Tweet
Haaretz
October 29, 2007
Defining breach of trust
By Shahar Ilan
MK Otniel Schneller (Kadima) tried to convince the Knesset last
Wednesday that his bill to allow searches of MKs for security
investigation purposes is not connected to the Azmi Bishara affair.
"I decided to do this long after that affair, in case someone might
think it is connected to something that happened in the past," said
Schneller. "This is connected with Israel's security in the future,
not the past." Advertisement
It is difficult to say that he convinced Balad faction leader Jamal
Zahalka. "Of course no one thinks that MK Schneller presented the bill
because of the affair involving MK Azmi Bishara," said
Zahalka. "Absolutely everyone believed him."
Even so, there is no doubt that Schneller took his time. A tidal wave
of "Bishara" laws has already flooded the Knesset in its summer
session. Schneller says that he waited, among other reasons, because
he wanted to understand the Bishara affair properly, and the
ramifications of his hasty departure from Israel. His investigations
found that it would not have been possible to conduct a search of
Bishara's luggage or his house, and to prove the suspicions against
him, due to the 1951 Knesset Members Immunity, Rights and Duties Law.
Schneller believes that his law is balanced. It allows only the police
commissioner or the head of the Shin Bet to file a petition for a
search warrant against an MK, with the approval of the attorney
general, and only a Supreme Court Justice can approve such a warrant.
"Let's forgo immunity altogether," said MK Dov Khenin (Hadash), in
response, declaring that this is one of a series of insane laws that
are being passed by MKs and are likely to harm them first.
"The Knesset has lost its self-defense mechanism," continued Khenin,
stressing that this law would affect right-wing MKs, too. The bill, by
the way, passed its preliminary reading with the coalition's support,
by a majority of 36 to 8.
Bishara laws include bills whose goal is to revoke the economic rights
of MKs convicted of criminal offenses, reduce the scope of MK
immunity, and facilitate the ousting of MKs who act against the State
of Israel as a Jewish state. The bill closest to becoming law is the
one submitted by MK Gilad Erdan (Likud), which will enable a court to
revoke the citizenship of anyone who breaches Israel's trust. Erdan
has already passed this bill on its first reading, and it seems
unlikely that anyone will stop him on its way to enactment via second
and third readings in the current Knesset session.
Balad MKs are certain that the moment the law is passed, proceedings
will be opened to revoke Bishara's citizenship. The bill, however, is
not without problems. A person's citizenship can be revoked without a
conviction, without the presence of the person being judged, and even
without presenting classified evidence. To top it off, the bill does
not define breach of trust. Knesset Interior and Environment Committee
Chair Ophir Pines-Paz (Labor) says he will consider including a
definition of this term in committee discussions, prior to the second
and third readings.
Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann was not whitewashing anything. In
March 2007 he admitted to the Knesset plenum that of the 129 torture
complaints filed against Shin Bet Security Services interrogators in
2005-2006, not one of them was relayed for investigation by the
department for investigating policemen, and therefore no indictments
had been filed, either.
This information was provided by Friedmann in response to a question
by Khenin. Khenin raised the possibility that the reason no complaints
had been investigated was that the complaints were examined by the
Mavtan (Shin Bet official in charge of investigating interrogees'
complaints), who is subordinate to the State Prosecutor's
Office. Friedmann promised to transfer a sampling of the files for
external examination by the Justice Ministry.
And he kept his word. A team that included Deputy State Attorney Shuki
Lemberger and the Mavtan, attorney Rachel Matar, examined six files
from different years. State Prosecutor Eran Shendar sent a letter to
Friedmann, reporting the results of the examination: "The conclusion
reached by Lemberger and Matar is that nothing was found in even one
of the files to change the final decision."
So is everything okay? Not necessarily. Shendar used very cautious
wording, indicating a strong likelihood that there were things on the
way to the final decision that certainly could be changed.
Indeed, Shendar's report continues, "Even so, Lemberger and Matar
noted professional aspects of the examination that should be
improved. They likewise recommended the allocation of additional
manpower for examining these files. I intend to convene a meeting
soon, in order to deliberate their recommendations."
This means that failings were found in the manner in which the
complaints were examined; that there is a lack of manpower to check
the complaints; and the failings are so significant that they require
the direct intervention of the State Prosecutor's Office. Khenin is
satisfied.
"I figure that the state prosecutor is saying there is a real
problem," says Khenin. "This is a step forward on an issue that was
unfortunately not handled properly."
Two and a half weeks ago the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee
decided to recognize the Armenian genocide - that Turkey had
perpetrated genocide against its Armenian population. The harsh
Turkish response to this decision, and the pressure exerted by Turkey,
resulted in the decision to not bring it before Congress for approval,
and this worsened the crisis even more. The Knesset, it turns out, was
a party to the pressure.
A week after the House Committee's decision, a meeting was held in
Washington as part of the joint security dialogue between the
U.S. Congress and the Knesset, led by Republican Senator John Kyle of
Arizona and MK Yuval Steinitz (Likud). The MKs also met with the
committee, and the representatives asked the Israelis what they
thought of their decision; if they should continue with the process of
recognizing the Armenian holocaust; and about the status of relations
between Turkey and Israel.
Steinitz replied that cooperation between Israel and Turkey is very
good. Regarding choosing between the issue of relations with Turkey
and clarifying historical truth, Steinitz has no doubts as to which
the Americans should favor.
"The massacres happened 90 years ago, during the Ottoman Period, but
today there are only two Muslim countries that are partners in the war
on terror, and who maintain joint efforts with the United States and
Israel: Turkey and Jordan," Steinitz said. "Turkey deserves a
commendation."
Steinitz added that Turkey made a suggestion that seems reasonable: to
establish an international committee of historians, before whom both
parties would open their archives.
Among the delegation of MKs was Meretz-Yahad Chair Yossi Beilin. When
Beilin was deputy foreign minister in 1994, he told the Knesset plenum
that what had happened was genocide; had aroused deep anger in Turkey;
and had become the darling of the Armenians. Beilin also told the
members of Congress that there is no doubt that there was a
genocide. Still, he did not demand that they continue with the
recognition process. Beilin noted that they have to consider the risk
to relations with Turkey, as well as the fact that Israel has been
drawn into this conflict.
The truth is that even before the Congressional committee's decision,
Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan met with Steinitz during a visit
to Israel, and ask Steinitz's assistance in opposing the
decision. Steinitz says that he mentioned this, of his own volition,
to several congressmen. He believes that the Israeli position
influenced the shelving of the committee's decision. The Armenian
holocaust will have to wait for a time when Turkey's strategic
importance declines.
One of the issues often discussed by the Knesset Constitution, Law and
Justice Committee is the delays in the implementation of the Law
Protecting the Public from Sex Offenders. This is a new law stating
that anyone convicted of a sex-related offense will be sent for a
danger assessment, and if he is deemed a repeat offense risk, a
supervision order will be issued and he will be subject to various
restrictions.
Last week the committee received data on the restrictions imposed on
sex offenders within the framework of this law. These restrictions
included a ban on owning articles of clothing for minors (1 offender),
on contacting minors (54 offenders), on bringing women into his house
(1); on going to a ritual bath (1); and on entering online chat rooms
(2).
Deputy Public Defender Dr. Hagit Lerner, who addressed the committee
last Tuesday, believes that this is a very problematic law. She says
that it violates the rules of the game - that once an offender has
served his sentence he reverts to being a regular citizen. Among other
things, Lerner argues that due to a lack of danger assessors,
"assessments are sometimes on a very low level, and include factual
mistakes." She says that in some cases, the assessors do not explain
to the offenders what their rights are, nor how much their
conversation with the assessor will affect their lives.
Lerner says that the more is invested in supervision, less is invested
in rehabilitation. When the Law Protecting the Public from Sex
Offenders was passed, it contained a section on rehabilitation, but
this was removed, with the assurance that such rehabilitation would be
legislated at the beginning of the current Knesset session. That did
not happen. Lerner contends that, contrary to their public image, the
chances that a sex offender will repeat his crime are lower than for
drug and violence offenders. Lerner would issue supervision orders
only against sex offenders with a high risk assessment.
Two weeks ago, the Knesset passed a law allowing courts to order the
chemical castration of sex offenders. Last week a law was passed
preventing all sex offenders from working with children.
"There is wide-ranging legislation surrounding sex offenders, but no
such laws concerning murderers," says Lerner. "This is hysteric
legislation that indicates social panic."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spag es/918285.html
October 29, 2007
Defining breach of trust
By Shahar Ilan
MK Otniel Schneller (Kadima) tried to convince the Knesset last
Wednesday that his bill to allow searches of MKs for security
investigation purposes is not connected to the Azmi Bishara affair.
"I decided to do this long after that affair, in case someone might
think it is connected to something that happened in the past," said
Schneller. "This is connected with Israel's security in the future,
not the past." Advertisement
It is difficult to say that he convinced Balad faction leader Jamal
Zahalka. "Of course no one thinks that MK Schneller presented the bill
because of the affair involving MK Azmi Bishara," said
Zahalka. "Absolutely everyone believed him."
Even so, there is no doubt that Schneller took his time. A tidal wave
of "Bishara" laws has already flooded the Knesset in its summer
session. Schneller says that he waited, among other reasons, because
he wanted to understand the Bishara affair properly, and the
ramifications of his hasty departure from Israel. His investigations
found that it would not have been possible to conduct a search of
Bishara's luggage or his house, and to prove the suspicions against
him, due to the 1951 Knesset Members Immunity, Rights and Duties Law.
Schneller believes that his law is balanced. It allows only the police
commissioner or the head of the Shin Bet to file a petition for a
search warrant against an MK, with the approval of the attorney
general, and only a Supreme Court Justice can approve such a warrant.
"Let's forgo immunity altogether," said MK Dov Khenin (Hadash), in
response, declaring that this is one of a series of insane laws that
are being passed by MKs and are likely to harm them first.
"The Knesset has lost its self-defense mechanism," continued Khenin,
stressing that this law would affect right-wing MKs, too. The bill, by
the way, passed its preliminary reading with the coalition's support,
by a majority of 36 to 8.
Bishara laws include bills whose goal is to revoke the economic rights
of MKs convicted of criminal offenses, reduce the scope of MK
immunity, and facilitate the ousting of MKs who act against the State
of Israel as a Jewish state. The bill closest to becoming law is the
one submitted by MK Gilad Erdan (Likud), which will enable a court to
revoke the citizenship of anyone who breaches Israel's trust. Erdan
has already passed this bill on its first reading, and it seems
unlikely that anyone will stop him on its way to enactment via second
and third readings in the current Knesset session.
Balad MKs are certain that the moment the law is passed, proceedings
will be opened to revoke Bishara's citizenship. The bill, however, is
not without problems. A person's citizenship can be revoked without a
conviction, without the presence of the person being judged, and even
without presenting classified evidence. To top it off, the bill does
not define breach of trust. Knesset Interior and Environment Committee
Chair Ophir Pines-Paz (Labor) says he will consider including a
definition of this term in committee discussions, prior to the second
and third readings.
Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann was not whitewashing anything. In
March 2007 he admitted to the Knesset plenum that of the 129 torture
complaints filed against Shin Bet Security Services interrogators in
2005-2006, not one of them was relayed for investigation by the
department for investigating policemen, and therefore no indictments
had been filed, either.
This information was provided by Friedmann in response to a question
by Khenin. Khenin raised the possibility that the reason no complaints
had been investigated was that the complaints were examined by the
Mavtan (Shin Bet official in charge of investigating interrogees'
complaints), who is subordinate to the State Prosecutor's
Office. Friedmann promised to transfer a sampling of the files for
external examination by the Justice Ministry.
And he kept his word. A team that included Deputy State Attorney Shuki
Lemberger and the Mavtan, attorney Rachel Matar, examined six files
from different years. State Prosecutor Eran Shendar sent a letter to
Friedmann, reporting the results of the examination: "The conclusion
reached by Lemberger and Matar is that nothing was found in even one
of the files to change the final decision."
So is everything okay? Not necessarily. Shendar used very cautious
wording, indicating a strong likelihood that there were things on the
way to the final decision that certainly could be changed.
Indeed, Shendar's report continues, "Even so, Lemberger and Matar
noted professional aspects of the examination that should be
improved. They likewise recommended the allocation of additional
manpower for examining these files. I intend to convene a meeting
soon, in order to deliberate their recommendations."
This means that failings were found in the manner in which the
complaints were examined; that there is a lack of manpower to check
the complaints; and the failings are so significant that they require
the direct intervention of the State Prosecutor's Office. Khenin is
satisfied.
