This is the full text from a February 26, 2003 letter to Director Robert S. Mueller III of the FBI from Special Agent Coleen Rowley of the bureau's field office in Minneapolis.

Following this is a response to the letter from former FBI agent Gary Aldrich.

Minneapolis, MN 55401

FBI Director Robert Mueller
FBI Headquarters
Washington D.C.

Dear Director Mueller:

In June, 2002, on the eve of my testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, you told me that you appreciate constructive criticism and that FBI agents should feel free to voice serious concerns they may have about senior-level FBI actions. Since then I have availed myself twice of your stated openness.

At this critical point in our country's history I have decided to try once again, on an issue of even more consequence for the internal security posture of our country. That posture has been weakened by the diversion of attention from al-Qaeda to our government's plan to invade Iraq, a step that will, in all likelihood, bring an exponential increase in the terrorist threat to the U.S., both at home and abroad.

In your recent testimony to the Senate, you noted that "the al-Qaeda network will remain for the foreseeable future the most immediate and serious threat facing this country," adding that "the prevention of another terrorist attack remains the FBI's top priority." You then noted that a "U.S.-Iraq war could prompt Baghdad to more directly engage al-Qaeda and perhaps provide it with weapons of mass destruction." But you did not connect these very important dots.

Your recent briefings of field management staff have thrown light on the immense pressures you face as you try to keep the FBI intact and functioning amid persistent calls for drastic restructuring. You have made it clear that the FBI is perilously close to being divided up and is depending almost solely upon the good graces of Attorney General Ashcroft and President Bush for its continued existence. Clearly, this tense environment poses a special challenge to those like you who are responsible for providing unbiased, objective intelligence and national security advice to the country's leaders. But I would implore you to step out of this pressure-cooker for a few minutes and consider the following:

1) The FBI is apparently the source for the public statement that there are 5,000 al-Qaeda terrorists already in the U.S. I would ask you to inquire as to whether this figure is based on any hard data. If it is, rather, an estimate based largely on speculation, this can only feed the suspicion, inside the organization and out, that it is largely the product of a desire to gain favor with the administration, to gain support for FBI initiatives and possibly even to gain support for the administration's initiatives.

2) What is the FBI's evidence with respect to a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Polls show that Americans are completely confused about who was responsible for the suicidal attacks on 9-11 with many blaming Iraq. And it is clear that this impression has been fostered by many in the Administration. As far as the FBI is concerned, is the evidence of such a link "bulletproof," as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld claims, or "scant," as General Brent Scowcroft, Chairman of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board has said? The answer to this is of key importance in determining whether war against Iraq makes any sense from the FBI's internal security point of view. If the FBI does have independent data verifying such a connection, it would seem such information should be shared, at least internally within the FBI.

3) If, as you have said, "the prevention of another terrorist attack remains the FBI's top priority," why is it that we have not attempted to interview Zacarias Moussaoui, the only suspect in U.S. custody charged with having a direct hand in the horror of 9-11? Although al-Qaeda has taken pains to compartmentalize its operations to avoid compromise by any one operative, information obtained from some al-Qaeda operatives has nonetheless proved invaluable. Moussaoui almost certainly would know of other al-Qaeda contacts, possibly in the U.S., and would also be able to alert us to the motive behind his and Mohammed Atta's interest in crop dusting.

Similarly, there is the question as to why little or no apparent effort has been made to interview convicted terrorist Richard Reid, who obviously depended upon other al-Qaeda operatives in fashioning his shoe explosive. Nor have possible links between Moussaoui and Reid been fully investigated. It therefore appears that the government may have sacrificed the possibility of acquiring information pertinent to future attacks, in order to conduct criminal prosecution of these two individuals. Although prosecution serves worthy purposes, including deterrence, standard practice in "Organized Crime/Terrorism 101" dictates imaginative, concerted attempts to make inroads into well-organized, cohesive groups. And sometimes that requires "dealing with the devil."

In short, it is a matter of priorities. And lack of follow-through with regard to Moussaoui and Reid gives a hollow ring to our "top priority;" i. e., preventing another terrorist attack.

4) It is not clear that you have been adequately apprized of the potential damage to our liaison relationships with European intelligence agencies that is likely to flow from the growing tension over Iraq between senior U.S. officials and their counterparts in key West European countries. There are far more al-Qaeda operatives in Europe than in the U.S., and European intelligence services, including the French, are on the frontlines in investigating and pursuing them. Indeed, the Europeans have successfully uncovered and dismantled a number of active cells in their countries.

In the past, FBI liaison agents stationed in Europe benefitted from the expertise and cooperation of European law enforcement and intelligence officers. Information was shared freely, and was of substantial help to us in our investigations in the U.S. You will recall that prior to 9-11, it was the French who passed us word of Moussaoui's link to terrorism.

5) I know the FBI is no longer (or will shortly be no longer) in charge of regulating the color codes, but I expect we will still have input. I realize that decisions to change color codes are made at the most senior level, but perhaps you can caution senior officials about the downside to alarming the public unless there is adequate reason to do so. Increased vigilance must be encouraged when needed, but the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces can easily get bogged down in attempting to pursue all the leads engendered by panicky citizens. This, in turn, draws resources away from more important, well predicated and already established investigations.

Unintended consequences like the recent stampede in the Chicago dance club (which initial news accounts reported to be the case) can also occur when the public is put on these heightened alerts. The terrorists win in such circumstances even without attacking.

6) The vast majority of the one thousand plus persons "detained" in the wake of 9-11 did not turn out to be terrorists. They were mostly illegal aliens. We have every right, of course, to deport those identified as illegal aliens during the course of any investigation. But after 9-11, Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seem to be essentially PR purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply grist for statements on our progress in fighting terrorism. The balance between individuals' civil liberties and the need for effective investigation is hard to maintain even during so-called normal times, let alone times of increased terrorist threat or war. It is, admittedly, a difficult balancing act. But from what I have observed, particular vigilance may be required to head off undue pressure (including subtle encouragement) to detain or "round up" suspects particularly those of Arabic origin.

7) As I believe you know, I have a reputation for being quite "conservative" on legal and policy issues regarding law enforcement. I have complained loudly on occasions when some of our laws and procedures have-unnecessarily, in my view, hindered our ability to move boldly against crime. At the same time, I know from experience that the FBI's policy on permissible use of deadly force has served the FBI and the country well. It should be noted, however, that the Administration's new policy of "preemptive strikes" abroad is not consistent with the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) "deadly force policy" for law enforcement officers. DOJ policy restricts federal agents to using deadly force only when presented with an imminent threat of death or serious injury (essentially in self-defense or defense of an innocent third party). I believe it would be prudent to be on guard against the possibility that the looser "preemptive strike" rationale being applied to situations abroad could migrate back home, fostering a more permissive attitude towards shootings by law enforcement officers in this country.

8) I believe the FBI, by drawing on the perspective gained from its recent history, can make a unique contribution to the discussion on Iraq. The misadventure in Waco took place well before your time as Director, but you will probably recall that David Koresh exerted the same kind of oppressive control over members of his Branch Davidian followers, as Saddam Hussein does over the Iraqis. The parallel does not stop there. Law enforcement authorities were certain Koresh had accumulated a formidable arsenal of weapons and ammunition at his compound and may have been planning on using them someday. The FBI also had evidence that he was sexually abusing young girls in the cult. After the first law enforcement assault failed, after losing the element of surprise, the Branch Davidian compound was contained and steadily increasing pressure was applied for weeks. But then the FBI decided it could wait no longer and mounted the second assault with disastrous consequences. The children we sought to liberate all died when Koresh and his followers set fires leading to their mass death and destruction.

The FBI, of course, cannot be blamed for what Koresh set in motion. Nevertheless, we learned some lessons from this unfortunate episode and quickly explored better ways to deal with such challenges. As a direct result of that exploration, many subsequent criminal/terrorist "standoffs" in which the FBI has been involved have been resolved peacefully and effectively. I would suggest that present circumstances vis-a-vis Iraq are very analagous, and that you consider sharing with senior administration officials the important lessons learned by the FBI at Waco.

You are only too well aware that fighting the war on terrorism and crime is an unbelievably difficult mission that will only become more difficult in the years to come, adversely affecting future generations of Americans. The extraneous pressures currently being brought to bear by politicians of both parties upon the FBI and other U.S. intelligence agencies, however, only worsen the present situation.

I know that my comments appear so presumptuous for a person of my rank in the organization and I'm very sorry for that impression. A word of explanation is therefore probably in order as to why I feel moved to write you directly about these issues. A good part of the reason lies in a promise I made to myself after I realized the enormity of what resulted when FBI Headquarters Supervisory personnel dismissed the warnings of Minneapolis agents pre-September 11, 2001. I was well aware of the forceful but frustrated efforts being made by Minneapolis case agents and their supervisor in their efforts to get Headquarters to move. But since my own role was peripheral, I did not think I could be of much additional help. Since that fateful day of September 11, 2001, however, I have not ceased to regret that perhaps I did not do all that I might have done.

