Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Defense Dept. Files Secret Arguments- Further Atmpt to Suppress pics(ACLU)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 04:35 PM
Original message
Defense Dept. Files Secret Arguments- Further Atmpt to Suppress pics(ACLU)
(This is an ACLU Press Release from Friday, July 29, 2005 that the Pentagon tried to slip past us in last weeks "Friday News Dump." I'm sure most here probably missed this one, I know I did, and I didn't see it covered in ANY News outlets. I'm fairly sure these Press Releases don't fall under the 4 paragraph rule.)

Defense Department Files Secret Arguments in Further Attempt to Suppress Abu Ghraib Photos


July 29, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org

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."

Last week, on the deadline of a court order requiring the Defense Department to process and redact 87 photographs and four videos taken at Abu Ghraib, government attorneys filed a last-minute memorandum of law and three affidavits arguing against the release of the materials. The government's papers cite a statutory provision that permits the withholding of records "compiled for law enforcement purposes," that "could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual."

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.

"Not only is the government denying the public access to records of critical significance, it is also withholding its reasons for doing so," said Amrit Singh, an ACLU staff attorney. "This exemplifies the government's disregard for democratic constraints on the use of executive power."

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.

The photographs and videos in question were redacted by the Defense Department in response to a June 1, 2005 court order relating to a lawsuit filed under the Freedom of Information Act filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace. The New York Civil Liberties Union is co-counsel in the case.

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 .

The FOIA lawsuit is being handled by Lawrence Lustberg and Megan Lewis of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C. Other attorneys in the case are Singh, Jameel Jaffer, and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Arthur N. Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the NYCLU; and Barbara Olshansky of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

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>.

<http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18842&c=280&s_src=RSS>
(more info at the links above)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. August 15 -- protest in NYC anyone?
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. Now that's what I call redacted
the .pdf of "Public Version of Government Brief on Photos and Videos"

is 31 blank pages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Hey, these are "Secret Arguments!"
31 Blank pages!!!!

Pardon my French but, this is such BULL SHIT!:freak:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
3. The Nazis didn't show the results of their work either.
Remember, the Nazi government didn't publish photographs of what was going on in the Death Camps, why would we expect this Nazi Lite government to do anything different.

Let's just be ready to point out to our Republican supporting relatives and friends that they support an administration that regards torture as an acceptable tool, an administration that does not believe in equal rights for all Americans, an administration that wishes to deny a woman the right to privacy concerning her own body. For those who can open their eyes and see the evil that Bush and his cronies stand for, there is hope, but for those that cannot go a day without drinking the kool-aid, there is no hope.

Also remind the Falwell and Robertson lovers that while they talk about following Biblical law, they have little or no regard for Biblical principles.

This may cause some family relationships to fall apart, and some friendships to dissolve, but as some have asked on this board before, what are we willing to sacrifice and give up in order to take back our country?

To me the loss of those who support torture, who lack tolerance, who
are bigots and racists, isn't much of a loss, even if they are family or friends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. agree with you 100%
I have long wondered how the bible thumping rightwingers could justify torture, and the slaughter in Iraq with their "sanctity of life" posturing....

Life - sacred from conception to birth.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Absolutely, well said and thank you for your support.
I am going to assume from your Avatar, which is, I think, the Gulf War Service Ribbon, that you are a Veteran of that conflict. I personally want to say, Thank you for your service and thank you for your support on this issue. :patriot:

This is a difficult issue for ALL Americans to read about, but I'm sure it's ever harder for our Veterans to deal with emotionally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconoclastNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. Will the Democrats strengthen they FOIA when the get back in control?
Edited on Tue Aug-02-05 12:06 PM by iconoclastNYC
Fuck no. This is why this country is fucked. The republicans take us five steps back and the neutered Democrats take us only 1/2 step back and call it victory.

Fear for the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
4. Another I missed: New Documents Detailing Abuse at Guantánamo Bay
(Another ACLU Press Release that I missed from Wednesday, July 27, 2005. Another 139 pages of Redacted documents, I haven't gone through all of them yet, but these could hold more gems.)

