected from needed corrections and additions, as a direct result of Gorgonzilla's biased editing. But that is evidently how things work at Wikipedia. Anonip 18:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced assertion in "The Two Attas Theory"

No source is provided for the following statement: "Another variation of the Two Attas theory notes that Omar Abdul Rahman also had an associate with the name Mohamed Atta who was not the Atta involved in the 9/11 hijacking." As far as I know, there is absolutely no basis for this statement. If it is possible to provide a source, then the segment name should be changed to "The Three Attas Theory." If someone can provide a source, fine. If not, it should be removed after a reasonable period of time. RonCram 21:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing up that problem, gentlemen. RonCram 01:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Problem with the Two Attas Theory

The two Attas theory has one glaring problem the article needs to address: Able Danger identified terror cells and not just individual terrorists. AB identified two of the three terror cells involved in 9/11. Atta and two others in the Brooklyn cell and one other terrorist associated with a second cell. If there was some kind of mistake made by Able Danger, how did Able Danger tie the wrong man to the right terror cell? That makes no sense. RonCram 01:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The big problem I have with Able Danger is that there is no real hard evidence that the 'right' terror cell was identified, except to the extent that the cell was associated with Rahman who is associated with Al Qaeda, but that is not exactly a suprise given that Rahman was the starting point for the analysis. At the time that the data that the Able Danger team were working on was gathered the 9/11 Atta was living in Germany and had not even begun using the name 'Atta'.

Having used the same type of analysis tools for criminal investigations (bank fraud) the identification of a 'cell' does not suprise me - that is what the software does. And you should see the charts that the printer spews out, they are really impressive. It is hard enough to interpret the charts when the only links there are overtly criminal acts. If you include the social network data as well you will find lots of 'cells' but only a few of those are the criminal cells you are looking for. --Gorgonzilla 02:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

OK I read the article, it appears that Shaffer is finaly starting to open up to the point where we have some testable hypotheses. I reworded the statement so that it is clear this is based on a statement by Shaffer, the earlier wording could be mistaken for random blogofiction. I also removed the conclusion that the identification of the NYC cell must mean that the right Atta was identified as the conclusion is not made by Shaffer and does not follow from the facts. Able Danger could have identified 2 out of three 9/11 attackers correctly and been mistaken just on Atta. That would be entirely consistent with the established time line, Atta was not using his name at that time and was not known to be in the US, but other hijackers were.

It is important to realize here that this is a story that involves a claim of falsified information. If the pentagon is hiding something it may not be what Weldon, Shaffer and co think it is. A standard technique used to discredit someone who is 90% right in a claim is to focus on the remaining 10% and disprove that. The important claim here is that the pentagon had information that might have led to the 9/11 plot being detected in advance. Identification of Atta is not an essential component of that claim. --Gorgonzilla 02:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The hard evidence is that Atta and friends are dead as of 9/11. Prior to 9/11, I would expect all Able Danger could do is turn it over to the FBI... which is what they tried to do.

I noticed you removed my entry, calling it "personal research" or something. Fair enough. I found a writer who sees the same problem, Eric Umansky, and posted it. Umansky is also a skeptic on Able Danger. His explanation is that all four of the terrorists are cases of mistaken identity. In my mind that is stretching the point, especially since three of these people with mistaken identities knew each other as members of the same terrorist cell. If someone can find a writer with better thinking skills, I would be happy to change the source. RonCram 02:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually I reworded the first sentence and only removed the conclusion. I would like to reword the Umansky part as well to retain the sense but drop the quote. I don't have much of a problem with bloggers as sources on this particular story, I think that the average blogger is more credible than either Air America or Fox News. But as you point out the wording is confused. I am happy for the conclusion I removed to return if it is from Umansky, but it looked like it was from the first article and I couldn't find it there. --Gorgonzilla 02:33, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW the extended claims should really be worked into the article earlier since Shaffer has extended his claim significantly. --Gorgonzilla 02:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The data destruction claims

