All of the above posts expressing anger over the court"s decision make the assumption that the court clearly came to the wrong conclusion. How do any of you know that to be the case? The fact that you are all so sure that the court is wrong (without, I assume, having yourselves had access to any of the evidence) suggests to me that you all don't really have very much respect for how the legal system works, i.e. we don't pre-judge guilt.
As for the court system whitewashing government action, the Israeli Supreme Court (which is not the deciding court in this case, but it goes to the point) actually has a pretty impressive history of opposing government action, much more so than American courts, which have a history of treating national security issues as the exclusive purview of the executive and the legislature, and therefore an area to be avoided (I'm in law school at the moment, and actually studying how courts deal with national security cases). The Israeli Supreme Court, in contrast, especially under Chief Justice Barak, was very assertive in addressing such cases, and very often ruled against the government (for example, ruling against the government in a case that banned physical means of interrogation, even in "ticking bomb" scenarios, or refusing to give the government a blanket ruling that targeted killings were in all cases legal).
In terms of the court "blaming" Corrie for her own death, I read the court's decision a little differently. The court was faced with a legal question having to do with liability in tort law. The court's discussion of Corrie's actions, I think, are therefore about a negligence/recklessness/contributory-negligence analysis, which is a legal, not a moral, analysis. In essence what I think the court is saying is that without passing judgment on Corrie's ethical and moral character (which I personally think was pretty high) her actions, in knowingly entering a closed military zone, were reckless (in a strictly legal sense).
Ok, sorry for sidetracking all the righteous anger. Carry on...
So, in summary, you think the Israeli Supreme Court should be praised for having finally declared torture and extra-judicial assassinations illegal, in line with international law?
Oh, and you want us to give the Israeli Supreme Court the benefit of the doubt in the recent law suit regarding Rachel Corrie, despite decades of it's shielding the IDF from prosecution, and it's total disregard for the rights of Palestinians, as briefly outlined in the article i posted on the previous page?
Comments
So, in summary, you think the Israeli Supreme Court should be praised for having finally declared torture and extra-judicial assassinations illegal, in line with international law?
Oh, and you want us to give the Israeli Supreme Court the benefit of the doubt in the recent law suit regarding Rachel Corrie, despite decades of it's shielding the IDF from prosecution, and it's total disregard for the rights of Palestinians, as briefly outlined in the article i posted on the previous page?
Good luck with that.
12 years, no justice.
lots of old names in this thread. i just wanted to make sure Rachel is always remembered.
(thanks Nart for the reminder)
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."