Terrorism
Documents & Texts from State.gov
07 January 2009
Background Briefing Following Security Review
Related:
• Obama Announces Enhanced Airline Security Measures
• Remarks by the President on Strengthening Intelligence and Aviation Security
• Read the summary of the security review (White House, PDF)
• Read
the President's Directive on corrective actions (White House, PDF)
Background Briefing by Senior State Department Officials following release of Security Review conducted after the failed Christmas terrorist attack
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: So as you know, the day after
the visit by the father, the Embassy sent in two reports – well, there
were two reports sent in by the Consular Section. One was the VISA VIPER, and
I think you’ve had some background on the VISA VIPER program, what it is.
And it is an effort to get all of the government working together, sending information
in to be evaluated, as was required – actually, the VISA VIPER came after – in
1993 after the World Trade Center bombing. But it has been enhanced and been
a major part of our getting information back to Washington.
So as soon as – on the 20th, that was sent in --
QUESTION: What was the second one?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: The second one was a – it
wasn’t a report, but it was the entry into the system of a possible – that
the person was a terrorist into the CLASS system, the --
QUESTION: TIDES?
QUESTION: CLASS.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No, CLASS – Consular
Lookout and Support System. And that was --
QUESTION: Can you explain something? In that report – I
think that’s the White House report there – it says that the father
came in on the 18th. Is that wrong?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I don’t know. I mean,
I would think --
QUESTION: Because we had always been told that it was the 19th
and the cable was --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I always thought it was the
19th. I don’t know.
QUESTION: Well, that says the 18th, so I think it’s wrong.
So you might want to tell --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah, I might --
QUESTION: The President.
QUESTION: -- your friends over there that they’re --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Okay.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: It’s – the White
House report says the 18th?
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: Yeah.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Okay.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: All right.
QUESTION: You said 19th and then 20, the report goes to (inaudible).
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah, that’s what I’ve
always thought, but I --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah. Thanks, Matt.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: -- probably – so we’ll
see what that is.
QUESTION: Could you redefine the CLASS acronym, please?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Consular Lookout and Support
System.
QUESTION: And what date was that entry?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: That was on the 20th.
QUESTION: On the 20th as well?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah. I think this has been
previous talking points, right?
QUESTION: The other thing – are you – do you have
more preliminary?
QUESTION: Just – what’s the consequence of the
CLASS entry? I mean, is there --
QUESTION: Let him talk.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Okay. CLASS entry --
QUESTION: What I’m trying to do. He’s --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: -- is – it goes into
the system. It allows for anyone checking the record to see that this person
is under consideration, may be a possible terrorist. So it goes into the system.
Certainly, it wouldn’t prevent – it would cause a security advisor
opinion if the person applied for a visa somewhere. Others who have access to
that record would know that there had – that there was a preliminary,
that people were looking at this person, and that any action taken beyond that
would probably need to – then they have to follow up. It’s not conclusive.
That’s why it has a P before it.
QUESTION: A P?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: P – it’s a P,
3B – possible, 3B being a terrorist in the Immigration and Nationality
Act.
QUESTION: I’m sorry, could you say that again? I couldn’t
hear.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: P, 3B – 3B is a terrorist
in the Immigration and Nationality Act. P just means it’s possible.
QUESTION: I never heard that.
QUESTION: Okay. Is there more that you want to start out with
or is --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No.
QUESTION: Okay.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No.
QUESTION: The one thing it says in the --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah.
QUESTION: The one thing that the report says about the State
Department is that there was a misspelling of the name. Whose misspelling was
that?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Okay. There was --
QUESTION: Where?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Someone checked, and I’m
not going to go into who, but some --
QUESTION: No, no, no. I’m asking which agency, not which
specific person.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: State Department. State Department
checked to see if the person had a visa. There was a dropped letter in that – there
was a misspelling. They used a very – they checked the system. It didn’t
come back positive. And so for a while, no one knew that this person had a visa.
QUESTION: Okay. Wait --
QUESTION: How long, when you say a while?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, I don’t know.
Yeah, I don’t know --
QUESTION: Where did this happen? Where are we now in the process?
Is this where – in Nigeria?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I’d rather leave it
at the State Department.
QUESTION: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: No, we’re not saying who. We’re saying,
like --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah – no, no, I know.
QUESTION: -- when was this? Because we’ve been told that
a specific interagency discussion was made about this particular guy’s
visa, and a decision was made not to pull it. So at some point, you must have
learned that he had a visa and what – how did that process of learning
that he had a visa happen after the misspelling? And how long did that take place?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I don’t –I’ve
not heard that.
