Continuing to provide a shelter to neocons, The Washington Post publishes a foolish piece of disinformation by Gary Wasserman saying that there is no such thing as the Israel lobby, and that American Jews don’t feel loyalty to Israel. The author argues that the government’s case against the AIPAC lobbyists, now dropped, reflected anti-Semitism. And the Israel lobby– which the Post continues to fail to describe to its readers honestly (I’m sure they’re bashing the health insurers as a powerful lobby this week)– is a conspiracy theory.
Wasserman’s argument is precisely reminiscent of the claim by Communists and their sympathizers that the federal cases against various Communists in the 30s-50s were baseless. It represents ideological blindness.
After years and millions of dollars spent investigating the nefarious "Israel Lobby," the case produced no stolen secrets, no money changing hands, no covert meetings, no high-level, dual-loyal officials, no harm to the national interest and no spies. Pardon me, but where’s the corned beef?
If a powerful lobby threatens national security, shouldn’t the patriotic supporters of that organization be informed of the evidence? Or if government officials have allowed prejudice to covertly victimize innocent people shouldn’t that behavior be made transparent? Or, if an important ally is using ethnic ties to turn supporters into spies, shouldn’t the public know?
Of course the case hasn’t been all bad for conspirators. The same year AIPAC fired its lobbyists, it used the troubles to raise a record $45 million. And having opponents exaggerate a lobby’s power ends up enhancing that power.
Both the FBI and AIPAC have to be pleased to see this case go away; one to conceal mistakes and biases, the other to hide weakness and disloyalty to its own.
I like that last phrase. Disloyalty to its own? What does that mean? Disloyalty to who? To AIPAC? Rosen was passing along supposed information about an Iranian threat to the Israelis. Wasn’t he being perfectly loyal?
Oh, apparently my IQ has dropped already; Mark explains it to me:
the obvious meaning is "disloyalty to Rosen and the other guy, whats-his-name." AIPAC, in a legal sense, abandoned Rosen and what’s-his-name, and Wasserman sees that as "disloyalty." Rosen and what’s-his-name, of course, were loyal to AIPAC, including in his actions in passing info to Israel–that’s what AIPAC pretty much paid them to do. Therefore, Wasserman says AIPAC was disloyal in failing to support them legally and financially when they got in trouble for doing what AIPAC wanted and paid them to do. AIPAC, of course, saw the issue as one of survival for AIPAC, thus, better that one (or two) should be tossed overboard than that the whole org should perish. In a manner of speaking.
Related Posts
- Gov’t seeks to drop charges against Rosen and Weissman, JTA reports
- Nightmare, or bad spy novel, or unindicted coconspirator (the Israel lobby)
- ‘NY Review of Books’ continues to overlook elephant in room
- ‘WPost’ says Justice Department may drop Rosen/Weissman espionage case
- Your lobby at work: Americans helped insert new condition, recognition of Israel as a Jewish state
{ 1 trackback }
{ 60 comments }
We’re dumbed down by the right, and we’re dumbed down by the left.
The left revere edcuation while the right have become contemptuous of it.
You think. I hear the left being enamored with unquestioned repetition as well.
Witty is totally disingenuous as usual. He cites the UN as the source of international law. How about resolution 242? It passed the security council. Israel is occupying the territories illegally. Unfortunately Israel has no regard for law except when it can “twist” it to it’s own benefit. Witty thinks he can deflect criticism instead of answering it. Ignore him, it’s easier when you realize that his mind exists in a warped paradigm.
Witty, you should try being more specific with your criticisms. You sometimes demand that of others–apply it to yourself. Give specific examples of how the left dumbs things down.
You haven’t heard specifics?
How about repeating the “Israel is a rogue nation in habitual violation of international law”.
“What is international law?”
“….general assembly resolution”
“But a general assembly resolution is not yet international law. It takes passing the security council to become international law.”
How is stating the obvious repeatedly, a sign of poor intellect?
“What is international law?”
That is only a matter that seems ambiguous to Israel’s apologists.
“But a general assembly resolution is not yet international law. It takes passing the security council to become international law.”
A case of Israel’s apologists looking for loopholes to justify Israel’s thuggish behavior.
Of course its NOT an apologist out.
Its a critique of exagerated rhetoric.
It is the role of the apologist to play down the significance of Israel’s appaling behavior.
Canard? Conspiracy? Ever look at a RICO statute, either the federal statute or any of the
state RICO laws?
http://criminalstate.com/2009/07/how-the-israel-lobby-took-control-of-us-foreign-policy/
The Israeli population as a whole does not care about any issues raised by the West regarding Israel’s activity. It is solely concentrated on separating itself from the Palestinians and protecting itself from angry Palestinians. And the more expansion, the better. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JQP/is_390/ai_n16619221/
This http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=125442&d=14&m=8&y=2009 is a provocative article about Wolf Blitzer, suggesting he is effectively an unregistered agent for Israel.
I used to read Blitzer’s pieces in the Jerusalem Post, and he is a different reporter when the audience is believed to be Jewish or Israeli. Maybe I am wrong, since I don’t pay him much attention these days, but I seriously doubt that he would report about the drive for Greater Israel to a CNN audience as he did to a JP audience. As a teen who knew almost nothing about Israel, I learned what Greated Israel meant from Blitzer’s articles.
I was angered that he was allowed to conduct one of the Presidential debates between Obama and Clinton.
Blitzer’s just one of the seemingly endless list of Vietnam War draft dodging chickenhawks who led smoothed the Iraq War in 2003.
“The author argues that the government’s case against the AIPAC lobbyists, now dropped, reflected anti-Semitism”
GRRRRRR!
So I guess what Sibel Edmonds has talked about, UNDER OATH, about Turkish intelligence coercion, bribery and entrapment of our Congresspeople, is all motivated by her anti-turkishness!
Is that what you think a critique of left exagerations is?
Is that what you think a critique of left exagerations is?
“It is the role of the apologist to play down the significance of Israel’s appaling behavior. ”
That was supposed to be a reply to Shingo above.
“Is that what you think a critique of left exagerations is? ”
But you weren’t criticising left wing exagerations. You were complaining that the repetition of facts itself is exageration. Clearly it is not.
What facts are you talking about?
The statement “Israel is in violation of international law” is too damn vague to convey any meaning, especially when Lebanon, Hezbollah, Syria, PA, Hamas, Egypt are all construed as being in violation of international law by the UN, ICJ and other world bodies.
I’m not even saying that I wouldn’t state that. I certainly state it in different terms than I’ve heard the litany here, or Norman Finkelstein’s. He and you attributed false authority to institutions that greatly diminished his/your credibility.
I watched a DVD of the John Adams HBO series last night. John Adams was a lawyer who strongly advocated for the independance of the American colonies (then) from England. In 1775, as a lawyer, he defended the accused British soldiers of the Boston Massacre from murder charges, on the basis that they were provoked violently and were engaging in self-defense. The then “left” that conducted the Boston Tea Party for example (led by his first cousin Sam Adams), hated him for defending the legal rights of the enemy.
The parallel is that I am an advocate for Palestinian justice, but an opponent of mobbish approaches to accomplish that.
I, like John Adams, believe that the law is what is to be protected from different self-interested approaches, and that the law protects all and opposes all injustice. It does not lightly impose injustice in the name of opposing injustice, even in word.
The question is, what mindset has someone that implicitly categorizes e. g. Norman Finkelstein as mob.
The basic democratic principle is consent Richard. Mob? Interestingly people seem to agree concerning certain basic ethic principles. What do you think the function of US blocking actions at the UN is about, if these decisions are completely meaningless, as you insist. … And please don’t explain it to me, I know.
Let’s assume, the vast majority at the UN insists to sanction Iran, would that be mob rule too?
Richard,
It does not lightly impose injustice in the name of opposing injustice, even in word.
But that is exactly what Israel has done since its inception as the Jewish State. And you defend it and its existence as a state that gives rank priority to the interests of Jews worldwide over and above its own citizens of other faiths and ethnicities. Your supposed agreement with the ideas of John Adams is merely a self-indulgent fantasy of yours, not a reality when subjected to the self- inquiry you pretend to revere.
RE Witty:
“John Adams was a lawyer who strongly advocated for the independance of the American colonies (then) from England. In 1775, as a lawyer, he defended the accused British soldiers of the Boston Massacre from murder charges, on the basis that they were provoked violently and were engaging in self-defense. ”
As usual Witty ignores the larger historical context, even when he brings in American history in his usual Zionist attempt to blame the Palestinians for
the core problems discussed on this blog (under the guise of playing Mr. Reason):
Adams presented evidence that blame for the tragedy lay BOTH with the “mob” that gathered that March night AND with England’s highly unpopular policy of quartering troops in a city (occupation). Adams told the jury: “Soldiers quartered in a populous town will always occasion two mobs where they prevent one.” He argued that the soldier who fired first acted only as one might expect anyone to act in such confused and potentially life-threatening conditions. “Do you expect that he should act like a stoic philosopher, lost in apathy?”, Adams asked the jury. “Facts are stubborn things,” he concluded, “and whatever may be our inclinations, or the dictums of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
The occupation is real; Witty expects the Palestinians to always react rationally under such circumstances–how’d you like to live under the circumstances the Palestinians live under, Witty? How’d you like “lobster back” troops quartered in your
home?
Again, it is only Israeli defenders hat pretend there is any ambiguity about the meaning of international law. Like all vilatios of law, there are degrees. In other words, while Lebanon, Hezbollah, Syria, PA, Hamas, Egypt are all construed as being in violation of international law, the scale of the infingement pales in comparison to the degree of Israel’s trasngressions.
You are also confusing the matter of authority with power of enforcement, so it is your your credibility that stands as deminshed, not mine.
It’s all well and good to claim that you advocate Palestinian justice (whever your interpretation of that might be), but you’ve made clear that you only suppot justice to a point and certainly stop short of advocating any measures that might incovenience or hurt the Israeli state. In your case, you frame any costs to Israelis as an injustice, which is much like arguing that a car thief should not be forced to return the stolen property if it causes any inonmvenience to him or his lifestyle.
Norman Finkelstein advocates for the Geneva Accords or something resembling as current political solution. I also advocate for the Geneva Accords as solution. Stephen Walt advocates for the Geneva Accords. J Street, Peace Now, Britzedek advocate for the Geneva Accords. Fatah advocates for the Geneva Accords. Even Hamas is likely to accept the Geneva Accords.
Ali Abunimeh doesn’t. Ilan Pappe doesn’t. Angry Arab doesn’t. Phil is an enigma. Adam is an enigma.
Norman Finkelstein, Ali Abunimeh, Ilan Pappe, Angry Arab, others agree that Israel is a rogue state, a fraud, an oppressor only. The Geneva Accords are a reluctant compromise to them.
Stephen Walt, Brit Tzedek, myself, describe the situation as a knot, a conflict with abuses perpetrated from many sides, some especially critical and traumatic (creating red lines).
So, do the dissenters focus on the goal, or on their reactions. Do they make common cause to make change, or for shared reaction?
I’m sickened by blood. A doctor isn’t. A soldier isn’t. Am I right that pain is to be avoided at almost all cost? Or, is the doctor right, that surgery is sometimes necessary?
Eye on the Prize gets the job done. Eye on the irritation makes mobs.
You spend so much vanity fighting with me, imagining that I am some caricatured apologist, rather than identifying areas of common understanding and goal.
Its the story of the young, politically immature, fractured, reactionary left.
Rather than evolving to the story of politically mature and effective, reasonable and compelling left.
A soldier is not sickened by blood? Well, I was a soldier and I was. Am I alone?
Witty, you need some real life experience that goes beyond being born and bred
in a cushion and now living in a gated ethnic community, protected by goy cops. In short, you need to get out of the Jewish Ghetto, you amount to a medieval court jew
under current circumstances.
And, doctors are also sickened by blood. The point is that their responsibility and skill shifts their basis of conclusion.
Did you shrink from conflict Citizen, as a soldier? Thats what would have happened if you were motivated by your aversion to blood, as civilians are rationally.
Still, the point stands.
Eyes on the prize gets the job done. Eye on the irritation makes mobs.
It’s not that simple, Richard. In the US most of the politicians and commentators have focused on Palestinian crimes. They claim that Israel wants peace, but Palestinians are intransigent. I’m on FLAME’s mailing list (apparently because I subscribe to Tikkun and my name got passed around, but I don’t know) and that’s their standard line and it is still pretty prevalent, though Obama is changing it slightly.
The way you get past the false balance where people claim they want peace but focus almost exclusively on Palestinian crimes is to point out, loudly and firmly, just how much Israeli intransigence there has been. And when people cry out with shock that Palestinians still want a right of return and claim this shows they are anti-semitic, one has to point out that Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1948, so that people stop painting a perfectly natural desire to return home as something evil. (One can do this even if one thinks that a right of return isn’t politically achievable.)
And even with respect to internal Palestinian politics, when people point out Hamas crimes against Fatah, one should also point to Fatah crimes against Hamas and other Palestinians. There’s a political agenda behind all these lies and half-truths.
I agree one can go too far in the direction I’m outlining and I think people should acknowledge Palestinian terrorism and internal Palestinian problems, but the mainstream in America still has a way to go towards understanding the Palestinian side. I think you have some distance to travel that way yourself and you seem very reactionary in your own way.
In Re Dick Witty:
“Did you shrink from conflict Citizen, as a soldier? Thats what would have happened if you were motivated by your aversion to blood, as civilians are rationally.”
A soldier is in a box. He is suppose to follow orders. I was a teen age soldier. True, at Nuremberg that was not a defense, but the reality is different. All the power is on one side. You wouldn’t know that, Richard Witty, since you never fought for the USA, or even in the IDF. I did not shrink from conflict, Mister Witty. I actually fought the US Army as an 18 year old private. You are a joke.
I don’t recall declaring that something was simple, in fact the opposite.
Apparently after a certain point you can’t hit “reply”, so I’m replying to Richard’s later comment about not saying something was simple.
No, Richard, you didn’t say it was simple, but you offer up criticisms which are somewhat vague, but seem to amount to the following–
1. You’re upset by Finkelstein, Phil, and other lefties who are very critical of Israel and you don’t think their criticisms will work, because it upsets Israelis (and apparently you as well).
2. So we should all recognize the complexity of the problem.
Unfortunately, in your case that often seems to mean treating the problem the way you want it treated. You didn’t really respond to my point, which is basic–in the US the discourse has been almost entirely weighted in favor of Israel and the “reactionary” leftist response that you complain about so often (almost like you’re reacting) is a legitimate response to this bias. Some of the talk around here (especially before Phil instituted the new comment policy) was just plain anti-semitic and that does no one any good, but as far as harsh criticism of Israel is concerned, it’s nearly all honest and justifiable and it needs to be heard just as much as all the condemnations of Palestinian terrorism. If there was some danger that people in the US would start defending suicide bombing as a legitimate tactic, then I’d be worried. But except for a literally one or two fringe lefties, I’ve not seen that happening.
The liberal approach of Obama is the way to go. The settlement expansion is appropriate to dissent about.
I think Finkelstein is enamored with calling people names. The consequences of that are that as he is careless in his denunciations and impugns people that deserve respect, he makes others that follow him look like fools, and most importantly, he invites the dismissal of the relevance of other actual content that he may contribute.
If it were a reluctantly selected method, it could be rationally tactical. With him, its a habit.
The potential 10% that would be rationally severely but not maliciously critical, is reduced to 1%, and maliciously.
The only reason you support the “liberal approach of Obama” is because thus far, Obama has not demonstarted any willingness to punish Israel or hold it accountable for flouting his poilcy. It suits Israeli propagandists like you to a T because you can vaccuously bellow about how you are for a 2 state policy, knowing that Israel can go on ignoring it without the consequences.
Finkelstein has never been afraid to call a space a spade. Those he criticizes are not deserving of respect. Isrelis applogists like yourself hate Finkelstein because he is fearless in his convictions and does not sugar coat his attacks.
Finkelstein calls a liberal humanist a racist. That’s calling a spoon a spade. (Not the racist use of calling a “spade” a “spade”.)
Shingo,
Don’t try imagining my psychology.
On Obama’s approach, he is effective because his objective is to eliminate obstacles. The left imagines that power is created by force rather than skill that force amplifies.
And, in imagining that power is created by force, itself seeks to gather and use force, rather than skill and knowledge.
“Finkelstein calls a liberal humanist a racist. ”
Don’t you mean he called a particular humanist a racist? There’s a big difference.
I don’t need any imagination to knwo your psychology Richard. Anyone who has observed your rason d’etre would come to the obvious conclusion.
Obama’s approach has yielded no results thus far, therefore it is rediculous to suggest it has been effective. The obstacles not only remain, but unless he is willing to play hard ball, his rhettoric is largely empty. All the skill in the world is useless unless it is applied and includes a contingency. The Netyahu government have responded to Obama’s skill with contempt and are learning that there are no consequences to this approah.
To deny that power is created by force it to deny reality. From the day it was founded, Israel has used force to create it’s reality and it has worked. There has been little need for skill and knowledge.
Like I said, you like Obama because Obama has shown no fortitude against Israel. It’s like the Mafia Don who applauds the chief of Police who he has on his payroll.
Richard, I’d appreciate a name too:
Finkelstein calls a liberal humanist a racist. That’s calling a spoon a spade. (Not the racist use of calling a “spade” a “spade”.)
Who is this humanist? I am assuming it isn’t Dershowitz. David Aaron Miller?
We’ve been here before. Considering your pose as concerned sublimely ethical person you are spreading rumors pretty lightly. Some dirt will stick? This doesn’t fit a humanist but much more a political partisan. Or is this justified once one has chosen one’s aim? Apart from the fact that your target is pretty neocon/hawkish Jewish mainstream. You seem to have met and communicated with Norman only to confirm your prejudices about him, or the wisdom of the above group. …
Please stop these dirty tricks, they fit much more a Machiavellian than what you pretend you are.
Richard, I’d appreciate a name too:
Finkelstein calls a liberal humanist a racist. That’s calling a spoon a spade. (Not the racist use of calling a “spade” a “spade”.)
Who is this humanist? I am assuming it isn’t Dershowitz. David Aaron Miller?
We’ve been here before. Considering your pose as concerned sublimely ethical person you are spreading rumors pretty lightly. Some dirt will stick? This doesn’t fit a humanist but much more a political partisan. Or is this justified once one has chosen one’s aim? Apart from the fact that your target is pretty neocon/hawkish Jewish mainstream. You seem to have met and communicated with Norman only to confirm your prejudices about him, or the wisdom of the above group. …
Please stop these dirty tricks, they fit much more a Machiavellian than what you pretend you are.
**********************************************************************
Concerning the comment section this software sucks. At least a preview option wouldn’t harm.
“I think Finkelstein is enamored with calling people names. The consequences of that are that as he is careless in his denunciations and impugns people that deserve respect, he makes others that follow him look like fools, and most importantly, he invites the dismissal of the relevance of other actual content that he may contribute.”
The first sentence has some truth to it and it’s also true that his style invites the dismissal of the rest of his statements. I wish he’d lay off the Nazi comparisons (and everyone else too, on both sides) and he does enjoy namecalling too much.
That said, aside from some of the unnecessarily heated rhetoric, the substance of his criticism is generally accurate, in my opinion. Your opinion of who a liberal humanist is and my opinion may be quite different–for instance, I think Thomas Friedman wants peace, but he is also an apologist for Israeli war crimes, a man with a double standard, someone who constantly lectures the Arab world on all of its many flaws and demands that they be honest about them, who then turns around and says Israel can be persuaded to reach a fair deal so long as they aren’t criticized too harshly. A lot of liberal humanists in the US are of this stripe.
Richard,
No one is reacting to you. In spite of your sophistry and superficial mea culpas, you remain oblivious to the degree that you have exposed yourself througout your presence on this blog.
The reason no one is engaging in identifying areas of common understanding with you is your blatant dishonesty. Your insistence that the only way to achieve results with respect to the settlements is not only to treat Israel with kid gloves, but to cotinue rewarding Israel, reveals your true agenda. As I pointed out, you andcountless Israellis leaders had paid lip service to political settlement, while harboring no intent of allowing it to happen. You know very well that unless very real and tangiable pressure is put on Israel nothing wil change. Thus advocating a 2 state solution, whicle insisting that the status quo be maintained is a win win for you.
You’d reeive more respect if you weren’t so dishonest about your true beliefs.
The Washington Post was right about the AIPAC non case all along and you and Richard Silverstein and the rest of the progressives were wrong.
Lobbies pass info all the time. It’s part of what they do. Weiss and Rosen had no secret government documents and passed no secret government documents.
You wanted the case to be tried and probably have 2 innocent men put in jail because it suited your anti Israel agenda.
A predictable and pathetic piece of propaganda Julian.
If the AIPAC was a non case, the Franklin would not have been found guilty. Rosen was let off not because he was innocent, but because Rosen and AIPAC were using Grey Mail to sabotage the case. They were insisting that a whole slew of classified matierial be made public. The prosecution made the descision that state secrets were not worth risking to see the Rosen case through.
In fact, at one point, Rosen was threatening to sue AIPAC for casting him aside as the cafricial lamb. Rosen and Weiss were guilty through and through, but like Mafia thigs, got off on a techicality.
Passing on calssified info is a Federal Crime, which is why Jonatah Pollard was put away for life.
Good logic. If Franklin a government employee who stole secret documents is guilty, therefore Rosen and Weissman who never received a single government secret document are also guilty. Did you happen to notice the charges against Franklin were totally different than the charges against Rosen and Weissman. Rosen and Weissman were charged under a never used 1917 law. If the government had a case they would have charged them with spying, instead they went looking for something to charge them with and came up with an obscure law that was virtually unprovable. The FBI Agents involved in the AIPAC case tried their best to have Franklin set up several prominent pro Israeli citizens, but were rebuffed each time.
Good article about the case in the anti Israel Gulf News. It pretty much summarizes why there was no case.
http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/world/10340338.html
@ Julian August 15, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Good article about the case in the anti Israel Gulf News. It pretty much summarizes why there was no case.
The headline of the article:
The Aipac case and prejudice
By Gary Wasserman, Los Angeles Times- Washington Post
Julian is incorrect in implying that Gulf News necessarily agrees with the Lobby position on the AIPAC spy case. Gulf News’ republication of a Washington Post article written by a well-known neocon hack merely shows that it is presenting both sides of the story to its readers, even when one side is ridiculous claptrap. Lack of editorial bias in an Arab paper?!?!? Quick! Call MEMRI to make it all go away!
In a bit of irony here, Julian has cited the very same opinion piece by the very same author mentioned in Phil’s post, he just cites the Gulf News as its source, while its obvious from the Gulf News that its original publication was in the Washington Post and LA Times. And it is merely an opinion piece by Wasserman, not a factual article on the particulars of the case
@ Julian August 15, 2009 at 3:46 pm
… therefore Rosen and Weissman who never received a single government secret document are also guilty.
Rosen and Weissman received classified information verbally, and then passed it along to both reporters AND the Israeli embassy. Readers, note that the latter recipient is always conveniently left out of attempts to defend them, which paint them as heroic defenders of a free press just trying to help get a story out to the media. Bullshit. They received classified information from Franklin, who explicitly told them it was classified, detailing a possible threat to Israeli agents in Iraq (other reports indicate northern Iraq, i.e. the Kurds), and then they promptly passed it along to the Israeli embassy. I ought not have to point out that the Israeli embassy is part of the Israeli government, and that release of intelligence information to them would enable them to pull their own agents tipping the target organization that their information security had been breached, thereby putting AMERICAN lives at risk. American and Israeli interests were obviously not anywhere close to being identical in this case.
However, the balance of interest may have been mediated by passing the information to Israel via normal (and legal) intelligence channels. We have neither confirmation that this happened, nor that it didn’t happen. Regardless, Rosen and Weissman were faced with a clear choice to choose between America and Israel, and they broke the law to side with Israel.
FBI Tapped Talks About Possible Secrets; Case Against Ex-AIPAC Officials Could Focus on Several Contacts With Defense Analyst
Amid the stores and shoppers, the analyst warned that Iranian agents were planning attacks against American soldiers and Israeli agents in Iraq, sources familiar with the meeting said. Alarmed, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee official, Keith Weissman, left the mall and went to the office of colleague Steve Rosen. The two men then relayed the information to the Israeli Embassy in Washington and a reporter for The Washington …
USA v. Franklin: Statement of Facts
@ Julian August 15, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Did you happen to notice the charges against Franklin were totally different than the charges against Rosen and Weissman.
No, they were not. Read The Indictment. Franklin, Rosen, and Weissman were all charged with Count 1, Franklin and Rosen with Count 2, and Franklin alone with Counts 2, 4, & 5. Counts one through four fall under 18USC793: United States Code, Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Chapter 37 Espionage and Censorship, Section 793 Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information. Count five falls under 50USC783: United States Code Title 50 War and National Defense, Chapter 23 Internal Security, Subchapter 1 Control of Subversive Activities, Section 783 Offenses AND 18USC371: United States Code, Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Chapter 19 Conspiracy, Section 371 Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States.
******************************************************************
If the government had a case they would have charged them with spying, instead they went looking for something to charge them with and came up with an obscure law that was virtually unprovable.
Julian is being disingenuous. There is no such thing as a charge of simply ’spying’. Read the indictment, then go to the United States Code: Main Page, do keyword searches for 18USC793, 50USC783, 18USC371, and read the laws for yourselves.
Julian,
You’re trying desprately to ignore the elephant in the room Franklin confessed to passing on secret documentst ot Rosen and Weissman, so there’s no point denying that. Franklin faced differnt charges becasue he rolled over for the FBI and became an informant.
