Pollard

Pollard should not 'shut-up'


By Kenneth Lasson

http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- THE CURRENT WISDOM among Jewish "leadership" — here and abroad — is to seek presidential clemency for Jonathan Pollard by quiet diplomacy.

It has the ring of reason, and is particularly resonant because of widely (but wrongly) perceived excessively public complaints by Mr. Pollard, a former U.S. Navy intelligence analyst who has been in jail since 1985 for passing classified information to Israel. It is all the more misguided by repetition of the canard about his lack of remorse, and the timorous notion that he continues to cause unseemly embarrassment for Jewish Americans and Israelís government.

Indeed, Mr. Pollard has hardly been a passive prisoner of conscience. Rather, he has persistently pressed the injustice of his plight and the unfairness of his punishment.

But whatever "quiet diplomacy" may have been tried is now likely little more than a myth created for public relations purposes.

Thus his assertiveness is entirely appropriate and those who urge patience are wrong.

• The facts of his case are (or should be) completely compelling to anyone with a sense of justice and fair play.

• The Justice Department blatantly breached the plea agreement that it would seek something less than the maximum punishment allowed if Mr. Pollard cooperated. He fully did — as court documents incontrovertibly illustrate — but the government did all it could to ensure life imprisonment.

• No other person ever convicted of the same crime — passing classified information to an ally — has served as long; the average sentence is four years.

• Various government operatives have stated that Mr. Pollardís treason was enormous. Yet he was neither charged with nor convicted of treason. Moreover, he has never had a chance to challenge or cross-examine the evidence hyped against him. No proof has ever been presented that Mr. Pollard damaged American intelligence interests.

• "Quiet diplomacy" has been tried and it has failed.

Jonathan Pollard quietly voiced contrition early on, and has repeated statements of unqualified remorse ever since. He has written to President Clinton that he wishes he had acted within the bounds of the law in his concerns for Israelís security.

Every Israeli prime minister over the past 15 years has asked the American president for clemency, and all have been denied — except possibly for Ehud Barak, who has publicly declared this "an internal American matter" and refuses to deal with the Pollards. But if he wanted them to keep quiet, why wouldnít he personally encourage them either with a note, a phone call or through their Israeli attorney? His utter silence merely frustrates them into further public outcries. What else should they do in the face of information that the government of Israel has made no effort on behalf of its acknowledged agent?

This case has always been political — as are many high-profile spying cases — and is made all the more so by the Mideast peace process being so actively brokered by the United States. Mr. Clintonís apparent double-cross of Binyamin Netanyahu, who has publicly disclosed that he came to the Wye talks only with the understanding that he would return to Israel with Mr. Pollard, belies the presidentís oft-stated declarations that he never promised anything to the Israeli prime minister.

The administration's obsequious obeisance to its intelligence community is likewise shamefully fraudulent. The president's recent grant of clemency to 14 Puerto Ricans convicted of murderous terrorism flew in the face of recommendations by the FBI. Yet Mr. Clinton succumbs to the pressure of the intelligence community not to pardon Mr. Pollard — particularly CIA Director George Tenet's outrageous threat to resign if he does — even though no evidence has ever been produced that Mr. Pollard's actions cost a single life.

What would Mr. Clinton have to lose by exercising clemency during whatever is left of his lame-duck presidency? On the other hand, he would gain a measure of moral stature if he did what surely his conscience should dictate.

Kenneth Lasson is a law professor at the University of Baltimore. Comment on this column by clicking here.

Related:

08/10/99: Pollard's Case May Be Crucial to Hillary's Run
03/05/99: It's time we all saw the "secret charges" against Jonathan Pollard
01/08/99: Equal treatment under the law demands Pollard's release
11/19/98: The Spy Left Out In the Cold Too Long
11/11/98: Pollard hopeful GOP changes will benefit him
10/28/98: Peace process or spin politics?
04/09/98: The US Navy's two faced Pollard policy

©1999, Kenneth Lasson