From UN Watch: Brandeis debate: Did Goldstone admit UN colleague Chinkin was biased?
And so the question for Goldstone is this: Was your fact-finding mission subject to the legal standards applicable to international fact-finding missions? If so, given that impartiality is Rule #1 under those standards, and given that you concede that “[the] letter she’d signed would have been a ground for disqualification” in a judicial context, what is it about your own inquiry that made her impartiality deficit somehow acceptable?
Goldstone has consistently evaded any accountability under the law applicable to international fact-finding missions, by repeatedly declaring that his panel was “not judicial.” But this is a red herring. The simple truth is that his fact-finding mission was legally subject to a well-established set of standards, but, sadly, these were simply ignored.
Comments on this entry are closed.