UN seeks immunity for UNRWA employees complicit in Oct. 7 massacre - Channel 12 report

[Beastly Boy]

Source: Jerusalem Post

In an official document filed in a US court, the United Nations, with support from the US Department of Justice, has argued that UNRWA employees who were involved in the October 7 massacre are immune from legal action, Israeli broadcaster Channel 12 News reported on Saturday evening.

According to the document, UNRWA employees involved in the massacre are shielded from prosecution due to their immunity.

"Since the UN has not waived immunity in this instance, its subsidiary, UNRWA, continues to enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution, and the lawsuit should be dismissed," the UN's response stated.

Read more: https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-821221

---

This is UNRWA openly acknowledging their complicity in massacres and hostage taking of Oct. 7, 2023.

In the same breath, they demand immunity from prosecution for the perpetrators.

Think about it: This is the United Nations demanding protection for international war criminals.

Never once did they demand any protection for the hostages.

Shameless and despicable.

[MyMission]

1. Shameless and despicable.

It will be interesting and disturbing to see how this plays out!

[Beastly Boy]

2. There will be rallies in support of the criminals in Teheran and Columbia University.

[nycbos]

4. Yup

The Israel verison of SNL Eretz Nehederet did a great spoof on Columbia.

[jvill]

8. My favorite part...

… was when they did the skit how Bibi is prosecuting this war now primarily to stay out of jail.

Oh wait…

[JoseBalow]

13. Useful idiots

[madaboutharry]

3. Given the opportunity, The United Nations will always do the wrong thing.

Especially when Jews are part of the story. The U.N. could wave immunity, but it won't because they enable and support the terror that occurred on October 7th.

A Rabbi I knew once called the U.N. "The nations united against the Jews." It wasn't hyperbole.

You are right, the U.N. is shameless and despicable. UNRWA is a front that enables terror and perpetrates the plight of the Palestinians in perpetuity. UNRWA has manipulated the Palestinian people into a cycle of eternal refugee status and victimhood. Both the U.N. and UNRWA are disgraceful organizations on a multitude of levels.

I do not blame the DOJ on this. Immunity laws are unbreakable. They often lead to outrageous miscarriages of justice. Diplomatic immunity is an example, protecting diplomates and their families from prosecution even in the event of violent crimes.

[jvill]

9. Like when the UN supported the creation of Israel?

“ . On November 29, 1947 the United Nations adopted Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Resolution) that would divide Great Britain’s former Palestinian mandate into Jewish and Arab states in May 1948 when the British mandate was scheduled to end.”

Like that wrong thing..?

I thought we Jews were supposed to know our history?

[madaboutharry]

12. That was a one off.

The United Nations has long been obsessed with its condemnation of Israel.

List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_resolutions_concerning_Israel#:~:text=From%201967%20to%201989%2C%20the,of%20the%20United%20Nations%20Charter.

[Beastly Boy]

14. They just got started back then. They didn't learn yet how to do things wrong.

[MichMan]

16. 77 years ago

[moniss]

5. Something about this report from the JP is confusing.

Why would the UN be filing anything in a US Federal Court rather than at the ICC where the subject is being adjudicated? My comment isn't about the absurdity of the argument but rather the US courts have squat for any authority regarding some conduct by UN personnel in the Middle East. The only conceivable thing would be a suit brought by any American citizen affected by 10/7 so maybe that's it.

But I would correct the implication made by saying UNRWA is acknowledging "their complicity" because it appears to have been a handful out of the many thousands of personnel they have and the implication makes it sound like their involvement was some sort of plan by UNRWA management or controlled by them. If a half dozen people at Ford go out and beat up people and Ford verifies they worked there it is improper to then claim Ford is acknowledging being complicit.

Any time someone, some country or some group tries to shield a wanted international war criminal it is despicable. Including when it is Netanyahu and Gallant.

