I previously blogged about how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit attempted to edit out information about a rather seedy interrogation technique from its opinion. Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler writes about another case involving a similar redaction:
I just blogged about an incident where the 2nd Circuit sought to have Howard Bashman remove an unredacted judicial decision from his site and replace it with a redacted version. Apparently, the redacted version attempted to remove information about a rather dicey interrogation technique the FBI used. According to Tony Mauro of the Legal Times:
William Stuntz (law, Harvard) has long been advancing thoughtful provocative ideas about criminal procedure. I’ve always found Stuntz to be insightful even when I disagree (and I have disagreed with him a lot). Stuntz’s recent essay in The New Republic entitled Against Privacy and Transparency has me not just disagreeing, but doing so rather sharply.
Responding to reports that revealed that the President authorized the NSA to conduct warrantless surveillance within the US, President Bush said: