| <<< Note 1446.1 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>
I guess the question is what constitutes "due process" and that is
based upon the law of the land.
When Israel declared it's independence in 1948, in order to keep a
continuity of law, they kept all of the previous Mandate and Ottoman
laws on the books. (Other than those limiting immigration). One of
the most draconian ones is the "Takanot LeSheat Cherum" Regulations for
time of Emergency.
They allow (among other things) for the military commander to put
somebody in detention without benefit of a court. For many years the
Knesset (Parliment) wanted to replace these regulations, but found that
it was easier to keep them in place than to garner the votes for a
"less draconian" set of regulations. At the time, since they were
(AFAIK) never used against Jews and were (AFAIK) used only to prevent
terrorist attacks against Israel, no one made too big an issue about
it.
In the last year or so, these regulations have been used (AFAIK) for
the first time against Jews. (Usually affiliated with the right wing).
Some contend that it is a political abuse of power by the government,
and a politization of the military. Some contend that there is a real
danger to life that is being prevented, and that the last few years
prove it plausible.
Not presuming to know all of the facts, it's hard to decide which. I
do know that at least in one case (Cytryn) the case went before the
Bagatz (High Judicial Court - Highest court of appeals) who had the
"classified security material" presented to them. As I recall, they
rejected the appeal.
Given that the Supreme court in Israel enjoys a wide acceptance in
the public and is viewed by many in the Executive & Legislative
branches to be a too powereful watchdog, it is doubtful that they
could be considered to be "playing along" with the government.
One could view this as having been brought before a court. If I remember
correctly, the law (that defines "due process") does not require even that
in the case of the Emergency Regulations.
BTW, Israel isn't the only Democracy around with similar Regulations.
Try the UK for example (Birthplace of the Magna Carta). They have
applied such regulations in Ireland. Or the "Official Secrets Act" in
Britan. Under the act you can classify anything, and I mean ANYTHING as
secret and non-publishable.
|
|
> At the time, since they were
> (AFAIK) never used against Jews and were (AFAIK) used only to prevent
> terrorist attacks against Israel, no one made too big an issue about
> it.
Administrative detentions have not been applied before to Israeli
citizens - neither Arabs nor Jews. Human rights groups have always
protested their use.
Notwithstanding the Israeli Supreme court decisions, it is the opinion
of many Israelis, that "administrative detentions" are being used today
by the government as part of their campaign to stifle the so-called
right wing opposition.
As mentioned in .2, the most outstanding case at the moment is that of
Shmuel Cytryn, who has been imprisoned since Dec. 4 1995. He has not
been charged with any crime and was not even brought before a court.
He has no criminal record in Israel nor in any other country. He is
being kept in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT at the Sharon prison.
Shmuel Cytryn is an American citizen and a father of 5 children. His
oldest daughter was severly burned on more than half of her body about
3 years ago and had been dependent on her father's assistance with
ongoing treatments and therapy. With his arrest 2 months ago, Shmuel's
income has stopped (he works as a video photographer) and his family is
now under financial stress. They are requesting one thing -- charge
Shmuel or free him!
A more recent example of "administrative detention" is that of Rabbi
Arye Friedman. He was arrested on Jan. 11th. Rabbi Friedman, a native
Israeli and IDF veteran, works as a Rabbinic advocate in the religious
court system. According to his wife, R.Freidman was never before
arrested, nor was he politically active. He too has not been charged
with any crime and no explanation for his arrest has been given. His
wife admits that he had been outspoken in his criticism of government
policies.
Another popular term in Israel these days is "administrative house
arrest". An interesting example is that of the 'Od Yosef Hai' yeshiva
in the city of Shchem (Nablus). Part of the Oslo agreement explicitely
provided that the yeshiva would remain open and continue to operate
even after Shchem is handed over to the Palestine Liberation
Organization (PLO). Indeed the agreement was firmly adhered to --
Arafat got Shchem and the yeshiva remained open. However... the entire
faculty and most of the student body were placed under "administrative
house arrest" and forbidden to enter the yeshiva !! It goes without
saying that none of the yeshiva's students or faculty have been charged
with any crime or brought to trial.
These are only examples, there are many more cases most of which are
not publicized. Officals explain these actions with phrases like
"security threat", "danger to the public safety", "provocators" etc.
When pressed for hard facts their standard retort is: "classified
security information". Russian immigrants find a familiar ring to these
phrases.
|
| > I'm sure I still have it, since I hardly ever throw books out.
