CIA Refuses To Release Osama's Porn Collection Information To Bro Who Submitted FOIA For It

from the pron dept

Who could have possibly thought that something of interest would actually come out of something called BroBible? As it turns out, the site that calls itself the best place for all the world’s bros to gather on the internet — which sounds horrible — has created a bit of interest after BroBible editor David Covucci filed an FOIA request with the CIA for a listing of the pornography the government has long claimed it found in the Pakistani compound where the Osama bin Laden raid occurred.

We at the men’s general interest publication BroBible dot com (one of the nation’s largest websites for men), would like to know what pornographic materials Osama Bin Laden had in his possession at the time of his death.

We are adults. We can handle it. We would like to know what kind of porn the world’s most wanted man jerked it to. Does being under the constant threat of capture require extra stimulation? I imagine it would be hard for him to focus on his dick, so I figure he had to watch some really nasty shit.

Well-filed, bro, well-filed. Not well enough, however, as the CIA responded to his bro-ness, denying his request and claiming that any information about any pornography the CIA might have from the bin Laden compound fell under the designation of an “operational file” and was therefore exempt from release upon an FOIA request. As Vice News explains, operational files are very specific things that cover very specific kinds of information. Essentially, information falls under an operational file designation if it deals with how America is conducting foreign intelligence gathering, who we might be working with in that regard, any specifics about the technology we’re using to conduct our spycraft, or any information that would reveal who we are looking at overseas. None of that really applies to a terrorist king’s spank bank.

“It seems like a stretch to call these [pornographic] materials operational files,” said Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy. “Although they may have been obtained in the course of an operation, they do not have anything to do with the planning or conduct of the operation. So they don’t really fit the definition of an operational file in the CIA Information Act.”

But the CIA had another excuse for not releasing the information, and it’s a classic. Yes, the CIA said that United States law forbade the CIA from mailing out “obscene or crime-inciting matter.” Now, I realize through, ahem, research for this post that the names of skin-flicks can sometimes take on the use of colorful language, but does the CIA’s genteel sensibility really trump the public’s rights under the Freedom of Information Act? Or is the concern centered more on some strange notion that the government embarrassing bin Laden by revealing his wank-files will inspire acts of violence? Either way, this silly request from BroBible doesn’t deserve such a silly response from the CIA.

Covucci told VICE News in an email that he’s determined to get his hands on bin Laden’s porn. He plans to appeal the CIA’s decision and file a separate request with ODNI.

“It’s fucking Kafka-esque obfuscation bullshit they are hiding behind,” he said.

Yeah, bro.

Filed Under: , , ,
Companies: brobible

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “CIA Refuses To Release Osama's Porn Collection Information To Bro Who Submitted FOIA For It”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
50 Comments
Gumnos (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: porn

Given that all other communications seemed to occur by secure couriered flash-drives, that browsing porn (or any other sort of images) via flash-drive would be pretty tedious.

Osama: [browsing aforementioned gay Mexican midget porn] Amir, I request to see this image but with his leather jacket removed
Amir: Yes, sir.
[3 months transpire]
Amir: Here, sir, is the next image in the series. He has removed the leather jacket.
Osama: Mmm. That naughty fellow. Just how I like it. Now, Amir, fetch me the next image in the sequence. The one without the leather chaps…
Amir: «sighs» Yes, sir.
[3 more months transpire]
Amir:Sir, your…
Osama: [rips flash drive from Amir’s hand and runs to private section of cave]

Seegras (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Of course this “porn find” is a complete fabrication. Hell, most of the “Bin Laden Raid” is a total fabrication:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden

Including the lie that the CIA was using vaccinations as a cover-up to get DNA samples. A lie that’s now leading to a huge problem in Pakistan and Afghanistan because people believe vaccinations in general to be a CIA plot.

Anonymous Coward says:

Yes, the CIA said that United States law forbade the CIA from mailing out “obscene or crime-inciting matter.”

So are you claiming Bin Laden liked non-obscene porn, or that this isn’t a law?

It’s, um, also very possible that the porn in question is of the underage type and thus illegal to possess. That would explain the crime-incitement.

TasMot (profile) says:

But the CIA had another excuse for not releasing the information, and it’s a classic. Yes, the CIA said that United States law forbade the CIA from mailing out “obscene or crime-inciting matter.”

