Hearing to be held April 12 2005: A List of The Charges
Apr 4 2005
More interesting, how they can make a trial, if they are not able to silence me now, and during the trial I am speaking, exercising my freedom of speech.
See you very soon,very free,
The Magistrates Court in Jerusalem
ID No. 68411933
I. The Facts: The Provisions
1. On April 19, 2004, Brigadier Yair Naveh, "the military commander," in the terms of the Defense Regulations (State of Emergency), 1945, Commander of the Homeland Command of the Israel Defense Forces at the time (hereinafter: "the Brigadier"), issued, by power of his authority according to Regulation 6(2) and Regulations 108, 109 and 110 of the Defense Regulations (State of Emergency), 1945, a "Restriction and Monitoring Order" concerning the Defendant (hereinafter: "the Order"). The full text of the Order is attached hereto and constitutes part of the description of the facts that constitute the offenses (marked "A").
2. According to the Order, the Defendant was prohibited, unless he received prior permission, "to maintain contacts or exchange information, by any means whatsoever, with foreign citizens or residents." In addition, he was prohibited from participating in internet "chats". The Defendant was ordered to give prior notice to the police of his intention to leave the boundaries of the city in which he resided. He was also prohibited, without prior permission, from coming within 500 meters of places from which it is possible to leave Israel, including the territories of Judea and Samaria. It was noted in the Order, that in any event in which the defendant had doubts concerning the restrictions that were imposed on him by means of the Order, he was obliged to refer in this matter to the commander of the police station closest to his place of residence, in order to receive clarifications.
3. Prior to the publication of the Order, notice was given to the Defendant concerning the intention to issue same. On April 18, 2004, the Defendant's attorney sent to the Brigadier, a letter of reservations against the intention to issue the Order. Therein it was argued, on behalf of the Defendant, that it was technically impossible to comply with the prohibition, since the Defendant could not ask every person he met in the street for their passport. On April 19, 2004, the Brigadier sent a response to the reservations concerning the Order (hereinafter: "the Letter of Response"). In Section 31 of the Letter of Response, the Brigadier clarified the prohibition on maintaining "contacts or exchange of information, with foreign citizens or foreign residents." Furthermore, the Brigadier emphasized, that in any situation in which the Defendant wished to make contact with a person whose citizenship he did not know with certainty, or in any situation in which a person who was unfamiliar to him tried to make contact with him, or exchange information with him, he must first ascertain the identity of same in a positive manner, by means of initial clarification questions, such as: name, address, citizenship, etc. The Brigadier explained, that naturally, if the Defendant was approached by a person speaking a foreign language, that should raise the Defendant's suspicions, that the person was a foreign national. The Letter of Reservations concerning the Order and the Brigadier's Response to the reservations, are attached hereto as part of the facts that constitute the offenses (marked "B" and "C", respectively).
4. On April 19, 2004, the Order was served to the Defendant.
5. The Defendant placed the Restriction and Monitoring Order under the review of the High Court of Justice (HCJ 5211/04), and the Court confirmed the validity of the Order in a ruling given on July 26, 2004, in the presence of the Defendant.
6. On October 20, 2004, the Brigadier extended the validity of the Order for an additional period of six months, by means of an additional order that he publicized (hereinafter: "the Order of Extension"). The Order of Extension was also preceded by notification to the Defendant, concerning the intention to extend the validity of the Order. The Defendant, through his attorney, sent his reservations to the Brigadier. The "Order of Extension" and the notice of ways of contacting the Israel Police concerning the provisions of the Order were served to the Defendant on October 20, 2004. A copy of the Order of Extension and the Brigadier's response to the reservations are attached hereto as part of the description of the facts that constitute the offenses (marked "D" and "E", respectively).
