fo b1 commission meeting 6-5-03 fdr- tab 3- minutes of 5-22-03 and 5-23-03 meeting 628

8/14/2019 FO B1 Commission Meeting 6-5-03 Fdr- Tab 3- Minutes of 5-22-03 and 5-23-03 Meeting 628

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fo-b1-commission-meeting-6-5-03-fdr-tab-3-minutes-of-5-22-03-and-5-23-03 1/7

N A T I O N A L C O M M I S S I O N O N

T E R R O R I S T A T T A C K S U P O N T H E U N I T E D S T A T ES

Minutes of the Meeting of May 21-22,2003

T he C hair called the C ommission to order at 5:15 P M on M ay 21st. C hairman K e an ,Vice-C hair H amilton, and C ommissioners Ben-Veniste, Fielding, Gorton, Lehman and

Roemer were in attendance.

T he minutes of the M ay 1st meeting were approved on a motion by C ommissioner

R oemer, seconded by C omm issioner Ben-Veniste. C omm issioners provided guidance

that minutes of future meetings should be recorded in the same manner as the minutes of

the M ay 1st meeting.

Family Liaison. T he C hair introduced family liaison representatives E mily Walker and

Ellie H artz. T hey spoke to their personal backgrounds. E mily mentioned her ideas about

a 1-800 phone num ber for the C omm ission, a place on the C omm ission website forfamilies, and a place where the families' questions to the C omm ission can be included .

E llie spoke to the importance of the C omm ission reaching out to all 9/11 families, not

just to family representative groups.

C ommissioners welcomed the C hair's fulfillment of his commitment to create a liaison to

families. C ommissioner R oemer noted that with increased outreach, more information

would be flowing to the C ommission from the families, an d this would require increased

staff resources to respond. E mily Walker responded that she intends to code all incoming

information, track it and respond to requests in a timely manner. S everal C ommissioners

noted the importance of managing expectations, that the C ommission ca n fulfill some

requests from the families, but not all. C ommissioner R oemer noted that he had heard

very positive reports from the C hair's m eeting of M ay 15th with the families, an d added

that it is very important that E mily an d Ellie be seen as facilitators of access to the

C ommissioners an d C ommission information. Emily Walker closed by noting that a key

part of their mission was to ensure that families and the C ommission worked together on

behalf of shared goals. S he noted further that the families were interested in a Public

A ffairs plan for the C ommission (She and the D eputy fo r C ommunications ar e working

on such a plan), as well as an announcement of the next date for public hearings.

Schedule. T he C hair announced a schedule of future C ommission m eeting dates an d

possible hearing dates, upon which he and the Vice C hair ha d agreed: T hursday June 5th ,Thursday June 26 th , Tuesday-Wednesday July 8-9th (possible he arin g), T hursday July

31 st, Wednesday-T hursday A ugust 13-14* (possible h earing), T uesday A ugust 26 th,

Tuesday-Wednesday September 9-10 th (possible hearing), Tuesday September 23rd,

Tuesday-Wednesday O ctober 14-15th (possible hearing), Wednesday O ctober 29 th,

Wednesday-Thursday N o v em be r 19 th-20 th (possible hearing), T uesday N ovember 25th ,



Monday/Tuesday December 8-9 th (possible hearing), Monday January 5 th or Tuesday

January 6th, Thursday-Friday J'an^^-SO* (possible hearing).

Team 9 W ork Plan. The C omm ission then turned to Team W ork Plans, hearing first

from Team 9. Team leader John Farmer introduced his team, and spoke to his team's

mission: to give a comprehensive description to the events of 9/11 from the perspective ofemergency response in NYC and DC. Farmer noted his work plans organizational

approach, based on how emergency responders w ould have reacted — dealing with

buildings, evacuations, and consequence m anagem ent. For example, radios did not

work, and it immediately became apparent how all planning for high-rise fires went out

the window. The McKinsey reports w ill be very valuab le; the Fire Department

cooperated w ith McKinsey, an d the Police Department did not. Staff is also in the

process of obtaining the Pentagon's own history of the even t. The question of

coordination of Police, Fire, FEMA and FBI is very important. A key obstacle in gettingthe work done is New York City. The climate is a poor one,with lots of recrimination

and lots of worries about lawsuits. Team leader Farmer an d General Counsel Marcus

will meet with NY City's Corporation Counsel next week to try to work through some ofthe information access issues.

