Scott Allan's World

12 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

1. Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.
   Pamela Geller is pushing for a pardon of Jonathan Pollard.  I haven’t thought much about him in quite a while,  I did not realize he has been in prison for 23 years.  Pamela makes a good case and her links are informative.

   Julies last blog post..Grover Norquist: Give me $700 billion

   1. Julie on November 19th, 2008 at 7:33 am

2. Oh absolutely Julie!!!    I forgot about those guys!  It is an abomination and embarrassment that Bush hasn’t done it already.   As for Pollard, I’m not that convinced.   I was friends with his nephew in college and while he never said out loud that he felt his uncle was guilty, he sure didn’t defend him at all either.   It seemed as though it was a big family embarrassment. I don’t think there is any dispute that he passed information illegally to Israel as a covert agent while working at the CIA as an American citizen.  Even Israel admits this.   He also lived a lifestyle that far exceeded his income.    No matter how virtuous you find his motives, it’s still treasonous.   I can’t pardon that.   Maybe you could argue he should be paroled or have his sentence commuted, but certainly not forgiven.

   2. Scott Allan on November 19th, 2008 at 9:49 am

3. Interesting.  What about this, though?  From The Facts of the Pollard Case:
   Jonathan Pollard never had a trial. At the request of both the U.S. and Israeli governments, he entered into a plea agreement, which spared both governments a long, difficult, expensive and potentially embarrassing trial.
   
   Jonathan Pollard fulfilled his end of the plea agreement, cooperating fully with the prosecution.
   Jonathan Pollard fulfilled his end of the plea agreement, cooperating fully with the prosecution.
   Jonathan Pollard was never indicted for harming the United States.
   
   Jonathan Pollard was never indicted for compromising codes, agents, or war plans.
   
   Jonathan Pollard was never charged with treason. [Legally, treason is a charge that is only applicable when one spies for an enemy state in time of war.]
   Jonathan Pollard was indicted on only one charge: one count of passing classified information to an ally, without intent to harm the United States.

   And this:
   No one else in the history of the United States has ever received a life sentence for passing classified information to an ally – only Jonathan Pollard. The median sentence for this offense is two to four years. Even agents who have committed far more serious offenses on behalf of hostile nations have not received such a harsh sentence.

   Isn’t there something a little fishy about the whole thing?  Or am I just grasping here?  I’m assuming these “facts” are accurate!

   Julies last blog post..Grover Norquist: Give me $700 billion

   3. Julie on November 19th, 2008 at 5:30 pm

4. Most people do enter plea bargains to avoid a trial and get a better deal.  That doesn’t make him less guilty.   According to Wikipedia,

   “By the terms of that agreement, Pollard was bound to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to deliver national defense information to a foreign government, which carried a maximum prison term of life, and to cooperate fully with the Government’s ongoing investigation.”

   Sounds like he got exactly what he bargained for.  Perhaps he got some bad legal advice when he accepted the deal.

   4. Scott Allan on November 19th, 2008 at 5:38 pm

5. Scott,  Ramos, Compean Commutation under Review by U.S. Pardon Attorney

   Julies last blog post..Grover Norquist: Give me $700 billion

   5. Julie on November 19th, 2008 at 10:08 pm

6. I have a feeling President Bush is going to pardon anyone involved in torture that is associated with his administration (Rumsfeld, etc.).  I doubt President Obama is going to pursue it but I’m sure it’s a very real concern for President Bush.

   6. Silke on November 20th, 2008 at 7:36 am

7. Julie, that is great news!  If he has any shred of decency he’ll do it.

   Silke, that’s a tricky situation since the administration already says they don’t torture according to their interpretation of the Geneva Convention.   Maybe the people involved would have immunity here but I can see the international community crying out for war crimes trials if they open up that can of worms.  It’s a lot like the government apologizing for slavery.  Once they do it, there will be no end to the litigation for reparations.

   7. Scott Allan on November 20th, 2008 at 8:26 am

8. President Bush won’t call it torture (even though that’s what waterboarding is). He’ll call it something else…like “enhanced interrogation techniques used in the questioning of high-level al-Qaeda operatives.”
    
   I just hope President Obama keeps his promise not to torture.

   8. Silke on November 20th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

9. How can you pardon something that supposedly isn’t illegal?  Maybe it’s something like immunity from any prosecution much like the troops have in Iraq.

   I’m quite sure Obama will meet your expectations.  Unless of course he waterboards Zawahiri for calling him a “House Negro” which I wouldn’t blame him at all.

   What I hope is that you are right that enhanced interrogation techniques are not necessary to obtain critical information as a last resort and that no American lives are lost due to living up to these high moral standards that our enemies have no regard for.

   I know we’ve disagreed on this before and I really admire you for your stance.  I do want us to have a higher moral standing than our enemies, but I feel we already do by a long shot.   I have vegetarian friends who equate eating meat and animal testing with murder and torture.  They find it to be evil.  I understand their point of view but I just don’t feel the same sense of moral outrage they do about it now matter how hard I try.   I just can’t imagine we would have waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed without trying everything else first.  There would be very little point to doing it if there was a more effective way to extract the information or if we knew the information would probably be false or if we didn’t feel some imminent threat need to be stopped.  Unless of course you feel the CIA and Bush are sadistic.

   9. Scott Allan on November 20th, 2008 at 3:34 pm

10. I’m against torture not just because it’s wrong and illegal but because it’s unreliable.  Historically torture has been used to extract false confessions (Salem witch trials, the Inquisition…ask John McCain), not provide life-saving intelligence.  That alone should tell you something about its effectiveness.
    Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al-Qaeda prinsoner captured shortly after 9/11, was tortured.  As a result he provided false information suggesting that Iraq had trained al-Qaeda to use WMD and Colin Powell later presented this to the UN in February 2003, shortly before we invaded Iraq.
     

    10. Silke on November 20th, 2008 at 4:49 pm

11. Right so why would the CIA use it if it is proven unreliable and ineffective unless they are sadistic?  It’s just one of those things that doesn’t make sense to me.  Why would we torture someone to get false information?  It would seem like they use it only because it must be effective in many more cases than it isn’t.

    11. Scott Allan on November 20th, 2008 at 4:57 pm

12. I don’t think that could be determined unless we’ve tortured a lot of people, which I don’t think we have (at least I hope we haven’t).
    I think the CIA used it because they thought a second attack was imminent.  We now know that assumption was wrong.  We also know that the false information extracted during torture helped convince President Bush (and the public) to fight an unnecessary and costly war.

    12. Silke on November 20th, 2008 at 5:26 pm