DOJ Warns Gitmo Defense Attorneys Not to Use Gitmo Files

The defense attorneys representing detainees at Gitmo in habeas proceedings received this email today.

Subject: Information in the public domain 2nd reminder


As many of you have undoubtedly heard or read, government documents that may contain classified information have been released via the news media. As a reminder, information that is marked as classified, or that a person with access to classified information knows to be classified, remains as such despite a potential public disclosure by unauthorized means. Classified National Security Information only becomes declassified when the appropriate original classification authority makes their determination that the information may no longer cause damage to national security and may be declassified. Accordingly, consistent with your Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreements and Memorandum of Understanding that you signed as a participant in the Guantanamo Habeas proceedings, counsel are hereby cautioned that this presumptively classified information must be handled in accordance with all relevant security precautions and safeguards, including but not limited to, use and preparation in the Secure Facility and filing under seal with the Court Security Officer.

Thank you.

Court Security

In other words, in spite of the fact that the entire world now sees the flimsy evidence on which many Gitmo detainees are being held, Gitmo detainees’ lawyers can’t use that now very public information to defend their clients without going through the court security officer first. In fact, they can’t even talk about this information, for example in public appearances to explain their client’s plight, without asking the government for permission first.

And the warning is even more appalling given the protection order proposed for military commissions. As I noted last month, military commission defense attorneys have a couple of additional restrictions on top of all the ones habeas lawyers have; notably, they are not allowed to share classified information with their clients even if it reflects information that came from their client.

Statements of the detainee that detainee’s counsel acquires from classified documents cannot be shared with the detainee absent authorization from the appropriate government agency authorized to declassify the classified information.

So all these Detainee Assessment Briefs purportedly based on the detainees’ own statements? The Gitmo lawyers can’t ask their clients whether they’re an accurate representation of what the detainee actually said.

And then there’s the timing. The government has presumably known that these files might be released since last May, if not December, when Mark Hosenball said they were imminent.

So when the government wrote the protection order preventing military commission lawyers from sharing with their clients or even talking about classified but widely public information, they knew this trove of useful information would soon be available.

So now the organization that will prosecute detainees is the same organization that can determine that its use in a military commission would “cause damage to national security” and on that basis prevent defense attorneys from using a key tool to defend their clients.

You know–because if detainees got due process it might “cause damage to national security.”

Update: Second-to-last paragraph fixed to hopefully make a bit of sense.

  1. WilliamOckham says:

    I wonder what the status of Dist. Judge Kennedy’s opinion in the Uthman case is. It wasn’t marked classified, but it was pulled down and replaced. You can still find it on ProPublica’s site.

  2. WilliamOckham says:

    I’m talking about the original opinion, not the one that resulted after the conflict betweeen Kennedy and the DoD.

  3. Scarecrow says:

    It would be a breach of national security if the government were told what the government did. Also, when the government makes an admission, that admission cannot be used to impeach the government. I’m sure this makes sense in some universe.

    • PJEvans says:

      Possibly the universe on the other side of the looking-glass. Or the one you get to by falling down a rabbit-hole.

      I hope some judge has enough sense to look at that kind of legal instruction and tell the government to put it where the sun will never shine on it – and never, ever again try to tell defense attorneys that they can’t use their own clients’ statements.

  4. earlofhuntingdon says:

    It does make it a tad harder to impugn government allegations when defense counsel are prohibited from asking their clients whether what the government claims they said is what they said. “Heads I win, tails I win” is not a valid standard for a criminal justice system.

  5. Jeff Kaye says:

    Love those new, improved Military Commissions rules put out by the Obama administration.

    You really caught the senseless injustice of the security rules in this case. But of course, I never forget that these are real human beings who will suffer for this (as I know you don’t forget this either), along with their loved ones. The attorneys I know, too, agonize over this terrible restriction.

    Oh but it’s only for those “terrorists”, you know.

    If only America would wake up and see the jackboots aimed to walk right over their heads.

  6. MadDog says:

    A question for for folks here knowledgable about government communications:

    What is the government communications system that uses the prefix “TD-314“?

    As one can see in the latest Wikileaks document dump, the Guantanamo Detainee files all reference footnotes such as this from page 2 of the Abd Al Rahim Hussein Mohammed Al Nashiri JTF-GTMO Detainee Assessment (15 page PDF):


    The reason that I think that the prefix “TD-314” is a government communications system is that I’ve found the same prefix “TD-314” in other Wikileaks documents such as this State Department communication cable from the Buenos Aires Embassy.

      • MadDog says:

        Oh I’ve googled and googled “TD-314” without finding its definition. Again, lots of government communications that include it, but no definition.

      • MadDog says:

        Ok, I’ve found another source for that Department of the Army Intelligence Informations Services Powerpoint presentation because Scribd always freezes my system (piece of fookin’ junk!).

        That other source is over at and has the Powerpoint presentation in a zip file here.

        Anyways, it appears from that page 7 of that Powerpoint presentation, that DAIIS provides “Searchable tearline and message database containing the following data types” and includes “CIA Releasable reports (TD-314)”.

        Another prefix that is referenced in these Guantanamo Detainee files is “IIR”. That same page 7 of the Powerpoint presentation describes “IIR” as “Intelligence Information Reports”.

        I feel better now that I know what these critters are. *g*

        • WilliamOckham says:

          I am pretty sure that TD-314 is a CIA designation for reports they produce to share with other agencies, but I cannot find a reference at the moment.

          • MadDog says:

            What’s also interesting to me about the “CIA Releasable reports (TD-314)” is the “source” of these reports.

            Much of the published documentation regarding the interrogation of the Guantanamo detainees implies that their interrogations were “primarily” conducted by DOD folks (i.e. the DIA’s Defense Counterintelligence and HUMINT Center folks).

            I wonder now if that really was/is the case.

            It would seem to me that the “CIA Releasable reports (TD-314)” implies that the CIA is the source of these documents.

            Perhaps the CIA “sourced” them from the transcripts/videos of DIA’s detainee interrogations, but I find it more probable that the “CIA Releasable reports (TD-314)” referenced as footnotes in all these Guantanamo Detainee files are in fact material acquired from the CIA’s own detainee interrogations.

            Or perhaps it is a combination of efforts under the rubric of a joint terrorism task force (not to be confused with the FBI’s JTTF) where the CIA has final responsibility for analysis and production of interrogation reports that are used as the sourcing TD-314 footnotes in these Guantanamo Detainee files.

        • Jeff Kaye says:

          Thanks for hunting this out, as I was wondering about this myself. Though seems there’s some question still about the ultimate provenance of the TD-314’s.

          • MadDog says:

            …Though seems there’s some question still about the ultimate provenance of the TD-314′s.

            Yeah, I’m torn between the CIA as the underlying source or the CIA as the central intelligence agency compiling stuff from other agency sources.

  7. MadDog says:

    I read a related bizarre Wikileaks document in reading through Al Nashiri’s JTF-GTMO Detainee Assessment (15 page PDF).

    In Al Nashiri’s case, another former detainee by the name of Jamal Ahmad Mohammad Al Badawi evidently testified (is an interrogation “testimony”?) to Al Nashiri’s involvement in the USS Cole bombing.

    The bizarre Wikileaks document is an October 2007 State Department cable from our Embassy in Yemen describing a meeting between Frannie Townsend and the President of Yemen.

    One of the topics of discussion was “Townsend’s request for USG interrogation of Jamal al-Badawi” who it seems was sort of, maybe, somewhat under Yemeni “house arrest”.

    This was after Jamal al-Badawi, who as a Yemeni prisoner, had twice escaped from Yemeni custody.

