Philip Giraldi: "Some Might Call It Treason" (Jane Harmon & AIPAC Spy Case)

[mod mom]

Some Might Call It Treason
by Philip Giraldi, April 27, 2009

One dictionary defines treason as "disloyalty or treachery to one’s country or its government," but Article III of the U.S. Constitution takes a narrower view, specifically limiting charges of treason to time of war "in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." The Federalist Papers reveal that this definition of treason was crafted deliberately to avoid politically motivated ex post facto exploitation of the only crime named as a capital offense in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers knew full well from their own personal experience that English kings had played fast and loose with the concept of treason, frequently trying and executing opponents without any actual evidence that a crime had been committed. Charges of treason intended to destroy political rivals would not be permitted in the new republic.

Treason trials have been rare in the United States. Elected officials and government employees with access to classified information are bound by statutes authorizing severe penalties lest they betray that confidence. Congressmen are elected to represent the best interests of the voters in their districts and, in a broader sense, the citizens of the United States, a trust that they frequently betray when they give in to the importunities of lobbyists and vote for pork or laws that help only special interest groups. That is generally referred to as corruption. But what does one call it when a senior elected official tells a citizen of a foreign country that he or she is willing to interfere in a judicial process in exchange for that country’s support to obtain a more senior position in the government? A single word appears to be lacking, though "betrayal" and "treachery" seem to come close. Some have resorted to "obstruction of justice" or "influence peddling," both of which are actually crimes when committed by a government official. If the U.S. Constitution had not limited treasonous activity to wartime, the word "treason" might well be considered.

Until the transcripts of Rep. Jane Harman’s telephone conversations are made public, if they ever are, her transgression can only be assessed secondhand. It appears to have consisted of talking with someone who may be an Israeli citizen regarding influencing the outcome of the ongoing trial of ex-American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman. The conversation took place in late 2005, when it appeared that the two men might well be convicted. The Israeli citizen appears to have been on the receiving end of an FBI wiretap because he was an associate of a known Israeli intelligence officer based in Israel’s Washington embassy, possibly station chief Naor Gilon, who was responsible for running influence operations in the United States, or Uzi Arad. Both Gilon and Arad were involved in the FBI investigation of AIPAC that led to the imprisonment of Larry Franklin and the indictment of Weissman and Rosen. Both now hold senior positions in the Israeli government.

Intelligence officers refer to influence operations as covert actions because they are designed to manipulate the activity of a foreign government without that manipulation being attributable to any outside source. In this case, Israel wanted the men to go free to minimize any public perception that it was engaged in spying on the United States, which is what the AIPAC trial was all about, but it did not wish to be seen as directly interfering.

-SNIP

http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2009/04/26/some-might-call-it-treason/

[aquart]

1. "It appears to have consisted of talking with someone who may be an Israeli citizen "

Or not.

[mod mom]

4. Giraldi says Harman has called for release of transcripts that that can't be accessed w/o

blowing the FBI investigation. Here is an important and scary thought of what might have occurred had Harman been placed in a position of importance:

"Once you are on the hook in an intelligence relationship, there is no getting off it. Had Harman done a favor for the Israelis and been rewarded in return, it would have been a skeleton in her closet forever. The Israelis might also have taped the incriminating conversations, presumably unaware that the FBI was also on the line. The Israelis would surely remind her of her crime whenever they need a favor, and she would be forced to pay the piper whenever called upon. What could have been better for Israel than owning the director of central intelligence or the head of the House Intelligence Committee? What could have been worse for the United States?

[Fireweed247]

7. That is the scary part

What would she have done as head of the intelligence committee?

[laststeamtrain]

2. K & R.

My post on this disappeared.

Good luck.

It's an important POV.

[LeftishBrit]

3. IMO an untrustworthy article, due to the right-wing biases of both site and author

I have no axe to grind for or against Jane Harman, whom I'd never heard of till this incident. I don't like government wiretapping (a problem in the UK too), but as she has apparently supported the wiretapping of citizens in the past, I don't have that much sympathy for her.

But I do have concerns about quoting or accepting the views of RW-ers just because they may have some of the same enemies. As I've said on another thread, a year or so ago:

'antiwar.com, despite it's liberal-sounding name, is not a liberal organization at all. It's explicitly old-style isolationist and America-First:

'Our initial project was to fight for the case of non-intervention in the Balkans under the Clinton presidency and continued with the case against the campaigns in Haiti, Kosovo and the bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan. Our politics are libertarian: our opposition to war is rooted in Randolph Bourne's concept that "War is the health of the State." With every war, America has made a "great leap" into statism, and as Bourne emphasizes: " . . . it is during war that one best understands the nature of that institution ." At its core, that "nature" includes the ever-increasing threat to individual liberty and the centralization of political power.

