Skip to comments.Israel And Freedom For Jonathan Pollard
Posted on 04/28/2005 1:50:07 PM PDT by IsraelBeach
click here to read article
Oh, cry me a river. They should have executed this b@stard the day after he was convicted.
Friends don't meddle in friends criminal justice system. Is Israel our friend? Then shut up about the traitor Pollard.
I would have nothing against his corpse being returned. But let him first peg out.
He needs to be put in with the general population.
My only regret is that Jane Fonda should be there with him.
"Friends don't meddle in friends criminal justice system. Is Israel our friend? Then shut up about the traitor Pollard."
This is not about "criminal justice." If it was, Pollard would have been released a long time ago. This is about politics. The US uses Pollard to say: "don't tread on us" as many Russian and other enemy spies have been released in less than half the time Pollard served.
For those of you who wish Pollard dead, I can only thank the guy for pointing out to Israeli intel where the Iranian nuclear reactor "was"! The US govt didn't do that. Nor take it out. Today, we face another Iranian threat here in Israel.
Times have changed. Cooperation between Israel and the US has never been better, so why screw Pollard for the mistakes made by US and Israeli governments 20 years ago?
Has anyone here ever served time in prison - for 20 years???
Where does the word "humanitarian" kick in?
Let it rest. Let it be.
Kill this issue rather than provide PR and divide and conquer strategy to Islamic terrorists.
Here's how it should be "settled". Israel should apologize to the citizens of the USA for its egregious espionage practices, Pollard should serve out his sentence, then go to Israel and be a big hero. He won't be welcome here anymore.
Pollard's damned lucky he didn't get the Rosenberg treatment. As far as I'm concerned, he should have.
Friends in the intel biz said there is evidence that Pollard did not act alone; he never gave up his accomplices. Furthermore, some of the info that he supplied to the Israelis ended up in Moscow at the height of the Cold War. Maybe someone decided to make a few extra bucks by re-selling it. As an American and a Jew I say: he betrayed my country, and Israel should remember who her friends are. Pollard should serve his sentence. I fully support Israel, but this guy committed treason. Turning on your most important ally has serious consequences.
Pollard should stay in jail. One word can get you 5 years in jail -- and Pollard was made aware of this rule. He should not have accepted the job if he couldn't live up to the terms of the security clearance. A whole briefcase of stuff is more than enough for life in prison.
I knew that this thread would get some of you going ;>
Nothing like a bit of spice on a slow Thursday night - Friday morning in Israel.
I must also compliment Free Republic for posting in red: "loose lips sink ships" - they are very right.
Pollard was not the problem, sharing intel was.
Does the CIA spy on Israel?
Ok - let's not go there :>
Jonathon Pollard was free until he chose to betray his country; now he's not free. Seems simple enough.
What fools they are! They show themselves as sniveling cowards.
"Israel And Freedom For Jonathan Pollard..."
Jon boy Hair shirt upchuck hurl alert!!!!
"Obviously there are many Jewish Freepers who work in the Beltway and in the DOD related establishment who have been quick to spit better bile and curses on Pollard.
What fools they are! They show themselves as sniveling cowards."
Or, maybe Americans first, Jewish second??
And Sandy Berger will pay $10,000 for stealing and destroying top secret docs.
Your argument will get no sympathy here. Pollard is a traitor. When a man betrays his country it is the worst possible act a human being can do, with the exception of child molestation. But betraying your country is on par with molesting children. Pollard should rot in prison. The only way he comes out is in the back of a hearse.
WORD OF CAUTION:
This thread was NOT created to divide Americans and Israelis!
This is a warm, rational discussion between the very best of friends.
Please keep it this way, no personal attacks or pathos flowing.
FYI - Pollard is about to be released, probably after the next natural disaster strikes in Asia with the release placed on page 16 of your local paper:
(also a swap between CIA agents held in Israel to be released at same time - THAT WAS A JOKE ;> )
Apr. 16, 2005 10:04 | Updated Apr. 16, 2005 23:49
Israeli envoy to visit Pollard soon
By JPOST.COM STAFF
Israeli Ambassador to the United States Danny Ayalon may visit in the near future Jonathan Pollard, who has been incarcerated for over 20 years after being convicted of spying for Israel.
