DOD files it's "secret arguments" to suppress Abu Ghraib Photos -

[cyberpj]

This was done last Friday so you might have missed it (just as they wanted you to)

Defense Department Files Secret Arguments in Further Attempt to Suppress Abu Ghraib Photos
July 29, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: [e-mail]

NEW YORK -- The Defense Department has filed heavily redacted papers in a further attempt to suppress photographs and videos that depict the abuse of prisoners held at Abu Ghraib, the American Civil Liberties Union said today. The move is the government's latest effort to block the release of materials requested by the ACLU under the Freedom of Information Act.

"The government's recent actions make a mockery of the Freedom of Information Act," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "The Defense Department has long dragged its heels on coming clean about the systematic and widespread abuse of detainees, but denying the public the right to even hear its legal arguments for withholding information is a new low."

snip...
However, the government has redacted significant portions of its public brief, including the conclusion. The government also heavily redacted portions of declarations submitted in support of the brief. One of the declarations is that of General Richard Meyers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ACLU attorneys have been provided with less-redacted court papers pursuant to a protective order that prevents them from disclosing the papers' contents to the public.

snip...
A hearing has been scheduled in federal court in New York for August 15 to address two issues: whether the public has been improperly denied access to information as a result of the government's redacted briefs, and whether the government should be compelled to release photographs of abuse at Abu Ghraib.



To date, more than 60,000 pages of government documents have been released in response to the ACLU's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The ACLU has been posting these documents online at www.aclu.org/torturefoia.

The redacted public version of the government's memorandum of law is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/International/International.cfm?ID=18835&c=36.

The redacted public version of General Richard Meyers' affidavit is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/International/International.cfm?ID=18837&c=36.

The redacted public version of Ronald Schlicher's affidavit is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/International/International.cfm?ID=18839&c=36.

The redacted public version of Phillip McGuire's affidavit is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/International/International.cfm?ID=18841&c=36.

[gratuitous]

1. I predict a swift and severe rejection by the court

Federal judges don't like arguing cases and issues over and over. When a judge issues an order, he or she expects it to be followed, and post-judgment relief is ordinarily viewed with a jaundiced eye: Why didn't you make these arguments before my ruling?

Unfortunately, the mills of American justice grind slowly. After the August 15 hearing, the judge will take the case under advisement for a minimum of two weeks, issue a ruling around the beginning of September at the absolute earliest, and we'll be in for another round of government delays by legal motions and maneuvers.

The latter-day Torquemadas in our government must have quite a bit to hide, and it's apparent to me that these delaying tactics must have been authorized at the highest levels of the Justice Department (meaning Alberto "Torture is fine with me" Gonzales, our Attorney General).

[cyberpj]

4. But I don't see ACLU giving up on this. And elevation to The Supremes

well, if that's even a possibility, that would surely give it the national attention BushCo is trying to avoid.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. kick

[KittyWampus]

3. Are they double super-duper-uber secret arguments?