This paper''s Gil Hoffman writes:
CIA: Pollard got life sentence due to ‘Post’ interview
Really?
I think that Gil missed something.
No prisoner grants an interview without prior prison authority permission.
Blizter did not stroll into the jail and Jay did not walk out.
This was not an example of a free press but most probably, a set-up.
In Jewish law, we use the Biblical verse at Leviticus 19:14 to extrapolate a prohibitive restriction, as Hershey Friedman explains:
The principle of lifnei iver [placing a stumbling-block before a blind person] prohibits one from giving bad advice to another person...the Midrash explains the reason the verse ends with the warning about fearing God: Human beings do not know whether advice proffered to them by friends is good or bad. Often, advice is given with an ulterior motive. Only God knows the true motive of the advice giver. In addition, the above verse is considered to be a prohibition against helping or causing another to sin. Thus, placing any kind of prohibited temptation in front of someone would not be allowed.
Who is responsible for Pollard''s sentencing?
The Justice Department, perhaps. The Department of Defence. Caspar Weinberger''s aide, maybe?
The claim in the report that
The CIA document surmised that Robinson delivered the sentence because of the plea bargain violation, along with his perception of the severity of the espionage offense. “Pollard’s willingness to grant an interview [on November 20, 1986] 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,” the document said.
is but an excuse.
What does than mean "without obtaining advance approval"?
Those who remember will recall prison employees escorting Jay into the room. They did that without approval from their superiors?
Of course, we could ask Wolf Blitzer: did you ask approval? How did you get into the prison? How did you get out?
This seems odd to me.
^