sk b2 commission meeting 12-3-03 fdr- minutes w notes 257

8/14/2019 SK B2 Commission Meeting 12-3-03 Fdr- Minutes w Notes 257

1/8

c

n

N A T I O N A L C O M M I S S I O N O NTERRORI ST A TTACKS O N T H E UNI TED STATES

Minutes of the December 8,2003 MeetingThe Chair called the Commission to order at 4:45 PM on December 8, 200 . The Chair,Vice Chair, Commissioners Ben-Veniste, Fielding, Gorelick, Gorton, Lehman, Roemer,an d Thompson were in attendance.Minutes. The Chair asked for approval of the minutes of the November 6-7th andNovember 19th meetings. Commissioner Ben-Veniste suggested se/eral changes to theNovember 19th minutes, stating, as he had done at previous meetings, his strong view thatthe Chair should schedule more time for Commission meetings, as some agenda items arecovered in haste an d others are deferred because of insufficient lame for consideration.Upon agreement with Commissioner Ben-Veniste's changes, t j f i e Minutes were approved.Interview Guidelines and Possible Extension. The Chair (jpened discussion on theinterview guidelines topic and a wider discussion ensued. (Commissioner Ben-Venistenoted his surprise at the Chair andVice Chair's statement/o the press that theCommission believes it can meet its deadline, when that very question was a topic fordiscussion at the meeting. He also noted his strong surprise at the Guidelines onInterviews. He had not seen them before and stated hi/strong opposition to them.Commissioner Roemer added that he wanted to be oA the record against the Guidelines,an d believed that the Commission needed to respond strongly and immediately to theletter from White House Assistant Counsel Monh^im. He also stated his strong supportfor an extension. He noted that the original time/envisioned for the Commission was 24months, an d that the Commission needs to set ij K standard as one of doing not a good jobbut an excellent one. In his view this requires/24 months. He noted that staff says theycan get the job done, but they vary in their estimates of the quality of the job they can do.He believes the Commission should be on record seeking an extension.Commissioner Gorelick noted examples/of how time constraints are impinging on theCommission's work. First, because offline constraints, the Commission proposes tointerview former Attorney General R d n o and former FBI Director Freeh beforeinterviewing former FBI Deputy Director 'Bear' Bryant and Steve Colgate. In her view,this is backwards, and the Commission will not be able to ask Reno andFreeh all thequestions that need to be asked. /Second, she noted matureview of the PDBs will likelyrequire several rounds of negotiations with the White House. This will tjlo, a lo t of lime. *Commissioner Gorelickffiso observecTthatVf an y outside obselocshe did not intend to be critical ofstaffffeey die duing tinimprcooivc:

.A ,f stafffafe.jeL\

e""shocked. S he stated thatbesl they

C O M M I S S I O N SENSITIVEFO R OFFICIALU S E ONLY

The Vice Chair observed that he had met with seven of the nine teams, and that he beganeach discussion with the question: Can you get the job done inVime? Every answer he / /


