Townsend and Reynolds,"Resumed Delivery of Classified Intelligence to TVCS," June 9, 2000; NSA memo, Hay-
den to Asst.Attorney General,"Proposal to Provide UBL-related Product to U.S.Attorney's Office/Southern Dis-
trict of New York," Aug. 30, 2000.
31, 2002. For Jane's account, see DOJ Inspector General interview of Jane, July 16, 2003.
74. For Mary's account, see DOJ Inspector General interview of Mary, Oct. 29, 2002. For the reporting regard-
5, 2000; CIA cable, Hazmi entered U.S., Mar. 6, 2000. For Mary's cable access information, see CIA records, audit
of cable databases.
list request included Mihdhar, Nawaf al Hazmi, Salah Saeed Mohammed Bin Yousaf (they did not yet realize this
was an alias for Tawfiq bin Attash, a.k.a. Khallad), and Ahmad Hikmat Shakir (who assisted Mihdhar in Kuala
Lumpur).
ment to FBI email, Jane to Craig D., "Re: FFI Request," Aug. 28, 2001. For the final version, see FBI electronic
communication,"Request to Open a Full Field Investigation," Aug. 28, 2001.
3.2. In December 2000, pursuant to concerns of the FISA Court, the New York Field Office began designating
certain agents as either intelligence or criminal agents. Intelligence agents could see FISA materials and any other
information that bore cautions about sharing without obtaining the FISA Court's permission or permission from
the Justice Department's OIPR. FBI electronic communication,"Instructions re FBI FISA Policy," Dec. 7, 2000.
Rolince interview (Apr. 12, 2004); Jane interview (July 13, 2004); DOJ Inspector General interview of Rodney
M., Nov. 5, 2002. For investigation's goal, see FBI electronic communication,"Request to Open a Full Field Inves-
tigation," Aug. 28, 2001.
Request," Aug. 29, 2001.
There was no broad prohibition against sharing information gathered through intelligence channels with criminal
agents.This type of sharing occurred on a regular basis in the field.The court's procedures did not apply to all intel-
ligence gathered regardless of collection method or source. Moreover, once information was properly shared, the
criminal agent could use it for further investigation.
view if Mihdhar was found. She said the answer she received to both questions was no. She did not ask whether
the underlying information could have been shared. Jane interview ( July 13, 2004). The NSLU attorney denies
advising that the agent could not participate in an interview and notes that she would not have given such inac-
curate advice.The attorney told investigators that the NSA caveats would not have precluded criminal agents from
joining in any search for Mihdhar or from participating in any interview. Moreover, she said that she could have
gone to the NSA and obtained a waiver of any such caveat because there was no FISA information involved in this
case.There are no records of the conversation between "Jane" and the attorney. "Jane" did not copy the attorney
on her email to the agent, so the attorney did not have an opportunity to confirm or reject the advice "Jane" was
giving to the agent. DOJ Inspector General interview of Sherry S., Nov. 7, 2002.
she should not have required him to sign such a form. To the extent she believed, incorrectly, that the Attorney
General's 1995 procedures applied to this situation, there was in fact an exception in place for New York. DOJ
Inspector General interview of Sherry S., Nov. 7, 2002. More fundamentally,"Jane" apparently understood the wel-
ter of restrictions to mean, in workday shorthand, that any information gathered by intelligence agencies should