QUESTION: You’ve never heard that? You’ve never
heard that there was an interagency process with NCTC involved and that a determination
was made --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No, what – no, that – yeah,
okay, I understand what you’re saying. What happens is you send in a VIPER,
it goes into NCTC. NCTC decides what to nominate. That goes to the terror screening
center, which then checks to see does a person have a visa, decides whether they’re
going to nominate that, and that’s the time when it would be nominated,
when it was promoted out.
QUESTION: Well, let me ask it this way –
QUESTION: So, wait, can I just finish my question? So I’m
not – so when it went to NCTC, then they spelled it right and you realized
that he had a visa?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yes.
QUESTION: So you’re just saying for like a week or so,
or a couple of weeks?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No – I don’t
know if anyone – I don’t think anyone – no one may have checked
for a visa until Christmas Day.
QUESTION: Well, but this is the reason I think we’re
asking.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah.
QUESTION: In the briefing that we got on the record from Ian
on the 28th, he said specifically there was “insufficient evidence” to
revoke his visa. That implies that somebody knew prior to the event that he had
a visa –
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No, no, no, it doesn’t
--
QUESTION: Otherwise, how can you determine somebody had insufficient – to
revoke a visa?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, because that’s – because
that is the whole part of the promotion out of the NCTC. In other words –
QUESTION: In order to decide to revoke one, you have to know
somebody has one in the first place.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No. No, you – because
revoking would be because you found – to revoke a visa, you have to find
that someone’s ineligible.
QUESTION: Yeah, but to revoke it, they have to know whether
they have one.
QUESTION: To know that they have one.
QUESTION: They didn’t have something to revoke.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No, because you can put – yes,
to revoke it, you would, but the action is putting the person in as a terrorist.
QUESTION: Oh.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: In other words, instead of
being a P3B, you’d put him in as a 3B. So –
QUESTION: Well, maybe I can ask it this way –
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Okay.
QUESTION: – if you can just be specific on a couple
dates.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah.
QUESTION: One, when did somebody first search? You said that
the State Department misspelled the first time. When did that first happen?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: The first – yeah.
QUESTION: And then when did somebody actually discover that
he had a visa? Can we get those two –
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yes. The 20th[1] and
the 25th of December.
QUESTION: Okay, can you just –
QUESTION: The 20th was (inaudible) --
QUESTION: Of November, or –
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: December.
QUESTION: So for an entire month, no one knew --
QUESTION: Twentieth of November was the first search, and the
25th of December was when they actually discovered he had a visa. And that was
discovered, I guess, because he was actually on the plane?
QUESTION: So the misspelling was on the 20th of November.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yes.
QUESTION: And then, just to double, triple clarify, you’re
saying that there was never an interagency discussion about whether to pull this
guy’s visa, which I think we’ve all been told that there was one.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: There was a discussion of
whether this person should go into a category that would do that. And I don’t
know if there was a discussion, but there was a decision made of whether this
person should be promoted into a category that would be considered for other
actions.
QUESTION: Not knowing that he even had a visa?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: That’s correct.
QUESTION: And when was that?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I don’t know.
QUESTION: December? November?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I don’t know. I have
no idea.
QUESTION: But presumably, it’s happening after the cable –
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yes.
QUESTION: – and the other report go in, then it kinds
of churns through the system, and then at that point they’re making this
determination, which is very different from what we were talking about – what
we thought. They’re not deciding to pull the visa. They are simply categorizing
this person as a potential terrorist, right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: That’s right.
QUESTION: Okay, so that’s –
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: But it’s that categorization
that would have triggered the --
QUESTION: Right.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: -- action that didn’t
take place.
QUESTION: Right.
QUESTION: And what would that categorization be, just to be
clear?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Hmm?
QUESTION: What would that categorization –
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: 3-B. A terrorist.
QUESTION: The 3B --
QUESTION: Instead of P3B, it would have been 3B?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: That’s right.
QUESTION: And then he would have – and had gone in, he
would have been rejected for a visa had he applied for one, or it would have
been revoked?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: It would have been – as
soon as someone’s a 3B, they’re revoked. Their visa is revoked.
QUESTION: So it’s (inaudible), right?
QUESTION: What about his travel to Yemen? Was it on his passport
or –
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I don’t know.
QUESTION: Nigerian passport?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I don’t know anything
about it.
QUESTION: Do you think that the misspelling of the name and
not finding the fact that he had a visa had anything to do with whether he would
be classified a PB3 or a B3?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No. Well, P3B was put in
because there was a possibility, because he’s –
QUESTION: Right.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: -- the interview. As far
as being anything else, no, I don’t think there was – I don’t
think the not knowing that he didn’t have a visa, not reporting that – and
the report says that. It says: “A determination to revoke his visa, however,
would have only occurred if there had been a successful integration of the intelligence
by the CT community, resulting in his being watch-listed.” So --
QUESTION: So even if he was he was spelled – even if
it was spelled right and you knew he had a visa, he still wouldn’t have
been – it still wouldn’t have been revoked?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: That’s correct.
