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 case-
oriented, 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 January 21,2004
CHAIR

Lee H. Hamilton
VICE CHAIR Dan Levin, Esquire
Richard Ben-Veniste Criminal Division
Department of Justice
Fred F. Fielding Washington, DC 20530
Jamie S. Gorelick
Dear Mr. Levin:
Slade Gorton
On December 17, 2003, members of the Commission staff and three
Bob Kerrey
Commissioners met with the Attorney General. We are very appreciative of
John F. Lehman 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
Timothy J. Roemer
lines of questioning I had planned (and outlined to you in our pre-meeting).
James R. Thompson
As we have discussed, we would appreciate very much the opportunity to
meet with the Attorney General again, so that we can complete our
Philip D. Zelikow
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 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 counter-
terrorism needs?

301 7th Street SW, Room 5125 26 Federal Plaza

Washington, DC 20407 Suite 13-100
T 202.331.4060 F 202.296.5545 New York, NY 10278
www.9-1 lcommission.gov 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/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
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