U.S. DOD ANNOUNCES TRANSFER OF PRISONERS FROM GUANTANAMO BAY TO ALGERIA

FROM:  DEFENSE DEPARTMENT 
Detainee Transfer Announced

           The Department of Defense announced  the transfer of Nabil Said Hadjarab and Mutia Sadiq Ahmad Sayyab from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay to the Government of Algeria.



           As directed by the President's Jan. 22, 2009, executive order, the interagency Guantanamo Review Task Force conducted a comprehensive review of this case. As a result of that review, which examined a number of factors, including security issues, these men were approved for transfer by consensus of the six departments and agencies comprising the task force. In accordance with Congressionally-mandated reporting requirements, the administration informed Congress of its intent to transfer these individuals.

         

           The United States is grateful to the Government of Algeria for its willingness to support ongoing U.S. efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. The United States coordinated with the Government of Algeria to ensure these transfers took place consistent with appropriate security and humane treatment measures.

A FORMER CIA OFFICER CHARGED FOR DISCLOSURES

The following excerpt is from the Department of Justice website:

“ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A former CIA officer, John Kiriakou, was charged today with repeatedly disclosing classified information to journalists, including the name of a covert CIA officer and information revealing the role of another CIA employee in classified activities, Justice Department officials announced.

The charges result from an investigation that was triggered by a classified defense filing in January 2009, which contained classified information the defense had not been given through official government channels, and, in part, by the discovery in the spring of 2009 of photographs of certain government employees and contractors in the materials of high-value detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The investigation revealed that on multiple occasions, one of the journalists to whom Kiriakou is alleged to have illegally disclosed classified information, in turn, disclosed that information to a defense team investigator, and that this information was reflected in the classified defense filing and enabled the defense team to take or obtain surveillance photographs of government personnel. There are no allegations of criminal activity by any members of the defense team for the detainees.

Kiriakou, 47, of Arlington, Va., was a CIA intelligence officer between 1990 and 2004, serving at headquarters and in various classified overseas assignments. He is scheduled to appear at 2 p.m. today before U.S. Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson in federal court in Alexandria.

Kiriakou was charged with one count of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act for allegedly illegally disclosing the identity of a covert officer and two counts of violating the Espionage Act for allegedly illegally disclosing national defense information to individuals not authorized to receive it. Kiriakou was also charged with one count of making false statements for allegedly lying to the Publications Review Board of the CIA in an unsuccessful attempt to trick the CIA into allowing him to include classified information in a book he was seeking to publish.

The four-count criminal complaint, which was filed today in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleges that Kiriakou made illegal disclosures about two CIA employees and their involvement in classified operations to two journalists on multiple occasions between 2007 and 2009. In one case, revealing the employee’s name as a CIA officer disclosed classified information as the employee was and remains covert (identified in the complaint as “Covert Officer A”).   In the second case, Kiriakou allegedly disclosed the name and contact information of an employee, identified in the complaint as “Officer B,” whose participation in an operation to capture and question terrorism subject Abu Zubaydah in 2002 was then classified. Kiriakou’s alleged disclosures occurred prior to a June 2008 front-page story in The New York Times disclosing Officer B’s alleged role in the Abu Zubaydah operation.

“Safeguarding classified information, including the identities of CIA officers involved in sensitive operations, is critical to keeping our intelligence officers safe and protecting our national security,”   said Attorney General Eric Holder.   “Today’s charges reinforce the Justice Department’s commitment to hold accountable anyone who would violate the solemn duty not to disclose such sensitive information.”

Patrick J. Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, who was appointed Special Attorney in 2010 to supervise the investigation, said, “I want to thank the Washington Field Office of the FBI and the team of attorneys assigned to this matter for their hard work and dedication to tracing the sources of the leaks of classified information.”   Mr. Fitzgerald announced the charges with James W. McJunkin, Assistant Director in Charge of the Washington Field Office of the FBI, and they thanked the CIA for its very substantial assistance in the investigation, as well as the Air Force Office of Special Investigations for its significant assistance.

“Protecting the identities of America’s covert operatives is one of the most important responsibilities of those who are entrusted with roles in our nation’s intelligence community. The FBI and our intelligence community partners work diligently to hold accountable those who violate that special trust,” said Mr. McJunkin.

The CIA filed a crimes report with the Justice Department on March 19, 2009, prior to the discovery of the photographs and after reviewing the Jan. 19, 2009, classified filing by defense counsel for certain detainees with the military commission then responsible for adjudicating charges. The defense filing contained information relating to the identities and activities of covert government personnel, but prior to Jan. 19, 2009, there had been no authorized disclosure to defense counsel of the classified information. The Justice Department’s National Security Division, working with the FBI, began the investigation. To avoid the risk of encountering a conflict of interest because of the pending prosecutions of some of the high-value detainees, Mr. Fitzgerald was assigned to supervise the investigation conducted by a team of attorneys from the Southern District of New York, the Northern District of Illinois and the Counterespionage Section of the National Security Division who were not involved in pending prosecutions of the detainees.

According to the complaint affidavit, the investigation determined that no laws were broken by the defense team as no law prohibited defense counsel from filing a classified document under seal outlining for a court classified information they had learned during the course of their investigation. Regarding the 32 pages of photographs that were taken or obtained by the defense team and provided to the detainees, the investigation found no evidence the defense attorneys transmitting the photographs were aware of, much less disclosed, the identities of the persons depicted in particular photographs and no evidence that the defense team disclosed other classified matters associated with certain of those individuals to the detainees. The defense team did not take photographs of persons known or believed to be current covert officers. Rather, defense counsel, using a technique known as a double-blind photo lineup, provided photograph spreads of unidentified individuals to their clients to determine whether they recognized anyone who may have participated in questioning them. No law or military commission order expressly prohibited defense counsel from providing their clients with these photo spreads.

Further investigation, based in part on emails recovered from judicially-authorized search warrants served on two email accounts associated with Kiriakou, allegedly revealed that:
Kiriakou disclosed to Journalist A the name of Covert Officer A and the fact that Covert Officer A was involved in a particular classified operation. The journalist then provided the defense investigator with the full name of the covert CIA employee;
Kiriakou disclosed or confirmed to Journalists A, B and C the then-classified information that Officer B participated in the Abu Zubaydah   operation and provided two of those journalists with contact information for Officer B, including a personal email address. One of the journalists subsequently provided the defense investigator with Officer B’s home telephone number, which the investigator used to identify and photograph Officer B; and
Kiriakou lied to the CIA regarding the existence and use of a classified technique, referred to as a “magic box,” in an unsuccessful effort to trick the CIA into allowing him to publish information about the classified technique in a book.
Upon joining the CIA in 1990 and on multiple occasions in following years, Kiriakou signed secrecy and non-disclosure agreements not to disclose classified information to unauthorized individuals.

Regarding Covert Officer A, the affidavit details a series of email communications between Kiriakou and Journalist A in July and August 2008. In an exchange of emails on July 11, 2008, Kiriakou allegedly illegally confirmed for Journalist A that Covert Officer A, whose first name only was exchanged at that point, was “the team leader on [specific operation].” On Aug. 18, 2008, Journalist A sent Kiriakou an email asking if Kiriakou could pick out Covert Officer A’s last name from a list of names Journalist A provided in the email. On Aug. 19, 2008, Kiriakou allegedly passed the last name of Covert Officer A to Journalist A by email, stating “It came to me last night.” Covert Officer A’s last name had not been on the list provided by Journalist A. Later that same day, approximately two hours later, Journalist A sent an email to the defense investigator that contained Covert Officer A’s full name. Neither Journalist A, nor any other journalist to the government’s knowledge, has published the name of Covert Officer A.

At the time of Kiriakou’s allegedly unauthorized disclosures to Journalist A, the identification of Covert Officer A as “the team leader on [specific operation]” was classified at the Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) level because it revealed both Covert Officer A’s identity and his association with the CIA’s Rendition, Detention and Interrogation (RDI) Program relating to the capture, detention and questioning of terrorism subjects. The defense investigator was able to identify Covert Officer A only after receiving the email from Journalist A, and both Covert Officer A’s name and association with the RDI Program were included in the January 2009 classified defense filing. The defense investigator told the government that he understood from the circumstances that Covert Officer A was a covert employee and, accordingly, did not take his photograph. No photograph of Covert Officer A was recovered from the detainees at Guantanamo.

In a recorded interview last Thursday, FBI agents told Kiriakou that Covert Officer A’s name was included in the classified defense filing. The affidavit states Kiriakou said, among other things, “How the heck did they get him? . . . [First name of Covert Officer A] was always undercover. His entire career was undercover.”   Kiriakou further stated that he never provided Covert Officer A’s name or any other information about Covert Officer A to any journalist and stated “Once they get the names, I mean this is scary.”

Regarding Officer B, the affidavit states that he worked overseas with Kiriakou on an operation to locate and capture Abu Zubaydah, and Officer B’s association with the RDI Program and the Abu Zubaydah operation in particular were classified until that information was recently declassified to allow the prosecution of Kiriakou to proceed.

In June 2008, The New York Times published an article by Journalist B entitled “Inside the Interrogation of a 9/11 Mastermind,” which publicly identified Officer B and reported his alleged role in the capture and questioning of Abu Zubaydah – facts which were then classified. The article attributed other information to Kiriakou as a source, but did not identify the source(s) who disclosed or confirmed Officer B’s identity. The charges allege that at various times prior to publication of the article, Kiriakou provided Journalist B with personal information regarding Officer B, knowing that Journalist B was seeking to identify and locate Officer B. In doing so, Kiriakou allegedly confirmed classified information that Officer B was involved in the Abu Zubaydah operation. For example, Kiriakou allegedly emailed Officer B’s phone number and personal email address to Journalist B, who attempted to contact Officer B via his personal email in April and May 2008. Officer B had provided his personal email address to Kiriakou, but not to Journalist B or any other journalist. Subsequently, Kiriakou allegedly revealed classified information by confirming for Journalist B additional information that an individual with Officer B’s name, who was associated with particular contact information that Journalist B had found on a website, was located in Pakistan in March 2002, which was where and when the Abu Zubaydah operation took place.

After The New York Times article was published, Kiriakou sent several emails denying that he was the source for information regarding Officer B, while, at the same time, allegedly lying about the number and nature of his contacts with Journalist B. For example, in an email dated June 30, 2008, Kiriakou told Officer B that Kiriakou had spoken to the newspaper’s ombudsman after the article was published and said that the use of Officer B’s name was “despicable and unnecessary” and could put Officer B in danger. Kiriakou also denied that he had cooperated with the article and claimed that he had declined to talk to Journalist B, except to say that he believed the article absolutely should not mention Officer B’s name. “[W]hile it might not be illegal to name you, it would certainly be immoral,” Kiriakou wrote to Officer B, according to the affidavit.

From at least November 2007 through November 2008, Kiriakou allegedly provided Journalist A with Officer B’s personal contact information and disclosed to Journalist A classified information revealing Officer B’s association with the RDI Program. Just as Journalist A had disclosed to the defense investigator classified information that Kiriakou allegedly imparted about Covert Officer A, Journalist A, in turn, provided the defense investigator information that Kiriakou had disclosed about Officer B. For example, in an email dated April 10, 2008, Journalist A provided the defense investigator with Officer B’s home phone number, which, in light of Officer B’s common surname, allowed the investigator to quickly and accurately identify Officer B and photograph him. Both Officer B’s name and his association with the RDI Program were included in the January 2009 classified defense filing, and four photographs of Officer B were among the photos recovered at Guantanamo.

In the same recorded interview with FBI agents last week, Kiriakou said he “absolutely” considered Officer B’s association with the Abu Zubaydah operation classified, the affidavit states. Kiriakou also denied providing any contact information for Officer B or Officer B’s association with the Abu Zubaydah operation to Journalists A and B prior to publication of the June 2008 New York Times article. When specifically asked whether he had anything to do with providing Officer B’s name or other information about Officer B to Journalist B prior to the article, Kiriakou stated “Heavens no.”

As background, the affidavit states that sometime prior to May 22, 2007, Kiriakou disclosed to Journalist C classified information regarding Officer B’s association with Abu Zubaydah operation, apparently while collaborating on a preliminary book proposal. A footnote states that Journalist C is not the coauthor of the book Kiriakou eventually published.

Prior to publication of his book, The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA’s War on Terror, Kiriakou submitted a draft manuscript in July 2008 to the CIA’s Publication Review Board (PRB). In an attempt to trick the CIA into allowing him to publish information regarding a classified investigative technique, Kiriakou allegedly lied to the PRB by falsely claiming that the technique was fictional and that he had never heard of it before. In fact, according to a transcript of a recorded interview conducted in August 2007 to assist Kiriakou’s coauthor in drafting the book, Kiriakou described the technique, which he referred to as the “magic box,” and told his coauthor that the CIA had used the technique in the Abu Zubaydah   operation. The technique was also disclosed in the June 2008 New York Times article and referred to as a “magic box.”

In his submission letter to the PRB, Kiriakou flagged the reference to a device called a “magic box,” stating he had read about it in the newspaper article but added that the information was “clearly fabricated,” as he was unaware of and had used no such device. The affidavit contains the contents of an August 2008 email that Kiriakou sent his coauthor admitting that he lied to the PRB in an attempt to include classified information in the book. The PRB subsequently informed Kiriakou that the draft manuscript contained classified information that he could not use, and information regarding the technique that Kiriakou included in the manuscript remained classified until it was recently declassified to allow Kiriakou’s prosecution to proceed.
         
Upon conviction, the count charging illegal disclosure of Covert Officer A’s identity to a person not authorized to receive classified information carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison, which must be imposed consecutively to any other prison term; the two counts charging violations of the Espionage Act each carry a maximum term of 10 years in prison; and making false statements carries a maximum prison term of five years. Each count carries a maximum fine of $250,000.

A complaint contains only allegations and is not evidence of guilt. The defendant is presumed innocent and is entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The government is being represented in court by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Iris Lan (Southern District of New York) and Mark E. Schneider (Northern District of Illinois), and Justice Department trial attorney Ryan Fayhee of the Counterespionage Section of the National Security Division. Assistant U.S. Attorney Lisa Owings (Eastern District of Virginia) will assist in the matter under local court rules.”

PROSECUTOR: EXTREMIST MAGAZINE PROMPTED ORDER REGARDING GUANTANAMO BAY PRISONER MAIL

The following excerpt is from the Department of Defense American Forces Press website:

Prosecutor: Extremist Magazine Prompted Order on Detainee Mail
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
FORT MEADE, Md., Jan. 18, 2012 – A prosecutor in the trial of the alleged mastermind behind the USS Cole bombing divulged today the root of a new order that allows officials to monitor prisoners’ legal mail at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: a copy of an extremist magazine found at the detention facility.

Navy Cmdr. Andrea Lockhart, a member of the prosecution team in the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, told the court a copy of Inspire magazine “got in” to the facility, although she did not specify exactly where. The English-language magazine is published by the al-Qaida of the Arabian Peninsula organization, and it includes articles designed to inspire extremists and teach them how to carry out violent acts.

Discovery of the magazine – considered contraband – sparked Navy Rear Adm. David B. Woods, commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, to institute a new policy last month that allows government officials to monitor prisoner’s legal mail.

Lockhart told the court today the discovery of Inspire magazine demonstrated that previous rules that covered incoming mail at the detention center weren’t sufficient.

During testimony yesterday, Woods told Navy Lt. Cmdr. Stephen C. Reyes of the defense team the new policy allows members of a privilege review team to conduct a “plain-view review” of written communications not marked as protected attorney-client information. This review, Woods testified, is designed to ensure this correspondence does not include physical or information contraband, such as maps of the detention facility.

Woods told the court yesterday the new policy balances his responsibilities to facilitate attorney-client communication while also ensuring security, safety, force protection and good order at the facility. However, the new order has become a major sticking point in Nashiri’s pretrial hearing, even though both the defense and prosecution teams acknowledge his mail has never been searched under the new policy.

The issue has dominated discussion during both days of the pretrial hearing that began yesterday to address 10 motions filed by the defense and prosecution teams.
Nashiri’s defense team continued its argument today that the new policy compromises the attorney-client privilege because it allows a special review team to examine detainees’ legal correspondence. The prosecution proposed that the review team operate as an independent body, “walled off” from the prosecution, and that defense attorneys be able to observe any reviews of their client’s legal documents.

The defense conceded that prison officials need to be able to inspect for contraband, but insisted that this should not extend to reading legal mail.

After extensive discussion over the past two days by both teams, Army Col. James Pohl, the judge, deferred a decision on the issue today. He did, however, offer the defense assurance that a new order will come, probably within “a couple of weeks.”

Pohl gave the defense team seven days to come up with a complete order it believes meets its requirements. He also directed the prosecution to come up with a clear definition of what “plain view” means, and said the team will have seven days to comment on the defense’s proposed order.

Considering another motion, Pohl responded to a defense concern that classified information used by the defense – and summarized with the goal of creating an unclassified document that also omits sensitive material such as sources and collection methods – risks leaving out key information the defense team needs.
Richard Kammen, the lead civilian defense counsel, argued that Pohl’s determinations otherwise will be made in a vacuum without consideration for the defense.
Pohl ruled that the defense has until a hearing to be scheduled in April to tell him exactly what kind of material it needs to build its case. That way, he will be able to take that information into consideration when comparing the prosecution’s summary to the source material.

The judge will then share any changes he makes to the summary with the prosecution team before approving it. At that point, the document becomes final, not able to be reconsidered except in the event of an appeal, officials explained.

