REPORT OF THE JOINT INQUIRY INTO THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

The stream of threat information we received continuously from the FBI and CIA pointed overwhelmingly to attacks on U.S. interests abroad. Certainly the potential for attacks in the United States was there.

E. Indications of a Possible Terrorist Attack in Spring and Summer 2001

The Joint Inquiry record confirms that, in the eyes of the Intelligence Community, the world appeared increasingly dangerous for Americans in the spring and summer of 2001. During that period, the Intelligence Community detected a significant increase in information that Bin Ladin and al-Qa'ida intended to strike against U.S. interests in the very near future. Some Community officials have suggested that the increase in threat reporting was unprecedented, at least in their own experience. While the reporting repeatedly predicted dire consequences for Americans, it did not provide specific detail that could be acted on.

Between late March and September 2001, the Intelligence Community identified numerous signs of an impending terrorist attack, some of which pointed specifically to the United States as a target: [page 213]

o In March, an intelligence source claimed that a group of Bin Ladin operatives was planning to conduct an unspecified attack in the United States in April 2001. One of the operatives allegedly resided in the United States.

o In April, the Intelligence Community obtained information that unspecified terrorist operatives in California and New York State were planning a terrorist attack in those states for April.

o [Between May and July, the National Security Agency reported at least thirty-three communications suggesting a possibly imminent terrorist attack. The Intelligence Community thought at the time that one of them might have constituted a signal to proceed with terrorist operations. While none of these reports provided specific information on the attack, and it was not clear that any persons involved in the intercepted communications had first-hand knowledge of where, when, or how an

203

attack might occur, they were widely disseminated within the Intelligence Community].

o In May, the Intelligence Community obtained a report that Bin Ladin supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States by way of Canada to carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives. This report mentioned without specifics an attack within the United States. In July, this information was shared with the FBI, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Customs Service, and the State Department and was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August.

[Page 214]

o In May, the Department of Defense acquired and shared with other elements of the Intelligence Community information suggesting that seven persons associated with Bin Ladin had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

o In June, CTC obtained information that key operatives in Bin Ladin's organization were disappearing, while others were preparing for martyrdom.

o In July, the CTC became aware of a person who had recently been in Afghanistan who reported, "Everyone is talking about an impending attack." The Intelligence Community was also aware that Bin Ladin had stepped up his propaganda efforts in the preceding months.

o On August 16, the INS detained Zacarias Moussaoui in Minneapolis, Minnesota. His conduct had aroused suspicions about why he was learning to fly large commercial aircraft and had prompted the flight school he was attending to contact the local FBI field office. FBI agents believed that Moussaoui might have intended to carry out a terrorist act.

o On August 23, CIA requested that al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi, who had first come to the attention of the CIA and NSA in 1999 as possible associates of Bin Ladin's

204

network, be added to the Department of State watchlist for denying entry to the United States.

o In late summer, the Intelligence Community obtained information that a person associated with al-Qa'ida was considering terrorist operations in the United States. There was no information as to the timing or possible targets.

o On September 10, NSA intercepted two communications [ ] suggesting imminent terrorist activity. These communications were not translated [page 215] into English and disseminated until September 12. They were not specific, and it is unclear whether they referred to the September 11 attacks.

During the summer of 2001, the Intelligence Community also disseminated information to a wide range of senior government officials at all federal agencies and military commands about the potential for imminent terrorist attacks. For example:

o On June 25, the Intelligence Community issued a terrorist threat advisory warning government agencies that there was a high probability of an imminent "spectacular" terrorist attack resulting in numerous casualties against U.S. interests abroad by Sunni extremists associated with al-Qa'ida.

o Subsequently, intelligence information provided to [ ] senior government leaders on June 30 indicated that Bin Ladin's organization expected near-term attacks to have dramatic consequences on governments or cause major casualties.

o [A briefing prepared for senior government officials at the beginning of July asserted: "Based on a review of all-source reporting over the last five months, we believe that UBL will launch a significant terrorist attack against U.S. and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning]."

205

o Later, on July 9, intelligence information provided to [ ] senior government leaders indicated that members of Bin Ladin's organization continued to expect imminent attacks on U.S. interests.

[Of particular interest to the Joint Inquiry was whether and to what extent the President received threat-specific warnings during this period. Access to this information was denied the Joint Inquiry by [page 216] the White House. However, the Joint Inquiry was told by a representative of the Intelligence Community that, in August 2001, a closely held intelligence report for [ ] senior government officials included information that Bin Ladin had wanted to conduct attacks in the United States since 1997. The information included discussion of the arrest of Ahmed Ressam in December 1999 at the U.S.-Canadian border and the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. It mentioned that members of al-Qa'ida, including some U.S. citizens, had resided in or traveled to the United States for years and that the group apparently maintained a support structure here. The report cited uncorroborated information obtained and disseminated in 1998 that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack airplanes to gain the release of U.S.-held extremists; FBI judgments about patterns of activity consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks; as well as information acquired in May 2001 that indicated a group of Bin Ladin supporters was planning attacks in the United States with explosives].*

The Joint Inquiry was also interested in the nature and scope of the intelligence that was being provided to senior policymakers regarding the terrorist threat. In addition to the President's Daily Brief, the Intelligence Community produces a Senior Executive Intelligence Brief (SEIB) each day, a series of short articles that summarize political, military, economic, and diplomatic developments around the world of particular interest to senior government executives. The Joint Inquiry reviewed SEIBs distributed by the Intelligence Community in the spring and summer of 2001 and confirmed a rise in reporting on Bin Ladin between March and June. This increase was still only a relatively small portion of the array of intelligence subjects that the SEIBs brought to the attention of policymakers. For example, the peak in Bin Ladin-related

_______________

* 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.

206

reporting came in June 2001 when Islamic extremists, including Bin Ladin and al-Qa'ida, were referred to in eighteen of the 298 articles that appeared in the SEIBs that month.

The rise in threat reporting concerning Bin Ladin in 2001, though lacking in detail, did generate government terrorist advisories and warnings, including:

o An FAA Circular on June 22, 2001, referring to a possible hijacking plot by Islamic terrorists to secure the release of fourteen persons incarcerated in the United States in connection with the 1996 bombing of Khobar Towers.

