Skip to content

Judicial Watch • 81046072 OBL Reply

81046072 OBL Reply

81046072 OBL Reply

Page 1: 81046072 OBL Reply

Category:General

Number of Pages:19

Date Created:February 8, 2012

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014

Tags:Culver, images, Reply, BENNETT, Exemption, laden, al Qaeda, Civil, Defense, defendants, EXECUTIVE, order, Pentagon, Union, section, plaintiff, records, Supreme Court, states, court, united, EPA, IRS, ICE, CIA


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA 
 
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., 
   Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 11-00890 (JEB) 
U.S. DEPARTMENT DEFENSE, al., 
Defendants. 
___________________________________ 
 
 
PLAINTIFFS REPLY SUPPORT ITS  
CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 
 
 Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc., counsel and pursuant Rule 56(c) the Federal Rules Civil Procedure, respectfully submits this reply support its cross-motion for summary judgment. grounds thereof, Plaintiff states follows: 
MEMORANDUM LAW Introduction. 

 Despite two rounds briefing and the submission five declarations, well multiple requests Plaintiff provide additional information, Defendants U.S. Department Defense (DoD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (collectively Defendants) have failed demonstrate that all the unique records issue this Freedom Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit are being withheld lawfully.   
 Plaintiff requested photographs and video recordings Osama bin Laden.  Defendants admit that least some the requested records portray scene that they have described the following official statement:  
Todays religious rites were conducted for the deceased the deck the USS Carl Vinson, which located the North Arabian Sea.  Preparations for at-sea burial began 1:10 a.m. Eastern Standard Time and were completed 2:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.   
 
Traditional procedures for Islamic burial were followed.  The deceaseds body was washed and then placed white sheet.  The body was placed weighted bag, military officer read prepared religious remarks, which were translated into Arabic native speaker.  After the words were complete, the body was placed prepared flat board, tipped up, whereupon the deceaseds body was eased into the sea. 
 
U.S. Dept Defense News Transcript, Background Briefing with Senior Defense Officials from the Pentagon and Senior Intelligence Officials Telephone U.S. Operations Involving Osama Bin Laden, May 2001, attached Exhibit the Declaration Michael Bekesha (Plfs Mem. 5).    
 Plaintiff did not request any other records about the May 2011 raid.  Plaintiff did not request images information about the identity U.S. personnel their equipment, tools, tactics, techniques, methods, procedures.  Nor did Plaintiff request images information about classified technology.  Plaintiff certainly does not seek the production anything that reasonably likely cause harm the United States.  Plaintiff seeks only hold Defendants the requirements the law.  Because Defendants have failed satisfy their burden proof under FOIA despite multiple opportunities so, summary judgment must entered against them and they they must ordered disclose all responsive records not lawfully exempt from production under FOIA.  
 
 
 
