The result of this perceived success was that the ayatollahs appeared more willing than ever to oppose US and Western demands. For th~e Iranian leadership, the effective suppression of the protests had served as a much-needed victory against the US and the West. Whether the West actually saw events in these terms was immaterial; in the run-up to st1:date Year="200311 Day="9" Month="7" July 9, 2003 , particularly.during the protests of June 2003, state-run Iranian media made clear in stark terms that the anti-Government demonstrators did not represent the Iranian people and were instead agents of the US or other Western "dlsruptors". On st1:date Year="2003" Day="18" Month="7" July 18, 2003 , the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reported that i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"Ayatollah Ahmad Jannatl had told worshippers attending Friday prayers at Tehran University that stl:date Year=1I2003tl Day="9" Month="7- July 9, 2003, was "a day of disgrace for the US and its agents, as their efforts did not succeed" and characterized the July 9 protests as "minor" and "Insignificant"_. This style of rhetoric served more than one purpose for the Iranian Government. While these comments served to minimize the support base of the protestors they also gave the ayatollahs an opportunity to finally win a battle against the West. Iran had proved incapable of denying Western victories in Afghanistan or Iraq and appeared, by late July 2003, to have grown increasingly frustrated with the Islamic world's inability to respond to the US-led Coalition invasion of Iraq with significant attacks on the Western home front. Thus, while efforts to rectify these situations were well underway by June-July 2003, the "defeat" of the stl:date Year="2003" Day="9" Month="7" July 9, 2003 , protests served as a welcome interim victory, and doubtless a morale booster amongst the Iranian leadership. Iran's aggressive strategic stance toward the US , Israel, and the West was emphasized on stl:date Year=12003" Day="2011 Month="7" July 20, 2003 , when the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamene'i, officially Inaugurated the Shahab-3 ballistic missile. The Shahab-3 reportedly has a range of between 1,300 and 1,500 kilometers and Is capable of carrying a 1,000-760 kilogram https:/Iw3.lexis.comllawenfsolutions_secured/searchforms/doBrowse.asp?SearchInfoID=... 11/18/2004 .. .. D,. ocumen-t Results o Page 3 of4 L " warhead. The Iranian Government and Western media had reported since early July 2003 that the missile had been successfully tested in June 2003. The July 20, 2003 , ceremony marked the missile's entrance into operational service, according to i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"Ayatoliah Khamene'I, who remarked: "Today our people and our armed forces are ready to defend their goals anywhere." However, the authoritative Middle Eastern web-based information service, Debka.com, which clearly has strong sources within the Israeli intelligence community, stated in astl:date Year="2003" Day="23" Month="7" July 23, 2003 , dispatch that the missile had, in fact, failed its most recent test. According to the Debka.com report, Iranian officials were, as of late July 2003, in North Korea attempting to expedite shipment plans for new engines in hopes of fixing the i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"Sh a i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"hab-3 's remaining defects. It remained unclear whether the st1:date Year="20031 ' Day="23" Month="7" JUly 23, 2003 , report of North Korean-Iranian missile shipments was linked to the arrival of a large Iranian cargo ship to a North Korean port at Haeju Harbor. in the Yellow Sea during early July 2003. On st1:date Year="2003" Day="9" Month="7" July 9, 2003 , an unnamed South Korean official had speculated to the South Korean JoongAng Daily that the Iranian cargo ship had taken on small patrol boats. [The Iranian Navy maintains at least/three Zafar -class (North Korean built Chasho -class) FAC(G) patrol boats purchased from North Korea in the early 1990s. Western intelligence agencies believed that an additional six patrol boats had been shipped to Iran In December 2002 in a package sale including two gunboats and five semi-submersibles capable of carrying two torpedoes each.] Thus, with uncertainty as to the current strategic viability of the Sh a hab-3 missile, what appeared most evident by late JUly 2003 was the Importance which the Iranian Government continued to place on propaganda and the projection of force. The message of the missile test -- failed or otherwise -- had been aimed directly at the US , Israel, and the West. And, though, the test gained only the passing attention of most US and European media, Israeli news outlets paid close watch, with the daily i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"Yedioth Ahronoth blaring across its front page during mid-July 2003: "The Iranian threat -- the missile that can hit every house In Israel". The importance of the missile test, insofar as achieving a strong Iranian front to the West, could not be overstated. Iran had long depended on the threat of Widening any US-led war in the Middle East to include Israel as a major deterrent to US action against the Tehran-Damascus-Baghdad axis.US Pres. Bush had proved willing to risk that eventuality to achieve US strategic goals in removing the Iraqi Administration of former Pres. Saddam Hussein. With this US decision, the Iranians had hoped for Saddam to make good on this long-promised threat, not only to punish Israel, but also to deter further US action against Iran or its staunch ally Syria • The Iraqi inability to widen the war to Israel made the clerics recognize, more than ever, the necessity for a demonstration of the Iranian capability to strike Israel. The some 10,000 medium-to-short range rockets in Southern Lebanon, controlled jointly by Tehran, Damascus, and, to a degree, HizbAllah, were well within the Iranian sphere of influence, yet, Tehran's Willingness to rely on its neighbors to attack Israel if necessary appeared to have waned in the wake of the Iraqi failure. US efforts in June 2003 to'sway the HizbAllah from the Iranian sphere of influence, though fruitless by late July 2003, may also have raised the attention of the Iranian leadership. Thus, Tehran sought to warn the US against taking action toward "regime change" In Iran by reminding Washington that it retained the ability to widen any conflict with the US to include Israel by means within its own borders. Although perhaps unnecessary, this should have registered in Damascus as a reminder that Syria remains str~tegically dependent on Iran, and not the other way around. Notably, Cuba's blocking of US-based satellite feeds into Iran, which continued as of July 24, 2003, signaled that Havana continued to pay close attention to Tehran's policies vis-a-vis the US as an indicator for its own relations with Washington. Initially, following the September 11,2001 , attacks, Havana had shown a more conciliatory attitude toward the US, most notably by remaining relatively acquiescent to the US use of Guantanamo Bay as a detention camp for al-Qaida detainees. The Russian closure of the Lourdes Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) facility follOWing the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, though begun in August 2001, also seemed to indicate a more amiable Cuban posture. Yet, Iran's unflinching stance in the face of the US pressure to end support for terror groups, abandon its indigenous nuclear weapons program, and.begin a process of political and economic liberalization appeared to have affected Havana's strategic approach. By late July 2003, it seemed clear that Cuba would continue a policy of overt hostility. towards the US • This was evidenced by the Cuban decision to help Iran block US satellite feeds into Iran, particularly at a time as sensitive as the stl :da~e Year="2003" Day="9" Month="7" July 9, 2003, protests, for which the US had voiced support. A denial issued by the Cuban Foreign Ministry on Juty 19, 2003, made no attempt to mask this hostile tone, https:/Iw3.1exis.comllawenfsolutions_secured/searchforms/doBrowse.asp?SearchInfoID=... 11/18/2004 Document Results o Page 4 of4 declaring: "This is a new campaign of anti-Cuban lies ••• adding to a long list of hostile and aggressive actions that the imperial administration of George W. Bush has taken against our country." So, as July 2003 came to a close, Iran's aggressive stance came, unintentionally, with intense political pressure on the.U5 Bush Administration,' The Democrats, the US opposition party, continued to pursue Pres. Bush on the question of the Iraq War's legitimacy, the continuing (although low) US death toll In US-occupied Iraq, and the US economy. Damascus, Pyongyang, Havana, and Tripoli, thus, seemed to have one eye on the emboldened Iranians and another on Pres. Bush's slipping poll numbers. Tehran and its allies appeared ever more confident that in spite of the US-declared "war on terror" their respective governments might yet outlive the US Bush Administration. . Footnote: 1. The US Central Intelligence Agency "confirmed" to US media company ABC that al-Qaida senior military figure Saif al-Adel was being held by Iranian authorities. However, GIS sources in Tehran indicated that the "detention" was, if it could be described as that, was almost certainly symbolic. Egyptian authorities have for some months been demanding the extradition of Salf al-Adel, an Egyptian national, for trial. However, reports surfaced on July 24, 2003, that because·he was "of Libyan origin", Libya had requested his extradition to Tripoli for trial. Given the close Iranian-Libyan relationship -particularly given the fact that Libya essentially has taken responsibility for the Iranian-managed bombing of Pan Am PA103 flight over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 -- it seems almost certain that this move was a canard designed to demonstrate "Iranian compliance" in the "war on terror", while still ensuring that Saif al-Adel was able to be safeguarded. 2. International pressure on Iran's clerics is, however, far from over. The Canadian Ambassador to Tehran was recalled on July 23, 2003, over Canadian protests that Iranian-born Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi was tortured, possibly raped, and th~n killed by Iranian officials. See also: Defense & Foreign Affair~ Daily, ~uly 10, 2003: Iranian Protests Take Place Despite Massive Suppression; Worldwide Expatriate Protests Against Clerics • LOAD-DATE: July 24, 2003 View: L1s.t I Full < p..t.ex, Document 10 of 28 ne_~t> Edl,t...S.ea(ch. I ~e.w...S.ea(cb. frJpt 1.Q.o~lQad. - About lexisNexis I ])mns and Qmditions I Privacy POlicy ~..Y.{1ght 2004 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. ~ttps:/lw3.lexis.comllawenfsolutions_ secured/searchformsldoBrowse.asp?SearchInfoID=... 11/18/2004' ~ J , . i ·t DEB~file- Iran-Based Al Qaeda Threat Much Closer than Shehab-3 Page 1 of2 " 0 ALL INFOPHATImr CONT&' HEREIN IS LmrCLASSIFIED DEBKAfile - We start where the media stop DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/1sg Iran-Based AI Qaeda Threat Much Closer than Shehab-3 DEBKAflle Special Analysis JIIly 22, 2003, 9:30AM(GMT+02:00) Israel has more cause for concern from the presence ofsenior alQaeda operatives in Iran than from the prospect of Iran shooting a Shehab-3 medium-range missile any time soon, despite the handover ceremony Iran's bellicose spiritual leader Ali Khamenei staged with Iran's Revolutionary Guards on July 20. According to DEBKAjile's military experts, the missile is not yet operational; neither is it precise enough or capable ofdelivering an unconventional warhead. The Shehab-3 will need another two years at least to be ready for service. Only then, will Israel's anti-missile Arrow missile system be required to live up to the Israeli defense minister Shaul Mofaz's encomium, that the Arrow is Israel's answer to the Iranian missile. 'r:{ I1f,.;' .: • .~ r', '-.f. :.... ,< ~ Mussab Zarqawi - At .. Qaeda's ticking bomb in Iran Meanwhile, the Shehab-3 is meanwhile grounded by two daunting obstacles: A. The fmal version ofthe missile's engine is far from complete; tests are still mnning on various North Korean versions including the Nodong-l upgraged with Russian technology and Iranian improvements. DEBKAjile's intelligence sources report that Iranian missile engineers and operators went to North Korea at the end ofJune to speed delivery ofthe new engine parts ordered and paid for last year, after the first version engine proved faulty. Some ofthe missiles test-fired crashed shortly after launch. While pressing for delivery of the engine parts, Tehran is cocking an anxious ear to the war ofwords flying between Washington and Pyongyang. Iran's leaders fear that sooner or later the disputants will come to an understanding over North Korea's nuclear weapons program rather than letting it slide into outright confrontation. For Iran's program, this spells curtains in more than one way. 1. The moment North Korea's nuclear program accepts a regime ofcontrols and limitations, the full blast of international heat, especially from Washington, will veer round to compel the Iranians to fall in line and give up the development ofa nuclear bomb. 2. North Korea will be bound under such an agreement by non-proliferation clauses banning the export ofnuclear and missile technologies alike. Once the Pyongyang door is slammed, Iran can forget about North Korean assistance in bringing its ballistic missile engines up to scratch. Tehran is therefore racing to get what it can out ofNorth Korea before Pyongyang resoles its dispute with the Washington. B. The Iranian program faces another major hurdle. Their twin object is to produce enough enriched uranium for the manufacture ofnuclear bombs and warheads by the latter halfof2005, also completing the development ofdependable engines for their ballistic missiles in the same time frame. Ifall goes according to plan, Tehran will by that date have a nuclear weapon plus several missiles for delivering it. However, it is hard to imagine the United States and/or Israel allowing the Islamic RepUblic to reach that point unopposed These difficulties place the Shehab-3 menace in the middle distance and bring the Iran-based al Qaeda threat to the Middle East including Israel into much sharper focus. TIle thinking in Jerusalem is that since the Islamic theocrats did not semple to give al Qaeda logistical backing from their towns for the May 12 string ofsuicide attacks against Riyadh, they will be as willing to help the same terrorists mount strikes against Israel. Tuesday, July 22, Tehran again denied granting the network's leading lights sanctuary, contradicting President GeorgeW.. Bush's accusat~on the day before that Syria and Iran harbored and assisted terrorists. He also warned them they would be held accountable. http://www.debka.com/article..print.php?aid=527 11/29/2004 D'. BBKAfile ~.·'I'i.an-.Based Ai 'f'\baeda.Threat Much Closer tha.n Shehab-3G> Page 2'of2 .I, . '1 ~o one~ows for',sure ifIran:~ al Qaeda "guests" ~~e enjoying a comfortable fonn ofdetention or are preparing the next wave ofteriorist' attacks with local connivance. (See also earlier DEBKAftle story on this page.) The theory going round some circles in Washington is that Iran's logistical aid in the Riyadh attacks was meant to hint to the US government at the extent ofdamage the Iranians are capable ofcausing US interests in Iraq and other parts ofthe Middle East if the heat is not reduced on the nuclear issue. Israel is keeping a very close eye on the Jordanian-born terror master Mussab Zarqawi, who just before the Iraq War was assigned; according to Israeli security'sources, with executing ~ 9/1 I-scale attack in Israel. Six months ago, Zarqawi was sighted several times in Damascus, Beirut and places in Western Europe. He always went back to Iran after what are believed to have been t:ecruiting missions for the atta~k from among the al Qaeda group sheltering in southern Lebanon and operatives who infiltrated I~f'lel and the West Bank. ' Zarqawi could not have move~ around south Lebanon without the knowledge and assent ofSyrian army intelligence and the Iran-backed Hizballah. There is nothing to say that Zarqawi b~ck in Iran ever gave up preparing for his Is~el assignment. Ifsuch an operation is indeed afoot, then the Iran-based al Qaeda would be a greater and'more tangible threat to Israel than any semi-functioning Iranian missile. US-Israel Postscript DEB~jile's Washington sources disclose tha! President Bush's accusations against Syria and Iran on Monday we~ also mea!!t for the ears ofIs~aeli prime.mini~ter Ariel Sharon, who has been invited for talks in the White House on July 29. On Friday, July 25, the Palestinian prime minister Mahmoud Abbas will be received by the US president in Washington for the first time. He is coming with ashopping list, at the top o(which is a demand that Israel free a large number ofterrorists from its prisons, including terrorists "with blood on their hands" and Hamas andJihad Islami members. Sharon, limited by government decisions from setting the latter categories loose, sought to create a diversion by developing an independent peace channel to Damascus. By attacking Syria as a sponsor ofterrorists, Bush effectively blocked Sharon's ploy. The implication is that if the Israeli leader is not too squeamish to do ~usiness with ~ard.line regimes like that ofBashar Assad which-harbor al Qaeda and Hamas and Jihad Islami command centers, it can certainly bring itselfto make concessions to t~e non-terrorist Abb~s and his interior minister Dahlan. - There are indications that the Bush administration is cross with Sharon for his Syrian initiative and, to make things worse, using aUN official, Middle East envoy Terje Roed-Larsen as his go-between. Bush ha,s no great love for UN officials and even less for silrprises, especially when they come from Sharon who until now worked in perfect harmony with the White House. . .. From the us capital, the israeli prime minister is seen to be' shutting out ofhis counsels his defense and foreign ministers, Shaul Mofaz and'Silvan Shalom - both,ofwhom he has found indiscreetly forthcoming to the media on govemmentpoJicy, an~ barri~adi!lg himselfbehind a hard shell in readiness for his White House talks. Quite aside from the real concerns posed by al Qaeda in Iran, Syria and Lebanon, Bush advisers are intent on cracking the Israeli leader's shell so as to bring him round to advancing the concessions on the list brought by Palestinian leaders. ' Coprright 2000-2004 DEBKAfile. All Rights Reserved. ". http://www.debka.com/article-print.php?aid=527 11/29/2004 'I Search Within Results: L:~=:: ~ : :::.. ~J mD -...i Document Results ALL INFORMATION CONTAI~mD ~REIN IS UlJCLASSIFIED ~ \JITE 07-29-2010 B?:t 60324 1J.C baW/Sab/W Page 1 of8 .EcUt_S~ea[cl1l N~w...S_ea(ch frJnt I Qo..wl')lQ.a~d. View: J..lst I Full < pr.e~ Document 10 of 33 J1~~t > ¥ Tag for Print & Download Copyright 2004 Gale Group, Inc. ASAP Copyright 2004 Middle East Forum Middle East Quarterly March 22, 2004 SECTION: No.2, Vol. 11i Pg. 45i ISSN: 1073-9467 IAC-ACC..NO: 118416733 LENGTH: 5232 words HEADLINE: How to tame Tehran. BYLINE: Berman, IIan BODY: Over the past year, Iran has become a major cause of concern in Washington. The Islamic Republic has been discovered to possess a robu'st nuclear program, of a scope well beyond p~evious estimates. It has also made substantial breakthroughs in its ballistic missile capabilities. Less noticed, but equally significant, has been Tehran's growing activism in the Persian GUlf, the Caucasus, and Iraq. There is a vision and a method to Iran's policies. In the words of Mohsen Reza'i, secretary"of Iran's Expediency Council, Iran believes it is destined to become the "center of international power politics" in the post-Saddam Hussein Middle East. (1) Iran's new, more confrontational strategic doctrine even has a name: "deterrent defense." According to foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi, this national security concept is designed to confront "a broad spectrum of threats to Iran's national security, among them foreign aggression, war, border Incidents, espionage, sabotage, region.al crise~ d~rived from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), state terrorism, and discrimination in manufacturing and storing WMD." (2) Under the rubric of "deterrent defense," Iran is exploiting U.S. preoccupation with Iraq to build capabilities that will establish its hegemony in its immediate neighborhood and enhance its role across the Middle East. Iran's moves, if unchecked, will create a grave and growing challenge to U.S. aims in the region. At stake are nothing less than the geopolitical balance in the Middle East and the long-term achievement of U.S. goals, from stability in Iraq to regional peace. How has Iran's policy changed? And what can the United States do to thwart Iran's new drive? STRATEGIC AMBITIONS For years, policymakers in Washington had suspected Tehran's rulers of pursuing an offensive nuclear capability. They had viewed with alarm the growing strategic ties between Iran and Russia and had publicly expressed concerns that the centerpiece of that cooperation, the $ 800 million light-water reactor project at Bushehr, could lead to significant Iranian nuclear advances. Then, in the summer of 2002, an Iranian opposition group disclosed the existence of an extensive uranium enrichment complex at Natanz in central Iran. This revelation and a series of subsequent discoveries by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)--ranging from advanced clandestine nuclear development to the presence of trace weapons-grade uranium-"revealed the true extent of Iran's nuclear endeavor. This effort turns out to have been far broader and more mature than originally believed. Iran is now https:/Iw3.lexis.com/lawenfsolutions_secured/searchfonns/doBrowse.asp?SearchInfoID=... 11118/2004 Document Results o o Page 2 of8 thought to have some fourteen other facilities, including heavy- and light-water reactors in Isfahan and Arak, and suspect sites In Fasa, Karaj, "and Nekka. Together, these constitute all the makings of an ambitious national effort to develop nuclear weapons. (3) Iranian officials, meanwhile, have hinted at the existence of still other, as yet u-ndisclosed, facilities essential to the country's nuclear program. (4) Iran appears to have agreed to suspend its uranium enrichment activities under an October 2003 deal with France, Germany, and Great Britain. Similarly, international pressure succeeded In prompting Iran to sign the Additional Protocol to the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), permitting snap inspections and invasive monitoring of segments of Iran's nuclear sector by the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, two of Iran's main atomic suppliers,' Russia and China, wield veto power on the United Nations Security Council, making it improbable that Iranian nuclear violations would result In meaningful censure. And in fact, ongoing IAEA deliberations have so far failed to yield decisive international action, despite mounting evidence of Iran's atomic breaches. There is also a lingering uncertainty over Tehran's nuclear time line. While informed American observers contend that Iran is still some two years (and possibly longer) away from an offensive nuclear capability, (5) others believe that an Iranian bomb could materialize much sooner. In November 2003 testimonybefore the Israeli parliament's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Mossad chief Meir Dagan warned that Iran could reach a "point of no return" in its nuclear development by mid-2004, following which time an Iranian offensive capability would become a virtual certainty. (6) President Bush has himself warned that the United States "will not tolerate" a nuclear-armed Iran. (7) But if estimates are off, even by a few months, Iran could present the world with a nuclear fait accompli. At the same time, major breakthroughs in Iran's strategic arsenal have made it an emerging missile power. In June 2003, the Islamic Republic conducted what it termed the final test of its 1,300" kilometer range Shahab-3 ballistic missile. The launch was a success, confirming Iran's ability to target U.S. allies Israel and Turkey, as wen as U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf. Since then, with great fanfare, the Islamic Republic has inducted the advanced rocket Into its Revolutionary Guards (the Pasdaran). (8) This potential for proliferation is hardly the only worry. If recent signals are any indication, the Shahab3 has already evolved well beyond its.officially declared capabilities. In September 2003, at a military parade commemorating the anniversary of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, the Shahab-3 was officially described as possessing a range of 1,700 kilometers. (9) Additionally, opposition groups have charged that Tehran's overt missile development actually masks a much broader clandestine endeavor-.-one that includes development of the 4,OOO-kllometer range Shahab-5 and even a follow-on Shahab-6 Intercontinental ballistic missile. (10) Such efforts have only been strengthened by Iranian perceptions of U.S. policy. The Bush administration's rapid dispatch of Saddam Hussein's regime, and its contrasting hesitancy in dealing with a newly nuclear North Korea, has had a profound impact on Iran's calculus. North Korea's nuclear maneuvers, and its ability to successfully stymie U.S. strategy, have led Iranian officials to express their admiration for Pyongyang's resistance to U.S. "pressure, hegemony and superiority.II (11) There has indeed been some internal debate in Iran about the risks of stepping over the nuclear threshold. Yet even leading Iranian reformers appear to have gravitated to the notion that nuclear weapons are necessary to shift the regional "equilibrium." (12) CHARM OFFENSIVE These strategic advances, however, are only part of the picture. In tandem with Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile breakthroughs, a significant transformation has also begun in Iranian foreign policy. For Tehran, the overthrow of Hussein's regime has only fueled mounting fears of a danger0t!s str~tegic encirclement. The U.S. destruction of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan had already ensconced the proWestern-- albeit fragile--government of Hamid Karzai In Kabul. For Iran, the extremist Sunni Taliban posed an ideological threat, but a U.S. foothold on Iran's eastern border is regarded as even more threatening. Regime change In Baghdad, therefore, confronted officials in Tehran with the two-fold danger that Iran could be pinioned between two U.S.. client-states, and that Iraq's fall might be a prelude -to a similar U.S. drive to transform their country. In response, Iran formulated its new strategic doctrine of "deterrent defense." In practice, this has entailed a major expansion of Iran's military capabilities. Heavy defense expenditures, and ongoing strategic partnerships with both Russia and China, have made possible a far-reaching national military https:/Iw3.1~xis.comllawenfsolutions_secured/searchfonns/doBrowse.asp?SearchInfoID=...11118/2004 J?ocument Results o o Page 3 of8 ,: rearmament. Defense acquisitions made over the past several years have steadily broadened Iran's strategic reach over vital Persian Gulf shipping lanes, to the point that Tehran now possesses the ability to virtually control oil supplies from the region. (13) Iran has also increased its diplomatic activism In the region, redoubling its long-running efforts to erect an independent security framework as a counterweight to the expanding U.S. military footprint. (14) As part of this effort, in February 2004, Iran codified an unprecedented military and defense accord with Syria"-one formally enshrining an Iranian commitment to Syria's defense in the event of a U.S. ~r Israeli offensive. Iranian officials have subsequently made clear that these mutual defense guarantees also extend to Lebanon-and to the Islamic Republic's most potent regional proxy: Hizbullah. (15) Iran has also raised its military and diplomatic profile in the Caucasus. In April 2003, foreign minister Kharrazi embarked on a diplomatic tour of the region intended to marshal support for a common regional security framework for Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia, Iran, and Turkey as an alternative to cooperation with "external forces." (16) But lukewarm regional responses have prompted the Islamic Republic to nudge these·countries into alignment through less subtle means. In mid-October 2003, Iran commenced large-scale military maneuvers In its northwest region, near Azerbaijan. The exercises, reportedly the largest conducted by Iran in recent memory, massed troops on the Iranian-Azeri border in a Clear show of force aimed at dissuading the former Soviet republic from expanding cooperation with the United States. (17) A corresponding Iranian naval buildup Is now visible In the Caspian Sea in response to Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan's growing military relationships with Washlngton~ U.S. advances in the region are regarded by Iran as potential threats, but paradoxically they have also presented Iran with opportunities that it has been quick to exploit. * The coalition campaign against ~addam Hussein's regime succeeded in eliminating the threat posed by Tehran's most Immediate adversary, thereby cementing Iran's dominant regional standing, Iran has exploited'the postwar political vacuum In Iraq to foment Instability through a variety of measures, ranging from political support of radical Shi'ite·elements to an increase in drug trafficking. (-18) This broad offensive has reportedly included the Infiltration of hundreds ,of Pasdaran operatives into Iraq where they"have engaged in active recruitment,·influence operations, and assassinatlons--at a cost to Iran of some $ 70 million per month., (19) * Hussein's overthrow has also effectively defanged a lingering threat to Tehran: the MUjahldeen-eKhalq Organization (MKO), a wing of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. Since the spring of 2003, coalition forces under a U.S.-imposed cease-fire have curtailed the anti-regime group's operations In Iraq. And a subsequent December decision· by Iraq's new governing council has labeled the MKO-preViously tolerated and even supported by the Baathlsts--as a terrorist organization. (20) * To Iran's east, meanwhile, the fall of the Taliban has removed an ideological competitor for Muslim hearts and minds while lingering factionalism and tribal rivalries have allowed Iran to perpetuate Afghanistan's instability. Iran Is clearly determined to remake its strategic environment in its favor. Iran J'las mobilized its technological resources to give it greater reach and has used political, economic, and military clout to encourage a tilt in its direction in its immediate neighborhood. Paradoxically, the United States, by breaking up the old order in states neighboring Iran, has given Tehran hitherto unimagined opportunities to influence the reg ion. FALSE STARTS Can International diplomacy deflect Iran's newe~t drive for regional hegemony? It hardly seems likely. From 1991 to 1997, the European Union (EU) engaged in a "critical dialogue" with the Islamic Republic, attempting to moderate Iran's radical policies through trade. But by 1997, critical dialogue had actually achieved exactly the opposite result, infusing Iran with much needed currency while failing to alter Tehran's support for terrorism, its pursUit of WMD, and its violations of human rights. Diplomacy has had a limited effect because the EU countries have allowed their economic interests to· undercut their diplomatic efforts. For example, in late 2002, In the midst of revelations regarding Iran's advanced nuclear development, the EU signaled its intention to commence new negotiations with the Islamic Republic on a sweeping trade and cooperation pact. (21) The United States has also wavered in its application of diplomatic pressure. The May 1997 election of https://w3.1exis.comllawenfsolutions_securedls~archforms/doBrowse.asp?SearchInfoID=... 11118/2004 Document Results o o Page4of8 soft-line cleric Mohammad Khatami to the Iranian presidency--and his subsequent, much-publicized "dlalogue of civilizations" intelView on CNN--convinced many in Washington that Iran was moving toward pragmatic accommodation. Since then, U.S. policymakers, despite reiterating their continued commitment to containment of Iran, have time and again qualified Iran's membership in the "axis of evil." Most notably, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, in a February 2003 interview with the Los Angeles Times, distinguished between Iran on the one hand and North Korea and Iraq, on the other-on account of Iran's "democracy." (22) This, too, is an illusion. The Islamic Republic In recent years has engaged in a widening governmental campaign of domestic repression--one that includes stepped-up crackdowns on the press and the brutal persecution of regime opponents. The repression reflects a governmental effort to grapple with the groundswell of political opposition that has emerged among Iran's disaffected young population in response to the country's rising unemployment and economic stagnation. At the same time, Iran's theocrats remain deeply antagonistic to all U.S. overtures. This was demonstrated most recently by the· quiet contacts between Washington and Tehran in the aftermath of the devastating December 2003 earthquake in Bam, Iran. Despite deep support for dialogue among reformist parliamentarians, clerical hard-liners opposed to such a rapprochement ultimately cut short the contacts. (23) If the United States wants to alter Iran's behavior, It cannot expect results from the tried-and-failed approaches of "critical dialogue," "dialogue of civilizations," and other false starts. U.S. OPTIONS Yet a policy that reassures allies, deters Iranian aggression, and curbs Iran's expansionism is more than feasible. It requires the United States to do four things: broaden containment to include counterproliferation; revive Gulf defense alliances; mobilize Turkey; and woo the Iranian people. Expanded containment. Far and away the most urgent task now facing Washington is arresting Iran's nuclear progress. Over the past year,· U.S. policymakers have expressed increasingly vocal concerns over the corrosive global potential of an Iranian nuclear breakout, ranging from a nuclear arms race in the Middle East to Tehran's growing capacity for nuclear blackmail. Yet the United States could assume a more proactive role In preventing nuclear technology transfers to Iran. This is the concept behind the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), the counter-proliferation partnership launched by President Bush In May 2003. (24) Since Its inception, the PSI--designed to prevent the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by rogue nations through more aggressive intelligencesharing and interdiction efforts--has already charted some notable successes vis-a-vis North Korea, inclUding a clampdown on illicit North Korean smuggling operations by both Australia and Japan. And recent maneuvers by PSI-member nations in the Coral Sea and the Mediterranean suggest a growing role fpr the alliance in the Middle. East, both as a mechanism to intercept illicit WMD trafficking in the Persian Gulf and as a means to target proliferation networks (such as the recently unearthed nuclear ring led by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan) now active in the region. But the PSI is not the only tool In Washington's arsenal. In the Caucasus and Central Asia, the United States Is quietly moving ahead with Caspian Guard, an initiative designed to bolster regional security through expanded maritime patrolS, aerial and naval sUlVeillance, and border protections. As part of this effort, the United States has stepped up military exercises with Azerbaijan and has committed some $ 10 million to strengthening the former Soviet republic's naval capability and border security. This includes beefing up Azerbaijan's communications infrastructure and helping to carry out counter-proliferation operations. (25) SimilarlyI' under a five-year defense accord signed with Kazakhstan in 2003, Washington has bankrolled the construction of a Kazakh military base In tl)e Caspian coast city of Atyrau and has allocated millions to equipment and training for the Kazakh army, maritime and border-patrol forces. (26) Central to this effort is the prevention of WMD proliferation through the region, not least the transfer of technology from Russia to Iran. The early successes of the PSI and Caspian Guard suggest that both initiatives can and should be expanded to address more comprehensively the threat from the Islamic Republic. https:/Iw3.1exis.com/lawenfsolutions_securedlse~rchforms/doBrowse.asp?SearchInfoID=... 11/18/2004 D. ocument Results o o Page 5 of8- Reviving Gulf defense. Over the past several years, fears of a rising Tehran have begun to drive many Arab Gulf countries toward accommodation with Iran. For example, such concerns led Oman to establish a modus vivendi with the Islamic Republic through the codification of a sweeping agreement on military cooperation in 2000 (albeit one that has since been denied by Oman). (27) Kuwait subsequently followed sUit, striking a similar bargain In October 2002., (28) Even Saudi Arabia, preViously a strategic competitor of Iran, capitulated on a long-discussed framework accord with Tehran in late 2001, in the wake of two multi-billion-dollar Russo-Iranian defense accords. (29) But for many of these countries, such bilateral partnerships are a product of necessity--a function of ttie inadequacy of national defenses and regional alliances In addressing Iran's rising expansionism. The distrust of Iran still runs very deep. As a recent editorial in London's influential·Arab-language Ash-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper emphasized, Iran now poses a threat to "Saudi Arabia, Oman, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijan, which share with Iran a land border of 5,400 kilometers and a sea border of 2,400 kilometers .,. The Iranian nuclear danger threatens us, first and foremost, more than it threatens the Israelis and the Americans!' (30) \, Such worries have prompted the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), comprised of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates, to initiate a feasibility study for an alliance-wide antimissile system. At the same time, individual countries in the Arab Gulf (most notably Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) have initiated efforts to upgrade their individual missile defense capabilities. (31) Recently uncovered nuclear contacts between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan suggest that at least one of Iran's neighbors has begun to actively contemplate the need for a strategic deterrent against the Islamic Republic. (32) All this suggests that a U.S. strategic initiative toward the Arab Gulf may find ready customers. On the one hand, a deepening of Washington's bilateral military dialogue and defense contacts with individual Gulf nations might lessen regional dependence not only on .Iran but on an increasingly volatile and unpredictable Saudi Arabia as well. (33) On the other hand, the creation of a formalized American security architecture over the region could reinvigorate Washington's regional partnerships while excluding and isolating Iran. (34) Common to all of these efforts is the need to prOVide Tehran's neighbors with the tools to counter its growing potential for nuclear and ballistic missile blackmail. Talking Turkey. Ties between the United States and Turkey have been tepid since Ankara's unexpected refusal to grant basing rights to U.S. troops on the eve of the spring 2003 Iraq cam'paign--a move that torpedoed U.S. plans for a northern front against Hussein's regime. Since then, however, policymakers in . both countries have begun to mend fences. As· part of that process, the United States should insist that Turkey do more to hedge Iranian ambitions in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Unfortunately, Turkey's historic role as a strategic competitor of Iran has been substantially eroded. Indeed, over the past two years, Ankara has steadily drifted toward a new relationship with Tehran. Much of this movement has been underpinned by energy. Turkey's growing dependence on Iran--which could provide roughly 20 percent of total Turkish natural gas consumption by the end of the decade (35)--has diminished Ankara's economic leverage vis-a-vis Tehran. But politics play an important role as well. Since Its assumption of power in November 2002, Turkey's Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) has gravitated toward closer ties with its Muslim neighbors under the guise of an '·independent'· foreign policy, Iran has been one of the chief beneficiaries of these overtures, and bilateral contacts and economic trade between Ankara and Tehran have ballooned over the past year. This political proximity has only been reinforced by common worries over Iraqi instability in the aftermath of Hussein's ouster. Nevertheless, Ankara's deep ethnic and historical ties to the countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia make it a natural counterweight to Iranian-sponsored religious radicalism In those regions. Given Turkey's deep interest in expanding trade and development in the Caspian, Turkey also remains suspicious of Iran's maneuvers there. Meanwhile, Tehran's ongoing sponsorship of terrorism, including the Kurdish variety, has put Iran and Turkey on very different sides of the war on terrorism. These commonalities have led observers to suggest that Turkey's most constructive role might be as a force multiplier for U.S. interests in its "northern neighborhood." (36) In fact, Ankara and Tehran's divergent strategic priorities--on everything from Central Asian Islam to Caspian energy to the future political composition of postwar Iraq--suggest that Turkey and Iran could become competitors again. The United States should encourage such competition by creating incentives for Turkey to play Its historic https:/lw3.1exis.com/lawenfsolutions_securedlsearchfonns/doBrowse.asp?SearchInfoID=... 11118/2004 I;>ocument Results role. o , Page 6 of8 Wooing the Iranians. One of the Bush administration's most enduring challenges in prosecuting, the war on terrorism has been effectively communicating its goals and objectives to a skeptical Muslim world. Over the past two and a half years, that need has spawned an expanded public diplomacy effort. This has included media outreach on the part of top administration officials like National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Iran, however, has been included only belatedly in these plans. More than nine months after September 11, with U.S. officials saturating the airwaves of Arabic networks like Qatar's al-Jazeera, not one highranking U.S. official had granted an inteaview.to a Persian-language television outlet. (37) (This is despite the existence of dissident channels, such as the Los Angeles-based National Iranian Television [NITV], capable of effectively carrying the U.S. message.) Even when the United States did finally overhaul its public diplomacy toward Iran with the launch of the Persian-language Radio Farda in' December 2002, the station's entertainment-heavy format led criti~ to complain that the United States had diluted its democratic message. (38) Since then, broadcasting to Iran has continued to be funded at minimal levels, despite Congressional. efforts to expand outreach. Such a lackluster effort reflects continuing confusion within the U.S. government about' exactly whom to engage within Iran. In fact, the success of, public diplomacy hinges upon a clear American vision of Iran's desired direction and the sustained political will to assist Iran in reaching that goal. In that light, there should be only one answer to the question of whom to engage: the nascent democratic opposition. The United States should demonstrate its support for that opposition by expanding expatriate and government-sponsored broadcasting, using it to highlight and criticize Tehran's bankrupt clerl~al rule. (1) Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), Mar. 5, 2003. (2) Iranian foreign minister Kamal Kharrazi, cited In Saisat-e Rouz, Feb. 18, 2003. (3) Defense News, Jan. 12, 2004; Michael Rubin, "Iran's Burgeoning WMD Programs," Middle East Intelligence Bulletin, Mar.-Apr. 2002, at ht.tp:llwww,mglb.grg@rtlclgs/0203 irnl._btm~ (4) Ahmad Shlrzad, Iranian member of parliament, Nov. 24, 2003, remarks before legislative session, RFE/RL (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) Iran Report, Dec. 8, 2003. (5) "Iran: Breaking out without QUite Breaking the Rules?" Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, May 13, 2003, at ~tp.;.lIwww.DP_e~eb....o.mLP..aQ..esLk~w.J1tm. (6) Ha'aretz (Tel Aviv), Nov. 18, 2003. Israeli officials have further threatened to t~ke.preemptive military action, if necessary, to prevent this from happening; Agence France-Presse, Dec. 21, 200~. (7) The New York Times, June 18, 2003. (8) Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 1, July 20, 2003. (9) Agence France-Presse, Sept. 22, 2003. (10) Middle East Newsline,Oct. 25, 2002. (11) IRNA, Dec. 14, ,2003. (12) The Washington Post, Mar. 11, 2003. (13) Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby, Defense Intelligence Agency director, "Current and Projected National Security Threats to the United States," statement for the record, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Feb. 11, 2003, at http.;Uwww!fsts~o.rglIr~/congress/2003_hr/021103jacoby.html. (14) M. Javad Zarif, Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, commentary in The New York Times, May 10, 2003. (15) IRNA. Feb. 27 and Feb. 29. 2004; Ma'ariv (Tel Aviv), Feb. 29, 2004. https://w3.Iexis.com/lawenfsolutions_secured/searchfonnsldoBrowse.asp?SearchInfoID=... 11/18/2004 .. D, ocument Results o Page 7 of8 \ (16) !tar-TASS (Moscow), Apr. 29, 20Q3. (17) Uch Nogta (Azerbaijan), Oct. 22, 2003. (18) See, for example, AI-Hayat (London), Nov. 28, 2003, and Jan. 5, 2004. (19) Ash-Sharq al-Awsat (London), Apr. 3, 2004. (20) The New York Times, Dec. 19, 2003. (21) Xinhua News Agency (Beijing), Dec. 12,2002. (22) Los Angeles Times, Feb. 16, 2003. (23) Mohsen Armin, deputy chairman of the National Security and Foreign Relations Committee, Iranian Islamic Consultative Assembly (majles), Iranian Labour News Agency (ILNA), Jan. 4, 2004. (24) Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States currently make up the core membership of the PSI, while over sixty other nation--including Turkey--have voiced their backing for the initiative. (25) Associated Press, Jan. "3, 2004. (26) Radio Free Europe, Oct. 8, 2003. (27) Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network I, Apr. 10, 2000. (28) Xinhua News Agency, Oct. 2, 2002; Reuters, Oct. 3, 2002. (29) Middle East Newsline, Apr. 18, 2001. (30) Ash-Sharq AI-Awsat (London), Oct. 8, 2003. (31) Defense News, May 23 and Dec. 1, 2003. (32) the Washington Time, Oct. 22, 2003. (33) For more on existing defens~ ties between the United States and the Gulf states, as well as the potential for their expansion, see Simon Henderson, The New Pillar: Conservative Arab Gulf States and U.S. Strategy (Washington, D.C.: Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2003). (34) See, for example, Kenneth Pollack, "Securing the GUlf," Foreign Affairs, July-Aug. 2003, pp. 2-15. (35) "Turkish Energy Policy,'1 Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, at .I:)ttp:l!www·mfa,gO\£.trlgrypS'/aO/goUcy,htrn· (36) Soner Cagaptay, "United States and Turkey in 2004: Time to Look North," Turkish Policy Quarterly, Winter 2004, at http_:lLwww.wa.shlngt.9ni_~stitu_t~...!.o..rgll1.lepJ9Lca.9~pJacyalgaptay020204.pdf. ' (37) Interview with Iranian dissident, Washington, D.C., July 2002. (38) See, for example, Jesse Helms, "What's 'POpl in Persian?" The Wall Street Journal, Dec. 16, 2002; Jackson Diehl, "Casey Kasem or Freedom?" The Washington Post, Dec. 16, 2002• . REGIME CHANGE The United States has been guilty of sending mixed signals to Iran over the past few years. Most significantly, it has apologized for the Central Intelligence Agency's role in the coup of 1953--an early case of regime change--and it has declared Its goal in Iran to be behavior modification rather th~n regime change. The mixing of signals simply reflects a confusion·of policy--a confusion that has become positively dangerous, both to U.S. interests and the security of Iran's neighbors. https:/lw3.lexis.comllawenfsolutions_secured/searchfonns/doBrowse.asp?SearchInfoID=... 11118/2004 ..'. . D.ocument Results o o Page 8 of8 '. In fact, the U.S. objective in Iran is closer to the regime change it imposed on Iraq than to the behavioral change it brought about in Libya. The Iranian regime is not one mercurial man, whose behavior can be reversed by determined action. Iran has a ruling elite with many members, a shared sense of history, and a consistency of purpose that has been tested in revolution and war. This regime will not change, which is why the ultimate objective of U.S. policy must be to change it. That should not be forgotten, even if regime change in Iran cannot be pursued by the military means used in Iraq. Short of military intervention, the United States needs a comprehensive strategy to block Iran's nuclear progress, check Iran's adventurism in the Persian Gulf and the Caucasus, and give encouragement to the Islamic Republic's nascent domestic opposition. Through a strategy that bolsters Iran's vulnerable regional neighbors, rolls back its military advances, and assists internal political alternatives, Washington can blunt the threat now posed by Tehran--and set the stage for the later pursuit of its ultimate objective. Hijab Couture TEHRAN -. Since Iran's Islamic revolution in 1979, hijab, the obligatory dress code, has required women to wear clothes which disgUise the shape of the body and cover the hair. Fashion shows are normally held secretly In private homes. But last month the Iranian authorities allowed designer Mahla Zamani to hold one in public. It. was an all-female affair and photographers were banned. The snow was denounced by Tehran's conservatives as a plot to undermine Islamic values. lilt is a hypocritical attempt to realize the evil aims of foreigners by snatching the Islamic covering from Muslim' Iranian women," thundered the conservative Jomhuri-ye Eslami daily. Zamani introduced a collection of traditional Persian designs that may augur a sartorial sea-change In what is Islamically permissible. "It is a cultural endeavor to revive traditional costumes. Why shopld we get fashion from the West?" she said. But another patron thought the designs did not match up to those of Western designers. "The patterns are not elaborate and complex enough to be compared with Western designs, especially couture,n said Leela, a 25-year-old aerobics Instructor. Reuters, Nov. 20, 2003 IIan Berman is vice president for policy at the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington, D.C., where he directs research and analysis on the Middle East and Central Asia. IAC-CREATE-DATE: August 18, 2004 LOAD-DATE: August 19, 2004 View: .L1st I Full < p.r...e.Y. Document 10 of 33 next> J:dit_S_ea.o:b I tie!iLS.eAtch PrlQt I .P..o.rmlOjl~ct ~b_out.Lexis.N~~is I Ier:m:;_all.d_~odltJo.ps I P.dY.~cy_e.oJ{~ ,Copyogllt 2004 lexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. https://w3.lexis.comllawenfsolutions_secured/searchforms/doBrowse.asp?SearchInfoID=... 11118/2004 o ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED f':\ DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baW/~lSq Dec. 5, 2004 0:09 JUpdat~d Dec. 5, 2004 12:00 Exclusive: How the FBI set up AIPAC By JANINE ZACHABIA AIPAC, the powerhouse pro·Israel lobby currently embroiled in allegations of spying for Israel, was set up by the FBI, The Jerosa/em Post has learned. FBI agents used a courier, Pentagon analyst larry Franklin" to draw two senior AIPAC officials who already knew hil'!'l into accepting what he described to them as "classified" information, reliable government and other sources intimately familiar with the investigation have told the Post. One of the AIPAC pair then told diplomats at the Israeli Embassy in Washington about the "classifiedt • information, which claimed Iranians were monitoring and planning to kidnap and kill Israelis operating in the Kurdish areas in 1J0rthern Iraq, the Post has been told. It is unclear whether the "classified" information was real or bogus. AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) denies any wrongdoing. Knowingly transferring classified information to a foreign power can be a breach of US~ espionage statutes. Legal experts have told the Post that passing on bogu~ ctassified information may be used to demonstrate intent to violate the law but does not itself constitute a crime. Frank~in, an Iran expert, was already under investigation by the FBI for allegedly passing classified information to AIPAC when, the Posts sources say" FBI counterintelligence agents approached him to play a central role in the setup operation this past summer. The FBI had been monitoring AIPAC's activities for some two years when, last year, its agents observed two AIPAC official~, Steve Rosen, director of foreign policy issues" and Keith Weissman, a senior Middle East analyst with the lobby, at a lunch meeting with.Franklin in Washington. At this lunch, it has been widely reported, Franklin allegedly briefed the AIPAC pair on the content of a draft national security presidential directive on Iran. Details of the draft, which included proposed measures the US could employ to destabilize the Iranian regime" were already circulating a! the time. According to some reports, an Israeli diplomat at the embassy in Washington, Naor Gilon, was also present at the lunch. Earlier this year, the FBI informed Franklin that, as a consequence of the lunch meeting, he was under investigation. The Pentagon analyst, hoping for leniency" agreed to cooperate with FBI agents in what would become the setting up of AIPAC, a process designed to bust the lobby for passing secrets to Israel. 4ll~~/f-; G~\t'\JJ~~~l~-!JC- .~~c ~_8MV_I~ . The FBI agents told Franklin to request a meeting with Rosen and Weissman. He initiated contact with the AIPAC pair,_and told them that he needed to discuss a ticking-bomb situation. ,. r o Franklin was then dispatched to meet the two AIPAC officials and outline the alleged threat to Israelis in northem Iraq, the Post has been,told. Saying his access to the White House was limited, Fran,klin also expressed concern that the Bush administration was underestimating the extent to which Iranian agents were operating in Iraq and asked the AIPAC officials to stress this point in their meetings with US officials. The agents' hope, plainly, was that the AIPAC pair would be so troubled by the apparent life-and-death content of the information from Franklin as to risk a breach of US espionage statutes and transfer ~hat they believed to be classified material to a foreign power" Israel. And that, the Post has been told, Is precisely what happened. Franklin, according to news reports, cooperated with the FBI until about two months ago. In early October, he abruptly stopped working with authorities, dropped his court-appointed attorney and sought the legal counsel of Plato Cacheris, a prominent Washington defense la~er who has represented numerous accused spies. Continued "Obviously his was a bad deal," says one source familiar with Franklin's decision to stop cooperating with the bureau. News of the initial Franklin-AIPAC lunch broke last summer: CBS led its August 27 Nightly News broadcast with a report of a "full-fledged espionage investigation underway," saying the FBI was about to "roll up" a suspected Israeli "mole" in the office of the secretary of defense in the Pentagon. CBS reported that, using wiretaps, undercover surveillance and photography, the FBI had documented the passing of ~ classified presidential directive on Iran from the suspected mole to two people who work at AIPAC. Sources familiar with the matter, however, said no documents exchanged hands. CBS's sensational allegation immediately conjured up memories of the Pollard affair, the 1985 arrest and SUbsequent conviction in 1987 and life imprisonment for espionage of US naval intelligence analyst Jonathan Pollard for passing classified information to Israel. The investigation into Franklin and the AIPAC officials continued qUietly, with IitUe subsequent media coverage, i!" recent months. No indictments were issued and most reports scaled back the accusations aJJainst Franklin from alleged espionage to mishandling of classified evidence. But the"investigation burst back into prominence last Wednesday, when FBI agents made their first visit to AIPAC's Capitol Hill offices since Augu~t. Armed with a warrant, the agents seized computer files relate<t to Rosen and Weissman and issued subpoenas to four senior officials at the lobby, requesting that they appear before a grand jury later this month in the Eastern District of Virginia. Agents had copied Rosen's computer hard drive during their previous visit. ;... ., \. o o The four subpoenaed officials, who are considered witnesses,.not targets, of the"investigati0l"!, are AIPAC Exe~utive Director Howard Koh·r, Managing Director Richard Fishman, Communication~ Director R~nee Rothstein and Research Dir~ctor Rafi Danziger. A Washington criminal justice expert said Friday that the issuing of the subpoenas suggested the FBI was "getting ready to indict." AIPAC has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. "AIPAC has done nothing wron"g•.Neither AIPAC nor any member of our staff has broken any law, nor has AIPAC or its employees ever received information they believed ~as secret or classified. We continue to cooperate fUlly with the governmental authorities and ~elieve any court of law or grand jury will c:onclude that AIPAC employees have always acted legally, properly and appropriately," AIPAC said in a statement. "Despite the fals~ and baseless allegations that have been reported, AIPAC will not be distracted from our central mission of supporting America's interests in the Middle East and advocating for a strong relationship with Israel," the statement said. AL~FORMA.TION CONTAUJED' 0 HE~ IS UNCLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/1sg BEHIND THE HEADLINES FBI waited more than a year to make.move against AIPAC By Edwin Black WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 (JTA) .:-. The FBI's investigation of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee did not go into high gear until more than a year after the Pentagon's top Iran analyst allegedly passed foreign policy strategy information to two AIPAC officials. ,.. The investigation only intensified in July 2004, when the FBI allegedly directed the same Pentagon analyst, Larry Franklin, to conduct a sting operation against AIPAC officials, providing them with purPo.rtedly classified information to pass on to Israel, according to sources close to the investigation. , ' A month later, the FBI raided AIPAC offices, confiscating files from two senior staffers. On Dec. 1, the FBI returned to the headquarters of the pro-Israel lobby, searching staffers' offices. The FBI also issued SUbpoenas to four AIPAC staffers to appearbefore a grand jUry at the end of this month. Most accounts of the AIPAC investigation have focused on the Franklin lunch with Steve Rosen, AIPAC's director of foreign policy issues, and Keith Weissman, an Iran specialist, a meeting, it has been learned, that occurred on June 26, 2003, at the Tivoli restaurant in Arlington, Va. The chronology is important, say several sources with direct access to the prosecution's case, because it suggests that that meeting produced insufficient grounds for the FBI to pursue a case against AIPAC. "We always wondered why there had been no contact by the FBI from .June2003 to August 2004,· when AIPAC's headquarters were raided, said a source familiar with the government's investigation. "That's more than a year." ~ "It never made sense, if this violation" that is alleged to have taken place at the Tivoli lunch "was so serious," the source said•. Instead, the probe of AIPAC appears to have intensified only after the FBI monitored a call between Franklin and reporters at CBS News in May 2004, in which he allegedly disclosed information about aggressive • Iranian policy in Iraq. One of those reporters was Adam Ciralsky, a former attorney at the Central Intelligence Agency who sued the CIA after he quit in 1999 on the grounds that he was harassed for his Jewish rpots and connection to Israel. After the call in May, the FBI's counterintelligence division, headed by '" '. o David Szady, who also·supervised the alleged campaign against Ciralsky, confronted Franklin, according to sources familiar with the case. o Threatened with charges of espionage and decades of imprisonment, Franklin was deployed to set up a sting against AIPAC, the sources say. According ~o sources, he was also involved in initiating contact with some neoconservative defense experts, several of them Jewish, who supported Ahmad Chalabi. Chalabi, the president of the Iraqi National Congress, ha~ deep tie~ to Bush administration officials. Chalabi's political adviser;, a non-Jewish American, was also targeted" according to sources. Chalabi is at the vortex of a Pentagon-intelligence community squabble ov~r pre- and post-war policy in Iraq. AIPAC had been under intense scrutiny by the FBI throughout early 2003, but the law enforcement officials had seen nothing to justify prosecutorial action, sources said. At the Tivoli restaurant lunch with AIPAC, Franklin allegedly verbally mentioned information from a classified Pentagon policy paper purportedly written by defense expert Michael Rubin while Rubin was still at the Pentagon. But Franklin did not actually pass along the document, according to multiple sources familiar with the document and the pro~ecution's case. . Rubin is now at the American Enterprise Institute,. a conservative thil1k ~~ .- The Pentagon policy paper reportedly proposed an American strategy to destabilize Iran in the face of its growing nuclear potential, according to the sources. The Tivoli lunch didn't trigger an immediate prosecution: No document was passed, sources say, and while the verbal information allegedly was drawn from a Pentagon document that did enjoy ~ low-security classification - as do many such planning debate documents in Washington - much of its content already had been aired in the media. AIPAC steadfastly has denied that it violated any laws, and insists it is the victim of a witch-hunt. Franklin refused to speak about the matter. Franklin had been under increased scrutiny since disclosure of a secret meeting in Decen:'ber 2001 with former Iranian spy and arms merchant Manucher Ghorbanifar that some in the Washington establishment claimed was unauthorized. Ghorbanifar was on a CIA "burn list- of individuals who could n~t be contacted, according to informed "', o intelligence community sources. o Franklin didn't know it, but the FBI's counterintelligence division was monitoring his May 2004 phone conversation with the CBS reporters, including Ciralsky. - , 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. Others aware of the call say the FBI would,be hard-pressed to prove Franklin's comments actually breached national security. Friends and colleagues describe Franklin as a dedicated pUblic servant deeply concerned ~bout growing Iranian influence in Iraq., "He ran off at the mouth. and hated the intelligence community for what he saw as recklessness." one colleague said. "He was Willing to take matters into his own hands for what h~ saw as the good of the nation." Another who knows him added, "Franklin spoke to CBS reporters in an effort to ring an alarm" about White House indifference to a looming threat. "but it was clearly wrong if it involved classified information." Shortly after the CBS call. agents from Szady's FBI counterintelligence division confronted Franklin, sources say., During this time, Franklin was not represented by an attorney, and the governmen~ placed him on unpaid leav~ .. Franklin, who is the sole breadwinner for five children and a wheelchairbound Wife, was terrified by the threats, according to multiple sources familiar with his situation. Szady's FBI counterintelligence division then devised a strategy to use Franklin as a plant to set up AIPAC" ac~rding to sources. FBI officials refused to discuss the matter. The FBI sting, first reported by Janine Zacharia in The Jerusalem Post, allegedly directed Franklin to offer AIPAC officials supposedly urgent classified information about Iranian plans to kidnap and murder Israelis operating in northern Iraq. Whether the information was manufactured or accurate is not ~Iear. The exact date and location of the sting, which came in the form of a meeting, have not previously been disclosed, but according to sQurces with access to prosecution information, it took place on July 21,2004, at a suburban Virginia mall. . Believing they had a life or death situation on their hands, AIPAC officials reportedly contacted the Israeli Embassy, thereby prompting action by the FBI counterintelligence division. o AIPAC officials declined all comment on the July meeting. However, one source familiar with access to the prosecution'~ case against AIPAC asked, "If the June 2003 incident was strong enough to prosecute, why did the government need Franklin to perp~trate a ~ting more than a year later? Answer: The first encounter aid not amount to anything. The FBI needed more." Among those Franklin was directed to call as part of an alleged series of sting operations was Francis Brooke, Chalabi's political adviser in Washington. Brooke said he turned aside Franklin's request for information on the code-breaking information Chalabi is accused of prOViding to Iran, telling him "it is all.horse dung." During June, July and August, Franklin, still apparently being directed by the FBI, made a series of calls to prominent personalities conversations that have been labeled by the recipients as "weird,· "curiou~".and "totally out of keeping for Larry." At least some of these calls were at the behest of Szady's counterintelligence unit, according to several sources, but it is not known which. Around late June 2004, Franklin called Richard Perle, an American Enterprise Institute defense policy strategist and a key planner of the 2003 war in Iraq, according to several sources familiar with the call. Perle is former chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board and a close associate of Paul Wolfowitz, the undersecretary of defense•. Perle was just dashing out the door and readying for summer travel, and did not enter the call into his telephone logs, the sources said. But he felt the call was "weird" and took no action, according to on~ source. Perle declined to comment on the call. In August 2004, Franklin also called Ciralsky, who by this time had moved to NBC News, where he was covering security developments in Iran, sources said. Franklin apparently tried to set up a meeting with Ciralsky, but no such meeting ever occurred, according to sources familiar with the call. Ciralsky declined all c9mment. By the end of August, Franklin ~ad been assigned a court-appointed attorney whose name was sealed under court order, according·to sources familiar with Justice.Department filings in the case. That attorney advised Franklin to sign what sources familiar with the case termed "a really terrible plea agreemenr tJlat would have sU~jected him to a very long prison term under the most severe espionage laws. In September, a friend referred Franklin to renowned Washington defense attorney Plato Cacheris. In the past, Cacheris has represented accused spies and eve~ Monica Lewinsky. Franklin fired his court.. \, o appointed attorney and Cacheris began representing him pro bono., o Meanwhile, on Aug. 27,2004, the FBI counterintelligence division raided AIPAC. The raid and the information about a Pentagon "mole" working with AIPAC were immediately leaked to CBS. Leslie Stahl led with the story on the network's evening news. On its Web site, CBS headlined, "The FBI believes it has 'solid' evidence that the suspected mole supplied Israel with classified materials that include secret White House policy deliberations on Iran." A picture of the FBI's Szady was prominently displayed next to the headline. FBI investigators again searched AIPAc's headquarters on Dec. 1. The agents subpoenaed four top officials to appear before a grand jUry in Virginia. The four are Howard Kohr, the group's executive director; Richard Fishman, the managing director; Renee Rothstein, the communications director; and Raphael Danziger, the research director. FBI officials refused to discuss the search and subpoenas. Szady" who has been decorated twice by the CIA for distinguished service, answered one critic by writing, "I am not at liberty to comment on pending investigations." An FBI source with knowledge of Szady's investigation bristled at the intense media coverage of the counterintelligence division's tactic. Said the source: aWe are just following the evidence and seeing where it leads." Meanwhile, four congressional Democrats have asked the Bush administration to brief Congress on the FBI probe., In a letter last week to President Bush, U.S. Reps. Robert Wexler (0Fla.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), and Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) ,said that with the case intensifying, Bush should qlear up concerns about the probe's integrity., Citing reports about the alleged AIPAC sting and leaks to the media, the letter said, "Mr. President, an honorable organization is on the line, as are the reputations of dignified individuals, and Congress has yet to hear from you or your ~dministration on this issue despite previous requests." Franklin, meanwhile, is working menial outdoor labor jobs to support his family, and remains uncertain where the case against him is going. Said one source who knows him: ~He is literally shaking. He has been destroyed." (Award-winning New York Times best-selling investigative authorand reporter Edwin Blac/< has covered allegations of Israelispying in the United States since the Pollard case. Black's current best seller is "Banking,on Baghdad"(Wiley), which chronicles 7,000 years ofIraqi h~ro~) • . .. T.he.Jewish Joumai O.. fGreate0r Los Angeies ALL INFORMATION CO~INED HERE IN IS UNCLAS SIFIEh DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60~c baw/sab/1sg 'Page 1,6f~ ~. - ,.. __ - •• --1:>." "'. ]'"' , L._..-(_ao._--__, NOW€J . -Advanced Search_ E-Delivery ~ [9JSe .• .::~. . , I· t~ J.. ' http://www.jewishjournal.com/homttlpreview.php?id=13528 1114/2005 FBI.Stings Seen as Part of Policy 'War' by Edwin BI~ck, Jewish Telegraphic Agency Franklin, who never had phoned. before, asked .Perle to "convey a message to Chalabi" in Iraq, according to. sources aware of the call. Ahmad Chalabi is the embattled p'resident of.the Iraqi National Congress. He is currently at the vortex of'a Pentagon-intelligence community conflict ov~r pre- ~nd post-war policy"but is stili endorsed by,neoconserVatives, such a~ Perle• In the recent past, Perle had only encountered Frankliria few times in passing, the sources said. Perle became "impatient" to end his brief . conversation with Franklin, and finally just declined to pass a message to. Chalapi.or to cooperate in.any w.ay, accor~ing to the sources. Perle refused to coma:nent. Last June, leading neoconservative Richard Perle received an unexpected phone call at his home. It was Larry Franklin calling. Franklin is' the veteran Ira~ specialist in the Pentagon's Near ,East So~th Asia office and the key Iraq War planner who had been'pressured by the FBI into launching aseries of c9unterintelligence stings. Perle, a former chairm?,n of the Pentagon's Defense Policy' Board, was' an architect of the 2003 Iraq ~~. . Wolle the purpose of the·mysterious call to Perle is still.unclear, a source with knowledge of Franklin's calls suggested t~at: Franklin might have been trying to warn· Perle and Chalabi that conflict between the counterintelligence community alJd the neoconservatives and the Chalabi camp was spinnil)g out of control. . ~( ~~ • ~ ~ CI ~ ~\~f f' .~••- ).1 Unbeknownst to Franklin, the FBI was listening. rJ C- A'- .. . ~ :'\.Uf:~~b 3~·r-_... ~\(.~. .Something about Franklin's unexpected call struck Perle as "weird," according to the sources. Why was Franklin calling? want to pick up a -FREE Jewish Journal? OR Home Order" Subscribe Now! Get the weekly :Jewish.Journalon your door step. E-Subscribe Now! Receive FREE weekly e· mail updates with news links nnd ovents. Personals Classified Calendar Newsletter Main Page Cover Story Nation 8r. World The Arts Search by zip code! SECTIONS The Jewish Journal OfGreater Los Angeles o o Page ~ of5 Editor"s Corner First Person OpinionCommunity, Up Front Torah, Torah, Torah My Jewish Library The Single Life The Circuit Tommywood Letters Obituaries Spirituality Kids Page GOOD STUFF BarIBat Mitzvot Candiellghting Singles Resources FORUM - Join Usl JEWISH LA GUIDE Kosher EATS! Schools Congregations Celebrations Event Calendar Sports ORANGECOUNTV The Jewish Journal of Orange County is available. By the tiQ'le Franklin phoned Perle, Franklin had been under surveillance for at least a year by the FBI's counterintelligence division, which is led by controversial counterintelligence chief David Szady. Franklin had been monitored since a meeting June 26, 2003, at the Tivoli Restaurant in Virginia, where he discussed a classified Ira~ policy document with officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). He also was monitored late last May while responding to a routine media inquiry by CBS reporters about Iran's intelligence activities in Iraq, according to multiple sources. The CBS call was pivotal. Among the reporters who spoke to Franklin In late May, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of the call, was former CIA attorney Adam Ciralsky, who had joined CBS as a reporter. During that call, Franklin purportedly revealed classified information, according to the sources. ,. In late June, Szady's FBI counterintelligence division finally confronted a shocked·Franklin with evidence of his monitored calls. The bureau arranged for Franklin to be placed on administrative leave without pay, and then threatened him with years of imprisonment unless Franklin engaged in a series of stings against a list of prominent Washington targets, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of the FBI's actions in the case. . Terrified, needing to provide for a wheelchair-bound wife and five children and without the benefit of legal representation, Franklin agreed to ensnare the' individuals on the FBI sting list, the sources said. The list might include as many as six names, according to sources. In a special Jewish Telegraphic Agency' investigation, this reporter first revealed Franklin's stings and the circumstances surrounding them. AIPAC was stung July 21. That day, Franklin met an AIPAC official in a Virginia mall and urged that information be passed to Israel that Israelis operating In nqrthern Kurdlstan were in dang~r of being kidnapped and ' killed by Irallian intelligence, according to multiple sources. That information - the validity of which has been questioned - was reportedly passed to the Israeli Embassy, thereby providing the FBIwith a basis for search warrants and threats of an 'espionage prosecution against AIPAC Policy Director Steve Rosen and AIPAC Iran specialist Keith Weissman, according to the sources. " AIPAC officials contacted declined to comment. Attorneys familiar with FBI security prosecutions identified Sec;tlon 794 anCi 798 of the Espionage Act as ideally suited to the FBI's sting strategy. Section 798, titled, "Disclosure of Classified·Information,"- applies to "whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes [or] transmits .::.. for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information - concerning the communication of intelligence activities of the United States or any fo~eign government." The sweeping statute would cover classified information not only about America but also about Iran aQd Iraq. Reporter Janine Zacharia first revealed initial news of the July AIPAC sting in The Jerusalem Post. http://www.jewishjourna1.comlhomelpreview.php?~d=13528 1114/2005 ,The Jewish Journal Of Greater Los Angeles o o Page 3 of5 After the AIPAC sting on or about Aug. 20, Franklin - still without.legal representation - was directed by his FBI handlers to launch a sting against ChalabJ's Washington-based political adviser, Francis Brooke, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of Franklin's stings. At the time, Washington intelligence circles were accusing Chalabl of passing sensitive American intelligence code-breaking information to Iranian intelligence. The charges agail1st Chalabi have since fallen from view. Brooke, a southerner who lives in a Washington-area home owned by Chalabl, .took the August call from Franklin on the kitchen phone. "Franklin called," Brooke related, "and said, 'You have a real problem on you'r hands with Iran and Chalabi.' I told him, 'It Is all horse--.' Larry got very angry at me. He said it was 'deadly serious.' I said, 'What the hell, if you say it is serious, OK. But we have no information about American code-breaking of Iranian intelligence.'" "So Larry says, 'I am talking to a bunch of media people, and I can spin this - but you need to level with me to get this straight,'" Brooke recalled. "This was not very much like Larry, and I just said, 'There is nothing to spin.'" Brooke dismissed the entire effort as part of a "vendetta against Chalabi organized by [then-CIA Director George] Tenet and others at the CIA." Franklin refused to comment. In August, Franklin, still without legal counsel, was also directed by the FBI to call Ciralsky, who by this time had moved from CBS to NBC, where he . was working on security developments in Iran, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of Franklin's calls. Franklin tried to set up a • meeting with Ciralsky, but no such meeting ever occurred, according to sources familiar with the call, because shortly thereafter, on Aug. 27, the FBI's AIPAC raids were leaked to CBS. Franklin actions were now public. Before joining CBS, reporter Ciralsky was working as an attorney for the CIA but was allegedly forced out in 1999 during the course of an inquiry into his family background and his Jewish affiliations. Ciralsky later filed a harassment lawsuit against the CIA that is still pending. The man who supervised much of the CIA investigation of CJralsky and then the FBI's investigation of Franklin following the May conversation with Ciralsky was Szady. In a JTA investigation, this reporter revealed exclusively his involvement ~ith Ciralsky. Critics of the current investigation point to Szady's involvement in the probe of Ciralsky a decade ago to raise questions about a possibly larger agenda. One q~estion involves the media. Because Ciralsky is a reporter with NBC, some critics raised the specter of Szady's FBI counterintelligence division consciously trying to entrap a member of the media engaged in routinely contacting sources. One source with direct knowledge of Franklin's stings said it amounted to an "enemies list." http://www.jewishjoumal.com/home/preview.php?id=13528 1114/2005 ·The Jewisli Journal OfGreater Los Angeles o Ciralsky refused to comment. o Page 4 of5 FBI officials repeatedly refused to discuss the Franklin stings. The bureau also refused to respond to questions about whether members of the media - including those at CBS, NBC and even this reporter - are under surveillance as part of their investigation. But at one point, a senior FBI official with knowledge of the case finally stated, "I cannot confirm or deny that Information [due to] the pending investigation." Some Washington insiders believe that the FBI's multiple stings are far from routine counterintelligence but represent a "war" between the counterintelligence community and policymakers, especially neocons. One key insider explained the war this way.: "It ,is two diametrically opposed ways of thinking. The neocons have an interventionist mindset willing to ally with anyone to defeat world terrorism, and they see the intelligence community as too passive. The intelligence community sees the neocons as wild men Willing to champion any foreign source - no ,matter how specious - if it suits their ideology." . Leading neoconservative figure Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise. Institute added ~is own thought. "This is a war of the intelligence community vs. the neoconservatives," Rubin observed. "It involves both the right and the left of the· intelligence community. It is a war about policy, the point being, the CIA must not be involved in policy. The CIA's role is to provide intelligence. and let the policymakers decide what to do with it, and it appears they are not sticking to that role - and that is a dangerous situation." "This is the politicizing of intelligence," he continued. "But the CIA, by its establishing principle.s, is not to be involved in politics." Rubin added that the sting effort "against AIPAC is the culmination of a 20- year witch-hunt from a small corps within the counterintellige'nce • community" that Rubin labeled "conspiracy theorists." He added, "What is the common denominator between the Ciralsky case and the AIPAC case? David Szady.," .Szady, who has been decorated twice by the CIA for distinguished service, answered one critic, writing, "I am not at liberty to comment on pe~ding investigations." Szady had issued a statement to this reporter earlier that he "has no anti-Semitic views, has never handled a case or investigation based upon an individual's ethnicity or religious views and would·never do so." One neoconservative at the center of the counterintelligence war said: "This is just the beginning. Nobody knows where this war is going." Edwin Black is the author of "IBM and the Holocaust" (Crown, 2001). Black's current best seller is "Banking on Baghdad" (Wiley), which chronicles 7,000 years ofIraqi history. This article first appeared in the. Forward. Let's talk about it... CS> http://www.jewishjoumal.com/home/preview.php?id=13528 111412005 TheJewish JQurnal OfGreater Los.~geles o Page 5 of5 RelltJUcha.r..d-E..erle_OJL.CJ). er..~.y. fOLTro.RRs_Jita~_elel~ We rent" audio books on co. Free delivery. -Unique Camouflage Rubber Bracelets Show Free Trial. Your Support and Buy Several! Ads by Goooooogle Home I About Us I FAQ I Advertise I Subscribe I Archive I Forum I Contact UsI Privacy Policy © 2004 The Jewish Journal; All Rights·Reserved http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id::;13528 1114/2005 ~ AIPAC Comes Under Scrutiny as FBI Continues Israel Espionage Probe ~ e ALL INFORMATION CONTAI1JED 0 HEREIN IS mrCLASSIFIED " DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/1sg Page 1of5 J C!~ PRINTTHIS WASHINGTON REPORTONMIDDLEEASTAFFAIRS Washington Report, December 2004, pages 22-23, 25 Israel and Judaism AIPAC Comes Under Scrutiny as FBI Continues Israel Espionage Probe By Allan C. Brownfeld It has been widely reported that the FBI Is Investigating the possibility that Lawrence Franklin, a Pentagon analyst, passed c1asslfted material to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which then handed the Information over to the Israeli Embassy In Washington (see November 2004 Washington Report, p. 26). Reported the Sept. 4 economist: "The unfolding saga surrounding Lawrence Franklin Is•••that he gave classified documents on Iran to Israel. But there Is groWing speculation that the FBI Investigation of Mr. Franklin Is the tip of an Iceb~rg. The reported anger of federal agents at the leaking of the story Indicates a bigger probe that may have been under way for at least a year•••Mr. Franklin allegedly passed draft: documents on American policy toward Iran to AIPAC, a hugely Influential lobbying group In Washington, which In tum allegedly passed them to Israeli officials. Both AIPAC and Israel have denied any wrongdoing. The Israelis. maintain that they have been ultra-careful since the huge embarrassment In 1985 when Jonathan Pollard, an American Intelligence analyst, was caught spying for Israel•••The scandal Is difficult for Israel, which wields considerable Influence on American foreign policy•••It Is hard to put a positive spin on a spy In the Pentagon, even If he Is talking to your frlends.&rdquo Janes Intelligence Digest noted on Sept. 10 that, "Shortly before he retired In June as CIA director, George Tenet alleged on more than one occasion that an Israeli agent was operating In Washington. Tenet was challenged to Identify the agent, but for reasons that were never explained he did not do so. Nonetheless, the episode underlined grOWing unease In some quarters In Washington about the Influence Israel's right wing has In the Bush administration through the pro-Ukud neoconservatives-largely In the Pentagon-and the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and Its associated organizations such as the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.&rdquo Four of the leading neoconservatives have been accused in the past of illegally providing classified information to Israel. The document.alleged to have been passed to AIPAC al1d the Israelis relates to U.S. policy.toward Iran. According to Jane's, "U.S. officials are concerned because that document was being debated by pollcymakers at the time, possibly putting the Israeli government lobbyists In a position to Influence the final directive. U.S. policy toward Iran Is crudal to the Israelis, who have drawn up plans to launch pre-emptive strikes against Iran's nuclear Installations to prevent the Islamic Republic acquiring nuclear weapons that could be used against Israel.&'rdquo 4° Philip Glraldl, a former CIA officer, wrote In the.Oct. 11 Issue of The American Consentatlve that, ~ tl~ljocS' http://Wrmea~printthiS.clickabilitY .cOinlptlcpt?actioti=tpt&title=AlPAC+Comes+Under+Scr... 1~812005 .) '" . " - - . - - ~ .- - - - GSQ.-VJ~_~6~l>-1" L ~'C..~~ . ... AIPAC Comes U~der Scrutiny as FBI Continues Israel Espionage Probe Q) 0 "The Franklin case stems from Investigations of Israeli diplomats that developed from the prosecution of spy Jonathan'Poliard. Pollard's conviction In 1987 provided little In-the way of a resolution: the Israeli government never cooperated In the Inquiry and did not provide an Inventory of the documents that Pollard had stolen. The FBI also knew that a second spy, believed to be In the Pentagon, passed Pollard classified file numbers that were desired by the Israelis. Hoping to catch the second spy,.the FBI continued its probe. Two years ago, the Investigators began to suspect that highly sensitive National Security Agency documents' were winding up In IsraeJrhands, possibly wlth"t1'ie connivance of AIPAC. In the judgment of counterintelligence specialists, the Israelis did not wish a repeat of the Pollard case, so they decided against recruiting another U.S. official and turning him Into a salaried spy. Instead, they opted to establish relationships with friends In the government who would voluntarily provide Information•••AIPAC would have served as a useful Intermediary or 'cut out' In such an arrangement, limiting the contact between the American government official and the Israeli Embassy.&rdquo Four of the leading neoconservatives have been accused In the past of illegally providing classified Information to Israel, though none was ever prosecuted. In 1970, the FBI recorded Richard Perle discussing classified Information with an Israeli Embassy official. Stephen Bryen, then a Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff member and later Perle's deputy at the Department of Defense, narrowly avoided Indictment In 1979 after he was overheard offering classified documents to an Israeli Embassy official. Douglas Feith, who In a position paper prepared for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for a "clean break from the peace process,H was fired In 1982 from the National Security Council on suspicion of passing confidential docum~nts to the Israeli·Embassy. He was Immediately re-hlred by Richard Perle at the Pentagon. 'Paul Wolfowltz--was InveStigated In 1978 over charges that he had provided a classified documel1t to the IsraeU-embassy'by'way of AIPAC. While AIPAC has long been·viewed as one of Washington's most effective lobbying groups, It has become Increasingly controversial, both within the Jewish community and In the larger society. Many have objected to Its close ties to the Ukud Party. In one Widely publicized exchange, Israeli Prime Minister Yltzhak Rabin asked AIPAC to concentrate on lobbying Congress and leave pollcymaklng and the.Whlte House alone. The current affair, wrote Orl Nir In the Sept. 3 Forward, "has cast light on the fine line that AIPAC walks between advocating a strong American-Israeli alliance and as acting as the representative of a foreign government. Both activities are legal, but serving a foreign government requires registration with the Department of Justice and entails severe legal restrictions, not applied to pro-Israel groups, Including AIPAC.&hellipAIPAC enjoys the support, admiration and even awe of Jewish organizational officials, many of whom raced to AIPAC's defense. Stili, some pro-Israel activists In Washington are privately suggesting that the current scandal prOVides AIPAC with a chance, In the words ofone communal official, for 'some soul-searching and reappraisal' regarding Its general modes of operatlon.&rdquo According to Nlr, "Critics also have accused AIPAC of adopting an agenda that too clearly mirrors the hawkish agenda of neoconservatives In the Bush administration, thereby fueling conspiratorial notions that President Bush was duped, Into Invading Iraq In order to advance Israeli Interests. Now, critics say, with Its Increasing fOC;us on Iran, AIPAC risks fueling the claims of those who would accuse the Jewish community of working with Washington neoconservatives to convince the White House to pursue regime change In Tehran.&rdquo Several Jewlsh'communalleaders complain that AIPAC officials have not done enough to maintain a clear wall between the lobbying group and Israel. AIPAC officials have reft the organization to serve In the Israeli government. Lenny Ben-David, formerly known as leonard Davis, for example, worked at AIPAC for 25 years-first In Washington, then in Jerusalem-before he was tapped by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1998 to be the deputy chief of mission In Israel's Washington Embassy. AIPAC and some of Its supporters have suggested that the FBI and the CIA are pursuing a vendetta against Israel, the Pentagon, neoconservatives, and possibly Jews In general. The neoconservatives have lashed out In a memo drafted by Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, alleging that the probe Is motivated by anti-Semitism. The memo criticizes the White House for not refuting press reports on the FBI investigation. "If there Is any truth to any of the Page 2 of5 http://wrmea.priiltthis:clicKabilitj:comlptlcpt?action=cpt&title=AIPAC+Comes+Uhder+Scr...1/8/2005 AIPAC Comes Under Scrutiny as FBI Continues Israel Espionage Probe Q 0 \ accusations, why doesn't the White House demand that they bring on the ev~dence?On the record," the memo stated. "There's-an Increasing anti':Semltlc witch hunt.&rdquo Continued Rubin, a former member of the Pentagon's policy planning staff who dealt with Iran policy: "I feel like I'm In Paris, not Washington. I'm disappointed at the lack of leadership that let things get where they are, and which Is allowing these bureaucrats to spin out of control.&rdquo The role played by AIPAC has produced some soul-searching within the organized Jewish community. "Several Jewish activists, speaking on condition of anonymity, cautioned against what they described as a defiant reaction on the part of some communal leaders who raised the specter of anti-Semitic conspiraCy," the Sept. 10 Forward reported. "'If every single time we get Into trouble we cry anti-Semitism, no one Is going to believe us when we confront the real·problem of anti-Semitism,' a senior official of a Jewish organization said. Another organizational official said: 'It's ridiculous to react like that before you know what happened there. In the absence of accurate knowledge, any comment Is Just sllly.'