| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Louis Freeh: Why did the 9/11 Commission ignore "Able Danger"? |
| 2005-11-17 |
| An Incomplete Investigation Why did the 9/11 Commission ignore "Able Danger"? BY LOUIS FREEH Thursday, November 17, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST It was interesting to hear from the 9/11 Commission again on Tuesday. This self-perpetuating and privately funded group of lobbyists and lawyers has recently opined on hurricanes, nuclear weapons, the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel and even the New York subway system. Now it offers yet another "report card" on the progress of the FBI and CIA in the war against terrorism, along with its "back-seat" take and some further unsolicited narrative about how things ought to be on the "front lines." Yet this is also a good time for the country to make some assessments of the 9/11 Commission itself. Recent revelations from the military intelligence operation code-named "Able Danger" have cast light on a missed opportunity that could have potentially prevented 9/11. Specifically, Able Danger concluded in February 2000 that military experts had identified Mohamed Atta by name (and maybe photograph) as an al Qaeda agent operating in the U.S. Subsequently, military officers assigned to Able Danger were prevented from sharing this critical information with FBI agents, even though appointments had been made to do so. Why? There are other questions that need answers. Was Able Danger intelligence provided to the 9/11 Commission prior to the finalization of its report, and, if so, why was it not explored? In sum, what did the 9/11 commissioners and their staff know about Able Danger and when did they know it? The Able Danger intelligence, if confirmed, is undoubtedly the most relevant fact of the entire post-9/11 inquiry. Even the most junior investigator would immediately know that the name and photo ID of Atta in 2000 is precisely the kind of tactical intelligence the FBI has many times employed to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it "was not historically significant." This astounding conclusion--in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings--raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself. |
| Posted by:Captain America |
| #8 "...the officer's account was not sufficiently reliable to warrant revision of the report or further investigation...and...did not turn out to be historically significant..." But feel free to touch the hem of our garmets. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2005-11-17 11:09 |
| #7 lol, AlanC! I, for one, want a new 9/11 commission, this time full of ordinary Joes who can put 2 & 2 together. And my first witness? Jamie Gorelick...her name's all over this one! It's amazing to see that even Clinton appointees sometimes grow a spine and call a spade a spade! |
| Posted by: BA 2005-11-17 11:07 |
| #6 IIRC Bush wasn't president then, was he? Wonder how he managed to prevent the info from getting to the FBI while he was still Gov of Texas? Gee Rove is good. /sarcasm |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-11-17 09:00 |
| #5 jeesh...maybe I should preview my posts once in awhile. The sun is coming up, it's time for bed. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-11-17 07:52 |
| #4 DOH! He was not given information.. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-11-17 07:50 |
| #3 While it will never make the front page, it would appear that this is, IMHO, huge. This is the director of the FBI, at the time in question, spewing anger that his office was given information that: Even the most junior investigator would immediately know that the name and photo ID of Atta in 2000 is precisely the kind of tactical intelligence the FBI has many times employed to prevent attacks and arrest terrorists. Yet the 9/11 Commission inexplicably concluded that it "was not historically significant." I think this is C4, Mother of Satan, and TNT combined. As a result - this should quickly fall of the radar screen and get little public attention. But what it tells me is that if Able Danger had not been prohibited from providing info to the FBI - it's possible that 911 could have been prevented. Wow. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-11-17 07:49 |
| #2 If jihad advocacy was a crime, then pre-emptive arrest power could do wonders for US security. Too bad the talking-class has a finger pointing agenda. |
| Posted by: CaziFarkus 2005-11-17 05:40 |
| #1 the opening para is sweet, Louis Freeh: It was interesting to hear from the 9/11 Commission again on Tuesday. This self-perpetuating and privately funded group of lobbyists and lawyers has recently opined on hurricanes, nuclear weapons, the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel and even the New York subway system. Now it offers yet another "report card" on the progress of the FBI and CIA in the war against terrorism, along with its "back-seat" take and some further unsolicited narrative about how things ought to be on the "front lines." snip..This astounding conclusion--in combination with the failure to investigate Able Danger and incorporate it into its findings--raises serious challenges to the commission's credibility and, if the facts prove out, might just render the commission historically insignificant itself. snip..This is a stinging indictment of the commission by the 9/11 families. your performance didn't exactally shine Louie, but Go for it now and you might find redemption |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2005-11-17 04:30 |