Anyone who asks the federal government for information, particularly in wartime, should expect a little resistance. That was my view when, a year and a half ago, I asked the Defense Department for data about the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. I figured my request, which sought records of contacts there between the American military and the International Committee for the Red Cross, would be turned aside for security reasons.

The government did indeed refuse to provide any of the information, but not because it might give away secrets that could lead to the escape of some of the 550-odd war-on-terror prisoners at Guantanamo. Nor did the Pentagon suggest that releasing the records might endanger the military personnel who run the prison. Rather, the Defense Department argued essentially that giving out information on its dialogue with the Red Cross would be unfair to the Red Cross.

The International Committee for the Red Cross serves a noble purpose. Its personnel traverse war zones around the globe interviewing prisoners, ferrying mail, and inspecting detention centers. I’ve accompanied their delegates on missions through the wilds of Afghanistan and have an appreciation for the risks they often take.

However, the International Red Cross is hardly immune to controversy. For one thing, it continues to manifest flagrant anti-Semitism by denying full membership to Israel’s equivalent of the Red Cross, the Magen David Adom Society.

The Red Cross’s response to the menace of terrorism has also prompted significant criticism. In August, a blue-ribbon commission appointed by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld took the global body to task for taking an archaic view of the terrorist threat.The advisory panel, headed by a former defense secretary, James Schlesinger, said that under the Red Cross’s view of the Geneva Conventions, America could never interrogate terrorism suspects held in Guantanamo, Iraq, or elsewhere.

“The ICRC, no less than the Defense Department, needs to adapt itself to the new realities of conflict, which are far different from the Western European environment from which the ICRC’s interpretation of Geneva Conventions was drawn,” the Schlesinger panel wrote.

The Red Cross also seems to have a strange standard about when the group speaks out about mistreatment of prisoners.

For months, its inspectors witnessed serious abuses at the American-run prison at Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Yet, the group said nothing publicly about what was going on there. The Red Cross has maintained that it did not speak out because things were improving. Many in the human rights community don’t buy that explanation. They remain baffled about the Red Cross’s silence in the face of such misconduct.

When it comes to Guantanamo, the Red Cross has been far less restrained. Early in the war on terror, the global body took issue with the Pentagon’s definition of “enemy combatant.” In August 2003, the Red Cross stepped up its public criticism of Guantanamo with a posting on its Web site speaking of a “worrying deterioration” in the prisoners’ mental health. They blamed uncertainty about the procedures for release from the island.

In October of 2003, Red Cross officials expressed their concerns about Guantanamo for articles published or aired by the Associated Press, National Public Radio, and the New York Times. “Red Cross Condemns Guantanamo Detentions,” blared a dispatch from the Associated Press, typical of a slew of negative press reports, particularly in Europe. The Red Cross even used its Web site to publish emotional first-hand audio accounts from its staff, in which they recount the fragile mental state of the prisoners and complain about things such as mail delivery. Leaked documents published in the Washington Post indicate that the Red Cross’s complaints ranged from the use of “caged cells,” to the color of the prisoners’ jumpsuits and a lack of hot tea “with lots of sugar.”

Over time, the humanitarian group’s protests about Guantanamo have become more insistent. In March of this year, the Red Cross’s legal adviser wrote a piece for the Financial Times, entitled, ” ‘War’ Doesn’t Justify Guantanamo.” The Red Cross has also complained about the treatment of juveniles there and about the rules for military commissions. Just last month, the international body also issued a detailed, three-page rebuttal to the Schlesinger report, faulting the board for “a number of inaccurate assertions, conclusions and recommendations.”

Despite this ample evidence that the Red Cross is a vocal participant in the global debate over Guantanamo, the Pentagon is refusing to release any records of its discussions with the global body out of what it says is deference to the organization. In response to a legal challenge I brought under the Freedom of Information Act, the Defense Department has insisted, with a straight face, that the humanitarian group has been scrupulously silent. “Under no circumstances does the ICRC comment publicly on the treatment of detainees or conditions of detention,” a Pentagon attorney wrote.

In court filings, the Justice Department has presented a parade of horribles that could ensue if the purported confidentiality of its talks with the Red Cross is breached. The government has argued that if it discloses more information about the Red Cross’s demands at Guantanamo, the global body could lose access to Americans taken prisoner in some future conflict.

It seems strange that the possible reaction of some Third-World thug should be used as grounds to deny an American information from his own government. It’s true that despots and democrats alike would be wise to look at the Red Cross’s promises of confidentiality with some skepticism. However, the obvious reason for such concern is the Red Cross’s cascade of public criticism about Guantanamo, not any disclosures that the Pentagon might make because of American laws about access to government information.

This morning, a federal judge in California is scheduled to take up the matter. I’ve argued that he shouldn’t be too concerned about piercing a veil of confidentiality that is already in tatters. Leaving the legalities aside, though, it’s puzzling why government lawyers are mounting such an aggressive defense of a global organization that has been so critical of America.

The way I see it, when we go to court today, I’ll be speaking for the American people and our Justice Department will be arguing for the Red Cross. And that’s a shame.

Mr.Gerstein is a national reporter for The New York Sun.