According to Army Radio, Deputy Minister Orit Noked (Labor), who spoke with Ayalon on Friday night, said the visit would be the opening shot for examining Pollard's release procedure.
Over the weekend, it was reported that the US administration might soon release Pollard in an attempt to soften the right wing battle against the disengagement plan, scheduled for this summer.
Last month, the Knesset passed a resolution demanding that the government make the release of Pollard a condition for Israel's freeing of Palestinian prisoners.
It also called on the government to demand that the US immediately release Pollard on humanitarian grounds because of his long prison service and his deteriorating health.
The resolution, drafted by the National Union, Shas and National Religious Party, noted that Israel has recognized Pollard as an Israeli agent who acted loyally for the security of its citizens. MK Yitzhak Levy (NRP) said Israel was being asked by the US to make gestures to the Palestinians.
The PA's first demand is that Israel release prisoners, he said. But there was "one Jewish prisoner rotting in jail," and the "friendly superpower that is asking us to give mercy to terrorists here is not willing to give us the same mercy."
Levy called on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to "show the same kind of courage" he has displayed on his plan to evacuate "Jews and settlements," and to "not release a single prisoner until Pollard is in Israel."
Nina Gilbert contributed to this report
"WORD OF CAUTION:
This thread was NOT created to divide Americans and Israelis!
This is a warm, rational discussion between the very best of friends.
Please keep it this way, no personal attacks or pathos flowing."
WTH do you mean?
No, it doesn't work that way. Clearly his sentence is disproportonate, but I don't lose much sleep about Pollard. The problem is our leniency with everyone else. I'll just repost one of my previous comments.
It's clear his sentence is disproportionate, though within the legal guidelines for the crime.
The real issue should be the release of the information leading to his sentencing, then wed know if justice was done, no disrespect meant to the many freepers who have access to this classified info and discuss it on internet forums. According to the NIS, its been declassified since the early 90s. Interestingly his long standing attorney, Ted Olson, for whom I have a great deal of respect, supports its release, and thinks it would lead to his release. Joe DeGenova, the prosecutor, supports its release, and thinks it would end the controversy over his life sentence once and for all.
Secret evidence is sometimes necessary, but also the antithesis of our legal system. Weinbergers letter to the judge, and the facts surrounding it should be made public.
Old articles, but IMO, two of the better descriptions of the issues.
Pollard Has Been Punished Enough
March 8, 1994 - Theodore Olson, Esq. - The Wall St. Journal
It is plain than columnist Al Hunt and the anti-Pollard faction within the Clinton administration for whom he is giving voice do not like Jonathan Pollard (President Clinton, Dont Free the Traitor Pollard, February 24). But his rationale for opposing clemency is mostly misinformation and ignorance, and his conclusion implicitly concedes the shallowness of his convictions.
As Mr. Pollards attorney, I offer these counterbalancing facts:
First, the matter of motives and money. Mr. Hunts carefully chosen litany of phrases such as big bucks, well-paid and well-heeled produces a profoundly false impression. As Mr. Hunt knows, Mr. Pollard sought out the Israelis and volunteered to give, not sell, information to Israel about nuclear, chemical and biological weapons under construction by Iraq and others for use against Israel. Six months down the line, Pollard was persuaded to accept paltry sums - pocket change compared with what Washington journalists routinely receive for weekend television appearances. Intelligence services know that it is impossible to control idealists - and it is standard procedure to corrupt them with money. Mr. Pollard was wrong to acquiesce, but everyone who has studied the record objectively knows that he acted as he did because he could not stand the implications of silence in the face of another Holocaust, not for money.
Second, Mr. Hunt repeatedly uses the term traitor. That word describes one who commits treason, the only crime considered so egregious that is mentioned in our Constitution. It is defined by law as committing war against the U.S. or aiding its enemies. It is punishable by death. Mr. Pollard did not commit, nor was he charged with, treason. Even the government has admitted that is use of the word treason and traitor to describe Mr. Pollard was wrong and regrettable. The court that reviewed Mr. Pollards case, whose opinion Mr. Hunt quotes, said that the traitor could justifiably be called rank hyperbole.
Third, Mr. Hunts comparison of Mr. Pollard to the Aldrich Ames case is appalling. Mr. Ames allegedly aided the Soviet Union when they were implacable enemies of the U.S.: Mr. Pollard helped one of our closest allies. Mr. Ames is said to have betrayed American agents: Mr. Pollard told Israel about instruments of mass destruction against Jews. Mr. Ames purportedly took millions of dollars and was motivated by greed: Mr. Pollard gave defensive information to save a people that had been nearly exterminated 50 years ago. What can Mr. Hunt be thinking?