7. On April 19, 2004, Knesset Member Avraham Poraz, then Minister of the Interior, issued, by power of his authority according to Regulation 6 of the State of Emergency Regulations (Departure Abroad), 1948, an "Order Prohibiting Departing the Country for Reasons of Security" against the Defendant (hereinafter: "Order Prohibiting Departing the Country"). The Order Prohibiting Departing the Country was valid for one year. The full text of the Order is attached hereto and constitutes part of the facts that constitute the offenses (marked "F"). The Order Prohibiting Departing the Country was also brought by the Defendant under the review of the High Court of Justice (in the framework of said HCJ 5211/04), and the Court also confirmed the validity of same in the framework of the ruling that was given on July 26, 2004, in the presence of the Defendant.
8. On November 11, 2004, the Defendant was brought before the Magistrates Court in Petach Tikva, having been arrested, on the suspicion of repeated violations of the provisions of the Order. His release on bail to seven days of house arrest was made conditional on self bond of NIS 10,000 and with the stipulation, that he remain in absolute house arrest, report to the police any time he was required to do so. In addition, the Court further warned the Defendant once again, that he was prohibited from maintaining contacts or meeting with the persons whose characteristics were defined in the Order. The Violation of the Provisions
9. The Defendant violated the provisions of the Order at the very least 21 times, as set forth in the charge sheet hereinafter, doing so knowingly and provocatively, even after the High Court of Justice rejected his arguments against the validity of the Order. The Defendant did so by maintaining contacts with foreign journalists and giving them information and details that he knew. In interviews that the Defendant held, he gave journalists information about his work at the Nuclear Research Center in the Negev (hereinafter: "NRC"), where he worked more than 18 years previously. In addition, he made contact with foreign citizens through the internet, by means of sending and receiving electronic mail, chat, video and audio conversations.
10. On May 22, 2004, the Defendant held an interview with Ms. Yael Lotan, an Israeli journalist, and Mr. Peter Hounam, a British journalist and subject, for the British Broadcasting Company (the BBC). In the interview, the Defendant provided information and details which he knew, according to himself, from his work at the NRC, concerning the production of plutonium, lithium 6 and tritium by Israel and the quantities of each of the materials.
11. In the course of the month of July the Defendant met with foreign journalist Mr. Paul Martin. The Defendant provided in the meeting, details that were known to him, about an American delegation that visited the reactor in Dimona, in the upper levels of the structure. The Israelis, according to the Defendant, erected fake walls, that blocked the delegation's access to the lower levels. The Defendant claimed to Mr. Martin, that he had photographed a model of a "neutron bomb" and estimated, that Israel had developed a "hydrogen bomb" "because he had heard about those things". The Defendant's statements were publicized in an article dated July 7, 2004 in the Washington Times newspaper and on the website washingtontimes.com.
12. On August 13, 2004, the Defendant gave an interview to Sonny Miller, director of the Raprock Peace Center located in Deerfield, MA., in the U.S.A.. In the interview, the Defendant provided details that he knew, so he claimed, from his work at the NRC and information concerning the nuclear reactor, such as: that Israel had 100-200 nuclear bombs already in 1986, that Israel has produced "hydrogen bombs" and "neutron bombs", and he also claimed, that the reactor had released water underground, which he believed was contaminated with radioactive waste. The interview was publicized on the internet on August 14, 2004 on the site http://www.traprockpeace.org.
13. On August 17, 2004, the Defendant spoke with reporter Amy Goodman, a reporter for an American broadcast network called Democracy Now and gave her details concerning his work at the NRC and information about the number of nuclear bombs possessed by Israel, according to him, and about the production of hydrogen bombs starting from 1985-1986, and about the production of a neutron bomb - all according to him.
14. On August 28, 2004, the Defendant spoke with Nick Hoover from the U.S.A., a reporter for the internet news website Agonist and gave him information about his work at the NRC, the materials which he claimed he dealt with manufacturing and the number of bombs that he estimated were produced every year. The Defendant claimed, that in 1980 the NRC began producing additional materials, for making hydrogen and neutron bombs.
