8 "The System Was Blinking Red"

1. Beginning in December 1999, these briefings were conducted based on slides created by the CIA's Bin Ladin unit. See Richard interview (Dec. 11, 2003). We were able to review the slides to identify the subjects of the respective briefings.
2. The exact number of persons who receive the PDB varies by administration. In the Clinton administration, up to 25 people received the PDB. In the Bush administration, distribution in the pre-9/11 time period was limited to six people. The Commission received access to about four years of articles from the PDB related to Bin Ladin, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and key countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, including all the Commission requested. The White House declined to permit all commissioners to review these sensitive documents. The Commission selected four representatives--the Chair, the Vice Chair, Commissioner Gorelick, and the Executive Director--as its review team. All four reviewed all of the more than 300 relevant articles. Commissioner Gorelick and the Executive Director prepared a detailed summary, reviewed by the White House for constitutional and especially sensitive classification concerns, that was then made available to all Commissioners and designated staff. Except for the August 6, 2001, PDB article, the summary could not include verbatim quotations, for example the titles of the articles, but could paraphrase the substance. Two of the articles--the December 4, 1998, hijacking article (in chapter 4) and the August 6, 2001, article discussing Bin Ladin's plans to attack in the United States (in this chapter)--were eventually declassified.
3. The CIA produced to the Commission all SEIB articles relating to al Qaeda, Bin Ladin, and other subjects identified by the Commission as being relevant to its mission from January 1998 through September 20, 2001.
4. See CIA, SEIB, "Sunni Terrorist Threat Growing," Feb. 6, 2001; CIA cable, "Intelligence Community Terrorist Threat Advisory," Mar. 30, 2001.
5. See NSC email, Clarke to Rice, Briefing on Pennsylvania Avenue, Mar. 23, 2001.
6. See NSC email, Clarke to Rice and Hadley, Terrorism Update, Mar. 30, 2001; NSC email, Clarke to Rice, Terrorist Threat Warning, Apr. 10, 2001.
7. See FBI electronic communication, heightened threat advisory, Apr. 13, 2001.
8. See NSC email, Cressey to Rice and Hadley, Threat Update, Apr. 19, 2001; CIA, SEIB,"Bin Ladin Planning Multiple Operations," Apr. 20, 2001; NSC memo, Clarke for Hadley, "Briefing Notes for al Qida Meeting," undated (appears to be from April 2001).
9. For threats, see CIA, SEIB, "Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack," May 3, 2001; CIA, SEIB, "Bin Ladin Network's Plans Advancing," May 26, 2001; FBI report, Daily UBL/Radical Fundamentalist Threat Update, ITOS Threat Update Webpage, May 7, 2001 (the walk-in's claim was later discredited). For Attorney General briefing, see CIA briefing materials, "Briefing for the Attorney General, 15 May 2001, Al-Qa'ida," undated. For more threats and CSG discussion, see Intelligence report, Threat Report, May 16, 2001; NSC memo, CSG agenda, May 17, 2001.
10. See CIA, SEIB, "Terrorist Groups Said Cooperating on US Hostage Plot," May 23, 2001; FAA information circular, "Possible Terrorist Threat Against American Citizens," IC-2001-08, June 22, 2001 (this IC expired on August 22, 2001); CIA, SEIB, "Bin Ladin Network's Plans Advancing," May 26, 2001; NSC email, Clarke to Rice and Hadley, "A day in the life of Terrorism intelligence," May 24, 2001.
11. See NSC email, Clarke to Rice and Hadley, Stopping Abu Zubaydah's attacks, May 29, 2001. For threat level, see White House document, "Selected Summer 2001 Threat Response Activities," undated, pp. 1-2 (provided to the Commission by President Bush on Apr. 29, 2004).
12. The information regarding KSM was not captioned as a threat. It was part of a longer cable whose subject line was "Terrorism: Biographical Information on Bin Ladin Associates in Afghanistan." The cable reported further that KSM himself was regularly traveling to the United States. See Intelligence report, June 12, 2001. This was doubted by the CIA's Renditions Branch, which had been looking for KSM since 1997. It noted, however, that if the source was talking about the "real" KSM, the CIA had both "a significant threat and opportunity to pick him up." See CIA cable, request additional information on KSM, June 26, 2001. A month later, a report from the source indicated that the information regarding KSM's travel to the United States was current as of the summer of 1998. It noted further, however, that KSM continued his old activities but not specifically the travel to the United States. Significantly, it confirmed that the source was talking about the "real" KSM. See CIA cable, follow-up source on KSM, July 11, 2001. As noted in chapter 7, KSM has said that it was generally well known by the summer of 2001 that he was planning an operation in the United States. Roger Cressey told us he did not recall seeing this reporting, although he would have had access to it. Roger Cressey interview (June 23, 2004).
    
    For the summer threat reporting and actions taken in response, see NSC memo, Clarke/Cressey agenda for June 22 CSG meeting, June 20, 2001; CIA, SEIB, "Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats," June 25, 2001; CIA, SEIB, "Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks," June 30, 2001; CIA cable, "Threat UBL Attack Against US Interests Next 24-48 Hours," June 22, 2001; FBI report, Daily UBL/Radical Fundamentalist Threat Update, ITOS Threat Update Webpage, June 22, 2001.
13. DOS cable, Riyadh 02326, "U.S. Visa Express Program Transforms NIV Scene in Saudi Arabia," Aug. 19, 2001; NSC memo, Current US Terrorism Alert, July 3, 2001.
14. See CIA cable, "Possible Threat of Imminent Attack from Sunni Extremists," June 23, 2001; CIA, SEIB, "Bin Ladin Attacks May be Imminent," June 23, 2001; CIA, SEIB, "Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats," June 25, 2001.
15. See NSC memo, Clarke to CSG regarding that day's CSG meeting, June 22, 2001; NSC memo, Current U.S. Terrorism Alert, July 3, 2001. For the readiness of FESTs, see NSC email, Clarke to Rice and Hadley, Terrorism Threat Update, June 25, 2001.
16. See NSC email, Clarke to Rice and Hadley, Possibility of an al Qaeda Attack, June 25, 2001; CIA report, Foreign Broadcast Information Service, "MBC TV Carries Video Report on Bin Ladin, Followers in Training," June 24, 2001; CIA, SEIB, "Bin Ladin Threats Are Real," June 30, 2001; John McLaughlin interview (Jan. 21, 2004); CIA cable, "Continued Threat/Potential Attack by UBL," June 29, 2001.
17. See NSC email, Clarke to Rice and Hadley, Possibility of an al Qaeda Attack, June 28, 2001; NSC email, Clarke for Rice and others, Terrorist Alert, June 30, 2001.
18. See NSC email, Clarke to Rice and others, Terrorist Alert, June 30, 2001; CIA, SEIB, "Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks," June 30, 2001; CIA, SEIB, "Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays," July 2, 2001.
19. FBI report, National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS) message, "National Threat Warning System--Potential Anti-U.S. Terrorist Attacks," July 2, 2001.
20. By July 3, DCI Tenet had asked about 20 of his counterparts in friendly foreign intelligence services to detain specific al Qaeda members and to generally harass al Qaeda-affiliated cells. NSC memo, Current U.S. Terrorism Alert, July 3, 2001. For specific disruption activities and maintaining alert, see NSC email, Clarke to Rice and Hadley, Threat Updates, July 6, 2001; Richard Clarke interview (Jan. 12, 2004).
21. For the Cheney call see President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting (Apr. 29, 2004). For the Hadley call see NSC email, Clarke to Rice and Edelman, Terrorism Alert, July 2, 2001. For the G-8 summit see Associated Press Online, "Bush Faced Threat at G-8 Summit," Sept. 26, 2001.
22. Veronica C. interview (May 25, 2004); INS memo, Veronica C. to Cadman, "Briefing at the NSC," July 9, 2001; Roger Cressey interview (June 23, 2004). The Customs representative, Ricardo C., did send out a general advisory that was based solely on historical facts, such as the Ressam case, to suggest there was a threat. Ricardo C. interview (June 12, 2004).
23. See CIA memo, "CTC Briefing for the Attorney General on the Usama Bin Ladin Terrorist Threat," July 5, 2001, and the accompanying CIA briefing materials, "DCI Update Terrorist Threat Review," July 3, 2001.
24. See NSC email, Clarke to Rice and Hadley, Threat Updates, July 6, 2001.
25. Ibid.; see also FBI memo, Kevin G. to Watson, "Protective Services Working Group (PSWG) Meeting Held at FBIHQ 7/9/01," July 16, 2001, and accompanying attendance sheets.
26. FBI report, Daily UBL/Radical Fundamentalist Threat Update, ITOS Threat Update Webpage, July 20, 2001.
27. Thomas Pickard interview (Apr. 8, 2004).
28. See CIA, SEIB, "Bin Ladin Plans Delayed but Not Abandoned," July 13, 2001; CIA, SEIB, "One Bin Ladin Operation Delayed, Others Ongoing," July 25, 2001; NSC memo, Cressey to CSG, Threat SVTS, July 23, 2001.
29. FAA information circular, "Continued Middle Eastern Threats to Civil Aviation," IC-2001-04A, July 31, 2001.
30. George Tenet interview (Jan. 28, 2004).
31. See CIA, SEIB, "Bin Ladin Threats Are Real," June 30, 2001. For Tenet's response to DOD's concerns about possible deception, see CIA memo, weekly meeting between Rice and Tenet, July 17, 2001; John McLaughlin interview (Jan. 21, 2004); Richard interview (Dec. 11, 2003).
32. NSC email, Clarke to Rice and Hadley, Threats Update, July 27, 2001.
33. FBI report, NLETS message, "Third Anniversary of the 1998 U.S. Embassy Bombings in East Africa Approaches; Threats to U.S. Interests Continue," Aug. 1, 2001.
34. CIA cable, "Threat of Impending al Qaeda Attack to Continue Indefinitely," Aug. 3, 2001.
35. CIA letter, Tenet to the Commission, Mar. 26, 2004; Barbara S. interview (July 13, 2004); Dwayne D. interview (July 13, 2004).
36. President Bush and Vice President Cheney meeting (Apr. 29, 2004). For Rice's reaction to the August 6 PDB article, see Condoleezza Rice testimony, Apr. 8, 2004.
37. The CTC analyst who drafted the briefing drew on reports over the previous four years. She also spoke with an FBI analyst to obtain additional information. The FBI material was written up by the CIA analyst and included in the PDB. A draft of the report was sent to the FBI analyst to review. The FBI analyst did not, however, see the final version, which added the reference to the 70 investigations. Barbara S. interviews (Apr. 12, 2004); Joint Inquiry interview of Jen M., Nov. 20, 2002. Because of the attention that has been given to the PDB, we have investigated each of the assertions mentioned in it.
    
    The only information that actually referred to a hijacking in this period was a walk-in at an FBI office in the United States who mentioned hijackings among other possible attacks. The source was judged to be a fabricator. FBI report, Daily UBL/Radical Fundamentalist Threat Update, ITOS Threat Update Webpage, Aug. 1, 2001.