The Vice Chair noted that the Work Plan had a long, long list of documents and interview

candidates. He stressed the importance of interim reports, probably from each of the

work teams. He stressed the importance of recommendations an d options.

Commissioner Roemer used the story of John ONeil to ask the question o f how much

intelligence was available to Po rt A uthority security: in other wo rds, how do TTIC an d

Homeland Security provide information to the state, local and private sector?

Com missioner Lehman asked if there was a post-1993 after-action report. Team L eader

Farmer answered that Kroll Associates did one fo r the Port Authority, and that he will try

to ge t it. Commissioners Gorton an d Lehman both noted that New York City 's concern

about law suits will adversely affect their cooperation. The General Coun sel noted that

City officials also have a strong interest in putting their best foot forward and telling theirstory. Both Commissioner Ben-Veniste and the Vice Chair agreed that it was important

to provide City officials some assurance about how the Comm ission w ould handle

information provided by the City. The Vice Chair added that C ity officials need to knowthe Commission intends to be reasonable and does no t want to impact lawsuits, but it has

a job to do and is serious about getting it done. He noted that the Commission has made

some progress in convey ing this message of reassurance to Federal agencies, an d needs to

do the same with the City.

Team 3 Work Plan. Acting Team Leader Dan Byman introduced the members of Team

3 (international counterterrorism policy) and spoke to its W ork Plan. He framed thecentral issue: How well did policymakers understand the threat from al-Qaeda? He

stated that the team wanted to present a high-level view of the goals of the US

Government at critical turning points, and how and why choices were m ade with respect

2



to law enforcement, sanctions, diplomacy, military an d other options. He stated that the

team would devote special attention to case studies (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and

Germany); would look at the question of safe havens (Afgh anistan, Sudan); an d look at

the question of permissive environments (in the United States an d elsewhere). Byman

noted that this team needed key White House documents, an d wo uld need to interview

the most senior people in government.

Comm issioner Lehman thought that the work plan was framed too narrowly. He would

like the Commission to address the issue in the context of H izbollah and the 1983

destruction of the Marine Barracks in Beirut and the broader roots of terrorism, including

the growth of Madrassas. The Executive Director responded by noting that the

Commission cannot lose is focus on the central 9/11 story: There was full strategic

warning after Au gust 1998, and the policy issue carries through to the fall of buildings in

September 2001. This core policy story needs to be told in an authoritative way.

Commissioner Lehman stated that the same people who blew up our Marines are still

training terrorists. He and Team Leader Byman agreed that the role of Hizbollah is not

the subject of investigation, but needs to be part of the narration. The Vice-Chairobserved that the Plan for Team 3 looks very good, but he is very worried about the

calendar. He observed that it is important for this team, an d probably the staff as a

whole, to have a calendar spelling out its wo rk plan, with appropriate deadlines included.

Team 4 Work Plan. Team Leader John Ro th introduced the members of Team 4

(terrorist financing) an d stated its key issues: the failure to share information

("stovepiping") within the USG, the level of international cooperation against terroristfinancial transactions, and the extent to which problems, wh en identified, go t fixed. The

Executive Director added that the Team is doing the tick-tock on the money flows of

9/11. The Chair asked if this team w ould look at questions of stock manipulation prior

to 9/11 (a concern raised by the families), an d asked whether the team wo uld look at

financial issues under the PATRIOT Act. The answer to his question was affirmative.

