United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Hey, Let’s Release a Traitor! [Pollard]
Source:
WeaponsMan
URL Source: http://weaponsman.com/?p=24068
Published: Jul 22, 2015
Author: Â
Post Date: 2015-07-22 08:35:28 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 3111
Comments: 66
Jonathan Pollard, caught on surveillance video stealing documents. American traitor Jonathan Pollard is closing in on the backstretch of his stint in Federal Prison. “Wait,” you say. “He was sentenced to life in prison!” Well, just like the way the Administration can release a bunch of terrorists from Gitmo to resume their lives of crime, or swap some of them for a traitor, to reward the turncoat, or release another bunch of drug and gun criminals to play Santa Claus in July — all these things really happened, we are not making them up — they can release a traitor and spy if they like. And the word is, that the US Department of Justice will reward the spy for his 1980s betrayal by kicking him out of his long-term rent-controlled apartment in the Crowbar Condiminiums on the 30th Anniversary of his arrest. Pollard must have been a true puzzlement to the Administration. A spy with the simplest motivation of all, greed, he mostly stole things that were no direct use to his Israeli spymasters, but which they could trade for things they needed from other US enemies, like Russia. That was, in fact, what his Mossad handlers directed him to steal. And Pollard’s mercenary motivation was clear for several reasons. First, he admitted it when caught, so that’s a bit of an indicator. Also, Israel wasn’t his first stop. He’d tried two other foreign powers, only to be turned down (the Russians and Chinese both thought he was a really clumsy FBI dangle), before setting his sights on Israel. Since his arrest, he’s rediscovered his previously more or less lapsed Judaism and conned a lot of Israeli society into believing that the mostly Russian-related secrets he stole were Middle Eastern intel that the US was not sharing with Israel out of a lack of trust (gee, we can’t imagine why that might obtain). He has a huge fan club, and an army of lawyers and helpers that have been trying to spring him for decades, and might finally get their wish. One of their complaints has been that Pollard, who’s only 61, is in ill health and is likely to die within months. (Hmmm, last time we heard that it was about a Libyan terrorist that the British government released due to a “imminently terminal” diagnosis… the guy lived for years). He’s being released, not out of humanitarian concerns, as far as we can tell, but because hey, he was a cancer attacking America, a traitor; and that’s something that the whole Beltway can get behind. The Jonathan Pollard of 2015 probably believes himself he was an Israeli patriot, but the Jonathan Pollard of 1985 would have sold the stuff to Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad just as gladly, if they’d had an embassy (give Washington time, they might) and he’d thought they had any money. His supporters argue that he did not deserve life in prison. We agree. What he deserved was what civilized men always understood as The Spy’s Reward. Still does. Of all the claims about Pollard, the most controversial is the one that he spied for money, and not for Jewish/Israeli patriotism. An excellent overview of the Pollard case by the investigator who took his first confession is Capturing Jonathan Pollard by Ronald Olive, and it recounts Pollard’s extensive drug use, grandiose behavior, and attempts to spy for several nations including Australia (! p. 43-44). He also shared extensive classified and codeword information with a CBS reporter, Kurt Lohbeck, and offered Lohbeck a chance to share with him in the profits of selling one classified document to Pakistan (with whose intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, Lohbeck already had a relationship). Lohbeck declined, but he and his editor, Sam Roberts, who discussed Pollard at length, apparently never considered turning Pollard in. After all, they could use the secrets he provided. Azoulay, Orly, and Eichner, Itamar. Reports: US Justice Dept. will not oppose Pollard’s release. YNet News, 19 July 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4681431,00.html Olive, Ronald. Capturing Jonathan Pollard: How One of the Most Notorious Spies in American History Was Brought to Justice. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2013. Shalev, Chemi. Jailed spy Pollard on track for November 21 release – unless something goes wrong. Ha’aretz, Jerusalem. 17 July 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/west-of-eden/.premium-1.666604
(1 image) 
Update
Sources
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-26) not displayed.
.
.
.
#27. To: redleghunter, TooConservative, CZ82, liberator (#26)
You tell 'em, Ram. Do we really have to list the evils perpetrated by man in the name of God to prove your point? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
That is not true. The American colonists had mechanisms for a self govt in place. It was rebellion against the failure of govt rather than of govt.
I think the Revolutionary War was a just war so I am not in agreement with Vic. As for Pollard, I am against special early releases. If there was no parole mechanism for his release and one was created after the fact I would be against it - if eligibility for parole was part of his jail sentence and it seems it was than if he was paroled I would not act like it was some dastardly early release. The traitors of "Falcon and the Snowman" were released for example.
Not possible. He is doing Federal time.
Those that wish them harm and death. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.---John 1:17
About as many or perhaps scores more evils perpetuated by man in the name of himself, the 'better good' and in defiance to God. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.---John 1:17
Correction. I take it back. He has been in there so long, he predates the elimination of Federal parole in 1987.
I never heard that before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard During Pollard's trial, the U.S. government's memorandum in aid of sentencing challenged the "defendant's claim that he was motivated by altruism rather than greed." The government said that Pollard had "disclosed classified information in anticipation of financial gain" in other instances: The government's investigation has revealed that defendant provided to certain of his acquaintances U.S. classified documents which defendant obtained through U.S. Navy sources. The classified documents which defendant disclosed to two such acquaintances, both of whom are professional investment advisers, contained classified economic and political analyses which defendant believed would help his acquaintances render investment advice to their clients... Defendant acknowledged that, although he was not paid for his unauthorized disclosures of classified information to the above-mentioned acquaintances, he hoped to be rewarded ultimately through business opportunities that these individuals could arrange for defendant when he eventually left his position with the U.S. Navy. In fact, defendant was involved in an ongoing business venture with two of these acquaintances at the time he provided the classified information to them...[34] During the course of the Pollard trial, Australian authorities reported the disclosure of classified American documents by Pollard to one of their own agents, a Royal Australian Navy officer who had been engaged in a personnel-exchange naval-liaison program between the U.S. and Australia.[35] The Australian officer, alarmed by Pollard's repeated disclosure to him of data caveated No Foreign Access Allowed, reported the indiscretions to his chain of command. It recalled the officer from his position in the U.S., fearing that the disclosures might be part of a "CIA ruse".[35] Confronted with this accusation after entering his plea, Pollard admitted only to passing a single classified document to the Australian; later, he changed his story, and claimed that his superiors ordered him to share information with the Australians.[35] As of 2014 the full extent of the information Pollard passed to Israel has still not been officially revealed. Press reports cited a secret 46-page memorandum, which Pollard and his attorneys were allowed to view.[36] They were provided to the judge by Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, who described Pollard's spying as including, among other things, obtaining and copying the latest version of Radio-Signal Notations (RASIN), a 10-volume manual comprehensively detailing America's global electronic surveillance network.[9][37]
I know you are not advocating lawlessness and chaos. However, your utopia of God's Law established and Truth and Justice supreme on earth won't happen worldwide until the Second Coming of Christ. Until then, the Kingdom of Heaven is within the Christian to be followed, preached and for us to be beams of light showing others the path to Christ the King. Again for the record...I do not believe you advocate lawlessness and chaos. That's all very well. The problem is this: individually God will hold you accountable for your sins. God prohibited men from killing other men. He didn't make it optional. If a state COMMANDS Christians, as a matter of law and order, to denounce Christ, and it is a time of war, does the Christian do it? Does he say "Well, it's a fallen world, and the state authorities have said that I must denounce Christ. If I don't, and other Christians don't, the unity of the state will be lost and then the country may well be destroyed, and if THAT happens the chaos will be terrible - Animal Farm stuff. Therefore, in this fallen world, God will understand if I denounce Christ"? Does the Christian say that? Why not? Because God judges, and God demands that people remain obedient EVEN IF it means death and destruction? Denying Christ is a trivial thing compared to killing another human being. Because one can just go through the motions of the denial in order to preserve life, order and the peace, but not really mean it. It's a lie, but a lie is a lesser evil than the collapse of the social order and mass starvation and Animal Farm, is it not? (Or isn't it?) There's good precedent in the Bible that God understands people pretending to worship idols but not really meaning it. Naaman the Syrian was