03 September 1998
(Says U.S. must devise counter-terrorism measures) (1110) By Susan Ellis USIA Staff Writer Washington -- U.S. strikes on suspected terrorist sites in Afghanistan and Sudan August 20 were about continuation of terrorism, not retaliation, says Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "These plans that (Usama) bin Ladin had laid out -- many of which you've intercepted, some of which have been thwarted -- were plans that were there on the table before the president of the United States ordered a strike," Biden said to Director Louis Freeh of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, when Freeh testified before the panel September 3. Asked by Biden whether bin Ladin would have stopped his activities had the United States not acted, Freeh responded that "the evidence is to the contrary. "In his (bin Ladin's) interview (on Cable Network News) on May 26th of this year from his headquarters in Khost, which was one of the areas targeted, he said that the jihad against the Americans which was the result of the fatwa which he had signed in February...would be known in the next few weeks. So this is a continued plan," Freeh said Republican Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee said, "We talk in terms of (bin Ladin's) retaliating but the fact of the matter is he was apparently planning on a series of activities against us whether or not we did anything." "That's right," Freeh reiterated. "Had we taken no action at all in this case, we would still be subject to his targeting." When Thompson asked whether the FBI director thinks there will be "a retaliation specifically from our latest activities in Afghanistan and Sudan," Freeh responded "We can expect that." Thompson asked for "a better assessment of what we may be in for as a country as far as terrorist activities are concerned." Since bin Ladin has "declared war" on Americans, the American people need to assess the seriousness of the problem both in the United States and abroad in order to be prepared, he said. Freeh said Americans can "predict with some certainty" that there will be "increased activity in terms of larger targets with more fatalities being the objective of those attacks" as has been the pattern for the last couple of years with respect to the bin Ladin organization and others aligned with him. Asked to what extent terrorists acting as "front groups" for bin Ladin present a problem, Freeh said that the anti-terrorism act of 1996 "has resulted in 30 of these groups being declared under the statute (as) terrorist organizations. We have seized monies and moved to criminally charge people involved in material support of these designated organizations." However, he added, many of the affiliated members and groups in the United States "do not engage in violent criminal activity or even planned activity. A lot of the activity here has to do with fund-raising, infrastructure-building, acquisition of technology issues." Asked by Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama about a news report that the FBI director was not informed about the attacks beforehand, Freeh said he had indeed been consulted in advance of the U.S. strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan and "together with the attorney general, we gave our law enforcement perspective, but we were not decision-makers nor were we asked to make a recommendation one way or the other." He continued, "We've had an investigation of bin Ladin and his organization for several years -- a lot of evidence, a lot of intelligence, which we have analyzed together and we did provide that for them. I sketched out where our investigation was, what we needed to accomplish in the immediate time frame as well as the long range time frame and certainly expressed what I thought was pertinent to other countries that could be affected by the action and how that could relate to the law enforcement efforts." Freeh said the Central Intelligence Agency also has had a "dedicated project with respect to this (bin Ladin) organization for several years." Democratic Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois asked what standards FBI agents use when they are involved in renditions -- the return of suspects from abroad to the United States. "When you are overseas in the midst of an investigation, as you were in Africa, do you continue to apply and insist on the standards required by American law in terms of constitutional protections even for foreign nationals?" "Yes we do," Freeh said. "What we did in this particular case was ensure what we were doing was consistent with our Constitution but also with Kenyan law because our Supreme Court has said that if we request a foreign police service or goverment to acquire evidence, and they use methods which are inconsistent with our due process, we can't use that evidence in our courts. So we were very careful and are always careful with respect to renditions to make sure we are operating under legal authority." R. James Woolsey, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who also testified, pointed out that "There may be cases where state sponsorship is clear and action against a state is important. On the other hand, with respect to Sudan and Afghanistan, we may not have state sponsorship of Mr. bin Ladin so much as Mr. bin Ladin's sponsorship of those two states. Where terrorists are extremely wealthy and countries are extremely poor, the countries themselves, to some extent, are victims rather than managers." Woolsey added "I believe the intelligence community was correct with respect to its analysis of the soil sample...and that VX was in some fashion present at the facility that was struck in the Sudan. But some of the early statements about the exact nature of Mr. bin Ladin's relationship to that facility and whether or not there was any other manufacturing going on -- pharmaceuticals and the like -- those statements from senior U.S. government officials turned out to be in error." Among the actions that might be taken with respect to intelligence, Woolsey said, "freezing or otherwise dealing with the resources and assets of someone like bin Ladin or his associates could be the most important way to deal with many aspects of terrorism." He said covert action can be used "to give governments incentives to dry up support for terrorist groups. The final type of action we might take is military action such as the four strikes against the Khost camps and the one into Sudan. I believe that the strike against Mr. bin Ladin's camp was entirely justified and entirely appropriate."