    
    The FBI conducted an extensive investigation of the two individuals who were stopped after being observed taking photographs of two adjacent buildings that contained FBI offices. The person taking the photographs told the FBI that he was taking them for a co-worker in Indiana who had never been to New York and wanted to see what it looked like. The picture taker was in New York to obtain further information regarding his pending citizenship application. He had an appointment at 26 Federal Plaza, where the relevant INS offices were located. This same building houses portions of the FBI's New York Field Office. Before going into the building the individual pulled out the camera and took four photographs. When the FBI attempted to contact the co-worker (and roommate) who had requested some photographs, it was determined that he had fled without receiving his last paycheck after learning that the FBI had asked his employer some questions about him. Further investigation determined that he was an illegal alien using forged identity documents. Despite two years of investigation, the FBI was unable to find the co-worker or determine his true identity. The FBI closed the investigation on June 9, 2003, when it concluded that it was unable to connect the men's activities to terrorism. Matthew interview (June 18, 2004); FBI case file, no. 266A-NY-279198.
    The 70 full-field investigations number was a generous calculation that included fund-raising investigations. It also counted each individual connected to an investigation as a separate full-field investigation. Many of these investigations should not have been included, such as the one that related to a dead person, four that concerned people who had been in long-term custody, and eight that had been closed well before August 6, 2001. Joint Inquiry interview of Elizabeth and Laura, Nov. 20, 2002; FBI report, "70 UBL Cases," undated (produced to the Joint Inquiry on Aug. 12, 2002).
    
    The call to the UAE was originally reported by the CIA on May 16. It came from an anonymous caller. Neither the CIA nor the FBI was able to corroborate the information in the call. FBI report, Daily UBL/Radical Fundamentalist Threat Update, ITOS Threat Update Webpage, May 16, 2001.
38. See CIA, SEIB, "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US," Aug. 7, 2001; see also Roger Cressey interview (June 23, 2004). The Deputy Director of Central Intelligence testified that the FBI information in the PDB was omitted from the SEIB because of concerns about protecting ongoing investigations, because the information had been received from the FBI only orally, and because there were no clear, established ground rules regarding SEIB contents. John McLaughlin testimony, Apr. 14, 2004.
39. Intelligence report, Consideration by Abu Zubaydah to Attack Targets in the United States, Aug. 24, 2001.
40. George Tenet interview (July 2, 2004).
41. Condoleezza Rice testimony, Apr. 8, 2004; Condoleezza Rice meeting (Feb. 7, 2004).
42. Stephen Hadley meeting (Jan. 31, 2004).
43. It is also notable that virtually all the information regarding possible domestic threats came from human sources. The information on overseas threats came mainly from signals intelligence. Officials believed that signals intelligence was more reliable than human intelligence. Roger Cressey interview (June 23, 2004).
44. NSC memo, Clarke to Rice, al Qaeda review, Jan. 25, 2001 (attaching NSC memo, "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadists Networks of al Qida: Status and Prospects," Dec. 2000). Clarke had also mentioned domestic terrorist cells in connection with the possibility of reopening Pennsylvania Avenue. See NSC email, Clarke to Rice, Briefing on Pennsylvania Avenue, Mar. 23, 2001.
45. Roger Cressey interview (June 23, 2004).
46. This approach was consistent with how this same issue was addressed almost exactly a year earlier, despite the fact that by 2001 the threat level was higher than it had ever been previously. On June 30, 2000, NSC counterterrorism staffers met with INS, Customs, and FBI officials to review border and port security measures. The NSC staff 's Paul Kurtz wrote to then national security adviser Samuel Berger, "We noted while there was no information regarding potential attacks in the U.S. they should inform their officers to remain vigilant." NSC email, Kurtz to Berger, Steinberg, and Rudman, warning re: UBL threat reporting, June 30, 2000.
47. FAA briefing materials, Office of Civil Aviation Security, "The Transnational Threat to Civil Aviation," undated (slide 24). The presentation did indicate, however, that if a hijacker was intending to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, the terrorist would be likely to prefer a domestic hijacking. Between July 27 and September 11, 2001, the FAA did issue five new Security Directives to air carriers requiring them to take some specific security measures. Two continued certain measures that had been in place for at least a year. Others related only to carrying specific passengers. See FAA security directives, SD 108-98, July 27, 2001; SD 108-00, July 27, 2001; SD 10800, July 27, 2001; SD 108-01, Aug. 21, 2001; SD 108-01, Aug. 31, 2001. In order to issue more general warnings without directing carriers to take specific action, the FAA issued Information Circulars. Of the eight such circulars issued between July 2 and September 11, 2001, five highlighted possible threats overseas. See FAA information circulars, "Possible Terrorist Threat--Arabian Peninsula," IC-2001-11, July 18, 2001; "Recent Terrorist Activity in the Middle East," IC-2001-03B, July 26, 2001; "Continued Middle Eastern Threats to Civil Aviation," IC-2001-04A, July 31, 2001; "Violence Increases in Israel," IC-2001-07A, Aug. 28, 2001; "ETA Bombs Airports in Spain," IC-2001-13, Aug. 29, 2001. One, issued on August 16, warned about the potential use of disguised weapons. FAA information circular, "Disguised Weapons," IC-2001-12, Aug. 16, 2001.
48. FAA report, "Record of Air Carrier Briefings--4/18/01 to 9/10/01," undated.
49. See Condoleezza Rice testimony, Apr. 8, 2004; NSC memo, U.S. Terrorism Alert, July 3, 2001; FBI electronic communication, Heightened Threat Advisory, Apr. 13, 2001. For the lack of NSC direction, see Roger Cressey interview (June 23, 2004).
