Jonathan Pollard

In Kenneth Lasson's commentary, "Freeing Pollard benefits all" (Feb. 27), who is "all?" Jonathan Pollard passed classified information to Israel to circumvent U.S. policy. Is "all" the thousands of Americans with security clearance who do not betray that confidence, or does it refer to the country Mr. Pollard betrayed? He is serving a life sentence because of a plea bargain. His cooperation was in no way exculpatory. Mr. Lasson writes, "It is now more clear than ever that he is being severely punished for deeds he never did. " Mr. Pollard confessed, and Israel acknowledged his espionage years later.

Between Jonathan Pollard, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, which one is the most dangerous to our country? Mr. Pollard took secrets and gave them to our ally, Israel, and is serving 25 years as of this writing. Messrs. Manning and Snowden gave information about what our government was doing to protect us from our enemies. One is on trial for treason, and the other is a coward who is hiding trying not to be caught. He should be caught and brought to trial. I have no reason to be afraid if the government listens to me on the phone.

Jonathan Pollard should stay in jail for the sake of deterrence ("It's time to free Jonathan Pollard," Nov. 3). Lawrence Korb, in his arguments for clemency, neglects to mention that Mr. Pollard's spying for our "ally" Israel was hardly an aberration or an isolated event. Whether through transfer of secure information to government officials friendly to Israel or, most recently, by cyber warfare, Israel has demonstrated a hostile intent toward its closest ally and benefactor. Also, Mr. Korb's claim that prosecutors violated a plea agreement with Mr. Pollard during sentencing is wrong.

The letter "Obama should pardon Pollard" (March 18) could not be more wrong when it urges President Barack Obama to pardon the heinous traitor Jonathan Pollard, who is serving a life sentence for causing more harm to U.S. intelligence than any spy had in decades. The writer also has her priorities backward when she says that President Obama needs to "...mend some political fences with Israel and to promote warmer relations with Israeli leaders. " The U.S. gives Israel $3 billion and more every year in military aid, our latest military technology and diplomatic cover at the U.N. for its atrocities against the Palestinians.

John G. Bailey ("Pollard should not be freed," letters, Nov. 4) is as misguided in his opinion as he is ignorant of the facts. To suggest that Israel is not a staunch and steadfast U.S. ally belies both history and context; the Middle East is a caldron of anti-American vitriol, with the tiny Jewish state standing out as a lone exception. To claim that Mr. Pollard violated a plea agreement with prosecutors simply flies in the face of the government's own admission that he did not. Jonathan Pollard was charged with one count of passing classified information to a friendly government.

The following editorial appeared in the Miami Herald on Wednesday:Despite a concerted public-relations campaign and an asserted passion for Israel, there is nothing in the record of convicted American spy Jonathan Pollard that warrants presidential clemency. To the contrary, the record and a startling report in the current New Yorker magazine by Seymour Hersh suggest that prison is exactly where Pollard -- who has served nearly 12 years of a life sentence -- should stay.How a debt-ridden, cocaine-sniffing Naval analyst, who was paid $50,000 by his Israeli handlers and promised more, metamorphosed into an Israeli national hero is made clear by Mr. Hersh: Israel got its money's worth.

When President Clinton implored the American public to see ''Schindler's List,'' the quintessential horror film about the Holocaust, some of Jonathan Pollard's supporters saw it as a hopeful sign.Perhaps the president, visibly moved by the film, would sympathize with the moral impulse that drove Pollard to give vital defense information to Israel. Perhaps he'd likewise equate Nazi Germany with demonic Iraq. Perhaps Mr. Clinton, currently compiling his own list of presidential pardons, would see to it that the horrendous life sentence handed Pollard in 1985 be commuted to time served.

JERUSALEM -- President Clinton has convened a summit between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat at Camp David to attempt to work out a historic final arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians. This summit affords Mr. Clinton a last chance to honor his commitment to the people of Israel to free Jonathan Pollard. Before the Wye summit in October 1998, Mr. Clinton promised the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, that he would free Pollard. Mr. Clinton reaffirmed this commitment, and the details were worked out in the course of the negotiations at the Wye River Plantation, which led to the signing of an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

While I am no fan of Jonathan Pollard, I must take issue with Haviland Smith's commentary in the January 13 edition of The Sun ( "Freeing Pollard would be a terrible mistake" . Jonathan Pollard pleaded guilty to a charge of passing on classified information to an ally, a crime which on average has yielded a seven-year sentence and about four years of actual prison time served. Mr. Pollard has been incarcerated now for more than 25 years. He has served longer than most murderers, rapists and, yes, war criminals.

