COUNTERING THE
CHANGING THREAT
OF INTERNATIONAL
TERRORISM
Report of the National Commission on Terrorism
Pursuant to Public Law 277, 105th Congress
Surprise, when it happens to a government, is likely to be a complicated,
diffuse, bureaucratic thing. It includes neglect of responsibility but
also responsibility so poorly defined or so ambiguously delegated that
action gets lost. It includes gaps in intelligence, but also intelligence
that, like a string of pearls too precious to wear, is too sensitive to
give to those who need it. It includes the alarm that fails to work, but
also the alarm that has gone off so often it has been disconnected. It
includes the unalert watchman, but also the one who knows he'll be chewed
out by his superior if he gets higher authority out of bed. It includes
the contingencies that occur to no one, but also those that everyone assumes
somebody else is taking care of. It includes straightforward procrastination,
but also decisions protracted by internal disagreement. It includes, in
addition, the inability of individual human beings to rise to the occasion
until they are sure it is the occasion-- which is usually too late. (Unlike
movies, real life provides no musical background to tip us off to the climax.)
Finally, as at Pearl Harbor, surprise may include some measure of genuine
novelty introduced by the enemy, and possibly some sheer bad luck.
The results, at Pearl Harbor, were sudden, concentrated, and dramatic.
The failure, however, was cumulative, widespread, and rather drearily familiar.
This is why surprise, when it happens to a government, cannot be described
just in terms of startled people. Whether at Pearl Harbor or at the Berlin
Wall, surprise is everything involved in a government's (or in an alliance's)
failure to anticipate effectively.
Thomas C. Schelling,
Forward to Pearl Harbor; Warning and Decision,
by Roberta Wohlstetter
FOREWORD
Six months ago, the National Commission on Terrorism began its Congressionally
mandated evaluation of America's laws, policies, and practices for preventing
and punishing terrorism directed at American citizens. After a thorough
review, the Commission concluded that, although American strategies and
policies are basically on the right track, significant aspects of implementation
are seriously deficient. Thus, this report does not attempt to describe
all American counterterrorism activities, but instead concentrates on problem
areas and recommended changes. We wish to note, however, that in the course
of our assessment we gained renewed confidence in the abilities and dedication
of the Americans who stand on the front lines in the fight against terrorism.
Each of the 10 commissioners approached these issues from a different
perspective. If any one commissioner had written the report on his or her
own, it might not be identical to that which we are presenting today. However,
through a process of careful deliberation, we reached the consensus reflected
in this report.
Throughout our deliberations, we were mindful of several important
points:
-
The imperative to find terrorists and prevent their attacks requires energetic
use of all the legal authorities and instruments available.
-
Terrorist attacks against America threaten more than the tragic loss of
individual lives. Some terrorists hope to provoke a response that undermines
our Constitutional system of government. So U.S. leaders must find the
appropriate balance by adopting counterterrorism policies which are effective
but also respect the democratic traditions which are the bedrock of America's
strength.
-
Combating terrorism should not be used as a pretext for discrimination
against any segment of society. Terrorists often claim to acton behalf
of ethnic groups, religions, or even entire nations.These claims are false.
Terrorists represent only a minuscule faction of any such group.
-
People turn to terrorism for various reasons. Many terrorists act from
political, ideological, or religious convictions. Some are simply criminals
for hire. Others become terrorists because of perceived oppression or economic
deprivation. An astute American foreign policy must take into account the
reasons people turn to terror and, where appropriate and feasible, address
them. No cause, however, justifies terrorism.
Terrorists attack American targets more often than those of any other country.
America's pre-eminent role in the world guarantees that this will continue
to be the case, and the threat of attacks creating massive casualties is
growing. If the United States is to protect itself, if it is to remain
a world leader, this nation must develop and continuously refine sound
counterterrorism policies appropriate to the rapidly changing world around
us.
Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III
Chairman
Maurice Sonnenberg
Vice Chairman
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
International terrorism poses an increasingly dangerous and difficult
threat to America. This was underscored by the December 1999 arrests
in Jordan and at the U.S./Canadian border of foreign nationals who were
allegedly planning to attack crowded millenium celebrations. Today's terrorists
seek to inflict mass casualties, and they are attempting to do so both
overseas and on American soil. They are less dependent on state sponsorship
and are, instead, forming loose, transnational affiliations based on religious
or ideological affinity and a common hatred of the United States. This
makes terrorist attacks more difficult to detect and prevent.
Countering the growing danger of the terrorist threat requires
significantly stepping up U.S. efforts. The government must immediately
take steps to reinvigorate the collection of intelligence about terrorists'
plans, use all available legal avenues to disrupt and prosecute terrorist
activities and private sources of support, convince other nations to cease
all support for terrorists, and ensure that federal, state, and local officials
are prepared for attacks that may result in mass casualties. The Commission
has made a number of recommendations to accomplish these objectives:
Priority one is to prevent terrorist attacks. U.S. intelligence
and law enforcement communities must use the full scope of their authority
to collect intelligence regarding terrorist plans and methods.
-
CIA guidelines adopted in 1995 restricting recruitment of unsavory sources
should not apply when recruiting counterterrorism sources.
-
The Attorney General should ensure that FBI is exercising fully its authority
for investigating suspected terrorist groups or individuals, including
authority for electronic surveillance.
-
Funding for counterterrorism efforts by CIA, NSA, and FBI must be given
higher priority to ensure continuation of important operational activity
and to close the technology gap that threatens their ability to collect
and exploit terrorist communications.
-
FBI should establish a cadre of reports officers to distill and disseminate
terrorism-related information once it is collected.
U.S. policies must firmly target all states that support terrorists.
-
Iran and Syria should be kept on the list of state sponsors until they
stop supporting terrorists.
-
Afghanistan should be designated a sponsor of terrorism and subjected to
all the sanctions applicable to state sponsors.
-
The President should impose sanctions on countries that, while not direct
sponsors of terrorism, are nevertheless not cooperating fully on counterterrorism.
Candidates for consideration include Pakistan and Greece.
Private sources of financial and logistical support for terrorists must
be subjected to the full force and sweep of U.S. and international laws.
-
All relevant agencies should use every available means, including the full
array of criminal, civil, and administrative sanctions to block or disrupt
nongovernmental sources of support for international terrorism.
-
Congress should promptly ratify and implement the International Convention
for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism to enhance international
cooperative efforts.
-
Where criminal prosecution is not possible, the Attorney General should
vigorously pursue the expulsion of terrorists from the United States through
proceedings which protect both the national security interest in safeguarding
classified evidence and the right of the accused to challenge that evidence.
A terrorist attack involving a biological agent, deadly chemicals, or
nuclear or radiological material, even if it succeeds only partially, could
profoundly affect the entire nation. The government must do more to prepare
for such an event.
-
The President should direct the preparation of a manual to guide the implementation
of existing legal authority in the event of a catastrophic terrorist threat
or attack. The President and Congress should determine whether additional
legal authority is needed to deal with catastrophic terrorism.
-
The Department of Defense must have detailed plans for its role in the
event of a catastrophic terrorist attack, including criteria for decisions
on transfer of command authority to DoD in extraordinary circumstances.
-
Senior officials of all government agencies involved in responding to a
catastrophic terrorism threat or crisis should be required to participate
in national exercises every year to test capabilities and coordination.
-
Congress should make it illegal for anyone not properly certified to possess
certain critical pathogens and should enact laws to control the transfer
of equipment critical to the development or use of biological agents.
-
The President should establish a comprehensive and coordinated long-term
research and development program for catastrophic terrorism.
-
The Secretary of State should press for an international convention to
improve multilateral cooperation on preventing or responding to cyber attacks
by terrorists.
The President and Congress should reform the system for reviewing and
funding departmental counterterrorism programs to ensure that the activities
and programs of various agencies are part of a comprehensive plan.
-
The executive branch official responsible for coordinating counterterrorism
efforts acrossthe government should be given a stronger hand in the budget
process.
-
Congress should develop mechanisms for a comprehensive review of the President's
counterterrorism policy and budget.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword
Executive Summary
1 The International Terrorism Threat is Changing
2 Good Intelligence is the Best Weapon Against International Terrorism
Eliminate Barriers to Aggressive Collection of Information on Terrorists
Provide Resources and Capabilities to Exploit Fully Information on
Terrorists
Promote the Flow of Terrorism Information From Law Enforcement to Policymakers
and Analysts
3 Pursue a More Aggressive Strategy Against Terrorism
Strengthen Efforts to Discourage All State Support for Terrorism
Implement a Broader Approach to Stop Non-State Support for Terrorists
Improve Executive and Legislative Branch Review of Counterterrorism
Activities
4 Prepare to Prevent or Respond to Catastrophic Terrorist Attacks
Appendices
A. Transmittal Letters
B. Commission Charter and Process
C. Members and Staff
D. Individuals Interviewed by the Commission
THE INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM THREAT IS CHANGING
Who are the international terrorists?
What are their motives and how do they get their support?
How can we stop them?
The answers to these questions have changed significantly over
the last 25 years. There are dramatically fewer international terrorist
incidents than in the mid-eighties. Many of the groups that targeted America's
interests, friends, and allies have disappeared. The Soviet bloc, which
once provided support to terrorist groups, no longer exists. Countries
that once excused terrorism now condemn it. This changed international
attitude has led to 12 United Nations conventions targeting terrorist activity
and, more importantly, growing, practical international cooperation.
However, if most of the world's countries are firmer in opposing
terrorism, some still support terrorists or use terrorism as an element
of state policy. Iran is the clearest case. The Revolutionary Guard Corps
and the Ministry of intelligence and Security carry out terrorist activities
and give direction and support to other terrorists. The regimes of Syria,
Sudan, and Afghanistan provide funding, refuge, training bases, and weapons
to terrorists. Libya continues to provide support to some Palestinian terrorist
groups and to harass expatriate dissidents, and North Korea may still provide
weapons to terrorists. Cuba provides safehaven to a number of terrorists.
Other states allow terrorist groups to operate on their soil or provide
support which, while failing short of state sponsorship, nonetheless gives
terrorists important assistance.
The terrorist threat is also changing in ways that make it more
dangerous and difficult to counter.