[Beastly Boy]

11. The UN is the defendant in this case. The hostage families are the plaintiffs.

It is not within the scope of ICC to address this case:

The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to
the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with
this Statute with respect to the following crimes:
(a) The crime of genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;
(c) War crimes;
(d) The crime of aggression

https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Statute-eng.pdf

Therefore, it is not complicity in war crimes that the hostage families are claiming (they have no standing to petition ICC in the first place), they are claiming damages resulting from this complicity. Since the UN headquarters are located in the US, the US federal courts have jurisdiction over charges against the UN.

Regardless of matters of jurisprudence, extending immunity to war criminals while ignoring the hostages is shameless and despicable on ethical grounds, and it brings into question the commitment of the UN to its stated mission.

It is the continued employment of war criminals past the factual establishment of their crimes that makes UNRWA complicit. While the UN, by extending immunity to a handful of war criminals, acknowledged the UNRWA complicity in a handful of cases that are subject to legal claims by the hostage families, it is still denying their complicity in hundreds of other documented cases of employing war criminals of equal statute. Still, this is sufficient. The UN immunity excepts them from the rule of law, not the facts in evidence, regardless of the nature of their complicity, whether premeditated or opportunistic, beyond any doubt. By granting immunity to the perpetrators, the UN forfeited their opportunity to dispute it.

This is despicable all in itself, regardless of any other assumed attempts to shield anyone else from justice.

[moniss]

39. It was reported that the individuals

that were felt to have a link to 10/7 were terminated some time ago. The initial claim in January was against 12 employees and UNRWA immediately terminated the 10 who were still alive. The UN has investigated and determined in August that others who were felt to have participated, 9 additional, would be terminated. They noted the difficulties in trying to independently verify some of the information regarding one person. Much of that is because of an inability to access the information used as the basis for the allegations.

So to give the idea that the UN flipped the finger regarding all of these accused employees is not accurate. I would further note that your description of them as war criminals is yours alone and not a legal one. The ICC has determined that the Hamas leaders be charged with war crimes and a request for warrants has been made for the ones still alive. The ICC also determined that a couple of other leaders also are charged with war crimes. Those warrants have also been sought and the ones accused have recently filed legal papers to shield themselves. But if we at this point are going to hold the "foot soldiers" in one case to a label of war criminal then at this point so must the foot soldiers of the other leaders bear the label. That application is a matter of process and logic regardless of feelings, emotions or justifications one way or the other.

I agree with you regarding the UN and the international community failing many times to hold to it's principles and to hold members and the agencies to account. A major problem has always been selective application of principles and follow through. This has been demonstrated over and over again through many decades by various member countries refusing to comply with the work of agencies and with member countries refusing to comply over and over with decades of Security Council Resolutions. Many times agencies are hamstrung by members refusing to cooperate and instead of completion of work to make assessments on how to proceed we are left with back and forth recrimination.

My suggestion has always been expulsion of members who chronically abuse the institution and also openly fail to uphold the principles of the organization. However others disagree with that approach and feel that the loss of engagement with those who chronically abuse what they had agreed to abide by would be a larger negative. I'm not so sure.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1152841

[Beastly Boy]

44. UNRWA is being sued for the damages the terrorists did wheb they vwere employed

by UNRWA. Any subsequent action of UNRWA, inadequate in the context of the crime as it was, plays no role in UN extending immunity to the criminals. The fact that some of them were fired points to their culpability, but doesn't make them accountable for their crimes.

And the idea is that the UN flipped the finger in regard to the criminals being sued. UN extended immnunity from prosecution to them, and that is beyond dispute.

[moniss]

48. Nobody disputes that the document was filed

or that they are using an immunity exemption as their legal reasoning. This seems to me to be less about the facts of the actual events at this point than it is about a legal principle of immunity for UN employees. Lawyers and their actions can be understood in the context of having a reprehensible appearance and outcome but their job is to use the law regarding their client. In these immunity matters the UN has that immunity so that people will come to work for the various agencies in contentious areas and situations. It would be very difficult to convince people to work in an area for example that would try to give aid to civilians/monitor activity in countries in Africa that are in conflict with each other if those doing so were subject to constant accusations and lawsuits. Not only would the agencies have a difficult time recruiting personnel but those they could recruit would be subject to tremendous costs in money, time and reputation if they didn't have immunity.

