Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIs this the first crack in the we're-all-one-big-happy-family talk from the Obama adminstration when it comes to foreign policy? Is Hillary Clinton's State Department trying to undermine General James L. Jones at the National Security Council? And does it have anything to do with the coming May 18 showdown between President Obama and Israel's Bibi Netanyahu at the White House?
Maybe I'm sensitive to the emergence of a possible conflict between the State Department and the White House's NSC because I've just written a piece for Rolling Stone on the NSC, called "Obama's Chess Masters." In it, I pointed out that Obama's foreign policy is heavily "White House-centric," and that Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates will take a back seat to the White House, including General James Jones, the national security adviser. I wrote:
As soon as Obama was elected, there were questions about whether his plan to appoint a so-called "team of rivals" to key foreign-policy positions would lead to chaos and derail his agenda. Indeed, many of the strong-willed and sharp-elbowed officials at the top of the administration are more hawkish than the president himself --from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama's chief rival last year, to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a Republican who was appointed by George W. Bush, to Gen. David Petraeus, the politically ambitious commander of Centcom.
Now the sharp elbows may be coming out.
Mark Landler, the Frankfurt-based writer for the New York Times, penned a sycophantic and worshipful piece on Hillary Clinton on Saturday entitled: "Cinton Morphs from Campaigner to Cabinet Member." In it, while praising Clinton for her "respectful rapport" with President Obama, he included an anonymous (and State Department-inspired) attack on Jones:
But State Department officials, and others in the administration, say less-than-generous things about Mr. Obama's national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, suggesting there is some jockeying among the top officials around the president. General Jones, these people say, has struggled with his transition from Marine commander to senior staff person, speaking up less in debates than Mrs. Clinton and not pushing as hard for decisions.
Truth be told, while Clinton meets Obama about once a week, Jones sees Obama several times a day.
I can't help wondering if the State Department slurs against Jones have anything to do with his insistence that the United States intends to take a hard line on Israel-Palestine policy. The Israel lobby has been unhappy with Jones, and recently General Jones told David Ignatius of the Post that the United States intends to lay out its own views on what a settlement between Israel and Palestine might look like. In an April 30 column, Ignatius wrote:
Jones is an activist on the Palestinian issue, which he lists as a top priority for the new administration. He wants the United States to offer a guiding hand in peace negotiations -- submitting its own ideas to help break any logjams between the Israelis and Palestinians. "The United States is at its best when it's directly involved," Jones says. He cites U.S. diplomatic efforts in the Balkans. "We didn't tell the parties to go off and work this out. If we want to get momentum, we have to be involved directly."This stance may antagonize the new Israeli government of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, as may the prospect of U.S. diplomatic engagement with Iran. Ideally, the administration would like to explore a new security architecture for the Persian Gulf that recognizes Tehran's rising power but also sets limits.
This is important stuff. As I've written elsewhere for The Nation, and as Zbigniew Brzezinski has said, it's critical for the United States to lay out its position, rather than sit back and let the Israelis stall on peace talks. Let's keep an eye on Mrs. Clinton, whose loyalty to the Israeli position was honed during her stint as senator from New York.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Et tu, Hillary?
The 1st knife in Obama's back will come from his once & future opponent. And on that knife will be written "gift from Aipac."
The Caroline Kennedy "nomination" (never formal) was a blind-side probe from Hillary, designed to humiliate CK, for her "betrayal" of the Clintons, and fire one across the Obama bow. Cheap shot, State Dept leak & Vatican play-along. Watch for more such shots to come from HRC.
Posted by sloper at 05/04/2009 @ 09:23am
Let us hope that General Jones is politely shown the error of his ways in attacking Israel and being an enabler of terrorists (the Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank).
If Dreyfuss and others think that there is going to be some kind of dictating to Netenyahu that will change Israeli policy, he is badly mistaken.
Israel is a sovereign nation and will remain in control of their own destiny. Let us also hope that the US does not abandon Israel in order to bow at the feet of the terrorists (oops, forgot the new terminology is manmade disaster operators).
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 09:31am
Israel is a sovereign nation and will remain in control of their own destiny.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 09:31am | ignore this person | warn this person
Wish we could say the same thing about the US! Israel is the tail the wags the US dog.
Say....are you attending the AIPAC lovefest today? 2/3 of our Congress is planning on attending. Heroes welcome to Obama and his Justice Dept. for letting the spies go......solidarity conference of new administration and Nitwityahu administration was scheduled for this morning as I recall.
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 09:44am
No Dreyfuss, please don't coronate the Netanyahu administration's position as the Israeli position. Fully half or more of Israel (and American Jewery) would welcome having the US seek to mediate the remaining relatively limited disputed issues that caused Camp David / Taba and this past year Livni's negotiations, to fail. The cause of a power struggle between Clinton and Jones need not be laid at AIPAC's and Israel's door.
Posted by gren at 05/04/2009 @ 09:54am
'Gingrich noted the shared values of America and Israel, asserting that AIPAC's work to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship is a distinctly American interest. "AIPAC is not just about Israel," he said. "AIPAC is about the American-Israel relationship, because the future of America and Israel are inextricably intertwined. A world which destroys Israel will certainly destroy the United States."
Gingrich devoted particular attention to the gravity of the Iranian threat, noting the necessity of imposing strong sanctions on Iran and cutting off its access to international oil markets. "It was the deliberate driving down of the price of oil which bankrupted Gorbachev and the Soviet Union, and if we made the same strategy of deliberately driving down the price of oil, the Iranians would presently not have the money to subsidize terrorism around the world," he said.
Gingrich's talk followed a stirring address by AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr, who discussed the urgency of confronting growing attempts throughout the world to delegitimize the Jewish state.'
AIPAC 2009 Policy Conference
This is just unbelievable.
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 10:02am
The problems in Israel will continue until the sane people,on both sides,get tired of the fanatics,on both sides, and get rid of them and find a way to live together.Unfortunately,religion is involved and that always makes things more difficult as the fanatics from the three Abrahamic religions fight against each other in an attempt to be the same Gods favorite child in the same way that children compete to be their parents favorite child..
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/04/2009 @ 10:28am
Proponents of peace, Jewish, Moslem, Christian or otherwise, should welcome active US mediation of peace negotiations. But do not be surprised to learn that it is the palestinians who need to be moved forward to make the necessary compromises and sacrifices to match those made by Israel -- renewed US involvement would be a resumption of the Camp David negotiations, which Arafat sabatoged because he was a hostage to militant Fatah and Hamas extremism.
Posted by gren at 05/04/2009 @ 10:36am
Posted by sloper at 05/04/2009 @ 09:23am | ignore this person | warn this person
thanks for neatly summing it up for us.
"Unfortunately,religion is involved..."
nonsense.
it's a territorial and political dispute. it is definitely NOT a religious issue..
Posted by emile duBois at 05/04/2009 @ 10:41am
specifically, the Palestinians will have to give up their claim to a right of return. also, the sovereignty of the temple mount will need to be shared. Finally, Fatah and Hamas will have to give up their arms (just as the IRA had to do). Israel will need to give up more of East Jerusalem -- a potential sticking point w/Netanyahu which must be overcome. (Israeli withdrawal from 93% of the West Bank, including all settlements except for 4 urban areas near the green line, is already on the table.)
Posted by gren at 05/04/2009 @ 10:44am
emile-Saying that religion is involved is not the same thing as saying that it is strictly a religious war,but it is impossible to deny that religion is heavily involved since so many of the fanatics quote religion and base their views on the subject along religious lines.For many of the religious fanatics it is a holy war and those are the ones who will be the most difficult to bring to the peace table.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/04/2009 @ 10:54am
Hello to everybody, the skipper of the current US administration is a dreamer... and letting a dreamer play the world politic game is a huge hazard... The current US administration is cornering Israel leaving it with no practicable options than a preentive attak on IRAN and SYRIA... This is the only move that can get Israel out of the corner and will allow to the Jewish State to continue playing in the 1st Legue of Midle East Politic... If Israel bows to the Obama administration than it will be the end of Israel... Obama is a great danger for Israel... but he's an even bigger danger for the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...
Von_Clausewitz
Posted by von_clausewitz at 05/04/2009 @ 10:55am
Posted by von_clausewitz at 05/04/2009 @ 10:55am
Blah blah blah, incoherent mumbo jumbo. Do you even know what your talking about? Or are you just babbling?
Posted by Extraneous at 05/04/2009 @ 11:14am
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=i'm%20nobody
the bones of contention, pun intended, are not of a religious nature.
if all the jews in Israel became, say , christians overnight, that would not change the nature of the problem. it is a territorial issue first and foremost.the solution will be political, rather than military.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/04/2009 @ 11:32am
For many of the religious fanatics it is a holy war and those are the ones who will be the most difficult to bring to the peace table. Posted by i'm nobody at 05/04/2009 @ 10:54am | ignore this person | warn this person
you are letting the fringe elements define the problem. this is in itself a problem.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/04/2009 @ 11:33am
the fanatics from the three Abrahamic religions fight against each other in an attempt to be the same Gods favorite child in the same way that children compete to be their parents favorite child..
this is just crazy talk.
if this is how you see the world, allow me to introduce you to the satanic reverend. you have much in common.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/04/2009 @ 11:37am
emile-No.I'm not allowing fringe elements to define anything.I'm just recognizing their existence and am expressing how they make a difficult problem be even more complicated.Actually,the fanatics from those three religions do have a long history of claiming to be Gods chosen,special in the eyes of God,etc and have a history of fighting against one another over the question of who is Gods favorite.That is not crazy talk,but is a statement of historical fact.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/04/2009 @ 12:22pm
I heard Brzezinski in an interview say that Jones would be the point man on foreign policy. Brzezinski was in a similar position in the Carter Administration. Jones may be the modern version of Brzezinski?
Posted by pjcasey at 05/04/2009 @ 12:25pm
As the protocol dictates, the night crawlers and the spineless Politicians have surfaced in numbers at the AIPAC's annual gathering. They pledged loyalty to their AIPAC's handlers and offered to sell out the American interest to the Israeli spy agency. Clinton is pragmatic enough to understand the center of power in Washington; let no one doubt on what side she will stand if Obama is to clash with Netanyahu. Clinton will not hesitate to trash President Obama and General Jones when AIPAC gives her the marching order.
Newt Gingrich sees an opening to revive his lackluster "Contract with America" and maybe to rehab his political career. Gingrich impulsively understands that without AIPAC's blessing his chances of success are remote. Gingrich once called AIPAC "the most effective general-interest group [on] the entire planet".
Even the Zionist Jane Harman was at the AIPAC's conference. Harman needs AIPAC's protection badly. She was caught red-handed betraying the integrity of her office and pledging to help two AIPAC officials who were indicted for spying on America for Israel (Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman).
Netanyahu will have his way with Obama; no American president has enough clout to stand to Israel. Thank your elected officials; Washington is an Israeli-occupied territory.
Posted by CripThink at 05/04/2009 @ 12:26pm
Hey Cripthink
ve're vatching you. vise up and clam up. Ve have vays of dealing vith troublemongers like you.
Posted by gren at 05/04/2009 @ 12:29pm
ve're vatching you. vise up and clam up. Ve have vays of dealing vith troublemongers like you.
Posted by gren at 05/04/2009 @ 12:29pm
Zionist Gren,
I attempted to sneak in a comment, while you were caucusing with you brethrens at AIPAC, but apparently you are "Vatching" me. Why don't go find a rat-hole and dig your ass into it. The Israelis are about attack Iran, when are you going back home and join the IDF?
Posted by CripThink at 05/04/2009 @ 12:41pm
Hey Crip Think
it's Zionist Sir Gren to you.
Seriously, why are you so angry.
Posted by gren at 05/04/2009 @ 12:47pm
Zionist gren,
Tell me first when are going back home (to Israel) to join the IDF? The war with Iran is about to break out soon.
Posted by CripThink at 05/04/2009 @ 12:51pm
I am a Zionist and Israel is my anscestral homeland, and the revival of my fathers' civilization. But your pathetic uber-patriotism reminds me of the love-it-or-leave-it of Nixon's hard hat brigades, not that of any rational progressive. You too are an immigrant here. And you too pursue your ideological agenda at the expense of a greater communal interest. We all do.
Posted by gren at 05/04/2009 @ 12:59pm
It sounds as if President Obama wishes to be less than a total fool in dealing with the Israel problem - let's hope he has some success. If necessary, Clinton can be reduced in power or fired.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/04/2009 @ 1:16pm
Posted by gren at 05/04/2009 @ 12:59pm
gren,
Your attachment to Israel is fatal and people like you tend to sell out so easily, what do you think of Jonathan Pollard, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman? These idols of yours claimed to be Americans, but like you, sold America cheap in favor of their ancestral homeland (Israel). Nothing wrong with being an immigrant, nor do you have to love America to stay; just respect America's law and treat it as equal to Israel.
Why do I, as an American, have to send my tax dollars to your ancestral homeland? The Palestinians have never done any harm to America. Your Zionists friends have murdered, ethnically cleansed, and drove hundred of thousands of Palestinians out of the land of their ancestors. Zionist like you came from New York, Warsaw, Russia, etc… to occupy Palestinian lands and you want me to be partner in your crime.
And here you are, shamelessly, plying your religious fairytale on us; armed with a bunch of biblical fantasies to justify your crimes against the Palestinians.
We Americans are fed up with your lies, your crimes against the Palestinians, of you embezzling our tax dollars to murder more innocent Palestinians. We are tired of your AIPAC and Fox News and all your propaganda outlets. Nothing personal, you have been getting away with your BS for too long; America is wising up.
Posted by CripThink at 05/04/2009 @ 1:39pm
Hey Crip Think
Ranting is not a substitute for reason.
Apparently a majority of americans support American foreign aid to Israel. You don't like it, but you're in a minority. Scapegoating Jews because you can't persuade others to join your point of view is infantile.
The rest of your comment is blood libel paranoid propoganda which I won't dignify with a response.
Posted by gren at 05/04/2009 @ 1:44pm
And here you are, shamelessly, plying your religious fairytale on us; armed with a bunch of biblical fantasies to justify your crimes against the Palestinians.
We Americans are fed up with your lies, your crimes against the Palestinians, of you embezzling our tax dollars to murder more innocent Palestinians. We are tired of your AIPAC and Fox News and all your propaganda outlets. Nothing personal, you have been getting away with your BS for too long; America is wising up.
Posted by CripThink at 05/04/2009 @ 1:39pm
As usual, your anti-semitic hatred causes you to rant like all bigots rant; lacking any rational thought.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 1:47pm
Hey Cripthink
ve're vatching you. vise up and clam up. Ve have vays of dealing vith troublemongers like you.
Posted by gren at 05/04/2009 @ 12:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person
'Gingrich's talk followed a stirring address by AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr, who discussed the urgency of confronting growing attempts throughout the world to delegitimize the Jewish state.'
Gren.....is this what Howard Kohr is pledging on behalf of AIPAC & Israel? How far are you guys willing to go? At the very least....
"confronting the world" sounds like our foreign policy is going to be one of continuing to step on toes on behalf of Israel, i.e., US & Israel vs. The World.
What a costly alliance this is. The annual aid to Israel is miniscule compared to all costs of such a foreign policy including economic, social and political costs, tangible and intangible.
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 1:54pm
Posted by CripThink at 05/04/2009 @ 1:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Your last post reminds me of Lebanon 2006, wherein Hezbollah allowed all Americans to evacuate without harm. In facts, there had no been no incidents of Hezbollah harming American citizens in Lebanon for decades. The evacuation was in advance of Bush sanctioned and Israel conducted atrocity and destruction in southern Lebanon, including attacks on UN personnel.
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 1:57pm
As usual, your anti-semitic hatred causes you to rant like all bigots rant; lacking any rational thought.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 1:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yeah right Liv....from one who thinks Zionism is in the DNA of its adherents.
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 1:59pm
We have massive Marxist and Zionist plots going on everywhere and I'm wondering if these massive conspiracies ever include people from both groups of plotters?Not all Zionists are religious and some are Marxists so do those Zionists attend conspiracy meetings with the Marxist bunch,too?
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/04/2009 @ 2:12pm
As usual, your anti-semitic hatred causes you to rant like all bigots rant; lacking any rational thought.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 1:47pm
Anti do you read what you write? If you swap out the word anti-semitic and replace it with (left, liberal, progressive, etc.) it describes your recent postings to a T.
I say recent postings since I remember not that long ago when your postings actually had some semblance of reason to them.
Posted by Extraneous at 05/04/2009 @ 2:22pm
Posted by Extraneous at 05/04/2009 @ 2:22pm
Hmmm, you have a few people here like Syfriendly and Cripthink that believe all Jews need to be removed from the Middle East, that the Jews are the worst scum of the earth and you think I'm the problem?
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 2:25pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 2:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I've never said anything of the sort, I don't think that way all, you are totally a lunatic to begin with and completely full of shit to boot. You can take your defamatory or slanderous bullshit and put it where the sun don't shine.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/04/2009 @ 2:28pm
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 1:57pm
In other words, Hezbollah had no choice but to evacuate. It's one thing to harass Israel, but it's completely different if you piss off a super power.
They knew how GWB was.
Posted by ACook at 05/04/2009 @ 2:33pm
As usual, your anti-semitic hatred causes you to rant like all bigots rant; lacking any rational thought.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 1:47pm
Anti-Social Rasputin,
Why don't you sermonize to idiots of your caliber? The bone you are barking for is not even yours; it belongs to your powerful masters.
