Palestinian Abbas authorizes death sentences for Israel 'collaborators'

[jswordy]

In the first decision of its kind since he succeeded Yasser Arafat, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has authorized death sentences passed against three Palestinians who were found guilty of "collaboration" with Israel.

It's not clear when the three men, whose identities were not revealed, would be executed by firing squad.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1108524044900

[Ian David]

1. I thought we were supposed to be working on peace now?

It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine...

[Djinn]

3. they are but what do you think Israel

would do with an Israeli citizen they suspected of assisting Hamas. He would be punished to the fullest extent of Israeli law - as are Israeli collaborators in Palestine - Israel doesn't have the death penalty so it goes for the next step - locking someone in prison (after a kangaroo trial) for 20 years, most of them in solitary confinement. That was just for telling the world that Israel had nukes - not for assisting the "enemy".

[Igel]

4. Yes, it certainly does show Israel's backwardness ... they

should instate the death penalty at once for people collaborating with the PA.

[Djinn]

8. yes because that's what I said

:eyes:

[Yosie]

5. Quo Warranto

By what right can you make the statement

"Israel doesn't have the death penalty so it goes for the next step - locking someone in prison (after a kangaroo trial)"

My own experience (and I have been before the Bar of Justice for 38 years) is that on human rights, civil rights, and even criminal justice matters the Israeli courts are much less kangaroo courts then are, say, the courts of the United States.

Have you ever heard of our Criminal Courts in Harris County, Texas, which, unfortunately, is a United States Court in a state of the United States. Indigent defense in homicide cases (i.e., capital cases) is frequently provided by alcoholic and senile "old boy" defense attorneys - who do not prepare a defense and have no funds for investigators or psychiatrists.

But, let's get back to the subject. I recently participated in an Israeli case - started with a court martial, then an appeal of the court martial conviction, then a civil court proceeding to set aside the court martial conviction. The charge: "failure to perform military duties." The real issue: the defendant was a "non-cooperative conscientious objector." We got the court martial set aside (in effect a judicially ordered full and complete pardon).

I know my learned colleague and sister at the Bar of Justice (we common law Barristers are so full of bull crap - but at least in the US we haven't worn wigs since 1776 ;) ) Felicia Langer would disagree with me - so, as Barristers we disagree (I hosted a fund raiser for her some years ago).

So, on a relative scale - an Israeli court is less likely to be a "kangaroo court" then a US Court. And, yes, I did Civil Rights litigation in the "Old Confederacy" in "Those Days" when we really had apartheid here. I speak from experience in both American and Israeli Courts (and also Canadian).

[Yosie]

7. Further Point - Compare and Contrast Lynne Stewart and Felicia Langer

Felicia Langer was never jailed or disbarred - just a prisoner in her own mind.

But Lynne Stewart--

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/opinion/17napolitano.html?

As Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, and the author of "Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws", and a Fox News Legal Analyst (yes - a Conservative Republican) writes in

No Defense by Andrew P. Napolitano

<snip><

THE conviction of Lynne F. Stewart for providing material aid to terrorism and for lying to the government is another perverse victory in the Justice Department's assault on the Constitution.

Ms. Stewart, the lawyer who was convicted last week of five felonies, will be disbarred and faces up to 30 years in jail. She represented Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, not exactly a sympathetic character. He is the leader of the Islamic Group, a terrorist organization that plotted the assassination of President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and masterminded the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

He was sentenced in 1996 to life in prison. When Ms. Stewart sought to visit her client in jail, prison officials required her to sign an affirmation that she would abide by special rules requiring that she communicate with the sheikh only about legal matters. The rules also forbade her from passing messages to third parties, like the news media. Yet the jury found that Ms. Stewart frequently made gibberish comments in English to distract prison officials who were trying to record the conversation between the sheikh and his interpreter, and that she "smuggled" messages from her jailed client to his followers.

But if the federal government had followed the law, Ms. Stewart would never have been required to agree to these rules to begin with. Just after 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft gave himself the power to bypass the lawyer-client privilege, which every court in the United States has upheld, and eavesdrop on conversations between prisoners and their lawyers if he had reason to believe they were being used to "further facilitate acts of violence or terrorism." The regulation became effective immediately.

In the good old days, only Congress could write federal criminal laws. After 9/11, however, the attorney general was allowed to do so. Where in the Constitution does it allow that?

Mr. Ashcroft's rules, with their criminal penalties, violate the Sixth Amendment, which grants all persons the right to consult with a lawyer in confidence. Ms. Stewart can't effectively represent her clients - no lawyer can - if the government listens to and records privileged conversations between lawyers and their clients. The threat of a government prosecution would loom over their meetings.

These rules also violate the First Amendment's right to free speech. Especially in a controversial case, a defense lawyer is right to advocate for her client in the press, just as the government uses the press to put forward its case. Unless there is a court order that bars both sides from speaking to reporters, it should be up to the lawyer to decide whether to help her client through the news media.

