More secret 9/11 documents identified, FBI still withholding from judge -

[Drew Phipps]

If you said "Brig. Gen. Erle Cocke Jr" and the agency looked up records for "Erle Cocke Jr." then their response might have technically been as accurate as it is disengenuous.

I'm not suggesting that 100% redaction is justified. If a judge has ordered some discovery of the documents, even "en camera," then someone proved to the judge that they have a respectable claim to at least some of the information, and it's up to the judge then to "en camera" balance the different interests involved. If there is some respectable claim to the information its hard to imagine circumstances that properly justify 100% redaction.

[Peter Lemkin]

My sense too, is that the vast bulk of material is kept, as there is confidence that the classification and redacting system will handle all formal requests, and the law for breach of secrets covers everything else.

I filed an FOIA for Brig. General Erle Cocke Jr of the CIA Nugan Hand bank fame. In a deposition he gave shortly before his death from pancreatic cancer, Cocke openly said that he did jobs for the US and regularly got visits from the CIA for debriefs when he returned from abroad.

The CIA in their rejection stated they had never heard of him.

Entirely disbelieve-able and, in my view, simply a "go away and don't come back again" strategy. In their reply, they referenced "Erle Cocke Jr.", and I guess this was purposeful as it was probably filed under his military rank and name.

Oh, the CIA, FBI and Military Agencies are experts at purposefully misfilling, misspelling, or other finding ways of denying FOIA requests based on: not requesting the name they have on the file [though they know exactly who you mean]; their filing based on a nom de guerre; wrong rank; not listing all names and ranks in FOIA - and endless other variants. I was very lucky to get my most important files on someone only because I had an inside 'friend' in some entity that held files. They found files with the exact name I sought; but they had been filed in a folder [and recorded in the general index] under a mis-spelling of the person's name.....the reason the 'others' in this entity said they couldn't find any files responsive to my request. Then there is always the 'do not file file'.....which are kept in a place where no one is allowed to look for files. There is the 'we had a fire in the record storage area' [I officially have one of those...no make that three]...and endless other clever [sic] methods of denying they have anything or will give up any files on your request. I've seen everything except [so far] 'the dog we keep at the agency here ate your files requested'.
Then sometimes [often, in fact] they just say no....with Plumlee, for example - the FBI gave up some of their files on him [many heavily redacted - see post above], but the CIA said they had files 'responsive', but do to 'reasons of National Security' denied them all in full. Yes, you can if you have lots of time and money fight with them in Court....but....

....look at the situation with JFK assassination-related files after 50 years!...and they hope to do the same with the 9-11-01 files and all files on all of their own dirty tricks. ::bowtie::