Ex-Police Commander's Testimony Raises Questions in Netanyahu Trial
Retired Police Superintendent Eran Kamin's testimony in the trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has sparked significant legal and intelligence-related questions. Kamin testified that he initiated a meeting with journalist Ben Caspit in November 2015 to gather information concerning the Netanyahu family, stating, "I didn't want my intelligence officers to know we were in contact." This action, according to the article, deviates from standard police procedures and raises concerns about the proper collection of intelligence.
Kamin's testimony suggests he bypassed official intelligence gathering protocols, which require specific training and authorization for officers involved in collecting information and handling informants. Police regulations, such as Order Mata'r 14.04.02, stipulate that only designated and trained intelligence officers can proactively gather information and manage human sources. The article emphasizes that even senior commanders cannot act as intelligence operatives or source handlers without involving authorized personnel and adhering to strict guidelines.
A critical legal question arises from Kamin's admission that he did not seek approval from the Attorney General before initiating this information-gathering process concerning the Prime Minister. Kamin stated that such approval was not necessary at the "investigation" stage, believing it only applied when the subject is formally considered a suspect. However, the article argues that this intelligence gathering, which involved meeting a journalist and reviewing information, constituted a proactive step that should have required Attorney General consent, especially given the involvement of the Prime Minister.
The article details a timeline where Kamin met Caspit in November 2015, and formal investigative actions regarding other matters arising from this information were only approved by the Attorney General in June 2016, according to testimony from Momi Meshulam. This sequence highlights potential violations, including intelligence gathering without authorized personnel, meeting with a journalist for intelligence purposes, circumventing intelligence officers, and initiating a process concerning the Prime Minister without the necessary legal approval.
The author, a retired police officer, stresses that intelligence gathering is an integral part of an investigation and not a separate domain exempt from legal rules. The article concludes by posing several key questions: who collected the information, who was authorized to collect and handle sources, who approved the operation, and under what authority was information about the Prime Minister gathered, emphasizing that rank does not equate to authorization and that initial "checks" are not a loophole to bypass intelligence and legal protocols.
