The ability of military commissions to protect classified information in terrorism cases has been cited as an explanation for why they should be used instead of federal courts to prosecute terror suspects. That is one of the reasons why Sen. Lindsey Graham is urging the administration to try the alleged 9/11 conspirators in military commissions instead of civilian courts.
Recently however, Spencer Ackerman reported that the procedures for handling classified information in the revised military commissions are based on the Classified Information Procedures Act, which governs the use of classified information in civilian courts, so it's unclear what benefit if any in protecting classified information the commissions offer.
It's one thing to say that in the abstract. But in a conference call with reporters a few minutes ago, the chief prosecutor for the Guantanamo Bay Military Commissions, Cpt. John F. Murphy, said that there was little difference "as a practical matter" between dealing with classified information under CIPA and the new process outlined by the revised military commissions law.
"The new changes to our 505 bring it more into conformity with CIPA -- it is closer to the CIPA process in federal court," Captain Murphy said. "I would need to lay the two statues side-by-side to point out the differences."
"As a practical matter, there's very little difference between the two," he said.
I will say, though, that logistically, there may be a difference that isn't reflected in the statute. Anyone can attend proceedings in federal court unless a judge orders them closed. But in one of the military commissions facilities here, the observers watch the trial in delayed playback on a TV screen -- giving the judge more leeway to cut the feed observers, not the accused, are watching -- if they think sensitive information is being disclosed.
-- A. Serwer
