The Federal Bureau of Investigation and
Terrorism Investigations
Jerome P. Bjelopera
Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism
Mark A. Randol
Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism
April 27, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41780
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
Summary
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI, the Bureau) is the lead federal law enforcement agency
charged with counterterrorism investigations. Since the September 11, 2001 (9/11) attacks, the
FBI has implemented a series of reforms intended to transform itself from a largely reactive law
enforcement agency focused on investigations of criminal activity into a more proactive, agile,
flexible, and intelligence-driven agency that can prevent acts of terrorism.
This report provides background information on key elements of the FBI terrorism investigative
process based on publicly available information. It discusses
• several enhanced investigative tools, authorities, and capabilities provided to the
FBI through post-9/11 legislation, such as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001; the
2008 revision to the Attorney General’s Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations
(Mukasey Guidelines); and the expansion of Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF)
throughout the country;
• intelligence reform within the FBI and concerns about the progress of those
reform initiatives;
• the FBI’s proactive, intelligence-driven posture in its terrorism investigations
using preventative policing techniques such as the “Al Capone” approach and the
use of agent provocateurs; and
• the implications for privacy and civil liberties inherent in the use of preventative
policing techniques to combat terrorism.
This report sets forth possible considerations for Congress as it executes its oversight role. These
issues include the extent to which intelligence has been integrated into FBI operations to support
its counterterrorism mission and the progress the Bureau has made on its intelligence reform
initiatives. In addition, these issues will also be relevant during confirmation hearings for a new
director. The statutory 10-year term of current FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III expires in
September 2011. A new director will be subject to Senate confirmation.
Congressional Research Service
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Enhanced Investigative Authorities, Tools, and Capabilities......................................................... 2
USA PATRIOT Act ............................................................................................................... 3
Dismantling “the Wall” Between Intelligence and Criminal Investigations....................... 3
Roving Wiretaps ............................................................................................................. 5
Expanded Use of Devices that Record the Sources of Incoming and Outgoing
Communications .......................................................................................................... 5
“Sneak and Peek” Search Warrants.................................................................................. 6
Increased Access to Business Records ............................................................................. 6
National Security Letters................................................................................................. 6
Debate over Civil Liberties Issues ................................................................................... 8
Revised Attorney General Guidelines .................................................................................. 10
Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) ................................................................................... 13
Intelligence Reform .................................................................................................................. 14
Reform Initiatives: A Work in Progress................................................................................ 16
Terrorism Prevention and Proactive Investigations .................................................................... 18
The Capone Approach......................................................................................................... 20
Agent Provocateur Cases..................................................................................................... 21
Balancing Civil Liberties against Terrorism Prevention ............................................................. 23
Considerations for Congress...................................................................................................... 26
Figures
Figure 1. Balancing Civil Liberties Concerns and Security ........................................................ 23
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 28
Congressional Research Service
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
Introduction
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI, the Bureau) is the lead agency for investigating the
federal crime of terrorism,1 which is defined under law as “an offense that is calculated to
influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against
government conduct.”2 This includes terrorist acts committed within and outside U.S. national
boundaries.3 This report provides background on some of the key elements of the FBI terrorism
investigative process based on publicly available information.
The September 11, 2001 (9/11) terrorist attacks have been called a major security, law
enforcement, and intelligence failure.4 Prior to 9/11, the FBI was largely a reactive law
enforcement agency—pursuing suspects after they had allegedly committed crimes. Since 9/11,
the Bureau has arguably taken a much more proactive posture, particularly regarding
counterterrorism.5 It now views its role as both “predicting and preventing” the threats facing the
nation, drawing upon enhanced resources.6 A few basic measures suggest this:
• Post-9/11 legislation—notably the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56)—dismantled
“the Wall” between intelligence and criminal investigation and expanded the U.S.
government’s ability to monitor terrorist suspects, among other changes.
• Recent changes in the Attorney General’s Guidelines for Domestic FBI
Operations and the FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guidelines give
the FBI more leeway to engage in proactive investigative work that does not
depend on criminal predication (i.e., a nexus to past or future criminal activity).
• Since 9/11, a widening of the agency’s counterterrorism operations has occurred
as well as closer liaison with agencies outside the Department of Justice (DOJ).
This is most evident domestically in the increased number of its Joint Terrorism
1 Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. 0.85(l), the Attorney General has assigned responsibility to the Director of the FBI to “(l)
Exercise Lead Agency responsibility in investigating all crimes for which it has primary or concurrent jurisdiction and
which involve terrorist activities or acts in preparation of terrorist activities within the statutory jurisdiction of the
United States. Within the United States, this would include the collection, coordination, analysis, management and
dissemination of intelligence and criminal information as appropriate.” If another federal agency identifies an
individual who is engaged in terrorist activities or in acts in preparation of terrorist activities, the other agency is
required to promptly notify the FBI.
2 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5)(A). Subparagraph B enumerates the specific crimes covered by this definition. The FBI
differentiates hate crimes and other criminal activity from domestic terrorism partly by assessing the intent of the
criminals involved in specific incidents. Hate crimes “generally involve acts of personal malice directed at individuals”
and lack the broader motivations and driving acts of domestic terrorism. In addition, the lines are not always clear
between ordinary criminal acts and domestic terrorism. In these instances, FBI investigations also focus on clarifying
the motives of the suspects involved—such as profit, personal malice, or an ideologically driven agenda.
3 The extraterritorial jurisdiction for terrorism crimes is specified in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(e) and (f).
4 The 9/11 Commission, Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, p. xvi.
The Commission specifically attributed the 9/11 attacks to failures in four areas: imagination, policy, capabilities, and
management. See p. 339.
5 The FBI describes the post-9/11 changes in its approach in all major program areas at “The Intel-Driven FBI: New
Approaches,” http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/intelligence/intel-driven/new-approaches.
6 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies, Statement of Robert S. Mueller, III; Director FBI, Federal Bureau of Investigations FY2012 Budget Hearing,
112th Cong., 1st sess., April 6, 2011, http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/fbi-budget-for-fiscal-year-2012. (Hereafter:
Mueller Testimony, April 6, 2011.)
Congressional Research Service
1
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
Task Forces (JTTF). These are multi-agency investigative units led by DOJ and
the FBI and are designed to combine the resources of federal, state, and local law
enforcement. They are locally based and comprised of investigators, analysts,
linguists, Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) experts, and other specialists
from dozens of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies.7 In 1999, there
were 26 JTTFs throughout the United States.8 Today, there are over 100.
• Evidence of growth within the FBI’s counterterrorism operations can also be seen
in the agency’s increased allocation of agents to terrorism matters. In April 2011
testimony to Congress, FBI Director Robert Mueller “estimated that before 9/11,
there were 10,000 FBI agents on the streets, with 30 percent engaged in national
security issues and the rest focused on criminal activity. Since then, Mueller said,
he has gained 4,000 more agents and the FBI’s focus is a 50-50 split between
terrorism and other criminal activity like mortgage fraud.”9
• To further its proactive intelligence-driven counterterrorism mission, the FBI
established a National Security Branch (NSB) and a Directorate of Intelligence
(DI) within the NSB. Moreover, the FBI has reportedly increased its intelligence
analyst workforce from approximately 1,100 in October 2001 to nearly 3,000
today.10
Enhanced Investigative Authorities, Tools,
and Capabilities
The FBI is an intelligence agency as well as a law enforcement agency.11 Since 9/11, the Bureau
has taken what it describes as a more forward-leaning, intelligence-driven posture in its terrorism
investigations in order to prevent or disrupt terrorist acts, not merely investigate them after they
have occurred. Shortly after the attacks, FBI Director Robert Mueller wrote a memo to Special
Agents in Charge of FBI Field Offices saying, “while every office will have different crime
problems that will require varying levels of resources, the FBI has just one set of priorities: Stop
the next attack.”12 Then-Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty described the DOJ’s aggressive,
proactive, and preventative approach as
the only acceptable response from a department of government charged with enforcing our
laws and protecting the American people. Awaiting an attack is not an option. That is why
7 DOJ, Joint Terrorism Task Force, http://www.justice.gov/jttf/.
8 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Terrorism in the United States: 1999, p. 44.
9 Phillip Swarts, “Director Warns Shutdown Would Harm FBI,” upi.com, April 7, 2011, http://www.upi.com/
Top_News/Special/2011/04/07/Director-warns-shutdown-would-harm-FBI/UPI-46091302214622/#ixzz1Ix7YBLZ2
10 See FBI Intelligence Analysts Association, “About FBI Intelligence Analysts,” http://www.fbianalysts.org/
about.aspx; and Mueller Testimony, April 6, 2011.
11 FBI, Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, (DIOG) redacted, December 16, 2008, p. 3, available at
http://www.eff.org/fn/directory/8364/354. (Hereafter: DIOG, redacted.)
12 Garrett M. Graff, The Threat Matrix: The FBI at War in the Age of Terrorism (New York: Little Brown and Co.,
2011), p. 404. (Hereafter: Graff, The Threat Matrix.) Chapter 11 of the book discusses the pressure brought to bear on
the FBI immediately after 9/11 to prevent future attacks. The author also reports that some former and current FBI
special agents who worked in counterterrorism dispute the notion that prevention of terrorism only became a priority
after 9/11. See pp. 426-430.
Congressional Research Service
2
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
the Department of Justice is doing everything in its power to identify risks to our Nation’s
security at the earliest stage possible and to respond with forward-leaning – preventative –
prosecutions.13
The FBI’s post-9/11 transformation is particularly evident in four areas: The USA PATRIOT Act
provided the FBI additional authorities and enhanced investigative tools.14 The FBI and DOJ
altered the way the agency investigated terrorism with the 2008 revision of The Attorney
General’s Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations. The FBI expanded operationally via a
proliferation of JTTFs across the United States. In so doing, it also increased its cooperation with
state, local, and federal agencies. Finally, watershed changes were made in the Bureau’s
intelligence program.
USA PATRIOT Act
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Congress provided the FBI with several additional investigative
tools and expanded its authority to monitor and search suspects in terrorism-related and other
investigations. Many of these tools and authorities were contained in the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L.
107-56) signed by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. The act amended several
existing statutes, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 (P.L. 95-511),
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-508), and the various National
Security Letter (NSL) statutes.15 Additional tools and authorities include
• dismantling “the Wall” that inhibited the sharing of information between
intelligence and criminal investigators,
• roving wiretaps,
• expanded use of devices that record the sources of incoming and outgoing
communications,
• “Sneak and Peek” search warrants,
• increased access to business records, and
• expanded use of National Security Letters.
Dismantling “the Wall” Between Intelligence and Criminal Investigations
Historically, there have been differences between electronic surveillance (wiretaps) conducted for
intelligence and for law enforcement purposes. Among these is the protection of the constitutional
rights of persons under criminal investigation. A former government official describes the
differences:
13 Prepared Remarks of Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty at the American Enterprise Institute, Washington,
D.C., May 24, 2006, http://www.justice.gov/archive/dag/speeches/2006/dag_speech_060524.html.