&rdquo The fallout for AlPAC, wrote Doug Bloomfield In the Sept. 9 WashIngton Jewish Week, could be serious: "There have been persistent charges•••that AIPAC directs the network of pro-Israel political action committees (PACS); campaign finance bundlers and Individual contributors. AIPAC has successfully fought such accusations all the way to the Supreme Court to avoid being designated a PAC because of the Impact that would have on the way It operates and raises money. The current probe could renew calls from the organization's critics for new Investigations by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) and demands to know what has been uncovered by the FBI•••There will be questions about AIPAC's operations and Internal accountability. A penchant for hubris and Institutional mlndset of secrecy-reflected In Its hostile and contentious relationship with the media-add to the suspicion that there Is something to hlde•.,&rdquo Shortsighted Strategies The problems facing AIPAC come not only from Its enemies, argued the Sept. 3 Forward, but also are "partly a result of shortsighted strategic decisions by Israel's advocates. Faced With a shifting landscape, they have gambled on a risky strategy that may be blOWing up In their faces. For years, Israel's friends In this country have operated on the principle that Israel could not be held responsible for Its troubles. They have maintained that whatever Israel's mistakes, Palestinian hostility could not be blamed on Israel's policies. More recently, they've. broadened the principle to Insist that Arab and Muslim hostility to the U.S. cannot be blamed on its support for Israel. Both positions are becoming ,hard to maintain. GrOWing numbers of Israelis, up to and Including the military chief of staff, are openly acknowledging that Israeli actions can raise and lower the level of Palestinian rage and violence. As for the global terror war, the Idea that It Is related In part to America's reiatlonshlp to Israel Is now thoroughly mainstream. You can read It In the report of the 9/11 Commission•••As the urgency of discussion grows, resentment seems to mount against those who dedare the discussion illegitimate. It's a dangerous position to be In.&rdquo AIPAC's role has been controversial for many years. In 1995, Jonathan Mitchell, regional vice president for Southern California AIPAC, chastised a senior Israeli official for argUing that Congress and American Jews should not concern themselves with Palestinian behavior. Mitchell called Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister Vossl Beilin "absurd and arrogant" for comments he made In Jerusalem at a meeting With the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Beilin countered by accusing Mitchell of "trying to be more Israeli than the Israelis." Beilin was critical of those who urged an end to aid to the PlO, and said, "It Is not the business of JeWish organizations, not AIPAC's, not the American Jewish Congress' and not of any other country In the world except the State of Israel. The kind of people who are trying to be more Israeli than the Israelis themselves are causing damage to the pure national Interests of the State of Israel.&rdquo . In March 2003, about 5,000 AIPAC actiVists met In Washington and embarked upon a lobbying blitz against the Bush administration's "road map" for Middle East peace. AIPAC was not happy with speeches at Its meeting by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell dedaring that Israel must freeze settlement activity In the territories once the Palestinian Authority takes serious steps to curb terrorism. "Settlement activity Is simply Inconsistent with President Bush's two-state Vision," Powell said, draWing Jeers from some AIPAC members. Page 3 of5 http://Wrmea.printthis.clickability.conilptlcpt?action=epf&title=AIPAC+Comes+Under+Sci... 1/8/2005·- • AIPAC Comes Under Scrutiny as FBI Continues Israel Espionage Probe o 0 A number of Jewish leaders spoke In support of the Middle East peace plan and In criticism of AIP,,"C and other groups who'were opposing It;In-a letter toCongn!ss, these leaders said they wanted to "express our concern over recent efforts to sidetrack Implementation of the 'road map.' While the plan Is neither perfect nor a panacea, as 'passlonate supporters of Israel, we also know that the Jewish state needs this kind of energetic American dlplomacy.&rdquo Among those signing this statement were Edgar M. Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress, and current past presidents of the national United J~wlsh Appeal and Its successor the United Jewish Communities, Including Stanley Chesley, Lester Crown, Irwin Field, Alex Grass, Marvin Lender, Peggy Tishman and Larry Zucklln. Henry Siegman, once a leader In the American Jewish Congress and now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, charges that many ~merlcan Jewish organizations, such as AIPAC, have substituted blind support for Israel for the traditional Jewish search for truth and justice. "We have lost much In American Jewish organlzatlonalllfe,R Siegman says., "I was a student and admirer of Rabbi Abraham Heschel. I read his books. We were friends. We marched together In the South during the civil· rights movement. He h~lped me understand the prophetic passion for truth and justice as the keystone of Judaism. This Is not, however, an understanding that now animates the American Jewish communlty••.Amerlcan Jewish organizations confuse support for the State of Israel and Its people with uncritical endorsement of the actions of Israeli governments,even when these governments do things that In' an American context these Jewish organizations would never tolerate. It was Inconceivable that a Jewish leader In America 20 or 30 years ago would be silent If a political party In the Israeli government called for the transfer of Palestinians-In other words, ethnic cleansing. Today, there are at least three such parties, but there has never been a word of criticism from American Jewish organlzations.&rdquo The fact that many Jewish groups and leaders are rushing to AIPAC's defense before all of the facts are known Is hardly unexpected. These same groups have campaigned for manyyears on behalf of convicted spy. Jonathan Pollard, whose guilt Is well known-and was admitted. While AIPAC's guilt or Innocence In this particular case remains to be seen, the probe Is moving forward. A federal grand Jury is expected to begin Interviewing people In connection to the Investigation. What we do know Is that AIPAC has used Its considerable influence to shape U.S. foreign policy in a manner that appears to have been harmful to long-term U.S. Interests In the Middle East and harmful, as well, to prospects for'peace between Israel and the Palestlnlan~. Whether AIPAC Is guilty of espionage or not, It must bear responsibility for advancing a narrow agenda which may be pleasing to Israel's right wing, but which misrepresents the views of both the majority of Israelis and the majority of American Jews. American Jewish groups would be wise to walt until all the facts are in before rising to AIPAC's defense-something they seem reluctant to do. The evidence that AIPAC Is not worthy of such support Is Widespread-and growing. Allan C. Brownfeld is a syndicated columnist and assodate editor of the Uncoln Review, a journal published by the Uncoln Institute for Research and Education, and editor of Issues, the quarterly Journal of the American Council for Judaism. Find this article at: http://www.wnnea.comlarchiveslDecember_2004/0412022.html CJ Check the box to indude the list of links referenced in the article. Page 4 of5 ~ttp:l/wrme~~print!his.~lic~abili!y.com/ptJcpi?action=Cl?t&tit1e=AIPAC+Comes+Uilde1+Scr... 1/8/2005 ~: ALL INFOP.MATImr CONTAINED ~ ~ i:;\ EEPEIN IS mrCLASSIFIED 0 ~ DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw ~ Ilsg www.haarcrz.eom Last update. 16:062510312005 Pentagon analyst Franklin retur~s to work By Nathan Guttman, Haaretz Correspondent WASHINGTON - Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin was reinstated a few weeks ago, ~er sitting at home for half a year and being barred from returning to his job on the Iranian desk in the Department of Defense's policy division. Franklin was at the center ofa lengthy FBI investigation after suspicions arose that he transferred classified information about U.S. policy on Iran to members ofthe pro-Israel lobby AlPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee). In the seven months since the affair made headlines on the CBS evening news, the investigation has been kept under tight wraps, but its ramifications are already being felt. While Franklin is back at work, and, say well-placed sources, is expected to reach a plea bargain, the spotlight has moved to the AlPAC officials- two senior members were suspended for the duration ofthe case and four other senior officials were forced to testify at length before the special investigative jury in Virginia, whose proceedings are classified. Even if the investigation is nowhere near completion, it has definitely reached a crossroads, at which investigators must decide on the suspects in the case- Larry Franklin alone; Franklin and two AIPAC officials, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman; or whether, on top of those three, the entire AIPAC organization has acted unlawfully. AlPAC refused to say anything about the possibilitY ofa plea bargain. Sources close to the investigation suggested recently that it would end in a plea bargain. Franklin would plead to a lesser crime of unauthorized transfer of information, Rosen and Weissman would be charged with receiving classified information unlawfully, and AIPAC would remain unstained. Franklin's lawyer, Plato Cacheris, Thursday denied the reports, stating: "We have not entered any plea ofdefense with the Justice Department." ~)Il~~r< As for Franklin's reinstatement, a Pentagon spokesman, Maj. Paul \r -"'4~__ 65'Q,vJt=-~~15-,uL <Bt~' a~~~C . '-------~, -""" -0 Swiergrosz, confirmed that "Dr. Franklin is still a u.s. government employee," but declined to identify his position. Haaretz has learned that Franklin has been moved to a post different from the one he held previously and kept from handling classified information. From AlPAC's standpoint, the issue at hand is containment: can the affair be limited to Rosen and Weissman, or is the investigation directed at the lobby as a whole? It is clear that the FBI has as its objective an extensive investigation against AlPAC. Investigators have been looking into AlPAC's entire manner of operating, not just in the Franklin instance. An official questioned twice by the FBI,..as a witness, was astounded by itlvestigators' intimate familiarity with AIPAC. "They know everything there. They asked very precise questions regarding the organization's operations," he said. The intended breadth ofthe investigation is also evident from the FBI's dramatic moves - raiding AlPAC offices in December and issuing subpoenas to its four top executives. Executive Director Howard Kohr, Managing Director Richard Fishman, Research Director Rafael Danziger and Communications Director Renee Rothstein appeared before the investigative jury and were questioned at length. Investigators also reportedly tried to use Franklin, after th_e affair 'erupted, to incriminate as many senior AlPAC officials as possible. The Jerusalem Post reported four months ago.that investigators informed Franklin ofthe suspicions against him and asked for his cooperation. In a sting operation, he received information from the FBI agents that Iran was planning to attack Israelis operating in the Kurdish region in Iraq. Franklin, at the FBI's instructions, telephoned AIPAC's Rosen and Weissman and gave them the information, and they rushed to pass it on to Israeli diplomats, thereby falling into the FBI trap, AIPAC refuses to comment on the case, saying, "We do not comment on personnel matters!' A spokesman for AlPAC, Patrick Dorton, said Thursday that "it would not be appropriate for AlPAC to comment on issues that have to do with an ongoing federal investigation." The suspension ofthe two AlPAC officials, though never officially explained, is certainly a key turning point in the case. According to one assessment, AIPAC understands that regardless ofwhether a plea bargain is reached, it will be tough to get those two offthe hook, so AlPAC is keeping its distance for now. Their lawyer, Nathan Lewin, refused requests from Haaretz·for a comment. -. --- ,- ~ ~, 0 <:) ~ .., Asource close to the case said.that since the investigation began, AIPAC's ability to maintain good ties with U.S. administration officials has suffered. While Congress was quick to express support for AlPAC, its activists began having trouble getting appointments. "Obviously, after a case like this blows up, no one's in a hurry to return your calls," said the source. lhasen/objects/pagesJPrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=556863 close window ,.. . :-.. I '1 - ~, .... "' ALL INFORMATION CONTAI~mD ~ HERE IN IS UNCLASSIFIED L"'\. \J DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc bawls~Bg FOlllWAJU) [fOUNDEDJ:N,j8~J7:. PUBLISHED:WEEICL'!Ja: NEW::iORK) News U.S. Aide Arrested Amid Signs That Lobby Probe W~dens By'ORI NIR Maya, 2005 W.AsHINGTON - Arecent FBI interrogation of an Israeli defense expert mayindicate that the Justice Department's investigation into the contacts between America's pro-Israel lobby and a. Pentagon analyst is broader in scope than previously believed. The expert, Uzi Arad, head of the Institute for Policy and Strategy at Israel's Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, said that two months ago FBI agents interviewed him about his contacts with the Pentagon Iran specialist, Lariy Franklin. During the hour-long interview, he said, tile FBI agents brought up the name of an American Jewish Committee official, Eran Lerman; who is a former senior official in Israeli military intelligence. Franklin was arrested and charged Wednesday with "disclosing classified information related to potential attacks upon U.S. forces in Iraq to individuals not entitled to receive the information." The Justice Department did not name the individuals who allegedly received $e.c~ssified information from Franklin, but media reports claim they are Steven Rosen and~Keith Weissman, two former officials at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee wh9;were recently dismissed by the pro-Israel1obbying organization. Arad's comments, an unusual disclosure ofa small wrinkle in the otherwise ultrasecretive FBI investigation, maysuggest that the FBI is investigating more than the alleged unlawful contac~ between Franklin and Aipac officials. Franklin is the first person to be indicted in the FBI investigation. Rosen and Weissman have not been charged. lnitialJy,·press reports said that Rosen and Weissman's alleged transfer ofsecret informationby Israeli diplomats was the focus of the investigation. The questioning ofArad may confirm speculation by some in the Jewishcommtmity that the investigation is related to a larger inquiry into Israeli or pro-Israeli attempts to influence America's security eStabUslunent and its policy in the.Middle East. Arad said the FBI agents asked him, among other things, wpy he had sent tq Franklin, less than a year ago, a research paper by Lerman on ways'to re~eIiergize America's relationship with Israel. ''They asked me who was Bran Lerman, althopgh they clearlyknewwho he was," Arad told the Forward in a telephone interview. Arad was a policy adviser to former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and once headed the research department of Israel's Mossad intelligence service. ,- ~ , ~4~ ~ Lerman joined th~ staffqf the AJGo~ttee in ~OOl. Kenneth Ban91er, a spokesman for the '5\l0\ (n j AJCommitte..e, sa.i.d.he had no-c-o.m..m..en-t on.th,e FBI's q.uestioiling-- reg'ar.din'g .LeIman. ~l ,: ~SIi.;\Jlr..~"315-11C.- ~ -I G}\L~ i .... fi :rad said that his strategicpQ,institute had commissioned Ler~ to write the paper. He said that he did not reIl)em~er sending the article to Franklin but that the.FBI investigators showed him a letter that accompanied the article, carrying his signattir~.' 4rad. said he explained to the investigators thatthis was a nie'chanized'signatiire on an information package sent en masse to a mailing list of s~veral hundred former participants in the Interdisciplinary Center's annual strategic-affairs conference, commonly known as the Herzliya Conference. Franklin attended the December 2003 Herzliya Conference, though he did not deliver an address. In his paper, Lerman wrote that the once-dynamic U.S.-Israel strategic relationship had fallen into a "maintenance mode" in recent years and ought to be re-enermzedfor the benefit ofboth countries. At the December 2004',Herzliya Conference, L~an~delivered.an address based on his research paper. Arad said the FBI agents asked him about his conversations with Franklin at the conference and several months later at a meeting between the two in the Pentagon cafeteria. H~ 'also said that both conversations were briefand that he could hardly remember their content. The FBI interview was also brief, as well, he noted. It was arranged in haste, as Arad was rushing to catch a plane from NewYork to Israel, and took place in a car while he on his way to the airport. This week, Franklin h~ded himself in, and was scheduled to make an initial appearance at a Northern Virginia courtbypress time.. In a statement, the Department ofJustice said that Franklin, S8, surrendered to authorities at the FBI's Washington Field Office following the filing Qf a criminal complaint Tuesday and the unsealing Wednesday of the indictment against him. The statement notes that the violation Franklin is charged with carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. Recently Franklin was transferred from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, where he served as an Iran desk officer, to a less sensitive position in the Pentagon. The criminal complaint filed in the U.s. District Court for the Eastern'District ofVirginia, alleges that on June 26, 2003, Franklin had lunch at a restaurant in Arlington, Va., with two individuals, identified as "U.S. Person 1" and "U.s. Person 2." At the lunch, according to the Justice Department, Franklin disclosed classified information that has been designated "Top Secret" and related to potential attacks upon American forces in Iraq. The government claims that neither ofFranklin's lunch companions has the security clearance to receive the information. Allegedly Franklin told the two individuals that the information was "highly classified" and asked them not to "use" it, according to the Justice Department statelllent. This portion of the Justice Department statement implies that Franklin's lunch companions - alleged in press reports to have been Rosen and Weissman - knew that they were ha~dling information from a highly sensitive document. According to press reports, the FBI ~~ ~v~stigatin~ cl~s that after the ll:Jllch the two former Aipac officials transferred the o -- - - - ------:---- f , • "s~cretinformation to an IsraQdiPlomat in Washington. The Justice Department statement says that a search 6f Franklin's Pentagon office in-June 2004 found the June 2003 classified document containing the information that Franklin allegedly disclosed to the two individuals. The criminal co~plaint against Franklin also alleges that on other occasions he disclosed, without authorization, classified American government infonnation to a foreign official and to members of the news media. In addition, according to the Justice Department statement, about 83 separate classifiedAmerican government documents were found during a search of Franklin's West Virginia home in June 2004, most ofthem classified as top secret or secret. The dates of these documents spanned three decades. The investigation into this matter is continping, the Justice Department stated. The charges against Franklin disclose several other new details: . • According to an FBI affidavit that accompanies the charges, Franklin admitted during an FBI interrogation in June 2004 that he provided the information contained in the secret document to the two individuals. • The information that Franklin is charged with disclosing is related not to Iran - contrary to previous reports - but. to "potential attacks upon U.S. forces in Iraq."The government's main concern, according to the FBI affidavit, is that such information could be used to harm the-United States by "a country's discovery of our intelligence sources and methods." • Contrary to previous media reports, charges against Franklin do not allege the transfer of a secret document. Instead it is charged that he "verbally disclosed" information that "was contained" inatop-secret document. The distinction is important, legal experts say, because verbally transferring such information is a less serious offense. • The documentin question, according to the affidavit, was marked "on the first and last pages with a caption in all capital letters,II which identified it as "TOP SECRET with a denomination of its SCI [Sensitive Compartment Information] status" - the highest security classification. . )j0ml .I Qm1ig I Subscrlb, I About Tht fQrward Copyright 2005 ©The Forward I. ••• . . • •• WASHINGTON .d§ Print This Story ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/lsg ~ 1111 II .lIt - - - -- ---....-...- Matthew E. Berger Lawrence Franklin. left. a Pentagon analyst charged by the FBI with leaking classified information to AIPAC officials. leaves a courthouse on ~ay 4 with his attorney. John Richards. BEHIND THE HEADLINES Criminal charges in AIPAC case leveled against Pentagon analyst By Ron Kampeas and Matthew E. Berger ALEXANDRIA, Va., May 4 (JTA) - Criminal charges against a Pentagon analyst, for allegedly leaking classified Iraq war information to two top officials at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, raise new questions about whom the FBI is targeting and whether the pro-Israel powerhouse will be harmed as the case unfolds. Lawrence Franklin, who turned himself in for arrest Wednesday, was accused in an FBI criminal complaint of disclosing classified information "related to potential attacks on United States forces in Iraq" to two U.S. civilians over lunch in an Arlington, Va., restaurant on June 26, 2003. Franklin's two interlocutors, identified In the document only as "U.S. Person 1 and U.S. Person 2," are Steve Rosen, AIPAC's policydirector, and Keith Weissman, its senior Iran analyst, JTA has established. AIPAC fired the two last month in an apparent bid to distance itself from the case. Read as a whole, the criminal complaint contained some good news for AIPAC'J It suggests that beyond the allegations against Rosen and Weissman, AIPAC as an organization had no involvement in leaking any information. "AlPAC has been advised by the government that it is not a target of the investigation,," a source close to the organization told JTA. On the other hand, the headlines could hinder A1PAC's efforts to project a "back-to-business" face to grass-roots supporters ~nd Washington powerbrokers weeks before its annual policy conference, and at a time when it is trying to build support for Israel ahead of Israel's planned withdrawal this summer from the Gaza Strip. The policy conference is AIPAC's annual show of strength, culminating in a ~t()16~ ro 5~"'-UlF-~~lS"-.tJL I>,k.ej!1~ . -«n'.\.. 1 o o dinner expected to. be .att~nded by some 5,000 people at which~AlPAC leaders shout out the names of dozens of congressmen and'Cabinet officials present..;.. nearly 200 last year. If a significantly lower number show up this year, it could be embarrassing. Franklin, an Iran analyst who lives in Kearneysville, W. Va., was released on a $100,000 bond after appearing at U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va. A preliminary hearing was set for May 27. "He intends to plead not guilty" and expects to be vindicated at trial, said his attorney, John Thorpe Richards. The criminal charge sheet was the first official accounting of a case that first made headlines last August, when FBI agents raided AIPAC's Washington headquarters and confiscated.files.belonging"'to Rosen and Weissman. "The information Franklin disclosed relating to potential attacks upon U.S" forces in Iraq could be used to the injury of the United States or to ,the advantage of a foreign country," special agent Catherine Hanna said in drafting the complaint. The'damage, she said, could arise from "jeopardizing the viability of the sources and methods." The information was from a document classified as "top secret," Hanna said. While the June 2003 lunch appears to be the linchpin of th~ criminal charges, there are other allegations, including that Franklin leaked classified information to journalists and to an unidentified "foreign official," and that he kept three decades' worth of classified information on his computer hard disk at home. Reports have suggested that Franklin also met with an Israeli Embassy official. The reference to a "foreign official" might point in that direction. However, the FBI has not gotten in touch with the Israeli Embassy, representatives say, and Israeli officials continue to maintain that they would never participate in illicit information gathering in the United States. IIlsrael does not carry out any operation in the United States that would be liable,. God forbid; to harm its closest ally," Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom told Israel Television. "Therefore all the brouhaha around this matter has nothing to do with the State of Israel." The United States, he added, "is a nation with which we conduct very intimate ties, with exchanges of the most classified kinds of information. So anyone who thinks we were involved - this is completely bogus." The complaint suggests answers to two major questions that have surrounded the investigation: Who is the target? And to what degree is AIPAC in danger? The question of a target arose after last.year's.raids,.when it emerged that agents had watched Rosen, Weissman and Franklin chatting over a meal at Tivoli in June 2003. Was the FBI agent in the restaurant following Franklin, or Rosen and Weissman? The arrest Wednesday lends support to the theory that Franklin had been the target of an investigation that reportedly was at least a year old at thatlunch meeting. Franklin's enthusiasm for a tough line against Iran had drawn the attention of colleag~~s in t!l~ Pentag.on. ~ •.:. ~-r '1 - .~ JTA previously has reported thatFranQhad"been under sClUtiny since he 0 allegedly met i~ December 2001 with former Iranian spy and arm~ merchant Manucher Ghorbanifar, who was on a CIA "burn lisr of people who could not be contacted, according to intelligence community sources. AlPAC could take heart from the fact that the criminal complaint did not mention the organization, or even suggest any organizational affiliation for the two "U.S. Persons" Franklin met with. ' Still, the complaint raised at least as many questions as it answered: '. • What now for Rosen·and Weissman? Leaking classified information has much clearer legal ramifications than receiving it, since reporters in Wa~hington routinely receive and relay classified information to their readers•. The complaint makes clear that the exchange in the restaurant was "verbal." It's unclear what, if any, charges could be brought against Rosen and Weissman for simply listening to Franklin unload. - On the other hand, the FBI had a clear interest in Rosen and Weissman, evidenced by the August raid at AIPAC headquarters and another one in December, and by the appearance earlier this year oftop AIPAC staffers before a federal grand jury. It was information arising out of the grand jury encounters that led AIPAC to fir~ the two men, AIPAC has said.. Rosen's lawyer said in a statement that no documents were exchanged, which dovetails with the FBI's claim that the exchange was verbal. "Steve Rosen never solicited, received or passed on any classified documents from Larry Franklin, and Mr. Franklin will never be able to say otherwise," Rosen's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said in a statement. • U.S. Attorney Paul McNulty convened a grand jury in the case; why didn't he bring an indictment instead of a criminal complaint, which carries less weight? One answer could be that the FBI and Justice Department have been burned by reporting that depicts the case as a politically motivated jeremiad against Jewish lobbyists and/or neoconservatives such as Franklin. Indictments often are sealed. but a criminal complaint allows the FBI to explain at length why it feels charges are justified. • Finally, what did Rosen and Weissman learn at the Tivoli lunch? Until now, sources close to the two have suggested that the information related to White House policy on Iran - which, after all, was the specialty of both Franklin and Weissman - and that it had a relatively low secrecy classification. Hanna. the FBI special agent, alleges that the information was top secret, and related to dangers posed to U.S. troops in Iraq. A former FBI official said the complaint suggests a larger investigation, butgives few clues about where the probe starts and ends. "My best estimate is this was part of an already existing investigation, and from their perspective, they got lucky," the former official said. "They were either following Franklin or they were following these two guys," he said, referring to Rosen and Weissman. mPrint This Story Back to top A i"'!\t INFORHATION CONTAINED 0 ~IN IS UNCLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/1s:g Pentagon Analyst In Israel Spy Case Is Call'ed a 'Patriot' BY ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter ofthe Sun May 27, 2005 URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/14523 WASHINGTON - APentagon analyst charged with mishandling classified information at first cooperated·with an FBI probe oftwo lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee when he allowed the bureau to surveil a meeting with Aipac lobbyist Keith Weissman in July 2004. Plato Cacheris, the lawyer for the Pentagon Iran analyst Lawrence Franklin, ~old The New York Sun yesterday that the FBI persuaded his clie~t to set up a meeting with Mr. Weissman on July 9, 2004, before being threatened with jail time. "They appealed to his sense ofpatriotism, and he cooperated,II Mr. Cacheris said 1n an interview. The charges against the two lobbyists, Mr. Weissman and Steven Rosen, will hang on their July 9, 2004, meeting with Mr. Franklin when he allegedly shared information verbally with Mr. Weissman - while under FBI surveillance - that American soldiers and Israeli agents in northern Iraq were under threat from Iranian Revolutionary Guard units. Mr. Rosen, after receiving the information from his colleague, Mr. Weissman, then allegedly shared it with the Israeli Embassy and the Washington Post. Sources familiar with the FBI's case said that the Justice Department is prepared to charge that Mr. Rosen passed the classified information on to the embassy and the newspaper. Until August 2004, Mr..Franklin was unaware that the FBI was prepared to chargehim with a crime, Mr. Cacheris said. It was after he voluntarily told the bureau that he had kept 83 classified documents at his home in West Virginia and had agreed to convey the intelligence to Mr. Weissman that the FBI said that it would press charges and arranged for a court-appointed attorney for Mr. Franklin. Originally, the bureau, according to Mr. Cacheris, asked Mr. Franklin to plead guilty to espionage, specifically under section 794 ofthe U.S. Code forcriines of IIgathering or delivering defense information to aid a foreign government.,', Notorious Soviet spy Aldridge Ames was charge4 under this section ofthe U.S. Code, which carries a maximum penalty ofexecution or life in prison. Mr. Franklin sought Mr. Cacheris out, the lawyer said, after he was asked to admit that he was a spy. Mr.. Cacheris, who represented Mr. Ames as well as Monica Lewinsky, agreed to take the case free ofcharge. "I feel the government is overreaching in this case. I think he's a patriot and a loyal American who intends no harm to this country," Mr. Cacheris said. ;-l-\~ Following Mr. Cacheris's agreement to defend Mr. Franklin, the bureau offered a deal whereby Mr. Franklin would plead guilty to the lesser charge ofmishandling classified material, or section 793 oftlie U.S. Code. The lesser charge carries a maximum penalty ~ ~~ G~-\»f-- adl?~\5~~~ <t>\L~ - o o " of 10 years in prison. Mr. Cacheris said he refused the deal and that he intends to take the' case to trial. Despite turning down the offer and ceasing to cooperate with the FBI, Mr. Franklin was charged with ~nly mishandling, not espionage, on Tuesday. Mr. Cacheris likened Mr. Franklin's conduct to that ofa fonner national security adviser, Samuel Berger, who was recently charged with a misdemeanor for stealing documents from t:Qe National Archives in his socks, and a former CIA director" John Deutsch, who had taken classified material'to his home. In both these cases, Messrs. Berger and Deutsch were charged with misdemeanors. "We don't think Mr. Franklin's conduct was any more egregious," Mr. Cacheris said. Mr. Cacheris told the Sun yesterday that he believed the FBI did not originally intend to investigate Mr. Franklin. "We believe there was a pre-existing investigation that Larry Franklin is not involved in," he said yesterday. While Mr. Cacheris refused to discuss the details ofthe meetings, other sources familiar with the case told the Sun that Mr. Franklin first approached Messrs. Rosen and Weissman in February or March 2003 for a meeting at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Pentagon City, Va., with the intention ofpassing on threat information regarding Iran's plans for American soldiers in Iraq. According to one source familiar with the case, Mr. Franklin was told by an aide to an undersecr~tary ofdefense, Douglas Feith, that the two Aipac lobbyists could get the threat information to the National Security Council. Mr. Rosen, in particular, has a reputation for high-level contacts with policy-makers in the executive branch. According to sources familiar with the case, the three men at this 2003 meeting discussed passing the threat information to National Security Council official Elliott Abrams. By March 2003, the Bush administration had decided to work with Iranian-sponsored opposition groups to build an interim government in Baghdad. Indeed, the recently elected prime minister, Ibrahim Jafari, was initially a leader of an Iranian-supported party, Dawa, and was included in the first Iraqi Governing Council. At the same'time, American envoys were holding intensive negotiations about Iraq with the Iranians under the auspices ofa U.N. multicountry group designed to coordinate Afghanistan policy. These developments, according to Mr. Franklin's former colleagues and other government officials, worried the Pentagon ~alyst, who, in tum, attempted to reverse what he saw as a disastrous policy decision. Mr. Franklin had, in his work on Iran at the Pentagon in late 2001, identified what one source described as "Iranian hunter-killer teams" in Afghanistan that were threatening American Special Forces. By the spring of 2003, he believed American forces in ~raq would be under a similar threat from units of Iran's Revolutionary Guard and that this information had to get to the White House. On June 26, 2003, Mr. Franklin held a second lunch with Messrs. Weissman and Rosen and discussed, among other things, developments in the formation ofan Iran policy paper and new threats he had learned about in Iraq. In that meeting, Mr. Cacheris said he provided the two lobbyists with a list ofevents and names ofIranian officials that he had compiled personally elaborating the threat to American soldiers. IINo classified o documents were passed," Mr. Cacheris said. '~A lis~ ofevents and names on Iran arid Iraq was'passed in the June 2003 meeting." Mr. Cacheris emphasized that this list was neither a classified nor official document. Mr. Franklin would not meet with Mr. Weissman again for more than a year, when he would meet him in northern Virginia under :fBI surveillance on July 9. A grand jury convening in Alexandria, Va., is expec~ed to relea~e a formal indictment ofMr. Franklin today. · - ... Message ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED O HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED A DATE 07-29-2010' BY 60324 uc ba~Jlsg Page 1 of3 • ~~ KRAMARSIC, BRETT M. (WF) (FBI) From: PORATH, ROBERT J.(WF) (FBI) Sent: Friday, June 03,20057:59 AM To: FORTIN,'BRIAN G. (WF) (FBI); DOUGLAS, STEPHANIE (WF) (FBI); KRAMARSIC, BRETT M. (WF) (FBI); HANNA, CATHERINE M. (WF) (FBI); MCDERMOTT. WILLIAM R.(WF) (FBI); BRIDGES, TRACEY J. (WF) (FBI); ODONNELL, THOMAS J. (WF) (FBI); ANDERSON, JESSICA T. (WF) (FBI); PAULLING. SCOlT M. (WF) (FBI); LOEFFERT, JANICE S. (WF) (FBI); MARKLEY, JAMES S. (WF) (FBI); LURIE, ERIC S. (WF) (FBI); FALLER. LARISSA (WF) (FBI); THOMAS, KIMBERLY J. (WF) (FBI); JOHANSEN, MARK D. (CD) (FBI); WRIGHT, SUSAN C. (CD) (FBI); BUTlER, MJ. (CD) (FBI); STRZOK, PETER P. (CD) (FBI); MOFFA, JONATHAN C. (CD) (FBI); GAY. SUSAN (WF) (FBI) Subject: article .uNCLASSIEIEQ NON.RECORQ FBI Tapped Talks About Possible Secrets Case Against Ex-AIPAC Officials Could Focus On Several Contacts With Defense Analyst The Washington Post By Jerry Markon June 3, 2005 ARLINGTON, VA --In July 2004, a Defense Department analyst and a senior official from an influential pro-Israel lobbying group met at the Pentagon City mall in Arlington. Amid the stores and shoppers, the-analyst warned that Irjlnian agents were planning attacks against American soldiers and Israeli agents in Iraq, sources familiar with the meeting said. Alarmed, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee official, Keith Weissman, left the mall and went to the office of colleague Steve Rosen. The-two men then relayed the information to the Israeli Embassy in Washington and a reporter for The Washington Post. What the AIPAC officials did not know, the sources said, was that the fBJ was listening in -- to both the meeting and their subsequent phone calls •• and that the Pentagon analyst, Lawrence Franklin, was cooperating in an investigation of whether classified U.S. information was being passed on to the government of Israel. That meeting and those phone calls are a focus of a criminal case <tLL ( I ,..- prosecutors arl;l building against Rosen and Weissman, Who recently left their'fl\z..~ 6/3/2005 f;5R-u)r-~G3tS--,JC- ~'L ~~ . -45/t Message Q d Page 2 of3 jobs at AIPAC, according to multiple sources familiar with th~ -investigation. Franklin has already been charged, and a looming court battle will probably turn on whether he and others were illegally passing government secrets or were merely conduits of the type of policy-related information that is frequently bandied about in official Washington. The meeting at the mall is Ilot mentioned in the publicly filed charges, and new details are emerging about a series of fBI-monitored meetings between Franklin and the former AIPAC officials dating back to early 2003. But many questions remain unanswered, such as whether the information Franklin allegedly passed along at those sessions was classified, and if it was, whether Rosen and Weissman knew it was classified, and whether any damage was done to U.S. national security. Rosen and Weissman have been notified that prosecutors are preparing to charge them with disclosing classified information, sources familiar with the investigation said. Federal prosecutors and the FBI would not comment, nor would John Nassikas, an attorney for Weissman. An attorney for Rosen, Abbe D. Lowell, said that "when all the facts come out, the government will have more to explain about its conduct than Steve Rosen will about his." Earlier, he said that Rosen "never solicited, received or passed on any classified documents" from Franklin. A spokesman for the Israeli Embassy did not return phone calls. A Post spokesman confirmed that the report~r, Glenn Kessler, recently declined a Justice Degartme~~requestto be interviewed. Kessler would not comment yesterday. Franklin's attorney, Plato Cacheris, confirmed that Franklin briefly cooperated with investigators in the summer of 2004, during the time of the meeting at the mall. Cacheris said'that Franklin, whom he described as a "loyal and patriotic American citizen," is no longer cooperating and plans to go to trial. Last month, Franklin was charged in a criminal complaint in U.S. District Cou·rt in Alexandria with disclosing classified information related to potential attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. Court documents did not reveal who received the information, but federal law enforcement sources have said that Franklin disclosed it to Rosen and Weissman at an Arlington restaurant in June 2003. The sources also said the attacks would have been carri~d out by Iran. At the time, the U.S. government was concerned about Iranian activities in Iraq after the U.S.-led invasion that year. Federal prosecutors in Alexandria have notified Franklin that he would be indicted bya grand jury, and Franklin has been told to appear in federal court June 13. Sources familiar with the case said the court appearance relates to a sealed indictment. Franklin was also charged again last week in federal court in West Virginia with possessing 83 classified documents dating back three decades. They were found at his West Virginia home. 6/3/2005 Message Q Page 3 of3 The contacts between-Franklin, an Iran specialist, alJd form~~ AlpAC policy director Rosen and senior analyst Weissman extend back before the June 2003 lunch. In February 2003, the three met at the Ritz-Carlton Pentagon City hotel in Arlington in a session th~t they only learned later was under F~I surveillance, sources said. It is unclear whether agents were following Frankl'n or the AIPAC officials. After the 2004 meeting, sources said that Rosen and Weissman called Kessler and relayed what Franklin had told Weissman about possible Iranian attacks against Americans and Israelis in Iraq. Law enforcement sources said that Ke~sler, who did not write an article based on the phone·conversation, is not a target of the investigation. UNCLASSIFIED 6/3/2005 ~fwaship.gtonP9st.com: u.s. Ey~ressing Uprising In Iran q' \J o Page 1 of3 washingtQDJ;lost.~ U.S. Eyes Pressing Uprising In Iran Officials Cite Al Qaeda Links, Nuclear Program By Glenn Kessler Washington Post StaffWriter SundaYt May 25t 2003; Page AOI AdvertiMment ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS TIHCLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/lsg The Bush admini~tration, alanned by intelligence suggesting that al Qaeda operatives in Iran had a role in the May 12 suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia, has suspended once-promising contacts with Iran and appears ready to embrace an aggressive policy oftrying to destabilize the Iranian government, administration officials said. Senior Bush administration officials will meet Tuesday at the White House to discuss the evolving strategy toward the Islamic republic, with Pentagon officials pressing hard for public and private actions th~t they believe could lead to the toppling ofthe government through a popular uprising, officials said. The State Department, which had encouraged some form ofengagement with the Iranians, appears inclined to accept ~uch a policy, especially if Iran does not take any visible steps to deal with the suspected al Qaeda operatives before Tuesday, officials said. But State Department officials are concerned that the level ofpopular discontent there is much lower than Pentagon officials believe, leading to the possibility that U.S. efforts could ultimately discredit reformers in Iran. In any case, the Saudi Arabia bombings have ended the tentative signs ofengagement between Iran and . the United States that had emerged during the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. u.S. and Iranian officials had met periodically to discuss issues of mutual concern, including searchand- r~scue missions and the tracking down ofal Qaeda.operatives. But, after the suicide bombings at three residential compounds in Riyadh, the Bush administration canceled the next planned meeting. "We're headed down the same path ofthe last 20 years," one State Department official said. "An inflexible, unimaginative policy ofjust say no.II u.S. officials have also been deeply concerned about Iran's nuclear weapons program, which has the support ofboth elected reforiners and conservative clerics. The Bush administration has pressed the International Atomic E~ergy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, to issue a critical report next month on Iran's nuclear activities. Officials have sought to convince Russia and,China -- two major suppliers of Iran's nuclear power program -- that Iran is detennined to possess nuclear weapons, a campaign that one U.S. official said is winning support. But a major factor in the new stance toward Iran consists ofwhat have been called "very troubling intercepts" before and after the Riyadh attacks, which killed 34 people, including nine suicide bombers. The intercepts suggested that al Qaeda operatives in Iran were involved in the planning ofthe bombings. Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld accused Iran ofharboring al Qaeda members. "There's no question but that there have been and are today senior al Qaeda leaders in Iran, and they are bUSY," Rumsfeld said. Iranian officials;however, have vehemently denied that they have granted al Qaeda leaders safe haven in the country. Until the Saudi bombings, some officials said, Iran had been relatively cooperative on al Qaeda. Sinc~;~ \S-IJ C- (O~-\JIr-~ l 'lo . ~~ -' http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dynlA35772-2003May24?language=printer 6/7/2005 {f> ~~washipgtonp?st.com: U.S. Ey~ressing Uprising In Iran JI U Page 2 of3 the Sept. 11,2001, attacks, Iran~has turned over al Qaeda officials to Saudi Arabia and Afgha~stan. ~n talks, U.S. officials had repeatedly warned Iranian officials thatifariy al Qaeda operatives in Iran are implicated in attacks against Americans, it would have serious consequences for relations between the two countries. Those talks, however, were held with representatives ofIran's foreign ministry~ Other parts ofthe Iranian government are contr911ed not by elected reformers, but by conservative mullahs. A senior administration official who is skeptical"of the Pentagon's arguments said most ofthe al Qaeda members -- fewer than a dozen -- appear to be located in an isolated area ofnortheastern Iran, near the .border with Afghanistan. He described the area as a drug-smuggling terrorist haven that is tolerated by key members ofthe Revolutionary Guards in part because they skiqt money offsome ofthe activities there. It is not clear how much control the central Iranian government has over this area, he said. "I don't think the elected government knows much about it;" he said. "Why should you punish the rest of Iran," he asked, just because the government cannot act if! this area? Flynt Leverett, who recently left the White House to join the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy, said the administration may be taking a gamble. "It is imprudent to assume that the Islamic Republic will collapse like a house of cards in a time frame that is going to be meaningful to us," he said. "What it means is we will end up with an Iran that has nuclear weapons and no dialogue with the United States with regard to our terrorist concerns." Ever since President Bush labeled Iran last year as part ofan "axis ofevil" -- along with North Korea and Iraq ~- the administration has struggled to define its. policy toward the lslamic republic, which terminated relations with the United States after Iran's i 979 revolution. The administration never formally adopted a policy of"regime change," but it also never seriously tried to establish a dialogue. In July, Bush signaled a harder line when he issued a strongly worded presi~ential statement in which he praised large pro-democracy street demonstrations in Iran. Administration officials said at the time that they had abandoned any hope ofworking with President Mohamm.ad Khatami and his reformistallies in the Iranian government, and would tum their attention toward democracy supporters among the Iranian people. But the prospect ofwar with Iraq reopened some discreet contacts~ which took place under U.N. supervision in Europe. The contacts encouraged some in the State Department to believe that there was an opening for greater cooperation. In an interview in February with the Los Angeles Times, Deputy Secretary ofState Richard L. Armitage drew a distinction between the confrontational approach the administration had taken with Iraq and North Korea and the approach it had adopted with Iran. "The axis ofevil was a valid comment, [but] I would note there's one dramatic difference between Iran and the other two axes of'evil, and that would be its dem09racy. [And] you approach a democracy differently," Armitage said. At one ofthe meetings, in early January, the United States signaled that it would target the Iraq-based camps ofthe Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK), or People's Mujaheddin, a major group opposing the Iranian government. - The MEK soon became caught up in the policy struggle between the State Department and the Pentagon. http://www._washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dynlA35772-2003May24?language=printer 6/7/2005 •.ili"i\Vashitjgtonpllst.com: u·s· Eye<:5eSSing Uprising In Iran o Page 3 of3 After the camps were bombed, the U.S. military arranged a cease-.fire with the -group, infuriating the Iranians. Some'Pentagon officials, impressed by the military discipline and equipment ofthe thousands ofMEK troops, began to envision them as a potential military force for use against Tehran, much like the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. But the MBK is also listed as a terrorist organization by the State Department. Under pressure from State, the White House earlier this month ordered the Pentagon to disarm the MEK troops -- a decision that was secretly conveyed by U.S. officials to Iranian representatives at a meeting in Geneva on May 3. Nine days later, the suicide bombers strock in Saudi Arabia. © 2003 .The Washington Post Company Advertising Links What's this? LendingTree.com - Official Site . Lendingtree - Find a mortgage. refinance, home equity 9r auto loan now. Receive up to four loan offers within minutes. When banks compete, you win. www.lendingtree.com Refinanco Rates Hit Record Lows Get $150.000 loan for $720 per month. Refinance while rates are low. www.rowermybills.com RealEstate.com - Official Site Find a real estate agent. search online listings. request financing options and more at our full·service real estate resource. Buying or se.lling a home? It's all here. W\WI.realestate.com http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35772-2003May24?language=printer 6/7/2005 ALL INFORlIATION CONTAINED ~REIN IS lrMCLASSIFIED ~ \:;.lATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/s~ Page 1 of2 Document 1 of 1 Copyright 2003 Saint Paul Pioneer Press All Rights Reserved Saint Paul Pioneer Press (Minnesota) Ma,Y 231, 2003 Friday SECTION: MAIN; Pg. SA LENGTH: 778 words Pdnt)yindqw I pqse Window HEADLINE: Bush advisers weigh undermining Iran regime BYLINE: BY WARREN P. STROBEL; Washington Bureau BODY: WASHINGTON .... Prompted by evidence that Iran Is harboring top al-Qalda operatives linked to last week's suicide bombings In Saudi Arabia and fears that Tehran may be closer to bUilding a nuclear weapon than previously believed, the Bush administration has begun debating whether to try to destabilize the Islamic republic, U.S. officials said Thursday. Officials In Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's office are using both Issues to press their view that the United States should adopt overt and covert measures to undermine the regime, said the officials, who are Involved In the debate. Other officials argue that such a campaign would backfire by discrediting the moderate Iranians who are demanding political. reforms. Although one senior official engaged In the debate said "the military option Is never off the table," others said no one was suggesting an Invasion of Iran. However, some officials say the United States should launch a limited alrstrlke on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities If Iran appears on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon. By. some estimates, Iran could have a nuclear weapon within two years. ' Some Pentagon officials suggested using the remnants of an Iranian opposition group once backed by Saddam Hussein, the Mujahedeen el..Khalq (MEK), to Instigate armed opposition to the Iranian government. U.S. military forces In Iraq have disarmed the roughly 6,OOO-strong' MEK, which Is on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist groups. But the group's weapons are In storage, and It hasn't disbanded. However, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and other top officials rejected the Idea, saying that while some might consider the MEK freedom fighters, "a terrorist Is a terrorist is a terrorist," according to officials Involved In the debate. Bush has designated Iran a member otan "axls of evil," along with Iraq and North Korea. But until now, he's pursued a middle course with Iran, approving talks on Issues of common concern such as Afghanistan, while not trying to-re-establlsh diplomatic ties. A formal statement of U.S. policy toward Iran, called a National Security Presidential Directive, has been on hold about a year because of Internal administration debates and the war In Iraq, American officials said. The document Is being resurrected, they said. Bush's senior foreign-polley advisers were to have met at the White House on Thursday to discuss Iran policy, said a knowledgeable administration offiCial, but the meeting was postponed until next week to give Iran several more days to meet U.S. demands that it turn over the suspected al-Qalda terrorists.· If It doesn't, Washington Is likely to react with harsher measures, the official said. The United States has suspended a series of meetings between U.S. and Iranian diplomats In Geneva at which the two countries .... which have no formal diplomatic relations .... have been discussing terrorism, Afghanistan and Iraq. https://w3.Iexis.com/lawenfsolutions_secured/print/doprint:asp?SearchInfoID=42077432-46... 6/7/2005 o Page 2of2 'rhe suspension followed Intelligence data, Including intercepted telephone calls, Indlcatlr)g that an al-Qalda cell based In Iran helped organize the bombings In Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which were apparently part of a larger alQalda plot that was partially foiled by saud,l authorities. The bombings killed 34 people. The cell of 10 or so al-Qalda members Is run by top al-Qalda operative salf al Adel, who Is third on the U.S. government's list of most-wanted al-Qalda'ieaders, following Osama bin Laden,and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri. "There's no question but that there have been and are today senior al Qalda I~aders In Iran, and they are busy," Rumsfeld said this week. Iranian officials have denied harboring al-Qalda fugltl~es, and U.S. officials acknowledge that Iran has turned over some al-Qalda suspects to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and blocked others from entering Iran. On Thursday, a close aide to Iranian President Mohammad Khataml demanded that Washington prove Its charges. Saeed Pourazlzl said In Tehran that It was Iran's pollc{to crack down on al-Qalda -- not support It·- and that the network "I~ a terrorist group threatening Iran's Interests." "Its extremist Interpretation of Islam contradicts the Islamic democracy Iran Is trying to promote., There Is no commonality of anything between us." The senior U.S. Intelligence official said It wasn't clear whether al-Adel's group, which Is believed to be In an area of southeastern Iran near the Pakistan border, was operating with the acqUiescence o,f at least part,of the Iranian government. ' Advocates of regime change want to bolster popular opposition In Iran to the religious leadership. The Associated Press contributed to this report. LOAD-DATE: May 23, 2003 https:llw3.lexis.comllawenfsolutions_secured/ptintldopri~t.asp?SearchInfoID=42077432-46... 6/7/2005 ~ ~EXIS®-NEXIS® View Printable Page .-1.' ." .. rA\L INFORRATION CONTAINED 0--, r.r #I. ~REIN IS UNCLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw!sab/lsg Copyright 2003 The Washington Post Qrbt Wtl5f)iugtonf$M wQshingtonpost.com The Washington Post June 15,2003 Sunday Final Edition SECTION: ASECTION; Pg. A20 LENGTH: 1448 words HEADLINE: Pressure Builds for President to Declare Strategy on Iran BYLINE: Michael Dobbs, Washington Post StaffWriter BODY: Page 24 of26 Soon after George W. Bush.took office in January 2001, his advisers began drafting a strategy for dealing with Iran, a radical Islamic state long suspected by Washington ofsupporting international terrorism and pursuing weapons ofmass destruction. More than two years later, the national security presidential directive on Iran has gone through several competing drafts and has yet to be approved by Bush's senior advisers, according to well-placed sources. In the meantime, experts in and outside the government are focusing, on Iran as the United States' next big foreign policy crisis, with some predicting that the country could acquire a nuclear weapon as early as 2006. Critics on the left and the right point to the unfinished directive as evidence the administration lacks a coherent strategy toward a country Bush described asa key member ofthe "axis ofevil,tI along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. "Our policy toward Iran is neither fish nor fowl, neither engagement nor regime change," said Flynt L. Leverett, a Bush adviser on the Middle East who -left the National Security Council staff in March and is now with the Brookings Institution. The Bush administration has yet to formulate a tme Iran policy, agreed Michael A. Ledeen,a Middle East expert with the American Enterprise Institute. With other neoconservative intellectuals, Ledeen has founded ,the Coalition for Democracy in Iran, which is looking for ways to·foment a democratic revolution to sweep away the mullahs who came to power in 1979. Senior administration officials refused to talk about the status ofthe Bush policy directive on Iran, on the grounds that it is classified, but they say they have had some success in mobilizing international opinion against Iran's nuclear weapons program. As evide~ce, t~ey cite recent threats by Russia to cut offnuclear assistance to Tehran and moves by the International Atomic Energy Agency to censure Iran for failing to report the processing ofnuclear materials. https:/lwww.nexis.com/researchlsearchlsubmitViewTagged 6/7/2005 ,~ LEXIS®-NEXIS® View Printable Page /'" ~,.. i 0 -F'. o Page 25 of26 While the officials have stopped short ofembracing a policy of"regime change" in Iran, U.S. officials from Bush down have talked about providing moral support to the "reform movement" in Iran in its struggle against an unelected government. As defined by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, the U.S. goal is to speak directly to the Iranian people "over the heads oftheir leaders to let them know that we agree with them.II The internal and external debate about what to do about Iran has been brought to a head by recent revelations suggesting the Iranian nuclear weapons program is much further along than many suspected. Tomorrow, the lAEA Board of Governors in Vienna is to discuss findings showing that Iran has a wide range ofoptions for producing fissile material for a nuclear bomb, from using heavy water reactors to produce plutonium to experiments in uranium enrichment. u.s. officials have also accused Iran ofharboring members ofthe al Qaeda terrorist network who escaped from Afghanistan after the fall ofthe Taliban in December 2001. They say some al Qaeda supporters hiding in Iran appear to have known in advance about recent terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, although there is no direct evidence ofoperational ties between the Iranian government and al Qaeda. The escalating Iranian nuclear threat and suspicions ofIranian ties to terrorists have sharpened longstanding divisions in the administration over how to deal with Tehran. In the past, the State Department has put the emphasis on opening a dialogue with reformist elements in the Iranian leadership while the Pentagon has been more interested in looking for ways to destabilize the authoritarian Islamic government. Bureaucratic tensions have reached the level where each side has begun accusing the other of leaking unfavorable stories to the media to block policy initiiltives. "The knives are out,1I said a Pentagon official, who criticized national security adviser Condoleezza Rice for failing to end the dispute by issuing clear policy guidelines. Powell, meanwhile, insisted to journalists that there has be~n no change in policy on Irail, despite what he depicted as frenzied media speculation "about what this person in that department might think or that person in another department might think." The Iran debate goes back to a failed attempt by the Clinton administration to open an "unconditional dialoguell with Tehran. Even though the Iranians rejected the U.S. offer ofunconditional talks, some Bush administration officials led by the State Departmentts director for policy planning, Richard N. Haass, favored making renewed overtures., The proposals for a dialogue with Iran were partly inspired by the 1994 framework agreement with North Korea under which the North Korean government agreed to accept international controls over its nuclear program in return for economic assistance, including the construction of a civilian nuclear reactor. But the State Department approach ran into strong opposition from the Pentagon and Vice President·Cheney's office, and was shot down in interagency meetings at the end of200l. While there would be no "grand bargain" with the Iranian leadership, the Bush administration agreed to a more limited diplomatic dialogue, focusing on specific areas such as the war in Afghanistan or cooperation over Iraq. Several rounds ofsuch talks took place in Geneva and Paris, with the involvement ofa special presidential envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, but were suspended after th~ bombings in Saudi Arabia on May 12. The administration debate has been echoed by a much more public debate among Middle East analysts, https://www.nexis.com!research!searchlsubmitViewTagged 6/7/2005 ,1 'LExIS®-NEXIS® View Printable Page ".' • i 0 j);;~~<,~}y o Page 26 of26 nuclear proliferation experts, and leaders ofthe Iranian diaspora. Congress has also weighed in with legislation sponsored by,Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) that would funnel more than $ 50 million to Iranian pro-democracy initiatives, including private California-based satellite television and radio stations set up by Iranian exiles. "We are not calling for a military attack on Iran," said Brownback, whose proposed Iran Democracy Act has drawn bipartisan support but is opposed by the leadership ofthe Foreign Relations Committee. The goal, he said, is to support Iranian democracy activists, including students who took to the streets of Tehran again last week to protest the closure of opposition newspaper and the jailing ofdissidents. Just how far the United States should go in supporting the protests is the subject ofheated argument inside and outside the government, even among conservatives. Some argue Iran is ripe for revolution. Others contend there is little guarantee ofradical change in Tehran in the three-year period some independent proliferation experts estimate it will take before Iran could acquire nuclear weapons, and the United States should be thinking about other options, including preemptive action against suspected nuclear sites. "The internal democratic forces in Iran are real and growing, but they're not going to save us from having to think about what we are going to do about the Iranian nuclear program and support for terrorism," said Reuel Marc Gerecht, a CIA case officer for Iran now with the American Enterprise Institute. Some aQalysts say that U.S. financial and propaganda support for the Iranian democracy movement could be counterproductive. "It allows the hardliners to argue that there is an external threat, and they must crack down in the name ofnational unity," said Kaveh Ehsani, an editor ofthe pro-reform journal Dialogue in Iran, now visiting the United States. "There is a kind ofan unholy alliance between the Bush administration and the Iranian hardliners." "We have tried appeasement, we have tried containment, and we have tried engagement," countered S. Rob Sobhani, a co-founder ofthe Coalition for Democracy in Iran and adjunct professor ofgovernment at Georgetown University. "All these policies have failed. What have we got to lose by empowerment?" The White House has avoided taking a position on the Brownback legislation and has restricted its encourage~ent ofdemocracy in Iran to verbal broadsides against the mullahs. In comments Thursday, Rice described Iran's pursuit of weapons ofmass destruction as "not acceptable" and said that the United States "cannot tolerate circumstances in which al Qaeda operatives come in and out ofIran.II She also accused Iran ofstirring up tro~ble among Shiite communities in southern Iraq. "We have to stand with the aspirations of the Iranian people which have been clearly expressed," she told a meeting in Los Angeles,as thousands ofIranians took to the streets ofTehranin anti-government protests. LOAD-DATE: June 15, 2003 https:/lwww.nexis.com/researchlsearchlsubmitViewTagged 6/7/2005 ,.'i J:;EXI~®-NEXIS® View Printe Page J' nrFOPHATION COlITAINED ~ HEREIN IS Lrn!CLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/1sg Copyright 2003 The Washington Post ~t Wtl5f)inghm ~g.Gt wa~hingtoripost.com The Washington Post August 9, 2003 Saturday Final Edition SECTION: A SECTION; Pg. 1\01 LENGTH: 1059 words HEADLINE: Meetings With Iran-Contra Arms Dealer Confinned BYLINE: Bradley Graham and P~ter Slevin, Washington Post StaffWriters BODY: Page 21 of26 Defense Secretary Donald H.Rumsfeld acknowledged yesterday that Pentagon officials met secretly with a discredited expatriate Iranian arms merchant who figured prominently 'in the Iran-contra scandal ofthe mid-1980s, characterizing the contact as an unexceptional effort to gain possibly useful infonnation. While Rumsfeld said that the contact occurred more than a year ago and that nothing came of it, his aides scrambled during the day to piece together more details amid other reports thatRumsfeld's account may have been incomplete. Last night, a senior defense official disclosed that another meeting with the Iranian anns dealer, Manucher Ghorbanifar, occurred in June in Paris. The official said that, while the first contact, in late 2001, had been formally sanctioned by the U.S. government in response to an Iranian government offer to provide information relevant to the war on terrorism, the second one resultedfrom "an unplanned, unscheduled encounter." A senior administration official said, however, that Pentagon staffmembers held one or two other meetings with Ghorbanifar..last year in Italy. The sessions so troubled Secretary ofState Colin L. Powell, the of~cial said, that he complained to Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser. Powell maintained that the Pentagon activIties were unauthorized and undennined U.S. policy toward Iran by taking place outside the terms defined by Bush and his top advisers. The White House instructed the Pe,ntagon to halt meetings that do not conform to policy decisions, said the official, who requested anonymity. The Defense Department personnel who met with Ghorbanifar came from the policy directorate. . Sources identified them as Harold Rhode, a specialist on Iran and Iraq who recently served in Baghdad as the Pentagon liaison to Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi, and Larry Franklin, a Defense https:/Iwww.nexis.comlresearch/search/submitViewTagged 6/7/2005 '\ l.EXIS®-NEXIS® View Prin~ Page #' U Intelligence Agency analyst. Page 22 of26 State Department officials were surprised by news ofthe latest meeting with Ghorbanifar. ren~ion runs deep in the Bush administration between State an~ the Pentagon, which under Rumsfeld has aspired to a powerful role in foreign policy. The two agencies have sparred repeatedly over strategy toward Iran and Iraq. The United States does not have formal relations with Iran, although a small number ofsanctioned meetings between U.S. and Iranian officials have taken place, most notably to address U.S. war plans in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush administration has struggled to develop a coherent and consistent approach to Iran. In his State ofthe Union address last year, Bush characterized Iran as being part ofan axis ofevil, along with Iraq and North Korea, and administration officials have repeatedly accused Iran ofsupporting terrorist groups and ofseeking to acquire nuclear weapons. While broad agre~ment exists within the administration favoring changes in Iran's Islamic government, officials differ on how to accomplish ili~. ' More than two years after the administration began drafting a national security presidential directive on Iran, ilie policy document remains unfinished. While the State Department favors increased dialogue and engagement with potential reformers inside Iran, prominent Pentagon civilians believe the policy should be more aggressive, including measures to destabilize the existing government in Tehran. The Iran-contra scandal erupted over a decision by the Reagan administration to sell weapons to Iran in an effort to win the release ofU.S. hostages in Lebanon. The proceeds ofthe anns sales were illegally funneled to contra fighters opposing Nicaragua's leftist Sandinista government. Ghorbanifar was enl~sted in the effo~, helping to arrange the delivery by Israel of508 TOW antitank missiles to Iran. The White House had drafted him as an intermediary despite warnings from the CIA that he was a cheat and had failed lie-detector tests. The intelligence aget).cy had instructed its operatives not to do business with him. News ofthe Pentagon's contact with Ghorbanifar was first reported yesterday by Newsday, and Rumsfeld was asked about the story when he emerged with Bush from a meeting at the president's ranch in Crawford, Tex. Saying he had just been told ofthe Newsday article by a senior aide and by Rice, Rumsfeld acknowledge4 that "one or two" Pentagon officials "were approached by some people who had information about Iranians that w~nted to provide information to the United States government." He said that a meeting took place "more than a year ago" and that the information received was circulated to various federal departments and agencies but did no~ lead to anything. "That is to say, as I understand it, there wasn't anything there that was ofsubstance or ofvalue that needed to be pursued further,II he said. . Asked ifthe Pentagon contact was intended to circumvent official U.S. exchanges with Iran, Rumsfeld replied: "Oh, absolutely not. I mean, everyone in the interagency process, I'm told, was apprised ofit, and it went nowhere. It was just -- iliis happens, ofcourse, frequently, that in -- people come in, offering suggestions or information or possible contacts, and sometimes they're pursued. Obviously, if it looks as https:/lwww.nexis.com/researchlsearch/submitViewTagged 6/7/2005 •. ;''\ LEXIS®-NE,XIS® View Prin~ Page / U 0 though something might be interesting, it's pursued. If it isn't, it isn't." Page 23 of26 Standing by Rumsfeld's side, Bush was asked ifthe meeting was a good idea and ifhisadministration wants a change in government. "We support the aspirations ofthose who desire freedom in Iran,1I the president said, then took a question on a differentsubject. According to the account given later by the senior Pentagon official, the contact in 2001 occurred after Iranian officials passed word to the administration that they had information that might be useful in the global war on terrorism. Two Pentagon officials met with the Iranians in several sessions over a threeday period in Italy. Ghorbanifar attended these meetings, "but he was not the individual who had approached the United States or the one with the information,II the official said. What his role was, however, the official did not know. The official said the June meeting involved'one ofthe two Pentagon representatives who had been present at the 2001 meeting, but he declined to say which one. Staffwriter Dana Priest contributed to this report. LOAD-DATE: August 9, 2003 https://www.nexis.com/research/search/submitViewTagged 6/7/2005 '\'{"EXIS@-NeXIS@ViewPrintablePageALLINFORl'lATION COlITAHrED Q" ~?~ <::> HEREIN IS lfMCLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc aw/sab/1sg Copyright 2003 Guardian Newspapers Limited The Observer August 10, 2003 SECTION: Observer News Pages, Pg. 22 LENGTH: 863 words Page 17 of26 HEADLINE: IRAQ CONFLICT: Make Iran next, says Ayatollahs. grandson: Khomeini calls US freedom the best in the world from base in occupied Baghdad BYLINE: by Jamie Wilson, Baghdad BODY: SAYYID Hussein Khomeini is sitting cross-legged on a sofa inside a garish palm-fringed mansion nestled on the banks ofthe Tigris. It is the very heart ofAmerican-occupied Baghdad, not the frrst place that you might look for the grandson ofAyatollah Khomeini. The late Iranian leader built his Islamic revolution on a deep hatred ofeverything associated with the Stars and Stripes. But then very little about the younger Khomeini is quite what might be expected. 'American liberty and freedom is the b~st freedom in the world,' he said, puffing on a cigarette and sipping a glass ofsweet tea. 'The freedom for the individual that is 'written into the American Constitution you do not see in such concentration in any other constitution in the world. The Americans are here in Iraq, so freedom is here too.' It is an extraordinary statement from a man whose grandfather labelled the US 'the Great Satan', but what Khomeini has to say about the current situation in Iran is even more radical: 'Iranians need freedom now, and if they can only achieve it with American interference I think they would welcome it. As an Iranian, I would welcome it.I Not surprisingly, Khomeini, 45, has caused something ofa stir in Baghdad, with the US media beating a path to the door ofthe house where he is staying. According to his armed bodyguards, the luxurious house has been taken over by an Iraqi cleric, who shares Khomeini's view that religion and state should be separated. It used to belong to Izzat Ibrahim, vice-chairman ofthe deposed Revolutionary Command Council and one ofSaddam Hussein's closest advisers. The King of Clubs on the list ofmost wanted Baathists, Ibrahim remains at large, although he is unlikely to return to evict the current tenants. There is, however, plenty to remind the visitor ofthe previous owner. Ablack Rolls-Royce with a golden grill is gathering dust in the drive, while the sitting room, with its three gold-trim. sofas, is also home to a couple ofenormous glass tanks containing dozens oftropical fish and several cages ofcanaries, chirping away merrily. Wearing a black turban - a piece ofclothing that marks him out as a descendant ofthe Prophet Muhammad - Khomeini dismisses. as 'nonsense' a question about whether his grandfather would approve ofhis support for the Americans. 'He is not here, and in this case we cannot predict what position he would take,' he said. As for Iraqi resistance to the US occupying forces - or liberators as Khomeini insists on calling them - in his opinion there is none. https://www.nexis.com/research/search/submitViewTagged 6/7/2005 4-~~'LEXIS®-lfflXIS® View Printable Page ;~.~. 0 () , - Page 18 of26 'The pe~sons·who are carrying out the attacks have been paid previously to attack the US and the Americans arejust in a position.of defending themselves,' he said. So what is a man whose grandfather cemented the Islamic theocracy in Iran by exploiting the 1979 US Embassy hostage crisis doing espousing views that could 'have come straight from an American ,foreign policy briefing or have been written by the press office ofthe Coalition Provisional Authority situated in the former presidential palace a couple ofmiles down the road? Exactly how close Khomeini's ties are with the US is not clear, but the cleric has met officials from the CPA on several occasions. 'He's.my favourite Khomeini!', one senior US official joked at a dinner the other night. A spokesman said that they found his ideas about the separation ofreligion and state 'interesting'. Although he does not command a wide following, the very fact ofwho he is could in time make him a significant player, while any voice helping to dilute calls from some Iraqi'Shia leaders fora system of clerical rule in Iraq will be welcomed with open arms by the Americans. But'the US might just have bigger plansJor Khomeini. He spent 14 years ofhis life in Iraq, between 1964 and 1979, while his grandfather was plotting the Islamic revolution and conducting a campaign"of snapping at the,heels ofthe Shah from the holy city ofNajaf. Listening to his grandson condemning the current situation in Tehran, it is difficult not to get a sense that perhaps history is repeating itself. The Bush administration, which includes Iran in its diminishing axis ofevil, has repeatedly accused the country ofsupporting terrorist groups and seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. But apart from general agreement that a change of government in Iran would be a good thing, there is no broad consensus within the administration about how'best to achieve that aim. It is two years since the State Department began drafting it national security presidential directive on Iran, but the document remains . unfinished. Doves in Colin Powell's State Department are said to favour increased dialog':le with potential reformers in the country, while Donald RumsfeId's Pentagon is thought to be intent on pursuing aggressive destabilisation tactics towards Tehran. Whatever way the administration decides to play it, Khomeini could be useful to both sides. Asked when he thought he might return to Iran, Khomeini replied 'Inshallah' - Jt is God's will. But some observers might argue that it is just as"likely to be the Pentagon's. LOAD-DATE: August 14,2003 https://www.nexis.com/research/search/submitYiewTagged 6/7/2005 ~ ...... ·~The Herald-Mail ONLINE - Franklin case goes to grand jury (print view) -OO'R-. '- ~ sa ALL INFO~~TION CONTAI~D . The Herald-Mail ONLINE HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/lsg http://www.herald-mail.com/ Page 1 of2 MARTINSBURG, W.Va. - Probable cause was found Thursday at the U.S., District Courthouse in Martinsburg to send to a grand jury a charge that a Pentagon analyst illegally took classified government documents to his Kearneysville, W.Va., home. pepperb@herald-mail.com Friday June 10, 2005 Franklin case goes to grand jury by PEPPER BALLARD The charge against Lawrence Anthony Franklin, 58, who holds a doctorate in Asian studies and taught history courses at Shepherd University for the past five years, will be referred to the next grand jury, U.S. Magistrate JUdge David J. Joel said Thursday after his finding at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. Lawrence Franklin, center, surrounded by his attorneys, leaves U.S. District Court in Martinsburg, W.Va., Thursday. (Photo credit: by Kevin G. Gilbert I Staff Photographer) "Dr. Franklin knowingly and unlawfully possessed classified documents in a place he was not permitted to keep them," Joel said. "He admitted he possessed these'documents." Franklin faces up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted of the charge. A June 30, 2004, search of Franklin's home turned up 83 classified documents, 37 of which were classified as top secret, meaning the release of which would cause "exceptionally greatdamage" to national security, and 34 of which were classified as secret, meaning the release of which would cause "great damage" to national security, FBI Special Agent Thomas Convoy, who spe9ializes in counterterrorism and espionage, testified Thursday. The charge centered on six documents, written between Oqtober 2003 and·June 2004, which included CIA docum.ents about al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden, terrorism documents and an Iraq memorandum, Convoy testified., Franklin was authorized to carry classified documents in Maryland, Virginia and ~ ~ Washington, D.C., but not in West Virginia, Convoy testified. '4 r Convoy testified that Franklinwas a member of the Department of Defense since 197'...If" j and held top-secret clearance since then, but it since has blilen revoked. ~1tlt.a,JV http://www.herald-mail.coml?module=displaystorj&stoty-...:.icJ=114919&format=print _ ,6/19120qS;. - f2SR....WF- ~3·)S ... J\1·~ ~'c..~~ ~ ~,~e Herald-Mail ONLINE - Franklin case goes to grandjury (printview) Page 2 of2 ~....,' ~ -... 0 0 F:ranklin'.$ attorney, Plato Cacheris, contended that his client was inappropriately charged. "There is no allegation in this complaint that he intended to injure the U.S.," Cacheris said. He said that such an allegation would have needed to support the claim that Franklin unlawfully held the documents. Franklini wearing a dark suit, sat. behind Cacheris' chair throughout the hearing, nearly motionless. Cacheris said Franklin "had those documents in his home because he was preparing for an interview" for a government position. Convoy testified Franklin was under surveillance prior to the search., "Did you see him transmit those documents to any unauthorized people?" Cacheris asked Convoy. "No, I did not," he responded. u.S. AttomeyThomas E.. Johnston, of West Virginia's northem district, said Franklin "was not authorized to retain these documents, at least at his home." "There is no evidenc~ he delivered them to the employee or officer of the U.S. intended to receive the,m," he said. Johnston said Cacheris' contention that he had to show intent to cause injury to the country "does not apply to this particular charge.II Joel, 'in announcing his finding, said, "\Nhether or not the government properly charged" Franklin is "a matter for another day." In May, Franklin was charged with providing top..secr~t information about potential attacks against U.S.. forces in Iraq to two executives of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the influential pro-Israel lobbying group. Already out on $100,000 bond on the May charge, Franklin was released after this mostrecent charge on $50,000 bond. Joel ordered Thursday that Franklin continue on his present bond. The Associated Press contributed to this story. CopyrightThe Herald-Mail ONLINE hup:/Iwww.herald-mail.com/?inodule=displaystory&story_id=114919&format=print 6/10/2005 Cheers for Wolfy Foundation for Defense of Democracies> In the. Me9ia > Cheers for Wolfy ALL INFOPRATION CONTAINED HEPEIN IS UNCLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sabJ1sg The New York·Post May 31, 2003 http://www.nypost.com/seven/05312003/postopinion/opedcolumnists·/35893.htm Page'! of2 Last Sunday saw a remarkable event in Washington - one that defied stereotypes about Muslims,and the Bush administration's "hard-liners": Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, widely identified (and denounced) as the main architect of America's Iraq intervention, won 'multiple standing ovations from an audience of hundreds of Muslims He praised the coalition's use of force to remove evil. and he hailed the new reality in Irag. For the first time in 26 years, he said. Shia Muslims had freedom to observe their Arbaeen f~stival in Iraq., The room exploded in applause. The venue~ the first-ever national convention of Shia Muslims from the United States and Canada. Wolfowitz is said to be ~he hardest of neoconse.rvative hardliners. The Shias h~v.e a reputation as the most extreme. anti-Western, ultraradical Muslims. Yet they came'together through the ideal of freedom, and the principle of liberation through the exercise of U.S. military power. Pundits and experts have been wrong about both Wolfowitz and his Shia hosts. Most of the media paint Wolfowitz as an arch-conspiratorial fanatic. Yet the truth. as anybody who has met with him quickly learns•. is that he has an extensive apd nuanced understanding of Islam. He served as U.S. ambassador to Indonesia for three years under President Ronald Reagan. He is also a defender of democracy. taking pride in his key role in helping change the Philippines in the 1980s. He supported the removal of dictator Ferdinand Marcos and the triumph of democratic champion C6razon Aquino. Shia Muslims. for their part. are typically described as extremists in the mold of Ayatollah Khomeini -' dismissed with claims that all Shias everywher~ support the Lebanese radicals of Hezbollah. The most recent dire prediction is that the Shia majority in Iraq will establish a rigid Islamic order. But Shias are victims of mass murder in Pakistan, where followers of the Saudi-backed Wahhabi sect hunt and kill them relentlessly. When the Pakistani group Sipah-e-Sahaba (Order of the Prophet's Companions) murdered American reporter Daniel Pearl, he was their first victim who was not a Shia Muslim. Before him, the group had slain hundreds of innocents. I~ addition, Shia Muslims, including a con~idera,b!e,community in the New York are~, are better educated than many other Muslims. Their dedication to self-improvement often makes them a target. In Saudi Arabia, wh~re they are the majority in the oil-rich Eastern Province, they are also an ~conomic elite. But within the Saudi kingdom, they still suffer extraordinary cruelties at the hands of the Wahhabis, who teach in Saudi schools that Shia Islam is the product of a Jewish c9nspiracy. Life is tough forShi8;s, a, minority of 200 millio~, or 15 percent of the world's Muslims. In America, where estimates of the total Muslim popUlation vary from 2 million to 10 million, one in four is Shia. Most came here from Pakistan and Iraq to escape violence. T.h.e Shia na.tion_al cor:tyention.in. Wa~shington, h~ld ~y the Universal MusOm Association o(America http://www.defenddemocracy.orglcnlib/custom_tags/contentlprin~_ email_doc.htm?action=p... 6/9/2005 Foundation for Defense OfDe~' }.r:J~ · .• . ocracies - In theMedia n Page 2 of2 (UMAA) with 3~OOO participants, epresented a new trend in American Musli~e. Until now~ the discourse on Islam in America was dominated, from the Muslim side. by the "Wahhabi lobby" - groups toeing the extremist line of the Saudi regime. The "Wahhabi lobby" includes such entities as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). These groups have skewed discussion of Islam and Muslims in this country, by presenting America as an aggres~ive power internationally and as an enemy of Muslims. Shia Muslims living in America see the world in very differef}t t~rms. Agha Shaukat Jafri, a Shia community leader in New York and organizer of the UMAA convention~ said~ "We see America as our homeland and ourselves as American Muslims. We consider ourselves an integral part of its body politic. We condemn all forms of terrorism, and we consider these so-called Muslim fighters, who carry out terror, as enemies ofour faith.i ' He described the reception for Wolfowitz as "very warm." He added: 'We should thank the Bush administration for liberating the Shias of Iraq. I think Dr. Wolfowitz understands our viewpoint and our deep opposition to extremism. We were thrilled to have him attend and to hear his words." Others, including non-Muslims, who attended the event were struck by the enthusiasm shown to Paul Wolfowitz. But Jafri put the emphasis in the right place: liThe convention inaugurated a n~w period in the history of American Muslims, of heightened awareness of our responsibilities to the country we live in and hope for the future flourishing of Islam and democracy. At our convention next year, we would like to have President Bush as a guest." And why did a story like this go unreported in the rest of our media? Stephen Schwartz is author of "The Two Faces ofIslam: The House ofSa'ud From Tradition to Te"or, "published by Doubleday, and director ofthe Islam and Democracy Program at the Foundation for the Defense ofDemocracies. Media Type: Print & Online [~~!lt] I[C~ose t~is.~.ndow] @ Copyright 2005 The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies an iaPRs site http://www.defenddemocracy.org/cnlib/custo~_tags/contentJprint_~mail~~oc.htm?action=p... 6/~/2905 ~L INFOrotATION CONTAHJED Q - REIN IS lTMCLASSIFIED ,ATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sabJ sg For Official Use Only FOREIGN MEDIA PERCEPTION SUMMARY Tuesday, July 22, 2003 ITerrorism I Afghanistan I I Iraq aZ) lIZ-North I IZ-Centrall IZ-South I I IZooWMD I IZ-RegimelPoIiticall IZoo Humanitarian Issues I IYemenlHorn of Africa I Iran IGCC I IndialPakistan I Central Asian States I Disclaimer: The articles presented in the Foreign Media Perception are derived entirely from open sources in and around the CENTCOM AOR. The articles selected are a"representative sample of the local media vie\vs and interpretations of current events. The "GeneralThemes" section is a summary of the most prevalent messages and is not an endorsement ofthe validity of the information contained in the articles. General Themes: A foreign media source in the CENTCOM AOR reported that an organization calling itself AI-Jihad Brigades Organization called on the Iraqis not to deal \vith the ne\v provisional Governing Council. They threatened to kill anyone who supports the Governing Council and the coalition forces occupying Iraq. Foreign media sources report that the Iraqi Christian Democratic Party has refused to recognize Iraq's transitional Governing Council, describing its members as administrative 'workers \vithout po\vers. Foreign sources report that Pakistan is seriously considering sending troops to Iraq as a result of the formation of the Governing Council should the Iraqi people request support. 13. Jedda Arab News (Saudi Arabia): Tis the Season to Be Worried Paul Wolfowitz, in the latest Vanity Fair, basically justified using a "convenient" argument, i.e. weapons ofmass destruction, to achieve the great goal:, Iraqi oil. Such politically vulgar messages are not new from Wolfo\vitz and his neo-con gang, but they spread reasonable doubt regarding America's "democratic" intentions for the Middle East. Now as Wolfo\vitz is visiting Baghdad, his face can't conceal a sense of worry. Worry regarding the exposed lies, the increased number ofkillings ofAmerican military personnel, and the growing public opinion against the war. Wolfo\vitz is like a stray cat stuck in a comer. Stray cats when stuck in a comer usually attack .The question that is asked frequently is: Who fed all these lies about the Iraqi weapons WMD program to the president? Most fingers point at the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, headed by Adam Shulsky, a hard-line neo-conservative. The Office of Special Plans was set up in the fall of2001 as a two-man shop, but it grew into an eighteen-member nerve center ofthe Pentagon's effort to create disinformation, alleging that Iraq possessed WMD and had connections with terrorist groups. -------- --- -------- o Much ofthe garbage produced by that office found its"way into speeches by Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush. It should be noted that the office was created after Sept. 11 by two of the most fervent and determined neo-cons: Paul Wolfo,vitz himself, the deputy defense secretary, and Douglas Feith, undersecretary ofdefense for policy, to probe into Saddam's WMD programs and his links to al-Qa'ida, because, it is alleged, they did not trost ot~er intelligenc~ agencies ofthe US government to come up with the goods. Most prominent neo-cons are right-wing Jews, and t~nd to be pro-Israeli zealots who,believe that Amer~can and Israeli interests are inseparable -- much to the alarm ofthe liberal pro~ peace Jews, whether in America, Europe, or Israel i~elf. Friends of Ariel Sharon's Likud party, they ten9 to loathe Arabs and Muslims. For them, the cause of "liberating" Iraq had little to do with the well being ofIraqis, just .as the cause of "liberating" Iran and ending its nuclear program -- recently advocated by Shimon Peres -- has little to do with the well being ofIranians. What they seek is an improvement in Israel's military and strategic environment. So-who will put the brakes on this madness, defend US national interests and give the administration wise counsel? Congress? It doesn't appear that way. The issue should go back to the American people. The integrity and credibility oftheir values and their future economic prosperity are very much at stake here. Pe9ple in the Middle East need to see the.ugly words ofWolfo,vitz and his like muted, and they need to see objective democratic results. Only then will Wolfo,vitz and his gang be m~ginalized. At least for a while. IL ALL INFORMATION CONTAI1~D HEREIN IS lTNCLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/lsg The United States and Shi'ite Religious Factions in Post-Ba'thist Iraq JuanC91e In post-Saddam Husayn Iraq, Slli'ite militias rapidly established their authority in East Baghdad and other urban 1Zeighborhoodsofthe south. Among the vqrious groups which emerged, the Sadr Movement stands Ollt as militant and cohesive. The sectarian, anti-American Sadrists wish to impose a puritanical, Khomeinist vision on Iraq. Their political influence is potentially milch greater than their numbers. Incorporating them i~to a democratic Iraq while ensuring that they do not come to dominate it poses a severe challenge to tile US Administration. 