Posted by CripThink at 05/04/2009 @ 2:36pm
Hey I'm Nobody
I'll let you in on the real truth. Both the Marxists and Zionists are just front groups, as are the KKK and the Rush Limbaugh nation. The Illumanati pull all the strings and we all are the puppets. Don't be fooled again!!
Posted by gren at 05/04/2009 @ 2:36pm
gren-I'm glad that you got that sorted out.All of the conspiracy theories that I have heard about over the years have confused me horribly as to whom should I fear and it's good to know that this one group is really in charge rather than the multitudes of groups that I have heard about.It's good that I'm at the bottom of the puppet food chain.Fewer strings attached.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/04/2009 @ 2:47pm
In other words, Hezbollah had no choice but to evacuate. It's one thing to harass Israel, but it's completely different if you piss off a super power.
They knew how GWB was.
Posted by ACook at 05/04/2009 @ 2:33pm
Oh...they had a choice all right. What they didn't realize was that Bush would, in effect, make this his "war" too. What did Hezbollah get in return for protection of American citizens? Bombed with American bombs - and empty rhetoric about disproportionality of Israeli response after the fact.
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 2:50pm
Apparently a majority of americans support American foreign aid to Israel.
Posted by gren at 05/04/2009 @ 1:44pm
gren,
Was your poll about foreign aid to Israel conducted in Brooklyn? Can you then explain why all aid to Israel is voted on in Congress in closed sessions?
Posted by CripThink at 05/04/2009 @ 2:51pm
'Moyers: Tell me what you think about the arguments of Richard Perle, who is perhaps the most influential advocate in the President's and the administrtion's ear arguing to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
Wilson: Well, he's certainly the architect of a study that was produced in the mid - '90's for the Likud Israeli government called, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for the Realm". And it makes the argument that the best way to secure Israeli Security is through the changing of some of these regimes beginning with Iraq and also including Syria. And that's been since expanded to include Iran.
Moyers: So this was drawn up during the 90's...
Wilson: Right. During the 90's absolutely.
Moyers: And this, you're saying that this has become a blueprint for the Bush Administration?'
Excerpt of interview with Joe Wilson. The conspiracy theory of WMD used to sell the war on behalf of Israel.
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 2:53pm
you think I'm the problem?
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 2:25pm
No, I don't think your a problem. I just think your trajically misguided. As you take any criticism of Israel or AIPAC and interpret is as anti-semitism.
Posted by Extraneous at 05/04/2009 @ 2:53pm
'In case you did not get all that was in that interview, let me break it down a little for you:
Richard Perle was the chairperson of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board which made him the 2nd most influential person in the Pentagon. He is a Zionist Jew. He along with two other of the Pentagon's upper echelon, Zionist Jews, were part of the eight person Zionist team that wrote the report for Israel referred to in the interview. Perle was also chairperson of that group. After years of being chair of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board he finally resigned in March 2003. He now works at one of those infamous "think tanks" where he still gets used by governments and the media to propagandize Zionist policies. The paper they wrote, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," was written for the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, in 1996. He was leader of the Likud party. The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies which this study group worked for at the time is an arm of the Israeli government and has offices in Jerusalem and Washington. The paper basically recommended that: the best way to secure Israeli security is through the changing of some of the regimes in the Middle East beginning with Iraq, then following with Syria, and Iran. The recommended way to implement these regime changes is for Zionists to convince (lobby) the U.S. to believe it is in its interest to make the change!!!'
http://zionismexplained.org/iraq/iraq.html
And they are still at it today. Chomping at the bit to attack Iran. See AIPAC Policy Conference 2009 Seminar and Agenda.
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 2:55pm
I've never said anything of the sort, I don't think that way all, you are totally a lunatic to begin with and completely full of shit to boot. You can take your defamatory or slanderous bullshit and put it where the sun don't shine.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/04/2009 @ 2:28pm
Really?
Certainly nobody can encourage the Israeli regime of seeking peace anywhere in the region ... they're all about war, war, war, and triumphalist claims to land they have no right to.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/02/2009 @ 6:34pm
I have little sympathy for the few Israelis who suffer or die as a result of Palestinian violence, very little; but I understand that, ultimately, the suffering and dying shouldn't happen in Israel either. The Israeli people are brutal and racist, and their regimes are in general evil, and Israel digs its own hole in so many ways, but I'd just as soon not hear of another of their deaths either.
Posted by syfriendly at 04/03/2009 @ 4:15pm
I do maintain that MOST Israelis are completely brutish. That is how these evil regimes get voted into power, repeatedly, in Israel. That's how these evil wars that Israel wages against largely defenseless populations get so much support from the broad Israeli public. The people there, mostly, are dumb and brutish and the sort who are proud to hear that their military is in action against a largely defenseless people they've subjugated for decades.
Posted by syfriendly at 03/17/2009 @ 9:27pm
more to come
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 3:44pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 3:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You are an absolute idiot. What I wrote is entirely different than what you wrote which is "want to see all the Jews removed from the Earth" or some such utter crap.
Take a flying @##$ off a tall rock, you loon -
Posted by syfriendly at 05/04/2009 @ 3:46pm
Here are more of your "acceptance of Israel" comments Sy
"The "Arab world" was never given any choice in the matter. Their land was basically parceled out to a group of Western European religious fanatics who believed that they had a divine and historical claim to land they had not lived on in any any great numbers in over a millenium. In 1948, the people of the land now called "Israel" were forcefully expelled by a group of foreign invaders engaged in a colonial enterprise of the sort that took place in the 18th century and earlier. Unsurprisingly, 60 years later, the lands in question are still being fought over.
Posted by syfriendly at 12/28/2008 @ 10:48pm
How ironic that "Israel" was a creation of the UN, back when the UN was a Western-white-only club. You refer to the 1948 "creation of Israel" by the UN (the destruction of the lives and well-being of most of the people in Palestine, who are refugees to this day) as some sort of attempt to "create peace" and then go on to complain that the UN is an "impediment to peace" now that it actually has member nations who are not white and Western. It's not an "impediment to peace"; it's an impediment to white Western colonial enterprise and imperialism.
Posted by syfriendly at 12/28/2008 @ 10:51pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 4:02pm
"For me, there is no longer any "Israel" in the sense that this group of people is apparently little more than a band of savages;
Posted by syfriendly at 01/01/2009 @ 12:59pm"
You're right Sy, no one can say you are against Israel having a future. Not with all of those humane comments of yours I just cited (lol)
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 4:04pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 3:44pm
Nice, you just re-enforced my earlier post. That you take any criticism of Israel as anti-semitism.
Posted by Extraneous at 05/04/2009 @ 4:07pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 4:04pm
What I've written is a far cry from "wants to see all the Jews removed from the Middle East" and "thinks all the Jews are the scum of the Earth".
Whatever, you are an absolute lunatic who on these pages has overtly demanded that there is not even a Palestinian identity, and that the Palestinian people should be ethnically cleansed because of some sort of divine right the Israelis claim. In other words, you are a religious lunatic.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/04/2009 @ 4:11pm
Whatever, you are an absolute lunatic who on these pages has overtly demanded that there is not even a Palestinian identity, and that the Palestinian people should be ethnically cleansed because of some sort of divine right the Israelis claim. In other words, you are a religious lunatic.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/04/2009 @ 4:11pm
Until 1967 the Arabs there denied there was a "Palestinian" identity. Most said they were Syrian.
<Statement by Zuheir Mohsein, Member of the Supreme Council of the PLO: "There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity, because it is in the interest of the Arabs to encourage a separate Palestinian identity in contrast to Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is there only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new expedient to continue the fight against Zionism and for Arab unity
Trouw (Dutch newspaper) March 31, 1977
Ahmed Shuqeiri, to the UN Security Council in 1949
It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria
Arab MK, Abdul Darawshe said [Jerusalem Institute of Western Defence, Bulletin 3, August 15, 1997]:
There is no difference between one Palestinian and another. We are all Palestinians and we are all Syrian Arabs.
"There is no such country as Palestine. ''Palestine'' is a term the Zionists invented. There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria. ''Palestine'' is alien to us. It is the Zionists who introduced it".
Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, Syrian Arab leader to British Peel Commission, 1937>
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 4:33pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 4:04pm
Furthermore, you fail to present the context I wrote in. When I wrote that post, Israel was slaughtering hundreds of people, including women and little infants, in an absolute barbaric criminal war against the people of Gaza. This was like the bombing of the Warsaw Ghetto. You're damn right I think they're barbaric. They are. Still proves nothing you wrote about "wanting to see all the Jews removed from the Middle East".
You're the proponent of ethnic cleansing. You're the person using bizarre single statements from individual figures as an argument that the Palestinians should expelled from their land and the land given to the Israelis. You're the whacko.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/04/2009 @ 4:46pm
"You do not represent Palestine as much as we do. Never forget this one point: There is no such thing as a Palestinian people, there is no Palestinian entity, there is only Syria. You are an integral part of the Syrian people, Palestine is an integral part of Syria. Therefore it is we, the Syrian authorities, who are the true representatives of the Palestinian people".
- Syrian dictator Hafez Assad to the PLO leader Yassir Arafat
Assad stated on March 8, 1974, "Palestine is a principal part of Southern Syria, and we consider that it is our right and duty to insist that it be a liberated partner of our Arab homeland and of Syria."
Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist that acknowledged the lie he was fighting for and the truth he was fighting against:
"Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?
We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians - they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag".
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 4:48pm
Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians - they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag".
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 4:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
'The Canaanites (Hebrew: כנענים, Modern Knaanim Tiberian Kəna‘anîm) are said to have been one of seven regional ethnic divisions or "nations" driven out before the Israelites following the Exodus. Specifically, the other nations include the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites (Deuteronomy 7:1).'
Source: Wikipedia
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 6:26pm
In the Hebrew Bible, the "Land of Canaan" extends from Lebanon southward across Gaza to the "Brook of Egypt" and eastward to the Jordan River Valley, thus including modern Israel and the Palestinian Territories.
Source: Wikipedia
Note - extends to the Jordan River Valley.
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 6:34pm
'The Canaanites (Hebrew: כנענים, Modern Knaanim Tiberian Kəna‘anîm) are said to have been one of seven regional ethnic divisions or "nations" driven out before the Israelites following the Exodus. Specifically, the other nations include the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites (Deuteronomy 7:1).'
Source: Wikipedia
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 6:26pm
This has nothing to do with the Arabs living in Israel. the Canannite tribes ceased to exist over 4000 years ago.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 6:41pm
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 6:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The guy is a lunatic and an idiot. He lives in his own private universe, cherry-picking whatever tidbits of reality he can find that re-enforce his demented take on the world, while discarding all the rest. The only reason I responded to him at all today was that he grotesquely smeared me as some sort of anti-Jewish racist because of my opinion of the Israeli nation, an opinion which is based on the factual reality of Israeli fanaticism, Israeli apartheid and racism, and Israeli violence. I won't be smeared as a racist by a bent man who uses his personal religious lunacy and deluded perceptions of real world history as an argument for ethnic cleansing and in defense of the nakedly barbaric and atrocious treatment of the Palestinians, or any other subjugated people.
I encourage you to waste no more time -
Posted by syfriendly at 05/04/2009 @ 6:49pm
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 6:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
And the historical Israeli nation over 2000 years ago -
Posted by syfriendly at 05/04/2009 @ 6:50pm
I encourage you to waste no more time -
Posted by syfriendly at 05/04/2009 @ 6:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
This is positively good advice. You can't rationalize with it, you can't reason with it. It is like The Terminator - preprogramed bootlicker for The Zionists. He betrays his own flock.
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 7:09pm
I won't be smeared as a racist by a bent man who uses his personal religious lunacy and deluded perceptions of real world history as an argument for ethnic cleansing and in defense of the nakedly barbaric and atrocious treatment of the Palestinians, or any other subjugated people.
Posted by syfriendly at 05/04/2009 @ 6:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
BTW - consider the source. Note AIPAC's head honcho mentioning that AIPAC's number #1 priority is to stop The World's attempt at "delegimatizing" Israel at the obedience training conference today. The World's blogosphere is far more vitriolic in its condemnation of Zionists. This is pretty tame. In any event, they are in control, but maybe they are worried a bit. A good sign I hope.
No - you are not a anti-semite, just telling it like it is. Don't forget you are on a website whose offices are located in the heart of Zionist occupied territory.
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 7:18pm
This has nothing to do with the Arabs living in Israel. the Canannite tribes ceased to exist over 4000 years ago.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 6:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Hmmmm......I think I smell a some hypocrisy here.
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 7:24pm
Funny that the Jews forbade intermarriage with Canannites......if they didn't exist.
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 7:29pm
>>>Let's keep an eye on Mrs. Clinton, whose loyalty to the Israeli position was honed during her stint as senator from New York.<<<
Lat time I checked, ALL cabinet members work at the disposal and in support of the president and HIS agenda.
It is hard to imagine Hillary taking a different stance than Obama on a major initiative in the Middle East and remain as secretary of state.
Shaping policy is about access to the president, and right now Jones has far more access than Hillary. But I think to "assume" that Jones' needs to "convince" Obama to push for and become actively engaged in creating a settlement of the Israeli conflict or to take a different approach than Bush's saber-rattling approach to Iran is a mistake.
Either Hillary fully supports the president and this new approach to foreign policy and is an advocate for this approach around the world, or I don't see how she could possibly be effective or useful in her cabinet role.
Posted by Metteyya at 05/04/2009 @ 7:37pm
AJC Applauds Decision to Drop AIPAC Prosecution
May 1, 2009 – New York – The American Jewish Committee (AJC) strongly welcomed the Department of Justice decision to drop the prosecution on espionage charges of two former staff members of the America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
"The decision to abandon the AIPAC case is a victory for justice and free speech," said AJC Executive Director David Harris. "Significant doubts arose from the beginning about the legitimacy of charging Keith Weissman and Steve Rosen under the 1917 Espionage Act." Until the charges were brought against the two men, the statute had never been used to prosecute private citizens.
"The Department of Justice has now reaffirmed that the law of the United States protects citizens who engage in the everyday and essential work of political advocacy," Harris said.
AJC had urged the Department of Justice to reconsider its prosecution on the grounds that to proceed would compromise basic First Amendment rights.
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 7:38pm
AJC Welcomes Stiff Sentences for Fort Dix Terrorists
April 29, 2009 – New York – AJC welcomed the stiff sentences handed down to the five convicted of planning a terrorist attack at Fort Dix in New Jersey. Four of the five defendants received life sentences, while the fifth will serve 33 years.
"Vigilant law enforcement thankfully prevented a major terror attack aimed at murdering U.S. military personnel on American soil,' said AJC Executive Director David A. Harris. "The Justice Department deserves high praise for successful prosecution and appropriate prison terms that send a clear message to anyone else who may contemplate carrying out a terror act in our country."
Three of the five terrorists -- Dritan Duka, Shain Duka, and Eljvir Duka – are brothers from Albania and were sentenced yesterday to life without parole. A fourth, Mohamad Shnewer, originally from Jordan, received today a life sentence. The fifth, Serdar Tatar, from Turkey, got a sentence of only 33 years because Judge Robert Kugler said Tatar lacked the religious fervor of the others and could be rehabilitated in prison.'
Note these were convictions on a relatively flimsy conspiracy charge - it took the jury 5 1/2 days to reach a decision. Sounds like we nearly had a hung jury. AJC praises Justice for Muslims and perversion of Justice for its own.
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 7:46pm
Funny that the Jews forbade intermarriage with Canannites......if they didn't exist.
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 7:29pm
Wat a spin. How could I say that they never existed if I said they ceased to exist 4000 years ago.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 7:46pm
'The case was built largely on the work of two informants who infiltrated the group and recorded hundreds of hours of conversations. Fort Dix Terrorist Conviction.
'The defense argued that the informants entrapped the men in a phony conspiracy, goading them into making inflammatory statements about the government and pushing them to make half-hearted plans for an attack they never intended to carry out.
The Duka brothers all cited examples from their recorded conversations that they said proved their innocence. Dritan Duke spoke in a rapid-fire cadence for nearly 30 minutes, while reading off a pile of yellow legal pad sheets.
"This case was nothing more than a conspiracy that was formed against us by the government," he said.'
Three in Fort Dix Five terrorist plot sentenced to life By Troy Graham
Philadelphia Inquirer Staff Writer
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 7:49pm
Wat a spin. How could I say that they never existed if I said they ceased to exist 4000 years ago.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 7:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
So what date is attributed to first versions of the Hebrew Bible again Liv?
Sometime around 1,000 BC going forward.
Now, you are telling us that "the tribes" disappeared 4,000 years ago. So Pastor, that would be about 2,000 BC right? Now, how can the Hebrew bible specifically mentioned that Jews shouldn't intermarry with Canannites if they ceased to exist prior to the Hebrew bible?
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 7:54pm
Note these were convictions on a relatively flimsy conspiracy charge - it took the jury 5 1/2 days to reach a decision. Sounds like we nearly had a hung jury. AJC praises Justice for Muslims and perversion of Justice for its own. Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 7:46pm
OneVote,
You present very astute observation; it pays to be a Zionist under the guidelines of our Justice Department. Notice that Larry Franklin was an Ass-kisser to his Zionist bosses, Douglas Feith and Abrams Shulsky, at the Pentagon Office of Special Plans, but was not a Zionist himself. Franklin was a mere Zionist sympathizer spying for Israel to please his bosses at the Pentagon and that why he is stinking in jail (deservingly). By dropping all charges against Rosen and Weissman, our Justice Department has set new precedent: One set of rules for Zionists (Rosen, Weissman, and Harman) and another set for the Gentiles (Franklin and the rest of us). It seems like our venerable Justice Department is taking a page from its Israeli counterpart: One set of rules for Jews and another set for Palestinians and other gentiles.
