Now that Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman have been let off the hook by the government, which dropped the espionage charge against them, it’s appropriate to take stock. Were they innocent? I do not believe so. The government surveilled them for several years and there were multiple acts of betrayal in which documents were transferred. They were guilty as hell. While doubters reading this will wonder at the source of my conviction, suffice it to say that it is not based solely on my own resources or research, but rather on deeper knowledge.
So what happened? It became obvious to the Justice Department that through disadvantageous rulings by the judge, that the government would have to reveal much of the means by which it caught the accused spies. Intelligence sources and secrets would be brought into open court. Plans, methodologies and technical means would be compromised.
While Steve Rosen wasn’t a small fish, the government is aware that Israeli espionage is a huge undertaking in this country and that there will be more Rosens in the future. Israel’s clandestine activity here needed to be monitored in case a larger fry than Rosen was still out there.
Think of Jonathan Pollard, one of the most prolific spies in U.S. history. Think of Stephen Bryen, a Senate aide who passed to Israeli intelligence photos of a Saudi airbase. His prosecution was stopped by a deputy attorney general just as Rosen’s was (though for political, rather than intelligence reasons).
There are Rosens, Pollards and Bryens out there now and will be in future. Of that you can be sure. Just as rust never sleeps (to quote Neil Young), neither does the Mossad.
What concerns me though is that aside from Pollard, many spies for Israel, if caught, are either not prosecuted or the charges are dropped. A good part of the reason is that the Israeli government and pro-Israel forces exert massive influence both in public and behind the scenes to free their spies. This is precisely what Jane Harman agreed to do (though she claims she welched and didn’t do what she promised) on Rosen’s behalf. Malcolm Hoenlein was another communal leader who went on the warpath on Rosen’s behalf, labeling the FBI as riddled with anti-Semites eager to burn Jews via the dual loyalty canard.
Pro-Israel forces even managed to gain the support of a leading expert on government secrecy like Steve Aftergood, who criticized the prosecution. In attacking the case, Aftergood seemed more concerned with protecting whistleblowers than prosecuting spies.
My concern is that the U.S. intelligence community and prosecutors bringing such cases do not have support in the Jewish community, especially the pro-peace community. Without such support, it is that much easier for a judge to find sympathy for the alleged “victim.” It becomes that much easier to throw up an impossibly high hurdle for prosecution.
No one is saying that those accused of spying for Israel do not deserve a fair trial. But neither am I saying that they deserve a cakewalk. If the Israel lobby is going to mount a campaign on behalf of ‘their’ spooks, those who believe that Israel’s interests are not necessarily the same as our own should be capable of mounting a similar campaign to see that justice is done not just for the individual, but for our country as well. I wish that the next time such a prosecution happens that the government would do a better job of communicating its case not just to the judge, but to those who might support it in our community.
FROM THE J. POST: “Rosen likens AIPAC spy case to Dreyfus Affair” – May 6, 2009
(EXCERPT) Steve Rosen, the former foreign policy chief for AIPAC who was charged with illegally disclosing classified information, said ulterior motives against “Jews, Israel and AIPAC” were behind the case against him.
In his first interview since the case was closed on May 1, Rosen compared himself to Alfred Dreyfus, who was unjustly tried for treason by France.
“Poor Dreyfus – he had no defense, he had no ability to fight. It was a secret trial. Our judge didn’t agree to a secret trial. They tried, they tried to make it a Dreyfus trial, but he said, ‘No. I’m not having a secret trial, we’re going to have an open trial,'” Rosen described in an interview filmed only hours after the dismissal of the case and aired on Channel 10 Wednesday….
ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1239710883267
What worries me is that element of American Jews who comprise what you identify as “pro-Israeli forces (who) exert massive influence both in public and behind the scenes to free their spies (for Israel).” This is a much larger worry to Americans beyond the “Jewish pro-peace community”. As much as I detest the racist blather of Avigdor Lieberman, his remarks about Israeli Arabs as the “enemy within” resonate with these “pro-Israeli forces” of which you speak:
Per Lieberman: “Our problem is [the Arab-Israeli parliamentarians] ……. They work from the inside; they operate methodically to destroy the State of
Israel as a Jewish state”.
The threat of the “pro-Israeli forces” is to operate methodically to destroy the United States as a nation independent of foreign control.
I think “destroying the U.S.” is an overstatement. I think they would like to bend U.S. policy to their advantage in any way they can whether covert, overt, legal or not.
Surely you think Israel’s interests and America’s interests are the same, i.e. a peaceful resolution of the conflict? Unless you don’t think that’s Israel’s interest.
Israel’s government propounds an Israeli interest in attacking Iran. Is that the U.S. interest as well? No. Israel’s interest (at least as defined by its current government) is in staving off an Israeli Palestinian peace settlement until the ends of time. Is that U.S. interest? No.
PS – “While doubters reading this will wonder at the source of my conviction, suffice it to say that it is not based solely on my own resources or research, but rather on deeper knowledge.”
Is this meant to be ironic?
Perhaps I was imprecise. My knowledge is not merely based on publicly available material.
TimothyL, there is one huge difference though. Our problem with pro-Israeli forces is political. Lieberman’s problem with Arabs is their race. Arabs can’t stop being Arabs. Pro-Israeli forces can stop being pro-Israeli. They can (theoretically) be convinced through free speech. I still have to win a Zionist over; but I’m sure I’ll make it someday.
I know this has been a terrible blow to your agenda and you took a terrible beating but Rosen and Weissman are innocent. Once again, If you read the indictment you would know there were no documents. No documents were solicited. No documents were passed to anyone.
Judge Ellis was upheld on appeal by the full Appeals Court on every decision sent to them.
Like Aftergood, J William Leonard the former “Classification Czar” also felt there was no case against Rosen and Weissman and was going to testify that effect. Does he also want “spies” set free. Maybe he’s a traitor?
I love your link from Counterpunch, a 1979 story.(1979?) Bryen loudly commits to espionage and just happens to be overheard by the head of a pro PLO Arab organization. This doesn’t happen in the real world. Maybe it does in the World of your ideological brethren of Counterpunch of Justin Raimondo of Grant Smith or the WRMEA.
To your statement: “There are Rosens, Pollards and Bryens out there now and will be in future. Of that you can be sure. Just as rust never sleeps (to quote Neil Young), neither does the Mossad.” Until you can prove otherwise, which will never happen, Rosen and Bryen are innocent distinguished citizens.
Sorry Richard, we don’t put innocent people in prison because you don’t like them.
Would you mind telling us what yr affiliation is with Steve Rosen or Aipac or the Lobby? You clearly have an axe to grind.
That is false. They were proven neither guilty nor innocent. If they had gone through a trial & been found innocent I would agree with you. But that didn’t happen. They are lucky they found a sympapthetic judge who seemed to want to make it as hard as possible to convict. As far as my knowledge, which is quite a bit deeper than yours & based on multiple sources including an individual who worked extensively for Rosen at Aipac, they are guilty as sin.
You are so full of it you don’t even know. Actually the indictment paints a totally damning picture of them & reveals they’d been passing documents for quite a long period of time & been surveilled going back to 1999. If your claim is correct then do point out passages fr. the indictment which indicate they never passed documents. You won’t because you can’t.
You don’t know what J William Leonard was going to testify unless you were a part of the defense team. Were you?
No, Rosen’s the traitor, not Leonard.
Yr ignorance is unbelievable. Of course, it’s a 1979 story. Bryen was apprehended in 1979. Pollard’s case was quite a bit more recent. And since Pollard there have been others as recently as a few months ago an elderly American Jewish spy was captured & pled guilty to espionage.
Are you saying that a Senate aide seen passing photographs of a Saudi military airport to Israelis dressed in military uniforms at a public breakfast at a DC hotel somehow is an innocent event transformed malevolently by an Arab American who just happens to witness the transaction? And if the good citizen who reported it to the FBI was wrong would they have pursued the investigation? Or are the FBI agents all anti-Semites who had it in for Bryen fr. the get-go??
They are citizens. The only people who consider them ‘distinguished’ are you, Uzi Arad, Naor Gilon, Aipac & the rest of the Mossad for whom they worked.
Once again, they are not innocent & were not proven so. They were merely not proven guilty, which is far different.
Maybe they are distinguished in a bad way? Like being spies?
Zhu Bajie
RE:”Would you mind telling us what yr affiliation is with Steve Rosen or Aipac or the Lobby?” -R. Silverstein
MY COMMENT: We’re waiting, Julian.
Rosen’s statement that “ulterior motives against “Jews, Israel and AIPAC” were behind the case against him” makes a future prosecution that much harder, as intended.
