T2 B7 Team 2 Workplan Fdr- Early Draft- Proposed Panels To Describe Ic Efforts To Monitor Ubl Threat 646

  • Uploaded by: 9/11 Document Archive
  • 0
  • 0
  • April 2020
  • PDF

This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA


Overview

Download & View T2 B7 Team 2 Workplan Fdr- Early Draft- Proposed Panels To Describe Ic Efforts To Monitor Ubl Threat 646 as PDF for free.

More details

  • Words: 410
  • Pages: 2
MEMORANDUM Subject: Proposed Panels to Describe 1C Efforts to Monitor UBL Threat Prio September 11 Panel 1: Resources: Objective is to describe the record of intelligence spending and programmatic decisions during 1991-2001 and the factors behind these trends. The witnesses are selected to describe these decisions from the perspectives of both the Executive branch and Congress, and through both the Clinton and G.W. Bush administrations. Witnesses: ^^_____^_^ 9/11 Closed by Statute oan Dempsey John Hamre \^ Oonold Rumcfeld-or Paul Wolfowj•fe Porter Goss or chief budget officer. HPSCI Bob Graham or chief budgetofficer, SSCI 3 ^-.^ Panel 2: CT fntelligence^TPaTCgy^ ^* Objective is to provide a top level view of how the 1C tried to understand and respond to the UBL threat. The two witnesses represent the two main organizations responsible for monitoring and integrating intelligence about the threat. John McLaughlan (BBCI) —> <J^f *Jb»4. CM ? Maureen Baginski (NSA SIGINT Directorate) Panel 3: CT Collection Objective is to examine how the 1C specifically collected HUMINT, SIGINT, and other source intelligence. Pavitt would be asked to describe how HUMINT was being collected, the types and productivity of HUMINT sources^ s/n closed by statute SIGINT. Allen would provide the cross-discipline perspective. James Pavitt

L

9/11 Closed by Statute

J

Charles Allen (A»CI Collection) Panel 4: CT Analysis Objective is to examine how the 1C became aware of the UBL threat, and how it responded at each phase as the threat developed. CTC and the DI regional offices both conducted analysis, although with different perspectives. Although it is mainly known as

I

9/11 Closed by S t a t u t e

[WJtnCSS

would be asked to describe both the analysis and the level of effort devoted to UBL at different phases, and also the methodologies used and the resources that were at hand. Cofer Black (CTC) Winston Wilev 9/11 Closed by Statute [

J

Panel 5: Alert & Warning I I Objective is to ascertainjTronTTjwhat ascertainVfrom intelligenceVwas'requested, and what intelligence i closed by statute a s being provided. ClarkTand Downing had/tfjeXJ I accountfduring most of the period I I in question and will provide a consumer's perspective. The director of the DI staff ' ' responsible for the limited-distribution version of the SEIB will be able to describe how the 1C responded to day-to-day requests from the White House for intelligence regarding UBL. Richard Clarke \

9/11 Personal

Privacy

Wayne Downing (Power-SEIB director -- TBD -Clinton & Bush administrations)

15

i

«.

Related Documents


More Documents from "9/11 Document Archive"