As pro bono attorneys for Jonathan Pollard since 2000, we never cease to be amazed at how those who are hostile to Pollard feel compelled to make up facts
As pro bono attorneys for Jonathan Pollard since 2000, we never cease to be amazed at how those who are hostile to Pollard feel compelled to make up facts.
Evidently, these adversaries recognize that the actual facts are not sufficient to justify keeping Pollard in prison any longer, as he has already served over 28 years for delivering classified information to the State of Israel.
The most recent manifestation of this phenomenon appears in an opinion piece in the online edition of The New York Times by M.E. Bowman, titled “Don’t trust this spy.”
Bowman makes a series of false and inflammatory allegations that are contradicted by the public court record. Since Bowman would be committing a crime were he to reveal anything contained in the non-public, classified portion of the court record, it is fair to presume that he is not doing so. Since his assertions are nowhere to be found in (and indeed, are contradicted by) the public court record, the only possible conclusion is that his allegations are false.
For example, Bowman now claims that Pollard supposedly “sold the daily report from the US Navy’s Sixth Fleet Ocean Surveillance Facility in Rota, Spain.”
That allegation is nowhere to be found in the public court record.
Moreover, it is contradicted by the 1987 CIA report which concluded that Israel never even requested information from Pollard concerning “US military activities, plans, capabilities or equipment.” Twenty-eight years after the fact, Bowman has now invented this allegation, evidently for the purpose of trying to impede the powerful wave of support for Pollard’s release.
Bowman’s statement is also incompatible with the Victim Impact Statement submitted by the prosecution to the sentencing judge in 1987. The Victim Impact Statement – the pre-sentencing court document in which the victim of a crime (in this case, the United States itself) describes the damage it has suffered – sets forth the actual damage to the US as follows: “Mr. Pollard’s unauthorized disclosures have threatened the US [sic] relations with numerous Middle East Arab allies, many of whom question the extent to which Mr. Pollard’s disclosures of classified information have skewed the balance of power in the Middle East. Moreover, because Mr. Pollard provided the Israelis virtually any classified document requested by Mr. Pollard’s co-conspirators, the US has been deprived of the quid pro quo routinely received during authorized and official intelligence exchanges with Israel, and Israel has received information classified at a level far in excess of that ever contemplated by the National Security Council. The obvious result of Mr. Pollard’s largesse is that US bargaining leverage with the Israeli government in any further intelligence exchanges has been undermined. In short, Mr. Pollard’s activities have adversely affected US relations with both its Middle East Arab allies and the government of Israel.”
The Victim Impact Statement reflects – at worst – short-term friction between the US and unnamed Arab countries, and temporary reduction in bargaining leverage by the US, rather than the severe damage now described by Bowman.
While it would require many pages to catalog each of the falsehoods in Bowman’s article, a few examples will suffice. He claims that Pollard pleaded guilty to a charge that could have resulted in the death penalty. That is categorically false. He never pleaded guilty to any such charge, nor was he accused of a capital offense.
Bowman also suggests that Pollard pleaded guilty to a statute which criminalizes disclosure that might result in the death of an agent. But Bowman chooses not to mention that the public record contains an undisputed statement that no agents lost their lives as a result of anything Pollard did.
Bowman accuses Pollard of “treason,” when he surely knows that treason involves aiding an enemy of the US. Pollard was not charged with, and could not have been charged with, treason, because his espionage was for an ally, not an enemy. And Bowman opts not to mention that Pollard was not charged with intending to harm the US, even though such a charge can be brought if the facts support it.
Bowman is hardly the only person who has knowledge of Pollard’s case. He mentions former CIA director R. James Woolsey, Jr., and former assistant secretary of defense Lawrence Korb, both distinguished former government officials who have spoken out in favor of releasing Pollard. Bowman omits to mention that these two are but the tip of a very large and impressive iceberg, as many former high-ranking government officials have called for Pollard’s release.
They include George Shultz, who served as secretary of state at the time of the case; Robert “Bud” McFarlane, who served as national security adviser at the time of the case; former attorney-general Michael Mukasey; former secretary of state Henry Kissinger; former vice president Dan Quayle; four former chairs of the Senate Intelligence Committee; and dozens of senators and members of Congress.
Bowman also neglects to mention that secretary of defense Caspar W. Weinberger (whose affidavit Bowman cites as proof of his position) admitted years later in an interview with prominent journalist Edwin Black that the Pollard case was “a very minor matter, but made very important… It was made far bigger than its actual importance.” Those words cannot be reconciled with Bowman’s inflammatory statements.
In the face of this groundswell of support for a very belated measure of justice for Pollard, Bowman apparently feels the need to make his opposing view heard. Bowman is entitled to his opinion. But he is not entitled to invent facts in order to support it.
As a matter of simple justice, the actual facts compel Jonathan Pollard’s release after over 28 years behind bars.
The writers have served as pro bono attorneys for Jonathan Pollard since 2000.
Yidvocate Said:
Your so tight @%#, its lucky yawl can sit down,Sugar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@ ArnoldHarris:
Praiseworthy indeed!
I too have a rigid system of values but I don’t think that alone makes us closed-minded.
I still believe however that even if he hadn’t been screwed by the American justice system, had he not been a Jew spying for Israel he would have been out decades ago!
@ Yidvocate:
Acutally, YV, I still am closed-minded, to the extent that I operate from a rigid system of values. But when I see evidence that gives me a clear indication that I had been dead wrong about an assumption upon which one or more of my standpoints had been predicated, then I change my mind. And anyone who is not capable of changing his or her mind is little more than an asshole.
That’s exactly what happened with me over the case of Jonathan Pollard. The evidence indicated that he was screwed by the vaunted American system of justice. Which means my trust in that system will never again be as complete as it has been for much of my almost 80 years.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
the question is who is funding Bowman and his lies?
Yidvocate Said:
Dispeptic [stomach disorder] also means grumpy and/or out of sorts.
Yidvocate Said:
I believe Pollard was over changed and harshly sentance because he is Jewish,he should be releast.
I would never treat yawl with the disrespect you have shown me,Darlin!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@ honeybee:
I know I’ll regret replying to this honey of bee but I just couldn’t resist.
Couldn’t find “dispeptic” in the dictionary but that didn’t surprise me coming from you. I’ll assume you meant something derogatory.
Given you your comment, I can only conclude that you feel Pollard should rot in prison for the rest of his life as Arnold till just recently felt.
@ yamit82:
Do not forget the Jews imprisioned in Cuba,Iran and Iraq.
@ Yidvocate:
I have always had respect for Mr Harris opinions,even when I disagree with him. Yidvocate, you have dispeptic opinion of everyone who disputes you to point of irrationallty. Especialy if they are citizens of the USA.
@ ArnoldHarris:
Glad to see you’ve changed your tune Arnold.
Till now I thought you a closed-minded fool.
I now have a lot more respect for you.
Sholom Rubashkin similar to Pollard’s case in many ways:
Justice for Sholom Rubashkin
The site is an advocacy site for Sholom Rubashkin, a victim of grave injustice. He has been railroaded by the prosecutors, and is now appealing a 27 year sentence.
His case has an international following, and has attracted overwhelming grassroots support as well as the attention and involvement of respected legal, political and communal figures.
Get to know Sholom, find out more about his case, and do something about it.
Interesting case with antisemitic and anti-Israel overtones. http://sholomacrossamerica.com/
The same arguments for Pollard’s release have been made to Presidents Regan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama by not only Pollard supporters, but Israel, all of which have been rejected.
Values of fairness and justice, so dear to all Americans and upon which America is built, are being ignored.
Many have strived mightily to explain why, but none have managed to get to the pure unvarnished truth of the matter.
That truth will only be revealed if the current surge in pressuring appeals to Obama, force that truth to surface. If that can be accomplished, then and only then can the right buttons be pushed to open Obamas ears and eyes to the monumental injustice the U.S. has perpetrated on Pollard and move Obama, to begin the process of the U.S. making monumental amends for this monumental injustice by releasing Pollard.
Every principle of “Lex Talionis” & “Ayin Tachat Ayin” are absent from the Pollard case.
For most of the time Pollard has been imprisoned, I had bought a simplistic argument that he deserved the life sentence he had received. So too did a lot of other people.
Now that I have taken the time to read about other evidence relating to this case, I think he should be released immediately.
The US government broke the agreement that the Federal court has made to Pollard and his attorney, for a relatively light sentence in return for his complete cooperating with the prosecution.
That promise was broken by a private conversation that Caspar Weinberger, Reagan’s secretary of defense, had made with the trial judge, that resulted in the judge breaking the agreement.
And I want him released with no quid pro quo demands being made by Obama and Kerry. To hell with those bastards, whom I never again shall trust either as an American or as a Jew.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Jew hatred knows no bounds!