Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

COMMISSION SENSITIVE

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES
Minutes of the June 26, 2003 Meeting

The Chair called the Commission to order at 8:35 AM on June 26,2003. Chairman
Kean, Vice-Chair Hamilton, and Commissioners Ben-Veniste, Fielding, Gorelick,
Gorton, Lehman, Roemer, and Thompson were in attendance.

Minutes. The minutes of the June 5, 2003 meeting were approved, without objection.

FBI & CIA Briefings. The FBI and CIA provided a SECRET-level briefing on a
sensitive topic related to an aspect of the 9/11 investigation inside the United States. The
Commission did not complete its consideration of this topic, and asked the briefing team
to return at a future date.

Progress Report. The Executive Director noted that he had discussed with the Chair
and Vice Chair the idea of a public "Progress Report" on the Commission's work, on July
8 prior to the Commission's July 9 hearing. The idea would be to spell out what the
Commission has done to date, and especially to cite which agencies had been responsive
to the Commission's document requests. Commissioners embraced the idea with
enthusiasm. The Chair spoke to the importance of every Commissioner needing to
review this draft progress report. Commissioner Gorelick spoke to the importance of the'
Commission writing to the Administration and letting it know, at least in draft form,
what the Commission intends to state about its responsiveness.

Document Access. The Executive Director and the General Counsel spoke to the issue
of document access, specifically Executive Office of the President Document Request
No.2, a request asking for several sensitive NSC and other White House documents.
They reported that the Office of the White House Counsel intends to be responsive to the
request, and to make such documents available to all Commissioners, as well as a limited
number of staffers on a need-to-know basis. The documents would be held in the
Executive Office of the President, but Commissioners and designated staff would be able
to review the documents and take notes, as needed. The White House held out the
possibility that it would limit certain information solely to the Chair and Vice Chair, but
did not currently seek to place such limits on documents responsive to EOP Document
Request No. 2.

The White House stated that it will produce a significant amount of documents
responsive to the request by July 8, and stated that producing documents from the Clinton
Administration will take longer, because of the requirements of the Presidential Records
Act. It will produce documents in a "rolling production," and diaries and logs will be
forthcoming. Redactions will be very limited, and will be related to operational details
that are highly sensitive but not important to the Commission's mandate (for example,

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY


COMMISSION SENSITIVE
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
COMMISSION SENSITIVE

which planes would take the Speaker where in the event of a national emergency;
operational frequencies for the White House during a national emergency, etc.).

The Vice Chair noted that there was a very significant positive change in the
Administration's tone and response from the first reports he had heard 24 hours previous.
He commended the Executive Director, the General Counsel and the Deputy General
Counsel for the considerable progress they had made on document access. He noted that
this particular request is a key test of the Administration's willingness to cooperate with
the Commission.

Limitations on Commissioner Access. The Vice Chair stated further that he and the
Chair needed to know the views of Commissioners on the question of limitations of
access to the Chair and Vice-Chair. He, for one, noted that he is uncomfortable when the
Administration seeks to limit access in such a manner, as his own authorities as a
Commissioner are neither different nor greater than those of his fellow Commissioners.
If he and the Chair are presented with the situation that only they are going to be shown a
document, how should they respond?

Commissioner Gorton stated that he is surprised, frankly, that the Commission has gotten
as far as it has and has not had to give up any of its rights of access. He suggested that
the Commission wait and see as to whether such a situation on access ever arises; as long
as the Commission has not given up the right for all Commissioners to ask to review a
document, the current situation can continue. Commissioner Ben-Veniste stated that the
Administration's question is vexatious, and that the Commission should kick this can
down the road. He stated his view that the Commission should not accede to limits on
the totality of Commissioner access; the Administration should be told to make its case
on seeking access limitation when or if it has a case to make.

The Executive Director noted that Continuity of Government plans are strictly limited
even within the White House. The White House is prepared to offer a limited briefing to
the Chair and Vice Chair, and a more general briefing to all Commissioners.
Commissioner Gorelick observed that there has to be some give and take on matters of
operational security.

