Sabrina
12-29-2010, 02:59 PM
This is forwarded from my friend Mary Moore:
To all: No matter what issue we feel passionate about we are always at risk
for going "too far" in our public activism. Of all people, Robert Meeropol
should know. His parents were the Rosenbergs who were executed by the
Espionage Act of 1917 and his warning is below. MM
My Parents Were Executed Under the Unconstitutional Espionage Act -- Here's
Why We Must Fight to Protect Julian Assange ALTER NET
By Robert Meeropol, Rosenberg Fund for Children December 28, 2010
Rumors are swirling that the United States is preparing to indict Wikileaks
leader Julian Assange for conspiring to violate the Espionage Act of 1917.
The modern version of that act states among many, many other things that:
³Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national
defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used
to the injury of the United States² causes the disclosure or publication of
this material, could be subject to massive criminal penalties. It also
states that: ³If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the
foregoing provisions S each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be
subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of
such conspiracy.² (18 U.S. Code, Chapter 37, Section 793.)
I view the Espionage Act of 1917 as a lifelong nemesis. My parents were
charged, tried and ultimately executed after being indicted for Conspiracy
to Commit Espionage under that act. The 1917 Act has a notorious history. It
originally served to squelch opposition to World War I. It criminalized
criticism of the war effort, and sent hundreds of dissenters to jail just
for voicing their opinions. It transformed dissent into treason. Many who
attacked the law noted that the framers of the Constitution had specifically
limited what constituted treason by writing it into the Constituton:
³Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against
them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort² (Article
III, section 3). The framers felt this narrow definition was necessary to
prevent treason from becoming what some called ³the weapon of a political
faction.² Furthermore, in their discussions at the Constitutional Convention
they agreed that spoken opposition was protected by the First Amendment and
could never be considered treason.
It appears obvious that the Espionage Act is unconstitutional because it
does exactly what the Constitution prohibits. It is, in other words, an
effort to make an end run around the Treason Clause of the Constitution. Not
surprisingly, however, as we¹ve seen in times of political stress, the
Supreme Court upheld its validity in a 5-4 decision. Although later
decisions seemed to criticize and limit its scope, the Espionage Act of 1917
has never been declared unconstitutional. To this day, with a few notable
exceptions that include my parents¹ case, it has been a dormant sword of
Damocles, awaiting the right political moment and an authoritarian Supreme
Court to spring to life and slash at dissenters. It is no accident that
Julian Assange may face a ³conspiracy² charge just as my parents did. All
that is required of the prosecution to prove a conspiracy is to present
evidence that two or more people got together and took one act in
furtherance of an illegal plan. It could be a phone call or a conversation.
In my parents¹ case the only evidence presented against my mother was David
and Ruth Greenglasses¹ testimony that she was present at a critical
espionage meeting and typed up David¹s handwritten description of a sketch.
Although this testimony has since been shown to be false, even if it were
true, it would mean that the government of the United States executed
someone for typing. But the reach of ³conspiracy² is even more insidious. It
means that ANYONE with whom my parents could have discussed their actions
and politics could have been swept up and had similar charges brought
against them if someone testified that those conversations included plans to
commit espionage. Thus, the case against my parents was rightly seen by many
in their political community of rank and file Communist Party Members as a
threat to them all.
Viewing the Wikileaks situation through this lens, it becomes apparent why
the government would seek to charge Assange with conspiracy. Not only
Assange, but anyone involved in the Wikileaks community could be swept up in
a dragnet. Just as in my parents¹ case, the prosecutors could seek to bully
some involved into ratting out others, in return for more favorable
treatment. This divide and conquer approach would turn individuals against
each other, sow the seeds of distrust within the broader community, and
intimidate others into quiescence. This kind of attack threatens every left
wing activist. I urge all progressives to come to the defense of Julian
Assange should he be indicted for violating the Espionage Act of 1917.
Robert Meeropol is executive director of the Rosenberg Fund for Children.
To all: No matter what issue we feel passionate about we are always at risk
for going "too far" in our public activism. Of all people, Robert Meeropol
should know. His parents were the Rosenbergs who were executed by the
Espionage Act of 1917 and his warning is below. MM
My Parents Were Executed Under the Unconstitutional Espionage Act -- Here's
Why We Must Fight to Protect Julian Assange ALTER NET
By Robert Meeropol, Rosenberg Fund for Children December 28, 2010
Rumors are swirling that the United States is preparing to indict Wikileaks
leader Julian Assange for conspiring to violate the Espionage Act of 1917.
The modern version of that act states among many, many other things that:
³Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national
defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used
to the injury of the United States² causes the disclosure or publication of
this material, could be subject to massive criminal penalties. It also
states that: ³If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the
foregoing provisions S each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be
subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of
such conspiracy.² (18 U.S. Code, Chapter 37, Section 793.)
I view the Espionage Act of 1917 as a lifelong nemesis. My parents were
charged, tried and ultimately executed after being indicted for Conspiracy
to Commit Espionage under that act. The 1917 Act has a notorious history. It
originally served to squelch opposition to World War I. It criminalized
criticism of the war effort, and sent hundreds of dissenters to jail just
for voicing their opinions. It transformed dissent into treason. Many who
attacked the law noted that the framers of the Constitution had specifically
limited what constituted treason by writing it into the Constituton:
³Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against
them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort² (Article
III, section 3). The framers felt this narrow definition was necessary to
prevent treason from becoming what some called ³the weapon of a political
faction.² Furthermore, in their discussions at the Constitutional Convention
they agreed that spoken opposition was protected by the First Amendment and
could never be considered treason.
It appears obvious that the Espionage Act is unconstitutional because it
does exactly what the Constitution prohibits. It is, in other words, an
effort to make an end run around the Treason Clause of the Constitution. Not
surprisingly, however, as we¹ve seen in times of political stress, the
Supreme Court upheld its validity in a 5-4 decision. Although later
decisions seemed to criticize and limit its scope, the Espionage Act of 1917
has never been declared unconstitutional. To this day, with a few notable
exceptions that include my parents¹ case, it has been a dormant sword of
Damocles, awaiting the right political moment and an authoritarian Supreme
Court to spring to life and slash at dissenters. It is no accident that
Julian Assange may face a ³conspiracy² charge just as my parents did. All
that is required of the prosecution to prove a conspiracy is to present
evidence that two or more people got together and took one act in
furtherance of an illegal plan. It could be a phone call or a conversation.
In my parents¹ case the only evidence presented against my mother was David
and Ruth Greenglasses¹ testimony that she was present at a critical
espionage meeting and typed up David¹s handwritten description of a sketch.
Although this testimony has since been shown to be false, even if it were
true, it would mean that the government of the United States executed
someone for typing. But the reach of ³conspiracy² is even more insidious. It
means that ANYONE with whom my parents could have discussed their actions
and politics could have been swept up and had similar charges brought
against them if someone testified that those conversations included plans to
commit espionage. Thus, the case against my parents was rightly seen by many
in their political community of rank and file Communist Party Members as a
threat to them all.
Viewing the Wikileaks situation through this lens, it becomes apparent why
the government would seek to charge Assange with conspiracy. Not only
Assange, but anyone involved in the Wikileaks community could be swept up in
a dragnet. Just as in my parents¹ case, the prosecutors could seek to bully
some involved into ratting out others, in return for more favorable
treatment. This divide and conquer approach would turn individuals against
each other, sow the seeds of distrust within the broader community, and
intimidate others into quiescence. This kind of attack threatens every left
wing activist. I urge all progressives to come to the defense of Julian
Assange should he be indicted for violating the Espionage Act of 1917.
Robert Meeropol is executive director of the Rosenberg Fund for Children.