    As the cable relates, Yemeni’s President Salah said:

    …he personally met with al-Badawi “two weeks ago” and had a frank discussion with him. “Al-Badawi promised to give up terrorism and I told him that his actions damaged Yemen and its image; he began to understand,” Saleh said.

    4.(S) Townsend expressed dismay over al-Badawi’s release and asked for USG access to interrogate him. Saleh told Townsend not to worry, “he is under my microscope,” but had no objections to her request, reiterating numerous times that interested USG entities could interrogate al-Badawi by coordinating with the Political Security Organization (PSO)…

    The really bizarre part of this cable is this part:

    …Weapons Trafficking: You Can’t Make This Stuff Up
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    6.(C) As Townsend began to ask Saleh about his efforts to combat weapons trafficking, Saleh interrupted her to invite one of Yemen’s top three weapons traffickers, Faris Mana’a, into the lunch meeting. When Mana’a, who met with the President earlier in the day, entered the room, Saleh jokingly addressed the Embassy Assistant Legal Attach (Legatt), saying, “hey FBI, if he does not behave properly, you can take him… back to Washington in Townsend’s plane or to Guantanamo.”

    The Legatt replied, “we could put both Mana’a and al-Badawi on the plane;” however, the translator did not report this to Saleh, making it unlikely that the President heard the Legatt’s reply. Meanwhile, Presidential staff provided Mana’a with a chair at the table. Saleh explained that the ROYG had recently confiscated a shipment of “pistols” from Mana’a and given them to the military.

    Townsend lightheartedly commented, “he has donated weapons to the nation’s military — he can be considered a patriot now.” Saleh responded with laughter, saying, “no, he is a double agent — he also gave weapons to the al-Houthi rebels.” The President said the Ministry of Defense was the only entity in Yemen authorized to purchase weapons.

    Comment: If the President,s statement were an accurate portrayal of the situation, arms dealers would effectively be out of business. Saleh’s comment has been made to Post numerous times before. This, and Mana’a’s presence at the Palace, raises serious questions about the President’s commitment to stopping weapons trafficking. Mana’a also runs a onstruction company and a petroleum services business, with contracts in Iraq. His ties to Saleh may extend beyond money made from the weapons trade. End Comment)…

    This is the very same President Salah of Yemen who has been the “friend” of the US for years, but now the US has decided Salah must go.

  8. thatvisionthing says:

    o/t to ew re your continuing issue with DoD lax IT security — did you see this?

    Anti-bomb plan for Pentagon annex posted online
    By Mark Hosenball and Missy Ryan
    WASHINGTON | Tue Apr 19, 2011 5:10pm EDT

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – In what officials admit is a major breach of security, a document describing design features intended to make a new Defense Department building bomb-resistant has been posted on a public government website.

    …One of the document’s key points is raising eyebrows among some experts — the building’s level of bomb resistance….That is far less than the amount of explosive used in recent attacks in the United States, including the 1993 bombing of New York’s World Trade Center and 1995 bombing of the Alfred Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City.

    The top and bottom of every page of the 424-page document on the Mark Center is stamped “For Official Use Only” — a label which is supposed to mean that the unclassified document will not circulate outside official channels.

    But Reuters found a copy of the report posted on a public website maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers….The report could be found on the Corps’ public website nearly 24 hours after Reuters advised the Corps and top Pentagon officials that it had been publicly posted…

    It’s Harry Shearer’s leadoff story in this week’s Le Show — he is merciless when the Army Corps of Engineers is involved.

    • thatvisionthing says:

      Oh hey! Topic of your new Antiwar Radio interview! Just saw:

      Scott Horton Interviews Marcy Wheeler
      Scott Horton, April 24, 2011

      Marcy Wheeler, blogging as “emptywheel” at, discusses why Bradley Manning’s sudden transfer to Ft. Leavenworth may be the Pentagon’s tacit acknowledgment of his mistreatment; the effective pressure of protesters, foreign governments and the UN special rapporteur on torture; the apparent plan to drive Manning crazy so he is ruled incompetent to participate in his own trial; the DOD’s terrible computer network security and Wired chat logs snitch Adrian Lamo’s questionable credibility; and why the DOJ prefers espionage to whistleblowing.

      (Podcasts are my friend :-)

  9. MadDog says:

    EW, your latest tweet of “A deep dive into role of informants at #Guantanamo: Secret reports show that 8 captives gave evidence against 255 others” gives me a 404 error at that link.

    But to the rescue, that Carol Rosenberg piece can be found here.

    • MadDog says:

      Carol Rosenberg’s piece makes a strong case that Mohammed Basardah (13 page PDF), a stoolie for “at least 131 detainees”, has failed the sniff test in a number of detainee judical cases.

      In addition, in regard to EW’s earlier post regarding the US government’s primary objective of “exploitation”, I would note this from page 12 of Mohammed Basardah’s own report:

      c. (S/NF) Intelligence Assessment: Although detainee has demonstrated willingness to provide information, he is assessed to be substantially exploited yet may still posseess some information meeting intelligence requirements. Detainee has demonstrated a vast knowledge of various individuals and locations in accordance with his reported placement and access. It seems many JTF-GTMO detainees are willing to reveal self-incriminating information to him. Detainee’s first-hand knowledge in reporting remains in question. Any information provided should be adequately verified through other sources before being utilized.

      d. (S/NF) Areas of Potential Exploitation:

      – Extremist recruiting venues and personnel in Mecca
      – Extremist-affiliated guesthouses and associated individuals
      – Al-Qaida training facilities, curriculum, and trainers
      – UBL’s Tora Bora Mountain Complex leadership and activities
      – The Islamic Institute in Kandahar and its director Abu Hafs al-Mauritani…

  10. Chief says:

    The original EW post w/ the gov’t gobblydegook is an Alice in Wonderland explanation.

    Wow! Once the info is in the public domain, to not let defense attys use it can only be comprehensible to Lewis Carroll and John Yoo.

  11. orionATL says:

    this doj ukase will only hold if it is not challenged by prisoners’ attorneys, en mass; i think that should become their first priority.

    the doj has been bluffing defense lawyers and federal judges very successfully for ten whole years; why should they stop now when they never meet effective opposition?

    i don’t see how any competent judge could tolerate a situation in which the prosecutor(s) told the defense attorney(s) that she could not use certain documents.

    for a judge to allow such a situation to prevail would be to allow one side in a legal “quarrel” to tie the hands of the other side.

    clearly, doj is counting on timid defense attorneys and timid judges to get away with this tactic.

    but there’s a deeper issue here: how is it that the lawyer-prosecutors of the doj have so little regard for fairness in federal legal proceedings?

    the doj represent the gov’t of the u.s.

    it is not your run-of-the-mill sue, lye, and steel, p. c., legal corporation.

    what are eric holder and his senior staff thinking about when they allow doj prosecutors to behave this way?

    it seems to me that keeping his promise to cover up for bush and cheney, et al.,

    is limiting the options and destroying the reputation of the obama presidency.

  12. powwow says:

    The pathetically-inadequate and ill-informed Guantanamo Files coverage of The New York Times and NPR – whose editors and publishers, like the population of Muslims jailed at Guantanamo who they help scorn and demonize, apparently don’t consider Easter Sunday a significant religious holy day worthy of respect – as well as the sloppy, tabloid coverage of the WikiLeaks-partnering Telegraph, lead me to believe that a few law of armed conflict and Guantanamo basics are needed to augment the inadequate “mainstream” coverage of a story that most American media outlets have been studiously ignoring for more than nine years.

