Rice to face subpoena in espionage case

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and more than a dozen other current and former intelligence officials must testify about their conversations with pro-Israel lobbyists, a federal judge ruled Friday in an espionage case.

Lawyers for two former American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbyists facing charges have subpoenaed Rice, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams and several others to testify at their trial next year. Prosecutors had challenged the subpoenas in federal court.

Lobbyists Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman maintain the Israeli interest group played an unofficial but sanctioned role in crafting foreign policy and that Rice and others can confirm it.

If they ultimately testify in court, the trial in federal court in suburban Alexandria, Va. could offer a behind-the-scenes look at the way U.S. foreign policy is crafted.

The lobbyists are accused of receiving classified information from a now-convicted Pentagon official and relaying it to an Israeli official and the press. The information included details about the al-Qaida terror network, U.S. policy in Iran and the bombing of the Khobar Towers dormitory in Saudi Arabia, federal prosecutors said.

But defense attorneys argued that top U.S. officials regularly used the lobbyists as a go-between as they crafted Middle East policy. If so, attorneys say, how are Rosen and Weissman supposed to know the same behavior that's expected of them on one day is criminal the next?

U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III said the lobbyists have a right to argue that "they believed the meetings charged in the indictment were simply further examples of the government's use of AIPAC as a diplomatic back channel."

Defense attorney Abbe Lowell cheered the ruling.

"For over two years, we have been explaining that our clients' conduct was lawful and completely consistent with how the U.S. government dealt with AIPAC and other foreign policy groups," Lowell said on behalf of both defendants. "We look forward to the trial."

Ellis left open the possibility that the Bush administration may challenge the subpoenas on the grounds they would reveal privileged information. But the judge said his ruling Friday "may trump a valid governmental privilege."

If so, that could force the government to decide whether to allow the testimony or drop the case.

Neither the State Department nor the Justice Department had an immediate comment.

Among those subpoenaed in the case were: former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage; and Marc Grossman, former undersecretary of state for political affairs.




Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Theory on why "Conservatism" = Corruption in Alaska

All of the convicted, indicted, and confessed political criminals are political conservatives. Is that an accident? Hardly. And here is why.

In Alaska "Conservative" has become tantamount to to being anti-Government, anti-Regulation, and, basically, anti-Enforcement of rules of conduct with respect to Government. Ironically, these same "Conservatives" pound their hollow chests about Law & Order but that is usually enforcing laws against the most eggregious kind, crimes against person and property. Conservatives who do not believe in Government, however, do not see "white collar" crime the same way.

"Conservatives" in Alaska think Government is the enemy. I like to say, Conservatives don't believe government works and get themselves elected to prove that they are right.

"Free Enterprise" on the other hand is sacrosanct to Alaskan Conservatives--or what passes North of 60 as Free Enterprise. The so-called Private Sector is supposed to be Private and free from the interference of the much-hated "Government".

Conservatives in Alaska have been taught that the "Sharp Operator" is King and if you can "bend the rules" and beat the competition and make money that...well...hell, that's the American Way, right?

Conservatives in Alaska believe in Family Values as endorsed by the 50 or so most influential Pastors in Alaska--who also happen to be Republicans: tax breaks, anti-abortion, faith-based grants and the like. So if the Alaskan Conservative takes care of those items, it really doesn't matter to the "faithful" what that elected official does or what rules are violated.

Conservatives in Alaska have learned to deliver the Pork to their constituents and keep the good ol' boyz happy, be it artificial turf for their kids to play football on or funding State Troopers to patrol the Hillside Neighborhood in Anchorage.

So...if the Pastors are happy and the biggest mouths of their constituency are warm with contentment from the Sow's Milk of public pork, the most important thing for the Alaskans Conservative to do is to beat-up "Government" and figure out a way to make money and connections.

Alaskan Liberals are certainly subject to temptation, but not as much as Alaskan Conservatives. Why? Because "Liberals" understand secular ethics; they don't believe that their judgement is reserved to the Lord--they accept personal responsibility for their behavior in the Here and Now. It turns out that the thing that Alaskan Conservatives ridicule Liberals about is the quality we most need in elected officials: a believe in and respect for the operation of Government.

People who believe government can work are more likely to make it work. People who have a strong secular ethical code of behavior are less likely to be corrupt than those who believe that everything will be sorted out in the Afterlife and what is God's is God's and what is Ceaser's is Ceaser's.

Let's hear it for those Liberal Secular Humanists in Alaska!

Blogger Pachacutec on the Corruption of Telecoms

This aricle appeared in the Huffington Post of October 11, 2007-m2k

[Right, that's crime boss Randall L. Stephenson, CEO of AT&T]

Monday I shared a train ride with Jane. She was headed to New York to make an appearance on a panel at NYU, and I was headed to Philly on business.

We talked and worked, though Jane was hampered by the failure of her Verizon mobile wireless service to connect her online. Why? Because, though she had been told her bill would be bundled with her cellphone service at the time she purchased the additional wireless service, they didn't do it, so her autopay system did not pay her wireless bill. Result? No service. Further result? An hour of senseless haggling, time on hold, and so forth with a "customer service" representative who researched the problem and then insisted on charging Jane a reconnection fee. . . for Verizon's mistake!

Everyone I know has stories like this. My AT&T wireless charges me out the wazoo and drops my calls with demonic frequency. Meanwhile, it seems Comcast, Verizon and AT&T garner an ever growing proportion of my monthly payments while providing me with less and less service.

If we had been on a train in Europe, not only would we have gotten to our destinations faster, but we would have had free wireless with no hassle. The reason the telecom industry is so bad is because it has bought congress, written anti-competitive, anti-consumer regulations into law, so that its services get worse and worse while it places itself on precisely the business path to destruction the US auto industry has already trod.

It lies to consumers on an individual level, as Jane experienced, and more broadly, launches dishonest anti-net neutrality campaigns and seeks to absolve itself from its participation in illegal surveillance of US citizens. Oh, and it tries to destroy free speech, thank you very much. The more it builds its business model around anti-competitive, anti-consumer corporate welfare and lies, the more it must cling to protectionist, anti-innovation strategies just to survive, systemically cutting the knees out from small businesses and innovative startups. It's a slow, steady slog toward business death. Just ask Ford how that works out.

What's more, the rumor is the Senate version of the new FISA bill, with the blessing of Harry Reid and the Democrats, will include retroactive immunity for the telecoms for their lawbreaking. We've been fighting today to prop up the House progressives to fight for a better version of the FISA bill in the House, but we also need to let Harry Reid and the rest of the capitulation caucus in the Senate know that retroactive immunity is purely unacceptable during the next few days.

Gee, are there any Democratic senators who might consider launching a filibuster on the Senate FISA bill, even against the will of the leadership, like maybe, anyone from a state that likes cheese, or a senator who guest blogs at SavetheInternet.org or anyone running for president who asserts he's truly committed to the Constitution?
What are your telecom nightmare stories? Share them in the comments.

(Send comments to:)
Pachacutec at Firedoglake.