II. Argument. Defendants Fail Prove That They Followed the Procedural  
  Requirements Executive Order 13526. 
 
 Defendants submit the declaration National Clandestine Service Information Review Officer Elizabeth Anne Culver try bolster their claim that they satisfied the procedural requirements Executive Order 13526.  Ms. Culvers declaration only further confirms that Defendants have failed satisfy their burden proof. her declaration, Ms. Culver testifies that the CIA derivatively classified the unique records identified being responsive Plaintiffs FOIA only after the CIA received these records.  Culver Decl.   Ms. Culvers testimony important for least two reasons.   
 First, Ms. Culvers testimony admission that the CIA did not possess the records initially, but instead obtained them from another source.  Plaintiff believes that this other source most likely DoD.  This conclusion consistent with the fact that the raid bin Ladens compound, the subsequent preparation bin Ladens body for burial sea, and the actual burial sea were carried out DoD personnel Navy Seal team) using DoD facilities hanger Bagram Air Base) and DoD ship (the USS Carl Vinson).  Presumably, DoD personnel created the records, possessed them for time, and then transferred them the CIA.  Otherwise, Ms. Culver would not have testified that the records were derivatively classified after the CIA received these records.  Culver Decl.  (emphasis added).   
 Second, derivative classification, defined Executive Order 13526, means the incorporating, paraphrasing, restating, generating new form information that already classified, and marking the newly developed material consistent with the classification markings that apply the source information.  Executive Order 13526,  6.1(o). contrast, original 
classification means an initial determination that information requires, the interest the national security, protection against unauthorized disclosure.  Id.  6(ff). original classification authority an individual authorized writing, either the President, the Vice President, agency heads other officials designated the President, classify information the first instance.  Id.  6(gg). official who derivatively classifies information required observe and respect original classification decisions.  Id.  2.1(b)(2). the CIA derivatively classified the records some point after receiving them, then, obviously, some other, unidentified official from outside the CIA must have made original classification determination some unidentified point time before the CIA received the records.  The CIAs subsequent derivative classification the records only observe[d] and respect[ed] this earlier classification.  Id.  2.1(b)(2).  Thus, the CIAs own admission, neither created nor possessed the records, least initially, and did not classify them originally.  Rather, only classified the records derivatively after they were transferred the CIA.   
 Defendants have always been coy about the provenance and classification the records, but Ms. Culvers testimony further highlights Defendants failure satisfy their burden proving that the records were classified properly. Plaintiff demonstrated its opening brief, Executive Order 13526 contains multitude procedural requirements that must satisfied order for record classified properly.  Perhaps most importantly, Executive Order 13526 requires that an original classification authority classifying the information and that the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure the information reasonably could expected result damage the national security.  Plfs Mem. 
(citing Executive Order 13526,  1.1).  Executive Order 13526 also contains requirements about the duration the classification, the identification the original classifying authority, and the markings that properly classified record must bear.  Id. (citing Executive Order 13526,  1.5 and 1.6). also unambiguously and unconditionally states, Information may originally classified under the terms this order only all [these] conditions are met.  Executive Order 13526,  1.1(a) (emphasis added).   
 Ms. Culver testimony makes clear that Defendants have completely and totally failed present any evidence about the person who purportedly served the original classification authority for each the unique records issue. also makes clear that Defendants have completely and totally failed present any evidence about whether this person determined that the unauthorized disclosure these records reasonably could expected result damage the national security, that she satisfied the numerous other requirements Executive Order 13526 originally classifying the records.  Defendants attempt invoke Executive Order 13526 suffers from complete failure proof. addition, Executive Order 13526 also contains additional procedural requirements when FOIA request has been made for records before the records have been classified.  Unclassified records requested under FOIA may subsequently classified only such classification meets the requirements this order and accomplished document-by- 
document basis with the personal participation under the direction the agency head, the deputy agency head, the senior agency official designated under section 5.4 this order.  Executive Order 13526,  1.7(d).  Defendants have been dismissive Plaintiffs arguments about these additional requirements.  They argue that the the date the classification 
unimportant and emphasize the fact that the CIA did not receive Plaintiffs FOIA request until May 2011.  Ms. Culvers testimony confirms that Defendants are wrong. 
 Defendants try ignore the fact that Plaintiffs FOIA request DoD was sent May 2011, only one day after the raid, and was received DoD the following day, May 2011. light Ms. Culvers testimony that the CIA did not initially possess the records, but instead obtained them from another source after original classification determination had purportedly been made, the date the original classification determination all the more crucial evaluating whether Defendants complied with the additional procedural requirements Section 1.7(d) Executive Order 13526.  Plaintiff submits that that the operative date for analyzing whether Defendants complied with Section 1.7(d) the date the request was received DoD.  Regardless, the date the purported original classification was after May 2011, the case DoD, after May 2011, the case both agencies, Defendants were required follow the additional procedural requirements set forth Section 1.7(d), including classifying the records document-by-document basis and having particular officials involved the process.  Executive Order 13526,  1.7(d).  Defendants have failed provide this clearly relevant information despite repeated opportunities so.1  The obvious conclusion that Defendants cannot prove that they complied with the additional procedural requirements Section 1.7(d).  Mr. Bennett only testified that reviewed the derivatively classified records document-by-document.  Bennett Decl.  did not testify that classified them document-by-document, required Section 1.7(d).  
 
 Ms. Culvers testimony also revealing for several other reasons.  Ms. Culver makes clear that, least until some point after September 26, 2011, the records did not contain the 
markings required Executive Order 15326 for both original classification determinations and for derivative classification determinations.  See Executive Order 13526,  1.6 and 2.1(b).  Ms. Culver testifies, At the time Mr. Bennetts declaration, these records were marked TOP SECRET .2  Culver Decl.   She continues, Since then, the CIA has, out abundance caution, take additional steps ensure that each these records contains all the markings required the Executive Order .  Id.  Mr. Bennetts declaration dated September 26, 2011.  The obvious conclusion that Defendants did not even attempt comply with the marking requirements Executive Order 13526 until some point after September 26, 2011, nearly five months after Plaintiff served its FOIA requests. John Bennett, the Director the National Clandestine Services, submitted declaration support Defendants motion for summary judgment. addition, Ms. Culver testifies that after their creation these extraordinarily sensitive images were considered classified the CIA and were consistently maintained manner appropriate for their classification level.  Culver Decl.  n.1.  Ms. Culvers testimony revealing. the records had been classified properly, then there would reason for Ms. Culver testify about whether the CIA always considered them classified consistently maintained them they had been classified particular level.  Combined with Defendants complete and total failure provide any evidence about the original classification the records and Defendants subsequent admission that the records were derivatively classified unidentified official after being transferred the CIA some unidentified date, Ms. Culvers testimony effectively acknowledges that the records were not classified properly the first instance.   
 Finally, Ms. Culvers testimony also makes clear that the classification review conducted Mr. Bennett was limited review the derivative classification determinations made some unidentified official some unidentified time prior September 26, 2011.  Culver Decl.  (When Mr. Bennett later reviewed each these records for the purpose this litigation, reaffirmed that these prior classification determinations were correct .).  Mr. Bennett was not the original classification authority the records, nor did even derivatively classify them.  Id. only reviewed earlier, derivative classifications.3  Id.  Defendants provide evidence about these earlier, derivative classifications.  Like with the purported original classifications, Defendants provide evidence about who derivatively classified the records, what procedures she followed, and whether all the requirements outlined Section 2.1 Executive Order 13526 were satisfied.  They only submit declarations reaffirming that these prior derivative classification determinations were correct.  Culver Decl.  addition, Ms. Culvers testimony also bolsters Plaintiffs argument that Defendants searches for records were inadequate.  The fact that the responsive records were derivatively classified upon transfer the CIA implies that additional originally classified records likely exist.  Since Ms. Culver claims possess personal knowledge and information about both this lawsuit and Plaintiffs requests (Culver Decl.  5), Defendants cannot ignore what [they] cannot help but know.  Kowalczyk Department Justice, F.3d 386, 389 (D.C. Cir. 1996).  Therefore, Defendants have failed demonstrate beyond material doubt that [their] search[es] w[ere] reasonably calculated uncover all relevant documents.  Nation Magazine U.S. Customs Service, F.3d 885, 890 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (quoting Truitt U.S. Department State, 897 F.2d 540, 542 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). 
 The law clear. order withhold records requested under Exemption agency must demonstrate that withheld records were classified accordance with the procedural criteria the governing Executive Order.  Lesar U.S. Department Justice, 636 F.2d 472, 483 (D.C. Cir. 1980). agency may not rely declarations that are conclusory, merely 
recite statutory standards, are vague sweeping.  Allen Central Intelligence Agency, 636 F.2d 1287, 1291-92 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (rejecting affidavits that indicate[d] neither the identity the original classifier nor the date event for declassification review).  Defendants have failed make the required evidentiary showing despite having multiple opportunities so.  Stripped down their essence, Defendants declarations contain nothing more than generalized, conclusory assertions that the records issue were classified properly under Executive Order 13526.  Defendants have failed satisfy their burden matter law. Defendants Fail Prove That They Satisfy the Substantive  
  Requirements Executive Order 13526. Defendants Vague, Sweeping Descriptions the Records Issue Are Insufficient Satisfy Their Burden. 
 
 Defendants also fail demonstrate that they satisfy the substantive requirements Executive Order 13526.  They continue rely vague, sweeping descriptions the records issue rather than identify each unique record individually, pinpointing the classification category Section 1.4 into which each record allegedly falls, and demonstrating how the release each record would cause exceptionally grave harm national security.  Defendants refusal provide Vaughn index otherwise identify each record individually and correlate that record legal theory justifying its withholding important because, not only does fail satisfy Defendants burden matter law, but also cuts off any meaningful evaluation analysis Defendants claims exemption.  See Plfs Mem. 18-19; see also Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. Dept Air Force, Supp. 295 (D.D.C. 1999).   
 Plaintiff requested images bin Laden.  Plaintiff did not request images the equipment tools used during the May 2011 raid.  Nor did Plaintiff request information 
about the identities the members the U.S. Navy SEAL team that carried out the raid, site exploitation tactics, techniques, procedures used the team, methods used the team other U.S. military personnel identify bin Ladens body used generally Defendants identify persons who have been captured killed.  Nor did Plaintiff request information about the CIAs facial recognition capabilities and techniques.  Anything other than images bin Ladens body are not responsive Plaintiffs requests. focusing background material and other information that Plaintiff did not request, Defendants obscure, not intentionally obfuscate, what truly issue this litigation, which are the images bin Laden himself. way example, their latest brief, Defendants describe the records follows:   
Many the records show the fatal bullet wound bin Ladens head and other similarly graphic images the corpse; many were taken inside bin Ladens compound Abbottabad, Pakistan, where was killed, while others were taken his corpse was being transported from the Abottabad compound the location where was buried sea; other images show the preparation bin Ladens body for burial; and other images show the burial itself.  
 
