Alan M. Dershowitz's Blog

Of course I have compassion for rape victims. That's why I, and everyone else who shares that compassion, should show no compassion for a woman, like Jane Doe #3, who has made up a false story of being raped by a man she has never even met, in order to line her pockets with cash.

In an article in the Huffington Post, Anna Joseph and Kerry Richards accuse me of not showing compassion toward a 31-year-old woman who deliberately, willfully and mendaciously accused me of raping her on more than six occasions nearly fifteen years ago. I have deep compassion for victims of rape and trafficking, and I understand the reasons why Joseph and Richards are concerned about the revictimization of actual victims. But Joseph and Richards have it backwards in this case. The 31-year-old perjurer is not my "victim." I am her victim. There is no excuse or justification for a mature woman victimizing an entirely innocent person by falsely accusing him of crimes others may have committed against her.



Fortunately, the charges against me are not only totally made up but are provably untrue.



Jane Doe #3 accused me of having had sex with her on a private Caribbean island where I spent one day in the company of my wife, my young daughter, a prominent professor at the Harvard Business School and his wife and family. I was never away from my family. We even slept in the same cabin. We saw no young girls on the island and I certainly had no sexual encounters with Jane Doe #3 or any other under-age person.



According to media accounts, she has also claimed that Stephen Hawking and I were on the island together during a sex orgy. I have never met Professor Hawking.



She has also claimed that I had sex with her at a ranch in New Mexico. I was at that ranch for a total of one hour with my wife, my young daughter and the two friends who drove us there from their home several miles away, where we were staying. The house was still being built and no one was living in it at the time. We looked around as a group and left. I had no sexual encounter with any under-age person.



She has also accused me of having sex with her on private aircraft. Yet the flight manifests will show that I was never on a private plane with her or any other under-age women. Again I had no sexual encounter with any under-age person on any airplane, ranch, island or anywhere else--ever!



Joseph and Richards complain about my aggressive response to her false accusations, arguing that "neither Dershowitz's liberty nor his property are at stake." This trivializes the seriousness of being falsely accused of a heinous crime such as child rape. My reputation is so important to me that I have in fact put my liberty and property at risk by denying the allegations under oath, thus subjecting me to a perjury prosecution if I were not telling the truth, and by castigating the lawyers who filed these false charges, thus subjecting me to a defamation lawsuit by them.



Joseph and Richards would like me to "focus on the plaintiff's courage." But it takes no courage to file a maliciously false charge and hide behind the litigation privilege. This is a mature woman with a long history of lies, including recent ones. She has claimed to have dinner with former President Bill Clinton and two underage females on Jeffrey Epstein's island. She has also claimed to have met former Vice President Gore and Mrs. Gore on the same island. Yet I am advised that secret Service records will conclusively prove that none of them ever stepped foot on Epstein's private island. Moreover, according to recent press reports, just before she falsely claims she had sex with me, she falsely claimed to have been raped by two friends with whom she had a consensual threesome in a car. After a thorough investigation of her claims, the State Attorney refused to prosecute because of the alleged victim's "lack of credibility." Shortly thereafter, she was fired from her job at a restaurant for stealing money from her employer. As to her past history of alleged abuse by others, I have no idea whether anything she has said is true or false, and to the extent it may be true, I feel sorry for her and I condemn anyone who may have exploited her. I only know that what she has said about me is categorically false and totally made up and that nothing that may have happened to her at the hands of others in the past would justify her current perjury about me.



Joseph and Richards also accuse me of being sexist for not showing compassion to a woman who is seeking to ruin my life, my career and my reputation by making up a completely false story about me. Let me assure them that there is nothing sexist about me attacking this perjurer. I have been equally aggressive in attacking the two male lawyers who filed the false pleading against me.



Of course I have compassion for rape victims. That's why I, and everyone else who shares that compassion, should show no compassion for a woman, like Jane Doe #3, who has made up a false story of being raped by a man she has never even met, in order to line her pockets with cash.



I am not asking for compassion, only fairness and an opportunity to prove my total innocence. No "political correctness" will stop me from doing everything reasonable within my power to prove she is lying about me. Would any of you do less if you were falsely accused of so heinous a crime?

With President Obama's call for a "pause" in the floundering if not failed Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, the U.S. gambit to use the promise of Jonathan Pollard's release as an incentive for talks has arguably now ended. The injection of Pollard's release -- the former U.S. naval intelligence analyst sentenced to life imprisonment in 1987 for passing secret documents to Israel -- as a bargaining chip should not have happened anyway and here is why.



Proponents of the peace process -- Democrat and Republican alike, as well as liberal and conservative pundits -- described the use of Pollard as a bargaining chip as lamentable, if not shameful. Indeed, President Obama should commute Pollard's sentence to time served as a matter of fundamental justice, rather than as quid pro quo.



First, Pollard's sentence of life imprisonment was then -- and remains today -- unprecedented, excessive, grossly disproportionate, unfair and unjust, and amounts to a denial of equality before the law. No other American who has pleaded guilty to spying for a U.S. ally has ever been sentenced to life. In such cases, the usual sentence is no more than eight years, with actual time served averaging two to four years or less.



Second, beyond being unjust in itself, the sentence breached the plea bargain according to which prosecutors had agreed not to seek life imprisonment in return for Pollard's guilty plea, his cooperation with authorities, and the waiving of his right to trial by jury. The plea also saved the government the problems of conducting a trial involving highly sensitive information, and where Pollard might well have been acquitted of the more serious charges. Indeed, Judge Stephen F. Williams of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit later described this breach as a "complete and gross miscarriage of justice."



Third, the sentence was imposed as a result of the submission -- after the plea bargain and again in violation of it -- of a prejudicial, ex parte affidavit to the sentencing judge by then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Pollard never saw the affidavit, nor was he able to challenge it. In his submission, Weinberger claimed that Pollard had compromised American national security, was guilty of "treason," and should never be released. However, in a 2004 interview, Weinberger admitted that, in retrospect, the Pollard matter was "comparatively minor."



Fourth, Pollard has not only been excessively punished for the crime he did commit, but has been punished for a crime he did not commit, nor was ever charged with: namely, treason. Long after the plea agreement, sources in the CIA, as well as the Departments of Defense, State, and Justice, maintained that he was guilty of treason, a misleading claim often repeated in the media at times coincident with Presidential reviews.



Fifth, false accusations by U.S. government agencies that Pollard compromised intelligence operations in Eastern Europe -- and was consequently implicated in the deaths of American informants -- were never part of the Pollard indictment, and no evidence for them has ever been adduced. Indeed, the architect of these treasonable acts, and the source of the disinformation, was none other than senior CIA official Aldrich Ames., who pleaded guilty in 1994.



Sixth, the recent declassification of a 1987 CIA damage assessment concerning Pollard confirms, in the words of Weinberger's Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb, that "Pollard did not divulge the most sensitive U.S. national security programs" and "provided intelligence only on the Soviet Union's activities in the Middle East." The document also reveals that, whereas the sentencing judge overturned the plea agreement because Pollard had spoken to the media in supposed violation of the agreement's terms, the interview had in fact been authorized by the government.



Seventh, Pollard was deprived of his right to effective legal counsel as his attorney neglected to file a notice of intent to appeal following the prejudicial sentencing hearing. Pollard was therefore precluded from appealing his life sentence.



Eighth, as Governor Bill Richardson recently wrote to President Obama, "virtually everyone who was in a high position of government -- and dealt with the ramifications of what Pollard did at the time -- now support his release. They include former Secretary of State George Shultz, FBI Director and subsequent CIA Director William Webster, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence David Durenberger, and Chairman of House Intelligence Lee Hamilton." Senator Durenberger has expressed his "surprise at the sentence given Jonathan Pollard compared to others" and argued that "the harshness of [Pollard's] sentence ... was uncalled for."



Finally, it must be remembered that Pollard fully honored the very plea agreement that the government violated; he fully cooperated with authorities; he has expressed remorse for his actions; he has been a model prisoner for the past 29 years; he is now aging and in deteriorating health; and, over the years, he has been falsely accused of a crime he did not commit -- treason -- and unjustly sentenced to life in prison for the crime he did commit.



In the words of Lawrence Korb, "We believe that commuting Pollard's sentence to time served is the right and compassionate thing to do. We believe that his continued incarceration constitutes a travesty of justice and a stain on the American system of justice."



It is precisely for standing injustices like this, where the justice system has failed and cannot provide relief, where each new day in jail is a case of wrongful imprisonment, that the U.S. Constitution has vested in the President the power of executive clemency. In the case of Jonathan Pollard, the President should exercise this power not as a tactical manoeuver in Middle East peace negotiations, but as a matter of fidelity to the rule of law, the pursuit of justice, and simple humanity.



Irwin Cotler is a Member of the Canadian Parliament, emeritus Professor of Law at McGill University, and the former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.



Alan Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, and a constitutional and criminal law scholar who consulted with Pollard's defense lawyers in the 1980s and 1990s. His autobiography, Taking the Stand, was recently published.

Samantha Power will be respected for her intelligence, scholarship and independence. I am confident that she will represent us effectively, persuasively and morally at a time and place that requires her particular talents.

There are a small number of extremely vocal right-wing Jews who believe that retaining the entire West Bank is more important than trying to make peace with the Palestinians. Some of them believe that God gave the Jewish people the West Bank and it is a sin to give any of it up. It was that kind of thinking that led to the assassination of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin when he tried to exchange land for peace with the Palestinians. There are others who believe that because Jews lived in Judea and Samaria thousands of years ago, Israel has no right to end any current Jewish settlement on the West Bank. There are still others who believe that it is foolish even to try to trade land for peace with the Palestinians, since the Palestinian leadership has no real interest in arriving at a peaceful solution.



This noisy clack boos disrespectfully when they hear the name of President Obama, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or anyone else who favors a two-state solution that does not compromise Israel's security. I have now joined this distinguished company of people who get booed for advocating territorial compromise in the interest of peace. I was booed and jeered at the Jerusalem Post Conference on April 28, 2013 when I proposed an idea for restarting peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.



These same people cheered loudly when Carolyn Glick, a right-wing opponent of any territorial compromise, announced that: "There are no competing narratives. There is only the truth." For her, the only truth lies in history and archeology. Of course it is true that the Jews lived on the West Bank for many years two millennia ago. (It is equally true that Native Americans populated Manhattan Island as recently as four centuries ago.) For some right-wing opponents of the two state solution, this archeological truth ends the debate. The fact that the West Bank has been largely populated by Arabs over the past several centuries is not part of any narrative. Many of those who booed favor a one-state solution, with Israel simply annexing the West Bank and either expelling or disenfranchising the indigenous Palestinians.



It's interesting to note that my statement that drew the loudest boos and the most derision was my suggestion that President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority might consider not bringing a case against Israel to the International Criminal Court as a way of showing good faith and making a concession calculated to encourage restarting the peace process. But just days after the booing and mocking, President Abbas did just that. Two days after my talk, the Palestinian Authority--according to the Jerusalem Post:

"pledged to the U.S. that it would freeze its efforts to join United Nations agencies or turn to the International Criminal Court, PA Foreign Minister Riyad Malki announced on Wednesday.



Malki said that the promise was made to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as a "gesture" on the part of the Palestinians "and in order to prove our true intentions to give a bigger chance to the peace process."

The right-wing Jewish extremists who boo everyone who wants to make compromises for peace, are every bit as dangerous as Jewish extremists on the hard left who also demand a one state solution -- a binational state that will cease being the homeland of the Jewish people. Both are unwilling to compromise their ideological claims. Both make peace more difficult to achieve. Both boo and jeer any effort to offer compromise in the interest of peace. The difference, and it is a real difference, is that the right-wingers love Israel -- at least their conception of a Jewish Israel that extends from the river to the sea. Many of the left wingers hate Israel and want a binational Palestinian state that extends from the same river to the same sea. Motives are important, but the road to war is often paved with good intentions.



The writer J.J. Goldberg characterized the Jerusalem Post Conference as "an odd combination of high-level exchanges on security policy and raucous, far-right pep rally". He reported that among the former and present ministers and generals, "the most enthusiastic reception was reserved for Post columnist Caroline Glick, a passionate opponent of Israeli-Palestinian compromise known for her slashing attacks on liberals."



Those in the large audience who booed and jeered were not interested in the "high level exchanges on security policy" or in subtlety or nuance. They were there to cheer the right-wing bumper stickers, bon mots and clichés of their champion and to show disdain for anyone who disagreed with her simple-minded "bombs away" solutions to complex problems.



That's why I will no longer lend my support to "far right pep" rallies of the kind I spoke at last week.



This op-ed originally appeared in The Jerusalem Post on May 5, 2013.

