|
The
War Profiteers - War Crimes, Kidnappings & Torture |
|
White Phosphorus Weapons: FOIA Requests |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
This page documents the course of FOIA requests by
the website owner with regards to information on the production, export and
the military use of so-called “incendiary weapons” containing white
phosphorus by the U.S. military in Iraq and Israeli forces in the South of
Lebanon and in Gaza, Palestine. The individual FOIA requests were submitted to the
U.S. State Department, to the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Army, the U.S. Air Force
and the U.S. Army Chemical Weapons Arsenal at Pine Bluff, Arkansas, which
apparently is the sole production facility for white phosphorus weapons
within the United States. The FOIA requests were filed in March of 2009. |
White phosphorus shell explodes over
Gaza city |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
The White Phosphorus Trilogy: White
Phosphorus Weapons in Iraq White
Phosphorus Weapons in Lebanon White
Phosphorus Weapons in Gaza August 2nd,
2010 - Initial Denial
Letter re Documents Concerning Israel Letter by U.S. Army Security Assistance Command April 1st,
2010 - Use of Incendiary
Weapons/Smoke Generating Projectiles in Iraq Letter by the U.S. Marine Corps, Headquarters September 22nd, 2009 - Production, Processing
& Storage Records of White Phosphorus Weapons Letter &
Report by the U.S. Army Sustainment Command & U.S. Army Pine Bluff
Arsenal July 13th,
2009 - DODIC
Expenditure Report on WP Weapons in Iraq (Ground Assets) Letter & Report by the U.S. Marine Corps System
Command April 14th,
2009 - Expenditure
Query Results on WP Weapons in Iraq Letter & Memorandum by U.S. Air Force Central FOIA
Correspondence in Reversed Chronological Order August
2nd, 2010 - Initial
Denial Letter from the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command May 11th,
2010 - 3rd Letter from the
U.S. Army Security Assistance Command May 9th,
2010 - 2nd Letter to the U.S. Army
Security Assistance Command April
30th, 2010 - 2nd
Letter from the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command April
30th, 2010 - Letter
to the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command April
29th, 2010 - Letter
from the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command April
1st, 2010 - Letter
from the U.S. Marine Corps, Headquarters November
16th, 2009 - Letter
to the U.S. Army Sustainment Command October
13th, 2009 - 2nd
Reply by the U.S. Army Sustainment Command September
28th, 2009 - Letter
to the U.S. Army Sustainment Command September
22nd, 2009 - Letter by the
U.S. Army Sustainment Command September
16th, 2009 - Letter to
the U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal September
15th, 2009 - 4th
Reply by the U.S. State Department September
15th, 2009 - 4th
Reply by the U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal September
14th, 2009 - Letter to
U.S. Air Force Central September
14th, 2009 - Letter to U.S.
State Department/Office of Information Programs and Services September
14th, 2009 - Letter for U.S.
Army Central September
14th, 2009 - Letter
to U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal July
29th, 2009 - Letter to
U.S. Army/FOIA Office July
14th, 2009 - 2nd
Reply by the U.S. Marine Corps July
13th, 2009 - Reply by
the U.S. Marine Corps System Command July 8th,
2009 - Reply by the U.S. Marine Corps July 7th,
2009 - 3rd Reply by the
U.S. State Department June
10th, 2009 - 2nd
Reply by the Office of the Judge Adovate General, U.S. Navy May 14th,
2009 - 3rd Reply by the U.S.
Army Pine Bluff Arsenal May 12th,
2009 - 2nd Reply by the U.S.
State Department May 7th,
2009 - FOIA Appeal to Secretary of
the U.S. Army/LAAP May 6th,
2009 - FOIA Appeal to Secretary of the
U.S. Army May 3rd,
2009 - FOIA Appeal to Secretary of
the U.S. Air Force May 1st,
2009 - Reply by the Office of the Judge
Adovate General, U.S. Navy April
26th, 2009 - FOIA Appeal to Judge
Advocate General of the U.S. Navy April
14th, 2009 - Letter
and Memorandum by U.S. Air Forces Central April
7th, 2009 - Reply by
the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations March
31st, 2009 - Confirmation
Letter by U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal March
30th, 2009 - Reply by U.S. Air
Force Central March
27th, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S.
Army Central (LAAP) March
27th, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S.
Air Force Central March
27th, 2009 - Reply by the U.S.
State Department March
26th, 2009 - Reply by the
U.S. Air Force, Headquarters March
26th, 2009 - Reply by the U.S.
Army Pine Bluff Arsenal March
23rd, 2009 - FOIA Request to Chief
of U.S. Naval Operations March
23rd, 2009 - Reply by the U.S.
Navy Personnel Command March
21st, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Navy
Personnel Command March
21st, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Army
Central March
21st, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Air Force
Headquarters March
20th, 2009 - Reply by the U.S.
Central Command March
20th, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S.
Central Command March
20th, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Army
Arsenal in Pine Bluff, Arkansas March
19th, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S.