In 1952, Garet Garrett, one of the last of the Old Right "isolationists," said it well:

"Between government in the republican meaning, that is, Constitutional, representative, limited government, on the one hand, and Empire on the other hand, there is mortal enmity. Either one must forbid the other or one will destroy the other."

This is the perception that informs our activism, and inspires our dedication. Non-interventionism abroad is a corollary to non-interventionism at home. Randolph Bourne echoes this sentiment: "We cannot crusade against war without implicitly crusading against the State." Since opposition to war is at the heart of our philosophy, and single-issue politics is the only avenue open to us, Antiwar.com embodies the politics of the possible.

....The totalitarian liberals and social democrats of the West have unilaterally and arrogantly abolished national sovereignty and openly seek to overthrow all who would oppose their bid for global hegemony. They have made enemies of the patriots of all countries, and it is time for those enemies to unite - or perish alone.

Antiwar.com represents the true pro-America side of the foreign policy debate. With our focus on a less centralized government and freedom at home, we consider ourselves the true American patriots. "America first!" regards the traditions of a republican government and non-interventionism as paramount to freedom - a concept that helped forge the foundation of this nation.'



So they aren't just opposed to this war, which of course I am too; or in favour of exploring all other possible solutions before resorting to war; or opposed to excessive or unnecessary interventionism - they are opposed to ALL American military interventions EVER, including the intervention in WW2. And this is not on the grounds of absolute pacifism - which I strongly respect even if I don't think it's invariably possible in this world. It's on the grounds of ultra-libertarian isolationism, of a fairly xenophobic variety. It's just as right-wing and xenophobic as as the neo-conservative imperialism, even if in a different way. I am not going to accept anything that comes from this site, without considerable checking - and neither IMO should other liberals.'


As for Giraldi in particular, he worked for Ron Paul in the Republican primary last year.

This is not just 'guilt by association': Giraldi is encouraging a broad definition of 'treason', which *is* IMO fundamentally right-wing. Revealing classified information within your own country, or to an ally, is an offence against what in the UK is the Official Secrets Act; I assume other countries have equivalents. That is bad enough, and can incur significant penalties. But only passing secrets to, or otherwise aiding, an *enemy* of your country, or directly attacking your country's citizens, is 'treason'. Extending the definition more broadly has its dangers, and tends to have illiberal implications.

[mod mom]

5. Lukery quotes this article in his latest (I was linked to this article from Spurt's thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5543216&mesg_id=5543216

If it is demonstrated through the release of transcripts that Congresswomen Harman made a deal to attempt to interfere with an ongoing espionage case for a specific seat, that information might have been used against her at a later date had she been given one of those positions. It is against the best interests of the US to have a high level individual who might be blackmailed into acting in a foreign government's best interest over those of this nation. It sure sounds like "treason" to me!

[LeftishBrit]

6. If someone has, for example, committed an ordinary crime such as shoplifting or illegal drug use ..

and doesn't admit it when vetted for a high-level post, would you consider it as treason, because they might thus be vulnerable to being blackmailed? I would certainly consider such an action as wrong, and deserving of dismissal/impeachment; but I would reserve the term 'treason' for *actual* harm to one's country, not just placing oneself in a position where this could hypothetically happen. After all, a conviction for treason can result in life imprisonment here, or in your country the death penalty - it should not be treated lightly.

Also, taking such a view gives governments more excuses to spy on their political enemies. Ironically, this is something that one would think a Ron Paul supporter would be worried about.

I am sure governments will spy on their political enemies, and even sometimes their friends, anyway; but I don't welcome it. We have entirely too much of it over here.

ETA: Over and above the specifics - I don't think that progressives should be forming alliances with right-wingers. In a sense, being right-wing is like a form of swine flu: bad enough when it only infects its own species; but likely to become much more dangerously infectious and virulent if liberals/left-wingers let it mix its DNA with their more human variety!

[laststeamtrain]

11. America-First!?!? Isolationist!?!? Shocking...

...to the military-industrial-media-complex & other globalist-Wall Street poop heads.

Gold is where you find it.

Lots of 'progressive' sites link to antiwar.com.

Why?

Simple. Because they publish good stuff.

[LeftishBrit]

12. My concern is not that they're isolationist as such, but that they're *right-wing*

Everybody there seems to be economically right-wing (and we see what the economic Right have done to the world); and they include columnists such as Pat Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts, who have written articles that are antisemitic, Islamophobic, and racist in other ways. (Roberts writes for the viciously racist vdare.com; Buchanan has expressed all sorts of racist, sexist and homophobic views in his time.)

