Tuesday, May 22nd | 8 Sivan 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

December 31, 2013 11:32 am

The Case for Jonathan Pollard’s Release

avatar by Lawrence J. Siskind

Email a copy of "The Case for Jonathan Pollard’s Release" to a friend

Jonathan Pollard. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

In November 1985, a short, bespectacled Navy civilian researcher, with a history of erratic behavior and drug use, was stopped by FBI agents on his way home from work. Allowed to call his wife, he uttered the word “cactus.” After the call, his wife removed a suitcase from their apartment and called some Israeli acquaintances.

The researcher was Jonathan Pollard. The Israelis were his handlers. The suitcase was filled with intelligence materials, which Pollard had surreptitiously removed from his office. The materials represented a small portion of the paper pile Pollard had stolen and provided to the Israelis over the previous 18 months. In total, the purloined documents could fill a space 10 feet by 6 feet by 6 feet – almost as large as the prison cell Pollard was destined to occupy for the next 28 years.

Pollard entered into a plea bargain with Federal prosecutors. In return for pleading guilty to one count of conspiracy to deliver national defense information to a foreign government — a charge carrying the maximum penalty of life in prison – and for cooperating fully with the government’s investigation, the prosecutors agreed to inform the sentencing judge of the “nature, extent and value” of his cooperation and testimony. They also agreed to limit their allocution (i.e., sentencing argument) to the “facts and circumstances” of the case. Finally, the government, in return for Pollard’s cooperation, agreed to seek only “a sentence of a substantial period of incarceration.”

The government violated the spirit – though not the letter – of each promise. Instead of citing Pollard’s cooperation, the government provided the judge with a memorandum detailing the harm caused by Pollard’s breach of security. Buried deep within the memorandum were the words “of considerable value,” in reference to Pollard’s cooperation, allowing the government to claim at least technical compliance with its agreement. Instead of limiting its allocution to the facts of the case, the government referred to Pollard’s “arrogance and deception,” and described him as “unworthy of trust” and “contemptuous.”

Instead of seeking a “sentence of substantial period of incarceration,” the government’s memorandum effectually sought the maximum punishment allowed: life imprisonment. It presented a memorandum from Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger stating “it is difficult for me … to conceive of a greater harm to national security than that caused by [Pollard].” Weinberger described Pollard’s conduct as “treason,” a capital offense.

Despite his plea bargain, Pollard was sentenced to life imprisonment – the maximum punishment he could have received had he chosen to contest the charge. Pollard is now in his 28th year of imprisonment.

There has never been any question of Pollard’s guilt in spying on his country on behalf of a foreign nation. But the documents released by Edward Snowden, former National Security Agency contractor, reveal that the United States has a long history of doing the same thing: spying on its allies. Moreover, it has just come to light that the United States went even farther in collecting information about Israel. The documents show that American spying involved monitoring the email traffic of former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

That revelation has intensified Israeli sentiment favoring Pollard’s release, a view that has existed for decades, and that spans the political spectrum. Similarly, American politicians, from Barney Frank on the left to Dan Quayle on the right, had called for his release even before the Snowden NSA revelations.

In addition to politicians, American foreign policy experts have been lining up over the years in favor of Pollard’s release. Many of the officials in office at the time of the arrest have issued public calls for Pollard’s release, including former secretary of state George Shultz, former national security adviser Robert McFarlane, and William Webster, the only man in history to head both the FBI and the CIA. Former CIA Director James Woolsey has called the prison sentence “excessive” compared with those imposed on others convicted of spying for U.S. allies, including  a Greek-American, a Filipino-American, and a Korean-American convicted of spying for South Korea, who received sentences of 4 to 7 years.

Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb, who served under  Weinberger, has also publicly called for release, notwithstanding the fact that the life sentence was imposed in reliance on Weinberger’s memorandum. Korb recently called the continued incarceration of Pollard “completely absurd.”

Few Americans view Pollard as a hero. Despite his protestations that he was motivated by devotion to the Jewish State, the fact is that Pollard was paid for his criminal activity, receiving monthly payments ranging from $1,500 to $2,500 over a twelve-month period. Most of those advocating Pollard’s release in this country consider him guilty, and do not favor pardoning him.  Instead, they favor commuting his sentence. There’s a big difference.

A pardon presumes and then expunges the defendant’s guilt. The defendant must accept the pardon, and, in so doing, he admits guilt. When Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, he justified his action, in part, by recognizing that Nixon’s acceptance would be tantamount to a public admission of guilt – something Nixon had hitherto refused to do.

Commutation, by contrast, is simply the remission of the power to punish. It ends the imprisonment but it does not expunge guilt, and it does not require the defendant’s acceptance.

Even before the publication of the Snowden NSA documents, there were valid reasons for releasing Pollard.

The government’s half-hearted (at best) adherence to the plea bargain has always been a troubling issue. It is doubtful Pollard’s lawyers would have ever considered that option if they could have foreseen that the result would be life imprisonment, the same maximum penalty available without a plea bargain.

The disproportionality between Pollard’s punishment and those of other spies has also been troubling. As former CIA Director Woolsey noted, the prison sentences for those convicted of spying on the U.S. on behalf of our allies have ranged from 4 to 7 years. Even many of the prison sentences for those convicted of spying on behalf of our enemies have also been more lenient than Pollard’s. Albert Sombolay sold information about U.S. troop movements to Iraq during the first Gulf War. His sentence was 19 years. Clayton Lonetree, a Marine guard at the U.S. embassy in Moscow, sold secrets to the Soviets. He was convicted in 1987, the same year Pollard was.  He was sentenced to 30 years, which was later reduced to 15. He was released after serving only nine years.

And even before the publication, there was a least a whiff of hypocrisy in Pollard’s treatment. At about the same time Secretary Weinberger was describing Pollard’s conduct as “treason,” the United States was receiving secret materials on Israeli troop movements in Lebanon and the Territories from Yosef Amit, a major in the Israeli intelligence with a history of psychiatric illness. Amit had been recruited by a CIA officer. He was caught, convicted, and sentenced to 12 years in prison.  He served 8 years before he was released. Publicity about the Amit case might have helped Pollard’s appeal of his sentence, but, ironically, the Israelis deprived him of that possible advantage. They censored news of Amit’s trial and imprisonment for security reasons.

But the publication of the Snowden documents has transformed a whiff of hypocrisy into an overwhelming stench. We now know that our government has spied on Israel and many other allies. While the Israelis used Pollard to gather information on military matters which they considered vital to their security, our government has monitored the personal emails not only of Israel’s Olmert and Barak, but of other friendly foreign leaders as well, such as Germany’s Angela Merkel.

The Snowden revelations create a new reason for considering Pollard’s release. Spying today may be more electronic and less human than in the days of Pollard’s crime.  But human action is still involved. People must give the orders to monitor email traffic.  People must carry out those orders, whether through the voluntary cooperation of internet companies or through the efforts of hackers. If an NSA official, or a cooperative Google, Facebook, or Twitter employee involved in this surveillance, is arrested while traveling in Israel or Germany or France or Spain or Brazil, or some other allied country on whose leaders we have spied, what will our government say? Will it try to minimize the matter by insisting that spying on allies is normal? Will it insist on treating it as a minor matter, to be handled quietly between friends?

Surely, the continued confinement of Jonathan Pollard will undermine our government’s credibility if it makes such assertions. And if that NSA official or Google employee had enlisted the help of a local to carry out the surveillance, are we prepared to accept life imprisonment of that local as a cost of doing business?

Releasing Pollard now is the right thing to do, notwithstanding the reprehensibility of his actions. Release may be a bitter pill for many in the U.S. intelligence community to swallow. As part of a deal with Prime Minister Netanyahu to advance the peace process, President Clinton planned to release Pollard in 1998. That plan was aborted when CIA Director George Tenet threatened to resign in protest.

But the Israelis themselves have swallowed even more bitter pills at the behest of an American President. To advance the current peace process, they acceded to President Obama’s request to release a number of Palestinian prisoners. Last October, Israel released 26, most of whom had been involved in murdering Israeli citizens. Three of the prisoners had murdered senior citizens with axes. None of those released had served as long as Pollard has.

Israel survived the release of murderers. The United States will survive the release of Jonathan Pollard.

