He also tried to sell secrets to Pakistan and South Africa, do they owe him as well?
Yes, as expected. The supreme principle is “Israel, fuck yeah!”. Once again.
Are you saying Israel doesn’t owe Pollard anything? That we should use him and throw him out like a piece of trash?
What is Israel’s normal policy wrt foreign agents in its employ who have been compromised?
I do understand the principle, that you might want to see to be “taking care” of a compromised agent, if for nothing but to encourage the others.
I don’t know. You know how secretive these guys are.
It’s more than that - we’re a very militarized society (as you might expect, given the universal draft), and the Israeli public is highly averse to “leaving a man behind”, for any reason. It’s why we’re willing to free hundreds of prisoners for a single hostage.
Which in turn, to US is, should be, must be, irrelevant/worthless. So there we are.
Like I said earlier, he did his time as per the sentence and gets to complete his mandatory jail term and go on parole per the usual process, with no special privilege. That should be good enough. “Noble cause” is not a mitigating circumstance. Heck, he can even celebrate as if the very parole were some sort of victory if it makes him feel better.
Did I claim otherwise?
No. Thus “so, there we are”.
I’m not arguing the case, just pointing out how that might make a difference.
I’m not sure I’ve given you enough evidence on which you can base a claim about my faith in the justice system. But anyone can evaluate individual cases. I think of what we know, the evidence against Pollard was strong. There was likely more evidence we never saw due to the nature of the charges and the fact he plead guilty. This isn’t a West Memphis 3 style case where there was much doubt about guilt.
Turn it around. What ought America do with its agents in friendly foreign nations once they are blown?
America, as I’m sure you are aware, routinely spies on friendly foreign nations.
It would seem a mite hypocritical for a nation to employ spies, and then discard them once they were caught - not to mention, make it rather more difficult to attract spies in the future.
Of course, by the same token, it is in the interests of a country to punish spies and traitors severely, to discourage more of the same.
To my mind, the US punishing Pollard severely - and Israel supporting him - is a non-story. Each country is doing exactly what they ought. If the tables were turned, I’d think less of the US for throwing out one of its spies.
Interesting article on the subject: Jonathan Pollard was one of the worst traitors of the 20th century: He deserved his 30-year prison sentence.
We don’t laud them as heroes and fund million-dollar bank accounts for them out of national gratitude. But that’s what’s happening here.
But, since you ask: When a US spy gets caught, there is generally a trade for one of their guys we caught, after enough prison time to let justice appear to be served, followed by both being sent to the nation they worked for in well-deserved obscurity.
Indeed.
Reason enough for Israel to hide its actions under a cloud of jingoist bluster.
Fred Kaplan has a decent rundown over at Slate: Jonathan Pollard was one of the worst traitors of the 20th century: He deserved his 30-year prison sentence.
[INDENT][INDENT] A few weeks before Hersh’s story, four retired admirals—all of whom had served as directors of U.S. Naval Intelligence—wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post warning that Pollard’s idealistic image was a “clever public-relations campaign.” In fact, they revealed, Pollard had offered highly classified documents to three other countries before hitting up Israel. (Those countries were later reported to be Pakistan, South Africa, and Australia.)
Furthermore, the admirals wrote, Pollard was well-paid for his efforts—a monthly stipend of $2,500, more than $10,000 in gifts, and other favors, in exchange for a commitment to spy for 10 years—and he was asking his handlers for a raise when he got caught. An official investigation revealed that Pollard was constantly broke, in serious debt, borrowing money from colleagues, and spending it just as fast. [/INDENT][/INDENT] I concede that this evidence is not airtight given the tendency of intelligence agencies to engage in deception. A fuller view can be gleaned from the Slate article.
IMHO, Israel was right to press for Pollard’s release. The US was correct to resist such pressures and it did. Pollard was released as per the conditions of the original sentence. Though IMHO, if the stakes were high enough I wouldn’t be adverse to using the traitor as a bargaining chip.
ETA: Ninja’d! I’ll add that I like Fred Kaplan’s reporting on national security.
Seems awfully hypocritical to me. If someone has served your country well, why not “laud” them? If their actions are distasteful - then don’t employ them.
To employ spies and then treat their actions as shameful for the spy, strikes me as absurd - as well as counterproductive. How on earth are you supposed to attract the next spy, if you treat existing ones like that?
Because it amounts to a very public fuck-you to the purported friend and ally you were spying on, for no good purpose whatever. The fact that you’re celebrating someone who got caught is also inappropriate - do you celebrate people who manage to complete their careers and retire from spying? No, never.
Spying on your allies is inherently distasteful, wouldn’t you say?
You compensate them well, and in turn expect them to be discreet enough not to get caught and embarrass you. It isn’t just the spy’s actions that are shameful, or even them primarily, btw - it’s your actions in deciding to spy in the first place.
Do you have any moralizations to offer on turning around and selling the secrets you learned to an enemy of the friend you spied on? Secrets that weren’t of value to you anyway? Meaning you were acting as an agent of that enemy? Israel did that, you know.
The fact that it may annoy the country spied on is certainly a relevant factor, and a good point.
The notion that it serves “no good purpose whatsoever” is patently false, as set out in detail below.
Maybe. Certainly it is a “distatesful” act everyone does. However, if it is morally “distasteful”, the opprobrium lies primarily on the person doing the employing. It hardly lies in their mouth to employ a spy, and then react in pious horror at the spy when their own employee gets caught following the orders they were given.
Part of that “compensation” may well be a guarantee that you will stand by them when they get caught.
I don’t understand your POV. You complained upthread that Israel “fund million-dollar bank accounts for them”, and now you say that you should " compensate them well" - unless they get caught? Is Israel’s real offence here that they are supporting a loser?
What “moralization”? I’m making a practical realist argument.
Say you have a choice to spy for two countries. If you are caught, Country A will do all in its power to rescue you from your captors, and give you a big pay-out if it can’t. Country B, in contrast, will follow your prescription - exchange you (at best), and otherwise, treat you as an embarrasing loser.
Who would you rather spy for? Strikes me as a no-brainer.
Not seeing the detail, or even the falsehood. The context is the overall relationship between the two countries. Celebrating a spy causes damage to that relationship, and it is especially unwise when it’s a relationship you depend upon for your very existence, wouldn’t you say?
Already stated. Yet, instead of staying discreet, as the deserved target of opprobrium should, they’re fucking celebrating.
Depends on what is meant by standing by them, right?
No, that they do not accept that any one else’s interests or laws or principles are factors, and that there is no law or principle higher than jingoism. It’s deeply unwise in overall context even for them, as already explained.
With no regard to the context of international relations? No, that is not practical or realistic.
Do please tell us more about realism. :rolleyes:
When that stealthy U.S. drone crashed in Iran, the U.S. Government asked Iran to kindly return it. And people laughed at the absurdity of the request.
In this case, it seems Pollard’s continued imprisonment was portrayed as an injustice to this poor spy, who was loyal either to money or to another country, depending on whom you believe. Odd that nobody laughed at the absurdity of the requests to return him, huh?