Why is this irrelevant? There must be some reason why Pollard was given a sentence out of all proportion to those given to other spies guilty of the same thing (I am assuming his crime was similar to that of other spies for friendly nations; if not, we should be told what it was). This discrepancy naturally leads to questions and ultimately conspiracy theories.
Are you saying Pollard signed a statement stipulating he would be sentenced to life in prison regardless of to whom he gave the information? I find that hard to believe if (as I have read) the initial punishment demanded by the government was withdrawn at the last minute and life imprisonment suddenly demanded, surprising everyone.
Again, I am not arguing that Pollard did not commit a crime. I am not arguing that he be pardoned. I am not saying that his sentence is inappropriate if indeed his crime was more heinous than those of spies who worked for South Korea or Saudi Arabia. What I am saying is that if his crime was no more serious than that of other "friendly spies" that he should have been given the same treatment. That is all.
The most the supporters of Pollard have asked for has not been a pardon but commutation of the sentence to time served, though perhaps a retrial would be nice (especially if the government could justify its severity in this case).
Neither should anyone assume that all the "pressure" on behalf of Pollard comes from "liberals" (unless one is among that number of slithering creatures to whom anything Jewish, Zionist, or Israeli is automatically "leftwing"). Many of his advocates come from the Right, including both Torah nationalists and even people who campaigned against Joe Lieberman during the last election (one page linked Lieberman's silence on Pollard with his support of abortion and homosexual "rights").
Finally, even though I am not Jewish, as a Ben Noach I am aware of another element of this issue that even many of Pollard's harshest critics have ignored--that as a Jew this crime, however slight it might have been, constituted a chillul HaShem. Were there mitigating circumstances? The court that will ultimately decide this is one we will all one day appear before.
I am simply saying that the sentence given Pollard is not as simple to justify as it seems, unless the one who defends it is privy to information the rest of us are not.
Sentencing for any crime is up to the judge, who is given a range of possibilities and may or may not be influenced by factors you raise in justification such as level of damage - it is not quite correct to imply that a judge must "justify" a life sentence in this or any other case. If it is within the window he or she may invoke it for any reason he or she desires, or none at all.
Pollard is something of a special case in juridicial matters, as is any employee of the federal government entrusted with access to sensitive information. These - I was one - cannot be treated quite like a regular citizen in a number of regards, not the least of which is testimony to pertinent matters in open court. There are restrictions on First, Fourth, and Fifth amendment rights that do not occur with persons accused of a normal felony or misdemeanor.
But the bottom line is that what he was doing was knowingly breaching a trust with known penalties - Pollard himself has said as much, for heaven's sake! Anyone who is in this little game has friends who have vital interests in the information they are safeguarding but who are not cleared for access. It goes with the job, and it is one of the first and most important things you're briefed on when accepting this level of responsibility. If you fail the trust you may expect to have the book thrown at you, period. Anything less than that isn't a matter of "fairness," it's a matter of luck. Pollard understands that as well.
I don't blame his friends, supporters, or the people that benefited from the release of this information, from speaking up for him. Good folks, all, but they don't understand the game and they don't understand the rules and Pollard does.
He signed a plea agreement with the government in which the government agreed not to ask for for a life sentence. He complied with it's terms, other than an interview with Wolf Blitzer, which the government approved, but which Justice contends was approved by the wrong department. That's Justice's only complaint. Pollard was sentenced to life based on Weinberger's statement to the judge, which Pollard and his attorney were allowed to view, without taking notes, for 5 minutes.
The issue we should be concerned with isn't Pollard, but the justice system. The Justice Dept. has acknowledged the communication to the judge is no longer a national security risk. There's no reason not to make it public, other than the possible taint it might provide on the use of secret evidence, currently an issue in the war on terror. None the less, we should know what transpired.