Archive for the ‘Jonathan Pollard’ Category

Jonathan Pollard Biography – Childhood, Life Achievements …

Jonathan Jay Pollard is a former U.S. defense analyst who was convicted for spying and parting with classified information to Israel. This biography profiles his childhood, life, career, espionage activities and timeline.

Quick Facts

Birthday: August 7, 1954

Nationality: American

Famous:American Men Stanford University

Also Known As: Jonathan Jay Pollard

Sun Sign: Leo

Age: 63 Years

Born in: Galveston, Texas, U.S.

Famous as: Former U.S. Intelligence Analyst & Israeli Spy

Spouse/Ex-: Anne Henderson Pollard, Elaine Zeitz

father: Morris Pollard

mother: Molly Pollard

More Facts

education: 1976 – Stanford University, Tufts University

Continue Reading Below

Jonathan Jay Pollard is a former U.S. defense analyst who was convicted for spying and parting with classified information to Israel. In 1987 he was given a life sentence for violating the Espionage Act, thus becoming the first such American to get life imprisonment for disbursing top-secret information to an US ally. According to Pollard, he acted in such manner as American intelligence establishment collectively endangered Israels security by withholding crucial information. He insisted that he provided Israel only that information which was crucial for its security. Many confidential state secrets were sold by him. He also revealed the identity of several thousand individuals who helped the U.S. intelligence agencies. He also accepted that he had provided paid service to few other nations in some cases. Though Israeli officials, few American politicians and American-Israeli activist groups lobbied to reduce his life imprisonment, many former and incumbent US high officials voiced against any kind of leniency. After thirty years of imprisonment he was released on November 20, 2015.

Recommended Lists:

Continue Reading Below

Jonathan Pollard

Childhood & Early Life

Career

Continue Reading Below

Continue Reading Below

Personal Life & Legacy

See the events in life of Jonathan Pollard in Chronological Order

Translate Wiki to Spanish, French, Hindi, Portuguese

Pictures of Jonathan Pollard

Image Credit

www.nationalreview.com

Image Credit

http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/kgo/images/cms/1092929_1280x720.jpg

Image Credit

www.bostonglobe.com

Article Title

– Jonathan Pollard Biography

Author

– Editors, TheFamousPeople.com

Website

– TheFamousPeople.com

URL

-https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/jonathan-pollard-6983.php

Last Updated

– October 05, 2017

See the original post:

Jonathan Pollard Biography – Childhood, Life Achievements …

Fair Usage Law

July 15, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Jonathan Pollard  Comments Closed

Israeli Spying: The Mother of all Scandals | WHAT REALLY …

Once again, Israel has been caught with spies at the highest levels of the US Government.

CBS sources say that last year the suspected spy, described as a trusted analyst at the Pentagon, turned over a presidential directive on U.S. policy toward Iran while it was, “in the draft phase when U.S. policy-makers were still debating the policy.” This put the Israelis, according to one source, “inside the decision-making loop” so they could “try to influence the outcome.” [CBS News]

Once again Israel denies wrongdoing, or faced with incontrovertible evidence (in this case one of the spies has reportedly cooperated with the FBI) dismisses the spying with the claim that such spying is harmless, because Israel and the United States are such good friends.

Well, let us take a closer look at that idea of harmless espionage by recalling Israels most famous failed spy, Jonathan Pollard.

Jonathan Pollard is an American of Jewish descent, born in Galveston Texas, who established a career as an intelligence analyst for the US Navy. There have been many theories offered as to why Pollard decided to betray his country of birth to the Jewish state, but that Pollard did betray his country of birth to Israel is beyond all doubt. Pollards defense was that he did not spy so much against the United States, only that he spied for Israel, sending them documents that in his opinion the US should have shared with Israel anyway.

That it was never Pollards job to decide what documents Israel should have was apparently irrelevant. Pollard arrogated that authority to himself. From his position of trust within the US Navy, Pollard delivered over 1000 classified documents to Israel for which he was well paid. Included in those documents were the names of over 150 US agents in the Mideast, who were eventually turned into agents for Israel.

But by far the most egregious damage done by Pollard was to steal classified documents relating to the US Nuclear Deterrent relative to the USSR and send them to Israel. According to sources in the US State Department, Israel then turned around and traded those stolen nuclear secrets to the USSR in exchange for increased emigration quotas from the USSR to Israel. Other information that found its way from the US to Israel to the USSR resulted in the loss of American agents operating inside the USSR. Casper Weinberger, in his affidavit opposing a reduced sentence for Pollard, described the damage done to the United States thus, “[It is] difficult to conceive of a greater harm to national security than that caused by… Pollard’s treasonous behavior.”

This should end the suggestion that Israels spies are harmless. They are not. The United States nuclear deterrent cost an estimated five trillion taxpayer dollars during the 50s and 60s to build and maintain, and less than $100,000 for Pollard to undermine. Israel waited 13 years to admit Pollard had been spying for them, and now lobbies for his release, having granted him Israeli citizenship.

Pollard is hardly the only Israeli spy operating in the United States. He just had the misfortune to get caught. Here are just a few examples of the Israeli spy operations that have been detected.

1947. Information collected by the ADL in its spy operations on US citizens is used by the House Select Committee on Unamerican Activities. Subcommittee Chair Clare Hoffman dismisses the ADLs reports on suspected communists as hearsay.”

1950 John Davitt, former chief of the Justice Department’s internal security section notes that the Israeli intelligence service is the second most active in the United States after the Soviets.

1954 A hidden microphone planted by the Israelis is discovered in the Office of the US Ambassador in Tel Aviv.

1956 Telephone taps are found connected to two telephones in the residence of the US military attach in Tel Aviv.

1954 “The Lavon Affair”. Israeli agents recruit Egyptian citizens of Jewish descent to bomb Western targets in Egypt, and plant evidence to frame Arabs, in an apparent attempt to upset US-Egyptian relations. Israeli defense minister Pinchas Lavon is eventually removed from office, though many think real responsibility lay with David Ben-Gurion.

1965 Israel apparently illegally obtains enriched uranium from NUMEC Corporation. (Washington Post, 6/5/86, Charles R. Babcock, “US an Intelligence Target of the Israelis, Officials Say.”)

1967 Israel attacks the USS Liberty, an intelligence gathering vessel flying a US flag, killing 34 crew members. See “Assault on the Liberty,” by James M. Ennes, Jr. (Random House). In 2004, Captain Ward Boston, Senior Legal Counsel for the Navys Court of Inquiry into the attack swears under oath that President Lyndon Johnson ordered the investigation to conclude accident, even though the evidence indicates the attack was deliberate. Given the use by Israel of unmarked boats and planes, and the machine-gunning of USS Libertys lifeboats, the most likely explanation is that USS Liberty was to be sunk with all hands, with evidence left to frame Egypt for the sinking. This would have dragged the US into the war on Israels side.

1970 While working for Senator Henry Scoop Jackson, Richard Perle is caught by the FBI giving classified information to Israel. Nothing is done.

1978, Stephen Bryen, then a Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffer, is overheard in a DC hotel offering confidential documents to top Israeli military officials. Bryen obtains a lawyer, Nathan Lewin, and the case heads for the grand jury, but is mysteriously dropped. Bryen later goes to work for Richard Perle.

1979 Shin Beth [the Israeli internal security agency] tries to penetrate the US Consulate General in Jerusalem through a Honey Trap, using a clerical employee who was having an affair with a Jerusalem girl.

1985 The New York Times reports the FBI is aware of at least a dozen incidents in which American officials transferred classified information to the Israelis, quoting [former Assistant Director of the F.B.I.] Mr. [Raymond] Wannal. The Justice Department does not prosecute.

1985 Richard Smyth, the owner of MILCO, is indicted on charges of smuggling nuclear timing devices to Israel (Washington Post, 10/31/86).

1987 April 24 Wall Street Journal headline: “Role of Israel in Iran-Contra Scandal Won’t be Explored in Detail by Panels”

1992 The Wall Street Journal reports that Israeli agents apparently tried to steal Recon Optical Inc’s top-secret airborne spy-camera system.

1992 Stephen Bryen, caught offering confidential documents to Israel in 1978, is serving on board of the pro-Israeli Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs while continuing as a paid consultant — with security clearance — on exports of sensitive US technology.

1992 “The Samson Option,” by Seymour M. Hersh reports, Illicitly obtained intelligence was flying so voluminously from LAKAM into Israeli intelligence that a special code name, JUMBO, was added to the security markings already on the documents. There were strict orders, Ari Ben-Menashe recalled: “Anything marked JUMBO was not supposed to be discussed with your American counterparts.”

1993. The ADL is caught operating a massive spying operation on critics of Israel, Arab-Americans, the San Francisco Labor Council, ILWU Local 10, Oakland Educational Association, NAACP, Irish Northern Aid, International Indian Treaty Council, the Asian Law Caucus and the San Francisco police. Data collected was sent to Israel and in some cases to South Africa. Pressure from Jewish organizations forces the city to drop the criminal case, but the ADL settles a civil lawsuit for an undisclosed sum of cash.

1995 The Defense Investigative Service circulates a memo warning US military contractors that “Israel aggressively collects [US] military and industrial technology.” The report stated that Israel obtains information using “ethnic targeting, financial aggrandizement, and identification and exploitation of individual frailties” of US citizens.

1996 A General Accounting Office report “Defense Industrial Security: Weaknesses in US Security Arrangements With Foreign-Owned Defense Contractors” found that according to intelligence sources “Country A” (identified by intelligence sources as Israel, Washington Times, 2/22/96) “conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any US ally.” The Jerusalem Post (8/30/96) quoted the report, “Classified military information and sensitive military technologies are high-priority targets for the intelligence agencies of this country.” The report described “An espionage operation run by the intelligence organization responsible for collecting scientific and technologic information for [Israel] paid a US government employee to obtain US classified military intelligence documents.” The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (Shawn L. Twing, April 1996) noted that this was “a reference to the 1985 arrest of Jonathan Pollard, a civilian US naval intelligence analyst who provided Israel’s LAKAM [Office of Special Tasks] espionage agency an estimated 800,000 pages of classified US intelligence information.”

The GAO report also noted that “Several citizens of [Israel] were caught in the United States stealing sensitive technology used in manufacturing artillery gun tubes.”

1996 An Office of Naval Intelligence document, “Worldwide Challenges to Naval Strike Warfare” reported that “US technology has been acquired [by China] through Israel in the form of the Lavi fighter and possibly SAM [surface-to-air] missile technology.” Jane’s Defense Weekly (2/28/96) noted that “until now, the intelligence community has not openly confirmed the transfer of US technology [via Israel] to China.” The report noted that this “represents a dramatic step forward for Chinese military aviation.” (Flight International, 3/13/96)

1997 An Army mechanical engineer, David A. Tenenbaum, “inadvertently” gives classified military information on missile systems and armored vehicles to Israeli officials (New York Times, 2/20/97).

1997 The Washington Post reports US intelligence has intercepted a conversation in which two Israeli officials had discussed the possibility of getting a confidential letter that then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher had written to Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. One of the Israelis, identified only as Dov, had commented that they may get the letter from “Mega, the code name for Israels top agent inside the United States.

1997 US ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, complains privately to the Israeli government about heavy-handed surveillance by Israeli intelligence agents.

1997 Israeli agents place a tap on Monica Lewinskys phone at the Watergate and record phone sex sessions between her and President Bill Clinton. The Ken Starr report confirms that Clinton warned Lewinsky their conversations were being taped and ended the affair. At the same time, the FBIs hunt for Mega is called off.

2001 It is discovered that US drug agents communications have been penetrated. Suspicion falls on two companies, AMDOCS and Comverse Infosys, both owned by Israelis. AMDOCS generates billing data for most US phone companies and is able to provide detailed logs of who is talking to whom. Comverse Infosys builds the tapping equipment used by law enforcement to eavesdrop on all American telephone calls, but suspicion forms that Comverse, which gets half of its research and development budget from the Israeli government, has built a back door into the system that is being exploited by Israeli intelligence and that the information gleaned on US drug interdiction efforts is finding its way to drug smugglers. The investigation by the FBI leads to the exposure of the largest foreign spy ring ever uncovered inside the United States, operated by Israel. Half of the suspected spies have been arrested when 9-11 happens. On 9-11, 5 Israelis are arrested for dancing and cheering while the World Trade Towers collapse. Supposedly employed by Urban Moving Systems, the Israelis are caught with multiple passports and a lot of cash. Two of them are later revealed to be Mossad. As witness reports track the activity of the Israelis, it emerges that they were seen at Liberty Park at the time of the first impact, suggesting a foreknowledge of what was to come. The Israelis are interrogated, and then eventually sent back to Israel. The owner of the moving company used as a cover by the Mossad agents abandons his business and flees to Israel. The United States Government then classifies all of the evidence related to the Israeli agents and their connections to 9-11. All of this is reported to the public via a four part story on Fox News by Carl Cameron. Pressure from Jewish groups, primarily AIPAC, forces Fox News to remove the story from their website. Two hours prior to the 9-11 attacks, Odigo, an Israeli company with offices just a few blocks from the World Trade Towers, receives an advance warning via the internet. The manager of the New York Office provides the FBI with the IP address of the sender of the message, but the FBI does not follow up.

2001 The FBI is investigating 5 Israeli moving companies as possible fronts for Israeli intelligence.

2001 JDLs Irv Rubin arrested for planning to bomb a US Congressman. He dies before he can be brought to trial.

2002 The DEA issues a report that Israeli spies, posing as art students, have been trying to penetrate US Government offices.

2002 police near the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station in southern Washington State stop a suspicious truck and detain two Israelis, one of whom is illegally in the United States. The two men were driving at high speed in a Ryder rental truck, which they claimed had been used to “deliver furniture.” The next day, police discovered traces of TNT and RDX military-grade plastic explosives inside the passenger cabin and on the steering wheel of the vehicle. The FBI then announces that the tests that showed explosives were false positived by cigarette smoke, a claim test experts say is ridiculous. Based on an alibi provided by a woman, the case is closed and the Israelis are handed over to INS to be sent back to Israel. One week later, the woman who provided the alibi vanishes.

2003 The Police Chief of Cloudcroft stops a truck speeding through a school zone. The drivers turn out to be Israelis with expired passports. Claiming to be movers, the truck contains junk furniture and several boxes. The Israelis are handed over to immigration. The contents of the boxers are not revealed to the public.

2003 Israel deploys assassination squads into other countries, including the United States. The US Government does not protest.

2004 Police near the Nuclear Fuel Services plant in Tennessee stop a truck after a three mile chase, during which the driver throws a bottle containing a strange liquid from the cab. The drivers turn out to be Israelis using fake Ids. The FBI refuses to investigate and the Israelis are released.

2004 Two Israelis try to enter Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, home to eight Trident submarines. The truck tests positive for explosives.

This brings us to the present scandal. Two years into an investigation of AIPACs possible role as a spy front for Israel, Larry Franklin, a mid-level Pentagon Analyst is observed by the FBI giving classified information to two officials of AIPAC suspected of being Israeli spies. AIPAC hires lawyer Nathan Lewin to handle their legal defense, the same lawyer who defended suspected Israeli spy Stephen Bryen in 1978.

Larry Franklin worked in the Pentagon Office of Special Plans, run by Richard Perle, at the time Perle (who was caught giving classified information to Israel back in 1970) was insisting that Iraq was crawling with weapons of mass destruction requiring the United States to invade and conquer Iraq. There were no WMDs, of course, and Perle has dumped the blame for the bad intelligence on George Tenet. But what is known is that the Pentagon Office of Special Plans was coordinating with a similar group in Israel, in Ariel Sharons office.

With two suspected Israeli spies (at least) inside the office from which the lies that launched the war in Iraq originated, it appears that the people of the United States are the victims of a deadly hoax, a hoax that started a war.

The leaking of the investigation of AIPAC to the media on August 28th, 2004 gave advance warning to other spies working with Franklin. The damage to the FBIs investigation was completed when United States Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered the FBI to stop all arrests in the case. Like the Stephen Bryen case and the hunt for Mega, this latest spy scandal seems destined to be buried by officials who have their own secret allegiances to protect, barring a massive public outcry.

The organization at the heart of the latest spy investigation, AIPAC, wields tremendous influence over the US Congress. Through its members and affiliated PACs, AIPAC directs a huge flow of campaign cash in favor of, and occasionally against, Senators and Representatives solely on the basis of their willingness to support Israel. As an example, in 2002, U.S. Rep. Artur Davis, D-Birmingham received so much help from pro-Israeli pacs that 76% of his campaign budget came from OUTSIDE the state of Alabama, mostly from New York.

Let me repeat that. A Congressman AIPAC wanted elected received more money from pro-Israel groups outside his state than from his own constituents inside his state. Who is that Congressman going to be thinking of when he votes in Congress?

So here is the mother of all scandals.

For two years, the FBI has suspected AIPAC of spying for a foreign country, and for those two years (and for decades before) that group suspected of spying for Israel has been reshaping the US Congress for the benefit of a foreign government.

And THAT is the mother of all scandals.

Think about that as billions of your tax dollars flow to Israel while your roads and schools crumble and decay and services are cut.

Think about that as the coffins come home with your loved ones inside.

Think about that when you and a million of your fellow citizens march down the streets of America opposing wars built on lies and deceptions and wonder why the government just doesnt want to listen to you any more.

Excerpt from:

Israeli Spying: The Mother of all Scandals | WHAT REALLY …

Fair Usage Law

June 16, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Jonathan Pollard  Comments Closed

Seasons Of Preparation Are Never Time Wasted- King David …

Anointed to do great works, chosen to walk in the path of greatness, foretold future of reformation. Yet we wait in the mundane of life; we stand in faithfulness, not loosing heart with our eyes on the Lord. The season of preparation before great works are accomplished is not time wasted, nor or is it time lost. However its the forming of godly character and faithfulness that will be needed to walk the paths of greatness. If King David would have taken the throne as a young man, when he was anointed to do so it would have been disastrous. His Character would not have match His anointing to be King. Humility would not have been formed, knowledge would not have been gained. He would have been crushed by the pressure of being King. It was the years spent on the run, having to choose honor that made David such a great King.

King David.

A young man rejected from his family and put on a hillside looking after some sheep, being faithful in his life, singing to the Lord with no one around. One day walking on a hillside a bear comes to take one of his sheep. (1 Samuel 17:36) The young David raises up his club facing fear and death and kills the bear. After the bear has come another tries his luck, the lion comes to pick off a sheep. The young David once again comes with his club and kills the Loin. With trophies to show his greatness, still no one cares about little David sitting on the hill side.

Then one-day the prophet comes to his home. His own Father does not invite him in to be looked upon by the prophet. However the Lord saw him, and the Lord spoke. David came, Samuel saw him; a ruddy, bight eyed, hansom young man. The Lord speaks and David is anointed as King of Israel. Suddenly David goes from sitting on a hillside to playing for the current King Saul. Saul would be deeply troubled and the young David would play his harp and Saul would find rest and freedom.

In this season; he knows he is the new King, but he is still being forced to serve Saul and his father. His brothers have gone off to battle and David being a servant goes to take them food. He hears of a man defiling the armies of God, and while everyone is cowarding from the giant. David is overcome with zeal for the army of God. Men around him including his brother grew angry calling him prideful and weak. Yet David was unmoved and knew the Lord was with him. He allowed not his confidence to be shaken by the words of those around him. He followed the voice of God. When Saul questioned him, David simply pointed to his history of killing the Lion and Bear. The Lord delivered them to me, so shall He deliver this Philistine. Saul agrees and David with a sling and a stone, no armor, no sword, but only a stone and promise.

Little David marches himself out to face the giant; with everyone doubting him he faces the giant, and we all know how the story goes. David slays the giant and becomes a instant celebrity in the land. They sang songs about him, wrote stories. He was the next inline to become a great King of Israel. However King Saul grew to hate him; and with a sharp launching of a spear David would end up on the run. (1 Samuel 18)

He was anointed King; he could have killed saw and moved into the land as King, and it would have been seen right for him to do. But David would choose to spend the next years of his life not planning on how to become King of Israel but instead learning how to live a life of honor. 1 Samuel 24 shows us how David went above and beyond to honor Saul and show him that he indeed loved his King. Again and again Saul would try and take the life of young David; and just the same David would respond in honor. Even in Sauls death David avenged his blood and brought His grandson into his kingdom to sit at his table. But have you ever thought of what would have happened if David would have over thrown Saul and taken the kingdom.

Those years spent in honoring and gaining wisdom, would have been lost. David like Abraham would have jumped ahead of the Lord and gotten a Ismael instead of an Isaac. Do you think David would have gone down in history as Israels greatest King? That the Lord Himself would have come from his blood line? Would he have had cities named after him? Scriptures written by him? All the greatness that he obtained through honor and obeying the Lord and his anointed would have most certainly been lost.

David accomplished greatness by staying steady and staying faithful, even when he wasnt doing what the Lord had anointed him to do; which was be king. He was still right in the Lords will off in the woods running for his life. Those seasons of preparation, those seasons in the market place are never time lost, or anointing wasted. It was servant-hood, humility, honor, and obedience that lead David in the path of greatness. When his loved ones; his friends those around him were saying you cannot, or this is what the Lord says, take the land, David stayed true to what the Lord had for him. He honored the king, he walked by faith, he then was brought in and became the most famous king of Israels history.

I feel that Davids story of the years spent not in his calling is applicable to so many of us. Promises, dreams, and hopes of things we will do in the Lord seemingly on hold while we spend our time working, and doing very mundane things in this life. But if you could see the gold being formed inside of you when you choose to honor your boss, and co-workers. When you choose to bless those who once were under you but now pass you up in life, there is real things being formed in you that you will be a disaster in your calling without. The Lord is after getting you to the end of this race with the most humility, honor, and strength built in you as possible. I bid you today to says yes to the mundane, say yes to honor, say yes to life. If David would have became King without those years on the run it would have been a disaster. Just like us he is spending years on the run or years doing something he hasnt been called to do; little did he know and little do we know how those years set him up for greatness. So to those of you like me who are spending your days in the waiting; not really feeling like you are walking in the fullness of what God has for you, I urge you do not loose hope. Look after the sheep you have, protect you calling from the Lions and bears. Do not become shaken by the words of doubt coming from those that surround you, for God is shaping and forming gold on the inside of us that when that day comes and we step into what the Lord has, we will be golden and found ready.

Many Blessings.

Jonathan Pollard.

Like Loading…

Link:

Seasons Of Preparation Are Never Time Wasted- King David …

Fair Usage Law

March 14, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Jonathan Pollard  Comments Closed

Talk:Jonathan Pollard/Archive 4 – Wikipedia

Comparative Sentences for American Spies

According to your article below, Franklin received only 13 years and a fine. Pollard received life and no fine because the FBI did not consider him a mercenary-for-profit. yet, you refused this fact in Pollard’s article. Don’t you believe this is an essential fact? Here is the source. http://www.jonathanpollard.org/factsadd.htm

You are deleting so many essential facts that it appears you choose to lose credibility rather than gain it.

Larry Franklin From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Lawrence Anthony Franklin

Lawrence Anthony Franklin is a U.S. Air Force Reserve colonel who has pleaded guilty to passing information about U.S. policy towards Iran to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the foremost pro-Israel lobbying organization in the U.S, while he was working for the Defense Department in what he claims was an attempt to get the information passed on to the United States National Security Council, which he could not do through regular Pentagon channels. Two former employees of that organization are also facing charges that they assisted him in the AIPAC espionage scandal and passing classified information to an Israeli diplomat Naor Gilon. On January 20, 2006, Judge T.S. Ellis, III sentenced Franklin to 151 months (almost 13 years) in prison and fined him $10,000. [1] The case was heard in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Ultimately, Franklin was charged with unauthorized disclosure of classified information, not with espionage.[citation needed]

so many other facts i attempted to insert were deleted. here is the source: http://www.jonathanpollard.org/facts.htm

your editors have disappointed me.

Furtive admirer (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Rami, the jonathan pollard website was referenced with a sourced document proving Pollard was not fined,(Franklin was) NOT to compare sentences.

so, i am finished here. i sent you a note on your talk page. if you are interested in Pollard’s history and want to make it your “cause celebre” to create a credible Pollard’s Page with only the evidence the US Government has released through the Freedom of Information Act AND first-hand witnessess, such as Carol Pollard (Carol.Pollard@yale.edu), Dr. Morris Pollard (mpollard@nd.edu),and Alan Dershowitz (dersh@law.harvard.edu), I suggest you contact them and request their contributions. then you won’t have to threaten those benefactors who merely want to get the facts straight. And for the opposing view, you can contact Joseph DiGenova, (“Pollard will never see the light of day!”) via Victoria Toensing, who has a page here. They are married and law partners as well. Judge Robinson is dead and he would not comment even if he wasn’t, and Caspar Weinberger is deceased also. It appears you have a lot of time on your hands, and I assure you this is a very productive project for you, or in the alternative you can just remove the page completely until it is sourced to your satisfaction. You’ll learn quite a bit in the process. As it appears now, like much of the opinion reflected before me on this page, it is simply JUNK!!

l’hedrohot,

Furtive admirer (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What the Hell … Upon first reading this article it came off as a cheap piece of propaganda – actually comparing Jon Pollard to Alfred Dreyfus. Utterly disrespectful to Dreyfus, I might add. Among other things, the article failed to note that Pollard sold classified information.

I’m going to be taking a close look at the contribution record. –Duk

The article contained the sentence Shaw also presents similarities between Pollard’s case and that of the French officer Alfred Dreyfus but it fails to note what those similarities are. The statement is devoid of substance, used only to compare Pollard, universally acknowledged to be guilty of spying, to Dreyfus, universally acknowledged to be innocently convicted. This just one example of outrageous POV pushing that plagues the entire article. I’ve removed the statement. –Duk 15:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The article currently has quotes which characterizes Olive’s claims as “old lies… repackaged.” and “false”. These vague and maligning quotes should be removed and replaced with the actual points of contention. For example, the first reference (for “old lies… repackaged”) doesn’t contain anything substantial, it’s mostly hysterical hand waving and should be removed.

The second reference, which our article claims “assert that Olive’s claims and accusations against Pollard are false” doesn’t actually do that. It complains that some of Olive’s claims, such as Pollard attempting to sell classified information to Pakistan, don’t appear on the public docket. That doesn’t mean these claims are false, nor does the reference actually contend as much. And yet the paragraph is summed up with the following; “[Olive’s book is] an exercise in ‘speculation, rumor, myths and lies.'”, without specifically identifying any such thing.

Part of this section is a bunch of vague and maligning quotes arranged into a POV editorial. They should be replaced with the specific points of contention and properly referenced. –Duk 17:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also speculation from the book on why Pollard wants a pardon instead of parole. I’m not sure that belongs in the article either. –Duk 18:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The current article version has no fewer than nine references pointing to jonathanpollard.org; 6, 15 ,17, 19, 25, 27, 28, 34 and 37. This website is a poor source; its quality is somewhere between self-published work, to advocacy that doesn’t strive to be neutral, to outright propaganda. It’s also linked in the external links section as “Jonathon Pollard’s Website”. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources for why this website is not a suitable source.

This website should not be used as a reference. The individual references need to be replaced with better sources if possible, and removed where appropriate.–Duk 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead references of the current article are not needed and appear to have been add to get some Pro-Pollard juice right at the top of the article. The first reference was written by was someone “Of Counsel” on the amicus curiae brief submitted in support of Jonathan J. Pollard’s 1991 appeal. The second reference misrepresents the intelligence that Pollard stole and sold as primarily ‘materials relating to Arab ballistic missile and nonconventional weapons programs’, and then calls him a ‘national hero’, all in the first three sentences. Way to go people.

I’m going to remove them, but will see if there are appropriate parts of the article to add them back. –Duk 22:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This page says that Pollard’s attorneys were allowed to see the Weinberger memo. The Casper Weinberger page says the opposite. Which is it? Binarybits (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This entry alleges that Pollard is sometimes described as a “hero” in the Israeli media. The reference cited is a BBC News article that describes posters and banners seen in Jerusalem, but gives not evidence of the news media describing Pollard as a hero. As worded, the sentence conveys a highly inaccurate impression of Israeli media. Individuals hoisting banners cannot be described as media. The media sentence should thus be erased or replaced with one that refers to pro-Pollard advocacy groups. Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishkushim (talk contribs) 01:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The article currently includes this passage:

“Within two months of being hired, the technical director of the NFOIO, Richard Haver, requested that Pollard be terminated.[9] This came after a rather reckless and somewhat inappropriate conversation with the new hire in which Pollard offered to start a back-channel operation with the South African intelligence service and lied about his own father’s involvement with the CIA.[9]”

Speaking of inappropriate, it is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia to use words like “reckless” and “inappropriate” except in a quotation or a description of a quotation. As, for example, “So-and-so described the conversation as reckless and inappropriate.”

It is not sufficient that the words be sourced (as with “[9]”). If you find this hard to understand, it is because those words are judgmental words and can never be considered part of statements of fact. Note: I know nothing of the subject matter. And please do not interpret me as passing judgment on the accuracy of the words “reckless” and “inappropriate”; I am saying something else entirely.

Oh, and furthermore, the meaning of labeling an entire conversation “reckless” and “inappropriate” is utterly unclear. Is it what Pollard allegedly said, or what the other guy allegedly said, or both, that was deemed worthy of these adjectives???

Finally, unless the conversation was recorded — so that there is hard evidence — it must be reported in terms of who claimed that certain characteristics described the conversation. This is a second level of un-factualness concerning the statement as it currently reads in the article. Regardless of what a source may say.

Has the writer never read an encyclopedia before? How about a good newspaper? Do they have no idea what a factual description consists of???

I am not the person to fix the article, because I am not knowledgeable about the subject matter. But if someone is, please fix the article to reflect the high standards of Wikipedia.Daqu (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

– Agree with that. Deleting those words. Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.252.21 (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In the section on Pollard’s spying, there is a paragraph about an unrelated case, that of Yosef Amit. This material has nothing to do with Pollard’s espionage, nothing at all. It is both misplaced and irrelevant. Why exactly in a section dealing with Pollard’s actions is there a paragraph with “regard to friendly nations spying on each other”? This is placed for one reason, to attempt to portray these actions as “no big deal”. Even if that were true (though it is hard to imagine treason being “no big deal”), it is not relevant to Pollard’s espionage. nableezy – 18:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Spies: Israel’s Counter-Espionage Wars, Yossi Melman, Eitan Haber–Shrike (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The ‘Public campaigns’ section contains quotes from activists, politicians professors and all kinds of people with no first hand knowledge of the case – they simply have a pro-Pollard agenda to push. These comments have been piling up and up and up.

Meanwhile, the most germane, informed and valuable quote in this section keeps getting trimmed back and suppressed – the response from former Directors of Naval Intelligence. This is blatant POV pushing by people with a pro-Pollard slant.

Compare the magnitude of pro-pollard quotes from people who have nothing to do with the actual case, and the low quality of information contained in those quotes, to the relatively concise response from the former Directors of Naval Intelligence who actually have something valuable to say.

I will be restoring the Directors of Naval Intelligence response and trimming back the pro-pollard propaganda per WP:UNDUE. –32alpha4tango (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

(Boy, I wish you guys would take the same sensible line on Gerry Gabler or David Irving–both snakepits of activist special pleading.) 74.104.38.189 (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Major changes to the articles should be discussed in talk first to gain consensus. So I am reverting all the changes back to stable version.Please propose your changes first at the talk page.–Shrike (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I made a string of changes recently to this article, though I wouldn’t call them ‘Major’. Each change was explained in the edit summary, and I started a new talk section. Shrike then reverted wholesale, with no discussion whatsoever. He didn’t even bother addressing the individual edits and reasons for those edits. The largest change I made was simply restoring an important quote that keeps getting suppressed. After looking through the edit history of this article It’s clear that Shrike is happy with anything that’s ‘Pro-pollard’, but he engages in interference tactics with anything that doesn’t suite his POV. I don’t think Shrike should be editing this page. –32alpha4tango (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wikifan12345! When you restored the Korb quote, you suggested that it was deleted without rationale.[6] I provided a rationale when I blanked it, though perhaps it was unclear to you.[7] The reason being, if Rumsfeld is saying don’t release Pollard,[8] it seems selective and imbalanced to me to include Korb, who is a much less significant political figure. I don’t really think Rumsfeld needs to be in there either, barnie-frankly. What do you think? DBaba (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I’d be grateful if some of you Pollard case experts would have a look at a specific issue that has arisen over how the Pollard case is presented in our article on Israel – United States relations. The language in use there currently makes it sound like Israel had the right to the intelligence that Pollard stole because, as that article currently claims, the U.S. had withheld intelligence that Israel was entitled to. Many thanks, OhioStandard (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Cite 7 [1] is a review of another article, not a primary source, that says Pollard has renounced his US citizenship. I would point out such a renounciation is meaningless unless made in front of and accepted by a US official. Is the cite good enough to keep the sentence in Para One or so? It seems he has said he intends to renounce his citizenship if he were ever to be able to do so. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Some sentences seem a bit strange in the article:

“The Israelis created a schedule designed to wear down the Americans, including many hours per day of commuting in blacked out buses on rough roads, and frequent switching of buses. This left the Americans without adequate time to sleep and prevented them from sleeping on the commute.” Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.142.224.141 (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So, when did he join the NCIS and when he joined the NIS? The Early Career section is clearly confusing with mentions to a double join on the NIS:

A month later Pollard applied for and received a transfer to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) surface ships division while keeping his TF-168 position.

and

In October 1984, after some reorganization of the Navy’s intelligence departments, Pollard applied for and received a position as an analyst for the Naval Investigative Service (NIS, later renamed NCIS). Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.125.115 (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My recent corrections to this article give proper names to the departments of naval intelligence for which Jonathan worked. I have this knowledge because I knew Jonathan Pollard and worked at NOSIC and TF-168 at the time. I also made some minor changes to Jonathan’s employment process from what I remember of the process.Joe Haskins (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Jonathan never worked for Naval Investigative Service (NIS) or its reincarnation, the Navy Criminal Investigative Service. (NCIS), but did work for NIC and NISC. I believe that the contributor got wound around the axle on government alphabet soup. I remember the reorganization of ’84, but do not recollect having to reapply for my job. Perhaps Jonathan did because of the circumstances.Joe Haskins (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, all. In these two edits I’ve reinstated the external link to the docs from Pollard’s D.C. court case. Biosketch(talk contribs), had removed our readers’ access to them, in this edit. I understand that the organization that obtained these docs via FOIA requests and such, and which hosts them on its servers, may or may not be wp:rs itself, but no one seriously doubts the origin or authenticity of these documents. There’s no reason we should keep readers of this article from accessing them easily.

Editors of any opinion on this might like to note that Biosketch performed similar deletions of access to primary source docs related to Israel that are hosted to the web by this same organization. I’ve posted a list of each deletion diffs in collapsed format, below.

Rather than discuss this in seven other threads on the talk pages for each of the other articles, editors might like to wait a day or two while we cast about for a central discussion location for this matter. If that happens, someone will post a subsequent note here so those who might be interested in this issue more broadly will be able to join in that discussion. OhioStandard (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC) ( modified by strikthrough at 18:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC) )

In the summary box under Pollard’s photo, his second wife’s name is shown as Elaine Seitz. This is incorrect. As correctly noted near the end of the article, his second wife’s name is Esther Zeitz. There is a person closely related to me named Elaine Seitz, and I do not want there to be any confusion as to the fact that she has nothing to do with Pollard. 169.252.4.21 (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The article reads: “The technical director of the NFOIO, Richard Haver, requested that Pollard be terminated.” As this is an article about American spooks, I suggest using the word “dismissed” instead – “terminate” has a more permanent and sinister meaning. It is also stated that this request came after a conversation “with the new hire in which Pollard offered to start a back-channel operation with the South African intelligence service and lied about his father’s involvement with the CIA.” Please do not call a new employee a “new hire”. Appalling slang. And why fire an employee for offering to start a “back-channel operation with the South African intelligence service”? What is wrong or inappropriate about that suggestion, and so inappropriate as to justify instant dismissal (or termination)! The lies about his father’s involvement with the CIA didn’t become apparent until later.

I doubt that Haver’s boss reassigned Pollard to a human-gathered intelligence operation “because Pollard had a friend from graduate school in the South African intelligence service”. I presume the alleged friendship was the reason for the proposed back-channel operation (whatever that is), not for Pollard being reassigned to humint rather than dismissed. Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnC (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2011

The lede of the article currently states: “Pollard renounced his United States citizenship and is now solely an Israeli citizen. He would be deported to Israel if he were released from prison”. This information is cited to a film review (hardly a reliable source for matters of nationality law), which itself states “Jonathan Jay Pollard was a US citizen (he has since renounced his birthright and taken Israeli citizenship)”. At best this sounds like the author is under the misconception that taking Israeli citizenship means renouncing U.S. citizenship. At worst this is complete legal nonsense.

Especially in a WP:BLP, Wikipedia needs a very strong source indeed for a statement that has such an obvious contradiction with how the law operates. And an article in a film review journal does not cut it when it comes to a question of law. “Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content” (WP:RS). Immigration and Nationality Act Section 351 is very clear:

The “except as provided’ refers to two conditions in Section 349 neither of which are fulfilled in Pollard’s case:

The U.S. is not in a state of war and Pollard was not convicted of treason or the other crimes listed, so I see no way he could have renounced or deemed to have relinquished U.S. citizenship. At minimum this information needs a much stronger source than a film review — and not one of those circular citations that keeps popping up after this “information” was added to Wikipedia.

I also notice that the last time this was discussed, User:Obotlig made the comment “At any rate, obtaining foreign citizenship automatically is considered renunciation or loss of American citizenship, if you are at least 18.” However, this is not correct; see US State Department Services Dual Nationality. Applying for foreign citizenship only results in loss of U.S. citizenship if you go to a consulate in person and fill out a bunch of forms affirming that your intention was to lose U.S. citizenship (the technical term for this is “relinquishment”). Absent that visit, the State Department cannot develop a loss-of-nationality case except in very specific circumstances none of which apply to Pollard; their own standards for this can be found in the Foreign Affairs Manual (7 FAM 1222 et seq).

In short, for Pollard to lose U.S. citizenship, he must not only first leave the U.S. for Israel voluntarily (not “be deported”, as it is impossible to deport a U.S. citizen), but he must also make an in-person visit to the US embassy in Tel Aviv. quant18 (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed this quote-let that has crept in more than once: despite the fact that Israel was releasing convicted murderers at his behest.Jerusalem Post editorial, [http://www.jpost.com/International/What-about-Pollard-Mr-President-320776 What about Pollard Mr. President].. The ref is opinion full of overwrought language and is not a reliable source. Please do not use this opinion piece as a reference.Anomalocaris (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article states that “Jonathan Pollard is an American criminal …” This seems to me to violate, in spirit at least, Wikipedia’s NPOV requirement. Of course, anyone who is in jail/prison in a particular country is technically a “criminal”. So Martin Luther King was a “criminal”, dissidents in prison in Cuba or North Korea are “criminals”, etc. But the gratuitous use of this adjective here seems designed to convey more than the fact that this man pleaded guilty to espionage. I propose that it should be removed, but I would like to hear arguments for retaining it.

By the way, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to make the private judgement that this man is a “criminal”, in more than the technical sense. Or that he is a disturbed personality, a misguided immature idiot, a treasonous rat, or whatever. But such judgments don’t belong in a Wikipedia article. Doug1943 13:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug1943 (talk contribs)

96.250.240.250 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A user partially reverted my edit, bringing inaccurate and incorrect information back to the lead section. It now says that “according to former F.B.I. deputy general counsel M.E. Bowman Pollard “has never expressed regret or admitted to harming Americas national security, and he has not applied for parole even though he is eligible.”

First, this sentence is misleading because it sounds like it’s saying that Pollard is eligible for parole, which is not true – he’s eligible to apply for it. Having explained this, that statement is apparently not even true. Pollard and his lawyers have applied for parole a few times in the past, as these two sources confirm: 1 and 2. Any comments? Yambaram (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

As of today (April 1, 2014), the lead section of this article is in need of clean-up.

Agreed. In more detail: “Pollard is the only person in US history to receive a life sentence for spying for an ally, and the only American citizen convicted of such a crime.” First, “spying for an ally” is not a crime on the books, so the language “such a crime” is incorrectly applied (and transparently POV). Second, it is not clear what the significance of spying for an ally as opposed to an enemy is. I can see arguments for either being more heinous. If it is supposed to be less heinous, a reference needs to be provided, especially if this is to go in the lead.

“Currently, the punishment for such a crime is set at a maximum of ten years.” This is an incorrect statement of the law. Espionage is of course a capital offense. There is a federal statute with a maximum sentence of 10 years, but that is not what this defendant pled guilty to. This is clear from the NYT provided reference. So this should go. Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.169.68 (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

View post:

Talk:Jonathan Pollard/Archive 4 – Wikipedia

Fair Usage Law

February 4, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Jonathan Pollard  Comments Closed

A new Trump deal: Allow Jonathan Pollard to immigrate to …

Jonathan Pollard. (photo credit: COURTESY OF JUSTICE FOR JONATHAN POLLARD)

Amid mounting speculation about the possible consequences of moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the move of a single American Jew from the US to Israel should arouse no controversy. Now would be an appropriate time for US President Donald Trump to allow Jonathan Pollard to immigrate to Israel.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly asked Trump just last month to release Pollard from the arbitrary and unduly harsh parole conditions that deny his religious freedom. He apparently made the request after agreeing in May to provide economic goodwill gestures to the Palestinian Authority.

The Prime Ministers Office has told Channel 2 News that Netanyahu raises the topic of Pollards immigration to Israel in every meeting with US government officials as a purely humanitarian request.

Pollards parole terms were upheld on appeal after he served 30 years of a life sentence. They include a curfew that confines him to his Manhattan home from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. preventing him from attending his synagogue and require him to submit any computer, including an employers, for inspection. He must also wear a GPS-monitoring device that forces him, as an observant Jew, to violate the Sabbath.

Pollard, 62, must also remain in the US for another five years, despite his having served a longer sentence for spying for an ally than anyone in US history and how inconceivable it is that he could still disclose obsolete secrets from more than 30 years ago.

Pollard, a civilian intelligence analyst with the US Navy, received his life sentence for passing classified information to Israel under accusations of prejudice on the part of then defense secretary Caspar Weinberger. No other American has received such a crushing sentence for spying for an ally.

Commuting Pollards parole would bring Trump a win/win deal. It would be both a praiseworthy human gesture that would boost relations with US Jews and Israel, but it also would give him another victory over the perceived injustices of his predecessor, Barack Obama.

Obamas treatment of Pollard stands out in cruel contrast to the pardon he gave to former US soldier Chelsea Manning, who leaked more than 700,000 documents to WikiLeaks in 2010 while serving as an intelligence analyst in Iraq. Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison, but Obama commuted her sentence in January, just three days before leaving the White House, from 35 years to just over the seven years Manning had already served.

Letting Pollard move to Jerusalem as Israel celebrates 70 years of independence would demonstrate Trumps commitment to Israel while relieving some of the pressure as he evaluates the eventual embassy move.

Releasing Pollard is the kind of deal-making Trump is all about. He would have plenty of backup: former national security adviser Bud McFarlane and former head of Senate Intelligence Dennis DeConcini have submitted affidavits on Pollards behalf stating that he is not a security threat regarding information that is 30 years old.

Also not to be ignored is the US Justice Departments own double standard toward Pollard, as demonstrated in the case of Ronald Pelton, who was convicted of selling Russia a large quantity of National Security Agency defense and intelligence secrets, including US efforts on tapping Soviet communications, for just $35,000. Pelton was sentenced to three life terms, but served the same 30 years in prison as Pollard and was released with none of the additional parole conditions Pollard received.

McFarlane recently wrote that the life sentence given Pollard was a result of Weinbergers unbalanced reasoning regarding Israel and was a great injustice. Then head of Senate Intelligence, senator David Durenberger, wrote at the time that he objected to the life sentence given to Pollard and disagreed with Weinbergers vehemence toward Pollard. Former assistant secretary of defense Lawrence Korb wrote that Pollards life sentence was wrong and blamed it on Weinbergers visceral dislike of Israel.

Pollard himself was recently reported to have made a plea to the leaders of both the US and Israel: As much as Trump needs to be held to his promise to move the embassy, it is just as important that the prime minister keep his promise to bring an agent home.

Share on facebook

Read the original:

A new Trump deal: Allow Jonathan Pollard to immigrate to …

Fair Usage Law

December 29, 2017   Posted in: Jonathan Pollard  Comments Closed

Transparency, due process fell by the wayside in the case of Kaspersky Lab – FederalNewsRadio.com

The governments actions against Kaspersky Lab is a de facto debarment. Lets just call it like it is. The government gave Kaspersky Lab the federal procurement version of the death penalty.

And the lack of due process for the company should be alarming for every federal contractor. In fact, the entire episode should be a big, flashing, warning light for other companies, as the actions taken by the government are highly unusual, severe and unexplainable, according to cyber and legal experts.

Additionally, the lack of transparency on the evidence of a connection between Kaspersky Lab and the Russian government for this de facto debarment from the General Services Administration or anyone in the intelligence community is just as disconcerting.

Federal procurement lawyers and federal cyber experts both say there seems to be no good reason for GSA to have kicked Kaspersky off the schedules program, and now for lawmakers to aggressively question agency use of their software. The latest comes from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who added a provision to the National Defense Authorization bill that would prohibit any agency from using Kaspersky Lab hardware, software or services whether directly or indirectly through a subcontractor or third party.

Your opinion matters. Take Market Connections survey about how you consume media.

If you look in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) part 9.4, theres a whole administrative process which started back in the 1980s after a company argued they were denied due process. The courts held companies needed to have due process and Kaspersky hasnt had its due process, said Bill Shook, a procurement attorney and former congressional investigator. What we dont have is specific knowledge of if there is a backdoor that the Russian government can access and I dont know how much of this is hysteria over President Donald Trumps supposed connections to the Russian government. If I was representing them, Id take this to court and then the government would have to show the judge evidence that the software is not secure or produces a national security threat.

Jake Williams, a former National Security Agency executive who worked on the Tailored Access Operations (TAO) cyber warfare effort and now is an instructor and course author for the SANS Institute, said he is skeptical of Kaspersky Labs connection to the Russian government.

Practically everyone Ive talked to says, We have evidence of that connection, but no one has seen it, Williams said in an interview with Federal News Radio. Im not sure if someone started something and now its routing by rumor. We dont know if the homework has been done, but we havent seen it if it has.

Williams said its quite possible that Kaspersky could have some backdoor or other hidden vulnerability that the Russian government could take advantage of, but its the type of thing that would only happen once and then no one would trust the company ever again.

John Pescatore, director of emerging security trends at SANS and a former Gartner researcher who did work for Kaspersky, said concerns about the companys connection to Russia arent new and there have been plenty of opportunities for researchers and others to discover potential or real problems.

House minibus sets stage for fight over sequestration, civilian-defense parity

The whole thing from GSA and now Congress really came out of the blue, he said. No security folks Ive talked with have found any smoking guns or evidence. If this is a trade war where countries are not using each others cyber software, the U.S. has the most to lose because we have so many software companies. This seems like a symbolic gesture or unofficial sanction.

And thats also whats getting federal procurement attorneys concerned.

Eric Crusius, a senior counsel with Holland & Knight in Washington, D.C., said taking aggressive actions against a contractor without due process is highly unusual, if not unprecedented.

There may be facts to justify these actions that we dont know about, but any actions taken should be taken with due process afforded to everyone else, he said. The legislative action is an existential threat. Congress shouldnt bend rule of law even around a company whos suspected of cyber espionage without going through normal protocol.

Shook added its also highly unusual for a lawmaker to get involved in a specific procurement issue.

He said former Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) applied strict oversight of the Air Forces award of its refueling tanker in the mid-2000s, which eventually went to Boeing and was in Dicks district.

Experts had a hard time recalling another time when a member of Congress tried to legislatively ban a vendor from working with the government.

Pescatore said an Israeli cyber company called Check Point was caught up in the espionage case of Jonathan Pollard in 1985 and was temporarily banned from the NSA.

He also pointed to the Chinese networking and telecommunications company Huawei, as well as when IBM sold its PC branch to Lenovo as times when lawmakers raised concerns about possible cyber threats for the federal government. But there was no attempt to legislatively ban the vendor.

There is an issue of supply chain to make sure all software is safe without any backdoors. There are ways to do that. The U.K. required Huawei to give them their source code to look for vulnerabilities and bugs or back doors, Pescatore said. Its not widely done in the federal government. NSA has been pushing this issue around vulnerabilities.

As for Kaspersky Lab, a spokeswoman didnt tip their hand as to whether they would take legal action against GSA or the government.

Kaspersky Lab has no ties to any government, and the company has never helped, nor will help, any government in the world with its cyberespionage efforts. The company has a 20-year history in the IT security industry of always abiding by the highest ethical business practices and trustworthy development of technologies, and Kaspersky Lab believes it is completely unacceptable that the company is being unjustly accused without any hard evidence to back up these false allegations, the spokeswoman said by email. Kaspersky Lab, a private company, seems to be caught in the middle of a geopolitical fight where each side is attempting to use the company as a pawn in their political game. Eugene Kaspersky, CEO and founder of Kaspersky Lab, has repeatedly offered to meet with government officials, testify before the U.S. Congress and provide the companys source code for an official audit to help address any questions the U.S. government has about the company. Kaspersky Lab continues to be available to assist all concerned government organizations with any investigations, and the company ardently believes a deeper examination of Kaspersky Lab will confirm that these allegations are unfounded.

The fact is the governments decision may be well constituted in facts, but without sharing it or at least offering some further explanation, the random and seemingly unfair action against Kaspersky Lab should send a shiver down other vendors.

Read the original here:

Transparency, due process fell by the wayside in the case of Kaspersky Lab – FederalNewsRadio.com

Fair Usage Law

August 7, 2017   Posted in: Jonathan Pollard  Comments Closed

How To Build An Innovative Legal Business: Conversation With Jonathan Pollard – Above the Law

Last week, I wrote about the difference between technology and innovation in the legal industry. Although I suggest you read the whole thing, the short version is that being innovative doesnt require new, sexy (and expensive) technology. And, as I discussed last week with Rimon P.C. founder Michael Moradzadeh, innovation, when done right, can often mean realizing that widely available technology (in the case of Rimon, email and video chat) has allowed a new business model to take root.

Today, I am going to kick off a conversation with another innovative lawyer: Florida-based litigator and trial lawyer Jonathan Pollard, who started his career at litigation powerhouse Boies Schiller before opening a boutique in Fort Lauderdale specializing in fair competition law and trade secrets. Pollard has grown the firm in every metric imaginable over the last five years. But it was Pollards LinkedIn posts that caught my eye, not because they typically get hundreds of likes or comments (which they do), but because many of them focus on entrepreneurship he recently gave a $1,000 prize for the best business plan to start a cleaning company and hustle. They are often brash and not traditionally lawyerly, but Pollard is not shy. Pollards online presence is just the tip of the iceberg he has very pointed opinions on what todays lawyer needs to do in order to succeed. How can you grow a midsize or boutique practice and how can you get creative with business development? Follow along as our conversation unfolds and thanks to Planet Data, the best eDiscovery company in the legal universe, for sponsoring this conversation and putting a spotlight on innovative attorneys.

Zach Abramowitz is a former Biglaw associate and currently CEO and co-founder ofReplyAll. You can follow Zach on Twitter (@zachabramowitz) or reach him by email at zach@replyall.me.

See the rest here:

How To Build An Innovative Legal Business: Conversation With Jonathan Pollard – Above the Law

Fair Usage Law

August 1, 2017   Posted in: Jonathan Pollard  Comments Closed

Reason to fear for Iran captive Robert Levinson free him now – Jweekly.com

Robert Levinson isnt in the news very often. And thats just wrong, for he is the longest-held American captive in history, disappearing in Iran more than 10 years ago.

As world tensions mount on multiple fronts, including between the United States and Iran, we urge the American government and all other influential world bodies to redouble their efforts to free Levinson, who presumably was taken by Iranian forces, although he may no longer be in their custody.

The former FBI agent and CIA consultant had been in the midst of a rogue CIA operation on Irans Kish Island in 2007 when his colleagues lost contact with him. Other than a report of so-called proof of life delivered to his family in 2010 and subsequent photos ostensibly dating from 2011, there has been no word from the Iranian regime about Levinsons fate.

There is every reason to worry about Levinsons health and safety. The 69-year-old former Florida resident suffers from diabetes and hypertension, is a known intelligence agent and a Jew. It is hard to believe he would not face harsh treatment at the hands of his captors.

As part of the comprehensive Iran nuclear deal, in January 2016 President Obama managed to secure the release of five Americans held prisoner in Iran. Levinson was not among them. Administration officials stated at the time that they no longer believed he was being held in Iran, but they secured a pledge from the Iranians to help locate him. Nothing came of that effort, and given the intensifying hostility between Iran and this country today including a measure to apply sanctions against Iran, along with Russia and North Korea, that is moving through Congress this week it is doubtful we can expect any cooperation going forward.

When aid worker Alan Gross was arrested and jailed in Cuba in 2009, American Jews lobbied hard to free him. He was released in 2014. When Jonathan Pollard was convicted for spying for Israel, and held for decades in an American maximum-security prison, the Jewish community never stopped working for his release, which finally came in 2015.

Yet we hear so little about Levinson.

With so many flash points around the world, with the Trump administration in chaos, with climate change worsening day by day, it is admittedly hard to focus on the life of one American Jew, who surely knew the risks of his mission.

And yet we remember the eternal words of our talmudic sages: whoever saves one life, saves the world entire. And so we remember the plight of Robert Levinson, and call upon our government to demand his immediate release.

See original here:

Reason to fear for Iran captive Robert Levinson free him now – Jweekly.com

Fair Usage Law

August 1, 2017   Posted in: Jonathan Pollard  Comments Closed

‘What’s To Stop Them From Having Intermarriage At The Kotel?’: An interview with Rabbi Pesach Lerner – The Jewish Press – JewishPress.com

Photo Credit: Rabbi Pesach Lerner

In 2013 after years of protests from groups like Women of the Wall Israel constructed an egalitarian prayer section at the Western Wall to the right of Mughrabi Bridge in an area known as Robinsons Arch. Liberal activists, however, were not satisfied. Among other things, the area called Ezrat Yisrael had a separate entrance and was lower than the Western Wall plaza.

The government took heed. In January 2016, it promised to expand Ezrat Yisrael, place it under the administration of a council that would include representatives of the Reform and Conservative movements, and create a joint entrance for it and the kotel plaza, thereby increasing its visibility and status. For many Orthodox Jews, this was going too far. They objected vociferously and, last month, the government gave in, scrapping most of the proposed changes.

Ezrat Yisrael still stands, as do plans to expand it. Nevertheless, liberal activists as well as leaders of Reform and Conservative Jewry have decried Israels capitulation to Orthodox interests, with some even warning that the country risks losing non-Orthodox support abroad if the status quo remains.

The Jewish Press spoke with Rabbi Pesach Lerner executive vice president emeritus of the National Council of Young Israel and a founding member of the Coalition for Jewish Values who is fighting to ensure that the Kotels traditional character remains sacrosanct.

The Jewish Press: What are you currently doing on the Kotel controversy front?

Rabbi Lerner: Theres a group of us active on a daily basis writing op-eds and letters to the editor, raising money, putting pressure on organizations to get involved, and meeting with public officials. We are informing them of the real numbers. Reform says it represents 90 percent of American Jewry, but 60 percent of American Jews are not involved with anything theyre not members at all.

The Reform movement says pluralistic prayer is a Jewish value, but how can they claim to represent Jewish values when they dont represent Judaism? Seventy percent of Reform Jews are intermarried. The Conservative movement today is debating whether its clergy should do intermarriages. In Reform, you can be the president of a synagogue and be a non-Jew. In Reform, theres no Shabbos, no yom tov, no kashrus, no taharas hamishpacha.

Why is it only you and a few others who have taken on this fight and not mainstream Orthodox organizations?

You have to ask them. Some of them may not want to get involved in Israeli internal politics, to which I say, its not Israeli. Its only coming from America and only because of America. The Reform in Israel represent less than one percent of the population. In liberal Tel Aviv, there are 550 synagogues, and only one of them is Reform, according to the former chief rabbi, Rabbi Israel Meir Lau. The typical Israeli, especially of Sephardic descent, is not interested. Reform is pushing it from the American side, and thats why American Jewish Orthodox organizations and activists should be getting involved.

This is a fight for the future of Judaism in Israel. Its not just the Kotel. Today its the Kotel, tomorrow its kashrus, then Shabbos, then conversion, then gay rights, then everything else. The Reform movement has said very clearly: This is the just the beginning. They have no interest in the Kotel. The Kotel is only a vehicle to get everything else that they want, because they are dying in America. Reform has nothing to offer. It has no future. Theyve lost the battle in America, so theyre trying to find another place for their sinking ship.

Some people fear that if Israel doesnt give in on this issue, Reform and Conservative Jews will stop giving money to Israel. Now, money should obviously not determine how one acts on matters of principle, but is this threat serious? Will Israel possibly lose millions if it doesnt capitulate?

Lets take a look. How much money is really sent to Israel? The answer is $2 billion less than one percent of the gross national product of Israel. Now, its fair to say that half of that, if not more, comes from Orthodox Jews and Christians. So that cuts it in half. And I suggest to you that people are going to give money to Israeli hospitals and universities regardless. So I think its a lot of malarkey. Their bark is worse than their bite.

Besides, lets look at some other numbers. The majority of Reform Jews have never been to Israel. Thats a fact. The majority of Reform Jews dont buy Israeli products. There was a study done recently of top Jewish millionaires in America: 90 percent of them dont give any money to Israel. They give it to the arts and hospitals in America. So when you get down to facts, I suggest its an idle threat.

Based on media accounts of this controversy, you would think that men and women cant pray together anywhere at the Western Wall. The fact of the matter is, however, that they can in the Ezrat Yisrael section even if many Orthodox Jews may not like it. Why, then, are we hearing such an outcry from liberal Jews?

Thats an excellent question. Ezrat Yisrael is a very large area with tables, umbrellas, and chairs. Its actually more user-friendly than the traditional Kotel. And yet, the area has never been full. On Shiva Assar bTammuz people sat there with videotapes, and it was completely empty.

However, what they dont like is that its not front and center. They want their section to be raised to ground level and they want the security area to be moved forward so that when you pass through, to the right is the Reform section and to the left is the [traditional plaza]. They also want it to be under their control and ten times the size.

Lets go a couple of years down the road. If that area is under their control, it means that on Shabbos theyre going to bring their guitars and photographers. Im going to walk by on Shabbos and see their chillul Shabbos publicly. And whats to stop them from having intermarriage at the Kotel? Whats to stop them from having treif at the Kotel?

Theyre not looking for more space for their thousands of people who are coming. The area is empty. They need more space so they can get equality. And they said it clearly: It starts with the Kotel and continues everywhere else. They want an input into kashrus, into conversion, into marriages, into burials. They want an input into every Jewish function. They want Reform to be accepted in Israel.

Some liberal Jews point to pictures of the Kotel taken in the late 1800s and early 1900s showing men and women praying without a mechitza. They argue that the demand for a mechitza is a modern-day chumra. How do you respond?

The British and the Arabs didnt let Jews put up a mechitza. It had nothing to do with Jewish tradition. One Yom Kippur the Jews put up a mechitza and in middle of Yom Kippur davening the British took it away. So all those pictures are situations where they had no choice. When the British controlled the Kotel, you couldnt even blow a shofar. It was illegal. So anybody who comes with those pictures doesnt know their history or has an agenda.

You are obviously deeply involved in this controversy, but you are also very close to Jonathan Pollard, having spent years trying to get him released from prison. How is he doing today?

I try to visit Jonathan once a week and I speak to him at least once a day. Two years ago, we didnt think hed come out alive and today hes living with his wife in Manhattan. So, relatively speaking, hes doing excellent.

On the other hand, hes still restricted. He has a curfew from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., he has to wear a GPS 24/7, he cant leave Manhattan, and any computer he uses personally or professionally has to have software installed in it by the government so they can see what hes doing. What company wants to hire you if the government is watching what everybody is doing?

And theres no sense to these restrictions. How does 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. make a difference? In theory, he can meet me for lunch at a restaurant and hand me anything he wants. He can mail a letter. So whats this curfew about? And why do they have to know where he is? Let him report every week. What are they afraid of? He has no passport. Hes recognizable. He cant go anywhere.

You said you speak to Pollard once a day. What are those conversations like?

Hes very bright, very sensitive, reads a lot, walks a lot, has an opinion on a lot of things, and his opinions are usually on target. Hes not bitter or angry. He wants to move to Israel. He wants to go on with his life. He has a lot of things he wants to do. If you met him, you would never know he spent 30 years in the harshest prisons.

Hakadosh Baruch Hu doesnt give somebody a test he cant meet. Jonathan Pollard was given ultimate tests, and Hakadosh Baruch Hu guided him all the way through. Hes a living miracle to what man can do.

The rest is here:

‘What’s To Stop Them From Having Intermarriage At The Kotel?’: An interview with Rabbi Pesach Lerner – The Jewish Press – JewishPress.com

Fair Usage Law

August 1, 2017   Posted in: Jonathan Pollard  Comments Closed

Jonathan Pollard Biography – Childhood, Life Achievements …

Jonathan Jay Pollard is a former U.S. defense analyst who was convicted for spying and parting with classified information to Israel. This biography profiles his childhood, life, career, espionage activities and timeline. Quick Facts Birthday: August 7, 1954 Nationality: American Famous:American Men Stanford University Also Known As: Jonathan Jay Pollard Sun Sign: Leo Age: 63 Years Born in: Galveston, Texas, U.S. Famous as: Former U.S. Intelligence Analyst & Israeli Spy Spouse/Ex-: Anne Henderson Pollard, Elaine Zeitz father: Morris Pollard mother: Molly Pollard More Facts education: 1976 – Stanford University, Tufts University Continue Reading Below Jonathan Jay Pollard is a former U.S. defense analyst who was convicted for spying and parting with classified information to Israel. In 1987 he was given a life sentence for violating the Espionage Act, thus becoming the first such American to get life imprisonment for disbursing top-secret information to an US ally. According to Pollard, he acted in such manner as American intelligence establishment collectively endangered Israels security by withholding crucial information. He insisted that he provided Israel only that information which was crucial for its security. Many confidential state secrets were sold by him. He also revealed the identity of several thousand individuals who helped the U.S. intelligence agencies. He also accepted that he had provided paid service to few other nations in some cases. Though Israeli officials, few American politicians and American-Israeli activist groups lobbied to reduce his life imprisonment, many former and incumbent US high officials voiced against any kind of leniency. After thirty years of imprisonment he was released on November 20, 2015. Recommended Lists: Continue Reading Below Jonathan Pollard Childhood & Early Life Career Continue Reading Below Continue Reading Below Personal Life & Legacy See the events in life of Jonathan Pollard in Chronological Order Translate Wiki to Spanish, French, Hindi, Portuguese Pictures of Jonathan Pollard Image Credit www.nationalreview.com Image Credit http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/kgo/images/cms/1092929_1280x720.jpg Image Credit www.bostonglobe.com Article Title – Jonathan Pollard Biography Author – Editors, TheFamousPeople.com Website – TheFamousPeople.com URL -https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/jonathan-pollard-6983.php Last Updated – October 05, 2017

Fair Usage Law

July 15, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Jonathan Pollard  Comments Closed

Israeli Spying: The Mother of all Scandals | WHAT REALLY …

Once again, Israel has been caught with spies at the highest levels of the US Government. CBS sources say that last year the suspected spy, described as a trusted analyst at the Pentagon, turned over a presidential directive on U.S. policy toward Iran while it was, “in the draft phase when U.S. policy-makers were still debating the policy.” This put the Israelis, according to one source, “inside the decision-making loop” so they could “try to influence the outcome.” [CBS News] Once again Israel denies wrongdoing, or faced with incontrovertible evidence (in this case one of the spies has reportedly cooperated with the FBI) dismisses the spying with the claim that such spying is harmless, because Israel and the United States are such good friends. Well, let us take a closer look at that idea of harmless espionage by recalling Israels most famous failed spy, Jonathan Pollard. Jonathan Pollard is an American of Jewish descent, born in Galveston Texas, who established a career as an intelligence analyst for the US Navy. There have been many theories offered as to why Pollard decided to betray his country of birth to the Jewish state, but that Pollard did betray his country of birth to Israel is beyond all doubt. Pollards defense was that he did not spy so much against the United States, only that he spied for Israel, sending them documents that in his opinion the US should have shared with Israel anyway. That it was never Pollards job to decide what documents Israel should have was apparently irrelevant. Pollard arrogated that authority to himself. From his position of trust within the US Navy, Pollard delivered over 1000 classified documents to Israel for which he was well paid. Included in those documents were the names of over 150 US agents in the Mideast, who were eventually turned into agents for Israel. But by far the most egregious damage done by Pollard was to steal classified documents relating to the US Nuclear Deterrent relative to the USSR and send them to Israel. According to sources in the US State Department, Israel then turned around and traded those stolen nuclear secrets to the USSR in exchange for increased emigration quotas from the USSR to Israel. Other information that found its way from the US to Israel to the USSR resulted in the loss of American agents operating inside the USSR. Casper Weinberger, in his affidavit opposing a reduced sentence for Pollard, described the damage done to the United States thus, “[It is] difficult to conceive of a greater harm to national security than that caused by… Pollard’s treasonous behavior.” This should end the suggestion that Israels spies are harmless. They are not. The United States nuclear deterrent cost an estimated five trillion taxpayer dollars during the 50s and 60s to build and maintain, and less than $100,000 for Pollard to undermine. Israel waited 13 years to admit Pollard had been spying for them, and now lobbies for his release, having granted him Israeli citizenship. Pollard is hardly the only Israeli spy operating in the United States. He just had the misfortune to get caught. Here are just a few examples of the Israeli spy operations that have been detected. 1947. Information collected by the ADL in its spy operations on US citizens is used by the House Select Committee on Unamerican Activities. Subcommittee Chair Clare Hoffman dismisses the ADLs reports on suspected communists as hearsay.” 1950 John Davitt, former chief of the Justice Department’s internal security section notes that the Israeli intelligence service is the second most active in the United States after the Soviets. 1954 A hidden microphone planted by the Israelis is discovered in the Office of the US Ambassador in Tel Aviv. 1956 Telephone taps are found connected to two telephones in the residence of the US military attach in Tel Aviv. 1954 “The Lavon Affair”. Israeli agents recruit Egyptian citizens of Jewish descent to bomb Western targets in Egypt, and plant evidence to frame Arabs, in an apparent attempt to upset US-Egyptian relations. Israeli defense minister Pinchas Lavon is eventually removed from office, though many think real responsibility lay with David Ben-Gurion. 1965 Israel apparently illegally obtains enriched uranium from NUMEC Corporation. (Washington Post, 6/5/86, Charles R. Babcock, “US an Intelligence Target of the Israelis, Officials Say.”) 1967 Israel attacks the USS Liberty, an intelligence gathering vessel flying a US flag, killing 34 crew members. See “Assault on the Liberty,” by James M. Ennes, Jr. (Random House). In 2004, Captain Ward Boston, Senior Legal Counsel for the Navys Court of Inquiry into the attack swears under oath that President Lyndon Johnson ordered the investigation to conclude accident, even though the evidence indicates the attack was deliberate. Given the use by Israel of unmarked boats and planes, and the machine-gunning of USS Libertys lifeboats, the most likely explanation is that USS Liberty was to be sunk with all hands, with evidence left to frame Egypt for the sinking. This would have dragged the US into the war on Israels side. 1970 While working for Senator Henry Scoop Jackson, Richard Perle is caught by the FBI giving classified information to Israel. Nothing is done. 1978, Stephen Bryen, then a Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffer, is overheard in a DC hotel offering confidential documents to top Israeli military officials. Bryen obtains a lawyer, Nathan Lewin, and the case heads for the grand jury, but is mysteriously dropped. Bryen later goes to work for Richard Perle. 1979 Shin Beth [the Israeli internal security agency] tries to penetrate the US Consulate General in Jerusalem through a Honey Trap, using a clerical employee who was having an affair with a Jerusalem girl. 1985 The New York Times reports the FBI is aware of at least a dozen incidents in which American officials transferred classified information to the Israelis, quoting [former Assistant Director of the F.B.I.] Mr. [Raymond] Wannal. The Justice Department does not prosecute. 1985 Richard Smyth, the owner of MILCO, is indicted on charges of smuggling nuclear timing devices to Israel (Washington Post, 10/31/86). 1987 April 24 Wall Street Journal headline: “Role of Israel in Iran-Contra Scandal Won’t be Explored in Detail by Panels” 1992 The Wall Street Journal reports that Israeli agents apparently tried to steal Recon Optical Inc’s top-secret airborne spy-camera system. 1992 Stephen Bryen, caught offering confidential documents to Israel in 1978, is serving on board of the pro-Israeli Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs while continuing as a paid consultant — with security clearance — on exports of sensitive US technology. 1992 “The Samson Option,” by Seymour M. Hersh reports, Illicitly obtained intelligence was flying so voluminously from LAKAM into Israeli intelligence that a special code name, JUMBO, was added to the security markings already on the documents. There were strict orders, Ari Ben-Menashe recalled: “Anything marked JUMBO was not supposed to be discussed with your American counterparts.” 1993. The ADL is caught operating a massive spying operation on critics of Israel, Arab-Americans, the San Francisco Labor Council, ILWU Local 10, Oakland Educational Association, NAACP, Irish Northern Aid, International Indian Treaty Council, the Asian Law Caucus and the San Francisco police. Data collected was sent to Israel and in some cases to South Africa. Pressure from Jewish organizations forces the city to drop the criminal case, but the ADL settles a civil lawsuit for an undisclosed sum of cash. 1995 The Defense Investigative Service circulates a memo warning US military contractors that “Israel aggressively collects [US] military and industrial technology.” The report stated that Israel obtains information using “ethnic targeting, financial aggrandizement, and identification and exploitation of individual frailties” of US citizens. 1996 A General Accounting Office report “Defense Industrial Security: Weaknesses in US Security Arrangements With Foreign-Owned Defense Contractors” found that according to intelligence sources “Country A” (identified by intelligence sources as Israel, Washington Times, 2/22/96) “conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any US ally.” The Jerusalem Post (8/30/96) quoted the report, “Classified military information and sensitive military technologies are high-priority targets for the intelligence agencies of this country.” The report described “An espionage operation run by the intelligence organization responsible for collecting scientific and technologic information for [Israel] paid a US government employee to obtain US classified military intelligence documents.” The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (Shawn L. Twing, April 1996) noted that this was “a reference to the 1985 arrest of Jonathan Pollard, a civilian US naval intelligence analyst who provided Israel’s LAKAM [Office of Special Tasks] espionage agency an estimated 800,000 pages of classified US intelligence information.” The GAO report also noted that “Several citizens of [Israel] were caught in the United States stealing sensitive technology used in manufacturing artillery gun tubes.” 1996 An Office of Naval Intelligence document, “Worldwide Challenges to Naval Strike Warfare” reported that “US technology has been acquired [by China] through Israel in the form of the Lavi fighter and possibly SAM [surface-to-air] missile technology.” Jane’s Defense Weekly (2/28/96) noted that “until now, the intelligence community has not openly confirmed the transfer of US technology [via Israel] to China.” The report noted that this “represents a dramatic step forward for Chinese military aviation.” (Flight International, 3/13/96) 1997 An Army mechanical engineer, David A. Tenenbaum, “inadvertently” gives classified military information on missile systems and armored vehicles to Israeli officials (New York Times, 2/20/97). 1997 The Washington Post reports US intelligence has intercepted a conversation in which two Israeli officials had discussed the possibility of getting a confidential letter that then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher had written to Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. One of the Israelis, identified only as Dov, had commented that they may get the letter from “Mega, the code name for Israels top agent inside the United States. 1997 US ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, complains privately to the Israeli government about heavy-handed surveillance by Israeli intelligence agents. 1997 Israeli agents place a tap on Monica Lewinskys phone at the Watergate and record phone sex sessions between her and President Bill Clinton. The Ken Starr report confirms that Clinton warned Lewinsky their conversations were being taped and ended the affair. At the same time, the FBIs hunt for Mega is called off. 2001 It is discovered that US drug agents communications have been penetrated. Suspicion falls on two companies, AMDOCS and Comverse Infosys, both owned by Israelis. AMDOCS generates billing data for most US phone companies and is able to provide detailed logs of who is talking to whom. Comverse Infosys builds the tapping equipment used by law enforcement to eavesdrop on all American telephone calls, but suspicion forms that Comverse, which gets half of its research and development budget from the Israeli government, has built a back door into the system that is being exploited by Israeli intelligence and that the information gleaned on US drug interdiction efforts is finding its way to drug smugglers. The investigation by the FBI leads to the exposure of the largest foreign spy ring ever uncovered inside the United States, operated by Israel. Half of the suspected spies have been arrested when 9-11 happens. On 9-11, 5 Israelis are arrested for dancing and cheering while the World Trade Towers collapse. Supposedly employed by Urban Moving Systems, the Israelis are caught with multiple passports and a lot of cash. Two of them are later revealed to be Mossad. As witness reports track the activity of the Israelis, it emerges that they were seen at Liberty Park at the time of the first impact, suggesting a foreknowledge of what was to come. The Israelis are interrogated, and then eventually sent back to Israel. The owner of the moving company used as a cover by the Mossad agents abandons his business and flees to Israel. The United States Government then classifies all of the evidence related to the Israeli agents and their connections to 9-11. All of this is reported to the public via a four part story on Fox News by Carl Cameron. Pressure from Jewish groups, primarily AIPAC, forces Fox News to remove the story from their website. Two hours prior to the 9-11 attacks, Odigo, an Israeli company with offices just a few blocks from the World Trade Towers, receives an advance warning via the internet. The manager of the New York Office provides the FBI with the IP address of the sender of the message, but the FBI does not follow up. 2001 The FBI is investigating 5 Israeli moving companies as possible fronts for Israeli intelligence. 2001 JDLs Irv Rubin arrested for planning to bomb a US Congressman. He dies before he can be brought to trial. 2002 The DEA issues a report that Israeli spies, posing as art students, have been trying to penetrate US Government offices. 2002 police near the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station in southern Washington State stop a suspicious truck and detain two Israelis, one of whom is illegally in the United States. The two men were driving at high speed in a Ryder rental truck, which they claimed had been used to “deliver furniture.” The next day, police discovered traces of TNT and RDX military-grade plastic explosives inside the passenger cabin and on the steering wheel of the vehicle. The FBI then announces that the tests that showed explosives were false positived by cigarette smoke, a claim test experts say is ridiculous. Based on an alibi provided by a woman, the case is closed and the Israelis are handed over to INS to be sent back to Israel. One week later, the woman who provided the alibi vanishes. 2003 The Police Chief of Cloudcroft stops a truck speeding through a school zone. The drivers turn out to be Israelis with expired passports. Claiming to be movers, the truck contains junk furniture and several boxes. The Israelis are handed over to immigration. The contents of the boxers are not revealed to the public. 2003 Israel deploys assassination squads into other countries, including the United States. The US Government does not protest. 2004 Police near the Nuclear Fuel Services plant in Tennessee stop a truck after a three mile chase, during which the driver throws a bottle containing a strange liquid from the cab. The drivers turn out to be Israelis using fake Ids. The FBI refuses to investigate and the Israelis are released. 2004 Two Israelis try to enter Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, home to eight Trident submarines. The truck tests positive for explosives. This brings us to the present scandal. Two years into an investigation of AIPACs possible role as a spy front for Israel, Larry Franklin, a mid-level Pentagon Analyst is observed by the FBI giving classified information to two officials of AIPAC suspected of being Israeli spies. AIPAC hires lawyer Nathan Lewin to handle their legal defense, the same lawyer who defended suspected Israeli spy Stephen Bryen in 1978. Larry Franklin worked in the Pentagon Office of Special Plans, run by Richard Perle, at the time Perle (who was caught giving classified information to Israel back in 1970) was insisting that Iraq was crawling with weapons of mass destruction requiring the United States to invade and conquer Iraq. There were no WMDs, of course, and Perle has dumped the blame for the bad intelligence on George Tenet. But what is known is that the Pentagon Office of Special Plans was coordinating with a similar group in Israel, in Ariel Sharons office. With two suspected Israeli spies (at least) inside the office from which the lies that launched the war in Iraq originated, it appears that the people of the United States are the victims of a deadly hoax, a hoax that started a war. The leaking of the investigation of AIPAC to the media on August 28th, 2004 gave advance warning to other spies working with Franklin. The damage to the FBIs investigation was completed when United States Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered the FBI to stop all arrests in the case. Like the Stephen Bryen case and the hunt for Mega, this latest spy scandal seems destined to be buried by officials who have their own secret allegiances to protect, barring a massive public outcry. The organization at the heart of the latest spy investigation, AIPAC, wields tremendous influence over the US Congress. Through its members and affiliated PACs, AIPAC directs a huge flow of campaign cash in favor of, and occasionally against, Senators and Representatives solely on the basis of their willingness to support Israel. As an example, in 2002, U.S. Rep. Artur Davis, D-Birmingham received so much help from pro-Israeli pacs that 76% of his campaign budget came from OUTSIDE the state of Alabama, mostly from New York. Let me repeat that. A Congressman AIPAC wanted elected received more money from pro-Israel groups outside his state than from his own constituents inside his state. Who is that Congressman going to be thinking of when he votes in Congress? So here is the mother of all scandals. For two years, the FBI has suspected AIPAC of spying for a foreign country, and for those two years (and for decades before) that group suspected of spying for Israel has been reshaping the US Congress for the benefit of a foreign government. And THAT is the mother of all scandals. Think about that as billions of your tax dollars flow to Israel while your roads and schools crumble and decay and services are cut. Think about that as the coffins come home with your loved ones inside. Think about that when you and a million of your fellow citizens march down the streets of America opposing wars built on lies and deceptions and wonder why the government just doesnt want to listen to you any more.

Fair Usage Law

June 16, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Jonathan Pollard  Comments Closed

Seasons Of Preparation Are Never Time Wasted- King David …

Anointed to do great works, chosen to walk in the path of greatness, foretold future of reformation. Yet we wait in the mundane of life; we stand in faithfulness, not loosing heart with our eyes on the Lord. The season of preparation before great works are accomplished is not time wasted, nor or is it time lost. However its the forming of godly character and faithfulness that will be needed to walk the paths of greatness. If King David would have taken the throne as a young man, when he was anointed to do so it would have been disastrous. His Character would not have match His anointing to be King. Humility would not have been formed, knowledge would not have been gained. He would have been crushed by the pressure of being King. It was the years spent on the run, having to choose honor that made David such a great King. King David. A young man rejected from his family and put on a hillside looking after some sheep, being faithful in his life, singing to the Lord with no one around. One day walking on a hillside a bear comes to take one of his sheep. (1 Samuel 17:36) The young David raises up his club facing fear and death and kills the bear. After the bear has come another tries his luck, the lion comes to pick off a sheep. The young David once again comes with his club and kills the Loin. With trophies to show his greatness, still no one cares about little David sitting on the hill side. Then one-day the prophet comes to his home. His own Father does not invite him in to be looked upon by the prophet. However the Lord saw him, and the Lord spoke. David came, Samuel saw him; a ruddy, bight eyed, hansom young man. The Lord speaks and David is anointed as King of Israel. Suddenly David goes from sitting on a hillside to playing for the current King Saul. Saul would be deeply troubled and the young David would play his harp and Saul would find rest and freedom. In this season; he knows he is the new King, but he is still being forced to serve Saul and his father. His brothers have gone off to battle and David being a servant goes to take them food. He hears of a man defiling the armies of God, and while everyone is cowarding from the giant. David is overcome with zeal for the army of God. Men around him including his brother grew angry calling him prideful and weak. Yet David was unmoved and knew the Lord was with him. He allowed not his confidence to be shaken by the words of those around him. He followed the voice of God. When Saul questioned him, David simply pointed to his history of killing the Lion and Bear. The Lord delivered them to me, so shall He deliver this Philistine. Saul agrees and David with a sling and a stone, no armor, no sword, but only a stone and promise. Little David marches himself out to face the giant; with everyone doubting him he faces the giant, and we all know how the story goes. David slays the giant and becomes a instant celebrity in the land. They sang songs about him, wrote stories. He was the next inline to become a great King of Israel. However King Saul grew to hate him; and with a sharp launching of a spear David would end up on the run. (1 Samuel 18) He was anointed King; he could have killed saw and moved into the land as King, and it would have been seen right for him to do. But David would choose to spend the next years of his life not planning on how to become King of Israel but instead learning how to live a life of honor. 1 Samuel 24 shows us how David went above and beyond to honor Saul and show him that he indeed loved his King. Again and again Saul would try and take the life of young David; and just the same David would respond in honor. Even in Sauls death David avenged his blood and brought His grandson into his kingdom to sit at his table. But have you ever thought of what would have happened if David would have over thrown Saul and taken the kingdom. Those years spent in honoring and gaining wisdom, would have been lost. David like Abraham would have jumped ahead of the Lord and gotten a Ismael instead of an Isaac. Do you think David would have gone down in history as Israels greatest King? That the Lord Himself would have come from his blood line? Would he have had cities named after him? Scriptures written by him? All the greatness that he obtained through honor and obeying the Lord and his anointed would have most certainly been lost. David accomplished greatness by staying steady and staying faithful, even when he wasnt doing what the Lord had anointed him to do; which was be king. He was still right in the Lords will off in the woods running for his life. Those seasons of preparation, those seasons in the market place are never time lost, or anointing wasted. It was servant-hood, humility, honor, and obedience that lead David in the path of greatness. When his loved ones; his friends those around him were saying you cannot, or this is what the Lord says, take the land, David stayed true to what the Lord had for him. He honored the king, he walked by faith, he then was brought in and became the most famous king of Israels history. I feel that Davids story of the years spent not in his calling is applicable to so many of us. Promises, dreams, and hopes of things we will do in the Lord seemingly on hold while we spend our time working, and doing very mundane things in this life. But if you could see the gold being formed inside of you when you choose to honor your boss, and co-workers. When you choose to bless those who once were under you but now pass you up in life, there is real things being formed in you that you will be a disaster in your calling without. The Lord is after getting you to the end of this race with the most humility, honor, and strength built in you as possible. I bid you today to says yes to the mundane, say yes to honor, say yes to life. If David would have became King without those years on the run it would have been a disaster. Just like us he is spending years on the run or years doing something he hasnt been called to do; little did he know and little do we know how those years set him up for greatness. So to those of you like me who are spending your days in the waiting; not really feeling like you are walking in the fullness of what God has for you, I urge you do not loose hope. Look after the sheep you have, protect you calling from the Lions and bears. Do not become shaken by the words of doubt coming from those that surround you, for God is shaping and forming gold on the inside of us that when that day comes and we step into what the Lord has, we will be golden and found ready. Many Blessings. Jonathan Pollard. Like Loading…

Fair Usage Law

March 14, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Jonathan Pollard  Comments Closed

