In late 2011, a FOIA request was submitted to the FBI for
all its records on WikiLeaks. The FBI responded that it had no records. Not
believing the FBI’s response, a FOIA appeal was submitted to the Department of
Justice Office of Information Policy which upheld the FBI’s search and its
findings.
Still disbelieving the FBI/DOJ responses, a FOIA request was
submitted to the Department of Justice Office of Information Policy for its
records regarding the aforementioned appeal. The DOJ OIP responded and reveals
that not only does the FBI have WikiLeaks records, but the FBI/DOJ lied about
having records. WikiLeaks’ records are tucked away in other files, thus are
considered for cross-references and not responsive because the request was for “all
records” and didn’t use the magic words “cross-references.”
In response to a FOIA request seeking the Defense
Intelligence Agency’s records on the Bradley Manning Support Network, it appears that the DIA is monitoring media coverage of the Bradley Manning Support
Network. DIA refusal to release their copies of media coverage makes it
impossible to confirm, but the DIA has been shown to have its own collection of
Bradley Manning Support Network media reports as well as media reports culled from
the NSA and the CIA.
In response to a FOIA request to the Defense Intelligence
Agency, the CIA’s Open Source Center has released two reports on the media
coverage of the Bradley Manning Support Network. The reports are innocuous in
of themselves. One briefly mentions that a member of the Bradley Manning
Support Network commented on an Al-Jazeera show on the transfer of Bradley
Manning to Fort Leavenworth. The second report contains a comment from a “Martiaan”
who called for another commenter to give a shout-out of support to Bradley Manning
during a planned disruption.
The value of these documents is in the fact they were
referred back to the CIA by the DIA for release. This provides further evidence
that the Defense Intelligence Agency is conducting an investigation of some
kind into the Bradley Manning Support Network.
A recent response by the National Security Agency to a FOIA
request revealed that two of the most powerful intelligence agencies in the
United States are monitoring the Bradley Manning Support Network.
The extent of the monitoring is unknown but in a letter
received today, the NSA revealed that it is tracking, at the very least, media
reports on the Bradley Manning Support Network. In the same letter, the NSA
said that it had received the document from the Defense Intelligence Agency,
which had sent the record back to the NSA in response to a FOIA request
submitted to the DIA for their records relating to the Bradley Manning Support
Network.
Again, it is too early to draw conclusions on the extent of
the monitoring. The NSA and DIA may simply be monitoring media reports to
better prepare for protests, which are occurring at Fort Meade, home of the NSA’s
headquarters.
In response to a FOIA request for their records pertaining to the Bradley Manning Support Network, INSCOM sent the out a letter informing the requesters that their request had been forwarded to the United States Army Criminal Investigation Division for processing. When the requesters followed up, seeking information as to whether INSCOM was still processing the request, they met up with brief resistance before Elaine Rogic informed the requesters:
Per DOD instruction, all inquiries relating to this matter must be forwarded to the U.S. Army Crime Records Center (CRC). I am unable to answer your inquiry and recommend that you direct your inquiry to CRC.
Further inquiry by the requesters was ignored including a request for clarification as to whether or not INSCOM was invoking FOIA. Administrative appeals have been submitted.
In short, the Bradley Manning Support Network appears to be something special if INSCOM is unable to answer whether or not it has responsive records or even invoke Glomar by itself.
Below is the relevant email exchange provided to the Historiographic Anarchy by the requester.
In response to a FOIA request, the
United States Army Criminal Investigative Division announced that it
was engaged in “an active investigation … in progress with an
undetermined completion date,” of the Bradley Manning Support
Network. As a consequence of this investigation, the Army CID would
not release any material responsive to FOIA requests at this time.
The US Army CID has invoked (b)(7)(f)
to justify, in part, their denial. This means that US Army CID
believes that release of these records will risk the physical
well-being of individuals involved with the case.
With WikiLeaks records being withheld, in part, on (b)(7)(f) exemptions grounds, it seems
that Army CID has decided that both WikiLeaks supporters and members
of allied organizations are a threat to commit physical violence
either against investigators or those who cooperate with the
investigations.
