Jonathan Pollard Devastated By No Update From Bibi

[Boyo_Jim]

@astro

…
I think the animus against Pollard is more deep seated because

(1) The level of damage he caused was pretty horrific. …

I don’t know the details about what he passed on, so:

1. What secrets did he actually give the Israelis?
2. How damaging is it to pass secrets to one of your strongest allies?
3. Did anyone die? Did any of these revealed secrets result in failed US operations? Di any get passed on to more hostile nations?

IOW, what was so horrific?

[astro]

@Boyo_Jim

I don’t know the details about what he passed on, so:

1. What secrets did he actually give the Israelis?
2. How damaging is it to pass secrets to one of your strongest allies?
3. Did anyone die? Did any of these revealed secrets result in failed US operations? Di any get passed on to more hostile nations?

IOW, what was so horrific?

So you want the whole catalog of what he did? Read here - Seymour Hersh’s article in the New Yorker - Why Pollard Should Never Be Released (The Traitor)The New Yorker Magazine | :January 18, 1999, pp. 26-33 | SEYMOUR M. HERSH

[Monty]

@TriPolar

But I’m also amused by that scumbag Pollard’s heartbreak in being snubbed. Unless someone shows me evidence that he committed treasonous acts with approval of the US government, even though I don’t think he was sentenced fairly, he’s scum. Anyone who calls themselves an American and holds a higher allegiance to another country is no American in my book.

Pollard had no allegiance other than to money. It was merely his assertion–as some kind of defense for his scumbaggery–that he was spying “for the greater good” as he pretended to see it. He was a lying scumbag from the get-go and only cared about money. His sentence was nowhere near unfair.

[Little_Nemo]

@Monty

Pollard had no allegiance other than to money. It was merely his assertion–as some kind of defense for his scumbaggery–that he was spying “for the greater good” as he pretended to see it. He was a lying scumbag from the get-go and only cared about money. His sentence was nowhere near unfair.

What often gets overlooked is that Pollard was not just selling classified information to Israel. He was selling it to other countries as well.

There doesn’t appear to be any ideological basis to Pollard’s crimes. He appears to have been motivated by money and thrill-seeking.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Little_Nemo

What often gets overlooked is that Pollard was not just selling classified information to Israel. He was selling it to other countries as well.

Are you sure? I thought he only sold it to Israel. The Israelis traded some of it to the Soviets, I think, in exchange for getting Jews out, but the government was only able to prove that Pollard sold info to Israel.

[Paul_in_Qatar]

You got to be impressed by guys who draw their wives into their crimes. I wonder why she was not jailed. Classy family, she immigrated to cash her pension checks and divorced JP. He, on the other hand, married a woman from … some country or another. Classy, I tells ya.

[Dissonance]

@Captain_Amazing

The Israelis traded some of it to the Soviets, I think, in exchange for getting Jews out, but the government was only able to prove that Pollard sold info to Israel.

To be fair, it is only stongly suspected that this is what happened; another possibility is that the Soviets stole it from Israel. From the Hearsh article astro linked:

A number of officials strongly suspect that the Israelis repackaged much of Pollard’s material and provided it to the Soviet Union in exchange for continued Soviet permission for Jews to emigrate to Israel. Other officials go further, and say there was reason to believe that secret information was exchanged for Jews working in highly sensitive positions in the Soviet Union. A significant percentage of Pollard’s documents, including some that described the techniques the American Navy used to track Soviet submarines around the world, was of practical importance only to the Soviet Union. One longtime C.I.A. officer who worked as a station chief in the Middle East said he understood that “certain elements in the Israeli military had used it” – Pollard’s material – “to trade for people they wanted to get out,” including Jewish scientists working in missile technology and on nuclear issues. Pollard’s spying came at a time when the Israeli government was publicly committed to the free flow of Jewish emigres from the Soviet Union. The officials stressed the fact that they had no hard evidence – no “smoking gun,” in the form of a document from an Israeli or a Soviet archive – to demonstrate the link between Pollard, Israel, and the Soviet Union, but they also said that the documents that Pollard had been directed by his Israeli handlers to betray led them to no other conclusion.
…
A retired Navy admiral who was directly involved in the Pollard investigation told me, “There is no question that the Russians got a lot of the Pollard stuff. The only question is how did it get there?” The admiral, like Robert Gates, had an alternative explanation. He pointed out that Israel would always play a special role in American national security affairs. “We give them truckloads of stuff in the normal course of our official relations,” the admiral said. “And they use it very effectively. They do things worth doing, and they will go places where we will not go, and do what we do not dare to do.”

