http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/feedburner/WDBc/~3/P1iJKblUvVQ/washington-post-urges-dismissal-of-aipac-espionage-case-asks-for-counterargument-and-promptly-reject.html


'Washington Post' urges dismissal of AIPAC espionage case, asks for 
counter-argument, and promptly rejects same
via Mondoweiss by Philip Weiss on 3/14/09



The other day the Washington Post editorial page -- which I am harping on 
because it has been on the pro-neocon track at least since declaring that the 
Iraq war was "essential to American security" -- ran an editorial urging the 
Justice Department to drop the "misguided" espionage case against former AIPAC 
staffers Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman. 

The editorial was followed by this statement: "Do you have a different view of 
this issue? Debate a member of the editorial board in the Editorial Judgment 
discussion group."

Grant Smith does have a different view. He is the director of the Institute for 
Research: Middle Eastern Policy and a sharp critic of the Israel lobby. I like 
Smith because he has shown that back in the early '60s AIPAC's predecessor 
organization, the American Zionist Council, was being pursued by the Kennedy 
Justice Department to register under the Foreign Agents registration act. The 
lobbyists knew that having to register as foreign agents would hurt the effort 
to maintain Israel's necessary support from the superpower. So AIPAC was 
started, and it has always escaped such designation. 

Smith, a lucid and forceful writer, put together an Op-Ed on the Rosen/Weissman 
case urging that it not be dropped. It was of course rejected by the Post. 
Wrote an editorial aide, "Dear Mr. Smith, Thank you for your recent op-ed 
submission. The column was carefully reviewed, but unfortunately The Post is 
not able to publish this piece."

Smith has posted it at that link. Here are some excerpts: 

Dismissing charges against Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman would harm the 
public interest. In 2005 the two staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs 
Committee (or AIPAC) were indicted along with Colonel Lawrence Franklin for 
alleged violations of the 1917 Espionage Act. Franklin has since received a 
fine and prison sentence. Important questions surrounding Rosen and Weissman's 
alleged involvement in obtaining and distributing classified information are 
unresolved. The Washington Post editorial board and many others have called for 
dismissal of the charges as threats to freedom of the press and against 
government secrecy. This is misguided. Dismissing the trial would actually 
contribute to government secrecy while delaying critical questions about 
lobbying and freedom of speech. The Department of Justice would be seen as 
granting a special backroom deal. That perception is warranted since AIPAC 
partly owes its existence to government secrets....

Shutting down the US v Rosen and Weissman trial before it even begins would 
again short circuit AIPAC accountability. Far from rolling back government 
secrets, it would create more at a time public confidence is already in 
tatters. Did the AIPAC lobbyists cross a red line in their advocacy activities? 
Is the Espionage Act obsolete? Was there an improper effort to leverage 
classified information into US military action against Iran? Does the US 
government over classify information? Are the media and public manipulated by 
lobbyists selectively trafficking secrets? These are important questions that 
only a long overdue public trial can answer.

It looks like we're really going to debate the Israel lobby at last. americans 
have a right to know about these issues, which cost us billions and have 
distorted our foreign policy. Will it be a robust debate, or a controlled one?


 
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"ShadowGovernment" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/ShadowGovernment
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to