TOPDOG08.COM

« Judge Orders Release of Abu Ghraib Photos | Main | Shaffer accused of stealing pens »

September 29, 2005

"Trust the lines, they will protect you!"

I'd have to agree with Mark at Decision '08 that "my initial enthusiasm for William Arkin’s Able Danger series has declined in direct proportion to the number of installments." From Arkin's latest blog post:

Shaffer and other shadow warriors just don’t like lines. They think that they can conduct surveillance, analyze intelligence, enforce the law, and fight the war on terrorism all by themselves. As a result, they see the rules segregating intelligence from law enforcement, let alone intelligence from war fighting and policy (remember Iraq) as niceties that the global war on terrorism can no longer afford.

Not only is this an inaccurate description of the Able Danger program, but it's also a weak defense for the failure of our intellegence community to simply work together as provided for under existing law. Both current and past regulations were intended to allow different agencies to work together. Working together is exactly what Shaffer and Phillpott tried to do. Instead, they were beatened back at every turn by bureaucrats worried that "it's not my job" or concerned someone might "steal their thunder" by actually using shared information to accomplish something. It sounds like the General who compared Shaffer's team to "Kelly's Heroes" must have been one of Arkin's sources for this piece.

If buying photos of suspected terrorists who visit radical mosques in Europe means you are trying to "conduct surveillance" does that mean you can only use photos the CIA already has on file, instead of purchasing them from an investigator who might do that type of work for law firms or angry spouses all the time?

If connecting dots between open source databases and news articles means you are trying to "analyze intelligence" does that mean you can only rely on prepackaged information that might not even apply to your current objectives when you try to create new war plans?

If you discover that an international terrorist organization might be setting up operations in the US, are you trying to "enforce the law" all by yourself when you attempt to pass that information on to the FBI, instead of assuming that they will stumble upon it on their own in time to prevent an attack?

If you are tasked to plan for future strikes against Al Qaeda operatives world wide, are you trying to "fight the war on terrorism" all by yourself when you try to convince your military leaders that a terrorist attack is eminent at the Port of Aden in September 2000?

The more you listen to Arkin, the more it sounds like he is saying Able Danger, the one program that might have actually prevented 9/11, should never have existed in the first place! It sounds like he might have even agreed with the decision to dismantle it, just four months before 9/11, if he had heard about it at the time.

He brings up Iraq, but what does Iraq have to do with Able Danger? While Al Qaeda might be established in Iraq now, clearly Al Qaeda is an unconventional enemy and requires a different approach to planning that a conventional enemy with territory and an army. Does Arkin really fail to see that or is he just kicking up sand?

Ultimately, Able Danger was not disabled by "rules segregating intelligence from law enforcement" as Arkin suggests. Instead, it was doomed by bureaucratic leaders and cultures that enforced de facto segregation and kept information from being shared even when it should have been shared under existing regulations:

WILLIAM DUGAN: I guess I wish to convey to the committee that US person information is something that we are skittish about in the Defense Department. We follow the rules strictly on it. And we want to do the right thing and follow the attorney general guidelines.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Mr. Dugan, Mohammed Atta was not a US person was he?

WILLIAM DUGAN: Based on what I've read in the press since Sept. 11, 2001, I don't believe he was.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Mr. Dugan, you're the acting assistant secretary of defense for intelligence oversight. Can't you give us a more definitive answer to a very direct and fundamental and simple question like was Mohammed Atta a US person?

WILLIAM DUGAN: No, he was not.

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: We're dealing with the intelligence gathering data of the Department of Defense and prima facie reason is to believe and that had that information been shared and the FBI was trying to get it, 9/11 might have been prevented. I hope you'll go back and talk to the secretary and tell him that the American people are entitled to some answers.

Is Arkin really arguing that the one military program that might have prevented 9/11 should never have happened anyway and is not worth taking a second look at to determine if it might still be of use?

It is worth adding - as AJ has noted - that Arkin acknowledges Able Danger was justified to collect and share intelligence on terrorists:

Nothing restricts U.S. military intelligence from collecting information on real terrorists, and nothing even stops U.S. intelligence from passing information indicating terrorist involvement on the part of a U.S. citizen from being passed to the FBI.

These were the rules before 9/11 and despite passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and the creation of new intelligence-law enforcement sharing arrangements, these same rules apply today.

Then goes on to say Able Danger crossed the line, but can't say how:

One can only wonder at this point what information the Army's Land Information Warfare Activity (LIWA) really collected on behalf of Able Danger that necessitated a complete purge and destruction of its entire database.

Well, I would have to do a lot more than "wonder" before I questioned the credibility of officers prepared to risk their career to testify under oath before the Judiciary Committee, but maybe that's just me.

Posted by Mike at September 29, 2005 09:23 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.topdog08.com/cgi-bin/mt-trackback.cgi/794

Comments

Posted by: Vi Adkins at September 29, 2005 09:46 PM

Post a comment