The Espionage Trial Most of You Don't Know About The case had the makings of a major news media event. Intrigue, treason, the betrayal of a nation we are told is our best friend. It involves first amendment issues that the media is normally all over. Can a person receiving classified information from government sources be prosecuted for publishing or even possessing this information? How about giving the information to officials of a foreign government? It is from the enforcement of an obscure never before used law that Mssrs. Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman are being prosecuted, The Espionage Act of 1917. Wow, the media should be up in arms over this. I bet that's why when the United States tried to close the trial to the public, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and several other news organizations attempted to intervene. Yet, how many news segments have you seen on this topic on Anderson Cooper's show? Neil Cavuto surely had something on this. Alright, I know Keith Olbermann has delivered an impassioned special commentary on the topic. What about the front pages of the New York Times or Washington Post? Surely there has been extensive coverage in Time and Newsweek? Well no. Nothing to see here folks, move along. So why did these news organizations try to intervene when they had no intention of covering the trial? Okay perhaps we need a little more information to understand what is going on with this dearth of coverage. A government employee working in the department of defense delivered classified information over a period of time to two high ranking AIPAC employees. AIPAC, lobbies extensively on behalf of Israel. On several occasions in turn, the employees, Rosen and Weissman delivered this information to agents at the Israeli embassy. Information was also provided to a reporter, according to the indictment. You may recall the hysteria and fuss that MSM created when the paper of two respected college professors, John Measheimer and Steven Walt was published. The paper examined the influence that the same lobby had in the determination of our foreign policy. Here is a sample of that coverage from the land of Zion, Scarbourgh Country. All media coverage then disappeared within 48 hours. Nothing to see here folks, move along. Does the media avoid these topics to save Israel and its American lobby embarrassment?Is there a pattern here? Are those who effectively control our media through ownership, management, writing, producing, reporting, editorializing etc., so enamoured with Israel, or intimidated by those who are, that they would place Israel above their allegiance to the United States Constitution? What if the government prevails because of this lack of exposure? Is our media's ethical and moral decline so complete in matters concerning Israel that we Americans can no longer rely upon it to protect our interests, whether foreign or domestic? In the past year the academic community because of the Mearsheimer-Walt paper has debated AIPAC's influence. It has debated the influence on our politicians and in our media. Perhaps the way the media has handled this case should provide answers to many of the questions raised in that debate. Or maybe the media is unconcerned with this trial and its implications because it fully understands the political realities in Washington. Our Department of Justice is now so politicised and corrupt that a matter like this will never come to trial. Maybe Rove has already sent the vanishing e-mail. Perhaps the political contribution already made that will undue the prosecution. Maybe a chairmanship offered to special someone to get the plug pulled. Or maybe Judge Ellis is just a member of the club. Will he serve the people? The American people? How does one know these days? Treason trial updates. http://www.nysun.com/article/59718 http://www.nysun.com/article/61714
I heard about this, but there is so much to read and follow each day, I lost track of it. Keep us updated gauharjk!
david dukkke: "I am pro-america not pro-israel" LOL oh really? Probably should have said "I am pro - white-american not pro-jooo" I am glad you made sure the link to the video was there - hate taught at Harvard
So, according to you since Israel = Jewish, Israel must be a jewish state, which we all know that if we have a country dedicated to a race of people is racist, so, what are you saying debunked? Israel is a racist state or David dukke is right?
I am not the judge and don't have any evidence. Simple as this: if someone is breaking the law or being treasonous, then it is wrong.
Point 1. Aipac has nothing to do with these two guys. I'm pretty sure as soon as it was discovered (or alleged) or they were charged...whatever the case is....Aipac disavowed any connection with these. I'm pretty sure they were fired. I'm virtually positive that Aipac disconnected from these two guys. I'm going to look into it for confirmation. Immediately connecting the individuals with Aipac is loose and wrong. Point 2. You guys, the RPist's have become the self proclaimed "owners" of the word constitution, in a manner that is inappropriate and wrong headed. You don't like something.....you label it unconstitutional and start mouthing off on it. You might cite an amendment....you may....just like in this case, apply the word unconstitutional to anything you don't like. Before the Paulists started to run around with this phrase at every opportunity it was never used in this type of broad usage by anyone in the population. NEVER. It was used specifically with cases that directly dealt with constitutional issues. It was primarily used within the context of the law and by the courts. The courts are tasked with the job of interpreting actions vis a vis the constitution. In fact that is there very exclusive domain. Legislatures, both federal and state might often pass laws that courts later deem unconstitutional. There has not been an every day or common usage of the word. In fact.....most people would say...."he broke the law" that is how language is used. But the Rpists use the word constitution in the same emotional/framework as conservatives have mastered over the last 30 years. During that time, phrases like liberal, liberal free press, etc. etc. have been twisted in their meaning and usage. Their actual common every day application in the language has changed. I fear that the term constitution is being altered in this way. Fortunately, though, the number of RPists is so small and so minute that it probably won't happen. Now does the media (or in another language twisting phrase --main stream media) love something....in this case Israel.....more than the Constitution. Silly inane headline for a thread. media doesn't spend its time either loving or hating or considering constitutional topics on a day to day basis. Again, no one does, (but the RPist language thefts.) Now has the story of these guys being charged with spying take up much media coverage? It seems to me it has not gotten much coverage....though I am somewhat familiar with the story. As mentioned above my recollection is that AIPAC immediately disavowed any connection with these guys. I'll check on that to be 100% sure. They better not have anything to do with these guys. I certainly hope so for their sake. If they have secretly okayed and been part of this alledged spy effort they should be disbanded.
I am not going to hold your hand through this, just search the internet for david duke kkk. It kind of goes with the territory.
Why is connecting them loose and wrong? They were both AIPAC employees, and they were both fired from AIPAC when this hit the news. If it wasn't related to, or embarrassing for AIPAC, why would they be fired? How so? First, I prefer to be called a Paulista or a Paulunteer. Second, yes, many of us generally do not like things that are unconstitutional. Hence why we label things we don't like, unconstitutional, then mouth off on it. Paulistas. And yes, we're out there, kickin' @ss and taking names! WOOHOO! "Constitutional issues"? What isn't a "constitutional issue"? What I had for lunch? The Constitution is the legal framework not only for American society, but also defines the entire structure of government. Without a Constitution, there is no Republic with co-equal branches, checks and balances, etc. To talk about politics, and not consider the Constitution would be like me eating that un-constitutional lunch, without chewing. Oh pushaw. Such silliness. People can't talk about the Constitution outside a court of law. Yup. Those b@stards do it all the time! There hasn't been a need like there is today. Oh, there is only one way of speaking now! Everyone, break out your dictionaries! Indeed. Liberals have turned "laissez-faire" from non-interventionism in the economy, into moral disregard for their fellow man. Or the common good to mean welfarism and globalism. Btw, real liberals were libertarians. Supporting civil liberties, including private property rights. Thomas Jefferson was an uber liberal, the founder of the Democratic party, and he's a libertarian hero. Perhaps, the most loved Founding Father by that movement. Of course, when I was growing up, Bad meant Bad. Not good. And Sick meant a day home from school, not Great. Nasty did not mean Bad @ss, it meant, nasty. Wicked meant evil, not "Wicked Cool". Oh Earl, stop pretending to be petty and irrational. You're so much better than that. Sounds like you love Israel and AIPAC more than the Constitution EARL!
A fairly typical list of inane responses. Specifically, per my source, AIPAC had nothing to do with the spying. They fired the 2 guys because what they did was wrong. As to the usage of language. Over the past 30 years certain words associated with politics have taken on a negative connotation and are used all the time now in an attacking perjorative sense. "liberal" is the prime example. At one point the term changed from one that reflected a political perspective to one that is used in a common perjorative sense. Today it is a typical code word used by many conservatives. It denotes a package of negative values. Now I see the word constitution bandied about by the RPists, or whatever you call yourselves. Whether the news writes or doesn't write about a topic has nothing to do with the constitution. It is not only loose, but an example of how the term liberal got twisted and gained negative political connotation over time. Only the other day you started a thread describing articles by Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald attacked the lack of press coverage of substitive issues. In fact, of even more relevance his attack focused on the lack of coverage of issues that deal with basic protections of rights and referenced the specific loss of rights as guaranteed in the 4th and 5th amendments of the constitution. Yet when he described the lack of media coverage, he never once confused that with some constitutional issue. That is probably one of the reasons his article was so compelling. So compelling that people of vastly different opinions on so many issues, such as you and I, Guerilla, found the article compelling. It was written with passion. He referenced the press once with regard to the constitution. It was a reference to the importance of the press and why it was included in the context of free speech. His discussions were passionate. His writing was logical. The headline of this thread is the polar opposite. It takes this loose and overabundance usage of the term constitution and ties it into a topic that is similar to what Greenwald was discussing---lack of press coverage of an issue. It is illogical. Worse than that, IMHO, it dilutes the importance of the constitution to some mundane everyday usage by those that think they "own" the phrase, the RPists. If someone doesn't do something they don't like they claim immediately that person or group is doing something unconstitutional. If the press isn't covering an issue delve into it. What they cover or don't cover has nothing to do with the constitution. I for one find it offensive to see the power of the constitution twisted and distorted by some group. I hope it never loses its value. (and parenthetically I hope people grab onto the important constitutional issues that Greenwald wrote about--sooner or later--preferably sooner).