State Department August 2nd, 2010 - Initial Denial Letter from the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command […] Dear Mr. Ottmann: This is in response to your Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) request, March 20, 2009, in which you requested a copy of documents
relating to white phosphorus projectiles. Your request was originally
directed to the Pine Bluff Arsenal, Pine Bluff Arkansas, which referred your
request to the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command on April 2, 2009, for a
response to you on documents concerning Israel. After reviewing the documents considered for
release, it was determined that the document(s) be withheld pursuant to the
FOIA, 5 United States Code Section 552 (b) (3), Exemption 3, and 10 United
States Code Section 130c, because this information was provided by, made
available by, or produced in cooperation with a foreign government and is
considered exempt from disclosure. This statue allows withholding information
provided by foreign governments under certain circumstances. In this case,
the foreign government is withholding the information from public disclosure
and has denied the request to release the documents. Therefore, we find that
the document(s) concerning Israel qualify under Title 10 United States Code
130c and FOIA, 5 United States Code Section 552(b) (3), Exemption 3, and are
hereby withheld. In addition, after a search for records relating to the
subject matter for Iraq, no records were found responsive to your request. This decision is considered a denial of your FOIA
request for information relating to the documents concerning Israel. General
Ann E. Dunwoody, Commanding General, US. Army Materiel Command, is the
Initial Denial Authority (IDA) and by position I am the delegated IDA. You
may appeal this denial of release to the Secretary of the Army. […] Vincent J. Paggioli Command Counsel May 11th, 2010 - 3rd Letter
from the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command Mr. Ottomann [sic], Below is the link to National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). The link below will allow you to submit your request electronically
to NARA. The records you requested are not affiliated with the US Army
Security Assistance Command (USASAC). Since the establishment has closed, the
records may have been placed at NARA and they will provide you with some
guidance. I hope this will assist you in fulfilling your request. Chris Green FOIA Officer U.S. Army Security Assistance Command May 9th, 2010 - 2nd Letter to
the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command Dear Ms. Green, thank you for your last e-mail from April 30th,
2010. I am hereby forwarding to you an electronic copy of
my original FOIA request for records on white phosphorus projectiles from the
Lousiana Army Ammunition Plant (LAAP). As you can see, I did send this
request to the U.S. Army Central FOIA office. Until today, I have not
received any response from the U.S. Army. Judging from your explanation in the first letter
from April 30, your office might be well suited to respond to this particular
FOIA request as well. As I have not heard anything from the U.S. Army's
central office and due to the fact that the LAAP has ceased to operate
apparently in 1996, I do not see any other alternative as to forward this
request to you. In any case, should your office not be the
appropriate agency to reply to this request, I would very much appreciate, if
you could give me any advice, as to which agency might be the correct one to
forward this request to. Sincerely yours, Martin Ottmann April 30th, 2010 - 2nd Letter
from the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command Thank
you for your speedy response. As for the similar FOIA request from March 27,
2009, it has not be referred to USASAC for action. Chris
Green FOIA
Officer U.S.
Army Security Assistance Command April 30th, 2010 - Letter to
the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command Dear Ms. Green, thank you very much for your e-mail. I am indeed still interested in the documents that I
had requested in 2009 from the FOIA office at Pine Bluff. In fact, this week
I planned to send your colleagues, with whom I had been in contact earlier,
an e-mail asking if I might expect soon an answer to my last request from
last fall. Your letter with the clarification with regards to
the delay is therefore very appreciated. In this regard I would like to ask you if you are at
the same time processing my similar FOIA request from March 27th,
2009 with regards to white phosphorus projectiles that had been produced by the
now defunct Lousiana Army Ammunition Plant (LAAP)? I had sent this request to
the U.S. Army Central FOIA office, but I never received any reply. Has this
request been forwarded to you? Sincerely yours, Martin Ottmann April 29th, 2010 - Letter
from the U.S. Army Security Assistance Command Mr. Ottmann, 1. Reference your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request, March 20, 2009, to the Pine Bluff Arsenal, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, for
the following records: “Records of the production, processing, storage,
sale, transfer and export of incendiary weapons/smoke generating projectiles
containing white phosphorus, including copies of export licenses, between
1990 and the date of this letter” 2. Your request was received by the US Army Security
Assistance Command (USASAC) for a response to documents concerning Israel. I
apologize for the delay of this response, which was caused by the need to
consult with another department component and government agency, and the
replacement/retirement of the FOIA Officer who initially received your
request for action. We are currently processing your request and want to
confirm your continued interest in the records you requested. Please contact
me via e-mail of your current interest. Ms. Christella Green FOIA Officer U.S. Army Security Assistance Command April 1st, 2010 - Letter from the U.S. Marine Corps, Headquarters Dear Mr. Ottman: This follows-up my July 14, 2009, interim response to
your March 23, 2009, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by which you seek to
obtain copies of documents reflecting the use of incendiary weapons/smoke
generating prqjectiles containing white phosphorus by U.S. military forces in
Iraq between March 2003 and March 23, 2009. As you were apprised, your FOIA
request was transferred from the Marine Corps Systems Command to this
Headquarters to coordinate a search of files maintained by the Aviation
Department for responsive documents as they pertain to aviation assets. Please be advised that knowIedgeable personnel
within the Aviation Department have apprised that they cannot provide the
requested data. While records are maintained with regard to the expenditure
of white phosphorus in terms of date, quantity, purpose (i-e.., combat,
training, testing), and the military unit expending it, no records are
maintained regarding the location where the ordnance was expended (i..e.,
Iraq). In order to determine where white phosphorus ordnance was expended,
knowledgeable personnel would have to conduct exhaustive and time-consuming
research outside of USMC existing record systems and create a new record
tailored to your FOIA request. However, FOIA law and regulation do not
require the government to create a record simply to respond to a FOIA request
[.] In view of the above, you may consider this an
adverse determination that may be appealed to the Judge Advocate General of
the Navy, Judge Advocate General (Code 14), 1322 Patterson Avenue SE, Suite
3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066. Your appeal, if any, must be
postmarked within 60 calendar days from the date of this letter to be
considered and a copy of your initial letter and this letter should be
attached. Additionally, your appeal correspondence should include a written
statement indicating why you believe your appeal should be granted. Both your
appeal and its envelope and your correspondence should bear the notation
"Freedom of Infomation Act Appeal." Teresa D. Ross Head, FOIA/PA Section (ARSF) Security Programs & Info Mgmt Br Administration & Resource Mgmt Div By direction of the Commandant of the Marine Corps November 16th, 2009 - Letter
to the U.S. Army Sustainment Command […] Dear Ms Barrows, in your last letter from October 13th,
2009, you invited me to send you an e-mail, in case I should have any
question with regards to my FOIA request(s). As you know, I have submitted a FOIA request with
regards to records from the Pine Bluff arsenal. Around the same time, when I
initially filed this request, I also requested from the U.S. Army records
with regards to white phosphorus projectiles from the so-called “Louisiana
Army Ammunition Plant” (LAAP). I am aware that this installation does not
exist anymore, but I suppose that its records have been moved to another U.S.
