The release on parole of Jonathan Pollard from federal prison after he served 30 years of a life sentence for espionage has not eased the concerns many of us have had about this case. Indeed, the Obama administration’s refusal to allow Mr. Pollard to resettle in Israel only deepens those concerns.
While Mr. Pollard pleaded guilty to spying against the United States, the discriminatory treatment he has received at the hands of the government argues for his freedom to move to Israel. And therein lies the story. Spies are generally allowed to return to the land of their spymasters after serving their sentences, actually sometimes even before their sentences are up if a swap can be arranged.
We cannot help but believe the treatment of Mr. Pollard was and is rooted in the fact that he spied for Israel. Unfortunately, there is a surfeit of misinformation about what he did that provides cover for his highly unusual treatment.
For example, in an editorial arguing against allowing Mr. Pollard to move to Israel, The New York Times said this:
Under the rules of his parole, he cannot leave the United States for five years without permission, and the Obama administration has shown no intention of letting him go. It should not: Mr. Pollard grievously violated the laws and the trust of his country…. Many facts remain unknown because Mr. Pollard pleaded guilty, and his case did not come to trial. But the known facts do not warrant special consideration.
So despite “Many facts remain[ing] unknown and the “known facts” having never been proven at trial, the Times and others are prepared to simply assume the worst about Mr. Pollard.
The story of his indictment and plea bargain raises other serious questions about his treatment. Thus, he was charged under a federal espionage statute that makes it a crime to deliver classified information to a foreign government “with intent or reason to believe” either that the information would result in “injury” to the U.S. or that the information would work “to the advantage of a foreign nation.”
Mr. Pollard was indicted under the “advantage” rather than the “injury” provision and subsequently pleaded guilty to providing secret information to Israel with knowledge that it would benefit that country. He was never charged under the “injury” provision. Yet not only has no one ever drawn a life sentence for violating the “advantage” provision, no one has ever drawn a life sentence for providing secret information to an ally under any circumstances. Moreover, government prosecutors agreed not to seek a life sentence in his case.
However, after the plea bargain was entered into and before the sentencing, federal prosecutors provided information to the sentencing judge that they claimed pointed to all manner of injury Mr. Pollard had inflicted on the United States. Mr. Pollard’s lawyers were never given the opportunity to dispute those claims at a trial because Mr. Pollard, with his plea deal, had waived his right to a trial. Yet this information apparently swayed the judge and he imposed a life sentence.
The fact that prosecutors seemed to have violated the plea agreement didn’t matter. To be sure, there are some who contend that it was Mr. Pollard who breached the agreement because he had agreed not to go public about his case without permission and then sat for media interviews. Of course this argument ignores the fact that Mr. Pollard by then was already in federal detention and would not in any way have been accessible to the press without approval by the bureau of prisons.
In addition, the federal prosecutors who charged Mr. Pollard and subsequently entered the plea agreement with him did so on behalf of their client, the U.S. government. So the charge and agreement had to have had the approval of officials who had made an assessment of the nature and seriousness of Mr. Pollard’s crime. Yet all of that just went by the boards.
It is high time that Mr. Pollard be cut just a little slack. At the very least he should be allowed to get on with his life where he wants to lead it.