The government did charge Rosen and Weissman with spying, and Rosen thretaned to sue AIPAC and spill the beans as to their spying program unless they paid for his legal costs.
Jane Harman was caught discussing the case with an Israeli itnelligence opertive, where the Israeli agent proised Hamrman the Chair of the House Inteligence Comitee if she used her ifluence to stonewall the investigation. Now why would Israeli intelliegnce feel the need to do this if there was nothign to hide?
Like I said before, John Gotti was able to escape cponvictions countless times, which is why he became known as the Teflon Don. Does that mean he was innocent? Obviously not.
Israel have been spying on the US for decades.
edit to: Colin Murray August 15, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Somehow I forgot the address to Franklin, Rosen, and Weissman’s indictment.
Read The Indictment.
Career professionals at FBI and DOJ thought it was a good case. Political appointees overruled them. Anyone surprised?
The Franklin case also revealed that our FBI and DOJ agents agree that there’s a double standard when it comes to Israeli action in the USA due to Israel’s special protection in our Congress, Executive Branch, Judiciary, and MSM. The FBI and DOJ would not be
so gagged regarding the agents of any other country when it comes to protecting American security and strategy first. Franklin himself chose to ignore the double standard chaffed against by labeling it anti-semitic.
Franklin himself chose to ignore the double standard chaffed against by labeling it anti-semitic.
The antisemitism to which Mr. Franklin refers may or may not exist. However, a man who was caught with 37 secret and 38 top secret documents hidden in his house, all clearly marked and jacketed, pled guilty to counts one and five of his indictment for carrying out espionage activities against the United States on behalf of Israel, and whose 12 1/2 year sentence was ‘miraculously’ reduced to zero days in prison an unseemly short time after his co-defendants charges were dropped in one of the more brazen displays of judicial corruption this decade, has zero credibility to criticize government conduct, especially with charges of antisemitism. If an unbiased observer comes forward with such accusations, I’ll listen. Until then I’ll file Franklin’s in section ‘cover-my-ass-by-blaming-it-on-everyone-but-me’.
MSM especially. Imagine if Saudi or Chinese lobbyists were charged with spying. It would be all over the media 24/7. Public opinion wouldn’t allow the cases to be dropped.
Exactly. The Jews are always the exception to rule.
They wouldn’t have charged Saudi or Chinese lobbyists for calling the Washington Post to report that American and Chinese or Saudi Soldiers were at risk of being killed.
http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/world/10340338.html
Why should WaPo care about Saudi or Chinese soldiers? They do seem to care about Jews much more than any group. I guess Eugene Meyer didn’t buy the paper solely as a financial investment.
Israel has never given much thought to American soliders being killed. After all, Isrel murdered 30 of them in 1967 with teh attack on the USS Liberty and they were only to happy to murder Rachel Corrie.
@ Shingo August 15, 2009 at 9:22 pm
I think that the word ‘Israel’ is an inaccurate abstraction for the set of people holding the views you describe. I would not disagree with:
Israelis have never given much thought to American soliders being killed. After all, the Israeli government murdered 30 of them in 1967 with the attack on the USS Liberty
and they were only to happy to murder Rachel Corrie.The latter claim about Rachel Corrie is excessive. The IDF must have rules of engagement for house demolition operations, but given the increasing level of indiscipline it has displayed over at least the last twenty years it would certainly not be surprising if her killing resulted from unlawful excesses, not that the legal qualifier means a damn thing given the complete lack of accountability of those who have been ‘caught’. I think it obvious to anyone with a shred of integrity that the IDF soldier who killed her would have been held legally liable for at least manslaughter in any civilized country, but is there any evidence to support the assertion that “[he was] only to happy to murder [her]“?
I suspect that most Israelis and American colonial, as opposed to moderate, Zionists aren’t bothered by her killing except insofar as it has resulted in negative PR, and that many support it, perhaps with regret and secret shame, as a necessary (as they see it) deterrent to other internationals interested in observing, documenting, or obstructing their campaign of ethnic cleansing and colonization in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. However, I have seen nothing to suggest that “they (all Israelis) were only to happy to murder Rachel Corrie”. Don’t hold culpable the entire nation of Israel for the actions of its government or the views of a subset of its citizens, and don’t forget Americans whose vindictive moral bankruptcy regarding this incident also merit recognition and contempt.
Comments on this entry are closed.