Comments on: AIPAC Case: New Ruling May Lead to Acquittal

By: Steven Aftergood

Steven Aftergood — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 05:43:20 +0000

Kathleen, classification by itself is not sufficient to establish that the defendants were guilty of a crime. So, for example, if the information was classified, but it was also generally available in the public domain, then it would not fit the criteria that would make its disclosure a crime under the Espionage Act. Likewise, if it was classified, but government experts say that its disclosure could not damage national security or benefit a foreign nation, then the defendants could not have possessed the criminal “intent” that is required to make its disclosure a crime.

Leonard is apparently prepared to testify that the information in this case (whether it was formally classified or not) does not meet the standards set by the Espionage Act– either because it was not closely held by the government, or because it could not damage national security, or for other reasons.

The thing to remember is that lots of things are classified improperly or unnecessarily. Since we do not have an “official secrets act,” the unauthorized disclosure of such improperly classified information is not necessarily a crime.

By: Kathleen

Kathleen — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:51:45 +0000

O.K. I am a total rookie. So what if Leonard says the intelligence that Rosen allegedly passed to Israeli officials should not have been “classified” in his opinion. It would seem that the issue would be WAS IT CLASSIFIED.

Also I thought I read somewhere that Rosen was taped saying ‘that he was glad that the U.S. did not have an official secrets act’” confirming that he knew the intelligence was classified

By: Grant F. Smith

Grant F. Smith — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:08:30 +0000

One more thing:

There was a great moment back in the 1960′s when the DOJ was trying to get AIPAC’s predecessor to register as a foreign agent of Israel. They promptly hired a former judge who was formerly a big time helper to JFK in a labor dispute. This expert also told the pesky law enforcement officials to “move along.”

http://irmep.org/ila/AZCDOJ/p6100101-4/default.asp (internal DOJ memo)

And after three years they did. Yet here we are dealing with the fallout.

By: Grant F. Smith

Grant F. Smith — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:57:38 +0000

The government prosecutors may have assumed that for professional and legal reasons, Leonard was not going to testify. Now that he will, it does change the mix. If the defense is going to hire Leonard to say NDI on Iran should not have been classified, it would probably advantage the prosecution to show how AIPAC acquired and used NDI and commercial information in the past. Leonard’s one-hour review probably does not qualify him to make sweeping generalizations about the relevance of the allegedly purloined information, since he is a person, not multiple agencies attempting to control information and set American foreign policy. When AIPAC obtained a copy of “Probable Economic Effect of Providing Duty Free Treatment for U.S. Imports from Israel, Investigation No. 332-18″ they also told everyone it was trivial, and to move along.

Yet here we are, 25 years later with the USTR alleging ongoing intellectual property violations in the trade relationship and an unwarranted deficit due to a string of subsequent IP violations.

I think Leonard changes everything, and that history matters.

By: Steven Aftergood

Steven Aftergood — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:34:29 +0000

Thanks for the comment, but I don’t think that’s the right way to look at it. The question is whether the classified information that was allegedly obtained and transmitted by the defendants is protected by the Espionage Act. If it is, then they are in trouble. If it is not, then they are off the hook.

Trade secrets are not part of this proceeding, and the prosecution has not named any expert witnesses to discuss that subject.

By: Grant F. Smith

Grant F. Smith — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:50:51 +0000

J. William Leonard is certainly an authority on one aspect of the case, but by no means is his testimony likely to be definitive. Competing experts may offer quantitative proof, such as the case of AIPAC intellectual property adquisition in the US-Israel Free Trade agreement, that rebuts the idea that seemingly innocuous information can be declassified (a de facto process) by AIPAC if it suits their purpose. The losses from that case are ongoing.

See this link for details:

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/documents-reveal-aipac-trade-secrets,725799.shtml