The AIPAC case goes wild

[Behind the Aegis]

Some strange developments have taken place over the last few days that are relevant to the so-called AIPAC trial, in which Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, have been accused of passing unauthorized information concerning national security to an Israeli diplomat and a journalist. Based on what we can determine from recent occurrences, one can only hope that the judge will dismiss this case soon and save all the involved parties major embarrassment.

This week saw a showdown that was forced upon a senior official in the Justice Department's criminal division, Matthew Friedrich, by Sen. Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania, and his judiciary committee colleagues.

It is very relevant to the AIPAC case, though the original issue that triggered it is known as the "Anderson affair," the FBI's posthumous probe of columnist Jack Anderson. If you haven't been following the Anderson affair, here's a synopsis: The U.S. government is seeking 50 years' worth of papers from the late investigative reporter. Why? Well, that's the story we're telling here.

On Tuesday, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee were slamming the administration over its use of executive power. Sen. Charles Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, said in his opening statement: "If there is information that would really harm national security in the Jack Anderson archives, then it deserves to be protected from public disclosure. If there is really evidence of a crime in those papers, then the FBI should have access to it. However, the FBI should be willing and able to demonstrate that it has a legitimate reason to access the documents. It needs something more than just an assertion that there may be classified materials in the files."

more...

[Tom Joad]

1. Yes, case should be dismissed so AIPAC can concentrate on making war.

Or maybe it shouldn't be dismissed. Just sayin'....

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0412-06.htm
Iran Showdown Tests Power of "Israel Lobby"
by Jim Lobe


WASHINGTON - One month after the publication by two of the most influential international relations scholars in the United States of a highly controversial essay on the so-called "Israel Lobby", their thesis that the lobby exercises "unmatched power" in Washington is being tested by rapidly rising tensions with Iran.

Far more visibly than any other domestic constituency, the Israel Lobby, defined by Profs. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, as "the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction", has pushed the government -- both Congress and the George W. Bush administration -- toward confrontation with Tehran.

Leading the charge has been a familiar group of neo-conservatives, such as former Defense Policy Board (DPB) chairman Richard Perle and former Central Intelligence Agency director James Woolsey, who championed the war in Iraq but who have increasingly focused their energies over the past year on building support for "regime change" and, if necessary, military action against Iran if it does not abandon its nuclear program.
<snip>

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the premier Israel lobby group whose annual convention last year featured a giant, multi-media exhibit on how Iran is "pursuing nuclear weapons and how it can be stopped", has also been pushing hard on Capitol Hill for legislation to promote regime change. Despite White House objections, the group has sought tough sanctions against foreign companies with investments in Iran.
____________________________________________________

AIPAC fights against more rational, non-military options, such as calling for a non-nuclear middle east.
http://www.peace-action.org/home/01.24.06iranstatement.html

Peace Action Official Statement on Iran:
Renewing the Call for a Nuclear-Free Middle East

January 24, 2006

Today we are renewing the call for a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone in the Middle East. Re-opening negotiations toward achieving that goal is the best way—perhaps the only way—to halt without violence the prospect of a nuclear arms race in that deeply troubled part of the world. Additionally, achieving a Nuclear Free Zone in the Middle East would bring the world one step closer to eliminating both the problem of nuclear proliferation and the threat of nuclear war and could serve as a model solution for resolving similar tensions in other regions of the world.

The call for a Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone (NWFZ) in the Middle East was first issued in 1974, when the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for all states in the region to declare that they will refrain from producing, acquiring or in any way possessing nuclear weapons and nuclear explosive devices and from permitting the stationing of nuclear weapons on their territory by any third party. It also called for the states to place all their nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. In subsequent years, the General Assembly on several occasions renewed its call.

It is also pertinent that UN Security Resolution 687, passed in 1991, which demanded Iraqi disarmament, did so within the context of "establishing in the Middle East a zone free of weapons of mass destruction." It was alleged violations of this resolution which the Bush administration used to justify its illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq, even though Iraq had already complied with its disarmament provisions. The United States has refused to push for the full implementation of this resolution, however, by its refusal to support the establishment of a WMD-free zone for the entire region.

In 1974, Israel was the only Middle Eastern state that possessed nuclear weapons. Israel remains so today, and has rejected calls to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty or place its nuclear facilities under IAEA inspection as mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 487. Other countries in the region have long asserted that Israel's nuclear arsenal poses a threat to their security and is a provocation to nuclear proliferation.
More....

[Behind the Aegis]

2. .

:rofl:

[acmejack]

8. You do need to read the article.

This desicion is tricky, it has implications for freedom of press.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Hey, I hear Jonathan Pollard is lonely. Charge these guys

with treason too and let them form an AIPAC club in prison.

[Behind the Aegis]

4. hey...read the article...

...not quite as cut and dry as many would like to think.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Query: Isn't it "treason" if their actions have potential injury

upon this country via foreign affairs notwithstanding AIPAC has enablers in the White House and Congress who agree with them?

[Behind the Aegis]

6. read the article...

[Karmakaze]

7. Yeah!

These two AIPAC officials should be free to hand classified information to foreign diplomats! I mean the freedom of the press is at stake here! :eyes:

[Behind the Aegis]

9. didn't read it did ya?

:eyes:

[Karmakaze]

10. Yes I read it...

Which is how I know that moron is trying to claim that there is a "freedom of the press" issue in regards to handing classified information to a foreign diplomat.

Maybe YOU didn't read it? :eyes:

[Behind the Aegis]

11. What an odd analysis...

It appears that things aren't as "black and white" as previously thought about this case. Yet, that seems not to matter to many.

[Karmakaze]

12. I dont know, I dont see anything making it less black and white?

Perhaps you could point out ANYTHING in that article that actually makes the case less "black and white"?

[Behind the Aegis]

13. Gladly...

This seemed strange to Feldstein, since he knew that Anderson was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease in 1986 and had not really been doing much reporting between 1999 and 2004, the years in which the AIPAC case unfolded. His conclusion: "As bizarre as it sounded, I could only conclude that the Justice Department had decided that it wanted to prosecute people who might have whispered national security secrets decades ago to a reporter who is now dead."

[Karmakaze]

14. What has that got to do with...

Rosen and Weissman handing classified information to a foreign diplomat? Or conspiring with Franklin to hand classified information to people not entilted to have it, including a foreign diplomat?

[Behind the Aegis]

15. It is a fishing expidition...

That is what this whole case is coming down to. The FBI is failing to make a case and is ripping apart anything they can get their hands on, legally or otherwise. They are grasping at straws.

[Karmakaze]

16. Really?

Have you read the indictment?

You do know that Franklin began working with the FBI? That he then participated in a sting whereby he handed over highly classified information to Weissman, telling him it was highly classifed and that he could get in trouble by having it? That Weissman then took that information and disclosed it to Rosen? That Rosen and Weissman then met with a "foreign official" and disclosed that information to him? That this all occured on one day, July 21, 2004?

Its all in the indictment, that and a WHOLE LOT more. See for yourself:
http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/franklin0805.pdf

They were caught red handed, and all the distraction with bogus "freedom of the press" claims will not change that.

[Karmakaze]

17. No answer?

The indictment is rather long, what with all the information about the numerous contacts Rosen and Weissman had with both the media and foreign officials to hand over classified information.

Here is another argument for you though. How can this be a "freedom of the press" issue when none of the press are charged with receiving the classified information? No member of the press has been charged, just the people involved int he conspiracy to disseminate classified information to people not authorised to have it - including foreign officials.

[Tom Joad]

18. Maybe Libby's attorneys will be interested in this "defense"