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.Ya think?
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.[SNIP](Emphasis mine.)
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. [I’ve never heard of this either. –ed.] 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.
I guess the Pentagon did a little data-mining of their own.
So if the MPs ask you for any of your government IDs and you happen to be drunk you’re supposed to tell them ‘no?(!!!!)’
And I’m sure that there are millions of government pens sitting in the pockets of GIs and civilians right now.
But the worst thing is that the earliest incident of drunkeness happened sixteen years ago and the Pentagon expects observers to believe that LTC Shaffer’s security clearance is being pulled for that and the 1996 incident, with some so-called irregularities involving his Bronze Star and petty amounts charged on his government credit card thrown in for good measure. And, to top it off, they throw in some ridiculous and insulting petty bovine excrement about twenty-year-old pens. (If LTC Shaffer such a "desperado," why did he get a security clearance in the first place and why did it keep getting renewed?)
Then they expect observers to believe that this has nothing to do with LTC Shaffer’s coming forward about Able Danger.
It’s one big, fat legal non-sequitur.
By bringing up incidents that should have been adjudicated when they occured (and probably were), the Pentagon is behaving like a kangaroo court of a military junta. And it’s pointless to boot. Says Captain Ed:
Why now? It looks like the Pentagon will not avoid dealing with the Senate hearings on Able Danger and wants to get out in front of the whistleblowers in order to minimize the political fallout. By discrediting the witnesses in petty ways, it makes them look like kooks before the American public gets a chance to see and hear their testimony.Indeed it does.