|
"ACCESS DENIED" to Joint Inquiry on 9-11 by Bush Administration
A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
by John Haag
Dear BuzzFlash Editors,
I am writing to you to alert BuzzFlash readers to a subject that has received woefully little, if any, coverage in the media: The areas in which access to documents and individuals was denied, limited or delayed to the Joint Inquiry on 9-11 by the Bush administration.
These areas include access to the President's Daily Briefings, access to administration officials, the presence of "minders" ( la Saddam) during interviews, counter-terrorism budgetary data, CIA and NSA documents and other very important information.
The denial of access to information in this important investigation goes far beyond the well-covered issues of censorship in the final report. In fact, it quite possibly prevented the Joint Inquiry from properly doing its job; thereby putting the United States at a greater risk of attack.
To avoid the appearance of "spin," I will simply allow the readers to see the relevant portions of the Joint Inquiry report and allow them to decide for themselves if this administration has any desire, whatsoever, to understand the events surrounding September 11th, 2001 and the murder of 3000 fellow Americans.
"Pleasant" reading.
Regards,
John E. Haag - Columbus, Ohio
* * *
REPORT OF THE JOINT INQUIRY INTO THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 - BY THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
ACCESS LIMITATIONS ENCOUNTERED BY THE JOINT INQUIRY
The Joint Inquiry received assurances from the White House, the Director of Central Intelligence and the heads of the Intelligence Community agencies that its access would be complete and unprecedented and that the agencies would "bend over backwards" and "be forward leaning" in response to requests for information made in the course of the Inquiry. While the major agencies in the Inquiry - CIA, FBI and NSA - provided substantial support and allowed access to large volumes of information, there were certain areas in which no access was allowed, and others where access was achieved only after extensive discussions and delays or under conditions that limited the scope of the Inquiry's work.
Access Denied
-- The President's Daily Brief (PDB): the White House determined, and the DCI and CIA agreed, that the Joint Inquiry could have no access to the contents of the PDB. Ultimately, this bar was extended to the point where CIA personnel were not allowed to be interviewed regarding the simple process by which the PDB is prepared. Although the Inquiry was inadvertently given access to fragments of some PDB items early on, this decision limited the Inquiry's ability to determine systematically what Presidents Clinton and Bush, and their senior advisors, were being told by the Intelligence Community agencies, and when, regarding the nature of the threat to the United States from Usama Bin Ladin and al-Qa'ida. Despite the White House decision, the Joint Inquiry was advised by Intelligence Community representatives of the content of an August 2001 PDB item that is discussed in the report. This glimpse into that PDB indicated the importance of such access [*]
* National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice stated in a May 16, 2002 press briefing that, on August 6, 2001, the President's Daily Brief (PDB) included information about Bin Ladin's methods of operation from a historical perspective dating back to 1997. One of the methods was that Bin Ladin might choose to highjack an airliner in order to hold passengers hostage to gain release of one of their operatives. She stated, however, that the report did not contain specific warning information, but only a generalized warning, and did not contain information that al-Qa'ida was discussing a particular planned attack against a specific target at any specific time, place, or by any specific method.
-- Foreign Liaison Relationships: The DCI refused to allow the Joint Inquiry to have access to a series of reports that had been prepared within CTC regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the CIA's liaison relationships with a variety of foreign governments. This decision affected the Inquiry's ability to determine the extent to which some foreign governments had or had not cooperated and shared information with the United States in countering Bin Ladin and al-Qa'ida prior to September 11.
-- Budget Information: Because a lack of resources was raised repeatedly by Intelligence Community representatives throughout the Inquiry, it became important to review the budget requests that had been made by the various agencies through the relevant years and to compare the treatment of those requests within the agencies from which they originated, within the Administration, and by Congress. While certain information was made available regarding agency and Congressional action, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the White House prevented the agencies from sharing information regarding budget requests that were submitted by the agencies to OMB and the actions OMB took to increase or decrease those requests before they were submitted to Congress. This limited the Inquiry's ability to determine where in the budget process requests for additional counterterrorism resources were changed.
-- Covert Action Programs: Covert action was an important part of CIA's overall effort to counter the threat posed by Bin Ladin prior to September 11, 2001. [ ]. The NSC denied the Joint Inquiry access to documents, thereby limiting its ability to inquire into this area].
