Scurrilous Attack on Pollard Ignores Injustice
Justice4JP Release - January 25, 2001
In a recent syndicated column, Jewish journalist Douglas M. Bloomfield blames Jonathan Pollard, his wife, his attorneys and his friends for President Clinton's failure to honor his commitment to Israel to free Jonathan. Below is a copy of Esther Pollard's letter responding to Bloomfield, as sent to the editor of the New Jersey Jewish News.
January 25, 2001
RE: Pogo Meets Pollard by Douglas M. Bloomfield - NJJNEWS 01/25/01
Unlike most other ethnic American communities which rally to support members of their own in trouble with the law, the Jewish community initially tends to unquestioningly accept the condemnation of a co-religionist in trouble and the Jewish media clearly reflects this.
That is why my husband, Jonathan Pollard, had to wage a long and difficult battle to win the support of the Jewish community in his struggle for justice, and to achieve a modicum of fair and truthful reporting in the Jewish media.
It is sad that, 16 years later, there still remains the odd fearful Jewish journalist who continues to attack Jonathan and to blame him for the on-going injustice in his case.
Douglas M. Bloomfield's recent ad hominem attacks on Jonathan Pollard, his wife, his friends and his attorneys as a means of justifying my husband's continued incarceration and of rationalizing President Clinton's failure to honor his promise to commute Jonathan's sentence is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
Blaming us for President Clinton's failure to make good on his express commitment to Israel to free Jonathan, Bloomfield writes, "Pollard is spending his 16th year in a federal prison on a life sentence with little prospect for release, thanks to a conspiracy of his worst enemies. If he wants to identify [some of his worst enemies] he can start by looking in a mirror and then at his wife and some of his so-called friends and lawyers..."
Bloomfield rapidly dismisses the judicial inequities of the case and ridicules my husband and his sixteen- year fight for freedom with examples that would be laughable were the situation not so serious. For example, Bloomfield claims that official letters supporting Jonathan's release were gained by intimidation and deception. He writes: "Many Members of Congress and Jewish leaders have privately complained they've been pressured to sign statements of support and have been misled about what they were signing. But the intimidation has been so intense that they've been afraid to object publicly."
Readers must surely wonder, as we do, what fantastic powers enable us to coerce and bamboozle American legislators and Jewish Community leaders, into signing papers that they neither understood nor wished to sign, but feared protesting!
Bloomfield claims to have personally been a "target" of Pollard intimidation, for reasons so absurd as to be unfathomable. He characterizes Jonathan as 'a loose canon with a messiah complex' and me as a 'megalomaniac'. The shrillness of Bloomfield's rhetoric makes one wonder what it is that he is so afraid of...
More important, why is it that a broken plea agreement, a grossly disproportionate sentence, ineffective assistance of counsel, the use of secret evidence, and other irregularities in the conviction and sentencing of Jonathan Pollard, trouble Bloomfield less than our unrelenting pursuit of truth and justice?
Bloomfield's Pollard-bashing is so ludicrous in its hyperbole that it is more likely to send readers directly to the Jonathan Pollard web site for the facts, than it is to discourage support for a case that Appellate Court Justice Steven Williams called, "a complete and gross miscarriage of justice."
Bloomfield ought to do some homework himself at jonathanpollard.org.
An impartial look at the record shows that the irregularities in the case include a lack of due process and a fundamental unfairness in the handling of the Pollard case since its inception, by the Justice, Intelligence and Defense departments.
Douglas Bloomfield's name was indeed on a list of suspected Jewish co-conspirators that prosecutors showed to my husband while he was being held in a nightmarish prison facility for the criminally insane. Jonathan was told that he could win his ticket out of the facility by implicating any one of the names on the list. His accusers did not particularly care about the guilt or innocence of any of the Jews named. All they wanted was another whipping boy. Lucky for Bloomfield and those others on the list that Jonathan chose honor and truth above self-interest, and would not cooperate.
How ironic that, 16 years later, Bloomfield's vitriol is the only thanks Jonathan gets.
(Mrs. Jonathan Pollard)