It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. to Drop Spy Case Against Pro-Israel Lobbyists

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

U.S. to Drop Spy Case Against Pro-Israel Lobbyists


www.nytimes.com

WASHINGTON – The Obama Justice Department moved Friday to drop all charges against two former pro-Israel lobbyists who had been charged under the Espionage Act with improperly disseminating sensitive information.

...The motion said that, “We have re-evaluated the case based on the present context and circumstances and determined that it is in the public interest to dismiss the pending superseding indictment.”
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman, who were lobbyists with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a leading pro-Israel lobby, were charged with violating the World War I-era Espionage Act. The indictment said they violated the law by disseminating to journalists, fellow Aipac employees and Israeli diplomats information they had learned in conversations with senior Bush administration officials.

..snip..
...The motion said that, “We have re-evaluated the case based on the present context and circumstances and determined that it is in the public interest to dismiss the pending superseding indictment.”


And there you go. Right from the beginning, I knew that these spies would not be convicted. The AIPAC lobby is far too strong to allow that. Anyhow, it's crazy that the US allows Israel to spy on them.

www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 1-5-2009 by Mdv2]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Seems pathetic, no?

It is clear that their 'posterity' was being affected by the investigation.

Such resources as they are willing to commit to control our government and protect their agents, is doubly ironic, seeing as how we send money to Israel like it's going out of style.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
isnt that the same group/people that were implicated in the wire tap tapes of that former senator jane harmen from california? didnt she promise they wouldnt be convicted if they got her some high paying job?

I know its hard to keep track of which democrat is participating in illegal activities and/or not paying their taxes but this is recent and looks like they got what they wanted.
just a thought.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Much of this equipment is manufactured by NARUS, VERINT, and NICE, companies founded and still operated by retired Israeli signals intelligence officers. Having said that i guess it time you or who ever else was wondering what agreements are at hand. The term NTK is there for a purpose, this is just another case of the hundreds that have surfaced and will surface.

A coporation known as Vertint, an Israel-based electronic communications surveillance outfit, which in alliance with VeriSign, the operator of the .com, .net, and .edu registries, monitors most of the sites on the World Wide Web. If you're viewing this article on a .com, NETDISCOVERY -- the Internet surveillance system developed jointly by Verint and VeriSign -- is monitoring your on-line experience at this very moment.
I could continue but i guess your all understand what im talking about here, so in cross reference to the conficker, virus do not be surprised of the outcome or the people involved. But its easier to create a hypothetical crisis as the swine flue to guide the flock away from the real issues that are going on throughout the world as we speak.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
They aren't only spying an Americans, but Canadians too
They have installed cameras in almost all subway stations accross the country



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
They aren't only spying an Americans, but Canadians too
They have installed cameras in almost all subway stations accross the country


Well, umm, how can i put this, but most of Canada's voip and broad band are owned by and alphabet agency with the consent of the Canadian Government. As for the rest of Latin America, well lets say its as if they are connecting from a pc/mac which "we" have given them client access but not "admin" access.

Q: Why is that cyber attacks are performed from areas which have NO DIRECT involvement with any western nodes ?


Here you go, Freedom of choice.
www2.cia.com...

[edit on 1-5-2009 by tristar]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by tristar
 


western nodes you mean root servers situated in the western hemisphere?
That wouldn't make much of a difference.

I'm assuming you meant root servers because of you saying DIRECT

[edit on 1-5-2009 by ModernAcademia]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
How dare you post this and distract us from the S-whine Flu!


Are these the same individuals that Jane Harman allegedly was going to try to assist? And that were partially responsible for the full court press against Charles Freeman?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think so.

[edit on 1/5/2009 by kosmicjack]

[edit on 1/5/2009 by kosmicjack]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
No one* in the intelligence community likes the longstanding Israeli espionage program in the U.S.

No one* in the Department of Defense likes the longstanding Israeli policy to communicate & facilitate deals with enteties not keen our national health.

Unfortunately the bureaucracy in Washington has allowed this problem to get so pervasive and disgusting that any public question of this practice is seen as a career killer. It literally is that absurd, red blooded Americans within the intelligence community cannot make a case about the issue or else they will not progress up the ladder.

*Civilian bosses at the ultimate end of the Chain of Command are a different story, for a variety of tragic & despicable reasons.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

*Civilian bosses at the ultimate end of the Chain of Command are a different story, for a variety of tragic & despicable reasons.


Like Chiefs of Staff?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's a rumor lingering since the Clinton administration. It doesn't give one a warm fuzzy feeling after these latest developments.

I don't understand why, as we are their biggest supporter, they feel this is necessary, if these types of things are true.


[edit on 1/5/2009 by kosmicjack]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I agree with you West, but as you mentioned it has been so long that its impossible to even conceive the thought of such a possibility and we all know that "moving up the ranks" does create a moral issue, others have one and others do not.

[edit on 1-5-2009 by tristar]



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack

Originally posted by WestPoint23

*Civilian bosses at the ultimate end of the Chain of Command are a different story, for a variety of tragic & despicable reasons.


Like Chiefs of Staff?

www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 1/5/2009 by kosmicjack]


The chief of staff is NO civilian, well technically in the eyes of the law he is, but when your dealing at this level, then there are NO civilians.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
This is just one of the stories I belive Swine Flu has created a distraction for.

