Pages

Friday, December 19, 2008

This is bad.

Whatever your position is on the Rubashkins, guilty or not, the fact that they are denying Shlomo Rubashkin bail because he is Jewish is a HUGE problem.

From the WSJ:
The Justice Department is contending that a Jewish defendant in Iowa should be denied bail in part because he, like all Jews, is entitled to Israeli citizenship if he seeks to immigrate to the Jewish state.

The argument against the defendant, Sholom Rubashkin, could in theory apply to all Jewish criminal suspects. Mr. Rubashkin faces multiple charges related to the alleged hiring of illegal immigrants at a kosher meatpacking plant he formerly headed in Postville, Iowa.

So no Jewish defendant is ever going to be able to be released on bail, because the Law of Return in Israel makes him or her too much of a flight risk? What happened to surrendering a passport? And the U.S. and Israel do have an extradition treaty in place.

This is worrisome.

13 comments:

  1. If there are specific facts showing that he intended to go to Israel (i.e. two other associates fleeing), then I agree with the judges decision. But, I agree that the prosecutor's argument is a dangerous one.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It won't stick...I happen to know that there is a VERY smart, VERY displeased lawyer who is already working to get this whole argument tossed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The prosecutor's argument is not only dangerous but is logically unfounded. The article says: "Bob Teig, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Cedar Rapids, said the government is not singling out Jews, but "making an argument related to citizenship. If someone was a citizen of Guatemala or had dual citizenship" with that country, a similar argument would apply, he said." The prosecutor is citing an example of someone who ALREADY has citizenship from another country or already has dual citizenship. Presumably that person also has a passport issued by that other country. In the case of Mr. Rubashkin he has only a presumed right of citizenship when he arrives in Israel, and that right of citizenship only applies if he is Jewish. Since Mr. Rubashkin has an American passport, and therefore could be 1)stopped when he presented that passport in trying to leave the country or 2)be asked to hand over that passport, then the citizenship argument doesn't hold water, and where is the flight risk? Re his two associates, reported as Israelis who fled back to Israel, we can also assume they had Israeli passports.

    You're right Ezzie that this argument carried out to its illogical conclusion could mean that virtually all American Jews could be construed as being flight risks in any criminal proceeding, and that the key element is their Jewishness rather than their ACTUAL citizenship status.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The apple wrote this, but I'm Ezzie and I endorse this message.

    Agreed with ProfK - there's a clear difference in trying to travel. IF Rubashkin picked up an Israeli passport and/or became a citizen, then it would be a good argument. I don't see any evidence that he has done either, so he wouldn't exactly be able to run.

    I thought I saw this argument used last week in a different case involving a Jew, actually. Maybe it was Rubashkin and I just didn't see it...

    ReplyDelete
  5. i agree with prosecutor. i heard of many criminals, molesters etc. running away to israel. and it is pretty hard to extradite from israel afterward.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Interesting, considering a certain other high profile case in the news where the defendant couldn't even come up with bail and is getting the George Bluth treatment.

    ReplyDelete
  7. and it is pretty hard to extradite from israel afterward.

    The article says Justice feels extradition from Israel is up to par.

    Interesting, considering a certain other high profile case in the news where the defendant couldn't even come up with bail and is getting the George Bluth treatment.

    ? Madoff? He came up with bail, couldn't come up with 4 people to sign for him.

    ReplyDelete
  8. My apologies to the Apple--really, truly I can tell the difference between an Apple and an Ezzie.

    ReplyDelete
  9. truly I can tell the difference between an Apple and an Ezzie.

    Well sure - everyone knows that an Apple a day keeps the doctor(s;) away, while an Ezzie a day...ummm, let's just say that it attracts a slightly less appreciated segment of the population [myself included, damn straight!]

    --their settin' 'em up like 'insulting comment' T-ball around here

    ReplyDelete
  10. truly I can tell the difference between an Apple and an Ezzie.

    As everyone knows, an Apple has more hair. And Ezzie tends to be much, MUCH larger.

    everyone knows that an Apple a day keeps the doctor(s;) away, while an Ezzie a day...ummm, let's just say that it attracts a slightly less appreciated segment of the population [myself included, damn straight!]

    Firstly, LOL for about three things there. Secondly... which is worse!? ... and for whom?! :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bail determinations are fact based and are a judgment call for the judge, given the factual circumstances. The fact that SR had a bag of cash adn passports at the ready he is flight risk adn should be denied bail.

    Madoff turned himself in and is cooperating with the reciever and Feds. He should get bail, albeit with monitoring. which he got.

    ProfK - i agree

    the prosecutors arguments will fail asit will treat a constitutionally protected class (jews) differently based solely on their religion.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well sure - everyone knows that an Apple a day keeps the doctor(s;) away, while an Ezzie a day...ummm, let's just say that it attracts a slightly less appreciated segment of the population [myself included, damn straight!]

    I don't even know if I should feel insulted or not!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Madoff received bail. It's not an across-the-board thing.

    ReplyDelete