Franklin Admits: I Gave Israel Secret Material

The Jerusalem Post ^ | October 6, 2005 | Nathan Guttman

[Cecily]

Former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin admitted in court Wednesday he passed classified information to Israeli diplomat Naor Gilon and to two former AIPAC officials, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman.

Franklin agreed in court to testify against the two AIPAC officials and to prove that he had indeed passed classified information on to them, and had told them clearly this information was classified.

This was the first time that Israel was explicitly mentioned in the courtroom and that Gilon's name was disclosed. When asked by Judge T.S. Ellis whether he communicated classified information to a foreign official, Franklin replied: "I met occasionally with Naor Gilon from the Israeli embassy."

[LA Conservative]

"May this guy fry like the Rosenbergs!"

I think it's really interesting that you automatically go there. Here's the difference, Beelzebub.

1. The Rosenbergs were spying for the commies. I would not count Israel as a fascist state bent on destroying the USA.
2. Franklin is not Jewish, so he did not have a religious motivation. Not that the Rosenberg's did either. Commies aren't particularly religious.
3. Maybe this guy doesn't like how the State Department is handling Middle Eastern affairs. Most conservatives don't.
4. I didn't read that Israel was soliciting this information.
5. This USS Liberty incident seems to be the flag that Buchannites keep waving.
6. Would you like me to throw it in your face that Nichols and McVie were not exactly temple going folk before they blew up a bunch of children and innocent workers? Does that even make sense to "go there"?
7. Has it occured to you that Franklin might want to see the Israelis kick Islamic ass? Do you have a problem with that?

[A. Pole]

5. This USS Liberty incident seems to be the flag that Buchannites keep waving.

This makes me curious (I like Buchanan). Could you explain me your argument number 5? I do not get it.

[kenavi]

Or do you just turn a blind eye to ethics and protocol breaches when they involve Israel?

I don't, and I steadfastly refused to contribute to AIPAC even before this incident. I don't think it's proper for Americans to lobby for foreign governments rather than for U.S. interests.

But the case at hand does not involve Rosenberg or Walkers level espionage, and the U.S. court is meting out the proper penalty. That's why I objected to your "fry them" comment.

I wish you and the others on this thread would speak up on others, where Freepers condemn President Bush as not being "pro-Israel" enough. But you shouldn't go to the other extreme either by making Israel out to be some dark, sinister power.

Israel is faced with the prospect of mullah-bombs, nuclear weaponry in the same hands that sent out orders a few years ago to bomb a Jewish community center in Argentina just because they could do it (thanks to the complicity of then-President Menem of Argentina). If the U.S. were in the same situation, and if our survival depended on the policy of a great power, our diplomats would also be trying to find out what that great power was going to do, and try to get them to help us before it would be too late.

Israel would do well, however, to keep at arm's length with our government's officials. Instead, they should appeal directly to the American people. They are shooting themselves in the foot and worse by trying to game our political system.

[Blzbba]

1. The Rosenbergs were spying for the commies. I would not count Israel as a fascist state bent on destroying the USA.

So? It's still classified information.

2. Franklin is not Jewish, so he did not have a religious motivation. Not that the Rosenberg's did either. Commies aren't particularly religious.

So? It's still classified information.

3. Maybe this guy doesn't like how the State Department is handling Middle Eastern affairs. Most conservatives don't.

So? It's still classified information.


4. I didn't read that Israel was soliciting this information.

So? It's still classified information. (Nor did they turn down the info)

5. This USS Liberty incident seems to be the flag that Buchannites keep waving.

For the memory of the 30+ American sailors who died in the attack, it's the least we can do to keep reminding people that the Israelis aren't exactly trustworthy. And, it's still classified information.

6. Would you like me to throw it in your face that Nichols and McVie were not exactly temple going folk before they blew up a bunch of children and innocent workers? Does that even make sense to "go there"?

Sure, why not? Where exactly are you going? Why the assumption that I'm some fan of those 2 sickos?

7. Has it occured to you that Franklin might want to see the Israelis kick Islamic ass? Do you have a problem with that?

So? It's still classified information.

What about the phrase "classified information" don't you understand, and why the non-chalant attitude? Because it's "only Israel"? Do I have to remind you that we were once on friendly terms with Saddam as well?

[Blzbba]

"This makes me curious (I like Buchanan). Could you explain me your argument number 5? I do not get it."

The Israelis "mistakenly" (and repeatedly) attacked the USS Liberty on June 8th, 1967, killing 34 US sailors in an attack that the Liberty survivors filed a War Crime Report regarding. Without knowing (<-- please note that), I'm guessing that Buchanan's isolationism makes him leery of cozying up to Israel, and this classified info leak and the Liberty attack justify that opinion, IMO.

USS Liberty Memorial
This might get pulled. USS Liberty references don't go over well here, for reasons unknown to me.

[Blzbba]

"I wish you and the others on this thread would speak up on others, where Freepers condemn President Bush as not being "pro-Israel" enough. But you shouldn't go to the other extreme either by making Israel out to be some dark, sinister power.

Israel is faced with the prospect of mullah-bombs, nuclear weaponry in the same hands that sent out orders a few years ago to bomb a Jewish community center in Argentina just because they could do it (thanks to the complicity of then-President Menem of Argentina). If the U.S. were in the same situation, and if our survival depended on the policy of a great power, our diplomats would also be trying to find out what that great power was going to do, and try to get them to help us before it would be too late.

Israel would do well, however, to keep at arm's length with our government's officials. Instead, they should appeal directly to the American people. They are shooting themselves in the foot and worse by trying to game our political system"


Israel will be fine. At last estimate, they possess at least 100 nukes (although you won't find the IAEA being allowed any monitoring of the Desdemona facility!!). They've shown a willingness to take action to defend themselves and will probably do so in the near future.

Respectfully, though, some of us won't forget the Liberty attack and I personally don't wish to be dragged into some Israeli-initiated conflict, just because they happen to worship the God of Abraham. The several trillion dollars of taxpayer money they've received from us in the form of military aid should suffice.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"What about the phrase "classified information" don't you understand, and why the non-chalant attitude?"

Sometimes, the classification process is abused. Having seen what can get classified, and how, I can tell this much: it was almost certainly being kept secret by the Islamist-loving faction of the State Department, lest it possibly offend The Religion of Peace(TM).

[Grzegorz 246]

Interesting.

[Grzegorz 246]

"At last estimate, they possess at least 100 nukes"

I read about ~300 warheads.

[rang1995]

with the arabists so against them (at STATE) they sometimes have to resort to this,not good.But in the end israel will be doing some of the WORLDS dirty work soon--rather they get info then the SAUDIS get taken out of the country after sept 11th--Know your friends and know OUR ENEMIES

[dfwgator]

Hasn't Israel passed informtion to the ChiComs in the past. The bottom line is that it's our information, and once you lose the secrets, you lose control of that information. Fry the bastard.

[kenavi]

Respectfully, though, some of us won't forget the Liberty attack.

I haven't forgotten, in fact I read up on it before meeting with the AIPAC director, to throw it in his face.

I read the sites on the U.S.S. Liberty, but none of their explanations about why the Israelis would have deliberately done this made sense to me, such as that they wanted to hide that they had killed Egyptian POWs in the Sinai (the Arab villagers quoted on the site were quoted saying that the Israelis had "crucified" them. Don't think so.)

I also don't understand how the Israelis could have kept it hush, hush all this time, it is not a light thing to order a bunch of Israeli pilots in 1967 to attack knowingly a U.S. ship. Many Israelis are loose-mouthed, but nothing has ever come out about the "plot".

Also, since 1967, there have been 4 Republican Administrations as well as 2 Dem Administrations. The Republican Administrations have included such skeptics towards Israel as your friend Buchanan, Casper Weinberger, Brent Scowcroft, and others who would have had access to U.S. intelligence about the attack. No former Administration official has ever come out with any charges, which also would have been hard to suppress.

Resurrecting the charge that the Israelis deliberately attacked the Liberty seems akin to saying that Oswald didn't kill Kennedy. If you believe that, then you believe that there is a "conspiracy so vast" that the best proof that it exists is in the lack of evidence that it does.

