Posted on 04/30/2018 9:22:09 AM PDT by WisconsinRep
Israel hopes Jonathan Pollard, an American spy who served 30 years in prison for selling secrets to the Jewish state, will be allowed to emigrate there as the US moves its embassy to Jerusalem, a minister said on Monday.
"I hope that President Donald Trump will offer another gift to Israelis by allowing Jonathan Pollard to come and celebrate the opening of the American embassy in Jerusalem," Israel's Transport and Intelligence Minister Yisrael Katz told army radio.
"I hope that President Trump will agree to that request with Jonathan Pollard having spent so many years in prison."
The United States is due to open its Jerusalem embassy on May 14 in a controversial move that coincides with the 70th anniversary of Israel's founding.
Pollard was released from prison in November 2015 after three decades in jail. He was given a five-year probation period during which he is not allowed to travel outside the United States.
Israel, which had long deemed his punishment unreasonable, welcomed his release.
The 63-year-old was granted Israeli citizenship in 1995 and his family says he wants to settle in Israel.
(Excerpt) Read more at afp.com ...
The Lie that Won’t Die: the USS Liberty Attack Slander, Continued
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-lie-that-wont-die-the-uss-liberty-attack-slander-continued/
Because they *are* neo-Nazis.
Halfwit north mountain repeats the falsehood that Judiasm is a “race.”
It is not a “race”, it is a religion.
There are black Jews from Africa.
Anything to do with the “Master Race”, north mountain?
Blow it out your ear, Marvy.
Your hero and idol, Jonathan Pollard, is a LIAR, a TRAITOR, and a SPY. Be BETRAYED HIS COUNTRY.
That is the bottom line, Marvy. You can spin and obfuscate, and accuse others ... you cannot change the facts, Marvy.
You are making a hero out of a LIAR.
You are making a hero out of a SPY.
You are making a hero out of a TRAITOR.
How ‘bout you, Marvy? Are you a liar, a spy, and a traitor?
How many foreign nations have YOU spied for, Marvy?
How many times have YOU betrayed your country, Marvy?
Quit lying, Marvy. This isn’t about lying traitor Pollard being a Jew, Marvy. His religion (if any) is irrelevant. His race is irrelevant. His actions are relevant. It’s about him being a LIAR, and a SPY, and a TRAITOR.
Your idolizing of lying traitor spy Pollard condemns you, Marvy.
I suggest you look at the site assembled by the victims, not some ridiculous claim that support for the victims and those murdered are Nazis. Try to keep it adult.
From Pollard's Wikipedia entry:
Pollard grew up with what he called a "racial obligation" to Israel ...
(Source: Blitzer, Wolf (1989). Territory of Lies. New York: Harper & Row.)
Apparently Jonathan Pollard never got the message that Judaism is a religion, not a race.
P.S. -- Marvin, perhaps you could explain to us why a Jewish man like Pollard would have used a term 'racial obligation' instead of 'religious obligation' to describe his loyalty to Israel.
You’ve stumbled on the truth Marvin. Half the Middle East are Semites including the hordes of Muslims.
Summary of Events
The following summary is taken from the formal War Crimes Report filed with the Secretary of Defense..
BACKGROUND
On June 8, 1967 while patrolling in international waters[2] in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) was savagely attacked without warning or justification by air and naval forces of the state of Israel.[3]
Of a crew of 294 officers and men[4] (including three civilians)[5], the ship suffered thirty four (34) killed in action and one hundred seventy four (174) wounded in action.[6] The ship itself, a Forty Million ($40,000,000) Dollar state of the art signals intelligence (SIGINT) platform, was so badly damaged that it never sailed on an operational mission again and was sold in 1970 for $101,666.66 as scrap[7] .
Israel acknowledged the following facts without qualification:
USS Liberty was an American ship, hence a neutral vis-à-vis the June 1967 war between Israel and its Arab neighbors.[8]
USS Liberty remained in international waters at all times on June 8, 1967[9] .
