Comments on: The AIPAC Case: Aiding and Abetting Leaks http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/03/the_aipac_case_aiding_and_abet.html Secrecy News from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:51:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Allen Thomson http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/03/the_aipac_case_aiding_and_abet.html/comment-page-1#comment-489 Allen Thomson Tue, 07 Mar 2006 22:20:20 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/03/the_aipac_case_aiding_and_abetting_leaks.html#comment-489 Standard disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer. I am only moderately fond of legal fiction and movies. That said, this business of the government looking like it's going to get serious about the Espionage Act (18 USC 793) and the application of the accessory-before-the-fact law (18 USC 2) in the context of 793 does seem to me to be worthy of attention. It would be nice if people who really are lawyers and/or legal scholars were to weigh in with serious analyses rather than sound-bites. And, by the way, what about 18 USC 4, which looks like it could be used by determined prosecutors to sweep in typists, copy editors, etc.? Or to induce them to cooperate. Standard disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer. I am only moderately fond of legal fiction and movies.

That said, this business of the government looking like it’s going to get serious about the Espionage Act (18 USC 793) and the application of the accessory-before-the-fact law (18 USC 2) in the context of 793 does seem to me to be worthy of attention.

It would be nice if people who really are lawyers and/or legal scholars were to weigh in with serious analyses rather than sound-bites.

And, by the way, what about 18 USC 4, which looks like it could be used by determined prosecutors to sweep in typists, copy editors, etc.? Or to induce them to cooperate.

]]>