Talk:Able Danger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States / September 11, 2001 (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject September 11, 2001 (marked as Low-importance).
 

This is BRAVO SIERRA!![edit]

This WP article is totally bolloxed as the Brits would say. The guys involved in ABLE DANGER were on record that they had identified the 9/11 plotters and their target package long before 9/11 happened. Even retired, out-of-the-loop guys like COL David Hackworth had fingered O.B.L. more than a year before 9/11. That's not a GD conspiracy theory!! I personally ID'ed what was going to happen, and the consequences (Homeland Security, Iraq invasion, etc.) a full year before 9/11. I used to be a regular Wikipedian but I stopped because this armpit of a resource is lousy with left-wing-extremists, globalists and liberal 'know-it-all's. That's my $.02 worth. You guys prove Orwell was prescient with that whole 'memory hole' thing, just edit Wikipedia and the 'facts' are magically 'fixed' to present what's currently PC. You pukes make me wanna gag! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.184.127.157 (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Whole article misleading about Atta ID[edit]

In the 30 or so too many mentions of Atta being identified throughout this most bloated, disorganised and dubious of Wikipedia articles (seriously a 5 paragraph intro?) there seems to be some important context missing.

This is the lawyer representing the Able Danger team at the Judiciary Committee hearings “Able Danger and Intelligence Information Sharing”

"Let me emphasize two specific items for clarification purposes because they have been distorted and invited undue criticism from some."

  • "At no time did Able Danger identify Mohammed Atta as being physically present in the United States."
  • "No information obtained at the time would have led anyone to believe criminal activity had taken place or that any specific terrorist activities were being planned. Again, the identification of the four 9/11 hijackers was simply through associational activities. Those associations could have been completely innocuous or nefarious. It was impossible to tell which, and the unclassified work of Able Danger was not designed to address that question."

I've found that with 2 clicks via the references listed in this Wikipedia entry. Now let's all wonder why it's left out while every available account implying that he was identified as (a) being in the US, (b) part of a terrorist cell and (c) a hijacker, is included.

It's supposed to be an encyclopedia, not your own personal conspiracy theory blog. The fact that anyone and everyone reading it will leave them with a false impression of what the majority of this article concerns means it would be better off being deleted entirely if it's not cleaned up and corrected. Attriti0n 14:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting dichotomy?[edit]

I find it interesting that the author of this article definitely exhibits a particular point of view (less so now since the neutrality is now in dispute) at the same time he/she relies heavily on the testimony of Weldon. Does any one else find it interesting that this is the same Congressman who maintains that Saddam had WMD's and smuggled them into Syria? Isn't this one of the least credible Congressman and isn't his answer always conspiracy? So to the obvious anti-Government author, you are now taking the word of the same man who had rallied heavily for the War in Iraq on the premise of WMDs, to this day... just thought you'd like to know who your champion is in this instance.

I find another interesting dichotomy that the same people who claim some sort of malfiesance on the part of the government in not acting preemptively on the data mined in SOCOM's Able Danger seem to argue the oppoisite points when discussing the warrentless wiretaps and the Evidence Extraction, Links Discovery, Ouatum Link (similar CIA data mining projects of mainly financial transactions to link terrorism) and the Military Commission Acts. In the instance with Atta and the data returned by Able Danger (however scant and losely correlated); after we all now know he did commit a criminal act certain people now assume it was a conspiracy/ cover up that the government did not act preemptively to arrest a person here in this country legally who had committed no crimes at that time based on nothing but circumstantial data mining techniques. The are actually arguing for the Army to monitor our civilian population and pass that information on to law enforcement to arrest people prior to committing any crimal act. So you now apply a different evidentiary standard when it suits one particular argument for conspiracy? So now what... is this Minority Report? You want people arrested on the presumption of possibly committing an act of terrorism after you already knew that act occured but for any future data mining program... that's an assualt on our liberties.

Sorry I had to repeat myself there because that is so asinine to want the Army monitoring us in one instance, but not in others. Pray tell how do we make that distinction? What is good data mining and what is government abuse?

