Doc's Talk: Jonathan Pollard: It’s Time to Let Him Go

Saturday, November 06, 2010

Jonathan Pollard: It’s Time to Let Him Go

Jerrold L. Sobel

Having been convicted of multiple murders in 1998, one of which the body still has not been found, Loren Herzog was released from Prison in Stockton California this past July, having served less than 10 years for his crimes.

Dec. 7, 1968 Pontiac, Michigan. Having been a suspect in the murders of several women in the Wolverine state, Nolan Ray George was convicted of second degree murder of a woman, Frances Ann Brown. After several mistrials, in 1973 he began serving 17 1/2-25 years in prison. Credited with 8 years, he was released 7 years later…. No, this isn’t a transition into a “Law and Order” or a “CSI” police story. It’s just a circuitous way of making a point.
Jonathan Pollard, on March 4, 1987 began serving a life sentence at the Federal Prison in Butler, North Carolina for the crime of espionage. To this date, 25 years later, he still languishes at that facility. Please be certain of one thing, this isn’t going to be some tear jerk, sugar coated, die for Jonathan Pollard story. What he did was dastardly. To betray a country whose constitution you’ve sworn to uphold is nothing short of despicable, no matter how righteous the cause. Sanctimonious motivations aside, allegedly he also admitted to receiving $10,000 in cash and a $1500.00 a month stipend for additional classified material to be given to his Israeli handler, an air force colonel. So let there be no doubt, Pollard is not a choir boy. However, the plea agreement that was offered by the prosecution and signed onto by Pollard was not recognized by the presiding judge.

The terms of the agreement Pollard signed onto allowed him to plead guilty to: “One count of conspiracy to deliver national defense information to a foreign government.” By doing so, his wife Anne also was allowed to plead out for her complicity in the crime. She served 3 years of a 5 year term and was released. In accordance with the plea, and to avoid life imprisonment, Pollard agreed to cooperate fully with a government espionage assessment team and pledged non-disclosure of sensitive material he had privy to. The judge, Aubrey Robinson Jr. wasn’t having any of it, threw out the plea, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. So where are the mitigating factors?

From a legal standpoint, I’m not a lawyer, there might not be any. What is quite clear, from the time Pollard entered his plea in May 1986 to his sentencing ten months later, the government continually upped the ante on him. No longer content with the second tier of the espionage statute to which he plead guilty: “to the advantage of a foreign nation,” they went after him on the more severe first: “to the injury of the United States.” The judge simply failed to honor the deal brokered between the defense and the prosecution. Following this harsh sentence, Pollard did file one of several appeals that dealt with this issue but was denied in a two to one ruling for failure of his original attorneys to file the appeal in a timely manner. On a technicality, Pollard has effectively been denied his day in court. Other than pure vindictiveness, it makes you wonder why all these years he’s been held back from withdrawing his plea and allowed to take his chances with a jury trial. From the outset, the whole idea behind the plea was to avoid the life term which he nevertheless received.

Most reports from credible sources claim then Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger, in a 46 page supplemental report contained in a pre-sentencing “Victims Impact Statement,” excoriated Pollard and exaggerated the harm caused by his crime. The judge then decreed the maximum sentence. Is this justice? Maybe in Iran, but not in this wonderful country. What’s worse, by their own admission in 1994, government sources acknowledge, “no one died as a result of the Pollards.” Think of where you were and all the things you’ve done over the past 25 years, Pollard has been rotting in jail all this time. Did he deserve a stiff sentence? No doubt. But life in prison for selling information to a friendly government. By any enlightened standards, that’s Draconian, it’s overkill. it’s time to set him free. Most disturbing, his incarceration almost from the beginning became more about politics than justice.

For years, rumors have swirled that Arafat, during the laughable “final status” talks told Clinton that Pollard should not be released unless the Israelis acquiesce to a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. It sounds silly, no actually ludicrous until you read last week’s news reports.

There have been reports, denied by the Israeli government that Netanyahu has offered a 3 month extension of the construction moratorium in exchange for Pollard’s release. According to Israeli Army Radio, such a deal is on the table but is rightfully shunned in other areas. Israeli Minister of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs, Yuli Edelstein dismisses this notion as a “cheap spin” and “trafficking in Pollard’s suffering.” Danny Dayan, the head of The Council of Jewish Communities in Judea Samaria and Gaza was even more pointed characterizing the idea as nothing short of paying blackmail. A sentiment, including this writer, few can argue with.

So the wrap up of this sad saga comes down to this, murderers, rapists, and repeat offenders of the worst order are routinely released well before 15 years in Prison. Jonathan Pollard has languished in jail for the past 25 years for selling secrets to a friendly power which caused no loss of life or political adversity to the interests of the United States. With no excuse for his criminality, he gave the Israelis intelligence what arguably should have been shared with the them to begin with: The information the U.S. was withholding from Israel included Syrian, Iraqi, Libyan and Iranian nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare capabilities which were being developed for use against, guess who? If you picked Israel you’re right. It also included information on ballistic missile development by these countries and information on planned terrorist attacks against Israeli civilian targets.

In any event:

* Pollard has been serving a life sentence for crime he did not plead to.
* Having spent 25 years in prison, it’s the harshest penalty anyone has served for espionage since the execution of the Rosenbergs.
* Starting with Yitzhak Rabin successive Israeli governments have requested his release.
* He requested and was granted Israeli citizenship in 1995; he should be immediately freed and allowed to emigrate there.
* For justice to finally prevail in this case, Pollard should be immediately released from prison on legal, humanitarian, and compassionate grounds, not as a political pawn.

For those interested in efforts to free Jonathan Pollard, please (see attachment).

http://www.jonathanpollard.org

2 comments:

Anonymous said...: No President can afford the damaging publicity of guying a pardon to a traitor and then seeing him paraded as a hero on the news. Pollard is serving the sentence of a traitor.; 8:13 PM
GS Don Morris, Ph.D./Chana Givon said...: Anonymous-you accept specific talking points based upon your response-a pity to not be able to see past the lies. Perhaps educating yourself about the actual event and follow up circumstances might ease your upset.; 8:56 AM

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk