| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rdtf
CNO
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 2209
Location: BUSHville
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 11:50 am Post subject: Reasons: 'Able Danger' Officer's Clearance Revoked |
 |
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/30/AR2005093000117.html
| Quote: | 'Able Danger' Officer's Clearance Revoked
By KIMBERLY HEFLING
The Associated Press
Friday, September 30, 2005; 4:13 AM
WASHINGTON -- An officer who has claimed that a classified military unit identified four Sept. 11 hijackers before the 2001 attacks is facing Pentagon accusations of breaking numerous rules, allegations his lawyer suggests are aimed at undermining his credibility.
The alleged infractions by Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, 42, include obtaining a service medal under false pretenses, improperly flashing military identification while drunk and stealing pens, according to military paperwork shown by his attorney to The Associated Press.
Shaffer was one of the first to publicly link Sept. 11 leader Mohamed Atta to the unit code-named Able Danger. Shaffer was one of five witnesses the Pentagon ordered not to appear Sept. 21 before the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss the unit's findings.
The military revoked Shaffer's top security clearance this month, a day before he was supposed to testify to a congressional committee.
Mark Zaid, Shaffer's attorney, said the Pentagon started looking into Shaffer's security clearance about the time in 2003 he met in Afghanistan with staff members of the bipartisan commission that studied the Sept. 11 attacks and told them about Able Danger.
Zaid said he can't prove the Pentagon went after Shaffer because he's a whistleblower, but "all the timing associated with the clearance issue has been suspiciously coincidental."
Citing concerns with the privacy act, Cmdr. Terry Sutherland, a Defense Intelligence Agency spokesman, declined to release any information on Shaffer.
Shaffer says he received a Bronze Star medal for work on a classified operation in Afghanistan in 2003. According to papers provided by Zaid, the military is now questioning whether he deserved it, including challenging whether at least one person who backed Shaffer's nomination for the medal had firsthand knowledge of his actions.
Shaffer says he showed his government credentials during two incidents in 1990, when he was drunk, and 1996, when he was pulled over by police. The military says he misused his credentials, but Shaffer says he was not told he should not have used them. He also said he has joined Alcoholics Anonymous and has been sober for 13 years.
As for the pens and other office supplies taken, he blamed that on "youthful indiscretions" more than 20 years ago.
According to the paperwork, the alleged infractions against Shaffer also include:
_ Falsely claiming $341.80 in mileage and tolls fees. He said he filed travel expenses based on what he was told by human resources staff.
_ Obtaining $67.79 in personal cell phone charges. He said the amount was a legitimate expense accrued so he could forward calls.
_ Going over his chain of command to do briefings. Shaffer said he was providing briefings to higher-ups on projects even his direct superiors did not know about, and he received superior review ratings for that time.
_ Showing irresponsibility with $2,012 in credit card debt. He said he paid off the debt.
Shaffer, now a member of the Army Reserves, has been on administrative leave since March 2004. During the same time, he was promoted to lieutenant colonel on Oct. 1, 2004.
Shaffer has said he tried three times to meet with the FBI to convey the Able Danger unit's findings before Sept. 11, but was ordered not to by military attorneys.
Shaffer's assertions on Able Danger have been supported by Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa. If correct, they would change the timeline as to when authorities first learned of some of the Sept. 11 hijackers.
The Sept. 11 commission has dismissed the claims. The Pentagon has acknowledged some employees recall seeing an intelligence chart identifying Atta as a terrorist before the attacks, but said none have been able to find a copy of it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Since the message could not be discredited, now they try to go after the messager and attack his character. True Clintonoid behavior.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rdtf
CNO
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 2209
Location: BUSHville
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And this is all they could find on the guy?! He is even more credible to me now. The reasons are too petty, so of course they aren't the real reason. I hope he'll be ok, he may be out of a job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nutso
PO3
Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 271
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| He stole pens???? What kind of a guy is he? This is not a minor infraction like smuggling your shorts full of top secret documents, or faking war time documents to get medals for self inflicted minor boo boo's. No this man is a scoundrel by all measures of the word. He is the kind of man who would show his identification when asked I bet. I can see why they would take away his security clearance, rather than letting the whole world know what kind of American he is. I can understand smuggling an intern into the Oval Office behind your wife and countries back for the purpose of flavoring a few cigars, BUT NOT STEALING PENS. Please tell me this isn't so!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You forget, Gummint pens probably cost $500 each. That is expensive propitty.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snipe
Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 03 Jun 2004
Posts: 574
Location: Peoria, Illinois
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
US GOVERNMENT - black - medium ballerina
Hmmmmmm. I think that I still have 3 or 4 left from my government
service. These days though, I use a Pilot Precise V7 Fine, Black. From
WallyWorld, of course.
Sheesh!
_________________
Tin Can Sailor |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wing Wiper
Rear Admiral
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 664
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If flashing a military ID while drunk was an actual crime, we wouldn't have an Air Force or Navy pilot left on flight status. "Stealing pens", eh? I guess if he had several hundred of them it might have some merit. This just screams "made-up charges", unless they have some hard, serious evidence.
"obtaining a service medal under false pretenses".
No comment.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PhantomSgt
Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 972
Location: GUAM, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Every Government pen says it belongs to US right on the barrel. So how can you steal something that belongs to you. Maybe if they execute a warrant to search the Investigators's home they might find more than 21 bucks of government property.
Here is how the process works for government employees:
You leave work with a pen in your pocket and toss it in the console of the car.
