Abu Ghraib Images/Know Your FOIA: The 7(F) Exemption:

[Warren DeMontague]

http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/exemption7f.htm

Exemption 7(F) permits the withholding of law enforcement-related information necessary to protect the physical safety of a wide range of individuals. This exemption provides broad protection to "any individual" when disclosure of information about him "could reasonably be expected to endanger life or physical safety." (1)

Prior to the 1986 FOIA amendments, (2) Exemption 7(F) by its former terms protected records that "would . . . endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel," (3) and it had been invoked to protect both federal and local law enforcement officers. (4) Cases decided after the 1986 FOIA amendments continue this strong protection for law enforcement agents. (5)

Under the amended language of Exemption 7(F), courts have applied the broader coverage now offered by the exemption, holding that it can afford protection of the "names and identifying information of . . . federal employees, and third persons who may be unknown" to the requester in connection with particular law enforcement matters. (6) Withholding such information can be necessary in order to protect such persons from possible harm by a requester who has threatened them in the past. (7) Indeed, many courts have held that the very expansive language of "any individual" encompasses the protection of the identities of informants. (8)

Significantly, Exemption 7(F) protection has been held to remain applicable even after a law enforcement officer subsequently retired. (9) Moreover, it has been held that Exemption 7(F) can be employed to protect even the identities of individuals who testified at the requester's criminal trial. (10) And one court approved a rather novel, but certainly appropriate, application of this exemption to a description in an FBI laboratory report of a homemade machine gun because its disclosure would create the real possibility that law enforcement officers would have to face "individuals armed with homemade devices constructed from the expertise of other law enforcement people." (11)

When Exemption 7(F) was broadened by the 1986 FOIA amendments, that action created a broader potential for the exemption that obviously had yet to be fully realized. (12) Now, in the current post-September 11, 2001 homeland security environment, Exemption 7(F) provides vital new avenues of protection for sensitive information that could prove deadly if obtained by those seeking to do harm to the public on a large scale. (13) Indeed, a court recently found Exemption 7(F) readily available to protect against disclosure of "inundation maps" that showed projected patterns in which downstream areas would be catastrophically flooded in the event of breaches in nearby dams. (14) The court reasoned that releasing such information in the face of current homeland security concerns "could increase the risk of an attack" on one dam over another, and on such dam targets overall, because terrorists would be able to use these maps to estimate the amount of damage and carnage caused by flooding. (15)

Although Exemption 7(F)'s coverage is in large part duplicative of that afforded by Exemption 7(C), it is potentially broader in that no balancing is required for withholding under Exemption 7(F), (16) so agencies should give careful consideration to the added measure of protection that it affords in all law enforcement contexts. (17) Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any circumstance in which the public's interest in disclosure could outweigh the personal safety of any individual. (18)

In sum, Exemption 7(F) has proven to be of great utility to law enforcement agencies, given the lessened "could reasonably be expected" harm standard now in effect. (19) Agencies can reasonably infer from this modification that they have Congress's approval to withhold information whenever they determine that there is a reasonable likelihood of its disclosure risking physical harm to anyone. (20)

[bluestateguy]

1. The Bush Administration is over-intellectualizing

The court has ordered that the photos be released.

Now they need to release them.

No lawyering. Release them.

[Warren DeMontague]

2. They're grasping at straws.

The way I read that, even after the thing was expanded during the Reagan years, it's pretty specific- the information has to endanger law enforcement personnel related to an investigation, or it has to pose a specific danger by being released; like the relase of sensitive designs or whatnot. I don't know what rationale the DoD is using, but my hunch is that "because it might make some people really, really mad" doesn't qualify.

[Carla in Ca]

11. This argument really angers me!

This exemption provides broad protection to "any individual" when disclosure of information about him "could reasonably be expected to endanger life or physical safety." (1)

Do they fear for themselves?

[Warren DeMontague]

18. I would think if that meant that "people might get really upset"

the judge would have already considered that. Not much point in having a FOIA if the most egregious examples of government malfeasance can be covered up because they might piss someone off.