Let's be clear that having a suit go forward against UNRWA for having employed, apparently unknowingly, people who would and did take part in a horrible attack may be pleasing at first glance. But also be sure that the same sword of legal recourse can swing against any and all charities and groups who have supplied money, support and recruited people to be settlers in the West Bank and then had some of them be ones who are committing crimes against people there. Should we now jam the US Federal Courts with decades worth of thousands of cases? On a strictly legal principle basis the basis is the same. Recruitment, employment and funding of people by an organization, or by individuals, that results in one or more of those recruited, funded or employed committing an act that causes harm then those organizations/individuals who recruited, employed and funded those who caused the harm are to be held liable.

[Beastly Boy]

51. The validity or legality of the instrument of immunity afforded to the UN is not in dispute here.

It is no different than diplomatic immunity. A number of terrorist-sponsoring states have been using it to shield known war criminals from justice.

This is what is so disturbing - the UN joining their ranks. While there are many legitimate reasons for immunity protection, this one is not.

It is the ethics of extending immunity to known war criminals, not its legality, that speaks so poorly of the UN. They had full discretion, being fully aware of the UNRWA (former) employees' heinous crimes, to withdraw immunity protection from the subjects of the lawsuit in question, and they did not.

UNRWA is being sued for the damages their employees caused, not for employing them. Leaving awareness of their employees' affiliation with Hamas aside (that would have been up to the jury to decide), UNRWA is accountable for their actions to the extent of the law. The problem is, this extent will not be determined, thanks to the UN shielding the suspects.

Regardless of possible legal outcomes, which we may never see, this is horrible optics, and it only underscores the UN's already well pronounced bias against Israeli victims of terrorism.

[moniss]

53. You do realize that the people in question could sue the UN for

withdrawing their immunity before they have been other than accused. The UN itself is in a precarious legal and operational situation as I tried to make clear. Immunity with NGO's and the like is a very common thing. Likewise charities as I've also tried to stress. The reason being you can't have a situation where someone sends $100 to an aid organization and then finds themselves in court because some person goes off and rams another in a car for instance and the accusation is that the money of all of the givers has made them responsible. Likewise an organization can vet people they hire to the ends of the earth but it doesn't preclude some turning bad. An organization also can't get people and professionals to come and work for the reasons I stated if they risk being hauled in for accusations all the time. Let there be a proper legal determination of the guilty parties before we go off at the UN as though they planned it and took part in it. They revoke the immunity at this juncture before a legal process takes place and the organization becomes the target for everyone including the accused. I'm trying to get you to understand that the way for the process to play out is for the organization to raise the immunity issue so the court can rule on it. That way when it is stricken it is done so by a legal process/decision and not subjecting the organization to accusations of invoking/waiving the immunity arbitrarily. That way the accused individuals cannot make a claim against the organization. The lawyers have to bring it up to the court. Courts in general are not going to make rulings and arguments on things not brought up. If you don't file it doesn't get ruled on. So let it get ruled on.

[Beastly Boy]

54. The immunity clause in the UN founding charter is absolute, and so is the UN discretion in using it.

No one can sue the UN for either applying it or withdrawing it. Case in point: the lawsuit in question.

Discussing any legal consequences related to immunity has no purpose, it is a settled matter, and it is not my intention.

I must again emphasize: what is disturbing and despicable is the ethics of their applying immunity to known war criminals. I gave an analogy: diplomatic immunity being used by terrorist-sponsoring states to shield war criminals. Nobody will sue them for it, but the practice is nevertheless universally deemed repugnant.

Repugnant has no legal definition. It is an expression of disgust. By joining the likes of Iran, Syria and North Korea in extending immunity protections to known war criminals, UN is equally deserving of universal condemnation, if not legal liability.

[moniss]

57. You can sue for anything. It doesn't mean you will win

and just because it is in the Charter in a particular way doesn't mean that the organization couldn't be sued for a claim of improperly applying or not applying it. This is similar to when a known heinous criminal defendant has a lawyer who puts a claim or defense before the court even though we may have video of the crime in it's entirety and context. The lawyer does it so the court can rule on it and they know ahead of time that the court will go against them but they do it so there is no claim made later on that they didn't propose that defense and get accused of not arguing possible defenses. Same sort of thing. You may find it repugnant but as I said the UN is proceeding legally how they have to. They cannot come out at this point before there has been a legal determination about the individuals and start labeling them and taking action on that basis.

What we think out here outside of court doesn't mean squat. The lawyers are proceeding in the case and the process needs to play out of allowing the court to rule. If the UN waived it at this point they absolutely could be sued on the basis of taking the action when it is not proven in court that these individuals did this. Not yet. That is the point. Allow the process to go forward and let the court make it's ruling on the immunity issue. At that point the parties have to follow it unless they appeal and then still the process will eventually give a binding, final legal decision that will then further guide the process. At least this is different than Netanyahu claiming he should be shielded because he wasn't given an opportunity to conduct an inquiry into himself. But either way the ICC and the Federal Court will rule on these motions and then things will proceed from there. It may seem bizarre, and to a degree it is, but that is the system. The UN can't just jump and not put themselves at risk if they revoke immunity before a finding of guilt. In order to get to that trial and finding of guilt in Federal Court they need to have the court rule that immunity doesn't apply so a case can move forward to discovery and trial. No matter how certain we are about guilt that is our system. At this point they are presumed innocent before the law. If people don't like the legal process then either change it or don't bring cases. But until that time this is the system. The UN is putting the immunity question before the court for them to make a ruling. It is not the UN just saying "We are giving them immunity and that's the last word and we're not complying with any legal proceeding." The question of legal consequences related to immunity absolutely exists. There are consequences for the UN, consequences for the individuals and consequences for legal cases involving other litigants in the future.

[Beastly Boy]

59. Once again, any lawsuit against the UN has a predetermined outcome.

It is the outcome that has any consequences, not the theoretical capacity to sue. Case in point: the lawsuit in question. It is unlikely that the lawsuit will be terminated any time soon, but the outcome is already known.

To continue deflecting into legal matters relating to UN immunity distracts from the issue in at hand. So let's just stop doing this.

Just to bring us back to the issue at hand: it is the ethics of applying immunity to known war criminals. By applying it, the UN terminated any legal means to determine their guilt.

No other legal issues play a role in this.

If you are not willing to address the issue at hand, continuing this conversation is absolutely pointless.

[moniss]

60. I have addressed the issue and I have

made it clear that what you see as a cut and dried ethical question of saying someone is a war criminal doesn't make it a proven matter in court and that's where the whole thing is. If they had already been adjudicated guilty of war crimes and then someone tried to shield them with immunity then of course we are talking about a horrible situation. But we don't have that right now. A designation of war criminal is a legal one.

Let's assume for a moment that we operate on the basis you suggest and before any legal finding takes place the UN says to these individuals that they are revoking their immunity because the UN feels they committed war crimes. Then a trial is held and they are found guilty. But they now challenge on appeal that they were wrongly deprived of immunity because at the time the UN revoked they had not been found guilty and so it was improper. Now they might well lose such appeals but it's not a guarantee and in any event it could be tied up for years. What is the point of purposely walking into that instead of getting a ruling about immunity up front? You're talking about this as though you feel the UN likes having to even go through all of this. I can assure you they would rather not.

Do you want the case to proceed and have it adjudicated in the quickest and most orderly manner so that the people who brought the suit prevail? I would think so because otherwise it's just us people out here throwing condemnation around.

From an ethical standpoint it is not ethical to label someone as guilty of a crime until they've been found guilty. We can say suspected, alleged etc. from an ethical standpoint but we cannot, and there are laws about it, label someone like this until they've been tried and convicted. The reason being, especially when a group of people are accused, it may well be that one or more will not be found guilty and so making the factual assertion that they are guilty of a crime ahead of conviction is wrong ethically in our system. It's ethically wrong to libel or slander someone with an unproven accusation and things are not proven until the jury or judge says so. It's why people get sued sometimes. I disagree that the outcome of the suit is known at this point.

[mcar]

6. This is outrageous!

[SunSeeker]

7. Disgusting. The UN was created to prevent wars, not protect and enable terrorists.

[RainCaster]

10. That does not sound right

The UN should not be involved in such activities, and those who do should be held accountable.

[sarisataka]

15. What a switch

They have gone from "none of our people were involved in October 7" to "the terrorists we employ have immunity when they rape, murder or commit any other crime"

[elias7]

17. UNRWA was hijacked by Palestinians long ago. It is a wing of Hamas.

UNRWA was founded in 1949 and is staffed by 30,000 Palestinian “refugees”. They run the bulk of the schools in Gaza and are responsible for the indoctrination of Jew hatred amongst elementary school age children. So many of the terrorists of 10/7 were from UNRWA schools. They believe in martyrdom and the glory of killing Jews.

Of all the millions of refugees created in the last 100+ years of wars and nation building, there is one refugee organization for Palestinians alone, and one org for EVERYBODY ELSE. And only UNRWA counts descendants of refugees as refugees, again an anomaly for Palestinians, as descendants are not counted for anyone else. They get on with their lives. Only UNRWA seeks to keep refugee status for one group of people and train them to destroy the Jews. They are criminal.

[Eko]

18. Uh, no.

From your article.
The US Department of Justice echoed this position. "The plaintiff's complaint does not present a legal basis for claiming that the United Nations waived its immunity. Therefore, because the UN has not waived immunity in this case, its subsidiary, UNRWA, retains full immunity, and the lawsuit against UNRWA should be dismissed due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction."

Attorney Gaby Meron of the law firm MM-LAW filed the lawsuit accusing UNRWA of complicity in genocide and crimes against humanity and is preparing a formal response to the court, Channel 12 noted in their report.

They are not giving immunity to the individuals but to the organization as the org is the one being sued not the individuals.
Feel free to edit your post for it to be correct and not use a inflammatory title from a news outlet that is misleading.

[Mysterian]

19. If the organization is providing cover for terrorists....

then it's a terrorist organization.

[Eko]

20. How are they providing cover for terrorists?

All they said is that the org the UN is immune from being sued, not the individuals.

[Mysterian]

21. Allowing terrorists to operate undercover as "UNRWA workers"

Thanks for asking!

https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1152841

[Eko]

22. Uh, they fired them.

From your link.
“I have decided that in the case of these remaining nine staff members, they cannot work for UNRWA. All contracts of these staff members will be terminated in the interest of the Agency,” he said.

[Mysterian]

23. You're extremely naive if you believe those are the only ones

The ones they actually fired TOOK PART in the slaughter of Israelis.

[Eko]

24. So if they fired them how are they providing cover for them?

[Mysterian]

25. The ones they didn't fire still working in the org

I thought it was obvious but maybe not for some people.

[Eko]

26. This is what you think

or this is what you can prove?

[Mysterian]

49. And you think UNRWA has completely cleansed itself of Hamas operatives

Can you prove this?

[Eko]

56. See post 55

at the bottom of the post.

[Eko]

29. You have yet to show that it is providing cover for terrorists.

You have just said that you think it does.

[Mysterian]

50. Known fact: There were Hamas operatives operating under cover as UNRWA workers

Can you prove UNRWA has completely purged all Hamas operatives?

[Eko]

55. That is what Israel claimed orally to UNRWA that there were Hamas operatives working at UNRWA.

UNRWA fired them with only the claim from Israel.

