Washington ? The Bush administration would grant terrorism suspects brought before military tribunals many fundamental protections used in civilian trials but deny them others, limiting their right to block second-hand evidence and to appeal their convictions, even in the case of death sentences, government officials said Wednesday.

At the same time, the Justice Department announced Wednesday that it would go ahead with a new round of anti-terror interviews with foreign nationals in the United States, calling the first phase a success after interviews with more than 2,200 people yielded a number of tips on possible terrorists.

The Bush administration’s long-anticipated plans for the military trials for terrorism suspects were presented to Congress on Wednesday, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is expected to announce them today.

The plan to have tribunals came under fierce criticism when President Bush announced it in November as a means to try suspected al-Qaida terrorists outside the U.S. federal court system, especially in cases where national security information might be divulged. Critics feared the tribunals would short-circuit due process, denying suspects a public trial, independent counsel, the right to hear evidence against them and the ability to appeal their verdicts.

The new rules appear designed to address many of the sharpest criticisms, international law experts said Wednesday, by modeling the tribunals after military courts-martial and adding widely accepted legal protections.

Bush said Wednesday that he had “nobody in mind” to bring before the tribunals and stressed that they merely are an option for prosecuting terrorists. “We’ll be using the tribunals if, in the course of bringing somebody to justice, it would jeopardize or compromise national security interests. So they’re a tool,” Bush said.

U.S. officials have said they expect a limited number of tribunals, perhaps no more than a few dozen, and that they might not start until the fall. Bush said the fates of many of those detained at Guantanamo Bay, where many of those subject to tribunal might come from, remained unclear, though he said, “Remember… the ones in Guantanamo Bay are killers. They are  they don’t share the same values we share.”

Akin to courts-martial

The tribunals would be presided over by a panel of three to seven officers, as are many courts-martial. Defendants would be presumed innocent, and the government would have to prove guilt. The suspects also would be given free military lawyers and could hire civilian lawyers as well.

But the rules also permit prosecutors to introduce hearsay or second-hand evidence that would be kept out of normal trials, including items such as documents found in the caves of Afghanistan whose origin might be unclear.

Several legal experts also said they were troubled by the limited right to appeals, which would be heard by a three-member panel but still consist of military officials. Rumsfeld or Bush would be the final arbiter of a defendant’s sentence. There is no explicit right granted to appeal to federal courts, as those tried by courts-martial are allowed to do.

“You’re going to have the Department of Defense defending, the Department of Defense prosecuting and the appeals panels is the Department of Defense,” said Francis A. Boyle, an expert on the law of war at the University of Illinois. “I think it’s going to be perceived internationally as a kangaroo court.”

However, Scott Silliman, an international law expert at Duke University, said he believed the new rules would largely satisfy other nations concerned about due process, but only if the appeals panel did not function as a “rubber stamp.”

Justice interviews

Also Wednesday, to the dismay of some immigrant groups, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft announced that 3,000 more visitors to the United States, many from the Mideast, would be asked to submit to interviews with terrorism investigators.

He said the original program started in November to try to interview nearly 5,000 visitors had provided valuable information “about the would-be terrorists in our midst.”

Ashcroft gave no specifics but released a report that listed six interviews that had provided tips about possible terrorists. Only half the original group were actually interviewed, either because they could not be located or they declined.

Some civil liberties lawyers criticized the extension of the program to people who arrived in the United States more recently than the first group. Critics also said some of those already questioned were arrested for immigration violations or, in a few cases, criminal charges based on the interviews, though none of the charges related to terrorism. Ashcroft’s office said fewer than 20 of those interviewed were arrested.

Imad Hamad, a leader of the large Arab community in Michigan, said that while he had cooperated with the first phase, the extension “will create another unnecessary form of intimidation and emotional pressure” on Arab-Americans.