By Col. Patrick Lang (Ret.)
There is some thing strange about the case of Lieutenant Colonel Shaffer (USAR) and “Able Danger.”
His story, accepted thus far by the media, is that he was working in some Army or joint job as a reservist on active duty in 2000. While there (wherever there was) he says he was instrumental in causing a small Army intelligence project named “Able Danger” to be placed at the temporary disposal of the joint headquarters for Special Operations (USSOCOM)in Florida for a training exercise. Before 9/11 USSOCOM was a headquarters acting as a center for advocacy for the development of concepts, equipment and forces for the Special Operations (SOF) community. It did not direct combat operations. USSOCOM had been created by Congress as an advocate for the SOF forces.
In LTC Shaffer’s story the “Able Danger” project was a capability under development by Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) for the purpose of using computers, the internet and open data bases to “mine” information using software that had as its purpose a search for “links” or relationships between people and groups in all that data.
CONTINUED BELOW:
According to Shaffer, the project, in the course of searching for related persons connected to Al-Qa’ida, connected the dots among the four 9/11 hijackers and somehow related them to Brooklyn, NY. Why that connection to Brooklyn existed is not clear.
As the story goes on, the AD group, and possibly Shaffer, appealed to USSOCOM to release their results about the four to the FBI a year before the attacks in the US. Shaffer says that the Staff Judge Advocate (General Counsel) at USSOCOM and maybe DoD nixed that on the basis that these four characters were legal residents of the US whose right to privacy had to be respected and that this was the end of it until this year when the Navy asked for a revival of the project and he, Shaffer, looked at it again and felt upset about so little having been done with the results in 2000 and for that reason he, Shaffer, who now works at least part time at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), is making the rounds of the media to “expose” the situation.
LTC Shaffer also says that the 9/11 commission was told of the results of AD while holding hearings and did nothing with the material, in effect, burying it. The 9/11 commission denies this.
Shaffer also states that he has been in touch with “DoD leadership” in the last couple of days and implies that they have encouraged him in what he is doing.
He specifically mentions Steven Cambone, the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence.
This is all quite strange.
It is possible that a small scale research project of the INSCOM could have been loaned to USSOCOM and could have produced such a result, but people with access to the history of government activity at that time concerning AQ say that they know nothing of this project and have never heard of it.
It is possible that the lawyers at USSOCOM could have taken such a position based on lawyerly caution and exagerated concern for the welfare of their client, CINC USSOCOM. Lawyers seem to generally know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Nevertheless, it is also true that if the CINC at USSOCOM had wanted to give the data to the FBI, he would simply have done so. What the lawyers would have been talking about would have been their collective opinions rather than a specific and clear statute and he could have simply ignored them. I know this from personal experience.
Lastly, what is a still acive US Army Reserve field grade officer doing running around giving briefings on TV and acting as a source for the “outing” of this or any other government program?
Is a “puzzlement.” Anyone who can fill in any blanks or supply any dots, please do so.
Pat Lang
Personal Blog: Sic Semper Tyrannis 2005 || Bio
I’ve felt there was something “off” about this whole revelation too, though certainly it’s only a “feeling” on my part, since I have absolutely no idea how the mechanics of these sorts of operations and interactions work. And of course, if there is an element of deliberate deception in this scheme, what might be the motive? Certainly there seems to be some renewed vigor to blame Clinton for allowing the problems associated with Al Qa’ida to grow more dangerous, but it strains my credulity to think that such an apparently complicated exercise as this one would be used for such a purpose.
I only saw LTC Shaffer once in a cable news channel appearance, and my sense was that his tone and language seemed at odds with what he was trying to convey as to the gravity of the issue as he purportedly perceived it.
A “puzzlement” indeed.
Shaffer is on with Keith right now … i think Keith’s show is repeated once more.
it is truly a strange thing to talk to someone about such issues who has held such a high position in the DIA.
I feel silly telling you things, as if you don’t already know.
However… Curt Weldon has been a congressman for a long time. He was a congressman in 1991, when his nephew crashed an arms loaded C-130 in Angola and died. His nephew was a contract employee of the CIA, and he may not have known the details of his mission. But when a representative of Congress loses his nephew on a government mission, he has a right to expect prompt answer to what the mission was about. From my understanding, Weldon was given the run around for quite some time, and he has never forgiven the CIA for dicking him around.
Now, on this specific issue of Able Danger, I don’t know what is going on. But I do know that this doesn’t make sense as an attack on Clinton, even though it appears that the Washington Times is coordinating the PR campaign. If these facts are true, it makes the commission look bad, and the Pentagon for withholding information.
So, what’s going on? I have no idea.
My husband and I both eyed the whole interview suspiciously. It did not seem to be putting the blame on Clinton, as the time frame was off. It had a ring to it of not being authentic.
It was like something we had been waiting for, like we knew things were wrong before 9/11. But it rang hollow, and neither of us knew enough to know why.
Has the smell of a disinformation campaign.
I just saw this. I still feel like I did when I saw the interview…disinfo…but I am not bright enough in these areas to figure it out.
Media Matters article about Conservatives misrepresenting the “wall”
“Conservatives again misrepresented “wall” that purportedly inhibited intelligence sharing prior to 9-11″
Since it was first reported that information identifying lead 9-11 hijacker Mohammed Atta may have been withheld from law enforcement officials more than a year before the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, conservative media figures including the New York Post’s Deborah Orin and radio host Rush Limbaugh have used the alleged incident to claim that a “wall” purportedly enacted — or at least expanded — under the Clinton administration blocked intelligence sharing that could have prevented the attacks. In his April 2004 testimony before the 9-11 Commission, former Attorney General John Ashcroft launched the false accusation by claiming that then-deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick prevented critical information coordination leading up to the 9-11 attacks by issuing a memo in 1995 setting out the “wall’s” restrictions….”
More at the site.
lawnorder wrote a diary on datamining you can find here
Without knowing the exact software LTC Shaffer was using it is impossible to analyze any further. In general, tho’, the various techniques used in 2001 to process data were not sensitive to meaning-in-context but only to meaning-as-predefined.
Any information search is greatly eased by knowing what you are looking for, e.g. Hindsight. The fact we know 9/11 was being planned in 2000 today and we know, to some extent, who was involved cannot be used as search criteria to replicate information processing and analysis in 2000.
The fundamental basis of what LTC Schaffer is saying seems to be, “If we knew in 2000 what we know now 9/11 could have been avoided.” Which is true, but absurd.
The evidence he brings to support his claims is entirely anecdotal – the worst kind – and is pretty much ‘You can trust my statement because I’m trustworthy.’ Which Begs the Question: How trustyworthy are his statements? LTC Schaffer must prove his trustworthness, it cannot be assumed.
Until LTC Schaffer presents an unbroken trail of physical evidence the rational conclusion is: Not Proven and Therefore, Not True.
Folks,
I don’t think this has much to do with Clinton. At the time of the incident it seems to me that Bush was already in office.
I have been working my way through who Shaffer is and for whom he works/worked. The whole thing looks more and more like an attempt by a few misguided souls to discredit the 9/11 commission which, as you recall, was harsh in its criticisms of some groups and individuals.
It appears that the 9/11 Commission dismissed this “information” because it thought it insignificant and not credible. They were probably right.
Still checking.
Pat Lang