# How large a scandal is Able Danger? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 23, 2005, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-scandal-is-able-danger/322998 "2005-09-23T02:21:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-scandal-is-able-danger/322998/1 "2005-09-23T02:21:59Z")
I am starving for information. I’m very confused about why the mainstream media isn’t at least mentioning what’s going on…they’re become permanent hurricane channels, it appears. Background information here for those of you [unfamiliar](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger). I missed last night’s C-SPAN hearings and their site isn’t playing nice. Did anyone catch it? This is all Wiki provides: > [@](#): > > U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter held a hearing on September 21, 2005 looking into the facts about Able Danger. However, Lt. Col Shafer and the other four members of Able Danger were ordered not to testify by the Department of Defense. Senator Specter decided to go forward with the hearings hoping “to produce a change of heart by the Department of Defense.” [23] > > Former Army Major Erik Klein Smith, former head of the Pentagon’s Land Warfare Analysis Department, testified that he was instructed to destroy data and documents related to Able Danger in May and June of 2000. The instruction came from a top Pentagon lawyer. He testified “I go to bed every night and other members of our team do as well [thinking] that if [Able Danger] had not been shut down that we would have at least been able to prevent something or assist the United States in some way. Could we have prevented 9/11? I could never speculate to that extent.” So is that it? Nothing else is going to happen? Is this yet another example of a weighty bureaucracy leading to massive catastrophe or is it more serious – outright incompetence and coverup? It appears the Defense Department and the FBI is hoping to play CYA until this all blows over and it looks like it’s going to work. Besides the obvious outrage one may feel if people sat on and then deleted information\* pertaining to the 9/11 attacks followed by all the whitewashing and stonewalling and looking the other way – one has to ask, could this possibly happen again? **Has anything changed?** - 2.5 terabytes according to most sources. How could they obtain that much information? Wowzers! ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-scandal-is-able-danger/322998/2 "2005-09-23T16:52:27Z")
> [@](#): > > Former Army Major Erik Klein Smith, former head of the Pentagon’s Land Warfare Analysis Department, testified that he was instructed to destroy data and documents related to Able Danger in May and June of 2000. Note the dates. The Commander-in-Chief at that time is long since out of office. So what would be the point of a major effort at playing this scandal up? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-scandal-is-able-danger/322998/3 "2005-09-23T18:42:40Z")
> [@mstay](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > However, Lt. Col Shafer and the other four members of Able Danger were ordered not to testify by the Department of Defense. :eek: They can **do** that?! ---
**Author:** ![Reloy3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c68b51/32.png) [@Reloy3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reloy3)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-scandal-is-able-danger/322998/4 "2005-09-23T19:36:55Z")
No one is going to make a huge squawk over this because it makes both parties look bad - The Clinton administration ignored it, and was possibly using the military to spy on US citizens, and the Bush administration covered it up. No one would get political capital by digging. Shame, it is, IMHO, indicative of a larger problem of government CYA, even if it means compromising safety or the truth. ---
**Author:** ![Rufus\_Xavier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eada6e/32.png) [@Rufus\_Xavier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rufus_Xavier)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-scandal-is-able-danger/322998/5 "2005-09-23T19:37:51Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Note the dates. > > The Commander-in-Chief at that time is long since out of office. So what would be the point of a major effort at playing this scandal up? > > Regards, > Shodan Considering how often said Commander-in-Chief’s name is brought up in response to criticism of the present day CINC, and also considering he is a leading candidate to be the precedent-setting First Gentleman beginning in 2009, I have a hard time believing that the rationale you present has much traction in today’s power circles. ---
**Author:** ![zeeny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zeeny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zeeny)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-scandal-is-able-danger/322998/6 "2005-09-23T21:52:55Z")
> [@Reloy3](#): > > No one is going to make a huge squawk over this because it makes both parties look bad - The Clinton administration ignored it, and was possibly using the military to spy on US citizens, and the Bush administration covered it up. No one would get political capital by digging. > > Shame, it is, IMHO, indicative of a larger problem of government CYA, even if it means compromising safety or the truth. I think you’re right. Like **mstay** , I have been hungry for information too. Why did the usual right-wing smear machine suddenly drop this? Why aren’t the established Democrats running with it? I admit that I lean left of the current center on the issues, but I have no problem holding _anyone_ accountable for either incompetence or a cover-up. This is the danger of a highly polarized electorate. Without the possibility of smearing someone on the other side, partisans lose interest. And then we all lose the right to know what is really going on. All the politicians win; all the people lose. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-scandal-is-able-danger/322998/7 "2005-09-23T21:55:16Z")
> [@Reloy3](#): > > No one is going to make a huge squawk over this because it makes both parties look bad. Give that man a prize… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-scandal-is-able-danger/322998/8 "2005-09-23T22:12:45Z")
