It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bin Laden's "Right to Privacy"?!?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   


www.judicialwatch.org...

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that fights government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) in which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) has invoked privacy right protections on behalf of al Qaeda terror leader Osama bin Laden. In a September 24, 2003 declassified “Secret” FBI report obtained by Judicial Watch, the FBI invoked Exemption 6 under FOIA law on behalf of bin Laden, which permits the government to withhold all information about U.S. persons in “personnel and medical files and similar files” when the disclosure of such information “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) (2000))


I cannot put into words how angry this makes me. Of all people to have a right to privacy...





“It is dumbfounding that the United States government has placed a higher priority on the supposed privacy rights of Osama bin Laden than the public’s right to know what happened in the days following the September 11 terrorist attacks,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is difficult for me to imagine a greater insult to the American people, especially those whose loved ones were murdered by bin Laden on that day.”


[edit on 22-4-2005 by negativenihil]




posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
If this is the straight truth, then not only am I horrified that the U.S. Gevernment would do this, but shocked as well. However, I wonder if the U.S. Government did this as some sort of backwards method to withhold some information that could become public and hamper attempts at catching Bin Laden.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
In a September 24, 2003 declassified “Secret” FBI report obtained by Judicial Watch, the FBI invoked Exemption 6 under FOIA law on behalf of bin Laden, which permits the government to withhold all information about U.S. persons in “personnel and medical files and similar files” when the disclosure of such information “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) (2000))


Errr... is there something the FBI is trying to tell us?



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by DCFusion
If this is the straight truth, then not only am I horrified that the U.S. Gevernment would do this, but shocked as well.


Well, the article does link to a PDF of the document that was requested with the FOIA. That should clear up any doubt about how truthful this is.



However, I wonder if the U.S. Government did this as some sort of backwards method to withhold some information that could become public and hamper attempts at catching Bin Laden.


I'm pretty sure that's the excuse that will be given if this breaks on any major news outlets - but i feel it's a steaming pile a BS



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by negativenihil
In a September 24, 2003 declassified “Secret” FBI report obtained by Judicial Watch, the FBI invoked Exemption 6 under FOIA law on behalf of bin Laden, which permits the government to withhold all information about U.S. persons in “personnel and medical files and similar files” when the disclosure of such information “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) (2000))


Errr... is there something the FBI is trying to tell us?


My thought EXACTLY...

Is the FBI trying to tell us something they can't tell out in the open?
Bin Laden Officialy a US person as long thought, still on the CIA payroll?

Watching that video ASE posted about the Kennedy Assassination and coverup, this sounds odly familiar, as where the FBI can't come out in the open with information, but still leave subtle hints trough documents and memo's.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   


Errr... is there something the FBI is trying to tell us?


Good call!


Seems like a sneaky way to classify UBL's medical records to me, but hopefully the reason is what was mentioned...



some sort of backwards method to withhold some information that could become public and hamper attempts at catching Bin Laden.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
It would be interesting to look at the timing of this court ruling, mid 2003 was just about when the FBI starting falling from grace with the Government wasn't it? All the new intel agencies taking over and the FBI installing a revolving door in the director's office?

edit/ I guess they can put gag orders on judges not to discuss sensitive information, but for sure they would have to proove that Bin Laden was subject to that section of the US Code before a judge would rule on it. There also must have been other laws they could have used to keep his records sealed, FOIA allows for plenty of exceptions without even needing to go to a court. This whole thing seems like a plant, somebody wanted this info to get out.

[edit on 4/22/2005 by mythatsabigprobe]



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I read this story earlier today, and it's pretty bizarre.
I noticed the law in question mentions "US Persons" (????) and says it "permits" (not "requires") the US to deny these FOIA requests. So it's a matter of choice by the .gov.

Why the hell would anyone in the US government worry about "protecting the privacy" of a guy pretty much everybody in the country wants to see eat a JDAM?

[edit on 22-4-2005 by xmotex]



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
I read this story earlier today, and it's pretty bizarre.
I noticed the law in question mentions "US Persons" (????) and says it "permits" (not "requires") the US to deny these FOIA requests. So it's a matter of choice by the .gov.

Why the hell would anyone in the US government worry about "protecting the privacy" of a guy pretty much everybody in the country wants to see eat a JDAM?

[edit on 22-4-2005 by xmotex]


And again, why oh why, do they apply a law for "US Persons" to Osama?????



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix
And again, why oh why, do they apply a law for "US Persons" to Osama?????


The same reason the members of the bin Laden family were flown out of the country so quickly after 9/11?

(ie- because they are a powerful Saudi family, and Saudi Arabia owns a large chunk of the country. piss them off and they pull all their money out - then we suffer a very large economic colapse)

Or - could it be that Osama is worth more to them alive than dead? I mean it does seem kind of odd that Osama releases a new tape anytime BushCo needs to scare the public a little... don't you think?



