Why Nuclear Threat Was Kept from NY Officials

[Guest guest]

http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/news/2002/03/2002305C45.html

Clinton Demands Answers About Why Nuclear Threat Was Kept from NY Officials;

Urges Improved Information Sharing

March 4, 2002

Washington, DC - According to today's news reports, federal officials kept

intelligence reports about a possible nuclear attack on the city of New York

from city leaders and some Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) top

officials. In response, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton sent the following

letter to President W. Bush and Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge.

A transcript of Senator Clinton's remarks in New York City today also

follows.

 

March 4, 2002

The Honorable W. Bush

President of the United States

Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I write to express my great concern over the apparent lack of notice given to

local law enforcement officials about intelligence reports of a possible

nuclear attack on New York City. I am sharing my concerns with Director of

Homeland Security Tom Ridge as well.

News reports today indicate that one month after the September 11th attacks,

federal law enforcement officials received intelligence that terrorists had

obtained a nuclear weapon stolen from Russia and planned to smuggle it into

and then discharge it in Manhattan. Former New York City Mayor Rudolph

Guiliani, officials from the New York Police Department and senior members of

the FBI reportedly were not notified about the intelligence, even though the

effects of such an explosion would be catastrophic for the entire New York

metropolitan region.

Although the intelligence came from a questionable source, and an

investigation ultimately determined that it was false, it is nevertheless

extraordinary that New York officials were kept in the dark about a potential

threat to the security of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of

Americans.

Since the September 11th attacks, towns and cities, both large and small, all

across America have had to bear the enormous burden of protecting Americans

from potential terrorist attacks. With our local law enforcement officials on

the frontlines in the war against terrorism on U.S. soil, it is a mistake to

withhold critical information from them about the nature of attacks they

might face. I urge you to encourage federal intelligence and law enforcement

officials to provide this kind of intelligence information to State and local

law enforcement officials so that they are prepared in the event of an

attack.

In this regard, on November 1, 2001, I, along with Senator E. Schumer

and others, introduced legislation to expressly authorize federal authorities

to share intelligence information with State and local law enforcement

officials. " The Federal-Local Information Sharing Partnership Act " has law

enforcement and bipartisan support; Senators Pat Leahy and Orrin Hatch, the

chairman and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, strongly back

this legislation because it will go a long way toward ensuring that local

officials have the information they need to sufficiently protect our

communities.

Even without this legislation, however, I believe that in appropriate cases,

federal agencies already have the power to share pertinent intelligence in

appropriate circumstances. The intelligence about a possible nuclear attack

against the City of New York appears to be exactly the kind of circumstance

where sharing should occur.

When citizens dial 911, they do not call the Justice Department or the White

House. They call the people on the ground who are best able to quickly save

lives: the police, the fire fighters, the emergency rescue workers.

As for New York City, there is no place better prepared in America, probably

in the world, to deal with the unexpected, as was proved on September 11th.

To eliminate the possibility that the City can be a partner with the federal

government in protecting its citizens by keeping information from local law

enforcement is absolutely inexcusable.

I ask you to provide me with answers to the following questions as soon as

possible:

1. Who made the decision not to inform any New York authorities about the

report of a possible nuclear strike on New York City? On what basis was that

decision made?

2. How long did it take for federal authorities to determine that the report

of such a strike was false? In other words, for how many hours or days were

local authorities kept in the dark about an intelligence report that could

have warned them about a catastrophic attack if it turned out to be true?

3. If the report was, in fact, false, how and why was it leaked to the public

now, creating understandable concern and confusion among the citizens of New

York?

4. What protocol are you presently using for notifying local authorities

about intelligence warnings of potential terrorist actions, and are any

changes in that protocol being contemplated by the Administration at this

time?

Thank you for your consideration of this matter and I look forward to

receiving your response.

Sincerely yours,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

cc: The Honorable Tom Ridge

The Honorable Ashcroft

The Honorable Mueller

 

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton re: Possible Nuclear Threat - her comments in

NYC today:

I am outraged by the report that there was a threat of a potential nuclear

attack on this city. And so far as I know, no New York official was informed.

I certainly wasn't. The Mayor wasn't. Nobody in the City response from the

police or the firefighters were. And I can only conclude one of two things.

Either after thorough investigation, I assume, the threat was found not to be

credible, in which case why would it be leaked now causing considerable

concern among all of us?

Or it was a credible threat and they chose not to convey that threat to the

people who would be on the frontlines of dealing with any kind of attack.

I have written to the appropriate administration officials today. I have

demanded an explanation. This is absolutely incomprehensible to me. And I

expect answers. And I don't expect it ever to happen again.

One of the problems that we encountered during 9-11 was that the federal law

enforcement agencies were not sharing information with the Mayor, with the

police. And I introduced legislation along with Senator Schumer to require

that in appropriate circumstances such information be conveyed. But here the

information was not even conveyed to the local FBI agents, as I understand

the story.

So somebody owes New York an explanation and I intend to get to the bottom of

it.

Q: How dangerous is it that they did not communicate that information? A: As

I say, if it turned out to be, as thankfully so far it is, to be without

credibility, they've skated on thin ice and gotten to the other side. But

this is no way to work with and respect the needs of the city that was

attacked the way we were on 9-11. And it is a sorry indictment of their

preparedness if they don't even share information with people at the top of

our city from the mayor to the police chief to the fire chief, all of whom

are fully capable of keeping confidential information and making appropriate

steps to respond.

So I find this absolutely unbelievable. I couldn't understand it. So either

as I say, it wasn't true, it wasn't credible, in which case why dump it out

there now? Or it was true and credible and they left us hanging out there.

Either way it is absolutely unacceptable. New York deserves better.

Q: You appear to be angry... A: I am angry. I am very angry. I consider this

to be a real breach of the relationship. When the planes hit the World Trade

Center, it was New York firefighters, New York police officers who were there

on the scene.

If you dial 911, you don't call the Justice Department, you don't call the

White House, you call the people on the ground who are there to help save

your life.

There isn't any city better prepared in America, probably in the world, to

deal with the unexpected, as we proved on 9-11 than New York City. So to

eliminate the possibility that we can be partners in protecting ourselves by

keeping information from us is absolutely inexcusable.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed

without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the

included information for research and educational purposes.)