FAS | Government Secrecy ||| Index | Search | Join FAS


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

         
___________________________________
STEVEN AFTERGOOD                   )
on behalf of the                   )
FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS  )
307 Massachusetts Avenue, NE       )
Washington, DC 20002               )
     Plaintiff,     		   )
                                   )
v.                                 )
                                   )
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY        )
Washington, DC 20505               )
     Defendant.                    )
___________________________________)

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

1. Plaintiff Steven Aftergood, on behalf of the Federation of American Scientists, seeks disclosure of the amounts of the total budget request and total appropriation for intelligence for fiscal year 1999 under the Freedom of Information Act. The CIA has refused to release these amounts despite the urgent public need for the information and despite the fact that the President has determined that the annual total budget appropriation for intelligence may be released without harming the national security. The CIA's refusal to release this information is a violation of the law.

2. Information is exempt from disclosure under (b)(1) of the Freedom of Information Act only if it is properly classified pursuant to executive order. President Clinton's Executive Order 12958 states that information may be classified only if its disclosure "reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security," sec. 1.2(a)(4). The Executive Order also provides that "if there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified," sec. 1.2(b).

3. As explained by then-Director of Central Intelligence, John Deutch on April 24, 1996, President Clinton "is persuaded that disclosure of the annual amount appropriated for intelligence purposes will inform the public and will not, in itself, harm intelligence activities."

4. The previous day, on April 23, 1996, as announced by the White House Press Secretary, the President unveiled "several significant reforms for the Intelligence Community," one of which was that, "reflecting the President's determination to promote openness in the Intelligence Community, he has authorized Congress to make public the total appropriation -- the bottom line figure -- for intelligence at the time the appropriations conference report is approved by Congress."

5. The President's reforms reflected the unanimous recommendations of a bipartisan group of national security experts. The Press Secretary explained that the announced reforms "build on the recommendations made in the Brown Commission Report on the Roles and Capabilities of the Intelligence Community." 6. That Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of the United States Intelligence Community ("Commission") was chartered by statute in 1994 to examine "the efficacy and appropriateness" of U.S. intelligence policies including "to what extent, if any, should the budget for United States intelligence activities be publicly disclosed." (Public Law 103-359). It consisted of bipartisan members appointed by the President and the Congress.

7. In its final report, the bipartisan Commission unanimously recommended that "at the beginning of each congressional budget cycle, the President or a designee disclose the total amount of money appropriated for intelligence activities for the current fiscal year (to include NFIP, JMIP, and TIARA) and the total amount being requested for the next fiscal year." (Preparing for the 21st Century: An Appraisal of U.S. Intelligence, recommendation 14-2, page 142, emphasis added.)

8. In October 1997, the CIA released the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1997 in response to plaintiff Aftergood's request. They did so after he filed a complaint under the Freedom of Information Act pointing out that "[t]he CIA has refused to release the total intelligence budget figure on the grounds that the figure is properly classified and therefore exempt from release under the Act. However, President Clinton has concluded that this information does not meet the standards for classification. Thus, the CIA's refusal to release the total intelligence budget figure is in violation of the law."

9. In March 1998, the CIA disclosed the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1998. The agency did so after plaintiff Aftergood threatened a second lawsuit.

10. To date, however, the CIA has failed to disclose the total budget amount requested or appropriated for intelligence for fiscal year 1999. The CIA's refusal to release this information violates the Executive Order on classification and the Freedom of Information Act.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. sec. 552(a)(4)(B), the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. sec 701 et seq., and 28 U.S.C. sec. 1331 and 1361.

12. Venue lies in this district under 5 U.S.C. sec. 552(a)(4)(B).

PARTIES

13. The Federation of American Scientists is a fifty-two year old research organization concerned with national security policy. Plaintiff Steven Aftergood is director of the Federation's Project on Government Secrecy which seeks to reduce unnecessary government secrecy and to promote public oversight and accountability of government activities. Last year, a lawsuit brought by the plaintiff led to disclosure of the total amount appropriated for intelligence in 1997.

14. Defendant Central Intelligence Agency is an agency of the United States government which has possession of the information requested by plaintiff under the Freedom of Information Act.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Count One: Total Budget Request for Intelligence for Fiscal Year 1999

15. Plaintiff incorporates each of the allegations of paragraphs 1-14 as if fully set forth herein.

16. By letter dated January 26, 1998, plaintiff Aftergood, on behalf of the Federation of American Scientists, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, requested a copy of documents indicating the total budget request for intelligence for fiscal year 1999 from the CIA.

17. By his letter of 26 January 1998, plaintiff Aftergood further requested "expedited processing" of the request, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(6)(E)(i)(I) citing the "compelling need" to inform the public concerning the amount of the pending budget request.

18. By letter dated February 18, 1998, the CIA granted the request for expedited processing.

19. The Freedom of Information Act requires the agency to determine within 20 working days whether it will comply with requests for information and requires that an "agency shall process as soon as practicable any request for records to which the agency has granted expedited processing." 5 U.S.C. sec. 552a(6)(A) and (E)(iii).

20. Despite the fact that the requested information consists of one number and that the CIA recognized the urgent public need to be informed of this information, and agreed to expedited processing, it did not provide the requested information.

21. By letter dated March 19, 1998, plaintiff appealed the Agency's failure to provide the requested information.

22. By letter dated November 23,1998, the CIA denied plaintiff's request, refusing to release the information on the grounds that it is classified.

23. Defendant CIA's refusal to release the requested information violates the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. sec. 552.

Count Two: Total Budget Appropriation for Intelligence for Fiscal Year 1999

24. Plaintiff incorporates each allegation of paragraphs 1-14 as if fully set forth herein.

25. By letter dated October 13, 1998, plaintiff Aftergood, on behalf of the Federation of American Scientists, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, requested a copy of documents indicating the total budget appropriation for intelligence for fiscal year 1999 from the CIA.

26. By letter dated October 22, 1998, plaintiff Aftergood, on behalf of the Federation of American Scientists, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, supplemented his October 13, 1998 request by specifically requesting the updated total budget appropriation for intelligence for fiscal year 1999 including the "emergency supplemental" funding for intelligence.

27. By his letter of October 22, 1998, plaintiff Aftergood further requested "expedited processing" of this request and the October 13, 1998 request, pursuant to 552a(6)(E)(i)(I) citing the compelling need to inform the public concerning the amount of the budget appropriation.

28. By letter dated October 29, 1998, the CIA acknowledged plaintiff Aftergood's October 13, 1998 request.

29. By letter dated November 10, 1998, the CIA further acknowledged plaintiff Aftergood's updated October 22, 1998 request, explaining "[t]he additional funding is considered part of the total budget for purposes of processing" plaintiff Aftergood's initial October 13, 1998 request and further that the agency will "not need to either cancel the earlier request nor open a new one."

30. The Freedom of Information Act requires the agency to determine within 20 working days whether it will comply with requests for information. 5 U.S.C. 552a(6)(A).

31. The CIA did not provide the requested information within the required time frame.

32. By letter dated November 24, 1998, plaintiff Aftergood appealed the Agency's failure to provide the requested information.

33. By letter dated December 3, 1998, the CIA acknowledged receipt of the plaintiff's appeal. Plaintiff has received no further response to his appeal.

34. Defendant CIA's failure to release the requested information violates the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. sec. 552.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the Court:

________________________
Kate Martin
D.C. Bar No. 949115
Center for National Security Studies
2130 H St reet , NW, Suite 701
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 994 7060

Counsel for plaintiff

February 8, 1999




FAS | Government Secrecy ||| Index | Search | Join FAS