R
Ramabriga
Guest
Oct 29, 2007
Inside Israel's Military Courts
The First Nation to Legalize Torture
By LISA HAJJAR
Should the United States, seeking to recalibrate the balance between
security and liberty in the "war on terror," emulate Israel in its
treatment of Palestinian detainees?
That is the position that Guantanamo detainee lawyers Avi Stadler and
John Chandler of Atlanta, and some others, have advocated. That people
in U.S. custody could be held incommunicado for years without charges,
and could be prosecuted or indefinitely detained on the basis of
confessions extracted with torture is worse than a national disgrace.
It is an assault on the foundations of the rule of law.
But Israel's model for dealing with terrorism, while quite different
from that of the U.S., is at least as shameful.
Long before the first suicide bombing by Palestinians in 1994, Israel
had resorted to extrajudicial killings, home demolitions, deportations,
curfews and other forms of collective punishment barred by
international law.
Imprisonment has been one of the key strategies of Israeli control of
the Palestinian population, and since 1967 more than half a million
Palestinians were prosecuted through military courts that fall far
short of international standards of due process.
Most convictions are based on coerced confessions, and for decades
Israeli interrogation tactics have entailed the use of torture and
ill-treatment. Tens of thousands more Palestinians were never
prosecuted, but were instead held in administrative detention for
months or years.
Israel had the ignominious distinction of being the first state to
publicly and officially "legalize" torture. Adopting the recommendation
of an Israeli commission of inquiry, in 1987 the government endorsed
the euphemistically termed "moderate physical pressure," and tens of
thousands of Palestinians suffered the consequences.
In 1999 the Israeli High Court prohibited the routine use of "moderate
physical pressure." But the ruling left open a window for torture under
"exceptional circumstances."
These tactics, many of which have been used by American interrogators
against foreign prisoners, include painful shackling, stress position
abuse, protracted sleep deprivation, temperature and sound
manipulation, and various forms of degrading and humiliating treatment.
In an interview with three Israeli interrogators published in the Tel
Aviv newspaper Ma'ariv in July 2004, one said the General Security
Service "uses every manipulation possible, up to shaking and beating."
About 10,000 Palestinians are imprisoned inside Israel and more than
800 are administratively detained. Their families in the West Bank and
Gaza Strip are barred entry to Israel, so Palestinian detainees are, in
that sense, as isolated as prisoners in Guantanamo. Just last week, the
Israeli Supreme Court had to order one of the most notorious detention
facilities to allow prisoners 24-hour access to toilets.
The Israeli military court system compares to the U.S. military
tribunal system established for Guantanamo in ways that U.S. lawyers
like Stadler and Chandler deplore.
In addition to the reliance on coercive interrogation to produce
confessions and to justify continued detention, prisoners in Israeli
custody can be held incommunicado for protracted periods, and lawyers
face onerous obstacles in meeting with their clients.
While it is true that detainees are brought before an Israeli military
judge at some point, this process is hardly impartial. Such hearings
tend to be used to extend detention and often take place in
interrogation facilities, not courts. Detainees are rarely represented
by lawyers or apprised of their rights, including a right to complain
about abuse or to assert innocence. Failure to assert innocence at this
hearing can be used as evidence of guilt.
Any information, including hearsay and tortured accounts from other
prisoners, can be used to convict or administratively detain
Palestinians.
If we learn anything, then, from the Israeli experience, perhaps it
should be that torture and arbitrary or indefinite detention exacerbate
a conflict and endanger civilians.
Americans should be proud of the noble work that Guantanamo lawyers are
doing to press for a restored commitment to the rule of law by the U.S.
government. If these lawyers wish to identify an apt model from Israel,
it is not the government or the military court system.
Rather it is the Israeli and Palestinian human rights communities who
have been working for decades to establish respect for human rights and
the rule of law.
[Lisa Hajjar is associate professor and chair of the Law and Society
Program at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and author of
"Courting Conflict: The Israeli Military Court System in the West Bank
and Gaza" (University of California Press, 2005).]
http://www.counterpunch.org/hajjar10292007.html
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Inside Israel's Military Courts
The First Nation to Legalize Torture
By LISA HAJJAR
Should the United States, seeking to recalibrate the balance between
security and liberty in the "war on terror," emulate Israel in its
treatment of Palestinian detainees?
That is the position that Guantanamo detainee lawyers Avi Stadler and
John Chandler of Atlanta, and some others, have advocated. That people
in U.S. custody could be held incommunicado for years without charges,
and could be prosecuted or indefinitely detained on the basis of
confessions extracted with torture is worse than a national disgrace.
It is an assault on the foundations of the rule of law.
But Israel's model for dealing with terrorism, while quite different
from that of the U.S., is at least as shameful.
Long before the first suicide bombing by Palestinians in 1994, Israel
had resorted to extrajudicial killings, home demolitions, deportations,
curfews and other forms of collective punishment barred by
international law.
Imprisonment has been one of the key strategies of Israeli control of
the Palestinian population, and since 1967 more than half a million
Palestinians were prosecuted through military courts that fall far
short of international standards of due process.
Most convictions are based on coerced confessions, and for decades
Israeli interrogation tactics have entailed the use of torture and
ill-treatment. Tens of thousands more Palestinians were never
prosecuted, but were instead held in administrative detention for
months or years.
Israel had the ignominious distinction of being the first state to
publicly and officially "legalize" torture. Adopting the recommendation
of an Israeli commission of inquiry, in 1987 the government endorsed
the euphemistically termed "moderate physical pressure," and tens of
thousands of Palestinians suffered the consequences.
In 1999 the Israeli High Court prohibited the routine use of "moderate
physical pressure." But the ruling left open a window for torture under
"exceptional circumstances."
These tactics, many of which have been used by American interrogators
against foreign prisoners, include painful shackling, stress position
abuse, protracted sleep deprivation, temperature and sound
manipulation, and various forms of degrading and humiliating treatment.
In an interview with three Israeli interrogators published in the Tel
Aviv newspaper Ma'ariv in July 2004, one said the General Security
Service "uses every manipulation possible, up to shaking and beating."
About 10,000 Palestinians are imprisoned inside Israel and more than
800 are administratively detained. Their families in the West Bank and
Gaza Strip are barred entry to Israel, so Palestinian detainees are, in
that sense, as isolated as prisoners in Guantanamo. Just last week, the
Israeli Supreme Court had to order one of the most notorious detention
facilities to allow prisoners 24-hour access to toilets.
The Israeli military court system compares to the U.S. military
tribunal system established for Guantanamo in ways that U.S. lawyers
like Stadler and Chandler deplore.
In addition to the reliance on coercive interrogation to produce
confessions and to justify continued detention, prisoners in Israeli
custody can be held incommunicado for protracted periods, and lawyers
face onerous obstacles in meeting with their clients.
While it is true that detainees are brought before an Israeli military
judge at some point, this process is hardly impartial. Such hearings
tend to be used to extend detention and often take place in
interrogation facilities, not courts. Detainees are rarely represented
by lawyers or apprised of their rights, including a right to complain
about abuse or to assert innocence. Failure to assert innocence at this
hearing can be used as evidence of guilt.
Any information, including hearsay and tortured accounts from other
prisoners, can be used to convict or administratively detain
Palestinians.
If we learn anything, then, from the Israeli experience, perhaps it
should be that torture and arbitrary or indefinite detention exacerbate
a conflict and endanger civilians.
Americans should be proud of the noble work that Guantanamo lawyers are
doing to press for a restored commitment to the rule of law by the U.S.
government. If these lawyers wish to identify an apt model from Israel,
it is not the government or the military court system.
Rather it is the Israeli and Palestinian human rights communities who
have been working for decades to establish respect for human rights and
the rule of law.
[Lisa Hajjar is associate professor and chair of the Law and Society
Program at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and author of
"Courting Conflict: The Israeli Military Court System in the West Bank
and Gaza" (University of California Press, 2005).]
http://www.counterpunch.org/hajjar10292007.html
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
