Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
sorry but what is the purpose of a chicken? or a pig? they taste good! so erm, lets eat them :)
plus a vegetable feels pain too so haha :)
plus a vegetable feels pain too so haha :)
first of all...vegetables feel pain? explain to me how you know this. second of all, wait... that's it :)
There is no need to kill animals for food.
My stomach says there is. And he's the boss.
My stomach says there is. And he's the boss.
My stomach is thinking of something that isn't vegan:
(edited)
(edited)
My stomach says there is. And he's the boss.
Indeed.
Indeed.
I HATE the killing of animals of any kind and any sort, but I would also HATE to be a vegetarian :(
14 Sept. '10: B'Tselem's new report: Army's policy not to investigate killing of Palestinian civilians exempts soldiers from accountability, even when criminal offenses are suspected
B'Tselem recommends cancelling classification of the situation as an “armed conflict” to conform it to the existing reality in the Occupied Territories
* * *
For your attention: This morning, less than a day before the report's publication date, the JAG's office updated B'Tselem on several cases in which B'Tselem wrote to request a MPIU investigation. The letter included an update on 20 cases in the report to be published tomorrow. In most cases the replies are laconic and do not list the reason for the decisions. An initial study of the data indicates that it enforces the findings of B'Tselem's report, that generally the military shirks its obligation to investigate the killing of Palestinian by soldiers, and that the office of the Judge Advocate for Operational Matters does not handle these cases efficiently. Even according to the new data, no criminal charges resulted from any of the 148 cases of Palestinians civilian casualties referred by B'Tselem during 2006-2009.
The JAG's office update came following repeated requests by B'Tselem, and following several reminders in the run up to the report's publication. Once the data has been fully analyzed, B'Tselem will decide whether to appeal the decisions.
The following release includes the UPDATED data
* * *
Soldiers who killed Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are almost never held accountable, even if the circumstances raise a grave suspicion that they acted criminally. This is the conclusion arising from B'Tselem’s report, which analyzes the policy of the Judge Advocate General’s Office over the past four years. The main reason for this dismal situation is that the army refrains, as a rule, from conducting a Military Police investigation in cases in which soldiers kill Palestinian civilians. In addition, the research shows that the Judge Advocate Generals’ Office routinely procrastinates in making decisions on files for many months, even years.
The report, Void of Responsibility: Israel Military Policy not to investigate Killings of Palestinians by Soldiers, issued today (Tuesday, 14 Sept) deals with events in the years 2006 to 2009 in which soldiers killed Palestinian civilians who were not taking part in hostilities (not including Operation Cast Lead). During this period, B'Tselem wrote to the Judge Advocate General’s Office (JAG), demanding a Military Police Investigation Unit (MPIU) investigation into 148 cases in which 288 Palestinians were killed in those circumstances. In these years, soldiers killed 1,510 Palestinians, 617 of whom were not taking part in hostilities (the figures do not include Operation Cast Lead).
In only 23 of the cases B'Tselem sent to the JAG, around fifteen percent, was an MPIU investigation opened, and in 41 of the cases, the JAG’s Office decided not to order an MPIU investigation. In the majority of the cases (8 4 cases), no decision has been made yet.
In the rare cases in which a decision is made to open an MPIU investigation, the decision is reached after great delay, which impairs the effectiveness of the investigation. In about one-third of the cases in which an MPIU investigation was ordered, the decision was made a year or more after the incident. When the investigation has ended, and the file was returned to the Judge Advocate General’s Office for decision on whether to file an indictment, it delays its decision for months, sometimes years. Eight of the 23 cases have ended with a decision to close the file without prosecution. In four cases, the MPIU has not completed its investigation, and in three other cases, the file was returned to MPIU for further investigation. In eight cases, no decision has been made whether to file an indictment, or B'Tselem has not been informed of the decision that was made. None of the cases in which B’Tselem referred to the JAG’s office led to criminal charges.
The fact that most of the complaints to the JAG’s Office still await decision makes it difficult to determine the reasoning it employs. However, analysis of a number of cases that B'Tselem handled in which a decision was made not to open an MPIU investigation shows that investigations are not opened even where there is a grave suspicion that the law has been broken. Also, analysis of the files shows that the authorities’ interpretation of the events is based solely on the results of an operational inquiry and the statements of the soldiers, without any reliance on the eyewitness testimony of other persons and on other evidence that contradicts the soldiers’ position.
The army’s policy not to open an MPIU investigation is based on the determination that the legal situation in the Occupied Territories is one of “armed conflict,” and on an incorrect interpretation of international law, which shirks the obligation of investigation imposed also in the situation of armed conflict. B'Tselem warns that this policy grants immunity to soldiers and officers, and that the army is failing in its obligation to take all feasible measures to reduce injury to Palestinian civilians. This policy permits soldiers and officers to act in violation of the law, encourages a trigger-happy attitude, and shows a flagrant disregard for human live. The petition that B'Tselem and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) filed on this subject in 2003 is still pending.
“Since the beginning of the intifada, we have opposed the sweeping decision not to investigate the killing of Palestinians,” B'Tselem’s executive director Jessica Montell said. “This is even truer now, when it is impossible to view the situation in the West Bank as armed conflict. The legal status must reflect the reality in the field, as well as express the value given to human life and the obligation to protect civilians.”
The report offers recommendations to the defense establishment, the foremost being a change in the legal definition of the situation in the West Bank, eliminating its classification as one of “armed conflict.” In addition, B'Tselem calls on the Judge Advocate Generals’ Office to adopt the guidelines recently submitted by Israel’s attorney general regarding the proper timeframes for handling files.
Background
From the beginning of the first intifada, in December 1987, to the outbreak of the second intifada, in September 2000, the Military Police Investigation Unit (MPIU) investigated almost every case in which a Palestinian not taking part in hostilities was killed. At the beginning of the second intifada, the Judge Advocate General’s Office (JAG) announced that it classified the situation in the Occupied Territories an “armed conflict,” and that an MPIU investigation would be opened only in exceptional cases, in which there was a suspicion that a criminal offense had been committed. This policy, which led to a significant drop in MPIU investigations of homicide cases, ignored the changing character of the army’s actions in the Occupied Territories, and treated every act carried out by soldiers as a combat action, also in cases in which the act had the clear markings of a policing action.
The primary tool used to determine whether to open an MPIU investigation is the operational inquiry, whose principal purpose is to learn lessons to improve operational activity in the future, and not to identify persons responsible for past misdeeds. In November 2005, in the framework of a hearing on a petition filed by B'Tselem and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel objecting to the policy of not opening MPIU investigations, the army instituted a procedure calling for preliminary investigation, within a limited period of time, of cases in which Palestinians not taking part in hostilities were killed. However, the procedure did not set a time framework for making decisions whether to order an MPIU investigation or to prosecute alleged offenders. As a result, these decisions may be delayed months, even years, thus preventing effective handling of suspected criminal acts within a reasonable time from the day that the incident occurred. The establishment, in 2007, of the office of the judge advocate for operational matters, which was intended to improve the efficiency in handling complaints and reduce the handling time, did not bring about significant change.
Source: B'TSELEM - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories
(edited)
B'Tselem recommends cancelling classification of the situation as an “armed conflict” to conform it to the existing reality in the Occupied Territories
* * *
For your attention: This morning, less than a day before the report's publication date, the JAG's office updated B'Tselem on several cases in which B'Tselem wrote to request a MPIU investigation. The letter included an update on 20 cases in the report to be published tomorrow. In most cases the replies are laconic and do not list the reason for the decisions. An initial study of the data indicates that it enforces the findings of B'Tselem's report, that generally the military shirks its obligation to investigate the killing of Palestinian by soldiers, and that the office of the Judge Advocate for Operational Matters does not handle these cases efficiently. Even according to the new data, no criminal charges resulted from any of the 148 cases of Palestinians civilian casualties referred by B'Tselem during 2006-2009.
The JAG's office update came following repeated requests by B'Tselem, and following several reminders in the run up to the report's publication. Once the data has been fully analyzed, B'Tselem will decide whether to appeal the decisions.
The following release includes the UPDATED data
* * *
Soldiers who killed Palestinians in the Occupied Territories are almost never held accountable, even if the circumstances raise a grave suspicion that they acted criminally. This is the conclusion arising from B'Tselem’s report, which analyzes the policy of the Judge Advocate General’s Office over the past four years. The main reason for this dismal situation is that the army refrains, as a rule, from conducting a Military Police investigation in cases in which soldiers kill Palestinian civilians. In addition, the research shows that the Judge Advocate Generals’ Office routinely procrastinates in making decisions on files for many months, even years.
The report, Void of Responsibility: Israel Military Policy not to investigate Killings of Palestinians by Soldiers, issued today (Tuesday, 14 Sept) deals with events in the years 2006 to 2009 in which soldiers killed Palestinian civilians who were not taking part in hostilities (not including Operation Cast Lead). During this period, B'Tselem wrote to the Judge Advocate General’s Office (JAG), demanding a Military Police Investigation Unit (MPIU) investigation into 148 cases in which 288 Palestinians were killed in those circumstances. In these years, soldiers killed 1,510 Palestinians, 617 of whom were not taking part in hostilities (the figures do not include Operation Cast Lead).
In only 23 of the cases B'Tselem sent to the JAG, around fifteen percent, was an MPIU investigation opened, and in 41 of the cases, the JAG’s Office decided not to order an MPIU investigation. In the majority of the cases (8 4 cases), no decision has been made yet.
In the rare cases in which a decision is made to open an MPIU investigation, the decision is reached after great delay, which impairs the effectiveness of the investigation. In about one-third of the cases in which an MPIU investigation was ordered, the decision was made a year or more after the incident. When the investigation has ended, and the file was returned to the Judge Advocate General’s Office for decision on whether to file an indictment, it delays its decision for months, sometimes years. Eight of the 23 cases have ended with a decision to close the file without prosecution. In four cases, the MPIU has not completed its investigation, and in three other cases, the file was returned to MPIU for further investigation. In eight cases, no decision has been made whether to file an indictment, or B'Tselem has not been informed of the decision that was made. None of the cases in which B’Tselem referred to the JAG’s office led to criminal charges.
The fact that most of the complaints to the JAG’s Office still await decision makes it difficult to determine the reasoning it employs. However, analysis of a number of cases that B'Tselem handled in which a decision was made not to open an MPIU investigation shows that investigations are not opened even where there is a grave suspicion that the law has been broken. Also, analysis of the files shows that the authorities’ interpretation of the events is based solely on the results of an operational inquiry and the statements of the soldiers, without any reliance on the eyewitness testimony of other persons and on other evidence that contradicts the soldiers’ position.
The army’s policy not to open an MPIU investigation is based on the determination that the legal situation in the Occupied Territories is one of “armed conflict,” and on an incorrect interpretation of international law, which shirks the obligation of investigation imposed also in the situation of armed conflict. B'Tselem warns that this policy grants immunity to soldiers and officers, and that the army is failing in its obligation to take all feasible measures to reduce injury to Palestinian civilians. This policy permits soldiers and officers to act in violation of the law, encourages a trigger-happy attitude, and shows a flagrant disregard for human live. The petition that B'Tselem and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) filed on this subject in 2003 is still pending.
“Since the beginning of the intifada, we have opposed the sweeping decision not to investigate the killing of Palestinians,” B'Tselem’s executive director Jessica Montell said. “This is even truer now, when it is impossible to view the situation in the West Bank as armed conflict. The legal status must reflect the reality in the field, as well as express the value given to human life and the obligation to protect civilians.”
The report offers recommendations to the defense establishment, the foremost being a change in the legal definition of the situation in the West Bank, eliminating its classification as one of “armed conflict.” In addition, B'Tselem calls on the Judge Advocate Generals’ Office to adopt the guidelines recently submitted by Israel’s attorney general regarding the proper timeframes for handling files.
Background
From the beginning of the first intifada, in December 1987, to the outbreak of the second intifada, in September 2000, the Military Police Investigation Unit (MPIU) investigated almost every case in which a Palestinian not taking part in hostilities was killed. At the beginning of the second intifada, the Judge Advocate General’s Office (JAG) announced that it classified the situation in the Occupied Territories an “armed conflict,” and that an MPIU investigation would be opened only in exceptional cases, in which there was a suspicion that a criminal offense had been committed. This policy, which led to a significant drop in MPIU investigations of homicide cases, ignored the changing character of the army’s actions in the Occupied Territories, and treated every act carried out by soldiers as a combat action, also in cases in which the act had the clear markings of a policing action.
The primary tool used to determine whether to open an MPIU investigation is the operational inquiry, whose principal purpose is to learn lessons to improve operational activity in the future, and not to identify persons responsible for past misdeeds. In November 2005, in the framework of a hearing on a petition filed by B'Tselem and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel objecting to the policy of not opening MPIU investigations, the army instituted a procedure calling for preliminary investigation, within a limited period of time, of cases in which Palestinians not taking part in hostilities were killed. However, the procedure did not set a time framework for making decisions whether to order an MPIU investigation or to prosecute alleged offenders. As a result, these decisions may be delayed months, even years, thus preventing effective handling of suspected criminal acts within a reasonable time from the day that the incident occurred. The establishment, in 2007, of the office of the judge advocate for operational matters, which was intended to improve the efficiency in handling complaints and reduce the handling time, did not bring about significant change.
Source: B'TSELEM - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories
(edited)
does israel care about palestinians rights? sorry if someone gets annoyed...
PD: i'm neutral btw, also think that palestina is governed by extremists
(edited)
PD: i'm neutral btw, also think that palestina is governed by extremists
(edited)
Pope visit: Five men held over papal terror alert
Five men have been arrested in London by the Metropolitan Police in relation to a potential threat to Pope Benedict XVI's visit.
The arrests were made at 0545 BST in London after counter-terrorism officers received intelligence of a potential threat.
