07-05-2014, 06:46 PM
If you said "Brig. Gen. Erle Cocke Jr" and the agency looked up records for "Erle Cocke Jr." then their response might have technically been as accurate as it is disengenuous.
I'm not suggesting that 100% redaction is justified. If a judge has ordered some discovery of the documents, even "en camera," then someone proved to the judge that they have a respectable claim to at least some of the information, and it's up to the judge then to "en camera" balance the different interests involved. If there is some respectable claim to the information its hard to imagine circumstances that properly justify 100% redaction.
I'm not suggesting that 100% redaction is justified. If a judge has ordered some discovery of the documents, even "en camera," then someone proved to the judge that they have a respectable claim to at least some of the information, and it's up to the judge then to "en camera" balance the different interests involved. If there is some respectable claim to the information its hard to imagine circumstances that properly justify 100% redaction.