QUESTION: Is the “P” potential or possible, in
bureaucratic language?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I’d have to go to the
FAM. I don’t know. It’s – I always – we say potential
or possible.
QUESTION: The results of --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah, I don’t know.
QUESTION: The result of that meeting was specifically not to
make a P3B – the result of that meeting?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, again, I don’t
know if it was a meeting. I don’t want to talk about what happens in --
QUESTION: Whatever sort of process occurred?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: The decision-making process
was to not move him on up the system.
QUESTION: Isn’t – actually, isn’t the visa
issue kind of a bit of a red herring here, because –
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: That’s – exactly.
QUESTION: If he had made – if he had gotten onto the
3B list, it doesn’t matter if he had a visa or not; he wouldn’t have
been able to get on the plane.
QUESTION: That’s right.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I think that’s correct
too, yes.
QUESTION: So it doesn’t really matter if he had a visa
or not --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: It doesn’t matter.
QUESTION: -- or if you knew that he had --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: And we really – we
believe that all along, is that the visa was – and that’s – from
the very beginning, I think Ian was saying that – and we’ve changed
that now, but we mentioned that we didn’t have that and – so I know
a lot of you went through the FAM and it doesn’t say anything about does
he have a visa. And the reason is because it’s only at this other section
that you make this decision.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: And now could we just – just to close the
circle on the spelling, this system doesn’t have a way of kind of pinging
the different --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, it does and that’s
why we sent out this cable is that there are – there is a normal engine.
When I’m looking – someone says, can you check a visa of so-and-so
and so-and-so and they give me good information, I look it up. And I know it’s
there and I keep trying till I get it.
Now, we have a (inaudible) search, a Google – it’s not a Google,
but that type of search – and that wasn’t used. And one of the things
we did was we went, and we went out to everybody and all our people. Me – I
went up there and used this new – I don’t know how new it is, but – you
know how it is, you don’t use something until you need it. So I used it
the other day, put in the name as it was spelled, and it came up fine. I got
his visa application. So they just – they used the search engine that
is for – when you know you’re going in to get something, you just
need to pull up a record and you’ve got the right information, you put
it in, you pull it out. That’s the one they used, and they didn’t
do any others and --
QUESTION: So the search engine that they used wasn’t
like one of those ones that checks for – like --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: They didn’t.
QUESTION: -- do you mean so and so?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah. No, no, no, it didn’t
do any – if you got one data point wrong, it was wrong.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I think, too, we need
to make a point about – the misspelling did not last that full time from
November --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: That’s right.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: -- the 20th to December --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: The 25th.
QUESTION: Oh, how was it --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: It was resolved within, what – less
than two days, the spelling was --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah. Two days from when
it was – the TIDE record was opened, the file was correct.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah.
QUESTION: So --
QUESTION: The TIDE record was opened on what day, December
20th or November 20th?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: November – well, and
I don’t know if that’s out there and I don’t want to say it.
But it was opened – within days, the TIDE record was opened, and within
days of that, the TIDE record had the correct spelling.
QUESTION: Where was it misspelled? Was it the entry (inaudible)
or was it misspelled when it was transcribed from the father and the cable itself
was – I mean, I’m trying to get a sense of – when you say it
was fixed, did somebody just realize, oh, I typed it in wrong? Or was it written
wrong in all of the records that were entered into the system?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: There was another message
with the correct --
QUESTION: Pardon?
QUESTION: I’m sorry?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: There was another message
which corrected the --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: Can I --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: When you open up a TIDE record, does it usually note
whether the person has a visa? And because there was a misspelling, it wasn’t
on that record?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I don’t know if I should
speak about TIDE records. I don’t know. I mean, I – we probably have
--
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: TIDE records belong to
another agency.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah.
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.
QUESTION: So it was not a typo, basically, is what you’re
saying? There was no typo when you entered it in. It was actually just written
wrong on the sheet.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: And then they came back and
corrected it.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: And then they came back and
corrected it, yeah.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Right. Do you want to
mention just before we go – sorry, guys – the three improvements
that have been made to the cable – to the system?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Oh, yeah. Okay. Of course,
we said now make sure you get it in there. And then we gave them tools to be
sure that they could get to – they would check every possibility to make
sure there’s no record of it. And we added the credibility of the source,
which I think is already in the FAM, but we reemphasized that. And I think that
was – was there another one?
QUESTION: Whether the guy has a visa or not?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah, whether the guy has
a visa, right, sure.
QUESTION: What was the second one?
QUESTION: Whether the other agency – other reporting
--
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah, whether it’s
other reporting.
QUESTION: -- expected or that will be sent on as a (inaudible).
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah. Right.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: And more to come.
QUESTION: Thank you.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Thank you.
| 
Documents & Texts