AIPAC Case Ruling coming up soon. Fateful decision either way

[chill_wind]

As the assaults on our Constitution and rule of law by this Bush Justice Department escalate, the flickering flames of our democracy are feeling more fragile and fleeting every day: See also the recent SC decision re: Garcetti v. Ceballos http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/garcetti.pdf cited within linked text below.

Another canary in the coalmine indicator to tell us just how much (or how dangerously little) breathable life may still be left in it at all is reportedly coming up soon. From the FAS 6-5-06:

"Waiting for a Ruling in the AIPAC Case

In the near future a federal court will decide whether the prosecution of two former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for allegedly mishandling classified information can proceed, or whether it must be dismissed on First Amendment grounds. It will be a fateful decision either way.

If the prosecution is permitted to proceed, it would reflect an unprecedented determination that private individuals who are not engaged in espionage can be punished for receiving and transmitting national defense information. Such a finding would instantly transform many national security reporters, researchers and others into potential criminals.

If the case is dismissed, it would imply a bold affirmation of First Amendment values against the encroachment of a Justice Department that keeps testing its ever-expanding boundaries."

(more)

full text: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/

[Doctor_J]

1. Gee, with wingers packed into te courts at every level

I wonder how this will turn out?

[Me.]

2. The Problem Here Is That Judge Ellis

is shaky and may very well dismiss. Further, IMHO, this article twists the facts in the case. One where Larry Franklin, who pleaded guilty to passing classified info, to men who not only had no clearance, they had no business having access to US secrets or positions on Iran. The defense wants to play this as two innocents doing business as usual.

*shadow government*

[chill_wind]

3. Uncharted waters

You make a very vital point, but the crazy kicker is that government isn't even trying to prove spy charges. It the meantime, there is the premise of the embedding of dangerous precedent they may instead be going for.

It may seem something of a paradox that the FAS would take up a position leaning more in favor of dismissal, but in doing what they and many others do, as many here are well familiar, they explain their fear of its implications very well:

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/03/the_aipac_case_uncharted_water.html

Further example excerpted here

Dangerous Prosecution
Thursday, March 23, 2006; Page A22:

(snip)

The AIPAC case marks a dangerous break with that tradition. We do not defend the alleged actions of Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman, whom AIPAC fired. According to the indictment, they received classified information from Pentagon analyst Lawrence A. Franklin and passed it to the Israeli Embassy. The indictment alleges similar behavior in the past. But the government isn't even trying to prove spying charges. Instead, prosecutors have proceeded under a legal theory that must alarm anyone who values open debate.

Under the government's reading of the law, there is no reason why newspaper reporters who publish classified information could not face charges. Nor, indeed, would anything protect activists who brought secrets to members of Congress. Under the government's theory, in fact, countless conversations and publications that take place every day are criminal acts. The government makes this point explicitly in its briefs: While acknowledging that a prosecution of "an actual member of the press for publishing classified information" would "raise legitimate and serious issues," it says that " plainly is no exemption in the statutes for the press, let alone lobbyists like the defendants." You don't have to anticipate an immediate raft of prosecutions of such people to appreciate the danger of a precedent that would permit it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/22/AR2006032202055.html

I can see the both the danger and the dilemma. Mostly I can see the danger.

Govt Presses AIPAC Prosecution

In its prosecution of two former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Bush Administration is staking out new legal territory, arguing that it is a crime for a reporter or any other non-government employee who does not hold a security clearance to receive and communicate classified information.

"The government respectfully submits that an 'ordinary person exercising ordinary common sense' <...> would know that foreign officials, journalists and other persons with no current affiliation with the United States government would not be entitled to receive information related to our national defense," according to the government's January 30 response (pdf) to a motion to dismiss (pdf) filed by the AIPAC defendants.

This is a novel view of the press and the American public.

The idea that the government can penalize the receipt of proscribed information, and not just its unauthorized disclosure, is one that characterizes authoritarian governments, not mature democracies.


more:

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/02/govt_presses_aipac_prosecution.html

Under this precedent, what would be the defined legal limits of unproscibed "receipt' of information be? Where exactly does it stipulate any end-point of where the criminalization can end?