ACLU Asks Court To Force Government To Fight Fairly In FOIA Lawsuit Over Drone Strike Docs
from the this-is-some-[redacted]-right-here dept
The ACLU is headed to the Second Circuit Appeals Court, hoping to force the DOJ to be more... realistic about the government's drone strike operations in Pakistan. It's an FOIA lawsuit, with the ACLU seeking drone documents and being told -- in so many black bars -- that this publicly-acknowledged program is too secret to disclose.
The ACLU goes into this battle fighting blind:
In August 2016, the government blacked out a court ruling against government secrecy (yes, really), hiding from the public its reasons for why the ruling should remain secret. Then, it also hid its reasons for appealing that ruling to a higher court.
The DOJ argues the Pakistan drone strike program has never been officially acknowledged or disclosed. Going from there, it argues it shouldn't have to turn over the information the ACLU is requesting. But, as the ACLU points out, there's plenty of public knowledge about the program's existence. From the ACLU's filing [PDF]:
In this case, the government has not made public the subject of its appeal, and it has redacted any reference to the ruling it challenges from the district court’s opinion. But as best as the ACLU can tell, the appeal asks this Court a simple question: Is it a secret that the United States conducts drone strikes in Pakistan? To answer that question, the Court need only read the plain words, spoken in public while in Pakistan, by the United States’ former Secretary of State. Reading those words, the only logical and plausible answer to that question is “no.”
Here's John Kerry's statement on the program the DOJ says no one is talking about because it arguably may not officially exist:
This evidence included a statement straight from former Secretary of State John Kerry, made in an August 2013 interview on Pakistani television. When Secretary Kerry was asked by the Pakistani journalist if he envisaged a timeline for ending U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Secretary Kerry responded that he did and that “the president has a very real timeline and we hope it’s going to be very, very soon.”
Journalists, activists, human rights advocates, and Pakistani citizens have gathered plenty of data on drone strikes the US may or may not be performing. More than 400 strikes have been reported since 2004. And yet, the government claims nothing can be disclosed -- much less discussed openly in court -- because it's a "secret" operation.
In the last courtroom round, the ACLU handed this info to the judge and then watched the government take its paperwork and arguments somewhere the ACLU couldn't participate.
Nevertheless, in the district court, the government argued that former Secretary of State Kerry’s words did not amount to an official disclosure, and it did so in open court. Once the district court apparently agreed with the ACLU, however, the government took its arguments—and the court’s ruling—behind closed doors. The ruling at issue is hidden behind redactions, as are the government’s arguments on appeal. What’s more, the government now asks this Court to erase the district court’s ruling from the books—perhaps even without deciding whether the information at issue is actually a secret.
The ACLU is now asking the Appeals Court to make this a fairer fight.
The ACLU has endeavored to respond to the government’s arguments as comprehensively as possible. However, almost 60% of the publicly filed version of the government’s opening brief is redacted, and the government has eliminated every reference to the district court ruling that it challenges from its brief and the opinion itself. It is therefore possible that the ACLU misconstrued or failed to identify some of the government’s arguments.
You can't fight what you can't see. The government wants the district court's ruling (in favor of the ACLU) overturned and has left the ACLU with the least-useful 40% of its briefing to work with. Before everything gets considered by the court, the ACLU would at least like a second stab at a brief, possibly with the assistance of some less-redacted documents.
The ACLU seeks to litigate this case fairly, and to be as helpful as possible to the Court in adjudicating it. To that end, the ACLU asked the government to review again the redactions in the district court’s opinion before the government filed its appellate brief so that the parties could meaningfully address the relevant issues on appeal. In response, the government asserted that no further information could be provided. Therefore, if the ACLU did not address a particular issue the Court deems important to the resolution of this case, the ACLU would welcome the opportunity to submit supplemental briefing, with the benefit of the Court’s (rather than solely the government’s) views about what can and cannot be said in open court.
Everything's so secret no one can look at it (at least no one who doesn't work for the government) and no one can talk about it (except those who work for the government). The government is using claims of national security to stack the deck in this litigation. Hopefully, the appeals court will realize it can't hold a fair hearing if one side remains blindfolded.
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
Filed Under: 2nd circuit, appeal, doj, drone strikes, foia, pakistan, redactions
Companies: aclu
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fairness
I remember as a child being told about Santa Clause, the fairness of the legal system, and other such fantasies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Everything old is new again
From Doonesbury: 10 Nov, 73
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lost the balance
What you have here is the usa losing the balance. What you have next is unimaginable war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: lost the balance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: lost the balance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But... but...
If they acknowledge the drone strikes, they they'll have to acknowledge a few related unpleasantries.
Like their record of killing 49 innocent civilians for every known terrorist, according to a joint study by Stanford and New York Universities of drone strikes in Pakistan.
And the US's use of "double-taps" - something the US itself calls terrorism - and international law experts call war crimes - where after the first strike they'll send in more missiles to target rescuers.
You wouldn't want anyone thinking that American military contractors and the agencies they're in bed with, are creating the next generation of anti-American terrorists to kick-start the next war. Why, that would be as silly as the telecommunications industry being in bed with the FCC boss and working against Americans' interests.
Best to keep it a secret so the Pakistanis don't find out about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But... but...
It's only a crime when other people do it. When the US does it that automatically means it's not a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Kind is naked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple solution
Why would the government want to do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not trying to suck any cocks here! But someone needs to fuckin FRONT STAB THE SHIT out of this fucking lawyer!!!
And if you are confused, I'm talking about the GD ACL mutha fucking U!
I said it's not secret, Don said it's not secret, FUCK, even those fag, cocksuckers Kerry n Bannon, and don't tell me that's not a thing, said it's not secret. So STFU and get to work on my divorce case!! That bitch only deserves the dick she's already got!
MOOCH OUT!!!
Brought to you by the Press Corpse of The Whithouse of The United States of America
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not trying to suck any cocks here! But someone needs to fuckin FRONT STAB THE SHIT out of this fucking lawyer!!!
And if you are confused, I'm talking about the GD ACL mutha fucking U!
I said it's not secret, Don said it's not secret, FUCK, even those fag, cocksuckers Kerry n Bannon, and don't tell me that's not a thing, said it's not secret. So STFU and get to work on my divorce case!! That bitch only deserves the dick she's already got!
MOOCH OUT!!!
Brought to you by the Press Corpse of The Whithouse of The United States of America
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The UFO used death rays and wiped the town out, but the Government refutes the existence of the town or the corpses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The DOJ argues the Pakistan drone strike program has never been officially acknowledged or disclosed. Going from there, it argues it shouldn't have to turn over the information the ACLU is requesting.
In other words, the DOJ's case is based on something it read on one of Adam Savage's t-shirts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a minute ...
Pakistan drone program? Well, if the DOJ says we have one, we must officially have one. Good job, DOJ!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]