Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lazamataz; OXENinFLA; Mo1; Howlin; Peach; BeforeISleep; kimmie7; 4integrity; BigSkyFreeper; ...


From the very first paragraph of the DOJ page--

us.doj.gov/04foia:

Like all federal agencies, the Department of Justice (DOJ) generally is required under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to disclose records requested in writing by any person. However, agencies may withhold information pursuant to nine exemptions and three exclusions contained in the statute. The FOIA applies only to federal agencies and does not create a right of access to records held by Congress, the courts, or by state or local government agencies. Each state has its own public access laws that should be consulted for access to state and local records.

Could they mean that Saad doesn't have access to the Congressional file? Would there be a reason that he was somehow exempted from seeing his own file? Something here isn't right.


70 posted on 05/13/2005 6:12:28 AM PDT by SoVaDPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]


To: SoVaDPJ
Could they mean that Saad doesn't have access to the Congressional file?

Sounds like it

74 posted on 05/13/2005 6:16:24 AM PDT by Mo1 (Hey GOP ---- Not one Dime till Republicans grow a Spine !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

To: SoVaDPJ

Thanks for looking that up. And something is very wrong here indeed.


80 posted on 05/13/2005 6:21:20 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

To: SoVaDPJ
The FOIA applies only to federal agencies and does not create a right of access to records held by Congress

SNIP

Could they mean that Saad doesn't have access to the Congressional file?

I would think that a good lawyer could make the case that they are not Congressional files. They are FBI files and were "loaned" to the committee - not to Congress - by the Executive Branch with the understanding that only committee members and the two Senators from the individual's state would have access to them.

92 posted on 05/13/2005 6:35:47 AM PDT by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

To: SoVaDPJ
Could they mean that Saad doesn't have access to the Congressional file? Would there be a reason that he was somehow exempted from seeing his own file? Something here isn't right.

As I recall back in the 90s when the Dems (either Kennedy or that old marxist from Ohio -- can't recall his name now) released Clarence Thomas' FBI file to Nina Totenburg of National Public Radio. The distinction is the so-called "raw file" and any files created as a result of a formal FBI investigation.

A raw file is background information gathered via interviews with people who have known or worked with an individual. It could be anyone from your boss, co-workers, neighbors, old lovers, a high school teacher to the guy you beat up in 3rd grade. None of the information contained in a raw file is varified or placed in context unless the FBI feels that some charge or information gained requires further investigation. The raw file is really nothing but hear-say and is never released. Any follow up investigation (if there is one) becomes an official file that the target does have a right to see.

At least that is my memory of the explanation when Clarence Thomas' raw file was flashed all over the news because dirty Rat tricks.

172 posted on 05/13/2005 8:01:59 AM PDT by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson