ShareThis Page
Judge signals she won’t try to ease parole conditions for Jonathan Pollard |

Judge signals she won’t try to ease parole conditions for Jonathan Pollard

The Associated Press
| Friday, July 22, 2016 9:00 p.m

NEW YORK — A U.S. judge warned a convicted Israeli spy on Friday that she had only “limited” authority to help him overcome parole conditions preventing him from taking a financial industry job.

During a nearly two-hour hearing, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest repeatedly lowered expectations for Jonathan Pollard, who served more than 30 years in prison after admitting giving secrets to Israel. She said she expects to rule within a month.

Forrest signaled she was unlikely to grant Pollard’s request that she direct the U.S. Parole Commission to eliminate some parole restrictions, including monitoring of work computers and his whereabouts, along with a curfew.

She began the hearing by announcing that her ability to review a decision by a parole board “is quite limited.” She noted that if Pollard were sentenced today, he would be ineligible for parole. And she suggested that he could teach or find a job other than the position as an investment firm analyst that he was offered after his November release.

In June 1986, Pollard pleaded guilty to conspiring to deliver national defense information to a foreign government.

Prosecutors accused him of giving secrets to Israeli agents from June 1984 through November 1985.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.