15. On September 13, 2004, the Defendant was interviewed by reporter Phillip Muldray, the interview was broadcast live on the website www.kpfa.org. In the interview, the Defendant gave details about his work in the control room at the NRC, and claimed that due to said work, he knew the amount of plutonium that was produced every day. He further said, that Israel had moved on to produce Lithium 6 and Tritium for the "hydrogen bombs".
16. On September 23, 2004, the Defendant was interviewed for the radio program Arab Voices, which is broadcast from a station located in Houston, Texas, U.S.A. The program was broadcast live on the website www.kptf.org. In an interview with reporters, whose identity is not known to the Accuser, except for the fact that they identified themselves by the names Said and Mark, the Defendant provided details concerning the production of plutonium, uranium, lithium and tritium which, according to him, was taking place at the reactor in Dimona. Moreover, he provided specific details known to him, so he claimed, such as the production of 40 kilograms of plutonium every year, and that Israel had the capability to produce 10 nuclear bombs every year. He further stated, that he had photographed the building in which he had worked and mentioned details regarding the location and size of the building.
17. The Defendant spoke with Mr. Daiji Sadamori from Japan, who interviewed him for the Japanese newspaper The Ashai Shimbun. The interview was published on September 25, 2004. In the interview, the Defendant gave details and information concerning his work at the NRC. The Defendant said, that he has seen technicians from South Africa working at the reactor in Dimona, spoke about the cooperation between South Africa and Israel on the subject of nuclear technology and claimed, that Israel had 200 "atom bombs". He further stated, that he had previously warned of the poor maintenance of the reactor.
18. On or soon before September 29, 2004, the Defendant was interviewed by reporter Jonathan Lockraft from a local radio station in Adelaide, Australia. The interview was broadcast and published on the internet website www.abc.net.au. In the interview, the Defendant declared, that if the restrictions that had been imposed against him were not lifted and he was not permitted to leave Israel, he intended to speak with the media at increased levels.
19. On September 29, 2004, the Defendant spoke with Ms. Mimi Rosenberg and with additional journalists, in the framework of Rosenberg's program on radio WBAI in New York, and gave them details concerning the number of nuclear bombs that Israel possessed, so he claimed, and the cooperation that he claimed existed with other countries in the building of the NRC.
20. On October 8, 2004, the Defendant spoke with a representative of the Indymedia communications network from Ireland. The Defendant provided in the conversation details and information concerning his work at the NRC, the radioactive materials, the number and types of bombs that he claimed were produced there. The Defendant said, that he was violating the provisions of the Order and was speaking with foreigners and that he intended to write a book.
21. On or about October 13, 2004, the Defendant was interviewed on the internet, by Tony Jones from the program Lateline of the Australian network ABC. The interview was published on the website www.abc.net.au. The Defendant provided information and details concerning his work at the NRC such as, the fact that he claimed having seen the production of 40 kilograms of plutonium every year, sufficient for producing 10 bombs. The Defendant further claimed, that Israel had held nuclear tests in cooperation with the Apartheid regime in South Africa already in 1978.
22. On or about October 18, 2004, the Defendant granted an interview to reporter Patrick San-Paul for the newspaper La Figaro in France. The article was published on the newspaper's website in French. The Defendant provided details concerning, so he claimed, France having provided Israel with the reactor at which he had been employed and a plant for separating plutonium from uranium, located 23 meters underground.
23. On October 24, 2004, the Defendant was interviewed for the television station BBC1, for David Frost's morning program. In that interview, the Defendant claimed, that Israel had 200 "atom bombs" and even "more powerful" bombs such as "neutron bombs" and "hydrogen bombs".
24. On October 31, 2004, the Defendant granted an interview to reporter David Carlton from the program 60 Minutes, broadcast in Australia. In the interview, the Defendant provided details concerning the order that prohibited him from speaking with foreign reporters. The Defendant was asked about an article that had been published previously, in which he had stated, that Israel was capable of producing about 10 "bombs" every year, and he said, that he claimed that was true, based on the quantity of "material" possessed by the State of Israel, according to him.
