11 thoughts on “Naor Gilon: Jane Harman’s Mystery Israeli Agent? – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. You’re off-base on a couple points. First, her career might very well survive a transcript being released, if she were not indicted. The notion of Israel spying on the U.S. just doesn’t resonate for reasons perhaps Mearshimer or Walt could help explain. But whatever outcry did arise (I expect it would be minor), Aipac, Peretz, et al would easily sweep up with their stiff-bristled broom.

    Second, you do double disservice by crediting Rep. Harman with being a victim of the warrantless surveillance she enabled. She has been caught red-handed trading influence on a pre-FISA Amendments court-sanctioned wiretap of a suspected foreign agent. This is a four-square proper use of surveillance by the government. You give her a valuable, undeserved talking point, and collapse the key distinction that Harman’s (and Hayden’s and Cheney’s) opponents sought to preserve in their resistance of the unchecked surveillance state. It’s a perverse error that you need to correct.

    1. She has been caught red-handed trading influence on a pre-FISA Amendments court-sanctioned wiretap of a suspected foreign agent.

      You didn’t read what I wrote carefully. I noted the CLAIM that hers was a warranted wiretap. But given the NSA’s history & credibility do we want to credit them with being truthful & accurate in this iinstance w/o knowing more about the circumstances? I only noted it WOULD BE ironic if she’d been swept up in one of the warrantless wiretaps. Not that she HAD BEEN.

      This is a four-square proper use of surveillance by the government

      Quite amazing considering the security agencies track record that you credit them with being completely transparent & honest in the info they’ve disseminated about their involvement in the wiretap. What makes this wiretap different from all other wiretaps (in which the NSA has lied about what it did & to whom)?

      It’s a perverse error that you need to correct.

      Give it a rest.

      1. If I missed an “if,” fair enough. The reports are that there was a warrant; I believe that would be a matter of public record, and I don’t believe those reports were based purely on the word of the surveilling agencies. That could be wrong I suppose, but the NYT reports full-stop that the wiretaps were not warrantless. You, on the other hand, are purely speculating in a way that makes Harman look better than the reports indicate she should.

      2. Also, there is no “if” in this sentence:

        My, but isn’t it ironic that the Democrat’s leading booster of the Patriot Act and NSA spying has become its victim.

        Given that you acknowledge her lawbreaking, how could she be considered a victim unless the surveillance was unlawful. How is someone who is overheard breaking the law on a legal wiretap in any way a victim? Yet you say she is a victim.

        When the government obtains a warrant for a wiretap, that tap is for a given line for a given amount of time targeted against a given person. But any call that is of interest will usually involve at least two parties. The government doesn’t know in advance whom the person will talk to in the requested time period. So some untargeted people get surveilled. Should such people commit crimes on such legally surveilled calls, they are not immune to prosecution for them, and the evidence from those legal wiretaps (not targeting them) is not automatically inadmissible. That’s how it’s worked since the technology has existed.

        Jane Harman is not a victim here unless the wiretap was warrantless, for which belief you have nothing to cite, and for the converse of which there is considerable reporting.

        1. You appear to have missed this from my first post about Harman:

          Though the NSA is claiming the wiretap which produced this material was authorized and not warrantless (can we believe anything they tell us anyway?), isn’t it ironic that the Patriot Act may’ve made a victim of a powerful member of the House intelligence establishment?

          And in the passage you quote Harman clearly IS a victim of NSA spying, though not necessarily of the Patriot Act IF the spooks spilling the beans to the media about this are telling the truth.

          how could she be considered a victim unless the surveillance was unlawful.

          Lord preserve us from those who take every word ever written at face value and forget that there is such a thing as irony in the world. Even if you don’t understand irony, you might try to understand that others do use it for effect, even if it’s missed on you. “Victim” wasn’t meant in any way as sympathetic. That’s what irony does.

          Why would you presume if you knew anything about me, my views, or this blog that I would be sympathetic to Harman. I’ve written posts over several years time that were harshly critical of her. I covered her initial blackmailing of Pelosi back in 2006 & did so in highly unflattering terms. You might consider that before you misread anyone else in future.

          I believe that would be a matter of public record

          You believe that there is a ‘public record’ of a FISA warrant for a top secret eavesdropping operation? Are you kidding?

  2. She’s not getting indicted. All this is very old stuff.
    Is there any evidence Harman did anything to help Rosen and Weissman’s case? Did she call the Prosecutors or their bosses to influence the case? Not that I’ve seen. Her statement “this conversation never took place” can easily mean “forget what I said”.
    I wouldn’t trust Justin Raimondo, who stated about the Aipac case: “Larry Franklin is an Alger Hiss for our times. Law enforcement clearly believe him to be a key witness to crimes that could lead them to a spy nest in the top echelons of the U.S. government – one that surpasses anything the KGB ever dreamed of.”
    http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=4178
    Oh really. What law enforcement sources did he speak with? What it lead to was a very weak case against Rosen and Weissman under a 1917 law that’s never been used and a case that will either be dropped or lead to a full acquittal.

    1. Is there any evidence Harman did anything to help Rosen and Weissman’s case?

      You don’t understand the law. She violated a number of statutes. In order to break the law, she doesn’t have to have had actually contacted anyone on the Aipac spies behalf; she only has to SAY that she will do so. That agreement is what constitutes the “completed act” referred to by Justice Dept. officials who wanted to indict her. Besides, she colluded with an agent of a foreign gov’t. In addition, she perverted the course of House business by suborning a citizen to threaten the Speaker with punishment if she did not do what Harman wanted. This is much more than just hardball politics.

      “this conversation never took place” can easily mean “forget what I said”.

      You’re channeling Ron Kampeas & stealing his lines. I deliberately didn’t link to his JTA story because I think it’s entirely bogus and far fetched. We ALL (except you) know precisely what she meant. She was looking for plausible deniability. She knew what she’d just agreed to do was VERY wrong. Only you don’t find it so which tells us a great deal about you.

      What it lead to was a very weak case against Rosen and Weissman under a 1917 law that’s never been used and a case that will either be dropped or lead to a full acquittal.

      Hey, Aipac has its very own hasbara squad in the form of Julian. Nice try, buddy. But you don’t cut it. But you’ve been fed some good lines by someone.

  3. Now I see it your way. Jane Harman on a case that’s 4 years old is going to be indicted and Rosen and Weissman based on a 1917 law that’s never been used and holds the prosecution to almost unprovable standards will be convicted.
    There’s no need to be calling names. You’re pretty sensitive when someone labels you in what you perceive as pejorative terms.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link