    Basics like the fact that every single Guantanamo detainee is claimed by the United States government to be an “enemy combatant” caught participating in an armed conflict against the United States. That armed conflict “enemy combatant” status is, and has been since 2001, the sole justification, under the law of war, for the detention, beyond the reach of our federal courts, of all Guantanamo detainees. This is both an internal Executive Branch justification, and, since our Judicial Branch of government finally got around to requiring it of him, the President’s justification in federal court for his private prison of uncharged Guantanamo detainees (although the only lower federal appellate court with jurisdiction has, since 2008, worked tirelessly to reverse Boumediene‘s belated enforcement of the separation of powers and due process).

    Or like the fact that only six of the 779 Guantanamo “enemy combatant” detainees have ever been tried or convicted by military commission. That is, a grand total of six Guantanamo detainee “enemy combatants” have been charged, prosecuted, defended, judged, juried/plea-bargained, and jailed – all by the military, answering to the Executive Branch alone, and without benefit of regular Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) court-martial process – for committing “war crimes.” [For committing so-called universally-recognized “war crimes” that were concocted by Congress and the President in the Military Commissions Act of 2006, long after the capture of the charged detainees.] And four of those six Commission convictions came by plea bargain (requiring that detainees not appeal their “war crime” convictions to our independent federal judiciary). Furthermore, only one further Commission prosecution is pending, and that is for a detainee (Al Nashiri) whose acts preceded by more than a year the 2001 Congressional AUMF that authorized the United States Armed Forces to engage in an armed conflict abroad against the perpetrators of 9/11/2001 (and thus to capture and hold enemy combatant POWs as part of that conflict).

    Or like the fact that, although every single Guantanamo detainee was and is claimed by our government to be an “enemy combatant” in the 9/11 AUMF-authorized armed conflict, and thus detainable by the President without charge or prosecution for the duration of the conflict (though, years after their capture, more than 500 “enemy combatants” have been released without explanation even as the conflict continues), not one of those enemy combatants has ever been assigned Prisoner of War status – despite the treaty law of the land (the Geneva Conventions, aka the law of armed conflict or the law of war) and existing Army regulation mandating default POW status for all armed conflict detainees, unless and until proven otherwise by a “competent tribunal.” [A “competent tribunal” whose minimal due process protections military judges in 2007, and a federal district judge in 2004 in Hamdan, ruled did not exist in the military’s newly-created 2004 Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CRSTs), which thus failed to comply with mandated Third Geneva Convention Article 5 process (which the existing, but ignored, Army Regulation 190-8 would lawfully provide, if obeyed).]

    That February, 2002 “presidential determination,” which unlawfully purported to unilaterally rescind the treaty law of armed conflict’s Article 5 process for these “enemy combatants,” remains on the books today, apparently unrevoked and still operating to deny Taliban foot soldiers the basic due process that 400,000 Nazi and Axis POWs, housed in 500 camps in 45 states, were given by the United States in the midst of World War II. As I noted in this detailed comment about that February, 2002 “presidential determination,” the point of Article 5 screenings is to establish in the first place who is and is not a combatant in the armed conflict in question, and thus to accurately identify those who qualify as “Taliban detainees” or “al Qaeda detainees” – a more difficult task in this armed conflict than in others because our opposing “combatants” don’t wear uniforms [which has long been speciously claimed to be a “war crime,” which it is not, and has obviously been exploited by the military to assert that every street clothes-clad captive is an unprivileged, non-POW fighter, just because some such captives turned out to be such fighters]. So how, exactly, was President Bush, in advance, and from a distance, or the military on the scene, able to identify “Taliban” or “al Qaeda” captives (more than two-thirds of whom were not captured by U.S. forces, according to the new McClatchy article linked in this thread), absent that prescribed Article 5 screening process? And if the American military chain of command was so indifferent to the consequences of mistaken identity, while they immediately labeled every single individual detained a member of one or both, or of “associated,” groups, why, exactly, was that the case?

