In article <1993Apr20.213819.664@vms.huji.ac.il> backon@vms.huji.ac.il writes: > > In article <1483500349@igc.apc.org>, cpr@igc.apc.org (Center for Policy Research) writes: > > > > 4.      Is it true that in Israeli prisons there are a number of > > individuals which were tried in secret and for which their > > identities, the date of their trial and their imprisonment are > > state secrets ? > > > Apart from Mordechai Vanunu who had a trial behind closed doors, there > was one other espionage case (the nutty professor at the Nes Ziona > Biological Institute who was a K.G.B. mole) who was tried "in camera". > I wouldn't exactly call it a state secret. The trial was simply tried > behind closed doors. I hate to disappoint you but the United States > has tried a number of espionage cases in camera.  At issue was not a trial behind closed doors, but arrest, trial and imprisonment in complete secrecy.  This was appraently attempted in the case of Vanunu and failed.  It has happened before, and there is reason to believe it still goes on.  Read this:  From Ma'ariv, February 18 (possibly 28), 1992  PUBLICATION BAN          The State of Israel has never officially admitted that for many         years there have been in its prisons Israeli citizens who were         sentenced to long prison terms without either the fact of         their arrest or the crimes of which they were accused ever         being made public.  By Baruch Me'iri  All those involved in this matter politely refused my request, one way or another: "Look, the subject is too delicate.  If I comment on it, I will be implicitly admitting that it is true; If I mention a specific case, even hint at it, I might be guilty of making public something which may legally not be published".  The State of Israel has never officially admitted that for many years there have been in its prisons Israeli citizens who were sentenced to long prison terms without either the fact of their arrest or the crimes of which they were accused ever being made public. More precisely: A court ordered publication ban was placed on the fact of their arrest, and later on their imprisonment.  In Israel of 1993, citizens are imprisoned without us, the citizens of this country, knowing anything about it.  Not knowing anything about the fact that one person or another were tried and thrown in prison, for security offenses, in complete secrecy.  In the distant past -- for example during the days of the [Lavon - YA] affair -- we heard about "the third man" being in prison.  But many years have passed since then, and what existed then can today no longer be found even in South American countries, or in the former Communist countries.  But it appears that this is still possible in Israel of 1993.  The Chair of the Knesset Committee on Law, the Constitution and Justice, MK David Zucker, sent a letter on this subject early this week to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and the Cabinet Legal Advisor.  Ma'ariv has obtained the content of the letter:  "During the past several years a number of Israeli citizens have been imprisoned for various periods for security offenses.  In some of these cases a legal publication ban was imposed not only on the specifics of the crimes for which the prisoners were convicted, but even on the mere fact of their imprisonment.  In those cases, after being legally convicted, the prisoners spend their term in prison without public awareness either of the imprisonment or of the prisoner", asserts MK Zucker.  On the other hand Zucker agrees in his letter that, "There is absolutely no question that it is possible, and in some cases it is imperative, that a publication ban be imposed on the specifics of security offenses and the course of trials.  But even in such cases the Court must weigh carefully and deliberately the circumstances under which a trial will not be held in public.  "However, one must ask whether the imposition of a publication ban on the mere fact of a person's arrest, and on the name of a person sentenced to prison, is justified and appropriate in the State of Israel.  The principle of public trial and the right of the public to know are not consistent with the disappearance of a person from public sight and his descent into the abyss of prison."  Zucker thus decided to turn to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Cabinet Legal Advisor and request that they consider the question.  "The State of Israel is strong enough to withstand the cost incurred by abiding by the principle of public punishment.  The State of Israel cannot be allowed to have prisoners whose detention and its cause is kept secret", wrote Zucker.  The legal counsel of the Civil Rights Union, Attorney Mordechai Shiffman said that, "We, as the Civil Rights Union, do not know of any cases of security prisoners, Citizens of Israel, who are imprisoned, and whose imprisonment cannot be made public.  This is a situation which, if it actually exists, is definitely unhealthy.  Just like censorship is an unhealthy matter".  "The Union is aware", says Shiffman, "of cases where notification of a suspect's arrest to family members and lawyers is withheld.  I am speaking only of several days.  I know also of cases where a detainee was not allowed to meet with an attorney -- sometimes for the whole first month of arrest.  That is done because of the great secrecy.  "The suspect himself, his family, his lawyer -- or even a journalist -- can challenge the publication ban in court.  But there are cases where the family members themselves are not interested in publicity.  The journalist knows nothing of the arrest, and so almost everyone is happy..."  Attorney Yossi Arnon, an official of the Bar, claims that given the laws as they exist in Israel today, a situation where the arrest of a person for security offenses is kept secret is definitely possible.  "Nothing is easier.  The court orders a publication ban, and that's that.  Someone who has committed security offenses can spend long years in prison without us knowing anything about it."  -- Do you find this situation acceptable?  Attorney Arnon: "Definitely not.  We live in a democratic country, and such a state of affairs is impermissible.  I am well aware that publication can be damaging -- from the standpoint of security -- but total non-publication, silence, is unacceptable. Consider the trial of Mordechai Vanunu: at least in his case we know that he was charged with aggravated espionage and sentenced to 18 years in prison.  The trial was held behind closed doors, nobody knew the details except for those who were authorized to.  It is somehow possible to understand, though not to accept, the reasons, but, as I have noted, we at least are aware of his imprisonment."  -- Why is the matter actually that serious?  Can't we trust the discretion of the court?  Attorney Arnon: "The judges have no choice but to trust the presentations made to them. The judges do not have the tools to investigate.  This gives the government enormous power, power which they can misuse."  -- And what if there really is a security issue?  Attorney Arnon: "I am a man of the legal system, not a security expert.  Democracy stands in opposition to security.  I believe it is possible to publicize the matter of the arrest and the charges -- without entering into detail.  We have already seen how the laws concerning publication bans can be misused, in the case of the Rachel Heller murder.  A suspect in the murder was held for many months without the matter being made public."  Attorney Shiffman, on the other hand, believes that state security can be a legitimate reason for prohibiting publication of a suspect's arrest, or of a convicted criminal's imprisonment.  "A healthy situation?  Definitely not.  But I am aware of the fact that mere publication may be harmful to state security".  A different opinion is expressed by attorney Uri Shtendal, former advisor for Arab affairs to Prime Ministers Levi Eshkol and Golda Meir.  "Clearly, we are speaking of isolated special cases.  Such situations contrast with the principle that a judicial proceeding must be held in public. No doubt this contradicts the principle of freedom of expression.  Definitely also to the principle of individual freedom which is also harmed by the prohibition of publication.  "Nevertheless", adds Shtendal, "the legislator allowed for the possibility of such a ban, to accommodate special cases where the damage possible as a consequence of publication is greater than that which may follow from an abridgment of the principles I've mentioned. The authority to decide such matters of publication does not rest with the Prime Minister or the security services, but with the court, which we may rest assured will authorize a publication ban only if it has been convinced of its need beyond a shadow of a doubt."  Nevertheless, attorney Shtendal agrees: "As a rule, clearly such a phenomenon is undesirable. Such an extreme step must be taken only in the most extreme circumstances."