Do Not Disturb
The government does not want reporters talking to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. But why? Photo credit:  Craig Chew-Moulding / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

On the grounds that it wants to protect the privacy of convicted Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has stymied attempts by WhoWhatWhy to find out if Tsarnaev is still being held under Special Administrative Measures (SAMs). SAMs are a repressive type of confinement that severely limits a prisoner’s ability to communicate with anybody outside of his or her prison cell.

DOJ claimed that without Tsarnaev’s consent, revealing such information about the prisoner’s status “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of [his] personal privacy.” This was in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by WhoWhatWhy, seeking updated details of Tsarnaev’s confinement.

As WhoWhatWhy previously noted, SAMs were established in 1996 to prevent presumably dangerous inmates — those accused of terrorism, espionage, mob or gang activity — from communicating to the outside plans that could result in death or bodily harm.

This form of gag order was originally imposed only by a judge. Since 9/11, the US attorney general has the power to unilaterally decide which prisoners merit this repressive confinement regime.

While it is the attorney general who approves the SAMs, the initial impetus for gagging the prisoner typically comes from a federal law enforcement or intelligence agency — in this case, the FBI. Tsarnaev was placed on SAMs August 2013; such orders must be renewed every 120 days.

Given the legal rationale for SAMs, the government’s determination to keep Tsarnaev incommunicado seems self-contradictory, since the FBI has repeatedly maintained that Dzhokhar and his brother Tamerlan (who was killed in a police shoot-out) were not connected to any wider conspiracy. Hence, by the government’s own admission, no confederates remain “out there” to whom Dzhokhar could transmit terror instructions.

The attorney general’s denial of our request, citing Tsarnaev’s “personal privacy,”seemed a little strange. But what happened next was downright Kafkaesque.

Bureaucracy vs. Common Sense


When WhoWhatWhy filed an inmate-interview request with the warden at the Bureau of Prison’s USP Florence ADMAX facility in Colorado, that request was also denied. The stated reason? Tsarnaev is being held under SAMs “at the direction of the Attorney General… he is not allowed to talk with, meet with, correspond with, or otherwise communicate with any member or representative of the news media, in person, by telephone, by furnishing a recorded message, through the mail, or otherwise.” (As a sidenote, the Bureau’s response letter was signed by Acting Warden “B. True.”)

So now the Bureau of Prisons (which is part of the Department of Justice) was acknowledging what the DOJ earlier said it could not reveal without violating the inmate’s privacy.

With this acknowledgment of the SAMs in hand, WhoWhatWhy filed an administrative appeal through FOIA with Attorney General  Loretta E. Lynch. In that appeal, we made the case that since the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) had already confirmed the existence of the SAMs, the public’s interest in understanding why it was necessary to curtail an American citizen’s First Amendment right to free speech outweighs any nominal concern Tsarnaev may (or may not) have about his privacy.

For one thing, if Tsarnaev was allowed to exercise that right to free speech, he would be able to actually tell us how he feels about his privacy.

Our appeal was denied under the same exemption to the Freedom of Information Act as the original request —  U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C) —  which allows federal law enforcement to neither confirm nor deny the existence of records that “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

It is worth noting that Boston-based US Attorney Carmen Ortiz’s Public Information Officer, Christina DiIorio-Sterling, also confirmed via e-mail the ongoing confinement of Tsarnaev under SAMs. Apparently, the rank-and-file can’t bring themselves to deny the obvious — something that bureaucrats in Washington appear to do as a matter of routine.

In an effort to get at the truth, WhoWhatWhy has approached this issue from multiple angles. We filed another request with BOP headquarters seeking Tsarnaev’s inmate records. That agency responded by sending us three pages of “public records,” which amounted to very basic information such as inmate number and type of sentence. The real meat of our request, information about the conditions of Tsarnaev’s confinement, was withheld, using logic which must have come straight out of the DOJ’s playbook: we had not included “a signed authorization from the person to whom the records pertain.”

For rather obvious reasons, we will not be able to secure that signature.

Overriding the Public Interest


Is the government really that concerned about protecting Tsarnaev’s privacy, or is something else going on? A look at how the existence of Tsarnaev’s SAMs became public to begin with helps shed a little light on this question.

Back in October 2013, before Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s murder trial got underway, his lawyers filed a motion challenging the imposition of SAMs on their client. The motion described in great detail the conditions under which Tsarnaev was to be held essentially incommunicado, as well as the justifications offered by the government. If US District Court Judge George O’Toole thought releasing the facts about his confinement conditions would violate Tsarnaev’s privacy, he would presumably have sealed the motion But he did not.

Which raises the question: Why does the DOJ think releasing the details of Tsarnaev’s SAMs now is a violation of his privacy? Are they even more draconian now? Has another agency, such as the CIA, asked that Tsarnaev’s communications be restricted to protect some matter of “national security?” We just don’t know.

FOIA expert and privacy attorney Scott Hodes, who runs The FOIA blog, told WhoWhatWhy that while Tsarnaev is indeed entitled to expect some level of privacy, the Bureau of Prison’s acknowledgment of the SAMs lessens that expectation. In any case, the decision to protect an individual’s privacy “should be weighed against the public interest.”

Attorney Bradley P. Moss — who specializes in matters relating to national security, federal employment and security clearance law, and FOIA — challenges the very basis for the government’s use of privacy laws in such a case.

He told WhoWhatWhy, “The U.S. Government is increasingly relying upon a stricter and narrower view of what constitutes an overriding public interest”

By withholding information about the treatment of a prisoner in this well-known case, Moss said, the government is “perverting the purpose” of the privacy protection statute, “which arguably was designed more to protect the privacy of individuals” whose connection to criminal investigations was not public knowledge.

Turning this protection of privacy against an individual’s right to be heard in public, if he so wishes, sounds like something out of the bureaucratic nightmares that Franz Kafka presciently warned us against.

The author thanks Jill Vaglica who contributed to this article.

Related front page panorama photo credit: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from FBI handout

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

If Tsarnaev is allowed to speak freely with a reporter, the gig would be up.

Wouldn’t it?

And I hope you’re the one(s) to break through the barriers.


Deep State & way out of control & past the Rubicon of any semblance of justice.
All brought to you by the Overlords of Chaos,


I hope James Henry of WhoWhatWhy continues to try and break through. Americans deserve to know the truth.


DOJ claimed that without Tsarnaev’s consent, revealing such information about the prisoner’s status “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of [his] personal privacy.”
What a joke. We could interpret this to mean-an unwarranted invasion of the FBI’s personal privacy. The DOJ couldn’t care less about Dzhokhar’s privacy. The SAMs are there to keep this prisoner in total silence and secrecy so that he can never reveal the truth. TheFEDs-the real criminals- have all their bases covered, which is what SAMs are for.
Also, what is this about ? ….signed by acting warden B. True!! John Oliver is the warden at ADX.


I believe the acting warden’s name is really I. B. Lyin.


Ridiculous! This intense gag order is an obvious symbol of the “irregularities” associated with this case. What the h*** are they afraid of? Matter of national security or inmate privacy my ass. Tsarnaev knows too much!!! Plain and simple. He is no threat to anyone. We have Warren Jeffs allegedly running a perverted child abusive cult from prison, but Tsarnaev can’t be interviewed. The truth is so obvious here. Government coverup.


You would have to be willfully blind not to see there is a huge coverup going on here. We are under the control of some seriously deranged gangsters. I’m afraid we ain’t seen nothin’ yet.


It’s terrible that Dzhokhar is not allowed to speak to the press, but how do you think he feels when he’s not even allowed to communicate in any way with his own relatives, no aunts, no uncles, no cousins, only his parents and his two sisters. It’s cruel and unusual punishment, all so the FEDs can cover up their own crimes.


There we go. Ask the parents to ask Dzhokhar if he would like to grant permission.

Elisabeth Ritter-Blaser

Upholding the Special Administrative Measure on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will contribute to something the DOJ does not want at all: people beginning to question the main reason behind it. The truth is already out in the public that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev now sits on death row , and in holding on to secrecy the Government of the United States will have to answer more and more questions related to this issue. The lies and excuses are coming to light.

From Our Twitter Page

(Comment by reader @wheeliesmom) I’m sure the movie people got access

d b

Is the author planning on filing an action in federal court to attempt to overturn the denial of his FOIA request?

James Henry 281

It’s something we’re considering, but as we are a not-for-profit
outfit, we have to weigh the cost benefit analysis of legal action closely. Thanks


According to Al Martin in “The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran-Contra Insider”: “There are those, in cocaine trafficking or bank fraud or securities fraud, who received ten, twenty, or forty year sentences, who were gone three or four months later.”

Why don’t you ask for evidence that Tsarnaev is indeed still in jail? I think it was all political theater. That’s why so much of it doesn’t add up.


If he was really a dangerous terrorist they would let journalists in so they can prove they saved us and they can keep their six figure incomes. They are afraid of what he will say because he is not a terrorist.

Michael Treban

Whatever happened to Daniel Morley? Is he still at Bridgewater? I can’t find anything on this dude. No court docs, nothing. Interesting that he drove a Honda like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and the prosecution say it was a Honda driving away from Sean Collier’s murder scene at MIT where Daniel actually worked: not that anyone can really see the make of the car… The Morley guy had everything that was said to have made the bombs at the marathon, he lived in MA, hated the government, was violent and obviously unstable.

Tom Fontaine

I am retired disabled 65 year and also a US Army Vet from 1972
This case needs to be looked at as they are about to execute an innocent man.