New Page 79

*****************************************

Able Danger

Campaign coffers profit from 911, coke and courts

FBI linguist won’t deny intelligence intercepts tied 911 drug money to U.S. election campaigns

9-11 widow questions why MSNBC host silenced her

Ron Paul: Federal Courts and the Growth of Government Power

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald’s indictments

STEALING ELECTIONS USING E-VOTE SYSTEMS: Diebold’s Global Election Systems (GEMS)

Pentagon bars testimony on 'Able Danger'
Operation allegedly identified 9-11 terrorist 1 year before attack

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAY OF INFAMY 2001 - Posted: September 23, 2005

WND - Sept 23/05 -The Pentagon has barred a pair of intelligence operatives from testifying before a Senate committee about a military operation that allegedly identified a major figure in the 9-11 attacks before they occurred.

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and civilian contractor James Smith were not allowed to answer questions posed by members of the Senate Intelligence Committee regarding "Able Danger," a secret data-mining operation that allegedly named Mohammad Atta as an al-Qaida operative a year before Sept. 11, 2001.

Both men, who were members of the team, were accompanied by their lawyer, Mark Zaid. The attorney told panel members he had been sent letters by the Defense Intelligence Agency, or DIA, and the Pentagon's general counsel's office which expressly forbid Shaffer from providing testimony, Agence France Presse reported.

When pressed on the issue, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the Pentagon had offered to provide members a classified briefing on the project behind closed doors.

"And as I understand it, the Judiciary Committee preferred to have an open hearing on a classified matter, and therefore the department declined to participate in an open hearing on a classified matter," Rumsfeld said.

Able Danger was a small, highly classified operation reportedly created at the behest of then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Hugh Shelton in 1999 to develop a campaign against international terrorism and, in particular, al Qaida.

According to reports, the Able Danger team had identified Atta, the lead attacker, and three others as probable members of an al-Qaida cell operating in the U.S. by mid-2000. That assertion, however, contradicts earlier government denials U.S. agencies had any prior knowledge of Atta or any others eventually associated with the attacks.

Full Story Here

*****************************************

Cover-up charged over Able Danger
Defense worker says ordered to destroy documents identifying Atta, will testify

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAY OF INFAMY 2001 Posted: September 15, 2005

WND - Sept 15/05 - An employee of the Defense Department says he was ordered to destroy documents identifying Mohamed Atta as a terrorist two years before the 2001 attacks on the U.S., Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., announced today.

According to the congressman, the employee is set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week and will name the person who ordered the documents destroyed.
Weldon says the documents were extensive, making up 2.5 terabytes – which he says represents as much as one-fourth of all the printed material in the Library of Congress.

The Pennsylvania lawmaker has been revealing information coming from people involved in the Pentagon's "Able Danger" project, which, beginning in 1999, identified and targeted al-Qaida on a global basis using advanced technology and data analysis. Personnel involved in the project have said even though they ID'd Atta and three others two years before the 9-11 attacks, they were prevented from sharing the information with the FBI apparently due to the Clinton-era "wall of separation" between intelligence and law enforcement.

Full Story Here

*****************************************

'Able Danger' specialist: I briefed 9-11 staff
Army officer involved in gleaning Atta intel in 2000 speaks out

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAY OF INFAMY 2001 - Posted: August 17, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

WND - Aug 17/05 - A military intelligence specialist who says he personally told 9-11 commission staff about the fact Defense Department investigators tracking al-Qaida were prevented from passing along information on the presence of Mohamed Atta and three other future hijackers in the U.S. more than a year before the terrorist attack has gone on the record about the incident.

Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer was involved in the Army's "Able Danger" efforts to identify and target al-Qaida on a global basis using advanced technology and data analysis, which began in 1999. He told Fox News he personally briefed commission staff in October 2003 about the Atta findings.

Though Atta's sleeper cell was identified in 2000, the information was not shared with the FBI apparently due to the Clinton-era "wall of separation" between intelligence and law enforcement. There reportedly also were concerns about the fact Atta was in the country legally at the time.

Shaffer has been working with Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., the lawmaker who last week first publicized information about the intelligence failure.

Full Story Here

Able Danger" & 9/11 Foreknowledge

The DETAILS, THE BACKGROUND, THE IMPLICATIONS

Full Story Here

ABLE DANGER - FACTS REPORTED BY CURT WELDON

ALL OF THE PIECES - GET THEM WHILE YOU CAN

Feel Free to Re-post & Distribute - But do it fast - while it is still posted

KEY LEGAL CASES INVOLVING FREE SPEECH and the FIRST AMENDMENT

(TO U.S. Bill of Rights, Rights that ALL American Citizens have)

Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939).
The United States Supreme Court held that citizens have a "guaranteed access" to streets, parks, and other "traditional public forum." The privilege to use the streets and parks for communication of views may be regulated in the best interests of all, but it must not, under the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied. Mere inconvenience to the government will not outweigh free speech interests. The government must use the least restrictive means of achieving legitimate, content neutral objectives.

Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939). The United States Supreme Court did not allow cities to completely forbid leaflet distribution in order to prevent littering. The objective of keeping the streets clean does not outweigh the right to distribute literature in public.

Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965). Public officials may not be given overly broad discretion to grant or deny permits or licenses for free speech.

Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940). Speech may not be prohibited merely because it offends some listeners.

Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290 (1951). The United States Supreme Court did not allow a permit to include any restrictions on a speaker's right of free expression. Permits may not be used as a prior restraint on free speech activities. Inappropriate or illegal activities may only be punished after they have occurred.

Forsyth County v. The Nationalist Movement, 112 S.Ct. 2395 (1992). A city may not consider the listeners' reaction to a speaker when permitting free speech activities.

Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965). Hecklers may not be allowed to veto a speaker's right of free speech. Police must control a crowd rather than arrest the speaker in order to maintain order. Regulations may be imposed on free speech to control traffic flow.

Gregory v. City of Chicago, 394 U.S. 111 (1969). Peaceful marching, chanting, and singing is protected by the First Amendment.

Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972). Free speech expression may be regulated for noise content in appropriate places such as hospitals or schools while classes are in session. The general test is to ask whether the expressive activity is basically incompatible with the normal activities of a particular place at a particular time. Unamplified speech is permissible for "street preachers" on public streets.

__________________
IMPORTANT NOTE: Not to be construed as legal advice. This is not intended to be, and does not constitute, the giving of legal advice. It is only a summary of the legal rights of U. S. citizens. It's important that one understand and be aware of decisions by the U. S. Supreme Court.