IDF General Sued For "Targeted Killings"

[Mycroft]

From the OP --- (does anyone even remember the OP?)

"Can the terrorists be sued? Where? In what jurisdiction?" -- posted by webfusion.


http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/news.php?id=1253

• American terror victims of HAMAS are suing British National Westminster Bank in New York, which represents 'Interpal'.

It looks like they should sue Interpal instead.

 

[a_unique_person]

Good to see the back patting, self congratulatory club enjoying a nice cup of tea here. Carry on.

 

[webfusion]

continuing to add to the discussion

a_u_p, let's look at all the postings since late December, when Orwell steamed outta here in a huff, being the last 'anti-Israel' JREF member to actually think he was adding to the discussion. Let's see if our "self-congratulatory" club, as you call it, is meaningless and merely the Israel-supporters 'enjoying a cup of tea' ---


1. 28th December -- Israel continues to absorb rocket attacks, both from Gaza and Lebanon. A brief analysis ensued here as to whether or not the Qassems constituted "The Destruction of Israel" and if retailation was even necessary, or effective.

2. David Swidler encourages the thread to be left to die, since it is not convincing anyone to change their already-held opinions.

Unfortunately for Mr Swidler, violent events managed to grab our collective attention and prompted additional discussion:

3. A suicide bomber, on his way to target innocent Israelis, is stopped at an IDF checkpoint. The kidnapping of Keffiya Kate & Co. hits the headlines. The leader of the PA, Abu Mazen, issues a New Year's appeal to end the chaos (appeal #4,647, but who's counting?).

4. Davefoc throws in his 2¢ worth of strawmen and inaccuracies and then Z-N demolishes the strawmen & misinformation Davefoc posted.

5. An accusation of "finding solace in Palestinian violence" is raised against Zenith-Nadir. That is a serious charge, and was brought up in the context of Israel kind-of enjoying the Palestinans' violence, since it offers a good pretext to maintain the Israeli Expansionist Policies™

6. Was there MORE or LESS violence during the Cease Fire from the Palestinians? Statistics are bandied about, and the subject gets a bit of back-and-forth here. No back-patting, just honest skepticism, as it should be.

7. I decide to *bump* the thread, since a very relevent news article catches my attention, which directly relates to the OP. It specifically answers one of the questions asked in the OP. By bringing the news into this bulletin board, I'm keeping the record straight, which is the entire point of our particpation in the JREF forums, or so I imagine.

8. a_u_p shows up and makes no further contribution whatsoever. In fact, I have no idea what prompted him to take a moment out of his busy schedule and even bother to post here. What a waste of a perfectly good "Submit Reply" mouse-click.

=========================================

 

[a_unique_person]

I suspected you would take offence, Mr Fusion. My apologies.

 

[webfusion]

Not offended personally

Nope, I don't personally take offense at your lack of entering the debate with some statement of value. It's no skin off my back, a_u_p.

The last point made here was about "Who to sue?" for terrorist actions?
That would be the logical place to join the conversation.

Mycroft asks -- why not bring a lawsuit directly against InterPal itself, instead of NatWest bank? That is a good question, and with a minimum of research, you probably can find out the reasons, and discover the motivation of those seeking legal redress in the case.

Critical thinking, folks, requires looking at stuff like this...

 

[Mycroft]

Mycroft asks -- why not bring a lawsuit directly against InterPal itself, instead of NatWest bank? That is a good question, and with a minimum of research, you probably can find out the reasons, and discover the motivation of those seeking legal redress in the case.

I've played around with Google a bit and I can't find the answer. It seems to me that NatWest's crime is dealing with InterPal, which the United States has designated as "a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) organisation", but which the UK still sees as a legitimate charity. Looking a bit further, it seems there is quite a controversy over this organization.


http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/sib/12_04/interpal.htm

 

[davefoc]

webfusion wrote:

4. Davefoc throws in his 2¢ worth of strawmen and inaccuracies and then Z-N demolishes the strawmen & misinformation Davefoc posted.

webfusion,
Since you were kind enough to give me your appraisal of my post and Z-N's response I thought I might give you my thoughts on the issue.

While, as always, I appreciated the effort that Z-N took with his response I found it in the main devoid of intellectual honesty. By that I mean that Z-N did not show a hint of addressing any biases that might effect his opinions in his response, he presented all evidence without the slightest hint that there were interpretations less supportive of his opinion than the ones he was presenting, and he failed to address what were the main points of my post.

He chose to dismiss as a straw man my comparison of territorial expansion of the US and the responses by the indigenous population to it and the territorial expansion of Israel and the responses by the indigenous population to it. Perhaps it was something of a strawman given the original topic of this thread, but it was absolutely not a strawman as it related to the idea that in all such conflicts as the Palestinian/Israeli one both sides are populated with true believers that can spit out the rhetoric of their side without catching a breath. My suggestion was and is that Z-N rhetoric is exactly analogous to all such true believers in these conflicts.

Obviously, all of this played well to a true believer such as yourself but to anybody that was looking for some reasoned, objective analysis it was a pretty useless response.

 

[Mycroft]

Obviously, all of this played well to a true believer such as yourself but to anybody that was looking for some reasoned, objective analysis it was a pretty useless response.

Do you define "reasoned objective analysis" as being someone that agrees with your comparison?

 

[davefoc]

Mycroft,
I was pretty much done with this thread, but you have asked a question in a reasonable manner and I will attempt to respond reasonably.

The short answer is no.

Obviously, the comparison is not perfect and I would expect that people might disagree to the extent that is a valid comparison.

I would be particularly impressed with a response that started off something like this. "While I can see that there are similarities between the expansion of Europeans into the US and the expansion of European Jews into Israel I believe the comparison is more flawed than valid for these reasons:"

I was particularly unimpressed with Z-N's response.

 

[webfusion]

particularly incoherent

I was particularly unimpressed with Z-N's response.-- davefoc

Let's roll the videotape:

davefoc posted Jan. 1st with this proposition:
"Do you think those of us that have criticized Israel's expansion think that when Israel withdraws from its settelements all happiness and peace is going to erupt?"So there was violence before and there is violence now. Does this mean that Israel should just keep expanding?"

[[[[[ Violence before the settlements even existed, you mean? Sure, you must have meant that, davefoc, because it follows the facts. ]]]]]

then, in a continuation of that posting ---
You seem to find solace in stories of Palestininan violence. It seems that in the stories of Palestinian violence you see a justification for the establishment of Israel and its continued expansion. Something like the Palestinians are so bad that they deserve whatever has happened to them.

Justification for the establishment of Israel is not found in anything the Palestinians did or did not do, or will do.
Also, there is no "continued expansion" of Israel. The 1949 Rhodes Armistice Lines are disputed, they were Cease-Fire Lines only, not International Boundries. Israel can really claim the land, under the rules of war, and it is not Palestinian Land.
In case you missed that -- I repeat -- it is NOT Palestinian's Land.
At no point in history was it the Palestinian's land.
That is a critical fallacy in the entire viewpoint of yours and others.

Nevertheless, the post by Z-N proceeded to respond to that point, and concluded:
"Strawman #3, I do not think all Palestinians are terrorists."

None of us on the JREF forum think the Arab-palestinians are all terrorists, or all terrorist supporters. That is the biggest 'effing strawman of 'em all.

 

[zenith-nadir]

He chose to dismiss as a straw man my comparison of territorial expansion of the US and the responses by the indigenous population to it and the territorial expansion of Israel and the responses by the indigenous population to it.

Because "zionists" did not come to the middle east and slaughter the "indigenous population" wholesale and steal their land as the Europeans did to the native Americans. To draw a parallel between the wholesale slaughter of indians by Europeans and and an ideology that supports a Jewish homeland is wrong.

The ones who started the slaughter Dave were the followers of Haj Amin al-Husseini who followed him in violent anti-Zionist riots. And when that tactic failed Haj Amin al-Husseini conspired with Hitler to do his dirty work - wipe out the jews - in Palestine. This all transpired before Israel exsisted.

While, as always, I appreciated the effort that Z-N took with his response I found it in the main devoid of intellectual honesty.

In your opinion.

Obviously, all of this played well to a true believer such as yourself but to anybody that was looking for some reasoned, objective analysis it was a pretty useless response.

Reasoned objective analysis does not apologize for 60 years of Palestinian terrorism in the 20th & 21st century by saying "well they are just logically reacting as the native Americans did back in the 18th & 19th centuries". Especially when their situations are entirely different.

Here's a lesson for you Dave in the Palestinian issue:

Jan. 10, 2006 11:31

Egypt threatened to withdraw its support for the Palestinian Authority if the PA did not act to control the rampant anarchy in the Gaza Strip, according to a report in the London Arab newspaper Al Quds.

The report claimed that following the incident at the Rafah border crossing in which two Egyptian soldiers were killed, Egyptian authorities delivered the threat to PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas as part of a specially delivered message.

Egypt also threatened to withdraw its support for the peace process if the PA did not take the proper steps to restore order to Gaza.

Even Egypt tires of the endless excuses, anarchy and chaos to the point where they "specially delivered a message". No zionists or resistance to Israel's expansion involved Dave yet this third party - Egypt - is already tiring of the Palestinian Authority games and terror.

{edited to add}

12:33 10/01/2006

The Palestinian Authority, the largest employer in the territories, is facing a fiscal crisis that could result, as early as next month, in it being unable to pay the salaries of its 130,000-plus officials and security staff, Nigel Roberts, the World Bank's man in the West Bank and Gaza Strip said in an interview to Haaretz.

"The Palestinian government needs the continued assistance of the international community," Roberts declares, "and to secure that, it must begin to assume its responsibilities." Raising salaries at a time when resources are unavailable for this, he notes, is precisely the opposite of demonstrating responsibility and reliability.

Roberts notes that the amount of assistance the Palestinians are getting - $5 billion in five years, or $300 per capita annually - is the highest granted to any entity since World War II. "To maintain the deep involvement of the donors, and their diplomatic attention, as well as the desire of the private sector to invest additional money, the PA must improve its performance," Roberts states.

"At the beginning of 2005, when Abu Mazen was elected president, we hoped for new momentum in the direction of governmental reforms and the fight against corruption, and in legislation - the most essential steps for encouraging private investments," explains the senior representative of the World Bank. Arafat died, but everything pertaining to the corrupted system of government, the "Arafatism," is still alive and kicking, Roberts says. "Arafat created a system that was tailored to a liberation movement, but not for a state at a time of reconciliation. We did not think that becoming accustomed to new norms would take so much time."

(emphasis mine)

Even a fourth party - Nigel Roberts, the World Bank's man in the West Bank and Gaza Strip - tires of the Palestinian Authrority's inaction and corruption Dave. Neither of which have to do with zionists or resistance to Israel's expansion.

At some point Dave you have to address what you refuse to address, that the Palestinians make their bed and sleep in it regardless of zionists or resistance to Israel's often-touted-as-the-cause-for-everything "expansion".

 

[webfusion]

** bump **


In the OP, I asked if there was a jurisdiction or method for suing the terrorists for their acts ---

I just came across the answer. Sorry it took so long.
http://www.terror-lawsuit.com/index.htm?sckw=palestinian terrorism&src=google&sccrtv=stt-uar-iviuc
A team of leading American and Israeli lawyers are working together in representing Israeli victims of terror. Lawsuits seeking hundreds of millions of dollars have been filed in federal court in New York against defendant "Arab Bank" for its involvement in terror financing. Families who have suffered from these attacks are continuing to join these lawsuits.

 

[webfusion]

AVI DICHTER -- Case Dismissed

BREAKING NEWS:
New York federal judge clears Avi Dichter in war crimes suit (Reuters)

 

[a_unique_person]

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0241698520070502

The lawsuit accused Avi Dichter of "war crimes for his participation" in the decision to drop a one-tonne bomb in a residential area of the Gaza Strip on July 22, 2002.
The target of the bombing was Hamas leader Saleh Shehada, but the strike also killed 14 Palestinian civilians, including nine children, and wounded many others.
At the time of the attack, Dichter, now Israel's internal security minister, was the director of the country's Shin Bet internal security agency.
...


In a ruling issued at U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Judge William Pauley found Dichter could not be sued because he was acting as a government official at the time.

?????

 

[webfusion]

What's the question?

He was acting in an official capacity, and violated no international law.
It seems clear to me.

 

[a_unique_person]

She made no finding on if it was legal or not, just that since he was acting in an official capacity, he had no responsibility. IIRC, other courts have found that not to be a valid excuse.

 

[webfusion]

She made no finding on if it was legal or not, just that since he was acting in an official capacity, he had no responsibility. IIRC, other courts have found that not to be a valid excuse.

Who is "she" ?

Your reading of the ruling is totally different than how it was presented by the New York District Court Judge William Pauley. He found that U.S. courts only have jurisdiction in cases of damages caused by actions that violate international law.

The Judge accepted the argument offered in motions by Israel and the U.S. State Department that no international law was deemed to have been violated by the Israeli government, and as Dichter was acting for that government, he could not be tried.

I think you are just not understanding the ruling, and making it into something that it's not.

 

[davefoc]

Are these posts referring to the article about the decision or the actual decision. If somebody has seen the actual decision would they provide a link?

From the article linked to here it sounds like the decision was just a straightforward rejection of the lawsuit because according to this judge, US law doesn't allow somebody to sue when the alleged crime was committed by somebody "acting as a government official".

But that understanding does not make complete sense because apparently the law that the suit was brought under was intended to allow people to sue who had suffered at the hands of the Nazis and clearly a lot of them were acting as government officials.

So, it seems like the information in the article is not clear (and so is the information in other articles that I found on the decision) or I am just not getting what is going on here.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Here is the full text of the Order to Dismiss: Matar v Dichter

I don't pretend to understand it all, but it seems that the force of the order lies primarily on the immunity granted by the United States to "agencies or instrumentalities" of foreign entities. Thus, it does not mean that Dichter did not violate any international. Rather, it means that Dichter cannot be prosecuted under US law because such prosecution is forbidden by US law.

I myself am not clear on why Dichter is covered under the Foreign Service Immunities Act (FSIA), or why, in this case, the FSIA overrides the Torture Victims Protection Act (TVPA), a point which the judge seems to gloss over in his order. It seems, though, that it may have something to do with maintaining diplomatic relations with an ally, which was not an issue in the prosecution of Nazi war criminals in so far as the government from which they derived the agency or instrumentality both lacked diplomatic relations with the US and no longer exists.

 

[davefoc]

mijopaalmc's link doesn't go directly to the text of the decision. I don't know why but it doesn't seem to be possible to post a direct link to the pdf file.

But selecting William Pauley and a date of 5/02/2007 brought up the decision for me.