The attacking Israeli forces never made a positive identification of the nationality of USS Liberty before unleashing deadly force in their attack on the ship.[10]
At approximately 0600 hours (all times local) on the morning of June 8, 1967 an Israeli maritime reconnaissance aircraft observer reported seeing “a US Navy cargo type ship,” just outside the coverage of the Israeli coastal radar defense net, bearing the hull markings “GTR-5”.[11] This report, made to Israeli naval HQ, was also forwarded immediately to the Israeli navy intelligence directorate.[12]
Throughout the remainder of the day prior to the attack, Israeli reconnaissance aircraft regularly flew out to USS Liberty’s position and orbited the ship before returning to their bases in Israel. A total of no fewer than eight (8) such flights were made.[13]
At approximately 1050 hours, the naval observer from the early morning reconnaissance flight arrived at Israeli air force HQ and sat down with the air-naval liaison officer there. The two officers consulted Jane’s Fighting Ships and learned that the ship reported earlier in the day was USS Liberty, a United States Navy technical research ship.[14]
From 0900 hours on June 8, 1967, until the time of the attack five hours later, USS Liberty maintained a speed of approximately five knots and a generally westerly-northwesterly course.[15]
At 1400 hours, while approximately 17 miles off the Gaza coast, USS Liberty’s crew observed three surface radar contacts closing with their position at high speed. A few moments later, the bridge radar crew observed high speed aircraft passing over the surface returns on the same heading.[16]
Within a few short moments, and without any warning, Israeli fighter aircraft launched a rocket attack on USS Liberty. The aircraft made repeated firing passes, attacking USS Liberty with rockets and their internal cannons. After the first flight of fighter aircraft had exhausted their ordnance, subsequent flights of Israeli fighter aircraft continued to prosecute the attack with rockets, cannon fire, and napalm. [17]
During the air attack, USS Liberty’s crew had difficulty contacting Sixth Fleet to request assistance due to intense communications jamming[18]
The initial targets on the ship were the command bridge, communications antennas, and the four .50 caliber machine guns, placed on the ship to repel boarders.[19]
After the Israeli fighter aircraft completed their attacks, three Israeli torpedo boats arrived and began a surface attack about 35 minutes after the start of the air attack. The torpedo boats launched a total of five torpedoes, one of which struck the side of USS Liberty, opposite the ship’s research spaces. [20] Twenty-six Americans in addition to the eight who had been killed in the earlier air attacks, were killed as a result of this explosion.
Following their torpedo attack, the torpedo boats moved up and down the length of the ship (both the port and starboard sides), continuing their attack, raking the ship with cannon and machine gun fire.[21] In Malta, crewmen were later assigned the task of counting all of the holes in the ship that were the size of a man’s hand or larger. They found a total of 861 such holes, in addition to “thousands” of .50 caliber machine gun holes.
Survivors report that the torpedo boat crews swept the decks of USS Liberty with continuous machine gun fire, targeting communications equipment and any crewmembers who ventured above decks.[22]
Damage control firefighters, who had already risked their lives merely by appearing on deck, had to abandon their efforts because their fire hoses had been shredded by machine gun fire.[23]
Survivors also report that the torpedo boat crews fired on the inflated life boats launched by the crew after the captain gave the order “prepare to abandon ship.”[24] This order had to be rescinded because the crew was unable to stand on the main deck without being fired upon and the life rafts were destroyed as they were launched.[25]
The defenseless crew, initially unable to report their plight or summon assistance and with only themselves to rely upon, fought heroically to save themselves and their ship. In recognition of their effort in this single action, they were ultimately awarded collectively one Medal of Honor, two Navy Crosses, eleven Silver Stars, twenty Bronze Stars (with “V” device), nine Navy Commendation Medals, and two hundred and four Purple Hearts. In addition, the ship was awarded the Presidential Unit Citation.
By patching together different systems, the ship’s radio operators had ultimately been able to send a brief distress message that was received and acknowledged by United States Sixth Fleet forces present in the Mediterranean.[26] Upon receipt of that message the aircraft carriers USS Saratoga and USS America each launched aircraft to come to the aid of USS Liberty.[27] The reported attacking aircraft were declared hostile and the rescue aircraft were authorized to destroy them upon arrival.[28] The rules of engagement, authorizing destruction of the attackers, were transmitted to the rescue aircraft “in the clear” (i.e., they were not encrypted).
