IAEA protests "erroneous" U.S. report on Iran - Yahoo! News: "IAEA protests "erroneous" U.S. report on Iran By Mark Heinrich
1 hour, 48 minutes ago
VIENNA (Reuters) - U.N. inspectors have protested to the U.S. government and a Congressional committee about a report on Iran's nuclear work, calling parts of it "outrageous and dishonest," according to a letter obtained by Reuters.
ADVERTISEMENT
The letter recalled clashes between the IAEA and the Bush administration before the 2003 Iraq war over findings cited by Washington about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that proved false, and underlined continued tensions over Iran's dossier.
Sent to the head of the House of Representatives' Select Committee on Intelligence by a senior aide to International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, the letter said an August 23 committee report contained serious distortions of IAEA findings on Iran's activity.
The letter said the errors suggested Iran's nuclear fuel program was much more advanced than a series of IAEA reports and Washington's own intelligence assessments have determined.
It said the report falsely described Iran to have enriched uranium at its pilot centrifuge plant to weapons-grade level in April, whereas IAEA inspectors had made clear Iran had enriched only to a low level usable for nuclear power reactor fuel.
"Furthermore, the IAEA Secretariat takes strong exception to the incorrect and misleading assertion" that the IAEA opted to remove a senior safeguards inspector for supposedly concluding the purpose of Iran's program was to build weapons, it said.
The letter said the congressional report contained "an outrageous and dishonest suggestion" that the inspector was dumped for having not adhered to an alleged IAEA policy barring its "officials from telling the whole truth" about Iran.
Diplomats say the inspector remains IAEA Iran section head.
The IAEA has been inspecting Iran's nuclear program since 2003. Although it has found no hard evidence that Iran is working on atomic weapons, it has uncovered many previously concealed activities linked to uranium enrichment, a process of purifying fuel for nuclear power plants or weapons.
IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said: "We felt obliged to put the record straight with regard to the facts on what we have reported on Iran. It's a matter of the integrity of the IAEA."
Diplomats say Washington, spearheading efforts to isolate Iran with sanctions over its nuclear work, has long perceived ElBaradei to be "soft" on Tehran.
"This (committee report) is deja vu of the pre-Iraq war period where the facts are being maligned and attempts are being made to ruin the integrity of IAEA inspectors," said a Western diplomat familiar with the agency and IAEA-U.S. relations. "
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Friday, September 08, 2006
Senate: No prewar Saddam-al-Qaida ties - Yahoo! News
Senate: No prewar Saddam-al-Qaida ties - Yahoo! News: "Senate: No prewar Saddam-al-Qaida ties By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 1 minute ago
WASHINGTON - There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence that Democrats say undercuts President Bush's justification for invading Iraq.
ADVERTISEMENT
Bush administration officials have insisted on a link between the Iraqi regime and terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Intelligence agencies, however, concluded there was none.
Republicans countered that there was little new in the report and Democrats were trying to score election-year points with it.
The declassified document released Friday by the intelligence committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.
It concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence community report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.
The 400-page report comes at a time when Bush is emphasizing the need to prevail in Iraq to win the war on terrorism while Democrats are seeking to make that policy an issue in the midterm elections.
It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."
Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam's government and al-Qaida. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year.
White House press secretary Tony Snow said the report was "nothing new."
"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," Snow said. That was "one of the reasons you had overwhelming majorities in the United States Senate and the House for taking action against Saddam Hussein," he said.
Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., a member of the committee, said the long-awaited report was "a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts" to link Saddam to al-Qaida.
The administration, said Sen. John D. Rockefeller (news, bio, voting record), D-W.Va., top Democrat on the committee, "exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe — contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time — that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks."
The chairman of the committee, Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., said it has long been known that prewar assessments of Iraq "were a tragic intelligence failure."
But he said the Democratic interpretations expressed in the report "are little more than a vehicle to advance election-year political charges." He said Democrats "continue to use the committee to try and rewrite history, insisting that they were deliberately duped into supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime."
The panel report is Phase II of an analysis of prewar intelligence on Iraq. The first phase, issued in July 2004, focused on the CIA's failings in its estimates of Iraq's weapons program.
The second phase has been delayed as Republicans and Democrats fought over what information should be declassified and how much the committee should delve into the question of how policymakers may have manipulated intelligence to make the case for war.
The committee is still considering three other issues as part of its Phase II analysis, including statements of policymakers in the run up to the war."
2 hours, 1 minute ago
WASHINGTON - There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence that Democrats say undercuts President Bush's justification for invading Iraq.
ADVERTISEMENT
Bush administration officials have insisted on a link between the Iraqi regime and terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Intelligence agencies, however, concluded there was none.
Republicans countered that there was little new in the report and Democrats were trying to score election-year points with it.
The declassified document released Friday by the intelligence committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.
It concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence community report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.
The 400-page report comes at a time when Bush is emphasizing the need to prevail in Iraq to win the war on terrorism while Democrats are seeking to make that policy an issue in the midterm elections.
It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."
Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam's government and al-Qaida. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year.
White House press secretary Tony Snow said the report was "nothing new."
"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," Snow said. That was "one of the reasons you had overwhelming majorities in the United States Senate and the House for taking action against Saddam Hussein," he said.
Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., a member of the committee, said the long-awaited report was "a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts" to link Saddam to al-Qaida.
The administration, said Sen. John D. Rockefeller (news, bio, voting record), D-W.Va., top Democrat on the committee, "exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe — contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time — that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks."
The chairman of the committee, Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., said it has long been known that prewar assessments of Iraq "were a tragic intelligence failure."
But he said the Democratic interpretations expressed in the report "are little more than a vehicle to advance election-year political charges." He said Democrats "continue to use the committee to try and rewrite history, insisting that they were deliberately duped into supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime."
The panel report is Phase II of an analysis of prewar intelligence on Iraq. The first phase, issued in July 2004, focused on the CIA's failings in its estimates of Iraq's weapons program.
The second phase has been delayed as Republicans and Democrats fought over what information should be declassified and how much the committee should delve into the question of how policymakers may have manipulated intelligence to make the case for war.
The committee is still considering three other issues as part of its Phase II analysis, including statements of policymakers in the run up to the war."
Armitage Betrays Country in CIA leak - Yahoo! News
Armitage says he was source in CIA leak - Yahoo! News: " Armitage says he was source in CIA leak By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 3 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The former No. 2 State Department official said Thursday he inadvertently disclosed the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame in conversations with two reporters in 2003.
Confirming that he was the source of a leak that triggered a federal investigation, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said he never intended to reveal Plame's identity. He apologized for his conversations with syndicated columnist Robert Novak and Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward.
For almost three years, an investigation led by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has tried to determine whether Bush administration officials intentionally revealed Plame's identity as covert operative as a way to punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for criticizing the Bush administration's march to war with Iraq.
"I made a terrible mistake, not maliciously, but I made a terrible mistake," Armitage said in a telephone interview from his home Thursday night.
He said he did not realize Plame's job was covert.
Armitage's admission suggested that the leak did not originate at the White House as retribution for Wilson's comments about the Iraq war. Wilson, a former ambassador, discounted reports that then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger to make a nuclear weapon — claims that wound up in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.
Armitage said he was not a part of a conspiracy to reveal Plame's identity and did not know whether one existed.
He described his June 2003 conversation with Woodward as an afterthought at the end of a lengthy interview.
"He said, 'Hey, what's the deal with Wilson?' and I said, 'I think his wife works out there,'" Armitage recalled.
He described a more direct conversation with Novak, who was the first to report on the issue: "He said to me, 'Why did the CIA send Ambassador Wilson to Niger?' I said, as I remember, 'I don't know, but his wife works out there.'"
Armitage, whose admission was first reported by CBS News Thursday, said he cooperated fully with Fitzgerald's investigation. He was never a target of the investigation and did not hire a lawyer. He agreed to speak to reporters after Fitzgerald released him from a promise of confidentiality.
Armitage said he considered coming forward late last month when a flurry of news reports identified him as the leak. But he said he did not want to be accused of trying to get the story out during the summer's slow news cycle.
"I did what I did," Armitage said. "I embarrassed my president, my secretary, my department, my family and I embarrassed the Wilsons. And for that I'm very sorry."
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, is the only administration official charged in the CIA leak case. He faces trial in January on charges he lied to authorities about conversations he had with reporters about Plame.
Armitage said he assumed Plame's job was not a secret because it was included in a State Department memo."
1 hour, 3 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The former No. 2 State Department official said Thursday he inadvertently disclosed the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame in conversations with two reporters in 2003.
Confirming that he was the source of a leak that triggered a federal investigation, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said he never intended to reveal Plame's identity. He apologized for his conversations with syndicated columnist Robert Novak and Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward.
For almost three years, an investigation led by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has tried to determine whether Bush administration officials intentionally revealed Plame's identity as covert operative as a way to punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for criticizing the Bush administration's march to war with Iraq.
"I made a terrible mistake, not maliciously, but I made a terrible mistake," Armitage said in a telephone interview from his home Thursday night.
He said he did not realize Plame's job was covert.
Armitage's admission suggested that the leak did not originate at the White House as retribution for Wilson's comments about the Iraq war. Wilson, a former ambassador, discounted reports that then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger to make a nuclear weapon — claims that wound up in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.
Armitage said he was not a part of a conspiracy to reveal Plame's identity and did not know whether one existed.
He described his June 2003 conversation with Woodward as an afterthought at the end of a lengthy interview.
"He said, 'Hey, what's the deal with Wilson?' and I said, 'I think his wife works out there,'" Armitage recalled.
He described a more direct conversation with Novak, who was the first to report on the issue: "He said to me, 'Why did the CIA send Ambassador Wilson to Niger?' I said, as I remember, 'I don't know, but his wife works out there.'"
Armitage, whose admission was first reported by CBS News Thursday, said he cooperated fully with Fitzgerald's investigation. He was never a target of the investigation and did not hire a lawyer. He agreed to speak to reporters after Fitzgerald released him from a promise of confidentiality.
Armitage said he considered coming forward late last month when a flurry of news reports identified him as the leak. But he said he did not want to be accused of trying to get the story out during the summer's slow news cycle.
"I did what I did," Armitage said. "I embarrassed my president, my secretary, my department, my family and I embarrassed the Wilsons. And for that I'm very sorry."
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, is the only administration official charged in the CIA leak case. He faces trial in January on charges he lied to authorities about conversations he had with reporters about Plame.
Armitage said he assumed Plame's job was not a secret because it was included in a State Department memo."
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Will a British divorcee cost 'Wolfie' his job? | the Daily Mail
Will a British divorcee cost 'Wolfie' his job? | the Daily Mail: "Will a British divorcee cost 'Wolfie' his job?
From SHARON CHURCHER and ANNETTE WITHERIDGE, Mail on Sunday
Last updated at 18:05pm on 20th March 2005
Nomination: Paul Wolfowitz was a controversial choice for the World Bank
Look here too...Skip gossip links to more articles
Story: Bush backs Wolfowitz for World Bank post
Vote: Do you think Wolfowitz should get the job?
News: Briton killed in Qatar theatre bomb
News: Queen may bar Camilla from Trooping the Colour
Showbiz: Kylie's Showgirl tour hits the road
Sport: Alonso triumphs in Malaysia
HeadlinesBalcony plunge dad's tearful court appearance
Captor's colleague says sex slave girl 'looked happy'
Tesco launches revolutionary non-food home shopping service
Air passengers cleared to use mobiles on Ryanair
NHS should deny obese women IVF, say doctors
Hospital told mother 'to take body of daughter home in her car'
Web hunt for 'immoral' British man seducing China's women
Government misses targets to reduce drug deaths
Madonna and Guy row over schooling
Woman fined £5,000 for over-use of family pool
Man jailed for driving motorbike over policewoman
Smellies and Bottoms among surnames list of shame
Chinese court freezes assets of iPod expose journalists
Nun study reveals God's flickering effect on the brain
NEWS HOMEPAGE
Pictures & videoVideo: New website shows you how to...do everything!
Gallery: Our readers' stunning wildlife photography
Gallery: Our eye-catching pictures of the day
Amazing pictures: Candid snaps show a softer side to wild child Pete Doherty
Video: The moment a mountain lion paid a house call
Video: Joyrider caught leaving pedestrian for dead
MORE PHOTOS & VIDEO
The appointment of George Bush's leading hawk as head of the World Bank was heading for a crisis over his relationship with a senior British employee.
Influential members of staff at the international organisation have complained to its board that Paul Wolfowitz, a married father of three, is so besotted with Oxford-educated Shaha Riza he cannot be impartial.
Extraordinarily, they claim she played a key role in pushing the 61-year-old Pentagon official into the Iraq War. And the row comes amid claims that Wolfowitz's wife Clare once warned George Bush of the threat to national security any infidelity by her husband could cause.
A British citizen - at 51, eight years younger than Wolfowitz's wife - Ms Riza grew up in Saudi Arabia and was passionately committed to democratising the Middle East when she allegedly began to date Wolfowitz.
She studied at the London School of Economics in the Seventies before taking a master's degree at St Anthony's College, Oxford, where she met her future husband, Turkish Cypriot Bulent Ali Riza, from whom she is now divorced.
After they moved to America, Shaha worked for the Iraq Foundation, set up by expatriates to overthrow Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War. She subsequently joined the National Endowment for Democracy, created by President Ronald Reagan to promote American ideals.
Bulent Riza said Shaha started to "talk to Paul" about reforming the Middle East. And New Yorker magazine's respected commentator Paul Boyer observed that a senior World Bank official "named Shaha Ali Riza" was an "influence".
Downing Street 'furious' at nomination
Wolfowitz became known around the world as one of the fiercest proponents of invasion of Iraq. The Mail on Sunday has learned that Downing Street is "furious" about his nomination, fearing his hardline attitude could alienate large sections of the international community.
But it is his tangled private life that could stop him taking up the World Bank post.
Critics say it would be impossible for Wolfie - as he is nicknamed by Bush - to make independent decisions when his lover, who works on Middle Eastern and North African issues, is so committed to overthrowing Middle Eastern regimes.
"His womanising has come home to roost," a Washington insider said. "Paul was a foreign policy hawk long before he met Shaha but it doesn't look good to be accused of being under the thumb of your mistress."
One of his opponents at the bank said: "Unless Riza gives up her job, this will be an impossible conflict of interest."
National security risk
Wolfowitz married Clare Selgin in 1968. But they have lived separately since 2001, after allegations of an affair with an employee at the School of Advanced International Studies where he was dean for seven years.
According to one Republican Administration insider, Clare was so upset by rumours about the affair that she wrote to then President Elect Bush, saying if the story were true it could pose a national security risk.
Yesterday, she refused to comment on whether her husband had been unfaithful before their separation, saying: "I really do not want to share this with you."
She also refused to confirm her marital status - reports of his appointment repeatedly describe Wolfowitz as divorced but The Mail on Sunday has been unable to find any records. Asked if she is separated or divorced, Clare replied: "That's my business."
On the claim that she wrote a letter to Bush, she said: "That's very interesting but not something I can tell you about."
A friend of Wolfowitz insisted last night that he had not been unfaithful: "Paul and Clare have been separated since 2001. It is my understanding they are now legally separated."
By tradition, the United States picks the bank's president, but the decision must be approved by its board. The US has a 16 per cent vote, but Europe collectively has about 30 per cent.
The bank's staff association has told executives it has been swamped with complaints from employees about Wolfowitz.
However, Wolfowitz's only comment on the complaints has been a terse statement issued through a Pentagon spokesman. He said: "If a personal relationship presents a potential conflict of interest, I will comply with bank policies to resolve the issue.""
From SHARON CHURCHER and ANNETTE WITHERIDGE, Mail on Sunday
Last updated at 18:05pm on 20th March 2005
Nomination: Paul Wolfowitz was a controversial choice for the World Bank
Look here too...Skip gossip links to more articles
Story: Bush backs Wolfowitz for World Bank post
Vote: Do you think Wolfowitz should get the job?
News: Briton killed in Qatar theatre bomb
News: Queen may bar Camilla from Trooping the Colour
Showbiz: Kylie's Showgirl tour hits the road
Sport: Alonso triumphs in Malaysia
HeadlinesBalcony plunge dad's tearful court appearance
Captor's colleague says sex slave girl 'looked happy'
Tesco launches revolutionary non-food home shopping service
Air passengers cleared to use mobiles on Ryanair
NHS should deny obese women IVF, say doctors
Hospital told mother 'to take body of daughter home in her car'
Web hunt for 'immoral' British man seducing China's women
Government misses targets to reduce drug deaths
Madonna and Guy row over schooling
Woman fined £5,000 for over-use of family pool
Man jailed for driving motorbike over policewoman
Smellies and Bottoms among surnames list of shame
Chinese court freezes assets of iPod expose journalists
Nun study reveals God's flickering effect on the brain
NEWS HOMEPAGE
Pictures & videoVideo: New website shows you how to...do everything!
Gallery: Our readers' stunning wildlife photography
Gallery: Our eye-catching pictures of the day
Amazing pictures: Candid snaps show a softer side to wild child Pete Doherty
Video: The moment a mountain lion paid a house call
Video: Joyrider caught leaving pedestrian for dead
MORE PHOTOS & VIDEO
The appointment of George Bush's leading hawk as head of the World Bank was heading for a crisis over his relationship with a senior British employee.
Influential members of staff at the international organisation have complained to its board that Paul Wolfowitz, a married father of three, is so besotted with Oxford-educated Shaha Riza he cannot be impartial.
Extraordinarily, they claim she played a key role in pushing the 61-year-old Pentagon official into the Iraq War. And the row comes amid claims that Wolfowitz's wife Clare once warned George Bush of the threat to national security any infidelity by her husband could cause.
A British citizen - at 51, eight years younger than Wolfowitz's wife - Ms Riza grew up in Saudi Arabia and was passionately committed to democratising the Middle East when she allegedly began to date Wolfowitz.
She studied at the London School of Economics in the Seventies before taking a master's degree at St Anthony's College, Oxford, where she met her future husband, Turkish Cypriot Bulent Ali Riza, from whom she is now divorced.
After they moved to America, Shaha worked for the Iraq Foundation, set up by expatriates to overthrow Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War. She subsequently joined the National Endowment for Democracy, created by President Ronald Reagan to promote American ideals.
Bulent Riza said Shaha started to "talk to Paul" about reforming the Middle East. And New Yorker magazine's respected commentator Paul Boyer observed that a senior World Bank official "named Shaha Ali Riza" was an "influence".
