« WH Visitor Log Update | Main | 19 of 20 Agencies Fail FOIA Timeliness Test - My Take »

September 25, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jim Hogan

It should be noted that the Navy used the aircraft witness statement privilege when invoking Exemption 5 on this information. This privilege, which has been litigated at the Supreme Court, helps to protect the process by which the government obtains very critical safety-related information. As a former military aviator, I recognize the importance of ensuring confidentiality in the aircraft accident investigation process in order to obtain information that, potentially, could save lives. Therefore, the bar for making a discretionary release of privileged information of this type is much higher, I would think, than the bar for the deliberative process privilege. Also, I contend that this is not a case of "the discretionary release policy espoused by the Department of Justice" being "largely ignored" by the Navy. As the Navy clearly states (see Exhibit 9 of the complaint), the discretionary release policy was considered by the appellate authority during the appellate process. To assume that a policy is ignored because the conclusion is not what one thinks it should be is fallacious reasoning.

The comments to this entry are closed.