Danger to Regional Security

Translation: Diana Rubanenko

Russian Compound 

Judge:  Col. Dahan

Police investigator: Moshe Levy

Defence Attorney: Attorney Maamoun Hashim

 There are three cases in the docket.

Wassim Nadal Suleiman Asaid – ID 850474669,resident of Hebron 

The police seek a remand extension of 12 days. The suspect was arrested on 9.11.11. This is his second remand extension. 

The charges: activity against regional security, membership in a hostile organization, conspiring to commit a crime. 

In his opening statement, the police investigator recites familiar sentences …it transpires from the investigation material that the interrogation of the suspect is at its peak… 

Defence Attorney Hashim does not take this sentence as a given, and in the three charges in which he represents the detainee, he asks stringent questions, and persistently asks the police investigator, who consistently gives the same answer: “I refer you to the confidential report; sum up, Maamoun, you’ve already asked that question...”. 

Justice Dahan attempted to add information that didn’t really add anything. 

As a result of what he learned from the discussion between the parties, Justice Dahan requested that it be noted in the minutes that he requests the various relevant factors to allow the detainee to meet his attorney before his remand is extended - so that the attorney can learn more about the state of the investigation of the detainee whom he represents, 

The meeting will be held before the remand extension hearings. It will contribute to the deliberations over the extension, and will be beneficial in the sense that the attorney will ask the investigator fewer questions and can get relevant information from the detainee. 

The investigator explained that this is problematic, if the detainee is under interrogation at the same time, or if he is barred from meeting an attorney, or … 

Another subject that recurred throughout all the deliberations was that the defence attorney wanted to know “How many” interrogation activities are still needed. 

The investigator explained that he was poor in mathematics, and didn’t study statistics at university. He doesn’t like quantifying, because it’s incorrect.

The judge read the file, and on the basis of the grave suspicions he saw there, ordered another 8 days of investigations.

Ahmed Khadr al – Fattah Abu Maria, from Beit Ummar, ID988047163

Arrested on 19.10.11. 

Charges: Activity against regional security, membership in a hostile organization (Hamas).

The police requests another 11 days for the investigation. 

The first two cases are related: Abu Maria passed an explosive belt to Wassim. Both of them denied the charge. 

Decisive questions were answered by… “I refer you to the confidential file”. 

The defence attorney persisted:  how come this is the fourth remand extension, yet still no progress has been made! 

The Judge's decision: another 8 days. 

Iham Said Abed al Jalil Jarba’a – resident of Bitin, near Nablus  

ID 852344373

The investigator requested another 18 days. 

The suspect was arrested on 21.11.11. 

Charges: Activity against regional security, membership in a hostile organization 

This is his first remand extension but it is the second arrest for an offence for which he was already tried and released less than a year ago, due to lack of evidence. 

Now he is being investigated again. He is a student of business administration at the university of Bir Zeit. 

The detainee said that he had undergone interrogations for many hours consecutively, and that he was not allowed enough sleep. 

The judge extended his remand by another 15 days and noted in the minutes that the detainee should receive the appropriate hours of rest.

Translation: Marganit W.

Russian  Compound

Judge: Shmuel Fleischmann

Police Investigator: Bashir Amar

Defense: Leah Tzemel, Maamoun Hashim, Iyad Misk

There are 3 cases in the docket. All the detainees are barred from meeting with an attorney.

We were given to understand that the three cases were based on mutual incriminations.

Faras Nasser Subati Bargouti – ID No. 90401061, represented by Atty. Maamoun Hashim.

Raed Samir Habib Halabi, ID No. 039528419, represented by Atty. Iyad Misak

Nasser Adin Subati Isa Abu Hadir – ID No. 080010424, represented by Atty. Leah Tzemel.

We attended part of the discussion between Abu Hadir’s attorney and the police investigator.

The investigator requested remand extension for 15 days to complete the investigation.

Atty. Leah Tzemel explained the status and the position of the detainee: he was arrested on 15.4.11 and was kept in detention for about a month. On 13.5.11 his status was changed to administrative detention. Right before his release from administrative detention he was taken to the Russian Compound for interrogation under pretext of a security violation – membership in the Popular Front [for the Liberation of Palestine] and activity against the security of the state.

The defense wanted to know if the interrogator is familiar with the case and knows why the defendant is in detention. She received the standard answer: “It is all included in the secret file”. Unsatisfied with this reply Atty. Tzemel pressed the interrogator to say “Yes or No or I cannot answer”.

Leah Tzemel: You agree that not everything in the secret file is secret. It is no secret why he was interrogated. I represented him. I intend to show that the investigator was not truthful… I wish to expose the clause….

The investigator continued to refer to the “secret file”. The defense appealed to the judge: the investigator is under cross-examination and is obliged to answer, unless he can prove that his answer will damage the investigation. The judge, however, thought otherwise: he sided with the investigator, adding to the protocol phrases that, according to the defense, were not said by the investigator.

Atty. Tzemel tried to show that the police investigator is not familiar with the defendant’s previous investigation. For example, he does not know that the suspect was tested by polygraph and was found to be telling the truth when he said that he did not participate in military activity with others.

Another aspect that came up in the cross-examination was the interrogators’ authority: what authority does a police interrogator from Judea-Samaria have over a Jerusalem resident who lives in Jerusalem?

The answer is: there is an arrest order, which provides legal authorization for an interrogation of a suspect when the violations are believed to have been committed in Jerusalem.

