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 ...
On the contrary, there has been practically no anti-semitism on this thread; it's been refreshing. But that idiot is clearly an exception. His assertion concerning Israel being behind America's current interest in Iran is unmistakable; you can accept my assessment or not, but eventually you will find the conclusion inescapable that that particular poster is indeed an anti-semite.
I merely express my disgust with his anti-semitism. I'm not the zotter; let the zots fall where they may. Eventually he'll go too far, and bring it upon himself.
It certainly would be in their interest, doncha think?
It would be in their interest for a great big asteroid to smack down in Teheran. What's your point?
Hey, anyway, what's Israel to you? Aren't you an anarchist? Weren't you arguing that people are better off without government? Don't you think the Israelis would be better off?
Did they confess to it or were nailed by preponderance of evidence? Were they, or either one, convicted of that particular charge, the one attributed to Pollard?
Hello. In America, if a person is convicted of a charge a later person is discovered to be guilty of, and convicted, that charge is withdrawn as a matter of course from the original suspect or upon suit.
This is because, in such a case when this does not happen, any American can bring suit, having standing to sue over a travesty of justice.
Why have no Sabramericans or Shalom Israels seen to it?
Don't ask questions like that! Don't you realize that asking questions like that is anti-Semitic!
Why would they strain relations with the US by spying on us? And, Pollard may still have information they need, even if he is a "Russian" spy.
Who knows, but are you saying that Israel doesn't lie?
It's a moral crime. Further, it opens America up to the potential for divine wrath, though I wouldn't presume to know what form that might take.
Hey, anyway, what's Israel to you? Aren't you an anarchist? Weren't you arguing that people are better off without government? Don't you think the Israelis would be better off?
Ah, yes, we've spoken before. Are you the one who posed precisely this question earlier, in an attempt to maneuver me into either denigrating Israel or contradicting myself? See, if I remembered names better, I'd recognize you, and I'd remember whether I'd resolved to stop responding to your posts. Oh well. My gift and curse is that I never forget an argument, and never remember a name (or face).
Anyway, I'm against all human government, and recent injustices perpetrated against Israelis by their own government vindicate this viewpoint. However, I am all for divine rule, as long as the divinity in question takes charge personally. The present state of Israel is at the heart of God's plan, and will become the seat of Messiah's world government.
Welcome to reality. Is it nice where you've been? There are any number of cases where an individual is never freed, even after ironclad exculpatory evidence. That is of course even easier to perpetrate when the documents on which the conviction was based are "classified".
Why shouldn't they? If I were Israel, I would. Why is this "anti-semetic"?
Did you consider the president an expert in matters of theology and philosophy when he called Islam a "religion of peace?"
As I've explained very throughly earlier in this thread, Israel is NOT an ally of the U.S. in any legal sense. We may have common interests in a lot of areas, but the fact that AIPAC is one of the strongest lobbying groups in Washington does not make Israel an "ally."
That America taking out Iran is in the Israelies' interest. It is, isn't it? Why is that "anti-semetic".
I haven't locked onto your wavelength yet. So I can't tell what's behind your obtuseness. Perhaps you really are obtuse. Or maybe you're playing dumb for fun (a mild form of trolling, and not uncommon). Or perhaps your obtuseness is calculated, and there's somewhere you intend the discussion to end up. I can't tell which, and if it's option #3, I can't tell where you're going.
Anyway, your obtuse question aside, the answer is simple. People don't accidentally employ the precise jargon of some group, in precisely the correct fashion.
In this case, he is perfectly articulating the meme that Israel not only looks favorably upon American action against a common enemy, but is in fact manipulating the United States to bring about that end, by means of a covert command and control structure capable of bending the United States to the will of Israel.
Mr. "Acts" believes all of these things, though the details of that belief may vary. For example, I don't know whether he believes in a "Jewish-controlled media" that manipulates the American people indirectly, or whether he believes in some sort of direct control mechanism as per the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Similarly, I don't know whether he believes that "the Joos" have absolute control, in the form of the "Zionist Occupation Government," or whether he merely believes that they have partial influence. But to one degree or another, I know that he believes something of that sort, and I know it because I've dealt with such people before, and have no trouble recognizing them.
Others will find out eventually, the slow way. It'll take something getting him really mad, probably, before he actually lashes out with anti-semitic invective. If the US invades Iraq, or if alternately Israel does, that would be a good time to watch him and see.
Even if the real criminals are the ones who withheld vital information from Israel.
Israeli Hero - Moses Hess - Communist Manifesto
Author of Rome vs. Jerusalem
Yup, dem Joooos are commies, all right. Le's nuke 'em.
Delusional!
Hmmm, it's a moral crime to exercise publicly granted discretion about what information to reveal to foreign governments. A curious point of view.
Further, it opens America up to the potential for divine wrath, though I wouldn't presume to know what form that might take.
Like 9/11 for instance? You think 9/11 might be divine retribution?
Are you the one who posed precisely this question earlier, in an attempt to maneuver me into either denigrating Israel or contradicting myself?
No, you're thinking of someone else. We've corresponded before but this application of your anarchist views didn't occur to me. I also don't see what it has to do with "denigrating Israel." How is it denigrating to argue that Israelis would be better off in a state of anarchy?
That said, I do think it is clear that if Israel were not governed, it would have long ago been overrun by neighboring Arab states. Israelis in a state of anarchy would not have been able to organize a resistance. Israelis are, therefore, better off with their government than without one. That's a specific case of the general argument I made.
I have a simple rule of thumb, based on careful observation of the use of language among conservatives and liberals.
The rule is this: anyone who uses the word "meme" in casual conversation or political discourse is a liberal. Or a kook.
So far, the rule has never been wrong.
OK, Teddy. Here in the real world, it's a crime to leave your friends in the dark when it's likely to get them killed.
Like 9/11 for instance? You think 9/11 might be divine retribution?
No, moron. But thankfully you've identified yourself by repeating a particularly puerile debate tactic: continually attempt to get your opponent to say something that will turn audience sympathy against him. It is you, Teddy! Have another fifth, and try again.
Israelis in a state of anarchy would not have been able to organize a resistance.
I'd say that's a retarded statement, but then again Americans don't know anything about Israeli history. The 1948 border merely ratifies something that the Jews created for themselves over about a century of struggle, conducted entirely under conditions of anarchy. One of the legacies of that anarchy is the large number of military organizations in Israeli history: Nachal, Palmach, Irgun, etc.
OK, Teddy. Here in the real world, it's a crime to leave your friends in the dark when it's likely to get them killed.
Like 9/11 for instance? You think 9/11 might be divine retribution?
No, moron. But thankfully you've identified yourself by repeating a particularly puerile debate tactic: continually attempt to get your opponent to say something that will turn audience sympathy against him. It is you, Teddy! Have another fifth, and try again.
Israelis in a state of anarchy would not have been able to organize a resistance.
I'd say that's a retarded statement, but then again Americans don't know anything about Israeli history. The 1948 border merely ratifies something that the Jews created for themselves over about a century of struggle, conducted entirely under conditions of anarchy. One of the legacies of that anarchy is the large number of military organizations in Israeli history: Nachal, Palmach, Irgun, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.