Conference taveng::bagels

RE: 0

	The facts of the case are that Pollard ( he fully admits this) betrayed
his country and spied for a foreign power. His reasons for doing so are 
irrelevant.
	
	The biggest cause for concern ,I think, is not the specific information
given to the Israelis but the fact that our intelligence gathering processes
have been compromised. 

	After seeing his wife on 60 minutes and how unremorseful she was,I am
sorry she was only given five years.

	David, your comment on how many CIA operatives are stationed in the 
US embassy in Israel isn't relevant. Pollard is an American citizen spying
on his own country.

David

    What/Who was really compromised was Pollard himself, by Israel (by
    not supporting him after he completed his "work"), and by the courts
    in this country.  He made a deal (or thought he did) where by
    disclosing all his information he would get off with a lenient
    sentence.
    
    I don't think should have involved an American Jew in this type
    of operation, for tactical and philosophical purposes.
    
    What's disturbing to me is the arrogant attitude of the prosecutor,
    and the suspicions of the Justice dept. that somehow the information
    would leak out of Israel to "other countries", i.e., the Soviets.
    That is hardly a trusting attitude on the part of an ally.  They
    seemed to be going at this with more of a zeal than they reserve
    for soviet spies.  The entire affair could have been handled outside
    of the judiciary system.
    
    David 

The fact that Israeli agents used and paid off an American to spy on the
United States is not a great shocker -- spying between allies has been
relatively frequent, and the intelligence communities almost wink at this
sort of thing.

What makes the Pollard affair so ugly is that Jonathan Pollard openly
boasted about his espionage, thereby breaking the cardinal rule in the
game -- keeping a lid on things.  It all hit the fan once he exposed
himself this way.

The worst part of the affair is the bad public relations.  Once again 
is is painfully clear just how fragile is the acceptance of American
Jews in visible positions of leadership.  I've heard that Jewish staffers
in the State Department have had to adopt an extremely low profile lest
they be smeared with the double-loyalty charge.

At least there's the silver lining that the Israeli government isn't
retreating into hand-wringing and inquiries over the Pollard mess.
Yes, there was a badly unprofessional indiscretion.  But that's the
extent of it.  I just wish that the rest of the world could place this
affair in its proper perspective.

David Ellis -- Secure Systems Group -- LTN2-2/C08 -- DTN 226-6784 

    re:-1
    
    Well said David.  You made two very good points re: Pollard's boasting
    about his espionage, and the status of American Jews in the State
    dept.
    
    I picked up the Shabbat edition of Maariv yesterday, and read all
    the articles concerning this affair.  It seems that Aviem Sela was
    the pilot who first engaged Mig-21's, piloted by Soviets, over the
    Suez Canal in 1969.  All of the information gleaned by Israel through
    his actions was handed over to the U.S.  He was the first to sight
    the SA-6 ground to air missile, and of course that intelligence
    was handed over to the Americans.  Had it not been for Israel in
    the '70's, America would have had to work hard to get the information
    they received, on it's own.  This is what is called
    intelligence-sharing.  According to certain reports the U.S. was
    witholding important information about advanced weaponry in certain
    Arab countries.  Why wasn't this shared with Israel?
    
    Maybe Sela was wrong in recruiting Pollard, etc.  But his overall
    goals weren't.  My suggestion is that the next time Israel gets
    it's hands on some intelligence that the U.S. strongly desires,
    then the price for that information be the dropping of the charges
    against Sela, and a reduction of  Pollard's sentence.
    
    David 

re: -1

    
    >Maybe Sela was wrong in recruiting Pollard, etc.  But his overall
    > goals weren't.  My suggestion is that the next time Israel gets
    >it's hands on some intelligence that the U.S. strongly desires,
    >then the price for that information be the dropping of the charges
    >against Sela, and a reduction of  Pollard's sentence.
    
    > David

	What Sella did and what Pollard did are two separate issues.
	Sella was spying for his country - Pollard was betraying his.

	My suggestion is that either the Israeli government holds an 
	inquiry to staighten this mess out or we shut off the financial
	tap.

	BTW, I haven't heard much sympathy for Venunnu's plight.

David

    
    >My suggestion is that either the Israeli government holds an inquiry
    >to straighten this mess out or we shut off the financial tap.
    
    >BTW, I haven't heard much sympathy for Vannunu's plight.
    
    We?? Who do you mean by "We"?  I detect in your replies a certain
    sense of alienation from Israel, and it's relationship to Jews in
    the Diaspora.  Why do you insist on swallowing the U.S.'s version
    whole?  They've been ranting and raving that their most sensitive
    secrets have been compromised by Pollard, that's a lot of bull.
    Security issues between the U.S. and the Soviet Union have been
    negotiated in a far quieter manner than this case has been.
    
