Trial and
error
THE TRIAL of Michel Warschawsky (Mikado) and the Alternative Information Centre (AIC) opened on October 19. The first session was marked by an astonishing sloppiness on the part of the prosecution, who again and again were obliged to correct their accounts as a result of skillful cross-examination by Mikado's attorney, Avigdor Feldman.
The following report on this first session of the trial is from the November 14 issue of News From Within, an independent political newsletter published by the AIC.
N HIS opening speech, the prosecuting counsel, Moshe Lador, argued that the
AIC had produced material for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, (PFLP), notably a handbook instructing detainees how to hinder police investigations
AKS I
(that is, how to behave under interrogation...); had typeset material for West Bank organizations, including al-Taqadum, journal of the Student Progressive Front of Birzeit University, and al-Maraa, the West Bank women's magazine; and had printed
ASUBERTY
NOUAME
RAHVUSleaflets for front organizations of the PFLP.
Lador stated that charges were being brought under the Defence (Emergency) Regulations, 1945, and the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, 1948. Mikado was not on trial for his beliefs, but his conscious actions. Feldman argued that this was untrue, and that Mikado's beliefs were in fact being cited as evidence that he was the sort of person who would do what he was al-
VAEDSASIO leged to have done.
The first witness, Inspector Raphael Mizrahi, stated that he was an investigator in the Minorities Division, who recorded Mikado's statement on February 17, 1987. Under cross-examination, Mizrahi confirmed that he was in fact a member of the Youth Division who was working as duty investigator on the night in question. He admitted that he had "forgotten" to record that a Shin Bet [security forces] agent had also been present during the interrogation, and had in fact dictated all the questions. Mizrahi had also "forgotten" to record Mikado's statement that he could not read Arabic....
The next witness, Inspector Yossi Mizrahi of the Minorities Division, gave evidence about the search of the Centre in February 1987. Forty crates of documents were removed, plus office equipment.... He
----- photo credits and running heads -----
7
tain convictions against Michel Warschawsky. We call upon you to use the next three months to Increase the support for the AIC and to repeat again and again the demand for abolishing the legal procedures against Warschawsky and the
Statement by the A/C Collective, November 14, 1988
International Viewpoint #153 • December 12, 1988
ISRAELI STATE • USA presented 69 computer discs taken from the Centre. Defence Counsel Avigor Feldman submitted that, without evidence of the "chain of supervision" over the discs, they should not be accepted as evidence, since it was so easy to alter the contents.... After a recess, the judges agreed to accept the discs as evidence, but the defence has the right to challenge the authenticity of the files.
Mizrahi presented leaflets allegedly removed from the AIC. "I took away 3,150 leaflets like these. I neglected to mark them at the time, and cannot testify with absolute certainty that these are the documents, but to the best of my memory these are the leaflets that were removed." The leaflets, which argued against the PLO/Hussein agreement, were signed in the name of the "Hebron Revolutionary Committees".
A taste of Israeli state
"justice"
Here Avigdor Feldman again intervened. "Who are the Hebron Revolutionary Committees?" he asked. "Why are they not named in the charge sheet? Are they an illegal organization?" The prosecution replied that not all illegal or terrorist organizations are known by name to the intelligence authorities. The contents of the leaflet — for national unity and against collaboration — prove that it is illegal and terrorist. Expert evidence would be produced later to show how the PFLP works through front organizations.
The witness confirmed that he had entered the AIC with both a closure order, and a search warrant permitting the removal of material relating to incitement or support for a forbidden organization, but had in fact removed all written material in the office. "We were under pressure", he explained. "There were very many documents, the phone kept ringing, lots of people - journalists, friends and others — were coming in." So he supervised the removal of the 40 crates of documents. He
Drop the charges!
could not remember if personal letters and documents were removed, but agreed that much material was taken that, even at a cursory glance, could not be connected
Further cross-examination established that, although each box was marked, documents could easily have been moved from box to box; that the fingerprints department had been unable to identify fingerprints on them; that, in any case, the fingerprints department had returned only photographs of the documents sent to them; and that several letters from Attorney Lea Tsemel requesting a full list of the seized documents had gone unanswered....
The judges suggested that, instead of trying to prove exactly what material was removed from the Centre, and establishing the full "chain of supervision", the prosecution instead produce the documents reto the alleged offences, witnesses who would testify that these were indeed found in the Centre. Attorney Lado, however, rejected this proposal -possibly because none of his witnesses could remember specific documents, only that "many" were taken.
Workers at the Centre, who have suffered 18 months deprivation of our equipment, held "as evidence" in the trial, were astonished to hear the prosecutor argue that, in order not to clutter up the court with the equipment, he would produce only photographs of it....This casual attitude is characteristic of the way in which the prosecution case is being presented.... The AIC and Mikado are represented by thorough and able lawyers; we wonder what sort of "justice" is meted out to those thousands of detainees who do not have our international contacts and efficient evidence team. If they even reach court, that is.
At the prosecution's request, the trial has been deferred to next February. By then — two years after the closure of the AIC and the arrest of Michel Warschawsky - the witnesses may be able to "remember" the facts more clearly. *
Changing
the guard at
the White
House