A friend has passed along Norman Pearlstine's piece in WSJ urging Michael Mukasey to drop the AIPAC case. Pearlstine argues that the lobbyists were performing routine business:
there have been few prosecutions of government leakers for espionage in recent decades and... before AIPAC, the government had never sought to make receipt of classified information and passing it on to others a crime under the Espionage Act.
Like it or not, the lobbyists were operating in a system in which leaks have become essential to the function of government in Washington. It is often impossible for a journalist or a lobbyist to know whether leaked information is classified. And, surprisingly, the leaking of classified information may be legal, so long as the information has first been declassified.
That sounds like a high hurdle, but it is not. According to a 2004 Report of the Information Security Oversight Office, more than 4,000 government officials have the authority to declassify information. Such declassification is relatively simple...
OK. But Pearlstine fails to mention that the leaked info was going to the Israeli Embassy, a foreign government. Raising the question that Grant Smith at IRMEP has repeatedly raised, whether AIPAC shouldn't have to register as foreign agents. Just what is going on here? Of course it goes to the heart of the dual-loyalty definition of Jewish identity today: we're supposed to care about Israel more than the U.S. Like the two Long Island boys Kyra Phillips interviewed on CNN last summer as they were heading off to help the Israelis butcher Lebanon. Phillips had the presence of mind to ask why they weren't going off to serve in Iraq. Never occured to them...
Is this business as usual? All the more reason to have a trial, to so we hear about the sort of stuff they were passing along, and hear from the ideologue Douglas Feith. Open up these routine practices to the disinfectant of light.
Well, ok, after weeks and months of discussion we've thoroughly established that AIPAC are a bad bunch. My question is what can we DO about it?
I think we should devote more of our time to that question instead of beating that same dead horse
tell two friends and hope that they tell two friends, and then tell two more and hope again.
repeat above steps over and over.
Ok, then when everybody finally knows that AIPAC are black hats, then what do we DO?
Dave wrote: "Ok, then when everybody finally knows that AIPAC are black hats, then what do we DO?"
Great question. In the review of The Israel Lobby in the New Yorker, David (the reviewer) said that he agreed with Mearsheimer and Walt as to the solution. The solution was to reform campaign finance further to make elections more about ideas and less about pandering.
If we can stop junkets to Israel, I think that would be a great first step.
the big dersh with the little d said this at herzliya, he is a smart man that dersh.
. Dershowitz’s advised Israel & Jewish groups to continue to fight against the negative image that is being perpetrated by these and other factors but he also warned that “Israel must be prepared to lose American support in the coming years both diplomatically and economically. “My message to Israel is ‘be strong’ and be prepared to go it alone.”
daveq wrote: "If we can stop junkets to Israel, I think that would be a great first step."
Or ensure that there are an equal number of junkets to the Palestinian territories. You need non-partisan sponsored tours so inform, rather than partisan sponsored tours to convince.
But the difference in funds available to each side of this battle for PR purposes will continue to exist for the forseeable future.
What can we do? I don't know.
But it might go like this story…
When I was a teenager a man in my town rescued an abused monkey from one of those imported pet mills. He took the monkey everywhere with him, dressed him in clothes, took him in resturants and stores. Anything the monkey pointed to or reached for the man would buy to entertain him. He even had a room especially designed for the monkey in his house just like a child's room. To say the monkey was spoiled is an understatement. At first everyone in town was enchanted with the monkey and the story of his rescue and the monkey was allowed everywhere in town where pets usually wern't allowed, an exception was made for the monkey. The man did business with my father and brought the monkey to his office frequently. Then one day my father mentioned he thought the monkey might be becoming dangerous. That he was out of control and had snatched and thrown papers off the desk, jumped on employees in the office and really created havoc and frightened people and the man did not seem able to control the monkey.
This man had also taught the monkey tricks, like fetching things for him and opening doors and so on.
One day at home the man told the monkey to get two cokes from kitchen which the monkey had done many times. The monkey went and fetched two cokes except this time the monkey didn't want to give the man one of the cokes he had fetched, the monkey wanted both the cokes. The man tried to take it from him and the monkey attacked him, bashed him in the head with the coke bottle and tore into him. When his wife ran to help her husband the monkey then attacked her. The man and his wife both ended up in the hospital with lacerations and bite wounds and the man almost lost an eye from the attack. I don't remember hearing what became of the monkey, whether he was put down or given to some animal compound but the man got rid of him.
Israel and the Israel first US Jews that America has spoiled and made exceptions for because of their past victimhood are that monkey.
And it will probably end just like this man and his monkey.
we can't expect monkeys to be grateful.
the uss liberty should have been the straw that broke the camels back, but look how far we've come.
justice deferred is not justice denied.
the law is in nature, and will exact its payment in its own inimitable way.
THOUGH the mills of God grind slowly,
Yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience he stands waiting,
With exactness grinds he all.
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
…and then the monkey vociferously complains of "anti-monkeyism."
so what we have here is a speaking monkey!!
maybe we ought to put him in a circus.