Fourth, Mr. Hunt has mischaracterized the court decision regarding the governments violation of the Pollard plea bargain. Mr. Pollards appeal was rejected as untimely, not because it was lacking in merit. All three judges who considered the appeal expressed considerable skepticism concerning the governments conduct. One of the three went so far as to call Mr. Pollards treatment a fundamental miscarriage of justice.
The fact is that the government blatantly betrayed Mr. Pollard and its written contract with him. It made three promises, and broke them all. It agreed to represent to the sentencing judge that Mr. Pollards cooperation had been of considerable value to enforcement of the espionage laws, but did precisely the opposite, denigrating the value and motivation for that compensation - listing it among factors compelling a substantial sentence. It promised to limit its sentencing argumentation to the facts and circumstances of Mr. Pollards offense, but instead heaped savage vituperation on his motives on his motives, character and arrogance. Finally, it agreed not to seek a sentence of life in prison, but obtained exactly such a sentence by, among other things, demanding a sentence commensurate with the crime of treason.
Fifth, Mr. Hunt rejects as bogus and irrelevant the assertion that Mr. Pollards sentence was excessive. He could not be more wrong. Mr. Pollard has served more than eight years, mostly in solitary confinement in the nations harshest prison. No one who gave defense information to an ally has ever been punished so severely. The government did not even charge him with harming or having reason to know that his actions would harm the U.S. Once again, Mr. Hunt has outpaces Mr. Pollards prosecutors by pressing to maintain a level of punishment that the prosecutors promised not to seek.
Sixth, it is curious that Mr. Hunt thinks that the information Mr. Pollard gave away was so sensitive that officials still insist they cant provide specifics. What officials? The Office of Naval Intelligence has said that much of Mr. Pollards information was declassified during the Gulf War. Mr. Pollards chief prosecutor has urged publicly that it all be declassified.
Finally, after all of Mr. Hunts rhetoric, his main grievance seems to be that Israel has failed to come clean and acknowledge what a despicable act Pollard performed. If it did so, he concludes, then clemency [would] be in order. This is an amazing conclusion because Mr. Pollard himself has admitted that what he did was wrong and has expressed great remorse for his actions. And two successive Israeli prime ministers have put in writing formal requests for mercy - not forgiveness - for the Pollard affair. The significance of these extraordinary official requests cannot have been lost on President Clinton - who, incidentally, may not be anxious to acknowledge publicly that the U.S. has spied on Israel. What more does Mr. Hunt want? Some sort of Chinese Communist public act of self-abasement?
There is more, but too little space to say it all. Defense Secretary-nominee Bobby Inman has publicly admitted that he cut off Israel from promised defensive information as retaliation for Israels destruction of Iraqs nuclear reactors. (Maybe Mr. Hunt can tell us how many America soldiers would have died in the Persian Gulf had Israel not taken that action.) Mr. Pollard stepped into the breach and opened the spigot that Mr. Inman had closed. He had no right to do so, but voices as diverse as Cardinal Law, Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, Benjamin Hooks, Father Drinan, Sen. Carol Mosely-Braun, Pat Robertson, dozens of Members of Congress, the city councils of New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, and two Israeli prime ministers have pleaded for an end to his punishment. Apparently many officials at State, Justice and the White House now agree.
The fundamental issue is when we can stop punishing a man who broke the law to expose a massive, malignant and malicious arms buildup so that a beleaguered people could defend themselves from weapons of terror and mass destruction. It might take some courage from President Clinton to do the right thing, but Mr. Pollard has been punished enough.
Theodore B. Olson is the former lead attorney for Jonathan Pollard.
Theodore B. Olsen Esq.
The document below was written by a former Pollard attorney, Theodore Olsen, to counter a 1993 NJCRAC position paper on the Pollard case. The document is as relevant today as when it was originally written. Many of the old lies that it deals with are still being circulated today by the same Jewish sources.
