Case Against AIPAC Dropped

US NewsMay 2009 • Views: 2,101

The espionage case against two former AIPAC members is now finished.

WASHINGTON�(JTA) — Prosecutors asked a judge to drop charges against two ex-AIPAC�staffers accused of passing along classified information.

In a statement Friday, the acting U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia said restrictions on the government’s case imposed by Judge T.S. Ellis III made conviction unlikely.

“Given the diminished likelihood the government will prevail at trial under the additional intent requirements imposed by the court and the inevitable disclosure of classified information that would occur at any trial in this matter, we have asked the court to dismiss the indictment,” Dana Boente said.

The motion all but guarantees a dismissal.

Jump to bottom

47 comments

debutaunt Fri, May 1, 2009 9:00:28am

A nation of easily broken laws.

The Other Les Fri, May 1, 2009 9:00:45am

Can I say that this really sucks long and hard?

NYCHardhat Fri, May 1, 2009 9:01:11am

Women's rights.

[deleted] Fri, May 1, 2009 9:02:36am

littleoldlady Fri, May 1, 2009 9:03:02am

"Intent requirements" refers to an earlier Ellis ruling that the government must prove that Keith Weissman, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's former Iran analyst, and Steve Rosen, its former foreign policy chief, intended not only to assist Israel but to harm the United States.

And the prosecuters are complaining about this?

/what am I missing?!

simonml Fri, May 1, 2009 9:03:34am

From the article:

For the immediate future, Rosen said, he would focus on a book he was writing on government leaks.

I guess he's an expert on government leaks? Maybe its a "How To" about getting away with it.

MrSilverDragon Fri, May 1, 2009 9:04:19am

re: #2 The Other Les

Can I say that this really sucks long and hard?

It's gone from suck to blow.

VegasRick Fri, May 1, 2009 9:06:42am

re: #7 MrSilverDragon

It's gone from suck to blow.

I know the combination!

simonml Fri, May 1, 2009 9:06:48am

re: #5 littleoldlady

And the prosecuters are complaining about this?

/what am I missing?!

GOSH! Those poor prosecutors had to show the accused wanted to "harm America." That's too hard, esp since Rosen and Weissman didn't want to harm America.

In a statement Friday, the acting U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia said restrictions on the government's case imposed by Judge T.S. Ellis III made conviction unlikely.

Proving harm is a "restriction"? Seems more like a requirement to prove a law was broken.

saberry0530 Fri, May 1, 2009 9:07:36am

re: #8 VegasRick

I know the combination!

Its not the same as your luggage, is it?

Dark_Falcon Fri, May 1, 2009 9:08:06am

re: #3 NYCHardhat

Women's rights.

Updinged and recommended.

VegasRick Fri, May 1, 2009 9:08:07am

re: #10 saberry0530

Its not the same as your luggage, is it?

Damnit! How did you know?!

opnion Fri, May 1, 2009 9:09:55am

To prove 'intent to harm the United States" goes to state of mind.
Unless I'm missing something , that seems like a really high burden of proof.

Cato the Elder Fri, May 1, 2009 9:10:04am

Sorry to go off topic.

From CCN:

Investigators have found the vehicle of a University of Georgia professor wanted in the killing of three people.

Police found George Zinkhan's vehicle early Friday in northwestern Clarke County, home to the University of Georgia, the university said in a statement.

Authorities have been looking for a 2005 red Jeep Liberty that Zinkhan was driving when he was last seen six days ago after a shooting left three people dead, including his wife. Saturday's shootings happened at a community theater group's reunion in Athens, Georgia, just off campus.

The university fired Zinkhan from his job as a marketing professor the day after the shootings.

Zinkhan had purchased a plane ticket to the Netherlands for travel on Saturday, said Gregory Jones, special agent in charge of the FBI's Atlanta, Georgia, office, this week. Authorities have said Zinkhan owns a home in Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Police Capt. Clarence Holeman identified the dead as Marie Bruce, 47, Zinkhan's wife and an Athens attorney; Tom Tanner, 40; and Ben Teague, 63.

Ben Teague is an old friend and translation colleague of mine.

In memoriam Ben Teague.

I am in tears.

Ben, you were a mentor and virtual friend when I was still cutting my teeth in the translation business. I have known you since 1989, but we never met in person. We just reconnected on Facebook a little while ago. I found out what happened by accident, reading CNN this morning.

Your wit, humanity and kindness shone out in every contact we ever had. You are sadly missed and deeply mourned.

God bless your soul, Ben, and God bless everyone who loves you.

✠ requiescat in pace ✠

Occasional Reader Fri, May 1, 2009 9:12:59am

I really don't know enough about this case to know whether to cheer or boo.

Buck Fri, May 1, 2009 9:13:40am

I must be EXTRA dense this morning... This is bad news because?

An impartial Judge set out the rules to protect not just these American citizens BUT all American Citizens.

