Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"Our reign of terror, by the Israeli army" from The Independent.co.uk

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Fair enough.

    I'm sure they have some Conscientious Objector status too.

    NTM
    From the Guardian:

    As the legal adviser to many seruvniks - and someone who was incarcerated for three weeks for refusing to serve in the Hebron area a few years ago - I have had the privilege of escorting many of my fellow signatories from receipt of their call up papers, through the trial and, finally, visiting them in prison. Given their biographies, the act of refusal was by no means a natural decision. Rather, it was rather the product of a personal crisis, born out of moral agonies and a sense of deep concern for our country's future.

    They tend to go to jail for refusing to serve in occupied Palestine.


  • Options
    #63
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    There's a difference between going to jail for refusing an order to go somewhere once you're in the Army, and going to jail for being a CO in the first place. In the US Army, if you refuse an order to go to Iraq, but want to stay in the Army, you get sent to jail. If you declare CO status and want out of the army entirely, no jail time, you just have to wait for the system to catch up while you do something non-combative.

    NTM


  • Options
    #64
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    There's a difference between going to jail for refusing an order to go somewhere once you're in the Army, and going to jail for being a CO in the first place. In the US Army, if you refuse an order to go to Iraq, but want to stay in the Army, you get sent to jail. If you declare CO status and want out of the army entirely, no jail time, you just have to wait for the system to catch up while you do something non-combative.

    Last I checked Israel occupation is illegal (hence all the resolutions against it). So a soldier refusing an illegal order is in the right and quite frankly should not be jailed for doing the right thing.


  • Options
    #65
    Hogmeister B
    Closed Accounts Posts: 120 ✭✭Hogmeister B


    True. Refusing would be very much in the spirit of the Nuremburg Declaration. But damned if Israel will actuall admit in their own courts that the occupation is illegal- if you want to do your duty in international law you'll just have to suffer the domestic consequences, it seems.


  • Options
    #66
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Hogmeister B wrote: »
    True. Refusing would be very much in the spirit of the Nuremburg Declaration. But damned if Israel will actuall admit in their own courts that the occupation is illegal- if you want to do your duty in international law you'll just have to suffer the domestic consequences, it seems.

    UN resolutions have no legal effect within a country. They are basically instructions to sovereign governments to act in a certain way, and are binding upon those governments within the UN, but internally to that country they have about as much force as a wiffle bat unless the country itself specifically says it should. Ireland has a similar clause in Art 29 of the Constitution saying that EU law is binding on Ireland, even if it contradicts the Constitution. (Which itself, I think is a bit dodgy as a concept, but anyway. And it doesn't mention the UN)

    A decision on where to deploy an individual soldier is so far above that troop's level that he has no foundation upon which to make the judgement call that the order is obviously unlawful and must be disobeyed.

    NTM


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    UN resolutions have no legal effect within a country. They are basically instructions to sovereign governments to act in a certain way, and are binding upon those governments within the UN, but internally to that country they have about as much force as a wiffle bat unless the country itself specifically says it should. Ireland has a similar clause in Art 29 of the Constitution saying that EU law is binding on Ireland, even if it contradicts the Constitution. (Which itself, I think is a bit dodgy as a concept, but anyway. And it doesn't mention the UN)

    A decision on where to deploy an individual soldier is so far above that troop's level that he has no foundation upon which to make the judgement call that the order is obviously unlawful and must be disobeyed.

    NTM

    It is still an occupation.


  • Options
    #68
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    A decision on where to deploy an individual soldier is so far above that troop's level that he has no foundation upon which to make the judgement call that the order is obviously unlawful and must be disobeyed.

    If a soldier carries out an illegal order, he should remember that he may be held responsible for it. Its too bad that many of the IDF soldiers (or even there commanders) will never be brought to the Hague to be brought to justice for there crimes.


  • Options
    #69
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    It is still an occupation

    I am not disputing this, I am just saying that this is not sufficient justification for refusing an order to go somewhere.
    wes wrote: »
    If a soldier carries out an illegal order, he should remember that he may be held responsible for it.

