More secret 9/11 documents identified, FBI still withholding from judge -

[Peter Lemkin]

It has been twelve and a half years already since 9/11, so I can't credit the idea that the government was caught so "flat-footed" that it needs time to make a change of plans, create or shred documents, etc. Its all already been done, if at all.

The idea that the documents will need a separate process to remove or insert substitute documents is inconsistent with the way discovery in civil cases is usually done. Note that the government wasn't ordered to turn over its original documents, merely "copies of the massive file." The government wouldn't make a copy of any document it decided to withhold, so there would be no reason for a separate process of creating or destroying already made copies.

Redaction of a paper file is a different matter. You typically make a copy of a record, redact that copy with a magic marker, then copy it again (so that the redacted material may not be read by the simple expedient of holding the paper up to the light). The time consuming part of the process is having a sufficiently cleared person(s) go thru each page and make the redactions. It necessarily means that the redactor knows which facts or information is not to be disclosed (and presumably, the truth behind the redactions). Not all redaction is a bad thing. A party to a lawsuit need not necessarily be given names, addresses, phone numbers, or information which would jeopardize another person's life if publicly revealed. This also protects the party to the lawsuit from suspicion if something unfortunate would happen to individuals reported on in the disclosure. It's also a bit like closing you eyes so you can't identify a bad guy, making it less likely that the bad guy will decide to kill you because you know too much.

The plaintiffs should also request the identity of the person(s) doing the redaction, if not the actual name, then the rank, clearance, and job title. You might learn more from knowing at what level the redaction was being done than you will from the redacted documents.

While some of what you say has some 'logic', it sounds to me a bit too much of an apologea for the three-letter agencies. I have hundreds and hundreds of documents on important [ne' VITAL!] issues of American polity which are fully redacted - and only contain the page number - all else is blacked out...is this what you mean?! I'll find one and post it.... The 'norm' is something in between.....the 'best bits' are redacted - not just the names of persons that might have some valid reason to be redacted; at other times the names are essential to know who did what, who knew what and when! Hiding the names of innocents is one thing; sadly, hiding the names and activities/connections of those individuals and agencies potentially guilty of crimes is what I find all too much of redaction is used for. It is 'compliant' non-compliance. We the People are the sovereign [in theory] and it is our government, our agencies, our papers and we damn well should be able to see them and know what is done in our name.

Here are two [there were more consecutive pages JUST like these] pages about Plumlee from when I was researching and filled a FOIA on him with his permission. Other documents didn't even reach this level of ridiculousness and were denied me in full. Ha...what's the difference?!?!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5964[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]5965[/ATTACH]