Army installation. Could you point out to me, which U.S. Army
installation holds the records of the LAAP and which FOIA Office within the
U.S. Army is responsible for answering such FOIA requests? I had previously
contacted three different FOIA Offices of the U.S. Army, but I never received
an response to my requests. I still have not received an answer for the two
questions with regards to my FOIA request for Pine Bluff records. Could you
indicate when I can expect a response either from you or directly from the
Pine Bluff Arsenal? Sincerely yours, Martin Ottmann October 13th, 2009 - 2nd
Reply by the U.S. Army Sustainment Command Dear Martin Ottmann, At this time you do not have to worry about appeal deadlines
because the response you received was not considered a denial. Because you
agreed to receive the document in redacted form, under the law it is not a
denial. However, based on your questions we have gone back to Pine Bluff
Arsenal requesting more information regarding whether there are any
additional documents that exist that would be responsive to your request, and
if so, what documents. Based on what Pine Bluff informs us, we will either 1)
inform you there are no additional responsive documents, 2) if there are
documents and they are exempt from disclosure, we will notify you of the
existence of the documents and of the applicable FOIA exemption preventing
disclosure, or 3) forward the documents to you. If there are no documents or
this office determines they, or any portion, are exempt from disclosure, then
those scenarios will be considered denials and you will be notified of appeal
rights. Right now, we do not have the answers yet, but
expect more information soon. But, based on above, you are not missing any
deadline to file an appeal. If you have any questions, please let me know. Regards, Karen Barrows Attorney-Advisor AMSAS-GC September 28th, 2009 - Letter to the U.S. Army Sustainment
Command […] I am in receipt of the document, which the U.S.
Army arsenal in Pine Bluff has agreed to release. The document appears to
represent a summary inventory of the past production of white phosphorus
smoke-generating projectiles. Dates are not included in the document. In this context, I would like to draw your attention
to my original FOIA request, which stated: “Records of the production,
processing, storage, sale, transfer and export of incendiary weapons/smoke generating
projectiles containing white phosphorus, including copies of export licenses,
between 1990 and the date of this letter.” As it is evident, the provided document does not
represent all of the records, which I had asked for. It is simply impossible that information
about the production, processing, storage, sale, transfer and export of those
projectiles over a period of 19 years is comprised in a single spread sheet
of mere 14 pages. I therefore must conclude that the Pine Bluff
Arsenal is still withholding records, which are responsive to my original
FOIA request. Could you clarify this point with the FOIA authority at Pine
Bluff and inform me, why these records are being withheld? At this point, I am considering to file an appeal
with regards to the fact that the release of the above-mentioned single
record and the non-release of the other records are non-responsive to my
original FOIA request. Could you point out to me the correct authority within
the U.S. Army, whom I have to send such an appeal? Thank you for your assistance. […] September 22nd, 2009 - Letter by the U.S. Army Sustainment Command […] You submitted a FOIA request, dated March 20,
2009, seeking the records of the production, processing, storage, sale,
transfer and export of incendiary weapons/smoke generating projectiles
containing white phosphorus, including copies of export licenses, between
1990 and the date of your letter. The portion of your request seeking production,
processing and storage records was referred to Pine Bluff Arsenal for
processing. This letter is responsive to that portion of your request. In an e-mail dated September 15, 2009, this office
notified you that it was reviewing the releasability of the lot numbers in
the responsive documents due to operational security concerns. In an e-mail dated September 16, 2009, you wrote
that you will accept a copy of the responsive documents with the lot numbers
redacted. Accordingly, it is the opinion of this office that a redacted
version of the responsive document may be released . Because you have requested a copy of the responsive
document in redacted form, this is not considered a denial on our part.
However, if you are dissatisfied with the documents as provided, please
notify this office. We will then forward them matter to the Initial Denial
Authority for a determination as to releasability of the redacted portions.
[...] September 16th, 2009 - Letter to the U.S.
Army Pine Bluff Arsenal […] Dear Ms. Keel-Welsh, thank you for your e-mail. I do not think that the lot numbers are important
information for my request. At this stage, I accept a copy with the lot
numbers redacted. Sincerely yours, […] September 15th, 2009 - 4th
Reply by the U.S. State Department […] Mr. Ottmann, We are in receipt of your e-mail dated September 14,
2009 informing us that you are withdrawing your request. As of today, no
further action will be taken to complete the processing of your request. Your
case will be closed in our system. Sincerely, […] September 15th, 2009 - 4th
Reply by the U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal […] Dear Mr. Ottmann: This office is currently reviewing operational
security concerns regarding the release of lot numbers. In order to expedite
your request, you may choose to receive the 14-page list with the lot numbers
redacted. The remaining information would be the DODIC, NSN, Noun, Model, and
Net Quantity. Please let this office know if you will accept a
copy of the list with the lot number redacted. Sincerely, Angela R. Keel-Welsh Paralegal Specialist/FOIA Officer HQ, Army Sustainment Command […] September 14th, 2009 - Letter to U.S. Air
Force Central […]
Dear Sirs, I would
like to inform you that I am hereby withdrawing the appeal of my FOIA request
No. 2009-0008. Sincerely
yours, […] September 14th, 2009 - Letter to U.S.
State Department/Office of Information Programs […]
Dear Sirs, thank
you for your letter from July 7th, 2009. I
would like to inform you that I am withdrawing my FOIA request (No.
200902328) with this letter/e-mail. Sincerely
yours, […] September 14th, 2009 - Letter to U.S.
Army Central […] Dear Sirs, on March 21 and 27, 2009, I filed two FOIA requests
by e-mail to the U.S. Army Central requesting records on the use of white
phosphorus weapons in Iraq and the production of such weapons at the
“Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant”, a now-defunct former U.S. Army
installation. As I did not receive any confirmation of receipt of
my FOIA requests, I filed on May 6, 2009 two FOIA appeals, again by e-mail,
to the Office of the Secretary of the Army. Nevertheless, I never received
any response from these offices. On July 29, 2009, I sent a request for information
on the status of my FOIA requests to the e-mail address
DAFOIA@conus.army.mil, but as again, I
did not receive any response by that office. I am sending now your office, as a last resort, my
sixth letter with the request to either process or to transfer my two FOIA
requests to the appropriate offices within the U.S. Army. September 14th, 2009 - Letter to U.S.
