[News] Administrative detention should be banned

Anti-Imperialist News News at freedomarchives.org
Tue Nov 15 08:56:45 EST 2005

Human Rights
Administrative detention should be banned (1/2)
Jeff Handmaker and Adri Nieuwhof, The Electronic Intifada, 11 November 2005


Israel has a long history of detaining people 
without trial, quite often for long periods, 
based on an administrative instead of judicial 
order based on secret evidence. Such orders may 
be issued at the initiative of a military 
commander, in accordance with Military Order Number 1229 of 1988.1

Based initially on the British Mandate Defence 
(Emergency) Regulations of 1945, the Israeli 
government uses administrative detention as a 
tool to silence and oppress Palestinians. Due to 
international criticism in the 1970s, the measure 
was temporarily suspended. However, in 1985 
Israeli Defence Minister Rabin started to use the 
measure again in the framework of his "iron fist" policy.

Some Palestinians have spent over five years in detention without trial.

Administrative detainees are held both in 
military detention facilities as well as in 
facilities run by the prison service. In August 
2005, 596 Palestinians from the Occupied 
Territories were held in administrative detention 
according to the IDF's own statistics. Since 
February 2005, the Prison Service has refused to 
provide Israeli human rights organisation 
B'Tselem with reliable figures on detainees and 
prisoners held in its facilities.

Administrative detention in the occupied territories

In 1970, Israel issued its first military order 
authorizing the military commander of the region 
to issue administrative detention orders. In 
1988, further additional military orders were 
issued in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to 
extend the policy of administrative detention. 
These orders authorize the issuing of 
administrative detention orders without 
designating a maximum period of time for the 
detention. The NGO Addameer, a Palestinian 
prisoners' support and human rights organisation, 
reports that the first paragraph of the latest military order states:

"If a Military Commander deems the detention of a 
person necessary for security reasons he may do 
so for a period not in excess of 6 months, after 
which he has the right to extend the detention 
period for a further six months according to the 
original order. The detention order can be passed 
without the presence of the detainee ..."2

Amnesty International describes administrative 
detention in Israel as "... a procedure under 
which detainees are held without charge or trial. 
No charges are filed, and there is no intention 
of bringing a detainee to trial. By the detention 
order, a detainee is given a specific term of 
detention. On or before the expiry of the term, 
the detention order is frequently renewed. This 
process can be continued indefinitely." 3

Administrative detention is a measure that is 
overwhelmingly targeted at Palestinians in the 
occupied Palestinian territories. Over the years, 
only nine Israeli citizens from settlements in 
the West Bank have reportedly been detained for 
periods up to six months. Use of administrative 
detention increased almost 300-fold in a single 
year between 2001 and 2002. Each year since has 
seen hundreds of administrative detention orders 
being issued against Palestinians.4


According to Addameer, the total number of 
prisoners was 8,324 at the end of 2004, including 
117 female prisoners and 344 children. 4,400 were 
held in Israeli prison service facilities and 
3,924 in military detention camps, of which 
respectively 277 and 798 were administrative detainees.5

Reporters without Borders write that in 2002 "... 
more than 20 Palestinian journalists (were) 
arrested since the Israeli occupation of 
Palestinian towns and cities began on 29 March".6 
In 2003, the same organisation reported that "at 
least 13 journalists had been imprisoned (and) a 
total of 954 cases of administrative detention 
were recorded by human rights groups".7

The number of prisoners keeps growing as the 
result of daily 'casual' arrests and nightly 
premeditated arrests of Palestinians by the IDF 
and the General Security Services.

Israel has claimed that it uses administrative 
detention as a necessary security measure and is 
only used when normal legal measures or less 
severe administrative measures are not sufficient to ensure security.

The panic night

Ahmed (not his real name) shared his experience 
of administrative detention with us, confirming 
that the security agencies have used the ruse of 
'security' in order simply to suppress critical 
views amongst Palestinians. What he experienced was dehumanising.

Ahmed first took a deep breath, in order to bring 
the memory back. "I don't know why I was in the 
detention. They told me I am there because I am 
social activist. That's all they said," he tells.

He describes the night he was arrested as "the panic night".

"They arrested me from my house in 2002 at 2 
o'clock in the morning. The door of my house was 
detonated and then shooting was heard very loudly 
inside the house and in the street. At that 
moment I thought that I am dead, me and my 
family. Then they used the speakers to demand us 
all get out of the house, otherwise they will explode the house on our heads.