50. Thomas Pickard interview (Apr. 8, 2004). For example, an international terrorism squad supervisor in the Washington Field Office told us he was not aware of an increased threat in the summer of 2001, and his squad did not take any special actions to respond to it. The special agent in charge of the Miami Field Office told us he did not learn of the high level of threat until after September 11. See Washington Field Office agent interview (Apr. 1, 2004); Hector Pesquera interview (Oct. 3, 2003).
51. Dale Watson interview (Jan. 6, 2004).
52. See Thomas Pickard interviews (Jan. 21, 2004; Apr. 8, 2004); Thomas Pickard testimony, Apr. 13, 2004; Thomas Pickard letter to the Commission, June 24, 2004; John Ashcroft testimony, Apr. 13, 2004. We cannot resolve this dispute. Pickard recalls the alleged statement being made at a briefing on July 12. The Department of Justice has informed us that the only people present at that briefing were Pickard, Ashcroft, Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, and Ashcroft's chief of staff, David Ayres. There are no records of the discussions at these briefings. Thompson and Ayres deny Ashcroft made any such statement. Dale Watson, who did not attend any of the briefings, told us that Pickard complained after one of the briefings that Ashcroft did not want to be briefed on the threats because "nothing ever happened." Ruben Garcia, head of the FBI's Criminal Division, who attended some of Pickard's briefings of the Attorney General but not the one at which Pickard alleges Ashcroft made the statement, recalls that Ashcroft was "not enthusiastic" about the classified portions of the briefings that related to counter-terrorism. We have been told that Pickard and Ashcroft did not have a good relationship. This may have influenced their views on the facts surrounding their meetings. Larry Thompson interview (Jan. 29, 2004); Dale Watson interview (June 3, 2004); Ruben Garcia interview (Apr. 29, 2004); Thompson and Ayres letter to the Commission, July 12, 2004.
53. See Thomas Pickard interviews (Jan. 21, 2004; Apr. 8, 2004); John Ashcroft meeting (Dec. 17, 2003); John Ashcroft testimony, Apr. 13, 2004.
54. Indeed, the number of FISA warrants in effect in the summer of 2001 may well have been less than it was at the beginning of the year. Because of problems with inaccuracies in the applications, FISAs were allowed to lapse rather than be renewed with continuing inaccuracies. Michael Rolince interview (Apr. 12, 2004); Marion Bowman interview (Mar. 6, 2004).
55. See CIA cable, Base/FBI comments on draft cable, Nov. 27, 2000; FBI electronic communication, USS Cole investigation, Nov. 21, 2000; FBI electronic communication, USS Cole investigation, Jan. 10, 2001 (draft).
56. For the recollection of the FBI agent, see Al S. interviews (Aug. 26, 2003; Sept. 15, 2003). See also FBI report of investigation, interview of source, July 18, 2000; attachment to FBI electronic communication, USS Cole investigation, Jan. 10, 2001 (draft); FBI electronic communication, UBL investigation, Jan. 16, 2001.
57. For speculation regarding identities, see CIA cable, "Photo of UBL Associate," Dec. 27, 2000. Retrospective analysis of available information would have answered that question, but that analysis was not done until after 9/11. For analysis, see Intelligence report, Retrospective review of 11 September 2001 hijackers' activities, Sept. 23, 2002.
58. CIA cable, "Request for January 2000 Malaysian Surveillance Photos," Dec. 12, 2000; CIA cable, "Photo of UBL Associate," Dec. 27, 2000; CIA cable,"Review of Malaysia 'Khaled' Photos," Jan. 5, 2001.
59. The CIA knew that Mihdhar and Khallad had both been to Bangkok in January 2000. They had not yet discovered that Khallad, traveling under an alias, had actually flown to Bangkok with Mihdhar. Still, as Director Tenet conceded in his testimony before the Joint Inquiry, the Kuala Lumpur meeting took on additional significance once Khallad was identified as having attended the meeting. See Joint Inquiry report, p. 149.
60. For Tenet and Black testimony, see Joint Inquiry testimony of George Tenet, Oct. 17, 2002; Joint Inquiry testimony of Cofer Black, Sept. 26, 2002. For documents not available to CIA personnel who drafted the testimony, see, e.g., FBI electronic communication, UBL investigation, Jan. 16, 2001; FBI emails between Al S. and Michael D., re: source, Jan. 9-11, 2001; FBI electronic communication, USS Cole investigation, Jan. 4, 2001; DOJ Inspector General interview of Jennifer M., Dec. 9, 2002. For the views of the FBI investigators, see DOJ Inspector General interviews of Steve B., Sept. 16, 2002; Nov. 14, 2002; Al S. interviews (Aug. 26, 2003; Sept. 15, 2003). The DOJ Inspector General came to the same conclusion. See DOJ Inspector General report, "A Review of the FBI's Handling of Intelligence Information Related to the September 11 Attacks" (hereinafter "DOJ IG 9/11 Report"), July 2, 2004, pp. 308-310.
61. DOJ Inspector General interview of Michael D., Nov. 6, 2002; Michael D. interview (May 4, 2004); DOJ Inspector General interview of Chris, Nov. 27, 2002.
62. For the internal CIA reports to which the FBI did not have access, see CIA cable, "UBL Operative Khallad," Jan. 3, 2001; CIA cable, source debriefing, Jan. 5, 2001. The FBI agent informed us that he was unaware how such internal CIA communications worked, or that the operational cables even existed, and so did not know to ask for them. Such messages are routinely not shared in order to protect intelligence sources and methods. In this case, application of the routine procedure did not serve that purpose because the FBI agent was aware of the source's identity as well as the methods used to obtain the information. Moreover, the FBI agent also may have been absent from the room when the identification was made. The source had brought a sheaf of documents with him that the FBI agent left the room to copy while the interview of the witness continued. Because of the circumstances of the interview site, the agent would have been absent for a significant period of time. In addition, the case officer was frequently given photographs from a broad range of CIA stations to show to this particular witness. He did not focus on the purpose of showing the photographs; he was only concerned with whether the source recognized the individuals. DOJ Inspector General interview of Michael D., Nov. 6, 2002; Michael D. interview (May 4, 2004); DOJ Inspector General interview of Chris, Nov. 27, 2002.