    The WikiLeaks “Guantanamo Files” are helping to answer that last question, by at last showing the government’s work product to the world. Flawed work product that the former chief prosecutor of the Guantanamo military commissions, Retired Air Force Colonel Morris Davis – a military lawyer for 25 years, and chief prosecutor from September, 2005 until he resigned in protest in October, 2007 – described from personal experience, when speaking this year on the ninth anniversary of Guantanamo’s opening. Here’s Morris Davis explaining how detainee “intelligence” reports were concocted by the multiple intelligence agencies given free rein at Guantanamo – “intelligence” reports whose untested, unredacted allegations and assertions have mostly escaped, for almost a decade now, public or private adversarial scrutiny in a court of law, or in any form of Article 5 “competent tribunal”:

    1:10:55 into the 1/11/11 New America Foundation panel discussion, the moderator asked:

    “Now, in terms of the evidentiary record that you had for these detainees. What’s your sense of how much – do we even have any documentation for some, for the case load. What’s your sense?”

    To which, at 1:11:07 of the recording, former Guantanamo Military Commission prosecutor Morris Davis replied:

    “I think it varies tremendously. You know – I guess one thing I’ve found is people tend to stereotype when they talk about detainees, like it’s an homogeneous group of people. And the same like with 9/11-victim families. I think everybody has this notion that all of them are just alike – you know, that one size fits all. The detainees are a very diverse group. Ah, you know, there are some, I think, like Hamdan, for instance, struck me as somebody – you know, he made 100 bucks a month driving for Bin Laden, somebody else offered him $150 to drive for them. But others that were thoroughly committed to jihad – no matter what you do, they’re never going to change their mind. And some, like David Hicks, who I think is just an idiot looking for adventure. There’s a whole range of different types of people, and different – and I guess it depends on what you call evidence. [Note that Hamdan and Hicks are two of the six convicted “war criminals” of Guantanamo, and both have been returned to their homes (in Yemen and Australia). – pow wow]

    One of the things that really struck me is the difference in law enforcement and intelligence. And the friction between the FBI [accountable to an independent judiciary] and the [unaccountable, secrecy-shielded] CIA. And I’ll give you an example – and this is a hypothetical. You know, you’d get a piece of information from the field saying: ‘Hey, we got a picture of this guy, we’re trying to figure out who it is – can you show it to the detainee and get him to identify him?’

    You know, they’d bring the picture, and they’d say – FBI would say: ‘Do you recognize this person?’

    And the detainee would go ‘No, I don’t.’

    ‘Are you sure?’

    “Yeah, I’m sure – I don’t recognize him.’

    Intelligence would come in and go: ‘Do you recognize this guy?’

    And he’d say ‘No.’

    ‘Well, wait a minute – now you were at Al Farouq, weren’t you, in 2000 and…?’

    ‘Yeah, yeah, I was there.’

    ‘And didn’t you meet so-and-so?’

    ‘Yeah, yeah, he was there.’

    ‘Now, didn’t he have a brother?’

    ‘Well, yeah.’

    ‘So could this possibly be…?’

    And when it got written up in the summary – the intelligence, the IIR, or the SIR [Summary Interrogation Report], the summary reportit says “Detainee identified,” you know, this person, and now that’s being used as evidence. You know, you can’t – the detainee can’t go interview this guy who’s now identified him and say: ‘Do you really know me?’ It is written up as fact that the detainee identified this person as being whoever it is, and that’s what’s being offered up as [closely-guarded, classified] evidence. So intelligence and evidence are not one and the same.

      • powwow says:

        That’s a reference to the fact that WikiLeaks and the media outlets and blogger it had released the Guantanamo documents to, under embargo, had not planned to report this story on Easter Sunday, but rather at some other time in the near future. (At some time other than a holiday – it seems obvious that anyone interested in maximum exposure for the story would have worked around such days, rather than choosing to break the news, after months of preparation, on a significant religious holiday.) But someone leaked the Guantanamo documents to the New York Times, which shared them with NPR and The Guardian (and cleared with the government their plans to publish), and collectively they decided to try to scoop the authorized WikiLeaks partners by breaking the story on Easter Sunday.

