Where Does AIPAC Get Its Information

"Rice, Others Told to Testify in AIPAC Case"
By Jerry Markon, The Washington Post, November 3, 2007:

A federal judge yesterday issued a rare ruling that ordered Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and more than 10 other prominent current and former government officials to testify on behalf of two pro-Israel lobbyists accused of violating the Espionage Act at their upcoming criminal trial.....

Their testimony has been sought by attorneys for Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, former employees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, who are accused of conspiring to obtain classified information and pass it to members of the media and the Israeli government.

Attorneys for Rosen and Weissman say Rice and the other officials could help clear them because they provided the former lobbyists with sensitive information similar to what they were charged for, according to Ellis's ruling and lawyers familiar with the case. Prosecutors have been trying to quash the subpoenas during secret hearings and in classified legal briefs, but Ellis wrote that the testimony could help "exculpate the defendants by negating the criminal states of mind the government must prove."

Comment: I have no idea whether the AIPAC staff actually got classified information from high ranking officials of the Bush administration, but I am glad that the judge decided that American justice was best served by allowing the advocates for the defendants question Rice et al before the court.

There is an interesting intersection here of the information systems of the political process, the intelligence processes of both the U.S.A. and Israel, and the judiciary process. I assume that it will not be too hard to provide information needed to protect the accused to the judge and jury without damaging U.S. security. I suspect that the administration will seek to prevent any information reaching the public that would be damaging to its perception of its image.

I have been thinking some in recent days about the implications of different purposes for gathering information as they interact. For example, the CIA interrogates people to obtain information while the FBI interrogates people in part to establish a case with which to prosecute them. The State Department security staff interrogate Blackwater staff after a shooting in order to determine the security and foreign policy implications of the situation, while again, law enforcement officers interrogate to establish a basis for prosecution if one exists. In both cases the more urgent interrogation needs may use means that militate against the long term interests.

As an analyst, my tendency is to use all the information I can get my hands on, trying to use proper care in that use. However, there are clearly public policy concerns as to how to schedule different kinds of information collection and analysis to best achieve the diverse purposes of the nation. JAD