Talk:Jonathan Pollard/Archive 4 – Wikipedia

Comparative Sentences for American Spies According to your article below, Franklin received only 13 years and a fine. Pollard received life and no fine because the FBI did not consider him a mercenary-for-profit. yet, you refused this fact in Pollard’s article. Don’t you believe this is an essential fact? Here is the source. http://www.jonathanpollard.org/factsadd.htm You are deleting so many essential facts that it appears you choose to lose credibility rather than gain it. Larry Franklin From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Lawrence Anthony Franklin Lawrence Anthony Franklin is a U.S. Air Force Reserve colonel who has pleaded guilty to passing information about U.S. policy towards Iran to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the foremost pro-Israel lobbying organization in the U.S, while he was working for the Defense Department in what he claims was an attempt to get the information passed on to the United States National Security Council, which he could not do through regular Pentagon channels. Two former employees of that organization are also facing charges that they assisted him in the AIPAC espionage scandal and passing classified information to an Israeli diplomat Naor Gilon. On January 20, 2006, Judge T.S. Ellis, III sentenced Franklin to 151 months (almost 13 years) in prison and fined him $10,000. [1] The case was heard in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Ultimately, Franklin was charged with unauthorized disclosure of classified information, not with espionage.[citation needed] so many other facts i attempted to insert were deleted. here is the source: http://www.jonathanpollard.org/facts.htm your editors have disappointed me. Furtive admirer (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Rami, the jonathan pollard website was referenced with a sourced document proving Pollard was not fined,(Franklin was) NOT to compare sentences. so, i am finished here. i sent you a note on your talk page. if you are interested in Pollard’s history and want to make it your “cause celebre” to create a credible Pollard’s Page with only the evidence the US Government has released through the Freedom of Information Act AND first-hand witnessess, such as Carol Pollard (Carol.Pollard@yale.edu), Dr. Morris Pollard (mpollard@nd.edu),and Alan Dershowitz (dersh@law.harvard.edu), I suggest you contact them and request their contributions. then you won’t have to threaten those benefactors who merely want to get the facts straight. And for the opposing view, you can contact Joseph DiGenova, (“Pollard will never see the light of day!”) via Victoria Toensing, who has a page here. They are married and law partners as well. Judge Robinson is dead and he would not comment even if he wasn’t, and Caspar Weinberger is deceased also. It appears you have a lot of time on your hands, and I assure you this is a very productive project for you, or in the alternative you can just remove the page completely until it is sourced to your satisfaction. You’ll learn quite a bit in the process. As it appears now, like much of the opinion reflected before me on this page, it is simply JUNK!! l’hedrohot, Furtive admirer (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC) What the Hell … Upon first reading this article it came off as a cheap piece of propaganda – actually comparing Jon Pollard to Alfred Dreyfus. Utterly disrespectful to Dreyfus, I might add. Among other things, the article failed to note that Pollard sold classified information. I’m going to be taking a close look at the contribution record. –Duk The article contained the sentence Shaw also presents similarities between Pollard’s case and that of the French officer Alfred Dreyfus but it fails to note what those similarities are. The statement is devoid of substance, used only to compare Pollard, universally acknowledged to be guilty of spying, to Dreyfus, universally acknowledged to be innocently convicted. This just one example of outrageous POV pushing that plagues the entire article. I’ve removed the statement. –Duk 15:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC) The article currently has quotes which characterizes Olive’s claims as “old lies… repackaged.” and “false”. These vague and maligning quotes should be removed and replaced with the actual points of contention. For example, the first reference (for “old lies… repackaged”) doesn’t contain anything substantial, it’s mostly hysterical hand waving and should be removed. The second reference, which our article claims “assert that Olive’s claims and accusations against Pollard are false” doesn’t actually do that. It complains that some of Olive’s claims, such as Pollard attempting to sell classified information to Pakistan, don’t appear on the public docket. That doesn’t mean these claims are false, nor does the reference actually contend as much. And yet the paragraph is summed up with the following; “[Olive’s book is] an exercise in ‘speculation, rumor, myths and lies.'”, without specifically identifying any such thing. Part of this section is a bunch of vague and maligning quotes arranged into a POV editorial. They should be replaced with the specific points of contention and properly referenced. –Duk 17:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC) There is also speculation from the book on why Pollard wants a pardon instead of parole. I’m not sure that belongs in the article either. –Duk 18:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC) The current article version has no fewer than nine references pointing to jonathanpollard.org; 6, 15 ,17, 19, 25, 27, 28, 34 and 37. This website is a poor source; its quality is somewhere between self-published work, to advocacy that doesn’t strive to be neutral, to outright propaganda. It’s also linked in the external links section as “Jonathon Pollard’s Website”. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources for why this website is not a suitable source. This website should not be used as a reference. The individual references need to be replaced with better sources if possible, and removed where appropriate.–Duk 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC) The lead references of the current article are not needed and appear to have been add to get some Pro-Pollard juice right at the top of the article. The first reference was written by was someone “Of Counsel” on the amicus curiae brief submitted in support of Jonathan J. Pollard’s 1991 appeal. The second reference misrepresents the intelligence that Pollard stole and sold as primarily ‘materials relating to Arab ballistic missile and nonconventional weapons programs’, and then calls him a ‘national hero’, all in the first three sentences. Way to go people. I’m going to remove them, but will see if there are appropriate parts of the article to add them back. –Duk 22:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC) This page says that Pollard’s attorneys were allowed to see the Weinberger memo. The Casper Weinberger page says the opposite. Which is it? Binarybits (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC) This entry alleges that Pollard is sometimes described as a “hero” in the Israeli media. The reference cited is a BBC News article that describes posters and banners seen in Jerusalem, but gives not evidence of the news media describing Pollard as a hero. As worded, the sentence conveys a highly inaccurate impression of Israeli media. Individuals hoisting banners cannot be described as media. The media sentence should thus be erased or replaced with one that refers to pro-Pollard advocacy groups. Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishkushim (talk contribs) 01:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC) The article currently includes this passage: “Within two months of being hired, the technical director of the NFOIO, Richard Haver, requested that Pollard be terminated.[9] This came after a rather reckless and somewhat inappropriate conversation with the new hire in which Pollard offered to start a back-channel operation with the South African intelligence service and lied about his own father’s involvement with the CIA.[9]” Speaking of inappropriate, it is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia to use words like “reckless” and “inappropriate” except in a quotation or a description of a quotation. As, for example, “So-and-so described the conversation as reckless and inappropriate.” It is not sufficient that the words be sourced (as with “[9]”). If you find this hard to understand, it is because those words are judgmental words and can never be considered part of statements of fact. Note: I know nothing of the subject matter. And please do not interpret me as passing judgment on the accuracy of the words “reckless” and “inappropriate”; I am saying something else entirely. Oh, and furthermore, the meaning of labeling an entire conversation “reckless” and “inappropriate” is utterly unclear. Is it what Pollard allegedly said, or what the other guy allegedly said, or both, that was deemed worthy of these adjectives??? Finally, unless the conversation was recorded — so that there is hard evidence — it must be reported in terms of who claimed that certain characteristics described the conversation. This is a second level of un-factualness concerning the statement as it currently reads in the article. Regardless of what a source may say. Has the writer never read an encyclopedia before? How about a good newspaper? Do they have no idea what a factual description consists of??? I am not the person to fix the article, because I am not knowledgeable about the subject matter. But if someone is, please fix the article to reflect the high standards of Wikipedia.Daqu (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC) – Agree with that. Deleting those words. Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.252.21 (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC) In the section on Pollard’s spying, there is a paragraph about an unrelated case, that of Yosef Amit. This material has nothing to do with Pollard’s espionage, nothing at all. It is both misplaced and irrelevant. Why exactly in a section dealing with Pollard’s actions is there a paragraph with “regard to friendly nations spying on each other”? This is placed for one reason, to attempt to portray these actions as “no big deal”. Even if that were true (though it is hard to imagine treason being “no big deal”), it is not relevant to Pollard’s espionage. nableezy – 18:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC) The Spies: Israel’s Counter-Espionage Wars, Yossi Melman, Eitan Haber–Shrike (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC) The ‘Public campaigns’ section contains quotes from activists, politicians professors and all kinds of people with no first hand knowledge of the case – they simply have a pro-Pollard agenda to push. These comments have been piling up and up and up. Meanwhile, the most germane, informed and valuable quote in this section keeps getting trimmed back and suppressed – the response from former Directors of Naval Intelligence. This is blatant POV pushing by people with a pro-Pollard slant. Compare the magnitude of pro-pollard quotes from people who have nothing to do with the actual case, and the low quality of information contained in those quotes, to the relatively concise response from the former Directors of Naval Intelligence who actually have something valuable to say. I will be restoring the Directors of Naval Intelligence response and trimming back the pro-pollard propaganda per WP:UNDUE. –32alpha4tango (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC) (Boy, I wish you guys would take the same sensible line on Gerry Gabler or David Irving–both snakepits of activist special pleading.) 74.104.38.189 (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Major changes to the articles should be discussed in talk first to gain consensus. So I am reverting all the changes back to stable version.Please propose your changes first at the talk page.–Shrike (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC) I made a string of changes recently to this article, though I wouldn’t call them ‘Major’. Each change was explained in the edit summary, and I started a new talk section. Shrike then reverted wholesale, with no discussion whatsoever. He didn’t even bother addressing the individual edits and reasons for those edits. The largest change I made was simply restoring an important quote that keeps getting suppressed. After looking through the edit history of this article It’s clear that Shrike is happy with anything that’s ‘Pro-pollard’, but he engages in interference tactics with anything that doesn’t suite his POV. I don’t think Shrike should be editing this page. –32alpha4tango (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Hi Wikifan12345! When you restored the Korb quote, you suggested that it was deleted without rationale.[6] I provided a rationale when I blanked it, though perhaps it was unclear to you.[7] The reason being, if Rumsfeld is saying don’t release Pollard,[8] it seems selective and imbalanced to me to include Korb, who is a much less significant political figure. I don’t really think Rumsfeld needs to be in there either, barnie-frankly. What do you think? DBaba (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC) I’d be grateful if some of you Pollard case experts would have a look at a specific issue that has arisen over how the Pollard case is presented in our article on Israel – United States relations. The language in use there currently makes it sound like Israel had the right to the intelligence that Pollard stole because, as that article currently claims, the U.S. had withheld intelligence that Israel was entitled to. Many thanks, OhioStandard (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Cite 7 [1] is a review of another article, not a primary source, that says Pollard has renounced his US citizenship. I would point out such a renounciation is meaningless unless made in front of and accepted by a US official. Is the cite good enough to keep the sentence in Para One or so? It seems he has said he intends to renounce his citizenship if he were ever to be able to do so. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Hi Some sentences seem a bit strange in the article: “The Israelis created a schedule designed to wear down the Americans, including many hours per day of commuting in blacked out buses on rough roads, and frequent switching of buses. This left the Americans without adequate time to sleep and prevented them from sleeping on the commute.” Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.142.224.141 (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC) So, when did he join the NCIS and when he joined the NIS? The Early Career section is clearly confusing with mentions to a double join on the NIS: A month later Pollard applied for and received a transfer to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) surface ships division while keeping his TF-168 position. and In October 1984, after some reorganization of the Navy’s intelligence departments, Pollard applied for and received a position as an analyst for the Naval Investigative Service (NIS, later renamed NCIS). Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.125.115 (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC) My recent corrections to this article give proper names to the departments of naval intelligence for which Jonathan worked. I have this knowledge because I knew Jonathan Pollard and worked at NOSIC and TF-168 at the time. I also made some minor changes to Jonathan’s employment process from what I remember of the process.Joe Haskins (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC) To my knowledge, Jonathan never worked for Naval Investigative Service (NIS) or its reincarnation, the Navy Criminal Investigative Service. (NCIS), but did work for NIC and NISC. I believe that the contributor got wound around the axle on government alphabet soup. I remember the reorganization of ’84, but do not recollect having to reapply for my job. Perhaps Jonathan did because of the circumstances.Joe Haskins (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Hi, all. In these two edits I’ve reinstated the external link to the docs from Pollard’s D.C. court case. Biosketch(talk contribs), had removed our readers’ access to them, in this edit. I understand that the organization that obtained these docs via FOIA requests and such, and which hosts them on its servers, may or may not be wp:rs itself, but no one seriously doubts the origin or authenticity of these documents. There’s no reason we should keep readers of this article from accessing them easily. Editors of any opinion on this might like to note that Biosketch performed similar deletions of access to primary source docs related to Israel that are hosted to the web by this same organization. I’ve posted a list of each deletion diffs in collapsed format, below. Rather than discuss this in seven other threads on the talk pages for each of the other articles, editors might like to wait a day or two while we cast about for a central discussion location for this matter. If that happens, someone will post a subsequent note here so those who might be interested in this issue more broadly will be able to join in that discussion. OhioStandard (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC) ( modified by strikthrough at 18:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC) ) In the summary box under Pollard’s photo, his second wife’s name is shown as Elaine Seitz. This is incorrect. As correctly noted near the end of the article, his second wife’s name is Esther Zeitz. There is a person closely related to me named Elaine Seitz, and I do not want there to be any confusion as to the fact that she has nothing to do with Pollard. 169.252.4.21 (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC) The article reads: “The technical director of the NFOIO, Richard Haver, requested that Pollard be terminated.” As this is an article about American spooks, I suggest using the word “dismissed” instead – “terminate” has a more permanent and sinister meaning. It is also stated that this request came after a conversation “with the new hire in which Pollard offered to start a back-channel operation with the South African intelligence service and lied about his father’s involvement with the CIA.” Please do not call a new employee a “new hire”. Appalling slang. And why fire an employee for offering to start a “back-channel operation with the South African intelligence service”? What is wrong or inappropriate about that suggestion, and so inappropriate as to justify instant dismissal (or termination)! The lies about his father’s involvement with the CIA didn’t become apparent until later. I doubt that Haver’s boss reassigned Pollard to a human-gathered intelligence operation “because Pollard had a friend from graduate school in the South African intelligence service”. I presume the alleged friendship was the reason for the proposed back-channel operation (whatever that is), not for Pollard being reassigned to humint rather than dismissed. Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnC (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2011 The lede of the article currently states: “Pollard renounced his United States citizenship and is now solely an Israeli citizen. He would be deported to Israel if he were released from prison”. This information is cited to a film review (hardly a reliable source for matters of nationality law), which itself states “Jonathan Jay Pollard was a US citizen (he has since renounced his birthright and taken Israeli citizenship)”. At best this sounds like the author is under the misconception that taking Israeli citizenship means renouncing U.S. citizenship. At worst this is complete legal nonsense. Especially in a WP:BLP, Wikipedia needs a very strong source indeed for a statement that has such an obvious contradiction with how the law operates. And an article in a film review journal does not cut it when it comes to a question of law. “Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content” (WP:RS). Immigration and Nationality Act Section 351 is very clear: The “except as provided’ refers to two conditions in Section 349 neither of which are fulfilled in Pollard’s case: The U.S. is not in a state of war and Pollard was not convicted of treason or the other crimes listed, so I see no way he could have renounced or deemed to have relinquished U.S. citizenship. At minimum this information needs a much stronger source than a film review — and not one of those circular citations that keeps popping up after this “information” was added to Wikipedia. I also notice that the last time this was discussed, User:Obotlig made the comment “At any rate, obtaining foreign citizenship automatically is considered renunciation or loss of American citizenship, if you are at least 18.” However, this is not correct; see US State Department Services Dual Nationality. Applying for foreign citizenship only results in loss of U.S. citizenship if you go to a consulate in person and fill out a bunch of forms affirming that your intention was to lose U.S. citizenship (the technical term for this is “relinquishment”). Absent that visit, the State Department cannot develop a loss-of-nationality case except in very specific circumstances none of which apply to Pollard; their own standards for this can be found in the Foreign Affairs Manual (7 FAM 1222 et seq). In short, for Pollard to lose U.S. citizenship, he must not only first leave the U.S. for Israel voluntarily (not “be deported”, as it is impossible to deport a U.S. citizen), but he must also make an in-person visit to the US embassy in Tel Aviv. quant18 (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC) I removed this quote-let that has crept in more than once: despite the fact that Israel was releasing convicted murderers at his behest. Jerusalem Post editorial, [http://www.jpost.com/International/What-about-Pollard-Mr-President-320776 What about Pollard Mr. President]. . The ref is opinion full of overwrought language and is not a reliable source. Please do not use this opinion piece as a reference.Anomalocaris (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC) The first sentence of this article states that “Jonathan Pollard is an American criminal …” This seems to me to violate, in spirit at least, Wikipedia’s NPOV requirement. Of course, anyone who is in jail/prison in a particular country is technically a “criminal”. So Martin Luther King was a “criminal”, dissidents in prison in Cuba or North Korea are “criminals”, etc. But the gratuitous use of this adjective here seems designed to convey more than the fact that this man pleaded guilty to espionage. I propose that it should be removed, but I would like to hear arguments for retaining it. By the way, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to make the private judgement that this man is a “criminal”, in more than the technical sense. Or that he is a disturbed personality, a misguided immature idiot, a treasonous rat, or whatever. But such judgments don’t belong in a Wikipedia article. Doug1943 13:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug1943 (talk contribs) 96.250.240.250 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC) A user partially reverted my edit, bringing inaccurate and incorrect information back to the lead section. It now says that “according to former F.B.I. deputy general counsel M.E. Bowman Pollard “has never expressed regret or admitted to harming Americas national security, and he has not applied for parole even though he is eligible.” First, this sentence is misleading because it sounds like it’s saying that Pollard is eligible for parole, which is not true – he’s eligible to apply for it. Having explained this, that statement is apparently not even true. Pollard and his lawyers have applied for parole a few times in the past, as these two sources confirm: 1 and 2. Any comments? Yambaram (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC) As of today (April 1, 2014), the lead section of this article is in need of clean-up. Agreed. In more detail: “Pollard is the only person in US history to receive a life sentence for spying for an ally, and the only American citizen convicted of such a crime.” First, “spying for an ally” is not a crime on the books, so the language “such a crime” is incorrectly applied (and transparently POV). Second, it is not clear what the significance of spying for an ally as opposed to an enemy is. I can see arguments for either being more heinous. If it is supposed to be less heinous, a reference needs to be provided, especially if this is to go in the lead. “Currently, the punishment for such a crime is set at a maximum of ten years.” This is an incorrect statement of the law. Espionage is of course a capital offense. There is a federal statute with a maximum sentence of 10 years, but that is not what this defendant pled guilty to. This is clear from the NYT provided reference. So this should go. Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.169.68 (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair Usage Law

February 4, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Jonathan Pollard  Comments Closed

A new Trump deal: Allow Jonathan Pollard to immigrate to …

Jonathan Pollard. (photo credit: COURTESY OF JUSTICE FOR JONATHAN POLLARD) Amid mounting speculation about the possible consequences of moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the move of a single American Jew from the US to Israel should arouse no controversy. Now would be an appropriate time for US President Donald Trump to allow Jonathan Pollard to immigrate to Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly asked Trump just last month to release Pollard from the arbitrary and unduly harsh parole conditions that deny his religious freedom. He apparently made the request after agreeing in May to provide economic goodwill gestures to the Palestinian Authority. The Prime Ministers Office has told Channel 2 News that Netanyahu raises the topic of Pollards immigration to Israel in every meeting with US government officials as a purely humanitarian request. Pollards parole terms were upheld on appeal after he served 30 years of a life sentence. They include a curfew that confines him to his Manhattan home from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. preventing him from attending his synagogue and require him to submit any computer, including an employers, for inspection. He must also wear a GPS-monitoring device that forces him, as an observant Jew, to violate the Sabbath. Pollard, 62, must also remain in the US for another five years, despite his having served a longer sentence for spying for an ally than anyone in US history and how inconceivable it is that he could still disclose obsolete secrets from more than 30 years ago. Pollard, a civilian intelligence analyst with the US Navy, received his life sentence for passing classified information to Israel under accusations of prejudice on the part of then defense secretary Caspar Weinberger. No other American has received such a crushing sentence for spying for an ally. Commuting Pollards parole would bring Trump a win/win deal. It would be both a praiseworthy human gesture that would boost relations with US Jews and Israel, but it also would give him another victory over the perceived injustices of his predecessor, Barack Obama. Obamas treatment of Pollard stands out in cruel contrast to the pardon he gave to former US soldier Chelsea Manning, who leaked more than 700,000 documents to WikiLeaks in 2010 while serving as an intelligence analyst in Iraq. Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison, but Obama commuted her sentence in January, just three days before leaving the White House, from 35 years to just over the seven years Manning had already served. Letting Pollard move to Jerusalem as Israel celebrates 70 years of independence would demonstrate Trumps commitment to Israel while relieving some of the pressure as he evaluates the eventual embassy move. Releasing Pollard is the kind of deal-making Trump is all about. He would have plenty of backup: former national security adviser Bud McFarlane and former head of Senate Intelligence Dennis DeConcini have submitted affidavits on Pollards behalf stating that he is not a security threat regarding information that is 30 years old. Also not to be ignored is the US Justice Departments own double standard toward Pollard, as demonstrated in the case of Ronald Pelton, who was convicted of selling Russia a large quantity of National Security Agency defense and intelligence secrets, including US efforts on tapping Soviet communications, for just $35,000. Pelton was sentenced to three life terms, but served the same 30 years in prison as Pollard and was released with none of the additional parole conditions Pollard received. McFarlane recently wrote that the life sentence given Pollard was a result of Weinbergers unbalanced reasoning regarding Israel and was a great injustice. Then head of Senate Intelligence, senator David Durenberger, wrote at the time that he objected to the life sentence given to Pollard and disagreed with Weinbergers vehemence toward Pollard. Former assistant secretary of defense Lawrence Korb wrote that Pollards life sentence was wrong and blamed it on Weinbergers visceral dislike of Israel. Pollard himself was recently reported to have made a plea to the leaders of both the US and Israel: As much as Trump needs to be held to his promise to move the embassy, it is just as important that the prime minister keep his promise to bring an agent home. Share on facebook

Fair Usage Law

December 29, 2017   Posted in: Jonathan Pollard  Comments Closed

Transparency, due process fell by the wayside in the case of Kaspersky Lab – FederalNewsRadio.com

The governments actions against Kaspersky Lab is a de facto debarment. Lets just call it like it is. The government gave Kaspersky Lab the federal procurement version of the death penalty. And the lack of due process for the company should be alarming for every federal contractor. In fact, the entire episode should be a big, flashing, warning light for other companies, as the actions taken by the government are highly unusual, severe and unexplainable, according to cyber and legal experts. Additionally, the lack of transparency on the evidence of a connection between Kaspersky Lab and the Russian government for this de facto debarment from the General Services Administration or anyone in the intelligence community is just as disconcerting. Federal procurement lawyers and federal cyber experts both say there seems to be no good reason for GSA to have kicked Kaspersky off the schedules program, and now for lawmakers to aggressively question agency use of their software. The latest comes from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who added a provision to the National Defense Authorization bill that would prohibit any agency from using Kaspersky Lab hardware, software or services whether directly or indirectly through a subcontractor or third party. Your opinion matters. Take Market Connections survey about how you consume media. If you look in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) part 9.4, theres a whole administrative process which started back in the 1980s after a company argued they were denied due process. The courts held companies needed to have due process and Kaspersky hasnt had its due process, said Bill Shook, a procurement attorney and former congressional investigator. What we dont have is specific knowledge of if there is a backdoor that the Russian government can access and I dont know how much of this is hysteria over President Donald Trumps supposed connections to the Russian government. If I was representing them, Id take this to court and then the government would have to show the judge evidence that the software is not secure or produces a national security threat. Jake Williams, a former National Security Agency executive who worked on the Tailored Access Operations (TAO) cyber warfare effort and now is an instructor and course author for the SANS Institute, said he is skeptical of Kaspersky Labs connection to the Russian government. Practically everyone Ive talked to says, We have evidence of that connection, but no one has seen it, Williams said in an interview with Federal News Radio. Im not sure if someone started something and now its routing by rumor. We dont know if the homework has been done, but we havent seen it if it has. Williams said its quite possible that Kaspersky could have some backdoor or other hidden vulnerability that the Russian government could take advantage of, but its the type of thing that would only happen once and then no one would trust the company ever again. John Pescatore, director of emerging security trends at SANS and a former Gartner researcher who did work for Kaspersky, said concerns about the companys connection to Russia arent new and there have been plenty of opportunities for researchers and others to discover potential or real problems. House minibus sets stage for fight over sequestration, civilian-defense parity The whole thing from GSA and now Congress really came out of the blue, he said. No security folks Ive talked with have found any smoking guns or evidence. If this is a trade war where countries are not using each others cyber software, the U.S. has the most to lose because we have so many software companies. This seems like a symbolic gesture or unofficial sanction. And thats also whats getting federal procurement attorneys concerned. Eric Crusius, a senior counsel with Holland & Knight in Washington, D.C., said taking aggressive actions against a contractor without due process is highly unusual, if not unprecedented. There may be facts to justify these actions that we dont know about, but any actions taken should be taken with due process afforded to everyone else, he said. The legislative action is an existential threat. Congress shouldnt bend rule of law even around a company whos suspected of cyber espionage without going through normal protocol. Shook added its also highly unusual for a lawmaker to get involved in a specific procurement issue. He said former Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.) applied strict oversight of the Air Forces award of its refueling tanker in the mid-2000s, which eventually went to Boeing and was in Dicks district. Experts had a hard time recalling another time when a member of Congress tried to legislatively ban a vendor from working with the government. Pescatore said an Israeli cyber company called Check Point was caught up in the espionage case of Jonathan Pollard in 1985 and was temporarily banned from the NSA. He also pointed to the Chinese networking and telecommunications company Huawei, as well as when IBM sold its PC branch to Lenovo as times when lawmakers raised concerns about possible cyber threats for the federal government. But there was no attempt to legislatively ban the vendor. There is an issue of supply chain to make sure all software is safe without any backdoors. There are ways to do that. The U.K. required Huawei to give them their source code to look for vulnerabilities and bugs or back doors, Pescatore said. Its not widely done in the federal government. NSA has been pushing this issue around vulnerabilities. As for Kaspersky Lab, a spokeswoman didnt tip their hand as to whether they would take legal action against GSA or the government. Kaspersky Lab has no ties to any government, and the company has never helped, nor will help, any government in the world with its cyberespionage efforts. The company has a 20-year history in the IT security industry of always abiding by the highest ethical business practices and trustworthy development of technologies, and Kaspersky Lab believes it is completely unacceptable that the company is being unjustly accused without any hard evidence to back up these false allegations, the spokeswoman said by email. Kaspersky Lab, a private company, seems to be caught in the middle of a geopolitical fight where each side is attempting to use the company as a pawn in their political game. Eugene Kaspersky, CEO and founder of Kaspersky Lab, has repeatedly offered to meet with government officials, testify before the U.S. Congress and provide the companys source code for an official audit to help address any questions the U.S. government has about the company. Kaspersky Lab continues to be available to assist all concerned government organizations with any investigations, and the company ardently believes a deeper examination of Kaspersky Lab will confirm that these allegations are unfounded. The fact is the governments decision may be well constituted in facts, but without sharing it or at least offering some further explanation, the random and seemingly unfair action against Kaspersky Lab should send a shiver down other vendors.

Fair Usage Law

August 7, 2017   Posted in: Jonathan Pollard  Comments Closed

How To Build An Innovative Legal Business: Conversation With Jonathan Pollard – Above the Law

Last week, I wrote about the difference between technology and innovation in the legal industry. Although I suggest you read the whole thing, the short version is that being innovative doesnt require new, sexy (and expensive) technology. And, as I discussed last week with Rimon P.C. founder Michael Moradzadeh, innovation, when done right, can often mean realizing that widely available technology (in the case of Rimon, email and video chat) has allowed a new business model to take root. Today, I am going to kick off a conversation with another innovative lawyer: Florida-based litigator and trial lawyer Jonathan Pollard, who started his career at litigation powerhouse Boies Schiller before opening a boutique in Fort Lauderdale specializing in fair competition law and trade secrets. Pollard has grown the firm in every metric imaginable over the last five years. But it was Pollards LinkedIn posts that caught my eye, not because they typically get hundreds of likes or comments (which they do), but because many of them focus on entrepreneurship he recently gave a $1,000 prize for the best business plan to start a cleaning company and hustle. They are often brash and not traditionally lawyerly, but Pollard is not shy. Pollards online presence is just the tip of the iceberg he has very pointed opinions on what todays lawyer needs to do in order to succeed. How can you grow a midsize or boutique practice and how can you get creative with business development? Follow along as our conversation unfolds and thanks to Planet Data, the best eDiscovery company in the legal universe, for sponsoring this conversation and putting a spotlight on innovative attorneys. Zach Abramowitz is a former Biglaw associate and currently CEO and co-founder ofReplyAll. You can follow Zach on Twitter (@zachabramowitz) or reach him by email at zach@replyall.me.

Fair Usage Law

August 1, 2017   Posted in: Jonathan Pollard  Comments Closed

Reason to fear for Iran captive Robert Levinson free him now – Jweekly.com

Robert Levinson isnt in the news very often. And thats just wrong, for he is the longest-held American captive in history, disappearing in Iran more than 10 years ago. As world tensions mount on multiple fronts, including between the United States and Iran, we urge the American government and all other influential world bodies to redouble their efforts to free Levinson, who presumably was taken by Iranian forces, although he may no longer be in their custody. The former FBI agent and CIA consultant had been in the midst of a rogue CIA operation on Irans Kish Island in 2007 when his colleagues lost contact with him. Other than a report of so-called proof of life delivered to his family in 2010 and subsequent photos ostensibly dating from 2011, there has been no word from the Iranian regime about Levinsons fate. There is every reason to worry about Levinsons health and safety. The 69-year-old former Florida resident suffers from diabetes and hypertension, is a known intelligence agent and a Jew. It is hard to believe he would not face harsh treatment at the hands of his captors. As part of the comprehensive Iran nuclear deal, in January 2016 President Obama managed to secure the release of five Americans held prisoner in Iran. Levinson was not among them. Administration officials stated at the time that they no longer believed he was being held in Iran, but they secured a pledge from the Iranians to help locate him. Nothing came of that effort, and given the intensifying hostility between Iran and this country today including a measure to apply sanctions against Iran, along with Russia and North Korea, that is moving through Congress this week it is doubtful we can expect any cooperation going forward. When aid worker Alan Gross was arrested and jailed in Cuba in 2009, American Jews lobbied hard to free him. He was released in 2014. When Jonathan Pollard was convicted for spying for Israel, and held for decades in an American maximum-security prison, the Jewish community never stopped working for his release, which finally came in 2015. Yet we hear so little about Levinson. With so many flash points around the world, with the Trump administration in chaos, with climate change worsening day by day, it is admittedly hard to focus on the life of one American Jew, who surely knew the risks of his mission. And yet we remember the eternal words of our talmudic sages: whoever saves one life, saves the world entire. And so we remember the plight of Robert Levinson, and call upon our government to demand his immediate release.

Fair Usage Law

August 1, 2017   Posted in: Jonathan Pollard  Comments Closed

‘What’s To Stop Them From Having Intermarriage At The Kotel?’: An interview with Rabbi Pesach Lerner – The Jewish Press – JewishPress.com

Photo Credit: Rabbi Pesach Lerner In 2013 after years of protests from groups like Women of the Wall Israel constructed an egalitarian prayer section at the Western Wall to the right of Mughrabi Bridge in an area known as Robinsons Arch. Liberal activists, however, were not satisfied. Among other things, the area called Ezrat Yisrael had a separate entrance and was lower than the Western Wall plaza. The government took heed. In January 2016, it promised to expand Ezrat Yisrael, place it under the administration of a council that would include representatives of the Reform and Conservative movements, and create a joint entrance for it and the kotel plaza, thereby increasing its visibility and status. For many Orthodox Jews, this was going too far. They objected vociferously and, last month, the government gave in, scrapping most of the proposed changes. Ezrat Yisrael still stands, as do plans to expand it. Nevertheless, liberal activists as well as leaders of Reform and Conservative Jewry have decried Israels capitulation to Orthodox interests, with some even warning that the country risks losing non-Orthodox support abroad if the status quo remains. The Jewish Press spoke with Rabbi Pesach Lerner executive vice president emeritus of the National Council of Young Israel and a founding member of the Coalition for Jewish Values who is fighting to ensure that the Kotels traditional character remains sacrosanct. The Jewish Press: What are you currently doing on the Kotel controversy front? Rabbi Lerner: Theres a group of us active on a daily basis writing op-eds and letters to the editor, raising money, putting pressure on organizations to get involved, and meeting with public officials. We are informing them of the real numbers. Reform says it represents 90 percent of American Jewry, but 60 percent of American Jews are not involved with anything theyre not members at all. The Reform movement says pluralistic prayer is a Jewish value, but how can they claim to represent Jewish values when they dont represent Judaism? Seventy percent of Reform Jews are intermarried. The Conservative movement today is debating whether its clergy should do intermarriages. In Reform, you can be the president of a synagogue and be a non-Jew. In Reform, theres no Shabbos, no yom tov, no kashrus, no taharas hamishpacha. Why is it only you and a few others who have taken on this fight and not mainstream Orthodox organizations? You have to ask them. Some of them may not want to get involved in Israeli internal politics, to which I say, its not Israeli. Its only coming from America and only because of America. The Reform in Israel represent less than one percent of the population. In liberal Tel Aviv, there are 550 synagogues, and only one of them is Reform, according to the former chief rabbi, Rabbi Israel Meir Lau. The typical Israeli, especially of Sephardic descent, is not interested. Reform is pushing it from the American side, and thats why American Jewish Orthodox organizations and activists should be getting involved. This is a fight for the future of Judaism in Israel. Its not just the Kotel. Today its the Kotel, tomorrow its kashrus, then Shabbos, then conversion, then gay rights, then everything else. The Reform movement has said very clearly: This is the just the beginning. They have no interest in the Kotel. The Kotel is only a vehicle to get everything else that they want, because they are dying in America. Reform has nothing to offer. It has no future. Theyve lost the battle in America, so theyre trying to find another place for their sinking ship. Some people fear that if Israel doesnt give in on this issue, Reform and Conservative Jews will stop giving money to Israel. Now, money should obviously not determine how one acts on matters of principle, but is this threat serious? Will Israel possibly lose millions if it doesnt capitulate? Lets take a look. How much money is really sent to Israel? The answer is $2 billion less than one percent of the gross national product of Israel. Now, its fair to say that half of that, if not more, comes from Orthodox Jews and Christians. So that cuts it in half. And I suggest to you that people are going to give money to Israeli hospitals and universities regardless. So I think its a lot of malarkey. Their bark is worse than their bite. Besides, lets look at some other numbers. The majority of Reform Jews have never been to Israel. Thats a fact. The majority of Reform Jews dont buy Israeli products. There was a study done recently of top Jewish millionaires in America: 90 percent of them dont give any money to Israel. They give it to the arts and hospitals in America. So when you get down to facts, I suggest its an idle threat. Based on media accounts of this controversy, you would think that men and women cant pray together anywhere at the Western Wall. The fact of the matter is, however, that they can in the Ezrat Yisrael section even if many Orthodox Jews may not like it. Why, then, are we hearing such an outcry from liberal Jews? Thats an excellent question. Ezrat Yisrael is a very large area with tables, umbrellas, and chairs. Its actually more user-friendly than the traditional Kotel. And yet, the area has never been full. On Shiva Assar bTammuz people sat there with videotapes, and it was completely empty. However, what they dont like is that its not front and center. They want their section to be raised to ground level and they want the security area to be moved forward so that when you pass through, to the right is the Reform section and to the left is the [traditional plaza]. They also want it to be under their control and ten times the size. Lets go a couple of years down the road. If that area is under their control, it means that on Shabbos theyre going to bring their guitars and photographers. Im going to walk by on Shabbos and see their chillul Shabbos publicly. And whats to stop them from having intermarriage at the Kotel? Whats to stop them from having treif at the Kotel? Theyre not looking for more space for their thousands of people who are coming. The area is empty. They need more space so they can get equality. And they said it clearly: It starts with the Kotel and continues everywhere else. They want an input into kashrus, into conversion, into marriages, into burials. They want an input into every Jewish function. They want Reform to be accepted in Israel. Some liberal Jews point to pictures of the Kotel taken in the late 1800s and early 1900s showing men and women praying without a mechitza. They argue that the demand for a mechitza is a modern-day chumra. How do you respond? The British and the Arabs didnt let Jews put up a mechitza. It had nothing to do with Jewish tradition. One Yom Kippur the Jews put up a mechitza and in middle of Yom Kippur davening the British took it away. So all those pictures are situations where they had no choice. When the British controlled the Kotel, you couldnt even blow a shofar. It was illegal. So anybody who comes with those pictures doesnt know their history or has an agenda. You are obviously deeply involved in this controversy, but you are also very close to Jonathan Pollard, having spent years trying to get him released from prison. How is he doing today? I try to visit Jonathan once a week and I speak to him at least once a day. Two years ago, we didnt think hed come out alive and today hes living with his wife in Manhattan. So, relatively speaking, hes doing excellent. On the other hand, hes still restricted. He has a curfew from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., he has to wear a GPS 24/7, he cant leave Manhattan, and any computer he uses personally or professionally has to have software installed in it by the government so they can see what hes doing. What company wants to hire you if the government is watching what everybody is doing? And theres no sense to these restrictions. How does 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. make a difference? In theory, he can meet me for lunch at a restaurant and hand me anything he wants. He can mail a letter. So whats this curfew about? And why do they have to know where he is? Let him report every week. What are they afraid of? He has no passport. Hes recognizable. He cant go anywhere. You said you speak to Pollard once a day. What are those conversations like? Hes very bright, very sensitive, reads a lot, walks a lot, has an opinion on a lot of things, and his opinions are usually on target. Hes not bitter or angry. He wants to move to Israel. He wants to go on with his life. He has a lot of things he wants to do. If you met him, you would never know he spent 30 years in the harshest prisons. Hakadosh Baruch Hu doesnt give somebody a test he cant meet. Jonathan Pollard was given ultimate tests, and Hakadosh Baruch Hu guided him all the way through. Hes a living miracle to what man can do.

Fair Usage Law

August 1, 2017   Posted in: Jonathan Pollard  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."