"They tied my hands behind my back, and covered 
my eyes. Then they led me into a vehicle. I was 
on the ground. Most of the time they were kicking 
me all over my body. After a time the vehicle 
stopped and they took me to somewhere that I 
don't know. Later I discovered that the trip was 
just a 'vacation' compared with the next.

"After several long hours sitting on stones I got 
help from a guy there who took off the cover from 
my eyes and released my hands from that plastic 
band. I remember that I spent almost 24 hours 
without drinking a drop of water or eating 
anything. Even if I wanted to pee it took over 
two hours to allow me, in a mobile bathroom - 
very dirty one, no water source in it."

Ofer jail

"After three nights sleeping on the stones they 
took me to Ofer Jail near Ramallah by special bus."

Ahmed continues: "The jail was divided into 11 
sections. Each section held 120 prisoners, 
distributed into 6 tents. The facilities in each 
section include 6 bathrooms constructed with zinc 
sheets, distributed into 2 showers and two 
bathrooms for urine and another two for a sink. 
There was just a little channel coming out of the 
bathrooms. The ground of the jail and in all the 
tents was asphalt. The beds were made of wood 
sticks over a mattress without a pillow and with 
two sheets. These didn't save the prisoner from 
the cold in the winter at all. The prisoners 
spent the nights during the winter wearing their 
jackets to bed. Otherwise they would freeze from 
cold. Every prisoner has an 'account' managed by 
the jail. Money is paid in by a member of the prisoner's family."

Ahmed then spoke about the food, which almost 
never included meat - protein usually came in the 
form of an egg at dinner. It is possible for 
teenage prisoners to purchase extra items such as 
chocolate with their 'account', but only at 
prices much higher than what a person would pay in the West Bank.

"The security counting began at 6 o'clock am, 
which meant that all the prisoners should sit on 
their knees in front of their tent to be counted. 
The prisoners kneel ten in every row, then a 
soldier comes to count the prisoners, accompanied 
by the representative of the section. This took 
place three times a day. If you look at any 
guard's face directly you will punished with one 
day in isolation, or to pay a fine from your 'account'.

"If any prisoner complains of any kind of disease 
or sickness, anything like high blood pressure or 
flu or any infection, the medicine is always one 
tablet of Paracetamol. For any kind of emergency, 
a response from the jail administration could 
happen after one day, if you are lucky."

"In Ofer jail, no one interrogated me. They just 
sent me to a tent with another 19 persons, but 
the tent was barely enough for 6-8 persons. After 
three weeks there, the administration of the jail 
called me to a military court."

Military court

Ahmed recalls: "The sentences of administrative 
detention are made in a 'court', which is a hall 
of 7 metres by 5 metres in the jail. There is a 
military judge, the intelligence officer, the 
lawyer and translator. It is just a fake court to 
tell you that there is secret evidence that no 
one could know, even the judge himself, on advice 
from the intelligence officer to the judge. This 
is in order to punish a prisoner with six months' 
administrative detention or to extend his period 
to another three to six months.

"When it is done, the prisoner does not know the 
prison is going to ask for an extension until 
just a few hours before his release time. After 
that, within two weeks he will be led to the 
court to hear this from the judge. This always caused me a serious depression."

Harsh conditions

Israeli lawyers handling administrative detention 
cases validate Ahmed's experience. They are all 
too familiar with the harsh living conditions 
(and worse) of detainees in the military jails.

"While most prisoners are accommodated in tents, 
at times (they are) overcrowded and as a rule 
furnished with wooden planks (boards) and covered 
with rather thin mattresses to sleep on. 
Occasionally, boxes serve as tables and/or 
cupboards. A prisoner's plank (is) about 1/2 
meter from his neighbour's and is what he has as 
his individual living space. Barbed wire and a 
wall surround several tents forming a section. 
There are showers and lavatories inside each 
section and a small space is left for exercise ..."8

Contacts with family members and legal 
representatives are also highly restricted.

