“I am what you might call a matchmaker,” Levy Izhak Rosenbaum told an undercover FBI informant in mid July, referring to his involvement in the first case of alleged criminal human organ trafficking in United States legal history.  Mr.  Rosenbaum’s dubious services were uncovered in tandem with a corruption investigation against several New Jersey mayors and Rabbis who currently stand accused of facilitating an international money laundering scheme.

In accordance with the rules of United States Criminal Procedure, Mr. Rosenbaum was charged with the evidence against him and will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  Represented by the attorney of his choosing, he will soon be given the opportunity to prove his innocence before the law and, if acquitted, clear his name.  Such are the provisions of the United States justice system, which have been designed to protect the rights of individuals accused of violating the law, chiefly among these being the right to a fair and speedy trial to determine guilt or complicity in the matter in question.

Consistent with the parameters governing America’s legal apparatus, the outcome of the case should be grounded squarely upon the facts, and be conspicuously divorced from extraneous considerations including, but not limited to, the defendant’s ethnic or racial standing, religious affiliation, and any biases of the citizenry against the defendant.  The laws governing criminal procedure ensure both the stability of the rule of law within the nation, as well as providing defendant’s who stand accused of criminal activity the chance to prove their innocence in a timely fashion.

It is interesting to note that the doctrine of due process does more than validate the power of state and federal governments to prosecute criminal offenders; perhaps more importantly, it is the very notion of due process that enables an individual defendant to clear his name in a court of record, effectively putting to rest groundless speculation or hearsay pertaining to an alleged wrongdoing.  For this reason, if a defendant believes himself to be innocent, it is almost always his best interest to seek a legal opinion on the matter in question rather than attempt to avoid a trial or investigation altogether.

Also interesting, but for different reasons, are the unforeseen implications of judicial procedure.  I call attention to a recent controversy involving an article published in the Swedish newspaper, Aftonbladet, accusing members of the Israeli Army of the illegal harvest and distribution of organs taken from slain Palestinians.  Israel has not surprisingly vehemently denied the claims outlined by the freelance journalist Donald Boström, as would be expected of any accused party with the intent to prove their innocence.  However, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has taken the issue one step further in accusing Mr. Boström of using his op-ed piece to propagate a “blood libel” against Jewish people.  Mr. Lieberman has also called upon the Swedish Foreign Ministry to condemn the article, which detailed alleged eyewitness accounts of the author as well as various Palestinians of wrongdoing perpetrated by Israeli soldiers throughout the 1990’s.

After the Swedish Foreign Ministry declined to censure Mr. Boström’s article, citing the importance of maintaining a free press in Sweden, Mr. Lieberman further criticized the actions of the Swedish authorities.  “The meaning of freedom of press is the freedom to publish the truth, not the freedom to lie and slander. A country which really wants to defend democratic values must strongly condemn false reports that reek of anti-Semitism like the one published this week by the Aftonbladet newspaper.”  In a statement to CNN, he likened Sweden’s failure to act to the country’s “stand during World War II, when [it] had failed to intervene as well.”  In an act of retaliation, Israel has denied press passes to members of the Swedish press.

Interested readers may consult a Google translation of Mr. Boström’s article, entitled “Our sons are being stripped of their organs,” (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/027269.php).  Important to the dispute is Mr. Boström’s statements to CNN that he has no proof of direct wrongdoing.  He maintains that his article was intended only to spark an investigation into malfeasance based upon eyewitness testimony from Palestinians.

Without a direct familiarity with the Swedish language, it is admittedly difficult for us to draw meaningful conclusions about the intent and content of the article in question, but working from basic principles dear to most Americans, I feel that the actions of Foreign Minister Lieberman are regrettable.  In the interest of fairness to all parties, I might compare them to the equally regrettable, if not dubious, policies of the Bush administration in obscuring raw facts from the public eye in a veil of emotionally and politically charged rhetoric.

Firstly, I doubt that Foreign Minister Lieberman can fairly vouch for the conduct of each individual member of the Israeli Armed forces.  Mr. Boström’s article does not call attention to an official policy sanctioning the wrongdoing, instead focusing on individual cases of violations by representatives of the armed forces.  With this in mind, a blanket denial from a high-ranking official strikes me as suspicious, and the refusal of press passes to the Swedish media seems contrary to the tenets of free expression that all democratic nations should seek to embrace.

More troubling to me are the latent allegations of malicious racism toward the author within the Israeli Foreign Minister’s statements.  By referring to Mr. Boström’s article as tantamount to “blood libel,” Mr. Lieberman is tapping a very deep well of Jewish resentment toward boundless allegations levied against their entire race, such as the Medieval stereotype that the blood of Christian infants was an important ingredient in the Passover Matzo.  While any statements grouping all Jews together under some malignant stereotype ought rightly to be suppressed, it is important to recognize the difference between such slanderous remarks (which are often largely discredited in the court of popular opinion), and a good faith effort to call attention to an isolated incident of serious criminal activity.

I honestly don’t know whether there is any truth to Mr. Boström’s article or not.  However, after having read the translation, I must disagree with Mr. Lieberman’s efforts to censure him.  In our modern environment, it is not unthinkable that a few bad apples could effectively disgrace the reputation of an entire nation by engaging in dubious practices.  It happened to the United States during the Abu Ghraib scandal in Iraq—which is in no way meant to suggest that we handled the situation adequately, as it was an absolute disgrace on almost every level—but no reasonable individual would be lead to believe that the actions of the culpable individuals reflected the beliefs and opinions of all Americans as to what constituted proper treatment of prisoners.  I bring up this parallel precisely because the Bush administration handled the scandal so poorly, effectually tarnishing America’s reputation for years to come.  I hope that Israel does not make a similar mistake.

The Israeli government has a responsibility to investigate any specific allegations of wrongdoing with which they are presented.  If there is wrongdoing being perpetrated within the ranks of their armed forces, the proper authorities should make a good faith effort to correct it.  Failure to do so is tantamount to complicity (re: Donald Rumsfeld).  If it turns out that nothing unseemly has occurred, the results of the investigation will speak for themselves and the allegations can be safely dismissed.  Punitive restrictions on the Swedish media and petty name-calling are not the foundation of sound policy.