Specter: Pentagon Drops Hearing Objection ABLE DANGER

[seemslikeadream]

Specter: Pentagon Drops Hearing Objection 7 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - A Senate committee said Friday that the Pentagon has dropped its refusal to let five people with knowledge of a highly classified intelligence program testify about it publicly, but a Pentagon spokesman said it remained opposed to such testimony in an open hearing.


In a news release, Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the five will testify at an open hearing Oct. 5.

Asked about Specter's announcement, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, "Our position with respect to this has not changed. Our concerns have not changed." He said the Pentagon has not agreed to permit the five to testify in public.

Whitman said the Pentagon has provided a great deal of information about the program, called "Able Danger," to the Intelligence and Armed Services committees, and will continue to do so.

Spokesmen for Specter and for the Judiciary Committee did not immediately return calls seeking comment on Whitman's remarks.

The five people Specter wants to testify in public have said they recall an intelligence chart that identified Sept. 11 leader Mohamed Atta as a terrorist inside the United States one year before the attacks on New York and Washington. But Pentagon officials who have investigated the matter say they have been unable to find the chart or evidence that it ever existed.
MORE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/sept11_hijackers

[paineinthearse]

1. Who the )(*$#@@#)$#_ does the pentagon think it works for?

NWH, are you reading this?

[Tace]

2. Bankers -- Don't You Know?

The Pentagon is working for old banking families, just like all of Bushco.

[Usrename]

3. Rummy? They think they work for Rummy?

The unraveling continues, I hope.

[Tace]

6. I Dunno -- But Rummy's Sure Working For The Bankers

There are no doubt many, many, many honorable men and women working for the Pentagon -- like 99%.

[Robeson]

5. You don't really think they work for "We the People" do you?...

[Nothing Without Hope]

13. According to the Bush DOJ, THE PENTAGON WORKS ONLY FOR THE POTUS:

Like the Gonzales memo saying the President can order torture and that the Geneva Conventions are "quaint," there is another infamous Bush DOJ legal memo that blatantly lies about the Constitutional powers of the president. It is the Yoo memo. Here is an excerpt from a MUST-READ ARTICLE about the Yoo Memo - it already precipitated a constitutional crisis in the declaration of war by the POTUS instead of by Congress, and now this situation with the Pentagon refusing to testify simply builds on that. As long as Congress allows this treason - and yes, it IS treason - as it has, the president is in effect a martial dictator:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_186.shtml
Tiny URL for this extremely important article: http://tinyurl.com/clvac

The Bush Administration's "Enabling Act"

January 24, 2005 Issue

{Italicized in the original} In early December, without a word of public notice, the Justice Department placed on its website a lengthy September 25, 2001 memorandum entitled "The President's Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations Against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them." That document sets out, on behalf of the Bush administration, a plainly totalitarian view of presidential power.

(snip)

Reviewing the specific text of the Constitution, the Yoo memo makes the interesting discovery that "these provisions vest full control of the military forces of the United States in the President." In fact, Congress, not the president, is authorized "To raise and support armies … To provide and maintain a navy … provide for calling forth the militia...." It is Congress, not the president, that is given the power "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces...." Those elements of the militia that are "employed in the service of the United States" are to be trained "according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

The Yoo memo's treatment of congressional power to declare war is similarly dishonest. "During the period leading up to the Constitution's ratification, the power to initiate hostilities and to control the escalation of conflict had long been understood to rest in the hands of the executive branch," claims the document. This is true only in the sense that the King of Great Britain — that government's chief executive — claimed and exercised that power.

As Alexander Hamilton pointed out in The Federalist, No. 69, "The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States." "In this respect," continued Hamilton, "his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it," since the British monarch's power included "the declaring of war and … the raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution … appertain to the legislature."

In defiance of the unambiguous text of the Constitution, the Yoo memo declares: "If the Framers had wanted to require congressional consent before the initiation of hostilities, they knew how to write such provisions." As noted above, the Framers of the Constitution did exactly that — and the most influential among them pointedly reiterated that principle on numerous occasions.

(snip - much more, all of it must-read)

This excerpt is in one of the replies (#23) in THIS THREAD, WHICH I BEG ALL OF YOU TO READ IN ITS ENTIRETY - OPENING POST AND REPLIES - TO UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS WE ARE IN:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4790112
Tiny URL: http://tinyurl.com/8us5f
thread title: Missing A KEY POINT in *'s speech: POWER GRAB FOR POTUS AND MILITARY

The Yoo Memo and the obviously, blatantly unconstitutional powers now claimed by Bush MUST be repudiated by the US Congress, or the US is in effect a military dictatorship.

And no, Paine, I hadn't seen this till you brought my attention to it. Can't say it's cheered me any. Will add to the martial law thread - we are in such trouble here and the Press and the Congress just dither. GUess something similar happened in the fall of earlier governments to military dictators - there's still opportunity to stop it, but time is running out and Bush has clearly signaled his intention to proceed to full martial law - though it won't be called that. If it's given a name at all, it would be something Orwellian, like "Operation Safe America."

If the military obeys the President instead of the Constitution, and Congress illegally cedes to the President the power to declare war, we are in a military dictatorship. And that is what has happened. The consequences have been unfolding and will continue to do so if Congress does not repudiate this insanity.

[paineinthearse]

23. Blast this to the media and to progressive congresspeople

Please!

[Octafish]

33. Must be one of the things Chief Justice Roberts will answer one day.

Thanks, Nothing Without Hope.

There really is a BFEE.
They are un-American.
They are NAZIs.

[Ernesto]

27. Defense contractors

Don't cha know?

[0007]

4. The Pentagon stopped the Abu Ghraib photos from going

public after a Federal Judge said it was alright to release them. Now they are dictating to the legislatures what they will do and what they won't. This type of behavior is not in the interested of the American people and must be brought to a screeching halt.

[Nothing Without Hope]

25. Not just "not in the interest of the American people" - IT IS BRAZENLY

UNCONSTITUTIONAL and has led this country to a constitutional crisis.

We are at a turning point now, up or down for the Republic. Same thing has happened in so many nations - a representational government eroding and eventually falling to lassitude and the aggression of a faction supporting a military dictator and their own agenda. Think of history - there are many, many examples. And you know what they say about people who forget history being condemned to repeat it.

If the military obeys ONLY the president's personal orders, not the Constitution, and Congress has illegally ceded to the president the power to declare war, as they have,

what we have is a military dictatorship with some democratic-looking window dressing.

A quote comes to mind:

"No truly sophisticated proponent of repression would be stupid enough to shatter the façade of democratic institutions." -- Murray B. Levin, Political Hysteria in America, 1971

In those earlier nations, at some point the power shift was complete enough to finally make the last superficial trappings of a republic disposable without destabilizing the new power base. The primary allegiance of the military was ALWAYS key, and I believe too many in Congress, in the Press, and in the citizenry take the allegiance of the US military leadership to the Constitution for granted.

[0007]

31. So we are now officially a Banana Republic with one hand to be seen

from the drowning waters, waving "Hasta la Vista"

[Gloria]

7. Able Danger mentioned in a post of mine that was censored....

My first censored post.....

[converted_democrat]

8. What? I'm confused...

You had a post censored?

[seemslikeadream]

9. Was it a link that you used Gloria?

If you could I would like to have an idea what it was about

Thanks
SLaD

[Gloria]

10. Must have been....although it's no nuttier a site than others are

purported to be. Isn't Wayne Madsen the subject of derision? This is in the same category....but...no nuttier. Guy associated with 911-suit/women.

I hinted to take it with a grain of salt...and yet....

Does the name Barbara Olsen bring up fond memories??

[seemslikeadream]

11. Yes I know what you're talking about now

Thanks

[Usrename]

12. She was on the second plane to hit the towers, wasn't she?

Solicitor General's wife. What a horrible ride that must have been.

[Gloria]

14. Yes.....if she was on that ride......

lyra is spelled lira.......(my seed of doubt planted because of the spelling)...but....already doubt out there about the plane ride.....
so, which doubt do you disregard??

