A friend writes in response to my earlier story about Jane Harman and Israel:
Jeff Stein’s CQ story is wrong in so many ways. First, CQ makes an inferential link between "an Israeli official" to AIPAC without showing that this “Israel official” has anything to do with AIPAC. As a side note, AIPAC terminated their relationship with Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman upon being accused with a crime. These two individuals acted on their own outside of their roles in AIPAC.
Second, CQ got the charges wrong. Rosen and Weissman are being accused of receiving information from a government official, not passing it on as the story suggests. There's a huge difference here and that's what's at stake.
AIPAC critics love talking about AIPAC spies, but the real issue here is, is it unlawful for American to RECEIVE sensitive information from a government source? There's a chilling effect on media freedom if they are found guilty. The NPR show “On the Media” (www.onthemedia.org) does a story or two a year on this case and the impact on journalistic freedom.
Imagine the Pentagon papers, or what would happen if journalists were arrested for receiving sensitive information? What if a government official gave you sensitive information for examination for Americablog?
The heart of the CQ story is incorrect...because Harman wasn't acting on behalf of Israel. Rosen and Weissman aren't being accused for spying on behalf of Israel. The CQ story is trying to depict Rosen and Weissman as convicted spy Jonathan Pollard. What Rosen and Weiss did is nothing like what Pollard was convicted of. Rosen and Weissman met with the State Department official on their behalf, not at the behest of Israel or AIPAC. To suggest so is wrong and that's what stinks about this story. The fact that Stein’s title of CQ’s “Spy Talk Columnist” shows the inherent bias of this story and shows that it is teetering on pure fantasy.