14 Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism
Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act), P.L. 107-56.
15 For more information on these authorities, see CRS Report R40980, Government Collection of Private Information:
Background and Issues Related to the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization, by Elizabeth B. Bazan, Charles Doyle, and
Edward C. Liu.
Congressional Research Service
3
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
Law enforcement wiretaps are heavily regulated … they can only be carried out for a limited
time. They require constant supervision and review…. They are approved for only specific
types of crime…. And once a crime begins the defendant can see transcripts of the wiretaps
and challenge their legality…. Intelligence wiretaps are different … they aren’t triggered by
suspected criminal activity. Any representative of a foreign government is fair game for an
intelligence tap. The rules that apply to law enforcement taps just aren’t appropriate for
intelligence wiretaps.16
FISA regulates intelligence collection directed at foreign powers and agents of foreign powers in
the United States to include those engaged in international terrorism.17 FISA required the
government to certify that “the purpose” of surveillance was to gather foreign intelligence
information.18 Prior to the USA PATRIOT Act, DOJ turned the “primary purpose” standard into
written policy that had the effect of limiting the coordination between intelligence and criminal
investigators.19 This came to be known as “the Wall” between intelligence and law enforcement
and the “unfortunate consequences” of this barrier to information sharing were noted by the 9/11
Commission in its report on the 9/11 attacks.20
Section 218 of the USA PATRIOT Act amended FISA to replace the phrase “the purpose” with
the phrase “a significant purpose.” According to Senator Dianne Feinstein, these changes were
necessary to make it
easier to collect foreign intelligence information under … FISA. Under current law,
authorities can proceed with surveillance under FISA only if the primary purpose of the
investigation is to collect foreign intelligence. But in today’s world things are not so simple.
In many cases, surveillance will have two key goals—the gathering of foreign intelligence,
and the gathering of evidence for a criminal prosecution. Determining which purpose is the
“primary” purpose of the investigation can be difficult, and will only become more so as we
coordinate our intelligence and law enforcement efforts in the war against terror.21
As one legal scholar described it, by moving the FISA requirement from the purpose to a
significant purpose, the USA PATRIOT Act “knocked out the foundation for ‘the Wall.’”22 This
removed impediments to the exchange of information about terrorism or other national security
threats between intelligence and law enforcement personnel.
Other provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act also sought to increase intelligence information
sharing. Section 504 amended FISA by adding provisions allowing federal officers who conduct
electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information to consult with federal law
16 Stewart Baker, Skating on Stilts: Why We Aren’t Stopping Tomorrow’s Terrorism (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution
Press, 2010), pp. 40-1. For further discussion of this issue, see chapter 3. (Hereafter: Baker, Skating on Stilts.)
17 For the definitions within FISA for foreign power and agents of a foreign power, see P.L. 95-511, §101.
18 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, (Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 2004), p.78. (Hereafter: 9/11 Commission Report.)
19 Cedric Logan, “The FISA Wall and Federal Investigations,” New York University Journal of Law and Liberty, vol. 4,
no. 209, p. 229. http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv4/groups/public/
@nyu_law_website__journals__journal_of_law_and_liberty/documents/documents/ecm_pro_062708.pdf. (Hereafter:
Logan, “The FISA Wall and Federal Investigations.”)
20 9/11 Commission Report, p. 79 and Chapter 8.
21 Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein, 147 Cong Rec. S10591, October 11, 2001, quoted in Logan, “The FISA Wall
and Federal Investigations,” pp. 230-1. Full statement available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi.
22 Logan, “The FISA Wall and Federal Investigations,” p. 230.
Congressional Research Service
4
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
enforcement officers to coordinate efforts to investigate or protect against (among other issues)
sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.23 And
Section 203 amended the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow disclosure of grand jury
information in certain circumstances, including if that information is related to sabotage or
international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.24
Roving Wiretaps
Federal law enforcement officers have the authority, subject to court approval, to conduct
wiretaps and electronic surveillance on persons suspected of committing federal crimes. A
“roving” wiretap allows law enforcement officers to “follow” a subject and lawfully intercept that
person’s communications with a single court order even if the target attempts to evade
surveillance by changing telephones or other communications devices.25 According to an
Assistant U.S. Attorney, “Prior to roving wiretaps, law enforcement agents and federal
prosecutors had to invest substantial time and resources in obtaining a separate wiretap order for
each additional telephone used by a subject during an investigation … [Q]uite often this resulted
in a loss of valuable evidence through missed wiretap conversations relating to the criminal
activity being monitored.”26
Before the USA PATRIOT Act, the concept behind roving wiretaps did not apply to FISA.27 The
USA PATRIOT Act amended the electronic surveillance portion of FISA to allow government
agents to continue surveillance when “the target of the surveillance switches from a facility (e.g.,
a telephone) associated with one service provider (e.g., a telephone company) to a different
facility associated with a different provider.”28
Expanded Use of Devices that Record the Sources of Incoming and Outgoing
Communications
A trap and trace device shows all incoming phone numbers to a particular telephone.29 A pen
register shows all outgoing phone numbers a particular telephone has called.30 Prior to 2001,
FISA allowed law enforcement officers to collect incoming and outgoing numbers on a telephone
23 P.L. 107-56, §504, (a)(k)(1)(B).
24 P.L. 107-56, §203, (a)(1)(C)(V).
25 Peter M. Thomson, “White Paper on The USA PATRIOT Act’s ‘Roving’ Electronic Surveillance Amendment to the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, April 2004, p. 1,
http://www.fed-soc.org/doclib/20070326_rovingsur.pdf.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid, p. 2.
28 P.L. 107-56, §206. See also U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism,
and Homeland Security, USA Patriot Act Reauthorization, Statement of Todd M. Hinnen, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, 112th Cong., 1st sess., March 9, 2011, p. 1.
29 18 U.S.C. §3127(3) defines a “trap and trace device” as “a device or process which captures the incoming electronic
or other impulses which identify the originating number or other dialing, routing, addressing, and signaling information
reasonably likely to identify the source of a wire or electronic communication, provided, however, that such
information shall not include the contents of any communication.”
30 18 U.S.C. §3127(3) defines a “pen register” as “a device or process which records or decodes routing, addressing, or
signaling information transmitted by an instrument or facility from which a wire or electronic communication is
transmitted, provided, however, that such information shall not include the contents of any communication.”
Congressional Research Service
5
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
line. The USA PATRIOT Act expanded the law to permit the capture of comparable information
related to other forms of communication including the Internet, electronic mail, web surfing, and
all other forms of electronic communications.31
“Sneak and Peek” Search Warrants
In general, police officers serving a warrant must “knock and announce”—that is, give the subject
notice that they are the police and are serving a warrant. They may enter and search even if the
subject is not present at the premises to be searched, but they must leave a copy of the warrant
and an inventory of what was seized, giving notice that the premises was searched.32
The USA PATRIOT Act amended Title 1833 to allow federal law enforcement officers to request
from the courts a delayed-notice (so-called “sneak and peek”) search warrant allowing officers to
enter and search a premises without immediately notifying the owner when such notice may have
an adverse result (e.g., tipping off a suspect or co-conspirators).34
This authority has been used rarely in terrorism cases. In the three years for which data are
available (October 1, 2006-September 30, 2009), the Director of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts reported to Congress that 2,332 delayed-notice search warrant requests were
made. Drug-related offenses accounted for 1,618 (69.4 %) of these. The next largest category of
offense for such warrants was fraud (122 warrants, 5.2%). Fifteen requests (less than 1%) were
made for terrorism cases.35
Increased Access to Business Records
The USA PATRIOT Act amended FISA to authorize the FBI to seek an order from the FISA
Court for the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and
other items) in a terrorism or counterintelligence investigation provided that such investigation of
a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the First
Amendment.36
National Security Letters
National Security Letters (NSL)37 are regularly used in FBI counterterrorism investigations and
are roughly comparable to administrative subpoenas.38 They have been described as “form letters
31 P.L. 107-56, §214 and §216.
32 Electronic Freedom Foundation, “‘Sneak and Peek’ Search Warrants,” https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/sneak-
and-peek.
33 18 U.S.C. 3103(a), which amended Rule 41(f)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
34 P.L. 107-56, §213.
35 Director of the Administrative Office (AO) of the United States Courts, Report on Applications for Delayed-Notice
Search Warrants and Extensions, for FY2007, FY2008, and FY2009, Table 2. The USA PATRIOT Act requires the
AO to transmit to Congress annually (beginning with data from FY2007) a full and complete report summarizing
information reported by judges on delayed-notice search warrants.
36 P.L. 107-56, §215.
37 For additional information, see CRS Report RL33320, National Security Letters in Foreign Intelligence
Investigations: Legal Background and Recent Amendments, by Charles Doyle.
Congressional Research Service
6
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
signed by an FBI agent”39 used to request and collect non-content consumer records and related
information from “telephone companies, Internet service providers, consumer credit reporting
agencies, banks, and other financial institutions.”40 The FBI has said that “NSLs are indispensable
investigative tools that serve as building blocks in many counterterrorism and counterintelligence
investigations.”41
NSLs predate the USA PATRIOT Act, but the act increased their use by the FBI.42 For one thing,
the USA PATRIOT Act allowed the FBI to issue NSLs for full consumer credit reports.43
Additionally, it widened the number of FBI officials who could issue NSLs.44 It also expanded the
circumstances under which the letters could be issued by eliminating requirements that NSLs
contain specific and articulable facts demonstrating a nexus to a foreign power or its agents.
Currently, the information sought via an NSL “must only be relevant to protecting against
international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.”45 However, an NSL-related
investigation of an American citizen or legal permanent resident cannot be based solely on First
Amendment-protected activities.46
(...continued)
38 CRS Report R41619, National Security Letters: Proposals in the 112th Congress, by Charles Doyle, p. 1. (Hereafter:
CRS Report R41619.)
39 Government Relations Office and Government Relations Committee, American Association of Law Libraries
(AALL), National Security Letters, AALL Issue Brief 2007-2, Revised March 2007, September 2009, December 2009,
February 2010, p. 1, http://www.aallnet.org/aallwash/ib032007b.pdf. (Hereafter: AALL, National Security.)
40 CRS Report R41619, p. 1. “Non–content” as it relates to telephone records, does not include the content of
conversations. Rather, the FBI can request items such as customer identity, length of service, and toll records.
41 Office of the Inspector General, Department of Justice, A Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Use of
National Security Letters, March 2007, p. 121, http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0703b/final.pdf. (Hereafter: DOJ
OIG, Review of FBI Use of NSLs, March 2007.)
42 John Solomon and Carrie Johnson, “FBI Broke Law for Years to Get Phone Records,” Washington Post, January 19,
2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/18/AR2010011803982.html?wprss=rss_nation.
(Hereafter: Solomon and Johnson, “FBI Broke Law.”) NSLs are authorized under five federal statutes. (1) Under the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2709), the FBI can obtain subscriber information for telephone
and electronic communication as well as toll billing information and electronic communication transaction records.
According to FBI information from 2007, this is the NSL authority most frequently used by the agency. (2) Under the
Right to Financial Privacy Act (12 U.S.C. § 3414(a)(5)) the FBI can obtain records from financial institutions. This
NSL authority is used in investigations of potential terror financing. (3) Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C.
§§ 1681u), the FBI can obtain from credit reporting agencies (a) the names of financial institutions with which the
subject of the NSL has an account and (b) consumer identifying information. (4) Also under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (15 U.S.C. §1681v), the FBI can obtain a full credit report—15 U.S.C. §1681v was added by the PATRIOT Act.
(5) Under the National Security Act (50 U.S.C. § 436) the FBI can obtain a variety of records related to the finances
and travel of government employees. These may be obtained only in investigations involving alleged improper
disclosure of classified information by such employees. See CRS Report R40138, Amendments to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Set to Expire May 27, 2011, by Edward C. Liu, p. 4. (Hereafter: CRS Report
R40138.) See also Robert S. Mueller, III, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Statement Before the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary,” March 27, 2007, http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-fbis-use-of-national-security-
letters-2.
43 Ibid, 15 U.S.C. §1681v.
44 Prior to the PATRIOT Act, the FBI Director or a senior FBI Headquarters official could formally issue NSLs. The
PATRIOT Act expands and decentralizes this authority by granting it to FBI field office heads (special agents in
charge) as well. See CRS Report R41619, pp. 1-2. See also Solomon and Johnson, “FBI Broke Law.”
45 AALL, National Security, p. 1.
46 CRS Report R41619, p. 2.
Congressional Research Service
7
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
The implementation of the post-USA PATRIOT Act NSL regimen at the FBI has not been
seamless. In 2007, the DOJ Inspector General initially reported that “the FBI used NSLs in
violation of applicable NSL statutes, the Attorney General Guidelines, and internal FBI policies,”
although no evidence was found of criminal misconduct.47 In a subsequent report in 2008, the
Inspector General concluded that DOJ and the FBI “have made significant progress in addressing
the need to improve compliance in the FBI’s use,” but “it is too early to definitively state whether
the new systems and controls developed by the FBI and the Department will eliminate fully the
problems with NSLs that we identified.”48
Moreover, between 2003 and 2006 some FBI personnel circumvented the NSL process, using
crisis conditions as a justification. Namely, in that time period one FBI headquarters unit issued
722 “exigent letters” to obtain telephone toll records for approximately 4,400 telephone numbers
in lieu of NSLs. The unit included representatives from three communications service providers.
These representatives typically received the exigent letters from FBI employees working
alongside them. None of the 722 exigent letters actually described the specific crises that
supposedly made them necessary, and in some cases there were no emergencies.49 FBI Chief
Counsel Valerie E. Caproni stated in congressional testimony that the exigent letters were
borne out of a misunderstanding of the import of the USA PATRIOT Act’s amendments to
ECPA [Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2709)]. For reasons lost in the
fog of history—but no doubt partially the result of the intense pace of activity in the months
following the 9/11 attacks—the FBI did not adequately educate our workforce that Congress
had provided clear mechanisms to obtain records in emergency situations. Although
guidance was eventually provided in August 2005, the employees who had been using
exigent letters for several years simply did not recognize the applicability of that guidance to
their situation.50
In March 2007, the FBI ended the use of exigent letters.51 Regardless, they have played into
recent congressional debate regarding the extension of key provisions within the PATRIOT Act.52
Debate over Civil Liberties Issues
When the USA PATRIOT Act was signed into law, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft said
47 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, A Review of the FBI Use of National Security Letters,
March 2007, p. 124. http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0703b/final.pdf.
48 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, A Review of the FBI’s Use of National Security Letters:
Assessment of Corrective Actions and Examination of NSL Usage in 2006, March 2008, p. 8, http://www.justice.gov/
oig/special/s0803b/final.pdf.
49 Valerie E. Caproni, General Counsel, Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Statement Before the House Judiciary
Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties,” April 14, 2010, http://www2.fbi.gov/
congress/congress10/caproni041410.htm. (Hereafter: Caproni, “Statement.”) In addition to the 722 letters, 76 other
exigent letters were signed by FBI personnel who worked outside of the headquarters unit in question. On the letters,
see also U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, A Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s
Use of Exigent Letters and Other Information Requests for Telephone Records, January 2010, pp. 19-21,
http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s1001r.pdf.
50 Caproni, “Statement.”
51 Ibid.
52 For more information, see CRS Report R40138.
Congressional Research Service
8
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
Law enforcement is now empowered with new tools and resources necessary to disrupt,
weaken, and eliminate the infrastructure of terrorist organizations, to prevent or thwart
terrorist attacks, and to punish the perpetrators of terrorist acts.... The American people can
be assured law enforcement will use these new tools to protect our nation while upholding
the sacred liberties expressed in the Constitution.53
And FBI Director Mueller has testified to Congress that “the USA PATRIOT Act has changed the
way the FBI operates. Many of our counterterrorism successes are the direct result of the
provisions of the Act.”54
But others were concerned about the constitutional implications of the USA PATRIOT Act. Law
Professor Susan Herman notes that four of the provisions described above55 “exemplify several
different ways in which the USA PATRIOT Act allow the executive branch to deviate from the
presumptive Fourth Amendment56 model requiring: (1) some form of individualized suspicion
(presumptively probable cause), (2) antecedent judicial review where feasible, and (3) notice of
any search.”57
After passage of the act, the Electronic Freedom Foundation worried that “the civil liberties of
ordinary Americans have taken a tremendous blow with this law, especially the right to privacy in
our online communications and activities.”58 The Rutherford Institute argued that while the USA
PATRIOT Act “may not have been designed to restrict American citizens’ civil liberties, its
unintended consequences threaten the fundamental constitutional rights of people who have
absolutely no involvement with terrorism.”59 And the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
charges that “the mammoth USA PATRIOT Act expanded government powers in ways that will
diminish liberty for years to come.”60 They specifically note that the wiretapping and intelligence
provisions of the act “minimize the role of a judge in ensuring that law enforcement wiretapping
is conducted legally and with proper justification, and they permit use of intelligence
investigative authority to by-pass normal criminal procedures that protect privacy.”61
53 The USA Patriot Act Background Report, PBS Newshour, March 27, 2006, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
indepth_coverage/terrorism/homeland/patriotact.html. (Hereafter: PBS Newshour,
March 27, 2006.)
54 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Sunset Provisions of the USA Patriot Act, Testimony of Robert
Mueller, Director, FBI, 109th Cong., 1st sess., April 5, 2005.
55 P.L. 107-56, §213, §215, §218, and §505.
56 The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.”
57 Susan N. Herman, “The USA PATRIOT Act and the Submajoritarian Fourth Amendment,” Harvard Civil Rights-
Civil Liberties Law Review, Vol. 41, No. 1, Winter 2006, pp. 70-1.
58 Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF), EFF Analysis Of The Provisions Of The USA PATRIOT Act, October 31,
2011, http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php.
59 John W. Whitehead and Steven H. Aden, “Forfeiting ‘Enduring Freedom’ for ‘Homeland Security;’ A Constitutional
Analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Justice Department’s Anti-Terrorism Initiatives,” American University
Law Review, Vol. 51, October 2002, p. 1083, http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/51/correctedaden.pdf?rd=1.
60 American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Insatiable Appetite: The Government’s Demand for New and Unnecessary
Powers After September 11, updated October 2002, p. 10, http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/
insatiable%20appetite%20final.pdf.
61 ACLU Legislative Analysis, “USA Patriot Act Boosts Government Powers While Cutting Back on Traditional
Checks and Balances,” November 1, 2001, http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/l110101a.html.
Congressional Research Service
9
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
In 2005, debate over the USA PATRIOT Act resumed when Congress deliberated extension of
certain provisions of the act that were scheduled to expire (sunset). Eventually, Congress passed,
and on March 9, 2006, President Bush signed into law, an extension of several of the USA
PATRIOT Act provisions that provided the FBI with additional authorities.62 In its legislation,
Congress added new civil liberties protections. For example, in the case of requests to the FISA
Court for an order to obtain business records, government agents are now required to present the
court with data proving how the evidence sought will apply to the relevant investigation.63 The
reauthorizing legislation also afforded greater protections for library, medical, and educational
records and provides the party forced to disclose the business information the right to seek the
advice of an attorney.64
In 2011, Congress again considered the extension of three expiring amendments to FISA. Two of
these were enacted as part of the USA PATRIOT Act—the “roving wiretap” and “business
records” provisions. The third amendment was enacted in 2004 as part of the Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458 ). Known as the “lone wolf” provision, it permits
surveillance of non-U.S. persons engaged in, or preparing to engage in, international terrorism
without requiring evidence linking those persons to an identifiable foreign power or terrorist
organization.
In arguing for extension of these provisions before the House of Representatives, law professor
Nathan Sales testified that “they simply let counterintelligence agents use some of the same
techniques that ordinary criminal investigators have been using for decades – techniques that
federal courts repeatedly have upheld.”65 At the same hearing, Acting Assistant Attorney General
Todd Hinnen added, “Robust substantive standards and procedural protections are in place to
ensure that these tools are used responsibly and in a manner that safeguards Americans’ privacy
and civil liberties.”66
Congress eventually extended these three provisions in the FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011
(P.L. 112-3), which was signed by President Obama on February 25, 2011. These provisions are
now set to expire on May 27, 2011.67
Revised Attorney General Guidelines
The FBI and DOJ also emphasized their forward-leaning approach with the September 29, 2008,
revision of the Attorney General’s Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations,68 which they claim
“make the FBI’s operations in the United States more effective by providing simpler, clearer, and
62 These are contained in the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-177) and the
USA PATRIOT ACT Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-178).
63 See 50 U.S.C. 1861(b)(2).
64 See 50 U.S.C. 1861(a)(3) and 50 U.S.C. 1861(d)(1)(B).
65 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Statement of Nathan A. Sales, Assistant Professor of Law, George
Mason University School of Law, The Reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act Hearing, 112th Cong., 1st sess., March 9,
2011, p. 1, http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Sales03092011.pdf.
66 Ibid, Statement of Todd M. Hinnen, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, p. 4,
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Hinnen03092011.pdf.
67 For more information, see CRS Report R40138, Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Set
to Expire May 27, 2011, by Edward C. Liu.
