1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

WxÑÉá|à|ÉÇ fxÜä|vxá? \ÇvAWxÑÉá|à|ÉÇ fxÜä|vxá? \ÇvAWxÑÉá|à|ÉÇ fxÜä|vxá? \ÇvAWxÑÉá|à|ÉÇ fxÜä|vxá? \ÇvA

DEFED `|wwÄxuÜÉÉ~ eÉtw? fâ|àx EDC  ZxÜÅtÇàÉãÇ? `W ECKJG   gxÄM ;FCD< KKD@FFGG YtåM ;FCD< KKD@FFFK  |ÇyÉSWxÑÉá|à|ÉÇfxÜä|vxáAvÉÅ ãããAWxÑÉá|à|ÉÇfxÜä|vxáAvÉÅ 

 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUITJUDICIAL WATCH, INC., Appellant, v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OFDEFENSE, ET AL., Appellees.No. 12-5137 Thursday, January 10, 2013Washington, D.C.The above-entitled matter came on for oralargument pursuant to notice.BEFORE:CIRCUIT JUDGES ROGERS AND GARLAND, AND SENIORCIRCUIT JUDGE EDWARDSAPPEARANCES:ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:MICHAEL BEKESHA, ESQ.ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLEES:ROBERT M. LOEB, ESQ.

 

PLU 2

C O N T E N T SORAL ARGUMENT OF:PAGEMichael Bekesha, Esq.On Behalf of the Appellant3; 27 Robert M. Loeb, Esq.On Behalf of the Appellees 14

 

PLU 3

P R O C E E D I N G S

1

THE CLERK: Case number 12-5137, Judicial Watch,

2

Inc., Appellant v. United States Department of Defense, et al.

3

Mr. Bekesha for the Appellant; Mr. Loeb for the Appellees.

4

JUDGE ROGERS: Good morning.

5

ORAL ARGUMENT OF MICHAEL BEKESHA, ESQ.

6

ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

7

MR. BEKESHA: Good morning, may it please the Court,

8

Michael Bekesha on behalf of Appellant and Plaintiff Judicial

9

Watch.

10

Judicial Watch is not here today asking that this

11

Court substitute its own judgment for that of the Government.

12

In this case with these specific facts the Government is not

13

entitled to the substantial weight that is usually afforded in

14

the typical national security and intelligence cases. This is

15

so for three reasons, first, the Government has failed to

16

provide a sufficiently specific affidavit or evidence that the

17

release of each image, all 52 images of the body of Osama bin

18

Laden could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to

19

the national security. Second, the images at issue in this

20

case are not the typical scenario where courts usually defer

21

to Agency assessments of harm; and third, not all of the 52

22

images pertain to foreign activities or intelligence

23

activities in a meaningful way.

24

First, I just want to make clear that I'm referring

25