Bowman's Stunning Appeal for Jonathan Pollard's Release

In his NY Times Op-Ed of Jan. 15, 2014, M.E. Bowman, a former deputy general counsel for national security law at the FBI and a former deputy of the U.S. Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive clearly intends to slam Jonathan Pollard and convince readers of the NY Times that Jonathan Pollard is to be kept locked up and not released.  But while that is unquestionably his intention, like Balaam, in the Old Testament, he woefully fails to deliver the fatal curse on Pollard.  Instead, whether he intended to or not, he winds up delivering a powerful argument for Pollard's release.

Presumably, for his purpose to fully disclosure, Mr. Bowman informs us that Lawrence J. Korb, the assistant secretary of defense at the Pentagon at the time of Mr. Pollard's arrest, has said that (Pollard's) punishment was disproportionate to his offense.  We are further informed by Mr. Bowman that R. James Woolsey, a former director of central intelligence, echoed that sentiment at a security conference in November (2013).   Clearly, people at the highest levels of the government in those areas that concern themselves with intelligence and the defense of this nation are of the opinion that Jonathan Pollard, having served as long as he has, deserves to be released at this time.  And, furthermore, as Korb sees it, Pollard has served a sentence far greater than appropriate for his offense.

So, who is this Mr. M.E. Bowman, who disagrees so vehemently with Korb and Woolsey?  He apparently has good credentials.  But, are they any better than Korb's or Woolsey's?  I hardly think so.  

Bowman opens his comments with an attack on the character of Jonathan Pollard.  Pollard, he claims, is someone "who imagines his life is greater than it was."   Quite possibly Bowman is correct.  "(Pollard) told fanciful tales to peers while at Stanford (over 40 years ago)," writes Bowman.  Very possibly Pollard did.  "By the mid-1980's, (Pollard) used his position as a civilian navel intelligence analyst to become an enthusiastic and willing spy for profit by passing state secrets to Israel."  So what is Mr. Bowman saying here?  Is he aghast that Pollard did his spying as a civilian navel intelligence analyst?  No one denies that he did this.  If you're going to spy, it's generally helpful to be in a position where you can put your fingers on those secrets you might wish to steal.  That's kind of like Spying 101.

Spys have all sorts of motivations.  The spy might be threatened with the exposure of some secret that he doesn't want exposed.  He might be doing it for ideological reasons.  There are all sorts of motivations.  If Bowman says Pollard did it for money, who am I to dispute him?  But, where are we going with this?  Are Pollard's motivations relevant to his crime?  Should the enthusiasm with which Pollard carried out his spying net him an additional 10 or 20 years?

Mr. Bowman's comments suggest that Jonathan Pollard not only acted criminally, but also pretty much played the role of a fool.  And, again, I have no reason to disagree.  Pollard did act criminally.  I also believe that because Pollard was less smart than he thought he was, or because of some emotional dysfunction, he acted not only criminally, but behaved like a fool.  From earlier readings of his case, I believe the excessive sentence given him was the result of acting foolishly when mounting his defense.  Quite possibly, he was given truly abysmal legal counsel.

As to his crime:  He gave state secrets to Israel, and, for that, he deserved to be punished.  But, the extent of the damage which Pollard did is stretched beyond the point of credibility by Bowman. He cites Seymour Hersh as as the source of remarks by William J. Casey, former director of central intelligence,  charging that information stolen by Pollard had been traded to Russia for Jewish emigres.  Really?  That's quite a charge.  And, where do we learn of this charge?  Why, of course, from the reporter, Seymour Hersh.  This charge is truly serious and deserves being authenticated.  But, what is Bowman's source -- the hearsay of a reporter known to delight in un-authenticed information.  I'm afraid Mr. Bowman is going to have to do a great deal better than that.

Clearly, Mr. Bowman doesn't like Mr. Pollard.  He would, no doubt, like to see him hanged.  Baring that, Mr. Bowman is delighted to see Mr. Pollard serve as many years as possible.  And, I can understand his feeling of patriotic indignation at the theft of state secrets by Jonathan Pollard.  I too abhor people who spy on America in behalf of other nations.  But, are men like Lawrence J. Korb and R. James Woolsey any less patriotic than Bowman?  Are they any less informed of the facts regarding Jonathan Pollard's crimes?  I think not.  I don't know what sort of axe Mr. Bowman chooses to grind, but I think it goes way beyond Jonathan Pollard.