Defs Reply see also Bennett Decl.  11.  Defendants continue: some these records were taken for purposes facial recognition analysis Other record reveal other intelligence equipment tools used during this highly sensitive intelligence information.  Some the records reveal unique information about the Special Operations unit that participated this operation, making its members readily identifiable the future.  Multiple photographs show equipment used the particular Special Operations unit during the operation.  Classified Military Sensitive Site Exploitation tactics, Techniques, and Procedures are also depicted the photos.  Certain records reveal the methods that special operations forces use for identification captured and killed personnel. 
 
Defs Reply 8-9.   
 Conspicuously absent from Defendants argument any proof how, for example, images bin Ladens body was being prepared for burial sea images the actual 
burial sea itself would reveal information about the identities the members the U.S. Navy SEAL team that carried out the raid the tools and equipment used the SEAL team during the raid.  Similarly, Defendants make effort describe how images bin Ladens body taken was being transported the location its burial sea would reveal site exploitation tactics, techniques, procedures employed bin Ladens compound Abottabad, Pakistan.  Obviously, images taken board the USS Carl Vinson the burial sea are not going reveal site exploitation tactics, techniques, procedures used the Abottabad compound even facial recognition techniques capabilities.  Defendants have completely failed correlate particular records specific legal theories and therefore have failed satisfy their burden matter law.  Mead Data Central, Inc. U.S. Dept Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 251 (D.C. Cir. 1977). 
 Defendants assert that this failure does not matter, but clearly does.  Defendants not claim that all the records, opposed only some subset them, contain the background material other information about which Defendants have expressed concern. only some the records, multiple photographs, certain records contain this background material and other information, then least some the unique records containing images bin Laden not.  Because Defendants refuse identify the records that contain the background material and other information about which Defendants have expressed concern, the have failed satisfy their burden proof that all records must withheld.4  Mead Data Central, Inc. 566 F.2d 251. the extent that some certain records are images taken for purposes facial recognition analysis and were classified properly, Plaintiff would consider foregoing its claim for 
their production.  Because Defendants fail provide even generic identifiers such Bates numbers for any the records, Plaintiff not position so. 
 Moreover, Defendants have clear obligation segregate responsive material from non-responsive material and exempt material from non-exempt material.  See, e.g., Sussmann U.S. Marshalls Service, 494 F.3d 1106, 1116 (D.C. Cir. 2007).  Defendants have not disputed that they possess the technical capability pixelate, blur, otherwise segregate out the background material question from the records containing images bin Laden.  See Defs Reply 10.  Mr. Bennetts brief, bald, and barren assertion that any non-exempt records containing images bin Laden are so inextricably intertwined with allegedly exempt background material that they cannot segregated and disclosed merely parrots the case law concerning segregability and therefore fails satisfy Defendants burden.  Animal Legal Defense Fund, Supp. 301(noting that neither the plaintiff nor the Court was obliged accept the agencys conclusory assertions about segregability); Army Times Publishing Co. Dept the Air Force, 990 F.2d 1067, (D.C. Cir. 1993); Allen Central Intelligence Agency, 636 F.2d 1287, 1292 (D.C. Cir. 1980). 
 Finally, Defendants assert that they cannot disclose any additional information about the records because doing could potentially reveal[] classified information.  Defs Reply (emphasis added).  Defendants clearly are wrong.  For example, Defendants could assign Bates number particular record and state that the record depicts both bin Ladens body and piece equipment without identifying the particular piece the equipment.  Defendants also could assign range Bates number the records depicting bin Ladens burial sea and identify each such record Bates number without revealing any classified information.  They not claim that the number records the burial sea classified.  Indeed, in most cases 
the agency should not have difficulty describing the context and nature the withheld information without revealing its substance.  Campbell U.S. Dept Justice, 164 F.3d 20, (D.C. Cir. 1998) (citing Hayden Natl Security Agency, 608 F.2d 1381, 1385 (D.C. Cir. 1979).  Defendants clearly can provide additional information about the withheld records; they just refuse so. sum, the evidence submitted Defendants consists more than conclusory declarations with overly vague and sweeping statements.  International Counsel Bureau U.S. Dept Defense, 723 Supp. 52, (D.D.C. 2010).  The declarations submitted and the arguments presented raise more questions than they provide answers. Defendants burden provide sufficient evidence, and Defendants should provide it.  They failed so. Defendants National Security Argument Fails. 
 
 Even Defendants could show  which they have not  that the classification all unique records satisfied the procedural requirements Executive Order 13526, that each record has been adequately described and correlated particular exemption supporting the decision withhold it, and that all non-responsive exempt material had been segregated, Defendants still fail demonstrate that the disclosure all unique records reasonably could expected cause identifiable describable exceptionally grave damage the national security that the original classification authority able identify describe.  Executive Order 13526,  1.4.   Shorn all background images and concerns about disclosure facial recognition capabilities (see footnote supra), Defendants national security argument boils down the claim that even images bin Ladens body, cleaned and prepared for burial sea, well images the the burial sea itself, would provide terrorist groups and other entities hostile 
the United States with information create propaganda, which, turn could lead violence and deadly attacks, could generate fodder for extremist commentary that could further incited attacks against the United States and its citizens, and could interpreted deliberate attempt humiliate the late al-Qaida leader that, combined with other images could cause feelings denigration and could trigger violence, attacks, acts revenge .  Bennett Decl.  and 26-27.  Based this concern about potential propaganda and the emotional sensitivities unidentified persons populations overseas, Defendants conclude that exceptionally grave damages the United States could reasonably expected.  Id.; see also Neller Decl.  
 Defendants provide legal authority which such hypothetical speculation about potential propaganda and hurt feelings leading acts violence was sufficient satisfy agencys burden proof. court appears have ever held that Exemption allows government agency withhold requested records simply because their release might used for propaganda purposes inflame tensions overseas.5  The authorities which Defendants rely are inapposite. American Civil Liberties Union U.S. Dept Defense, 628 F.3d 612, 624 (D.C. Cir. 2011), the Court declined reach similar argument the CIA that release records regarding the capture, detention, and interrogation prisoners held Guantanamo Bay, Cuba would provide Qaeda with material for propaganda.  Also, American Civil Liberties Union Dept Defense, 543 F.3d 59, n.3 (2d Cir. 2008), Exemption 7(F) case, the Court assumed, but expressly stated that need not decide, that the photographs issue that litigation could reasonably expected incite violence against United States troops, other Coalition forces, and civilians Iraq and Afghanistan.  That decision was later vacated the U.S. Supreme Court.  Dept Defense American Civil Liberties Union, U.S. __, 130 S.Ct. 777 (2009). issue Miller Casey, 730 F.2d 773 (D.C. Cir. 1984), was information concerning alleged efforts the United States and other countries infiltrate intelligence agents and potential guerrillas into Albania during the period 1945-53.  Id. 774.  The Court held that the confirmation covert intelligence mission reasonably could expected to:  (1) prevent foreign countries from participating future covert missions; (2) hamper future relations with Albania; (3) permit hostile nations piece together catalog U.S. covert missions; (4) enable the Soviet Union ascertain the reliability its double agent; (5) jeopardize sources and sympathizers still within Albania; (6) hamper future recruitment sources; and (7) reveal the particular intelligence method allegedly used the mission.  Id. 775-776.  Release images bin Ladens body  particularly those images showing the body cleaned and prepared for burial and being buried sea  would not reveal any previously unknown covert intelligence missions.  Defendants have freely and repeatedly acknowledged that the May 2011 raid took place, that bin Laden suffered fatal bullet wound his head, and that his body was washed accordance with Islamic custom and buried sea.  Bennett Decl.  11; Bekesha Decl. Exhibit issue Afshar Department State, 702 F.2d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1983) were records that would have confirmed denied covert relationship between intelligence officials the United States and their counterparts Iran.  The Court concluded that the release the requested records would reveal the existence and details concerning activities that had not been officially acknowledged. that instance, the government asserted and the Court agreed that national security concern existed because such intelligence relationships are conducted the understanding absolute confidentiality, that their official acknowledgment would 
jeopardize all existing and future cooperative relationships and would strain disrupt United States relations with other countries.  Id. 1129.  Obviously, the release the images bin Laden are different. Plaintiff demonstrated its opening brief, the government has already officially acknowledged many aspects the raid itself and the subsequent documenting its success.  Release the records would provide more than visual images facts that have already been officially acknowledged.  
 Similarly, International Counsel Bureau, supra, and Riquelme CIA, 453 Supp. 103 (D.D.C. 2006), the Court held that records were properly classified and withheld from production because the release the records would reveal specific persons, methods, and resources that the CIA used collect and analyze intelligence information.  The revelation intelligence techniques would therefore prevent the CIA from using such persons, methods, and resources the future.  Clearly, these cases have bearing the instant matter because release the the images bin Laden would not hinder future intelligence gathering and analysis.  Defendants themselves not claim much. 
 Nor images bin Laden  especially those his body cleaned and prepared for burial actually being buried sea  present the typical scenario which courts defer agencies assessments harm national security.  See American Civil Liberties Union U.S. Dept Defense, 628 F.3d 612, 623-25 (D.C. Cir. 2011).  The Court fully capable reaching its own determination about the logic and plausibility Defendants assertions harm, taking into account not only Defendants declarations, but also the substantial information that Defendants have already released the world about the May 2011 raid, the death bin Laden, and his burial sea, well the undisputed historical material presented Plaintiff.  
 Finally, even the national security context  
deference not equivalent acquiescence; the declaration may justify summary judgment only sufficient afford the FOIA requester meaningful opportunity contest, and the district court adequate foundation review, the soundness the withholding. 
 