Downing Street 'furious' at nomination
Wolfowitz became known around the world as one of the fiercest proponents of invasion of Iraq. The Mail on Sunday has learned that Downing Street is "furious" about his nomination, fearing his hardline attitude could alienate large sections of the international community.
But it is his tangled private life that could stop him taking up the World Bank post.
Critics say it would be impossible for Wolfie - as he is nicknamed by Bush - to make independent decisions when his lover, who works on Middle Eastern and North African issues, is so committed to overthrowing Middle Eastern regimes.
"His womanising has come home to roost," a Washington insider said. "Paul was a foreign policy hawk long before he met Shaha but it doesn't look good to be accused of being under the thumb of your mistress."
One of his opponents at the bank said: "Unless Riza gives up her job, this will be an impossible conflict of interest."
National security risk
Wolfowitz married Clare Selgin in 1968. But they have lived separately since 2001, after allegations of an affair with an employee at the School of Advanced International Studies where he was dean for seven years.
According to one Republican Administration insider, Clare was so upset by rumours about the affair that she wrote to then President Elect Bush, saying if the story were true it could pose a national security risk.
Yesterday, she refused to comment on whether her husband had been unfaithful before their separation, saying: "I really do not want to share this with you."
She also refused to confirm her marital status - reports of his appointment repeatedly describe Wolfowitz as divorced but The Mail on Sunday has been unable to find any records. Asked if she is separated or divorced, Clare replied: "That's my business."
On the claim that she wrote a letter to Bush, she said: "That's very interesting but not something I can tell you about."
A friend of Wolfowitz insisted last night that he had not been unfaithful: "Paul and Clare have been separated since 2001. It is my understanding they are now legally separated."
By tradition, the United States picks the bank's president, but the decision must be approved by its board. The US has a 16 per cent vote, but Europe collectively has about 30 per cent.
The bank's staff association has told executives it has been swamped with complaints from employees about Wolfowitz.
However, Wolfowitz's only comment on the complaints has been a terse statement issued through a Pentagon spokesman. He said: "If a personal relationship presents a potential conflict of interest, I will comply with bank policies to resolve the issue.""
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Pasadena - Samuel Zeligian Mardian
Samuel Zeligian Mardian and wife Acabi, with their four children, Aram,
Sam, Agnes, and Florence. A baby, Robert, was born the second week of my arrival in
Pasadena. (Samuel Mardian was the sponsor of the Malian family and their gang. He
became in later years a widely-known building contractor. At present, 1978, Aram, Sam
and Bob have a multi-million-dollar construction company in Phoenix, Arizona, with
Aram as president. Sam was the mayor of Phoenix for two terms. Robert Mardian was
Assistant Attorney General under John Mitchell in President Nixon's cabinet.)
Sam, Agnes, and Florence. A baby, Robert, was born the second week of my arrival in
Pasadena. (Samuel Mardian was the sponsor of the Malian family and their gang. He
became in later years a widely-known building contractor. At present, 1978, Aram, Sam
and Bob have a multi-million-dollar construction company in Phoenix, Arizona, with
Aram as president. Sam was the mayor of Phoenix for two terms. Robert Mardian was
Assistant Attorney General under John Mitchell in President Nixon's cabinet.)
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Armenian Assembly of America - Press Center - Jim Renjilian
Armenian Assembly of America - Press Center - NR# 1997-57: "Armenian Assembly Press Release
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mission '97 Has a Dramatic Impact on Diaspora Armenian
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 14, 1997
Web: www.aaainc.org CONTACT: Hrant Jamgochian
Phone: (202) 393-3434
E-mail: info@aaainc.org
The dramatic changes Jim Renjilian saw on his first visit to his historic homeland Armenia left him astonished and a "changed man." "I knew Armenia has numerous economic problems, yet everyone I met was a strong testament to the Armenian spirit and the will to survive. After being there and seeing the country first-hand, I cannot help but be optimistic about Armenia's future" said Renjilian, a long-time board member and former government affairs chairman of the Armenian Assembly of America. Renjilian is a Maryland native, who was a member of the Assembly's Mission '97. Over 100 participants made the 10-day visit, the largest by the Assembly to date.
The most striking contradiction in Renjilian's mind was the visit to a small school in Gumri. The school was built from metal shipping containers, heating and electricity are sporadic. "The children were so bright, beautiful and articulate. They sang songs for us and recited poetry in Armenian. But, one couldn't help but be horrified by the school's primitive conditions," stated Renjilian.
Renjilian was also deeply touched by his visit to the Genocide Monument and Museum. "The pain of remembering the tragedy of 1915 was great. The visit to the museum was even more emotional as I saw the horrific pictures of what the Turkish government attempted to do to my people," said Renjilian. "Yet, I was so inspired by what the monument symbolized, the triumph of the Armenian spirit and people."
Another of Renjilian's lasting memories was the sight of hundreds of construction cranes scattered throughout Armenia-most of them at a standstill. "No matter where we went, these cranes appeared to be in abundance. Yet, none of them were ever in operation," said Renjilian. He was disheartened by the number of buildings that stood unfinished and at the same time the thousands of people who are unemployed.
The highlight of the trip for Renjilian, and for many mission participants, was the visit to Etchmiadzin, the birthplace of the Armenian Church. "Even as a Protestant, I couldn't help but be moved by the 1,700 years of history speaking to me from the stones of Etchmiadzin," said Renjilian. Vehapar Karekin I Catholicos of all Armenians held a special luncheon for the group during their visit. The Vehapar thanked the Armenian Assembly for organizing such a pilgrimage to the homeland. The Archbishop of Shushi Barkev Martirosian also addressed the group and expressed his excitement at their presence during Armenia's "second baptism," as Communist suppression of religion is no longer an obstacle which was even more evident in Nagorno Karabagh under Azeri rule.
The Armenia '97 mission also took part in the Yerevan ceremonies commemorating the sixth anniversary of Armenia's independence. Mission members attended the President's reception for government officials and foreign dignitaries and later viewed a musical extravaganza and fireworks display in Yerevan's Republic Square. The group also met with several government officials including outgoing Senior Presidential Advisor Jirair Libaridian, President Levon Ter-Petrossian and Prime Minister Robert Kocharian.
The Armenian Assembly of America is a nationwide nonprofit organization which promotes public understanding and awareness of Armenian issues."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mission '97 Has a Dramatic Impact on Diaspora Armenian
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 14, 1997
Web: www.aaainc.org CONTACT: Hrant Jamgochian
Phone: (202) 393-3434
E-mail: info@aaainc.org
The dramatic changes Jim Renjilian saw on his first visit to his historic homeland Armenia left him astonished and a "changed man." "I knew Armenia has numerous economic problems, yet everyone I met was a strong testament to the Armenian spirit and the will to survive. After being there and seeing the country first-hand, I cannot help but be optimistic about Armenia's future" said Renjilian, a long-time board member and former government affairs chairman of the Armenian Assembly of America. Renjilian is a Maryland native, who was a member of the Assembly's Mission '97. Over 100 participants made the 10-day visit, the largest by the Assembly to date.
The most striking contradiction in Renjilian's mind was the visit to a small school in Gumri. The school was built from metal shipping containers, heating and electricity are sporadic. "The children were so bright, beautiful and articulate. They sang songs for us and recited poetry in Armenian. But, one couldn't help but be horrified by the school's primitive conditions," stated Renjilian.
Renjilian was also deeply touched by his visit to the Genocide Monument and Museum. "The pain of remembering the tragedy of 1915 was great. The visit to the museum was even more emotional as I saw the horrific pictures of what the Turkish government attempted to do to my people," said Renjilian. "Yet, I was so inspired by what the monument symbolized, the triumph of the Armenian spirit and people."
Another of Renjilian's lasting memories was the sight of hundreds of construction cranes scattered throughout Armenia-most of them at a standstill. "No matter where we went, these cranes appeared to be in abundance. Yet, none of them were ever in operation," said Renjilian. He was disheartened by the number of buildings that stood unfinished and at the same time the thousands of people who are unemployed.
The highlight of the trip for Renjilian, and for many mission participants, was the visit to Etchmiadzin, the birthplace of the Armenian Church. "Even as a Protestant, I couldn't help but be moved by the 1,700 years of history speaking to me from the stones of Etchmiadzin," said Renjilian. Vehapar Karekin I Catholicos of all Armenians held a special luncheon for the group during their visit. The Vehapar thanked the Armenian Assembly for organizing such a pilgrimage to the homeland. The Archbishop of Shushi Barkev Martirosian also addressed the group and expressed his excitement at their presence during Armenia's "second baptism," as Communist suppression of religion is no longer an obstacle which was even more evident in Nagorno Karabagh under Azeri rule.
The Armenia '97 mission also took part in the Yerevan ceremonies commemorating the sixth anniversary of Armenia's independence. Mission members attended the President's reception for government officials and foreign dignitaries and later viewed a musical extravaganza and fireworks display in Yerevan's Republic Square. The group also met with several government officials including outgoing Senior Presidential Advisor Jirair Libaridian, President Levon Ter-Petrossian and Prime Minister Robert Kocharian.
The Armenian Assembly of America is a nationwide nonprofit organization which promotes public understanding and awareness of Armenian issues."
James Renjilian Obituary
http://www.amaa.org/AMAA%20News%20-%20Aug-Sept-Oct%202002%20-%20Vol.%20XXXVI,%20No.%204.pdf
AMAA NEWS, AUG/SEPT/OCT 2002 23
O B I T U A R I E S
James Renjilian
James Renjilian,
long an active and
vibrant member of
the Armenian community,
died on
May 21, 2002 in
G e r m a n t o w n ,
Maryland of complications
from a
stroke. He was 64.
Born a refugee in Athens, Greece on December
17, 1937, Jim emigrated to the United
States with his mother, Verjin Giragossian
Renjilian, in 1939. His father, the Rev. Mihran
Renjilian, had come to the U.S. some months
earlier with Jim’s older siblings Armen and
Anne.
Reunited in the U.S., the Renjilians lived
first in Washington, D.C. but eventually settled
in Troy, N.Y. where Rev. Renjilian led the
United Armenian Calvary Church. There, Jim
attended Troy High School and Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute.
After serving as an intelligence officer in
the Army, Jim attended George Washington
University law school. Following a brief stint
with General Electric in the Boston area, Jim
worked as an attorney at the United States
Patent Office in Washington, D.C. He remained
with the Federal government throughout
his career, serving at the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Federal Home
Loan Bank Board, and the Department of Energy.
Jim’s life is warmly remembered by family
and friends for four overarching themes: his
devotion to family; his commitment to community;
his pride in his Armenian heritage; and
his dedication to his Christian faith. He was
also known to many as a particularly avid collector
of toy soldiers, having amassed hundreds
of figures that he displayed prominently in his
home. Finally, he enjoyed a reputation as a
keen and passionate observer of political affairs.
Jim’s many community and civic interests
included serving as an elder of Southminster
Presbyterian Church and, later, Rockville
(Md.) Presbyterian Church. He was also an
active adult troop leader in the Boy Scouts of
America. In addition, Jim played a prominent
role in the Armenian Assembly, where he was
especially focused on achieving official recognition
from the United States government
of the Armenian Genocide.
Funeral services were held at Rockville Presbyterian
Church, Rockwville, MD on Friday,
May 24, 2002 followed by the interment at
Rock Creek Cemetery in Washington D.C.
Memorial contributions were made to the
AMAA.
Jim is survived by his sister, Anne Kalfayan,
of Marco Island, FL; his brother Armen
Renjilian of Albany, N.Y.; his son Christopher
Renjilian of Potomac, MD; his daughter Julia
Luther of North Bethesda, MD; and his son
Timothy Renjilian of Atlanta, GA. He also
leaves behind three granddaughters whom he
dearly adored.
Additional information about James
Renjilian can be found on the Internet at
www.lifefiles.com.
AMAA NEWS, AUG/SEPT/OCT 2002 23
O B I T U A R I E S
James Renjilian
James Renjilian,
long an active and
vibrant member of
the Armenian community,
died on
May 21, 2002 in
G e r m a n t o w n ,
Maryland of complications
from a
stroke. He was 64.
Born a refugee in Athens, Greece on December
17, 1937, Jim emigrated to the United
States with his mother, Verjin Giragossian
Renjilian, in 1939. His father, the Rev. Mihran
Renjilian, had come to the U.S. some months
earlier with Jim’s older siblings Armen and
Anne.
Reunited in the U.S., the Renjilians lived
first in Washington, D.C. but eventually settled
in Troy, N.Y. where Rev. Renjilian led the
United Armenian Calvary Church. There, Jim
attended Troy High School and Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute.
After serving as an intelligence officer in
the Army, Jim attended George Washington
University law school. Following a brief stint
with General Electric in the Boston area, Jim
worked as an attorney at the United States
Patent Office in Washington, D.C. He remained
with the Federal government throughout
his career, serving at the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Federal Home
Loan Bank Board, and the Department of Energy.
Jim’s life is warmly remembered by family
and friends for four overarching themes: his
devotion to family; his commitment to community;
his pride in his Armenian heritage; and
his dedication to his Christian faith. He was
also known to many as a particularly avid collector
of toy soldiers, having amassed hundreds
of figures that he displayed prominently in his
home. Finally, he enjoyed a reputation as a
keen and passionate observer of political affairs.
Jim’s many community and civic interests
included serving as an elder of Southminster
Presbyterian Church and, later, Rockville
(Md.) Presbyterian Church. He was also an
active adult troop leader in the Boy Scouts of
America. In addition, Jim played a prominent
role in the Armenian Assembly, where he was
especially focused on achieving official recognition
from the United States government
of the Armenian Genocide.
Funeral services were held at Rockville Presbyterian
Church, Rockwville, MD on Friday,
May 24, 2002 followed by the interment at
Rock Creek Cemetery in Washington D.C.
Memorial contributions were made to the
AMAA.
Jim is survived by his sister, Anne Kalfayan,
of Marco Island, FL; his brother Armen
Renjilian of Albany, N.Y.; his son Christopher
Renjilian of Potomac, MD; his daughter Julia
Luther of North Bethesda, MD; and his son
Timothy Renjilian of Atlanta, GA. He also
leaves behind three granddaughters whom he
dearly adored.
Additional information about James
Renjilian can be found on the Internet at
www.lifefiles.com.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Allen F. Ertel Election Observer in the Ukraine
Williamsport Sun-Gazette: "City attorney has opportunity to watch democracy in action
By LAUREN McLANE lmclane@sungazette.com
They have a history of parties stealing elections,” Allen F. Ertel, a local attorney, said.
He is referring to the Ukraine, the former Soviet bloc country now struggling to embrace democracy. Ertel recently returned from observing the Ukraine’s March 26 parliamentary elections.
As a former member of Congress, Ertel is among those who can be tapped to serve the international community in such a way.
“The former (Congressional) members group sent around an e-mail requesting volunteers, and I signed up,” he said. “I’d been to the Ukraine in 1994-95, just after the fall (of the Berlin Wall).
“Then, we’d been arranged to discuss legislating with the Rada (the Ukrainian parliament). It was amazing how unknowing they were about the legislative process,” he added.
As a Soviet satellite, the Ukraine was more or less controlled by the Kremlin. When the Soviet empire split up, it and several other newly-independent countries became self-governing for the first time in a generations.
Nevertheless, Russia still wields influence in the region. It was a Russian-instigated energy crisis — a disruption in gas supplies — that led to a vote of “no confidence” in President Viktor Yushchenko’s government and made the March 26 election necessary.
Yushchenko was swept into power in the “Orange Revolution” in 2004 after a fraudulent election, during which he was poisoned. Because of that episode and other irregularities, outside observers were invited to monitor this time.
Five major parties and 40 minor ones took part. The five majors were the Party of the Regions, led by Viktor Yanukovich; Yushchenko’s Orange Party; the Timoshenko Party, led by Yulia Timoshenko, Yushchenko’s recently-sacked prime minister; the Communist Party; and the Socialist Party.
Jealously guarding its newfound rights, the Ukraine has built in so many election safeguards it became cumbersome, Ertel said.
There were clear plastic ballot boxes, covered with seals to prevent tampering. There was an election commission of 14 observers, picked from among all 45 political parties, at each polling station.
Each polling station was open from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and all 14 observers had to be present for the entire time. Each party was allowed to have an observer of its choosing present also. Once the polls closed, the 14 commissioners were locked in the room while the ballots were counted, he said.
The ballots were paper ballots, and some of them had as many as five elections on them — mayoral, district and two regional elections, as well as the parliament.
Each district had to account for the number of registered voters, the number of ballots cast, the number cast in absentia, and so on, Ertel said.
“The whole commission must wait until the ballots are confirmed,” which can take hours, he added.
“Our role was to see if there was a way the system could be hijacked. The interplay between the parties (at the polling station) prevented people from committing fraud. If there was fraud, we didn’t detect it,” he said.
In the Ukraine, as in many European countries, parties rarely win an absolute majority of the seats in the legislature. Instead, the party with the largest percentage of votes forms a coalition government. A vote of no confidence in the legislature leads to parliamentary elections, to re-align the balance of power.
One way in which the Ukraine differs from America is in allowing prisoners to vote, Ertel said. There are polling stations set up in the prisons themselves, and prisoners are taken from their cells, shepherded to the polling area, given ballots and allowed to vote.
He said he observed the elections in a prison, and his role was to ask the prisoners if any undue influence had been exerted over them to cause them to vote a certain way. No one said he had been coerced, he said.
Another difference is that two days before the election, all campaign materials must be taken down. The day before and the day of the election, which was a Sunday, no campaigning is allowed, he said.
By and large the parties complied with the rules, he said. The five largest parties got all of their materials down; some of the smaller parties didn’t manage to remove all their fliers.
When the election results came out, “Timoshenko blew away Yushchenko,” he added.
It was widely expected by international observers and the American ambassador to the Ukraine, that Yanukovich would win the majority of the vote, Yushchenko would take the second-largest percentage, and Timoshenko would be a close third.
Although Yushchenko’s party lost seats in the Rada with the election, the president is directly elected and will not lose his office. However, Yushchenko must now form a coalition government with the party and the man he defeated in 2004 and the party of the woman he fired.
One of the things that impressed Ertel the most was “the patience.”
“People stood in line two, two-and-a-half hours to vote. It’s such a cumbersome system — 15, 20, 30 minutes to vote because there are so many choices,” he said.
