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



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


P. 04

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

DAVID L HAYDEN, COL, USA Staff Judge Advocate

TOTfiL P.04