"I figure that the state prosecutor is saying there is a real
problem," says Khenin. "This is a step forward on an issue that was
unfortunately not handled properly."
Two and a half weeks ago the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee
decided to recognize the Armenian genocide - that Turkey had
perpetrated genocide against its Armenian population. The harsh
Turkish response to this decision, and the pressure exerted by Turkey,
resulted in the decision to not bring it before Congress for approval,
and this worsened the crisis even more. The Knesset, it turns out, was
a party to the pressure.
A week after the House Committee's decision, a meeting was held in
Washington as part of the joint security dialogue between the
U.S. Congress and the Knesset, led by Republican Senator John Kyle of
Arizona and MK Yuval Steinitz (Likud). The MKs also met with the
committee, and the representatives asked the Israelis what they
thought of their decision; if they should continue with the process of
recognizing the Armenian holocaust; and about the status of relations
between Turkey and Israel.
Steinitz replied that cooperation between Israel and Turkey is very
good. Regarding choosing between the issue of relations with Turkey
and clarifying historical truth, Steinitz has no doubts as to which
the Americans should favor.
"The massacres happened 90 years ago, during the Ottoman Period, but
today there are only two Muslim countries that are partners in the war
on terror, and who maintain joint efforts with the United States and
Israel: Turkey and Jordan," Steinitz said. "Turkey deserves a
commendation."
Steinitz added that Turkey made a suggestion that seems reasonable: to
establish an international committee of historians, before whom both
parties would open their archives.
Among the delegation of MKs was Meretz-Yahad Chair Yossi Beilin. When
Beilin was deputy foreign minister in 1994, he told the Knesset plenum
that what had happened was genocide; had aroused deep anger in Turkey;
and had become the darling of the Armenians. Beilin also told the
members of Congress that there is no doubt that there was a
genocide. Still, he did not demand that they continue with the
recognition process. Beilin noted that they have to consider the risk
to relations with Turkey, as well as the fact that Israel has been
drawn into this conflict.
The truth is that even before the Congressional committee's decision,
Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan met with Steinitz during a visit
to Israel, and ask Steinitz's assistance in opposing the
decision. Steinitz says that he mentioned this, of his own volition,
to several congressmen. He believes that the Israeli position
influenced the shelving of the committee's decision. The Armenian
holocaust will have to wait for a time when Turkey's strategic
importance declines.
One of the issues often discussed by the Knesset Constitution, Law and
Justice Committee is the delays in the implementation of the Law
Protecting the Public from Sex Offenders. This is a new law stating
that anyone convicted of a sex-related offense will be sent for a
danger assessment, and if he is deemed a repeat offense risk, a
supervision order will be issued and he will be subject to various
restrictions.
Last week the committee received data on the restrictions imposed on
sex offenders within the framework of this law. These restrictions
included a ban on owning articles of clothing for minors (1 offender),
on contacting minors (54 offenders), on bringing women into his house
(1); on going to a ritual bath (1); and on entering online chat rooms
(2).
Deputy Public Defender Dr. Hagit Lerner, who addressed the committee
last Tuesday, believes that this is a very problematic law. She says
that it violates the rules of the game - that once an offender has
served his sentence he reverts to being a regular citizen. Among other
things, Lerner argues that due to a lack of danger assessors,
"assessments are sometimes on a very low level, and include factual
mistakes." She says that in some cases, the assessors do not explain
to the offenders what their rights are, nor how much their
conversation with the assessor will affect their lives.
Lerner says that the more is invested in supervision, less is invested
in rehabilitation. When the Law Protecting the Public from Sex
Offenders was passed, it contained a section on rehabilitation, but
this was removed, with the assurance that such rehabilitation would be
legislated at the beginning of the current Knesset session. That did
not happen. Lerner contends that, contrary to their public image, the
chances that a sex offender will repeat his crime are lower than for
drug and violence offenders. Lerner would issue supervision orders
only against sex offenders with a high risk assessment.
Two weeks ago, the Knesset passed a law allowing courts to order the
chemical castration of sex offenders. Last week a law was passed
preventing all sex offenders from working with children.
"There is wide-ranging legislation surrounding sex offenders, but no
such laws concerning murderers," says Lerner. "This is hysteric
legislation that indicates social panic."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spag es/918285.html