State to announce decision in investigation of killing of Samir ‘Awad by mid-April

[Jefferson23]

Full title:State to announce decision in investigation of killing of Samir ‘Awad by mid-April. B’Tselem criticizes state’s contempt of HCJ ruling and foot-dragging in case



On 25 March 2015, Israel’s High Court of Justice (HCJ) reiterated its ruling that by mid-April 2015 the State Attorney’s Office must announce its decision in the case of the killing of Samir ‘Awad. The HCJ made this announcement in response to the State’s request for yet another extension, and after the MAG Corps and the State Attorney’s Office had not heeded a previous HCJ ruling that they reach a joint decision in the case and advise of it by 1 March 2015. Instead, the State informed the HCJ that the Military Advocate General (MAG) Corps had “just recently” transferred the case file to the State Attorney’s Office, and accordingly requested another three-month deferral to allow it to review the case. B’Tselem objected to the State’s request and, although the HCJ did not accept the objection, the State was allowed to defer its response for one month.

Samir ‘Awad, 16, was killed on 15 January 2013 by gunshots fired by soldiers close to the Separation Barrier in the West Bank village of Budrus, although he posed no danger. The Military Police Investigation Unit concluded its investigation of the case and the additional investigation requested of the incident. However, although more than two years have passed since the incident, no decision has been made in the case. Ahmad ‘Awad, the father of the deceased, petitioned the HCJ together with B’Tselem a year ago, in March 2014, demanding that the MAG be obliged to decide whether to indict the soldiers who killed his son or close the case file.

In a court hearing on the petition on 1 December 2014, the judges criticized the foot-dragging in the investigation of the case, which was so protracted that the soldiers involved in the incident have completed their military service: in the hearing it transpired that the two main suspects had been discharged from compulsory service more than six months earlier, and that the MAG Corps was aware of their impending dates of discharge. Att. Gaby Lasky, legal counsel for ‘Awad and B’Tselem, explained to the court that this complicates the handling of the case as military law ceases to apply to an individual once six months have elapsed from discharge from military service, and the case must be transferred to the State Attorney’s Office. Accordingly, Att. Lasky requested that the court add the State Attorney’s Office as a respondent – in order to prevent further delay involved in transferal of the case.

B’Tselem criticized the MAG Corps and the State Attorney’s Office for treating court decisions as merely optional recommendations, and their ongoing postponement of a decision concerning measures to be taken against those responsible for the killing of Samir ‘Awad. The family has been awaiting the decision for more than two years.

http://www.btselem.org/press_releases/20150326_samir_awad_investigation_petition

[Mosby]

1. b'Tselem gets most of their funds from foreign governments

That would be illegal in the US I believe (FARA regs).

[azurnoir]

2. it is very simply untrue that US NGO's cannot recieve foreign funds

[Mosby]

4. they have to be listed as foreign agents don't they?

And are limited in their political activities, as opposed to b'Tselem, who say and do whatever they want, including political statements.

[azurnoir]

7. Foreign Funding of U.S. NGOs

As Secretary Clinton has said, "in the United States, as in many other democracies, it is legal and acceptable for private organizations to raise money abroad and receive grants from foreign governments, so long as the activities do not involve specifically banned sources, such as terrorist groups." As a general matter, U.S. law imposes no limits or restrictions on the receipt of foreign funding by NGOs operating in the United States. Of course, laws that are generally applicable to all Americans may apply to NGOs, such as restrictions on receiving contributions from a terrorist organization. There are also restrictions on direct financial support of political candidates by foreign individuals.


http://egypt.usembassy.gov/ngos.html

[Jefferson23]

3. As I have repeated many times, when Israeli officials can't control the narrative on the report

they dismiss the report as biased. Do you feel HRW was anti-Egypt when they wrote
their report about the killings there...or do you think they were just doing their job?

http://www.btselem.org/about_btselem/donors

[Mosby]

5. my personal position is that someone needs to be prosecuted

I can only go with what info is out there but it seems like the IDF used excessive force in this instance. Really excessive.

[Jefferson23]

6. Ok. n/t

[Scootaloo]

8. So about the shooting of an unarmed 16 year old? anything at all?

Don't worry, we'll let you read masada2000 and debka to form your opinion before answering

[Mosby]

9. if you bothered to read the thread

You would have seen my reply to the OP in post number 5.

[geek tragedy]

10. No, but it is illegal in Russia. Putinyahoo wants Israel to adopt

the Russian way of doing things.

Of course, the IDF gets foreign money too.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

11. So what is your point? Noting but nonsense.

Israel isn't the US.

[Little Tich]

12. Is this an example of “Purity of Arms” in action? nt.

[Jefferson23]

13. The most moral army in the world, or so they say. I don't know why they go out on a

limb like that..it's not as if governments are forced to say that about their defense forces.

They believe this crap? I don't know.

[Little Tich]

14. Most people I know of who have served in the IDF believe in it.

I personally think the whole concept should be outlawed by the UN, like Apartheid. The concept of “Purity of Arms” is only used as an excuse to harm enemy civilians and justify oppressing them as a security doctrine.

I wish the IDF could raise their moral standards to that of an army of a democratic country like the US. It’s still not good, but it’s at least lawful according to the laws of war.