Opinion ID: 2968022
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Intelligence Community Use of Information

Text: [ ]12 [ ] the intelligence community is interested only in obtaining information 12 After the Petition was filed, news articles indicated that the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the 9/11 Commission) had submitted questions to be asked of unidentified al Qaeda detainees. See Philip Shenon, Accord Near for 9/11 Panel to Question Qaeda Leaders, N.Y. Times, May 12, 2004, at A20 (reporting a statement by the 9/11 Commission that it was close to an agreement with the Bush administration that would allow the panel to submit questions to captured Qaeda leaders who are believed to have been involved in planning the attacks); see also Associated Press, Vice Chairman Expects Responses to Written Questions Soon (May 13, 2004), available at www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4972789 (stating that [t]he Sept. 11 commission has submitted written questions about the 2001 attacks to alQaida detainees and expects to receive responses soon). [ ] See Nat’l Comm’n on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Staff Statement No. 16, at 1 (released June 16, 2004) (stating that Commission had no direct access to al Qaeda members but rather relied on written materials). UNITED STATES v. MOUSSAOUI 17 that has foreign intelligence value; the intelligence community is not concerned with obtaining information to aid in the prosecution of Moussaoui. [ ] not create special [ ] reports for use by the prosecution; rather, the prosecution and the PENTTBOM team receive the same reports that are distributed to the intelligence community at large. Information is included in these reports only if [ ] the information to have foreign intelligence value.14 [ ] J.A.C. (03-4792/Reh’g) 48-49. 14 The Government’s submissions indicate that those responsible for [ ] the witnesses record and pass on only information [ ] to have foreign intelligence value. Consequently, it is at least possible, albeit unlikely, that one of the witnesses has imparted significant exculpatory information related to Moussaoui that has not been included [ ] If so, there may be a due process problem under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). See United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967, 971 (3d Cir. 1991) (stating that prosecution is obligated under Brady to disclose all exculpatory information in the possession of some arm of the state). We need not consider this question, however, as there is no evidence before us that the Government possesses exculpatory material that has not been disclosed to the defense. 18 UNITED STATES v. MOUSSAOUI