Overall, “it was an interesting and worthwhile enterprise. The media made it known that we were there. I believe we had a prophylactic effect on anyone who wanted to commit fraud.”"
By LAUREN McLANE lmclane@sungazette.com
They have a history of parties stealing elections,” Allen F. Ertel, a local attorney, said.
He is referring to the Ukraine, the former Soviet bloc country now struggling to embrace democracy. Ertel recently returned from observing the Ukraine’s March 26 parliamentary elections.
As a former member of Congress, Ertel is among those who can be tapped to serve the international community in such a way.
“The former (Congressional) members group sent around an e-mail requesting volunteers, and I signed up,” he said. “I’d been to the Ukraine in 1994-95, just after the fall (of the Berlin Wall).
“Then, we’d been arranged to discuss legislating with the Rada (the Ukrainian parliament). It was amazing how unknowing they were about the legislative process,” he added.
As a Soviet satellite, the Ukraine was more or less controlled by the Kremlin. When the Soviet empire split up, it and several other newly-independent countries became self-governing for the first time in a generations.
Nevertheless, Russia still wields influence in the region. It was a Russian-instigated energy crisis — a disruption in gas supplies — that led to a vote of “no confidence” in President Viktor Yushchenko’s government and made the March 26 election necessary.
Yushchenko was swept into power in the “Orange Revolution” in 2004 after a fraudulent election, during which he was poisoned. Because of that episode and other irregularities, outside observers were invited to monitor this time.
Five major parties and 40 minor ones took part. The five majors were the Party of the Regions, led by Viktor Yanukovich; Yushchenko’s Orange Party; the Timoshenko Party, led by Yulia Timoshenko, Yushchenko’s recently-sacked prime minister; the Communist Party; and the Socialist Party.
Jealously guarding its newfound rights, the Ukraine has built in so many election safeguards it became cumbersome, Ertel said.
There were clear plastic ballot boxes, covered with seals to prevent tampering. There was an election commission of 14 observers, picked from among all 45 political parties, at each polling station.
Each polling station was open from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and all 14 observers had to be present for the entire time. Each party was allowed to have an observer of its choosing present also. Once the polls closed, the 14 commissioners were locked in the room while the ballots were counted, he said.
The ballots were paper ballots, and some of them had as many as five elections on them — mayoral, district and two regional elections, as well as the parliament.
Each district had to account for the number of registered voters, the number of ballots cast, the number cast in absentia, and so on, Ertel said.
“The whole commission must wait until the ballots are confirmed,” which can take hours, he added.
“Our role was to see if there was a way the system could be hijacked. The interplay between the parties (at the polling station) prevented people from committing fraud. If there was fraud, we didn’t detect it,” he said.
In the Ukraine, as in many European countries, parties rarely win an absolute majority of the seats in the legislature. Instead, the party with the largest percentage of votes forms a coalition government. A vote of no confidence in the legislature leads to parliamentary elections, to re-align the balance of power.
One way in which the Ukraine differs from America is in allowing prisoners to vote, Ertel said. There are polling stations set up in the prisons themselves, and prisoners are taken from their cells, shepherded to the polling area, given ballots and allowed to vote.
He said he observed the elections in a prison, and his role was to ask the prisoners if any undue influence had been exerted over them to cause them to vote a certain way. No one said he had been coerced, he said.
Another difference is that two days before the election, all campaign materials must be taken down. The day before and the day of the election, which was a Sunday, no campaigning is allowed, he said.
By and large the parties complied with the rules, he said. The five largest parties got all of their materials down; some of the smaller parties didn’t manage to remove all their fliers.
When the election results came out, “Timoshenko blew away Yushchenko,” he added.
It was widely expected by international observers and the American ambassador to the Ukraine, that Yanukovich would win the majority of the vote, Yushchenko would take the second-largest percentage, and Timoshenko would be a close third.
Although Yushchenko’s party lost seats in the Rada with the election, the president is directly elected and will not lose his office. However, Yushchenko must now form a coalition government with the party and the man he defeated in 2004 and the party of the woman he fired.
One of the things that impressed Ertel the most was “the patience.”
“People stood in line two, two-and-a-half hours to vote. It’s such a cumbersome system — 15, 20, 30 minutes to vote because there are so many choices,” he said.
Overall, “it was an interesting and worthwhile enterprise. The media made it known that we were there. I believe we had a prophylactic effect on anyone who wanted to commit fraud.”"
Thursday, March 23, 2006
No Subpoena Yet For Zinni in AIPAC Spy Case
National News: "Suppression of Witness Names Underlines Battle in AIPAC Case
Ron Kampeas and Matthew E. Berger
JTA Wire Service
MARCH 23, 2006
Washington
Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley, Anthony Zinni: For a few hours, the list of subpoenaed witnesses on the docket in the classified information case against two former staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee read like a Who's Who of U.S. foreign policy.
And that probably was precisely the point for defendants eager to prove that trading inside information with the most senior government officials was par for the lobbyists' course.
Similarly, the suppression of the witnesses' names within hours last Friday was consistent with a prosecution -- and a court -- that is keeping as much of the case under wraps as possible.
Lawyers for Steve Rosen, AIPAC's former foreign policy director, and Keith Weissman, its former Iran analyst, subpoenaed 10 current and former administration officials ranging from Rice, the current U.S. secretary of state, and Hadley, the national security adviser to the White House, through Lawrence Franklin, the former mid-level Pentagon analyst whose guilty plea is the crux of the government's case against Rosen and Weissman. JTA obtained an original copy of the docket with the names intact.
The court, the defense and the government would not comment about the subpoenas or their subsequent suppression on the docket, but the roll call reflects what sources close to the defense have said will be their case -- that interactions of the kind described in the indictment last August were routine and above board."I presume it's an attempt to provide some context for the information that was disclosed," said Steven Aftergood, who directs the Secrecy Project at the Federation of American Scientists and who has been following the case closely. "If such information was already in public circulation or widely disseminated, that could arguably mitigate anything the defendants did wrong by communicating it."
The crux of the indictment is that Franklin leaked information on Iran to Rosen and Weissman on several occasions in 2003 and 2004.
In July 2004, Franklin joined the FBI in a sting against the two, telling Weissman that Iranian agents planned to kill Israeli and American agents in northern Iraq. Rosen and Weissman relayed the information -- which, according to the indictment, Franklin made clear to Weissman was classified -- to an Israeli diplomat, a Washington Post journalist and the executive director of AIPAC, Howard Kohr.
Rosen and Weissman have been charged under a never-used 1917 statute that criminalizes the receipt and dissemination of classified information.
AIPAC fired the two men a year ago, saying their actions did not comport with AIPAC practices, but stopping short of accusing the men of anything illegal.
Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post journalist, said he had not been subpoenaed. AIPAC would not comment on whether Kohr or anyone else had been subpoenaed.
Israeli officials have confirmed in the past that they are negotiating the terms of testimony for Naor Gilon, the diplomat who received the information from Weissman and Rosen. Gilon returned to Israel last summer after completing a three-year term as a political officer.
In addition to Rice, Hadley and Franklin, the defense subpoenaed David Satterfield, the current U.S. deputy ambassador to Iraq; William Burns, the current U.S. ambassador to Moscow; Ken Pollack, research director at the Saban Center, a Middle East think tank; Michael Makovsky, another mid-level Pentagon analyst; Elliott Abrams, the deputy national security adviser; Zinni, formerly the top peace envoy to the Middle East; and Richard Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state. Prosecutors and the witnesses themselves may challenge the subpoenas.
Satterfield and Pollack are significant, because -- like Franklin -- they appear in the indictment as alleged leakers to Rosen, but neither has been charged.
Pollack discussed Iraq policy with Rosen and Weissman over lunch in 2000, when he was on the Clinton administration's National Security Council.
Pollack told JTA last year that he could not imagine having relayed classified information to them. He told JTA this week that he had yet to receive a subpoena, but would not be surprised if he did.
Satterfield was an assistant secretary of state in 2002 when, according to the indictment, he leaked classified information on Al-Qaida to Rosen.
No one on the list, aside from Pollack and Zinni, returned calls from JTA asking for comment.
Zinni, who said he also had yet to receive the subpoena, said he had met Rosen just once."I met Mr. Rosen once at a dinner while I was the envoy," the retired Marines general and former head of U.S. Central Command wrote in an e-mail to JTA. "It was a casual event and we discussed the process I was then involved in. The dinner was with four others."
Zinni, who now is a consultant in the private sector, served as an envoy to Israeli-Palestinian talks in 2001-2002.
The court and the government would not comment on the subpoenas, but Aftergood says it's consistent with the secrecy that has enveloped the case. Judge T.S. Ellis III allowed the government to keep from the public and from the defense what apparently is the bulk of the transcripts of years of taps on Rosen and Weissman, although the recordings are principally of the defendants.
Ellis also has sealed pre-trial motions that principally argue established case law and do not reveal details of the case aside from those appearing in the already published indictment. The documents were eventually unsealed.
In contrast to Aftergood and a number of free speech groups that have weighed in on the case, Ellis made clear that he does not believe First Amendment issues have much bearing."Persons who have unauthorized possession, who come into unauthorized possession of classified information, must abide by the law," Ellis said Jan. 20 when he sentenced Franklin to more than 12 years for his role. "That applies to academics, lawyers, journalists, professors, whatever."
Ellis turned down a friend-of-the-court brief from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, saying it was inappropriate."Secrecy seems to be the default here," Aftergood said. "It appears the judge wants to discourage media coverage."
Laurie Levenson, a legal expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the prosecution may move to quash the subpoenas, and could have requested the seal to keep the putative witnesses' names out of the spotlight until the judge rules on the motion.
"This leaves the spotlight off the witnesses and leaves it on the defendants," she said. "They'd rather keep the focus on the named defendants."
This story reprinted courtesy of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency."
Ron Kampeas and Matthew E. Berger
JTA Wire Service
MARCH 23, 2006
Washington
Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley, Anthony Zinni: For a few hours, the list of subpoenaed witnesses on the docket in the classified information case against two former staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee read like a Who's Who of U.S. foreign policy.
And that probably was precisely the point for defendants eager to prove that trading inside information with the most senior government officials was par for the lobbyists' course.
Similarly, the suppression of the witnesses' names within hours last Friday was consistent with a prosecution -- and a court -- that is keeping as much of the case under wraps as possible.
Lawyers for Steve Rosen, AIPAC's former foreign policy director, and Keith Weissman, its former Iran analyst, subpoenaed 10 current and former administration officials ranging from Rice, the current U.S. secretary of state, and Hadley, the national security adviser to the White House, through Lawrence Franklin, the former mid-level Pentagon analyst whose guilty plea is the crux of the government's case against Rosen and Weissman. JTA obtained an original copy of the docket with the names intact.
The court, the defense and the government would not comment about the subpoenas or their subsequent suppression on the docket, but the roll call reflects what sources close to the defense have said will be their case -- that interactions of the kind described in the indictment last August were routine and above board."I presume it's an attempt to provide some context for the information that was disclosed," said Steven Aftergood, who directs the Secrecy Project at the Federation of American Scientists and who has been following the case closely. "If such information was already in public circulation or widely disseminated, that could arguably mitigate anything the defendants did wrong by communicating it."
The crux of the indictment is that Franklin leaked information on Iran to Rosen and Weissman on several occasions in 2003 and 2004.
In July 2004, Franklin joined the FBI in a sting against the two, telling Weissman that Iranian agents planned to kill Israeli and American agents in northern Iraq. Rosen and Weissman relayed the information -- which, according to the indictment, Franklin made clear to Weissman was classified -- to an Israeli diplomat, a Washington Post journalist and the executive director of AIPAC, Howard Kohr.
Rosen and Weissman have been charged under a never-used 1917 statute that criminalizes the receipt and dissemination of classified information.
AIPAC fired the two men a year ago, saying their actions did not comport with AIPAC practices, but stopping short of accusing the men of anything illegal.
Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post journalist, said he had not been subpoenaed. AIPAC would not comment on whether Kohr or anyone else had been subpoenaed.
Israeli officials have confirmed in the past that they are negotiating the terms of testimony for Naor Gilon, the diplomat who received the information from Weissman and Rosen. Gilon returned to Israel last summer after completing a three-year term as a political officer.
In addition to Rice, Hadley and Franklin, the defense subpoenaed David Satterfield, the current U.S. deputy ambassador to Iraq; William Burns, the current U.S. ambassador to Moscow; Ken Pollack, research director at the Saban Center, a Middle East think tank; Michael Makovsky, another mid-level Pentagon analyst; Elliott Abrams, the deputy national security adviser; Zinni, formerly the top peace envoy to the Middle East; and Richard Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state. Prosecutors and the witnesses themselves may challenge the subpoenas.
Satterfield and Pollack are significant, because -- like Franklin -- they appear in the indictment as alleged leakers to Rosen, but neither has been charged.
Pollack discussed Iraq policy with Rosen and Weissman over lunch in 2000, when he was on the Clinton administration's National Security Council.
Pollack told JTA last year that he could not imagine having relayed classified information to them. He told JTA this week that he had yet to receive a subpoena, but would not be surprised if he did.
Satterfield was an assistant secretary of state in 2002 when, according to the indictment, he leaked classified information on Al-Qaida to Rosen.
No one on the list, aside from Pollack and Zinni, returned calls from JTA asking for comment.
Zinni, who said he also had yet to receive the subpoena, said he had met Rosen just once."I met Mr. Rosen once at a dinner while I was the envoy," the retired Marines general and former head of U.S. Central Command wrote in an e-mail to JTA. "It was a casual event and we discussed the process I was then involved in. The dinner was with four others."
Zinni, who now is a consultant in the private sector, served as an envoy to Israeli-Palestinian talks in 2001-2002.
The court and the government would not comment on the subpoenas, but Aftergood says it's consistent with the secrecy that has enveloped the case. Judge T.S. Ellis III allowed the government to keep from the public and from the defense what apparently is the bulk of the transcripts of years of taps on Rosen and Weissman, although the recordings are principally of the defendants.
Ellis also has sealed pre-trial motions that principally argue established case law and do not reveal details of the case aside from those appearing in the already published indictment. The documents were eventually unsealed.
In contrast to Aftergood and a number of free speech groups that have weighed in on the case, Ellis made clear that he does not believe First Amendment issues have much bearing."Persons who have unauthorized possession, who come into unauthorized possession of classified information, must abide by the law," Ellis said Jan. 20 when he sentenced Franklin to more than 12 years for his role. "That applies to academics, lawyers, journalists, professors, whatever."
Ellis turned down a friend-of-the-court brief from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, saying it was inappropriate."Secrecy seems to be the default here," Aftergood said. "It appears the judge wants to discourage media coverage."
Laurie Levenson, a legal expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the prosecution may move to quash the subpoenas, and could have requested the seal to keep the putative witnesses' names out of the spotlight until the judge rules on the motion.
"This leaves the spotlight off the witnesses and leaves it on the defendants," she said. "They'd rather keep the focus on the named defendants."
This story reprinted courtesy of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency."
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Alexander's Gas & Oil Connections - Pipeline or pipe dream? The Kirkuk-Haifa scheme
Alexander's Gas & Oil Connections - Pipeline or pipe dream? The Kirkuk-Haifa scheme: "
volume 9, issue #6 - Thursday, March 25, 2004
Pipeline or pipe dream? The Kirkuk-Haifa scheme
By Thomas R. Stauffer
02-03-04 Bad pennies do recirculate. The latest to re-emerge is a resurrection of the scheme to build an oil pipeline from Kirkuk in northern Iraq to the Israeli port of Haifa. While on its merits it is difficult to take the proposal seriously -- such a pipeline makes no commercial sense whatsoever, and its political logic defies reasoned analysis-two counts of infeasibility may be no obstacle.
Given the level of ignorance in the White House, and the scope for graft in a project of that type, it could actually be realized, all financial and political argument notwithstanding. When not actually phanstasmagorical, the rationales offered for the pipeline are specious.
Israel-first proponents gush about the vast oil resources of Iraq: "Northern Iraq's oil fields are among the richest in the world." Somehow, one is told, direct access to those fields-through the new pipeline-would reduce Israel's energy costs and, miraculously, increase the diversity of supply to the United States.
Several sobering considerations present themselves, however. First, there is no shortage of outlets for exporting oil from Iraq, making construction of a new line quite superfluous. The existing pipeline from Kirkuk and Mosul to Turkey's Mediterranean terminal at Ceyhan, after building additional parallel lines and pumping stations, now has a nameplate capacity -- if repaired-of 1.65 mm bpd.
Moreover, both the line itself and the terminal at Ceyhan can readily be expanded at incremental costs well below those of any freshly built pipeline. Space is no constraint. There is adequate room in the port, and potential additional capacity to accommodate any likely volumes of oil from Iraq, as well as expected flows from Baku in Azerbaijan, can readily be constructed.
Further, Iraq has two additional oil export terminals on the Gulf. Although badly damaged by US bombs, both can be rehabilitated at modest cost-if not blocked by Israel or Washington. Together, Khor al-Amaya and Mina al-Bakr could export almost 3 mm bpd of oil into supertankers serving the world market. These ports, too, can be expanded by extending the quays or adding single-buoy moorings (SBMs)-although, over the longer run, congestion in the Upper Gulf poses constraints for all the export terminals in that area.
Finally, there are two more existing export pipelines, which, politics permitting, add to Iraq's export capacity and flexibility. There still exists a pipeline from Kirkuk to Banias on the Syrian coast-a leftover from the colonialist era of the Iraq Petroleum Company. The line is partly used by Syria to move its own oil, but some 200,000 bpd of capacity reportedly is unused, and that line-again, politics permitting-could easily be looped and more than doubled.
An even larger option might be reinstated, however. Southern Iraqi oil fields are also connected directly to the Red Sea by the two stages of the IPSA pipeline across Saudi Arabia. This large pipeline, built during the Iran-Iraq war to circumvent attacks by Iranon Iraqi tankers in the Gulf, later serving both Iraq and Saudi Arabia, has been closed by the Saudis since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. While its realistic capacity is less than the theoretical figure of 1.6 mm bpd, nonetheless -- once more, politics permitting-it offers an outlet for perhaps another 1 mm bpd of Iraqi oil.
Nor are Iraqi oil exports in any sense constrained by lack of pipeline capacity. Existing lines could carry six-plus mm bpd -- twice the historic level -- and, with modest investment, could carry any like level of exports over the near- and middle term.