1 planning the war on Iraq, the American Defense Department a~d· intelligen<.:e organizations appear to have been unaware that millions of Iraqi Shi'ites had joined a militant and puritanical movement dedicated to the establishment of an I~an-style Islamic Republic in Iraq, even though these developments h.ad been detailed in many Arabic-language books and articles. On February 18,2003, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul WOlfowitz gave an interview on National Public Radio in which he maintained that "The Iraqis are ... by and large quite secular. They are overwhelmingly Shi'a wh~ch is different from the Wahabis of the peninsula, and they don't bring the sensitivity of having the holy cities of Islam being on their territory."· Even mQre disturbingly, this quote shows that Wolfowitz did not realize that religious Iraqi ShiCites are extremely sensitive about foreigners in their shrine cities such as Najafand Karbala, or that these cities are religio~~ power centers of great symbolic potency. US Defense Department leaders such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his deputies, Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, mistakenly thought that the middle and lower strata of the BaCth bureaucracy, police, and army would survive the war, and that they could simply hand it over to secular expatriate figure Ahmad Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress. Although from a Shi'ite backgrou!1d, Chalabi was largely unknown in Iraq and was wanted in Jordan on embezzlement charges.. The CIA and the State Department broke with Chalabi late in 2002 when he proved unable -Juan Cole is Professor ofModern Middle Eastern and South Asian History at the University ofMichigan. He is editor of the International Journal of Middle East Studies, and author of numerous books and articles. His recent works include Modernity and the Millennium (NewYork: Columbia University Press, 1998) and Sacred Space and Holy War: The Politics, Culture and History ofShi~ite Islam (London: I.B. Tauris, 2002). • 1. "Deputy SecretaryWolfowitz Interview with National Public Radio," February 19,2003 at http:/ /www.washingtontile.netl2003IFeblFcb21IBURS09.HTM. MJDDLEEASfJOURNAL*VOLUMBS7.NO.4,AUTUMN2003 II CoreF'anaI pes 543 II ------------------ IL ,544*MIDDLEEASTJOURNAL to account for about $2 million of the $4 million they had given his Iraqi National .Congress. The major religious Shi'ite groups with which the Americans were negotiating were part of Chalabi's group and included the Tehran-based Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the London branch of the al-Da'wa Party, and the Khoei Foundation, of which only al-Da'wa ·had much popularity on the ground in Iraq. The US was ignorant of the Sadr Movement, the main indigenous Shi'ite force. This ignorance wa~ to cost the US great political capital in" the first months of the occupation. - When the Ba'th fell on April 9, 2003, Shi'ite militias seemed suddenly to emerge and take control of many urban areas in the south of the country, as wen as in the desperately poor slums of East Baghdad. The moral authority of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani and his more quietist colleagues in Najaf had been known to the US, but it transpired that other ayatollahs and leaders had more political clout. The rank and file of Iraqi Shi'ites in the urban areas was far more radicalized by the last decade of Ba'thrule than anyone on the outside had realized. These developments alarmed Washington, given that some 60% to 65% of Iraqis are Shi'ites, and this group would therefore predominate in a democratic Iraq. The religious groups constitute only one section of the Shi'ite population, perhaps a third or more, but they are well organized and armed. My thesis here is that the Sadr Movement is at the moment the most important tendency among religious Shi'ites in post-Ba'thist· Iraq, and that it is best seen as a sectarian phenomenon in the "sociology of religions" sense. It is prima,rily a youth movement and its rank and file tend to be poor. It is highly puritanical and xenophobic, and it is characterized by an exclusivism unusual in Iraqi Shi'ism. To any extent that it emerges as a leading social force in Iraq, it will prove polarizing and destabilizing. In spring and summer of 2003 its leadership had decided not to challenge actively the coalition military. In contemporary theories of the sociology of religion, a Usect" is characterized by a high degree of tension with mainstream society, employing a rhetoric of difference, antagonism, and separation.2 The "high-tension" model of the sect predicts that. it will attempt strongly to demarcate itself off from the mainstream of society. It will also cast out those members who are perceived to be too accommodating of non-sectarian norms. That is, it demands high levels of loyalty and obedience in the pursuit of exclusivism. IRAQI SHl'ISM IN HISrORY Under the Ottomans, a Sunni political elite flourished in what is now Iraq, with political ties to Istanbul. Shi 'ism· remained vigorous, however. In the eigh~eenth and nineteenth centuries, many -tribespeople of the south converted to the Shi'ite branch of Islam, under the influence of missionaries sent out from the shrine cities of Najaf and Karbala, where Shi'ite holy figures Imam 'Ali and Imam Husayn were interred. -2. Rodney StarkandWilliam Sims Bain~ridge, The Future ofReligion (Berkeley and LosAngeles: University ofCalifomia Press, 1985). pp. 19-34, 135. +. II o The Rulemt~e Turbail: Last September, Paul Wolfolvitz was the special guest at a memorial service in Arlington, Va.~ for an influential Shiite cleric killed in a car bombing in Najat: Iraq. The deputy defense secretary hailed Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir ai-Hakim as a Ittrue Iraqi patriot;" and he quoted from the Gettysburg Address as he likened the slain leader to the Union soldiers who haq died to preserve their country. It was a eulogy that ai-Hakim undoubtedly wouid have found jarring. His Islamist political party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Re~olution in Iraq, and its 15,OOO-man militia had been funded by Iran, a member gg President Bush's "axis Pievil." And ai-Hakim himselfhad long been wary ~perceived American'imperialism in the Middle East, even as his party, known as SCIRI (pronounced "SEA-ree") [and otherwise also known in Supreme Assembly for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SAIRI)], cooperated. with the Coalition Provisional Authority on the.transfer to Iraqi sovereignty -- the likely reason he was targeted for assassination. As symbolism goes, the memorial service served to highlight the tangled politics in postSaddam Iraq, where idealized notionsM"friend" and "foe" have dissolved into a murJder reality. Once, Pentagon war planners like Wolfowitz envisioned the toppling ~ Saddam Hussein with clarity, predicting that the long-suppressed Shiite majority in Iraq would greet Americans as liberators and that democracy would naturally flower. But clarity has !Jeen washed away by images ~ charred American bodies swinging from bridges and naked Iraqi prisoners on dog leashes. Yet to emerge is a clear outline 9ia new Iraq, which has been tugged in opposite directions by official enemies -- Iran and the United.States -that happen to have shared a common interest in Sadda~'s removal. As the largest mainstream Shiite party, SCIRI is an important player in Iraq's future, but one with an ambivalent history with the United States. It was oneMthe opposition groups that the United States counted on to help bring down Sad9am. Yet SCIRI is also a vehicle in which Iran has invested heavily in a bid for influence in post-Saddam Iraq. And so despiteWolfowi~'s hailing 2fthe slain Ayatollah aI-Hakim as a kind ~ Shiite Abraham Lincoln, it is far from clear that his Islamist party, which supports an Iraqi government run according to Islamic principles, will help build the kind ~ secular democracy that the United States said it hoped to leave behind in Iraq. It is likely that the new Iraqi constitution will be influenced in some manner by Islamic principles, but it's anyb04Y's guess whether a sovereign Iraq -- assuming it stays united -- will look more like a secular Turkey, a cleric-run Iran or something in between. There are too many competing motives and agendas to predict any outcome with certainty, no matter what face US policymakers put on it. The blurring ~ Iranian, American and Iraqi interests came into shm> relief last month when Iraqi and American forces raided the Baghdad home and offices )if Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi on suspicion that the one-time Pentagon favorite had betrayed US secrets to Iran. It was a c.onfusing turn ~ events, made even more perplexing by the fact that Chalabi, a Shiite, had worked openly with Iranians for many y-ears, most prominently-through his contacts withSCIRI, which was knQwn to be an arm ~ Iranian intelligence. In fact, SCIRI was active in Chalabi's INC from 1992 through 1996 and was named in the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, signed into law by President Clinton, as one ~ the opposition groups that the United States should work with to topple Saddam. It was thus no secret that Chalabi had, a relationship I , • ..,.. o o with Iranian intelligence. But the salient question quickly became: Which American official was so stupid as to tell the INC leader that the United States h~d broken Iran's secret communications code, information that US intelligence said Chalabi then passed on to Iran? Chalabi had long been an informal conduit between the United States and Iran, which have not had formal diplomatic relations since American hostages were seized in the 1979 Islamic revolution. Through SCIRI, the United States kept a back door to Tehran propped open. Had that game now gone awry? SCIRI was founded in 1980, at the beginning ~the Iran-Iraq war, by Iraqi Shiite clerics who sought a haven from oppression by Saddamwith fellow Shiites in neighboring Iran. But the relationship was controversial from the beginning, according to Imam Mustafa al-Qazwini, an Iraqi-born Shiite in Los Angeles whose father was a founder R! SCIRI. A handsome 42-year..old with a neatly trimmed, graying beard, alQazwini wears a black turban, symbolizing his family's descent from the prophet Mohammed. Anaturalized.US citizen, he speaks fluent, colloguial En lish. We met earlier this month at a "%ashington conference ~the J!!ii~~.t~~L~ii!iim\*s~ocHltioil~pf \nieric', an organization !ifpolitically active AmericanShiite Muslims. His father, Ayatollah Mortada al-Qazwini, broke with SCIRI's ai-Hakim soon after the group's founding amid a dispute about its alliance with Iran, al-Qazwini told me. His father believed that Iraqi Shiites would be better served by leaders who remained independent ~ foreign governments -- Iranian or American. In the mid-1980s, the Qazwini clan left Iran for the United States and its open political system. The elder al-Qazwini returned to Iraq last year, settling in Karbala, and, in the model b1Grand Ayatollah Ali al..Sistani, remains aloof from politics in the beliefthat clergy should not playa direct role in governance, his son told me. AI-Qazwini said that he and his father have rebuffed overtures from the US State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency over the years because they did not want to align themselves with any foreign governments. "I always feel, if you can work freely from these governments you should," al-Qazwini said. "Generally Iraqis don't like the ideaMdependence. Once someone is seen as collaborating with a foreign government, they might not be as trusted.II That has been a problem to varying degrees for both Chalabi and SCIRI in Iraq, he added. Still, SCIRI, now led by Ayatollah al-Hakim's younger brother, Abdul Aziz ai-Hakim, retains significant clout as the best organized Shiite party, in part because [{the support it had from Iran. SCIRI is believed to have taken from Iran an amount similar to the more than $30 million Chalabi's INC accepted in U.S. funding before being abruptly cut off last month. And despite its quasi..official relationship with the United States, SCIRI mostly kept the Great Satan at arm's length. Until 2002, most contacts with the United States were made informally through Chalabi and Kurdish representatives, according to SCOO's US-based representative, Karim Khutar al-Musawi, who told me about the Eroup over coffee recently in Washington's Mayflower Hotel. Aside from acting as a kin~ ~ liaison between the United States and Iran, in the mid..'90s SCIRI agents also worked openly with Chalabi in northern Iraq on operations to undermine Saddam. Chalabi was then working for the CIA, whose small team in northerri Iraq was headed by former CIA operative Bob Baer. "SCIRI was never under any sort ~ Western supervision or control. They did exactly what they wanted. And they reported to Tehran,II Baer told me. As an American agent, Baer was keen to learn all he could about Iran. Chalabi invited him to meet his contacts in Tehran, but Baer had to decline. "I would (!'- o o have been happy to, but that was a firing offense. The State Department would have gone nuts," he said. But there was no restriction on meeting with SCIRI, which, after all, was partmthe American-backed Iraqi National Congress. . So, Baer said, he talked often with SCIRI agents in northern Iraq, where the Americans and Iranians shared a common enemy in Saddam Hussein. A master manipulator, Chalabi frequently played Iranian and American intelligence off each other, Baer said. The most serious stunt occurred in February 1995, wheri'Chalabi was gathering support for an uprising against Saddam. The Americans were noncommittal and, among other moves, the INC leader went fishing for Iranian support. He forged a letter from America's National Security Council that appeared to direct him to assassinate Saddam, then left it on his desk for Iranian intelligence agents to read, hoping the disinformation would convince the Iranians thatthe United States was serious about toppling Saddam, Baer said. "He was being very practical about this. He needed the Iranians to thinkth~lan would go through so they would let loose with the Badr Brigades,II the armed wing !!f SCIRI. Chalabi's uprising, and a parallel coup planned by Sunni Iraqi military officers inside Iraq, collapsed amid betrayals by the Kurds and continued ambivalence from Washington. The debacle caused both the CIA and SCIRI to part ways with Chalabi in 1996. But by 2002, when it looked as if President Bush was serious about toppling Saddam, SCIRI began sniffing around again. Its representative, al-Musawi, set up shop in Washington. And in August 2002, SCIRI logged its first formal contact with the United States when Ayatollah al-Hakim~ounger brother, Abdul, traveled to Washington as its representative for a pre-war round 91 meetings with Bush administration officials. AI-Hakim"and other Iraqi opposition figures met with Secretary ~. Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary ~ State Colin Powell and (via satellite hookup) Vice President Dick Cheney, al-Musawi said. Also at the 2002 meetings were Chalabi, Iyad Allawi -- the recently named interim prime minister ~ Iraq, who has longtime ties to the CIA -- and two Kurdish representatives, Massoud Barzani and lalal Talabani. "This was the first official contact for SCIRI, because before we did not ~utomatically believe in the American direction -- whether they meant it or not," al-Musawi said, referring to the United States' historical ambivalence toward removing Saddam, most prominently its failure to support Kurds and Shiites in their revolt after the Persian Gulf War, which Saddam brutally suppressed. Graham Fuller, former vice chairman ~the National Intelligence Council at the CIA and an expert on Islam,. said that the United States must deal with SCOO, despite America's preference that Iraq have a strictly secular government. Although SCIRI wants Iraq's government to be run according to Islamic principles, that probably does not mean an Iranian-style theocracy Fuller said. SCOO's al-Musawi confirmed that view, explaining that the party wants a "kind gj separationMchurch and state" in which clergy would not become politicians or government officials. Added Fuller ~ SCIRI: "They are uncomfortable with American goals in the region, and they would see the American policy as hostile, rightly or Wrongly, to any Islamic state, however you interpret that ... They're warymAmerican imperialism in general. But that dQesn't mean they weren't willing to cooperate in furthering the greater goal ~ removing Saddam.II Abdul Aziz ai-Hakim became SCIRI's representative on the United States' handpicked Iraqi Governing Council after the March 2003 invasion &fIraq. But when his brother was killed in the car bombing at the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf last August, aI-Hakim blamed the United States for creating instability and demanded an end to the occupation. Such positions are part ~ -- ----- o o SCIRI's balancing act, Fuller said. "As t~e majority, the Shiites are the beneficiary J!i [any] democracy, so they're willing to cut the United States a lot ~ slack as long as the US is bringing about the goalMdemocracy. But once they get to democracy, they want the United States to please leave," he said. A SCIRI member, Adel Abdul Mahdi, will serve as Iraq's finance minister in the interim government that takes power in Iraq June 30. Mahdi recently declared that the majority Shiites would not stand for limited Kurdish self-rule in the north, setting the stage for a showdown with the Kurds who have said they will secede from the central government without some guarantee Rfautonomy. Shiites, meanwhile, believe that radical Sunni Muslims -- both Iraqis and those newly arrived from other countries -- are targeting their leaders for assassination.with suicide bombings in an attempt to drive a wedge between the twq sects. What's more, "AI-Qaida is trying to make a war between the Sunni and Shia, to destroy the"American project in Iraq and break up the country so the Wahhabis can have influence" with Sunnis, asserted al-Musawi, referring to the strict fu~damentalist brand ~ Islam that is the official.state religion in Saudi Arabia. In that regard Iran, like the United States, also faces uncertainty about its interests in post-Saddam Iraq. A Wahhabi foothold in its next-door neighbor would be an unwelcome development for Iranian Shiites, whom Wahhabis loathe as infidels. Saddam had kept both Sunni and Shiite religious fervor in check through his authoritarian rule. But now there is no guarantee it can be contained. Looming behind this internal political struggle between religious factions are the two major. powers Rlthe Gulf, Saudi Arabia and Iran. I The degree to which Iraq might become a chessboard on which they move their pawns remains uncertain. There are already indications that Wahhabi Islam is taking root in Iraq, worried Shiites say. AI-Qazwini, the Shiite imam from Los Angeles, said that on a recent visit to Baghdad he discovered that the Urn al-Tubul mosque had been renamed after 13th century Islamic theologian Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyya, an intellectual founder ~ Saudi Arabia. IlThere are big signs for the Ibn Taymiyya mosque now. You can see $.em from the highway," al-Qazwini said. Fuller thinks it makes sense, with all the countervailing forces in the region, for the United States to deal with all major players, even those that have ties to Iran. liThe United States has slowly come around," he said. "The first Bush administration didn't want to touch the Shia. They were afraid the Shia would take over in Iraq" with an Iranian-style theocracy. But, he added, "I think now the US has leamed something about the Shia and their more complex nature. The Shia do not love us, but. they are grateful that we threw out Saddam. Now they want us to complete the job and leave.II It remains unclear which ler~cy will have the most lasting imprint in the new Iraq -- that ~ Abraham Lincoln or that ~ the turbaned clerics in Tehran. Source: Salon (US), Mary Jacoby, June 16,2004 http://fairose.laccesshost.comlnews2/salon24.htm ,. ANTI·:e WAR.S ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED O' ~REIN IS UNCLASSIFIED ~TE 07~29~2010 BY 60324 uc bali1/sab/lsg Page 1 of6 C!~PRINTTHIS May 28, 2004 Chalabi-gate: None Dare Call It Treason Neocons behind bars? Sounds good to me•••• by Justin Raimondo The fallout from Chalabi-gate continues to rain down on the heads of the War Party, opening up the exciting prospect that some neoconsmight well wind up behind bars. The charge? Espionage, as Sidney Blumenthal informs us: '~t a well-appointed conservative think tank in downtown Washington and across the Potomac River at the Pentagon, FBI agents have begun paying quiet calls on prominent neoconservatives, who are being interviewed in an investigation of.potential espionage, ac.cording to intelligence sources. 'Who gave Ahmed Chalabi· classified information about the plans of the U.S. government and military?" This information, says Vince Cannistraro, formerly at the CIA and the Pentagon, was so "very, very sensitive" that only a few U.S. government officials had access to it: "The evidence has pointed quite clearly, not only the fact that Chalabi might be an agent of influence of the Iranian government and that [Chalabi's intelligence chief, Aras Karim Habib] may be a paid agent of the Iranian intelligence service, but it is shown that there is a leak of classified information from the United States to Iran through Chalabi and Karim and that is the particular point that the FBI is investigating. In other words, some U.S. officials are under investigation on suspicion of providing classified information to these people that ended up in Iran." Blumenthal }tas more: '~ former staff member of the Offic.e of Special Plans and a currently serving defense official, two of those said to be questioned by the FBI, are considered witnesses, at least for now. Higher figures are under suspicion. Were they· ,witting or unwitting? If those who are being questioned turn ouf to· be misleading, they can- be charged ultimately with perjury an,q file:/lC:\DOCUME-l\agolwink\LOCALS-l\Temp\XN729MWP.htm 6/13/2005 I ... ; , - Page 2 of6 ., obstruction ofjustice.Qr them, the Watergate PrinQZe applies: It's not the crime, it's the coverup." The lie~ Chalabi fed to Washington policymakers, who eagerly scarfed them up and regurgitated them to the American public, originated with Iranian intelligence, as we are beginning to learn. But the neocon-Tehran information superhighway ran in both directions. As Julian Borger reports in the Guardian: '~n intelligence source in Washington said the CIA confirmed its long-held suspicions when it discovered that a piece of information from an electronic communications intercept by the National Security Agency had ended up in Iranian hands. The information was so sensitive that its circulation had been restricted to a handful of officials. 'This was 'sensitive compartmented information' - SCI - and it was tracked right back to the Iranians through Aras Habib,' the intelligence source said." UPI's Richard Sale reports that "the Federal Bureau of Investigation has launched a full field investigation into the matter,II and gives more information on what was compromised and how the Iranians pulled off this intelligence coup: "Chalabi allegedly passed National Security Agency/CIA intercepts to intelligence agents of the Iranian government using intermediaries or 'cutouts' or 'gophers' within the INC, another former CIA agent said. Some of the intercepts, dated from December, were the basis for a rec~nt Newsweek story, but there are others of a later date in possession of the FBI, this source said." How did Chalabi get his hot little hands on highly secret information? That's why the FBI - instead of going after, say, Brandon .Mayfield, or some other completely innocent person, as per usual - is now calling on "prominent" neocons at Washington's poshest thinktanks. I hope they're bringing an ample supply of handcuffs. But whom might they be handcuffing and frog-marching out the door, into a waiting paddywagon? UPI gives us the scoop, citing "a former very senior CIA official" as saying: "'Chalabi passed specially compartmented intelligence, extraordinarily sensitive stuff, to the. Iranians.' This source said that some of the intercepts are believed to have been given Chalabi by two U.S. officials of the Coalition Provision Authority, both of whom are not named here ·because UPI could not reach them for comment." Well, they aren't named, but they might as well have been: "Qne former CPA official has returned to the United States and is 'employed at ·the American Enterprise Institute, the fQrme~ very senior file:/IQ:\DOCUME-l\agolwink\LOCALS-l\Temp\XN729MWP.htm 6/13/2005 Page 3 of6 ~ offi;ial s~id, a fact wQh FBI sources confinned wQout additional comment. The other is still (l working Pentagon official, federal law enforcement officials and former CIA officials said." Independent journalist Bob Dreyfuss, whose excellent articles on the neocons in The American Prospect and Mother Jones puts him up there with Jim Lobe, Michael Lind, and Joshua Marshall as a veritable maven of neocon-ology, names names: "The two officials in the UPI story are, according to my sources, Harold Rhode, an officzal'in the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, and Michael Rubin, now at the American Enterprise Institute." Rubin, formerly of the Office of Special Plans and the CPA, who served as liaison with Chalabi's group, the Iraqi National Congress, certainly fits the bill. No wonder he's been so tI' cranky lately, what with FBI agents barging into his office and giving him the third degree. Rhode, a longtime Pentagon official assigned to the Office of Net Assessment and a specialist on Islam, is reportedly Douglas Feith's chief enforcer of the anti-Arab party line among the civilian Pentagon hierarchy. In refusing to be interviewed by Dreyfuss for a piece on the neocons in Mother Jones, Rhode's laconic reply was: "Those who speak, pay." Prescient words, arid truer than perhaps even Rhode realized at the time. Hauled up before·a grand jury, however, Rhode, Rubin, and the. rest of Chalabi's Pentagon fan club may have .no choice about speaking - especially with the prosp~ct of a long "vacationII at a ·federal facility staring them in the face. - Much is being made of bow the Iranians "duped" us into invading Iraq, and "used" the U.S. in getting rid of Saddam Hussein and "paving the way," as Julian Borger puts it, for a Shi'ite-ruled Iraq. But a simple map of the region- and rudimentary knowledge of the history of the past ~ecade or so would ha~e revealed as much. As I wrote in this space over a year ago: "In view of Iran's growing sphere of influence in Iraq, it seems rather disingenuous to destroy the Sunni minority government run by the Ba'ath Party and then deny any responsibility for the Shi'ite-y outcome. The U.S. has made a gift of Iraq to Teheran, reigniting the religious passions that overthrew the U.S.-backed Shah Reza· Pahlavi of Iran and propelled Khomeini to power." In charting the outlines of "phase two" of the invasion of Iraq, that same week ,last year, I pointed out: file:/lC:\DOCUME-l\agolwink\LOCALS....l\Temp\XN729MWP.htm 6/13/2005 " Page 4 of6 • . ~ IITh~ mai~ political c£equence of the war, internatjg is to increase Iranian influence: if free elections were held in the southern Shi'a provin_ces of Iraq, they would undoubtedly usher in some sort of 'Islami~ Republic.' The effort by the neocons in the administration to install Ahmed Chalabi as the Pentagon's puppet, far from forestalling this possibility, only makes it a more c~edible threat to the postwar order." But why would the militantly pro-Israel neocons, American partisans of the ultra-nationalist Likud party, act as patrons and promoters of an outfit, Chalabi's INC, that was really a cover for Iranian intelligence - their alleged mortal enemies? That's what I couldn't quite figure out, at least not until I read Robert Parry's excellent piece on the subject, and here's the money quote: - '~s Chalabi's operation fed anti-Saddam propaganda into the u.s. decisionmaking machinery, Bush also should have been alert to the Israeli role in opening doors for Chalabi in Washington. One intelligence source told me that Israel's Likud government had quietly promoted Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress with Washington's influential neoconservatives. That would help explain why the neoconservatives, who share an ideological alliance with the conservative Likud, would embrace and defend Chalabi even as the CIA and the State Department denounced him as a cpn man. "The idea of Israel promoting an Iranian agent also is not far-fetched if one understands the history. The elder Bush could tell his son about the long-standing strategic ties that have ~isted between Israel and Iran, both before and after the. Islamic revolution of 1979. It was Menachem Begin's Likud Party that rebuilt the covert intelligence relationship in 1980. Since then, it has been maintained through thick and thin, despite Iran's public anti-Israeli rhetoric." The enemy of my enemy is my friend: it's a principle, often invoked to justify a course of action seemingly in contradiction to the professed ideology of the actors. Lined up against a common enemy, American Likudniks and Ahmed Chalabi, an Iranian intelligence asset, teamed up to drag us into the Iraqi quagmire, with both members of this oddly coupled tag-team benefiting from the deal. While the neocons fed Chalabi - and his intelligence chief, Arras Karim Habib, a paid Iraqi agent - a steady diet of u.s. secrets, Chalabi fed the neocons (in government and much of the American media) a fresh serving- of tall tales cooked up in the INC's kitchen, and delivered piping hot to Judith Miller's doorstep. The Iranians, for their part, feasted on u.s. secrets so deep and dark that only a few top officials were privy to them - and had a good chunk of Iraq handed to th~m, while a d~ facto Kurdish state emerged as a buffer between Isr~~l an9. the ~hfite power rising in the East. The whole thing- was file:/lC:\DOCUME-l\agolwink\LOCALS-l\Temp\XN729MWP.htm 6/13/2005 ," Page 5 of6 , ..' sup;osed' to have beeQresided over by the ostensiQ pro-Western Chalabi, t4e neocons' Alger Hiss. That was the pl~Jl, at any rate, but something seems to have gone awry.... As in the Abu Ghraib photo-gallery of horrors, the nature of the crime suggests that a few lowly spear carriers -Rubin is just barely out of knee pants, and Rhode was certainly not in the loop on super-sensitive intelligence - didn't pull this off all on their own. Before it's all over, Chalabi-gate will reach into the favored nesting place of the neocons, the very top echelons .of the Pentagon. As UPI editor Martin Walker reports: "The real target goes beyond Chalabi. The hunt is on, in the Republican Party, in Congress, in the CIA and State Department and in a media which is being deluged with leaks, for' Chalabi's friends and sponsors in Washington - the group known as the neo-cons. In particular, the targets seem to be Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, the former assistant secretary (in Reagan's day) Richard Perle, Vice President Dick Cheney's national security aide Scooter Libby, and the National Security Council's Middle East aide Elliott Abrams. The leaking against them - from sources who insist on .anonymity, but some CIA and FBI veterans - is intense. Some of the sources are now private citizens, making a good living through business connections in the Arab world." Speaking of business connections, how does Richard Perle maKe his living except by using his governmentconnections to profit handsomely from the war-driven neocon agenda? Oh well, never mind that: let's get to the juicy 'part. Walker also reports that these poor persecuted neocons "are now beginning to fight back,II and in a familiar fashion: "Richard Perle told this reporter Tuesday that the gloves were off. ... Perle has no doubts that some of the attacks on him are- coming directly from the CIA, in. order to cover their own exposed rears, attacking Chalabi's intelligence to distract attention from their own mistakes. 7 believe that much of th~ CIA operation in Iraq was owned by Saddam Hussein,' Perle said. 'There were 45 decapitation attempts against Saddam - and he survived them all. How could that be, if he was not manipulating the intelligence?'" Gee, I guess this means that, on account of all those failed IIdecapitation attempts" on Fidel Castro over the years, the Cuban Communists exercised joint ownership of the CIA along with Saddam's Ba'athists. Oh, what a Perle of wisdom, but the Prince of Darkness was just getting started: "Perle went on to suggest an even darker motiv_e behind the attacks on the neo-cons; that the real target was Israel's Likud governm~nt a11:d the file:/IC:\DOCUME-l\agolwink\LOCALS-l\Temp\XN729MWP.htm 6/13/2005 Page 6 of6 .." sta~nch ~upportfor /;tel's prime minister Ariel sOon in the Bush administration. When this was put to one CIA source, the reply was mocking: 'That's what they always do. As soon as these guys get any criticism, they scream Israel and anti-Semitism, and I think people are finally beginning to see through that smokescreen.'" How and why an investigation into Iranian penetration of our most closely guarded secrets constitutes evidence of "anti-Semitism" is a question I'll leave (or weightier intellects to ponder. But such an unseemly outburst ought to put to rest any' doubts about a neocon-Iranian convergence of interests: we know something's afoot when both Richard Perle and the Iranian mullahs sound absolutely identical in tone as well as content. We knew what the neocons were capable of: smearing their enemies, lying about practicallyanything, even outing a CIA agent doing high-priority undercover work. Is anyone surprised that they're capable of espionage? Perle is right about one thing:· it's time to take the gloves off. -Justin Raimondo Find this article at: hltp:/lwMY.antiwar.comijustinl?articleid=2683 oCheck the bOx to include the list of links referenced in the article. file:IIC:\DOCUME-l\agolwink\LOCALS-l\Temp\XN729MWP.htm 6/13/2005 ..... ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED The New Yorker: PRINTABLES HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED ~ oDATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baW/sQ~U;1 THE NEW YORKER. FACT lEfTEI\ A\0a"1 WASHINGION REAL INSIDERS by JEFFREY GOLDBERG A pro-Israel lobby and an F.B.I. sting. Issue of 2005-07-04 Posted 2005-06-27 Page i or9.. Several years ago, I had dinner at Galileo, a Washington restaurant,. with Steven Rosen, who was the the director offoreign-policy issues at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The group, whi( is better known by its acronym, AIPACt lobbies for Israel's financial and physical security. Like many .lobbyists, Rosen cultivated reporters, hoping to influence their writing while keeping his name out of print He is a voluble man, and liked to ,demonstrate his erudition and dispense aphori~ms. One that he ofte~ repeated could serve as the credo ofK Street, theRodeo Drive ofWashington's'influence ~ industry:. "A lobby is like a night flower: it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun." Lobbyists tend to believe that legislators are susceptible to persuasion in ways that executive-branch bureaucrats are not, and before Rosen came to AlPAC, in 1982 (he had been at the RAND Corporation, t defense-oriented think tank), the group focussed mainly on Congress. ButRosen arrived brandishing f new idea: that the organization could influence the outcome ofpolicy disputes within the executive ~ranch-in particular, the Pentagon, the State Department, and the National Security Council. Rosen began to court officials. He traded in gossip and speculation, and his reports to AlPAC's leaders helped them track currents in Middle East policymaking before those currents coalesced into executivi orders. Rosen also used his contacts to carry A1PAC'S agenda to the White House. An early success car in 1983, when he helpedlobby for a strategic cooperation agreement between Israel and the United States, which was signed over the objections ofCaspar Weinberger, the Secretary ofDefense, and which led to a new level of-intelligence sharing and -military sales. AlPAC is a leviathan among lobbies, as influential in its sphere as the National Rifle Association and th . American Association ofRetired Persons are in theirs, although it is, by comparison, much smaller. (AIPAC has ~bout a hundred thousand members, the N.R.A. more than four million.) President Bush, speaking at the annual AIPAC conference in May of2004, said, "You've always understood and warneagainst the evil ambition ofterrorism and their networks. In a dangerous new century, your work is more vital than ever." AIPAC is unique in the top tier oflobbies because its concerns are the economic ' health and security ofa foreign nation, and because its members are drawn almost entirely from a sing ethnic group. AIPAC's pr~fes~ional staft'=-it employs about a hundred people at its headquarters, two blocks from the Capitol-analyzes,congressional voting records and shares the results with its members, who can then contribute money to candidates directly or to a network of proIsrael political-action committees~ The Center for Responsive Politics, .a public-policy group, estimates that between 1990 at!d 2004 these PA( gave candidates and parties more than twenty million dollars~ Robert H. Asher, a former AIPAC president, told me that the PACs are usu8Ily given euphemistic names eel started a PAC called Citizens Concerned for the National Interest," he said. Asher, who is from Chicago, is a retired manufacturer oflamps and shades, ,and a member ofthe so-called Gang ofFourformer presidents ofAlPAC, who steered the group's policies for more than two decades. (The three 0 others are LanyWeinb~~ a California real"estate developer and a fonner owner ofthe Po~and T!"lIiI-? ~ - http://www.newyorker.comlprintableslfaetl05Q704f!1.J.~ ~~~~15- .eP~OO~[ z.,"Ii\' 'The New Yorker: PRINTABLES o .o Page20f9 Blazers;'Edward Levy, a construction-materials executive from Detroit; and Mayer "Bubba" Mitchell, a retired builder based in Mobile, Alabama.) AIPAC, Asher explained, is loyal to its friends and merciless to its enemies. In 1982, Asher led a campaign to defeat Paul Findley, a Republican congressman from Springfield, Hlinois, who once referred to himself as "¥asir Arafat's best friend in Congress," and who later compared Arafat to Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. "There was a real desire to h~lp Findley out of Congress," Asher said. He identified an obscure Democratic lawyer in Springfield, Richard Durbin, as someone whQ could defeat-Findley.. "We met at my apartment in Chicago, and I recruited him to run for Congress," he recalled. "I probed; his views and I explained things that I had learned mostly from AIPAC. I wanted to make sure,we were supporting someone who was not only against Paul Findley but also a friend of.Israel." Asher went on, "He beat Findley with a lot ofhelp from Jews, in-state and out-of-state. Now, how did the Jewish money find him? I travelled around the country talking about how we had the opportunity to defeat someone unfriendly to Israel. And the gates opened." Durbin, who 'Went on to win a Senate seat, is now the Democratic whip. He is a fierce critic ofBush's Iraq policy but, like AIPAC, generally supports the Administration's approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict., Durbin says that he considers Asher to be his "most loyal friend in the Jewish community." Mayer Mitchell led a similar campaign, three years ago, to defeat Earl Hilliard, an Alabama congressman who was a critic oflsr~el. Mitchell helped direct support to a young Harvard Law School graduate named Artur Davis, who challenged Hilliard in the Democratic primary, and he solicited donations from AIPAC supporters across America. Davis won the primary, and the seat. "I, asked Bubba how he felt after Davis won," Asher said, "and he said, CJust like you did when Durbin got elected.' " Mitchell declined'to comment. AIPAC's leaders can be immoderately frank about the group's influence. At dinner that night with Steven Rosen, I mentioned a controversy that had enveloped AIPAC in 1992., David Steiner, a New Jersey real-estate developer who was then serving as AlPAC's president, was caught on tape boasting that he had "cut a deal" with the Administration ofGeorge H.·W.. Bush to provide more aid to Israel. Steiner also said that he was "negotiating" with the incoming Clinton Admini~tration over the appointment of a pro-Israel Secretary ofState. "We have a dozen people in his"-Clinton's-"headquarters .. " and they are all going-to get big jobs," Steiner said. Soon after- the tape's existence was disclos~d, Steiner resigned his post. I aske~ Rosen ifAIPAC suffered a,loss ofinfluence after the Steiner affair. Ahalf smile appeared on his face; and he pushed a napkin across the table. "You see this napkin?" he said. "In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures ofseventy senators on this n~pkin~" Rosen was influential from the start. He was originally recruited for the job by Larry Weinberg, one ofthe Gang ofFour, and he helped"choose the group's leaders, including the current executive director, Howard Kohr, a Republican who began his AIPAC career as Rosen's deputy. Rosen, who can be argumentative and impolitic, was never a candidate for the top post. "He's a bit ofa kochleJlf'-the Yiddish term for a pot-stirrer, or meddler-Martin Indyk, who also served as Rosen's deputy, and who went on to become Preside~t Clinton's Ambassador to Israel, says. Rosen has. had an unusually eventful private life, marrying and divorcing six times (he is living again with his first wife); and he has a well-developed sense of paranoia. When we met, he would sometimes lower his voice, even when he was preparing to deliver an anodyne pronouncement. "Hostile ears·are always listening," he was fond ofsaying. Nevertheless, he is a keen analyst ofMiddle East politics, and a savvy bureaucratic infighter. His http://www.ne)v:y.Qlker.comlprintableslfactJ0507Q4fa_fa~ 6/27/2005 The New Yorker: PRINTABLES o o Page 3 of.9 views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are not notablY"4aw.kish;' he. onc~ c~l~ed bimselfCCtoo right for the left, and too left for the right." He is a hard-liner on.only one subject-Iran-and this preoccupation help"ed shape A1PAC's position: that Iran poses a greater threat to ~srael than any other n~tion. In this way, AIPAC i~ in agreement with a long line ofIsraeli leaders; including Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who fears Iran's nuclear intentions more than lie ever feared Saddam Hussein's. (AIPAcJobbied Congress in favor ofthe ~q war, but Iraq ~as not been one of its chief concems.).Rosen's main role at A1PAC, he once told me, was to collect evidence of· "Iranian perfidy" and share it with the United States. Unlike American n~oconselVatives, who have openly supported the Liktia Party over the m~re liberal Labor'Party, AIPAC does not generally take sides,in Israeli politics. But on Iran AIPAc's views resemble those ofthe neoconselVatives. In 1996, Rosen and other AIPAc,stattmembers helped write, and engineer the passage ot: the Iran and'Libya Sanctions Act, which imposed. sanctions on foreign oil companies doing business with tliose two countries; AIPAC ,is determine~-, above all, to deny Iran tl!e ability to m~ufactUre nuclear weapons. Iran was a main focus ofthis year's AIPAC policy conference, which was held in May at t~e Washington Convention Cente~. Ariel Sharon and ~ecretary ofState Condoleezza Rice, amorig others, addre.sse<ffive tQousand AIPAC ~embers. O~e hall ofthe convention centeJ; was ~en up by a Disney-style walk-through display ofan Iranian nuclear facility.. It was 19.tsch, but not ineffeCtive, and Rosen undoubtedly would'have apprecia~ed it. Rosen,-however, was not there. He was fired eartier this year by Howard Kohr, nine months after he becameimplicated in 89 F.B.I. espionage investiga~o~. Rosen's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, expects him to be indicted on charges of.passing-,secret information'about Iranian intelligence activities in Iraq to an official of the 'Israeli ~mfjassy and to a Washi~gton Post repQrter. Ajunior co~league, Keith Weis~man, who selVed as an Iran ~alyst for A1?AC until he) t90; was fired, may face similar charges. The perS9n wh~, in essence, ended Rosen's career is a fifty-eight-year-old Pentagon analyst named ~awrence Anthony Franklin, who is even more pr~occupied with Iran than Steven Rosen.. Franklin, until re~ently the Pentagon's Iran desk officer, was indicted last mo~th on espionage, ch~ges. The Justice Department has accused him ofgiving "national-defense iiifonn~tion" to Rosen and Weissman, and classified inf9nnation to an Israeli official. FraD:k1i~ has pleaded not ,guilty; a tentative trial date is set for September. If convicted, he will face at least ten y~rs in prison. I first met Franklin in November of2002. Paul Wolfowitz, then the Deputy Secretary ofDefense, was receiving the HenryM.. (Scoop) Jack~on award from the Jewish Institute for_National Security Affairs, a conselVative-leaning group that tries to buil~ close relations between-the American and Israeli militaries. In the ballroom ofthe Ritz-Carlton Hotel at Pentagon 'City; a shopping mall, were a number ofAmerican generals and the.Israeli Ambassador to the United States, D~nny Ayalon. Fr~in, a ~m man with blond hair and a military bearing, is a colonel in the Air Force ReselVe who spent several years as an al}alyst at the pefense.Intelligence·Agency. He has a doctorate in Asian studies and describes himselfas a capable speaker ofFafsi. In addition, he was a Catholic in a largely Jewish network ofPentagon Iran hawks. Franklin.was particularly close to the neoconservative Harold Rhode, an official in the Office of Net Assessment, the Pen~gon' s in-house think tank. Franklin was also close to Michael Ledeen, who, twenty years ago, played an important role in the Iran;-Contra scandal by helping arrange meetings between the American government and the Iranian anns dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar. .Ledeen, now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise InstitUte, is one ofthe most outspoken ' advo~tes inWashin~on ofconfrontation with the Tehran regime. _,http://www.ne~Qfk~r:C!Q~pri!1!!!bie§!f~~tJo.59791fa~[~c~.· 6/27/2005 TheNew Yorker: PRINTABLES o o Page 4 of9 The conversation at the banquet~ and just about everywhere else in official Washington at that time, centered on the coming war in Iraq. "We may well hope that With the demise ofa truly evil and despotic regime in Iraq, we will see the liberation of one ofthe most talented peoples in the Arab world," Wolfowitz said in his speech. Franklin did not seem especially concerned with the topic at hand: As we stood outside the banquet hall, he said that Iran, not Iraq, would tum out to be the most difficult challenge in the war on terror. · Then, as now, the Administration was divided on the question ofIran. Many ofthe political appointees at the Defense Department hoped that America would support dissidents in an- attempt to overthrow·Iran's ruling clerics, while the State Department argued for containment. Even within the Defense Department, many officials believed that it would be imprudent to make regime change in Tehran a top priority., "There are neocons who thought Iran should come sooner and neocons who thought it should come later/' Reuel Marc Gerecht, ofthe American Enterprise. Institute, told me., As for Franklin~ Gerecht, a fo~er Iran specialist in the c;:lA. 's Directorate of Operations, said, "It's fair to say thatLany was imp~tient with Bush Administration policy on Iran." In the Pentagon's policy office, I learned later, it was sometimes said that Franklin inhabited a place called planet Franklin., Gerecht referred to him as "sweet, bumbling Larry." Ayear later, on areporting assignment in Israel, I ran into Franklin at the Herzliya Conference, which is the Davos ofthe Israeli security establishment. He said, that he was there on Defense Department business., We talked briefly about Iraq-it was eight montHs after the invasion-~d, as we spoke, General Moshe Ya'a1on, then the Israeli Army chiefofstaff: swept into the room surrounded by bodyguards and unifonned aides. "Wow," Franklin said. We stepped outside, and he talked only about Iran's threat to America. "Our intelligence is blind," he said. "It's the most dangerous country in the world to the U.S.,.and we have nothing on the ground. We don't understand anything that goes on. I mean, the C.I.A. doesn't have anything. This goes way deeper than Tenet"-George Tenet, who was the director ofcentral intelligence at the time.>He continued, "Do you know how dangeroys lran.is to our forces in the Gulf? We have great force~oncentration issues now'~-the presence of Americ~troops in Iraq-~'and the Iranians are very interested in making life difficult for American forces. They have the capability. You watch what they're do,ing in Iraq. Their infiltration is everywhere.." Franklin seeme~ more frustrated with American policy in Iran than he had the year before. "We don't understand that it'"s doable-regime change is doable," he said. "The people are so desperate to become free, and the mullahs are so unpopular. They're so pro-American, the people." Referring to the Bush Administration, he said, "That's what they don't understand," and he added, "And they also don't understand how anti-American the mullahs are.," Franklin was convinced that the Iranians would commit acts ofterrorism against Americans, on American soil. "'J;hese guys are a threat to us in Iraq and even at home," he said. Franklin was not a high-ranpng Pentagon official; he was five steps removed in the hierarchy from Douglas Feith, th~ Under-Secretary for Policy. For two years, though, he had been trying to change Atp.erican policy., His efforts took many fonns, including calls to reporters, meetings with Rosen and Weissman and with the political counsellor at the Israeli Embassy, Naor Gilan. According to Tracy O'Grady-Walsh~ a Pentagon spokeswoman, he w~ not acting on behalfof his superiors: "IfLany Franklin was fonnally or infonnally lobbying, he was doing it on his own." , ", Franklin also·sought infonnation from Iranian dissidents who might aid his cause. In December of2001, he and Rhode met in Rome with Michael'Ledeen and'a group ofIranians, including Manucher Ghorbanifar. Ledeen, who helped arrange the meeting, told me that the dissidents gave Franklin and Rhode infonnation about Iranian threats against American soldiers in Afghanistan. ·http://www.newyorker.comlprintableslf~ctl05Q7_04ftLf~~t 6/27/2005 The New Yorker: PRINTABLES , 0 o Page 5 of9 (Rhode- did not return calls seeking comment.) Franklin was initially skeptical~about the meeting, Ledeen said, but emerged believing that America could do business with these dissidents. Franklin's meetings with Gilon and with the two AIPAC men make up the heart ofthe indictment against him. The indictment alleges that Rosen-"CC;.I," or "Co-Conspirator 1"-caIIed the Pentagon in early August of2002, looking for the name ofan Iran specialist. He made contact with Franklin a short time later, but, according to the indictment, they did not meet until February of2003.. In their meetings, according to seve~ people with knowledge ofthe conversations, Franklin told the lobbyists that Secretary of State Colin Powell was resisting attempts by the Pentagon to formulate a tougher Iran policy. He apparently hoped to use AIPAC to lobby the Administration. The Franklin indictment suggests that the F.BJ. had been watching Rosen as well; for instance, it. . alleges that, in February of2003, Rosen, on his way to a meeting with Franklin, told someone'on' , the phone that he "was excited to meet with a 'Pentagon 8\1Y' because this person was a 'real insi~er..' " Franklin, Rose~, and Weissman met openly four times in 2003.. At one point, the indictment reads, somewhat mysteriously, "On or about March 10,2003, Franklin, CC-I and CC2"- Rosen and Weissman"'::"~cmet at Union Station early in the morning. In the course ofthe meeting, the three men moved from one restaurant to another restaurant and then finished the meeting in an empty restaurant." On June 26, 2003, at a lunch at the Tivoli Restaurant, near the Pentagon, Franklin reportedly told Rosen and Weissman about a draft ofa National Security Presidential Directive that outlined a series oftougher steps that the U.S. could"take against the Iranian leadership. The draft was written by a young Pentagon aide named Michael Rubin (who is now affiliated with the American Enterprise Institute). Franklin did not hand over a copy ofthe draft, but he described its contents, and, according to the indictment, talked about the "state ofinternal United States government deliberations." The'indictment also alleges that Franklin gave the two men "highly classified" information about potential attacks on American forces in Iraq. In mid-August of2002, according to the indictment, Franklin met with Oilon-'identified simply as "FO," or "foreign official"-at a restaurant, and Oilon explained to Franklin that he was the "policy" person at the Embassy. The two met regularly, the indictment alleges, often at the Pentagon OfficerS' Athletic'Club, to discuss "foreign-policy issues," particularly regarding a "Middle Eastern couniry"-Iran, by all accounts-and "its nuclear program." The indictment suggests that Franklin was receiving information and policy advice from Gilon; after one meeting, Franklin drafted an "Action Memo" to his supervisors incorporating Oilon's suggestions. Oilon is an expert on weapons proliferation, according to Danny Ayalon, the Israeli Ambassador, and has briefed reporters about Israel's position on Iran. A-ccording to Lawrence Di Rita, a Pentagon spokesman, it is part of the "job description" ofDefense D~partment desk 6ffigers to meet with their foreign counterparts. "Desk officers meet with foreign officials all the time, not with ministers, but interactions with people at their level," he said.. The indictment contends, however, that on two occasions Franklin gave Oilon classified information. The is~ue ofIsrael's activities in Washington is unusually sensitive. Twenty years ago, a civilian Naval Intelligence analyst named Jonathan Pollard·was caught stealing American secrets on behalfof an Israeli intelligence cell-a "rogue" cell, the Israelis later claimed. Pollard said that he 'was driven to treason because, as a Jew, he could not abide what he saw as America's unwillingness to share crucial intelligen~ with Israel. Pollard's actions were an embarrassment for American Jews, who fear the accusation of"dualloyalty"-the idea that they split their allegiance between the United States and Israel. For Israel, the case was a moral and political disaster. And there are some in the American intelligence community who suspect that Israel has never stopped spying on the United States. http://www.newyorker.com!printableslfactJ0507.04(a_fac! 6/27/2005 The New Yorker: PRINTABLES '0 o Page60f9 b7E ~ii~rthis month, Ayalon told me iliat lS~el dQes not "collect any intelligence on the United S~tes, period, full stop.. We won't do anything to risk tpis most important relationship.~' In any case, he said, there was no need to spy, ~'because cooperation is so intimate and effective between Israel and th~ U.S." Ayalon als9, said that Gilon, who is returning ~o Jerusalem later this summer, remains an important member ofhis staff; in recent months, Gilon has attended meetings at the. State Department, the Pentagon, and the White House. n June of2004, F.B.I. agents searched Franklin's Pentagon office and his h9me in·West .rginia, and allegedly found eighty-three classified documents. Some had to do with the Iran ebate, but some pertained to Al Qaeda and Iraq. (A separate federal indictment, citing the ocumentS, has be~anded d~~. i_n.}\'~t VIrginia.) ~~9r:d~pg.tQ a~p'er:sQn;:with.~owl~~g~ of ~~i!l~S-~as~,Jh~ilg~J~\q;~~ftT!6':af~~~q~#i~W~!~§ffi~~et~~W-9j@~g:~g..~~~~ .:": ~~~'::'~~~~lIffanldiii:fiiced·ftiiD%tli~~Qcum~~~~fQ~.na 'ift:,hi~;,Ii.QiJsef29.ulg~~!f~li~nijii~ a...- ~9.!t~llie~~IlfS2~~:J?~~!!!;~w.h~;!!ig[#,.Q~l&~v~~:I~:wYe~;;~gr~~.g.;t9t~9Jw1m~~!~~~~g~Oh9t i?~~~!f~Jl1:W.~i~!~!ialllio~~~~ppiieiitlY;lie:MiaS~ndtgiYeii~fii:reiUrnr~j~p'eCj.~Pt9.iP.~~~j~·"::-·-:::> {!~ni'e1i,*;Soon,he was wired, and was asked to contact the two AIP!\C employees. On July-21s~~ Fiiiiidin called Weissman and said that he had to speak to him immediately-that it was a matter oflife and death: They arranged to meet outside the Nordstrom's department store at Pentagon €ity.. Amonth before that meeting, The New Yorker had published an article by Seymour HerSh about the ~ctivities o(Israeli intelligence agents in northern Iraq. Franklin, who held a top-secret security clearance, allegedly told Weissman that he had new, classified info.rmation indicating that Iranian agents were planning to kidnap and kill the Israelis referred to by Hersh. American intelligenc~ Iqtew ~out tile threat, Franklin ~aid, but Israel ~ight not. He also said that the -Iranians had infi~trated southern Iraq, and were planning attacks o~ American soldiers. Rosen and Weissman, Franklit) hoped, .could insure that senior Administration officials received this news.. It is unclear whether what ;FranklilJ. relayed was troeor whether it had been manufactured ~y the F.B.I. TheBureau has refused to comment on the case. Weissman hurried back to AlPAC's headquarters. and briefed Rosen and Howard Kohr, AIPAC's executive director. According to AIPAC sources, Rosen and Weissman-asked K.ohr to gtve the information to Elliott Abrams, the senior Middle East official on the National Security CounciL Kohr didn't get in touch with Abrams, but Rosen andW~issman made two calls. They called. Oilon and told him about the threat to Israeli agents in Iraq, and then they called Glenn Kessler, a diplomatic correspondent at the Washington Post. and told him about the threat to Americans. Amonth later, on the morning ofAugust 27,2004, F.B.I. agents vi~ited Rosen· at his home, in Silver Spring, Maryland, se~king to question him. Rosen quickly called AlPAC'S lawyers. That night, CBS News reported that an unnamed Israeli "mole" had been discovered in ~he Pentagon, and that the mole had been passing documents to two officials of.AI?AC, who were passing the documents on tQ Israeli officials. Within days, the names ofFranklin, Rosen, and Weissman were made p~bl~c. TheF.B:I. informed Franklin that he was going tQ be charged with illegal possession ofclassified documents. Franklin was said by friends to be frightened, ~nd surprised. He said that he could not afford to hire a lawyer. The F.B.I. arranged for a court-appoiIited' att~rney to represent him.. The lawyer, a former federal prosecutor, advised him to plead guilty to espionage charges, ana receive a prison sentence of six to eight years. &16~1Jlj~~F~id1i~t~cii;~fi~~i~li~~I;~~4~~9;~m~;~J~;.~9~m~t!eI~:.o~~n .~ ~ _.~ • ..........---...._~..~~..~Lo~ p... _- -=-:a..-..-"'=:. ~.'''- 'C'I.~'''''~"_,,,,--,,:,:"'Ilo.~ . . http://www.newyorker.corolpri~!!l!?I~{~~t!Q?Q7Q4t~Ja~ _-. _ _ . '6/27/2005' TheNew Y-orker: PRINTABL0ES o Page.70f9 policy. "I called him and said, 'Larry, what's going on?' "·Ledeen recalled. "He said, 'Don't worry.. Sharansky' "-Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident-" 'survived years in the Gulag, and I'll survive prison, too.' I said, 'What are you talking about?' He told me what was going on. I asked him ifhe had a good lawyer."'Ledeen called the criminal-defense attorney Plato Cacheris. "I knew him from when he served as Fawn's attorney," Ledeen said, referring to Fawn Hall, who was Colonel Oliver North's secretary at the time ofthe Iran-Contra affair. Cacheris has also represented Monica Lewinsky and the F.B.I. agent Robert Hanssen, who spied for Moscow. Cacheris offered to represent Franklin pro bono, and Franklin accepted the offer.. AIPAC launched a special appeal for donations-for the organization, ~ot for Rosen and Weissman.. "Your generosity at this time will help ensure that false allegations do not hamper our ability or yours to work for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship and a safe and secure Israel," AlPAC'S leaders wrote in the letter accompanying the appeal. But in December four AIPAC officials, including Kohr, were subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia. In March, AlPAC's principal lawyer, Nathan Lewin, met with the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District ofVirginia, Paul McNul~, who agreed to let Lewin see some ofthe evidence ofthe Pentagon City sting. According to an AIPAC source, an eleven-second portion ofthe telephone conversation between Rosen, Weissman, and the Post's Glenn Kessler, which the F.B.I. had recorded, was played for Lewin. In tha~ conversation, Rosen is alleged to have told Kessler about Iranian·agents in.southem Iraq-information that Weissman had received from Franklin. In the part ofthe conversation that Lewin heard, Rosen jokes about "not getting in trouble" over the infonnation. He also ~otes, "At least we have no Official Secrets Ace'-the British law that makes journalists li~ble to prosecutiQn ifthey publish classified material. Prosecutors argu~d to Lewin that this sPltement proved that Rosen and Weissman were aware that the info~ation ,Franklin had given them was classified, and thatRosen must therefore have mown that he was passing classified information to Oilon, a foreign official. Lewin, who declined to comment on the case, recommended that AlPAC fire Rosen and Weissman. He also told the board that McNulty had promised that AIPAC itselfwould not be a target ofthe espionage investigation. An AIPAC spokesman, Patrick Dorton, said ofthe firing, "Rosen and Weissman were dismissed because they engaged in conduct that was not part oftheirjobs, and because this conduct did not comport with the standards that AIPAC expects and requires ofits employees.tt When iasked Abbe Lowell, Rosen's lawyer, about the firings, he said, "Steve Rosen's dealings with Larry Franklin were akin to his dealings with executive-branch officials for more than two decades and were well1a).own, encouraged, and appreciated by AIPAC.." Last month, I met with Low~ll and Rosen in Lowell's office, which these days is a center of Washington sqandal management.. (He also represents the fallen lobbyist Jack Abramoff.) Lowell had instructed Rosen not to discuss specifics of}he case, but Rosen expressed disbeliefthat his career had'been ended by an F.B.I. investigation. "I'm being looked at for things I've done for twen~-three years, which other foreign-poli9Y groups, hundreds offoreign-policy groups, are doing," Rosen said, and went on, "Ourjob. at AIPAC was to understand what the government is doing, in order to help fonn better policies, in the interests ofthe U.S. I've never done anything illegal orharmful to the U.S. I never even dreamed ofdoing anything harmful to the U.S." Later, he said, "We did not knowingly receive classified infonnation from Lany Franklin." Lowell added, "When the facts are known, this will be a case not about Rosen and Weissman's actions but about the government's actions." Lowell said that he would not rehearse his arguments against any charges until there is an indictment. J' Rosen said that he was particularly upset by the al~egation that, because he had informed OiloD http://www~newyorker~comlprintableslfactJOS0704faJ~ct 6/27/2005 TheNew Yorker:.PRINTABL0ES o P~ge8of9 that Israeli lives might be in danger, he.was a spy forIsrael. "IfI had been given information that British or Australian soldiers were going to be kidnapped or killed in Iraq, I think I would have done the same thing," he said."'!'d have tried to warn them by calling friends at those e~bassies." He wants to believe that he could return to AIPAC if he is exonerated, but this does not seem likely. AIPAC leaders are downplayillg Rosen's importance to the organization.. "AIPAC is focussed primarily on legislative lobbying," Dorton told me. Rosen's severance pay will end in September, although AIPAC, in accordance with its bylaws, will continue to pay legal fees for Rosen and Weissman. Rosen's defenders are critical ofAIPAC for its handling ofthe controversy. Martin Indyk, who is now the director ofthe Saban Center for Middle East Policy, a think tank within the Brookings Institution, thinks that AIPAC made a tactical mistake by cutting offthe two men. "It appears they've abandoned their own on the battlefield," he says. "Because they cut Steve on: they leave. him no choice." Indykwouldn't elaborate, but the implication was clear: Rosen and Weissman will defend themselves by arguing that they were working in concert with the nighest officials of the organization, including Kohr. Until there is an indictment, the government's full case against Rosen and Weissman cannot be known; no one in the Justice Department will comment. The laws concerning the di~semination ofgovernment secrets are sometimes ambiguous and often unenforced, and prosecutors in such cases face complex choices. According to Lee Strickland, a former chief privacy officer ofthe C.I.A., prosecutors pressing espionage charges against Rosen and Weissman would have t9 prove that the information the two men gave to Gilon not merely was classified but rose to the level of "national-defense information," meaning that it could cause dire harm to the United States.. Yet a reporter who called the Embassy to discuss the same iJiformation in the course of preparing a story-thus violating the same statute-would almost certainly not be pro~ecuted., Strickland continued, "Twice in the Clinton Administration we had proposals to broaden the statutes to include the recipients, not just the leakers, ofclassified information.. TheNew York Times and the Washington Post went bat-shit about this legislation. They saw it as an attempt to shut down . leaks." IfAmerican law did punish those who receive, and then pass on, or publish, privileged information, much oftheWasllington press corps would be in jail, ~ccording to Lee Levine, a First Amendment lawyer. So would a great many government officials, elected and appointed, for whom classified information is the currency ofconversation with reporters and lobbyists. Strickland, who said that he had spent much ofhis career a~ the C.I.A. "shutting down" leaks, called the AIPAC affair ''uncharted territory." It is uncommon, he said, for an espionage case to be built on the oral transmission ofnational-defense information. He also said, "Intent is always an element. IfI were a defense attorney, I would-argue that this was a form of entrapment. The F.B.I. agents deliberately set my client up, put him in a moral quandary.." He added, however, that although ajury might recognize the quandary, the law does not. "Just because you have information that would help a foreign country doesn't make it yourjob to pass that information." Even some ofAIPAC's most vigorous critics do not see the Rosen affair as a tradi~onal espionage case. James Bamford, who is the author ofwell-received books about the National Security. Agency, and an often vocal critic ofIsrael and the pro-Israel lobby, sees the case as a cautionary tale about one lobbying group's disproportionate influence: "What Pollard did was espionage. This is a much di(ferent and more unique animal-this is the selling ofideology, trying to sell a viewpoint." He continued, ''Larry Franklin is not going to knock on George Bush's dOOf, but he can get AIPAC, whic~ is a pressure group, and the Israeli government, which is an enormous pressure group, to try to get the American government to change its policy to a more aggressive policy." Bamford, who believes that Weissman and Rosen may indeed be guilty ofsoliciting information and passing it to aforeign government, sees the cas.e as a kind ofbmshback pitch, a way oflimiting AIPAC'S long-and, in Bamford's view, dangerous-reach.. http://www.newyorker.comlprintableslfacY950704faJ~ct 6/27/2005 • , 'The New Yorker: PRINTABLES o o Page90f9 Other AIPAC critics see the lobby's behavior as business as usual in Washington. "The No.. ! game in Washington is making people falking to you feel like you're an insider, that you've got infonnation no one else has," Sam Gejdenson, a fonner Democratic congressman from Connecticut, says. When Gejdenson opposed a proposal to increaSe Israel's foreign-aid allocation at the expense of'more economically needy countries, AIPAC, he sai~, responded by "sitting on its hands" during his reelection campaigns, despite the fact that he is Jewish. "It's like any other lobbying group," he said. "Its job isn't to come up with.the best ideas for mankind, or the U.S. It's narrowly focussed." AIPAC officials insist that the case has not affected the organiiation's effectiveness. But its operations have certainly been hindered by the controversy ofthe past year, and the F.B.I.. sting may force ~obbyists of all sorts to be more careful about trying to penetrate the,e~ecutive branch-and about leaking to reporters. And AIPAC now seems acUtely sensitive to the appearance ofdual loyalty. The theme ofthis year's AIPAC conference was "Israel, an American Value," and, for the first time,'1'{atikvah," the-Israeli na~onal anthem, was' not sung. The only anthem heard was "The Star-Spangled Banner.." + http://www.newyorker.comlprintableslfactJ05~0704fa_f~~t 6/27/2005 National News ~.. . --.- ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED . HEREIN IS TJNCLASSIFIED ~ DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc ba~J1Sg Page l,of.5 Home Local NeVIs, _ .National News Israel News.. -~ - .- Int~ri1ation-al ~ews ~l!lnlo~-= Books' --=---- Cal.enda-r -c-~. ~g~dults -......- ~estaurants - ::ron ........- Food, . ~~-t"_~.....c:· Milestones - - . ~~~!Idays' ____ SourceBooJ( .- Sh'opping' -- Marketplace Personals - About Us .Adyertisers Criinmuni~te,. Coinmu.Oity Unks' jsea~cti~ ~ Current o Arch~ search National News Lawye:r; Franklin Used In AIPAC Sting Ron Kampe~ and Ma~thew E. Berger Special to the Jewish Times JULy 11~2005 Washington Lawrence Franklin, the Pentagon analyst at the center ofthe gove~entts espionage case ~gainst two fonner employees ofthe American Israel-Public ~airs Committee, "walke4 onstage" in,to an on$Qing investigation ofAlPAC offici~s, according ~o his attorney: ' Plato'Cacheri~"o~e ofWashingtonts best-knoW!} espionage lawyers, told ITA in a recent interview that,he is representing Franklin for.free because he feels his client was unfairly targeted. til felt for him,It Cacheris said. "I fett pe was unfairly put upon.It .Franklin was indicted lastmonth'on charges th~t he conspired to reveal classifie9 information to two AlPAC officials; former policy director SteveRosen andfonner Iran analyst-Keith Weissman, and an Israeli Embassy employee" Franklin's trial is se~ to start-Sept. 6. The midlevel Iran analyst has plead not guilty. "Franklin~'Yalkoo onstag~; there already was an inve~tigation going on not involyinghim,II Cacheris said. Pro~ecutors and other g~vemment o~cials hav~ refused to comment on the case. The infQrm~tion that F~nklin allegediy relayed to Rose.~ and Weissman centered on Irant~ activities in post-invasion Ir~q. ·Cacherist assertion th~tFranklin was an accidental target,in the case reinforces the perception held by tho~e close to the defense of Weissman a~dRoserl that the't}Vo former AlPAG eD:lployees were the FBrs original targets. - I _. - -http;/Iwww;jewishtimes.comlNewsl4833.stm.... - -)-f ~r-OJ.&1IS·-Mfuo05 ;k ~( ~'&- National News o o Page2of5 Indeed, Franklin's in~ictmetit cites as evidence apparently tapped phone conversations ofRosen even before he met Franklin, suggesting that the government stumbled across Franklin in the course oftracking Rosen. Another source familiar with the government's case against Rosen says an investigation was launched as early as September 2001 because the Bush administration wanted to quash what it believed was a promiscuous culture ofleaking in Washington. Rosen was renowned for his access t9 inside infonnation., .Cacheris would not speculate about the government's rationale for the case. "There seems to me there is something driving it,II he said. "What it is, I don't know yet." Five ofthe six charges in Franklin's indictment focus on his relationship with Rosen and Weissman; the sixth involves his relationship with Naor Oilon, head ofthe political desk at the ~sraeli Embassy in Washington.. According t~ the indictment, Franklin's acquaintance with Oilon predates his meetings with Rosen and Weissman. Cacheris said a relationship between Gilon and Franklin - two men with a professional interestin Iran - was hardly surprising. He characterized the indictment's implication that Franklin sought some$ing from Israel in exchange for infonnation as "rather flimsy.." The indictment mentions a store gift card Franklin received from Oilon and a letter ofreference Oilon 'wrote on behalf ofFranklin's daughter, who was going to visit Israel. Franklin sought Cacheris' legal· assistance late last year after the FBI said it would press charges againsthim, even though he had cooperated with the government's investigation ofRosen and Weissman. Asked why Franklin agreed to the FBI's alleged request last June to participate in a sting operation involving Weissman and Rosen without even asking for a lawyer or any quid pro quo, Cacheris smiled.. "Larry's a little bit guileless - maybe a lot guileless - and maybe a bit unsophisticated for a guy with a Ph.D. in Asian studies," said Cacheris, a Southerner with an awncular manner and a fondness for seersucker suits. liThe questions that you would have asked, he didn't ask." tllf he had a lawyer up front, we wouldn't be talking today," Cacheris said. http://www.jewishtimes.comlNews/4833.stm 7/13/2005 National News o o Page 3 of5 In the alleged sting on July 21,2004, Franklin called Weissman and insisted that they meet as soon as possible., When they met later that day at a shopping mall, Franklin told Weissman that Iranian agents planned to imminently kidnap, torture and kill Israeli and American agents in northern Iraq, according to sources. Franklin reportedly asked Weissman to relay the information to Elliott Abrams, then the assistant national'security adviser at the White House in charge of dealing with the Middle East. The presumption was that AlPAC would have better access to the White House than a mid-level Iran analyst at the Pentagon. The reliability ofthe information has never been verified, but Cacheris insists Franklin was embroiled in a sting operation. "He was given a script,II the attorney said. Weissman relayed the information to Rosen, and together they told their boss, AIPAC's executive director Howard Kohr, asking him to pass it on to Abrams, according to multiple sources. There is no evidence that Kohr shared the infonnation with Abrams or anyone else or that he knew it was classified. The government has assured AlPAC that nei~her it nor Kohr are targets in the investigation, AlPAC has said.. Cacheris said he does not know ifthe alleged sting was directed at anyone beyond Rosen or Weissma~. The two AlPAC staffers also relayed the information to Gilon at the Israeli Embassy and to Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post's State Department correspondent, according to sources close to the defense. Those two conversations are expected to be central to the case against Rosen and Weissman.. Indictments against the two are expected to be handed down sometime this summer.. The government will "argue that relaying classified infonnation to a foreign agent is an act ofespionage and that Rosen and Weissman made it clear in their conversation with Kessler that the information was classified, according to defense sources familiar with the government's case. Weissman and Rosen will say they did not know that the information was classified and that the·government is distorting their conversation with Kessler, according to sources close to the former AIPAC officials. In ~ugust 2004, about a month after the alleged sting, FBI agents raided the offices ofRosen and Weissman atAlPAC headquarters. In http://www.jewishtimes.comlNews/4833.8tm . 7113/2005 National News o o Page 4 ofS January, the government convened a grand jury in Virginia to consider the case. Cacheris, famous for handling high-profile espionage cases including those against the FBI's Robert Hannsen and the CIA's Aldrich Ames -- doesn't believe the government has a lot to go on. The exchanges that Rosen, Weissman and Franklin allegedly had are "very comJ:llon," Cacheris said. "People in this city are talking every day about stuffthey're not allowed to talk about. It's not inappropriate." AIPAC fired Weissman and Rosen in March, after months of defending their integrity, citing infonnatio~ that ar.ose out ofthe FBI investigation. Franklin also faces charges in West Virginia, his place ofresidence, where he is alleged to have violated a ban on removing classified documents from the Virginia-Maryland-D.C.. region by taking some items home.. Franklin was reprimanded in the late 1990s for the same reason but was allowed to keep his security clearance. Cacheris said he wasn't currently negotiating a deal 'for Franklin.. "We will not plead to an espionage count because we don't think that is justified,tI he said. Cacheris did not rule out agreeing to a plea bargain on a lesser charge in the future. This story reprinted courtesy of~he Jew~sh_Telegraphic Agencv. To read more, pick.up a copy ofthe Jewish Times at one ofour newsstand ~.<?cat!ons. To purchase a subscription or send a gift subscription, fill out our .9_n~ line fo_oo. ~Talk about It In ~oforum Copyright 02003 the Baltimore Jewish Times http://Viww.jewishtimes.comlNews/4833.stm 7/13/2005 TheNation. o •.... o ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS lU~CLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/lsg Click here to return to the browser-optimized version ofthis page. This article can be found on the web at http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050801&s=rozen The Big Chill by LAURA ROZEN [posted online on July 14,2005] Achill has taken hold lately among both government officials and the US media. It comes in the wake of a US district court's decision to jail a New York Times reporter for refusing to reveal to a grand jury her sources in the Bush Administration and the FBI investigation ofa Pentagon Iran analyst for leaking classified information to former officials with the pro-Israel lobby group A.IPAC. As a result, those who engage in what have long been standard Washington practices--reporters ferreting out information from government sources, those sources confiding in policy associates, lobbyists and reporters- have become increasingly inhibited in carrying out their jobs. Even as a press frenzy surrounds a grand jury investigation ofwhether top presidential advisor Karl Rove leaked a CIA officer's identity to the press, unease in the Washington policy and journalistic communities is also evident. In the wake of Times reporter Judith Miller's jailing and in fear of government prosecution, the Cleveland Plain Dealer has decided, on the advice of its lawyers, not to publish two major articles based on ieaked government inform~ion. At a recent gathering in a suburban Maryland living room, the conversation among a handful of foreign policy experts and reporters was about the sense offear and clampdown. One government expertwas convinced office phone conversations were regularly monitored by higher-ups, and reporters noted that senior government sources, intimida(ed by the Franklin investigation, have become more tightlipped. While the Franklin!AlPAC investigation is often described as-a counterintelligence case, it too is really about government leaks, and the B~sh Administration's determination to plug them. On September 9, 2001, the New York Times published a story by then-State Department correspondent Jane Perlez, who reported a major shift in what had been the Bush Administration's rejection ofthe ClintonAdministration'sde~p engagement in trying to broker a peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians. Perlez reported that after months ofrefusing to meet with Yasir Arafat, George W. Bush would grant the o 0- Palestinianleader' his first audience with the new,US President at an upcoming UN General Assembly gathering in Ne~ York IIifprogress, were made. irihigh-ievel talks between ~he Palestinians.and the Israelis.1t That meeting between-Busli and Arafat never happened.'Two ,days after the Times story appeared, Al Qaeda terrorists c~hed planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania,·killing"ahnost' 3,'000 people. In,the aft~.l'!lla~ ofthose attacks~ few people recalled tqat for a briefmoment in the late'summer of2001, the Bush Administration had considered meeting with Ara~at and deepening its poUtic~1 involv~ment in the Israeli..Palestinian co~ict. Everyone forgot, except the FBI. According to a recent report by the Jewish,Telegraphic' Agency, it w~ that September 2001 hew~ article; based on leaks ofsensitive A4ministration deliberatiQns, that prompted then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to. demand'~ FBI leak inves_tigatio~ that has since taken on.a dramatic life ofits ~wn. Mo~t recently, the i~vestigation has led to the federal grand jury indi~tment, unsealed last ~onth' ofPentag9~Iran desk officer Larry Franklin op charges involving conspiracy to disclose classified national defense infonnation ~o unauthorized recipients! It is expected to lead to indictments, under the.Espionage Act, oftwo recently dismissed employees 9fthe American Israel Pu1?lic Affairs Committee for engaging in a conspiracy to receive and-pass on to other unauthorized-recIpients what they knew to be classified information. They are AIPAC's former director of foreign pol~cy research, ,Steve Rosen, :and his deputy, Iran specialist I{eith WeissIl:l~. Among .those the FBI reportedly wants to interview as a potential witness in its'investigation is a"Washington Postjoumalis~ who was allegedly briefed on some of. the classifie<i infomiatiQn by'the fonner .AIPAc officials--inform~tionthose. officials had allegedly received from Franklin in an FBIarranged sting. In addition, Franklin, Rosen and Weissman.are all alleged ~o have ~elayed . classified national defense infori;nation t9 an I~raeli E~bassy official. It is this latter co~ection that has raised talk-of espionage. How does ail investigation ofa leak to the n~~s media turn into an.in~ictn1ent.that alleges a conspiracy to disclose US ~ational ~ecitrity .informatiQn illegally to, among 9thers, 'a, foreign offici~l, with more indictments expected? 1?te evidence a:v~ilable in the Franklin i~dict~ent and other sources does not seem to show the intentio~ to commit espionag~ on behalfofIsrael so ~uch as the des~re to cultivate W~h~ngton alli~~~s that Franklin, ,Rosen and -Weissman considered useful i~ the promotion.9ftheir.own policy positions in the US governinent."As with most administrations, ,in the Bush Administration leaks have been employed by bureaucratic w~rriors on all sides ofthe h~ated Mideast policy debates to in{luen~~ sensitiv~ deliberatiops and_~e stabs'at ~heir oppqne~~. Itis w9rth nottng that President Bush's top politic~l,adviser, Karl Roye, has been reve~led ~ a suspect in a, federal grand jUry investigation (the same one in which Times reporter Miller has been jailed) ofthe circumstances by·.which a CIA offi~er's i,dentity was leaked to Washing~on t:eport~rs in an apparent Administratipn effort ~9 ~iscredit her husband, Joseph Wilson, a fOIn;ler diplomat critical ofthe P~sident's Iraq War policy. ------ --------- o o In interviewing several s~urces knowledgeable about the investigation, what emerges is a complex portrait ofWashington Mideast policy-making at a critical time, in the aftermath ofthe September 11 attacks, when ther~ were near-constant interagency battles over the direction ofUS policy, not just on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but toward Iran and Iranian-backed forces in Iraq as well. What also emerges is a more detailed picture ofthe modus operandi ofa brilliant and, some say, ruthless bureaucratic infighter at the country's premiere Mideast lobbying group, who was emboldened by his long relationships with figures in and around the Bush Administration and the Washington .scene to behave almost as an unofficial diplomatic entity in' his own right. The fact that that brilliant player, Steve Rosen, could become the target ofa counterintelligence investigation during this Republican Administration is rich inJrony., Several former Rosen associates describe him as a genius at political strategy and subterfuge, the Karl Rove ofJewish-American politics, who helped engineer the lobby group's shift to the right on the American political spectrum; helped broker a strategic alliance between the pro-Israel lobby and Republican far-right legislators, including Senator Jesse Helms, in the 1980s; and who marshaled his organization's resources to conduct de facto intelligence operations ofhis own. As former associates and AlPAC officials describe it, those operations were replete with enemies' lists ofjourn~listsand public figures. Rosen sent AlPAC interns as spies to take notes on the political views ofother members ofthe small world of Jewish community political activism. One former AlPAC intern told The Nation that he was sent by Rosen to Arab-American conferences disguised as a WASP-y, pro-Palestinian liberal to find out which US Congressional candidates the attending groups were supporting. Former associates recite a list ofAlPAC officials with Democratic staff~onnections on Capitol Hill who were purged from the organization in part, they allege, because of Rosen's strategic efforts to move AIPAC decisively to the right. (Sources close to Rosen say that he wasn't acting on pis own in any ofthese endeavors, but as part ofthe organization. A source close to AI;PAC downplays these activities and suggests that many ofthem ended years ago.) Rosen's "entire goal was to shift the organization away from a heavy reliance on Democrats and switch it to Republicans," says M.J. Rosenberg, director ofthe Washington office ofthe Israel Policy Forum and the former editor ofan AIPACweekly newsletter who overlapped with Rosen at the organization in the early'1980s. "Why? Because he thought, maybe correctly, that the wave ofthe future was the right wing of the Republican Party." While such alleged efforts have made Rose.n an object ofcontroversy among some more left leaning members of the politically-active Washington Jewish policy communitx, even those who are not his fans do not believe Rosen is a spy. They describe a man motivated not so much by concern for Israel as a quest for behind-the-scenes power in WashingtoJ;l. "Steve Rosen doesn't give a damn,about Israel," a Jewish community activist who requested anonymity explained. "These are game players. For them, it's all about the game." o o For Rosen, that game became focused on Iran some time ago, in the early 1990s. According to fonner AIPAC sources, the reasons included a request by then-Israe~i Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin thatAIPAC to stay out ofdelicate OS-Israel negotiations over the Mideast peace process. "From...when Rabin came in, Steve's mandate has been to go after Iran, largely because Rabin didn't want him messing around with the peace process,It says one veteran lobbyist who requested anonymity. "Steve took it and ran with it beyond anyone's expectations. So what comes out ofit is that you have a [US] Iran'policy that AIPAC is driving. And this went well into the last [Clinton] Administration. "Then along comes a new Administration that is made up ofthe same neocons that _were promoting the [hawkish] Iran policy," the veteran lobbyist continued, "but this Administration was divided down the center.... On the one hand, you have the neocons...on the other side, you have Powell and Richard Armitage and the State department [and the CIA], who want to try to open up a dialogue. One is for confrontation, and one is for dialogue.... So the neocons, the Iran hawks, know that they have got a natural ally...at other think tanks around town who feel the same way they do.... They also have AIPAC, which has made [Iran] its number-one issue.... My guess is that they went to AlPAC and the others with the same message: 'You have friends we' don't have. Help us to persuade them to see it our way.ttI Persuading political heavyweights to see things his way was what Rosen was all about. Sources tell The Nation that Rosen has a long history ofcultivating executive.branch sources [see Rozen, "Hall ofMirrors," posted here in May], milking them for information, boasting about his access to AIPAC's funder~ and leadership, and engaging in strategic press leaks as a regular part ofhis efforts to influence policy and engage in bureaucratic warfare. Indeed, the unsealed twenty-page Franklin indictment offers a fascinating peek into the government's view ofthe Pentagon analyst and the AIPAC officials cultivating one another, presumably attempting to tip the Bush Administration toward a harder line against Iran. For the AIPAC officials, Franklin--who often appears frustrated at bureaucratic obstacles to this harder line-seems to have offered grumbling and insights on the bitter interagency Iran policy debates inside the AdministratioQ..For Franklin, the AlPAC officials must have seemed like sympathetic political sophisticates, freed from the tyranny ofworking in *e govemment'bureauc~cybut with impressive influence among high-level officials in the White House and key members ofCongress. Indeed, in a fascinating reversal ofthe ordinary official-lobbyist relationship, it appears from the indictment that Franklin thought Rosen could bypass the bureaucracy and take Franklin's infonnation straight to the White House, and possibly "put in a good word for him" to get a job at the National Security Council. . But the Franklin indictment raises a key question: What exactly is the nature ofthe conspiracy the government believes it has uncovered? The kind of infonnation the AlPAC officials seemed most interested in wasn't intelligence but policy inf0t:rnation: . .t,• o o who in the bureaucracy was arguing which position on Iran, who were the obstacles to the adoption ofhard-line policies and the like. "I don't think anyone's spying for anyone,II says a Jewish community activist, no fan of Rosen's, -who asked not to be named. "Rosen is not working for Israel, because' he was working for a separate'sovereign entity [AlPAC]. Franklin just wanted to be' a policy nerd, to advocate for a policy he thought wasn't getting enough attention." But there, are seeming anomalies to this benign interpretation ofthe relationship to be found in the Franklin indictment as well. The most interesting·and surprising'part ofthe indictment describes fourteen meetings between Franklin and,an "FO" (foreign officer), widely reported to be Israeli Embassy political officer Naor Oilon. They met in;the op~en, at the Pentagon Officers' Athletic Club.and Washington-area coffee shops and restaurants, between 2002 and 2004. The last part ofthe indictment asserts that at some point Franklin disclosed to Oilon "clapsified United States government information relating to a weapon~.test conducted by a Middle Easte11l country," presumably Iran. It is hard to discount such an unauthorized disclosure to a foreign government official as an ordinary leak. Another intriguing issue: The indictment describes Franklin's returning from one ofhis meetings with Oilon in May 2003. and drafting an "Action Memo to his supervisors, incorporating suggestions made by the FO during the meeting." This suggests the FBI may be interested not only in alleged leaks ~om Franklin to unauthorized recip~ents but in the possibility ofFranklin's feeding information from those officials back into the system, in an effort to influence US policy toward Iran. This raises the question of whether tqe government thinks the nature ofthe conspiracy was not only a matter of unauthorized leaks but also a coordinated effort by Franklin and perhaps his alleged coconspirators to shape the US policy environment in a kind of agent-of-influence scenario. The US Attorn.e-y-'.s.o..f.f.ic.e.-d-e-c.l-in"e-d.-to--c-o-m....m....e..n..t on the case. t:..':.v~~--:-'--". 'V.. _ ".,...--=::::::: -= ... pw , ::--••..• -RAP "'~ 4~~..~~Ji(rNdiion -has le~ed that among the ~o~uments the FBI ~1s. hiitS possessi~ii:isa~Fn:to I -·wntten by Rosen In 1983, soon after he JOined AIPAC, to hiS then-boss descnblng hi~. J ,liaving been informed about the contents ofa classified draft of a White House positionj , .~aper concerning the Middle East and telling his boss that their inside knowledge o(iti.~ f ',4raft might enable the group to influence the final document. The significance wou!d ~~em to be an effort by the FBIto establis~ a pattern ofRosen's accessing classifi~d· .r . i '!hformation to which he was not authorized, not just from Franklin but over_tnany -Y~ars. ''':R~~'s:~~~~~~~,~ecU~eg!~q. ~9.l~~~ent .9n,th~:a~I~!!~t~n~ --- ~-:- ~.'