healed of leprosy by the prophet Elisha, and Naaman acknowledged that the one true God was the God of Israel. He said that he would thenceforth worship only the God of Israel, but he said that he would nevertheless have to bow down to the idol of his master, the eastern king, because he was his vizier at court. Elisha did not tell him he must not, and his leprosy did not return. When you kill a man, you've committed an act that cannot be retrieved. One can always change words and acts, but if you've destroyed another living soul, you cannot undo what you have done. The first (and only) physical punishment offense for Gentiles given by God was for shedding blood. "He who sheds blood, by man shall his blood be shed." So, I guess we stand at a fork in the road. The one path says that, in order to preserve the social order, respect the authority of commanders, not divide the nation in war, and not bring about all of the calamities that come from men being "utopic", that if the rulers demand a renunciation of Christ, or perhaps (as in Canaanite cities) participation in group pansexual rituals, or killing other people in spite of God's ban, that God understands all of these things, in a fallen world, and forgives all of it as the lesser evil. It's a lesser evil to deny Christ, participate in orgies, and kill other men than to risk the social order. That's one path. The other is that the social order the requires denial of God, sexual license and killing requires defiance of God, and that these snares are specifically placed by Satan to force this very conflict, in which a man must choose between God and the idol of "social order". Faced with such a thing, men not only MUST break the law, but they MAY attack their own state in self defense. The state may call them traitors, but God will reward them with a crown. But those who went along to "avoid the worst" - the breakdown of the social order - in fact chose the path TO the worst by preserving a social order that were better destroyed, even though that means mass human death. For all men die, but it is better to die sinless in a famine from a social collapse, than to die having just shed blood and denied God in the service of an idol. Those are the two paths. It is my belief that the second path is the only one that is certain to result in a positive judgment. In the first case, to lie in order to preserve life but to internally hold to the truth MAY be forgiven by God as a weakness. But once a man starts to overtly participate in orgies and to kill people, the forbidden fruit has actually been eaten, and I do not believe that without full repentence he can be saved.
No way. The intelligence community will not just sit back and take it.
The Americans had been self-governing since first settlement. That the British imposed some taxes and other restrictions on the colonies in light of the results - both in debt and territorial gains - in the previous war, made many mad. They would accept no limits and no rules, no taxes "on principle", and on that principle, they planned a revolt against their leaders, and they revolted and shot up soldiers. It was unjustifiable. By the mid-war period, once the British had themselves unleashed Indians to come marauding into civilian towns and slaughter people and the like, the justification to fight was there, but it certainly was not there in 1775. The British had done nothing as of the 18th of April of '75 to justify the mass murder of British soldiers.
Who was THAT in the suburbs of Boston in 1775?
I agree. He did not conspire with enemy powers, even if he may have provided info with material that ultimately ended up in the hands of our enemies after Irsael sold it to them. It sends a bad message to Mossad and Israel to release this spy. It demonstrates that Israel is a powerful enemy willing and able to protect its spies once captured, something no other country could get away with in conducting espionage against America.
I agree. I posted this article because there has been a virtual news blackout on the subject. Which is pretty fishy in itself.
Good post. People forget over decades just what a spy like Pollard actually did. For comparison, look at how the .gov dealt with the Walker family spy ring, also back in the Eighties. They got hundreds of years in prison for selling vital operational secrets of our Navy directly to a hostile power, the USSR, over decades. The father and his older brother both already died in prison. The son, who played a minor role, got paroled about 15 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker Pollard sold info to an allied government (Israel), not to an active enemy power like the Walker family spy ring did. And even the Walkers escaped any death penalty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker The Falcon and the Snowman sold secrets to the Soviets and they were paroled and one of them (The Falcon) escaped from prison and robbed 15 banks and was later caught and he still was let out. I don't want special treatment for Pollard because he did it for Israel and that is somehow better. He should be treated by the book and if he is up for parole and was a model prisoner then I won't freak out if he is let out on parole. I don't want a pardon for him or a commuted sentence or him being allowed to leave for Israel while on parole.
Also, we should not lose sight of the fact that Israel denied complicity for years, and the U.S. has never received a full accounting of what was stolen and provided. Over the years, the intel services have been especially vehement that Pollard not be released. I think Pollard is where he belongs. Eligibility for parole does not mean automatic granting of parole. He is only eligible at all because he is grandfathered in. For the past 28 years, policy has been that there is no Federal parole -- everyone does the full time. As a matter of law, that cannot be applied to Pollard as it would effectively make his sentence more severe, ex post facto.
I don't worship Israel like some conservatives tend to do so I am assuming my opinion is one based on me trying to be rational and fair. If Pollard is released on parole via normal means for normal reasons (well behaved in prison, etc) then I would not oppose his release on parole.
Even if they looked upped Mary Magdalene's skirt?
By your reasoning a society should not defend itself from evil. That would actually produce more bloodshed and the blood of the innocent would be on our hands when we had the means to defend the innocent. Allowing lawlessness and chaos leads to mass murder, and the oppression of the weak, the widow and orphan. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.---John 1:17
Red coats coming to seize the milita armory. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.---John 1:17
More broadly, the colonists were Englishmen who were being taxed without representation. Due to this and other oppressive measures, the king of England had proven himself a mere tyrant and no longer merited the obedience of his former subjects. For all people that people talk about the Declaration, I sometimes think no one has ever read past the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness bit. I assure you, there's more to it than that.
Actually, good behavior is only a contributing factor, and not the most significant factor. It is more a factor is eligibility than in granting parole. More significant would be the unlikelihood of committing another offense and a showing of sincere remorse. I do not think release should be considered until there is a full accounting of what was disclosed. http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB407/docs/Pollard%20damage%20assess%20CIA.pdf At PDF page 9 of the DCI Damage Assessment, it shows that the Israeli's asked Pollard to obtain classified information on: When our knowledge of classified Soviet technology is passed on to the Soviets, it endangers the assets who were working for the USA, and any tradecraft that may be revealed. At PDF page 46: At PDF page 48-49: 43. This publicity, which the Pollards apparently hoped would mobilize sympathy and support from the Israeli Government as well as from within the American Jewish community, backfired on both them and on the Israelis. Following a series of delays in sentencinq from 10 September 1986 until 4 March 1987, Judge Aubrey Robinson pronounced sentences of. life imprisonment for Jonathan Pollard and two concurrent five-year terms for Anne Henderson-Pollard. Although his perception of the severity of the espionage offense probably was the chief factor in Judge Robinson's sentencing decision, he likely also took into account the Pollarde' plea-bargain violations. At PDF page 160: http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB407/docs/EBB-PollardDoc6.pdf The Declaration of Caspar Weinberger is harsh toward Pollard. Weinberger Declaration at PDF pages 4-5: Weinberger Declaration at PDF page 17:
That's up to the parole board - I am just stating that it is not that big a deal if this traitor is released if the book is followed. Pollard is a burr in the pro Israel side because for the last 20 years or so (it was not that way before) the myth has developed that Israel and the USA are some kind of partner states - like Israel is almost an American state or colony. A lot has to do with the Evangelical wing of the GOP coupled with a powerful Israeli lobby that has sway with both parties.
Weinberger's Supplementary Declaration provides the reason this mutt should not be released. He leaked more information while awaiting sentencing and it is clear his loyalty does not go to the U.S. He has renounced his citizenship. As long as he has knowledge of information that remains classified, releasing him is as good as releasing the information. If Obama chooses to release Pollard, it will be around the day he leaves office. www.irmep.org/ila/pollard/03041987weinberger.pdf UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JONATHAN JAY POLLARD Criminal No. 86-0207 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF CASPAR W. WEINBERGER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 1. I am Caspar W. Weinberger, Secretary of Defense. I offer this declaration to supplement my in camera submission, which detailed the nature and extent of the harm defendant has caused to our national security, and to make known to the Court additional facts which have been brought to my attention. I also wish to address the defendant's self-serving contentions that his espionage activities were intended only to aid Israel, and the suggestion that his actions should be viewed as mere technical violations of laws intended to keep sensitive information from actual or potential enemies. 2. It is difficult for me, even in the so-called "year of the spy," to conceive of a greater harm to national security than that caused by the defendant in view of the breadth, the critical importance to the U.S., and the high sensitivity of the information he sold to Israel. That information was intentionally reserved by the United States for its own use, because to disclose it, to anyone or any nation, would cause the greatest harm to our national security. Our decisions to withhold and preserve certain intelligence information, and the sources and methods of its acquisition, either in total or in part, are taken with great care, as part of a plan for national defense and foreign policy which has been consistently applied throughout many administrations. The defendant took it upon himself unilaterally to reverse those policies. In so doing, he both damaged and destroyed policies and national assets which have taken many years, great effort and enormous national resources to secure. Moreover, in light of the defendant's continued disclosures of sensitive information for publication by the press, there is ample cause to believe that Pollard will continue to divulge classified national defense information without restraint. 3. I respectfully submit that any U.S. citizen, and in particular a trusted government official, who sells U.S. secrets to any foreign nation should not be punished merely as a common criminal. Rather, the punishment imposed should reflect the perfidy of the individual's actions, the magnitude of the treason committed, and the needs of national security. Here, although the defendant had executed an oath to protect and safeguard classified information, he betrayed the public trust and the security of the United States in exchange for money. I believe these facts should be weighed heavily in fashioning the sentence to be imposed in order to protect the public confidence in our law, and restore the public's confidence in our ability and commitment to protect U.S. security. 4. It is also relevant that Pollard has recently analogized himself to an Israeli pilot shot down behind enemy lines, and has stated his hope that he will yet be able to immigrate to Israel. Whatever else his analogy suggests, it clearly indicates that his loyalty to Israel transcends his loyalty to the United States. Nor, apparently, does any residual loyalty to the United States persuade him that he should protect U.S. national defense information at all. Only a few days ago, on February 15, 1987, the Washington Post published an article about Pollard. That article contained information purporting to reflect U.S. intelligence efforts. While I do not intend publicly to confirm or deny the accuracy of those statements, it is beyond cavil that, if true, such information should never be made publicly available. The defendant initially denied having been the source of the information, but when confronted with a polygraph examination on February 25, he acknowledged that he had either provided or confirmed certain of the information contained in that article by talking to a journalist. I have no way of knowing whether he provided additional information not published in that article, but I believe that there can be no doubt that he can, and will, continue to disclose U.S. secrets without regard to the impact it may have on U.S. national defense or foreign policy. Only a period of incarceration commensurate with the enduring quality of the national defense information he can yet impart, will provide a measure of protection against further damage to the national security. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief: CASPAR W. WEINBERGER Executed this 3rd day of March 1987
Boys will be boys.
Taxation without representation does not give a man any authority to attack and kill other men. Did the Jews have representation in Roman government? No. They were subjects paying tribute, not citizens at all. God told them to pay their taxes. The colonists faced nothing from Britain like the oppression that the Jews faced from Rome. God did not authorize the Jews to revolt. The American revolt in 1775 was morally unjustifiable. The Americans had no right to stand behind walls and shoot down British soldiers because they didn't want to pay taxes to the British government. The Americans who lined Concord road and shot down British soldiers were murderers.
Soldiers enforcing law are not attacking women and children. They were coming to seize the arsenal because the Massachusetts population was seditious, preaching rebellion over taxes and over the simple fact of British rule. Having to pay taxes and not liking the system of government are no justification for murder. Seeing incipient rebellion, the British marched out to take the guns that would be used in a rebellion away. The Americans responded by rebellion, shooting the British down. This was murder. There was no justification for it.
That is slavery. Jesus said give to Caesars what is Caesars. He also said the fruit of your labors is yours. You said killing slave masters is biblical. Even thought it isn't in the Bible and the Bible tells masters how to treat slaves.
He did no such thing. He said give to Caesar what is Caesars. The fruit of your labor isn't Caesars. Go show us where God or Jesus said that the fruits of your labor belong to the state. He didn't. He said we are not even of this world. Why would you have to pay tribute to a system you are not part of?
He who sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed. That not MY reasoning.