I promised myself that in the future I would always try.

I appreciate that you alone do not determine policy on the terrorist threat from inside or outside the country that, indeed, you may have little influence in the crafting of broad domestic or foreign policy. And it seems clear to me now that the decision to attack Iraq was taken some time ago and you, even as FBI Director, may be little more than a helpless bystander.

Such an attack, though, may have grave consequences for your ability to discharge your responsibility to protect Americans, and it is altogether likely that you will find yourself a helpless bystander to a rash of 9-11s. The bottom line is this: We should be deluding neither ourselves nor the American people that there is any way the FBI, despite the various improvements you are implementing, will be able to stem the flood of terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack on Iraq. What troubles me most is that I have no assurance that you have made that clear to the president.

If you believe my concerns have merit, I would ask you to share them with the president and attorney general. We no doubt can agree that our Government has a gargantuan task facing it of melding American foreign policy to make the world, and primarily United States soil, a safer place. I pray for our American and allied world leaders' success in achieving this most important objective.

Thank you so much for allowing me to express these thoughts. They are personal in nature and should not be construed as representing the view of any FBI unit or other agents.

Yours truly,

Special Agent, Minneapolis

March 8, 2003

Dear Coleen,

I was going to write a note to the many former FBI agents who I know with whom I trade emails regarding your recent decision to send a seven page letter you wrote to the FBI director, and then on to the New York Times - when time enough had passed to convince you that the director was ignoring your letter.

I decided that perhaps your method of communication may be the most appropriate way for me to voice my opinion about what you have just done. So, I've written this letter to you and I'm also sending it on to many former agents, so that they can know what I think -- and what I've said to you on this matter.

I've had a chance to get to know you and your husband a little bit and we've had dinner, exchanged emails, and talked over the phone a few times about various matters. In fact, we spoke just the other night when I was about to go on the O'Rilley show. You know that I supported your first letter because I believed at that time the FBI was still in a state of denial that anything had to change in order to confront terrorism. I doubt there is anybody at the FBI now, (who really matters) who believes now that the bureau back then was in fine shape and needed no shakeup.

So, in my view, your first letter was a needed "shock treatment," which helped everyone understand the mission of the FBI had to change, along with some attitudes. I think the FBI has made a lot of those changes, maybe most all of them. To continue to berate the director now serves no purpose -- especially at this moment in time.

When you wrote your first letter, and sent a copy to congress I defended you, stating that you might not know that your letter would be leaked to the media. In view of your most recent actions, I wonder now if I was defending you for no good reason. Your recent actions have done nothing but give ammunition to those who live to attack whistleblowers, and I resent that you have made it more difficult to surface wrongdoing.

Let me say that I don't like war, or the thought of war -- even if there are good reasons to go to war, and in this case I think there are. Having said that, I don't know a single agent who wants to shoot a criminal, either. But if an agent told HQ that he/she no longer could face that possibility, I think HQ would dismiss the agent, and rightfully so. How is the current situation with Iraq different?

When I look back at the bombings that happened after the Gulf War, the shootings at the CIA, the plot to kill former President Bush, I understand that we've been under attack for many years. Although I hate the thought of another war, I must support this one. But who cares what I think? The president, having much more information than I have, knows what he's doing!


The fact that the prior administration, the FBI, or the media failed to "connect the dots" and understand that the terrorists were upping the ante each time they struck has nothing to do with whether or not they will take "revenge" on us after President Bush sends in our troops.

The plain fact is, troops or no troops we've been under attack since 1991, and there is no evidence they are letting up on us.

I believe there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the terrorists will set off an atomic bomb in one or more of our major cities, as soon as they can get one over here and move it into position. There is just no reason to believe otherwise.

To think that terrorists are rational and will wait to see if we attack Iraq first, is ludicrous. They are on a "holy Jihad" and there can be no doubt about that.

Nevertheless, to say that the FBI cannot absolutly defend this country against a wave of terrorism is to state the clearly obvious, but what can possibly be served by stating the obvious in this case or at this time? Nobody knows when terrorists will strike again, but the FBI has done a great job protecting us since 9/11. Consider that since 9/11 not a single attack has been launched against us. I believe the FBI deserves much credit for that.

I repeat -- there is no evidence at all that the terrorists are holding their fire, waiting to see what will happen. Furthermore, they have no reason to hold back.

