Prosecutors Rebut Defendant’s Challenge to Espionage Act Statute
Last month, attorneys for Navy linguist James Hitselberger, who was charged under the Espionage Act with unlawful retention of classified documents, filed a motion arguing that the Espionage Act is unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable. Last week, prosecutors replied and said that’s not so.
“Prosecuting Mr. Hitselberger under this statute violates the fair notice requirements of the Due Process clause because multiple terms contained in [the statute] are so vague that they fail to provide him with notice of what conduct is criminal and what conduct is not,” Hitselberger’s public defenders wrote in their March 1 motion.
Last Friday, prosecutors rebutted the defense motion, which they said was without merit. “Every court that has considered similar challenges to [the Espionage Act statutes] has rejected them and found the provisions to pass constitutional muster,” they wrote.
The prosecutors cited rulings from past and present prosecutions involving charges under the espionage statutes to bolster their argument — including those of State Department contractor Stephen Kim, former NSA official Thomas Drake, former CIA officer John Kiriakou, and former naval intelligence analyst Samuel L. Morison. Like Hitselberger, none of those individuals was accused or suspected of espionage on behalf of a foreign power, but rather of unlawfully retaining or disclosing national defense information.
“Recently, the defendant in Drake made the same faulty argument as Hitselberger makes here,” prosecutors wrote. “The district court rejected the defendant’s claim that the term willfulness is unconstitutionally vague.”
“Although Hitselberger admittedly was not a career intelligence professional, he has more in common with defendants such as Morison, Kiriakou, and Kim than he lets on,” the prosecutors asserted. It was not meant as a compliment.
Prosecutors filed additional responses to several other pre-trial defense motions to suppress evidence, to require a bill of particulars, to eliminate “multiplicious” charges, and to find sections of the Classified Information Procedures Act unconstitutional.
As humans expand our geographic reach, encroach on untouched natural territories, and interact more with animal populations, we will encounter novel zoonotic diseases that threaten the human body. The sooner we act to address these risks, the better.
This report serves as a landscape assessment and toolbox from which local governments can negotiate an informed position when it comes to the levers available to them and includes a first-of-its kind analysis of eight executed community benefits agreements.
When a hurricane hits, it’s all hands on deck – that goes for federal data, too. Pulling back from our investments in timely, accurate, and accessible public data will only make us less prepared and put us all at greater risk.
This is bigger than a singular elimination of race and ethnicity questions. It could accelerate the second wave of widespread reductions to demographic data, leaving public health officials with even less information to deliver better health outcomes for all Americans.