Citing “an active investigation …
in progress with an undetermined completion date,” the United
States Army Criminal Investigation Division refuses further releases
of that agency's WikiLeaks-related material. In contrast to two
previous FOIA requests <here and here> which were promptly answered with released
documents featuring limited redaction, this policy shift represents a
wholesale end to WikiLeaks releases for the indeterminate future.
Possibly more interesting than the
denial of records itself is that US Army CID invoked (b)(7)(f) as a
justifying exemption. Under the (b)(7)(f) exemption, records can be
withheld if their release “could reasonably be expected to endanger
the life or physical safety of any individual.” With the use of the
(b)(7)(f) exemption, US Army CID is implicitly stating that WikiLeaks
members pose an active, physical threat to those investigating
WikiLeaks and/or those cooperating with the investigation.
After receiving a ”no records” response from the FBI in reply to a FOIA request I had submitted for FBI records pertaining to WikiLeaks, I had an appeal submitted to the Department of Justice's Office of Information Policy. Below is the DOJ's reply:
The DOJ states that there are no FBI WikiLeaks files and this means that the FBI has never targeted WikiLeaks as an organization.
I suspect that the FBI has filed WikiLeaks material away in the files of individuals such as Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, and other prominent WikiLeaks figures. By doing so, it keeps the material out of the hands of the general public and media because the FBI can invoke b(6), b(7) exemptions to Glomar (i.e. neither confirm, nor deny the existence) the material unless the individual submits a Privacy Act request, dies, or is convinced to sign a waiver and allow a third party to acquire material. In short, it might be 50 years before WikiLeaks material is available to the general public through FOIA or Mandatory Declassification Review requests.
I also think that lesser amounts of WikiLeaks material might be obtainable through FOIAing for information on attacks done by Anonymous on behalf of WikiLeaks.
There is hope for Bradley Manning yet. That statement seems odd given that he's not challenging the facts of his case and, instead, is opting for a mitigation strategy. However, as the saga of Herbert O. Yardley shows, treasonous heels can become heroes if the evidence of their guilt is hidden by classification, buried in document dumps, and obscured by the passage of enough time. This was proven in 1999 when Yardley became an inaugural member of the NSA's Hall of Honor.
Well documented by James Bamford's books and the NSA's own website, Yardley "served as a cryptologic officer with the American Expeditionary Forces in France during WWI. In the 1920s he was chief of MI-8, the first U.S. peacetime cryptanalytic organization, jointly funded by the U.S. Army and the Department of State. In that capacity, he and a team of cryptanalysts exploited nearly two dozen foreign diplomatic cipher systems. MI-8 was disbanded in 1929 when the State Department withdrew its share of the funding." In 1931, in need of funds, Yardley published 'his memoirs of MI-8, "The American Black Chamber." In this book, Yardley revealed the extent of U.S. cryptanalytic work in the 1920s."
What Bamford did not know or chose to leave out his books was the fact that Yardley sold out the American Black Chamber to the Japanese Empire for 7,000 in 1930. This fact was uncovered by Ladislas Farago during his research forThe Broken Seal: The Story of Operation Magic and the Pearl Harbor Disaster, a book on cryptography relation to Pearl Harbor. The story spawned an CIA investigation. Below is the 12/12/1967 Memorandum for the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence from Walter Pforzheimer confirming the allegations.
Nor was the CIA alone in launching an investigation. The National Security Agency conducted its own inquiry into Yardley's conduct which "tend[ed] to strongly to substantiate Farago's basic claim" though it also found that "much of the rest of his account of the transaction either could not be confirmed or was found to be wrong."(1) This tendency to be wrong was undoubted a reason that David Kahn and others disbelieved his allegations.(2) Eventually, the controversy as well as Yardley's memory faded from public memory creating the space necessary for his 1999 Hall of Honor Induction.
(1) [redacted], "The Many Lives of Herbert O. Yardley, Cryptologic Spectrum, Fall 1981 - Vol. 11, No. 4 , pg. 26 Read here
(2)Ibid., pg 28 fn. 68
Posts