Lawrence J. Siskind is a San Francisco attorney, who blogs on issues of politics, foreign policy, law, and culture, at ToPutItBluntly.com.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Jonathan pollard has been incarcerated for almost 30 years.
    Yes he passed on secret files to Israel, however Israel is one of the friendly countries and no threat to the USA. other prisoners who have given over secrets to other friendly countries such as Greece, South Korea and the Philippines for example have been given much shorter sentences why is that? I understand that some US citizens even spied for Soviet Russia at the same time Pollard was caught, these spies were guilty of far greater treachery, however they have been set free long ago. Something is not as it should be in both in both camps of the US administration, “The Republicans as well as the Democrats.” Jonathan Pollard is an ill man release him at least on humanitarian grounds.


    FROM DAVID TURNER:Why Jonathan Pollard will die in prison

    “The punishment imposed,” wrote Weinberger, “should reflect the perfidy of the individual’s actions, the magnitude of the treason committed…”

    “As I say, the Pollard matter was comparatively minor. It was made far bigger than its actual importance.” Pressed on why the case was made far bigger than its actual importance, Weinberger replied, “I don’t know why-it just was.” (Weinberger interview with Edwin Black, 2002)

    I. The Legend begins

    In a recent article appearing on-line Prof. Angelo Codevilla, a staff member of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time Jonathan Pollard was arrested is quoted:

    “Having been intimately acquainted with the materials that Pollard passed and with the sources and methods by which they were gathered, I would be willing to give expert testimony that Pollard is guilty of neither more nor less than what the indictment alleges.”

    The allegation of “treason” which is represented as having influenced DC Circuit Judge Robinson to impose the life sentence was included in Weinberger’s unclassified “supplemental” memo:

    “The punishment imposed should reflect the perfidy of the individual’s actions, the magnitude of the treason committed…” (emphasis added)

    Prior to entering “government service” the defense secretary was a lawyer which suggest he might have known that he was using hyperbole and not “law” in describing Pollard guilty of “treason.” Just to make sure the slur would do maximal damage Weinberger repeated the charge to the press immediately leaving the judge’s chambers. Even a decade later, in a 1999 interview with Middle East Quarterly:

    MEQ: You have been quoted saying that Jonathan Pollard “should have been shot.” Is this accurate?

    Weinberger: Any traitor who did what he did should be shot.

    Not Weinberger or any other high ranking Reagan Administration official involved in Irangate was ever called to answer for their crimes against the United States. And today as the consequence of a matter even its principle perpetrator Weinberger called, “comparatively minor,” Pollard’s “perfidy” appearing occasionally in the press the work of “unnamed administration officials” a tool distancing American Jews from Israel. And, after nearly thirty years in prison Jonathan Pollard, sentenced to life seems increasingly likely to serve out his life sentence in full.

    II. Pollard violated the plea agreement

    One week before the CIA released those documents described by Professor Codevilla the Agency asserted that Pollard was solely responsible for his harsh sentence:

    “Pollard’s willingness to grant an interview to journalist Wolf Blitzer for The Jerusalem Post without obtaining advance approval of the resulting text from the Justice Department violated the terms of his plea bargain.”

    At the time of the Blitzer interview Pollard was in a high security federal prison in Petersburg, Virginia. The only way Blitzer could possibly have met with the prisoner was with Justice Department approval! Certainly no lowly federal warden would have taken it upon himself to allow a journalist for an Israeli publication access to a high profile prisoner charged with espionage on behalf of Israel!

    Put directly the meeting would have had to be accepted by the prisoner. But in order for the reporter actually enter the prison and meet with Pollard he would have first required the approval of the US Government. I, for example, might want to visit Pollard, and he might agree to the meeting. But only the prison could approve me for his visitor’s list. In simple words, Pollard’s “violation of the terms of his plea agreement” was a red herring, a setup to justify the “violation.” As the CIA statement makes clear, without a technical excuse, and without foreknowledge of the staged and dramatic “last minute” appearance in the courtroom by Weinberger, the judge would likely have had to go along with the government’s assurances to Pollard.

    III. A spy in Naval Intelligence

    Of all the military services the US Navy was reputed, still is considered, “least friendly” to minorities. So it is interesting that, having first been turned down by the CIA that Pollard the Zionist would find employment with Naval Intelligence. According to the Blitzer interviews Pollard raised red flags to co-workers and superiors almost immediately, and within months sought to have him fired. In an interview with the Washington Post then directory of Naval Intelligence Admiral Sumner Shapiro,

    “dismissed Pollard as a “kook” and reduced his clearance. Later Pollard’s clearance was reinstated… ‘I wish the hell I’d fired him.'”

    Inexplicably the rear admiral head of NIS was unable to fire or even enforce his own order reducing Pollard’s security clearance.

    Not only did Pollard keep his job and his security clearance but he was serially increased in responsibilities and clearance, coincidentally finding himself responsible for intelligence regarding Israel’s enemy Arab states and terrorist organizations: precisely the information that the young romantic Zionist placed in a position to evaluate danger to Israel, would see was being withheld from Israel.

    IV. The strange co-incidence of Irangate and the Pollard Affair

    An interesting and overlooked piece of the Pollard “spy scandal” is that it hit the headlines at about the same time the Reagan Administration’s Iran-Contra Affair was coming unraveled.

    In brief, Irangate was a Reagan Administration initiative involving the sale of arms to Iran (banned by Congress), and transferring funds to right-wing death squads attempting to overthrow Nicaragua’s left-wing Sandinista government (also banned by Congress). The administration had attempted to cover its involvement by using the Saudis and Israelis as cutouts. The Saudis served as administration bankers by launder monies involved in the transactions. At Reagan’s personal request Israel served as gun dealer intermediary between the administration and the Iranians. When the operation began to unravel administration insiders scrambled to provide a cover of deniability. At first the operation was described as an Israeli arms deal and the US as innocently involved. But in the end that was not credible. In a private note of December, 1985 Weinberger wrote:

    “The disastrous November HAWK shipment prompted US officials to take direct control of the arms deals with Iran. Until then, Israel had been responsible for making the deliveries, for which the US agreed to replenish their stocks of American weapons.”

    With Israel still in the crosshairs the Pollard Affair exploded in the media and eclipsing Irangate for the next two years, Congressional investigations and all.

    V. The mysterious “Mr. X”

    For a period of one and a half years, from the time of his arrest until his conviction, the Pollard Affair was daily front page, television news. Pollard was accused of an array of “harms” committed against the United States from selling information to China and South Africa, to exposing CIA agents to the Soviets. In fact American spies really were disappearing and turning up dead across East Europe and Russia. Since Pollard was recognized as an “amateur” he must have been directed in his espionage by someone higher up in US intelligence. That person was designated “Mr. X.”

    “U.S. prosecutors and investigators believed that Pollard and his Israeli handlers were helped by another American, referred to as Mr. X, who probably was a senior administration official. Mr. X provided the reference numbers that helped Pollard pull out requested files from America’s most-secret intelligence computers.”

    Since Pollard failed to name his US “handler” the Justice Department hinted he was obstructing the investigation, another “violation” of his “plea agreement” (over the entire pre-trial phase prosecutors repeatedly and publicly warned that Pollard was non-compliant one way or another and that this endangered his plea agreement). In the end there was no “Mr. X,” at least no mysterious “senior administration official” aiding Pollard’s activities. But there was in fact a Mr. X, a senior CIA officer feeding information to the administration in order to cover his own espionage for Russia. The Soviet Union’s mole in the CIA was Aldrich Ames, thirty-one year veteran and head of the clandestine operations in Eastern Europe. According to the FBI report on Ames,

    “During the summer of 1985, Ames met several times with a Russian diplomat to whom he passed classified information about CIA and FBI human sources, as well as technical operations targeting the Soviet Union.”

    Once Pollard was sentenced no amount of evidence contradicting the charges would move the administration to admit its error and reconsider the sentence. In 2010 Rafi Eitan, head of the Israeli spy agency that ran the Pollard said,

    “at the time of Pollard’s sentencing in 1987, secret charges were laid against Pollard blaming him for the crimes of a Russian mole within American intelligence, Aldrich Ames. Pollard was neither informed of these charges nor given a chance to challenge them in a court of law.

    “Eitan said the US steadfastly refused to release Pollard even after Ames was exposed and arrested in 1994, “for their own reasons.”

    VI. Pollard and “the Jews”

    As a regional director for Jewish National Fund in 1988 in Brooklyn and Queens I approached community leaders regarding how best to assist Jonathan Pollard. Uniformly the response was, “it’s being taken care of back-channel;” Pollard was expected to be quietly released to Israel. Reflecting rumor or faith, that response, “sha, shtil” reflects the age-old and realistic fear of our neighbors. And today, twenty-six years later, Pollard remains in prison no closer to release.

    As the years, then decades passed it became increasingly obvious that Pollard is the victim of “special” treatment by the US Government.

