← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · John Crichton
Thread ID: 9514 | Posts: 18 | Started: 2003-09-04
2003-09-04 00:30 | User Profile
A TRAITOR IS A TRAITOR
Email Archives Print Reprint
September 3, 2003 -- JONATHAN Pollard, convicted spy, would like to be set free. His advocates in the United States also want Pollard to go free. And his one-time paymasters in Israel badly want him to go free. Pollard was in court yesterday asking for a reduction in his sentence. But he should have been executed for his crimes. His life sentence was a mercy he didn't deserve. Releasing him from prison while he's still breathing would be terrible for America - and even worse for Israel.
Spying is spying. Treason is treason. Such acts must be punished and deterred, without exception. It doesn't matter if the recipient of the information is North Korea, Israel or even Canada. Every American citizen's first and incontrovertible loyalty must be to the United States.
Many of us have loyalties and even family ties abroad. Every country in the world is represented in America. But while we may celebrate our various heritages, no American may ever place the welfare of another state, or of a religious group or ethnicity, above his or her obligations to our Constitution and our national security.
No exceptions. None. Never.
Perhaps the saddest - and most dangerous - aspect of the Pollard case is that demands for his release are an enormous gift to anti-Semites and Israel-haters. Pollard, who has managed to recast himself as a champion of Israel, was no such thing: He was as willing to sell secrets to China or to various Muslim states as he was to pass information to Israel. His hallmark was greed, not courage.
Pollard wasn't just a "Jew first and American second." He was a traitor who betrayed first his country and then (through his cynical depiction of himself) his co-religionists who long to see Israel survive and prosper.
As a determined supporter of Israel, it frustrates me no end to hear Jewish-Americans defend this mercenary creature. I beg you: Stop for a moment. Ask yourself how your defense of Pollard looks to your fellow countrymen. He betrayed an elementary trust. You appear to condone it, implying that Israel should get a pass even when it comes to espionage.
Suppose a Chinese-American spy argued that he was justified in passing secrets to Beijing because he was concerned about China's security. It's exactly the same thing.
By arguing for Pollard's release from prison, you appear to care more for Israel than for our own country. If that is, indeed, the case, then you are living up to the whispers of your worst enemies.
If, however, you are sincere, but misinformed, consider the damage you do to our relations with and support for Israel by appearing to favor Israel over the United States, by arguing that Israel should be an exception, even when it comes to spying on us.
When anyone insists on uncritical support of Israel, they only strengthen Israel's critics.
Israel deserves U.S. support, on many counts, from the moral to the strategic. But blind support leads to blind folly. Honest criticism is a higher form of loyalty than being a dupe.
Some American Jews may not understand what a precarious time this is beyond Manhattan's bridges and tunnels. The appearance that a number of appointees at the upper reaches of the Pentagon allow their loyalty to Israel to excessively influence American foreign policy decisions does not play well in the hinterlands.
And this is not a matter of anti-Semitism. Americans are overwhelmingly pro-Israel. But they are, first and foremost, pro-America. They are willing to defend Israel's vital interests, but not to be led by its interests.
Why does Israel continue to cajole Washington for Pollard's release, despite the negative political consequences? The reason's obvious to an old intel hand: A country has to take care of its spies, in order to reassure other spies that it won't leave them in the lurch. But while Mossad's loyalty to Pollard may be operationally wise, it is strategically foolish and woefully counterproductive.
Pollard did grave damage to America's national security. Anyone who tells you differently is a liar. And Israeli intelligence, too clever for its own good, allowed some of the information Pollard sold to end up in Soviet hands. When anyone argues for Pollard's release, they are saying that the loss of secrets even to the Soviet Union was, ultimately, a pardonable matter.
If you are a true supporter of Israel, do not join the clamor for Pollard's release. The best way to defend Israel is to be, first and foremost, a fierce defender of America. Pollard needs to spend next year in prison, not in Jerusalem.
Ralph Peters is a retired Army intelligence officer and the author of "Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World."
2003-09-04 00:35 | User Profile
Why does Israel continue to cajole Washington for Pollard's release, despite the negative political consequences? The reason's obvious to an old intel hand: A country has to take care of its spies, in order to reassure other spies that it won't leave them in the lurch.** **
Great point. Many or most of those spies are operating in the US, too.
2003-09-04 00:42 | User Profile
Wow I'm suprised Ralph Peters actually wrote something that makes sense. His books in my opinion are complete jokes and nothing but neo-con BS.
In fact his article [url=http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/1994/peters.htm]"the New Warrior Class"[/url], which also appears as a chapter in his "Fighting for the Future" he lists patriots as potential enemies of the US army. As he explains
The archetype of the new warrior class is a male who has no stake in peace, a loser with little education, no legal earning power, no abiding attractiveness to women, and no future. With gun in hand and the spittle of nationalist ideology dripping from his mouth**, today's warrior murders those who once slighted him, seizes the women who avoided him, and plunders that which he would never otherwise have possessed. **
If you haven't gotten the message yet, this sure should. In explaining the different social pools of where America's enemies will come from, we should pay attention to the 3rd pool.
*The third pool of warriordom consists of the patriots. These may be men who fight out of strong belief, either in ethnic, religious, or national superiority or endangerment*, or those who have suffered a personal loss in the course of a conflict that motivates them to take up arms. Although these warriors are the easiest to reintegrate into civil structures--especially if their experience of violence is relatively brief--some of these men, too, will develop a taste for blood and war's profits. These warriors are the most individualized psychologically, and their redeemability will depend on character, cultural context, and the depth of any personal loss, as well as on standard characteristics such as goal achievement in their conflict and perceived postwar opportunities for jobs and other societal rewards.
And this is just the beginning of what Ralph Peters has to say about things. So he maybe right on this issue, but don't give him too much credit.
2003-09-04 00:57 | User Profile
Ask yourself how your defense of Pollard looks to your fellow countrymen. He betrayed an elementary trust. You appear to condone it, implying that Israel should get a pass even when it comes to espionage.
"You appear to condone it." That's the Jew! Jews are security risks in America, yet they occupy top positions in our U.S. government. Why? The JudeoChristians are always protecting them; and, o.k., so are the leftists.
Rick-the-Racist, a local WN leader, in the near future: "Hello, ACME Rope Co.? Yes, I'd like to place a very, very large order..." :D
2003-09-04 00:59 | User Profile
I know Peters is a joke that why I billed him as a goy neocon so nobody would think he's a stand up guy. Things must be heating up in zhid-town if someone like Peters comes close to "naming the jew".
2003-09-04 01:08 | User Profile
*Originally posted by John Crichton@Sep 3 2003, 18:59 * ** I know Peters is a joke that why I billed him as a goy neocon so nobody would think he's a stand up guy. Things must be heating up in zhid-town if someone like Peters comes close to "naming the jew". **
:lol: oh ok! I was wondering what you meant by "goy neo-con warns about Jews" :lol:
2003-09-04 04:54 | User Profile
Filthy piece of scum. Actually names "patriots" as American enemies. SOunds like a kosher Darth Vader.
Lord knows what these pigs would have done to Ethan Allan.
2003-09-04 15:26 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Campion Moore Boru@Sep 3 2003, 22:54 * ** Filthy piece of scum. Actually names "patriots" as American enemies. SOunds like a kosher Darth Vader.
Lord knows what these pigs would have done to Ethan Allan. **
Thenn you'll like David Icke's reply to Peters article. [url=http://www.davidicke.net/newsroom/america/usa/082900a.html]http://www.davidicke.net/newsroom/america/...sa/082900a.html[/url]
As he begins
** Do you hold some loyalty to the U.S. ideals of constitutional freedoms and guaranteed rights? Do you think the government has gone astray? Do you feel some sort of patriotism to the United States and its original concepts. Do you have a sense of national pride? Are you a Patriot of the United States and proud of it? Are you one that believes in the right of a citizens' militia as protected in the U.S. constitution, now being dubbed as 'paramilitary' in the press and by the government? Do you maintain your right as a citizen of the United State to bear arms? Do you believe in freedom of speech?
If you answered yes to any of these questions.. You are a Patriot!
The United States Army considers patriots as WARRIORS!
If you are a Patriot (Warrior) the United States Army wants YOU! ---- Yes.. the U.S. Army wants you dead...or cowering down in obedience
The following article was published by the United States Army in their magazine called 'Parameters' and was found on a U.S. Army military website. **
and throughout the article he adds he own comments. It's interesting reading.
2003-09-04 18:50 | User Profile
Even a passing acquaintance with the principles that founded this country are a Deadly Warning Sign. Oh well: it was inevitable.
**Americans are overwhelmingly pro-Israel. But they are, first and foremost, pro-America. They are willing to defend Israel's vital interests, but not to be led by its interests. **
No. First and foremost they are pro-Schindler, pro-LL Cool J, and pro-Buffy the Vampire Slayer. They are pro-whatever th' tv just said. So long as it said the same thing on every channel.
2003-09-05 11:22 | User Profile
Originally posted by John Crichton@Sep 4 2003, 00:30 * Why does Israel continue to cajole Washington for Pollard's release, despite the negative political consequences? The reason's obvious to an old intel hand: A country has to take care of its spies, in order to reassure other spies that it won't leave them in the lurch.*
The reason's obvious to me, too. Jews want Pollard out of jail, and Jews never give up, no matter how long it takes. Israel continues to "cajole Washington for Pollard's release" because it knows that, as America continues becoming more and more Israeli and less and less American, it's only a matter of time before Pollard gets released.
It took Israel 13 years to acknowledge that Pollard acted as an Israeli agent; prior to that, they insisted he was a rogue operator. They also made him an Israeli citizen. His defense is thus based on the notion that he was spying for an ally.
The secrets Pollard sold to Israel, Israel turned around and traded with the Soviets to allow thousands of Jews, who had not been allowed to leave Russia, to move to Israel. According to Gordon Thomas, PM Yitzhak Shamir also turned over enough of the Pollard material to the apartheid government of South Africa to enable it to cripple U.S. intelligence gathering in Africa and to hide joint Israeli-South African nuclear weapons development from U.S. detection.
Here's Sobran on Pollard.
ALLIES AND TRAITORS | Joseph Sobran | January 14, 1999
WASHINGTON -- The convicted spy Jonathan Pollard, who is serving a life sentence for selling U.S. military secrets to Israel in the 1980s, has become a hero to many Jews in both Israel and the United States. The Israeli government has joined Jewish groups in this country in appealing for his release.
The appeal is based on the contention that Pollard was spying for an "ally," not an enemy, and that his efforts to help Israel did no substantial harm to the United States. On this view, he wasn't a traitor to his country, but a sort of dual-loyalty patriot.
President Clinton has been toying with the idea of commuting Pollard's sentence and letting him go to Israel. He apparently backed off a promise to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to do so only after strong protests by his own subordinates. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright sternly objected. CIA Director George Tenet warned Clinton that he would resign if Pollard was released.
But the innocuous portrait of Pollard's activities is disputed by a sensational article in the current issue of The New Yorker by Seymour Hersh. According to Hersh, a prominent investigative reporter who has often exposed abuses of power by U.S. intelligence agencies, Pollard and the Israeli government that employed him did astonishing damage to this country's military intelligence system.
Hersh doubts that Pollard was motivated chiefly by devotion to Israel. Pollard was a spendthrift, an unstable drug and alcohol abuser who had run up enormous debts when he offered his services to the Israelis in return for lots of money. The Israelis eventually paid him $25,000 a month, plus bonuses.
U.S. intelligence sources told Hersh that Pollard didn't just give the Israelis information they needed for military reasons. He also furnished them with huge amounts of highly sensitive information unrelated to their military needs, which they proceeded to trade to the Soviet Union. It was a devastating hemorrhage of U.S. secrets, exposing not only specific top secret data, but sources of information and methods of collecting it.
If these allegations are true, the U.S. might conceivably have lost a war with the Soviet Union because of the perfidy of its "reliable ally," Israel.
Never mind Pollard's treachery. He was only an agent. Why might the Israelis, so isolated and beleaguered in the Middle East, betray their chief benefactor?
Well, why not? What price have they paid for it? American politicians in this country grovel to the Israel lobby. There have been no repercussions. No American leader has complained of Israeli treachery. There has been no congressional investigation of Israeli espionage and technology theft in this country. The Israelis have never even returned the stolen documents -- yet they have the impudence to press for Pollard's release (after pretending for many years that he was involved in an unauthorized "rogue operation," though his handlers were promoted, not punished). And of course U.S. aid to Israel has continued, uninterrupted, on an enormous scale.
Israel's American apologists dodge the problem. An editorial in the pro-Israel New York Post sniffs: "Speculative at best, Hersh's piece is a dubious reportorial exercise by a left-wing journalist with longstanding anti-Israel credentials."
Oh? And what if Hersh has unearthed important facts? Shouldn't we take pains to find out the truth? In this case -- and not for the first time -- a "left-wing" reporter seems to have more concern for American interests than a "right-wing" newspaper.