Ok. I will show you. Or rather, I will let God show you, in his own words, page after page of them. Over on the religion thread, I'll start in with "The Economics of God", and, starting with the first page of the Bible, proceeding forward through the last page, I will let God tell you, in his own words, exactly what he thinks about money, about labor, about violence, about domination. Tile after tile, stone after stone, sentence after sentence, page after page. You are not going to enjoy what you read. You're not going to like it, because it won't be my voice that is speaking to you anymore. It's easy to give me a hard time. You will need to direct your opposition to God. By the time God is done with you, you will have nowhere to hide and you will have a terrible choice to make - God will put you to the choice directly: follow him, or follow what you currently believe. What you currently believe is opposed to God. You think it's not, because lying Christians have twisted God's word around to make it say what they want. So I'll just let God say it directly, always God, always in his own direct words. You will be naked in the light and have nowhere to hide. God told Peter that one day he would be led where he did not want to go. Paul was also. Paul was SO CERTAIN as he rode to Damascus to punish those Nazarene heretics that he was doing God's will. But he wasn't. You're certain too, about a great many things: about money, economics, violence, country and God. And you're wrong about most of them. Dead wrong. But the scales have been on your eyes. Now God will speak to you directly, in his own voice. And you will have a choice: yield, and turn away from most of your cherished beliefs, or reject God, die self-justified, and face judgment in opposition to him. The REASON Western civilization is collapsing is because Christians have permitted themselves to be utterly hypocritical, acting in contradictory ways that do not follow what God said at all. The result is that God pushes down their idols, but people don't rally to Christianity because they judge it by the hypocrisy of Christians. I'm going to stop posting to any other thread and just concentrate on that one thread, methodically turning on God's microphone and letting him speak to you, like the voice of doom - the doom of almost everything you believe in. I have not wanted to do this in the past, but I am tired of petty Christian harping - sick of it to the bone. Christians misrepresent God and defend their own idolatry, their own sins, like dogs returning to their vomit. You all ought to know better, because you're Christians. But you've grafted your nationalism and your money greed, your covetousness onto Christianity, and in the process you've destroyed the strength of Christianity AND your states are falling to ruin. And if anybody raises his voice for God, you go after him. Well, I'm not going to raise my voice anymore. I am going to let God speak directly in his own words. It's easy to attack me. But you should blanch with fear at the though of opposing him. And that's what I am going to do: put you in the position where you will have to oppose God directly, to his face, in his own words, on everything. As you twist and turn on the hook, trying to save your belief in covetous greed and national idolatry, you will find yourself unable to. Christians pray not to be put to the test. God is now going to put you to the test. He's going to do it through me, but I won't be there. It will be all him, all in his words. You will be fighting with God. To win everything, you have to lose. If you hold onto what you have now, if you win you will lose. Right now you don't know that. By the time God is done with you, you will know. Henceforth, I shall not speak word. God will do the speaking. Hearken, and tremble.
Scripture is not a guide to good government or a treatise on good citizenship. Much of what falls under this heading in the O.T. and N.T. is archaic and cannot be applied to living in the modern world, at least not in the First World countries where Christians are concentrated. As for the colonists, they were Englishmen, first and foremost (back when that had a very particular meaning). And subjects of the British crown, a protectorate of the British empire and its naval power.
The orthodox catholic (small letters) teach there is a thing called a just war. But Vic is not wrong - HBO had a great miniseries on John Adams and it showed a Protestant member of the continental congress declaring that rebellion against the king with violence was a grave sin and how he was insulted by many of the delegation and later courted and he abstained from voting. John Dickinson was his name. He reminds me of general Lee in that he was against armed rebellion but when it happened led 10,000 men as a brig general in the militia against the British. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDzwtl5Z2cA&feature=player_embedded
A Prot? But not a Presbyterian, I bet. They were the real instigators of the Revolution. A bunch of hotheads with those subversive Geneva footnotes in their family bibles.
Quaker. See the video.
Quaker. That figures.
