Congressional Record: November 18, 2005 (House)
Page H11029-H11031
ABLE DANGER
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I include material regarding
Able Danger for the Record:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, November 9, 2005.
Hon. Donald Rumsfeld,
Secretary, Department of Defense, The Pentagon, Washington,
DC.
Dear Secretary Rumsfeld: We the undersigned are formally
requesting that you allow former participants in the
intelligence program known as Able Danger to testify in an
open hearing before the United States Congress. Until this
point, congressional efforts to investigate Able Danger have
been obstructed by Department of Defense insistence that
certain individuals with knowledge of Able Danger be
prevented from freely and frankly testifying in an open
hearing. We realize that you do not question Congress's
authority to maintain effective oversight of executive branch
agencies, including your department. It is our understanding
that your objection instead derives from concern that
classified information could be improperly exposed in an open
hearing. We of course would never support any activity that
might compromise sensitive information involving national
security. However, we firmly believe that testimony from the
appropriate individuals in an open hearing on Able Danger
would not only fail to jeopardize national security, but
would in fact enhance it over the long term. This is due to
our abiding belief that America can only better prepare
itself against future attacks if it understands the full
scope of its past failures to do so.
On September 21, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
conducted a hearing on Able Danger which Bill Dugan, Acting
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
Oversight, certified did not reveal any classified
information. Congressman Curt Weldon's testimony at that
hearing was largely based on the information that has been
given to him by Able Danger participants barred from open
testimony by DOD. Their testimony would therefore closely
mirror that of Congressman Weldon, who did not reveal
classified information. Therefore we are at a loss as to how
the testimony of Able Danger participants would jeopardize
classified information. Much of what they would present has
already been revealed. Further refusal to allow Able Danger
participants to testify in an open congressional hearing can
only lead us to conclude that the Department of Defense is
uncomfortable with the prospect of Members of Congress
questioning these individuals about the circumstances
surrounding Able Danger. This would suggest not a concern for
national security, but rather an attempt to prevent
potentially embarrassing facts from coming to light. Such a
consideration would of course be an unacceptable
justification for the refusal of a congressional request.
Sincerely,
Curt Weldon,
John P. Murtha.
[[Page H11030]]
____
Why Did the 9/11 Commission Ignore `Able Danger'?
(By 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.''
Yet this is also a good time for the country to make some
assessments of the 9/11 Commission itself. Recent revelation
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 by 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.
The facts relating to Able Danger finally started to be
reported in mid-August. U.S. Army Col. Anthony Shaffer, a
veteran intelligence officer, publicly revealed that the Able
Danger team had identified Atta and three other 9/11
hijackers by mid-2000 but were prevented by military lawyers
from giving this information to the FBI. One week later, Navy
Capt. Scott J. Phillpott, a U.S. Naval Academy graduate who
managed the program for the Pentagon's Special Operations
Command, confirmed ``Atta was iden- tified by Able Danger by
January-February of 2000.''
On Aug. 18, 2005, the Pentagon initially stated that ``a
probe'' had found nothing to back up Col. Shaffer's claims.
Two weeks later, however, Defense Department officials
acknowledged that its ``inquiry'' had found ``three more
people who recall seeing an intelligence briefing slide that
identified the ringleader of the 9/11 attacks a year before
the hijackings and terrorist strikes.'' These same officials
also stated that ``documents and electronic files created by
. . . Able Danger were destroyed under standing orders that
limit the military's use of intelligence gathered about
people in the United States.'' Then, in September 2005, the
Pentagon doubled back and blocked several military officers
from testifying at an open Congressional hearing about the
Able Danger program.
Two members of Congress, Curt Weldon and Dan Burton, have
also publicly stated that shortly after 9/11 attacks they
provided then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley
with a ``chart'' containing preattack information collected
by Able danger about al Qaeda. a spokesperson for the White
House has confirmed that Mr. Hadley ``recalled seeing such a
chart in that time period but . . . did not recall whether he
saw it during a meeting . . . and that a search of National
Security Council files had failed to produce such a chart.''
Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission, reacted
to Able Danger with the standard Washington PR approach. He
lashed out at the Bush administration and demanded that the
Pentagon conduct an ``investigation'' to evaluate the
``credibility'' of Col. Shaffer and Capt. Phillpott--rather
than demand a substantive investigation into what failed in
the first place. This from a former New Jersey governor who,
along with other commissioners, routinely appeared in public
espousing his own conclusions about 9/11 long before the
commission's inquiry was completed and long before all the
facts were in! This while dismissing out of hand the major
conflicts of interest on the commission itself about
obstructions to information-sharing within the intelligence
community.
Nevertheless, the final 9/11 commission report, released on
July 22, 2004, concluded that ``American intelligence
agencies were unaware of Mr. Atta until the day of the
attacks.'' This now looks to be embarrassingly wrong. Yet
amazingly, commission leaders acknowledged on Aug. 12 that
their staff in fact met with a Navy officer 10 days before
releasing the report, who ``asserted that a highly classified
intelligence operation, Able Danger, had identified Mohammed
Atta to be a member of an al Qaeda cell located in
Brooklyn.'' (Capt. Phillpott says he briefed them in July
2004.) The commission's statement goes on to say that the
staff determined that ``the officer's account was not
sufficiently reliable to warrant revision of the report or
further investigation,'' and that the intelligence
operation ``did not turn out to be historically
significant,'' despite substantial corroboration from
other seasoned intelligence officers.
