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.

 

WAR: FBI protects Osama Bin Laden's ''Right To Privacy'' in Document Release

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2005 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Judicial Watch has announced today that it recently received FBI documents that protect the 'Right to Privacy' to the al Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. Protected under Exemption 6 of the 'Freedom of Information Act', disclosure of Osama bin Ladens 'personal information' would constitute an '...unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.'
 



www.judicialwatch.org
Washington, DC) 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))



Before invoking privacy protections for Osama bin Laden under Exemption 6, the FBI should have conducted a balancing “test” of the public's right to disclosure against the individual's right to privacy. Many of the references in the redacted documents cite publicly available news articles from sources such as The Washington Post and Associated Press. Based on its analysis of the news stories cited in the FBI report, Judicial Watch was able to determine that bin Laden’s name was redacted from the document, including newspaper headlines in the footnoted citations.



“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.”


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


It's important to note that Osama Bin Ladens name was actually removed from FBI documents in order to protect his personal interest and privacy. Or maybe it was to prevent the public from Osamas true connection to the U.S. government. In any case, I think Judicial Watch summed it up best that the 'United States government has placed a higher priority on the privacy rights of Osama bin Laden then the public's right to know what happened in the days following September 11th'.




posted on May, 3 2005 @ 07:46 AM
link   
But you know, the CIA as well the FBI has to protect their investment, whether or not it cost the American people.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Sim




What a shot- I am still laughing.

I don't believe it but that is really funny early in the morning.


I figure there is some incriminating documents and our gov. doesn't want the 'word' to get out what a transparent case they have linking Osama.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   
This came out a few weeks ago in this thread.

The big question is why the FBI used a section of US Code that only applies to US Citizens? The FBI never had to get a legal ruling on witholding his medical files in the first place, FOIA allows them to keep anything they want classified and unavailable to the public, without going to court. As far as I can tell, the only reason they would do this is to 'leak' the fact that Osama Bin Laden is actually a US Citizen, and I suspect his medical records would show that he's living here and getting medical treatment.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 09:03 AM
link   


The big question is why the FBI used a section of US Code that only applies to US Citizens?

Very good question one that I wanted to address in the post...



As far as I can tell, the only reason they would do this is to 'leak' the fact that Osama Bin Laden is actually a US Citizen, and I suspect his medical records would show that he's living here and getting medical treatment.

Bingo.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   
The story was also in ATSNN a couple of weeks ago.
www.atsnn.com...


mythatsabigprobe said
The big question is why the FBI used a section of US Code that only applies to US Citizens?


Is that actually the case? I would have thought it would depend not on who the subject was, but rather on whether or not release of the information is deemed a threat to national security. Looks like the picked the wrong exemption however.

FOIA Exemptions summary


As far as I can tell, the only reason they would do this is to 'leak' the fact that Osama Bin Laden is actually a US Citizen, and I suspect his medical records would show that he's living here and getting medical treatment.


The document is a summary of the Bin Laden family and their status in the U.S. Nothing to do with his medical records. Or did I miss something?



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Thanks for linking to the code. Now that I've read the actual text, it obviously isn't confined to just US Citizens. It was just reported that way in each of the news articles I've read.

Oh well, it was a good conspiracy theory while it lasted..



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Regardless, it's still absurd that the FBI would give priority to the leader of Al Queda.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Well, this is might mind boggling.

What accountability do the decision makers have in all this? Can they be hung out because they've decided to protect the privacy of a man on the 10 most wanted list of international terrorists? The FBI has never before had a problem releasing information of this nature if it helps to catch a most wanted criminal.

I think athan angle that he may be liviing in the US and getting medical treatment has some merit. It would make a lot of sense as to why the information got tagged. It would also be the best place to go to ground, because nobody would expect it.

Strangely enough, I tended to think UBL was in Israel, but it appears I was wrong.

I honestly never thought I'd see the day the FBI protected a non-citizen's privacy over the lives of thousands of citizens. Unless of course that non-citizen was a multi-millionaire connected to the current administration. Oops. There it is.

Where does it go from here? Any ideas?

This appears to be a reinforcement of the changing of the boogeyman guard. Remember, Zarqawi is the REAL threat now, let's all worry about him. We shouldn't even worry about UBL, listen to our president, he knows what's best for us all. They just couldn't find him, honest. And now, a new threat. A huge threat! Be very afraid of the one-eyed prophet, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Am I the only one thinking this?

[edit on 3-5-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
In all of the excitement, I think people have missed the fact that this source article is highly biased.

I still like that theory, probe. It's exciting.

As for the right to privacy, I have this to say. The rights and freedoms we enjoy in America are plenty. There are several laws that protect our privacy.

We have legislature that removes or restricts the privacy rights of certain individuals - for instance, people convicted of sexual crimes with children. It is important to remember that Osama Bin Ladin has been convicted in no court, in America or abroad. We have an abundance of personal rights, protections, and freedoms in America, but we don't enjoy the right to be absolute and total freakin' hypocrites about the law. Bin Ladin is comparable to any other suspected criminal - innocent until proven guilty.

