“L-NP in front on Face-to-Face Morgan Poll for First time since Federal Election”, reads the Roy Morgan headline, with some understatement: the 51.5-48.5 headline figure represents the first time the Coalition has led Labor in a Morgan face-to-face poll since June 2006. However, this is the two-party figure derived by using respondent-allocated preferences for minor party voters, rather than the consistently more reliable measure of distributing preferences according to the results of the previous election, on which the parties are evenly split. Labor’s two-party vote has crashing to 48.5 per cent from 53 per cent a fortnight ago (52.5 per cent on the respondent-allocated measure), from primary votes of 38 per cent (down 2.5 per cent) for Labor, 43 per cent (up 2.5 per cent) for the Coalition and 13.5 per cent (steady) for the Greens. The poll covers 1757 respondents from the last two weekends of face-to-face surveying.
[Space Kidette
Posted Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 6:27 pm | Permalink
Geewizz,
I thought your existence on this blog was on the basis that you did not troll on AS matters? Methinks it is time William acted on his ‘promise’ based on your obvious breach of this condition.]
SK I second third and 120 that…I do not mind getting chastised by William for having a difference of opinion with regulars PB’s but putting up with the fertiliser Truthie/Whizzie throws out is too much, plus it/she/he is a deceiving liar to boot.
Eliminate the Abbott worshiper I cry….
Mr Squiggle:
[If only the historical record supported you, I would agree with you.
The fact Howard and Ruddock stopped the baots – it is possible, and it can be done again]
Is there ANY evidence to show that those who are currently arriving, did not try earlier due to the existance of the Nauru detention center? Because to me it appears that people are confusing correlation with causation.
Just because a certain processing method was in use does not mean it was the cause of low number of boat arrivals. I could as easily say that getting rid of the Nauru detention center has increased rainfall in Australia. Indeed, the more boats arrive the more it seems to rain. The “evidence” for this is all around us 😛
SNIP: Threatening comment deleted – The Management.
[1203 David
Posted Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 6:44 pm | Permalink
GeeWizz
Posted Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 6:31 pm | Permalink
An expensive solution in search of a problem with zero evidence showing that it worked. zero.
2001 – 5500 Boatpeople
2002 – 1 Boatie
It worked, and it worked a treat.
Whizzie call them ‘ boat people’ one more time and I will personally show you what a boat person is and you will not enjoy the experience. Water boarding will take on childs play by comparison. How long can you hold your breath?
]
And if I made such a post I would be hung, drawn and quatered.
Truthie may be a dill, but seriously what you have said is simply not on.
[But ofcourse you would not want to highlight the wasteful spending of Howard of $500,000 per person in asylum.]
Per person cost is irrelevent. Total cost is relevent.
Even assuming the lefts often touted claim that the Pacific Solution cost ten times the amount per person than mainland processing:
70 Boatpeople arrivals per year(average of PS Years) x $500,000 = $50Million
4200 Boatpeople arrivals per year(what Aus now recieves under Gillard) x $50,000 = $310 Million Dollars
I can understand why the left constantly uses per person accounting, because the fact is the Pacific Solution was much much cheaper.
I looked up Claes Borgström on wiki and I suppose it is all in the translation but she is said to have said that “all men have a financial responsibility to pay for the effects of domestic violence.”
Although there are women who perpetrate DV on males and same-sex couples with DV in their relationships, the majority of DV is male to female and it costs an awful lot of money. Of course it is possible that by paying the extra tax some men may believe they have paid for the right to engage in DV. Maybe there should be an extra violence tax on everyone as a flat tax, and as men have higher earnings than females they would end up paying more.
Could this collective responsibility be extended? We have a Victims of Crime levy in SA on all court fines so we do have something like collective responsibility.
With all this correlation equalling causation mumbo jumbo, does everyone realise that our national Cricket Team has been in decline since Labor assumed office in 2007 and that it went into almost terminal decline when Gillard assumed office.
That we have won convincingly today has the Libs HQ in a frenzy.
That should read 6200 boatpeople for Gillard this year, my apoligies.
[I thought your existence on this blog was on the basis that you did not troll on AS matters? Methinks it is time William acted on his ‘promise’ based on your obvious breach of this condition.]
