But there is no provision of the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) that allows documents to be kept secret
because their release might offend our terrorist enemies. And we
certainly do not want to start that precedent! Therefore, at stake in
our battle to obtain these images is the fundamental right of the
American people to access government information.
I'll say it again here - as we've said in court: We're not
after any information that has any relevance to national security. We
just want to complete the public record on one of the most
significant victories in United States military history.
But the Obama administration says the American people have no right
to this information. And thus far the courts have acquiesced, which
raises significant separation of powers issues addressed by JW in its
cert. petition.
This case, we argue "is the poster child of the almost blind
deference being provided to the Executive Branch" by the courts
in recent years in cases involving the withholding of materials labeled
as classified. The petition asks the Supreme Court to mandate the
lower courts to "conduct meaningful review" of Executive
Branch decisions to withhold classified materials or the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) will "continue as less of a disclosure
than a withholding
statute."
Now, with a Supreme Court cert. petition, the petitioning party must
always indicate the "Question Presented" to the Court.
Here's ours:
Whether 5 U.S.C. §
552(b)(1), [known as 'Exemption 1'] which allows the Executive Branch
to withhold information "specifically authorized under criteria
established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest
of national defense or foreign policy and [is] in fact properly
classified pursuant to Executive order," limits courts to
provide almost blind deference to the Executive Branch's
classification determinations or whether it mandates that courts
conduct meaningful review of those determinations.
And here are our "Reasons for Granting the Petition," which
centers on five key points:
I. The FOIA Is a
Disclosure Statute - As
this Court has recently reiterated, the FOIA was enacted to overhaul
an earlier public records provision that had become more of "a
withholding statute than a disclosure statute." Milner,
131 S. Ct. at 1262 (quoting Mink, 410 U.S. at 79). For the
FOIA to escape this same fate, the nine exemptions contained therein
must be interpreted narrowly.
II. Exemption 1 Indisputably Requires All Withheld Material to Be
Classified in Accordance with the Procedural Criteria As Well As Its
Substantive Terms - Congress carefully crafted Exemption 1 to
allow only the withholding of material that is "specifically
authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be
kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and
[is] in fact properly classified pursuant to Executive order "
... The DC Circuit failed to follow this well-established,
indisputable standard.
III. The D.C. Circuit Blindly Approved the CIA's Withholding of
the Requested Images Even Though the Records Were Not Properly Classified
- [T]he two courts collectively concluded that the CIA provided
no evidence to demonstrate that the images were properly classified.
IV. The D.C. Circuit Blindly Approved the CIA's Claim That the
Release of the Images Reasonably Could Be Expected to Cause
Exceptionally Grave Damage to National Security - [T]he court
seems to suggest that the result of such violence and attacks
[possibly triggered by the release of the photos and videos] is
equivalent to exceptionally grave damage to national security. Prior
to this ruling, no court had ever held that speculative, unspecific
violence harms the national defense of the United States.
V. The Courts' Almost Blind Deference Eviscerates the FOIA as a
Disclosure Statute - By providing almost blind deference to the
Executive Branch, it is foreseeable that the Executive Branch will
abuse its seemingly unreviewable authority.
One thing that strikes me as I review our attorneys' legal arguments
is that this FOIA case is yet another facet of the president's illicit
assertion of executive power. In this case, President Obama
personally orchestrated the withholding of documents simply because
he didn't want to be seen as "spiking the football."
Time and time again, this president thinks that his personal whims have
the force of law. We hope the Supreme Court schools him
otherwise.
This case also demonstrates why we have to be persistent in fighting
Obama secrecy - because it is always a long ball game. On May
4, 2011, Judicial Watch filed
a FOIA request with the DOD
seeking "all 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." An identical
request had been filed on May 3, 2011, with the CIA. When neither the
DOD nor the CIA complied with the FOIA requests within the 20
business days as required by law, Judicial Watch, in June 2011, filed
its FOIA lawsuits against both agencies.
On April 26, 2012, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg ruled
that the images could remain secret while conceding: "Indeed, it
makes sense that the more significant an event is to our nation - and
the end of bin Laden's reign of terror certainly ranks high - the
more need the public has for full disclosure." On May 21, 2013,
the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the District Court decision while conceding that
the documents may not have been properly classified.
Folks, this is a landmark case that is about much more than 50
photographs and videos. It could determine whether President Obama,
with the blind deference of the judicial branch, can unilaterally
rewrite the Freedom of Information Act at the expense of the American
people's right to know what its government is up to. The idea that
our government would put the sensibilities of terrorists above the
rule of law ought to concern every American. It certainly concerns
JW, which depends upon FOIA to investigate and root out government
corruption.