        The Telegraph thwarted the planned scoop, because WikiLeaks suddenly lifted their embargo late Sunday, on two hours notice, when they learned of the plans of the NYT/NPR, and that allowed the Telegraph to get their (lousy) story out first, early Monday U.K.-time. But the demonstrated disrespect of the NYT/NPR/Guardian for the embargo of the WikiLeaks partners, and for the Easter weekend plans of those who’d been carefully researching this large amount of data at the authorized outlets, caused people like Carol Rosenberg and Tom Lasseter to have to scramble to summarize their uncompleted work earlier (and no doubt, less comprehensively) than planned:

        McClatchy Newspapers obtained the documents last month from WikiLeaks on an embargoed basis to give reporters from seven news organizations — including McClatchy, The Washington Post, the Spanish newspaper El Pais, and the German magazine Der Spiegel — time to catalogue, evaluate and report on them. WikiLeaks abruptly lifted the embargo Sunday night, after the organization became aware that the documents had been leaked to other news organizations, which were about to publish stories about them.

        This was ugly, unnecessary gamesmanship, on a sober subject that the New York Times and NPR for the most part haven’t lifted a finger to illuminate for the American people in nine years. On a subject that’s all the more in need of dogged, skeptical reporting because of the outrageous government restrictions on what the pro bono attorneys for the incommunicado detainees can say – long-time, presidentially-controlled restrictions that permit only one (government) side of the story to be told, as a rule, in and out of habeas court.

        It speaks volumes that it wasn’t until the New York Times and NPR had a chance to undercut some important, deliberate reporting about this document leak and its significance, and to disrupt the plans of WikiLeaks, that they were suddenly motivated to rush to break their versions of this WikiLeaks-sourced Guantanamo news on Easter Sunday.

  13. harpie says:

    Defense attorney’s are ordered not to discuss their clients own alleged statements with them.

    Hick’s book can not be obtained, here.

    MSM blankets the airwaves with propaganda coordinated with the government so that people in other countries are better informed about what the USG is doing than its own citizens are.

    What kind of country do we live in where we are supposed to pretend that certain information does not exist?!?

    Is this a hologram?


    • lysias says:

      In Nazi Germany in the 1930’s, you could buy foreign newspapers at places like railroad stations. It was legal to listen to foreign radio broadcasts until war broke out in 1939.

      But, aside from that, all the media to which the German people had access spouted the government line.

  14. MadDog says:

    OT – Just up over at Politico, Josh Gerstein reports:

    Wiretapping leak probe dropped

    The Justice Department has dropped its long-running criminal investigation of a lawyer who publicly admitted leaking information about President George W. Bush’s top-secret warrantless wiretapping program to The New York Times – disclosures that Bush denounced as a breach of national security and that stoked a congressional debate about whether the government had overstepped its authority as it scrambled to respond to the 9/11 terror attacks.

    The decision not to prosecute former Justice Department lawyer Thomas Tamm means it is unlikely that anyone will ever be charged for the disclosures that led to the Times’ Pulitzer Prize-winning story in December 2005 revealing that after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush ordered the interception of certain phone calls and e-mail messages into and out of the U.S. without a warrant — a move many lawyers contend violated the 1978 law governing intelligence-related wiretaps…

    • lysias says:

      Could that be a quid pro quo to the New York Times in return for their playing ball with the government over the WikiLeaks disclosures?

  15. Deep Harm says:

    Finally, an explanation for the bizarre order to ignore Wikileaks documents. It’s an offense to justice; but, for a government in denial about the importance of such things, that would appear quite sensible.

  16. bobschacht says:

    DOJ Warns Gitmo Defense Attorneys Not to Use Gitmo Files

    Hmmm. Since when does the DOJ get to decide what evidence is admissible? Isn’t that the judge’s call? What am I missing here?

    Bob in AZ