68 Available at http://www.ignet.gov/pande/standards/prgexhibitg1.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
10
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
more uniform standards and procedures.”69 Referred to as the “Mukasey Guidelines” after
Michael B. Mukasey, who was Attorney General at the time of their release, this is the latest in a
series of guidelines stretching back to 1976 that govern the FBI’s investigative activities.70 The
Mukasey Guidelines went into effect on December 1, 2008. In large part, these guidelines sprang
from the post-9/11 national security context, in which the FBI surmised that it could not simply
react to crimes. It had to preemptively search for criminal, counterintelligence, and terrorist
threats to the homeland.71 As FBI General Counsel Valerie Caproni stated in congressional
testimony:
We believe that this will allow the FBI to take additional necessary steps to becoming a more
proactive organization. One of the key issues that we think the FBI needs to be able to do is
assess potential risks and vulnerabilities. Having these additional techniques available at the
assessment level, we think, will be key to the FBI’s ability to efficiently and effectively
answer those questions and assess risks.72
The latest revision to the guidelines represents a consolidation of several other previously stand-
alone documents that had governed FBI investigations. Also a work in progress is the 2008
Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG)—the FBI’s document governing the
agency’s implementation of the Mukasey Guidelines—which the FBI continues to modify.73
The most prominent changes in the Mukasey Guidelines and the DIOG concern “assessments.”
Agents and analysts may now use assessments outside of the more traditional preliminary and full
investigations, which require some level of factual predication.74 Preliminary investigations can
be opened with “‘allegation or information’ indicative of possible criminal activity or threats to
the national security.” Opening a full investigation requires an “‘articulable factual basis’ of
possible criminal or national threat.”75 On the other hand, opening an assessment does not require
allegations, information of possible criminal activity or threat, or an articulable factual basis.76
Instead, assessments are to follow a specifically articulated purpose, of which there are six:77
69 U.S. Department of Justice, “Memorandum for the Heads of Department Components: The Attorney General’s
Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations,” press release, September 29, 2008, http://www.justice.gov/ag/readingroom/
guidelines-memo.pdf.
70 See Emily Berman, Domestic Intelligence: New Powers, New Risks, Brennan Center for Justice at New York
University School of Law, 2011, pp. 8-9, 11. (Hereafter: Berman, Domestic Intelligence.)
71 Prepared Statement of Elisebeth Collins Cook, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, DOJ, and Valerie
Caproni, General Counsel, FBI, U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Attorney General Guidelines
for FBI Criminal Investigations, National Security Investigations, and the Collection of Foreign Intelligence, 110th
Cong., 2nd sess., September 23, 2008, S. HRG. 110–846 (Washington: GPO, 2009), p. 10, http://intelligence.senate.gov/
pdfs/110846.pdf.
72 U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Attorney General Guidelines for FBI Criminal
Investigations, National Security Investigations, and the Collection of Foreign Intelligence, 110th Cong., 2nd sess.,
September 23, 2008, S. HRG. 110–846 (Washington: GPO, 2009), p. 17, http://intelligence.senate.gov/pdfs/
110846.pdf. (Hereafter: Hearing, “Attorney General Guidelines.”)
73 Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Oversight and Review Division, Investigation of Allegations
of Cheating on the FBI’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG) Exam, Washington, DC, September
2010, pp. 1, 34, http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s100927.pdf. Interestingly, this report discusses the findings of an
investigation into a string of incidents in which FBI employees cheated on a mandatory exam covering the DIOG.
DIOG, redacted, p. 2.
74 Hearing, “Attorney General Guidelines,” p. 17.
75 DIOG, redacted, pp. 76, 85.
76 According to the DIOG, “Although difficult to define, ‘no particular factual predication’ is less than ‘information or
allegation’ as required for the initiation of a preliminary investigation. For example, an assessment may be conducted
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
11
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
• check leads on individuals or activities,
• check leads on groups or organizations,
• collect information to analyze potential threats and vulnerabilities,
• gather information for intelligence analysis or planning,
• vet and manage the agency’s confidential human sources (informants), and
• collect foreign intelligence.
Assessments are not to be based on “arbitrary or groundless speculation, nor can an assessment be
based solely on the exercise of First Amendment protected activities or on the race, ethnicity,
national origin or religion of the subject.”78 Assessments offer terrorism investigators a variety of
techniques, including public surveillance and the use of confidential informants to penetrate
conspiracies.79
According to numbers made publicly available in March 2011, between December 2008 and
March 2009 the FBI initiated 11,667 assessments to check leads on individuals, activities, groups,
or organizations. The agency completed 8,605 of the assessments. These, in turn, led to 427
preliminary or full investigations. Officials noted that about one-third of the assessments resulted
from vague tips.80 The FBI has likely continued to open assessments at a similar rate.81
Critics have voiced broad concerns about the Mukasey Guidelines. One detailed study has noted
that they “tip the scales too far in favor of relatively unchecked government power, allowing the
FBI to sweep too much information about too many innocent people into the government’s view.
In so doing, they pose significant threats to Americans’ civil liberties and risk undermining the
very counterterrorism efforts they are meant to further.”82
According to media reports, Farhad Khera, executive director of the nonprofit Muslim Advocates,
has suggested that the Attorney General Guidelines are invasive and based on “generalized
suspicion and fear on the part of law enforcement, not on individualized evidence of criminal
(...continued)
when there is a basis to know: (i) whether more information or facts are required to determine if there is a criminal or
national security threat; and (ii) there is a rational and articulable relationship between the stated authorized purpose of
the assessment on the one hand and the information sought and the proposed means to obtain that information on the
other. Regardless of whether specific approval or specific documentation is required, an FBI employee should be able
to explain the purpose of an assessment and the reason for the methods used to conduct the assessment. Those FBI
employees who conduct assessments are responsible for assuring that assessments are not pursued for frivolous or
improper purposes and are not based solely on First Amendment activity or on the race, ethnicity, national origin, or
religion of the subject of the assessment.” DIOG, redacted, p. 39.
77 DIOG, redacted, pp. 44-56. See also, Andrew Kalloch, “FBI General Counsel Defends New Guidelines,” Harvard
Law Record, December 4, 2008, updated September 29, 2009, http://www.hlrecord.org/2.4463/fbi-general-counsel-
defends-new-guidelines-1.577396.
78 DIOG, redacted, p. 39.
79 Charlie Savage, “Wider Authority for F.B.I. Agents Stirs Concern,” New York Times, October 29, 2009.
80 Charlie Savage, “F.B.I. Casts Wide Net Under Relaxed Rules for Terror Inquiries, Data Show,” New York Times,
March 26, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/us/27fbi.html?_r=2&sq=savage&st=cse&scp=3&pagewanted=
print. (Hereafter: Savage, “F.B.I. Casts.”)
81 Ibid.
82 Berman, Domestic Intelligence, p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
12
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
activity.”83 The ACLU also criticized the large number of assessments the FBI appears to be
initiating. A policy counsel with the civil liberties group noted that the large number of
assessments that did not lead to preliminary or full investigations are “against completely
innocent people that are now bound up within the FBI’s intelligence system forever.”84 FBI
General Counsel Caproni viewed the numbers from a more proactive investigative posture:
“Recognize that the FBI’s policy—that I think the American people would support—is that any
terrorism lead has to be followed up.”85
Under the Freedom of Information Act, in late July 2010 the ACLU requested information from
the FBI regarding the agency’s amassing of racial and ethnic data based on the new guidelines.86
As written, the guidelines allow for the collection of information about ethnic or racial
communities and justify the gathering of such information for proactive purposes. The DIOG
states that it should be done if it “will reasonably aid the analysis of potential threats and
vulnerabilities, and, overall, assist domain awareness for the purpose of performing intelligence
analysis.”87
Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs)
JTTFs are locally based, multi-agency teams of investigators, analysts, linguists, SWAT experts,
and other specialists who investigate terrorism and terrorism-related crimes. Seventy-one of the
106 JTTFs currently operated by DOJ and the FBI were created since 9/11. Over 4,400 federal,
state, and local law enforcement officers and agents—more than four times the pre-9/11 total—
work in them. These officers and agents come from more than 600 state and local agencies and 50
federal agencies.88
The FBI considers the JTTFs “the nation’s front line on terrorism.”89 They “investigate acts of
terrorism that affect the U.S., its interests, property and citizens, including those employed by the
U.S. and military personnel overseas.”90 As this suggests, their operations are highly tactical and
focus on investigations, developing human sources (informants), and gathering intelligence to
thwart terrorist plots.
JTTFs also offer an important conduit for the sharing of intelligence developed from FBI-led
counterterrorism investigations with outside agencies and state and local law enforcement. To
83 Brent Jones, “ACLU Seeks Information About FBI Racial, Ethnic Data Collection,” Baltimore Sun, July 28, 2010,
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-07-28/news/bs-md-aclu-fbi-20100728_1_ethnic-data-profiling-aclu-
representatives; Pete Yost, “FBI Defends Guidelines on Eve of Senate Testimony,” Associated Press, cited in
boston.com, July 27, 2010, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/07/27/
fbi_defends_guidelines_on_eve_of_senate_testimony/. (Hereafter: Yost, July 27, 2010.)
84 Savage, “F.B.I. Casts.”
85 Ibid.
86 Yost, July 27, 2010.
87 DIOG, redacted, p. 32.
88 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Protecting America from Terrorist Attack: Our Joint Terrorism Task Forces,”
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism_jttfs.
89 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “Protecting America Against Terrorist Attack: A Closer Look at Our Joint
Terrorism Task Forces,” May 2009, http://www.fbi.gov/page2/may09/jttfs_052809.html.
90 Brig Barker and Steve Fowler, “The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force Officer,” The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,
vol. 77, no. 11 (November 2008), p. 13.
Congressional Research Service
13
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
help facilitate this, especially as the threat of homegrown jihadists has emerged, the number of
top-secret security clearances issued to local police working on JTTFs has increased from 125 to
878 between 2007 and 2009.91
There is also a National JTTF, which was established in July 2002 to serve as a coordinating
mechanism with the FBI’s partners. Some 40 agencies are now represented in the National JTTF,
which has become a focal point for information sharing and the management of large-scale
projects that involve multiple partners.92
Intelligence Reform
The 9/11 terrorist attacks have been called a major intelligence failure.93 In response to criticisms
of its intelligence capabilities, the FBI over the last decade has introduced a series of reforms
intended to transform the agency from a largely reactive law enforcement agency focused on
criminal investigations into a more proactive, agile, flexible, and intelligence-driven94 agency that
can prevent acts of terrorism.95
Robert S. Mueller III, who became the FBI Director just prior to the 9/11 attacks and whose
statutory 10-year term expires in 2011, has vowed to assert headquarters’ control over the FBI’s
historically fragmented and much-criticized intelligence program. He signaled his intention to
improve the FBI’s intelligence program by consolidating and centralizing control over
intelligence capabilities, both at FBI Headquarters and in the FBI’s largely autonomous field
91 Kevin Johnson, “FBI Issues More Top Secret Clearance for Terrorism Cases,” USA Today, August 12, 2010,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-08-12-secret-clearances_N.htm; STRATFOR, A Decade of Evolution in
U.S. Counterterrorism Operations, Special Report, December 2009, http://www.stratfor.com/memberships/150745/
analysis/20091216_us_decade_evolution_counterterrorism_operations?ip_auth_redirect=1; CRS Report RL33033,
Intelligence Reform Implementation at the Federal Bureau of Investigation: Issues and Options for Congress, by
Alfred Cumming.
