Israely Spy In Pentagon?

[Armen]

FBI Probes Pentagon Spy Case

Aug. 27, 2004

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/27/...ble639143.shtml

 

CBS News has learned that the FBI has a full-fledged espionage investigation under way and is about to -- in FBI terminology -- "roll up" someone agents believe has been spying not for an enemy, but for Israel from within the office of the Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon.

 

60 Minutes Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports the FBI believes it has "solid" evidence that the suspected mole supplied Israel with classified materials that include secret White House policy deliberations on Iran.

 

At the heart of the investigation are two people who work at The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington.

 

The FBI investigation, headed up by Dave Szady, has involved wiretaps, undercover surveillance and photography that CBS News was told document the passing of classified information from the mole, to the men at AIPAC, and on to the Israelis.

 

CBS sources say that last year the suspected spy, described as a trusted analyst at the Pentagon, turned over a presidential directive on U.S. policy toward Iran while it was, "in the draft phase when U.S. policy-makers were still debating the policy."

 

This put the Israelis, according to one source, "inside the decision-making loop" so they could "try to influence the outcome."

 

The case raises another concern among investigators: Did Israel also use the analyst to try to influence U.S. policy on the war in Iraq?

 

With ties to top Pentagon officials Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, the analyst was assigned to a unit within the Defense Department tasked with helping develop the Pentagon's Iraq policy.

 

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been made aware of the case. The government notified AIPAC today that it wants information about the two employees and their contacts with a person at the Pentagon.

 

AIPAC told CBS News it is cooperating with the government and has hired outside counsel. It denies any wrongdoing by the organization or any of its employees.

 

An Israeli spokesman said, "We categorically deny these allegations. They are completely false and outrageous." The suspected spy has not returned repeated phone calls from CBS News.

[bellthecat]

I'm surprised they had to resort to spying - I thought they had the keys to the building!

[gamavor]

[Arpa]

I'm surprised they had to resort to spying - I thought they had the keys to the building! 

style_images/master/snapback.png

Yes Steve, they do have the keys.

In particular the unholy trinity seen below.

Of course, during this fiasco the ghost (not relly, he is still alive) of Pollard is beckoned. Does anyone remember the timing and the circumstances of his outing?

As to timing and circumstances...

The Iraqi quagmire is getting deeper and stickier, there must be a way out, specially at this time that we are at the doorstep of the elactions. It was reported that Wolfowitz has been involved and aware of the year long investigation, and that the person in question is in the employ of Feith.

Let us see what w ecan read into the whole debacle. Heads must roll to save some bigger heads.

 

Here is the portrait of the Unholy Trinity.

A bit long but may be worth a read.

 

http://www.armeniandiaspora.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7147

 

Wolfowitz, Perle and Feith

Wolfowitz, Perle and Feith

One Down - Two To Go

 

Hellenic news.com

7-26-04

 

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, former chairman of the

Defense Policy Board Richard Perle and Under Secretary of Defense

Douglas Feith, are the persons in the Defense Department primarily

responsible for the erroneous facts and policy judgments regarding

Turkey to the great detriment of U.S. interests in the region and

worldwide.

 

 

Richard Perle

 

Perle resigned on March 27, 2003 as chairman of the Defense Policy

Board after disclosures that his business dealings included a meeting

with two Saudis, one an arms dealer, and a contract for $750,000 to

advise telecommunications firm Global Crossings Ltd. that was seeking

Defense Department permission to be sold to Chinese investors.

 

In a New Yorker article, Seymour Hersch reported that Perle faced

conflict of interest between his work on the board and his private

business dealings. He reported that Perle is `a managing partner in a

venture-capital company called Trireme Partners L.P.' He also reported

that Perle attended a luncheon meeting on January 3, 2004 with two

Saudis, Adnan Khashoggi and industrialist Harle Zuhair, who told

Hersch that the agenda included an item `to pave the way for Zuhair to

put together a group of ten Saudi businessmen who would invest ten

million dollars each in Trireme.' (New Yorker, March 17, 2003, pages

76-81.)

 

Perle resigned as Assistant Secretary of Defense in 1987, before the

end of the Cold War, and went to Turkey and negotiated an $800,000

contract for International Advisors Inc. (IAI), a company which he

initiated. He recruited Douglas Feith, his special assistant at

Defense, to head IAI.