As for his medical records, if he has any here, he is protected under HIPAA regulations. His own signature is required to authorize the release of his medical records to specific individuals, including the entire population of the U.S.A.

Zip

Remember that the burden is proof is on the prosecution.

[edit on 3-5-2005 by Zipdot]



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I should add, any public release of his medical, personnel, psychiatric, or scholastic records without his approval is illegal and he could sue the institution(s) involved in the release and win.

Zip



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
In all of the excitement, I think people have missed the fact that this source article is highly biased.


There's that word again. "Biased". It's like the 'alcohol' trump card for lawyers - conveniently used to discredit any and all testimony. "And on the night that you allege the accused stabbed you in the heart, screamed his name in your face, and later left his drivers license at the scene, had you not had a glass of wine in the restaurant at which you ate just before you were attacked?" So are you saying that Judicialwatch received the documents unredacted, but because they are biased, they then redacted the Bin Laden details themselves and blamed it on the FBI??



It is important to remember that Osama Bin Ladin has been convicted in no court, in America or abroad...Bin Ladin is comparable to any other suspected criminal - innocent until proven guilty...Remember that the burden is proof is on the prosecution.


Wait, wait...did not Bush drag the U.S. and half the rest of the world into invading Iraq based on the "proof" that Saddam's regime was linked to Al Qaeda which in turn was "proven" to be responsible for 9-11?


I should add, any public release of his medical, personnel, psychiatric, or scholastic records without his approval is illegal and he could sue the institution(s) involved in the release and win.


Osama suing the U.S. for invasion of privacy? WTF? Now THAT would be funny. I wonder if Judge Judy would be presiding. Lemme tell ya, I'd be waiting at the courthouse door to collect that reward!!



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   
I prefer that the government not break its own laws, especially when those laws are specifically in place to protect.

What is the point of these kinds of protective measures if exceptions can be made at will? This is in the same arena of legal exception-making as the Patriot Acts.

Zip



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 09:26 PM
link   
So lemme get this straight...

Rush Limbaugh is a more fearsome criminal than UBL?

Limbaugh lost his appeal to keep his medical records sealed, the privacy issue was ruled irrelevant.

But the FBI is concerned with the privacy rights of a man who is not only not a citizen, but is ostensibly the most wanted terrorist in the world.

I've got my thinking cap on, but nothing's jumping out at me.

What is going on here, what's wrong with this picture?

Is it possible there's an angle to this story that we haven't considered yet, because as it stands, I gotta say, I'm very hesitant to believe we're getting the whole story.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   
The angle is this, the US would rather us forget about Osama. We have moved beyond going after the aggressor of an attack on our country to going after a group of people. We are now going after "groups of radical Muslims" wherever they may be in the sea of 2 billion or so Muslims in the world. You have to admit, this kind of goose chase will keep the military-industrial complex pumping for a very long time. That is the ultimate goal now isn't it?



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
So lemme get this straight...

Rush Limbaugh is a more fearsome criminal than UBL?

Limbaugh lost his appeal to keep his medical records sealed, the privacy issue was ruled irrelevant.

But the FBI is concerned with the privacy rights of a man who is not only not a citizen, but is ostensibly the most wanted terrorist in the world.

I've got my thinking cap on, but nothing's jumping out at me.

What is going on here, what's wrong with this picture?


Rush's case is much different in that his case was concentrated on what was contained in his medical records. A doctor handed over his medical records when presented with a search warrant by police. Many people, including me (who works directly with people's medical records on a daily basis) think that the idea that a policeman can gain private medical records by use of a search warrant is in conflict with other laws and regulations requiring that a patient is noticed before this takes place, let alone that a patient must give his authorization for this type of release.

I disagree with the way Rush's case was handled. Rush asked for portions of his medical records not relevant to the case to be redacted for court, but this was denied.

Anyways, to sum up, Rush was in court and his medical records were pertinent to his case, thereby entering the realm of "public record," even though he wanted to redact some things and was unable to.

Zip



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
A US Congressman is advocating an inquiry into the apparent premeditated collusion between London and Washington regarding the invasion plans.


Rep. calls for deeper inquiry into secret Iraq attack plan

In a statement, Conyers says he is disappointed the mainstream media has not touched the revelations.

"Unfortunately, the mainstream media in the United States was too busy with wall-to-wall coverage of a "runaway bride" to cover a bombshell report out of the British newspapers," Conyers writes. "The London Times reports that the British government and the United States government had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in 2002, before authorization was sought for such an attack in Congress, and had discussed creating pretextual justifications for doing so."

...

"Dear Mr. President:

We write because of troubling revelations in the Sunday London Times apparently confirming that the United States and Great Britain had secretly agreed to attack Iraq in the summer of 2002...

...

* A separate secret briefing for the meeting said that Britain and America had to "create" conditions to justify a war.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join