Soon enough, israel is going to drag America into a war with Iran and that will be the end of American Public support with israel!

We will realize that after Billions and Billions of dollars, the only thing we have recieved in return from israel is a growing red target on our backs!!!!


Please, someone tell me what we get in return from supporting israel?

And if you say an ally in the M.E., what have they done that we wouldn't accomplish without them?



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by breakingdradles
 


Our support is based on an ideological position. It is not political, it is not diplomatic, and it certainly is not mutually beneficial.

This is the principle reason that church and state should not coexist within policy. I don't care what religion our elected officials are, until they start expressing their belief in the form of national agendas.

Mr. Bush pledged our nation to support Israel. He made a promise to the Kennesset in our names - that we would die along side them in whatever engagement Israel faces, no questions asked.

That was out of order.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
What grand timing. I believe the annual AIPAC conference is set for next week, when the powerful US political elite will all be lining up to pledge their unwavering support, ensuring the next cheque is mailed.

I wonder just who this measure is protecting? The US people and the defence of their nation or the possible outing of a high level Israeli-first mole in the whitehouse?
Anyone else caught disseminating such sensitive information to a foreign power is going to find themselves behind bars double quick, but that does not apply to "the chosen" obviously, who always seem to get a free pass.



posted on May, 1 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
You know this article makes me relieved to know that with the new nearly full fillabuster proof democratic congress these are the kinds of coverups we should be looking forward too. Change we can believe in my @$$ this is absolute proof that it does not matter if it is a democrat or a republican in the white house its more of the same.

This is why groups like Wiki leaks exist this is why cryptome and other websites not to be named that exist outside of the united states stay that way because gov will shut down the servers and go after only the people they choose to. This is also why I didnt care about the level of documents I used to run on my website related to this issue and other things pertaining to discloser.

There needs to be a series of public firing squads not limited to most of the lobbist in washington including most of the people who covered up this and other events of the bush, clinton and other adminstrations. Hanging still legal in montana if you find someone stealing your cattle you can hang them on your property without a court order and without the intervention of a police officer.

Now the question comes down to not how but when the shots will start going full bore. Will it start off with a few conviently arrested politicians or will it start on the city scale and work its way up. There's no way people in the intelligence community are going to stand for this I warned people many years ago this is where things were going to head to and here we are.

I think this is going to take the turf war to a whole new level its bound to get out of control now its just a matter of time, I believe before so called murder suicides are going to start back up again I dont think it will stop this time though no matter how much gov tries to stop it now I think this is going to be the final straw that breaks the camel's back.

The real question is now how many days will go by of calm before the storm hits.

Here we go again.

Falcon



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 03:47 AM
link   

The New York Times story today on the dropping of the government case against the AIPAC lobbyists Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman comes in separate parts, not entirely signaled by paragraph breaks or outward format. The report by Neil A. Lewis and David Johnston sets out to answer three questions. What was this investigation about? Who is pleased and who displeased by the reversal? And why was the case dropped at just this moment?

The last question is the easiest to answer. The Justice Department announced that the charges would be dropped two days before the opening of the 2009 AIPAC Convention. One may have noticed earlier that the Obama administration and the government of Israel play each other on a tight clock. Israel withdrew from its devastating assault on Gaza only hours before the inauguration of Barack Obama. The administration has let off the AIPAC lobbyists in time to be considered as sentimental encouragers and not spoilers of the mutual uplift that marks the annual AIPAC gathering.

About the contest within the Justice Department over the pursuit of the case, the Times reporters Lewis and Johnston finesse every point of actual information with aggregate nouns, omitted definite articles, and many unnamed sources. We are told that "F.B.I agents poured substantial resources into the case, and the decision to seek a dismissal infuriated many within the law enforcement agency." The FBI is itself part of the Justice Department, and its agents are likely to have been conversant, if anyone was, with the sort of evidence needed for a conviction, even under the difficult burden of proof required in this case by Judge T.S. Ellis III. We are told that Joseph Persichini, Jr., head of the bureau's DC office, was also disappointed by the decision to drop the charges. Whom does that leave satisfied? The final decision was made, say Lewis and Johnson, "solely by career prosecutors in Alexandria." So the Obama administration acted in obedience to the wish of "prosecutors," but it is left unclear whether this was the wish of all the prosecutors.

Nor were they the only persons present at the discussions. "While senior political appointees at the Justice Department did not direct subordinates to drop the case, they were heavily involved in the deliberations." Heavily involved. "David S. Kris," unnamed sources told the Times, "the newly appointed chief of the department's national security division, and Dana J. Boente, the interim United States attorney in Alexandria, had conferred regularly with prosecutors and ultimately decided to accept the recommendation to abandon the case. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was informed and raised no objections." A curious sequence of facts. Holder raised no objections to a decision which was arrived at by prosecutors with the help of two men -- an outsider to Justice and an interim U.S. attorney -- whom he himself had sent into the discussion for some purpose. Let us assume he was not displeased with a result that his own men had sought, even against the wishes of the relevant office chief at the FBI.

Whether or not it was the right decision, it was a clearly in part a political decision. But what was this case about? Here is how the New York Times lets AIPAC immaterialize:


Continues here: www.huffingtonpost.com...



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join