International terrorism once threatened Americans only when they
were outside the country. Today international terrorists attack us on our
own soil. Just before the millennium, an alert U.S. Customs Service official
stopped Ahmad Ressam as he attempted to enter the United States from Canada--
apparently to conduct a terrorist attack. This fortuitous arrest should
not inspire complacency, however. On an average day, over one million people
enter the United States legally and thousands more enter illegally. As
the World Trade Center bombing demonstrated, we cannot rely solely on existing
border controls and procedures to keep foreign terrorists out of the United
States.
Terrorist attacks are becoming more lethal. Most terrorist organizations
active in the 1970s and 1980s had clear political objectives. They tried
to calibrate their attacks to produce just enough bloodshed to get attention
for their cause, but not so much as to alienate public support. Groups
like the Irish Republican Army and the Palestine Liberation Organization
often sought specific political concessions.
Now, a growing percentage of terrorist attacks are designed to
kill as many people as possible. In the 1990s a terrorist incident was
almost 20 percent more likely to result in death or injury than an incident
two decades ago. The World Trade Center bombing in New York killed six
and wounded about 1,000, but the terrorists' goal was to topple the twin
towers, killing tens of thousands of people. The thwarted attacks against
New York City's infrastructure in 1993-- which included plans to bomb the
Lincoln and Holland tunnels-- also were intended to cause mass casualties.
In 1995, Philippine authorities uncovered a terrorist plot to bring down
11 U.S. airliners in Asia. The circumstances surrounding the millennium
border arrests of foreign nationals suggest that the suspects planned to
target a large group assembled for a New Year's celebration. Overseas attacks
against the United States in recent years have followed the same trend.
The bombs that destroyed the military barracks in Saudi Arabia and two
U.S. Embassies in Africa inflicted 6,059 casualties. Those arrested in
Jordan in late December had also planned attacks designed to kill large
numbers.
The trend toward higher casualties reflects, in part, the changing
motivation of today's terrorists. Religiously motivated terrorist groups,
such as Usama bin Ladin's group, al-Qaida, which is believed to have bombed
the U.S. Embassies in Africa, represent a growing trend toward hatred of
the United States. Other terrorist groups are driven by visions of a post-apocalyptic
future or by ethnic hatred. Such groups may lack a concrete political goal
other than to punish their enemies by killing as many of them as possible,
seemingly without concern about alienating sympathizers. Increasingly,
attacks are less likely to be followed by claims of responsibility or lists
of political demands.
The shift in terrorist motives has contributed to a change in
the way some international terrorist groups are structured. Because groups
based on ideological or religious motives may lack a specific political
or nationalistic agenda, they have less need for a hierarchical structure.
Instead, they can rely on loose affiliations with like-minded groups from
a variety of countries to support their common cause against the United
States.
Al-Qaida is the best-known transnational terrorist organization.
In addition to pursuing its own terrorist campaign, it calls on numerous
militant groups that share some of its ideological beliefs to support its
violent campaign against the United States. But neither al-Qaida's extremist
politico-religious beliefs nor its leader, Usama bin Ladin, is unique.
If al-Qaida and Usama bin Ladin were to disappear tomorrow, the United
States would still face potential terrorist threats from a growing number
of groups opposed to perceived American hegemony. Moreover, new terrorist
threats can suddenly emerge from isolated conspiracies or obscure cults
with no previous history of violence.
These more loosely affiliated, transnational terrorist networks
are difficult to predict, track, and penetrate. They rely on a variety
of sources for funding and logistical support, including self-financing
criminal activities such as kidnapping, narcotics, and petty crimes. Their
networks of support include both front organizations and legitimate business
and nongovernment organizations. They use the Internet as an effective
communications channel.
Guns and conventional explosives have so far remained the weapons
of choice for most terrorists. Such weapons can cause many casualties and
are relatively easy to acquire and use. But some terrorist groups now show
interest in acquiring the capability to use chemical, biological, radiological,
or nuclear (CBRN) materials. It is difficult to predict the likelihood
of a CBRN attack, but most experts agree that today's terrorists are seeking
the ability to use such agents in order to cause mass casualties.
Graphic: "The Biological Terrorist Spectrum"
Still, these kinds of weapons and materials confront a non-state sponsored
terrorist group with significant technical challenges. While lethal chemicals
are easy to come by, getting large quantities and weaponizing them for
mass casualties is difficult, and only nation states have succeeded in
doing so. Biological agents can be acquired in nature or from medical supply
houses, but important aspects of handling and dispersion are daunting.
To date, only nation states have demonstrated the capability to build radiological
and nuclear weapons.
The 1995 release of a chemical agent in the Tokyo subway by the
apocalyptic Aum Shinrikyo group demonstrated the difficulties that terrorists
face in attempting to use CBRN weapons to produce mass casualties. The
group used scores of highly skilled technicians and spent tens of millions
of dollars developing a chemical attack that killed fewer people than conventional
explosives could have. The same group failed totally in a separate attempt
to launch an anthrax attack in Tokyo.
However, if the terrorists' goal is to challenge significantly
Americans' sense of safety and confidence, even a small CBRN attack could
be successful.
Moreover, terrorists could acquire more deadly CBRN capabilitiesfrom
a state. Five of the seven nations the United States identifies as state
sponsors of terrorism have programs to develop weapons of mass destruction.
A state that knowingly provides agents of mass destruction or technology
to a terrorist group should worry about losing control of the terrorists'
activities and, if the weapons could be traced back to that state, the
near certainty of massive retaliation. However, it is always difficult
and sometimes dangerous to attempt to predict the actions of a state. Moreover,
a state in chaos, or elements within such a state, might run these risks,
especially if the United States were engaged in military conflict with
that state or if the United States were distracted by a major conflict
in another area of the world.
Graphic: "Terrorism Becoming More Dangerous"
The Commission was particularly concerned about the persistent lack
of adequate security and safeguards for the nuclear material in the former
Soviet Union (FSU). A Center for Strategic International Studies panel
chaired by former Senator Sam Nunn concluded that, despite a decade of
effort, the risk of "loose nukes" is greater than ever. Another ominous
warning was given in 1995 when Chechen rebels, many of whom fight side-by-side
with Islamic terrorists from bin Ladin's camps sympathetic to the Chechen
cause, placed radioactive material in a Moscow park.
Cyber attacks are often considered in the same context with CBRN.
Respectable experts have published sobering scenarios about the potential
impact of a successful cyber attack on the United States. Already, hackers
and criminals have exploited some of our vulnerabilities. Certainly, terrorists
are making extensive use of the new information technologies, and a conventional
terrorist attack along with a coordinated cyber attack could exponentially
compound the damage. While the Commission considers cyber security a matter
of grave importance, it also notes that the measures needed to protect
the United States from cyberattack by terrorists are largely identical
to those necessary to protect us from such an attack by a hostile foreign
country, criminals, or vandals.
Not all terrorists are the same, but the groups most dangerous
to the United States share some characteristics not seen 10 or 20 years
ago:
-
They operate in the United States as well as abroad.
-
Their funding and logistical networks cross borders, are less dependent
on state sponsors, and are harder to disrupt with economic sanctions.
-
They make use of widely available technologies to communicate quickly and
securely.
-
Their objectives are more deadly.
This changing nature of the terrorist threat raises the stakes in getting
American counterterrorist policies and practices right.
GOOD INTELLIGENCE IS THE
BEST WEAPON AGAINST
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
Obtaining information about the identity, goals, plans, and vulnerabilities
of terrorists is extremely difficult. Yet, no other single policy effort
is more important for preventing, preempting, and responding to attacks.
The Commission has identified significant obstacles to the collection
and distribution of reliable information on terrorism to analysts and policymakers.
These obstacles must be removed.
In addition, this information, often collected at great risk to agents
and officers in the field, must be safeguarded. Leaks of intelligence and
law enforcement information reduce its value, endanger sources, alienate
friendly nations and inhibit their cooperation, and jeopardize the U.S.
Government's ability to obtain further information.
Eliminate Barriers to Aggressive Collection of Information
on Terrorists
Complex bureaucratic procedures now in place send an unmistakable
message to Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officers in the field that
recruiting clandestine sources of terrorist information is encouraged in
theory but discouraged in practice.
Inside information is the key to preventing attacks by terrorists.
The CIA must aggressively recruit informants with unique access to terrorists'
plans. That sometimes requires recruiting those who have committed terrorist
acts or related crimes, just as domestic law enforcement agencies routinely
recruit criminal informants in order to pursue major criminal figures.
CIA has always had a process for assessing a potential informant's
reliability, access, and value. However, the CIA issued new guidelines
in1995 in response to concern about alleged serious acts of violence by
Agency sources. The guidelines set up complex procedures for seeking approval
to recruit informants who may have been involved in human rights violations.
In practice, these procedures have deterred and delayed vigorous efforts
to recruit potentially useful informants. The CIA has created a climate
that is overly risk averse. This has inhibited the recruitment of essential,
if sometimes unsavory, terrorist informants and forced the United States
to rely too heavily on foreign intelligence services. The adoption of the
guidelines contributed to a marked decline in Agency morale unparalleled
since the 1970s, and a significant number of case officers retired early
or resigned.
Recruiting informants is not tantamount to condoning their prior
crimes, nor does it imply support for crimes they may yet commit. The long-standing
process in place before 1995 provided managers with adequate guidance to
judge the risks of going forward with any particular recruitment.
Recommendations:
-
The Director of Central Intelligence should make it clear to the Central
Intelligence Agency that the aggressive recruitment of human intelligence
sources on terrorism is one of the intelligence community's highest priorities.
-
The Director of Central Intelligence should issue a directive that the
1995 guidelines will no longer apply to recruiting terrorist informants.
That directive should notify officers in the field that the pre-existing
process of assessing such informants will apply.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which is responsible for
investigating terrorism in the United States, also suffers from bureaucratic
and cultural obstacles to obtaining terrorism information.
The World Trade Center bombers and the foreign nationals arrested
before the millennium sought to inflict mass casualties on the American
people. These incidents highlight the importance of ensuring that the FBI's
investigations of international terrorism are as vigorous as the Constitutionallows.
The FBI's terrorism investigations are governed by two sets of
Attorney General guidelines. The guidelines for Foreign Intelligence Collection
and Foreign Counterintelligence Investigations (FI guidelines), which are
classified, cover the FBI's investigations of international terrorism,
defined as terrorism occurring outside the United States or transcending
national boundaries. Domestic terrorism is governed by the Attorney General
guidelines on General Crimes, Racketeering Enterprise and Domestic Security/Terrorism
Investigations (domestic guidelines). The domestic guidelines would apply,
for example, to an investigation of a foreign terrorist group's activities
in the United States if the FBI does not yet have information to make the
international connection required for the Fl guidelines.
