I agree with you about the problems of an internal investigation. When it comes to political investigation I agree with you 100%. The army however is a different story. The army as a body has no arm in politics, and has no interest in covering up its mistakes rather than fixing them. The entire military is entirely based on improving on mistakes. And the people who are encharged with carrying out these investigations are all millitary people, none of whom have any future political career to worry about or any other motivations other than the improvement of their army.

There have been some huge mess-ups in how this war was run, on the part of the prime minister and minister of defense, niether of which, for the first time in Israeli history, have any military experience, which is crazy when you live in this climate. These mess ups need investigating and the lessons learned. The people are the first to demand it. (Don't forget its a civilian army). And who is responsible for setting up this investigating body? Our minister of defense. And who does he choose to head up this team? His personal advisor... yes, the same one advising him during the time of the war. Alot of the blame lies at his doorstep and he is basically protecting his ass. Anyway, the country is in an upraor about it and I guarantee you it won't fly and will be made to be done properly. There's no other choice.

I mention this to say that I definitely know what you are talking about and it is a very real problem. Happily our military isn't as vulnerable to that problem. If it were our, military's effectiveness would go down the toilette which is something we can't afford to have happen. As it is we've seen how, at least in my oppinion, innept politicians who are above the army can already reduce its effectiveness quite noticably. Faults in the army are checked by the army and believe me that an honest check. Faults in the government are not always the same, but I believe in this case that it will have to be, because basically the entire populashing is demanding that it be. As a matter of self preservation we want to get to he bottom of this war, since there is a feeling that for Hezbollah, Iran and Syria this may have just been a warm up round. Therefore, for us also.

and you base your loginc on what??

you need to understand that every accused has the wish to be found not-guilty. so if he were to conduct the investigation and trial himself he would probably be found not-guilty regardless of him being guilty or not. so a non-guilty verdict in such a case doesnt prove anything.

but if he found himself guilty, then you can only assume that he really was because no sane man/organization would confess to crimes they didnt commit (lets leave reasons like saving loved ones from persecutions and such 'exotic' reasons out of the picture).

My question is this:

Doesn't it seem intellectually dishonest to say "I don't trust their own investigation unless they find themselves guilty, in which case I will trust it."

You can't pass judgement about the integrity of the investigation based on the outcome... Approving only when the ruling is to your liking.

If that were so, then why have a legal system at all?

that is why we do have a legal system; to provide at least somewhat credible judgements by having an outside and (ideally) objective investigation.

That's fine, and I agree, but my point remains: You can't have it both ways, and you should thus not agree with ANY findings from an internal investigation... guilty or not.

Though, to be perfectly honest, I have to admire an organization that does investigate itself and find fault... Like the Internal Affairs division of a police force that says "We found these three police officers have violated our standards, policies, and laws, and we're going to fire them." Being able to admit your own shortcomings is something many people and organizations find difficult.

It is possible to break standards of an organization and NOT break the law at the same time. In such cases, there is no need for the legal system, as no law is broken.

Only 39 percent of the respondents backed the cabinet's decision to expand the ground operation. Another 26 percent favored continuing the fighting in its current form, but stepping up diplomatic efforts, while 28 percent advocated an immediate cease-fire and a diplomatic agreement.

While this is the first poll conducted by Haaretz since the fighting began, a comparison with polls by other organizations reveals a marked drop in support for the government. Olmert, for instance, enjoyed a 75 percent support rating early in the war, but the Haaretz poll found that only 48 percent currently approve his functioning, while 40 percent expressed dissatisfaction with it. Peretz, who enjoyed a 65 percent approval rating early in the war, won the approval of only 37 percent of respondents in the Haaretz poll, while 51 percent disapproved of his functioning. The figures for both men are now about the same as they were before the war began.

The percentage of people supporting a broad ground operation to push Hizbullah guerrillas beyond the range of short-range rockets fell to 64% from 73%, the poll said, indicating a growing - though still a minority - public desire for diplomatic initiatives.