Talk:Jonathan Pollard/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Edited out some language

I edited the controversy section, specifically, I removed inflammatory and unencyclopedic language. In addition, I added requests for citation for some of the (seemingly) verifiable claims. I strongly suspect my edits will be reverted, but I hope that someone will simply add the citations instead of reinserting POV.

Link Error

In the section on sentencing the link for United States of America v. Jonathan Jay Pollard (747 F. Supp. 797); 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11844 file is no longer functioning. Has anyone got a working link? I know where to get all Supreme Court decisions going back to the 18th century but getting District Court links is a problem since most of them are not on the web. Malangthon 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversy over severity of Pollard's sentence

The statement: "The sentence was comparable to that of Aldrich Ames, the chief of CIA counterintelligence in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, who was indicted for treason, convicted of passing critical defense secrets to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and found responsible for the deaths of at least 11 U.S. agents" should be validated using a reliable source. It is currently unsourced and not even clearly supported by the WP article on Aldrich Ames.

I removed the statement: "The US refuses to allow Pollard's security cleared attorneys access to their own client's sentencing file in order to challenge his incarceration" and accompanying comments in References as POV and unsupported by the Edwin Black article referenced.[1] The Black article clearly says that Pollard's attorneys were denied access to the documents they sought because "they don't possess a 'need to know' security clearance for the secret documents." If they were "security cleared" I don't see the evidence for it in the Black article. Further, I wonder if this even belongs in a section entitled "Controversy over severity of Pollard's sentence"--DieWeibeRose 07:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Shrike 18:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this?

I don't understand what the relevance is of the following:

The reality of friendly countries spying on each other is part and parcel of national security concerns that any sovereign country shares. Senator David Durenberger, former head of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, claimed in 1983 that the CIA had turned an officer in the Israel Defence Forces, and that he had been an active source during the 1982 Lebanon War.

This entire paragraph seems like an attempt to justify Pollard's spying activities. It does not belong in the Pollard article because it has nothing to do with Pollard. It belongs in an article about spying, not here. Anyone have a reasonable justification for the inclusion of this info?

Even worse, what is the point of this:

The Israeli Domestic Security Service Shin Bet apprehended an American Jew enrolled as a student at Hebrew University in the fall of 1984. While ensconced as a student this former US Naval Commando also worked at a local Jerusalem student hangout. While his stay was cut short this is a prime example before Pollards arrest that active espionage was being directed at Israel by the United States.

This is a non-cited item that not only has nothing to do with Pollard but doesn't even make clear that this "former US Naval Commando" was even spying. Many American Jewish people go to Israel to attend a university and just because this gentleman has US military experience does not make him a spy. Both of these paragraphs should be deleted. I would appreciate some defense of these paragraphs or deletion should occur. Jtpaladin 21:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that this appears to be some sort of original research/commentary/who knows what. I would delete it since I am a minimalist. Does this really help/relevant to the subject of the article? I too would like to hear from folks who think this material helps/is relevant. Anyways, --Tom 12:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is relevant as a background. Because it explains what kind of relationship there was between Israel and USA.--Shrike 18:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I re-read it, and I still don't get it. The last part about an "American Jew" being apprehended, is that sourced? The section is "clunky" and dosen't really seem to tie in and reads as original research. Is the jist of it, friendly countries spy on each other all the time behind the scenes so we shouldn't be surprised that Israel got Pollard to assist them? Anyways, I would remove that entire paragraph but won't. I will add a fact tag to the student part. Thanks! --Tom 19:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC) ps. I re-read the sources for the first part about the CIA efforts and they seem to be written in context to Pollard so no big deal. The last part about the student already had a fact tag. Can we source that or remove it? Thanks! --Tom 19:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree the last unsourced part might be removed but let wait maybe some one will find a source--Shrike 07:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tom. I have no problem waiting for some other editors to chime in but let's not stretch this out. Both paragraphs do not contribute to the article. The second paragraph is totally ridiculous. Without further appropriate input, both paragraphs should be deleted. Jtpaladin 15:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you see the source for the first paragraph it explicitly talks about Pollard case.And that is important background.--Shrike 17:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, for now, let's just remove the uncited second paragraph and further discuss the first paragraph. Jtpaladin 16:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Not notable or relevant. If the crime and pushishment of an Israeli working for the US has been adequately documented to serve as a comparison, then it warrants it's own article and perhaps a mention here. The current statement should be removed. --Uncle Bungle 17:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the npov problem shrike keeps reverting---this whole article reads like it came from the Pollard fan club. --24.214.167.195 23:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the sources?They not use word "alleged" and other original research that you added to the article.Also mind WP:CIV.Read it carefullyShrike 17:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Although Durenberger did SAY the US did gather intelligence in Israel, no sources I found said it was actually TRUE. Durenberger was at a fund raiser for a Jewish group and for all I know he was just trying to court contributions. Thus "alleged".--199.91.37.33 18:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You orriginal reseach has no place in Wikipedia. --Shrike 18:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Was it Pollard or Ames

The Wikipedia article on spy Aldrich Ames is very clear -- He covered his tracks by implicating Pollard in his own crimes. For this reason it does appear that the Margolis and Hersh rehashing of Ames' charges are simply not useful. They violate policy, so I eliminated them.

I suggest that anyone wanting to restore this stuff use less biased sources, if they exist. Margolis is a professional Islamist (he claims that "islamic fascism" doesn't exist, everyone who disagrees with him is a "neoconservative," etc.) and Hersh is veracity-challenged. (And don't bring up that Pulitzer. Duranty also won one for lying about Stalid.) Personally I find the obsessive desire of so many to accuse Pollard of acts he never committed -- compared with the realtive silence that the far more damaging Ames case has received -- to be indicative of an ulterior motive.68.5.64.178 12:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

publicly denied?

a public denial of something that is true is a lie. so israel lied about it. Ethmegdav (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)