Initial Comments about Terrorist Financing and “The One Percent Doctrine”

By Dennis Lormel

Over the past few days, there have been numerous articles and reports about a newly released book entitled, The One Percent Doctrine, written by Ron Suskind. I have not had the opportunity to read the book yet but have read and listened to a variety of reports. Yesterday, my colleague, Andy Cochran, forwarded me an article from the Rocky Mountain News. This article concerning the book focused on First Data Corporation (FDC). Not having read the book, it’s difficult to gauge the book’s overall context regarding FDC. However, the context of the article is troubling and wrong. The events that took place were accurate. Unfortunately, the descriptions of what transpired during the events were inaccurate.

FDC, as with many financial sector firms, was extremely responsive to law enforcement in the aftermath of 9/11. In that same vein, companies in the financial sector did not turn a blind eye to Privacy and Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) requirements as suggested in the article. At that time, I was in the FBI in a leadership role responsible for terrorist financing. Immediately after 9/11, we realized we had to develop financial investigative methodologies different than anything we had done before. We had to think outside the box by developing and implementing time sensitive and time urgent investigative techniques. To succeed, we needed the assistance of the financial community. At all times, we were cognizant of privacy rights and civil liberties.

There is a vast difference between fishing and sifting through financial records of millions of people and innovative and non-intrusive focused searches of financial records for specific information. This is one of the things I find troubling. The article assumes the prior. In actuality, the later took place. In addition, the suggestions that Congress was not briefed or the secret court (FISA Court) was circumvented were wrong. Congress was briefed in numerous forums about our investigative direction. In almost every instance, access to financial records was gained via Federal Grand Jury Subpoena and not the FISA process. In certain instances, National Security Letters were issued, but again, the standard practice was to gain financial information from financial providers via Federal Grand Jury Subpoena.

There was no “web of controversy” surrounding FDC’s cooperation. FDC consistently responded to legal process in furnishing financial records to law enforcement. In addition, the notion that the FBI was given uncontrolled or direct access to FDC records was wrong. Regardless of whether FBI and FDC personnel were co-located or not, FDC controlled FDC data.

The information provided by FDC was extremely beneficial to the FBI’s terrorist financing initiative. Time sensitive techniques that emerged from relationships such as the one between FDC and the FBI were critically important. Many terrorist financing investigative successes have not made it to the public domain for a variety of reasons.

FDC should be lauded for their willingness to cooperate and provide information in a more time sensitive manner than requests made prior to 9/11. In the pre 9/11 days, it often took 45 days or more for law enforcement to receive requested information from financial firms. With legal partnerships like the relationship with FDC, the FBI was able to receive certain data in about 45 minutes. There is a huge difference between 45 days and 45 minutes.

In driving home its theme, the Rocky Mountain News article attributes two quotes from the book to me. Both are overly melodramatic and out of context with comments I actually made. Concerning FDC, the line “we need to turn this company into a deadly weapon” is not a statement I would make. I certainly understood and valued the importance of the capabilities FDC possessed. I considered FDC a partner in the fight against terrorist financing. Concerning the excerpt from the book, the scene was a closed Congressional briefing. That was not the forum for an argumentative confrontation. The inference about FDC accessing and organizing information from around the world and my alleged comment “no one is supposed to know” are grossly out of context.

Companies like FDC are patriotic and true heroes. They came forward and offered their expertise and assistance. This was important in the establishment of short and long term investigative strategies. The combination of experienced law enforcement financial investigators and responsible executives from financial firms ensured the successful execution of this process. In all instances, Privacy and BSA considerations were paramount to establishing investigative methodologies. It would be unfortunate to leave the impression that law enforcement and/or the financial sector were cavalier or acted inappropriately or in disregard to the law. To the contrary, law enforcement and the financial sector forged a partnership that quietly and successfully exploits the financial vulnerabilities of terrorists.

TrackBack