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
Or - could it be that Osama is worth more to them alive than dead? I mean it does seem kind of odd that Osama releases a new tape anytime BushCo needs to scare the public a little... don't you think?


or maybe its because bush ows Bin ladin big time
since the bin ladins pumped billions into bushs firms before they went bust

ever heard of the say you scratch my back
and i will scratch your back




posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Actually, your government is protecting you by not telling you everything and you don't know how to appreciate... The world is to dangerous today for the total freedom of speech to exist!



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Bin Laden as a US citizen... That makes me wonder. What if he is here in the US?



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Rest assured that he isn't.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Obviously the government is doing this for national security reasons. We don't have a right to know every little detail that the government knows about UBL, especially if it can be used to capture him. I hate to break it to the ATS faithful, but not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy! Sometimes the most simple reason is the correct one.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Thats stupid. When you do a horrible thing like Bin Laden you loose all your rights. Its distgusts me evan more that it was on my birthday
They couldnt have waited 24 more hours?



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by khruschev
Actually, your government is protecting you by not telling you everything and you don't know how to appreciate... The world is to dangerous today for the total freedom of speech to exist!


Spoken like a true "Controller" and/or anyone who's already "Controlled".
Either way it really makes very little difference other than the fact that on one side you have someone who "Gives it as well as Takes it" while the other side is someone who just "Takes it".


Originally posted by Rasputin13
Obviously the government is doing this for national security reasons. We don't have a right to know every little detail that the government knows about UBL, especially if it can be used to capture him. I hate to break it to the ATS faithful, but not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy! Sometimes the most simple reason is the correct one.


Well, then I guess the question we should be asking ourselves is, "Which Nation is OUR GOVERNMENT providing Security for???" Interestingly enough there may in fact be a much larger Conspiracy here than it seems on the surface. (Ironicly, Everything is in fact a Conspiracy! It just may not be the kind you're familiar with recognizing.)

Like any other "Confidence Scams" the reliability of the Scam hinges almost totally on the "Mark" Victimizing themselves because of their "Imagined Sense of Control or Understanding" of the situation at hand. The truth however is that "Control of the situation" always rests in the hands of the Grifter and it's the "Confidence" of the "Mark" which blinds them to what is really happening. (Look up the definition of Confidence to better clearify why this is so!)

Now let's tie all these interesting ideas together and see how they may apply to our current topic. The "Confidence that blinds" in this case is the Peoples Assumption that they actually "Know what's going on" when in reality they know so little that even if that small bit of info they have is true, it is still only enough to work against them in the end. In other words, they only know enough to be a danger to themselves.
Example:
Assumption
1.) "National Security" = Security Provided for America and Americans
2.) Government Secrecy is needed, for the benefit of the Governed, in order to protect them from the harsh truth of reality.
3.) They are trying to Capture OBL.

Truth
1.) Nation = an imagined community of people created by an ideology, to which certain norms and behavior are usually attributed. In common usage, terms such as nation, country, land and state often appear as near-synonyms. In a more strict sense, however, nation denominates a people in contrast to country.

So, "National Security" really just means "Providing Protection for those People who share the Same Ideology as the one who is Providing that Security." Maybe you should ask yourself a few questions before you take Confidence in Understanding what is really happening around you, like:
"When was the last time our Government flew my whole family back home while ALL Aircraft have been grounded???" or
"When was my last meeting with the rest of the Carlyle Group, Big Oil Elite, Saudi Oil Controllers, Bilderburg Members, etc.???"
"Why assume then that they have the same Ideology as us???"

2.) Government Secrecy really only protects the Government from the Governed, by hiding the FACT that it is the Government which is instituting the Harsh Truth of Reality all along.

3.) Protecting the Privacy of OBL is NOT going to aid in his capture because that is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of Exposing OBL, thereby making it possible for him to be captured.

Now that there, Mr. Rasputin13, should be Obvious and Simple IMO and most certainly Correct Reasoning!!



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Bin Laden, Privacy?
He got all the privacy he needs right now. No one can find him or find his where abouts.

Or do they realy know where he is and are saying nothing?



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   
I don't think this is an issue of "bin Laden's privacy." The government is using it as a loophole to keep any information about his health or other personal matters that they feel shouldn't be known by the general population.

This has nothing to do with bin Laden's rights. It has to do with the rights of the US Government to use any and all intelligence which they may posess to capture or isolate bin Laden. Basically, they don't want bin Laden to know what their hand is.



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Croat56
Its distgusts me evan more that it was on my birthday
They couldnt have waited 24 more hours?


Same over here pal it was on my birthday also


Donno this whole bin Laden's issue is confusing... Guess his connections with the CIA in the 80's are kinda useful to him. He knows exactly how to avoid being detected




top topics



 
0

log in

join