Ms. Stewart's constitutional right to speak to the news media about a matter of public interest is absolute and should prevent the government from prosecuting her. And since when does announcing someone else's opinion about a cease-fire - as Ms. Stewart did, saying the sheik no longer supported one that had been observed in Egypt - amount to advocating an act of terrorism?

In truth, the federal government prosecuted Lynne Stewart because it wants to intimidate defense lawyers into either refusing to represent accused terrorists or into providing less than zealous representation. After she was convicted, Ms. Stewart said, "You can't lock up the lawyers, you can't tell the lawyers how to do their jobs."

No doubt the outcome of this case will have a chilling effect on lawyers who might represent unpopular clients. Since 9/11 the federal government's message has been clear: if you defend someone we say is a terrorist, we may declare you to be one of them, and you will lose everything.

The Stewart conviction is a travesty. She faces up to 30 years in prison for speaking gibberish to her client and the truth to the press. It is devastating for lawyers and for any American who may ever need a lawyer. Shouldn't the Justice Department be defending our constitutional freedoms rather than assaulting them?

<snip><

I have no knowledge of a similar event in Israel (maybe one of our appenders can enlighten me). On a relative scale compared to the US, the "Kangaroo Courts" are not in Israel. A little perspective please.

[Djinn]

9. so you think Vanunu's trial was fair and open?

because I would agree that generally the Israeli court system is fairer than the American but in certain cases specifically those relating to (for want of a better term) the Palestinian issue, the generally high standard goes out the window - administrative detention springs to mind. With your experience I'd be amazed if you could say that the treatment of Vanunu from kidnap to maximum security was a highpoint of Israeli justice.

I don't agree with the death penalty at all so I also don't agree with killing collaborators - then again I've never been occupied, were I ever living in Apartheid South Africa or under Nazi rule in Europe I probably would have viewed things differently.

I also don't think people should be punished without free and fair trials, just for the benefit of those who will insist I approve of any of this - but I'm not naive either - bad shit happens when people are in a state of war - Israeli's have committed war crimes so have Palestinians.

Thank you though for not instantly assuming I'm some rabid anti-semite, and being able to disagree without patronising or namecalling - it makes a nice change here.

btw I'm not American

[Yosie]

10. Some thoughts

1. "because I would agree that generally the Israeli court system is fairer than the American but in certain cases specifically those relating to (for want of a better term) the Palestinian issue, the generally high standard goes out the window - administrative detention springs to mind. With your experience I'd be amazed if you could say that the treatment of Vanunu from kidnap to maximum security was a highpoint of Israeli justice."

Part of the "Palestinian issue" (which subsumes the occupation and the occupiers) are the rights of dissidents within the military. Especially the rights of "conscientious objectors" and the rights of "dissenters" (in the States we call that the "Article 88 issue" -- which prohibits criticism of the Government by members of the military -,

" ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."

During the Viet Nam War I had a fair amount of experience in defending Article 88 courts martial, administrative discharge of Conscientious Objectors, and Administrative Discharge of gays. I have also been involved in Conscientious Objector discharges in the IDF.

Manifestly, the Israeli treatment of Conscientious Objectors, and "Article 88" type dissidents within the military is far, far superior to what we have here.

2. "With your experience I'd be amazed if you could say that the treatment of Vanunu from kidnap to maximum security was a highpoint of Israeli justice."

Let me just say that as a teen ager I made my decision to become a lawyer the Friday night that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed.

The Vanunu case may very well have been a case of hysteria -- but we are used to that here. Look at my post re: Lynne Stewart.

IMO - if the United States perceived itself to face the same threats that the Israelis perceive ---- we would summary executions by firing squad every day --- the Starr - Ashcroft - Gonzales wet dream way.

Thank you for not putting me in the same league with John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, Richard Perle, or Douglas Feith.

[Djinn]

11. I don't disagree with you but I think you're missing my point

I have said I agree that Israeli justice is generally better (particularly for the poor) than US but only when it applies to Israeli's - fairness flies out the window when dealing with Palestinians , Palestinian supporters or anti-war/occupation activists and whistleblowers.

The fact that my nation probably has a fairer justice system than the US (unless you're a refugee or a Koori but that's a whole 'nother thread) doesn't stop me from criticising it. Israel has a better legal system than the Palestinians, that doesn't mean it's immune from criticism

if the United States perceived itself to face the same threats that the Israelis perceive ---- we would summary executions by firing squad every day --- the Starr - Ashcroft - Gonzales wet dream way.

what would the US do if they were facing the threat that the Palestinians do every day - when speaking about the threat faced by Israel you have to remember that Palestinians lost three people for every Israeli death during the recent intifada, that their homes and infrastructure are destroyed, they too face a threat and if Israel has a right to respond then so do Palestinians.

