IN A democratic state, there is no place for administrative detention, nor even for trials in which vital evidence is withheld from the accused and defense lawyers. There must be better ways of protecting informers and other secret sources of information. For example, allowing defendants in such cases to choose lawyers only from a restricted list of those with the highest security clearance.
This, by the way, did indeed happen in the most sensitive security trial of all: that of the nuclear whistleblower (or “spy”) Mordechai Vanunu.
The deal worked out in the Adnan case exposes the irrationality of the system. If Adnan was so dangerous that he had to be imprisoned without charge or trial, how can he be released? And if he was not so dangerous, why was he held in the first place?
IN THE end, Adnan has created a paradox for himself and his comrades.
The very essence of his and his organization’s ideology is that there is no effective method of resistance to the Israeli occupation and oppression but violence of the most extreme kind. Non-violence, in their view, is nonsense. Worse, it means capitulation and, in the end, betrayal. Islamic Jihad now accuses Hamas of flirting with this idea.
Yet a hunger strike is the ultimate form of non-violence. Ghandhi used it frequently, relying on its moral impact.
Khaled Adnan’s achievement is exactly that: a shining victory for non-violence.
For more on this story, visit: A Shining Victory for Non-Violence » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names.