Mail:: INBOX: FW: Reply to Your Message on Joint Inquiry Access Issues Page 1 of4

INBOX Compose Folders Options Search Problem? Help Addressbook Tasks Memos Calendar Logout Open Folder

0.72MB / 476.84MB (0.15%)

to Your on Move|co py This message to yj
... (6 of 22) *®
Delete | Reply | Reply to AH | Forward | Redirect | Blacklist | Message Source 1 Resume | Save as {Print Back to INBOX <1 !
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 23:05:18 -0400
From: Philip Zelikow <pzelikow@9-11 commission.gov>4?
To: dmarcus@9-11 commission.gov9
Reply-to: pzelikow@9-11 commission.gov 4P
Subject: FW: Reply to Your Message on Joint Inquiry Access Issues

Dan —

As discussed in my previous message.

Philip

Original Message
From: Philip Zelikow [mailto:pzelikow@9-llcomniission.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 11:02 PM
To: 'Ciongoli, Adam'
Subject: Reply to Your Message on Joint Inquiry Access Issues

sAdam —

As I promised on Friday, we are not seeking to examine either the

hearing transcripts or the interview reports in the next day or two, and
not until you have had a chance to check the material and talk to us
about any concerns.

Our Commission's next meeting is on Thursday morning, and commissioners

have placed this issue on the agenda. Tom and Lee had arranged to talk
to Porter tomorrow. Porter has declined to take their call at least
until I have talked to Pat Murray, the HPSCI counsel. I've postponed
the call at least until Wednesday to give everyone more time to consider
the issues. And, of course, your concerns also must be appropriately
addressed.

On the material in the memo to Eleanor that I had not discussed with you
•on Friday, you should know that I had not discussed them before with
Eleanor either. That material seemed to fall into a set of
miscellaneous pieces that could be tracked more usefully if detailed
specifically in writing. So I passed them along with the major requests
I had reviewed with Eleanor and with you, in the memo which I cc'd to
you.

After reflecting on the disclosure issue you mentioned over the phone,
I've done some rereading, and have wondered about a proper noun used in
one of our specific requests from a staffer's work files.

If that's a good guess, we thought that — in the way we used it — this

proper noun would not signify anything meaningful about either a thing
or a person unless the reader already had the requisite clearances and
background knowledge. But we want to be as careful as possible, and I'm
very troubled that you felt this information might be suggestive. We

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?index= 12 4/8/2003
Mail:: INBOX: FW: Reply to Your Message on Joint Inquiry Access Issues Page 2 of 4

are certainly willing to redact this noun and be even more cautious in
the future.

I'm glad you're working this issue. Our original request for the Joint
Inquiry material was provided in writing on February 13. You can see
the results we have achieved so far after nearly two months. Our
statutory deadline is now 13 1/2 months away. But we still believe a
quietly cooperative approach will end up being more constructive and,
ultimately, more effective.

Philip

Original Message
From: Ciongoli, Adam [mailto:Adain.Ciongoli@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 7:50 PM
To: 'pzelikow@9-llcommission.gov' (Receipt Notification Requested) (IPM
Return Requested)
Subject: RE: National Commission Staff and Document Rooms at CIA, FBI,
and NSA

Phil -

Thank you for copying me on your letter to Eleanor. I think I need to

clarify that while I don't foresee any problems regarding some form of
access to the vast majority (if not all) of the hearing transcripts or
interview reports, I thought I had made clear that I needed a couple of
days to tie up some loose ends with regard to both categories before you
would proceed. One of my conversations today has raised a couple of
issues regarding at least one closed hearing, as well as issues related
to a number of interview reports which I'd like to discuss before we get
any further. I'll pass this on to Eleanor, as well, but as I thought I
mentioned on Friday, I'd like an opportunity to resolve those before I
"sign-off" for the Administration. If I wasn't clear on that point, I
apologize.

In addition, Section IV of your letter seemed to contain a variety of

materials we've yet to discuss at all,which I'd like to do as soon as we
can. I've been very pleased with our level of interaction so far.
Knowing what you will be seeking in advance of requests to the JICI
makes my job much easier.

I'm happy to discuss first thing tomorrow, though I still have some
fact-finding to complete after that. Thanks again for your
consideration.