I added this guy to the main timeline, JimmyCrackedCorn added as a witness. At this point I am dubious about adding predictions as to what a person will say at a hearing before it happens. This is an encyclopedia, not a horoscope. Assuming the witness does appear and testify then I assume there will be more data here. The press reports give the volume of documents at 2.5 Tb so this is a RAID drive array, at that time it would take 16 disks or more for that quantity of data. The paper copies would already be shredded, the disks would be destroyed separately. The guy who destroyed them is thus not going to be in a position to know about any charts unless he was also a member of the AD team. Basically the guy is going to degauss the disk platters and then put them into a disk shredder. The important piece of information here is that he is claiming he got the order 3 days before 9/11. I wonder when he carried it out? --Gorgonzilla 05:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

bricks in "the wall"

Slade Gorton, in his rebuttal to the Washington Times, traced the history of the "wall" as early as Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which limits use of the Army for law enforcement. Gorton also mentions the National Security Act of 1947, which restricts domestic information collection about citizens and resident aliens (my understanding is the 1947 Act permitted intelligence agencies to collect such information only when requested by an LEA).

A few days later, in Gorton's rebuttal to O'Reilley, Gorton asserted a somewhat different version of events, saying that the wall was "created by laws sponsored by the Church Committee back in the 70s". I thought the Church Committee was an investigatory body and am not aware of any laws it sponsored. Anyone?

What is clear is that in 1976, Gerald Ford issued Executive Order 11905, perhaps best known for banning assasinations of foreign leaders, but which also restricted the US intelligence community's ability to conduct domestic surveillance (notably, it prohibited the CIA from doing any wiretapping). As in the case of the 1947 Act, the restrictions included in Ford's 1976 Order applied to surveillance of citizens and resident aliens.

Thus, "the wall" was clearly established before Jimmy Carter. I believe Carter signed the Foreign Intelligence Surviellance Act of 1978--perhaps this is what Gorton was referring to on TV? But it was well after the Church Committee.

For what it's worth Gorton reiterated (in both cites above) that the Gorelick memo did not apply to DoD and thus is irrelevant to the Able Danger story. He used rather stronger language in the Washington Times rebuttal, calling the assertion "ridiculous...she had nothing to do with any wall between law enforcement and our intelligence agencies". He also claimed that prior to 9/11, John Ashcroft "reaffirmed" the Gorelick guidelines; "Ashcroft...went along completely with what Jamie Gorelick said". During August 2001, Ashcroft's deputy issued a memo which stated that that"The 1995 procedures remain in effect today".

Final points: As far as I know, Atta was neither citizen nor resident alien. It seems to me that "the wall" would not have applied to him. Similarly, Ashcroft indicated that "the wall" did not truly apply to Moussaoui, either, testifying that the FBI erred in "mistakenly believing that you had to choose one way or the other because of the wall". For suspects who are not citizens, and who have no green card, what wall is there? --Munge 09:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep, and when Ashcroft introduced the wall into the 9/11 commission hearings it was to deflect expected criticism of his own incompetence and that of Freeh who reported to him. It was a particularly dishonest piece of grandstanding. The reason these people are wittering on about the wall is to try and blame Clinton for 9/11. Of course even if every Able Danger clue was true the evidence from a data mining operation could never have been as useful as say, looking at the laptop of the suspected terrorist already arrested after asking to practice flying but not take offs or landings - as the FBI field office had asked repeatedly. --Gorgonzilla 12:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

(From the wiki) Gorton also asserted that 'the wall' was a longstanding policy that had resulted from the Church committee in the 1970s and that the policy only prohibits transfer of certain information from prosecutors to the intelligence services and never prohibited information flowing in the opposite direction

That statement is somewhat different from Gorton's rebuttal to the Washington Times. Instead, let's consider saying something like:

(proposed) Gorton also rebutted that 'the wall' was erected by legislation enacted more than 50 years ago [Washington Times cite here], or in another rebuttal, dating back to the 1975-1976 Church Committee [Fox News cite here]. In both rebuttals, Gorton mentioned that the Gorelick policy [link to Gorelick memo] refers only to information gathered by Department of Justice, rather than organizations within the Department of Defense (such as Able Danger); and moreover that during August 2001 the Department of Justice reaffirmed the Gorelick policy [link to the Larry Thompson memo]—a point Gorton had previously made during the hearings into the the events of 9/11 [link to transcript].

