Take a close look at the opening paragraph of Freeh's November 17 WSJ editorial ripping on Kean and Hamilton for describing Able Danger as 'not historically significant.' Freeh did not come out and say Able Danger identified Atta a year before the attacks. He said that Able Danger concluded that military personnel had identified Atta a year before the attacks. A distinction with a difference? I have more to learn, to be sure. Thanks for your blog.
Yeah, I thought that this Q&A in particular was interestingly worded:
3: They did not know, as it was not Able Danger's job to track individuals in the U.S. (based on legal restrictions).
In other words - if they knew, they shouldn't have known, so they must not have.... Right?
Incidentally, as question 1 points out, there is no legal reason they should not have known this. Both LIWA and the Foreign Visitor Program were watching people here on visas.
Commenting by HaloScan