~. ..,' .. Sa..... 1lIL_~... ~.....;::r:tC...... ,__ .... __ .. .,.:..,'" .... Stephen Green, a Vermont state legislator and former UN official who in the-1980s pursued independent scholarship critical ofIsraeli-US relatiqns including by requesting thrpugh the Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA) State Department documentation on counterintelligence probes, says the FBI's concerns about Rosen pre-date the September 2001 news leak incident. Green says in meetings with FBI investigators'last year, "I was told by investigators ~at his name has showed up in wiretaps more than '!nce over time,II o o Green told Th!! Nation. What's mort!, Green says, he believes the FBI considers Franklin only a little fish useful to getting Rosen. For,mer FBI attorney Harv~y Rishikof says that both theories, that this investigation is a~out leaking, or that it is motivated by graver counter- intelligence concerns, could be true. "They are not necessarily opposing theories,1I Rishikof told The Nation. IIIfyou are worried about counterintelligence.issues, and counterintelligelwe issues are also related to leak issues, so that individuals are using strategic leaks baSically for counterintelligence purposes, you then'link up the two threads...If you were the government, the leaks then become the method py which you are able to shut down what appears to be a counterintelligence problem." The full picture ofthe government's·case against Rosen will not emerge until an i~dictment is handed down, assuming there even is one. It is not even clear how he originally appeared on the FBI's radar screen. But ifprosecutors focus on Rosen's alleged long-term cultivation ofexecutive branch sources, who might have improperly shared with him privileged information about US national security deliberations, it's a twist on what we"understand·as a typical spy story, because such behavior, at l~ast in its unclassified form, is the very currency ofthe capital: Washington lobbyists cultivating inside sources and trading information with them to influence policy. Whether it was the FBI's intent~on or not, one result ofthe franklin!AlPAC investigation, along with the jailing ofMiller in the Wilson investigation, has been the fortressing ofthe executive branch; the danger is that this could enable t~e Bush Administration to shape policies with even less consultation from the public and Congress., ... .. .\ o ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/lsg ww w . b ~ ~ ret 1: • com. Last update - 09:42 09/08/200~ The $ilence of'the Jewish le~ders By Shmuel Rosner Last week, an indictment was issued agaiilst Steve Rosen and Keith· Weissman, two former AIPAC. employees.-They are c~arged'with passing claSsified security information, received~during their work at the Jewish lobQY, to various people, including employees ofthe Israel~ Embassy in Washington~ This charge sheet r~ises trou!,ling questions. But is this the whole ~torY?.Is·,this why Rosen-was under surveillance for six years? '. 'Commentators, reporters, legal expert~ .and va~ous organizations have already begun delving into the material. Lucy Dalglish,~ executive director· ofthe Reporters CQll)mittee for:F~eedom 'ofthe Pre~s, was.quoted in a sho~t"article in The New York Times as saying s~e was concerned ~bout-the chilling effect such an investigatipn will have on journalists. The same word was used by, Laura Rosen in T~e N'ation,-a radical left institution which cannot be accused of ip.stinctive sympathy f~r AlPAC, under '~he headlipe liThe Big Chill.II They both appear'to believe that the investigation serve~ the interests of the Bush administration, 1Vhi~h is stricter onJ~aks th.an its predecessors•. If one buys this explantion; the meaning is simple: Rosen and Weissman are the victims through ~hoin a message is being delivered. Anyone who tries to get information will have to .face.Fecieral·investigators~l;3ad news for media representatives, lobbyists an~ memqers ofresearch institutes. . They are still waiting. Jewish leaders are keeping silent·-- but not becau~e·they have nothing ,to say. On the co.ntrary, in private ,<,) -./ /-.. JLq(vJ05 GS\t...\lJ.~ ~)ll)-~ --~t -~l2: The investigation is also bad n~ws for the Jewish community. Dozens ofpeople, most ~fthem Jews, have already been questioned. rhere' were those who felt anger, particularly whel.1 asked questions such as, "Does AIPAC have dualloyalties?" or "Why do Jews actually have to act on'behalfofIsrael?" They'told their friends they were asked ' "strang~ questions." Som~ ofthem called one Jewish organization or another in order to ask, "Why-don't you say something? Why don't you make your voice heard?" ~' .. o conversations in the U.S. and'Jemsalem they have a great deal to say about the investigatiqn. For example: "The motives behind it are not pure. Even if I did not always like the organization [AlPAC], I don't ,feel comfortable with this inquiry;" or "The FBI's motives are antiSemitic. It is no coincidence that they made problems for [former ambassador to Israel] Martin Indyk because of a computer he took out ofthe office, apd [the former national security adviser] Sandy Berger about pocuments. They suspect all the Jews;" or "There is nothing to this affair. It is total nonsense. Someone decided to latch onto AIPAC to take them down a peg or two;" or "There are people who don't like the idea that an organization connected with Israel has so much Rower and influence. They anyway consiger the Jews' loyalty as questionable.. They are going to trY people for somethiJ:lg that is done . in Washington every day.." - This is how leaders on the right and left, Orthodox and Reform, heads ofcommunities and organizations put it. Dozens of conversations revealed almost identical opinions. It is amazing: In private .. conversations t)ley will talk, but in public they keep mum. No . persecution, no anti-Semitism and noexaggeratiqn. ", Jewish leaders believe that enmity toward Israel or toward Jews has made someone go crazy. But they remain quie~ because this enmity paralyses them. It leads Jews to wonder whether it is worthwhile to get involved in a public debate that will end in sensitive questionsof dual loyalty.Adepate that those who hate Israel would be happy to see and use to sow dou!>t and suspicion and to incite. The media and the Internet are already full ofstupid or b~d people who are eager to use the affair to lambast "the.JewishlIsraelilneo-Conservative lobby." Those who wish ~osen w~ll are prepared to e-mail anyone who requests it an article by Prot: Aaron Kirschenbaum, liThe Bystander's . Duty t~Rescue in Jewish Law." The charges against Rosen include using classified information in order to warn the Israeli embassy about Iranian agents who might abduct Israeli soldiers in Iraq. Is there any Jewish leader who would get informatiol) ofthis kind and keep silent? It's a difficult question. The answer cannot always be explained easily to the public. Therefore it is possible that the decision to remain silent makes sense from a tactical point ofview. Perhaps, as one ofthose who is keeping quiet told Haaretz, it is best to "let the legal au~oriti~s do their job" in the hope that the pair will be exonerated. Perhaps, as one expert lobbyist proposed, "There are tacit ways to deal with matters like this," or perhaps, "We have to wait until the facts ~e completely clear." Q Only it.wouid have ~~en tl)uch'easier tQ'beii~ve all.ofPtese explanations. ifthose ~ho:express them did..~ot already have firm opinioris apout t.he·iJivestjgation, without waiting:for ~he !'facts~' a~d without rely~ng oil !'theJegal'syst~in." Are~onable opinion, considering the fliiI!sy'nature ofthe ~harges. If I'm not mist~¢n~ ·it was law j>.rofesso~ AlaJ:l Dershowitz wlig~aid that"Jews in America are not "g~ests-in someone else's ho~se/ ·but their silenc'e about the·AIPAC· affair sometimes seems like the silence of~' guest. Even-if'ft i~ justified for'reasons o£caiit~QIi or etiquette, . even if ~t cmi be understood, it ~everlheless makes' o~e' feel- somewhat un.easY· ... ·~om€? ofthe .Jewis!l'leadets aQmit t9 this. ~ut onlY.in private.. lh,ase:n/obje~ts/pagesiPrintArticleen.jhtml~itemN~=610107 ~ . close win~~w· ..... - . - .. ... -L-.... _ ~ - •• __ ... -. ...... _ ....._n__ -. - ..... -- ---......... .... --'-''" _A_ _ .................. -. _... - - .........--. -' KRAMARSIC, BRETT M. (WF) (FBI) rI.,. Message ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS lTIJCLASSIFIED (!)TE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baW/SabJE)' Page 1 of4 8/22/2005 From: BRIDGES. TRACEY J. (WF) (FBI) Sent: Friday. August 12. 2005 8:09.AM To: PAULLlN.G. SCOTT M. (WF) (FBI); LOEFFERT. JANICE S. (WF) (FBI); ODONNELL. THOMAS J.. (NY) (FBI); PORATH. ROBERT J. (WF) (FBI); FORTIN. BRIAN G. (WF) (FBI); LURIE. ERIC S. (WF) (FBI); MARKLEY. JAMES S. (WF) (FBI); DOUGLA,S. STEPHANIE (WF) (FBI); MCDERMOTT. WILLIAM R. (WF) (FBI); KRAMARSIC. BRETT M. (WF) (FBI) Subject: FW: WpO l"iOO for you guys... Two Ex-AIPAC Staffers Indicted JewishTimes.com Ron Kampeas and Matthew E., Berger' August 11. 2005 'ALEXANDRIA, VA -- The indictment of two former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee suggests that the government wants to prove ~n extensive pattern · of trading classified information. Paul McNulty, the U.S. attorney for eastern Virginia who handed down the indictment here Aug. 4, decisiyely counted out the pro-Israel lobby as a t?rJ.. target in the inqUiry. Still, the broad scope CSf the charges -- stretching back V more years and covering a broader array of U.S. and Israeli officials than was C2~AI/ previously known _. is sure to send a chill through Washington's lobbying U' · \,~ community. The indictment charge~ Steve Rosen, AIPAC's former policy \ director,.and Keith Weissman, its former Iran analyst, with "conspiracy to communicate national defense information to people not entitled to receive it," which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. Rosen is also charged with actual communication of national defense information, also punishable by 10 years in prison. The charges against the former AIPAC staffers do not rise to the level of espionage, which the defendants and their supporters had·feared. Weis~man and Rosen are expected to appe~r in an Alexandria, Va., federal court on Aug. 16. Attorneys for Rosen and Weissman expressed confidence that they would handily beat the charges. "The charge~ in the indictment announced today are entirely unjustified,~'said a statement from Rosen's attorney, Abbe Lowell. "For 23 years, Dr. S~eveRosen ha!fbeen a passionate advocate for America's national interests in the Middle East. He regrets that the 1'4 government has moved ahead with this indictmeot but looks forward to being" G - {~D...,,\iJF- ~~6%"-JJc../ ~~ 4Ltlv1~- Message o o Page 2 of4 . vindicated at tri~I." Weissman's lawyer, John Nassikas, said he looked forward to challenging th~ charges "vigorously in court." AIPAC announced last Friday that it had hir~d former Justice Department officials who now work-for Howrey LLP, a major Washington-based 'aw firm that consults with organizations engaged in lobbying, to r~view its lobbying practices. "The conduct of Rosen and Weissman was clearly not p~rt of their job," an AIPAC official said. "However, we made a decision that the events of the last year warranted an internal review 'of policies and procedures related to information collection and dissemination." "The goal is to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again," the official said. Previously disclosed government documents have focused only on activity dating back to 2003. . . Those documents outlined interactions with only one midlevel government official, former Pentagon Iran analyst Larry Franklin, who has already b~en indicted ~in the case, and one Israeli diplomat, political officer Naor Gilon, who ended a three-ye'ar tour of duty in early August. The indictment lists charges invo·lving incidents dating-back to 1999, four years before the AIPAC staffers met Franklin. The charges are re.lated to information o~ °lran and terrorist attacks in Central Asia and Saudi Arabia that was allegedly exchanged with three U.S. government officials and three staffers at Israel's Embassy in Washington. A source close to the defense said pne of the U.S. officials involved, who has not been indicted, was rec~ntly appointed to a senior Bush administration post., The source, who asked not to be identified, wo.uld not name the official. The indictment for the first time acknowledges ttlat the 1:81 used Franklin in a sting operation against Rosen and Weissman. It includes five charges against Franklin in addition to thpse against the two former AIPAC staffers,! In indicting all three with "conspiracy to com.municate national defense inform~tion to persons not entitled to receive it," McNulty made it clear that the target was much broader: those in Washington who trade in classified information. "Those entrusted with safeguarding our nation's secrets must remain faithful to that trust," McNulty said. "Those not authorized to receive classified information must resist the temptation to acquire it, no matter what their motivation may be." The charges against the two former AIPAC staffers do not rise to the level of the crime committ~d by Jonathan Pollard, who plead guilty in 1986 to spying for Israel. Pollard plead guilty to a single count of conspiracy to ~eliver 'national defense information to aid a foreign government, which is punishable by life imprisonment. The indictment agail:Jst Ros_en and Weissman does not anywhere allege that Israeli officials ever solicited the information, nor does it say that Israel compensated them for the information. McNulty suggested he 8/22/2005 Mess~ge . O· o .Page 3 of4 1- would' argue~thafthe intent was critical. He'described Franklin, ·Ro.sen~n~ 'Weissmaf) as."individuals who put their own interests and. views of A.merican foreign policy af.lea~ of America's national security.1I Lowell, Rosen's, attorney, described the charges as a "misguided attempt to criminaliz~the ·public's right to pa.rttcipate in the politlcal·process." The ind~ctment includes' a'iaundry list of contacts Rosen and Weissman, had with U;~.governm~ntoffici~ls and Israeli Embassy officials. ,It notes that' Rosen had security clearance when he was an official at the Pentagon-allied . Rand Corporatio~ think tank in the late 1970s and early 1980s, apparently to underscore that Rosen would have known the implications of receiving classified Information. The in~ictment also ,'lists conversations 'Ro~en allegedly had with an Israeli. diplomat in 1999 ab9ut terrorist act~ in Central Asia that Rosen allege~ly described as "an extremely sensitive piece of intelligence." 'It does not name the official. Also outlined is aconversation that Weissman had in 1999 with the same official about a, 1996 attack on U.S. troops in Saudi ArabiCjl, in Yihich Weissman discu~sed what"he allegedly called a "secret .FBI, classified F_BI. report." In. 2000, the indictment alle"ges, Rosen relayed classified inform~tion from a U:S•.government official 'to' the.media. The information, according to the indic'tment, concerned U.S. sfrategy in the Mid~le East. hi 2002, Ro~en relay~d information about the terroris~ group AI·Qaida from 81l0ther ' . government official -- the official a defense source ~ays,was recently promoted to a senior gove-:-nment position •• to other AIPAC officials, the indictinent..alleges. In Mar~h 2003, Rosen and Weissman allege~ly r~~eived' classified informati~n from Franklin on U.S. policy on Iran and relayed"it to another IsraeU di~lomat. He also allegedly disclosed the information to a "senior fellow· at a Washington, D:~~, think tan~" and to the media, the indictment said. In ~uoe of the s"ame year, Franklin allegedly relayed to·Weissman 'and Rosen, classifi~d. information about Iranian activity ~n Iraq, newly occ,upied by a ~.S.:led force. By, July 2004', the indictment said, the gov.ernment,had: co-opted Franklin and used him to set up Weissman and Rosen in-a sting. In that operation, Franklin allegedly war~ed Weissman that Iranian a'gent~ planned to kidnap, torture and kill U.S. and Isra~li C!gent~ in northern·lraq. The indictment-alleges that Franklin made clear that the informa'tion was "highly classified.1I . According to well-placed sources, Weissman relayed this information to, Rosen, who relayed it to Gilon at the Israeli Embassy; Glenn Kessler, the State Departme~t correspon~,ent at The Wa~hington Post; and Howard Kohr, AIPAC's executive director, identified in the indictment as "another AIPAC employee." IYIcNulty made it cl.ear that neither AIPAC nor any .of its other. ...l_ _ ... _ ............ • 8/22/2005 Messalge o o Page 4 of4 emp~oyeeswere targets. "We have no ba.sis for charging anyone else for unlawful disclosure of classified information," he said. "And I might add also that AIPAC as an organization has expressed its concern on several occasions with the allegations against Rosen and Weissman, and, in fact, after we brought some of the evidence that we had to AIPAC's attention, it did the right thing by dismissing these two individuals." 4"l'!Ic~JH~~ !'9~ld_notcommen~.pnWJ1~tprol1)p~d_theJriitialj~~~!lg~~iQlflntQ .~ ~fi~AII?AC-.Q..ff!.cialS:Bu(~Q.~_rc~~..s~I.Q_s~:-:to~..jhe_de.f~n.sJ~_b_e.lie.v~JsraeILofficials.in) rWashington"wereDeing~monitoredJn401999.1AIPAC fired Rosen and Weissman ..this....pastApril;Eiigilfinonths after the EBI probe came to light. "AIPAC dismissed-Rosen and Weissman because they engaged in conduct that was not p·art of their jobs and because this conduct did not comport in any way with standards that AIPAC expects of its employees," spokesman Patrick Dorton told JTA on Aug. 4, repeating the group's previous position. "AIPAC could not condone or tolerate the conduct of the two employees under any circumstances. The organization does not seek, use or request anything but legallly obtained, appropriate information as part of its work." A source close to AIPAC said the group is not concerned that the indictment identifies two occasions •• in 2002 concerning the AI·Qaida information and in 2004 concerning the sting -- when Rosen allegedly shared information with AIPAC staffers. "There was no indication by Steve Rosen within AIPAC that he was" obtaining classified information, said the source, who asked not to be identified. AIPAC has already scaled back its lobbying of the executive bran.ch of government .- something the indictment pointedly notes was Rosen's expertise. Kohr, the group's executive director, has said that AIPAC is instituting changes in how it operates ~s·a rft!sult of the investigation, without providing details. Israeli officials have confirmed tQ JTA that the FBI is seeking an interview with Gilon. It is not clear if the FBI also wants to talk with the two other Israeli Embassy officials cited in the indictment; they are not named. "It's premature to comment on the substance of the affidavit since we've just received it,II an Israeli official said. "We're fu~ly confident in the professional conduct of our diplomats who fully cond~ctthemselves in accordance with diplomatic practice. We have seen no infQrmation that would suggest .anything to the contrary." The F:BI raided AIPAC's offices on Aug. 27, 2004, the first time the investigation was made public. One major question likely to come up during the trial is why the two U.S. government officials listed in the indictment as leaki~g the information are not facing trial. "They should be going after all the guys who gave the information,II said Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Soliciting classified information is hardly unusual in Washington, Hoenlein said. "Reporters do it every single day." 8/22/2005 ,\, ALL.INFORMATION CONTAINED ~ HEREIN IS mJCLASSIFIED O· \J DATE 0'7-29-2010 BY 60324 UC bS1j1/ .I1sq BEHIND THE HEADLINt;S New revelations in AIPAC case raise questions about FBI motives By Matthew E. Berger WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 (JTA)- New revelations in t.he ca'se against two former American Israel Public Affairs.Committee staffers raise questions about why FBI investigators ,have been focused on the pro-Israel lobby.. The New York Times reported Thursday that David Satterfield, the NO.2 man at the U.S. mission in Baghdad, was one of two government officials who allegedly gave classified information to Steve Rosen, AIPAC's former director of foreign 'policy issue~, but he wasn't named in the indictment handed down against Rosen and ~~ others earlier this month., Satterfield allegedly spoke with Rosen on several occasions· in 2002 - when Satterfield was th.e deputy assistant ~ecretary of state for.Near Eastern affairs - and shared classified information. At one point, Rosen allegedly relayed' the secret information in a memoranCJum to other~AIPAC staffers. Th~ fact that"Satterfield is not a t~rget of the case'and was allowed to take a s~nsitive position in Iraq has raised questions about the severity of the information allegedly given to AIPAC officials, as well a~ about the . g'overnment's motives for targeting Rosen and Keith·Weissman, a former AIPAC Iran analyst, neither of whom had classified access. rhe defendants and AIPAC supporters see the new revelations as evidence that federal pr9secutors are targeting the powerful pro-Israel lobby for simply conducting the normal Washington practice of trading sensitive information. Officials inside and outsi~e government privately acknowledge that classified information routinely changes hands among influential "people iii the foreign policy community and that the exchanges often are advantageous to diplomats. . "If, in fact, Satterfield passed on classified information. that other people should not have had, then they ~hould all be. guilty of the same thing,", said Malcolm HOEmlein, the executive vice chairman of the Gonference of f>residents of Major Americ!ln Jewish Qrganizat!ons. "The fact that Satterfield hasn't been' prosecuted suggests that's not the case." Rosen and Weissman both pleaded not gUilty Tuesday to a charge of conspiracy to communicate national ;defense information. Rosen also is charged with communicating national defense information to people not· entitled to receive it. • i Larry Franklin, aPentagon Iran analyst" has been c~arged with five similar counts, including conspi~acy to communicate classified information to a. foreign agent. Franklin, who also pleaded,not guilty, is accuse~,of passing. classified information to Rosen and Weissman from 2002 through last year~. Observers say the case is likely to create a chill among.lobbyists and others \ o who seek to gamer foreign-policy information from the government. o The second U.S. government official, who allegedly met with Rosen and Weissman in 2000, remains anonymous but reportedly has left government service. Their identification is seen as central to the government's case that the AIPAC staffers followed a pattern of seeking classified information and disseminating it to journalists and officials at the Israeli Embassy in Washington. A spokeswoman for Paul· McNUlty, the.U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, would not qomment. Attorneys for Rosen and Weissman, who are collaborating on their defense, will likely use the same information to show that sharing documents and other information was normal practice between government officials and AIPAC. Leaders of other pro-Israel groups say State Department and other government aides handling the Middle East portfolio frequently share information. "When we discuss issues, it's an exchange. It's not one-sided." Hoenlein said. "What people forget is they benefit from these exchanges too" because they learn things from us." Those who have worked with Rosen say a,large part of his task was capturing sensitive material and that numerous government officials aided his pursuits over the years. (Tom·l?~ne;:(fC?~~e~~~if~~:.-~~e2~t!~.~re~!<!~ s~fC(~~t~~lt~~~~~!~i~~~fi~-~ ,-J98~,-rp_~Ql? ~tlortly after)Jo~l!lOg:th~~ro~lsrae~ lobby~ tie- [ecelv~d ,a_j ~classifi~d:revj(ivtotU&S~.policY.in.the:Middle.East;.J Dine, who recently left his post as president of Radio Free Europe to head the San Francisco Jewish federation, told the New York Jewish Week that he was shown the document by FBI investigators. "Everybody knew that Steve was quite capable of luring important information. which was exceedingly useful to the mission of the office,'''said Neal Sher, another former AIPAC executive director. "It was understood by the people in the organization, both professional and lay.... But they say Rosen's work mirrored what was being done throughout Washington. "The trafficking in sensitive information. some of which might have been classified, is the norm·in many instances," said Sheri a former federal prosecutor. "While ~ don't recall ever being specifically told that info they passed on to me was classified, I would not have been shocked if that was done." A spok~sman for AIPAC denied any wrongdoing by the organization. "AIPAC does not seek, use or request anything but legally obtained information as part of its work; Patrick Dorton said. "All AIPAC employees {'," ,~'. are ~xpect~d and requir~d to up,hold'this stand~ud."· Satterfl,eld is not co'n'sidereda subject of the government's probe, alJd 'he reporte~ly was cleare,d,by, th~'Jus,tice Department for his Iraq po~t. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said he could not comment ,.o.n an'ongoi~g inv~s~igati6n. " . MI will say, though, that David:Satterfield is an outstanding public servant, he is a ~istinguished'Foreign Se'ryic;e officer and ~iplomat, and tha~ he.t1as w~rked on behalf of the American people fota"~4mber of years," McCormack said Tl1u~sday. . ~ State Departm~nt official said i,t was withiJ:tSatte~eld's portfolio to work 'with poli~y'groups'such ~s AlpAC. As.the.deputy assistant secretaryJor Near 'l;astern aff~irs, Satterjield led the State pep~rtmEmt group. de~l!ng with t~~· l~raeli·Palestinian conflict, as.well as other regional issues on AIPAC;s ' a~e~~a~ ., , '. Mit wasn't ou(of the'normal,at all:tor adep'utY assistant secretary, as he was, to ~e meeting with AlpAC on a regUlar ba~i~,1J saiCt the offi~i~I, who spoke on coraditionof anonymity. "Our offiqe trie~ to meet wit~'inter~sted people of all '~ro~ps, an~ it's su~posed to be.~1i in~orma!i(;mal.exchange." \. _ ._ ~.fIr ~ '._~ _ _ _ .... _ ...... --- c: , • .. .' ~MIDtItrIat~Y-11mI:ls I:.awrenee A. Franklin, center, with his lawyers, Plato ~c:heris,left, andJohn Hundleyin .Alexan,~va. alit~ r admitting yesterday that hehadpassed secret information 10pro--Israeli lobbyists and -.Israe=li~fficiai. ~ ... • . .~ I ·Pentag()n AnalystAdmitsSharingSeeretData ). . r 7 i By ERIC LICHTBLAU trat1oD's dealingswith Iran.. tivlties In Iraq ~doth~rtssues. • : ALEXANDRIA, Va., Oct. 5 - A Someof the morebawklshofficials' Mr; Frank~ said!Ieassumed that *nior Defense Department aJJalyst ID theadmlnlstratlon have pushed such ~dblts \\tere lilireatdy knoWD to ~dmltted Wednesday .that ,he sbared for a barder line In confronting lrm Israe~and he ~ld that the Israeli of. secret military Information wld1 two about its nuclear ambitions, but the flclal gave Il\~far mco~ information gra-Israell lobbyists and an Israeli ~mlnlstration has been deeplyen- than I gavehltll.!' dfflcialln an effort to create a""ack. Vlded about how to -engage with the Prosecutors said Mr. FrankllB channel" to the Bush administration • country. knew that th~ classtm~ information on Middle Eastpolley. Mr. Franklin worked for a time as he shared "cc)uld be \lSf:d to the inju.- : The analyst, Lawrence A. Frank· a senior analyst on Iran under Doug. ry of the Untted Stalte$ or to the ad- • lin, pleaded guilty In federal court las Feith. a former under se~retary vantage of aforeign. nation.... But Mr. Jiere to three criminal cOunts for 1m.. at the Pentagon. Mr. Franklin said D1 Franklin Sald, flit wra$ never my inp'r0P. erly retaining and disclosing court that he believed the Alpac lo~ tent to harm the Uniteet States"" clas$ified information, :and he gave byfsts had ac¢e~ and influence at He said !\e did IliOt even consider the first account of his. motives and the National Security Counell, which one of the clocuments cited by pros.. thinking in establishing secret Uai- coordinates policy_ Issues for the ecutors to have·been classlfled but sOns with people outside the govern- president and was deeply involved in when he started to discuss the docu. ll1ellt. - setting the administration's course ment In o~n court - referring to a I The offenses carry a maximum of on Iran. :. one-page tax witb t\ "list of mur.. i; years In prison, but as part of a He said he hoped the lobbyists ders," aPparently in Iran - lawyers pies' agreement, prosecutors are ex- could help Influence polley by pass- from both Sides jumPed up to cuthim pected_to recommend leniency for lng on information that he knew was off. The jUdge, T. S. Ellis agreed at Mr.-Franklin in return for his (ooper· classified. "I asked th.em to use theIr the ur~1ng of proseeutor; to put Mr. ation in a continuing investigation In contacts to g.et thIS lnfor~atlon Franklm's reference to the list under • the January trial of the two lobbyists.· backchannels' to people at the sealln the court record. Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weiss:.. N.S.C.:'hesaid. Mr. FrlUlklln will lose his govern. man. . Mr. Franklin was also applying for ment penSion, but his wife will be ala The lobbyists were dismissed last a position at the N.S.C. in early 2003 lowed to keep her surVivor'S benefits year by the American ISn:lel Public:: and asked Mr. Rosen to "put in a from the government in the deal off,.. Affairs Committee. 'or Aipac, arter good word" for him, according to a elals said. ' the investigation becamepublic. filing on Wednesday by proseOltors Mr. Franklin bas been financially Mr. Franklin, 58. 'said in enterlng as part of the plea agreement. Mr. struggling since his arrest last year his guilty pleas that he had shared Rosen sai~, "Til see what I can do." and he told the Court he bas bee~ with the lobbyists Umy frustrations In addition to his contacts \\i.tb the working as a waiter and bartender at ~ with a particular policy'· during re- lo~byists. Mr. Franklin admitted a pUb, and as a Vtdet at a racetrack peated meetings from 2.002 to 2004. mteting Wilh an official with the Is- and has also been teaching course: He did not divulge the particular pol- raeH Embassy and passing oJ). classi-. on Asian history and terrorism a icy. but officials i.n the case,said he tied information regarding weapons Shepherd University near his hom was referring to the Bl1Sh admi!lis- .teslS in the Middle East, militar,Y ae'!. in West Virginia. 'j lSJ ~lJJ -ac ~e, err. elf. 811 10 su~ i, -P I THE WASHINGTON POST ALL INFonMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/1sg Ii NATIONAL NEWS: I~~~~~:f'~~~~~~~ , Defense An~yst Guilty in IsraeliEspion~eCase-, .eel the Oct: ,9 1 the Denver 101 foolbaU box Oct. 1:Sporls eelly identified Park ~Id=, ted'three eXtra ,eams 21-7 Vie> rar-Field. His Pu!dy.. Irticleaboutan 1 Isllinbul, del1' om there· in specify the nathe ~ctims. were of Gieelc they 3]80'; in~ ic Armenians I~'marly ~ ns ' " t -. i Metro article ~ coming. to )J' the Sept.'24 . 1 against the scribedPaltice ~ Olathe, Kan., otesler. Cuddy lled in. three lies aglinstthe Qbington and 1fIc:' I errors that , tactlngtM , =ion.f@ , iOOO,'and ask • 'ForeIgn, ., Iysections. In '582. BYJElUl.YMumN' eralinvestiption. Washinp" Po8C StaJfWrittr Legal expeitS ca1ted the plea a major develo~t ili the long-r:unning A Defense Department analyst iJM;9tigaliolfOf.whether U.s.'secrets pl~~ed guilty~tQ passing were pasSeditO the Istaeli governgovernment secrets to two employees nient. FrankliD. said he disclosed da&.. • of aprooIsraellobbying group and reo sifted data to two fonner employeesof vealed for· the first lime that he also the American, Israel Public Affairs gave classified infonnation direclIy to Committee. Those empIoyees: Steven· anlsraeligovernmentofficialinWash- J, Rosen and·:Keith WeisSman, have , ington. beenclwged,inwhatprosecutorssaid . Lawrence A. Franklin ,told a judge was a broad conspiracY to obtain and in u.s. District Court in Alexandria i1legaIIy pass:"c1assified infonnation to tliat he met at least eight limes with foreign offi~ and newsreporters. Naor Giloo,'who was the Political ofti.. Franklin· probably wiD become the . eel' at the IsraeU Embassy before be- ..,-.cu.-IMI_rost star witness ag2instRosen and Wei8&- ing reca1Ied last swnmer. Lawrence Fraillelln, left, with attorney man. "'Ibis is not good news for the The guilty plea and Fran1din's Ie> ~ohn Richards; after pleading guilty to other defendants or for AIPAC~"-said count appeired to cast doubt on lOng." glvl~g classified Informallon to israeL Michael GreeDberger, a: former 111&0 stanepng denials bY IsraeH officials tice ~t official who heads that they engage in any intelligence Franklinentered his plea, he disclosed' the Center'fciHealth and Homeland activities in" the United States. The that some of the material he gave the SeCurity at t& University of,MarypOSst'biJity of continued Israeli spying lobbyistsie1ated toIran. Hisattorneys 'land.:" , in 'Washington has been a sensitive stopped him from speaking furtheI; -' Prosecutors have said they have no subject between the tWogovernments' and prosecutors immediately accused .immediate plaDs to ;charge anyone \ since Jonathan J. Pollard, aUS. Navy Franklin of revealing classified in- else, but Franklin's cooperati~ could intelligence analyst; ~tted to spy- fonnation in court.. . change that, said Preston Burlo~ a ing for Israel in'1987 and was sen- Franklin said, he .passed the in- Washington defense 1aw)oerwith long tenced to life in prisOn. fonnation becausehe was "frustrated" experience inespionage cases. " ~ David Siegel, a spokesman for the with the direction of US. poliCy and' "Espionage debtiefings are exhaua- Israeli Embassy, said Israeli ,officials th~t he could influence it by hay.. live and meticulous: 'said Burton, have been approached by US; in-" ing'themrelaythedatathrough"back whoisafonner lawpartnerofaFrankvestiptors and are cooperating. "We channels" to officials on the,National lin attorney, Plato Cacheris, but isnot have fun confidence in our diplomats, • Security'Council Hesaid he never in- involVedin theFranklin case. who 'are dedicated professionals"who tended to hann. the United- States, AlsO uncertain is how yesterday's conduct themselves in fun accordance "notevenforasecond," andthathe reo developmentswill affect U.s. tieswith with estabUshed diplomatic prae> ceived far more information from Gi- Israel, The ~has complicated relatices," Siegelsaid.' Ion than he'gave.."1 knew inmyheart tiona between the two counbies: Court documents filed along with that his govenunent already had the' wJiich are' close aBies, and angered Franklin's pleasaid heprovided,~ informatiOD," he said. 'manysupporlersofthe AmericanISrafied data - including infonnation . Franklin. 58, a~on Iran, elcommittee.whichis considered one about a Middle Eastem·eountry's Ie> pleaded guilty to twO conspiracy of Washington's JqOSt iDfluentiiJ.lob- ' tivities in lJaqand weapons tests con- ,coUnts and a third charge"of P9S8«t' byingorganizations. dueled by a foreign countty - to an sing classified documents: As part,of; " . GiIOnis a career Israelif~ set'- W1JIa111ed"foreign officia1." the plea a;reement, ,Franklin has' vice offiCer who spent three years in The countrywas not named, but as agreed to cooperate'in the larger fed-' Washinitonfocusingonweapons pro- Iiferation issues. His, recaD to Israel Was Unrelated to the investigation: Siegel said, and he is awaiting a neW foreign posting. ·One of Rosen's a~eys, AbbQ LoweD, said Fr3nk1in's plea "has nQ impact on our case because agoverni ment employee's actions in dealing with classified information is simpbt not the same as a pri~te person, whether that person is a reporter or a ~~~" I Rosen, 63, of Silver Spring, is charged with twocounts related to un-: lawful disclosure of national delenlM= inforination obtained from Frank1in andother unidentified government officials since 1999 on topics incIumng .Iran. Saudi Arabia' and at Qaeda. Rosen was the American Israel commit~ 'tee's director offo. policy issuQ and was iristnimeri.ta1 in making th~ committee a fonnidable politic3l force. ' weissman. 53. of, Bethesda, faces one count 'of ~cy to illega1lx communicate national defense infort matiGn. His attorneys did not return calls late last night. American Israel· Public Affaita Committee officials det dinedcomment. ! Franklin pleaded guilty.to two coun~ of conSPiring to communicalc: secret infonnation and a third Chargtt of keeping numerous classified documents at his West VIrginia home. H~ said he took the documents home to ,keep up hiS expertise and prepare for "point..,1aDkquestiona" from his~ es",including Defense secretary Don; aIdH. Rwrisfeld. 1 1heDefense Department suspend, ed Pran1din, who said in court that he .works as a waiter and bartender and at a racetraclc. He faces up to 25 years in prison at his sentencingIan, 20. . I o ·0. O · ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED '0-~ HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED - DATE 07-29-2010 BY 603~4 uc baw/sab/lsg Kramarsic, Brett M. From: Strzok, Reter P. II Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 7:48 A"" To: Porath, Robert J.; Kramarsic, Brett M. Did you see this 0!1 JTA? Need to start calling-Reilly "That's Classifjed!" instead. Fonner Pentagon man pleads guilty, will testify against ex-AlPAC officials By Ron Kampeas ~~f'ANDRIA, Va., Oct 6 (JTA) - Lawrence Franklin's pleabargain p~edge to cooperate with the U.S. government in its case against two former AIPAC officials was"put to the test as soon as itwas made. "It was unclassified and it is unclassified," Franklin,'a former Pentagon analyst, in~isted in court Wednesday, describing a document that the government maintains is classified. The document is central to one of the conspiracy charges against Steve Rosen, the fonner foreign policy chiefofthe American Israel Public Affairs Committee.. Guilty p~eas usually are remorseful, sedate ~airs. But Franklin appeared defiant and agitated Wednesday.as he pleaded guilty as part ofa deal that may leave him with a reduced sentence and part ofhis government pension. Franklin's prickliness c,ould prove another setback for the U.S., gove~ment in a case that the presiding judge already has suggested could be dismissed because of questions about access to evidence.. Franklin',s performance unsettled prosecutors, who will-attempt to prove that Rosen and Keith WeJssman, AIPAC's former Iran analyst, conspired with Franklin to communicate secret information. The case goes to trial Jan. 2. The argument over tlie faxed document furnished the most dramatic en~unterWednesday~ "It was a list ofmurders," Franklin began to explain to U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis when Thomas Reilly, a youthful, red-headed lawyer from the Justice Department, leapt from his seat, shouting, "Your Honor, that's classified!" ·Ellis agreed to seal that portion ofthe hearing. JTA has learned that the fax was a list ofterrorist incidents believed to have been backed by Iran.. - -I0/11/2005 .." P~ge 1 of~' G9Q.....\i)f- '9aG~\5'-Alei~~~ ,.-?~~ .. '\l o There were other elements ofFranklin's plea that suggest-he is not ready to cooperate to th~ fullest extent. The governn:te~t says Franklin leaked information to the AlPAC employe~s because he thought it could advance his career, but franklin says his motivation was "frustration with policy" on Iran at the Pentagon.. o Page20f4 Franklin said he believed Rosen and Weissman were better connected than he and would be able to relay his concerns to officials at the White House'sNational Security Council. He did not explicitly mention in court that Iran was his concern. But ITA has learned that Franklin thought his superiors a~ the Pentagon were overly distracted by the Iraq war in 2003 - when he established contact with Rosen and Weissman - and weren't paying enough attentio~ to Iran. The penal code criminalizes relaying,information that "could be used tothe injury ofthe United States or to the advantage ofany foreign nation.." Franklin's testimony would not be much use to the prosecution if he believed Rosen and Weissman simply were relaying information from the Pentagon to the White House, sources close to the defense of Rosen and Weissman said. "I was convinced they would relay this information back-channel to friends on the NSC," he said. In any case, the section ofthe penal code that deals with civilians who obtain and relay classified information rarely, if ever, has been used in a prosecution, partly because it lUDS up against First Amendment protections for journalists and lobbyists, who frequently deal with secrets. . Aspokesman for Abbe Lowell, Rosen's lawyer, said Franklin's guilty plea "has no impact on our case because a government employee's actions in dealing with classified-information is simply riot the same as a private person, whether that person is ~ reporter or a lobbyist." The essence. of,Franklin?s guilty pl~a seemed to ~e only that he knew the recipients were unauthorized to receive the infonnation. Beyond , that, he insisted, he had no criminal intent. Admitting guilt to another charge, relaying information.t9 Naor Oilon, the chief political officer at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, Franklin said that he wasn't giving away anything that the Israeli didn't already know.. "I knew in my heart tl,at his government had this i~fonnation," Franklin said. "He gave me far more infonnation than I gave him." Franklin turned prosecutors' heads when he named Gilon, the first 1011112005 - 'jI >J • o 0 public conflnnatlon that the foreign countrY hi~ted at in in~ictments is Israel. Indictments refer to a "foreign official." -The suggestion'that Franklin was mining Oilon for information;1 and not the other way around, turns on its head the hype around the case when it first was revealed in late August 2004, after the FBI raided AIPAC's offices. At the time, CBS desciibed Franklin, as an "Israeli spy." Asked about his clien~' s outburs~ Franklin~s lawyer, Plato Cacheris, said only that it was "gratuitous." , . But Franklin's claim reinforced an argument put forward by Israelthat Oilon was not soliciting anythi!1g untoward in the eight or nine meetings he had with Franklin beginning in 2002., "We have full confidence in our diplomats, Who are dedicated professionals and conduct themselves in accordance with established diplomatic practice," said David Siegel, an embassy spokesman. "Israel is a close ally ofthe l.lnited States, and we exchange information on a formalized ,baSis on these issues. There would be no reason for any wron~doing on the part ofour ~iplomats .." I Franklin also p~eaded guilty to removing classified docum~~ts from the ~uthoriz~d area, which encompasses Maryland, Virginia and' Washington, when he brought material to his home in West Virginia. He sC?unded.another defeQsive note in explaining the circumstances: He brought the material home on June 30, 2004, .he said, to bone up for the sort oftough questions he Qften fac;e4 from Defense Secre~ Donald Rumsfeld and Ru~sfeld's then-~eputy, Paul Wolfowitz. Franklin, who has five children and an ill wife, said he is in dire circumstances, parking cars at a horse-race track, waiting tables and tending bar t~) make ends meet. Keeping part ofhis government pension for his Wife was key to Franklin's agreement to plead guiltY, Cacheris told ITA. Frankl~n ple~ded guilty to $ree different charges, one I!aving to. do with his alleged dealings with the fonner AIPAC offiCials; one having to dq with Oilon; and,one for taking classifie~ documents home.. .The language ofthe plea agreement s~ggests that the government will argue f9r a soft sentence, agreeing to Franklin's preferred minimumsecurity faci~ity and allowing for, concurrent sentencing. But itconditions iis recommendatio!1s'~n Franklin being "reasonably available for debriefing and pre-trial conferences." . The prosecution aSked for sentencing to be PostpoI;led until Jan. 20, . _more th~ two wee~s' ~fter the trial against Rose~ and Weissman ' - > 10/l1/2005· Page 30[4 ,0 i begins, 'suggesting that gov~rnment leniency w~ll be proportional to Franklin's performance. Franklin is a star witness, but be's not all the g9vernment bas up its sleeve. The charges against Rosen and Weissman, apparently based on wiretapped conversations, allege that the two former AIPAC staffers shared classified information with fellow AlPAC staffers, the media and foreign government officials. Two other U.S~ go-v,emment officials who allegedly supplied Rosen and Weissman with information have not been ~~arged. They are David Satterfield, then deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs and now the No.. 2 man at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, and Kenneth Pollack, a Clinton-era National Security Council staffer who is.now an analyst at tbe Brookings Institution.. The problem with the wiretap evidence lies in the government's refusaI to share much ofit or even to say exactly how much it bas.. In a recent filing, the government said that even the qqantity ofthe material should remain classified.. In a Sept. 19 hearing, Ellis suggested to prosecutor Kevin DiGregori that his (ailure to share the defendants' wiretapped conversations with the defense team could lead to the case being dismissed. '~I am having a hard time, Mr.. DiGregori, getting over the fact that the defendants can't hear their own statements, and whether that is so ' fun<lamental that if it doesn't happen, this case wilfhav€? to be dismissed,u Ellis said. DiGregori said the government might indeed prefer to see the case dismissed rather than tum over the material.. AlpAC fired Rosen and Weissman in April but is paying for their defense because of provisions in its bylaws.. AlPAC bad no comment, nor did lawye~ for Weissman.. 10111/2005 o Page 4 of4 ALL INFOP.HATION CONTAINED tr\HEREIN IS mrCLASSIFIED ~ \ ~DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/s~sg ~ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiL-__""'-- _ """';F=-w--:";';[F=-w..oo:d~:_L:-e--x-:-is':":N:""""ex-:is~(~R~>'E=-m-a-:i~1R=-e-q-ue-s-:-t~(":"::18::::2:-=2-::::6~59~1:-::3=75:::7~)]=----------1.. (Ia I hridalt 'lallban5 2005 11"33 AM Subject: From: Sent: To: Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld b6 b7C b7E -----Original Message----Fr01. I To: . Sent-:--=S-at~.~O=-c-:'t-. "::'1"'='5--:::-08~:3~4:-:-=5~4~20~0=-:5=--------- Subject: [Fwd: LexisNexis(R) Email Request ~1822:65913757}) Copyright 2005 The New Republic, LLC The New Republic October 10, 2005 S~CTION: Pg-. 13 LENGTH: 2968 words HEAD~INE: Low Clearance BYLINE: by e~i lake HIGHLIGHT: Troub~e tor journalists. BODY: Eli Lake is a reporter for The New York Sun. In January '2006, a court in Northern Virginia w~ll hear a case in which, for the first time, the federal government has charged two pr~vate citizens with leaking state secrets. CBS News first reported the highly classif~ed investigation that led to this prosecution on the eve of the Republican National Convention. on August 27" 2004, Lesley Stahl told her viewers, that" in a II full-fledged espionage invest,j.gation," the FBI would soon ";'011 up" a "suspected mole" who had funneled Pentagon policy deliberations concerning I~an to Israel. At-the heart of the probe, CBS said, was one of Washington's most powerful lobbying g~oups, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (aipac). With~n th~ee days, the lobbyists involved were ,j.dentified as aipac's directo~ of ,foreign policy, Steve Rosen, andap Iran specialist named Keith Weissman; the mole was outed as Lawrence Franklin, an Iran analyst-at the Detense Pep~rtment. But weeks and then months passed, and the~e were no arrests. Franklin, after initially ~ being put on leave (and taking a job parking ca~s at a nearby restaurant), returned \Q b~ief~y to his desk at the Pentagon; and, unti~ April, Rosen and Weissman were still :~~ writing memos, meeting journalists and government officials, and going about their daily \~~. business at aipac. When the indictments from the federal government finally came down this summer, none ot these men were charged with spying. ~\~ ~nstead, all t~hree were indicted for conspiring "to communicate national defense . /~t' informat~on ... (to] persons not entitled to receive it. II To t_he lay reader, that. may '1 '\ simply sound like espionage-lite. After all, some of ~he people not entitled to receive 1 0SQ,\))~- g.g.G~\5-~c... <e'L~~ \ ~ the national defense informJ::ln in this case were ISraeli d~rnats. But, in fact, a Q prosecution of this kind is unprecedented~ Far from alleging the two aipac o!ficials were foreign agents, u.s. Attorney Paul McNulty is contending that the lobbyists are legally no different than the government officials they lobbied, holding Rosen and Weissman to the same rules ~or protecting $ecrets as Franklin or any other bureaucrat with a security clearance. The indictment even says that, because Rosen long ago held a security clearance wben he worked as an analyst for the rand Corporation, he was duty-bound to protect any classified information be came across after the clearance expired--on JUly 6, 1982. "steve Rosen and Keith Weissman repeatedly sought and received sensitive information, both classified and unclassified, and then passed i~ on to others in order to advance their policy agenda and professional standing," the u.s. attorney said at a press conference announcing th~ indictment. aut, if itls illegal for Rosen and Weissman to seek and receive "classified ,informat.ion, It t.hen many invE}stigative journalists a~e also .crimi.nals--not. to mention ~ormer government. officials who w~ite for scholarly journals or t.he scor;es of men and women who petition the federal government on defense' and foreign policy. In fact, the leaking o~ classified information is routipe in Washington, where such data is traded as a kind of currency. And, while most administrations have tried to crack down on leaks; they have almost always shied away from going after those who rece~ve tbem--until now. At a time when a growing amount o~ information is being classified, the pr;osecution of Rosen and Weissman-threatens to have a cbilling effect-~not on the ability of fore~gn agents to ~n~luence U.S. policy, but on the ability of the American public to understand it. Since tbe inception of tbe national security state, tbe ~ntelligence commun~ty has worried that ou~ free press is a security risk. In an ~nterview in 1954 with U.S. News and World Report, under the headline "we tell the russians too much," CIA Director Allen Dulles remarked, fIr would give a good deal if I could know as much about the Soviet Union as the Soviet Union can lear;n about us merely by reading the p~ess." Nonetheless, the federal governmen~ has tradit~onally resp~cted an implicit First Amendment right of publishers and private citizens to determine the public's right to know about national security~ Without journalists' ability to disclose secret information, the executive branch would be the sole' arbiter of what information the public could have about its government's foreign policy. . And, when the public. j.,s kept. ,in the aa~k, it! s hard to combat excesses. For example, it.' s unlikely tbat the Pentagon would have taken steps to correct abuses in its detention facilities had "60 Minutes II" not obtained photographs of naked prisoners stacked in a pyramid at Abu Ghraib. Had u.s. law been similar to the British Official Secrets Act, which gives 10 Downing Street the autbority to prosecute journalists fo~ disclosing classified materia~, itls unlikely the pUblic. would know about the network of contractors responsible .for t,be rendition of terrorists to nations t.bat.. tor~ure prisoners or the internal debates within the Bush administration ~egarding the application of the Geneva Convention. To be sure, the~e are cases in which the press could do great harm to national security, sucn as publishing the details of how we keep $u~ve~llance on our enemies. But, as any reporter who cove~s these matters will tell you, most of the timejou~nalists negotiate an agreement.--without. the threat of prosecu~ion--on how to report. $ensitive material in a way that minimizes harm to intelligence-gathering and military operations. "We've al~ held back information when a responsible government official makes a compelling case that it.'.s 90in9 to cause some damage," says Newsweek reporte~ Michael Isikoff.' And, wbile every administration has ~ade internal efforts to go afte~ leakers, criminal prosecutions have been extremely rare~ In the two major anti-leaking cases invo~ving classified secrets brought in the last 35 years, both leaker~ were prosecuted for slipping government proper;ty to reporters. In the case of Daniel Ellsberg, it was a classified history of the deliberations of three adm~nistrations regarding Vietnam known as the Pentagon Papers; jn the case of Samuel Mo~ison (the only succes$ful ant~-~eaking prosecution)" it was classified aerial photograph$ of a Soviet. naval aircraft carrier, which he provided to Jane's Defence Weekly. No one has ever been prosecuted--as Rosen and Weissman currently are--tor conveying national security info~mation orally, with no documents involved. - Steve Pomerantz, the former chief of counterterrortsm fo~ the FBI, says that his division--which, in the early I~OS, also investigated classified disclosure cases--never got very !ar in their inve$tigations. "I! you look at this as a conspiracy, then there are two part.ies:, t.he le~ker and the reporter," he says. 2 '. I "As a matter of practice, wJC:lver wen~ near the reporters'''<:)ustom ~hat Pomerantz q contends m~de .it. nearly impossible to catch the leakers. III never remember .in my time a successful prosecution of a leak case," ~e says. But, ~n recent years, there has been mounting pressure from both federal officials and Congress to end this custom. The reason is articles like one pUblished by The Washington Times on August 21, 1998. The story was a profile of Osama bin Laden, following President Clinton's missile strikes on the Al Shita chemicals factory in Khartoum and a training compound in Afghanistan. Near the bottom of the dispatch, reporter Martin Sieff wrote that bin Laden IIkeeps in touch with the world- via computers and satellite phones. II Th.is may sound like an innocuous detail, but, according to the 9/11 Commission' Report, Al Qaeda1s leadership stopped using thei~ satellite phones almost immediately after the sto~y was published, thus eliminating the possibility of us.ing satellite signals to ~ocate and assassinate them. As forme~ Clinton National Security Council officials steve Simon and Daniel Benjamin wrote in thei~ book, The Age of Sacred 1e~ror, IIWhen bin Laden stopped using the phone and let his aides do the calling, the United states lost its b~st change to fi.nd him. II Troubled by t.he Times report. and ot.her similar incidents, Senator Richard Shelby attempted to change the nation1s espionage laws in 4000, when he was the chairman of the Senate Select. Committee on Intelligence., Shelby wanted to expand the category of lI.national. defense informationII to include anything from classified diplomatic discussions to more technical ~ntelligence. President Clinton vetoed the original version of the Intelligence Authorization Act in order to block tbe Sbelby proposal. Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said at. t.he time that. the Shelby measure would be IIdisastrous for journalists. II The .next year, with a new administration in the White House, Shelby again tried to change the espionage law, but eventually dropped the idea after ~ttorney General Jobn Ashcroft promised, as he put. .it i..n a letter to Congress on October 15, 2002, to· review t.he IIcurrent. protections against. t.he unauthorized disclosu~e of classified mater~al.1I It. is from this review that the seeds ot the Rosen and We~ssman indictment were $own. Beginn~ng in 2001, after the September 11 attacks, a group of top intelligence professionals began examining the legal authority to go after leakers. The review, commissioned by Ashcroft, ultimately concluded that, the current espionage law was adequate. But,'at the same time, Ashcroft implemented a policy of aggressively target~ng anonymous sources who show up in newspapers tout~ng national secrets. As he wrote to . Congress in 2002, the fact IIthat only a single non~espionage case of an unauthorized disclosure of classified ,i.nfox:mation has been prosecuted in over .50 years provides co~pelling justif~cation that. ~undamenta~ improvements a~e necessary and we must entertain new approaches to deter, identify, and pun~sh those who engage in the practice of unaut.horized di$closures of classified ,information." Ironical~y, Shelby himself was among the first. snared in the Just~ce Depart.ment's new anti-leaking dragnet. In the summer of 2004, the FBI recommended that the Senate Ethics Commit.tee investigate Shelby for leaking two Nationa! Security Agency (NSA) intercepts received befo~e the Septembe~ 11 attacks to ro~ News and CNN in 2002. These were t.he famous messages t.hat. warned" liThe match begins tomorrow" and "Tomorrow is zero hour." But. the senator from Alabama was not tbe only one. According to a government source, the Pentagon1s National Criminal Investigative divis.j.on began probes in 2002--with FBI guidance--to determine who leaked secret war plans to The New York Times and The Washington Post in June 2002. At. the State Department, diplomatic. security launched an investigation into David Wurmser, an aide to John Bolton, for leaking a letter from Secretary of State Colin Powell to t.he Pentagon objecting to the Syria .Accountability Act. The lette~ ended up being t.he basis for a story in The Jerusalem Post. And the White House knows all too well the problems it faces from spec~al prosecutor ~atrick Fitzgera1d, who has yet to bring charges against the off~cial who told journalist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame was a CIA office~. Fitzgerald has already sent New York Times reporter Judith Miller to jail for not. revealing he~ source for a story about.Plame t.hat she never ended up writing'- But McNultyls nove~ prosecution of Rosen and Weissman in many ways provides the legal test case for Ashcroft.'s new get-tough policy. From the indictment, ~t. appears that. t.he two aipac. officials came to the attention of the fBI at least as far back as 1999, wh~n both lobbyists showed up in ~nte~cepted phone conversat~ons and meetings with .Israeli embassy officials. ' The FBI has never said pUblicly why it began monitoring the 10bby~stsl act~v~ties, but the reason may have to do with the hunt to~ an Israeli sPY code-named 3 And, al;guably, the ,abilit;y of the press to ,seek out. and publish classified information is more important. now than ever before. Last. year, t.he National Archives Information Security Oversight Office, which tracks the prolifera~ion of classified information, said that government'agen~ies reported lS,64~,237 decisions to classify material, a 10 percen~ increase from the yea~ before. I~'s hard to believe that ~he Justice Departmen~ or the FBI can or should protect that many secrets. There are .those who argue tha; t~e war o~ terroris~ pecessitates more secrecy than past 4 ~ conflicts. Representative pe<::>>>oekstra, the chai~an of the C:>se Select Committee on ~ Intelligence, says he is so concerned about recent leaks that he plans to hold hearings, beginning thls month, on whethe~ ~~IS necessary to revise the espionage statute to give the Justice Department mo~e authority to prosecute leakers. 'But Hoek$tra also ~ants' to revise t_he way information is classified to curb what. he calls "excessive overclassification." Until that happens, leaks arguably serve a vital functio~ jn U.s. democracy--helping to ensure that the pUblic can make informed decisions about national security policy. A~ Max Frankel, the former executive editor of The New York Times, put it .in 1971, during the Ni.xon administration I s case against_ t.be paper for p;inting the ·Pentagon Papers, II [Pl ractically everythi_ng t_hat our Government. does, plans, thinks, hears and contemplates jn the realms o{ foreign policy is $tamped and treated as secret--and then unraveled by that same Government,· by the Cong;ess and by the' press in ope continuing round of professional and social contacts and cooperative and competitive exchanges of information." The question--to be decided by a Virginia jury next year--is whether that unravel~ng will ~ontinue any longer. LOAD-DATE: September 29" 2005 5 f • I ALL FBI INFORHATION CO~rrAINED ~IN IS UNCLASSIFIED ~ \ajl'E 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baW/sabl\ill I From: Sent: To: Subject: Media Advisory - U.S. v. Franklin Attachments: 0155.pdf .Page I oft January 20, 2006 Media Advisory United States v. Franklin b6 b7C A $10,000 fine imposed this morning on Lawrence Franklin at his sentencing hearing has been vacated because ' he had previously agreed to forfeit his government pension, according to an order Issued this afternoon by U.S. District JUdge T.S. Ellis,-III, in Alexandria, Virginia. A copy of the order is ~ttached. The other aspects of the sentence imposed this morning by Judge Ellis on'Mr. Franklin - 151 months in prison an~ three years of supervised release - remain in effect. He will begin serving the sentence on a date to be determined, after he coope.rates with prosecutors. He remains free on an unsecured bond of $109,000. Mr. Franklin, a former employee of the U.S. Department of Defense, was sentenced in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia after pleading gUilty on October 5 to three charges: conspiracy to communicate national defense information, conspiracy to communicate classified information to an agent of a foreign government, and'unlawful retention of national defense information. If you have questions about this media advlso lease contact officer, a - - 1/20/2006 the court's public information ... ALL INFORllATION CONTAINED ~REIN IS UNCLASSIFIED n ~ATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/s~g Page 1 of2 -==~I;;=====~I-----------------------b-6-- From: b7C ~:~t: IFridav ,'annaN 20 2006 2·57 pM Subject: JPost Mjtiia'2% Wi ONLINE EDITION JERUSALEM POST Israel: Franklin's trial won't aUeet us Nathan Guttman, THE JERUSALEM POST Oct. 8,2005 Israel alleged that it would not-be affected by Lawrence Franklin's plea bargain or by the fact that the names ofIsraeli diplomats were mentioned in court. Israeli diplomatic sources said Thursday that Naor Gilon, the form~r political officer at the Israeli embassy in Washington, who was in contact with convicted Pentagon analyst Franklin, had no idea that the information he got from Franklin was classified. "We are not r~sponsible for what is said to us by Atperican officials", said the diplomatic source, "even if an American official did something he was not authorized to do, we had no way ofknowing that." Mark Regev, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, saidin response to the incident that "the Israel embassy staff in Washington conduct themselves in a completely professional manner in accordance with all international conventions, and no one serious has made any allegations to the contrary." Naor Giton met between eight and twelve times with Larry Franklin and discussed with him issues regarding Iran's ~ nuclear program and the internal political situation in Iran. Israeli sources described these meetings as routine and ~ common practice for any diplomat. Franklin himself, in a court hearing Wednesday in which he pleaded guilty to three counts ofcommunicatitlg classified information and holding documents at his home, said he "knew in his heart" that the Israelis already possessed all the information he was giving Gilon. Franklin added that he received more information from the Israeli diplomat than he had given him. In a short formal reaction to the Franklin plea bargain, David Siegel, spokesman for the Israeli embassy, said, "we have full confidence in our diplomats who are dedicated professionals who conduct themselves in full accordance with established diplomatic practices". Israel and the US have not reached yet an understanding concerning the method in which Gilon and two other Israeli diplomats from the embassy will be interviewed by investigators probing the case.. Israeli suggested th~t the US relay its questions to the Israelis and -will get in return written answers, but there was yet to be an American response to th~sl·g ~ ~\/~ . v:::~rr ~\Ur-~~\CS-AJ C- 1126/2006 ~lI\r.- {§0 J' Page~,6f2 t' \ ~ ,,- 'Whi1~ Israel was mentioneg:only:in.passing and ~ourt 90qumen~~~io.n·sJt~w~d ~t.:w~s~not accus~d 9J~any wrongdoing!, . the t*osecutors focused on"two former officia~s at the pro-Israel·lobby. The_ trials qf Steve Rosen, Jormer~AIPAC :~ dire,ctor 9fpqIicy, and'Keit~ Weiss~an, fonnerJran analyst at the lobby, were slated,to be~in on January 3rd. J.\bbe Lowel}, the attom~:y' r~presenting Rosen in the ~as,e, said·Wednes~ay that he was ~ot suipri~~d by the fact that Franklin, who was under great, pressure struck a deal with the prosecutiop. lilt ~as no it).1pa~t on our case because, a gov~rnfuent ~mployee's. ~ctions in dealing ,with classiqe4 information are simply not the same as ~ privat<? perso~, 'Vhether that pers9n is a reporter or a lobbyi~t'~ said Lowell in a written shlte~e~t following Frankl~'s court· appearance. .Defense and Foreign Affai~s Committee'chi\innan Yuva~ Steiititz saiCl Thursday that I~rael had not:'activated' Franklin, . and th~t Israel w~~ not spying in the U~it,ed States. He stressed that ~ny c<?nvi~tion waS in no.way,'an ~ccusation 9f 'Israeli involvemenJ in spying. 1/26/2006 --- ..... ''"-....... - ~_ ......... -.... ..~- -_....... -- .. -.... ."... ... ~- ... ...,. .......... ·' ALL INFORMATION C01lrAINED ~EIN IS UNCLASSIFIED ~ ~ 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baW/SabJ~ Page 1ofl ---;:::=======:;---------------------__~b6 --- _ From:I I b7C Sent: Wednesday. January 25, 2006 10:30 AM To: 1... ........ Subject: JTA article FOCUS ON ISSUES Sentence in F'ranklin case sends chill through free-speech community By Ron Kampeas WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 (JTA) -It was surprising enough that the judge quadrupled the prosecution's recommended sentence for Lawrence Franklin" from three years to more than 12. But the true bombshell at the sentencing of the former Pentagon analyst, who is at the center of the case involving pro-Israel lobbyists and classified iriforll}ation,~~awyers were shutting their briefcases last Friday. That't\!Q~..y:~..:'.QJ~triqr~ji~ge;l~.;I;IIiS;IIJ:toldJt)~ ...cQ.urjr.o~mJn.Alexandria, Va., th~ h!t ~.eJi~~~cl~ilialJs·ar~~j4st·~s:UapJe_Cl~g9Y~(mlJ~ntemp.loyees._7 ~der laws goY~ro.ing Jh~..~ssemi!Wlg!l~9f.9J~~i.(LE!.d.J.rl£r!rl..sYg!)~ ...._ (:!'..!l~.§n.s wli~Jl~~~,~'l.~~QJ~9~!~~!i~~.d,~mo~~~J!l!!·i[lto unau~~~~~7 !'pbsse~~19Q ~(.q~~~!~~~ inf~r:":l~t,on, ~~st ~P.!9!..2~ the (awl Ellis.said.LT!i~9· applies to acaCtemics, lawyers·"journ..alists, professors:w~atever~i irwas difficult to assess wneth....er-Ellis'Was·thinking·out"loud·or was pronouncing tiis judicial philosophy. The jUdge·earned a reputation as a voluble off-the-cuff philosopher when he adjudicated the case of John ~Walker Lindh, the "AmericanTaliban." But if those are Ellis' jury instructions in April. when two former staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee go on trial, the implications could have major consequenc.es - not just for Stev~ Rosen and Keith Weissman, but for how American~ consider national security questions. Defense lawyers for Rosen and Weissman have joined a free speech watchdog in casting the case as a major First Amendment battle., liThe implications of this prosecution to news gatherers and others who work in First Am~ndment cas~s cannot be overstated," lawyers for the former AIPAC staffers wrote in a brief earlier this month supporting an application . _from ~h~ R~port~rs Committe.e for the Freedom of tJle Press to file an amicus 1/26/2006 I' " ·; o Page2of3 bri~f. The case is believed to be the first in U.S. history to apply aWorld War I-era statute that criminalizes the dissemination of classified information by U.S~ civilians. Franklin pleaded guilty to a similar statute barring government employees from leaking classified information.·That statute rarely has been prosecuted; before Franklin, the last successful prosecution experts can recall was in the 1980s., JTA has learned that the defense team for Rosen and Weissman last week filed a brief by Viet Dinh, the former assistant attorney general who was the principal drafter of the USA Patriot Act, arguing that federal prosecutors in this case were int~rpreting classified information protections much too broadly. Dinh confirmed to JTA in a brief phone conversation that he had signed the brief, which is classified., Franklin, a mid-level Iran analyst at the Pentagon, admitted to leaking information to Rosen and Weissman in 2003 because he wanted his concerns about the Iranian threat to reach the White House. His Pentagon colleagues were focused on Iraq, and Franklin believed AIPAC could get his theories a hearing at the White House's National Security Council. He also leaked information.to Naor Gilon, the former chief political officer at the Israeli Embassy. By the summer of 2004, government agents co-opted Franklin into setting up Rosen and Weissman. He allegedly leaked classified information to Weissman about purported Iranian pl~ns to kill Israeli and American agents in northern Iraq. Weissman and Rosen allegedly relayed that information to AIPAC colleagues, the media and Gilon. AIPAC fired the two men in March 2005. In sentencing Franklin, Ellis described the former Pentagon analyst's motives as "laudable," but said his motives were beside the point. "It doesn't matter that you think you were really helping," Ellis said. "That arrogates to yourself the decision whether to adhere to a statute passed by Congress, and we can't have that in this country." Those views could be bad news for Rosen and Weissman, who hoped to rest part of their defense on an altruistic desire to save lives. More to the point, it suggests Ellis believes government statutes are sacrosanct, however little they have been used. That's what cOl1cerns freespeech advocates. "These provisions of the Espionage Act are widely recognized in the legal literature as incoherent," said Steven Aftergood, who heads the government secrecy project for the Federation of American Scientists, a nuclear watchdog that relies heavily on leaks for its information. 'We do not arrest and charge every reporter who comes into possession of classified information. We do not arrest people who receive leaks of classified information, we never have," he said. "For the judge to suggest otherwise is quite shocking." Lucy Dalglish, the Reporters Committee executive director, described the case as "terribly important." "Ifwe had a situation where journalists can be punished for receiving information, hello police state," she said. At the Herzliya Conference in Israel - an annual gathering for top Western security officials that Franklin once attended - participants said the case was a central behind-the-scenes topic of discussion, and they girded themselves for the consequences of the Rosen and Weissman trial. Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, told the Jerusalem Post that the climate in Washington was "unacceptable.~' That "two patriotic American citizens who are working for Jewish organizations who did nothing to violate American security should have to stand trial and be subject to the public scrutiny and public humiliation, frankly I find very disturbing, and a matter that we all have to look at in a much more 1/26/2006 , se~us way," Hoenlein said. Franklin's sentence seemed exceptionally tough, given the prosecution's tentative agreement to recommend a three-year sentence if Franklin cooperated in the case againstRosen'an~ Weissman. • I;lIis' sentence - abiding by strict govemm~nt sentencing guidelines - was mainly a technicality, since Franklin'is not going to go to'jail until his cooperation with the prosecution is complete. Prosecutors said they would exercise their prerogative to consider freeing Ellis from applying government sentencing guidelines. In that case, Ellis is likely to apply the three-year deal proseciJtors worked out with Plato Cacheris. Franklin's lawyer. 1126/2006 o Page 3 of3 'ALL INFFION CONTAINED HEREIN CLASSIFIED DATE 07-~9-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sabjlsg 0(\9 tngton • ost rJ1STRICT & MARYl~ND HOME EDITION 35¢ NATIONAL NEWS THE WASHINGTON POST )for Passing Government Secrets gnite.s BY UVItf WOlf - MSOCMlIll fII($S Lawrence A. rrm1Un has said he.. fretrMed wItII tile cIireetIon ., U.s. poIiCJ : and thougllt lie could Influence It. Franklin had faced a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison. Ellis said Franklill would not have to go to jan until he fiI\ished his cooperatiOD with the goverqmenta 1IJt.,,, ..... __... _.,,~ ... v. _ .... - which is scheduled for April. Rosen, of Silver Spring, is charged with two counts related to unlawful disclosure of national defense information obtained from Franklin and other unidentified government officials on topics including Iran, Saudi Arabia and al Qaeda. Rosen was AlPAC's director of foreign policy issues and was instrumental in making the committee a formidable political force. Weissman. of Bethesda. faces one count of conspiracy to illegally communicate national defense infonnation. The FBI monitored a series of meetings between Franklin and the former AIPAC officials datingback to early 2003, multiple sources familiar with the investigation have said At one of those meetings, a session at the Pentagon City mallin Arlington in July 2004, Franklin warned Weissman that Iranian agents were planning attacks against U.S. soldiers and Israeli agents in Iraq, sources said. -sbianswho ing denied u~across 1973 state : asa union "Dave Kole~. Nao"'al Re) f the pl~un· , "VCI" h~' 1h~ ..... ,<:>It,, f'I'" ,'s attorney. ema longtime dedhas had -3 long , Cacheris said I}1erating exten" md that he exea motion later ceo in October to o communicate ion, conspiracy olobbyists. who to communicate classified information to and are awaiting ° an agent of a. foreign government, and un· lawful retention of national defense iu. formation. Court documents saidFranklinprovided classified data - including information about a Middle Eastern cou.ntrYs activities in Iraq and weapons tests conducted by a foreign country --- to the lobbyists and to an unnamed "foreign official· The Middle Eastern country was not named, but Franklin disclosed at his plea hearing that some of the material related to Iran. He also said in court that the foreign official was Naor GUon. who was the political officer at the Israeli Embassy be. fore beingrecalled last summer. Israeli officials have said they are cooperating in the investigation. and they denied any wrongdoing. Franklin is e~ed to testify against the two former AlPAC lobbyi~ Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman. at their trial. !1 Kevin V. Di t1kIin had reason nation could be ate&. -when you information to ~i~ it." he sai~ s control of that I wayto knowin • deIIgIII., LcMdaMrs tlu'Dnlllnes. ....... saltltllll8ltame...... d IhIt~t 17..oat IIIII1IIDaI towanlltil"oa the ........... WI. StotIy, lU. ALL INFORMATION CO~D L, a $100 Million Question vfqy End Supportfor u.s.-Funded Coca Eradication Pentagon Analyst Given 12~ Years In Secrets Cra:se By JEBJlY MAuoN Wash.ington Post SmffWriler A former Defense DepartmeDt analyst was. sentenced to more than 12 years in prison yesterday for passing government secrets to two employees of aproIsrael lobbying group and to an Ismeli government of. ficial in WashiDgton. U.s. District Judge T.S. Elliamsaid Lawrence A. Franklin did not intend to harm the United States when he gave the classified data, to the employees of the American Israe1 Public Affairs Committee, or ~ PAC, oue ofWashingtoD.'smost intluentiallobbyingorganimtions. When hepleaded guilty, Franldia, an Iran specialist, said he was frustrated with the direction of U.s. policy and thought he could influence.it through '"back channels.II "I believe, I accept, your explanation that you didn't want to hurt the United States, that J01l are a IoyaI American: said Ellis, who added that Franklin was -concerned about certain threats to the UmtedStatesand thought he had to hand information about the threats to others to bring it to the attention ofthe National Security CoundL But Franklin. still must be punished, Ellis sai~ because he violated important laws govemfug the nondisclosure of secret information. '1t doesn't matter that you think you were really helping,- EJHe said as he sentenced Franklin to 151 months -12th yeatS - in prison. -nat a:rn>gItes to See SECREI'S. A6. Col. 1 DC''' KU"~lU"" -......, ~.......... ------ -- - -_. foral.transit, increase highway construction Lly 90 and revive stalled road projects. Th ey would help build a connected network of carpool or express toll lanes on all of Northern Vtrginia's major highways. buyrail ears for VirgiDia RailwayExpress and Metro, widen Interstates 95 and 66, and fix traffic botUeneeks. -We don't need any more studies. Wedon't need an extended session,II Kaine told reporters Friday after- See VIRGINIA, A10. Cot 3 he miIht withdraw Bolivia'. support for the eradication program, akeystone of the U.S.-backed anti-drug and alternative crop development campaign here. He has hinted at deaimmaHzing the tu1tivation of coca, which is legally chewed asa stimulant andusedin traditional medicines, and he has criticized regional us. anti-drug programs as false pretextsfor establishingamilitaty ~. But Morales has toned down his Se~ BOJ..lVlA..A 14. Col. 1 auwho : deaied . 8'r.i_"_-auilioa ~1CDJe. Iava1Iebeplainerbythe • for ld be 6Ir rs Mar1" deeiBioIl d:entioue mdU.S. tIa1JJau4 HEP~IN IS UNCLASSIFIED • DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/lsg VId. Ban on Gay Marriage rites ..-we're not doiDg anything the$e .,. one soldier said, ignoring the ~aJJchting on his .expoeed It a mud- forealm& -we're just waiting to hear Jmrlanda whaf. goirJ«to happen next.· .5OBoIiv- It's the $100 million question in 80~ Ie "Hm.: What wiD. become of the u.s._ coca' financed program to eradicatecoca, the 'Ilt weeki plant used to make c:ocain~ now that Ide cntcle the longtime head of the coca growers' I sagaing union, RwMorales, isabout to become !by mer the counbYa president? sthe U.S. Morales..46.whowillbe inaugurated Sunday, said during his campaign that Braqi IEDfdDcnlesaoDts An aJliance ofShiite religious parties won the most seats in Iraq's parliament but not enough to rule without coalition partners. the election commission said yesterday. wou.m" 275 total seats ShIte Kunlllh Surml MteI rellgiDus secular religious Sw:nl coalition coalition coalition secular I -etJ..:o.... I coaUtl~n FORT LEAVENWORTH, !<.an. - A fundamental change overtaking the Army is on display in classroolD$ across this base above the 'l,{;cGOnn 'R1VPr Afte1' dP.l'.ades of By THOMAS E. fuexs Washington Post S.affWriter Lessons Leamed in Iraq Show Up in Army Classes Culture Shifts to Counterinsurgency tflOi8St! vs. Ha»use Six bedrooms or just one with four bunks? Two distinct views of the house of the future. Also, a big increase in first-time buyers puttingno mo~down. Cuba Call PIa, Ball 'The 16-nation World Baseball Cassie gets the help it needs to bring Fidel Castro·s team to the tournament. SPOIlS, E1 INSIDE IWlOIS IIMIllII10 - TIlEYMSHINGTDIl POST De 'Rogue' Writer Osama bin Laden invited the world to read his book. For Washington's William Blum, it's .. , .• _._.j1r_. __l .._4_ , An.~~ l~ Years fo~ Pass=-&ment Secre~-r-_T_NIW_"'H...-IIIO'I'II_~P~ •.- ~.I~~I••__._-- =~=::,..,: .............._IL J1h_.....CIIII ~ 0125,.. iii ,.... lIrnklbl .... 1llI1 .... "',:llbjd\Ullll ... ~ ... CClIIlI'ft'IIlI.1IIc1X*llll' m..... ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/1sg ~. DIFORMATION CONTAINED 0 RE N IS LrnJCLASSIFIED DA 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sabJlsg jpost.txt Hoenlein: Franklin sentence 'disturbing l ----------~----------- ------------------------~---------~----- -------------------- Hilary Leila Krieger, TH~ )ERUSALEM POST Jan. 23, 2006 ----~-------------------~-----~-----------------~~-~-~-------------~--~----~-~-- American Jewish leader Malcolm Hoenlein on sunday blasted the sentence handed down two days earlier to the. Pentagon analyst who admitted passing on classified information to Israeli diplomats and pro-Israel lobbyists. Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the conference of presidents of Major American Jewish organizations, labeled the ruling "disturbing,1I a comment greeted by applause from the audience to whom he spoke about US-Israel relations at the • Interdisciplinary Centerls Herzliya conference. The former analyst, Larry' Franklin, was sentenced to 12 years and seven months in prison for three counts of conspiring to communicate national defense information unlawfully. The sentence was part of a Rlea bargain between Franklin and the prosecution in which he agreed to testify against two staffers of the pro-Israel lobby American Israel Public Affairs committee (AIPAC) , Steve Rosen and Keith weissman, whose trial begins in late April. nThe very fact that this kind of climate can exist in the capital of the united .States is unacceptable," Hoenlein said of the. sentencing as wel.l as subtle anti-Semitism heard in the corridors of power. He added, "[That] two patriotic. American citizens who are working for Jewish organizations who did nothing to violate American security, should have. to stand tr1al and be subject to the pub11c scrutiny and public humiliation, frankly I find very disturbing and a m~tter that we all have to look at in·a much more serious way." Hoenlein also cautioned Israel about its attitude toward the oiaspora. IIThere are more Jews in Tel Aviv than in New york and the majority of Jews will live® her.e," he noted. IIS0 there's no need to diminish the importance or the achievements of the oiaspora in order to emphasize the centrality an~ singular significance of Israel in all of our live~." I Hoenlein was preceded by Rabbi vechiel Eckstein, who also had some words of ~~ criticism -. of oiaspora Jewry. He slammed Jewish leaders for making a "major .strategic mistakell by criticizing growing ties between evangelical christians and the State of Israel, arguing that evangelicals pose one of American Jewryls largest threats since their values are so different from tha~ of Ameri~an Jews. ' "YOU don't need to accept their vision of America. But you donlt need to make them the enemy," said Eckstein, president of 'the International Fellowship of christians and Jews. lilt is the height. of irresponsibility for American Jewish leaders to jeopardize the critical support for Israel and the fight again$~ radical Islam and growing anti-Semitism that evangelicals bring to the table." Eckstein warned Israel not to take the support of evangelicals for granted. He did, however, praise Acting prime Minister Ehud olmert and former prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for understanding the importance of this constituency. Another speaker at the same session, American pollster Frank Luntz, also heaped ~ accolades on olmert. concludin9 a lecture on how to use la.nguage effectively to get ~ Israel's message across - "it 1 S not what ~ou say that matter.s in communi cati on; \-,,, ; t 's what people hear" - he, ,sa;d that the former Jerusal em mayor had mastered h~~\, page 1 \)Y\~V" . ~ 6~'\JJ~ ~'S\r;;...fJC- 'r - &:.~\V /~f ,~ 1- ~ 0 0 '" advice. jpost. t'xt He played a short video clip of olmert defending Israeli policies in heavil~ accented English on international TV. "This ;s absolutely perfect communication to Americans," said Luntz, who ;s a consultant to the Israeli aavocacy organization, The Israel project. He described the clip as lI.some of the. best communication of any Israeli spokesperson. Tilank God he is where he is right now.II' . page 2 ~LL INFOPHATION CONTAINED o ~PEIN IS UNCLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sabJ1sg haaretz article. txt w w w . h a are t z . com ---------------~----~------------~------~----~-------~~----~--------~------~-~-~ Last update ~ 10:59 23/01/2006 u.s. Jewish leaders concerned by Franklin conviction By shlomo Shamir and-Amiram Barkat Two days after former pentagon analyst Larry- A. Franklin was sentenced to 12 years and seven months in jail for sharing classified information with pro-Israel lobbyists, $everal American Jewish community leaders echoed. a singl~ refrain: There's reason to worry, but no need to feel like this is a crisis. Franklin pleaded guilty ;n october to sharing the information with AIPAC lobbyists and Israeli diplomat Naor Gilon. Steve Rosen and Keith weissman, who were ~ired from AIPAC in 2004, are facing charges of disclosing confidential information to Israel, apparently abou~ Iran. Some American Jewish leaders are concerned by the influence the trial could, have on th~ relations between Jewish groups and the administration. Anti-Defamation leagu~ director Abe Foxman said the Franklin affair could potentially pose a thre~t to all Jewish lobbyists. Foxman said it is not clear what exactly is allowed in-terms of the relationships between the administration and the media and between nongovernmental.organizations and foreign governments. The lack of clarity, he said, could have a destructive influence on the activities~of all u.s. Jewish groups. Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of presidents of Major Jewish organizations, said yesterday that he found Franklin's sentence Idisturb1ng." liThe very fact that this kind of climate can exist in the capital of the u.S. is unacceptable," he said at the Herzliya Conference. ' Rosen and weissman, he said, lIare two patriotic American citizens working for a Jewish organization, who did nothing to violate the American security." page 1 . . ~ ~ "'~- ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED " HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED ~ 1\,. '~ ~ATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc ,baW/S~'3g : ' ~-F-ro-m-:----~I·-~)(FBi) . - -- ~:~t: I~av EeJl.ruaO! H '0 069 "30 MIl. !vF) (FBI) SUbject: FYT UNCLASSIFIED NON-RECORD I assume you worthies saw this... -Formel7 Official Backs Lobbyists In Leak C~se The Washington Post By Walter Pincus February 14,2006 • 1 .'. WASmNGTON, DC -- The former hea'd of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy helped write a 'memorandum of law calling for ~ dismissal of Espionage Act charges against two pro-Israel lobbyists, arguing that, in receiving leake4 classified Information and relaying i~ to others, they were doing'what reporters, thiilk~tankexperts and congressionai staffers "do ,perhaps 'hundreds oftime~ every day~" Viet D. Dinh, who'helped draft the USA Patriot,Act after the_Sept.t1, 2001, attacks, has joined with lawyers defend:ing Steven J. Rosen and ~eith Weissman, former employ~es of the American Israel Public AffairsCommitte~(AIPAC), who last year became the first non-U.S. government lemployees to be indicted for ,allege~ly violating provisions of the Espionage Act. "Never has a lobbyist, reporter, or any other non-government e~pJoyee ·been charged ••• for receiving oral information tl;te government alleges to be national defen~e matf?rialas part of that person's normal"First Amendm~nt protected activ_ties," the defense memorandum states. In additio.n, since no classified docum~nts are involved, the two lobbyists are being accused of receiving or~1 cla,ssified informatiQD during conversations with'government officials, one ofwhom warned Weissman that "the information he was about to rece~ve was highly~ classified tAgency stuff,t " according to the indictment. That government -official in'·this instance was-Lawrence'A.Franklin, who at the time worked in the policy offi~e at the Pentagon. He recently pleaded guilty to violations of the 'Espionage Act and was provisi~nally sentenced to ~2 years in prison, with tJte sentence to be reviewed depending on his cooperation with the governmenti~ t~eRosen-Weissman trial aJi~ anx.. CC} other relat~4 investigations. . J !~ -~- ". 0 9 !. The defense memorandum was filed under seal in U.S. District Court for the Eastern 'District ofVirginia on Jan.19 and, according to Rosen's attorney, Abbe D. Lowell, was unsealed last Thursday at the request of the defense. In the 90 years since the act was originally drafted, according to the Dinh memorandum, "there have been ·no reported prosecutions of persons outside government for repeating information tha~ they obtained verbally, and were thus unable to know conclusively whether or to what extent that information could be repeated." Dinh, who has returned to teaching at Georgetown University Law Center after leaving the Bush administration, said in an interview yesterday that the espionage statute is very broad and vague in its language and normally requires "bad faith" on the part of those in violation. The memorandum quotes Patrick J. Fitzgerald, special counsel in the CIA leak case, who said in a news conference that the espionage law is "a difficult statute to interpret" and "a statute you ought to carefully apply." "Prosecuting the leakee for an oral presentation ••• presents a novel case because the listener has no evident indicia for knowing what relates to national defense," Dinh said. He noted that he could find only one case in which the disclosed information may have been made only orally. In that case, an Army intelligence officer leaked defense inforptation and only he was charged. He was acquitted, "indicating that the government should have thought twice before now trying to stretch the statute even further." The memorandum notes that the statute contemplates the passing of physical evidence, such as documents with classifi.cation stamped not just on each page but also alongside each paragraph. One section ofthe law says that a person who has improperly received a classified leak commits a crime if "he willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee entitled to receive it." The memorandum says that the provision cannot cover orally received information since recipients tt 'retain' it in memory and it is physically impossible to 'deliver' it back to the United States." Another reason for dismissing the case, according to the memorandum, is that "if the instant indictment and theory of prosecution are allowed to stand, lobbyists who seek information prior to its official publication date and reporters publishing what they learn can be charged with violating section 793" of the espionage statute. The memorandum also points out that"on many occasions, the media boldly state that they have classified material," which they publish after soliciting and receiving leaks. Lowell said that his client and Weissman "have been indicted as felons for doing far lessthan for what reporters have been awarded Pulitzer Prizes." In the memorandum, reference is made to Washington Post reporter Dana Priest's articles on CIA secret prisons for alleged terrorists, for which a leak investigation is underway. FBI agents are also investigating the leak to the New York Times about the National Security Agen~y's domestic surveillance program. . I, i.lI UNCLASSIFIED 2 I; QINFOIDIATION COm'AINED O' IN IS UNCLASSIFIED . 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sabJ1sg~ ~il~ _ From: Sent: To: SubjeCt: - . ---~~-~----~~-------~~~-~~ Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld -----Original Message----- Sent: Wed Feb 15 18:45:50 2006 Subject: NY Sun article -t lintervie~ed C}hat_' s 1l...__lemail? Big Impact Seen In Israel Spy Case b6 b7C 1 BY JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun February 13" 2006 URL: http://www.nysun.comlarticle/27429 ~ Lawyers for two former pro~Israel lobbyists under indictmen~ for leaking classified ~ information have denounced the prosecution as an assault on the First Amendmen~ and warned~~~ that a vas~ array of policy advocates and journalists could ,be in jeopardy if the case goes forward. The two lobbyists, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, were fired from their jobs at the American Israel Publi~ Affairs Committee last year as the probe unfolded. A former Pentagon. official charged wich providing classified information to the pair, Lawrence ~ranklin, is cooperating .:with prosecutors after pleading guilty. He was sentenced last month to more than 12 years in prison. In a brief filed in January and released last week, the lawyers for Messrs. Rosen and Weissman argue that the statute barring unauthorized' release of classified material has never been applied to private citizens. "The breathtaking application of that law to this set of facts breaks new legal ground," the defense team wrote. "There has never been a successful prosecution of an alleged leak by persons outside government persons with no contractual or legal obligation to preserve classified information." Messrs. Rosen and Weissman are scheduled to go on trial in federal court in Alexandria, Va., on April 25. The indictment charges tha~ they received classified information from Franklin and other officials, and passed that data on to members o~ the press and agents of a foreign government. ~/ Prosecutors have not offered a public description of 'the information that was alleg~dly ~{~ relayed, nor have they disclosed which reporters or foreign agents were al~egedly Allt~' involved. ~owever, Franklin was the Iran desk officer at the Defense Department and some ~ I' ~{ the d~t~ he has a~tted to passing on ~ppear to h~ve pertained to Iranian influence in -. _05lt,~~~3\5- ,u c" ~cB~ -Le'-l-v t' 'n ~. I~aq. The foreign diplomats~o received classified information in the alleged scheme ~ Ii a~;>pear to have been Israelis. In court papers asking that the charges be dismissed, the defense lawyers argue that the prosecution is attempting to criminalize the traditional give and take of information b-etween lobbyists, journalists, and government, officials. "This is what. members ot the media, members of the Washington policy community, lobbyists ~nd members of congressional staffs do perhaps hundreds of times every day, II the lawyers wrote. liThe exchange of informa~ion between members of, the government and non-governmental organizations is p,recisely what policy lobbying (as well as everyday news reporting) is all about. II The prosecution's response to the motion· was filed late last. month, but. has not yet been made public. In an unusual arrangement, mos~ papers filed in the case remain secret for a time while they are reviewed for classified information. In an interview yesterday, Mr. Weissman's attorney, John Nassikas III, said the p,rosecution should be of concern to all those who play a role in Washington policy debates. IIHopefully, there will be some resonance out, in the community over this," the l,awyer said. "We think that the government prosecution is off-base and we're challenging in every way, legally and factual·ly. II H,owever, Mr. Nassikas acknowledged that the defense may face an uphill battle in trying to c,onvince Judge Thomas Ellis III, who is presiding over the case, that the prosecution would jnhibit the free exchange of ideas and information vital to American democracy. At Frank~in's sentencing last month, the jUdge expressed no qualms abou~ punishing j,ournali:5ts or others who wind up with classified information and pass it. on. IIPersons who ~ave ,unauthorized possession, who come into unauthorized possession of classified information, must abide by the law," Judge Ellis said in remarks first reported by the ~ewish Telegraphi~ Agency. ,iThat applies to academics, lawyers, journalists, professors, whatever. II . . The brief filed on behalf of Messrs. Rosen and Weissman was co-authored by a conservative Georgetown University law professor and for:mer Justice Department official, Viet Dinh. 'Mr. Dinh's opposition t~ th~ department's stance in this case is notable because he has # generally supported aggressive prosecution tactics and was an architect of the 2001 law that broadened the government's anti-terrorism powers, the USA-PATRIOT Act. "He's obviously an ~xpert on constitutional law issues, and there have been a-lot of constitutional law flaws in the government's application of this statute," Mr. Nassikas said. He said Mr. Dinh was enlisted by Mr. Rose~'s attorney, Abbe Lowell. Messrs. Lowell and Dinh did not ~eturn calls yesterday seeking comment for this story. The case has drawn criticism from some Jewish activists as well as a journalists' group, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the "Press, which has sought to file an amicus brief on behalf of the two eX-lobbyists. Legal analysts often distinguish the American .lega~ system's approach toward breaches.of classified information fro~ t~e tack taken in Britain, where the country's Official Secrets Act can be used to prosecute and silence journalists and ordinary citizens who come into possession of sensitive infor:mation. In America, the~e have 'been repeated, but unsuccessful, efforts to pass a similar statute that would crimdnalize all leaks of classified information regardless of the harm caused or the intent or identity of the leaker. In 2000, President Clinton vetoed ~egislation that would have made the release ot any classified information a crime. lilt would be fundamentally unfair for the Justice Department to usurp the province of Co~gress and create some type of Official Secrets Act through the prosecution of a test case," the defense team argued in their brief. The brief also quotes a prominent federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, about the perils of bringing criminal charges in connection with leaks' o~ classified information. "You sho~ld be ver.y careful in applying that law because there are a lot. ·of interests that c,ould '.be imp~i.cated," Mr. Fitzgerald said at a press conference last. year discussing his 2. ~ decision not to charge a WhOHouse aide, I. Lewis Libby, wO"leakiDg a J identity. Mr. Libby, who has pleaded not guilty, was charged with perjury of justice in the ,probe. CIA officer's and obstruc~ion Details of the defense filing were first reported by an online newsletter, Secrecy News, which is published by the Federation of American Scientists. Mr. Nassikas declined to say yesterday whether he plans to call journalists as witnesses, an effort which could prompt further legal confrontations. "Neither side has indicated what witnesses will be called a~ this point. It's clear there are reporters involved in the facts of the case," the attorney said. In recent months, Messrs. Rosen and Weissman have been at odds with their fo~er employer, Aip~c, over payment of legal fees in the case. "That is not resolved," Mr. Nassikas said. He said Mr. Weissman plans to launch a legal defense fund this week to cover costs that Aipac has, declined to pick up. Efforts to reach an Aipac. spokesman last. night were unsuccessful. 3 ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED i ~IN IS tU~CLASSIFIED 0 It ~ 07-29.,..2010 B·:r 60324 l.lC baw/sabll.. !ll ......_~------------- From: Sent: To: Subject: II:=bQl8NI 15.2006 6:12 PM ------~--~~-~~--~--------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wirele~s,Handheld Pre-trial strategies suggest unwanted exposure of AIPAC's lobbying practices By Ron Kampeas and Matthew E. Berger b6 b7C WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 (JTA) -- Federal investigators are asking questions about ties between lay leaders of the American Israei Public Affairs Commdttee and two former staffers charged in a classified-information case. The renewed investigation comes as Viet Dinh, a forme~ assistant u.s. attorney general and principal architect~f the Patriot Act, argued in a brief on behalf of Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, the former AIPAC staffers, that the case against them lacks merit because it violates thei~ First Amendment rights. Taken together, the defense and government actions suggest the shape of the trial to start April 25: The defense will argue that culling and distributing inside government information was a routine lobbying actiVity. It also anticipates the media event AiPAC insiders have said they fear: One that picks apart, ina public forum, exact~y how ~PAC goes about its business. No one suggests that AIPAC's activities are in any way illegal, and the prosecutor in the case already has made clear that t~e organization is not suspected o~ wrongqoing. B~t AIPAC closely guards its lobbying practices, and is loath to reveal them to the genera~ Washington community. In his brief, Dinh, now a law professor and attorney in private practice, argues that the First Amendment protects the practice of seeking information from executive branch officials. ~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," Dinh argues, describing the acts alleged in the indictment against Rosen, the former AIPAC foreign policy director, and Weissman, a former Iran specialist. FBI agents' questions to other former AiPAC staffers inte~viewed in recent weeks suggest that the government is trying to assess whether receiving and disseminating classified information was routine at AIPAC. The form~+ staffers told ~A that .t~e FBI agents asked questions about Rosen's 1 _ relationship with of Beverly Hills, influential AI~AC three pa~PAC presidents -- Robert Ashe~f Chicago, Larry Weinberg Calif., and Edward LeVy of Detroit, as well as Newton Becker, an donor from Los Angeles. The for.mer employees all spoke on condition ~f a~onymity, because the FBI has told them not to speak with the media. The office of u.s. Attorney ~aul McNulty, who is trying the case, would no~ comment. Weinberg, reac~ed Tuesday, refused to comment. Levy was on vacation and could not be reached, and Asher and Becker did not respond to messages. The new round of FBI questions is important because the indictment, based on a World War I-era espionage statute, rests not simply on receipt of the allegedly classified information but on its further dissemination. The indictment, handed down las~August, all~ges tha~.Rosen and Weissman relayed the infor.mation -- on Iran and on Al-Qaida -- to fellow AIPAC staffers, journalists and diplomats a~ the Israeli Embassy in Washington. Establishing whether Rosen also briefed board members on the allegedly classified information would bolster the defense claim that the acts described in the indictment are routine. Board members are regularly briefed, often in lengthy one-on-one phone calls, on meetings between the mos~ senior AIPAC staffers and top administration officials. Rosen routinely made such phone calls, a former staffer said. ~He made sure board members knew he was responsible and he was the one doing the work,H the staffer said. ~roving that such briefings are routine, however, will 'not necessarily deter the government from going ahead with th~ case: Judge T.S. Ellis, who is' hearing t~e case, has suggested that the routine nature of such exchanges doesno~ preclude prosecution. ~~ersons who have unauthorized possession, who come into unauthorized possession of classified information, must abide by the law," Ellis said last month in ~entencing Larry Franklin, the for.mer ~entagon analyst who pleaded gUilty to ~eaking information to Rosen, Franklin and others. ~Tha~ applies to academics, lawyers, journalists, professors, whatever." - A defense source said the defendants ~ould no~ recall board member brtefings about the central charge in the, indictment, involving allegedly classified information on supposed Ira~ian plans to kill American and Israeli agents in northern Iraq. However, other alleged leaks in the indictment migh~ have been relayed to board members, JTA has learned. One in 2002 involved David Satterfield, then· a deputy ~ssistant secretary of state and now deputy ambassador to Iraq. Satterfield relayed information to Rosen on A!-Qaida, the indictment says. McNulty's office would not comment on whether i~ planned to bring charges against Satterfield. Satterfield did not. respon~ to previous JTArequests for comment. The defense will maintain that Satterfield would have been authorized to release the infor.mation. The administration routinely used.AIPAC as a conduit. to ~nfluence Israel on matters where there were differences between Israel and the United States, for instance on Israeli arms sales to China. In those cases, the information migh~ have been classified. The information Satterfield allegedly relayed to Rosen apparently related to Iran's ties to a wanted Lebanese terrorist. Dinh's brief was filed last month, but was made publiq only last week. JTA reported on the brief las~ month, and has been has been researching for several mont~~ interactions between Rosen, Weissman and government officials. Patrick Dorton, an AIPAC sppkesman, previou~ly ~as ~aid that Rosen and Weissman were fired . 2 ~as: ~rCh because infoxmat~ arising out of the FBI inves~tion uncovered ~conduct that was not part of their job and was beneath the standa%ds of what AIPAC expects of their employees." A December 2000 AIPAC staff handbook does not say how to handle classified information. A 1985 internal memo by Rosen,' recently obtained by JTA, outlines his plans to shifeAIPAC's lobbying emphasis from Congress to the executive branch. He explicitly calls for the cultivation of mid-level, non-elected officials -- a description that would include Franklin. Outlining the advantages of such lobbying, Rosen wrote; UThey work for secretive rather than open institutions and agencies. And, perhaps m9st important o~ all for effective communications, they are in many cases experts in our subject themselves, as oppose~ to the 'generalist' in Congress who might be convinced by a few general 'talking points' explained by a layman." Former staffers say Rosen's memo p~ofoundly influenced AIPAC's mission. AIPAC has never repudiated the document, though las~ yea~ the organization said i~ had changed some lobbying practices -- without specifying which ones. UAIPAC continues to discuss perfectly appropriate and legal informati~n with people on Capitol Hill and in all levels of the administration every single day," Dorton said Tuesday. , , --- ..~ .' .~ - ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED I"'a18 I or l _~.,<fLeX~SNe~i.S by liredlt U~rd - OUDCume~. HEREUJ IS UNCLASSIFIED I"'!:\ ~;r'•, ,. DATE 07-29-2010 BY 6032~ baw/sabJ1sg . , ~ - ~,....- ......,... " ,.....". ..-~ .. . .... ... ......... [:::~_'H -._ View: Full I q~ I ~I~ ~meDts Purcha.s~ I tiQW ~cIl Yi~.wjn Ptin.tabl~ fo.ID1 Your browser settings may prevent your return to this document. Please print or download this document before selecting another. Document Unks: ~~tilrt of Oocum.cml SE~.nQN: . LE.NG.TJf: . HEM»-INE: B.YL.IHE; BOQX; LOAD:D.A1E: Copyright .1997 TImes Newspapers Umited The limes NOYember 13, 1997,.Thursday :b6 b7C SECnON:Ove~asnews LENGTH: 677 words HEADUNE: Am~ricans shot dead after guilty verdict on Pakistani BYUNE: Christopher Thomas. South Asia Correspondent. and James Bone in New York BODY: . FOUR Americans and a Pakistani were shot dead yesterday in the centre 'of Karachi, probably by Islamic ~mists, in an apparent reprisal attack after the conviction of a Pakistani in America for the killing oUwo CIA employees. The Pakistani Govemment has ordered an inquiry, but there is little chance of catching the killers. Further attacks on Americans were feared after the conviction in New York last night ofthe Pakistani mastennind of the 199~ Wortd Trade Centre bombing. RarnzJ Yousef, a former engineering student at SWansea Institute in Wales, faces life i~prisonment for plotting to kill up to a quarter of a million ~ple by toppling one of the 11o-storey twin towers of the centre onto the other. Six people died and more than 1,000 were. injUred in the attack on the fower Manhattan landmark. which left AmericanS feeling VUlnerable to international terrorism for the first time. Eyad Ismoil, a Jordanian accused ofdriving the truck bomb into the underground car park, was also convicted of conspiracy and faces a life term• ... Yousef, a Baluq.i ofPalestinian descent who was raised in Kuwait, was arrested in Paldstan two years ago when a fellow Muslim radical ~med him in, In the hope ofthe $ 2 milrlOr1 reward. Eartier. this year he was sentenced to life imprisonment for plotting the bombing of12 American airliners over Asia.-The plan was never carried out because Philippines ponce chanced on his bomb factory, but Yousef tested his technique by bombing a Philippines AIr1ines plane, kiDing a Japanese business man. The American authorities believe he is linked to a shadowy 1~lamic underground connecting groups as far afield as Afghclnlstan, Egypt and 1he Philippines. It· Sheikh Omat AbdeI Rahman, a blind Muslim cferic. has already been jailed in the United States with ten associates on margas related to the World Trade Centre bombing and other plamed attacks. The AmertcantI Idllecl In KarachJ"Pakiatan's most laWleSS city, were'sii1gI8d oUt as the carIn which~were traveflifflJ pasae"d,.o.v'veor- a'b•ile; -.. Iii~iiiOm~ trilfftc. 1118 .~. ., 'US8d KaIashnikov8.which are ~"aWilible 'at'kiiOCkdoYin . ~ -0;: !~W~" .•• _,,,~IJI.. SJUI'UJ'8I'. . 1I~1. ~.throughOut th8.c.ountrY. in(j escaped in the confusion. . All five victims ofyesterday's attack were emp(oyees ofUnionTem, the-US'Oil'Company. Th8y were on thefrway to work, a journey ofonly a few minUtes, and died instantly. The Americans were au<frtors who had jUst arrived in Pakistan. ~j:-- '\ ' '. 'b6 '::r' .~.- -_••• ~_.~:. ~ 't •. b7C '" ·0 .::, f AwItnes8 said that the kJJtenI h8d on'~ jack~. wom . ;'L .. ,-JheY:itepped oulof..tli8lt..v8liJde;........ ""... biilleti"trito the victims at' . nt-blank range, cheCked the bodlM do8eIy to en .' 1! .U =~-: ~·;:~~Ut1_.l8IgelBd88d18yd;$~..~. • ' one1*"6ieii ~'~~. a sal for the deportation toAmerfcaofYousef. .'t":J' 01 j Yesterday's mur dens wece probably d8eIgnid to"aVenge the guilty venfJd passed by an American court on Mlr Aimal KasI, a 1.~.. ~ t.fi t;. ~eaki8tan national who IciJJed two CIA employees outside the agency's headquarters In Langley. nearWashington, !flOI'8~ :f:' fOur yeat8 ago. He could face the death penalty. ~ . Kasralawyers are pleading with ajury to spare his life and sentence him to life In prison without parole. The defence produced family membefw. teachers, friends and fonneremployena to show that Kasf had lived a non-violent life before the kJnlngs. The US State Department had given a warning on Tuesday that Americans could be targets after the KasI verdic.t. Mike MeCuny, President C&nton's spokesman, saki there was no Immediate direct evidence to link the KaI8Chi murders with the KasI conviction, but officials were watchfng for any connection that developed. Condemning yesterdayis Karachi attack as barbarous and outrageous. MrMcCuny said that it would not affect MrCUnton's visit to Pakistan next year. LOAD-DATE: November 14, 1997 Copyright.O 2005 LexJsNexfs. a division ofReed Elsevier Inc. AD rights reserved. Your use ofthis seNfce fa governed by TJmn~~i!&o.J... Please~them. http://web.lexis.com/xcha-nge/search/dispdoc.aso? aStrinFb4kDb1 F04U2W3%~FCkWn - R/~ /?nnfi ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED ~IN IS UNCLASSIFIED ~ ~ 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sabJl~ BRIEF ONIR:AN No. 798 Tuesday, December 9, 1997 Representative OfOce of The National Council of Resistance of Iran Washington, DC P ~~··1>;'I!11;;;P2~J'~":' ~.~" .~. age' ,01." :~" •.,;" Dt.s~s~.~ C1tle Tf:\B C-. Spying on Foreign Reporters in Tehran, Iran Zamin News Agency, December 8 The regime's Ministry of Intelligence is doing it utmost to prevent foreign reporters from gaining access to the realities of the Iranian society. According to reports from Iran, the regime has instructed the majority of foreign reporters to leave Tehran immediately after the summit of the Organization of Islamic Conference•. The reporters·have reportedly asked to go to Com and meet with dissident clergymen. Meanwhile, the regime has imposed more restrictions on Montazeri, form.er successor to Khomeini. MOl')tazeri's comments against Khamenei in recent weeks escalated the power struggle within the regime. Protest Gathering of Mojahedin Families in Tehran, Iran Zamin News Agency, December 8 According to reports from- Iran, simultaneous with the Organization of Islamic Conference's meeting in Tehran, large groups of families of Mojahedin martyrs and political prisoners gathered today in the Iranian capital's Behesht..e Zahra cemetery to protest the clerical regime's repressive policies. The families gathered despite security measures by the regime and chanted slogans against the regime's leaders, and in support of the National Liberation Army and the Resistance's leaders. The protesters condemned the regime's efforts to take advantage of the OIC summit to legitimize their atrocities in the name of.Islam. The Revolutionary Guards attacked the gathering of Mojahedin families and arrested and took a'way dozens of people, including elderly mothers, the reports say. Iran Denies. It's Involvement in Killing ofFour Americans, Agence France Presse, December 8 ISLAMABAD - Iran Monday denied its nationals were involved in the killing of four US business executives in the Pakistani city of Karachi last month. \E Police in Karachi said Sunday security agencies had detained eight Iranian nationals in connection wilhthe 1\ murder of the Americans•. The detainees included two people suspected of involvement in the theft of the car the assailants used in the November 12 slaying, the police said. A police official said that investigators were working on a number of theories including suspicions of an Iranian c9nnection in, the slaying. - Cf. · Q .. . a V~ Police were questioning the Iranians but none·of them had confessed to involvement in the crime. said Saud )t .Mirza. a senior superintendent of Karachi police. Trail Heats Up in '94.Argentina Bombing, The Los Angeles Times, December 6 BUENOS AIRES--The hunt for terrorists who slaughtered 86 people in the bombing of a Jewish community center here in 1994 has picked up unexpected momentum...: Investigators believe that the attack also involved Iranian terrorists and members of Modin, a rightist political party of former military officers known for coup attempts and anti-Semitic violence. The latest and most politically prominent investigative target is congressional Deputy Emilio Morello, a former army captain and Modin member. Under questioning by the commission last week, Morello denied allegations that he met with Iranian diplomats ~nd traveled secretly to the Middle East.... Meanwhile. Judge Juan Jose Galeano sought another piece of the puzzle: the suspected Iranian connection. After gathering information in France and Germany on Iranian terrorism, Galeano ftew to Los Angeles to reinterview witness Manouchehr Moatamer, an Iranian defector who lives in California. Moatamer, who fled Iran in 1994, describes himself as a former well-placed Iranian operative with powerful family connections. He says he had access to meetings where intelligence officials plotted the Buenos Aires bombing. During his testimony last week in the Argentine Consulate in Los Angeles, he provided purportedly official Iranian 90cuments on the plot to back his claims... Iranian officials, who deny any role in the bombing, call Moatamer a con man. But investigators believe that he can help them. During his 1994 testimony in Venezuela, he predicted a bombing at the Israeli Embassy in London that occurred days later during a worldwide terror offensive. 19th Dissident Assassinated Abroad During Khatami's Tenure, Iran Zamin News Agency, DecemberS yvednesday, December 3, terrorists dispatched by the Iranian mullahs' regime assassinated Seyyed Jamal Nikjouyan, amem.. ber of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran~ in Kouysenjaq, Iraqi Kurdistan. He was the 19th dissident assassinated on Iraqi territory since Khatami has taken office. r-I: Back to Brief on Iran http://www.tran-e-azad.orglenglish/boil07981209:-97.html 5/1'1/2005 O . C( ,... t. \l~" M Page 1 of2 - D1S~~ I Ptl:J ( _ -BRIEF ON IR..w ,~~o..(L<Y ~1 No. 806 ~ f'AVO, J)eJlS Friday, December 19, 1997 O:F Representative Office of \J ~ Grr'\ ~ettS The National Council or Resistance of Iran ' \ ~ Washington, ~C • ",,.:'':'1... •u" ""f.' , Briefon'irah:'NO:~866~" .~ ,. ," t, ... ......1, • • ALL:LION CONTAINED HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/lsg Religious-Civil Tension Mounts in Iran, The Wall Street Journal, December 17 TEHRAN-••.Dr. Ibrahim Yazdi, leader of the Iran Freedom Movement, was summoned to the Islamic Court Sunday evening, associated said.•••Dr... Yazdi hasn't communicated with associates since phoning them that night..•• The court that brought in Dr. Yazdi is closely aligned with Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The arrest may deepen the divisions between Ayatollah Khamenei and the country's elected leader, President Mohammad Khatami. •••. President Khatami has sought to play down his differences with Ayatollah Khamenei. But others, including student activists and a few religious figures, have been pushing him toward a confrontation. Last month, ·Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, an Iranian religious figure who once was in line to be supreme leader, gave a lecture painting Iran's presidential election as a repudiation of Ayatollah Khamenei.. •• In reaction, a mob pillaged Ayatollah Montazeri's home and office in aom, Iran's theological center. Street demonstrations were held throughout Iran in support of Ayatollah Khamenei, who said critics of the country's theocratic system were guilty of "acts of treason."... t ../ 'l,. .. . . Dr. Yazdi's detainment could be a warning by Ayatollah Khamenei that he won't hesitate to move against critics now that most of the international press corps haslett Tehran after the OIC meeting.••• Ayatollah Montazeri isn't the only cleric critical of Ayatollah Khamenei, though.••.some ~ullahs have long doubted Ayatollah Khamenei's religious credentials. and suggest a committee be set up to replace the single leader.,•.,' In particular, the top cleric in Isfahan is reported to have given a stem warning Friday to the officially tolerated vigilantes who have ransacked newspaper offices in that city, which is a stronghold of President Khatami.•.•. Putting Ayatollah Montazeri on trial would be a risky move, though. As one of seven top religious authorities in Iran, he has silent adherents throughout the country••.. Mr. Khatami and Ayatollah Khamenei may face more conflicts next year••.• . Police Probe Iranian Link In US Murders, United Press International, December 18 .t ISLAMABAD-Pakistani and U.S. investigators probil)g the murders of four Americans in Karachi last month are f looking at a possible Iran,ian link. . Officials at the U.S. embassy in Islamabad have confirmed local reports Thursday that investigators are interrogating Iranians for their possible involvement in the deaths. ~eports say police in Karachi arrested more than a dozen Iranians last week. Some have since been r~Je~~ but police are ~till holding six as possible suspects. Police traced telephone calls to the apartment where theJt:anlans lived., '" . • !& ...... ~ ....... t. 1 ,No. ~U() r~ Q 0 lI!: . rorist attack last month in Karachi, a southern port city, left four Houston oil co~pany e';'ployees dead•••• _~ ~ .. ...~~_ .... ~ ........_.. _..... _ ~_ ................... lIIr.4 tIl'l~" .. .: • • _ "f ~.' .. r_JIY. I Women Resist Raw Deal in Islamic Iran, Reuter, December 15 TEHRAN (Reuters). Women were in the vanguard of the Iranian revolution that ousted the Shah 18 years ago, but they ha~e had a raw deal in the Islamic republic and are increasingly demanding greater rights. I, Few of the counUess thousands of women.who poured into the streets, defying the Shah's soldiers to demonstrate for change, can have imagined that the revolution would turn the clock back more than half a century for their sex. Yet that, according to feminist lawyer Mehrangiz Kar, is exactly what happened. "The family protection law enacted in the last four years of the Shah's regime, which improved many things for women, was abolished and they returned to the previous law approved 66 years earlier: she told Reuters in an interview.•.. In the name of Islam, the ruling Shi'ite Muslim clergy reinstated laws that give men an absolute right to divorce their wives without having to produce any justification and, in the vast majority of cases, custody over the children. Women are entitled to keep boys only up to the age of tWo and girls until seven. After that the father has the right to custody••.. "Although the mother has a very lofty place in Iranian literature and religious tradition, legally she is next to nothing," Kar said. Women are barred from serving as judges, although there were many on the bench before the revolution. They face explicit discrimination in the criminal law and an unwritten "glass ceiling" in ~mployment. A woman's evidence in court is worth only half a man's. Kar said, and for some offenses., women's evidence is not admissible at all.... Blood money for a murdered woman is only half that for a man. Moreover, in an Islamic version of Catch 22, if a murdered woman's family insists on her male killer's execution, her relatives have to pay his family the full blood money in compensation,Kar said. [jiiiiii'IBack to Brief on Iran httn:llwww.iran-e-a7ad.on!/enqli~hlhoi/OR06121997.html 5/11/2605 o ARMED CONFLICTS REPORT 2004 ~ PROJECT \;b- "P~hQr,S" .• NrnttU ~UUlUC;Lnupun ~UUU ~1J"U:i~n • ' .. '-! ALL INFOIDlATION CON:rAINED HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED ..••. DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324.. uc baTN:/~~l~ag,-,,-::-._~>!!!!"~.:...... ...J~.~~ DlS~ TAB A .. , '."', Pakistan (1992 • first combat deaths) Update: .February 2005 . Summary: 2004 Sectarian fighting con~nu6din 2004 as attacks on civilians andsecurity forces, bombing of mosques, and drive-by shootings ofpoliticians killed between 100 and 170 people. Most casualties were civilians who died in the year Jfi two most serious attacks, both bombings ofSunni mosques. President Musharrafwas entrenched as head ofthe government andarmy until at least 2007 by a bill approved by Pakistan iiilower house.. Pakistan was declared a tt ajor ally"by US President Bush In recognition ofPakistan Iicontribution to the fight against al-Qaeda. 2003 Sectarian violence claimed approXimately 100 lives this year, with Shia Muslim civilians accounting for most of the casualties. President Musharraf continued a crackdown on militant groups, to which may be linked an attempt on his life in December. 2002 Sectarian violence claimed dozens of lives this year with Islamic militants stepping up attacks against Pakistani Christians and foreigners. 2001 Sectarian violence continued in 2001 with targeted killings of prominent members of the community. In August. the Sindh provincial government initiated a crackdown on Islamic mifitants. According to one Pakistani media source, more than 50 people were killed In the violence dUring the year. 2000 Although violence has declined since the military coup of October 1999, sectarian tensions persisted between the majority Sunni and the minority Shimte Muslim groups in Karachi. The killing of prominent religious leaders and political activists resulted in violent protests. At least 25 people were killed in the violence. 1999 Despite the central government. imposition of Govemorfi Rule in late 1998 in response to Sindh violence, political and sectarian killings persisted in Karachi, albeit at a much reduced level. At least 75 were killed during the year, down from the estimated 1,000 conflict deaths in 1998. 1998 In 1998 reprisal killings between militants of the Muttahida Qami Movement (MOM) and a break-away faction increased violence in the city of Karachi. Type of Conflict: State fonnationJ Failed state. Parties to the Conflict: Nm.,u \Junruct neport ~uuu - ....aKlstan o 1) Government o t'age ~ or~· b6 b7C b7E As of October 1999, led by Chief Executive General Pervez Musharaf foll~wing the overthrow of the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 8 military coup. Under the previous Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. the government engaged the Pakistani ponce Force, Paramilitary~angers· and troops from the Frontier Corps (Constabulary) in the conflict 2) Armed groups: Several parties opposed to the government (and each other) are involved in the violence. These are seen to be primarily ethnic or religious groups. (a) Jeay Sindh (Qadir Magsi Group) representing Sindh nationalists; (b) Mohajir-Qaumi-Movement (M-Q-M) led by Altaf Hussain On exile in London since 1992) representing Mohajirs(migrants) who moved to Pakistan in 1947 when India was partitioned. NamE!changed to Muttahida Qaml Movement in 1998: (e) M-Q-M (Haqiqi), a breakaway faction led by Afaq Ahmed; 1 r--------.., MUlat-i! israiJ\tYe PaklStaii (MIP), previously known as S1p8h.&baha-Pakistan, Wh~" ,••~ fP' represents Sunni Moslems with support from fundamentalist groups In saudi Arabia ~"'~:I, ~-f ~:~ ... and Libya; Islaml Tahrik-e Pakistan (ITP), previously known as Tehrik-l..Jaffaria-Pakistan, which rePresents.ShiJite Moslems with sOme finanCial support fiom Ira" .Led by Mohammad Baqar Najfi; (d) Lashkar-e-Jhangvl, suspected of having links with Osama Bin Laden. al-Qaeda. In aac ltion, criminal elements, some working through the above groups, also contribute to the Violence, a legacy of Pakistan. involvement in the war in Afghanistan and the related drug trade. In January 2002, President Musharrafbanned five ,Islamic militant groups inclUding, Sipah-8abahaPakistan and Tehrik-I-Jaffaria. This ban was extended'in 2003 following the renaming of.several of the groups. • ban Imposed on three Islamic organizations by the Pakistani government over the weekend. In a move1hatsawdozens of Islamic activists rounded uP aerosa the country, was the continuation ofaban imposed last year, acconfll1g to a senior government otIidaI. WIlls Is a conUnuatJon ofthe old ban on groups that had become active under new names,- Infonnation Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmad told IRIN.... ' Among the ouUawed groups were the Sunnl organisation. SIpa~e Pakistan. which later re-emerged as MIJIat.e JsIamI.ye Pakistan (MIP): and its rival. the ShHih group, Yahrik-e Jaliari-ye PakIstan. which. thereafter. renamed itself IsIami TaMk-e Paldstan (ITP). Both the new organisations have been banned••• •(IRlN, November17. 2oo3J Status of Fighting: 2004 Anned violence continued in the form of attacks on civilians, bombing of mosques, drive-by shootings of politicians and attacks on security forces. The most serious Incidents of the year were March and October bombings of Sunnl mosques that killed over 80 people and wounded hundreds more. Itxtremilt strikes and sectarian attacks across the countJy toQeUMH'wtth minHnsurgendes In two of Pakistan 's four provinces have increased public insecurity and criticism ofPresident Pervez Mushal1'8f.-(SBe News. July 1. 2004] -, .oIlce In the Pakistani city of Karachi have fir9d tear gas at thousands of angry moumeIS after an attack onaShIa mosque killed at least 20. Ttouble en.tpted after funeml prayers for 1.01those killed In Monday's attack. which officials beUeve was a sectarian suicide • I"\IIII"U VUIIIIICL nOIJUrL ~UW - t'aKititan . Q o tJage ~ or tI bombing. The funerals i)Iow overnight unrest In whJeh three people died In duheI wiIh the police.·span atytea"mso-bIcI-tlnt-weight - bold: font.famlJy: Mar> [BBC News, June 1, 2OCM) ltaklatanl police say a bombhawounded 13 police and soIdleta In the IOUth-westem city ofQuetta •Those Injured were tnMIIIInQ In a truck when the bfast occurred. Police have yet to identify the attackets. One report said a bomb on a bIcyde had been detonated by remote control: another said a grenade was thrown from a motoreyde. Quetta has been a target for lllamic mltltants -In March over40 people died In an attack on Shla MuaUms.-[BBC News. May 24. 2(04) _ • • car bomb that exploded on Thursdayoutalde a bible society. ofIIce In the southern port city of I<arachI ,inJurInG at least 12 people and damaging the wei ofa chun:h dose by. was actually an attack~1aw-en1Orcement agencIa. according to a government oflldaL-(IRIN. January 16.2004) 2003 Fighting between Sunni and Shia communities spread to the southwestern region of the country. In most instances of violence. Shia civilians were indisaiminately attacked. allegedly by extremist Sunni militant groups. The worst such case was the July bombing ofa Shia mosque in Quetta I which resulted in 60 deaths_ Militants employed guerrilla tactics. such as bombings and drive-by shootings. Extremist sectarian groups opposed to President Musharraffi policies, including his administration. alliance with the US in the gar on terror.·sustainedattacks on government security forces and narrowly failed to assassinate Musharraf in December. -st1:country-ntg1on w:st-'"od'> Pakistan President PeMIZ Musharrafnanowty escaped an assassInatSon atIernpt when a bomb exploded Just after his motoR:ade had passed by••• 0fIIdaIs saJcllt was too eady to say who was behind the 8Uack. but the most IiIc8Iy suspects 818 radical haIdInets opposed to MUlllanaffi policy on Afghanistan •his crackdown on extremism and his etbts to rebm islamic schools. Tbe AssocIated Press reported.-[CNN.com. December 14, 20031 .rycrowds rampaged through Pakistan. capital on Tuesday. a day after a prominent Sunni Seaderwas shot dead near Islamabad••• Maufana Azam Tartq. the leader of the Mifat.. lslamiya.... was gunned down by unknown US8IIantI on Monday...-(IRJN, Oc;tober1, 2003) - rilazara ~Jda community leaders have called 101' Increased security, despite lie nttumlng to nanna' foUowfng a Suml militant attacfc on a mosque In the southwestern Pakistani city ofQuettaon" July. The Lashkat+Jhangvl organisation claimed responsibiUty for the attack In which 60 people died... - Thousands ofSunnl and Shla Muslims have been IdIIed In Pakistan over1he past two decades In sectarian violence... [which has been) mostly limited to the eastern Punjab and the southern Sfndh pnMnces. However. In re<:ent months. Hazaras living In Quetta , capital ofthe mostfy bibal southwestem BaJochIstan Province ,have become a target-IIRlN, July 17, 2003) .nknown snipers gunned down nine Shiite Muslims at their place ofworship In karachi •a southern port cIiy In Paldstan •a poIlca oflJcer told AFP [Agenc:e France Presse)... ttwo men came on a motorcycle and one of them took out a gun IookIno like a Kalashnlkov and sprayed buueta on the people going inside Ihe lmambarvah fer evening pray8t.·AnwerHussain, an eyewitness and SUMvortold AFP.-(17Je Age. February 23. 2003) • 2002 Aghting continued between Sunni and Shia communities. In addition. government officials. Pakistani Christians and foreigners were targeted by militant Muslim groups. _asked gunmen have shot dead three Shla Muslims and Injured two others outside a mosque In Pakistan ... Itwas not dearwho was behind the shooting, but vIoIeMe between oppoU1g miitanta from the majority SUnni and mfnority Shfa communities has dalmed hundred ofIves In Paklaian in recent years.·(SSC News. June 18, 2002) • total of 10 pateeI bombs were sent CD oftIcIals in KarachI en 16 and 11 October. Three ofthem expIoded,lnjurInQ nine people, whlfe the othens were defused... The pan:eI bombs appeared to be aimed at the Paklstanf establshment, o1ftcials art..-[BBC News. October 31. 2002) Ahe Christian c::oqununity in Pakistan has been the worst hit by extremist 8Uacks tNet thepaat year -more Christians have died In these Incidents than from any other conununfty. The targeting ofthe hOspital and school, and now1he Karachi chaItty. are the faf8st in a sertes ofattadcs against spedftcally CIufstian missions or places ofWOtShfp.-ISBC News, 8eptember 25. 2002] -st1:CIty w:st="on"> Karachi Witnessed an atIack on the US consulate In June and a auIdde bombing against French naval engineets In May.-(BBC News. september25,2002] 2001 Sectarian violence persisted in 2001 with attacks by extremists from all sides. ,.. '" I""",. . . Q o rca~" ,. u. ~ ."/ Sunnl extremists changed their strategy to targeting prqminent community members such as doctors, lawyers a.nd businessmen. • once In PaldUan I1targest city KarachI are under Intense Pr8SSUrelo end en upsurge In sectarian murders ofdocbaand other professionals In Ihe city. Extremlsta from the majority Sunnl cOmmunity have been blamed for the IdWng of four ShIa dodorI since Apt1I. as wed althe high profile murder of the head of Pakbtan Sta1e Oil. Shaukat Mirza. Fanab from both sides have canted out many deadly attacb In Katachl over the years. but the new tactic Is to target promfnent penonaIldea In the community.-(SSC. september 3.2001) 2000 Although violence has declined since the militaly coup of october 1999. sectarian ten~ions persisted between the majority Sunnl and the minority Shiate Muslim groups In Karachi. The killing of prominent religious leaders and political activists resulted In violent protests. In September. Pakistani police arrested 250 ~mbers of the hardline Sunnl Muslim group. Sipah-e-8ahaaba. Other police and anny operations targeted the two leading ethnically-based parties In Sindh, the Jeay Sindh Qaumi Mahaz (JSQM) and Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM). " (Soun:es: BSC News. 13 September 2000.21 September2000) .asked gunmen ambushed a school van.1dUfng five Sunnl MusIfrM and wounding three others In the lateat round ofrellQfoul violence In Karachi •PakIstan • pollee said. The attack ted to violent protests. with hundreds of Sunnl Muslim students pelting poUce wfth stones, 88Ufng cara on Ire and vandallzlng bIlIboaIdl.·(R6ute~ andAS$OCiatedPress. 28 January 2001) • prominent Pakistanii'eUgioulleadet has been shot dead in KarachI ... Or Quresht. Is a former leader ofJamsat-e IsIamI (Party of Islam) and a focmer memberof the Sindh provincial assembly. In recent years, Dr Qureshi hadsuppolted calls tw islamic law to be introduced In Pakistan .-(BBC News. 18 December2000) • leaderof. ainaJI Pakistani Shute Mua&m group has been shot dead In U1e IOU1hem dty of Karachi • Police say S8rdar Husaaln Jafrf. who headed the IitIfe..known group caJted the vOIce OfShia. died on the spot. A person who Identifted himself88 RIaz BaInI, leader ofthe extremist antl-Shlite group, Lashkar-e-Jhangvl. phoned the SBC shortly after the attack to claim mponsIbiUty.'(BBC News, 15 May 2000) It.ararnUituy rangers and poUce In SIndh province launched a crackdown against aetMsts and leaders ofthe JSQM and theMQMon FebnJaly 19, 2000 after the two parties jointly called fora strike against the governments dismissal of400 PakIstan Steel MIls workers. Paramlltary troops and rangers responded with searth and siege operations In the cities and a searth forJSQM ae:tMsts In tural8l88s of Slndh. resultfng In the arrestofabout forty adivIsts.-span 1ang='"EN-CA- styIp'"rnso-IJfdf..t)n-slze: 10.0pt; font·famUy: Aa1a1; mso-bkfl..t)nt·famiIy:,T1mes New Roman; mso-anaI-tanguage: EN.CA~ [1UnM RlIhU WMch %001 Wortd Report) 1999 Despite the central government. imposition ofGovern0r8 Rule in late 1998 in response to Sindh violence. politICal and sectarian killings 'persisted in Karachi. albeit at a much reduced level. The intensity of the violence dropped even further after the military assumed federal powers in an October coup. Itolitically motivated violence and sectarfan violence continued to be aproblem, although In the weeks following the 0dDbet12 coup there were few Ifany reported casea ofsuch violence. Govemor's Rule, Imposed to correctaserIoUs law and onfer problem created In part by poIitfcaI tensions In the province. continued In Slndh untl the coup.-/span> ( PaWan OXIntryRepott on Human Rights Practk;e$ for 1999, BureauofDetnocraey. Human RIghts, and Labor. US Department of State. February. 2000) 1998 In 1998 tit-tor-tat killings between the Muttahida Qami Movement (MQM) and a break-away faction inc.reased the level ofviolence in Karachi _, "heMQU. which changed Ita name to Mutfahlda Qaml Movementfrom 1MMohaJirQamI Movement. Is locked In a bfaody conflict with a dissident 1adfon called theMQM Haqlql. Hundreds ofpeople have died In f8Ceflt months In tIt.fOr4at killings by the mHitants of the two 1aclfons.'(1be AssociatedPress. November20. 1998) ....cethe early summer more Chan 100 people i;I1 the city have died In gun battfes between rival pofltical factions each month. In recentdays the violence has gathered pace.-[The Guan1ian Weeldy. 0Ct0bet 18, 1998. p5] Number of Deaths: Total: Estimates range upwards from 5.000. Ahousands ofSunnl and Shia Muslins have been kiDed in Pakistan over the past two decades In sectarian violence fueled by htto://ww'W.oloumshares.ca/cnntAnt/ AnR/ A~Rnn / A~Rnn-p~lt;~~" "'+",,1 ----- -------- - ---- Armea liOntllCt Keport ~UUU - t"8K1stan . ~ . O· . extremist outfits of the two Muslim sects.·[/RIN. July 17,2003) o t'8ge.~ ot 8 • ~ .... 4. ..... '" b6 b7C "heMOM launched an anned uprising In 1993 after the city government was dismissed, and brought KarachI to Its tcnees.1e8vIng more than 5.000 people dead and afppIIng the economy of PakIstan .. main c:ommetdal centre. Karachi" descent reached Its nadir last year when more than 2.000 people, including 242 poIce otIk:ers, dfed In nfghUy street baUfes.· [. st1 :Clty w:sta'"on'"> Karacht pays high price for peace.'John Stackhouse. Globe a['d Uall. OCtober28. 1998) 2004 Between 100 and 170 people, primarily civilians, were reported killed in sporadic Intercommunal violence. ftroops have been caRed In to maintain order In tbe Paldstanl ctty of Mullan after a car bomb kJISed at least 40 people at a meetInG of Sunnl Musllms.·(SBC News, October 7,2Q0.4]· • lit least 11 people have died In a gun attack on the motorcade ofthe army commanderIn Pakistan's lOutbem ctty of Karachi •the authorities say. [BBC News. June 10,2004] Itonce In the Pakistani city of Karachi have ftt'8d tear gas at thousands ofangry mourners after an attack on a Shls mosque killed at least 20.'ISBCNews, June 1, 2004] • bomb attack on a packed Shls mosque In the southern Pakistani city of Karachi has left at least 15 people dead, ofllclals say•• [BBC News, May 7, 2004) .. lit least 42 people have been killed and over 100 wounded In an atiac:k on Shla Musftms In the Paldstanl city of Quetta , hospital ofllclals say.'[BBC News. March 2,2004) 2003 Independent media reports indicate that approximately 100 hundred people, the majority of them Shia Muslim civilians, were killed in 2003. ~violence and tensions continued to be a serious problem uuoughout the country••• At least 100 persons were kiUed In sectarian violence durfng the year, mostcan1ed out by unldentifted gunmen.-(US State Depattment ofState. Mountry Repods on Human RJQhts PractIces· 2003.·February 25. 2004] 2002 A number of media reports estimate that dozens of people were killed in sectarian violence and attacks on government officials. Ahere have been sevenli attacks on foreign targets In Sindh induding".... S A suicide attack on a navy bUs In KarachI In May which IcIIJed 1.. people•••• SA eat bomb at the US consulaf8 in Karachi In June, which killed 12 peopIe.-[SSC News. september 24,2002) .tleast 36 people have been killed and about 100 Injured In sevetal violent attacks this year against Christian and western targets••• Police in Karachi have arrested dozens of alleged Muslim extremists in connecUon with the recent attacks on Christian targets•• ISBC News. september29, ~OO2J 2001 According to at least one Pakistani media source, more than 50 people were killed in sectarian violence in Karachi. • AIle highest number of tsrrorist atfacks was recorded In Karachi where In 33 incidems,54 pefSOI1S were kIaed. The second [highest) . remained FATA. where 81 pelSCX1SWet8 killed In seven Inddenta ofsectarlan violence. Dera lsamilKhan remained [third highest) where 10 people were kiUed and 19 injured In 8 terrorist attacks. 1.. people were IcIHed and 8 InjunKI In 5 attacks In lahore ,,,killed and 3 Injured in 3 incidents In Multan ... kiIIed in 2 at MaiIsy.·(PakNews. August 21, 2001] 2000 At least 25 people were kiUed in Karachi ,mostly due to sectarian violence. Marlier. gunmen riding In two C8IS Intercepted a van belonging to the~Madrfa Sunnl Muslim school on a congested road and opened fire with automatic assauft rifle$, wItne8ses said. 1111'88 deftcI. a teenage studentand the drlveiwere kIIed Immedlatefy, while three other people.lnc:fudlng a poUceman guarding the van, were wounded. police said.·[ReutaI3 and AasocIaIed Press, 28 January 2001] • • ItaldstanlIawyerand Shite leader has been shOt deed by unidentified gunmen In KarachI. Waqar,NaqvI, .'ieidot~Orthe ShIIte group. Tehrik+JafMa. was Idled along with his teen.son and his driver as"he"was taking his c:hDdren,1D schoOl No group has said Itcanied out the leiltfnga. but a spokesman for Tehrik+Jaftiia Hasan Turabl blamed a mlHtant SuMI Muslim group - SIpaha Sshaba ~aJdstan .'(BSCNews, 7 April 2000] - , .. , , .. , .... ..--. ........... -_ ...... _ ......... -- It!' ·1U1Tl8a vOnTtlct Naport ~UW - t"aKJstan o .rale ti Of 9 "here " has been wfdeIpread cPatuptfon In the Pakistani dty of KarachI •foIfowfng the IcIBng of.a pmmInent...SunNIMudm~ MullahrUMLudhIanvf. tit Ludhianvr. drtvetwas alsO kited and his son serlouIIy wounded.-lBBC IHWI. 18 May 2000] 1999 At least 75 people were killed in Karachi due to'political violence. i!espfte improved security conditions underGovernocis Rule. bnwore 75 deaths 1hat were presumed to be the resutt of poIItJcaI violence In Kar8chI.~1 Pakittan Countly Repotfon Human R1Qhb Practk:ea for 1999. Bureau of Demoaacy, Human RIghts. and Labor. US DepaI1mentofState. FebnJary.2000J 1998 More than 1,000 people died in violence. (Aasociated PreS$. November20. 1998] .tleast 750 people have been kIIJed In KaraChI this year. mainly. says tt1e MOM. as a result of attacks on Itself by a breakaway factlon.-(T1Je Economist. November7. 1998) Political Developments: 2004 President Pervez Musharraf will remain head of the army and government until at least 2007, after a bill passed in Pakistan • lower house extended his tenure in both roles_ Musharref also named Shaukat Aziz, a political novice, as Prime Minister in August_ Although the government ordered an inquiry in~o a March attack on civilians, several strikes were called (mainly in Sindh province) to protest government handling of the conflict. The Sindh provincial govemment failed to fonn a fBoalition of national unity-with the seven opposition parties In an attempt to stem the tide of conflict and the minister of the Sindh province resigned after violence escalated in June_ US President Bush declared Pakistan a ttajor ally·in recognition of its contribution to the fight against al-Qaeda allowing Pakistan access to special benefi~ including expanded foreign aid and priority delivery of military equipment. -st1:pIace w:st="on"> Pakistan's lower house of par1iament has passed a blH allowing Gen Pervez Mushanafto remain as both president and head of the amy. The biD will artaw the president to keep both posts unUl2007.-(BBC News. OCtober 14. 20041 ahe reins of pa.ver ~e once again been handed overIn PaJdstan •And once again. It's a man hand.pIcked by the c:ountry'a military ruler. Gen Pervez Musharraf. And though it has all been done constitutionaJJy. the question being asked Is whethera poIitk:aJ novICe Ike Shaukat AzJz. has the competence and capability to deal with the counby's complex poIitJcal and laW and Older situation. or even bigger issues IJke combatfng aJ.Qaeda-backed terrorism.·(BSC News, August 28. 2004] . • atln Paldstan the chief ministerof the southern province ofSindh has resigned aftera series of'vIol8nt Jnddents over the last few weeks. The provincial governor told reporters that chief ministerAU Mohammed Mehr had JeSlgned b'petIOn8I reasons.-[SBC News. June 7.2004] • strike called by Pakistan 's hardllne Islamic paItfes In r8sponse to a week of sectarian violence has been aJmost fully obserVed In' Karachi. There were sporadic reports ofunrest as worshippers attended Friday prayers In 1he tense southern dty~:[BBCNews, ,June ".2004] • Ahe govemin9 Pakistan Muslim League party (PML) In the southern pnMnce of SIndh has offeced lofonn a coalition with seven opposition parties. It wants to form a government ofnational unity In Sindh to tackle the law and order crisis thenJ. The move comes after three days of \riolence betweenShuand Sunnls left over 23 people dead In the provincial capital. Karachi •But there Is disagreement as to who should be the d1lef mlnister.-(BBC News. June 3, 2004J JluthOfftles In Pakistan have ordered an Inqulty Into an attack on Shla Muslims which left at least 43 people dead as they marked the holy day ofAshwa. A curfew Is in place In the clty of Ouetta wheAt the attack took place. with soldiers patrolling Its snet:s.-(BBC News. Marth 3. 20041 . 2003 The leader of the militant Sunni organization Miffat-e Isrami-ye Pakistan (MIP) was assassinated in OCtober, leading to rioting in Islamabad. The govemment· sustained a crackdown on banned Sunni and Shia militant groups and arrested their leaders. President Musharrafcontinued to support US Initiatives in the J§ar"on terror-In neighbouring Afghanistan •a position not welcomed by many Pakistani citizens. b7E - ----------- o --~- '0 ~ITP [IsIamI Tahrfk-e PaJdstan)Ieader. sajld N8qvf. was anested In a late-nlght taJd In 1aIamabad. but iwas notckt8rwhether his 8IT'8ItwuIn his c;apacIty aUte leaderofthe MCfatian outftt. orbecawe he Is deged to have been InvcMId In the nwnSet of his mllf rtval.AzamTariq:of the MIP;Who was gunned down In • hal ofbuleta by unknown aasaJIanta earty lastmonth near the Paldltanl_.......__-, capltal.-(/R/N. November 17. 2003) 2002 lri'.aanUaJYi the' go~emment ~nn.~.!i"e mill1aDtlslam1egnS(i"ps. Induding the-Slpah- 8abaha-Pakisfan and TehnlC-I.Jaffiiiia. Ai\umber of groups reacted to the ban and to Pakistan" support of the US-Ied liar on terror'by.attacking foreigners and Pakistani Christians. prompting the Christian community to demand protection from the government and the international community. The government responded by introducing new security measures around non~uslim places ofworship. Fighting continued between the Sunn; and Shia communities in Sindh despite govemment efforts to increase security in the province• " .. . • sulclde bomberblew up a bus y88tanIaY In Paldatan • port city of KsIIChI.1dlIfnQ 1<4 people. mostof them FnN1Ch nationals· lndudlng himself••• Many expeItI say It"pointed nstaHaifon at Pakistani PresIdentPeNN Mushanatll cradcdown on ItIamIc mUhant groups and for slowing US IIaaps to ClOSS the Palcktanl border to hunt down AJ Qeeda flghtera••• Some expodI are pointing to MuUahIda Quami Uovement.••·(1he Chmtlan Sdenc:e Monitor. May 9. 20021 • 2001 In August the government of the Province of Sindh initiated a crackdown on Islamic militants, arresting more than 200 people in raids. • aIIce In PaJdstan have detained more than 200 peoplenraids on mBJtant islamic homes and oftJc:es In KarachI Mel the southem SIndh provfnce. The c:rackdown was launched aftet the Slndh pruvk\dal governorImposed a ban on fundraIsIng In the name ofjihad. or holy war.-[CNN. August 22. 2001) 2000, Facing increasing pressure from the international community to restore democracy, military leader General Pervez Musharraf ruled out the possibility of holding general elections or reviving the suspended Pakistan parliament within the next two years. (SotJn:es: BBCNews. 12 OCtober 2000: SSC News. 13 Odober2000] 1999 On October 12, Prime Minister Mian Nawaz Sharifwas ousted from power in a bloodless milftary coup led by Army Chief of Staff General Pervez Musharraf. ItOln OCtober 12. the eJeded dviRan gowmmentof Prime .....-Mfan NawazSluutfwasoverthrown In a bl0odiess coup led by Army ChiefofStaffGenenal PeNeZ Mushanaf.· (PaIdstJln Country Repotton Human RIghts Ptac1/t:e$ for 1999. Buteau of DemactaCY. Human Rfohts. and labor. US Departmentof state. Februaly. 2000) 1998A month after the MQM walked out of the provincial government coalition, the .. federal prime minister. Nawaz Sharif. declared GOvemorti Rule (a state of emerger:acy) in Karachi • called out the army to quell the violence. and announced the establishment of military courts for the city. JIrfme Minister Nawaz Shariftoday dedansd a stile ofemergency and called out the anny to queI violence thathas killedmen Ih8n 1.000 people In the port city OfKatachl. Sharffalso annaunc:ed Ute estabIIshm8nt ofmiUtaly courts In Karac:hl_·(Assoc:Ieted Press. November20., 19981 Ahe MOM has since watJced out of1he SlndhcoaJltfon. and on October30th the feder.d prime minJst8r;Nawaz ShatIf. placed the provfnc:e under direct rule from Isfamabad .·(1be ~.November7. 1998. p41] • Mast week Mr. Sharif bolstered his pOSition ewm fuf1her. lbe lower house ofthe Natfonal Assembly passed a BII Jmposlng Islamic law on the country desplts stiff resisfance from a coalition ofopposition parties. -[The GuaR'lian WHIdy. OCtober 18. 1998. p5) Background: The migration of Indian Musflms (mohajirs) into Sindh province following the 1947 Indla..pakistan partition~ combined ~ a more recent influx of large numbers of Pashtuns and Punjabis. created economic tensions with the indigenous. generally poorer, Muslim population. These have fed a .http://www.ploughshares.ca/content!ACRIA~~nn I A 1'\""'" - ~ • _ Armea ~Ont1lct Heport 2UUU -Oklstan ~ o '" complexity of conflict. Sindhis are calling for a Sindhi state; the mohajirs, led by the MQM, are seeking a separate state around the provincial capital, Karachi; and there are sectarian differences ~tween'the majority Sunni and minority ShiJite Muslims. The proximity of the Afghanistan war has fed the violence by providing weapons. crimina) elements, including drug traffickers, and reported foreign support for Muslim extremism. From June 1992 to November 1994 the Pakistan Army was deployed in a major, and ultimately unsuccessful, operation to control Karachi and after the anny. withdrawal, police and paramilitary troops contributed to a rising toll of·shooting deaths in the cityFollowing earfy 1997 elections, the MQM joined the majority Muslim League in the national and Sindh provincial governments. A month after the MQM walked out ofthe provinCial government coalition in late 1998, the then federal prime miQister. Nawaz Sharif, declared Govemor1fl Rule (a state ofemergency) in Karachi, called out the anny to quell the violence, and announced the establishment of military courts for the city_ Since a coup in OCtober 1999, the Pakistan government has been controlled by the military under General Pervez Musharraf and sectarian violence has declined. The Pakistani government intensified its crackdown on militant sectarian groups following the 2001 US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan , fueling further resentment between the extremist groups and the government Several attempts have been made in r~t years on President Musharraftii life. QCJn Slndh, open gun battles between the MuhajlrQaumi Movement (MQM), which represents Urdu-epeaJdng migrants from India , S1ndhllandlonllashkars (private milltfas) and the anny are daily occurrences. TheMQM has begun to ."..b' the sepAt8tJon of Karachi tram the rest of the provfnce. VIolence threatens 10 pamlyze the capital. even though the anny has had dlr8c:t msponslbtRty for Its administration slnce June. 1992.Aplan announced recently to replace the miIitaty presence with police and rangers Is unlikely to ease tensJons.-(-au:CJty w:"on'"> J<arachI,1dlIInga point to deeperstltfe,-Oxford Analytic&. Globe lind MaR, December5, 1994J .'nKarachi JDrug ttaftiddng started 10 Increase significantly aft8t 1979, and the praftts went reportedly used to fund the procurement and supply ofweapons to the (Afghanll Mujahideen. Tbe pcxt city of Karachi was an obvious exit point for drugs. By 1983, violence had started to be a dallyreature ofthedty lie. But ltwas the dosure.ofthe Punjab route Into india b11992 that started to esc:a1at8 anned vfoIenc:e, Indlsatmlnate use of automatic weapons. and dnIg Craft'lddnQ. The'Army had to be deployed to control the anned conftfct which had a multlfadous dimension, not the least being the easy avaiabIfity oflethal rnan-podable • weapons.-[ MIghtW8apons and Conflict In Southern AsIa ,-by Jasjit SIngh. Ught Weapons andIntemationll Security. BASIC et aL December 1995, pp 60J Arms Sources: The Pakistani government recently imported weapons from the United States. Netherlands. Italy , France, China. Belarus. and Ukraine. The alliancefonned between Pakistan and the US in'the • aron terror-has led to an increase in US military assistance to Islamabad. The govemmentalso depends on domestic supplies_ The rebel movements have been supplied by the "Afghan Pipeline" • US weapons during the 19808, and Eastem European anns since. (Soun:es: Wodd Military ExpenditutesandAnns Tl8nsfers 1999-2000, The Military Bslsnce 2000-2001: SIPRf YlIslOOok, 2002] -st1:country-reg1on w:sta"on-' Pakistan and the United States are slated to begin talks this week on arms sales, with V'l8shlngton now ready to loosen its Iong-stancfmg ban on sales ofImpoc1ant mllftary equipment to PaJdstan ••• [in the 1990sJ W'ashington &1arted an anllS embargo... to protest PaJdsfan Ii nuctear program.•• But Pakistan. alliance with the Unitad States In Its waragainst terrorism has radically changed the situation. After meeting with Paldafanl President pecvez Mushanaf In June, President Bush promised Pakistan up to $1.5 billion rn military aJd.-(Vo«:e ofAmedca , September 18, 2OO3J ItakistanJ security fon:es have recovered a cache ofanns••• that went being smuggledhmthe counflyfi lrbaIal88S, police saJd wednesday••• rIVe Russian missiles, five rocket launchers wiIh shells. 121ca1aahnllcov riftes..sevet8I otherguns and thousands of rounds of ammunition••• wenJ coming from the tribal area of Bara nearthe Afghan border. saki senior secret police otnc:erAshraf Khan. _heMare an modem, foreIgn-made anna. The large quantity Indfcates that they were meant for some subversive aetJvfty or for use In sedarlan violence In ~njab province,-Khan told AfP.-[Agence Franca Presse, January 1. 2003) • majordefence exhibition is opening today Tuesday In Pakistan 's largest city, KarachI. The show is Intended to focus PakJan's atlempls to launch In., the arms export nuuttet; mons than forty faIeIgn delegations are clue to 8U8nd...Most of the annaments factories In Paldstan are state-nm and produce weapons for the anned forces. but Iho·BBC Islamabad correspondent says they're seen as under-dlzed and a drak1 on pubUc spending.-[SSe News, 1. November2000J ilubln [fonner Director of the Fulbright FoundationJ obseMs that often ofBdals ofthe patty miIitafy commitf8e (who received the weapons) would sign a false recelpt for more anns than had adualy been receMKS. The diffet8nce was then sold to private arms dealefs by lSI oftIcers, the profit being shared by both parties. Agreat deal ofmoney appeared to have been made In this manner and was Invested largely In the drug trade.-[-st1:pIace w:stz"on-' Southern AsIa: The Narcotics and 'Neapons Unkage,-Tara Kartha. Ught We~pons andInternational Security, BASIC et ai, December 1995.. p.73J. '.'.... ... ... '. ARMED CONELIC~S RI;.P0.BI PAGE; l' ,-. '.01; v :_ Project Ploughshares Institute of Peace and ContUet StudIes. Conrad Grebel College Waterloo, Ontario, canada N2L 3G6 tel (519) 888 6541 (ax (519) 8850806 aU rights reserved ~ EMAIL '. •,.6 _TlME.com PrintPage: NatioroExclusive: Feds Probe a Top DemOCCORelation~p wi... Page 1of3 TIME NATION ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/1sg - Friday, Oct. 20, 2006 Exclusive: Feds Probe a Top Democrat's Rela.tionship with AIPAC The Department of Justice is investigating whether Rep. Jane Harman and the pro-Israel group worked tog~ther to get her reappointed as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee By TIMOTHY J. BURGERJWASHINGTON Did a Democratic member ofCongress improperly enlist the support ofa major pro-Israel lobbying group to try to win a top committee assignment? That's the question at the heart ofan ongoing investigation by the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors, who are examining whether Rep. Jane Harman ofCalifornia and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) may have violated'the law in a scheme to getHannan reappointed as the top Democrat on theHouse intelligence committee, according to knowledgeable sources in and out ofthe U.S..government. The sources tell~that the investigation by Justice and the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, which has simmered out ofsight since about the middle oflast year, is examining whether Harman and AIPAC arranged for wealthy supporters to lobby House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Harman's behalf: Harman said Thursday in a voicemail message that any investigation of- or allegation ofimproper conduct by.-· her would be "irresponsible, laughable and scurrilous." On Friday, Washington GOP super lawyer Ted Olson left voicemail messages underscoring that Hannan has no knowledge ofany investigation. "Congresswoman Hannan has asked me to follow up on calls you've had," Olson said. "She'is not aware ofany such investigation, does not believe that it is occurring, and wanted to make sure that you and your editors knew that as far as she knows, that's not true....' No one from the Justice Department has contacted her.n It is . not, however, a given that Harman,would know that she is under investigation. In a follow-up phone call from California, Olson said Hannan hired him this morning because she takes seriously the possibility ofa media report about an investigation ofher, even though she does not believe it herself. Aspokesman for AIPAC, a powerful Washington-based organization with . more than 100,000 members across the U.S., denied any wrongdoing by the group and stressed that it is not taking sides in regards to the committee assignment. Spokespersons for Justice and the FBI decline4 to comment. The'case is a spin-offofa probe that has already led to charges under the Espionage Act against two AlPAC lobbyists, whose case is still pending, and to a 12-and-a-half-year prison sentence for fonner Defense Intelligence Agency official Lawrence A. franklin. Franklin pleaded guilty a year ago http://www.time.comltimelnaQonlprin!outlO.88I~, 1.S49Q~9,OO.h~1 TIME.com Print Page: Nati0ne>Exclusive: Feels Probe a Top DemocrabRelationship wi... Page 2 of3 to three felony counts involving improper disclosure and handling of classified information about the Middle East and terrorism to the two lobbyists, who in tum are. accused ofpassing it on to ajoumalist and a foreign government, widely believed to be Israel. The two lobbyists, who have denied any wrongdoing but were dismissed by AlPAC in April of 2005, were indicted on felony counts ofconspiring with government officials to receive classified infonnation they were not authorized to have access to and providing national defense infonnation to people not entitled to receive it. Around mid-200S, the investigation expanded to cover aspects ofHannan's quiet but aggressive campaign to persuade House Minority LeaderNancy Pelosi to reappoint her to the prestigious position on the House intel panel. The alleged campaign to support Hannan for the leadership post came amid media reports that'Pelosi had soured on her California colleague and might name Rep. Alcee Hastings ofFlorida, himselfa major supporter of Israel, to succeed Harman. Th~ sources say the probe also involves whether, in exchange for the help from AIPAC, Hannan agreed to help try to persuade the Administration to go lighter on the AIPAC officfals caught up in the ongoing investigation. If that happened, it might be construed as an illegal quid pro quo, depending on the context ofthe situation. But the sources cautiQn that there has been no decision to charge anyone and that it is unclear whether Hannan and AIPAC acted o~ the idea. AIPAC spokesman Patrick Dorton denies that the organization has engaged in any improper conduct.. "Both Congressman Hastings and Congresswoman Hannan are strong leaders on issues ofimportance to the pro-Israel community and would be exemplary Democratic leaders for the House intelligence committee,tI Dorton said. IIAlPAC would never engage in a quid pro quo in relation to a federal investigation or any federal matter and the notion that it would do so is preposterous. AIPAC is not aware that the Justice Department is looking into issues involving the intelligerice committee, and has not been asked any questions or contacted by the government on this matter, but certainly would cooperate with any inquiry." Dorton added that AlPAC has previously been assured that the organization and its current employees' are not being investigated.. In this same investigation, the JU$tice Deparbnent has previously suggested that AlPAC had questiQnable motives in trying to help a valued government contact remain in a sensitive national security post. The Justice Department alleges in its indictment ofFranklin that he asked one ofthe two AlPAC lobbyists to "put in a good word" for him in seeking assignment to the National Security Council. The document says the AlPAC official noted that such ajob would put Franklin "by the elbow ofthe Presidentll and said he would lido what I can." AIPAC lists praise from Pelosi among a series ofquotes from world leaders on its website: "The special relationship between the United States·and Israel is as strong as it is because ofyour [AIPAC's] fidelity to that partnership..." But congressional sources say Pelosi has been infuriated by http://www.tim~.comltimtVna~onlprintoutlO.8816. 1549069,00.html 1012312006 TIME.com Print Page: NalionOXclusiV!l: Feds Probe a TQp Democra()ReIaliOnSbiPwi... Page 3 of3 pressure from some major donors lobbying on be~alf ofHannan. In a story touching on tensions between Pelosi'and Hannan, an alternative California publication, LA. Weekly, r~orted in May that Harman "had some major contributors call Pelosi to'impress upon her the importance ofkeeping Jane in place. According to these members, $is tactic, too, hasn't endeared Hannan toPelosL" Acongressional source tells TIME that the lobbbying for Harman has included a phone call several months ago from entertainment industry billionaire and major Democratic party contributor Haim Saban. A Saban spokeswoman said he could not be reached for comment. Aphone call pushing for a particular member's committee assignment might be unwelcome, but it would not normally be illegal on its own. And it is unclear whether Saban - who made much ofhis fortune with the Mighty Morphin PowerRangers children's franchise-mewthat lobbying Pelosi might be view~d by others as part ofa larger alleged plan. Saban has donated at least $3,000 to Harman's campaign, according to Federal Election Commission records, and the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, which he sponsors at the prestigious Brookings Institution, boasts Hannan among its biggest fans. "When the Saban Center talks, I listen," Hannan said at aSaban Center briefing in Feb~ary on U.S. strategy in Iraq. Hannan quipped that, in order to attend the session at Brookings, she had to "blow off" .a senior intelligence official's appearance before a House committee. ' " Copyright0 2006 Time Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction In whole or in part without permission is prohibited. PriYaey Polley .http://www.time.coml~melpati9n1priQtol:ltlQ.88~6J1549069.OO.html 10123/2006 ........ _ ............ o'\..................~ "... i .i} <;' ..; {, .:. ;~: {t t,i ~ .> ~ <>~ 'f ~~1 ~ .&. } ~ ~.. r> • " } ,~ ~ .. - • "" ...... ~ t} .,_ .... <.. ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS lTNCLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/1sg Jo .. t. 0 ,be\) 1/ I bying group, where he had worked since 1993. His job combined research and,efforts to influence US government policy. He had a good grasp ofthe political and cultural CUrrents ofthe Middle East, hav... ing studied in Iran and Egypt and earned a PhD in Middle East history at the Univer.. sity ofChicago. . Weissman's wife, Deborah, a lawyer and former investigator with .the ,Sec'urities and Exchange Commission, be~me anxious when told of the FBI meeting. She urged her husband to take someone. with him to the appointment, such as AIPAC general counsel Philip Friedman. Her in-. stincts \vere sound. O'Donnell's assurance to Weissman that "I'm sure you didn't do anything" was a feint_ . Weissman agreed to meet O'Donnell in Washington six days later and "have a cup ofcoffee and [find] a quiet place and we can talk.." - When Weissman pressed O'Donnell, seeking to find out what the FBI was after,. he was told, according to an FBI n:anscript, that the bure_au wanted to tap "yourexpertis~ with some different countries .•.. that you've studied and written on and done :some research.. I~'s that kind ofstuff•." That was plausible..Weissman, then 52, was a senior analyst for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AlPAC),Wash", in$ton'.$ most influential pro-Israel lob.,. O'Donncli worked at the FBI's Washing-ton Field Office at Fourth and F streets, Northwest. The city-block-size.WFO, as it's known, serves as the nerve center of the government's low-key but expansive efforts to track leaks ofsecrets to foreign countries. Its targets aren't just America's enemies; allies and friends hunge~ after each odler's closely held information. • Steven Rosen, fonner director of foreign- Russian espionage continues unabated policy issues for the American Israel Public after the collapse ofthe Soviet Union. An Affairs Co",miltee, is charged with receiving American agent in Paris was caught try~ and sharing secret defense information. ing to steal French trade s~crets. Despite 1L..--_-----1b7E Mark M,mhews (mmatth2112@aol.com) is a firmer Baltimore Sun diplomatie and Middle East correspondent. He is the author ofLost "a~: .Bush, Sharon and FaU"re in the Middle East, published lasifall. - - 761 WASHINGTONIAN IJANUARY 2008 Thomas O'Donnell didn'r reveal his job when he phoned Keith Weissman in 2004 and got the policy analfst's wife.Hesays h~ didn't want to scare her. When Weissman returned the call and found out O'Donnell was an FBI agent, his first reaction was to attempt a joke: "What did I do?" "I'm sur~ you didn't do anything," O'Donnell told him. H~ wanted to meet that day, for five or ten minutes, and get Weissman's help on something "that I can't talk about on the telephone." Weissman was calling from his cell phone, standing outside a New Balance shoe store near Boston. He turned down the invitation to meet with O'Donnell.:. "That's a little tOO c.ryptic for me. I'm on vacation with my family.." O'Donnell was in Boston, and he offered an explanation for why h~ was there_. H~ said he had been sent for the Democrati~ National Convention "and some other matters..." The political convention, where the FBI kept watch for violent demonstra' lors,had wrapped up a few days earlier at Boston's Fleet Center. , ~~ , -~). ~ .... ~ (; I 1 ~ H:I .) tt d~ <: 'r .'. ~ ..:. ... .g. " I;' , ;1 I · , MATTHEVJS • Q ~ .•' '.- ..,;:... disclaimers, Israel is reponed to be on e lookour for any information that will Ip preserve a military edge over regional .emies and expand its exports ofweap'" try and technology..The United States, turn, is alert for signs that Israel is selling i1itary hardware to China. "There has been, for some:;. time) seriIS concern about Israeli espionage in the .5;" says Vincent Cannistraro, a former IA veteran who also held intelligence )sts at the White House and Pentagon. he FBI) h~ adds) "puts Israel up along" je China as espionage threats..)) . In 2000, CBS's 60Mintltesbroadcast the sguised voice ofan unnamed CIAofficial. ying, "We believe that there have been Jmerous documented instances in which le Israelis have sllccessfullv recruited US .:rsons to spy forthem." '. ' O'Donnell's call prompted Weissman ) try to reach his boss) Steven Rosen) IPAC's director offoreign-policy issues. oscn, then 62, was a former academe. • A political scientist with a PhD from yracuse, he had taught at Brandeis, the fniversity of ritJsburgh, and Australian (ational University and cowrote a text-· ook, TIle Logie ojlnternat;onal J{eJations. Ie joined AIPAC in 1982 after four years -ith the Rand Corporation, where he held top-secret seeuii,)' clearance to work on projects for the CIA..While at Rand, he be~. eame acquainted with a promising young graduate student, Condoleezza Rice, who was working there temporarily. Weissman didn't want to call Steven Ro·. sen's cell phone;, he thought his boss should be sitting down when he heard about the FBI call. As it turned out) Rosen also had gotten a message from an FBI agent who wanted to talk to him about a "field investigation." When the two AIPAC officials speculat'!. ed over the phone about what the FBI was after, th~y turned up one possibility: Th~ • Former AIPAC analyst Keith Weissman was also charged in the secrecy investigation. Convictions could mean ten years in prison for Weissman and up to 20 years for Rosen. investigators' interest had been piqued by information the lobbyists had supplied to the Washington Post ~o weeks earlier.. Still, Rosen was reluctan~ to act defensive, which would suggest that their organiza-. cion was involved in "nefarious things." Rosen returned the FBI's call and spoke with agent Catherine Hanna.. "Is this a criminal matted)) he asked•. . "No," she replied. That afternoon, Hanna and partner Robert Porath went to Rosen's AIPAC office on First Street near Union Station.. The agents told Rosen that the FBI was updating the security clearance of Pentagon analyst Lawrence Franklin and was interviewing his contacts as part ofa back... ground investigation,.. Franklin was the J,>entagon desk officer for Iran, a subject ofdeep interest to Rosen.. The FBI had turned up some possible security issues, the agents said, including the fact that Franklin may have stored classified documents at his house... According to the agents' not~, Rosen said he had met with Franklin about three times, but the two had never discussed classified information, nor had Franklin shared any with him. Asking for classified information, Rosen told the agents, was "a quick Wa}' to ruin relationships.." -Weissman kept his appoitltme~tthe JANUARY 20081 WASHINGTONIAN 177 I , ~ I ! I · ·1 ., · ii : .' .. o In fact, what the US attorney called the "dear line in the law" isn't dear at all, particularly where the question ofintent coines into play. When the case comes to trial in late ~pril, assistant US attorneys Kevin DiGregoiyand William N. Hammerstrom Jr.. will have to meet a big burden ofproof•. Showing that Rosen and Weissman obtained, talked about', and relayed sensitive national-defense information won't be enough. Prosecutors will have to prove that the two men did so knowing that ifthe information were revealed, it would damage US national security and also knowing tha~ disclosing it was illegal.; Convincing ajury that Rosen and Weissman possessed this criminal state ofmind won't be easy.,TQ counter the charge, defense lawyers intend to lay bare th.e largely hidden world ofbackchannel Washington diplomacy. They will try to'show that senior officials reg~ ularly'gave AlPl\C officials sensitive in'"' formation With the full expectation that it would be passed along t~ Israelis and others. In that way, they will comend that AlPAC played a role in developing US foreign policy. Over prosecutors' objections, defen... dams won court approval to subpoena 15 current and former top administra"l. tion officials. Their names read like the lineup for a crisis meeting in the White House Situation Room during Presi-, dent Bush's firsnerm: national-security adviser Condolee~za Rice (now secre... Robert Litt, a d~fense lawyer who has represented people caught up in leak investigations, sees the indictment of Rosen and Weissman as part ofa broad crackdown on leaks by tJle Bush admin-, istration: "People formerly in the intelligence community are looking at [the AIPAC case] and the leak investigations , widl great trepidation." But a conviction is by no means a sure thing) due in part to'an aggressiv~ dlree-year fight by the defense team, led by Abbe Lowell for Rosen and by John Nassikas III for Weissman.. The law~ yers' no·stone-unturned litigation fills a foot-thick file ofmotions and rebuttals in US District Court in Alexandria. I\. series ofrulings by the resolutely even.. handed presiding judge, T.S•. Ellis III,. has knocked $ome ofthe stuffing out of the government's case and required the Bush administration to'put some ofits top officials on the wiUless stand. o· To influence the US government or even react knowledgeably to US actions, manycountries thinkan·embassy staffed with diplomats isn't enough. They'r~ willing to pay large fees to hire Ameri... cans with contacts at high levels and an understanding ofhow po~iqmakers mation, there is a clear line in the law," then-US attorney Paul McNulty said when the indictments were announced in August 2005•. "Today's charges are about crossing that line." Rosen, Weissman, and Franklin were accused under a rarely used section of the World War ~-era Espionage Act., A conviction could land Weissman, a father ofthree, in prison for up to ten years and Rosen, also afather of. thre~ who faces an additional charge, for up to 20.. But the potential impact extends beyond these two men and AIPAC. It could also send a chill through the ranks ofWashington lobbyists and consultants for foreign governments. , \:' ~ The two AIPAC officials) hunch that a phone call to the post had found its way onto the 'FBPs radar was correct. They had shared what law-enforcement officials considered "national-defense information" with Post reporter Glenn Kessler about stepped-up Iranian activ-, ity in Iraq. Thegovernment would later charge that Rosen described it to Kes-, sler as "agency information" from an "American intelligence source." But tha~ call to the Post was a small piece ofthe story. And contrar¥~o what agent Hanna told Rosen, this was"a criminal matter.." }3y the time the agents approached Rosen and Weiss-. man, they were nearing the, final stageS ofan investigation into leaks ofclassified informa-. tion that would wreck the two men's careers and throw one of . Washington's most powerful lobby groups on the defensiv~. The FBI prQbe included hours of Wiretaps approved by the secret Foreign lntele; Iigence Surveillance Court in • Former Pentagon analyst Lawrence Franklin, middle, pleaded Washington and surveillanceof guilty to conspiracy and helped the FBI set up asting. Lawyer meetings at Washington-area r-Ia~r cach:is, left, hopes his client's cooperation will mean a restaurant$. It also included a 19 er sen nee. search ofAlPAC's offices in 2002 that ,think. Often these are ex-government appears to have been surreptitiously officials. While barred from lobbying conducted, because the offices' entrance former colleagues immediately upon is monitored 2i hours a day and no one leaving office) they nonetheless bring . appeared with a search warrant ~round valuable experience and eventually get. that time_ inside for meetings and to open doors Federai prosecutors theorized that. for foreign visitors. Rosen and Weissman had engaged in a For instance, when India was negofive- year conspiracy to cultivate govern-, tiating its 2006 civilian nuclear agree~ ment sources with 'the aim ofobtaining ment with the J3tish administrationsensitive «national-defense informa-. fraught with strategic implications for tiont which they would pass on to col-, both countries-it enlisted the lobby-. leagues at AIPAC, Israeli officials, and ing firm Barbour Griffith &Rogers for journalists. By August 2005, prosecu-: advice. The firm had previously signed tors persuaded a federal grand jury in on the former US ambassador to New Alexandria that the two NPACofficials I:;>elhi, Rob.er~ Blackwill. Although were not only assiduous in collecting Blackwill wasn't involved in getting the classified information but almost flam-. firm's India contract:, he has since been. boyant in sharing it with others.. a prominent advocate for a n~w US/In· "When it comes to classified infor~ dia partnership. . next week with O'Donnell and another . _~ agent) William McDermott, at the Sun Spot Cafe, adjacent to the lobby.of AIPAC's office building. Over a bever· age and cigarette, Weissman described having met with Franklin four or five times over the previous two years to talk about non-j\rab Middle East countries, primarily Iran) according to a court doc~ ument..The agents asked him ifFranklin had ever disclosed classified information to him or anyone else he knew, and they noted his answer: "No." , -... 78 I WASHINGTONIAN IJANUARY 2008 :JANUARY 2008 I WASHINGTONIAN 179' ! • !l I:' I t' i II ,. t ,1- !fi ;1' ~:; .1 !of; II, ':,fr', I".~ '"4! i .( J. ~f ~ ;i i !II I r!~ ~;. ~. t· ): ,\:i:.; 9 ,. ./It. J: ~ I' ~ f: .; i'":~ I ~ ': I '! Regularly ranked as one ofthe most effective lobbying organf~. zations in Washington, MPAC strives to forge closer political~ strategic, and military ties between the United States and Israel•. The group combines grassroots organizing, fundraise. ers ~apable ofpulling in tens of millions ofdollars a year, an~ a skilled )¥ashington staff that finds willing.legislative sponsors among friends in both parties. When preparing a major arms-sale to Arab allies, the Pentagon will often brief AIPAC.specialisrs before the deal is put before Congress. "For anyone who deals with the Mid-. dJe East," consultant Sandra Charles says, "!\IPAC is one of those realities you learn to work with.)) Each year, AIPAC draws thousands from across the country to its Washington ~onvention to hear spceches'-by the President, Cabinet se~retaries, top congressional leaders, and Israeli politi-. dans. Then AIPAC members move on to Capitoi Hill to lobby m~mbcrs of Congress. AIPAC has consistently lined up a large congressional majority in supPQrt of milit;uy and economic aid for Israel aii~ cooperation between the two - (CONTIN(IIID.ON rAGEJ66). Just when the FBI opened itfAIPAC probe isn't clear•. "It started a long time before I got dlcce," says David Szady, a veteran coun·, terespionage officerand leak in~tigator who in 2001 was named to the new FBI post ofnational counterintelligence exec~ utive. He declines to comment further. Why the probe beg~n remains a mystery. AJustice Department spokes..: man declined to comment on the case. Speculation centers on 1990s suspicion ofan Israeli "mole" in the national-see. curity apparatus, ongoing surveillance ofIsraelis that turned up contacts with AIPAC, or a generalla\v.enforcement search for leakers.. The question of ~ why AIPAC !ob!>yists were singled out prompted darker theories, summed up in a headline on a Wall Street ]ollrnal opinion piece by Dorothy Rabinowitz: FIRSTTHEY CAMB FORTHE JEWS. Justice D~partment lawyers knew that • a probe ofAIPAC would be controversial. Asenior participantat the time says: "It was obvious to me and to many others that an investiga'!. tion 'of this nature was going to receive a lot ofattention bee. cause o(the significance ofthe organization involved.." o ,fers to keep hidden? McNulty contend-, ed in 2005 that "those notauthorized to receive classified information must resist the tcmptation to acquire it.~ Press-freedom advocates view the case as a potential blow to newsgathering, coming on top ofcourt and prosecuto~ rial pressurc on reporters to divulge confidential sources. Think tanks and inter., est groups that specialize in ~ollecting and analyzing information on national security are worried as well. John Pike, who directs GlobalSecurity. org, an organi~tion skilled at un-· earthing national-security data from open sources, says the indictment raises this question:. "How many degrees of separation can remove you from the ob" iigation to protect information that' was .originally c1assified?"'- [Yasser] Ararat, what will he say?' " "EveryJ>ody in this business knows the difference" between that kind ofdiscreet communication and what Rosen and Weissmanarecharged with,Zogbyclaims. "Their choice was to p~ on information they knew was sensitive to Israel." Just how sensitive will be disputed at the trial. Rosen and Weissman were ac-. ,cused oftransferring not cI~ssified docu-. ments, only information they had been given orally. The trial itselfwill include a mass of classified material that the government has reluctantly decided to divulge. Ellis ordered that it be stripped ofmarkings such as "top secre't" or "no forn" (no foreign nationals), which could give the jury an impression that the information was closely held when in fact it might not haVe been. Ifcivilian lobbyists such as Rosen and Weissman can be'punished for obtaining and discussing classified information, what about journalists and researchers who uncover data the government pre-. ta.~y ofState); current national-security adviser Stephen Hadley; Richard .Armitage, former deputy secretary ofState;. William Burns, US ambassador to Rus-, sia; Marc Grossman, former undersec-. retary ofState for political affairs; David Satterfield, now the State Department's coordinator for Iraq; Elliott Abrams, deputy national-security advis~r; Paul Wolfowitz, former deputy secretary of Defense; and D!luglas Feith: for:mer underSecretary ofDeferise.. Judge Ellis didn't okay these subpoenas lightly. He did so after being persuaded that each of these officials would be able to testifY about specific meetings or conversations--either with the !\yo defendants or with others at ,AIPAe-that dealt with information comparable in sensitivity to the kind Rosen and Weissman allegedly obtained and passed on. Ellis also knew that the subpoenas might derail dle case., Ifthe administration balks at allowing sworn testimony by senior officials about sen" . sitive conversations, the case against Rosen and Weissman could be dismissed. The line'between inform;ttion that can and can't get passed is blurred by the amount ofof~ ficially sanctioned daily intel-. ligenee sharing between the United States and its ~lIies.. Such exchanges are particularly intense between the United States an~ Israel" which regu-, larly trade information and assessments on terrorism and other perceived threats. • The FBI's Washington Field Office-known as the WFo-is "It's absurd for anyone. to the nerve center of the government's effort to track leaks of think that. the Israelis have secret information to foreign countries. to enlist people to spy," says Sandra Charles, a forme~ Pentagon and ..National Security Council official who consults in Washington for Persian Gulf Arab governments. "They can go t<? the highest levels ofthe administration if they want to find out what the thinking is on us policy." ' To James Zogby, president, of th~ !\rab American Institute, the case cast~ a shadow not only overAIPAC but also over other groups"suc:h as his, that engage in what he calls "ethnic lobbying." But he says he doesn't have,any sympathy for Rosen and Weissman. Like;'AIPAG lobbyists, Zogby has met with senior American polieymakers and been asked to convey signals to and from foreign ·officials-in his case, Arab leaders. "(US . officials] wo~'lci say to ~e; 'You're going - lothe Gulf-lisk this,' or 'Ifwe'SaY this to' c"onistsofthe Iranian regime. V days after Rosen called the Penta-. gon seeking to make contact with an Iran expert and got Franklin's name, the Bush administration hosted a get-t~gether of Iraqi exiles in Washington_.. It included a I representative o.f the Tehran-based ,Su-. preme Council ofthe Islamic Revolution. Ahmad Chalabi, who ted the Iraqi Nation- i al Congress and was the Pentagon's chief aUyamong Iraqi exiles, would later take up residence in the Iranian capital in the weeks before the US-led invasion ofIraq. According to letters in the case file; in Sep-. tember 2002, the month after Rosen and Franklin first spoke, the FBI conducted a search at AJPAC headquartets. What it produced, ifanything, remains under seal. An AIPAC spokesman says the organiza-. tion wasn't aware ofany search at that. time. To cultivate Franklin, Weissman at one point took him to an Orioles game in Baltimore. Franklin, who was also an Air Force Reserve officer, held not only a top-secret security clearance but also one entitling him to SCI, "sensitive compartmented information," the kind kept at a secure site and granted on a need-to-know basis to a limited number ofindividuals.. During a series of meetings in 2003, Franklin spilled several pieces ofallegedly classified information, from policy options against Jran to specific intelligence about attacks on US forces in Iraq. On a couple ofoccasions, Rosen or Weissman allegedly passed along what he'd learned to Israeli diplomats or journalists. Franklin, like\vise, relayed sensitive in'!. formation to an Israeli diplomat and to , the media. On May 21, 2004, he disclosed , what prosecutors described as "top secret/ , SCI" il!formation to journalists from CBS I about what prosecutors would later crypti..:. cally claim concerned "meetings involving twoMiddle East officials." Thatevening, CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl reported on evidence that onetime ' Pentagon favorite Ahmad Chalabi "per-. sonally gave Iranian intelligence officerS information so sensitive that ifrevealed it could, quote, 'get Americans killed~' " later in the broadcast, she repor~ed dlat the information Chalabi had allegedly passed was so sensitive that US officials "at. the highest levels" had prevailed on CBS not to broadcast it. Flve weeks later, the F~I closed in on Franklin. Armed with a warrant, agents searched his workspace and turned up a JUne 25,2003, classified document. Frank.. lin admitted he had given information de-rived from the document to Rosen and Weissman. Agents dlen searched his house in Kearneysville, West Virginia, and found more than 80 classified documents he had Franklin requested an ~, urgent meeting with weissman, telling him lives were in danger. guerrilla movements in Lebanon, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip and its export ofan extremist ideology. Heshared some of the frustration ofIsraeli leaders, who, from former prime minister Yitzhak. Rabin onward, saw Iran as a threat to the Jew!! ish state's existence and pressed for greater attention from Washington. .As confrontation loomed between the United StateS and Iraq, Rosen worried that the United States would be pulled into a quagmire, unable to respond to what he considered ,a graver threat from Iran. From his midlevel perchat the Pentagon, Franklin chafed at what he saw as a failure by the, Bush administration to come to grips with the Iranian danger. He reached out to Rosen and Weissman, hopmg they would bring their iqfluence to bear on the NSC and, if possible, help him secure a job at tbeWhite House. This would put him, in Rosen's words, "by the elbow of the President." ~en, according to the indicanent, promised to "do what I can." At the time that the AIPAC men and Fraitklln were first in touch widl each oth~ er, getting tough on Iran was not a White House priority. Administratipn policY was fixated on ousting Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. As Bush worked to build domestic and international support for regime change in Iraq, the aaministration expected to enlist help from Iraqi Shiites, The lobbyists' co·ntacts with Lawrence Franklin developed in 2002 when the de... fense analyst joined the Pentagon's newl¥ formed Office of Special Plans under Douglas Feith.. Rosen had been watching with growing alarm the signs that Tehran's cleric-domi-, nated regime was seeking to develop a nuclear weapon, compounding the danger posed by Iran'~ support for terrorist and Crucial to AIPAC.'s influence on US policy is its ability to keep Congress and executive-branch policymakers informed ofactual or potential threats to Israel and alerted to dangerous political trends in surrounding Middle Bastcountries. This is where Rosen and Weissman came in. RoSen'played a big role in expanding the organization's influence beyond Congress into the executive branch, meeting behind the scenes with well-placed officials and the journalists who cover them. Generally hawkish but nonideological, Rosenspecial", ized in hard-nosed, sometimes prescien~ analysis ofthe major actors in the Middle Bastand Washington. Afather oftwo sons, ages 25 and 8, and a 22-year-old daughter, Rosen has been married and divorced six times. Five years ago, he re~nitedwith his first wife after 39 years apart. The indictment shows that investigators recorded conver:sationsamong Rosen, Weissman, and Israeli officials starting in , Aprill999, when Rosen allegedly disdosed to an Israeli diplomat; tbat he had "picked up an extremely sensitive piece ofintelligence..'