[Page 217]

o A public, worldwide caution issued by the State Department on June 22, warning Americans traveling abroad of the increased risk of a terrorist action.

o Four terrorism warning reports or warning report extensions issued by the Department of Defense on June 22 and 26, and July 6 and 20, primarily to alert U.S. military forces and the Department of Defense to signs that Bin Ladin's network was planning a near-term, anti-U.S. terrorist operation.

o A State Department démarche to Taliban representatives in Pakistan on June 26, 2001, declaring that the Taliban would be held responsible for terrorist attacks carried out by Bin Ladin or al-Qa'ida.

o An FBI communication on July 2, advising federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies of increased threat reporting about groups aligned with or sympathetic to Bin Ladin. The communication noted that the majority of the reports suggested a potential for attacks against U.S. targets abroad and that the FBI had no information suggesting a credible threat of terrorist attack in the United States, although the possibility could not be discounted.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage described the situation to the Joint Inquiry:

In fact, [the intelligence] was good enough for us to take several steps. We issued between January and September nine warnings, five of them global, because of the threat information we were receiving from the intelligence agencies in the

207

summer, when George Tenet was around town literally pounding on desks saying, something is happening, this is an unprecedented level of threat information. He didn't know where it was going to happen, but he knew that it was coming.

Interviews conducted during the Joint Inquiry show that the general view within the Intelligence Community in the spring and summer of 2001 was that an attack on U.S. interests was more likely to occur overseas, possibly in Saudi Arabia and Israel. Intelligence information, the arrest of suspected terrorists in the Middle East and Europe, and a credible report of a plan to attack a U.S. embassy in the [page 218] Middle East shaped the Community's thinking about where an attack was likely to occur. In fact, FBI agents working in Yemen on the Cole investigation were told to leave the country because of concern about a possible attack.

The belief that an attack was likely to occur overseas was also reflected in numerous statements and data the Joint Inquiry reviewed, for example:

o In a May 16, 2002 press briefing, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: "I want to reiterate that during this time, the overwhelming bulk of the evidence was that this was an attack that was likely to take place overseas"

o The FBI's Assistant Director for Counterterrorism at the time said that the intelligence he was seeing led him to believe with a high probability - "98 percent" - that an attack would occur overseas.

o At a Joint Inquiry hearing, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage testified: "I, in general, perceived the threat to be at our interests overseas, primarily in the Gulf, some in Southeast Asia, and most definitely in Israel. That is from my point of view and the Department of State."

o At the same hearing, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz testified: "I would say near-term we perceived the threat to be overseas, as Secretary Armitage says. In the mid- to longer-term, we perceived the threat to be mass casualties in the United States as a result of chemical or biological or conceivably nuclear attack. . . ."

208

o Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley asserted in a written response to Joint Inquiry questions:

The specific warning the Administration did have pointed to operations against U.S. interests abroad. . . . The threat warnings, in the spring and summer of 2001, did not, to my knowledge, include any specific warning information to indicate plans for terrorist [page 219] attacks inside the United States. . . . During this period of increased threat reporting, information from [Intelligence Community] agencies focused specifically on potential attacks in Europe, the Middle East, and the Arabian Peninsula. . . . [Intelligence Community] officials, however, did not discount the possibility of domestic attacks by al-Qa'ida and other groups.

Bin Ladin-related threat reporting began to decline in July 2001. The Intelligence Community did, however, continue to follow up on some of the information in its possession.

F. Intelligence Information on Possible Terrorist Use of Airplanes as Weapons

Central to the September 11 attacks was the terrorists' use of airplanes as weapons, which National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice addressed in a May 2002 press briefing:

I don't think anybody could have predicted that these same people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, taken another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile. All of this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking. You take a plane - people were worried they might blow one up, but they were most worried that they might try to take a plane and use it for release of the blind Sheikh or some of their own people.

The Joint Inquiry confirmed that, before September 11, the Intelligence Community produced at least twelve reports over a seven-year period suggesting that terrorists might use airplanes as weapons. As with the intelligence reports indicating Bin Ladin's intentions to strike inside the United States, the credibility of sources was sometimes questionable and information often sketchy. The reports reviewed by the Joint Inquiry included:

o In December 1994, Algerian Armed Islamic Group terrorists hijacked an Air France flight in Algiers and threatened to crash it into the Eiffel Tower. French authorities deceived the terrorists into thinking the plane did not have enough fuel to reach Paris and diverted it to Marseilles. A French anti-terrorist force stormed the plane and killed all four terrorists.

209

[Page 220]

o In January 1995, a Philippine National Police raid turned up material in a Manila apartment suggesting that Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Murad, and Khalid Shaykh Mohammad planned, among other things, to crash an airplane into CIA Headquarters. The police said that the same group was responsible for the bombing of a Philippine airliner on December 12, 1994. Information on the threat was passed to the FAA, which briefed U.S. and major foreign carriers.

o In January 1996, the Intelligence Community obtained information concerning a planned suicide attack by persons associated with Shaykh al-Rahman and a key al-Qa'ida operative to fly to the United States from Afghanistan and attack the White House.

o In October 1996, the Intelligence Community obtained information regarding an Iranian plot to hijack a Japanese plane over Israel and crash it into Tel Aviv. A passenger would board the plane in the Far East, commandeer the aircraft, order it to fly over Tel Aviv, and crash the plane into the city.

o In 1997, an FBI Headquarters unit became concerned about the possibility that an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) would be used in terrorist attacks. The FBI and CIA became aware of reports that a group had purchased a UAV and concluded that the group might use the plane for reconnaissance or attack. The possibility of an attack outside the United States was thought to be more likely, for example, by flying a UAV into a U.S. embassy or a U.S. delegation.

o In August 1998, the Intelligence Community obtained information that a group, since linked to al-Qa'ida, planned to fly an explosive- aden plane from a foreign country into the World Trade Center. As explained earlier, the FAA found the plot to be highly unlikely given the state of the foreign country's aviation program. Moreover, the agencies concluded that a flight originating outside the United States would be detected before it reached its target. The FBI's New York office took no action on the information.

