WASHINGTON – The reincarnated Sept. 11 commission has expressed surprise at the slow pace of reform in intelligence gathering. To some people, that reaction in itself is a surprise.

“I was taken aback,” said commission member Jamie Gorelick. “We are far away from where we should be.”

Gorelick, a Washington attorney who has served as deputy attorney general and counsel to the Defense Department, presided over a recent hearing that was part of an effort by the panel – now reconstituted as a private organization – to measure how well government has responded to its nearly year-old final report.

Yet among those watching the proceedings was at least one person who was more surprised by the commission’s failure to grasp just how difficult the tasks of changing the FBI and CIA would be.

“Transforming an organization as traditional as the FBI is probably going to take more than the wishful thinking of those at the top,” said John Azzarello.

Azzarello watched the hearing from the audience – and from a unique combination of perspectives. He’s a former federal prosecutor, a former member of the commission staff and now a criminal defense attorney.

He also is a family member of Sept. 11 victims. His two brothers-in-law, Tim and John Grazioso, his wife’s brothers, were killed at the World Trade Center.

Azzarello worked with the FBI, using its products and services in his prosecutions; he investigated it for the commission; and he is personally aware of the consequences of the failures of intelligence gathering.

At the core of the problem, he said, are two fundamentally different approaches to the gathering of information.

“You have to remember, FBI agents are trained from day one how to be law enforcement officers, and that means treating information as evidence that could someday be presented in court,” Azzarello said.

That usually means starting from an act and working backward, linking up the who and the how and the why.

It also means protecting that information from contamination. Guarding it against exposure that might tip off the bad guys. Preserving evidence so it can’t be criticized by defense attorneys.

“The FBI has a reputation as the best law enforcement agency in the country, if not the world,” Azzarello said. “Its agents believe they earned that reputation by bringing criminals to justice and winning verdicts.”

The other approach to information-gathering doesn’t – can’t – wait until a criminal act has been committed. It uses information prospectively, to perhaps – but not necessarily – prevent something from happening.

In short, spying.

“Using evidence that way can endanger prosecutions,” Azzarello said. “So now you’re asking an organization that built its history and reputation on one approach to gathering information to change suddenly and devote most of its resources to a new approach that is seen as inimical to the very mission of the FBI.

“You don’t get that by passing a few statutes or expecting a new director to change a culture just by hoping that it will change.”

The information coming out of the hearing was not promising. Rapid turnover among FBI agents. Failure of a $100 million case-tracking computer program. Evidence that agencies, despite newly unified leadership, still don’t share information.

Gorelick said the FBI’s failures might create new support for a domestic spy agency like the United Kingdom’s MI5. She said the commission rejected that idea primarily because of the assurances given by FBI Director Robert Mueller that he could reform the agency.

“We forbore seeking that solution,” Gorelick said.

Azzarello, as a senior counsel to the commission, liked the idea of creating an MI5 in the United States.

“I was one of the last people to give up on it,” he said, noting he was finally persuaded by the argument that two separate agencies – with two very different approaches to information gathering – would not work as well.

“You have to have some overlap, some way of allowing an intelligence agency to share information with a law enforcement agency. Two different groups – the FBI and MI5 – would not have that overlap.”

By the end of the summer, the Sept. 11 commission – now calling itself the 9/11 Public Discourse Project – will issue a “report card” on how well government has responded to its recommendations.

Azzarello said he believed the commission will be critical of the failure of intelligence agencies to respond to its report. “The commission will find change is not that easy.”