Schwartz Vs. Pollard: The Issues

The Schwartz Case Vs. The Pollard Case - January 10, 1996

The issues are:

1. Not prosecuting Schwartz proves that money can buy justice. Saudi oil, jet purchases and building contracts have, in effect, bought immunity for its agents.

2. Nor prosecuting Schwartz has established a double standard of justice for American Jews, contrary to what President George Washington promised them hundreds of years ago, at the Touro synagogue: that Jews would not only be tolerated but treated equally. The Government's handling of the Schwartz and Pollard cases shows that, the Jews are, indeed, second-class citizens.

3. Not prosecuting Schwartz sends a message to Israel that its so-called "special relationship" with the United States is not so special, after all. By implication, the Government's deferential treatment of Schwartz clearly calls into question the reliability of the U.S. as a credible peace partner for Israel. Most troubling of all - Schwartz' spying undoubtedly dealt with information concerning Israel's national security. One can only speculate how this compromised Israel's political and military position on the Golan Heights.

4. Joseph DeGenova, the U.S. attorney who prosecuted Jonathan, has tried to justify his harsh treatment by claiming that individuals caught spying for close allies like Israel should actually be punished more harshly than those caught for spying for enemies, since there was a greater "danger" of people feeling more predisposed to help friends. Clearly if there were any merit to this logic, then the Government should have gone after Schwartz with everything it had.

5. Not prosecuting Schwartz calls into question CIA arguments that Jonathan cannot be released because he knows too much. Schwartz was spying up until the present whereas Jonathan has been in prison for over ten years. How is it that Schwartz is not a threat to national security, but Jonathan is?

6. It is not just the broken plea agreement, disproportionate sentence and questionable credibility of the Government's damage assessment that are now at issue. In light of the release of Michael Schwartz, another question must be asked: How in the world can the Government be justified in keeping Jonathan in jail for even one day longer? Either Schwartz should be prosecuted or the Government should explain to the American people why a Saudi spy can act with impunity.

7. Were the House and Senate Intelligence, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs and Defence Committees apprised of the Schwartz case? If not, will they call hearings or are they, too, going to be willing partners in Saudi Arabia's immunity from the law?

8. Did President Clinton, Attorney General Reno, Secretary of Defence Perry, Secretary of State Christopher and DCI Deutch all approve the decision to spare the Saudis an embarrassing trail by letting Schwartz act with impunity?

9. Not prosecuting Schwartz undercuts any attempt by the Government to justify its actions by claiming that the information he provided to Saudi Arabia was "less sensitive" than the information Jonathan gave to Israel.

   We have to remember that Schwartz was indicted and confessed to a serious crime. Some punishment was therefore warranted beyond his mere "dishonourable discharge". The fact that this did not occur clearly shows that extra-legal considerations, i.e., politics, were allowed to corrupt the judicial process. That being the case, anything the Government might have to say about the relative sensitivity of Schwartz' information is simply too tainted to be believed.