"Prisoners are not free to communicate with 
family and friends ... During often-imposed 
sieges and special closures and always during the 
Jewish holidays the visits are suspended. ...The 
visitors and the visited undergo meticulous, 
humiliating strip searches. During the visit 
prisoners are separated from the families by a 
double mesh, all physical contact, even with 
babies, is forbidden. Proper conversation is 
impossible. The prisoners are not allowed to 
communicate by phone - not even with their lawyers."9

"A living hell"

Most of the Palestinians in administrative 
detention are held in Ofer Military Camp in the 
West Bank, the Ansar 3 / Ketziot Military Camp in 
the harsh Negev desert, Beituniya and Kfar Yuna 
Military Prison camps. Another Palestinian who 
was detained there, and who shared his 
experiences with us, described the notorious 
Ansar 3 prison as "... a living hell ... living 
amongst the snakes and the scorpions".

The fact that detainees are held in tents and 
subject to extreme weather conditions without 
appropriate protection creates a highly dangerous 
situation. Ex detainees from Ansar 3 / Ketziot 
expressed to the authors the difficulties of 
dealing with the extreme temperatures in the 
desert, where the days are unbearably hot and the 
nights can be extremely cold. This summer it was 
reported in the press that 18-year old Jawad abu 
Mgheisib died in detention in the Negev, reportedly from medical neglect.10

Already in 1998, Amnesty International reported 
that "... in Megiddo Military Detention Centre 
Marwan Ma'ali who was arrested in August 
committed suicide in September. Psychiatrists in 
the detention centre had reportedly diagnosed him 
as depressive with suicidal tendencies and 
recommended his release or hospitalisation. An 
Israeli human rights organisation had described 
his isolation cell as 'unsuitable for habitation 
for any human being'. Nevertheless, his 
administrative detention had been extended for 
five months shortly before his suicide." 11

Systematic and routine

The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights deals 
with 150 to 300 cases of torture per year. 
According to this organisation there are also 
clear patterns that an institutionalised process 
of routinely holding people under administrative 
detention exists. The Center further reports that 
the vast majority of the Palestinian detainees 
are exposed to torture and humiliation. Beatings 
and forced stress positions are widely used, as 
well as suffocation practices. Even electric 
shock treatment is reportedly still practised.12

Last year a Palestinian ex-prisoner spoke at a 
conference in London about his experiences:

"Having spent 14 and half years in jail ... I 
could provide you with thousands of stories of 
torture and maltreatment. Normally when we think 
of torture we imagine brute physical force being 
applied to naked flesh, but today I will tell you 
a different story, something which happened to me.

"Having been deprived of sleep for 2 or 3 days, a 
tin bucket was placed on my head. I was made to 
stand still. My interrogator then turned on a 
shower tap above my head, the water dripped out 
slowly. I was then left by my interrogator and 
watched by a guard for several hours. You feel 
like you are losing you mind. After several hours 
my interrogator returned to mock me, was I 
'having fun enjoying being clean for once' ... In 
such circumstances, whilst others are having 
similar things done to them in nearby rooms, the 
stress become unbearable. Many crack and begin hallucinating." 13

Imad Sabi, director of a Palestinian NGO in 
Ramallah encouraged people to boycott the 1996 
Legislative Council elections. He was arrested by 
Israeli troops in December 1995, shortly before 
the Palestinian Authority was to take over in 
Ramallah and was held in administrative 
detention. On 5 March 1997, from Megiddo Military Jail, he wrote the following:

"Your number will come up one day. Not to go 
home, but so that you are informed of yet another 
extension. Extensions are, I surmise, a subtle 
and malicious form of psychological torture. One 
can almost see the gleeful smile on the 
'invisible' face of the man in the shadows 
putting this signature on the next extension 
order. 'Another four, three, two.... His life is 
mine!', he says. My life is mine! My life is Reem's, is Deena's."

Adding to countless personal stories and the well 
documented reports handled by the Palestinian 
Centre for Human Rights, Palestinian Prisoners' 
Association, Hamoked, B'Tselem, Amnesty 
International and others is the UN Special 
Rapporteur on Torture, who has routinely 
documented numerous cases of torture or other 
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.14 These 
cases confirm that there is a systematic pattern 
of arbitrary detention, torture and/or inhuman 
and degrading punishment or treatment.

In the next part, we discuss how Israel's policy 
on administrative detention leads to grave violations of international law.

[ <http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4294.shtml>NEXT ]

Human Rights
Administrative detention should be banned (2/2)
Jeff Handmaker and Adri Nieuwhof, The Electronic Intifada, 11 November 2005



Israel's policy on administrative detention, 
described in the first part of this article, is 
not only grossly immoral, but it also leads to 
the violation of numerous principles and binding 
obligations of international law.

