Another Word on Rosen and Weismann
With the Espionage Act charges against Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman being (rightly) dropped, there’s no something of a backlash taking place in which these are just two nice Jewish boys being railroaded by the FBI. I think dropping the case was the right thing to do. What they were accused of doing was, having been given some classified information by a government employee, passing that information on. This is contrary to customary practice in the United States wherein the person who leaks classified information can be held criminally culpable for having done so, but the recipients of such leaks are free to do as they please unless they’re actually spies controlled by a foreign government. The precedent that would have been established by a conviction would have had a dangerous chilling effect on the practice of journalism. It would have meant that the reporters who revealed the CIA’s secret “black sites” in Eastern Europe or the extent of the NSA’s secret, illegal surveillance program could have been sent to jail.
Thus, the Obama administration has done the right thing.
That said, Rosen and Weismann weren’t whistleblowers bringing public attention to secret misdeeds being carried out under the cloak of classification. They were AIPAC lobbyists trading in classified secrets as part of the influence-peddling game (it’s not entirely clear exactly what they and Larry Franklin from the DOD were up to). It would be bad to send them to jail for that. But it’s still not good behavior. An American citizen in possession of classified information he’s not supposed to have has some choices to make. And using that information for personal gain is not the right choice to make. What’s at issue here, at the end of the day, is giving journalists the latitude necessary to reveal wrongdoing. But creating the necessary level of latitude also creates enough latitude for people to do bad stuff. Rosen and Weisman seem to me to have fallen into that second category, and while I don’t think they should be prosecuted I haven’t seen any reason to think they should be rehabilitated.
35 Responses to “Another Word on Rosen and Weismann”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
May 4th, 2009 at 10:54 am
There is a great use for public shaming in situations where a person is misbehaving but we don’t want to send them to jail. This should be a function of the news media.
P.S. I’m not clear on what that last sentence is saying.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:00 am
how about the first sentence?
no => now
May 4th, 2009 at 11:04 am
If this was still the cold war and these two journalists were Communists who had passed on information to the Soviets, would they have been prosecuted?
What if they were Iranian-Americans and had passed information on to Iran?
Reporting on classified information isn’t espionage. Handing it over to a foreign government is.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:19 am
I’m not clear on what that last sentence is saying.
“It seems to me that Rosen and Weismann did bad stuff, and while they shouldn’t be prosecuted for it they should still be criticized for it.”
May 4th, 2009 at 11:27 am
This is contrary to customary practice in the United States wherein the person who leaks classified information can be held criminally culpable for having done so, but the recipients of such leaks are free to do as they please unless they’re actually spies controlled by a foreign government.
Wasn’t the contention here that AIPAC lobbyists are spies controlled by a foreign government?
May 4th, 2009 at 11:34 am
If you want to make up for being among those heaping on Rosen and Weissman, Matt, I think you have to do better. What you say here is true, but it’s also true that many people made a big deal of this because Rosen and Weissman are Jewish. It’s also likely that the reason they were prosecuted in the first place was because they’re Jewish.
Whether they’re nice guys or not is irrelevant. It’s like saying racial profiling is acceptable when it catches someone actually doing something wrong.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:43 am
They were prosecuted because they were passing classified information to a foreign power…. not really sure how that’s racist.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:47 am
AIPAC would be well-advised to take this episode as a cautionary warning. And Jane Harman would also be well-advised to take her episode as a cautionary warning. Rosen and Weismann were not heroic whistleblowers and Jane Harman is not a warrior for the Constitution.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Probably most of you have read this, but if not:
I believe Justin Raimondo is someone who knows what he’s talking about, especially when it comes to AIPAC. Probably most of you have read this, but if not:
The Spies Who Got Away And one who didn’t: “…in dropping the charges against Rosen and Weissman – and allowing AIPAC, the organization for which they worked and which served as a cover for illegal activities, to function without registering as a foreign agent – we have handed them the keys to the safe deposit box wherein our most vital secrets lie…”
Bottom line: *AIPAC* needed to be outed as an organization that functions as a foreign agent, but as we’ve seen there is neither the political will nor skill for that.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/05/03/the-spies-who-got-away/
May 4th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
I think that the commentors here and Mr. Yglesias are missing the forest for the trees. What was really going on here has little to do with Rosen, Weissmann, or AIPAC. This was an attempt by the justice department to impose an official secrets act, without Congress passing any laws, which, if the two AIPAC operatives had been convicted and the conviction upheld, would have had a chilling effect on reporters and whistleblowers. It should also be noted that the information obtained by Rosen and Weissmann was also given to reporters, indicating that the Israeli who received it could have read about it in the newspapers.
