The attack on Jonathan Pollard by Norman Polmar and Thomas Allen (Commentary, Jan. 18) reminded me that six years ago they published the same diatribe. Fortunately, since then the public has been learning the facts of this case from official court records, which has resulted in growing support for Jonathan representing all religious, social and geographic boundaries. I suggest that Polmar and Allen read the official records on this case.
The records show that:
* Jonathan Pollard was indicted on one count of transmitting classified information to Israel. He was not indicted for treason, or for having damaged U.S. security.
* An explicit decision by Judge Stephan Williams, U.S. Court of Appeals (Sept. 10, 1992), states that Jonathan Pollard is the victim of "a fundamental miscarriage of justice" which he attributed to the "prosecuting attorney" (Joseph diGenova).
* In exchange for a plea of guilty, cooperation in a secret hearing, and relinquishing his right to a jury trial, DiGenova promised less than a life sentence and leniency for his wife. He "sandbagged" Jonathan (Wall Street Journal, Sept. 14, 1991); and then stated publicly that "Pollard would never see the light of day"--a classic case of malfeasance. Pollard was thereby deprived of his constitutional rights.
* After sentencing, Jonathan was held in an insane asylum for 10 1/2 months with the statement (Feb. 15, 1989) to Rep. Lee Hamilton that "Mr. Pollard was never classified or managed as a psychiatric patient." A second letter states (Jan. 15, 1990) that Jonathan was the only one so treated.
* Federal Judge Aubrey Robinson accepted a secret memorandum from Caspar Weinberger that was and is held under seal. Robinson stated that, while not objective, it weighed heavily in the life sentence given to Jonathan. Access to this memorandum was denied defense attorney Hamilton P. Fox III.
Is this another example of hiding the truth, as with the Iran-Contra information, by the indicted perjurer Caspar Weinberger? On precedent, Weinberg's quoted "on the record" statements are worthless.
Jonathan revealed to Israel the development in Iraq and Syria of weapons of mass destruction. This information was denied to our ally, Israel. He "blew the whistle," against whom I do not know, but that person or persons must be very important to explain the virulent punishment that resulted from this action.
In the final analysis, when the actions of the courts are influenced by political expediency, the rule of law is damaged. In my opinion, this is the tragedy of my son, Jonathan.
Notre Dame, Ind.