It was a bit more complicated than that. What I objected to was him barging on here to start “discussions” about asylum seekers apropos of little or nothing. If ever I boiled that down to “don’t discuss asylum seekers”, it was for the sake of simplicity. In the current circumstances, it would make little sense to forbid him from discussing asylum seekers without banning him altogether, which I’m not inclined to do because I don’t think his behaviour lately has been particularly obnoxious.
[Per person cost is irrelevent.]
Gee Wizz there you go. I have heard it all now. It is relevant to me I would love to be paid $500k by the govt.
But again I ask for your evidence of the cause and affect relationship of the Pacific solution policy. You don’t have any evidence whatsover because facts and evidence based analysis are against the grain of the coaltion policy formulation. the same applies to climated change- scientist throughout the world conduct analysis and weigh up the probabilites and come the conclusion that the earth is warming due to human induced climate change. what is the response of abbott – climate change is crap or to the former stop the boats. the coaltion operate via slogans and zero evidence.
From the Whizzer:
[2001 – 5500 Boatpeople
2002 – 1 Boatie
It worked, and it worked a treat.]
Some “treat”!
From The Sunday Age, July 2007:
[Revealed: how Howard’s plan threatened security
Tom Hyland
Sunday Age
July 22, 2007
THE Australian Navy’s war-fighting ability has been blunted by the Federal Government’s efforts to keep asylum seekers out — a policy so unpopular that some sailors have feigned illness or quit rather than enforce it.
Defence documents obtained by The Sunday Age reveal that sailors have deliberately avoided serving in the blockade, which was imposed by the Howard Government in the run-up to the 2001 election.
Six years on, the blockade that voters embraced remains deeply unpopular with navy crews — many of whom question the need for lengthy, pointless patrols off Australia’s north-west coast, as the influx of asylum seekers abated years ago.
More crucially, senior officers warn in the documents that using costly, sophisticated frigates on anti-asylum seeker operations is undermining key war-fighting skills — at a time when the navy has been involved in combat in Iraq and in support of the war on terrorism.
The efficiency of the navy’s most potent warships was deteriorating, maintenance standards were slipping, training was being neglected and war-fighting capability was being reduced, the officers warned.]
Ah yes, 2001 and 2002. Strangely enough the same people that make this argument seem to ignore the increase from years prior to 2001. Now why was there an increase? Did the Howard government make it more appealing to arrive by boat? Or was it external factors?
Greensborough Growler:
[With all this correlation equalling causation mumbo jumbo, does everyone realise that our national Cricket Team has been in decline since Labor assumed office in 2007 and that it went into almost terminal decline when Gillard assumed office.
That we have won convincingly today has the Libs HQ in a frenzy.]
Yes, this will be remembered in political history as a great turning point for the ALP 😀
[David
Posted Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 6:44 pm | Permalink
SNIP: Threatening comment deleted – The Management.
]
William,
Considering I reposted what you snipped you are quite within your rights to edit my post accordingly
William,
[I don’t think his behaviour lately has been particularly obnoxious.]
You call GW’s coming on this board right after PBers have witnessed vision of the deaths in the Christmas Island tragedy (leaving more than me in shock) to spout his asylum-seeker hatred and to use the shipwreck as a means to promote his vile ultra-conservative views ‘not particularly obnoxious’?
You and I have a different idea of ‘obnoxious’.
Actually I didn’t bring up the issue at all, someone else did with Tony Abbotts apparant interview on sky news which I haven’t seen as yet.
I’d be much more interested to see the next poll than talk about this issue anyways, Labor is in trouble in more ways then one.
[70 Boatpeople arrivals per year(average of PS Years) x $500,000 = $50Million…
I can understand why the left constantly uses per person accounting, because the fact is the Pacific Solution was much much cheaper.]
That’s just the per capita cost of keeping Nauru running during the Pacific solution, Whizzer. It is NOT the cost of the “Pacific Solution” as a whole.
Don’t forget little side issues like the cost of keeping Australia’s major naval defence assets doing the job and the myriad of other things involved. All up the Pacific solution cost well over a $1billion during the 6 years it was in operation
SNIP: Trolling deleted – The Management.
[Actually I didn’t bring up the issue at all, someone else did with Tony Abbotts apparant interview on sky news which I haven’t seen as yet.
I’d be much more interested to see the next poll than talk about this issue anyways, Labor is in trouble in more ways then one.]
I didn’t bring it up but I will insist on peddling lies and misinformation to further my cause in the meantime. Pull the other one buddy. And I wait patiently for your evidence.
[ David
Posted Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 7:05 pm | Permalink
Thankyou Puff I am obliged more than just myself take great exception to its comments.
The bully from the West is a mere wet flannel by comparison.
]
I see you haven’t learnt from post 816 🙂
Pity.
Rod
[All up the Pacific solution cost well over a $1billion during the 6 years it was in operation]
That money could have been used to help so many refugees in constructive ways. What a shameful, criminal waste.
[That money could have been used to help so many refugees in constructive ways. What a shameful, criminal waste.]
A royal commission into the Pacific Solution is required.
[ David
Posted Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 7:05 pm | Permalink
The bully from the West is a mere wet flannel by comparison.
]
Says he who was snipped by William for doing to GW what he has described me as 🙂
[You call GW’s coming on this board right after PBers have witnessed vision of the deaths in the Christmas Island tragedy (leaving more than me in shock) to spout his asylum-seeker hatred …]
I’ve just reviewed GW’s contributions over the past few days to check if this charge held water. At first it clearly did not. His ire was directed at the government, “the left”, “weak border protection policies” and “the boatpeople industry” – legitimate targets all (although you may well detect dog-whistling in the latter). But I notice that he’s progressively starting to push the envelope with “boaties”, “blow in’s from Indonesia”, and “boatpeople (who) are violating our right to decide the most needy”. No doubt he’ll bowl a clear no ball pretty soon.
[… and to use the shipwreck as a means to promote his vile ultra-conservative views ‘not particularly obnoxious’?]
I do agree it would have been tasteful if people had observed a period of dignified silence before making political mileage out of the tragedy. David Marr, Ian Rintoul and Pamela Curr, take note. That the arguments GW was pursuing were “ultra-conservative” is no concern of mine.
Possum analysed asylum seeker data last year and came to some conclusions:
[This tells us that those carping on about Pull Factors as being the dominant effect, are engaging in a few pull factors of their own. The Australian and New Zealand experiences are highly correlated in a very strong statistically significant way. This is the exact opposite of what would occur were our respective domestic policies the dominant influence on our respective asylum seeker numbers.]
[Again, a strong correlation. Not as strong as that between New Zealand and Australia which share the same regional dynamics, but strong none-the-less, suggesting that even regional differences get swamped by larger trends in global asylum seeker supply numbers.
Those folks promoting “Pull Factors” as being the dominant influence of total asylum seeker numbers are, quite simply, wrong.]
[While Pull Factors most likely have some relatively small effect on boat numbers, they are simply swamped – overwhelmingly swamped – by Push Factors.]
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/10/19/push-vs-pull-asylum-seeker-numbers-and-statistics/
For the logically challenged (this means you, Truthy), pull factors include changes in asylum seeker policies.
Howard paid refugees to go home or face the prospect of rotting in detention centres.
[The controversial scheme meant asylum-seekers held as part of the Pacific Solution on Nauru and Manus Island were given $2000 each, or $10,000 per family, as well as airfares and the promise of counselling and job training to abandon their claim for protection and return home.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
.End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
The offer, which had a 28-day limit, was made on condition they relinquish any claims for asylum.
Australia’s Department of Immigration yesterday confirmed that 11 people, who took the package, had made the return journey since September last year.
Nine have been granted protection, with the remaining two awaiting a decision.
A further eight people given a now-defunct temporary protection visa, who voluntarily returned home without the inducement, were among the latest boat arrivals — and most have been granted refugee status in the past few months.
Refugee advocates have defended the decision of the people to return to Australia and the decision of the Rudd government to grant them protection.
Edmund Rice Centre director Phil Glendenning, who authored a report on the voluntary returnees in 2002, said the Howard government had misled the former Pacific Solution detainees who took the money.
“At the time, they were all told that it was safe to go back, that the coalition forces had overthrown the Taliban in Afghanistan,” he said.
“But history has proven that to be a lie. It was not safe then and it is even less safe now.”]
[Mr Glendenning, who interviewed former asylum-seekers in Afghanistan and other countries, said at least nine Afghans who took the package were later killed.
Most were from the Hazara minority, and one of the voluntary returnees was reportedly killed near the Afghan capital, Kabul, in April.
Mr Glendenning said his contacts and research indicated that there were possibly hundreds more Afghans who took the 2002 package now wanting to return to Australia to claim asylum.
“We know there are scores of these people, possibly hundreds, who have escaped Afghanistan and are now in hiding in Indonesia and Pakistan,” he said.
“All of these people should not have been sent back.”
Former Afghan refugee Chaman Nasiri — held on Nauru for three years — said he had spoken to people on Christmas Island who had made a second voyage after returning home in 2002.
Mr Nasiri said the Howard government had given the detainees very little choice and had assured them it was safe to go back to Afghanistan. “They were told to take the money and go home because they were not going to get protection and would be forced back anyway,” he said. “They were told it was safe, but it wasn’t.
“I didn’t take it because I didn’t want to take the risk again of going on a boat, I was willing to die in the camp.
“But many others had families, they had different circumstances, they went home but then they risked their lives again.”]
GeeWizz @ 1050,
[There are 5 Billion poor people in the world.
How many are you housing at your place?
Australia has a set level of 13,500 humanitarian positions per year, Australia should be deiciding from the camps which ones we want to take. The people smugglers and boatpeople are violating our right to decide the most needy.]
You sound like a real piece of work, odious in the extreme. You would do well to read some of what the Liberal Party’s Petro Georgiou said in June:
[That chapter has been reopened.
Regression has become the order of the day. With an increase in boat arrivals, asylum seekers are being subjected to increasingly virulent attacks. The Labor Government has frozen the processing of Afghani and Sri Lankan asylum seekers, and is reopening the Curtin detention centre, historically the most notorious detention centre, a place of despair and self harm.
Opposition policies would turn back boats, process asylum seekers in undisclosed third countries, and restore the destructive temporary protection visas. These policies are cruel. They do not have my support.
This regression does not reflect credit on either side of federal politics. Vulnerable people are again being made into a football to be kicked around in the interests of partisan politics. This is despite the facts and the best values of our society.
The fact is, Australia’s punitive approach did not deter people seeking to come to Australia. Mandatory detention, charging asylum seekers for the cost of their detention, the introduction of temporary protection visas and the Pacific Solution did not deter.
After mandatory detention was introduced, boat arrivals increased. After temporary protection visas were introduced, boat arrivals increased. Most of the people subjected to the Pacific Solution were found to be refugees and resettled in Australia and New Zealand. We have not lost control of our borders. People smugglers do not determine who comes into Australia and who doesn’t.
We can support orderly processes; we can warn people against people smugglers and risking their lives on unseaworthy boats. We have to realise, however, that escaping from persecution is not an orderly process. Desperate people do take desperate measures. Beyond the arguments about deterrence and what causes what, however, is a deeper issue.
It goes to our obligations. I believe we have a fundamental obligation as a nation. That obligation is to not further harm those who bring themselves into our orbit of responsibility seeking safe haven.
We should not, as Australians, compound the persecution of genuine refugees, delaying their processing, locking them up in unnamed third countries or keeping them in permanent insecurity on temporary protection visas.
I once said to journalist Michael Gordon that “in life there are many things that you’d like to walk past and not notice. Lots. But sometimes you do notice and when you notice, you have to do something”. Well I have noticed some things, and I have tried not to walk past.
Progress is not inevitable, it requires commitment. There are setbacks and regression but I leave this place still optimistic that Australians will seek and find in their representatives declarations and deeds that elevate hope above fear, tolerance above prejudice and that they may be proud of laws made by Parliamentarians and the contribution they make to help build a fair, decent and civil society for quickly coming generations. We here each bear a responsibility for our nation’s calling and our nation’s standing.
It has been a profound honour to serve the nation as a Member of the Australian Parliament. I am proud to have been a part of this place, during time. Thank you.]
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/06/03/petro-georgiou-regression-has-become-the-order-of-the-day/
[RETAIL mogul Solomon Lew has accused the Gillard government of backing overseas retailers on the issue of the GST loophole in some online shopping.]
And where were these bozos when the Coalition were in power? 😡
[7. If Indonesia became a signatory to UNHCR it may well be an option to East Timor.]
The negotiations for Indonesian acceptance seem to be on track, Gaffhook.
From the current “rundown” at http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/page?page=49e488116
[In Indonesia, UNHCR is helping the Government to prepare for its planned accession to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol. Efforts to build national capacity have been advanced by a programme of country-wide training sessions and awareness-raising activities. A steady rise in the number of new arrivals has prompted UNHCR to enhance its protection capacity in various sites across the country.]
The difficulty there, though, is that Indonesia already has its own massive internal ‘displaced persons” problems , together with tens of thousands of refugees from east timor still in West Timor.
Malaysia , another possible contender if it was a signatory, at the end of 2009, already had some 171,000 refugees to handle (Mostly from Myanmar and the Phillipines, but also a sizeable group of 17,000 from Indonesia! – makes our “problems” look completely trivial, eh! ).
The simple reality is that most of the larger countries in the region have refugee and displaced persons issues to deal with which make our own look trivial in the extreme. In many cases they may well have more to gain than us from a proper “regional solution”, but , of course this also means that its development may well mean that their needs will need to take precedence over our own.
[Solomon Lew]
The desire to make piles of money for people for people like Lew and Gerry Harvey is insatiable.
Australians have been ripped of for decades on books, music, clothing, electronic items etc. It’s about time he consumer had a fair go.
Unfortunately the federal government will IMO bow to the rich and powerful and force ordinary consumers to pay an import duty even if purchasing just one or two DVDs.
[ Dee
Posted Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 7:45 pm | Permalink
RETAIL mogul Solomon Lew has accused the Gillard government of backing overseas retailers on the issue of the GST loophole in some online shopping.
And where were these bozos when the Coalition were in power?
]
They are only whinging cos of the parity with the US Dollar.
[Naurians live on the island quite peacefully and happily.]
Ah, so we are sending the wretches AS to a Pacific Paradise. They dont deserve such luxury. Better than the Adelaide Hill?
[The Leader of The Opposition Tony Abbott has slammed the Federal Government’s decision to build a detention centre for asylum seekers in the “idyllic” setting of Adelaide Hills.
Mr Abbott visited the popular holiday destination earlier today and was welcomed by angry residents who are furious over the Government’s decision to house asylum seekers in the area.
Mr Abbott said Abbott plans to build the detention centre in the Adelaide Hills is effectively telling asylum seekers that the “red-carpet treatment is available”.
“The idyllic surrounds of the Adelaide Hills will only encourage asylum seekers to try and make it to Australia” he said.]
Rod Hagen and others
There has been enough information posted on PB today to make a good case to Labor to change its policy on asylum seekers.
Why is it that this info is either not “available” to both govt and oppn, or both sides ignore it.
I can understand Abbott’s Libs not wanting to listen, but surely the evidence on regional pressures, push factors, etc. would be given to Ministers?
They should be brave and SAY it.
The msm appears to ignore it, too, but we expect that, don’t we.
[Just as a side note, this behavior by BofA stands in stark contrast to the what the bank’s founder, Amadeo Giannini, did during the last Great Depression when homeowners fell behind in the mortgage payments. Giannini told them to pay what they could and to at least make the interest portion of their payment. That move alone saved the homes of tens of thousands of San Franciscans, including my immigrant grand parents.
Todays leaders at the bank turned Giannini’s actions on its head. Instead of helping home owners, BofA pocketed $37 billion of the $45 billion in federal bailout funds then led delinquent borrows straight to the slaughterhouse.
What we have here, when you take in the whole landscape, is Bank of America and the US Justice Dept. on the same side. Both want WikiLeaks shut down and shut up — and both for the same reason — WikiLeaks is giving average folk a rare peek into exactly what these two giants are up to.
And now that we’ve seen some of their documents, we can see why they want WikiLeaks out of business, and out of mind.]
http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframerss.php?linkid=1083
Tom @1230,
I think the government has asked the Producivity Commission to review this issue for one very good reason.
The Commission will report back that it is not cost effective to change the current legislation. When revenue return from any change is measured against the cost involved in compliance and collection of the GST it will be clear, in simple terns, that any change is not worth the effort.
This will be the basis to support the argument that no change is necessary. The government would already have advice from the ATO to this effect and this is just another confirnmation of that fact.
Would be interesting to see how the big retailers would respond to any productivity commission investigation into profit margins on imported goods sold in their domestic outlets. Might be a different sort of rage.
lizzie
Posted Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 8:12 pm | Permalink
Rod Hagen and others
“There has been enough information posted on PB today to make a good case to Labor to change its policy on asylum seekers.”
rubbish
read labor’s polisy , not Liberals or Greens or MSN distortions of it
[No doubt he’ll bowl a clear no ball pretty soon.]
Ghee Whizz,
Why can’t innocent asylum-seekers sail to Australia, if they want? They are just seeking a new life and we have so much to give?
Ron
I’m afraid you misunderstood me, because I had been discussing this earlier.
I was not suggesting that Labor policy change towards Lib policy. I was suggesting that they could move further towards a more humanitarian stance, not in any way give in to Abbott’s nasty attitude.
[Unfortunately the federal government will IMO bow to the rich and powerful and force ordinary consumers to pay an import duty even if purchasing just one or two DVDs.]
If Gilliards performance in backing an Aust citizen Julian Assange is anything to go by she will side with the rich and powerful in this situation aswell. For services to world journalism and freedom of the press Julian Assange should recieve an Aust day award vs the normal sychophants in that list.
[ the spectator
Posted Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 8:31 pm | Permalink
Unfortunately the federal government will IMO bow to the rich and powerful and force ordinary consumers to pay an import duty even if purchasing just one or two DVDs.
If Gilliards performance in backing an Aust citizen Julian Assange is anything to go by she will side with the rich and powerful in this situation aswell. For services to world journalism and freedom of the press Julian Assange should recieve an Aust day award vs the normal sychophants in that list.
]
What a load of tosh.
Assange is no more a hero than Saddam Hussien.
lizzie @ 1233,
[There has been enough information posted on PB today to make a good case to Labor to change its policy on asylum seekers.
Why is it that this info is either not “available” to both govt and oppn, or both sides ignore it.]
Because the ALP are shameless. Unfortunately a lot of Labor supporters do believe the ALP give a shit about the vulnerable when in truth they like sinking the boot into them just as much as the Libs to appear “tough”, i.e. boat people, welfare quarantining etc.
Frank @ 1240,
[Assange is no more a hero than Saddam Hussien.]
That statement says it all about you really.
Adam
I worry over that. They have no need to take a tough attitude. That’s what I meant when I said there was enough evidence for them to defend a more humanitarian atance. They don’t have to give in to the Libs criticisms.
[ Adam
Posted Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 8:36 pm | Permalink
Frank @ 1240,
Assange is no more a hero than Saddam Hussien.
That statement says it all about you really.
]
See my post at 816.
It applies to you as well.
[Assange is no more a hero than Saddam Hussien.]
Name one person Assange has tortured, murdered, comitted genocide toward? As I guessed you can’t.
[ lizzie
Posted Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 8:38 pm | Permalink
Adam
I worry over that. They have no need to take a tough attitude. That’s what I meant when I said there was enough evidence for them to defend a more humanitarian atance. They don’t have to give in to the Libs criticisms.
]
In an ideal world yes – vbut we aren’t living in one.
I’m afraid the Truthies and the racist underbelly would elect an Abbott Govt in a heartbeat.
Sad, but true.
There is no reason why we should not help our fellow man. The approach taken by the Liberals is abhorrent. If we reach out with the hand of friendship, I am afraid about what this says about Australians.
[the spectator
Posted Sunday, December 19, 2010 at 8:40 pm | Permalink
Assange is no more a hero than Saddam Hussien.
Name one person Assange has tortured, murdered, comitted genocide toward? As I guessed you can’t.
]
816 applies to you as well.
Sorry that should read if we dont reach out with the hand of friendship…
I suppose it really depends on who you are when you pass on classified information.
[Rosen and his AIPAC colleague Keith Weissman were charged under the Espionage Act in 2003, after the FBI made the case that they had obtained classified information from Pentagon employee Larry Franklin and passed it on to Israeli diplomats and to journalist Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post.
In 2005, the two men were fired by AIPAC in spite of initial pledges of support. The trial, sometimes referred to as AIPACgate, dragged on until May 1, 2009, when it was finally dismissed after the government could not make its case due to adverse decisions by the presiding Judge T. S. Ellis, possibly acting under pressure from the White House to end the proceedings.
At the time, as the centerpiece of his defense, Rosen claimed somewhat ominously that passing classified information obtained from government contacts was business as usual in Washington. He asked that high level witnesses including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, former Defense Department officials Paul D. Wolfowitz and Douglas J. Feith, and Richard L. Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state all be called on to testify that confidential information was frequently given to AIPAC for discreet passage to the Israeli Embassy.]
http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=123756