Any prospective employee of our intelligence services has to undergo a thorough security check. But an "ally" with a track record of ingratitude and betrayal gets a free pass.
Hersh was told that when Tenet told Clinton that Pollard's release would demoralize the U.S. intelligence agency, Clinton replied: "Nah, don't worry about it. It'll blow over."
Yes, it always "blows over." Our relations with Israel illustrate not only what kind of "ally" Israel is, but what kind of people rule this country.
The only question is when, not whether, Pollard will be freed. The answer seems to be whenever we have a president who has no more honor than Pollard himself, and who finds it politically profitable to cut a deal.
2003-09-07 03:53 | User Profile
No. First and foremost they are pro-Schindler, pro-LL Cool J, and pro-Buffy the Vampire Slayer. They are pro-whatever th' tv just said. So long as it said the same thing on every channel.
And to think that I get Il Ragno for free. For free!
2003-09-07 15:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by Hugh Lincoln@Sep 7 2003, 03:53 * ** > No. First and foremost they are pro-Schindler, pro-LL Cool J, and pro-Buffy the Vampire Slayer. They are pro-whatever th' tv just said. So long as it said the same thing on every channel.*
And to think that I get Il Ragno for free. For free! **
I know.
It's like tapping into your neighbor's paid satellite service!!!
Keep it up, Ragman.
Walter
2003-09-07 15:41 | User Profile
*Originally posted by perun1201@Sep 4 2003, 00:42 * ** Wow I'm suprised Ralph Peters actually wrote something that makes sense. His books in my opinion are complete jokes and nothing but neo-con BS.
In fact his article [url=http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/1994/peters.htm]"the New Warrior Class"[/url], which also appears as a chapter in his "Fighting for the Future" he lists patriots as potential enemies of the US army. **
Thanks for pointing out that article, which I've now just read.
Actually, it was quite prescient, it seems to me. I understand that the author is our enemy, but he's an enemy we can learn from.
The fourth pool of warriors is made up of disaffected soldiers who combine with patriots and to make them more effective than they would have been.
**Dispossessed, cashiered, or otherwise failed military men form the fourth and most dangerous pool of warriors. Officers, NCOs, or just charismatic privates who could not function in a traditional military environment, these men bring other warriors the rudiments of the military art--just enough to inspire faith and encourage folly in many cases, although the fittest of these men become the warrior chieftains or warlords with whom we must finally cope. **
That could well happen here.
After all, if you took the poor Southern whites out of the US Special Forces, you wouldn't have much left. And those guys are the ones with the biggest grievances and the strongest sense of identity of any white group in the States - a dangerous mixture.
Walter
2003-09-07 16:26 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Sep 7 2003, 09:41 * **
The fourth pool of warriors is made up of disaffected soldiers who combine with patriots and to make them more effective than they would have been.ÃÂ
**Dispossessed, cashiered, or otherwise failed military men form the fourth and most dangerous pool of warriors. Officers, NCOs, or just charismatic privates who could not function in a traditional military environment, these men bring other warriors the rudiments of the military art--just enough to inspire faith and encourage folly in many cases, although the fittest of these men become the warrior chieftains or warlords with whom we must finally cope. **
That could well happen here.
After all, if you took the poor Southern whites out of the US Special Forces, you wouldn't have much left. And those guys are the ones with the biggest grievances and the strongest sense of identity of any white group in the States - a dangerous mixture.
Walter **
As I've often said here before, warriorship is not confined to those in the military. The military are just professional warriors, but they're not the only ones. Many of the minutemen who fought against the British certainly were not soldiers, but they were warriors. Same thing with the men at the Alamo.
Many members of the Friekorps during the war of Liberation in 1813 Germany were students and urban workers, but they were warriors. The Scottish highlander was a shepard and farmer by profession, but he was also a warrior.
Many of the greatest warriors in Medieval Europe(or even feudal Japan) were not soldiers but were often merchants and farmers. For example in feudal Japan, common farmers would organize their own self-defense units to protect themselves from both bandits and brutalities from the Shogun's police. I forgot what these units were called(I'll have to check) but they were effective fighters and many Samurai were afraid to go into battle against them.
During the Middle Ages and many other ages of history, almost everybody was pratically armed and knew the art of fighting in some form.