[Yosie]

12. Further response

First, there is a threshold issue, your comment

"when speaking about the threat faced by Israel you have to remember that Palestinians lost three people for every Israeli death during the recent intifada."

is a turn-off for me. There is no way a humanitarian can put lives on a balance scale. Every life is a human life.

As to whistle blowers-- Vanunu was an aberrational sui generis.

As to anti-war/occupation activists - you seem to be forgetting - I have been fund raising for them -- and actually going to Israel for court hearings.

Also, I was here during the Mitchell-Kleindeinst era at the US Department of Justice. I was an active duty Judge Advocate (and later as an ACLU volunteer pro bono volunteer) during VietNam representing gay service members, conscientious objectors, and whistle blowers. And I even participated in Article 138 proceedings (where a junior service member "court martials" his own command structure). And now we are in the Ashcroft-Gonzales era.

So, as to anti-war/occupation activists, Israel is no worse nor better then any other western democracy that perceives itself to be under siege. I have been in the court rooms FOR the anti-war/occupation activists -- I do not need to rely on blogs or chat rooms or web sites. I can rely on the direct and cross examination of witnesses. (And, while I do not engage in LBJ-McNamara "body counts" - I have had blood relatives and even a next door neighbor from the US killed by terrorists).

[Djinn]

14. now you edge into patronising

don't assume that everyone else apart from you is speaking from knowledge gleaned "logs or chat rooms or web sites"

Israel is no worse nor better then any other western democracy that perceives itself to be under siege.

well duh - is that something to be proud of? Palestine is no worse nor better than any other guerilla/non state group when it comes to killing collaborators

I really don't get your point - country A is bad so we don't need to examine country B?

[Yosie]

15. Factually and legally incorrect

" Palestine is no worse nor better than any other guerrilla/non state group when it comes to killing collaborators

The continuum from "guerrilla/non state group" to "nationhood" is an increasing collection of the indicia of statehood, ans the assertion of the ever more rights of statehood, and the undertaking of ever more responsibilities of statehood. The PA has observer status in the UN, has diplomatic recognition and relations with many nations, exchanges ambassadors, is recognized by the ICRC (International Commission of the Red Cross and Red Crescent), runs many of its internal affairs, and is competent to carry out negotiations with Israel. I would have to say that the PA is pretty far along on the continuum from "guerrilla/non state group" to "nationhood."

Therefore, to refer to the PA as a "guerrilla/non state group" is incorrect as a matter of well settled international law.

[Djinn]

16. nitpicking

OK then Palestine is no worse than other "nations" at war that have access to the death penalty.

wanna get even more facetious?

[Yosie]

17. Part of the Progressive Agenda is the abolition of the death penalty

plain and simple. I think to go forward with executions for "political" crimes (as opposed to kidnap-murders of children or rape-murders or Jeff Dahmer type serial killings combined with ritual cannibalism) as peace talks seem to possibly be hesitatingly underway is a stick in the eye of every progressive around the world.

[Djinn]

20. so?

I think I said I don't support the deat penalty in any event? however Palestine is not the only "country" to allow it, and I think the outrage is a little disengenous at times (not referring to yourself but other posters who have no problem with the concept of firing blindly into crowds at protests)

As for the peace talks, call me a cynic but when demolitions continue and the fence continues to block many Palestinians from accessing their livehoods and carves out chunks of the west bank for Israel, when refugees are STILL left out in the cold, I have little confidence in the durability or sincerity of the "peace"

[Coastie for Truth]

18. I am not attacking anybody's "bona fides"

but are some positing one standard for Palestinians - and another, much higher, standard for Israeli's. And, if so is that a form of racism (not specifying against who) or condescension (against Palestinians)?

This is just a discussion forum - and I don't accuse or suggest an answer.

[Djinn]

19. and vice versa

it's a bug bear you gotta get used to here

[Coastie for Truth]

13. So because the Palestinians have capital punishment it's OK?

But it is a crime against humanity for the US to have capital punishment?

Would Israel have been justified in executing Vanunu? Just a hypothetical - because by some standards his "crime" (which - I agree with you - was not a "crime") would be as serious as "collaborating with the enemy." But -- I ask -- "Would Israel have been justified in executing Vanunu?" - or Yigal Amir, the Right Wing Radical who killed Rabin? I think Yigal Amir was as guilty as Gavrilo Princip, Nedjelko Cabrinovic and Trifko Grabez for all of the subsequent deaths - and horror of horrors -- more guilty then Arafat and Sharon.

[drdon326]

2. Death sentences ??? for 'collaborators' ???

I find that hard to believe.

The Salem Witch trials had more legitimacy.

[Yosie]

6. AG Ashcroft and new AG Gonzales haven't asked for that power --

although the Rosenbergs were executed -- and Confederate Attorney General Judah Benjamin was never pardoned after our Civil War - the other Cabinet members were.

Don't tell Gonzales - he may seek that power.