For
Immediate Release:
September 5, 2007
Court
Rejects Wiretapping Secrecy Claims, Orders New Index of
Documents and More Detailed Reasons for Withholding
For
more information contact:
Thomas Blanton or Meredith Fuchs: 202/994-7000
Washington, DC, September 5, 2007 --The United States
District Court for the District of Columbia today largely
rejected
the government’s attempt to withhold without explanation all
records concerning its warrantless wiretapping surveillance
program. In a Freedom of Information Act law suit brought by
the National Security Archive, along with the Electronic Privacy
Information Center and the American Civil Liberties Union, the
Court rejected the summary explanations and declarations of the
government.
Finding many of the government’s secrecy
claims “too vague and general,” Judge Henry Kennedy denied in
part the government’s motion for summary judgment. In
particular, the Court dismissed the government’s withholding of
its final legal opinions as “insufficient” and stated that
“declaring ‘because we say so’ is an inadequate method for
invoking exemption 5” of the FOIA. The motion was granted in
part largely with respect to specific records or categories of
records that the plaintiffs did not dispute.
In several parts of the opinion, Judge
Kennedy exhibited skepticism about the government’s unsupported
claims of secrecy. In one footnote, the Court expressed
“substantial frustration” with the Executive Branch’s use of
classified declarations surrounded by “an exceedingly high level
of secrecy” that prevented even the Court’s clerk, who had
obtained a security clearance, from viewing some of the
government’s submissions.
“In a decision that evidences careful
review of the government declarations and submissions, the Court
makes clear that it is not enough for the government to simply
say something is secret – it must justify its claim,” commented
Archive General Counsel Meredith Fuchs. “Unfortunately, as is
often the case in a FOIA dispute, the government is given
several opportunities to get it right. We hope, on the next
round, the Court decides to look at some of the records in
dispute.”