Commissioner Roemer stated that he is worried greatly about the stove-piping of


information within the staff, that there needs to be sharing and cross-fertilization within
the staff. Commissioners Gorelick, Gorton, and Fielding, and the Executive Director
agreed with Commissioner Roemer on the importance of staff putting forward its own
names for access to documents on a need-to-know basis, rather than letting the White
House dictate that list.

Interview Guidelines. The General Counsel reviewed the Commission's current


proposal on interview guidelines, and the Administration's rejection of it. He circulated
to Commissioners a draft letter setting forth the Commission's position for the record and
conditions under which the Commission would be willing to go forward with interviews

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 2


COMMISSION SENSITIVE
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
COMMISSION SENSITIVE

with agency representatives present. (The Chair and Vice Chair subsequently authorized
this letter, under the signature of the Executive Director and General Counsel. A copy is
attached.)

FBI Briefing. The Commission adjourned at 12:30 for the purposes of meeting at the
FBI at 1 PM to hear Director Mueller brief about changes and reforms at the FBI since
9/11. The closed briefing at the FBI lasted until 3 PM.

The Commission will meet again on July 8, 2003.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY


COMMISSION SENSITIVE
Thomas H. Kean
CHAIR
July 1,2003

Lee H. Hamilton
VICE CHAIR

Richard Ben-Veniste Mr. Adam Ciongoli


Counselor to the Attorney General
Max Cleland
Department of Justice
Frederick F. Fielding Room 5115
Tenth Street and Constitution Ave., NW
Jamie S. Gorelick
Washington, DC 20530
Slade Gorton
Dear Adam:
John F. Lehman

Timothy J. Roemer As you know, we are very disappointed that the Administration has rejected
our modified proposal with respect to the presence of agency representatives
James R. Thompson at interviews of federal employees conducted by the Commission. In
response to your expressed concerns about executive privilege and sensitive
Ph \w sources and methods, the Commission had modified its initial position and
EX. 1VE DIRECTOR
had agreed to agency representatives being present at interviews of high-level
officials and operations officers at foreign intelligence agencies.

For all other interviews, we continue to believe that our statutory mission of
conducting a full and independent investigation into "the facts and
circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001" would
best be served by conducting interviews of fact witnesses without the
potentially intimidating presence of an agency official, particularly a lawyer,
supervisor, or more senior official. We note that the Administration itself
recognizes that principle in many of the investigations it charters - notably the
current outside inquiry into the shuttle disaster by the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board, where no agency representatives are present at
interviews. It is no less critical, we submit, that the American people have
confidence in the integrity and independence of our factual investigation than
it is in the case of the Columbia disaster.

We reject the notion that a different standard should apply because our
Commission is a legislative branch entity or because of some notion that we
are seeking "agency information." As in the case of any factual investigation,
we will be asking in interviews for what the individual government employee
knows about events relevant to our inquiry; we would be proceeding no
differently were all our Commissioners, rather than just our Chairman,
appointed by the President.

301 7 lh Street SW, Room 5125


Washington, DC 20407
T 202.331.4060 F 202.296.5545
www 9-1 I i-nmmission.tiOV
Page 2

Because it is important for us to proceed with interviews promptly, the


Commission has decided not to prolong this debate on ground rules. We will
accept the presence of an agency representative at our interviews of current
federal employees, subject to the following understandings:

1. Only one agency representative per interview.


2. The agency representative may confer with the witness or discuss
concerns with the Commission's interviewers, but may not correct
or supplement answers by the witness or interfere with the conduct
of the interview.
3. Interviews will be recorded unless the witness objects. Agency
representatives will not urge witnesses to make such objections.
4. If Commissioners or staff conducting an interview believe that the
presence of the agency representative is "chilling" or otherwise
interfering with the interview, he or she may ask the agency
representative to leave or reschedule the interview. The
Commission also reserves the option, which we would expect to
exercise sparingly, of requesting before an interview that the
interview take place without an agency representative. If we do so,
we will provide our reasons for so requesting.

We would appreciate your confirming these understandings in writing.

With best regards,

tow X/ '
Daniel Marcus
ExecutiveTj>irector General Counsel

cc: Alberto R. Gonzales


Counsel to the President

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen