A strange nexus

The United States Department of Justice, Southern District of New York office has certainly been terrorism central this past decade. A listing of those who've worked there include our current Special Counsel in the Plamegate scandal Patrick Fitzgerald, who helped prosecute the Blind Shiek Abdul Rahman, and Detrick (aka Deiter) Snell, who was involved in the prosecution of Ramzi Yousef for the Bojinka plot.

Mr. Snell is now being thrust into the Able Danger crosshairs by Congressman Curt Weldon, who has accused him of purposely derailing the story before it could be investigated by the 9/11 Commission. That's a pretty serious insinuation.

Captain's Quarters has a post about this, remarking on the Newsmax story about Weldon. I have to admit, Weldon has not totally convinced me that Able Danger is a story yet, though I'd like to believe it. His rant this past week is a possible sign of frustration over the weakening limb he's teetering on. Unless concrete evidence appears showing that Atta and the other two were actually pegged, I doubt the story will ever get real legs. The DoD will stonewall him, and with only verbal testimony sans any documents, he'll have a tough time getting others to jump onboard ship with him. Well, maybe Michael Savage. But does Weldon have anything but "he said, she said" evidence?

That Snell and Gorelick were chosen as part of the 9/11 Commission Staff (rather than being called as witnesses) remains mysterious. Weldon claims Snell stonewalled the Able Danger folks to protect Jamie Gorelick's "wall" (commonly thought to be a hindrance in connecting terrorists to foreign governments). Guess he thinks if those two weren't on the staff, Able Danger would have gotten more play. But that's not cut and dried. They still don't have any concrete evidence. And there's that little Posse Commatatus thing.

But is there anything to this weird nexus? These people are all professionals, and sometimes they cross paths in many legal endeavors. If there were a conspiracy afoot, let's brainstorm as to what it would be..

Gorelick, Snell, and perhaps Sandy Berger could easily be accused of covering the tracks of Clinton administration terrorism strategies in the 90s. Apparently the plan was to treat them as isolated criminal cases and when faced with evidence of state sponsorship, start playing see no evil. One could say that Clinton wanted to avoid military engagements around the world in order to keep a domestic agenda on the front burner. Of course there was that little thing about his own military history. Ahem. Anyway, by treating terrorism as he did, the attacks continued and escalated leading up to 9/11.

Tunnelling deeper, Laurie Mylroie's main theory was that Ramzi Yousef was working for Iraq, but she also provided information that strongly suggested Sudan was behind a foiled bombing of landmarks around NYC in the mid 90s. Recently Louis Freeh came forward with information that suggested Iran was behind the Khobar Towers bomb, and that Clinton knew it. Conspiracists for years have claimed the administration covered up what really happened to TWA Flight 800. I would add that Egypt Air 990 also seemed like a really strange event. The Able Danger people now say they had information suggesting the USS Cole would be attacked.

So, in the backdrop of 9/11 there could be compelling reasons for certain players to bury events before close scrutinization occurred. They don't want the blame for 9/11, and they certainly don't want the democrat party to get that label. But hey--we are also using 20/20 hindsight to judge here. They obviously thought their strategy was correct, since I DO NOT believe Clinton wanted horrible terrorist attacks anymore than anyone else. His administration was successful in rounding up a number of thugs.

That Mr. Snell ended up a 9/11 Commission staffer is indeed interesting, and I remain open to a conspiracy. But without more hard evidence, it's still just a coincidence.