[Peace-discuss] Israel lobby spy case

[C. G. Estabrook]

[My brother, an attorney in the DC suburbs, comments on the following:
"What the Post missed is that this is the Larry Franklin case.  He pled
guilty over the holidays a year or two ago, and must be the government's
principal witness to the conspiracy.  Judge Ellis apparently thinks that
Rosen and Weissman's argument is not frivolous:  that the Secretary and
others provided them with the same information that they are charged
with illegally exchanging with Franklin.  Why that matters is a good
question: does it exonerate Rosen and Weissman because the Secretary and
others have the authority to disclose information that Franklin does
not? Or does it mean the information is not secret?  Or does it mean
that the Secretary and others are as guilty as they are, and if that's
it, why is that a defense?"  See also Justin Raimondo's comments today:
<http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11856>. --CGE]

	Rice, Others Told to Testify in AIPAC Case
	By Jerry Markon
	Washington Post Staff Writer
	Saturday, November 3, 2007; A06

A federal judge yesterday issued a rare ruling that ordered Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice and more than 10 other prominent current and
former government officials to testify on behalf of two pro-Israel
lobbyists accused of violating the Espionage Act at their upcoming
criminal trial.

The opinion by U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III in Alexandria directed
that subpoenas be issued to officials who include Rice, national
security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, former high-level Department of
Defense officials Paul D. Wolfowitz and Douglas J. Feith, and Richard L.
Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state.

Their testimony has been sought by attorneys for Steven J. Rosen and
Keith Weissman, former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee, or AIPAC, who are accused of conspiring to obtain classified
information and pass it to members of the media and the Israeli government.

Attorneys for Rosen and Weissman say Rice and the other officials could
help clear them because they provided the former lobbyists with
sensitive information similar to what they were charged for, according
to Ellis's ruling and lawyers familiar with the case. Prosecutors have
been trying to quash the subpoenas during secret hearings and in
classified legal briefs, but Ellis wrote that the testimony could help
"exculpate the defendants by negating the criminal states of mind the
government must prove.''

Legal experts said it would be highly unusual for such a parade of
senior officials to testify at a criminal trial. Although former
president Ronald Reagan and former attorney general Edwin I. Meese III
testified at a trial arising from the Iran-contra affair in the 1980s,
judges usually decline to grant such subpoenas on the grounds that
high-level officials are too busy or that the information can be
obtained from other sources.

"It's certainly been a long time, if ever, since a district court
ordered the government to produce witnesses who currently occupy such
sensitive national security positions to testify at trial in a matter of
this sensitivity,'' said David Laufman, a Washington lawyer who
previously handled national security cases in the U.S. attorney's office
in Alexandria.

Legal experts said Ellis's ruling leaves the government with difficult
choices and sets up a potential clash between the executive and judicial
branches. Prosecutors might try to appeal, but it is unclear whether an
appellate court would take the case, because the ruling came before the
lobbyists' trial, scheduled for Jan. 14.

Prosecutors also might invoke some sort of privilege and refuse to allow
the officials to testify on the grounds that it could reveal sensitive
information about national security and U.S. foreign policy. That would
likely lead to sanctions from the judge, which could include dismissals
of the indictment.

The State Department referred questions to the Justice Department, which
declined to comment. Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said the
administration is "aware of the order." He declined to comment further.

Attorneys for the two former lobbyists said they welcomed the ruling.

"For over two years, we have been explaining that our clients' conduct
was lawful and completely consistent with how the U.S. government dealt
with AIPAC and other foreign policy groups," the two lawyers, Abbe D.
Lowell and John Nassikas, said in a joint statement. "We are gratified
that the judge has agreed that the defense has the right to prove these
points by calling the Secretary of State and all of these other
government officials as our witnesses."

The lobbyists are the first non-government civilians charged under the
1917 espionage statute with verbally receiving and transmitting national
defense information.

Rosen and Weissman were indicted in 2005 on charges of conspiring to
violate the Espionage Act by receiving national defense information and
transmitting it to journalists and employees of the Israeli Embassy who
were not entitled to receive it. The topics ranged from the activities
of al-Qaeda to information about possible attacks on U.S. forces in
Iraq, according to court documents.

Rosen, of Silver Spring, was AIPAC's director of foreign policy issues
and was instrumental in making the committee a formidable political
force. Weissman, of Bethesda, was a senior analyst. AIPAC fired them in
2005.

Among those ordered to testify are William Burns, the U.S. ambassador to
Russia; Elliot Abrams, deputy national security adviser; and Kenneth
Pollack, former director of Persian Gulf affairs for the National
Security Council.

Staff writer Peter Baker and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this
report.

� 2007 The Washington Post Company