<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Transcript of Franklin Sentencing Hearing Online</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/03/transcript_of_franklin_sentenc.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/03/transcript_of_franklin_sentenc.html</link>
	<description>Secrecy News from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:03:51 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: zz</title>
		<link>http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/03/transcript_of_franklin_sentenc.html/comment-page-1#comment-500</link>
		<dc:creator>zz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Mar 2006 05:57:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/03/transcript_of_franklin_sentencing_hearing_online.html#comment-500</guid>
		<description>Posted for those who may have missed this interesting update from the AP:

&lt;a href=&quot;http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060324/ap_on_re_us/pentagon_spy_probe_1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Judge: Charges against AIPAC officials may be unconstitutional&lt;/a&gt;

By The Associated Press

03/25/06 &quot;Haaretz&quot; -- -- ALEXANDRIA, Va. - A federal judge on Friday questioned the constitutionality of a law under which two former lobbyists with a pro-Israel group have been charged with receiving and disclosing national defense information.

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III said the law, enacted by Congress during World War I, may be unconstitutionally broad and vague, especially given its potential impact on First Amendment rights.

Ellis questioned prosecutors about the law during a pretrial hearing for Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, two former lobbyists with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, who each face felony trials next month.

Defense lawyers argued that the charges against their clients should be dismissed because of the law&#039;s defects. In particular, they say the law&#039;s prohibition on receiving and disclosing &quot;national defense information,&quot; even information that is unclassified, is far too broad and vague.

[...]
--
Hat tip to Complier Source: Information Clearing House.)

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Posted for those who may have missed this interesting update from the AP:</p>
<p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060324/ap_on_re_us/pentagon_spy_probe_1" rel="nofollow">Judge: Charges against AIPAC officials may be unconstitutional</a></p>
<p>By The Associated Press</p>
<p>03/25/06 &#8220;Haaretz&#8221; &#8212; &#8211; ALEXANDRIA, Va. &#8211; A federal judge on Friday questioned the constitutionality of a law under which two former lobbyists with a pro-Israel group have been charged with receiving and disclosing national defense information.</p>
<p>U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III said the law, enacted by Congress during World War I, may be unconstitutionally broad and vague, especially given its potential impact on First Amendment rights.</p>
<p>Ellis questioned prosecutors about the law during a pretrial hearing for Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, two former lobbyists with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, who each face felony trials next month.</p>
<p>Defense lawyers argued that the charges against their clients should be dismissed because of the law&#8217;s defects. In particular, they say the law&#8217;s prohibition on receiving and disclosing &#8220;national defense information,&#8221; even information that is unclassified, is far too broad and vague.</p>
<p>[...]<br />
&#8211;<br />
Hat tip to Complier Source: Information Clearing House.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bloomkind</title>
		<link>http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/03/transcript_of_franklin_sentenc.html/comment-page-1#comment-499</link>
		<dc:creator>Bloomkind</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 2006 07:59:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/03/transcript_of_franklin_sentencing_hearing_online.html#comment-499</guid>
		<description>I am not sure why FAS and other outlets are trying make AIPAC into some kind of martyr of freedom. Its activities were clearly illegal and in violation of US law. Let&#039;s be careful not to confound the defence of freedom with a defence of illicit activity. 

Of course the Ellis elaboration is frightening.  My question is, is it trully new? What was the former practice on possession of Classified information? Wasn&#039;t any such possession criminal already?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am not sure why FAS and other outlets are trying make AIPAC into some kind of martyr of freedom. Its activities were clearly illegal and in violation of US law. Let&#8217;s be careful not to confound the defence of freedom with a defence of illicit activity. </p>
<p>Of course the Ellis elaboration is frightening.  My question is, is it trully new? What was the former practice on possession of Classified information? Wasn&#8217;t any such possession criminal already?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
