15 Years Since 9/11

Professors on the declassification of documents detailing Saudi involvement in 9/11 attacks

Kiran Ramsey

After a review of the “28 pages” by  the Office of the Director of National Intelligence approximately three pages worth of redactions remained. No reasons were given in relation to the redaction of information.

By Stacy FernándezSenior Staff Writer

After more than a decade, a classified United States report about the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks was released to the public earlier this year.

The document, known as the “28 pages,” is part of the official report of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, not to be confused with the 9/11 Commission Report. The document summarizes alleged Saudi Arabian ties to the attacks.

The 28 pages are a chapter in the December 2002 Final Report of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Former President George W. Bush classified the pages in 2003, soon after the completion of the report.

William Banks, director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism and a professor of law at Syracuse University, said the reason the pages were kept out of public view for so long is because the Bush administration, and later the Obama administration, didn’t want to complicate the United States’ diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia.

“They’re an important ally in the region for all kinds of reasons,” Banks said. “They were then, they are now.”



The intelligence oversight committees of Congress felt that the pages could have negative repercussions for U.S. national security, said Corri Zoli, INSCT director of research and research assistant professor of political science.

Zoli added that it may have been because the pages aligned or gave negative impressions about some of the U.S.’ key allies in the fight against global terrorism.

The pages, released on July 15, detailed connections between hijackers from the Sept. 11 attack, people who supported them in the U.S., suspected Saudi intelligence operatives and Saudi Arabian government officials and Saudi royals — notably Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then Saudi ambassador to the U.S.

Among the most notable revelations from the pages are: Bandar made payments to an Osama bin Laden supporter; a phone number linked to Bandar  was in the phone book of Abu Zubaydah, an al Qaeda associate; and Zubaydah had the phone number of a bodyguard at  the  Saudi embassy in Washington who was under FBI investigation, according to the “28 pages” website.

Banks said while it’s hard to know without the full details, it is likely that if there was some Saudi involvement, it was probably well in advance of and unrelated to the Sept. 11 attacks.

“Saudis were notoriously unconcerned about terrorism before 9/11,” he said. “It just wasn’t a problem for them.”

However, it’s important to note there was a huge Saudi involvement in terms of the attackers, since 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, said Robert Murrett, Deputy Director of the INSCT and professor of practice in the public administration and international affairs department at SU.

Murrett added that while it should be realized that people from Saudi Arabia were involved, there is not compelling evidence of the Saudi government being engaged with or supporting the hijackers.

The release of the pages may prompt additional investigations on the individuals involved, Banks said, but the Sept. 11 commission didn’t find anything after an exhaustive investigation.

Banks said one possibility now is litigation and lawsuits from survivors and families of victims, with the use of litigation as a way of uncovering facts.

“There are two ways you can release something and not compromise national security, the first is you can black out certain sections of it … the other is the passage of time,” Murrett said.

About three pages worth of redactions remain in the “28 pages” after the document’s declassification.

The declassification of the “28 pages” was performed by the congressional intelligence committees after a declassification review led by  the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. To date, no reasons have been provided as to why certain content has been redacted, according to the website.

Zoli said, “in her humble opinion,” the U.S. has a tendency to overclassify materials, sentiments echoed by Murrett.

“I think withholding any government information is counterproductive … I think anytime the government can release any and all information for the sake of transparency it’s good thing,” Murrett said. “It’s something we strive to do as a nation.”





Top Stories