On May 23rd, Americans will have a better idea whether policy analysts, lobbyists, journalists, members of the press, newspapers or any private American citizen who leaks classified national defense information will now become a criminal.
On that date, a US District Court Judge will rule whether two former pro-Israel lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, violated a rarely used and vaguely worded "spy" provision of the World War I era Espionage Act that makes it a crime to disclose or disseminate any "national defense information" that could be used "to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of a foreign nation." In the absence of an Official Secrets Act, it is a legal attempt to use an American spy statue to silence anyone from disclosing "national defense information".
The classified information in question had warned that Iranian agents in predominantly Kurdish northern Iraq planned to kidnap, torture and kill American and Israeli agents in the region. It also dealt with American policy in Iran, terrorism in central Asia, Al-Qaeda and the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers apartments in Saudi Arabia that killed 23 Americans, mainly military personnel. The information had been orally leaked to them through conversations with a well-placed government source (former Defense Department policy analyst Larry Franklin) who has since pleaded guilty and been sentenced to 12 years and 7 months in prison and will have to pay a $10,000 fine.
The core legal issue to be tested in the AIPAC case (if it goes to trial) will be whether the Espionage Act makes it a crime not just to relay classified information by government officials (which is a given since they are charged with the responsibility of protecting such information), but to criminalize its dissemination by private citizens who are not deemed to be spies. While there are serious pros and cons to the argument from a national security perspective, it is important to note that neither Rosen nor Weissman were charged as spies or foreign agents (nor was AIPAC, a public-policy organization, suspected of any wrongdoing), but as private citizens who came into possession of and shared classified national defense information with "persons not entitled to receive it" (in this case a journalist for a major American newspaper and representatives of the State of Israel).
The American courts will now have to determine what limits (if any) are to be placed on the exercise of the First Amendment rights of reporters and lobbyists whose job it is to give Americans an inside look at what is rarely seen. In the course of doing so, the courts will ask the inevitable questions: Are Rosen and Weissman to be held to the same strict rules for protecting secrets as Larry Franklin or any other government employee with security clearance? If Rosen and Weissman are found guilty under the Espionage Act, then what of newspapers who publish the information and journalists or other private citizens who provide it to them? After all, they "aided and abetted" the crime.
District Court Judge T. S. Ellis is correct when he says that this is a serious and complicated case that requires much thought, because it has moved the law into "new, uncharted waters". In the end, we shall see how well our American courts can navigate these complicated First Amendment issues, and whether ordinary citizens who come into possession of "national defense information" will to be held to the same strict secrecy standards as those whom we entrust with our nation's security.
On that date, a US District Court Judge will rule whether two former pro-Israel lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, violated a rarely used and vaguely worded "spy" provision of the World War I era Espionage Act that makes it a crime to disclose or disseminate any "national defense information" that could be used "to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of a foreign nation." In the absence of an Official Secrets Act, it is a legal attempt to use an American spy statue to silence anyone from disclosing "national defense information".
The classified information in question had warned that Iranian agents in predominantly Kurdish northern Iraq planned to kidnap, torture and kill American and Israeli agents in the region. It also dealt with American policy in Iran, terrorism in central Asia, Al-Qaeda and the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers apartments in Saudi Arabia that killed 23 Americans, mainly military personnel. The information had been orally leaked to them through conversations with a well-placed government source (former Defense Department policy analyst Larry Franklin) who has since pleaded guilty and been sentenced to 12 years and 7 months in prison and will have to pay a $10,000 fine.
The core legal issue to be tested in the AIPAC case (if it goes to trial) will be whether the Espionage Act makes it a crime not just to relay classified information by government officials (which is a given since they are charged with the responsibility of protecting such information), but to criminalize its dissemination by private citizens who are not deemed to be spies. While there are serious pros and cons to the argument from a national security perspective, it is important to note that neither Rosen nor Weissman were charged as spies or foreign agents (nor was AIPAC, a public-policy organization, suspected of any wrongdoing), but as private citizens who came into possession of and shared classified national defense information with "persons not entitled to receive it" (in this case a journalist for a major American newspaper and representatives of the State of Israel).
The American courts will now have to determine what limits (if any) are to be placed on the exercise of the First Amendment rights of reporters and lobbyists whose job it is to give Americans an inside look at what is rarely seen. In the course of doing so, the courts will ask the inevitable questions: Are Rosen and Weissman to be held to the same strict rules for protecting secrets as Larry Franklin or any other government employee with security clearance? If Rosen and Weissman are found guilty under the Espionage Act, then what of newspapers who publish the information and journalists or other private citizens who provide it to them? After all, they "aided and abetted" the crime.
District Court Judge T. S. Ellis is correct when he says that this is a serious and complicated case that requires much thought, because it has moved the law into "new, uncharted waters". In the end, we shall see how well our American courts can navigate these complicated First Amendment issues, and whether ordinary citizens who come into possession of "national defense information" will to be held to the same strict secrecy standards as those whom we entrust with our nation's security.