25. In the course of the month of October 2004, the Defendant conversed by means of an internet chat with Ms. Kelly Cotino, a law student at Cambridge, England. Ms. Cotino mentioned the issue of the restrictions that were imposed against the Defendant, and noted, that that interview might worsen the Defendant's situation. It was agreed between them, that the questions would be sent by electronic mail and the Defendant would give his responses by means of a telephone conversation at a later time.
26. In October 2004, the Defendant was sent electronic mail from an internet user who identified herself as Jennifer Harbury. The Defendant responded to the mail and attached thereto a file of his resume. The text of the resume contained many details concerning his work at the NRC, the production of plutonium and other radioactive materials which, according to him, were produced at the reactor in Dimona.
27. At different times, in the course of October and November 2004, the Defendant corresponded by means of the internet with Mr. Rush Rehm, a professor at Standford University in the U.S.A., whose address is email@example.com. The Defendant sent the professor his resume, containing many details and information about the radioactive materials that he claimed were produced at the NRC, and specifics of his areas of work and responsibility there.
28. On December 12, 2004, the Defendant spoke with journalist Adam Boulton, who interviewed him for his program, which was broadcast live on the British Sky News network. The interview opened with the question from the interviewer, why was the Defendant risking violating the Order by that very conversation with him, and the Defendant responded, that he was knowingly violating the restrictions that had been imposed against him, in order to present his position. Further in the interview, the Defendant addressed nuclear issues.
29. On January 1, 2005, the Defendant spoke with Mr. Lenny Blum from the internet and radio site Cloak and Dagger in Canada. The Defendant gave the other party to the conversation information concerning his work at the NRC, provided the names of the materials which he claimed were produced there, the amount and types of nuclear bombs that he claimed Israel was producing, and he attributed his knowledge to the period during which he worked at the NRC.
30. On August 10, 2004, the Defendant was interviewed by the Al-Arabiya television network. The Defendant told the interviewers about his work at the NRC, and that in the course of his work at the reactor, he was employed in the production of plutonium. The Defendant provided details concerning the types of materials which he claimed were produced at the NRC and the quantities thereof. The Defendant further claimed in the interview, that the activity of the NRC endangered the residents of the neighboring Kingdom of Jordan, since activities that could create environmental harm were conducted when the wind blew towards Jordan.
31. In all of the instances set forth in sections 10 to 30 hereinabove, the Defendant violated the provisions of the Order, by maintaining contacts and speaking with people who were not citizens or residents of Israel (hereinafter: "foreign nationals") and giving them information, on issues related to his work at the NRC, in conversations, most of which were intended for mass publication and some of which, as set forth hereinabove, were even broadcast live.
32. On December 24, 2004, at 21:15, the Defendant attempted to violate the provisions of the Order, by attempting to depart from the area of Jerusalem and the territory of the State, his destination being the city of Bethlehem, in the territory of the Palestinian Council [sic.]. All this, was done without prior permission and contrary to the provisions of the Order. The Defendant was arrested at Checkpost 300 on his way in the direction of Bethlehem. By doing so, the Defendant attempted to violate the provisions of the Restriction and Monitoring Order and the provisions of the Order Prohibiting Departing the Country.
33. By doing so, the Defendant violated provisions that were given in orders by persons in official positions, authorized for same, and did so 21 times, and attempted to violate said provisions, as stated, one more time. II. The Statute Provisions on the Basis of Which the Defendant is Accused: Violating a Legal Provision - 21 offenses under Section 287 of the Penal Code, 1977, and Attempting to Violate a Legal Provision - an additional offense under the same section, with the addition of Sections 25 and 34 of said Law. III.
Witnesses for the Prosecution:
1. Superintendent Eyal Peterburg, Israel Police
Jerusalem, March 17, 2005.
-- SUBMITTED BY Mordechai Vanunu NEW EMAIL ADDRESS firstname.lastname@example.org
Vanunu Mordechai, John Crossman, VMJC.
My address. St George Cathedral. 20 Nablus Rd. East Jerusalem, PO Box 19122.