CIA, Pentagon Fight To Keep Osama Bin Laden Death Photos Secret

CIA, Pentagon fight to keep Osama bin Laden death photos secret

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshge...os_secret.html

9/27/2011

Photos and videos of Al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden after he was killed in May in a U.S. military/Central Intelligence Agency raid in Pakistan should not be released publicly because they would reveal military and intelligence secrets and could lead to violence against U.S. personnel, the Obama administration argued in papers filed in federal court in Washington late Monday night.

The new filings from the Justice Department provide scant details about the imagery, but CIA National Clandestine Service Director John Bennett wrote that the CIA has "52 unique....photographs and/or videorecordings" depicting bin Laden during or after the May operation. Bennett did not break down the tally further, but said all the imagery is classified "TOP SECRET," meaning that disclosure of the material could lead to "exceptionally grave damage" to U.S. national security.

"All of the responsive records are the product of a highly sensitive, overseas operation that was conducted under the direction of the CIA," Bennett wrote, arguing that disclosure of the information would reveal "intelligence activities and/or methods." He called the photos "gruesome," and said they depict the gunshot wound to bin Laden's head. It is unclear whether his descriptions referred to all the images and videos, or just some of them.

The motion for summary judgment and supporting declarations ask U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg to rule for the government in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought in May by Judicial Watch. The conservative watchdog group sued the Defense Department after it failed to comply with the group's request for the bin Laden imagery. The suit was broadened in June to name the CIA as a defendant.

While the Justice Department's motion is backed by declarations from high ranking officials at the Pentagon and CIA, the government lawyers make clear that their marching orders come from the top. Near its outset, the brief quotes President Barack Obama's comments on the issue during a "60 Minutes" interview in May.

"It is important for us to make sure that very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence. As a propaganda tool. You know, that’s not who we are. You know, we don’t trot out this stuff as trophies," Obama said. "We don’t need to spike the football."

The brief includes Obama's claim that then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and intelligence officials "all" agreed that releasing the images would "create some national security risk." The legal papers do not mention that before Obama made the decision to keep the images secret, then-CIA director Leon Panetta said there was no "question that ultimately a photograph would be presented to the public." (Panetta has since become defense secretary.)

The government's filings Monday were also accompanied by a declaration from Admiral William McRaven, who heads the U.S. Special Operations Command and commands the Navy SEALs who carried out the bin Laden raid. McRaven argues that release of the imagery "could reasonably be expected to...make the special operations unit that participated in this operation and its members more readily identifiable in the future." Portions of McRaven's arguments were classified and filed under seal.

In another declaration, the head of operations for the military's joint staff, Lt. Gen. Robert Neller, argued that release of the bin Laden death imagery could lead to violence against U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan, Afghan civilians and police, Afghans working with the U.S., and U.S. citizens worldwide. Neller also said releasing the images could "aid the recruitment efforts...of insurgent elements" in Afghanistan, "weaken the new Democratic government of Afghanistan, and add extremist pressures on several of our regional allies."

The legal fight over the bin Laden photos has produced some disagreement among FOIA experts. Some expect the government to prevail in the case without much difficulty because courts are traditionally very deferential to the executive branch in litigation involving national security, particularly FOIA cases. However, a few FOIA specialists have said aspects of the government's arguments against disclosure is weaker than in other cases, chiefly because of reliance on the harms that stem in essence from the public relations impact the imagery could have.

Judicial Watch was not the only organization to request the photos and video. Several news organizations, including the Associated Press and POLITICO, also did so.

The government's new filings appear to offer some openings for attack on the part of those pressing for disclosure.

First, while the arguments for withholding imagery from the raid and its immediate aftermath are legally strong, those for withholding the images of bin Laden's burial seem substantially weaker. It's hard to see how that event implicates any national security secrets. Second, the CIA's claim that none of the images or videos can be released even in part seems conclusory. A heavily-edited video of bin Laden's burial, for example, might or might not not be very interesting, but for that same reason it seems less likely to produce the negative consequences the government warns about.

The government filings claim that the Defense Department found no imagery responsive to the requests. Sources previously told POLITICO that at least some of the images were on a secure, classified interagency network accessible to individuals at various agencies. The new court filings don't make clear who took the photos and video. If they were in posession of military personnel at the time the FOIA requests were made or thereafter, some of the arguments for disclosure could be strengthened. However, it's also possible that the courts may accept that the entire operation is an intelligence activity that the CIA is entitled to keep secret or disclose as it sees fit.

Judicial Watch is scheduled to respond to the government's filings by October 24. Boasberg, an Obama appointee confirmed to the district court in March of this year, is unlikely to rule before December.

For those who want to dive further into the details: the government's motion is posted here, Bennett's declaration is posted here, McRaven's redacted declaration is posted here, and Neller's is here.

Military e-mails: Burial at sea of bin Laden followed Islamic procedures

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/11/21/us...html?hpt=hp_t3

By the CNN Wire Staff
November 23, 2012 -- Updated 0222 GMT (1022 HKT)

(CNN) -- The burial at sea of Osama bin Laden after he was killed by Navy SEALs last year followed traditional Islamic procedures, according to newly released military e-mails, but less than a dozen "leadership" members aboard the Navy carrier where the service took place were informed of the burial.

"Any sailors watch the burial?" a Navy commander asked the public affairs officer on the USS Carl Vinson in a May 3, 2011, e-mail. The Carl Vinson was the carrier where the SEALs took bin Laden's body by helicopter after he was killed during the May 2, 2011, raid at his compound in Pakistan.

"Only a small group of the leadership was informed -- less than a dozen," the public affairs officer replied. Another e-mail stated, "Burial No Sailors Watched."

