Gitmo Interrogation Pix & Videos Exempt From FOIA Request, NY Fed Judge Rules

 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In Center for Constitutional Rights v. Department of Defense et al. (Case No. 1:12-cv-00135), United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald last week ruled that photographs and videos concerning interrogations at Guantanamo Bay of alleged "20th hijacker" terrorist Mohammed al-Qahtani  were exempt from having to be produced under a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request by the Center for Constitutional Rights ("CCR") advocacy group.

Judge Buchwald supported the CIA, which had neither confirmed nor denied the existence of photos and videos of the questioning of al-Qahtani over a three-year period from 2002 to 2005 that CCR sought in its FOIA request. Under the Act's [5 U.S.C. sec. 552] Exemption 1, the so-called national security exemption, Judge Buchwald found the release of such material could incite an anti-American reaction and be used as a recruiting tool by America's enemies and to foment violence.

The court concluded the government had satisfied its burden of proof that it was "logical or plausible" that such an adverse occurrence could be triggered by the release of the materials requested by CCR.

Tip of the hat to the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press (www.rcfp.org) for staying on top of this case.

Federal Judge Enjoins Co.'s Streaming TV Stations' Programming

Image via Wikipedia

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald this week issued an injunction against Seattle-based ivi, Inc., preventing the Internet company from streaming programming of New York and Seattle television stations to its subscribers online and to mobile phones.

In the copyright infringement action, WPIX, Inc. et al. v. ivi, Inc. & Todd Weaver (Case No. 10-Civ-7415-(NRB)) Judge Buchwald enjoined the company from directly or indirectly infringing on the plaintiffs' exclusive rights under Sec. 106(1)-(5) of The U.S. Copyright Act [17 U.S.C. secs. 101-810] during the pendency of the litigation.  The defendant, which charges $4.99 a month to subscribers nationwide to stream content from television stations in New York and Seattle, argues it may do so as a "cable system" under the Copyright Act, yet contends it is not a "cable system" as defined by the Communications Act of 1934 [47 U.S.C. sec. 151 et seq.] as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 [P.L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56], which would require the four-year-old company to obtain re-transmission consent from the affected television stations.

Judge Buchwald did not seem impressed by the defendants' tightware-walking argument, ruling it was "extraordinarily unlikely that ivi ultimately will be deemed a cable system" under The Copyright Act. For additional information, read www.Newsroomlawblog.com.