Judicial Watch Sues DOJ for LGBT Bar Association's
2012 Lavender Law Conference & Career Fair Documents
Two weeks ago, I told you about some very
interesting information
Judicial Watch uncovered regarding Attorney General Eric Holder's
travels, which cost the American people over $4 million, including
$600,000-plus for personal junkets.
While the personal trips appear to be a colossal waste of taxpayer
dollars, it is the "business" trips which have especially
caught JW's attention. The records we uncovered documented
"business trips" by Holder to Al Sharpton's National Action
Network as well as conferences hosted by La Raza ("The
Race") and the NAACP. As I pointed out in this space previously,
many of these trips took place during presidential election season,
once again blurring the lines between the Obama administration and
the Obama campaign.
And this brings me to yet another highly questionable trip by Holder
- this time to serve as a keynote speaker at the LGBT (Lesbian Gay
Bisexual Transgender) "Lavender Law Conference & Career
Fair" held on August 23, 2012.
After hitting another Obama stonewall, JW is now in court seeking
access to records detailing this trip, filing a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia against the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ).
And why did this speech in particular pique the interest of our
investigations team? Because it is yet another shocking example of
this Justice Department's willingness to do the bidding of radical
leftist special interest groups.
In
his keynote address at the LGBT Lavender Law Conference Holder congratulated "the tireless work of
advocates and attorneys in and far beyond this room" who
advanced the LGBT agenda, and called for the passion of its members
to continue the "momentum." Holder also reminded the
audience that the Obama DOJ was refusing to defend the Defense of
Marriage Act, though at the time, it was still prevailing law of the
land.
This was the second high profile speech where Holder pandered to
homosexual activists in a very short period of time. One month
previous to his LGBT Lavender Conference appearance, Holder
led a group of DOJ employees in honoring Anoka-Hennepin School
District of Minnesota students involved in a lawsuit to force the district to
endorse homosexual conduct.
Five of the students received an award at DOJ's annual LGBT Pride
Month program in the Great Hall of the Main Justice Building. We want
records detailing this event, as well. In March 2013, Judicial Watch
filed a Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Obama DOJ and Education (DOE) on
behalf of the Family Research Council (FRC) for records regarding
their involvement in the Anoka-Hennepin suit.
The response to requests for records regarding the Lavender Conference
has been typically Obamaesque.
By a letter dated September 26, 2012, the DOJ's Office of Information
Policy (OIP) acknowledged that it had received the Judicial Watch
FOIA request. The agency responded by saying that the request fell
within the "unusual circumstances" of the Act, but failed
to provide "a date on which determination is expected to be
dispatched," as required by law.
After OIP failed to provide any further communications, Judicial
Watch, on March 18, 2013, contacted OIP asking that the records be
provided without further delay.
On March 19, 2013, Judicial Watch received a letter from OIP saying
that the search of the Office of the Attorney General had been
completed and that OIP was now reviewing the records that had been
located. The letter also stated that because the records contained
information of interest to other DOJ offices, OIP could respond only
after consulting those offices. No information was provided as to the
status of searches for records with other offices.
On March 22, 2013, Judicial Watch filed an administrative appeal
seeking compliance with the original FOIA request. OIP acknowledged
receiving the appeal on the same day and was required to make a
determination on the appeal within 20 working days. To date, OIP has failed
to provide any further information concerning the FOIA request or the
subsequent appeal. All of this bureaucratic double-speak and delay
further proves the Big Lie that the Obama administration is the most
transparent in history.
Per usual, this runaround is all about one thing - concealing the
truth. The Obama administration has some more secrets they don't want
you to know.
Holder's DOJ is increasingly home to a bevy of leftist activists
pursuing narrow ideological agendas at the expense of the public
interest. And DOJ officials want to keep this all a secret, which is
why we had to file a FOIA lawsuit to get basic information about the
Attorney General's collusion with homosexual activists/government
employees.
Kerry Reinstates Officials on Leave over Benghazigate
- to Protect Clinton?
Here are the Benghazi numbers: Four Americans dead, including
Ambassador Chris Stevens. Zero honest answers from the
administration. And zero accountability. And now, even the tepid
actions taken last December to place a few State Department officials
on administrative leave over Benghazi, has been completely undone by
Secretary of State John Kerry.
