Presidential Decision Directive-39

Presidential Decision Directive-39
Name	Presidential Decision Directive-39
Issued	1995
Issuer	Bill Clinton
Related	National Security Council (United States), Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense (United States)

Presidential Decision Directive-39 Presidential Decision Directive-39 was a 1995 United States national security instruction issued by President Bill Clinton addressing responses to international terrorist incidents on U.S. soil. It established roles for agencies including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Defense (United States), and the National Security Council (United States) to coordinate law enforcement, intelligence, and military support. The directive sought to balance domestic authorities with international counterterrorism commitments involving partners such as NATO, Interpol, and bilateral relationships with countries like United Kingdom, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

Background and context

The directive arose amid post-Cold War shifts following events such as the Gulf War, the rise of transnational networks exemplified by Al-Qaeda, and high-profile attacks including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing. Debates in Congress involving committees like the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Judiciary Committee intersected with executive priorities voiced by figures such as Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright. Internationally, incidents including the 1994 AMIA bombing in Argentina and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing informed interagency concern about terror threats and the need to coordinate among entities like FBI Laboratory, Drug Enforcement Administration, and the U.S. Secret Service.

Content and directives

The document delineated procedures for distinguishing between criminal acts under statutes such as the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and hostile acts potentially implicating the Use of Force (UN Charter), referencing obligations under instruments like the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings. It assigned lead roles to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for criminal investigation, to the Central Intelligence Agency for foreign intelligence collection, and to the Department of Defense (United States) for contingency support when authorized by the President of the United States or the National Security Council (United States). The directive specified coordination with international organizations such as Interpol and regional alliances including NATO and bilateral mechanisms with the United Kingdom, France, and Germany.

Implementation and interagency roles

Operationalizing the directive required coordination among components like the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, the CIA Directorate of Operations, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Implementation involved protocols linked to the Posse Comitatus Act, the Insurrection Act of 1807, and the War Powers Resolution to clarify limits on military domestic activity. The Attorney General of the United States and the Secretary of Defense (United States) participated in implementation planning alongside the Director of National Intelligence concept predecessors and offices such as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence-precursor bodies within the National Security Council (United States). Coordination mechanisms extended to state and local partners like New York Police Department, Los Angeles Police Department, and fusion centers modeled after lessons from incidents involving the FBI Bomb Data Center.

Legal and policy implications

The directive intersected with constitutional questions involving the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and statutory authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and the Patriot Act (United States) legislative debates. It raised policy questions about use of military assets in domestic contexts, implicating precedents from United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. and executive order frameworks such as Executive Order 12333. International law implications involved interpretations of self-defense in the context of the United Nations Charter and state responsibility doctrines discussed in forums like the International Court of Justice and the United Nations Security Council.

Notable incidents and applications

The approach articulated in the directive informed responses to incidents including the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, post-1993 World Trade Center bombing investigations, and tactical responses to plots connected to Al-Qaeda operatives tied to attacks like the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. It shaped interagency posture during operations related to the 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Nairobi and coordination for threats assessed in the aftermath of the USS Cole bombing (2000). Domestic law enforcement practices influenced by the directive were visible in operations led by the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force and investigative cooperation with foreign services such as the Mossad and the MI6.

Criticism and controversies

Critics from civil liberties advocates including organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and scholars associated with institutions such as Harvard Law School and Yale Law School argued the directive risked expanding executive power and blurring lines between law enforcement and military functions. Congressional oversight debates involved figures from the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, with concerns echoed by retired officials from the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense (United States). International criticism noted potential conflicts with norms enforced by bodies like the European Court of Human Rights and NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

Category:United States national security policy