2/8

COMMISSION SENSITIVEFO R OFFICIAL USE ONLYhas received was in the affirmative. Commissioner Gorelick said that she saw noinconsistency: the gap is between what the staff believes it needs to do andCommissioners' own judgment about what they need to do. Commissioner Ben-Venistesaid that the staff defer to the Executive Director; the Executive Director noted that hewas not present at any of the meetings the Vice Chair mentioned.Commissioner Ben-Veniste asked for greater detail on the hearing proposal: Who is totestify, what is the list of witnesses, who can tell the story? He also stated his concern asto whether investigative work will be done or reviewed properly, because Commissionersdid not have enough time to do their job. TheVice Chair agreed that the Commissionneeds to have more dates set aside for meetings in April and May.Th e Chair observed that time is always a hard judgment. You can always use more of it.Would the report be better with two additional months? Yes. Four additional months?Yes. But some deadline must alwaysbe chosen.Commissioner Gorton asked several questions that need to be considered with respect toan extension. What is the view of the staff? Will the staff be around an additional sixmonths? At what point will the Commission's recommendations have the most impact?Commissioner Gorton noted that, for himself, this argued for a December 31, 2004deadline, making recommendations to a new administration. The staff may be ready inMay, but when will the Commissioners be ready to issue a report? hi his view, theFamily Steering Committee and the public generally believe the Commission needs moretime. Commissioner Gorton also commented, as several Commissioners did, that theCommission can only recommend: Congress and the President will decide. Balancingthese several factors, Commissioner Gorton gave greater weight to requesting aDecember 31st extension.Commissioner Gorton mentioned that he found the Monheim letter insulting. It was hisview that the Commission should invite White House witnesses to testify. Either theycome, or they do not. What we ask those witnesses, and how much time we require, isour business, not their business. He concluded that the Commission should accept noneof the conditions the White House is seeking to impose.The Chair offered his impressions on the timing question, noting that there is dead timeafter the primaries and before the Conventions, and the Commission has the opportunityto influence the platforms of both political parties. Commissioner Lehman agreed. Heworked with Senators Jackson and Tower on a "Defense Recovery Act" in the summer of1980, and the ideas were adopted 100% by the Republicans and 90% by the Democrats attheir party conventions.Commissioner Ben-Veniste observed that the Commission under the current scheduledoes not have time for follow-ups, and that the Commission will not have the time to getthings right unless it gets things right the first time. He observed that the Commissionwill be carrying out three full-time tasks at onceconducting interviews, conductinghearings, and writing a report.

COMMISSION SENSITIVE 2FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY


3/8

COMMISSION SENSITIVEFO R OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Commissioner Fielding noted that if we seek an extension, it should be because webelieve we need an extension to be credible. The downside, he noted, is that the reportwill be forever blemished if the Commission publicly argues for an extension and doesnot receive one.The Executive Director commented that he can argue deadlines round or flat. Thepolitics, in his judgment, is a washand that is ajudgment for Commissioners anyway.He noted that deadlines are always arbitrary and restraining that there is never enoughtime. Staff have said it is very hard to meet the deadline, but they will do it. But manystaff cannot stay past the summer. Moreover, when would we know that we get extratime? It may not be until April, when it is already too late. He observed that the stafffeels the same way as Commissioners do: they are committed to excellence. In responseto Commissioner Ben-Veniste's comment that the staff has only one chance to "get itright," the Executive Director observed that staff have rescheduled interviews and calledback officials for second and third interviews as needed. He noted that the staff is opento ideas from Commissioners about sequencing of interviews and how work can be donebetter; staff will do their very best to meet Commissioner expectations.The General Counsel observed that the schedule is tight and difficult. Under othercircumstances he would have argued for an extension, but he noted the Commission'sdilemma: If it cannot be known until March or April whether the Commission will get anextension, it is not much help to the staff. The Commission has no choice but to act formost of its scheduled life as if there is no extension.Commissioner Ben-Veniste observed that, setting all politics aside, the Commissionneeds more time for factual work and sufficient time for the Commissioners to read,digest, and discuss matters collegially. Even if the work gets done, there will still need tobe time for Commissioners' mid-course and end-course corrections.Th e Chair observed that he and the Vice Chair have stated publicly that the Commissioncan meet its deadline because of their desire to keep staff focused on the goal and to showthe world that the Commission is working hard. That said, the Chair asked whether itwould be possible to have a quiet conversation on the possibility of an extension.Commissioner Gorton observed that such conversations would be in the Post the nextday; Commissioner Roemer observed that publicity alone would not defeat the need orinterest of the Commission in making such an inquiry.Th e Executive Director outlined a plan for engaging Commissioners' advice and input inthe final report. The plan is to get draft monographs to Commissioners early enough sothat they can provide comment and direction; drafts would be presented toCommissioners in beginning in January and ending in April. A second round ofdiscussions on key policy issues would follow in April; a draft report would be circulatedto Commissioners in May. hi other words, all Commissioners would have three bites atthe apple with respect to each team's draft conclusions and recommendations.

COMMISSION SENSITIVEFOR OFFICIALUSE ONLY


4/8

COMMISSION SENSITIVEFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYCommissioner Thompson stated his belief that the odds of getting an extension are slim.There will be no overt rejection of the C omm ission's request; the proposal will just dieon the vine. Unless the Commission is prepared to extend to the end of 2004, and iswilling to fight to get such an extension, the effort is not worth making, in his judgment.The Vice Chair stated that all Comm issioners grapple with the question: Wh at is the bestway we can fulfill our mandate? Each Commissioner has to be able to answer, forhimself or herself, "w e have met our mandate, or done all that we can to meet it." Heobserved that, as best he is aware, there is no possibility of a free-standing bill for anextension of the Commission. He said that he and the C hair had discussed this question,and that they would be guided by the w ill of the Commission. If directed, he and theChair would be willing to speak to the Senate and Ho use leadership and seek m ore time.Commissioner Roemer advocated a six-month extension. Politics will make it verydifficult to accomplish anything in 2004, he noted; therefore a December 2004 launchfrom his viewpoint was far preferable. Com missioner Ben-Veniste thought it useful toask for what the Comm ission truly needsanother two monthsand then let the politicssort out the actual date. The Chair stated that he and the Vice Chair would make suchqueries as the Commission directs, and that he is also concerned about the ability of staffto make the deadline. Commissioner Gorelick, responding to Commissioner Thompson'searlier comment, thought the best approach to take in such conversations is: "we can. it, focna and get it donebut we would do a better job if we had more time."Commissioner Gorton stated that the conversation had been constructive, and that hecontinues to believe December 31, 2004 is a better deadline. He approved o f quietinquiries by the Chair and Vice Chair to seek an extension. He also stated that he thoughtthe Com mission could take up to two additional months in the absence of legislativeaction; the Commission, after all, is scheduled to exist for two more months after theformal reporting deadline of May 27th. He recommended that the Commission (1) holdinformal talks with Congress and the White House about an additional 2 months tocomplete its work; (2) keep in mind that the Commission can take 2 more monthsanyway; and (3) write back to the White House and insist on more flexibility in theconduct of its interviews, that the Commission cannot accept limits on time, number ofstaff, or limits on questioning at interviews through a pre-screening process. A consensusagreed on points one and two. ( fc "Interview Guidelines Rejected. Commissioners Gorelick and Roemer agree/d withCommissioner Gorton in his proposed response to tlreM onhe im letter, and stronglyrejected guidelines with respect to pre-meetings. Cornmissioner Gorelick stated that itwas prudent to meet before an interview, but she rejected an agreement in writing, as it-Commisl InoV if th had accepted White H to-taitooimyl jq-uestiona. She otatod that such an agreement dw not comport with the independence ofthe Comm ission. Commissioners Ben-Veniste and Roemer stated similar objections.The G eneral Counsel took issue with Com missioner Roemer's remarks. He noted thatthe Joint Inquiry did not get a single White House interview, and its approach should not

COMMISSION SENSITIVEFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

.


5/8

J ^ SENSITIVEFO R OFFICIAL USE ONLY >Cbe the model for theyCommission. The Chair interceded, noting differences in perceptionasWell asreality. HnQtnfnH tVi-it hnththp Oftnpral rVmngpl ^nd rntnrnipci'nnarB rara rightHe stated that he understood and endorsed what the Gene/al Counsel was doing to elicitinformation, but heialoo undorotood that Commissionersground this particular piece uf ~

-^apex on interview guidelineshighly" objectionable.Commissioner Gorton agreed with Commissioner Gorelick's earlier observation: do wh atyou have to do to make the interview process work but this particular piece of paper oninterview guidelines is shocking and must be rejected formally.The Executive Director said that the views of Commissioners were coming through loudand clear. The staff had never agreed with the Monheim letter on White Houseinterviews that commissioners found so objectionable. The Interview Guidelines forother agencies had been agreed to only 'ad referendum,' and he believed staff had nowbeen instructed by the Commission to repudiate that agreement. The staff wouldtherefore prepare appropriate letters both to the W hite House, on the one hand, an d toDan Levin as the representative of the executive departments.Oaths. Discussion turned to topic of sworn testimony. Reflecting upon previousCommission discussion, the General Counsel recommended that all public witnesses besworn in before they testify, and that if White House witnesses choose not to be sworn in,the Comm ission should allow them to testify and direct all questions about unwillingnessto testify under oath to the witnesses and to the W hite House. Comm issioner Ben-Veniste observed that if witnesses refused to be sworn in, so be it and they will have toexplain. Comm issioner Gorelick agreed that Wh ite House witnesses\would stick out in_^aa unfavorable manner if they refused lu be under 6ath, but the decision was theirs toA consensus agreed on this approach.The General Counsel explained further that only a few of the 760 interviews conductedby staff have been under oath. Staff policy has been to conduct interviews under oath incases where essential facts are in dispute or where there are doubts ^bout the veracity of awitness. Comm issioners expressed no objections to this policy.Adjournment. The Commission adjourned at 6:55 PM.

L

COMMISSION SENSITIVEFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY


6/8

N A T I O N A L C O M M I S S I O N O NT E RRORIST AT T AC KS O N T H E UN ITED STATESMinutes of th e December 8,2003 Meeting

The C hair called the Commission to order at 4:45 PM on December 8, 2003. TheChair;Vice C hair, C omm issioners Ben-Veniste, Fielding, Gorelick, Gorton, Lehman, R oemer,and Thompson were in attendance.Minutes. T he C hair asked for approval of the minutes of the N ovember 6-7th andNovember 19 th meetings. C omm issioner Ben-V eniste suggested several changes to theNovember 19 th minutes, stating, as he had done at previous meetings, his strong view thatthe C hair should schedule m ore time for C omm ission meetings, as some agenda items arecovered in haste andothers


7/8

COMMISSION SENSITIVEFOR OFFICIAL U SE ONLYhas received was in the affirmative. Com m issioner Gorelick said that she saw noinconsistency: the gap is between w hat the staff believes it needs to do andCom m issioners' own judgm ent about what they need to do. Com m issioner Ben-Venistesaid that the staff defer to the Executive Director; the Executive Director noted that hewas not present at any of the m eetings the Vice C hair men tioned.Com m issioner Ben -Veniste asked for greater detail on the hearing proposal: Who is totestify, wh at is the list of witnesses, who can tell the story? He also stated his concern asto whether investigative work w ill be done or reviewed properly, because Com m issionersdid not have enough tim e to do their job. The Vice Chair agreed that the C om m issionneeds to have m ore dates set aside for meetings in April and May.The C hair observed that tim e is always a hard judgm ent. You can always use m ore of it.Would the report be better with two additional months? Yes. Four additional months?Yes. But som e deadline m ust always be chosen.Com m issioner Gorton asked several questions that need to be considered with respect toan extension. What is the view of the staff? Will the staff be around an additional sixmonths? At what point w ill the Commission's recommendations have the most impact?Commissioner Gorton noted that, for him self, this argued for a December 31 , 2004deadline, m aking recomm endations to a new administration. The staff may be ready inMay, but when will the Com m issioners be ready to issue a report? In his view, theFamily Steering Comm ittee and the public generally believe the Com m ission needs moretim e. Com m issioner Gorton also comm ented, as several Comm issioners did, that theCom m ission can only recom m end: Congress and the President will decide. Balancingthese several factors, Commissioner Gorton gave greater weight to requesting aDecember 31st extension.Commissioner Gorton mentioned that he found the Monheim letter insulting. It was hisview that the Com m ission sho uld invite White House witnesses to testify. Either theycome, or they do not. What we ask those witnesses, and how much time we require, isour business, not their business. He concluded that the Com m ission should accept noneof the cond itions the Wh ite House is seeking to impose.The Chair offered his im pressions on the tim ing question, noting that there is dead tim eafter the primaries andbefore the Conventions, and the Commission has the opportunityto influence the platforms of both political parties. Com m issioner Lehm an agreed. Heworked with Senators Jackson and Tower on a "Defense Recovery Act" in the summer of1980, and the ideas were adopted 100% by the Republicans and 90% by the Democrats attheir party conventions.Com m issioner Ben-Veniste observed that the Com m ission under the current scheduledoes no t have tim e for follow-ups, and that the Com m ission will no t have the time to getthings right unless it gets things right the first time. He observed that the C om m issionwill be carrying out three full-time tasks at onceconducting interviews, conductinghearings, and writing a report.

COMMISSION SENSITIVE 2FO R OFFICIAL USE ONLY


8/8

COMMISSION SENSITIVEFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYCom missioner Th omp son stated his belief that the odds of getting/^h extension are slim.There will be no overt rejection of the Commission's request; the proposal will just dieon the vine. Unless the Commission is prepared to extend to/me end of 2004, and iswilling to fight to get such an extension, the effort is not wpfth making, in his judgment.The Vice Chair stated that all Commissioners grapple v/ith the question: W hat is the bestway we can fulfill our mandate? Each Commissione/has to be able to answer, forhimself or herself, "we have met our mandate, or ddne all that we can to meet it." Heobserved that, as best he is aware, there is no possibility of a free-standing bill for anextension of the Commission. He said that he a s ( d the Chair had discussed this question,and that they would be guided by the will of the Com mission. If directed, he and theChair would be willing to speak to the Senate; an d House leadership an d seek more time.Com missioner Ro emer advocated a six-month extension. Politics will mak e it verydifficult to accomplish anything in 2004Ae noted; therefore a December 2004 launchfrom his viewpoint was far preferable. /Commissioner Ben-Veniste thought it useful toask for what the Com mission truly neeusanother two monthsand then let the politics

. that he and the Vice Chair would make suchid that he is also concerned about the ability of staffGorelick, responding to Commissioner Thompson'sDroach to take in such conversations is: "we can dodo a better job if we had m ore time."

sort out the actual date. The Chair stqueries as the Commission directs,to make the deadline. Commission^earlier comment, thought the best;it, focus and get it done but w e 'Commissioner Gorton stated that/the conversation had been constructive, and that hecontinues to believe December 3 f l , 2004 is a better deadline. He approved of quietir to seek an extension. He also stated that he thoughttwo additional m onths in the absence o f legislative

, is scheduled to exist for two more months after theay 27th. He recommended that the Commission (1) holdthe White House about an additional 2 months tolind that the Commission can take 2 more monthsanyw ay; and (3) write back to the White House and insist on m ore flexibility in theconduct of its interviews, that the Commission cannot accept limits on time, number ofstaff, or limits on questioning at interviews through a pre-screening process. A consagreed on points one and two.

inquiries by the C hair and Vice;the Commission could take upaction; the Commission, after;formal reporting deadline o f]informal talks with Congresscomplete its work; (2) keep in:

M,Interview Guidelines Rejected. Commissioners Gorelick and Roemer agreed withCommissioner Gorton in his proposed response to the Monheim letter, and stronglyf p j p ! f . t p i f ) ffin'r)p1iri?swith respect to pre-meetingSACommissioner Gorelick stated that iti . I - - * /was prudent to meet before an interview, but she rejected an agreement in writing, as itwould look as if the C omm ission had accepted an attempt by the Wh ite House to tailor itsquestions. She stated that such an agreement did not comport with the independence ofthe Com mission. Com missioners Ben-Veniste and Roem er stated similar objections .The General Counsel took issue with Commissioner Roemer's remarks. He noted thatthe Joint Inquiry did not get a single W hite Housf, interview, and its approach should no t

, r - -COMMISSION SENSITIVEFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

\~-.tt

sk b2 commission meeting 12-3-03 fdr- minutes w notes 257

Documents