Adam
Original Message
From: Philip Zelikow [mailto:pzelikow@9-llcommission.gov]
Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 8:17 PM
To: Ciongoli, Adam
Cc: ckojm@9-llcommission.gov; dmarcus@9-llcommission.gov;
skaplan@9-llcommission.gov; 'John Ivicic'; pzelikow@9-llcommission.gov
Subject: National Commission Staff and Document Rooms at CIA, FBI, and
NSA

:Adam -

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?index=12 4/8/2003
Mail:: INBOX: FW: Reply to Your Message on Joint Inquiry Access Issues Page 3 of 4
/9/11 Classified Information •

Following up on our helpful conversation on Friday, we promised to

provide you with the names of staff we wish to be able to send out to
these agencies to start reviewing and digesting the documents they
originally assembled for the Joint Inquiry. / We will pass the necessary
clearances to the agencies concerned before,' anybody shows up. At this
time, they are as follows:

CIA: Douglas MacEachin, Kevin Scheidj_Lewis Moon, Ernest May, Philip

Zelikow, and Chris Kojm. (All have^~laccess.)

FBI: Michael Jacobsen, Zelikow, and Kojm.

NSA: MacEachin, Scheid, May, Zelikow, and Kojm.

We will be adjusting this list as we complete security briefings for

pcertain staffers, ascertain our ability to handle compartmented access
|within these agency collections, and develop careful procedures for
jjcopying and regulating access to the documents. The point here is to
I'work out ways to preserve our 'need to know' restrictions as we sift
:jthrough these documentary collections.

Any documents that we wish to copy for Commission files will be the
object of an appropriate request. Any classified document or set of
documents received by the Commission will be entered into a Commission
registry to track these holdings and regulate access to such material.

Philip Zelikow

i'

h
http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?index=12 4/8/2003
 : miuiiimuun /\w;css issues anu lumuuuw s ^umiinssiuii meeting rage i ui

INBOX Compose Folders Options Search Problem? Help Addressbook Tasks Memos Calendar Logout Open Folde

0.78MB/476.84MB (0.16%)

INBOX: RE: Information Access Issues and M'n»B, <-opy f^his message to {g|
Tomorrow's Commi... (1 of 21) CE
Delete | Reply | Reply to All | Forward | Redirect | Blacklist | Message Source | Resume | Save as | Back to INBOX <
Print |>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 19:14:15 -0400
From: "Ciongoli, Adam" <Adam.Ciongoli@usdoj.gov>^
To: '"pzelikow@9-11commission.gov"' <pzelikow@9-11commission.gov>^, "IPM Return Requested"©^
Cc: "'dmarcus@9-11commission.gov'" <dmarcus@9-11commission.gov>^, "Receipt Notification Requested"©^
Subject: RE: Information Access Issues and Tomorrow's Commission Meeting
Hi Phil-,

Sorry it's taken me a bit today to get back to you- Here's what I've got:
1. Hearing transcripts:

There are 3 closed hearings (June 16/11 and Sept 12) that I need to review for
unauthorized disclosures. I asked Eleanor yesterday for some time to review
that, she said she needed to clear that and I have not-, as yet heard back from
her. As soon as I've had a chance to review those-, we can talk about any
potential concerns-, if they exist- In the meantime! there's no problem with you
reviewing the other 7 transcripts and I'll convey that to Eleanor-
As we discussed-, there are 2 other hearings (October 1/lDth) that involve FBI-
designated sensitive material-, that should be limited to the agreed list of DSH
cleared staff- Overall-, I assume that no one will be reviewing hearings unless
they are cleared and need-to-know the subject based on assignment-
I'd like to discuss your thoughts on notetaking-, particularly of the
OctoberT/nth hearings-
2- Uitness interviews:
There are 6 individuals (approximately 1M interviews) that I need to review for
potential privilege issues- Those are the interviews of:

Hike Sheuer
Cofer Black

Again! I've asked Eleanor for time to review these and have not yet heard back-
Among the 3DD-plus other interview reports-, there are numerous others that
implicate very sensitive interests-i including source information. Acccordingly-,
we would like to set up (quickly) an opportunity for the Agency and the Bureau
to brief you and any other sta.ff who would be reviewing these reports before
accessing interview reports- \'\, I assume that no one will bg.reviewing interview reports unl

cleared and need-to-know the subject .based on assignment! and again-, I'd like to
discuss your thoughts on notetaking.\. swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?actionID=l01&index=57&start=l

9/11 Closed by Statute

iviaii .. JVD. iiiiumiauuii ^vuucss issues auu lumuiiuw s v^uiimiissiuu iviccimg rage /, ui

3.Agency P.0-C • ' s

My current list has just about everyone (I'm still waiting for Transportation).
I can fax you that tonight-, or get you an electronic copy tomorrow- I know
you've spoken to some of the POC's (FBI-, CIA). I'm trying to convene a
conference call before C - O - B - Friday. If you could wait until then I think it
would help both of us-, as I intend to make clear that they are to cooperate with
you •
I hope this helps in advance of your meeting-, and I'll be available tomorrow
afternoon to talk (unless Eleanor gives me time to look at the material
discussed above)-
best-.
Adam
Original Message
From: Philip Zelikow Cmailto:pzelikow5n-llcommission-govl
Sent: Wednesday-, April D1-, 5DD3 1:MD PM
To: Ciongolii Adam
Cc: dmarcusSn-llcommission•gov
Subject: Information Access Issues and Tomorrow's Commission Meeting

Adam -

I've been watching Saddam's statue come down- Recalling my work in the
NSC on Germany and Eastern Europe in November this day sure feels
like another one to remember-

But on to the day's issues:

The Commission will meet privately tomorrow-i beginning at T:QD-

Tomorrow one of our commissioners will ask the Commission to promise to
issue a public report in May on our progress with information access- I
have also been confronted with following question: "In the three weeks
that have passed since Andy Card's memo to agencies-i have you met with a
single agency POC-i or even been given any of their names?"

I've developed a plan to address these concerns-i at least for tomorrow's

meeting- I would like to preview these plans with you-i since they will
not happen without your help-

1- I hope that today-i April T-, we will finalize an understanding with

the Joint Inquiry on access to their material- On Friday-i April 11-. I
would like to again visit their offices and survey all-i or almost all-,
of the hearing transcripts and interview reports- I will try to map the
compartments and issues associated with eachi so that I can direct the
staff on who should see what- If you have a reserve o.n particular
items-, I'll be glad to work that with you-i or work around them for the
time being if the particulars are stubborn-

2- I hope that next week I can dispatch appropriately cleared staffers

to begin reviewing both the above material and the existing agency
document holdings at CIA-, FBI-, and N S A - At least for now-, the staffers

http://kinesis. swishmail.com/webmai l/imp/message.php?actionID=101&index=57&start=l 4/9/03

man '.: LIM>\JJ\. xvn: imuniituiun /\i;i;ess issues aiiu luiiiuiiuw s vAumiiissiuii meeting rage j ui

d i s p a t c h e d to the a g e n c i e s w o u l d be those l i s t e d in my e - m a i l message of

April b-

3. M e a n w h i l e - i I h o p e that l a t e r t o d a y you can g i v e me the names of all

the agency POCs you have received so far. If you would prefer that I
h o l d off on c o n t a c t i n g them-, just let me know when that would be OK.

4. Hy h o p e is that by next week we can be c o n t a c t i n g the agency POCs and

arranging m e e t i n g s - I n these m e e t i n g s w e w i l l talk t h r o u g h o u r l i k e l y
n e e d s and start r e f i n i n g our r e q u e s t i i d e n t i f y i n g issues-, and the
m o d a l i t i e s f o r access-

I am out out nf t-.ho n f f i r o i-prijy. but you can reach me via e-mail or on my
c e l l p h o n e -I I

Philip

Delete | Reply | Reply to All | Forward | Redirect | Blacklist | Message Source | Resume | Save as | Back to INBOX <1
Print / >

Move|Copyl T h i s m e s s a g e t °H

9/11 Personal Privacy

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?actionID=101&index=57&start=l 4/9/03
ivian .. iiNJD\^yv. r wu. ivc. iiiiumiauuu /\uuess issues auu luuiuiiuw s v^uimmssiuii ivieeiiiig rage i ui

0.98MB / 476.84MB (0.20%)

Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 18:14:35 -0400
From: pzelikow@9-11 commission,gov^f
To: dmarcus@9-11commission.gov^

Subject: Fwd: RE: Information Access Issues and Tomorrow's Commission Meeting

Dan —

CC'ing this to you-

We've also closed out all our current issues with Eleanor- Call and I'll update
you •

Philip

Forwarded message from "Adam.Ciongoliausdoj.gov" <adam-Ciongoli3usdoj.gov>

Date: Thu-, ID Apr SOD3 lb:M3:50 -D4DD (EDT)

From: "Adam.Ciongoli3usdoj.gov" <adam-Ciongoli3usdoj-gov>
Reply-To: "Adam-Ciongoli3usdoj.gov" <adam-Ciongoliausdoj.gov>
Subject: RE: Information Access Issues and Tomorrow's Commission Meeting
To: "'pzelikow31-llcommission.gov'" <pzelikow31-llcommission.gov>! "IPM
Return Requested"3

Do you prefer Phil or Philip (or doesn't it matter?)