[LA Conservative]

1. The Rosenbergs were spying for the commies. I would not count Israel as a fascist state bent on destroying the USA.

So? It's still classified information.

Information can be classifed for political purposes as well, not just defense secrets. Information can be classifed to hide our f*uck-ups too. Just ask Sandy Berger why he had to steal and destroy classified information.

2. Franklin is not Jewish, so he did not have a religious motivation. Not that the Rosenberg's did either. Commies aren't particularly religious.

So? It's still classified information.

3. Maybe this guy doesn't like how the State Department is handling Middle Eastern affairs. Most conservatives don't.

So? It's still classified information.


4. I didn't read that Israel was soliciting this information.

So? It's still classified information. (Nor did they turn down the info)

5. This USS Liberty incident seems to be the flag that Buchannites keep waving.

For the memory of the 30+ American sailors who died in the attack, it's the least we can do to keep reminding people that the Israelis aren't exactly trustworthy. And, it's still classified information.

I'm the last person to ever disrespect a fallen soldier or sailor. I walk through our VA cemetary every Memorial Day, with my kids in tow and tears in my eyes. While there are theories, probably as a result of no investigations, which is mysterious, there is also a serious lack of conclusive evidence as to how that disaster came to be. But the world and circumstances are much larger and more complex than the USS Liberty incident. But if that is the only card that you hold to support your views, I'd say you were holding a weak hand to support a narrow minded viewpoint.

6. Would you like me to throw it in your face that Nichols and McVie were not exactly temple going folk before they blew up a bunch of children and innocent workers? Does that even make sense to "go there"?

Sure, why not? Where exactly are you going? Why the assumption that I'm some fan of those 2 sickos?

The fact that you brought up the Rosenbergs as your example of treason is not a secret either. They are a symbol of "Jewish Treachory", which, like the above point, I think reveals where you are coming from. There are far worse and more recent acts of treachery, such as Walker and Ames, that resulted in the recent deaths of American agents abroad. To counter how absurd your Jewish Treachery thinking is, I brought Nichols and McVie, who were treachorous in their motivations and far more lethal, but no one speaks of Christian Treachoery. It would be absurd to do so. Just as it is absurd to highlight the Rosenbergs as an example of "Jewish Treachery".

7. Has it occured to you that Franklin might want to see the Israelis kick Islamic ass? Do you have a problem with that?

So? It's still classified information. (I think you need to think about the strength of that arugment a little more. It's a bit weak and some thing I would expect from a Liberal.

Say, isn't Pat Buchannon hanging around those far left nut jobs more often these days. Have we seen the join where the far right has reached around enough to touch the far left?

What about the phrase "classified information" don't you understand, and why the non-chalant attitude? Because it's "only Israel"?

Do I have to remind you that we were once on friendly terms with Saddam as well? As in relationships change so why trust anyone? The USA has been a friend and supporter of Israel since 1948. There have been times of cold support when the Arabists in the State Department had a stronger voice with the White House, but this relationship has been sustained with trade of advanced military and medical technology, and military intelligence. I think this is a far more solid and different relationship than one where we gave one nut job dictator arms to fight another nut job dictator. When Muslims fight, everyone wins.

Just because we supported the Mujahadeen, does that mean we should expect a long lasting relationship with them. No. We wanted them to kick commie butt.

Your think is proving to be black and white, with no shades of gray. There are many more things to consider than just those thoughts that make you angry and bigoted.

[Blzbba]

"Your think is proving to be black and white, with no shades of gray. There are many more things to consider than just those thoughts that make you angry and bigoted."


Actually, 'tis your "Support Israel regardless of the costs" thinking that is black & white.

It's not 'bigoted' to be suspicious of those who receive trillions in military aid and then turn around and accept confidential information and spy on us on multiple occasions - it's prudent.

[LA Conservative]

Then are you comfortable with the US collecting intelligence on our allies? Or does the defense aid buy us the right to collect intelligence on our allies?
Where would you draw that line?
To suggest that allies don't collect intelligence on each either is naive thinking, and I don't think you are naive.

