Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FBI Protects BIN LADENS'S Privacy  
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 884 times:

FBI PROTECTS OSAMA BIN LADEN'S 'RIGHT TO PRIVACY' IN DOCUMENT RELEASE

Judicial Watch Investigation Uncovers FBI Documents Concerning Bin Laden Family and Post-9/11 Flights

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.


&

'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.'

Incredible! Read the rest here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/5286.shtml


Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 872 times:

Probably done as an effective way of keeping information out of the public domain. It wouldn't be the first time a law has been used for the purpose other than it was intended.

User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 864 times:

What is more incredible is that you're using Judicial Watch as a credible source.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 857 times:

As far as I know, the FBI or any other agency, can withhold information from being released under the 'Freedom of Information Act' if the info is the interest of the security of the US, when investigations are still ongoing, etc. They don't need to use 'cheap excuses' when they don't want certain info to be known.


Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 837 times:

Quoting B757300 (Reply 2):
What is more incredible is that you're using Judicial Watch as a credible source.

As always, a nice comprehensive and on-topic post from B757300! Please, be my guest and enlighten us why JudicialWatch isn't a credible source!



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8976 posts, RR: 39
Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 834 times:

Well, whatever info the FBI might have that could possibly damage Bin Laden's Rep. in any way shape or form, it will be widely discounted as U.S. propaganda in the arab world... so what's the point in releasing it?

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 3):
They don't need to use 'cheap excuses' when they don't want certain info to be known.

Don't think they really care if it's a 'cheap' excuse or not. But that's just me.

Cheers,
PPVRA



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 814 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 5):
Don't think they really care if it's a 'cheap' excuse or not. But that's just me.

For your information, the FBI withheld information from JudicialWatch which that organization later was able to obtain through its own analysis (by using the footnotes mentioned in the document the FBI did provide and which mostly referred to press-articles/news-shows). That means that the information the FBI choose to withhold to protect Osama bin Laden's privacy wasn't that private or secret!

Check the link to both documents (original FBI with blanked-out text & another version with the appropiate text handwritten in the gaps): http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2005/osama.pdf

Now why would the FBI withhold already published information of USA's #1 enemy and why would it do so stating Privacy Reasons of Terrorist #1 himself?

Seems to me the FBI needs yet another re-organization.



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8976 posts, RR: 39
Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 809 times:

Quoting Schoenorama (Reply 6):
Now why would the FBI withhold already published information of USA's #1 enemy and why would it do so stating Privacy Reasons of Terrorist #1 himself?

You are making a storm in a cup of water, as the portuguese expressions goes... Maybe they know something that we don't know? I'm sure they would tell you if you asked, but then, maybe they'll have to kill you after?  duck   wink 

I don't see the issue, and I'm sure there is a reason for it.

Cheers,
PPVRA



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 801 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 7):
don't see the issue, and I'm sure there is a reason for it.

I wouldn't have made a thread about this if the FBI has just withhold the information for security reasons or whatever. But they've invoked privacy protections for Osama bin Laden!

I've underlined that and put it in bold to stress the core of the issue. Again, the FBI can withhold information for security reasons or when investigations are still ongoing. But why the heck would they want to protect Osama bin Laden's private life and why would they do so when this private life has been widely publicized in the media?



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineLehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 766 times:

Quoting Schoenorama (Thread starter):
Documents Concerning Bin Laden Family

If it was true that they disowned him decades ago, what do they have to do with him anymore? Unless the intent is to stalk and harrass in the name of US security?  irked 



The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 763 times:

Exempt from Mandatory Disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act based on National Security Requirements.

It's done all the time, and not just for National Security . .

So, what's your point?


User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7438 posts, RR: 50
Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 758 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

His point? He has no point, it's part of his charm.


Made from jets!
User currently offlineL.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2209 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 753 times:

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/negative11.jpg

Honestly, do you think the FBI or any other branch of the US government gives a crap about Bin Laden's privacy?

For once, step back, and step into America's shoes. Do you honestly, in your heart and using your best possible judgement, think we would do what you insinuate in your starter and topic without an alterior motive?


User currently offlineSchoenorama From Spain, joined Apr 2001, 2440 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 713 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 10):
Exempt from Mandatory Disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act based on National Security Requirements.

The FBI didn't use the National Security as a reason. They used the Privacy Protection Law as a reason!

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 10):
It's done all the time, and not just for National Security .

It has never been done to protect the privacy of a terrorists responsible of killing nearly 3,000 people.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 10):
So, what's your point?

&

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 11):
His point? He has no point, it's part of his charm.

With all the legal possibilities, all the laws the FBI has at its disposal to withhold certain information from being released, it prefers to protect Osama bin Laden's privacy over giving a minimum of background information (nevertheless widely discussed in the media) to the General Public (minus 3,000). And you don't see the problem?

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 12):
Honestly, do you think the FBI or any other branch of the US government gives a crap about Bin Laden's privacy?

Then when withhold hold info based on that particular reason? Why not simply withhold it "for security reason" as they always do?

Quoting L.1011 (Reply 12):
For once, step back, and step into America's shoes. Do you honestly, in your heart and using your best possible judgement, think we would do what you insinuate in your starter and topic without an alterior motive?

Why do you think I began this thread? Of course I don't believe the FBI gives a crap about Osama's privacy. But the hard fact is that they used that reason alone to withhold the information, while they could have used the normal excuses (National Security, ongoing investigations, etc.) without anyone even questioning them.

They probably do have an ulterior motive to withhold this info, but claiming they are protecting Osama's privacy certainly makes one wonder who the FBI is supposed to protect in the first place. I believe it is giant blunder on behalve of the FBI. If they simply had invoked National Security reasons no one, not even JudicialWatch, would have complained.



Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!
User currently offlineOly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6843 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (9 years 8 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 691 times:

So, the FBI put blank space where OBL's name was. A half wit could put together September 11, Saudi Arabia and a few other non snipped facts to get his name. Is it the extended family name that is being protected and so his name has to be covered as well?

I presume this is the data protection act where data (personal details) stored on computer cannot be released to the public, or are things different in America?



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Have You Visited Bin Ladens Website Yet? posted Mon Nov 12 2001 18:15:09 by Thom@s
A Question For The Anti-Bush Crowd: Re: Privacy posted Mon Nov 6 2006 00:25:44 by Matt D
FBI Reportedly Probing Rep. Weldon posted Sun Oct 15 2006 12:02:00 by TedTAce
Osama Bin Laden Dead? posted Sat Sep 23 2006 12:27:23 by Damirc
Bin Laden Given Free Pass In Pakistan posted Wed Sep 6 2006 04:49:21 by Texan
6 Alaska Legislators Raided By FBI And IRS posted Fri Sep 1 2006 07:30:53 by L-188
Does Anyone Else Like Watching FBI Files? posted Wed Jul 26 2006 00:02:02 by AirPacific747
FBI Increases Hezbollah Surveillance In US posted Mon Jul 24 2006 23:35:43 by RJpieces
Norad Invaded N. Korean Privacy! posted Wed Jul 5 2006 17:51:08 by Mrmeangenes
Bin Laden Wants Al-Zarqawi Body Released.... posted Sat Jul 1 2006 03:04:02 by NWA742