- Alan Dershowitz Letter
- 15-Aug-2001
- Third-party interference in the Jonathan Pollard
case
- ___
-
- "The issue, then, is whether or not Israel forwarded
the Pollard information - which it had no use for but which the Soviets
prized - to the Kremlin in exchange for Kremlin permission for a swarm
of Soviet scientists and engineers to emigrate to Israel." - Lubomyr
Prytulak
___
-
-
- 15 August 2001
- Alan M. Dershowitz
- Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law
- 520 Hauser Hall
- Harvard Law School
- 1575 Massachusetts Avenue
- Harvard University
- Cambridge, MA 02138
- USA
-
- Alan Dershowitz:
-
- In documents to which I refer as affidavit, supplemental,
Goldberg, and comparison you describe some of your efforts to reduce the
sentence of convicted spy Jonathan Pollard. Upon reading these documents,
I came away with an altered view of American justice. I invite you to
inform me whether my altered view is accurate.
-
- American justice, it seems to me now, works something
like this. After an American judge (say Aubrey Robinson) has arrived at
his decision concerning some case (the Pollard case), Jewish leaders (like
yourself) who may be unhappy with that decision may send a Jewish
representative
(say Arthur Goldberg) to interview that judge as to the appropriateness
of his decision or sentence. The Jewish representative assumes that the
target judge harbors some hidden motive for whatever decision he arrived
at, and which hidden motive he will confess during the interview. Even
though no corroboration exists of the target judge's confession - the
Jewish
representative did not bring a witness, did not have the interview
transcribed,
did not tape record it, did not get the target judge to sign a synopsis
of it - the Jewish representative will proceed to broadcast the confession,
to the detriment of the target judge's professional standing, and to the
injury of his career. Or, where the Jewish representative dies before
he can broadcast the remembered confession, some other Jew who says he
heard about the confession from the Jewish representative implements the
broadcasting and the career destruction. That's what I didn't know about
American justice.
-
- And that is how your involvement in the Pollard case
strikes me. You sent Arthur Goldberg to interview Judge Aubrey Robinson
who sat on the Pollard case. We never learn from Robinson's own lips what
he said in that interview. And we never learn from Goldberg's own lips
what he remembers Robinson saying, and now that Goldberg is deceased, we
probably never will, but you tell us that Goldberg heard Robinson confess
that as a Black man, he (Aubrey Robinson) was outraged that Israel had
assisted Apartheid South Africa, and outraged that some of the secret
material
that Pollard had forwarded to Israel informed Israel of American satellite
monitoring of Israeli-South African collaboration. Aubrey Robinson's
outrage
was his hidden motive in sentencing Jonathan Pollard to life in prison,
which you say he readily disclosed to the Jewish representative Goldberg,
and which you say the Jewish representative Goldberg passed along to you
before he died, and which we can see you now proceeding to broadcast to
the world.
-
- According to you, furthermore, Aubrey Robinson's fault
is not merely that of having been motivated by racially-based animosity
toward Israel and toward Pollard, but also that some of the information
on which this animosity was founded was erroneous - that in fact Pollard
had never forwarded to Israel any information on American satellite
monitoring
of Israeli-South African collaboration.
-
- But how could you possibly know what stolen information
Pollard forwarded to Israel? My understanding is that Pollard had refused
to disclose to the United States what material he had stolen, and that
Israel had refused to disclose what material it had received. Certainly
if this information is known, it has not been released to the public.
