Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES
I. Overview of Conspiracy
A. San Diego
1. Arrival of NAH and KAM in LA - 1/15/00
2. Activities in LA [to be investigated]
3. Meet Al-Bayoumi and Move to SD - 2/00
4. Activities in SD
a. Move into Parkwood Apartments
b. Open BOA account
c. Buy car
d. Move to Muppet's House
e. KAM departs
f. NAH's life in SD - 6/00-12/00 [to be investigated]
Commission Sensitive
Commission Sensitive
A. Bin Al-Shibh Trip to Obtain Further Instructions for Atta - Jan. - June 2001
1. Meetings with UBL, KSM, Abu Hafs Al-Masri in Afghanistan
2. Meeting with KSM in Karachi
IV. Execution
IV. Sidebars to Address Loose Ends, Alternative Theories and Popular Misconceptions
A. DSM
B. "Holy Tuesday"
C. Second Wave of Attacks
D. Other
Commission Sensitive
WITH DRAWAL NOTICE
RG: 148
Box: 00004 Folder: 0009 Document: 6
Series: Stephanie Kaplan Files
Copies: 1 Pages: 3
ACCESS RESTRICTED
The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file:
In the review of this file this item was removed because access to it is
restricted. Restrictions on records in the National Archives are stated in
general and specific record group restriction statements which are available
for examination.
NND: 301
Withdrawn: 06-20-2008 by:
Counterterrorism Policy
X How did the United States try to fight terrorism before 9-11?
-, Narrative: What did senior decision makers see as the U.S. "strategy " infighting
terrorism? Infighting al-Qa 'ida?
3. Was it shared with the field (commands, CIA stations, diplomatic posts, etc)?
How was it understood by those in the field?
5. How did the strategy evolve over time and adapt to developments?
a) Which specific policy responses were considered after each key event
(i.e. African Embassy and U.S.S. Cole bombings)?
b) What were the "windows for the use of force" for each considered
response and did the U.S.G. miss these "windows"?
(1) To counterterrorism
2. Did the DoD and the military consider the full range of its capabilities?
(1) To counterterrorism
d) What obstacles impacted the military's ability to use force against al-
Qa'ida? Was it limited to "TLAM therapy"?
e) What was the extent of the DoD's cooperation with the CIA? To what
extent did it support the CIA's covert action mission?
Jf. Did the DoJ ensure a robust legal strategy and response?
(1) To counterterrorism
e) How legalistic were the lawyers? What was their relationship with
those operating in the field?
g) Was the legal strategy coordinated and consistent with the overall U.S.
strategy?
>? 4; To what extent did the State Department properly emphasize counterterrorism
•^ in overall diplomacy? What were State's priorities from 1998-2001?
a) What instruments were used and what contributions did they make?
(1) To counterterrorism
Coordination
a) Did agencies coordinate with each other? How did they do so?
7. Did support and attention extend to the USG field offices, which would be
coordinating efforts in the field?
1. What gaps existed, if any, given the threat that was emerging?
5. Why did policymakers select cruise missiles strikes after the 1998 Embassy
bombings. Why were other responses not employed?
7. Given the gaps in our strategy, was sufficient attention given to homeland
defense?
1. Was Bin Ladin recognized as a problem during his time in Sudan? Was al-
Qa'ida? To what extent did we discuss the Bin Ladin and al-Qa'ida issues with
Sudan? What about the presence of terrorists in general?
3. What leverage did the United States have with Sudan? With its neighbors?
4. What instruments were considered for pressing Sudan? Which ones were
used and why?
2. What other goals did the United States have in Afghanistan? With its
neighbors? To what extent did regional relations shape our Afghan policy?
3. What leverage did the United States have over the Taliban? Were there
indirect forms of leverage (e.g. through Pakistan)?
4. What instruments were considered? Which ones were used and why?
C. Was stopping al-Qa 'ida apriority in the many permissive environments in which it
operated?
b) What other goals did the United States have in these countries? How
much did these conflict with our counterterrorism agenda?
d) What instruments were considered? Which ones were used and why?
