High Court Permits Foster Photos Withheld

NY Post ^ | March 30, 2004 | GINA HOLLAND

[LurkedLongEnough]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the government does not have to release 11-year-old photographs from the suicide of Clinton administration White House lawyer Vincent Foster.

The unanimous decision makes it more difficult to use a public records law to access law enforcement records. Justices said the privacy rights of survivors outweigh the benefits of releasing some photographs.

[weegee]

Next, JFK investigation completed-- he actually committed suicide...

You joke but some have seriously alleged that the driver shot JFK.

We have 2 short films that must do horrible things to the Kennedy family knowing that it has been printed magazines, shown in movies (fictional and non-fiction), etc., that don't have a release from the family.

Even the autopsy photos of JFK have been released.

None of this weighed into the latest bit of Judicial Tyranny.

[weegee]

The nation could survive such a disclosure but the Democrat Party and the liberal media establishment couldn't

[GluteusMax]

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the government does not have to release.....unanimous decision

So much for conservative appointments differing when the chips are down.

[dmz]

So if your spouse committed suicide, you would be totally OK with having the scene photos released to whomever for whatever reasons?

Or does your opinion apply only to those you hold in disfavor?

[weegee]

At this point, a FOIA request must be made. If there is no leagal reason to supress the release (it isn't information that would jeopardize a government investigation/national security), what's the problem?

People can say horrible things about you when you are alive and when you are dead. Does having access to data in an official report allow them to say something even "worse"?

Where are Mrs. Clinton's rights in all of this? People on FR are saying horrible things about her in relation to the Vince Foster suicide.

Those people should be prohibited from saying those things because they harm the reputations of Mrs. Clinton and Vince Foster's corpse, much to the horror of his family and relatives.

[isom35]

there's always a judge or some judges somewhere spoiling all the fun. phooey on you, judges.

[b4its2late]

Ping

[Moonman62]

The Vince Foster cover-up is now sealed and completed. FWIW, I don't think the Clintons had him killed - but it's hard to understand how a man can drive to the park without car keys, walk down a dirt trail without getting the soles of his shoes dirty, and shoot himself without getting blowback on his hand. But who am I to second-guess our omniscient government?

It sounds like you two have a pretty good case even without the photos. I'm guessing that other official investigative information is available even though the photos aren't, right?

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

The stupid crooks go to jail, the smart ones get elected or appointed.

BigMack

[brityank]

... harm the reputations of Mrs. Clinton ...

One cannot retain what one has thrown away for political expediency. Still, good point.

[HarryCaul]

You know, that raises a good question.

Why should a description of the dead body be available? Why should a written autopsy report be available? Why should a diagram of the crime scene showing the position of the body be available?

How are any of those substantially different from a photo? Do they not also violate the privacy rights of the 'family members'? Where does this end, exactly, and why?

This is a bad decision.

[Yaelle]

Blood doesn't run uphill, and you can't walk deep into the woods without any trace of soil on your shoes.

Witnesses saw a neck wound. Now no one else will.

I am assuming the Supremes were focused SOLELY on the right to privacy of the deceased's family. Maybe they have a point in general, but not in this case.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that even members of religions that do not permit autopsies have to submit to one if ordered by a court. Isn't that right? So why couldn't people have privacy of their relative's corpse unless the photo or video would be necessary to solve a crime?

This case was surely also stymied by the prior "investigations" and their "conclusions."

Allan Favish, if you are reading this, you did the best you could and got this to the Supreme Court. Great work! So sorry it turned out this way.

There has to be another way to reopen this case. A more suspicious suicide you wouldn't find.

[mtbopfuyn]

How is the release of the Vince Foster photos ANY different than the release of JFK's morgue photos? If the President of the United States is not shielded from such an "invasion of privacy", then certainly another public official like Vince Foster should be treated equally in life and in death.

Exactly. Going into public service, Foster relinquished his private life and very questionable death. We, the public, have rights to know exactly what happened. It's amazing how all these Arkancide families seem to protect Clinton.

[jeffo]

I will never forget the day I heard on the news that Foster had been found dead, and I was very active in the early discussions on this board. I am firmly convinced that the evidence overwhelmingly points to a coverup of what actually happened. About the only scenario that completely stretches credibility is that he shot himself where he was found. Except for him being found there, there is no compelling reason to suspect he actually killed himself there. The release of these photos could have finally provided us with an answer, one way or the other. This is a judicial tragedy. Any time the Supreme Court has a unanimous decision, the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. Looks like they thought this one was for the good of the country, so they would rather see the guilty go free than a scandal that would likely destroy a political party forever.

The tactic by those running this coverup has never changed... simply drag things out as long as possible and wait until, inevitably, the opposition drops from sheer exhaustion. You have just heard a lot of tired bodies hit the ground, one of them being mine.

Nevertheless, I am convinced that no matter who pulled the trigger, Vince Foster died for the Clinton's sins. But don't look for a blockbuster movie about it any time soon.

[Diogenesis]

We live in a system of feedback and control,
but not as envisioned by the founders of the USA.

21st Century CONTROL OF AMERICA:
Some Democrats now control enough stolen FBI files
to dominate the flow of history and count of votes as they want it
and to conveniently enable their own coverups as well.

[dmz]

Thanks for not answering my exceedingly straightforward question.

If your spouse committed suicide, would you have no problem with those photos being made available to anyone for any reason?

I'm not interested in how you feel about Foster and Clinton, as I already know that. I am asking for you to bring it down to the personal level. Your spouse's brain is splattered all over the family room in your house. How do you feel about those photos being made available?

[OXENinFLA]

Turn on RUSH!

[OXENinFLA]

Turn on RUSH!

[M. Peach]

In this case - the "suicide" was highly suspicious, pointed to the most powerful people in the world, and involved the saftey and security of not only this country but likely the rest of the world.

There is a big difference between the average person and the White House. My answer is "Yes" The public absolutely has the right to know if there is a coverup.

[StriperSniper]

Turn on RUSH!

The Matthews segment, had it on. I've been carrying a portable as I take care of a few things. ;-)