Mr. Lawrence Rubin
Executive Vice Chairman - NJCRAC
National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council
443 Park Avenue South
New York New York 10016-7322
April 9, 1993
RE: Jonathan J. Pollard
Dear Mr. Rubin:
As you know, we represent Jonathan J. Pollard. We have received a copy of the Jerome Chanes NJCRAC memorandum of March 23, 1993 disseminated to NJCRAC and CJF member agencies entitled "The Pollard Case: Myths and Facts." The Chanes memorandum states that it is intended to "provide accurate information" about the "substantive issues" involved in the Pollard case. However, it contains many materially inaccurate and damaging statements concerning Mr. Pollard and his case. We therefore request that you circulate this letter as soon as possible to all of the member agencies that received the Chanes memorandum
1. Pattern of Misrepresentation
The "Myths and Facts" memorandum states that there has been an "unfortunate pattern of misrepresentation" concerning the Pollard case. This regrettable and entirely gratuitous innuendo is apparently intended to accuse Mr. Pollard's supporters of misrepresentations. It is not true. Naturally, in any highly visible case such as this involving many people working to achieve a common objective, there may be misconceptions that develop. But the Pollard supporters have made every effort to supply scrupulously accurate information concerning his case. In fact, the NJCRAC memorandum contains more errors and misleading perceptions than anything we have seen. That is why it is so important for you to correct it by distributing this response.
2. Disproportionality of sentence
Mr. Pollard's sentence of life in prison is grossly disproportionate to punishments in comparable cases. Your wholly inaccurate and distorted rejection of this fact ignores both the facts and fundamental principles of our criminal justice system.
You assert that "comparisons between Pollard's sentence and sentences meted out to others . . . are inappropriate," and that such an analysis of the proportionality of Mr. Pollard's sentence is improper as a jurisprudential matter. That, of course, is nonsense It is a fundamental principle of justice and jurisprudence that the law should treat similarly situated individuals similarly and that punishments, insofar as possible, should be relatively equal and proportionate. The fact that Mr. Pollard's sentence is completely out of scale with those imposed for comparable offenses is a highly salient consideration in his efforts to seek a commutation of his sentence.
Moreover, the Supreme court of the United States has held as a matter of constitutional "principle that a criminal sentence must be proportional to the crime for which the defendant has been convicted-" Solem V. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290 (1983) (emphasis added) . The Court has struck down as unconstitutional punishments that are "significantly disproportionate to [the] crime," id. at 303, based on a comparison "with sentences imposed on other criminals" Id. At 292; see also Harmelin V. Michigan, 111 S. Ct. 2680, 2702-05 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (reiterating that the constitution forbids "extreme sentences that are 'grossly disproportionate' to the crime") - It is well recognized that disproportionality in sentencing when compared to others convicted of similar crimes is "fundamentally unfair," and accordingly, it "has also been a fundamental part of . . . the clemency philosophy." Kobil, The Quality of Mercy Strained: Wrestling the Pardoning Power from the King, 69 Tex. L. R. S69, 627 (1991).*
[*NOTE: For example: President Carter commuted the 20 year sentence of Watergate conspirator G. Gordon Liddy after 4 years and 3 months because Liddy had served much more time than the other Watergate participants. Id. The reason given by the White House Counsel was that "[it] was a clear case of unfair disparity." Id. (citations omitted).]
You also argue that Mr. Pollard's sentence was not disproportionate. But that is clearly incorrect. As thoroughly documented in Mr. Pollard's commutation application, his sentence was manifestly inconsistent with the punishment historically imposed for disclosing intelligence information to an ally of the United States. Indeed, the more than seven-year period that Mr. Pollard has already served is much closer to the typical sentence for comparable offenses. The only other life sentences imposed for espionage in the United States of which we are aware -- including each of the instances cited in your memorandum -- involved individuals who spied for the Soviet Union (or Eastern block countries that were under its control) during the Cold War. We believe that Mr. Pollard is the only person in the history of our Nation to receive a life sentence for giving information to an ally.
3. The Pertinence of the Fact that Mr. Pollard Spied for a Close Ally
Your memorandum asserts that it is irrelevant that Mr. Pollard provided intelligence information to Israel, one of the United States closest allies, as opposed to a country that is hostile to the United States. That assertion is legally incorrect and morally perplexing. While it may be a crime to disclose any classified information to anyone, both the law and society recognize the difference between efforts to harm the United States by giving information to its enemies and supplying data to an ally to help save the lives of victims of aggression.