 

Perle became a consultant to IAI and received $48,000 annually from

1989 to 1994. IAI registered as a foreign agent with the Justice

Department. IAI received $800,000 from Turkey in 1989 and then

received $600,000 annually from 1990 to 1994.

 

 

Douglas Feith

 

>From 1989 to 1994, Douglas Feith headed IAI and registered as a

foreign agent for Turkey. He received $60,000 annually and his law

firm Feith and Zell received hundreds of thousands of dollars from IAI

 

Neither Perle, when he was on the Defense Policy Board, or Feith as

Under Secretary of Defense, recused themselves on matters dealing with

U.S.-Turkey relations.

 

Feith was Perle's protégé. According to the Washington Post's

BobWoodward, ` Feith was not popular with the military. He appeared to

equate policy with paper.' Woodward wrote that General Tommy Franks

`tried to ignore Feith though it was not easy. The general once

confided to several colleagues about Feith: ` I have to deal with the

[expletive] stupidest guy on the face of the earth almost every day.'

(Woodward, Plan of Attack, p. 281.)

 

 

Paul Wolfowitz

 

Wolfowitz has committed major mistakes of policy and judgment

regarding Turkey to the serious detriment of

U.S. interests. Wolfowitz's remarks on Turkey have contained false and

misleading statements with serious errors of fact and omission of

Orwellian proportions.

 

On July 14, 2002, Wolfowitz in a CNN Turkey interview stated:

 

`I think a real test of whether a country is a democracy is how it

treats its minorities. And actually it's one of the things that

impress (sic) me about Turkish history-the way Turkey treats its own

minorities.'

 

How does one respond to such a statement? Armenian, Greek and Kurdish

Americans have expressed their outrage. See Exhibit 1 to AHI joint

letter of September 4, 2002 on AHI website at www.ahiworld.org for a

list of Turkey'sviolations of the human rights of its minorities

committed throughout the 20th century, a number of which continue up

to the present time.

 

Also on July 14, 2002, in a speech at the Conrad Hotel, Istanbul,

Wolfowitz referred to Turkey:

 

`as a staunch NATO ally through forty years of Cold Warâ=80¦.Itis the

great good fortune of the United States, of NATO, the West, indeed the

world, that occupying this most important crossroads we have one of

our strongest, most reliable and most self-reliant allies.'

 

This is another false and misleading statement by Wolfowitz with

serious errors of fact and omission. The record shows that during the

Cold War, Turkey brushed aside U.S. interests on many occasions and

deliberately gave substantial assistance to the Soviet military. See

Exhibit 2 of the September 4, 2002 letter which sets forth examples of

Turkey's unreliability as an ally and refutes the assertion of Turkey

as a self-reliant ally. Turkey's vote on March 1, 2003 refusing to

allow U.S. troops to use bases in Turkey to open a second front

against the Saddam Hussein dictatorship is a dramatic example of

Turkey's unreliability as an ally. Wolfowitz's effusive comments in

his July 14, 2002 speech regarding Ataturk may play well in Turkey,

but the rest of the world is familiar with Ataturkas a brutal dictator

and mass killer of Armenians, Greeks and Kurds. John Gunther in his

book, Inside Europe refers in his opening sentence to Ataturk as

â=80=9CThe blond, blue-eyed combination of patriot and psychopath who

is dictator of Turkey.' (1938 edition p. 378.) See Exhibit 3 of the

September 4, 2002 letter for the details of Ataturk's mass killings of

Armenians, Greeks and Kurds. Ataturk and Turkey are hardly the models,

as suggested by Wolfowitz, for Afghanistan and other Muslim nations to

follow to achieve democracy.

 

In his July 14, 2002 speech Wolfowitz also stated:

 

`When the ?illness' of international terrorism struck the United

States last September, Turkey quickly offered unconditional

support...'

 

Wolfowitz conveniently omits the fact that Turkey is an international

terrorist state by virtue of its aggression against Cyprus in 1974,

and a national terrorist state by its actions of ethnic cleansing,

crimes against humanityand genocide against its 20 percent Kurdish

minority. The double standard on the rule of law and international and

national terrorism that the U.S. applies to Turkey damages the U.S.'s

war on international terrorism and makes a mockery of our moral and

legal positions. See Exhibit 4 of the September 4, 2002 letter which

discusses Turkey as an international and national terrorist state.

 

Wolfowitz refers often to Turkey's democracy. The fact is

otherwise. Turkey is still a military-dominated government, in which

the military controls foreign affairs and national security policy and

has harmful influence overdomestic affairs. There is an absence in

Turkey of minority rights, human rights, press freedom, speech freedom

and religious freedom. Falsehoods and myths regarding Turkey's

democracy have been propagated for years by Defense and State

Department officials. Freedom House in its 2003 annual report calls

Turkey only part-free.

 

On March 13, 2002, in a speech to the Washington Institute for Near

East Policy, Wolfowitz failed to recognize that Turkey violated the

NATO Treaty by its invasion of Cyprus and that the violation continues

to this day. See Exhibit 6 of the September 4, 2002 letter which

discusses Turkey's violation of the North Atlantic Treaty by its

invasion of Cyprus.

 

The false and misleading statements made by Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz

on Turkey raise serious questions as to his credibility and the

factual basis of his advice to the President and Defense Secretary

Donald H. Rumsfeld on other issues such as Iraq.

 

The U.S. double standard policy toward Turkey on the rule of law and

the appeasement of Turkey these past decades, pursued by a handful of

Defense and State Department officials and Turkey's paid foreign

agents, have seriously damaged U.S. national interests. President

Bush said `enough is enough' regarding the violence in the Middle

East. The President, in the interests of the U.S., should tell his

advisors that `enough is enough' regarding Turkey's aggression and

occupation in Cyprus, its genocide against the Kurds, its blockade of

humanitarian aid to Armenia, its national torture policy, its

thousands of political prisoners, its jailing of journalists, the lack

of religious freedom, its denial of the Armenian Genocide and the

Turkish military's control of national security and foreign policy and

its harmful influence on domestic policy.

 

Secretary Rumsfeld should ask for the resignations of Wolfowitz and

Feith.

 

 

Gene Rossides is President

of the American Hellenic Institute

and former Assistant Secretary

of the Treasury

[Arpa]

Here is one story about Jonathan Polllard.

Does anyone remember why at that particular time it was deemed necessary to flatten the nose of Israel a little bit?

 

 

 

Jonathan Pollard

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In November 1985, the FBI arrested Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. Navy intelligence analyst, on charges of selling classified material to Israel. Pollard was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment. His wife, Anne, got five years in jail for assisting her husband.

 

Immediately upon Pollard's arrest, Israel apologized and explained that the operation was unauthorized. "It is Israel's policy to refrain from any intelligence activity related to the United States," an official government statement declared, "in view of the close and special relationship of friendship" between two countries. Prime Minister Shimon Peres stated: "Spying on the United States stands in total contradiction to our policy."1

 

The United States and Israel worked together to investigate the Pollard affair. The Israeli inquiry revealed that Pollard was not working for Israeli military intelligence or the Mossad. He was directed by a small, independent scientific intelligence unit. Pollard initiated the contact with the Israelis.

 

A subcommittee of the Knesset's Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee on Intelligence and Security Services concluded: "Beyond all doubt...the operational echelons (namely: the Scientific Liaison Unit headed by Rafael Eitan) decided to recruit and handle Pollard without any check or consultation with the political echelon or receiving its direct or indirect approval." The Knesset committee took the government to task for not properly supervising the scientific unit.

 

As promised to the U.S. government, the spy unit that directed Pollard was disbanded, his handlers punished and the stolen documents returned.2 The last point was crucial to the U.S. Department of Justice's case against Pollard.

 

Pollard denied spying "against" the United States. He said he provided only information he believed was vital to Israeli security and was being withheld by the Pentagon. This included data on Soviet arms shipments to Syria, Iraqi and Syrian chemical weapons, the Pakistani atomic bomb project and Libyan air defense systems.3

 

Pollard was convicted of espionage. His life sentence was the most severe prison term ever given for spying for an ally. It also was far greater than the average term imposed for spying for the Soviet Union and other enemies of the United States.4

 

Though initially shunned by Israel, the government of Benjamin Netanyahu admitted that Pollard had worked for Israeli intelligence and granted him citizenship. Netanyahu requested clemency for Pollard during Middle East peace talks at the Wye Plantation in Maryland in 1998.

