UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA

IN RE: GU ANTANAM O BAY DETAINEE LITIGATION Misc. No. 08- m c-0442 ( TFH) Civil Action No. 05-cv- 1244 (CK K)

ORDER On J anuar

y 15, 2009, this Court i nterpre ted its S eptember 11, 2008, P r otective Or der and P r ocedur es for C ounsel Acc ess to D etainee s at the U nited S tates N aval B ase in Guantana mo B ay, C uba (“ Guantana mo B ay” ) (D ocket N o. 57, 05-cv- 1244; D ocket N o. 409, 08-mc-0442) to permit counsel for a petitioner to re view with the petitioner state ments in the exhibi ts to the Classified Fac tual Return for tha t petitioner (“c lassified statements” ), if the Privilege Review Te am deter mines the statements we re ma de by that petitioner to ag ents of the United States g overnme nt. See Docke t No. 109, 05-cv- 1244; Docket No. 1521, 08- mc-0442. Petitioner’s counsel we re only permitted to revie w with the petitioner the te x t of petitioner’s statements, the petitioner’ s name, a nd the dates the statements wer e made . I n light of this interpre tation, the Court gr anted Petitioner Ta riq Alsawa m’s (I SN 535) motion to allow his counsel to re view a doc ument ( Ex Parte Ex hibit 1) with petiti oner tha t contained c lassified statements made by

petitioner to ag ents of the United States g overnme nt. Pending be fore the Court is Respondents’ Motion to Vacate J anuar y 15, 2009, Orde r and Emerg ency

Request for Stay

of Orde r (“ Motion to Vacate ”) ( Docke t No. 120, 05-cv- 1244; Docke t No. 1563, 08-mc-0442) , which wa s filed on the eve ning of J anuar y 29, 2009. Respondents ask the Court to vac ate its J anuar y 15, 2009, Orde r since the g overnme nt hascompleted its dec lassification re view of Petitioner Alsa wam’s c lassified statements. Respondents contend tha t “[t] he dec lassified docume nts contain no signif icant re dactions of Petitioner’s statements.” Motion to Vac ate 4. The ref ore, a ccor ding to Responde nts, the Court’s J anuar y 15, 2009, Orde r is moot, as Petiti oner’ s counsel ca n now re view the de classified ve rsion of Petitioner’s stateme nts with P etitioner. Id. at 5. Alterna tively , Respondents rec ommend that the Privileg e ReviewTea m review Ex Parte Ex hibit 1 aga inst the declassified ma terial a nd reda ct any information that re mains proper ly classified. Id. For

the fore g oing r easons, Responde nts’ Motion to Vacate is DENIED

. I n its Moti ons to Vaca

te, Respondents’ r aise both national sec urity and sepa ration and power s conce rns. The Court re cog nizes the potential national secur ity issues with disclosing classified infor

mation to a detainee s and, there fore , will clarify its J anuar

y 15, 2009, Orde r (Doc ket No. 109, 05-c v-1244; Docke t No. 1521, 08-mc-0442)

. If the gover nment completes a decla ssification r eview of a petitioner ’s classified statements made to ag ents of the United States g overnme nt befor e petitioner ’s counsel is schedule d to r eview such statements with petitioner , any document cr eate d by petitioner ’s counsel containing petitioner ’s classified statements must be scr eene d by the P r ivilege Review T eam. T he P r ivilege Review T eam will compar e counsel’s document with the decla ssified mater ial. If the P r ivilege Review T eam deter mines that a statement in counsel’s document should be r edac ted beca

use it is not decla ssified, counsel must pr esent that statement befor e the appr opr iate M er it Judge for a par ticular ized deter mination if it should be r elea sed for r eview with petitioner

. D ocuments cr eate d by petitioner ’s counsel that contain petitioner ’s classified statements

2made to ag ents of the United States g overnme nt ar e only subject to this decla ssification

scr eening if (i) the gover nment has completed its decla ssification r eview of petitioner ’s classified statements made to ag ents of the United States g overnme nt and (ii) ther e is sufficie nt time for the appr opr iate M er it Judge to adjudicate on whether petitioner can r eview his classified statements. I n light of Responde nts’ admission that “no signific ant re dactions of Petitioner’s statements” we re ma de in dec lassify ing Petitioner’ s statements, as we ll as the time constraints prese nted by

Respondent’s re quest to condition Petit ioner’s c ounsel use of Ex Parte Ex hibit 1 four da y s befor e she is sche duled to visit P etitioner at the U nited S tates N aval B ase in Guantana mo B ay, C uba, the Court ORDERS that Respondents’ Motion to Vaca te J anuar y 15, 2009, Orde r and Eme rg ency Request for Stay

of Orde r is DENIED . Petitioner’s counsel is per mitted to review Ex Parte Ex hibit 1 with P etitioner, provided the Privilege Review Te am has scr eene d the document pursuant to the Court’s January 15, 2009, Orde r.

Januar y 30, 2009 / s/ Thomas F. H og an United States District J udg e

3