You say that you put the question to people who were able to ask Pollard,
or who had known Pollard, or who knew people that knew Pollard, people
like your brother Nathan, and that the information came back that Pollard
hadn't forwarded this particular piece of information to Israel - to which
I had several thoughts: (1) your description of who exactly it was that
came back with what information is brief and non-specific; (2) that when
Pollard stole or copied documents, he might not have had time to scrutinize
them and know exactly what they contained; (3) that his memory being
fallible,
he might not remember exactly what was contained in the material that he
did have a chance to glance at before passing it along over the years;
(4) that as he had lived a life of deception and was now trying to relieve
himself of the burden of a life sentence, he might lie; (5) that as you
were trying to win credits with Israel, and increase your fee, you might
lie; and (6) that as the story of this trivial detail having aroused the
outrage of Judge Robinson possibly was fabricated, and possibly had never
affected the sentencing at all, or at least had been blown out of all
proportion
and had affected the sentencing inappreciably, it didn't matter now - it
amounted to your trying to tie the Pollard sentence to a red
herring.
-
- One issue that I could not find in your discussion is
that as Israel does not need to defend against a nuclear strike from the
United States, and does not itself need to plan a nuclear strike against
the United States, Israel has no use for the strategic information that
it received from Pollard. Any information that did strengthen Israeli
security was already being passed on by the United States, and the vast
amount stolen by Pollard could only have been of use to others. What
Israel
did have use for is Soviet scientists and engineers who either were Jewish,
or could claim some sort of Jewish ancestry however small and however
doubtful,
or who were happy to improve their standard of living by moving to Israel
no matter what their ancestry. The issue, then, is whether or not Israel
forwarded the Pollard information - which it had no use for but which the
Soviets prized - to the Kremlin in exchange for Kremlin permission for
a swarm of Soviet scientists and engineers to emigrate to Israel.
-
- Your comparison of the life sentence meted out to Pollard
with the sentences meted out to other spies appears to overlook that the
chief determinant of sentence might be the magnitude of the damage to US
security, and that the damage of losing America's most vital military
secrets
to the Soviets may have been unprecedented. In view of the magnitude of
the loss, some might consider a fitting response to be execution of the
spy and cutting off aid to the spying country, in comparison to which no
more than imposing a life sentence on that spy might be considered a slap
on the wrist.
-
- I also thought that your assertion that Israel was an
American ally, and that spying on the United States on behalf of a friend
of the United States has traditionally been treated more leniently than
spying for an enemy - that this assertion needed qualification. What
seemed
to be missing was some recognition of the growing view that Israel was
a parasite that drained the United States of resources, that Israel worked
to subvert institutions such as freedom of expression and Western notions
of justice, that from its inception to today Israel issued a steady stream
of disinformation and fed on war crimes and crimes against humanity, that
it had earned for itself the distinction of being the most hated nation
on earth, and that America's support of Israel was fanning anti-American
sentiment all over the globe. With friends like Israel, the United States
does not need enemies. To go easy on Israeli spies would be to condone
Israeli misbehavior and to give a green light to the further betrayal of
United States interests by Americans of Jewish ancestry.
-
- The subject of my letter to you of 09-Aug-2001 was
third-party
interference in Jewish show trials, and in that letter I suggested that
such third-party interference may be integral to Jewish culture. My
reading
of your involvement in the Pollard case reinforces that view. Or rather,
as the Pollard case was not a Jewish show trial, my reading of your
involvement
in the Pollard case broadens that view. What we see in your involvement
in the Pollard case is Jewish third-party interference in American justice.
The interference relies on the favorite Jewish tactic of career
destruction.
-
- From the lack of credibility of the immediate source
of information - yourself - and what you claim is one of the more distant
sources - Jonathan Pollard - and from the lack of corroboration, the
accusations
against Judge Aubrey Robinson can be dismissed as groundless. As Judge
Robinson is possibly not in a position to amend the sentence which he
imposed
on Pollard, the benefit of attacking him might be to demonstrate to any
others who have it within their power to get Pollard out of jail, and more
generally to any others who might be involved in any decision affecting
Jews, that the thwarting of Jewish plans comes at a price. This may be
the 20th century Jewish contribution to Western justice - to demand that
Western justice do what it is unwilling to do, and then to subvert it using
the weapon of career destruction.
-
- Lubomyr Prytulak
-
-
-
- MainPage
http://www.rense.com
-
-
-
- This
Site Served by TheHostPros
|