! He described the information as code-word protected, meaning that access to itwas highly restricted. Two months later" Weissman allegedly told the same diplomat that he knew ofa "secret classified FBi report" on the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi &abia. . In December 2000, both men met over lunchWi~ Kenneth Pollack, !hena Persian Gulfspecialist on the National Security 1661WASHINGTONIAN IJANUARY 2008 "TJiis Is the FBI'? continuedfrom page 79 ~ouncil staffunder President Bill Clin'! \;;Ion. Merward, Rosen allegedly ~lked to a reporter about then-classified US stratcountries in a ~ariety ofspheres froni mis- egy options against Iraq. In January 2002, sHe defense to homeland security._The aid Rosen met with David Satterfield, a senior package for Israel tends to be the engine State Department Middle East official, that gets the whole US foreign-aid budget about the sharing ofintelligence between through Congress. t,he United States and Israel following the While nonpartisan and not direcd¥ in- Karine A episode, in which the Israelis volvedinpoliticalcampaigns,AIPACkeeps seized a large Palestinian arms shipment~. its !llembership ofmore than 100,000 ap- The episode damaged the US relationship prised ofcongressional votes important to' with Yasser Ararat.The governmentalleges Israel. This kind ofscrutiny can have an that, in a memo to other AIPAC staffers, intimidating effect on lawmakers because Rosen included classified information he it has the potential to influence where had picked up. AIPAC members send their campaign contributions. Critics have contended that ~PACshould be required to register as a political:'action cOf!lmittee. But neither the courts nor the Federal Election Commission has forced the issue•. Other detractors contend that because it lobbies for aid and policies that benefit > Israel, AIPAC ought to register ,vith the Jus~ceDepartment as a foreign agc:nt. But unlike organizations and firms that represent foreign interestS and governments, AIP~Cdoesn't get money from and is not contractually l.inJ<ed to Israel. ", brought hom~ illegally over three decadeS.. ..... Franklin was vulnerable.. He had a record 01'security breaches for taking documents ~o.me. Lacking substantial assets and with a.wife afflicted with crippling rheumatoid arthritis, Franklin did not hire a lawyer; in.. stead: heagreed to cooperate with the FBI. Authorities enlisted Franklin in a sting~ In July 2004, he attempted to arrange meetings with Rosen and Weissman, armed with the kind ofinformation'that clearly would be ofinterest to Israel. At one point, he re.. quested an urgent meeting with Weissman, telling him lives were in danger. When the two met, Franklin, who was wired, warned him that Iran had discovered the presence ofIsraeli agents in northern Iraq: The in-. formation was highly classified "agency stuff," and Weissman could get in trouble for having it, Franklin told him. Weissman in turn told that to Rosen, and-the two contacted Naor Gilon, a po", Utical officer at the Israeli Embassy. Rosen and Weissman aJso called Glenn Kessler at the Post to report an increased threat to US soldiers in Iraq from Iranian-backed militias. Franklin also helped thee FBI witb a counterintelligence probe of Chalabi, who has denied divulging any US secrets. Amongthose he called was Francis Brooke, a Chalabi aide in Washington. Accord-. ing to Brooke, franklin also called active members ofthe Iraqi National Congress, Chalabi's political party.. "He. was asking questions about Ahmad Chalabi and my dealings with Iranian of-. fidals,"· Brooke says. Herecalls that Frank~ lin said, "There's a lot ofstuffgoing on. : You should tell me the straight story. I'm :1 in contact with journalists, and I could Ii spin it for yo~." ~ Says Brooke.: "I thought he was off his rocker." The Chalabi probe foundered, but tbe AIPAC investigation gained momentum. The calls to Naor Gilon and Kessler pro:vided what prosecutors considered new evidence that Rosen and Weissman had violated a section ofthe 1917 Espionage Act, barring the possession and transfer of "national-defense information" by anyone not authorized to have it.. . . . Three....ve~ks after their meeting with Weiss... . man a~ the Sun Spot Cafe, FBI agents knocked on Rosen'$ door in Silver Spring shordy before 8 AM. They told Rosen they knew Franklin had provided classified in-. fonnation to an Israeli official. What would •Rosen say, they asked him, ifthe Israeli of... . ficial told Franklin that the information had already been supplied to him by Rosen? Ac.. cording to the agents' report, "Rosen said he had done nothingwrong." ~gents confronted Weissman out... side~ome in Bethes~a. They played him a recording ofthe July conversation between Weissman and Franklin. "Look," Weissman told them, "I was told by people at the office nor to talk to you~" Tha~ afternoon, the FBI searched Rosen's office at AlPAC headquarters, this time presenting" a search warrant.. CNN cameras filmed the agents entering the building. Apparendy tipped offbefore the raid, CBS called AlPAC with questions. Initially, AIPAC circled the wagons around its two officials, defending them in public statements, assigning them legal counsel, and paying the legal fees. Rosen and Weissman both received bonuses at the end of2004.. But the investigation continued. Although AIPAC was assured. in December that it was not a target, four seniorAIPAC staffers were called to testifY before a federal grand jury in Nexandria. According to defense documents, in February 2005, US attorney Paul Mc-Nulty-- who later became deputy attorney general-met with AlPAC's executive di-. Weissman and Rosen were fired. AIPAC also halted payment Of their legal fees. rectorand AIPAC lawyers and urged them to cooperate. AIPAC,'s counsel called law-. yers for Rosen and Weissman the next day" ·telling them that McNulty "would lik~ to end it with minimal damage to AI-PAC. He is fighting with the FBI to limit the investi-. gation to Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman and to avoid expanding it." Prosecutors disclosed to AIPAC lawyers someevidence they had obtained under a secre~ warrant. Rosen and Weissman were fired. AIPAC also halted payment; oftheir legal fees. At: the time, the Justice Department viewed an organization's payment oflegal feeS for employees u~der investigation as a sign of a lack ofcooperation with the probe. An AIPAC spokesman" Patrick Dorton, de-. nied that the organization had acted under government pressure:. "~y suggestion that AlPAC acted at the government's be~ hest is completely false. Our decisions on dismissal and legal fees w~re made inde·. pendendy, b;lSed on the facts and ourcom~ mitment to doing the right thing in a very difficult siwation." . One source dose to AlPAC noted that Weissman and Rosen had refused to waive their rights to sue the organization. Re-. cendy, Dorton repeated a statement he had. made at die time ofthe indicnnent: "Rosen and Weissman were disinissed .beca~ they engaged in conduct that was not part of their jobs and ~use tJtis conduct did no~ comport~hestandards thatAIPAC ex-· peets and ~es ofits employees." Franklin" despite helping with the sting, was indicted along with the two AIPAC lobbyists. He pleaded guilty to two con·· spiracy counts in October 2005 and drew a 12"year prison sentence. Judge Ellis held J;he sentence in abeyance until the AlPAC case is over.The attorney Franklin acquired late in the probe, Plato Cacheris, expects his client to be called as a witness. He hopes, as a result off'ranklin's cooperation \vith the prosecution, that his sentence will be reduced to a "minimal" t~rm. The FBI's investigation didn't end with the conspiracy'indictments ofRosen and Weissman in August 2005, a year after Weissman gotthat initiaJ phone call in Bos... ton.o. One reason maf have been a gap ~n the government's case. The two men were charged with oral receipt and transmission ofnational-defense information. There is no evidence that classified documents ever exchanged hands. The next year, the FBI and one ofthe prosecutors approached the family of the late muckraking columnist Jack AO.derson" seeking access to his ar~hive. Anderson's son Kevin told a congressional panel that he was told they "wanted access to Dad's documents to 'see if either Rosen's or Weissman's fingerprints ~ere on any gov'!ernment documents•." Anderson's widow initially consented to the request, but the family coUectively decided to refuse. When the trial gets under way, parts of it will be closed to the public. Judge BI·. lis has allowed the introduction ofsome classified evidence that only the jurors will see or hear in fitU. He also has allowed the defense to probe potential jurors for indio, cations ofanti-Jewish bias.. AIPAGhas regained its place as one of Washington's premier lobbying groups and is building a newheadquarters. Within the last few months, AIPAC agreed to pay Rosen's and Weissman's legal fees, which have climbed into the millions ofdollars. No explanation was given, although the decision came after Ellis ruled tha~ any government pressure on AIPAC was "in", appropriate and fraught. with the risk of I constitutional harm.." Franklin, Rosen, and Weissman have all failed to find permanent employment while the case is pending. Franklin works at odd jobs, his lawyersays. Rosen received financial help from friends and has done part-time consulting. Weissman spends a good deal oftime with his children-his •daughter is studying Arabic at·college; one son is a high-school senior, and another is in middle school-walking his two golden retrievers and pondering book projects, including one on rock ,n, roU. lVl JANUARY 20081WASHINGTONIAN 1167 I t, "' The sloe Sentinel ALL INFORMATION CONTAI~mD ~IN ISl~CLASSIFIED ~ ~ 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sabJ1~ Page 1 of7 Defense For AIPAC SPY: Suspe~~s: Data At Cor~ Of~ase y.I~s Not.Really tT~p Secretl Haaretz.com OS:33 By Josh Gerstein November 3, 2008 RICHMOND, VA -- The defense oftwo pro-Israel lobbyists accused ofillegally obtaining and disclosing American national security secrets will argue that some ofthe data the men allegedly conspired to reveal came directly from the Israeli government and was not truly secret, defense lawyers told a federal appeals court last week. Three judges from the U.S. Court ofAppeals spent mo~e than 90 minutes Wednesday wrestling with the issue of~ow much classified information the defense should be pennitted to introduce in the case of Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, former employees ofthe American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AlPAC). The beginning ofthe unusual court session was held in public, but the lawyers and the judges retreated behind closed doors in a specially-cleared and guarded courtroom to discuss the most sensitive aspects ofthe case about halfway through the hearing. As they waited for the arguments to begin, defense lawyers leafed through fat binders marked i~ orange with the words, "TOP SECRET." Rosen and Weissman were indicted in 2005 on charges that they gathered secrets from U.S. officials and passed the 90nfidential information to journalists, Israeli diplomats and others in violation ofthe United States Espionage Act. Rosen and Weissman are not charged with receiving or distributing any classified documents, but solely with relaying information orally. Some-free speech advocates have argued that what the two men allegedly did is not much different from what journalists do every day. Prosecutors have indicated that covert wiretaps captured the men acknowledging they knew the·data was classified. Trial dates for the pair, who were fired from AlPAC, have been repeatedly canceled as wrangling dragged on.over what classified information could be revealed at trial, which could take place as soon as February. Aparade.ofprot:Uinent witnesses are expected, including Secretary ofState Condoleezza Rice, fonner U.S. Army General Anthony Zinni and leaders ofU.S.-based pro-Israel groups. Rosen and Weissman, who have pled not guilty, face the possibility oflengthy prison terms if convicted. A Pentagon analyst who admitted leaking information to the duo, Lawrence Franklin, was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison and is cooperating with prosecutors. . The government filed the appeal last week, arguing that the trial judge, T.S. Ellis lIT, erred when he ruled the defense was entitled to use a classified State Department document and another from the Federa. Bureau o( InyestigatiQn. "That information is not actually relevant to the crim~ that was charged," an attorney in the Justice_Department's counterespionage. section, Thomas Reilly, told the judges. Rosen's attorney, Abbe Lowell, said the State Department document shows that Israel was circulating the intelligence reports Rosen is accused ofdisclosing to 9ther AlPAC employees and a foreigner not named in the indictment. "You have to be able to prove what the Israelis knew," Lowell said. "In our defense, it is important that this infonnation,· discussed down the .line by,our client, is Israel-based." Lowell did not detail the Israeli information in the open session, but declassified court records .indicate the document describes intelligence about the Karine A, a ship seized by Israel in 2002 in the Red Sea. Israel sai~ the vessel was loaded with rifles, anti-tank missiles,·rockets, mortars and other weapons destined for the Gaza Strip. Sources close to the case said the State Departinent memo relates to a briefing Israeli Gen. Yossi KUp'erw~ser_gave.American.diplomats.aboutiheJ{atjlle Adu~n!l a trip to Washington in January, 2002. lRosen.gQt.a.similar_briefing.from Kupe[Wa§!~rJhe.satTI~ d!y~ - /J.. ~ Lowell suggested that the State Department memo was nearly identical to a note Rosen sent to fellow AlPAC employees. "you'd be able to draw a line between the allegation and the assertion and where it's http://sioc.fbinet.fbi/documents/IntranetlInformationiSentineV2008/November/03.htm 11/3/2008 I. T!le Sloe Sentinel o 'Page20f2 -- .......... , from,'," Lowell said. Lpwell alsQ said a forme~ State Department official, Carl Ford Jt., was prepared to testify that the bulk ofthe memo was actually unclassified. "Who gets.io define what's classified is the' Executive Branch," Reilly insisted. The nature ofthe FJJ.l document was less clear, but a lawyer for Weissman, Baruch Weiss,··said prosecutors want to prevent the defense from disputing which portion of the report made it so sensitive. "The government wants to use the part ofthe document that is helpful to them and they don't want us to use the part ofthe document that is helpful to us," Weiss said. The appeals judges, Robert King, Roger Gregory and Dennis Shedd, issued no immediate decision, but Shedd said he was reluctant to disturb the rulings Ellis arrived at after protracted hearings. "You have a very high hill to climb, especially with the time the judge spent in this case," he told Reilly. All three appeals jurists expressed skepticism about the government's claim that the ruling o~ classified information opened up Judge Ellis' .other decisions for immediate appe,!l. "That wQ.l!ld be a change to what we nonnally apply," Shedd said. Generally, federal prosecutors in America cannot appeal p're-trial rulings on legal and evidentiary issues and defendants can do so only if they are coftvicted. Weiss said those basic rules should be kept despite the classified information issue. "I was a prosecutor myself. Many times, I lost things I'd have loved to appeal," Weiss said. "I was stuck.1t Reilly argued a law passed in 1980 to govern the use of classified information in criminal cases made clear that Congress wanted court proceedings involving national secrets handled differently. liThe point is to get it right before classified information is disclosed," he said. Through his attorney, Rosen asked to be admitted to the secret portion ofthe argument but was never allowed in. The three-judge panel assigned to the case is fairly diverse politically, with Shedd appointed to the bench by the elderBu,~h, King named,by President Clinton, and Gregory on the panel via an unusual recess appointment from Clinton a~d a subsequent nod from the current President Bush. Either the defense ,or prosecution could ask for reconsideration ofthe appeals judges' ruling by the full II-judge bench ofthe 4th Circuit or review by the Supreme Court, but such requests are rarely granted. . http://sioc.fbinet.fbildocumen~lIntranetlInfonnation/Sentine1l2668iNovember/03.htm 1113/2008 From: Sent: To: SUbject: UNCLASSIFIED NON-RECORD ALL IMFOPXATION COI~AINED ~M IS UNCLASSIFIED O~ D~07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/ls WF) (FBI) I I(FBI) 1~:~;':""1::l'T:Z::,,:,~Y_M_a~:_b_1_7_2_0_0_9_9_.1_1_A_M_. ~FBI) b6 b7C You should see the actual paper today. It is not only on the front page, it is the top story all the way across the front page. From: Sent: To: Subject: :-"':"IIr:~es_aa_v_M_a_rffi_I7_2_0_n!_(:_~5_1~_4: .....II(FBI) UNCLASSIFIED NON-RECORD Note the author Israe.l's N.ational Security Aide Bal1·ed From U.S. The Washington Times By Eli Lake March 17, 2009 TEL AVIV, ISRAEL -- Uzi Arad, who is expected to serve as national security adyiser in the next Israeli government, has been barred from entering the United States for nearly two years bn the grounds that he is an intelligence risk. Mr. Arad, a former member and director of intelligence for the Mossad, Israel's spy service; is mentioned in the indictment ofLawrence Franklin, a fOlmer pentagon analyst who pleaded guilty in 2005 to providing classified information about ~ran in a conversation with two employees ofthe American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AlPAC). Beyond Mr. Arad's status, Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu is likely to face difficulties abroad because ofhis choice, announced Monday, of Avigdor Lieberman to serve as foreign minister in a narrow new rightist government. : Mr. Lieberman, head ofthe Israel Is·Our Home party, has advocated requiring Israel's 1.46 million Arabs to take a loyalty test or risk expulsion. The choice ofMr. Arad for national' security adviser has been reported in the Israeli press and was confirmed by sources close to Mr., Netanyahu, who has been tasked with forming the next government. Mr. Arad acknowledged to The Washington Time$ thathe has not been able to obtain a visa to come to the United States but said the Israeli government is trying to change that. ."The director-g~neral.of.the _, Israel Foreign Ministry did tell his American counterparts that there has been no cause to deny !1\et~~risa'~'>Mr'l ~ l I Arad told The Times. I ' t" ~ t " • , r 5! I ': t T t. I Israeli and U.S. officials said Mr. Arad has been denied a U.S. visa since June 2007 under sectio~:~~2 ~(~) of. . the Immigration and Nationality Act. This gives consular officers and the Justice Department' ati.i4~rity··to bar,- (' ~ people who may seek "to violate any law ofthe United States relating to espionage or sabotage~' ft<iu) enlCiring:.~. f • the country. Mr. Arad was a member ~fthe Mossad spy service from 1975 to 1997. After retitingi:lie b~~ame; '"'' - i Mr. Netany~,!'s forei~ po~icy adviser. ~ile ~n the.Mossa~ Mr. Arad worked mainly all, anl\.ly~i§,jbut·1te aIJ~,;; ~l served as a lIaison for Intelhgence operations With allIed services $uch as the CIA. . .. J ..__ -I j 1'- , .~ tt' I • 1 ." --... _.. _,,"_f " I ,... o 0 l~ the past 21 months, pro11?-inent Israelis and Americans have quietly'but unsu'ccessfully pressed U.S. officials to grant Mr. Arad a visit. "Overtures were made, and, by. and large, tHere was not a satisfactory answer," said Herb London, president ofthe Hudson Institute, where Mr. Arad worked from 1972 to 1975 after obtaining a doctorate from Princeton University. "He has invited luminaries from around the world to talk about foreign .policy at the annual Herzliya conference," Mr. Lpndon said. "There are people from the left and the right who recogni~e that he has extraordinary insight into the foreign policy issues ofour time.II In a June 18, 2007, letter to U.S. officials, the president ofthe Interdisciplinary Center at Herzliya, Uriel Reichman, wrote, "I very much hope that such visa will indeed be granted as expeditiously as possible since prof~ssor Arad's travels to the United States are essential for his work at the Interdisciplinary Center." One mystery about Mr. Arad's difficulties in obtainiQg a visa is that Mr. Franklin did not plead guilty to spying. Indeed, the U.S. attorney handling the case against Mr. Franklin andiwo former AIPAC employees, Steven J. Rosen'and Keith Weissman, charged all three men with mishandling national defense informatioh, a count listed in the U.S. code under the Espionage Act but less serious than being"an agent of a foreign power. Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman are fighting the charges, which are controversial because they are the first private citizens to be accused of leaking classified information. The indictment against Mr. Franklin makes two references to "a person previously associated with an intelligence agency of [foreign official's] country." Two former U.S. officials and a former Israeli official have confirmed that Mr. Arad is the Ilperson." The passage refers to a meeting between Mr. Franklin and Mr. Arad on Feb.. 20, 2004, at the Pentagon cafeteria and an earlier recommendation by an Israeli diplomat that Mr. Franklin meet with Mr. Arad. In his letter, Mr. Reichman referenced the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that deals with espionage issues, saying, "it being absolutely certain to me and to all who know him, that none ofthe causes specified ... apply to him.1I A Washington immigration lawyer, Glen Wasserstein, said Mr. Arad was being barred under the section Qf law that Ilallows the government to deny entry to those foreign nationals it deems as spies or saboteurs, and those who help or assistJn such spying or sabotage.II Mr.. Wasserstein said the president or attorney general could waive the restriction on the visa. Buck Revell, a former associate director ofthe FBI who oversaw counterintelligence investigations at the bureau, added that as national security adviser, Mr. Arad would not be in a position to engage in espionage or intelligence activities. Nonetheless, Mr. Revell said, the suspicion surrounding Mr. Arad could hamper U.S.Israel relations. liThe [Israeli] national security council chairman has access to all ofIsrael's intelligence and all the intelligence we share with them, normally,II Mr. Rev~ll said. IlWhether or not our agenci~s would restrict any type of intelligence from going to him would be very problematic. That is something they will have to deal with." A senior official ofthe incoming Netanyahu administration, Who spoke.on the condition that he not be naqtedbecause ofthe sensitivity of the issue, told The Times that he,expects Mr. Arad to be able to travel to the United States for official business. "This is an i~sue that the new government ofIsrael trusts can be resolved," the official said. UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 2 The~SIbc Sentinel '-;r' o ALL INFOPXATION CONTAINED . . HEPLIN IS UNCLASSIFIED ~ DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc ba~~J1Sg Page 1of2 --- Politico.com 10:48 PM EST By Josh Gerstein June 1.1, 2009 ALEXANDRIA, VA -- Afederal j~dge ~as virtually ':Viped out the prison sentence of more than 12 years he first imposed on a Pe!1tagon analyst "Yho pled guilty to leaking classified information to two pro-Ismellobbyists. At a hearing Thursday evening in Alexandria, Va., Judge T.S. Ellis reduce4 the sentenc~ for the former defense QfficiaI,Larry Franklip., to probation plus 1omonths in "community confinem~nt," likely a halfway house. Prosecutors had'asked the judge to drop the sentence t~ 8 years in light ofFranklin's cooper~tion, w~ile a def~nse lawyer (or Franklit.t, Plato Ca~heris" aske.4 for "no seJ:}tence at all." In explaining his decision to dr~atically reduce Franklin's sentence, Ellis cited the lack of punishment and light punishments imposed on other leakers, as well as Franklin's ~ooperation in the prosecution ofthe two lobbyists later ~red from the America~ Israel Public Affairs committee, ~teven Rosen and Keith W. eissman. . Last month, days ~efore the case against the p~ir was' set to go to trial, t,he government dropped the prosecution. Th~ Justi~~ Department said legal ridings in the case and'the threat ofnew disclQsq~es of classified information maae a trial unadvisabl~. "I~'~.a very difficult and unusual situation," Elli~ said. "'~his one is unique." The judge said he did not quib~le with the government's decision to drop the Rosen and Weissman prosecutions, but that the move was'''significant'' and had· "some relevance" to what punishment Franklin should receive. He said, it was "very disputable" whether some of the information at the heart ofthe case was actually the kil}d of "national defense information" it is illegal to relay outsid~ the government. - Ellis railed Thursday against p~ople who leak classified information, including those whQ leaked na~ional intelligence estimates about Iran and revealed the existen~e ofthe warrantless w~retapping' program maintained.by: the National Security Agency. How~ver,Jle also said he had no p~oblem with people"YhQ disclosed such information as. an act ofcivil disobedience and accepted what follpwed. "Disclosing it was ok~y, if a per~on is willing to stand' up and say, II.dia it. Give me the consequences,llt the judge,said. Ellis said he wanted Frank!in's punis.hmeQt to serve as a "b~acon" to' other officials,that . they wou~d face serious consequences if they committed similar breaches. "Secrets a~e important to a nat~on. Ifwe couldn't keep our' secrets, we would be at great risk," ~he judge said. Franklin pled guilty it\,2005 to thr~e felony,counts involving illegal distribution and possession of classified information. He had been free pe~ding the.trial for the two ex-Aipac officials. His attorney, Plato Cacheris,'saia the fonile~ policy'analyst h~d trouble finding good work. "He's been digging ditches. H~ls been cleat:ling cesspools," the attorney said. The infonnation that Franklin gave to the two AIPAC lobbyists has never,been officially detailed, but it related to the threat Iran posed to U.S. fo~ces in.the region. He also acknowledged numerous meetings with an Israeli diplomat,':Nao! Gilon. In a pleaJor lenienctThursday,:Ftanklin said he was,motivated solely by "love ofour republic and by the safetY ofour militarypersonner that were about to go' into Iraq." ..He insisted .~e wasn't tryipg.toJeak anything, but simply to use a'back channel to alert "a particularNSC source" to the danger~\hi,Iraq .. .The,~- . ex-Pentagon analys~ didn't know at th~ time that Rosen and Weissman worked for th~ pro-i~i~J 1 t ~ ! i lobby~ng group. Franklin said he wanted to spend time'instructing Y0'!1lg people ~'about th¢ t~e~t that I!. ~'f civilization faces from those who would replace us," who he indicated were theJorces of "~ad~~ai' I .i't ... \ Islam.". "0~e object of..our ~dversaries is to force us to change internally. What I did was P.1!ly'.~~g into; ~ -'1"t. that obJectJ.ve,"·Franklm satd. l .\ . 1I -I Franklin said he was "grateful to' b.e.in a countrY. where the rule ofla~ Rlld a respect for hurpa*$gh~is \ ~ " :~ r I,! 4" ,l \ I I ' ( • ' oj http://sioc.fuinet.fbi/doctimentslIntranetlInforma!!.9n1Sentine1l2009/June/12.htm 6/12/2009 The sloe Sentinel o ..... d Page 2 of2 }~ vibrant." Ellis quickly interrupted. "You believe rule ofla'V is i.1nportant? ....I've lived in-countries where there isn't rule oflaw. I was born in one," the Colombian-bomjurist said. "And what really [matters] is whether government officials obey the law." Franklin said he did believe in the rule of law and he acknowledged "serious errors in judgment.II That triggered another salvQ from the judge: IIAn error is putting on the wrong color tie," Ellis sai4. "We're talking about crimes." Earlier, Cacheris argued that the.govemment's request ofeight years imprisonment for Franklin "smacks ofvengeance" stemming from the decision to abandon the prosecution against Rosen and Weissman. "It's just not justified," the defense attorney said. He insisted the decision to drop the case against the two ex-lobbyists "was not because ofanything Mr. Franklin did." Cacheris's description ofFranklin's cooperation also produced some intriguing news. "He's given them other cases involving people who cannot come into this country,II the defense lawyer said cryptically. Cacheris also sugge...sted that Franklin was the target of witness tampering in the Aipac case. ~ "Someone came to approach Franklin to have him, in effect, disappear," the defense attorney said. He said Franklin immediately reported the incident to authorities. -Cacheris did not elaborate Qn the episode, but it could help explain why the EJU sought to interview Jewish leaders several years ago about attempts to provide financial assistance oremployment to Rosen and Weissman. Prosecutor Neil Hammerstrom suggested Franklin deserved more severe punishment than Rosen and Weissman, had they been convicted. "I~ many ways, he was a more significant violator than Rosen and Weissman ever were alleged to be," the prosecutor said. "Ifyou don't have people like Mr. Franklin in government doing that, you don't hav~ people [outside] passing classified information." Hainmerstrom also noted that Franklin took topsecret information to his home even after being disciplined for such activity. "You have before you an individual that just can't seem to f~llow the law when it comes to cl~sified information," the prosecutor said. He said Frankliti deserved credit for cooperating, but that his assistance had not been "ideal." In response to a question from Ellis Thursday, Franklin confirmed speculation that his rende~ous with Rosen and Weissman was arranged by Michael Makovsky, a former energy analyst for the Pentagon. Makovsky, who has left the government, was not charged in the case and was expected to be a witness at the trial ofRosen and Weissman Before the main hearing Thursday, lawyers spent nearly half an hour arguing behind closed doors about whether the re-sentencing snould be open to the public. The judge eventually allowed the press and public into the courtroom, though he said portions ofcourt ,filings about Franklin's sentence will remain under seal. As the hearing concluded i!1 the case, which has been the subjected of hard-fought legal battles for nearly four years, the judge stniggled to maintained his composure. He praised prosecutors and defense lawyers. "You all did a very goodjob," said Ellis, who is now semi-retired. - .. http://sioc.fbinet.fbi/docum~ntslIntranetlInformation/Sentinel/2009/June/12.htm 6/l2/2009

He wants to believe that he could return to AIPAC if he is exonerated, but this does not seem likely. AIPAC leaders are downplayillg Rosen's importance to the organization.. "AIPAC is focussed primarily on legislative lobbying," Dorton told me. Rosen's severance pay will end in September, although AIPAC, in accordance with its bylaws, will continue to pay legal fees for Rosen and Weissman. Rosen's defenders are critical ofAIPAC for its handling ofthe controversy. Martin Indyk, who is now the director ofthe Saban Center for Middle East Policy, a think tank within the Brookings Institution, thinks that AIPAC made a tactical mistake by cutting offthe two men. "It appears they've abandoned their own on the battlefield," he says. "Because they cut Steve on: they leave. him no choice." Indykwouldn't elaborate, but the implication was clear: Rosen and Weissman will defend themselves by arguing that they were working in concert with the nighest officials of the organization, including Kohr. Until there is an indictment, the government's full case against Rosen and Weissman cannot be known; no one in the Justice Department will comment. The laws concerning the di~semination ofgovernment secrets are sometimes ambiguous and often unenforced, and prosecutors in such cases face complex choices. According to Lee Strickland, a former chief privacy officer ofthe C.I.A., prosecutors pressing espionage charges against Rosen and Weissman would have t9 prove that the information the two men gave to Gilon not merely was classified but rose to the level of "national-defense information," meaning that it could cause dire harm to the United States.. Yet a reporter who called the Embassy to discuss the same iJiformation in the course of preparing a story-thus violating the same statute-would almost certainly not be pro~ecuted., Strickland continued, "Twice in the Clinton Administration we had proposals to broaden the statutes to include the recipients, not just the leakers, ofclassified information.. TheNew York Times and the Washington Post went bat-shit about this legislation. They saw it as an attempt to shut down . leaks." IfAmerican law did punish those who receive, and then pass on, or publish, privileged information, much oftheWasllington press corps would be in jail, ~ccording to Lee Levine, a First Amendment lawyer. So would a great many government officials, elected and appointed, for whom classified information is the currency ofconversation with reporters and lobbyists. Strickland, who said that he had spent much ofhis career a~ the C.I.A. "shutting down" leaks, called the AIPAC affair ''uncharted territory." It is uncommon, he said, for an espionage case to be built on the oral transmission ofnational-defense information. He also said, "Intent is always an element. IfI were a defense attorney, I would-argue that this was a form of entrapment. The F.B.I. agents deliberately set my client up, put him in a moral quandary.." He added, however, that although ajury might recognize the quandary, the law does not. "Just because you have information that would help a foreign country doesn't make it yourjob to pass that information." Even some ofAIPAC's most vigorous critics do not see the Rosen affair as a tradi~onal espionage case. James Bamford, who is the author ofwell-received books about the National Security. Agency, and an often vocal critic ofIsrael and the pro-Israel lobby, sees the case as a cautionary tale about one lobbying group's disproportionate influence: "What Pollard did was espionage. This is a much di(ferent and more unique animal-this is the selling ofideology, trying to sell a viewpoint." He continued, ''Larry Franklin is not going to knock on George Bush's dOOf, but he can get AIPAC, whic~ is a pressure group, and the Israeli government, which is an enormous pressure group, to try to get the American government to change its policy to a more aggressive policy." Bamford, who believes that Weissman and Rosen may indeed be guilty ofsoliciting information and passing it to aforeign government, sees the cas.e as a kind ofbmshback pitch, a way oflimiting AIPAC'S long-and, in Bamford's view, dangerous-reach.. http://www.newyorker.comlprintableslfacY950704faJ~ct 6/27/2005 • , 'The New Yorker: PRINTABLES o o Page90f9 Other AIPAC critics see the lobby's behavior as business as usual in Washington. "The No.. ! game in Washington is making people falking to you feel like you're an insider, that you've got infonnation no one else has," Sam Gejdenson, a fonner Democratic congressman from Connecticut, says. When Gejdenson opposed a proposal to increaSe Israel's foreign-aid allocation at the expense of'more economically needy countries, AIPAC, he sai~, responded by "sitting on its hands" during his reelection campaigns, despite the fact that he is Jewish. "It's like any other lobbying group," he said. "Its job isn't to come up with.the best ideas for mankind, or the U.S. It's narrowly focussed." AIPAC officials insist that the case has not affected the organiiation's effectiveness. But its operations have certainly been hindered by the controversy ofthe past year, and the F.B.I.. sting may force ~obbyists of all sorts to be more careful about trying to penetrate the,e~ecutive branch-and about leaking to reporters. And AIPAC now seems acUtely sensitive to the appearance ofdual loyalty. The theme ofthis year's AIPAC conference was "Israel, an American Value," and, for the first time,'1'{atikvah," the-Israeli na~onal anthem, was' not sung. The only anthem heard was "The Star-Spangled Banner.." + http://www.newyorker.comlprintableslfactJ05~0704fa_f~~t 6/27/2005 National News ~.. . --.- ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED . HEREIN IS TJNCLASSIFIED ~ DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc ba~J1Sg Page l,of.5 Home Local NeVIs, _ .National News Israel News.. -~ - .- Int~ri1ation-al ~ews ~l!lnlo~-= Books' --=---- Cal.enda-r -c-~. ~g~dults -......- ~estaurants - ::ron ........- Food, . ~~-t"_~.....c:· Milestones - - . ~~~!Idays' ____ SourceBooJ( .- Sh'opping' -- Marketplace Personals - About Us .Adyertisers Criinmuni~te,. Coinmu.Oity Unks' jsea~cti~ ~ Current o Arch~ search National News Lawye:r; Franklin Used In AIPAC Sting Ron Kampe~ and Ma~thew E. Berger Special to the Jewish Times JULy 11~2005 Washington Lawrence Franklin, the Pentagon analyst at the center ofthe gove~entts espionage case ~gainst two fonner employees ofthe American Israel-Public ~airs Committee, "walke4 onstage" in,to an on$Qing investigation ofAlPAC offici~s, according ~o his attorney: ' Plato'Cacheri~"o~e ofWashingtonts best-knoW!} espionage lawyers, told ITA in a recent interview that,he is representing Franklin for.free because he feels his client was unfairly targeted. til felt for him,It Cacheris said. "I fett pe was unfairly put upon.It .Franklin was indicted lastmonth'on charges th~t he conspired to reveal classifie9 information to two AlPAC officials; former policy director SteveRosen andfonner Iran analyst-Keith Weissman, and an Israeli Embassy employee" Franklin's trial is se~ to start-Sept. 6. The midlevel Iran analyst has plead not guilty. "Franklin~'Yalkoo onstag~; there already was an inve~tigation going on not involyinghim,II Cacheris said. Pro~ecutors and other g~vemment o~cials hav~ refused to comment on the case. The infQrm~tion that F~nklin allegediy relayed to Rose.~ and Weissman centered on Irant~ activities in post-invasion Ir~q. ·Cacherist assertion th~tFranklin was an accidental target,in the case reinforces the perception held by tho~e close to the defense of Weissman a~dRoserl that the't}Vo former AlPAG eD:lployees were the FBrs original targets. - I _. - -http;/Iwww;jewishtimes.comlNewsl4833.stm.... - -)-f ~r-OJ.&1IS·-Mfuo05 ;k ~( ~'&- National News o o Page2of5 Indeed, Franklin's in~ictmetit cites as evidence apparently tapped phone conversations ofRosen even before he met Franklin, suggesting that the government stumbled across Franklin in the course oftracking Rosen. Another source familiar with the government's case against Rosen says an investigation was launched as early as September 2001 because the Bush administration wanted to quash what it believed was a promiscuous culture ofleaking in Washington. Rosen was renowned for his access t9 inside infonnation., .Cacheris would not speculate about the government's rationale for the case. "There seems to me there is something driving it,II he said. "What it is, I don't know yet." Five ofthe six charges in Franklin's indictment focus on his relationship with Rosen and Weissman; the sixth involves his relationship with Naor Oilon, head ofthe political desk at the ~sraeli Embassy in Washington.. According t~ the indictment, Franklin's acquaintance with Oilon predates his meetings with Rosen and Weissman. Cacheris said a relationship between Gilon and Franklin - two men with a professional interestin Iran - was hardly surprising. He characterized the indictment's implication that Franklin sought some$ing from Israel in exchange for infonnation as "rather flimsy.." The indictment mentions a store gift card Franklin received from Oilon and a letter ofreference Oilon 'wrote on behalf ofFranklin's daughter, who was going to visit Israel. Franklin sought Cacheris' legal· assistance late last year after the FBI said it would press charges againsthim, even though he had cooperated with the government's investigation ofRosen and Weissman. Asked why Franklin agreed to the FBI's alleged request last June to participate in a sting operation involving Weissman and Rosen without even asking for a lawyer or any quid pro quo, Cacheris smiled.. "Larry's a little bit guileless - maybe a lot guileless - and maybe a bit unsophisticated for a guy with a Ph.D. in Asian studies," said Cacheris, a Southerner with an awncular manner and a fondness for seersucker suits. liThe questions that you would have asked, he didn't ask." tllf he had a lawyer up front, we wouldn't be talking today," Cacheris said. http://www.jewishtimes.comlNews/4833.stm 7/13/2005 National News o o Page 3 of5 In the alleged sting on July 21,2004, Franklin called Weissman and insisted that they meet as soon as possible., When they met later that day at a shopping mall, Franklin told Weissman that Iranian agents planned to imminently kidnap, torture and kill Israeli and American agents in northern Iraq, according to sources. Franklin reportedly asked Weissman to relay the information to Elliott Abrams, then the assistant national'security adviser at the White House in charge of dealing with the Middle East. The presumption was that AlPAC would have better access to the White House than a mid-level Iran analyst at the Pentagon. The reliability ofthe information has never been verified, but Cacheris insists Franklin was embroiled in a sting operation. "He was given a script,II the attorney said. Weissman relayed the information to Rosen, and together they told their boss, AIPAC's executive director Howard Kohr, asking him to pass it on to Abrams, according to multiple sources. There is no evidence that Kohr shared the infonnation with Abrams or anyone else or that he knew it was classified. The government has assured AlPAC that nei~her it nor Kohr are targets in the investigation, AlPAC has said.. Cacheris said he does not know ifthe alleged sting was directed at anyone beyond Rosen or Weissma~. The two AlPAC staffers also relayed the information to Gilon at the Israeli Embassy and to Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post's State Department correspondent, according to sources close to the defense. Those two conversations are expected to be central to the case against Rosen and Weissman.. Indictments against the two are expected to be handed down sometime this summer.. The government will "argue that relaying classified infonnation to a foreign agent is an act ofespionage and that Rosen and Weissman made it clear in their conversation with Kessler that the information was classified, according to defense sources familiar with the government's case. Weissman and Rosen will say they did not know that the information was classified and that the·government is distorting their conversation with Kessler, according to sources close to the former AIPAC officials. In ~ugust 2004, about a month after the alleged sting, FBI agents raided the offices ofRosen and Weissman atAlPAC headquarters. In http://www.jewishtimes.comlNews/4833.8tm . 7113/2005 National News o o Page 4 ofS January, the government convened a grand jury in Virginia to consider the case. Cacheris, famous for handling high-profile espionage cases including those against the FBI's Robert Hannsen and the CIA's Aldrich Ames -- doesn't believe the government has a lot to go on. The exchanges that Rosen, Weissman and Franklin allegedly had are "very comJ:llon," Cacheris said. "People in this city are talking every day about stuffthey're not allowed to talk about. It's not inappropriate." AIPAC fired Weissman and Rosen in March, after months of defending their integrity, citing infonnatio~ that ar.ose out ofthe FBI investigation. Franklin also faces charges in West Virginia, his place ofresidence, where he is alleged to have violated a ban on removing classified documents from the Virginia-Maryland-D.C.. region by taking some items home.. Franklin was reprimanded in the late 1990s for the same reason but was allowed to keep his security clearance. Cacheris said he wasn't currently negotiating a deal 'for Franklin.. "We will not plead to an espionage count because we don't think that is justified,tI he said. Cacheris did not rule out agreeing to a plea bargain on a lesser charge in the future. This story reprinted courtesy of~he Jew~sh_Telegraphic Agencv. To read more, pick.up a copy ofthe Jewish Times at one ofour newsstand ~.<?cat!ons. To purchase a subscription or send a gift subscription, fill out our .9_n~ line fo_oo. ~Talk about It In ~oforum Copyright 02003 the Baltimore Jewish Times http://Viww.jewishtimes.comlNews/4833.stm 7/13/2005 TheNation. o •.... o ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS lU~CLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/lsg Click here to return to the browser-optimized version ofthis page. This article can be found on the web at http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050801&s=rozen The Big Chill by LAURA ROZEN [posted online on July 14,2005] Achill has taken hold lately among both government officials and the US media. It comes in the wake of a US district court's decision to jail a New York Times reporter for refusing to reveal to a grand jury her sources in the Bush Administration and the FBI investigation ofa Pentagon Iran analyst for leaking classified information to former officials with the pro-Israel lobby group A.IPAC. As a result, those who engage in what have long been standard Washington practices--reporters ferreting out information from government sources, those sources confiding in policy associates, lobbyists and reporters- have become increasingly inhibited in carrying out their jobs. Even as a press frenzy surrounds a grand jury investigation ofwhether top presidential advisor Karl Rove leaked a CIA officer's identity to the press, unease in the Washington policy and journalistic communities is also evident. In the wake of Times reporter Judith Miller's jailing and in fear of government prosecution, the Cleveland Plain Dealer has decided, on the advice of its lawyers, not to publish two major articles based on ieaked government inform~ion. At a recent gathering in a suburban Maryland living room, the conversation among a handful of foreign policy experts and reporters was about the sense offear and clampdown. One government expertwas convinced office phone conversations were regularly monitored by higher-ups, and reporters noted that senior government sources, intimida(ed by the Franklin investigation, have become more tightlipped. While the Franklin!AlPAC investigation is often described as-a counterintelligence case, it too is really about government leaks, and the B~sh Administration's determination to plug them. On September 9, 2001, the New York Times published a story by then-State Department correspondent Jane Perlez, who reported a major shift in what had been the Bush Administration's rejection ofthe ClintonAdministration'sde~p engagement in trying to broker a peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians. Perlez reported that after months ofrefusing to meet with Yasir Arafat, George W. Bush would grant the o 0- Palestinianleader' his first audience with the new,US President at an upcoming UN General Assembly gathering in Ne~ York IIifprogress, were made. irihigh-ievel talks between ~he Palestinians.and the Israelis.1t That meeting between-Busli and Arafat never happened.'Two ,days after the Times story appeared, Al Qaeda terrorists c~hed planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania,·killing"ahnost' 3,'000 people. In,the aft~.l'!lla~ ofthose attacks~ few people recalled tqat for a briefmoment in the late'summer of2001, the Bush Administration had considered meeting with Ara~at and deepening its poUtic~1 involv~ment in the Israeli..Palestinian co~ict. Everyone forgot, except the FBI. According to a recent report by the Jewish,Telegraphic' Agency, it w~ that September 2001 hew~ article; based on leaks ofsensitive A4ministration deliberatiQns, that prompted then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to. demand'~ FBI leak inves_tigatio~ that has since taken on.a dramatic life ofits ~wn. Mo~t recently, the i~vestigation has led to the federal grand jury indi~tment, unsealed last ~onth' ofPentag9~Iran desk officer Larry Franklin op charges involving conspiracy to disclose classified national defense infonnation ~o unauthorized recipients! It is expected to lead to indictments, under the.Espionage Act, oftwo recently dismissed employees 9fthe American Israel Pu1?lic Affairs Committee for engaging in a conspiracy to receive and-pass on to other unauthorized-recIpients what they knew to be classified information. They are AIPAC's former director of foreign pol~cy research, ,Steve Rosen, :and his deputy, Iran specialist I{eith WeissIl:l~. Among .those the FBI reportedly wants to interview as a potential witness in its'investigation is a"Washington Postjoumalis~ who was allegedly briefed on some of. the classifie<i infomiatiQn by'the fonner .AIPAc officials--inform~tionthose. officials had allegedly received from Franklin in an FBIarranged sting. In addition, Franklin, Rosen and Weissman.are all alleged ~o have ~elayed . classified national defense infori;nation t9 an I~raeli E~bassy official. It is this latter co~ection that has raised talk-of espionage. How does ail investigation ofa leak to the n~~s media turn into an.in~ictn1ent.that alleges a conspiracy to disclose US ~ational ~ecitrity .informatiQn illegally to, among 9thers, 'a, foreign offici~l, with more indictments expected? 1?te evidence a:v~ilable in the Franklin i~dict~ent and other sources does not seem to show the intentio~ to commit espionag~ on behalfofIsrael so ~uch as the des~re to cultivate W~h~ngton alli~~~s that Franklin, ,Rosen and -Weissman considered useful i~ the promotion.9ftheir.own policy positions in the US governinent."As with most administrations, ,in the Bush Administration leaks have been employed by bureaucratic w~rriors on all sides ofthe h~ated Mideast policy debates to in{luen~~ sensitiv~ deliberatiops and_~e stabs'at ~heir oppqne~~. Itis w9rth nottng that President Bush's top politic~l,adviser, Karl Roye, has been reve~led ~ a suspect in a, federal grand jUry investigation (the same one in which Times reporter Miller has been jailed) ofthe circumstances by·.which a CIA offi~er's i,dentity was leaked to Washing~on t:eport~rs in an apparent Administratipn effort ~9 ~iscredit her husband, Joseph Wilson, a fOIn;ler diplomat critical ofthe P~sident's Iraq War policy. ------ --------- o o In interviewing several s~urces knowledgeable about the investigation, what emerges is a complex portrait ofWashington Mideast policy-making at a critical time, in the aftermath ofthe September 11 attacks, when ther~ were near-constant interagency battles over the direction ofUS policy, not just on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but toward Iran and Iranian-backed forces in Iraq as well. What also emerges is a more detailed picture ofthe modus operandi ofa brilliant and, some say, ruthless bureaucratic infighter at the country's premiere Mideast lobbying group, who was emboldened by his long relationships with figures in and around the Bush Administration and the Washington .scene to behave almost as an unofficial diplomatic entity in' his own right. The fact that that brilliant player, Steve Rosen, could become the target ofa counterintelligence investigation during this Republican Administration is rich inJrony., Several former Rosen associates describe him as a genius at political strategy and subterfuge, the Karl Rove ofJewish-American politics, who helped engineer the lobby group's shift to the right on the American political spectrum; helped broker a strategic alliance between the pro-Israel lobby and Republican far-right legislators, including Senator Jesse Helms, in the 1980s; and who marshaled his organization's resources to conduct de facto intelligence operations ofhis own. As former associates and AlPAC officials describe it, those operations were replete with enemies' lists ofjourn~listsand public figures. Rosen sent AlPAC interns as spies to take notes on the political views ofother members ofthe small world of Jewish community political activism. One former AlPAC intern told The Nation that he was sent by Rosen to Arab-American conferences disguised as a WASP-y, pro-Palestinian liberal to find out which US Congressional candidates the attending groups were supporting. Former associates recite a list ofAlPAC officials with Democratic staff~onnections on Capitol Hill who were purged from the organization in part, they allege, because of Rosen's strategic efforts to move AIPAC decisively to the right. (Sources close to Rosen say that he wasn't acting on pis own in any ofthese endeavors, but as part ofthe organization. A source close to AI;PAC downplays these activities and suggests that many ofthem ended years ago.) Rosen's "entire goal was to shift the organization away from a heavy reliance on Democrats and switch it to Republicans," says M.J. Rosenberg, director ofthe Washington office ofthe Israel Policy Forum and the former editor ofan AIPACweekly newsletter who overlapped with Rosen at the organization in the early'1980s. "Why? Because he thought, maybe correctly, that the wave ofthe future was the right wing of the Republican Party." While such alleged efforts have made Rose.n an object ofcontroversy among some more left leaning members of the politically-active Washington Jewish policy communitx, even those who are not his fans do not believe Rosen is a spy. They describe a man motivated not so much by concern for Israel as a quest for behind-the-scenes power in WashingtoJ;l. "Steve Rosen doesn't give a damn,about Israel," a Jewish community activist who requested anonymity explained. "These are game players. For them, it's all about the game." o o For Rosen, that game became focused on Iran some time ago, in the early 1990s. According to fonner AIPAC sources, the reasons included a request by then-Israe~i Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin thatAIPAC to stay out ofdelicate OS-Israel negotiations over the Mideast peace process. "From...when Rabin came in, Steve's mandate has been to go after Iran, largely because Rabin didn't want him messing around with the peace process,It says one veteran lobbyist who requested anonymity. "Steve took it and ran with it beyond anyone's expectations. So what comes out ofit is that you have a [US] Iran'policy that AIPAC is driving. And this went well into the last [Clinton] Administration. "Then along comes a new Administration that is made up ofthe same neocons that _were promoting the [hawkish] Iran policy," the veteran lobbyist continued, "but this Administration was divided down the center.... On the one hand, you have the neocons...on the other side, you have Powell and Richard Armitage and the State department [and the CIA], who want to try to open up a dialogue. One is for confrontation, and one is for dialogue.... So the neocons, the Iran hawks, know that they have got a natural ally...at other think tanks around town who feel the same way they do.... They also have AIPAC, which has made [Iran] its number-one issue.... My guess is that they went to AlPAC and the others with the same message: 'You have friends we' don't have. Help us to persuade them to see it our way.ttI Persuading political heavyweights to see things his way was what Rosen was all about. Sources tell The Nation that Rosen has a long history ofcultivating executive.branch sources [see Rozen, "Hall ofMirrors," posted here in May], milking them for information, boasting about his access to AIPAC's funder~ and leadership, and engaging in strategic press leaks as a regular part ofhis efforts to influence policy and engage in bureaucratic warfare. Indeed, the unsealed twenty-page Franklin indictment offers a fascinating peek into the government's view ofthe Pentagon analyst and the AIPAC officials cultivating one another, presumably attempting to tip the Bush Administration toward a harder line against Iran. For the AIPAC officials, Franklin--who often appears frustrated at bureaucratic obstacles to this harder line-seems to have offered grumbling and insights on the bitter interagency Iran policy debates inside the AdministratioQ..For Franklin, the AlPAC officials must have seemed like sympathetic political sophisticates, freed from the tyranny ofworking in *e govemment'bureauc~cybut with impressive influence among high-level officials in the White House and key members ofCongress. Indeed, in a fascinating reversal ofthe ordinary official-lobbyist relationship, it appears from the indictment that Franklin thought Rosen could bypass the bureaucracy and take Franklin's infonnation straight to the White House, and possibly "put in a good word for him" to get a job at the National Security Council. . But the Franklin indictment raises a key question: What exactly is the nature ofthe conspiracy the government believes it has uncovered? The kind of infonnation the AlPAC officials seemed most interested in wasn't intelligence but policy inf0t:rnation: . .t,• o o who in the bureaucracy was arguing which position on Iran, who were the obstacles to the adoption ofhard-line policies and the like. "I don't think anyone's spying for anyone,II says a Jewish community activist, no fan of Rosen's, -who asked not to be named. "Rosen is not working for Israel, because' he was working for a separate'sovereign entity [AlPAC]. Franklin just wanted to be' a policy nerd, to advocate for a policy he thought wasn't getting enough attention." But there, are seeming anomalies to this benign interpretation ofthe relationship to be found in the Franklin indictment as well. The most interesting·and surprising'part ofthe indictment describes fourteen meetings between Franklin and,an "FO" (foreign officer), widely reported to be Israeli Embassy political officer Naor Oilon. They met in;the op~en, at the Pentagon Officers' Athletic Club.and Washington-area coffee shops and restaurants, between 2002 and 2004. The last part ofthe indictment asserts that at some point Franklin disclosed to Oilon "clapsified United States government information relating to a weapon~.test conducted by a Middle Easte11l country," presumably Iran. It is hard to discount such an unauthorized disclosure to a foreign government official as an ordinary leak. Another intriguing issue: The indictment describes Franklin's returning from one ofhis meetings with Oilon in May 2003. and drafting an "Action Memo to his supervisors, incorporating suggestions made by the FO during the meeting." This suggests the FBI may be interested not only in alleged leaks ~om Franklin to unauthorized recip~ents but in the possibility ofFranklin's feeding information from those officials back into the system, in an effort to influence US policy toward Iran. This raises the question of whether tqe government thinks the nature ofthe conspiracy was not only a matter of unauthorized leaks but also a coordinated effort by Franklin and perhaps his alleged coconspirators to shape the US policy environment in a kind of agent-of-influence scenario. The US Attorn.e-y-'.s.o..f.f.ic.e.-d-e-c.l-in"e-d.-to--c-o-m....m....e..n..t on the case. t:..':.v~~--:-'--". 'V.. _ ".,...--=::::::: -= ... pw , ::--••..• -RAP "'~ 4~~..~~Ji(rNdiion -has le~ed that among the ~o~uments the FBI ~1s. hiitS possessi~ii:isa~Fn:to I -·wntten by Rosen In 1983, soon after he JOined AIPAC, to hiS then-boss descnblng hi~. J ,liaving been informed about the contents ofa classified draft of a White House positionj , .~aper concerning the Middle East and telling his boss that their inside knowledge o(iti.~ f ',4raft might enable the group to influence the final document. The significance wou!d ~~em to be an effort by the FBIto establis~ a pattern ofRosen's accessing classifi~d· .r . i '!hformation to which he was not authorized, not just from Franklin but over_tnany -Y~ars. ''':R~~'s:~~~~~~~,~ecU~eg!~q. ~9.l~~~ent .9n,th~:a~I~!!~t~n~ --- ~-:- ~.'~. ..,' .. Sa..... 1lIL_~... ~.....;::r:tC...... ,__ .... __ .. .,.:..,'" .... Stephen Green, a Vermont state legislator and former UN official who in the-1980s pursued independent scholarship critical ofIsraeli-US relatiqns including by requesting thrpugh the Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA) State Department documentation on counterintelligence probes, says the FBI's concerns about Rosen pre-date the September 2001 news leak incident. Green says in meetings with FBI investigators'last year, "I was told by investigators ~at his name has showed up in wiretaps more than '!nce over time,II o o Green told Th!! Nation. What's mort!, Green says, he believes the FBI considers Franklin only a little fish useful to getting Rosen. For,mer FBI attorney Harv~y Rishikof says that both theories, that this investigation is a~out leaking, or that it is motivated by graver counter- intelligence concerns, could be true. "They are not necessarily opposing theories,1I Rishikof told The Nation. IIIfyou are worried about counterintelligence.issues, and counterintelligelwe issues are also related to leak issues, so that individuals are using strategic leaks baSically for counterintelligence purposes, you then'link up the two threads...If you were the government, the leaks then become the method py which you are able to shut down what appears to be a counterintelligence problem." The full picture ofthe government's·case against Rosen will not emerge until an i~dictment is handed down, assuming there even is one. It is not even clear how he originally appeared on the FBI's radar screen. But ifprosecutors focus on Rosen's alleged long-term cultivation ofexecutive branch sources, who might have improperly shared with him privileged information about US national security deliberations, it's a twist on what we"understand·as a typical spy story, because such behavior, at l~ast in its unclassified form, is the very currency ofthe capital: Washington lobbyists cultivating inside sources and trading information with them to influence policy. Whether it was the FBI's intent~on or not, one result ofthe franklin!AlPAC investigation, along with the jailing ofMiller in the Wilson investigation, has been the fortressing ofthe executive branch; the danger is that this could enable t~e Bush Administration to shape policies with even less consultation from the public and Congress., ... .. .\ o ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/lsg ww w . b ~ ~ ret 1: • com. Last update - 09:42 09/08/200~ The $ilence of'the Jewish le~ders By Shmuel Rosner Last week, an indictment was issued agaiilst Steve Rosen and Keith· Weissman, two former AIPAC. employees.-They are c~arged'with passing claSsified security information, received~during their work at the Jewish lobQY, to various people, including employees ofthe Israel~ Embassy in Washington~ This charge sheet r~ises trou!,ling questions. But is this the whole ~torY?.Is·,this why Rosen-was under surveillance for six years? '. 'Commentators, reporters, legal expert~ .and va~ous organizations have already begun delving into the material. Lucy Dalglish,~ executive director· ofthe Reporters CQll)mittee for:F~eedom 'ofthe Pre~s, was.quoted in a sho~t"article in The New York Times as saying s~e was concerned ~bout-the chilling effect such an investigatipn will have on journalists. The same word was used by, Laura Rosen in T~e N'ation,-a radical left institution which cannot be accused of ip.stinctive sympathy f~r AlPAC, under '~he headlipe liThe Big Chill.II They both appear'to believe that the investigation serve~ the interests of the Bush administration, 1Vhi~h is stricter onJ~aks th.an its predecessors•. If one buys this explantion; the meaning is simple: Rosen and Weissman are the victims through ~hoin a message is being delivered. Anyone who tries to get information will have to .face.Fecieral·investigators~l;3ad news for media representatives, lobbyists an~ memqers ofresearch institutes. . They are still waiting. Jewish leaders are keeping silent·-- but not becau~e·they have nothing ,to say. On the co.ntrary, in private ,<,) -./ /-.. JLq(vJ05 GS\t...\lJ.~ ~)ll)-~ --~t -~l2: The investigation is also bad n~ws for the Jewish community. Dozens ofpeople, most ~fthem Jews, have already been questioned. rhere' were those who felt anger, particularly whel.1 asked questions such as, "Does AIPAC have dualloyalties?" or "Why do Jews actually have to act on'behalfofIsrael?" They'told their friends they were asked ' "strang~ questions." Som~ ofthem called one Jewish organization or another in order to ask, "Why-don't you say something? Why don't you make your voice heard?" ~' .. o conversations in the U.S. and'Jemsalem they have a great deal to say about the investigatiqn. For example: "The motives behind it are not pure. Even if I did not always like the organization [AlPAC], I don't ,feel comfortable with this inquiry;" or "The FBI's motives are antiSemitic. It is no coincidence that they made problems for [former ambassador to Israel] Martin Indyk because of a computer he took out ofthe office, apd [the former national security adviser] Sandy Berger about pocuments. They suspect all the Jews;" or "There is nothing to this affair. It is total nonsense. Someone decided to latch onto AIPAC to take them down a peg or two;" or "There are people who don't like the idea that an organization connected with Israel has so much Rower and influence. They anyway consiger the Jews' loyalty as questionable.. They are going to trY people for somethiJ:lg that is done . in Washington every day.." - This is how leaders on the right and left, Orthodox and Reform, heads ofcommunities and organizations put it. Dozens of conversations revealed almost identical opinions. It is amazing: In private .. conversations t)ley will talk, but in public they keep mum. No . persecution, no anti-Semitism and noexaggeratiqn. ", Jewish leaders believe that enmity toward Israel or toward Jews has made someone go crazy. But they remain quie~ because this enmity paralyses them. It leads Jews to wonder whether it is worthwhile to get involved in a public debate that will end in sensitive questionsof dual loyalty.Adepate that those who hate Israel would be happy to see and use to sow dou!>t and suspicion and to incite. The media and the Internet are already full ofstupid or b~d people who are eager to use the affair to lambast "the.JewishlIsraelilneo-Conservative lobby." Those who wish ~osen w~ll are prepared to e-mail anyone who requests it an article by Prot: Aaron Kirschenbaum, liThe Bystander's . Duty t~Rescue in Jewish Law." The charges against Rosen include using classified information in order to warn the Israeli embassy about Iranian agents who might abduct Israeli soldiers in Iraq. Is there any Jewish leader who would get informatiol) ofthis kind and keep silent? It's a difficult question. The answer cannot always be explained easily to the public. Therefore it is possible that the decision to remain silent makes sense from a tactical point ofview. Perhaps, as one ofthose who is keeping quiet told Haaretz, it is best to "let the legal au~oriti~s do their job" in the hope that the pair will be exonerated. Perhaps, as one expert lobbyist proposed, "There are tacit ways to deal with matters like this," or perhaps, "We have to wait until the facts ~e completely clear." Q Only it.wouid have ~~en tl)uch'easier tQ'beii~ve all.ofPtese explanations. ifthose ~ho:express them did..~ot already have firm opinioris apout t.he·iJivestjgation, without waiting:for ~he !'facts~' a~d without rely~ng oil !'theJegal'syst~in." Are~onable opinion, considering the fliiI!sy'nature ofthe ~harges. If I'm not mist~¢n~ ·it was law j>.rofesso~ AlaJ:l Dershowitz wlig~aid that"Jews in America are not "g~ests-in someone else's ho~se/ ·but their silenc'e about the·AIPAC· affair sometimes seems like the silence of~' guest. Even-if'ft i~ justified for'reasons o£caiit~QIi or etiquette, . even if ~t cmi be understood, it ~everlheless makes' o~e' feel- somewhat un.easY· ... ·~om€? ofthe .Jewis!l'leadets aQmit t9 this. ~ut onlY.in private.. lh,ase:n/obje~ts/pagesiPrintArticleen.jhtml~itemN~=610107 ~ . close win~~w· ..... - . - .. ... -L-.... _ ~ - •• __ ... -. ...... _ ....._n__ -. - ..... -- ---......... .... --'-''" _A_ _ .................. -. _... - - .........--. -' KRAMARSIC, BRETT M. (WF) (FBI) rI.,. Message ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS lTIJCLASSIFIED (!)TE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baW/SabJE)' Page 1 of4 8/22/2005 From: BRIDGES. TRACEY J. (WF) (FBI) Sent: Friday. August 12. 2005 8:09.AM To: PAULLlN.G. SCOTT M. (WF) (FBI); LOEFFERT. JANICE S. (WF) (FBI); ODONNELL. THOMAS J.. (NY) (FBI); PORATH. ROBERT J. (WF) (FBI); FORTIN. BRIAN G. (WF) (FBI); LURIE. ERIC S. (WF) (FBI); MARKLEY. JAMES S. (WF) (FBI); DOUGLA,S. STEPHANIE (WF) (FBI); MCDERMOTT. WILLIAM R. (WF) (FBI); KRAMARSIC. BRETT M. (WF) (FBI) Subject: FW: WpO l"iOO for you guys... Two Ex-AIPAC Staffers Indicted JewishTimes.com Ron Kampeas and Matthew E., Berger' August 11. 2005 'ALEXANDRIA, VA -- The indictment of two former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee suggests that the government wants to prove ~n extensive pattern · of trading classified information. Paul McNulty, the U.S. attorney for eastern Virginia who handed down the indictment here Aug. 4, decisiyely counted out the pro-Israel lobby as a t?rJ.. target in the inqUiry. Still, the broad scope CSf the charges -- stretching back V more years and covering a broader array of U.S. and Israeli officials than was C2~AI/ previously known _. is sure to send a chill through Washington's lobbying U' · \,~ community. The indictment charge~ Steve Rosen, AIPAC's former policy \ director,.and Keith Weissman, its former Iran analyst, with "conspiracy to communicate national defense information to people not entitled to receive it," which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. Rosen is also charged with actual communication of national defense information, also punishable by 10 years in prison. The charges against the former AIPAC staffers do not rise to the level of espionage, which the defendants and their supporters had·feared. Weis~man and Rosen are expected to appe~r in an Alexandria, Va., federal court on Aug. 16. Attorneys for Rosen and Weissman expressed confidence that they would handily beat the charges. "The charge~ in the indictment announced today are entirely unjustified,~'said a statement from Rosen's attorney, Abbe Lowell. "For 23 years, Dr. S~eveRosen ha!fbeen a passionate advocate for America's national interests in the Middle East. He regrets that the 1'4 government has moved ahead with this indictmeot but looks forward to being" G - {~D...,,\iJF- ~~6%"-JJc../ ~~ 4Ltlv1~- Message o o Page 2 of4 . vindicated at tri~I." Weissman's lawyer, John Nassikas, said he looked forward to challenging th~ charges "vigorously in court." AIPAC announced last Friday that it had hir~d former Justice Department officials who now work-for Howrey LLP, a major Washington-based 'aw firm that consults with organizations engaged in lobbying, to r~view its lobbying practices. "The conduct of Rosen and Weissman was clearly not p~rt of their job," an AIPAC official said. "However, we made a decision that the events of the last year warranted an internal review 'of policies and procedures related to information collection and dissemination." "The goal is to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again," the official said. Previously disclosed government documents have focused only on activity dating back to 2003. . . Those documents outlined interactions with only one midlevel government official, former Pentagon Iran analyst Larry Franklin, who has already b~en indicted ~in the case, and one Israeli diplomat, political officer Naor Gilon, who ended a three-ye'ar tour of duty in early August. The indictment lists charges invo·lving incidents dating-back to 1999, four years before the AIPAC staffers met Franklin. The charges are re.lated to information o~ °lran and terrorist attacks in Central Asia and Saudi Arabia that was allegedly exchanged with three U.S. government officials and three staffers at Israel's Embassy in Washington. A source close to the defense said pne of the U.S. officials involved, who has not been indicted, was rec~ntly appointed to a senior Bush administration post., The source, who asked not to be identified, wo.uld not name the official. The indictment for the first time acknowledges ttlat the 1:81 used Franklin in a sting operation against Rosen and Weissman. It includes five charges against Franklin in addition to thpse against the two former AIPAC staffers,! In indicting all three with "conspiracy to com.municate national defense inform~tion to persons not entitled to receive it," McNulty made it clear that the target was much broader: those in Washington who trade in classified information. "Those entrusted with safeguarding our nation's secrets must remain faithful to that trust," McNulty said. "Those not authorized to receive classified information must resist the temptation to acquire it, no matter what their motivation may be." The charges against the two former AIPAC staffers do not rise to the level of the crime committ~d by Jonathan Pollard, who plead guilty in 1986 to spying for Israel. Pollard plead guilty to a single count of conspiracy to ~eliver 'national defense information to aid a foreign government, which is punishable by life imprisonment. The indictment agail:Jst Ros_en and Weissman does not anywhere allege that Israeli officials ever solicited the information, nor does it say that Israel compensated them for the information. McNulty suggested he 8/22/2005 Mess~ge . O· o .Page 3 of4 1- would' argue~thafthe intent was critical. He'described Franklin, ·Ro.sen~n~ 'Weissmaf) as."individuals who put their own interests and. views of A.merican foreign policy af.lea~ of America's national security.1I Lowell, Rosen's, attorney, described the charges as a "misguided attempt to criminaliz~the ·public's right to pa.rttcipate in the politlcal·process." The ind~ctment includes' a'iaundry list of contacts Rosen and Weissman, had with U;~.governm~ntoffici~ls and Israeli Embassy officials. ,It notes that' Rosen had security clearance when he was an official at the Pentagon-allied . Rand Corporatio~ think tank in the late 1970s and early 1980s, apparently to underscore that Rosen would have known the implications of receiving classified Information. The in~ictment also ,'lists conversations 'Ro~en allegedly had with an Israeli. diplomat in 1999 ab9ut terrorist act~ in Central Asia that Rosen allege~ly described as "an extremely sensitive piece of intelligence." 'It does not name the official. Also outlined is aconversation that Weissman had in 1999 with the same official about a, 1996 attack on U.S. troops in Saudi ArabiCjl, in Yihich Weissman discu~sed what"he allegedly called a "secret .FBI, classified F_BI. report." In. 2000, the indictment alle"ges, Rosen relayed classified inform~tion from a U:S•.government official 'to' the.media. The information, according to the indic'tment, concerned U.S. sfrategy in the Mid~le East. hi 2002, Ro~en relay~d information about the terroris~ group AI·Qaida from 81l0ther ' . government official -- the official a defense source ~ays,was recently promoted to a senior gove-:-nment position •• to other AIPAC officials, the indictinent..alleges. In Mar~h 2003, Rosen and Weissman allege~ly r~~eived' classified informati~n from Franklin on U.S. policy on Iran and relayed"it to another IsraeU di~lomat. He also allegedly disclosed the information to a "senior fellow· at a Washington, D:~~, think tan~" and to the media, the indictment said. In ~uoe of the s"ame year, Franklin allegedly relayed to·Weissman 'and Rosen, classifi~d. information about Iranian activity ~n Iraq, newly occ,upied by a ~.S.:led force. By, July 2004', the indictment said, the gov.ernment,had: co-opted Franklin and used him to set up Weissman and Rosen in-a sting. In that operation, Franklin allegedly war~ed Weissman that Iranian a'gent~ planned to kidnap, torture and kill U.S. and Isra~li C!gent~ in northern·lraq. The indictment-alleges that Franklin made clear that the informa'tion was "highly classified.1I . According to well-placed sources, Weissman relayed this information to, Rosen, who relayed it to Gilon at the Israeli Embassy; Glenn Kessler, the State Departme~t correspon~,ent at The Wa~hington Post; and Howard Kohr, AIPAC's executive director, identified in the indictment as "another AIPAC employee." IYIcNulty made it cl.ear that neither AIPAC nor any .of its other. ...l_ _ ... _ ............ • 8/22/2005 Messalge o o Page 4 of4 emp~oyeeswere targets. "We have no ba.sis for charging anyone else for unlawful disclosure of classified information," he said. "And I might add also that AIPAC as an organization has expressed its concern on several occasions with the allegations against Rosen and Weissman, and, in fact, after we brought some of the evidence that we had to AIPAC's attention, it did the right thing by dismissing these two individuals." 4"l'!Ic~JH~~ !'9~ld_notcommen~.pnWJ1~tprol1)p~d_theJriitialj~~~!lg~~iQlflntQ .~ ~fi~AII?AC-.Q..ff!.cialS:Bu(~Q.~_rc~~..s~I.Q_s~:-:to~..jhe_de.f~n.sJ~_b_e.lie.v~JsraeILofficials.in) rWashington"wereDeing~monitoredJn401999.1AIPAC fired Rosen and Weissman ..this....pastApril;Eiigilfinonths after the EBI probe came to light. "AIPAC dismissed-Rosen and Weissman because they engaged in conduct that was not p·art of their jobs and because this conduct did not comport in any way with standards that AIPAC expects of its employees," spokesman Patrick Dorton told JTA on Aug. 4, repeating the group's previous position. "AIPAC could not condone or tolerate the conduct of the two employees under any circumstances. The organization does not seek, use or request anything but legallly obtained, appropriate information as part of its work." A source close to AIPAC said the group is not concerned that the indictment identifies two occasions •• in 2002 concerning the AI·Qaida information and in 2004 concerning the sting -- when Rosen allegedly shared information with AIPAC staffers. "There was no indication by Steve Rosen within AIPAC that he was" obtaining classified information, said the source, who asked not to be identified. AIPAC has already scaled back its lobbying of the executive bran.ch of government .- something the indictment pointedly notes was Rosen's expertise. Kohr, the group's executive director, has said that AIPAC is instituting changes in how it operates ~s·a rft!sult of the investigation, without providing details. Israeli officials have confirmed tQ JTA that the FBI is seeking an interview with Gilon. It is not clear if the FBI also wants to talk with the two other Israeli Embassy officials cited in the indictment; they are not named. "It's premature to comment on the substance of the affidavit since we've just received it,II an Israeli official said. "We're fu~ly confident in the professional conduct of our diplomats who fully cond~ctthemselves in accordance with diplomatic practice. We have seen no infQrmation that would suggest .anything to the contrary." The F:BI raided AIPAC's offices on Aug. 27, 2004, the first time the investigation was made public. One major question likely to come up during the trial is why the two U.S. government officials listed in the indictment as leaki~g the information are not facing trial. "They should be going after all the guys who gave the information,II said Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Soliciting classified information is hardly unusual in Washington, Hoenlein said. "Reporters do it every single day." 8/22/2005 ,\, ALL.INFORMATION CONTAINED ~ HEREIN IS mJCLASSIFIED O· \J DATE 0'7-29-2010 BY 60324 UC bS1j1/ .I1sq BEHIND THE HEADLINt;S New revelations in AIPAC case raise questions about FBI motives By Matthew E. Berger WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 (JTA)- New revelations in t.he ca'se against two former American Israel Public Affairs.Committee staffers raise questions about why FBI investigators ,have been focused on the pro-Israel lobby.. The New York Times reported Thursday that David Satterfield, the NO.2 man at the U.S. mission in Baghdad, was one of two government officials who allegedly gave classified information to Steve Rosen, AIPAC's former director of foreign 'policy issue~, but he wasn't named in the indictment handed down against Rosen and ~~ others earlier this month., Satterfield allegedly spoke with Rosen on several occasions· in 2002 - when Satterfield was th.e deputy assistant ~ecretary of state for.Near Eastern affairs - and shared classified information. At one point, Rosen allegedly relayed' the secret information in a memoranCJum to other~AIPAC staffers. Th~ fact that"Satterfield is not a t~rget of the case'and was allowed to take a s~nsitive position in Iraq has raised questions about the severity of the information allegedly given to AIPAC officials, as well a~ about the . g'overnment's motives for targeting Rosen and Keith·Weissman, a former AIPAC Iran analyst, neither of whom had classified access. rhe defendants and AIPAC supporters see the new revelations as evidence that federal pr9secutors are targeting the powerful pro-Israel lobby for simply conducting the normal Washington practice of trading sensitive information. Officials inside and outsi~e government privately acknowledge that classified information routinely changes hands among influential "people iii the foreign policy community and that the exchanges often are advantageous to diplomats. . "If, in fact, Satterfield passed on classified information. that other people should not have had, then they ~hould all be. guilty of the same thing,", said Malcolm HOEmlein, the executive vice chairman of the Gonference of f>residents of Major Americ!ln Jewish Qrganizat!ons. "The fact that Satterfield hasn't been' prosecuted suggests that's not the case." Rosen and Weissman both pleaded not gUilty Tuesday to a charge of conspiracy to communicate national ;defense information. Rosen also is charged with communicating national defense information to people not· entitled to receive it. • i Larry Franklin, aPentagon Iran analyst" has been c~arged with five similar counts, including conspi~acy to communicate classified information to a. foreign agent. Franklin, who also pleaded,not guilty, is accuse~,of passing. classified information to Rosen and Weissman from 2002 through last year~. Observers say the case is likely to create a chill among.lobbyists and others \ o who seek to gamer foreign-policy information from the government. o The second U.S. government official, who allegedly met with Rosen and Weissman in 2000, remains anonymous but reportedly has left government service. Their identification is seen as central to the government's case that the AIPAC staffers followed a pattern of seeking classified information and disseminating it to journalists and officials at the Israeli Embassy in Washington. A spokeswoman for Paul· McNUlty, the.U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, would not qomment. Attorneys for Rosen and Weissman, who are collaborating on their defense, will likely use the same information to show that sharing documents and other information was normal practice between government officials and AIPAC. Leaders of other pro-Israel groups say State Department and other government aides handling the Middle East portfolio frequently share information. "When we discuss issues, it's an exchange. It's not one-sided." Hoenlein said. "What people forget is they benefit from these exchanges too" because they learn things from us." Those who have worked with Rosen say a,large part of his task was capturing sensitive material and that numerous government officials aided his pursuits over the years. (Tom·l?~ne;:(fC?~~e~~~if~~:.-~~e2~t!~.~re~!<!~ s~fC(~~t~~lt~~~~~!~i~~~fi~-~ ,-J98~,-rp_~Ql? ~tlortly after)Jo~l!lOg:th~~ro~lsrae~ lobby~ tie- [ecelv~d ,a_j ~classifi~d:revj(ivtotU&S~.policY.in.the:Middle.East;.J Dine, who recently left his post as president of Radio Free Europe to head the San Francisco Jewish federation, told the New York Jewish Week that he was shown the document by FBI investigators. "Everybody knew that Steve was quite capable of luring important information. which was exceedingly useful to the mission of the office,'''said Neal Sher, another former AIPAC executive director. "It was understood by the people in the organization, both professional and lay.... But they say Rosen's work mirrored what was being done throughout Washington. "The trafficking in sensitive information. some of which might have been classified, is the norm·in many instances," said Sheri a former federal prosecutor. "While ~ don't recall ever being specifically told that info they passed on to me was classified, I would not have been shocked if that was done." A spok~sman for AIPAC denied any wrongdoing by the organization. "AIPAC does not seek, use or request anything but legally obtained information as part of its work; Patrick Dorton said. "All AIPAC employees {'," ,~'. are ~xpect~d and requir~d to up,hold'this stand~ud."· Satterfl,eld is not co'n'sidereda subject of the government's probe, alJd 'he reporte~ly was cleare,d,by, th~'Jus,tice Department for his Iraq po~t. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said he could not comment ,.o.n an'ongoi~g inv~s~igati6n. " . MI will say, though, that David:Satterfield is an outstanding public servant, he is a ~istinguished'Foreign Se'ryic;e officer and ~iplomat, and tha~ he.t1as w~rked on behalf of the American people fota"~4mber of years," McCormack said Tl1u~sday. . ~ State Departm~nt official said i,t was withiJ:tSatte~eld's portfolio to work 'with poli~y'groups'such ~s AlpAC. As.the.deputy assistant secretaryJor Near 'l;astern aff~irs, Satterjield led the State pep~rtmEmt group. de~l!ng with t~~· l~raeli·Palestinian conflict, as.well as other regional issues on AIPAC;s ' a~e~~a~ ., , '. Mit wasn't ou(of the'normal,at all:tor adep'utY assistant secretary, as he was, to ~e meeting with AlpAC on a regUlar ba~i~,1J saiCt the offi~i~I, who spoke on coraditionof anonymity. "Our offiqe trie~ to meet wit~'inter~sted people of all '~ro~ps, an~ it's su~posed to be.~1i in~orma!i(;mal.exchange." \. _ ._ ~.fIr ~ '._~ _ _ _ .... _ ...... --- c: , • .. .' ~MIDtItrIat~Y-11mI:ls I:.awrenee A. Franklin, center, with his lawyers, Plato ~c:heris,left, andJohn Hundleyin .Alexan,~va. alit~ r admitting yesterday that hehadpassed secret information 10pro--Israeli lobbyists and -.Israe=li~fficiai. ~ ... • . .~ I ·Pentag()n AnalystAdmitsSharingSeeretData ). . r 7 i By ERIC LICHTBLAU trat1oD's dealingswith Iran.. tivlties In Iraq ~doth~rtssues. • : ALEXANDRIA, Va., Oct. 5 - A Someof the morebawklshofficials' Mr; Frank~ said!Ieassumed that *nior Defense Department aJJalyst ID theadmlnlstratlon have pushed such ~dblts \\tere lilireatdy knoWD to ~dmltted Wednesday .that ,he sbared for a barder line In confronting lrm Israe~and he ~ld that the Israeli of. secret military Information wld1 two about its nuclear ambitions, but the flclal gave Il\~far mco~ information gra-Israell lobbyists and an Israeli ~mlnlstration has been deeplyen- than I gavehltll.!' dfflcialln an effort to create a""ack. Vlded about how to -engage with the Prosecutors said Mr. FrankllB channel" to the Bush administration • country. knew that th~ classtm~ information on Middle Eastpolley. Mr. Franklin worked for a time as he shared "cc)uld be \lSf:d to the inju.- : The analyst, Lawrence A. Frank· a senior analyst on Iran under Doug. ry of the Untted Stalte$ or to the ad- • lin, pleaded guilty In federal court las Feith. a former under se~retary vantage of aforeign. nation.... But Mr. Jiere to three criminal cOunts for 1m.. at the Pentagon. Mr. Franklin said D1 Franklin Sald, flit wra$ never my inp'r0P. erly retaining and disclosing court that he believed the Alpac lo~ tent to harm the Uniteet States"" clas$ified information, :and he gave byfsts had ac¢e~ and influence at He said !\e did IliOt even consider the first account of his. motives and the National Security Counell, which one of the clocuments cited by pros.. thinking in establishing secret Uai- coordinates policy_ Issues for the ecutors to have·been classlfled but sOns with people outside the govern- president and was deeply involved in when he started to discuss the docu. ll1ellt. - setting the administration's course ment In o~n court - referring to a I The offenses carry a maximum of on Iran. :. one-page tax witb t\ "list of mur.. i; years In prison, but as part of a He said he hoped the lobbyists ders," aPparently in Iran - lawyers pies' agreement, prosecutors are ex- could help Influence polley by pass- from both Sides jumPed up to cuthim pected_to recommend leniency for lng on information that he knew was off. The jUdge, T. S. Ellis agreed at Mr.-Franklin in return for his (ooper· classified. "I asked th.em to use theIr the ur~1ng of proseeutor; to put Mr. ation in a continuing investigation In contacts to g.et thIS lnfor~atlon Franklm's reference to the list under • the January trial of the two lobbyists.· backchannels' to people at the sealln the court record. Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weiss:.. N.S.C.:'hesaid. Mr. FrlUlklln will lose his govern. man. . Mr. Franklin was also applying for ment penSion, but his wife will be ala The lobbyists were dismissed last a position at the N.S.C. in early 2003 lowed to keep her surVivor'S benefits year by the American ISn:lel Public:: and asked Mr. Rosen to "put in a from the government in the deal off,.. Affairs Committee. 'or Aipac, arter good word" for him, according to a elals said. ' the investigation becamepublic. filing on Wednesday by proseOltors Mr. Franklin bas been financially Mr. Franklin, 58. 'said in enterlng as part of the plea agreement. Mr. struggling since his arrest last year his guilty pleas that he had shared Rosen sai~, "Til see what I can do." and he told the Court he bas bee~ with the lobbyists Umy frustrations In addition to his contacts \\i.tb the working as a waiter and bartender at ~ with a particular policy'· during re- lo~byists. Mr. Franklin admitted a pUb, and as a Vtdet at a racetrack peated meetings from 2.002 to 2004. mteting Wilh an official with the Is- and has also been teaching course: He did not divulge the particular pol- raeH Embassy and passing oJ). classi-. on Asian history and terrorism a icy. but officials i.n the case,said he tied information regarding weapons Shepherd University near his hom was referring to the Bl1Sh admi!lis- .teslS in the Middle East, militar,Y ae'!. in West Virginia. 'j lSJ ~lJJ -ac ~e, err. elf. 811 10 su~ i, -P I THE WASHINGTON POST ALL INFonMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/1sg Ii NATIONAL NEWS: I~~~~~:f'~~~~~~~ , Defense An~yst Guilty in IsraeliEspion~eCase-, .eel the Oct: ,9 1 the Denver 101 foolbaU box Oct. 1:Sporls eelly identified Park ~Id=, ted'three eXtra ,eams 21-7 Vie> rar-Field. His Pu!dy.. Irticleaboutan 1 Isllinbul, del1' om there· in specify the nathe ~ctims. were of Gieelc they 3]80'; in~ ic Armenians I~'marly ~ ns ' " t -. i Metro article ~ coming. to )J' the Sept.'24 . 1 against the scribedPaltice ~ Olathe, Kan., otesler. Cuddy lled in. three lies aglinstthe Qbington and 1fIc:' I errors that , tactlngtM , =ion.f@ , iOOO,'and ask • 'ForeIgn, ., Iysections. In '582. BYJElUl.YMumN' eralinvestiption. Washinp" Po8C StaJfWrittr Legal expeitS ca1ted the plea a major develo~t ili the long-r:unning A Defense Department analyst iJM;9tigaliolfOf.whether U.s.'secrets pl~~ed guilty~tQ passing were pasSeditO the Istaeli governgovernment secrets to two employees nient. FrankliD. said he disclosed da&.. • of aprooIsraellobbying group and reo sifted data to two fonner employeesof vealed for· the first lime that he also the American, Israel Public Affairs gave classified infonnation direclIy to Committee. Those empIoyees: Steven· anlsraeligovernmentofficialinWash- J, Rosen and·:Keith WeisSman, have , ington. beenclwged,inwhatprosecutorssaid . Lawrence A. Franklin ,told a judge was a broad conspiracY to obtain and in u.s. District Court in Alexandria i1legaIIy pass:"c1assified infonnation to tliat he met at least eight limes with foreign offi~ and newsreporters. Naor Giloo,'who was the Political ofti.. Franklin· probably wiD become the . eel' at the IsraeU Embassy before be- ..,-.cu.