Former Intelligence Officer Can Sue Pentagon For Censoring Book on 9/11, Afghanistan Failures

A federal judge has ruled Anthony Shaffer has standing to sue on first amendment grounds over the censorship of his book


has first amendment rights

As noted on Reason 24/7 yesterday, a federal judge ruled that Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer (ret.), author of Operation Dark Heart, has standing to sue the Pentagon (specifically the Defense Intelligence Agency, for whom Shaffer worked) and the CIA for censoring his book, which detailed his experiences heading a black ops team in Afghanistan and how he saw military brass turn potential success into inevitable failure early on.

In fact, heavy redactions of the book were made after the Pentagon demanded to re-review it. A first, unredacted, edition of 10,000 copies was printed and the Pentagon purchased all the copies and destroyed them. The unredacted version, of course, is available with an online search.

In Shaffer's judgement, he tells Reason, that second review "was conducted for political, not security, purposes." Shaffer says the DIA retaliated against him for "being a whistleblower against them in the 2005 protected disclosure to Congress of the ABLE DANGER project, and DIA's specific failures to properly use pre-9/11 intelligence to prevent the 9/11 attacks."  Shaffer has also been an outspoken critic of the Pentagon's counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, which he said "would not work to achieve any permanent stability in Afghanistan," and said that was a part of the Pentagon's suppression effort as well. The last chapter of Dark Heart lays out Shaffer's own policy recommendations on the war. 

As for the redactions, they include things like the a in "a-team" and "Ned Beatty," used to describe how someone looked. Shaffer says such redactions were "for no possible security reason other to try and render the book unreadable." The Pentagon's public efforts at suppressing the book, naturally, have helped make it more popular.

Shaffer characterizes the review as "abusive" and the redactions as "excessive," and is suing for a violation of his First Amendment rights. 

NEXT: State Legislators in Rhode Island and Maine Are Announcing Marijuana Legalization Bills Tomorrow

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You know who else wanted to censor books?

    1. Every footwashing Baptist ever?

  2. Jesus fucking Antichrist, but hell hath no fury like a government shithead scorned. Nothing better to do – let’s redact the fuck out of some book in meaningless ways.

    That’s So Goverment!

  3. A first, unredacted, edition of 10,000 copies was printed and the Pentagon purchased all the copies and destroyed them.

    That publisher was an idiot. They could have printed a million copies and made the best seller lists and stimulated some economy.

    1. But they were ordered by the EPA NOT to produce more, due to the environmental impact caused – first by cutting down the trees to make books no one would read, and then by incinerating or landfilling them.

      I keep hoping the government will grind to a halt one day by tripping over itself, but that’s not working so far…

    2. We ought to just crank out copies of them at home and then have someone notify the Pentagon.

  4. suing for a violation of his first amendment rights

    They just give those to everybody nowadays don’t they? Where’s Lindsey Graham when you need him?

  5. Please tell me there’s some kinky sex thing in the book before I buy it. Like, maybe some sexy CIA analyst tried to alert the brass to Al-Quaeda’s plans, or the author had a fling with some Afghan woman and was torn between love and loyalty to country when he realized her brother was a guerrilla leader.

    God, I’m getting a non-sex vibe out of this whole thing. Screw that shit, when is Petraeus doing his memoirs?

  6. The in-house counsel once responded to an FOIA request at a previous employer by providing documents that had every single word except indefinite articles redacted. I can completely understand how this went down after that little episode.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.