Is it a moral imperative

[SEC=UGA]

(The New Republic)

 

A man sits in prison, serving a life sentence after committing grave crimes against his country. Meanwhile, his aged father lies dying. The prisoner asks to be released for one day to say goodbye at his father’s bedside. The authorities say no; by some accounts, they do not even reply to his request. His father dies, and he asks to be released for one day to attend the funeral. Again, he is turned down, reportedly after high-level diplomatic consultations.

 

This is, of course, Jonathan Pollard’s story. But I presented it anonymously because it shouldn’t matter whose story it is. Pollard is a prisoner, but he is still a human being. Honoring our parents by burying them appropriately is one of the defining duties of our humanity. Preventing a human being from discharging that duty is an elemental wrong.

 

Governments typically deal in aggregates and make decisions affecting millions. Sometimes, however, it comes down to an encounter between state power and a single individual. I do not claim that the moral principles that shape relations among individuals transfer neatly to the acts of public authorities. There is a difference, even if we argue about the specifics of the distinction. Still, basic precepts of decency and mercy do not lose all force when one moves from private to public status.

 

The Secretary of State and the Attorney-General owe us an explanation. In fact, the President of the United States owes us an explanation. My question is simple: What considerations of public safety, or national security, or international relations were so weighty as to override the dictates of simple humanity?

 

Israel asks US to let spy attend father's funeral

 

I do not know whether it is standard practice in the U.S. penal system to allow prisoners to attend their parents’ funeral. If it isn’t, it should be. Nor do I know whether the Israeli government prevents some Palestinian prisoners from attending funerals, as Palestinian spokesmen have recently charged. If that is the case, the Israelis should reexamine their policy and ask themselves whether national security truly requires it.

 

These are legitimate questions, but they do not touch the core of the point I’m making: There are times when you don’t need an elaborate moral argument to identify a straightforward wrong. If I’m right, the U.S. government’s treatment of Pollard’s request is one of the times. For high officials to persist in their obstinate silence only deepens the wrong.

 

Bio: William Galston is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing editor for The New Republic. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

[matt770]

Can't do the time, don't do the crime. Letting prisoners out to attend funerals?? Come on, man.

[Bronco Billy]

I hope you are just fishing. Pollard was epicly treacherous to this country. You want to see your loved ones before they die, or go to their funeral? Then don't engage in activities where you have to surrender your rights when caught.

 

Here are some parts of what former FBI and Navy lawyer M.E. "Spike" Bowman, who was a key official in the Pollard case, has to say:

 

link

 

"[H]is initial handler told him that they already receive 'SECRET' level material from the United States. What they needed was the TOP SECRET data they were not yet receiving."

...

 

Hard copies of the documents Pollard stole in 18 months could "fill a room that is six feet by six feet by ten," Ronald Olive, the top Navy investigator in the Pollard case, told SpyTalk.

 

...

 

Of course, Pollard didn't just spy for Israel, although that was far and away his main benefactor.

 

"Intelligence officials have unofficially detailed instances of additional disclosures to other nations," Bowman writes. "These officials said that Pollard had given classified documents to Pakistan, South Africa and two other countries they declined to identify."

 

Some the documents Pollard gave Israel ended up in Moscow, according to various reports, but as one investigator in the case told SpyTalk, "there are only two countries that know the facts Russia and Israel. Which leads me to believe we will never know the truth."

 

...

 

"No other spy in the history of the United States stole so many secrets, so highly classified, in such a short period of time," he maintains.

 

 

********************

 

He can rot in Hell and I hope he will never be freed for the damage that he intentionally and willfully did to our country.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[buddahj]

If you let one, you'll have to let all of them. That's a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened.

Edited June 30, 2011 by buddahj

[The Next Generation]

Can't do the time, don't do the crime. Letting prisoners out to attend funerals?? Come on, man.

 

[Square]

I could let out a "prisoner". Just not one that did such a crime that they are sentenced to a life sentence (or something similar). If someone is in jail for 30 - 90 days and their father passes away, I don't find much trouble with giving them a day pass (as many can obtain work passes anyway). I could probably agree to some line where if your crime is more serious than X, you cannot leave under any circumstances, but if you are less serious than you can get out for an immediate family member's funeral.

[jetsfan]

Put Pollard in front of the firing squad and he can attend his father's funeral at the same time.

Problem solved.

[Bronco Billy]

This doesn't seem to be headed in the direction SEC intended...

Edited June 29, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[Duchess Jack]

gotta say, I can't see any reason why we should. some people have crappy father and awesome grandparents, some people have crappy families all together but amazing friends who really touched their life.