Shortly after the Sixth Fleet transmission of the rules of engagement to its dispatched rescue aircraft, the Israeli torpedo boats suddenly broke off their attack and transmitted messages asking if USS Liberty required assistance.[29] At the same time, an Israeli naval officer notified the US Naval Attaché at the American Embassy in Tel Aviv that Israeli forces had mistakenly attacked a United States Navy ship and apologized. The Naval Attaché notified the United States Sixth Fleet[30] and rescue aircraft were recalled before they arrived at the scene of the attack.[31]
At about the same time as the cessation of the torpedo boat attack, Israeli attack helicopters arrived over the ship.[32] Survivors report that the helicopters were packed with men in combat battle dress. The Captain of USS Liberty gave the order to “prepare to repel boarders”[33] but the helicopters departed without attempting to land their troops.[34]
The official position of the United States of America concerning these events, as contained in a diplomatic note[35] by Secretary of State Rusk addressed to the Israeli Ambassador is set forth, in relevant part, below:
“Washington, June 10, 1967.
The Secretary of State presents his compliments to His Excellency the Ambassador of Israel and has the honor to refer to the Ambassador’s Note of June 10, 1967 concerning the attack by Israeli aircraft and torpedo boats on the United States naval vessel U.S.S. Liberty,
. . .
In these circumstances, the later military attack by Israeli aircraft on the U.S.S. Liberty is quite literally incomprehensible. As a minimum, the attack must be condemned as an act of military recklessness reflecting wanton disregard for human life.
The subsequent attack by Israeli torpedo boats, substantially after the vessel was or should have been identified by Israeli military forces, manifests the same reckless disregard for human life. . . . The U.S.S. Liberty was peacefully engaged, posed no threat whatsoever to the torpedo boats, and obviously carried no armament affording it a combat capability. It could and should have been scrutinized visually at close range before torpedoes were fired.
. . . the Secretary of State wishes to make clear that the United States Government expects the Government of Israel also to take the disciplinary measures which international law requires in the event of wrongful conduct by the military personnel of a State.”
There has been no statement in the last thirty-eight years by the United States government reversing or amending this formal position.
The Israeli Defense Forces Chief Military Prosecutor, immediately following the attack, filed formal charges recommending court martial proceedings against a number of Israeli military personnel.[36] Prior to the start of court martial proceedings, the IDF turned the matter over to an examining judge to confirm that the prosecution should go forward. The examining judge disagreed with United States position that the attack was “an act of military recklessness reflecting wanton disregard for human life” and announced his finding that:
“Yet I have not discovered any deviation from the standard of reasonable conduct which would justify the committal [sic] of anyone for trial.” [37]
As a result of this blanket absolution, no one in the Israeli government or military has received so much as a reprimand for their involvement in the attack,[38] much less the punishment demanded by the United States (”the United States Government expects the Government of Israel also to take the disciplinary measures which international law requires in the event of wrongful conduct by the military personnel of a State”).
Within 24 hours of the attack, the United States Navy convened a formal Court of Inquiry into that attack - a standard investigative procedure reserved for such serious events or circumstances. This procedure was unusual in only one respect - the President and members appointed to the Court of Inquiry by the Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe (CINCUSNAVEUR), headquartered in London, were directed orally by the appointing authority to conduct and complete their investigative proceedings within one week - a most unusual requirement in light of the nature and magnitude of the events they were ordered to investigate.
Convening initially in London, the Court proceeded immediately to the Mediterranean and conducted its inquiry both aboard USS Liberty as she limped under escort to Malta, and in succeeding days as she lay in drydock there. Concluding their inquiries there, the President of the Court, with the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps officer who had been appointed as Counsel to the Court, and with a Navy court reporter who had been assigned from the London headquarters to assist, returned to London on June 16, 1967 (eight days after the attack), with their results.
At London, the Navy court reporter supervised the final production of a written record of the Court’s proceedings and findings - a document over 600 typewritten pages in length. On the afternoon of June 17, 1967, that record of the Court’s proceedings was delivered to the senior Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps officer on the CINCUSNAVEUR staff for his review and recommendation to the appointing authority concerning his required endorsement and action upon the Court’s proceedings and record. The CINCUSNAVEUR Staff Judge Advocate thus charged with that review - in full compliance and accord with standard Navy requirements and practice - turned immediately to his detailed examination and consideration of the record. He continued that process steadily into the early morning hours of June 18, 1967, then after a four hour rest break resumed his review at 6:00 AM on June 18th.
In the midforenoon of June 18th an emissary from his Commander, the appointing authority, appeared and inquired of the Staff Judge Advocate concerning the status of his review and when it might be expected to be completed. The Staff Judge Advocate advised that he had by then read only about a third of the record - that there were many clerical and typographical flaws in the record that should be remedied before it was formally forwarded to the high governmental authorities who undoubtedly awaited it - that, more importantly, the reviewer had not yet been able to find, in the parts of the record he had so far reviewed, testimony or other evidence to support some of the Court’s stated conclusions - and that he could not yet estimate when he could complete his review and recommendations but was continuing to devote himself solely to that task.
The emissary from the appointing authority departed with that information then returned about 20 minutes later with the message that CINCUSNAVEUR, the appointing authority had directed him to come and get the Court’s record from the Staff Judge Advocate and bring it back to the appointing authority. The Staff Judge Advocate accordingly surrendered the record to the emissary exactly as he had received it; he was neither then nor later asked for any of his work or opinions so far; and he had no further contact with the Court of Inquiry or its results at any time in his active Navy career.[39]
The records of the Navy Department reveal that the written record of proceedings of the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry into the Israeli attack upon USS Liberty was formally submitted by the President of the Court of Inquiry to CINCUSNAVEUR, the appointing authority by a written letter dated 18 June 1967, the very day that the record had been withdrawn by the appointing authority from his Staff Judge Advocate. The written record also reveals that the appointing authority, on that same day, placed upon that record of the Court’s proceedings, a five-page First Endorsement, transmitting that Record to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy in Washington as required by the Navy’s investigative procedures.[40]
Mr. Secretary, it is respectfully submitted that, even based solely upon the facts and circumstances outlined above, the Navy Court of Inquiry into the Israeli attack on USS Liberty - the sole official investigation by the United States Government into that attack - was deficient and prejudiced, even at its outset, by the unreasonable haste imposed informally by the appointing authority. In addition, the processing of that Court’s hasty result was further compromised by its peremptory withdrawal from its initial and prescribed legal review in the field, and its hurried transmission to the seat of the U.S. Government under cover of a purported official endorsement that could not conceivably have been based upon even a cursory complete review of even the hasty work of the Navy Court of Inquiry. Inexplicably, the Court record was classified Top Secret and withheld from public scru-tiny for many years.
In addition to all of that, however, the Judge Advocate General’s Corps officer who was appointed to serve as Counsel to the Navy Court of Inquiry - the officer charged with certifying the authenticity of the Court’s record - has examined a copy of the record of that Court of Inquiry that has since been released by the Government under the Freedom of Information Act and has pronounced it a fraud, and not the record that he had certified and submitted [41]. Furthermore, the President of the Court of Inquiry, following his departure from London with the record on 18 June 1967, his personal delivery of the record to officials in Washington, and his return to his regular duty post in Italy, informed the officer who had served as Counsel to the Court of Inquiry that the Court’s record of its proceedings had been altered, in his presence, by civilian Government attorneys following its submission. [42]
The Central Intelligence Agency issued an “interim” report on the attack, dated June 13, 1967 (five days after the attack and five days before the apparent completion of the Navy’s abbreviated Court of Inquiry). The heavily redacted copy of the CIA’s report that has been released to the public does not state a conclusion, but suggests that, based on the information available as of the date of the report, the Israeli forces may not have known that they were attacking an American ship.[43]
Writing in his memoirs, Richard Helms, the Director of Central Intelligence at the time of the attack, explained that the Central Intelligence Agency undertook a “final” investigation after more evidence became available, and he offered the following information concerning the CIA’s final finding:[44]
“Israeli authorities subsequently apologized for the incident, but few in Washington could believe that the ship had not been identified as an American naval vessel. Later, an interim intelligence memorandum concluded the attack was a mistake and not made in malice against the U.S. . . .I had no role in the board of inquiry that followed, or the board’s finding that there could be no doubt that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty. I have yet to understand why it was felt necessary to attack this ship or who ordered the attack.” [Emphasis added]
Director Helms was not the only administration official who remained convinced that the attack was deliberate. In 1990, in his memoirs, Secretary of State Rusk observed:[45]
“But I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn’t believe them then, and I don’t believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous.”
Similarly, Clark M. Clifford, Counsel to the President at the time of the attack, recalled:[46]
“I do not know to this day at what level the attack on the Liberty was authorized and I think it is unlikely that the full truth will ever come out. Having been for so long a staunch supporter of Israel, I was particularly troubled by this incident; I could not bring myself to believe that such an action could have been authorized by Levi Eshkol. Yet somewhere inside the Israeli government, somewhere along the chain of command, something had gone terribly wrong—and then had been covered up. I never felt the Israelis made adequate restitution or explanation for their actions....”
