Talk:Jonathan Pollard

Mirror vax what part you dont agree with?

All of it. It's opinionated, unsourced, unverifiable. Not even worthy of an op-ed piece, never mind an encyclopedia. Mirror Vax 18:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

That's an awfully cynical and flip comment. Much of this is public domain info, with specific sources listed in the links, and the prosecutors and judge obviously appear to believe it's very solid and concrete and real. I'd add to Ashley's comment below that some of the Margolis observations should be incorporated as well, although Seymour Hersh's piece is outstanding; he really is one of the finest journalists in America today, and his piece should be required reading for anyone working on this page. Compromising 100 agents overseas and communications codes and security is not friendly, it's high treason. In fact I seem to recall hearing they even had to burn scarce satellite fuel to reroute trajectories Pollard compromised, which represents many millions of dollars in damage just in technology costs. These are matters of fact, not opinion. Maybe somebody can incorporate them too. Chris Rodgers 00:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The unsigned bit was written by User:82.81.66.57, and it is his edits that I was characterizing. If you look at them, you may agree with me. Mirror Vax 02:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

POV

• 1.) Why is it that some "claim" that Pollard's sentence is too harsh, while others "point to" evidence that it is not too harsh? Classic POV tactic.
• 2.) Why is it that Weinberger (of all people) is the most "pro-Pollard" viewpoint in the article?
• 3.) Why isn't Pollard's case contrasted (in the article) with similar cases (espionage for allies), where typical sentencing is 2-4 years?
• 4.) Why hasn't Pollard's alleged poor treatment in jail been discussed?
• 5.) Why does the article make mention of the possibility of Israel's forwarding of information to the U.S.S.R. when the two countries were not on good terms at the time?
• 6.) Why doesn't the article mention that Pollard's appeal was denied by a technicality that Pollard was not responsible for?
• 7.) Why doesn't the article mention that one of the judge's on Pollard's appeal board said that the guilty verdict against Pollard was the worst perversion of justice that the judge had ever encountered?

At least the article has a link to [1], which provides another viewpoint.

This article is neither comprehensive not neutral, and a template must be placed at the top of this article to indicate such (until the issue is resolved). HKT 21:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• 8.) Why not go ahead and edit the article yourself if you feel it is too one-sided? This is Wikipedia, after all. --I am not good at running 06:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• 9.) (A.) This is a controversial topic, so (B.) my edits may spark an edit war (despite NPOV), whereupon (C.,1) I would have to either get involved (which I wouldn't like to do, due to time constraints), or (C.,2) allow my edits to disappear into history, which would make my edits, in retrospect, a waste of time. While I could (D.) spend a whole lot of time meticulously documenting sources for all my edits (which would have the benefits of (D.,1) diminishing the risk of reverts, (D.,2) increasing my trustworthiness in the Wikipedia community, and possibly (D.,3) convincing others to abandon rediculous POVs), (E.,1) I have already mentioned time constraints, and that reason, coupled with (E.,2) the yet existent specter of reverts, is enough to (F.) discourage me from actually editing this article. It is much easier to (G.,1) post a short bit on the talk page, followed by (G.,2) an NPOV template, and hope that (H.) others will deal with the article.

(I.) I thank you for your (I.,1) sarcastic use of the #8, as well as (I.,2) your incisive criticism.

Sincerely, (J.) HKT 21:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC) ;-)

Has anyone else noticed most of the Israel related articles tend to have that NPOV even when they are awfully boring? What gives. gathima 23:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

There's basically two topics that cause edit wars on wikipedia, one's jews and the other's george bush. Gzuckier 03:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Why some say X and others say Y? Nature of language and personal perspective. Russell, Wittgenstein, Popper, lots of peole including Charles Peirce made a major point of showing how language is used and effects perception. You Will Never Get Consensus. So we present as many sides as possible which leads to part two of this quandry "This article is neither comprehensive not neutral" Comprehensive means this thing would be about as detailed and cumbersome as the NYC phone book. One through seven are not really helpful nor do I think they were meant as questions--they are rhetorical as far as I can see. OK, Six WAS an important point --in my view. I think that has been rectified. No, I lie, it is discussed in the talk and not on the article. I think that is important. If there is enough here, I will do what I can to rectify it. Malangthon 23:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Soviet connection

Hersh makes some claims that should probably be mentioned:

