USGO-2 will be taking your questions now.
If that sounds cryptic it's not entirely inappropriate USGO-2 is kind of cryptic. He's otherwise known as David Satterfield, the top Iraq adviser to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. But, as U.S. Government Official no. 2, he's the unindicted co-conspirator
in the classified information case against Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, respectively the former foreign policy chief and top Iran analyst for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Count one in the August 2005 indictment includes meetings between Rosen and USGO-2 as an "overt act," in which Satterfield then second in charge at the State Department's Middle East section allegedly relayed classified information to Rosen, and which Rosen allegedly re-relayed to colleagues at AIPAC and to Israeli officials.
So why is Rosen out of a job, under constant FBI watch and facing an Espionage Act trial -- and Satterfield climbing the diplomatic ladder? It's a question begging for an answer. And while Satterfield appears frequently before Jewish audiences, no one asks it.
Next opportunity: March 27 at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, when Satterfield speaks on "Iraq: Prospects for Peace at Home and Progress with its Neighbors." WINEP was, after all, spun off from AIPAC back in the late 1980s, its events are attended by the pro-Israel community's best and brightest and I know that a lot of its staff's attitude toward the Rosen-Weissman case can be summed up in the unexpandable acronym, WTF?
In fact, there are a lot of folks who interact with Satterfield who should be curious about this case, not least journalist. The unprecedented use in this case of a 1917 statute criminalizing the receipt of classified information could seriously crimp our profession if prosecutors are successful.
Was Satterfield setting Rosen up? Was the information classified? Larry Franklin, the midlevel Pentagon analyst whose guilty plea in the same case helped spur it forward, is facing hard time, so why not Satterfield? In fact, all sides in the case acknowledge that "leakers" like Franklin or, allegedly, Satterfield - are more vulnerable under legal precedent than "leakees."
The defense wants to haul in a bunch of U.S. officials, not least including Satterfield's boss, Rice. Whether they're successful will be determined in the next pre-trial phase, due to begin next month, when the prosecution is likely to challenge much of the witness list. (The trial itself is set to begin on June 4.)
The federal judge in the case, T.S. Ellis III, has, however, already made it clear to the prosecution that he will not countenance a challenge to Satterfield's testimony but that still doesn't mean Satterfield will testify. Satterfield may be able to shield himself behind State Department rules that allow the government to keep diplomats off the witness stand. Those rules might not hold in this case, and the defense is sure to challenge them if the department makes the effort. But meantime, it's worth asking does Satterfield even intend on invoking the rules that would bar him from testifying?
In case you're wondering, yes, I've asked him. That ended that short interview ("No comment, gotta go" was more or less the reply). Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying. I'll be there Tuesday, but I'm leaving it up to others to ask.
In case you're also wondering, USGO-1 is Kenneth Pollack, who met with Rosen and Weissman in 2000 when he was a Clinton administration national security councilor. Pollack, unlike Satterfield, does talk: He says he did not relay classified information to the two (in fairness, the indictment does not clearly allege that he did only that he had access to classified information that Rosen allegedly relayed to a journalist later in the day.) Pollack, also, is not charged. The defense wants him on the stand.