-IMI_rost star witness ag2instRosen and Wei8&- ing reca1Ied last swnmer. Lawrence Fraillelln, left, with attorney man. "'Ibis is not good news for the The guilty plea and Fran1din's Ie> ~ohn Richards; after pleading guilty to other defendants or for AIPAC~"-said count appeired to cast doubt on lOng." glvl~g classified Informallon to israeL Michael GreeDberger, a: former 111&0 stanepng denials bY IsraeH officials tice ~t official who heads that they engage in any intelligence Franklinentered his plea, he disclosed' the Center'fciHealth and Homeland activities in" the United States. The that some of the material he gave the SeCurity at t& University of,MarypOSst'biJity of continued Israeli spying lobbyistsie1ated toIran. Hisattorneys 'land.:" , in 'Washington has been a sensitive stopped him from speaking furtheI; -' Prosecutors have said they have no subject between the tWogovernments' and prosecutors immediately accused .immediate plaDs to ;charge anyone \ since Jonathan J. Pollard, aUS. Navy Franklin of revealing classified in- else, but Franklin's cooperati~ could intelligence analyst; ~tted to spy- fonnation in court.. . change that, said Preston Burlo~ a ing for Israel in'1987 and was sen- Franklin said, he .passed the in- Washington defense 1aw)oerwith long tenced to life in prisOn. fonnation becausehe was "frustrated" experience inespionage cases. " ~ David Siegel, a spokesman for the with the direction of US. poliCy and' "Espionage debtiefings are exhaua- Israeli Embassy, said Israeli ,officials th~t he could influence it by hay.. live and meticulous: 'said Burton, have been approached by US; in-" ing'themrelaythedatathrough"back whoisafonner lawpartnerofaFrankvestiptors and are cooperating. "We channels" to officials on the,National lin attorney, Plato Cacheris, but isnot have fun confidence in our diplomats, • Security'Council Hesaid he never in- involVedin theFranklin case. who 'are dedicated professionals"who tended to hann. the United- States, AlsO uncertain is how yesterday's conduct themselves in fun accordance "notevenforasecond," andthathe reo developmentswill affect U.s. tieswith with estabUshed diplomatic prae> ceived far more information from Gi- Israel, The ~has complicated relatices," Siegelsaid.' Ion than he'gave.."1 knew inmyheart tiona between the two counbies: Court documents filed along with that his govenunent already had the' wJiich are' close aBies, and angered Franklin's pleasaid heprovided,~ informatiOD," he said. 'manysupporlersofthe AmericanISrafied data - including infonnation . Franklin. 58, a~on Iran, elcommittee.whichis considered one about a Middle Eastem·eountry's Ie> pleaded guilty to twO conspiracy of Washington's JqOSt iDfluentiiJ.lob- ' tivities in lJaqand weapons tests con- ,coUnts and a third charge"of P9S8«t' byingorganizations. dueled by a foreign countty - to an sing classified documents: As part,of; " . GiIOnis a career Israelif~ set'- W1JIa111ed"foreign officia1." the plea a;reement, ,Franklin has' vice offiCer who spent three years in The countrywas not named, but as agreed to cooperate'in the larger fed-' Washinitonfocusingonweapons pro- Iiferation issues. His, recaD to Israel Was Unrelated to the investigation: Siegel said, and he is awaiting a neW foreign posting. ·One of Rosen's a~eys, AbbQ LoweD, said Fr3nk1in's plea "has nQ impact on our case because agoverni ment employee's actions in dealing with classified information is simpbt not the same as a pri~te person, whether that person is a reporter or a ~~~" I Rosen, 63, of Silver Spring, is charged with twocounts related to un-: lawful disclosure of national delenlM= inforination obtained from Frank1in andother unidentified government officials since 1999 on topics incIumng .Iran. Saudi Arabia' and at Qaeda. Rosen was the American Israel commit~ 'tee's director offo. policy issuQ and was iristnimeri.ta1 in making th~ committee a fonnidable politic3l force. ' weissman. 53. of, Bethesda, faces one count 'of ~cy to illega1lx communicate national defense infort matiGn. His attorneys did not return calls late last night. American Israel· Public Affaita Committee officials det dinedcomment. ! Franklin pleaded guilty.to two coun~ of conSPiring to communicalc: secret infonnation and a third Chargtt of keeping numerous classified documents at his West VIrginia home. H~ said he took the documents home to ,keep up hiS expertise and prepare for "point..,1aDkquestiona" from his~ es",including Defense secretary Don; aIdH. Rwrisfeld. 1 1heDefense Department suspend, ed Pran1din, who said in court that he .works as a waiter and bartender and at a racetraclc. He faces up to 25 years in prison at his sentencingIan, 20. . I o ·0. O · ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED '0-~ HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED - DATE 07-29-2010 BY 603~4 uc baw/sab/lsg Kramarsic, Brett M. From: Strzok, Reter P. II Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 7:48 A"" To: Porath, Robert J.; Kramarsic, Brett M. Did you see this 0!1 JTA? Need to start calling-Reilly "That's Classifjed!" instead. Fonner Pentagon man pleads guilty, will testify against ex-AlPAC officials By Ron Kampeas ~~f'ANDRIA, Va., Oct 6 (JTA) - Lawrence Franklin's pleabargain p~edge to cooperate with the U.S. government in its case against two former AIPAC officials was"put to the test as soon as itwas made. "It was unclassified and it is unclassified," Franklin,'a former Pentagon analyst, in~isted in court Wednesday, describing a document that the government maintains is classified. The document is central to one of the conspiracy charges against Steve Rosen, the fonner foreign policy chiefofthe American Israel Public Affairs Committee.. Guilty p~eas usually are remorseful, sedate ~airs. But Franklin appeared defiant and agitated Wednesday.as he pleaded guilty as part ofa deal that may leave him with a reduced sentence and part ofhis government pension. Franklin's prickliness c,ould prove another setback for the U.S., gove~ment in a case that the presiding judge already has suggested could be dismissed because of questions about access to evidence.. Franklin',s performance unsettled prosecutors, who will-attempt to prove that Rosen and Keith WeJssman, AIPAC's former Iran analyst, conspired with Franklin to communicate secret information. The case goes to trial Jan. 2. The argument over tlie faxed document furnished the most dramatic en~unterWednesday~ "It was a list ofmurders," Franklin began to explain to U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis when Thomas Reilly, a youthful, red-headed lawyer from the Justice Department, leapt from his seat, shouting, "Your Honor, that's classified!" ·Ellis agreed to seal that portion ofthe hearing. JTA has learned that the fax was a list ofterrorist incidents believed to have been backed by Iran.. - -I0/11/2005 .." P~ge 1 of~' G9Q.....\i)f- '9aG~\5'-Alei~~~ ,.-?~~ .. '\l o There were other elements ofFranklin's plea that suggest-he is not ready to cooperate to th~ fullest extent. The governn:te~t says Franklin leaked information to the AlPAC employe~s because he thought it could advance his career, but franklin says his motivation was "frustration with policy" on Iran at the Pentagon.. o Page20f4 Franklin said he believed Rosen and Weissman were better connected than he and would be able to relay his concerns to officials at the White House'sNational Security Council. He did not explicitly mention in court that Iran was his concern. But ITA has learned that Franklin thought his superiors a~ the Pentagon were overly distracted by the Iraq war in 2003 - when he established contact with Rosen and Weissman - and weren't paying enough attentio~ to Iran. The penal code criminalizes relaying,information that "could be used tothe injury ofthe United States or to the advantage ofany foreign nation.." Franklin's testimony would not be much use to the prosecution if he believed Rosen and Weissman simply were relaying information from the Pentagon to the White House, sources close to the defense of Rosen and Weissman said. "I was convinced they would relay this information back-channel to friends on the NSC," he said. In any case, the section ofthe penal code that deals with civilians who obtain and relay classified information rarely, if ever, has been used in a prosecution, partly because it lUDS up against First Amendment protections for journalists and lobbyists, who frequently deal with secrets. . Aspokesman for Abbe Lowell, Rosen's lawyer, said Franklin's guilty plea "has no impact on our case because a government employee's actions in dealing with classified-information is simply riot the same as a private person, whether that person is ~ reporter or a lobbyist." The essence. of,Franklin?s guilty pl~a seemed to ~e only that he knew the recipients were unauthorized to receive the infonnation. Beyond , that, he insisted, he had no criminal intent. Admitting guilt to another charge, relaying information.t9 Naor Oilon, the chief political officer at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, Franklin said that he wasn't giving away anything that the Israeli didn't already know.. "I knew in my heart tl,at his government had this i~fonnation," Franklin said. "He gave me far more infonnation than I gave him." Franklin turned prosecutors' heads when he named Gilon, the first 1011112005 - 'jI >J • o 0 public conflnnatlon that the foreign countrY hi~ted at in in~ictments is Israel. Indictments refer to a "foreign official." -The suggestion'that Franklin was mining Oilon for information;1 and not the other way around, turns on its head the hype around the case when it first was revealed in late August 2004, after the FBI raided AIPAC's offices. At the time, CBS desciibed Franklin, as an "Israeli spy." Asked about his clien~' s outburs~ Franklin~s lawyer, Plato Cacheris, said only that it was "gratuitous." , . But Franklin's claim reinforced an argument put forward by Israelthat Oilon was not soliciting anythi!1g untoward in the eight or nine meetings he had with Franklin beginning in 2002., "We have full confidence in our diplomats, Who are dedicated professionals and conduct themselves in accordance with established diplomatic practice," said David Siegel, an embassy spokesman. "Israel is a close ally ofthe l.lnited States, and we exchange information on a formalized ,baSis on these issues. There would be no reason for any wron~doing on the part ofour ~iplomats .." I Franklin also p~eaded guilty to removing classified docum~~ts from the ~uthoriz~d area, which encompasses Maryland, Virginia and' Washington, when he brought material to his home in West Virginia. He sC?unded.another defeQsive note in explaining the circumstances: He brought the material home on June 30, 2004, .he said, to bone up for the sort oftough questions he Qften fac;e4 from Defense Secre~ Donald Rumsfeld and Ru~sfeld's then-~eputy, Paul Wolfowitz. Franklin, who has five children and an ill wife, said he is in dire circumstances, parking cars at a horse-race track, waiting tables and tending bar t~) make ends meet. Keeping part ofhis government pension for his Wife was key to Franklin's agreement to plead guiltY, Cacheris told ITA. Frankl~n ple~ded guilty to $ree different charges, one I!aving to. do with his alleged dealings with the fonner AIPAC offiCials; one having to dq with Oilon; and,one for taking classifie~ documents home.. .The language ofthe plea agreement s~ggests that the government will argue f9r a soft sentence, agreeing to Franklin's preferred minimumsecurity faci~ity and allowing for, concurrent sentencing. But itconditions iis recommendatio!1s'~n Franklin being "reasonably available for debriefing and pre-trial conferences." . The prosecution aSked for sentencing to be PostpoI;led until Jan. 20, . _more th~ two wee~s' ~fter the trial against Rose~ and Weissman ' - > 10/l1/2005· Page 30[4 ,0 i begins, 'suggesting that gov~rnment leniency w~ll be proportional to Franklin's performance. Franklin is a star witness, but be's not all the g9vernment bas up its sleeve. The charges against Rosen and Weissman, apparently based on wiretapped conversations, allege that the two former AIPAC staffers shared classified information with fellow AlPAC staffers, the media and foreign government officials. Two other U.S~ go-v,emment officials who allegedly supplied Rosen and Weissman with information have not been ~~arged. They are David Satterfield, then deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs and now the No.. 2 man at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, and Kenneth Pollack, a Clinton-era National Security Council staffer who is.now an analyst at tbe Brookings Institution.. The problem with the wiretap evidence lies in the government's refusaI to share much ofit or even to say exactly how much it bas.. In a recent filing, the government said that even the qqantity ofthe material should remain classified.. In a Sept. 19 hearing, Ellis suggested to prosecutor Kevin DiGregori that his (ailure to share the defendants' wiretapped conversations with the defense team could lead to the case being dismissed. '~I am having a hard time, Mr.. DiGregori, getting over the fact that the defendants can't hear their own statements, and whether that is so ' fun<lamental that if it doesn't happen, this case wilfhav€? to be dismissed,u Ellis said. DiGregori said the government might indeed prefer to see the case dismissed rather than tum over the material.. AlpAC fired Rosen and Weissman in April but is paying for their defense because of provisions in its bylaws.. AlPAC bad no comment, nor did lawye~ for Weissman.. 10111/2005 o Page 4 of4 ALL INFOP.HATION CONTAINED tr\HEREIN IS mrCLASSIFIED ~ \ ~DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/s~sg ~ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiL-__""'-- _ """';F=-w--:";';[F=-w..oo:d~:_L:-e--x-:-is':":N:""""ex-:is~(~R~>'E=-m-a-:i~1R=-e-q-ue-s-:-t~(":"::18::::2:-=2-::::6~59~1:-::3=75:::7~)]=----------1.. (Ia I hridalt 'lallban5 2005 11"33 AM Subject: From: Sent: To: Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld b6 b7C b7E -----Original Message----Fr01. I To: . Sent-:--=S-at~.~O=-c-:'t-. "::'1"'='5--:::-08~:3~4:-:-=5~4~20~0=-:5=--------- Subject: [Fwd: LexisNexis(R) Email Request ~1822:65913757}) Copyright 2005 The New Republic, LLC The New Republic October 10, 2005 S~CTION: Pg-. 13 LENGTH: 2968 words HEAD~INE: Low Clearance BYLINE: by e~i lake HIGHLIGHT: Troub~e tor journalists. BODY: Eli Lake is a reporter for The New York Sun. In January '2006, a court in Northern Virginia w~ll hear a case in which, for the first time, the federal government has charged two pr~vate citizens with leaking state secrets. CBS News first reported the highly classif~ed investigation that led to this prosecution on the eve of the Republican National Convention. on August 27" 2004, Lesley Stahl told her viewers, that" in a II full-fledged espionage invest,j.gation," the FBI would soon ";'011 up" a "suspected mole" who had funneled Pentagon policy deliberations concerning I~an to Israel. At-the heart of the probe, CBS said, was one of Washington's most powerful lobbying g~oups, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (aipac). With~n th~ee days, the lobbyists involved were ,j.dentified as aipac's directo~ of ,foreign policy, Steve Rosen, andap Iran specialist named Keith Weissman; the mole was outed as Lawrence Franklin, an Iran analyst-at the Detense Pep~rtment. But weeks and then months passed, and the~e were no arrests. Franklin, after initially ~ being put on leave (and taking a job parking ca~s at a nearby restaurant), returned \Q b~ief~y to his desk at the Pentagon; and, unti~ April, Rosen and Weissman were still :~~ writing memos, meeting journalists and government officials, and going about their daily \~~. business at aipac. When the indictments from the federal government finally came down this summer, none ot these men were charged with spying. ~\~ ~nstead, all t~hree were indicted for conspiring "to communicate national defense . /~t' informat~on ... (to] persons not entitled to receive it. II To t_he lay reader, that. may '1 '\ simply sound like espionage-lite. After all, some of ~he people not entitled to receive 1 0SQ,\))~- g.g.G~\5-~c... <e'L~~ \ ~ the national defense informJ::ln in this case were ISraeli d~rnats. But, in fact, a Q prosecution of this kind is unprecedented~ Far from alleging the two aipac o!ficials were foreign agents, u.s. Attorney Paul McNulty is contending that the lobbyists are legally no different than the government officials they lobbied, holding Rosen and Weissman to the same rules ~or protecting $ecrets as Franklin or any other bureaucrat with a security clearance. The indictment even says that, because Rosen long ago held a security clearance wben he worked as an analyst for the rand Corporation, he was duty-bound to protect any classified information be came across after the clearance expired--on JUly 6, 1982. "steve Rosen and Keith Weissman repeatedly sought and received sensitive information, both classified and unclassified, and then passed i~ on to others in order to advance their policy agenda and professional standing," the u.s. attorney said at a press conference announcing th~ indictment. aut, if itls illegal for Rosen and Weissman to seek and receive "classified ,informat.ion, It t.hen many invE}stigative journalists a~e also .crimi.nals--not. to mention ~ormer government. officials who w~ite for scholarly journals or t.he scor;es of men and women who petition the federal government on defense' and foreign policy. In fact, the leaking o~ classified information is routipe in Washington, where such data is traded as a kind of currency. And, while most administrations have tried to crack down on leaks; they have almost always shied away from going after those who rece~ve tbem--until now. At a time when a growing amount o~ information is being classified, the pr;osecution of Rosen and Weissman-threatens to have a cbilling effect-~not on the ability of fore~gn agents to ~n~luence U.S. policy, but on the ability of the American public to understand it. Since tbe inception of tbe national security state, tbe ~ntelligence commun~ty has worried that ou~ free press is a security risk. In an ~nterview in 1954 with U.S. News and World Report, under the headline "we tell the russians too much," CIA Director Allen Dulles remarked, fIr would give a good deal if I could know as much about the Soviet Union as the Soviet Union can lear;n about us merely by reading the p~ess." Nonetheless, the federal governmen~ has tradit~onally resp~cted an implicit First Amendment right of publishers and private citizens to determine the public's right to know about national security~ Without journalists' ability to disclose secret information, the executive branch would be the sole' arbiter of what information the public could have about its government's foreign policy. . And, when the public. j.,s kept. ,in the aa~k, it! s hard to combat excesses. For example, it.' s unlikely tbat the Pentagon would have taken steps to correct abuses in its detention facilities had "60 Minutes II" not obtained photographs of naked prisoners stacked in a pyramid at Abu Ghraib. Had u.s. law been similar to the British Official Secrets Act, which gives 10 Downing Street the autbority to prosecute journalists fo~ disclosing classified materia~, itls unlikely the pUblic. would know about the network of contractors responsible .for t,be rendition of terrorists to nations t.bat.. tor~ure prisoners or the internal debates within the Bush administration ~egarding the application of the Geneva Convention. To be sure, the~e are cases in which the press could do great harm to national security, sucn as publishing the details of how we keep $u~ve~llance on our enemies. But, as any reporter who cove~s these matters will tell you, most of the timejou~nalists negotiate an agreement.--without. the threat of prosecu~ion--on how to report. $ensitive material in a way that minimizes harm to intelligence-gathering and military operations. "We've al~ held back information when a responsible government official makes a compelling case that it.'.s 90in9 to cause some damage," says Newsweek reporte~ Michael Isikoff.' And, wbile every administration has ~ade internal efforts to go afte~ leakers, criminal prosecutions have been extremely rare~ In the two major anti-leaking cases invo~ving classified secrets brought in the last 35 years, both leaker~ were prosecuted for slipping government proper;ty to reporters. In the case of Daniel Ellsberg, it was a classified history of the deliberations of three adm~nistrations regarding Vietnam known as the Pentagon Papers; jn the case of Samuel Mo~ison (the only succes$ful ant~-~eaking prosecution)" it was classified aerial photograph$ of a Soviet. naval aircraft carrier, which he provided to Jane's Defence Weekly. No one has ever been prosecuted--as Rosen and Weissman currently are--tor conveying national security info~mation orally, with no documents involved. - Steve Pomerantz, the former chief of counterterrortsm fo~ the FBI, says that his division--which, in the early I~OS, also investigated classified disclosure cases--never got very !ar in their inve$tigations. "I! you look at this as a conspiracy, then there are two part.ies:, t.he le~ker and the reporter," he says. 2 '. I "As a matter of practice, wJC:lver wen~ near the reporters'''<:)ustom ~hat Pomerantz q contends m~de .it. nearly impossible to catch the leakers. III never remember .in my time a successful prosecution of a leak case," ~e says. But, ~n recent years, there has been mounting pressure from both federal officials and Congress to end this custom. The reason is articles like one pUblished by The Washington Times on August 21, 1998. The story was a profile of Osama bin Laden, following President Clinton's missile strikes on the Al Shita chemicals factory in Khartoum and a training compound in Afghanistan. Near the bottom of the dispatch, reporter Martin Sieff wrote that bin Laden IIkeeps in touch with the world- via computers and satellite phones. II Th.is may sound like an innocuous detail, but, according to the 9/11 Commission' Report, Al Qaeda1s leadership stopped using thei~ satellite phones almost immediately after the sto~y was published, thus eliminating the possibility of us.ing satellite signals to ~ocate and assassinate them. As forme~ Clinton National Security Council officials steve Simon and Daniel Benjamin wrote in thei~ book, The Age of Sacred 1e~ror, IIWhen bin Laden stopped using the phone and let his aides do the calling, the United states lost its b~st change to fi.nd him. II Troubled by t.he Times report. and ot.her similar incidents, Senator Richard Shelby attempted to change the nation1s espionage laws in 4000, when he was the chairman of the Senate Select. Committee on Intelligence., Shelby wanted to expand the category of lI.national. defense informationII to include anything from classified diplomatic discussions to more technical ~ntelligence. President Clinton vetoed the original version of the Intelligence Authorization Act in order to block tbe Sbelby proposal. Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said at. t.he time that. the Shelby measure would be IIdisastrous for journalists. II The .next year, with a new administration in the White House, Shelby again tried to change the espionage law, but eventually dropped the idea after ~ttorney General Jobn Ashcroft promised, as he put. .it i..n a letter to Congress on October 15, 2002, to· review t.he IIcurrent. protections against. t.he unauthorized disclosu~e of classified mater~al.1I It. is from this review that the seeds ot the Rosen and We~ssman indictment were $own. Beginn~ng in 2001, after the September 11 attacks, a group of top intelligence professionals began examining the legal authority to go after leakers. The review, commissioned by Ashcroft, ultimately concluded that, the current espionage law was adequate. But,'at the same time, Ashcroft implemented a policy of aggressively target~ng anonymous sources who show up in newspapers tout~ng national secrets. As he wrote to . Congress in 2002, the fact IIthat only a single non~espionage case of an unauthorized disclosure of classified ,i.nfox:mation has been prosecuted in over .50 years provides co~pelling justif~cation that. ~undamenta~ improvements a~e necessary and we must entertain new approaches to deter, identify, and pun~sh those who engage in the practice of unaut.horized di$closures of classified ,information." Ironical~y, Shelby himself was among the first. snared in the Just~ce Depart.ment's new anti-leaking dragnet. In the summer of 2004, the FBI recommended that the Senate Ethics Commit.tee investigate Shelby for leaking two Nationa! Security Agency (NSA) intercepts received befo~e the Septembe~ 11 attacks to ro~ News and CNN in 2002. These were t.he famous messages t.hat. warned" liThe match begins tomorrow" and "Tomorrow is zero hour." But. the senator from Alabama was not tbe only one. According to a government source, the Pentagon1s National Criminal Investigative divis.j.on began probes in 2002--with FBI guidance--to determine who leaked secret war plans to The New York Times and The Washington Post in June 2002. At. the State Department, diplomatic. security launched an investigation into David Wurmser, an aide to John Bolton, for leaking a letter from Secretary of State Colin Powell to t.he Pentagon objecting to the Syria .Accountability Act. The lette~ ended up being t.he basis for a story in The Jerusalem Post. And the White House knows all too well the problems it faces from spec~al prosecutor ~atrick Fitzgera1d, who has yet to bring charges against the off~cial who told journalist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame was a CIA office~. Fitzgerald has already sent New York Times reporter Judith Miller to jail for not. revealing he~ source for a story about.Plame t.hat she never ended up writing'- But McNultyls nove~ prosecution of Rosen and Weissman in many ways provides the legal test case for Ashcroft.'s new get-tough policy. From the indictment, ~t. appears that. t.he two aipac. officials came to the attention of the fBI at least as far back as 1999, wh~n both lobbyists showed up in ~nte~cepted phone conversat~ons and meetings with .Israeli embassy officials. ' The FBI has never said pUblicly why it began monitoring the 10bby~stsl act~v~ties, but the reason may have to do with the hunt to~ an Israeli sPY code-named 3 And, al;guably, the ,abilit;y of the press to ,seek out. and publish classified information is more important. now than ever before. Last. year, t.he National Archives Information Security Oversight Office, which tracks the prolifera~ion of classified information, said that government'agen~ies reported lS,64~,237 decisions to classify material, a 10 percen~ increase from the yea~ before. I~'s hard to believe that ~he Justice Departmen~ or the FBI can or should protect that many secrets. There are .those who argue tha; t~e war o~ terroris~ pecessitates more secrecy than past 4 ~ conflicts. Representative pe<::>>>oekstra, the chai~an of the C:>se Select Committee on ~ Intelligence, says he is so concerned about recent leaks that he plans to hold hearings, beginning thls month, on whethe~ ~~IS necessary to revise the espionage statute to give the Justice Department mo~e authority to prosecute leakers. 'But Hoek$tra also ~ants' to revise t_he way information is classified to curb what. he calls "excessive overclassification." Until that happens, leaks arguably serve a vital functio~ jn U.s. democracy--helping to ensure that the pUblic can make informed decisions about national security policy. A~ Max Frankel, the former executive editor of The New York Times, put it .in 1971, during the Ni.xon administration I s case against_ t.be paper for p;inting the ·Pentagon Papers, II [Pl ractically everythi_ng t_hat our Government. does, plans, thinks, hears and contemplates jn the realms o{ foreign policy is $tamped and treated as secret--and then unraveled by that same Government,· by the Cong;ess and by the' press in ope continuing round of professional and social contacts and cooperative and competitive exchanges of information." The question--to be decided by a Virginia jury next year--is whether that unravel~ng will ~ontinue any longer. LOAD-DATE: September 29" 2005 5 f • I ALL FBI INFORHATION CO~rrAINED ~IN IS UNCLASSIFIED ~ \ajl'E 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baW/sabl\ill I From: Sent: To: Subject: Media Advisory - U.S. v. Franklin Attachments: 0155.pdf .Page I oft January 20, 2006 Media Advisory United States v. Franklin b6 b7C A $10,000 fine imposed this morning on Lawrence Franklin at his sentencing hearing has been vacated because ' he had previously agreed to forfeit his government pension, according to an order Issued this afternoon by U.S. District JUdge T.S. Ellis,-III, in Alexandria, Virginia. A copy of the order is ~ttached. The other aspects of the sentence imposed this morning by Judge Ellis on'Mr. Franklin - 151 months in prison an~ three years of supervised release - remain in effect. He will begin serving the sentence on a date to be determined, after he coope.rates with prosecutors. He remains free on an unsecured bond of $109,000. Mr. Franklin, a former employee of the U.S. Department of Defense, was sentenced in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia after pleading gUilty on October 5 to three charges: conspiracy to communicate national defense information, conspiracy to communicate classified information to an agent of a foreign government, and'unlawful retention of national defense information. If you have questions about this media advlso lease contact officer, a - - 1/20/2006 the court's public information ... ALL INFORllATION CONTAINED ~REIN IS UNCLASSIFIED n ~ATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/s~g Page 1 of2 -==~I;;=====~I-----------------------b-6-- From: b7C ~:~t: IFridav ,'annaN 20 2006 2·57 pM Subject: JPost Mjtiia'2% Wi ONLINE EDITION JERUSALEM POST Israel: Franklin's trial won't aUeet us Nathan Guttman, THE JERUSALEM POST Oct. 8,2005 Israel alleged that it would not-be affected by Lawrence Franklin's plea bargain or by the fact that the names ofIsraeli diplomats were mentioned in court. Israeli diplomatic sources said Thursday that Naor Gilon, the form~r political officer at the Israeli embassy in Washington, who was in contact with convicted Pentagon analyst Franklin, had no idea that the information he got from Franklin was classified. "We are not r~sponsible for what is said to us by Atperican officials", said the diplomatic source, "even if an American official did something he was not authorized to do, we had no way ofknowing that." Mark Regev, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, saidin response to the incident that "the Israel embassy staff in Washington conduct themselves in a completely professional manner in accordance with all international conventions, and no one serious has made any allegations to the contrary." Naor Giton met between eight and twelve times with Larry Franklin and discussed with him issues regarding Iran's ~ nuclear program and the internal political situation in Iran. Israeli sources described these meetings as routine and ~ common practice for any diplomat. Franklin himself, in a court hearing Wednesday in which he pleaded guilty to three counts ofcommunicatitlg classified information and holding documents at his home, said he "knew in his heart" that the Israelis already possessed all the information he was giving Gilon. Franklin added that he received more information from the Israeli diplomat than he had given him. In a short formal reaction to the Franklin plea bargain, David Siegel, spokesman for the Israeli embassy, said, "we have full confidence in our diplomats who are dedicated professionals who conduct themselves in full accordance with established diplomatic practices". Israel and the US have not reached yet an understanding concerning the method in which Gilon and two other Israeli diplomats from the embassy will be interviewed by investigators probing the case.. Israeli suggested th~t the US relay its questions to the Israelis and -will get in return written answers, but there was yet to be an American response to th~sl·g ~ ~\/~ . v:::~rr ~\Ur-~~\CS-AJ C- 1126/2006 ~lI\r.- {§0 J' Page~,6f2 t' \ ~ ,,- 'Whi1~ Israel was mentioneg:only:in.passing and ~ourt 90qumen~~~io.n·sJt~w~d ~t.:w~s~not accus~d 9J~any wrongdoing!, . the t*osecutors focused on"two former officia~s at the pro-Israel·lobby. The_ trials qf Steve Rosen, Jormer~AIPAC :~ dire,ctor 9fpqIicy, and'Keit~ Weiss~an, fonnerJran analyst at the lobby, were slated,to be~in on January 3rd. J.\bbe Lowel}, the attom~:y' r~presenting Rosen in the ~as,e, said·Wednes~ay that he was ~ot suipri~~d by the fact that Franklin, who was under great, pressure struck a deal with the prosecutiop. lilt ~as no it).1pa~t on our case because, a gov~rnfuent ~mployee's. ~ctions in dealing ,with classiqe4 information are simply not the same as ~ privat<? perso~, 'Vhether that pers9n is a reporter or a lobbyi~t'~ said Lowell in a written shlte~e~t following Frankl~'s court· appearance. .Defense and Foreign Affai~s Committee'chi\innan Yuva~ Steiititz saiCl Thursday that I~rael had not:'activated' Franklin, . and th~t Israel w~~ not spying in the U~it,ed States. He stressed that ~ny c<?nvi~tion waS in no.way,'an ~ccusation 9f 'Israeli involvemenJ in spying. 1/26/2006 --- ..... ''"-....... - ~_ ......... -.... ..~- -_....... -- .. -.... ."... ... ~- ... ...,. .......... ·' ALL INFORMATION C01lrAINED ~EIN IS UNCLASSIFIED ~ ~ 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baW/SabJ~ Page 1ofl ---;:::=======:;---------------------__~b6 --- _ From:I I b7C Sent: Wednesday. January 25, 2006 10:30 AM To: 1... ........ Subject: JTA article FOCUS ON ISSUES Sentence in F'ranklin case sends chill through free-speech community By Ron Kampeas WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 (JTA) -It was surprising enough that the judge quadrupled the prosecution's recommended sentence for Lawrence Franklin" from three years to more than 12. But the true bombshell at the sentencing of the former Pentagon analyst, who is at the center of the case involving pro-Israel lobbyists and classified iriforll}ation,~~awyers were shutting their briefcases last Friday. That't\!Q~..y:~..:'.QJ~triqr~ji~ge;l~.;I;IIiS;IIJ:toldJt)~ ...cQ.urjr.o~mJn.Alexandria, Va., th~ h!t ~.eJi~~~cl~ilialJs·ar~~j4st·~s:UapJe_Cl~g9Y~(mlJ~ntemp.loyees._7 ~der laws goY~ro.ing Jh~..~ssemi!Wlg!l~9f.9J~~i.(LE!.d.J.rl£r!rl..sYg!)~ ...._ (:!'..!l~.§n.s wli~Jl~~~,~'l.~~QJ~9~!~~!i~~.d,~mo~~~J!l!!·i[lto unau~~~~~7 !'pbsse~~19Q ~(.q~~~!~~~ inf~r:":l~t,on, ~~st ~P.!9!..2~ the (awl Ellis.said.LT!i~9· applies to acaCtemics, lawyers·"journ..alists, professors:w~atever~i irwas difficult to assess wneth....er-Ellis'Was·thinking·out"loud·or was pronouncing tiis judicial philosophy. The jUdge·earned a reputation as a voluble off-the-cuff philosopher when he adjudicated the case of John ~Walker Lindh, the "AmericanTaliban." But if those are Ellis' jury instructions in April. when two former staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee go on trial, the implications could have major consequenc.es - not just for Stev~ Rosen and Keith Weissman, but for how American~ consider national security questions. Defense lawyers for Rosen and Weissman have joined a free speech watchdog in casting the case as a major First Amendment battle., liThe implications of this prosecution to news gatherers and others who work in First Am~ndment cas~s cannot be overstated," lawyers for the former AIPAC staffers wrote in a brief earlier this month supporting an application . _from ~h~ R~port~rs Committe.e for the Freedom of tJle Press to file an amicus 1/26/2006 I' " ·; o Page2of3 bri~f. The case is believed to be the first in U.S. history to apply aWorld War I-era statute that criminalizes the dissemination of classified information by U.S~ civilians. Franklin pleaded guilty to a similar statute barring government employees from leaking classified information.·That statute rarely has been prosecuted; before Franklin, the last successful prosecution experts can recall was in the 1980s., JTA has learned that the defense team for Rosen and Weissman last week filed a brief by Viet Dinh, the former assistant attorney general who was the principal drafter of the USA Patriot Act, arguing that federal prosecutors in this case were int~rpreting classified information protections much too broadly. Dinh confirmed to JTA in a brief phone conversation that he had signed the brief, which is classified., Franklin, a mid-level Iran analyst at the Pentagon, admitted to leaking information to Rosen and Weissman in 2003 because he wanted his concerns about the Iranian threat to reach the White House. His Pentagon colleagues were focused on Iraq, and Franklin believed AIPAC could get his theories a hearing at the White House's National Security Council. He also leaked information.to Naor Gilon, the former chief political officer at the Israeli Embassy. By the summer of 2004, government agents co-opted Franklin into setting up Rosen and Weissman. He allegedly leaked classified information to Weissman about purported Iranian pl~ns to kill Israeli and American agents in northern Iraq. Weissman and Rosen allegedly relayed that information to AIPAC colleagues, the media and Gilon. AIPAC fired the two men in March 2005. In sentencing Franklin, Ellis described the former Pentagon analyst's motives as "laudable," but said his motives were beside the point. "It doesn't matter that you think you were really helping," Ellis said. "That arrogates to yourself the decision whether to adhere to a statute passed by Congress, and we can't have that in this country." Those views could be bad news for Rosen and Weissman, who hoped to rest part of their defense on an altruistic desire to save lives. More to the point, it suggests Ellis believes government statutes are sacrosanct, however little they have been used. That's what cOl1cerns freespeech advocates. "These provisions of the Espionage Act are widely recognized in the legal literature as incoherent," said Steven Aftergood, who heads the government secrecy project for the Federation of American Scientists, a nuclear watchdog that relies heavily on leaks for its information. 'We do not arrest and charge every reporter who comes into possession of classified information. We do not arrest people who receive leaks of classified information, we never have," he said. "For the judge to suggest otherwise is quite shocking." Lucy Dalglish, the Reporters Committee executive director, described the case as "terribly important." "Ifwe had a situation where journalists can be punished for receiving information, hello police state," she said. At the Herzliya Conference in Israel - an annual gathering for top Western security officials that Franklin once attended - participants said the case was a central behind-the-scenes topic of discussion, and they girded themselves for the consequences of the Rosen and Weissman trial. Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, told the Jerusalem Post that the climate in Washington was "unacceptable.~' That "two patriotic American citizens who are working for Jewish organizations who did nothing to violate American security should have to stand trial and be subject to the public scrutiny and public humiliation, frankly I find very disturbing, and a matter that we all have to look at in a much more 1/26/2006 , se~us way," Hoenlein said. Franklin's sentence seemed exceptionally tough, given the prosecution's tentative agreement to recommend a three-year sentence if Franklin cooperated in the case againstRosen'an~ Weissman. • I;lIis' sentence - abiding by strict govemm~nt sentencing guidelines - was mainly a technicality, since Franklin'is not going to go to'jail until his cooperation with the prosecution is complete. Prosecutors said they would exercise their prerogative to consider freeing Ellis from applying government sentencing guidelines. In that case, Ellis is likely to apply the three-year deal proseciJtors worked out with Plato Cacheris. Franklin's lawyer. 1126/2006 o Page 3 of3 'ALL INFFION CONTAINED HEREIN CLASSIFIED DATE 07-~9-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sabjlsg 0(\9 tngton • ost rJ1STRICT & MARYl~ND HOME EDITION 35¢ NATIONAL NEWS THE WASHINGTON POST )for Passing Government Secrets gnite.s BY UVItf WOlf - MSOCMlIll fII($S Lawrence A. rrm1Un has said he.. fretrMed wItII tile cIireetIon ., U.s. poIiCJ : and thougllt lie could Influence It. Franklin had faced a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison. Ellis said Franklill would not have to go to jan until he fiI\ished his cooperatiOD with the goverqmenta 1IJt.,,, ..... __... _.,,~ ... v. _ .... - which is scheduled for April. Rosen, of Silver Spring, is charged with two counts related to unlawful disclosure of national defense information obtained from Franklin and other unidentified government officials on topics including Iran, Saudi Arabia and al Qaeda. Rosen was AlPAC's director of foreign policy issues and was instrumental in making the committee a formidable political force. Weissman. of Bethesda. faces one count of conspiracy to illegally communicate national defense infonnation. The FBI monitored a series of meetings between Franklin and the former AIPAC officials datingback to early 2003, multiple sources familiar with the investigation have said At one of those meetings, a session at the Pentagon City mallin Arlington in July 2004, Franklin warned Weissman that Iranian agents were planning attacks against U.S. soldiers and Israeli agents in Iraq, sources said. -sbianswho ing denied u~across 1973 state : asa union "Dave Kole~. Nao"'al Re) f the pl~un· , "VCI" h~' 1h~ ..... ,<:>It,, f'I'" ,'s attorney. ema longtime dedhas had -3 long , Cacheris said I}1erating exten" md that he exea motion later ceo in October to o communicate ion, conspiracy olobbyists. who to communicate classified information to and are awaiting ° an agent of a. foreign government, and un· lawful retention of national defense iu. formation. Court documents saidFranklinprovided classified data - including information about a Middle Eastern cou.ntrYs activities in Iraq and weapons tests conducted by a foreign country --- to the lobbyists and to an unnamed "foreign official· The Middle Eastern country was not named, but Franklin disclosed at his plea hearing that some of the material related to Iran. He also said in court that the foreign official was Naor GUon. who was the political officer at the Israeli Embassy be. fore beingrecalled last summer. Israeli officials have said they are cooperating in the investigation. and they denied any wrongdoing. Franklin is e~ed to testify against the two former AlPAC lobbyi~ Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman. at their trial. !1 Kevin V. Di t1kIin had reason nation could be ate&. -when you information to ~i~ it." he sai~ s control of that I wayto knowin • deIIgIII., LcMdaMrs tlu'Dnlllnes. ....... saltltllll8ltame...... d IhIt~t 17..oat IIIII1IIDaI towanlltil"oa the ........... WI. StotIy, lU. ALL INFORMATION CO~D L, a $100 Million Question vfqy End Supportfor u.s.-Funded Coca Eradication Pentagon Analyst Given 12~ Years In Secrets Cra:se By JEBJlY MAuoN Wash.ington Post SmffWriler A former Defense DepartmeDt analyst was. sentenced to more than 12 years in prison yesterday for passing government secrets to two employees of aproIsrael lobbying group and to an Ismeli government of. ficial in WashiDgton. U.s. District Judge T.S. Elliamsaid Lawrence A. Franklin did not intend to harm the United States when he gave the classified data, to the employees of the American Israe1 Public Affairs Committee, or ~ PAC, oue ofWashingtoD.'smost intluentiallobbyingorganimtions. When hepleaded guilty, Franldia, an Iran specialist, said he was frustrated with the direction of U.s. policy and thought he could influence.it through '"back channels.II "I believe, I accept, your explanation that you didn't want to hurt the United States, that J01l are a IoyaI American: said Ellis, who added that Franklin was -concerned about certain threats to the UmtedStatesand thought he had to hand information about the threats to others to bring it to the attention ofthe National Security CoundL But Franklin. still must be punished, Ellis sai~ because he violated important laws govemfug the nondisclosure of secret information. '1t doesn't matter that you think you were really helping,- EJHe said as he sentenced Franklin to 151 months -12th yeatS - in prison. -nat a:rn>gItes to See SECREI'S. A6. Col. 1 DC''' KU"~lU"" -......, ~.......... ------ -- - -_. foral.transit, increase highway construction Lly 90 and revive stalled road projects. Th ey would help build a connected network of carpool or express toll lanes on all of Northern Vtrginia's major highways. buyrail ears for VirgiDia RailwayExpress and Metro, widen Interstates 95 and 66, and fix traffic botUeneeks. -We don't need any more studies. Wedon't need an extended session,II Kaine told reporters Friday after- See VIRGINIA, A10. Cot 3 he miIht withdraw Bolivia'. support for the eradication program, akeystone of the U.S.-backed anti-drug and alternative crop development campaign here. He has hinted at deaimmaHzing the tu1tivation of coca, which is legally chewed asa stimulant andusedin traditional medicines, and he has criticized regional us. anti-drug programs as false pretextsfor establishingamilitaty ~. But Morales has toned down his Se~ BOJ..lVlA..A 14. Col. 1 auwho : deaied . 8'r.i_"_-auilioa ~1CDJe. Iava1Iebeplainerbythe • for ld be 6Ir rs Mar1" deeiBioIl d:entioue mdU.S. tIa1JJau4 HEP~IN IS UNCLASSIFIED • DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/lsg VId. Ban on Gay Marriage rites ..-we're not doiDg anything the$e .,. one soldier said, ignoring the ~aJJchting on his .expoeed It a mud- forealm& -we're just waiting to hear Jmrlanda whaf. goirJ«to happen next.· .5OBoIiv- It's the $100 million question in 80~ Ie "Hm.: What wiD. become of the u.s._ coca' financed program to eradicatecoca, the 'Ilt weeki plant used to make c:ocain~ now that Ide cntcle the longtime head of the coca growers' I sagaing union, RwMorales, isabout to become !by mer the counbYa president? sthe U.S. Morales..46.whowillbe inaugurated Sunday, said during his campaign that Braqi IEDfdDcnlesaoDts An aJliance ofShiite religious parties won the most seats in Iraq's parliament but not enough to rule without coalition partners. the election commission said yesterday. wou.m" 275 total seats ShIte Kunlllh Surml MteI rellgiDus secular religious Sw:nl coalition coalition coalition secular I -etJ..:o.... I coaUtl~n FORT LEAVENWORTH, !<.an. - A fundamental change overtaking the Army is on display in classroolD$ across this base above the 'l,{;cGOnn 'R1VPr Afte1' dP.l'.ades of By THOMAS E. fuexs Washington Post S.affWriter Lessons Leamed in Iraq Show Up in Army Classes Culture Shifts to Counterinsurgency tflOi8St! vs. Ha»use Six bedrooms or just one with four bunks? Two distinct views of the house of the future. Also, a big increase in first-time buyers puttingno mo~down. Cuba Call PIa, Ball 'The 16-nation World Baseball Cassie gets the help it needs to bring Fidel Castro·s team to the tournament. SPOIlS, E1 INSIDE IWlOIS IIMIllII10 - TIlEYMSHINGTDIl POST De 'Rogue' Writer Osama bin Laden invited the world to read his book. For Washington's William Blum, it's .. , .• _._.j1r_. __l .._4_ , An.~~ l~ Years fo~ Pass=-&ment Secre~-r-_T_NIW_"'H...-IIIO'I'II_~P~ •.- ~.I~~I••__._-- =~=::,..,: .............._IL J1h_.....CIIII ~ 0125,.. iii ,.... lIrnklbl .... 1llI1 .... "',:llbjd\Ullll ... ~ ... CClIIlI'ft'IIlI.1IIc1X*llll' m..... ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/1sg ~. DIFORMATION CONTAINED 0 RE N IS LrnJCLASSIFIED DA 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sabJlsg jpost.txt Hoenlein: Franklin sentence 'disturbing l ----------~----------- ------------------------~---------~----- -------------------- Hilary Leila Krieger, TH~ )ERUSALEM POST Jan. 23, 2006 ----~-------------------~-----~-----------------~~-~-~-------------~--~----~-~-- American Jewish leader Malcolm Hoenlein on sunday blasted the sentence handed down two days earlier to the. Pentagon analyst who admitted passing on classified information to Israeli diplomats and pro-Israel lobbyists. Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the conference of presidents of Major American Jewish organizations, labeled the ruling "disturbing,1I a comment greeted by applause from the audience to whom he spoke about US-Israel relations at the • Interdisciplinary Centerls Herzliya conference. The former analyst, Larry' Franklin, was sentenced to 12 years and seven months in prison for three counts of conspiring to communicate national defense information unlawfully. The sentence was part of a Rlea bargain between Franklin and the prosecution in which he agreed to testify against two staffers of the pro-Israel lobby American Israel Public Affairs committee (AIPAC) , Steve Rosen and Keith weissman, whose trial begins in late April. nThe very fact that this kind of climate can exist in the capital of the united .States is unacceptable," Hoenlein said of the. sentencing as wel.l as subtle anti-Semitism heard in the corridors of power. He added, "[That] two patriotic. American citizens who are working for Jewish organizations who did nothing to violate American security, should have. to stand tr1al and be subject to the pub11c scrutiny and public humiliation, frankly I find very disturbing and a m~tter that we all have to look at in·a much more serious way." Hoenlein also cautioned Israel about its attitude toward the oiaspora. IIThere are more Jews in Tel Aviv than in New york and the majority of Jews will live® her.e," he noted. IIS0 there's no need to diminish the importance or the achievements of the oiaspora in order to emphasize the centrality an~ singular significance of Israel in all of our live~." I Hoenlein was preceded by Rabbi vechiel Eckstein, who also had some words of ~~ criticism -. of oiaspora Jewry. He slammed Jewish leaders for making a "major .strategic mistakell by criticizing growing ties between evangelical christians and the State of Israel, arguing that evangelicals pose one of American Jewryls largest threats since their values are so different from tha~ of Ameri~an Jews. ' "YOU don't need to accept their vision of America. But you donlt need to make them the enemy," said Eckstein, president of 'the International Fellowship of christians and Jews. lilt is the height. of irresponsibility for American Jewish leaders to jeopardize the critical support for Israel and the fight again$~ radical Islam and growing anti-Semitism that evangelicals bring to the table." Eckstein warned Israel not to take the support of evangelicals for granted. He did, however, praise Acting prime Minister Ehud olmert and former prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for understanding the importance of this constituency. Another speaker at the same session, American pollster Frank Luntz, also heaped ~ accolades on olmert. concludin9 a lecture on how to use la.nguage effectively to get ~ Israel's message across - "it 1 S not what ~ou say that matter.s in communi cati on; \-,,, ; t 's what people hear" - he, ,sa;d that the former Jerusal em mayor had mastered h~~\, page 1 \)Y\~V" . ~ 6~'\JJ~ ~'S\r;;...fJC- 'r - &:.~\V /~f ,~ 1- ~ 0 0 '" advice. jpost. t'xt He played a short video clip of olmert defending Israeli policies in heavil~ accented English on international TV. "This ;s absolutely perfect communication to Americans," said Luntz, who ;s a consultant to the Israeli aavocacy organization, The Israel project. He described the clip as lI.some of the. best communication of any Israeli spokesperson. Tilank God he is where he is right now.II' . page 2 ~LL INFOPHATION CONTAINED o ~PEIN IS UNCLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sabJ1sg haaretz article. txt w w w . h a are t z . com ---------------~----~------------~------~----~-------~~----~--------~------~-~-~ Last update ~ 10:59 23/01/2006 u.s. Jewish leaders concerned by Franklin conviction By shlomo Shamir and-Amiram Barkat Two days after former pentagon analyst Larry- A. Franklin was sentenced to 12 years and seven months in jail for sharing classified information with pro-Israel lobbyists, $everal American Jewish community leaders echoed. a singl~ refrain: There's reason to worry, but no need to feel like this is a crisis. Franklin pleaded guilty ;n october to sharing the information with AIPAC lobbyists and Israeli diplomat Naor Gilon. Steve Rosen and Keith weissman, who were ~ired from AIPAC in 2004, are facing charges of disclosing confidential information to Israel, apparently abou~ Iran. Some American Jewish leaders are concerned by the influence the trial could, have on th~ relations between Jewish groups and the administration. Anti-Defamation leagu~ director Abe Foxman said the Franklin affair could potentially pose a thre~t to all Jewish lobbyists. Foxman said it is not clear what exactly is allowed in-terms of the relationships between the administration and the media and between nongovernmental.organizations and foreign governments. The lack of clarity, he said, could have a destructive influence on the activities~of all u.s. Jewish groups. Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of presidents of Major Jewish organizations, said yesterday that he found Franklin's sentence Idisturb1ng." liThe very fact that this kind of climate can exist in the capital of the u.S. is unacceptable," he said at the Herzliya Conference. ' Rosen and weissman, he said, lIare two patriotic American citizens working for a Jewish organization, who did nothing to violate the American security." page 1 . . ~ ~ "'~- ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED " HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED ~ 1\,. '~ ~ATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc ,baW/S~'3g : ' ~-F-ro-m-:----~I·-~)(FBi) . - -- ~:~t: I~av EeJl.ruaO! H '0 069 "30 MIl. !vF) (FBI) SUbject: FYT UNCLASSIFIED NON-RECORD I assume you worthies saw this... -Formel7 Official Backs Lobbyists In Leak C~se The Washington Post By Walter Pincus February 14,2006 • 1 .'. WASmNGTON, DC -- The former hea'd of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy helped write a 'memorandum of law calling for ~ dismissal of Espionage Act charges against two pro-Israel lobbyists, arguing that, in receiving leake4 classified Information and relaying i~ to others, they were doing'what reporters, thiilk~tankexperts and congressionai staffers "do ,perhaps 'hundreds oftime~ every day~" Viet D. Dinh, who'helped draft the USA Patriot,Act after the_Sept.t1, 2001, attacks, has joined with lawyers defend:ing Steven J. Rosen and ~eith Weissman, former employ~es of the American Israel Public AffairsCommitte~(AIPAC), who last year became the first non-U.S. government lemployees to be indicted for ,allege~ly violating provisions of the Espionage Act. "Never has a lobbyist, reporter, or any other non-government e~pJoyee ·been charged ••• for receiving oral information tl;te government alleges to be national defen~e matf?rialas part of that person's normal"First Amendm~nt protected activ_ties," the defense memorandum states. In additio.n, since no classified docum~nts are involved, the two lobbyists are being accused of receiving or~1 cla,ssified informatiQD during conversations with'government officials, one ofwhom warned Weissman that "the information he was about to rece~ve was highly~ classified tAgency stuff,t " according to the indictment. That government -official in'·this instance was-Lawrence'A.Franklin, who at the time worked in the policy offi~e at the Pentagon. He recently pleaded guilty to violations of the 'Espionage Act and was provisi~nally sentenced to ~2 years in prison, with tJte sentence to be reviewed depending on his cooperation with the governmenti~ t~eRosen-Weissman trial aJi~ anx.. CC} other relat~4 investigations. . J !~ -~- ". 0 9 !. The defense memorandum was filed under seal in U.S. District Court for the Eastern 'District ofVirginia on Jan.19 and, according to Rosen's attorney, Abbe D. Lowell, was unsealed last Thursday at the request of the defense. In the 90 years since the act was originally drafted, according to the Dinh memorandum, "there have been ·no reported prosecutions of persons outside government for repeating information tha~ they obtained verbally, and were thus unable to know conclusively whether or to what extent that information could be repeated." Dinh, who has returned to teaching at Georgetown University Law Center after leaving the Bush administration, said in an interview yesterday that the espionage statute is very broad and vague in its language and normally requires "bad faith" on the part of those in violation. The memorandum quotes Patrick J. Fitzgerald, special counsel in the CIA leak case, who said in a news conference that the espionage law is "a difficult statute to interpret" and "a statute you ought to carefully apply." "Prosecuting the leakee for an oral presentation ••• presents a novel case because the listener has no evident indicia for knowing what relates to national defense," Dinh said. He noted that he could find only one case in which the disclosed information may have been made only orally. In that case, an Army intelligence officer leaked defense inforptation and only he was charged. He was acquitted, "indicating that the government should have thought twice before now trying to stretch the statute even further." The memorandum notes that the statute contemplates the passing of physical evidence, such as documents with classifi.cation stamped not just on each page but also alongside each paragraph. One section ofthe law says that a person who has improperly received a classified leak commits a crime if "he willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee entitled to receive it." The memorandum says that the provision cannot cover orally received information since recipients tt 'retain' it in memory and it is physically impossible to 'deliver' it back to the United States." Another reason for dismissing the case, according to the memorandum, is that "if the instant indictment and theory of prosecution are allowed to stand, lobbyists who seek information prior to its official publication date and reporters publishing what they learn can be charged with violating section 793" of the espionage statute. The memorandum also points out that"on many occasions, the media boldly state that they have classified material," which they publish after soliciting and receiving leaks. Lowell said that his client and Weissman "have been indicted as felons for doing far lessthan for what reporters have been awarded Pulitzer Prizes." In the memorandum, reference is made to Washington Post reporter Dana Priest's articles on CIA secret prisons for alleged terrorists, for which a leak investigation is underway. FBI agents are also investigating the leak to the New York Times about the National Security Agen~y's domestic surveillance program. . I, i.lI UNCLASSIFIED 2 I; QINFOIDIATION COm'AINED O' IN IS UNCLASSIFIED . 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sabJ1sg~ ~il~ _ From: Sent: To: SubjeCt: - . ---~~-~----~~-------~~~-~~ Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld -----Original Message----- Sent: Wed Feb 15 18:45:50 2006 Subject: NY Sun article -t lintervie~ed C}hat_' s 1l...__lemail? Big Impact Seen In Israel Spy Case b6 b7C 1 BY JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun February 13" 2006 URL: http://www.nysun.comlarticle/27429 ~ Lawyers for two former pro~Israel lobbyists under indictmen~ for leaking classified ~ information have denounced the prosecution as an assault on the First Amendmen~ and warned~~~ that a vas~ array of policy advocates and journalists could ,be in jeopardy if the case goes forward. The two lobbyists, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, were fired from their jobs at the American Israel Publi~ Affairs Committee last year as the probe unfolded. A former Pentagon. official charged wich providing classified information to the pair, Lawrence ~ranklin, is cooperating .:with prosecutors after pleading guilty. He was sentenced last month to more than 12 years in prison. In a brief filed in January and released last week, the lawyers for Messrs. Rosen and Weissman argue that the statute barring unauthorized' release of classified material has never been applied to private citizens. "The breathtaking application of that law to this set of facts breaks new legal ground," the defense team wrote. "There has never been a successful prosecution of an alleged leak by persons outside government persons with no contractual or legal obligation to preserve classified information." Messrs. Rosen and Weissman are scheduled to go on trial in federal court in Alexandria, Va., on April 25. The indictment charges tha~ they received classified information from Franklin and other officials, and passed that data on to members o~ the press and agents of a foreign government. ~/ Prosecutors have not offered a public description of 'the information that was alleg~dly ~{~ relayed, nor have they disclosed which reporters or foreign agents were al~egedly Allt~' involved. ~owever, Franklin was the Iran desk officer at the Defense Department and some ~ I' ~{ the d~t~ he has a~tted to passing on ~ppear to h~ve pertained to Iranian influence in -. _05lt,~~~3\5- ,u c" ~cB~ -Le'-l-v t' 'n ~. I~aq. The foreign diplomats~o received classified information in the alleged scheme ~ Ii a~;>pear to have been Israelis. In court papers asking that the charges be dismissed, the defense lawyers argue that the prosecution is attempting to criminalize the traditional give and take of information b-etween lobbyists, journalists, and government, officials. "This is what. members ot the media, members of the Washington policy community, lobbyists ~nd members of congressional staffs do perhaps hundreds of times every day, II the lawyers wrote. liThe exchange of informa~ion between members of, the government and non-governmental organizations is p,recisely what policy lobbying (as well as everyday news reporting) is all about. II The prosecution's response to the motion· was filed late last. month, but. has not yet been made public. In an unusual arrangement, mos~ papers filed in the case remain secret for a time while they are reviewed for classified information. In an interview yesterday, Mr. Weissman's attorney, John Nassikas III, said the p,rosecution should be of concern to all those who play a role in Washington policy debates. IIHopefully, there will be some resonance out, in the community over this," the l,awyer said. "We think that the government prosecution is off-base and we're challenging in every way, legally and factual·ly. II H,owever, Mr. Nassikas acknowledged that the defense may face an uphill battle in trying to c,onvince Judge Thomas Ellis III, who is presiding over the case, that the prosecution would jnhibit the free exchange of ideas and information vital to American democracy. At Frank~in's sentencing last month, the jUdge expressed no qualms abou~ punishing j,ournali:5ts or others who wind up with classified information and pass it. on. IIPersons who ~ave ,unauthorized possession, who come into unauthorized possession of classified information, must abide by the law," Judge Ellis said in remarks first reported by the ~ewish Telegraphi~ Agency. ,iThat applies to academics, lawyers, journalists, professors, whatever. II . . The brief filed on behalf of Messrs. Rosen and Weissman was co-authored by a conservative Georgetown University law professor and for:mer Justice Department official, Viet Dinh. 'Mr. Dinh's opposition t~ th~ department's stance in this case is notable because he has # generally supported aggressive prosecution tactics and was an architect of the 2001 law that broadened the government's anti-terrorism powers, the USA-PATRIOT Act. "He's obviously an ~xpert on constitutional law issues, and there have been a-lot of constitutional law flaws in the government's application of this statute," Mr. Nassikas said. He said Mr. Dinh was enlisted by Mr. Rose~'s attorney, Abbe Lowell. Messrs. Lowell and Dinh did not ~eturn calls yesterday seeking comment for this story. The case has drawn criticism from some Jewish activists as well as a journalists' group, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the "Press, which has sought to file an amicus brief on behalf of the two eX-lobbyists. Legal analysts often distinguish the American .lega~ system's approach toward breaches.of classified information fro~ t~e tack taken in Britain, where the country's Official Secrets Act can be used to prosecute and silence journalists and ordinary citizens who come into possession of sensitive infor:mation. In America, the~e have 'been repeated, but unsuccessful, efforts to pass a similar statute that would crimdnalize all leaks of classified information regardless of the harm caused or the intent or identity of the leaker. In 2000, President Clinton vetoed ~egislation that would have made the release ot any classified information a crime. lilt would be fundamentally unfair for the Justice Department to usurp the province of Co~gress and create some type of Official Secrets Act through the prosecution of a test case," the defense team argued in their brief. The brief also quotes a prominent federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, about the perils of bringing criminal charges in connection with leaks' o~ classified information. "You sho~ld be ver.y careful in applying that law because there are a lot. ·of interests that c,ould '.be imp~i.cated," Mr. Fitzgerald said at a press conference last. year discussing his 2. ~ decision not to charge a WhOHouse aide, I. Lewis Libby, wO"leakiDg a J identity. Mr. Libby, who has pleaded not guilty, was charged with perjury of justice in the ,probe. CIA officer's and obstruc~ion Details of the defense filing were first reported by an online newsletter, Secrecy News, which is published by the Federation of American Scientists. Mr. Nassikas declined to say yesterday whether he plans to call journalists as witnesses, an effort which could prompt further legal confrontations. "Neither side has indicated what witnesses will be called a~ this point. It's clear there are reporters involved in the facts of the case," the attorney said. In recent months, Messrs. Rosen and Weissman have been at odds with their fo~er employer, Aip~c, over payment of legal fees in the case. "That is not resolved," Mr. Nassikas said. He said Mr. Weissman plans to launch a legal defense fund this week to cover costs that Aipac has, declined to pick up. Efforts to reach an Aipac. spokesman last. night were unsuccessful. 3 ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED i ~IN IS tU~CLASSIFIED 0 It ~ 07-29.,..2010 B·:r 60324 l.lC baw/sabll.. !ll ......_~------------- From: Sent: To: Subject: II:=bQl8NI 15.2006 6:12 PM ------~--~~-~~--~--------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wirele~s,Handheld Pre-trial strategies suggest unwanted exposure of AIPAC's lobbying practices By Ron Kampeas and Matthew E. Berger b6 b7C WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 (JTA) -- Federal investigators are asking questions about ties between lay leaders of the American Israei Public Affairs Commdttee and two former staffers charged in a classified-information case. The renewed investigation comes as Viet Dinh, a forme~ assistant u.s. attorney general and principal architect~f the Patriot Act, argued in a brief on behalf of Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, the former AIPAC staffers, that the case against them lacks merit because it violates thei~ First Amendment rights. Taken together, the defense and government actions suggest the shape of the trial to start April 25: The defense will argue that culling and distributing inside government information was a routine lobbying actiVity. It also anticipates the media event AiPAC insiders have said they fear: One that picks apart, ina public forum, exact~y how ~PAC goes about its business. No one suggests that AIPAC's activities are in any way illegal, and the prosecutor in the case already has made clear that t~e organization is not suspected o~ wrongqoing. B~t AIPAC closely guards its lobbying practices, and is loath to reveal them to the genera~ Washington community. In his brief, Dinh, now a law professor and attorney in private practice, argues that the First Amendment protects the practice of seeking information from executive branch officials. ~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," Dinh argues, describing the acts alleged in the indictment against Rosen, the former AIPAC foreign policy director, and Weissman, a former Iran specialist. FBI agents' questions to other former AiPAC staffers inte~viewed in recent weeks suggest that the government is trying to assess whether receiving and disseminating classified information was routine at AIPAC. The form~+ staffers told ~A that .t~e FBI agents asked questions about Rosen's 1 _ relationship with of Beverly Hills, influential AI~AC three pa~PAC presidents -- Robert Ashe~f Chicago, Larry Weinberg Calif., and Edward LeVy of Detroit, as well as Newton Becker, an donor from Los Angeles. The for.mer employees all spoke on condition ~f a~onymity, because the FBI has told them not to speak with the media. The office of u.s. Attorney ~aul McNulty, who is trying the case, would no~ comment. Weinberg, reac~ed Tuesday, refused to comment. Levy was on vacation and could not be reached, and Asher and Becker did not respond to messages. The new round of FBI questions is important because the indictment, based on a World War I-era espionage statute, rests not simply on receipt of the allegedly classified information but on its further dissemination. The indictment, handed down las~August, all~ges tha~.Rosen and Weissman relayed the infor.mation -- on Iran and on Al-Qaida -- to fellow AIPAC staffers, journalists and diplomats a~ the Israeli Embassy in Washington. Establishing whether Rosen also briefed board members on the allegedly classified information would bolster the defense claim that the acts described in the indictment are routine. Board members are regularly briefed, often in lengthy one-on-one phone calls, on meetings between the mos~ senior AIPAC staffers and top administration officials. Rosen routinely made such phone calls, a former staffer said. ~He made sure board members knew he was responsible and he was the one doing the work,H the staffer said. ~roving that such briefings are routine, however, will 'not necessarily deter the government from going ahead with th~ case: Judge T.S. Ellis, who is' hearing t~e case, has suggested that the routine nature of such exchanges doesno~ preclude prosecution. ~~ersons who have unauthorized possession, who come into unauthorized possession of classified information, must abide by the law," Ellis said last month in ~entencing Larry Franklin, the for.mer ~entagon analyst who pleaded gUilty to ~eaking information to Rosen, Franklin and others. ~Tha~ applies to academics, lawyers, journalists, professors, whatever." - A defense source said the defendants ~ould no~ recall board member brtefings about the central charge in the, indictment, involving allegedly classified information on supposed Ira~ian plans to kill American and Israeli agents in northern Iraq. However, other alleged leaks in the indictment migh~ have been relayed to board members, JTA has learned. One in 2002 involved David Satterfield, then· a deputy ~ssistant secretary of state and now deputy ambassador to Iraq. Satterfield relayed information to Rosen on A!-Qaida, the indictment says. McNulty's office would not comment on whether i~ planned to bring charges against Satterfield. Satterfield did not. respon~ to previous JTArequests for comment. The defense will maintain that Satterfield would have been authorized to release the infor.mation. The administration routinely used.AIPAC as a conduit. to ~nfluence Israel on matters where there were differences between Israel and the United States, for instance on Israeli arms sales to China. In those cases, the information migh~ have been classified. The information Satterfield allegedly relayed to Rosen apparently related to Iran's ties to a wanted Lebanese terrorist. Dinh's brief was filed last month, but was made publiq only last week. JTA reported on the brief las~ month, and has been has been researching for several mont~~ interactions between Rosen, Weissman and government officials. Patrick Dorton, an AIPAC sppkesman, previou~ly ~as ~aid that Rosen and Weissman were fired . 2 ~as: ~rCh because infoxmat~ arising out of the FBI inves~tion uncovered ~conduct that was not part of their job and was beneath the standa%ds of what AIPAC expects of their employees." A December 2000 AIPAC staff handbook does not say how to handle classified information. A 1985 internal memo by Rosen,' recently obtained by JTA, outlines his plans to shifeAIPAC's lobbying emphasis from Congress to the executive branch. He explicitly calls for the cultivation of mid-level, non-elected officials -- a description that would include Franklin. Outlining the advantages of such lobbying, Rosen wrote; UThey work for secretive rather than open institutions and agencies. And, perhaps m9st important o~ all for effective communications, they are in many cases experts in our subject themselves, as oppose~ to the 'generalist' in Congress who might be convinced by a few general 'talking points' explained by a layman." Former staffers say Rosen's memo p~ofoundly influenced AIPAC's mission. AIPAC has never repudiated the document, though las~ yea~ the organization said i~ had changed some lobbying practices -- without specifying which ones. UAIPAC continues to discuss perfectly appropriate and legal informati~n with people on Capitol Hill and in all levels of the administration every single day," Dorton said Tuesday. , , --- ..~ .' .~ - ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED I"'a18 I or l _~.,<fLeX~SNe~i.S by liredlt U~rd - OUDCume~. HEREUJ IS UNCLASSIFIED I"'!:\ ~;r'•, ,. DATE 07-29-2010 BY 6032~ baw/sabJ1sg . , ~ - ~,....- ......,... " ,.....". ..-~ .. . .... ... ......... [:::~_'H -._ View: Full I q~ I ~I~ ~meDts Purcha.s~ I tiQW ~cIl Yi~.wjn Ptin.tabl~ fo.ID1 Your browser settings may prevent your return to this document. Please print or download this document before selecting another. Document Unks: ~~tilrt of Oocum.cml SE~.nQN: . LE.NG.TJf: . HEM»-INE: B.YL.IHE; BOQX; LOAD:D.A1E: Copyright .1997 TImes Newspapers Umited The limes NOYember 13, 1997,.Thursday :b6 b7C SECnON:Ove~asnews LENGTH: 677 words HEADUNE: Am~ricans shot dead after guilty verdict on Pakistani BYUNE: Christopher Thomas. South Asia Correspondent. and James Bone in New York BODY: . FOUR Americans and a Pakistani were shot dead yesterday in the centre 'of Karachi, probably by Islamic ~mists, in an apparent reprisal attack after the conviction of a Pakistani in America for the killing oUwo CIA employees. The Pakistani Govemment has ordered an inquiry, but there is little chance of catching the killers. Further attacks on Americans were feared after the conviction in New York last night ofthe Pakistani mastennind of the 199~ Wortd Trade Centre bombing. RarnzJ Yousef, a former engineering student at SWansea Institute in Wales, faces life i~prisonment for plotting to kill up to a quarter of a million ~ple by toppling one of the 11o-storey twin towers of the centre onto the other. Six people died and more than 1,000 were. injUred in the attack on the fower Manhattan landmark. which left AmericanS feeling VUlnerable to international terrorism for the first time. Eyad Ismoil, a Jordanian accused ofdriving the truck bomb into the underground car park, was also convicted of conspiracy and faces a life term• ... Yousef, a Baluq.i ofPalestinian descent who was raised in Kuwait, was arrested in Paldstan two years ago when a fellow Muslim radical ~med him in, In the hope ofthe $ 2 milrlOr1 reward. Eartier. this year he was sentenced to life imprisonment for plotting the bombing of12 American airliners over Asia.-The plan was never carried out because Philippines ponce chanced on his bomb factory, but Yousef tested his technique by bombing a Philippines AIr1ines plane, kiDing a Japanese business man. The American authorities believe he is linked to a shadowy 1~lamic underground connecting groups as far afield as Afghclnlstan, Egypt and 1he Philippines. It· Sheikh Omat AbdeI Rahman, a blind Muslim cferic. has already been jailed in the United States with ten associates on margas related to the World Trade Centre bombing and other plamed attacks. The AmertcantI Idllecl In KarachJ"Pakiatan's most laWleSS city, were'sii1gI8d oUt as the carIn which~were traveflifflJ pasae"d,.o.v'veor- a'b•ile; -.. Iii~iiiOm~ trilfftc. 1118 .~. ., 'US8d KaIashnikov8.which are ~"aWilible 'at'kiiOCkdoYin . ~ -0;: !~W~" .•• _,,,~IJI.. SJUI'UJ'8I'. . 1I~1. ~.throughOut th8.c.ountrY. in(j escaped in the confusion. . All five victims ofyesterday's attack were emp(oyees ofUnionTem, the-US'Oil'Company. Th8y were on thefrway to work, a journey ofonly a few minUtes, and died instantly. The Americans were au<frtors who had jUst arrived in Pakistan. ~j:-- '\ ' '. 'b6 '::r' .~.- -_••• ~_.~:. ~ 't •. b7C '" ·0 .::, f AwItnes8 said that the kJJtenI h8d on'~ jack~. wom . ;'L .. ,-JheY:itepped oulof..tli8lt..v8liJde;........ ""... biilleti"trito the victims at' . nt-blank range, cheCked the bodlM do8eIy to en .' 1! .U =~-: ~·;:~~Ut1_.l8IgelBd88d18yd;$~..~. • ' one1*"6ieii ~'~~. a sal for the deportation toAmerfcaofYousef. .'t":J' 01 j Yesterday's mur dens wece probably d8eIgnid to"aVenge the guilty venfJd passed by an American court on Mlr Aimal KasI, a 1.~.. ~ t.fi t;. ~eaki8tan national who IciJJed two CIA employees outside the agency's headquarters In Langley. nearWashington, !flOI'8~ :f:' fOur yeat8 ago. He could face the death penalty. ~ . Kasralawyers are pleading with ajury to spare his life and sentence him to life In prison without parole. The defence produced family membefw. teachers, friends and fonneremployena to show that Kasf had lived a non-violent life before the kJnlngs. The US State Department had given a warning on Tuesday that Americans could be targets after the KasI verdic.t. Mike MeCuny, President C&nton's spokesman, saki there was no Immediate direct evidence to link the KaI8Chi murders with the KasI conviction, but officials were watchfng for any connection that developed. Condemning yesterdayis Karachi attack as barbarous and outrageous. MrMcCuny said that it would not affect MrCUnton's visit to Pakistan next year. LOAD-DATE: November 14, 1997 Copyright.O 2005 LexJsNexfs. a division ofReed Elsevier Inc. AD rights reserved. Your use ofthis seNfce fa governed by TJmn~~i!&o.J... Please~them. http://web.lexis.com/xcha-nge/search/dispdoc.aso? aStrinFb4kDb1 F04U2W3%~FCkWn - R/~ /?nnfi ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED ~IN IS UNCLASSIFIED ~ ~ 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sabJl~ BRIEF ONIR:AN No. 798 Tuesday, December 9, 1997 Representative OfOce of The National Council of Resistance of Iran Washington, DC P ~~··1>;'I!11;;;P2~J'~":' ~.~" .~. age' ,01." :~" •.,;" Dt.s~s~.~ C1tle Tf:\B C-. Spying on Foreign Reporters in Tehran, Iran Zamin News Agency, December 8 The regime's Ministry of Intelligence is doing it utmost to prevent foreign reporters from gaining access to the realities of the Iranian society. According to reports from Iran, the regime has instructed the majority of foreign reporters to leave Tehran immediately after the summit of the Organization of Islamic Conference•. The reporters·have reportedly asked to go to Com and meet with dissident clergymen. Meanwhile, the regime has imposed more restrictions on Montazeri, form.er successor to Khomeini. MOl')tazeri's comments against Khamenei in recent weeks escalated the power struggle within the regime. Protest Gathering of Mojahedin Families in Tehran, Iran Zamin News Agency, December 8 According to reports from- Iran, simultaneous with the Organization of Islamic Conference's meeting in Tehran, large groups of families of Mojahedin martyrs and political prisoners gathered today in the Iranian capital's Behesht..e Zahra cemetery to protest the clerical regime's repressive policies. The families gathered despite security measures by the regime and chanted slogans against the regime's leaders, and in support of the National Liberation Army and the Resistance's leaders. The protesters condemned the regime's efforts to take advantage of the OIC summit to legitimize their atrocities in the name of.Islam. The Revolutionary Guards attacked the gathering of Mojahedin families and arrested and took a'way dozens of people, including elderly mothers, the reports say. Iran Denies. It's Involvement in Killing ofFour Americans, Agence France Presse, December 8 ISLAMABAD - Iran Monday denied its nationals were involved in the killing of four US business executives in the Pakistani city of Karachi last month. \E Police in Karachi said Sunday security agencies had detained eight Iranian nationals in connection wilhthe 1\ murder of the Americans•. The detainees included two people suspected of involvement in the theft of the car the assailants used in the November 12 slaying, the police said. A police official said that investigators were working on a number of theories including suspicions of an Iranian c9nnection in, the slaying. - Cf. · Q .. . a V~ Police were questioning the Iranians but none·of them had confessed to involvement in the crime. said Saud )t .Mirza. a senior superintendent of Karachi police. Trail Heats Up in '94.Argentina Bombing, The Los Angeles Times, December 6 BUENOS AIRES--The hunt for terrorists who slaughtered 86 people in the bombing of a Jewish community center here in 1994 has picked up unexpected momentum...: Investigators believe that the attack also involved Iranian terrorists and members of Modin, a rightist political party of former military officers known for coup attempts and anti-Semitic violence. The latest and most politically prominent investigative target is congressional Deputy Emilio Morello, a former army captain and Modin member. Under questioning by the commission last week, Morello denied allegations that he met with Iranian diplomats ~nd traveled secretly to the Middle East.... Meanwhile. Judge Juan Jose Galeano sought another piece of the puzzle: the suspected Iranian connection. After gathering information in France and Germany on Iranian terrorism, Galeano ftew to Los Angeles to reinterview witness Manouchehr Moatamer, an Iranian defector who lives in California. Moatamer, who fled Iran in 1994, describes himself as a former well-placed Iranian operative with powerful family connections. He says he had access to meetings where intelligence officials plotted the Buenos Aires bombing. During his testimony last week in the Argentine Consulate in Los Angeles, he provided purportedly official Iranian 90cuments on the plot to back his claims... Iranian officials, who deny any role in the bombing, call Moatamer a con man. But investigators believe that he can help them. During his 1994 testimony in Venezuela, he predicted a bombing at the Israeli Embassy in London that occurred days later during a worldwide terror offensive. 19th Dissident Assassinated Abroad During Khatami's Tenure, Iran Zamin News Agency, DecemberS yvednesday, December 3, terrorists dispatched by the Iranian mullahs' regime assassinated Seyyed Jamal Nikjouyan, amem.. ber of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran~ in Kouysenjaq, Iraqi Kurdistan. He was the 19th dissident assassinated on Iraqi territory since Khatami has taken office. r-I: Back to Brief on Iran http://www.tran-e-azad.orglenglish/boil07981209:-97.html 5/1'1/2005 O . C( ,... t. \l~" M Page 1 of2 - D1S~~ I Ptl:J ( _ -BRIEF ON IR..w ,~~o..(L<Y ~1 No. 806 ~ f'AVO, J)eJlS Friday, December 19, 1997 O:F Representative Office of \J ~ Grr'\ ~ettS The National Council or Resistance of Iran ' \ ~ Washington, ~C • ",,.:'':'1... •u" ""f.' , Briefon'irah:'NO:~866~" .~ ,. ," t, ... ......1, • • ALL:LION CONTAINED HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/lsg Religious-Civil Tension Mounts in Iran, The Wall Street Journal, December 17 TEHRAN-••.Dr. Ibrahim Yazdi, leader of the Iran Freedom Movement, was summoned to the Islamic Court Sunday evening, associated said.•••Dr... Yazdi hasn't communicated with associates since phoning them that night..•• The court that brought in Dr. Yazdi is closely aligned with Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The arrest may deepen the divisions between Ayatollah Khamenei and the country's elected leader, President Mohammad Khatami. •••. President Khatami has sought to play down his differences with Ayatollah Khamenei. But others, including student activists and a few religious figures, have been pushing him toward a confrontation. Last month, ·Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, an Iranian religious figure who once was in line to be supreme leader, gave a lecture painting Iran's presidential election as a repudiation of Ayatollah Khamenei.. •• In reaction, a mob pillaged Ayatollah Montazeri's home and office in aom, Iran's theological center. Street demonstrations were held throughout Iran in support of Ayatollah Khamenei, who said critics of the country's theocratic system were guilty of "acts of treason."... t ../ 'l,. .. . . Dr. Yazdi's detainment could be a warning by Ayatollah Khamenei that he won't hesitate to move against critics now that most of the international press corps haslett Tehran after the OIC meeting.••• Ayatollah Montazeri isn't the only cleric critical of Ayatollah Khamenei, though.••.some ~ullahs have long doubted Ayatollah Khamenei's religious credentials. and suggest a committee be set up to replace the single leader.,•.,' In particular, the top cleric in Isfahan is reported to have given a stem warning Friday to the officially tolerated vigilantes who have ransacked newspaper offices in that city, which is a stronghold of President Khatami.•.•. Putting Ayatollah Montazeri on trial would be a risky move, though. As one of seven top religious authorities in Iran, he has silent adherents throughout the country••.. Mr. Khatami and Ayatollah Khamenei may face more conflicts next year••.• . Police Probe Iranian Link In US Murders, United Press International, December 18 .t ISLAMABAD-Pakistani and U.S. investigators probil)g the murders of four Americans in Karachi last month are f looking at a possible Iran,ian link. . Officials at the U.S. embassy in Islamabad have confirmed local reports Thursday that investigators are interrogating Iranians for their possible involvement in the deaths. ~eports say police in Karachi arrested more than a dozen Iranians last week. Some have since been r~Je~~ but police are ~till holding six as possible suspects. Police traced telephone calls to the apartment where theJt:anlans lived., '" . • !& ...... ~ ....... t. 1 ,No. ~U() r~ Q 0 lI!: . rorist attack last month in Karachi, a southern port city, left four Houston oil co~pany e';'ployees dead•••• _~ ~ .. ...~~_ .... ~ ........_.. _..... _ ~_ ................... lIIr.4 tIl'l~" .. .: • • _ "f ~.' .. r_JIY. I Women Resist Raw Deal in Islamic Iran, Reuter, December 15 TEHRAN (Reuters). Women were in the vanguard of the Iranian revolution that ousted the Shah 18 years ago, but they ha~e had a raw deal in the Islamic republic and are increasingly demanding greater rights. I, Few of the counUess thousands of women.who poured into the streets, defying the Shah's soldiers to demonstrate for change, can have imagined that the revolution would turn the clock back more than half a century for their sex. Yet that, according to feminist lawyer Mehrangiz Kar, is exactly what happened. "The family protection law enacted in the last four years of the Shah's regime, which improved many things for women, was abolished and they returned to the previous law approved 66 years earlier: she told Reuters in an interview.•.. In the name of Islam, the ruling Shi'ite Muslim clergy reinstated laws that give men an absolute right to divorce their wives without having to produce any justification and, in the vast majority of cases, custody over the children. Women are entitled to keep boys only up to the age of tWo and girls until seven. After that the father has the right to custody••.. "Although the mother has a very lofty place in Iranian literature and religious tradition, legally she is next to nothing," Kar said. Women are barred from serving as judges, although there were many on the bench before the revolution. They face explicit discrimination in the criminal law and an unwritten "glass ceiling" in ~mployment. A woman's evidence in court is worth only half a man's. Kar said, and for some offenses., women's evidence is not admissible at all.... Blood money for a murdered woman is only half that for a man. Moreover, in an Islamic version of Catch 22, if a murdered woman's family insists on her male killer's execution, her relatives have to pay his family the full blood money in compensation,Kar said. [jiiiiii'IBack to Brief on Iran httn:llwww.iran-e-a7ad.on!/enqli~hlhoi/OR06121997.html 5/11/2605 o ARMED CONFLICTS REPORT 2004 ~ PROJECT \;b- "P~hQr,S" .• NrnttU ~UUlUC;Lnupun ~UUU ~1J"U:i~n • ' .. '-! ALL INFOIDlATION CON:rAINED HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED ..••. DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324.. uc baTN:/~~l~ag,-,,-::-._~>!!!!"~.:...... ...J~.~~ DlS~ TAB A .. , '."', Pakistan (1992 • first combat deaths) Update: .February 2005 . Summary: 2004 Sectarian fighting con~nu6din 2004 as attacks on civilians andsecurity forces, bombing of mosques, and drive-by shootings ofpoliticians killed between 100 and 170 people. Most casualties were civilians who died in the year Jfi two most serious attacks, both bombings ofSunni mosques. President Musharrafwas entrenched as head ofthe government andarmy until at least 2007 by a bill approved by Pakistan iiilower house.. Pakistan was declared a tt ajor ally"by US President Bush In recognition ofPakistan Iicontribution to the fight against al-Qaeda. 2003 Sectarian violence claimed approXimately 100 lives this year, with Shia Muslim civilians accounting for most of the casualties. President Musharraf continued a crackdown on militant groups, to which may be linked an attempt on his life in December. 2002 Sectarian violence claimed dozens of lives this year with Islamic militants stepping up attacks against Pakistani Christians and foreigners. 2001 Sectarian violence continued in 2001 with targeted killings of prominent members of the community. In August. the Sindh provincial government initiated a crackdown on Islamic mifitants. According to one Pakistani media source, more than 50 people were killed In the violence dUring the year. 2000 Although violence has declined since the military coup of October 1999, sectarian tensions persisted between the majority Sunni and the minority Shimte Muslim groups in Karachi. The killing of prominent religious leaders and political activists resulted in violent protests. At least 25 people were killed in the violence. 1999 Despite the central government. imposition of Govemorfi Rule in late 1998 in response to Sindh violence, political and sectarian killings persisted in Karachi, albeit at a much reduced level. At least 75 were killed during the year, down from the estimated 1,000 conflict deaths in 1998. 1998 In 1998 reprisal killings between militants of the Muttahida Qami Movement (MOM) and a break-away faction increased violence in the city of Karachi. Type of Conflict: State fonnationJ Failed state. Parties to the Conflict: Nm.,u \Junruct neport ~uuu - ....aKlstan o 1) Government o t'age ~ or~· b6 b7C b7E As of October 1999, led by Chief Executive General Pervez Musharaf foll~wing the overthrow of the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 8 military coup. Under the previous Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. the government engaged the Pakistani ponce Force, Paramilitary~angers· and troops from the Frontier Corps (Constabulary) in the conflict 2) Armed groups: Several parties opposed to the government (and each other) are involved in the violence. These are seen to be primarily ethnic or religious groups. (a) Jeay Sindh (Qadir Magsi Group) representing Sindh nationalists; (b) Mohajir-Qaumi-Movement (M-Q-M) led by Altaf Hussain On exile in London since 1992) representing Mohajirs(migrants) who moved to Pakistan in 1947 when India was partitioned. NamE!changed to Muttahida Qaml Movement in 1998: (e) M-Q-M (Haqiqi), a breakaway faction led by Afaq Ahmed; 1 r--------.., MUlat-i! israiJ\tYe PaklStaii (MIP), previously known as S1p8h.&baha-Pakistan, Wh~" ,••~ fP' represents Sunni Moslems with support from fundamentalist groups In saudi Arabia ~"'~:I, ~-f ~:~ ... and Libya; Islaml Tahrik-e Pakistan (ITP), previously known as Tehrik-l..Jaffaria-Pakistan, which rePresents.ShiJite Moslems with sOme finanCial support fiom Ira" .Led by Mohammad Baqar Najfi; (d) Lashkar-e-Jhangvl, suspected of having links with Osama Bin Laden. al-Qaeda. In aac ltion, criminal elements, some working through the above groups, also contribute to the Violence, a legacy of Pakistan. involvement in the war in Afghanistan and the related drug trade. In January 2002, President Musharrafbanned five ,Islamic militant groups inclUding, Sipah-8abahaPakistan and Tehrik-I-Jaffaria. This ban was extended'in 2003 following the renaming of.several of the groups. • ban Imposed on three Islamic organizations by the Pakistani government over the weekend. In a move1hatsawdozens of Islamic activists rounded uP aerosa the country, was the continuation ofaban imposed last year, acconfll1g to a senior government otIidaI. WIlls Is a conUnuatJon ofthe old ban on groups that had become active under new names,- Infonnation Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmad told IRIN.... ' Among the ouUawed groups were the Sunnl organisation. SIpa~e Pakistan. which later re-emerged as MIJIat.e JsIamI.ye Pakistan (MIP): and its rival. the ShHih group, Yahrik-e Jaliari-ye PakIstan. which. thereafter. renamed itself IsIami TaMk-e Paldstan (ITP). Both the new organisations have been banned••• •(IRlN, November17. 