The letter "Obama should pardon Pollard" (March 18) could not be more wrong when it urges President Barack Obama to pardon the heinous traitor Jonathan Pollard, who is serving a life sentence for causing more harm to U.S. intelligence than any spy had in decades. The writer also has her priorities backward when she says that President Obama needs to "...mend some political fences with Israel and to promote warmer relations with Israeli leaders. " The U.S. gives Israel $3 billion and more every year in military aid, our latest military technology and diplomatic cover at the U.N. for its atrocities against the Palestinians.

I agree with Kenneth Lasson's article "Obama should free Pollard" (Feb. 27). Mr. Lasson made a good point in comparing the president's very low record of clemency grants to that of past Presidents like Lincoln, Wilson, Coolidge, Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower and Bush. Meanwhile, numerous illegal immigrants, drug pushers, and other more hardcore criminals have been released from our prisons as part of the president's recent sequester cuts. Also, in Israel there have been thousands of terrorists released from prisons (some with blood on their hands)

In Kenneth Lasson's commentary, "Freeing Pollard benefits all" (Feb. 27), who is "all?" Jonathan Pollard passed classified information to Israel to circumvent U.S. policy. Is "all" the thousands of Americans with security clearance who do not betray that confidence, or does it refer to the country Mr. Pollard betrayed? He is serving a life sentence because of a plea bargain. His cooperation was in no way exculpatory. Mr. Lasson writes, "It is now more clear than ever that he is being severely punished for deeds he never did. " Mr. Pollard confessed, and Israel acknowledged his espionage years later.

With momentum building for clemency on behalf of Jonathan Pollard, those involved in his conviction are again coming out of the woodwork with fabrications of fact and misleading statements. Last week Joseph DiGenova, the former U.S. attorney who prosecuted the case, was quoted in the Washington Times as alleging it had cost the Defense Department between $3 billion and $5 billion to fix the damage Mr. Pollard caused. Haviland Smith, a retired CIA station chief, charged in The Baltimore Sun ( "Freeing Pollard would be a terrible mistake," Jan. 12)

While I am no fan of Jonathan Pollard, I must take issue with Haviland Smith's commentary in the January 13 edition of The Sun ( "Freeing Pollard would be a terrible mistake" . Jonathan Pollard pleaded guilty to a charge of passing on classified information to an ally, a crime which on average has yielded a seven-year sentence and about four years of actual prison time served. Mr. Pollard has been incarcerated now for more than 25 years. He has served longer than most murderers, rapists and, yes, war criminals.

In September, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported that filmmaker Michael Moore had launched a campaign to free Pfc. Bradley Manning, who has been accused of providing most, if not all, of the classified documents being revealed on WikiLeaks. Mr. Manning has not yet been charged with a crime. At the same time, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced that he will soon, again, seek the release to Israel of Jonathan Pollard, an American citizen employed by U.S. naval intelligence, who was convicted in 1987 of espionage on behalf of Israel and sentenced to life in prison.

John G. Bailey ("Pollard should not be freed," letters, Nov. 4) is as misguided in his opinion as he is ignorant of the facts. To suggest that Israel is not a staunch and steadfast U.S. ally belies both history and context; the Middle East is a caldron of anti-American vitriol, with the tiny Jewish state standing out as a lone exception. To claim that Mr. Pollard violated a plea agreement with prosecutors simply flies in the face of the government's own admission that he did not. Jonathan Pollard was charged with one count of passing classified information to a friendly government.

Between Jonathan Pollard, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, which one is the most dangerous to our country? Mr. Pollard took secrets and gave them to our ally, Israel, and is serving 25 years as of this writing. Messrs. Manning and Snowden gave information about what our government was doing to protect us from our enemies. One is on trial for treason, and the other is a coward who is hiding trying not to be caught. He should be caught and brought to trial. I have no reason to be afraid if the government listens to me on the phone.

Jonathan Pollard should stay in jail for the sake of deterrence ("It's time to free Jonathan Pollard," Nov. 3). Lawrence Korb, in his arguments for clemency, neglects to mention that Mr. Pollard's spying for our "ally" Israel was hardly an aberration or an isolated event. Whether through transfer of secure information to government officials friendly to Israel or, most recently, by cyber warfare, Israel has demonstrated a hostile intent toward its closest ally and benefactor. Also, Mr. Korb's claim that prosecutors violated a plea agreement with Mr. Pollard during sentencing is wrong.