Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00

[Azadre]

Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00
By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: August 9, 2005


WASHINGTON, Aug. 8 - More than a year before the Sept. 11 attacks, a small, highly classified military intelligence unit identified Mohammed Atta and three other future hijackers as likely members of a cell of Al Qaeda operating in the United States, according to a former defense intelligence official and a Republican member of Congress.

In the summer of 2000, the military team, known as Able Danger, prepared a chart that included visa photographs of the four men and recommended to the military's Special Operations Command that the information be shared with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the congressman, Representative Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, and the former intelligence official said Monday.

The recommendation was rejected and the information was not shared, they said, apparently at least in part because Mr. Atta, and the others were in the United States on valid entry visas. Under American law, United States citizens and green-card holders may not be singled out in intelligence-collection operations by the military or intelligence agencies. That protection does not extend to visa holders, but Mr. Weldon and the former intelligence official said it may have reinforced a sense of discomfort common before Sept. 11 about sharing intelligence information with a law enforcement agency.

A former spokesman for the Sept. 11 commission, Al Felzenberg, confirmed that members of its staff, including Philip Zelikow, the executive director, were told about the program during an overseas trip in October 2003 that included stops in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But Mr. Felzenberg said the briefers did not mention Mr. Atta's name. The report produced by the commission last year does not mention the episode.

Mr. Weldon first spoke publicly about the episode in June, in a little-noticed speech on the House floor and in an interview with The Times-Herald in Norristown, Pa. The matter resurfaced on Monday in a report by GSN: Government Security News, which is published every two weeks and covers issues related to domestic security. The GSN report was based on accounts provided by Mr. Weldon and the same former intelligence official who was interviewed on Monday by The New York Times in Mr. Weldon's office....
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/09/p...&en=e9cdef079cdc7331&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Ugh, I feel sick...

 

[Damnyankee]

Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00
By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: August 9, 2005


WASHINGTON, Aug. 8 - More than a year before the Sept. 11 attacks, a small, highly classified military intelligence unit identified Mohammed Atta and three other future hijackers as likely members of a cell of Al Qaeda operating in the United States, according to a former defense intelligence official and a Republican member of Congress.

In the summer of 2000, the military team, known as Able Danger, prepared a chart that included visa photographs of the four men and recommended to the military's Special Operations Command that the information be shared with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the congressman, Representative Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, and the former intelligence official said Monday.

The recommendation was rejected and the information was not shared, they said, apparently at least in part because Mr. Atta, and the others were in the United States on valid entry visas. Under American law, United States citizens and green-card holders may not be singled out in intelligence-collection operations by the military or intelligence agencies. That protection does not extend to visa holders, but Mr. Weldon and the former intelligence official said it may have reinforced a sense of discomfort common before Sept. 11 about sharing intelligence information with a law enforcement agency.

A former spokesman for the Sept. 11 commission, Al Felzenberg, confirmed that members of its staff, including Philip Zelikow, the executive director, were told about the program during an overseas trip in October 2003 that included stops in Afghanistan and Pakistan. But Mr. Felzenberg said the briefers did not mention Mr. Atta's name. The report produced by the commission last year does not mention the episode.

Mr. Weldon first spoke publicly about the episode in June, in a little-noticed speech on the House floor and in an interview with The Times-Herald in Norristown, Pa. The matter resurfaced on Monday in a report by GSN: Government Security News, which is published every two weeks and covers issues related to domestic security. The GSN report was based on accounts provided by Mr. Weldon and the same former intelligence official who was interviewed on Monday by The New York Times in Mr. Weldon's office....
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/09/p...&en=e9cdef079cdc7331&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Ugh, I feel sick...

I co-sign that comment

 

[BasketCase]

There have been a lot of comments and fears posted in CFC by folks worrying about the U.S. turning into a police state.

If you're not a police state, and you refrain from arresting four "likely" Al-Qaeda members, stuff will get blown up now and then.

The very same thing happened in London: the British government balked at allowing U.S. authorities to arrest some suspect who later turned out to be one of the perpetrators of the London bombings. If we'd arrested that guy, accusations with the words "police state" in them would have popped up everywhere.

So, which is it gonna be, then?

 

[eyrei]

There have been a lot of comments and fears posted in CFC by folks worrying about the U.S. turning into a police state.

If you're not a police state, and you refrain from arresting four "likely" Al-Qaeda members, stuff will get blown up now and then.

The very same thing happened in London: the British government balked at allowing U.S. authorities to arrest some suspect who later turned out to be one of the perpetrators of the London bombings. If we'd arrested that guy, accusations with the words "police state" in them would have popped up everywhere.

So, which is it gonna be, then?

Let the terrorists blow something up now and again. If we change our free society because of them, they win, even if we capture or kill each and every one of them. If we refuse to change our free society, they lose, even if we don't capture or kill each and every one of them. They hate our society, not our borders, so victory or defeat cannot be measured by body counts but by the persistance of our liberties.

 

[wilbill]

I'm not sure it's necessary to give up too many liberties to allow intelligence agencies to share information. The FBI didn't go after a warrant to sieze Zacarias Moussaoui's computer even after he was in custody. The reason was that they took a very narrow view of a law preventing the sharing of information derived from a criminal investigation with other agents involved in a national security investigation.

I don't want military intelligence spying on people within the US, either, but I'm not convinced that sharing information they come across about people living in, or citizens of, the US involves much loss of liberty. Certainly sharing info about possible terrorists among branches of the FBI doesn't cause me much concern.

Following Watergate, there was a strong push to put limits on the intelligence services because of Nixon's abuse of them in preparing his "enemies lists." Some of those limitations may have seemed appropriate at the time, but we weren't facing terrorist attacks then, either. I'm not a big fan of some of the provisions of the Patriot Act, but I don't see any reason to unnecessarily handicap our intelligence agencies, either.

 

[BasketCase]

Let the terrorists blow something up now and again. If we change our free society because of them, they win, even if we capture or kill each and every one of them. If we refuse to change our free society, they lose, even if we don't capture or kill each and every one of them. They hate our society, not our borders, so victory or defeat cannot be measured by body counts but by the persistance of our liberties.

Bah--here I go again, getting in a wrestling match with a moderator.

We don't know what a terrorist's real motives are. For some terrorist groups in the Far East, it's simply money: various factions use terrorism to control the local trade in drugs, diamonds, or some such.

No offense meant, but whenever I see somebody write what you wrote, I regard it a little warily. Each time, I wonder if the writer simply doesn't want to compromise human rights at any cost. And I wonder if, rather than just saying that, the writer is coming up with other reasons, such as "we can't do it because it's what the bad guys want us to do".


Anyway: since our intelligence agencies are likely to make mistakes now and then even if the whole nation is locked down drum-tight, we might as well just get used to the fact that something will go kaboom every now and then. The only thing likely to dissuade terrorists is if the whole government simply doesn't give a crap about its citizens. And, in many nations (including the U.S.) that's not going to happen for a very long time.

 

[eyrei]

I don't want to compromise human rights at any cost, including the downfall of the status quo in my country.

 

[Pyrite]

Without civil liberties, what's left to protect?

Power, wealth, influence, and safety from foriegn agressors mean little to nothing when your state becomes the agressor towards you. And without laws limiting the state from doing so, it WILL do so. Governments tend to exercise power, once given to them, to the detriment of their "citizens", although at that point, citizen becomes more or less, subject.

Not to say the alarm bells are ringing at the moment. Hardly. I do truly believe that the current powers are doing what they are doing for the sole purpose of preventing terrorist attacks. But power given can not be taken back, and that power WILL be abused if too much is given.

 

[BasketCase]

I don't want to compromise human rights at any cost, including the downfall of the status quo in my country.

But then we come down to this problem: on the one hand, there's yer basic public liberties; freedom from unreasonable searches, freedom from the CIA wiretapping our phone and Internet connection without a warrant, etc.

On the other side, there's the Right to Life.

One right or the other is going to get compromised, no matter what. Which?

Don't fret too hard about that one--I don't have an answer either.


Now, if terrorists are attacking us in order to turn us into a virtuous Allah-worshipping nation, where women stay in the home where they (allegedly) belong, where there's no smutty pornography on the news racks and no alcohol for sale in the grocery store, where everybody prays five times a day (whether they want to or not), and where being gay is punishable by death--that one's pretty easy to respond to, isn't it?

But what if a terrorist is attacking us simply to get us to stop meddling about in his home country, and doesn't care if we start eliminating freedoms? In that case, eliminating freedoms doesn't lead to "winning" or "losing" from the terrorist's viewpoint. He wins if he gets us to do what he wants.

Or, what if a terrorist is attacking us because his religious leader says a good person must attack the U.S. in order to go to heaven? If this guy gets caught and thrown into Guantanamo (or shot) before he can carry out the attack, he loses--from his viewpoint. The fewer freedoms we have, the more likely we are to catch him, therefore the more likely he is to lose.

 

[eyrei]

Hehe...have to go to work. I'll answer later...

 

[cgannon64]

Under American law, United States citizens and green-card holders may not be singled out in intelligence-collection operations by the military or intelligence agencies.

And if we had tried to repeal that - "Oh! Oh! Our civil liberties!"

 

[Pyrite]

"But then we come down to this problem: on the one hand, there's yer basic public liberties; freedom from unreasonable searches, freedom from the CIA wiretapping our phone and Internet connection without a warrant, etc."

Yes. That's one hand.

"On the other side, there's the Right to Life."

Call the senator. Have him outlaw death immediately!


"One right or the other is going to get compromised, no matter what. Which?"

See, on one hand, we have a decision that will effect the entire nation. Everyone will lose rights guaranteed by the constitution that we're told so much, is the greatest bastion of freedom endowing peice of paper to have ever been written on. But, that peice of paper only holds merit when....the government is scared we're going to hurt it..? Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bill of rights was included in the constitution before it was accepted by the states, so it would protect the people from the state!

