U.S.

Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Office of the General Counsel Washington. D.C. 20535

May 29, 2004

Daniel Marcus, General Counsel

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
Suite 300
2100 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

RE: Commission's Request for Assistance

Dear Mr. Marcus:

Please allow this letter to serve as a follow-up to the conversation that you had
with Pat O'Brien and the Commission's request for assistance with respect to facilitating the
interview Of| 9/ll Law Enforcement Sensitive I

As you aware, Commission staffers conducted a series of interviews arising out of

the Commission's interest in reporting provided by an FBI intelligence asset during the summer
of 2001. It is my understanding that the Commission has been provided with information by a
source or sources that call into question the exact nature and extent of the reporting provided by
the asset to FBI agents during the summer of 2001. In an effort to resolve any possible
discrepancies, Commission staff have interviewed the Special Agent who served as the asset's
handler at the time, the Special Agent's partner with whom he attended the asset's debriefmgs,
and the handler's supervisor.

The identity of FBI assets is of extreme operational sensitivity. Maintaining the

confidentiality of our assets is of the utmost importance to the FBI both to maintain the asset's
safety and operational effectiveness. Moreover, disclosure of asset identities could have severe
negative consequences to the recruitment of future assets — the lifeblood of robust efforts to
prevent terrorism and all of our investigative programs. While the FBI has never provided the
Commission with or acknowledged the identity of the asset, it has learned of Commission
attempts within the past several weeks to contact an individual believed by the Commission to be
9/11 Law Enforcement grivacyisset. Without prior knowledge of the FBI, members of the Commission staff
made numerous attempts to directly contact this individual and solicit a voluntary interview.
That individual declined and the Commission requested Bureau assistance. .

In order to best maintain the confidentiality of its asset's identity, the FBI elected
 Daniel Marcus

to approach its asset. The asset's last handler]^ 9/11 Law Enforcement privacy [
9/11 Law Enforcement pnva^frecently met with the asset to advise him/her of the nature of the 9-11 Commission
and its purpose for attempting to arrange an interview. The asset was advised that he/she could
agree voluntarily to be interviewed or require the Commission to serve him/her with a subpoena.
It was also explained to the asset that requiring the service of a subpoena could make protection
of his/her identity more difficult.

The asset agreed that the continued protection of his/her identity was of
paramount concern. He/she clearly believes that his/her safety and that of his/her family is
contingent upon his/her identity remaining secret. In no uncertain terms, the FBI shares this
position. Nonetheless, the asset has agreed to an interview under the following conditions:

-assurance by the Commission that the asset's identity will not be disclosed:
-that the discussion be limited to his/her reporting td 9/11 Law Enforcement pnv
related to terrorism during the summer and fall of-2001;
-that no discussion regarding his/her primary area of reporting be had;
-that no discussion regarding his/her length of service to the FBI be had;
-that no discussion regarding his/her personal background or family life be had;
-that FBIj a/ 11 Law Enforcement privacy \)Q present along with an
FBI translator;
-that he/she be afforded one weeks notice before the interview;
-that the interview take place at a clandestine location to be arranged by the FBI;
-that FBI provide the Commission staffer(s) with transportation to the location;
-that the interview not be video-taped.

Finally, I am enclosing two non-disclosure agreements for Mssrs. Roth and

Greenburg to review and sign. Please note that this standard form requires the signatures be
witnessed but not notarized.

If these conditions are acceptable to the Commission, we will make arrangements

to have the asset available for interview on or about June 2, 2004. I am currently in the process
of finalizing the date and time with all parties involved.

RobertS. Sinton
Assistant General Counsel