FBI protecting Osama's "privacy rights"??? Come again?

www.infowars.org

FBI protecting Osama's rights
Federal officials withholding information to prevent 'invasion of personal privacy'
World Net Daily | April 22, 2005

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is preventing some information related to al-Qaida terror leader Osama bin Laden from being released, invoking a law that permits the feds to withhold data if it "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

(Conspicuous how this doesn't seem to apply also to American citizens under the Patriot Act)

According to government watchdog group Judicial Watch, in a Sept. 24, 2003, declassified "secret" FBI report obtained by the organization through the Freedom of Information Act, the FBI invoked Exemption 6 under FOIA law on behalf of bin Laden. The law permits the government to withhold information in "personnel and medical files and similar files" if disclosure might jeopardize privacy rights.

Judicial Watch did an analysis of publicly available news stories cited in the FBI report and determined 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."

The redacted documents were obtained by Judicial Watch under the provisions of the FOIA as part of ongoing litigation of the case Judicial Watch v. Department of Homeland Security & Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The full text of the report and related documents are available on the Judicial Watch website in .pdf format.

-------------------------------

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

(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.”

The redacted documents were obtained by Judicial Watch under the provisions of the FOIA and through ongoing litigation (Judicial Watch v. Department of Homeland Security & Federal Bureau of Investigation, No. 04-1643 (RWR)). Among the documents was a declassified “Secret” FBI report, dated September 24, 2003, entitled: “Response to October 2003 Vanity Fair Article (Re: [Redacted] Family Departures After 9/11/2001).” Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request on October 7, 2003. The full text of the report and related documents are available on the Internet by clicking here (Adobe Acrobat Reader required).

 

The reason is simple, and that's because bin Laden is a tool of the CIA. We know that the Bushes and the bin Ladens are close business partners, being (until after 9/11) top players of the Carlyle Group. Hell, the Bushes and bin Ladens have even vacationed together. There is so much they don't want us to know.

 

And yet, the nation sleeps on happy not to demand, with overwhelming solidarity, the impeachment, indictment and life imprisonment of this criminal administration and its enablers.

Accountability is nothing more than a quaint historic notion it seems.

 

Neither the Bush family nor the Bin Ladens are or have ever been "top players" at Carlyle.

Doesn't anybody here fact check before chiming in support?

 

The Bin Laden family were merely investors in the Carlyle...minus Osama who(as most people should know)was ostracized from his family like 25 years ago and is banned from Saudi Arabia.The guy has been living in caves with his 50 wives for a couple of decades. I wouldn't be surprised if his real hatred for America stems from him being booted from the motherland for his crazytalk..his motherland being allies with America and his family deciding that western culture is ideal for them. I'm betting his jihad on the US has nothing to do with our foreign policy/infidelism..and everything to do with personal bitterness.Too bad he is able to successfully prey on those most influenced...the young passionate teenagers and young adults.

Many of the Bin Laden's live here in the USA and are postive contributing members to our society. The whole family isn't bad...just Osama.They know that..the USA government knows that and most people who know the family realize that.

Bush would never vacation with TEH EVOL BROWN PEPLES..he only hangs with the non-whites when the cameras are on him and to satisfy the minorities by appointing the token non-whites to higher positions.He's a "good ole boy" from Texas. So logic would shoot that vacationing theory out of the water.

 

The Carlyle Group are the biggest defense contractors in the world, and the bin Laden family, prior to 9/11, was responsible for the building of all military bases in the Middle East, Northern Africa and Southeast Asia. I don't buy the nonsense the media has fed us that the bin Ladens were only "minor investors" for a second.

I don't believe the fantasy story the media feeds me. Sorry. Just because the controlled media likes to tell me that Osama is estranged from the rest of the family, doesn't mean I believe he is estranged from them financially.

We know how close the Bushes and bin Ladens are financially, and many people have come to the realization that bin Laden is nothing more than a CIA asset/puppet.

Look who stands to gain here.

And yes, the Bushes and bin Ladens have vacationed together. This is part of the public record. Are you gullible enough to believe that Bush chooses his friends according to race and religion? No, he chooses them according to wealth, power and connection.