The then-General Counsel for the Department of Defense, attorney Paul C. Warnke, opined:[47]
“I found it hard to believe that it was, in fact, an honest mistake on the part of the Israeli air force units. I still find it impossible to believe that it was. I suspect that in the heat of battle they figured that the presence of this American ship was inimical to their interests, and that somebody without authorization attacked it.”
The Executive Branch of the United States Government undertook no further review of the attack. Similarly, the United States Congress has never investigated the attack, making it the only attack on a United States Navy ship involving significant loss of life that has not been so investigated.[48]
Compounding the harm done to survivors was the task given to them to bring all human remains and classified materials out of the research spaces that had been destroyed by the torpedo explosion. The survivors assigned to this task were further traumatized by having to secure the remains of their shipmates, men they knew and had lived and worked with.[49]
In the years that followed the attack, almost all of the evidence pertaining to the attack remained, inexplicably, highly classified. Starting in the late 1970s, heavily redacted documents began to be released as a result of FOIA requests. To this day, many USS Liberty related documents, including the CIA report referenced by Director Helms, remain classified.
A number of individuals and groups, some directly in the employ of the Israeli government, others self-appointed, have attempted to convince the public that the attack on USS Liberty was but an “innocent mistake.”[50] In furtherance of this goal they have fabricated and repeated demonstrably false allegations the most notable fabrication being that there have been “thirteen official investigations (including five Congressional investigations)” - all of which concluded that the attack was a “tragic error.” These allegations are wholly and demonstrably false.[51] Worse, in some instances, deliberately falsified evidence has been proffered in support of this argument.[52]
As a result of the public relations campaign undertaken on behalf of Israel, the USS Liberty survivors have been vilified for their assertions that the attack was deliberate and for their ongoing quest for justice. They are characterized as “neo-Nazis”, “anti-Semites”, and “conspiracy theorists” for wanting nothing more than an honest, open investigation of the attack on their ship and themselves.[53]
In 2003, an independent commission of highly regarded experts was created to look into the matter. The Commission consisted of Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, United States Navy (Ret.), Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Raymond G. Davis, United States Marine Corps, (MOH), Former Assistant Commandant of The Marine Corps; Rear Admiral Merlin Staring, United States Navy (Ret.), Former Judge Advocate General Of The Navy; and Ambassador James Akins (Ret.), Former United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.
Here is the list of “neo-Nazis” that Marvin labels deplorables.
They signed the above document. People need to visit their site.
USS LIBERTY REMEMBRANCE DAY, in order to commemorate USS Liberty’s heroic crew; and to educate the American people of the danger to our national security inherent in any passionate attachment of our elected officials for any foreign nation.
We, the undersigned, hereby affix our hands and seals, this 22nd day of October, 2003.
Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, USN, Ret.
Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
General of Marines Raymond G. Davis, USMC, MOH
Former Commandant of the United States Marine Corps
Merlin Staring
Rear Admiral Merlin Staring, USN, Ret.,
Former Judge Advocate General of the Navy,
James Akins
Ambassador James Akins, Ret.,
Former United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia”
The federal criminal code makes special provision for the prosecution of war crimes whether inside or outside the United States, committed against United States armed forces personnel:
“18 United States Code, Sec. 2441. - War crimes
Thanks but I’ll go with the US Navy. Here is their site address.
http://www.ussliberty.org/voices.htm
Why are you spamming me with stuff about USS Liberty? I haven’t posted a word about it. This is about Jonathan Pollard the liar, spy, and traitor.
/sarcasm off -- unless I'm Marvin Stinson ... in which case I'd be 100% serious/
I didn’t intend it as spam. Pollard was a spy for the same country that pretends to be an ally.
Obama let this POS out????
Most of the time, Israel is an ally. We must never forget, though, that nations don't have friends. They have interests. When two (or more) nations' interests are roughly congruent, they may cooperate to mutual benefit. But nations will (almost) always act to protect their OWN interests; the interests of "allies" or "partners" come in distant second at best.
Nobody let him out. He served his sentence.
Regardless of his motivations, the fact is that Pollard used his office to steal highly classified information and give it to Israel. He was tried, convicted, and spent a considerable time in jail. Wanting him freed from his parole so he could be in Israel and apparently be the guest of honor at the embassy opening strikes be as kind of an “in your face” act on the part of 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.