1- Ply secretary should've sent over the POC list this morning. I have a meeting
scheduled Monday (E to 3) to instruct them to cooperate with you- I'll follow
up with you after that and then you can deal with them directly.

£• I've been trying all day to get representatives from the Bureau and Agency
available to brief you-, as I know you're eager~to get started- It appears I'll
have someone from CIA tomorrow morning-i and hopefully FBI as well- I assume
you'd like to do this at your offices-

3- I spoke with Eleanor this morning-, and there is a vast quantity of

information involved with these hearing transcripts. I am heading over tomorrow
afternoon to start reviewing the 3 hearing transcripts and then the interview
reports of the fl individuals we discussed yesterday. She indicated to me that
each hearing transcript will take several hours-, so I've blocked off time early
next week to try to get this done quickly-

M - Ue still have not discussed your thoughts on notes on these categories of

information (transcripts and reports)-, which we should do. Ue can talk about
that in the morning if that works for you.

5- you are correct that one of the things I plan to address on Monday with the
POC's is access to documents that they shared with JICI- Once I've had that
conversation Monday afternoon-, I'll be in better shape to discuss arrangements-

Let me know if there's anything else I can do-

Adam

Original Message
From: Philip Zelikow Cmailto:pzelikowaT-llcommission-govJ
Sent: Thursday-, April ID, EDD3 1:3M AM
To: Ciongoli-, Adam
Cc: dmarcus31-llcommission•gov
Subject: RE: Information Access Issues and Tomorrow's Commission Meeting

7message.php?actionID=148&mailbox-INBOX&bodypart=$bodypart&index=65&uniq=105004/10/03
Mail:: INBOX: RE: POC meeting Page 1 of 3

IN BOX j'Com pose Folders'-iOptions .Search. Problem? Help Addressbopk..Tasks Memps CalendaruLbgoutOpeiv Folder

1.19MB / 476.84MB (0.25%)

INBOX: RE: POC meeting (1 of 39 Move | Copy jThis message to |M
[Delete | Reply | Reply to All ] Forward :| Redirect | Blacklist | Message Source [.Resume | Save as,[Print Back to INBOX Ot>]
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 19:12:59 -0400
From: Philip Zelikow <pzelikow@9-11commission.gov>^
9/11 Closed by Statute
To: Adam.Ciongoli@usdoj.gov if
Cc: dmarcus@9-11commission.gov4P
Reply-to: pzelikow@9-11 commission.gov^P
Subject: RE: POC meeting

lAdam —

jiOn the specifics, neither I nor anyone authorized to speak for the
Commission has asked for DOD e-ma.i'ls. I offered earlier today to
backbrief you on my meeting at POD, and that offer is still good. I
also tried to phone you right.after that meeting and the one with CIA,
as you may know.

But I presume the| jtypescript request is the same one listed in my

,April 7 memo to Eleanor Hill, which was cc'd to you. You may remember
;;this particular request, because it was the one that had you worrying a
bit about whether we had inadvertently disclosed classified information.

In other words, we're not circumventing you. Just the opposite.

That said, this is the second time in two days that you've raised this
concern, and the second time I've asked you to explain their origin. So
we should have the phone call at 9 tomorrow morning, and I welcome your
constructive suggestion that we make this a daily habit. I'll be glad
to call you.

As to the final point, about the Commission determinations about the

scope of its inquiry, I did not understand what you meant. We should
distinguish two cases:

1. Commission findings about further investigation of the intelligence

Ijcommunity, for which there is a prescribed process that cannot be
jlcompleted until we have completed our review of the information compiled
j|by the Joint Inquiry. Most of that information still awaits our review,
at CIA, FBI, and NSA. As you know, we have not yet been able to begin
that review, and there is also some information we have not yet reviewed
at the Joint Inquiry offices.

2. Commission determination of the scope of its inquiry within the

Ijstatutory mandate. Though it could do so, the Commission has not made
[any determination to expand its statutory mandate. All our thinking to
jjdate about the scope of the Commission's work on policy matters falls •
jjwithin the existing mandate of the statute, as reflected in the scope of
|the nine teams we've openly described to you and to others.

Again, however, I appreciate your offer of a meeting between Tom, Lee,

;and some of your principals. Just let me whom you wish to involve from
lithe administration, and we'll try to set it up.

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=fc44ce43188e 16b4a419e2,.. 4/15/2003

Mail:: INBOX: RE: POC meeting /9/11 Closed by Statute Page 2 of 3

I look forward to talking with you/tomorrow morning, and I'm sorry that
you're hearing bothersome things. •

Philip /

Original Message ; ' ';

From: Adam.Ciongoli@usdoj.gov [mailto:Adam.Ciongoli@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 6:.<07 PM
To: 'pzelikow@9-llcommission.gov' (Receipt Notification Requested) (IPM
Return Requested)
Subject: RE: POC meeting /

Phillip-- ' /

I've received a couple of call£ today raising requests for access to

information that you and I have not discussed, such as DOD emails, a
document created|^^^_^^^^^^| etc... I wanted to put two suggestions
on the table:
first, there may be some value in you and I have a morning call to
discuss any new categories of information you'd like so that I can
arrange with the relevant agencies, rather than having them call me
after they've heard from you. I could talk tomorrow at 9am if that
works for you.

Second, I appreciate the 'heads up' that you've given me and others
about areas beyond what was provided to the JICI that you believe will
be of interest in the near term. I think, however, that before we go
any further down that road, that there needs to be a discussion about
the process by which the Commission will "determine" that such areas are
appropriate for inquiry, as required by Section 604 (b)(2) of the
statute. I anticipate that this is a conversation that will need to
include Kean and Hamilton, as well as some of my principals. I am happy
to arrange this as soon as feasible.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Adam

Original Message
From: pzelikow@9-llcommission.gov [mailto:pzelikow@9-llcomm.ission.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 5:25 PM
To: Ciongoli, Adam
Subject: RE: POC meeting

Adam —

Pursuant to our agreement, I have not had any conversations yet with
agency POCs or conveyed any requests for information to any of them. I
have only been arranging times to meet with them, starting no earlier
than tomorrow, as we agreed.
|i
;|So if any POC has received a request from the Commission for
information, it did not come from me or from anyone authorized to speak
for the Commission. I'm puzzled, so let me know what's going on,
especially if it turns out that I need to talk with any members of my
staff.

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=fc44ce43188el6b4a419e2... 4/15/2003
 Mail:: INBOX: RE: POC meeting Page 3 of 3

With respect to NSA, the only message for Karen Valentine is that I am
also trying to meet directly and informally with Mike Hayden, who is an
old friend. For now I've told my assistant to hold off on any meeting
just with Karen.

I from the Agency has arranged to see me at 10:30 tomorrow

morning.This will double as both the briefing and an introduction to
her as the POC. She did not -know what FBI's plans would be. I'm
available from 10:30 on into midday, or at 8:00 a.m. tomorrow. I'm
iihoping that the briefings can conclude in time to get back over to the
Ford Building in the early afternoon and collect copies of interview
reports.

I can be reached by phone on my cell, [_

Thanks for the update!

!j Philip

Original Message • i
From: Adam.Ciongoli@usdoj.gov [mailto:Adam.Ciongola@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 4:28 PM i
To: 'pzelikow@9-llcommission.gov' I
Subject: POC meeting I .

I met with the various Pocs today and gave them an outline of how we see
this working, and I think they understand. One thing that came up was
that a number of them had received requests for information that you and
I had not yet discussed, or for time to meet withjyou (NSA). With
regard to the former category (requests for information) I asked that
they forward me until you and I have had a chance:to discuss them.
Regarding the meeting with Karen Valentine at NSA; I told her I assumed
it was a standard meet and get to know, and that She shouldn't be
concerned. Obviously, if there's any substance yt>u want, letting me
jjknow will help speed the process. \ am trying to arrange a briefing for you tomorro

you be available? Thanks. i

Adam j

9/11 Closed by Statute i

9/11 Personal Privacy

Delete | Reply | Reply to All | Forward | Redirect | Blacklist | Message Source | Resume | Save as | Print Back to INBOX <3E>

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=fc44ce43188el6b4a419e2... 4/15/2003
 ZVJD: runuw up rage i ui ->