Army Pine Bluff Arsenal […] Dear Mr. Bailey, on May 14, 2009 you sent me a letter, stating that
you have found 15 pages of documents that were responsive to my FOIA request
and that you had sent them for review to the U.S. Army Sustainment Command. Since then, I have neither received a further
response from your office nor from the U.S. Army Sustainment Command. Are these documents in question still being revied
by the above-named office? When can expect a response or decision with
regards to my FOIA request from that office? […] July 29th, 2009 - Letter to U.S.
Army/FOIA Office […] Dear Sir, on March 21 and 27, 2009, I filed two FOIA requests
by e-mail to the U.S. Army Central requesting records on the use of white
phosphorus weapons in Iraq and the production of such weapons at the
"Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant", a now-defunct former U.S. Army
installation. As I did not receive any confirmation of receipt of
my FOIA requests, I filed on May 6th, 2009 two FOIA appeals, again by e-mail,
to the Office of the Secretary of the Army. Nevertheless, I never received
any response from these offices. I had filed other FOIA requests to other agencies
within the US DoD, such as the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force, and I always
received prompt responses from these agencies. For this reason, I was
wondering if the adresses are no longer valid or if I had not contacted the
correct agencies. I therefore would like to ask you, if you could tell
me, if I had contacted the correct offices within the U.S. Army and if and
how my original FOIA requests have indeed been processed. […] July 14th, 2009 - 2nd Reply by the U.S. Marine Corps […] As you were pviously apprised by Mr. J. B.
Bennett, counsel for the Marine Corps Systems Command, your March 23, 2009, Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) request, by which you seek to obtain copies of
records reflecting the use of incendiary weapons/smoke generating projectiles
containing white phosphorus by U.S. military forces in Iraq between March
2003 and March 23, 2009, was transferred to this Headquarters to coordinate a
search of the files maintained by the Aviation Department for responsive
documents as they pertain to aviation assets. That transfer was received by
this office on this date and is controlled under file HQMC-200900672. Please be advised that, in an effort to assist you,
I have initiated a search of the files maintained by the Aviation Department
of this Headquarters for documents responsive to you request. Once completed,
I will apprise you of the outcome of that search and advise you as to the
availability of and/or releasability of any identified responsive documents.
[…] July 13th,
2009 - Reply by the U.S. Marine Corps
System Command […] This responds to your Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request of March 23, 2009, originally addressed to the Chief of Naval
Operations, for a copy of records reflecting the use of incendiary
weapons/smoke generating projectiles containing white phosphorus by U.S.
military forces in Iraq between March 2003 and March 2009. Your request was received by this command on July
10, 2009 and assigned file number MCSC200900105. The requested information for ground assets is enclosed.
The information regarding aviation assets falls under the cognizance of
Headquarters Marine Corps, DC Aviation (ASL-30) and has been forwarded to the
Headquarters Marine Corps FOIA office for direct response to you. […] July 8th, 2009 - Reply by the U.S. Marine Corps […] This is in response to your Freedom of
Information Act Request of March 23, 2009, in which you seek records of the
use of incendiary weapons/smoke generating projectiles containing white
phosphorus by U.S. military forces in Iraq between March 2003 and the date of
your request. Your request was received by this office on June 17, 2009 and
assigned file number IMEF 2009-11. In your request, you indicate that you are seeking
records from U.S. military forces, please be advised that this response and
referral only pertains to any responsive records the Marine Corps may have. The command having cognizance over the subject
matter of your request is Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC). I have
forwarded your request to that office for action and direct response to
you.[…] July 7th, 2009 - 3rd Reply by the U.S. State Department […] Based upon the information that you have
provided, it does not appear that your website meets the criteria established
by our regulations for granting media status. It does not publish or
broadcast to the public, nor are entries posted on the website published by
media outlets. In addition, the website is free, so that the product is not
‘made available for purchase by the general public.” Accordingly, your appeal of our decision to place
you in the “other” requestor category is denied. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact us. […] June 10th, 2009 - 2nd Reply by the Office of the Judge Adovate General, U.S.
Navy […] This responds to your letter of April 26, 2009,
in which you challenge the response of the Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations (CNO) to your FOIA request of March 23, 2009. You are seeking
records related to the use of white phosphorus by U.S. Forces in Iraq from
March 2003 until March 23, 2009. Your appeal is a request for a final determination
under the FOIA. For the following reasons, I grant your appeal and have
remanded your request to CNO for re-processing in accordance with the FOIA. CNO advised you that they could not process your request
because it was too broad to enable them to conduct a reasonable search. I
have reviewed your request and determined that the information you provided
was sufficiently specific to allow a search. I have, therefore, remanded this
to CNO to conduct a reasonable search and/or make appropriate referrals to
other commands where responsive documents may be located. CNO will respond
directly to you, providing any information releasable under the FOIA and
identifying the basis for withholding any information under the FOIA
exemptions. In the meantime, my staff referred your request to I Marine
Expeditionary Force. You retain the right to appeal the substance of the
CNO’s remanded FOIA response. […] May 14th, 2009 - 3rd Reply by the U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal […] Please be advised that we have referred your
FOIA request Case # FP-09-013693 along with responsive documents totaling 15 pages
to the following organization for review and direct response to you. […] May 12th, 2009 - 2nd Reply by the U.S. State Department […] This is in response to your Freedom of
Information Act/Privacy Act (FOIA/PA) request, dated March 19, 2009, for
copies of documents concerning 1) Records of sale and export of incendiary weapons
or smoke generating projectiles containing white phosphorus to the State of
Israel and any other third country, state, or private entity or company
between 1990 and present. 2) Records of the use of weapons described above by
U.S. forces in Iraq between March 2003 to present and 3) Records of the use of weapons described above by
the State of Israel and its military forces during its military operations in
South Lebanon between 1982 and 2006 and in Gaza, Palestine from 2008 until
2009. We will begin the processing of your request based
upon the information provided in your communication. We will notify you as
soon as responsive material has been retrieved and reviewed. […] May 7th, 2009 - FOIA Appeal to Secretary of
the U.S. Army/LAAP […] on March 27, 2009 I filed per e-mail a request under
the Freedom of Information Act with the FOIA office of the U.S. Army Central
for the following records: “Records from the ‘Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant’
(LAAP) in Doyline, Webster Parish, Louisiana with regards to the production,
processing, storage, sale, transfer and export, including copies of export
licenses, of incendiary weapons /smoke generating projectiles containing
white phosphorus between 1988 and 1994.” Since the FOIA office of the U.S. Army has received
my request on March 27, 2009, I have neither received a reply nor any related
communication from your office. The prescribed time limit for an initial
response by the FOIA office, in accordance with U.S. Army Regulation 25-55,
has since expired. I therefore have to conclude that you have not
performed an adequate search for the above-mentioned records as required
under the FOIA and I hereby ask you to have your appeals panel consider this
matter. […] May 6th, 2009 - FOIA Appeal to Secretary of
the U.S. Army […] on March 21, 2009 I filed per e-mail a request
under the Freedom of Information Act with the FOIA office of the U.S. Army
Central for the following records: “Records of the use of incendiary weapons/smoke
generating projectiles containing white phosphorus by U.S. military forces in
Iraq between March 2003 and the date of this letter.” Since the FOIA office of the U.S. Army has received
my request on March 21, 2009, I have neither received a reply nor any related
communication from your office. The prescribed time limit for an initial
response by the FOIA office, in accordance with U.S. Army Regulation 25-55,
has since expired. I therefore have to conclude that you have not
performed an adequate search for the above-mentioned records as required
under the FOIA and I hereby ask you to have your appeals panel consider this
matter. […] May 3rd, 2009 - FOIA Appeal to Secretary of
the U.S. Air Force […] this is an appeal with regards to the results of
a record search, which your office has conducted and whose results you have
communicated to me by letter of April 14th, 2009 in response to my FOIA
request # 2009-0008. In my original FOIA request from March 27th, 2009, I
asked for “Records of the use of incendiary weapons/smoke generating
projectiles containing white phosphorus by U.S. military forces in Iraq
between March 2003 and the date of this letter.” In response to my request, you have produced a
single document, a spread sheet which apparently is part of an inventory but
which does not relate to the *use* of the white phosphorus weapons in Iraq. I therefore have to conclude that you have not
performed an adequate search for records as required under the FOIA and I
hereby ask you to have your appeals panel consider this matter. […] May 1st, 2009 - Reply by the Office of the Judge Adovate General, U.S. Navy […] This is in response to your Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA), 26 April 2009, which has been assigned file number F09103. Please
refer to that file number for any future questions or concerns regarding your
appeal. We receive numerous appeals and have a small staff
available to process them. In fairness to all requestors, we process all
appeals in the order in which they are received. The actual processing time
may be affected by the number and complexity of other requests that were
received in this office before yours. For that reason, we are unable to
provide an estimated completion date at this time. Your rights to judicial review will not be
prejudiced by waiting until a substantive determination has been made
regarding your appeal/request. […] April 26th,
2009 - FOIA Appeal to Judge Advocate General of the U.S.
Navy […] this is an appeal with regards to your
administrative denial from April 7th, 2009 of my FOIA request # DON
200900821. In your denial you have stated that my FOIA request
from March 23rd, 2009 would not comply with the federal regulation 32 CFR §
701.8 (a) (1), more specifically, that “the description provided in my
request was too broad and general to facilitate a reasonable search”.
Furthermore, you stated that the “Department of the Navy is not equipped to
conduct a text search for ‘white phosphorus projectiles’.” I would like to point out that I have indeed
provided you with detailed information that fall into Category I and II of
the above-mentioned federal regulation and which should fully enable you to
do an adequate search for records, as it is required under the FOIA. In my request, I used not only the term “white phosphorus
projectiles”, but also “incendiary weapons” and “smoke-generating
projectiles”. All these terms have been used in official Field Manuals by the
U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps, for example in FM 6-40 “Artillery Manual
Cannon Gunnery”. Additionally, I provided you in my request with
detailed information about the use of “white phosphorus projectiles” in Iraq
during the battle of Fallujah in November of 2004. I included an excerpt of
an article from the Field Artillery Magazine, which has been published by the
U. S. Army Field Artillery Corps. This excerpt mentions the exact types of
“white phosphorus” projectiles that had been used during that specific
battle. Last but not least, I provided you with a press
article from BBC News, which mentioned the use of “white phosphorus
projectiles” by the U.S. military in Iraq. This was during a time, when its
employment was heavily discussed in the world media. In summary, I have provided you with sufficient
information to enable you to produce a list of responsive records in response
to my FOIA request. Nevertheless, you have not performed an adequate search
for records as required under the FOIA. I therefore ask you to have your
appeals panel of the Judge Advocate General
of the Department of the Navy consider this matter. […] April 14th, 2009 - Letter and Memorandum by U.S. Air Forces Central […] 1. USAFCENT/A4, AFCENT/A6, and USAFCENT/FOIA
conducted a thorough search for documents pertaining to your request.
Attached you will find a copy of the document retrieve from the A4 database
in reference to the material that you requested. 2. Legal review was conducted on 6 April 2009 with
the following recommendations. Recommend release of requested material. […] […] Danny C. Martin, MSgt, USAF, Freedom of
Information Act Manager April 7th, 2009 - Reply by the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations […] Dear Mr. Ottmann : Thank you for your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request dated March 23, 2008 [sic]. Your request was received in our office
on March 23, 2009. Based on the information provided in your letter, we
are unable to process your inquiry under the FOIA. In accordance with 32 CFR
§ 701.8 (a) (1), a requester is required to reasonably describe the records
he seeks so that a knowledgeable official of the agency can conduct a search
with reasonable effort. Your request does not comply with this requirement.
The description provided in your request is too broad and general in nature
to facilitate a reasonable search Under 32 CFR § 701.8 (c), descriptive information
about a record may be divided into two categories. (i) Category I is file-related and includes information
such as type of record, title, index citation, subject area, date the record
was created, or its originator. (ii) Category II is event-related and includes the
circumstances that resulted in the record being created or the date and
circumstances surrounding the event the record covers. Generally, a record is not reasonably described
unless the description contains sufficient Category I information to permit
the conduct of an organized, not random search based on the DON activity’s
filing arrangements and existing retrieval systems, or unless the record
contains sufficient Category II information to permit inference of the
Category I elements needed to conduct such a search. The Department of the Navy is not equipped to
conduct a text search for “white phosphorus projectiles” that will produce a
list of responsive records. Without more specific information regarding the
type of document you are requesting or the originator of those documents, we
are unable to process your request. In light of the above, we are closing our files on
your request. You may file another request for the same information. If you
choose to do so, please include more specific information regarding the
documents you are seeking, the dates they were created, and the Navy activity
with which they are associated. If you have any questions, please contact Alyson
Shade at […] Sincerely Miriam Brown-Lam Head, DON PA/FOIA Policy Branch […] March 31st, 2009 - Confirmation Letter by U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal […] Dear Mr. Ottmann: This confirms receipt of your request under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for records of the production, processing, storage,
sale, transfer and export of incendiary weapons/smoke generating projectiles
containing white phosphorus, including copies of export licenses, between
1990 and the date of your letter. Your request was forwarded to this office
from the IMCOM FOIA Requestor Service Center on March 26, 2009. As the FOIA Officer for Pine Bluff Arsenal, I will
process the production, processing and storage portion of your request. […] March 30th, 2009 - Reply by U.S. Air
Force Central Mr Ottmann[,] I received your request the latter part of last week
and it is being processed at this time. Currently information has been
retrieved and sent to our legal office for a legal review, however due to
most of the attorneys being out of the office this week it may be sometime
next week before I get this review and can send the requested information to
you. If you have any questions or concerning give me a
call. Danny C. Martin, MSgt, USAF USAFCENT FOIA Program Manager (Interim) […] March 27th, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Army Central (LAAP) […] This is a request under the Freedom of
Information Act for the following records: Records from the “Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant”
(LAAP) in Doyline, Webster Parish, Louisiana with regards to the production,
processing, storage, sale, transfer and export, including copies of export
licenses, of incendiary weapons /smoke generating projectiles containing
white phosphorus between 1988 and 1994. For background, a report from Human Rights Watch
from March 25th, 2009 titled “Rain of Fire/Israel’s Unlawful Use of White
Phosphorus in Gaza” identified the markings of one of the projectiles found
in Gaza and traced the source of the weapon back to the U.S. Army Ammunition
Plant in Doyline, Webster Parish in Louisiana. […] A website and a contact address of an FOIA office of
the LAAP could not be located. A report by the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services stated the following about the LAAP: “The Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant (LAAP) is a
government-owned, contractor-operated facility located on 14,974 acres in
Doyline near Shreveport, Webster Parish, Louisiana. […] “The Thiokol Corporation then operated the facility
until 1996, after closing all production and loading of ammunition operations
in October 1994. Valentec Systems, Inc., currently oversees/operates the
facility under modified caretaker/partial standby status and several tenants
occupy portions of the depot property (ETA 2000). […]” I understand that the Louisiana Army Ammunition
Plant has been an installation of the U.S. Army and that it has been a U.S.
military production and storage area of white phosphorus weapons. […] March 27th, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Air Force
Central […] I originally filed this FOIA request on March 20th,
2009 with the U.S. Central Command in Macdill, Florida (FOIA Case # 09-0105).
The FOIA Team replied that the request “would fall under the purview of the
service specific agencies.” As recommended by the U.S. Central Command, I
subsequently filed the request with the Headquarters of the U.S. Air Forces.
On March 26th, the FOIA office of the U.S. Air Forces,
Headquarters informed me that it had forwarded my request to the FOIA office
of the U.S. Air Forces Central (FOIA Case # 09-0422). For formal reasons, I
am also hereby forwarding you this request. This is a request under the Freedom of Information
Act for the following records: Records of the use of incendiary weapons/smoke
generating projectiles containing white phosphorus by U.S. military forces in
Iraq between March 2003 and the date of this letter. […] March 27th, 2009 - Reply by the U.S.
State Department […] EFOIA Request B9177 This email is to acknowledge our receipt of your
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The details are provided below. Case Control Number: 200902328 Requester’s Name: Martin Ottmann Subject of Request: Info Re Weapons Christopher A. Dossantos […] March 26th, 2009 - Reply by the U.S. Air Force, Headquarters […] Dear Mr. Ottman. This is in response to your 20 March 2009 Freedom of
Information Act to the original FOIA request you sent to the U. S. Central
Command, FOIA case number 09-0105. We are not the Office of Primary Responsibility for
the documents you requested. Therefore, we are referring your request to the
following activity for action. They will reply directly to you. USAFCENT/FOIA 414 Campbell Street Bldg 35 Shaw AFB SC 29152 […] Sincerely, Della V. Macias Freedom of Information Act Disclosure Office March 26th, 2009 - Reply by the U.S. Army
Pine Bluff Arsenal Classification:
unclassified [,] Caveats: FOUO Mr.
Martin, Your
FOIA request was referred to the FOIA Office at Pine Bluff Arsenal for
processing and direct response to you. This does not constitute a denial of
your request. If you
have any questions, please contact Jimmie Bailey, […] Very
respectfully, Mischa
E. Carter Management
Consultant Administrative
Services Division Human
Resources Directorate, HQ IMCOM […] March 23rd, 2009 - FOIA Request to Chief of U.S.
