[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: Some quick questions:

1. Were all those suspected of being among the attackers fingerprinted and
photographed so that they can be linked to whatever forensic evidence Israel
may derive from seized weapons?

2. Were the hands, arms, etc. of all those suspected as being possibly among
those who fired a weapon grabbed from soldiers tested for gun powder residue
with this documented for use as evidence in future proceedings?

These are not silly questions.

We are, after all, about to launch an investigation of the incident.

And we certainly will want the cooperation of Turkey in the investigation.

And we want to make it as easy as possible for Turkey to cooperate in the
investigation.

And what better way to do that then to whittle down the list of Turks we
would like them to interview, as part of the investigation, people we
provide them with identifying photos and fingerprints along with the
forensic evidence relevant for a proper interview. ]

For Immediate Release June 3, 2010

HIGH COURT REJECTS SHURAT HADIN'S PETITION
TO BLOCK RELEASE OF FLOTILLA DETAINEES

Yesterday, Shurat HaDin - Israel Law Center brought an emergency petition in
Israel's High Court of Justice, demanding that the State's Attorney be
barred from releasing the foreign nationals who had been arrested aboard the
Turkish ship, Mavi Marmara, instead of bringing them to trial. Information
had surfaced in Israel that the militants on the boat had ties to Hamas and
the Muslim Brotherhood.

Earlier in the day the State Attorney's office had announced that it would
not indict the suspected terrorists and prosecute them for their role in
attacking Israeli soldiers and the deaths of 9 other militants on the boats.
The government planned to quickly deport all the detainees, including those
suspected of injuring Israeli soldiers. Video footage released by the IDF
showed some evidence that the passengers on the Marmara had armed themselves
with metal poles and other weapons, and aggressively attacked the Israeli
sailors as they boarded the ship.

The Shurat HaDin petition alleged that it was outrageous for the State's
Attorney to release suspects in a violent raid in which 9 individuals had
been killed and many soldiers seriously injured. Israel could not confirm
the true identities of many of the detainees and had not determined how the
dead passengers had been killed nor how many of the suspects were involved.
In addition, neither the IDF nor the security services had yet begun to
interrogate many of the detainees, had not documented their confessions and
had not yet garnered sufficient evidence to piece together what exactly had
occurred on the ship and how to prevent a recurrence (which seems extremely
likely).

Moreover, the Shurat HaDin suit stated that by rushing the detainees back to
Turkey, Israel was exposing the IDF and Defense Ministry officials to
serious threats of war crimes allegations. The IDF and the State would have
little evidence it could provide in its defense if Turkey, or another
country, were to file a complaint against Israel at the World Court in the
Hague. Israel was taking the best exculpatory evidence available - the
confessions of the arrestees on board - and shipping it out of the country.
It would only be a matter of time before allegations from these very
suspects that the Israeli sailors had stormed the ship, with guns blazing
and firing on unarmed passengers was being tendered in an international
tribunal. Other than some grainy videos, what hard evidence would Israel
have left to defend its soldiers once the detainees escaped?

The High Court grouped the Shurat HaDin petition with others brought at the
same time and called for a hearing at 4pm yesterday evening. The Attorney
General, Yehuda Weinstein, submitted a response for the Government and in a
rare occurrence the State's Attorney, Moshe Lador, arrived to argue the case
himself. In its response the Attorney General wrote that he had "reached
this decision, after he took into consideration, on the one hand, the
overall public interest in enforcing the law, and, on the other hand, the
recommendation of the political echelon, which was based, among other
things, on the decision of the Security Council of June 1, which called for
the immediate release of all the citizens who had arrived on the flotilla
and on requests from foreign countries and international organizations."

At the hearing last evening in the High Court in Jerusalem, Shurat HaDin
director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner argued to the justices that they would be
seriously endangering the safety of Israeli soldiers, government officials
and Israeli
citizens if they merely allowed the detainees to slip away without a
thorough investigation. The Court was told that they would wind up ruing
the day that
they decided they could sweep the entire episode under the rug by rushing to
free all those suspected of violence against the soldiers.

In its decision, published late last evening the High Court turned down
Shurat HaDin's petition and ordered the detainees freed. The Court clearly
stated that the blockade of Gaza was legal under international law and
justified to obstruct Hamas from smuggling deadly weapons into Gaza. In
addition, the Court noted that the Israeli sailors were met by armed
militants who had pre-organized to use violence to resist the IDF's efforts
to seize their boat. However, the justices held that the Attorney General
had the discretion to decide who to indict or not indict based upon the
different criteria he believed needed to be weighed, including the political
implications of his decision internationally: "This court ruled in a long
list of rulings that the extent of its intervention in the attorney
general's decisions regarding investigation or placing someone on trial is
limited to unusual and exceptional cases . . . After considering the fact
that nine of the flotilla's participants were killed and dozens were
injured, he reached the conclusion that the public, political, and security
interests in this case trump law enforcement. We did not find any ground for
intervening in this decision or in the considerations at its foundation."

Although, the High Court decision assumes that it and the Attorney General
office took every interest under consideration and balanced them all it out
before reaching their decision, the opinion does not mention that the threat
of a war crimes indictment being filed against IDF officers and soldiers in
an international tribunal and the destruction of Israel's exculpatory
evidence was even considered in all this haste.

For An Article About the High Court Hearing:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898429,00.html

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Email - info@israellawcenter.org

Telephone (US): 212-591-0073
(Israel) +972-(0)3-751-4175