Jerusalem 3239/Section 4

SECRET

PAGE 01	    JERUSA 03239    04 OF 07    010738Z ACTION SS-25

INFO   OCT-01    ISO-00    SSO-00    /026 W 041434    010749Z /ll

R 301108Z NOV 78 FM AMCONSUL JERUSALEM TO SECSTATE WASHDC 2239 INFO AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV

SECRET SECTION 4 OF 7 JERUSALEM 3239 STADIS////////////////////////////

EXDIS

CORRECTED COPY (STADIS AND EXDIS ADDED)

11. INTERROGATION AND DENUNCIATION. A VICIOUS CIRCLE CAN BE DISCERNED IN THE ISRAELI COURT RECORDS AND PERSONAL STATEMENTS OF MANY OF THE TWENTY-NINE APPLICANTS: THE CIRCLE BEGINS WITH ISRAELI SECURITY ORGANS ARRESTING AN INDIVIDUAL ON THE BASIS OF A DENUNCIATION OBTAINED FROM HIS FRIEND UNDER INTERROGATORS; THEN, DURING THE NEW ARRESTEE'S INTERROGATION, THE INTERROGATORS DEMAND THAT HE COOPERATE WITH THEM AND DENOUNCE HIS ASSOCIATES; AND FURTHER ARRESTS RESULT. SEVENTEEN APPLICANTS WERE APPARENTLY ARRESTED ON THE BASIS OF DENUNCIATIONS, FIVE ALMOST CERTAINLY WERE NOT DENOUNCED, AND IN SEVEN CASES THERE IS INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO MAKE A JUDGEMENT ON THIS POINT. OF THE SEVENTEEN APPLICANTS DENOUNCED, TEN WERE DENOUNCED BY THEIR FRIENDS, WHO HAD BEEN ARRESTED AND INTERROGATED BEFORE THEM. FIVE SAID THAT THEY HAD BEEN DENOUNCED BY INFORMERS, PROBABLY FOR A MONETARY REWARD, AND IN TWO CASES THE ORIGIN OF THE DENUNCIATION IS UNCLEAR. IN THIRTEEN CASES, THE DENUNCIATION SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN THE SOLE FACTOR PROMPTING ARREST. NOT SURPRISINGLY, FOURTEEN APPLICANTS SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT DURING THEIR OWN INTERROGATIONS, THEIR INTERROGATORS HAD DEMANDED THAT THEY DENOUNCE ALLEGED ASSOCIATES. IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT OF THE FIVE

SECRET

SECRET

PAGE 02	    JERUSA 03239    04 OF 07    010738Z

APPLICANTS WHO WERE NOT DENOUNCED, THREE WERE RELEASED WITHOUT TRIAL AT THE CONCLUSION OF THEIR INTERROGATION, WHILE ON THE OTHER HAND, ALL SEVENTEEN OF THE APPLICANTS WHO WERE DENOUNCED WERE TRIED, CONVICTED, AND IMPRISONED. APPARENTLY, THE SECURING OF DENUNCIATIONS IS A KEY POINT TO BE GAINED IN INTERROGATION. IN FACT, SOME APPLICANTS MENTIONED THAT WHILE THEY QUICKLY AGREED TO INCRIMINATE THEMSELVES, CONFESSING TO REAL OR IMAGINARY CRIMES, THEY CONSIDERED IT A POINT OF HONOR NOT TO NAME OTHER INDIVIDUALS -- AND THEI [sic] INTERROGATIONS DRAGGED ON FOR DAYS OR EVEN WEEKS AFTER THEIR OWN FATE HAD BEEN DECIDED, SOLEY [sic] ON THE ISSUE OF OBTAINING THE DENUNCIATIONS. IT APPEARS THAT AN INDIVIDUAL'S WILLINGNESS OR UNWILLINGNESS TO DENOUNCE ASSOCIATES MAY BE A CRUCIAL FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE SEVERITY AND INTENSITY OF THE INTERROGATION. FOR EXAMPLE, AN APPLICANT INTERROGATED AT NABLUS APPEARS TO HAVEEN [sic] SUBJECTED TO LEVEL THREE INTERROGATION, ALTHOUGH HE WAS CHARGE [sic] ONLY WITH HAVING GIVEN VERBAL CONSENT TO JOIN FATAH. HOWEVER, HE SAID THAT HE HAD STEADFASTLY REFUSED TO DENOUNCE ASSOCIATES. ANOTHER APPLICANT, WHO WAS INTERRROGATED FOR FIVE DAYS, DURING WHICH HE WAS NOT PERMITTED TO SLEEP, AND SPENT MOST OF THE TIME STANDING UP [was?] ARRESTED SHORTLY BEFORE MIDNIGHT AND TAKEN IMMEDIATELY FOR INTERROGATION[.] HE WROTE A CONFESSION INCRIMINATING ONLY HIMSELF BY MORNING. THE REMAINDER OF THE CONTINUOUS INTERROGATION, THE APPLICANT SAID, WAS DIRECTED TOWARD OBTAINING A DENUNCIATION, AND WHEN THIS WAS EXTRACTED ON THE FIFTHE [sic] DAY, THE INTERROGATION ENDED. A THIRD APPLICANT, ARRESTED AS A MEMBER OF A GROUP WHICH POSSESSED ARMS AND WHICH HAD ALREADY COMMITTED AT LEAST ONE ARMED OPERATION, DESCRIBED HIMSELF AS UNDERGOING LEVEL ONE INTERROGATION. HIMSELF ARRESTED ON BASIS OF INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY FRIENDS UNDER INTERROGATION, HE IMMEDIATELY FURNISHED HIS INTERROGATORS WITH A NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL NAMES.

12. ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATIONS: PERSONNEL. THEN APPLICANTS

SECRET

SECRET

PAGE 03	    JERUSA 03239    04 OF 07    010738Z

SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT MORE THAN ONE INTERROGATOR PARTICIPATED IN THEIR INTERROGATION SESSIONS. TWO APPLICANTS STATED THAT IN ANY GIVEN INTERROGATING SESSION, THEY WERE CONFRONTED WITH ONLY ONE INTERROGATOR AT A TIME, BUT THAT THE INTERROGATOR WAS CHANGED FROM SESSION TO SESSION. THESE APPLICANTS STATED THAT ALL OF THEIR INTERROGATORS BEAT OR OTHERWISE TORTURED THEM, THE INTERROGATION SESSIONS PROGRESSIVELY INCREASING IN SEVERITY. FOR EXAMPLE, AN APPLICANT WHO WAS INTERROGATED AT TAMALLAH [RAMALLAH?] SAID THAT FIVE DIFFERENT INTERROGATORS PARTICIAPTED [sic] SEQUENTIALLY IN HIS CASE, SO THAT HE HAD SAMPLED "A COCKTAIL OF BEATINGS." FIVE APPLICANTS SAID THAT THEY WERE EACH BEATEN BY TWO OR MORE INTERROGATORS SIMULTANEOUSLY. MOST OFTEN, THESE APPLICANTS SAID THAT TWO OR THREE INTERROGATORS PARTICIPATED. HOWEVER, AN INDIVIDUAL INTERROGATED IN RAMALLAH SAID THAT ONE SUPERVISING INTERROGATOR DIRECTED A TEAM OF FIVE SOLDIERS WHO WERE BEATING HIM, WHILE ANOTHER SECURITY OFFICER TOOK NOTES. IN SOME INSTANCES, APPLICANTS DESCRIBED HOW ONE OF THE GROUP OF INTERROGATORS WOULD PROTEST THAT THE ACCUSED WAS A GOOD PERSON WHO WOULD CONFESS WITHOUT BEATING; HOWEVER, IF THE ACCUSED CONTINUED TO MAINTAIN HIS INNOCENCE, THE "KIND" INTERROGATOR WOULD JOIN THE OTHERS IN STRIKING. ONE APPLICANT SAID THAT THREE INDIVIDUALS PARTICIPATED SIMULTANEOUSLY IN HIS INTERROGATION -- ONE BEATING, ONE TAKING NOTES, AND ONE WATCHING. (AS THE VALIDITY OF THE CONFESSION IN THIS CASE WAS APPARENTLY NEVER QUESTIONED, IT IS LIKELY THAT BOTH THE NOTE-TAKER AND THE OBSERVER VIEWED THE BEATING AS A MATTER OF COURSE.) TWO APPLICANTS STATED THAT SEVERAL INTERROGATORS HAD PARTICIPATED IN THEIR INTERROGATIONS, BUT DID NOT MAKE CLEAR THE PRECISE CIRCUMSTANCES. 13. THE PRACTICES DESCRIBED BY THE TEN APPLICANTS RUN STRONGLY COUNTER TO ANY EXPLANATION OF PHYSCIAL [sic] ABUSE DURING INTERROGATION AS MERELY THE ABERRANT BEHAVIOR OF AN OCCASIONAL "ROGUE COP." IF SEVERAL INTERROGATORS ARE TO QUESTION AND BEAT AN ARRESTEE SIMULTANEOUSLY, IT WOULD SURELY BE NECESSARY FOR THESE INTERROGATORS TO MEET BRIEFLY BEFORE THE SESSION TO COORDINATE THEIR TACTICS.

SECRET

SECRET

PAGE 04	    JERUSA 03239    04 OF 07    010738Z

IF SEVERAL INTERROGATORS ARE TO QUESTION AND BEAT AN ARRESTEE SEQUENTIALLY, SO THAT THE INTERROGATION SESSIONS INCREASE IN SEVERITY, EACH INTERROGATOR WOULD SURELY HAVE TO MAKE A REPORT TO THE INTERROGATOR FOLLOWING HIM. AND WHAT OF THE ADMINISTRATORS ASSIGNING INTERROGATORS TO INDIVIDUAL CASES? ARE WE SIMPLY TO ASSUME THAT ALL OF THIS CONFERRING AND COORDINATING AND REPORTING AMONG SUBORDINATES COULD GO ON WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR DIRECT SUPERIORS?

SECRET

NNN