White House Letter To 9/11 Commission Saying Commission Cannot Have Notes It Has Taken

THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON

November 19,2003 Daniel Marcus, Esq. General Counsel National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States 2100KStreetN.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 Dear Mr. Marcus: Following up on OUT prior discussions, I have returned under separate cover notes taken by Warren Bass while reviewing certain sensitive documents made available to the Commission in response to EOF Document Request Nos. 2 and 3. As you will see, I have returned, uiiredacted, 88 of the 105 pages of notes. As we have discussed, however, the remaining 17 pages of notes are being retained for Mr. Bass' use, during reasonable business hours, at the secure NEOB reading room, because of the degree to which they deviate from our understanding of the principles for Commission review and handling of EOF documents (memorialized in your letter to me of July 29,2003). Based on his review of a few hundred pages of highly sensitive documents, Mr. Bass produced notes that totaled more than 100 pages and included numerous verbatim quotations. Our primary concern, however, as we have discussed, is that the notes "effectively recreate" several lengthy documents. In many cases, for example, each substantive point of an original document can be mapped to a grammatically-compressed rendition of the same point within the notes, so that, even though the notes consume less space on paper, they effectively recreate substantial portions of the source document. We believe this violates the letter and the spirit of our agreement regarding review of HOP documents. Although many of the notes being returned also, in our view, violate these principles, only those notes most egregiously violating the principles are being retained. Together these redactions reduce the volume of the notes by about 17 pages. Although the remaining notes also effectively recreate many other sensitive documents, or substantial portions thereof, we are providing them to you as an accommodation, recognizing that there may have been a good faith misunderstanding regarding the principles governing the release of notes. All of the original notes, in their unredacted form, will, of course, continue to be available for review by Mr. Bass in the NEOB reading room. The EOF has worked to provide the Commission with unprecedented access to a set of documents of extraordinary sensitivity. As we have previously discussed, a critical part of the arrangements provided for the review of EOF documents is the reasonable application of our understanding regarding the handling of those documents' contents. While we are willing to return Mr. Bass' notes as an accommodation this time, please be advised that in the future we intend to maintain for the Commission's use, at the NEOB reading room — at least absent a particularized showing of need — all notes that effectively recreate documents, or portions

WEi) 18: JO i-AJL

1^1003

thereof, in the manner described above. We believe the most reasonable way to comply with the existing arrangements, and to facilitate the release of notes in the future, is for the Commission to review and analyze documents during visits to the NEOB reading room and request the removal only of those notes sufficient to allow the Commission to complete its work and prepare a report. This approach will help protect the Constitutional interests of the Presidency while enabling the Commission to complete its work in a timely fashion. Sincerely,

lonheim Associate Counsel to the President