You contend that "as a legal matter, the law on espionage does not distinguish between allies and enemies. . . ." But the law, including the Constitution of the United States most certainly does make such a distinction. The most serious espionage crime is treason, which, unlike Mr. Pollard's offense, is punishable by death, and is defined explicitly in the Constitution as consisting "only in levying war against [the United States), or in adhering to their Enemies [or] giving them Aid and Comfort." (emphasis added) . The statutes on espionage also recognize that providing information to an enemy is different in kind from and more reprehensible than supplying information to a country that is an ally of the United States, explicitly singling out the former for special treatment. Compare 18 U.S.C. 794(b) and 794(a); 18 U.S.C. 2382. The law distinguishes between those whose conduct occurred with reason to believe it may harm the United States. Mr. Pollard was not charged with that offense.
Moreover, the vastly harsher sentences imposed on individuals who have committed espionage against the United States an behalf of hostile nations demonstrate the obvious and fundamental principle that spying for an enemy is a far more egregious offense that deserves more severe punishment than providing intelligence data to an ally. As discussed above, life sentence have historically been reserved exclusively for individuals who have spied for countries that are hostile to the United States, while persons who, like Mr. Pollard, assisted allies have been subjected to far less severe punishments that more closely approximate the time that Mr. Pollard has already served in prison.
Your memorandum also misleadingly suggests that Mr. Pollard's reliance on the hostile nation/ally dichotomy is an attempt by him to excuse or justify his conduct. But that is not Mr. Pollard's point at all. Mr. Pollard acknowledges that he violated an important law of the United States. He pleaded guilty to that offense and agreed to cooperate fully with the government's investigation of his conduct. He has repeatedly expressed regret and remorse for his conduct and for any and all harm that his offense may have caused. Mr. Pollard is not arguing that his unlawful conduct in justified because he was motivated only by a desire to save lives.
But those who ask for an humanitarian commutation of Mr. Pollard's sentence to a severe punishment equivalent to the punishment already imposed are surely entitled to emphasize that Mr. Pollard's actions, admittedly wrong, was inspired by the desire to protect against violent aggression, to prevent a holocaust and to allow the people of Israel to defend themselves. This is a legitimate and important basis for the sentence commutation being sought from President Clinton.
4. Conditions of Incarceration
The fact that Mr. Pollard has been in solitary confinement for several years is not a "myth." And it is not a "myth" that Mr. Pollard has been incarcerated in the nation's harshest maximum security prison. Mr. Pollard did not ask to be placed in Marion prison -- where security measures are necessary to protect him from anti-Semitic prison gangs. Moreover, NJCRAC should understand that it is exceedingly difficult for Mr. Pollard to chronicle his specific, day-to-day prison experiences without exposing himself to repercussions. It should be obvious to anyone that solitary confinement in a prison containing the most violent and vicious criminals in the nation is not a circumstance that should be ignored or labeled as a "myth."
As a technical matter, Mr. Pollard was not sentenced to "life without possibility of parole," and parole may legally be considered in 1995. But your implication that the possibility of parole makes commutation unnecessary - is incorrect and misguided. The law enforcement and intelligence agency officials who will be given the opportunity to express themselves on the subject have indicated that they will oppose parole. Immediately following sentencing, the U.S. Attorney said that Mr. Pollard would "never see the light of day." Parole is a virtual impossibility under these circumstances. Your emphasis on the highly unlikely theoretical possibility of parole avoids addressing the circumstances and fairness of Mr. Pollard's incarceration. The fact is that he has been punished enough already.
6. The Government's Breach of the Plea Agreement
You agree in your memorandum that there are "legitimate questions" regarding the government's conduct at the time of sentencing in conjunction with its plea bargain.
However, you selectively omit a full discussion of the issue and the pertinence of it to Mr. Pollard's request for a commutation of his sentence.
