Prosecutors told a federal judge in a recent brief that they have “overwhelming evidence” that two pro-Israel lobbyists deliberately broke the law when they obtained classified information from government officials.

The two former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, were indicted in August on charges they conspired to violate a provision of the Espionage Act which makes it a crime to receive information “relating to the national defense.”

“At trial in this case, the government will present overwhelming evidence of the defendants’ specific, willful intent to violate” the Espionage Act, prosecutors wrote in papers filed last week with the federal judge overseeing the case, Thomas Ellis III of Alexandria,Va. “The government will prove – often using the defendants’ own words – that Rosen and Weissman knew that they had obtained classified national defense information, knew it was unlawful to disclose that information, knew that the foreign officials and members of the media to whom they disclosed the information were not entitled, and yet, knowing all of these things, decided to disclose the information in any event.”

Defense attorneys have argued that the indictment should be dismissed because the statute is so vague that it should be considered unconstitutional, but the prosecution said the law has already been upheld by an appeals court. Prosecutors also argued forcefully that Messrs. Rosen and Weissman should not prevail with their assertions of vagueness because they knew what they were doing was illegal.

The two former Aipac officials, who are scheduled to go on trial May 23, have urged Judge Ellis to read the statute not to apply to oral disclosures or to people outside the government. However, prosecutors contend that a 1941 Supreme Court case, Gorin v. United States, supports their position. That case upheld the conviction of a Soviet agent, Mikhail Gorin, for receiving information from a Navy employee, Hafis Salich, about Naval Intelligence Service files on Japanese activities in America. Salich did not physically give the reports to Gorin, according to an appeals court opinion.

However, Gorin paid Salich for the information and there is no allegation that the former Aipac staffers paid anyone. In addition, the Soviet agents were prosecuted under a different law which required proving that the defendants intended to harm American interests or help another nation or should have known that the information “is to be used” in that way. The statute used to prosecute the former Aipac lobbyists would permit a conviction if the information “could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.”

An analyst of government classification policy, Steven Aftergood, said the government offered a compelling argument that some oral disclosures of classified information can be punished.

However, Mr. Aftergood said he was less convinced by prosecutors’ arguments that it’s a crime to receive classified information if one is aware that it¹s a crime to leak it. “It strikes me as a circular argument,” he said. “Certainly, any reporter worth his or her salt routinely probes into matters that are classified. Do we really want to establish as a matter of law that reporters cannot knowingly ask about classified programs?”

In their brief, prosecutors said lobbyists like Messrs. Rosen and Weissman can do their jobs without recourse to classified information. “The defendants remain free to advocate on behalf of Aipac, its membership, and anyone else. The defendants are not, however, entitled under the First Amendment to use stolen government secrets to do so,” the prosecutors wrote.

A defense brief obtained byThe New York Sun suggests prosecutors are reluctant to confront the fact that their logic would call for the routine prosecution of journalists. “It is well established that while members of the press have an important place in a free society, ordinary citizens enjoy the same First Amendment rights,” the defense lawyers wrote.

The defense team also pointed out that the press has identified one official who allegedly relayed information to Mr. Rosen as the deputy ambassador to Iraq, David Satterfield. He has not been charged with a crime. “The net result is that a private citizen is being made even more responsible for protecting classified information than the government source,” the lawyers wrote.