    There is a requirement of knowledge. Because of the autocratic nature of the military, where obedience to orders is required, it is insufficient to determine after the fact that "Yes, the order was unlawful." To be found criminally responsible, the soldier must have known at the time that the order was patently unlawful, or the infamous legal 'reasonable man' must have known it to be unlawful. This is why there's a major difference between carrying out an order to, say, shoot prisoners, which is obviously unlawful, and carrying out an order to "Go to this place", which is a policy decision of a far higher level.

    For example, quoting from the US Manual for Courts Martial.
    Rule 916 (d) Obedience to orders. It is a defense to any offense
    that the accused was acting pursuant to orders unless the accused knew the orders to be unlawful or a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the orders to be unlawful.

    Note the use of 'known' as opposed to 'believes'

    See Art 90 UCMJ: Disobedience of an order:
    (a) Lawfulness of the order.
    (i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring
    the performance of a military duty or act may be
    inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril
    of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to
    a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the
    commission of a crime.

    Basically, it needs to be pretty cut and dry that the order to go to Hebron is unlawful. Such an order is a policy decision, not a prima facia case of being unlawful.

    NTM


  • Options
    #70
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    I think the raft of UN resolutions shows that Israel occupation is illegal. I think this is common knowledge and I am pretty sure the general public in Israel are aware of this.


  • Options
    #71
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    You are making the mistake of presuming that UN Resolutions have legal force within a country. They do not. They are effectively 'club rules for membership.' The enforcement mechanism is not legal courts within a country, it's sanctions or force by the rest of the club. The may be used as a barometer for morality, in the eyes of world opinion, but not as a legal foundation within a country.

    NTM


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    You are making the mistake of presuming that UN Resolutions have legal force within a country. They do not. They are effectively 'club rules for membership.' The enforcement mechanism is not legal courts within a country, it's sanctions or force by the rest of the club. The may be used as a barometer for morality, in the eyes of world opinion, but not as a legal foundation within a country.

    I never said it was law in Israel, hence why they should be sent to the Hague, for violating international law.

    If Israel passed a law saying it was legal for the IDF to kill a Palestinian for no reason, they could still be sent to the Hague. It may be legal there, but sure as hell be considered illegal under international law.


  • Options
    #73
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    OK, but going to kill a Palestinian for no reason would fall under the same sort of act as shooting prisoners. Very obviously a criminal act under the Laws of War such as the Geneva Convention. (Which Israel is a signatory to). Overal operations are a much more abstract event.

    NTM


  • Options
    #74
    AngryHippie
    Registered Users Posts: 2,625 ✭✭✭AngryHippie


    An israeli solider imprisoned for disobedience would have no recourse that could get him to the Hague on those charges, correct ?


  • Options
    #75
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Not that I can think of.

    NTM


  • Options
    #76
    wes
    Registered Users Posts: 11,747 ✭✭✭✭wes


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    OK, but going to kill a Palestinian for no reason would fall under the same sort of act as shooting prisoners. Very obviously a criminal act under the Laws of War such as the Geneva Convention. (Which Israel is a signatory to). Overal operations are a much more abstract event.

    NTM

    Missed this one.

    Israel has shown they care very little for the Laws of War (Ethnic cleansing of Palestine and there colonization comes to mind).

    Still they could easily leave (or revoke or whatever is the correct term) the Geneva Convention and pass such a law.


  • Options
    #77
    Tea drinker
    Registered Users Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭Tea drinker


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    You are making the mistake of presuming that UN Resolutions have legal force within a country. They do not. They are effectively 'club rules for membership.' The enforcement mechanism is not legal courts within a country, it's sanctions or force by the rest of the club. The may be used as a barometer for morality, in the eyes of world opinion, but not as a legal foundation within a country.

    NTM
    That's an accurate way to put it. Weak members can be pressured by the strong members to do whatver they are told basically.
    US has held UN to ransom, witholding contributions in order to silence dissent. I understand it gets a pass for any UN missions that it's soldiers will not be tried under UN courts, but US ones. Why would Israel be any different? When they were shelling Irish (UN) soldiers, do you really think they were worried about the UN?


Advertisement