Dm B1 Ashcroft Fdr- 1-21-04 Draft And Official Letter From Marcus To Ashcroft Re Second Interview 189

LETTER TO ASHCROFT re SECOND INTERVIEW draft 1/21 Dear Mr. Levin: On December 17, 2003, members of the Commission staff and three Commissioners met with the Attorney General. We are very appreciative of the time he provided us and the candid and helpful manner in which he responded to our questions. As you know, I was unable to complete all the lines of questioning I had planned (and outlined to you in our pre-meeting). As we have discussed, we would appreciate very much the opportunity to meet with the Attorney General again, so that we can complete our questioning. I am confident this can be done in less than two hours. You have requested that we first submit questions in writing. While we are willing to do so, as set forth below, we emphasize that we would like to discuss these subjects with the Attorney General at a second meeting. I submit that it will be more efficient for both the Attorney General and the Commission if we can proceed in this fashion rather than waiting for written answers to our questions. 1. The FBI Post-9/11 a. What was AG's role in managing the FBI and shaping FBI policy in the weeks immediately following 9/11? b. How would AG summarize the purpose and nature of the reform program being undertaken by the FBI under Director Mueller? c. What is AG's assessment of progress in reform at FBI? How will he and the Director determine or measure results? Realistically, can the caseoriented, law-enforcement culture of the FBI change fast enough to meet the nation's counter-terrorism needs? d. How does AG respond to arguments that reforms, while useful, are not fundamental enough, e.g., that there should be a separate and equal career track on the intelligence/counterterrorism side of the agency, or even a division of the FBI into two sub-agencies (criminal and intelligence/counter-terrorism), both reporting to the Director? 2. Intelligence Community Post-9/11 a. What is AG's view of current state of relations between FBI and CIA, both here and abroad? TTIC? Homeland Security? Is DCI providing adequate coordination and policy leadership to Intelligence Community? Should the role of the DCI in this regard be strengthened? 3. Detainees/Enemy Combatants a. Are you satisfied with FBI's role in interrogations of detainees at Guantanamo or elsewhere? b. What is the role of Justice Department in advising President re designation of enemy combatants?

I reiterate my proposal that with these questions as a framework, we move directly to a focused second meeting with the Attorney General. I think the nature of these questions, as with those at our December 17 meeting, can best be dealt with across the meeting table rather than by written answers. Sincerely, DM (GC)

Thomas H. Kean CHAIR Lee H. Hamilton VICE CHAIR Richard Ben-Veniste Fred F. Fielding Jamie S. Gorelick

January 21,2004 Dan Levin, Esquire Criminal Division Department of Justice Washington, DC 20530 Dear Mr. Levin:

Slade Gorton Bob Kerrey John F. Lehman Timothy J. Roemer

On December 17, 2003, members of the Commission staff and three Commissioners met with the Attorney General. We are very appreciative of the time he provided us and the candid and helpful manner in which he responded to our questions. As you know, I was unable to complete all the lines of questioning I had planned (and outlined to you in our pre-meeting).

James R. Thompson

Philip D. Zelikow EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

As we have discussed, we would appreciate very much the opportunity to meet with the Attorney General again, so that we can complete our questioning. I am confident this can be done in less than two hours. You have requested that we first submit questions in writing. While we are willing to do so, as set forth below, we emphasize that we would like to discuss these subjects with the Attorney General at a second meeting. I submit that it will be more efficient for both the Attorney General and the Commission if we can proceed in this fashion rather than waiting for written answers to our questions. 1. The FBI Post-9/11 a. What was AG's role in managing the FBI and shaping FBI policy in the weeks immediately following 9/11? b. How would AG summarize the purpose and nature of the reform program being undertaken by the FBI under Director Mueller? c. What is AG's assessment of progress in reform at FBI? How will he and the Director determine or measure results? Realistically, can the case-oriented, law-enforcement culture of the FBI change fast enough to meet the nation's counterterrorism needs?

301 7th Street SW, Room 5125 Washington, DC 20407 T 202.331.4060 F 202.296.5545 www.9-1 lcommission.gov

26 Federal Plaza Suite 13-100 New York, NY 10278 T 212.264.1505 F 212.264.1595

Daniel Levin, Esquire January 21,2004 Page 2

d. How does AG respond to arguments that reforms, while useful, are not fundamental enough, e.g., that there should be a separate and equal career track on the intelligence/ counterterrorism side of the agency, or even a division of the FBI into two sub-agencies (criminal and intelligence/counterterrorism), both reporting to the Director? 2. Intelligence Community Post-9/11 a. What is AG's view of current state of relations between FBI and CIA, both here and abroad? TTIC? Homeland Security? Is DCI providing adequate coordination and policy leadership to Intelligence Community? Should the role of the DCI in this regard be strengthened? 3. Detainees/Enemy Combatants a. Are you satisfied with FBI's role in interrogations of detainees at Guantanamo or elsewhere? b. What is the role of Justice Department in advising President re designation c. of enemy combatants? I reiterate my proposal that with these questions as a framework, we move directly to a focused second meeting with the Attorney General. I think the nature of these questions, as with those at our December 17 meeting, can best be dealt with across the meeting table rather than by written answers.

Daniel Marcus General Counsel