To answer the question: "what should we do?" I agree with John Mearsheimer who said at "The Great Debate" that we should pressure Israel to change its policies and if Israel won't, then we should go our separate ways. At the Congressional hearing yesterday on war with Iran, the point was made that any attack by Israel would guarantee retaliation against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc, since we are so inextricably linked with Israel in the eyes of the world. With the Annapolis talks coming up, I believe the US should endorse the fair and just Arab League Peace Plan. Of course we can't force Israel to accept a fair and just peace with the Arabs, but if Israel won't, we can at least disassociate ourselves from Israel's unjust policies.
let the inquisitor have his way…
AIPAC judge to probe anti-Jewish bias
mail E-mail News Brief
mail Tell the Editors
Published: 11/15/2007
The federal judge in the case against two former AIPAC staffers wants to probe prospective jurors for anti-Semitic views.
Judge T.S. Ellis III of the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., said anti-Jewish bias could be a factor in the classified information trial of Steve Rosen, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's former foreign policy chief, and Keith Weissman, its former Iran analyst.
"I view it as no different from cases in which I have the specter of race in it, where there is some concern that there may be an animus of prospective jurors that should not be operating," he said in a Nov. 8 hearing. "And of course I am referring to anti-Semitism."
Ellis also asked prosecutors and defense lawyers for opinions on banning peremptory challenges to prospective jurors that appear to be based on religion. Such challenges, based on the ancient right of lawyers to remove jurors without an explanation, are constitutionally banned in the United States if they appear to be based on race or gender. It has not yet been established whether challenges on the basis of religion or ethnicity are banned.
The transcript of the Nov. 8 pretrial hearing was first made available on Wednesday.
Rosen and Weissman, who were indicted in August 2005, will not face trial at least until March.
Samuel Burke's JTA article on the AIPAC trial is grim reading. It pretty much crystalizes the situation America has got itself into:
"Ellis also asked prosecutors and defense lawyers for opinions on banning peremptory challenges to prospective jurors that appear to be based on religion. Such challenges, based on the ancient right of lawyers to remove jurors without an explanation, are constitutionally banned in the United States if they appear to be based on race or gender."
So what happens if a Richard Witty lands in the juror pool (to say nothing of a Ruth Wisse)? Looks like the shell game (it's-a-race-no-it's-a-religion) is about to be brought out one more time. The society is totally unprepared to respond to this kind of situation. This is the price we pay for never having felt comfortable discussing Jewishness for two generations.
link to jta.org
/>
Here's an interesting thought experiment:
I think everyone agrees that, because of prejudices, not every Jewish-American should appropriately be allowed to sit on a jury which judges AIPAC; but not every Jewish-American should be excluded either. The question is: what percentage of the current Jewish community do you think is capable of fulfilling this specific civic duty? I'm not talking about some vague concept of "loyalty" (which I agree is usually a red herring), but just the ability to function at this specific trial.
I'd like to hear Richard Witty's answer to this. I'm sure he'd agree that, say, Abe Foxman should be disqualified. But how would he assess the whole community?
Dear Philip,
My WSJ Op-Ed piece, said "The lobbyists allegedly passed on the information they had received to a reporter for the Washington Post and an Israeli embassy employee."
I would appreciate your correcting your post above in which you say, "But Pearlstine fails to mention that the leaked info was going to the Israeli Embassy, a foreign government."
Thank you.
Norman Pearlstine
But Npearlstine wrote in his op-ed, "The AIPAC lobbyists are the victims of selective prosecution for behavior that has become commonplace. They did what journalists and lobbyists have been doing since the founding of the republic."
Surely he was not arguing that citizens have been passing classified secrets to foreign governments since the founding of the republic? It certainly sounds to me like he was downplaying a crucial aspect of the trial.
Or perhaps Mr. Pearlstine does not regard Israel as a foreign country?
Did you get a chance to listen to the C-SPAN viewer call for Barbara Slavin (of USA Today) and her responses about AIPAC's push for war with Iran via clicking on her photo at the following URL (the Scott Ritter youtubes in the comments section there are concerning as well):
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2007/10/re-aipac-is-pushing-us-to-war-with-iran.html
Additional entries at:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com
Jewish Freedom's Watch Test Markets Language to Sell War With Iran (for Israel):
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=399283#399283
I read somewhere that for the coming trial of the AIPAC spys members the jury will be asked if they are "anti semite"…..or in other words "are you pro Zionist?".
We all know by now that they have taken over this country so that the question is "How do we get rid of them?"
Mukasey is a Jew? — don't expect any vigorous prosecution of fellow Jews.
what? the words that dare not be spoken?
I'm sick of the occupation of AMERICA – by the same bunch who use Pali kids for target practice…. only here it should be called treason….
and treason is ALWAYS the reason Jews get themselves in trouble.
THERE – I've said it. Bombs away.– I expect the moderator to be threatened if he /she allows my post to stay.
But then, that is only a measure of the poisonous nature of this debate. Jews are holding all the cards
Nearly the whole of government, elected officials, and corporations refuse to investigate Israel or 911. Our government itself is the enemy. I wonder if there is there anything in the constitution that would enable "the people" to make a kind of "citizen's arrest" and hold these criminals accountable?