Nor do I support Israel at any cost. American interests always come first. It has always been that Israel usually operates in its own and America's best interest, unless you work for the State Department. The USS Liberty incident was 27 years ago and the circumstances are is still not known.

Your reference to the Rosenberg's seemed rather pointed, yet they had nothing to do with Israel.

[Black Tooth]

Not really a big deal. We routinely find people wandering around our Air Force bases and nuclear facility's that have entered this country illegally. No biggy.

[Blzbba]

"It has always been that Israel usually operates in its own and America's best interest,"


Respectfully, I disagree.



"The USS Liberty incident was 27 years ago and the circumstances are is still not known."

Which is why I believe the accounts of the American sailors. What other agenda besides the truth could they have?


"Your reference to the Rosenberg's seemed rather pointed,yet they had nothing to do with Israel."


Nope. But both cases involved conspiracy against America.

[LA Conservative]

I thank you for your gentlemanly tone during this discussion and I appreciate that sometimes tow gentlemen can reasonably disagree.

There are a few points on which I'd like to your perspective.
#1. Of the many theories attributed Israel's reason of the attack, to which do you subscribe?
#2. Can you acknowledge that allies collect information on each other and this does not indicate hostility, but rather asserting a country's intellegence needs for security over politics, including the USA?

Thanks for your time.

[Blzbba]

"#1. Of the many theories attributed Israel's reason of the attack, to which do you subscribe? "

Excellent question! My belief is that it was an attempt by Israel to cover-up the fact that it was Israel, not Egypt, that began the Israeli-Arab conflict of 1967. USS Liberty communications intercepts would've probably flatly contradicted this claim (that Egypt attacked first).

I'm most curious why, in contrast to the USS Cole attack, the USS Pueblo and the USS Stark, this attack has been completely covered up by every administration since? It's a complete disservice to those Americans that sadly gave their lives that day for absolutely no purpose whatsoever (other than covering Israeli war crimes).




#2. Can you acknowledge that allies collect information on each other and this does not indicate hostility, but rather asserting a country's intellegence needs for security over politics, including the USA?

Especially in these times, I can't condone this action. I can acknowledge it, but that doesn't mean we should just turn our backs on allied espionage. They may not be our allies forever. We (conservatives) didn't do so when Clintax sold us out to the ChiComms and I won't do it here. Our gov't is cozy in bed with the Israeli gov't, but I am not.


"I thank you for your gentlemanly tone during this discussion and I appreciate that sometimes two gentlemen can reasonably disagree. "

Thank you as well and I sincerely appreciate these shared opinions!

[LA Conservative]

"My belief is that it was an attempt by Israel to cover-up the fact that it was Israel, not Egypt, that began the Israeli-Arab conflict of 1967. "

On this we can agree, but the facts are so open about this I'm surprised there would be any need to cover up anything. Israel did indeed launch the first strike against Egypt, decimating its Air Force, allowing Israel to control the skies and take out tanks and artillery.

However, Israel did not strike out of aggression, but rather pre-emption. Even Gamal Abdul Nassar admitted provoking the Israelis to attack, in a tearful confession he made to his staff. This was corroborated with an Egyptian staffer who witnessed the event.

But to say that Israel "began" the Israeli-Arab conflict takes out of context that the Jews and the Muslims have been at war of Jerusalem ever since the Muslims kicked them out. This, in fact, is the longest running war in human history, and it is not just with Israel. Israel is but one front of many in the battle against Islam. It was Samuel P. Huntington that declared, "Islam has bloody borders".

Islam has been at war with the "people of the book", Jews and Christians, since at least 670 AD. Muslims believe that once a land has been under Islamic control, it must always remain under Islamic control in order to achieve dar al-Islam by means of a global caliphate. The goal is to expand the borders of dar al-Islam at the expense of dar al-Harb (war), and to create a universal Islamic community. It does not matter how long it takes for them to achieve this, it only matters that they keep fighting. We have entered into this battle against this Islamic foe and we will for some time to come.