Skip to comments.Pollard release coming-hearing scheduled. (Fury alert)
Posted on 08/13/2003 9:14:43 PM PDT by Finalapproach29er
click here to read article
Let him out --feet first...
by Ellis Shulman, Editor - Israelinsider.com - January 9, 2002
Former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu visited, for the first time, convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, in his North Carolina jail on Monday. Netanyahu said he found Pollard to be an "especially intelligent man" and offered condolences on the recent death of Pollard's mother. "The governments of Israel have acted in the past and will continue to act in the future in every way possible in order to bring about your release," Netanyahu said he told Pollard.
Netanyahu is the senior-most Israeli figure to have visited Pollard in prison so far, Yediot Aharonot reported. It was during Netanyahu's tenure as prime minister that the government publicly acknowledged that Pollard served as an Israeli agent and intensified its actions to secure his release.
I am currently re-reading John Loftus and Mark Aarons, The Secret War Against The Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People, St. Martin's Griffin, 1994.
The history of the West and particularly the United States towards the Jewish people and the state of Israel is a surprise to the uninitiated.
Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee strikes some of the same tone of monotonous betrayal.
I've always admired Netanyahu and trust his judgment on this case.
Clinton dispatched Carville to insert Barak in lieu of Netanyahu to betray Israel to Arafat.
Pollard was offered a plea agreement which the U.S. violated; even Caspar Weinberger suggests Pollard was overdone.
Here at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Wen Ho Lee was permitted to download all the U.S. warhead designs and data, working surreptitiously at odd hours when he was sure to be alone.
This very dangerous spy stole the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal, put it on tape, was charged with seventy violations--and allowed to walk free after one year.
The treason of President Bill Clinton and his enablers Attorney General Janet Reno and Energy Secretary Bill Richardson ought to result in life imprisonment for the three at Leavenworth.
Pollard has done his time and then some.
To pretend that he is a greater villain than the Clintons and their downstream (John Huang at Commerce, Schwartz-Armstrong of Loral-Hughes, Gore-Chernomyrdin, Strobe Talbott, Gen. Habiger CINC Strategic Forces, etc.) is infantile and ill-informed.
Apparently there was at least discussion of releasing Pollard as part of the Wye Accords.
Apparently Pollard had no equivalent to Denise Rich to blow in Clinton's ear, hand him hundreds of thousands of dollars, and promise him an eternally grateful Marc Rich (the 400-million-dollar tax dodger--don't try this at home).
Please expound on that. The Bush family making money with the Saudis? Just like Pollard defender John Loftus claims the "Bush family" made a fortune dealing with Hilter?
Is that the new angle here? What else has the "Bush Family" done? The "Bush Family" create Bin Laden too? You working on Michael Moore's latest film by any chance?
In other words, chump, if you have information, spit it out. Don't post this crap about "bad deals" with no source. Tell us what you have.
And tell us now. Scurry down your rate hole and get new talking points. We will wait.
You better belive he did.
Just keep hitting 'em with facts and ask them the unanswerable queries. :-)
And we must never forget.
Well, if he didn't think so, it's because he convinced himself of that. How self-serving.
And he never did
You do realize, don't you, that people make arguments about Bill Clinton being innocent? You sound just like them.
Plain and simple, Pollard is a traitor; he should have been shot.
As a Justice Department prosecutor, John Loftus once held some of the highest security clearances in the world, with special access to NATO Cosmic, CIA codeword, and Top Secret Nuclear files. As a private attorney, he works without charge to help hundreds of intelligence agents obtain lawful permission to declassify and publish the hidden secrets of our times. He is the author of four history books, three of which have been made into films, two were international best sellers, and one was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize.
One good thing about it, the real conservatives can be easily sorted from the phonies by who cite Democrat party hack John Loftus as a credible source on anything.
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
A stupid move on the part of Loftus really. One doesn't get a hearing with the person who can grant a pardon by giving speeches claiming his family is filled with Nazis and he is in some nefarious deals with the Saudis.
No it isn't Larry, your point was to bash another poster for posting a pro-Pollard point of view.
It's your well known style, Mr Lied.
Might come back later, I post to sludge like you at my convenience, no disrespect to those you've pinged Vogie.
I find that statement disturbing. Spies shouldn't be paroled after five years. If this "statistic" exists because of exchanges, then ok.
Nope. That was another guy. Hansen, I think. But it is a commonly used canard - Canadian communist scribbler Eric Margolis, for example, has spread this lie far and wide (and on purpose, I might add).
Your point, Mr. Lied, is that even the troglodytes on LibertyForum are getting bored with you. You're not enough of a turd way rabble-rouser for them, with your dislike of communists. So you got smacked around a bit, and one day in May we can see your "Voegelin" postings slow down to a measly trickle and you're back under a new name, building up your old coterie of hangers-on.
Does that seem about right, Larry?
John's Luftus Latest Projects:
Pipeline of Hatred: Presentation of interest about Anti-Semitism
Obviously Loftus is Pro Israel and he's using "soft" facts but he's not a raving lunatic conspiracy nut. His credentials are solid and he's trying to put pieces together and is probably right some but not all of the time. It's interesting stuff though. While I do not believe the War for Oil crys I believe that it is too important to not have played a role in our foreign policy over the last century.
Ah, Onyx! I've wondered why you suddenly reappeared a while back. And here I see you've joined the "LarryLied tagteam". Larry, who also seems to have reappeared a while back ;).
Yes, isn't it? Although a few of those sucked in may not be aware that DBP101 is LarryLied yet. In any case, I'm taking names and watching the proceedings ;).
Hmm, sucked in.
I cant put my finger on the thread (probably pulled anyway), but I seem to remember a discussion with none other than Cachelot and a member of management where we learned that LL couldnt be a bigot because he, in fact turned in white supremacists to FR. Had to be from Frmail, recruiting activities, because you didnt need him to identify public posts. Do you remember that thread?
BTW, wrong thread, but backscratchers for cows is nuts. What's going on over there.
I will second that! One of my best friends for years feels the same way you do and she is Jewish. She doesn't consider Israel anymore her home than I do -- has religious significance for both of us as the land does for a lot of religions, but that is it. She thinks Pollard should stay in jail and throw away the key for being a spy!
Don't get it -- why would anyone support someone spying on the United States regardless of what Country they were spying for. An American spying should be locked up forever IMHO!
Rings all kinds of bells. In fact, LarryLied wasn't banned before he overtly started bringing in his cohorts from Stormfront, and then only after A: being horribly blatant about it, and B: the howl of protest from the non-slime-dripping section of FR got to the point where it would obviously be damaging.
but backscratchers for cows is nuts.
I know. Stupid cows. They should make auto-backscratchers for people instead. In fact, I think I'll go do a patent search.
What else do you hope will happen when the movie comes out next Easter?
Puffed, eh? :)
When I am the subject, you don't know who you're slurring or what you're talking about!
Are you completely sure of that, chimp? So what are you doing fawning over ol' antisemite LarryLied (DBP101), back from the land of the banned, if I may ask? Seems kinda weird, all things considered ;).
Wednesday, September 26, 2001
By Larry Dub
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
In a bitterly ironic way, the devastating terrorist assaults on New York and Washington which recently claimed thousands of innocent American lives bring to mind the desperate and futile attempts of Jonathan Pollard to save America and Israel from just such a catastrophe.
In the early 1980s, Jonathan Pollard was a civilian analyst in an anti-terrorist unit of the U.S. Navy. He was responsible for identifying state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East, analyzing information on terrorist activities and briefing American officials on the probability of terrorist strikes, both at home and abroad.
Pollard's unceasing message in these briefings and in the reports he submitted was if America did not combat terrorism abroad, the battle would eventually be brought home to be fought on American soil. Much to Pollard's dismay, as long as his reports were only about murdered Jews and Israeli targets, his exhortations were met with indifference. His warnings and his recommendations which if implemented threatened to disturb America's relations with her so called "moderate" Arab allies were largely ignored.
For example, Jonathan Pollard was deeply troubled that the U.S. government did not seem to appreciate the threat to American interests posed by Saddam Hussein. He repeatedly warned American officials of the dangerous game the U.S. was playing both in arming Iraq and providing it with sensitive intelligence. He also tried desperately to hold the U.S. to its commitment to warn Israel of "the Butcher of Baghdad's" lethal plans for the Jewish State. In his efforts to get this information legally released to Israel, Pollard appealed all the way up the chain of command in the Pentagon. To no avail. In desperation, Pollard finally gave the information to Israel himself.
Essentially, Jonathan Pollard warned Israel that Saddam Hussein was planning to scorch the Jewish State with weapons of mass destruction. What is perhaps most shocking of all, though, is the fact that this vital information was being purposely withheld from Israel by the U.S., Israel's closest ally.
While the exact reason for this betrayal will probably never be known, at least two high-ranking members of the American National Security establishment at the time Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and Deputy CIA Director Admiral Bobby Ray Inman were well aware of Iraq's genocidal intentions toward Israel, and chose to blindside the Jewish state. Their motive, it seems, was to curry favor with the Egyptians and the Saudis who viewed Saddam's covert strategic arsenal as a means to finally destroy Israel.
Nevertheless, thanks to Jonathan Pollard, Israel was ready with gas masks and sealed rooms when Iraq attacked her during the Gulf War.
In warning Israel, Jonathan broke the law. He deserved to be punished. But the punishment has to fit the crime. The usual sentence for spying for an ally is 2-4 years. Jonathan is about to complete his 16th year of a life sentence, with virtually no possibility of parole.
Jonathan Pollard did not spy against the United States. He was never indicted for intent to harm the United States, nor for treason, though he has been falsely accused of both. He received his life sentence without benefit of trial, as the result of a plea bargain which Jonathan honored and the U.S. violated.
Jonathan received a sentence far harsher than most of those who spied for an enemy nation. Twentieth-century spies Michael Walker, Clayton Lonetree and Richard Miller, who spied for the Soviet Union and did inestimable damage to American national security, are all free men today. Only Jonathan Pollard, a Jew who spied for the Jewish State, remains in prison with no end in sight.
Additionally, the case of Michael Schwartz highlights the disparity in sentencing between Jew and non-Jew and between Israel and other U.S. allies. Schwartz, a non-Jew who spied for Saudi Arabia, was arrested, confessed and indicted. But before he ever stood trial, a quick deal was worked out in order to appease America's Saudi ally. His punishment? Loss of his Navy job, rank and pension. Whereas Jonathan Pollard got life for his activities on behalf of a U.S. ally, Schwartz did not get a single day in prison.
An article ("Crime and Punishment," LA Jewish Journal 04/03/98) by J.J. Goldberg, Editor of The Forward (N.Y.), cites high-level Washington sources indicating that the Joint Chiefs of Staff acted through Caspar Weinberger to secure a life sentence for Jonathan Pollard that has nothing to do with Jonathan's guilt or innocence and everything to do with sending an intimidating message to Israel and to the American Jewish community: "High-ranking sources say that it was the Joint Chiefs of Staff who urged the judge, through then-Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, to ignore the plea agreement and throw the book at Pollard. They wanted to send a message. ... Pollard is still in jail, these sources say, not because his crime merits his lengthy sentence it doesn't but because too many American Jews still haven't gotten the message."
Perhaps this explains why both the American justice system and the clemency process have been repeatedly subverted in the Pollard case and why, in spite of the patently false accusations against him, Jonathan Pollard remains in prison nearly 16 years later.
Granted, there is resistance to releasing Jonathan Pollard from numerous officials and institutions in Washington which have gone to great lengths over the years to exaggerate and fabricate the damage Pollard allegedly did to U.S. national security. The record, however, has never supported these unsubstantiated claims.
Congressman Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., recently wrote a letter to President Bush in which he stated: "The facts of the case show that none of the information provided by Mr. Pollard resulted in the loss of lives or the utility of any agents, the need to replace or relocate intelligence equipment, the loss of sources of information, or the compromising of technology. And while sentences in espionage cases are traditionally proportional to the damage caused, Mr. Pollard's sentence is in gross violation of this principle. Having reviewed many of the documents in the case myself and received numerous briefings on the subject, I believe that if anyone were to conduct an original review of Mr. Pollard's case, they would come to the same conclusion that I have: Mr. Pollard's sentence does not fit his crime."
Indeed, the Government's own Victim Impact Statement (VIS), which was submitted to the court prior to sentencing indicated that Pollard's greatest "sin" was that by giving Israel vital security information which permitted the Jewish state to act in its own defense, he had made Israel "too strong" and thus angered America's "moderate" Arab allies.
The assertion that Pollard had disturbed the balance of power in the Middle East by making Israel "too strong" is absurd. As pointed out by David Zwiebel, Esq., in his 1997 critique of the VIS:
For decades, Washington has sought to assure Israel of a qualitative military and strategic advantage vis-à-vis its Arab neighbors; Pollard's actions were, if anything, consistent with this goal.
Moreover, events of subsequent years (and especially the Gulf War) have shown America's enormous credibility with its allies in the Arab world; Pollard's actions had no discernible impact here.
Finally, intelligence-sharing between the United States and Israel has actually been strengthened in the past decade, culminating in a historic strategic cooperation agreement between the two states in 1996; Israel now receives real-time data throughout the day from U.S. intelligence satellites.
If Pollard's actions indeed "adversely affected U.S. relations with both its Middle East Arab allies and the Government of Israel," as claimed in the VIS, it seems fair over a decade later to say that such adverse impact was of short duration.
Nevertheless, in response to the "moderate" Arab allies' complaints that Pollard had made Israel "too strong," the entire American judicial process was subverted. This judicial subversion resulted in an unprecedented life sentence for Jonathan Pollard, which was intended not only to send a severe warning to Israel, but more importantly, to placate America's oil-rich Arab allies.
In spite of the passage of time which has exposed government allegations against Jonathan Pollard as either gross exaggerations or outright lies, and in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, America continues to punish Jonathan Pollard as if he had committed a far more serious crime and as if Israel were an enemy state. Meanwhile America continues to indulge her "moderate" Arab allies as if she were unaware of their connection to and tolerance of terrorism.
As of September 11, 2001, the above situation is no longer tolerable. America's sufferance of Arab "allies" who tolerate terrorism and give it safe haven must cease immediately; and the grossly disproportionate sentence meted out to Pollard to placate these so-called allies must be immediately resolved.
What can be done to bring resolution to the Pollard case which has for 16 years remained impervious to due process and truth? In 1998, a political solution was sought and found but never implemented. That solution remains viable to this day.
Most Americans and Israelis know that on the heels of the Pollard crisis at the Wye River Summit in 1998, former President Clinton promised former Prime Minister Netanyahu that he would review the Pollard issue. What very few people know is that both prior to the Wye summit and then, again, as an integral part of the Wye accords, President Clinton had, in fact, committed the United States to freeing Jonathan Pollard. The U.S. commitment still stands to this day, waiting to be honored. Israel has fulfilled its part of the deal. The U.S. must live up to its end of the agreement.
In order to understand why America still owes Jonathan Pollard to Israel, it is necessary to understand the sequence of events before, during and after the Wye River Summit. According to a variety of eyewitness participants, including Mr. Netanyahu himself, this is what happened:
In September 1998, just before the mid-term congressional elections, President Clinton (who at the time was facing impeachment hearings and in need of a foreign policy PR victory) asked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to attend a three-way summit with the Palestinians at Wye River, Maryland. Clinton knew that a successful summit at Wye just before the Congressional elections would be good not only for his image, but would also reap political benefits for the Democrats in their bid to regain control of Congress. As an inducement to Netanyahu, Clinton promised to release Jonathan Pollard within the context of the summit.
Understanding the value of Jonathan Pollard for his own re-election bid, and needing him as a sweetener to sell any kind of "peace" deal to the Israeli people, Netanyahu ignored the entreaties of Republican friends like Newt Gingrich, who implored him not to hand a PR victory to the Democrats, and agreed to attend the summit.
Once the Summit was underway, Clinton "forgot" his promise to free Pollard. Netanyahu knew he had been had but there was little he could do about it at that point.
Talks at Wye soon broke down over the release of Palestinian murderers with Jewish blood on their hands, and over Israel's request for the extradition of Ghazi Jabali, the chief of police in Gaza who was wanted for his role in planning and executing terrorist attacks in Israel. To break the stalemate, the Palestinians suggested Jonathan Pollard as the solution. They proposed that Pollard be "sold" to Netanyahu once again: The U.S. would give Jonathan to Israel in return for Israel's freeing hundreds of Palestinian terrorists, and immunity for Ghazi Jabali.
The U.S. and Israel agreed to the Palestinian plan to swap Pollard for terrorists and murderers. President Clinton personally worked out the details in a late-night private session with Palestinian and Israeli representatives. According to the deal, Prime Minister Netanyahu was to receive a letter from President Clinton the next morning (one of approximately 30 letters the Americans had promised) guaranteeing Pollard's release for November 11, 1998, one week after the U.S. House elections. Jonathan Pollard did not agree to this deal. He was not even consulted.
Had Pollard been consulted, he would have warned the U.S. and Israel that making deals with terrorists only encourages them and that his freedom should be arranged in a way that redresses the injustices in his case and brings honor to both the United States and Israel.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that Pollard's release was negotiated at Wye in a currency agreed upon by both Israel and the United States.
What is more, the Pollard negotiation was the deal-maker at Wye which allowed the summit to be successfully wrapped up and a signing ceremony to be planned for the next morning in Washington on Friday, October 23, 1998.
Only hours before the signing ceremony, P.M. Netanyahu received all of the American letters that had been promised to him except one the one guaranteeing the release of Jonathan Pollard. Netanyahu threatened not to attend the signing ceremony unless he got the Pollard side letter. Clinton said, "Trust me." Netanyahu, knowing he was about to be double-crossed by Clinton over Pollard for the second time, refused.
Netanyahu demanded that in the absence of a letter of guarantee, Pollard should be freed into his custody immediately, or no signing ceremony. Ariel Sharon, who was then a Cabinet minister and is now prime minister of Israel, supported Netanyahu and they threatened to leave Wye without signing the Accords.
In order to take the pressure off President Clinton, CIA chief George Tenet leaked the news of Pollard's imminent release to the media in a deliberate and ultimately successful attempt to torpedo the deal. He sent emissaries to Capitol Hill to hold emergency meetings with leading senators and congressmen to enlist their support in publicly denouncing Pollard's release. Many lies were told by the CIA emissaries to convince the American legislators to act swiftly and in unison. Believing the lies, the legislators complied and began an unprecedented series of public actions to prevent the release of Jonathan Pollard.
Meanwhile, at Wye, under heavy pressure and still fearful that Netanyahu would not back down, Clinton quickly negotiated a private fall-back position with Netanyahu: Clinton would publicly promise to do a "speedy review" of the Pollard Case and he would use that review to free Pollard a few months later, parallel to the release of the 750 Palestinian terrorists who were part of the price Israel had agreed to pay for Pollard.
Under heavy public pressure and betrayed by his own minister of defense, Yitzhak Mordecai, who closed ranks with Clinton, Netanyahu reluctantly and with misgivings accepted this private deal. The signing ceremony was held in Washington as scheduled.
Netanyahu's capitulation at Wye and the lopsided deal he brought home from the summit, now that Pollard was no longer publicly perceived to be a part of it, would shortly cost him his premiership. This, in turn, would jeopardize the private deal that Netanyahu had made with Clinton because it required the next prime minister to ensure that Pollard's release was delivered as promised by the U.S.
After the signing of the Wye Accords, when Clinton had all that he wanted from the Israeli leader, the White House falsely accused Netanyahu of having injected Pollard into the summit at the last moment. However, eye-witnesses to the Pollard deal at Wye, including the Israeli and the Palestinian who had negotiated the deal with Clinton, and the former Israeli Cabinet secretary, Dani Naveh (currently minister without portfolio), all later contradicted the White House version of events and affirmed that President Clinton had committed the United States to the release of Jonathan Pollard as an integral part of the Wye Accords.
When Netanyahu returned to Israel after Wye, he created a firestorm of publicity by releasing 200 Palestinian common criminals from Israeli prisons. The Palestinians were outraged because they insisted that these common criminals were not the prisoners that they had bargained for at Wye. The Americans also angrily protested. Netanyahu reminded Washington that the Wye Accords do not specify exactly which prisoners Israel must release.
Critics wondered why the prime minister would so deliberately antagonize the Americans this way. Only those close to Prime Minister Netanyahu understood that this was Netanyahu's private, pointed reminder to Bill Clinton that if he were thinking of double-crossing him over Pollard yet a third time, he should think again. No Pollard, no release for the Palestinian murderers and terrorists. Unfortunately for Jonathan Pollard, Netanyahu's government fell before he was able to act on this.
In a meeting with Netanyahu right after his electoral defeat in the Spring of 1999, Jonathan Pollard's wife, Esther, received assurances from Netanyahu that the new prime minister, Ehud Barak, had been fully briefed about what had been agreed to at Wye and about the fall-back position that is to say, Israel had yet to free the 750 terrorists with blood on their hands and was still supposed to receive Pollard home in what would be publicly presented as a parallel "gesture" from President Clinton.
Not long after Barak took office, the 750 Palestinian murderers and terrorists walked out of prison as free men. Jonathan Pollard remained in his American jail cell.
In an attempt to justify Clinton's reneging at Wye, a story was leaked to the press that George Tenet had threatened to resign as head of the CIA if Pollard were released. It became popular to cite the opposition of the American intelligence community as the reason Clinton did not honor the U.S. commitment at Wye to free Pollard. This would soon be exposed as nothing more than a lame excuse.
In September of 1999, Clinton ignored a solid wall of opposition from the Justice, Intelligence and Defense Departments and Congress, and invoked his powers of executive clemency to free a group of unrepentant FALN terrorists in an apparent attempt to gain Hispanic support for his wife in her N.Y. Senate bid. In doing so, Clinton effectively put the lie to the notion that any government agency might tie his hands or influence his decision in matters of clemency. CIA chief Tenet's alleged threat to resign was clearly an excuse, not the reason, for keeping Pollard in prison.
More than two years after Wye, President Clinton's "speedy review" of the Pollard case still had not occurred. Jonathan Pollard remained in prison while the U.S. continued to extract Israeli concessions for his release. Those who still believed the myth that the American intelligence community was tying the hands of President Clinton also clung to the belief he would finally honor America's promise to release Jonathan Pollard at the end of his term, when he could do so without fear of political reprisal.
But when Clinton left office in January 2001, Jonathan Pollard was not included among those to whom he granted clemency, in spite of the American commitment to free Pollard as an integral part of the Wye Accords; in spite of the appeals of the Jewish community; and in spite of the demonstrable injustices of the Pollard case which include:
a grossly disproportionate sentence;
a plea agreement violated by the U.S. (honored by Pollard);
the use of secret evidence;
a false charge of treason;
ineffective assistance of counsel;
a lack of due process; and
a sentencing procedure infected by false allegations and lies. On his last day in office, Clinton granted clemency to 140 people. Many of these pardons were judicially insupportable and it was suspected that many of the recipients had "bought" them with very large financial contributions. The most flagrant of these tainted pardons was granted to a notorious billionaire, a criminal fugitive from justice who never stood trial, much less spent time in prison.
Again, although the legal system and the clemency process have repeatedly failed to do justice in the case of Jonathan Pollard, there remains one last avenue for relief. The commitment that the United States made at Wye to free Jonathan Pollard is still in effect still viable and has yet to be honored. On February 28, 2001, Minister Dani Naveh, an eyewitness to the Wye deal, made the following remarks in the Knesset Record:
The former President of the United States, Bill Clinton, made an explicit commitment to the then-Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, to release Jonathan Pollard. This promise was made prior to the Wye Summit and [again] during the course of the negotiations at Wye. ... This was not a personal promise made to a particular prime minister. ... This was a promise made to the State of Israel and to the People of Israel.
Dani Naveh, minister without portfolio
As Naveh clearly indicated, at Wye, Mr. Clinton acted in his capacity as president of the United States and the commitments he made as an integral part of the Wye Accords are binding upon successive administrations until fulfilled. The current prime minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, was also an eyewitness to America's promise to free Jonathan Pollard. Both morally and legally, Sharon has no right to "forgive" that commitment to free Jonathan Pollard which was paid for so heavily in Israeli blood, territory and self-respect.
Since the Wye Summit, terrorist chief of police Ghazi Jabali has remained immune from all charges and, to this day, continues to plan and promote terrorist attacks against Israeli civilian targets. Thanks to the U.S., the ranks of his bloodthirsty "army" are now larger by 750 terrorists the price Israel paid at Wye for Jonathan Pollard. It is high time for America to fulfill her end of the deal by releasing Jonathan Pollard. His life sentence is a travesty of justice the product of malicious lies driven by America's determination to appease her Arab allies.
Jonathan Pollard put it best when he recently said, "My release must be a matter of principle of justice and of due process and it should reflect the honor and integrity of the U.S.-Israel special relationship. Israel has already paid for my release at Wye. It is time to collect it."
Now, more than ever, Israel must honor its commitment to Jonathan Pollard by collecting on America's promise to free him and America must fulfill its commitment to Israel.
By releasing Jonathan Pollard, America will demonstrate her renewed commitment to equal justice for all untainted by political motive and reaffirm her relationship to Israel as a valued ally and faithful partner in the war against terrorism.
Larry Dub has been associated with the Pollard case since the time of Jonathan Pollard's arrest in 1985. He became Jonathan Pollard's Jerusalem-based attorney in 1994. He and his partner, Baruch Ben-Yosef, filed a series of suits in the Supreme Court of Israel which resulted in the government of Israel recognizing Jonathan Pollard as a bona fide Israeli agent and in granting him Israeli citizenship.
In the U.S., Jonathan Pollard is represented by Eliot Lauer and Jacques Semmelman of Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP Park Avenue, N.Y.
For further information on the Pollard case, visit the Justice For Jonathan Pollard Web Site. Justice4JP@aol.com
I doubt Clinton was so much anti-Isreali as just indifferent. He wanted to strike some kind of deal in order to give the Nobel Prize Committeee a pretext to award him an undeserved prize, as a consolation for impeachment. One hundred years from now, when the phrase "President Clinton..." is most familiar as the begining of yet another bawdy joke, he was hoping that his reputation would have the a Nobel prize to hide behind, as if to say, a prophet is not without honor, except in his own country.
I agree, he could tolerate a lot of dead Isrealis if it meant a Nobel Prize for him.
From John Loftus and Mark Aarons, The Secret War Against the Jews, St. Martins Griffin, 1994, page 402:
Far from being the super spy that "Cap" Weinberger portrayed him to be, Pollard was a low-level incompetent with an exaggerated opinion of his own worth. CIA officer Ricky Ames may have exaggerated Pollard's leaks in order to conceal his own work for the Russians. As a practical matter, Pollard had little access either to communications intercept or satellite data, let alone secret NSA codes. According to the security officers familiar with the Pollard case, his primary access was to U.S. Navy data banks on ocean shipping. His private focus was on arms shipments to terrorists, which was fairly routine material.
Who said Pollard was a "super spy"? Ames, the Russian spy, to protect himself.
Ames was able to fool the "flutter" or polygraph, and to manipulate his superiors including Caspar Weinberger.