Lukery says we should keep an eye on this, and I agree. I've got to run, so no analysis except to say that its one of those "tentacles of the octopus" moments, and they all seem to be meeting up on one place here:
Rather than approach Congress with a proposal to enact the British Official Secrets Act—a proposal which would certainly be defeated even in the prior Republican-led Congress—Gonzales decided to spin it from whole cloth. He would reconstrue the Espionage Act of 1917 to include the essence of the Official Secrets Act, and he would try to get this interpretation ratified in the Bush Administration's “vest pocket” judicial districts—the Eastern District of Virginia and the Fourth Circuit. The key man for this project was to be Paul J. McNulty, the man he soon picked as his deputy.
In May 2005, they had found the perfect case. Lawrence Franklin, a key aide to Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, passed a classified policy memorandum to two employees of AIPAC, a lobbying group geared to advocate Israeli interests with the U.S. Government. It seems clear that Franklin and the two AIPAC employees had a common object, which was to invite critical public attention to U.S. policy towards Iran.
The case was passed to Paul J. McNulty while he was the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Even at that point, Virginia's Eastern District had a well-established reputation as the most political U.S. attorney's office in the country. Among McNulty's key cases had been the “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh and the mentally unhinged Moroccan “twentieth hijacker” from 9/11, Zararias Moussaoui. Both cases had been sensationalized in the media. Less well known were the dozen odd cases of contractor abuse emerging from the Abu Ghraib scandal, investigated by the Pentagon's CID, and referred to McNulty. Nothing ever came of those cases; indeed, McNulty made sure of that.
McNulty quickly concluded that the AIPAC case would provide the perfect opportunity for the Gonzales project—converting the Espionage Act into the equivalent of the British Official Secrets Act. The core of the extraordinary theory advanced by McNulty can be found in these words from one of its recent briefs:
The government respectfully submits that an 'ordinary person exercising ordinary common sense' [...] would know that foreign officials, journalists and other persons with no current affiliation with the United States government would not be entitled to receive information related to our national defense.
By this theory, any receipt by an unauthorized person of classified information and correspondence concerning it is converted into an act of espionage, and thus made prosecutable.
The object of this exercise has been broadly misunderstood by many who have followed it—and particularly by Iraq War critics who delight in a perceived slap-down of AIPAC. But this is tragically short-sighted. If the prosecution succeeds, the Bush Administration will have converted the Espionage Act of 1917 into something it was never intended to be: an American copy of the British Official Secrets Act. It is likely to lead quickly to efforts to criminalize journalists dealing with sensitive information in the national security sector, as well as their sources.
Let's imagine America with the Gonzales-McNulty contortion of the law in effect. We'd never know how the Bush Administration came to embrace torture as a tactic in the war on terror. We'd know nothing about the torture-by-proxy system developed with key administration allies such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen—not to mention the system of “blacksites” established by the CIA in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. We wouldn't know that the administration was violating the FISA statute with a massive surveillance program. And to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, that's just the known unknowns.
This would be a dream world for Karl Rove and Alberto Gonzales. And a nightmare for the rest of us. And the AIPAC case could, if it succeeds, bring the nation much closer to its realization.
Democrats in Congress need to realize that they aren't sharing power with people who respect the Constitution.
- chicago dyke's blog
- Login or register to post comments

Front page

Comments
Hmm...synergy at work here
Take a look at this diary: there may be some shenannigans & shakeups in the Delaware US Attorney's office in a Franklin/AIPAC case fixing to come to trial soon, known as US v Rosen. Rosen was one of the guys Franklin passed the documents to.
This indeed has all the earmarks of a familiar campaign, in the military rather than political sense of the word. The dark forces currently personified by the Cheney-Bush cabal want to not just criminalize information leaks but get them the status of espionage. Leaking at present requires a level of moral courage; imagine how much more fun it will be when it requires the leaker to face noose or needle.
But we have here a case of a leaker whose natural allies--us DFH lefties--are not inclined to raise hell, or even let out a mild squeak of disapproval, in his defense since was working to further the interests of a group we despise, AIPAC.
But we HAVE to object to what's being done here for all the reasons CD's diary explains.
Classic Rovian knight-fork, to switch metaphors. Set the game up so whichever way the move works out, you win.
Anybody else old enough to remember when the ACLU defended the right of the Nazis to march through a Jewish Chicago suburb called Skokie? They caught hell and lost a shitload of members and donations from people who thought this was "going too far in defense of free speech rights."
Um, as somebody once said, extremism in the cause of liberty is no vice...
We have got to figure out a way to have Franklin (the leaker) and Rosen et al (the leak-ees) punished under existing law without giving Abu Al a chance to make the changes cited above. CD, this is a great catch and we need to whore it around. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else.
I tweaked the headline
"An AIPAC case to watch" is just a little .... understated. Let me see what I can do.
No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
understated indeed
If they start doing this, why imagine all the laws passed since 1776 that can be creatively interpreted with the right signing statements.
Especially, as Darth Cheney is so fond of reminding everyone, in a time of War.
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky
where did you go? are you
where did you go? are you ok?
you know we worry when you don't check in....