As reported by Fox
News:
The four State Department
officials put on administrative leave following the Sept. 11
terrorist attack in Benghazi have been allowed back on the job after
being cleared by Secretary of State John Kerry to return, in a move
one lawmaker decried as a "game of musical chairs."...
Last December, the
officials were removed from their posts after an independent panel
criticized the security and "lack of proactive leadership"
at the U.S. diplomatic compound. The stinging State report also
called out officials in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs and said
they "showed a lack of ownership of Benghazi's security
issues."
Kerry reportedly made the move after a "thorough" internal
investigation. And here is the "official" State Department's
justification for the reinstatement of the employees, per an unnamed
agency official:
"In order to
implement the (Benghazi report) and to continue to turn the page and
shift the paradigm inside the Department, the four employees who were
put on administrative leave last December pending further review will
be reassigned inside the State Department..."
Frankly, this all sounds like a variation of the Hillary scream,
"What
difference does it make!"
Shift the paradigm? Why kind of paradigm shift in the reformation of
the State Department following Benghazi is going to take place as a
result of reinstating these officials?
If the Obama administration had wanted a "paradigm shift"
after Benghazi, they would have told the truth from the beginning
instead of instructing (allowing?) UN Ambassador Rice and Hillary
Clinton to spew lies. They would have turned over all records to
congressional investigators. And they would not have intimidated
and/or kept hidden potential witnesses. Then they would have gone
about the business of making sure it did not happen again.
The Obama administration obviously went another direction.
Fox News further reported that the State Department's internal
inquiry indicated that none of these officials "breached their
duty," while also noting that none of them would be returning to
their previous positions.
So here's the key question: If these officials did not "breach
their duty" then who did? Four Americans are dead following a
terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya. Surely the Obama
administration cannot contend that everyone within the State
Department (and other involved agencies) performed their duties with
professionalism and competence and are blameless.
Yes they can! - So says conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer
in an interview with Fox
News - and for political gain.
"This is the
definition of how to conduct a stonewall," Krauthammer, a
syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor, said of Secretary of
State John Kerry's decision to put the officials back to work.
"The new Secretary of
State looks at this and says, essentially, these people were not
responsible, or they don't really carry any accountability - they are
back on the job, as you say, without ever missing a paycheck, and no
one is held responsible."
Krauthammer added, "whatever the intent was, it surely is a
Clinton protection operation, in effect."
In summary: Placing the officials on leave - a publicity stunt.
Bringing them back - a political play. All of it intended to protect
the Democratic nominee-in-waiting, Hillary Clinton. (Perhaps THIS is
the "paradigm" shift the State Department truly seeks.)
Here's my take. Maybe these four officials had nothing to do with the
massive screw-up inside the Obama administration that resulted in the
deaths of four Americans. Maybe they had nothing to do with the lying
that took place immediately thereafter. And maybe they should never
have been put on administrative leave in the first place.
But someone inside the Obama administration is surely responsible for
Benghazi. And we intend to get to the bottom of it. (See
here for information on our Benghazi investigative and legal
activities,
which is one of our most significant projects at this time.)
This has been one of the most significant scandals and cover-ups in
modern United States history. And the political gamesmanship,
obfuscation and outright lying by the Obama administration is
shameless - and it must be stopped.
We're coming up on the one year anniversary of the attack. And
the only American citizen who has been held to "account"
was the poor sap who made the Internet
video that was falsely
portrayed as inciting the Benghazi attack. (The Obama
administration put him in jail for supposedly violating the terms of
parole for other crimes.)
And it is not just the Obama gang that is complicit in this
cover-up. Most of the congressional Republican leadership is
actively opposing efforts to ramp up investigations into the Benghazi
scandal.
I suggest you do a few things over few weeks (besides directly supporting
our work!).
Write letters to the editor of your local newspaper demanding
accountability. Get the word out also on social media.
Contact your members of Congress to express your views on
Benghazi. We can't rely on the politicians for
leadership. Working together, we can provide the leadership and
vindicate those fine Americans slain on September 11, 2012.
Until next week...
Tom Fitton
President
|
3 comments:
Osama bin Laden was dead years ago, some ten years ago? There is no way our President's people killed him. That's all a farce. He died alone, from his already bad health, and wasn't killed by any troops.
It's not a secret. It was put out on the Internet a long time ago. Don't any of you read?
Tianca
Maybe they'll accidently pop out some pics of OBL on a dialysis machine before he kicked the bucket from kidney failure in Dec. of '01. I'm sure that at least one of his CIA handlers must have clicked off a few as they were consoling him and listening to his deathbed wishes.
Is Obama hiding something?
Post a Comment