Generally, IMO the encylopedist needs to treat "the wall" as a fuzzy term that people have used in referring to laws, policies, procedures, and perhaps even to departmental cultures and individual errors in judgement. Furthermore, the wall bears many fingerprints of both Democrats (e.g. Truman) and Republicans (e.g. Ford). The Able Danger timeline spans two administrations and could implicate one side, both sides, rogue factions, overall incompetence, or (if the story is bogus) conspiracy theorists themselves. --Munge 20:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the whole partisan premise to the Able Danger sitory is that 'the wall' was a new policy invented by Gorelick under Clinton. That is utterly untrue. The Wall was a direct result of the absuses of Richard Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover. In this particular instance the concern of the pentagon lawyers appears to have been that if they handed information over to the FBI they would go do another Richard Jewel or a Ruby Ridge or a Waco. There may be something here, the Atta claim is not very credible but the team could certainly have tracked other AQ members down. I doubt it is anywhere near the smoking gun that the bloggers seem to think. The proper position for Wikipedia should be detached skepticism until something interesting is demonstrated. --Gorgonzilla 00:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

should bloggers be cited?

Bloggers are being cited as sources in the articles. It is one thing to use bloggers on the talk page and as leads to their source information, but should they actually be cited as sources?--Silverback 12:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

In general, I'd say blogs are poor sources. There's a big difference between reputable news websites (cnn.com) and some random person's website. Friday (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it depends on the blog. If we are talking about a major blog with a hundred thousand daily readers run by professional journalists such as Instapundit or Talking Points memo then it is probably a better source than the East Bogsworth Picayne, circulation 500 copies. If we are talking wingnut.blogspot.com then not. It also depends on the type of information and the story. If we are talking about hurricane Katrina then only comment from major news sources is likely to be acceptable. Here the story has not been picked up by the mainstream media and all the commentary is highly partisan. If we exclude blogs, partisan 'news' stations and politicians from this story there is not going to be anything left. If commentary from Fox news is going to be included then comment from opposing partisan sources should be included. --Gorgonzilla 19:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I know this comment is old, but I rarely read talk pages and I just had to read this one because I was so impressed by all of your work.

Anyway, I just wanted to clarify something about the two bloggers you mentioned as "professional journalists." Instapundit, aka Glenn Reynolds, is a professor of law. Joshua Marshall of TPM describes himself as a contributing writer and columnist for newspapers. I don't think either are traditional "professional journalists" - that is, like uhm, Clark Kent - especially Reynolds.

However, that is just a nitpick. I don't disagree with your support of citing good bloggers; I wholeheartedly agree, especially with those two your mentioned as good ones. I think the criteria for citing bloggers should simply include whether or not the post is an original, useful and well-thought source or idea whether or not if it comes from someone somehow attached to traditional big media.

I would have to disagree with your example of Hurricane Katrina being an example of when to only comment from MSM (if there is, in fact, any time to restrict yourself that way.) During Katrina, MSM was presented a wildly exagerrated impression of the destruction and the aftermath. They repeated, without skepticism, claims of over 10,000 dead and people committing murder, rape and even cannibalism at rescue centers - claims that were completely unsubstantiated. And, at the time it was only the blogs that were questioning it. This reminds me of a smaller, more local version of press exagerration of disaster. In Wayne, NJ, a large depression near a complicated intersection of state and interstate highways often floods a few inches. Shortly after Katrina, it flooded - as per usual - and an NBC Today Show (from NYC) team showed up. Well, I won't ruin it for you[10] (the site seems to be broken right now, but I hope it will be back by the time y'all read this.) CCMCornell 21:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

As a rule bloggers shouldn't be cited as a source because as a rule they very rarely are. Copy/pasting parts of news reports and expressing an opinion on them doesn't make you a source for anything other than your own opinion. And that's in general. Anyone believing that there's a blogger who's got his own DIA sources meeting him in his mom's basement on top secret military projects? Attriti0n 14:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

**Time**: Documents destroyed

No time to look into this but there seems to be a bit of confusion as to the time the files were destroyed:

Mark Zaid - Shaffer's lawyer - testifies:

http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1606&wit_id=4668

"Eventually during the period December 2000 and March 2001, all records, both electronic and hard copy, were destroyed under orders of the Army. Additionally, we just recently learned that duplicate documentation that was maintained by Lt Col Shaffer at his civilian DIA office was apparently destroyed – for reasons unknown – by DIA in Spring 2004."

