Police Officer Preparation & Law Enforcement Resource - Archive

Not that it would ever happen with Jimmy Carter Jr. in the Oval Office, but I'd really like to see some of these people like the Wikileaks founder taken out. Do they not realize they are not helping anyone but the people trying to kill Americans?


FOXNews.com - EXCLUSIVE: Pentagon Attempts to Block Book on Afghan War (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/09/military-intelligence-attempts-block-book-afghan-war/?test=latestnews?test=latestnews)

EXCLUSIVE: Pentagon Attempts to Block Book on Afghan War
By Catherine Herridge

Published September 10, 2010 | FoxNews.com

On the eve of Sept. 11, Fox News has learned the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency has attempted to block a book about the tipping point in Afghanistan and a controversial pre-9/11 data mining project called "Able Danger."

In a letter obtained by Fox News, the DIA says national security could be breached if "Operation Dark Heart" is published in its current form. The agency also attempted to block key portions of the book that claim "Able Danger" successfully identified hijacker Mohammed Atta as a threat to the United States before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Click here to read the full DIA letter (pdf)

In a highly unusual move, the Department of Defense is now negotiating with the publisher, St. Martin's Press, to buy all 10,000 copies of the first printing of the book to keep it off shelves -- even after the U.S. Army had cleared the book for release.

Specifically, the DIA wanted references to a meeting between Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, the book's author, and the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, Philip Zelikow, removed. In that meeting, which took place in Afghanistan, Shaffer alleges the commission was told about "Able Danger" and the identification of Atta before the attacks. No mention of this was made in the final 9/11 report.

Shaffer, who was undercover at the time, said there was "stunned silence" at the meeting after he told the executive director of the commission and others that Atta was identified as early as 2000 by "Able Danger."

"Dr. Philip Zelikow approached me in the corner of the room. 'What you said today is very important. I need you to get in touch with me as soon as you return from your deployment here in Afghanistan'," Shaffer said.

Once back in the U.S., Shaffer says he contacted the commission. Without explanation, the commission was no longer interested. An inspector general report by the Department of Defense concluded there was no evidence to support the claims of Shaffer and others. But Fox News has obtained an unredacted copy of the IG report containing the names of witnesses, who backed up Shaffer's story when contacted for comment.

Atta was the alleged ringleader of the Sept. 11 hijackers and piloted American Airlines Flight 11 into the World Trade Center.

Shaffer spoke to Fox News before he was asked by the military not to discuss the book. He confirmed efforts to block the book and other details.

Calling the move "highly unusual," he explained that the book had already been cleared for release when the DIA stepped in.

"Apparently, Defense Intelligence Agency took exception to the way the Army cleared the book," he told Fox News.

The documents and exclusive interviews, including an Army data collector on the Able Danger Project, are part of an ongoing investigation by the documentary unit "Fox News Reporting" which uncovered new details about American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and efforts by the FBI to track and recruit him for intelligence purposes after 9/11.

Of all of the people, IMHO, who should be tried for treason or treasonous acts, including our present CIC, I think this guy would rank nearly non-existant on any Treason scale.

Because the various Feds can't get their signals straight, you think this guy is treasonous for talking about what he did or knew, but no one listened? They'd have been better off to let it fly and not create a stir about it, which gives him credibility. In fact, its not like they don't have a "dirty tricks" shop that couldn't discredit him is there? Probably cost less than buying up 10k of his books.

We certainly have many enemies foreign and domestic. The very foundation of America is being attacked on many fronts politically, spiritually and ideologically.

They'd have been better off to let it fly and not create a stir about it, which gives him credibility. In fact, its not like they don't have a "dirty tricks" shop that couldn't discredit him is there? Probably cost less than buying up 10k of his books.

I agree. The more publicity he gets, the more books he'll sell.

If the Army cleared it for release, why is the DoD spending our tax money to buy all the copies? That alone is worth exposing.

I really have mixed feelings on some of these things. When it endangers people in the field, they should be summarily shot, IMO. But a lot of the flurry about these is because they show the incompetence of decision makers and it some cases, the possibility might make some leaders a bit more honest.

Dishonesty always annoys me and dishonesty by government officials pisses me off down to the bone. They lie when it's not even necessary and even when the truth would be easier to handle over the long run. But they get scared and get into the CYA mode too quickly. Tillman was an example. Why didn't they come out and give the truth on how he was killed? It was a terrible thing, but that stuff happens. Initially lying and covering up makes you wonder what else they lie to Americans about?

I don't know what info this guy has, but too many times the cry of "national interest or security" really means the interest or security of one or a group of politicians, bureaucrats or military officers. The nation isn't in danger, their careers are.

Of all of the people, IMHO, who should be tried for treason or treasonous acts, including our present CIC, I think this guy would rank nearly non-existant on any Treason scale.

Because the various Feds can't get their signals straight, you think this guy is treasonous for talking about what he did or knew, but no one listened? They'd have been better off to let it fly and not create a stir about it, which gives him credibility. In fact, its not like they don't have a "dirty tricks" shop that couldn't discredit him is there? Probably cost less than buying up 10k of his books.

You're right, I just get tired of reading information that is supposed to be classified everytime I open up the newspaper. Our government just sucks at keeping secrets.

Our government just sucks at keeping secrets.

Actually, they don't do that bad a job, considering.

A very good friend of mine is a retired CIA operative. (Not an "agent", agents are like our snitches). Of course, he's never divulged any secrets to me, but many times when we were discussing some event he's made it clear the history books are either wrong or don't have the full story.

Most any military operation involving more than a few people aren't going to be kept secret very long. You have to have everyone extremely dedicated to the mission and that's pretty hard given human nature. But again, my personal experience has been that most military operations they want so desperately to keep secret are because some high ranking officer screwed it up.

I'm trying to run out the door but Piggy has posted a topic that really makes blood spirt out of my eyes - the fact that secrets end up on the front page of some rag, or in a book for that matter. Everyone's made good points here to include RDS wondering if people are just covering up their mistakes under the guise of national security (in that case I believe both were at play), but since I'm heading out right now, let me just make a few points:

1) The reason people like the Wikileaks founder and others who divulge classified get away with it is because to prove its case in court, our government would have to divulge much more sensitive secrets, therefore they almost always choose to not act. This has been true for the 30 years I've been involved with it and it makes me want to throw up each and every time. Each time it happens, it has a profound chilling effect on our ability to collect, not to mention the guaranteed imact on people's lives.

2) Intel is very compartmentalized in our govt exactly because of #1 above. For that reason, it's no surprise that one organization or "entity" is going to know something more than another, i.e. have more pieces to the puzzle. DIA IS going to know more than the Army. And you can keep repeating that concept over and over to where there will be even very high level people in certain organization that won't even know what the public would expect them to know.

3) For the reasons RDS noted about human nature, conspiracy theories hold no water for me. I've watched things get divulged or compromised at the tightest, smallest, most secure level - which is why I will again say that the reason we really went into Iraq is not going to be known till the history books are written, and perhaps not then.

3) For the reasons RDS noted about human nature, conspiracy theories hold no water for me. I've watched things get divulged or compromised at the tightest, smallest, most secure level - which is why I will again say that the reason we really went into Iraq is not going to be known till the history books are written, and perhaps not then.

Like the Hell's Angel's motto, "Two men can keep a secret if one's dead". That's why I don't buy conspiracy theories either. Although I would recommend "Day of Deceit" by Robert Stinnett about FDR's manipulations regarding Japan pre Pearl Harbor. It has its slant, but some of the stuff makes you scratch your head.

And I wouldn't hold my breath regarding history books. The ones written by liberals are the only ones used in classrooms. An example is the way political correctness has now rewritten all the books regarding the Civil War era. (The War of Northern Aggression for my Southern friends here):biggrin5:

Assuming there is no classified information in this book, I completely disagree with the DIA's stance/actions. This is a First Amendment issue.

We cannot have government running around willy-nilly claiming things to be "national security" issues because they don't like what's being printed. I trust the Army - if they cleared it then let it be.

The jist I get from this is that the only "national security" they are worried about is internally. I have a feeling there would be a lot of pissed off people if it were confirmed that Atta had been identified as a threat, and he was in this country for over a yea before 9/11. That does not negate the right of the man to publish his book.

As for the wikileaks founder, unfortunately he is an Australian. Not much we can do about him.

Remember how they treated the FBI agent who reported suspicous pilot training?

Assuming there is no classified information in this book, I completely disagree with the DIA's stance/actions. This is a First Amendment issue.



DIA would not have their hands in it if there weren't classified info in it. The general public isn't going to know what's considered sensitive. For example, sometimes just putting a bunch of unclassified stuff together presents patterns that become sensitive.

I trust the Army - if they cleared it then let it be.



The Army does not have the big picture with regard to intel. The services are pretty low on the totem pole in that regard. And the Army's the one that "covered up" the Tillman incident.

Remember how they treated the FBI agent who reported suspicous pilot training?

Yep, Chief, that was within the Justice Deparment.

I trust the Army - if they cleared it then let it be.


Were you ever in the Army? I was and I don't. The Army should have given it to Intel factions to let them give their input first.

Were you ever in the Army? I was and I don't. The Army should have given it to Intel factions to let them give their input first.

No I'm afraid I have never served. I did look into the Air Force at one time not so long ago - being the computer geek I am I was interested in their "cyberspace" aspect while serving my country. However being that there's no air force base near me I would have initially been away 10 months and then home something like one weekend/month for 2 years. As I have a family and a business, that just wouldn't have worked.

What I meant by my statement was that I have faith in the powers that be to keep our troops safe. As such, I thought if they deemed the book "ok" then it must not put anyone in harms way.

Being that I never served I could most certainly be mistaken.

Being that I never served I could most certainly be mistaken.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big believer in the 1st Amendment and have concerns about classifying stuff for the sake of protecting someone's butt. I talked about that earlier.

Unfortunately, unless it's changed dramatically since I was in, the system is pretty disjointed and dysfunctional in a lot of ways. That is, people making decisions like allowing this book may or may not be the ones who would be affected by what's in it.

For one thing, no matter what anyone says, no one likes to be bearer of bad news and it's not always healthy for one's career to constantly tell some general what he doesn't want to hear. Therefore some of the intel that gets there may or may not be slanted. In this case, it might have been cleared by a couple or more generals who haven't a clue as to what's dangerous to let out and what's not.

That's why we created the CIA, to have a Central Intelligence Agency. Unfortunately, the military still resents it and refuses to completely cooperate with them. And the CIA is more political than it should be. There has always been distrust between the agencies and services.

...it's not always healthy for one's career to constantly tell some general what he doesn't want to hear.

LOL, RDS, how do you know so much about my life, LOL...

LOL, RDS, how do you know so much about my life, LOL...

Some things just don't change, do they?

I never had many conversations with generals, but I was in a recon company so I used to watch majors squirm and kick pebbles as I gave them info they had to pass upwards. I was pretty certain that neither my oral or written reports always made it up the chain as given. In fact, based on some decisions made afterwards by people I never saw, I'm fairly convinced they didn't.

It's not really that much of a joke that military intelligence is an oxymoron, is it?

As for the wikileaks founder, unfortunately he is an Australian. Not much we can do about him.
If some Aussie in an internet cafe is the biggest threat to national security, then you need to seriously look at upgrading your security. OUr internet is crap

If some Aussie in an internet cafe is the biggest threat to national security, then you need to seriously look at upgrading your security. OUr internet is crap

Internet security isn't the issue. The problem is some dork has fed this guy classified info and he's posted it on the Internet. Not much you can do from a technology perspective on that.