US Releases Redacted Document Twice... With Different Redactions

from the [redacted]-if-we-[redacted] dept

Indeed, in the public version of Bogdan's declaration submitted to the appeals court last month, the following passage is unredacted: If the detainee would need to use the restroom in Camp 6, the meeting must end and the detainee would need to be moved by guard staff back to his cell. The same passage, however, appears this way in the version of Bogdan's declaration released on Friday: If the detainees would need to use the restroom in Camp 6 [redacted]. Another passage in Bogdan's declaration released on Friday says: The frisk search that is conducted is to ensure there is nothing concealed between the clothing and the body. However, the word "frisk" is redacted from the public version of Bogdan's declaration submitted to the appeals court last month. The earlier version also says: "At no time is the detainee's actual groin exposed to the staff," whereas that passage is redacted in its entirety in the version of Bogdan's declaration the government released on Friday. A passage in the earlier version of Bogdan's declaration says: Additionally, for security reasons, internal moves could not be conducted in proximity to the attorney visits. That sentence has been redacted in the version of Bogdan's declaration released on Friday. Another passage in the most recent version of Bogdan's statement says: During the brief movement to the camps, detainees are restrained in a manner consistent with standard procedures for military corrections. However, the last part of that sentence, "in a manner consistent with standard procedures for military corrections", was redacted in the public version of the declaration the government released last month.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community. Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis. While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

We've talked repeatedly about just how arbitrary the feds can be when it comes to redacting documents that they release. Despite the fact that they're supposed to err on the side of transparency, they often go in the other direction . However, it can reach absolutely ridiculous levels, such as when they release the same document twice... with different redactions , revealing what they redacted. Even worse, they claim that the redactions were necessary to avoid having Al Qaeda be able to break prisoners out of Guantanamo Bay prison. The document was released both times as part of a case concerning detainees' access to lawyers and (more specifically) the fact that the prison was conducting "genital searches" on prisoners if they wanted to meet with their lawyers.Part of the case revolves around a declaration from June 3rd from Guantanamo prison warden Colonel John Bogdan explaining why the genital searches are necessary. However, the US government says that if that declaration is fully made public it "would better enable our enemies to attack the detention facilities at Guantanamo or undermine security at the facility." Got that? The reason Bogdan's declaration must be redacted is that not redacting key parts would allow Al Qaeda to attack the prison.Given that, the US government released a redacted version to a reporter... apparently forgetting (or unaware) that they had already released a different redacted version a month ago in a related proceeding on the same case. Jason Leopold at Al Jazeera explores some of the differences Leopold also notes that the government claims that revealing the full document would also reveal "details about the physical layout of the detention facilities," but points out this makes no sense at all, because you can view satellite images of the prison via Google maps, and tons of reporters have toured the prison and written about the layout.No matter what, it seems abundantly clear that, yet again, the US is giving bogus reasons for its arbitrary redactions.

Filed Under: classified, guantanamo, redactions, secrecy