@@ AIPAC spies weave a tangled web @@
Arash
December 21, 2004
International Commentary by Laura Rozen
The Jewish Telegraph Agency
(http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?strwebhead=FBI+waited+to+move+on+AIPAC&intcategoryid=5)
has the latest on the FBI AIPAC investigation.
According to the JTA report by Edwin Black, the FBI investigation of AIPAC
was stalled for over a year after FBI officials observed Pentagon Iran
analyst "Larry Franklin" verbally sharing details from a draft classified
national security directive on Iran with officials from the lobbying group
AIPAC.
For almost a year after that lunch transaction occurred, Black reports,
nothing happened. Then, in May 2004, the FBI tapped Franklin making a call
to CBS producer "Adam Ciralsky". [Ciralsky had served as an attorney at the
CIA before leaving the agency and suing it for allegedly harrassing him
because of his ties to Israel. CBS's 60 Minutes covered the case, and then
apparently hired Ciralsky as a producer.]
Black reports: "In the conversation with CBS, Franklin's remarks reportedly
revealed sensitive intelligence intercepts, potentially compromising sources
and methods of intelligence gathering, according to some sources aware of
the call." The call apparently gave the FBI the ammunition it needed to
persuade Franklin to cooperate in a sting against both members of AIPAC, and
neoconservative allies of Ahmad Chalabi, who was believed to have told
Iranian intelligence officials that the US had penetrated Iranian
communications. Read the whole piece
(http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?strwebhead=FBI+waited+to+move+on+AIPAC&intcategoryid=5).
But remember that the writer Edwin Black
(http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/articles/pollard.html) has written
articles very sympathetic towards confessed Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard,
and has advocated for Pollard to be released from jail
(http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.06.28/news.pollard.html).
Black has also written articles accusing the FBI of being motivated by
anti-Semitism
(http://www.jta.org/page_print_story.asp?intarticleid=14536&intcategoryid=5)
in its investigation of AIPAC. [Meantime, it seems a bit tangled over at
CBS, where CBS's Leslie Stahl
(http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2000/021100b.htm) reported the story of
Ciralsky's lawsuit against the CIA in 2000, shortly after which CBS
apparently hired Ciralsky to be a producer, and then, this past August,
Stahl broke the story of the FBI investigation of an alleged Israeli "mole"
in the Pentagon -- an investigation in which Ciralsky's receipt of a call
from Franklin reportedly played some role.]
* Update: It seems to me that if all the FBI has after two years of
investigation is wiretaps from July 2004 showing allegedly cooked up
information going from a wired up Franklin to AIPAC to the Israelis, then
that's not much of an espionage case. There may be indictments, but it's
hard to show that's a pattern of espionage, and I think many people
including myself would be very sympathetic to AIPAC's dilemma having
allegedly been told information that concerned Israeli lives.
But it also seems to me that these recent
(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1102148878630&p=1078113566627)
stories
(http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?strwebhead=FBI+waited+to+move+on+AIPAC&intcategoryid=5)
that allege that all the FBI has is based on this July 2004 FBI sting are
1) placed in particularly friendly publications or with sympathetic
reporters and
2) sourced by defense attorneys for potential defendants -- defendants whose
organizations originally insisted there was nothing there at all. It seems
these stories are the result of panic and attempted preemptive damage
control at expected indictments in which it will come out there was at least
something there. If all the FBI has is the result of this sting, there will
be an outcry.
Is the FBI crazy enough to have proceeded with a case against one of the
most powerful lobbying groups in the country with such thin evidence, or do
they have more? I don't know. There seems to be a lot that we still don't
know.
More: Ha'aretz's Nathan Guttman reports that some Jewish groups appear to be
distancing themselves from AIPAC as indictments are expected:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/517500.html
The community came to AIPAC's defense when the story broke, and officially
remains solidly behind the lobby. However, in recent informal conversations,
there have been signs of discomfort and concern among community
representatives. This discomfort erupted largely after AIPAC offices were
raided for a second time and subpoenas were issued to the four officials to
testify before the grand jury. AIPAC insisted to Jewish leaders that the
charges were false and an attempt to frame the lobby, but community leaders
began questioning whether they were getting the full picture. The use of a
grand jury indicates the seriousness of the case, and increases the chances
of indictments.
* Wednesday Update: It seems likely that one of Black's primary sources
(http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001514.html) for his recent JTA piece
discussed above was "Neil Sher", the former attorney
(http://www.jonathanpollard.org/1999/060099a.htm) for "Adam Ciralsky" in his
lawsuit against the CIA and the FBI, a former Nazi hunter for the Justice
Department, and the former executive director
(http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/eng/comment/com63_e.html) of AIPAC.