[CutePuppy]

Would you feel the same way if these were two Saudi men, or Pakistanis, or Egyptians who were being charged?

Yes, absolutely. It's not who is being charged, it's for what. In this case, there's no what that merited to even bring the case up. I think, in this case, the charges were brought only because of who was "involved"... Not unlike Nifong's Duke or Fitzgerald's Libby (Plame / Wilson) travesties.

As I felt all along, and as the article says "Under the circumstances, this is a case that should never have been brought." In other words, there was no there there.

[dervish]

“I think, in this case, the charges were brought only because of who was “involved”...”

you are right

[Alberta's Child]

You should read all the details about the case in question. It's kind of hard to make the case that there's no "there" there when the Pentagon official in the case (Larry Franklin) has already pleaded guilty to a number of charges and is serving 12 years in a Federal prison.

It's worth noting that Franklin's lawyers originally tried to have the evidence against him thrown out, on the grounds that the FBI did not have proper cause to conduct the surveillance operation against him that was used to gather the evidence to charge him. The FBI's response was pretty remarkable. It turns out they never had any proper cause to conduct a surveillance operation against him at all -- nor did they ever intend to investigage him in the first place. The FBI operation was aimed at the AIPAC people all along, and they only learned of Franklin's crimes during the course of their AIPAC investigation.

You might also want to talk to someone with a background in U.S. intelligence. You might be shocked at what they have to say about a group like AIPAC.