Make up your mind and apply some congruity to your thinking. If it is an assualt on our freedoms and liberties to surveill people here leagally, then it is in all instances. If you want the Army to run a program like Able Danger and arrest and act on that information, how is that any different than the other surveillance programs? We now want the Army to be involved in monitoring the actions of legal Americans?

Anyone care to answer how you can have it both way simultaneously?

--Amhippi 22:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Curt Weldon can have it both ways simultaneously, as evidenced by him first jumping on the 2005 reporting of this story as a revelation, and also claiming that he personally had this same chart in 2001 and gave it to someone.
Personally I would like to see some wizards and dragons added to really flesh this out. The story as it stands involving a pre-2001 examination of a chart which nobody can show existed before 2001, nor state when that "almost a year before" actually was and which has been found to not be the case by each investigation subsequent to this claim really isn't keeping me interested. Sounds just like obvious BS and nothing suggests that isn't the case. Still, maybe the movie will have a great soundtrack.
-- Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.65.16.12 (talk) 04:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Why I got rid of the "Able Danger in Media Mainstreams" and "Timeline" sections[edit]

Hi everybody, I just did a bit of editing to this page. Those of you on the conspiracy side of things will note that the final two sections, "Able Danger in Media Mainstreams," and "Timeline" have both been removed. My reasons for removing these are as follows.

1. The program Able Danger has in fact been discussed in the media from the New York Times to CNN to Prisonplanet, from the Washington Post to the Jurist Review. it is completely redundant to say that information about Able Danger has become available in "media mainstreams" [sic].

2. Furthermore, the "Mainstreams" bit was misleading in that it strongly implied that American media was unwilling or, worse, 'prevented' from discussing Able Danger, which even a superficial awareness of the history of the Able Danger conspiracy theory will disprove.

3. Much of the section was devoted to advertising for the "film noir style" Able Danger movie to be released in 2008. It is completely inappropriate to use Wikipedia as personal advertising space for pet projects.

The "Mainstreams" section was, at best, useless; at worst, deliberately misleading and used solely as commercial advertising space.

As for the "Timeline:"

1. The "Timeline" included roughly ten events that leave out the entire Able Danger story. There was no mention of any significant who, what, where, when or why pertaining to the actual investigations of Able Danger. The chronology presented there itself was actively misleading in that it only reported events important to promoters of conspiracy theories rather than the truth. This alone should be sufficient reason to delete it.

2. However, I also felt it was inappropriate to condense the entire article into ten events with no explanation or descriptions offered of any of them. Especially considering this compression was done in the interest of promoting conspiracy theories, it was extremely inappropriate to present an Able Danger 'timeline' in this fashion.

The "Timeline" was misleading and flagrantly biased. For that reason, I also removed it from this article.

Can someone rewrite this[edit]

Can someone rewrite this, I am not sure what it is trying to convey: "The public coverage of the release of these reports left out the fact that the DoD IG report concluded that while Army pre-9/11 data bases were found to contain the name "Atta" in context of a potential terrorism threat, it was not ABLE DANGER related due to the name being found in an Army database; the DoD IG report failing to mention the fact that the Army database in question was the source database for the SOCOM ABLE DANGER team [1]." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, can someone rewrite this entire article? It is a study in the use of weasel words and quote-mining.--Jlray (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I have moved them here in case someone wants to use them as references, but they serve no use, anyone can just type in Able Danger in GNews if they want lots of articles:


Daniel Hopsicker[edit]

Why is there no mention of Daniel Hopsicker, the anti-9-11-truth-truth investigative reporter who has nearly as much coverage as the 9-11 truth websites?

http://www.wbpnet.org/Research%20Library/911/Able%20Danger%20Protected%20Heroin%20Trafficking.pdf

Able Danger Intel Exposed "Protected" Heroin Trafficking August 17,2005-Venice, FL. by Daniel Hopsicker

Hopsicker Mohamed Atta was protected from official scrutiny as part of an officially-protected cocaine and heroin trafficking network with ties to top political figures, including Republican officials Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris, and it was this fact—and not the “terrible lapses” of “weak on terror” Clinton Administration officials cited by Republican Congressman Curt Weldon—which shielded him from being apprehended before the 9.11 attack.