-- NSC-Level Information: There were several areas of counterterrorism intelligence policy development where insight into discussions involving the DCI, CIA and other Intelligence Community officials, and personnel at the National Security Council and White House levels would have been helpful in determining why certain options and programs were or were not pursued in particular time frames. Access to most information that involved NSC-level discussions was blocked, however, by the White House. Even agency documents that were drafted in anticipation of NSC discussion were denied to the Inquiry as "pre-decisional." The Inquiry also was denied access to, or a briefing concerning, the findings and conclusions of the report of the National Security Presidential Directive-5 Commission on Intelligence Reform chaired by Lt.Gen. Brent Scowcroft.
-- Interview of the DCI: The Joint Inquiry attempted to schedule an interview of DCI George Tenet in order to solicit his recollections, understandings and opinions regarding a host of questions relating to policy, resource, organizational, authority, priorities, and other issues that had been developed during the Inquiry. Such an interview was at first delayed and then made conditional on further discussions with DCI staff. Ultimately, the DCI testified at length in closed and open sessions before the Joint Inquiry and the interview was denied on that basis.
-- [Interview of FBI Informant: On August 8, 2002, the FBI informed the Joint Inquiry that two of the hijackers had numerous contacts with a long time FBI counterterrorism informant. The Joint Inquiry made numerous requests to the FBI to interview the informant in an effort to resolve some of the inconsistencies in the informant's reporting and to better evaluate how effectively the FBI utilized the informant. The FBI, supported by the Attorney General and the Administration, refused to make the informant available for an interview or to serve a Congressional deposition notice and subpoena on the informant, whose whereabouts were known to the FBI at the time. The FBI also strongly objected to a Joint Inquiry interview of the informant, citing concerns about adverse impact on FBI efforts to recruit future informants. The Joint Inquiry instead agreed with a suggestion by FBI officials that, as an initial step, written interrogatories be served on the informant. The FBI agreed to deliver those interrogatories to the informant for a written response. Soon after, the informant retained an attorney, who advised the Joint Inquiry that the informant would not respond to the interrogatories. The attorney also advised the Joint Inquiry that, if subpoenaed, the informant would be unwilling to testify without an immunity agreement. As a result, while the Joint Inquiry interviewed and received testimony from FBI personnel familiar with the information provided by the informant, it was denied the opportunity to discuss that information directly with the informant].
-- NSA Technical and Contractual Information: The Joint Inquiry sought to determine whether and how NSA is planning to cope with changing technology and requirements, and how it is equipped to manage the allocation of scarce resources for research and development in the counterterrorism area. Despite numerous requests for specific planning and other documents and briefings, NSA provided very limited responsive information in this area.
-- CIA and NSA Documents: CIA took the position that so-called "operational cables" from the field and certain other documents it deemed to be sensitive could be subject to Joint Inquiry review at CIA Headquarters, but that no copies could be brought to the Joint Inquiry's office. NSA adopted a similar position concerning its transcripts and disseminated intelligence reports and, ultimately, almost all other materials. This prevented the incorporation of the original documents in the Inquiry's central records where they could be drawn upon effectively for research and reference purposes. Both agencies did, however, allow verbatim notes to be made and removed to Inquiry offices. This consumed many hours and slowed the Inquiry's progress. Both agencies then agreed to allow copies to be removed from their premises if the Joint Inquiry agreed to allow them to be stored by the agencies at the end of the Inquiry, and even provided a draft of an agreement that would recognize this. When the Inquiry later agreed in principle and responded with a revised draft, however, the agencies decided that such an agreement was no longer desirable and returned to their original positions.
-- Military Options: In order to evaluate allegations that the U.S. military was reluctant to become involved in the effort against Bin Ladin prior to September 11, and to assess the interplay between the CIA and the military in covert action and special operations relating to counterterrorism, the Joint Inquiry asked to review documents regarding 13 military options that had been reportedly prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) in response to a White House request. The JCS Legal Counsel, supported by the Defense Department (DOD) General Counsel and the NSC, took the position that this request exceeded the scope of the Joint Inquiry's authority, but provided a summary briefing concerning the options.