At one point the judge asked the investigator to elaborate, but to no avail.

Atty. Tzemel stated that the GSS has no basis for the charges, so the case is trumped up.

She asked the investigator if it is possible that the case is made up. A shocked investigator immediately responded: The GSS is a principled and conscientious organization: it does not engage in such behavior.

In summation, the defense reiterated its doubt about AUTHORITY, which is a basic question in this case. She claimed that a military court has no authority to detain and interrogate her client based on rules that apply to residents of the Territories. Even the GSS legal counsel cannot claim otherwise.

Another fault she found in the case: Since the GSS realizes that remand extension is hard to obtain, it based its charges on incriminations tied to other violations, and it is not clear if any of the incriminators was set on…

Leah Tzemel moved to declare that the court has no authority in this case. If this is denied, she requests a limited number of hours or days for the investigation.

Judge’s decision: Having heard the suspect and the defense, and having examined the evidence in the file, he accepts the investigator’s request of 15 days remand extension.

Translation: Marganit W.

Ofer Military Court is in recess due to the Feast of Sacrifice; the only hearing was the case of Abdullah Muhammad Abu Rahmah from Bil'in -

- Case No.2620/10.

Judge: Colonel Aharon Mishnayot
Prosecutor: Police Officer Eran Levi
Defense: Atty. Gaby Lasky

Besides the parties, the people in the audience included Jonathan Pollak (spokesman of the Coordinating Committee of the Popular Struggle), three diplomats from the British, German and French consulates, MK Barake, a Jerusalem Post reporter and us. Abdullah's family was delayed at Beituniya Checkpoint and did not make it to the hearing.

Abdullah's trial and his 12-months prison sentence have been covered extensively. Today Abdullah was supposed to be released from prison, but the prosecution [basing its case on the 18 months sentence Adeeb Abu Rahmah received for similar charges] wants Abdullah kept in prison until the court hearing of the prosecution's appeal for a stiffer sentence. The defense objects to this motion.

The prosecutor began by citing two reasons for the requested extension: the danger the defendant poses and risk of flight from legal proceedings. Drawing an analogy between the cases of Abdullah and Adeeb Abu Rahmmah, he argued that the prosecution's appeal has a good chance and that Abdullah's case was more serious than Adeeb's and that he had violated the terms of his sentence, i.e., he did not refrain from taking part in demonstrations, and thus he cannot be trusted.
 

Arguing for the defense, Atty. Lasky cited a Supreme Court ruling that remanding a person in custody beyond the prescribed term requires extraordinary circumstances, which had not been presented by the the prosecution.
Objection to a penalty does not constitute justification to deprive a person of liberty; remanding Abdullah in custody would mean a priori partial acceptance of the prosecution's appeal.

As for the flight risk, Atty. Lasky argued that during his previous trial that lasted five years, the released Abdullah reported to all the hearings without a special warrant.

In case the court decides to extend his sentence, Atty. Lasky suggested alternatives to prison time and warrantees that would prevent him from traveling from Ramallah, his hometown, to the demonstrations in Bil'in, and would ensure his reporting to future court hearings, all this in addition to assurances by MK Barake.
The defense, too, drew an analogy between Abdullah and Adeeb, stressing that Abdullah had been acquitted from a charge of violent behavior, that the violations were carried out 6 months before the arrest, that Abdullah no longer resides in Bil'in and that there was confusion as to when the violations occurred.

In conclusion, the defense invoked personal reasons for immediate release: Abdullah has an 18-month old baby, this is holiday season and it is difficult for his wife to visit him in jail.
 

At this point the judge found out, for the first time, that if the Ofer compound can't be reached through Beituniya, there is no way except getting there through Rte. 443 [Israeli territory]: it is practically impossible for someone without entry permit into Israel to visit the Ofer compound. The judge promised to check this out.

Decision was deferred to 21.11.10.

For a protocol of the hearing see:
http://www.popularstruggle.org/sites/default/files/Abdallah.AbuRahmmah.Remand.Extention.pdf

We checked on Sunday night: no decision had been taken yet.
In the meantime Abdullah Abu Rahmmah is under lock and key 'to ensure security in the region.'

On Monday morning we found out that the judge had decided to accede to the prosecution and remanded Abdullah in jail until the prosecution completes
its appeal.

The Jerusalem Post's report on the hearing can be read at:

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=196367&newsletter=231110&utm_source=Pulseem&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Jpost_Newsletter_23/11

Translation: Marganit W.

This time the show benefited from an additional player, whose job description, however, is quite elusive. This is a civilian prosecutor, in civilian garb, paid by a civilian authority (the police). He shows up here at Ofer Military Court alongside the military prosecution and is presented as a "military prosecutor" in the protocol. Who are you, Attorney Yitzhak Hanoch? Where else in the civilized world a person suspected of a civilian criminal offense is tried in a military court?

We attended the hearing of a defendant suspected of trading in stolen vehicles. He has been detained for eight months "until the conclusion of the proceedings." The defendant is suffering from a chronic disease, has trouble walking and needs crutches.  When exiting the court, he stumbled and fell . The judge referred to his medical condition at the beginning of the hearing and at its end, but who better than the judge knows that beyond the green line, there are many who are suspected of much worse violations who are released on bail. This is a blatant miscarriage of justice.

