Shapecharge wrote:I'm not really up to speed on Pollard. Does anyone know the context of the information he gave to Israel? Was it really some serious shit?
Since he didn't go to trial, the details aren't available. My understanding is that there are two issue:
First, what did he do? The pro-Pollard position is that he found out that we were not passing on information to Israel about Arab nuclear, chemical weapons, and that these threatened Israel's existence. So he told the Israelis. The anti-Pollard say that he may have also given info to other countries (South Africa and Australia, perhaps Pakistan?), and did it for money. Under either category, what he did would legally not be treason, which is giving information to the enemy. He was prosecuted under a different crime --conspiracy to give information to a foreign country.
Second, was his sentence disproportionate? He fully cooperated and pled to the crime. Then, though, his critics say he broke the plea agreement by going to the press to state his side of the case. He got a life sentence, which apparently has never been laid down for someone who didn't commit treason. The court of Appeals upheld his conviction 2-1 over a strong dissent. He's set to be let out in 2015.
Beyond the normal cast of characters who you'd expect, a number of prominent national security officials have called for his release. Here's a list of some supporters and quotes from a pro-Pollard site.
http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2011/013011.htm
My own view is that he betrayed the United States, and is a criminal. Whether he should be let out early depends on an assessment of what he did wrong, and whether he was treated fairly compared to others who have committed similar crimes. Since there are no publicly-available answers, I don't know what he did or didn't do. My sense, though, from reading about it is that he was treated disproportionately.