During a post-hearing news conference, Kammen accused the prosecution of trying to get Pohl to make a quick, irrevocable decision that will impact the defense’s case, but with no meaningful input from the defense. He commended Pohl for delaying action until April, although indicating that it’s still too little time for the defense team to adequately review the mountains of information involved and request needed resources.
“Three months in the context of the demands of this case is a blink of an eye,” he said.

Kammen again condemned the military commission process, saying it was designed “solely to provide the façade of justice, but not real justice.” He said it is “completely outside the pale of what American justice has stood for for 200 years.”

Army Brig. Gen. Mark Martins, chief prosecutor for the Office of Military Commissions, underscored the importance of protecting classified information as well as sensitive information when it is in the public interest during this and other trials.
He emphasized that military commissions – like all criminal trials in the U.S. federal system of criminal justice – must subscribe to rules that balance the accused’s right to a fair trial and the need to protect national security and other public interests.
Although Nashiri was in the courtroom during today’s proceedings, all the activity revolved around the prosecution and defense teams.

Nashiri, 47, is charged with "perfidy," or treachery; murder in violation of the law of war; attempted murder in violation of the law of war; terrorism; conspiracy; intentionally causing serious bodily injury; attacking civilians; attacking civilian objects; and hazarding a vessel.

The charges arise out of an attempted attack on the USS The Sullivans in January 2000 and an attack on the USS Cole in October 2000, during which 17 U.S. sailors were killed and 37 more wounded. Nashiri also is accused of involvement in an attack on the MV Limburg, a French civilian oil tanker, in October 2002, in which one crew member was killed and about 90,000 barrels of oil spilled into the Gulf of Aden. If convicted, Nashiri could be sentenced to death.

Nashiri did not enter a plea during his arraignment at Guantanamo Bay in November.
The Guantanamo Bay proceedings are being broadcast via closed circuit television to three sites in the United States. Two of those sites are at Fort Meade, in a theater and training-room facility. Another, at Norfolk Naval Base, Va., is reserved for families of USS Cole victims as well as crew members aboard the vessel during the attack.”

PRETRIAL PROCEEDING HAS BEGUN IN USS COLE CASE

The following excerpt is from the Department of Defense American Forces Press Service:

"Pretrial Proceedings Begin for Alleged USS Cole Mastermind
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
FORT MEADE, Md., Jan. 17, 2012 - The commander of the U.S. detention facility at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, defended the new policy that allows government officials to monitor prisoners' mail during the opening day of pretrial proceedings for the alleged mastermind in the USS Cole bombing.

Navy Rear Adm. David Woods, commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo Bay, testified today in response to a motion by the defense at the military commission hearing for Abd al-Rahim Hussein Muhammed al Nashiri. Army Col. James Pohl ruled during proceedings at Guantanamo Bay that Woods should explain the policy he instituted last month.

Woods, one of the highest-level officials to testify in a military tribunal, said the new policy balances his responsibilities to facilitate attorney-client communication while also ensuring security, safety, force protection and good order at the facility.

Woods told Navy Lt. Cmdr. Stephen C. Reyes of the defense team the new policy allows members of a team that reviews detainee privileges to conduct a "plain-view review" of written communications not marked as protected attorney-client information. The review, he said, is designed to ensure this correspondence does not include physical or "information contraband" such as maps of the detention facility.

Woods disputed the defense position that the policy violates client-attorney privilege, or that reviewers must read the material in full to make a determination. He also denied that the policy restricts access between detainees and their lawyers.

One of its benefits, he said, is authorizing guards to search the plastic bins reserved for legal paperwork and correspondence in detainee living spaces. Guards reportedly have found contraband stowed in these "legal bins" in the past.

Woods acknowledged that the policy depends on the professionalism of the privileged review team, as well as their contractual commitments, to ensure their review is conducted properly and ethically. He noted that reviewers, all civilian contractors, must sign a non-disclosure agreement that bars them from sharing this information, particularly with prosecuting attorneys associated with the case.

The prosecution called the defense's request for Woods to appear before the court irrelevant to the case because Nashiri hasn't been subject to mail searches.

However, officials said Pohl's decision to call him likely was made because what happens in the Nashiri case – the first to go through a revised military commission system -- is likely to set the precedent for trials to follow. Army Col. John Head, deputy chief of staff for the convening authority, told reporters the defense's request likely is intended to institute an across-the-board process that ensures all detainees receive equal treatment.

