Shooting the shooter: Israeli law-breaking caught on tape

Last year, B'Tselem decided to give ordinary Palestinians cameras so they could record any abuses to their rights committed by police or soldiers. The project, which has been going on for over a year, has been largely successful. Of course, these kinds of videos are highly contested by articulate and suspicious Israeli advocates, but sometimes the footage speaks for itself.

The most recent example shows an Israeli soldier shooting a Palestinian protestor at close range with a rubber bullet. It's clear that the soldier is subdued, unarmed, and posing no threat to the soldier. This incident is being investigated by the Israeli army. Comforting? Not exactly...

The International Law Observer drew my attention to this story, as well as to this report by Yesh Din of how internal Israeli military law enforcement punishes soldiers who violate the law. I haven't gotten through the entire document (it's 131 pages), but from what I've skimmed it's clear not only are there many examples of such violations, there are also many more which go unpunished. Even if you believe that Israeli law prevents and punishes crimes of individuals, you can't argue against the, at the very least, tolerance within Israeli society for such behaviors. These kinds of incidents should provoke outrage, but instead the Israeli PR machine tries to pretend this kind of incident is an anomaly.

The study, funded, inter alia, by the European Union; various Jewish and Israeli NGOs; and the German, Dutch, and British governments, is one to be taken seriously, not covered up.

On a related note, check out this article by Valentina Azarov about defining civilians in Gaza and Israel within the scope of international law.

The Execution of Justice

According to this article, Sharon Keller, presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, stands accused by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct with incompetence, violating her duties and casting public discredit on the judiciary.

Apparently Judge Keller refused to extend the hours of her clerk's office to allow a convicted man to file an appeal only hours before he was due to be executed. The execution was carried out. If there weren't so much at stake the circumstances of Judge Keller's refusal would be comic.

The article quotes Judge Keller and her views on criminal justice. When interviewed by Frontline on an unrelated matter (another appeal against a sentence of death), Judge Keller mused that "[w]e can't give new trials to everyone who establishes, after conviction, that they might be innocent". Why not? Because there would be "no finality in the criminal justice system, and finality is important".

It is true enough that in some jurisdictions, a convicted appellant bears the burden of proof of innocence. That appears to be the case in Texas, at any rate. But it is almost grotesque to speak of "finality" in the context of someone trying to halt an impending execution. There's not much that is more "final" than staring your mortality in the face.

It's good that the American practice of electing judges has not caught on. In her campaign for a spot on the Court of Criminal Appeals, Judge Keller sold herself as "pro-prosecution". We all know that judges can't be absolutely objective when it comes to deciding cases, but there is an ideal to aspire to. And to be unashamedly "pro-prosecution"? I'm not an expert on Texan criminal law, but there is a presumption of innocence, right?

What constitution?

It's great that Obama is our new pres and all, but since we basically allowed Bush and his cronies to do whatever they wanted for eight years, haven't we set ourselves up to continue to serve under a dictatorship, albeit a currently more benevolent one? Bush's disregard for the constitution doesn't just show what a jerk he was (though that's part of it), it also shows what apathetic, lazy civilians we are.

Now we know that the CIA destroyed 92 tapes which probably recorded torture and that the Bush administration tried to invoke "law" when overriding law. Scott Horton calls this Bush's disposable constitution, but wait, isn't that our constitution? Just because we elected a smart guy president doesn't mean that we've reclaimed anything. So far, it just looks like we are discovering to what extent our rights were trampled on before. Why should we even bother with rights? Let's just wait for Obama to start handing out lollipops...

Anyhow, here's Rachel Maddow's take on it:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Carla Del Ponte and Reruns in the Balkans

Former ICTY and ICTR prosecutor Carla Del Ponte's new book looks into allegations that Albanians kidnapped and murdered Serbs in Kosovo in 1999 and at the failure of UN and NATO officials to look into this issue. The ICTY's intra-homepage featured this article from Newsweek today, which points to another issue: Del Ponte's Swiss-induced travel ban.

Del Ponte, who is currently the Swiss embassador to Argentina, is officially banned from touring with her book on account of her diplomatic duties. The article highlights Switzerland's tenuous relations with Russia following the former's recognition of Kosovo's independence as a factor in the politically-based decision.

It's fitting that a book thats content is already mired in controversy would face additional hurdles upon publication. Del Ponte, who was ousted from the ICTR for, according to Del Ponte, pursuing Tutsis and Hutus alike, is no stranger to extreme dislike. Even her Amazon.com review mentions that there are billboards in Belgrade that call her a whore. I couldn't find those specifically (and I did look, because that's pretty ridiculous), but I did find this one from 2005, which apparently says, "There's going to be a rerun."


Charming.

According to an article published by the Henry Jackson Society, there will be somewhat of a rerun in Bosnia if things keep on the path they're on. Looks like it's not only Del Ponte's book that's falling on deaf ears, but also the entire point of her prosecuting war criminals at the Tribunal. Not that I'm blaming her; it's just sad.