Hershel Shanks presents a cogent summary of the Jonathan Pollard case [op-ed, Sept. 15], and he says that the case should be reviewed on the basis of two questions:
Was the life sentence fair when it was imposed on the basis of what was then known, and is it fair in light of what we now know?
Did the government violate the agreement under which Mr. Pollard agreed to plead guilty and the government agreed not to seek a life sentence?
I have never worked in the field of intelligence and my training is in the hard sciences, not law. However, I would like to add two questions to those Mr. Shanks suggests should be the criteria for review of the Pollard case.
Did Mr. Pollard violate the agreement under which he agreed to plead guilty and the government agreed not to seek a life sentence?
Does Mr. Pollard still have information, either in his head or secreted away somewhere, that the U.S. government does not want the Israeli government to receive?
The Pollard case is a can of worms, and anything that could be done to resolve it would be advantageous to both our government and the Israeli government. For that reason, I support Mr. Shanks's proposal for a review by a neutral and unbiased panel, but that review should be expanded to include at least the two questions that I raise.
RICHARD D. STOLL