To tell the truth, I am not that well informed in the ways of spying.
Some maintain that if the police are prevented from using wire tapping, crime will increase. Criminals will not be caught and more people will suffer because criminals will be hard to pin down.
Others suggest creating an investigating committee which will have to allow the police to use wire tapping techniques. such as Pegasus. But each act of wire tapping will have to be judicially certified in advance. In the past, the police rejoiced over the sophisticated program and invaded the privacy of totally innocent citizens without even receiving such a prior authorization.
Either way, the government has decided to establish an inquiring committee to investigate all the different arguments voiced against the police, contrary to the position of the government's judicial advisor Bahara-Miara. Such conduct of the advisor is part of the government's daily agenda. There is no single act made by the government which will not encounter an almost automatic disagreement of said 'distinguished' person.
The offered explanation for her disagreement is that there are many open cases being dealt with by the court in which many of them, the evidence was acquired through invalid methods. She thinks it is inconceivable that the inquiring committee deal with these as well.
The police claim that in these days of heightened crime and the fight against it, denying it the means of wiretapping and such technological methods will greatly affect police efficiency.
The weirdest argument of all is one which comes to disqualify the one who is supposed to be heading the future committee, former vice-president of the district court, Moshe Drori, a prominent judicial expert. He is amongst those who, as a jurist, in the eyes of the High Court, cannot fall under any suspicion of personal bias.
So what did they find irregular with him? According to the one representing the prosecution, Judge Drori expressed himself in the past as pro the judicial reform and even attacked the prosecution regarding its handling of the case against Netanyahu. This is why his objectivity cannot be relied upon for one heading such a committee.
The prosecution representatives seemed to have forgotten that amongst the body of judges soon to sit on the subject on a fundamental clause whereby the Knesset will curtail the clout of the usage of the criterion of "Reasonableness," will be Judge Chayut, who loudly attacked the judicial reform from many a public platform even including a minor change in the Reasonableness Clause.
Thus, she and her declared position stated in advance, will not be invalidated in sitting on such a committee, while Drori is prevented from enjoying the same privilege because he belongs to the opposing camp and maintains a differing stand.
