Obama Refuses to Release bin Laden
Death Photos in JW Lawsuit
Well, the Obama administration has responded in court regarding Judicial
Watch’s pursuit of the CIA’s bin Laden death photos. And given the
administration’s open hostility to government transparency, it probably does not
come as a surprise that the CIA is fighting tooth-and-nail to keep these photos
secret.
Judicial Watch had filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request
with the Obama Department of Defense (DOD) seeking the following records: “[A]ll
photographs and/or video recordings of Osama (Usama) bin Laden taken during
and/or after the U.S. Military operation in Pakistan on or about May 1, 2011.”
(We filed an identical request with the CIA.) When the government stonewalled,
we sued. Now we’re in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
trying to force the release of the photos.
The DOD says it came up empty
in response to our request, though I have good reason to believe that the
Pentagon didn’t look hard enough. But the CIA admitted it found 52 responsive
records (photos and video). Here’s a description of what they found according
to the government’s most
recent
court filing:These records contain images of Osama bin Laden’s body
after he was killed. Many are graphic and gruesome, as they depict the fatal
bullet wound to bin Laden’s head. Some of the images were taken inside the
compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where bin Laden was killed. Other images were
taken as bin Laden’s body was transported from the Abbottabad compound to the
location where he was buried at sea. Several images depict the preparation of
Osama bin Laden’s body for the burial as well as the burial itself.
So
they have the photos and videos we’re after for sure. But the agency refuses to
release them to the public. Why? Well, this time they’re hiding behind the
vague “implications to national security” they claim could result. “The mere
release of these images of Osama bin Laden could be interpreted as a deliberate
attempt by the United States to humiliate the late al-Qa’ida leader…,” the
government argued in its brief.
But the then-CIA director himself, Leon
Panetta, did not seem overly concerned at all about these implications in an
interview with NBC’s Brian Williams on May 3, 2011, just two days after the
raid: “The government obviously has been talking about how best to do this, but
I don't think there was any question that ultimately a photograph would be
presented to the public.” (Panetta is now Secretary of Defense.)
I
should point out that Judicial Watch has heard this “national security” argument
before. Remember our fight for the
footage
of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11? The DOD
had the videos but claimed their release could be detrimental to national
security. Well, we won in court, obtained the videos, and none of those vague
“implications” ever materialized.
Here’s the bottom line here. President
Obama’s decision to keep the bin Laden photos secret is political. It has no
basis in law. The government’s legal brief incredibly started off by citing a
partial transcript of an interview of President Obama by CBS News 60 Minutes.
Obama is quoted as opposing the release of the material because he didn’t want
America to be seen as “spiking the football.” Most legal briefs cite the law up
front, but the Obama Department of Justice cites an interview with the
president. I hope the court will understand that the law and the president’s
own personal views aren’t necessarily the same thing in our constitutional
republic (however much Obama might be tempted to behave otherwise).
We
shouldn’t throw out our transparency laws because complying with them might
offend terrorists. There’s no “not wanting to be seen as spiking the football”
exemption in FOIA law.
And regarding implications to national security,
if anything, selective leaks from the Obama administration concerning
operational and intelligence activities connected to the raid have done far more
damage to our special operations and intelligence capability than a photograph
of a dead body could ever do.
FOIA is a disclosure statute, and the public has an affirmative right to
know. We’re not after legitimate secrets related to operational or intelligence
matters. But the historical record of Osama bin Laden’s death should be
released to the American people as the law requires.
I get the feeling
that the Obama administration doesn’t want to release these photos because it is
embarrassed both by our victory in killing bin Laden and the preposterous burial
at sea.
As I’ve pointed out previously, the Obama administration has no
problem releasing documents that the left thinks will embarrass the United
States – say, for example, Obama’s selective release of documents disparaging
“enhanced interrogation techniques” over the objections of his own national
security officials. But when it comes to documents that show the heroism of our
military? No deal.
