Politics > Politics-USA > U.S. media focused on Mel, ignores possible new 'Pollard II' Israeli spy scandal
| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"George Washington Admirer" |
| Date: |
05 Aug 2006 11:56:09 PM |
| Object: |
U.S. media focused on Mel, ignores possible new 'Pollard II' Israeli spy scandal |
Does the case of U.S. Navy petty officer Ariel J. Weinmann constitute
"Pollard II"?
While that remains uncertain at this time, it's shameful that the
U.S. corporate media remains fixated -- on an unrelenting national
basis -- on an actor's run-of-the-mill drunk driving arrest while it
simultaneously gives mere local coverage to what may in fact turn out
to be another case of Israel's anti-US espionage being uncovered.
Then again, neither has the mainstream corporate media ever brought
to the forefront Israel's massive, well-documented pre-9/11 spy
shenangigans versus the US, nor any of the numerous instances in which
Israelis have been arrested in extremely suspicious circumstances
inside the US as well as abroad. (What? You say you never heard of the
case of the Israelis who were arrested with bomb-making equipment
inside the Mexican Congress immediately after 9/11 at a time when
Mexico made it clear it would not go along with the Neocons' phony "war
on terrorism"? Never heard of the Israelis arrested near US nuclear
facilties? Of the extremely suspicious-acting Israelis appehended with
surveillance video of the Sears Tower? Of the "Dancing Israelis"
arrested on 9/11 as they celebrated and high-fived one another with the
still-smoldering WTC as their backdrop? Or of the Israelis arrested
driving a van which a police dog detected traces of explosives in?
There's a huge amount of documentation regarding all these cases --
and more -- on the Internet ... which very well may be the main reason
why the opponents of Truth are seeking to do away with the current
Internet model and replace it with a tightly-monitored and -controlled
replacement.
------------------------------------------------------------------
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=108646&ran=180358
Petty officer held in secret for 4 months
By TIM MCGLONE, The Virginian-Pilot
August 4, 2006
NORFOLK — A petty officer has been in the Norfolk Naval Station brig
for more than four months facing espionage, desertion and other
charges, but the Navy has refused to release details of the case.
The case against Fire Control Technician 3rd Class Ariel J. Weinmann is
indicative of the secrecy surrounding the Navy military court here,
where public affairs and trial court officials have denied access to
basic information including the court docket – a listing of cases to be
heard.
After months of requests, the Navy this week provided The
Virginian-Pilot with Weinmann’s name, rank and the charges he faces.
In an e-mail, Theodore Brown, a spokesman for Fleet Forces Command,
said, “It is sometimes a challenge to balance the desires of the media,
the public’s right to know, and the rights of an individual accused of
a crime.”
“In this case,” he concluded, the command “is attempting to provide as
much unclassified information as is reasonable, while maintaining an
appropriate concern for the privacy of the individual involved. ”
A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment Thursday.
The Navy’s position was challenged by military legal affairs experts
and First Amendment advocates who say the nation’s courts, whether
civilian or military, historically have been open to the press and
public.
A docket listing Weinmann’s preliminary hearing, called an Article 32,
was never produced. The Navy would not disclose when the hearing was
held.
“That’s hogwash,” said Eugene R. Fidell, president of The National
Institute of Military Justice and a Washington lawyer .
“I know of no authority to keep the proceeding closed,” he said. “I’ve
never seen an Article 32 classified.”
The command’s e-mail to The Pilot this week said that Weinmann was
arrested at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport on March 26 after
he had been listed as a deserter. Fleet Forces officials refused to
release the so-called charge sheet, which would detail the accusations
against the sailor.
Weinmann had been serving aboard the submarine Albuquerque until he
deserted in July 2005, according to Brown. Weinmann enlisted in July
2003, he said.
The enlisted man could face a court-martial. An investigative officer
who presided over the Article 32 is expected to release a report to
Weinmann’s command in the coming weeks. Besides espionage and
desertion, Weinmann is charged with failure to obey an order and acts
prejudicial to good order and discipline, according to Brown.
Espionage is defined, in part, by the Uniform Code of Military Justice
as the communication to a foreign government of any information
relating to U.S. national defense. It carries a maximum punishment of
death.
Military defense lawyers say secret military hearings and the refusal
to release basic charge information have become more common since the
beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Court precedents and federal laws have established the right of public
access to court-martial proceedings, including Article 32 hearings, the
lawyers and First Amendment advocates say.
The Army Court of Criminal Appeals said in a 1997 case involving an
attempt to close a criminal proceeding, “We believe that public
confidence in matters of military justice would quickly erode if
courts-martial were arbitrarily closed to the public.”
The court said the public and the media have a right to attend military
court proceedings, “absent extraordinary circumstances.”
The Supreme Court has ruled that the closure of a court proceeding or
the sealing of any criminal case must be decided by a judge on a
case-by-case basis.
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for
Freedom of the Press in Washington, said that, even in military courts,
an order must be issued closing or sealing a case.
Brown acknowledged Thursday that “there is no order,” but said that the
charge sheet in the Weinmann case would not be released.
Dalglish and others said protecting someone’s privacy has never been a
legally acceptable reason to exclude the public from a court proceeding
or to withhold the identity of someone who’s been in custody for four
months.
“We don’t lock up people in this country secretly,” Dalglish said.
“Personal embarrassment has never been found to be a justification for
closing a proceeding.”
Other than the Weinmann case, Norfolk Naval Station has refused to
provide The Pilot with copies of the military court docket since at
least November. The docket lists cases heard in military court each
day. In March, The Pilot filed a Freedom of Information request for the
past year’s dockets but has received no written response.
Beth Baker, a spokeswoman for the Navy Mid-Atlantic Region, has said
that computer problems have made it difficult for the Trial Services
Office at Norfolk Naval Station to generate a docket.
In two e-mails sent to The Pilot in January and February, Baker said
the dockets should be available “soon.”
“The docket for the Trial Service Office has been transferred to a new
system that is not user friendly to us at all,” Baker told The Pilot in
a March e-mail.
More recent requests for the docket went unanswered.
Some military courts, including Marine Camp Pendleton in San Diego
County, Calif., post their court dockets on a Web site.
The National Institute of Military Justice has begun a project to
collect military court dockets and post them on its own Web site.
Fidell, of the institute, said law students hope to begin pos ting them
by the end of the summer.
“Why this continues to be an issue in 2006 is beyond me,” Fidell said.
--
http://www.predatoryaliens.com
http://www.immigrationshumancost.org
http://www.daylaborers.org
http://www.newnation.com/index2.html
"The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave" by Heather Mac Donald
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html
http://idexer.com
www.AmericanPatrol.com
www.SaveOurState.org
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