When a credibility is at stake, it helps to be sure. However, I do not
throw out much either, and I found the following:
*********************************************************
Article 25311
Path:
shlump.nac.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!bloom-beacon!bloom-picayune.mit.
edu!athena.mit.edu!jik
From: [email protected] (Jonathan I. Kamens)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: blast from the past: the burning of Al-Aqsa
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 15 Feb 91 07:26:03 GMT
Sender: [email protected] (News system)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 91
Some of the readers of this newsgroup may remember the conversation
in late December of last year and January of this year concerning the
attack by an arsonist on Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Karen Kolling
claimed that the attack on the Mosque (which took place in late 1969,
I believe) was perpetrated by a Jewish arsonist. Several participants
in that newsgroup disagreed with that claim, instead asserting that in
reality the arsonist was an Australian Christian. Karen further
asserted that the arsonist was set free; others disagreed with that
claim, pointing out that they believed he was ruled mentally unfit to
stand trial and placed in treatment.
The people disagreeing with Ms. Kolling cited several rather
well-known sources, including Newsweek, Time Magazine, and The New
York Times. In response, Ms. Kolling cited two sources to back up her
claim -- Al Fajr, and a work called "The Farthest Mosque" by the
Islamic Association of America.
Ms. Kolling was pressed to provide more details about her
references. She never provided any specific dates or quotes from Al
Fajr (as far as I can recall), but after being pressed repeatedly for
more information about "The Farthest Mosque" (since several people
attempted to locate it and could not find it in large libraries under
its title or under the author given by Ms. Kolling), she finally gave
an address to which to write in order to obtain a copy of it. Still,
she provided no specific quotes or references.
Well, I wrote to the address Ms. Kolling gave, and I've received a
response (including a bill for $23 for the material, but that's
besides the point), which is why I'm posting this message now, even
though I don't currently read this newsgroup (and, therefore, I won't
see any responses to this message unless I get them in E-mail). I
would like to make some observations about what I received in the
mail.
1) The organization name given by Ms. Kolling was incorrect. The
correct name of the organization is the Islamic Association for
Palestine in North America. I don't know whether or not that
organization appears in the organization indices ("Islamic Association
of America" didn't), and I don't really have the time to check.
2) The correct title is "The Furthest Mosque," not "The Farthest
Mosque," as Ms. Kolling specified. I find myself wondering how Ms.
Kolling can quote with such assurance from this work, when she can't
even get the work's author or title correct.
3) You may have noticed that I haven't referred to the work in
question as a book. That's because it isn't, it's a video tape. I
got the impression from Ms. Kolling's postings that it was a book; I
don't know whether or not she intended to give that impression.
4) The organization which produced the tape, and the tape itself,
are very obviously religious in nature. There are quotes from the
Quran and other works, and praises of the various Muslim prophets,
scattered throughout the tape. I will not discuss in detail the
various biases and distortions I perceived in the historical account
on the tape, because they are not relevant to the particular question
of the arson attack, but I will say that I *did* perceive such biases
and distortions. In my opinion, this work is not an attempt at
accurate historical representation; it is propaganda.
5) In fact, the tape NEVER CLAIMS THAT THE ARSONIST WAS JEWISH. I
listened very carefully, twice, to the section discussing the attack.
Interestingly enough, it seems to me like the tape attempts to *imply*
that he was Jewish, without actually saying it. The tape mentions
that he was arrested on a Kibbutz. The tape claims that the Israeli
courts went easy on him. But the tape never mentions his religion.
Question: if he WERE Jewish, don't you think the tape would have made
a big deal out of it?
6) The tape also does not claim that he was released, but once
again, it attempts to imply it. It says that he was "treated in
Israel" and then returned to Australia. What it doesn't say, of
course, is whether he was sent back FREE to Australia, or whether he
returned there for more treatment. Once again, question: if he HAD
BEEN sent back a free man, don't you think the tape would have made a
big deal out of it.
In summary, I believe that Ms. Kolling misrepresented the content of
her source. I cannot say with 100% assurance whether she did it
intentionally, but given her previous track record, I suspect she did.
Ms. Kolling, I called your bluff. You didn't even have a pair of
deuces. So far, you have presented no real evidence that the arsonist
was Jewish; I paid $23 to prove that the evidence you did (vaguely)
present is no evidence at all. Try again.
Jonathan Kamens USnail:
MIT Project Athena 11 Ashford Terrace
[email protected] Allston, MA 02134
Office: 617-253-8085 Home: 617-782-0710
|