The five men, all street cleaners in Westminster, were taken to a central London police station.
Officers are searching a number of premises. None of the men are British.
The men all worked for Veolia Environment Services, a major contract cleaning company that works for Westminster Council.
Armed officers arrested the men at the company's Chiltern Street depot, Paddington, as they were preparing to go on shift.
In a statement from Scotland Yard, the Metropolitan Police said that the five men had been arrested in a Terrorism Act 2000 operation, launched by officers from the force's Counter-Terrorism Command.
The five were arrested on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
They are 26, 27, 36, 40 and 50 years old. Residential premises in north and east London are also being searched. Officers have not found any hazardous items.
It is not clear whether the investigations relate to a plot against the Pope himself, an element of the visit or events or other matters that may be connected to the visit. Most of the men are understood to be Algerian.
In the statement, the Metropolitan Police said: "Today's arrests were made after police received information following initial inquiries by detectives. A decision was made to arrest the five men.
"Following today's arrests policing arrangements for the papal visit were reviewed and we are satisfied our current policing plan remains appropriate. The itinerary has not changed. There is no change to the UK threat level."
The current official threat level in the UK is "severe", which means that security chiefs believe a terror attack is "highly likely".
The BBC understands that the information acted on by the police was received by Scotland Yard and did not involve intelligence gathered by MI5, the domestic security service.
Policing bill
The UK's top police officers from England and Scotland spent months planning the security arrangements for Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the UK.
Those plans included threat assessments, standard arrangements covering the safe transport of significant public figures and the potential need to control crowds during the visit's major events.
In all, the policing bill for the visit is expected to top £1m.
Reacting to the development, Father Frederico Lombardi, the Pope's press spokesman, said the Vatican was "totally confident" in Scotland Yard and the ability of its officers.
The papal team had no direct information about the police operation, he said, adding that the Pope remained calm and had been welcomed warmly everywhere he had gone.
"The police have already said that the information demonstrated that there is no need to change the programme," he said.
The BBC's Emily Buchanan, who was with the Pope at his visit to an assembly of children at a Catholic college in west London, described the security around the Pope as "extremely high... with no lapses".
BBC news
The murderer of tens of millions Africans and holy protector of childrapists almost killed in England. That would have have been something ...
Five men have been arrested in London by the Metropolitan Police in relation to a potential threat to Pope Benedict XVI's visit.
The arrests were made at 0545 BST in London after counter-terrorism officers received intelligence of a potential threat.
The five men, all street cleaners in Westminster, were taken to a central London police station.
Officers are searching a number of premises. None of the men are British.
The men all worked for Veolia Environment Services, a major contract cleaning company that works for Westminster Council.
Armed officers arrested the men at the company's Chiltern Street depot, Paddington, as they were preparing to go on shift.
In a statement from Scotland Yard, the Metropolitan Police said that the five men had been arrested in a Terrorism Act 2000 operation, launched by officers from the force's Counter-Terrorism Command.
The five were arrested on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
They are 26, 27, 36, 40 and 50 years old. Residential premises in north and east London are also being searched. Officers have not found any hazardous items.
It is not clear whether the investigations relate to a plot against the Pope himself, an element of the visit or events or other matters that may be connected to the visit. Most of the men are understood to be Algerian.
In the statement, the Metropolitan Police said: "Today's arrests were made after police received information following initial inquiries by detectives. A decision was made to arrest the five men.
"Following today's arrests policing arrangements for the papal visit were reviewed and we are satisfied our current policing plan remains appropriate. The itinerary has not changed. There is no change to the UK threat level."
The current official threat level in the UK is "severe", which means that security chiefs believe a terror attack is "highly likely".
The BBC understands that the information acted on by the police was received by Scotland Yard and did not involve intelligence gathered by MI5, the domestic security service.
Policing bill
The UK's top police officers from England and Scotland spent months planning the security arrangements for Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the UK.
Those plans included threat assessments, standard arrangements covering the safe transport of significant public figures and the potential need to control crowds during the visit's major events.
In all, the policing bill for the visit is expected to top £1m.
Reacting to the development, Father Frederico Lombardi, the Pope's press spokesman, said the Vatican was "totally confident" in Scotland Yard and the ability of its officers.
The papal team had no direct information about the police operation, he said, adding that the Pope remained calm and had been welcomed warmly everywhere he had gone.
"The police have already said that the information demonstrated that there is no need to change the programme," he said.
The BBC's Emily Buchanan, who was with the Pope at his visit to an assembly of children at a Catholic college in west London, described the security around the Pope as "extremely high... with no lapses".
BBC news
The murderer of tens of millions Africans and holy protector of childrapists almost killed in England. That would have have been something ...