Israel may provide counsel in war crimes trials overseas {edit}

[Englander]

Israel may provide counsel to officials in war crimes trials overseas

By Yuval Yoaz, Haaretz Correspondent

The state will provide the legal defense for state and defense establishment employees prosecuted in foreign countries or international courts for action they took as representatives of the State of Israel, according to a regulation approved Sunday by the ministerial committee for legislation.

The decision comes in the wake of arrest warrants issued in Britain against senior Israel Defense Forces officials. About nine months ago, Major General Doron Almog (res.) returned from London without disembarking an El Al flight when he found out there was an arrest warrant for him in England related to the IDF's demolition of 60 homes in Rafah. Haaretz later reported that complaints were also filed in Britain against IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz and his predecessor, Moshe Ya'alon, for their involvement in the deaths of 14 Palestinian civilians when Israel assassinated Salah Shehada in July 2002.

The chairman of the legislation committee, Justice Minister Haim Ramon, said it was essential to defend Israelis facing prosecution for carrying out their duties.

"This is crucial regulation to defend to the highest office-holders who were carrying out the state's instructions - first and foremost heads of the security establishment - from hostile elements that want to harm the State of Israel by putting these office-holders on the defendant's bench."

The regulation calls for the establishment of a committee to determine the extent of the state's involvement in the legal defense. In addition, the state has reserved the right to reject certain legal arguments that could be used in the individual's defense but might hamper the state's desire "to safeguard the national interest of the state in any way it deems correct."

Link;
Haaretz

[Tom Joad]

1. The US will pay for that too, no doubt.

[Jim Sagle]

2. Fuckin' A.

:beer:

[Tom Joad]

3. It will be a great joy to see Israeli leaders sitting in court, on trial

for war crimes

[Jim Sagle]

4. That won't happen. Not ever.

The very idea is a twisted, degenerate exercise in upside downism.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[meti57b]

6. Are there plans to issue arrest warrants in Britain against British and

.....American officials for war crimes in Iraq?? Or are these warrants against Israeli officials just hypocrisy.

[Englander]

7. So, there's a case to answer?

So, in an attempt to change the subject, the possible guilt of the Israeli officials has been
accepted, the reality that the Israeli officials knowingly colluded in war crimes has been
accepted? Mon dieu!!

Btw, this is the I/P forum. :)

[Jim Sagle]

8. Of course it's the I/P forum. You're here.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[meti57b]

11. The subject is"British arrest warrants for war crimes and defense of same"

Who's changing the subject.

Continuing on the subject, ... have the Brits issued any arrest warrants against British and American government officials for war crimes in Iraq? Reason I ask is that I sort of think there's some hypocrisy happening here.

[Englander]

13. You are.

Who's changing the subject.

Since there's zero mention of the *actual* subject of the thread, I'd say that was a blatant attempt
to change the subject. Anything goes, when defending the indefensible, I guess.

:)

Actual subject;

'>snip

The state will provide the legal defense for state and defense establishment employees prosecuted in foreign countries or international courts for action they took as representatives of the State of Israel, according to a regulation approved Sunday by the ministerial committee for legislation.'

[meti57b]

14. You have now changed the subject to "changing the subject" ...

in quite a blantant manner.

[Englander]

16. 'Blantant'?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Englander]

26. I 'changed the subject' back to this -

The state will provide the legal defense for state and defense establishment employees prosecuted in foreign countries or international courts for action they took as representatives of the State of Israel, according to a regulation approved Sunday by the ministerial committee for legislation.'

in a very blatant manner, it was shockingly blatant how I managed that, a blatant attempt to make
some relevant points, please do feel free to follow suit.

:)

[Jim Sagle]

15. The "actual subject of the thread" ain't nuthin' but shit.

So we did our best to find a subject that was actually, you know, WORTH something.

No need to applaud.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. The topic's 'Israel may provide counsel to officials in war crimes trials'

As yr trying to divert attention to anything else but that, it's pretty clear that yr changing the subject....

btw, yr question is totally nonsensical, as the topic isn't even about Israel issuing arrest warrants against Israelis, which is what yr analogy with the British seems to be suggesting...

[meti57b]

19. That is your opinion, it isn't my opinion.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Then yr opinion isn't a sound one at all...

The fact is that the OP is about Israelis being prosecuted in international courts, not Israelis being prosecuted by Israelis as yr clumsy attempt at an analogy suggested....

[meti57b]

21. If that is the case, then neither is your's.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Sorry, but my opinion's based on reading the OP...

I've pointed out where yr attempt at an analogy is flawed. As my opinion's based on what the article said and noticing that yr comments are merely an attempt to change the subject to something else that isn't even the same as what was in the OP, then I've got something to back up my opinion that yr opinion isn't a sound one...

[meti57b]

23. Violet, if you're satisfied with your opinion, then run with it.

You don't need my approval, to have your own opinion.

[Jim Sagle]

24. Is that like running with scissors?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Who said I needed yr approval?

I'm pointing out that yr wrong, something you seem to have all sorts of problems with...

I guess there's no likelihood you'll try to address the topic of this thread, so I'll leave you and Jimbo to keep on diverting the topic on yr own. Yr both doing such a good job! ;)

[Jim Sagle]

27. Who'd ever think you wanted approval?