Surreal Concern for Wanted Terrorist's "Right to Privacy" on Part of US State Department
Courtesy of Catherine Herridge, "State Department: Don't Invade Privacy of Cleric on CIA Kill List," Fox News at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/26/state-department-dont-invade-privacy-cleric-on-cia-kill-list/#ixzz1WAg50SzZ
While the New Mexico-born cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, is the first American on the CIA's kill or capture list, the U.S. State Department refuses to release documents about al-Awlaki citing his right to privacy.
This shows a very weird sense of priorities. Anwar al-Awlaki is a publicly-known, self-revealed, unrepentant and active traitor who has been named as the mastermind behind the actions of the treasonous Major Hassan and others of his ilk. The only real concern here, aside from making sure that he is killed or captured, has to do with the legal issue of whether an American citizen can be lawfully slain by mere Executive Order (an issue that I would consider resolved by the fact that said American citizen has essentially enlisted in a foreign army which is at war with the United Staes of America, which would logically constitute a repudiation of his own citizenship).
Through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in March 2010, Fox News requested "....any and all records maintained by the United States Department of State, in the passport file...." for the cleric. Initially, the request was referred to Human Resources at the State Department ...
which is also a bit strange: why would "Human Resources" be tasked with deciding whether or not to release passport file information?
The State Department then replied in a letter which in part read:
"The Department of State, Passport Services has reviewed your request and has given full consideration to the reasons provided. However, we have determined that your request must be denied. This denial is pursuant to subsection (b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act. The release of this information to you would be an invasion of personal privacy of another person, without written authorization from that person."
Again: in context, this is "another person" whom the US Government has publicly declared it will KILL should it find the opportunity. Now, a rational person would consider killing someone a worse invasion of his "personal privacy" than releasing his passport information, wouldn't he?
One can speculate on the State Department's reasoning here. It could be that the bureaucrats involved don't like Fox News -- but discriminating against Fox because they don't like its content would be an abuse of power, though admittedly a petty one. It could be that they don't like the decision to kill Awlaki, and are trying to be as nice to him as possible -- which would show a weird sense of priorities. Or, it could really be that they believe their argument that they would be invading Awlaki's "personal privacy" -- in which case, once again, we see a lamentable lack of rationality at America's most expensive country club, the US State Department.
However, there is a more serious possibility. As the article goes on to detail:
Anwar al-Awlaki and his contacts with the first two hijackers to enter the U.S. in January 2000 are central to the plot. It was at al-Awlaki's mosque in a rundown neighborhood of San Diego where the three men met on a regular basis. A new book by former FBI interrogator Ali Soufan is at the center of a reported dispute with the CIA. Published reports state the book will blame the CIA missed an opportunity to disrupt the plot by failing to provide information to the FBI.
In other words, the institutional rivalry between the CIA and the FBI played a part in blinding the US Government to the 9-11 conspiracy, and thus robbed us of an opportunity of intercepting the attack before the hijackings even happened. What's more, the fault for this may lie more with the CIA than with the FBI -- and, as we know, the CIA, both by the nature of its work (foreign intelligence as opposed to domestic counter-intelligence) and by the class origins of its personnel (upper-class as opposed to middle-class) tends to be closer to the State Department than is the FBI.
Which would mean one group of bureaucrats covering the asses of another group of bureaucrats. An old story, but one which in a matter this serious the American people should not be willing to tolerate.
While the New Mexico-born cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, is the first American on the CIA's kill or capture list, the U.S. State Department refuses to release documents about al-Awlaki citing his right to privacy.
This shows a very weird sense of priorities. Anwar al-Awlaki is a publicly-known, self-revealed, unrepentant and active traitor who has been named as the mastermind behind the actions of the treasonous Major Hassan and others of his ilk. The only real concern here, aside from making sure that he is killed or captured, has to do with the legal issue of whether an American citizen can be lawfully slain by mere Executive Order (an issue that I would consider resolved by the fact that said American citizen has essentially enlisted in a foreign army which is at war with the United Staes of America, which would logically constitute a repudiation of his own citizenship).
Through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in March 2010, Fox News requested "....any and all records maintained by the United States Department of State, in the passport file...." for the cleric. Initially, the request was referred to Human Resources at the State Department ...
which is also a bit strange: why would "Human Resources" be tasked with deciding whether or not to release passport file information?
The State Department then replied in a letter which in part read:
"The Department of State, Passport Services has reviewed your request and has given full consideration to the reasons provided. However, we have determined that your request must be denied. This denial is pursuant to subsection (b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act. The release of this information to you would be an invasion of personal privacy of another person, without written authorization from that person."
Again: in context, this is "another person" whom the US Government has publicly declared it will KILL should it find the opportunity. Now, a rational person would consider killing someone a worse invasion of his "personal privacy" than releasing his passport information, wouldn't he?
One can speculate on the State Department's reasoning here. It could be that the bureaucrats involved don't like Fox News -- but discriminating against Fox because they don't like its content would be an abuse of power, though admittedly a petty one. It could be that they don't like the decision to kill Awlaki, and are trying to be as nice to him as possible -- which would show a weird sense of priorities. Or, it could really be that they believe their argument that they would be invading Awlaki's "personal privacy" -- in which case, once again, we see a lamentable lack of rationality at America's most expensive country club, the US State Department.
However, there is a more serious possibility. As the article goes on to detail:
Anwar al-Awlaki and his contacts with the first two hijackers to enter the U.S. in January 2000 are central to the plot. It was at al-Awlaki's mosque in a rundown neighborhood of San Diego where the three men met on a regular basis. A new book by former FBI interrogator Ali Soufan is at the center of a reported dispute with the CIA. Published reports state the book will blame the CIA missed an opportunity to disrupt the plot by failing to provide information to the FBI.
In other words, the institutional rivalry between the CIA and the FBI played a part in blinding the US Government to the 9-11 conspiracy, and thus robbed us of an opportunity of intercepting the attack before the hijackings even happened. What's more, the fault for this may lie more with the CIA than with the FBI -- and, as we know, the CIA, both by the nature of its work (foreign intelligence as opposed to domestic counter-intelligence) and by the class origins of its personnel (upper-class as opposed to middle-class) tends to be closer to the State Department than is the FBI.
Which would mean one group of bureaucrats covering the asses of another group of bureaucrats. An old story, but one which in a matter this serious the American people should not be willing to tolerate.