92 DOJ, “Joint Terrorism Task Force,” http://www.justice.gov/jttf/.
93 There is a large body of literature on the failures associated with the attacks of September 11, 2001, and broader
issues associated with the effectiveness of the Intelligence Community in general. According to William E. Odom,
Fixing Intelligence for a More Secure America (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003), p. 187, the attacks of
9/11 represent a failure of both intelligence and policy. See also The Commission on Intelligence Capabilities of the
United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction: Report to the President of the United States, March 31, 2005.
(Hereafter cited as WMD Report.) Chapter 10 of this report, “Intelligence at Home: The FBI, Justice, and Homeland
Security,” is the most germane with respect to FBI intelligence reform. See also Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Pre-War Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, July 7, 2004. See
also the National Academy of Public Administration, Transforming the FBI: Progress and Challenges, January 2005.
Chapter 3 on Intelligence is most pertinent to the topic of this CRS report. See also Richard A. Posner, Preventing
Surprise Attacks: Intelligence Reform in the Wake of 9/11 (Palo Alto, CA: Hoover Institution, Stanford University,
2005); U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, A Review of the FBI’s Handling of Intelligence
Information Related to the September 11 Attacks, November 2004, recently released in redacted form.
94 For purposes of this report, intelligence is defined to include foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, and criminal
intelligence. Experts differ on the extent to which there may be a synergy between traditionally defined foreign
intelligence and criminal intelligence. One’s perspective on the relationship between the law enforcement and
intelligence disciplines can have direct effects on policy preferences, including the role of the FBI in domestic
intelligence, and domestic intelligence resource allocation strategies.
95 P.L. 108-447; the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act provided the FBI with additional human resource tools
for recruitment and retention, including authority to provide retention and relocation bonuses to certain categories of
FBI employees, and the establishment of an FBI Investigative Reserve Service.
Congressional Research Service
14
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
offices.96 He has contended that intelligence has always been one of the FBI’s core
competencies,97 organic to the FBI’s investigative mission,98 and he asserted that the
organization’s intelligence efforts have been and will continue to be disciplined by the
intelligence cycle (i.e., the development and conduct of intelligence collection requirements,
collection, analysis, and dissemination).
Since the 2001 attacks, Director Mueller has instituted a number of reforms. He created a new
Directorate of Intelligence (DI) at headquarters. He also acted on a recommendation by the
Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission and established a National Security Branch at
headquarters which integrated the FBI’s Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence Divisions with
the DI, the Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate, and the Terrorist Screening Center.99
More fundamentally, perhaps, Director Mueller established Field Intelligence Groups (FIGs),
which could be viewed as a cornerstone of his reforms, at each of the FBI’s 56 field offices in an
effort to improve the agency’s intelligence capacity by combining its intelligence and
investigative capabilities. FIGs are comprised of agents, analysts, linguists, and surveillance
specialists. A FIG’s principal mission is to identify intelligence gaps, obtain and analyze raw
intelligence from FBI investigations and sources, and generate intelligence products and
disseminate them to the intelligence and law enforcement communities in order to help guide
investigations, programs, and policy. Arguably, the mission of the FIGs is nothing less than to
“drive,” or inform the direction of, the FBI’s counterterrorism effort by identifying, assessing, and
attacking emerging threats “before they flourish.”100
Intelligence Information Reports (IIRs) are a primary component of the FBI’s post-9/11
transformation. FIGs disseminate IIRs.101 These reports are formatted as teletype messages and
shared electronically with the law enforcement and intelligence communities. They contain “raw”
intelligence—“unevaluated intelligence information, generally from a single source, that has not
fully been evaluated, integrated with other information, or interpreted and analyzed.”102 These
96 See statement of Robert S. Mueller, III, Director, FBI, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations,
Subcommittee on the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies, June 18, 2003.
97 Core competencies are defined as a related group of activities central to the success, or failure, of an organization. In
the private sector, core competencies are often the source of a company’s competitive advantage. See C. K. Prahalad
and Gary Hamel, “The Core Competency of the Corporation,” Harvard Business Review, April 1, 2001.
98 See statement of Robert S. Mueller, III, Director, FBI, in U.S. Congress, Senate Judiciary Committee, July 23, 2003.
99 FBI, National Security Branch, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/nsb.
100 See statement of Robert S. Mueller, Director, FBI, in U.S. Congress, Senate Judiciary Committee, March 25, 2009.
101 Known as “direct dissemination,” this is a transformation of a post-9/11 FBI policy that centralized IIR
dissemination from headquarters. “In 2010, the FBI continued to adjust its intelligence dissemination practices. During
the early years of the FBI Directorate of Intelligence, intelligence reporting was prepared by the Field Intelligence
Groups in each of the FBI‘s Field Offices, and was then sent to FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC, for review and
editing prior to dissemination. This was necessary to ensure consistency and quality in the raw reporting that the FBI
provided to other parts of the Federal Government, as well as to its State, local, tribal, and foreign partners. However,
in 2009 the Bureau determined that its raw intelligence reporting had reached a state of maturity that justified direct
dissemination of intelligence reporting. The FBI accelerated its original timetable and, in March 2010, authorized all 56
field offices to directly disseminate most intelligence information reports (IIRs) to its Intelligence Community and law
enforcement partners. While the FBI continues to disseminate its analytic intelligence reports centrally, a new
dissemination team was added to the Directorate of Intelligence to improve efficiencies in sharing analytic intelligence
with its partners and customers.” See Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI Information Sharing Report, 2010, p. 3,
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/national-information-sharing-strategy-1/fbi-information-sharing-report-
2010. (Hereafter: Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI Information.)
102 Request for Records Disposition Authority, Standard Form 115, Job Number n1-065-10-25, National Archives and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
15
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
reports include information “extracted” from FBI case files.103 The agency emphasizes that the
information in IIRs must not be “based solely on the exercise of First Amendment protected
activities, or on the race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion of the subject.”104 In 2010, the FBI
produced over 25,000 IIRs, which included counterintelligence, counterterrorism, and criminal
information as well as information related to cyber issues and weapons of mass destruction.105
In making intelligence a priority, Director Mueller also adopted a Strategy Management System,
establishing a Strategic Execution Team (SET) to execute organizational changes and to build
support and momentum for institutional change across the Bureau.106 Mueller testified in 2008,
“we established Strategic Execution Teams to help us assess our intelligence program, evaluate
best practices, decide what works and what does not work, and to standardize it throughout the
FBI. The purpose of the SET is to accelerate improvements to our intelligence capabilities, to
ensure we are an intelligence-driven organization and to drive a change in mindsets throughout
the FBI.”107
More specifically, the FBI acted on SET recommendations and restructured the FIGs in each of
its field offices to conform to one model, based on best practices from the field, and adapted to
the size and complexity of each office. As a result, according to Director Mueller, FIG-
Headquarter coordination has improved. In 2008, Mueller told Congress that another result of the
single-model standardized FIG approach is that special agents and analysts are now able to
transition more easily and quickly from one field office FIG to another.108
Reform Initiatives: A Work in Progress
Recently, post-9/11 intelligence reform at the FBI has been critiqued by the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (HSGAC). Its February 2011 report, A Ticking
Time Bomb: Counterterrorism Lessons from the U.S. Government’s Failure to Prevent the Fort
Hood Attack, paints a mixed picture regarding FBI efforts to integrate intelligence with
investigative operations.109 According to the committee’s report, which focuses on the
counterterrorism lessons derived from the U.S. government’s failure to prevent the November
2009 shootings at Fort Hood, there is no question that the FBI has made substantial progress since
(...continued)
Records Administration, December 14, 2010, http://207.245.165.90/records-mgmt/rcs/schedules/departments/
department-of-justice/rg-0065/n1-065-10-025_sf115.pdf; Interagency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group,
Intelligence Guide for First Responders, p. 30, http://www.nctc.gov/docs/itacg_guide_for_first_responders.pdf.
103 Ibid.
104 Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI Information, p. 21.
105 Ibid, p. 22.
106 See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, A Ticking Time Bomb:
Counterterrorism Lessons from the U.S. Government’s Failure to Prevent the Fort Hood Attack, 112th Cong., 1st sess.,
February 2011, p. 53, http://hsgac.senate.gov/public/_files/Fort_Hood/FortHoodReport.pdf. (Hereafter: A Ticking Time
Bomb.)
107 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Statement of Robert S. Mueller, III, Director, FBI, 110th Cong.,
2nd sess., September 16, 2008.
108 Ibid.
109 A Ticking Time Bomb. The report discusses findings from an investigation into the failure of the U.S. government to
stop U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan’s alleged mass shooting at Fort Hood, TX, in November 2009. It claimed 13 lives.
Forty-three people were injured in this attack as well.
Congressional Research Service
16
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
9/11 and has achieved many successes in countering terrorism as a result of FBI Director
Mueller’s leadership.110 However, it remains unclear whether the FBI has truly transformed into
an “intelligence-driven” organization, meaning that the analysis, production, and exploitation of
intelligence is not simply yoked to the process of investigating cases en route to prosecution. In
essence, in an intelligence-driven organization, “intelligence is a preeminent objective separate
from whether a prosecution occurs.”111
Others have echoed A Ticking Time Bomb’s appraisal. In an April 2011 letter to Attorney General
Eric H. Holder and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, Jr., the FBI Intelligence
Analysts Association (FBI IAA) criticized the efforts the agency has made toward becoming
“intelligence-driven.”112 The letter stated that
the Bureau has not yet fully established intelligence analysis as a core mission of the
organization. Rather than being a driver of operational activity, intelligence is still typically
seen as an enabler to the law enforcement mission. Intelligence is often viewed as an
operational asset, an additional tool that can be used much in the same way that technology
can be used to help investigate cases. But to be “intelligence-driven” in the FBI cannot mean
intelligence should be a surrogate or a component of the law enforcement mission.
America’s security requires that FBI operations be guided by the best possible assessment of
the threat. Intelligence must drive operations by identifying threats and vulnerabilities based
on our nation’s criminal and national security concerns.113
One of the Bureau’s latest innovations regarding the integration of intelligence and operations is
the “Fusion Cell Concept.” It appears to feature intelligence as a component of the law
enforcement mission by blending interagency information sharing with targeting within the FBI’s
counterterrorism division. As described by a senior FBI counterterrorism official, the Fusion Cell
Concept “take[s] a target-centric [emphasis added] approach to the threat by combining FBI and
Intelligence Community tactical analysis, strategic analysis, and operational capabilities to
identify and mitigate the priority threats.”114 The FBI uses “intelligence generated from these
Fusion Cells to strategically select targets posing the greatest threat.”115 The FBI’s public rhetoric
about “Fusion Cells” stresses proactivity, but it remains unclear how this substantially differs
from the type of work that is supposed to occur in task force settings such as JTTFs.