The fact is that the government violated its plea bargain with Mr. Pollard in several fundamental respects. Nearly everyone who has examined the circumstances agrees with that conclusion. Indeed, this situation was severely questioned by the federal appellate court that reviewed Mr. Pollard's sentence. Despite the government's agreement in exchange for Mr. Pollard's plea of guilty to temper its rhetoric at the tide of sentencing, not to seek a life sentence, and to point out that Pollard's cooperation with the government had been valuable, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the government had engaged in "hard-nosed dealings," Pollard v. United States, 939 F.2d 10110, 1030, cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 322 (1992), and that the government's conduct was "problematic" and "troublesome." Id. at 1026. Dissenting Judge Stephen Williams concluded that the government violated material terms of Mr. Pollard's plea agreement, resulting in a "fundamental miscarriage of justice." Id. at 1032. And the government's forceful, bitter and antagonistic rhetoric produced the very life sentence it had agreed not to seek. Although the courts declined for technical reasons to set aside Mr. Pollard's sentence, there are no such constraints on the President's constitutional power to commute Mr. Pollard's sentence and thereby to redress the injustice of a sentence of life in prison despite the government's promise not to seek such a sentence.
NJCRAC's characterization of the facts is revealing. It says that Pollard's claim of a government breach of the plea bargain is "not entirely a myth". This is a very peculiar choice of words to describe an audacious, deliberate and manifest injustice.
7. The Secretary of Defense's Submission of a Memoranda During the Sentencing Process and Use of the Word "Treason"
Your brief discussion of the memoranda submitted by Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger during the sentencing proceedings and your astonishing efforts to rationalize Secretary Weinberger's use of the word "treason" to describe Mr. Pollard's conduct overlooks completely the improper nature and devastating impact that that submission had on Mr. Pollard's case.
The Secretary of Defense was not "obliged to submit a pre-sentencing memorandum." No law or custom requires it. It was an entirely gratuitous and intentionally forceful symbolic act by the nation's highest national security official.
The Secretary of Defense's memoranda did not relay objective facts about possible damage to national security caused by Mr. Pollard. Rather, the Secretary went to extraordinary and unprecedented lengths to volunteer extremely prejudicial and unjustified statements unjustified statements of opinion such as Pollard's "loyalty to Israel transcended his loyalty to the United States," and "the punishment imposed should reflect the perfidy of [his] actions (and) the magnitude of the treason committed," (emphasis added).
Judge Williams found that these statements amounted to a call for a life sentence in "all but name", and constituted a "flagrant violation of the (plea) agreement's spirit . . . . [T]he repeated use of superlatives implied an appeal for the maximum (sentence). Weinberger's reference to treason took the point further. Whereas treason carries the death penalty, and involves aiding the nation's enemies, Pollard was charged with espionage, carrying a maximum of life imprisonment and encompassing aid even to friendly nations - here, Israel . . . Weinberger's subtext was that the heaviest possible sentence was the lightest that was just."
Mr. Pollard did not commit treason, was not accused of treason and did not plead guilty to treason, and even the Government has now acknowledged that use of that terminology was both unwarranted and "regrettable". In fact, Mr. Pollard pleaded guilty to one count of violating 1a U.S.C. S 794, the transmission of national security information to a foreign government. Mr. Pollard's conviction was not even based upon that portion of # 794 that is predicated on an intent or reason to believe that harm to the United States would result from his conduct.
The Chanes memorandum's explanation that Secretary Weinberger was not using the word "treason" in its "formal and legal sense", is nothing short of outrageous. The Secretary was one of the nation's top officials, filing a formal legal document in the name of the United States under the supervision of the United States Attorney in a formal and extremely serious legal proceeding in a proceeding in a case that he, himself, characterized as very important. The word "treason" was intentionally used, as evidenced by the simultaneous use of the term "traitorously" by the Assistant United States Attorney. The assertion that the Secretary and the Government did not know the meaning of the word "treason" in that context is absurd. It was intended to secure a life sentence for Jonathan Pollard and it worked.
We will not comment an the remainder of the memorandum or the NJCRAC process. Those are matters for NJCRAC and its CJF member agencies. However, we do expect that NJCRAC will feel obliged to disseminate only accurate information concerning the Pollard case in the future.
In sum, your March 23 memorandum does not "provide accurate information" about the Pollard case. Rather, it either inaccurately portrays or omits entirely facts that we believe are vitally important and that would be of great interest to the NJCRAC and CJF member agencies. Your memorandum does not even mention that the government of Israel has specifically requested the President to grant Mr. Pollard's request for commutation. Such omissions seriously call into question the objectivity of your "fact-finding" efforts.
