Defending the Rosenbergs

I’ve never really understood the radical left’s desire to lionize the Rosenbergs as martyrs: treason is the one crime specifically listed in the Constitution (with death a possible penalty); they were pretty clearly guilty; nothing in the intervening years has suggested otherwise. Yet even today, when a coconspirator admits that Julius Rosenberg was a spy and Ethel knew what he was doing (making her an accomplice to treason and thus, treasonous herself), nuts like Howard Zinn defend the couple:

“I never was going along saying I know that they were innocent, and I’m not shocked by the fact that they turned out to be spies,” said Howard Zinn, the left-wing history professor. “To me it didn’t matter whether they were guilty or not. The most important thing was they did not get a fair trial in the atmosphere of cold war hysteria.”

That use of “they” is very important, because Zinn has repeatedly argued that Ethel Rosenberg, at least, was innocent. From “A People’s History of the United States”:

His wife Ethel was certainly innocent (and known to be innocent by her accusers)

The Rosenbergs were guilty. Why am I not surprised that Zinn says it doesn’t matter?