classified documents), vacated, — U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 2960, 171 L.Ed.2d 881 (2008) (mem.), reinstated, Order No. 06-1197 (D.C.Cir.2008), dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, 551 F.3d 1068 (D.C.Cir.2009). The Fourth Circuit likewise observed in In re Washington Post Co., 807 F.2d 383, 391-92 (4th Cir.1986): [TJroubled as we are by the risk that disclosure of classified information could endanger the lives of both Americans and their foreign informants, ... blind acceptance by the courts of the government’s insistence on the need for secrecy, without notice to others, without argument, and without a statement of reasons, would impermissibly compromise the independence of the judiciary and open the door to possible abuse. See also Kiareldeen v. Reno, 71 F.Supp.2d 402, 414, 418 (D.N.J.1999) (<HOLDING>). The rationale for requiring such disclosure
holding inter alia that common law claims were preempted holding inter alia that appellant must use local cpiu where available holding that the governments use of classified evidence in detentionpendingdeportation proceedings violated detainees due process rights and inter alia justified his release holding that pretrial detainees can bring substantive due process claim holding that in a military criminal trial the governments use of classified information without permitting the defendant or his lawyers to view the information did not violate the defendants due process rights