Palestinian-American boy, 14, locked up in Israeli military jail

[erynaught 43]

Now if I may interrupt to give an update on the topic...

Seems Israel realized this one was getting too much publicity.

Maybe his US citizenship helped him out afterall. I've learned there are hundreds of others in his same predicament yet without the media attention because of this kid's US citizenship status.

31 days is still too long.

Hopefully the kid will do what he can to keep out of trouble in the future.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Correct. Glad to see you're catching up on the process.

Incorrect. Rules of jurisprudence define a legal precedent as a rule or principle established in a previous legal case.

The Geneva Conventions are a series of treaties/protocols that establish standards for International Law as it relates to humanitarian treatement during war/armed conflict. There is much case law resting on these standards, but the Conventions themselves are not legal precedent.

As noted above, the previously referenced Advisory Opinion is not a legal case therefore cannot be a legal precedent. If the body having jurisdiction to act on the opinion makes a legal ruling, then that could be used as a legal precedent. Otherwise, it remains an advisory precendent which, while not useless, carries much less legal weight.

Are you still trying to argue that the Geneva Convention and international law do not constitute legal precedents for the ICC ??????

The Rome Statute of the ICC's "Elements of Crimes" specifically cites "international law" and "the Geneva Convention" over and over and over as the legal foundation for its legal definitions of war crimes. The whole Rome Statute is based on "international law" and "the Geneva Convention."

The ICJ acts as the UN's legal advisory that determines legal questions for the UN, which is yet another foundation of international law.

If these bodies by any stretch of the imagination did not constitute legal precedent (or even "carried much less legal weight") then they wouldn't be mentioned as the basis of the pertinent Rome Statute definitions of war crimes. It's all connected.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/336923D8-A6AD-40EC-AD7B-45BF9DE73D56/0/ElementsOfCrimesEng.pdf

Maybe his US citizenship helped him out afterall. I've learned there are hundreds of others in his same predicament yet without the media attention because of this kid's US citizenship status.

31 days is still too long.

Hopefully the kid will do what he can to keep out of trouble in the future.

I think his US citizenship was indeed a factor in Israel's kangaroo court giving him such a "relatively light" sentence (compared to the even more viciously harsh punishments they inflict on most Palestinian kids.)

I'm glad you learned something, but it's thousands of Palestinian children who have been treated like this, not just hundreds - the article I already posted in this thread about the UN report, which calls Israel's abuse of Palestinian children "systematic," contains this info.

What you should be hoping for is that Israel stops systematically abusing children and committing war crimes as part of its Greater Israel expansion project. Trying to characterize illegally occupied people who throw stones at foreign occupiers as getting into "trouble" is a pretty disgusting example of colonialist mentality. Amira Hass points this out quite eloquently:

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/the-inner-syntax-of-palestinian-stone-throwing.premium-1.513131

[Boiler 45,153]

Hopefully the kid will do what he can to keep out of trouble in the future.

He is 14, where are the Parents in this.

[erynaught 43]

Are you still trying to argue that the Geneva Convention and international law do not constitute legal precedents for the ICC ??????

The Rome Statute of the ICC's "Elements of Crimes" specifically cites "international law" and "the Geneva Convention" over and over and over as the legal foundation for its legal definitions of war crimes. The whole Rome Statute is based on "international law" and "the Geneva Convention."

The ICJ acts as the UN's legal advisory that determines legal questions for the UN, which is yet another foundation of international law.

If these bodies by any stretch of the imagination did not constitute legal precedent (or even "carried much less legal weight") then they wouldn't be mentioned as the basis of the pertinent Rome Statute definitions of war crimes. It's all connected.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/336923D8-A6AD-40EC-AD7B-45BF9DE73D56/0/ElementsOfCrimesEng.pdf

Yes, I do still maintain that the Geneva Convention and International Law do not constitute legal precendents. You don't understand what a legal precendent is.

A legal precedent, by definition, is a previous legal case. The Geneva Convention and International Law are, as you rightly describe, the legal foundations for the legal definition of war crimes; they are legal treatises and code; they are not legal cases. A legal case is a dispute between two or more parties which is tried against this foundation. Opinions emerge and the decisions from these cases become legal precendents which can further define/enhance/erode the legal foundation originally established.

Likewise, as noted earlier, the Rome Statute is an advisory opinion which, by definition, may become an advisory precedent which is distinctly different from a legal precendent.

