Dispatches: In The Killing Zone
A British TV programme reports on Israeli violence in Gaza against, not only Palestinian civilians, but also against International Aid Volunteers and Foreign journalists as well.
Some of the footage here is genuinely shocking. Especially the moment when the Israelis advance on a memorial service for Rachel Corrie - a young American killed by the Israelis - and fire tear gas and bullets at the mourners.
What possible justification could there be for this behaviour?
In the case of Tom Hurdnall: a British jury found the IDF guilty of intentionally killing him.
The jury found that Tom Hurdnall, 22, who had been shot in broad daylight, whilst wearing bright orange clothing, had been deliberately shot by an Israeli soldier, "with the intention of killing him".A British court found that James Miller had also been "murdered" by the IDF.
On 6 April 2006, the inquest jury at St Pancras Coroner's Court in London returned a verdict of unlawful killing, finding that Miller had been "murdered." After meetings with the Miller family, the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, sent a formal request to his Israeli counterpart in June 2007 for prosecution proceedings to be enacted within six weeks against the soldier responsible for firing the shot. As of August 2007, prosecution proceedings have yet to be enacted.The intentional killing of civilians are war crimes.
Tags:
2 comments:
In the case of Tom Hurdnall: a British jury found...
A British court found that James Miller...
In the nature of full disclosure, it should be noted that the "British jury" in both these cases was a jury in a coroner's court. The purpose of a coroner's court is limited to determining certain facts such as "the identity of the deceased and how, when and where they met their death". These courts have limited investigative roles. The court in no way can determine either blame or liability (neither civil nor criminal).
So at best, what this court could have determined is that the death was a result of "unlawful killing", while assigning no blame. This is not a finding that any particular person is guilty of murder because the court lacks that mandate.
But again, I only mention this in the interest of disclosure, since we of course wouldn't want people to draw the mistaken conclusion that some British criminal court (which would lack the jurisdiction anyway) found anyone guilty of murder. That of course did not happen.
Whilst you are correct that these verdicts were from a coroners court the jury did, in both cases, find that these men had been murdered and that these murders had been committed by members of the IDF.
Andrew Reid, the coroner who heard both cases, announced that he would write to the attorney general concerning possible prosecutions of Israeli commanders. As the coroners court found that these civilians had been "deliberately killed" these are, of course, war crimes under the Geneva Conventions, which is where - as the Israelis are not prosecuting anyone - the jurisdiction of other nations to pursue such crimes kicks in.
Post a Comment