"For spying for a friendly country,"
Indeed true. However, if sensitive information is stolen from country A and given to country B, country A can no longer contain that information. Once Pollard passed on the information, the US needed to assume that it was in the ether.
"no one has ever received a sentence even close to the sentence that Pollard has served thus far - 22 years!
This is a lie. Many Americans have been executed for treason in history.
The remarks by Jones border on anti-Semitism and a hostile attitude towards Israel..."
This is pathetic and sad. Especially considering the real anti-Semitism that rockets over the northern border every few years.
"Israel was forced to employ Pollard as its agent," Ariel continued, "only because America betrayed our trust and hid critical information from us regarding chemical weapons and anti-Israeli terrorist plots in Arab nations, in blatant violation of agreements we had with the US which we kept in full...
I don't know to what extent this is the case. Certainly the pro-Pollard forces claim it. But Pollard, as a recipient of a very high security clearance knew the risk he was taking. This is the only way the government has to deal with violations of security clearances. If Pollard is given a deal because of international pressure, then there's no end to this.
The fact that Israel does not demand his release even after 22 years is endangering an agent that Israel sent on a mission
Actually, Israel should not demand his release for a simple reason: To send a message to their spies that if they get caught, the Minister "will disavow any knowledge."
He is also contradicting former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, who said that the charges against him were inflated to begin with."
Well, Cap's boss didn't pardon him. And come to think of it, Mrs. Pollard missed her big chance. I guess she couldn't scrape up as much cash as Denise Rich.
Or oral dick-tation either!
And you have no interest in finding out either, do you?
You've obviously decided "my country, right or wrong," because you've had no trouble concocting condemnations even to the point of altering quotes to do it.
You would have made a "good German."
There was no trace of remorse, not a hint of the possibility that, in retrospect, he might have been wrong when he ordered that vital information to be withheld from an ally henceforth.
His words: "In 1981, when the Iraqi nuclear reactor was bombed by Israel, I wondered where the Israelis got their targeting material. In Honoring our commitment to Israel's defense we provided satellite photography of potential direct threats, but when I checked, I found out that Israel had requisitioned data on areas that were quite a distance away - Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, etc. I made a decision to limit the process to within 250 miles."
Just like that. Period. End of issue. No need to consult the potential victim, even if it is a Jewish state whose survival is supposed to be national policy. The decision was made and that was that. He sneered at the furious protests by then Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon as he told the press conference that Caspar Weinberger supported his decision, and that Safire complained in vain about the new policy to CIA Director Casey.
Question: who is the writer referring to? As a point of history, was this kind of retaliation for the Osirac bombing diplomatically defensible, particularly when it was in violation of well established security agreements?
Actually, that's not true. In all of US history, there have been less than 40 treason prosecutions, fewer convictions, and even fewer executions. Many of those prosecutions are related to the Whiskey Rebellion, Thomas Jefferson's Embargo Act, and the Aaron Burr conspiracy. The Rosenbergs, for instance, were convicted and executed on espionage charges, not treason charges.
I thought Denise jumped in the sack with Willie...