Prosecutor: Israel's Law Of Return Makes Jews A Flight Risk

$10 million dollars is what happens in Russia, Putin- not what should happen in the United States.

Rabbi Menachem Genack on the fine levied against Rubashkins by the State of Iowa (unofficial transcript)

Apparently Rubashkin is only beginning to feel the wrath of the government:

In a legal argument called “astounding and very troublesome,” a federal prosecutor has argued that Israel’s Law of Return makes American Jews a flight risk and therefore ineligible for bail.

The claim, believed to be unprecedented, came in the bank fraud case of Sholom Rubashkin, the former Jewish head of the embattled Iowa kosher slaughterhouse, Agriprocessors, Inc.

And the federal judge in the case, Magistrate Jon Stuart Scoles, cited the Law of Return in his Nov. 20 decision denying Rubashkin bail.

“Under Israel’s Law of Return, any Jew and members of his family who have expressed their desire to settle in Israel will be granted citizenship,” the judge wrote, adding that the government had claimed that at least one other Agriprocessors’
defendant had already fled to Israel.

Rubashkin’s lawyers wrote in their appeal filed last Friday: “It is ironic that a law designed to provide refuge to persecuted Jews has now become the basis for detaining a Jew who might otherwise have been released pending trial.”

Rubashkin's lawyers have pointed out that the US has an extradition treaty with Israel:

This treaty will ensure that Rubashkin — even if he were to become a citizen of Israel under the Law of Return — will be returned to the United States, tried in the United States and if convicted, that he will serve any sentence in the United States. Were he to flee to Israel, he would be detained pending extradition. Because of this treaty, the Law of Return is irrelevant.”

Furthermore, on the Government's contention itself, Rabashkin's lawyers note that their research:

has not uncovered a single instance involving a Jewish criminal defendant where the prosecution invoked the Law of Return in support of detention.

In response, U.S. Attorney Matt M. Dummermuth claims that even with an extradition treaty the process "could take years."

Meanwhile, Marc Stern, acting co-executive director of the American Jewish Congress, has raised the question as to whether the argument being offered is even permissible and Rubashkin's lawyers address that issue as well:

In addition, the defense lawyers said that by denying Rubashkin bail, the court was denying him the constitutional right to equal protection.

“Jews are a protected class for Equal Protection purposes,” they wrote. “Thus, singling Jews out in any way when determining bail is unconstitutional...

“The government has failed to demonstrate a compelling government interest in a rule that implicates all Jews, and has failed to demonstrate that its interest here cannot be met with a more narrowly tailored approach. ... The government introduced no evidence that Jews are more likely to flee because of the Law of Return than non-Jews.”

The defense lawyers concluded that “rather than locking Jews up with greater frequency, the United States could rely on a general array of bail conditions, and then utilize the valid, streamlined, regularly-invoked extradition treaty with Israel in those few cases where the defendant actually flees. Certainly it is better to have the government on rare occasions be forced to resort to this streamlined extradition than to brand over 5 million Americans a bail risks. ... Otherwise, the government slurs Americans because of a law passed by a foreign country over which these Americans have no control and which they may have no desire to invoke.”

This follows on the heels of the Government's case against 2 AIPAC employees--a case that just gets weirder and weirder.

Too bad the government was not this efficient following 9/11 when Arabs fled to their homes where there is no such extradition treaty.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Agriprocessors and Rubashkins.