Yet I do think that there is a kind of public interest in releasing Osama bin Laden's porn.
CIA Director Mike Pompeo said that the “documents retrieved from the 2011 Navy Seal raid that killed Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden would be released in ‘weeks’—with the exception of one particular part of the haul, his pornography stash.”How is this classified, and what is the legal rationale for classifying this information? Information cannot legally be classified to avoid embarrassment or to cover up illegal activity. Al Qaeda is not a foreign government, so this doesn't qualify as foreign government information. There's no issue of protecting collection methods, as everyone knows how we collected the information: we sent DEVGRU to shoot him and scarf up his computers.
The Newsweek article below indicates that “while these documents are considered operational, his porn collection is not, and will likely remain classified.” Whatever that means.
What law allows them to keep this information a secret? FOIA has nine specific exceptions that allow agencies to refuse to release information. The only one that could apply is 6, "information that would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." But Osama bin Laden is dead, and what personal privacy expectations does a dead terrorist have?
This baffles me. I am trying to imagine knowing what version of porn OBL or his pals preferred would would work against any group whatsoever. Let me sit and think a bit.
ReplyDeleteUnderage boys? Animals? Would those things so confirm the stereotypes that deplorables believe as to injure the republic in some way?
The answer I've seen is that terrorists use stenography in porn as a dissemination channel. Searching the net for "stenography porn terrorist" brings up several links from reasonably rational sources (Ars Technica, Schneier, etc). To release the OBL's porn might be the same as releasing instructions. As a side thought, it would be weird because you know someone would grab the porn just because it was associated with OBL regardless of if they knew how to extract the message, assuming there was a message...
ReplyDelete-Stc Michael
Interesting.
ReplyDeleteMaybe just release a list of the titles, then?
Whatever is there would reflect badly on islam. And we can't have that.
ReplyDeleteWhatever is there would reflect badly on islam.
ReplyDeleteYou mean like the rape of 72 virgins? Or videos of FGM?
Eric Hines
OBL "porn?"
ReplyDeleteMaybe like horrific torture/murder?
Usually the reason to limit release of stuff like this is so the American public does not get pissed off and bring pressure to bear to go nuke somebody. Same reason the networks stopped showing jumpers off the WTC.
Maybe it's not so much that they feel it would reflect badly on Islamists but potentially it's illegal to distribute in the US (I don't think child porn laws contain public interest exceptions), and disseminating it would have little more than prurient appeal.
ReplyDeleteI would think it had significance insofar as it would tend to undermine the mythos of a terrorist leader who represented himself and his movement as opposing an 'immoral' United States -- immoral by the very religious standards traduced, probably, by the pornography. Even if it were fairly mild pornography, 'Girls Gone Wild' stuff, it's a contradiction for al Qaeda.
ReplyDeleteThey still exist; his death did not end them. They should be forced to own these contradictions, of which his personal example is hardly the only one.
If the Deep State decides the CIA needs to keep this all inside, then that is what America will do. Americans work for the Deep State, not the other way around.
ReplyDelete