The Globe
has this piece on Obama's Harvard braintrust:
Indeed, Hauser Hall, on the law school campus, could double as an Obama
campaign outpost. The directory in the lobby includes half a dozen
professors who have played the role of adviser or stump surrogate.
Several were Obama's mentors at Harvard Law School – like Ogletree,
Laurence Tribe, and Martha Minow.
Minow, who later served on a commission with then-State Senator Obama,
says of the president-elect: "He always wants to hear the competing
arguments."
Sneaking a Zionist past Joachim Martillo is like sneaking a fastball past Henry Aaron, or the sunrise past a rooster. Martillo writes: Here is an example "of Zionist propaganda" Minow co-wrote with former IDF
legal advisor Gabriela Blum and that ran on the Op-Ed page of the Boston Globe, in 2006, months after the horrors of Lebanon:
Israel enacted its own Unlawful Combatants Law in 2002, with the purpose of providing a domestic legal framework for the prolonged detention of terrorists. Rejecting the terrorists' status as prisoners of war, the law instead provides for holding them "until the end of hostilities." From its inception, it was intended not so much for the detention of Palestinian terrorists, who are either tried as criminals or held in administrative detention, but for other..
An IDF legal adviser writes for the Boston Globe, but they trash Americans like Walt and Mearsheimer. Do you see how screwed up things are?
Do you want to know how Israelis treat "detainees"? Just read about this case, written up by no Harvard law prof but by Anat Matar, an Israeli professor of philosophy who is trying to end the spooky star-chamber system. Let my people go.
P.S. Anne Silver sends this report on the treatment of Palestinian prisoners. Just makes me want to cry. The crushing unfairness, and the smart smart oblivious Jews.
Not all that brilliant a post Phil.
Further on in the stated article:
"Unlike the US bill , the Israeli law provides for a first hearing of the detainee before a high-ranking officer immediately upon his detention; a detainee has a right to legal representation; a first judicial review of the detention warrant has to take place in a district court no longer than 14 days after the first arrest, and every six months thereafter; and the detainee can appeal his detention before a Supreme Court j udge. The court must revoke the detention order if it finds that the release of the detainee would not threaten national security or if there are other special reasons that justify it."
Somehow DESCRIBING is the same thing as advocating for it in your mind?
Richard, are you actually claiming that Israel's treatment of the locals is commendable?
Richard, are you actually claiming that Israel's treatment of the locals is commendable?
Who said he's considering her for a job? It just says they served on a commission together while he was in the state senate…
Look at the context of the original article, Richard. It does *advocate*.
However, you are right that Martillo and Phil's point is not very strong. The article, at least, is pushing for some degree of rule of law in contrast to the concentration camp/gulag system we actually have in place.
In practice, though, I'm not sure these paper claims mean much of anything in Israel if you are a detained "enemy", at least judging from the human rights reports I've read.
I'm saying that her quoted post was a DESCRIPTION of law, NOT an advocacy for every element of the law.
And, that she described features in the Israeli law that granted additional rights to prisoners than in US law.
If thats the case, then the US should be the target of boycotts, if anyone.
To be fair, the original Blum-Minow article excluded consideration of Palestinian detainees. The problem is the creation of the category of "illegal combatants."
The operative categories are really combatants, whose leadership have signed onto the Geneva Conventions and those, whose leadership has not.
The Conventions are already clear under this distinction.
If we look into the history of this body of international law, the idea of "illegal combatant," who can be treated however his captors want, is completely rejected.
The laws under question originate in the US Civil War, and the Union could certainly have treated Confederate detainees either as illegal combatants or as criminals committing brigandage, but the Union chose to treat them as legitimate combatants and prisoners of war under conventional international law.
The Israeli example rejects the development of over 140 years of international law and instead follows Czarist and Soviet examples while the current American practice follows the Israeli model even if the Israeli government is slightly more adept at cloaking its behavior with more acceptable legalistic verbiage.
And, that she described features in the Israeli law that granted additional rights to prisoners than in US law.
Maybe you could point out to us what these "additional" rights in Ghassan Khaled's case look like? Anat Mater doesn't seem to share your view of a superior Israeli legal system.
Richard said: "she described features in the Israeli law that granted additional rights to prisoners than in US law."
As the US now has the most people per capita behind bars, I wouldn't hold this up as an example of Israel's virtue, Richard.
Israel might even have the record based on non-citizens behind bars.
Its not an example of Israel's virtue.
Its an example of the US's corruption.
And, to this audience, an example of failing to heal one's own community, in favor of blaming another (as rational as it is criticize the detention laws in Israel).
Is the breaking of every Palestinian male's right hand in the law?
Richard Witty said: "Its an example of the US's corruption."
The best examples of US corruption is that we have Israeli citizens crawling all over DC.
Americans deserve what they get.
I hate American subject policy, and I hate Israel's. The USA use to be different–don't blame it all on 9/11. That's the pretext. Not in my name and with my tax dollars applies to both USA and Israel in this thread's context. Gotta hand it to the Israeli's to put up a better humanistic paper front than the dumb Gentiles in the USA…
Does the USA yet have "shelf agreements?" I don't think so, unless
Chaney and his band have been doing it under deep cover.