Revealing inconsistency

by Aaron Wherry

Terry Milewski notes two redaction curiosities in the latest raft of documents.

Still, the “international relations” exception seems to be extremely flexible. Ditto, “national security.” In fact, the definition of what’s important to censor and what isn’t seems to be both flexible and constantly shifting. In another baffling example, there’s a document which says a prisoner was deprived of sleep for [X] days. We must not know how many days! And, yet, we do! In another version of the same document, we can see that it was … four days. Somehow, the national security of both Canada and Afghanistan seems unaffected by this revelation.

As I detailed last year, there exists a field report that has been released in two different versions: one in which the word “assault” has been redacted, one in which the word has been disclosed. The document has actually been released on three separate occasions: first with the word redacted, then with the word unredacted and then again with the word redacted.




Browse

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *