BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 05:23 PM

Carol, I regards to the Jewish Press, as the editor said, It could have been written in an opinion column and they do have many of those columns. Another publication where I get much of my information from is "The Jewish Voice And Opinion" which is published in Englewood, N.J. (Bill H's back yard). I may have seen it there. The Editor is Susan L. Rosenbluth and she can be e-mailed at
susan@jewishvoiceandopinion The same question to her as you posed to The Jewish Press may yield a different result. It's worth a try.
SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 04:38 PM

Wolgang:   Your post re: Jack The Sailor and the juxtapositioning of his comments were right on----I was thinking the same thing. When you have no response refer to name calling---not even a clever insult. Clever insults and witty ripostes are always appreciated.

So, I suppose, as the old joke goes after much haranguing about something the recipient of the harangue (me) says to the haranguer (Jack/sailor) ---does that mean you won't be coming over to help me anymore?

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 03:38 PM

Sorry not euphamism,
how about "expression".

I've explained "especially" more than enough times for you to get my intended meaning. The level of betrayal is higher. The potential for abuse greater. If you disagree with my opinion then we'll just have to disagree.

Yes I do see some humour in the juxtaposition of the two sentences. But I don't in the context of the whole thread and in the context of a couple of other threads where the same few people have been liberal with their insults and short on reason. Here again, I fear we are destined to disagree. That's why I accused you of scanning.

I suggest that the next time you "stumble" upon such "humour" you try to consider the context before you share it. If you don't see any justification for calling someone a jerk when he tried to question my marriage,when he deliberately and pointedly tried to distract us with a huge cut and paste which added nothing new, then again, we will just have to disagree.

Wolfgang, honestly, I thought better of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 03:06 PM

forget it wolfgang. you can't reason with an anti-semitic hate monger like jack the sailor.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 03:04 PM

oh, and carol, you should know that what goes on at the mudcat forum will never have any effect on any decisions that are made in the pollard case or in anything at all pertaining to the conflict between israel and the palestinian terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 03:02 PM

"Let him rot" was a euphamism (Jack the Sailor)

euphemism: the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for for one that may offend (Websters)

I'm curious, Jack, what would you have said if you had not used this unoffensive expression?

Jack, you make assumptions about me that are totally wrong. I make a lot of errors and I like to laugh about myself. I do not scan what I read for laughs I sometimes stumble upon it (even when rereading what I have written).

And I thought it was completely clear that I had laughed about the first quote. If you cannot laugh about yourself when you see the two sentences in juxtaposition, I'm sorry for you.

With the second quote from you I was completely serious. I do not consider it laughing matter if one country is singled out for different treatment by a word like 'especially'. You just could have explained it instead of firing off insults.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 03:01 PM

forget it zilch. you can't argue with an anti-semitic hate monger like jack.

i have learned something in this thread. i always thought that carolc was the really nasty one in that pair. she comes off as relatively reasonable and balanced in comparison to her vicious hate-mongering husband.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 02:55 PM

BTW, I don't think those of you who are trying to set traps for JtS to stumble into are helping Pollard's cause any, either. Why not just let it drop and try to help Pollard by supporting the people who are tyrying to secure his release quietly behind the scenes?

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 02:52 PM

Just what "government of Israel and prominent Jewish groups" are you talking about?

Do a Google search on "Jonathan Pollard" and you can see for yourself. The people in question include Benjamin Netanyahu.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Alonzo M. Zilch (inactive)
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 02:49 PM

Based on your last posting that crossed with mine, I will assume that "prominent Jewish groups" is some sort of code that you use.

"Prominent" is not a "relative term." My dictionary offers two meanings:

1) Projecting outward or upward from a line or surface; protuberant.

2) Widely known; eminent.

In the context that you use the word, it is, obviously, # 2.

Let me rephrase the question to you in words that may be more understandable: What WIDELY KNOWN or EMINENT Jewish groups are you talking about?

If you're talking about a grassroots effort by Pollard's family, friends and supporters, that does not meet anyone's standard of widely known, eminent, or prominent.

In other words, you are using thinly veiled code to advance your agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 02:47 PM

GUEST,Yes, I am a Cunning Ham, I am, I don't think you understand the principle of equality before the law. The law does not specify how long people should have to serve for the crime of espionage. If the US determined that an American who spies against the US on behalf of a "friend and ally" posess a greater security threat than someone who does it for an enemy nation, they would make their decisions about how to deal with such people on that basis.

And when people go around saying things like "Pollard was only spying on a 'friend and ally', they give the appearance of suggesting that it's not as bad to spy on the US on behalf of a country that is a 'friend and ally', as it is to spy on behalf of an enemy. I can see how the intelligence community could see this as constituting an increased security threat.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Alonzo M. Zilch (inactive)
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 02:40 PM

Again, you're harping on "prominet Jewish groups."

Which prominent Jewish groups are you talking about? Or is that some sort of code that you use?

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 02:40 PM

Israel has granted him citizenship. Promanent is a relative term. In any case Israel should denouce what he has done and return the materials he stole. He should renounce what he has done and not be allowed to profit from his crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 02:35 PM

Equality before the law? LOL Each case should be decided on its own merits, sentencing should be for deterence and rehabilitation. Pollard and would be Pollards are obviously neither rehabilitated nor deterred. That's the difference between a mercenary and an ideologue. The ideologue needs more punishment to be deterred, the ideologue may never be rehabilitated.

You people are defending Pollard as having done the right thing. No low level analyst is given the authority to interpret "memorandums of understanding" with foreign governments on their own. It is an act of betrayal for them to do so. It was an act of betrayal for Israel to accept. A true ally might have turned him in to the US authorities for even trying to betray his own country. Pollard has to accept the consequences of this betrayal, so does Israel, so do promenant Jewish groups.

Until then I say let him rot. (please note I am not advocating actual, physical rotting, It is an expression meaning let him continue his sentence.)

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Alonzo M. Zilch (inactive)
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 02:28 PM

If Pollard, the government of Israel and the prominent Jewish groups do not back off then I am prepared to believe that Mr. Pollard has learned nothing from his incarceration, that potential spies have received no clear message of deterrance and that he should stay in prison until such time as he clearly renounces what he has done.

Just what "government of Israel and prominent Jewish groups" are you talking about? The lobbying on behalf of Pollard seems to be a largely grassroots effort in which those lobbying on his behalf are decrying the fact that prominent Jewish organizations and the Israeli government have not been involved in lobbying on behalf of Pollard.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 02:22 PM

I think that Pollard is being made a martyr and the term antisemite is being thrown around way too much. I think Rabbi-Sol should renounce what he said about "Sentenced as a Jew" and should in future should only make such accusations if he is prepared to back it up much better than he has in this case.

Pollard and his supporters seem to be playing chicken with the US athorities whereby they are trying to have their spies and free them to.

If Pollard is released, it should be on parole, the terms of the parople being that he should not be able to accept any reward of any kind from Israel, and that he and the Israeli government, both condemn his actions. He should not be allowed to migrate to Israel.

If Pollard, the government of Israel and the prominent Jewish groups do not back off then I am prepared to believe that Mr. Pollard has learned nothing from his incarceration, that potential spies have received no clear message of deterrance and that he should stay in prison until such time as he clearly renounces what he has done.

"Let him rot" was a euphamism, hopefully you now understand what I meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: GUEST,Yes, I am a Cunning Ham, I am
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 02:22 PM

People seem to be conveniently not noticing that JtS said he would consider an American spying for JtS' own country, Canada, to be as serious as an American spying for Israel. This is hardly discriminatory. His point is that friends should be held to a higher standard.

Then Jack the Sailor doesn't believe in the principle of equality before the law. I don't know about where he comes from, but that's SUPPOSED to be the cornerstone of the AMERICAN justice system.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: GUEST,Yes, I am a Cunning Ham, I am
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 02:18 PM

No, please refer to the post of 25 Jul 04 - 05:41 PM.

Although, feel free to respond to the same comment from artbrooks.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 02:17 PM

People seem to be conveniently not noticing that JtS said he would consider an American spying for JtS' own country, Canada, to be as serious as an American spying for Israel. This is hardly discriminatory. His point is that friends should be held to a higher standard.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 02:12 PM

So, CarolC, what do you say to the guy in this thread who been saying that spying for Israel is worse than spying for our enemies, the guy who says about Pollard, "let him rot."

Are you talking about artbrooks, GUEST,Yes, I am a Cunning Ham, I am?

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 02:07 PM

Why Wolfgang,

I'm not substituting insult for thought. I was simply telling Bill H, why I wasn't responding to him. I guess, If I were perfect, like you, I'd be able to tolerate all of the insults that my wife and I have been subjected to on this thread without reaction. I'm not perfect. My esteem for Rabbi-Sol has increased with each exchange with him. Other participants in this thread have tried my patience to near its end.

YES Especially Israel. If you were reading to try to understand my meaning instead of scanning to find things to laugh at, then you might have noticed the idea I have put forth in this thread several times that as a supposedly close ally as the number one recipient of US military aid then Israel should be held to a higher standard. That's what I believe and if you find it funny, laugh away.

Lets get this straight, you are condemning me for being insulting while you laugh at me in an obviously self-righteous manner. Keep that up Wolfgang, you are bound to make friends and influence people that way.   LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: GUEST,Yes, I am a Cunning Ham, I am
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 02:04 PM

So, CarolC, what do you say to the guy in this thread who been saying that spying for Israel is worse than spying for our enemies, the guy who says about Pollard, "let him rot."

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 02:04 PM

Carol, you do not have to look far when you are out for spotting discriminatory language.

Wolfgang, why not wait for him to answer your question before you make a statement like this to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 01:52 PM

Rabbi Sol asked for opinions. Here is mine...

I think Pollard should probably be released. But I also think that people should stop trying to promote him as a hero. I think that as long as Pollard and others continue to promote him this way (in his "officially authorised" website, as well as many other websites, and posts to this thread), he poses a threat because of the kind of message that is sent to other people in the intelligence community who might want to consider spying for other cuntries against their own country.

I think Pollard is his own worst enemy, along with his wife, and all of the groups who are trying to promote him as a hero. I agree with the opinion piece I posted earlier that suggested that if people really want to see Pollard released, they need to stop engaging in the kind of bellicose and shrill language that we have seen here in this thread and in many of the websites that purport to call for his release.

I think there is a high probability that Pollard has been and is being used as a political football, not only by the US government, but also by the Israeli government as well as many of the groups who are so stridently throwing around accusations that Pollard is being treated unjustly just because he is a Jew.

I think that any accusations that Pollard is being treated unjustly just because he is a Jew are scurrilous and inflamitory, and I agree with Mr Maoz (editor at The Jewish Press) that such language is highly irresponsible.

I think Pollard probably should be released, but you all are doing far more damage to his case then good. If you guys really want to see him get released, you ought to support the people who are quietly working behind the scenes to secure his release, and stop using him as your own political football.

BTW, I base most of my opinion that he should probably be released on the fact that the ACLU was willing to act on his behalf.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 01:45 PM

Why all the namecalling? Do you think that Insult is a substute for thought?

Bill H

You've been nothing but a jerk. (Jack the Sailor)

Jack,
to see the last two sentences by you one directly after the other has given my my Mudcat laugh of the week.

I don't like to see that applied to traitors. Especially traitors who spy for Israel (Jack the Sailor, my emphasis)

Why 'especially'?
Carol, you do not have to look far when you are out for spotting discriminatory language.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Alonzo M. Zilch (inactive)
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 01:32 PM

In my posting at 6:21 PM yesterday, I said:

Despite everything that transpired in this case, I don't think you'll find too many Americans, even pacifists who abhor the Iraq wars enacted by both Bushes, who are sorry that the Israelis destroyed Saadam's nuclear capabilities. That action made this planet a much safer place than it otherwise would have been.

I stand by what I said in that paragraph, however, in view of CarolC's last posting, I would like to make a clarification. Other than it being in a posting that was discussing Weinberger's undue influence on the judge in the Pollard case, I did not link Israel's bombing of Iraq's nuclear facility with the Pollard case. No link should be implied.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 01:16 PM

Here's the contents of my e-mail to the editor of The Jewish Press...


"I am engaging in an on-line discussion with an aquaintance of mine. He wrote this:

"When the Arab & Communist dominated UN condemmed Israel for this heroic attack on the reactor, Weinberger (Becthtel Corp.), promised the Saudis and the rest of the Arab world that "Pollard The Jew", would be punished as harshly as was within his power to do so."

...and I asked him if he could provide some documentation for this kind of language coming from Caspar Weinberger. He said he read it in your publication, that he no longer has the issue in which he read it, and he suggested that I ask via e-mail if someone in your organization can provide documentation for this quote."

Here is the response I got just a few minutes ago from The Jewish Press:

"He's mistaken. It's a historical impossibility. The reactor was bombed in 1981 -- before Pollard even began spying. (Which of course dispels the myth in certain circles that Pollard's information helped the Israelis bomb the reactor.) In any event, Pollard was arrested in 1985, so Weinberger could not have made the statement as quoted. Finally, although Weinberger was not what one would call a friend of Israel, there is absolutely no evidence that he ever made such crude anti-Semitic comments.

If this individual did see it in The Jewish Press (and I doubt he did), it would have been not in a news story but in an opinion column that escaped proper editorial scrutiny at the time. But I repeat -- Pollard did not have anything to do with the reactor, his spying began a couple of years later and he was arrested four years after the reactor incident. And to attribute such a remark to Weinberger is highly irresponsible.

Please call me with any further questions at 718-330-1100, ext. 271."
Jason Maoz
Senior Editor


I now have an opinion on this issue, and I'll start working on my post about it right away.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: artbrooks
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 08:53 AM

Remind me to tell my wife that she is officially dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Alonzo M. Zilch (inactive)
Date: 26 Jul 04 - 07:52 AM

Rabbi-Sol,

As I'm sure you know, the intermarriage rate in the US is approaching 50% and, I've never heard of anyone in recent generations being excommunicated. My understanding of Jewish law is that the door is always open. You may recall that Bob Dylan converted to Christianity in the late-1970s, but was welcomed back to the fold by Lubavitchers several years later. It seems to me that accepting Jesus Christ as your personal saviour would be as serious, if not more so, than intermarrying.

And, of course, all denominations in Judaism have conversion programs for potential spouses of Jews.

I've also not known any families, in this day and age, who have sat Shiva for someone who has intermarried.

Of course, my personal experience is as a Reconstructionist who was raised in Conservative Judaism. However, I do have friends and relatives who are Orthodox (my personal experience with the ultra-Orthodox is from a distance).

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 11:55 PM

Excommunication. In addition, the family observes the same mourning ritual for the offending member just as if he (or she) had passed away. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 11:45 PM

What is the punishment for marrying out of the faith?

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 11:26 PM

Senator Lieberman was so interested in his own ambitions of seeking national office, that he distanced himself from Pollard on purpose. He did not want to soil his image by giving even the slightest hint of impropriety in order to curry favor with those who would accuse him of dual loyalty. He even went so far as making a false statement of Jewish law on the Larry King show. He stated that intermarriage between Jews & Gentiles was permitted by Jewish Law. That is an absolute false statement. Marrying out of the faith is a cardinal sin according to Jewish Law and is absolutely prohibited. These two factors caused a tremendous backlash in the Orthodox Jewish community, and resulted in many more votes for the Bush-Cheney ticket then they would have normally garnered. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 10:55 PM

Rabbi Sol, I've sent an e-mail to the Editor of The Jewish Press. I did an internal search in their website and nothing turned up, but maybe the Editor will have something for me.

Bill H, I see that the copy/past job you did was from the "officially authorised" Jonathan and Esther Pollard website. That's the very same website I posted quotes from and a link to earlier in this thread, in which Esther Pollard accuses several members of the government of Israel of sabotaging Pollard's case because, according to Mrs. Pollard, they have things to hide that Jonathan's release could bring to light. Can you please explain these descrepancies with the same site, coming from Jonathan Pollard's own wife?

Can anyone tell me what Senator Leiberman's response was to the request from NY State Senator Seymour Lachman for Senator Leiberman to support the Dec. 6, 2000 ACLU Amicus brief requesting that the classified materials be made available to Pollard's attorneys?

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 09:37 PM

I remain unconvinced that Weinberger is an antisemite.

while jack the sailor remains unconvinced that weinberger is an anti-semite, there are many who are convinced, based on the consistency of his posts in this and other threads, that jack the sailor is himself, an anti-semite.

good on you bill hahn, good on you rabbi-sol, good on you alonzo m. zilch, and good on any others who stand up to the dales' hate-mongering.

as for carolc's claim that she doesn't have an opinion on what should happen to pollard, i noticed that her nose really grew when she wrote that line.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 09:07 PM

Bill H

You've been nothing but a jerk. As usual you've presented nothing new. I'll not be wasting any more time on you or you feeble insults.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 08:55 PM

Rabbi-Sol,

You have expressed your opinion, I have expressed mine. I remain unconvinced that Weinberger is an antisemite. I find it amazing that you seem so convinced but have no current evidence for such a serious accusation. I honestly think that the Jewish leaders speaking for Pollard is putting the government in an akward position. It is certianly sending the wrong message to members of your community who are in government service.

Zilch, it is not a matter of influence. It is a matter of sentencing recommendation. Influential people speak at parole hearings and such every day. Who would be in a better position to speak on sentecing of a spy than a senior official?

To the rest of you. Why all the namecalling? Do you think that Insult is a substute for thought?

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 08:52 PM

Oh what the hell---one last post--check this out: This should take up some of Carol and The Nautical man's time.

The Facts of the Pollard Case
Click here to go directly to related articles and sub pages below.
See also Information on the Pollard Case.
Jonathan Pollard was a civilian American Naval intelligence analyst. In the mid 1980's (circa 1983-1984), Pollard discovered that information vital to Israel's security was being deliberately withheld by certain elements within the U.S. national security establishment.

Israel was legally entitled to this vital security information according to a 1983 Memorandum of Understanding between the two countries.

The information being withheld from Israel included Syrian, Iraqi, Libyan and Iranian nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare capabilities - being developed for use against Israel. It also included information on ballistic missile development by these countries and information on planned terrorist attacks against Israeli civilian targets.

When Pollard discovered this suppression of information and asked his superiors about it, he was told to "mind his own business", and that "Jews get nervous talking about poison gas; they don't need to know."
He also learned that the objective of cutting off the flow of information to Israel was to severely curtail Israel's ability to act independently in defense of her own interests.


Pollard was painfully aware that Israeli lives were being put in jeopardy as a result of this undeclared intelligence embargo. He did everything he possibly could to stop this covert policy and to have the legal flow of information to Israel restored. When his efforts met no success, he began to give the information to Israel directly.

Jonathan Pollard was an ideologue, not a mercenary. The FBI concluded after nine months of polygraphing that Pollard acted for ideological reasons only, not for profit. This fact was recognized by the sentencing judge who declined to fine Pollard. (See the addendum for further details.)
Furthermore, on May 11, 1998, Israel formally acknowledged Jonathan Pollard had been a bona fide Israeli agent. This fact wiped out any remaining doubt about Jonathan Pollard's motives. Being an official agent is, by definition, the polar opposite of being a mercenary.


In 1985, his actions were discovered by the U.S. government. His instructions from Israel were to seek refuge in the Israeli embassy in Washington. When Pollard and his former wife sought refuge there, they were at first received and then summarily thrown out into the waiting arms of the FBI.

Jonathan Pollard never had a trial. At the request of both the U.S. and Israeli governments, he entered into a plea agreement, which spared both governments a long, difficult, expensive and potentially embarrassing trial.

Jonathan Pollard fulfilled his end of the plea agreement, cooperating fully with the prosecution.

Nevertheless, Pollard received a life sentence and a recommendation that he never be paroled - in complete violation of the plea agreement he had reached with the government.

Jonathan Pollard was never indicted for harming the United States.

Jonathan Pollard was never indicted for compromising codes, agents, or war plans.

Jonathan Pollard was never charged with treason. [Legally, treason is a charge that is only applicable when one spies for an enemy state in time of war.]

Jonathan Pollard was indicted on only one charge: one count of passing classified information to an ally, without intent to harm the United States.

Prior to sentencing, then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger delivered a 46-page classified memorandum to the sentencing judge. Since then, neither Pollard nor any of his cleared attorneys have ever been allowed to access the memorandum to challenge the false charges it contains-a clear violation of Pollard's constitutional rights.

The day before sentencing, Weinberger delivered a four-page supplemental memorandum to the sentencing judge. In it, he falsely accused Pollard of treason. Also in the supplemental memorandum, Weinberger advocated a life sentence in clear violation of Pollard's plea agreement. The implication that follows from Weinberger's false characterization of Pollard's offense as "treason" is that the country Pollard served, Israel, is an enemy state.


Pollard was shown the supplemental Weinberger memorandum only once, just moments before sentencing - hardly adequate time to prepare an appropriate defense to rebut the false accusations in it.

No one else in the history of the United States has ever received a life sentence for passing classified information to an ally - only Jonathan Pollard. The median sentence for this offense is two to four years. Even agents who have committed far more serious offenses on behalf of hostile nations have not received such a harsh sentence.

Pollard's attorney never appealed from the life sentence. The time to file for such an appeal was within ten days of sentencing. Years later, with a different attorney, Pollard filed a habeas corpus challenge to the sentence.
The Court of Appeals, in a two-to-one decision, rejected the challenge, largely on procedural grounds.

The majority placed heavy emphasis on the failure to appeal from the life sentence in a timely manner, and on the resulting far heavier burden faced by Pollard in seeking to challenge the sentence via habeas corpus. [Note: "Habeas corpus" is a procedure by which an incarcerated person may bring a court challenge to the legality of his or her incarceration - often long after the underlying case has been concluded.]

In a dissenting opinion, Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Williams called the case "a fundamental miscarriage of justice," and wrote that he would have ordered that Pollard's sentence be vacated.


In November 1995, Israel granted Jonathan Pollard Israeli citizenship. The official presentation took place in January of 1996. This publicly signaled to the U.S. Israel's willingness to accept full responsibility for Pollard.

U.S. government sources falsely accuse Pollard in the media of passing "rooms full of classified information" and "hundreds of thousands of documents" to Israel. This volume of information is an absurdity! Pollard would have needed to make numerous "drops" using a moving van to have transferred such a large volume of information. In actual fact, Jonathan Pollard made a grand total of eleven "drops" to the Israelis, using only a small briefcase to hold the documents.

The government used an insidious formula to exaggerate the volume of information that Jonathan Pollard passed to Israel. The formula was: if only one page or a single sentence of a document was passed to the Israelis, it was counted as if the whole document had been transmitted. Even referenced documents and sources were counted as having been transmitted in toto. Using this calculation, a single page could be counted as 50 hard-bound 500 page volumes!

There is no Mr. "X".
The CIA claim that another highly-placed spy in the U.S. had to exist in order to give Jonathan Pollard his highly specific tasking orders is a complete fabrication. To understand how Pollard was tasked by Israel to secure specific documents, see: Was there another U.S. spy tasking Pollard? - Mr. 'X' Exposed.


On May 12, 1998 , in the same statement in which the Government of Israel publicly acknowledged Jonathan Pollard as an Israeli agent, it accepted full responsibility for him, and indicated its commitment to securing his release and repatriation to Israel.

Jonathan Pollard has repeatedly expressed his remorse publicly and in private letters to the President and others. He regrets having broken the law, and is sorry he did not find a legal means to act upon his concerns for Israel. (See Remorse Page.)

Jonathan Pollard has been openly linked to the Middle East Peace Process since 1995.
The Israeli government recognized long ago that Jonathan's sentence was unjust, that the documents he delivered to Israel did not remotely cause the damage that the prosecution claimed but never proved. As a result of this recognition, various Israeli administrations have negotiated, as a matter of basic fairness, to secure Jonathan's release.

Since 1995, within the context of the peace process, the US has repeatedly exploited the plight of Jonathan Pollard to extract heavy concessions from Israel.

However despite express promises made by the United States to Israel, Jonathan Pollard remains in jail.


It was the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin who, in 1995, first began openly to negotiate for Jonathan's release as part of the peace process.
Although President Clinton promised Prime Minister Rabin that he would release Jonathan as part of a Middle East peace settlement, the President refused to honor his promise after Rabin was assassinated.


Rabin's successor, Prime Minister Shimon Peres, continued to link Jonathan to the peace process, and even went so far as to include a spy swap proposal as part of the deal for Pollard's release.

The Wye Plantation summit is a prime example of U.S. exploitation of Jonathan Pollard.
Both before and again during the Wye summit negotiations in the fall of 1998, President Clinton promised to release Jonathan Pollard. Pollard was the deal-maker at Wye which enabled the accords to be completed.


At the last minute, with the eyes of the world focused on the Wye Accords signing ceremony which was about to take place in Washington, Clinton reneged on Pollard's release, creating a storm of negative publicity for Israel.

How the Wye fiasco came about:
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 Binyamin 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 great 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 and agreed to attend the summit. (Gingrich would later repay Netanyahu by leading the Republican charge of slander and lies against Jonathan Pollard.)


Once the Wye summit was underway, Clinton quickly "forgot" his promise to free Jonathan Pollard and there was little Netanyahu could do.

Talks at Wye 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 US would give Jonathan to Israel in return for Israel's freeing of hundreds of Palestinian terrorists and immunity for Ghazi Jabali.

The US and Israel agreed to the Palestinian plan to swap Pollard for terrorists and murderers.
President Clinton personally worked out the details of the deal in a late-night private session with a Palestinian and an Israeli representative.


According to the deal, Prime Minister Netanyahu was to receive a side letter from President Clinton the next morning (one of approximately 30 side letters the Americans had promised) guaranteeing Pollard's release for November 11, 1998, one week after the US House elections.
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 side-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 side letter of guarantee, Pollard should be freed into his custody immediately, or no signing ceremony. Arik Sharon supported Netanyahu and they threatened to leave Wye without signing the accords.


In order to take the pressure off of President Clinton, CIA chief George Tenet quickly 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 about Jonathan Pollard to convince the 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 folded and accepted this private deal. The signing ceremony was held in Washington as scheduled. *(Mordecai himself is now on trial in Israel in 2001 for sexual assault.)


Netanyahu's capitulation at Wye, the public spectacle of his being brought to heel by the Americans, and the lopsided deal he brought home from Wye now that Pollard was no longer perceived to be a part of it, would shortly cost him his premiership.

After Wye, the White House falsely accused Netanyahu of having injected Pollard into the Wye 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, all later contradicted the White House version of events and affirmed that President Clinton had committed himself to the release of Jonathan Pollard as an integral part of the Wye Accords.


Note: Prime Minister Netanyahu was the first prime minster of Israel to agree to free Palestinian terrorists with Jewish blood on their hands. That is the price the Americans demanded for Pollard at Wye. To this day, this represents a keen embarrassment for Netanyahu and his party, even more so since he did not receive Pollard but the Palestinian murders were released nonetheless. That is why no official source from the Netanyahu government ever wants to publicly admit to it. They keep the details to a minimum, but all concur that Pollard's freedom was bought and paid for by "concessions"at Wye.

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, and insisted that these common criminals were not the prisoners that they had bargained for at Wye. The Americans angrily protested. Netanyahu reminded the Americans that the Wye Accords do not specify exactly which prisoners Israel must release. Critics wondered if the Prime Minister had lost his mind to 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 was thinking of double-crossing him yet a third time over Pollard, 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 the former prime minister 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 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, a Clinton appointee, had threatened to resign as head of the CIA if Pollard were released.
The story, though not logical, sounded plausible and it became popular to cite the opposition of the American Intelligence community as the reason Clinton did not honor his commitment at Wye to free Pollard.

This was soon exposed as the lame excuse it was when Clinton freed a group of unrepentant FALN terrorists in the fall of 1999, in an attempt to improve his wife's popularity with New York State's Hispanic community in her election bid for the Senate. (See Senate Race Page.)

To this day, the same lame excuse continues to be used to justify the unjustifiable failure of Clinton to honor his commitment.


In September of 1999, despite strenuous opposition from all of his government advisors and agencies, President Clinton freed 14 unrepentant Puerto Rican terrorists, members of the FALN, charged with bank robbery and various acts of terrorism, including over 130 bombings in the US, and the deaths of American police officers.
Clinton ignored a solid wall of opposition from the Justice, Intelligence and Defense departments and Congress, invoked his powers of executive clemency and set the FALN terrorists free. In doing so, he unequivocally put the lie to the notion that any government agency might tie his hands or influence his decision in matters of clemency. (See FALN Page and Clemency Page.)


More than two years elapsed after Wye. President Clinton did no review. Jonathan Pollard remained in prison while the US continued to extract Israeli concessions for his release.

Those who still believed the myth that it was the American Intelligence Community that was tying the hands of President Clinton, also clung to the belief he would finally honor his many promises to release Jonathan Pollard - including the commitment he had made at Wye - at the end of his term, when he could do so without fear of political reprisal.

Beginning in 1991 Rabbi Mordecai Eliyahu, the former Chief Rabbi of Israel, and Jonathan's rabbi, offered himself to the U.S. Justice Department as Jonathan's guarantor. The offer was ignored.
Rabbi Eliyahu repeated the same offer every year after that in private letters to President Clinton.

Every offer went unacknowledged until the fall of 2000, when Esther Pollard received a letter from the White House indicating that the President was aware of the former chief Rabbi's offer and that it would be part of the President's consideration in reaching a final decision on her husband's case.


President Clinton never kept his promises.
When he left office in January 2001, Jonathan Pollard was not included among those that to whom Clinton granted clemency:

in spite of his repeated express commitments to Israel to free Pollard in return for numerous heavy concessions
in spite of his commitment to free Pollard as an integral part if the Wye Accords
in spite of the appeals of the Jewish community, and
in spite of the gross injustices of the Pollard case which include:
a grossly disproportionate sentence
a broken plea agreement
use of secret evidence
a false charge of treason
ineffective assistance of counsel
ex parte communication between prosecutors and judge
a lack of due process
a sentencing procedure infected by false allegations and lies
On his last day in office, Clinton granted clemency to 140 people. Many who received executive clemency had been convicted of very serious offenses, including murder, robbery and drug dealing. Some of those pardoned had served no prison time at all before being pardoned. Among those pardoned were Clinton's brother, and a former head of the CIA. (See Clemency Page.)


In September of 2000, Jonathan Pollard's attorneys, Eliot Lauer and Jacques Semmelman, filed a motion in the US District Court of Columbia to vacate his sentence.
The motion, supported by documentation, presents a compelling and very disturbing picture of serious government misconduct that went unchecked by Mr. Pollard's then-counsel. As a result of that misconduct, and as a result of his attorney's ineffectiveness Jonathan Pollard was sentenced to life in prison on the basis of false allegations, and under circumstances that violated his plea agreement. (See Legal Doc: Declaration of Jonathan Jay Pollard In Support of Motion for Resentencing. See also Legal Doc: Memorandum of Law in Support of Jonathan Jay Pollard's § 2255 Motion for Resentencing.)


Since he was sentenced in 1987, none of Jonathan Pollard's security-cleared attorneys have been able to see the classified portions of the docket in order to challenge them in a court of law or to defend him in a clemency proceeding.
In September of 2000, Jonathan Pollard's attorneys filed a separate motion requesting that attorney Eliot Lauer be allowed access to the secret portions of the Pollard court docket. (See Legal Doc: Motion to Unseal the Pollard Record.)


On January 12, 2001, Chief Judge Norma Holloway Johnson denied the attorneys' request to allow Eliot Lauer access to the complete Pollard docket, upholding the government's claim that Lauer's seeing the secret portion of the record poses a risk to American national security.
Both Lauer and Semmelman hold TOP SECRET level security clearances, which they obtained from the Justice Department in order to be eligible to see their client's full record.

A motion for reconsideration was filed January 18, 2001. (See Legal Doc: Motion for Reconsideration of Court Order.)


Amicus briefs supporting Jonathan's new legal cases have been filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as by top American legal authorities. (See Amici Briefs on the Court Case Page.)

Five Prime Ministers of Israel and three Presidents of Israel have requested Jonathan Pollard's release from the United States. Israel has pledged to be responsible for its agent who has served many years in prison under harsh conditions, and who has fully and repeatedly expressed his remorse. (See Remorse Page.)
Between close friends and strong allies, that ought to be enough.

On November 21, 2003, Jonathan Pollard entered the 19th year of his life sentence, with no end in sight.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 08:07 PM

It will be resolved on Valentine's Day.

Fogive me---I could not resist one last post--that was great.
Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: GUEST,Yes, I am a Cunning Ham, I am
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 08:02 PM

I say let him rot.

-Jack the Sailor

I still don't have an opinion on what should happen to Mr. Pollard.

-CarolC

And we all thought that Jack and Carol saw eye to eye on such things.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 07:41 PM

Bill H, I still don't have an opinion on what should happen to Mr. Pollard. I am attempting to form an opinion on what should happen to Mr. Pollard, based on the information I find about his case. I'm a bit perplexed as to why someone as "rational" as you consider yourself to be would have a problem with this.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 07:35 PM

One other thing---this will be my only post on this thread. Getting into anything with Carol C and spouse is a study in futility dealing with people who seem to find the computer climate better than the great outdoor climate since they are always in front of it (computer) it seems. In addition to never seeing any other point of view but their own---and then spouting it as if they real legal beagles.