Posted by CripThink at 05/04/2009 @ 10:41pm
One set of rules for Jews and another set for Palestinians and other gentiles.
Posted by CripThink at 05/04/2009 @ 10:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Indeed Crip. Can you imagine the outcome if information was passed to the Palestinians? Hang em high would be the rallying cry.
The precedent set is the exclusive First Amendment rights and business as usual to be exercised on behalf of Israel.
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 11:22pm
Can you imagine the outcome if information was passed to the Palestinians? Hang em high would be the rallying cry.
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 11:22pm
Another good observation, OneVote. Our Injustice Department did Hang em high:
http://www.counterpunch.org/
Posted by CripThink at 05/04/2009 @ 11:45pm
Now, you are telling us that "the tribes" disappeared 4,000 years ago. So Pastor, that would be about 2,000 BC right? Now, how can the Hebrew bible specifically mentioned that Jews shouldn't intermarry with Canannites if they ceased to exist prior to the Hebrew bible?
Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 7:54pm
Moses was the author of the first 5 books of the Bible around 2000 BC.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 11:46pm
Israel DOES have an Achilles' heel: If the findings of the scientific paper presented by the University of Copenhagen a few weeks ago were publicised in the US as they have (together with television interviews throughout Europe),the world will (extrapolate to)see what it really is once and for all. And all the Harmans and other traitors who betrayed America would be exposed.
Posted by mystic at 05/04/2009 @ 11:58pm
Why does it have to be a Clinton VS Jones? Both are just doing thier job giving opinions to thier boss, the same as any good organization solicits many sides of a complex issue. But James L Jones is correct about the Balkans and the Mideast when he says "We didn't tell the parties to go off and work this out. If we want to get momentum, we have to be involved directly." After all, where are the Balkans now? A vacation hot spot and Albania and Croatia have just joined NATO!
Posted by johnhydejr at 05/04/2009 @ 11:59pm
Let us also hope that the US does not abandon Israel in order to bow at the feet of the terrorists (oops, forgot the new terminology is manmade disaster operators).
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 09:31am
So you are suggesting instead we bow at the feet of Israel instead of choosing our own fate and who our country is going to deal with?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/05/2009 @ 01:06am
<i>Posted by OneVote at 05/04/2009 @ 11:22pm </i>
Right, because Israel is completely friendly with nations that seek to destroy us...those cases aren't even remotely analogous.
Moreover, part of the point wasn't even that they stole information, is that information ended up being leaked TO them, wasn't it? If that's the case, then it's not like they were spying for confidential information to begin with. Unless you want to argue for a giant spy ring that involves intentional leaks and such (an assertion that would need considerable proof), you're on pretty shaky ground here.
<i>Posted by CripThink at 05/04/2009 @ 10:41pm </i>
And another entry to the list of assertions without foundation...charming how "Zionist" control of the Justice Department is simply assumed.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/05/2009 @ 01:09am
hey mystic
I think you referenced this Copenhagen paper once before. Could you provide a link so I can see what you are talking about. Thx. (I'd prefer to review source material instead of someone else's partisan characterization.)
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 08:43am
and other traitors who betrayed America would be exposed. Posted by mystic at 05/04/2009 @ 11:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person
hmmm, Josef Stalin or McCarthy?
Posted by emile duBois at 05/05/2009 @ 09:19am
And another entry to the list of assertions without foundation...charming how "Zionist" control of the Justice Department is simply assumed.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/05/2009 @ 01:09am
Thrawn,
Alberto Gonzales refused to press charges against the Zionist Jane Harman, despite the abundance of evidence of her corruption. Eric Holder dropped all charges against AIPAC's Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman after being indicted for spying. This raw Roy Bean's justice leads to one conclusion: Special set of rules for Zionists and Israeli agents. How else can you explain this?
Posted by CripThink at 05/05/2009 @ 09:34am
Moses was the author of the first 5 books of the Bible around 2000 BC.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 11:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Doesn't refute mention of "the tribes" in the Hebrew bible does it Liv. Furthermore, scholars indicate that the time of Moses was approximately no earlier than 1400 BC. Lots of biblical references to Canannites, including scandalous intermarriage.
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 09:40am
Hey CripThink
If the Justice Department drops charges against an indicted illegal immigrant or an indicted civil rights activist, does that mean that the Justice Dept. is run by Mexico or the ACLU? Just testing your (il)logic.
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 09:41am
http://www.counterpunch.org/
Posted by CripThink at 05/04/2009 @ 11:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Good read Crip - thanks. Witchhunt convictions for Muslims, Kangaroo Court exoneration for Zionists. What a sorry state is our Justice Department.
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 09:45am
If the Justice Department drops charges against an indicted illegal immigrant or an indicted civil rights activist.
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 09:41am
Zionist gren,
Civil right activists and illegal immigrants don't trade classified National Security secrets with foreign entities.
Posted by CripThink at 05/05/2009 @ 09:51am
And another entry to the list of assertions without foundation...charming how "Zionist" control of the Justice Department is simply assumed.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/05/2009 @ 01:09am | ignore this person | warn this person
Mossad - The Israeli Connection To 911 By Christopher Bollyn Exclusive to American Free Press 4-14-5
U.S. investigators and the controlled media have ignored a preponderance of evidence pointing to Israel's intelligence agency, the Mossad, being involved in the terror attacks of 9/11.
http://www.rense.com/general64/moss.htm
We just convicted a couple of Muslims on less evidence than that which linked Mossad to 911. How come these characters didn't stand trial? Shouldn't we have let a jury decide instead of our Justice Department?
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 09:56am
The Encyclopedia of the Mossad and Israel's connection to 9/11
http://www.antiwar.com/israeli-files.php
Where is our Justice Department?
Posted by CripThink at 05/05/2009 @ 10:04am
'Evidence that Israelis had been forewarned several hours before the attacks surfaced at an Israeli instant messaging service, known as Odigo. This story, clear evidence of Israeli prior knowledge, was reported only briefly in the U.S. media - and quickly forgotten.
At least two Israel-based employees of Odigo received warnings of an imminent attack in New York City more than two hours before the first plane hit the WTC. Odigo had its U.S. headquarters two blocks from the WTC. The Odigo employees, however, did not pass the warning on to the authorities in New York City, a move that could have saved thousands of lives.
Odigo has a feature called People Finder that allows users to seek out and contact others based on certain demographics, such as Israeli nationality.
Two weeks after 9/11, Alex Diamandis, Odigo's vice president, reportedly said, "It was possible that the attack warning was broadcast to other Odigo members, but the company has not received reports of other recipients of the message."
The Internet address of the sender was given to the FBI, and two months later it was reported that the FBI was still investigating the matter. There have been no media reports since.'
Cite to above.
So...we've got Mossad agents at WTC and Israeli nationals being forewarned, and the FBI says we are investigating - yeah right.
BTW:
Odigo, like many Israeli software companies, is based and has its Research and Development (R&D) center in Herzliya, Israel, the small town north of Tel Aviv, which happens to be where Mossad's headquarters are located.
cite to above.
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 10:05am
Seriously, is there anything more predictable on "The Nation" than a Robert Dreyfuss thread?
He mentiones Israel or AIPAC and we get a 1000 posts from the "Israel can do no wrong" contingent and the "Israel is the focus of all evil" contingent, with a smatter of "AIPAC is using mind-control lasers" types.
And always the same people.
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2009 @ 10:07am
hey CripThink and Onevote
let me offer you a tip.
Claiming that 9/11 was a Mossad attack is going to label you as loonies even to your average anti-semite. Stick to the one world Zionist / AIPAC conspiracy rantings.
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 10:12am
Hey Mask
Just as predictable as the content of the thread is the content of a Dreyfuss column -- an accusation / innuendo of AIPAC manipulating american foreign policy. Yawn...
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 10:17am
http://www.antiwar.com/israeli-files.php
Where is our Justice Department?
Posted by CripThink at 05/05/2009 @ 10:04am | ignore this person | warn this person
Amazing!
Another thing that is so absurb is the Zionist crap about First Amendment.............
Take a look at the history of ADL - an organization that is devoted to controlling and restricting your First Amendment rights.
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 10:18am
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 10:17am
And just as predictable as the right-wing/religious right who think ANYTHING Israel does to "insure its survival" (or grab up more land in "Biblical Israel"...aka the West Bank and Gaza) is "okay".
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2009 @ 10:23am
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2009 @ 10:07am
You said it. I think alot of us know when to let the others argue amongst themselves and only post once. Most notably ACook, CCC, frosty, and you. I thought of those because they're my favorites. :)
Sports Side Note: Does anyone think the Celtics will beat the Magic? Just asking. I'll check back later for repsonses.
