http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/12799081.htm
The danger of Pentagon obstruction
By THOMAS J. RALEIGH
Special to the Star-Telegram
NEW YORK - Most people in the intelligence community would probably agree that fixing U.S. intelligence is a long-term and continuous undertaking; one that requires regular self-examination, frank assessments and discussion, and routine tweaking of policies, systems and procedures.
It is far from certain, however, that Pentagon leaders are equally disposed towards such introspection and perpetual improvement.
The Department of Defense has much to explain -- to Congress and the American people -- concerning Able Danger, the highly-classified, now terminated program that gained notoriety when it was learned that the department inexplicably failed to share with the FBI information it had uncovered on Mohammed Atta -- a year before the 9-11 hijacker and his accomplices flew their planes into their targets in New York and Washington.
Contrition may not be in order. However, one would expect that the Pentagon would want to get to the bottom of this and would fully cooperate with any Congressional inquiry. Not so. Since this matter first came to light, the Pentagon has consistently obstructed efforts by the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate this matter.
According to The New York Times, several weeks ago, in response to a request for information on Able Danger by Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter, R- Pa., a defense spokesman said: "Not only can we not find documentation on it, we can't find documents to lead us to the documentation."
The Pentagon also objected to the forum for the inquiry, suggesting that it would be inappropriate to discuss Able Danger in an unclassified setting -- a point to which there is a degree of validity.
Other Pentagon statements, however, including ones attributed to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, questioned whether the Judiciary Committee has any jurisdiction in this matter. On this, Rumsfeld is being either obtuse or disingenuous.
The Judiciary Committee clearly enjoys at least partial jurisdiction in this matter, specifically on a key issue in the Able Danger affair: Defense Department activities on U.S. soil.
Surely Rumsfeld, whose department controls most of this country's intelligence activities, is aware that oversight on intelligence matters cuts across the jurisdictions of a handful of congressional committees -- a cumbersome and unfortunate reality that the 9-11 Commission recommended that Congress fix.
Expressing concern regarding the protection of classified information that relates to U.S. capabilities is legitimate. However, Pentagon objections over jurisdiction amount to little more than bureaucratic stonewalling.
Then there was Rumsfeld's odd choice of a representative for the Sept. 21 hearing. He did not send Stephen Cambone, undersecretary of defense for intelligence, or the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, or anyone familiar with Able Danger.
Instead he sent William Dugan, acting assistant to the secretary of defense for intelligence oversight, who was only able to enlighten the committee about his own ignorance of the Able Danger program. (In his 1,000-word prepared statement to the committee, Dugan never mentioned Able Danger or anything about the program (
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=1606).
Finally, the Pentagon barred two people who had worked on Able Danger from testifying to the committee: Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, of the DIA, and James Smith, a defense contractor. (Coincidently, the Pentagon revoked Shaffer's security clearance two days before the hearing -- something that smacks of intimidation.) However, the committee did hear from Mark Zaid, an attorney who offered disturbing testimony on behalf of Shaffer and Smith.
Zaid testified that -- not once, not twice, but three times -- Able Danger personnel attempted to provide the FBI with information they had obtained on Atta. Zaid said that on each occasion, Army lawyers, using an "unduly restrictive interpretation" of laws and regulations concerning the collection of intelligence on U.S. persons, instructed that the meetings be canceled.
Zaid suggested that the Pentagon may have improperly destroyed Able Danger records during the period between December 2000 and March 2001. Zaid also testified that duplicate records, maintained by Shaffer at his DIA office, were apparently destroyed -- for reasons unknown -- by the DIA in the spring of 2004, a new and troubling revelation.
The recent Able Danger hearings ought to have resulted in a clearer understanding of what happened to a small but valuable intelligence program that went horribly wrong. By obstructing this investigation, in a manner that was as deliberate as it was clumsy, Rumsfeld undermines public confidence in him and his department.
There will be more hearings on Able Danger -- you can count on it. In light of recent reports that the Pentagon may be expanding intelligence operations that deliberately seek to evade congressional oversight, at the next hearing, the first series of questions Congress ought to pose might go something like this:
"Mr. Secretary, we have learned that it was Army lawyers who prevented Able Danger officers from meeting with FBI officials. It is my understanding that military lawyers provide commanders with advice, but operational decisions and directives remain the purview of commanders. What were the lines of command and control of Able Danger? What commander issued the order that prevented Able Danger personnel from meeting with the FBI? Who runs our intelligence programs; risk-adverse lawyers and intelligence bureaucrats, or warfighting commanders?
"Your former deputy Douglas Feith manipulated and distorted pre-war intelligence on Iraq. Then there was 'Curveball'; now Able Danger. That is a lousy track record. Could you please tell this committee, and the American people, why we should continue to entrust the Pentagon to run over 80 percent of this country's intelligence programs?"
Stay tuned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Raleigh, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, served in infantry troop assignments, as an Army attaché in Moscow and as a military adviser to the U.S. ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in Vienna. .com
