I agree with Orin that there is much to comment in Rob Loblaw's post, but I disagree with the bottom line. If Higazy sought to have his allegations kept secret, I would agree that keeping such information under seal would not be particularly sinister or problematic. Yet that does not appear to be what happened in this case. To the contrary, as noted here, Higazy's lawyer opposed keeping the allegations under seal.
As I noted in my prior post on the matter, I agree that there are legitimate reasons for the government to file information under seal, and there are even legitimate reasons for the government to keep its interrogation protocols under wraps. In this case, however, what is at issue is not the government's standard interrogation methods or guidelines, but specific allegations of government misconduct in a specific interrogation. Such allegations, and the public's interest in allegations of government malfeasance, would seem to outweigh the government's interest in keeping its interrogation methods secret, particularly since such secrecy could be a means of preventing the disclosure of government malfeasance.
Related Posts (on one page):
Robert Dunn (who has since passed away) took that position with respect to the inquiry ordered by the district judge in the criminal case in 2002. At the time, the civil suit was but a twinkle in Higazy's eye, so at the time, he would have had a personal interest in collecting as much information from the court-ordered inquiry as possible.
While I agree that cboldt's research adds more depth to the story, I disagree that it's conclusive evidence about what actually happened.
But I think we can all agree that the Higazy story raises important big-picture questions about whether and when courts should allow information to be filed under seal.
Can you be a bit more specific as to who you are criticizing? Is it Judge Rakoff? Judge Pooler?
.
FWIW, Dunn's comments weren't in the context of the criminal prosecution of Higazy. Higazy was exonerated in January 2002, and took the "disclose all" position in July 2002. At that time, Judge Rakoff was studying the circumstances of a false confession being promulgated in his court.
.
I'm waiting for the evidence that Higazy's position in 2007 is to make secret what he once wanted to make public.
I am more concerned by the behavior of the federal government than the judges. My bottom line is this: If the government sought to keep this information private by filing it under seal, that was wrong, as the government interests are outweighed by the potential misconduct. Similarly, the decision by whichever judge(s) to keep that information under seal also seems questionable to me, particularly if, as it appears, Higazy wanted disclosure, and the only reason for keeping things covered up was to prevent embarrassment to the feds. I also think it was wrong for the Second Circuit to ask Howard Bashman to remove the original opinion from his website after they had inadvertently posted it.
Are there specific aspects of this case that suggest I should feel otherwise?
JHA
Let me add an addendum. I realize that the Second Circuit clerk's office said that this was done on the court's own initiative to protect Higazy. This sounds like a poor post hoc rationalization, particularly because there is no evidence that Higazy wanted such information to be kept secret for his protection, and had previously wanted disclosure. Without evidence Higazy sought to have this information under seal, the Second Circuit had no reason to treat it in this fashion.
JHA
To me, the Higazy case smells like a law clerk snafu. There were some things under seal from the district court record that weren't really at issue in the appellate opinion. Judge Pooler's chambers drafted the opinion, and it seems that they weren't particularly careful about making sure that nothing under seal made it into the factual description. So then the opinion is handed down, and someone who knows the record (like an attorney for the government) calls the CA2 clerk's office and says, "Um, like, isn't this part of the opinion under seal?" The CA2 clerk's office then tries to do damage control, but Bashman has his hands on a copy of the original and he posts it.
No, it may be that the disclosed facts shouldn't have been under seal in the first place. But my recollection (not having read the case since it came down) is that those facts weren't actually in dispute, weren't needed to resolve the legal issue, and that whether they were properly under seal wasn't before the court. Or am I wrong about that? I am the first to say that I haven't followed the case closely, so maybe I'm wrong.
This is different from classifying interrogation methods, e.g., a manual on how to interrogate or an officer describing the interrogation strategies.
.
Higazy's allegation of his family being threatened was never under seal. The FBI denies the allegation. They stop short of saying Higazy is lying when he says Agent Templeton threatened to call the Egyptian security forces out against Higazy's family.
.
The details that were redacted were roughly:
- Higazy's statement that he found Templeton's threat frightening because the Egyptian security forces use rape and torture
- Higazy's statement that Saddam Hussein's security forces were trained by Egyptian security forces
- Templeton's statement that he believes the Egyptian security forces use torture
.
The redacted portion below appears in very similar, but not identical form, in news reports (CBS &/or CNN) from 2004. The fact that it is in the public domain does not preclude it from also being filed under seal.
In my previous post, I failed to note some redacted details that I've not been able to find in earlier public records:
- The ages of some of Higazy's family members
- That Higazy's brother in upstate NY has arthritis
.
I don't disagree that the publication may have been an inadvertent clerical mixup (or it may have been deliberate), but that just highlights the fact that, since the actual owner of the radio came forward, the government has attempted to argue its side of the case in secret, even where its side of the case involves statements made by Higazy, and even where some of those statements already obtained wide public dissemination.