A number of officials strongly suspect that the Israelis repackaged much of Pollard's material and provided it to the Soviet Union in exchange for continued Soviet permission for Jews to emigrate to Israel. Other officials go further, and say there was reason to believe that secret information was exchanged for Jews working in highly sensitive positions in the Soviet Union. A significant percentage of Pollard's documents, including some that described the techniques the American Navy used to track Soviet submarines around the world, was of practical importance only to the Soviet Union. One longtime C.I.A. officer who worked as a station chief in the Middle East said he understood that "certain elements in the Israeli military had used it" -- Pollard's material -- "to trade for people they wanted to get out," including Jewish scientists working in missile technology and on nuclear issues. Pollard's spying came at a time when the Israeli government was publicly committed to the free flow of Jewish emigres from the Soviet Union. The officials stressed the fact that they had no hard evidence -- no "smoking gun," in the form of a document from an Israeli or a Soviet archive -- to demonstrate the link between Pollard, Israel, and the Soviet Union, but they also said that the documents that Pollard had been directed by his Israeli handlers to betray led them to no other conclusion.

There's quite a lot more in the article. —Ashley Y 00:47, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Revert

Mirror Vax, I'm putting back the sentence you removed. Since the previous sentence insinuates that Pollard compromised US codes (POV), I'm leaving the assertion and providing contrary evidence. Furthermore, I'm stating that Pollard probably wasn't suspected of compromising codes, not even that he probably didn't compromise codes. The sentence is appropriate, so I'm reinserting it. HKT 04:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Since i am dont see anyone object I am reinserting HKT statment

I would like to float some information about possibly changing the section on the Soviet connection. He was originally alleged to have compromised US spy information leading to the death of many US spies. HOWEVER 1. He was not convicted of any of those charges. More importantly, 2. The actual perpetrators WERE caught later and convincted. As it turns out Aldrich Ames and Michael Hansen were responsible. Ames wa also in charge of Pollard's investigation and tried to foist his crimes onto Pollard. So, it is technically true to cite earlier articles and reports that he was thought to have done that...but it is also misleading without mentioning later evidence showing it was someone else.

Link summary

"Why Jonathan Pollard must be fried" - is that the funniest mistype in w/p for quite a while? --Zero 17:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Formatting for Footnotes

The blind links are in the process of being corrected. This is so it can be easily ascertained that the editors do utilise a great many sources. It will also enable anyone vetting the article to ascertain the variety of source not easily demonstrated using blind links. Malangthon 00:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There are problems with this article

Why are there so many links to http://www.jonathanpollard.org/ within the external links secion? There are eleven links in that section, five of thos point to the url http://www.jonathanpollard.org/. Four specifically and another to http://www.freepollard.org/ which leads to http://www.jonathanpollard.org/ via the english version.

The article is it stands is not usable for research purposes. http://www.john-loftus.com/pollard.asp leads to network solutions who wants to sell a domain john-loftus.com This domain name expired on 03/26/2006 and is pending renewal or deletion.

note that http://www.jonathanpollard.org now reports 404 not found ... since yesterday.

There are many verifiable resources this article should be based on. If someone can provide me with help editing, I would be happy to learn how. I am a new user and would need help. I have often referred to wikipedia as a resource when reading a topic and I find it disturbing that this one seems so poorly written.

Much of the article seems to be based not on reliable sources but on the subjects official website. Wmb1957 16:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a false statment. After reading the actual decision on lexisnexis I find that this is a false statement:

The dissenting judge, Judge Stephen Williams, called the majority's holding "'a fundamental miscarriage of justice."

In actuality the dissenting judge, Judge Stephen Williams said that the governments breach of the plea agreement was a fundamental miscarriage of judgement - not the majority decision. The case should be cited correctly and at minimum when no link is available to a case the case should use correct citing, not just a passing reference to a decision without proper citing for a legal case.

United States of America v. Jonathan Jay Pollard, appellant No. 90-3276

But because the government's breach of the plea agreement was a fundamental miscarriage of justice requiring relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, I dissent.

This is a false statement:

. There would be no trial, and no risk of classified information being disclosed in court. In return, Pollard would receive a light sentence.

Everthing I have found in verifiable sources says only that the government would not ask for a life term. This does not remove from the judge a right to still give a life term incidentally, as was noted in many articles including court documents.

United States of America v. Jonathan Jay Pollard, appellantNo. 90-3276 n return for Pollard's plea, the government promised not to charge him with additional crimes, entered into a plea agreement with Anne Pollard, and made several specific representations that are very much at issue in this case. The critical provisions are paragraphs 4(a) and 4(b) of the agreement, in which the government "agreed as follows":

(a) When [Pollard] appears [**7] before the Court for sentencing for the offense to which he has agreed to plead guilty, the Government will bring to the Court's attention [*1017] the nature, extent and value of his cooperation and testimony. Because of the classified nature of the information Mr. Pollard has provided to the Government, it is understood that particular representations concerning his cooperation may have to be made to the Court in camera. In general, however, the Government has agreed to represent that the information Mr. Pollard has provided is of considerable value to the Government's damage assessment analysis, its investigation of this criminal case, and the enforcement of the espionage laws.

(b) Notwithstanding Mr. Pollard's cooperation, at the time of sentencing the Government will recommend that the Court impose a sentence of a substantial period of incarceration and a monetary fine. The Government retains full right of allocution at all times concerning the facts and circumstances of the offenses committed by Mr. Pollard, and will be free to correct any misstatements of fact at the time of sentencing, including representations of the defendant and his counsel in regard to the nature and extent [**8] of Mr. Pollard's cooperation. Moreover, Mr. Pollard understands that, while the Court may take his cooperation into account in determining whether or not to impose a sentence of life imprisonment, this agreement cannot and does not limit the court's discretion to impose the maximum sentence.

I have included those portions of the case from lexisnexis that are applicable to my statements. I am not sure of the copyright status of a court case from lexisnexis but I assume it is reasonable to post specific portions.

Wmb1957 17:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

If this is from the court documents verbatim, then it is public property and no one can claim copyright. If someone on Lexis rewrote an interpretation, then the Lexis site will make note of this copyright. If you can put it in without getting the text booged down, then do so. Malangthon 23:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleting unsourced statements

I deleted this: "Ever since Jonathan Pollard was able to obtain [via a Freedom of Information Act request] the unclassified titles of the document,that were used as evidence against him, and these titles were published in a petition to Israel's Supreme Court in 2006, there can be no doubt that the information Pollard passed to Israel concerned Syrian, Iraqi, Libyan and Iranian nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare capabilities - all being developed for use against Israel. It also included information on ballistic missile development by these countries and information on planned terrorist attacks against Israeli civilian targets. "

It is not in any of the documents referenced here. In fact, Ron Olive stated the only remotely related perspective

"My desire is to have this true story published in Israel to allow readers to separate myth from facts. One such myth is how Pollard saved Israel, by giving it information regarding the threat of the Iraqi nuclear reactor. In fact, the reactor was bombed several years before Pollard spied for Israel.

"Then there is the myth that Pollard provided Israel with needed and wanted terrorist information to ensure its survival. The fact is, all of Pollard's handlers told him not to provide Israel with terrorist information. Many of the secrets Pollard stole had nothing to do with the Middle East. "

If true, it would make an informative addition to the article but so far no luck. It may also contradict the statements about the attorneys having no access to classified documents. Malangthon 02:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

further thoughts

After thinking further I question the validity of citing a dissenting opinion in a court case at all without giving reasoning on the reasoning of the majority and the dissenting opinion. After all the judicial system in these cases is based upon the idea that "the majority is the winning opinion" When only the dissenting side is given air, without any of the reasoning of both sides it is so uninformitive to be completly one sided. Wmb1957 17:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is a false statement

In recent years, others have argued that Pollard's punishment is too harsh, including Caspar Weinberger, who had a major influence on his sentencing in the first place.

Wmb1957 03:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This section does not seem to be NPOV

Controversy over severity of Pollard's sentence

Pollard committed - one count of passing non-injurious classified information to an ally - is two to four years."[2] I am not sure if this is true. I do know that there is no "passing non-injurious classified information to an ally" in the statutes Jonathan Pollard was convicted under. I cannot find how the cases pointed to are comparable to the Pollard case They are either not for the same crime or they are for a less period of time, less documents, not as sensative documents etc.

http://www.dss.mil/training/espionage/

In September 1981 Harper, beginning to regret his behavior, attempted to bargain for immunity from prosecution by anonymously contacting the CIA through a lawyer. Schuler died in June 1983 of complications related to alcoholism. Harper, who eventually pleaded guilty to six counts of espionage, received a life sentence on 14 May 1984.

On 4 June 1986, Pollard and his wife pleaded guilty to espionage and related charges under a plea agreement with Federal officials.

The link in the above from the article is to http://www.jonathanpollard.org/ The site is NPOV in itself - should I label it as such in the exterior URL listing?

Wmb1957 20:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Pollard's Wife/Wives

The article makes several references to his wife "Anne", but the External Links include a link to a site approved by "Jonathon and Esther" Pollard. Did Anne change her name? Did Jonathon and Anne divorce after she was releaed from prison? A sentence or two of clarification would be helpful.

I think about Jonathan Pollard every night.

Get a life, buddy. Pollard was guilty of selling out the US to another country. He got less than he deserved.

Jonathan Pollard has been serving his time in solitary confinement--a fate worse than death. I don't know what harm his actions caused the United States. I do know he, himself, strongly believes he did not cause any harm to the United States. Any harm he caused was inadvertant. I believe people should only be punished for harm they intended to inflict. I do not believe anyone should be punished for harm they did not intend to inflict. If someone rigs a lightswitch in your home to detonate a nuclear bomb, and blow-up a major US city, should you be punished for turning that switch on? I think it is a mistake to punish criminals for all negative consequences for their actions. For example, if two brothers rob a bank, and one is shot and killed by law enforcement, the other will be convicted of murder and sentenced to life even if they both used toy guns in their robbery. This is a waste of jail space.

I do know Pollard's ONLY motivation was to help Israel, a country that is generally considered a major US ally. If I had been in Pollard's position, I would have acted just as he did. Indeed, I would do so today. I know many patriotic American Jews who risked their lives in WWII, in the Korean war, and in Vietnam War who would do the same.

Why is that we never hear catholics or protestants making excuses for catholic or protestant spies. Or blacks excusing black spies. Every other group says "lock him up or hang the traitor". But for some reason, the jews fight to free their spies. And then they complain that they get accused of "dual loyalties." Amazing.

His sentence was much too severe. A day in solitary confinement is like an eternity in hell.

US prisons cotain lots of inncoent people, wrongly convicted. If you want to cry for someone cry for them, not this bum. Especially just because he has the same religion as you.

I think most people would do what Jonathan Pollard thought he was doing to save the lives of their brothers or sisters.

Wrong. Almost NO ONE does what Pollard did. The intelleigence services have thousands of peiople in them who would never consider betraying their country for another one.

Jonathan Pollard did not think he was betraying the United States. He did not think he was harming the US. He did what he did because he believed he was saving the lives of his brothers and sisters.

Moreover, as a result of the United States going back on its word in the Pollard case, I no longer have any faith in the integrity of our government. Future spies will not cooperate with the government after they are caught knowing the word of the United States has no value.

Michael D. Wolok 64.12.116.137 17:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Michael D. Wolok 12:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Michael, I can't disagree with your sentiments about the nature solitary confinement. But when you say "you don't know what harm his actions caused the United States," I'm not sure if you are actually saying you don't know, or if you're challenging the idea that they did. I suggest reading the Hersh article, or the Margolis column in the Toronto Sun, which says:

"Pollard caused enormous damage to U.S. national security. He gave Israel top-secret U.S. military intelligence and diplomatic codes; names of nearly 100 U.S. agents in the Mideast, who were then "turned" by Israel; NSA code-breaking techniques and targets; intercepts of foreign communications; and U.S. war-fighting plans for the Mideast. According to CIA sources, Pollard provided Israeli intelligence with names of important American agents inside the former Soviet Union and Russia who had supplied information on East Bloc weapons and war plans. How the agents' names were linked to the secrets they supplied - a major breach of basic intelligence security - remains a mystery. Some of the enormously sensitive secrets stolen by Pollard may have been either sold, or bartered, by Israel to the Soviet Union. A number of key CIA agents in the East Bloc were allegedly executed as a result of Pollard's spying. The KGB likely gained access to top-secret U.S. codes - either directly from Israel, or through spies in Israel's government. In short, Pollard's treachery caused one of the worst security disasters in modern U.S. history."

I mean, if you want to argue that Pollard's sentence was too harsh, that's fine, but I think a defense based around the premise that his actions caused no harm is just not credible. There may be grounds on which to defend Pollard, but this ain't one of them. 24.169.117.71 22:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  It is amazing how quick people are to judge others based on newspaper accounts.  Newspapers found Richard Jewel guilty of the Atlanta Olympic bombing,

and found Ricci guilty of kidnapping Pamela Smart. Both were completely innocent of these crimes. Your article says Pollard's actions "MAY" have resulted in this or that. What we have is a lot of speculation, and no hard facts. Anything Hersh writes is especially suspect. Anyone can make any claim and cite CIA sources, since the CIA neither confirms or denies anything. How would you like to be condemned based on alleged, unnamed CIA sources? This is not the way we are supposed to do things in the United States. I find it very hard to believe that Israel did any of these things. I have heard that now it is believed that all the damage that Pollard's actions caused were actually caused by Ames and Walker. I have no way of knowing the truth one way or the other, and neither do you. If Israel did turn over any material to the Russians, it should be held accountable, not Pollard, who like me would never think in the furthest reaches of our minds that Israel would ever do such a thing. Michael D. Wolok 16:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

He was convicted by a jury of his peers for spying. Let him rot in prison for his crimes.Bunns USMC 01:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not that this thread is at all relevant to editing this article, but Pollard wasn't convicted or sentenced by a jury. HKT^Talk 17:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if Pollard caused the US harm or not, and neither do you. I don't believe everything that appears in newspapers. It appears that Hersh is an especially unreliable journalist. I don't believe on convicting people based on newspaper accounts. We have courts of law to sort out allegations. I certainly don't believe anything any US official says. The Pollard case convinced me the word of US offials mean nothing. Moreover, I don't believe anyone should be punished for harm they did not intend. I think this is a misuse of prison space. Punishing people for unintended consequences of their actions does not act as a deterant to crime. If someone doesn't intend to cause harm, they are not going to worry about the consequences of doing harm.

When I look at my fellow Americans, I see a hateful, vengefull bunch of people. They call themselves Christian, but they are anything but. And few Jews today follow the ethics of our fathers. We have become cold-hearted, and hard-hearted. We no longer have ruth. In American society, compassion and forgiveness seem like quaint ideals. Empathy has gone out of fashion. There is a rush to condemn. All people seem to care about is money. I feel like I walked through the wrong door at some point in my life, and find myself in a parallel universe where just about everyone is heartless. Michael D. Wolok 12:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hersh is known for making untrue statements. Michael D. Wolok 12:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Media Monitor: Seymour Hersh - Unreliable Source January 22, 1999 - Jason Maoz - The Jewish Press

In a lengthy article in the Jan. 18 issue of The New Yorker, Hersh recycled several allegations he first aired in his 1991 book The Samson Option: Israel's Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, the most serious of which is that an unknown quantity of the most highly-classified data stolen by Pollard ended up in Soviet hands.

The Samson Option was widely panned for its unsubstantiated charges and unseemly reliance on questionable sources. Hersh's prime informant for the book's most sensational claims was one Arie Ben-Menashe, an individual who has been labeled "a notorious, chronic liar" by The Jerusalem Post and "an abject liar" by the investigative journalist Steven Emerson, and who in fact failed a lie-detector test administered by ABC News.

Another source for The Samson Option, a character named Joe Flynn, admitted that he'd deceived Hersh in exchange for money. According to the Near East Report, "After Flynn was exposed, Hersh said he regretted not checking his facts more carefully."

Hersh first achieved notoriety in 1969 when, as a freelance journalist, he broke one of the biggest stories of the Vietnam war: the massacre of unarmed civilians by American soldiers in the South Vietnamese village of My Lai. Hired by The New York Times in 1972, he went on to cover (in some cases uncover) the CIA scandals that rocked Washington in the mid-70's.

But Hersh's luster began to fade during his last few years at the Times as doubts were raised about both his methods and his fairness. In Fit To Print, a highly critical 1988 biography of former Times executive editor A. M. Rosenthal, author Joseph Goulden wrote: "Rosenthal now concedes that he had serious second thoughts about some of Hersh's reporting, even during the glory days of the 1970's when his stories featured prominently on the Times's front page."

Hersh left the Times in 1979 and commenced work on a book about former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, whom Hersh made no secret of despising. When The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House was published in 1983, the editor-in-chief of The New Republic, Martin Peretz, wrote that "there is hardly anything [in the book] that shouldn't be suspect."

And as National Review reported at the time, former attorney-general John Mitchell (cited by Hersh as a major source for the book) insisted that "almost every episode or statement on Kissinger ascribed to him by Hersh [was] a distortion, an exaggeration, a misinterpretation, or an expletive-deleted lie."

More recently, while researching The Dark Side of Camelot, his 1997 debunking of the Kennedy myth, Hersh fell for the claims of a forgerer whose material would have been included in the book if not for a last-minute investigation by ABC News that cast doubts on the man's story.

In his New Yorker piece on Pollard, Hersh offered detailed scenarios involving Israel's alleged transfer of pilfered U.S. material to the Soviet Union, only to lamely confess that his sources "stressed the fact that they had no hard evidence — no 'smoking gun' in the form of a document from an Israeli or a Soviet archive — to demonstrate the link between Pollard, Israel and the Soviet Union..."

Hersh also alleged that the late CIA director William Casey told an associate (unnamed, of course) of his knowledge that "the Israelis used Pollard to obtain our attack plan against the U.S.S.R. — all of it. The coordinates, the firing locations, the sequences. And for guess who? The Soviets."

But Robert Gates, who was appointed Casey's deputy in 1986, told Hersh that the director "had never indicated to him that he had specific information about the Pollard material arriving in Moscow." Furthermore, said Gates, "The notion that the Russians may have gotten some of the stuff has always been a viewpoint."

Michael D. Wolok 13:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Pollard's sentence was very severe. If I was given a choice between solitary and execution, I would have taken execution. He should have done the same otherwise he toils in an element in which he is totally responsible. Jtpaladin 23:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Links to Hersh and Margolis articles

An anon user removed two external links to articles that were critical of Pollard. The anon's comment was "Not very unbaised .... but provokes violence/" (sic). Both articles articulate a case against Pollard, and they originated in undeniably reputable publications (The New Yorker and The Toronto Sun). I do not thing they should be removed simply because they present an unflattering picture of Pollard. A balanced article should include reasonable views both for and against. An informed reader can take them all in and reach his/her own conlusions. Anson2995 14:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is Hersh a Reliable Source?

Among journalists, Hersh's reporting is widely considered to be unreliable. Many consider him a rogue with less standing than Matt Drudge. The Pentagon has disputed his stories again and again. In the New Yorker, he claimed that the abuse that went on at Abu Ghraib in Iraq was done on orders by Donald Rumsfeld, which were approved by George Bush. The White House denied these allegations. Hersh, himself has been the subject of many headlines.

Michael D. Wolok 15:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem to have made a documented case for it, I have no problem treating his writings as unreliable. Feel free to edit the article in accordance with this information. HKT^Talk 17:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, *you* say Hersh is an unreliable source, but he is a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter, and has won numerous other awards for his books and articles over the past thirty-five years. The fact that the subject of an unflattering investigative report disputes a reporter's findings doesn't serve as a commentary on the quality of that reporter's work. If you want to disagree with the content of his article on Pollard, that's one thing. But your characterization of Hersh as a "rogue with less standing than Matt Drudge" is absurd. Anson2995 19:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Michael makes it sound like he is basing a number of his claims on reliable sources, but he hasn't brought actual citations. It would be helpful if he could bring some reliable sources. If he changes the article based on reliable sources, I wouldn't object. A Pulitzer Prize and awards for some work doesn't automatically validate other work. HKT^Talk 02:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Overview

Let me just step back for a minute and say that I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't have strong feelings for or against Pollard. I'm just interested in having a good entry on the subject, and I don't think we have one. For a user who doesn't know anything about Pollard, or who knows a a little and wants more detail, I think that this piece will not serve them very well. It has a lot of content about Pollard's sentencing and appeals process, but very little about the crimes he was accused of, and too few of the basic facts about the case. There is a lot of undisputed factual information missing from this article. (For example, there's no mention of why his wife was charged, or what happened after she was released from prison.) Finally, I have to say that the article is very poorly organized, and could desperately use some subheads. Anson2995 20:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. HKT^Talk 02:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

also agree - the beginning of the article didn't even say what country he spied on. - Matthew238 03:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to fix this article up a bit by adding more headings and including a section on the information he is supposed to have transferred to Israel. Deuterium 03:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

biography

It seems that User:69.152.115.2 believes that more should be written about Jonathan Pollard life. This was added to the article:

==Life==

Pollard was born in X and grew up in X and blah blah blah. Write more stuff about the person, than just the crime.

I have removed the addition, but I agree with the point. Jon513 10:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

he should have been executed

pollard is a traitor and like all traitors he should be shot in public by a firing squad.

israel claims to be an ally of the US and then does this? this is one of the many reasons why we should sever ties with that zionist regime.

Please do not feed the trolls

this page is a place to discuss how the article can improved, not a place for discussion about the article's subject.Jon513 16:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The language regarding "should have been" seems to reflect more anger than logic.

Read the part elsewhere re whether a person who uses a light switch that was sabotaged to trigger a nuclear explosion is to be held responsible for the result. In no way has it been shown that Jonathan Pollard set out to harm the United States, despite what some individuals with anti-Israel/anti-Jewish/anti-Semitic leanings have said. Someone with the appropriate "clearance" should delete this section IMHO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.138.140 (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Intent to update:

Hi all. I was really surprised by the intro the article. Pollard was originally accused of passing the names of US agents to the Russians (primarily on the word of Ames). However, he was not convicted of those crimes. And more importantly: 1. The actual perps were found and convicted. It turned out that Aldrich Ames and Richard Hansen were the guilty parties. 2. It was later proven that Pollard did not have a security clearance/access to that information. He HAD information on Arab troop movements. My plan is to research the citations and update the article accordingly.

In a 2002 letter to IMRA, U.S. District Court Judge George N. Leighton wrote

Does anyone have a source for this? The only place I could find it was on jonathanpollard.org which I don't think qualifies under WP:V. I'll let it ride for a bit and then I'll have to pull it. Thanks. --Uncle Bungle 05:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

See the letter on IMRA's website. Leighton has been heavily involved in this case. This is obviously not fabricated content. Come on. Thanks. HKT^Talk 03:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

All I asked for was a source, and you've provided one, thank you. Now, I don't know about "John M. Pinto's virtual tribute" [2] Leighton. Who is the IMRA anyway? Are they notable? --Uncle Bungle 04:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Asking for a source is fine. Planning to pull a passage after a short time because you failed to find another source is not fine (unless you search thoroughly, which would have yielded results in this case). For a talk page that attracts a lot of editor attention, it might be reasonable to expect someone else to come up with a source. However, this talk page receives sporadic attention, and your query might have gone unnoticed for weeks.

I don't know about the tribute, either, but the page seems to aggregate a number of interesting sources of info about Leighton. If you're interested in a direct link to a short bio, here is one. IMRA (Independent Media Review Analysis) is a fairly notable Israeli news organization. For example, a google search for the words "IMRA" and "Israel" yields about 750,000 hits. HKT^Talk 23:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What is IMRA?

This should be explained in the article.

The asterikses

Just "random article"ing and found myself here. Sure the page needs a bit of work but it looks pretty good. Just wondering what the asterikses (is that even a word?) are doing in the article, e.g. (**6) and (**1017.) Didn't delete them in case they're special. All the best.Mmoneypenny 00:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

be bold! I removed them. I doubt they have any reason, they were probably just there by some copying and pasting problem with a footnote. I could not find anything on google to indicate that there has a been a copyvio though. Perhaps the author copied the work then changed the text. Jon513 16:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Olive's point on US parole laws

Olive says in the Washington Times article that one possible hurdle for Pollard to cross is his breaking of the plea agreement. Olive says:

"The U.S. Attorney's Office considered voiding the plea agreement and putting Pollard on trial but decided not to bother, given that the life sentence was at hand. When Pollard comes up for parole, hopefully some government lawyer will dust off the already-violated plea agreement and cite it as a reason to keep him behind bars."[3]

Some details on the plea agreement are in the first half of the review.

"What Mr. diGenova perhaps did not know was that just prior to Pollard's sentencing (on a guilty plea) there was an obscure rule change stipulating that persons sentenced to life must be paroled after 30 years if they maintained a good record in prison. Thus Pollard could walk out of prison on Nov. 23, 2013.[4]

Olive also reveals that Pollard can expect a handsome pay check if released, the Washington Times review quotes:

"Hear the math of naval intelligence investigator Ronald J. Olive in his fascinating "Capturing Jonathan Pollard": "It is alleged that Israel doubles the salary yearly for Israeli spies caught and imprisoned on foreign soil. If Pollard's spy salary of $2,500 a month plus the promised $30,000 annual bonus were doubled [the figures came from Pollard] he would earn approximately $3.6 million over thirty years. To my knowledge, no other spy in history, in jail or released from it, has been so handsomely rewarded," Mr. Olive writes, in a sentence dripping with disgust."[5]

I added some further detail on Pollard breaking his plea agreement and the parole issue, but didnt add his expected financial reward, until I can find more details. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.226.213 (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Edited out some language

I edited the controversy section, specifically, I removed inflammatory and unencyclopedic language. In addition, I added requests for citation for some of the (seemingly) verifiable claims. I strongly suspect my edits will be reverted, but I hope that someone will simply add the citations instead of reinserting POV.

Link Error

In the section on sentencing the link for United States of America v. Jonathan Jay Pollard (747 F. Supp. 797); 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11844 file is no longer functioning. Has anyone got a working link? I know where to get all Supreme Court decisions going back to the 18th century but getting District Court links is a problem since most of them are not on the web. Malangthon 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over severity of Pollard's sentence

The statement: "The sentence was comparable to that of Aldrich Ames, the chief of CIA counterintelligence in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, who was indicted for treason, convicted of passing critical defense secrets to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and found responsible for the deaths of at least 11 U.S. agents" should be validated using a reliable source. It is currently unsourced and not even clearly supported by the WP article on Aldrich Ames.