[Page 221]

210

o In September 1998, the Intelligence Community obtained information that Bin Ladin's next operation might involve flying an explosives-laden aircraft into a U.S. airport and detonating it. This information was provided to senior government officials in late 1998.

o In November 1998, the Intelligence Community obtained information that the Turkish Kaplancilar, an Islamic extremist group, had planned a suicide attack to coincide with celebrations marking the death of Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey. The conspirators, who were arrested, planned to crash an airplane packed with explosives into Ataturk's tomb during a ceremony. The Turkish press said the group had cooperated with Bin Ladin, and the FBI's New York office included this incident in a Bin Ladin database.

o In February 1999, the Intelligence Community obtained information that Iraq had formed a suicide pilot unit that it planned to use against British and U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf. The CIA commented that this was highly unlikely and probably disinformation.

o In March 1999, the Intelligence Community obtained information regarding plans by an al-Qa'ida member, who was a U.S. citizen, to fly a hang glider into the Egyptian Presidential Palace and detonate explosives. The person, who received hang glider training in the United States, brought a hang glider to Afghanistan. However, various problems arose during the testing of the glider. He was subsequently arrested and is in custody abroad.

o In April 2000, the Intelligence Community obtained information regarding an alleged Bin Ladin plot to hijack a Boeing 747. The source, a "walk-in" to the FBI's Newark office, claimed that he had learned hijacking techniques and received arms training in a Pakistani camp. He also claimed that he was to meet five or six persons in the United States. Some of these persons would be pilots who had been instructed to take over a plane, fly to Afghanistan, or, if they could not make it there, blow the plane up. Although [page 222] the source passed a polygraph, the Bureau was unable to verify any aspect of his story or identify his contacts in the United States.

211

o In August 2001, the Intelligence Community obtained information about a plot to bomb the U.S. embassy in Nairobi from an airplane or crash the airplane into it. The Intelligence Community learned that two people who were reportedly acting on instructions from Bin Ladin met in October 2000 to discuss this plot.

The CIA disseminated several of these reports to the FBI and to agencies responsible for preventive actions. These included the FAA, which is responsible for issuing security directives, alerting domestic and international airports and airlines of threats the Intelligence Community has identified.*

In testimony before the Joint Inquiry, DCI Tenet mentioned additional evidence developed since September 11 concerning al-Qa'ida's intention of to use airplanes as weapons:

[After 11 September, we learned from a foreign government service that in 1996, Bin Ladin's second-in-command, Muhammad Atif, drew up a study on the feasibility of hijacking US planes and destroying them in flight, possibly influenced by Yousef's and Mukhtar's unrealized plans [the Bojinka Plot]. . . . Bin Ladin's determination to strike America at home increased with the issuance of the February 1998 fatwa targeting all Americans, both military and civilian. The ideas about destroying commercial airliners that had been circulating in al- Qa'ida leadership circles for several years appear to have been revived after that fatwa, in the early planning stages of the 9/11 plot. We believe that outside events also shaped al-Qa'ida leaders' thinking about an airliner attack. [ ] the October 1999 crash of Egypt Air Flight 990, attributed in the media to a suicidal pilot, may have encouraged al-Qa'ida's growing impression that air travel was a vulnerability for the United States].

Despite these reports, the Intelligence Community did not produce any specific assessments of the likelihood that terrorists would use airplanes as weapons, and U.S. policymakers apparently remained unaware of this kind of potential threat. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger testified before the Joint Inquiry: "We heard of the idea of airplanes as weapons, but I don't recall being presented with any specific threat information about an attack of this nature or any alert highlighting this [page 223] threat or indicating it was any more likely than any other." In response to written Joint Inquiry questions, Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley asserted:

_______________

* As noted earlier, however, the former intelligence office at FAA, the Transportation Security Intelligence Service, researched 12 reports concerning the possible use of airplanes as weapons that the DCI testified had been disseminated to appropriate agencies and found that there was no record of FAA receipt of three of them, two others had been derived from State Department reports, and one was not received by FAA until after September 11, 2001.

212

Before September 11, I do not recall receiving any information concerning al- Qa'ida using aircraft as weapons for attacks within the United States. One CIA analysis stated that al-Qa'ida was interested in possible hijackings in order to win the release of imprisoned al-Qa'ida members, but did not mention the possibility of using aircraft themselves as weapons.

The failure to consider seriously the use of aircraft as weapons may be the result of insufficient resources directed to intelligence analysis. Before September 11, CTC had forty analysts to analyze terrorism issues worldwide, with only one of its five analytic branches focused on terrorist tactics. As a result, the only terrorist tactic on which CTC had performed strategic analysis was the use of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons because of the obvious potential for mass casualties.

Aviation-related terrorism was included in some broader terrorist threat assessments, such as the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on terrorism. For example, a 1995 NIE mentioned the plot to blow up twelve U.S. airliners and cited the consideration the Bojinka conspirators gave to attacking CIA Headquarters with an aircraft laden with explosives. The FAA worked with the Intelligence Community on this analysis and drafted the section addressing the threat to civil aviation, which said:

Our review of the evidence… suggests the conspirators were guided in their selection of the method and venue of attack by carefully studying security procedures in place in the region. If terrorists operating in [the United States] are similarly methodical, they will identify serious vulnerabilities in the security system for domestic flights.

A 1997 update to the 1995 NIE concluded:

Civil aviation remains a particularly attractive target in light of the fear and publicity the downing of an airliner would evoke and the revelations last summer of the U.S. air transport sectors' vulnerabilities.

As a result of the increasing threats to aviation, Congress required the FAA and FBI to conduct joint threat and vulnerability assessments of security at select "high risk" U.S. airports and to provide [page 224] annual reports to Congress. A classified portion of the December 2000 report downplayed the threat to domestic aviation:

FBI investigations confirm domestic and international terrorist groups operating within the U.S. but do not suggest evidence of plans to target domestic civil aviation. Terrorist activity within the U.S. has focused primarily on fundraising,

213

recruiting new members, and disseminating propaganda. While international terrorists have conducted attacks on U.S. soil, these acts represent anomalies in their traditional targeting which focuses on U.S. interests overseas.

Thus, less than a year before the September 11 attacks, and notwithstanding intelligence information to the contrary, the FBI and FAA assessed the prospects of a terrorist incident targeting domestic civil aviation in the United States as relatively low.

After September 11, the CIA acknowledged some of the information that was available regarding the use of airplanes as weapons. A draft analysis dated November 19, 2001, "The 11 September Attacks: A Preliminary Assessment," explains:

We do not know the process by which Bin Ladin and his lieutenants decided to hijack planes with the idea of flying them into buildings in the United States, but the idea of hijacking planes for suicide attacks had long been current in jihadist circles. For example, GIA terrorists from Algeria had planned to crash a Air France jet into the Eiffel Tower in December 1994, and Ramzi Yousef - a participant in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing - planned to explode 12 US jetliners in mid-air over the Pacific in the mid-1990s. Likewise the World Trade Center had long been a target of terrorist bombers.

