Able Danger Politics
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.
If you want to know everything wrong with the 9/11 Commission in a single sound bite, consider this from Al Felzenberg, their official spokesperson, speaking last Wednesday:
“There was no way that Atta could have been in the United States at that time, which is why the staff didn’t give this tremendous weight when they were writing the report. This information was not meshing with the other information that we had.”
In fairness to Mr Felzenberg, he was having a bad week, and a hard time staying on top of the Commission’s ever shifting version of events. It had emerged a few days earlier that a group from Special Operations Command claimed to have fingered Mohammed Atta – the guy who ploughed Flight 11 into the first World Trade Center tower – well over a year before 9/11. Or as the Associated Press puts it:
“A classified military intelligence unit called ‘Able Danger’ identified Atta and three other hijackers in 1999 as potential members of a terrorist cell in New York City.”
When the story broke, the Commissioners denied they knew anything about “Able Danger”. Then they remembered they had known about it but had concluded it was no big deal and “decided not to include that in its final report.”
Why’s that? Well, as Mr Felzenberg says so disarmingly, “this information was not meshing with the other information”. As a glimpse into the mindset of the Commission, that’s very interesting. 9/11 happened, in part, because the various Federal bureaucracies involved were unable to process information that didn’t “mesh” with conventional wisdom. Now we find that the official commission intended to identify those problems and ensure they don’t recur is, in fact, guilty of the very same fatal flaw. The new information didn’t “mesh” with the old information, so they disregarded it.
But, hey, let’s not have a philosophical discussion, let’s keep it practical:
There was “no way” that Atta could have been in the United States except when the official INS record says he was?
Actually, there’s plenty of ways. Ask the 15 million illegal immigrants: when a population half the size of Canada moves in without filling in a single INS form, why should Mohammed Atta go to all the trouble?
Did al-Qa’eda know about the illegal immigrant fast-track network? Yes, indeed. Fact: Four of the 9/11 killers boarded the plane with ID obtained through activists for the “undocumented” at a 7-Eleven parking lot in Falls Church, Virginia. Think that was the jihad’s first and only experience with “undocumented” immigration?
Or take the 49th parallel. Fact: On America’s northern border, no record is kept of individual visitors to the US. All that happens is that a photo scanner snaps your rear license plate. The scanner is said to be state-of-the-art, which is to say, as one Customs & Border official told me, it’s “officially” 75% accurate. On the one occasion my own license plate was queried, it turned out the scanner had misread it. So, just for a start, without any particular difficulty, a friend of Mohammed Atta could have rented a car for him in Montreal and driven him down to New York – and there would be never be any record to connect him to the vehicle anywhere in the US or Canada.
Would al-Qa’eda types have such contacts in Montreal? Absolutely. The city’s a hotbed of Islamist cells and sympathizers.
Fact: The only Islamist terrorist attack prevented by the US government in the period before 9/11 was the attempt to blow up LAX by Ahmed Ressam, a Montrealer caught on the Washington/British Columbia frontier by an alert official who happened to notice he seemed to be a little sweaty. A different guard, a cooler Islamist, and it might just have been yet another routine unrecorded border crossing.
So, when the 9/11 Commission starts saying that there’s “no way” something can happen when it happens every single day of the week, you start to wonder what exactly is the point of an official investigation so locked-in to pre-set conclusions.
For example, they seemed oddly determined to fix June 3rd 2000 as the official date of Atta’s first landing on American soil – even though there were several alleged sightings of him before that date, including a bizarre story that he’d trained at Maxwell/Gunter Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama. Mr Atta was a very mobile guy in the years before 9/11, shuttling between Germany, Spain, Afghanistan, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, the Philippines with effortless ease. I’ve no hard evidence of where he was in, say, April 2000. The period between late 1999 and May 2000 is, in many ways, a big blur. He might have been in Germany, he might have been in Florida, attempting to get a US Farm Service Agency loan for the world’s biggest cropduster, as reported by USDA official Johnell Bryant, local bank officials and others.
But I do know it’s absurd to suggest he was never in the United States until June 3rd 2000 simply because that’s what the INS says.
9/11 was a total government fiasco: INS, CIA, FBI, FAA, all the hotshot acronyms failed spectacularly. But appoint an official commission and let them issue an official report and suddenly everyone says, oh, well, this is the official version of 9/11; if they say something didn’t happen, it can’t possibly have happened.
Readers may recall that I never cared for the Commission. There were too many showboating partisan hacks – Richard ben Veniste, Bob Kerrey – who seemed more interested in playing to the rhythms of election season. There was at least one person with an outrageous conflict of interest: Clinton Justice Department honcho Jamie Gorelick, who shouldn’t have been on the Commission but instead a key witness appearing in front of it. And there were far too many areas where the members appeared to be interested only in facts which supported a predetermined outcome.
Maybe we need a 9/11 Commission Commission to investigate the 9/11 Commission. A body intended to reassure Americans that the lessons of that terrible day had been learned instead engaged in what at best was transparent politicking and collusion in posterior-covering and at worst was something a whole lot darker and more disturbing.
The problem pre-9/11 was always political – that’s to say, no matter how savvy individual operatives in various agencies may have been, the political culture of the day meant that nothing would happen except a memo would get typed up and shoveled into a filing cabinet. Together with other never fully explained episodes – like Sandy Berger’s pants-stuffing at the national archives – the Able Danger story makes one thing plain: the problem is still political.