Able Danger Updated

Downs conceded that the Pentagon's difficulty in locating records of "Able Danger" was probably because the documents had been destroyed.
"In a major data-mining effort like this, you're reaching out to a lot of open sources and within that there could be a lot of information on U.S. persons," Downs said.

According to Army Regulations 381-10, which governs how the Pentagon can gather and share intelligence information, a "U.S. person" is defined as a United States citizen, permanent resident alien or a foreign national lawfully admitted into the U.S. for permanent residency.

"We're not allowed to collect that type of information," Downs said. "So there are strict regulations about collection, dissemination, destruction procedures for this type of information, and we know that that did happen in the case of Able Danger documentation."

Yet, AR-381-10 allows the Department of Defense to collect data on U.S. persons if the information is "publicly available."

Shaffer has always maintained that much of the information gathered for "Able Danger" was open source, or public, information.

Chope said if "Able Danger" documents were destroyed, it would have been done in accordance with established Pentagon regulations.

"In my view, there's no reason to destroy the ("Able Danger") data," Shaffer said in a telephone interview a few days after the briefing.

When Chope was asked if Mohamed Atta could elude an intelligence dragnet today if he was classified as a U.S. person, the commander said, "I don't know."

Shaffer, who firmly believes the Sept. 11 attacks could have been prevented if "Able Danger" had been allowed to continue, found the commander's comment unsettling. "If that's not frightening, I don't know what is," Shaffer said. "That's chilling."
Shaffer is trying to launch "Able Providence," a new and improved version of "Able Danger." But the current controversy surrounding "Able Danger" is inhibiting the new effort, he said.

That's an interesting tidbit. Shaffer is trying to get an improved version of Able Danger running. That would accord with Rep. Weldon's interest in data mining projects in general and his interest in Able Danger stemmed from his research on the subject.

There's also the question of how the Pentagon would be able to utilize data mining against terrorists, particularly those who take up the cloak of US citizenship. It would appear that the Pentagon efforts could be thwarted depending on how AR-381-10 and similar regulations are interpreted to allow the Pentagon to collect data on U.S. persons if the information is "publicly available." Consider that the definition of U.S person would have to be defined, and then the term publicly available would be defined for purposes of a data mining program.

If you define US person broadly, persons who come into the US by visa might be in a prohibited class or a restricted class of individuals where certain kinds of intel gathering would not be possible. If you restrict US person to only US citizens, persons entering the US on visas could be tracked.

Similarly, one could define publicly available narrowly or generally. Depending on which way you go with your definition, you could look at open source information only, or look at paid databases or other commercially gathered information that isn't easily accessible to the public.

These are just some of the factors going into how a data mining program would be constrained and how Pentagon lawyers could and do have an impact on intel gathering.

UPDATE:
Strata-Sphere has more on the latest 9/11 Commission statements relating to Able Danger:

Former members of the Sept. 11 commission on Wednesday dismissed assertions that a Pentagon intelligence unit identified lead hijacker Mohamed Atta as an member of al-Qaida long before the 2001 attacks.

Considering all the other statements made by the Commission that were reversed, retracted, or just plain wrong, one has to wonder why they'd make this particular statement. By pointing out Atta's name solely, are they giving credence to Able Danger pulling up other names? Possibly.

With the Roberts hearing, the Katrina aftermath, and the judicial nonsense coming from the 9th Circuit (Newdow strikes again), Able Danger is getting pushed out of the headlines. Congress will be taking the issue up, but the immediacy of the investigation is lost when you compare it to the needs of Katrina victims and getting a Supreme Court Chief Justice confirmed.