Despite that intelligence, the Joint Inquiry found no evidence that, before September 11, analysts in the Intelligence Community were:

o cataloguing information regarding the use of airplanes as weapons as a terrorist tactic;

o sending requirements to collectors to look for additional information on this threat; or

o considering the likelihood that Bin Ladin, al-Qa'ida, or any other terrorist group, would attack the United States or U.S. interests in this way.

[Page 225]

The CTC's Deputy Director acknowledged that the CIA had not performed strategic analysis on airplanes as weapons before September 11. He also explained ways in which CTC has sought to improve its analytic capabilities since then:

We have a couple of approaches to strategic analysis in CTC now…We have spent a fair amount of analytic time looking at intelligence reporting that [al- Qa'ida is] going to use a particular type of tactic or go after a particular type of target, other intelligence reporting…that shows that they have actually trained at that tactic or trained for that type of target. . . . When you get all three of those ingredients, that's pretty sobering. What is most alarming to us is the number of tactics that we've gotten that kind of a case on, that three-legged case . . . on

214

surface-to-air missiles…use of truck bombs and car bombs . . . the use of aircraft, both aircraft hijackings and aircraft as weapons . . . the use of improvised explosive devices like Mr. Reid put in his shoes several months ago . . . the use of poisons and toxins. Put it all together and you can say that al-Qa'ida has built a handful of cards, any of which it could be playing, all of which it intends at some point and with some opportunity to play. Its choices are very broad and very frightening.

Even if enough analysis is done to provide better analysis to policymakers regarding strategic threats, there remains the issue of how much influence that information will have in warning other federal entities and the private sector. In discussing what could have been done better before September 11, the DCI told the Joint Inquiry that the failure to focus on the the use of airplanes as weapons was just one area that should have been part of a "systematic thought process to think about how you play defense:"

You can disseminate all of the threat reportings you want. You can do the strategic analysis about airplanes. You can do the strategic analysis about car bombs, truck bombs, assassination attempts, fast boats and everything else. You can put all of that out there to people. Unless somebody is thinking about the homeland from the perspective of buttoning it down to basically create a deterrence that may work, your assumption will be that the FBI and the CIA are going to be one-hundred percent flawless all of the time. And it will never happen.

IX. The Development of U.S. Counterterrorism Policy before September 11

When the Cold War ended, counterterrorism was not a top U.S. policy priority. However, as the threat from al-Qa'ida increased in the 1990s, concern grew about the danger to America. The Clinton [page 226] Administration steadily increased its attention to terrorism, which became a top priority after the August 1998 attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The Bush Administration also devoted considerable attention to the al-Qa'ida threat as it conducted a policy review in the months before September 11.

Despite sharpened focus in the years before September 11, terrorism remained only one concern of many and counterterrorism efforts had to compete with other priorities. The process for setting intelligence priorities was also vague and confusing, and neither the Clinton nor the Bush Administration developed an integrated counterterrorism strategy that drew on all elements of national power before September 11.

215

A. Counterterrorism as an Intelligence Priority

Counterterrorism was not a top intelligence priority in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War. Former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft testified that the first Bush Administration focused primarily on the former Soviet Union. Moreover, the sense of immediacy diminished because the incidence and severity of terrorism had declined since the Reagan Administration. Mr. Scowcroft noted that the focus of discussions on terrorism was state-sponsored attacks, from which the U.S. homeland was thought to be immune.

As a result, neither the first Bush administration nor the Intelligence Community devoted considerable attention to terrorism at the time. Former National Coordinator for Counterterrorism Richard Clarke noted that the first Bush Administration approved only one "narrow document" related to terrorism, suggesting that the subject was not a high priority. Thus, as former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger testified:

When President Clinton began his first term in 1993, the Intelligence Community was primarily focused on the agenda created by the Soviet Union's collapse, the Cold War's end, and our Gulf War victory. . . . The CIA maintained no significant assets in Afghanistan after our withdrawal from the region in 1989. Little was known about Osama Bin Ladin except that he was one of many financiers of terrorist groups.

[Page 227]

B. Growing Importance in the Clinton Administration

Mr. Clarke has testified that, when the Clinton Administration came into office, "the furthest thing from [its] mind in terms of the policy agenda was terrorism." This quickly ended with Mir Amal Kansi's murder of two CIA employees outside agency Headquarters shortly after President Clinton's inauguration. That event, plus the Iraqi attempt to assassinate former President Bush in 1993 and the February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, "catapulted" terrorism onto the Administration's agenda, according to Mr. Berger. He also noted that these events led to the President becoming personally focused on terrorism.

The Clinton Administration issued several documents that many witnesses saw as reflecting the growing importance of terrorism:

216

o In 1995, the Clinton Administration issued Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 35, which former National Security Advisor Anthony Lake described as "formally establish[ing] our top intelligence priorities and plac[ing] terrorism among them, led only by intelligence support for our troops in the field and a small number of states that posed an immediate or potential serious threat to the United States."

o Several months later in 1995, the President issued PDD 39, the first PDD issued explicitly on terrorism since the Reagan administration. Mr. Lake noted that PDD 39 "mandated increased efforts to capture terrorists abroad; high priority for detecting and preventing attacks with weapons of mass destruction; and the exchange between the FBI and CIA of high-level anti-terrorism officials."

o In 1998, Presidential Decision Directives 62 and 63 were issued to raise the importance of counterterrorism within the interagency process and to clarify responsibilities for reacting to an attack. According to Mr. Clarke, these directives established an interagency coordination process, to include regular meetings to evaluate threats, discuss resources, and treat counterterrorism as a continuous, rather than ad hoc concern.

Al-Qa'ida emerged as a leading adversary during the second term of the Clinton Administration. Mr. Berger told the Joint Inquiry that Bin Ladin was portrayed as a financier as late as 1996, but that U.S. knowledge of his activities and concern about the threat his organization posed began to grow rapidly. After the August 1998 attack on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Bin Ladin dominated [page 228] U.S. counterterrorism concerns. As Mr. Berger testified, "In 1996 he was on the radar screen; in 1998 he was the radar screen."