INBOX Compose Folders Options Search Problem' Help Addressbook Tasks Memos Calendar Logout °pen Foide

1.41 MB / 476.84MB (0.29%)

INBOX: RE: Follow up (1 of 41) C® Mnx<0 , ropy [ThTs message to g}

Delete | Reply | Reply to All | Forward | Redirect | Blacklist | Message Source | Resume | Save as | Back to INBOX <l
Print E>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 22:43:54 -0400
From: phhjp Zelikow <pzelikow@9-11commission.gov>^
To: Adam.Ciongoli@usdoj.gov^
^c: dmarcus@9-11 commission.gov^
Reply-to: p2elikow@9-11commission.gov<^
Subject: RE: Follow up
Adam --

Thanks for this helpful reply.

Our meeting today with State went well. Same sort of preview about
policy documents as with DOD- We also mentioned post T/ll documents --
up to the present day -- if the documents have retrospective evidence
about 1/11. lile also emphasized visa/immigration/passport-related
documents and issues- Further we are interested in understanding the
situation in the field at a few critical and illustrative foreign posts
prior to T/ll-i such as Islamabad-! Riyadhi and Berlin. They asked about
whether we wanted access to e-mails. We waffled-i uncertain about how
useful that would be during the time periods we are focusing on. We'll
cross that bridge later.
As for modalities-i we focused on the now familiar reading room approach-!
but without permanent work stations at State- Just a small area to sift
through documents and determine what we request for copying and bringing
back to the Commission- Like DOD-, they promised to respond next week-
They mulled about whether they want us to give them a written request-i
but began realizing some of the downsides of that route and said they
would think about it some more.
On the CIA-. FBI-i and NSA reading rooms-, you mentioned two points:

A global process regarding security briefings for staff prior to

initial access. Why don't we just agree that staff going to any agency
shouldi on arrival for the first time-i receive whatever orientation or
security briefing that agency would like to give them-
Notetaking. This came up with CIA- We agreed that CIA could
review notes before we take them away-i only in order to insure that the
notes are properly classified- This seems to make sense in other
settings as uel 1 •
If you talk to CIA you may tell them that I've personally reviewed all
the (11) Joint Inquiry interview reports we've received so far-i to make
sure they are properly classified. There are several cases where I've
felt obliged to upgrade the level of classification or add more codeword
designations- This was one of the concerns they previewed to me-> and
they had a point-
You should also know that we have added our nun internal marking to
further segregate and restrict access to I [material that deals with a
particular active type of Agency operations- Thg..[~""] designation has
been used to cover a great deal of material beybna thati and we have

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/!rnessage.php?index=l 41 4/17/03
9/11 Classified Information
 yjuau ;. IIN.DV^A. XSJD: ruuuw up rage z ui
9/11 Closed by Statute
| people who need to have access to the relevant HUMINT but do not have a
•: need to know about this other area of Agency operations- No one at the
;. Agency has asked us to take this further step-, but we consider it
;\-
;\p

—---Original Message
From: Adam.Ciongoli3usdoj.gov Cmailto:Adam-CiongoliSusdoj-govJ
Sent: Thursday, April 17-, 5D03 t,:15 Pfl
To: Philip Zelikow (E-mail) (Receipt Notification Requested) (IPH Return
Requested)
Cc: Eleanor H i l l (E-mail) (Receipt Notification Requested) (IPM Return
Requested)
Subject: Follow up
Phillip-,
as discussed this morning:

1- I have reviewed the following interview reports which I have no

problems being shared with you:

I .. I^30/DS (there are 2 on this day) - there is an unresolved

issue with her 11/2D/D2 which I'm going to ask for guidance on-, so if
you could hold off on that one.
Hike Sheur fl/12/02 and 1Q/2/05 interviews - there is an unresolved issue
i with his 7/3/02 which I'm going to ask for guidance on-, so if you could
'; hold off on that one-, as well-
]- 11/5/02 interview! no problem reviewing that one-.
though there is a very sensitive source info reference.
2-with regard to the clearance issue-, the 3 letter code has now been
classified (I learned today). NSC has indicated to me that they have
every intention of clearing you-, Kean and Hamilton. If you could tell
me who told you there might be a problem-i I can break any jam that might
be gathered. Both the June Ifith and Sept- IB hearing include this info-,
and the June 11th may. My associate-, Howard Nielson-, should be able to
review those by early next weeki which I hope will correspond with
clearances•
3- I spoke with CIA-, FBI-, and NSA about reading rooms today-, and I've
asked them all to make materials available on a rolling basis- I think
there would be some value to us talking about a global process regarding
security briefings for staff prior to initial accessi as well as
notetaking issues- I'm out of the office tomorrow-, but could try to
catch up with you at your office by phone if you tell me when a good
time will be-
as always-, let me know if anything else comes up-
thanks-,
adam
3.
Adam G - Ciongoli
Counselor to the Attorney General
150 Pennsylvania Avenue-, NU
Washington-, DC 50S3D
(202)

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?index=141 4/17/03
..MaikrINBOX: RE: Issue Update: CIA Page 1 of 2

2.79MB /-476.84MB (0.59%)

Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:48:30 -0400 (EOT)
From: "Adam.Ciongoli@usdoj.gov" <Adam.Ciongoli@usdoj.gov>$
To: '"pdz6n@virginia.edu"' <pdz6n@virginia.edu>4f, "IPM Return Requested"© 4f
Cc: "'dmarcus@9-11commission.gov'" <dmarcus@9-11commission.gov>#, "Receipt Notification Requested"®^
Subject: RE: Issue Update: CIA

Phillip,
I just left this information on your mobile phone voicemail, but as I said in that
message, I'm following up in writing.

1. I [.should be talking with you shortly. There should be 15 boxes of

documents available for review by Friday. the other 10 boxes are archived and I
am optimistic that we'll get those available next week. The 15 boxes is a pretty
substantial volume of pages, so I am hoping that you're people will not be held up
any further while the other 10 are obtained and reviewed.

2.1 |also .told me that the index to these boxes (all 25) is about 50 pages, He
intends\to messenger that to you tomorrow, for your review.
J3. With regard to the documents held by the JI, your understanding is the same as
•(mine that our agencies do not have a "ready-made" set, and it would be much
llquicker if we can get the JI to give you access to theirs, as I mentioned to you
'Monday, we're, still txying to work through that with them, and i obviously
appreciate your thoughts in that regard, rest assured we will resolve this as
quickly as possible.

best,
Adam
Original Messuage *
From: pdz6n@virginia.edu [mailto:pdz6n@virginia.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, \2003 7:58 AM
To: Ciongoli, Adam
Cc: dmarcus@9-llcommis.sion.gbv
Subject: Issue Update: CIA

Adam -

Though our discussions at CIA yesterday were positive, we are still not actually
able to examine a single document there, for the following reasons:

1.1 l-has only been able to review a co.uple of boxes to address your concerns,
The documents, she has identified far your review have not been pulled; the boxes
are not in a pla-ce where we can examine, them.

2. What would be more useful to us than examining the boxes is to examine the
indexes of their contents - the''-t.ables of\Cpntents for them. ,.J~ [says she
needs your permission to let us examine the.se index documents and asked me to make
this request to you. • . V. ... •

'9/11 Closed by Statute

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/niessage.php?actionID=148&mailbox=INBOX... 4/23/2003
 :: INBOX: RE: Issue Update: CIA Page 2 of 2

3. The boxes tend to contain more sensitive internal material, such as operational
cables. The finished intelligence reports are not there. Copies were given to
the Joint Inquiry without additional copies being retained in the 'reading room1
at CIA. So:

A) We can't examine the list of those documents either in order to

determine what we actually might want to see, without your permission; and

B) CIA would naturally prefer that we get the copies from the Ford
Building, rather than have us request them and have them make copies all over
again.

On this last point: In discussing this matter with Eleanor I gained the
impression that the agency had retained copies of the documents they provided to
the JIS. That is apparently not the case at CIA, and mainly not the case at FBI
either. Hence we would have to do the request process again. Further, I had the
impression that Eleanor's problem related to the digital storage of the documents,
mixed in a database with privileged material. But I've now been told that the JIS
also still has the hard copies of the documents they took back, which are boxed
(and with the contents indexed).

I hope you will convey to | |, your permission to let us examine the relevant
index documents so that we can then identify documents we wish to pull from their
boxes, once they have reviewed them. And I'll weigh in with Eleanor to recount my
discoveries and concerns about the' documents held by the JIS. Meanwhile I hope
|that, with your permission, we can \begin to examine the CIA index documents so
;'that we can identify the documents we need to see either from the JIS boxes or in
fresh requests from CIA.

Philip

9/11 Closed by Statute

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?actionID=148&mailbox=INBOX... 4/23/2003