Constitutional Questions Show in AIPAC Case

Bad omen when the Judge starts questioning the indictments from the bench. Charge them with conspiracy, or perjury, or something else. But, not under the 1917 Espionage Act for receiving classified info.

See, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/14/12390/3206

Espionage Act Misused to Prosecute AIPAC Defendants
by leveymg
Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 10:38:59 AM PDT
Viet D. Dinh -- Bush's Assistant Attorney General from 2001-2003, Patriot Act author -- and I disagree about many, many issues. But, we agree on one thing. It would be a mistake to apply the 1917 Espionage Act in the prosecution of two former AIPAC lobbyists accused of receiving classified information from convicted Pentagon spy Larry Franklin.

A conviction for receiving classified information would set a very bad precedent, as it would for the first time in the United States erect a de facto Official Secrets Act. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, the prosecutor in this case, should decline those particular charges and instead prosecute the two remaining defendants under other felony statutes, including perjury and obstruction of justice, contained in the indictment.

Application of the Espionage Act, win or lose in this case, is a backdoor attempt by the Bush Administration to impose an Official Secrets Act.

MORE below . . .

leveymg's diary :: ::

U.S. government opposes allowing the testimony from three Israeli diplomats in the trial of two former senior AIPAC officials, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3231943,00.html

<snip>

"The U.S. government opposes allowing the testimony from three Israeli diplomats in the trial of two former senior AIPAC officials, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman.
The two men are accused of passing on classified information related to U.S. security.

A court in Alexandria, south of Washington, held a discussion of the affairs of Keith and Rosen, and there the government testified on the affair. Lawyers representing the two, asked for time to question three Israeli diplomats to prove they never were Israeli agents. The prosecution however is opposed to the testimony arguing it is irrelevant.

According to the prosecution, Rosen and Weissman, are not referred to in the indictment as Israeli agents, but are accused of giving classified information.

The Israeli diplomats who met with AIPAC representatives enjoy immunity. Israel then announced that should the diplomats be asked to testify, it will allow them to do so in the form of written questions presented to Israel and written answers provided by the diplomats."

Then there's the Kennedy Center report. I hear the report isn't getting much publicity, especially in the corporate media. How surprising! However, there is some mainstream reporting.

Then there's this enlightening quotation from the Introduction,

importantly, saying that Israel and the United States are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: rather, the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around.

What's really funny is that if you Google, "Israel lobby report," today you get several hundred articles bashing the report, as opposed to about a dozen reporting on the research itself.