Comments on: AIPAC Trial Likely to be Postponed http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/04/aipac_trial_likely_to_be_postp.html Secrecy News from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:03:51 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Allen Thomson http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/04/aipac_trial_likely_to_be_postp.html/comment-page-1#comment-771 Allen Thomson Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:25:35 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2007/04/aipac_trial_likely_to_be_postponed.html#comment-771 <i>The memorandum opinion advised the government that any proposal to exclude public access to classified evidence would have to be thoroughly supported by "a highly detailed explanation of the ensuing harms to national security... [since] much of the classified information at issue [here] is not self-evidently damaging to national security."</i> Isn't this new? My impression has been that the government has never had to justify its classification decisions in a court of law -- a simple assertion that an authorized official has determined that information deserves classification sufficed. Or have I misunderstood something? <i>[It's certainly interesting. And yes, it is different than what one normally encounters in Freedom of Information Act disputes, for example, where courts will typically defer to an agency official who declares that information has been properly classified. --SA] </i> The memorandum opinion advised the government that any proposal to exclude public access to classified evidence would have to be thoroughly supported by “a highly detailed explanation of the ensuing harms to national security… [since] much of the classified information at issue [here] is not self-evidently damaging to national security.”

Isn’t this new? My impression has been that the government has never had to justify its classification decisions in a court of law — a simple assertion that an authorized official has determined that information deserves classification sufficed.

Or have I misunderstood something?

[It's certainly interesting. And yes, it is different than what one normally encounters in Freedom of Information Act disputes, for example, where courts will typically defer to an agency official who declares that information has been properly classified. --SA]

]]>