Posted by k330k at 05/05/2009 @ 10:25am
I heard that aliens from outer space did 9/11.At least that is what the aliens from outer space told me,but they may have been trying to take credit for something that they did not do.Space aliens are like that.At least,the ones I know are.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/05/2009 @ 10:25am
hey k330k
Sports. good deal. Without garnett, Celtics don't have enough. But even more interesting, who are these guys from Houston. Least individual talent in the playoffs, but finding ways to win. Think they just stole one from a stale and ovwerconfident Laker club, or do you think this one is up for grabs.
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 10:29am
hey CripThink and Onevote
let me offer you a tip.
Claiming that 9/11 was a Mossad attack is going to label you as loonies even to your average anti-semite. Stick to the one world Zionist / AIPAC conspiracy rantings.
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 10:12am | ignore this person | warn this person
Care to refute The Evidence? Or, are we just going to assume that Mossad had nothing to do with it. This is the standard of justice that has been applied.
Again - you and Mask are biggest pooh poohers but never offer anything other than your subjective commentary.
The Zionists are your average Anti 911 Truthers in case you haven't guessed. These are the ones who pose as social liberals but really are Zionists hawks who are already attempting to implement Stage II of Perle's Clean Break - i.e., Iran.
Many thanks already coming to George Bush via $100,000 million in contributions for his liebrary right out of the gate. Contributors remaining anonymous....but of course.
Americans don't mind giving up health care, social security, and medicare and medicaid just so Israel can feel safe. The cost of our foreign policy debacles would have funded or helped to fund many social programs, including future entitlements. How about putting 3 Trillion dollars back into the Social Security Trust fund????????????
Israel ought to be providing economic aid to us.
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 10:33am
Hey Onevote
you're barking up the wrong tree. didn't you read what I'm Nobody disclosed. It was the alien monsters. In little flying saucers.
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 10:42am
hey CripThink and Onevote
let me offer you a tip.
Claiming that 9/11 was a Mossad attack is going to label you as loonies even to your average anti-semite. Stick to the one world Zionist / AIPAC conspiracy rantings.
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 10:12am
gren,
You are immensely harming your cause by sticking to pure obscenities. You are too light-weight Zionist to offer any worthwhile tips or advise anyone. You should have noticed by now that hardcore Zionists have vacated the scene and Mask is attempting to change the subject. We are getting into radioactive topics here; they are classified as inconvenient truth. If you don't like what you hear, go watch Fox News to soothe your emotions,
Posted by CripThink at 05/05/2009 @ 10:43am
Cripthink-No one is getting into radioactive topics or anything resembling truth, except for me, who has given facts about aliens from outer space and none of you have been able to refute my facts.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/05/2009 @ 10:47am
It was the alien monsters....
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 10:42am | ignore this person | warn this person
No argument from me here Gren. Indeed - Israelis who behind or let Americans die to further their cause are monsters, and are aliens, as in illegal and nonrresident aliens. Spot on.
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 11:05am
And just as predictable as the right-wing/religious right who think ANYTHING Israel does to "insure its survival" (or grab up more land in "Biblical Israel"...aka the West Bank and Gaza) is "okay".
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2009 @ 10:23am | ignore this person | warn this person
Still waiting for your explanation of Building 7's collapse Maskie? It is predictable that you will never give an answer, but hey, you could surprise us all.
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 11:08am
Het Cripthink
That's not nice. You're hurting my feelings.
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 11:11am
go watch Fox News to soothe your emotions,
Posted by CripThink at 05/05/2009 @ 10:43am | ignore this person | warn this person
Golly - Israel spying and connection to 9/11 is so pervasive that even Fox News carried a 4 part series on it!!!!!!!!!!!
Guess Gren will have to stick with AIPAC.org for his hear no evil see no evil from Israel news in the future.
'Israel Is Spying In And On The U.S.? Part 1
BRIT HUME, HOST: It has been more than 16 years since a civilian working for the Navy was charged with passing secrets to Israel. Jonathan Pollard pled guilty to conspiracy to commit espionage and is serving a life sentence. At first, Israeli leaders claimed Pollard was part of a rogue operation, but later took responsibility for his work.
Now Fox News has learned some U.S. investigators believe that there are Israelis again very much engaged in spying in and on the U.S., who may have known things they didn't tell us before September 11. Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron has details in the first of a four-part series.'
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 11:15am
onevote-You have been unable to respond to the theory that I provided,but you expect others to respond to your theory and your theory is no more credible than mine.In fact,I have a confession whereas you have nothing,but a theory.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/05/2009 @ 11:18am
onevote-Everyone is spying on everyone else.We humans have been doing that since day one.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/05/2009 @ 11:21am
Golly - Israel spying and connection to 9/11 is so pervasive that even Fox News carried a 4 part series on it!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 11:15am
You are right again OneVote, how did I overlook that. It was also rumored that the boss, Rupert Murdoch, was so pissed off at Cameron that he ordered all references to this documentary stricken from the Fox library.
Posted by CripThink at 05/05/2009 @ 11:43am
Rupert Murdoch, was so pissed off at Cameron that he ordered all references to this documentary stricken from the Fox library.
Posted by CripThink at 05/05/2009 @ 11:43am | ignore this person | warn this person
Hear No Evil - See No Evil.
Remember the reports of Building 7's collapse before Building 7's collapse - censored on the web soon after. The reporter standing in front of Building 7 still standing and reporting that it had collapsed. Just surreal.
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 11:58am
onevote-Everyone is spying on everyone else.We humans have been doing that since day one.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/05/2009 @ 11:21am | ignore this person | warn this person
Spies go jail or are executed in my world. The price of the game. The 'Everybody Does It' defense is reserved for Israel exclusively - note that potential defense witnesses included Hadley, Feith, and Wolfowitz. Who do you think they are talking to? Ahmadinejad? Every does it is not an excuse to disobey the law. So the next Toture President is going to use the defense....but George Bush did it. That is why concerned constituional lawyers like Turley are screaming bloody murder.
Not catch this. The Court of Appeals allows defense to call administration officials, who may reveal state secrets on the witness stand. Note that the trial judge has the right to limit lines of questioning and testimony to relation of facts relevant to the defense. Revelation of state secrets is not pertinent to defense testimony. What is the state secret here is that our government officials freely give classified information to The Israel Lobby. You will note the Justice Departments motions to dismiss on NSA wiretapping based on protected State Secrets. So if the Justice Department was concerned, why didn't the Justice Department appeal to Supreme Court?
Additionally, Judge Ellis refused defendant's motion to dismiss in 2006 on this case stating basically that giving classified information to AIPAC agents is prima facie evidence of espionage and that harm is a slam dunk on the basis that classified information is given. Motion to Dismiss denied. Now, Ellis seems to have curiously moved to a higher burden of proof on this case, more than is demand by statute or act, and more than
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 12:23pm
felt was necessary for prosecution to prevail in 2006. Why the shift? Furthermore, applying increasing burdens of evidence necessary to satisfy the statute does not comport with the responsibilities of a judge - it is de facto law making on the part of the judge. The lawyers submit patterned jury instructions and the judge approves them based on the law on the books. At the very least, Justice Department should have appealed the judges "making the case more difficult." Furthermore, the option of charging the defendants under Title 18 of the United States code was available to prosecution during the Bush administration, who failed to amend. Justice Department lawyers under Obama could easily file a motion for extension of trial date and leave to amend based on the incompetence and politicization of the Bush justice department.
The dropping of the case is very very smelly.
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 12:30pm
tell oneVote
don't you get it. We had a beautiful Jewess seduce Judge Ellis, who fell so in love that he converted to Zionism and is now one of our agents who flies around in little saucers.
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 12:30pm
onevote-The excuse that everyone does it is not just reserved for Israel since people say that everyone does it when it comes to others,too.We use the excuse that everyone does it to break many laws and everyone,including you,does that.You are obsessed with Israel in the same way that the paranoid types on the other side are obsessed with Marxist/socialists and,like them,see plots everywhere,but those plots do not exist except in all of your minds..You guys tend to only hang out with other paranoid people and feed off of each others paranoia and get more paranoid than you already were.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/05/2009 @ 12:33pm
don't you get it. We had a beautiful Jewess seduce Judge Ellis, who fell so in love that he converted to Zionism and is now one of our agents who flies around in little saucers.
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 12:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Ah....the tempting fruit of a beautiful Jewess. You make me weak.
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 12:38pm
See OneVote.
You too may have a Zionist conversion in your future. LOL
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 12:41pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/05/2009 @ 12:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I am obsessed with Israel because Israel is obsessed with us.
Our foreign policy is guided by Israel.
My tax dollars and children's future are spent supporting a war in Iraq that was launched to protect Israel's interest, and a war in Afghanistan that was supposed retaliation against safe harbor for al-Qaeda, whom have stated that US support for Israel was one of the elucidated reasons for 9/11.
