Indicted officials consider suing pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC)

[Wordie]

(Mods please note: this is an article discussing a United States group, AIPAC, and a US trial, and as such, it has relevance to the wider DU audience.)

Indicted officials consider suing pro-Israel lobby

23-12-2005

By Ori Nir

WASHINGTON, Forward News — Two former employees of the nation's main pro-Israel lobby, who are facing trial for allegedly receiving classified information and relaying it to foreign diplomats and the press, are considering lawsuits against the lobbying powerhouse.

Steve Rosen, former director of foreign policy at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Keith Weissman, Aipac's former Iran analyst, are considering suing Aipac over its stopping payments of legal fees to their attorneys, sources close to the two said. They are also considering a defamation suit against Aipac, if they are exonerated, for accusing them of unbecoming conduct.

The hostility between the two dismissed officials and Aipac's leadership is expected to peak at the two men's trial, scheduled to start in late April 2006. Defense attorneys will try to establish that the men were following the organization's routine practice and that Aipac's top officials were fully aware of their actions. "The evidence in this case will show that Dr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman always acted in Aipac's interests, never were on their own and acted with the knowledge and approval of their superiors," Rosen's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, told the Forward.

Conversations with sources close to Aipac suggest that the organization is trying to protect itself not only against financial damages but also against damage to its reputation, while fending off ongoing pressure from the government. Aipac's decision, sources said, was motivated by several factors: mushrooming legal fees; critics' suggestions that by paying the legal fees Aipac has not fully dissociated itself from the scandal, and pressure from the government to manifest its rejection of Rosen and Weissman. Aipac, therefore, seems to have made the following calculation, say sources close to the organization: By deferring the payments until the trial is over, Aipac could both protect its image and reduce its financial risks. If the two are found not guilty, covering their legal fees after the fact would not be an embarrassment and would be a worthwhile price to pay for the scandal to evaporate. If the two are convicted, however, Aipac could argue that it is exempt from covering the fees under the exception in its bylaws, saving itself the financial risk of not being able to recoup the money from Rosen and Weissman and avoiding the embarrassment of having paid the legal expenses of convicted former employees.

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=10364

[MissMarple]

1. AIPAC and Wolf Blitzer. (Just a little aside)

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/3751

"I apologize for bestowing Israeli citizenship on Mr. Blitzer. Before, moving to The Jerusalem Post he worked for AIPAC where he wrote for their propaganda sheet, The Near East Report. Currently, he travels the American TV talk show circuit as the "voice of Israel." Territory of Lies is a slick piece of damage control that would make his former employers at AIPAC (not to mention Israel's Defense Ministry) proud."

I've heard folks here mention that Leslie worked for AIPAC, but I'd never looked it up before.

[Wordie]

4. Jeez, I never knew that Wolf Blitzer had worked for AIPAC.

But it is interesting how Blitzer painted the Pollard case, too, as an abberration:

Robert I Friedman replies:
Senior Israeli Defense Department officials are understandably pleased with Blitzer's book about Pollard. First, Blitzer serves up the fiction that Israel's running of Pollard in America was the exception, not the rule..."

Sounds much like what AIPAC is claiming about the recent case, that it is an exception.

[papau]

2. That is indeed an Interesting Article from the Jewish online site.

Rosen and Weissman maintain that they had no idea that receiving information from administration officials could be illegal, said sources close to the defense. The two argue that the organization should have alerted them that such a possibility exists, the sources said.


http://www.forward.com/articles/7052

Indicted Officials Consider Suing Pro-Israel Lobby
Bad Blood Spills Over In Aipac Spy Scandal
By ORI NIR
December 23, 2005

WASHINGTON — <snip>Aipac's top officials, by contrast, are attempting vigorously to distance the agency from its ex-employees, maintaining that the reason Rosen and Weissman were fired in March was "conduct that was not part of their job, and beneath the standards required of Aipac employees," said Patrick Dorton, a spokesman for Aipac.

The quarrel over paying Rosen's and Weissman's legal fees is the latest manifestation of this escalating adversarial relationship, although it is not clear whether bad blood was the reason Aipac first halted the lawyers' fees last spring.

What is clear is that the two sides' conflicting arguments regarding the lobby's routine working norms are likely to collide in court. Defense attorneys are expected to argue that receiving information from administration officials was something the two were paid and encouraged to do, and something Aipac routinely does — as do many other lobbying groups in Washington. Aipac is expected to try to portray the actions of the two as contradictory to Aipac's norms and conduct. <snip>

<snip>Many members of Aipac's staff and board of directors are reportedly uneasy with the notion that Aipac is not giving full backing to the two. Despite arguments by the lobby's top leadership that the organization's reputation is more important than its loyalty to two former staffers, some say that the organization's moral obligation to Rosen and Weissman supersedes its financial and image concerns. A former Aipac staffer who is still close to the lobbying group said: "I hear many people saying that they think the indictment is wrong, that Keith and Steve deserve Aipac's backing, that there is no way they could have been freelancing out on their own. But most people trust that Aipac's leaders are doing what's best for Aipac."

[Wordie]

5. Jewish online site? I don't know what the point is there, but what do you

think of the article's content?

[papau]

6. The content I thought interesting had none of the paragraphs you posted!

Which I also thought interesting.

The Article originated at the Jewish publication FORWARD and is on it's online site.

The URL in the original post is not the Forward URL - also interesting.

But as you note those interesting things mean little compared to the content.

And the content is about 2 reporters being in trouble because of being given "official leaks" (my term) from the White House and repeating them while the leaker's seem to have no problem.

Sort of the New York Times Judy Miller case only in this case the listener/repeater may go to jail. I suspect someone in the DA's office does not like AIPAC.

The gossip on bill payment means little to me. Employers promising one thing and changing the promise later has a long history in this world.

[Wordie]

7. The most important question: why were they given classified info?

It appears we agree on that point. I also agree that those who provided the information should also be facing charges. I believe an effort should also be made to find out who gave them the info, and to prosecute them. As far as selecting different portions to quote, it doesn't seem that important to me; between the two of us the major thrust of the article has been covered. And I have no way of knowing where the info actually originated.

But I do think the case differs quite significantly from the Miller situation in that her actions did not involve giving the information to a foreign government.

And as for your comment that you think the DA has something against AIPAC: are you saying it is an unreasonable thing to go after people who have given classified US information to a foreign government??? Is that something that you consider a matter-of-fact, no-big-deal kind of thing?

[Catrina]

9. I agree, there is no comparison between this case

and Judith Miller, but there is a connection between Larry Franklin and Judith Miller.

You said that whoever gave them the information should be prosecuted. He has been and interestingly, he pled guilty just before Judith Miller decided to 'get out of jail'. His name is Larry Franklin. The ties between this case and the Cheney created OSP exist because of Larry Franklin, who was close to Douglas Feith.

This case was going on for two years before the FBI arrested Larry Franklin, who then agreed to cooperate and was wired when he met with Weissman and Rosen and passed the sensitive information to them. That information, as I recall, was for Israel.

The arrests were made in August of 2004 and made the news under the title 'Spies in the Pentagon Arrested'. That was the last of this story in the news. AIPAC'S offices were searched with a warrant, also reported in that same, lone news-story.

Larry Franklin has also been described by former colleagues as the 'most unlikely person to be involved in spying on his own country'. But as I said, he pled guilty in August and agreed to testify against Rosen and Weissman. Some have speculated that Judith Miller and Scooter Libby waited until Franklin's plea of guilty, before making the decision they made. Also, that the news that Larry Franklin was going to testify, may have been part of what Libby meant when he said 'the Aspens are turning' ~ but that has not been verified.

This story is very connected to the lies about WMD and the Iraq/Al Queda connection, yet has been kept out of the news for some reason. But why three Pentagon workers were passing sensitive information to a foreign country remains a mystery, particularly considering their connections to the Bush administration's drive to go war in Iraq and their support for it.

Here's some of how it connects ~ Larry Franklin was close to Doug Feith, who was very close to Michael Ledeen. Michael Ledeen was in Italy when the Forged Niger documents surfaced, at a meeting with about 20 other individuals. Larry Franklin may have been one of those people. Hadley is said to have been the WH official who received the forged Niger documents. At the time, I believe Hadley was an aide or adviser to Condoleeza Rice.

This story is a very important thread of the whole Iraq War deception ~

On another note. Why is Wolf Blitzer given so much airtime on CNN? I knew he had connections to Pat Robertson's fundie network (I read that he started his 'journalistic career' with Robertson) but I did not know of his background with AIPAC.

When will we ever get our media back with people who are not compromised by their own personal political agenda? For now, I dismiss most of what I hear, read or see on the propaganda arm of this government. I wonder what else they do not cover? And why is this story being swept under the rug? Spies within the Pentagon is a very big national security issue. And that it should happen under the 'National Security' president! The media once again covering for this administration ~ what else is new.

[papau]

10. Wow - connections I had forgotten - thanks for posting :-)

:-)

[Wordie]

13. Thanks for this great summing up of all the intricate interweavings

of the links to this case with all the numerous other loose ends that we still haven't gotten to the bottom of. It will be an interesting trial.

And thanks also for providing a clue to the "aspens are turning" comment, which has always intrigued me. Your theory seems to make a lot of sense.

Guess I was somewhat asleep at the wheel.

[papau]

11. Giving classified info to a foreign gov is the Larry Franklin crime - the

other two received it and passed it on.

It appears they volunteered to become part of a spy ring - or that they thought the US Gov wanted a back channel with deniability.

We will have to wait for the trial.

Back when I was in DC a lot nothing was as it seemed to be at first glance - I doubt much has changed in 10 years.

I agree that why Bush gave AIPAC info via these three will be the most interesting thing we discover.

[Hardrada]

3. Excellent. Much more of this needed

in my opinion.

[bemildred]

8. Not going to fall on their swords, eh?

:popcorn::popcorn:

[FlemingsGhost]

12. LOL! Drag it out, fellas ... shine a spotlight on these cockroaches.

A thorough, "all cavity"-type examination of AIPAC is sorely needed, in my opinion.

[Wordie]

14. Let's hope someone in msm feels this is important enought to cover well.nt