"On 26 January, in response to allegations received orally from Israeli officials regarding the alleged involvement of 12 UNRWA staff in the 7 October attack against Israel, and upon ascertaining that the individuals were indeed UNRWA staff members, the UNRWA Commissioner-General decided to immediately terminate the appointments of these staff “in the interest of the Agency,” in accordance with applicable staff regulations, in order to protect its ability to deliver humanitarian assistance."

https://www.unrwa.org/unrwa-claims-versus-facts-february-2024
UNRWA then conducted an investigation and fired 9 employees that may have been involved.

"“In one case, no evidence was obtained by OIOS to support the allegations of the staff member’s involvement, while in nine other cases, the evidence obtained by OIOS was insufficient to support the staff members’ involvement,” he said."
"“I have decided that in the case of these remaining nine staff members, they cannot work for UNRWA. All contracts of these staff members will be terminated in the interest of the Agency,” he said."

https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1152841
There is more at the link.
I think that addresses your first claim that it was a known fact, it was not.
To address your question "Can you prove UNRWA has completely purged all Hamas operatives? " of course not. Can you prove the USMC has purged all white supremacists? Of course not. Does that mean that the USMC is providing cover for terrorists? Of course not.

[Mysterian]

58. Ahhhhh, they just fired them for no reason

Got it!

[Eko]

61. I never claimed that

and they never claimed that. I notice you did not comment on this part at all.
"To address your question "Can you prove UNRWA has completely purged all Hamas operatives? " of course not. Can you prove the USMC has purged all white supremacists? Of course not. Does that mean that the USMC is providing cover for terrorists? Of course not."
Do you think that the USMC has purged all white supremacists?
Do you think the USMC is providing cover for white supremacists?
Its an easy yes or no answer for each question.

[Mysterian]

62. UNRWA has been completely infiltrated by top Hamas operatives

https://www.voanews.com/a/top-hamas-commander-killed-in-lebanon-was-unrwa-employee-placed-on-administrative-leave/7804979.html

The U.S. military does not tolerate racism whatsoever and immediately separates any member with that type of affiliation. UNRWA - not so much - they have to be called out to take action.

[Eko]

63. From your article.

UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini said he learned in March of allegations that Sharif had been a "member of the political party of Hamas" and decided to suspend him and launch an investigation "from day one."

"So he was suspended, had no function, was not paid and was under investigation," Lazzarini told reporters in Geneva. "We are still an agency with due process — I mean, respecting due process and the principle of rule of law. So the investigation was ongoing."

Lazzarini said he had received a letter from Israeli authorities listing the names of some 100 people allegedly linked to Hamas, and he took it "very seriously." But he said Israeli authorities never responded to UNRWA requests for more information so that it might launch investigations into those cases.

The US military does not tolerate racism whatsoever?

The report also described the soldier as a Florida National Guard member who was sentenced in 2018 to five years in jail for possessing bomb materials. And a footnote refers to an AP story about that person, Brandon Russell, a loner from Tampa who was 22 at the time of his sentencing.

While Russell was serving in the Guard, officials later told reporters, he displayed on his right shoulder a tattoo bearing the radiation-warning symbol — the insignia of the Atomwaffen Division.

But neither the tattoo nor his purported statements to his Army colleagues raised a red flag prior to his arrest, a command investigation later found. Army Guard officials said they lacked a database of extremist tattoos they could refer to, according to press reports at the time.

https://rollcall.com/2021/02/16/pentagon-report-reveals-inroads-white-supremacists-have-made-in-military/

Lawmakers ordered the Defense Department to prepare the report after they raised questions last year about how it screens recruits and about recent cases of service members linked to white supremacist causes.

The report recounts how some service members were discharged after they were found to be active supporters of the neo-Nazi group known as the Atomwaffen Division and the white nationalist American Identity Group.

Others were disciplined but not kicked out of the force, it said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/pentagon-report-warns-threat-white-supremacists-inside-military-n1258871

I can keep going if you would like me to.

[Beastly Boy]

28. Uh, yes

you have used up your free lesson in English Composition.

And unfortunately, I am not in the business of repeating myself. You will have to look for my reply in your "My Posts" tab.

[Eko]

30. Look up the definition of an Organization.

And the difference if it claims immunity and how it doesn't transfer to the individual employees.

[Beastly Boy]

31. Another wild goose chase? No thanks.

Why don't you look it up, read it aloud to yourself, and then post it?

[Eko]

32. Do you not understand that if an organization has immunity

that does not mean the employees have immunity?

[Beastly Boy]

33. The UN, and the US Department of Justice disagree with you.

I understand the verbiage of the nonsense you keep repeating, but I must admit that I have no clue why you keep doing this to yourself.

[Eko]

34. No they dont.

FELRTCA confers such immunity by making the Federal Tort Claims Act the exclusive remedy for all common law torts committed by federal employees while acting within the scope of their office or employment. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1). However, the immunity conferred by FELRTCA does not extend or apply to suits against federal employees for violation of the Constitution or federal statutes.
https://www.justice.gov/jm/civil-resource-manual-33-immunity-government-officers-sued-individuals
The Government may have immunity but not the individuals if they are acting outside the scope of their duties.

[Beastly Boy]

35. Yes they do.

Do you not understand that the UN is not bound by any rules of the US Department of Justice, or any bills passed by the US Congress, or any codes of conduct in any office, department or other body of the US government?

Why do you even bother to cite them? Deflecting again?

[Eko]

37. To show you another example of immunity.

And how it works. You agreed with me.
(a) immunity from personal arrest or detention and from seizure of their personal
baggage, and, in respect of words spoken or written and all acts done by them in
their capacity as representatives, immunity from legal process of every kind;
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=19492391

[Beastly Boy]

42. And why would you think UNRWA employees are not their representatives

when they are on duty?

[Eko]

43. We have gone over this.

They are not immune from acts that are not part of their duty. Participation in the Oct 7th attack was not part of their duties. They were fired for that reason and no longer have the protection of the UN. Do you disagree with that?

[Beastly Boy]

46. Tell that to the UN.

Last edited Mon Sep 23, 2024, 09:23 AM - Edit history (1)

The UN, as their employer, extended immunity to them.

You can forward your grievances to them at 405 East 42nd Street, New York, NY.

As for me, I am fresh out of liquid to continue this pissing contest. I have more exciting things to do: I am going to watch my grass grow.

Keep on going!

[Eko]

47. To the fired people?

Your claim is ridiculous.

[Eko]

38. And my post was in response to this from you.

"The UN, and the US Department of Justice disagree with you."
I showed where the US Dept of Justice does not disagree with me in matters of immunity.

[Beastly Boy]

41. What do the UN and DOJ disagree with you on?

Is it 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1)???

C'mon, why do you have such trouble keeping your comments in context?

[Eko]

45. Where did I say that the UN and the DOJ disagree with me?

[Eko]

27. Interesting thing about the Jerusalem Post.

It's editor in chief is Zvika Klein. He wrote an editorial titled Editor’s Notes: It’s time for a right-wing vision for Israel. Now I'm not one to accuse an entire org of something because of the actions of some but it bears looking at to get a bigger picture of what may be going on.

[EllieBC]

36. Not surprising.

China and Russia sit on the UN Security Council. That bastion of freedom, Saudi Arabia, sits on the human rights council.

The UN has little credibility with bullshit like that. It’s not shocking they’d see immunity for their terrorist sympathizing and aiding UNRWA employees.

[Eko]

40. The UNRWA employees complicit in Oct. 7 massacre were fired.

They no longer work for the UN so don't enjoy protections given by them. Nowhere does the UN claim the fired employees have immunity either. The headline is a lie as well as the claims in this post that
:This is UNRWA openly acknowledging their complicity in massacres and hostage taking of Oct. 7, 2023.
:Think about it: This is the United Nations demanding protection for international war criminals.
Post should be deleted.

[Happy Hoosier]

52. Nope.

This is disgraceful. The UN should hold those who have compromised its mission accountable. If they do not, then they are complicit in their crime.

[sarisataka]

64. One less immunity needed

'Hamas leader' in Lebanon killed by Israel was UN employee, UNWRA confirms