Israel may provide counsel to officials in war crimes trials overseas
It would appear that Israel is taking the threat that some of it's citizen's may face charges for war crimes seriously as a new piece of legislation was passed on Sunday stating that Israel will provide the legal defence for state and defence establishment employees prosecuted in foreign countries or international courts for action they took as representatives of the State of Israel.
This all began when Major General Doron Almog was unable to leave an El Al flight in London nine months ago because he was told that an arrest warrant had been issued against him in England relating to the IDF's demolition of 60 homes in Rafah.
Solicitors Hickman and Rose said the 54-year-old had been due to be arrested on suspicion of committing a breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention 1949, which is a criminal offence in the UK under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957.
Senior District Judge Timothy Workman had given the police authority to detain Maj Gen Almog during a hearing at Bow Street Magistrates' Court in central London, the law firm added.
The warrant relates to the bulldozing of more than 50 houses in the Rafah refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, when Maj Gen Almog was head of Israel's Southern Command.
It was seen as retaliation for an assault by Islamic militants on an Israeli Army post that left four soldiers dead.Under war crime legislation other nations are compelled to take action against individuals if their home nation is unwilling to do so. This case is not dissimilar to the case in Belgium against Ariel Sharon which was dropped after sustained pressure from the US on Belgian authorities.
International law, especially when it comes to war crimes, has been seen largely as the west prosecuting those that it holds to be war criminals whilst absolving all of it's allies from any chance of facing prosecution.
This move by Israel is a welcome sign that the Israelis do not feel that the US will always be able to guarantee them immunity.
The chairman of the legislation committee, Justice Minister Haim Ramon, said it was essential to defend Israelis facing prosecution for carrying out their duties.The fact that Israel feel the need to take these steps shows that eventually international law will have teeth. At the moment the US seem to embrace international law when it involves treaties regarding trading and seeks to ignore it when it comes to matters such as war crimes and the ability to wage war.
"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."
This is why Bush was able to ignore the UN Charter and indulge in his invasion of Iraq. Who seriously believes he will ever be held to the same standards that we demand of Milosovic?
However, when the US's main ally feels the need to take such precautions, this can only be welcomed as a step in the right direction to the day when we are all forced to act under the same rules and none of us enjoy immunity.
Click title for full article.
Tags:
4 comments:
Of course, I'd love to see the day that somebody like Putin is tried for his "war crimes" in Chechnya or the premier of China is tried for their crimes against the Tibetans.
It will never happen and leftists like you will never care that it never happens.
The US should withdraw from the UN.
Since 9-11 President Bush has allowed Putin to pretend that Russia's vice-like grip on Chechnya is part of the war on terror. It is unthinkable that Reagan would not have seen these people as freedom fighters.
However much I agree that Russia are wrong regarding Chechnya and China are wrong regarding Tibet, I think you are wrong when you regard such things as war crimes. They are territorial disputes that should be sorted via the UN.
However, Bush's invasion of Iraq was a clear violation of Article 51, and a crime against peace as recognised by Nuremburg.
Principle Vl
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under; international law:
1. Crimes against peace:
1. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
2. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i)
And the notion of the US leaving the UN is simply nonsensical. Who would veto the resolutions telling Israel to get out of Palestine if you guys weren't there?
Kel,
the US seem to embrace international law when it involves treaties regarding trading
Ha! No, they don't! The Bush administration has severally violated numerous trade agreements and has suffered more than a few judgements by the WTO. The textiles quota adopted by the US after previous quotas expired in Jan. 2005 were a violation of WTO Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC). Although China itself recognised a need to keep some kind of quota in place so as not to completely crush local (i.e. EU and American textile) companies, the US first leapt at unilateral quotas until a bilateral agreement was reached.
-- In 2002, the Bush administration also imposed unilateral tariffs on steel, in violation of WTO agreements. The EU threatened relatiatory tarrifs on US steel. Tariffs were dropped after the WTO ruled against the US.
-- Also in 2002, softwood lumber tarrifs imposed by the Bush administration were ruled illegal by the WTO and the US was ordered to reimburse Canada some $5 billion in duty payments by the NAFTA panel. Initially, the White House simply said, tough, we ain't paying. Also, after initially ruling that the lumber tariffs were unfair, the WTO flipped around and then ruled that they weren't. The NAFTA ruling, though, has remained. The WTO has been all over the place on this, but this dispute, first and foremost, is seen as a violation of NAFTA and the NAFTA board has always found against the US tariff position.
So, you might be able to say that, on occasion the Bushies abide WTO rulings, while generally ignore the UN. But they also violate trade agreements regularly when politically expedient, like when they were humping for votes in the Rust Belt just before the November 2002 elections.
Bhc,
I should have phrased that better. The US is very keen to hold other country's to observe trade agreements.
I well remember the steel tariffs that Bush imposed illegally and the fact that he had to retreat when the WTO ruled against him and the EU planned to take retaliatory action against products from Florida right before the last US election.
Bush suddenly announced to the American people that this tariff was no longer necessary whilst making no mention of the fact that the WTO had found his actions to be a blatant breach of the rules.
Post a Comment