Ten heavily redacted e-mails were released by the Department of Defense in response to a Freedom of Information lawsuit initially filed by the watchdog group Judicial Watch.

In communications between high-ranking officers, the e-mails describe Islamic burial procedures being carried out with no fanfare, apparently with few of the officers and enlisted personnel aboard the huge carrier aware of what was going on aboard their ship.

"Traditional procedures for Islamic burial was followed," said one e-mail, adding, "The deceased's body was washed (ablution) then placed in a white sheet. The body was placed in a weighted bag. a military officer read prepared religious remarks, which were translated into Arabic by a native speaker. After the words were complete, the body was placed on a prepared flat board, tipped up, whereupon the deceased's body slid into the sea."

The e-mail detailing the burial account was sent on May 2, 2011, and addressed to former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen.

Naval officers used code words in some of the e-mails exchanged shortly after the raid was completed, with an exchange between two admirals including, "FEDEX delivered the package. Both trucks are safely enroute home base."

Pictures of Osama bin Laden’s corpse to remain secret, judges say

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsop...laden.html.csp

Published on May 28, 2013 03:44PM

If you find pictures purporting to be those of Osama bin Laden’s body after he was killed by U.S. Navy SEALs, they’re most likely frauds.

The government is not letting anyone in the public see them.

A three-judge panel of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that the government was justified in denying Freedom of Information Act requests for the photos and videos taken after the raid, including bin Laden’s burial at sea, because it would endanger national security. The court found that the Defense Department and the CIA properly classified the documents as private.

"This is not a case in which the declarants are making predictions about the consequences of releasing any images," the court wrote. "Rather, they are predicting the consequences of releasing an extraordinary set of images, ones that depict American military personnel burying the founder and leader of [al-Qauida]."

Judicial Watch, a government watchdog group, requested the pictures shortly after President Barrack Obama announced that commandos killed bin Laden in his Abbottabad, Pakistan, hideout, ending a manhunt that stretched out almost 10 years. The group sought the pictures and videos in order to complete the public record of the demise of the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.

But the court accepted the government’s position that releasing the photos and videos would enflame al-Qaida and other extremists, possibly putting Americans at risk. It noted the effect Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad, the founder of Islam, had on radicals. The government also warned that releasing the images used to identify bin Laden through facial-recognition software could reveal intelligence sources or methods.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton denounced the decision as "craven" and said the group is weighing its next legal steps.

"The courts need to stop rubber-stamping this administration’s improper secrecy," Fitton said. "There is no provision in the Freedom of Information Act that allows documents to be kept secret because their release might offend our terrorist enemies."

h/t to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Appellate court rules Osama bin Laden death photos can be withheld under FOIA

http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law...-be-withheld-u

Aaron Mackey | Freedom of Information | News | May 22, 2013

Photographs and video taken as part of the U.S. military raid that killed Osama bin Laden were properly withheld under the federal Freedom of Information Act because their disclosure could incite violence against American interests abroad, a federal appellate court ruled Tuesday.

The unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Defense that the CIA properly classified the images and that they were therefore exempt from disclosure under FOIA’s national security exemption.

Intense media and public interest in the raid fueled other attempts to obtain the photographs, though Judicial Watch was the first organization to bring a lawsuit seeking the records' disclosure.

In ruling that the government did not have to disclose the records, the court agreed with CIA and military intelligence officials who argued that releasing images of the former al Qaeda leader could harm national security interests by, among other things, encouraging retaliatory attacks or aiding in terrorist recruitment efforts.

Under FOIA’s national security exemption, government officials must show that there is a plausible belief that the release of particular documents would harm national security or foreign policy interests. In this case, the court agreed with forecasts by intelligence officials that the images, some of which were described as gruesome and graphic, would be particularly provocative to the United States’ enemies.

“[T]his is not a case in which the declarants are making predictions about the consequences of releasing any images,” the court wrote. “Rather, they are predicting the consequences of releasing an extraordinary set of images, ones that depict American military personnel burying the founder and leader of al Qaeda.”

The images, the court said, could be just as disturbing as other news events that have triggered foreign acrimony, such as the publication of Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

The court also agreed with agency officials that it could withhold other photos that may not be as graphic, such as those that depict the preparation of bin Laden's body for burial, but still could jeopardize national security. In particular, the court ruled that certain photos could be used to identify U.S. military personnel, which could put those individuals and their families in danger.

Even releasing images of bin Laden's face that were used as part of a facial recognition program could tip enemies off about particular CIA intelligence sources or methods, the court ruled.

The ruling upholds a federal trial court’s decision last year to withhold the records from Judicial Watch, which requested the documents shortly after President Obama announced in May 2011 that military forces had killed bin Laden during a raid on a complex in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

In a statement, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton called the ruling "craven" and said that the court was allowing terrorists to dictate whether people could access government records. He also called on federal courts to seriously challenge classification decisions made by the Executive Branch.

“The courts need to stop rubberstamping this administration’s improper secrecy,” Fitton said. “There is no provision in the Freedom of Information Act that allows documents to be kept secret because their release might offend our terrorist enemies.”

Attorneys for the organization are considering what to do next.

In addition to arguing that intelligence officials concerns about releasing the images were too speculative, Judicial Watch also argued that the CIA failed to follow proper procedures when it initially classified the images.

Although the appellate court agreed that there were unanswered questions regarding whether the classification process, which is governed by Executive Order, was strictly followed, it ultimately ruled in favor of the government.

In ruling that the classification procedures were followed, the court relied on an agency official who subsequently reviewed the documents and determined that they were properly classified.

Fitton also objected to that particular ruling.

“The court seems to acknowledge that the images were improperly classified but gives the Obama administration a pass,” he said.