Weldon alleges that Pentagon lawyers rejected the military intelligence unit’s recommendation to apprehend Atta because he was in the country legally, and therefore information on him could not be shared with law enforcement.

But the “terrible lapses” cited by Weldon do not stem from the nonsensical assertion that Atta had a green card (he did not) which rendered him immune from military investigation but were the result of an officially-protected heroin trafficking operation being conducted on planes like those of Wally Hilliard, whose Lear jet flew "milk runs" down and back to Venezuela every week for 39 weeks in a row before finally running afoul of local DEA agents not been clued-in on the 'joke.'

Full article and video:http://www.madcowprod.com/08172005.html

For that matter why is there almost no coverage of this man's research and theories, books and videos on WP, except when independently verified (such as the assasination attempt of GW Bush)? By contrast, there is quite a lot on the 911-truth movement which is obvious disinformation.Bachcell (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there's no coverage of Hopsicker's work because he's dishonest conspiracy theorist. Apart from the endless stories about how any discovery of drugs in a particular state is instantly under the control of any high ranking politician from that same state he wishes to implicate, asserted as a matter of fact and reference-free, how about the topic at hand which concerns al Qaeda. His track record on that has been to fabricate interviews with people to invent unverifiable but juicy back stories and to willingly and repeatedly lie to further an angle.
Personally I like his dogged questioning of how could radical Islamists visit strip clubs and drink alcohol, which he raises in order to suggest the actions of the suspects contradict them being actual Islamists. I haven't visited his website for a few years but after reading this about 20 times I google searched his site for the term "takfir" which returned zero results. This is of course the theology which allows Islamists to also kill Muslims, innocent civilians and commit suicide in bombings, all of which are more significant than a rum and coke.
Perhaps a less dishonest or more capable investigator -- even one who did not want to do even brief research into the origins and philosophy of al Qaeda and its leaders -- might have realised these drinking and perving activities pretty closely matched those of the previous WTC plot mastermind (Yousef) while in cohorts with the 9/11 mastermind (KSM), neither of whose bona-fides were in question. Or maybe even just hit up the #1 google search result for al Qaeda, its wiki entry, which includes multiple references to takfir as the explanation to the question he's still posing because it's just so useful for his alternate, yet more entertaining, story. Fiction usually is.
Meanwhile, you're pointing to him as an alternative to "obvious disinformation", as though flat out fiction is any step up.
-- Dave, whose Wiki username and password were forgotten years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.65.16.12 (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Prague[edit]

What makes Able Danger significant is that the 9/11 Commission received testimony about it, but failed to mention it in the report. Yet this fact is not even mentioned in the overlong lede or even in the "overview." And why didn't commission mention it? The only reason given here is the official explanation that AD is "suspect." But it has also been noted that AD undercuts the commission's timeline for Atta. This timeline is the only basis for the claim that Atta could not have been Prague to meet Ani, the Iraqi diplomat there. Kauffner (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What is Able Danger[edit]

I would like to remind everybody that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. In the begininning section of the article i can read that "Able Danger was a classified military planning effort led by the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). It was created as a result of a directive from the Joint Chiefs of Staff in early October 1999 by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, to develop an information operations campaign plan against transnational terrorism."

From that moment on a discussion of how able danger is seen in light of nine eleven goes on. Please, can somebody who nows more about this topic help to rewrite this article?

What was "able danger"? Whas it a group of people in the above mentioned SOCOM and DIA? Was it a plan how to fight terrorism? Was it a department with its own budget and surveillance possibilities?

As a introduction to the article this is all to vague- and what follows so detailed and special that everybody not familliar with "able danger" and how it is seen/not seen in light of 9/11 inside the U.S. is unable, imhop, to read and unerstand this article.

At least I am. Please let agenda (did they now about 9/11 or not) not forget us that wp first of all shall be encyclopedic best regards --77.76.207.6 (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)