Judge: Major Shlomo Katz

Military prosecution: represented by Atty. Yitzhak Hanoch

Defense: Atty. Naji Amar

Defendant: Hassan Amran Haj Youssef -  ID 914118104, Case No. 1885/10

Once again, the families were detained for hours at Beituniya Checkpoint, so the sessions had to start late, or proceed without the families present, which is a violation of the principle of public trial. In view of this, at the start of the session, the defense moved to delay the proceeding:

Defense: I object to starting the session while the family is not in the court. The defendant has a basic right to have his family present in the court. This is the principle of public trial...

Military prosecutor: "Maybe my aunt will want to come too, and then be late... It is their fault that they are late, and we cannot wait for them... Witnesses have arrived, despite personal circumstances..."

Defense: "The familes are delayed by the state which stops them at the checkpoint... The witnesses receive a salary for their appearance in court. You cannot draw a parallel between the violation of a defendant's rights to see his family and the presence of witnesses summoned to court.

Judge's decision: "I agree with the learned attorney that it is the right of the defendant and his family to attend the legal proceedings in the court, but this right does not trump other rights.... among them the public's interest in holding the trial, the court's time and the fact that the case includes testimony by summoned witnesses." The judge added, "I will allow the defendant to meet with his family when they get here, even after the hearing is over."

The trial is now in the evidentiary stage.

3 witnesses testified for the prosecution: they are police investigators specializing in vehicles, who were involved in the incrimination of Hassan Yousef. One witness, who testified for about an hour, was cut short by the judge because there were so many other cases before him. The police witnesses protested and the judge promised that in the next hearing (20.10.10) most of  his time would be set aside for testimonies.

Toward the end of the hearing, the defendant's wife arrived. When the hearing was over she was allowed to talk to her husband. She tried to sit close to him, but was pushed back. She told us that during her husband's incarceration she had had a miscarriage. They have 4 children.

The attorney tells us that Hassan owns a used car lot in the village of Qibiya, near Ramallah. The attorney tried to release his client on bail, but to no avail: the court maintained that the charge against Hassan - three stolen vehicles and ten engines - constitutes "danger to the public welfare". The attorney presented the court with a deposition claiming that Hassan purchased the vehicles from the Palestinian Authority, but this, too, was to no avail. Eventually, he had to settle for a plea bargain, in order to shorten his client's detention, but the prosecution set a very high price, which forced the defense to continue the legal process, which is bound to be long because of the many witnesses and the elaborate technical aspects. Had Hassan been released on bail, he would not have minded a lengthy trial to prove his innocence.

This case demonstrates that there is no such thing as a Palestinian "Prisoners dilemma" *, because a Palestinian detainee can have no dilemma. The sovereign (the army, the GSS etc) determines beforehand the length of his incarceration - with or without a plea bargain -  and the rest is just a show trial. It is therefore obvious that in the Palestinian's case the difference between detention and prison time is merely cosmetic.

* see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

Translation: Marganit W.

Manufacturing charges

I have often written about the "laundry machine" that serves the military justice system for coining words and inventing newspeak, terms such as ‘security in the region,' disturbance of the peace,' ‘military equipment' ‘passages' etc. This time I'll focus on the way in which charges and indictment are being manufactured.

The village of Nabi Salah has recently joined Bil'in and Ni'lin in staging weekly demonstrations against land grab which the "laundry machine" calls the "seam area", but which to all honest observers looks like a separation wall, pure and simple.

Jamal Yassin, a young man from Nabi Salah stands trial for ‘endangering security in the region,' infringing on a closed military area, perhaps also for disturbance of the peace and membership and activity in an unlawful association, all stemming from his participation in a rally against the separation wall in which he also threw rocks. Today, through his attorney, Jamal acknowledged that he had participated in demonstrations three times. At the center of the hearing was testimony by Suhaib El Haj, a 17-year old boy in brown prison uniform, also a resident of Nabi Sala, who is accused of throwing rocks. The prosecutor and the defense cross-examine the witness about recriminations and counter-recrimination. The boy, and perhaps other detainees, stated that Jamal Yassin had thrown rocks. Now Suhaib denies that he has incriminated anyone from his village. He claims that during his investigation he talked only about himself, not about anyone else.

Prosecutor: What did you admit?

Suhaib: That I threw rocks.

Prosecutor: When and where?

Suhaib: At Nabi Salah. Don't know when.

P: Do you know a person named Rafat Rimawi? Tarek Rimawi?

S: Maybe just their faces.

P: Did you participate in activities against security in the region with them?

S: No.

P: And with Jamal Kamel?

S: No.

The prosecutor moves to declare Suhaib a hostile witness because his statement here contradicts what he said to the police. The judge accepts, and from now on Suhaib testifies as a hostile witness.

Prosecutor: Did you throw rocks with several other people?

Suhaib: Just by myself.

P: Why did you state to the police that you did it with others? Did you give all details to the investigator?

The vague reply by the witness demonstrates what we have often decried - the reality of the police investigation which is fraught with fear, loneliness, despair, noises from adjacent cells, thirst, cigarette stench, the need to go to the toilet (the detainee was shackled and blindfolded for straight eight hours), the confusion, the pain the handcuff causes in the wrists even after their removal and the fear of what might happen next.

This is what Suhaib said: "I was alone. The investigator showed me pictures and I told him I did not recognize the people. He asked me about things I knew nothing about."

But the smiley, comely, neatly coiffed prosecutor with her shiny captain's epaulets has a file in front of her, with the boy's statement where he mentions (i.e. incriminates) other boys who participated in the rally and in the rock throwing, and there is even a signature (we'll elaborate later). Why does the witness insist on denying a written statement signed by him? As usual, there is no way of verifying what the interrogator actually heard and what he put down.

The prosecutor has another question: Did they read your statement back to you?

Suhaib: No.

Prosecutor: Then why did you sign it?

Suhaib: Because he told me to sign.

The cross-examination reveals a different reality.

The 17 year old was arrested at 2:30 AM, which is a common practice in the occupied territories. Try to imagine the reality of such an experience: darkness, nighttime, pajamas, the family woken up, rifle butts beating on the door, the light turns on in neighbors' houses, the soldiers shout in Arabic, the shock: what happened?

Further: the boy is sick; the judge decrees that there is no obligation to reveal medical details because of the ‘right to privacy' [impressive generosity this adherence to the right to medical privacy compared to other rights such as freedom of movement, the right to education, health, family life, private property and decent livelihood which are all deprived by the very same law.] Since December 2009, the boy has been petitioning for a permit to enter Jerusalem for medical treatment at Makassad Hospital, all in vain. He received his last treatment in February 2010. Somewhere in a nameless office someone found a weak spot: a request for hospital treatment, which can be used to apply pressure.

-What happened at your arrest?

-They said they came about the permits (at 2:30 AM??). Wanted to talk to my father. They took me out to a jeep. I had requested permission to enter Jerusalem since December, to be treated at Makassad Hospital. They would give me a permit for a day. I'd go and come back.

-How long did they keep you handcuffed and blindfolded?

-Since they arrested me until 10:00 (about 8 hours).

Here we return to the signature on the statement to the police.

-Are you a student?

-Yes.

-Why can't you read?

-I'm not good at it.

-Can you write?

-No.

-Where did the investigator get the names?

-I don't know.

-How long did the interrogation last?

-I don't know.

-At the end, did the investigator let you read your statement?

-I told him I'm not good at reading and writing.

-He showed you pictures?

-Yes.

-Who brought those pictures?

-They were on the board. I told him I don't know those people.

In the cross examination, the smiling, pretty prosecutor asked haughtily, triumphantly and distrustfully (‘they' always lie, don't they?) her trump question: Are you always in the habit of signing things that you cannot read? Note the scorn, the contempt and the use of ‘always'. As if the boy routinely signs documents. To her he is no more than a prosecution case, not a person, a boy, with mom and dad, friends, health issues and subsistence problems. He is merely a function of ‘danger to security in the region'. He is presented with documents, and he signs them even though he can't read. Such people are indeed unreliable. The trial will continue next week.

Translation: Marganit W.

"I won't do it again; I want to study..."

Today we came to court because we wanted to follow the case of Ibrahim Abu Al-Arish (ID.859813420), a kid we know from Qalandiya Checkpoint, who was caught on camera there shaking the metal barrier of one of the lanes. He was charged with causing damage to military equipment and has been detained all this time because he cannot pay the high bail the court imposed on him.

Even though the arraignment hearing was set for today, there was no mention of his case and nobody could answer our questions concerning this detainee. [see earlier report: http://www.machsomwatch.org/en/ofer_thu_22_7_10_morning ]

We refer you also to Amira Hass's article on the rock throwing kids in

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/amira-hass-eight-palestinian-youths-and-the-crime-they-didn-t-commit-1.306641

Ramsy Aadel Ahmad Salah, ID. 943342691

Summation hearing

In answer to our question, the defense stated that the defendant is not a minor, but his trial takes place in this hall (No. 2 serving as juvenile court on Mondays) because he is about to be released today as a result of a plea bargain.

He is accused of "throwing rocks".  In March 2010 he threw rocks, in the company of others.

Justice Sharon Rivlin-Ahai: "The defendant is aware that he is charged with throwing rocks. He has two prior convictions of similar charges and there's a 12-months probation. The sides reached an agreement for extension of the probation and a monetary fine. There were some difficulties with the evidence. Obviously, the proposed penalty does not fit the repeated violations by the defendant."

The judge specified the arrangement:

1. The probation will be extended by two additional years.

2. A fine of 2000 shekels or two additional months in jail.

The jurists now all engage in mathematical calculations and reach the conclusion that the probation ends in 2013.

The judge concludes the hearing with a motherly advice to the defendant: "Let's be careful from now on. Stay away from rock throwers..." as if she herself acknowledges that it was not really his fault.

Arraignment hearing in Courtroom 2.

Maamoun Samih Adallah Harpush, ID. 854677747, 15 years old, from the village of Harbata.

His mother and sister sit behind us. The mother converses with the son, while the beautiful sister, a spitting image of her younger brother, cannot hold back her tears.

Defense: Firas Sabah

Judge: Sharon Rivlin-Ahai

Charge: Throwing an incendiary object at Route 443

The prosecutor does not require the maximum penalty, arguing that "the court should note the young age of the defendant and the great distance of the thrown object..."

When asked by the judge if he wants to add anything, the youth replies: "I won't do it again; I want to study..."

Judge: "The court takes into consideration the fact that there is no prior record, the young age of the defendant and the great distance which precluded any danger to the passengers (the target of the ‘incendiary object') as well as a promise not to repeat the offense..."

Sentence: 12 months in jail starting with the day of arrest plus 15 months probation, plus 3000 shekel fine or three months in jail.

Samih's father, who sits behind us, reckons his son will be released in two months.

Bilal Ayiub Abd Al-Rahman Hamed, ID. 944814227, 27 years old, from Ramallah.

Charged with holding and trading in military materiel.

Judge: Captain Zvi Heilbronn

Defense: Atty. Samara

Bilal has been in detention for a year. The next hearing has been set for 16.8.10.

Defense: This is a complicated case..." He requests postponement until after Ramadan. The judge notes that due to heavy case load the trial may not take place before October. The defense concurs. The defendant, however, insists on the original date. The attorney, who apparently is uncomfortable working during the period of fast, is adamant about the postponement, whereupon the defendant demands to change his defense and contacts another attorney who happens to be in court on another business.

Judge to Defense: He's been in detention for a year. We need to advance this case." And to the defendant he says, "The case is in its final stage. At this point, until another attorney is contracted, I do not release Atty. Samara from representing you."

Atty. Samara, who was not keen on coming to court during Ramadan now says, "I'll be here on the 16^th (the original date). A hearing is set for the original date when the defendant will name his attorney.

Defendant: Issa Amru, ID. 905708327 - investigative reporter, photographer.

Charge: attacking a civil servant.

Issa was arrested on 6.8.10 when he documented a settlers' attack on a Palestinian family in retaliation for the evacuation of an illegal outpost a few days earlier.

The defense asks to release him while the police representative moves for remand extension.

Defense: Atty. Gaby Lasky, later replaced by Nery Ramati

Representative of Israeli Police: Investigator Amitai Amosi

The hearing was set for 10:00. Atty. Lasky was there at the appointed hour. The police rep did not show up and the defendant was not brought from the Russian Compound.

At 12:00 the police investigator arrived, blaming his delay on "technical circumstances" and Issa's absence on the GSS.

Prior to the judge's entry (Courtroom 5) we overheard the investigator tell the defense that "(Issa) has a lobby, that's why they even hear his case... You know that not all Palestinians receive such treatment. They could have kept him in detention and he would not have his day in court. 

Atty. Lasky objected to holding a remand extension hearing without her client's presence, claiming that such a procedure is illegal. The police investigator requested time to ascertain the whereabouts of the detainee and update the court on when he can be brought in.

The judge declared a thirty minutes recess.

We left the premises. The rest of the report is culled from the protocol given us by Atty. Lasky and from information obtained by phone from B'Tzelem representative, Noam, who attended the entire session:

At 15:39 the defendant arrived and the hearing resumed. The investigator requested remand extension to pursue the investigation, stressing that "the case involves a violent clash between Jewish and Palestinian residents... the defendant did not just attend the event but took active part in the hostilities. There was much endangerment in a sensitive area..."

The defense wanted to present a video recording of the event made by the defendant and later taken away by the police, but the investigator objected.

From Issa's testimony: "... I called the police... settlers broke into Arabs' home and beat up six children and two foreigners. My job is to photograph... I was helping the law and in the interest of justice, I recorded the hostilities..."

Judge: "Before signing on my decision I'd like to state that due to the defendant's conduct during the event, I order him barred from Hill 18 (the site of the incident) and from other areas of friction."

He ordered the defendant released under these conditions:

1. Deposit of 5000 shekels.

2. Third party guarantee of 5000 shekels.

3. Removal from the area for ten days, as mentioned above. Violation of this restriction will result in arrest.

Since the decision was handed down in the afternoon, the money had to be paid in cash. Apparently, the justice system is not familiar with checks or credit cards. By the time Issa was able to acquire the money and rush to the post office, it was closed.

Noam had to return the next day and Issa was forced to spend another night at the Russian Compound [police detention center]. The next day the money was deposited, but no vehicle could be found in the Russian Compound to drive Issa to the Territories and once more his release was postponed.

At 5:00 p.m., when a police car was finally located, Issa was driven from Jerusalem to the Ramallah area. He had to make his way to his home in Hebron by himself.

The judge also stipulated "750 shekels to be awarded the defense attorney - from local area funds - as compensation for time wasted due to police mishandling of the case."

Small consolation...

Translation: Marganit W.

What does a Jewish Judge know about childhood in Qalandiya Refugee Camp?

Whenever I go to the military court I fear I might recognize one of the defendants. This happened today as I entered Courtroom 7. I froze when I saw the face of the smallest child I had ever seen on the defendants' bench. None of his relatives was present: there was no one to support him or send him encouraging looks. I tried for a long time to get his attention, for his face to register some recognition. Eventually, he nodded but did not smile. He looked a bit detached, as if only his body was present there, looking even smaller than his usual self. He has the face of a child, the body of child, but since he is Palestinian, at his age he is no longer a minor and considered mature enough to stand trial.

Ibrahim Abu-Al Ala'ish - ID. 859813420. He is one of those kids always seen in the background at Qalandiya checkpoint. Like the barbed wire fences, the walls, the blaring loudspeakers on the watchtowers, the children of the camp are always there, trailing the passengers, trying to sell their meager merchandise, clean car windows with a filthy rag or begging, "Can you spare a shekel..."

These are "Aya's children", although in fact it is the other way around, she is "Aya of the children."

As I walked in, Justice Moshe Levi announced, "Indictment has been submitted for sabotage to an army installation: there was damage to a barrier, an iron rod, belonging to the security forces."

In other words, Ibrahim was caught shaking a metal bar, a traffic barrier in front of the checkpoint.

The defense moved to release the boy: "The defendant did not cause any damage. The children were playing at the Qalandiya Checkpoint: it was just a game, and there was no damage to the rail."

The prosecution made the release contingent on a 3000-shekel fine and other conditions.

Defense: "In view of the family's economic situation, the circumstances of the offense and the minimal damage, a 100-shekel fine should suffice."

The Judge's Decision: "there is a prior conviction for rock throwing from 2009. Upon examining the file... it is indeed a case of children playing rather than willful intention to damage IDF installation. After consideration I order the defendant released on three conditions:

1. 750-shekel fine.

2. "Self bail" for 2000 shekels.

3. Third party bail for 3000 shekels.

Arraignment hearing was set for 9.8.10 in Justice Sharon Rivlin-Ahai's court.

From the little I know about Ibrahim's family's situation and their background, it is clear that the conditions will not be met and he will not be released from detention any time soon.

2.Courtroom 3

When I go with the kids to the zoo, I give animals a carrot. Here (the state? The court?) there is no carrot, only kicks. You know what a kick is?

Ibrahim Rashid Hassin Alakel, ID 989681309, resident of Tohana near Hebron, married to an Israeli woman and father of four.

Ibrahim is prevented from living with his wife and children by the law that governs citizenships, and since he is not yet 35 years old (he is 33) his request for temporary resident status, which will allow the family to unite, is not yet under review. When he tried to pass through Hussan Checkpoint to visit his family, he was apprehended, charged and sentenced for 15 days in jail, plus 3-year probation.

"The probation clause is the worst," he says.

His attorney, Naim Abu-Yakub appealed the verdict and offered a plea bargain, whereby the probation would be reduced to two years (until Ibrahim turns 35) and the jail time would be reduced to 14 days.

Defense: He has no record. I reiterate the reasons for the appeal: there are special circumstances in this case that call for mitigation. These circumstances have to do with the unification of the family and with his relation to his wife. Hence, I move to reduce the terms of probation.

When the defense had rested its case, after requesting that the court's decision allow Ibrahim to appeal to the DCO for family unification in 2 years, the judge concluded: "Decision will be handed down later today."

Ibrahim waited outside the court, in the enclosure, until 3 PM. Only then did he hear from his attorney that the judge postponed his decision to Sunday.

Translation: Marganit W.

Justices: A. Procaccia (Chief Justice), A. Hayout, Y. Danziger

Defense: Attys. Elias Khoury and Ilan Katz

We attended the hearing of an appeal filed on behalf of Ghazi Kasem Issa, a moneychanger from Ramallah, who petitions to reclaim five million shekels that the army confiscated in September 2006 during a raid on the offices of the Ajuli Company owned by him.

Like many other Ramallah merchants who had money and property seized during that raid, Ghazi Issa has been negotiating for the return of the seized money. But unlike others, he refused to forfeit part of the sum. He appealed to the High Court of Justice against the commander of the region, demanding the return of all the money taken by the army during the raid. On 9.3.07, almost 6 months after his money was seized, and one day before the date set for the state to respond to the appeal, he was arrested on charges of providing services to a terror organization. The allegations were based on working relations the appellant had with the Charity Committee in Ramallah. His trial at Ofer Military Court lasted a year. He was incarcerated for that entire period and all motions to release him on bail were denied.

In March 2008 he was acquitted of all charges and released. The Military Prosecution appealed the decision and the court retracted the acquittal and convicted him. His defense filed an appeal with the High Court of Justice and this was the hearing we attended.

Together with the above procedure, the hearing included an appeal of the administrative procedure regarding the forfeiture of Mr. Issa's money, which is only allegedly

unrelated to the charges that led to his conviction in the military court.

The appellant himself was not present in court, nor had he attended earlier hearings of his HCJ appeals. The defense described the means by which the prosecution prevented him from attending the hearing: in essence, they deliberately heaped hardships and trumped-up requirements, citing "endangerment" (on one occasion they demanded escort of a security company; today they mandated that his attorney obtain an exit permit for his client from the civil administration to leave Zone A and that he drive the appellant in his own car to the High Court in Jerusalem). Even the Chief Justice acknowledged that those restrictions amounted to harassment of the appellant and his attorney.

The defense based its appeal on the claim that it was Mr. Issa's refusal to forfeit his money - which he called extortion by the authority - that led to his arrest in the first place and to his lengthy incarceration ‘until the conclusion of the proceedings'. It was his adamant stand that prompted the Military Court of Appeals to annul his acquittal and convict him. The defense cited an agreement between the prosecution and the defense reached during the trial two years ago, an agreement later ignored by the prosecution. The attorney further questioned the section of the "Defense (Emergency) Regulations" that was the base of the forfeiture. According to the defense, following the acquittal - which the prosecution objected to - the authorities confiscated the appellant's money, in addition to the funds of the Charity Committee. The defense explained the status of the Charity Committee in Ramallah - whose members are appointed by the Palestinian Authority - vehemently rejecting the allegation that it is a terror organization, adding that a proclamation declaring the Committee illegal had never been published in "Rashumot" [official journal of legislative and administrative actions] nor given to the members of the committee or to the many donors who contribute to the charitable organization.

