Skip to comments.Spy for Israel Loses Supreme Court Appeal [Pollard]
Posted on 03/20/2006 7:56:46 AM PST by SmithL
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court refused Monday to give Jonathan Pollard, now serving a life sentence for spying for Israel, access to records that could bolster his case for a presidential clemency.
Pollard's lawyers wanted the justices to reopen his case, so that they could pursue secret documents the government submitted to the judge who sentenced Pollard in 1987.
Pollard sold military secrets to Israel while he worked at the Defense Department's Pentagon headquarters. He was arrested in 1985 and pleaded guilty. The Supreme Court had already refused to let the former Navy intelligence analyst withdraw the guilty plea.
The latest Supreme Court case was not about spying, but about government authority to keep records used in court sealed from the public.
A federal appeals court said last summer that it had no authority to review requests for the documents which Pollard contends will help his bid for presidential clemency.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The US should have suspended Israeli aid for a year as punishment.
This is good.
He always wants more.
Pollard did incalculable harm to the United States while in a position of trust.
Lock him up, throw away the key.
How about, "Until you apologize."?
And Pollard should have been stood up against a wall and shot.
$3 billion in aid loss is a pretty serious punishement. And, let's not try and pretend we don't spy on our friends either. But, for $3 billion we should be treated just a tad bit better.
The big difference with the U.S. is that we spy on "our friends" on our own behalf. If even a fraction of the things I've read about the Pollard case is true, then a substantial amount of the information he obtained for Israel was passed along to the Soviet Union and therefore had no inherent value to Israel.
$3 billion doesn't come close to paying for that kind of damage.
Pollard was an information broker--Israel was trading on its relationship of trust with the US in exchange for favors from Russia (and others).
I'm sure it won't be long now before the Pollard apologists show up and start calling everyone an anti-Semite.
The Israelis sold the take from Pollard to the Soviets. American agents in the Soviet Union died because of Pollard. Israeli blood is apparently worth more to the Israelis than American blood is. So much for our "allies." Can you imagine the Brits doing the same? I think not.
Pollard should rot in prison....Israel SHOULD have apologized, we are NOT pure as the driven snow in the espionage arena and suggesting that we are is ridiculous...and those that see this as a "semitic" issue, are indeed "anti-semitic".
"Broker"? Don't "brokers" sell more than one item in their career? Pollard gave Israel information to which she was entitled under the 1983 memorandum of understanding, exactly once. The FBI's own investigation concluded that Pollard was not acting for profit.
You have heard of Philby, McLean, Burgess, Bount and Cairncross?
More inportant than the actual information this traitor SOLD is that foreign intel services could see how the information was gathered, processed, and presented. He basically gave away the recipe for the cake along with the cake.
Informing Israel of terrorist attacks planned against her did the US "incalculable harm"? I'd be interested to know the exact nature of that harm.
Just offer Israel this deal:
Pollard for $1 billion in aid.
See if they are any takers.
They were traitors, and didn't attempt to excuse their treason by saying they were really loyal to Britain did they?
The exact nature of the harm is irrelevant (even though American agents in the Soviet Union died because of Pollard's actions). When you get a security clearance you swear not to disclose the secured information to unauthorized persons. The Israeli agents he gave the info to were not authorized and he was not in a position to freelance the decision.
Further it is common for "false-flag" operations to be used to convince an agent that they are working for one country and are actually working for another.
While I agree with your sentiment here, the problem is that that is not in accordance with our present laws. The laws apparently say that the guy should have been freed by now.
How could you possibly know that, when the basic issue under consideration in this case before the U.S. Supreme Court was that the U.S. government did not want to publicly to reveal all of the information Pollard provided to Israel?
I didn't raise the question: the poster to whom I replied did, when he asserted that "incalculable harm" was done.
When you get a security clearance you swear not to disclose the secured information to unauthorized persons. The Israeli agents he gave the info to were not authorized and he was not in a position to freelance the decision.
Granted. Others have been convicted of passing information to allies before. None of them got life sentences; in fact half of them were sentenced to less than 4 years.
Israel has already made it clear he was working for them.
1. What kind of information did those "others" provide to our allies?
2. Israel is not an "ally" of the United States in any formal (i.e., legal) sense of the word.
You raise a good question: how could you possibly know what Pollard gave Israel?
It is a matter of record, however, that the method of counting "compromised" documents included at least: the entirety of any document of which Pollard got so much as one sentence; the entirety of any document referenced in any way by anything Pollard got. So, for example, a single page might be counted as "compromising" several 500-page volumes. In this way, eleven bundles, each able to fit in a briefcase, were deemed to have "compromised" several moving-vans full of material.
As for the claims that Pollard compromised agents in Russia, the accusation came from none other than Aldritch Ames and Robert Hanssen--who were spying for Russia, and were the ones actually guilty of this crime. Pollard did not have the "blue stripe" clearance necessary to access names of agents.
To give Cap Weinberger his due, it appears that he believed Pollard was responsible for the crimes of Ames and Hanssen, who had not yet been caught.
The laws apparently say that the guy should have been freed by now.
Although he may have believed it at the time, now, after those others were caught, he doesn't consider Pollard all that important.
Asked in an interview why he omitted the incident, Weinberger casually replied, Because it was, in a sense, a very minor matter but made very important. Asked to elaborate, Weinberger repeated, As I say, the Pollard matter was comparatively minor. It was made far bigger than its actual importance.
I don't have to know -- I'm just refuting your point. YOU are the one who thinks Pollard's crimes weren't serious enough to warrant his punishment in the U.S. Federal justice system, and I simply pointed out that you can't possibly know that.
The fact that Israel's extensive lobbtying efforts in the late 1990s couldn't even get a pardon for Pollard from Bill Clinton -- about as cheap a whore and as unprincipled and mentally dysfunctional a politician as anything the U.S. has ever seen -- is a good indication that the damage Pollard did to this country is far more serious than anyone seems to realize.
Pollard felt above the law; now he has to reap the consequences. Since the road to hell is paved with good intentions, his good intentions are not good enough.
Here are some examples:
|S. Baba||South Africa||5 months||1982|
|S. Scranage||Guyana||8 months||1986-87|
|S. Morrison||Great Britain||3 months||1985-86|
|T. Dole||South Africa||5 years||1989-94|
|A. Helmy||Egypt||2 years||1992-94|
|M. Schwartz||Saudi Arabia||no time;
discharged from the
Navy without pension
Israel is not an "ally" of the United States in any formal (i.e., legal) sense of the word.
They aren't members of Nato, true. However, they're friendlies. In order to be guilty of the actual crime of "treason", you must be spying for an enemy nation in a time of war. Israel not only isn't an enemy nation, it isn't even a hostile nation.
Straw man. I didn't say he didn't deserve punishment. The question is whether he deserved life in prison.
Good analogy. Like any whore, Clinton would rather be paid and then not "love you long time." He pressured Israel into highly damaging concessions, promising Pollard's release as an inducement--but unfortunately for the Israelis, they gave in without forcing him to perform first.
Clinton is certainly no friend of Israel.
Another reason why it is criminal to steal US intel, no matter the reasons, is that once it's out of US hands, we cannot control who sees it.
Now Pollard whined that he----and his ex-wife Anne who was in on the conspiracy----were altruists, motivated to spy by the purest intentions.
Yet, Pollard pocketed money, and the wife received expensive jewelry, as payments for stealing US intel that was sold to America's enemies.
So much for altruism.
They aren't members of Nato, true. However, they're friendlies. . . . Israel not only isn't an enemy nation, it isn't even a hostile nation.
As far as the U.S. is concerned, Israel has the same legal status as Egypt -- i.e., the U.S. grants them formal recognition as a nation and has agreed to provide direct active military support in very limited circumstances (kudos to anyone who knows exactly what these circumstances are). Neither country is an ally in the formal sense of the word, which means the U.S. has not signed a mutual defense treaty with them in which both countries formally agree to provide military support to the other in the event of aggression by outsiders. The U.S. has signed formal treaties of this sort (NATO, SEATO, etc.) with a number of countries around the world that make these countries allies of ours. No such treaty exists between the U.S. and Israel, so Pollard's supporters have no legal basis for their claim that "spying for an ally" is a less serious offense than spying for anyone else.
In order to be guilty of the actual crime of "treason", you must be spying for an enemy nation in a time of war.
Right. This is why Pollard was never charged with treason.
Burn in hell Pollard. Traitor.
Israeli blood is more precious than American blood to a lot of FReepers as well.
Just think... Klintoon was getting the hard press to commute this POS's sentence... probably would have happened if his lie-brary got more donation coinage.
Obviously you're asking a non-trivial question... but there's one thing we do know for sure: Pollard did not take the information that Weinberger thought he had. Sabramerican also posted a relevant Weinberger quote.
What American blood?
Clinton handed out pardons to tax-cheats Mark Rich and his pal Pincus Green, after receivng pressure from then-Israeli-PM Ehud Barak----after efforts by ADL Abe----and after getting a letter expressing support for Rich from many Israeli officials, and from others around the world.
Then when the firestorm broke, when he got lacerated for the Rich pardon, Clinton whined that "Israel made me do it."
Welfare to Israel (as well as EVERY other country) should end as well.
My point is a simple one. You might think you are "just helping our allies" when in fact you are not. Spook101 stuff - but you apparently didn't get my point.
I have a hard time believing that the U.S. Secretary of Defense submitted a secret legal brief to the Federal court in the Pollard case based on what he "thought" Pollard had given to Israel.
And if Weinberger eventually concluded that this was all a mistake, then why was he never called as a witness for Pollard in any of these subsequent appeals?
Here's a nice review on Pollard, suprisingly good considering it
was put out by PBS's "American Experience":
My guess is that aside from the sheer volume of material he compromised,
Pollard is locked up for life...to keep him from blabbing on evening
TV about how he easily duped his bosses for so long.
Ah, I see. You mean that the Joos are the ones behind the WoT. All righty then. Have a nice day. Buh-bye.
I did; you're merely wrong. The reason the intelligence community came down on Pollard like a ton of bricks was their fury over Aldritch Ames getting Americans killed--except they didn't know it was Ames.
Believe what you want; the fact is that Weinburger knew someone has betrayed important intelligence to Russia, getting agents killed--but he didn't know that that was Aldritch Ames and Robert Hanssen. He thought it was Pollard.