that has been decided by […] Article III courts since 1980”.693 Accordingly, federal courts appear to be able to protect classified information in a similar way to the military commissions as their rules and practices have been utilized since 1980 and are the basis for the military commissions’ rules. 308. Third, as to the ability of military commissions to provide safety and security for participants, it should be noted that over 400 cases related to terrorism have been held in federal courts since 9/11. None of these trials have resulted in a retaliatory attack.694 While it may be true that the safety and security of the public is better protected if the trials are held at Guantánamo rather than in a city located in the United States, this is an issue of geography rather than an issue concerning the type of court to use.695 309. Fourth, although the applicable federal rules of evidence were not specifically created to address situations that arise during armed conflicts, the US courts-martial system applies more stringent rules than military commissions.696 One concern697 raised by members of Congress regarding the admissibility of evidence in federal courts is the requirement that a Miranda warning be issued before interrogations.698 US officials also argue that giving Miranda warnings to soldiers captured on the battlefield is both impractical and 693 The Chief Prosecutor of the Military Commissions has also said that the procedure for Rule 505(h) hearings, which is one method used to handle classified information, “mirror[s] those used in federal civilian prosecutions under (…) CIPA, as interpreted by Article III courts”. Chief Prosecutor Brigadier General Mark Martins, “Chief Prosecutor Mark Martins Remarks at Guantanamo Bay”, 27 January 2013, p. 4, <http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/562514/27-jan-2013-statement-of-the-chiefprosecutor.pdf>; Chief Prosecutor Brigadier General Mark Martins, “Chief Prosecutor Mark Martins Remarks at Guantanamo Bay”, 15 December 2013, p. 3, <http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/15-December-2013-Statement-of-theChief-Prosecutor.pdf>. 694 “Terrorist Trial Report Card: September 11, 2001 - September 11, 2011”, Center on Law and Security, New York University School of Law, 2011, p. 7, <http://www.lawandsecurity.org/Portals/0/Documents/TTRC%20Ten%20Year%20Issue.pdf>; “Fact Sheet: Prosecuting and Detaining Terror Suspects in the U.S. Criminal Justice System”, United States Department of Justice website, 9 June 2009, <http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/fact-sheet-prosecuting-and-detaining-terror-suspects-us-criminal-justicesystem>; “Myth v. Fact: Trying Terror Suspects in Federal Courts”, Human Rights First website, <http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/USLS-Fact-Sheet-Federal_Court_Myth_vs_Fact.pdf>; United States Attorney General Eric Holder, “Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at the American Constitution Society Convention”, United States Department of Justice website, 16 June 2011, <http://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-eric-holder-speaksamerican-constitution-society-convention>: “Since 9/11, hundreds of individuals have been convicted of terrorism or terrorismrelated offenses in civilian courts. (…) Not one of the judicial districts involved has suffered retaliatory attacks.” 695 Cole, “Military Commissions and the Paradigm of Prevention”, op. cit., note 258, p. 104. 696 The MCA 2009, for instance, specifically restricts the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination, by excluding UCMJ provisions relating to compulsory self-incrimination in military commission proceedings. Please refer to other sections of Part 2 for additional examples of differences between some of the rules applicable to courts-martials and military commissions. MCA 2009, § 948b(d). 697 See, for instance, United States Senator John McCain, “Statement by Senator McCain on the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010”, John McCain website, 4 March 2010, <http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/floor-statements?ID=2af60f3a-05dc-cdf6-7dc9-6501a995c17c>; “Committee Reports, 113th Congress (2013-2014), Senate Report 113-176, Additional Views of Messrs. Inhofe, Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ms. Ayotte, and Mr. Vitter”, The Library of Congress website, 2014, <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp113&sid=cp113wLXCN&refer=&r_n=sr176.113&item=&&&sel=TOC_1707563&>; United States Senator Jeff Sessions, “Sessions Speaks on Military Commissions”, Senator Jeff Sessions website, 5 March 2010, <http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/floor-statements?ID=3E74EA2E-B90C-5411-5076-C1A2001EB298>. 698 A Miranda warning requires that “the person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him”. United States Supreme Court, Miranda v. Arizona, Case No. 759, 13 June 1966, <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/case.html>. 134