This is nonsense. Why can't the names of their attorneys be divulged? I agree with the statement towards the article's end, the assertion that everything may be a security risk if released to the public strikes me as more of a guise than anything else.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/17/po...rint&position=
June 17, 2003
Names of 9/11 Detainees Can Remain Secret, Court Rules
By MARK J. PRENDERGAST
A federal appeals court, reversing a lower-court decision, ruled today that the government did not have to disclose the names of more than 700 people detained in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, agreeing with the Justice Department that making that information public could "allow Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to map the course of the investigation."
The 2-to-1 decision by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia was a rebuff to the civil liberties and other groups that were challenging the Bush administration's refusal to provide the names and other information about people, mostly immigrants, held in connection with the 9/11 terrorism investigation, on the ground of national security.
The court said the government could withhold the dates and locations of arrest, detention and release of all detainees, including those charged with federal crimes, and the names of lawyers representing them.
"A complete list of names informing terrorists of every suspect detained by the government at any point during the Sept. 11 investigation would give terrorist organizations a composite picture of the government investigation," the majority wrote today. "Disclosure would inform terrorists of both the substantive and geographic focus of the investigation. Moreover, disclosure would inform terrorists which of their members were compromised by the investigation, and which were not."
But in a sharply worded dissent, Judge David S. Tatel faulted his two colleagues, David B. Sentelle and Karen Lecraft Henderson, for showing "uncritical deference to the government's vague, poorly explained arguments for withholding broad categories of information about the detainees."
While noting that the government had a legitimate basis for keeping some information secret, Judge Tatel cited "another compelling public interest," which he defined as "knowing whether the government, in responding to the attacks, is violating the constitutional rights of the hundreds of persons whom it has detained in connection with its terrorism investigation."
"Citizens have a compelling interest in ensuring that their government does not, in discharging its duties, abuse one of its most awesome powers, the power to arrest and jail," Judge Tatel wrote in arguing that the government had overextended its use of an exemption under the Freedom of Information Act.
Judge Tatel said fuller disclosure concerning the detainees would help the public determine whether people had been detained "mainly because of their religion or ethnicity" and whether the government was "holding them in custody for extended periods without charge or preventing them from seeking or communicating with legal counsel."
But Judges Sentelle and Henderson said the judiciary owed a certain amount of deference to the government in determining what would and would not harm national security interests in the campaign against terrorism.
"America faces an enemy just as real as its former Cold War foes, with capabilities beyond the capacity of the judiciary to explore," the judges wrote. "It is abundantly clear that the government's top counterterrorism officials are well-suited to make this predictive judgment. Conversely, the judiciary is in an extremely poor position to second-guess the executives judgment in this area of national security."
The case, brought by a large coalition of groups seeking the names under the Freedom of Information Act, is one of a handful of cases dealing with the delicate balance between civil liberties and public safety that are making their way through the courts in response to administration actions after Sept. 11.
On June 3, the groups' concerns and criticisms of administration actions gained credence when the Justice Department's inspector general reported that the roundup of hundreds of illegal immigrants in the months after Sept. 11 had been plagued by "significant problems" that forced many people with no connection to terrorism to languish in jails in unduly harsh conditions.
But today's appellate court decision was clearly a setback for the coalition.
Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way, a coalition member, said in a statement that the court's action could presage a "stunning rollback of rights in America."
"This ruling gives amazing deference to the Justice Department and cripples the critical role of oversight in protecting rights in America," Mr. Neas said. "This ruling allows the Department of Justice to bury these secret arrests even deeper. Now the public is denied access even to the names of attorneys representing detainees."
A principal lawyer for the coalition in the suit, Kate Martin, the director of the Center for National Security Studies civil liberties group, said, "We are disappointed that for the first time in U.S. history, a court has approved secret arrests and we plan to pursue the case," according to Reuters.
The ruling can be appealed either to the full appellate court or to the Supreme Court.
Attorney General John Ashcroft said in a statement on the Justice Department's Web site, "We are pleased the court agreed we should not give terrorists a virtual road map to our investigation that could allow terrorists to chart a potentially deadly detour around our efforts."
In the lower-court ruling, Judge Gladys Kessler of Federal District Court in Washington held that the Bush administration had no right to conceal the identities of hundreds of people arrested after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, and she ordered that most of their names be released within 15 days, though she stayed her ruling to allow for an appeal.
Judge Kessler said that while it was the obligation of the executive branch to ensure the physical security of American citizens, "the first priority of the judicial branch must be to ensure that our government always operates within the statutory and constitutional constraints which distinguish a democracy from a dictatorship."
The F.B.I. and the Department of Justice appealed. Speaking after Judge Kessler's ruling, Robert McCallum, the assistant attorney general for the civil division, asserted that government investigators "firmly believe that the information sought by the plaintiffs, if released, could jeopardize the investigation and provide valuable information to terrorists seeking to cause even greater harm to the safety of the American people."
But Judge Kessler dismissed as too speculative the government's argument that the release of the names would allow terrorist groups to track the progress of its investigation.
-30-
Linear Mode
