Posted on 03/14/2009 6:22:59 AM PDT by the Real fifi
From [1] time to time I’ve written about some of the more preposterous aspects of the government’s case against former AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) officers Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman.
The government alleged that at a June 26, 2003, lunch, a Department of Defense employee, Lawrence Franklin, disclosed classified national defense information related to potential attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq to Rosen and Weissman, who were then employed by AIPAC. Franklin admitted that he’d told the AIPAC employees about Iranian participation in terrorism, asked them to pass the information on to the National Security Council, and sought their help in obtaining a position there from which to [2] make his views known to the administration. He has argued, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that he never intended to harm U.S. interests.
The press has not covered the case extensively — especially after the early lurid accounts of espionage (such charges were never brought) and the guilty plea by Franklin. But I have been watching the blogs of Secrecy News, which has covered the case extensively and has, for the readers’ use, conveniently published the key public documents, including the [3] rulings in the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
The damage has been done! Given how much money the arabs have; and their love of our “system of justice,” they’ve gotten everything they want. Even if the government drops the case one day before May 27th. (In which case the government will claim they “had to do this” to protect the government.) While the message goes out that arabs are humililating Israelis every day of the week. (Especially the cat & mouse game of “after Israel gives up “terrority” without ever mentioning that arabs kept attacking Israel, and losing.) You’re looking at what goes on behind the scenes. Since Nixon! And, since Jimmy Carter screamed at Begin.
/The Justice Department’s Misbegotten AIPAC Prosecution'Well I'm just all broken up that Clarice Feldman doesn't like OUR laws.
(Clarice Feldman)... Moreover, the antiquated Espionage Act...
But since they upset her so much I suggest she tell her friends to Stop Spying On Us! Then they wouldn't be prosecuted under OUR "antiquated Espionage Act". Annnnnd, if I was a betting person, I'd bet a good percentage of AIPAC are Mossad agents and/or have contacts with Mossad. So they ain't exactly pure as the driven snow.
BTW, Clarice - that law isn't so "antiquated". The Espionage Act has bean revised and updated numerous times, so put a sock in it. And again, Stop Spying On Us dammit. We're your ONLY friend so knock it off!
The Espionage Act written in 1917, amended in 1918 and afrer WWII— is antiquated and I am not the first to state this. The question of course is not whether or not I like it but whether or not it covers the conduct here—and it seems clearly not to. Or should we abandon the notion of prosecuting and convicting people only when they actually like—you know—violate laws.
Well, it seems to fly over some heads that what the arabs bought was to try and hurt Israel. Where they’re strong, here. Within the democratic party. And, in Congress. They’re not the only lobbiests, there, either. And, unlike the sauds, Israel doesn’t dictate to the president. Who follows orders. Seems they’ve bought off a lot of people, in DC, too!
This one? It’s like keeping Pollard. It’s a back-handed slap at Israel. PERIOD. And, yes, whatever happens on May 27th, in a courtroom, won’t change saudi tactics all that much.
Well, it seems to fly over some heads that what the arabs bought was to try and hurt Israel. Where they’re strong, here. Within the democratic party. And, in Congress. They’re not the only lobbiests, there, either. And, unlike the sauds, Israel doesn’t dictate to the president. Who follows orders. Seems they’ve bought off a lot of people, in DC, too!
This one? It’s like keeping Pollard. It’s a back-handed slap at Israel. PERIOD. And, yes, whatever happens on May 27th, in a courtroom, won’t change saudi tactics all that much.
Why on earth would a DOD employee, routinely briefed in the potential consequences of breaching terms of his security clearance, think it was appropriate to transmit classified information to the NSC via any outside organization?
Through the examination under oath of the various government officials they have subpoenaed (and the judge has ruled they may call), the defendants will surely be able to establish that the transfer of information is a regular occurrence in Washington with which every lobbyist and high government official is fully aware. Further, they should be able to demonstrate that given the regularity of this practice, there is no reason for the recipients in such situations to assume the disclosure involves classified information or that it is unauthorized.The defense will show that it is commonplace to leak classified information? That is a regular and accepted practice to violate national security laws and regulations? What is this country coming to?
Yes, it is, goes on every day. That's why the defense wants two dozen GWB officials to testify, and also why they'll drop the case. This article at least alludes to the fact that the first of the three calls they made wasn't to the Israeli Embassy, wasn't to the Washington Post, but to the White House. A crime. This was a selective prosecution of a crime hundreds, probably thousands, commit every year. And far less serious that the crimes committed by the individuals actually doing the leaking, who go scott free.
Sorry, but that's the sting they set up. My guess Obama will drop it because he wants to be able to do the same thing.
You’re right, for those doing the actual leaking, criminal is more to the point. But no administration ever seems to have an appetite for prosecution.
This wasn’t spying. This was a rescue operation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.