Posted on 07/28/2015 10:50:20 AM PDT by rdl6989
A former U.S, intelligence agent sentenced to life in prison for spying on behalf of Israel against the United States will be released later this year, according to multiple reports on Tuesday.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Pollard is a nut. I don’t know why Israel sticks up for him.
But his release is probably consolation for Israel’s future nuking by Iran.
It’s a no-brainer that Odungo wants something for Pollard’s release. I’m guessing it is Israel keeping mum about the Iran deal.
Too late. Everyone knows what Netanyahu thinks, but the MSM has a blackout on Buji Herzog, who is or shortly will be in the US to oppose the deal.
I agree 100% that Israel is our friend.
Pollard sold my countries secrets. I don’t care if it was to friend or foe. A traitor is a traitor and traitors should be stood against a wall and shot.
To me this isn’t about Israel as much as it is about him.
We have a lot of traitors. The same should be done to them.
>It’s hard to believe some of the other posts on this thread. A lot of people seem to believe that Pollard is some sort of hero and martyr rather than a traitor.
Pollard should have been executed.
Frankly, it’s not too late.
Aaron Klein has reviewed Weinberger's memorandum. He stated on his radio show it is nowhere near as damaging as claimed by some. But yet the judge reneged on the plea agreement and sentenced Pollard to life imprisonment, a sentence disproportionally harsh in view of the facts that you outlined here.
So the question is this: Why has the Carter-appointed (black) judge who violated the plea bargain deal escaped criticism from most of the pro-Pollard people? Why is his name almost never mentioned, even now that he is long deceased? Obviously, there is something very strange going on with regard to this judge and his role in the case. Is someone being threatened, bribed or blackmailed to preserve the "good name" of this judge?
Nowadays, NOTHING surprises me.
No one is arguing that Pollard did not commit a criminal act. The problem is the sentence is much too harsh for the level of the criminal act. Based on other cases, the appropriate sentence would be in the range of tree to five years, NOT life.
A traitor, in this context, would be a person who commits treason. Apparently, you haven't read the Constitution of the United States, which says in Art. III, Sec. 3:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Not "tree". "Gallows".
How friendly were they to swap our nuclear war plans to the USSR 30 years ago?
Pollard probably didn't know that would happen. But, it was a disaster. Thank God the Cold War was winding down.
Spike Bowman also pointed out that Pollard had previously tried to sell information to both Pakistan and South Africa, despite his self-portrayal—and the narrative adopted by his defenders—that he was motivated by an ardent Zionism. “He was scheming any way he could to make money,” Bowman said. “This was his big thing. He just happened to hit upon one that was a well to go to. It was purely mercenary.”
Some of the damage Pollard wrought, Bowman said, still has an impact on U.S. national security in 2015 because the data he disclosed forced organizations such as the NSA to alter their operations and intelligence-gathering mechanism. And that was long before Edward Snowden.
“Pollard’s advocates have long argued that he’s suffered more severely than any other spy,” Bowman said. “But that’s because there are no other spies with similar convictions. He’s a loner. Personally I don’t think he should ever see the light of day.”
Nice unbiased source you got there ...
What is your source for that piece of disinformation?
Obviously a typo on my part. Should have been "3 to 5 years." You have a gallows sense of humor.
Bill Casey, Cap Weinberger, subsequent CIA chiefs. It used to be common knowledge. This is the first source I Googled. If you don't like The Guardian (they used to be far left) there are many more:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jan/12/julianborger1
It was 30 years ago and not this regime. But, it appears to be a fact.
OK, that’s worse than my pun ;)
I believe the Weinberger memorandum is still classified, though per the NIS none of the information it contains is still classified. I suspect that’s what Klein is referring to, other than a minute or so at sentencing, no one has viewedthe memorandum, including Pollard and his lawyers, up to this day. One day it will be declassified, and I suspect will answer a number of questions. I don’t think the judge is an issue, the memo provided a basis for his action. Eventually we’ll know what’s true and what’s not. His initial attorney is a much bigger issue, since he “forgot” to file an appeal. And, supervised the investigation of Pollard.
How can you possibly arrive at that conclusion, having never seen the memorandum and having no idea of what specifically is in the memorandum? (BTW, Klein said he read the memorandum, but admitted some of it was redacted. However, he could make assumptions as to what was in the redacted parts based on the titles of the sections.)
And how can you say the judge is not an issue? It's the judge who imposed the sentence, not Weinberger nor anyone else. It's very basic: there are two sides that bring their positions and papers before the judge prior to sentencing (pre-sentencing hearing), the prosecution and the defense. Weinberger's memorandum (assuming Weinberger actually wrote it) doesn't have to control the judge's thinking. There are many other factors for him to consider: most importantly in this case, the plea agreement. The judge is NOT obligated to rubber stamp Weinberger, but in this case he either did, or even went beyond Weinberger's wishes in meting out the disproportionate sentence. Remember that Pollard pled to unauthorized use of classified documents ONLY.
This smells of the possibility of some secret backroom deal made between someone in the government and the judge, without Pollard or his attorneys privy to it, or the possibility of Pollard's attorneys selling out their client behind his back.
One question for you: what is NIS?
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.