Very truly yours,
Theodore B. Olsen
On 9/11 Atta mailed those little anthrax greetings hoping to kill thousands more. If not for Pollard on 9/11/2001 Atta would have had arranged to have a dirty little nuke in a containership in some lock near Cincinatti where the direct bomb damage would have wrecked a good part of Mississippi to Great Lake transport, but the radiation plume would have conveyed over Pittsburgh, Phildelphia, New Jersey, Baltimore and DC, causing great havoc.
Thank you, Jonathan Pollard! You alone saved us all from Iraq having nukes. Pollard -- you are a GREAT AMERICAN!
They show themselves as moral cowards. American and Jewish-American.
I am a Jew and Pollard got what he deserved. His annoying wife should stop whining. No one forced him to do what he did.
What happened? Boone went over to Spain -- a country that we were close to war at some times, and an ally at others:
After the Revolutionary War, Boone worked as a surveyor along the Ohio River and settled for a time in Kanawha County, Virginia (now West Virginia). In 1792, Kentucky was admitted into the Union as the 15th state. Litigation arose that questioned many settlers' title to their lands. Boone lost all his property due to lack of clear title. In 1799, he followed his son, Daniel Morgan Boone, to Missouri which was then under the dominion of Spain. Traveling by canoe, he and his family paddled down the Ohio River to St. Louis.Boone is today considered an American Hero! Yet in his life it was Spain that gave him real honors -- a renumerative office and lands, and Spain with whom he cast his lot.
In 1800, Boone was appointed magistrate of the Femme Osage District in St. Charles County, Missouri [that is, Spanish Territory]. He received a large tract of land for his services. When Missouri was transferred to the United States as part of the Louisiana Purchase, Boone once again lost all his land, most of which was sold to satisfy creditors in Kentucky
In case anyone is losing sleep over JP.
You feel eager to curse? Curse those who are after us then! Curse those who would kill us. Pollard is not, Israel is not.
It has been "subject to change" without "subject to change" all the time with Israel holding a fame of the currency of choice for the US, subject to an exchange rate of the day.
The problem is our leniency with everyone else.
is the point, and well stated. It's long past time to execute traitors again. Pollard would be on a list of many (i.e. the Walkers, Fonda, Benjamin, Hansen, etc. INSERT NAME HERE_______________________).
I see no major problems with supporting Israel at this time.
After we actually attack France, we might consider attacking some of our other putative allies, if we are in a righteous attacking kind of mood.
Israel is not in the most deserving top five contendors list, IMHO.
It certainly makes more sence to hit France first and hard, if we really wanted to punish occasionally faithless allies.
Were your grandparents part of the Bund? Just kidding!
Israel and the US are closer, as any honest history shows, than the US and Britain. Israel has always been our ally. Britain? Well, we've had a few wars with them.
Israel is a closer pal than Canada. We've had a few wars with Canada.
Would a US Navy employee be given a hard twenty years with more to come for passing the same kind of secrets to Canada? Or to Britain? Don't kid yourselves -- it wouldn't happen. Pollard's in the gaol for ten years too long because he is Jewish.
Go read our Constitution. Treason is defined in it and Pollard's acts were not Treason.
Treason is aid and comfort to and enemy, btw. That's official. Official enemy, official in the Constitution. Israel is, was and always better be our ally.
Now many mentally bunkered cases want to make up inventions as to what is in the Constitution and what is not. "A living Constitution". Well, sir, by that kind of deluded interpretation I guess, gee, Pollard is a traitor. And so was that Daniel Boone. Hang 'em both I guess you'd say.
Pollard sold out to Israel, Boone sold out to Spain.
Both countries were allies at the time, not enemies. Israel has never been our enemy. But to sloppy minded folks that's treason.
Pollard's treason (i.e. the information regarding naval ops, specifically tracking boomers) ended up at the offices of the KGB (that's how he, Pollard, was finally busted, btw). That's aid and comfort to the enemy in my book.
Let's not go into semantics.
Don't presume to "babe" me.
I spent a great deal of my best and most productive years dedicated to thwarting the enemies of the USA.
Pollard is less than pondscum, IMHO.
You may feel some kind of sick thrill by proclaiming him a "Jewish hero".Enjoy.
Along with the "Free Mumia" crowd types, you exhibit an inredible degree of willfull ignorance.
He is a worthless traitor to the USA.
I dont care what his religeous beliefs were.
Are you actually saying that an individual who belives in Judaism is not subject to the same laws and consequences as every other individual who volunteered for USA DOD service under the UCMJ?
Are you really that ignorant?
Then you didn't know what you were doing because every one of the dozens of Pollard threads has done just that. There was one Freeper that specialized in regularly posting Pollard threads until he was banned as an anti-semite.
Thank you for the thread and thanks to all who contributed to give us some semblance of understanding on this subject.
Thanks for the ping, and FR posting history should teach us that Pollard threads are a lose-lose situation. Both sides are polarized, there is no middle ground (and won't be), and bad feelings are the inevitable result. Makes you wonder why anyone ever posts them anyway.....
Are you wearing a tinfoil hat near area 51??
Pollard broke the law and more than paid his price. Does the punishment here fit the crime? Not quite.
Was Pollard truly guilty of treason?
Not according to the US Constitution!
Yet some of you are asking for Pollard to be hanged, gassed or electrocuted. You say "bury the guy."
I think a living hell - 20 years of rotting away in a small cement cage is a much more severe sentence for helping a friend. But you really continue to seek more blood from an ally. Why?
I believe the crimes of a few US Presidents (i.e. - Nixon authorizing Watergate) were much more severe. Screwing their own country with unlimited power and not spending one day in prison. Nixon had a pardon, but a Jew who supports Israel? No way!
Pollard was wrong. But the United States and Israel were far worse for having and continuing to use Pollard as a symbol of US arrogance. Keeping Pollard in prison beyond any jail sentence that any real foreign enemy may have committed is not justice; it's an aberration of politics between friends. It's despicable.
When I wear an Israel Defense Forces uniform and watch my comrades bleed, we bleed for the citizens of Israel and all who believe in democracy, liberty and justice. We fight on the front line of Islamic terrorism against those who would destroy our homes and families in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, New York and Washington.
Pollard never took aim at the US but rather did what negligent US intel guys failed to do - help a friend.
If your parents or children live in Chicago, Seattle or Dallas and you were working abroad for another government and had information that nuclear tipped missiles were being readied to vaporize those cities, to murder your children, family and friends - what would you do?
It is we - here in Israel who face a second holocaust if we fail to protect ourselves against thousands of missiles from Syria and Iran with payloads of toxic chemicals awaiting to be released. We don't see Canada or Mexico aiming at the US. Our situation here in the Middle East, protecting US oil interests, is a little bit more severe.
You are not keeping Pollard in prison - you are keeping Israel in prison.
Its all about control.
And you never "control" a friend.
What the US is doing to Pollard by going beyound any reasonable and just punishment is called alienation.
Ok, sure, Israel gets 3 billion dollars a year but most of that money goes right back into the bank accounts of US corporations. It's called Pentagon Capitalism.
And the US threats continue: "if you don't dance exactly to our step, we will take away that money."
Let me remind all in this forum - Israel was created without the assistance of the United States. Not one bullet, not one US troop came over to fight - just a few verbal words of support from Truman - who braved to say what many would never dream of articulating in 1948. Why make enemies with your Arab oil buddies...
But the picture is a whole lot different today after September 11th 2001. Those Arab oil friends took the most lethal hit at the US since US ally Great Britan burned down the White House in 1812. And Rudy never took the bribe at Ground Zero from Saudi Arabia.
It's reality check time.
Stop screwing your friends.
Today the IDF and the US armed forces are one.
Let's keep it that way, but please remember - Israel was alone in 1948 and was alone when Pollard passed on information to Israel to protect my family here from Scud missiles carrying clouds of chemicals.
Where was US Intel in 1984? Where is "with liberty and justice for all?"
The US and Israeli governments should be ashamed of themselves for contining this travesty of justice.
Does the CIA spy on Israel?
Does Israel know of these activities?
Should Israel take action?
Can we please separate spy games from justice. It's time we end this depressing chapter of "friendly fire."
I wonder what Pollard will eat for lunch today in his small cage?
But then again for many in this room, why even think of it when you can go to Killington and Stowe and take in some good skiing, Hilton Head for golf and take the kids to Disneyworld.
It's easier to forget Pollard.
We in Israel will not.
Are you suggesting the U.S. attack Israel? Not surprising coming form you.
Pollard's information aided the Soviet Union's efforts to destroy the U.S., not to mention destroy Israel. He also did it for the money, not for anything else.