Atty. Segal, arguing for the State, stated that the war against terror was at the background of this case. Again and again he reiterated that the appellant is a senior officer of Hamas (even though there was absolutely no reference to such a claim during Mr. Issa's trial). He pointed out that in the confidential material supplied by the GSS, the justices would find the explanation that would enable them to decide whether the money was, or was not, forfeited according to regulations.

Justice Hayout insisted on establishing a time line: what preceded what: the seizure of the money, its forfeiture, the acquittal etc. She upbraided the defense whose statements, she claimed, did not correspond to the dates of the events in question.  Atty. Segal, the respondent, was also censured for not presenting the relevant documents properly.

The respondent asserted that the confidential material contained the answers both to the present appeal regarding Mr. Issa's forfeited money, and to the other appeal (not discussed today) regarding prohibiting Mr. Issa from leaving the country. The confidential material indicates, he insisted, that the appellant is a security risk.

At the end of the session the audience was ordered to vacate the court so that the esteemed judges could examine the confidential material. An hour later they announced that they would continue to study the case and would hand down their decision in a few days.

We will follow up.

Courtroom 7

Judge: Major Etti Adar

Prosecution: Captain Yshchar Erez 

Defense: Nery Ramati

10 cases of Palestinians  from Bil'in and Ni'ilin, arrested in early January, were going to be heard in this court room. We attended 2 of them.

Defendant :  File: 1112/10 - Ibrahim Halil Ibrahim Srour, ID 852405380 - from Ni'ilin

The defendant is accused of throwing stones, preparing Molotov Cocktails, collecting grenades and disrupting the public order. All these charges are based on the incriminations of a witness of the prosecution (witness nr.2) and render the defendant a threat to the regional security. The prosecutor demands detention until the end of the legal proceedings.

The defense argues that the incriminations of witness nr.2 are very problematic since many charges of other residents of Ni'lin are also based on the incriminations of the same person, who tells all kinds of "horror stories", which have to be examined very carefully and which are not supported by other witnesses. Witness Nr.2 was hit in his head by a gas grenade about 5 months ago, and according to a physician's report his physical and mental condition is very severe. This could be discerned even by us, who saw him sitting in the dock, completely unaware of his surrounding. Unfortunately, the GSS investigators too were aware of this and put him in a the cell with police plants, from where he returned with a "legend " about a military unit that operated allegedly in the village. The investigation "revealed" also that witness Nr.2 is married, which is not true.  

The defense also points to another fact that has to be taken into consideration: the defendant gave himself up to the police, after he found a summons from the army in his home to appear there. He knew that witness nr.2 was under arrest, and had he been part of a military cell, he would have tried to go underground and disappear. This fact should support the defense's demand to release the defendant. Another reason would be the visible eye disease of the defendant, which needs frequent treatment (his left eye was indeed inflamed and swollen). The lack of evidence in this case is very obvious, and the report about the events in the village which is included in the court's file, was never double-checked with the incriminations of the witness. The defendant has family in the courtroom as well as Israeli friends who are ready to guarantee that he will appear at the court hearings.

The judge's decision will be given on 24.01.10

This case and the following one shows the police's determination to break by all means the resistance of the Palestinians in Bil'in and Ni'ilin to the construction of the wall and to all its consequences. Bil'in has become a symbol for nonviolent resistance, and the police doesn't shy away from using unfit and unsuitable witnesses to incriminate Palestinians and to present them as dangerous criminals.

Defendant :File 1167/10 - Muhammad Atalla Hussein Amira - ID: 852230481 - from Ni'ilin

The prosecutor mentions that the defendant has a recent criminal record for throwing stones, for which he served time. According to incrimination by witness Nr.3, he is charged with being a member in a military cell. The degree of dangerousness justifies the demand for detention until the end of the legal proceedings.

The defense argues, that except for the incriminations of witness Nr.2 (as in the former case of Ibrahim Srour) the prosecution has no evidence, that the stories of witness Nr.2 are supported by real facts. Again he warns the prosecution to examine these stories very carefully. According to the memoranda of the interrogation of witness Nr.2, he told his interrogators that he was hit in the head by a gas grenade 5 months ago. Today the court could attest to the physical and mental state of the witness and could hear the physician's report about the suffering of depressions by his patient. As we already heard, witness nr.2 was sent to a cell with police plants from where he returned with a "legend" about a military cell that allegedly operated in the village.

The defendant has been in detention since September and was supposed to be released in 2 days. Witness Nr.3 mentioned on 10.1.10 that the defendant is one of the members of a military cell, but when he was asked to cite the names of the members, the defendant was not among them. His name appears only in connection with the establishment of the group, but was not mentioned with any of its activities. There is no clear picture about the dangerousness of this group. The defendant has been in detention since September '09, and so the defense demands the release of the defendant, as he obviously could not have been in the group since September; and now the group does not exist any longer.
A personal reason for his release is the bad health of his mother.

The judge's decision will be given on 21.1.10

Translation: Marganit W.

