A federal appellate court considered yesterday whether to force the Bush administration to confirm or deny the existence of two purported documents detailing the CIA’s role in interrogating terrorists.

The government has argued that indicating whether the documents exist would result in disclosure of specific information about the CIA’s interrogation capabilities and techniques.

The two alleged documents are a presidential directive authorizing the CIA to set up secret overseas detention centers and a Department of Justice memorandum identifying which interrogation methods the CIA can use against terror suspects.

The case stems from a 2004 request by the American Civil Liberties Union under the federal Freedom of Information Act that the government make public a trove of documents relating to its policies involving the detention and interrogation of terror suspects.

A lower court judge, Alvin Hellerstein of U.S. District Court in Manhattan, last year denied the ACLU’s request for confirmation of the existence of the two purported documents, which in court have been labeled items 29 and 61. The ACLU contends that several news articles referenced the existence of such documents.

The pressing question before the three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was whether the CIA had sufficiently shown that the type of documents the ACLU had requested were not covered under the Freedom of Information Act. To come to that conclusion, the panel considered whether it ought first to learn whether the documents did indeed exist, and, if so, what they contained.

“What if we had access to the classified documents and we were satisfied everything was kosher?” one judge, Joseph McLaughlin, asked the lawyer for the ACLU, Megan Lewis. “Would you go away?”

That proposal did not seem to fully satisfy either side.

Ms. Lewis responded that even the court’s review of any pertinent documents would not settle whether the in formation should be allowed to remain classified, given that public officials have acknowledged the CIA’s role in interrogating detainees.

The attorney for the government, Peter Skinner, argued that the information the ACLU wanted would confirm or deny whether the CIA has the “authority to interrogate top Al Qaeda members” on its own. He also argued that public statements pledging that the CIA complies with Department of Justice guidelines on interrogation acknowledge only that the “CIA was assisting other agencies” in interrogation and was not an admission that the CIA independently conducted interrogations.

Mr. Skinner said he saw no reason for the CIA to disclose to the court whether the documents exist. He argued that the court briefs the CIA has presented were sufficient to answer the legal question of whether the CIA improperly withheld information.

“We should sink or float on that,” Mr. Skinner said.

Judge Jose Cabranes and Judge John Gleeson were also on the panel.