I loved that line about "serious discussion on Mudcat". A regular legal scholar. Truly, the calling in life of "inquisitor general" would really have been a great thing for you.



Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 07:28 PM

Very Briefly. Pollard's sentence is totally out of proprotion with the crime. So was the Rosenberg's---but that is fodder for another thread dealing with a different time and temperment in our land and a judge who (Jewish) did not want to show any favoritism---and more.

None of us are privy to the inner workings of our government, let alone those of other nations (read--Israel). Suffice it to say, though, the destruction of the Iraqi reactor was welcomed by the U S and I can only assume other nations and brethren of the "mad dog".

I would suggest that the destruction of said reactor brought the world more security from nuclear destruction than Geo. W's ill advised and self serving attack on Iraq---which seems to have only exasperated an already bad situation.   I think the hostages, the terror alerts, and the home nations to the hostages will attest to that.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 06:59 PM

As I said before Carol, had I known that I was going to be having this discussion a year ago, I would have saved the articles for reference. However, a Prophet I am not. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 06:31 PM

I'll send them an e-mail, but I would like to see this information coming from more than just one source. As I've said before, there is a lot of conflicting information coming from many different sources, even the ones that are in support of Mr. Pollard.

I've done a Google search on "Pollard the Jew" and if you look, you'll see that in the nine hits that come up, there is no mention in any of the of Mr. Weinberger having said anything like what you have quoted him as saying.

I also did a Google search using the key words "Pollard the Jew" "Caspar Weinberger" and as you can see, the two hits that come up are from the official Pollard site, and even they don't mention this language coming from Caspar Weinberger.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Alonzo M. Zilch (inactive)
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 06:21 PM

Judges are given that kind of leeway and they can rely on government officals to decide.

That is wrong. In democracies, government officials are not supposed to exert secret influence on judges when they impose sentences in specific cases.

One of the consequences of Weinberger's undue influence in the Pollard case, and the resulting sentence that was far out porportion to the crime, is that Congress enacted legislation setting the maximum penalty for that crime at 10 years; half of what Pollard has already served. Unfortunately, for Pollard, there is no provision for retroactivity when penalties are revised after a specific case.

Despite everything that transpired in this case, I don't think you'll find too many Americans, even pacifists who abhor the Iraq wars enacted by both Bushes, who are sorry that the Israelis destroyed Saadam's nuclear capabilities. That action made this planet a much safer place than it otherwise would have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 06:04 PM

Jack. He made the decision on behalf of himself. He did not make it or pretend to make it on behalf of the U.S, Government, and Israel new that quite well when they received that information. Also, I did not say that Israel intends to treat him as a hero and give him a ticker tape parade when he gets out, if he ever does. That would only serve to aggrevate relations between the USA and Israel; something that Israel can ill afford at the moment. Quite the contrary. They would see to it that he remained in obscurity which is the way he wants it as well. Any type of long prison sentence is a deterrent to a future act. Especially one served in solitary confinement. A strong message has been sent and received with a lesson well learned. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 05:53 PM

Carol; Much of what I have said was widely reported in " The Jewish Press" which is published weekly in Brooklyn, N.Y. It is the most widely read publication in the Orthodox Jewish community, worlwide.
Unfortunately, I never saved the articles because at the time I read them, I never imagined myself having to discuss these issues on a public forum such as Mudcat. However, they do have a website which is www.thejewishpress.com. If you e-mail the editor, I am sure he will be happy to supply you with the article about Pollard where the allegation against Weinberger was published that was quoted above.
SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 05:41 PM

So he made a major policy decision on behalf of the US government and Israel committed an act of war because of it?

You are saying that Israel intends to treat him as a patriot and hero once he gets out. Makes sense, they want the next guy in his position to betray the US on Israels behalf. You are saying that is OK to betray your country for Israel. You are saying its just a calculated risk, that he should be punished the same as the guy who sold some secrets fro money. I say the fitting pubishment is the one that discourages the next person in his position from doing the same.

I say let him rot.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 05:36 PM

One thing I would particularly like to see is documentation for this quote from you:

When the Arab & Communist dominated UN condemmed Israel for this heroic attack on the reactor, Weinberger (Becthtel Corp.), promised the Saudis and the rest of the Arab world that "Pollard The Jew", would be punished as harshly as was within his power to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Justice For Jonathan Pollard
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Jul 04 - 05:25 PM

Oops. Looks like I missed the last part of your post. I have difficulty reading posts that aren't broken up into paragraph size segments. My eyesight is not as good as I would like it to be.

We only have your say so that what you say is true, Rabbi Sol. That is not considered sufficient documentation for you to be taken seriously in a discussion of this sort here in the Mudcat. And also, the website for Justice for Jonathan Pollard that is "officially authorized" by Pollard and his wife is not in agreement with what you have said he is saying to the Rabbis with whom you are aquainted.