Senior level officials met frequently on terrorism. In the months before the Millennium celebrations, according to Mr. Berger, there were constant Principals Meetings and much senior level attention to the risk of an al-Qa'ida attack. According to Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley, Mr. Berger and Mr. Clarke both emphasized the importance of terrorism during the transition from the Clinton to the Bush Administration.

C. Uncertainty During the Transition

Transitions between administrations always take considerable time. For some high level positions, such as National Coordinator for Counterterrorism, it is difficult if not impossible to maintain continuity or an intense daily focus on an issue, if the status of the person holding the position is unclear. Mr. Berger explained that the Clinton Administration did not respond to the

217

October 2000 attack on USS Cole, in part, because it believed that the incoming Bush Administration should handle the matter. However, Bush Administration officials testified that they did not begin their major counterterrorism policy review until April 2001. Thus, it appears that significant slippage in counterterrorism policy may have taken place in late 2000 and early 2001. At least part of this was due to the unresolved status of Mr. Clarke as National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and his uncertain mandate to coordinate Bush Administration policy on terrorism and specifically on Bin Ladin.

D. The George W. Bush Administration

Al-Qa'ida remained an intelligence priority under the Bush administration. Mr. Hadley told the Joint Inquiry that "countering terrorist threats to the United States was a top intelligence priority from the first days of this Administration." He noted that Clinton Administration counterterrorism programs and covert action authorities remained in place in early 2001, while the Bush Administration considered a far more aggressive policy against al-Qa'ida and its Taliban supporters: [page 229]

From the first days of the Bush Administration through September 2001, it conducted a comprehensive, senior-level review of policy for dealing with al- Qa'ida. The goal was to move beyond the policy of containment, criminal prosecution, and limited retaliation for specific attacks, toward attempting to 'roll back' al Qa'ida.

[As Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage testified to the Joint Inquiry on September 19, 2002:

The National Security Council . . . called for new proposals [in March 2001] on a strategy that would be more aggressive against al-Qa'ida. The first deputies meeting, which is the first decision making body in the administration, met on the 30th of April and set off on a trail of initiatives to include financing, getting at financing, to get at increased authorities for the Central Intelligence Agency, sharp end things that the military was asked to do. . . . So, from March through about August, we were preparing a national security Presidential directive, and it was distributed on August 13 to the principals for their final comments. And then, of course, we had the events of September 11. . . .]

That policy review reportedly involved drafting new covert action authorities, several senior level meetings to discuss policy alternatives, and exploration of other initiatives. The review was nearing completion in the days before September 11.

218

E. Competing Priorities

[Counterterrorism was only one of many priorities for both the Clinton and Bush Administrations. Although a complete review of their policy priorities is beyond the scope of this inquiry, several senior officials have suggested the wide range of concerns that faced both administrations:

o Intelligence Community officials with responsibility for resource management noted that a range of regional and global issues were important concerns that policymakers emphasized in allocating resources.

o Mr. Clarke explained that he faced resistance to using military force in Afghanistan, in part because the United States was already bombing Iraq and Serbia.

o Former Clinton Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Karl Inderfurth noted in an interview that the East Africa embassy bombings made counterterrorism the top U.S. priority in its dealings with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Before then, ending the civil war, advancing women's rights, and establishing a broad-based government were U.S. priorities for that country.

o Mr. Inderfurth also noted that concerns about an Indian-Pakistani conflict, or even nuclear confrontation, competed with efforts to press Pakistan on terrorism.

[Page 230]

o Mr. Hadley noted that Bush Administration concerns before September 11 included the P-3 aircraft incident with China and the June 2001 G-8 Summit].

Even those involved directly in counterterrorism efforts focused much of their attention on groups other than al-Qa'ida and its affiliates. Mr. Clarke told the Joint Inquiry that Iran and the Lebanese Hizbollah were the most important terrorist concerns during the first Clinton Administration. This was corroborated by Mr. Lake, who noted that the Administration's "primary preoccupation was on state sponsors of terrorism and such organizations as Hizbollah."

219

The Iranian supported attack on the U.S. military at Khobar Towers in 1996 reinforced this concern, according to Mr. Clarke.

Several agencies also focused their counterterrorism efforts on force protection. After the embassy bombings, the State Department tried to augment security in its facilities worldwide. Similarly, the attacks on Khobar Towers and USS Cole led to increased Defense Department and military efforts to protect U.S. military facilities and assets abroad.

Moreover, the process of setting intelligence priorities was often confusing. Mr. Clarke noted that the White House "never really gave good systematic, timely guidance to the Intelligence Community about what the priorities were at the national level." Mr. Hadley stated that Bush Administration officials were told during the transition that "this priority-setting process [PDD-35] . . . was not effective for communicating changing priorities over time." Joint Inquiry interviews with Intelligence Community officials suggest that many felt that the prioritization process was so broad as to be meaningless.

There was also bureaucratic confusion about responsibility for counterterrorism. Despite efforts by the NSC's Counterterrorism Security Group to streamline the process, agencies often did not coordinate their counterterrorism efforts. Mr. Inderfurth noted that the State Department had different elements working on counterterrorism in regard to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, embassy security, and other matters. Former Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre noted in an interview that several different components of the Defense Department were involved in counterterrorism, often with little coordination.

[Page 231]

F. Policy Measures to Fight Terrorism

In accordance with the growing importance of terrorism, Clinton Administration officials took several steps to strengthen U.S. counterterrorism efforts. During the late 1990s, the CIA initiated a campaign, working with foreign liaison services to disrupt and "take down" al-Qa'ida and other terrorist cells around the world. Mr. Clarke told the Joint Inquiry that "'disrupt' means 'arrest,' if possible, have the host country arrest, or if there is any reason to bring them back to the United States, to arrest them and bring them back here." The Clinton Administration

220

strongly backed this campaign, according to Mr. Berger, who pointed out that terrorist cells were dismantled and disrupted in more than twenty countries as a result.

The Clinton Administration used military force, albeit in a limited manner as is discussed in detail in a separate chapter. Mr. Clarke noted that the retaliatory strike on Iraq in 1993 for its attempted assassination of former President Bush was the first time the U.S. had used military force to punish a state for terrorism since 1986. According to Mr. Berger, the 1998 cruise missile strikes on terrorism-linked facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan were meant to demonstrate the Clinton Administration's seriousness, as well as to disrupt al-Qa'ida's infrastructure. The Clinton Administration also initiated an increasingly aggressive covert action policy, also discussed in a separate section.

