That's not the issue. The issue is that the special advocate has information. He is not under oath to not disclose that information to anyone. Ten years down the road, maybe it will be in a column; maybe it will be in his autobiography.
I understand national security. That's why we support this legislation. It has defects. Why would we not afford even the worst individual the kind of protection we would want for ourselves if we were stuck in that situation? Why is the department hesitant? We should provide explicit protection. We are taking away the right of the solicitor-client privilege from this individual, yet we're not prepared to offer the protection this individual needs on the other side of the equation.