A TRAITOR IS A TRAITOR (Another view of the Jonathan Pollard case)

September 3, 2003 -- JONATHAN Pollard, convicted spy, would like to be set free. His advocates in the United States also want Pollard to go free. And his one-time paymasters in Israel badly want him to go free. Pollard was in court yesterday asking for a reduction in his sentence. But he should have been executed for his crimes. His life sentence was a mercy he didn't deserve. Releasing him from prison while he's still breathing would be terrible for America - and even worse for Israel.

That's fine, but unless and until you bring something a bit more solid to the table than just a set of "why else would they do that?"-type questions, I see no reason to entertain theories suggesting that Pollard is in jail because of someone's bigotry. Those are serious charges, my friend, and they require serious evidence before anyone is going to listen, let alone believe.

The evidence of antisemitism is certainly stronger among those who want to hang him. He was guilty of delivering high level classified information to Israel from his position on an anti-terrorism unit. He enraged enough people in the INTEL community and the Bush Administration that they manipulated or influenced the judge after the plea agreement. He could no longer go to trial or mount a defense.

The problem is that aiding and abetting Pollard in his attempt to make his case into a matter of Jewish solidarity is only going to reinforce that perception. It's time to let it go...

As the German Jews learned to their dismay, it mattered not an iota how loyal they were nor how many Jewish criminal cases they ignored. The pressure on them increased because people wanted to hate Jews. Jonathan Pollard deserves the same justice as his peers, no more and no less. His sentence should not have been padded because he is an American Jew who spied for Israel, nor should people single him out for scorn and ridicule for the same reason. The more one looks at similar cases, the more unfair his sentence appears.

He enraged enough people in the INTEL community and the Bush Administration that they manipulated or influenced the judge after the plea agreement.

Considering that this was exactly what Pollard was attempting to do by going to the press, for him to complain about it now smacks of the rankest hypocrisy. Jonathan Pollard opened that particular can of worms all by himself. The fact that it didn't work out quite the way he planned does not cause me to feel a surge of pity for him. Nor does it, I think, among most people.

His sentence should not have been padded because he is an American Jew who spied for Israel, nor should people single him out for scorn and ridicule for the same reason.

Again, you have yet to present anything other than innuendo and speculation to support this contention. Nobody is going to take this charge seriously until that changes - there are plenty of real injustices in the world to worry about without spending time railing against injustices that, so far, appear wholly imaginary.

You know exactly what Pollard was attempting to do by going to the press but consider it innuendo and speculation what Weinberger, et. al. were attempting to do by going to the press and the judge.

A) Weinberger never went to the press during the sentencing process. B) Weinberger never went to the judge. Instead, as part of the sentencing process, the judge went to Weinberger and asked for an assessment of the damage done by Pollard, which Weinberger provided. I don't consider this "innuendo", nor have I suggested same, contrary to your portrayal of my posts - these are the actual facts. What I do consider innuendo, and have all along, is your repeated vague, unsupported, baseless accusations of anti-Semitism against a mysteriously unnamed person or persons - allegations which you have repeatedly been invited to support, and have repeatedly avoided so doing. With your statements about Weinberger, it is obvious that you are simply unaware of the actual facts of the case. Unfortunately, as my posts are right here in front of you, I can hardly be so generous as to ascribe your distortions on that point to simple ignorance - it is clear that you are actively and willfully distorting what I have said.

The unique aspect of his case, which infuriates certain people to this day, is that he is an American Jew that spied for Israel.

The only unique aspect that I can see is the behavior his actions have engendered in his supporters - rarely are traitors the subject of an active campaign to portray them as martyrs, as Pollard's supporters have done. Pollard himself may have opened the door to smearing all Jews with the charge of untrustworthiness due to competing loyalties - unfortunately, it is his supporters who will insure that such a charge will continue to dog Jews indefinitely.

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion that Pollard was done wrong, and no one here will begrudge you that, what you are not entitled to are your own facts. Until you fully acquaint yourself with the actual facts of the case, and are able to rationally discuss them without resorting to distorting what others are saying, there is very little point in continuing this discussion. Feel free to have the last word.

A) Weinberger never went to the press during the sentencing process. He did go to the press, and more than once, for damage control to his own reputation. B) Weinberger never went to the judge. Instead, as part of the sentencing process, the judge went to Weinberger and asked for an assessment of the damage done by Pollard, which Weinberger provided. That is Weinberger's assertion but there is no public evidence to back that up that I can find. I don't consider this "innuendo", nor have I suggested same, contrary to your portrayal of my posts - these are the actual facts. They are Weinberger's assertions. The record is sealed. How would you know "the actual facts ?" The Pentagon views the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship very differently today than fifteen years ago, when Ronald Reagan launched it. Then, the Pentagon not only tried to hide it, but to prevent it. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs John Vessey strenuously opposed it, as did Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger, to the point that even after being ordered to do it, they didn't implement orders.
- allegations which you have repeatedly been invited to support, and have repeatedly avoided so doing. With your statements about Weinberger, it is obvious that you are simply unaware of the actual facts of the case. Unfortunately, as my posts are right here in front of you, I can hardly be so generous as to ascribe your distortions on that point to simple ignorance - it is clear that you are actively and willfully distorting what I have said. I have read what you said carefully. You wrote "the sentence meted out is unusually harsh." You also wrote "The simple fact of the matter is that, Jew or not, Israel or not, if Jonathan Pollard had simply said "I'm sorry" and kept his mouth shut after that, he'd be out by now and be enjoying a comfortable retirement somewhere in Israel."

The only unique aspect that I can see is the behavior his actions have engendered in his supporters - rarely are traitors the subject of an active campaign to portray them as martyrs, as Pollard's supporters have done. [because others convicted of similar offenses received much lighter sentences] Pollard himself may have opened the door to smearing all Jews with the charge of untrustworthiness due to competing loyalties - [actually, it has been around much longer than that, and not just a French and German hobby] unfortunately, it is his supporters who will insure that such a charge will continue to dog Jews indefinitely. No, it will be antisemites who do that, as they always have.

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion that Pollard was done wrong, and no one here will begrudge you that, [a lie] what you are not entitled to are your own facts. Until you fully acquaint yourself with the actual facts of the case, [you conveniently mean the facts that the judge and Weinberger suppress to this day, how convenient to your argument] and are able to rationally discuss them without resorting to distorting what others are saying, there is very little point in continuing this discussion. Feel free to have the last word.

Pollard was convicted of espionage (not treason) because he spied for an ally (Israel). His sentence was disproportionate to that received by other similar offenders. He was singled out for harsh treatment because he angered powerful people in the first Bush Administration. People are enraged to this day that an American Jew spied for Israel and American Jews to this day are paying a price for it. Those who hate and despise Jews will continue to do so and use Jonathan Pollard as an excuse. He deserves a sentence commensurate with his crime, as do all those who commit such crimes, no more and no less because he is an American Jew who spied for Israel.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.