In Bassiouni v. Central Intelligence Agency, the venerable Judges Easterbrook, Posner and Sykes of the Seventh Circuit deftly smothered a law professor's appeal that arose out of his request for documents from the CIA.

Some Background: In 1983, Mahmoud Cherif Bassiouni, head of DePaul Law School's International Human Rights Law Institute and a frequent participant in human-rights activities, asked the CIA for copies of all documents that mention him. The Agency said that it had documents, but wouldn't provide any additional information (dubbed a "no number, no list response"). In 1999, the prof again tried to get information out of the CIA, but received another "no number, no list response." Bassiouni then brought this action under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act to compel the Agency's disclosure.

The Seventh held that although the professor's request is harmless, the CIA is not required to make further disclosure. Revealing details of its holdings could seriously compromise the intelligence gathering process as well as risk the safety of Agency operatives. Judge Easterbrook likened the CIA's record repository to a Roach Motel: "papers go in but they don't come out."

When faced with a request for information, there are two stances the government may take when it wants to be unhelpful: the "Glomar response" (a refusal to acknowledge that it has responsive documents) and the "no number, no list response". This opinion establishes a new term of art, the "Bassiouni response," which now encapsulates both unhelpful positions, "which are legally identical."