These charges should never have been brought. The investigators should have known that they have to gather evidence that shows intent.

The fact that an OBAMA administration didn't go through with a show trial is GOOD news.... I think...

Dark_Falcon Fri, May 1, 2009 9:14:46am

re: #16 Buck

I'm a little confused about this thread as well. Not trying to be hostile, Charles.

Occasional Reader Fri, May 1, 2009 9:15:15am

re: #15 Occasional Reader

I really don't know enough about this case to know whether to cheer or boo.

I do know, however, that of course this development will be used by the likes of Walt, Mearsheimer, Pat Buchanan, et al. to "prove" that you know who controls the Obama Administration, too! Etc. etc.

Bubblehead II Fri, May 1, 2009 9:15:47am

re: #15 Occasional Reader

Ditto. Anybody have some background links on this?

NYCHardhat Fri, May 1, 2009 9:15:52am

re: #11 Dark_Falcon

Updinged and recommended.

This article made me cry.

[deleted] Fri, May 1, 2009 9:16:33am

Eowyn2 Fri, May 1, 2009 9:17:06am

re: #12 VegasRick

Damnit! How did you know?!

1 2 3 4 5

davesax Fri, May 1, 2009 9:19:38am

There was no case. It was bogus.

These guys were accused of receiving classified information, transmitted orally, under a vague law passed in 1917 that noone refers to.

There were set up by a government stooge, and then they were charged for talking about the supposedly classified stuff the said stooge told them. Something journalists do every single day.

B.S.

Eowyn2 Fri, May 1, 2009 9:19:47am

re: #14 Cato the Elder

very sorry for your loss.

simonml Fri, May 1, 2009 9:19:57am

Apparently Franklin Lawrence, the DoD employee who leaked the info to Rosen and Weissman plead guilty years ago and is serving his 13 year sentence.

It has been suggested that Franklin's motivations may have been ideological or personal, rather than financial. An unnamed U.S. intelligence official told Newsweek: "for whatever reason, the guy hates Iran [the Iranian government] passionately."

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

The Judge previously denied motion to dismiss based on prior precedent and intent but imposed the so called "restrictions" based on his understanding of wording in the 1917 Espionage law. (I'm looking for more info regarding the dismissal.

Yes, I linked to Wiki twice but the footnotes are where the good stuff is at

turn Fri, May 1, 2009 9:20:43am

re: #15 Occasional Reader

I really don't know enough about this case to know whether to cheer or boo.

wow, OR didn't know about this. Now I don't feel totally dense.

Mad Al-Jaffee Fri, May 1, 2009 9:21:28am

i first read that as "Judge T.S. Elliott."

littleoldlady Fri, May 1, 2009 9:22:08am

re: #13 opnion

To prove 'intent to harm the United States" goes to state of mind.
Unless I'm missing something , that seems like a really high burden of proof.

Wouldn't they just have to prove that Israel merely having this information would harm the US?

You know, The Duh Defense™

IIRC - and it was a long time ago - there was some question as to the level of "classified" the info they passed fell under. I mean, they did it over lunch in a deli or something.

_{^{Disclaimer: I only play one on TV...}}

Bubblehead II Fri, May 1, 2009 9:23:14am

re: #25 simonml

Thanks for the link.

simonml Fri, May 1, 2009 9:24:52am

Here is the Judge's opinion on the constitutionality of trying the two men with espionage given they were not federal employees. Its interesting. Just skimmed the beginning. Apparently he equates a lot of what they did with what the media does with leaked info. Opens the door for a lot of litigations. My guess is the "restrictions" placed on the case were to blunt the effect his earlier ruling had. Just a guess

simonml Fri, May 1, 2009 9:30:42am

I guess the thread is dead. My best guess is that this dismissal is just b/c these two men should never have been charged in the first place. The DoD employee who leaked in the information (purely for ideological purposes) committed the crimes, even if Rosen and Weissman later passed on that info to Israel, although much of the case involved Franklin passing on the information himself.

Also, other government employees were included in the indictment, including Kenneth Pollack but charges were never brought against him. I think the right guy went to jail and that's that.

[deleted] Fri, May 1, 2009 9:33:36am

CaptObviousman Fri, May 1, 2009 9:37:35am

So it's ok to spy on us as long as we know about it and we use you for other things.

That's good to know.

dhg4 Fri, May 1, 2009 9:38:44am

re: #18 Occasional Reader

I do know, however, that of course this development will be used by the likes of Walt, Mearsheimer, Pat Buchanan, et al. to "prove" that you know who controls the Obama Administration, too! Etc. etc.

Yep. Once Jane Harman was connected to the case, a lovely wingnut (and Assad apologist) named Helena Cobban called Harman an "Israeli mole."

MJ Fri, May 1, 2009 9:46:07am

This "case" was a sham from the start. It was another smear campaign by the most incompetent "counter-terrorism expert" in the FBI- David Szady.

[Link: www.americanthinker.com...]

This guy is also known for his immense dislike of Jews:

[Link: www.israpundit.com...]

dhg4 Fri, May 1, 2009 9:50:58am

re: #35 MJ

This "case" was a sham from the start. It was another smear campaign by the most incompetent "counter-terrorism expert" in the FBI- David Szady.

[Link: www.americanthinker.com...]

This guy is also known for his immense dislike of Jews:

[Link: www.israpundit.com...]

I found it interesting that the Washington Post (on its editorial page) was very much opposed to the prosecution. The editors were honest enough to acknowledge that passing classified information on to others is the way a lot of news gets reported.

After all how many times have people read an item in an article by Sy Hersh, "... the contents of these classified documents shed a new light ..." or something like that. (Now in the case of Hersh, it might well be that he made the story up out of whole cloth. But such phrases also appear frequently in newspapers.) The prosecution seemed rather selective.

dhg4 Fri, May 1, 2009 9:51:55am

Just in case you're wondering what Steve Rosen is up to now.

MJ Fri, May 1, 2009 10:06:28am

re: #36 dhg4

I found it interesting that the Washington Post (on its editorial page) was very much opposed to the prosecution. The editors were honest enough to acknowledge that passing classified information on to others is the way a lot of news gets reported.

After all how many times have people read an item in an article by Sy Hersh, "... the contents of these classified documents shed a new light ..." or something like that. (Now in the case of Hersh, it might well be that he made the story up out of whole cloth. But such phrases also appear frequently in newspapers.) The prosecution seemed rather selective.

Yes, I posted that editorial on LGF.
Too many people assume that the FBI is neutral. They're not. This is an organization with a long history of animosity to Jews. It has also been one of the main sources of leaks designed to damage relations with Israel.
Whenever the US and Israel have a disagreement over policy, you can count on the the FBI to plant a leak of some information which the Israelis supposedly got through some under-handed means. The CIA is also notorious for this kind of crap. but in this case, it was the FBI who instigated this action.

ORD neighbor Fri, May 1, 2009 10:42:14am

Leaking classified info by those who gave an oath not to do so is obviously a crime, and in this case got convicted and subsequently punished. In fact, I would wish that enforcement of laws punishing classified information leaking was not quite so sporadic and almost capricious, but highly consistent. The reasons for not having an unusually selective situation in this matter are quite obvious and need no elaboration. However, if someone who did not swear to keep classified info secret comes to know such information without committing a crime himself in the process, their subsequent disclosure of such information appears to be ill advised, though not legally punishable in most reasonable cases.

JustABill Fri, May 1, 2009 11:02:53am

re: #5 littleoldlady

And the prosecuters are complaining about this?

/what am I missing?!

How can the prosecutors prove that he intended to harm the US as opposed to just not caring about harming the US. Someone with a pro-Israel mindset might believe that Israel would never use the info gained to harm the US.

If what really happened is that he gave classified info to anyone without appropriate US clearances, he broke the law, regardless of how he intended the secrets to be used and the judges decision sets the bar rather high for the prosecutors...

Buck Fri, May 1, 2009 11:53:23am

re: #17 Dark_Falcon

I'm a little confused about this thread as well. Not trying to be hostile, Charles.

I don't think Charles is say this is bad.... just the first few comments made it seem so...

_RememberTonyC Fri, May 1, 2009 12:07:46pm

I'm sure the Paulestinians and Buchananazis are pissed.

simonml Fri, May 1, 2009 4:16:29pm

re: #40 JustABill

How can the prosecutors prove that he intended to harm the US as opposed to just not caring about harming the US. Someone with a pro-Israel mindset might believe that Israel would never use the info gained to harm the US.

If what really happened is that he gave classified info to anyone without appropriate US clearances, he broke the law, regardless of how he intended the secrets to be used and the judges decision sets the bar rather high for the prosecutors...

I think you are confused. The person that leaked the information plead guilty and is serving his jail time. The people the information was leaked to are the ones mentioned in this post.

Technically, there is no law against receiving classified information, else I'm sure husbands and wives of most diplomats would be subject to prosecution.

Salamantis Fri, May 1, 2009 5:28:08pm

re: #3 NYCHardhat

Women's rights.

Happier News:

Saudi Girl, 8, Divorces 50-Year-Old Husband
He paid $13,000 to father to marry her; out-of-court settlement in case

MSNBC Video

I guess she doesn't have to fear a coming year consummation when she turns 9 (well, it was good enough for Aisha...)

Bubblehead II Sun, May 3, 2009 1:49:34pm

Test

Bubblehead II Sun, May 3, 2009 1:50:01pm

retest

Bubblehead II Sun, May 3, 2009 1:52:09pm

and again

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Case Against AIPAC Dropped

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud