>>basis of the sentence is declassified
I do not believe that in cases involving espionage and treason, there is any stipulation for the declassification. Why should Pollard’s betrayal be subject to special treatment. Anyway, its moot til 2015.
IMO, it shows how bad his damage was that the bigwigs of the Reagan Administration, no enemy of Israel after all, came all out for throwing the book at him.
Declassifying documents isn't a matter of special treatment, particularly when the government acknowledges the contents have been declassified. And making the information, in this case a two decade old letter, available to the defendents attorneys, who have the necessary security clearances, is quite common. As to it shows how bad his damage was that the bigwigs of the Reagan Administration, no enemy of Israel after all, came all out for throwing the book at him., that might be true. But at the time thoses bigwigs of the Reagan administration didn't know that the assessment of that damage was done by a Soviet spy, Aldrich Ames. Today we do, so it's reasonable to be certain those extrajudicial charges were legitimate by allowing him an appeal. As to the bigwigs, you'll note that although Weinberger considered it a major case at the time, when asked why he left it out of his autobiography, he noted it was an insignificant footnote to his life. He may be guilty as sin, but it wouldn't be the first time government has covered up an error.
Cap Weinberger was never a friend of Israel's, not by a long stretch of the imagination. It was principally his influence that led to Pollard's severe sentence.
Also, as SJackson mentioned, since Aldrich Ames contributed heavily to the analysis of the damage caused, the amount of damage claimed (or believed) was probably skewed. It is not at all incredible to believe that Ames added a bunch of information that he stole to Pollard's list, to distract attention from himself.