No, really – how can the DOD lawfully order any officer not to testify if summoned by Congress? ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2005, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-scandal-is-able-danger/322998/9 "2005-09-23T22:51:10Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, really – how can the DOD lawfully order any officer not to testify if summoned by Congress? The Department of Defense (The Pentagon) can certainly direct its officers, employees and agents to not appear before Congress. They just did it. The real question is whether the Congress will cite the officer, employee or agent, or the Pentagon, for contempt of Congress and force the Atty General to prosecute in federal court. My guess is that _this_ Congress will not put _this_ Pentagon in that sort of a bind. The next question is at what level was this Able Danger thing operating and to what extent can we think that the President, the Secretary or anyone else on top of the heap knew that it existed, what it had found or that the operation had been closed down. I know that the President is supposed to be responsible for everything but there is a limit to what can reasonably be required even of a detail guy like President Clinton. This has been simmering since mid summer and we still don’t really have much for details or names of anything but lower to mid level field grade officers, some of them reservists. I can’t help but wonder if we are dealing with some sort of _sub rosa_ operation that had to be kept from the knowledge of the upper echelons of the Pentagon simply because it was legally questionable. If the operation was legit you would think that the Bushites would be flinging brick bats at the Clinton administration but not even the PA Congressman who first brought this up or the windbags on GOP radio and TV are doing that. It is just passing strange. It is especially strange when you consider that it was brought to the attention of the 9-11 Commission and it did not think it was credible. The whole thing is more than a little amorphous and without form. Especially troubling is the refusal of the Pentagon to make their people available for _public_ testimony but avail for a _private, closed_ session. There is something going on here but I don’t know what it is. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2005, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-scandal-is-able-danger/322998/10 "2005-09-24T00:58:58Z")
> [@Spavined Gelding](#): > > There is something going on here but I don’t know what it is. What you and Mr. Jones just said. And I don’ think you’re telling each other fairytales. ---
**Author:** ![Frankenstein\_Monster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Frankenstein\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frankenstein_Monster)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2005, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-scandal-is-able-danger/322998/11 "2005-09-24T19:19:18Z")
Here is a pretty exhaustive account of Able Danger: [Inside Able Danger – The Secret Birth, Extraordinary Life and Untimely Death of a U.S. Military Intelligence Program](http://www.gsnmagazine.com/sep_05/shaffer_interview.html) ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2005, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-scandal-is-able-danger/322998/12 "2005-09-24T20:34:18Z")
Just to play devil’s advocate here. There are so many terrorist groups that want to do the US harm that I’m sure the CIA is flooded with informations - probably too much to sort in a timely manner. I don’t know what criteria our spooks use to put the best data on the top of the pile. Maybe it’s based on which analyst wrote up the report, maybe it’s flavor of the month (today it’s Palastinian terrorists, tomorrow it will be North Korea), but I’m pretty sure that for every story about how we “knew” about 9/11 in advance, I’m sure there were hundreds of possible attacks that never came to fruition that we will never hear about. ---
**Author:** ![zeeny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zeeny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zeeny)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2005, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-scandal-is-able-danger/322998/13 "2005-09-24T21:48:40Z")
> [@Spavined Gelding](#): > > The next question is at what level was this Able Danger thing operating and to what extent can we think that the President, the Secretary or anyone else on top of the heap knew that it existed, what it had found or that the operation had been closed down. I know that the President is supposed to be responsible for everything but there is a limit to what can reasonably be required even of a detail guy like President Clinton. This has been simmering since mid summer and we still don’t really have much for details or names of anything but lower to mid level field grade officers, some of them reservists. I can’t help but wonder if we are dealing with some sort of _sub rosa_ operation that had to be kept from the knowledge of the upper echelons of the Pentagon simply because it was legally questionable. > > If the operation was legit you would think that the Bushites would be flinging brick bats at the Clinton administration but not even the PA Congressman who first brought this up or the windbags on GOP radio and TV are doing that. It is just passing strange. It is especially strange when you consider that it was brought to the attention of the 9-11 Commission and it did not think it was credible. The whole thing is more than a little amorphous and without form. Especially troubling is the refusal of the Pentagon to make their people available for _public_ testimony but avail for a _private, closed_ session. > > There is something going on here but I don’t know what it is. I feel the same way. Something is going on here. I don’t want to get too “tinfoil” about it, but damn, this is frustrating! I remember seeing Richard Clark’s assistant (Cressley?) being asked about it on a cable news show when it first came out, and he said this information never crossed their desks. I can’t imagine that Clark wouldn’t have either acted on the info, or mentioned it in his book, so I assumed that Clinton never heard about it either. I also assumed that this was why the GOP suddenly dropped it as a smear tactic. I could be wrong in my assumptions (re the Clinton admin accountability), but I’d like to know why the Democrats haven’t picked up on it, or why the 9-11 Commission swept it under the rug. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-scandal-is-able-danger/322998/14 "2005-09-25T07:41:51Z")
As much as we all want the bickering, finger-pointing, and partisan ideologizing among our politicians to stop, when it does stop, it’s scary. Case in point Able Danger. (Case in poiint #2, immigration reform.) Does anyone know if anyone other than Congree or the President can demand an investigation into Able Danger? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-scandal-is-able-danger/322998/15 "2005-09-25T14:09:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Does anyone know if anyone other than Congree or the President can demand an investigation into Able Danger? If the topic were to reach critical mass in the press, the pressure would be too great to ignore. But that is not going to happen because there is a risk of the Clinton administration looking less than visionary and perfect. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-scandal-is-able-danger/322998/16 "2005-09-25T14:16:32Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > If the topic were to reach critical mass in the press, the pressure would be too great to ignore. But that is not going to happen because there is a risk of the Clinton administration looking less than visionary and perfect. What is the interest of the current administration and Congress in allowing the Clinton administration to continue to look visionary and perfect? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-scandal-is-able-danger/322998/17 "2005-09-25T20:04:02Z")
> [@Spavined Gelding](#): > > The Department of Defense (The Pentagon) can certainly direct its officers, employees and agents to not appear before Congress. They just did it. The real question is whether the Congress will cite the officer, employee or agent, or the Pentagon, for contempt of Congress and force the Atty General to prosecute in federal court. My guess is that _this_ Congress will not put _this_ Pentagon in that sort of a bind. I doubt it. But any officer who gives such an illegal order should be dishonorably discharged, and any civilian DOD official who supports it should be fired for cause. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-scandal-is-able-danger/322998/18 "2005-09-25T20:12:02Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > As much as we all want the bickering, finger-pointing, and partisan ideologizing among our politicians to stop, when it does stop, it’s scary. Case in point Able Danger. (Case in poiint #2, immigration reform.) > > Does anyone know if anyone other than Congree or the President can demand an investigation into Able Danger? There was the U.S. Office of the Independent Counsel, but it expired in 1999 (after Kenneth Starr had thoroughly befouled whatever credibility the office had enjoyed). [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent\_counsel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_counsel) The U.S. Office of Special Counsel still exists ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office\_of\_Special\_Counsel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Counsel)), but its authority is mostly limited to protecting “whistleblowers” within the federal bureaucracy ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office\_of\_Special\_Counsel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Counsel)). Otherwise, no, only the Justice Department (headed by a presidential appointee) or Congress could mount an investigation. Certainly, IMO, we **need** some politically independent authority to investigate such abuses. See this thread: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=264462](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=264462) ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-large-a-scandal-is-able-danger/322998/19 "2005-09-25T22:41:27Z")
First, I think **Evil One** ’s contention is that the current administration and Congress may have no interest in protecting the Clinton Administration’s reputation but the LIBERAL MEDIA does and has suppressed reportage on the issue and therefore the critical mass of outcry necessary to a serious inquiry has not developed. I find this difficult to accept. It was not a LIBERAL MEDIA that beat the drum for a Whitewater Scandal or for the idea that President Clinton (or Mrs Clinton) had arranged the death of a White House aid. Those were pretty much instigated by what some have seen fit to call the Republican Noise Machine and they did receive serious investigation. If the So-called Republican Noise Machine wanted to jump on Able Danger, if the present administration wanted to attract attention to it, you can be pretty sure that the Limbaughs and the O’Rilleys would be beating the drum _and_ sounding the trumpet and that the necessary ten day sensation would be a reality in short order. The fact that there has been no popular out cry suggests, not that there is nothing there, but that such an inquiry would not benefit the present administration. That doesn’t mean either that there is something there or there is not. What it means is that the only way we are going to find out anything is a press or Congressional inquiry and that isn’t happening. Second, the matter of federal officers testifying before Congress involves some delicate manipulation of the separation of powers. If a federal officer is _invited_ to talk to Congress there is no compulsion to appear and talk and no impediment to the officer’s superiors telling him to decline the invitation. A subpoena is another matter. The issuance of a subpoena involves compulsion. The failure to answer a subpoena can be dealt with by a citation for contempt of Congress. This was a favorite tactic during the bad old House Un-American Activities Subcommittee days. If Congress was serious about finding out about the Able Danger Operation it would have issued subpoenas, not mere invitations. The existence of a subpoena would force the Dept of Defense to go to Congress to explain why the officer should not be questioned, or in the alternative, go to the DC District Court to try to have the subpoena quashed on legal grounds. A subpoena has a wonderful tendency to cut through the BS. Because on subpoenas have been issued I doubt that Congress is serious about this inquiry. Third, while the office of the independent counsel is gone, as **Brain Glutton** said, there is no good reason that an honest and energetic Congressional inquiry would not suffice. The problem is energetic and honest. I suspect that there is too much potential for embarrassment for that to happen. In short, we may be screwed. Again. .