    Re:Vannunu - What he allegedly did by opening his mouth was cause
    great potential harm to "his country"(if you insist on using this
    terminology).  Or maybe you think that Israel should sit by while
    countries like Pakistan develop a nuclear capability?  Thanks to
    Sela & co., Iraq is slightly behind in this league.
    
    David

.3> At least there's the silver lining that the Israeli government isn't
.3> retreating into hand-wringing and inquiries over the Pollard mess.

Last Friday's Jerusalem Post had an excelllent article by Wolf Blitzer about
the Pollard case.  He pointed out that the Israeli government should have
handled it from the start in one of two ways:

    1)	They could have stonewalled the whole thing.  Everybody spies on
	everybody else and everyone knows it.  The U.S. government would
	have been pissed, but without Israeli cooperation, they would not
	have had nearly as much information about what Pollard did.  The
	Justice Department *might* have gotten a conviction anyhow, but
	not a life sentence.

    2)	They could have cooperated fully with the Justice Department, being
	completely honest, and also punished those who were responsible.
	Pollard might or might not have gotten life, but the whole thing
	would be ending by now.

Instead of either of these, the Israeli government panicked, handing over
a lot of information, but not fully cooperating.  They also promised to
punish those responsible, but blatantly broke that promise later.  Israel
cooperated just enough so that the U.S. found out how much Pollard had turned
over, but not nearly enough to back up the claim that the whole thing was
an unauthorized operation.

The government is resisting the idea of an inquiry for the same reason as
in the Shin Bet case.  In both situations, the ministers responsible for
the security services failed to carry out their duties.  Since both Labor
and Likud politicians (Shamir, Peres, and Rabin) displayed such incompetence,
most (but not all) of the Cabinet would prefer to cover up.

    
    I would agree most with the viewpoint of Wolf Blitzer.  He is one
    of the few writers on the Jerusalem Post that I respect, and BTW,
    he is an American Jew who is not an Israeli citizen.
    
    When it comes to incompetance, both the Likud & the Maarach, have
    many able practioners.  At least now they can't blame each other.
    But I'm a little schocked at Peres.  Such incompetance doesn't fit
    someone like him who has tried to play the leader with THE
    savoir-faire, and has been motioning for new elections.

    David Nyhan's column in last night's Globe was the most vitriolic
    against Israel that I've ever seen in a Western paper.  What was
    frightening about it was some of the language "between the lines".
    I'm not against free criticism of Israel, but he seemed to be stepping
    into "gray matter" a little bit more often than usual.
    
    The most absurd notion to come out of all this is that Israel used
    the information to bomb PLO headquarters in Tunis, give me a break!
    Israel has had people in place in those countries before Ronald
    Reagan ever learned that there was land on the other side of the
    Atlantic.
    
    David
    

    	Pollard giving secrets to Israel is like the FBI showing the
    CIA its files.
    
    On a similar subject, our country killed the Rosenbergs because they
    were Jews, not because they gave Russia atomic information that at the
    time could be found in reports published by college physicists.

    re:-1
    
    My wife has always maintained that if the Rosenbergs had not been
    Jewish, then they wouldn't have been executed.  Given the period
    and the intentions of some in power, this is not a wrong assumption.
    
    The troubling aspect of the Pollard case for American Jews is that
    some people in the Reagan administration are inheritors of the McCarthy
    era, and so don't flinch from using the old "Jewish-Communist"
    conspiracy theory.
    
    David

    Since this is such a hot topic, I thought that there would be more
    response than what we have here so far.  Are people reluctant to
    discuss this case, too busy (I certainly am these days), or don't
    participate in notesfiles in general and BAGELS in specific, or
    what?
    
    Alan Berger wrote an article in the Boston Globe yesterday that
    deserves a reply.  Personally I don't think it belonged in a "secular"
    newspaper such as the Globe for reasons which I won't specify here.
    I'd like to hear other people's opinions on this whole affair.
    
    David

    Was that the article about Jews being loyal
    to 2 countries?

    That one left a bitter taste in my mouth.  After all,
    are the Irish loyal to Ireland?  The Italians to Italy?

    If the US got into a war with ANY country, how would
    the people whose ancestors are from that country
    respond?

    Just because Israel is a Jewish state does [should not,
    sorry] not mean it should be singled out for a ridiculous
    expose' like that!

    

    re -1 How right you are Mike. I'd like to see the Globe do a report on
    how the Irish Americans, convicted of smugling guns to the IRA have a
    dual loyalty. Of course, they would probably loose too many
    subscriptions. 
    
    The Globe is not exactly an unbiased presenter of only the facts.
    And they are no particular friend of Israel. However, the article
    did raise some other interesting issues. For instance, it raised
    the issue of guilt (sound familiar) and how it was used by the Israelis.
    The claim is that Diaspora, and particularly Ameircan Jews, are
    guilt ridden with not living in Israel. The feeling was compounded
    by the fact that we live a relatively comfortable life while the
    Jews in Israel struggle for their existance. For this reason, we
    go out of our way to help Israel with money and other support
    (political), and are very slow to criticize. They also mentioned
    in the article the attitude of the Israelis. This attitude can best
    be described as "If you don't want to come here to Eretz and live
    and work with us, then you have no right to tell us what to do.
    Just send us your money and technology and help us politically,
    but we don't want you mixing in our affairs"

    Jack

The Pollard affair was unfortunately a major disaster for Israel. The fact
that people point out that US spy satellites regularly photograph Israeli
army bases or that we have given the US more in terms of intelligence value
than we have recieved does not alter the fact that the operation was
ill-concieved and assuming a worst case scenario (as it happened) did more
damage than was probably gleaned from the information Pollard passed. 
Now we have the case of an ex-American serving with the IDF which was caught
spying for the US. What do we do now? Cut off aid to the US? Refuse to sell
the US Kfir fighters and Uzis? We have come to depend very heavily on the
US for both political, military and last but not least monetary assistance.
Is the information that was gleaned really worth endangering all that?
In the past there has always been an unwritten rule that Israel would not
use Jews in the Diaspora for intelligence gathering operations for the very
reason of dual loyalty and "endagering" the local population to the type
of press articles that people have quoted for the Globe.
For many years Israeli intelligence defined the art of how an intelligence
service should be run, namely you never heard of them. Now after the Shin
Beth affair, the Pollard affair things seem to have gone dreadfully wrong.
Let us return to the old maxim 
           "what you hear here
            what you see here
            when you leave here
            let it stay here"
      
                      Greg

>In the past there has always been an unwritten rule that Israel would not
>use Jews in the Diaspora for intelligence gathering operations for the very
>reason of dual loyalty and "endagering" the local population to the type
>of press articles that people have quoted for the Globe.

I'm surprised at you Greg, you sound a bit naive.  They may have had a rule 
of not recruiting Jews in the Diaspora, but they sure try to recruit Diaspora 
Jews when they are in Israel, even those with just a tourist visa.

David


> I'd like to hear more about this offline please.

    	I finally had a chance to read the article in last Sunday's
    Globe.  I found it poorly organized and confusing as to just what
    point the author was really trying to make.  He took a couple of
    stabs at the "dual-loyalty" issue but never really got into it,
    and he certainly reached no conclusions on it.  He similarly skirted
    the issue of the conflict between Israeli and diapora Jews, never
    reaching any conclusion on what the problem really is or how it
    my resolve.
    
    	The main body of the issue was a narrative of how Pollard got
    into the spying business and how his Israeli "handlers" kept him
    at it.  Apparently he embraced Zionism as a youth in an emotional
    way that allowed his handlers to exploit his guilt.  I'm not much
    at psychology, so I don't know whether the analysis in the article
    is accurate, superficial, or hogwash.  (Heck, I didn't even know
    Pollard was Jewish until I read the article!)  Pollard seems to
    have been motivated by other than greed, since he was reluctant
    to accept any payment for what he did; his handlers insisted that
    he take some payment, seemingly to increase his guilt feelings and
    keep him working.
    
    	One issue that wasn't addressed that interests me is that this
    whole case involves a second-order problem in espionage.  The
    information that Pollard gave to Israel was highly useful stuff
    that Israel needed; one example was the information that allowed
    them to fly a reconnaissance drone over the Syrian air bases in
    Lebanon.  Now, the US would probably have been happy to give this
    info to Israel via their usual intelligence-sharing channel, but
    couldn't because the nature of the info would reveal the means by
    which it had been obtained.  In other words, the fact that Israel
    had information that allowed it to use that drone has tipped off
    Syria (and thus the USSR) that the US has somehow obtained secret
    stuff from the USSR.  The USSR may either take steps to protect
    their activites, or they may use it as a tipoff to spot a US spy
    in the Soviet Union.  This is standard spook operations, where the
    source of information is equally or more important than the information
    itself.  The long and the short of it is (and I apologize for rambling)
    that Pollard could justify what he was doing by saying that this
    information would only make Israel stronger, and a stronger Israel
    is in the US's interest, so he kept on going.  I am not going to
    speculate on whether it was thus worth compromising future US
    intelligence-gathering, but the spook world does not tolerate any
    such logic, so Pollard was in deep doo-doo when he got caught.

    	Then there's the "spying on your friends" way of characterizing
    this case.  I think this is kind of immaterial.  Israel, and all
    other countries, will try to get all the information they need in
    whatever way possible.  This is standard international relations,
    just as the standard understanding that most "military attaches"
    at embassies are really spies.
    
    	Anyway, the Globe article sort of explained all of this (I have
    had some experience in the world of "spy vs. spy", so some of what
    I'm writing here is my interpretation and embellishment, all with
    the usual disclaimer that this is strictly my own opinion) but never
    quite got to the underlying problem of the place of Jews in US society,
    the attitudes of Israelis vis-a-vis diapora Jews (that's a topic
    that deserves its own separate note, which I'll start someday if
    nobody beats me to it), and other related topics.  Once I read the
    article, I realized that there was less substance there than the
    sensational headline led me to expect.

    	It does force me to think about the following question, and
    I'll close by throwing the debate open on the following:  If you
    obtained some clearly privileged (whether national security or company
    confidential) information that you believed was important to Israel's
    security, what would you do?  Pass it on and keep looking for more,
    which is what Pollard did?  Pass it on as a one-time deal?  (Would
    the people who you passed it to leave you alone?)  Pass it on
    anonymously?  Ignore it?  Collect what you could and immigrate to
    Israel so you could hand it over there?

        			David

    >I'll close by throwing the debate open on the following:  If you
    >obtained some clearly privileged (whether national security or company
    >confidential) information that you believed was important to Israel's
    >security, what would you do?  Pass it on and keep looking for more,
    >which is what Pollard did?  Pass it on as a one-time deal?  (Would
    >the people who you passed it to leave you alone?)  Pass it on
    >anonymously?  Ignore it?  Collect what you could and immigrate to
    >Israel so you could hand it over there?


    David, I think that the theoretical question above is probably not one
    that should be asked of individuals in public.  Outside of all the other
    reasons, it's unfair, in a manner of speaking.  It brings up all 
    that dual-loyalty crap that papers like the Globe are discussing.
    I think Mike Mahler put it succinctly in a previous reply, you know why 
    aren't Irish-Americans questioned about dual-loyalty when gun-runners 
    are indicted, etc.  Since the dispersion of most (not all) of the
    Jews from Palestine, the issue of dual-loyalty has always been thrown
    up at the Jews as a trojan horse.    

    David
                                     

    re .18
    
    	I agree.  Take it as a rhetorical question.  Still, this is
    the real world we live in, and like it or not, we Jews *are* going
    to be judged on a double standard.  Of course the double standard
    is unfair, but we still have to live with it.
    
    		David

    Just an update on the situation of the Pollards.  According to Maariv
    in it's Shabbat edition two or three weeks ago, Anne Henderson-Pollard
    was involved in an incident with a fellow inmate, and it was one
    involving overt anti-semitism.
    
    Pollard's father and attorney are both working on getting his sentence
    reduced, and trying to work out a deal whereby Pollard and his wife
    would be deported to Israel (making Aliyah if you will).
    
    David

    Interesting that nobody brought up the possibility of "deporting
    the Pollards, or trading them (I'm not sure what for). Yet we not
    infrequently read in t papers about trading spies with the Soviets
    or the East Germans. Maybe they'll trade the Pollards to Israel
    if Israel promises not to build the Lavi.
    
    I guess the problem is, you can trade with the enemy, since each
    of you has something the other wants (captured spies), but what
    do you trade with your friends? It's like the old Zen problem of
    listening to the sound of one hand clapping.
    
    - Richard

	I thought of this a few weeks ago, but just felt "ornery"
	enough to enter it.

$ set/flame=on


	PERSON		CRIME			SENTENCE
        -----------------------------------------------------------

	Pollard		Spying for a good	Life imprisonment
			friend of USA	


	Lonetree	Spying for worst	30 years; parole in
			enemy of USA		10 years


Interesting, no?

$ set/flame=off

/don feinberg

    On Yom Kippur this year, our Rabbi gave a sermon about what has
    and is happening to the Pollards.  Some of it is very frightening.
    
    In somewhat random order:
    
    She is very sick.  She has a disease, for which she can be treated,
    and doctors have volunteered to do so, but the Justice Department
    has not allowed them to.
    
    He is not allowed to see his lawyer without marshals being present,
    a violation of his constitutional rights.  He is in solitary, allegedly
    for his own protection.  Before that they had him in a mental hospital.
    
    He claims that he has been given updates of his wife's condition, along
    with a list of prominent Jews (something illegal for the government to
    have) and has been told that if he fingers some as accomplices,
    she will receive medical treatment.  The list is on computer paper,
    several inches thick.
    
    He had not been recruited by the Israelis.  He saw some classified
    information, which by treaty the US was supposed to share with Israel.
    He attempted to get this to happen, but was forbidden to do so.
    So he stole the info, and passed it.
    
    He plea bargained, and was supposed to receive a light sentence.
    However, the Secretary of Defense, Weinberger, intervened and sent
    a letter to the judge.  So he was given life without possibility
    of parole.
    
    At the same time this was going on, the State department was saying
    that the information given to Israel was not harmful to US security.
    
    His wife carried the documents, but was unaware of what she was
    doing.  She was charged with possesion of classified material.
    Her medical condition was known at the time.
    
    [There is another note which discusses the Bush campaign, but I
     think anyone who belives that the current administration is a friend
     of Israel or of the Jews is badly mistaken.  I would have expected
     actions like this in the Gulag, not here.]
    
                                 Paul
    
    
    
    
    

    RE: .23
    
    It's funny, Paul, my Rabbi in Sharon also talked about the Pollards
    and compared their "crimes" against those of the Walker family.
    
    The Walkers have had an ongoing inter-family espionage ring going
    for many years. They turned over to the Soviet union really classified
    stuff. Even now, U.S. intelligence sources are not sure how much
    potential damage may have been done to American security.
    
    The Walkers were allowed to plea bargain. (I don't remember all the
    details.) Probably, the father fingered the son, the son fingered
    his uncle, and the uncle fingered his brother. Talk about going
    around in circles. I don't think any of this illustrious trio was
    sentenced to life without parole.
    
    Can you say anti-Semitism? Or in the words of the famous novel by
    Laura Z, Hobson, (later a movie with Gregory Peck), was this truly
    a "Gentlemen's Agreement". 
    
    It appears that the Jewish paranoia that Woody Allen often portrays
    in so many of his movies, sadly may not be paranoia after all.
    
      Alan 

    
    I'm not convinced the disparity is due to A-S.
    
    There are operational differences in the ways the FBI 
    would treat these cases. 
    
    With Pollard, they wanted to send a message. What Israel
    got is actually not as relevant as the fact that they
    had an agent in place in a sensitive post in the government. 
    This cannot be allowed to go unnoticed.
    
    With the Walkers, we needed to know what was compromised.
    This case was about sensitive technology and communications
    security.
    
    To know that took concessions to the accused/guilty (since we
    don't use KGB methods).

    Re: .-1
    
    "since we don't use KGB methods"
    
    What do YOU call withholding medication from someone's wife in order
    to get him to finger innocent leaders of the Jewish community?

                                  Paul
    

	There is nothing unusual in having nations that are allies
	spy on each other. It has long been an established practice.
	US spies on Israel and Israel spies on the US without mentioning
	it's other allies. It would be amazing to think that the officials 
	in both nations are not resigned to that arrangement. There may
	be issues to raise here but not the right to spying on each other.

	Darryl

>    What do YOU call withholding medication from someone's wife in order
>    to get him to finger innocent leaders of the Jewish community?

According to the Govt [Bureau of Prison's spokesman, the govt has offered
treatment at the Mayo Clinic for Ann Pollard. Mayo is probably one of the
best medical centres in the world. The govt alleges that she has refused it.
She alleges that the Govt has refused treatment. There was no interview
of the Mayo Clinic personnel.

She claims the prison is an Auschwiz!

Jonathan Pollard said that the govt interrogators showed him a list of Jews
and wanted to identify Mr X. To correct the statement above, the govt was
not asking him to finger innocent leaders, but was trying to detect a person
[or persons] they believe is leaking secrets to the Israelis. The fact that
the Israeli handlers of Pollard were able to tell him exact document numbers
and names of documents he should steal for them is cited as proof by the govt
that there is/was somebody other than Pollard who was also spying for the
Israelis.

Pollard refused to name anybody -security reasons, he said! - other than
Joseph DiGenova. DiGenova said Pollard is lying, Pollard said DiGenova is
lying.

Pollard also said that three of the top officials in the US govt, all three
Jews, including Abram Sofaer, were no different from Jewish capos who
collaborated with the Nazis. Pretty strong stuff!

He also accused Casper Weinberger of working against Israel.

Pollard stated that he had not revealed any codes or agents' identities to the 
Israelis. The US govt says that he is lying. And Alan Dershowitz wants the
US govt to prove it. That is a typical Catch-22 trap laid by the defense
against the govt - if the govt produces any, they will be revealing precious
national secrets & if they don't, they will be accused of lying. And the
govt on the other hand often hides behind "national security".

In this case, the judge was shown many documents. The govt did not ask for
the life term, which was decided by the judge based upon many things, one of
which also included a letter by then Sec of Defense, Casper Weinberger.


One thing which I couldn't digest was Pollard's assertion that he knew what
documents should be given to the Israelis, that he knew what was good and
bad for the US govt, etc. Isn't it upto the appropriate govt official - in this
case Weinberger - to decide that? What would happen if everybody decided what
they knew could be leaked and what couldn't?

-parthi

    If you had listened carefully to Pollard on "Sixty Minutes", you
    would have heard him affirm his guilt, not protest his innocence,
    but question the severity of the sentence -- life in prison with
    no chance of parole.  What do you think could have moved Casper
    Weinberger to ask for such punishment?

>Jonathan Pollard said that the govt interrogators showed him a list of Jews
>and wanted to identify Mr X. To correct the statement above, the govt was
>not asking him to finger innocent leaders, but was trying to detect a person
>[or persons] they believe is leaking secrets to the Israelis. The fact that
>the Israeli handlers of Pollard were able to tell him exact document numbers
>and names of documents he should steal for them is cited as proof by the govt
>that there is/was somebody other than Pollard who was also spying for the
>Israelis.

>Pollard refused to name anybody -security reasons, he said! - other than
>Joseph DiGenova. DiGenova said Pollard is lying, Pollard said DiGenova is
>lying.

If the government really believes that there is another mole who was feeding
(indirectly) Pollard the information about what to take, it is not surprising
to here that they would take drastic action to find him/her.  DiGenova is
pushing his credibility if he claims that the intelligence/investigation
community would refrain from putting pressure on Pollard in that circumstance.

>Pollard also said that three of the top officials in the US govt, all three
>Jews, including Abram Sofaer, were no different from Jewish capos who
>collaborated with the Nazis. Pretty strong stuff!

He is pushing it a bit there.  But he has a point; these people a political
stake in cooperating with executive policy.

>He also accused Casper Weinberger of working against Israel.

So what's new?  Lots of people make that accusation.


>Pollard stated that he had not revealed any codes or agents' identities to the 
>Israelis. The US govt says that he is lying. And Alan Dershowitz wants the
>US govt to prove it. That is a typical Catch-22 trap laid by the defense
>against the govt - if the govt produces any, they will be revealing precious
>national secrets & if they don't, they will be accused of lying. And the
>govt on the other hand often hides behind "national security".

So, our constitution is to be followed except when it risks "national security"?
People who ask for a uniform standard from other countries better ask for it
from the US too.

>In this case, the judge was shown many documents. The govt did not ask for
>the life term, which was decided by the judge based upon many things, one of
>which also included a letter by then Sec of Defense, Casper Weinberger.

>One thing which I couldn't digest was Pollard's assertion that he knew what
>documents should be given to the Israelis, that he knew what was good and
>bad for the US govt, etc. Isn't it upto the appropriate govt official - in this
>case Weinberger - to decide that? What would happen if everybody decided what
>they knew could be leaked and what couldn't?

Pollard, as an intelligence officer should have a good idea what will and will
not place US sources at risk.  He was also in a position to know when the US
was withholding information from Israel that was covered by our intelligence
sharing arrangements.  Considering the attitude of Cap Weinberger toward
Israel, I don't find that surprising at all.

At no time during the interview did Pollard claim that he was innocent nor that
he should avoid prison.  He only stated that he felt that the punishment
(life in prison) did not fit the norm for the crime (spying for a friendly
nation).  This is harshest sentence ever given for such a crime.  This should
be contrasted with other recent cases of spying for the USSR.

Gavriel

    Remind me what Mordachi Vanunu's sentence was for saying what everybody
    already knew.....
    

    Re: -.1
    
    What does it have to do with the Pollard's case?

    Re 279.32 by SIMON:
    
    I'm not sure exactly what Mordechai Vanunu's case had to
    do with Pollard's. But for the curious, I'll provide a
    pointer to replies 668.15 and following, where nuclear
    technician Vanunu and his famous "travelling case" are
    discussed in some detail.
    
    And now back, ostensibly, to Pollard:
    
    Can anyone identify more precisely wha was the function of the
    Israeli SLB (Science Liaison Bureau?), and what organization
    it was part of? What were its functions when originally
    created?  Reportedly Pollard was hired (as a spy/mole for
    Isreal, penetrating the US military) by officers of the SLB
    rather than by some other Israeli agency, such as MOSSAD.
    
    And briefly back to Mordechai Vanunu:
    
    Was there some historic connection between SLB and
    Isreal's KAMAG/Dimona (nuclear weapons) program,
    where Vanunu eventually worked as a technician?
    I ask, because I think the book "Every Spy a Prince"
    states or strongly implies there was a direct connection.
    

    You may want to read the book EVERY SPY A PRINCE by Yossi Melman and
    Dan Raviv.  It is a concise history of the Shin Bet/Mossad, and it does
    cover the SLB.
    
    --David (who is returning to this conference from a long absense due to
    "living on an airplane")

    Here's an update on the Pollard case from scj.
    ==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    
Article: 46476
Newsgroups: misc.legal,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.jewish,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: [email protected] (Nigel Allen)
Subject: Jonathan Pollard
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Echo Beach
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:16:23 GMT
 
 Here is a press release that I received earlier today. I am not sure
whether it was issued by B'nai B'rith International or by Jonathan
Pollard's lawyers.
 I am posting this press release because I think it might be of interest
to readers of this newsgroup, not because I agree with it.
 
 B'nai B'rith International Calls on President Bush to Commute
Life Sentence of Jonathan Pollard
 To: National Desk
 Contact: Carol Pollard, 203-389-0033,
          or Michael W. Robinson, 202-842-3600
 
   WASHINGTON, Sept. 10 /U.S. Newswire/ -- B'nai B'rith
International has overwhelmingly passed a resolution that calls on
President Bush to commute Jonathan Pollard's life prison sentence.
   The resolution was passed during the group's bi-annual
convention in Washington, D.C., this week.
   Citing humanitarian grounds, the resolution calls on President
Bush to commute to time served (almost seven years) Pollard's life
sentence.  The final resolution represented the joint efforts of
B'nai B'rith District I (New York and New England), District 3 (New
Jersey and Pennsylvania), District 4 (California and western
states) and District 5 (Florida and southeastern states).  B'nai
B'rith Canada and B'nai B'rith Israel also submitted companion
resolutions.
   With more than half a million members, the inclusion of B'nai
B'rith's resolution brings to more than 5 million the number of
supporters in the United States and Canada that have called for
Pollard to be released.  The estimate is based on signed petitions
coupled with the support of elected Rabbinical Councils that
represent more than 3.5 million Jews.
   Dr. Morris Pollard, Jonathan's father, attended the convention
and was in the audience when the resolution was passed.  "Our
entire family is very pleased by the convention's decision to
support a call for the commutation of my son's sentence," he said.
"It is especially gratifying to note that the resolutions calling
on the president originated on the grassroots level."
   At a June rally in New York City, more than 3,000 people echoed
B'nai B'rith's call on the president.  Led by Nobel Peace Prize
winner Elie Wiesel and Christian broadcaster and former Republican
Presidential candidate Pat Robertson, the rally highlighted the
need for fair treatment.  "I am outraged at this miscarriage of
justice," Robertson said.
   Also addressing the rally were Dr. Pollard, a noted biologist at
Notre Dame University; Theodore Olson, Pollard's attorney and
former assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration;
Seymour D. Reich, immediate former chairman of the Conference of
Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations; Rabbi Avraham
Weiss, Jonathan's spiritual advisor; and Fr. Robert F. Drinan, S.J.,
professor of Law at Georgetown University and former member of the
U.S. House of Representatives.
   Last July, Pollard's lawyers asked the Supreme Court of the
United States to review the life sentence Pollard received after
pleading guilty to spying for Israel.
   In his petition to the court, Pollard contends that a March 1992
decision by a divided three judge panel of the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia applied incorrect legal
standards in rejecting Pollard's claim that the government breached
the 1986 plea bargain it made with him.  An objective analysis of
the government's conduct, Pollard argues, will show that the
government broke its word and that he, therefore, is entitled to be
re-sentenced, Pollard also claims that the plea agreement was
unconstitutional because the government extracted a guilty plea
from him by using his seriously ill wife as a bargaining chip.
   Pollard's initial appeal of his life sentence was rejected 2-1
by the federal appellate court.  Dissenting Judge Stephen Williams
said that the government had "complied in spirit with none of its
promises" and breached the plea agreement with Pollard, resulting
in a "complete miscarriage of justice." Judge Williams said he
would have set aside Pollard's life sentence and sent the case
back to the U.S. District Court in Washington for resentencing.
   Carol Pollard, Jonathan's sister and founder of Citizens For
Justice, an international organization dedicated to obtaining
Jonathan Pollard's freedom, pointed out that, "my brother's life
sentence for spying for Israel, a U.S. ally, stands in stark
contrast with the considerable lesser penalties imposed on many
others who have spied for nations hostile to the U.S., such as
Iraq, East Germany and the former Soviet Union.  Jonathan was wrong
and he knows it, but he has been punished enough."
   In recent cases:
   -- Specialist Albert Sombolay, an American soldier, who spied
for Iraq during the Gulf War by passing along troop deployment data
about U.S.-led allied forces, along with samples of chemical
weapons protection equipment and identification documents, received
a 19-year sentence.
   -- Abdelkader Helmy, an Egyptian-born American citizen was
sentenced to just 46 months in prison for illegally exporting to
Egypt, for the benefit of the Egyptians and the Iraqis, 420 pounds
of a material used in Stealth aircraft, along with missiles and
rockets.  This technology was used by the Iraqis to extend the
range of their Scud missiles.
   -- Samuel Morison, an analyst at the U.S. Navy's ultra secret
Naval Intelligence Support Center, was sentenced to two years in
prison for selling classified photographs of Soviet naval vessels
to Jane's Defense Weekly.
   Pollard, who has been in prison since his arrest in November
1985, pleaded guilty in May 1986 to transmitting intelligence
information to Israel, including information concerning the
development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons by Arab
states hostile to Israel, such as Iraq, Syria and Libya.
   A complete list of organizations and individuals who support
Pollard is available on request from the contacts listed above.
 -30-
 
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
    

    More on the Pollard case and the Supreme Court appeal.
    And further replies in "NAVIES" contain personal
    suggestions as to what to do with Pollard.
    
               <<< BOOKIE::USER10:[NOTES$LIBRARY]NAVIES.NOTE;3 >>>
                         -< Navies, History, & Models >-
================================================================================
Note 168.677             General Naval News of Interest               677 of 680
NOVA::R_ANDERSON "My timing is Digital."             42 lines  14-OCT-1992 06:20
              -< Supreme Court won't hear appeal of spy Pollard >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The Supreme Court Tuesday let stand the life
prison term of former Navy intelligence officer Jonathan Pollard for
spying, despite claims that the government violated the terms of
Pollard's plea agreement.
	The court, without comment, refused to review a ruling of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that Pollard is
not entitled to a new sentencing hearing.
	Pollard, an anti-terrorism analyst for the Naval Investigative
Service, pleaded guilty June 4, 1986, to one count of conspiring to
deliver secret U.S. military information to Israel. He is being held at
the Marion Federal Penitentiary in Southern Illinois.
	Pollard agreed to a plea bargain -- by which the government dropped
other charges -- only after the government told him it would tell the
sentencing judge of the ``considerable value'' of his cooperation and
would not seek the maximum sentence of life in prison.
	Pollard also was told that his wife, who played a small role in the
conspiracy and eventually was sentenced to five years in prison, would
not be allowed to plea bargain unless he first agreed to do so.
	Pollard now claims the government coerced him into reaching a plea
agreement and then violated its terms by characterizing him as a major
security risk deserving ``severe punishment'' to the sentencing judge.
	But the appeals court, by a 2-1 vote, found because the government
never specifically asked the judge to impose the life term, it did not
violate the plea agreement.
	Attorneys for Pollard argue that the correct procedure for an appeals
court in such instances is to review all aspects of a plea agreement to
see if it was violated.
	But the appeals court here looked only to see if there was ``clear
error,'' which gives it more leeway to uphold a faulty decision, the
attorneys argued.
	Pollard and his wife, Anne Henderson-Pollard, were a young
Washington, D.C., couple in 1985 when they were arrested after seeking
political asylum at the Israeli Embassy.
	They were charged with passing U.S. secrets to Israel, the United
States' strongest ally in the Middle East.
	Pollard later said he believed the information he gave to Israeli
agents over an 18-month period would help both Israel and the United
States.
 ------
92-17 Jonathan Pollard vs. United States

	>And further replies in "NAVIES" contain personal
    	>suggestions as to what to do with Pollard.
    
    Of what nature were these replies, or need I ask?
    
    --David

Re 279.37 by Cherson:  Since you asked... One
reply in NAVIES seems to suggest Pollard and the
infamous Walker spy brothers be hung as a trio!
Surely we can do without lynchmobs.

Apparently the 11May93 Village Voice carried an
article by R. J. Friedman critical of the ADL
(Anti-Defamation League, see 1143 and 720). In
addition to airing various complaints against
alleged ADL undercover agent Roy Bullock, Friedman
aannounced that the wife of Pollard's handler
(meaning Pollard's espionage manager/case officer)
was a prominent lawyer for the ADL in NYC. I guess
this refers to the wife of Israeli pilot Aviem Sella,
who is discussed in 279.4 & .5 . The 18May93 Village
Voice carried a denial of this by A. Foxman, ADL
chairman, and a repeated assertion by Friedman. I saw
firsthand neither Village Voice issue, only network
discussion. Friedman's article focussed mostly on
investigator Bullock (now under indictment in Calif.?),
ADL, and Bullock's cooperative ADL/FBI and ADL/BOSS
projects (Bureau of State Security, Republic of
South Africa, see 668.*) in the USA, not on Pollard.

Is the Friedman article mentioned elsewhere in BAGELS?