Freedom in Democratic countries - Vanunu

[Radagast The Brown]

You *might* have all heard about the prisioner Vanunu that was released a few days ago. The restrictions that were decided in the ministry of security are these:

1) listening to his phone calls and read his e-mail.
2) He can't leave Israel.
3) He can't come nearby embassies.
4) He needs to notify and say where's he going to sleep when he's going for a vacation.

All of the restrictions are are for a year.

I'm not sure what to think - he's obviously a traitor, and should've been in prison for more time - but the question is: if he was judged for 18 years in prison, and they ended - is it right to follow him and hurt some of his rights? I'm pretty sure 80% or more of the citizens here will say 'yes'. I'm not sure yet. What do you think?

[jerseydevil]

Well I it seems more like a probationary period. From what I have heard - he's lucky to be out at all.

Selling national secrets - like he did in a democracic country - is a betrayal to all the people of that country. He put all the people of Israel in jeopardy with his traitorous acts.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Well I it seems more like a probationary period. From what I have heard - he's lucky to be out at all.

Selling national secrets - like he did in a democracic country - is a betrayal to all the people of that country. He put all the people of Israel in jeopardy with his traitorous acts.

But the court judged him for 18 years. He wasn't really lucky to be out - although some thought about it in the government, they understood there's no way to keep hm behind bars. So they made these restrictions.
They might decide though that after the year to make another year of those rules on him.

The question is - do you think it's right to prevent him from doing all those things, even though he served his sentence? (now I'm not sure if the last sentence is correct - but try to understand)

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Radagast The Brown
1) listening to his phone calls and read his e-mail.
2) He can't leave Israel.
3) He can't come nearby embassies.
4) He needs to notify and say where's he going to sleep when he's going for a vacation.

since one would assume he has no further secrets to give, and will never be in the position to attain them again, i can't see why they wouldn't just let him be

if he did have further secrets to give, i very much doubt he would have been let out at all

i also don't remember any big payoff for his information... from what i remember he was just against nuclear weapons... though i may be wrong, it's been a while since i read his story

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
since one would assume he has no further secrets to give, and will never be in the position to attain them again, i can't see why they wouldn't just let him be

if he did have further secrets to give, i very much doubt he would have been let out at all

i also don't remember any big payoff for his information... from what i remember he was just against nuclear weapons... though i may be wrong, it's been a while since i read his story

Some say he does, he says he doesn't.
Why don't you think he would've been let out? His punishment was only 18 years. After that he suppose to be released - and thatwhat happened.

This is the link for the original article.

[Insidious Rex]

Im sure no matter what restrictions are officialy placed on him or not the Mossad will be on his ass till the day he dies in every way possible. So its a little disingenious for them to say theres this OFFICIAL period of time where he will be closely watched. I wouldnt be surprised if he somehow defects or something. Either that or that he is shot by a zealot.