Plea for Pollard’s Release

[SquireJons]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/01/opinion/l01pollard.html?ref=opinion

Okay, full disclosure; I am biased against Israel, but my bias does not influence my opinion on this matter. In this case, we have an American who passed on documents to a foreign government. Regardless of whether or not that country is friendly, this is the definition of spying, and I find this opinion piece to be one more, in a long line of instances where Israel is interfering in the national security concerns of the United States. Ironically, this is the very thing that conservative parties in Israel criticize the US for doing. Though, to my knowledge, Israel does not give us $6,000,000,000.00 in aid each year, nor do they provide us with weaponry to defeat all of our enemies.

My biggest problem with the appeal is the assertion that Mr. Reich makes that "the Israeli government has stated that it will not engage Americans to pass classified information to it." That statement alone is enough for me to keep Mr. Pollard in jail for the rest of his life because it is demonstratively false that Israel has stopped engaging in spying on the United States. One need look no further than the Steve Rosen affair to see that Israel has a very powerful and extensive ongoing spying operation in the US.

http://www.forward.com/articles/133980/

Israel, by the way, is the country that deliberately attacked the USS Liberty that killed 34 US service personnel and wounded 170 more. So I don't really consider them to be friendly... but when it is obvious that a foreign government is lying to us about their espionage, than it is incumbent on this nation to take firm steps. In this case, making the mole pay dearly for his treason is appropriate. What ever information he passed on was considered bad enough for Cap Weinberger to request life in prison for Pollard. Remember, the Reagan administration was exceedingly pro Israeli so I seriously doubt government persecution in this case. What we have here is an American who sold out his country to another country. He can rot for all I care.

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. Reich does make a valid point that his sentence was excessive.

Unless he gave them something that didn't come out in the trial, like a way to hack our nuclear arsenal, he should not have been given a sentence of more than 10 years. He didn't kill anybody - the information he passed didn't kill anybody. It was a little bit of info of tech systems that have been obsolete for the past 15 years. Everything he told them was irrelevant by 2000. Are we still sitting on people who spied for Russia, or China, or any REAL internatinal rivals going on 25 years after the fact?

IMO, the sentence for any spying should be 5-10 years, then banishment to the country they spied for.

[SquireJons]

2. I don't agree with any of the assertions from Reich

I do not recall any cases where someone was caught spying for the Soviet Union or China was give a sentence of 5 to 10 years; it's always life. Also, classified information would not have been released in the trial. While I did not agree ideologically with Cap Weinburger, I do consider him to be very competent (ie. not one of "the crazies" as the wing-nuts were known within the Reagan admin). If the Secretary of Defense considered the information handed over to be of such a serious nature, who am I to disagree?

Also, I think sentencing for espionage is not like murder in that I think the penalty does deter the crime. Most spies are in it for the money, not the ideology. They may think twice about selling out America if they spend the rest of their life in jail if caught. The big issue for me is Israel and their ongoing spying. If they had actually stopped, than I might agree with you and commute the sentence, but not only are they still spying, they have intensified their spying.

I don't trust Israel for a second. I think they are using the information to blackmail US politicians. That's just a theory, of course.

[Behind the Aegis]

4. FYI

"I do not recall any cases where someone was caught spying for the Soviet Union or China was give a sentence of 5 to 10 years; it's always life."

Associated Press. "10-year Term for Trying to Bring Military Secrets to China." 21 Apr. 2008. <http://www.washingtonpost.com>

Tai Mak, the younger brother of Chi Mak, "was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison in his family's conspiracy to export military technology to China."

http://intellit.muskingum.edu/spycases_folder/chimak.html

Peter Lee

Counterintelligence News and Developments. "US Nuclear Physicist Sentenced." Jun. 1998. <http://www.nacic.gov>

On 26 March 1998, Lee, a former nuclear physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, was sentenced" to one year in a community corrections facility, three years of probation, 3,000 hours of community service, and a $20,000 fine. He had pleaded guilty to "willfully passing national defense information to Chinese scientists during a 1985 visit to China" and to "providing false information in 1997 to his then-employer, TRW, Inc., regarding his contact with Chinese officials."

http://intellit.muskingum.edu/spycases_folder/lee_peter.html

Barakat, Matthew. "Former Pentagon Analyst Gets Almost 5 years in Prison for Passing Taiwan Secrets to Chinese." Associated Press, 11 Jul. 2008. http://www.ap.org

On 11 July 2008, Gregg W. Bergersen was sentenced in U.S. District Court to 57 months "in prison for giving secret information about U.S.-Taiwan military relations" to a New Orleans furniture salesman who was also a Chinese spy.

http://intellit.muskingum.edu/spycases_folder/chinaspies_folder/china08.html

Larry Wu-tai Chin
After working for the U.S. military in the late 1940s and early 1950s, Larry Wu-tai Chin was employed by the CIA's Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) as a Chinese-language translator at its overseas installation in Okinawa. Chin later resigned and immigrated to the United States. After obtaining his U.S. citizenship, Chin was rehired by FBIS as a staff employee. He worked with Chinese-language materials in that organization until his retirement in 1981. Arrested in 1985, Chin was tried and convicted of espionage on behalf of the People's Republic of China, conspiracy, and tax fraud. He committed suicide in February 1986.

Engelberg, Stephen. "30 Years of Spying for China Is Charged." New York Times, 27 Nov. 1985, B8.

On February 22, 1994, Ames and his wife were formally charged by the United States Department of Justice with spying for the Soviet Union and Russia. Ames could have faced the death penalty because his betrayal had resulted in the deaths of a number of CIA assets. However, he received a sentence of life imprisonment, and his wife received a 5-year prison sentence for conspiracy to commit espionage and tax evasion as part of a plea-bargain by Ames.<29>

In court, Ames admitted that he had compromised "virtually all Soviet agents of the CIA and other American and foreign services known to me" and provided the USSR and Russia with a "huge quantity of information on United States foreign, defense and security policies."<30> It is estimated that information Ames provided to the Soviets led to the compromise of at least a hundred U.S. intelligence operations and to the execution of at least ten U.S. sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldrich_Ames

On June 27, 1997, Earl Pitts was sentenced by a federal judge to 27 years in prison for spying for Moscow both before and after the fall of the Soviet Union. Prosecutors had requested only 24½ years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Edwin_Pitts

After a trial, both Jack and Myra Soble, along with their associate Jacob Albam, were convicted on espionage charges and sentenced to prison. Myra received a 5½ year prison sentence for her role in the espionage ring. On October 8, 1957, Federal Judge Richard H. Levet, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, reduced her sentence to four years. Levet sentenced Jack Soble to seven years in prison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Soble

Bored with his low-ranking status as a CIA clerk, in 1977, he stole a top-secret KH-11 spy satellite manual. Afterwards, he resigned from his job, flew to Greece, and sold the manual to the Russian Embassy in Athens in return for $3,000. Kampiles subsequently returned to the United States and informed his former CIA bosses of what he had done, in the mistaken belief that he would be recruited as a double agent; instead, he was charged with treason by the US Government, put on trial in 1978, and convicted. He was originally sentenced to 40 years imprisonment; however, his prison sentence was later reduced to 19 years, and he was released on 16 December 1996, after serving 18 years as Federal Prison inmate "04028-164".<1><2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kampiles

There are several more examples where life in prision was not the sentence; and this is just for China and the USSR/Russia.



"Most spies are in it for the money, not the ideology."

A Spy's Motivation: Ideology, Not Money Motivates Americans to Spy Against the U.S.

Monday, April 07, 2008

WASHINGTON — Americans who spy against the U.S. are increasingly motivated by ideology rather than by money, with nearly half of the known spies since the end of the Cold War showing allegiance to another country or cause, according to a government report.

Prior to 1990, just a fifth of Americans spying for others were ideologically motivated.

The March report, obtained by the Federation of American Scientists' Secrecy in Government project, compares trends among the 173 Americans known to have spied against the U.S. since 1947, of which 37 began their spying since 1990.

Only five of those 37 spies are known to have received payment for their work. Of the 11 spies identified since 2000, none was paid — although five had hoped to be. But almost half of those spying against the U.S. since 1990 demonstrated an allegiance to a foreign country or cause.

continued...

"I don't trust Israel for a second. I think they are using the information to blackmail US politicians. That's just a theory, of course."

Given you didn't get basic information correct, I don't trust your "theory." Of course, it could also be "Okay, full disclosure; I am biased against Israel, but my bias does not influence my opinion on this matter." Sure, your bias doesn't influence your opinion (:eyes:) or your "theory."

[SquireJons]

19. Typical

"Given you didn't get basic information correct, I don't trust your "theory."

This is why I rarely post here any more. Folks on this site do not know how to discuss issues without resorting to insults. I still disagree with all of your basic views. While I do tend to exaggerate somewhat, you are deliberately avoiding the substance of my comments.

- Pollard gave a foreign government information that the Secretary of Defense considered detrimental to the US and YOU don't know what he did. I'll go with Cap on this one.

- Yes, obviously there are spies that don't get life, depending on what they did. But to site Ames and his wife is a farce. He and his son were sentenced to life for doing exactly what Pollard did. His wife only got 5 years cause she turned her husband in.

- Please forgive me for not being part of the x, y, or clueless generation. I actually have lived through these things you read about on websites and have a sense of perspective that goes back more than 15 to 20 years. If you only consider things that have happened in the recent past, then your views will be incomplete and skewed. Since the cold war cooled down, it may be that more people are spying for ideological reasons. But taken in it's totality, the vast majority of American spy's have done it for money. The more recent spies are usually naturalized citizens, not the Pollard or Ames type. I would expect a Chinese man to spy for China for ideology and nationalism, but an American born here is far more likely to do it for the money.

So tell me, is your support for Pollard based on compassion (even though you don't know what he did), or is it because of his religion, or for your love of Israel? If Pollard was spying for Russia, this would never see the light of day.

[Behind the Aegis]

20. Your original post and your response were quite "typical."

You have been insulting. I was not. Pointing out your basic information was incorrect was not an insult, it was fact, and it was the basis for my dismissing your "theory." By explaining the basis for my theory, I therefore, eliminate the predicatable "why?"

The real reason you should be posting less is not the insults but people not reading correctly and responding to a narrative of their own making.

"I still disagree with all of your basic views." How can you disagree with my views when I haven't stated them?

"While I do tend to exaggerate somewhat, you are deliberately avoiding the substance of my comments." How was I avoiding what you said? I used your statements as the basis for my responses; that is not "avoiding" that is "addressing" your comments.

Speaking of insults --- "Please forgive me for not being part of the x, y, or clueless generation. I actually have lived through these things you read about on websites and have a sense of perspective that goes back more than 15 to 20 years. If you only consider things that have happened in the recent past, then your views will be incomplete and skewed."

Speaking of insults (again, as well as strawman arguments) -- "So tell me, is your support for Pollard based on compassion (even though you don't know what he did), or is it because of his religion, or for your love of Israel?" Let's rewrite and see if the statement fits you (as you have actually stated your poisition and I have not, yet you somehow think I have) -- "So tell me, is your lack of support for Pollard based on compassion nationalism (even though you don't know what he did), or is it because of his religion, or for your love hatred of Israel?

[Sherman A1]

3. I agree with you

I believe Mr. Pollard needs to spend his remaining days in jail or perhaps on a work gang breaking up large rocks.

[mulsh]

5. He didn't just sell info to Isreal, he got what he deserved.

you can look it up.

Shortly after Pollard began working at the NIS he met Aviem Sella, an Israeli Air Force combat veteran who was at the time a graduate student at New York University, on leave from his position as Colonel in order to gain a master's in computer science. Within a few days, in June 1984, Pollard started passing classified information to Sella and received, in exchange, $10,000 cash and a very expensive diamond and sapphire ring, which Pollard later used to propose marriage to his girlfriend Anne. He also agreed to receive $1,500 per month for further espionage.<13>

According to Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) investigator Ronald Olive, Pollard also passed classified information to South Africa<14> and attempted, through a third party, to sell classified information to Pakistan on multiple occasions.<15> Pollard also used his access to secret documents to furnish classified information to nongovernmental employees, including two friends of his who worked as professional investment advisers.<16> Pollard also stole classified documents related to the People's Republic of China, on behalf of his wife Anne; Anne Pollard used the classified assessments to advance her personal business interests, and kept them around the Pollard household, where they were discovered by investigating authorities when Pollard's espionage activity came to light.

During the course of the Pollard trial, Australian authorities reported the disclosure of classified American documents by Pollard to one of their own agents, a Royal Australian Naval officer who had been engaged in a personnel-exchange liaison program between the U.S. and Australian Navies.<17> The Australian officer, alarmed by Pollard's repeated disclosure of NOFORN data to him, reported the indiscretions to his chain of command which in turn recalled him from his position in the U.S., fearing that the disclosures might be part of a "CIA ruse."<17> Confronted with this accusation after entering his plea, Pollard only admitted to passing a single classified document to the Australian; later, he changed his story, and claimed that his superiors ordered him to share information with the Australians.<17>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard

[TomClash]

6. Assuming Bradley Manning is guilty, he's a saint compared to this clown

He gave Israel RASIN, at the time exposing the entire US global surveillance network and boosting Israel's electronic surveillance capabilities exponentially. This eased the way for Israel to conduct non-HUMINT intel in the US and elsewhere. Like Robert Hansen he should rot in hell.

It is one thing to oppose American policy on moral, ethical and political grounds, it is another to commit treason by selling top secret information for cash and diamonds. Only Israeli agent-provacateurs in the US support this traitor's early release.

[oberliner]

8. Anthony Weiner is an Israeli agent-provacaeur?

Do you really believe that?

[TomClash]

9. No, but he certainly puts Israel's interests ahead of the America's Interest

I wasn't thinking of him. Much as I like him on most issues, he is almost always wrong when it comes to Palestine.

I was thinking of persons more closely tied to the issue.

It is interesting that few people directly address Pollard's acts.

[oberliner]

10. Thrity-nine Democrats signed a letter to the President urging him to release Pollard

Would you say that all or some of them are Israeli agent provocateurs?

Would you say that all or some of them put Israel's interests ahead of America's?

If so, why would they do that?

[TomClash]

11. They get campaign contributions

That's why they do it. Many would be primaried if they didn't unconditionally support Israel.

Do you think Pollard deserves to be released? If so, why?

And, yes, many of those Democrats put Israel's interests ahead of US interests.

[oberliner]

12. Here is a list of Anthony Weiner's major campaign contributors

Top 5 Industries, 2009-2010, Campaign Cmte

Real Estate $190,500 $182,500 $8,000
Democratic/Liberal $78,000 $78,000 $0
Lawyers/Law Firms $75,950 $65,950 $10,000
Securities & Investment $68,065 $66,065 $2,000
TV/Movies/Music $59,800 $28,800 $31,000

Top 5 Contributors, 2009-2010, Campaign Cmte

ActBlue $78,000 $78,000 $0
M&R Management $19,200 $19,200 $0
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $10,000 $0 $10,000
Mason Tenders District Council of NY $10,000 $0 $10,000
National Community Pharmacists Assn $10,000 $0 $10,000

I sincerely doubt that he would have been "primaried" based on not writing a letter of support for releasing Pollard to President Obama.

I don't really have a strong opinion one way or another about Pollard being released. Lots of unsavory characters like him have been pardoned and/or released from prison for political considerations. I mean - should the Israelis have released Samir Kuntar?

In any case, I do not believe those Democrats put Israel's interests ahead of the United States - that is a preposterous, borderline offensive claim, in my opinion. Certainly Anthony Weiner, I would think most DUers would agree, is a person of integrity who stands up for what he believes in.

[TomClash]

13. Hmm

You assume that politicians only cater to their top 5 contributors. That is a false assumption. How much money does Weiner receive from supporters of Israel in total? If he were less supportive of Israel he'd face a primary. I'm not a betting man, but even I'd place that bet.

How well do you know Anthony Weiner? I think he has the courage of his convictions on many issues and he's a lot better politician than when I first met him. But I think he acts reflexively on Israeli issues. He knows he needs to be an unswerving cheerleader on Israel or he's got a big problem. So he is.

Pollard is more than an unsavory character. His specific acts constitute one of the largest thefts of US intel assets in the lsat three decades, probably surpassed only by Hanssen.

Borderline offensive? Why do you think these 39 Dems signed a letter seeking to release a nutty scumbag like Pollard? Because they're jewish? Now THAT would be offensive.

[oberliner]

14. With all due respect, your premise is quite frankly unfathomable

Can you actually believe that had Weiner not written a letter to Obama with respect to Pollard then he would have faced some kind of primary challenge on that grounds?

Do you honestly think there are any voters anywhere who would base their decision on whether or not to vote for someone around a letter about Jonathan Pollard?

First of all the number of people who ever know who Pollard is is quite small. Even among the "pro-Israel" community, the pardoning of Jonathan Pollard is of minimal, if any, interest. AIPAC does not even have any position on the matter.

As for monies donated to his campaign - pro-Israel lobby groups donated a total of 14k dollars - which represents less than one percent of the total campaign contributions he received (1.6 million dollars).

I'm also curious as to where you got the idea that the 39 Democrats who signed the letter to about Pollard were Jewish - and what that has to do with anything.

[TomClash]

15. With all due respect you did not comprehend my posts when you read them

I never wrote that Weiner would be primaried only because he signed a letter on Pollard.

There are individuals who contribute based primarily on that issue and you don't count those people.

I didn't get the idea that the 39 Dems were jewish. I used that as a means of stating what would be offensive AFTER you called my position offensive without saying why.

"AIPAC doesn't even have a position on the matter. " Now that's funny.

[oberliner]

16. You wrote that the reason why the Dems wrote the Pollard letter was due to "campaign contributions"

You then wrote that "Many would be primaried if they didn't unconditionally support Israel"

My argument is that this letter - signing it or not signing it - is not relevant to "unconditionally supporting Israel" - so I don't see how Weiner's signing this letter was somehow done in order to avoid "getting primaried" or losing campaign contributions.

I am not sure how one can determine who contributes based on the issue of Israel - I can only report what is public domain with respect to contributions - but, again, it is quite clear that his coffers wouldn't have taken a big hit if he decided not to send this letter.

I didn't say your post was offensive, I said it was borderline offensive. The reason (which I thought was obvious) being that you are implying (stating?) that many respected Democratic members of Congress are somehow loyal to a foreign country over the United States.

I also have no idea what you think is funny about AIPAC not taking a position on the matter. In fact, if one reads up on the subject, one finds that there was a proposal for AIPAC to take up the issue but it was roundly shot down by their board.

[TomClash]

17. Well we disagree

"My argument is that this letter - signing it or not signing it - is not relevant to "unconditionally supporting Israel" - so I don't see how Weiner's signing this letter was somehow done in order to avoid "getting primaried" or losing campaign contributions."

Then why did he and the 38 others do it? You don't seem to be able to answer that question. They did it because Israel and/or its ardent supporters asked them to do it.

Jonathan Pollard turned over top secret and critical information to Israel. That's why Israel's most ardent Democratic supporters are lobbying the President to release him. If he turned it over to Saudi Arabia or China or Brazil my position would be the same, but Anthony Weiner's position would likely be very different. Why is that? I say the reason is campaign contributions. Maybe there's another reason. If so, what is it?

AIPAC takes no public position on the matter because of the nature of Pollard's crimes and the sordid Rosen affair. That's what I think is funny - you're shocked that AIPAC won't publicly support a traitor when AIPAC has thrown an employee overboard when he was accused of passing classified information to Israel.

After being a member of this Board for years, are you really surprised that some public officials are not loyal to the US? We can start with Dick Cheney . . .

You get the last word . . . You're right about one thing - in retrospect Jonathan Pollard is not worth this much verbiage.

[oberliner]

18. Ok - that is fair

Why did they write the letter? Maybe because they actually believe the sentiments expressed therein?

From the letter:

"We believe that there has been a great disparity from the standpoint of justice between the amount of time Mr. Pollard has served and the time that has been served – or not served at all – by many others who were found guilty of similar activity on behalf of nations that, like Israel, are not adversarial to us. It is indisputable in our view that the nearly twenty-five years that Mr. Pollard has served stands as a sufficient time from the standpoint of either punishment or deterrence."

Maybe they also think it will lead to some concessions from the Israeli government with respect to the peace process.

Again, there have been others in the service of other countries who have turned over classified information who have served shorter sentences than Pollard has already served.

I would add that I don't put people like Anthony Weiner in the same category as people like Dick Cheney. As a longstanding member of this board yourself, surely you wouldn't lump those two together, would you? I don't think thirty-nine Democrats, including some of the most liberal members of Congress, are disloyal to the United States.

In any case, I appreciate that we aren't going to agree here - to be honest, like you, I think this is way more verbiage than this situation is worth.

[bemildred]

7. This sort of thing usually goes down in the I/P dungeon.

Just saying.

[tortoise1956]

21. I believe that Israel is one of our staunchest allies in the Mideast

and I also believe that Jonathan Pollard should rot in jail. He sold out his country.

End of story...


Edited to take out an incorrect reference.