I'm curious about that act. How does it apply to knowledge in the defendant's possession. I can see knowledge held by the government being classified but how do you classify knowlege held by the defendant? For example, that a suspect was held and tortured in Lower Slobovia could be classfied by the government as far as government revelations go but what about if the defendant knows from other sources and reveals the information?

Incidentally, on the face of it I don't have a problem with that act. While it does prevent certain information from becoming public it does not deny the defendant the ability to build a case to defend himself. It seems to strike the right ballance between the need for sececy and the need for a fair trial. That's probably why the bush administration didn't ant to rely on it. They wanted no part of fair trials.

You know, a little restraint practiced by the media isn't keeping secrets, and in fact, can be ethical and appropriate.