Email from Waldo Brooks to Todd F. Buchwald, Curtis A. Bradley and Others re: Proposed Response to Patton Boggs Lawyers

A Proposed response to Patton Boggs lawyers attachment (not included).

Doc_type: 
Email
Doc_date: 
Friday, April 30, 2004
Doc_rel_date: 
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Doc_text: 

United States Department of State
Washington, D.C. 20520
t4e, ,::111111111111k_,,,:/
Case No. 200303827
Segment L0026

DEC 2 2 2004
Mr. Amrit Singh

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor

New York, NY 10004-2400

Dear Mr. Singh:

I refer to our previous correspondence regarding the release
of certain Department of State material you had requested
under the Freedom of Information Act (Title 5 USC Section
552) in your letters of October 7, 2003 and May 25, 2004.

We have retrieved 36 additional documents from the Office of
the Legal Adviser that appear responsive to your request,
and have grouped them as Segment L0026. After reviewing
these documents, we have determined five may be released
with excisions and 19 must be withheld in full. All
released material is enclosed. Twelve documents originated
with other government agencies and have been referred to
those agencies for review and direct reply to you.

Material in the excised portions of one of the documents
released in part and in nine of the documents withheld in
full is currently and properly classified under Executive
Order 12958 in the interest of national defense or foreign
relations. As such, it is exempt from release under
subsection (b)(1) of the Freedom of Information Act.

Material in the excised portions of one of the documents
released in part and in one of the documents withheld in
full is specifically exempted from disclosure by statute, to
wit, the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 (Title 50
USC Section 403g). As such, it is exempt from release under
subsection (b)(3) of the Freedom of Information Act.

Information in 11 of the documents withheld in full is exempt
from release under subsection (b)(5) of the Freedom of
Information Act because it is protected by the deliberative
process privilege, attorney client privilege, attorney work

product privilege, and/or another privilege incorporated by
subsection (b)(5).

Material in the excised portions of four of the documents
released in part and in one of the documents withheld in
full is of such a nature that its release would constitute a
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As such,
it is exempt from release under subsection (b)(6) of the
Freedom of Information Act.

Material in the excised portions of five of the documents
released in part and in two of the documents withheld in
full is information compiled for law enforcement purposes
which, if produced, could reasonably be expected to

interfere with enforcement proceedings. As such, it is
exempt from release under subsection (b)(7)(A) of the

Freedom of Information Act.

Material in the excised portions of five of the documents
released in part and in two of the documents withheld in

full is information compiled for law enforcement purposes
which, if produced, could reasonably be expected to
constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As
such, it is exempt from release under subsection (b)(7)(C)
of the Freedom of Information Act.

In some cases, two or more exemptions may apply to the same
document. In the case of a document released in part, all
non-exempt material that is reasonably segregable from the
exempt material has been released.

The search of the other files has been completed, and we
will let you know as the review of the various segments has
been accomplished.

Margaret P. Grafeld

Director

Office of Information Programs

and Services

Enclosures:
As stated.

Doc_nid: 
6304
Doc_type_num: 
67