Comments on: Able Danger and the firewall: getting some perspective

By: Fausta’s Blog » Blog Archive » Obama might involve Iran in Afghanistan plans, and other posts from friends & FIHMY

Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:17:30 +0000

[...] disastrous epidsodes. From the erection of the firewall between the CIA and the FBI in the 90s (see this post for my in-depth study of the lengthy history leading up to that decision), to the debacle at Fannie [...]

By: Cutler

Cutler — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

"This is an intersting blog you have. I am finding the same acusations of myself, this is especially bad for me (I am Arab American). I live in New England as well, in New Haven of all places, with the whole liberal uni types on the hunt for a "neo-con" or "zionist" (how funny you know?). I think I will link you on my blog.

Cheers,
Nouri"

God, I love the net.

By: Baron Bodissey

Baron Bodissey — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

I lay the blame for the whole mess, ultimately, on Richard Nixon. Probably no one after WWII did more damage than he did to conservatism and constitutional government.

Mind you, it took two to tango, because the press was out to get him. It's amazing that 30 years later the deadly consequences of all that appalling behavior are still unfolding.

By: cakreiz

cakreiz — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

Neocon- as aside. I commented above about the continuing impact of Vietnam on our politics, cultural and diplomacy. I asked a friend of mine about it. His theory was simple: moments of shame, defeat and embarrassment are much more definitional than victories. If true, the Civil War would have more impact on the South than the North (which is probably true).

By: akv0459

akv0459 — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

I think part of the reason for ignoring Able Danger(if this did happen) is the whole sticky issue of domestic intelligence gathering. The CIA isn’t allowed to do it. The FBI needs probable cause and can only do it within reasonable bounds. I also believe that this is partially the reason why there is the “firewall”. Able Danger using public information(or at least a majority of information accessible to the public) did essentially what the USAPatritot act has allowed Homeland Security and other departments to do now.

By: Assistant Village Idiot

Assistant Village Idiot — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

My limited experience with spooks in the flesh and in writing tells me that they distrust all presidential administrations. In a world of competing goods and lesser evils, it is not difficult for large minorities of intelligence agencies to be in significant conflict with their own agency’s direction, never mind the “allied” agencies and bureaus. If you ask 5 spooks if Reagan was good for America, you’ll get 5 different answers.

That’s fine. That’s actually good. But keep it it mind whenever these retired agents write books.

By: john moulder

john moulder — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

I think it’s too early to tell exactly what the fallout will be from Able Danger. Probably the 9/11 Commission was not very effective because of a lot of reasons, one of which was the obvious goal of some of its members to try to embarrass the Bush administration. One only has to read Ben-Veniste & Bob Kerry’s hostile questioning of Condoleezza Rice to get a feeling for this. Rice wouldn’t let them do it & I get a sense from the transcripts of her testimony of a quick-witted & very intelligent mind that was more than a match for their attempts to muddy the record. To them it must have smelled of those golden bygone days of Watergate. How ironic that the Commission’s partisan politics tinted myopia may prove more damaging to Clinton than to Bush.

By: cakreiz

cakreiz — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

dave: you’re certainly right about bureaucrats; no argument there. But removing walls between agencies creates a new climate that will be helpful. We’ll always have cravenly desk jockies. But rewarding information-sharing and proaction changes the tone and the climate that these folks work in. It can’t hurt.

By: bill

bill — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

goesh — yes.

By: David Thomson

David Thomson — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

Bears crap in the woods, scorpions sting, and bureaucrats refuse to ever place themselves in possible danger, however remote. It’s the nature of the beast. Are the new and startling allegations accurate concerning the Able Danger controversy? I am, at this moment in time, not quite sure who to believe. Still, I have no doubt whatsoever that a culture existed in the intelligence community which would have allowed such a disaster to occur. This is not even slightly debatable.

Bureaucrats tend to play it safe. When in doubt, they are encouraged to interpret the rules even more severely than explicitly demanded. There is no dogma more strictly adhered to by your long term government employee then “cover your ass, do nothing to jeopardize your career. You only have few more years before you start collecting your retirement benefits.” In other words, the wall is already high—-and the bureaucrats will inevitably make it even higher. The fear of unwittingly stumbling into trouble becomes an obsessive concern. What about defending the country? This is never, at a gut level, the number one priority to the bureaucratic mindset. At the very best, it might be a secondary priority.