Both guidelines set forth the standards that must be met before
the FBI can open a preliminary inquiry or full investigation. The domestic
guidelines authorize a preliminary inquiry where there is information or
an allegation indicating possible criminal activity. A full investigation
may be opened where there is a reasonable indication of a criminal violation,
which is described as a standard "substantially lower than probable cause."
The domestic and Fl guidelines provide the FBI with sufficient
legal authority to conduct its investigations. In many situations, however,
agents are unsure as to whether the circumstances of a particular case
allow the authority to be invoked. This lack of clarity contributes to
a risk-averse culture that causes some agents to refrain from taking prompt
action against suspected terrorists.
In 1995, largely in response to the Oklahoma City bombing and
indications that confusion was inhibiting investigations, the Department
of Justice (DoJ) issued a memorandum to the FBI field offices attempting
to clarify the circumstances that would merit opening a preliminary inquiry
and full investigation under the domestic guidelines. Nonetheless, there
is still considerable confusion among the FBI field agents about the application
of the guidelines. Neither the DoJ nor the FBI has attempted to clarify
the FI guidelines for international terrorism investigations.
Recommendation:
-
The Attorney General and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
should develop guidance to clarify the application of both sets of guidelines.
This guidance should specify what facts and circumstances merit the opening
of a preliminary inquiry or full investigation and should direct agents
in the field to investigate terrorist activity vigorously, using the full
extent of their authority.
The Department of Justice applies the statute governing electronic surveillance
and physical searches of international terrorists in a cumbersome and overly
cautious manner.1
1 Commissioner Kayyem did not concur with
the content of this section.
Pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the FBI can
obtain a court order for electronic surveillance and physical searches
of foreign powers, including groups engaged in international terrorism,
and agents of foreign powers.
Applications from the FBI for FISA orders are first approved by
the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (OIPR) in the Department of
Justice before being presented to a judge of the FISA Court for approval.
OIPR has not traditionally viewed its role as assisting the FBI to meet
the standards for FISA applications in the same way that the Criminal Division
of DoJ assists the FBI investigators to meet the standards for a wiretap.
For instance, the Criminal Division works with the investigating agents
to identify and develop ways to obtain the type of information needed for
a particular application to satisfy statutory requirements. OIPR has traditionally
not been that proactive.
The Commission heard testimony that, under ordinary circumstances, the
FISA process can be slow and burdensome, requiring information beyond the
minimum required by the statute. For example, to obtain a FISA order, the
statute requires only probable cause to believe that someone who is not
a citizen or legal permanent resident of the United States is a member
of an international terrorist organization. In practice, however, OIPR
requires evidence of wrongdoing or specific knowledge of the group's terrorist
intentions in addition to the person's membership in the organization before
forwarding the application to the FISA Court. Also, OIPR does not generally
consider the past activities of the surveillance target relevant in determining
whether the FISA probable cause test is met.
Graphic: "Application Process for Electronic Surveillance
or Search of Foreign Terrorist Targets Within the U.S.
During the period leading up to the millennium, the FISA application
process was streamlined. Without lowering the FISA standards, applications
were submitted to the FISA Court by DoJ promptly and with enough information
to establish probable cause.
Recommendations:
-
The Attorney General should direct that the Office of Intelligence Policy
and Review not require information in excess of that actually mandated
by the probable cause standard in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act statute.
-
To ensure timely review of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications,
the Attorney General should substantially expand the Office of Intelligence
Policy and Review staff and direct it to cooperate with the Federal Bureau
of Investigation.
The risk of personal liability arising from actions taken in an official
capacity discourages law enforcement and intelligence personnel from taking
bold actions to combat terrorism.
FBI special agents and CIA officers in the field should be encouraged
to take reasonable risks to combat terrorism without fear of being sued
individually for officially authorized activities. However, government
representation is not always available to such agents and officers when
they are sued. As a result, FBI special agents and CIA officers are buying
personal liability insurance, which provides for private representation
in such suits.
By recent statute, federal agencies must reimburse up to one half
of the cost of personal liability insurance to law enforcement officers
and managers or supervisors.
Recommendation:
-
Congress should amend the statute to mandate full reimbursement of the
costs of personal liability insurance for Federal Bureau of Investigation
special agents and Central Intelligence Agency officers in the field who
are combating terrorism.
Provide Resources and Capabilities to Exploit Fully Information on Terrorists
U.S. intelligence and law enforcement communities lack the
ability to prioritize, translate, and understand in a timely fashion all
of the information to which they have access.
Terrorists are using the same modern computer and communications technology
as the rest of us, resulting in more information being collected. For example,
a raid on a terrorist hideout is increasingly likely to result in the seizure
of their computers. Instead of just finding a few handwritten notebooks
and address books, counterterrorism authorities are faced with dozens of
CD-Roms and hard drives. While there may well be information stored away
in an encrypted file that could prevent the next terrorist attack, it is
far more difficult to find that one file quickly out of the hundreds that
may be stored on the terrorists' computers. To determine what is relevant,counterterrorism
agencies must be able to process volumes of information-- this can mean
decrypting it, translating it, and perhaps making sense of conversations
using code words. Until the information is in plain English, it is almost
impossible to determine whether it is relevant to a terrorism operation.
The ability to exploit information collected-- process it into
understandable information and prioritize it-- is essential to an effective
global counterterrorist program. Intelligence derived from modern communications
sources can provide indispensable warning and supports all aspects of the
government's counterterrorism program, including military and law enforcement
operations. Such intelligence is a necessary complement to that derived
from human sources.
Unfortunately, this is an area where the United States, like other
nations, is having trouble keeping pace with the information revolution.The
National Security Agency (NSA) is America's most important asset for technical
collection of terrorism information, yet it is losing its capability to
target and exploit the modern communications systems used by terrorists,
seriously weakening the NSA's ability to warn of possible attacks. The
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence established a Technical Advisory
Group whose recent report on NSA cites significant and expanding technology
gaps.
Similarly, the FBI's ability to exploit the increasing volume
of terrorism information has been hampered by aging technology. To address
these deficiencies, the FBI has identified specific technology needs including
improved technical means for using legal wiretap authorities; enhanced
data storage and retrieval systems; and counterencryption equipment.
The Counterterrorist Center (CTC) in CIA is also suffering from
inadequate resources. As a result, the Center has had to cut back or eliminate
plans for an increased operational tempo to meet the globalization of terrorism
and for development and acquisition of technology designed to assist in
combating terrorists.
All U.S. Government agencies face a drastic shortage of linguists
to translate raw data into useful information. This shortage has a direct
impact on counterterrorism efforts. The process is further complicated
by initially affording all data collected under FISA or pursuant to ongoing
terrorist investigations the highest level of classification, thereby restricting
access to personnel possessing the necessary security clearance. In many
instances involving unique dialects, this requirement leaves material unprocessed
while a worldwide search is conducted to identify the single appropriately
cleared linguist.
The difficulty faced by the U.S. Government in coordinating linguistic
capabilities with operational requirements highlights the need for a centralized
coordinating and policy oversight body to mobilize linguists to prepare
for an emergency surge requirement. The Foreign Language Executive Committee
(FLEXCOM), located within the Community Management Staff of the Director
of Central Intelligence (DCI), possesses the capability but lacks the designated
authority to carry out these functions.
Recommendations:
-
The President should direct the Director of Central Intelligence, the Secretary
of Defense, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to
work with Congress to ensure that adequate resources are devoted to meet
essential technology requirements of the National Security Agency and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation and to expand and accelerate the DCI's
Counterterrorist Center's activities.
-
The Director of Central Intelligence should authorize the Foreign Language
Executive Committee to develop a larger pool of linguists and an interagency
strategy for employing them, including flexible approaches to reduce problems
related to handling of classified material.
Promote the Flow of Terrorism Information From Law Enforcement to Policymakers
and Analysts
The law enforcement community is neither fully exploiting
the growing amount of information it collects during the course of terrorism
investigations nor distributing that information effectively to analysts
and policyrnakers.
As the federal law enforcement community becomes more involved in the response
to international terrorism, it is collecting information that is important
to policyrnakers and to intelligence community analysts. For a variety
of reasons, the information is not always shared.
Law enforcement agencies are traditionally reluctant to share
information outside of their circles so as not to jeopardize any potential
prosecution. The FBI does promptly share information warning about specific
terrorist threats with the CIA and other agencies. But the FBI is far less
likely to disseminate terrorist information that may not relate to an immediate
threat even though this could be of immense long-term or cumulative value
to the intelligence community, in part because investigators lack the training
or time to make such assessments. The problem is particularly pronounced
with respect to information collected in the FBI's field offices in the
United States, most of which never reaches the FBI headquarters, let alone
other U.S. Government agencies or departments.
Moreover, certain laws limit the sharing of law enforcement information,
such as grand jury or criminal wiretap information, with the intelligence
community. These laws are subject to differing interpretations, so that
in some cases it is unclear whether the restrictions apply.
The CIA, which faces the same challenge to disseminate useful
information rapidly, has dedicated personnel, called reports officers,
located overseas and at its headquarters. Their primary mission is to review,
prioritize, and distill collected information for timely distribution.
The FBI should have its own reports officers who can provide usable
and timely terrorist-related information to the U.S. intelligence community
and policyrnakers consistent with statutory restrictions. The FBI reports
officers could concentrate exclusively on real-time review and dissemination
of intelligence generated by the FBI investigations. To develop an understanding
of the needs of the intelligence community, these officers should be rotated
through appropriate agencies regularly.
Recommendations:
-
The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation should establish and
equip a dedicated staff of reports officers to develop terrorism and foreign
intelligence information obtained at field offices and headquarters for
prompt dissemination to other agencies, especially those within the intelligence
community, while protecting privacy and pending criminal cases.
-
The Attorney General should clarify what information can be shared and
direct maximum dissemination of terrorist-related information to policymakers
and intelligence analysts consistent with the law.
PURSUE A MORE AGGRESSIVE STRATEGY
AGAINST TERRORISM
Since the 1980s, the United States has based its counterterrorism policy
on four pillars:
-
Make no concessions to terrorists and strike no deals;
-
Bring terrorists to justice for their crimes;
-
Isolate and apply pressure on states that sponsor terrorism to force them
to change their behavior; and,
-
Bolster the counterterrorism capabilities of countries that work with the
United States and require assistance.
The government uses multiple tools to pursue this strategy. Diplomacy is
an important instrument, both in gaining the assistance of other nations
in particular cases and convincing the international community to condemn
and outlaw egregious terrorist practices. Law enforcement is often invaluable
in the investigation and apprehension of terrorists. Military force and
covert action can often preempt or disrupt terrorist attacks. But meeting
the changing terrorist threat requires more aggressive use of these tools
and the development of new policies and practices.
Law enforcement is designed to put individuals behind bars, but is not
a particularly useful tool for addressing actions by states. The Pan Am
103 case demonstrates the advantages and limitations of the law enforcement
approach to achieve national security objectives. The effort to seek extradition
of the two intelligence operatives implicated most directly in the bombing
gained international support for economic sanctions that a more political
approach may have failed to achieve. The sanctions and the resulting isolation
of Libya may have contributed to the reduction of Libya's terrorist activities.
On the other hand, prosecuting and punishing two low-level operatives for
an act almost certainly directed by Qadafi is a hollow victory, particularly
if the trial results in his implicit exoneration.
Strengthen Efforts to Discourage All State Support for Terrorism
The United States should strengthen its efforts to discourage
the broad range of assistance that states provide to international terrorists.
A key focus of this initiative must be to reduce terrorists' freedom of
movement by encouraging countries to stop admitting and tolerating the
presence of terrorists within their borders. Nations should bar terrorist
groups from activities such as training, recruiting, raising funds, or
hiding behind political asylum.
Iran's support for terrorism conducted against American interests
remains a serious national security concern. U.S. efforts to signal support
for political reform in Iran could be misinterpreted in Iran or by U.S.
allies as signaling a weakening resolve oncounterterrorism.
Iran remains the most active state supporter of terrorism.Despite the election
of reformist President Khatami in 1997, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard
Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security have continued to be involved
in the planning and execution of terrorist acts. They also provide funding,
training, weapons, logistical resources, and guidance to a variety of terrorist
groups. In 1999, organizations in Tehran increased support to terrorist
groups opposed to the Middle East peace process, including Lebanese Hizballah
and Palestinian rejectionist groups such as the Islamic Resistance Movement
(HAMAS), the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC). Iran continues to assassinate
political dissidents at home and abroad. The Iranians responsible for terrorism
abroad are often also responsible for political oppression and violence
against reformers within Iran. So a firm stance against Iranian-sponsored
terrorism abroad could assist the reformers.
The Department of State's 1999 "Patterns of Global Terrorism" provides
the following account of Iranian support for terrorism:
-
Iran's security forces conducted several bombings against Iranian dissidents
abroad.
-
Iran has increasingly encouraged and supported-- with money, training,
and weapons-- terrorist groups such as Hizballah, HAMAS, the PIJ, and Ahmed
Jibril's PFLP-GC.
-
Iran continues to provide a safehaven to elements of PKK, a Kurdish terrorist
group that has conducted numerous terrorist attacks in Turkey and against
Turkish targets in Europe.
-
Iran also provides support to terrorist groups in North Africa and South
and Central Asia, including financial assistance and training.
There are indications of Iranian involvement in the 1996 Khobar Towers
bombing in Saudi Arabia, in which 19 U.S. citizens were killed and more
than 500 were injured. In October 1999, President Clinton officially requested
cooperation from Iran in the investigation. Thus far, Iran has not responded.
International pressure in the Pan Am 103 case ultimately succeeded
in getting some degree of cooperation from Libya. The U.S. Government has
not sought similar multilateral action to bring pressure on Iran to cooperate
in the Khobar Towers bombing investigation.
Recommendations:
-
The President should not make further concessions toward Iran and should
keep Iran on the list of state sponsors of terrorism until Tehran demonstrates
it has stopped supporting terrorism and cooperates fully in the Khobar
Towers investigation.
-
The President should actively seek support from U.S. allies to compel Iran
to cooperate in the Khobar Towers bombing investigation.
Syria has not ceased its support for terrorists.
The Syrian Government still provides terrorists with safehaven,
allows them to operate over a dozen terrorist training camps in the Syrian-controlled
Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, and permits the Iranian Government to resupply
these camps. Since its designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, Syria
has expelled a few terrorist groups from Damascus, such as the Japanese
Red Army, but these groups already were of marginal value to Syrian foreign
policy. Meanwhile, Damascus continues to support terrorist groups opposed
to the peace process. Although Syria recently made a show of "instructing"
terrorists based in Damascus not to engage in certain types of attacks,
it did not expel the groups or cease supporting them. This suggests Syria's
determination to maintain rather than abandon terrorism.
Recommendation:
-
The President should make clear to Syria that it will remain on the list
of state sponsors of terrorism until it shuts down training camps and other
facilities in Syria and the Bekaa Valley and prohibits the resupply of
terrorist groups through Syrian-controlled territory.
The U.S. Government has not designated Afghanistan as a state sponsor
of terrorism because it does not recognize the Talliban regime as the Government
of Afghanistan.
In 1996, the Taliban regime gained control of the capital of Afghanistan
and began asserting its control over much of the country. Since then it
has provided a safehaven to terrorist groups and terrorist fugitives wanted
by U.S. law enforcement, including Usama bin Ladin-- who is under indictment
for his role in the bombings of U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in
1998. The Taliban also supports the training camps of many of these terrorist
groups.
Recommendation:
-
The Secretary of State should designate Afghanistan as a sponsor of terrorism
and impose all the sanctions that apply to state sponsors.
In 1996, Congress enacted a law that authorizes the President to designate
as "not cooperating fully" states whose behavior is objectionable but not
so egregious as to warrant designation as a "state sponsor of terrorism."
This law has not been effectively used.
Some countries use the rhetoric of counterterrorist cooperation
but are unwilling to shoulder their responsibilities in practice, such
as restricting the travel of terrorists through their territory or ratifying
United Nations conventions on terrorism. Other states have relations with
terrorists that fall short of the extensive criteria for designation as
a state sponsor, but their failure to act against terrorists perpetuates
terrorist activities. Newer terrorist groups, many of which are transnational
in composition and less influenced by state agendas, can take advantage
of such states for safehaven.
To address these categories of countries, in 1996 Congress authorized
the President to designate countries as "not cooperating fully with U.S.
antiterrorism efforts" and to embargo defense sales to such states. To
date, only Afghanistan has been so designated, and that designation arose
from the legal difficulty of putting Afghanistan on the state sponsor list
without appearing to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government.
Two other countries that present difficulties for U.S. counterterrorism
policy are Pakistan and Greece. Both are friendly nations and Greece is
a NATO ally.
Pakistan has cooperated on counterterrorism at times, but not
consistently. In 1995, for example, Pakistan arrested and extradited to
the United States Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, who masterminded the World Trade
Center bombing in 1993. In December 1999, Pakistan's cooperation was vital
in warding off terrorist attacks planned for the millennium. Even so, Pakistan
provides safehaven, transit, and moral, political, and diplomatic support
to several groups engaged in terrorism including Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM),
which has been designated by the United States as a Foreign Terrorist Organization(FTO).
HUM is responsible for kidnapping and murdering tourists in Indian-controlled
Kashmir. Moreover, as part of its support for Usama bin Ladin,HUM has threatened
to kill U.S. citizens.
Greece has been disturbingly passive in response to terrorist
activities. It is identified by the U.S. Government as "one of the weakest
links in Europe's effort against terrorism" (Patterns of Global Terrorism,
1999. U.S. Departmentof State.) Since 1975 there have been 146 terrorist
attacks against Americans or American interests in Greece. Only one case
has been solved and there is no indication of any meaningful investigation
into the remaining cases. Among the unresolved cases are the attacks by
the Revolutionary Organization 17 November which has claimed responsibility
for the deaths of 20 people, including four Americans, since 1975. Greek
authorities have never arrested a member of 17 November, which is a designated
FTO. The Turkish leftist group, the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front(DHKP-C),
also an FTO, has murdered four Americans since 1979 and maintains an office
in Athens despite United States protests. Last year, senior Greek Government
officials gave assistance and refuge to the leader of the Kurdish terrorist
group, the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK).
The U.S. Government should vigorously use the "Not Cooperating
Fully" category, naming countries-- even friends and allies-- whose behavior
is objectionable but does not justify designation as a state sponsor of
terrorism. This designation could be used to warn countries that may be
moving toward designation as a state sponsor.
To give this threat teeth, the U.S. Government should adopt more
stringent sanctions for states in this category. For example, the Department
of State's Visa Waiver Program (VWP) permits citizens of qualifying countries
to travel to the United States for tourism or business for 90 days without
obtaining a U.S. visa. Today there are 29 countries participating in the
VWP. Countries that are "Not Cooperating Fully" with U.S. antiterrorism
efforts should be barred from participation in the VWP. The "Not Cooperating
Fully" category could also be used as a "halfwayhouse" for states that
have reduced support for terrorism enough to justify removal from the state
sponsors list but do not yet deserve to be completely exonerated.
Recommendations:
-
The President should make more effective use of authority to designate
foreign governments as "Not Cooperating Fully" with U.S. counterterrorism
efforts to deter all state support for terrorism. Specifically, the President
should direct the Secretary of State to:
-
Consider Greece and Pakistan, among others, as candidates for this designation.
-
Review the current list of state sponsors and recommend that certain states
be moved to the "Not Cooperating Fully" designation after they have undertaken
specified measures to cease sponsorship of terrorism.
-
Increase publicity of the activities of state sponsors and countries designated
as "Not Cooperating Fully" through special reports, making extensive use
of the Internet.
-
Congress should enact legislation to make countries designated as "Not
Cooperating Fully" ineligible for the Visa Waiver Program.
Implement a Broader Approach to Stop Non-State Support for Terrorists
The United States should use all the tools at its disposal
to stop or disrupt non-state sources of support for international terrorism.
Today's terrorists rely less on direct state sponsorship and more on private
financial and logistical support. Many terrorist groups secretly exploit
the resources of international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), companies,
and wealthy individuals. For example, bin Ladin and other extremists have
used the Afghanistan-based NGO Maktab al-Khidamat for finan cial and logistical
support. By penetrating an NGO, terrorists gain not only access to funding
and international logistics networks, but also the legitimacy of cover
employment with a humanitarian organization.
To date, the focus of the U.S. Government's efforts to disrupt
private support to terrorists has been on prosecutions under provisions
of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). This
law requires the Secretary of State to designate groups that threaten U.S.
interests and security as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. There are 28
organizations on the most recent list, issued in October of 1999 by the
Secretary of State. Current practice is to update the FTO list every two
years, although the threat from terrorist groups can change at a faster
pace.
The FTO designation makes it a crime for a person in the United
States to provide funds or other material support (including equipment,
weapons, lodging, training, etc.) to such a group. There is no requirement
that the contributor know that the specific resources provided will be
used for terrorism. In addition, American financial institutions are required
under the law to block funds of FTOs and their agents and report them to
the government.
Foreign Terrorist Organizations as of October 8, 1999
Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)
Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
Aum Shinriykyo
Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)
Hizballah (Party of God)
Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group, IG)
Japanese Red Army (JRA)
al-Jihad
Kach
Kahane Chai
Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE)
Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK, MKO, NCR, and many others)
National Liberation Army (ELN)
Palestine Islamic Jihad-Shaqaqi Faction (PIJ)
Palestine Liberation Front-Abu Abbas Faction (PLF)
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC)
al-Qa'ida
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
Revolutionary Organization 17 November (17 November)
Revolutionary People's Liberation Army/Front (DHKP/C)
Revolutionary People's Struggle (ELA)
Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL)
Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA)
The FTO designation process correctly recognizes that the current threat
is increasingly from groups of terrorists rather than state sponsors. In
addition to deterring contributions to terrorist organizations, FTO designation
serves as a diplomatic tool. It provides the State Department with the
ability to use a "carrot and stick" approach to these groups, providing
public condemnation and a potential for redemption if the groups renounce
terrorism.
There is little doubt that all groups currently on the list belong
there. But the exclusion, for example, of the Real Irish Republican Army,
which carried out the Omagh car bombing in Northern Ireland in 1998 killing
29 people and injuring more than 200, raises questions about completeness
of the list.This diminishes the credibility of the FTO list by giving the
impression that political or ethnic considerations can keep a group off
the list.
Rather than relying heavily on the FTO process, the U.S. Government
should take a broader approach to cutting off the flow of financial support
for terrorism from within the United States. Anyone providing funds to
terrorist organizations or activities should be investigated with the full
vigor of the law and, where possible, prosecuted under relevant statutes,
including those covering money laundering, conspiracy, tax or fraud violations.
In such cases, assets may also be made subject to civil and criminal forfeiture.
In addition, the Department of the Treasury could use its Office
of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) more effectively. OFAC administers and
enforces economic sanctions. For example, any U.S. financial institution
holding funds belonging to a terrorist organization or one of its agents
must report those assets to OFAC. Under OFAC's regulations, the transfer
of such assets can be blocked. OFAC's capabilities and expertise are underutilized
in part because of resource constraints.
Other government agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service
and Customs, also possess information and authority that could be used
to thwart terrorist fundraising. For instance, the IRS has information
on nongovernmental organizations that may be collecting donations to support
terrorism, and Customs has data on large currency transactions. But there
is no single entity that tracks and analyzes all the data available to
the various agencies on terrorist fundraising in the United States.
In addition to domestic efforts, disrupting fundraising for terrorist
groups requires international cooperation. A new United Nations convention,
the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism,
provides a framework for improved cooperation. Each signing party is to
enact domestic legislation to criminalize fundraising for terrorism and
provide for the seizure and forfeiture of funds intended to support terrorism.
The parties are to cooperate in the criminal investigation and prosecution
of terrorism fundraising, and in extraditing suspects.
Recommendations:
-
The President should direct the creation of a joint task force consisting
of all the agencies in the U.S. Government that possess information or
authority relevant to terrorist fundraising. The task force should develop
and implement a broad approach toward disrupting the financial activities
of terrorists. This approach should use all available criminal, civil,
and administrative sanctions, including those for money laundering, tax
and fraud violations, or conspiracy charges.
-
The Secretary of the Treasury should create a unit within the Office of
Foreign Assets Control dedicated to the issue of terrorist fundraising.
-
The Congress should promptly ratify the International Convention for the
Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and pass any legislation necessary
for full implementation.
-
The Secretary of State should ensure the list of FTO designations is credible
and frequently updated.
-
Congress should review the status of the FTO statute within five years
to determine whether changes are appropriate.
Of the large number of foreign students who come to this country to
study, there is a risk that a small minority may exploit their student
status to support terrorist activity. The United States lacks the nationwide
ability to monitor the immigration status of these students.
In spite of elaborate immigration laws and the efforts of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, the United States is, cle facto,
a country of open borders. The Commission found that the massive flows
of people across U.S.borders make exclusion of all foreign terrorists impossible.
There are more than 300 million legal crossings each year at the U.S./Mexican
land border alone. Millions more stream through our airports.
Beyond the millions who legally come and go, over four million
persons reside illegally in the United States. About half of them entered
the country without inspection, meaning they crossed U.S. borders between
inspection stations or entered by small boat or aircraft. Roughly another
two million people entered the United States with a valid visitor's visa,
but overstayed their visa and remained here to live. That said, of the
millions who come here to live or visit only a minuscule portion of all
foreigners in the United States attempt to harm the country in any way.
While the problems of controlling America's borders are far broader
than just keeping out terrorists, the Commission found this an area of
special concern. For example, thousands of people from countries officially
designated as state sponsors of terrorism currently study in the United
States. This is not objectionable in itself as the vast majority of these
students contribute to America's diversity while here and return home with
no adverse impact on U.S. national security. However, experience has shown
the importance of monitoring the status of foreign students. Seven years
ago, investigators discovered that one of the terrorists involved in bombing
the World Trade Center had entered the United States on a student visa,
dropped out, and remained illegally. Today, there is still no mechanism
for ensuring the same thing won't happen again.
One program holds promise as a means of addressing the issue.
The Coordinated Interagency Partnership Regulating International Students
(CIPRIS), a regional pilot program mandated by the 1996 Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIR/IRA) collects and makes readily
available useful and current information about foreign student visa holders
in the United States. For example, CIPRIS would record a foreign student's
change in major from English literature to nuclear physics. The CIPRIS
pilot program was implemented in 20 southern universities and is being
considered for nationwide implementation after an opportunity for notice
and comment. The Commission believes that CIPRIS could become a model for
a nationwide program monitoring the status of foreign students.
Recommendation:
-
The President and Congress should work together to create an effective
system for monitoring the status of foreign students nationwide.
Congress provided for the expedited expulsion of terrorists with procedures
for the use of secret evidence.The protections contained in these procedures
have not been used. 2
2 Due to his pro bono publico representation
in certain cases, Commissioner Woolsey did not participate in the deliberations
on this recommendation.
The 1993 World Trade Center bombing brought to light the problem of international
terrorists entering and operating in the United States and illustrated
the importance of removing suspected terrorists from the United States.
In 1996, Congress established the Alien Terrorist Removal Court
(ATRC). The legislation authorized use of classified information in cases
involving the expulsion of suspected terrorists, but the law provided several
protections for the accused, including the requirement that the alien be
provided an unclassified summary of the classified evidence and appellate
review by federal courts. For aliens legally admitted for permanent residence,
the law allowed the use of special attorneys who hold security clearances
(cleared counsel) who are permitted to review secret evidence on behalf
of an alien and challenge its veracity.
The ATRC has never been used. Rather, pursuant to other statutes
and case law, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has acted
to remove aliens based on classified evidence presented to an immigration
judge without disclosure to the alien or defense counsel.
The U.S. Government should not be confronted with the dilemma
of unconditionally disclosing classified evidence or allowing a suspected
terrorist to remain at liberty in the United States. At the same time,
resort to use of secret evidence without disclosure even to cleared counsel
should be discontinued, especially when criminal prosecution throughan
open court proceeding is an option.
Recommendations:
-
The Attorney General should direct the Department of Justice to pursue
vigorously the criminal prosecution of terrorists in an open court whenever
possible.
-
The Attorney General should further direct that where national security
requires the use of secret evidence in administrative immigration cases,
procedures for cleared counsel and unclassified summaries, such as those
provided in the ATRC, should be used.
Without international cooperation, the United States cannot protect
its national infrastructure from the cyber threat.
Cyber crime already has been recognized as a serious and growing
problem. In response, the government has passed new laws, set new security
requirements, established new centers, promoted partnerships with the private
sector, and supported the exchange of information and research.
In addition to domestic efforts, the United States must seek international
cooperation. Cyber criminals and terrorists using the Internet are unrestrained
by national borders. Therefore, the U.S. Government must make every effort
to establish international agreements and cooperation to prevent or respond
to a cyber-terrorist attack.
Recommendation:
-
The Secretary of State, in concert with other departments and agencies,
should take the lead in developing an international convention aimed at
harmonizing national laws, sharing information, providing early warning,
and establishing accepted procedures for conducting international investigations
of cyber crime.
Improve Executive and Legislative Branch Review of Counterterrorism
Activities
The senior official responsible for coordinating all U.S.
counterterrorism efforts does not have sufficient authority to ensure that
the President's priorities on counterterrorism are reflected in agencies'
budgets.
The United States does not have a single counterterrorism budget. Instead,
counterterrorism programs exist in the individual budgets of 45 departments
and agencies of the Federal Government. The National Coordinator for Security,
Infrastructure, and Counterterrorism (currently a member of the President's
staff) is responsible for ensuring that the counterterrorism programs in
these departments and agencies meet the President's overall counterterrorism
objectives. To discharge this responsibility, the National Coordinator
established a process to set priorities, develop counterterrorism initiatives
and review their funding in agency budgets. This process is an efficient
means of balancing counterterrorism program requirements against other
agency priorities, but it has a significant drawback. The National Coordinator
has no role in the critical step when the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) decides what agency programs will be funded and at what levels. This
decision is conveyed to the agencies when budget revisions are passed back
to the agencies (called passbacks).
The Commission believes that whoever coordinates the national
counterterrorism effort on behalf of the President should also have the
authority to ensure that the President's counterterrorism objectives are
reflected in agency budgets. That means the coordinator should participate
with OMB in the passback of counterterrorism budget submissions, as well
as in the final phase of the budget process when agencies appeal OMB's
decisions.
Recommendation:
-
The President should require the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget and the national counterterrorism coordinator to agree on all budget
guidance to the agencies, including the response to initial budget submissions,
and both officials should be involved in presenting agencies' counterterrorism
budget appeals to the President.