 

Pollard's supporters in the United States also routinely request that he be pardoned. President Clinton reportedly considered a pardon, but defense and intelligence agency officials have vigorously opposed the idea. At the end of Clinton's term, the issue was again raised and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), chairman of the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence, along with a majority of senators argued against a pardon. "Mr. Pollard is a convicted spy who put our national security at risk and endangered the lives of our intelligence officers," Shelby said. "There not terms strong enough to express my belief that Mr. Pollard should serve every minute of his sentence...."5

 

Meanwhile, Pollard's attorneys have been trying to gain access to the a top-secret declaration by then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger that was used at Pollard's sentencing.

 

Notes

1Wolf Blitzer, Territory of Lies, (NY: Harper & Row, 1989), p. 201.

2New York Times, (December 2 and 21, 1985).

3Blitzer, pp. 166-171.

4Alan Dershowitz, Chutzpah, (MA: Little Brown, & Co., 1991), pp. 289-312.

5Washington Post, (December 23, 2000).

[Armen]

Boston Globe, MA

Aug 27 2004

 

American Jews and dual loyalty

By H.D.S. Greenway

 

CONSERVATIVE WRITERS David Frum and Richard Perle, in their book "An

End To Evil, How To Win The War On Terror," spend the better part of

four pages confronting the charges that their agenda seems to many

like a "Zionist cabal." They say that in interviews around the world

this question always comes up -- "with beguiling directness" in the

Far East, "with excruciating awkwardness among Germans," and with

"elegant sinuosity" from the British. Is there among neoconservatives,

many of whom are Jewish, a hidden motivation to make sure that

American foreign policy is good for Israel? The authors find such

suggestions insulting and anti-Semitic. But Tom Powers, in The New

York Review of Books, suggested: Why not admit openly that of course

the fate of Israel is much on their minds? "Anglophiles of yesteryear

did not apologize for arguing that it was in America's best interest

to come to the aid of Britain in 1940, and Polish Americans did not

worry in silence about the fate of Lech Walesa. Complex loyalties are

a big part of the American style."

 

Powers has a point. "Bundles for Britain" drives were big in American

East Coast cities in the early '40s, while some Irish-Americans --

one remembers Colonel Robert McCormick's Chicago Tribune -- felt just

as strongly that the British did not deserve our bundles. No one

questions that Polish-Americans feel strongly about the old country,

and none complain about Irish-Americans today involving themselves in

the fate of Northern Ireland. Cuban-American passion for what happens

on their island is legendary, and could dramatically affect yet

another presidential election.

 

Lawrence Lowenthal of the American Jewish Committee told me that for

"decades and decades American Jews have been apprehensive about

charges of dual loyalty. The Pollard case made us very nervous."

Jonathan Pollard was an American Jew caught spying for Israel and is

now serving a life sentence. "Pollard stepped over the line,"

Lowenthal said, but then so did Americans who ran guns for Irish

Republican Army.

 

When his family first came to America from Europe, Lowenthal said,

they wanted to put their past behind them. "Good riddance." But all

that has changed; today's Americans are no longer ashamed of ethnic

ties. Many Mexican-Americans are insisting on keeping their language

and culture. French-Canadians in the United States who once turned

their back on their French heritage are picking it up again.

 

Greek-Americans have a strong political lobby, so do Armenians,

although neither is as powerful as the pro-Israel lobby. The

congressional black caucus made its influence felt in sending the

Marines to Haiti in 1994, and black-Americans had a role in the

anti-apartheid cause in South Africa.

 

Duel citizenship is on the rise. Israel allows anyone Jewish to

become an Israeli. Ireland allows anyone who can prove he has an

Irish grandparent to apply for Irish citizenship, and "we certainly

experienced an enormous increase in applications over the last 10

years or so, " says Isolde Moylan, the Irish consul in Boston.

 

In Perle's case, much has been made of a paper that he and others,

including the Pentagon's Douglas Feith, wrote some years ago for

Israel's right-wing politician, Benjamin Netanyahu, calling for a

"New Strategy For Securing The Realm." Their advice included getting

the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein as well as other moves

in the Middle East to increase Israel's strategic position. But

Americans have written constitutions for foreign countries, soldiered

in foreign armies, and even served in foreign governments. Americans

who identify with a foreign country are not, and should not, be held

suspect. There is nothing un-American about wanting to link this

country's foreign policy to that of Israel. Nor is it anti-Semitic to

disagree.