III. To what extent did the following bear on our efforts to fight terrorism and al-Qa'ida?
A. Conflicting priorities/focus
B. Resources
4. Regimes that did not enjoy close relations with the United States
5. Lack of regime capacity for cracking down on al-Qa'ida (i.e. resources, civil
liberty issues, etc)
A. Sufficient money?
B. Sufficient focus?
C. Degree ofinstitutionalization?
V. Are we doing the right thing now? (And is the lack of attacks tied to this?)
B. Iraq
C. MEPP
E. Anti-Americanism
F. Are we encouraging other countries (i.e. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) to cooperate
and address terrorism? What is the quality and sincerity of their efforts?
^fl^
0 O
S? O.Oi p
"*?'
C/
^
X1
Vn
£ ~^
«? ^
0
I ^
-f if P
>
o
^A»^
^,
\
•^^ I
1 \\
^ \
Sf-
)
OL
9- t/
J
Initial Monograph Outline
Terrorist Entry Into the US
Team 5, Immigration, Nonimmigrant Visas and Border Control
Revised August 12, 2003
Why did it happen: Did our border control system afford a missed opportunity to
prevent the entry of the 19 hijackers or to remove them from the US? ([] indicates
tentative inclusion depending on facts to be developed.)
I. The role of watchlists and clearances
A. TIPOFF: Terrorist Watchlist developed and used for visa processing
B. Watchlisting by the CIA
1. Facts relating to the 19 (al Hazmi, al Mihdhar)
2.Other possibilities: institutional role of terrorist watchlisting
C. Watchlisting by the NSA
1. Facts relating to the 19
2. Other possibilities: institutional role of terrorist watchlisting
D. Watchlisting by the FBI
1. Facts relating to the 19 (Hanjour, Jarrah, flight schools)
2. Other possibilities: institutional role of terrorist watchlisting
E. Lookouts by INS and Customs?
[- untapped legacy-INS and Customs databases?]
F. Assessment and accountability
II. [The role of terrorist mobility intelligence in decisions of consular officers abroad
and border-related federal inspection services]-^T^ H if\teC |fl ioC^US^/^Cu/'/lJ
III. The impact of border security policy on visa and entry decisionmaking 7
A. Counter-terrorism and security policy (FDD's, State S/CT, INR, DS, etc.)
B. Country and regional policy (e.g. State/NEA, SA, Egypt, UAE, Lebanon)
C. Migration, immigration, and international crime policy (State/CA, PRM, INL)
D. Other border control policy (DOJ, INS, FBI)
E. Assessment and accountability
hat border security measures can be undertaken to prevent terrorist access to the
US?
I. Borders and terrorists (strategic context)
yft*' A. Al Qaeda's and other terrorists' targeting within the US
-^JC B. Internal and external demand for foreigners' access to the US
W\. [Demand for access to US citizens and entities abroad]
U. "?D.. Common interests with other countries in border security arrangements
, j^j-(t1'E. Border security in balance with the advancement of peace and prosperity
icfW- VO VO Vulnerabilities
V of our border security system (tactical context)
* ' Review of vulnerabilities exploited by the 19 terrorists
Review of vulnerabilities exploited by other similar terrorists
C. Terrorist mobility patterns and tradecraft
D. Relationship of terrorist entry to other transborder crimes:
Alien smuggling; illegal financial flows; narcotics trafficking; arms trafficking
III. Future scenarios
IV. Key new anti-terrorism features of the border security system
A. Watchlist, security advisory opinions/clearances, and lookout intelligence
changes
B. Domestic immigration law enforcement
C. Immigration compliance systems
D. Visa and federal immigration inspection policies
1. reorganization (DHS)
2. additional security reviews
3. visa applications and process changes
4. new compliance systems - student tracking, exit/entry
E. Hardening of the northern and southern borders
Intelligence and watchlisting. USG needs to identify terrorist groups and their individual
members in manner that facilitates an institutionalized information exchange among
border security officials in order to prevent entry of known terrorists or apprehend them if
they are already in the US. Related issues are: (1) collection and analysis of border
security information and intelligence; (2) institutionalization and organization of such
intelligence; (3) ensuring the preservation of individual rights; and (4) the role of the
private sector (airlines and other transportation entities).