Monday I shared a train ride with Jane. She was headed to New York to make an appearance on a panel at NYU, and I was headed to Philly on business.
We talked and worked, though Jane was hampered by the failure of her Verizon mobile wireless service to connect her online. Why? Because, though she had been told her bill would be bundled with her cellphone service at the time she purchased the additional wireless service, they didn't do it, so her autopay system did not pay her wireless bill. Result? No service. Further result? An hour of senseless haggling, time on hold, and so forth with a "customer service" representative who researched the problem and then insisted on charging Jane a reconnection fee. . . for Verizon's mistake!
Everyone I know has stories like this. My AT&T wireless charges me out the wazoo and drops my calls with demonic frequency. Meanwhile, it seems Comcast, Verizon and AT&T garner an ever growing proportion of my monthly payments while providing me with less and less service.
If we had been on a train in Europe, not only would we have gotten to our destinations faster, but we would have had free wireless with no hassle. The reason the telecom industry is so bad is because it has bought congress, written anti-competitive, anti-consumer regulations into law, so that its services get worse and worse while it places itself on precisely the business path to destruction the US auto industry has already trod.
It lies to consumers on an individual level, as Jane experienced, and more broadly, launches dishonest anti-net neutrality campaigns and seeks to absolve itself from its participation in illegal surveillance of US citizens. Oh, and it tries to destroy free speech, thank you very much. The more it builds its business model around anti-competitive, anti-consumer corporate welfare and lies, the more it must cling to protectionist, anti-innovation strategies just to survive, systemically cutting the knees out from small businesses and innovative startups. It's a slow, steady slog toward business death. Just ask Ford how that works out.
What's more, the rumor is the Senate version of the new FISA bill, with the blessing of Harry Reid and the Democrats, will include retroactive immunity for the telecoms for their lawbreaking. We've been fighting today to prop up the House progressives to fight for a better version of the FISA bill in the House, but we also need to let Harry Reid and the rest of the capitulation caucus in the Senate know that retroactive immunity is purely unacceptable during the next few days.
Gee, are there any Democratic senators who might consider launching a filibuster on the Senate FISA bill, even against the will of the leadership, like maybe, anyone from a state that likes cheese, or a senator who guest blogs at SavetheInternet.org or anyone running for president who asserts he's truly committed to the Constitution?
What are your telecom nightmare stories? Share them in the comments.
Pachacutec blogs at Firedoglake.

Response To Pete Kott's Theory On Appeal

Kott asks judge to toss jury decision : comments
Posted by admin

Posted: October 9, 2007 - 3:37 pm

Return to Kott asks judge to toss jury decision



add new comment

8 October 9, 2007 - 4:26pm | metanoia2k

This Is An Interesting Legal Theory

Forget "intent", established by the Giver through confession; set aside "force and effect" revealed through recorded conversations in which Kott clearly establishes a "duty" to the Giver by reporting on PPT developments, there is no "nexus" because Pete Kott was a FRIEND?????

yeah, sure.

Based on this theory, the only time someone could be convicted of insider trading, corruption or abuse of office would be if they had no relationship other than the business of bribery...

I give Kott's lawyer snaps for trying. I guess he feels he's gotta do something for all the money he's being paid.

Politics is,by its nature, a process of "influence" and the leveraging of "relationships". The question before the court is not whether there was a warm and fuzzy relationship between the suckuh and the suckee but whether he performed his duty in a corrupt and criminal manner. Kott's efforts to engineer a shut-out of the House with no PPT bill and his breathless play-by-play reporting to "Uncle Bill" is enough of a nexus to satisfy me.

Whether one is a whore for pleasure, for money or for devotion, one are still a whore;peddling one's influence for the approval of the Pimp Daddy is no less corrupt than a straight quid pro quo. In this case, money may not have turned the wheel, but it sure greased it.

The evidence shows that Pete Kott saw his job was to stand and deliver for Bill Allen and he saw his role as a state legislator as means to that end. He was not elected to work for Bill Allen.

(Exit with banjo playing the theme from Deliverance)

edit | reply »

Airport security struggles with reality

ELSTUN LAUESEN
COMMENT

(Published: October 3, 2007)
Do you remember this old joke: A guy comes into a bar wearing a tinfoil hat. He sits down and orders a drink. The bartender asks him about the tinfoil on his head. "I have a mortal fear of being eaten by bears, so I wear this on my head to keep them away." The bartender replies that bears haven't been seen in these parts for years. The customer replies proudly, "See ... it works!"

Lately, whenever someone tells me that the so-called "War on Terror" is working because there has been no attack on the United States since 2001, I look for the tinfoil hat.

We should call the Department Homeland Security by its functional name: Department of Homeland Insecurity. In the wake of 9/11 this nation has unquestioningly accepted layers of stupid rules each piled upon the other, from shucking shoes to placing liquids and gels in quart-sized plastic bags on the airport screening conveyor belt. I was recently annoyed by Coast Guard rules that force inter-island ferry passengers in Ketchikan to carry their luggage in the driving rain from the terminal to the cart left parked hundreds of feet away at the ferry ramp. After assisting an elderly couple struggling with heavy bags, I returned to the ticket agent and asked her why the driver doesn't pull up to the terminal and let us load our luggage more conveniently. "Coast Guard rules" she said quickly. Obviously I was not the first to ask. "They don't want the loading and unloading to be so close to their building -- it's for security reasons." I rolled my eyes. The agent added: "I know ... it doesn't make any sense. If someone really wanted to do something ... well ... you know."

My travel experiences under the Idiocracy of Homeland Security have given me lots of waiting time to stew about what our country has become in the years since Sept. 11. My thoughts frequently turn on two of the main dogma of the Warrior-In-Chief.

• The world changed on Sept. 11, 2001 -- Of course this statement is untrue. This is still the same old world as before, fraught with dangers and uncertainties. What has changed is our frontier perception of fortress America: We have been dramatically attacked on our own soil. The attack caught us offguard in much the same way as the attack on Pearl Harbor shocked and surprised us. But unlike the ebullient FDR who took us into World War II calling for courage and sacrifice, GWB calls on us to be afraid and to keep consuming.

By embracing fear, our political leaders have created a kind of post-9/11 traumatic stress disorder. It just seems to me that our domestic and foreign policies have become more insular, violent and paranoid. For the past several years, poor old Uncle Sam has been sitting up in the attic cleaning his rifle and peeking out of his curtain, scaring the neighbors. Now the crazy old goat is building a giant fence around his yard to keep out the "aliens."

• Our enemies hate us for our freedom and our values -- By that measure, I think we are losing the war -- not militarily, since this war has no military objectives; we seem to be compromising the very freedoms and values we are defending. As comedian Bill Maher says, "If we lose our sense of humor, the terrorists will have won." Likewise, if we are fighting to defend our freedom, then the USA Patriot Act is an act of friendly fire, badly wounding our cause. The 9/11 PTSD also seems to be draining our optimism as a people, a terrible fate for the nation that has been a beacon of hope to others for over 200 years.

All that being said, however, I will probably continue my own sheeplike compliance with the silly rituals of Homeland Insecurity, including submitting my smelly shoes for security screening and schlepping my bags around concrete barriers to the ferry dock.

I have recently noticed something hopeful, however: A lot of us sheep are starting to snarl at the herders -- especially the ones wearing the tinfoil hats.




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

Elstun Lauesen is a rural development specialist. E-mail, elauesen@oz.net.

Corruption in Alaska

The insidiousness of corruption is that it is not easily identified by the average person. It works on us incrementally, taking little bites of our Soul at a time. Our religious institutions are no help to us because they portray evil with a capital "E". They make it out to be something grand and apocalyptical when, in fact, it isn't. Evil has a little "e". It is practiced by ordinary people. A fudge on the taxes here; a refusal to "get involved" in a neighbors crisis there.

If this is all true of ordinary people living out their ordinary lives, what about ordinary people who are granted exceptional lives? . With the power granted by temporal political office, ordinary men and women are brought into contact with the "power elite". We are all subject to the subtle seductions of flattery and attention. Becoming full of oneself when the flattery is earned through effort in one thing, but flattery is much more sulfurous when one is the recipient because of the office that he or she holds.

The Alaskan political scandals constitute Exhibit A in the ordinariness, banality and, one might even say, dreariness that evil can employ in its practice of destroying the angels of our higher nature.

Vic Kohring and all the rest--including Ted Stevens--were ushered into office in part because of their ability to resonate as ordinary, hard-working, good people.

Long before the FBI obviated a corrupt political system, we continued to elect these people to office. Even after Berkowitz took to the House floor and decried the scandalous behavior of Bill Allen and the asses that he owned, we were willing to re-elect these people, the ordinary men and women. When we re-elect someone because they "bring home the bacon" to our district, or flatter our prejudices or champion our causes despite their well-documented bad behavior we do so because we are either: ignorant or we are ourselves corrupt.

In either case old Thomas Jefferson, if he were alive today, would be looking for an exorcist to stop the the spinning head obscenities and vomiting of his precious democracy in Alaska today.