In an unprecedented ruling today, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that a May 6 hearing on Zacarias Moussaoui's right to interview Al Qaeda member Ramzi Binlashibh will be closed to the public.

Is such secrecy justified when the Government publicized the case at every turn prior to its determnination that national security concerns were more important?

Larry Ottinger, senior staff attorney for the liberal People for the American Way Foundation, said he found the secrecy "very troubling. An open court system and open hearings are fundamental to the American system of justice," he said.

The trial judge had granted Moussaoui's request to interview Binalshibh because he has a right to exculpatory information, and Binalshibh could refute parts of the Government's case--specifically the allegation that Moussaoui was part of the 9/11 conspiracy. The difference between being a member of Al Qaeda and intending to commit a different terrorist act against the U.S., and intending to participate in 9/11, is significant because it could determine whether Moussaoui, if convicted, gets life or death. Supplying material aid or resources to terrorists does not carry the death penalty. Conspiring to commit the 9/11 attacks does.

It is widely expected that if the Government loses its bid to overturn the trial court's ruling that Moussaoui is entitled to interview Binalshibh, the Government will dismiss the federal case and try him in a military tribunal proceeding.

Moussaoui is the only person in America who has been charged with committing the 9/11 attacks. It is essential that his trial and all proceedings be open to the public. In the event of a guilty verdict, and particulary a death sentence, the American public has to be able to trust in the integrity of the process. As another Judge recently said in a case involving closure of deportation hearings, "Democracy dies behind closed doors."

For more on Moussaoui and the events in his case to date, go here.