Congressional responsibility for reviewing the President's counterterrorism
budget is divided among several committees and sub-committees, making coordinated
review more difficult.
Key Congressional Committees
With Oversight Responsibility for
Counterterrorism
SENATE
Appropriations
Armed Services
Foreign Relations
Governmental Affairs
Judiciary
Intelligence
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Appropriations
Armed Services
Government Reform
International Relations
Judiciary
Intelligence
One of the essential tasks for the national counterterrorism coordinator
is to prepare a comprehensive counterterrorism plan and budget. Similarly,
Congress should develop mechanisms for coordinated review of the President's
counterterrorism policy and budget, rather than having each of the many
relevant committees moving in different directions without regard to the
overall strategy.
As a first step, the Commission urges Congress to consider holding joint
hearings of two or more committees on counterterrorism matters. In addition,
to facilitate executive-legislative discussion of terrorism budget issues,
the House and Senate Appropriations committees should each assign to senior
staff responsibility for cross-appropriations review of counterterrorism
programs.
Finally, the Commission notes the importance of bipartisanship
both in Congress and in the executive branch when considering counterterrorism
policy and funding issues.
Recommendations:
-
Congress should develop a mechanism for reviewing the President's counterterrorism
policy and budget as a whole. The executive branch should commit to full
consultation with Congress on counterterrorism issues.
-
House and Senate Appropriations Committees should immediately direct full-committee
staff to conduct a cross-subcommittee review of counterterrorism budgets.
PREPARE TO PREVENT OR
RESPOND TO CATASTROPHIC
TERRORIST ATTACKS
A terrorist attack in the United States using a biological agent, deadly
chemicals, or nuclear or radiological material, even if only partially
successful, would profoundly affect the entire nation, as would a series
of conventional attacks or a single bombing that caused thousands of deaths.
Given the trend toward more deadly terrorist attacks and indications that
mass casualties are an objective of many of today's terrorists, it is essential
that America be fully prepared to prevent and respond to this kind of catastrophic
terrorism.
Over the past few years, the U.S. Government has taken a number
of positive steps. Several Presidential Directives have effected major
changes in organizational responsibilities and improved cooperation. The
Department of Health and Human Services' Strategic Plan, the Attorney General's
Five-Year Plan, the establishment of a military Joint Task Force for Civil
Support, and improvement in first responders' capabilities are valuable
efforts, but there is still more to do.
There is a risk that, in preventing or responding to a catastrophic
terrorist attack, officials may hesitate or act improperly because they
do not fully understand their legal authority or because there are gaps
in that authority.
There is some statutory authority that does not now exist that
should be considered for catastrophic conditions. For example:
-
Federal quarantine authority cannot be used in a situation that is confined
to a single state.
-
Not all cities or states have their own quarantine authority.
-
There is no clear federal authority with regard to compelling vaccinations,
or rationing scarce vaccinations, or requiring autopsies when necessary
for a terrorism investigation.
The Constitution permits extraordinary measures in the face of extraordinary
threats. To prevent or respond to catastrophic terrorism, law enforcement
and public health officials have the authority to conduct investigations
and implement measures that temporarily exceed measures applicable under
non-emergency conditions. These may include cordoning off of areas, vehicle
searches, certain medical measures, and sweep searches through areas believed
to contain weapons or terrorists.
Determining whether a particular measure is reasonable requires
balancing privacy and other rights against the public interest in coping
with a terrorist threat which may lead to massive casualties. Advance preparation
is the best way to deal successfully with a terrorist incident without
jeopardizing individuals' Constitutional rights.
Recommendations:
-
The President should direct the preparation of a manual on the implementation
of existing legal authority necessary to address effectively a catastrophic
terrorist threat or attack. The manual should be distributed to the appropriate
federal, state, and local officials and be used in training, exercises,
and educational programs.
-
The President should determine whether any additional legal authority is
needed to deal with catastrophic terrorism and make recommendations to
Congress if necessary.
The U.S. Government's plans for a catastrophic terrorist attack on the
United States do not employ the full range of the Department of Defense's
(DoD's) capabilities for managing large operations. Additionally, the interagency
coordination and cooperation required to integrate the DoD properly into
counterterrorism planning has not been accomplished.
The Department of Defense's ability to command and control vast
resources for dangerous, unstructured situations is unmatched by any other
department or agency. According to current plans, DoD involvement is limited
to supporting the agencies that are currently designated as having the
lead in a terrorism crisis, the FBI and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). But, in extraordinary circumstances, when a catastrophe
is beyond the capabilities of local, state, and other federal agencies,
or is directly related to an armed conflict overseas, the President may
want to designate DoD as a lead federal agency. This may become a critical
operational consideration in planning for future conflicts. Current plans
and exercises do not consider this possibility.
An expanded role for the DoD in a catastrophic terrorist attack will have
policy and legal implications. Other federal agencies, the states, and
local communities will have major concerns. In preparing for such a contingency,
there will also be internal DoD issues on resources and possible conflicts
with traditional military contingency plans. These issues should be addressed
beforehand.
Effective preparation also requires effective organization. The
DoD is not optimally organized to respond to the wide range of missions
that would likely arise from the threat of a catastrophic terrorist attack.
For example, within DoD several offices, departments, Unified Commands,
the Army, and the National Guard have overlapping responsibilities to plan
and execute operations in case of a catastrophic terrorist attack. These
operations will require an unprecedented degree of interagency coordination
and communication in order to be successful.
There are neither plans for the DoD to assume a lead agency role nor exercises
rehearsing this capability. Hence, these demanding tasks would have to
be accomplished on an ad hoc basis by the military.
Recommendations:
-
The President should direct the Assistant to the President for National
Security Affairs, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the
Attorney General, to develop and adopt detailed contingency plans that
would transfer lead federal agency authority to the Department of Defense
if necessary during a catastrophic terrorist attack or prior to an imminent
attack.
-
The Secretary of Defense should establish a unified command structure that
would integrate all catastrophic terrorism capabilities and conduct detailed
planning and exercises with relevant federal, state, and local authorities.
The interagency program and plan for exercising the government's preparedness
to respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack is inadequate.
In addition to DoD exercises, a realistic interagency exercise
program,with full participation by all relevant federal agencies and their
leaders, is essential for national preparedness to counter a catastrophic
terrorist attack. In June 1995, the President established an interagency
counterterrorist Exercise Subgroup and program which included preparation
for a catastrophic terrorist attack. However, not all federal agencies
have participated in or budgeted for these exercises.
Additionally, in September 1998, Congress funded and mandated
the Department of Justice and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to
conduct a counterterrorism and consequence management exercise, called
TOPOFF, involving relevant federal agencies and their senior leadership,
with select state and local governments participating, to evaluate the
U.S. Government's preparedness for a catastrophic terrorist incident. However,
sufficient funding was not provided and there is no requirement to exercise
on a regular schedule.
Recommendation:
-
The President should direct (1) the Exercise Subgroup, under the direction
of the national coordinator for counterterrorism, to exercise annually
the government's response to a catastrophic terrorism crisis, including
consequence management; and (2) all relevant federal agencies to plan,
budget and participate in counterterrorism and consequence management exercises
coordinated by the Exercise Subgroup and ensure senior officer level participation,
particularly in the annual exercises.
Given the urgency of near-term needs, long-term research and development
(R&D) projects on technologies useful to fighting terrorism will be
short-changed unless Congress and the President can agree on special procedures
and institutional arrangements to work on research that is risky and has
more distant payoffs.
Research and Development spending for new technologies to cope
with catastrophic terrorism has significantly increased over the past three
years. Most of the funds, however, are targeted on near-term improvements
to meet immediate needs for better detectors, more vaccines, and requirements
of first responders.
To prevent or cope with terrorist attacks in the future, in particular
attacks using CBRN agents, the U.S. Government must make greater use of
America's dominance in science and technology. No other country, much less
any subnational organization, can match U.S. scientific and technological
prowess in biotechnology and pharmaceutical production and quality control,
electronics, computer science and other domains that could help overcome
and defeat the technologies used by future terrorists. But this kind of
R&D requires time-- five to ten years or more-- to develop new ideas,
test hypotheses, craft preliminary applications, and test them. Developing
mass production for successful applications further delays getting products
into the hands of users.
The following list illustrates, but by no means exhausts, the type of
projects that could constitute a long-term R&D program:
-
New sensors to detect nuclear weapons in transit (e.g., gamma-ray imaging
systems, including stimulation to elicit detectable emissions).
-
High power ultraviolet beams to destroy BW agents and to clean up contaminated
areas.
-
New types of "tripwires" suitable for many different entry-points (e.g.,
explosive-sniffers, body scanner), and their proto-typing for mass-production.
-
Advanced development of anti-virals for smallpox.
The Commission considered several institutional arrangements to manage
long-term R&D. One option is establishing a large program at one of
the Department of Energy (DoE) or other national laboratories to conduct
in-house research, contract for external research, initiate prototyping
for production, and involve qualified outside experts. This last task is
particularly important in the fields of biotechnology and pharmaceutical
production techniques. The goal would be to attract talented biotechnology
and pharmaceutical industry scientists and engineers to work with the government
for one or two years on high priority projects.
Recommendation:
-
The President should establish a comprehensive and coordinated long-term
Research and Development program to counter catastrophic terrorism.
Current controls on transfers of pathogens that could be used in biological
terrorism are inadequate and controls on related equipment are nonexistent.
In addition, current programs of the Department of Health and Human Services
are not adequate to ensure physical security of pathogens or to monitor
disease outbreaks overseas.
Terrorists, without serious risk of detection, could obtain pathogens
from domestic natural sources, steal them, or import them into the United
States. Most pathogens in the United States are tightly controlled, but
regulation of laboratories as well as of dangerous agents during transport
are designed to prevent accidents, not theft. Moreover, these controls
are not as rigorous as controls over nuclear material.
Creating pathogens small and sturdy enough to disperse broadly
over a target population for an effective period of time remains, fortunately,
a complex process. Thus, regulating the sophisticated equipment required
to turn pathogens into weapons could hamper terrorist efforts to acquire
this capability.
However, no regulatory scheme is foolproof. Moreover, contagious
diseases do not require sophisticated dispersion devices. Thus, it is important
to have the ability to detect outbreaks of infectious diseases and to distinguish
bioterrorist attacks from natural outbreaks. Some detection and analytical
systems are in place domestically, but the international community's ability
to distinguish natural disease from terrorism lags far behind even these
modest U.S. efforts.
Recommendations:
-
The Secretary of Health and Human Services should strengthen physical security
standards applicable to the storage, creation, and transport of pathogens
in research laboratories and other certified facilities in order to protect
against theft or diversion. These standards should be as rigorous as the
physical protection and security measures applicable to critical nuclear
materials.
-
The Congress should:
-
Make possession of designated critical pathogens illegal for anyone who
is not properly certified.
-
Control domestic sale and transfer of equipment critical to the development
or use of biological agents by certifying legitimate users of critical
equipment and prohibiting sales of such equipment to non-certified entities.
-
Require tagging of critical equipment to enable law enforcement to identify
its location.
-
The Secretary of Health and Human Services, working with the Department
of State, should develop an international monitoring program to provide
early warning of infectious disease outbreaks and possible terrorist experimentation
with biological substances.
Appendix A: Transmittal Letters
Commission Letter to the President of the United States
Commission Letter to the President of the Senate
Commission Letter to the Speaker of the House
Original letters of transmittal were also sent to the following:
The Honorable Strom Thurmond
The President Pro Tempore
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
The Honorable Trent Lott
Republican Leader
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
The Honorable Tom Daschle
Democratic Leader
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
The Honorable Richard A. Gephardt
Democratic Leader
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
APPENDIX B: COMMISSION CHARTER AND PROCESS
Commission History
The National Commission on Terrorism was established by Section 591of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriation Act, 1999 (as contained in the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (P.L. 105-277). The legislation called for the appointment of 10 commissioners, three selected by the Majority Leader of the Senate, three by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and two each by the Minority Leaders of the Senate and House of Representatives.
Congress gave the Commission six months to review the laws, regulations, directives, policies and practices for preventing and punishing international terrorism directed against the United States, assess their effectiveness, and recommend changes. The Commission held 14 plenary meetings, generally meeting twice per month. During its meetings, the Commission was briefed by both government witnesses and outside experts. A number of Commissioners met with representatives of the governments of Canada, Egypt, France, Israel, Jordan, Poland, and the United Kingdom to address various international terrorism issues, including cooperation between those countries and the United States. Several Commissioners participated in non-plenary meetings dealing with particular issues, and Commission staff interviewed additional witnesses. (See List of Witnesses at Appendix D)
Charter Legislation
PUBLIC LAW 105-277 - OCT 21, 1998
(Page 112 STAT. 2681-210; H.R. 4328)
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORISM
SEC. 591.
(a) Establishment of National Commission on Terrorism.
(1) Establishment. -There is established a national commission on terrorism to review counter-terrorism policies regarding the prevention and punishment of international acts of terrorism directed at the United States. The commission shall be known as "The National Commission on Terrorism".
(2) Composition.-The commission shall be composed of 10 members appointed as follows:
(A) Three members shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the Senate.
(B) Three members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(C) Two members shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the Senate.
(D) Two members shall be appointed by the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
(E) The appointments of the members of the commission should be
made no later than 3 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) Qualifications.-The members should have a knowledge and expertise in matters to be studied by the commission.
(4) Chair.-The Speaker of the House of Representatives, after consultation with the majority leader of the Senate and the minority leaders of the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall designate one of the members of the Commission to serve as chair of the Commission.
(5) Period of appointment: vacancies.- Members shall be appointed for the life of the Commission. Any vacancy in the Commission shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment.
(6) Security clearances.-All Members of the Commission should hold appropriate security clearances.
(b) Duties.-
(1) In general.-The commission shall consider issues relating to international terrorism directed at the United States as follows:
(A) Review the laws, regulations, policies, directives, and practices relating
to counterterrorism in the prevention and punishment of international terrorism directed towards the United States.
(B) Assess the extent to which laws, regulations, policies, directives,and practices relating to counterterrorism have been effective in preventing or punishing international terrorism directed towards the United States. At a minimum, the assessment should include a review of the following:
(i) Evidence that terrorist organizations have established an infrastructure in the western hemisphere for the support and conduct of terrorist activities.
(ii) Executive branch efforts to coordinate counterterrorism activities among Federal, State, and local agencies and with other nations to determine the effectiveness of such coordination efforts.
(iii) Executive branch efforts to prevent the use of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons by terrorists.
(C) Recommend changes to counterterrorism policy in preventing and punishing international terrorism directed toward the United States.
(2) Report.-Not later than 6 months after the date on which the Commission first meets, the Commission shall submit to the President and the Congress a final report of the findings and conclusions of the commission, together with any recommendations.
(c) Administrative Matters.-
(1) Meetings.-
(A) The commission shall hold its first meeting on a date designated by the Speaker of the House which is not later than 30 days after the date on which all members have been appointed.
(B) After the first meeting, the commission shall meet upon the call of the chair.
(C) A majority of the members of the commission shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold meetings.
(2) Authority of individuals to act for commission.-Any member or agent of the commission may, if authorized by the commission, take any action which the commission is authorized to take under this section.
(3) Powers.-
(A) The commission may hold such hearings, sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and receive such evidence as the commission considers advisable to carry out its duties.
(B) The commission may secure directly from any agency of the Federal Government such information as the commission considers necessary to carry out its duties. Upon the request of the chair of the commission, the head of a department or agency shall furnish the requested information expeditiously to the commission.
(C) The commission may use the United States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
(4) Pay and expenses of commission members.-
(A) Subject to appropriations, each member of the commission who is not an employee of the government shall be paid at a rate not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code for each day (including travel time) during which such member is engaged in performing the duties of the commission.
(B) Members and personnel for the commission may travel on aircraft, vehicles, or other conveyances of the Armed Forces of the United States when travel is necessary in the performance of a duty of the commission except when the cost of commercial transportation is less expensive.
(C) The members of the commission may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the commission.
(D) (i) A member of the commission who is an annuitant otherwise covered by section 8344 of 8468 of title 5, United States Code, by reason of membership on the commission shall not be subject to the provisions of such section with respect to membership on the commission.
(ii) A member of the commission who is a member or former member
of a uniformed service shall not be subject to the provisions of sub-sections (b) and (c) of section 5532 of such title with respect to membership on the commission.
(5) Staff and administrative support.-
(A) The chairman of the commission may, without regard to civil service laws and regulations, appoint and terminate an executive director and up to three additional staff members as necessary to enable the commission to perform its duties. The chairman of the commission may fix the compensation of the executive director and other personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51, and subchapter III of chapter 53, of title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of positions and General Schedule pay rates, except that the rate of pay may not exceed the maximum rate of pay for GS-15 under the General Schedule.
(B) Upon the request of the chairman of the commission, the head of
any department or agency of the Federal Government may detail,
without reimbursement, any personnel of the department or agency
to the commission to assist in carrying out its duties. The detail of an employee shall be without interruption or loss of civil service status or privilege.
(d) Termination of Commission.- The commission shall terminate 30 days after the date on which the commission submits a final report.
(e) Funding.-There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section.
APPENDIX C: COMMISSION MEMBERS AND STAFF
Commissioners
L. Paul Bremer III, Chairman is the Managing Director of Kissinger Associates. During a 23-year career in the American diplomatic service, Ambassador Bremer served in Asia, Africa, Europe and Washington, D.C. He was
Ambassador to the Netherlands from 1983 to 1986. From 1986-1989, he
served as Ambassador-at-Large for Counter-Terrorism, where he was responsible for developing and implementing America's global polices to combat terrorism.
Maurice Sonnenberg, Vice Chairman, is the senior international advisor to
the investment banking firm of Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. and the senior international advisor to the law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP. He is a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. He recently served as a member of the U.S. Commission on Reducing and Protecting Government Secrecy and as the senior advisor to the U.S. Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of the U.S. Intelligence Community.
Richard K. Betts is Leo A. Shifrin Professor of War and Peace Studies in the political science department, Director of the Institute of War and Peace Studies, and Director of the International Security Policy program in the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. He is also Director of National Security Studies and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and author of Surprise Attack: Lesson for Defense Planning.
Wayne A. Downing, General, U.S. Army, retired in 1996 after a 34-year career, where he served in a variety of command assignments in infantry, armored, special operations and joint units culminating in his appointment as the Commancler-in-Chief of the U.S. Special Operations Command. Since retirement, he was appointed to assess the 1996 terrorist attack on the U.S. base at Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia, and to make recommendations to protect people and facilities world wide from terrorist attack. General Downing serves on several boards and panels in both the private and government sectors.
Jane Harman just completed a year as Regents Professor at U.C.L.A. where she taught at the Department of Political Science and Center for International Relations. Harman represented California's 36th Congressional District from 1992-1998 where she served on the National Security, Science and Intelligence Committees. Prior government experience includes Senate Counsel, White House Deputy Cabinet Secretary and DoD Special Counsel. Harman is currently seeking election to her former seat.
Fred C. Iklé is a Distinguished Scholar, Center for Strategic & International Studies. Dr. Iklé is Chairman of the Board of Telos Corporation and a Director of the Zurich-American Insurance Companies and of CMC Energy Services. Prior to joining the Center, Dr. Iklé served as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and Director for the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
Juliette N. Kayyem is an Associate of the Executive Session on Domestic Preparedness, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. She writes and teaches courses on counter-terrorism policy and the law. Ms.Kayyem has most recently served as a legal advisor to the Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice and as Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.
John F. Lewis, Jr. is Director of Global Security for Goldman, Sachs & Co., New York. Previously, he was Assistant Director-in-Charge of the National Security Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Lewis managed the FBI's national counterintelligence and counterterrorism programs. Mr.Lewis has held a variety of positions, including an appointment as Director of Intelligence and CI Programs, National Security Staff and previous Chairman of the International Association of Chiefs of Police Committee on Terrorism.
Gardner Peckham is Managing Director of the government relations firm of Black, Kelly, Scruggs & Healey with a practice focused on international trade, defense and foreign policy issues. Prior to joining the firm, Mr.Peckham served as Senior Policy Advisor to the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. He also held several other senior positions in Congress and during the Bush Administration served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at the U.S. Department of State and Director for Legislative Affairs at the National Security Council Staff.
R. James Woolsey is a partner at the law firm of Shea & Gardner with a practice in the fields of civil litigation, alternative dispute resolution, and corporate transactions; he also serves on several corporate boards. Previous to returning to the firm, Mr. Woolsey served as Director of Central Intelligence. His U.S. Government service includes Ambassador to the Negotiations on CFE, Under Secretary of the Navy, and General Counsel of the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services. He has served on many Presidential and Congressional delegations, boards, and commissions.
