American Fairness, Justice, and Mercy
A response to Benjamin Netanyahu’s clemency appeal argues that Jonathan Pollard’s espionage, the damage to U.S. intelligence, and his betrayal of colleagues justified continued imprisonment on grounds of fairness, justice, and mercy.
The campaign for Jonathan Pollard’s release has gained momentum in the Israeli press and on social media, culminating in an official appeal from Benjamin Netanyahu. His letter asks President Obama to consider clemency on the grounds of fairness, justice, and mercy.
Those are appropriate considerations in any clemency decision. In Pollard’s case, however, I do not believe they make a persuasive argument for his release.
Fairness
Service in the intelligence community carries substantial obligations. Employees accept restrictions on their personal lives, intrusive security requirements, and a continuing responsibility to protect classified information. Many work long hours, face personal risks, and receive little public recognition. The system depends on their willingness to honor those commitments.
Pollard violated that trust for substantial personal compensation. Accounts of his espionage describe a sustained operation in which he removed classified documents, satellite photographs, and computer printouts, delivered them for copying, and returned them to avoid detection. In exchange, he received a salary and gifts, including expensive travel for himself and his wife.
These circumstances matter when assessing claims that Pollard acted primarily out of ideological conviction. Whatever his sympathies toward Israel, he accepted payment for disclosing information he was entrusted to protect.
Fairness must also account for those who upheld the same obligations Pollard disregarded, and for the institutions left to address the consequences. Those responsibilities should not disappear from the discussion simply because his supporters regard his motives sympathetically.
Justice
The debate over Pollard’s sentence has often obscured the seriousness of the underlying conduct. He carried out a paid espionage operation that compromised highly sensitive American intelligence.
In comments reported by The Washington Times, former U.S. attorney Joseph diGenova, who prosecuted the case, said Pollard also tried to recruit others. Citing the Defense Department, diGenova put the cost of addressing the damage at between $3 billion and $5 billion.
Much of the damage assessment is not publicly available, limiting what outsiders can independently evaluate. Published accounts nevertheless describe compromises serious enough to explain the strong opposition to clemency within the intelligence community.
One detailed account describes Pollard’s disclosure of RASIN, a multivolume NSA reference manual containing the technical characteristics of known communications signals. According to that reporting, the manual exposed information about American signals-intelligence capabilities, including collection involving the Soviet Union and Israel.
The same account describes the manual’s importance in Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger’s classified submission to the sentencing court. It also details compromises involving other intelligence reports, databases, and collection requirements. These were not simply isolated documents. They concerned the methods, capabilities, and priorities on which intelligence operations depended.
In my view, the reported compromise of RASIN alone provides a strong justification for a life sentence. The broader record reinforces the case against clemency. Israel’s status as an ally does not diminish Pollard’s obligations to the United States or the seriousness of violating them.
Mercy
Mercy deserves consideration, even in a serious espionage case. But humane treatment and continued imprisonment are compatible. The United States remains responsible for Pollard’s treatment in custody; that obligation does not, by itself, require reducing his sentence.
I support Israel as an ally and understand Netanyahu’s commitment to securing Pollard’s release. That diplomatic commitment does not resolve the American questions of accountability and national security.
Pollard’s conduct was deliberate, sustained, and financially rewarded. The reported damage was extensive. Netanyahu’s appeal offers no compelling reason to set those considerations aside. Fairness, justice, and mercy remain consistent with requiring Pollard to serve his sentence.