 

ok, so you single out that one possible point without addressing the main topic of the article.

Your reply?

"Bush would never vacation with TEH EVOL BROWN PEPLES..he only hangs with the non-whites when the cameras are on him and to satisfy the minorities by appointing the token non-whites to higher positions.He's a "good ole boy" from Texas. So logic would shoot that vacationing theory out of the water."

Nope, wrong. If you saw Fahrenheit 9-11, it showed a Saudi Royal who actually has a nickname from the Bush family who often vacations at Bush's ranch in Texas. I didn't even know that till I saw the film.

Pressed Rat, as usual, tells it better than I ever could.

 

Yes, an FBI response to a Vanity Fair article had Osama's name deleted. And? Is this the action of a stupid, secretive bureaucracy or a vast global conspiracy of gay communists? Your call, Revo.

But what gets you so bothered about facts? Are you saying that if someone claims that the Bin Ladens and Bush family were senior players at Carlyle, the fact that neither of them were senior players somehow isn't important?

In that case, you probably won't want to know that the Carlyle group is not the biggest defense contractor in the world, as Rat claimed. That would be Lockheed Martin. And number two is Boeing, followed by General Electric and then I think Raytheon and Northrop Grumman. Carlyle is not a defense contractor, it is a private equity fund and only about 14% of its investments are in defense or aerospace (strictly defense represents a mere 1%).

So when Rat says the Bush and Bin Laden Families are major players at Carlyle and Carlyle is the world's biggest defense contractor, that fact that none of these claims are true doesn't matter?

Maybe you should set your standards a little higher.

 

Bush Sr has indeed been a senior advisor with the Carlyle Group. You again deny reality by splitting hairs about titles and fail to grasp just how Carlyle has established its cozy political influence whilst maintaining the plausible deniability of its avoidance of "direct" (aka K Street) government lobbying.

Are you so incapable of examining the big picture in any topic whatsoever PB?

Lengthy expose with numerous links to its politics cronyism

Carlyle Group profits from government and conflict

Guardian Article "Ex-Presidents Club"

Let's see if you are able to deal with the disturbing levels of corruption involved in this issue for a change. Go on astound us!

 

I don't deny, nor have I ever denied Carlyle political influence. Whenever I am right on facts you have a tendency to create straw man arguments. Your links, therefore, are entirely moot.

I wonder though - having former presidents as advisors is part of some "plausible deniability of direct lobbying" scheme? In order to hide their government lobbying efforts they hire low profile people like former presidents? You didn't really think that one through, did you?

The point is, between 1998 and 2003 former President Bush was a Senior Advisor to the Carlyle Asia Advisory Board. Asia represents 8% of Carlyle assets. Does this make him a "top player"? No.

 

I always learn a lot from you guys..i tend to see PB as more plausable/rational..with his feet on the ground..Though you all have a fair point to a certain degree. Not that i know the 'truth' or anything..but even so i think if you all listen to each other ..then thats good. When you don't then that is not so good...

I was just amused to see Mr Major (ex PM) on one of the links... Is it only 'americans' that have as much scrutiny placed upon them ?.

 

Head in the sand actually.

 

So your defending source is Michael Moore?

Case closed. Oh and if you are going to go after PointBreak..try using his quotes...not mine next time.

 

Do you ever look into his 'claims'..? Do you ever accept if your wrong ? or just say it is 'bad info'. Fundementaly you have far more to 'lose' if any of your points are wrong beacuse the whole arguement comes crashing down..And the basis of 'america attacks' becomes questionable. Thats what i see PB doing. Again i don't know the truth and don't realy wish to take sides or anything..just making a observation. I was just wondering if you respect each others opinon anyway...i suspect you do as you would be ignoring each other.

*gets coat leaves*

 

His "claims" as Ive pointed out many times and quite rightly, amount to nothing more than a refusal to examine the big picture, namely the interconnectedness of institutions, people, unfolding agendas and events to clearly see the interests and conflicts of public interest involved.