Naval Operations […] I originally filed this FOIA request on March 20th,
2009 with the U.S. Central Command in Macdill, Florida. The FOIA Team replied
that the request ‘would fall under the purview of the service specific
agencies.’ The U.S. Central Command suggested to forward this FOIA request to
the U.S. Navy Personnel Command. The Navy Personnel Command on the other hand
informed me today that it had forwarded my request to your agency. For formal
reasons, I am also hereby forwarding my request to your agency. This is a request under the Freedom of Information
Act for the following records: Records of the use of incendiary weapons/smoke
generating projectiles containing white phosphorus by U.S. military forces in
Iraq between March 2003 and the date of this letter. […] March 23rd, 2009 - Reply by the U.S. Navy
Personnel Command Dear Mr. Ottmann, this activity does not maintain
the kind of records that you seek. For your convenience, I have forwarded
your request to the Navy’s main FOIA Office for review and referral as
applicable. Sincerely, David P. German, Bureau of Naval
Personnel, Navy Personnel Command […] March 21st,
2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Navy Personnel Command I originally filed this FOIA request on March 20th,
2009 with the U.S. Central Command in Macdill, Florida. The FOIA Team replied
that the request ‘would fall under the purview of the service specific
agencies.’ The U.S. Central Command suggested to forward this FOIA request to
your agency, which I am doing hereby. This is a request under the Freedom of Information
Act for the following records: Records of the use of incendiary weapons/smoke
generating projectiles containing white phosphorus by U.S. military forces in
Iraq between March 2003 and the date of this letter. […] March 21st,
2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Army Central I originally filed this FOIA request on March 20th,
2009 with the U.S. Central Command in Macdill, Florida. The FOIA Team replied
that the request ‘would fall under the purview of the service specific agencies.’
The U.S. Central Command suggested to forward this FOIA request to your
agency, which I am doing hereby. This is a request under the Freedom of Information
Act for the following records: Records of the use of incendiary weapons/smoke
generating projectiles containing white phosphorus by U.S. military forces in
Iraq between March 2003 and the date of this letter. […] March 21st,
2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Air Force Headquarters I originally filed this FOIA request on March 20th,
2009 with the U.S. Central Command in Macdill, Florida. The FOIA Team replied
that the request ‘would fall under the purview of the service specific
agencies.’ The U.S. Central Command suggested to forward this FOIA request to
your agency, which I am doing hereby. This is a request under the Freedom of Information
Act for the following records: Records of the use of incendiary weapons/smoke
generating projectiles containing white phosphorus by U.S. military forces in
Iraq between March 2003 and the date of this letter. […] March 20th,
2009 - Reply by the U.S. Central Command […] 1. We received your below FOIA request in our
office on 20 Mar 09. After further review, it has been determined the
information you are requesting doesn't fall under the purview of the United
States Central Command (USCENTCOM) but would fall under the purview of the
service specific agencies (i.e. Army, Air Force etc.). Below is the information regarding the
agencies that we recommend you submit your FOIA request to that may have
documents that you are seeking. 2. This will administratively close out your FOIA
request with the United States Central Command. If you have any questions or concerns,
please use USCENTCOM FOIA 09-0105 for future correspondence. […] March 20th,
2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Central Command This is a request under the Freedom of Information
Act for the following records: Records of the use of incendiary weapons/smoke
generating projectiles containing white phosphorus by U.S. military forces in
Iraq between March 2003 and the date of this letter. For background information on the use of white
phosphorus projectiles by US forces in Iraq, a news article from BBC News
from November 30th, 2005 stated: “The United States’ most senior general has defended
the use of weapons containing white phosphorus in Iraq. General Peter Pace
said that such munitions were a ‘legitimate tool of the military’, used to
illuminate targets and create smokescreens. “Two weeks ago, the US admitted using it to flush
out insurgents in Falluja last year - raising concerns that it might have hit
civilians. Initially, the military denied using it against either insurgents
or civilians. Correspondents said having had to retract its original denial
was a public relations disaster for the US. […]” March 20th,
2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. Army Arsenal in Pine Bluff, Arkansas This is a request under the Freedom of Information
Act for the following records: Records of the production, processing, storage,
sale, transfer and export of incendiary weapons /smoke generating projectiles
containing white phosphorus, including copies of export licenses, between
1990 and the date of this letter. For background, a report from Amnesty International
from February 23rd, 2009 titled ‘Israel OPT/Fuelling Conflict:
Foreign Arms Supplies to Israel/Gaza’ identified the markings of one of the
projectiles found in Gaza and traced the source of the weapon back to the
U.S. Army weapons arsenal in Pine Bluff in Arkansas. […] I understand that the Pine Bluff Arsenal is the only
U.S. military storage area of white phosphorus weapons, and according to
Amnesty International, the ‘PB’ designation in the marking ‘PB-91K018-035’
refers to the Pine Bluff Arsenal. My request is not limited to the sale of
white phosphorus weapons to the State of Israel. White phosphorus weapons
were also used in the attack on Fallujah, Iraq, in November of 2004. […] March 19th, 2009 - FOIA Request to U.S. State Department FOIA Letter
Confirmation by U.S. State Department This is a request under the Freedom of Information
Act for the following records: 1) Records of the sale and export of incendiary
weapons /smoke generating projectiles containing white phosphorus to the
State of Israel and any other third country/state and/or any private entity
or company between 1990 and the date of this letter. 2) Records of the use of incendiary weapons/smoke
generating projectiles containing white phosporus by U.S. forces in Iraq
between March 2003 and the date of this letter. 3) Records of the use of incendiary weapons/smoke
generating projectiles containing white phosporus by the State of Israel and
its military forces during its military operations in South Lebanon between
1982 and 2006 and in Gaza, Palestine from 2008 until 2009. […] |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
March 19, 2009 - Memorandum for Heads of
Executive Departments and Agencies Memorandum by the
Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice “[…] The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C.