Nevertheless, he said, it was understood that the Soviet intelligence services had long since penetrated Israel. (One important Soviet spy, Shabtai Kalmanovitch, whose job at one point was to ease the resettlement of Russian emigrants in Israel, was arrested in 1987.) It was reasonably assumed in the aftermath of Pollard, the admiral added, that Soviet spies inside Israel had been used to funnel some of the Pollard material to Moscow.

A full accounting of the materials provided by Pollard to the Israelis has been impossible to obtain: Pollard himself has estimated that the documents would create a stack six feet wide, six feet long, and ten feet high.

Bolding mine, it answers some of Boyo Jim’s questions.

[Monty]

She was jailed, then paroled.

[crypto]

Does anyone know if Pollard has met the eligibility requirements to get his parole in 2015? Usually, unless the government believes that he has told them everything, he will stay where he is.

Based on everything I’ve ever read about him, in addition to his other charms, he’s a pathological liar. If the folks that interrogated him believe that he’s lied, held back information, or been deceptive in any way, he’ll stay behind bars.

This isn’t just blind vengeance; what Pollard did was devastating, and cost the US not only money and security, it also caused some men to lose their lives. I hope better thinking prevails and he stays put.

It would be interesting to see what Pollard and the Israeli govt. would do if he did get his release. Would they fly him over there to live, and give him a hero’s welcome, or would he just fade into the abyss of history? Any gloating would put a severe strain on US/Israeli relations.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Lance_Turbo

Only if he dies in the next five years.

@Paul_in_Qatar

So does 2015 mean out out or out under probation?

(My what a … remarkable … ballad.)

This is a really interesting question. Usually parole is granted if the prisoner agrees to terms of behavior and some form of ongoing supervision after release. Generally, if a prisoners don’t get or accept parole, and serve out their entire sentence, they are release with no further strings attached. But Pollard’s sentence is for life.

In this case the parole is “mandatory” in 2015. I have no idea what that means if Pollard refuses any and all conditions for release. Perhaps they’ll release him and scoop him up again as soon as he violates any of the terms?

[Monty]

@Stink Fish Pot

Does anyone know if Pollard has met the eligibility requirements to get his parole in 2015? Usually, unless the government believes that he has told them everything, he will stay where he is.

Here’s the Wiki blurb (I’ve removed the footnote indicators) on that:

Pollard was sentenced to life in prison on one count of espionage on March 4, 1987. The prosecutor complied with the plea agreement and asked for “only a substantial number of years in prison”; Judge Aubrey Robinson, Jr., not being obligated to follow the recommendation of the prosecutor, and after hearing a “damage-assessment memorandum” from the Secretary of Defense, imposed a life sentence. In 1987, Pollard began his life sentence, which he is still serving. Pollard’s wife, Anne, was sentenced to five years in prison but was paroled after three and a half years because of health problems. Following the end of Anne’s parole, she emigrated to Israel. Jonathan divorced Anne, citing that he believed he was going to be jailed for the remainder of his life and did not want Anne to be bound to him.

At the time of Pollard’s sentencing there was a rule that mandated parole at thirty years for prisoners like him if they had maintained a clean record in prison. That parole date would be November 21, 2015. Also, Pollard was eligible to apply for parole after eight years and six months, though he has never done so.

I don’t see how anyone can say his sentencing was unfair. He’s a liar, he’s greedy, and he’s the basest kind of opportunist. Unfortunately for him, he’s also an incompetent.

Here’s an interesting question, though. He did not face trial due to pleading guilty. If it’s determined that he did not fulfill the terms of his plea agreement, does that mean he goes to trial?

Another aside: Does anyone know if the divorce he obtained is recognized by the Rabbinic authorities in Israel?

[Captain_Amazing]

@Monty

I don’t see how anyone can say his sentencing was unfair. He’s a liar, he’s greedy, and he’s the basest kind of opportunist. Unfortunately for him, he’s also an incompetent.

I think the people who say the sentencing is unfair say it because they say that the sentence he was given exceeds the normal sentence people who do what he did are given.

Here’s an interesting question, though. He did not face trial due to pleading guilty. If it’s determined that he did not fulfill the terms of his plea agreement, does that mean he goes to trial?

What’s that mean? He’s pled guilty, the prosecutor and judge accepted the plea, and he was sentenced. He can’t be tried again for a crime he’s already been sentenced for. What does “not fulfill the terms of his plea agreement” mean?

Another aside: Does anyone know if the divorce he obtained is recognized by the Rabbinic authorities in Israel?

I believe it is. He divorced her, she didn’t contest it, why wouldn’t it be?

[Boyo_Jim]

@Captain_Amazing

…
I believe it is. He divorced her, she didn’t contest it, why wouldn’t it be?

Because deeply religious people are freakin’ nuts on the subject of marriage?

[Monty]

@Captain_Amazing

I think the people who say the sentencing is unfair say it because they say that the sentence he was given exceeds the normal sentence people who do what he did are given.

Well, not all the spies or wannabe spies have been the lying scum he’s been.

What’s that mean? He’s pled guilty, the prosecutor and judge accepted the plea, and he was sentenced. He can’t be tried again for a crime he’s already been sentenced for. What does “not fulfill the terms of his plea agreement” mean?

“Not fulfill the terms of his plea agreement” is pretty clear. The plea agreement included actions he must do. If he does not do them, then he has violated the agreement.

He was never tried. He pleaded guilty and agreed to be sentenced. My question is: if the court determines that he has not done what he agreed to do, can he actually be tried and then sentenced (with time served credited, of course)? It looks like double jeopardy to me, but I’m not a lawyer and lawyers see and interpret the law differently than we ordinary humans do.

I believe it is. He divorced her, she didn’t contest it, why wouldn’t it be?

Divorce in Israel is a complicated business. It’s not like getting a divorce in my home state of California. The Rabbinic authorities there very well may consider either the reason for the divorce that was granted or the authority of the issuing authority to be lacking. Again, law’s a strange beast.

[Alessan]

@Monty

Divorce in Israel is a complicated business. It’s not like getting a divorce in my home state of California. The Rabbinic authorities there very well may consider either the reason for the divorce that was granted or the authority of the issuing authority to be lacking. Again, law’s a strange beast.

To the best of my knowledge, Israeli law automatically accepts marriages and divorces conducted abroad. It’s a major loophole in the Israeli system.

[Alessan]

Another interesting footnote I don’t think anyone has mentioned yet: Pollard was not operated by the Mossad or bi Army INtelligence, but rather by a different, independent intelligence agency (LEKEM) that was disbanded by the Israeli government immediately after the affair went public. There was obviously a huge amount of internal politics involved in the whole deal.

[Monty]

@Alessan

To the best of my knowledge, Israeli law automatically accepts marriages and divorces conducted abroad. It’s a major loophole in the Israeli system.

Thanks.

[Princhester]

@elucidator

Sort of a Hasid trip?

This was seriously, seriously bad. Even by your standards, 'luci. Go out back and shoot yourself, there’s a good fellow. You know it’s the right thing to do.

[Farmer_Jane]

[QUOTE]

@Dissonance

Oh yeah, very shaky relations. We almost considered not giving them a billion dollars a year in weapons for free. Oh wait, no we didn’t.

Israel was caught in the middle of the Cold War. Money does not mean solid relations. (Look at Egypt.)

Sorry.

Pollard’s supporters remind me of Mumia Abu Jamal’s supporters. They both believe a lot of shit that isn’t true by remaining willingly ignorant of the facts surrounding the case.

:smack: And you know I had a FREE MUMIA t shirt in HS.

@Argent_Towers

I’m curious if the people here denouncing Pollard feel the same way about Bradley Manning and Wikileaks?

Are you spying on me? I said the same thing.

@astro

Bradley Manning was/is a mentally unstable hot mess who should not have been put in charge of a hot dog stand much less the nation’s secrets. Both are traitors enabled by the bumbling stupidity of their superiors who promoted them against all common sense.

I think the animus against Pollard is more deep seated because

(1) The level of damage he caused was pretty horrific. Most of the wikileaks leaked data (so far) seems to be military and diplomatic discussions about facts and opinions that are already largely in evidence. Most of the wikileaks revelations to date have been greeted with “Yeah, so what else is new” shoulder shrugs.

(2) The seeming utter lack of remorse by either Pollard or the Israelis. The practical elevation of him to hero status by the Israeli government. The continuous tone deaf calls for his release.

Both are traitors, but Pollard is still pissing in the face of the United States, and the Israelis are holding his cock.

Lovely to characterize Israelis as cockholders. I don’t see how Pollard is pissing in the face of the U.S. any more than Bradley. Are you holding Bradley’s cock?

Just because Bradley wasn’t giving nuke secrets to Iran doesn’t mean he would not have.

Who is to say they aren’t both a little farked in the head?

I still fail to see how Pollard is any worse than any employed intelligence official working with a government.

Everyone does it. Dude got caught. Sucks for him. Stink Fish Pot, would you shoot Manning?

[Paul_in_Qatar]

I would, a soldier who spies is the lowest form of life. The firing squad would really help a lot of the problems with the US military (although that is best left for another thread).

Oddly, I am not angry with Manning. I just think he ought to be shot. Pollard I am annoyed with.