We should not cower at the possibility that
terrorists won’t like documentation of our military victory. We cannot subject
our Constitution and our rule of law to jihadist blackmail and extortion.
Judicial Watch will continue to fight for the release of the photos and to
complete the public record on one of the most important military operations in
United States history. Stay tuned…
Judicial Watch Releases Special Report “The
Rebranding of ACORN”This week we released
“The
Rebranding of ACORN,” an important Judicial Watch special investigative
report on the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).
This is report is the result of an extensive JW investigation of the
organization’s transformation into various “spinoffs” and affiliated
organizations.
The ACORN-affiliated groups existing today are ACORN in
all but name. These groups tend to occupy ACORN’s former offices, are staffed
in many cases with former ACORN employees, and remain committed to ACORN’s
corrupt mission.
Our investigation has documented 17 ACORN-affiliated
organizations in the following states/regions: Arizona, Arkansas, California,
District of Columbia, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New England, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and
Washington.
Among the conclusions of Judicial Watch’s special report,
which you can access by clicking
here:
- ACORN lives on in the form of numerous state entities and in such affiliated
organizations as Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA), The Advance
Group, The Black Institute, and Project Vote. In the words of Bertha Lewis,
former chief executive officer of ACORN, “[T]hese entities are carrying on
ACORN’s work of organizing low- and moderate-income folks… [We have created]
bullet-proof community-organizing Frankensteins that they’re going to have a
very hard time attacking."
- Tens of millions of dollars in ACORN’s funds and other assets are still
unaccounted for. The Louisiana attorney general’s office and the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court, as well as Judicial Watch, continue to investigate what
happened to these missing resources.
- Judicial Watch discovered that the Obama administration continues to
bankroll ACORN and its affiliates in defiance of the federal government’s
funding ban. As I’ve documented in this space, on March 1, 2011, ACORN Housing
Corporation ─ renamed Affordable Housing Centers of America (though it retained
the same headquarters and many of the ACORN officers) ─ received a $79,819
grant from the Obama Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
- ACORN’s Project Vote, President Obama’s former employer, remains active in
registering voters on public assistance to re-elect Obama and other leftist
candidates. In
Colorado, for instance, Judicial Watch uncovered documents proving that
ACORN/Project Vote successfully pressured Colorado officials into implementing
new policies for increasing the registration of public assistance recipients
during the 2008 and 2010 election seasons. After the policy changes, the
percentage of fraudulent voter registration forms from Colorado public
assistance agencies was four
times the national average. (Evidence also suggests that the Obama
Justice Department might be partnering with Project Vote in this campaign.)
At its peak, ACORN had over 400,000 members and 1,200 chapters in more
100 cities. Linked to serious scandals involving the misuse of taxpayer funds,
embezzlement, intimidation tactics, employee abuse, questionable hiring tactics,
and fraudulent voter registrations, ACORN’s corrupt activities finally caught
the attention of the American public and members of Congress. Of course the
final blow came in the form of explosive journalist videos showing ACORN
employees advising undercover reporters on how to evade taxes, as well as
immigration, housing, and child prostitution laws.
After the videos “went
viral” in October 2009, Congress passed and Barack Obama signed into law the
Defund
ACORN Act which effectively prohibited the federal government from funding
“ACORN and any ACORN-related affiliate.” ACORN subsequently filed for
bankruptcy on November 2, 2010.
As we document in our report, however,
long before its bankruptcy filing ACORN’s leadership implemented a plan to
ensure the survival of ACORN as independent state corporations and affiliated
organizations. The Judicial Watch report provides details on the individual
organizations and their officers.
The corrupt ACORN affiliate Project
Vote’s current campaign to register to vote Obama’s
“Food
Stamp Army” will surely result in fraud and lawbreaking.
The
bottom line here is that rumors of ACORN’s demise are vastly overstated. The
ACORN network, especially its partner in crime Project Vote, is alive and well
and operating across the country. And the Obama administration, sure enough,
has begun refunding the ACORN housing group in violation of the law. We fear a
taxpayer-funded repeat of the ACORN/Project Vote voter registration scandal in
2012.