We'll come back to this later... If the trial is ongoing, how can they be guilty? I think you have totally misinterpreted the use of the word Constitution in the first post. I went back and read it. Would you care to quote specifically the portions you have issue with, and explain PRECISELY why?
Guerilla: The problem is primarily in the title of the thread. The article quoted argues that media outlets did not publish extensively about these two guys who formerly worked at AIPAC and are accused of spying for Israel. The issue is not a constitutional argument. The issue, if you take the side of the article writer is that the media did not highly publicise the accused crime. As I referenced earlier there is nothing constitutional about that topic. Certainly the article doesn't cite the constitution or reference it. The title is an example of the loose language of the RPists who define everything in constitutional terms and denounce everything they don't like in constitutional terms. It devalues the importance of the constitution. It frankly turns those that use the term all the time into those that degrade the document itself by sulling it up with inane commentary. The argument of the article is similar to that of Greenwald, of whom you think so highly. He certainly never used such loose language with the decisions of media to print about inananities rather than to discuss issues that clearly deal with the constitutional rights of citizens. Of further interest. This thread like so many others is a simple act of those who hate Israel so much they will publish ANYTHING. The accused crime occurred in 2004. Although the Israel haters may not realize this....it is currently 2008. Publishing this piece as if it is current is similar to Will's virtually silly piece about an accusation against Al Gore, made in 2000. The only one's who might find it of any interest at all are simply those that retain a long held hatred against the man or his wife, as you and Will both demonstrated. Who cares. The guy is not trying to be an elected official. He is not now asking for our votes or trust. Its old news...and irrelevant to most, or at least those that don't hold onto a hatred for so many years. (While you and Will acknowledged a hatred for Gore or Gore's wife, I'm sure they aren't wasting their energy hating you two.). My memory of the event in 2004 was that there was plenty of press at the time. PLENTY. I disagree with the writer of the article. I had to go back and research it. I remember the issue....but it has been 4 years. Why would someone publicise something from 4 years ago like it is current? Again only a hater would try and make something appear current or publicise it in that way without referencing the time frame. That is deceiving. You should further know, or learn, that a trial for these two has been postponed many times but is now scheduled for April 29 of this year. I'll bet there will be coverage. The govt. is trying to hold it under a veil of secrecy...but that is what this administration does with every document it publishes. There is nothing Jewish or Israeli about this administration's efforts to not let any American know about anything. Finally with the wanton Israel Jew haters on this forum.....you should know that Israel and the US are allies but they clearly don't do things in perfect sync. That is how allies work. Most recently, and you, Guerilla commented on this phenomena at DP, Britain and the US diverged on Iraqi policy last year. Britain pulled troops out of Iraq. The US increased troops. The leaders of both nations downplayed the incredibly clear differences. There was a smidgeon of coverage concerning the different approaches in the media...but not a lot. It was glossed over. So too it is with Israel and the US. Of primary importance is that there is evidence that Israel advised against the US going into Iraq. How astonishing. It got virtually no press. Its hard for me to find the several sources from various non-American mainstream media. They were mostly in foreign press. The most recent reference I saw on the topic was a reference by Chuck Hagel in his book published in March this year. Referencing Israeli commentary on US plans to go to war with Iraq he writes: My reading on the issue suggested that Israeli intelligence tryed to dissuade the US from attacking Iraq. They saw Iraq as a weak and inconsequential entity in the middle east at the time. The rapidness of the actual war against the Iraqi army proved them out. The comment referenced by Hagel came from people who had long and torturous experience with occupying Lebanon for about 18 years. It was a costly experience for Israel. And ultimately one that was ineffectual. They left Hezbollah is entrenched in Southern Lebanon and has thousands of rockets again ready to be launched at Israel. Israel can't win for efforts to defend its borders, IMHO. In any case, Israeli disagreements with the US decision to attack Iraq were quiet and not publicized. Comments like those from Hagel have oozed out in various articles over the years. Despite that advice the US went forward. So much for Israel and the US moving in lockstep. I added this commentary simply because this OP, with its misleading headline and its reference to something that happened 4 years ago...and the citations of the article which I think are patently false.....there was significant coverage....are all examples of patent Israel bashing. They are also examples of weak writing, weak thinking and again the overuse of discussion of the constitution. I hope the document is never trivialized as much as you and your Paulist cohorts are currently doing.
It was probably pulled because the video that the thread was based on was a dead link. Or because the OP posts too many random news stories... or as some of you will undoubtedly think, DP is controlled by the jewish lobby, lol.
The mods are rarely this proactive in P&R. It is possible that someone has been on a reporting spree, trying to remove threads they don't like.