06 Oct 09
Israel minister feared UK arrest
Israeli minister and former military chief Moshe Yaalon cancelled a UK visit because of fears of arrest for alleged war crimes, his office says.
Pro-Palestinian groups in Britain want Mr Yaalon to face trial over the 2002 killing of a Gaza militant, in which 14 others also died.
Mr Yaalon took legal advice and wanted "to avoid playing into the hands of anti-Israel propaganda", an aide said.
A similar attempt last week failed to get Israel's defence minister arrested.
Mr Yaalon, who is vice prime minister and strategic affairs minister, had been invited to attend a charity dinner held by the Jewish National Fund's UK branch.
But his spokesman, Alon Ofek-Arnon, confirmed that the foreign ministry's legal team had advised against it.
Israeli media reported that the advisers believed Mr Yaalon would not be accorded diplomatic immunity - in contrast to Defence Minister Ehud Barak who visited the Labour Party Conference in Brighton without interference.
"This is a campaign whose goal is to de-legitimise the state," Mr Yaalon said in remarks quoted by Haaretz newspaper.
Allegations against Mr Yaalon date back to July 2002, when an Israel Air force jet dropped a one-tonne bomb in a densely populated area of Gaza to assassinate senior Hamas figure Salah Shehada.
The attack was part of Israel's policy of "targeted killings" of Palestinian militants it blamed for plotting attacks against it.
At the time, the army expressed regret about the deaths of the 14 civilians, at least eight of them children. in addition to Mr Shehada and said they had come about as the result of faulty intelligence.
Britain has adopted the legal principle of "universal jurisdiction", under which domestic courts in countries around the world can try war crimes suspects, even if the crime took place outside the country and the suspect is not a citizen.
Rest of the article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/8290554.stm
============================
Bringing terrorists and war criminals to justice gets no easier. Salah Shehada was assassinated instead of being arrested and tried - perhaps because he eluded justice so long. Moshe Yaalon is proving elusive too. There are countless others still walking free.
09 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYeah. Great idea. Start arresting government officials during diplomatic visits for their roles in specific military engagement incidents that occurred 7 years ago. That'll help diplomacy.
[b]Israel minister feared UK arrest
[quote]Israeli minister and former military chief Moshe Yaalon cancelled a UK visit because of fears of arrest for alleged war crimes, his office says.
Pro-Palestinian groups in Britain want Mr Yaalon to face trial over the 2002 killing of a Gaza militant, in which 14 others also died.
Mr Yaalon took legal advice Moshe Yaalon is proving elusive too. There are countless others still walking free.[/b]
===Britain has adopted the legal principle of "universal jurisdiction", under which domestic courts in countries around the world can try war crimes suspects, even if the crime took place outside the country and the suspect is not a citizen.===
Ha ha. That's funny. This was the (basically) the same authority that didn't want the US to assert jurisdiction over the Lockerbie bombers even though the airline was American, most of the victims were American and the plane was headed for New York. But they, of course, can assert jurisdiction over anyone in the World that they damn well please.
Face it, if the US made the exact same assertion over an alleged Muslim terrorist, you would be screaming about American overreaching and arrogance. But because the "suspect" is Israeli, you impliedly defend it AND impliedly call for his assassination by western authorities.
09 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Is that so? You're yet another one of these RHP posters who claims I support Muslim terrorists. Perhaps you think I am a Marxist as well. And a paedophile, too. One has to think twice before crossing some of you folks. You play rough with your sophisticated outrage.
Face it, if the US made the exact same assertion over an alleged Muslim terrorist, you would be screaming about American overreaching and arrogance.
09 Oct 09
Originally posted by sh76Slightly off-topic, but did they? In the previous discussion of this, I don't remember anyone saying that the US wanted jurisdiction, entered in to negotiations over the matter and were ultimately refused. I'm not saying that's not the case, I just don't recall that, either from the time or from the earlier discussion...
Ha ha. That's funny. This was the (basically) the same authority that didn't want the US to assert jurisdiction over the Lockerbie bombers even though the airline was American, most of the victims were American and the plane was headed for New York. But they, of course, can assert jurisdiction over anyone in the World that they damn well please.
09 Oct 09
Originally posted by FMFDont forget a hollywood agent,cosmetic sales man,history professor,psychologist,and...... 🙂
Is that so? You're yet another one of these RHP posters who claims I support Muslim terrorists. Perhaps you think I am a Marxist as well. And a paedophile, too. One has to think twice before crossing some of you folks. You play rough.
09 Oct 09
Originally posted by FMFI never said that. I did not and NEVER have said you support terrorism of any kind whatsoever. I said that you would (and have) accuse the US of overreaching for less than asserting jurisdiction over someone whose actions had no relevance to Americans. Is that really the same thing as saying that you support terrorism? Really?
Is that so? You're yet another one of these RHP posters who claims I support Muslim terrorists. Perhaps you think I am a Marxist as well. And a paedophile, too. One has to think twice before crossing some of you folks. You play rough with your sophisticated outrage.
09 Oct 09
2 edits
Originally posted by DrKFWell, they released him without consulting the American government and the American government was clearly outraged by the release. They did not give the US a crack at jurisdiction at the time they released him.
Slightly off-topic, but did they? In the previous discussion of this, I don't remember anyone saying that the US wanted jurisdiction, entered in to negotiations over the matter and were ultimately refused. I'm not saying that's not the case, I just don't recall that, either from the time or from the earlier discussion...
By the way, is Megrahi dead yet? It's been more than 30 days, hasn't it?
09 Oct 09
Originally posted by sh76Oh, I didn't realise once jurisdiction had been decided/asserted/agreed or whatever that it was normal practice to 'switch' it - and didn't realise that's what you meant. My bad.
Well, they released him without consulting the American government and the American government was clearly outraged by the release. They did not give the US a crack at jurisdiction at the time they released him.
By the way, is Megrahi dead yet? It's been more than 30 days, hasn't it?
I also didn't know anyone, anywhere had ever said he only had thirty days to live. I was under the firm impression it was three months. Just not my day, I suppose... unless...
09 Oct 09
Originally posted by sh76You suggested I would oppose - or support an obstruction to - bringing a "Muslim terrorist" to justice. I would not. Your cross-reference to the Lockerbie case is an odd and totally tangential red herring.
Is that really the same thing as saying that you support terrorism? Really?
09 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMF"The cult of celebrity can lead to grotesque distortions of what is right and wrong and what is real and unreal. Cultures that are mainlining on it day in day out cannot expect to experience good mass mental health. Defenders of Roman Polanski seem to have some kind of some people are more equal than others thing going on here. Presumably the legal system is neither starry eyed nor intoxicated by a string of fabulous films. That's good. Tall poppies often provide the purest opium. I'm quite happy to see Polanski's backers from the world of luvvies dash themselves on the rocks over this. I am a veteran Hollywood agent myself, and I will be quite pointedly not representing Martin Scorsese, David Lynch and Woody Allen in the near future." FMF
When did I ever claim to be a Hollywood agent?
09 Oct 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonI seem to remember stating that "I am a veteran Hollywood agent myself" to be (a) funny, and (b) to see if I could make a fool of you. You specifically. It seems to have worked a treat. And, at the time, it probably amused a few people who are a tad more sophisticated than you. So, yes - the word 'beneficial' comes to mind.
Do YOU think misstating things is beneficial? YOU do it ALL the time.