Connecting Dots... Compare and Contrast.

More than 10 percent of the land included within the official jurisdiction of the settlements is owned privately by Palestinians, as is 70 percent of the land the settlements control outside their official boundaries, said the report, whose findings were published today in the Haaretz newspaper.

According to Dror Etkes, who prepared the report with Hagit Ofran of Peace Now, the official data show how the government has taken West Bank land beyond the needs of the settlements in order to prevent Palestinian construction there and to add a zone of separation between the settlers and the Palestinians.

But once an area is closed to Palestinians, settlers have seized adjacent Palestinian lands, often privately owned, without being stopped by the army, which is the legal sovereign in the occupied territories.

“There is a pattern of a failure to enforce the law on the settlers,” Mr. Etkes asserted. “But the lack of enforcement isn’t an accident. It became another tool to achieve the military goals of the occupation, which is to allocate the land and hold it.”

Say I wonder if the Palestinians have practical legal standing to pursue their grievances... kidding.* An attempt at timely legal humor.
-----------------------
In other news,

Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that none of the plaintiffs in American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency have standing to challenge the program and dismissed the case. Judge Batchelder wrote the opinion for the court. Judge Gibbons delivered a separate concurring opinion, and Judge Gilman dissented. I can virtually guarantee that this is not the last we have heard of this case.

Acknowledging, of course, that the American legal system and the Israeli legal system vary in their protections and thus their strategies in pursuing terrorist suspects. So no assassinations from the air here. Personally, never did think that was a successful strategy worth pursuing. If you want chaos to reign, sure. But at some point in time, you look around and wonder where the opposing leaders are for you to negotiate with... and then you remember the assassinations from above, no trials -- ticking time bombs all.

Related news of "skirmishes" today:

In the fighting, Imad Ghanem, a cameraman from Hamas’s television station, Al Aksa, was wounded, and then shot at least twice in the legs as he lay sprawled on the ground. His legs were later amputated in the hospital and he is in critical condition.

Maj. Avital Leibovich, an army spokeswoman, said today that “many times Hamas takes militants with them and gives them cameras, like this person, who is not in our perspective a regular journalist, but a militant like the others.” She said he wore no vest identifying him as a journalist, and that at other times, such cameramen have also been armed and used their weapons. She said that in the gunfire, “it was not clear who shot” Mr. Ghanem in the legs.

The International Federation of Journalists today condemned the shooting. “This is a vicious and brutal example of deliberate targeting of a journalist,” said Aidan White, the group’s general-secretary. “The Israeli authorities must investigate this case and bring to justice those responsible.” Mr. White added: “This man was carrying a camera, not a gun. He was no threat to Israeli forces.”

Major Leibovich said that no investigation had been ordered.

Maybe legal protections, not playing politics with justice, are worth a little something after all? The warriors already know how mixing politics with their trade doesn't help the cause -- the backside to that "United We Stand" jingo. Now it appears (to be) justice's time on trial...

Back to the news in America today:

Judge Batchelder's opinion goes through the complaint claim-by-claim, explaining her reasons why the plaintiffs either lacked standing for each claim in light of this alleged injury or why the plaintiffs lost on the merits (or both). I am no expert in standing doctrine, but based on my quick read I tend to think this was the right approach and that the result seems correct.

Judge Gibbons' opinion argues the standing issue more broadly, reaching the same result as Judge Batchelder. Judge Gilman dissented, arguing that the attorney-plaintiffs had alleged sufficient harm to have standing. Judge Gilman then reaches the merits of the case, concluding that "the Bush Administration's so-called 'Terrorist Surveillance Program'" violates FISA and rejecting the "inherent authority" claim.

(Oh, and in case you're wondering at home, yes, the four opinions issued in this case do neatly match a political narrative. Judges Batchelder and Gibbons were appointed by Republicans, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr, respectively; Judges Gilman and Taylor were appointed by Democrats, Clinton and Carter.)

The trouble with mixing justice and politics: you never know when they're deciding on the merits or if they're taking care of their own. Lots of the latter going around, and while it might be a family value today, it doesn't really help anyone down the line when they get that "Over-Rated" chant going... You want performance, "who's your daddy?" doesn't cut it out there. Even if your daddy's somebody today. Isn't that the crux of the country's troubles now -- too much cronyism, not much efficiency or effectiveness? And forward looking? Nevermind gas or growth in the Pacific Rim, how's your water supply being managed where you're at? That's the key to life right there, folks.
--------------


*Thanks to those who would point me to previous Israeli Court rulings on the legality of the barrier fence being constructed in certain areas. Familiar with those. Just not the kind who gets too excited about a score or two when the game's still being played and it looks like a one-sided blowout, for whatever reason. The quality of the game suffers. And there's nothing sadder than finding out you're over-rated, especially during the big game. Too late then.