 |
|
The Jewish Telegraph Agency has the latest on the FBI AIPAC investigation. According to the JTA report by Edwin Black, the FBI investigation of AIPAC was stalled for over a year after FBI officials observed Pentagon Iran analyst Larry Franklin verbally sharing details from a draft classified national security directive on Iran with officials from the lobbying group AIPAC. For almost a year after that lunch transaction occurred, Black reports, nothing happened. Then, in May 2004, the FBI tapped Franklin making a call to CBS producer Adam Ciralsky. [Ciralsky had served as an attorney at the CIA before leaving the agency and suing it for allegedly harrassing him because of his ties to Israel. CBS's 60 Minutes covered the case, and then apparently hired Ciralsky as a producer.] Black reports: "In the conversation with CBS, Franklin’s remarks reportedly revealed sensitive intelligence intercepts, potentially compromising sources and methods of intelligence gathering, according to some sources aware of the call." The call apparently gave the FBI the ammunition it needed to persuade Franklin to cooperate in a sting against both members of AIPAC, and neoconservative allies of Ahmad Chalabi, who was believed to have told Iranian intelligence officials that the US had penetrated Iranian communications. Read the whole piece. But remember that the writer Edwin Black has written articles sympathetic towards confessed Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, and has advocated for Pollard to be released from jail. Black has also written articles accusing the FBI of being motivated by anti-Semitism in its investigation of AIPAC. [Meantime, it seems a bit tangled over at CBS, where CBS's Leslie Stahl reported the story of Ciralsky's lawsuit against the CIA in 2000, shortly after which CBS apparently hired Ciralsky to be a producer, and then, this past August, Stahl broke the story of the FBI investigation of an alleged Israeli "mole" in the Pentagon -- an investigation in which Ciralsky's receipt of a call from Franklin reportedly played some role.]
Update: It seems to me that if all the FBI has after two years of investigation is wiretaps from July 2004 showing allegedly cooked up information going from a wired up Franklin to AIPAC to the Israelis, then that's not much of an espionage case. There may be indictments, but it's hard to show that's a pattern of espionage, and I think many people including myself would be very sympathetic to AIPAC's dilemma having allegedly been told information that concerned Israeli lives. But it also seems to me that these recent stories that allege that all the FBI has is based on this July 2004 FBI sting are 1) placed in particularly friendly publications or with sympathetic reporters and 2) sourced by defense attorneys for potential defendants -- defendants whose organizations originally insisted there was nothing there at all. It seems these stories are the result of panic and attempted preemptive damage control at expected indictments in which it will come out there was at least something there. If all the FBI has is the result of this sting, there will be an outcry. Is the FBI crazy enough to have proceeded with a case against one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country with such thin evidence, or do they have more? I don't know. There seems to be a lot that we still don't know.
More: Ha'aretz's Nathan Guttman reports that some Jewish groups appear to be distancing themselves from AIPAC as indictments are expected:
The community came to AIPAC's defense when the story broke, and officially remains solidly behind the lobby. However, in recent informal conversations, there have been signs of discomfort and concern among community representatives. This discomfort erupted largely after AIPAC offices were raided for a second time and subpoenas were issued to the four officials to testify before the grand jury. AIPAC insisted to Jewish leaders that the charges were false and an attempt to frame the lobby, but community leaders began questioning whether they were getting the full picture. The use of a grand jury indicates the seriousness of the case, and increases the chances of indictments.