They build up after awhile and towards the end of the fiscal year when your budget is frozen you gather up your goverment pen saving account assets and the office once again has pens.
By the way I wonder how many senior officers recieved a Bronze Star for performing far less duties in the AOR than the Colonel.
_________________
Retired AF E-8
Independent that leans right of center. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BuffaloJack
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1637
Location: Buffalo, New York
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As I recall if someone needs a clearance for a specific job and qualifies for it then it gets granted. Once the job is done and the individual is no longer actively engaged in the activity the clearance is revoked until needed again. This is just standard procedure. Having a clearance revoked casts no disparaging credit on an individual. His job requiring the clearance is just over. It's as simple as that.
Of course the lefties will make something out of it. It's a trick situation. It's like being asked the trick question, "Do you still beat your wife?" You can't answer it either yes or no without looking bad. That's just how liberals are. This is an opportunity to twist the facts into something they are not, and make an innocent person look suspicious for no good reason.
_________________
Swift Boats - Qui Nhon (12/69-4/70), Cat Lo (4/70-5/70), Vung Tau (5/70-12/71) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rdtf
CNO
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 2209
Location: BUSHville
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jack this is not the case - they yanked the clearance. He is still a DIA analyst and needed it for his job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PhantomSgt
Vice Admiral
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 972
Location: GUAM, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BuffaloJack wrote: | As I recall if someone needs a clearance for a specific job and qualifies for it then it gets granted. Once the job is done and the individual is no longer actively engaged in the activity the clearance is revoked until needed again. This is just standard procedure. Having a clearance revoked casts no disparaging credit on an individual. His job requiring the clearance is just over. It's as simple as that.
Of course the lefties will make something out of it. It's a trick situation. It's like being asked the trick question, "Do you still beat your wife?" You can't answer it either yes or no without looking bad. That's just how liberals are. This is an opportunity to twist the facts into something they are not, and make an innocent person look suspicious for no good reason. |
Security Clearances are based on level of access including some that are several levels above Top Secret. These are used for compartmentalized access to certain projects or duties. These levels most likely will be withdrawn after you leave the specific job. A defense analyst would be in this category.
Whatever basic level you are granted first such as Top Secret or Secret is good for five years and then you are given a reinvestigation if a clearance is still required.
_________________
Retired AF E-8
Independent that leans right of center. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rdtf
CNO
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 2209
Location: BUSHville
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2005 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Update:
LTC Shaffer was just on Fox with his lawyer, being interviewed by Catherine Herridge - (Sat am - 12:40 ET) His lawyer did ALL the talking. He is now no longer able to speak to the media or to Congress openly, or behind closed doors. Nada. He also does NOT fall under whistle blower protection because he is a member of the intelligence community. Also, Congressman Burton was there by telephone and said that he himself witnessed this 'chart' that has dissapeared, and would like to know where the wherabouts of the contents of many boxes of info that was subpeoned that had been stored in Crystal City (Arlington, VA.) The saga continues |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
The AP article posted above, hardly tells the whole story.
Many important facts were left out! (typical of the AP reporters).
Like the fact that Shaffer was only fifteen when he took some pens and pads from a U.S. embassy!
Like the fact that he gave his fiancee power of attorney to pay his credit card bill and she neglected to pay it. He was off fighting a war in Afghanistan for God's sake!!
Like numerous other FACTS that the reporter glossed over!!!
Frustrated by the inaccuracy of the press, Mark Zaid, Shaffer's attorney has posted a rebuttal at Captain's Quarters blog clarifying THE FACTS that the AP reporter left out.
| Quote: | The AP story that was issued Friday entitled "Pentagon revokes clearance of 'Able Danger' officer" was replete with many errors and unfortunate omissions that portrayed my client, who the reporter never interviewed, in a false light.
I would like to set the record straight so that everyone knows the situation. I set up the story so that a full and balanced portrait could be drawn. Of course I knew that unfavorable information would be reported, but so long as the substantive responses would be reported alongside we had no qualms about releasing the information. The information I submitted not only from LTC Shaffer to refute the allegations but also from independent third parties would show everyone how petty, pathetic and absurd the allegations were.
Unfortunately, the AP story was terrible. Despite having the documents in her possession the reporter made numerous errors and ignored crucial information. To say that I was disappointed is an understatement. Twice I got the AP to modify the story and yet still they just couldn't get it right, which is why I am submitting this post here. |
Continued at Captain's Quarters
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rdtf
CNO
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 2209
Location: BUSHville
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks so much for posting that, Shawa. I know it is important that they get the facts right, but even with the all mistakes it read like a joke and Shaffer still seemed very credible. Now even more so!
p.s. I am glad Zaid knows where the friendly folks are! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
thanks for finding that shawa--
recommend reading Zaid's entire post at Captain's Quarters
| Quote: | | First, the AP failed to understand the distinction between DIA and the Army. DIA is LTC Shaffer's civilian employer. The key allegations filed against him were while he served with the Army on active duty. LTC Shaffer is now a reserve Army officer. The Army took no punitive action against LTC Shaffer. Instead, with full knowledge of everything DIA was doing, the Army promoted him from Major to LTC in the midst of the security clearance revocation proceedings. This says everything. It was a slap right in DIA's face. Thus, it is his civilian, not military, security clearance that was revoked. |
I am dense here too...
the DIA is his civilian employer?
DIA isnt part of DoD?
knows someone here will be able to explain that to this civvie
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