63. John interview (Apr. 2, 2004). See also CIA email, Dave to John, "Re: Liaison Response," May 18, 2001. The old reporting from early 2000 that was reexamined included CIA cable, "Transit of UBL Associate Khalid Through Dubai," Jan. 4, 2000; CIA cable, "Recent Influx of Suspected UBL Associates to Malaysia," Jan. 5, 2000; CIA cable, "UBL Associates: Flight Manifest for MH072," Jan. 9, 2000; CIA cable, "UBL Associates: Identification of Possible UBL Associates," Mar. 5, 2000. For cable information, see CIA records, audit of cable databases.
64. For a record of the exchange between John and Dave, see CIA emails, Dave to John, May 17, 18, 24, 2001; CIA email, Richard to Alan, identification of Khallad, July 13, 2001. For the account of John's FBI counterpart, see Michael Rolince interview (Apr. 12, 2004). For John's focus on Malaysia, see DOJ Inspector General interview of John, Nov. 1, 2002.
65. DOJ Inspector General interview of John, Nov. 1, 2002.
66. For the account of the desk officer, see DOJ Inspector General interview of Michael D., Oct. 31, 2002. For cable information, see CIA records, audit of cable databases.
67. DOJ Inspector General interviews of Jane, Nov. 4, 2002; July 16, 2003.
68. DOJ Inspector General interview of Jane, Nov. 4, 2002; DOJ Inspector General interview of Dave, Oct. 31, 2002.
69. DOJ Inspector General interviews of Jane, Nov. 4, 2002; July 16, 2003.
70. DOJ Inspector General interview of Jane, Nov. 4, 2002; DOJ Inspector General interview of Dave, Oct. 31, 2002; DOJ Inspector General interview of Russ F., Sept. 17, 2002; DOJ Inspector General interview of Steve B., Sept. 16, 2002.
71. "Jane" did not seek OIPR's permission to share this information at the meeting. "Jane" also apparently did not realize that one of the agents in attendance was a designated intelligence agent, so she could have shared all of the information with that agent regardless of the caveats. No one who was at the meeting suggested that option, however. DOJ Inspector General interview of Steve B., Sept. 16, 2002; DOJ Inspector General interview of Jane, July 16, 2003. These caveats were different from the legal limits we discussed in section 3.2. The Attorney General's July 1995 procedures concerned FISA information developed in an FBI intelligence investigation. This, however, was NSA information. These particular caveats were the result of the Justice Department's and NSA's overabundance of caution in December 1999. During the millennium crisis, Attorney General Reno authorized electronic surveillance of three U.S. persons overseas. Because the searches were not within the United States, no FISA warrant was needed. Reno approved the surveillances pursuant to section 2.5 of Executive Order 12333 with the proviso that the results of these particular surveillances not be shared with criminal investigators or prosecutors without the approval of the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review. Because of the complexity of determining whether particular reporting was the fruit of particular surveillances, NSA decided to place these caveats on all its Bin Ladin-related reporting, not just reporting on the surveillances authorized by Reno. As a result, these caveats were placed on the reports relating to Mihdhar even though they were not covered by Reno's December 1999 order. See DOJ memo, Reno to Freeh, FISA surveillance of a suspected al Qaeda operative, Dec. 24, 1999; NSA email, William L. to Karen C., "distribution restrictions," Dec. 10, 1999; NSA email, William L. to Anthony L., "doj restrictions," Dec. 20, 1999; NSA email, William L. to Brian C., "dissemination of terrorism reporting," Dec. 29, 1999. See also NSA memo, Ann D. to others, "Reporting Guidance," Dec. 30, 1999.
    
    In May 2000, it was brought to the Attorney General's attention that these caveats prevented certain attorneys in the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section (TVCS) from reading the reporting. After discussions with NSA, the caveats were changed to specifically permit dissemination of these reports to designated attorneys in the TVCS and two attorneys in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. See NSA memo, Joan R. to Townsend and Reynolds, "Resumed Delivery of Classified Intelligence to TVCS," June 9, 2000; NSA memo, Hayden to Asst. Attorney General, "Proposal to Provide UBL-related Product to U.S. Attorney's Office/Southern District of New York," Aug. 30, 2000.
72. For the facts known by Dave at this time, see CIA records, audit of cable databases; see also CIA email, Dave to John, timeline entries, May 15, 2001. For CIA analyst's role, see DOJ Inspector General interview of Dave, Oct. 31, 2002. For Jane's account, see DOJ Inspector General interview of Jane, July 16, 2003.
73. DOJ Inspector General interview of Mary, Oct. 29, 2002.
74. For Mary's account, see DOJ Inspector General interview of Mary, Oct. 29, 2002. For the reporting regarding Mihdhar and Hazmi, see CIA cable, Khalid's passport, Jan. 4, 2000; CIA cable, Mihdhar's visa application, Jan. 5, 2000; CIA cable, Hazmi entered U.S., Mar. 6, 2000. For Mary's cable access information, see CIA records, audit of cable databases.
75. DOJ Inspector General interview of Mary, Oct. 29, 2002; DOJ Inspector General interview of Jane, Nov. 4, 2002.
76. DOJ Inspector General interview of Mary, Oct. 29, 2002; Intelligence report, Watchlisting of Bin Ladin-related individuals, Aug. 23, 2001; Joint Inquiry testimony of Christopher Kojm, Sept. 19, 2002. The watch-list request included Mihdhar, Nawaf al Hazmi, Salah Saeed Mohammed Bin Yousaf (they did not yet realize this was an alias for Tawfiq bin Attash, a.k.a. Khallad), and Ahmad Hikmat Shakir (who assisted Mihdhar in Kuala Lumpur).
77. Jane told investigators that she viewed this matter as just another lead and so assigned no particular urgency to the matter. DOJ Inspector General interviews of Jane, July 16, 2003; Nov. 4, 2002. For the draft lead, see attachment to FBI email, Jane to Craig D., "Re: FFI Request," Aug. 28, 2001. For the final version, see FBI electronic communication, "Request to Open a Full Field Investigation," Aug. 28, 2001.
78. FBI email, Craig D. to John L., "Fwd: Re: FFI Request," Aug. 28, 2001; FBI email, John L. to Steve and others, "Fwd: Re: FFI Request," Aug. 28, 2001. For an introduction to these legal limits and "the wall," see section 3.2. In December 2000, pursuant to concerns of the FISA Court, the New York Field Office began designating certain agents as either intelligence or criminal agents. Intelligence agents could see FISA materials and any other information that bore cautions about sharing without obtaining the FISA Court's permission or permission from the Justice Department's OIPR. FBI electronic communication, "Instructions re FBI FISA Policy," Dec. 7, 2000.
79. While one witness recalls a discussion with a senior FBI official, that official denies that such a discussion took place. The other alleged participant does not recall such a meeting. John interview (Apr. 2, 2004); Michael Rolince interview (Apr. 12, 2004); Jane interview (July 13, 2004); DOJ Inspector General interview of Rodney M., Nov. 5, 2002. For investigation's goal, see FBI electronic communication, "Request to Open a Full Field Investigation," Aug. 28, 2001.
80. DOJ Inspector General interviews of Jane, July 16, 2003; Nov. 4, 2002; DOJ Inspector General interviews of Steve B., Sept. 16, 2002; Nov. 14, 2002; Jane interview ( July 13, 2004). FBI email, Jane to John L., "Fwd: Re: FFI Request," Aug. 29, 2001.
    
    The analyst's email, however, reflects that she was confusing a broad array of caveats and legal barriers to information sharing and rules governing criminal agents' use of information gathered through intelligence channels. There was no broad prohibition against sharing information gathered through intelligence channels with criminal agents. This type of sharing occurred on a regular basis in the field. The court's procedures did not apply to all intelligence gathered regardless of collection method or source. Moreover, once information was properly shared, the criminal agent could use it for further investigation.
81. FBI email, Jane to Steve, NSLU Response, Aug. 29, 2001. "Jane" says she only asked whether there was sufficient probable cause to open the matter as a criminal case and whether the criminal agent could attend any interview if Mihdhar was found. She said the answer she received to both questions was no. She did not ask whether the underlying information could have been shared. Jane interview ( July 13, 2004). The NSLU attorney denies advising that the agent could not participate in an interview and notes that she would not have given such inaccurate advice. The attorney told investigators that the NSA caveats would not have precluded criminal agents from joining in any search for Mihdhar or from participating in any interview. Moreover, she said that she could have gone to the NSA and obtained a waiver of any such caveat because there was no FISA information involved in this case. There are no records of the conversation between "Jane" and the attorney. "Jane" did not copy the attorney on her email to the agent, so the attorney did not have an opportunity to confirm or reject the advice "Jane" was giving to the agent. DOJ Inspector General interview of Sherry S., Nov. 7, 2002.
    
    "Jane" asked the New York agent assigned to the Mihdhar search to sign a FISA acknowledgment form indicating the agent understood how he had to treat FISA information. Because no FISA information was involved, she should not have required him to sign such a form. To the extent she believed, incorrectly, that the Attorney General's 1995 procedures applied to this situation, there was in fact an exception in place for New York. DOJ Inspector General interview of Sherry S., Nov. 7, 2002. More fundamentally, "Jane" apparently understood the welter of restrictions to mean, in workday shorthand, that any information gathered by intelligence agencies should not be shared with criminal agents. This was incorrect. DOJ Inspector General interviews of Jane, July 16, 2003; Nov. 4, 2002.
82. FBI emails between Steve B. and Jane, re: NSLU Response, Aug. 29, 2001. While the agent expressed his frustration with the situation to "Jane," he made no effort to press the matter further by discussing his concerns with either his supervisor or the chief division counsel in New York.
83. Attorney General Ashcroft testified to us that this and similar information-sharing issues arose from Attorney General Reno's 1995 guidelines, discussed in chapter 3, and specifically from a March 1995 memorandum of then Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. John Ashcroft testimony, Apr. 13, 2004; DOJ memo, Gorelick to White, "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations," Mar. 4, 1995.
    
    We believe the Attorney General's testimony does not fairly or accurately reflect the significance of the 1995 documents and their relevance to the 2001 discussions. Whatever the merits of the March 1995 Gorelick memorandum and the subsequent July 1995 Attorney General procedures on information sharing, they did not apply to the information the analyst decided she could not share with the criminal agent. As discussed earlier, the reason "Jane" decided she could not share information was because the initial information on Mihdhar had been analyzed by the NSA. This reason was unrelated to either of the 1995 documents. The Gorelick memorandum applied to two particular criminal cases, neither of which was involved in the summer 2001 information-sharing discussions. As the FBI agent observed in his email, Part A of the 1995 procedures applied only to information obtained pursuant to a FISA warrant. None of the Mihdhar material was FISA information. There was an exemption for the Southern District of New York from Part B of the 1995 procedures, so they did not apply. Also, the 1995 procedures did not govern whether information could be shared between intelligence and criminal agents within the FBI, a separation that the Bureau did not begin making formally until long after the procedures were in place. The 1995 procedures governed only the sharing of information with criminal prosecutors. Even in that situation, the restriction obliged running the information through the OIPR screen.
