. IVD.

icitiii o vvuiKpiau rage i ui u

'i <- t nv brook Tasks Memos Calendar Logout Open Foidt

2.47MB / 476.84MB (0.52%)

INBOX: RE: Team 8 Workpian (3 of 70) S® M 0 ve!Co Py l Thismessa s eto «

Delete | Reply | Reply to All | Forward | Redirect | Blacklist | Message Source | Resume | Save as | Back to INBOX ^
Print ^
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 23:06:57 -0400
From: Philip Zelikow <pzelikow@9-11 commission.gov>^
T°: mkara@9-11commission.gov4J, ckojm@9-11 commission.gov^
GC: dhyde@9-11 commission.gov^, jfarmer@9-11 commission.gov^, dmarcus@9-11 commission.gov^,
'Stephanie Kaplan' <skaplan@9-11commission.gov>4f
Reply-to: pzelikow@9-1 Icommission.gov^f
Subject: RE: Team 8 Workpian
Folks --

There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding about the questions I

listed.

We are obliged to recount the immediate response of the nation's leaders

to the attack. We don't get to pick and choose in describing what they
did. They did the picking and choosing. We have the obligation to
recapture that-

But we do have some choice about the extent to which we analyze those
responses- What are the criteria for our attention? Historical
significance? Likelihood that comparable challenges might be faced
again! perhaps if there is another attack? Contingent character of the
judgments? Our interest in the issue?

Chris offered one useful map to that set of choices. I appreciate

Miles' reluctancen but! perhaps unfortunately:

-- I think we'll discover that all of these decisions were made at the
level of White House principals.

-- The decisions about when to go to NYCi or how/whether to do an

airline bailout! and the linked decision on the victims compensation
fund were described as things presidents do anyway- I think if you look
into the substance of these issues! you may come to a different
conclusion- There are several totally unprecedented features to the
latter two choices! which were linked-

— Incidentally! no one at the time thought these *MD billion plus worth
of nearly instantaneous decisions were a foregone conclusion.

-- The decision to create a White House Office of Homeland Security and

appoint Ridge was not "already in the works and accelerated by T/11-"
Even though there had been a GAO report about it.

-- The assistance in reopening financial markets did indeed involve

White House principals! and was not simply the work of the SECi though
Treasury (Peter Fisher) played a key role-

-- The return of civil aviation was about much more than the reopening
of Reagan National and required the overnight national reversal of
aviation security policies that had seemed sacrosanct for years-
Borders were not closed! but key decisions were made about border and
port security measures-

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?index=180 4/23/03
man .. iiNDvyyv. i\_c,. icam o vvuiKpimi rage z. ui u

-- The NATO AblACS decision is an interesting suggestion* It was an

inspired initiative from Brussels! and especially Ambassador Burns-
-- I also omitted the decision about when! or whether*! the President
should return to PC on 1/11-

— And what decisions might we judge should have been made! or

addressedi but were not?
My main point is that we have a m i n i m u m responsibility with respect to
chronicling these decisions-! unless we limit our scope in time only to
the events on T/11 itself- Our wider responsibility deserves some
serious reflection! and we may wish to engage commissioners in this
process•
Philip

Original Message
From: mkaraaT-llcommission.gov Cmailto.mkaraaT-llcommission.gov}
Sent: Tuesday-, April EB-, EDQ3 3:17 PM
To: ckojmaT-llcommission•gov
Cc: pzelikowaT-llcommission-govi dhydeSll-llcommission.govi
jfarmer3T-llcommission-govi dmarcusSH-llcommission-gov'! 'Stephanie
Kaplan'
Subject: Re: Team fi Uorkplan
I've done some thinking about the list and offer the attached to move
the
conversation forward-

Miles

Quoting ckojmaT-llcommission.gov:

> To All -- I am wondering whether some of these questions are just

plain
> beyond
> our time and ability to address- No one would criticize us for taking

> them oni but I wonder if our effort isn't better focused on central
> questions-
> I see questions 1 through 7 as central- Questions fl-i 12 and 13
(money for
>
> NYCi airline b a i l o u t i compensation funds) are policy questions that I
see
> beyond
> the scope of a mandate that we prudently should pursue-
>
> Questions 10 and 11 are questions-! fundamentally! of policy response!
instead
> of
> emergency response- They don't comfortably fit in any single team's
boxi but
>
> are a mix of Teams 3 and t>! it seems to m e - Ue probably should
decide early
> on
> which team has primary responsibility for looking at the overall
concept of
> OHS
> and then DHS (I would recommend Team b)! understanding that important
parts
> of

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?index=180 4/23/03
mail .. UNDWvY. JSJi. ICeUH O VVUlJVplclli rilgC J Ul U

> it (the INS pieces) are for Team S-

>
> (Suestions 1M a 15 are very important! and I agree with Phil that these
are
> probably best addressed by Team tn with an important role for Team S
on
> question
(detention of M u s l i m males) as w e l l -

> O v e r a l l n I think Team fl's workplan is very goodi and represents a lot
of
> thoughtful work- dy comments on the Team fl workplan would include:
>
> The need for a shorteri crisper list of questions! based on the
Commission ' s
>
> a d v i c e (Hamilton's advice) to staff- Those questions are your take on
their
> 3
> questions: What happened on T/llf What has happened since (on
national
> leadership level emergency response planning)? What are the key
> recommendations
> you would make (at least articulating the lines of debate and key
issues on
> COOP! COGn understanding that we are at risk to make recommendations
at this
>
> stage of the gamen but Commissioners are already thinking about the
end
> product ! ! ) .
>
> National leadership also includes Congressional leadership- We cannot
tell
> the
> story of national-level immediate response without some description of
what
> Congressional leaders did or did not do-
>
> A l s o i I think the reading list needs to be much shorter: what are the
b or fl
>
> items that you b e l i e v e Commissioners absolutely must read to
understand your
>
> team's mission a issues? Those readings should be includedn in
descending
> order of importance! should be readable in E-3 hours (tops)n and
should be
> a v a i l a b l e to Commissioners in your notebook- Maybe this approach has
already
>
> animated the preparation of your notebook but I was unclear on this
> point •
>
> I think the document request list and the interview list is excellent-
>
> -- Chris
>
> Quoting P h i l i p Zelikow <pzel ikowST-llcommission . gov> :
>
> > Dana and M i l e s (and J o h n ) -

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php ?index=l 80 4/23/03

IVliUl .. ll\D^JA.. JVC,. ICillil O VVUlKJJliUl *"agC H Oi U

> > As you revise your team's w c r k p l a n n we agreed that we would try to
> > i d e n t i f y the i m p o r t a n t d e c i s i o n s m a d e in the i m m e d i a t e response to
the
> > a t, t a c k s • P u t t i n g a s i d e the f o r e i q i -i p o l i c y decisions! you could
> > c e r t a i n l y construct a l i s t that i n c l u d e s the f o l l o w i n g crisis
decisions-i
> > all of w h i c h were m a d e between 1 / 11 and ^i/SO-

> > 1. P o s s i b l e m i l i t a r y e n g a g e m e n t of c o m m e r c i a l a i r l i n e r s

> > £ - G r o u n d i n g of a l l c i v i l i a n a i r c r a f t f l y i n g over the United States

> > 3- A c t i v a t i o n of c o n t i n g e n c y plans for emergency operations by the

> > n a t i o n ' s leaders

> > M - C o n d i t i o n s for r e t u r n of c i v i l a v i a t i o n

> > 5 • Border and port security measures

> > b • D e s c r i p t i o n of the attack as an act of war (financial and

domestic
> > i m p l i c a t i o n s ! aside from f o r e i g n p o l i c y )

> > 7. A s s i s t a n c e to r e o p e n U • S • f i n a n c i a l markets

> > fl • The c o m m i t m e n t of $2D b i l l i o n to assist New York City

> > q - W h e n the P r e s i d e n t should go to New York C i t y and what he should

do
> > there

> > 10- Contents of three major addresses to the nation (Sept ll-i the
> > N a t i o n a l Cathedral speech-, and the address to Congress)-

> > 11- C r e a t i o n of a W h i t e House O f f i c e of H o m e l a n d Security and the

> ' d e c i s i o n that Tom R i d g e s h o u l d lead it

> > I d - L e g i s l a t i o n to b a i l out the n a t i o n ' s airlines and cap their

> > liability

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?index=180 4/23/03
man .. liNDW^v. isjs. learn o vvuiKpiau J"«igc j ui u

> > 13- L e g i s l a t i o n to e s t a b l i s h a f e d e r a l compensation fund for v i c t i m s

of
> > t r i e a • : A c t< s . r e s t r i c t i n g ] e q a 1 r i q r> t s of those who r e c e i v e d money
from
> > it- ana s e t t i n g the p o w e r s of the S p e c i a l Plaster

> > 1M • P r e v e n t i v e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and detention of M u s l i m males across

the
> > country T choosing special procedures that i n c l u d e d the transfer of
> > r e l a t e d i m m i g r a t i o n e n f o r c e m e n t d e c i s i o n s from INS to the C r i m i n a l
> > D i v i s i o n of (lain J u s t i c e .

> "• 15. D e v e l o p m e n t of the p r o p o s a l for a USA PATRIOT A c t i i n c l u d i n g

> > a p p a r e n t W h i t e House o v e r r u l e of J u s t i c e ' s proposal to suspend
habeas
> > corpus

> > A g a i r , , a l l of these d e c i s i o n s were made between "Vll and T/5D- They
are
> > t h e r e f o r e c o m p r e h e n d e d in a l m o s t any d e f i n i t i o n of " i m m e d i a t e
response"
> > that goes beyond the e m e r g e n c y measures taken on T/ll itself. If we
> > don't l i k e this list we may therefore wish to narrow our d e f i n i t i o n
of
> > " i m m e d i a t e response." I ' l l w e l c o m e your views on that-

> >
> > Or-, if we accept, t h i s s c o p e , we may d e c i d e that the job of a n a l y z i n g

instance i
> > w i l l p r o b a b l y take on #s IM and IS- As we i m p r o v e this list and as
you
> > redo y o u r w o r k p l an-t p l e a s e c o n s i d e r w h i c h of these decisions you
want to
> > take o n •

> > F u r t h e r - , in some of these c a s e s -i we m i g h t d e f i n e our job as one of

> > r e c a p t u r i n g the scale and b r e a d t h of the decisions our nation's
leaders
> > m a d e in their i m m e d i a t e response! recovering the choices made in the
> > crisis management- U)e c o u l d do this w h i l e deferring to others the
job
> > of w e i g h i n g the l o n g e r - t e r m m e r i t s of some of these choices on
issues
> > l i k e t h e a i r l i n e b a i l o u t o r the v i c t i m s c o m p e n s a t i o n f u n d - You
should
> > t h e r e T o r e a l s o c o n s i d e r 1 w h i c h of these d e c i s i o n s m e r i t serious
policy
> > a n a l y s i s by the Commission.

> > I'd l i k e to get some f e e d b a c k o n t h i s from you on Thursday! as you

> > p r e p a r e the revised w o r k p 1 a n we w i l l c i r c u l a t e next week to
> > c o m rn i s s i o n e r s •

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?index=180 4/23/03
iviau .. . jvc. ictuii o rage u ui

needs another s t a f f e r .

Delete | Reply | Reply to All | Forward | Redirect | Blacklist | Message Source | Resume | Save as | Back to INBOX
Print
llhis message to
Hove | Copy

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?index=180 4/23/03