UUbLLL

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
16OO DEFENSE PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, DC 203O1-16OO

March 16, 2004

Daniel Marcus, Esq.

General Counsel
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
upon the United States
307 7th Street, SW, Room 5125
Washington, DC 20407

Dear Dan:

This letter responds on behalf of the Department of Defense to your letter of

February 20, 2004, concerning After Action Reports. I attach a letter addressed to me
from Colonel David Hayden, the Staff Judge Advocate for NORAD and United States
Northern Command, which provides NORAD's response discussing the matters you
raise.
The scope of the request you quote in your letter is extremely broad: "all
documents that summarize, analyze, evaluate or discuss NORAD's response to the
events of 9/1 1 " This could encompass a massive amount of material that the
Commission clearly does not want, such as articles in various publications of the
Department of Defense including newspapers published at military installations around
the world.

We have therefore, interpreted this request to seek documents that could fairly
be called reports in military parlance. That means a document prepared by a member
of an organization intended for a higher level of command or supervision descnbing
events on September 1 1 and including some form of conclusion or recommendation.
We have listed documents we consider responsive to this request on the index
delivered to you every week with our document deliveries.

I hope this information resolves the issue for the Commission and its staff. If you
have questions, please call me at 703-695-6804.

Stewart F. Aly
Associate Deputy General Counsel
(Legal Counsel)

Atch: As stated

o
 NORTH AMERICAN AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND
AND
UNITED STATES NORTHERN COMMAND
Office of the Staff Judge Advocate

16March2004

t, ;• MEMORANDUM FOR MR STEWART ALY

: '"'' ASSOCIATE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
1600 DEFENSE PENTAGON
\N DC 3030U1600

;! FROM: NORAD-USNORTHCOM/JA
250 VANDENBERG STREET, SUITE B016
PETERSON AFB CO 80914,3809

SUBJECT: 9/11 COMMISSION HEARINGS

1. I have received a copy of the letter from Daniel Marcus, General Counsel for the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States, The purpose of the letter is to
address document production by NORAD in response to thft Commission's request for after- ^
action reviews/reports (AARs) relating to NORAD's response on 9/11. r

2. I note that the request can be fairly read to solicit two different categories of documents.

a. On the one hand, the second paragraph of Mr. Marcus's letter refers to reports from the Air
Force, Navy and NMCC in stating that no "similar report related specifically to NORAD's
performance on 9/11" has been produced. .This implies that the Commission is seeking a single
document that could be described as the NORAD after action zeport on the events of September
11,2001.

b. On the other hand, the email quoted later in that same paragraph states that the Commission
• is "seeking from NORAD ALL documents that could be fairly characterized as an after action
T report" [sic]. This statement and the remainder of the paragraph, imply that there may be many
responsive documents, not just one NORAD report

3. I have conducted a reasonable inquiry into the existence of documents at NORAD that would
be responsive to the requests described in this letter. While NORAD did aot produce what
would be traditionally classified as one final and comprehensive After Action Report, it did
produce a series of after-action reports that document 9/11 lessons learned These documents
have been provided to the Commission.
 H tto ODGCLC P. 04

4. I have prepared this letter on the understanding that it -will be provided to Mr. Marcus
attachment to the Defense Department's reply to hie letter, as an

DAVID L HAYDEN, COL, USA

Staff Judge Advocate

TOTfiL P.04