Border Enforcement. Terrorists exploit the US visa process, entry without inspection,
asylum claims, amnesty, legal permanent residency, and perhaps refugee programs,
immigration law benefits, alien smuggling, and corruption of border officials. Issues
involved in shutting down border security loopholes and abuse include: (1) the role of
our domestic and international border enforcement policies; (2) the role of technology
(cameras, sensors, unmanned aircraft, fences, smart cards, stand alone and interconnected
databases, new and renovated entry ports); and (3) the role of the military (national guard,
unmanned aircraft).
Screening abroad (visas) and inspection at border points. This is a broad area ranging
from whether legal standards for assessing potential terrorists' eligibility to enter need to
be changed to whether changes in visa and POE screening may be required. Issues
include: (1) consideration of possible changes to the visa waiver program, transit without
visa and international-to-international transit, entry-exit enforcement; and pre-
clearance/pre-inspection; and (2) the value added of super name checks and other
programs instituted since 9-11 to US border security and other national interests.
Identity security. USG needs to address terrorists' use of fraudulent and counterfeit
supporting documents to attain US-issued travel documents. Such "breeder/feeder"
documents include: birth certificates, drivers' licenses, social security cards and other
"national" ID cards. Issues include: (1) USG efforts to improve technology (databases,
biometrics and machine readable documents) to discourage use of fraud; (2) national
regulation of breeder/feeder document issuance; and (3) USG prioritization of anti-fraud
efforts, including training of border security officials.
Iw^^°
TV) -LiZ^.
C"/V) C(jy(]
/q
Commission Sensitive
a. Congress (JR)
1. Legislation
2. Funding
3. Oversight (including GAO)
Commission Sensitive
Commission Sensitive
d. Airports (SB)
1. FAR 107 and Airport Security Program
2. Facility Security (including workforce)
3. Access control
4. Law enforcement
Commission Sensitive
COMMISSION SENSITIVE
Immediate Response
The newly constituted Immediate Response Team plans to tell the story of the
events on 9/11 in a three-part monograph. Part One will narrate the events of that day in
an integrated fashion, juxtaposing the real-time responses of the various individuals and
agencies with the developments on the hijacked flights in an effort simply to tell the story
of the immediate response to the attacks. It will be a straightforward factual account of
9/11, as Team 8 is able to reconstruct the day. It will be accompanied with a graphic
presentation of the comprehensive 9/11 timeline. Part Two will evaluate the performance
of individual agencies, entities and leaders in responding to the attacks and in interacting
with each other. Part Three will mine from the hard experience of 9/11 specific policy
recommendations that, if adopted, will enable the United States to respond more
effectively in the event of a future attack.
Because many of the critical decisions and developments of the day (e.g., the
decision to order a shoot down; the decision to close the financial markets) remain
uncorrelated to precise time frames, the outline set forth below is necessarily preliminary,
and subject to organizational and substantive refinement based on the results of Team 8's
investigation.
I. Integrated narrative/Timeline -
A. AA 11 — First hijacking
a. NY
2. FAA/DOT
COMMISSION SENSITIVE
COMMISSION SENSITIVE
3. NORAD/DOD
a. NY
2. FAA/DOT
3. NORAD/DOD
4 Other
a. Building tenants
b. PA
c. FDNY
d. NYPD
f. OEM
g. Mayor's office
COMMISSION SENSITIVE
COMMISSION SENSITIVE
a. The Pentagon
2. FAA
3. NORAD/DOD
4. Other
1. President/VP/WH personnel
2. FAA/DOT
3. NORAD/DOD
4. Other
COMMISSION SENSITIVE
COMMISSION SENSITIVE
a. President/VP/WH personnel
b. FAA/DOT
c. NORAD/DOD
d. Other
a. FDNY
b. NYPD
c. OEM/Mayor's office
3. The Pentagon
A. Federal
1. President/VP/WH personnel
2. FAA/DOT
COMMISSION SENSITIVE
COMMISSION SENSITIVE
3. NORAD/DOD
4. Secret Service
B. New York
1. FDNY
2. NYPD
3. OEM
4. Mayor's office
C. The Pentagon
1. Arlington County FD
2. Arlington County PD
2. Interoperable communications
2. Potential solutions
COMMISSION SENSITIVE