Access Limited
-- Foreign Government Information at the FBI: The FBI allowed the Joint Inquiry to review information provided by foreign governments at the FBI, but would not allow the documents or verbatim notes to be carried to the Inquiry's offices. This limited and delayed the Inquiry's efforts to understand the level of cooperation displayed by the [ ] and other governments in counterterrorism efforts prior to September11.
-- Interview Policies: The Intelligence Community agencies insisted that agency representatives - usually legal or congressional affairs - be present to monitor all interviews of their personnel - present or former. The Inquiry took the position that agency monitors would be excluded where an agency employee, or Joint Inquiry personnel, decided that their presence would inhibit the full and frank discussion of any matter. Some of the agencies "pre-briefed" personnel who were to be interviewed by the Joint Inquiry, explaining to them what the agency position was on certain matters and urging the employees not to range too broadly in their responses. In one instance, after lengthy discussions with DOJ and FBI personnel, a former FBI agent was interviewed without monitors present at his request. On occasion, agency legal representatives instructed individuals not to respond to questions that the monitors deemed would reveal pre-decisional matters or legal advice.
Access Delayed
-- Department of Justice (DOJ) Concerns: The Joint Inquiry agreed with DOJ's position that information sealed by court order or relating directly to Grand Jury proceedings, and evidence obtained by means of electronic surveillance conducted under 18 U.S.C. §2510, et seq., not be provided to the Inquiry. Some previously sealed information was, with the assistance of DOJ and by court order, eventually provided to the Inquiry. While this agreement was not inconsistent with the goals of the Inquiry, significant delays resulted in the first months of the Inquiry while Intelligence Community and other U.S. Government agencies waited for DOJ to develop an efficient process for review of all information requested by the Inquiry. Subsequently, DOJ took the position that FBI personnel who had been involved in the Moussaoui investigation or the September 11 investigation and who might be trial witnesses could not be interviewed by the Joint Inquiry about those matters. This issue was not resolved until the Congressional leaders of the Joint Inquiry met with the Attorney General and senior Department of Justice officials in early May and expressed their objections to the DOJ position. Other DOJ objections and concerns relating specifically to Joint Inquiry access to and use of information relating to the Moussaoui investigation were dealt with in federal court and are discussed in a separate section of this Appendix, entitled "The Joint Inquiry In Court."
-- The Third Agency Rule/Internal Reviews: The Intelligence Community initially took the position that any information from one agency that was found in the files of another agency could not be shared with the Joint Inquiry until the originating agency had been consulted and given its permission. This slowed the disclosure process significantly. Based on Inquiry objections, the Community first reduced the application of this procedural obstacle to only intelligence that had not been disseminated in finished form, and finally agreed to provide the Inquiry with access and simultaneous notice to the originating agency. In addition, the agencies insisted on reviewing and redacting certain information from documents before they were provided to the Inquiry, further preventing timely responses to Inquiry requests. Finally, the agencies would not provide the Inquiry with electronic access to information, but insisted on providing paper copies of all information. This not only slowed production of the material, but also hindered the efficient review and utilization of this information by the Inquiry.
-- Interview of the Deputy National Security Advisor: The Joint Inquiry requested the opportunity to conduct an interview of the National Security Advisor to the President in May 2002 in order to obtain a better understanding of the development of counterterrorism policy in the Bush Administration before September 11, 2001. The NSC resisted this and suggested in June that the Deputy National Security Advisor be the subject instead and that written questions be provided instead of conducting an interview. The Joint Inquiry provided written questions in July but did not receive responses until November 2002.
* * *
The source is for the above is:
REPORT OF THE JOINT INQUIRY INTO THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
BY THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
The Quoted Passages on Access Denied to the Joint Inquiry is on pages 835-841 in the full PDF file (5.5 Megabytes) [LINK to PDF]
For ONLY this portion of the document, download section 4 of the appendix:
File 4 (853k), 31 pages, containing: * The Joint Inquiry In Court * Access Limitations Encountered By The Joint Inquiry [LINK to PDF]
For links to the other sections of the report, individually, go to: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html
A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
Articles in the BuzzFlash Contributor section are posted as-is. Given the timeliness of some Contributor articles, BuzzFlash cannot verify or guarantee the accuracy of every word. We strive to correct inaccuracies when they are brought to our attention.