Staff
Suzanne E. Spaulding, Executive Director
Margaret A. Glatz, Executive Assistant
Hyon J. Kim, General Counsel
Barbara Barnes
Gina M. Bennett
LTC Rudolph R. Cohen, Jr., USA
Goldie R. Flowers
Burley P. Fuselier, Jr.
Kevin P. Giblin
John W. Ivicic
Philip S. Kosnett
Advisors
Donald R. Hamilton
Bonnie Jenkins
Brian M. Jenkins
Barry Kellman
William M. Wise
Mona Yacoubian
APPENDIX D: Individuals Interviewed by the Commission
The following is a list of individuals interviewed by Commission members or staff. The Commission also met with officials of the governments of Canada, France, Israel, Jordan, Poland, and the United Kingdom.
Ambassador Morton Abramowitz
Carnegie Foundation
Yonah Alexander
Director and Senior Fellow
Center for Counter Terrorism
Potomac Institute for Policy Studies
Charles E. Allen
Assistant Director of Central
Intelligence for Collection
Central Intelligence Agency
David Argoff
Associate Dean
Foreign Service Institute
Department of State
Richard Armitage
Former Assistant Secretary of Defense
Department of Defense
Andrew Arthur
Associate General Counsel
Immigration and Naturalization
Service
James A. Baker
Deputy Counsel, Operations
Office of Intelligence Policy and Review
Department of Justice
Steve L. Basha
Associate Chief Counsel (Enforcement)
U.S. Customs Service
Peter Bass
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Sanctions and Commodities
Department of State
John Bellinger, III
Counsel for National Security Matters
Criminal Division
Department of Justice
Pam Berkowski
Special Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense for Consequence Management
Department of Defense
Nicole Bibbins
Special Assistant
Office of the Counter-Terrorism
Coordinator
Department of State
Robert Blitzer
Former Section Chief
Domestic Terrorism
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Douglas 0. Bowman
Associate General Counsel
Central Intelligence Agency
M. E. (Spike) Bowman
Associate General Counsel
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Lisa Burnett
Associate Director
Office of International Affairs
Criminal Division
Department of Justice
Ambassador Morris Busby
Former Counter-Terrorism Coordinator
Department of State
Stephen L. Caldwell
National Security & International
Affairs Division
General Accounting Office
Stephen A. Cambone
Director of Research
Institute of National Strategic Studies
National Defense University
W. Seth Carus
Senior Research Professor
Center for Counterproliferation
National Defense University
Department of Defense
James Castello
Associate Deputy Attorney General
Department of Justice
Frank J. Cilluffo
Center for Strategic and International Studies
William E. Clark
Office of Management and Budget
Department of Health and Human Services
Floyd Clarke
Vice President for Corporate Compliance
McAndrews & Forbes
Richard A. Clarke
National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counterterrorism
National Security Council
Patrick Clawson
Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Owen B. (Bill) Cooper
General Counsel
Immigration and Naturalization Service
A. Heather Coyne
Program Examiner
Office and Management and Budget
Martha Crenshaw
Professor
Wesleyan University
M. Deborah Cryan
Terrorism Analyst
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Harvey Dalton
Legal Counsel
Office of General Counsel
Department of Defense
Robert 0. Davis
Deputy Counsel, Policy
Office of Intelligence Policy and Review
Department of Justice
Todd M. Davis
Assistant General Counsel
Office of General Counsel
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Raymond J. Decker,
National Security & International Affairs Division
General Accounting Office
James X. Dempsey
Senior Staff Counsel
Center for Democracy and Technology
Dorothy E. Denning
Professor
Georgetown University
Sidney D. Drell
Hoover Institute
Stanford University
Ronnie L. Edelman
Principal Deputy Chief
Terrorism and Violent Crime Section
Criminal Division
Department of Justice
Dr. Edward Eitzen, COL, USA
Chief, Operational Medicine Division
U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Disease
Department of Defense
Steve Emerson
Journalist
Gerald L. Epstein
Senior Policy Analyst
Office of Science and Technology Policy
National Security Council
Ambassador Nabil Fahmy
Egyptian Ambassador to the United States
Richard A. Falkenrath
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
George C. Fidas
Deputy National Intelligence Officer
for Economic and Global Issues
Central Intelligence Agency
Louis Freeh
Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Stephen B. French
Department of Defense
Robert M. (Bob) Gates
Former Director of Central Intelligence
John Gearson
Kings College, UK
Lisa Gordon-Hagerty
Director for Weapons of Mass Destruction Preparedness
National Security Council
Margaret Gullota
Section Chief, Language Services
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg
Assistant Secretary for Plans and Evaluations
Department of Health and Human Services
Philip Heymann
James Barr Ames Professor of Law
Harvard Law School
Harvard University
Bruce R. Hoffman
RAND Corporation
Michael Jakub
Office of the Counter-Terrorism Coordinator
Department of State
Stephen Jennings
Assistant Section Chief
International Terrorism
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Larry Johnson
Former Terrorism Analyst
Department of State
Steven B. Kashkett
Office of the Counter-Terrorism Coordinator
Department of State
Thomas Knowles,
Section Chief, International Relations Branch
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Michael B. Kraft
Office of the Counter-Terrorism Coordinator
Department of State
Ellen Laipson
Vice Chairperson
National Intelligence Council
Central Intelligence Agency
Judge Royce C. Lamberth
Presiding Judge
U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
Dr. John LaMontange
Deputy Director
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Department of Health and Human Services
Walter Laqueur
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Elisa L. Liang
Associate Deputy Attorney General
Department of Justice
L. Lewis Libby
Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
Department of Defense
Dr. Scott Lillibridge
Director, Center for Disease Control
Department of Health and Human Services
CAPT Michael Lohr, USN
Legal Counsel, Joint Staff
Department of Defense
Ambassador Ted MacNamara
Former Counter-Terrorism Coordinator
Department of State
Frederic F. Manget
Associate General Counsel
Central Intelligence Agency
COL David E. McCracken, USA
Chief, Special Operations Division,
Joint Staff
Department of Defense
Ariel Merari
Harvard University
Joseph Morton
Director, Office of Threat Analysis
Department of State
Art Muirhead
Regional Policy Office
Department of State
Brian M. Murtagh
Deputy Chief
Terrorism and Violent Crime Section
Criminal Division
Department of Justice
Robert Newberry
Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Special Operations
and Low Intensity Conflict
Department of Defense
Gregory Nojeim
Legislative Counsel
American Civil Liberties Union
Phylis Oakley
Former Director
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
Department of State
John Parachini
Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Monterey Institute for International Studies
Robert Pecha
Defense Intelligence Agency
Department of Defense
Mary Ann Peters
Deputy Chief of Mission, Canada
Department of State
Thomas Pickard
Deputy Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
Department of State
Paul R. Pillar
Federal Executive Fellow
The Brookings Institute
Alan R. Pino
Central Intelligence Agency
Dennis Pluchinsky
Branch Chief
International Threat Analysis
Diplomatic Security Service
Department of State
Oliver (Buck) Ravell
Former Associate Deputy Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation
John R. Reingruber
Department of Defense
Technical Services Working Group Coordinator
Department of Defense
James Reynolds
Chief, Terrorism and Violent Crime Section
Criminal Division
Department of Justice
Chris Ridder
Legal Counsel
Department of Defense
Elizabeth Rindskopf
Former General Counsel
Central Intelligence Agency
Brad Roberts
Institute for Defense Analyses
Michael Rolince
Section Chief
International Terrorism
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Lorelei St. James
National Security & International Affairs Division
General Accounting Office
Robert Satloff
Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, USAF (Ret)
Former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
Jo Browning Seeley
Central Intelligence Agency
Howard Shapiro
Former General Counsel
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Ambassador Michael A. Sheehan
Counter-Terrorism Coordinator
Department of State
Brian Sheridan
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict
Department of Defense
Dr. Kenneth Shine
President
National Academy Institute of Medicine
James Smyser
Legal Counsel
Department of Defense
L. Britt Snider
Inspector General,
Central Intelligence Agency
Thomas G. Snow
Deputy Director
Office of International Affairs
Criminal Division
Department of Justice
Charles E. Sparks
Director, Field Management,
Diplomatic Security
Department of State
John C. Spiegel
Regional Officer
Office of the Counter-Terrorism Coordinator
Department of State
Brenda Sprague
Director, Language Services
Department of State
Deborah Stafford
Unit Chief
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Mark Steinitz
Intelligence and Research Bureau
Department of State
Jessica Stern
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Michael S. Swetnam
Potomac Institute of Policy Studies
George J. Tenet
Director of Central Intelligence
Central Intelligence Agency
Ambassador Patrick Theros
Former Counter-Terrorism Coordinator
Department of State
Victoria Toensing
Former Chief Criminal Division
Department of Justice
Ms. Randy Toledo
Associate Director
Office of International Affairs
Criminal Division
Department of Justice
Dr. Kevin Tonat, CDR, USN
U.S. Public Health Service
Office of Emergency Preparedness
Department of Health and Human Services
Mary B. Troland
Deputy Director
Office of International Affairs
Criminal Division
Department of Justice
Jonathan Tucker
Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Monterey Institute of International Studies
Michael Turner
Director, Strategic Investigations
U.S. Customs Service
BG Robert Wagner, USA
Current Operations, Joint Staff
Department of Defense
Dale L. Watson
Assistant Director, Counterterrorism
Federal Bureau of Investigation
William H. Webster
Former Director of Federal Bureau of Investigation
and former Director
of Central Intelligence
Michael A. Wermuth
RAND Corporation
Roger Weiner
Criminal Division
Department of Justice
Ambassador Philip Wilcox
Former Counter-Terrorism Coordinator
Department of State
Professor Paul Wilkinson
University of St. Andrews
Michael J. Woods
Unit Chief
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Edwin L. Worthington
Federal Bureau of Investigation
The Commission also received written comments from the following:
Abraham H. Foxman
National Director
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith
Richard H. Solomon
President
United States Institute of Peace
Mr. Salan Al-Marayati
Executive Director
Muslim Public Affairs Council
Kit Gage
National Coordinator
National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom
David A. Harris
Executive Director
The American Jewish Committee
Frances N. Heiser
Palm Coast, Florida
Hala Maksoud, Ph.D.
President
American-Arab Anti-DiscriminationCommittee
|