“ Because we are unable to determine, on the pleadings before us, whether the information that the government has designated should be deemed “protected,” we deny the government’s motion without prejudice. “Such information must,” however, “be maintained under seal unless and until the court determines the information should not be designated as ‘protected.’” Id. § 7.A (emphasis added) . The government is directed to file, within 30 days, a renewed motion, accompanied by a marked copy of Parhat’s CSRT record indicating the information for which it seeks protected status. ”

“ The government’s rationale for protection is brief. In support of protecting the former category, the motion states: “It is appropriate to protect from public disclosure unclassified information identifying Government personnel because . . . [t] he risks to the safety of those personnel [, particularly those who often deploy to locations abroad,] would be heightened if their involvement in the detention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo were made public.” ”

“ Finally, the government relies on the interview report of a single Uighur detainee, Akhdar Basit, which states that Basit told the interviewer that a leader at the camp told him that the camp “had been provided to the Uigh [u] rs by the Taliban in order that the Uigh [u] rs could train to fight the Chinese oppression.” See CSRT Exhibit R4, at 2 (App. 40) (FBI interview report dated December 9, 2002) . Parhat’s own statement was that the camp was given to the Uighurs by the “Afghani Government.” ”

“ As set forth above, the motion relies solely on spare, generic assertions of the need to protect information in the two categories it identifies. The government does not “give the court a basis for withholding” that is specific to the information it has designated in this case. Bismullah, 501 F.3d at 188. Nor does it offer any basis upon which we may determine whether the information it has designated properly falls within the categories it has described.
We do not doubt that there is sensitive law enforcement information that warrants protection from disclosure. Nor does counsel for Parhat. ”

“ The Recorder, also a commissioned officer, is charged with gathering the “Government Information,” which is defined as “reasonably available information in the possession of the U.S. Government bearing on the issue of whether the detainee” meets the enemy combatant criteria. ”

“ In that decision, the panel held that the MCA bars judicial consideration of detainees’ pending habeas petitions and that the bar is not an unconstitutional suspension of the writ. Id. at 994. Judge Rogers dissented, concluding that the detainees have a constitutional right to habeas and that the DTA is an inadequate substitute. See id. ”

“ Unclassified Oral Arg. Tr. 12. He thus urges the court to order that he be released or transferred to a country “other than China or any of its satellites.” Pet’r Br. 27 n.31; see Unclassified Oral Arg. Tr. 18. ”