Not only just Patriots and failed military men, but Peters also notes the underclass as a source. I'm sure Peters is probally trying to convey the image of the poor ass Blacks and Hispanics, but I see it as the white workers who lose their jobs to illegals and less qualified minorities. White workers who get f*cked over by globalization.
You know Yannis another good person to read is the Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld. He predicts the future of war will not be Desert Storm; but the LA riots, North Ireland, and Palestine. In other words, low-intensity low-tech tribal/ethnic based warfare will be the norm. The army of the future will be more like the Freikorps, the IRA, and the RUC(main British security force in N. Ireland) as opposed to Robocop. He maybe a Zhid, but he's still good.
I love his book about how women fought in combat, in that they rarely if ever did. In it he actually talks about how most countries in the EU are also the European nations with the largest number women involved in political decisions. He basically tears feminism a new hole. :lol:
2003-09-08 00:50 | User Profile
**Some American Jews may not understand what a precarious time this is beyond Manhattan's bridges and tunnels. The appearance that a number of appointees at the upper reaches of the Pentagon allow their loyalty to Israel to excessively influence American foreign policy decisions does not play well in the hinterlands. **
Gee, Ralph, I guess if you had your way all those dumb hicks who don't live in New York, Hollywood, or South Florida would be excluded from political discourse, wouldn't they?
After all, they're too "uninformed" to make rational policy decisions, and they might pick up some troublesome notions from information they get off that eeeeeevul Internet thing that everyone has nowadays. Even the unwashed masses in the "hinterlands" are online now, and that's potentially dangerous, isn't it?
2003-09-13 18:57 | User Profile
*Originally posted by perun1201@Sep 7 2003, 16:26 * ** You know Yannis another good person to read is the Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld. He predicts the future of war will not be Desert Storm; but the LA riots, North Ireland, and Palestine. In other words, low-intensity low-tech tribal/ethnic based warfare will be the norm. The army of the future will be more like the Freikorps, the IRA, and the RUC(main British security force in N. Ireland) as opposed to Robocop. He maybe a Zhid, but he's still good. **
I know about van Creveld, but haven't read any of his books yet.
It's near the top of my list, though.
In fact, if memory serves van Creveld predicts Civil War II in America, along racial lines.
Is that coorect?
Walter
2003-09-13 19:25 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Sep 13 2003, 18:57 * ** In fact, if memory serves van Creveld predicts Civil War II in America, along racial lines.
Is that coorect?
**
Pretty much, Walter.
I haven't read all his stuff, but in his book The Transformation of War he comes about as close as an accredited scholar can get to the truth and still keep a job in his field. Basically, he points out that the United States was always fractuous, but always had enough room to let the malcontents roam, blow off steam and found new towns and industries. This state of affairs, however, is over now, and the horizon no longer beckons. When people can't hit the road and find their future, they turn to revolution and such. Marty van Creveld picked this up really early so he knows how to pay attention.
2003-09-13 21:23 | User Profile
I haven't read all his stuff, but in his book The Transformation of War he comes about as close as an accredited scholar can get to the truth and still keep a job in his field.ÃÂ **
Yes I agree, probally one of the few real good military scholars today. But I do disagree with him on many things. First off, Creveld's critique of Clausewitz's Trinity is incomplete. The trinity might have been laid out in a way most people in the 19th and 20th century would've understood but its still relevant today in unconventional warfare.
What is Clausewtiz's trinity? The State The Army The People
The state is pretty much whose in control. Now Clausewtiz was talking about the modern state, but it can apply to warlords, or even the Communist Party as Mao described. Its basically the leadership.
The Army are those actually doing the fighting. Now Clausewitz was talking about a conventional professional army, but guerrilla fighters equally serve this purpose.
The people are non-combatants who support the state and the army. Even in guerrilla warfare, not everybody can be on the front-line. Some have to stay behind and build up support and work for the war effort.
So Creveld critique of Clausewitz's trinity was incomplete and Creveld took his definitions of the trinity too literally.
Basically, he points out that the United States was always fractuous, but always had enough room to let the malcontents roam, blow off steam and found new towns and industries.ÃÂ This state of affairs, however, is over now, and the horizon no longer beckons.ÃÂ When people can't hit the road and find their future, they turn to revolution and such.ÃÂ Marty van Creveld picked this up really early so he knows how to pay attention.
I believe on many occasions Creveld said that the LA riots were simply a prelude of what was to come in America's future.
Like I said before, he maybe a Zhid but he's not your typical one.