But all that it takes is a big fire and a very, very small amount of deaths (if you really think about it) to cause the american public to give up everything, and I mean everything that was given to them by the blood of the revolutionaries?
Pathetic cowards. The lot.


"Don't fret too hard about that one--I don't have an answer either."
Heh.

 

[eyrei]

But what if a terrorist is attacking us simply to get us to stop meddling about in his home country, and doesn't care if we start eliminating freedoms? In that case, eliminating freedoms doesn't lead to "winning" or "losing" from the terrorist's viewpoint. He wins if he gets us to do what he wants.

Or, what if a terrorist is attacking us because his religious leader says a good person must attack the U.S. in order to go to heaven? If this guy gets caught and thrown into Guantanamo (or shot) before he can carry out the attack, he loses--from his viewpoint. The fewer freedoms we have, the more likely we are to catch him, therefore the more likely he is to lose.

Pyrite pretty much summed up my views on the rest.

As for the motivations of terrorists they make little difference (except for trying to figure them out so we can find a way to convince them to stop), from our point of view, there is only one way to lose, and that is to allow our society to change for the worse because we are 'pathetic cowards'.

Regardless, no matter how many laws are passed granting more unnecessary powers to the CIA and FBI, they are going to continue to fail until they get enough people capable of quickly and accurately interpreting Arabic. The fact that they haven't set up schools and require all new recruits to at least have a basic grasp of the language that the majority of our enemies use is just another example of the incompetence of these groupthinking old white men. They have all the powers they need at their disposal, but they are incapable of using them because they are too stubborn and/or arrogant to really try to understand the enemy.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Well, maybe I'll shock you but I hardly see this as a breaking news. It was a bit expectable. Of course, the American services knew few of the terrorists. Well, I remember what my September 11th day as if it was yesterday and I guess it's the same for all of us. If you remember well, investigators didn't need more than few hours to show us the face of Mohammed Atta.

The fact they get us his picture so fast on TV simply proves they were already investigating on them then. I doubt investigators would have shown us his face so fast if it was just a regular Egyptian guy flying across the United States. The fact the picture went so fast on our screen was already a strong hint that guy was checked by the American intelligence.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I'm not sure it's necessary to give up too many liberties to allow intelligence agencies to share information.

Exactly Willbill. And thank you for saying this. The debate over here is a bit off-topic however it's still interesting.

Let the terrorists blow something up now and again. If we change our free society because of them, they win, even if we capture or kill each and every one of them. If we refuse to change our free society, they lose, even if we don't capture or kill each and every one of them. They hate our society, not our borders, so victory or defeat cannot be measured by body counts but by the persistance of our liberties.

Despite how provocative is eyrei's statement, he's actually right. The thing is that I have strong doubts a police state would fight terrorism more efficiently than a democracy would. The more we would become a police state, the more fear would be spread across the country. This is exactly what terrorists are wanting. And actually, it would prove that terrorism is an efficient warfare strategy as it's changing our society in its very soul. This is exactly what terrorists are looking for, and that's exactly what would incite them to hit again.

There's nothing to change about our behaviour after a terrorist bombing. The British reaction after London's bombing had been perfect, and I guess unexpected. There had been several bombings, as much in Egypt than in London, and despite this, we aren't obsessed by those bombings. We couldn't do better to prove that terrorism is a deadlock strategy.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Or, what if a terrorist is attacking us because his religious leader says a good person must attack the U.S. in order to go to heaven? If this guy gets caught and thrown into Guantanamo (or shot) before he can carry out the attack, he loses--from his viewpoint. The fewer freedoms we have, the more likely we are to catch him, therefore the more likely he is to lose.

I have to agree with Basketcase on this one.

Freedom and Liberty !
After all that why we invaded Iraq. right ? RIGHT ?

 

[BasketCase]

That's certainly one of the main reasons I wanted Iraq invaded.

However, I was only posing what-ifs. Terrorists don't tell us the truth when they send their videotapes to Al-Jazeera--they just tell us what they want us to hear. No matter what a terrorist's motives are, my solution remains the same: find him and kill him.

In the end, there's really only one way to stop terrorism. Ask yourself why, among other examples, there are no Tibetan terrorists blowing up Chinese buildings. When you can answer that, you'll have the answer to why a nation gets attacked by terrorists.

 

[Marla_Singer]

That's certainly one of the main reasons I wanted Iraq invaded.

oh yeah... the famous link between Saddam and terrorists...

After 3 years I'm really starting to get fed up about hearing the same crap over and over. When will you understand that the invasion didn't deal with this at all ?

 

[Nobody]

clearly in this situation the authoritys should of acted. Do you really think that the civil rights of these men (not all men i mean right now just the terrorists) are more important than the thousands of americas, and the many thousands of afgani and iraqis who died because of them.

 

[Nobody]

clearly in this situation the authoritys should of acted. Do you really think that the civil rights of these men (not all men i mean right now just the terrorists) are more important than the thousands of americas, and the many thousands of afgani and iraqis who died because of them.