Third Remand Extension of Muhammad Othman Azat Mustafa, ID 901095380

Judge: Lieut. -Colonel Eliyahu Nimni
Investigator: Major Lutuf Mar'i
Defense: Atty. Mahmud Hassan

Background
Due to the general disorder reigning at the Shomron [Salem] Military Court these days, many who should have been in court were late, and the judge, after having shown up, kept coming and going. The detainee, however, was already there, the defense was present and the detainee's father was sitting on the bench reserved for families of the suspects. This turned out to be a boon, allowing attorney and client to talk at length, undisturbed, (comparatively speaking). Father and son communicated with hand gestures and the spectators exchanged views.
The father - bearded, gaunt, and ashen, with big eyes - sat in his corner crying. Atty. Hassan walked over and gave him a big hug. Two representatives of Pax Christi, whom I had met at the gate, told me that they had visited the family at Jayyous the day before. In the meantime the attorney caught up with his client about what had transpired since their last encounter. He later used this information during the hearing.
When he tried to give his client a glass of water, three guards rushed to stop him. Apparently, this is forbidden.

Starting Point
The defense's position is that Muhammad Othman's detention is unwarranted, thus the entire investigation is not aimed at obtaining information but at punishing him. This is what he said in court. The hearing opened with his objection to the police's request for 23-day remand extension for further investigation. This was the first time I heard a defense attorney exposing the legal system's failure to defend a client.

The Hearing - The Case for the Defense
The hearing finally began at 11 AM and it lasted about an hour, which is inordinately long for such discussions that usually end within ten minutes.
Attorney Hassan interrogated the investigator about the prosecution of the case, offering his own interpretation, based, no doubt, on what he heard from his client.
For instance, he claimed that on October 15, his client was tied to a chair and was under investigation
for 11 hours. In response, the investigator said that that day yielded a five-page testimony (included in the confidential material handed to the judge). The attorney countered that either parts of the testimony were not recorded because they did not correspond to what the interrogator's wanted to hear, or the suspect was tied to a chair for 11 hours as a form of punishment, not investigation. To corroborate his claim the attorney said that his client had fallen asleep in his chair and water was poured on him to awaken him.
The investigator claimed he knew nothing about this.
At any rate, the attorney insisted, this procedure is prohibited. Similarly, the court had struck down another prohibited method of intimidation, threatening to hurt the suspect's sister. Furthermore, all this time, Othman had been kept in solitary confinement.
The attorney reiterated his contention that the investigation had yielded no proof against his client and it was merely going around in circles. He wanted to know, why no police statement had been obtained from his client, even though he was arrested on Sept. 22.
The last hearing gave the investigator 12 additional days to complete the investigation.
The court had stated then that there was no progress, no specific allegations, no outside corroboration or additional suspects. The investigators had only his client's words and they kept asking him the same questions.
Moreover, the attorney said, his client cooperated with the interrogators, answering all their questions. He is 33 years old, with no prior record, and whatever he did, even if it is not to the GSS liking, was still legal.
As for the present charge - that he allegedly met a Hizbullah agent in Jordan, thus implying that he gave aid and comfort to that organization - the accused admitted that he had met someone in Jordan who gave him posters against the separation fence.
In sum, the attorney stated that there was no warrant to keep his client in custody. He has no criminal record, his place of residence is known, and he has a steady job and is a student. He should be released on bail since he poses no risk. His acts were perfectly legal.

The Case for the Investigation
The investigator was not very knowledgeable about the case. Whenever asked a question, he consulted his file at length. His answers were replete with "I don't know," " it's confidential," "I wasn't there," ask The GSS,"
"danger to security in the region," etc. He stated that further custody is mandated because release would vitiate the investigation and lead to security risk and flight from justice. This he recited without hesitation.
He also insisted that the suspect was deliberately lying.
The defense attorney, in his summation, wondered how, with such flimsy command of the case and its findings, the investigator could be so sure of himself.

The judge's statement
The judge pronounced the detainee's name as if hearing it for the first time. Apparently, the reverberation of this case around the world has not penetrated the walls of Salem Military Court.
After perusing the confidential file for a long time, the judge moved to extend the remand by 11 days -
until 29.10.09 - because there had been some breakthrough in the investigation, and there was danger to security in the region.
Well, who can blame the judge? From the point of view of the occupation machine, there is nothing more dangerous than a Palestinian who opposes violence and protests the separation fence by peaceful means. This is particularly true of the fence in Jayyous, where the Supreme Court had ruled that the fence is disproportionate and that its route needs to be changed.
The state has been ignoring the Supreme Court decision for years.

The defense appealed the remand extension. The appeal will be heard on Thursday, 22.10.09 at 9:30 at Ofer.

Muhammad Othman was released on 13.1.10 after having been detained in administrative detention from 23.11.09.  A press release published by the organisation Addameer (Prisoners' Support and Human Rights) contains Muhammad Othman's background:

Mohammad Othman, a youth coordinator with the Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign (Stop the Wall), was released after 113 days in Israeli detention without charge or trial. Mohammad, 34, was arrested by Israeli soldiers on 22 September 2009 at the Allenby Border Crossing as he returned home to the West Bank from an advocacy tour in Norway. On 22 November, after 61 days of physically and psychologically exhausting interrogation, a military court judge ordered the end to Mohammad's interrogation. The next day, however, Mohammad was placed under administrative detention. Mohammad's administrative detention was renewed for a one month period on 22 December, but was later shortened by ten days by a military judge in the Court of Administrative Detainees. Although administrative detention is legally permissible only in emergency situations, threatening the "security of the state," and not as substitute for prosecution where there is no evidence to obtain a conviction, the military judge reduced Mohammad's detention order on the grounds that there had been no serious developments in the investigation into his case. Addameer and Stop the Wall contend that Mohammad's administrative detention was clearly arbitrary and based on impermissible grounds, in severe derogation from Israel's obligations under law.