Commissioner Roemer asked how terrorist finan ce issues got handled unde r Dick Clarke,

and the Executive Director replied that these issues were ha ndled by William Wechslerand Lee Wo losky, working in Clarke's directorate. He added further that several teams

will want to talk to Dick Clarke, an d that the Commission staff will have to wo rk through

ho w best to handle this question. Comm issioner Lehman observed that there is a strong

sense in the financial com munity that we now have the worst of both wo rlds: restrictions

on financial flows can slow but not stop terrorist financin g, and the cost is very high.

Investors from the Arab w orld and the Muslim world are pulling their money out of US

markets an d helping to support the Euro.

Team 5 Work Plan. Team Leader Betty Swope introduced members o f Team 5 (border

security and foreign visitors) and spoke to the team's central issues: how did the 19 get

in, and how did the border systems fail? Sh e stated that the team w ould try to nail the

story of how the hijackers go t here. Sh e detailed that there are six different ways you can

get into the Un ited States, of which non-immigrant visas are jus t one way. The team will

3



look at watchlisting, an d will look at questions of document fraud and how fraud fits into

the terrorist tool kit. The team will also look at the enforcement of immigration laws.

The Chair noted that this team, as well as other teams, will ge t into the question of civil

liberties issues . The Executive Director noted that watchlist issues w ill be taken up not

only by this team but by Teams 2 and 6 as well, but Team 5 has the lead on this topic. Onthe question of detentions, Team 5 will wor k closely with Team 6.

The Chair noted that he and the Vice Chair had spoken to Porter Goss yesterday and had

just come from a conversation w ith Judge Gonzales. The Vice Chair summ arized those

conversations, as well as a conversation with Transportation S ecretary Mineta.

Chairman Goss. The Vice Chair said that Chairman Goss wants to be cooperative. He

intends by the end of May to provide the Commission both a declassified version of the

Joint Inquiry Repor t, as w ell as the classified JI Repor t with 3 sensitive redactions. The

question of redactions in the classified document may also be cleared up, but Goss did not

promise this outcome. Chairman Goss stated that "one way or another" the JI report willbe provided to the Commission; he thought it wou ld take a vote of his Committee to

accomplish this. The Vice Chair observed that it looked as if it would be just a few days

until the JI report is provided to the Commission.

Comm issioner Roemer observed that even if Porter wants to help the Commission — and

he does — receipt of the report is still likely several weeks away, plus six weeks for

printing. The Chair interjected tha t if this s ituation isn't resolved by the end of May,

Porter said that he will find a way to get the report to us.

Secretary Mineta. The V ice Chair noted that he had jus t spoken w ith Secretary M ineta,

who said that he will testify, but that he has concerns about a number of the

Comm ission's witnesses who are highly critical of the government, including Bogdan

Dzakovic. The Executive Director observed that the Comm ission is seeking the

testimony of Secretary M ineta to gain knowledge of core facts: How were decisions made

on the day of 9/11? Commissioner Roemer an d Lehman stated th eir belief that the

Commission ha s exactly the right approach in bringing forward witnesses who are criticalof the aviation security system.

White House Counsel Gonzales. The V ice Chair recounted the meeting he and

Chairman Kean held w ith Judge Gonzales. The Judge made the following 10 points:

1) The W hite House wants to cooperate and be responsive.2) When the Commission is seeking information, it should try as much as possible to get

it from the concerned agencies.

3) He cannot bind the President; he cannot state when or how the President w ill make

the assertion of Exec utive privilege. But at this time he could no t identify an y

information on which the President intended to assert such a privilege.

4) He encouraged th e Chair an d Vice Chair to come to him wh en problems arise.

4



5) From the White House point of view, any comments in the media (including those in

a recent Newsweek piece by Michael Isikoff) about these matters are not helpful and

mak e the task of cooperation harder.

6) Adam Ciongoli ha s been instructed to respond to Comm ission requests promptly.

7) The transcripts previously requested [Bob W oodwa rd's an d others' White House

interviews] will be delivered by the end of the w eek.8) W ork is continu ing on transcripts of interviews w ith the President and NS A R ice,

including the judgment on the meaning of the word "immediate response." For now,

the White House w ill define this term to run through 9/20/01 [our preference];

9) Th e White House will redact for material that may inadvertently disclose classified

information or is beyond the scope of the Commission's inquiry.

10 ) Procedures will be set up to allow Comm ission staff to what was redacted in order to

verify that this practice is not being abused.

Seeking NSC Documents. The Vice Chair recounted that he told the Judge bluntly "w e

will hit glitches," an d that he and the Chair would need to come back to the Judge. The

Judge specifically mentioned the question of NSC documents, and it was the Vice Chair'sclear impression that the Judge wanted th e Commission to seek documents from theagencies first.

Comm issioner Roem er said that it is very important for members of the Commission to

ask when they will be able to meet w ith President Bu sh and President Clinton. He said

that the NSC is the nexus w here all budg et and policy questions are addressed. The JI

didn't get NSC documents, and Commissioner Roemer asked how the Commission can

get at key NSC documents. Th e Vice Chair replied that these will be some of theglitches.

The General Counsel asked if the Judge ha d commented at all on interviews of NSC staff.

The Vice Chair answered no .

The General Counsel described th e Presidential Records A c t , and the additional

difficulties of seeking docum ents from a previous W hite House, w hich require the

approval of representatives of the former Administration as well as the current

Administration. Commissioner Ben-Veniste recommended that the staff try to get adetailee seconded from the National Archives to help on this and related document

management issues.

Commissioner Roemer asked what subjects the Administration regards as highlysensitive. The V ice Chair replied that the Adm inistration will construe the constraint of

relevance strictly.

Comm issioner Roem er asked how the W hite House arrived at the date of 9/20/01 as a

cut-off date for its definition of immed iate response. Both he and Commissioner Ben-



procedural matters now , as the sub stantive questions later will be hard enough.

Commissioner Gorelick proposed that Commissioners e-mail the Press Deputy to keep

him informed of press calls and pen ding issues. The Chair proposed, and Com missionersagreed, that th e Press Depu ty should prepare a draft proposal on press guidelines fo r

discussion at the next Com mission meeting. Com missioner Gorelick further proposedthat the Press Depu ty serve up a possible schedule of press and med ia events for

Commissioners.

Hearings. The Commissioners turned to a discussion of hearings. Commissioner Ben-

Ven iste observed that if you haven 't wo rked with your witnesses and gone through the

paces, hearings fall flat, and Commissioner Gorelick agreed with the pitfalls as hedescribed them.

Commissioner Gorelick suggested further a hearing on the issue of local law

enforcement. There is a big Joint Terrorism Task Force presence in Chicago; a hearing

could be held there, taking up the issue of how a JTTF works and how information isshared up and down. Com missioner Fielding agreed w ith the idea, that police chiefs and

mayors would support such a hearing. The Chair was more skeptical, that the

Com mission hearing would become a vehicle for those parties' increased budg et requests.

The Vice Chair supported the Chair.

The Vice Chair observed that hearings are important to help the public jud ge wh ether the

Comm ission is wo rking. Com missioner Gorton agree with the impo rtance of a public

presence for the Commission, bu t that hearings were an inefficient way of gaining

knowledge. He proposed that the smallest num ber of public hearings, consistent with

making the Com mission's presence know n, was the best course. Com missioner Ben-

Venise thoug ht hearings oug ht to be backloaded, and agreed with the Vice Chair on theimportance of staying in the pub lic eye and Comm issioner Gorton's concern about the

importance of not wasting staff time. Com missioners agreed with th e Vice Chair 's

recommendation that staff prepare a proposed schedule of hearings for the duration of the

life of the Commission.