The right-wing Jewish extremists who boo everyone who wants to make compromises for peace, are every bit as dangerous as Jewish extremists on the hard left who also demand a one state solution -- a binational state that will cease being the homeland of the Jewish people.

All of this remains somewhat speculative at this early stage, but it is still worth asking why the government chose to charge him under the mass destruction statute rather than under the more obvious terrorist statute.

Israelis are now transitioning from their annual day of remembrance to the day they celebrate their independence. But even in celebrating 65 years of statehood, Israel never forgets the sacrifices it has made over the course of its existence.



As Israelis mourn the 25,000 soldiers -- young men and women -- who have been killed in the course of defending the Jewish state against aggression and terrorism, Jordanian leaders (not including the King, at least thus far) are making a hero out of a Jordanian soldier who murdered seven Israeli school girls and wounded six others during a peace program in 1997. Ahmed Daqamseh, who expressed pride in his mass murder, was convicted of these crimes but spared the death penalty, despite the fact that Jordan executes large numbers of criminals for relatively trivial offenses.



Now after serving approximately two years for each of the murders, he is seeking his release and he has the support of a large majority of Jordanian parliamentarians, who regard him as a hero. The very word "hero" was used by the Jordanian Justice Minister in joining the chorus calling for his release.



Daqamseh's mother has said, "I am proud of my son and I hold my head high. My son did a heroic deed and has pleased Allah and his own conscience. My son lifts my head and the head of the entire Arab and Islamic nation. I am proud of any Muslim who does what Ahmed did."



Daqamseh himself has said, "I have no regrets." He continued, "The only thing I am angry about is the gun, which did not work properly. Otherwise, I would have killed all of the [children]." He also said he would do it again if given the opportunity.



The 13 school girls who were shot by the Jordanian soldier were on a peace mission at a place ironically called The Island of Peace. It is the man who shot these 13 school girls, wishes he had killed more, and promises to do it again, who is being called a hero by Jordanian public officials. The silence of King Abdullah speaks loudly about the widespread popular support that exists for this mass murderer of Jewish children.



In justifying his support for Daqamseh's release, the Justice Minister said, "If a Jew murdered Arabs, [the Israelis] build him a statue." In fact precisely the opposite is true. When a Jewish extremists (not a soldier) murdered Arabs at prayer, the Israeli government not only did not build him a statue, it forbade any statue from being built by private sources and has demonized the killer (who was himself killed), as a mass murderer deserving of no lionization.



Another indication of the widespread support is that 110 out of the 120 members of the lower house of Jordan's parliament have called him a hero and demanded his release. They are seeking "freedom for the soldier hero" and saying "we are all Ahmed Daqamseh." Leading this despicable effort to free a mass murderer is Ali Sneid, a man who claims to be of the left.



The effort to release Daqamseh has taken on elements of Islamic antisemitism by calling the continued imprisonment of this murderer "protection for the herds of the brothers of apes and pigs" and calling the victims of this mass murder by other anti-Semitic terms.



Nor is this hatred of Jews and the Jewish state by Jordanians limited to this particular case, despicable as that would be. Among grass root Jordanians, particularly those of Palestinian background, there is widespread hatred of all things Jewish, Israeli and even American. Islamic extremism is rampant in parts of Jordan, though suppressed by its King and his dictatorial minions. Jordan is ripe for yet another Arab Spring turned winter. All that stands between the current monarchy and an Islamic upheaval is massive American financial and military support for its charming King. King Abdullah presents a far more beneficent face of despotism than did any of the other Arab despots who were toppled, or in the process of being toppled, by the Arab Spring turned Islamic extremist winter. How long this situation will last is anyone's guess. But the possibility that before long Israel may have a neighbor to the east who is not as peaceful as the current Jordanian government, must be seriously considered.



If Daqamseh is released and treated as a hero, that unconscionable decision will tell us much about the direction of the Jordanian street. So next time you see the smiling face of King Abdullah on television speaking about peace, remember that many of his subjects regard the cold-blooded mass murderer of Jewish children as an Islamic hero.

How long this situation will last is anyone's guess. But the possibility that before long Israel may have a neighbor to the east who is not as peaceful as the current Jordanian government, must be seriously considered.

Now that President Obama is on his way back from his trip to the Middle East, its potential impact can be assessed. All in all it was a success, despite some pitfalls.