Campbell, 164 F.3d 30; see also International Counsel Bureau, 723 Supp. 63.  Among the reasons that declaration might insufficient are lack detail and specificity, bad faith, and failure account for contrary record evidence.  Campbell, 164 F.3d 30.  Based the record before the Court, Defendants generalized and conclusory claims harm fail satisfy its burden proof. Defendants Fail Prove That They Satisfy the Requirements Exemption 
 
 Like with their arguments regarding Exemption Defendants continue rely vague and sweeping assertions support their claims withholding under Exemption  Although the underlying statutes they invoke apply intelligence sources and methods only (see U.S.C.  403-1(i) and 403(g)), Plaintiff never requested information about intelligence sources methods.  Plaintiff only requested photographs and videos bin Laden.  Defendants steadfastly refuse identify with any degree detail, even Bates numbers, the unique records containing images bin Laden.  Defendants also fail explain how these two statutes, which expressly apply the CIA and the Director National Intelligence, could prevent the release DoD records and/or records events that were carried out DoD personnel using DoD facilities and DoD ship. the same time, Defendants concede that only some the records were created for purposes facial recognition analysis contain images showing equipment tools used 
during the raid, displaying information about the the identities members the U.S. Navy SEAL team that carried out the raid, depicting methods used for identification captured killed personnel.  Defs Reply 8-9.  Defendants fail prove why these images cannot pixilated, blurred, segregated protect intelligence sources and methods.  Sussman, 494 F.3d 1116.  Nor Defendants make any effort prove why images bin Laden that were not taken for purposes facial recognition analysis not show equipment tools display information identifying members the SEAL team depict methods identifying captured killed personnel cannot produced.  Mr. Bennett testifies that several images depict the preparation bin Ladens body for burial as well the burial itself.  Bennett Decl.  11. minimum, Defendants have failed satisfy their burden proving that disclosure this subset records showing the preparation bin Ladens body for burial and bin Ladens burial actual sea would reveal intelligence sources and methods. 
 Again, Plaintiff only seeks images bin Laden, not information about intelligence sources methods any other subject matter.  Defendants have failed demonstrate that each and every the unique records are being lawfully withheld under Exemption and that the images these records contain cannot pixelated, blurred, otherwise segregated protect intelligence sources and methods while also satisfying Plaintiffs requests. 
 
 
 
 
 
III. Conclusion. 
For the reasons set forth Plaintiffs opening memorandum and the additional reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment should granted. 
Dated:  February 2012    Respectfully submitted,  
 
       /s/ Paul Orfanedes 
       Paul Orfanedes (D.C. Bar No. 429716) 
 
       /s/ Michael Bekesha 
       Michael Bekesha (D.C. Bar No. 995749) 
       JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 
       425 Third Street S.W., Suite 800 
       Washington, 20024 
       (202) 646-5172 
        
       Counsel for Plaintiff