Delicious Rulings from the Big Apple

By Daugherty, Rebecca | News Media and the Law, Fall 2005 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Delicious Rulings from the Big Apple

Daugherty, Rebecca, News Media and the Law


Far be it from us to suggest that Freedom of Information Act litigators forum shop, but as more and more FOI Act requesters are left licking bureaucracy-inflicted wounds at the courthouse, decisions by two federal district court judges in New York City make deliciously good sense. They rejected the government's silly refusals to release pictures or information about prisoners detained by American forces at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Iraq to protect the detainees' "privacy."

We hope more FOI Act cases go to the Big Apple.

The Department of Defense claimed that giving The Associated Press names of the collectively and speculatively labeled "enemy combatants," many of whom had been held in captivity in Guantanamo Bay for several years, would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of their personal privacy." Judge Jed Rakoff, sensing that the detainees themselves might not share that view, ordered the government to ask them. The government protested that there were "material logistical impediments" to this approach, but Rakoff ruled in late September that the court was "entirely unpersuaded" that the military could not perform the simple task of asking the detainees: yes or no. After all, he noted, they are a captive audience. (Associated Press v. Department of Defense)

In a separate case, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the Defense Department when it refused, for "privacy" reasons, to release pictures showing torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib, even when individual identities were obscured. Judge Alvin Hellerstein did not buy that disclosure of those redacted pictures would intrude upon the privacy of the tortured. He also made short work of the government's claim that disclosure would "violate the Geneva Conventions" that protect prisoners of war from "insults and public curiosity."

Ordered to make the disclosures, the government came back to Hellerstein with a new argument. These torture pictures are so awful, so incendiary, that terrorists could use them for propaganda, inciting further hate against the United States, it said. If the pictures aren't exempt for privacy reasons (Exemption 6), exempt them because release could endanger life or physical safety (Exemption 7f), the government argued.

Hellerstein, too, was entirely unpersuaded. He said disclosure would implicate core values of the FOI Act, "a means for citizens to know what their government is up to." He wrote:

"The interest at stake arises from pictures of flagrantly improper conduct by American soldiers - forcing prisoners under their charge to pose in a manner that compromised their humanity and dignity ... . Publication of the photographs is central to the purposes of FOIA because they initiate debate, not only about the improper and unlawful conduct of American Soldiers, 'rogue' soldiers, as they have been characterized, but also about other important questions as well - for example, the command structure that failed to exercise discipline over the troops, and the persons in that command structure whose failures in exercising supervision may make them culpable along with the soldiers who were court-martialed for perpetrating the wrongs; the poor training that did not create patterns of proper behavior and that failed to teach or distinguish between conduct that was proper and improper; the regulations and orders that governed the conduct of military forces engaged in guarding prisoners; the treatment of prisoners in other areas and places of detention.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Delicious Rulings from the Big Apple


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?