Deep Kimchi
14-08-2006, 17:10
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/10/AR2006081001183.html
Much to the chagrin of two lobbyists, who had shopped the material around to journalists.
This is a sign of prosecutions to come.
In seeking a dismissal, the two former lobbyists argued that the 1917 Espionage Act was unconstitutionally vague, too broad and violated their free-speech rights.
Ellis acknowledged it was a difficult case, presenting issues on whether Congress violated constitutional values when it adopted the espionage law to protect the nation's security.
But he concluded that the law passed constitutional muster because it covered only information whose disclosure could threaten U.S. security and because it imposed rigorous requirements for a finding of criminal liability.
Ellis rejected the argument by the defendants that their prosecution represented a novel interpretation of the law because leaks of classified information by persons outside the government had never before been prosecuted.
In the 68-page opinion released on Thursday, Ellis, who is based in Alexandria, Virginia, also rejected the argument that the law only applied to the transmission of actual documents, and not oral transmission of the information.
More on the 1917 Espionage Act at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
The act was held constitutional already by the Supreme Court. Stare decisis, and all that.
Much to the chagrin of two lobbyists, who had shopped the material around to journalists.
This is a sign of prosecutions to come.
In seeking a dismissal, the two former lobbyists argued that the 1917 Espionage Act was unconstitutionally vague, too broad and violated their free-speech rights.
Ellis acknowledged it was a difficult case, presenting issues on whether Congress violated constitutional values when it adopted the espionage law to protect the nation's security.
But he concluded that the law passed constitutional muster because it covered only information whose disclosure could threaten U.S. security and because it imposed rigorous requirements for a finding of criminal liability.
Ellis rejected the argument by the defendants that their prosecution represented a novel interpretation of the law because leaks of classified information by persons outside the government had never before been prosecuted.
In the 68-page opinion released on Thursday, Ellis, who is based in Alexandria, Virginia, also rejected the argument that the law only applied to the transmission of actual documents, and not oral transmission of the information.
More on the 1917 Espionage Act at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
The act was held constitutional already by the Supreme Court. Stare decisis, and all that.