Talk:Able Danger

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Krista-Ann Staley (August 26, 2005). "Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate "Able Danger"". Jurist.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

+++ 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

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

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)[reply]

According to the 9/11 Commission article Ashcroft has withdrawn his accusation:

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Time just debunked this, Weldon has almost withdrawn claim

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Inappropriate reverts

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Useful Info Site

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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