Last update - 00:00 06/03/2007
Comptroller: 'Incisive' Lebanon war inquiry could anger many
By Haaretz Service
State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss Tuesday put public officials on notice that his investigation into the handling of the home front during the summer Lebanon war will be "very incisive, and is liable to anger many people."
Testifying before the Knesset State Control Committee, Lindenstrauss also took Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to task for failing to respond to a series of questions over the government's performance in meeting the needs of the wartime home front.
The panel had originally summoned the comptroller to present interim findings of his investigation into the performance of the government and the military.
According to Lindenstrauss, Olmert declined to testify in person, asking instead for a series of written questions, which the comptroller sent him. Every other cabinet minister, IDF officer, and senior government official who was invited to testify, testified fully and on time, he added.
Figuratively addressing the prime minister, Lindenstrauss said "You're 'inside' the subject, you are acquainted with the subject, you've read it, you prepared yourself for the Winograd Committee, and you could have also replied to the questionnaire.
"I regret to tell you, members of the Knesset, that to this day, as I appear before you, we have yet to receive the answers to the questionnaire that we expected. During that same period, the prime minister appeared before the Winograd Committee, and I do not see any excuse or reason why the material for the questionnaire that should be sent to the Comptroller should be delayed."
Showdown defused
Earlier in the day, in the midst of an unprecendented legal wrangle, Lindenstrauss, bowing to the view of Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, promised to refrain from presenting preliminary findings from his investigation in his testimony before the Knesset committee.
The step defused a possible showdown in the High Court, which was to have ruled on a petition, submitted by the IDF, to bar Lindenstrauss from releasing the findings to the committee.
Earlier, Mazuz, who opposed Lindenstrauss' original intention to present the findings, declined to represent the comptroller in the High Court.
Had the court ruled on the petition, and rejected it, the IDF Home Front command was expected to tell the panel later that there were numerous errors in Lindenstrauss's findings.
Issues to be covered in Comptroller probe
Lindenstrauss told the committee that his probe would examine the following issues:
Mazuz: Knesset panel made decision without authority
The State Prosecutor's Office had advised the High Court in a separate statement that the State Control Committee cannot follow its original agenda and discuss the report's interim conclusions.
According to the state, the Knesset panel may only discuss the comptroller's investigatory work, and refrain from any mention of the findings relating to the subjects of the inquiry.
The statement said "the panel's request of the comptroller to deliver the main points of the interim report is a decision made without authority, since the section of the law on which the panel's request is based, pertains to the comptroller's work and not to reports or findings pertaining to the subjects of the inquest."
"It is irrelevant whether these are interim or complete findings, or if the findings relate to the unit as a whole or whether they relate to specific individuals," it said also.
"Hence," the statement concludes, "the panel is barred from discussing the interim findings at this point in time, and the comptroller is barred from acquiescing to the panel's request and deliver the findings' main points."
Confrontation averted
Had Mazuz represented the comptroller, this would have set the stage for an unusual legal confrontation: the attorney general would have faced Knesset legal adviser Nurit Elstein in presenting opposing views to the High Court, with Elstein, who is supposed to defend the Knesset's interests, challenging the State Control Committee's planned meeting and Mazuz defending it.
Elstein has recommended that the committee restrict the Knesset panel session to a report on the progress of the comptroller's investigation rather than a report on his findings.
Elstein, who would technically represent the committee at any court hearing, planned to argue that Lindenstrauss has no authority to report his findings to the committee, and the committee has no right to hear them, as long as the people and agencies criticized in the report have not yet had a chance to respond. All the comptroller can do, she intended to argue, is explain what he has been doing to further the investigation.
Sharp deviation from the IDF's conduct
The petition, signed by head of the Home Front Command Yitzhak Gershon and the IDF's chief defense attorney, Orna David, deviated sharply from the manner in which the IDF normally conducts its relationships with other government agencies. However, the sources charged, it was Lindenstrauss who violated these unwritten rules by deciding to give the State Control Committee an advance summary of his findings.
According to IDF sources, the army received only a single copy of the comptroller's full report Monday and is currently busy photocopying and distributing it to the relevant officers. As a result, the Home Front Comand has not yet formulated its response to the report, but it intends to argue that all of Gershon's decisions regarding home front defense during the war were approved by his superiors in the army and the Defense Ministry.