The silence of the jurists By Gideon Levy

[Jefferson23]

One silence, of all the shameful silences, has thus far roared especially loud - the silence of the jurists. The 41,000 attorneys in the State of Israel are entrusted with protecting its image as a lawful state, and this large and grand army has once again strayed from its function. There is a deep suspicion throughout the world that Israel carried out a series of war crimes, and the jurists of our country are holding their peace.

Where, for instance, is Aharon Barak when we really need him? Where are his colleagues, the former justices of the Supreme Court, who knew very well how to raise their voices when Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann threatened to harm the apple of their eye, and who now hide in their cowardly silence?

Where is Mishael Cheshin, who threatened to cut off the hand of anyone who raises it against the Supreme Court no less, and now, with a heavy shadow being cast before us, does not say a word?

article in full: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060380.html

[ProgressiveMuslim]

1. Or... should those jurists who found loopholes for the war be appointed to plum university spots?

Yet another reason for academic boycott!

From the Magnes Zionist:
http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-does-academic-freedom-have-to-do.html

What Does Academic Freedom Have to Do with It?

Pninah Sharvit Baruch, the outgoing head of the section of the IDF legal department specializing in international law, is scheduled to teach at Tel-Aviv law school next year. When an article in Haaretz claimed that Sharvit Baruch used legal loopholes to authorize possible war crimes, e..g, the bombing of the Hamas police graduation, some members of the Tel-Aviv faculty protested her appointment. In particular, law professor Prof. Chaim Gans (whose book on Zionism is displayed on this blog) wrote the following letter to his Dean:

If the allegations in the article are correct, then my view is that it would be inappropriate for our Faculty of Law to employ Pnina Baruch.

As the article demonstrates, Baruch's legal expertise is in the jurisprudence of legal tricks – a jurisprudence that seeks loopholes in the language of the law in order to evade the realization of its purpose.

In Sharvit-Baruch's case, these legal tricks were employed in the service of evading constraints the purpose of which is to protect the lives of innocent civilians.

In my opinion, a person who is mainly trained in this jurisprudence of tricks legitimizing massive killings of innocent civilians is not a suitable candidate for an academic position in our Faculty of Law. It violates the desirable values of legal academia. Much more importantly, it violates the desirable values of our society.

For these reasons, if Sharvit-Baruch does indeed join the staff of our law school at Tel Aviv University, it will be under my protest.

more...

[Jefferson23]

2. This will be interesting to see how this plays out in Israel. This article

reminded me of John Yoo here in the US and his role in the OLC. Yoo's famous contribution of course being the torture memo, his early life is what I found interesting as well with respect to what influenced his legal opinions. Yoo was born in South Korea, later emigrating to the US as a baby with his family. His parents having lived the Korean War held strong anti-Communist views, Yoo was also attracted to Reagan's message the "Evil Empire." From what I have read, as a law student Yoo's interest brought him into the study referred to by some as, muscular assertions of presidential power. The Korean war was launched by Truman without asking Congress for authorization, to Yoo, that act by Truman may have been illegitimate but it kept his family from living under a dictatorship.

He actually gave an interview where he states that personal connection led him to devote his career to mounting a defense for the kind of sweeping presidential powers Truman had claimed for himself.

It was no coincidence that Yoo was chosen to work in the OLC, they wanted a legal mind that deferred to the executive branch.

Anyway, Yoo's opinions about presidential power was nothing he hid when he lectured at Berkeley, it appears that he was welcomed there because of his opposing views, none of which had expressed themselves regarding torture as he later did when he worked in the OLC, as far as I know. Yoo was tenured at Berkeley in 1998 I believe, before he worked for Bush and this leaves some at Berkeley outraged. But at this institution of learning, there are many law professors willing and capable to dismantle Yoo's legal opinions, and ultimately his torture memo could possibly find him employing a lawyer to defend himself in court one day. I personally hope that will happen, only time will tell.

The silence that is expressed in the article I posted and your following piece are disturbing indicators for a country that claims democracy. In the US we still have voices against the legal opinions of Yoo from conservative Constitutional scholars, such as Republican Mickey Edwards. We don't have to depend primarily on liberal minded legal scholars for dissent. If anything, the fact that Yoo's legal opinions are not universally accepted by true conservatives only works against him and those like minded, aka Justice Roberts SCOTUS. I do truly hope that the legal scholars within Israel's academics speak out for justice and the rule of law.