There is a further deception embedded in the proposed Kirkuk-Haifa project, however. Pro-Israel propagandists speak of "reopening" the line. The term "reopening" is a blatant lie. That line was built in the 1930s, when the oil market was radically different and when the refinery at Haifa, controlled by Shell, was of significance. But the facilities have either rusted away or were dismantled, so "it ain't there no more."
Israeli officials claim that the Haifa pipeline would save Israel 20 % of its energy costs-especially in reducing costly oil imports from Russia. Given the near-perfect price arbitrage in oil markets, this is quite implausible. Only two interpretations suggest themselves.
First, the Russian Jewish oil mafia has succeeded in bilking the Israelis -- a formidable task. Or, second, the Israelis and their allies in the Bush administration presume that they can force Iraq to sell oil into the line at a steep discount-part of the known plan to discredit and weaken any Iraqi government by demanding recognition of and oil sales to Israel, as bruited by Ahmad Chalabi.
Why the specious arguments? Why tout the scheme? History may provide the clue. A similar project was pushed in the mid-1980s-except that the terminus was Aqaba, not Haifa. The project was a multi-tiered scam, providing graft, kickbacks and influence-peddling to a spectrum of figures, from a bagman for the Mossad, Shimon Peres and the Labour Party, to a fewhighly-placed officials from the Reagan administration-including, reportedly, Ed Meese, William Clark and Donald Rumsfeld. The details trickled into the public domain during the special prosecutor's investigation of Reagan Attorney General Meese.
Key to the scheme was "influence" in Washington to obtain 100 % US government financing and guarantees for the commercially unviable project, out of which the payoffs were to be distributed. Influence was necessary since the US-export content of the pipeline was minimal, violating the criteria for Export-Import Bank or OPIC support. The scheme unravelled as an investigation into the dubious dealings of Meese unfolded, leaking many of the sordid details into the public record.
In its "born-again" version, the Kirkuk-Haifa smells and looks all too familiar. The bad penny has resurfaced, with specious rationalizations serving to divert attention from the real rationale. Because one must never underestimate the venality and gullibility of American political leadership, however, it is perfectly possible that this piece of political pork might be approved.
Thomas R. Stauffer is a Washington, DC-based engineer and economist who has taught the economics of energy and the Middle East at Harvard University and Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service.
Source: Enatres discussion list "
volume 9, issue #6 - Thursday, March 25, 2004
Pipeline or pipe dream? The Kirkuk-Haifa scheme
By Thomas R. Stauffer
02-03-04 Bad pennies do recirculate. The latest to re-emerge is a resurrection of the scheme to build an oil pipeline from Kirkuk in northern Iraq to the Israeli port of Haifa. While on its merits it is difficult to take the proposal seriously -- such a pipeline makes no commercial sense whatsoever, and its political logic defies reasoned analysis-two counts of infeasibility may be no obstacle.
Given the level of ignorance in the White House, and the scope for graft in a project of that type, it could actually be realized, all financial and political argument notwithstanding. When not actually phanstasmagorical, the rationales offered for the pipeline are specious.
Israel-first proponents gush about the vast oil resources of Iraq: "Northern Iraq's oil fields are among the richest in the world." Somehow, one is told, direct access to those fields-through the new pipeline-would reduce Israel's energy costs and, miraculously, increase the diversity of supply to the United States.
Several sobering considerations present themselves, however. First, there is no shortage of outlets for exporting oil from Iraq, making construction of a new line quite superfluous. The existing pipeline from Kirkuk and Mosul to Turkey's Mediterranean terminal at Ceyhan, after building additional parallel lines and pumping stations, now has a nameplate capacity -- if repaired-of 1.65 mm bpd.
Moreover, both the line itself and the terminal at Ceyhan can readily be expanded at incremental costs well below those of any freshly built pipeline. Space is no constraint. There is adequate room in the port, and potential additional capacity to accommodate any likely volumes of oil from Iraq, as well as expected flows from Baku in Azerbaijan, can readily be constructed.
Further, Iraq has two additional oil export terminals on the Gulf. Although badly damaged by US bombs, both can be rehabilitated at modest cost-if not blocked by Israel or Washington. Together, Khor al-Amaya and Mina al-Bakr could export almost 3 mm bpd of oil into supertankers serving the world market. These ports, too, can be expanded by extending the quays or adding single-buoy moorings (SBMs)-although, over the longer run, congestion in the Upper Gulf poses constraints for all the export terminals in that area.
Finally, there are two more existing export pipelines, which, politics permitting, add to Iraq's export capacity and flexibility. There still exists a pipeline from Kirkuk to Banias on the Syrian coast-a leftover from the colonialist era of the Iraq Petroleum Company. The line is partly used by Syria to move its own oil, but some 200,000 bpd of capacity reportedly is unused, and that line-again, politics permitting-could easily be looped and more than doubled.
An even larger option might be reinstated, however. Southern Iraqi oil fields are also connected directly to the Red Sea by the two stages of the IPSA pipeline across Saudi Arabia. This large pipeline, built during the Iran-Iraq war to circumvent attacks by Iranon Iraqi tankers in the Gulf, later serving both Iraq and Saudi Arabia, has been closed by the Saudis since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. While its realistic capacity is less than the theoretical figure of 1.6 mm bpd, nonetheless -- once more, politics permitting-it offers an outlet for perhaps another 1 mm bpd of Iraqi oil.
Nor are Iraqi oil exports in any sense constrained by lack of pipeline capacity. Existing lines could carry six-plus mm bpd -- twice the historic level -- and, with modest investment, could carry any like level of exports over the near- and middle term.
There is a further deception embedded in the proposed Kirkuk-Haifa project, however. Pro-Israel propagandists speak of "reopening" the line. The term "reopening" is a blatant lie. That line was built in the 1930s, when the oil market was radically different and when the refinery at Haifa, controlled by Shell, was of significance. But the facilities have either rusted away or were dismantled, so "it ain't there no more."
Israeli officials claim that the Haifa pipeline would save Israel 20 % of its energy costs-especially in reducing costly oil imports from Russia. Given the near-perfect price arbitrage in oil markets, this is quite implausible. Only two interpretations suggest themselves.
First, the Russian Jewish oil mafia has succeeded in bilking the Israelis -- a formidable task. Or, second, the Israelis and their allies in the Bush administration presume that they can force Iraq to sell oil into the line at a steep discount-part of the known plan to discredit and weaken any Iraqi government by demanding recognition of and oil sales to Israel, as bruited by Ahmad Chalabi.
Why the specious arguments? Why tout the scheme? History may provide the clue. A similar project was pushed in the mid-1980s-except that the terminus was Aqaba, not Haifa. The project was a multi-tiered scam, providing graft, kickbacks and influence-peddling to a spectrum of figures, from a bagman for the Mossad, Shimon Peres and the Labour Party, to a fewhighly-placed officials from the Reagan administration-including, reportedly, Ed Meese, William Clark and Donald Rumsfeld. The details trickled into the public domain during the special prosecutor's investigation of Reagan Attorney General Meese.
Key to the scheme was "influence" in Washington to obtain 100 % US government financing and guarantees for the commercially unviable project, out of which the payoffs were to be distributed. Influence was necessary since the US-export content of the pipeline was minimal, violating the criteria for Export-Import Bank or OPIC support. The scheme unravelled as an investigation into the dubious dealings of Meese unfolded, leaking many of the sordid details into the public record.
In its "born-again" version, the Kirkuk-Haifa smells and looks all too familiar. The bad penny has resurfaced, with specious rationalizations serving to divert attention from the real rationale. Because one must never underestimate the venality and gullibility of American political leadership, however, it is perfectly possible that this piece of political pork might be approved.
Thomas R. Stauffer is a Washington, DC-based engineer and economist who has taught the economics of energy and the Middle East at Harvard University and Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service.
Source: Enatres discussion list "
Iran frees Anti Islamic Revolutionary Journalist -DAWN - Top Stories; March 19, 2006
Iran frees dissident journalist -DAWN - Top Stories; March 19, 2006:
Akbar Ganji a leader in the Anti Islamic Revolutionary Movement was reunited with his wife Massoumeh Shafie. It is anticipated that Ganji will soon travel to Washington DC to meet with AEI and AIPAC.
"Iran frees dissident journalist
TEHRAN, March 18: Iran’s most prominent political prisoner, dissident Akbar Ganji, was released late on Friday night after six years in prison. Visibly thinner and sporting a bushy beard, Mr Ganji smiled and greeted family and friends on Saturday but refused to make any comments.
“He was released at the end of his term,” Mr Ganji’s lawyer Yusef Molai said.
“To my surprise, prison officials brought him home at 10 last night. I did not expect it as the papers said he would not be released before March 30. I am extremely happy,” his wife Massoumeh Shafie said.
“I have asked him not to talk because I am very worried and do not want the same thing to happen again,” she added.
She denied there was any gag order on the fiery journalist and worried about his health after his gruelling stay behind bars.
“He has decided not to talk due to his physical conditions. He should not get tired,” Molai explained.
Mr Ganji, 46, was sentenced to six years in prison in 2001 after he wrote articles implicating several regime officials in a string of gruesome murders of opposition intellectuals and writers in 1998 — crimes that shocked Iran.
He did not give names, and instead kept readers guessing over the identity of the “Master Key” and the “Grey Eminence” — but the nicknames were widely interpreted as referring to former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and former intelligence minister Ali Fallahian.
In 2005, Mr Ganji, who for many symbolised the fighting spirit of Iran’s reform movement, denied having made any reference to Rafsanjani in his articles.
The uproar over the serial murders prompted official action, with the killings blamed on “rogue” intelligence agents. The alleged ringleader eventually committed suicide in jail by drinking hair remover.
Reformists rejoiced at the news of Ganji’s freedom even as the dissident returned to an Iran that was far more conservative than the one he left when he started his prison sentence.
“One of my best friends has been released,” said dissident cleric Mohsen Kadivar, who had come to welcome Mr Ganji at his modest Tehran apartment, two days before the Iranian New Year Nohrouz.
Mr Ganji, who was first jailed in 1997 after giving a lecture on “the theoretical foundations of fascism”, was arrested a final time in April 2000 following his participation in an academic and cultural conference at the Heinrich Boell Institute in Berlin. He was sentenced in 2001 to 10 years in prison, but the sentence was later commuted to six.—AFP"
Akbar Ganji a leader in the Anti Islamic Revolutionary Movement was reunited with his wife Massoumeh Shafie. It is anticipated that Ganji will soon travel to Washington DC to meet with AEI and AIPAC.
"Iran frees dissident journalist
TEHRAN, March 18: Iran’s most prominent political prisoner, dissident Akbar Ganji, was released late on Friday night after six years in prison. Visibly thinner and sporting a bushy beard, Mr Ganji smiled and greeted family and friends on Saturday but refused to make any comments.
“He was released at the end of his term,” Mr Ganji’s lawyer Yusef Molai said.
“To my surprise, prison officials brought him home at 10 last night. I did not expect it as the papers said he would not be released before March 30. I am extremely happy,” his wife Massoumeh Shafie said.
“I have asked him not to talk because I am very worried and do not want the same thing to happen again,” she added.
She denied there was any gag order on the fiery journalist and worried about his health after his gruelling stay behind bars.
“He has decided not to talk due to his physical conditions. He should not get tired,” Molai explained.
Mr Ganji, 46, was sentenced to six years in prison in 2001 after he wrote articles implicating several regime officials in a string of gruesome murders of opposition intellectuals and writers in 1998 — crimes that shocked Iran.
He did not give names, and instead kept readers guessing over the identity of the “Master Key” and the “Grey Eminence” — but the nicknames were widely interpreted as referring to former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and former intelligence minister Ali Fallahian.
In 2005, Mr Ganji, who for many symbolised the fighting spirit of Iran’s reform movement, denied having made any reference to Rafsanjani in his articles.
The uproar over the serial murders prompted official action, with the killings blamed on “rogue” intelligence agents. The alleged ringleader eventually committed suicide in jail by drinking hair remover.
Reformists rejoiced at the news of Ganji’s freedom even as the dissident returned to an Iran that was far more conservative than the one he left when he started his prison sentence.
“One of my best friends has been released,” said dissident cleric Mohsen Kadivar, who had come to welcome Mr Ganji at his modest Tehran apartment, two days before the Iranian New Year Nohrouz.
Mr Ganji, who was first jailed in 1997 after giving a lecture on “the theoretical foundations of fascism”, was arrested a final time in April 2000 following his participation in an academic and cultural conference at the Heinrich Boell Institute in Berlin. He was sentenced in 2001 to 10 years in prison, but the sentence was later commuted to six.—AFP"
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Iran Foolishly Allows Akbar Ganji Freedom
Independent Online Edition > Middle East: "18 March 2006 22:39 Home > News > World > Middle East
Iranian dissident returns home after six years in jail
By Saeed Komeijani
Published: 19 March 2006
Iran's most prominent political dissident, Akbar Ganji, has been released from prison after six years behind bars for criticising some of the most powerful figures in the Islamic Republic.
Mr Ganji, a journalist, was jailed in 2000 after writing articles linking senior officials to the serial killings of political dissidents in 1998. His articles targeted the powerful cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's President from 1989 to 1997.
A cheerful but thin and heavily bearded Mr Ganji yesterday welcomed reporters into his Tehran apartment. He stuck to pleasantries and avoided politics. "Thanks for coming," he said, grinning. "I am so sorry it is such a small place."
Lawyer Youssef Mowlaie said Mr Ganji had been released late on Friday evening. But he predicted a legal wrangle over whether he would have to return to Tehran's feared Evin prison for a few more days. Mr Mowlaie said he reckoned his client's jail term ended on 17 March, but the judiciary disagreed.
Mr Ganji spent stints in solitary confinement and fell gravely ill in July, weakened by a hunger strike aimed at persuading the authorities to release him. The reporter's case sparked outrage in the US and Europe.
Iran's most prominent political dissident, Akbar Ganji, has been released from prison after six years behind bars for criticising some of the most powerful figures in the Islamic Republic.
Mr Ganji, a journalist, was jailed in 2000 after writing articles linking senior officials to the serial killings of political dissidents in 1998. His articles targeted the powerful cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's President from 1989 to 1997.
A cheerful but thin and heavily bearded Mr Ganji yesterday welcomed reporters into his Tehran apartment. He stuck to pleasantries and avoided politics. "Thanks for coming," he said, grinning. "I am so sorry it is such a small place."
Lawyer Youssef Mowlaie said Mr Ganji had been released late on Friday evening. But he predicted a legal wrangle over whether he would have to return to Tehran's feared Evin prison for a few more days. Mr Mowlaie said he reckoned his client's jail term ended on 17 March, but the judiciary disagreed.
Mr Ganji spent stints in solitary confinement and fell gravely ill in July, weakened by a hunger strike aimed at persuading the authorities to release him. The reporter's case sparked outrage in the US and Europe."
Iranian dissident returns home after six years in jail
By Saeed Komeijani
Published: 19 March 2006
Iran's most prominent political dissident, Akbar Ganji, has been released from prison after six years behind bars for criticising some of the most powerful figures in the Islamic Republic.
Mr Ganji, a journalist, was jailed in 2000 after writing articles linking senior officials to the serial killings of political dissidents in 1998. His articles targeted the powerful cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's President from 1989 to 1997.
A cheerful but thin and heavily bearded Mr Ganji yesterday welcomed reporters into his Tehran apartment. He stuck to pleasantries and avoided politics. "Thanks for coming," he said, grinning. "I am so sorry it is such a small place."
Lawyer Youssef Mowlaie said Mr Ganji had been released late on Friday evening. But he predicted a legal wrangle over whether he would have to return to Tehran's feared Evin prison for a few more days. Mr Mowlaie said he reckoned his client's jail term ended on 17 March, but the judiciary disagreed.
Mr Ganji spent stints in solitary confinement and fell gravely ill in July, weakened by a hunger strike aimed at persuading the authorities to release him. The reporter's case sparked outrage in the US and Europe.
Iran's most prominent political dissident, Akbar Ganji, has been released from prison after six years behind bars for criticising some of the most powerful figures in the Islamic Republic.
Mr Ganji, a journalist, was jailed in 2000 after writing articles linking senior officials to the serial killings of political dissidents in 1998. His articles targeted the powerful cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's President from 1989 to 1997.
A cheerful but thin and heavily bearded Mr Ganji yesterday welcomed reporters into his Tehran apartment. He stuck to pleasantries and avoided politics. "Thanks for coming," he said, grinning. "I am so sorry it is such a small place."
Lawyer Youssef Mowlaie said Mr Ganji had been released late on Friday evening. But he predicted a legal wrangle over whether he would have to return to Tehran's feared Evin prison for a few more days. Mr Mowlaie said he reckoned his client's jail term ended on 17 March, but the judiciary disagreed.
Mr Ganji spent stints in solitary confinement and fell gravely ill in July, weakened by a hunger strike aimed at persuading the authorities to release him. The reporter's case sparked outrage in the US and Europe."
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
JTA - AIPAC Spies Supeona Rice and Hadley
JTA - Breaking News: "
Ex-AIPAC staffers subpoena Rice, Hadley
Two former American Israel Public Affairs Committee staffers subpoenaed top Bush administration officials to testify at their trial.
Steve Rosen, AIPAC’s former foreign policy director, and Keith Weissman, its former Iran analyst, filed subpoenas last Friday for Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. secretary of state; Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser; Elliott Abrams, the deputy national security adviser; William Burns, William Burns, the State Department’s former top envoy to the Middle East; David Satterfield, Burns’ former deputy and the current deputy ambassador to Iraq; and a number of former officials.
The court later suppressed the names on the subpoenas, but JTA viewed a copy of the original docket with all the names.
At least one of the targeted witnesses said he has yet to receive a subpoena.
Rosen and Weissman are charged under a never-used statute in the espionage act that criminalizes the receipt and dissemination of classified information.
They plan to argue that the conversations at the center of the indictment were routine for AIPAC lobbyists and others. AIPAC fired the two men a year ago, saying their actions did not comport with AIPAC’s standards."
Ex-AIPAC staffers subpoena Rice, Hadley
Two former American Israel Public Affairs Committee staffers subpoenaed top Bush administration officials to testify at their trial.
Steve Rosen, AIPAC’s former foreign policy director, and Keith Weissman, its former Iran analyst, filed subpoenas last Friday for Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. secretary of state; Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser; Elliott Abrams, the deputy national security adviser; William Burns, William Burns, the State Department’s former top envoy to the Middle East; David Satterfield, Burns’ former deputy and the current deputy ambassador to Iraq; and a number of former officials.
The court later suppressed the names on the subpoenas, but JTA viewed a copy of the original docket with all the names.
At least one of the targeted witnesses said he has yet to receive a subpoena.
Rosen and Weissman are charged under a never-used statute in the espionage act that criminalizes the receipt and dissemination of classified information.
They plan to argue that the conversations at the center of the indictment were routine for AIPAC lobbyists and others. AIPAC fired the two men a year ago, saying their actions did not comport with AIPAC’s standards."
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Mubarak Warns Cheney Not to Attack Iran - Yahoo! News
Mubarak Warns U.S. Not to Attack Iran - Yahoo! News: "Mubarak Warns U.S. Not to Attack Iran 1 hour, 14 minutes ago
CAIRO, Egypt - Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak strongly advised the United States not to attack Iran, warning that military action would create more terrorists in neighboring Iraq, according to comments published Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Mubarak also told Egyptian newspaper editors he warned Vice President Dick Cheney that ground troops "will have a hard time" in such a conflict.
"If an airstrike (against Iran) takes place, then Iraq will be turned to terror groups," Mubarak was quoted as saying by the daily Al-Gomhouria.
He said Shiite Muslims in the Gulf region also could turn against the United States because "Iran generously provides for Shiites in every country and these people are ready to do anything if Iran is attacked."
"Listen to my advice for once," he recalled telling Cheney in English. "You have vital interests in the Gulf region, especially oil."
The United States and other Western governments suspect that Iran's nuclear research program is a cover for weapons development and fear that Tehran is seeking to build an atomic bomb.
Tehran insists it only wants to generate electricity.
International negotiations over the crisis are under way. Mubarak said he hoped the issue would be resolved peacefully.
When asked, he said it was unlikely Israel would launch a nuclear attack against Iran "because Iran owns ballistic missiles that it will launch against Israel and there will be huge destruction."
Mubarak added that such an attack also would spark revenge from Iraqi groups, extremists religious parties and organizations such as the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Mubarak spoke to the editors on his way back from a tour of Gulf states, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia."
CAIRO, Egypt - Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak strongly advised the United States not to attack Iran, warning that military action would create more terrorists in neighboring Iraq, according to comments published Wednesday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Mubarak also told Egyptian newspaper editors he warned Vice President Dick Cheney that ground troops "will have a hard time" in such a conflict.
"If an airstrike (against Iran) takes place, then Iraq will be turned to terror groups," Mubarak was quoted as saying by the daily Al-Gomhouria.
He said Shiite Muslims in the Gulf region also could turn against the United States because "Iran generously provides for Shiites in every country and these people are ready to do anything if Iran is attacked."
"Listen to my advice for once," he recalled telling Cheney in English. "You have vital interests in the Gulf region, especially oil."
The United States and other Western governments suspect that Iran's nuclear research program is a cover for weapons development and fear that Tehran is seeking to build an atomic bomb.
Tehran insists it only wants to generate electricity.
International negotiations over the crisis are under way. Mubarak said he hoped the issue would be resolved peacefully.
When asked, he said it was unlikely Israel would launch a nuclear attack against Iran "because Iran owns ballistic missiles that it will launch against Israel and there will be huge destruction."
Mubarak added that such an attack also would spark revenge from Iraqi groups, extremists religious parties and organizations such as the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Mubarak spoke to the editors on his way back from a tour of Gulf states, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia."
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
The Franklin case and the Five - "Don't forget to tip!”
Deformed before it is born?: "The Franklin case and the Five
"Don't forget to tip!”
By Jean-Guy Allard / 27-02-2006
The most dangerous spy in recent U.S. history, Lawrence "Larry" Franklin, 59, is currently working as a parking attendant at an exclusive Casino and Racetrack in West Virginia while waiting to testify in the trial of his two accomplices.
According to a recent Wall Street Journal publication Franklin, an expert Pentagon analyst who personally advised Donald Rumsfeld, is working as a "valet" in the parking lot at the Charles Town Races & Slots, located in Charles Town, West Virginia between Baltimore and Washington D.C.
Charles Town Races & Slots is a private racetrack and casino specializing in video lottery, where 3, 800 slot machines—according to its advertisements— attract a wealthy clientele from the U.S. federal capital area.
While the Cuban Five, who were arrested by the Miami FBI, accused of espionage for infiltrating that city’s terrorist groups and given sentences including life imprisonment, wait in prison for a court decision, Franklin, a real spy, is collecting tips from gambling clients.
This situation is so absurd that a Washington Post reporter used this title in a brief commentary on the subject: "Don't Forget to Tip!”
Franklin has already enjoyed an incredible sentence reduction despite his treason. After negotiations between the spy’s lawyers and the Attorney General, Federal Judge T.S. Ellis III, of the Alexandria district of Virginia, gave him a 12-year sentence… and then freed him on bail pending the trial of two Israeli agents, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, with whom he actively collaborated.
Franklin handed over an enormous volume of information from the Pentagon on Iran, to those two individuals and another Israeli spy, Naor Gilon, then political advisor at the Israeli embassy in Washington, an action evidently behind Israel’s escalating threats of war on Iran.
But the news of Franklin’s well-paying job in the parking lot of Charles Town Races did not appear on its own.
"THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SUCCESSFUL CASE…"
It is accompanied by the rhetoric of Rosen and Weissman’s astute lawyers, who are claiming that by accusing their client of espionage, the Attorney General violated the First Amendment of the Constitution and that to sentence them would oblige the state to also bring charges against a large number of activists and journalists.
The legislation banning the unauthorized distribution of classified material has never been applied to simple citizens, stated the learned John Nassikas III, spokesman of the defense team, to the New York daily, The Sun.
"There has never been a successful case regarding the unauthorized circulation of material by individuals not under legal or contractual obligation to keep the information classified," said Nassikas.
Rosen and Weissman were lobbyists for the American Israel Political Committee (AIPAC), the most important Israeli lobby group in Washington.
Their espionage activities took place between April 1999 and August 27, 2004, during which time the FBI observed numerous meetings held with the precautions that characterized the group’s activities.
Franklin’s two accomplices are to appear before the Alexandria Federal Court on April 25.
The charges against them are that they received classified information from Franklin and distributed this information to "members of the press and foreign government agents."
The prosecution has not given a public description of the information that they allegedly distributed nor have they named the reporters or foreign agents implicated, according to The Sun.
A document summarizing the defense of the two accused was co-authored by Viet Dinh, a professor at the Georgetown University Faculty of Law, who also used to hold an important position in the Justice Department. Dinh, a constitutional expert, is famous for being one of the “architects” of the Patriot Act.
Dinh’s argument has caused controversy. "Does the First Amendment grant the right to steal and distribute vital U.S. secrets to a foreign power?" writes Justin Raimundo of Antiwar.com. The journalist ends his piece by asking if there is a double standard regarding espionage. "What would happen if Rosen and Weissman were named Abdullah and Mohammed? Or if they worked for the Muslim American Political Action Committee (MAPAC)?"
"ONE HAS TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS"
According to The Sun, the lawyers’ text also cites an eminent federal attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, "regarding the risks in bringing charges related to the diffusion of classified information."
"One must be very cautious about applying this law because numerous interests can be implicated", said the expert during a press conference last year, upon explaining why this charge was not brought against I. Lewis Libby, the White House staffer who revealed the identity of a CIA agent.
The defense document was published by Secrecy News and circulated around the internet by the Federation of American Scientists.
Nassikas announced that Weissman is proposing to launch a defense fund to cover his court costs.
It is worth remembering how, in violation of all prison regulations and international conventions against torture and cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, Héctor Pesquera, chief of the Miami FBI, and his accomplices in the Federal Attorney’s Office, kept the Cuban Five in solitary confinement for 17 consecutive months after their arrest. Since their rigged trial, René González, Gerardo Hernández, Antonio Guerrero, Ramón Labañino and Fernando González have been held in five separate prisons scattered across the immense U.S. territory, with only extremely limited contact with their families.
Franklin is out on bail until the end of court proceedings that could drag on for years. It is unknown how the outcome of that trial will affect the subsequent review of his sentence.
In the mean time he will continue collecting money in the Charles Town parking lot."
"Don't forget to tip!”
By Jean-Guy Allard / 27-02-2006
The most dangerous spy in recent U.S. history, Lawrence "Larry" Franklin, 59, is currently working as a parking attendant at an exclusive Casino and Racetrack in West Virginia while waiting to testify in the trial of his two accomplices.
According to a recent Wall Street Journal publication Franklin, an expert Pentagon analyst who personally advised Donald Rumsfeld, is working as a "valet" in the parking lot at the Charles Town Races & Slots, located in Charles Town, West Virginia between Baltimore and Washington D.C.
Charles Town Races & Slots is a private racetrack and casino specializing in video lottery, where 3, 800 slot machines—according to its advertisements— attract a wealthy clientele from the U.S. federal capital area.
While the Cuban Five, who were arrested by the Miami FBI, accused of espionage for infiltrating that city’s terrorist groups and given sentences including life imprisonment, wait in prison for a court decision, Franklin, a real spy, is collecting tips from gambling clients.
This situation is so absurd that a Washington Post reporter used this title in a brief commentary on the subject: "Don't Forget to Tip!”
Franklin has already enjoyed an incredible sentence reduction despite his treason. After negotiations between the spy’s lawyers and the Attorney General, Federal Judge T.S. Ellis III, of the Alexandria district of Virginia, gave him a 12-year sentence… and then freed him on bail pending the trial of two Israeli agents, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, with whom he actively collaborated.
Franklin handed over an enormous volume of information from the Pentagon on Iran, to those two individuals and another Israeli spy, Naor Gilon, then political advisor at the Israeli embassy in Washington, an action evidently behind Israel’s escalating threats of war on Iran.
But the news of Franklin’s well-paying job in the parking lot of Charles Town Races did not appear on its own.
"THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SUCCESSFUL CASE…"
It is accompanied by the rhetoric of Rosen and Weissman’s astute lawyers, who are claiming that by accusing their client of espionage, the Attorney General violated the First Amendment of the Constitution and that to sentence them would oblige the state to also bring charges against a large number of activists and journalists.
The legislation banning the unauthorized distribution of classified material has never been applied to simple citizens, stated the learned John Nassikas III, spokesman of the defense team, to the New York daily, The Sun.
"There has never been a successful case regarding the unauthorized circulation of material by individuals not under legal or contractual obligation to keep the information classified," said Nassikas.
Rosen and Weissman were lobbyists for the American Israel Political Committee (AIPAC), the most important Israeli lobby group in Washington.
Their espionage activities took place between April 1999 and August 27, 2004, during which time the FBI observed numerous meetings held with the precautions that characterized the group’s activities.
Franklin’s two accomplices are to appear before the Alexandria Federal Court on April 25.
The charges against them are that they received classified information from Franklin and distributed this information to "members of the press and foreign government agents."
The prosecution has not given a public description of the information that they allegedly distributed nor have they named the reporters or foreign agents implicated, according to The Sun.
A document summarizing the defense of the two accused was co-authored by Viet Dinh, a professor at the Georgetown University Faculty of Law, who also used to hold an important position in the Justice Department. Dinh, a constitutional expert, is famous for being one of the “architects” of the Patriot Act.
Dinh’s argument has caused controversy. "Does the First Amendment grant the right to steal and distribute vital U.S. secrets to a foreign power?" writes Justin Raimundo of Antiwar.com. The journalist ends his piece by asking if there is a double standard regarding espionage. "What would happen if Rosen and Weissman were named Abdullah and Mohammed? Or if they worked for the Muslim American Political Action Committee (MAPAC)?"
"ONE HAS TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS"
According to The Sun, the lawyers’ text also cites an eminent federal attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, "regarding the risks in bringing charges related to the diffusion of classified information."
"One must be very cautious about applying this law because numerous interests can be implicated", said the expert during a press conference last year, upon explaining why this charge was not brought against I. Lewis Libby, the White House staffer who revealed the identity of a CIA agent.
The defense document was published by Secrecy News and circulated around the internet by the Federation of American Scientists.
Nassikas announced that Weissman is proposing to launch a defense fund to cover his court costs.
It is worth remembering how, in violation of all prison regulations and international conventions against torture and cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, Héctor Pesquera, chief of the Miami FBI, and his accomplices in the Federal Attorney’s Office, kept the Cuban Five in solitary confinement for 17 consecutive months after their arrest. Since their rigged trial, René González, Gerardo Hernández, Antonio Guerrero, Ramón Labañino and Fernando González have been held in five separate prisons scattered across the immense U.S. territory, with only extremely limited contact with their families.
Franklin is out on bail until the end of court proceedings that could drag on for years. It is unknown how the outcome of that trial will affect the subsequent review of his sentence.
In the mean time he will continue collecting money in the Charles Town parking lot."
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Iran's top mullah may be on our side - Los Angeles Times
Iran's top mullah may be on our side - Los Angeles Times: "Iran's top mullah may be on our side
By Dariush Zahedi and Ali Ezzatyar
Dariush Zahedi teaches international political economy and political science at UC Berkeley. In 2003, he was imprisoned in Iran on charges of espionage and later acquitted. Ali Ezzatyar is a doctoral candidate at Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law.
THE UNITED STATES has a surprising ally in its impatience with the new Iranian president. Since his inauguration, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's pugnacious demeanor has not only roiled the international community but also a significant portion of Iran's ruling elite. A coalition of traditional conservatives, pragmatists and reformists is emerging within the government to oppose Ahmadinejad's brand of governance. With Iran saying it will resume nuclear fuel research, the U.S. should do all in its power to boost the bargaining power of these more moderate Iranian leaders.
ADVERTISEMENT
The rise of the anti-Ahmadinejad faction defies the expectations of Iran analysts, who believed that the post-Khatami era would produce a monolithic conservative bloc in control of most major levers of power. Instead, the coalition is strengthening and attracting many of the regime's powerful personalities, perhaps even the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Evidence of the latter is Khamenei's recent decree giving the Expediency Council, a non-elected body headed by former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, oversight of the presidency.
Ahmadinejad's primary supporters have always been the rank and file of the country's paramilitary forces. Renowned for their fearlessness and passionate commitment to the populist ideals of the Islamic revolution, they had not dominated government before or since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's death in 1989.
The political struggle of Iran's security establishment has come full circle with Ahmadinejad's rise, which makes dealing with Tehran more difficult. The paramilitaries are the ultimate guarantors of the regime's survival. Their leaders wield enormous influence in the Islamic Republic's coercive security establishment, particularly those associated with the Revolutionary Guards. The militants also dominate the volunteer, or Basiji, militia force, believed to have more than 1 million members.
The paramilitaries are not fully tied to any one of the groups vying for power in Iran. Rather, they seek to influence domestic and foreign policy through their numbers and martial strength. They know international tensions that heighten security threats to Iran enhance their status in the power struggle. Although Ahmadinejad owes his presidency to allies in the guards and the Basiji forces, they are not totally beholden to him.
The unlikely counterbalance to Ahmadinejad could be Khamenei. He has frequently cultivated the paramilitaries since his elevation and relied on them to consolidate his power. But should the radicals attempt to direct policy without his explicit consent, Khamenei could move toward pragmatists allied with Rafsanjani and reformist supporters of former President Mohammad Khatami. The two former presidents don't want one of their few achievements in the last 16 years — Iran's moderately improved relations with the outside world — to disappear.
Contrary to popular belief, the traditional conservative clerical establishment is apprehensive about the possibility of violence inside and outside Iran. It generally opposes an aggressive foreign policy and, having some intimate ties with Iran's dependent capitalist class, is appalled at the rapid slide of the economy since Ahmadinejad's inauguration. The value of Tehran's stock market has plunged $10 billion, the nation's vibrant real estate market has withered and capital outflows are increasing.
Khamenei has intimated his readiness to distance himself from the radicals. Apart from authorizing nonpresidential bodies to supervise the three branches of government, he has instructed the Supreme Council for National Security to more fully cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency in the development of Iran's nuclear program. These moves have strengthened his institutional power and helped prevent Ahmadinejad's administration from undermining the regime's credibility.
Here is where the United States comes in. The history of U.S.-Iran relations shows that the more Washington chastises Tehran for its nuclear ambitions, the more it plays into the hands of the radicals by riling up fear and nationalist sentiment. Instead, the U.S. needs to offer Iran an acceptable face-saving mechanism to allow it to master, under appropriate international supervision, the nuclear fuel cycle. A seed planted now could even grow into the long-awaited detente between the two countries and help the U.S. extricate itself from Iraq."
By Dariush Zahedi and Ali Ezzatyar
Dariush Zahedi teaches international political economy and political science at UC Berkeley. In 2003, he was imprisoned in Iran on charges of espionage and later acquitted. Ali Ezzatyar is a doctoral candidate at Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law.
THE UNITED STATES has a surprising ally in its impatience with the new Iranian president. Since his inauguration, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's pugnacious demeanor has not only roiled the international community but also a significant portion of Iran's ruling elite. A coalition of traditional conservatives, pragmatists and reformists is emerging within the government to oppose Ahmadinejad's brand of governance. With Iran saying it will resume nuclear fuel research, the U.S. should do all in its power to boost the bargaining power of these more moderate Iranian leaders.
ADVERTISEMENT
The rise of the anti-Ahmadinejad faction defies the expectations of Iran analysts, who believed that the post-Khatami era would produce a monolithic conservative bloc in control of most major levers of power. Instead, the coalition is strengthening and attracting many of the regime's powerful personalities, perhaps even the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Evidence of the latter is Khamenei's recent decree giving the Expediency Council, a non-elected body headed by former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, oversight of the presidency.
Ahmadinejad's primary supporters have always been the rank and file of the country's paramilitary forces. Renowned for their fearlessness and passionate commitment to the populist ideals of the Islamic revolution, they had not dominated government before or since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's death in 1989.
The political struggle of Iran's security establishment has come full circle with Ahmadinejad's rise, which makes dealing with Tehran more difficult. The paramilitaries are the ultimate guarantors of the regime's survival. Their leaders wield enormous influence in the Islamic Republic's coercive security establishment, particularly those associated with the Revolutionary Guards. The militants also dominate the volunteer, or Basiji, militia force, believed to have more than 1 million members.
The paramilitaries are not fully tied to any one of the groups vying for power in Iran. Rather, they seek to influence domestic and foreign policy through their numbers and martial strength. They know international tensions that heighten security threats to Iran enhance their status in the power struggle. Although Ahmadinejad owes his presidency to allies in the guards and the Basiji forces, they are not totally beholden to him.
The unlikely counterbalance to Ahmadinejad could be Khamenei. He has frequently cultivated the paramilitaries since his elevation and relied on them to consolidate his power. But should the radicals attempt to direct policy without his explicit consent, Khamenei could move toward pragmatists allied with Rafsanjani and reformist supporters of former President Mohammad Khatami. The two former presidents don't want one of their few achievements in the last 16 years — Iran's moderately improved relations with the outside world — to disappear.
Contrary to popular belief, the traditional conservative clerical establishment is apprehensive about the possibility of violence inside and outside Iran. It generally opposes an aggressive foreign policy and, having some intimate ties with Iran's dependent capitalist class, is appalled at the rapid slide of the economy since Ahmadinejad's inauguration. The value of Tehran's stock market has plunged $10 billion, the nation's vibrant real estate market has withered and capital outflows are increasing.
Khamenei has intimated his readiness to distance himself from the radicals. Apart from authorizing nonpresidential bodies to supervise the three branches of government, he has instructed the Supreme Council for National Security to more fully cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency in the development of Iran's nuclear program. These moves have strengthened his institutional power and helped prevent Ahmadinejad's administration from undermining the regime's credibility.
Here is where the United States comes in. The history of U.S.-Iran relations shows that the more Washington chastises Tehran for its nuclear ambitions, the more it plays into the hands of the radicals by riling up fear and nationalist sentiment. Instead, the U.S. needs to offer Iran an acceptable face-saving mechanism to allow it to master, under appropriate international supervision, the nuclear fuel cycle. A seed planted now could even grow into the long-awaited detente between the two countries and help the U.S. extricate itself from Iraq."
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Jerusalem Post | 'Allies no excuse for breaking law' By NATHAN GUTTMAN
Jerusalem Post: "Feb. 22, 2006 4:02 | Updated Feb. 22, 2006 6:03
'Allies no excuse for breaking law'
By NATHAN GUTTMAN
WASHINGTON
The prosecution in the case against two former AIPAC employees stated, in a document submitted to the court, that the fact that Israel is a US ally has no bearing on the case and cannot be seen as a relevant consideration in dealing with the actions of defendants Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman.
The response to defense motions, which was filed with the US District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, refers to the defense's request to obtain depositions from Israeli diplomats to prove that "any actions that happened to inure to the benefit of Israel were always seen by Israel to benefit the United States."
The prosecution responded that the law "makes no distinctions between allies or enemies, friends or foes." Referring to Israel, the prosecutors added that "it is not for any foreign nation to opine on whether the threat posed by an unauthorized disclosure of United States national defense information jeopardizes the national security of the United States or is a violation of United States law."
The statement makes it clear that the US government does not accept the notion that passing on classified information to a friendly country does not cause any harm to the US.
The government is requesting the court deny the defense motion for submission of depositions from three Israeli diplomats who were mentioned in the indictment as being in contact with the AIPAC staffers and with Larry Franklin, the former Pentagon analyst. Franklin has already been sentenced to 12 years in prison for leaking classified information to AIPAC and the Israelis.
Two of the Israeli diplomats were identified as Naor Gilon, the former political officer at the Israeli embassy in Washington and Rafi Barak, the former deputy chief of Mission.
Israel has denied the defense request to take depositions from the diplomats or to allow them to appear in court. The prosecution also asked to interview the Israeli diplomats. Though Israel did not refuse, the modalities of such an interview had not been worked out yet, according to Israeli sources.
The defense would like the Israelis to help prove their claim that Rosen and Weissman were not Israeli agents, that they had not received payment from Israel for their work, and that there were "unique circumstances" that justify the fact that Rosen did pass on information to Gilon concerning a threat that Iranian terrorists might abduct and murder Israelis working in the Kurdish region in Iraq. It was only revealed later that information about the threat was given to Rosen and Weissman by Franklin as part of a sting operation, while Franklin was cooperating with the FBI.
Judge T.S. Ellis will hear the pre-trial motions of both sides next month. Lawyers for Rosen and Weissman will ask that the case be dismissed, claiming that prosecuting the former AIPAC employees under the Espionage Act would infringe on freedom of speech and the First Amendment, as it would be the first time in which civilians who are on the receiving end of a classified leak were put on trial.
In its response to the dismissal motion, the prosecution states that the law does not distinguish between government employees and others, and claims that "an ordinary person would know that foreign officials, journalists and other persons with no current affiliation to the US government would not be entitled to receive information related to our national defense."
If the motion to dismiss the case is rejected, the jury trial will begin on April 25. "
'Allies no excuse for breaking law'
By NATHAN GUTTMAN
WASHINGTON
The prosecution in the case against two former AIPAC employees stated, in a document submitted to the court, that the fact that Israel is a US ally has no bearing on the case and cannot be seen as a relevant consideration in dealing with the actions of defendants Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman.
The response to defense motions, which was filed with the US District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, refers to the defense's request to obtain depositions from Israeli diplomats to prove that "any actions that happened to inure to the benefit of Israel were always seen by Israel to benefit the United States."
The prosecution responded that the law "makes no distinctions between allies or enemies, friends or foes." Referring to Israel, the prosecutors added that "it is not for any foreign nation to opine on whether the threat posed by an unauthorized disclosure of United States national defense information jeopardizes the national security of the United States or is a violation of United States law."
The statement makes it clear that the US government does not accept the notion that passing on classified information to a friendly country does not cause any harm to the US.
The government is requesting the court deny the defense motion for submission of depositions from three Israeli diplomats who were mentioned in the indictment as being in contact with the AIPAC staffers and with Larry Franklin, the former Pentagon analyst. Franklin has already been sentenced to 12 years in prison for leaking classified information to AIPAC and the Israelis.
Two of the Israeli diplomats were identified as Naor Gilon, the former political officer at the Israeli embassy in Washington and Rafi Barak, the former deputy chief of Mission.
Israel has denied the defense request to take depositions from the diplomats or to allow them to appear in court. The prosecution also asked to interview the Israeli diplomats. Though Israel did not refuse, the modalities of such an interview had not been worked out yet, according to Israeli sources.
The defense would like the Israelis to help prove their claim that Rosen and Weissman were not Israeli agents, that they had not received payment from Israel for their work, and that there were "unique circumstances" that justify the fact that Rosen did pass on information to Gilon concerning a threat that Iranian terrorists might abduct and murder Israelis working in the Kurdish region in Iraq. It was only revealed later that information about the threat was given to Rosen and Weissman by Franklin as part of a sting operation, while Franklin was cooperating with the FBI.
Judge T.S. Ellis will hear the pre-trial motions of both sides next month. Lawyers for Rosen and Weissman will ask that the case be dismissed, claiming that prosecuting the former AIPAC employees under the Espionage Act would infringe on freedom of speech and the First Amendment, as it would be the first time in which civilians who are on the receiving end of a classified leak were put on trial.
In its response to the dismissal motion, the prosecution states that the law does not distinguish between government employees and others, and claims that "an ordinary person would know that foreign officials, journalists and other persons with no current affiliation to the US government would not be entitled to receive information related to our national defense."
If the motion to dismiss the case is rejected, the jury trial will begin on April 25. "
Monday, February 20, 2006
McDonald's sued for having milk, wheat in fries-WSJ - Yahoo! News
McDonald's sued for having milk, wheat in fries-WSJ - Yahoo! News: "McDonald's sued for having milk, wheat in fries-WSJ Sun Feb 19, 5:49 PM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - McDonald's Corp. (NYSE:MCD - news) faces at least three lawsuits claiming the fast-food giant misled the public after it acknowledged earlier this week its French fries contain milk and wheat ingredients, the Wall Street Journal Online reported on Sunday.
The suits were filed by people with celiac disease, who have an intolerance to a protein found in wheat, the Journal said.
McDonald's, based in Oak Brook, Illinois, had previously described the flavoring as safe for people with food allergies and other dietary sensitivities, the Journal said."
NEW YORK (Reuters) - McDonald's Corp. (NYSE:MCD - news) faces at least three lawsuits claiming the fast-food giant misled the public after it acknowledged earlier this week its French fries contain milk and wheat ingredients, the Wall Street Journal Online reported on Sunday.
The suits were filed by people with celiac disease, who have an intolerance to a protein found in wheat, the Journal said.
McDonald's, based in Oak Brook, Illinois, had previously described the flavoring as safe for people with food allergies and other dietary sensitivities, the Journal said."
Sunday, February 19, 2006
deseretnews.com | Skousen evoked strong feelings
deseretnews.com | Skousen evoked strong feelings: "Skousen evoked strong feelings
By Carrie A. Moore
Deseret Morning News
His friends and admirers saw W. Cleon Skousen as a deeply religious man who wasn't afraid to publicly marry his faith with his interpretation of constitutional principles and his disdain for communism.
W. Cleon Skousen Those who were leery of his many writings and speeches saw him as an ultra-conservative alarmist with a penchant for fueling political conspiracy theories.
So as family and friends prepare to bid him farewell at local funeral services scheduled for Saturday, Skousen's life and teachings are being remembered in a variety of ways. The former FBI special agent, Salt Lake City police chief, Brigham Young University religion teacher and founder of the Center for Constitutional Studies died on Monday at age 92.
Though they may view him in different spheres, both friends and foes knew he was passionate about his beliefs.
His son, Paul, said the modest family home in Salt Lake City has been deluged with condolences from "a lot of people from across the nation and overseas calling in once word started to get out. They're asking what was he working on, wondering whether they can get a plane in on time" for the funeral.
"He made a lot of friends in Israel, in Central and Latin America — just about everywhere. They had a great love for him. He counseled with them on politics, and on the drafting of a constitution he helped with in Canada and Latin America. Many of them admired his wisdom and understanding, and as a result want to come and offer due respect and honor for a man that helped them understand constitutional principles."
Author of 46 books, including Cold War-era tomes on communism and religious works directed at fellow members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Skousen was most widely known for his devotion to America's Founding Fathers and his interpretation of their writings. The National Center for Constitutional Studies was an outgrowth of his original Freemen Institute, both conservative think tanks that published his articles, speeches and audio tapes. Paul Skousen said his father often made hundreds of speeches a year in a wide variety of venues.
Glenn Kimber, Cleon Skousen's son-in-law, said he had the chance to travel with Skousen for 20 years, working by his side and lecturing with him in all 50 states.
"I was absolutely thrilled watching his great desire for documentation. He covered the spectrum," leaving behind a library with some 7,000 volumes, he said.
While most are books he devoured on the Founding Fathers, politics and the LDS Church, many were penned by Skousen, including scores of personal journals and "scrapbook-type" histories he kept, Kimber said.
A few years ago, Skousen had planned to establish a private library to house his holdings, but plans fell through, Kimber said. Days before he died, Kimber said Skousen told his children about his desires for the library. A deal with what Kimber described as a Provo-based "educational organization" known as FranklinSquires is in the works, and he said the library will eventually be open to the public. Copies of Skousen's writings will also be donated to Brigham Young University's Special Collections library, he said.
"People would come up and say how much they appreciated his work. Different people found him to be their friend in so many different disciplines," Kimber said.
That included friendships with people from a variety of faiths.
One of those is the Rev. Donald Sills, a Baptist minister, fellow conservative and past president of the American Freedom Coalition. He said he first met Skousen as a young pastor in Spokane, Wash., back in 1964, when he put together a meeting called the "God Bless America Rally."
"I thought the only person to do it was Cleon Skousen, and I took a lot of flak for that," as church members asked why a Mormon would be invited to address them. But the two "developed a very close relationship. We traveled throughout different parts of the world teaching the basics of free enterprise system. He was the voice of real constitutionalism. I know he had read over 200 volumes of writings of the Founding Fathers." The Rev. Sills said he found Mr. Skousen in Washington, D.C., once, sitting on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial. When he asked what Mr. Skousen was doing, the reply came, " 'I'm talking to Tom Jefferson.' That's the kind of man he was," he said. Another personal experience further endeared him to Mr. Skousen when he was invited to stay at his home in Salt Lake City. "I got up the next morning, and there was Dr. Skousen and his wife in the kitchen. He asked me if I wanted to join them in morning prayer. There they were, getting down on their knees by the table. It was absolutely marvelous."
Both were friends with former LDS Church President Ezra Taft Benson and other conservative politicos. When Mr. Skousen and the Rev. Sills organized a three-day "Making of America" conference in Salt Lake City years ago, the Rev. Sills said President Benson quipped, "If they'll take a Mormon elder with a Baptist preacher on the platform for three days, we've got a winner."He dubbed Mr. Skousen "probably the greatest constitutionalist I know. I've been in ministry for 47 years, and I admired the man, I loved him." He told Mr. Skousen's family years ago that when their father died, he wanted to be at the funeral, and "by God's grace I hope to be there."
Another admirer is Joseph Ginat, former adviser to the prime minister of Israel and now director of the Center for Peace Studies at the University of Oklahoma.
"He was in Israel over 20 times, and I went with him to meet top politicians and government ministers," Ginat said. "He always had good questions and analyzed the situation in the Middle East. He had a great love for Israel, no question about it. I think that he followed the approach of President Ezra Taft Benson, who also loved Israel very much." The two talked biblical studies and the history of the Old Testament. "He was so articulate. He explained things so every person could understand . . . and he had an excellent sense of humor that came out in his lectures."
Skousen also had plenty of critics and clashed with former University of Utah professors J.D. Williams and Obert C. Tanner, according to U. law professor Ed Firmage, who remembers working with Skousen as a young employee in his father's store in Provo. "I had talks with him when he came in and we sold him a suit or tie or shirt." While he He appreciated Mr. Skousen as a person, and even invited him to speak once to his First Amendment class at the U. But "on the issues that mattered, he and I were on opposite sides of the fence. He was way to the right — a John Birchy kind of person who really appealed to a particular brand of right-wing Mormonism at a particular time. I don't view him as a significant constitutional scholar. He had a rightward song that was ideologically driven."
Firmage said he didn't read much of Skousen's work, so "I wouldn't be much of a commentator on his writing. I know he had definite views on Israel as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, as most rightward Christian denominations do. But I think his defense of right-wing ideas was subversive of Mormonism and notions of the Constitution." Firmage spent his early career working with Martin Luther King and Hubert Humphrey during the Cold War. "He saw Russia as bigger than it was and saw various plots and plans and schemes against the country that I think didn't exist. It was the height of the McCarthy era and he was one of the chief spokespersons."
Wrapping religion and constitutional views together as Mr. Skousen did makes political views "a religious principle for some people. That makes it impossible to see the real defenders of the Constitution when you're looking for a bogeyman all the time. It was a somewhat paranoid period in American history that we're now somewhat free of. I think we are in a better and healthier period now."
E-mail: carrie@desnews.com"
By Carrie A. Moore
Deseret Morning News
His friends and admirers saw W. Cleon Skousen as a deeply religious man who wasn't afraid to publicly marry his faith with his interpretation of constitutional principles and his disdain for communism.
W. Cleon Skousen Those who were leery of his many writings and speeches saw him as an ultra-conservative alarmist with a penchant for fueling political conspiracy theories.
So as family and friends prepare to bid him farewell at local funeral services scheduled for Saturday, Skousen's life and teachings are being remembered in a variety of ways. The former FBI special agent, Salt Lake City police chief, Brigham Young University religion teacher and founder of the Center for Constitutional Studies died on Monday at age 92.
Though they may view him in different spheres, both friends and foes knew he was passionate about his beliefs.
His son, Paul, said the modest family home in Salt Lake City has been deluged with condolences from "a lot of people from across the nation and overseas calling in once word started to get out. They're asking what was he working on, wondering whether they can get a plane in on time" for the funeral.
"He made a lot of friends in Israel, in Central and Latin America — just about everywhere. They had a great love for him. He counseled with them on politics, and on the drafting of a constitution he helped with in Canada and Latin America. Many of them admired his wisdom and understanding, and as a result want to come and offer due respect and honor for a man that helped them understand constitutional principles."
Author of 46 books, including Cold War-era tomes on communism and religious works directed at fellow members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Skousen was most widely known for his devotion to America's Founding Fathers and his interpretation of their writings. The National Center for Constitutional Studies was an outgrowth of his original Freemen Institute, both conservative think tanks that published his articles, speeches and audio tapes. Paul Skousen said his father often made hundreds of speeches a year in a wide variety of venues.
Glenn Kimber, Cleon Skousen's son-in-law, said he had the chance to travel with Skousen for 20 years, working by his side and lecturing with him in all 50 states.
"I was absolutely thrilled watching his great desire for documentation. He covered the spectrum," leaving behind a library with some 7,000 volumes, he said.
While most are books he devoured on the Founding Fathers, politics and the LDS Church, many were penned by Skousen, including scores of personal journals and "scrapbook-type" histories he kept, Kimber said.
A few years ago, Skousen had planned to establish a private library to house his holdings, but plans fell through, Kimber said. Days before he died, Kimber said Skousen told his children about his desires for the library. A deal with what Kimber described as a Provo-based "educational organization" known as FranklinSquires is in the works, and he said the library will eventually be open to the public. Copies of Skousen's writings will also be donated to Brigham Young University's Special Collections library, he said.
"People would come up and say how much they appreciated his work. Different people found him to be their friend in so many different disciplines," Kimber said.
That included friendships with people from a variety of faiths.
One of those is the Rev. Donald Sills, a Baptist minister, fellow conservative and past president of the American Freedom Coalition. He said he first met Skousen as a young pastor in Spokane, Wash., back in 1964, when he put together a meeting called the "God Bless America Rally."
"I thought the only person to do it was Cleon Skousen, and I took a lot of flak for that," as church members asked why a Mormon would be invited to address them. But the two "developed a very close relationship. We traveled throughout different parts of the world teaching the basics of free enterprise system. He was the voice of real constitutionalism. I know he had read over 200 volumes of writings of the Founding Fathers." The Rev. Sills said he found Mr. Skousen in Washington, D.C., once, sitting on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial. When he asked what Mr. Skousen was doing, the reply came, " 'I'm talking to Tom Jefferson.' That's the kind of man he was," he said. Another personal experience further endeared him to Mr. Skousen when he was invited to stay at his home in Salt Lake City. "I got up the next morning, and there was Dr. Skousen and his wife in the kitchen. He asked me if I wanted to join them in morning prayer. There they were, getting down on their knees by the table. It was absolutely marvelous."
Both were friends with former LDS Church President Ezra Taft Benson and other conservative politicos. When Mr. Skousen and the Rev. Sills organized a three-day "Making of America" conference in Salt Lake City years ago, the Rev. Sills said President Benson quipped, "If they'll take a Mormon elder with a Baptist preacher on the platform for three days, we've got a winner."He dubbed Mr. Skousen "probably the greatest constitutionalist I know. I've been in ministry for 47 years, and I admired the man, I loved him." He told Mr. Skousen's family years ago that when their father died, he wanted to be at the funeral, and "by God's grace I hope to be there."
Another admirer is Joseph Ginat, former adviser to the prime minister of Israel and now director of the Center for Peace Studies at the University of Oklahoma.
"He was in Israel over 20 times, and I went with him to meet top politicians and government ministers," Ginat said. "He always had good questions and analyzed the situation in the Middle East. He had a great love for Israel, no question about it. I think that he followed the approach of President Ezra Taft Benson, who also loved Israel very much." The two talked biblical studies and the history of the Old Testament. "He was so articulate. He explained things so every person could understand . . . and he had an excellent sense of humor that came out in his lectures."
Skousen also had plenty of critics and clashed with former University of Utah professors J.D. Williams and Obert C. Tanner, according to U. law professor Ed Firmage, who remembers working with Skousen as a young employee in his father's store in Provo. "I had talks with him when he came in and we sold him a suit or tie or shirt." While he He appreciated Mr. Skousen as a person, and even invited him to speak once to his First Amendment class at the U. But "on the issues that mattered, he and I were on opposite sides of the fence. He was way to the right — a John Birchy kind of person who really appealed to a particular brand of right-wing Mormonism at a particular time. I don't view him as a significant constitutional scholar. He had a rightward song that was ideologically driven."
Firmage said he didn't read much of Skousen's work, so "I wouldn't be much of a commentator on his writing. I know he had definite views on Israel as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, as most rightward Christian denominations do. But I think his defense of right-wing ideas was subversive of Mormonism and notions of the Constitution." Firmage spent his early career working with Martin Luther King and Hubert Humphrey during the Cold War. "He saw Russia as bigger than it was and saw various plots and plans and schemes against the country that I think didn't exist. It was the height of the McCarthy era and he was one of the chief spokespersons."
Wrapping religion and constitutional views together as Mr. Skousen did makes political views "a religious principle for some people. That makes it impossible to see the real defenders of the Constitution when you're looking for a bogeyman all the time. It was a somewhat paranoid period in American history that we're now somewhat free of. I think we are in a better and healthier period now."
E-mail: carrie@desnews.com"
Saturday, February 18, 2006
American Lap Dog Hamid Karzai Admits He was Wrong to Flee Afghanistan During The War - Yahoo! News
Afghan President Warns Against Meddling - Yahoo! News: "Afghan President Warns Against Meddling By KATHY GANNON, Associated Press Writer
Sat Feb 18, 1:23 PM ET
KABUL, Afghanistan - President Hamid Karzai has a pointed warning for neighboring nations: Stop meddling in Afghan affairs, or risk seeing chaos spread from a destabilized Afghanistan across the region.
Speaking sharply during an interview with The Associated Press, Karzai said Afghans have had enough of conflict and foreign interference — the war against occupying Soviet troops in the 1980s, a civil war in the '90s, the insurgency following the U.S.-led campaign that toppled the Taliban and chased out al-Qaida training camps after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
He promised that further interference in his homeland will not go unchallenged and warned that Iran, Pakistan and others are not fooling anyone.
"We know (interference) is going on. We know that money is being brought into Afghanistan. It will not have the impact that they want it to have — not for Afghanistan and not for themselves — so they had better stop," Karzai said.
"If they don't stop, the consequences will be exactly what I said earlier. The consequences will be that this region will suffer with us, equally, as we suffer. In the past we suffered alone. This time everybody will suffer with us."
Karzai said he felt a sense of contentment with the progress his country has made since the collapse of the Taliban regime at the end of 2001. But he spoke with concern about outside attempts to manipulate Afghanistan's ethnic and religious groups and the dangers of encouraging discord in tumultuous south-central Asia.
"Any effort to divide Afghanistan ethnically or weaken it will create exactly the same things in the neighboring countries. All the countries in this neighborhood have the same ethnic groups that we have, so they should know that it is a different ball game this time," he said.
"We are bloody determined. It is not going to be Pakistan playing the Pashtun, non-Pashtun game in Afghanistan. It is not going to be Iran playing this or that game or any other country. We can play the same game with a lot more historical power, with a lot more power in our history than others can. They should know that very well."
Reflecting on Afghanistan's recent violence, and the manipulations of its neighbors, the president said his people are stronger now and know better how to face up to foreign interference.
"It won't work this time. Afghanistan has an ownership. I told you we will not be refugees again. We own this country. Afghanistan has a voice now," Karzai said.
"The past is gone. We were unaware: The Soviets came, invaded us and we went out of Afghanistan to defend our country. We defended our country and that was right, but we made a mistake by leaving our country. It was one of the biggest mistakes we made, leaving the country."
Talking without aides at his side, sitting alone at a long, heavy table in a cavernous room at the presidential palace, Karzai was passionate about Afghanistan's future and his determination to protect his country.
"The United States, Pakistan, Iran and everybody should know that this time Afghans will not become refugees. I would be one of those Afghans who would not become a refugee again," he said.
"It has to be very, very clear. That is why I am talking so clear. This is my conscience speaking, the conscience of an Afghan person.""
Sat Feb 18, 1:23 PM ET
KABUL, Afghanistan - President Hamid Karzai has a pointed warning for neighboring nations: Stop meddling in Afghan affairs, or risk seeing chaos spread from a destabilized Afghanistan across the region.
Speaking sharply during an interview with The Associated Press, Karzai said Afghans have had enough of conflict and foreign interference — the war against occupying Soviet troops in the 1980s, a civil war in the '90s, the insurgency following the U.S.-led campaign that toppled the Taliban and chased out al-Qaida training camps after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
He promised that further interference in his homeland will not go unchallenged and warned that Iran, Pakistan and others are not fooling anyone.
"We know (interference) is going on. We know that money is being brought into Afghanistan. It will not have the impact that they want it to have — not for Afghanistan and not for themselves — so they had better stop," Karzai said.
"If they don't stop, the consequences will be exactly what I said earlier. The consequences will be that this region will suffer with us, equally, as we suffer. In the past we suffered alone. This time everybody will suffer with us."
Karzai said he felt a sense of contentment with the progress his country has made since the collapse of the Taliban regime at the end of 2001. But he spoke with concern about outside attempts to manipulate Afghanistan's ethnic and religious groups and the dangers of encouraging discord in tumultuous south-central Asia.
"Any effort to divide Afghanistan ethnically or weaken it will create exactly the same things in the neighboring countries. All the countries in this neighborhood have the same ethnic groups that we have, so they should know that it is a different ball game this time," he said.
"We are bloody determined. It is not going to be Pakistan playing the Pashtun, non-Pashtun game in Afghanistan. It is not going to be Iran playing this or that game or any other country. We can play the same game with a lot more historical power, with a lot more power in our history than others can. They should know that very well."
Reflecting on Afghanistan's recent violence, and the manipulations of its neighbors, the president said his people are stronger now and know better how to face up to foreign interference.
"It won't work this time. Afghanistan has an ownership. I told you we will not be refugees again. We own this country. Afghanistan has a voice now," Karzai said.
"The past is gone. We were unaware: The Soviets came, invaded us and we went out of Afghanistan to defend our country. We defended our country and that was right, but we made a mistake by leaving our country. It was one of the biggest mistakes we made, leaving the country."
Talking without aides at his side, sitting alone at a long, heavy table in a cavernous room at the presidential palace, Karzai was passionate about Afghanistan's future and his determination to protect his country.
"The United States, Pakistan, Iran and everybody should know that this time Afghans will not become refugees. I would be one of those Afghans who would not become a refugee again," he said.
"It has to be very, very clear. That is why I am talking so clear. This is my conscience speaking, the conscience of an Afghan person.""
Friday, February 17, 2006
Iraq, Iran unintended results By Arnaud De Borchgrave
Iraq, Iran unintended results: "US Features
Iraq, Iran unintended results
By Arnaud De Borchgrave
Feb 17, 2006, 19:00 GMT
WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- When Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law Oct. 31, 1998, it paved the way for the March 2003 shock and awe invasion of Iraq. Some $300 billion later, including $10 billion in military hardware chewed up, the meter is still running.
The law of unintended consequences has sprung yet another unpleasant surprise. The kingmaker of Baghdad is now a sworn enemy of the United States who has pledged his support to Iran should the U.S. attempt regime change there, too
Radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who led his Mehdi army militia not once but twice against U.S. forces in 2004, has emerged from the last round of elections with a crucial swing vote of 32 seats. His latest gambit was to threaten civil war unless his choice for prime minister was accepted. It was. By one vote.
That was how Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the interim prime minister, became Iraq`s next leader. The principal architect of the Iraq Liberation Act, Ahmad Chalabi, didn`t win a single seat in parliament; he got less than half of one percent of the vote. But the \'gray eminence\' of what went wrong may yet get a cabinet job. A mathematics PhD from the University of Chicago, his specialty is finance.
This was the same Jaafari, then the interim prime minister, who took ten of his cabinet ministers last spring to Tehran (where he had lived in exile during the Saddam Hussein regime) to apologize for the eight-year Iran-Iraq war under Saddam Hussein. He returned to Baghdad with a $1 billion gift from the Iranian ayatollahs for new schools and hospitals.
When president Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the last thing he anticipated was an Islamist radical calling the shots in a democratic Iraq. A glutton for geopolitical punishment -- which our enemies must see as congenital masochism -- the administration and Congress are crab-walking into an \'Iran Liberation Act.\' The first tranche requested by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is for $75 million \'to weaken Iran from within.\'
This time it wasn`t an Iranian Chalabi type with dubious credentials, but several little Chalabis in the form of influential Christian lobby groups -- and some of our born-again neocons determined to recover their Iraqi losses. Mercifully, Congress is looking askance at the project and after testy exchanges with Dr. Rice, the administration got what it wanted -- plus $10 million already budgeted.
So far the administration`s magic potion for democracy in the Middle East has produced a majority for Hamas and its Islamist leadership, a sworn enemy of Israel and ally of Iran, in the Palestinian territories, and an alarming election sally by the long banned Muslim Brotherhood, another sworn enemy of Israel and friend of Iran, in Egypt. Hezbollah, an adjunct of Iran in Lebanon, is also comfortably installed in the parliament in Beirut.
Iran today has a dangerous, West-hating religious fanatic as president. But two recent unofficial Iranian emissaries were in Washington to advise Republicans and Democrats to be patient and to stay in lockstep with the European Union, Russia and China. If the U.S. breaks from a united international front, and goes the \'Iraq Liberation Act\' route in Iran, this will only assist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in widening a fairly narrow base of popular support. He can pose as Saladin against the heathen Americans and Zionist Jews, but he cannot take on the whole world -- without antagonizing his clerical superiors. At least, that was the argument of the two low-key emissaries.
United international pressure against Iran`s nuclear program -- and full support for the Russian compromise proposal whereby Moscow undertakes to enrich Iran`s nuclear fuel and return it short of weapons-grade uranium -- will lead the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to unload the president. So argued the two Iranians who said, \'If we weaponize nukes, others in the region will follow suit. So the non-weaponizers are now dominant but they also say they should have the capability of a full fuel enrichment cycle, just in case.\'
Khamenei, known as rahbar, or leader, is elected for life by the 86-member \'Assembly of Experts\' who themselves are elected by their provinces and have a guardian watchdog role. More important, the president has sharply limited executive powers. He doesn`t control the High Council of the Nation`s Security, the armed forces, the revolutionary guards, the intelligence services, the judiciary and broadcasting. All the important levers of power belong to rahbar.
Nor does the president have the power to dismiss parliament and call new elections. He is making \'all sorts of wild promises,\' said the two Iranians told their American interlocutors, \'and parliament is already asking him `who`s going to pay?`\'
The president who wants to wipe Israel off the map and scoffs at the Holocaust as fiction invented by the Jews draws his principal support from the very poor -- five million votes -- and Iran-Iraq war (1980-88) veterans who feel the supreme leader has deviated from the path set by his predecessor, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1979-89).
The veterans, according to the emissaries, share a deep distrust of any cooperation with the West because of the assistance given Saddam Hussein during the war. The U.S. supplied satellite intelligence of Iranian troop locations and the French sold military equipment, including 10,000 battlefield flares per day.
Ahmadinejad the verbal bomb thrower has already incurred the wrath of some senior ayatollahs by denouncing corruption. Everybody knows former president Ayatollah Rafsanjani became one of Iran`s wealthiest men while in office. Ahmadinejad defeated Rafsanjani to become the first non-clerical president since the revolution. But what he lacks in clerical credentials, he makes up in religious fanaticism.
While in Washington, the two Iranian emissaries also made clear that U.S. and/or Israeli attacks against Iran`s nuclear facilities would set the whole region ablaze against the United States. \'They have clandestine assets throughout the oil producing countries of the Gulf,\' said one of them in a barely audible voice, \'and they also remember how you were forced to leave Vietnam in 1975.\' Iran`s Shiite friends in Iraq, led by fee-faw-fum scarecrow al-Sadr, will be asked to harass U.S. troops \'as you prepare to end the occupation with honor.\'
Yuval Diskin, the head of Shin Bet, Israel`s internal security agency, said recently his country might come to regret its decision to support the U.S. invasion of Iraq. \'I`m not sure we won`t come to miss Saddam,\' he told a group of students broadcast on Israeli TV. Last throes anyone?
Copyright 2006 by United Press International"
Iraq, Iran unintended results
By Arnaud De Borchgrave
Feb 17, 2006, 19:00 GMT
WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- When Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law Oct. 31, 1998, it paved the way for the March 2003 shock and awe invasion of Iraq. Some $300 billion later, including $10 billion in military hardware chewed up, the meter is still running.
The law of unintended consequences has sprung yet another unpleasant surprise. The kingmaker of Baghdad is now a sworn enemy of the United States who has pledged his support to Iran should the U.S. attempt regime change there, too
Radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who led his Mehdi army militia not once but twice against U.S. forces in 2004, has emerged from the last round of elections with a crucial swing vote of 32 seats. His latest gambit was to threaten civil war unless his choice for prime minister was accepted. It was. By one vote.
That was how Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the interim prime minister, became Iraq`s next leader. The principal architect of the Iraq Liberation Act, Ahmad Chalabi, didn`t win a single seat in parliament; he got less than half of one percent of the vote. But the \'gray eminence\' of what went wrong may yet get a cabinet job. A mathematics PhD from the University of Chicago, his specialty is finance.
This was the same Jaafari, then the interim prime minister, who took ten of his cabinet ministers last spring to Tehran (where he had lived in exile during the Saddam Hussein regime) to apologize for the eight-year Iran-Iraq war under Saddam Hussein. He returned to Baghdad with a $1 billion gift from the Iranian ayatollahs for new schools and hospitals.
When president Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the last thing he anticipated was an Islamist radical calling the shots in a democratic Iraq. A glutton for geopolitical punishment -- which our enemies must see as congenital masochism -- the administration and Congress are crab-walking into an \'Iran Liberation Act.\' The first tranche requested by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is for $75 million \'to weaken Iran from within.\'
This time it wasn`t an Iranian Chalabi type with dubious credentials, but several little Chalabis in the form of influential Christian lobby groups -- and some of our born-again neocons determined to recover their Iraqi losses. Mercifully, Congress is looking askance at the project and after testy exchanges with Dr. Rice, the administration got what it wanted -- plus $10 million already budgeted.
So far the administration`s magic potion for democracy in the Middle East has produced a majority for Hamas and its Islamist leadership, a sworn enemy of Israel and ally of Iran, in the Palestinian territories, and an alarming election sally by the long banned Muslim Brotherhood, another sworn enemy of Israel and friend of Iran, in Egypt. Hezbollah, an adjunct of Iran in Lebanon, is also comfortably installed in the parliament in Beirut.
Iran today has a dangerous, West-hating religious fanatic as president. But two recent unofficial Iranian emissaries were in Washington to advise Republicans and Democrats to be patient and to stay in lockstep with the European Union, Russia and China. If the U.S. breaks from a united international front, and goes the \'Iraq Liberation Act\' route in Iran, this will only assist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in widening a fairly narrow base of popular support. He can pose as Saladin against the heathen Americans and Zionist Jews, but he cannot take on the whole world -- without antagonizing his clerical superiors. At least, that was the argument of the two low-key emissaries.
United international pressure against Iran`s nuclear program -- and full support for the Russian compromise proposal whereby Moscow undertakes to enrich Iran`s nuclear fuel and return it short of weapons-grade uranium -- will lead the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to unload the president. So argued the two Iranians who said, \'If we weaponize nukes, others in the region will follow suit. So the non-weaponizers are now dominant but they also say they should have the capability of a full fuel enrichment cycle, just in case.\'
Khamenei, known as rahbar, or leader, is elected for life by the 86-member \'Assembly of Experts\' who themselves are elected by their provinces and have a guardian watchdog role. More important, the president has sharply limited executive powers. He doesn`t control the High Council of the Nation`s Security, the armed forces, the revolutionary guards, the intelligence services, the judiciary and broadcasting. All the important levers of power belong to rahbar.
Nor does the president have the power to dismiss parliament and call new elections. He is making \'all sorts of wild promises,\' said the two Iranians told their American interlocutors, \'and parliament is already asking him `who`s going to pay?`\'
The president who wants to wipe Israel off the map and scoffs at the Holocaust as fiction invented by the Jews draws his principal support from the very poor -- five million votes -- and Iran-Iraq war (1980-88) veterans who feel the supreme leader has deviated from the path set by his predecessor, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1979-89).
The veterans, according to the emissaries, share a deep distrust of any cooperation with the West because of the assistance given Saddam Hussein during the war. The U.S. supplied satellite intelligence of Iranian troop locations and the French sold military equipment, including 10,000 battlefield flares per day.
Ahmadinejad the verbal bomb thrower has already incurred the wrath of some senior ayatollahs by denouncing corruption. Everybody knows former president Ayatollah Rafsanjani became one of Iran`s wealthiest men while in office. Ahmadinejad defeated Rafsanjani to become the first non-clerical president since the revolution. But what he lacks in clerical credentials, he makes up in religious fanaticism.
While in Washington, the two Iranian emissaries also made clear that U.S. and/or Israeli attacks against Iran`s nuclear facilities would set the whole region ablaze against the United States. \'They have clandestine assets throughout the oil producing countries of the Gulf,\' said one of them in a barely audible voice, \'and they also remember how you were forced to leave Vietnam in 1975.\' Iran`s Shiite friends in Iraq, led by fee-faw-fum scarecrow al-Sadr, will be asked to harass U.S. troops \'as you prepare to end the occupation with honor.\'
Yuval Diskin, the head of Shin Bet, Israel`s internal security agency, said recently his country might come to regret its decision to support the U.S. invasion of Iraq. \'I`m not sure we won`t come to miss Saddam,\' he told a group of students broadcast on Israeli TV. Last throes anyone?
Copyright 2006 by United Press International"
Philadelphia Inquirer | 02/16/2006 | Swann sat out on most election days
Philadelphia Inquirer | 02/16/2006 | Swann sat out on most election days: "Posted on Thu, Feb. 16, 2006
Swann sat out on most election daysBy Mario F. CattabianiInquirer Staff WriterWhen Lynn Swann votes for himself in the May Republican primary, it will be a rare springtime trip to the polls.
Despite once saying that the right to vote should never be taken for granted, Swann missed 20 of the state's 36 elections in the last 18 years - including 13 of his party's primaries, records show.
In that period, Swann missed elections for governor, U.S. senator and president, while also skipping a chance to vote on a dozen statewide referendums, including a 1989 question on property-tax reform - now a centerpiece of his campaign.
Swann, who was unanimously endorsed by the state GOP last weekend, was not available for comment yesterday. But his campaign spokeswoman, Melissa Walters, said: "He regrets not voting, and he should have voted. He encourages all Pennsylvanians to vote, and he feels that it is an important duty."
Asked why Swann missed so many votes, Walters said it was probably because he was traveling. Records from Allegheny County, where he has lived since 1983, show that Swann was aware of absentee-voting rules, because he voted by absentee ballot three times.
Swann's campaign manager, Ray Zaborney, later added: "Like many Pennsylvanians, he did not vote in every election. It was a mistake, but unlike career politicians, Lynn has not been focused on his next campaign."
By comparison, Gov. Rendell, who will face Swann in the fall, has not missed a trip to the voting booth dating back at least to 1980, records show.
"It's not for us to explain Mr. Swann's voting record," said Rendell's campaign manager, Tricia Enright. "That's between him and the voters."
In October 2004, in an interview with the Sun-Sentinel newspaper in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Swann said: "I have always been someone to believe that when you have certain freedoms, you should exercise them and not take it for granted. If you don't take part in the process and you don't vote, then I am not willing to listen to your complaints."
Swann voted by absentee ballot in the general election the month after making those comments. But earlier that year, he missed the pivotal GOP primary election in which U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter narrowly defeated challenger U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey, and Swann didn't cast votes at all in 2003.
In 1988, Swann missed the general election for George H.W. Bush, and also the reelection bid of U.S. Sen. John Heinz (R., Pa.), whom he has called his political idol.
Three years later, he did not vote in the race to fill Heinz's seat after the senator was killed in a plane crash.
In 1990, when Gov. Robert Casey was seeking reelection against Republican Barbara Hafer, Swann didn't vote. Nor did he vote the last time his party had a contested gubernatorial primary - 1994, when Tom Ridge claimed the nomination.
Since 1988, Swann has missed voting on 12 of 20 statewide ballot referendums, including several that asked whether voters supported borrowing billions of dollars for a variety of programs, from environmental initiatives to funding for volunteer fire companies.
Swann, a Hall of Fame wide receiver for the Pittsburgh Steelers, will be alone on the GOP gubernatorial ballot May 16. Last week, his major party rival, former Lt. Gov. Bill Scranton, bowed out of the race. On Tuesday, former business advocate Jim Panyard did the same.
With the field clear, Swann - a former football analyst with ABC Sports - is focusing on unseating Rendell, a veteran campaigner, in November.
And the reality of a spotty voting record doesn't help in that uphill climb, analysts said yesterday.
Still, poor voting records didn't affect fellow celebrity gubernatorial hopefuls in other states. In 2003, Arnold Schwarzenegger withstood bitter campaign ads that trumpeted the fact that he missed 13 of the previous 21 elections in California.
And five years earlier, Jesse Ventura - in a campaign in Minnesota that succeeded by getting disaffected voters to the polls - had a history of his own of not bothering to vote. Of the 14 elections before his own, Ventura cast ballots in just four.
Like Schwarzenegger and Ventura, Swann is a novice politician, in his first bid for office, who is already facing pointed questions about his readiness to serve as the state's chief executive.
Swann's voting record "underscores the emerging theme of a lot of recent news coverage: that he's not prepared to run for governor," said Michael Young, a former longtime Penn State politics professor.
G. Terry Madonna, a pollster at Franklin and Marshall College, said the news was damaging to a young campaign that appeared to be building momentum. It puts the campaign on the defensive, he added.
"We have all been sort of captivated by his candidacy," Madonna said. "This is the beginning of what will become extensive scrutiny into every aspect of Swann's life. Now, the honeymoon is over."
Contact staff writer Mario F. Cattabiani at 717-787-5990 or mcattabiani@phillynews.com."
Swann sat out on most election daysBy Mario F. CattabianiInquirer Staff WriterWhen Lynn Swann votes for himself in the May Republican primary, it will be a rare springtime trip to the polls.
Despite once saying that the right to vote should never be taken for granted, Swann missed 20 of the state's 36 elections in the last 18 years - including 13 of his party's primaries, records show.
In that period, Swann missed elections for governor, U.S. senator and president, while also skipping a chance to vote on a dozen statewide referendums, including a 1989 question on property-tax reform - now a centerpiece of his campaign.
Swann, who was unanimously endorsed by the state GOP last weekend, was not available for comment yesterday. But his campaign spokeswoman, Melissa Walters, said: "He regrets not voting, and he should have voted. He encourages all Pennsylvanians to vote, and he feels that it is an important duty."
Asked why Swann missed so many votes, Walters said it was probably because he was traveling. Records from Allegheny County, where he has lived since 1983, show that Swann was aware of absentee-voting rules, because he voted by absentee ballot three times.
Swann's campaign manager, Ray Zaborney, later added: "Like many Pennsylvanians, he did not vote in every election. It was a mistake, but unlike career politicians, Lynn has not been focused on his next campaign."
By comparison, Gov. Rendell, who will face Swann in the fall, has not missed a trip to the voting booth dating back at least to 1980, records show.
"It's not for us to explain Mr. Swann's voting record," said Rendell's campaign manager, Tricia Enright. "That's between him and the voters."
In October 2004, in an interview with the Sun-Sentinel newspaper in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Swann said: "I have always been someone to believe that when you have certain freedoms, you should exercise them and not take it for granted. If you don't take part in the process and you don't vote, then I am not willing to listen to your complaints."
Swann voted by absentee ballot in the general election the month after making those comments. But earlier that year, he missed the pivotal GOP primary election in which U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter narrowly defeated challenger U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey, and Swann didn't cast votes at all in 2003.
In 1988, Swann missed the general election for George H.W. Bush, and also the reelection bid of U.S. Sen. John Heinz (R., Pa.), whom he has called his political idol.
Three years later, he did not vote in the race to fill Heinz's seat after the senator was killed in a plane crash.
In 1990, when Gov. Robert Casey was seeking reelection against Republican Barbara Hafer, Swann didn't vote. Nor did he vote the last time his party had a contested gubernatorial primary - 1994, when Tom Ridge claimed the nomination.
Since 1988, Swann has missed voting on 12 of 20 statewide ballot referendums, including several that asked whether voters supported borrowing billions of dollars for a variety of programs, from environmental initiatives to funding for volunteer fire companies.
Swann, a Hall of Fame wide receiver for the Pittsburgh Steelers, will be alone on the GOP gubernatorial ballot May 16. Last week, his major party rival, former Lt. Gov. Bill Scranton, bowed out of the race. On Tuesday, former business advocate Jim Panyard did the same.
With the field clear, Swann - a former football analyst with ABC Sports - is focusing on unseating Rendell, a veteran campaigner, in November.
And the reality of a spotty voting record doesn't help in that uphill climb, analysts said yesterday.
Still, poor voting records didn't affect fellow celebrity gubernatorial hopefuls in other states. In 2003, Arnold Schwarzenegger withstood bitter campaign ads that trumpeted the fact that he missed 13 of the previous 21 elections in California.
And five years earlier, Jesse Ventura - in a campaign in Minnesota that succeeded by getting disaffected voters to the polls - had a history of his own of not bothering to vote. Of the 14 elections before his own, Ventura cast ballots in just four.
Like Schwarzenegger and Ventura, Swann is a novice politician, in his first bid for office, who is already facing pointed questions about his readiness to serve as the state's chief executive.
Swann's voting record "underscores the emerging theme of a lot of recent news coverage: that he's not prepared to run for governor," said Michael Young, a former longtime Penn State politics professor.
G. Terry Madonna, a pollster at Franklin and Marshall College, said the news was damaging to a young campaign that appeared to be building momentum. It puts the campaign on the defensive, he added.
"We have all been sort of captivated by his candidacy," Madonna said. "This is the beginning of what will become extensive scrutiny into every aspect of Swann's life. Now, the honeymoon is over."
Contact staff writer Mario F. Cattabiani at 717-787-5990 or mcattabiani@phillynews.com."
Jerusalem Post | Israeli Lobby Claims Spying Is Constitutionally Protected Free Speech
Jerusalem Post | Breaking News from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World "Washington: Lobbying for freedom of speech
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN GUTTMAN, THE JERUSALEM POST Feb. 16, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A legal document posted on the Web site of the Federation of American Scientists this week became an instant best-seller, with almost 4,000 downloads in a single day. This is remarkable, considering the fact that the document is a lengthy legal opinion under the not-so-appealing headline: "Memorandum of Law in support of Motion to Dismiss the Superseding indictments."
Yet its 63 pages tell an interesting story - a new take on what has come to be known as the "AIPAC case."
The memorandum marks a new phase in the defense efforts of former AIPAC staffers Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, charged with receiving classified information from former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin and passing it on to diplomats in the Israeli Embassy and to members of the press. Franklin was sentenced last month, as part of a plea bargain, to 12 years in prison - a sentence that is expected to be reduced significantly after he testifies against Rosen and Weissman, whose trial is scheduled for April 25 in Virginia.
This new phase is one in which the focus of the case is shifting from the question of espionage (or illegal handling of documents) to the much more fundamental issue of freedom of speech.
The person responsible for the memorandum and for turning the Rosen-Weissman criminal case into a First Amendment issue is Viet Dinh, a former senior official in the Justice Department and a well-known law professor. Why this is so significant is that, in his former capacity in the Justice Department, Dinh was one of the chief architects of the USA Patriot Act, which gave government agencies much more freedom to conduct surveillance for the purpose of gathering and sharing information about citizens for the cause of fighting terror. In other words, no one can accuse him of being soft on issues of national security or of preferring civil rights to fighting crime or terror.
These credentials make Dinh's memorandum - a request to dismiss all charges against Rosen and Weissman before the trial begins - even more valuable for the defense.
The memorandum claims that there is no base to charge Rosen and Weissman under the 90-year-old section 793 of the Espionage Act, which makes it a crime not only to disclose classified information but also to receive it. According to Dinh, invoking the Espionage Act in the Rosen-Weissman case is simply going too far.
Indeed, for the first time since the case broke in the summer of 2004, the American media has begun to deal with this very issue: If it was illegal for Rosen and Weissman to have received classified information, who will be next in line for prosecution?
In a city like Washington, which thrives on information-trading - and in which those who know more have more power - the AIPAC case is suddenly seen as a real threat.
"This is what members of the media, members of the Washington policy community, lobbyists and members of congressional staffs do perhaps hundreds of times a day," the memorandum states. "Never has a lobbyist, reporter, or any other non-government employee been charged for receiving oral information the government alleges to be national defense material as part of that person's normal First Amendment protected activities."
THE DEFENSE hopes that turning the case into a freedom-of-speech issue will not only raise public interest in the matter, but also convince the jury - in the event that the dismissal motion is rejected - that what Rosen and Weissman did is simply common practice in the Washington information business. Furthermore, if anyone - namely the court - tries to tamper with this practice, it would deal a severe blow to the cornerstone of the Constitution by silencing the media, whistle-blowers and political activists.
Indeed, redefining the meaning of "common practice" in the American capital may be precisely what the AIPAC case is really about.
If so, it is not all that different from another recent case, in which a federal investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame led to the imprisonment of New York Times reporter Judith Miller and to a grand jury investigation of other journalists.
The message in both cases is similar: Leaking is no longer acceptable to this administration and anyone who is involved in it, no matter on which end of the leak, will be dealt with harshly.
Both cases are now on their way to court - Rosen and Weissman in the near future, and the Plame case at a later date, as part of the Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial. At the end of the day, what emerges from these two trials can define the way business is done in Washington for years to come.
If receiving classified information turns out to be a punishable crime, then the whole practice of journalism and political advocacy will have to undergo major adjustments. One opinion writer has already suggested that if Rosen and Weissman are found guilty, not only reporters, but even readers, could be accused under the same Espionage Act.
The prosecution in the AIPAC case would rather steer clear of the First Amendment issue. It is building its case on a simple reading of the law, claiming, in essence, that the accused knew they were receiving classified information which they were not supposed to receive.
Judge T.S. Ellis, who will hear the case, has already given an indication of his views on the matter, saying he did not see any difference between a government employee, such as Franklin, and "academics, lawyers, journalists, professors, whatever" where dealing with classified information is concerned.
But the Virginia jury will really be deciding on a greater principle. The prosecution would like the case to be seen as an isolated case of two lobbyists who simply broke the rules and should pay the price for their actions. The defense will try to claim that it is actually freedom of speech in the United States that is on the stand, not two mere individuals."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN GUTTMAN, THE JERUSALEM POST Feb. 16, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A legal document posted on the Web site of the Federation of American Scientists this week became an instant best-seller, with almost 4,000 downloads in a single day. This is remarkable, considering the fact that the document is a lengthy legal opinion under the not-so-appealing headline: "Memorandum of Law in support of Motion to Dismiss the Superseding indictments."
Yet its 63 pages tell an interesting story - a new take on what has come to be known as the "AIPAC case."
The memorandum marks a new phase in the defense efforts of former AIPAC staffers Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, charged with receiving classified information from former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin and passing it on to diplomats in the Israeli Embassy and to members of the press. Franklin was sentenced last month, as part of a plea bargain, to 12 years in prison - a sentence that is expected to be reduced significantly after he testifies against Rosen and Weissman, whose trial is scheduled for April 25 in Virginia.
This new phase is one in which the focus of the case is shifting from the question of espionage (or illegal handling of documents) to the much more fundamental issue of freedom of speech.
The person responsible for the memorandum and for turning the Rosen-Weissman criminal case into a First Amendment issue is Viet Dinh, a former senior official in the Justice Department and a well-known law professor. Why this is so significant is that, in his former capacity in the Justice Department, Dinh was one of the chief architects of the USA Patriot Act, which gave government agencies much more freedom to conduct surveillance for the purpose of gathering and sharing information about citizens for the cause of fighting terror. In other words, no one can accuse him of being soft on issues of national security or of preferring civil rights to fighting crime or terror.
These credentials make Dinh's memorandum - a request to dismiss all charges against Rosen and Weissman before the trial begins - even more valuable for the defense.
The memorandum claims that there is no base to charge Rosen and Weissman under the 90-year-old section 793 of the Espionage Act, which makes it a crime not only to disclose classified information but also to receive it. According to Dinh, invoking the Espionage Act in the Rosen-Weissman case is simply going too far.
Indeed, for the first time since the case broke in the summer of 2004, the American media has begun to deal with this very issue: If it was illegal for Rosen and Weissman to have received classified information, who will be next in line for prosecution?
In a city like Washington, which thrives on information-trading - and in which those who know more have more power - the AIPAC case is suddenly seen as a real threat.
"This is what members of the media, members of the Washington policy community, lobbyists and members of congressional staffs do perhaps hundreds of times a day," the memorandum states. "Never has a lobbyist, reporter, or any other non-government employee been charged for receiving oral information the government alleges to be national defense material as part of that person's normal First Amendment protected activities."
THE DEFENSE hopes that turning the case into a freedom-of-speech issue will not only raise public interest in the matter, but also convince the jury - in the event that the dismissal motion is rejected - that what Rosen and Weissman did is simply common practice in the Washington information business. Furthermore, if anyone - namely the court - tries to tamper with this practice, it would deal a severe blow to the cornerstone of the Constitution by silencing the media, whistle-blowers and political activists.
Indeed, redefining the meaning of "common practice" in the American capital may be precisely what the AIPAC case is really about.
If so, it is not all that different from another recent case, in which a federal investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame led to the imprisonment of New York Times reporter Judith Miller and to a grand jury investigation of other journalists.
The message in both cases is similar: Leaking is no longer acceptable to this administration and anyone who is involved in it, no matter on which end of the leak, will be dealt with harshly.
Both cases are now on their way to court - Rosen and Weissman in the near future, and the Plame case at a later date, as part of the Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial. At the end of the day, what emerges from these two trials can define the way business is done in Washington for years to come.
If receiving classified information turns out to be a punishable crime, then the whole practice of journalism and political advocacy will have to undergo major adjustments. One opinion writer has already suggested that if Rosen and Weissman are found guilty, not only reporters, but even readers, could be accused under the same Espionage Act.
The prosecution in the AIPAC case would rather steer clear of the First Amendment issue. It is building its case on a simple reading of the law, claiming, in essence, that the accused knew they were receiving classified information which they were not supposed to receive.
Judge T.S. Ellis, who will hear the case, has already given an indication of his views on the matter, saying he did not see any difference between a government employee, such as Franklin, and "academics, lawyers, journalists, professors, whatever" where dealing with classified information is concerned.
But the Virginia jury will really be deciding on a greater principle. The prosecution would like the case to be seen as an isolated case of two lobbyists who simply broke the rules and should pay the price for their actions. The defense will try to claim that it is actually freedom of speech in the United States that is on the stand, not two mere individuals."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)