Mr. Berger, Mr. Clarke, and Mr. Lake noted several other measures the Clinton Administration initiated:

o Increasing intelligence funding after 1995

o More than doubling the number of FBI agents devoted to, and more than tripling the FBI budget for, counterterrorism

o Expanding the size of the CTC and otherwise increasing CIA efforts against terrorism

[Page 232]

o Passing the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act in 1996 and legislation to track foreign student visas

o Pressing CIA to establish an operational unit focused on tracking Bin Ladin and terrorist financing (Intelligence Community and Clinton Administration officials differ as to who deserves credit for this effort)

o Encouraging CIA and the FBI to improve cooperation on terrorism, including exchanging senior officials. (Officials in the FBI, CIA, and Clinton Administration also differ as to who deserves credit for this effort)

221

o Increasing diplomatic pressure on the Taliban through bilateral discussions, U.N. sanctions, and freezing of assets.

Policymakers report to the Joint Inquiry that they had limited flexibility with regard to Afghanistan. Mr. Berger testified that neither Congress, the media, nor the international community supported invading Afghanistan before September 11. During the Bush Administration, the United States issued a démarche to the Taliban in June 2001, noting that it would be held accountable for al-Qa'ida attacks on the United States.

Neither the Clinton nor Bush Administration aggressively tried to disrupt al-Qa'ida financing. A former Intelligence Community official testified that in 1996 or 1997 the Intelligence Community had plans [ ], plans the Treasury Department blocked due to concerns about [ ] and worries that [ ]. Because of Treasury's concerns, the Intelligence Community, according to the former official, was limited before September 11 to "[ ]." Mr. Clarke noted that counterterrorism officials hoped to appeal Treasury's initial position by presenting concrete information on terrorism fundraising. The Intelligence Community, however, was not able to provide the information.

[Page 233]

G. The Law Enforcement Approach

Some policy makers recognized that countering al-Qa'ida required the application of all aspects of U.S. power. According to testimony from Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, the effort against al-Qa'ida:

. . . is not just something for the Intelligence Community alone; . . . you can't go to war against al-Qa'ida without recognizing the role that the Government of Afghanistan is playing. You can't go after the Government of Afghanistan without recognizing the problems in your relationship particularly with Pakistan, but with other neighboring countries, and you can't get serious about this without looking at military options.

Before September 11, however, neither the Clinton nor Bush Administration developed a plan to disrupt al-Qa'ida that integrated U.S. diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military

222

assets. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage testified that the Bush Administration received briefings on the urgency of the al- a'ida threat, but "we were never given a plan," a contention Mr. Berger echoed. Mr. Wolfowitz testified that even contingency planning for using the military for counterterrorism "was in the very most primitive stages." General Hugh Shelton, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Joint Inquiry that he did not believe that policy makers had any serious plans to use the military in a significant way against the Taliban before September 11.

In the absence of a more comprehensive strategy, the United States defaulted to relying on law enforcement, at home and abroad, as the leading instrument in the fight against al-Qa'ida. The perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the plot against New York City landmarks, several conspirators in the 1998 embassy bombings, and several members of a group that planned Millennium attacks were all prosecuted. This emphasis on prosecution continued a trend begun in the 1980s when Congress and President Reagan gave the FBI an important role in countering international terrorism, including attacks overseas.

Government officials apparently never intended to rely exclusively on law enforcement to fight terrorism. Senior Department of Justice officials testified that they saw their efforts as an adjunct to other means of fighting terrorism. Mary Jo White, who as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of [page 234] New York prosecuted many of the most important cases against al-Qa'ida, testified before the Joint Inquiry that "no one considered prosecutions to be the country's counterterrorism strategy or even a particularly major part of it." Mr. Wolfowitz testified that terrorism "is not a law enforcement problem, and it can't be dealt with simply by retaliating against individual acts of terrorism." However, covert action and military force had little impact before September 11.

Prosecutions do have several advantages in the fight against terrorism. As Ms. White noted in her testimony and in an interview, prosecutions take terrorists off the street. She acknowledged that this does not shut down an entire group, but some bombs, she said, do not go off as a result of arrests. In addition, she pointed out that critical intelligence often comes from the investigative process, as individual terrorists confess or reveal associates through their personal effects and communications. As former FBI Director Louis Freeh asserted in an interview, "You can't divorce arrest from prevention." Ms. White contended that the

223

prosecutions might deter some, though not all individuals from violence. Finally, the threat of a jail sentence often induces terrorists to cooperate with investigators and provide information.

Heavy reliance on law enforcement, however, has costs. National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia Paul Pillar noted in Joint Inquiry testimony that it is easier to arrest terrorist underlings than masterminds. Those who organize and plan attacks, particularly the ultimate decision makers who authorize them, are often thousands of miles away when an attack is carried out. In addition, the deterrent effect of imprisonment is often minimal for highly motivated terrorists such as those in al-Qa'ida.

Moreover, law enforcement is time-consuming. The CIA and the FBI expended considerable resources supporting investigations in Africa and in Yemen into the embassy and U.S.S. Cole attacks, a drain on scarce resources that could have been used to gather information and disrupt future attacks. Finally, law enforcement standards of evidence are high, and  stablishing a legal case that meets these standards often requires unattainable intelligence and threatens to compromise sensitive sources or methods.

[Page 235]

At times, law enforcement and intelligence have competing interests. The former head of the FBI's International Terrorism Section noted that Attorney General Reno leaned toward closing down surveillances under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act if they hindered criminal cases. In addition, convictions that help disrupt terrorists are often based on lesser charges (such as immigration violations), and this may not always convince FBI field personnel that the effort is worthwhile compared with other cases that put criminals in jail for many years. As former FBI Assistant Director for Counterterrorism Dale Watson explained, Special Agents in Charge of FBI field offices focused more on convicting than on disrupting.

Reliance on law enforcement when individuals have fled to a hostile country, such as Iran or the Taliban's Afghanistan, appears particularly ineffective, as the masterminds are often beyond the reach of justice. One FBI agent scorned the idea of using the Bureau to take the lead in countering al-Qa'ida, noting that all the FBI can do is arrest and prosecute. They cannot shut down training camps in hostile countries. He noted that the strategy is "like telling the FBI after Pearl Harbor, 'go to Tokyo and arrest the Emperor.'" In his opinion, a military solution was necessary because "[t]he Southern District doesn't have any cruise missiles."

224

H. Disruptions and Renditions

Disruptions and renditions are important tools in the fight against terrorism, and terrorist activity can be disrupted in many ways. Examples include watchlists to deny entry into the United States, liaison relationships with foreign intelligence and law-enforcement services willing to arrest and detain radicals, raids on terrorist facilities, and criminal investigations and prosecutions.

In testimony to the Joint Inquiry, the DCI summed up the ultimate disruption of al-Qa'ida operations -- destruction of the Afghani sanctuary:

In this struggle, we must play offense as well as defense. The move into the Afghanistan sanctuary was essential. We have disrupted the terrorists' plans, denied them the comfort of their bases and training facilities and the confidence that they can mount and remount attacks without fear of serious retribution.

[Page 236]

Disruption became increasingly important in the years before September 11. Following the arrest of Ahmed Ressam with explosives at the U.S./Canada border and the discovery of plots in Jordan during the Millennium celebrations, a worldwide effort was launched to thwart other attacks. The effort involved dozens of foreign intelligence services, which detained suspected radicals, minimally to keep them off the streets, but also in the hope of gaining confessions or intimidating them into aborting planned attacks. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger gave some idea of the scope of these disruption efforts when he testified that the Intelligence Community had worked around the world since 1997 to dismantle al-Qa'ida cells in about twenty countries.

A rendition is the arrest and detention of terrorist operatives for return to the United States or another country for prosecution. Renditions often lead to confessions, and they disrupt terrorist plots by shattering cells and removing key individuals. In practice, almost all renditions entail disruptions.

[Working with a wide array of foreign governments, CIA and FBI have helped deliver dozens of suspected terrorists to justice. CTC officers responsible for the renditions program told the Joint Inquiry that, from 1987 to September 11, 2001, CTC was involved in the rendition

225

of several dozen terrorists, a number that increased substantially after September 11. Former National Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke described for the Joint Inquiry a particularly successful program, through which "we were able to identify al-Qa'ida members throughout the world []."

The emphasis on renditions and disruptions increased as the Intelligence Community received more frequent reports of impending al- a'ida attacks in the spring and summer of 2001. As DCI Tenet testified:

Starting in the spring and continuing through the summer of 2001 we saw a significant increase in the level of threat reporting. Again, working with the FBI and foreign liaison services, we thwarted attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Paris, our Embassy in Yemen, U.S. facilities in Saudi Arabia and operations to kidnap U.S. citizens. We approached twenty countries with specific targets for disruption, prompting arrests in [ ], and elsewhere.

[Page 237]

[U.S. Government officials told the Joint Inquiry that [ ] , and that there are a number of factors that make the rendition process difficult. [].

I. Afghanistan as a Terrorist Sanctuary

[Between 1996 and September 2001, the United States worked with dozens of foreign governments to disrupt al-Qa'ida, arrest and interrogate its operatives, and prevent terrorist attacks. Throughout that period, Afghanistan was a terrorist safehaven, in which al-Qa'ida built a network for planning attacks, training and vetting recruits, and indoctrinating potential radicals. In essence, al-Qa'ida created a terrorist army in Afghanistan with little interference. As DCI George Tenet explained in testimony before the Joint Inquiry:

226

The terrorist plotting, planning, recruiting, and training in the late 1990s were aided immeasurably by the sanctuary the Taliban provided.

-- Afghanistan had served as a place of refuge for international terrorists since the 1980s. The Taliban actively aided Bin Ladin by assigning him guards for security, permitting him to build and maintain terrorist camps, and refusing to cooperate with efforts by the international community to extradite him.

-- In return, Bin Ladin invested vast amounts of money in Taliban projects and provided hundreds of well-trained fighters to help the Taliban consolidate and expand their control of the country.

--While we often talk of two trends in terrorism - state supported and independent -- in Bin Ladin's case with the Taliban what we had was something completely new: a terrorist sponsoring a state]. (Emphasis in original.)

Some CIA analysts and operators told Joint Inquiry staff that they recognized as early as 1997 that Bin Ladin's terrorist organization would continue to train cadres of Islamic extremists and generate numerous terrorist operations, as long as the Taliban granted al-Qa'ida sanctuary in Afghanistan.

[Page 238]

Failure to eliminate Afghanistan as a terrorist sanctuary had practical operational consequences. In describing to the Joint Inquiry the CIA's 1999 plan to capture and bring Bin Ladin and his principal lieutenants to justice, DCI Tenet explained that, because "U.S. policy stopped short of replacing the Taliban regime, . . . the ability of the U.S. Government to exert pressure on Bin Ladin" was seriously limited. Because our government had "no official presence in Afghanistan, and relations with the Taliban were seriously strained," the DCI asserted, it became much "more difficult to gain access to Bin Ladin and al-Qa'ida personnel."

Between 1999 and 2001, the government did undertake some efforts to address the problem of Afghanistan as a terrorist sanctuary. In 1999, senior CIA and State Department officials began to focus on the Taliban as an integral part of the terrorist problem. In 1999 and 2000, the State Department worked with the United Nations Security Council to obtain resolutions rebuking the Taliban for harboring Bin Ladin and allowing terrorist training. The Defense Department began to focus on this issue in late 2000 after the Cole bombing and formulated military options for dealing with the Taliban.

227

According to Steve Hadley, President Bush's Deputy National Security Advisor, the Bush Administration initiated shortly after taking office a senior-level review of al-Qa'ida policy. In Summer 2001, the State Department sent a démarche to Taliban representatives in Pakistan, which noted threats to Americans emanating from Afghanistan and declared that the United States would hold the regime responsible for actions by terrorists the Taliban harbored. None of these actions appears to have restrained terrorist training or al-Qa'ida's ability to operate in Afghanistan.

Despite the Intelligence Community's growing recognition that Afghanistan was churning out thousands of radicals, the Joint Inquiry found little effort to integrate the instruments of national power - diplomatic, intelligence, economic, and military - to address the problem effectively. [ ]. Little effort was made to use the full force of the U.S. military before September 11, with the exception of August 1998 cruise missile strikes. Former National Security Advisor Sandy [page 239] Berger testified that there was little public or Congressional support for an invasion of Afghanistan before September 11.