    
    What had happened, as we discussed in chapter 3, was a growing battle within the Justice Department during the 1990s, and between parts of Justice and the FISA Court, over the scope of OIPR's screening function and the propriety of using FISA-derived information in criminal matters. The FISA Court's concern with FBI sloppiness in its FISA applications also began to take a toll: the court began designating itself as the gatekeeper for the sharing of intelligence information; the FBI was required to separately designate criminal and intelligence agents; and the court banned one supervisory FBI agent from appearing before it. By late 2000, these factors had culminated in a set of complex rules and a widening set of beliefs--a bureaucratic culture--that discouraged FBI agents from even seeking to share intelligence information. Neither Attorney General acted to resolve the conflicting views within the Justice Department. Nor did they challenge the strict interpretation of the FISA statute set forth by the FISA Court and OIPR. Indeed, this strict interpretation remained in effect until the USA PATRIOT Act was passed after 9/11.
    
    Simply put, there was no legal reason why the information the analyst possessed could not have been shared with the criminal agent. On August 27, "Jane" requested the NSA's permission to share the information with the criminal agents, but she intended for the information only to help the criminal agents in their ongoing Cole investigation. She still did not believe they could be involved in the intelligence investigation even if the NSA permitted the information to be shared. DOJ IG 9/11 Report, July 2, 2004, p. 339. The next day the NSA notified its representative at FBI headquarters that it had approved the passage of the information to the criminal agents. NSC email, Carlene C. to Richard K., "Response to FBI Sanitization Request," Aug. 28, 2001. Thus, "Jane" had permission to share the information with the criminal agent prior to their August 29 emails.
84. DOJ Inspector General interview of Robert F., Dec. 18, 2002; FBI electronic communication, Los Angeles lead, Sept. 10, 2001.
85. Hazmi and Mihdhar used their true names to obtain California driver's licenses and open New Jersey bank accounts. Hazmi also had a car registered and had been listed in the San Diego telephone book. Searches of readily available databases could have unearthed the driver's licenses, the car registration, and the telephone listing. A search on the car registration would have unearthed a license check by the South Hackensack Police Department that would have led to information placing Hazmi in the area and placing Mihdhar at a local hotel for a week in early July 2001. The hijackers actively used the New Jersey bank accounts, through ATM, debit card, and cash transactions, until September 10. Among other things, they used their debit cards to pay for hotel rooms; and Hazmi used his card on August 27 to purchase tickets on Flight 77 for himself and his brother (and fellow hijacker), Salem al Hazmi. These transactions could have helped locate them if the FBI had obtained the bank records in time. There would have been no easy means, however, to determine the existence of these accounts, and obtaining bank cooperation pre-9/11 might have been problematic. The most likely means of successfully finding the men in the short time available was one not often used pre-9/11 for suspected terrorists: an FBI BOLO (be on the lookout) combined with a media campaign. This alone might have delayed or disrupted the plot, even if the men had not been physically located before September 11. But this would have been considered only if the FBI believed that they were about to carry out an imminent attack. No one at the FBI--or any other agency--believed that at the time. See FBI report, financial spreadsheet re: 9/11 hijackers, undated; South Hackensack, N. J., Police Department report, Detective Bureau Report, Oct. 17, 2001 (case no. 20018437). According to Ramzi Binalshibh, had KSM known that Moussaoui had been arrested, he would have canceled the 9/11 attacks. Intelligence report, interrogation of Ramzi Binalshibh, Feb. 14, 2003. The publicity regarding Mihdhar and Hazmi might have had a similar effect because they could have been identified by the airlines and might have jeopardized the operation.
86. Joint Inquiry report, pp. xiii, 325-335; DOJ IG 9/11 Report, July 2, 2004, pp. 59-106.
87. FBI electronic communication, Phoenix memo, July 10, 2001.
88. Ibid.; Joint Inquiry report, pp. 325-335; DOJ IG 9/11 Report, July 2, 2004, pp. 59-106.
89. DOJ Inspector General interview of Kenneth Williams, July 22, 2003.
90. Unlike Moussaoui, the typical student at Pan Am Flight Academy holds an FAA Airline Transport Pilot rating or the foreign equivalent, is employed by an airline, and has several thousand flight hours. Moussaoui also stood out for several other reasons. He had paid nearly $9, 000 in cash for the training, yet had no explanation for the source of these funds; he had asked to fly a simulated flight from London's Heathrow Airport to New York's John F. Kennedy Airport; and he was also particularly interested in the operation of the aircraft doors. FBI electronic communication, Request OIPR permission to contact U.S. Attorney's Office regarding Zacarias Moussaoui, Aug. 18, 2001. For a detailed, step-by-step chronology of activities taken regarding Moussaoui prior to September 11, see DOJ IG 9/11 Report, July 2, 2004, pp. 109-197.
91. FBI electronic communication, Request OIPR permission to contact U.S. Attorney's Office regarding Zacarias Moussaoui, Aug. 18, 2001.
92. DOJ Inspector General interview of Harry S., June 6, 2002; DOJ Inspector General interview of Greg J., July 9, 2002; FBI letterhead memorandum, Zacarias Moussaoui, Aug. 19, 2001.