    His sentence is so harsh, so far outside norms that support for his release has come from previous supporters of his conviction. Among these are two men who were directly involved in events surrounding the Affair: Lawrence Korb was assistant defense secretary under Weinberger, and Dennis DeConcini headed the Senate intelligence committee. Other prominent and politically connected persons today supportive of a presidential decision to release Pollard include former CIA director, James Woolsey:

    “When I was director, I looked into it carefully, and I opposed clemency then. But now some 20 years have passed and the whole point is to link sentence and comparable sentences. Anyone who thinks what he did is comparable to Ames and Hanssen has no understanding of what they did. If you are hung up on Pollard having spied for Israel, then pretend he is Filipino-American, Korean-American, or Greek-American spy (we have had all three) and the facts are otherwise the same, you’d conclude he ought to be released.”

    (Ames and Hanssen both worked for the Soviet Union. Ames provided the names of CIA operatives working behind the Iron Curtain knowing their fate. Ames pointed the finger of blame on Pollard to direct suspicion from himself. That Pollard neither provided Russia with information, was not involved in those deaths; that Ames had diverted attention from himself and onto Pollard has had no impact on his sentence.)

    Among political personalities now supporting Pollard’s release are two former Secretaries of State, Henry Kissinger and George Schultz. And recently thirty members of Congress signed a petition to President Obama in favor of Pollard’s release.

    Over the years American Jews have also grown less threatened and self-conscious by the Pollard Affair and today most major Jewish organizations publicly support Pollard’s release.

    VII. “In the opinion of this Italian-American Catholic”

    Professor Codevilla introduced this discussion. As I noted he was a staff member of Senator DiConcini’s Intelligence Committee during the period of the Pollard Affair and so was well-positioned to evaluate the case from within.

    “Pollard was an analyst. He is alleged to have given away information to which no analyst had any access. All of what has been said about what he did, including the secret memorandum that Caspar Weinberger wrote to the court in order to influence the judge’s sentence, is nonsense… the sentencing of Pollard was conformant with Weinberger’s memorandum to the court. He was sentenced to life on the basis of rumors.”

    “The story of the Pollard case is a blot on American justice. It makes you ashamed to be an American.”

    Postscript: “Let the sentence fit the crime” (The Mikado)

    On March 4, 1987 federal judge Aubrey Robinson chose to ignore the Justice Department plea agreement and, charged with a single count of espionage on behalf of America’s ally, Israel, imposed the harshest sentence allowable even for an Aldrich Ames. That sentence, fully endorsed by the justice department, resulted from Reagan’s defense secretary Weinberger’s dramatic last moment appearance before the judge. Reportedly one charge contained in the “secret memorandum” involved Pollard aiding South Africa, bogus but a red flag for Afro-American judge.

    In a 1990 letter to Morris Pollard, Jonathan’s father, Laurence Kolb, deputy defense secretary at the time of the Pollard Affair described his boss:

    “Weinberger had an almost visceral dislike of Israel and the special place it occupies in our foreign policy. In my opinion, the severity of the sentence that Jonathan received was out of proportion to his alleged offense.”

    Joseph DeGenova, lead Justice Department prosecutor fully supported the sentence, and this would become the mantra for successive generations of government bureaucrats, including the FBI and CIA. Of course no reference was made regarding manipulation of the judge’s political prejudices, all settled on Pollard’s violating the agreement based on the Blitzer interview. But considering the multiplicity of questionable behaviors. But why would Jonathan, otherwise a highly intelligent and aware person, have provided the US prosecutors that rope?

    The government expressed concern that a public jury trial would disclose information that could harm US intelligence methods and personnel and asked Pollard to agree to a private, in camera hearing before the judge instead. If Pollard agreed to that, and to fully cooperate with the prosecution that the government, in exchange, would ask for consideration in sentencing. Pollard agreed and fully cooperated.

    So why might Pollard have taken the step he did? As Blitzer suggested in his post-interviews book, Territory of Lies, having sat in solitary confinement for a year, himself and his wife demonized in the media, he and Anne concluded the plea agreement was already abandoned.

    Abandoned also by Israel not providing refuge in the embassy as promised. And hadn’t Israel also been cooperating with the prosecution leading to his conviction? With nothing to lose they decided to get their side of the story to the public. Perhaps then at least the Jewish community would rally to their support.