Permitting the sanctuary in Afghanistan to exist allowed Bin Ladin's key operatives to meet, plan, train recruits, and ensure that al- a'ida's masterminds remained beyond the reach of international justice. In testimony before the Joint Inquiry, the DCI explained:

Nothing did more for our ability to combat terrorism than the President's decision to send us into the terrorists' sanctuary. By going in massively, we were able to change the rules for the terrorists. Now they are the hunted. Now they have to spend most of their time worrying about their survival. Al-Qa'ida must never again acquire a sanctuary.

In response to a question about what he would have done differently in hindsight before September 11, the DCI reiterated this point about sanctuary:

[W]e should have taken down that sanctuary a lot sooner. The circumstances at the time may have not warranted, the regional situation may have been different, and after 9/11 all I can tell you is we let a sanctuary fester, we let Bin Ladin build capability. And there may have been lots of good reasons why in hindsight it couldn't have been done earlier or sooner. I am not challenging it, because hindsight is always perfect, but we let him operate with impunity for a long time without putting the full force and muscle of the United States against it.

228

J. The Intelligence Community

[The nation's experience with international terrorism in the 1980s began with the bombings of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in April 1983 and a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in October. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for both attacks, which were followed by the March 1984 kidnapping and murder of William Buckley, a CIA official in Beirut. Over the next two years, terrorist groups kidnapped other American citizens in Lebanon who were not connected to the U.S. Government].

In April 1984, the Iranian backed terrorist group Hizbollah claimed responsibility for the bombing of a restaurant frequented by U.S. service members near Torrejon Airbase in Spain. In September 1984, the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut was bombed. 1985 brought a flurry of terrorist [page 240] activity against U.S. citizens and interests, including the June 1985 hijacking of TransWorld Airways Flight 847, the October 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro, and the November 1985 hijacking of an EgyptAir flight from Athens to Malta. In December 1985, terrorists from the Abu Nidal organization attacked the Rome and Vienna airports.

Certain responses by the U.S. Government to the emerging threat were of particular interest to the Joint Inquiry because they became the foundation of our policy toward international terrorism before the September 11 attacks. A task force led by Vice President George H. W. Bush made a series of recommendations in a December 1985 report on combating terrorism, some of which were quickly implemented:

o President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 207 in January 1986, outlining our nation's policy with respect to international terrorism and assigning counterterrorist functions to government components.

o The Director of Central Intelligence's Counterterrorist Center was established in February 1986 as the focal point for counterterrorism.

o A directive signed in the spring of 1986 authorized the CIA to conduct certain counterterrorist activities.

229

As is explained in more detail in other sections of this report, America first faced major international terrorist attacks within the United States in February 1993 when a bomb was detonated in the World Trade Center and in June 1993 when the FBI arrested eight persons for plotting to bomb New York City landmarks. In 1996, as Bin Ladin's involvement in directing terrorist acts became more evident, the Counterterrorist Center created a special unit with ten to fifteen members to focus on him. Since 1996, the Community has been actively engaged in operations with mixed success to collect intelligence on Bin Ladin and disrupt his network. On September 10, 2001, thirty- five to forty people were assigned to the CTC's Bin Ladin unit. In 1999, the FBI also created a Bin Ladin unit at Headquarters. Approximately nineteen persons were working in that unit on September 10.

[Page 241]

In August 1998 after the two embassy bombings in Africa, the Intelligence Community quickly confirmed that the attacks had been carried out by Bin Ladin's network. The DCI made combating the threat Bin Ladin posed one of the Intelligence Community's highest priorities, establishing it as a "Tier [Zero] priority," and he raised the status of the threat still further when he announced in December 1998 that "[w]e are at war" with Bin Ladin.

K. The Declaration of War

Whether and when the Intelligence Community as a whole recognized that Bin Ladin was waging war on the United States and that it was necessary to respond in kind is an important factor in assessing the Community's response to the threat Bin Ladin's network posed. In interviews, many persons on the National Security Council staff and at CTC pointed to the August 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa as the moment when they recognized that Bin Ladin was waging war against the United States. That judgment was reflected in two statements by President Clinton in the immediate aftermath of the bombings:

o On August 20, 1998, in an address to the nation on military action against terrorist sites in Afghanistan and Sudan, President Clinton declared: "A few months ago, and again this week, Bin Ladin publicly vowed to wage a terrorist war against America."

230

o On August 22, 1998, in a radio address to the nation, President Clinton declared: "Our efforts against terrorism cannot and will not end with this strike. We should have realistic expectations about what a single action can achieve, and we must be prepared for a long battle."

In December 1998, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet elaborated on the President's statements in a memorandum to senior CIA managers, the Deputy DCI for Community Management, and the Assistant DCI for Military Support, declaring war on Bin Ladin: [page 242]

We must now enter a new phase in our effort against Bin Ladin. . . . We are at war. . . . I want no resources or people spared in this effort, either inside [the] CIA or the Community.

L. The Intelligence Community's Response

The DCI stated to the Joint Inquiry that in early 1999, following his declaration, he ordered a baseline review of CIA's operational strategy against Bin Ladin. According to the DCI's testimony before the Joint Inquiry, the CIA "produced a new comprehensive operational plan of attack against the Bin Ladin/al-Qa'ida target inside and outside Afghanistan," a plan of attack that in subsequent testimony the DCI simply called "The Plan":

The Plan included a strong and focused intelligence collection program to track - and then act against - Bin Ladin and his associates in terrorist sanctuaries. It was a blend of aggressive human source collection - both unilateral and with foreign partners - and enhanced technical collection. . . .To execute the Plan, CTC developed a program to select and train the right officers and put them in the right places. We moved talented and experienced operations officers into the [CTC]. We also initiated a nation-wide program to identify, vet and hire qualified personnel for counterterrorist assignments in hostile environments. We sought native fluency in the languages of the Middle East and South Asia, combined with policy, military, business, technical, or academic experience. In addition, we established an eight-week Counterterrorist Operations Course to share the tradecraft we had developed and refined over the years.

[According to documents reviewed by the Joint Inquiry, "The Plan" included covert action and technical collection aimed at capturing Bin Ladin and his principal lieutenants. CIA activities within The Plan included working with [

231

Go to Next Page