Talk:Jonathan Pollard/Archive 2

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? LOL! Wikipedia is Israel's pathetic attempt to control all the information in the world, so ANY article important to Israel MUST be told from a 99% Israeli POV. Nothing else is permissible. The absurdity of this would be if an encyclopedic article on ww2 Germany was written based on 99% of material from Adolfhitler.org. What a JOKE! 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 released from prison? A sentence or two of clarification would be helpful.

Anne was Jonathan's wife before the arrest. She was granted a civil and religious divorce she spend her time behind bars for alleged cooperation in her husband's spying activities. Esther married him years later. She has only seen him when visiting him in jail.

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. HKTTalk 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)

It doesn't matter what he INTENDED to do, what matters is what he actually DID. He sold U.S. secrets to which he had access. This is blatantly illegal. It is NOT the individual's perogative to decide which countries ought to have what information. That is up to policy makers and those who lead intelligence agencies. It is not up to the individual employee to give out that kind of information. Releasing this guy would have serious implications for the United States, everyone with a clearance will see it as their duty to reveal to whomever whatever kind of information is warranted. That is not their duty, nor their right, nor their privelidge, nor their place. They are to do with the information exactly what their job outlines them to do with it, and they are to protect it with their very lives.


 * Some of the information he disclosed was the subject of an information sharing treaty. He may have played judge/jury/executioner but he did so after trying to do it the right way. One or more of the people to whom he went were clearly anti-Semitic, so Pollard felt that he had no other alternative. There is a concept in International Law called "ticking bomb." Pollard saw himself in that situation at least for some of what he did.

207.69.140.32 (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)4.270.87.11

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. HKTTalk 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. HKTTalk 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. HKTTalk 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.




 * 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).

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. HKTTalk 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" 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. HKTTalk 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." 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."

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.'"

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).