Posted on 11/10/2005 2:22:43 PM PST by zyaakov
Justice Rubinstein: U.S. should free convicted spy Pollard
By Yuval Yoaz, Haaretz Correspondent
High Court Justice Eliyakim Rubinstein on Thursday made a rare politically tainted comment when saying that the United States should release Jonathan Pollard, who has been jailed for almost 20 years following his conviction for spying for Israel.
"It is time the U.S. Administration free Jonathan Pollard," Rubinstein said. "20 years is more than enough time to serve in prison and I believe that the U.S. should pardon him."
Rubinstein was speaking during the opening panel of the annual conference of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists in Eilat. During a debate on the global struggle against anti-Semitism, Rubinstein was asked if he considered Pollard?s imprisonment as an act of anti-Semitism.
In response, the justice urged the U.S. to free Pollard, saying that "he committed an error, Israel committed a grave error, but it's time for his release. I hope Israel continues appealing to the United States on the matter, but I don't think the High Court has anything to do in the matter. The bottom line is that he must be released."
Rubinstein's comment might prove to be problematic as the High Court is slated to hand rulings on two petitions by Pollard and his family over his imprisonment, including a request to recognize him as a Prisoner of Zion
(Excerpt) Read more at haaretz.com ...
The one in question came out of this meeting. The President is President Reagan.
Remarks of the President and Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir of Israel Following Their Meetings
November 29, 1983
The President. We have held 2 days of intensive talks with Prime Minister Shamir and his colleagues, covering a broad range of subjects including political, military cooperation, Lebanon, Israel's economic situation, and the pursuit of the Middle East peace process. And these discussions, as could be expected between close friends and allies, have been very productive. We reconfirmed the longstanding bonds of the friendship and cooperation between our two countries and expressed our determination to strengthen and develop them in the cause of our mutual interests.
We have agreed on the need to increase our cooperation in areas where our interests coincide, particularly in the political and military area. And I am pleased to announce that we have agreed to establish a joint political-military group to examine ways in which we can enhance U.S.-Israeli cooperation. This group will give priority attention to the threat to our mutual interest posed by increased Soviet involvement in the Middle East. Among the specific areas to be considered are combined planning, joint exercises, and requirements for prepositioning of U.S. equipment in Israel.
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/112983b.htm
"Thank you. I appreciate the clarification, and I don't doubt its validity, but Olsen refers to it as a treaty."
If Olsen really thinks that an MOU is a treaty, then it's a good thing he's the FORMER Solicitor General.
"You want me to quote you chapter and verse of an oft refered treaty, the existence of which is disputed by no one but you, and all you can give me is a title from the eighties? Not even an author?"
Treaties, like other elements of United States law, are available online.
Books, for the most part, aren't. As for the author info, it was written by Norman Polmar and Thomas B. Allen.
"You would think as payback, IF SUCH A THING HAD EVER HAPPENED, some Arabist and anti Semitic elements in Russia would release some evidence that Israel had helped the Soviets during the cold war."
Unless, of course, there is still some under-the-table collaboration going on, in which case it would be classified on both ends.
Politics is the mother of strange bedfellows.
It would fit the dictionary definition of a treaty.
But you just want to nit pick and not get off your ingrained opinion no matter what contrary evidence is provided.
Why werent they all executed is a better question. Presumably the Walkers briefed the FBI on what secrets they sold to the Soviets in return for leniencey. Dont know if Pollard ever did so. He certainly never showed any sign of remorse other than over getting caught.
Im troubled by your comment "they committed the same offence". From what I recall about the case, Pollard's betrayal resulted in a greater loss to the US than anything any other spy had ever been able to accomplish. That may also be reason why he got a longer term. Then it could be that Bush 41 wanted to make sure that Israel got the message that we werent going to turn a blind eye to them selling our top secrets to the Soviets.
"It would fit the dictionary definition of a treaty."
But not the Constitution's definition, which is the one that rules here.
"But you just want to nit pick and not get off your ingrained opinion no matter what contrary evidence is provided."
Pollard handed over an incredible amount of classified material, most of which was of little use to Israel, but of great interest to the Soviet Union.
But I'm supposed to ignore all of that, lest certain folks start dropping sly hints of anti-Semitism.
I'll come right out and ask the question you're leading me to:
Is your primary loyalty to the United States of America, or to Israel?
Books, for the most part, aren't. As for the author info, it was written by Norman Polmar and Thomas B. Allen.
No, but you know damned well nearly anything worthy of peer-review from any particular book is.
Why all this 'special pleading'?
Since as you say Pollard meant no harm then he shouldnt mind paying for his "mistake" in causing harm to his country. And as far as Mr Lucky I could give a shit what ethnicity he was. Are you holding him out as a sacrifical lamb to cover Pollards sins? Cheap stunt. Since it was the Israeli government that screwed us over how about we get leaders of the top Israeli political parties to serve out Pollards sentence for him locked in the same cell together. Or perhaps you feel strongly enough to take his spot?
So now the US government is filled up with a bunch of anti-semites like Secretary Weinberger...oops that dont work does it?
You had asked above if I was implying anything about you. I replied that I didn't know you.
Now I do.
"Why all this 'special pleading'?"
You tell me--I'm the one favoring treating Pollard like the disloyal, oath-breaching scumbag he is. You're part of the Pollard fan club.
Is your primary loyalty to the United States, or to Israel?
"You had asked above if I was implying anything about you. I replied that I didn't know you."
You throw out the allegation as a debating tactic. That's known as "ad hominem."
"Now I do."
You don't know jack-s*** about me. I'm one of the few people on this forum who stood up for Jewish cadets at the Air Force Academy.
But I thank you for answering my question about which country claims your true loyalty.
Who says he does besides you revisionist zionists? Last time I heard him talk on the case he was adamanant that Pollard had caused irreparable damage and that was back when Pollard tried to get a pardon from Clinton.
Is your primary loyalty to the United States of America, or to Israel?
My primary loyalty is to the United States.
Now you answer my question:
What does your question have to do with investigating suspicions of bureaucratic abuse?
"My primary loyalty is to the United States."
Gee, it sure doesn't look like it.
"What does your question have to do with investigating suspicions of bureaucratic abuse?"
Oh, is THAT the latest Pollard defense spin? He wasn't actually SPYING, he was just "investigating suspicions of bureaucratic abuse?"
Pollard's the only guy making that claim. It's an excuse. Excuses are like rectal orifices; everyone has one, but they all stink.
No, you are advocating more punishment than he got.
Why?
Furthermore, you've shown a pronounced tendency to ignore or disdain anything exculpatory.
Why?
In my book, you are exact inverse of what you accuse Pollard skeptics of being.
Sure it does. You just can't tell the difference between what you want, and the interests of the United States. It's actually a pretty common fault, though it's usually restricted to liberals and children.
Oh, is THAT the latest Pollard defense spin? He wasn't actually SPYING, he was just "investigating suspicions of bureaucratic abuse?"
Get your head out of your 'excuse'. Nobody said he wasn't spying.
From what I've seen there is credible reason to believe Pollard is being singled out for treatment that falls outside the norm for his crime. I'd like to know why, and the desire to know why is not an act of disloyalty.
I do question the motives and loyalty of those who don't want those questions asked, though.
I don't cotton to cops that answer "what do you have to hide" when I ask why they want to search my car, either.
So how DID those guys screw up the economic output estimate of the Soviet Union for thirtyfive years?
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.