93. DOJ IG 9/11 Report, July 2, 2004, p. 128.
94. Criminal search warrants must be approved by Department of Justice attorneys before submission to the court. Therefore, approval from the Minneapolis U.S. Attorney's Office was required before a criminal search warrant could be obtained. DOJ Inspector General interview of Coleen Rowley, July 16, 2002. Another agent, however, said that he spoke to an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Minneapolis office and received advice that the facts were almost sufficient to obtain a criminal warrant. DOJ Inspector General interview of Greg J., July 9, 2002. The Assistant United States Attorney said that if the FBI had asked for a criminal warrant that first night, he would have sought it. He believed that there was sufficient probable cause for a criminal warrant at that time. DOJ Inspector General interview of William K., May 29, 2003. Mary Jo White, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, told us that based on her review of the evidence known pre-9/11, she would have approved a criminal search warrant. Mary Jo White interview (May 17, 2004). Because the agents never presented the information to the Minneapolis U.S. Attorney's Office before 9/11, we cannot know for sure what its judgment would have been or whether a judge would have signed the warrant. In any event, the Minneapolis agents were concerned that if they tried to first obtain a criminal warrant but the U.S. Attorney's Office or the judge refused, the FISA Court might reject an application for a FISA warrant on the grounds that the agents were attempting to make an end run around the criminal process. Therefore, it was judged too risky to seek a criminal warrant unless it was certain that it would be approved. DOJ Inspector General interview of Greg J., July 9, 2002. In addition, FBI headquarters specifically instructed Minneapolis that it could not open a criminal investigation. DOJ IG 9/11 Report, July 2, 2004, p. 138. Finally, the Minneapolis Field Office mistakenly believed that the 1995 Attorney General procedures required OIPR's approval before it could contact the U.S. Attorney's Office about obtaining a criminal warrant.
95. The FISA definition of "foreign power" includes "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor."
96. FBI electronic communication, Request to contact U.S. Attorney's Office regarding Zacarias Moussaoui, Aug. 18, 2001. For CTC contact, see FBI email, Harry S. to Chuck F., "Please Pass To [desk officer]," Aug. 24, 2001; FBI email, Harry S. to Chuck F., "Re: Fwd: 199M-MP-60130 (Zacarias Moussaoui)," Aug. 24, 2001.
97. DOJ Inspector General interview of Greg J., July 9, 2002; FBI electronic communication, Moussaoui investigation, Aug. 22, 2002; FBI electronic communication, Moussaoui investigation, Aug. 30, 2002.
98. FBI letterhead memorandum, Zacarias Moussaoui, Aug. 21, 2001; CIA cable, subjects involved in suspicious 747 flight training, Aug. 24, 2001; CIA cable, "Zacarias Moussaoui and Husayn 'Ali Hasan Ali-Attas," Aug. 28, 2001; Joseph H., interview (May 4, 2004); FBI letterhead memorandum, Zacarias Moussaoui, Sept. 5, 2001.
99. FBI teletype, "Zacarias Moussaoui--International Terrorism," Sept. 4, 2001.
100. DOJ Inspector General interview of Greg J., July 9, 2002.
101. Minneapolis may have been more concerned about Moussaoui's intentions because the case agent and the supervisory agent were both pilots. They were, therefore, more highly sensitized to the odd nature of Moussaoui's actions and comments regarding flying. DOJ Inspector General interview of Greg J., July 9, 2002; DOJ Inspector General interview of Harry S., June 20, 2002.
102. DOJ Inspector General interview of Michael Rolince, May 5, 2004; Michael Rolince interview (Apr. 12, 2004); DOJ IG 9/11 Report, July 2, 2004, pp. 168-170, 188.
103. CIA briefing materials, DCI Update, "Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly," Aug. 23, 2001. Deputy Director of Central Intelligence John McLaughlin testified that he was told about Moussaoui several days before Tenet was briefed, although he did not recall the specific date of the briefing. John McLaughlin testimony, Apr. 14, 2004.
104. George Tenet interviews (Jan. 28, 2004; July 2, 2004).
105. For the renewed request, see FBI letterhead memorandum, Zacarias Moussaoui, Sept. 11, 2001. For the initial British response, see British Security Service memo, re: Zacarias Moussaoui, Sept. 12, 2001; information provided to the Commission by the British government; British liaison telex, "Zacarias Moussaoui--Background Information," Sept. 13, 2001. See also Joseph H. interview (May 4, 2004).
106. Joint Inquiry report (classified version), pp. 340-341. Notably, the FBI analyst "Mary" who was looking at the Mihdhar information suggested that the U.S. government talk to Ressam to see if he knew anything about Mihdhar. See CIA email, Mary to John, seeking identification by Ressam, Aug. 21, 2001. There is no evidence that Ressam was asked about Moussaoui or Mihdhar prior to 9/11.
107. According to Ramzi Binalshibh, had KSM known that Moussaoui had been arrested, he would have cancelled the 9/11 attacks. Intelligence report, interrogation of Ramzi Binalshibh, Feb. 14, 2003.
108. Joint Inquiry report (classified version), pp. 329-331; Joint Inquiry interview of Mike, Alice, Larry, John, Terry, Aug. 12, 2002.
109. CIA cable, Key UBL personalities, Sept. 25, 2000.
110. CIA cable, Mukhtar information, May 23, 2002.
111. CIA cable, Biographical Information on Key UBL Associates in Afghanistan, June 11, 2001; Intelligence report, biographical information on Bin Ladin associates in Afghanistan, June 12, 2001. For the subsequent identification, see CIA cable, follow-up source on KSM, July 11, 2001.
112. For the reporting identifying Mukhtar as KSM, see CIA cable, source information re: KSM, Aug. 28, 2001.
113. John interview (Apr. 2, 2004).