Pohl is expected to render a decision tomorrow, the second of two days of a pretrial hearing to consider 10 motions in the case.

Nashiri, 47, is charged with "perfidy," or treachery; murder in violation of the law of war; attempted murder in violation of the law of war; terrorism; conspiracy; intentionally causing serious bodily injury; attacking civilians; attacking civilian objects; and hazarding a vessel.

The charges arise out of an attempted attack on the USS The Sullivans in January 2000 and an attack on the USS Cole in October 2000, during which 17 U.S. sailors were killed and 37 more wounded. Nashiri also is accused of involvement in an attack on the MV Limburg, a French civilian oil tanker, in October 2002 in which one crewmember was killed and about 90,000 barrels of oil spilled into the Gulf of Aden. If convicted, Nashiri could be sentenced to death.

Nashiri did not enter a plea during his arraignment at Guantanamo Bay in November.

Although the defendant was in the room during today's proceedings – albeit it out of camera view for remote viewers for most of the hearing – all the activity revolved around the prosecution and defense teams.

Pohl rejected two defense motions: one to allow Nashiri to be unrestrained during his meetings with his legal counsel, and one to establish an enclave – a protected network within the larger Defense Department computer network – in an effort to keep DOD from monitoring the defense counsel's computers and electronic communications.

Pohl dismissed civilian defense counsel Richard Kammen's argument that defense counsel should be able to meet with unrestrained detainees in locked-room meetings, as representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross are able to.

The current policy requires detainees to be shackled and in an unlocked room during meetings with their attorneys, enabling guards to enter the room and for attorneys to exit quickly in the event of a disturbance, the prosecution noted.

Anthony W. Mattivi, a member of the prosecution team representing the Justice Department, expressed concern that changing the current policy could put the guards at increased risk and said Woods should be the one to make any changes to the policy, not the court. "That's not his call," Mattivi said of Kammen. "It's the commander's."

Pohl agreed, ruling to keep the current policy intact.

The judge, however, left the door open for a possible request by the defense for an enclave or other security remedy for its electronic communications in the future, while acknowledging that even material in enclaves is subject to monitoring.

Kammen compared the encryption system the defense now uses to protect sensitive materials to putting them in a locked drawer in an office, then handing the government the key to the drawer and leaving the office door open. "It's the appearance of confidentiality without the substance," he told the court.

Lockhart argued that an enclave isn't necessary because encryption already ensures the maximum security possible for the documents. Pentagon computer security expert Adam Bennett, whom she called to the stand, said it's virtually impossible for government officials to access encrypted information or open documents – including those used by the defense team – without the password and encryption software needed to access it.

Both the defense and prosecution, as well as the judge, recognized that all material on DOD networks is subject to routine, noncontent-related screening to prevent viruses and cyber attacks.

In other motions considered today, Pohl granted a motion supporting more public access to court proceedings. Currently the proceedings are broadcast from the court at Guantanamo Bay via closed circuit to just three locations in the United States. Two of those sites are here at Fort Meade in a theater and training-room facility. Another, at Norfolk Naval Base, Va., is reserved for families of USS Cole victims as well as crewmembers aboard the vessel during the attack.

Pohl also moved that unofficial transcripts of the proceedings, posted online while the official transcript remains classified, may be referred to by both legal teams during the trial.

Speaking to reporters after the hearing, Kammen said the defense considered today "on balance, a very successful day," while acknowledging that some of the motions made could ultimately delay the trial, possibly as far out as 2015.

Kammen called military commissions "at best, a second-class system of justice" and said they are designed to be secretive and provide expedient justice at the expense of transparency and fairness. He added that the defense team today fought for things it wouldn't have had to in federal court, and accused the government of blurring the line between classified and embarrassing information.

Army Brig. Gen. Mark Martins, chief prosecutor for the Office of Military Commissions, disputed Kammen's charges, noting that the prosecution team in the commissions operates much like prosecutors in federal courts. They play no part in handling defendant's correspondence or defense attorney's emails, don't communicate with facility personnel about contacts with an accused legal materials and aren't privy to those materials, he said.

Martins said proceedings like today's are designed to ensure legal issues are resolved in a way "consistent with the fair, transparent and accountable administration of justice under the rule of law."

Despite the manpower and expense associated with the commission proceedings, Martins said the United States has a responsibility to follow them through. "Not only must we continue to pursue the truth for the surviving family members of victims who have been rendered silent, but we must also pursue it because that is what justice requires," he said. "A civilized and open society facing very real and modern security threats can demand no less."