CASE CLOSED … what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks?

Posts Tagged ‘FBI aggressive tactics’

* For 3 years, the FBI has withheld the 302 interview statements which would reveal the aggressive tactics that Dr. Ivins found so upsetting

Posted by DXer on June 6, 2011




The failure to produce records in accordance with FOIA requests is a continuing issue in the aftermath of the FBI investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks and its undocumented, unproven assertion that Dr. Bruce Ivins is the perpetrator.

Why are documents being withheld? What can be done to insist they be released?

Here is an opportunity for investigative journalists to make a real contribution.

  • Make your own requests. 
  • Write stories about the documents being withheld. 
  • Write to the FBI, the DOJ, and any other agency which is stonewalling legitimate requests for information.
Here are some of the many previous posts on the CASE CLOSED blog dealing with failure to produce documents under FOIA.

* FBI failure to produce documents under FOIA: April 19, 2011 FOIA for Ivins’ E-mail to Linscott on Sept 17, 2001, as quoted and relied upon in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary, February 2010

* The DOJ should disclose under FOIA the 2004 article provided by Dr. Bruce Ivins to the FBI regarding silica and Bacillus spore suspensions

* The FBI did not provide the list of attendees at the June 2001 Annapolis International Anthrax Conference pursuant to FOIA even though a Zawahiri infiltrator Rauf Ahmad attended the conferences for Zawahiri in 1999 and 2000.

* Dr. Bruce Ivins’ July 2003 through February 2004 emails will finally be released next week … there is still no satisfactory answer for the extended (unlawful) delays which amount to nothing less than a purposeful withholding of relevant information from the public and from the U.S. Congress … who is responsible for these delays? FBI Director Mueller? Attorney General Holder?

* DXer … the DOJ continues to interfere with lawful production of documents under FOIA

* from DXer … why has the DOJ failed to provide critical cited references under FOIA?

* from DXer … more FOIA materials not produced? a violation of the law? who is responsible for this?

* DXer … Why weren’t all of Dr. Ivins emails provided as required under the Freedom of Information Act?




To refresh your memories, here is what FOIA is about and also the only legal exceptions to providing information as requested. Read the exceptions carefully and see if you can find legal justification for the information willfully being withheld.

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a federal law that allows for the full or partial disclosure of previously unreleased information and documents controlled by the U.S. Government.

see …

Twenty days to respond to requests …

Each agency, upon any request for records made under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection, shall (i) determine within twenty days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with such request and shall immediately notify the person making such request of such determination and the reasons therefor, and of the right of such person to appeal to the head of the agency any adverse determination

Exceptions where information may be legally withheld …

This section does not apply to matters that are–

(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order;

(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;

(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;

(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency;

(6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information (A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, (D) could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, (E) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or (F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual;

(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or

(9) geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 6 Comments »