Fair Trials in Security Cases

The Sixth Amendment guarantees people accused of crimes access to relevant witnesses. Lawyers for Mr. Moussaoui, the only person charged in an American court for a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, have asked for access to, among others, Ramzi bin al-Shibh. The government contends that Mr. bin al-Shibh was a ringleader of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. If so, he would be in a position to know if Mr. Moussaoui was involved. (Whether he is credible would be up to a judge or jury.)

Federal law sets out procedures the government can use to safeguard national security while prosecuting crimes. The best solution would be for Mr. Moussaoui's lawyers to seek security clearance, then examine Al Qaeda witnesses under the court's guidance. The administration may try to finesse the issue by moving the case to a military tribunal, where a defendant would likely have fewer rights. That would set a terrible precedent. Military tribunals, if they are to be used at all, must not become a dumping ground where the government takes cases when it wants to reduce a defendant's rights. A third option for the government is seeking a plea bargain, as it did with John Walker Lindh, who also sought access to Al Qaeda prisoners.

In the case of Mr. Padilla, suspected of plotting to explode a dirty bomb in the United States, prosecutors have refused to give the defense a classified document describing the evidence. Mr. Padilla's lawyers have offered to seek security clearance, but the government says it would still refuse. Sharing evidence with lawyers who have security clearance has worked in other terrorism cases and is the right way to proceed here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/28/opinion/28MON3.html