Yes but the point is you believe Israel’s interests to be achieving that piece. By using the term Israel’s interests to refer to the current government’s interests you are allowing the right a monopoly on important terms, and it makes it sound as if you are opposed to Israel’s interests, when in fact you support them – achieiving a peace deal.
There is a diff. bet. what I perceive Israel’s best interest to be and what most recent Israeli government’s perceive that interest to be.
“Perhaps I was imprecise. My knowledge is not merely based on publicly available material.”
Can you expand on this? Do you expect your readers to merely trust that you know they are actually guilty?
I have multiple sources (one of which worked quite closely with Rosen at Aipac) who inform me of what they believe & I trust their word.
Imagine someone else said “My knowledge is not merely based on publicly available material,” in defence of Rosen. Would you accept the claim? Why should different standards apply to you?
“Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.” Believe whatever you like. I know what I know. I know what I can say and what I can’t.
Well exactly – I think you should emphasise that when talking about Israel’s interests.
Does that mean you don’t give a damn when other people do the same thing?
“You are so full of it you don’t even know. Actually the indictment paints a totally damning picture of them & reveals they’d been passing documents for quite a long period of time & been surveilled going back to 1999. If your claim is correct then do point out passages fr. the indictment which indicate they never passed documents. You won’t because you can’t.”
Really? Let’s look at Judge Ellis’ statement summarizing the indictment.
Judge Ellis:
“Notably, with one exception, all alleged NDI disclosures to defendants were made orally rather than by way of documents.”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/aipac/rosen021709.pdf
That one exception was a document written up by Franklin and faxed to Rosen. If the government witnessed all these classified documents passing hands that you imagine, they were not in the charges.
I am not a member of Aipac. I’ve never met Steve Rosen.
I really don’t know much about Dr. Bryen other than what I read on Counterpunch. The whole premise that he would shout out “here are the classified documents on the U.S. bases” only to be overheard by the head of an Arab organization who just happened to be listening sounds absurd. I don’t buy it and neither did the government.
Do you have any connection to ANYONE (including lawyers) affiliated with the case? Are you a member, supporter, employee of any other Israel lobby groups?
No, I’m not talking about anything Judge Elllis said as he’s proven himself entirely too enamored of the defense position. Quote me from the ORIGINAL source, the indictment showing there were no documents. And btw, you claimed there were NO documents, & then you contradicted yrself by admitting a judge favorable to the defense even acknowledges there was at least one. A little problem there, don’t you think?
That’s a willful distortion of what actually happened. Philip Heyman, deputy AG dismissed the charges for reasons entirely unrelated to the quality of the evidence. After all, they had the photos and eyewitness confirmation of transfer plus further evidence they worked up afterward about Bryen’s perfidy. Before you proclaim yr ignorance you ought to read the most authoritative account of the case in Stephen Green’s book.
Good try. The elderly Jew arrested for spying committed the offenses from 1979 to 1985. Which I am sure you knew. Where are the Israeli spies now?
The esteemed Judge Ellis was upheld unanimously on appeal, each time the prosecutor questioned his decisions, but you don’t trust his case summary?
Look at the indictment and show me a single instance where it is alleged that Rosen and Weissman passed a classified document to an unauthorized person. Since in your opinion there were many documents passed to Israeli spies that should not be too hard. Not information, classified documents.
Just as you don’t trust Daniel Pipes, Camera etc. I don’t trust Counterpunch, Raimondo, Grant Smith or Stephen Green. I have been looking for the actual documents released through the freedom of information law on the Bryen case, but though Saba talks about it a lot I can’t seem to find those documents.
Now if I knew the answer to that question do you think I’d be sitting here writing a response to yr cockamamie spiels? I’d be reporting it to the FBI. But if you think that Israel isn’t continuing to penetrate U.S. society through methods covert & overt then you’re a fool, a dupe, and entirely credulous, besides being a pro-Israel apologist.
That says absolutely nothing about whether he was correct in saying there was only a single document passed.
No, I don’t play these games. You made the claim that not a single document was passed (which you then revised). It’s up to you to prove that claim by actually reading the indictment which I bet you haven’t. You’ve prob. read the crib sheet written by Pipes, et al. Not the same as reading the original. Besides, it’ll do you good.
You claim you don’t trust Stephen Green, who presents the actual documents, in his book, which you claim to be looking for. Talk about ostriches with their head in the sand. It’ll also do you good to read Green. Don’t go crying to me you can’t find documents when you refuse to read the best work on the topic because you claim without any foundation that it is too biases to trust.