I would hope that right-wing bigots and economic right-libertarians everywhere *are* sufficiently isolationist as to prevent their venom from spreading beyond their own countries. But that is as unlikely, especially in these days of the Internet, as confining a major flu epidemic to a single country. Buchanan has defended LePen; there will always be cross-fertilization of right-wing views. Ironically, even the most xenophobic sites tend to have international contributors: the BNP site and the even more right-wing now-defunct Spearpoint site have included writings from American and other non-British writers.

My concern is that the progressive anti-establishment left, in which category I would certainly put myself, should not give respectability to the anti-establishment right, even if they agree on a few points. I consider that we should not give any respectability to, or endorsement of, economic right-libertarianism, and still less to racism and xenophobia. That way, fascist and similar movements have been facilitated in the past. Divisions within the Right are great (let them eat each other up!); left-right alliances - especially with right-wingers who endorse racist attitudes or sites - are dangerous.

[struggle4progress]

8. The real story is that the Bushistas were wiretapping Congress -- and they're still

selectively leaking for political reasons. Congress should investigate -- but not merely the Harman wiretap: Congress needs to investigate wiretapping in general, including Bushista wiretapping of Congress

[flyarm]

9. Is the Harman Story an Attempt to Silence Her about Torture?

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/04/24/is-the-harman-story-an-attempt-to-silence-her-about-torture/

do read this in it's entirety...................

Is the Harman Story an Attempt to Silence Her about Torture?
By: emptywheel

snip;
Laura Rozen has been reporting an angle of the Jane Harman story that has been largely neglected elsewhere--the possibility that this story is coming out now as a way to hit Harman, the fiercest critic of the torture program.

A former senior U.S. intelligence officer said he heard during work on the Hill in the 2004 time period of whispers among members of the intelligence committees and their staffs that Harman was allegedly caught up in some Israel-related case that would likely prevent her from getting the chairmanship of the committee she sought. He also said that it was clear that Goss and Harman (and their staffs) fiercely disliked each other.

But he wondered if the timing of this story was about changing the subject, from what Bush-era officials had authorized, to what the Congress was complicit in. "Is this about taking pressure off the revelations of waterboarding and the memos?" he speculated. "And the fact," he added, "that no real intelligence came out of this whole effort?" referring to the enhanced interrogation/torture regime revealed in the memos, which he said produced no actionable intelligence.


snip;

Who was the lone lawmaker the article identified as objecting to the program?

Jane Harman.

snip:

The story is plausible not just because Porter Goss--both a former Congressman and former DCI--might fit as one of the sources for all the intelligence reporters covering this story. But also because we know Porter Goss was doing a masterful job working the press to distract from his role in the torture tape destruction (that's what his on-the-record interview was all about). In addition, Porter Goss is deeply implicated in the Bradbury torture memos and the torture tape destruction (and is one potential candidate to be the "senior agency official failed to provide a full account of the CIA's detainee-treatment policy at a closed hearing of the House intelligence committee in February 2005, under questioning by California Rep. Jane Harman"). And it's quite likely that Jane Harman knows quite a bit about just how implicated he is.

[chill_wind]

13. Thank you for posting that. AFAIK nobody is digging harder

into all the finer questions and finding all kinds of facts not really getting out about all of this than emptywheel and crew.


I still have my own pointed questions about the timing of this story. I think the Stein transcript is somewhat laughable in its non-explanation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5543084

[MADem]

10. Wow, this guy isn't slow to shoot first, ask questions later, is he?

Treason? Transgression?

Those words are thrown out here without even knowing, firsthand, what happened.

Then, Harman is convicted by this guy for being "intensely ambitious?"

I don't claim to know what happened in this matter, but I do think that this "conviction by innuendo" shit (which BushCo excelled at) needs to stop. There's just one "reportedly" in that diatribe, but no use of "alleged."

The writer seems affronted that Harman is aggressive and ambitious, more than anything else. The "sources say" quality of the reporting is not too cool, either.

If she's done something wrong, then let the chips fall. But nothing's been proven, and this article doesn't advance knowledge of what happened at all. It simply rehashes a lot of innuendo in a rather dire way.

I never liked it when the right did that crap, so I'm not liking it now when a site called "antiwar.com" does it, either. I thought the Democratic/Progressive side of the fence was a bit more measured in their approach to accusations that are, to date, unproven. (EDIT--LeftishBrit has corrected my misapprehension about this site--apparently they're "rightish!" However, I am perturbed by how many people on the left, too, are ready to convict without a trial).