(Thoughts
Questions Abound
About Case Against
Ex-AIPAC Staffers
Abbe D. Lowell, Baruch Weiss
and John Nassikas
Special Commentary
Why in the mid- to late-1990s was the
government's counter-intelligence appa-
ratus selectively aimed at the pro-Israel
foreign policy lobby in general and AIPAC
Washington/JTA
in particular, when the same case could
have been made against literally hundreds
t was just eight weeks ago that the
of other lobbyists and journalists for dis-
U.S. Justice Department asked a fed-
cussing foreign policy issues that might
eral court to dismiss the Espionage
implicate classified information?
Act charges that had been pending against
How could the government create a trap
former AIPAC officials Steven Rosen and
for Rosen and Weissman by dangling the
Keith Weissman for four years.
warning that "lives were in danger" with-
The case was as hard fought as litigation out expecting these moral men to act?
could be. There were hundreds of motions
When it was pointed out that the case
and pleadings, dozens of days of court
did not actually involve real espionage,
hearings, battles over everything from the
that there was no classified documents
constitutionality of the charges to whether ever involved, that the work by Rosen
the defense would be allowed to call for-
and Weissman was part of their jobs and
mer Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
not something outside the norm, and
to testify, 13 published court opinions and
that there was no spying, bribery, theft
even an unusual mid-case appeal by the
or secret meet-
government to the Court of Appeals.
ings, how did the
Then, with 30 days to go before trial, the government allow
government abruptly left the battlefield
the case to con-
and, despite all the bravado by which it
tinue? And what
brought the charges, moved to dismiss the
finally brought
charges without a trial. The court agreed.
the government
So what might have been the trial of
to its senses after
the era — with allegations of classified
spending literally
information and former high-level Bush
millions of dollars
administration officials being forced to
investigating and
testify as defense witnesses and the corn-
prosecuting these two men for nearly a
ing to light of the way the back-channel
decade?
diplomacy of foreign affairs in Washington
A few weeks ago, some 125 rabbis from
is really conducted — ended with more of across the country wrote to Attorney
a whimper than a bang.
General Eric Holder raising these and
The end of the case was appropriate
other questions. Given the significance
— it should never have been filed in the
of the case to the Jewish community, it
first place.
is appropriate that the Jewish commu-
The innocent former AIPAC employees
nity take the lead in asking these ques-
Rosen and Weissman should not have
tions and not let the case just fade away.
had to suffer one more minute, let alone
However, the Jewish community should be
weeks of trial, under an unjust indictment. asking questions not only of the govern-
The problem with its anti-climactic end-
ment but also to itself.
ing, however, is that so many important
Here is just a start:
questions raised by the case might go
As the government was apt to do over
unanswered. The potential impact this
the past eight or nine years, it put pressure
prosecution could have had on the First
on AIPAC, as if it were some corporation
Amendment and foreign policy discus-
like Enron or Worldcom, to isolate Rosen
sions, and the government's work with
and Weissman, fire them and emascu-
groups like AIPAC, is too important to
late them from fighting back by cutting
allow this case to be so easily forgotten.
off payment of their legal fees. Why did
There are a legal pad full of questions
AIPAC take these steps?
the case raises for the government to
Just because the government was
answer.
attempting to paint a damning picture of
I
Lawyers for ex-AIPAC officials Keith Weissman, left, and Steve Rosen say the case
is too important to be forgotten because of its potential impact.
the AIPAC employees, didn't Rosen and
Weissman deserve the true benefit of the
doubt and presumption of innocence that
they earned from more than 40 years of
combined ser-
vice?
Had the law
firms represent-
ing the two men
not agreed to
continue without
full compensation
(AIPAC ultimately
agreed to less
than half of what
is owed), the outcome of this case could
have been different, but the blame would
not have gone to the defendants for their
conduct but to the community that aban-
doned them.
AIPAC is not the only organization that
AIPAC is not the only
organization that needs
to explain. Other Jewish
groups acted no better.
C2
July 16 2009
needs to explain. Other Jewish groups
acted no better.
In January 2002, Israel intercepted the
cargo ship Karine A loaded with weapons
intended to be used by the Palestinians
against Israel. Some of the allegedly illegal
disclosures made by Rosen and Weissman
related to the Karine A episode.
It was important to Rosen's and
Weissman's defense to show that the
Karine A information was already public
and being discussed openly by adminis-
tration officials. One such official was then
Special Envoy to the Middle East General
Anthony Zinni.
The general had discussed his private
meeting with then-PLO Chairman Yasser
Arafat concerning the Karine A at a din-
ner attended by Rosen, who was still with
Ex-AIPAC Staffers on page C3
Editor's Note: At the request of JTA, a spokesman for AIPAC, Patrick Dorton,
offered the following response to this article:
T
he op-ed by attorneys Lowell, Weiss and Nassikas represents only one
version of the case based on a very particular point of view. But until
the threat of litigation currently posed by Mr. Rosen's ongoing lawsuit
against AIPAC has been resolved, AIPAC is necessarily constrained in its public
statements.
"Where there is no question to be asked or answered is in the AIPAC
payment of Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman's legal fees. AIPAC provided millions
of dollars to provide for a full legal defense through appeal for these two
individuals — a sum that AIPAC prudently negotiated with its top-notch legal
counsel (the authors of the op-ed) and a sum that its legal counsel mutually
agreed to accept to provide Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman with the full legal
defense they received." ❑