The attack on the twin towers and the pentagon cost the terrorists about half a million dollars. The impact on our economy is still being felt, and the latest figure regarding the cost to our nation is about 700 billion. They caused a stock market problem, an unemployment problem and have stagnated the economy. Honestly, is there anybody willing to suggest that these terrorists would pass up a chance to hurt us again, hold off on inflecting another 700 billion dollar loss, or more to our nation? Where's the evidence they would hold off?

Those who say Bush has no evidence to link Osama Bin Laden to Iraq simply don't know what they are talking about. They don't understand terrorism and the way world wide terrorists think. They couldn't possibly understand how Castro, and N. Korea's leader, and other terrorists around the world network together against a common enemy -- democracy, and the West - to defeat us in favor of dictatorships and "isms" which are the direct opposite of our liberty and freedom based society.

Frankly, I believe there is more evidence right now to link Saddam with Osama, than there is to link cigarettes with cancer.

Saddam and his friends believe that there is only one way to govern, and we know how they do it. Put that together with a religion that justifies the horror they unleash on their own people and the rest of the world, and you can plainly see that sooner or later we, as a nation -- if we wish to survive -- most confront this evil, or we will surely perish.

A single agent's observation made to a mainstream publication, that there are not enough FBI offices or agents on the planet to ensure that all known and unknown terrorists will not attack, is not whistle blowing. Where is the justification, and what are your true motivations for doing this?

You know your "enemies" within the bureau family will use this to discredit you, and it's a damn shame, Coleen, because there were many who supported you in your first letter. There will always be those who complain about the "messenger." But now, who can possibly agree with you? It's my opinon that you were on a "fool's errand" to write this latest letter and release it to the NYTs.

To publicly attack the FBI and the FBI director simply because he has made public statements to the effect that the FBI is doing the best that it can, is in my view, unreasonable and unseemly, not to mention badly timed. I think most Americans understand the risks we face, and know the FBI can only do so much to protect us at this point in time.

The FBI director is simply stating the obvious, just like you are in your latest seven page letter. The difference is, you're not telling us anything we did not already know, but more important, you're not a bureau spokesperson speaking for the FBI, or for a single FBI office.

The media will of course print anything resembling a contest between you and the director. I'd also be willing to bet they would print a contest between you and me -- you see, that's just the media - it doesn't mean you've just performed an important public service - they're just covering the latest internal squabbling.

Coleen, this was not whistle blowing - this was you, joining up with the antiwar chorus. But even if becoming an antiwar person is somehow "OK", writing a seven page letter to the director, then releasing its contents to the media is unwarranted, and did nothing but add to the antiwar chorus, as well as to the nervousness of the nation.

This may be the bigger offense you committed - You can do nothing to stop this war, and nothing you wrote helps the FBI get the job done, but you did add to the difficulty of parents to calm their nervous children at a time like this.

This act was embarrassing to the FBI, to the director, the attorney general, and to the White House. This act also undermines efforts of whistleblower advocates like me who try to surface serious wrongdoing or incompetency. We believe most whistleblowers act out of motivations that are more selfless than your recent letter seems to suggest you are.

The director, the attorney general, and the White House, reluctantly but bravely supported your first efforts, but they have no reason to support you now. I'm not sure what rules exist to stop an FBI agent from writing such letters that are then released to the media, but if such rules exist, I fully support the administration's application of whatever sanctions may apply in your particular case.

It's important that they know -- that everyone knows - that I do not agree with you, and I don't know a soul who does agree with what you did.

It gives me no pleasure -- only sadness -- to comment on this matter. I wish I had been given a chance to weigh in on whether this letter should have been released to the media, or not. You know what I would have counseled. You did not seek my opinion and I'm sorry that you did not, especially since we had opened a line of communication and I had offered my nonprofit's services to you in the first instance. I do this whistleblower "gig" on a daily basis - Frankly, I'm surprised you did not call on me to get my opinion about what you intended to do. I would have tried to stop you, for obvious reasons.

I'll consider making a public statement about your recent conduct, but I acknowledge that the statements by the Agent's Association were very strong, and may suffice. I agree with what Nancy Savage wrote - every word of it.

Somebody must make it clear that this kind of action does not represent the thinking of former or currently employed FBI agents. That's very important. Regardless, Coleen you owe a lot of people an apology, including me. My good advice to you today is to write a letter to the media expressing deep regret for what you have done.

That would be a beginning. I have no idea what you can do to salvage your career in law enforcement, or reestablish a relationship with a single FBI agent. By your recent actions you have managed to turn a victory for whistleblowers everywhere, into an embarrassment for the bureau as well as for yourself. I'm puzzled and saddened by these incomprehensible destructive actions on your part.

Gary Aldrich

http://www.patrickhenrycenter.org/aldrich.html