Amnesty for AIPAC Aides
On Friday, May 1, the US Justice Department announced that it would drop all charges against former American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobbyists Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman. (1) In August of 2005, Rosen and Weissman had been indicted for "communicating national defense information to people not entitled to receive it," in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, 18 USC 793 (2). Former Defense Department analyst Lawrence Franklin was also indicted in the case; he was also charged with one count of passing classified information to an Israeli official.
Franklin, a former attache at the US Embassy in Israel, was one of the officials responsible for American defense policy regarding Iran. He provided a classified presidential directive and other documents about Iran policy to the AIPAC staffers, who then passed them on to Israel. Franklin negotiated a guilty plea in October, 2005, and was sentenced the following January to 12 years in prison and a fine of $10,000 by US Judge T S Ellis III. AIPAC fired Rosen and Weissman, but denied the organization was responsible for their alleged activities.
As a government employee with a high security clearance, Lawrence Franklin clearly betrayed the trust placed in him, and deserved his punishment. Former Navy civilian analyst Jonathan Pollard had been sentenced to life in prison in 1987 for transmitting even more damaging information to Israel. (3)
However, the two AIPAC staffers were the first people not employed by the US Government ever charged with this particular violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. (1) This unprecedented prosecution apparently opened the way for bringing similar charges against reporters who receive and use classified information they obtain from government employees . Sometimes this type of information is the only way to corroborate claims of corruption or subversion in government. Although no reporters were ever charged during the remaining three years of the Bush Administration, the prosecution of Rosen and Weissman may have had a chilling effect on the willingness of reporters to deal with classified information.
Judge Ellis made two pre-trial rulings that resulted in dropping the charges:
1. The defense could introduce the secrets themselves at the trial.
2. To obtain a conviction, the prosecutors would have to show that the defendants knew that disclosing this information would harm the United States.
Once the first of these rulings was upheld by the US Court of Appeals, the Government was placed into a "Catch 22" situation: if disclosing the secrets would harm US interests, the nation would be harmed by the Government in bringing the case to trial. ( Since the trial would receive massive publicity, the harm done by the Government would be even greater than that done by the defendants, who merely disclosed it to a friendly nation, which did not make it public. ) But if disclosing the info would not harm US interests, the second ruling meant that the defendants had done nothing wrong, and should be acquitted!
A similar conundrum occurred during the 1896 trial of French Army Captain Alfred Dreyfus, who was accused of passing military secrets to the German Army. But in that case. the judge ruled that the "borderaux" of secrets need not even be provided to the defense, let alone made public. The rest is history: Dreyfus was convicted and spent years on Devil's Island before finally being exonerated.
Fortunately for Rosen and Weissman, Judge Ellis was more fair than the one Dreyfus faced a century before. We may never know just what information Lawrence Franklin gave them, although it clearly concerned American policy toward Iran under President George W Bush. I would like to know what the Israelis found out, but I doubt that they will tell me.
AIPAC continues its highly-effective work of influencing US policy in a pro-Israel direction, although without the services of Mssrs. Rosen and Weissman.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Jerry Marion in the Washington Post, May 2, 2009.
(2) Wikipedia "Lawrence Franklin Espionage Scandal."
(3) See the Glazerbeam of Dec. 24, 2008, entitled "Parole for Pollard?"
Franklin, a former attache at the US Embassy in Israel, was one of the officials responsible for American defense policy regarding Iran. He provided a classified presidential directive and other documents about Iran policy to the AIPAC staffers, who then passed them on to Israel. Franklin negotiated a guilty plea in October, 2005, and was sentenced the following January to 12 years in prison and a fine of $10,000 by US Judge T S Ellis III. AIPAC fired Rosen and Weissman, but denied the organization was responsible for their alleged activities.
As a government employee with a high security clearance, Lawrence Franklin clearly betrayed the trust placed in him, and deserved his punishment. Former Navy civilian analyst Jonathan Pollard had been sentenced to life in prison in 1987 for transmitting even more damaging information to Israel. (3)
However, the two AIPAC staffers were the first people not employed by the US Government ever charged with this particular violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. (1) This unprecedented prosecution apparently opened the way for bringing similar charges against reporters who receive and use classified information they obtain from government employees . Sometimes this type of information is the only way to corroborate claims of corruption or subversion in government. Although no reporters were ever charged during the remaining three years of the Bush Administration, the prosecution of Rosen and Weissman may have had a chilling effect on the willingness of reporters to deal with classified information.
Judge Ellis made two pre-trial rulings that resulted in dropping the charges:
1. The defense could introduce the secrets themselves at the trial.
2. To obtain a conviction, the prosecutors would have to show that the defendants knew that disclosing this information would harm the United States.
Once the first of these rulings was upheld by the US Court of Appeals, the Government was placed into a "Catch 22" situation: if disclosing the secrets would harm US interests, the nation would be harmed by the Government in bringing the case to trial. ( Since the trial would receive massive publicity, the harm done by the Government would be even greater than that done by the defendants, who merely disclosed it to a friendly nation, which did not make it public. ) But if disclosing the info would not harm US interests, the second ruling meant that the defendants had done nothing wrong, and should be acquitted!
A similar conundrum occurred during the 1896 trial of French Army Captain Alfred Dreyfus, who was accused of passing military secrets to the German Army. But in that case. the judge ruled that the "borderaux" of secrets need not even be provided to the defense, let alone made public. The rest is history: Dreyfus was convicted and spent years on Devil's Island before finally being exonerated.
Fortunately for Rosen and Weissman, Judge Ellis was more fair than the one Dreyfus faced a century before. We may never know just what information Lawrence Franklin gave them, although it clearly concerned American policy toward Iran under President George W Bush. I would like to know what the Israelis found out, but I doubt that they will tell me.
AIPAC continues its highly-effective work of influencing US policy in a pro-Israel direction, although without the services of Mssrs. Rosen and Weissman.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Jerry Marion in the Washington Post, May 2, 2009.
(2) Wikipedia "Lawrence Franklin Espionage Scandal."
(3) See the Glazerbeam of Dec. 24, 2008, entitled "Parole for Pollard?"
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 2:24 PM
1 comments
