Abu Ghraib FOIA case: Hearing still set for Aug. 15th?

[Stirk]

I heard a news report stating that some hearing related to government secrecy had been postponed to September, but I came in at the end so I'm not sure exactly what the report was about.

Was the ACLU's FOIA hearing postponed?

[Stirk]

1. Bump?

[Warren DeMontague]

2. As far as I know, it's still Aug. 15.

This from the most recent ACLU release:

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.

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18842&c=280

According to The Raw Story, 14 media organizations and groups have filed a friend-of-the-court brief objecting to the government's claim of the 7(F) exemption to the FOIA. That's the most recent piece of news I know about the whole thing.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Reporters_Court_must_order_release_of_Ghr_0804.html

Excerpt follows:

"The government has taken the position in this case that the more outrageously the behavior exhibited by American troops, the less the public has a right to know about it," said Reporters Committee Executive Director Lucy Dalglish. "Such a stance turns the Freedom of Information Act inside out."

Exemption 7(F) has never been applied to hide incendiary evidence of government misconduct. Adopting such an interpretation would have dire consequences, the coalition brief argues, by rewarding misconduct with secrecy and "obscuring government accountability at a time when it is most necessary for the public to have full access to the facts." As a result, the American people would suffer a substantial erosion of meaningful news media coverage about wartime misconduct.

...

Hellerstein had earlier ordered the government to prepare the Darby photos for release by redacting any detainees' identifying features, but last month just hours before the July 23 deadline, the government filed its Exemption 7(F) claim instead of releasing the photos.

Exemption 7(F) has been invoked most often to hide the names of law enforcement agents, witnesses, and informants from criminal defendants and convicts that might hurt them. The government's novel interpretation should be rejected, the coalition writes, because the public's ability "to obtain facts about the government's misconduct through the news media and to hold the government accountable through democratic institutions" depends on it.

[Stirk]

3. Thanks a million, impeachdubya.

Good news. I wonder what that report was talking about?

[Warren DeMontague]

4. Off the top of my head, I'd guess Sibel Edmonds:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/ACLU_Supremes_must_review_Edmonds_whistleblower_0804.html

So many cover-ups to choose from... it sure gets confusing, doesn't it? :hippie: