|
|
|
|
|
The undersigned is frankly baffled that the government would actively seek to divest itself of this responsibility in this case, all the while taking such draconian measures in other cases as informing attorneys representing Guantanamo detainees that they are not allowed to use information posted on Wikileaks to defend their clients because the documents remained classified. See, e.g., Scott Shane, Guantanamo Detainee's Lawyer Seeks a Voice on WikiLeaks Documents, N.Y. Times (April. 27, 2011), at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/us/28gitmo.html (last accessed June 11, 2012).
[...]
Defendants next argue that the government 'as a policy matter does not confirm or deny the authenticity (or, by extension, the classification) of documents posted on Wikileaks.' (Defs.' Resp. at 3.) This argument fails for several reasons. First, it is belied by the government's official policy as described in Paracha v. Bush, No. 04-2022 (D.D.C.), claiming that the records on Wikileaks are still classified. Second, it suffers the foundational flaw of presuming that the fact that it is 'government policy' somehow strips the Court of any authority to countermand it. Lastly, though, the 'policy' described by Defendants is nothing more than a Glomar response being applied to a different context, and it is well within the Court's equitable powers to rule on the appropriateness of such a response. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Kelly McClanahan |
|
Concerning: |
Mobley versus CIA FOIA, Global Intelligence Files, Stratfor, GI Files |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Title: |
Re: Insight- Sharif Mobley |
|
Author: |
Scott Stewart, Aaron Colvin, Fred Burton |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Stratfor |
|
Concerning: |
"Mobley versus CIA FOIA, Global Intelligence Files, GI Files, Stratfor |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