The position of administrative detention in international law

International law explicitly prohibits arbitrary 
arrest or detention and mandates that "... anyone 
who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or 
detention shall have an enforceable right to 
compensation".15 According to Adalah, Israel has 
sought to justify its policy of administrative 
detention by the remarkable claim that it has 
been under a "state of emergency since 1948" and 
is therefore justified in suspending or 
"derogating" from certain rights, including the 
right not to be arbitrarily detained.16

This position is not supported in international 
law. Derogations are only permissible under very 
strict conditions, namely a "public emergency 
threatening the life of the nation". And even in 
situations of public emergency, a state is not 
permitted to violate certain "core human rights", 
including the right to life and prohibition of 
torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading 
treatment or punishments. This last prohibition 
is often violated in the context of administrative detention.

Israel's policy of administrative detention 
furthermore does not respect the safeguards 
required by international humanitarian law, which 
aims to protect civilians in occupied 
territories, in particular articles 43 and 78 of 
the Fourth Geneva Convention.17 These two 
important articles were introduced in order to 
prevent the use of detention as an arbitrary 
means of controlling a population. It is only to 
be used as an exceptional measure. Israel's use 
of administrative detention has, in fact, been an 
almost routine measure used against political 
activists as much. if not possibly more so, than 
those suspected of serious crimes.

Article 3 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states 
that "... persons taking no active part in the 
hostilities ... shall in all circumstances be 
treated humanely". Finally, Article 72 of the 
Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention 
states that all persons detained have recourse to 
human rights in the event of an "international armed conflict".18

Regardless of the precise legal nature of the 
'conflict', which international lawyers continue 
to argue over, we accept the useful conclusion of 
the International Court of Justice in its 2004 
Advisory Opinion that, this notwithstanding, the 
Geneva Convention "is applicable in the 
Palestinian territories" on the basis of earlier 
conflicts between Israel and neighbouring 
countries. We also accept the Court's conclusion 
that "the protection offered by human rights 
conventions does not cease in case of armed 
conflict", with the exception of certain lawful 
derogations, as discussed earlier.19

Essentially, the safeguards provided by 
international humanitarian and human rights law 
were designed to protect against the use of 
administrative detention beyond simply an 
exceptional measure. They are further reinforced 
by long-standing guidelines on the treatment of persons in detention.20

Jelena Pejic, a legal advisor to the 
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), 
which is considered the most important 
international body monitoring the implementation 
of international humanitarian law, stresses that 
depriving a person of their liberty for reasons 
of public security should only be considered as 
"an exceptional measure of control".

So, what is meant by an "exceptional measure"? 
Pejic cites the example of "administrative 
detention for the sole purpose of intelligence 
gathering", which she insists "cannot be justified".

The basis for considering administrative 
detention as an exceptional measure she explains 
is twofold: firstly, that "personal liberty is 
the rule" rather than the exception and secondly, 
there is a well-established assumption that a 
country's criminal justice system should be "able 
to deal with persons suspected of representing a danger to State security". 21

In other words, administrative detention is a 
measure that should be taken only after various 
other alternatives have been considered. In view 
of the foregoing, it would seem that the 
detention of activists, simply on the basis of 
their political views (for example those 
campaigning for elections) would clearly also "not be justified".

Pejic writes that principles and safeguards for 
the application of administrative detention are 
essential. The guidelines she refers to include 
that administrative detention be exercised on a 
case-by-case basis, without discrimination of any 
kind and that indefinite detention is not 
permissible. Furthermore, certain procedural 
safeguards must be in place concerning access to 
information about the reasons for being 
administratively detained, providing detainees 
the right to challenge the lawfulness of 
administrative detention by an impartial body and 
access to legal assistance, periodical review, 
contact with family, access to medical care and 
access to the detainees by (amongst others) the 
ICRC. Detention at a secret location would also not be permitted.

Israel does not respect these safeguards

It would appear that the only guideline Israel 
comes even remotely close to respecting is the 
right of periodical review. However, without any 
of the other safeguards, and in particular 
without providing reasons for holding someone in 
administrative detention, the ability to 
challenge such an order is effectively 
meaningless. As one Israeli lawyer who has 
defended countless Palestinians being held under 
administrative detention orders has put it, "the law is almost a dead letter".

Both Hamoked and B'Tselem also observe that the 
Israeli authorities apply administrative 
detention in violation of these essential 
safeguards provided by international law. They 
cite widespread misuse of the powers granted to 
the military. Both Amnesty International and 
Human Rights Watch too have condemned Israel's 
policy on administrative detention.

B'Tselem cites the following examples. "The 
authorities use administrative detention as a 
quick and efficient alternative to criminal 
trial, primarily when they do not have sufficient 
evidence to charge the individual, or when they 
do not want to reveal their evidence... Israel 
administratively detains Palestinians for their 
political opinions and non-violent political 
activity. In this way, the authorities expand the 
meaning of danger to 'security of the area' by 
violating freedom of expression and opinion."22

By refusing to ensure even basic, minimum 
standards for the exercise of administrative 
detention and abusing its power by using this 
"exceptional measure" in a routine manner and 
against civilians, Israel creates a situation 
where these essential safeguards and especially 
articles 3, 43 and 78 of the Fourth Geneva 
Convention are routinely violated. Further, other 
principles embodied in international human rights 
instruments are also violated, as explained below.


Israel's policy on administrative detention also 
creates a situation where grave violations of 
international law take place, including 
international prohibitions against torture.

In 1986 Israel signed the UN Convention Against 
Torture, which they ratified in 1991. Despite a 
1999 Supreme Court Case that forbade torture and 
only allowed certain forms of "moderate pressure" 
in very exceptional circumstances, torture of 
Palestinian detainees is still quite widespread, 
based on reports from Israeli, Palestinian and 
foreign NGOs as well as UN organisations.

The Supreme Court ruled that various methods of 
torture by the General Security Service (GSS) 
used such as violent shaking, covering the head 
with a sack, tying the detainee to a small tilted 
chair (known as position abuse), sleep 
deprivation and painful shackling were, when applied cumulatively, illegal.

The Court, however, left the circumstances under 
which "moderate pressure" might be applied 
largely unaddressed. As such, the Israeli courts 
effectively legalised certain forms of "moderate 
physical and psychological pressure", while 
leaving the decision up to the government as to 
when it might be exercised during the interrogation of Palestinian detainees.

In his latest report to the 60th session of the 
UN Commission on Human Rights, the Special 
Rapporteur on Palestinian territories occupied by 
Israel states that (despite this Court ruling), 
"... allegations of torture and inhuman treatment 
of detainees and prisoners continue. Such 
treatment includes beatings, shackling in painful 
positions, kicking, prolonged blindfolding, 
denial of access to medical care, exposure to 
extreme temperatures and inadequate provision of food and water."23

In short, administrative detention, as practised 
by Israel leads to just the sort of violations 
contemplated by the International Court of 
Justice when it condemned not only Israel's 
construction of a Wall, but also its "associated regime".24

Extending the use of administrative detention - tightening the screws

Despite international pressure, there is little 
sign that Israel has any intention of softening 
its policy on administrative detention. Indeed, 
it seems very intent on extending its use to more 
people, with even fewer rights and to even use 
administrative detention in order to interfere 
with the PA elections that are set to take place in January 2006.

In recent weeks, there have been several 
confirmed reports that hundreds of people have 
been administratively detained, though it is 
virtually impossible to determine the exact 
number. According to the Palestinian Central 
Committee for Local Elections, the latest round 
of administrative detention appears to be aimed 
at candidates who simply have either belonged to 
Hamas or have previously been administratively detained.25

Another development reported in the press is that 
Israel has been offering "voluntary deportation" 
instead of administrative detention to 
Palestinian detainees who have spent more than 
two years in detention camps in the Negev. 26

The latest measures being introduced by the 
government of Israel include incommunicado 
detention without trial for up to 50 days 
(extendable) and "... empowers the General 
Security Service to delay bringing persons 
suspected of committing security offenses before 
a judge for a period of ninety-six hours", 
drastically extending the period currently 
provided for. As B'Tselem report, "If enacted, 
the law will severely breach the fundamental 
rights of suspects in criminal proceedings, and 
increase the risk of maltreatment during interrogation." 27

This latest measure in particular, if passed by 
the Israeli Knesset, would extend an already 
brutal policy and place administrative detainees 
even further at the mercy of their interrogators.

International action needed

Nigerian human rights advocate, Wole Soyinka, 
also wrote of his experiences as an 
administrative detainee: "It is wrong. The 
question is not whether I can bear it or not. The 
issue is should I have to bear it."

The international community should not remain 
silent and be bystanders as violations of human 
rights and humanitarian law are perpetrated against the Palestinian people.

While the ICRC seeks to ensure that minimum 
standards are followed in the exercise of 
administrative detention, the experiences of 
administrative detention in Israel and indeed in 
many other countries (such as South Africa) show 
that a state willing to use such an "exceptional 
measure" is rarely guided by human rights or 
concern for humanity. These experiences 
demonstrate that the risks of abuse and grave 
human rights violations far outweigh any security 
considerations gained by its use.

Administrative detention is used by Israel in a 
highly arbitrary manner without even basic 
safeguards in place. It also leads to other, 
grave human rights violations, such as inhuman 
and degrading treatment and torture.

Human rights advocates should raise their voices 
anew against the gross injustices caused by the 
use of administrative detention.

The use of administrative detention is immoral, 
its consequences illegal. Governments should be 
pressured to hold Israel accountable and end the 
practice of detaining people for years in harsh 
conditions without charges or trial.

Jeff Handmaker is a human rights lawyer in The 
Hague and part-time Ph.D. researcher at the 
Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM), 
Utrecht University. Adri Nieuwhof is a 
psychologist and human rights advocate in the Netherlands.


Detention, B'Tselem.

[2] See 
Detention, Addameer.

[3] See 
Detention, Amnesty International, last updated 10 November 2005.

[4] <http://www.btselem.org>B'Tselem

at the end of 2004, Addameer.

journalist freed : Reporters Without Borders 
demands release of three others, Reporters Without Border (11 October 2002).

and the Occupied Territories - Annual report 2003, Reporters Without Borders.

[8] Presentation Tamar Peleg Sryck, London, December 2004.

[9] Ibid, Tamar Peleg Sryck.

[10] Saed Bannoura, 
al-Sajeen demands Israel probe the death of a 
detainee, IMEMC & Agencies (29 July 2005)

Report, 1998, Amnesty International.

[12] Presentation Jaber Wishah, Palestinian 
Ex-prisoners Association, December 2004.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Civil and Political Rights, Including the 
Questions of Torture and Detention, Report of the 
Special Rapporteur, Theo van Boven, 

[15] The UN International Convention on Civil and 
Political Rights, Article 9(5). The UN has 
established a special 
Group on Arbitrary Detention.

to the UN Human Rights Committee (PDF) Adalah (22 July 2003).

Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

[18] Jelena Pejic, 
principles and safeguards for 
internment/administrative detention in armed 
conflict and other situations of violence (PDF) ICRC (June 2005).

Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the 
construction of a wall in the occupied 
Palestinian territory, International Court of 
Justice, 9 July 2004, respectively, paragraphs 101 and 106.

Body of Principles for the Protection of All 
Persons under Any Form of Detention or 
Imprisonment, Adopted by General Assembly 
resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988.

[21] Jelena Pejic, 
principles and safeguards for 
internment/administrative detention in armed 
conflict and other situations of violence (PDF) ICRC (June 2005).

detention in the Occupied Territories, B'Tselem.

practices affecting the human rights of the 
Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian 
Territory, including East Jerusalem (PDF) Report 
of the Special Rapporteur John Dugard, A/60/271 (18 August 2005).

the Advisory Opinion: Possible Future Strategies, 
Jeff Handmaker, The Electronic Intifada (20 September 2004).

[25] Source: Palestinian Central Committee for Local Elections.

[26] Saed Bannoura, 
offers "voluntary deportation" instead of 
administrative detention, IMEMC & Agencies (5 October 2005).

enabling prolonged incommunicado detention passed 
its first reading in the Knesset plenum, B'Tselem (3 November 2005)

Related Links
TOPIC: Detention and Torture

©2000-2005 electronicIntifada.net unless 
otherwise noted. Content may represent personal 
view of author. This page was printed from the 
Electronic Intifada website at 
electronicIntifada.net. You may freely e-mail, 
print out, copy, and redistribute this page for 
informational purposes on a non-commercial basis. 
To republish content credited to the Electronic 
Intifada in online or print publications, please 
get in touch via electronicIntifada.net/contact

The Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 863-9977
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20051115/56d71ee8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1f1268.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 15627 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20051115/56d71ee8/attachment.jpg>

More information about the News mailing list