2oo3J Status of Fighting: 2004 Anned violence continued in the form of attacks on civilians, bombing of mosques, drive-by shootings of politicians and attacks on security forces. The most serious Incidents of the year were March and October bombings of Sunnl mosques that killed over 80 people and wounded hundreds more. Itxtremilt strikes and sectarian attacks across the countJy toQeUMH'wtth minHnsurgendes In two of Pakistan 's four provinces have increased public insecurity and criticism ofPresident Pervez Mushal1'8f.-(SBe News. July 1. 2004] -, .oIlce In the Pakistani city of Karachi have fir9d tear gas at thousands of angry moumeIS after an attack onaShIa mosque killed at least 20. Ttouble en.tpted after funeml prayers for 1.01those killed In Monday's attack. which officials beUeve was a sectarian suicide • I"\IIII"U VUIIIIICL nOIJUrL ~UW - t'aKititan . Q o tJage ~ or tI bombing. The funerals i)Iow overnight unrest In whJeh three people died In duheI wiIh the police.·span atytea"mso-bIcI-tlnt-weight - bold: font.famlJy: Mar> [BBC News, June 1, 2OCM) ltaklatanl police say a bombhawounded 13 police and soIdleta In the IOUth-westem city ofQuetta •Those Injured were tnMIIIInQ In a truck when the bfast occurred. Police have yet to identify the attackets. One report said a bomb on a bIcyde had been detonated by remote control: another said a grenade was thrown from a motoreyde. Quetta has been a target for lllamic mltltants -In March over40 people died In an attack on Shla MuaUms.-[BBC News. May 24. 2(04) _ • • car bomb that exploded on Thursdayoutalde a bible society. ofIIce In the southern port city of I<arachI ,inJurInG at least 12 people and damaging the wei ofa chun:h dose by. was actually an attack~1aw-en1Orcement agencIa. according to a government oflldaL-(IRIN. January 16.2004) 2003 Fighting between Sunni and Shia communities spread to the southwestern region of the country. In most instances of violence. Shia civilians were indisaiminately attacked. allegedly by extremist Sunni militant groups. The worst such case was the July bombing ofa Shia mosque in Quetta I which resulted in 60 deaths_ Militants employed guerrilla tactics. such as bombings and drive-by shootings. Extremist sectarian groups opposed to President Musharraffi policies, including his administration. alliance with the US in the gar on terror.·sustainedattacks on government security forces and narrowly failed to assassinate Musharraf in December. -st1:country-ntg1on w:st-'"od'> Pakistan President PeMIZ Musharrafnanowty escaped an assassInatSon atIernpt when a bomb exploded Just after his motoR:ade had passed by••• 0fIIdaIs saJcllt was too eady to say who was behind the 8Uack. but the most IiIc8Iy suspects 818 radical haIdInets opposed to MUlllanaffi policy on Afghanistan •his crackdown on extremism and his etbts to rebm islamic schools. Tbe AssocIated Press reported.-[CNN.com. December 14, 20031 .rycrowds rampaged through Pakistan. capital on Tuesday. a day after a prominent Sunni Seaderwas shot dead near Islamabad••• Maufana Azam Tartq. the leader of the Mifat.. lslamiya.... was gunned down by unknown US8IIantI on Monday...-(IRJN, Oc;tober1, 2003) - rilazara ~Jda community leaders have called 101' Increased security, despite lie nttumlng to nanna' foUowfng a Suml militant attacfc on a mosque In the southwestern Pakistani city ofQuettaon" July. The Lashkat+Jhangvl organisation claimed responsibiUty for the attack In which 60 people died... - Thousands ofSunnl and Shla Muslims have been IdIIed In Pakistan over1he past two decades In sectarian violence... [which has been) mostly limited to the eastern Punjab and the southern Sfndh pnMnces. However. In re<:ent months. Hazaras living In Quetta , capital ofthe mostfy bibal southwestem BaJochIstan Province ,have become a target-IIRlN, July 17, 2003) .nknown snipers gunned down nine Shiite Muslims at their place ofworship In karachi •a southern port cIiy In Paldstan •a poIlca oflJcer told AFP [Agenc:e France Presse)... ttwo men came on a motorcycle and one of them took out a gun IookIno like a Kalashnlkov and sprayed buueta on the people going inside Ihe lmambarvah fer evening pray8t.·AnwerHussain, an eyewitness and SUMvortold AFP.-(17Je Age. February 23. 2003) • 2002 Aghting continued between Sunni and Shia communities. In addition. government officials. Pakistani Christians and foreigners were targeted by militant Muslim groups. _asked gunmen have shot dead three Shla Muslims and Injured two others outside a mosque In Pakistan ... Itwas not dearwho was behind the shooting, but vIoIeMe between oppoU1g miitanta from the majority SUnni and mfnority Shfa communities has dalmed hundred ofIves In Paklaian in recent years.·(SSC News. June 18, 2002) • total of 10 pateeI bombs were sent CD oftIcIals in KarachI en 16 and 11 October. Three ofthem expIoded,lnjurInQ nine people, whlfe the othens were defused... The pan:eI bombs appeared to be aimed at the Paklstanf establshment, o1ftcials art..-[BBC News. October 31. 2002) Ahe Christian c::oqununity in Pakistan has been the worst hit by extremist 8Uacks tNet thepaat year -more Christians have died In these Incidents than from any other conununfty. The targeting ofthe hOspital and school, and now1he Karachi chaItty. are the faf8st in a sertes ofattadcs against spedftcally CIufstian missions or places ofWOtShfp.-ISBC News, 8eptember 25. 2002] -st1:CIty w:st="on"> Karachi Witnessed an atIack on the US consulate In June and a auIdde bombing against French naval engineets In May.-(BBC News. september25,2002] 2001 Sectarian violence persisted in 2001 with attacks by extremists from all sides. ,.. '" I""",. . . Q o rca~" ,. u. ~ ."/ Sunnl extremists changed their strategy to targeting prqminent community members such as doctors, lawyers a.nd businessmen. • once In PaldUan I1targest city KarachI are under Intense Pr8SSUrelo end en upsurge In sectarian murders ofdocbaand other professionals In Ihe city. Extremlsta from the majority Sunnl cOmmunity have been blamed for the IdWng of four ShIa dodorI since Apt1I. as wed althe high profile murder of the head of Pakbtan Sta1e Oil. Shaukat Mirza. Fanab from both sides have canted out many deadly attacb In Katachl over the years. but the new tactic Is to target promfnent penonaIldea In the community.-(SSC. september 3.2001) 2000 Although violence has declined since the militaly coup of october 1999. sectarian ten~ions persisted between the majority Sunnl and the minority Shiate Muslim groups In Karachi. The killing of prominent religious leaders and political activists resulted In violent protests. In September. Pakistani police arrested 250 ~mbers of the hardline Sunnl Muslim group. Sipah-e-8ahaaba. Other police and anny operations targeted the two leading ethnically-based parties In Sindh, the Jeay Sindh Qaumi Mahaz (JSQM) and Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM). " (Soun:es: BSC News. 13 September 2000.21 September2000) .asked gunmen ambushed a school van.1dUfng five Sunnl MusIfrM and wounding three others In the lateat round ofrellQfoul violence In Karachi •PakIstan • pollee said. The attack ted to violent protests. with hundreds of Sunnl Muslim students pelting poUce wfth stones, 88Ufng cara on Ire and vandallzlng bIlIboaIdl.·(R6ute~ andAS$OCiatedPress. 28 January 2001) • prominent Pakistanii'eUgioulleadet has been shot dead in KarachI ... Or Quresht. Is a former leader ofJamsat-e IsIamI (Party of Islam) and a focmer memberof the Sindh provincial assembly. In recent years, Dr Qureshi hadsuppolted calls tw islamic law to be introduced In Pakistan .-(BBC News. 18 December2000) • leaderof. ainaJI Pakistani Shute Mua&m group has been shot dead In U1e IOU1hem dty of Karachi • Police say S8rdar Husaaln Jafrf. who headed the IitIfe..known group caJted the vOIce OfShia. died on the spot. A person who Identifted himself88 RIaz BaInI, leader ofthe extremist antl-Shlite group, Lashkar-e-Jhangvl. phoned the SBC shortly after the attack to claim mponsIbiUty.'(BBC News, 15 May 2000) It.ararnUituy rangers and poUce In SIndh province launched a crackdown against aetMsts and leaders ofthe JSQM and theMQMon FebnJaly 19, 2000 after the two parties jointly called fora strike against the governments dismissal of400 PakIstan Steel MIls workers. Paramlltary troops and rangers responded with searth and siege operations In the cities and a searth forJSQM ae:tMsts In tural8l88s of Slndh. resultfng In the arrestofabout forty adivIsts.-span 1ang='"EN-CA- styIp'"rnso-IJfdf..t)n-slze: 10.0pt; font·famUy: Aa1a1; mso-bkfl..t)nt·famiIy:,T1mes New Roman; mso-anaI-tanguage: EN.CA~ [1UnM RlIhU WMch %001 Wortd Report) 1999 Despite the central government. imposition ofGovern0r8 Rule in late 1998 in response to Sindh violence. politICal and sectarian killings 'persisted in Karachi. albeit at a much reduced level. The intensity of the violence dropped even further after the military assumed federal powers in an October coup. Itolitically motivated violence and sectarfan violence continued to be aproblem, although In the weeks following the 0dDbet12 coup there were few Ifany reported casea ofsuch violence. Govemor's Rule, Imposed to correctaserIoUs law and onfer problem created In part by poIitfcaI tensions In the province. continued In Slndh untl the coup.-/span> ( PaWan OXIntryRepott on Human Rights Practk;e$ for 1999, BureauofDetnocraey. Human RIghts, and Labor. US Department of State. February. 2000) 1998 In 1998 tit-tor-tat killings between the Muttahida Qami Movement (MQM) and a break-away faction inc.reased the level ofviolence in Karachi _, "heMQU. which changed Ita name to Mutfahlda Qaml Movementfrom 1MMohaJirQamI Movement. Is locked In a bfaody conflict with a dissident 1adfon called theMQM Haqlql. Hundreds ofpeople have died In f8Ceflt months In tIt.fOr4at killings by the mHitants of the two 1aclfons.'(1be AssociatedPress. November20. 1998) ....cethe early summer more Chan 100 people i;I1 the city have died In gun battfes between rival pofltical factions each month. In recentdays the violence has gathered pace.-[The Guan1ian Weeldy. 0Ct0bet 18, 1998. p5] Number of Deaths: Total: Estimates range upwards from 5.000. Ahousands ofSunnl and Shia Muslins have been kiDed in Pakistan over the past two decades In sectarian violence fueled by htto://ww'W.oloumshares.ca/cnntAnt/ AnR/ A~Rnn / A~Rnn-p~lt;~~" "'+",,1 ----- -------- - ---- Armea liOntllCt Keport ~UUU - t"8K1stan . ~ . O· . extremist outfits of the two Muslim sects.·[/RIN. July 17,2003) o t'8ge.~ ot 8 • ~ .... 4. ..... '" b6 b7C "heMOM launched an anned uprising In 1993 after the city government was dismissed, and brought KarachI to Its tcnees.1e8vIng more than 5.000 people dead and afppIIng the economy of PakIstan .. main c:ommetdal centre. Karachi" descent reached Its nadir last year when more than 2.000 people, including 242 poIce otIk:ers, dfed In nfghUy street baUfes.· [. st1 :Clty w:sta'"on'"> Karacht pays high price for peace.'John Stackhouse. Globe a['d Uall. OCtober28. 1998) 2004 Between 100 and 170 people, primarily civilians, were reported killed in sporadic Intercommunal violence. ftroops have been caRed In to maintain order In tbe Paldstanl ctty of Mullan after a car bomb kJISed at least 40 people at a meetInG of Sunnl Musllms.·(SBC News, October 7,2Q0.4]· • lit least 11 people have died In a gun attack on the motorcade ofthe army commanderIn Pakistan's lOutbem ctty of Karachi •the authorities say. [BBC News. June 10,2004] Itonce In the Pakistani city of Karachi have ftt'8d tear gas at thousands ofangry mourners after an attack on a Shls mosque killed at least 20.'ISBCNews, June 1, 2004] • bomb attack on a packed Shls mosque In the southern Pakistani city of Karachi has left at least 15 people dead, ofllclals say•• [BBC News, May 7, 2004) .. lit least 42 people have been killed and over 100 wounded In an atiac:k on Shla Musftms In the Paldstanl city of Quetta , hospital ofllclals say.'[BBC News. March 2,2004) 2003 Independent media reports indicate that approximately 100 hundred people, the majority of them Shia Muslim civilians, were killed in 2003. ~violence and tensions continued to be a serious problem uuoughout the country••• At least 100 persons were kiUed In sectarian violence durfng the year, mostcan1ed out by unldentifted gunmen.-(US State Depattment ofState. Mountry Repods on Human RJQhts PractIces· 2003.·February 25. 2004] 2002 A number of media reports estimate that dozens of people were killed in sectarian violence and attacks on government officials. Ahere have been sevenli attacks on foreign targets In Sindh induding".... S A suicide attack on a navy bUs In KarachI In May which IcIIJed 1.. people•••• SA eat bomb at the US consulaf8 in Karachi In June, which killed 12 peopIe.-[SSC News. september 24,2002) .tleast 36 people have been killed and about 100 Injured In sevetal violent attacks this year against Christian and western targets••• Police in Karachi have arrested dozens of alleged Muslim extremists in connecUon with the recent attacks on Christian targets•• ISBC News. september29, ~OO2J 2001 According to at least one Pakistani media source, more than 50 people were killed in sectarian violence in Karachi. • AIle highest number of tsrrorist atfacks was recorded In Karachi where In 33 incidems,54 pefSOI1S were kIaed. The second [highest) . remained FATA. where 81 pelSCX1SWet8 killed In seven Inddenta ofsectarlan violence. Dera lsamilKhan remained [third highest) where 10 people were kiUed and 19 injured In 8 terrorist attacks. 1.. people were IcIHed and 8 InjunKI In 5 attacks In lahore ,,,killed and 3 Injured in 3 incidents In Multan ... kiIIed in 2 at MaiIsy.·(PakNews. August 21, 2001] 2000 At least 25 people were kiUed in Karachi ,mostly due to sectarian violence. Marlier. gunmen riding In two C8IS Intercepted a van belonging to the~Madrfa Sunnl Muslim school on a congested road and opened fire with automatic assauft rifle$, wItne8ses said. 1111'88 deftcI. a teenage studentand the drlveiwere kIIed Immedlatefy, while three other people.lnc:fudlng a poUceman guarding the van, were wounded. police said.·[ReutaI3 and AasocIaIed Press, 28 January 2001] • • ItaldstanlIawyerand Shite leader has been shOt deed by unidentified gunmen In KarachI. Waqar,NaqvI, .'ieidot~Orthe ShIIte group. Tehrik+JafMa. was Idled along with his teen.son and his driver as"he"was taking his c:hDdren,1D schoOl No group has said Itcanied out the leiltfnga. but a spokesman for Tehrik+Jaftiia Hasan Turabl blamed a mlHtant SuMI Muslim group - SIpaha Sshaba ~aJdstan .'(BSCNews, 7 April 2000] - , .. , , .. , .... ..--. ........... -_ ...... _ ......... -- It!' ·1U1Tl8a vOnTtlct Naport ~UW - t"aKJstan o .rale ti Of 9 "here " has been wfdeIpread cPatuptfon In the Pakistani dty of KarachI •foIfowfng the IcIBng of.a pmmInent...SunNIMudm~ MullahrUMLudhIanvf. tit Ludhianvr. drtvetwas alsO kited and his son serlouIIy wounded.-lBBC IHWI. 18 May 2000] 1999 At least 75 people were killed in Karachi due to'political violence. i!espfte improved security conditions underGovernocis Rule. bnwore 75 deaths 1hat were presumed to be the resutt of poIItJcaI violence In Kar8chI.~1 Pakittan Countly Repotfon Human R1Qhb Practk:ea for 1999. Bureau of Demoaacy, Human RIghts. and Labor. US DepaI1mentofState. FebnJary.2000J 1998 More than 1,000 people died in violence. (Aasociated PreS$. November20. 1998] .tleast 750 people have been kIIJed In KaraChI this year. mainly. says tt1e MOM. as a result of attacks on Itself by a breakaway factlon.-(T1Je Economist. November7. 1998) Political Developments: 2004 President Pervez Musharraf will remain head of the army and government until at least 2007, after a bill passed in Pakistan • lower house extended his tenure in both roles_ Musharref also named Shaukat Aziz, a political novice, as Prime Minister in August_ Although the government ordered an inquiry in~o a March attack on civilians, several strikes were called (mainly in Sindh province) to protest government handling of the conflict. The Sindh provincial govemment failed to fonn a fBoalition of national unity-with the seven opposition parties In an attempt to stem the tide of conflict and the minister of the Sindh province resigned after violence escalated in June_ US President Bush declared Pakistan a ttajor ally·in recognition of its contribution to the fight against al-Qaeda allowing Pakistan access to special benefi~ including expanded foreign aid and priority delivery of military equipment. -st1:pIace w:st="on"> Pakistan's lower house of par1iament has passed a blH allowing Gen Pervez Mushanafto remain as both president and head of the amy. The biD will artaw the president to keep both posts unUl2007.-(BBC News. OCtober 14. 20041 ahe reins of pa.ver ~e once again been handed overIn PaJdstan •And once again. It's a man hand.pIcked by the c:ountry'a military ruler. Gen Pervez Musharraf. And though it has all been done constitutionaJJy. the question being asked Is whethera poIitk:aJ novICe Ike Shaukat AzJz. has the competence and capability to deal with the counby's complex poIitJcal and laW and Older situation. or even bigger issues IJke combatfng aJ.Qaeda-backed terrorism.·(BSC News, August 28. 2004] . • atln Paldstan the chief ministerof the southern province ofSindh has resigned aftera series of'vIol8nt Jnddents over the last few weeks. The provincial governor told reporters that chief ministerAU Mohammed Mehr had JeSlgned b'petIOn8I reasons.-[SBC News. June 7.2004] • strike called by Pakistan 's hardllne Islamic paItfes In r8sponse to a week of sectarian violence has been aJmost fully obserVed In' Karachi. There were sporadic reports ofunrest as worshippers attended Friday prayers In 1he tense southern dty~:[BBCNews, ,June ".2004] • Ahe govemin9 Pakistan Muslim League party (PML) In the southern pnMnce of SIndh has offeced lofonn a coalition with seven opposition parties. It wants to form a government ofnational unity In Sindh to tackle the law and order crisis thenJ. The move comes after three days of \riolence betweenShuand Sunnls left over 23 people dead In the provincial capital. Karachi •But there Is disagreement as to who should be the d1lef mlnister.-(BBC News. June 3, 2004J JluthOfftles In Pakistan have ordered an Inqulty Into an attack on Shla Muslims which left at least 43 people dead as they marked the holy day ofAshwa. A curfew Is in place In the clty of Ouetta wheAt the attack took place. with soldiers patrolling Its snet:s.-(BBC News. Marth 3. 20041 . 2003 The leader of the militant Sunni organization Miffat-e Isrami-ye Pakistan (MIP) was assassinated in OCtober, leading to rioting in Islamabad. The govemment· sustained a crackdown on banned Sunni and Shia militant groups and arrested their leaders. President Musharrafcontinued to support US Initiatives in the J§ar"on terror-In neighbouring Afghanistan •a position not welcomed by many Pakistani citizens. b7E - ----------- o --~- '0 ~ITP [IsIamI Tahrfk-e PaJdstan)Ieader. sajld N8qvf. was anested In a late-nlght taJd In 1aIamabad. but iwas notckt8rwhether his 8IT'8ItwuIn his c;apacIty aUte leaderofthe MCfatian outftt. orbecawe he Is deged to have been InvcMId In the nwnSet of his mllf rtval.AzamTariq:of the MIP;Who was gunned down In • hal ofbuleta by unknown aasaJIanta earty lastmonth near the Paldltanl_.......__-, capltal.-(/R/N. November 17. 2003) 2002 lri'.aanUaJYi the' go~emment ~nn.~.!i"e mill1aDtlslam1egnS(i"ps. Induding the-Slpah- 8abaha-Pakisfan and TehnlC-I.Jaffiiiia. Ai\umber of groups reacted to the ban and to Pakistan" support of the US-Ied liar on terror'by.attacking foreigners and Pakistani Christians. prompting the Christian community to demand protection from the government and the international community. The government responded by introducing new security measures around non~uslim places ofworship. Fighting continued between the Sunn; and Shia communities in Sindh despite govemment efforts to increase security in the province• " .. . • sulclde bomberblew up a bus y88tanIaY In Paldatan • port city of KsIIChI.1dlIfnQ 1<4 people. mostof them FnN1Ch nationals· lndudlng himself••• Many expeItI say It"pointed nstaHaifon at Pakistani PresIdentPeNN Mushanatll cradcdown on ItIamIc mUhant groups and for slowing US IIaaps to ClOSS the Palcktanl border to hunt down AJ Qeeda flghtera••• Some expodI are pointing to MuUahIda Quami Uovement.••·(1he Chmtlan Sdenc:e Monitor. May 9. 20021 • 2001 In August the government of the Province of Sindh initiated a crackdown on Islamic militants, arresting more than 200 people in raids. • aIIce In PaJdstan have detained more than 200 peoplenraids on mBJtant islamic homes and oftJc:es In KarachI Mel the southem SIndh provfnce. The c:rackdown was launched aftet the Slndh pruvk\dal governorImposed a ban on fundraIsIng In the name ofjihad. or holy war.-[CNN. August 22. 2001) 2000, Facing increasing pressure from the international community to restore democracy, military leader General Pervez Musharraf ruled out the possibility of holding general elections or reviving the suspended Pakistan parliament within the next two years. (SotJn:es: BBCNews. 12 OCtober 2000: SSC News. 13 Odober2000] 1999 On October 12, Prime Minister Mian Nawaz Sharifwas ousted from power in a bloodless milftary coup led by Army Chief of Staff General Pervez Musharraf. ItOln OCtober 12. the eJeded dviRan gowmmentof Prime .....-Mfan NawazSluutfwasoverthrown In a bl0odiess coup led by Army ChiefofStaffGenenal PeNeZ Mushanaf.· (PaIdstJln Country Repotton Human RIghts Ptac1/t:e$ for 1999. Buteau of DemactaCY. Human Rfohts. and labor. US Departmentof state. Februaly. 2000) 1998A month after the MQM walked out of the provincial government coalition, the .. federal prime minister. Nawaz Sharif. declared GOvemorti Rule (a state of emerger:acy) in Karachi • called out the army to quell the violence. and announced the establishment of military courts for the city. JIrfme Minister Nawaz Shariftoday dedansd a stile ofemergency and called out the anny to queI violence thathas killedmen Ih8n 1.000 people In the port city OfKatachl. Sharffalso annaunc:ed Ute estabIIshm8nt ofmiUtaly courts In Karac:hl_·(Assoc:Ieted Press. November20., 19981 Ahe MOM has since watJced out of1he SlndhcoaJltfon. and on October30th the feder.d prime minJst8r;Nawaz ShatIf. placed the provfnc:e under direct rule from Isfamabad .·(1be ~.November7. 1998. p41] • Mast week Mr. Sharif bolstered his pOSition ewm fuf1her. lbe lower house ofthe Natfonal Assembly passed a BII Jmposlng Islamic law on the country desplts stiff resisfance from a coalition ofopposition parties. -[The GuaR'lian WHIdy. OCtober 18. 1998. p5) Background: The migration of Indian Musflms (mohajirs) into Sindh province following the 1947 Indla..pakistan partition~ combined ~ a more recent influx of large numbers of Pashtuns and Punjabis. created economic tensions with the indigenous. generally poorer, Muslim population. These have fed a .http://www.ploughshares.ca/content!ACRIA~~nn I A 1'\""'" - ~ • _ Armea ~Ont1lct Heport 2UUU -Oklstan ~ o '" complexity of conflict. Sindhis are calling for a Sindhi state; the mohajirs, led by the MQM, are seeking a separate state around the provincial capital, Karachi; and there are sectarian differences ~tween'the majority Sunni and minority ShiJite Muslims. The proximity of the Afghanistan war has fed the violence by providing weapons. crimina) elements, including drug traffickers, and reported foreign support for Muslim extremism. From June 1992 to November 1994 the Pakistan Army was deployed in a major, and ultimately unsuccessful, operation to control Karachi and after the anny. withdrawal, police and paramilitary troops contributed to a rising toll of·shooting deaths in the cityFollowing earfy 1997 elections, the MQM joined the majority Muslim League in the national and Sindh provincial governments. A month after the MQM walked out ofthe provinCial government coalition in late 1998, the then federal prime miQister. Nawaz Sharif, declared Govemor1fl Rule (a state ofemergency) in Karachi, called out the anny to quell the violence, and announced the establishment of military courts for the city_ Since a coup in OCtober 1999, the Pakistan government has been controlled by the military under General Pervez Musharraf and sectarian violence has declined. The Pakistani government intensified its crackdown on militant sectarian groups following the 2001 US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan , fueling further resentment between the extremist groups and the government Several attempts have been made in r~t years on President Musharraftii life. QCJn Slndh, open gun battles between the MuhajlrQaumi Movement (MQM), which represents Urdu-epeaJdng migrants from India , S1ndhllandlonllashkars (private milltfas) and the anny are daily occurrences. TheMQM has begun to ."..b' the sepAt8tJon of Karachi tram the rest of the provfnce. VIolence threatens 10 pamlyze the capital. even though the anny has had dlr8c:t msponslbtRty for Its administration slnce June. 1992.Aplan announced recently to replace the miIitaty presence with police and rangers Is unlikely to ease tensJons.-(-au:CJty w:"on'"> J<arachI,1dlIInga point to deeperstltfe,-Oxford Analytic&. Globe lind MaR, December5, 1994J .'nKarachi JDrug ttaftiddng started 10 Increase significantly aft8t 1979, and the praftts went reportedly used to fund the procurement and supply ofweapons to the (Afghanll Mujahideen. Tbe pcxt city of Karachi was an obvious exit point for drugs. By 1983, violence had started to be a dallyreature ofthedty lie. But ltwas the dosure.ofthe Punjab route Into india b11992 that started to esc:a1at8 anned vfoIenc:e, Indlsatmlnate use of automatic weapons. and dnIg Craft'lddnQ. The'Army had to be deployed to control the anned conftfct which had a multlfadous dimension, not the least being the easy avaiabIfity oflethal rnan-podable • weapons.-[ MIghtW8apons and Conflict In Southern AsIa ,-by Jasjit SIngh. Ught Weapons andIntemationll Security. BASIC et aL December 1995, pp 60J Arms Sources: The Pakistani government recently imported weapons from the United States. Netherlands. Italy , France, China. Belarus. and Ukraine. The alliancefonned between Pakistan and the US in'the • aron terror-has led to an increase in US military assistance to Islamabad. The govemmentalso depends on domestic supplies_ The rebel movements have been supplied by the "Afghan Pipeline" • US weapons during the 19808, and Eastem European anns since. (Soun:es: Wodd Military ExpenditutesandAnns Tl8nsfers 1999-2000, The Military Bslsnce 2000-2001: SIPRf YlIslOOok, 2002] -st1:country-reg1on w:sta"on-' Pakistan and the United States are slated to begin talks this week on arms sales, with V'l8shlngton now ready to loosen its Iong-stancfmg ban on sales ofImpoc1ant mllftary equipment to PaJdstan ••• [in the 1990sJ W'ashington &1arted an anllS embargo... to protest PaJdsfan Ii nuctear program.•• But Pakistan. alliance with the Unitad States In Its waragainst terrorism has radically changed the situation. After meeting with Paldafanl President pecvez Mushanaf In June, President Bush promised Pakistan up to $1.5 billion rn military aJd.-(Vo«:e ofAmedca , September 18, 2OO3J ItakistanJ security fon:es have recovered a cache ofanns••• that went being smuggledhmthe counflyfi lrbaIal88S, police saJd wednesday••• rIVe Russian missiles, five rocket launchers wiIh shells. 121ca1aahnllcov riftes..sevet8I otherguns and thousands of rounds of ammunition••• wenJ coming from the tribal area of Bara nearthe Afghan border. saki senior secret police otnc:erAshraf Khan. _heMare an modem, foreIgn-made anna. The large quantity Indfcates that they were meant for some subversive aetJvfty or for use In sedarlan violence In ~njab province,-Khan told AfP.-[Agence Franca Presse, January 1. 2003) • majordefence exhibition is opening today Tuesday In Pakistan 's largest city, KarachI. The show is Intended to focus PakJan's atlempls to launch In., the arms export nuuttet; mons than forty faIeIgn delegations are clue to 8U8nd...Most of the annaments factories In Paldstan are state-nm and produce weapons for the anned forces. but Iho·BBC Islamabad correspondent says they're seen as under-dlzed and a drak1 on pubUc spending.-[SSe News, 1. November2000J ilubln [fonner Director of the Fulbright FoundationJ obseMs that often ofBdals ofthe patty miIitafy commitf8e (who received the weapons) would sign a false recelpt for more anns than had adualy been receMKS. The diffet8nce was then sold to private arms dealefs by lSI oftIcers, the profit being shared by both parties. Agreat deal ofmoney appeared to have been made In this manner and was Invested largely In the drug trade.-[-st1:pIace w:stz"on-' Southern AsIa: The Narcotics and 'Neapons Unkage,-Tara Kartha. Ught We~pons andInternational Security, BASIC et ai, December 1995.. p.73J. '.'.... ... ... '. ARMED CONELIC~S RI;.P0.BI PAGE; l' ,-. '.01; v :_ Project Ploughshares Institute of Peace and ContUet StudIes. Conrad Grebel College Waterloo, Ontario, canada N2L 3G6 tel (519) 888 6541 (ax (519) 8850806 aU rights reserved ~ EMAIL '. •,.6 _TlME.com PrintPage: NatioroExclusive: Feds Probe a Top DemOCCORelation~p wi... Page 1of3 TIME NATION ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS UNCLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/1sg - Friday, Oct. 20, 2006 Exclusive: Feds Probe a Top Democrat's Rela.tionship with AIPAC The Department of Justice is investigating whether Rep. Jane Harman and the pro-Israel group worked tog~ther to get her reappointed as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee By TIMOTHY J. BURGERJWASHINGTON Did a Democratic member ofCongress improperly enlist the support ofa major pro-Israel lobbying group to try to win a top committee assignment? That's the question at the heart ofan ongoing investigation by the FBI and Justice Department prosecutors, who are examining whether Rep. Jane Harman ofCalifornia and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) may have violated'the law in a scheme to getHannan reappointed as the top Democrat on theHouse intelligence committee, according to knowledgeable sources in and out ofthe U.S..government. The sources tell~that the investigation by Justice and the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation, which has simmered out ofsight since about the middle oflast year, is examining whether Harman and AIPAC arranged for wealthy supporters to lobby House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Harman's behalf: Harman said Thursday in a voicemail message that any investigation of- or allegation ofimproper conduct by.-· her would be "irresponsible, laughable and scurrilous." On Friday, Washington GOP super lawyer Ted Olson left voicemail messages underscoring that Hannan has no knowledge ofany investigation. "Congresswoman Hannan has asked me to follow up on calls you've had," Olson said. "She'is not aware ofany such investigation, does not believe that it is occurring, and wanted to make sure that you and your editors knew that as far as she knows, that's not true....' No one from the Justice Department has contacted her.n It is . not, however, a given that Harman,would know that she is under investigation. In a follow-up phone call from California, Olson said Hannan hired him this morning because she takes seriously the possibility ofa media report about an investigation ofher, even though she does not believe it herself. Aspokesman for AIPAC, a powerful Washington-based organization with . more than 100,000 members across the U.S., denied any wrongdoing by the group and stressed that it is not taking sides in regards to the committee assignment. Spokespersons for Justice and the FBI decline4 to comment. The'case is a spin-offofa probe that has already led to charges under the Espionage Act against two AlPAC lobbyists, whose case is still pending, and to a 12-and-a-half-year prison sentence for fonner Defense Intelligence Agency official Lawrence A. franklin. Franklin pleaded guilty a year ago http://www.time.comltimelnaQonlprin!outlO.88I~, 1.S49Q~9,OO.h~1 TIME.com Print Page: Nati0ne>Exclusive: Feels Probe a Top DemocrabRelationship wi... Page 2 of3 to three felony counts involving improper disclosure and handling of classified information about the Middle East and terrorism to the two lobbyists, who in tum are. accused ofpassing it on to ajoumalist and a foreign government, widely believed to be Israel. The two lobbyists, who have denied any wrongdoing but were dismissed by AlPAC in April of 2005, were indicted on felony counts ofconspiring with government officials to receive classified infonnation they were not authorized to have access to and providing national defense infonnation to people not entitled to receive it. Around mid-200S, the investigation expanded to cover aspects ofHannan's quiet but aggressive campaign to persuade House Minority LeaderNancy Pelosi to reappoint her to the prestigious position on the House intel panel. The alleged campaign to support Hannan for the leadership post came amid media reports that'Pelosi had soured on her California colleague and might name Rep. Alcee Hastings ofFlorida, himselfa major supporter of Israel, to succeed Harman. Th~ sources say the probe also involves whether, in exchange for the help from AIPAC, Hannan agreed to help try to persuade the Administration to go lighter on the AIPAC officfals caught up in the ongoing investigation. If that happened, it might be construed as an illegal quid pro quo, depending on the context ofthe situation. But the sources cautiQn that there has been no decision to charge anyone and that it is unclear whether Hannan and AIPAC acted o~ the idea. AIPAC spokesman Patrick Dorton denies that the organization has engaged in any improper conduct.. "Both Congressman Hastings and Congresswoman Hannan are strong leaders on issues ofimportance to the pro-Israel community and would be exemplary Democratic leaders for the House intelligence committee,tI Dorton said. IIAlPAC would never engage in a quid pro quo in relation to a federal investigation or any federal matter and the notion that it would do so is preposterous. AIPAC is not aware that the Justice Department is looking into issues involving the intelligerice committee, and has not been asked any questions or contacted by the government on this matter, but certainly would cooperate with any inquiry." Dorton added that AlPAC has previously been assured that the organization and its current employees' are not being investigated.. In this same investigation, the JU$tice Deparbnent has previously suggested that AlPAC had questiQnable motives in trying to help a valued government contact remain in a sensitive national security post. The Justice Department alleges in its indictment ofFranklin that he asked one ofthe two AlPAC lobbyists to "put in a good word" for him in seeking assignment to the National Security Council. The document says the AlPAC official noted that such ajob would put Franklin "by the elbow ofthe Presidentll and said he would lido what I can." AIPAC lists praise from Pelosi among a series ofquotes from world leaders on its website: "The special relationship between the United States·and Israel is as strong as it is because ofyour [AIPAC's] fidelity to that partnership..." But congressional sources say Pelosi has been infuriated by http://www.tim~.comltimtVna~onlprintoutlO.8816. 1549069,00.html 1012312006 TIME.com Print Page: NalionOXclusiV!l: Feds Probe a TQp Democra()ReIaliOnSbiPwi... Page 3 of3 pressure from some major donors lobbying on be~alf ofHannan. In a story touching on tensions between Pelosi'and Hannan, an alternative California publication, LA. Weekly, r~orted in May that Harman "had some major contributors call Pelosi to'impress upon her the importance ofkeeping Jane in place. According to these members, $is tactic, too, hasn't endeared Hannan toPelosL" Acongressional source tells TIME that the lobbbying for Harman has included a phone call several months ago from entertainment industry billionaire and major Democratic party contributor Haim Saban. A Saban spokeswoman said he could not be reached for comment. Aphone call pushing for a particular member's committee assignment might be unwelcome, but it would not normally be illegal on its own. And it is unclear whether Saban - who made much ofhis fortune with the Mighty Morphin PowerRangers children's franchise-mewthat lobbying Pelosi might be view~d by others as part ofa larger alleged plan. Saban has donated at least $3,000 to Harman's campaign, according to Federal Election Commission records, and the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, which he sponsors at the prestigious Brookings Institution, boasts Hannan among its biggest fans. "When the Saban Center talks, I listen," Hannan said at aSaban Center briefing in Feb~ary on U.S. strategy in Iraq. Hannan quipped that, in order to attend the session at Brookings, she had to "blow off" .a senior intelligence official's appearance before a House committee. ' " Copyright0 2006 Time Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction In whole or in part without permission is prohibited. PriYaey Polley .http://www.time.coml~melpati9n1priQtol:ltlQ.88~6J1549069.OO.html 10123/2006 ........ _ ............ o'\..................~ "... i .i} <;' ..; {, .:. ;~: {t t,i ~ .> ~ <>~ 'f ~~1 ~ .&. } ~ ~.. r> • " } ,~ ~ .. - • "" ...... ~ t} .,_ .... <.. ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS lTNCLASSIFIED DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/1sg Jo .. t. 0 ,be\) 1/ I bying group, where he had worked since 1993. His job combined research and,efforts to influence US government policy. He had a good grasp ofthe political and cultural CUrrents ofthe Middle East, hav... ing studied in Iran and Egypt and earned a PhD in Middle East history at the Univer.. sity ofChicago. . Weissman's wife, Deborah, a lawyer and former investigator with .the ,Sec'urities and Exchange Commission, be~me anxious when told of the FBI meeting. She urged her husband to take someone. with him to the appointment, such as AIPAC general counsel Philip Friedman. Her in-. stincts \vere sound. O'Donnell's assurance to Weissman that "I'm sure you didn't do anything" was a feint_ . Weissman agreed to meet O'Donnell in Washington six days later and "have a cup ofcoffee and [find] a quiet place and we can talk.." - When Weissman pressed O'Donnell, seeking to find out what the FBI was after,. he was told, according to an FBI n:anscript, that the bure_au wanted to tap "yourexpertis~ with some different countries .•.. that you've studied and written on and done :some research.. I~'s that kind ofstuff•." That was plausible..Weissman, then 52, was a senior analyst for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AlPAC),Wash", in$ton'.$ most influential pro-Israel lob.,. O'Donncli worked at the FBI's Washing-ton Field Office at Fourth and F streets, Northwest. The city-block-size.WFO, as it's known, serves as the nerve center of the government's low-key but expansive efforts to track leaks ofsecrets to foreign countries. Its targets aren't just America's enemies; allies and friends hunge~ after each odler's closely held information. • Steven Rosen, fonner director of foreign- Russian espionage continues unabated policy issues for the American Israel Public after the collapse ofthe Soviet Union. An Affairs Co",miltee, is charged with receiving American agent in Paris was caught try~ and sharing secret defense information. ing to steal French trade s~crets. Despite 1L..--_-----1b7E Mark M,mhews (mmatth2112@aol.com) is a firmer Baltimore Sun diplomatie and Middle East correspondent. He is the author ofLost "a~: .Bush, Sharon and FaU"re in the Middle East, published lasifall. - - 761 WASHINGTONIAN IJANUARY 2008 Thomas O'Donnell didn'r reveal his job when he phoned Keith Weissman in 2004 and got the policy analfst's wife.Hesays h~ didn't want to scare her. When Weissman returned the call and found out O'Donnell was an FBI agent, his first reaction was to attempt a joke: "What did I do?" "I'm sur~ you didn't do anything," O'Donnell told him. H~ wanted to meet that day, for five or ten minutes, and get Weissman's help on something "that I can't talk about on the telephone." Weissman was calling from his cell phone, standing outside a New Balance shoe store near Boston. He turned down the invitation to meet with O'Donnell.:. "That's a little tOO c.ryptic for me. I'm on vacation with my family.." O'Donnell was in Boston, and he offered an explanation for why h~ was there_. H~ said he had been sent for the Democrati~ National Convention "and some other matters..." The political convention, where the FBI kept watch for violent demonstra' lors,had wrapped up a few days earlier at Boston's Fleet Center. , ~~ , -~). ~ .... ~ (; I 1 ~ H:I .) tt d~ <: 'r .'. ~ ..:. ... .g. " I;' , ;1 I · , MATTHEVJS • Q ~ .•' '.- ..,;:... disclaimers, Israel is reponed to be on e lookour for any information that will Ip preserve a military edge over regional .emies and expand its exports ofweap'" try and technology..The United States, turn, is alert for signs that Israel is selling i1itary hardware to China. "There has been, for some:;. time) seriIS concern about Israeli espionage in the .5;" says Vincent Cannistraro, a former IA veteran who also held intelligence )sts at the White House and Pentagon. he FBI) h~ adds) "puts Israel up along" je China as espionage threats..)) . In 2000, CBS's 60Mintltesbroadcast the sguised voice ofan unnamed CIAofficial. ying, "We believe that there have been Jmerous documented instances in which le Israelis have sllccessfullv recruited US .:rsons to spy forthem." '. ' O'Donnell's call prompted Weissman ) try to reach his boss) Steven Rosen) IPAC's director offoreign-policy issues. oscn, then 62, was a former academe. • A political scientist with a PhD from yracuse, he had taught at Brandeis, the fniversity of ritJsburgh, and Australian (ational University and cowrote a text-· ook, TIle Logie ojlnternat;onal J{eJations. Ie joined AIPAC in 1982 after four years -ith the Rand Corporation, where he held top-secret seeuii,)' clearance to work on projects for the CIA..While at Rand, he be~. eame acquainted with a promising young graduate student, Condoleezza Rice, who was working there temporarily. Weissman didn't want to call Steven Ro·. sen's cell phone;, he thought his boss should be sitting down when he heard about the FBI call. As it turned out) Rosen also had gotten a message from an FBI agent who wanted to talk to him about a "field investigation." When the two AIPAC officials speculat'!. ed over the phone about what the FBI was after, th~y turned up one possibility: Th~ • Former AIPAC analyst Keith Weissman was also charged in the secrecy investigation. Convictions could mean ten years in prison for Weissman and up to 20 years for Rosen. investigators' interest had been piqued by information the lobbyists had supplied to the Washington Post ~o weeks earlier.. Still, Rosen was reluctan~ to act defensive, which would suggest that their organiza-. cion was involved in "nefarious things." Rosen returned the FBI's call and spoke with agent Catherine Hanna.. "Is this a criminal matted)) he asked•. . "No," she replied. That afternoon, Hanna and partner Robert Porath went to Rosen's AIPAC office on First Street near Union Station.. The agents told Rosen that the FBI was updating the security clearance of Pentagon analyst Lawrence Franklin and was interviewing his contacts as part ofa back... ground investigation,.. Franklin was the J,>entagon desk officer for Iran, a subject ofdeep interest to Rosen.. The FBI had turned up some possible security issues, the agents said, including the fact that Franklin may have stored classified documents at his house... According to the agents' not~, Rosen said he had met with Franklin about three times, but the two had never discussed classified information, nor had Franklin shared any with him. Asking for classified information, Rosen told the agents, was "a quick Wa}' to ruin relationships.." -Weissman kept his appoitltme~tthe JANUARY 20081 WASHINGTONIAN 177 I , ~ I ! I · ·1 ., · ii : .' .. o In fact, what the US attorney called the "dear line in the law" isn't dear at all, particularly where the question ofintent coines into play. When the case comes to trial in late ~pril, assistant US attorneys Kevin DiGregoiyand William N. Hammerstrom Jr.. will have to meet a big burden ofproof•. Showing that Rosen and Weissman obtained, talked about', and relayed sensitive national-defense information won't be enough. Prosecutors will have to prove that the two men did so knowing that ifthe information were revealed, it would damage US national security and also knowing tha~ disclosing it was illegal.; Convincing ajury that Rosen and Weissman possessed this criminal state ofmind won't be easy.,TQ counter the charge, defense lawyers intend to lay bare th.e largely hidden world ofbackchannel Washington diplomacy. They will try to'show that senior officials reg~ ularly'gave AlPl\C officials sensitive in'"' formation With the full expectation that it would be passed along t~ Israelis and others. In that way, they will comend that AlPAC played a role in developing US foreign policy. Over prosecutors' objections, defen... dams won court approval to subpoena 15 current and former top administra"l. tion officials. Their names read like the lineup for a crisis meeting in the White House Situation Room during Presi-, dent Bush's firsnerm: national-security adviser Condolee~za Rice (now secre... Robert Litt, a d~fense lawyer who has represented people caught up in leak investigations, sees the indictment of Rosen and Weissman as part ofa broad crackdown on leaks by tJle Bush admin-, istration: "People formerly in the intelligence community are looking at [the AIPAC case] and the leak investigations , widl great trepidation." But a conviction is by no means a sure thing) due in part to'an aggressiv~ dlree-year fight by the defense team, led by Abbe Lowell for Rosen and by John Nassikas III for Weissman.. The law~ yers' no·stone-unturned litigation fills a foot-thick file ofmotions and rebuttals in US District Court in Alexandria. I\. series ofrulings by the resolutely even.. handed presiding judge, T.S•. Ellis III,. has knocked $ome ofthe stuffing out of the government's case and required the Bush administration to'put some ofits top officials on the wiUless stand. o· To influence the US government or even react knowledgeably to US actions, manycountries thinkan·embassy staffed with diplomats isn't enough. They'r~ willing to pay large fees to hire Ameri... cans with contacts at high levels and an understanding ofhow po~iqmakers mation, there is a clear line in the law," then-US attorney Paul McNulty said when the indictments were announced in August 2005•. "Today's charges are about crossing that line." Rosen, Weissman, and Franklin were accused under a rarely used section of the World War ~-era Espionage Act., A conviction could land Weissman, a father ofthree, in prison for up to ten years and Rosen, also afather of. thre~ who faces an additional charge, for up to 20.. But the potential impact extends beyond these two men and AIPAC. It could also send a chill through the ranks ofWashington lobbyists and consultants for foreign governments. , \:' ~ The two AIPAC officials) hunch that a phone call to the post had found its way onto the 'FBPs radar was correct. They had shared what law-enforcement officials considered "national-defense information" with Post reporter Glenn Kessler about stepped-up Iranian activ-, ity in Iraq. Thegovernment would later charge that Rosen described it to Kes-, sler as "agency information" from an "American intelligence source." But tha~ call to the Post was a small piece ofthe story. And contrar¥~o what agent Hanna told Rosen, this was"a criminal matter.." }3y the time the agents approached Rosen and Weiss-. man, they were nearing the, final stageS ofan investigation into leaks ofclassified informa-. tion that would wreck the two men's careers and throw one of . Washington's most powerful lobby groups on the defensiv~. The FBI prQbe included hours of Wiretaps approved by the secret Foreign lntele; Iigence Surveillance Court in • Former Pentagon analyst Lawrence Franklin, middle, pleaded Washington and surveillanceof guilty to conspiracy and helped the FBI set up asting. Lawyer meetings at Washington-area r-Ia~r cach:is, left, hopes his client's cooperation will mean a restaurant$. It also included a 19 er sen nee. search ofAlPAC's offices in 2002 that ,think. Often these are ex-government appears to have been surreptitiously officials. While barred from lobbying conducted, because the offices' entrance former colleagues immediately upon is monitored 2i hours a day and no one leaving office) they nonetheless bring . appeared with a search warrant ~round valuable experience and eventually get. that time_ inside for meetings and to open doors Federai prosecutors theorized that. for foreign visitors. Rosen and Weissman had engaged in a For instance, when India was negofive- year conspiracy to cultivate govern-, tiating its 2006 civilian nuclear agree~ ment sources with 'the aim ofobtaining ment with the J3tish administrationsensitive «national-defense informa-. fraught with strategic implications for tiont which they would pass on to col-, both countries-it enlisted the lobby-. leagues at AIPAC, Israeli officials, and ing firm Barbour Griffith &Rogers for journalists. By August 2005, prosecu-: advice. The firm had previously signed tors persuaded a federal grand jury in on the former US ambassador to New Alexandria that the two NPACofficials I:;>elhi, Rob.er~ Blackwill. Although were not only assiduous in collecting Blackwill wasn't involved in getting the classified information but almost flam-. firm's India contract:, he has since been. boyant in sharing it with others.. a prominent advocate for a n~w US/In· "When it comes to classified infor~ dia partnership. . next week with O'Donnell and another . _~ agent) William McDermott, at the Sun Spot Cafe, adjacent to the lobby.of AIPAC's office building. Over a bever· age and cigarette, Weissman described having met with Franklin four or five times over the previous two years to talk about non-j\rab Middle East countries, primarily Iran) according to a court doc~ ument..The agents asked him ifFranklin had ever disclosed classified information to him or anyone else he knew, and they noted his answer: "No." , -... 78 I WASHINGTONIAN IJANUARY 2008 :JANUARY 2008 I WASHINGTONIAN 179' ! • !l I:' I t' i II ,. t ,1- !fi ;1' ~:; .1 !of; II, ':,fr', I".~ '"4! i .( J. ~f ~ ;i i !II I r!~ ~;. ~. t· ): ,\:i:.; 9 ,. ./It. J: ~ I' ~ f: .; i'":~ I ~ ': I '! Regularly ranked as one ofthe most effective lobbying organf~. zations in Washington, MPAC strives to forge closer political~ strategic, and military ties between the United States and Israel•. The group combines grassroots organizing, fundraise. ers ~apable ofpulling in tens of millions ofdollars a year, an~ a skilled )¥ashington staff that finds willing.legislative sponsors among friends in both parties. When preparing a major arms-sale to Arab allies, the Pentagon will often brief AIPAC.specialisrs before the deal is put before Congress. "For anyone who deals with the Mid-. dJe East," consultant Sandra Charles says, "!\IPAC is one of those realities you learn to work with.)) Each year, AIPAC draws thousands from across the country to its Washington ~onvention to hear spceches'-by the President, Cabinet se~retaries, top congressional leaders, and Israeli politi-. dans. Then AIPAC members move on to Capitoi Hill to lobby m~mbcrs of Congress. AIPAC has consistently lined up a large congressional majority in supPQrt of milit;uy and economic aid for Israel aii~ cooperation between the two - (CONTIN(IIID.ON rAGEJ66). Just when the FBI opened itfAIPAC probe isn't clear•. "It started a long time before I got dlcce," says David Szady, a veteran coun·, terespionage officerand leak in~tigator who in 2001 was named to the new FBI post ofnational counterintelligence exec~ utive. He declines to comment further. Why the probe beg~n remains a mystery. AJustice Department spokes..: man declined to comment on the case. Speculation centers on 1990s suspicion ofan Israeli "mole" in the national-see. curity apparatus, ongoing surveillance ofIsraelis that turned up contacts with AIPAC, or a generalla\v.enforcement search for leakers.. The question of ~ why AIPAC !ob!>yists were singled out prompted darker theories, summed up in a headline on a Wall Street ]ollrnal opinion piece by Dorothy Rabinowitz: FIRSTTHEY CAMB FORTHE JEWS. Justice D~partment lawyers knew that • a probe ofAIPAC would be controversial. Asenior participantat the time says: "It was obvious to me and to many others that an investiga'!. tion 'of this nature was going to receive a lot ofattention bee. cause o(the significance ofthe organization involved.." o ,fers to keep hidden? McNulty contend-, ed in 2005 that "those notauthorized to receive classified information must resist the tcmptation to acquire it.~ Press-freedom advocates view the case as a potential blow to newsgathering, coming on top ofcourt and prosecuto~ rial pressurc on reporters to divulge confidential sources. Think tanks and inter., est groups that specialize in ~ollecting and analyzing information on national security are worried as well. John Pike, who directs GlobalSecurity. org, an organi~tion skilled at un-· earthing national-security data from open sources, says the indictment raises this question:. "How many degrees of separation can remove you from the ob" iigation to protect information that' was .originally c1assified?"'- [Yasser] Ararat, what will he say?' " "EveryJ>ody in this business knows the difference" between that kind ofdiscreet communication and what Rosen and Weissmanarecharged with,Zogbyclaims. "Their choice was to p~ on information they knew was sensitive to Israel." Just how sensitive will be disputed at the trial. Rosen and Weissman were ac-. ,cused oftransferring not cI~ssified docu-. ments, only information they had been given orally. The trial itselfwill include a mass of classified material that the government has reluctantly decided to divulge. Ellis ordered that it be stripped ofmarkings such as "top secre't" or "no forn" (no foreign nationals), which could give the jury an impression that the information was closely held when in fact it might not haVe been. Ifcivilian lobbyists such as Rosen and Weissman can be'punished for obtaining and discussing classified information, what about journalists and researchers who uncover data the government pre-. ta.~y ofState); current national-security adviser Stephen Hadley; Richard .Armitage, former deputy secretary ofState;. William Burns, US ambassador to Rus-, sia; Marc Grossman, former undersec-. retary ofState for political affairs; David Satterfield, now the State Department's coordinator for Iraq; Elliott Abrams, deputy national-security advis~r; Paul Wolfowitz, former deputy secretary of Defense; and D!luglas Feith: for:mer underSecretary ofDeferise.. Judge Ellis didn't okay these subpoenas lightly. He did so after being persuaded that each of these officials would be able to testifY about specific meetings or conversations--either with the !\yo defendants or with others at ,AIPAe-that dealt with information comparable in sensitivity to the kind Rosen and Weissman allegedly obtained and passed on. Ellis also knew that the subpoenas might derail dle case., Ifthe administration balks at allowing sworn testimony by senior officials about sen" . sitive conversations, the case against Rosen and Weissman could be dismissed. The line'between inform;ttion that can and can't get passed is blurred by the amount ofof~ ficially sanctioned daily intel-. ligenee sharing between the United States and its ~lIies.. Such exchanges are particularly intense between the United States an~ Israel" which regu-, larly trade information and assessments on terrorism and other perceived threats. • The FBI's Washington Field Office-known as the WFo-is "It's absurd for anyone. to the nerve center of the government's effort to track leaks of think that. the Israelis have secret information to foreign countries. to enlist people to spy," says Sandra Charles, a forme~ Pentagon and ..National Security Council official who consults in Washington for Persian Gulf Arab governments. "They can go t<? the highest levels ofthe administration if they want to find out what the thinking is on us policy." ' To James Zogby, president, of th~ !\rab American Institute, the case cast~ a shadow not only overAIPAC but also over other groups"suc:h as his, that engage in what he calls "ethnic lobbying." But he says he doesn't have,any sympathy for Rosen and Weissman. Like;'AIPAG lobbyists, Zogby has met with senior American polieymakers and been asked to convey signals to and from foreign ·officials-in his case, Arab leaders. "(US . officials] wo~'lci say to ~e; 'You're going - lothe Gulf-lisk this,' or 'Ifwe'SaY this to' c"onistsofthe Iranian regime. V days after Rosen called the Penta-. gon seeking to make contact with an Iran expert and got Franklin's name, the Bush administration hosted a get-t~gether of Iraqi exiles in Washington_.. It included a I representative o.f the Tehran-based ,Su-. preme Council ofthe Islamic Revolution. Ahmad Chalabi, who ted the Iraqi Nation- i al Congress and was the Pentagon's chief aUyamong Iraqi exiles, would later take up residence in the Iranian capital in the weeks before the US-led invasion ofIraq. According to letters in the case file; in Sep-. tember 2002, the month after Rosen and Franklin first spoke, the FBI conducted a search at AJPAC headquartets. What it produced, ifanything, remains under seal. An AIPAC spokesman says the organiza-. tion wasn't aware ofany search at that. time. To cultivate Franklin, Weissman at one point took him to an Orioles game in Baltimore. Franklin, who was also an Air Force Reserve officer, held not only a top-secret security clearance but also one entitling him to SCI, "sensitive compartmented information," the kind kept at a secure site and granted on a need-to-know basis to a limited number ofindividuals.. During a series of meetings in 2003, Franklin spilled several pieces ofallegedly classified information, from policy options against Jran to specific intelligence about attacks on US forces in Iraq. On a couple ofoccasions, Rosen or Weissman allegedly passed along what he'd learned to Israeli diplomats or journalists. Franklin, like\vise, relayed sensitive in'!. formation to an Israeli diplomat and to , the media. On May 21, 2004, he disclosed , what prosecutors described as "top secret/ , SCI" il!formation to journalists from CBS I about what prosecutors would later crypti..:. cally claim concerned "meetings involving twoMiddle East officials." Thatevening, CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl reported on evidence that onetime ' Pentagon favorite Ahmad Chalabi "per-. sonally gave Iranian intelligence officerS information so sensitive that ifrevealed it could, quote, 'get Americans killed~' " later in the broadcast, she repor~ed dlat the information Chalabi had allegedly passed was so sensitive that US officials "at. the highest levels" had prevailed on CBS not to broadcast it. Flve weeks later, the F~I closed in on Franklin. Armed with a warrant, agents searched his workspace and turned up a JUne 25,2003, classified document. Frank.. lin admitted he had given information de-rived from the document to Rosen and Weissman. Agents dlen searched his house in Kearneysville, West Virginia, and found more than 80 classified documents he had Franklin requested an ~, urgent meeting with weissman, telling him lives were in danger. guerrilla movements in Lebanon, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip and its export ofan extremist ideology. Heshared some of the frustration ofIsraeli leaders, who, from former prime minister Yitzhak. Rabin onward, saw Iran as a threat to the Jew!! ish state's existence and pressed for greater attention from Washington. .As confrontation loomed between the United StateS and Iraq, Rosen worried that the United States would be pulled into a quagmire, unable to respond to what he considered ,a graver threat from Iran. From his midlevel perchat the Pentagon, Franklin chafed at what he saw as a failure by the, Bush administration to come to grips with the Iranian danger. He reached out to Rosen and Weissman, hopmg they would bring their iqfluence to bear on the NSC and, if possible, help him secure a job at tbeWhite House. This would put him, in Rosen's words, "by the elbow of the President." ~en, according to the indicanent, promised to "do what I can." At the time that the AIPAC men and Fraitklln were first in touch widl each oth~ er, getting tough on Iran was not a White House priority. Administratipn policY was fixated on ousting Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. As Bush worked to build domestic and international support for regime change in Iraq, the aaministration expected to enlist help from Iraqi Shiites, The lobbyists' co·ntacts with Lawrence Franklin developed in 2002 when the de... fense analyst joined the Pentagon's newl¥ formed Office of Special Plans under Douglas Feith.. Rosen had been watching with growing alarm the signs that Tehran's cleric-domi-, nated regime was seeking to develop a nuclear weapon, compounding the danger posed by Iran'~ support for terrorist and Crucial to AIPAC.'s influence on US policy is its ability to keep Congress and executive-branch policymakers informed ofactual or potential threats to Israel and alerted to dangerous political trends in surrounding Middle Bastcountries. This is where Rosen and Weissman came in. RoSen'played a big role in expanding the organization's influence beyond Congress into the executive branch, meeting behind the scenes with well-placed officials and the journalists who cover them. Generally hawkish but nonideological, Rosenspecial", ized in hard-nosed, sometimes prescien~ analysis ofthe major actors in the Middle Bastand Washington. Afather oftwo sons, ages 25 and 8, and a 22-year-old daughter, Rosen has been married and divorced six times. Five years ago, he re~nitedwith his first wife after 39 years apart. The indictment shows that investigators recorded conver:sationsamong Rosen, Weissman, and Israeli officials starting in , Aprill999, when Rosen allegedly disdosed to an Israeli diplomat; tbat he had "picked up an extremely sensitive piece ofintelligence..'! He described the information as code-word protected, meaning that access to itwas highly restricted. Two months later" Weissman allegedly told the same diplomat that he knew ofa "secret classified FBi report" on the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi &abia. . In December 2000, both men met over lunchWi~ Kenneth Pollack, !hena Persian Gulfspecialist on the National Security 1661WASHINGTONIAN IJANUARY 2008 "TJiis Is the FBI'? continuedfrom page 79 ~ouncil staffunder President Bill Clin'! \;;Ion. Merward, Rosen allegedly ~lked to a reporter about then-classified US stratcountries in a ~ariety ofspheres froni mis- egy options against Iraq. In January 2002, sHe defense to homeland security._The aid Rosen met with David Satterfield, a senior package for Israel tends to be the engine State Department Middle East official, that gets the whole US foreign-aid budget about the sharing ofintelligence between through Congress. t,he United States and Israel following the While nonpartisan and not direcd¥ in- Karine A episode, in which the Israelis volvedinpoliticalcampaigns,AIPACkeeps seized a large Palestinian arms shipment~. its !llembership ofmore than 100,000 ap- The episode damaged the US relationship prised ofcongressional votes important to' with Yasser Ararat.The governmentalleges Israel. This kind ofscrutiny can have an that, in a memo to other AIPAC staffers, intimidating effect on lawmakers because Rosen included classified information he it has the potential to influence where had picked up. AIPAC members send their campaign contributions. Critics have contended that ~PACshould be required to register as a political:'action cOf!lmittee. But neither the courts nor the Federal Election Commission has forced the issue•. Other detractors contend that because it lobbies for aid and policies that benefit > Israel, AIPAC ought to register ,vith the Jus~ceDepartment as a foreign agc:nt. But unlike organizations and firms that represent foreign interestS and governments, AIP~Cdoesn't get money from and is not contractually l.inJ<ed to Israel. ", brought hom~ illegally over three decadeS.. ..... Franklin was vulnerable.. He had a record 01'security breaches for taking documents ~o.me. Lacking substantial assets and with a.wife afflicted with crippling rheumatoid arthritis, Franklin did not hire a lawyer; in.. stead: heagreed to cooperate with the FBI. Authorities enlisted Franklin in a sting~ In July 2004, he attempted to arrange meetings with Rosen and Weissman, armed with the kind ofinformation'that clearly would be ofinterest to Israel. At one point, he re.. quested an urgent meeting with Weissman, telling him lives were in danger. When the two met, Franklin, who was wired, warned him that Iran had discovered the presence ofIsraeli agents in northern Iraq: The in-. formation was highly classified "agency stuff," and Weissman could get in trouble for having it, Franklin told him. Weissman in turn told that to Rosen, and-the two contacted Naor Gilon, a po", Utical officer at the Israeli Embassy. Rosen and Weissman aJso called Glenn Kessler at the Post to report an increased threat to US soldiers in Iraq from Iranian-backed militias. Franklin also helped thee FBI witb a counterintelligence probe of Chalabi, who has denied divulging any US secrets. Amongthose he called was Francis Brooke, a Chalabi aide in Washington. Accord-. ing to Brooke, franklin also called active members ofthe Iraqi National Congress, Chalabi's political party.. "He. was asking questions about Ahmad Chalabi and my dealings with Iranian of-. fidals,"· Brooke says. Herecalls that Frank~ lin said, "There's a lot ofstuffgoing on. : You should tell me the straight story. I'm :1 in contact with journalists, and I could Ii spin it for yo~." ~ Says Brooke.: "I thought he was off his rocker." The Chalabi probe foundered, but tbe AIPAC investigation gained momentum. The calls to Naor Gilon and Kessler pro:vided what prosecutors considered new evidence that Rosen and Weissman had violated a section ofthe 1917 Espionage Act, barring the possession and transfer of "national-defense information" by anyone not authorized to have it.. . . . Three....ve~ks after their meeting with Weiss... . man a~ the Sun Spot Cafe, FBI agents knocked on Rosen'$ door in Silver Spring shordy before 8 AM. They told Rosen they knew Franklin had provided classified in-. fonnation to an Israeli official. What would •Rosen say, they asked him, ifthe Israeli of... . ficial told Franklin that the information had already been supplied to him by Rosen? Ac.. cording to the agents' report, "Rosen said he had done nothingwrong." ~gents confronted Weissman out... side~ome in Bethes~a. They played him a recording ofthe July conversation between Weissman and Franklin. "Look," Weissman told them, "I was told by people at the office nor to talk to you~" Tha~ afternoon, the FBI searched Rosen's office at AlPAC headquarters, this time presenting" a search warrant.. CNN cameras filmed the agents entering the building. Apparendy tipped offbefore the raid, CBS called AlPAC with questions. Initially, AIPAC circled the wagons around its two officials, defending them in public statements, assigning them legal counsel, and paying the legal fees. Rosen and Weissman both received bonuses at the end of2004.. But the investigation continued. Although AIPAC was assured. in December that it was not a target, four seniorAIPAC staffers were called to testifY before a federal grand jury in Nexandria. According to defense documents, in February 2005, US attorney Paul Mc-Nulty-- who later became deputy attorney general-met with AlPAC's executive di-. Weissman and Rosen were fired. AIPAC also halted payment Of their legal fees. rectorand AIPAC lawyers and urged them to cooperate. AIPAC,'s counsel called law-. yers for Rosen and Weissman the next day" ·telling them that McNulty "would lik~ to end it with minimal damage to AI-PAC. He is fighting with the FBI to limit the investi-. gation to Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman and to avoid expanding it." Prosecutors disclosed to AIPAC lawyers someevidence they had obtained under a secre~ warrant. Rosen and Weissman were fired. AIPAC also halted payment; oftheir legal fees. At: the time, the Justice Department viewed an organization's payment oflegal feeS for employees u~der investigation as a sign of a lack ofcooperation with the probe. An AIPAC spokesman" Patrick Dorton, de-. nied that the organization had acted under government pressure:. "~y suggestion that AlPAC acted at the government's be~ hest is completely false. Our decisions on dismissal and legal fees w~re made inde·. pendendy, b;lSed on the facts and ourcom~ mitment to doing the right thing in a very difficult siwation." . One source dose to AlPAC noted that Weissman and Rosen had refused to waive their rights to sue the organization. Re-. cendy, Dorton repeated a statement he had. made at die time ofthe indicnnent: "Rosen and Weissman were disinissed .beca~ they engaged in conduct that was not part of their jobs and ~use tJtis conduct did no~ comport~hestandards thatAIPAC ex-· peets and ~es ofits employees." Franklin" despite helping with the sting, was indicted along with the two AIPAC lobbyists. He pleaded guilty to two con·· spiracy counts in October 2005 and drew a 12"year prison sentence. Judge Ellis held J;he sentence in abeyance until the AlPAC case is over.The attorney Franklin acquired late in the probe, Plato Cacheris, expects his client to be called as a witness. He hopes, as a result off'ranklin's cooperation \vith the prosecution, that his sentence will be reduced to a "minimal" t~rm. The FBI's investigation didn't end with the conspiracy'indictments ofRosen and Weissman in August 2005, a year after Weissman gotthat initiaJ phone call in Bos... ton.o. One reason maf have been a gap ~n the government's case. The two men were charged with oral receipt and transmission ofnational-defense information. There is no evidence that classified documents ever exchanged hands. The next year, the FBI and one ofthe prosecutors approached the family of the late muckraking columnist Jack AO.derson" seeking access to his ar~hive. Anderson's son Kevin told a congressional panel that he was told they "wanted access to Dad's documents to 'see if either Rosen's or Weissman's fingerprints ~ere on any gov'!ernment documents•." Anderson's widow initially consented to the request, but the family coUectively decided to refuse. When the trial gets under way, parts of it will be closed to the public. Judge BI·. lis has allowed the introduction ofsome classified evidence that only the jurors will see or hear in fitU. He also has allowed the defense to probe potential jurors for indio, cations ofanti-Jewish bias.. AIPAGhas regained its place as one of Washington's premier lobbying groups and is building a newheadquarters. Within the last few months, AIPAC agreed to pay Rosen's and Weissman's legal fees, which have climbed into the millions ofdollars. No explanation was given, although the decision came after Ellis ruled tha~ any government pressure on AIPAC was "in", appropriate and fraught. with the risk of I constitutional harm.." Franklin, Rosen, and Weissman have all failed to find permanent employment while the case is pending. Franklin works at odd jobs, his lawyersays. Rosen received financial help from friends and has done part-time consulting. Weissman spends a good deal oftime with his children-his •daughter is studying Arabic at·college; one son is a high-school senior, and another is in middle school-walking his two golden retrievers and pondering book projects, including one on rock ,n, roU. lVl JANUARY 20081WASHINGTONIAN 1167 I t, "' The sloe Sentinel ALL INFORMATION CONTAI~mD ~IN ISl~CLASSIFIED ~ ~ 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sabJ1~ Page 1 of7 Defense For AIPAC SPY: Suspe~~s: Data At Cor~ Of~ase y.I~s Not.Really tT~p Secretl Haaretz.com OS:33 By Josh Gerstein November 3, 2008 RICHMOND, VA -- The defense oftwo pro-Israel lobbyists accused ofillegally obtaining and disclosing American national security secrets will argue that some ofthe data the men allegedly conspired to reveal came directly from the Israeli government and was not truly secret, defense lawyers told a federal appeals court last week. Three judges from the U.S. Court ofAppeals spent mo~e than 90 minutes Wednesday wrestling with the issue of~ow much classified information the defense should be pennitted to introduce in the case of Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, former employees ofthe American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AlPAC). The beginning ofthe unusual court session was held in public, but the lawyers and the judges retreated behind closed doors in a specially-cleared and guarded courtroom to discuss the most sensitive aspects ofthe case about halfway through the hearing. As they waited for the arguments to begin, defense lawyers leafed through fat binders marked i~ orange with the words, "TOP SECRET." Rosen and Weissman were indicted in 2005 on charges that they gathered secrets from U.S. officials and passed the 90nfidential information to journalists, Israeli diplomats and others in violation ofthe United States Espionage Act. Rosen and Weissman are not charged with receiving or distributing any classified documents, but solely with relaying information orally. Some-free speech advocates have argued that what the two men allegedly did is not much different from what journalists do every day. Prosecutors have indicated that covert wiretaps captured the men acknowledging they knew the·data was classified. Trial dates for the pair, who were fired from AlPAC, have been repeatedly canceled as wrangling dragged on.over what classified information could be revealed at trial, which could take place as soon as February. Aparade.ofprot:Uinent witnesses are expected, including Secretary ofState Condoleezza Rice, fonner U.S. Army General Anthony Zinni and leaders ofU.S.-based pro-Israel groups. Rosen and Weissman, who have pled not guilty, face the possibility oflengthy prison terms if convicted. A Pentagon analyst who admitted leaking information to the duo, Lawrence Franklin, was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison and is cooperating with prosecutors. . The government filed the appeal last week, arguing that the trial judge, T.S. Ellis lIT, erred when he ruled the defense was entitled to use a classified State Department document and another from the Federa. Bureau o( InyestigatiQn. "That information is not actually relevant to the crim~ that was charged," an attorney in the Justice_Department's counterespionage. section, Thomas Reilly, told the judges. Rosen's attorney, Abbe Lowell, said the State Department document shows that Israel was circulating the intelligence reports Rosen is accused ofdisclosing to 9ther AlPAC employees and a foreigner not named in the indictment. "You have to be able to prove what the Israelis knew," Lowell said. "In our defense, it is important that this infonnation,· discussed down the .line by,our client, is Israel-based." Lowell did not detail the Israeli information in the open session, but declassified court records .indicate the document describes intelligence about the Karine A, a ship seized by Israel in 2002 in the Red Sea. Israel sai~ the vessel was loaded with rifles, anti-tank missiles,·rockets, mortars and other weapons destined for the Gaza Strip. Sources close to the case said the State Departinent memo relates to a briefing Israeli Gen. Yossi KUp'erw~ser_gave.American.diplomats.aboutiheJ{atjlle Adu~n!l a trip to Washington in January, 2002. lRosen.gQt.a.similar_briefing.from Kupe[Wa§!~rJhe.satTI~ d!y~ - /J.. ~ Lowell suggested that the State Department memo was nearly identical to a note Rosen sent to fellow AlPAC employees. "you'd be able to draw a line between the allegation and the assertion and where it's http://sioc.fbinet.fbi/documents/IntranetlInformationiSentineV2008/November/03.htm 11/3/2008 I. T!le Sloe Sentinel o 'Page20f2 -- .......... , from,'," Lowell said. Lpwell alsQ said a forme~ State Department official, Carl Ford Jt., was prepared to testify that the bulk ofthe memo was actually unclassified. "Who gets.io define what's classified is the' Executive Branch," Reilly insisted. The nature ofthe FJJ.l document was less clear, but a lawyer for Weissman, Baruch Weiss,··said prosecutors want to prevent the defense from disputing which portion of the report made it so sensitive. "The government wants to use the part ofthe document that is helpful to them and they don't want us to use the part ofthe document that is helpful to us," Weiss said. The appeals judges, Robert King, Roger Gregory and Dennis Shedd, issued no immediate decision, but Shedd said he was reluctant to disturb the rulings Ellis arrived at after protracted hearings. "You have a very high hill to climb, especially with the time the judge spent in this case," he told Reilly. All three appeals jurists expressed skepticism about the government's claim that the ruling o~ classified information opened up Judge Ellis' .other decisions for immediate appe,!l. "That wQ.l!ld be a change to what we nonnally apply," Shedd said. Generally, federal prosecutors in America cannot appeal p're-trial rulings on legal and evidentiary issues and defendants can do so only if they are coftvicted. Weiss said those basic rules should be kept despite the classified information issue. "I was a prosecutor myself. Many times, I lost things I'd have loved to appeal," Weiss said. "I was stuck.1t Reilly argued a law passed in 1980 to govern the use of classified information in criminal cases made clear that Congress wanted court proceedings involving national secrets handled differently. liThe point is to get it right before classified information is disclosed," he said. Through his attorney, Rosen asked to be admitted to the secret portion ofthe argument but was never allowed in. The three-judge panel assigned to the case is fairly diverse politically, with Shedd appointed to the bench by the elderBu,~h, King named,by President Clinton, and Gregory on the panel via an unusual recess appointment from Clinton a~d a subsequent nod from the current President Bush. Either the defense ,or prosecution could ask for reconsideration ofthe appeals judges' ruling by the full II-judge bench ofthe 4th Circuit or review by the Supreme Court, but such requests are rarely granted. . http://sioc.fbinet.fbildocumen~lIntranetlInfonnation/Sentine1l2668iNovember/03.htm 1113/2008 From: Sent: To: SUbject: UNCLASSIFIED NON-RECORD ALL IMFOPXATION COI~AINED ~M IS UNCLASSIFIED O~ D~07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc baw/sab/ls WF) (FBI) I I(FBI) 1~:~;':""1::l'T:Z::,,:,~Y_M_a~:_b_1_7_2_0_0_9_9_.1_1_A_M_. ~FBI) b6 b7C You should see the actual paper today. It is not only on the front page, it is the top story all the way across the front page. From: Sent: To: Subject: :-"':"IIr:~es_aa_v_M_a_rffi_I7_2_0_n!_(:_~5_1~_4: .....II(FBI) UNCLASSIFIED NON-RECORD Note the author Israe.l's N.ational Security Aide Bal1·ed From U.S. The Washington Times By Eli Lake March 17, 2009 TEL AVIV, ISRAEL -- Uzi Arad, who is expected to serve as national security adyiser in the next Israeli government, has been barred from entering the United States for nearly two years bn the grounds that he is an intelligence risk. Mr. Arad, a former member and director of intelligence for the Mossad, Israel's spy service; is mentioned in the indictment ofLawrence Franklin, a fOlmer pentagon analyst who pleaded guilty in 2005 to providing classified information about ~ran in a conversation with two employees ofthe American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AlPAC). Beyond Mr. Arad's status, Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu is likely to face difficulties abroad because ofhis choice, announced Monday, of Avigdor Lieberman to serve as foreign minister in a narrow new rightist government. : Mr. Lieberman, head ofthe Israel Is·Our Home party, has advocated requiring Israel's 1.46 million Arabs to take a loyalty test or risk expulsion. The choice ofMr. Arad for national' security adviser has been reported in the Israeli press and was confirmed by sources close to Mr., Netanyahu, who has been tasked with forming the next government. Mr. Arad acknowledged to The Washington Time$ thathe has not been able to obtain a visa to come to the United States but said the Israeli government is trying to change that. ."The director-g~neral.of.the _, Israel Foreign Ministry did tell his American counterparts that there has been no cause to deny !1\et~~risa'~'>Mr'l ~ l I Arad told The Times. I ' t" ~ t " • , r 5! I ': t T t. I Israeli and U.S. officials said Mr. Arad has been denied a U.S. visa since June 2007 under sectio~:~~2 ~(~) of. . the Immigration and Nationality Act. This gives consular officers and the Justice Department' ati.i4~rity··to bar,- (' ~ people who may seek "to violate any law ofthe United States relating to espionage or sabotage~' ft<iu) enlCiring:.~. f • the country. Mr. Arad was a member ~fthe Mossad spy service from 1975 to 1997. After retitingi:lie b~~ame; '"'' - i Mr. Netany~,!'s forei~ po~icy adviser. ~ile ~n the.Mossa~ Mr. Arad worked mainly all, anl\.ly~i§,jbut·1te aIJ~,;; ~l served as a lIaison for Intelhgence operations With allIed services $uch as the CIA. . .. J ..__ -I j 1'- , .~ tt' I • 1 ." --... _.. _,,"_f " I ,... o 0 l~ the past 21 months, pro11?-inent Israelis and Americans have quietly'but unsu'ccessfully pressed U.S. officials to grant Mr. Arad a visit. "Overtures were made, and, by. and large, tHere was not a satisfactory answer," said Herb London, president ofthe Hudson Institute, where Mr. Arad worked from 1972 to 1975 after obtaining a doctorate from Princeton University. "He has invited luminaries from around the world to talk about foreign .policy at the annual Herzliya conference," Mr. Lpndon said. "There are people from the left and the right who recogni~e that he has extraordinary insight into the foreign policy issues ofour time.II In a June 18, 2007, letter to U.S. officials, the president ofthe Interdisciplinary Center at Herzliya, Uriel Reichman, wrote, "I very much hope that such visa will indeed be granted as expeditiously as possible since prof~ssor Arad's travels to the United States are essential for his work at the Interdisciplinary Center." One mystery about Mr. Arad's difficulties in obtainiQg a visa is that Mr. Franklin did not plead guilty to spying. Indeed, the U.S. attorney handling the case against Mr. Franklin andiwo former AIPAC employees, Steven J. Rosen'and Keith Weissman, charged all three men with mishandling national defense informatioh, a count listed in the U.S. code under the Espionage Act but less serious than being"an agent of a foreign power. Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman are fighting the charges, which are controversial because they are the first private citizens to be accused of leaking classified information. The indictment against Mr. Franklin makes two references to "a person previously associated with an intelligence agency of [foreign official's] country." Two former U.S. officials and a former Israeli official have confirmed that Mr. Arad is the Ilperson." The passage refers to a meeting between Mr. Franklin and Mr. Arad on Feb.. 20, 2004, at the Pentagon cafeteria and an earlier recommendation by an Israeli diplomat that Mr. Franklin meet with Mr. Arad. In his letter, Mr. Reichman referenced the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that deals with espionage issues, saying, "it being absolutely certain to me and to all who know him, that none ofthe causes specified ... apply to him.1I A Washington immigration lawyer, Glen Wasserstein, said Mr. Arad was being barred under the section Qf law that Ilallows the government to deny entry to those foreign nationals it deems as spies or saboteurs, and those who help or assistJn such spying or sabotage.II Mr.. Wasserstein said the president or attorney general could waive the restriction on the visa. Buck Revell, a former associate director ofthe FBI who oversaw counterintelligence investigations at the bureau, added that as national security adviser, Mr. Arad would not be in a position to engage in espionage or intelligence activities. Nonetheless, Mr. Revell said, the suspicion surrounding Mr. Arad could hamper U.S.Israel relations. liThe [Israeli] national security council chairman has access to all ofIsrael's intelligence and all the intelligence we share with them, normally,II Mr. Rev~ll said. IlWhether or not our agenci~s would restrict any type of intelligence from going to him would be very problematic. That is something they will have to deal with." A senior official ofthe incoming Netanyahu administration, Who spoke.on the condition that he not be naqtedbecause ofthe sensitivity of the issue, told The Times that he,expects Mr. Arad to be able to travel to the United States for official business. "This is an i~sue that the new government ofIsrael trusts can be resolved," the official said. UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED 2 The~SIbc Sentinel '-;r' o ALL INFOPXATION CONTAINED . . HEPLIN IS UNCLASSIFIED ~ DATE 07-29-2010 BY 60324 uc ba~~J1Sg Page 1of2 --- Politico.com 10:48 PM EST By Josh Gerstein June 1.1, 2009 ALEXANDRIA, VA -- Afederal j~dge ~as virtually ':Viped out the prison sentence of more than 12 years he first imposed on a Pe!1tagon analyst "Yho pled guilty to leaking classified information to two pro-Ismellobbyists. At a hearing Thursday evening in Alexandria, Va., Judge T.S. Ellis reduce4 the sentenc~ for the former defense QfficiaI,Larry Franklip., to probation plus 1omonths in "community confinem~nt," likely a halfway house. Prosecutors had'asked the judge to drop the sentence t~ 8 years in light ofFranklin's cooper~tion, w~ile a def~nse lawyer (or Franklit.t, Plato Ca~heris" aske.4 for "no seJ:}tence at all." In explaining his decision to dr~atically reduce Franklin's sentence, Ellis cited the lack of punishment and light punishments imposed on other leakers, as well as Franklin's ~ooperation in the prosecution ofthe two lobbyists later ~red from the America~ Israel Public Affairs committee, ~teven Rosen and Keith W. eissman. . Last month, days ~efore the case against the p~ir was' set to go to trial, t,he government dropped the prosecution. Th~ Justi~~ Department said legal ridings in the case and'the threat ofnew disclQsq~es of classified information maae a trial unadvisabl~. "I~'~.a very difficult and unusual situation," Elli~ said. "'~his one is unique." The judge said he did not quib~le with the government's decision to drop the Rosen and Weissman prosecutions, but that the move was'''significant'' and had· "some relevance" to what punishment Franklin should receive. He said, it was "very disputable" whether some of the information at the heart ofthe case was actually the kil}d of "national defense information" it is illegal to relay outsid~ the government. - Ellis railed Thursday against p~ople who leak classified information, including those whQ leaked na~ional intelligence estimates about Iran and revealed the existen~e ofthe warrantless w~retapping' program maintained.by: the National Security Agency. How~ver,Jle also said he had no p~oblem with people"YhQ disclosed such information as. an act ofcivil disobedience and accepted what follpwed. "Disclosing it was ok~y, if a per~on is willing to stand' up and say, II.dia it. Give me the consequences,llt the judge,said. Ellis said he wanted Frank!in's punis.hmeQt to serve as a "b~acon" to' other officials,that . they wou~d face serious consequences if they committed similar breaches. "Secrets a~e important to a nat~on. Ifwe couldn't keep our' secrets, we would be at great risk," ~he judge said. Franklin pled guilty it\,2005 to thr~e felony,counts involving illegal distribution and possession of classified information. He had been free pe~ding the.trial for the two ex-Aipac officials. His attorney, Plato Cacheris,'saia the fonile~ policy'analyst h~d trouble finding good work. "He's been digging ditches. H~ls been cleat:ling cesspools," the attorney said. The infonnation that Franklin gave to the two AIPAC lobbyists has never,been officially detailed, but it related to the threat Iran posed to U.S. fo~ces in.the region. He also acknowledged numerous meetings with an Israeli diplomat,':Nao! Gilon. In a pleaJor lenienctThursday,:Ftanklin said he was,motivated solely by "love ofour republic and by the safetY ofour militarypersonner that were about to go' into Iraq." ..He insisted .~e wasn't tryipg.toJeak anything, but simply to use a'back channel to alert "a particularNSC source" to the danger~\hi,Iraq .. .The,~- . ex-Pentagon analys~ didn't know at th~ time that Rosen and Weissman worked for th~ pro-i~i~J 1 t ~ ! i lobby~ng group. Franklin said he wanted to spend time'instructing Y0'!1lg people ~'about th¢ t~e~t that I!. ~'f civilization faces from those who would replace us," who he indicated were theJorces of "~ad~~ai' I .i't ... \ Islam.". "0~e object of..our ~dversaries is to force us to change internally. What I did was P.1!ly'.~~g into; ~ -'1"t. that obJectJ.ve,"·Franklm satd. l .\ . 1I -I Franklin said he was "grateful to' b.e.in a countrY. where the rule ofla~ Rlld a respect for hurpa*$gh~is \ ~ " :~ r I,! 4" ,l \ I I ' ( • ' oj http://sioc.fuinet.fbi/doctimentslIntranetlInforma!!.9n1Sentine1l2009/June/12.htm 6/12/2009 The sloe Sentinel o ..... d Page 2 of2 }~ vibrant." Ellis quickly interrupted. "You believe rule ofla'V is i.1nportant? ....I've lived in-countries where there isn't rule oflaw. I was born in one," the Colombian-bomjurist said. "And what really [matters] is whether government officials obey the law." Franklin said he did believe in the rule of law and he acknowledged "serious errors in judgment.II That triggered another salvQ from the judge: IIAn error is putting on the wrong color tie," Ellis sai4. "We're talking about crimes." Earlier, Cacheris argued that the.govemment's request ofeight years imprisonment for Franklin "smacks ofvengeance" stemming from the decision to abandon the prosecution against Rosen and Weissman. "It's just not justified," the defense attorney said. He insisted the decision to drop the case against the two ex-lobbyists "was not because ofanything Mr. Franklin did." Cacheris's description ofFranklin's cooperation also produced some intriguing news. "He's given them other cases involving people who cannot come into this country,II the defense lawyer said cryptically. Cacheris also sugge...sted that Franklin was the target of witness tampering in the Aipac case. ~ "Someone came to approach Franklin to have him, in effect, disappear," the defense attorney said. He said Franklin immediately reported the incident to authorities. -Cacheris did not elaborate Qn the episode, but it could help explain why the EJU sought to interview Jewish leaders several years ago about attempts to provide financial assistance oremployment to Rosen and Weissman. Prosecutor Neil Hammerstrom suggested Franklin deserved more severe punishment than Rosen and Weissman, had they been convicted. "I~ many ways, he was a more significant violator than Rosen and Weissman ever were alleged to be," the prosecutor said. "Ifyou don't have people like Mr. Franklin in government doing that, you don't hav~ people [outside] passing classified information." Hainmerstrom also noted that Franklin took topsecret information to his home even after being disciplined for such activity. "You have before you an individual that just can't seem to f~llow the law when it comes to cl~sified information," the prosecutor said. He said Frankliti deserved credit for cooperating, but that his assistance had not been "ideal." In response to a question from Ellis Thursday, Franklin confirmed speculation that his rende~ous with Rosen and Weissman was arranged by Michael Makovsky, a former energy analyst for the Pentagon. Makovsky, who has left the government, was not charged in the case and was expected to be a witness at the trial ofRosen and Weissman Before the main hearing Thursday, lawyers spent nearly half an hour arguing behind closed doors about whether the re-sentencing snould be open to the public. The judge eventually allowed the press and public into the courtroom, though he said portions ofcourt ,filings about Franklin's sentence will remain under seal. As the hearing concluded i!1 the case, which has been the subjected of hard-fought legal battles for nearly four years, the judge stniggled to maintained his composure. He praised prosecutors and defense lawyers. "You all did a very goodjob," said Ellis, who is now semi-retired. - .. http://sioc.fbinet.fbi/docum