Re Sand
Mr. Sand, by invoking antisemitic conspiracy monger Justin Raimondo, who blames the 9/11 attacks on the “Zionists”, shows that he is not to be taken seriously as a commentor on this blog. In other words, Mr. Sand doesn’t know his fucking ass from a fucking hole in the fucking ground.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
SLC: I trust that people can make up their own minds — Noting, your credibility has much to be desired.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
The contrast between this case and Sami Al-Arian is instructive:
http://www.counterpunch.org/
May 4th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I dunno Matt, I’d analogize this to SEC securities regulation. If you have market moving information and you publish it, it benefits the public by providing every investor with relevant information. But f you share that information with only your clients or a favored hedge fund, then you’re distorting the public markets and you can be hit with insider trading charges (it doesn’t matter if you’re a company insider or not, anyone who has insider knowledge is bound by the SEC regs).
If these guys had given the information to a newspaper or heck, published in on the AIPAC website, then they’d have a strong argument they were acting in the public interest. I don’t think the Justice Department should prosecute someone for disclosing to the public information relevant to a political issue. But keeping classified information under their hats except to share it with a foreign power, yeah, that’s espionage.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Re beowulf
If these guys had given the information to a newspaper or heck, published in on the AIPAC website, then they’d have a strong argument they were acting in the public interest.
In fact, as I stated, they did provide the information that Franklin gave them to several newspaper reporters.
Re ron
Some of the commentors here really like to cite antisemitic sites like counterpunch, the left wing equivalent to stormfront. The charge against Al-Arian was that he was associated with and raised funds for, a terrorist organization, namely Hamas. But of course, to the rons of the world, the State of Israel is a terrorist organization.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
SLC:
I’m not familiar with all the details of the case. So, please correct me where I’m wrong.
AIPAC officials knowingly acquired classified information pertaining to the defense of the United States. They then relayed this information to intelligence officers for a foreign country.
Am I correct so far? if not, please let me know where I’ve gone wrong.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
SLC,
I wasn’t aware they had also given the information to reporters (hadn’t been following the story too closely). That would certainly bolster the “public interest” aspect of the case.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Some of the commentors here really like to cite antisemitic sites like counterpunch, the left wing equivalent to stormfront.
Coming from the person who copied and pasted thousands of words from IsraelInsider about Obama’s citizenship, or suggesting that he was a Muslim, and who still calls the president “Osama” on occasion, that’s rich.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Note — we don’t know ‘what’ information was given the journalist[s] or ‘what’ information was given to Rosen and Weissman. Important note.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Note — we don’t know ‘what’ information was given TO the journalist[s] or ‘what’ information was given to Rosen and Weissman. Important note.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Yeah, Rosen and Weissman are both nice, Jewish boys. And, Jane Harman and Tarjuffe (Lieberman) are honorable American Patriots. Thank God we live in the Land of ZOG. I know I feel safe.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Re Jack
Mr. Jack is half right. They also supplied the information to several newspaper reporters. The Israeli official (we don’t know who he is; he may just be an acquaintance of theirs at the embassy and not a spy; contrary to popular opinion, not all embassy personnel are spies).
However, there is more to the story then that. According to a former CIA officer who was involved in classifying documents, the information that Franklin gave the two AIPAC employees was improperly classified and was so prepared to testify; the government lost an appeal to keep him off the witness stand. In addition, there was a ruling by the judge, upheld on appeal, that the government would have to prove that the information would harm US interests and that the two employees were aware that it would harm US interests. These two rulings caused the US attorneys’ office to conclude that their chances of prevailing at trial were slim and none and that slim was on the bus headed out of town.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Hi SLC, thanks for your response. A few more questions.
1) Please cite your proof that the AIPAC men gave the press the same information they gave Mossad. I haven’t seen it, yet.
2)Improper classification, even if true, is immaterial. Rosen, Franklin, et al. beleived the information was “highly classified” and knowingly transferred it to Mossad.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Re jack
1. That has been reported in the press. There was at least one article in the New York Times making this claim. However, it should be noted that the information was conveyed to Rosen and Weissman verbally by Franklin. No documents apparently changed hands. Since no documents were handed over to the Israeli official, who may or may not have been a Mossad agent, we don’t know exactly what that individual was told. We only know what was published.
2. I am afraid that the judge did not agree with your legal opinion. This was the argument made by the government in attempting to prevent the former CIA classifier from testifying. The judge summarily rejected the governments’ contention and was upheld on appeal.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Can you just tell me if I understand this correctly.
American citizens knowingly came into possession of classified information and then intentionally transferred it to a foreign power.
Is that correct?
May 4th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Re jack
I am not going to provide Mr. jack with a yes or no answer as, I have carefully explained, the scenario was far more complicated then that. The judge ruled that the fact that information was conveyed to someone at a foreign embassy was not sufficient to obtain a conviction. The judge ruled, and was upheld on appeal, that the government had to show that the information was injurious to US interests and that the defendants knew that it was injurious to US interests. He further ruled, and was upheld on appeal, that testimony as to the legitimacy of the classification of the information was material to the case. Now if Mr. jack disagrees with the judges’ rulings and the appeals court upholding, that’s between he and them. I am just reporting the facts.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
SLC:
I understand that the evidence is insufficient to obtain a conviction. I don’t even know if a law was violated. I don’t know the laws well enough to even pretend. I’m not quibbling with the judge.