You would have been a good press secretary for George III. The colonies were already independent with regards to governance. A large ocean between Parliament and the monarchy. Red coats from overseas had to come over by ships. Sounds like a foreign invasion to me. They came with guns and canons too! Sounds like the colonials had a right to self defense. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.---John 1:17
He who sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed. That not MY reasoning. So again by your reasoning and interpretation no one and no society has a right to self defense to prevent innocent blood from being shed. You are entitled to that view and interpretation and there are fine communities throughout the USA (Quakers and Amish) who would take you in, in a heartbeat. And they can exist here in the USA for some very good reasons...We have a functioning government and security apparatus to ensure their peaceful living. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.---John 1:17
ASwesome. I loo0k forward to it.
IMO some of your earthly 'corporate' widescale ideas for establishing peace and justice would work for a short time and then BOOM---Kobayashi Maru--Animal Farm all over again. The framework you propose with the use of civil government will be immediately corrupted by fallen man in pursuit of power, wealth and death.
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#14)
Americans had no justification to kill the British in 1775.
#29. To: TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#16)
#30. To: Pericles, Vicomte13, TooConservative (#2)
I heard he was up for release based on meeting parole conditions.
#31. To: Vicomte13 (#23)
Defend the widow, the orphan and families from whom?
#32. To: SOSO (#27)
You tell 'em, Ram. Do we really have to list the evils perpetrated by man in the name of God to prove your point?
#33. To: Pericles, Vicomte13, TooConservative (#30)
[nc] Not possible. He is doing Federal time.
#34. To: A K A Stone, TooConservative (#24)
U.S. defense with the secrets he was trying to sell to all comers, including an actively hostile USSR.
Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) investigator Ronald Olive has alleged that Pollard passed classified information to South Africa,[31] and attempted, through a third party, to sell classified information to Pakistan on multiple occasions.[12] Pollard also stole classified documents related to China on behalf of his wife, who used the information to advance her personal business-interests. She kept these secret materials around the house, where investigating authorities discovered them when Pollard's espionage activity came to light.[11][32][33]
#35. To: redleghunter (#26)
We are instructed as Christians not to bother society in their attempt to deal with evil and lawlessness.
#36. To: TooConservative (#0)
He’s being released, not out of humanitarian concerns, as far as we can tell, but because hey, he was a cancer attacking America, a traitor; and that’s something that the whole Beltway can get behind.
#37. To: Pericles (#28)
That is not true. The American colonists had mechanisms for a self govt in place. It was rebellion against the failure of govt rather than of govt.
#38. To: redleghunter (#31)
Those that wish them harm and death.
#39. To: redleghunter (#20)
The article suggesting stringing up Pollard. Frankly, the justice system should stick with the sentence of life in prison. That is what he received.
#40. To: tomder55 (#25)
Pollard is not Aldrich Ames or Robert Hannsen . I have never seen any evidence that indicated he caused American,or American asset deaths .I have seen no evidence that the information he stole and sold to Israel was ever used against us . When Ames and Hannsen are strung up then I'll entertain the sentence for Pollard.
#41. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone, redleghunter, Pericles, Vicomte13 (#34)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard
#42. To: TooConservative, nolu chan, A K A Stone, redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#41)
For comparison, look at how the .gov dealt with the Walker family spy ring, also back in the Eighties. They got hundreds of years in prison for selling vital operational secrets of our Navy directly to a hostile power, the USSR, over decades. The father and his older brother both already died in prison. The son, who played a minor role, got paroled about 15 years ago.
#43. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone, redleghunter, Pericles, Vicomte13 (#41)
Pollard sold info to an allied government (Israel), not to an active enemy power like the Walker family spy ring did.
#44. To: nolu chan, TooConservative, A K A Stone, redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#43)
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
(Edited)
Men have no right before God to kill men for spying. None.
#46. To: Vicomte13 (#35)
Those are the two paths.
#47. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
Who was THAT in the suburbs of Boston in 1775?
#48. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#47)
Red coats coming to seize the milita armory.
#49. To: Pericles (#44)
If Pollard is released on parole via normal means for normal reasons (well behaved in prison, etc) then I would not oppose his release on parole.
--soviet aircraft;
--Soviet air defenses;
--Soviet air-to-air missiles and air-to-surface missiles; Pollard and his wife were arrested by the FBI on the morning of 21 November after a security officer at the Israeli Embassy refused to allow them entry into the building.
42. While his cooperation in debriefings was most helpful to government investigators, Pollard's willingness to grant an interview to journalist Wolf Blitzer for The Jerusalem Post without obtaining advance approval of the resulting text from the Justice Department violated the terms of his plea bargain. In the Blitzer interview, which was held on 20 November 1986 at Petersburg Federal Penitentiary, Pollard provided extensive information on his motives and objectives in conducting espionage for Israel. He also provided Blitzer a general account, with some important examples, of intelligence he passed to the Israelis and emphasized that the Israeli Government must have been aware of and have approved of his activities. The interview, first published in excerpted segments in The Jerusalem Post over several months, was replayed in The New York Times and The Washington Post. Anne Henderson-Pollard followed up with her own commentary on the case in an unauthorized interview on "60 Minutes" on 1 March 1987, just three days before the Pollards were sentenced.
4. A major difference between the Pollard espionage case and others exposed within the past several years, e.g., Walker-Whitworth, Boyce-Lee, Kampiles, Pelton, Prime, and Chin- [large redaction, goes on for pages.]
Ideally, I would detail for the Court all the information passed by the defendant to his Israeli contacts; unfortunately, the volume of data we know to have been passed is too great to permit that. Moreover, the defendant admits to having passed to his Israeli handlers a quantity of documents great enough to occupy a space six feet by six feet by ten feet.
The data provided represents my opinions and conclusions stemming from my review of the data compromised, as well as from information obtained by me in my capacity as secretary of Defense and as a member of the National Secur ity Council. The defendant has substantially harmed the United States, and in my view, his crimes demand severe punishment. Because it may not be clear to the court that the defendant's activities have caused damage of the magnitude realized, I felt it necessary to provide an informed analysis to the Court so that an appropriate sentence could be fashioned. My foregoing comments will, I hope, dispel any presumption that disclosures to an ally are insignificant; to the contrary, substantial and irrevocable damage has been done to this nation. Punishment, of course, must be appropriate to the crime, and in my opinion, no crime is more deserving of severe punishment than conducting espionage activities against one's own country. This is especially true when the individual spy has voluntarily assumed the responsiblity of protecting the nation's secrets. The defendant, of course, had full knowledge and understanding of the sensitivities of the information unlawfully disclosed. To demonstrate that knowledge, I have attached copies of non-disclosure agreements which he voluntarily executed.
#50. To: nolu chan (#49)
I do not think release should be considered until there is a full accounting of what was disclosed.
#51. To: Pericles (#50)
That's up to the parole board - I am just stating that it is not that big a deal if this traitor is released if the book is followed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
#52. To: buckeroo (#45)
Even if they looked upped Mary Magdalene's skirt?
#53. To: TooConservative (#48)
More broadly, the colonists were Englishmen who were being taxed without representation. Due to this and other oppressive measures, the king of England had proven himself a mere tyrant and no longer merited the obedience of his former subjects.
#54. To: redleghunter (#47)
Red coats coming to seize the milita armory.
#55. To: Vicomte13 (#53)
Taxation without representation
#56. To: Vicomte13 (#53)
God told them to pay their taxes.
#57. To: redleghunter (#46)
By your reasoning
#58. To: A K A Stone (#56)
#59. To: Vicomte13 (#53)
(Edited)
Did the Jews have representation in Roman government? No. They were subjects paying tribute, not citizens at all. God told them to pay their taxes.
#60. To: TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#59)
(Edited)
#61. To: Pericles (#60)
But Vic is not wrong - HBO had a great miniseries on John Adams and it showed a Protestant member of the continental congress declaring that rebellion against the king with violence was a grave sin and how he was insulted by many of the delegation and later courted and he abstained from voting.
#62. To: TooConservative (#61)
A Prot? But not a Presbyterian, I bet.
#63. To: Pericles, Vicomte13 (#62)
#64. To: Vicomte13 (#54)
Seeing incipient rebellion, the British marched out to take the guns that would be used in a rebellion away. The Americans responded by rebellion, shooting the British down. This was murder. There was no justification for it.
#65. To: Vicomte13 (#57)
By your reasoning
#66. To: Vicomte13 (#58)
Tile after tile, stone after stone, sentence after sentence, page after page.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]