I what Israel to move to the US. I would be all for this. We are trying to establish and maintain Israel in a sea of Islam, and I just don't get the impression that this venture is ultimately going to prevail.
If we moved Israel to US, we could incorporate it into another state, or treat it like a reservation.
The biblical nature of Zionism is going to raise objections of course.
But really, isn't this a more practical solution as opposed to trying to remake the ME?
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 12:54pm
You too may have a Zionist conversion in your future. LOL
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 12:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
It does have its benefits. Checking out Hebrew Classes Online too. Can't beat em, join em!!...lol....
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 12:56pm
See OneVote
You radiate a wholesome hamanity when you lighten up. Keep this up and we'll be exchanging Christmas presents this year.
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 1:02pm
onevote-People do not have rational reasons for being obsessed which is why it is called an obsession rather than a rational thought.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/05/2009 @ 1:06pm
You radiate a wholesome hamanity when you lighten up. Keep this up and we'll be exchanging Christmas presents this year.
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 1:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You got it!
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 1:18pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/05/2009 @ 1:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person
But it can be said that without it, the world would never change.
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 1:26pm
hey k330k
Sports. good deal. Without garnett, Celtics don't have enough. But even more interesting, who are these guys from Houston. Least individual talent in the playoffs, but finding ways to win. Think they just stole one from a stale and ovwerconfident Laker club, or do you think this one is up for grabs.
Posted by gren at 05/05/2009 @ 10:29am | ignore this person
You're right about Garnett( although I'm still rooting for the Celts). Houston has surprised me. I think it's up for grabs. They're confidence has grown substantially due to the drubbing of the much-heralded Blazers. Either way the Lakers/Rockets series will be the one to watch.
Just for the sake of the article: I hope everything works out for everyone involved.(Yep I think that's broad enough to cover all bases).
Posted by k330k at 05/05/2009 @ 1:55pm
<i>Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 12:23pm</i>
Maybe I'm missing something here. If the government (and not just some rogue agents of it) freely gives information to X individual...then it seems like X individual is not a spy. I thought a spy was involved in stealing information, not in receiving information that is freely provided...
<i>Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 12:30pm </i>
First of all, a judge is not obligated to approve jury instructions simply because they are patterned. Second, it appears that Ellis may actually have been right in applying "knowingly" to all components of the offense. The Supreme Court held recently in Flores-Figueroa that the term "knowingly" in a statute applied to all aspects of the crime, not just the action itself.
<i>Posted by i'm nobody at 05/05/2009 @ 12:33pm </i>
Right. Is every conveying of intelligence to another country a crime?
Posted by Thrawn at 05/05/2009 @ 3:07pm
Posted by Thrawn at 05/05/2009 @ 3:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person
First off - as to jury instructions, please reread my post and tell me again how it differs from your statement.
Second, would you mind posting the your link on Judge Ellis' ruling and that the case hinged on "knowlingly." Are you confusing "knowingly" with "intent to harm"?
Third - the Judge does not have the right to change the law, or the burden of proof. That is povided by statute. If a Judge's interpetation of the law is erroneous, the Court's decision can easily be overturned on appeal. Note that Judge Ellis is the one that sent Franklin to prison.
For your reading pleasure:
'Clarification: I may be mistaken in suggesting that there was any confusion in the trial courts ruling on the burden of proof--the trial court may have been more explicit than I thought in setting a higher burden of proof than required by the statute. Here's what the appeal court said, although declining to rule on the matter since it would be interlocutory:
We are nevertheless concerned by the potential that the § 793 Order imposes an additional burden on the prosecution not mandated by the governing statute. Section 793 must be applied according to its provisions, as any other course could result in erroneous evidentiary rulings or jury instructions. So the appeal court was disturbed by this ruling, but its hands were tied until after a trial had taken place, leaving the government in a quandary as to how to proceed.'
May 01, 2009 AIPAC Case Over - T. McGuire Just One Minute
You might consider a job with Justice Department?
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 5:19pm
Interlocutory is a legal term which can refer to an order, sentence, decree, or judgment, given in an intermediate stage between the commencement and termination of a cause of action, used to provide a temporary or provisional decision on an issue. Thus, an interlocutory order is not final and is not subject to immediate appeal.
In many legal systems, interlocutory orders are not appealable, except in a few extraordinary cases.[1] When the case is concluded, any aspect of an interlocutory order that has not become moot may be challenged in an appeal from the final judgment.[2] Wikipedia
Now the COA declined to rule on Judge Ellis' increased burden what was provided for in the statute, but they were perfectly willing to rule for defense on allowing the defense to make a dog and pony show of former Bush administration officials. A surefire way to pressure the goverment to drop the case. I am not certain of what interlocutory rights of appeal that the government had to the Supreme Court, but in the egregious example of a judge making up a law, I would think that an exception and emergency motion could have been entertained, or a government motion for the judges's immediate recusal from the case.
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 5:28pm
February 25, 2009 Ex-Lobbyists in U.S. Case of Espionage Win a Round By NEIL A. LEWIS - NY Times
'WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court on Tuesday ruled in favor of two former lobbyists for a pro-Israeli advocacy group in deciding how much classified information they may use in their defense on espionage charges.
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, Va., ruled against the government and in favor of the defendants, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, whose trial is now scheduled for April. The appeals court also refused to entertain the government's objections to a series of formidable hurdles to a conviction put in place by the trial judge.
The defendants, former officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, were charged with violating the World War I-era Espionage Act for sharing information they learned from foreign policy officials in the Bush administration with journalists, Israeli government officials and fellow Aipac employees.'
So the COA rules for defendants - they can present witnesses who run the risk of disclosing state secrets, the trial will remain open to the public, but decline to advance an interlocutory opinion on the judge's adding his own burden of proof beyond what is mandated by statute. Why would the COA do this? Well, it would force the government to appeal from loss at trial based on the judge's erroneous evidentiary standard and jury instructions. Now that wouldn't be too popular would it? Highly likely that the government to decline to retry even though they would assuredly have to be given that right on appeal of the decision for egregious error.
Oh there is monkey business going on. Big monkey business.
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 5:36pm
'There are a few limited exceptions to the final judgment rule, which normally requires that an appeal may be taken only upon the conclusion of the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. One exception, the Collateral Order (Cohen) Doctrine, under Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546-47 (1949), allows an immediate appeal if the claimant can show: a non-final order that (1) conclusively determines the disputed question of privilege; (2) resolves an important issue, completely separate from the merits of the case, if appellate review allowed; and (3) is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.'
Supreme Court To Decide On Interlocutory Appeal Of Privilege Disclosure Order By Editor Created 03/23/2009 - Federal Evidence Review
A couple of very curious questions on the ability of the Govt to appeal from the COA interlocutory order on defendant being allowed to expose the government to risk of disclosure of state secrets. State secret is privilege - the right of Govt not to reveal, analogous to attorney-client privilege.
Secondly, resolution of an issue separate from the merits of the case. Most certainly the right of District Court judge to increase burdens beyond statutory language in separate from the merits of the case.
Very interesting indeed.
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 6:10pm
National security trumps First Amendment in espionage case
Aug. 10, 2006 · The First Amendment does not protect private citizens who reveal national security secrets that potentially damage the United States, Judge T.S. Ellis III of the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., ruled today in a case that could affect how journalists do their jobs.
Prosecuting two former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) under the Espionage Act does not interfere with their First Amendment rights to free speech or to petition the government, Judge Ellis ruled, nor is the 1917 law overly broad.
"Congress's attempt to provide for the nation's security by extending punishment for the disclosure of national security secrets beyond . . . persons within its trust to the general populace is a reasonable, and therefore constitutional exercise of its power," Judge Ellis wrote.
The former lobbyists, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, allegedly received confidential information from a Pentagon official and sought to publicize it by disclosing it to reporters and discussing it with Israeli embassy officials.
Among the arguments that Judge Ellis rejected is that the Espionage Act does not apply to their case because they are charged with transmitting oral communications, not tangible objects, as had defendants in all previous espionage cases.
Relying on a 1988 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond (4th Cir.), Judge Ellis also ruled that the espionage law gives "fair warning" as to who is "entitled to receive" national defense information, giving the executive branch the authority to define such information, which it has through a uniform classification system for national security information.
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 6:27pm
but see Judge's change in position:
'In pretrial maneuvering, the prosecution suffered several setbacks in rulings from the trial judge, T. S. Ellis III, that were upheld by a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va. Judge Ellis rejected several government efforts to conceal classified information if the case went to trial. Moreover, he ruled that the government could prevail only if it met a high standard; he said prosecutors would have to demonstrate that Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman knew that their distribution of the information would harm United States national security.'
May 2, 2009 U.S. to Drop Spy Case Against Pro-Israel Lobbyists By NEIL A. LEWIS and DAVID JOHNSTON NY Times
Posted by OneVote at 05/05/2009 @ 6:30pm
Hey OneVote
without fully reviewing the record and doing some independent research I have to hedge a little on my legal analysis, but here goes.
Judge Ellis' ruling on the evidence and witnesses he would allow was an interlocutory order. Nevertheless, the Appellate Court agreed to review that order, and did so. If there was a conspiracy to force a dismissal of the case, the appellate court could have declined the government's appeal altogether. The Supreme Court grants certiori to review appellate court decisions in a very small percentage of cases. The possibility that it would consider an interlocutory appeal of a ruling decing what evidence and witnesses would be allowed is "0."
The evidentiary burden issue is not ripe for appeal, (the actual jury instructions have not been given) and might never have needed to be appealed depending on the result of the trial if it had gone forward. Courts do not decide issues that they do not have to and may never have to decide.
Judicial machinations may seem conspiratorial to outsiders. But the appellate court decisions are non-controversial and ordinary to attorneys and others familiar with the system.
Posted by gren at 05/06/2009 @ 12:04pm
Posted by gren at 05/06/2009 @ 12:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Me too on the hedge. Of note:
Interlocutory actions are taken by courts when a Question of Law must be answered by an appellate court before a trial may proceed or to prevent irreparable harm from occurring to a person or property during the pendency of a lawsuit or proceeding. Generally, courts are reluctant to make interlocutory orders unless the circumstances surrounding the case are serious and require timely action.
Interlocutory appeals are restricted by state and federal appellate courts because courts do not want piecemeal litigation. Appeals courts generally review only cases that have reached final judgment in the trial courts. When a court administrator enters final judgment, this certifies that the trial court has ended its review of the case and jurisdiction shifts to the appellate court.
Interlocutory appeals are typically permitted when the trial judge certifies to the appellate court in an interlocutory order that an important question of law is in doubt and that it will substantially affect the final result of the case. Judicial economy then dictates that the court resolve the issue rather than subject the parties to a trial that may be reversed on an appeal from a final judgment.
Appellate courts have the discretion to review interlocutory orders. The federal courts of appeal are governed by the Interlocutory Appeals Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 1292). This act grants discretion to the courts of appeal to review interlocutory orders in civil cases where the district judge states in the order that a controlling question of law is in doubt and that the immediate resolution of the issue will materially advance the ultimate termination of litigation.
Posted by OneVote at 05/07/2009 @ 12:41am
When an appellate court reviews an interlocutory order, its decision on the matters contained in the order is final. The court enters an interlocutory judgment, which makes that part of the case final. Therefore, if a case proceeds to trial after an interlocutory judgment is entered, and an appeal from the trial court judgment follows, the matters decided by the interlocutory judgment cannot be reviewed by the court again.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Interlocutory+order
COA issues interlocutory judgment on right to present gov witnesses, and declines (but voice concern) over burden of proof issue.
Good analysis Gren. You are right that the burden of proof evidentiary issue could only be appealed post trial verdict or judgment, but I am not sure why the COA declined to issue an interlocutory judgment on that issue. Both issues are evidentiary in nature are they are not, and both are critical to the actual issue of fair trial?
Posted by OneVote at 05/07/2009 @ 12:52am
The Supreme Court grants certiori to review appellate court decisions in a very small percentage of cases. The possibility that it would consider an interlocutory appeal of a ruling decing what evidence and witnesses would be allowed is "0."
Judicial machinations may seem conspiratorial to outsiders. But the appellate court decisions are non-controversial and ordinary to attorneys and others familiar with the system.
Posted by gren at 05/06/2009 @ 12:04pm
'Supreme Court To Decide On Interlocutory Appeal Of Privilege Disclosure Order By Editor Created 03/23/2009 - Federal Evidence Review'
see post above. ?????
Hmmmmm.....appellate courts are non controversial huh? Judicial appointments are not controversial? Why do you suppose we have so much political wrangling over judicial appointments, such as in the Senate Judiciary Committee, etc.?
Posted by OneVote at 05/07/2009 @ 08:49am
If there was a conspiracy to force a dismissal of the case, the appellate court could have declined the government's appeal altogether.
Posted by gren at 05/06/2009 @ 12:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
'The government is entitled, pursuant to CIPA § 7, to pursue an interlocutory appeal from any ruling of the court "authorizing the disclosure of classi- fied information." See United States v. Fernandez, 887 F.2d 465, 469-70 (4th Cir. 1989) (recognizing that CIPA § 7 allows appeals from adverse CIPA § 6(a) and (c)(1) rulings). Finally, CIPA § 5(a) prohibits a defendant from disclosing classified information until proper notice has been given, the govern- ment has been afforded "a reasonable opportunity to seek" a CIPA § 6 determination from the court, and the government's time to initiate a CIPA § 7 appeal from any such determina- tion has expired.'
United States v. Rosen and Weissman; No. 08-4358
from the Court - ' We are simply unwilling to read into CIPA a requirement that is not present under its plain terms, and thus undermine the government's right to pursue this interlocutory appeal. Because the court's evidentiary rul- ings with regard to the FBI Report and the Israeli Briefing Document fall within the ambit of CIPA, we possess CIPA § 7 jurisdiction to review those rulings on appeal.7 B.'
on defendant's motion to dismiss interlocutory appeal to COA for lack of jurisdiction.
Don't think The Appellate Court could have gotten away with that one Gren. BTW, the Appellate Court previously ruled on the issue of the judge writing the law in June 2008 - and declined to revisit the issue, but had much trepidation in kicking the can down the road.
Posted by OneVote at 05/07/2009 @ 09:16am
'Although we do not possess jurisdiction to review the § 793 Order at this juncture, it is apparent that the district court worked tirelessly to bal- ance the competing forces inherent in a prosecution involving classified information, and that its efforts to protect the fair trial rights of the defen- dants were not inappropriate. We are nevertheless concerned by the poten- tial that the § 793 Order imposes an additional burden on the prosecution not mandated by the governing statute. Section 793 must be applied according to its provisions, as any other course could result in erroneous evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.'
US vs. Rosen and Weissman, cite to above.
http://isysweb.ca4.uscourts.gov/ isysquery/9a45df97-358e-494b-8661-a417a043adce/1/doc/#Entity_Person_1
Opinion written by Judge King - 4th District, with concurrence of Gregory & Shedd. King was a Clinton appointee, Gregory (Clinton.Bush) and Shedd a GW Bush appointee.
Posted by OneVote at 05/07/2009 @ 09:28am
The Muted Rise of the Silent Witness Rule in National Security Litigation: The Eastern District of Virginia's Answer to the Fight Over Classified Information at Trial
Jonathan M. Lamb Pepperdine University School of Law
Pepperdine Law Review, Vol. 36, p. 213, 2008
Abstract: The state secrets problem is emblematic of a judicial issue which is not confined to the civil cases in which the privilege is asserted - the tension between the government's interest in protecting classified information and society's interest in justice by resolution on the merits. The United States must be allowed to prosecute terrorists, conspirators, and enemies by using classified information as evidence; but how may the government act as a civil defendant without invoking the state secrets privilege to dismiss actions before trial (or pre-discovery)?
The answer might be a little known evidentiary doctrine called the silent witness rule. Under the silent witness rule, trial participants would have copies of a classified document key designating code names for classified places, names, documents or other information. When referring to classified information during trial, trial participants would use the code name to reference a particular piece of classified information - protecting the actual information from disclosure. The procedure allows classified evidence to be used at trial without fear of public disclosure.
This paper addresses Judge Ellis' recent judicial approval of the silent witness rule in United States v. Rosen, 520 F. Supp. 2d 786 (E.D. Va. 2007), and whether its approval for use in the criminal arena implicitly endorses its use in civil actions as an answer state secrets dismissals......
Posted by OneVote at 05/07/2009 @ 10:33am
The defendants contend that the Israeli Briefing Document is relevant because [REDACTED], and the Document is the best evidence of [REDACTED] about the events described in the Document. The district court initially concluded that the Document was not relevant, but later reconsidered and revised that ruling. It is far from certain that the Document is relevant to show that the defendants [REDACTED]. The Document is a [REDACTED], a matter that could be proven by other means, including the [REDACTED]. See United States v. Smith, 780 F.2d 1102, 1108, 1110 (4th Cir. 1985).
US v. Rosen and Weissman, cite to above.
Later determined the document to be relevant. Again.....an apparent changing standard.
Posted by OneVote at 05/07/2009 @ 10:40am
The tide is going out because of Gaza debacle. Clinton has taken a back seat to 'policy' --the real work is being done by Mitchell, Holbrooke, and Jones...most reserve the decisions till the Big Gun weighs in- Obama! She is 'title -no boots'! Dreyfuss is right--Jones has access and does not blink!
Posted by Dobc at 05/09/2009 @ 08:48am