Israel Matzav

How generous: Obama wants to release Pollard 3 months before parole date but tie him to US

Having served nearly 30 years in an American jail for far less serious crimes than others who served far less time, Jonathan Pollard is up for parole in November. Now, the Obama administration wants to release Pollard (who has been held for ransom for years) three months early in the hope of mollifying Israel in the face of its sellout to a nuclear Iran. There's just one small catch: Fearful of Pollard receiving a hero's welcome in Israel, the Obama administration wants to confine him to the United States.

A senior Israeli diplomatic source revealed on Monday that if Jonathan Pollard is released in November as has been reported, he won't be allowed to come to Israel for fear he will receive a hero's welcome.

"The Americans are very worried of a situation in which Pollard will be received as a hero in Israel, and therefore they likely will prevent Pollard from leaving American territory," the source told Yedioth Aharonoth.

US Attorney General Loretta Lynch said on Saturday that she won't interfere in the possible release of Pollard, and denied that the move was timed to assuage Israeli concerns over the Iran nuclear deal.

I don't know what makes them think Pollard will be any more interested in being released in exchange for Israel accepting a nuclear Iran than he was in being released in exchange for terrorists. And some of the people who generally oppose Pollard's release point out that there's no connection between Pollard and Iran.

"Releasing Pollard was a bad idea in 1998 and 2001. It is not a better idea today," [Former US Secertary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld posted on Twitter, along with a copy of letters stating his opposition to the move, which he sent to former US presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush while serving as secretary of defense.

In another tweet Rumsfeld wrote, "Releasing spy Jonathan Pollard doesn't make the #IranDeal any less of a disaster for Israel and the free world," suggesting that Pollard's possible release and the Iran deal are directly related.

Releasing Pollard was a bad idea in 1998 & 2001. It is not a better idea today. via http://t.co/kaSMo2yCnR pic.twitter.com/ADigmDgDh4

— Donald Rumsfeld (@RumsfeldOffice) July 27, 2015

I disagree with Rumsfeld and think Pollard ought to be released. But I agree with him that Pollard's release ought not to be connected with Iran. Seth Lipsky reminds us why.

It’s not that Pollard’s breach of our Espionage Act wasn’t serious. It certainly was. But the charge to which he pled guilty comprised a single count of passing classified secrets to a friendly nation. In exchange for his plea, which saved the government the risk of losing in court or being forced to drop its case rather than disclose the secrets, the government made promises it failed to keep.

This came to a head in the early 1990s. Pollard was arrested in 1985. He pled guilty in 1986. He drew life in 1987. He sought to withdraw his plea in 1990. And the Appeals Court judges who ride circuit in the District of Columbia disposed of his claims in 1992. It was an incredibly distinguished panel, including Laurence Silberman, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Fain Williams.

Yet two of the three judges took what can only be described as a powder, casting Pollard into prison for what the law calls life (30 years) on the grounds that he didn’t appeal the life sentence in a timely manner. The memorable opinion in the case was the dissent of Judge Williams, who concluded that the government that put Pollard away had broken the promises it had made in return for his plea.

The promises were that it would bring to the court’s attention the value of Pollard’s cooperation, refrain from seeking a life sentence, and limit its allocution — its statements — regarding “the facts and circumstances” of Pollard’s crimes. Williams concluded that the government “complied in spirit with none of its promises” and, in respect of the third promise, “it complied in neither letter nor spirit.”

One of the points Williams marked was the government’s suggestion that Pollard had committed treason. That came in a memo to the court from the defense secretary at the time, Caspar Weinberger, who asked the Court to mete out a punishment reflecting the “magnitude of the treason committed.” Yet Weinberg and the Court knew that whatever Pollard did was not treason.

That’s because the Constitution prohibits Congress from defining treason as anything other than levying war against the U.S. or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Treason, Williams noted, carries the death penalty. It can be committed only with an enemy. The espionage statute to which Pollard pled encompassed aid to friendly nations and carried a maximum of life.

Read the whole thing. 

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Donald Rumsfeld, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iranian nuclear threat, Jonathan Pollard, spying

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:23 PM 3 comments

Rumsfeld: 'If I were Israel, I wouldn't tell the US before I attacked Iran'

Former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told Fox News' Greta van Sustern on Thursday that if he were a decision maker in Israel, he wouldn't tell the US before attacking Iran's nuclear capability. He also has no faith in sanctions.

Let's go to the videotape. The part you're looking for runs from about 4:20 until 9:55 (when it goes on to Syria until about 12:25).



Hmmm. More here.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Donald Rumsfeld, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli attack on Iran

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:31 PM 2 comments

Rumsfeld: Obama would betray Israel on Iran

On the Hugh Hewitt show on Tuesday night, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned that Israel cannot trust Barack Hussein Obama not to spill the beans on an Israeli attack on Iran (Hat Tip: Sunlight via Drudge).

This is audio only. Let's go to the audio (sorry, I cannot figure out how to keep this one from playing automatically).



UPDATE 2:03 PM

Autoplay problem resolved.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Donald Rumsfeld, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli attack on Iran

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:50 AM 1 comments

Defector admits 'duping' US on presence of WMD's in Iraq

Al-Guardian reports that the Iraqi defector who was the source for the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction has now admitted that he lied.

Let's go to the videotape.



But what's worse is that the story was apparently discredited as far back as 2000.

Janabi claimed he was first exposed as a liar as early as mid-2000, when the BND travelled to a Gulf city, believed to be Dubai, to speak with his former boss at the Military Industries Commission in Iraq, Dr Bassil Latif.

The Guardian has learned separately that British intelligence officials were at that meeting, investigating a claim made by Janabi that Latif's son, who was studying in Britain, was procuring weapons for Saddam.

That claim was proven false, and Latif strongly denied Janabi's claim of mobile bioweapons trucks and another allegation that 12 people had died during an accident at a secret bioweapons facility in south-east Baghdad.

The German officials returned to confront him with Latif's version. "He says, 'There are no trucks,' and I say, 'OK, when [Latif says] there no trucks then [there are none],'" Janabi recalled.

He said the BND did not contact him again until the end of May 2002. But he said it soon became clear that he was still being taken seriously.

He claimed the officials gave him an incentive to speak by implying that his then pregnant Moroccan-born wife may not be able to travel from Spain to join him in Germany if he did not co-operate with them. "He says, you work with us or your wife and child go to Morocco."

The meetings continued throughout 2002 and it became apparent to Janabi that a case for war was being constructed. He said he was not asked again about the bioweapons trucks until a month before Powell's speech.

After the speech, Janabi said he called his handler at the BND and accused the secret service of breaking an agreement that they would not share anything he had told them with another country. He said he was told not to speak and placed in confinement for around 90 days.

With the US now leaving Iraq, Janabi said he was comfortable with what he did, despite the chaos of the past eight years and the civilian death toll in Iraq, which stands at more than 100,000.

"I tell you something when I hear anybody – not just in Iraq but in any war – [is] killed, I am very sad. But give me another solution. Can you give me another solution?

"Believe me, there was no other way to bring about freedom to Iraq. There were no other possibilities."

As bad as Saddam was, it's a pity they didn't attack Iran instead.

Labels: Colin Powell, Curveball, Donald Rumsfeld, Iraqi weapons of mass destruction

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:50 AM 0 comments