I removed the statement: "The US refuses to allow Pollard's security cleared attorneys access to their own client's sentencing file in order to challenge his incarceration" and accompanying comments in References as POV and unsupported by the Edwin Black article referenced.[6] The Black article clearly says that Pollard's attorneys were denied access to the documents they sought because "they don't possess a 'need to know' security clearance for the secret documents." If they were "security cleared" I don't see the evidence for it in the Black article. Further, I wonder if this even belongs in a section entitled "Controversy over severity of Pollard's sentence"--DieWeibeRose 07:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Shrike 18:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this?

I don't understand what the relevance is of the following:

The reality of friendly countries spying on each other is part and parcel of national security concerns that any sovereign country shares. Senator David Durenberger, former head of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, claimed in 1983 that the CIA had turned an officer in the Israel Defence Forces, and that he had been an active source during the 1982 Lebanon War.

This entire paragraph seems like an attempt to justify Pollard's spying activities. It does not belong in the Pollard article because it has nothing to do with Pollard. It belongs in an article about spying, not here. Anyone have a reasonable justification for the inclusion of this info?

Even worse, what is the point of this:

The Israeli Domestic Security Service Shin Bet apprehended an American Jew enrolled as a student at Hebrew University in the fall of 1984. While ensconced as a student this former US Naval Commando also worked at a local Jerusalem student hangout. While his stay was cut short this is a prime example before Pollards arrest that active espionage was being directed at Israel by the United States.

This is a non-cited item that not only has nothing to do with Pollard but doesn't even make clear that this "former US Naval Commando" was even spying. Many American Jewish people go to Israel to attend a university and just because this gentleman has US military experience does not make him a spy. Both of these paragraphs should be deleted. I would appreciate some defense of these paragraphs or deletion should occur. Jtpaladin 21:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that this appears to be some sort of original research/commentary/who knows what. I would delete it since I am a minimalist. Does this really help/relevant to the subject of the article? I too would like to hear from folks who think this material helps/is relevant. Anyways, --Tom 12:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is relevant as a background. Because it explains what kind of relationship there was between Israel and USA.--Shrike 18:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I re-read it, and I still don't get it. The last part about an "American Jew" being apprehended, is that sourced? The section is "clunky" and dosen't really seem to tie in and reads as original research. Is the jist of it, friendly countries spy on each other all the time behind the scenes so we shouldn't be surprised that Israel got Pollard to assist them? Anyways, I would remove that entire paragraph but won't. I will add a fact tag to the student part. Thanks! --Tom 19:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC) ps. I re-read the sources for the first part about the CIA efforts and they seem to be written in context to Pollard so no big deal. The last part about the student already had a fact tag. Can we source that or remove it? Thanks! --Tom 19:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree the last unsourced part might be removed but let wait maybe some one will find a source--Shrike 07:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tom. I have no problem waiting for some other editors to chime in but let's not stretch this out. Both paragraphs do not contribute to the article. The second paragraph is totally ridiculous. Without further appropriate input, both paragraphs should be deleted. Jtpaladin 15:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you see the source for the first paragraph it explicitly talks about Pollard case.And that is important background.--Shrike 17:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, for now, let's just remove the uncited second paragraph and further discuss the first paragraph. Jtpaladin 16:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Not notable or relevant. If the crime and pushishment of an Israeli working for the US has been adequately documented to serve as a comparison, then it warrants it's own article and perhaps a mention here. The current statement should be removed. --Uncle Bungle 17:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the npov problem shrike keeps reverting---this whole article reads like it came from the Pollard fan club. --24.214.167.195 23:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Was it Pollard or Ames

The Wikipedia article on spy Aldrich Ames is very clear -- He covered his tracks by implicating Pollard in his own crimes. For this reason it does appear that the Margolis and Hersh rehashing of Ames' charges are simply not useful. They violate policy, so I eliminated them.

I suggest that anyone wanting to restore this stuff use less biased sources, if they exist. Margolis is a professional Islamist (he claims that "islamic fascism" doesn't exist, everyone who disagrees with him is a "neoconservative," etc.) and Hersh is veracity-challenged. (And don't bring up that Pulitzer. Duranty also won one for lying about Stalid.) Personally I find the obsessive desire of so many to accuse Pollard of acts he never committed -- compared with the realtive silence that the far more damaging Ames case has received -- to be indicative of an ulterior motive.68.5.64.178 12:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)