It would be probably quite interesting to trace the exact source of the time frame you use in the article. It seems the time the pro-Bush crowd at NR prefers too, but who started the mid-2000 hoax?

http://nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200509260809.asp

In mid-2000, the Department of Defense (DoD) intentionally purged a gargantuan amount of intelligence about al Qaeda — the enemy that had just blown up our embassies in east Africa and was even then scheming to bomb a navy destroyer in Yemen. The materials were generated by the "Able Danger" program, which attempted to map al Qaeda by sophisticated data mining. Although that program was itself highly classified, it drew mostly on open-source (i.e., non-classified) information. According to participants, the effort yielded leads that might have uncovered the 9/11 plot if diligently followed.

Well this author is a terror warrior: http://www.defenddemocracy.org/ LeaNder 21:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Afterthought, there might be another testimony by Kleinsmith? Yes there is. Is this a deliberate vagueness about the date, but quite astonishing that all neo-conservative media deduces ***the same date***.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1606&wit_id=4669

"In approximately April of 2000 our support to Able Danger became severely restricted and ultimately shut down due to intelligence oversight concerns. Supported vigorously by the LIWA and INSCOM chains of command, ***we actively worked to overcome this shut down for the next several months. In the midst of this shut down***, I along with CW3 Terri Stephens were forced to destroy all the data, charts, and other analytical products that we had not already passed on to SOCOM related to Able Danger. This destruction was dictated by, and conducted in accordance with intelligence oversight procedures."

Anyway I think you should somehow link up to the official statements. TA TA LeaNder 22:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Pre-9/11 CIA Opposition to 9/11

I just made an entry under the Shafer statements section about CIA oppostion to Able Danger prior to 9/11. The 9/11 Commission and Senate Report have talked about problems sharing information between intelligence agencies, but I don't know that I ever understood the problem well prior to reading this comment from Shafer. If Shafer is right, the CIA refused to share information because of a turf battle. There has to be a special place in hell for the CIA agent who makes that decision. -RonCram 13:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC) Note: 'Alex Base' is the code name for a CIA covert team, not a person. -RonCram 14:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hehe... my bad. Thanks for the correction. -csloat 18:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Why able danger failed

Able Danger wasn't out in the open complying to International Law

uh. how confused are you??

more congressional hearings

Committee on Government Reform's National Security Subcommittee hearing on National Security Whistleblower Protection will touch briefly on Able Danger on February 13, 2006. [11]

Possible Related Info

There is a Memorandum that raises some important issues regarding "Israeli Art Students" who the DEA had been monitoring and are believed to have been spying in the US, and wether or not they had any of the 9/11 hijackers under surveillance, due to their (coincidental?) proximity to the homes/activities of the 9/11 hijackers pre-9/11, and wether the Israeli government had any info on the hijackers or there whereabouts that could've been used to prevent the 9/11 attacks. I don't know how or where they would fit into the article, but they are somewhat relevant, and should probably be included somehow, if they can. 172.197.214.47 05:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete

"The group used all information legally collected under the rule of law." This seems to be subjective dogma and cannot be defended with source material as it is a statement regarding the operations of a classified government entity. Also, this article should be considered controversial because the veracity of the information is highly questionable. Fosterremy 22:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Eric Umansky

Who is he and why should we care? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 03:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

If you check the cite and then poke around, you'll see that he's this guy. Not the most notable commentator on the planet, but more than a nobody it seems. (I'm working my way through the article to clean up citations like this; I just haven't got that far yet.) --Geoff Capp 03:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I know who he is, but I suppose my point hsould have been why is he included in this article? What relevancy does it have, and why is he notable on this subject. Too much fluff in too many article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 04:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

external links

I cleaned these up, but my edits don't seem to have been applied. I even added a link to the recent DOD IG report.

What happened? Is the page still moderated? 71.103.121.188 23:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The technical term is "protected"; I know of no wikipedia articles that have a moderator. And, as far as I can see, the page is neither semi-protected (prevents anonymous IP edits and edits of very very recently registered users) nor totally protected (extremely rare) against all edits. In both cases there would have to be (as far as I know) a prominent notice at the top of the article.

Why don't you try again, and if that's still appears unsuccessful, put the links here so that someone else can post them to the page? John Broughton | Talk 01:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)