§ 552, reflects our nation’s fundamental commitment to open government. This
memorandum is meant to underscore that commitment and to ensure that it is
realized in practice. “A Presumption of Openness “As President Obama instructed in his January 21
FOIA Memorandum, ‘The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with
a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails.’ This
presumption has two important implications. “First, an agency should not withhold information
simply because it may do so legally. I strongly encourage agencies to make
discretionary disclosures of information. An agency should not withhold
records merely because it can demonstrate, as a technical matter, that the
records fall within the scope of a FOIA exemption. “Second, whenever an agency determines that it
cannot make full disclosure of a requested record, it must consider whether
it can make partial disclosure. Agencies should always be mindful that the
FOIA requires them to take reasonable steps to segregate and release
nonexempt information. Even if some parts of a record must be withheld, other
parts either may not be covered by a statutory exemption, or may be covered
only in a technical sense unrelated to the actual impact of disclosure. “At the same time, the disclosure obligation under
the FOIA is not absolute. The Act provides exemptions to protect, for
example, national security, personal privacy, privileged records, and law
enforcement interests. But as the President stated in his memorandum, ‘The
Government should not keep information confidential merely because public
officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures
might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.’ “Pursuant to the President’s directive that I issue
new FOIA guidelines, I hereby rescind the Attorney General’s FOIA Memorandum
of October 12, 2001, which stated that the Department of Justice would defend
decisions to withhold records ‘unless they lack a sound legal basis or
present an unwarranted risk of adverse impact on the ability of other
agencies to protect other important records.’ “Instead, the Department of Justice will defend a
denial of a FOIA request only if (1) the agency reasonably foresees that
disclosure would harm an interest protected by one of the statutory
exemptions, or (2) disclosure is prohibited by law. With regard to litigation
pending on the date of the issuance of this memorandum, this guidance should
be taken into account and applied if practicable when, in the judgment of the
Department of Justice lawyers handling the matter and the relevant agency
defendants, there is a substantial likelihood that application of the
guidance would result in a material disclosure of additional information.
[…]” December 18th, 2007 - Mission Statement Mission
Statement by the U.S. Army Pine Bluff Arsenal “[…] Pine Bluff Arsenal (PBA) plays a role in the Army
Force Integration Process and has direct involvement in various phases of the
Life Cycle Systems Management Model: from Phase 2 - Engineering and
Manufacturing Development, through Phase 3 - Production and Deployment and
Phase 4 - Operation and Support. It produces, stores and demilitarizes
conventional ammunition; serves as the Group Technology Center for
illuminating and infrared munitions; serves as the Specified Mission Facility
for smoke munitions and maintains the sole U. S. capability for white phosphorus
fill. […]” October 26th, 2005 - Teledyne Awarded $ 10 Million
Pine Bluff Arsenal Subcontract Press
Release by Teledyne Technologies Inc. “[…] Teledyne Technologies Incorporated […] today announced
that Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc., under contract to Shaw Environmental,
Inc., a division of The Shaw Group Inc. […], has been awarded an 18-month $10
million contract to support modernization of the White Phosphorus Plant at
the Pine Bluff Arsenal in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. “Under the contract, Teledyne Brown Engineering will
design, procure, fabricate, assemble, integrate, test and deliver new white
phosphorus processing components and subsystems at the facility, which is the
only white phosphorus plant in the United States. White phosphorus is a
chemical used to fill munitions and projectiles for signaling, screening and
incendiary purposes. Modernization of the facility’s instrumentation and
control systems will increase automated operations, limit manual handling of
heavy and hazardous materials and significantly reduce the generation of
solid and liquid wastes. […]” December 23rd, 2002 - Freedom of Information
Act, 5 USC § 552/As Amended in 2002 Transcript of law
by the U.S. Department of Justice “[…] § 552. Public information; agency rules,
opinions, orders, records, and proceedings “(a) Each agency shall make available to the public
information as follows: “[…] (2) Each agency, in accordance with published
rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying “(A) final opinions, including concurring and
dissenting opinions, as well as orders, made in the adjudication of cases; “(B) those statements of policy and interpretations
which have been adopted by the agency and are not published in the Federal
Register; “(C) administrative staff manuals and instructions
to staff that affect a member of the public; “(D) copies of all records, regardless of form or
format, which have been released to any person under paragraph (3) and which,
because of the nature of their subject matter, the agency determines have
become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for
substantially the same records; and “(E) a general index of the records referred to
under subparagraph (D); […]” |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Pine Bluff Arsenal/Home of White Phosphorus Weapons |
|||||
|
Main Entrance |
Treatment facilities |
“Tactical smoke demonstration” |
|||
|
Background 1) White phosphorus shell explodes over Gaza city
during military operations of Israeli defense forces - January 3rd,
2009 - Yannis Behrakis/Reuters; Pine Bluff
Arsenal/Home of White Phosphorus Weapons 1) The
Pine Bluff Arsenal (PBA) is located in the Pine Bluff/White Hall area in
southeast Arkansas, 35 miles southeast of Little Rock. We are a very small
installation, but this community truly supports our military. You will find
the cost of living moderate compared to living in the northern part of the
United States. […] PBA was established in November 1941. PBA’s initial
mission in World War II was the manufacture of incendiary grenades and bombs,
however, the mission quickly expanded to manufacturing, loading, and storage
of war gases, and the production and storage of pyrotechnic, riot control and
white phosphorus munitions. PBA entered the waste management and
demilitarization arena upon completion of a unique multi-furnace incinerator
complex in 1978, and completion of the first permitted hazardous waste
landfill in the U.S. in 1983. Selected as the sole site for the Binary
Chemical Munitions disposal of obsolete chemical agent BZ, disposal was
initiated 1980, and continued for a decade. PBA remains the second largest
stateside storage site for the nation’s Chemical Stockpile. - Retrieved on March 23rd, 2009 -
Military Homefront/U.S. Department of Defense (website); 2) The
Explosive Destruction System mission at Pine Bluff Arsenal marks the first
time the Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Project will operate three systems
side by side to treat chemical warfare materiel. Each system is housed in an
environmental enclosure and monitored around the clock. - Retrieved on March
23rd, 2009 - U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency (website); 3) Visitors on the National Defense Industrial
Association tour are treated to a tactical smoke demonstration. Pine Bluff
Arsenal is a major defense producer of smoke grenades, which are used to
obscure or mark movements on the battlefield. - Retrieved on March 23rd,
2009 - U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency (website);
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Back
to White Phosphorus Weapons in Iraq Back
to White Phosphorus Weapons in Lebanon Back
to White Phosphorus Weapons in Gaza Back to U.S.
Department of Defense |
|||||