    As this is written on-line commenters are expressing outrage that Israel is clearly coerced by the US to release Palestinian terrorists convicted of murder as gesture to Palestinian leader abu Mazen. Israel’s weak position, its dependency on the United States may be difficult to accept, but nonetheless is the reason. And to a far greater extent in the 1980’s. Anyone remembering the 1973 Yom Kippur War that Israel might well have lost without the last minute airlift of parts and munitions (what threats were made; what demands accepted) may appreciate just how weak Israel is in her “special relationship” with the superpower.

    At bottom the Pollards realized they were damned either way! I have several times been told that Jonathan would have been better served by quietly going along, challenging the government’s plea agreement violation later in court,

    “[an] action that should have been subject to litigation and appeals, not unilateral pretext for reneging on a court-approved deal.”

    In fact several generations of Pollard pro bono attorneys sought to do so, and ran into the same legal wall: Pollard’s original lawyer and ex DC prosecutor Richard Hibey inexplicably “forgot” to file the routine appeal within the allotted time! It was this “technicality” that foreclosed the possibility of future legal challenges.

    With so much evidence of blatant governmental abuse, including suborning the sentencing judge; with so much evidence of presidential “disinterest” most recently evidenced by the Obama White House rejection of Pollards appeal (Bush left the White House without even responding to the request to release Pollard), the inescapable conclusion remains that, barring an unlikely miracle (or Israel caving to some outrageous coercive demand by this or some future president) the title of this article frighteningly conforms to reality: Why Jonathan Pollard will die in prison.

  • Terry Black

    This is not an advocacy piece. This is one of the most odious and insidious pieces about Jonathan Pollard on the web today. It claims to be making the case for Pollard’s release, but merely uses that as the excuse for rehashing some of the worst and most pernicious lies about Pollard and the case. The character assassination and out-right lies about Pollard’s alleged “drug use and erratic behavior” have never been proven and have been disingenuously used as a means to blacken Israel. (Blacken the agent, you blacken his cause.) If this is how the author makes a case for Pollard’s release, then spare us the vitriol, the lies and the half truths. Look instead at what those American officials closest to the case have recently said and be guided accordingly.
    See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e_OqB0lQeM Isi Stein’s op-ed recently published on this site was a masterpiece. This one is nothing more than a one-stop smear campaign

  • Terry T. Black

    This is one of the most odious and insidious pieces about Jonathan Pollard on the web today. It claims to be making the case for Pollard’s release, but merely uses that as the excuse for rehashing some of the worst and most pernicious lies about Pollard and the case. The character assassination and out-right lies about Pollard’s alleged “drug use and erratic behavior” have never been proven and have been disingenuously used as a means to blacken Israel. (Blacken the agent, you blacken his cause.) If this is how the author makes a case for Pollard’s release, then spare us the vitriol, the lies and the half truths. Look instead at what those American officials closest to the case have recently said and be guided accordingly.
    See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e_OqB0lQeM Isi Stein’s op-ed recently published on this site was a masterpiece. This one is a one-stop smear campaign.


      From Al-Monitor Translations:

      So why am I writing to you, Mr. President? For one simple reason. Now that the whole world knows that you are shamelessly eavesdropping on your allies without distinction, now that everyone is talking about how you spy on all your friends, all the time and everywhere, and after you forced Israel for the umpteenth time to release the worst of the murderers of its citizens back into the region, isn’t it time, Mr. President, to release Jonathan Pollard?
      Forget about all the other considerations for a moment. Concentrate only on moral and human values. Pollard has been wasting away there, in the American federal prison system, for close to thirty years. His life is ruined. His health has been destroyed. He will never start a family. He wasn’t at his mother’s funeral, and he was unable to bury his father. You have stomped him into the ground, without leaving any memory of him. He learned his lesson. The Jews of America learned theirs. Israel learned its lesson too. And we must not forget that Pollard never killed, he never murdered, and he never eavesdropped. He transferred classified information to an “ally.” Yes, an ally like the kind you listen to all the time, Mr. President. It is time for a purely humane act from you, Barack Obama. Release Jonathan Pollard.

  • Kris Kristian


    • mark

      thanks for sharing that information, which I’d no knowledge of before.

    • Johnny Calenzas

      Kris, could you provide any links and/or evidence for your explanation of the USS Liberty? (in particular the part about information being provided to Egypt, which information, and why, and how it is known that that is what occurred)