110 See A Ticking Time Bomb, p. 51.
111 Ibid, p. 54.
112 The FBI IAA used the letter to lay out what it sees as key traits for the next FBI director. The key traits included the
following: “Trait one: the next Director must have a deep understanding of and commitment to both the intelligence
and law enforcement mission of the Bureau.... Trait two: the next Director must strengthen a culture of collaboration
within the FBI and across the USIC and continue building the FBI intelligence career service.... Trait three: the next
Director must be a seasoned manager of a global enterprise who can lead a group of diverse professionals—agents,
intelligence analysts, and other FBI employees—and form strong partnerships to achieve the FBI’s mission.” See Letter
from Clarence A. Stiehm II, President, FBI Intelligence Analysts Association, to James R. Clapper, Jr., Director of
National Intelligence, and Eric H. Holder, United States Attorney General, April 5, 2011, http://www.fbiiaa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/04/FBI_IAA_letter_to_DNI_Clapper_and_AG_Holder.pdf.
113 Ibid.
114 Mark F. Giuliano, Assistant Director, FBI Counterterrorism Division, The Post 9/11 FBI: The Bureau’s Response to
Evolving Threats, Statement for the Record at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Stein Program on
Counterterrorism and Intelligence, April 14, 2011, p. 5.
115 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
17
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
However, the FBI IAA has stated that analysts at the FBI continue to be relegated to “support”
roles116 (i.e., they react to direction from special agents rather than being full partners in an
intelligence-driven investigative operation). They argue that intelligence analysts should have
professional parity with special agents to rapidly reform the FBI’s institutional culture. The FBI
IAA’s indictments of the agency’s efforts come from insiders working on intelligence matters
within the FBI. However, it must be kept in mind that these same individuals publicly lobby on
behalf of FBI intelligence analysts.117
A Ticking Time Bomb also emphasized that the necessary transformation of the FBI is incomplete,
and “we must be impatient for progress.”118 Specifically, the committee cited the Fort Hood
shootings as a warning that the FBI’s transformation remains a work in progress and that the FBI
must accelerate efforts—especially given the growing complexity and diversity of the
homegrown terrorist threat.119 Among its findings, the committee said that the FBI’s Hassan
inquiry was impeded by division among the agency’s field offices, insufficient use of intelligence
analysis, outdated tradecraft, and poor coordination within the JTTFs and between the JTTFs and
headquarters.120 As a counterpoint, the HSGAC report cited the case of the terrorist plot by
Najibullah Zazi to attack the New York City subway system in September 2009 as an FBI
success, noting that the coordination across federal, state, and local departments, led by two
JTTFs, was excellent and unprecedented.121
Terrorism Prevention and Proactive Investigations
One observer has described intelligence gathering by the FBI in the post-9/11 context as “driven
by a theory of preventive policing: in order to anticipate the next terror attack, authorities need to
track legal activities…. It focuses not on crime, but on the possibility that a crime might be
committed at some future date.”122 This preventative stance can be seen in an intelligence-
gathering operation related to recent events in Libya. The FBI has interviewed more than 800
Libyans residing in the United States to determine if there is any threat of terror attacks against
American targets because of U.S. military action in Libya.123 During congressional testimony,
Director Mueller stated that the FBI wanted to make certain that “we are on guard with the
possibility of terrorist attacks emanating somewhere out of Libya.”124
116 FBI Intelligence Analysts Association, Intel Shift “Needs To” Happen, February 26, 2010.
117 The FBI IAA describes itself as an “independent advocate representing the professional interests, both internally and
externally” of the FBI’s intelligence analysts. See http://www.fbiiaa.org/.
118 A Ticking Time Bomb, p. 51.
119 Ibid, p. 52.
120 Ibid, pp. 55-56.
121 Ibid, p. 55.
122 Thomas Cincotta, “From Movements to Mosques, Informants Endanger Democracy,” The Public Eye, Summer
2009, http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v24n2/movements-to-mosques.html. (Hereafter: Cincotta, “From
Movements to Mosques.”)
123 Richard Esposito and Jason Ryan, “FBI Has Interviewed 800 Libyans About Terror Threat,” abcnews.com, April 7,
2011, http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fbi-interviewed-800-libyans-terror-threat/story?id=13321227.
124 Justin Blum, “FBI Monitoring Possibility of Terrorist Attacks From Libya,” Bloomberg, April 6, 2011,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-06/fbi-monitoring-possibility-of-terrorist-attacks-from-libya.html. This
wave of interviews mirrors a 2002-2003 effort by the FBI to interview Iraqis living in America as the Iraq war began.
See Devlin Barrett, “FBI Questioning Libyans,” Wall Street Journal, April 5, 2011, http://online.wsj.com/search/
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
18
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
This proactive posture also involves challenges for the agency—especially in determining when
individuals move from radical activity involving First Amendment-protected behavior to violent
extremism.125 Because not all terrorist suspects follow a single radicalization roadmap on their
way to executing plots, U.S. law enforcement also faces the task of discerning exactly when
radicalized individuals become real threats.
As suggested, timing is everything. To preemptively stop terrorists, law enforcement requires
accurate and timely intelligence. The FBI generates terrorism cases from a number of sources.
Information about terrorist threats or suspicious incidents is brought to the attention of the FBI by
the public; other government agencies (particularly those in the intelligence community); state
and local law enforcement; ongoing FBI investigations (including sources, surveillance, financial
analysis,126 and tactical analysis); and FBI Legal Attachés stationed abroad. Most FBI
investigations develop from information or leads generated by pre-existing FBI investigations, or
casework and liaison with other federal agencies or international counterparts. A handful of leads
stem from information generated by local or state law enforcement and filtered up to the FBI via
intelligence fusion centers.127
To counter violent plots, U.S. law enforcement has employed two tactics that have been described
by one scholar as the “Al Capone”128 approach and the use of “agent provocateurs.”129 The
Capone approach involves apprehending individuals linked to terrorist plots on lesser, non-
terrorism-related offenses such as immigration violations.130 In agent provocateur cases—often
called sting operations—government undercover operatives befriend suspects and offer to
facilitate their activities. As the “Al Capone” moniker suggests, historically these tactics have
been employed against many types of targets such as mafia bosses, white-collar criminals, and
corrupt public servants. While these techniques combined with the cultivation of informants as
well as surveillance (especially in and around mosques) may be effective in stymieing rapidly
developing terrorist plots, their use has fostered concern within U.S. Muslim communities.131
(...continued)
term.html?KEYWORDS=DEVLIN+BARRETT&bylinesearch=true.
125 Eileen Sullivan and Devlin Barrett, “Recent Cases Show Challenge of US Terrorists,” Associated Press, cited in
abcnews.com, March 17, 2010, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=10121734.
126 For example, the FBI’s Terrorism Financing Operations Section (TFOS) “coordinates efforts to track and shut down
terrorist financing and to exploit financial information in an effort to identify previously unknown terrorist cells and
recognize potential activity/planning.” Federal Bureau of Investigation, Today’s FBI: Facts and Figures, 2010-2011,
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/facts-and-figures-2010-2011/facts-and-figures-2010-2011-pdf.
127 Dana Priest and William M. Arkin, “Monitoring America,” Washington Post, December 20, 2010;
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/monitoring-america/. (Hereafter Priest and Arkin,
“Monitoring.”) For background on state and local fusion centers, see CRS Report RL34070, Fusion Centers: Issues
and Options for Congress, by John Rollins.
128 Al Capone was a Prohibition-era gang leader engaged in a variety of criminal activities including racketeering,
bootlegging liquor, prostitution, and bribery of government officials. He was, however, ultimately arrested and
convicted of tax evasion, for which he served an 11-year prison sentence.
129 Lorenzo Vidino, “Homegrown Jihadist Terrorism in the United States: A New and Occasional Phenomenon?”
Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, vol. 32, no. 1, January 2009, p. 13, http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/
738522_731260637_907926062.pdf.
130 See Daveed Gartenstein-Ross and Kyle Dabruzzi, “The Al Capone Model of Anti-Terror Policing: How Old Tactics
are Countering New Threats,” The Weekly Standard, April 12, 2007, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/
Articles/000/000/013/495wvpqo.asp?page=1.
131 Paul Vitello and Kirk Semple, “Muslims Say F.B.I. Tactics Sow Anger and Fear,” New York Times, December 17,
2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/us/18muslims.html.
Congressional Research Service
19
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
The Capone Approach
As mentioned, the Capone approach involves apprehending individuals linked to terrorist plots on
lesser, non-terrorism-related offenses such as immigration violations. This approach fits within a
preventative mode of counterterrorism prosecution.132 Experts have noted that immediately after
9/11, DOJ often leveled lesser charges against terrorist suspects to preemptively squelch potential
attacks. The author of a 2011 book about the FBI and counterterrorism reported, “of the 417
terrorism indictments in the five years after 9/11 … only 143 of the individuals were actually
indicted on specific terrorism charges; the rest were the result of what then-Attorney General
Ashcroft called the ‘spitting-on-the-sidewalks’ approach: driver’s license fraud, marriage fraud,
wire fraud, immigration violations, and the myriad of other lesser charges that served to disrupt
potential plots and get suspects off the streets.”133
However, according to the Center on Law and Security at New York University School of Law,
DOJ has moved toward trying suspected terrorists as terrorists instead of leaning heavily on
lesser charges: “77% of cases [between September 11, 2009, and September 11, 2010] carried
terrorism or national security charges, an increase of nearly 50% compared to the average over
the previous eight years.”134 Regardless, the Capone approach is still used in terrorism cases.
Lying to an FBI Special Agent is a charge reminiscent of the Capone approach.135 A recent
example stands out.136 On July 21, 2010, Paul Rockwood, Jr., a U.S. citizen and Muslim convert,
pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI. Rockwood’s wife, Nadia Rockwood, also pled
guilty to making false statements related to her husband’s case. By early 2010, while living in
King Salmon, AK, Paul Rockwood had developed a list of 15 people he planned to kill, believing
that they had desecrated Islam. He had also researched explosives and shared with others ideas
about mail bombs or using firearms to kill his targets.137 It appears that prosecutors did not pursue
a case based on more substantive terrorism charges and opted to neutralize a threat—someone
apparently preparing to kill people—by using a false statement charge.
Lesser charges against a suspect in a terrorism case may also act as a placeholder until evidence
to support a more serious charge is gathered. The utility of this preventative technique coupled
with actual terrorism charges was exhibited by the FBI in its case against Najibullah Zazi. He
arrived in New York on September 10, 2009, with explosive material and plans to detonate bombs
in New York’s subway system. Zazi feared authorities had caught up with him and returned to
Denver on September 12. Between September 10 and 19, the FBI monitored his activities and
bolstered its case with searches of a vehicle and locations linked to him in New York and Denver.
132 Dan Eggen and Julie Tate, “U.S. Campaign Produces Few Convictions on Terrorism Charges,” Washington Post,
June 12, 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100381.html; Andrew
Adams, “FBI’s New Approach: Minor Charges Now Stop Terrorism Later,” Lodi News-Sentinel, June 17, 2005.
133 Graff, The Threat Matrix, pp. 420-421.
134 The Center on Law and Security, New York University School of Law, Terrorist Trial Report Card: September 11,
2001-September 11, 2010, p.2, http://www.lawandsecurity.org/Portals/0/documents/01_TTRC2010Final1.pdf.
135 18 U.S.C. § 1001.
136 For additional examples, see CRS Report R41416, American Jihadist Terrorism: Combating a Complex Threat, by
Jerome P. Bjelopera and Mark A. Randol.
137 DOJ Press Release, “Alaska Man Pleads Guilty to Making False Statements in Domestic Terrorism Investigation,
Spouse Pleads Guilty to Making False Statements,” July 21, 2010, http://www.fbi.gov/anchorage/press-releases/2010/
ak072110.htm; Colleen Kelly, “Alaskan Couple in Domestic Terrorism Plot Sentenced,” ktva.com (Anchorage, AK),
August 23, 2010, http://www.ktva.com/alaskanews/ci_15870578?source=rss.
Congressional Research Service
20
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
Zazi also agreed to interviews with the FBI in Denver. Then, on September 19 FBI special agents
arrested Zazi in Aurora, CO, for knowingly and willfully lying to the FBI. Presumably this was
done because he might flee. Four days later, a grand jury returned a more substantive one-count
indictment against him on weapons of mass destruction charges.138
Agent Provocateur Cases
Agent provocateur cases—sting operations—rely on expert determination by law enforcement
that a specific individual or group is likely to move beyond radicalized talk and engage in
violence or terrorist plotting. The ultimate goal is to catch a suspect committing an overt criminal
act such as pulling the proverbial trigger but on a dud weapon. By engaging in such strategy,
investigators hope to obtain ironclad evidence against suspects. Although an official count of
terrorist sting operations is not publicly available, the FBI has said that of all the terrorist plots
disrupted between 9/11 and the September 2009 Zazi plot to bomb the New York City subway,
only two plotters were “prepared to move ahead with their plots without the benefit or knowledge
of government informants or U.S. officials.”139 Since 2009, according to The Center for Law and
Security at the New York University School of Law, the FBI has arrested 41 people on terrorism
charges through sting operations.140
A recent FBI investigation exemplifies this approach. On November 26, 2010, Mohamed Osman
Mohamud was arrested after he attempted to set off what he believed was a vehicle bomb at an
annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Portland, OR. Mohamud thought he had plotted with
terrorists to detonate the bomb. In actuality, the device was a dud assembled by his co-
conspirators, who were FBI undercover operatives. Mohamud offered the target for the strike,
provided components for assembly of the device, gave instructions for the operation, and mailed
passport photographs for his getaway plan to FBI undercover operatives.141 What specifically
caused the FBI to begin its sting operation against Mohamud is unclear from publicly available
sources. At some point, someone from the local Muslim community alerted the FBI to Mohamud,
a 19-year-old Somali-born naturalized U.S. citizen. Media reports have suggested that a family
member, perhaps Mohamud’s father, relayed concerns about the young man to officials.142
In a number of recent FBI terrorism sting operations, defense attorneys have alleged that the FBI
had entrapped defendants.143 Ten defendants charged with terrorism-related crimes have formally
138 U.S. Department of Justice, “Najibullah Zazi Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy to Use Explosives Against Persons or
Property in U.S., Conspiracy to Murder Abroad and Providing Material Support to Al-Qaeda,” press release, February
22, 2010, http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/February/10-ag-174.html; Nicole Vap, “Timeline of Terror Plot
Investigation,” KUSA TV, NBC affiliate, September 2009, http://www.9news.com/news/specials/terrorplot/
article.aspx?storyid=123658&catid=207.
139 Graff, The Threat Matrix, p. 574. For a description of known sting operations among the post-9/11 homegrown
jihadist terrorism plots, see CRS Report R41416, American Jihadist Terrorism: Combating a Complex Threat, by
Jerome P. Bjelopera and Mark A. Randol, Appendix A.
140 Quoted in Basil Katz, “New York Bomb Plot Four Ask Judge to Dismiss Charges,” Reuters, March 24, 2011,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/25/us-security-newyork-plot-idUSTRE72O0CC20110325.
141 U.S. Department of Justice, “Oregon Resident Arrested in Plot to Bomb Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony in
Portland,” press release, November 27, 2010, http://portland.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel10/pd112610.htm.
142 Caryn Brooks, “Portland’s Bomb Plot: Who Is Mohamed Mohamud?” November 28, 2010, TIME Magazine,
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2033372,00.html.
143 In criminal law, a person is “entrapped” when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their
agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit. A defendant who is subject to entrapment may not
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
21
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
argued the entrapment defense in six trials since 9/11.144 However, since 9/11 this defense has
been unsuccessful in federal courts.145 FBI Director Mueller and Attorney General Holder have
described the use of sting operations as “essential” to terrorism prevention.146 Mueller has
emphasized that the FBI is careful in its undercover investigative work, arguing that the agency
performs “substantial oversight” of the techniques used in these cases.147
In at least some investigations, FBI undercover employees test suspects to ascertain the depth of
their intent to do harm. For example, the FBI evaluated Mohamud’s resolve on a number of
occasions. Two stand out. Mohamud’s first meeting with an undercover FBI operative entailed a
discussion in which the would-be violent jihadist was told that he could help “the cause” in “a
number of ways … ranging from simply praying five times a day to becoming a martyr.” The
young man responded, saying that he wanted to become “operational” and needed help in staging
an attack. When Mohamud suggested the Christmas tree lighting ceremony as his intended target
in a following meeting, an FBI undercover employee noted that children attend such events.
Mohamud responded by saying that he wanted a large crowd “that will … be attacked in their
own element with their families celebrating the holidays.”148
(...continued)
be convicted as a matter of public policy. However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break
the law and the government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit
the crime. Merely providing an opportunity to commit a crime is not entrapment. In order to find entrapment, there
must be persuasion to commit a crime by the entrapping party. Entrapment is an affirmative defense in which the
defendant has the burden of proof. It excuses a criminal defendant from liability for crimes proved to have been
induced by certain governmental persuasion or deceit. To claim inducement, a defendant must demonstrate that the
government conduct created a situation in which an otherwise law-abiding citizen would commit an offense. The
defendant must show that he or she was unduly persuaded, threatened, coerced, harassed, or offered pleas based on
sympathy or friendship by police. See Legal Definitions and Legal Terms Dictionary, U.S. Legal Forms, Inc.,
http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/entrapment/. See also William Yardley, “Entrapment is Argued in Defense of Suspect,”
New York Times, November 29, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/us/30mohamud.html; Chris Herring,
“Bomb Case Bail Hearing,” The Wall Street Journal, June 22, 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB10001424052748704256304575321131297175098.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_newyork; A.G. Sulzberger,
“Defense Cites Entrapment in Terror Case,” New York Times, March 17, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/
nyregion/18newburgh.html; Carol J. Williams, “A Case of Terror or Entrapment,” Los Angeles Times, November 30,
2007, http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/30/nation/na-liberty30; Michael Wilson, “Jury Convicts 2 Albany Men in
Missile Sting,” New York Times, October 11, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/nyregion/11plot.html.
144 The Center on Law and Security, New York University School of Law, TTRC Update: Informant Cases and the
Entrapment Defense, March 2011. (Hereafter: Center on Law and Security, March 2011.)
145 Nardine Saad, “FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III in O.C. Denies Sting Operations Aimed at Terrorists Are
Entrapment,” Los Angeles Times, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/01/fbi-director-robert-s-mueller-iii-in-oc-
denies-sting-operations-aimed-at-terrorists-are-entrapment.html. (Hereafter: Saad, “FBI Director.”)
146 Ibid; Malia Wollan and Charlie Savage, “Holder Calls Terrorism Sting Operations ‘Essential,’” New York Times,
December 11, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/us/politics/12holder-1.html.
147 Saad, “FBI Director.”
148 Ibid; United States v. Mohamed Osman Mohamud, Criminal Complaint, U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon, November 26, 2010, p. 2, http://media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/other/USAFFIDAVIT.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
22
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
Balancing Civil Liberties against Terrorism
Prevention
As discussed, the FBI’s DIOG articulates a need to proactively gather intelligence in
counterterrorism investigations and establishes the assessment as a technique to do so. Balancing
civil liberties against the need for preventative policing to combat terrorism is a key policy
challenge. The notion of balancing civil liberties against security requirements is not new. In
1976, the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect
to Intelligence Activities (commonly referred to as the Church Committee after its chair, Senator
Frank Church) noted as much in its investigation of domestic intelligence abuses:
A tension between order and liberty is inevitable in any society. A Government must protect
its citizens from those bent on engaging in violence and criminal behavior, or in espionage
and other hostile foreign intelligence activity.… Intelligence work has, at times, successfully
prevented dangerous and abhorrent acts, such as bombings and foreign spying, and aided in
the prosecution of those responsible for such acts.
But intelligence activity in the past decades has, all too often, exceeded the restraints on the
exercise of governmental power that are imposed by our country’s Constitution, laws, and
traditions.149
Figure 1. Balancing Civil Liberties Concerns and Security
Source: CRS.
149 Church Committee, Book II, p. 2.
Congressional Research Service
23
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
Figure 1 suggests how
COINTELPRO
competing elements influence
Prior to 1976, national security investigations at the FBI followed no
the balance between civil
specific guidelines established by either DOJ or Congress. Without
liberties and security—largely
oversight, the agency developed a covert Counterintelligence Program
defined today in terms of
(COINTELPRO) to target the Communist Party U.S.A.150 During its
terrorism prevention efforts. As
lifespan from 1956 to 1971, the program involved aggressive and illegal
an historical example, the FBI
tactics to harass, disrupt, discredit, and collect intelligence on the party
and its members. COINTELPRO’s purpose was to protect national
had developed intrusive
security, prevent violence, and maintain the social and political order in
domestic intelligence collection
the United States.151 It was not designed to build traditional cases to be
measures and counter-radical
brought to trial. The FBI expanded COINTELPRO to target groups and
operations stretching from the
movements such as the Socialist Workers Party, the Ku Klux Klan, the
late 1930s through the 1960s. Of
New Left, and the Black Panther Party.152 The program was developed
partly because the FBI was frustrated with Supreme Court limits on
course, the focus of the FBI’s
overt investigations of dissident groups.153
efforts in this period was not
With COINTELPRO, the FBI “took the law into its own hands”154 and
counterterrorism. These decades
authorized questionable methods including “use of subterfuge, plant[ing]
featured domestic security
agents provocateurs, [and] leak[ing] derogatory information to the
concerns during World War II
press.”155 Among specific tactics, the FBI mailed anonymous letters to
and fears of espionage and
break up marriages, contacted employers to get people fired from their
communist infiltration of
jobs, and falsely declaimed individuals as government informants to
discredit them within their own organizations.156 The agency even
American institutions during the
targeted some nonviolent organizations, such as the Southern Christian
Cold War. The FBI worked to
Leadership Conference, because it “believed they represented a
prevent this activity. For much of
‘potential for violence.’”157 As the FBI itself acknowledges, some
this period, a national consensus
COINTELPRO methods were excessive and “went too far for the
suggested that serious threats
American people.”158
were posed by foreign agents,
The public first learned of the program after a 1971 burglary at an FBI
revolutionaries, or outside
office in Media, PA. Individuals tied to the incident leaked information on
COINTELPRO to the press and Congress. In response, the FBI
agitators operating in the United
terminated the program.159
States. Within this context, the
FBI had broad authority for
investigation of and intelligence collection regarding domestic subversive activity from
Presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower and Attorney General Robert F.
150 U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities,
Final Report, Book II: Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., April 26, 1976, S. Rept.
94-755 (Washington: GPO, 1976), pp. 23-40. (Hereafter: Church Committee, Book II.)
151 U.S. Congress, Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities,
Final Report, Book III: Supplementary Detailed Staff Reports on Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans,
94th Cong., 2nd sess., April 14, 1976, S. Rept. 94-755 (Washington: GPO, 1976), p. 5. (Hereafter: Church Committee,
Book III.)
152 Church Committee, Book III, pp. 212-213.
153 Church Committee, Book III, p.3.
154 Church Committee, Book III, p.212.
155 Athan G. Theoharis and John Stuart Cox, The Boss: J. Edgar Hoover and the Great American Inquisition,
(Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988), pp. 312-313; David Cunningham, “The Patterning of Repression: FBI
Counterintelligence and the New Left,” Social Forces, vol. 82, no. 1 (September 2003), pp. 211-212.
156 Church Committee, Book III, pp. 212, 217.
157 Church Committee, Book III, p.213.
158 Federal Bureau of Investigation, “A Centennial History, 1908-2008: And Justice for All, 1954-1971,”
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/a-centennial-history/and_justice_for_all_1954-1971.
159 Church Committee, Book III, p.212.
Congressional Research Service
24
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
Kennedy.160 The agency developed a number of programs to combat what it saw as internal
threats.
During this period, the FBI engaged in what can be described as preventive, covert, intelligence-
based efforts to target and contain people, groups, or movements suspected by the agency to be
‘“rabble rousers,’ ‘agitators,’ ‘key activists,’ or ‘key black extremists.’”161 A hallmark was the
agency’s Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO), which lasted from 1956 to 1971.
Subjects investigated by the FBI under its domestic intelligence programs did not have to be
suspected of criminal activity. Instead of bringing criminal cases to court, the Bureau acted
outside of legal processes and relied on illegal means to curb constitutionally protected activity it
deemed threatening to national security.162
By the 1970s, as Cold War fears ebbed, the balance between civil liberties and prevention tipped
in the other direction—favoring concerns over civil liberties. This is highlighted by the
development of the original set of Attorney General guidelines. Issued in 1976 and known as the
Domestic Security Investigation Guidelines, these responded to FBI abuses embodied in programs
such as COINTELPRO. These first guidelines were intended to prevent the FBI’s monitoring of
groups that had unpopular or controversial public views and greatly circumscribed the agency’s
domestic intelligence gathering capabilities and investigations related to national security-related
issues.163
Since the 1976 guidelines, and especially after 9/11, the balance has shifted in favor of security
and terrorism prevention efforts. As suggested, the Mukasey Guidelines and FBI DIOG offer
more investigative flexibility to proactively counter terrorist actors. Critics have stated that
subsequent guidelines have excessively loosened the constraints on FBI intelligence collection
and investigation.164 In essence, these critics suggest that concerns over terrorism and security
have outweighed fears of systemic abuse by investigators.
Philadelphia Inquirer reporter and author Stephan Salisbury describes current efforts at striking
this balance as the “bind” the FBI finds itself in. “On one hand it is being charged by the Justice
Department to go out and stop this stuff [terrorism] before it happens. But on the other, it is
getting criticized for the techniques it is using to do that.”165 The Mukasey Guidelines and FBI
DIOG address the same competing forces, and, as mentioned, their implementation has spurred
concerns among civil liberties groups.
160 Church Committee, Book II, p. 39.
161 Church Committee, Book II, pp. 40, 69.
162 Ibid; Church Committee, Book III, pp. 211-212.
163 Berman, Domestic Intelligence, p. 11.
164 Berman, Domestic Intelligence, p. 13.
165 Stephan Salisbury, “Leather Glove,” audio interview, tomdispatch.com, July 5, 2010.
http://tomdispatch.blogspot.com/2010/07/leather-glove.html. (Hereafter: Salisbury, “Leather Glove.”)
Congressional Research Service
25
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
Considerations for Congress
Since 9/11, the FBI has been given substantially greater resources to enhance its counterterrorism
activities—particularly its intelligence operations.166 The Bureau over the last decade has also
introduced a series of reforms intended to transform it from a largely reactive law enforcement
agency focused on criminal investigations into a more proactive, agile, flexible, and intelligence-
driven organization.
In its oversight role, Congress may wish to examine the extent to which intelligence has been
integrated into FBI operations to support its counterterrorism mission and the progress the Bureau
has made on its intelligence reform initiatives. Congress may also wish to explore the extent to
which the FBI has enhanced its collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security, other
federal partners, and state and local law enforcement elements. This is not just an issue of
information sharing, but of how the Bureau has institutionalized its collaboration in order to
tackle complex threats. Finally, Congress might ask how the FBI uses strategic intelligence to
develop a true understanding of security threats and how they are evolving. In other words, has
the Bureau developed effective predictive capacity?
These issues may also be relevant during confirmation hearings for a new director. The statutory
10-year term of current FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III expires in September 2011.167 A new
director will be subject to Senate confirmation. It may be of interest to Congress to seek out the
nominee’s views on current intelligence reform initiatives that seek to achieve an “intelligence-
driven” organization where intelligence supports broad counterterrorism and homeland security
objectives—not just investigations that lead to prosecution.
FBI intelligence reforms since 9/11 have met with a mixed response. Among its intelligence
initiatives since 9/11, the FBI has increased its intelligence focus by creating a Directorate of
Intelligence and hiring thousands of new and better-qualified analysts. Another innovation was
the establishment of Field Intelligence Groups (FIG) that are embedded into each of the FBI’s 56
field offices. The FBI says that the FIGs are responsible for coordinating, managing, and
executing all the functions of the intelligence cycle. In April 2011, Director Mueller testified that
“the FBI recently restructured its FIGs, where each group now has clearly defined requirements
for intelligence collection, use, and production. With this new structure, each office can better
identify, assess, and attack emerging threats.”168
Yet, as the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC)
investigation into the Fort Hood shootings highlighted, questions remain about the extent to
which intelligence has been effectively integrated into FBI investigative operations. According
to the Senate HSGAC’s report, A Ticking Time Bomb:
In the Hasan case, the FBI did not effectively utilize intelligence analysts who could have
provided a different perspective given the evidence that it had. The FBI ‘s inquiry focused
166 The FY2012 budget request for the FBI proposes $131.5 million for new or expanded initiatives and 181 new
positions, including 81 special agents, three intelligence analysts, and 97 professional staff. See Mueller Testimony,
April 6, 2011.
167 By statute, an FBI Director may only serve a single 10-year term. See the Crime Control Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-503),
October 15, 1976, Sec. 203, 90 Stat. 2407, at 2427.
168 Mueller Testimony, April 6, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
26
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
narrowly on whether Hasan was engaged in terrorist activity - as opposed to whether he was
radicalizing to violent Islamist extremism and whether this radicalization might pose
counterintelligence or other threats (e.g., Hasan might spy for the Taliban if he was deployed
to Afghanistan). This critical mistake may have been avoided if intelligence analysts were
appropriately engaged in the inquiry.169
Congress may wish to examine the extent to which analysts at the FIGs have access to case
information about specific Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) investigations and the opportunity
to provide relevant intelligence to help steer those investigations. The FBI Intelligence Analysts
Association has stated that analysts at the FBI continue to be relegated to “support” roles170 (i.e.,
they react to direction from special agents rather than being full partners in an intelligence-driven
investigative operation). They argue that intelligence analysts should have professional parity
with special agents to rapidly reform the FBI’s institutional culture.
Congress may also wish to explore the extent to which intelligence analysts outside the FIGs,
such as those within the Directorate of Intelligence at Headquarters, also have access to case
information about specific JTTF investigations and have the opportunity to provide relevant
intelligence for those investigations. According to the Senate HSGAC report:
In the Hasan case, two JTTFs (each located in a different field office) disputed the
significance of Hasan’s communications with the Suspected Terrorist and how vigorously he
should be investigated. The JTTF that was less concerned about Hasan controlled the inquiry
and ended it prematurely after an insufficient examination. Two key headquarters units - the
Counterterrorism Division, the “National JTTF” (which was created specifically to be the
hub among JTTFs), and the Directorate of Intelligence were not made aware of the dispute.
This unresolved conflict raises concerns that, despite the more assertive role that FBI
headquarters now plays, especially since 9/11 in what historically has been a decentralized
organization, field offices still prize and protect their autonomy from headquarters. FBI
headquarters also does not have a written plan that articulates the division of labor and
hierarchy of command-and-control authorities among its headquarters units, field offices,
and the JTTFs.171
Insight by Directorate of Intelligence (DI) analysts into JTTF cases would enable the DI to
provide national intelligence community-level support to help guide those cases. It would also
facilitate DI analysis of the overall domestic terrorism threat so it can provide strategic context to
the FBI leadership and other policy makers.
Finally, the FBI has greatly increased its production of intelligence products. As noted earlier, in
2010 the Bureau produced over 25,000 intelligence reports on counterintelligence,
counterterrorism, and criminal topics as well as information related to cyber issues and weapons
of mass destruction.172 It may be of oversight interest to Congress to examine the value of these
reports, their accessibility within the intelligence and law enforcement communities, and the
views of various consumers about them.
169 A Ticking Time Bomb, p. 10.
170 FBI Intelligence Analysts Association, Intel Shift “Needs To” Happen, February 26, 2010.
171 A Ticking Time Bomb, p. 10.
172 FBI Information, p. 22.
Congressional Research Service
27
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations
Author Contact Information
Jerome P. Bjelopera
Mark A. Randol
Specialist in Organized Crime and Terrorism
Specialist in Domestic Intelligence and Counter-
jbjelopera@crs.loc.gov, 7-0622
Terrorism
mrandol@crs.loc.gov, 7-2393
Congressional Research Service
28