So, I concede all of your points.
What I am asking you is if one central event occurred. The legal disposition of the acts are indeed complicated, but whether or not a central event occurred is really rather simple. Indeed, a yes or no answer is entirely appropriate.
So I’ll ask again. This is very simple.
Did American citizens knowingly transfer classified information to a foreign power?
Here is a short quote from the indictment:
On or about March 13, 2003, ROSEN met FO-2, who was assigned to a foreign embassy in Washington, D.C. ROSEN disclosed to FO-2 information related to the classified draft internal United States government policy document that he had discussed with FRANKLIN.
Now. Again. I’m not asking for a legal analysis of the act, clearly that is the court’s job. I’m just asking whether you believe the witting transfer of classified information to a foreign power by an American citizen occurred.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
That last post wasn’t meant to badger you.
It just seems that if we can’t agree on an absolutely fundamental element of this situation than no further discussion is possible.
If you stipulate that the transfer of classified information occurred then we can discuss mitigating circumstances etc., but it not, then we might as well get this disagreement out into the open and save each other the time of talking past each other.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
This is Matt bailing on treason against the US by Israeli agents because he’s scared of the Israel Lobby.
As for AIPAC being an agent of a foreign power, there’s a book out that analyzes how and when AIPAC came into existence. It most definitely IS an agent of Israel’s government and should be registered as such.
The Samson Gambit
Why Steve Rosen is suing AIPAC
http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2009/04/07/the-samson-gambit/
Where Did AIPAC Come From?
by Grant F. Smith
The following is an excerpt from Foreign Agents: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee From the 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/gsmith.php?articleid=11727
Israel has a HUGE espionage operation inside the US and this has been reported on numerous times. And Matt doesn’t care because he thinks the state will use the laws against it against journalists – which they can do anyway any time they want. So why let Israeli spies off the hook on that basis?
May 4th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Re jack
I know that Mr. jack is frustrated by my refusal to give him a yes or no answer. The problem is, from a legal perspective (and by the way, I’m not a lawyer either), the answer is relevant only if the government can prove that Rosen and Weissman violated the law. Given the judges’ rulings, the US Attorneys’ office decided that they could not prove a violation of law. This is nothing to do with mitigating factors. Either the government can prove a violation of the law or it can’t. Period, end of story. All this other stuff is so much white noise.
Mr. jack must realize that the US, unlike Great Britain, does not have an official secrets act. If it had such a statute, Rosen and Weissman would have been dead meat and on their way to the slammer. But so would any reporter who published anything the government deemed to be classified. Given the misfeasance of various administrations over the years (e.g. the Gulf of Tonkin lies, the Watergate break in, the lies about WMDs in Iraq, the false claims about Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, and the US torture regime), I don’t think that that is what Mr. jack wants.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Re jack
Mr. jack is apparently new to this blog so he probably doesn’t know who Mr. Richard Steven Hack is.
Mr. Hack is a convicted bank robber who walked into a bank in San Francisto with a loaded gun, lined up the tellers, and told them to hand over the contents of their cash drawers on pain of having their tickets canceled. He was apprehended shortly after this incident while on board a bus attempting to make his get away, tried, and sentenced to 9 years in the federal birdcage in Leavenworth, Ka. Since his release, he has, on this blog, advocated the assassination of police officers and threatened to shove fascist talk show Host Michael Savage off a curb into traffic. In other words, Mr. Hack is a degenerate piece of filth and should be ignored by the law abiding commentors here.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
I have no idea who Richard Steven Hack is. I’ll take you word for it that he is a degenerate. haha
And I’m willing to let the other argument die. You won’t stipulate to a foundational element of the incident in question, so there really isn’t much else to talk about. Either the transfer of classified occurred or it didn’t. I wasn’t concerned with the legality of the activity.
Anyways. Have a nice night.
May 4th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Re jack
Look up at comment 28. Mr. Hack is a long time comment poster here who usually posts long comments accusing the Government of Israel of all manner of criminal conduct. By the way, all the information I have supplied about Mr. Hack was furnished by him. He is quite proud of his bank robbing activities and likes to brag about them.
May 4th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Re SLC
SLC, on the other hand, is more guarded about revealing his past indiscretion as a male prostitute for minor members of the Saudi royal family.
May 5th, 2009 at 6:43 am
Re This Machine Kills Fascists
And Mr. Machine is a libertine who would fuck his mother if he knew who she was.
May 5th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
No, this is Matt swallowing the Nixon as reporter gambit of “If a journalist does it, it isn’t illegal”.