"And justice for all..." Not so fast, Palestinians!

 

"He suggested that Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas' latest speech at the UN General Assembly, in which he suggested taking the issue of Israeli settlements to the International Criminal Court, may have been behind the US stance.

Senior Palestinian official Saeb Erekat has written to the US administration calling the move "unacceptable, an escalatory step and a political decision that threatens to end the US role in the peace process", Malki said.

He said the PA leadership would meet after Monday to discuss its response."  dailymail

------------

Well, it's true.  The Palestinians in Palestine are not Americans, and no one promised them "justice for all,"  Nevertheless it is ironic that the United States in its majesty should threaten their semi-diplomatic office in Washington with closure because they might seek justice before the International Criminal Court in the Hague. 

They have hinted in the past that they might do this over the issue of the lawfulness of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the individual criminal liability of Israeli officials for such things as their wars against the Palestinians in Gaza.

IMO this US law requiring the closing of the office was enacted by the hirelings in Congress and signed into law by Obama as a demonstration of what Bibi said was true when he stated that "the Americans are easily pushed."  pl 

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-5095653/PLO-presence-Washington-threatened-Palestinians.html 

 

Comments

[Yeah, Right]

Many thanks for your reply.

That would be an extremely tough call indeed.

[mikee]

Here is a link to a google translation of the TASS story. (Hope this works!)

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftass.ru%2Farmiya-i-opk%2F4699218

[Green Zone Café]

There are military lawyers assigned down to brigade staff who make judgments about Law of War and Rules of Engagement issues. They are the same lawyers who prepare military justice complaints.

The Rules of Engagement are theater-level orders binding to all. Right-wing media periodically amplifies complaints about ROE, see LTC Allen West, but the media and command climate is such that disobeying a field order which contravened ROE would not be prosecuted.

It would be buried, just like violations of ROE are (Haditha).

[J]

Colonel,
The Israeli government admitted schmoozing with Saudi:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-19/israel-gives-official-confirmation-covert-ties-saudi-arabia

[turcopolier]

GZC

So you think CENTCOM ROE prevented a coalition attack on the SAA at Deir al-Zor? pl

[turcopolier]

GZC

To amplify, ROE is not law. It is policy. It only looks like law when viewed from below. It is in fact policy set in DC and then implemented as ROE at theater level. The administration or theater command can change ROE any time it wants to either in general or for a particular instance. pl

[Green Zone Café]

ROE is "law" in the sense that it is an "order or regulation," the violation of which is prosecutable under UCMJ Articles 91 and 92. For those subject to the UCMJ, all lawful orders and regulations are "positive law."

It's one of the ways being in the military is different than being a civilian - nobody can criminally punish a civilian unless there's a statute enacted by a legislature.

I don't know what the applicable CENTCOM ROE are, nor the objective facts of that Deir al Zor airstrike. There are always arguments that these campaigns violate the Constitution and War Powers Act, in addition to international law.

[turcopolier]

GZC

ROE requires those subject to it to obey it as an order under UCMJ. It is not law to those who established the ROE and who can change or modify it whenever they wish. pl

[Green Zone Café]

Yes, ROE are subject to change by superiors. Subordinates are still bound by these arbitrary changes, like a private under a mercurial sergeant.