Waging jihad from a concrete compound with only three of your wives gets lonely. Thank God for “fairly extensive” video collections of porn, which Osama bin Laden allegedly had, and which may or may not now be in U.S. intelligence hands. But you’ll never know, because Uncle Sam’s sticky fingers aren’t sharing.

David Covucci, an editor for BroBible.com who recently fucked a bunch of Japanese sex toys, decided the allegations about Osama’s oh-face collection were worth exploring, so he sent the Central Intelligence Agency a Freedom of Information Act request to release the Al Qaeda porn kraken:

[FOIA]’s a pretty powerful tool for journalists and Bros alike. I personally believe us dudes have a right to know what the world’s most wanted man masturbated to. I think something like that should enter the public record. Like… what if it turned out he exclusively watched white, male, American porn stars? Wouldn’t that be anathema to his beliefs? Wouldn’t that be an interesting thing to learn about the man?

Yes.

So, I sent the request.

On Monday, Covucci received a response from the CIA. “UNFORTCH, the contents contained within were disappointing,” he wrote. “I figured it would be, the letter a single sheet thin, like a college rejection note”:

With regard to the pornographic material Osama Bin Laden had in his possession at the time of his death, responsive records, should they exist, would be contained in the operational files. The CIA Information Act, 50 U.S.C 431, as amended, exempts CIA operational files from search, review, publication, and disclosure requirements of the FOIA. To the extent that this material exists, the CIA would be prohibited by 18 USC Section 1461 from mailing obscene matter.

In summary: OBL may have been a porn dog, and he may not have been—but if he was, there’s secrets in them thar Brazzers WEBMs, so no, you can’t have ’em.

Citing the U.S.’s law against obscene mailings was sort of a bizarre tack by the CIA, however; dating back to the 1870s, the code once applied to materials as diverse as nudie pics and birth-control ads. But enforcement has caught up somewhat, and run-of-the-mill porn pics and videos have been exempted from “obscenity” restrictions by the Supreme Court since Jenkins v. Georgia in 1974. Nowadays, the only porn you can face prosecution for mailing is “public portrayal of hard core sexual conduct for its own sake, and for the ensuing commercial gain.”

So... is the CIA slyly suggesting Casa d’Osama had some hardcore fetishes?

[Photo credit: David Covucci]

Contact the author at adam@gawker.com.
Public PGP key
PGP fingerprint: FD97 D50A DE57 3943 4534 1A49 FA8B 74B4 A7A0 07BE