This dismissive and apparently unsupported conclusion would
have us believe that a key piece of evidence was summarily
rejected in less than 10 days without serious investigation.
The commission, at the very least, should have interviewed
the 80 members of Able Danger, as the Pentagon did, five of
whom say they saw ``the chart.'' But this would have required
admitting that the late-breaking news was inconveniently
raised. So it was grossly neglected and branded as
significant. Such a half-baked conclusion, drawn in only 10
days without any real investigation, simply ignores what
looks like substantial direct evidence to the contrary coming
from our own trained military intelligence officers.
No wonder the 9/11 families were outraged by these
revelations and called for a ``new'' commission to
investigate. ``I'm angry that my son's death could have been
prevented,'' seethed Diane Horning, whose son Matthew was
killed at the World Trade Center. On Aug. 17, 2005, a
coalition of family members known as the September 11
Advocates rightly blasted 9/11 Commission leaders Mr. Kean
and Lee Hamilton for pooh-poohing Able Danger's findings as
not ``historically significant.'' Advocate Mindy Kleinberg
aptly notes, ``They [the 9/11 Commission] somehow made a
determination that this was not important enough. To me, that
says somebody there is not using good judgment. And if I'm
questioning the judgment of this one case, what other things
might they have missed?'' This is a stinging indictment of
the commission by the 9/11 families.
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen
Specter, has led the way in cleaning up the 9/11 Commission's
unfinished business. Amid a very full plate of
responsibilities, he conducted a hearing after noting that
Col. Shaffer and Capt. Phillpott ``appear to have
credibility.'' Himself and former prosecutor, Mr. Specter
noted: ``If M? Atta and other 9/11 terrorists were identified
before the attacks, it would be a very serious breach not to
have that information passed along . . . we ought to get to
the bottom of it.'' Indeed we should. The 9/11 Commission
gets an ``I'' grade incomplete--for its dereliction regarding
Able Danger. The Joint Intelligence Committee should
reconvene and, in addition to Able Danger team members, we
should have the 9/11 commissioners appear as witnesses so the
families can hear their explanation why this doesn't matter.
____
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 9:21 AM
To: curtpa07
Subject: USS COLE
Our son Kenneth was the 1st killed on the USS Cole when it
was attacked. Every since President Bush came into office
I've been trying to get a meeting with him and the 17
families and the White House will not even acknowledge. I've
been saying things like you are now saying ever since the
attacked happened and NO one in government will talk to us.
The FBI has lied to us on several facts and my own
Congressmen will do anything for me except a meeting with the
President. President Clinton did nothing to go after those
that attacked the Cole and if he had of they would have
uncovered numerous signs out there about what was going to
happen on 9/11. We sure would like to talk to you.
John Clodfelter.
____
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 9:21 PM
To: curtpa07
Subject: Able Danger--9/11 Family Member
Dear Congressman Weldon: I write again to thank you for all
you are doing to uncover the ``Able Danger'' story. I lost my
brother Pete on 9/11, and over the last 4 years I have done
what I could to educate myself on the ``how's, why's and
who's'' of 9/11. I attended the Commission hearings both in
Washington, D.C. and New York City, and to be frank . . . I
thought the Commission was a farce. They may have reached
recommendations that may prove worthy, but the agenda of some
was all too obvious. I have felt from the beginning that
certain Commissioners sat on the wrong side of the table, so
to speak. Now that you have uncovered Able Danger, I want
them all to sit as witnesses before Congress. Just who knew
what and who decided these most important findings to be
``historically insignificant,'' are questions that must be
answered.
The loss of Pete on 9/11 is something I deal with every
moment, of every day. Now that we are 2 weeks from what
would've been his 47th birthday (one he shared with my
sister, Kathy), a week away from Thanksgiving, 5 weeks from
his favorite day of the year--Christmas . . . well, the
heartache of his murder is felt a bit deeper.
On a personal note, Pete's death on 9/11 was one tragedy
from that day, but it is not the only one. What his murder
has done to our family is quite another. There is no way to
explain how those terrorists ruined more than one life that
day and there is no way to express my anger at how life for
us will never again be the same. We struggle to find joy, we
find it difficult to accomplish what once were ordinary tasks
. . . but we do, and thanks to our faith. I also believe we
do because of public servants like you. Decent
[[Page H11031]]
elected officials who actually serve the public instead of
themselves. You have my family's backing and full support and
we pray to GOD that more and more elected officials join you
in your fight to expose Able Danger and in your fight to keep
our Nation safe and secure, so no other family has to endure
what we did on 9/11, and what we continue to endure since
because of the acts of hate filled cowards.
Thank you again Congressman Weldon and God bless! Please
keep up the good fight on Able Danger!
You remain in our thought & prayers, as does our President
and our Brave Troops!
Sincerely,
A proud American,
John P. Owens,
Loving brother of Peter J. Owens, Jr.
____________________