[Usrename]

19. Need my decoder ring for that one. But I never did like her husband.

Capable of anything, I would say. Listened to him lie to SCOTUS during Bush v Gore. No redeeming human qualities. I take it you smell another rat. Something more sinister than crashing planes into buildings. I like the way you see things. I will not 'misunderestimate' these folks again. At a risk of getting the thread "poofed", what do you think happened? Think hubby had it in for her cause she found out things? Convenient way to explain her not being around any more, if you were to say she was on that plane. Seems like she would have used her cell phone if she was on the plane.

[Lugnut]

28. Whoa

Babs was supposedly in the plane that hit the Pentagon. She also supposedly spoke to her husband by cell phone from the plane. Interesting.

[Tace]

17. I Dunno -- I Hold Madsen At Arms Length...

But I hold him with a lot more respect than Flocco... especially based on the technical difficulties with the Olsen piece.

[Gloria]

18. Yeah, I know what you mean....

But nothing would surprise me anymore....

[Nothing Without Hope]

15. The Yoo Memo:Bush Admin’s “justification” for *'s sole control of military

to wage war or to answer to any of his commands, including full martial law. It is blatantly unconstitutional, but Congress has passively failed to repudiate it since its issue in Jan 2005. Just as they failed to repudiate Bush's claimed power to declare war. An excerpt is given upthread here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1802447#1802544

We now live in a military dictatorship lacking only Bush's whim to suspend the constitution. I am not overstating this. The excerpted article above is ONE of many put together in THIS THREAD. PLEASE READ ALL OF IT, BOTH THE OPENING POST AND THE REPLIES:
Missing A KEY POINT in *'s speech: POWER GRAB FOR POTUS AND MILITARY
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4790112
Tiny URL: http://tinyurl.com/8us5f

[seemslikeadream]

20. Thanks Nothing Without Hope

Has this been posted at PI? If not do you want me to?

[Nothing Without Hope]

21. I've not yet posted anywhere but at DU. Feel free to post wherever you

think it will do some good. I am certainly not possessive about any of this information or about what I have written. (Though I am no expert and am only writing from the standpoint of an intelligent and highly concerned layperson.) However, I do request:

#1 - Please link back to my main current martial law thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4790112
Tiny URL: http://tinyurl.com/8us5f
Thread title: Missing A KEY POINT in *'s speech: POWER GRAB FOR POTUS AND MILITARY
and make it clear that both the opening post and THE REPLIES in this thread contain multiple important articles, links, and documents. There are still more I haven't posted yet, but this is a good start to get some of the pieces in the picture. I do plan to update that thread further and may start another in the future; when I do, i'll put a link to the new thread at the end of the old one.

The post on the Yoo Memo in that martial law thread is in this reply:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4790112#4790660

#2 - Please PM me links when you post on my thread(s) so I can see the comments and any further info posted in response. I'm trying to gather as much as I can, but I'm a rank amateur and need all the help I can get. I'm doing this because HELL - NOBODY THE F**K ELSE IS!!!! We need a group to do this right, get the documents and legal opinions and advice.

If there is going to be a LOT of posting outside DU, I can give you an email address, as PMing can get cumbersome.

I am wondering whether putting together a report with the high points of the martial law thread would be of practical use. The thread format is convenient, but too many people won't look at the vitally important articles in the reply train.

[paineinthearse]

24. Blast this to the media and to progressive congresspeople

Please!

[Nothing Without Hope]

26. sorry - I misstated - *** the Yoo Memo is from 2001, not 2005 ***

we need to study the whole thing - will look for a link online and post it in the Martial Law thread.

[mom cat]

16. The Pentagon is backing down? Is the tide turning? Really? or

have I just had too much of what George Bush is on!

[gordianot]

22. Specter makes a lot of noise and seems to be interested in the truth.

Then I remember what he did on the Warren Commission, I will never trust anything Specter says or appears to do in public.

Don't be surprised if this all turns sour and the Able Danger story is discredited.

[electropop]

29. Seems to me Specter doesn't give a shit what the Pentagram wants.

He's kicking ass and taking names. He wants to go out with a bang.

[gordianot]

34. Could be making up for past sins. Stranger things have happened.

[Imagevision]

30. Pentagon fears letting out what and when they knew about pre 9-11 info

they're covering their asses and the last thing they're going for is an investigation

[madmom]

32. this just gave them time to tell them what to say and not say..n/t