Top scientist on trial for treason

Barton Rosser
Staff Reporter

A top federal scientist who worked for both the Department of Energy and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was arrested on espionage and suspected treason charges last week. Stewart Nozette, age 52, was charged with “attempted espionage for knowingly and willfully attempting to communicate, deliver, and transmit classified information relating to the national defense of the United States to an individual that he believed to be an Israeli intelligence officer.” Nozette was caught by a federal sting operation. He believed that he was selling classified governmental secrets to an agent of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence bureau, but the man was actually an undercover Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) operative. The FBI stressed on multiple occasions that there was no reason to suspect Israel had anything to do with the crime, and that Nozette had not successfully contacted anyone from Mossad. Nozette demanded large sums of cash as well as an Israeli passport in exchange for various governmental secrets.
Nozette previously held top security clearances in both governmental agencies, and was involved in the recent mission by NASA to launch a rocket at the moon in search of water. He also had access to sensitive nuclear information from the Department of Energy. Some of this was part of the information package he attempted to sell to Israel. He also offered access to information on U.S. satellite technology, which he had due to his tenure at NASA. Nozette had been a federal employee for at least 20 years, serving on the White House’s National Space Council in 1989, and eventually becoming a top advisor for several agencies. He was also a Department of Defense “critical nuclear weapons design” team member.
Nozette first came to the FBI’s attention when he failed to return from an overseas business trip with several flash drives full of information. That coupled with the fact that he served as a private consultant for an Israeli government owned company, led to his being put under surveillance. A colleague of Nozette has also testified that Nozette planned to defect to Israel if he ever got into trouble with the U.S. government.
Over the course of two months, several phone calls were exchanged with the undercover agent whom Nozette believed to be his Israeli contact. After negotiating a fee, Nozette met the agent and handed over information classified as Secret to the undercover FBI team. Under the federal guidelines for information classification, information that has been classified as Secret would cause “serious damage” to national security if released to unauthorized personnel. For this transfer, he was paid $2,000 in cash. After this exchange, Nozette then offered to reveal even more sensitive information, including nuclear weapons secrets, and alleged military spacecraft. His first court appearance before a Grand Jury was last Wednesday, Oct. 21.

The American life: Regulation & Reform

Jeanne Sullivan
Staff Columnist

With America dealing with harsh economic times, how can anyone think regulation of financial institutions is bad? Personally, I believe the financial sector could use more regulation even in good times. I am not suggesting government take over of the financial sector, or taking away any of the “special” elements that contribute to our capitalistic society, but I am suggesting responsibility—whether it be responsibility that is forced from the government, or responsibility that is accepted because the financial institutions-- responsibility is the missing factor in the U.S. economy.
If the United States government started placing regulations on lending practices and perks/benefits no one would be harmed. In fact, many people would be saved and financial crisises could perhaps be avoided. Let’s keep in mind that one part of the financial debacle America finds itself in is irresponsible spending on behalf of the people.
However, we must keep in mind that it was the financial institutions that gave out ridiculous loans to people who quite obviously could not afford the loans are also at fault.
Those banks gave the American people rope to hang themselves with—simply because of the addiction to spending this country has.
Financial institutions pleaded with the government for bailout money… and what do they do with it? They play games with the money. Instead of giving “bonuses” they give excessive perks. According to “The Washington Post”, after financial institutions received the $350 billion in federal bailout funds, they increased their executive perks four percent. “The Washington Post” showed how executives like Ralph W. Babb, Jr. (Comerica), was compensated for a new country club membership and how GMAC Financial Service’s Alvaro de Molina received $2.5 million from his business to cover his own tax bills.
How can people criticize Congress about irresponsible spending when America’s largest financial institutions—that have been kept afloat by taxpayer money—irresponsibly spend without the government restricting them?
American’s love the invisible hands that lead the economy. What the blind lovers of capitalism don’t realize is that unless businesses start spending and acting more responsibly, the concept of “free market” will only imprison anyone who is not at the top. Sure competition is good, but that doesn’t mean executives can have a free pass to get ridiculous bonuses and perks.
Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) put things in a simple and (seemingly) obvious way: “When the government is giving massive amounts of money and these people [would have been] out on the street, the rules are different.”
The rules must be different and if financial institutions are accepting government bailout funds, then they should embrace the new rules that come with the green. Companies like CIT (who cut 22 percent of its staff in 2008, and yet gorges itself with perks and benefits) need to be put in place with more government regulation.
This way, competition can still flourish, and bailout money can be used in ways that don’t just add to the comforts of executive life.

Point/Counterpoint: Violence Beget Violence?

Live and Let Die

Carmelo Chimera
Managing Editor

With Halloween upon us, our movie theaters are inundated with horror movies. In the past month and a half America has raced to the box office for thrills and chills in “Halloween 2”, “Sorority Row” and, as with every Halloween, the latest film the in the “Saw” franchise.
America has been called “the culture of death” by members of the Roman Catholic Church, a stereotype that seems to be confirmed by the huge box office intake of these horror movies. But this is not a phenomenon historically unique to America, and I believe it is not indicative of any sort of inherent perversion in our culture.
Historians will recall that people have enjoyed violence as entertainment since the time of gladiators and even before. But unlike those times, our culture is only celebrating fake violence. These movies are for entertainment, and while they may hold a special attraction to people who are predisposed to violence, it does not mean that one must be mentally unsettled to enjoy them. To deny that violence is part of human nature is a huge mistake, and these movies are actually a healthy outlet.
But it’s not just about the violence, or about getting kicks off of human suffering. In the words of Tobin Bell, star of the “Saw” franchise, “It’s visceral...a truly physical experience.”
What Bell is saying is that when you watch a horror movie, you typically do not just sit back and watch. Your heart accelerates, you forget to breathe and you clutch your armrests until your knuckles turn white.
America is not sick for enjoying horror movies...it’s just giving in to human nature.

Violence too pervasive

Vincenzo Chimera
Staff Reporter

This past weekend I went to see the latest installment of the “Saw” franchise. As fans of the series have come to expect there were plenty of incredibly violent moments. While I am a fan of many horror and action films, it is a bit troubling to me that such films are so well received. Over the years audiences have become more and more desensitized. It seems that horror films in particular have grown increasingly more violent over the years.
This line of reasoning goes back to the age-old argument of whether such violence on film can translate to violence in real life. I don’t feel that this is the case. I think that people should be accountable for their actions, not some video game or film. However brutal films can be an outlet for those with violent tendencies. I believe the same principle applies to pornography. The serial killer Ted Bundy stated before his execution that while he was responsible for the murders he committed, he conceded that viewing pornography at an early age led him in a destructive direction.
I am not saying that censorship should be increased. What I am saying is that as a society we need to look for violent tendencies, especially among the youth. This is up to the parents of our society. I understand that this is no easy task for parents. It can sometimes be impossible to tell what children are truly thinking. However what parents can do is talk to their children. Listening to what they have to say is essential to targeting dangerous tendencies and working through them as a family. I also feel that cliques in society are extremely dangerous and can lead children in particular to violent acts. People need to be treated with respect; that’s all there is to it.