If they can get past the first issue of the “operational file” non-sense, then they can solve the problem of “mailing porn” by just asking for a pickup location and time so that it doesn’t have to be mailed. That should generate some interesting new BS out of the CIA.

radix says:

Two possibilities

1) Although the FOI seemed to simply request the type or material, rather than a copy of the materials themselves, the response indicates they interpreted this as a request for the actual videos/magazines/computer files/whatever. There are a number of reasons they would refuse to do that, but it seems a bit of a stretch to interpret the request that way.

2) They are telling the truth, and this is operationally sensitive.
What if there really were no porn? Perhaps they concocted a scheme to further discredit OBL among his followers who truly believe this is a mission from a higher power. Nothing takes down a man of God (at least in America) like a good old fashioned sex scandal.

Starke (profile) says:

Re: Two possibilities

Another possibility is that CIA is concerned the porn itself is actually an image cipher. (I forget the technical term.) Which would lead to a legitimate fear that, while it doesn’t mean anything to the CIA now, letting it loose into the wild could be a horrible idea.

At that point, even copying it… might, result in that information getting out there.

At the same time, I don’t think they’d be willing to actually suggest that because it would be in that idiotic state of either confirming “we know they do this,” or “we don’t want to give them any ideas.”

Not an Electronic Rodent (profile) says:

Re: Two possibilities

Or…

3) It really is operationally sensitive because they’d been tracking his porn habits for months and that’s how they found him since every copy of “Naughty Jihadists 5” and that month’s edition of “Mature Martyrs” have secret CIA GPS chips embedded….

4) The list of porn is all identifiable as coming from the private stash of the CIA used as part of honey trap operations and would show that OBL was really a prisoner before he was caught….

5) Oh, I’ve run out of conspiracy theories… guess I’ll just have to go with the prevailing “They lied” theory 🙂

Anonymous Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Copy failed, file in use

Well, I know that one branch of the military (Navy?) had a cluster of PlayStations that were trying to emulate a super-computer using Linux, but after Sony shut that down for everyone else I have not heard if they tried to continue that project. Other than that, I have not heard of the US Government using sophisticated software like Linux. You know, open source and all that? Just toooooo radical.

Other than possibly a few individuals, could you imagine the US Government procurement office being Apple fanbois? (OK, I know that the Apple OS is just a fork of Linux, but when do they ever admit that?).

Seegras (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Copy failed, file in use

Other than that, I have not heard of the US Government using sophisticated software like Linux.

Apart from about the Top 100 of all supercomputers worldwide, which run Linux, and things like the M1 Abrams?

Well, the US Navy ditched Unix on some ships, this is what happened:
http://gcn.com/Articles/1998/07/13/Software-glitches-leave-Navy-Smart-Ship-dead-in-the-water.aspx
http://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/1998/07/13987

Stan (profile) says:

CIA's Concerns Are Legit!

For years, the CIA and NSA were trying to intercept Bin Laden’s communications, inspecting almost all of the data going though the Internet. The only class of files that was not examined was porn – there is so much porn on the Internet that it was too staggering to sort through it all, even for the combined resources of the NSA/CIA.

Now that they do have that porn, they must analyze it and find the hidden messages and learn how all this was done.

The brave, dedicated men at the CIA have been doing this night after night, racking up massive overtime watching and reading this material repeatedly.

Could ordinary men pull this off? No sir, but these are special men, hardened by years of experience. No jerks here!

They should be commended.

(Source: The Sunday Times [UK])

Anonymous Anonymous Coward says:

Re: CIA's Concerns Are Legit!

I see. So pictures of certain body parts are nouns, and different sex acts are different verbs, and the utterings of participants are adjectives. Combined they make sentences that when interpreted are instructions?

Would the code breakdown be interesting or when observed obscenity?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

No, Kid Porn would be porn involving immature goats.

To quote Tom Lehrer:

“to be smut
It must be ut-
Terly without redeeming social importance.”

If they’re going to claim obscenity OR criminality, they’re going to have to specific the law directly (criminality).

Or wave their hands hopefully and energetically, in defense of obscenity in the face of the context.

skip barker says:

He probably had lots of porn with obama in bath houses and a few others on the hill and maybe the supreme court. You can almost bet if he did, that Bill Clinton and his lesbo wife were in there also. Can’t let this out the CIA (criminals in action) said people may start to distrust the gov. and leadership. So lets just say in the interest of national security no can do.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...