All PB does is search for any caveat, be it as insignificant as a mere word, to again avoid reading anything provided and acknowledging its substantive contribution to the argument at hand. Just as we see him again wasting the time of those who bother backing up their assertions with documented references, something he rarely if ever does to support his, as you call them, "claims".

What he calls "moot" are actually substantive examinations which expose the falsity of his "claim" that Bush Sr. had no senior position with Carlyle Group and that, further, that back door directly into the Executive decisionmaking circle is somehow irrelevant when discussing a clear case of corrupt corporate-government collusion. All because he cannot seem to grasp that 8% of Carlyle Assets could possibly be a focus for considerable development in the wake of ongoing PNAC machinations throughout Central Asia.

Sorry Matt, you are free to consider PB as credible or rational or what you will, but to me and those who bother to actually research he is a joke.

 

I apreciate that you could have as much valid point as PB.. Is it because his 'voice' is subtle and not as 'loud' as others..
The hint of 'conspiracy nonsense' that emminates from some quarters mixed in with i would imagine a kernel of truth..thats what i think when i read others post (ok i think i am taking sides).

Maybe thats is all it takes to bring something down to earth ...

Have read info like this

The Carlyle Group is a private investment bank which doesn't come to the publics attention very often but it is one of the biggest American (ed: USA) investors of the defense industry, telecom, property and financial services.


(one of many sites that for many reasons, i changed my point of view to somewhat the opposite of the view held within the majority of this thread...on this issue and many others)..


My humble take on it is that behind a lot of it is a clear hatred of globalisation and capitalism..wich is ok i suppose.. but i wish people were honest about it. I personaly don't think it is the monster people make of it..Though i am putting thoughts into others rationale ..i apologise.

Goverments surely ?. They would influence as many goverments as possible..yeah America is the powerhouse ..but even so. I just feel that it is the over dramatisation of perfectly legal activities and the americentric love people have with (american) politics, because fundementaly people are more concerned about it (for some reason)..Especialy if it does something displeasing like 'go to war'.. as for the iraq war, i once read P.Rat say the Second world war was 'illegal'.. ?. Thats what intrests me.. the connections people make and the reasoning behind it.

Why bother ?.. surely it is because he can continue a discussion further than most ..we all like that . I will just continue to be impressed by all your posts (not very high praise i admit)..

 

Matthew, yes the Carlyle Group influences governments, but I am an American, MY concern first and foremost (unlike PB and other shills like him) is to scrutinise MY government its lies, crimes and abuse of power. It is for the citizens of any other nations to do the same for their own leaders as is right and fitting if the notions of democracy (which PB and his ilk only pay lip service to in full keeping with the interests of the corporations they actually love and serve over the welfare of their fellow countrymen) are to have any legitimacy beyond mere rhetoric.

Moreover, and more to the point of THIS discussion, it is precisely the duplicity and corruption of Bush Sr.'s connections to the Carlyle Group, the Executive Branch (and its PNAC agenda), and ultimately to the fraudulent hyper inflated WoT which has become the source of obscene profiteering by our MIC (including considerable profit to Carlyle Group owned interests) that is the focus of my concern.

 

You have more freedom (due to the freedom of information act) i think to scrutinise your goverment, than we possibly do.. this is i think a blessing and a curse.

 

Matthew you buy into labels too easily. The FOIA is a joke and more often than not the information demanded is denied on the age old fruadulent grounds of "national security". When one does get information, you would find, should you investigate the reality of the situation beyond mere labels, that considerable and quite significant portions are blacked out and thus not at all demonstrations of government transparency and accountability to "the people".

Don't be fooled by such falsely named acts, it all comes down to what is actually delivered not what is promised and this admin more than any in my lifetime certainly is characterised predominantly by its criminal secrecy.

To give you a taste of the steady erosion of accountability under this administration, start with this report...

http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/1145/1/18/

 

I understand what your saying..possibly the peices blanked out are the reasons we try and fill them in..rightly or wrongly.. If in say 50 years the 'truth' is finaly uncovered and its not the scenario you or i may believe..then A. it is so long it is meaningless B. no one cares C. so many theories/commentaries/etc have been made.. the truth no longer matters because no one is going to believe it anyway (e.g JFK).