Originally posted by alfa1
Oh I took the time to read the article, but unlike you I also took the time to read the source of the article - the letter by Gary Stern.
1. The 1171 documents were never part of the November 2013 release, they were always set for 2017 and will be released on that date.
2. The other previous documents have all been released on the previous appointed target dates, or even earlier.
3. The "logistical difficulties" only arose when documents were asked to be released out of the intended order ahead of schedule.
In other words, there is no new postponement of anything at all.
The headline is a sensationalist lie.
edit on 15-6-2012 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)
I read the letter* in response to your supercilious reply.
*: There's a link to the letter at the original linked article
By law, these records are supposed to be released AT LATEST by 2017. That doesn't mean they can't be released earlier, and the 50th anniversary of
the assassination seems like a good time to do so. In fact, these records have already been declassified. It is claimed by the letter writer
(general counsel of the National Archives) that since these records have already been declassified, that they don't fit into the purview of a 2009
Presidential Order to complete a 400 million page backlog of declassifications, and thus claim, for logistical reasons, not to release them until
Well, why not release the 1,171 documents in question in early 2014 then, after the 400-million-page project is mandated to be finished, when they
will have a logistical breather? Why wait until the very last minute when these documents are already declassified, particularly since it would be
timely to release them now. Let's see: 1,171 documents is 0.0003 percent of the backlog. Seems they could make the effort to release them during
this 50th anniversary year of the assassination. It is not that they will disrupt other records to be declassified (which won't even necessarily be
The letter also claims that an assistant archivist previously "misspoke" when he claimed in 2010 that these 1,171 documents would be released as
part of the project to be completed by 2013. So because a government lawyer now claims a bureaucrat misspoke, we are supposed to believe the
lawyer, rather than take the original word of a government official? A government official gave an earlier release date in 2010 and now another
government official claims that was never the case, but rather the release date is actually four years later. That seems like government-speak for a
postponement to me.
In addition, the letter says the release of these JFK assassination documents can be "postponed" until 2017, so they, in fact, are being postponed
in their release. Hence, to claim the title of my post or the original linked article is a lie seems to be a rather mendacious statement itself. And
to claim that they were always scheduled to be released in 2017 is a misinterpretation -- at best -- of the facts of the matter. That date is the
latest they can be released, not their scheduled or intended release date necessarily.