Surprise, Surprise, Surprise

[ddt]

Are there any first world nations where investigations into criminal acts by the armed services are not investigated in-house? It seems to be the standard, and the military police and investigators pride themselves on their professionalism and often hand out harsher sentences than civil courts as I recall.

The Netherlands. There is no separate military court. Military cases are dealt with by a special chamber of the district court in Arnhem. Cases are prosecuted by the public prosecutor. See, e.g. the (in Holland) famous case of Eric O., a marine who was accused of killing a number of Iraqis while violating the RoE. Later, at least one of the soldiers who testified came in the news claiming he and his mates had committed perjury on the stand.

 

[Oliver]

Remember those "War Crimes" Israel committed in Gaza which IDF soldiers "admitted" occured?

The IDF's chief lawyer (Patzar, "Praklit Tzva'i Rashi") closed the investigation, noting what everybody realize almost from the minute the accusations were made: to wit, the accusations are mere rumors.

Okay, everybody, all together now: "It's a coverup by the evil Zionist criminals".

Right?

I wonder what you would think about an investigation that states that "internal investigation shows that Iran does not support terrorism".

When it comes to Israel/Palestine, you cannot trust "internal investigations", no matter what side you reffering to, am I wrong?

 

[lionking]

I wonder what you would think about an investigation that states that "internal investigation shows that Iran does not support terrorism".

When it comes to Israel/Palestine, you cannot trust "internal investigations", no matter what side you reffering to, am I wrong?

Well, can you trust internal investigations anywhere? There are military police in Germany (and the Netherlands, and the USA etc) which conduct initial investigations of crimes committed by the military. Or is it only Israeli military investigators you don't trust?

 

[Oliver]

Well, can you trust internal investigations anywhere? There are military police in Germany (and the Netherlands, and the USA etc) which conduct initial investigations of crimes committed by the military. Or is it only Israeli military investigators you don't trust?

Given the fact that internal investigations usually lead to convictions based on accusations, of course the Skeptic in me distrusts internal investigations of Hamas or the IDF, especially when the "external investigations" show a different picture.

 

[lionking]

Given the fact that internal investigations usually lead to convictions based on accusations, of course the Skeptic in me distrusts internal investigations of Hamas or the IDF, especially when the "external investigations" show a different picture.

"External investigations"? By Human Rights Watch perhaps, or the BBC?

 

[gdnp]

Surprise surprise surprise, yet another post which presents exactly zero evidence that any of the rumours cited have any basis in reality.

Too bad, I really thought you'd be the first. But I'm sure you could wait weeks or even months and still not be beat out, for some reason nobody seems to have any evidence, but dammit you know Israel did it because they're just so damned evil!

for the record, based on the evidence that is publicly known I doubt that there is anything behind the allegations in this case, which has always been weak. However, to expand on my previous post:

1) Israel exonerating itself tells you little if anything about the validity of the allegations. Like other military organizations, including the US, stonewalling and cover-up is the norm absent public evidence such as photos that cannot be denied.

2 )Skeptic accepting Israel's exoneration of itself tells you absolutely nothing about the allegations in this case since Skeptic is never critical of Israel. (In a previous thread I asked for anyone to link me to a post where Skeptic had criticized Israeli actions, and received no responses. So absent contradictory evidence, I assume that Israel will toe the Israeli party line.)

3) Skeptic has the infuriating habit of starting threads with idiotic titles that give forumites no clue as to the topic. I know he thinks he is awfully clever, but wouldn't "IDF investigation debunks allegations of Israeli atrocity" be more informative?

 

[Oliver]

"External investigations"? By Human Rights Watch perhaps, or the BBC?

For example. Unless, of course, you see more bias in their efforts than in the involved parties efforts to put themselve into an innocent light.

 

[WildCat]

Who are you even talking to?
It isn't anybody whose posts you've read.

Did someone hijack your account and write this?

It's not as if the IDF failed to find any wrong-doing.

(This might be unrelated to the academy debriefing)
IDF soldier demoted for shooting Gaza woman in legs
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1074077.html

 

[WildCat]

Given the fact that internal investigations usually lead to convictions based on accusations, of course the Skeptic in me distrusts internal investigations of Hamas or the IDF, especially when the "external investigations" show a different picture.

Can you link to an "external investigation" that supports the charges highlighted in Haaretz?

 

[Oliver]

Can you link to an "external investigation" that supports the charges highlighted in Haaretz?

As lionking mentioned, Human Rights Watch does such "external" investigations. But if you prefer to cite Iran's, Hamas's or even IDF's internal investigations above neutral sources, that's up to you, even if I m may consider such a statement as biased as well.

 

[WildCat]

As lionking mentioned, Human Rights Watch does such "external" investigations. But if you prefer to cite Iran's, Hamas's or even IDF's internal investigations above neutral sources, that's up to you, even if I m may consider such a statement as biased as well.

Can you link to the "external investigation" done by HRW which supports the allegations in Haaretz?

 

[Oliver]

Can you link to the "external investigation" done by HRW which supports the allegations in Haaretz?

Yes:

http://www.hrw.org/de

"IDF's use of White Phosphor certainly is a war crime"

But that wasn't my point. My point was that "pro-Isreal no matter what supporters" wouldn't accept an Anti-Israel source for their "internal investigations", either. So why should someone being neutral believe in any biased source, no matter if Hamas, Iran or IDF?

There is no reason to take a biased source as being neutral, is there?

 

[WildCat]

Yes:

http://www.hrw.org/de

"IDF's use of White Phosphor certainly is a war crime"

Please try to stay on topic.

Do you have any link confirming the charges highlighted in Haaretz?

But that wasn't my point. My point was that "pro-Isreal no matter what supporters" wouldn't accept an Anti-Israel source for their "internal investigations", either. So why should someone being neutral believe in any biased source, no matter if Hamas, Iran or IDF?

There is no reason to take a biased source as being neutral, is there?

What would Hamas investigate itself over? That they didn't properly torture an enemy before killing him? That the suicide bomb belt was improperly constructed, resulting in less deaths than desired? Likewise Iran, what would they investigate? That the waves of children as young as 5 used to clear mine fields weren't compact enough to ensure all the mines were detected?

 

[Oliver]

Please try to stay on topic.

Do you have any link confirming the charges highlighted in Haaretz?

What would Hamas investigate itself over? That they didn't properly torture an enemy before killing him? That the suicide bomb belt was improperly constructed, resulting in less deaths than desired? Likewise Iran, what would they investigate? That the waves of children as young as 5 used to clear mine fields weren't compact enough to ensure all the mines were detected?

Haaretz published several articles about the use Idf's white phosphor. And the Human Rights Watch agreed independently from Haaretz articles. So would you rather ignore international sources or just stick to sources investigating themselves, especially if it comes to Iran declaring that they have peaceful means, for example?

In other words, how gullible are you concerning propaganda?

ISRAEL AND HAMAS
Psychological Tricks to Demoralize the Enemy

 

[WildCat]

Haaretz published several articles about the use Idf's white phosphor. And the Human Rights Watch agreed independently from Haaretz articles. So would you rather ignore international sources or just stick to sources investigating themselves, especially if it comes to Iran declaring that they have peaceful means, for example?

In other words, how gullible are you concerning propaganda?

That wasn't the focus of this story. And besides, WP use is not a war crime. Why don't you start another thread on WP. or bump an existing one if you have something new to add?

Now please answer, what would Iran and Hamas investigate themselves over?

 

[DC]

That wasn't the focus of this story. And besides, WP use is not a war crime. Why don't you start another thread on WP. or bump an existing one if you have something new to add?

Now please answer, what would Iran and Hamas investigate themselves over?

warcrime apologiser?

 

[Beerina]

That wasn't the focus of this story. And besides, WP use is not a war crime. Why don't you start another thread on WP. or bump an existing one if you have something new to add?

Now please answer, what would Iran and Hamas investigate themselves over?

Don't forget she hasn't answered your first question, as to what on that web site, or anywhere, supports the rumors, finds the actual original soldiers, or whatever.

Lemme settle on in here in my well-padded, enpillowed chair. Don't wanna develop bedsores or anything while waiting.

 

[theprestige]

But they have no reason to so choose.

Of course they have reasons to so choose: Everything from enlightened self-interest to outright altruism.

Unless you're claiming that unlike pretty much every other organization of people on the planet, the IDF JAG is staffed entirely by people with no scruples, no morals, no ethics, and no vested interest in building a strong, ethical, accurate agency.

If that's your claim, it's pretty extraordinary, and I'd like to see some extraordinary evidence to back it up.

 

[FireGarden]

Did someone hijack your account and write this?

What has that to do with your question? (emphasis added) "So you now admit Israel does punish soldiers who do wrong?"

Or am I reading too much into that word?

 

[WildCat]

What has that to do with your question? (emphasis added) "So you now admit Israel does punish soldiers who do wrong?"

Or am I reading too much into that word?

So you wish to correct this by saying that you have always thought that Israel punishes wrongdoing by its soldiers?