(Obviously, don’t expect the Obama Justice Department to take
action to address the corrupt activities of ACORN and its thinly disguised
spinoffs.)
Obama served as the Illinois executive director of the ACORN
partner Project Vote in 1992. His campaign
paid
more than $800,000 to an ACORN organization to help “get out the vote” in
his successful primary campaign against then-Sen. Hillary Clinton in 2008. In
November 2007, then-Senator Obama addressed ACORN and thanked the organization
for its work: “I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my
entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote
voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it,
and we appreciate your work.”
Barack Obama is truly “the president from
ACORN.”
More on Michelle
Obama’s Family Trip to AfricaAs Congress was in the
middle of the debt ceiling debate this summer, deciding which bloated federal
programs to cut, Michelle Obama decided to take a nice taxpayer-funded “working”
vacation to South Africa and Botswana with her children. Judicial Watch began
asking some very simple questions: What was the purpose of the trip and how
much did it cost? We’re just now starting to get some answers.
This week
we obtained
mission
expense records and
passenger
manifests from the United States Air Force related to the June 21-27, 2011,
trip. Judicial Watch obtained the documents pursuant to an August 19, 2011,
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. It is amazing how transparent the
Obama administration becomes once you sue them in a federal court!
On
June 28, 2011, we filed a FOIA request seeking the mission taskings,
transportation records, and passenger manifests for Michelle Obama’s Africa
trip. Our FOIA lawsuit extracted some interesting information:
- According to U.S. Department of Defense’s published hourly rates for the
C-32A aircraft used for the trip, we calculated the total cost to American
taxpayers was $424,142 for the flight and crew. (The C-32 is a specially
configured military version of the Boeing 757.) Other expenses ─ meals (off the
plane), transportation, security, various services, etc. ─ have yet to be
reported.
- The expense records also indicate $928.44 were spent for “bulk food”
purchases on flight. Overall, during the trip, 192 meals were served for the 21
passengers on board.
- The passenger manifests confirm the presence of Obama’s daughter’s, Malia
and Sasha on the trip. The two girls are listed as “Senior Staff.” The
manifests also list Mrs. Obama’s mother, Marian Robinson, and niece and nephew,
Leslie and Avery Robinson, as well Mrs. Obama’s makeup and hairstylist (Carl Ray
and Johnny Wright).
The professed purpose of Michelle Obama’s trip to South Africa and
Botswana was to encourage young people living in the two growing democracies to
become involved in national affairs; and during her scheduled stops in Pretoria
and Cape Town, South Africa, and in Gaborone, the capital of Botswana, the First
Lady used the opportunity to speak on education, health, and wellness issues.
The trip also included such tourist events as visits to historical
landmarks and museums, plus a nonworking chance to send time with Nelson
Mandela, a meeting that Mrs. Obama described as “surreal.” The trip ended with
a private family safari at a South African game reserve before the group
returned to Washington on June 27.
While the aircraft and crew expenses
are now known, as stated in an analysis by
White
House Dossier (the blog of White House reporter Keith Koffer, writer for
CongressDaily, National Journal, Roll Call and POLITICO), certain expenses
incurred during the trip are difficult to assess without examining the records ‒
such as Secret Service protection, the care and feeding of staff, and pre-trip
advance work done by administration officials in Africa.
This trip was
as much an opportunity for the Obama family and friends to go on a safari as it
was a trip intended to advance the administration’s agenda in Africa.
This certainly isn’t the first time Judicial Watch exposed the Obama’s
frivolous spending on family social events. We previously uncovered that the
First Couple’s 2009
“date
night” trip to New York for dinner and a Broadway show cost taxpayers over
$11,000 in Secret Service costs alone.
Until next week…
Tom Fitton
President
PRINT
