A Court Covers Up (torture)

[xocet]

3. Apparently, revealing a photograph of someone who has been tortured is not good for business....

...

B. The Photograph of Abu Zubaydah

4 Plaintiffs contend that the CIA failed to provide any
5 justification for withholding a photograph of Abu Zubaydah
6 taken while he was in CIA custody abroad and that the post
7 hoc explanations offered by the Government’s counsel do not
8 suffice to justify the withholding. We disagree. In a June
9 8, 2009 unclassified declaration, Director Panetta explained
10 that all of the records he reviewed in connection with his
11 invocation of FOIA Exemptions 1 and 3, including the
12 photograph, are “related to the contents of 92 destroyed
13 videotapes of detainee interrogations that occurred between
14 April and December 2002.” Panetta Decl. ¶ 3, June 8, 2009.
15 Director Panetta further declared that “miscellaneous
16 documents” in the sample records, including the photograph,
17 “contain[] TOP SECRET operational information concerning the
18 interrogations” of Abu Zubaydah. Id. ¶ 5. On appeal, the
19 Government has expanded upon Director Panetta’s
20 justification for withholding by explaining that the
21 photograph necessarily “relates to” an “intelligence source
22 or method” because it records Abu Zubaydah’s condition in

32

1 the period during which he was interrogated.
2 We have reviewed the photograph in camera. Our
3 examination has been informed by our contemporaneous review
4 of other sample records. Like the district court, we
5 observe that a photograph depicting a person in CIA custody
6 discloses far more information than the person’s identity.
7 We agree with the district court that the image at issue
8 here conveys an “aspect of information that is important to
9 intelligence gathering,” J.A. 1115, and that this
10 information necessarily “relates to” an “intelligence source
11 or method.” The Government’s justification for withholding
12 the photograph is thus both “logical and plausible.” See
13 Wilner, 592 F.3d at 75. Moreover, Director Panetta’s
14 declaration is entitled to substantial weight, see Wolf, 473
15 F.3d at 374, and this Court must adopt a “deferential
16 posture in FOIA cases regarding the uniquely executive
17 purview of national security,” Wilner, 592 F.3d at 76
18 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we affirm
19 the district court’s conclusion that the Government has
20 adequately justified its withholding of the photograph under
21 FOIA Exemption 3.
22

33
...
(http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/43dcc84a-b97d-4cac-b2ca-df43325f7b00/1/doc/10-4290-cv_opn.pdf)