Government Releases New Documents Detailing Abuse at Guantánamo Bay



July 27, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
media@aclu.org

Pentagon Still Keeping Information from Public, ACLU Charges

NEW YORK -- The American Civil Liberties Union today released files obtained from the Defense Department revealing new details on investigations into abuse at the Guantánamo Bay Detention Center. The files also appear to indicate a rift between personnel at the base over interrogation techniques.

"These new documents provide vivid descriptions of how interrogation techniques approved by Rumsfeld constituted serious abuse in some instances," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "There’s no denying that these approved techniques went too far and that the military knew full well how they were being used on detainees."

The release of these documents follows a federal court order that directed the Defense Department and other government agencies to comply with an October 2003 request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) filed by the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace. The New York Civil Liberties Union is co-counsel in the case.

Among the documents released today is an investigation into an interrogator's allegation that, on April 22, 2003, military police at Guantánamo physically abused a detainee at the direction of another interrogator during what appears to be an aggressive use of the "Fear Up Harsh" technique also employed at Abu Ghraib. The interrogator reported that two Military Police "pushed in the back of the detainee’s knees with their knees, taking the detainee to his knees. Then holding the detainee by his upper arms they slammed his upper body to the floor." The interrogator reported that this procedure was repeated 25-30 times and caused the floor and the next booth to shake. At one point, he saw the man hit the floor with the side of his face. Another witness corroborated the charges, and reported that she witnessed other personnel laughing at the treatment of the detainee.

"These documents only underscore the pressing need for an independent investigation into the interrogation methods used at Guantánamo and other detention centers," said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU Staff Attorney. "Americans have a right to know what the government’s policies are, and who put them in place."

According to the commander’s inquiry into the abuse, there was confusion among personnel on how the "Fear Up Harsh" technique should be used, but interrogators and intelligence analysts "knew about this technique and they thought it was approved." Apparently as a result of the investigation, General Geoffrey Miller issued a memo on May 2, 2003 stating that interrogators should "immediately cease the use of the Fear Up Harsh" interrogation technique, that Military Police should no longer participate in interrogations and that only Defense Department personnel would be permitted to review and approve interrogation plans. Although the commander’s investigation had suggested the existence of a more systemic problem, the memo from Miller to Commander, SOUTHCOM states, "I found that the action involved in this commander’s inquiry was a single incident. A thorough review of our current procedures has not uncovered a systematic problem."

Another memorandum for record included in the investigative file details additional reports of abuse and indicates a rift between contract interrogators and military personnel at Guantánamo. One contactor who reported witnessing a session "that was totally inappropriate and bordered on criminal," was told by his superior that he should first ask the military personnel to explain their actions before going up the chain of command. Another incident detailed in the memo involved what is described as a "strip club lap dance," during which an interrogator removed her blouse and proceeded stroking a detainee’s "hair and neck while using sexual overtones and making comments about his religious affiliation." The incident progressed to "where she was seated on his lap making sexually affiliated movements with her chest and pelvis," and the interrogator later straddled the detainee while he was on the floor. The contract employee - apparently an "ACS defense analyst" - reports being later informed that the interrogation activity was deemed appropriate and acceptable.

A separate investigative file released today included additional reports of detainee abuse made by a regional team chief in March 2004. The reports detail incidents of military personnel preventing a detainee from using the toilet, detaining a prisoner in temperature under 52 degrees and denying food to detainees. The investigating officer, who concludes that there was no mistreatment, strongly criticizes the team chief for directly reporting the abuse to Brigadier General Jay Hood instead of following the appropriate chain of command. The file contains recommendations that the team chief be immediately relieved of his duties and receive a reprimand.

While some of the incidents described in these documents were mentioned in military reports made public earlier this year, the details of the incidents have not previously been released.

The release of the documents comes after the government refused last week to turn over photographs and videos depicting abuse and torture of detainees held at Abu Ghraib. A federal court had ordered the government to process and redact the materials for eventual release, but on its deadline date, the Defense Department claimed that the images "could result in harm to individuals" for reasons that will be set forth in documents to be filed with the court under seal.

The FOIA lawsuit is being handled by Lawrence Lustberg and Megan Lewis of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C. Other attorneys in the case are Jaffer, Amrit Singh and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Art Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the NYCLU; and Barbara Olshansky of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

To view the documents released today, go to: <http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/072605/1243_1381.pdf>.

More information on the ACLU lawsuit and previously released documents can be found at: .

<http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=18817&c=280&s_src=RSS>

(more info at the links above)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paineinthearse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
8. Nominated!
This deserves "greatest" exposure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Night Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-01-05 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
9. So, the ACLU has to go back to court to argue a case it already won.
Edited on Mon Aug-01-05 06:22 PM by The Night Owl
Basically, the government now decides which legal cases it wins or loses. How Orwellian.

Meanwhile, Alberto "we need more assrape" Gonzales is reviewing the FOIA. Gosh, I wonder what he will determine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Yes, that about sums it up
Freedom is on the March.

All Hail El Presidente'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 01:23 AM
Response to Original message
10. Kick n/t
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meganmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
11. Oh good lord - another example of deMOCKracy
I am so glad we have things like the FOIA to keep our gov't in check :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibertyorDeath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-02-05 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
14. Suspect's tale of travel and torture (US ghost detainee)
Original post by DUer rodeodance




http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1670231
Democratic Underground - Suspect's tale of travel and torture (US ghost detainee)

Stephen Grey and Ian Cobain
Tuesday August 2, 2005
The Guardian


A former London schoolboy accused of being a dedicated al-Qaida terrorist has given the first full account of the interrogation and alleged torture endured by so-called ghost detainees held at secret prisons around the world.

For two and a half years US authorities moved Benyam Mohammed around a series of prisons in Pakistan, Morocco and Afghanistan, before he was sent to Guantánamo Bay in September last year.

Mohammed, 26, who grew up in Notting Hill in west London, is alleged to be a key figure in terrorist plots intended to cause far greater loss of life than the suicide bombers of 7/7. One allegation, which he denies, is of planning to detonate a "dirty bomb" in a US city; another is that he and an accomplice planned to collapse a number of apartment blocks by renting ground-floor flats to seal, fill with gas from cooking appliances, and blow up with timed detonators.


In an statement given to his newly appointed lawyer, Mohammed has given an account of how he was tortured for more than two years after being questioned by US and British officials who he believes were from the FBI and MI6. As well as being beaten and subjected to loud music for long periods, he claims his genitals were sliced with scalpels.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-05 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Thanks, I guess I missed this one today
What a Beautiful World we live in, Eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-05 01:58 AM
Response to Original message
16. I've checked out the redacted "arguments"... From what I gather
Edited on Wed Aug-03-05 02:00 AM by impeachdubya
it looks like they're plugging the Newsweek "incident" as justification for the 7(F) exemption, as well as the fact that they filed said exemption at the last minute (when, apparently, in these cases it is standard procedure to, quote, "claim all exemptions at the same time"- ergo the proper time to do it would have been when they claimed the 6 and 7(C) exemptions, which the judge didn't buy) ... the gist of their argument, if you can call it that, seems to hinge on the idea that they didn't realize that information casting the US in a negative light could cause people in the middle-east to go ape-shit until the Newsweek "riots", which weren't even caused by the Newsweek story in the first place.

There is also a great deal of cheerleading for the "Global War on Terror" and how that specifically relates to the Invasion of Iraq (Cough. Bullshit. Cough.)

The redacted portions, I'm sure, deal specifically with what is contained in the videos and pictures- (Not much point in covering them up if you're going to admit publicly what is going on there) - but if you look carefully at the non-redacted portions, clever persons may be able to infer some things about what material might be in those pictures. I think Myers's declaration, in particular, holds some pertinent clues.

August 15 is the next date to watch. Personally, I can't imagine that the judge- who has expressed his belief previously that the government was "stalling" and "responding at a glacial pace", and shot down the 6 and 7(C) exemption arguments.. is going to be particularly enamored with this new set of justifications, not to mention the way in which they were thrown in at the last minute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibertyorDeath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-03-05 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Thanks for this
I agree

"I can't imagine that the judge- who has expressed his belief previously that the government was "stalling" and "responding at a glacial pace", and shot down the 6 and 7(C) exemption arguments.. is going to be particularly enamored with this new set of justifications, not to mention the way in which they were thrown in at the last minute."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC