re ten questions about israel in article apr vms huji ac il backon vms huji ac il writes in article igc apc org cpr igc apc org center for policy research writes 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 possibly 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it is true if i mention a specific case even hint at it i might be guilty of making public something which may legally not be published the state of israel has never officially admitted that for many years there have been in its prisons israeli citizens who were sentenced to long prison terms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 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 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 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 yigal arens usc isi tv made me do it arens isi edu