[BuelahWitch]

19. I'm sure they fear for themselves

as per "necessary to protect the physical safety of a wide range of individuals"

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

3. I assume this was already argued in the courts

between the very high-powered attorneys of the ACLU and the U.S. attorneys on behalf of the government. The Judge apparently ruled that redacting the photos and videos to protect the identities of the individuals involved was sufficient protection. I would interested in knowing the "secret" argument the government now proposes to suppress the documentation in their sealed motion to the court.

[Warren DeMontague]

4. That was my point earlier-

that of course they don't want to release the images, they don't think they should have to release the images...that's why there's a judge. And the judge ruled, sorry, you have to release the images.

To fuck around for almost a month and pretend to be redacting the images and videos, and then to come out at the last minute and say, again, "by the way- we don't think we should have to release the images" is the height of hubris.

[Solly Mack]

5. So who are they protecting?

Not the soldiers...Iraqis know what took place at Abu Ghraib. Nothing the pictures show will increase the danger for the soldiers. That danger already exist.

They're certainly not protecting me or other Americans. Bush made me a target with his lies and illegal war...and his promotion of a torture policy. Evidence of that torture won't cause me to be any more of a target.


Are they protecting the Abu Ghraib soldiers already charged and tried? That's rich...if they were the ONLY ones involved, then showing more pictures of their crimes wouldn't harm them a bit.

But they weren't the only ones involved and we all know that.

If you're going to promote torture and then carry out that torture claiming it a matter of protecting America to do so....then how big of a hypocritical piece of scum are you to want to hide the evidence of the very deeds you defend as right?

They are cowards. Nothing but lying cowards.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

6. They will claim to protect the boys and women being raped and whatnot.

Seriously. No shit. Because, uh, they'll be subject to honor killings and such if their identity is known. Yeah, that's the ticket. I think I've already seen/heard this argument made by shrubco apologists.

Of course they have and will continue to make the argument that it's to protect the soldiers in the field. An armed force occupying a country. One sees that argument here on DU not infrequently. "This is my dilemma" the DU poster says.

No dilemma for me. The truth must out.

[Solly Mack]

7. Exactly. There is no dilemma. Show the evidence

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

8. To prevent honor killings, there's an easy way to protect the Iraqis

Give them US permanent residence and bring them to the United States, at government expense. In fact, the little girl who was supposedly stripped naked in front of her father and threatened with bodily harm so her father would talk should be brought to the U.S. to a new ocean front home where the Chimp has to become her personal butler for life, as a penance for his many sins. A nice new home at Kennebunkport should do, after we kick out the current occupants.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. Isn't that somewhat akin to the "it would violate the geneva convention to

show the images" argument?

Uh huh. What violated the geneva convention was the conduct in the first place.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, George Bush, Chenney,

Sanhez, Abizaid, Boykin and the rest of the gamg, that is who they are protecting.

And they are the ones commiting the crime, as they ordered this....

From whom are they protecting?

The Hague, the International Court, and even maybe the House, the Senate and the American People

This is building into soemthing they cannot control. The fact is, 45% of teh people (without the press making noise) presently favor impeachment... at the height of the clenis mess it reached 35%

[Solly Mack]

12. and that is who they are protecting - themselves

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Yep and at this point it is very obvious

damn troops, they went to war with cell phones with cameras...

:-)

[Solly Mack]

14. I know! that one really burns me a new one. It's not the torture

it's the cameras...

Sheesh

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Oh but this is the american way

we no longer take responsibitly for anything, in case you missed the trivial (unless you work in the industry) discusion on Grand Threft auto... the company even admits guilt, but it was everybody's fault except the company.. chiefly the parents...

So in this case it is teh troops and them damn cameras

[Solly Mack]

16. I didn't know they had admitted guilt

is that to say they made the game for the hot coffee thingie or they had a hand in hot coffee?

or?

[wli]

17. to the Hague with them!

Barring the neofascists as the head of a military dictatorship (not entirely unlikely) these fascist degenerates are going down!