Only the International Court (under the referenced legal foundations) can make a judgement of guilt pertaining to a war crime. In the case of Israel and/or Israelies accused of war crimes, the International Court has only rendered an advisory opinion and not a legal judgement.

As I've previously noted, I believe they is overwhelming evidence to substantiate the claims of war crimes against Israel and various Israelies. However, until the appropriate body makes the appropriate legal judgement, they remain allegations/accusations. Accuracy demands it.

[erynaught 43]

I'm glad you learned something, but it's thousands of Palestinian children who have been treated like this, not just hundreds - the article I already posted in this thread about the UN report, which calls Israel's abuse of Palestinian children "systematic," contains this info.

I had used the present tense and my research indicated that there were roughly 200-300 Palestinian youth presently incarcerated under similar circumstances. I appreciate that thousands have been treated like this, but I was speaking of the present.

Trying to characterize illegally occupied people who throw stones at foreign occupiers as getting into "trouble" is a pretty disgusting example of colonialist mentality. Amira Hass points this out quite eloquently:

This is inflammatory and uncalled for. My comment here was made in the context of a father who admonishes my own children to be aware of the consequences of their actions regardless of the circumstances.

I just read the article. Yes, it makes an eloquent case. I don't buy that stone throwing is a birthright. If I did, then I would have to accept that shooting a gun, imprisoning stone throwers, establishing settlements in someone else's land, blowing oneself up, flying planes into buildings are birthrights as well. Look, I appreciate the kid is taking part in the resistance - if he's aware of the possible consequences, whether they be justified or not, then fine. I wasn't characterizing the kid, the conflict or your assertions - just hoping he'd keep himself out of trouble in the future, whatever that trouble may be. Maybe he becomes more successful with his stone throwing ... maybe he finds a more effective and safer method of resistance ... maybe he just wants a job and a better life and finds it somewhere ... maybe ...

[himher 634]

I had used the present tense and my research indicated that there were roughly 200-300 Palestinian youth presently incarcerated under similar circumstances. I appreciate that thousands have been treated like this, but I was speaking of the present.

This is inflammatory and uncalled for. My comment here was made in the context of a father who admonishes my own children to be aware of the consequences of their actions regardless of the circumstances.

I just read the article. Yes, it makes an eloquent case. I don't buy that stone throwing is a birthright. If I did, then I would have to accept that shooting a gun, imprisoning stone throwers, establishing settlements in someone else's land, blowing oneself up, flying planes into buildings are birthrights as well. Look, I appreciate the kid is taking part in the resistance - if he's aware of the possible consequences, whether they be justified or not, then fine. I wasn't characterizing the kid, the conflict or your assertions - just hoping he'd keep himself out of trouble in the future, whatever that trouble may be. Maybe he becomes more successful with his stone throwing ... maybe he finds a more effective and safer method of resistance ... maybe he just wants a job and a better life and finds it somewhere ... maybe ...

Protection and defense of personal property is a by-God birthright. Even for brown-skinned people. There would be no circumstances for stone-throwing at all if soldiers were not in places that do not belong to them taking property that they do not own from people who do own it and all without compensating them for it.

When soldiers do that, then defense of that property is justified. When 14-yr-olds walk over to where they do not belong on property that does not belong to them and where they are not supposed to be and throw stones then it is not justified. Either way, the penalty for UNJUSTIFIED teenage stone-throwing is a thorough butt-spanking and unless you are so weak and scared that you feel unarmed teenagers are a threat to your very existance does not warrant a callout of military troops and setup of a military court.

[Boiler 45,153]

Stones can surprisingly lethal.

Early gunpowder weapons fired stone projectiles.

For example.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Yes, I do still maintain that the Geneva Convention and International Law do not constitute legal precendents. You don't understand what a legal precendent is.

A legal precedent, by definition, is a previous legal case. The Geneva Convention and International Law are, as you rightly describe, the legal foundations for the legal definition of war crimes; they are legal treatises and code; they are not legal cases. A legal case is a dispute between two or more parties which is tried against this foundation. Opinions emerge and the decisions from these cases become legal precendents which can further define/enhance/erode the legal foundation originally established.

Likewise, as noted earlier, the Rome Statute is an advisory opinion which, by definition, may become an advisory precedent which is distinctly different from a legal precendent.

Only the International Court (under the referenced legal foundations) can make a judgement of guilt pertaining to a war crime. In the case of Israel and/or Israelies accused of war crimes, the International Court has only rendered an advisory opinion and not a legal judgement.

As I've previously noted, I believe they is overwhelming evidence to substantiate the claims of war crimes against Israel and various Israelies. However, until the appropriate body makes the appropriate legal judgement, they remain allegations/accusations. Accuracy demands it.

You can go ahead and maintain it all you want, but you're misinformed.

Legal precedent can certainly include treaties, codes made by world judicial bodies, etc. - otherwise known as "persuasive legal precedent" - and this type of legal precedent is especially applicable to the types of cases that the ICC would hear.

And there are other legal precedents as well, including long-held custom that has been recognized by courts or judges, which do not require a specific case precedent.

The Geneva Convention and the ICJ rulings are both examples of the persuasive type of legal precedent, and the Geneva Convention is also an example of the custom type of legal precedent.

Your subsequent remarks were already dealt with.

Back to the subject of Israel's abuse of children.

Here, Israeli soldiers detail how they systematically target and abuse Palestinian children, as part of their "duties" to advance the Greater Israel Expansion Project. They admit it. The details are quite difficult to stomach, and there isn't any "context" that is going to polish this #######:

Breaking the Silence: Children And Youth - Soldiers' Testimonies 2005-2011

http://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Children_and_Youth_Soldiers_Testimonies_2005_2011_Eng.pdf

Abusing children, taking them hostage, and even torturing them - all approved at the highest levels of the Israeli government.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Stones can surprisingly lethal.

Early gunpowder weapons fired stone projectiles.

For example.

Of course. Disarm a population to the point where they have almost nothing to defend themselves, then invade them and assault them and occupy them and herd them into ever-shrinking cages so you can steal their property and colonize their land for 65+ years, all the while subjecting them to an endless array of the highest-tech weaponry known to man (some of which is internationally banned for use against civilian populations) - and then demonize them for fighting back with sticks and stones and whine about what a lethal threat they are to the Greater Israel Expansion Project.

Disgusting.

[himher 634]

Stones can surprisingly lethal.

Early gunpowder weapons fired stone projectiles.

For example.

If I throw a pencil it's lethal because bullets are made of lead. Yeah. That's right. Call in the drones.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

If I throw a pencil it's lethal because bullets are made of lead. Yeah. That's right. Call in the drones.

Pencils, cameras, journalists, kids sleeping in their beds - they're all security threats to the Greater Israel Expansion Project.

[Boiler 45,153]

If I throw a pencil it's lethal because bullets are made of lead. Yeah. That's right. Call in the drones.

Lead can poison you, which most stones could not.

Lead was used in later periods by slingers as it provided a degree of armour penetration.

And uniformity.

Cost was an obvious consideration.

[himher 634]

Pencils, cameras, journalists, kids sleeping in their beds - they're all security threats to the Greater Israel Expansion Project.

Rocks are components of rockslides. That kid could have single-handedly put all the power out had he thrown enough rocks. OR Shut down rail transportation. OR over time demolished a whole city!

MOAB, Utah (ABC 4 News) - A rock slide on State Road 279 forced part of the road to be closed for several hours over the weekend.

UDOT officials say the slide dropped a huge boulder onto a six foot deep trench, opening it up another 20 more feet.

No one was hurt in the slide, but it demolished railroad tracks and part of the highway.

It's still not clear what caused the slide.

VANCOUVER, BC, Canada, Dec. 13, 2012 /CNW/ - Alterra Power Corp. (TSX: AXY) announces that a large naturally-occurring rockslide near its 88 MW Montrose hydroelectric facility caused significant damage yesterday to a 200-300 metre section of the five kilometer penstock which supplies water from the water intake to the power generating plant. The intake and power plant were not affected and there were no injuries. The cost of needed repairs is currently being assessed, and the repairs may require the Montrose plant to be off line for several months. Property damage and business interruption are expected to be fully insured and it is hoped that repairs can be carried out during the winter months when water flows and power generation are minimal. The nearby 146 MW Toba hydroelectric plant was not affected and remains in operation.

Rockslides are an issue of national security. DEFINITELY warrants military action.

Edited April 21, 2013 by himher

[himher 634]

Lead can poison you, which most stones could not.

Lead was used in later periods by slingers as it provided a degree of armour penetration.

And uniformity.

Cost was an obvious consideration.

Yeah. That too. I hope they don't catch that kid with a pencil. He'll spend decades in prison. Because lead is a poison and gets used in bullets too.

Edited April 21, 2013 by himher

[Pooky 3,723]

If I throw a pencil it's lethal because bullets are made of lead. Yeah. That's right. Call in the drones.

But pencil leads are not made from lead.