The Guardian’s favorite Theobald Jew, Antony Lerman, was at it again fuelling the flames of Jew-hatred in the comment thread with an article entitled Israel’s doctors must allay doctor’s fears bearing the byline “[a]llegations of Israeli doctors colluding in the torture of Palestinians must be investigated”. There being no substance to Lerman’s article, the commenters seized upon this to focus on the news that during the 1990s Israel used organs from deceased Israelis, Palestinians and foreign workers without their consent.
The first volley of comments in the thread set the tone for the entire thread:
orwellwasright
22 Dec 2009, 12:10PM
This on top of the admission by the Israeli government that they were indeed harvesting the organs of Palestinians – after accusing anyone who saw any credibility to the allegations revealed in the Swedish press of being “anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists”.
Talk about a complete, institutionalised rejection of morality…
ellymiranda
22 Dec 2009, 12:11PM
Yes, now when Israel officially admitted that their physicians have stolen organs from both Israelis and Palestinians, it is time to put it all on the table.
Of course, this kind of perversion of the truth is a well known tactic employed by the hate-Israel crowd. Predictably, orwellwasright and ellymiranda manipulated the false headline that “Israel Admitted to Harvesting Palestinian Organs” using this as proof that the Aftonbladet blood libel (that Israeli soldiers harvest the organs of Palestinians for trafficking) is true, despite the fact that such charges are completely unsubstantiated and Donald Bostrom, the Aftonbladet “reporter”, has since distanced himself from the story.
As Yaacov Lozowick observes
Antisemitic allegations almost always start from some grain of fact. What makes them antisemitic (or even merely slander) isn’t the original grain of truth but the edifice built on it. In the Rostom blood libel earlier this year the slander was that IDF forces were regularly killing Palestinians so as to harvest their organs. The grain of truth uncovered here (which actually isn’t news at all, it has been known in Israel for years, which is one reason Hiss no longer heads the Abu Kabir institute) has nothing to do with those allegations, and doesn’t substantiate them in any way.
But to point out that what orwellwasright and ellymiranda were doing was propagating antisemitic blood libels was met with this:
orwellwasright
22 Dec 2009, 12:21PM
I wonder how long it’ll be until the usual suspects come here and start making excuses for this? They do it for the slaughter of children, so why not for the complicity of the medical establishment in torture or the harvesting of organs?
orwellwasright
22 Dec 2009, 12:25PM
ThePrompter: “What I’d like to know is, as far as Israelis are concerned, what isn’t antisemitic?”
Praising the IDF for shooting children, perhaps?
bill4me
22 Dec 2009, 12:30PM
Or praising Hamas for raining rockets down on civilian populations?
KrustytheKlown
22 Dec 2009, 2:48PM
Rubbish! The whole point about the article to which you refer was that it claimed that Palestinians were being killed in order to obtain their organs without a shred of evidence being offered to support the claim.
Did the article make this claim?
From what I’ve read (admittedly I haven’t read a translation of hte original article) the newspaper did not make this claim, but rather reported the remarks of individual Palestinians who did make this claim. Not at all the same thing.
It is, btw, really quite chilling to see how so many of our zionist posters are playing down Israel’s admission that it stole organs from members of an occupied people. If that kind of carry-on really isn’t so bad after all, why then did the Israeli govt throw out the usual pathetic ‘anti-semite’ accusation at Aftonbladet, and demand an official condmemnation from the Swedish governemnt?
maskdmaverick
22 Dec 2009, 3:58PM
This story just shows how Israel has been willing to label any criticism as anti-semitic. Great to see them fall flat on their face.
orwellwasright
22 Dec 2009, 4:55PM
deWinter: who on earth is talking about Israeli hospitals and the standard of care?? The topic is specific allegations of doctors assisting in torture.
It would be a good idea of those on CIF who go around making sweeping statements bothered to read both the article and the subsequent comments properly before spouting out irrelevant posts.
MeandYou
22 Dec 2009, 5:31PM
According to the Huffington Post Israel do more than torture:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/21/israel-admits-harvesting_n_399623.html
“(AP) JERUSALEM – Israel has admitted that in the 1990s, its forensic pathologists harvested organs from dead bodies, including Palestinians, without permission of their families.”
The only thing that seems illegal in this War Machine state is any criticism of it.
And then we have Jay’Reilly who described Jews who challenge this kind of discourse as the “absolute dregs of the Jewish diaspora”. Do you think he will get banned for making such a blatantly antisemitic comment? (Its a rhetorical question – this is CiF, the incubator for this kind of discourse.)
JayReilly
22 Dec 2009, 12:50PM
“This on top of the admission by the Israeli government that they were indeed harvesting the organs of Palestinians – after accusing anyone who saw any credibility to the allegations revealed in the Swedish press of being “anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists”. “
Its amazing how a country that goes in for such regular depravity is seemingly untouchable on the world stage. We are desperately rewriting our laws to protect their war criminals, the global talks on racism were walked out on by most of the West because Israel’s fine name had been sullied, they threatened Sweden for not backing their grotesque cover up, the UK was silent over their assaults in Lebanon, and to cap it all off the absolute dregs of the Jewish diaspora relentlessly scream about anti-semitism when these things are raised.
And for a further insight into the depraved mind of JayReilly we have this.
JayReilly
22 Dec 2009, 2:14PM
“And by jove, he’s irrationally angry: “
Irrational? How so? A country that operates apparently on a different moral and legal basis to the rest of the world with the overt support of my government, my objection to its practices are “irrational”. Please explain.
“The ‘regular depravity’ which, because of the complex ethical, moral, legal, problems involved, has engulfed 200 hospitals here. In regularly depraved UK?”
The UK is about as depraved as any developed demoracy, yes. Maybe if we were illegally occupying Wales and taking organs from the Welsh who we regularly pounded to dust with illegal munitions, maybe then I’d find it even worse than depraved and actually become “irrationally angry” about it. Funny thing context, isnt it, its almost like it actually matters.
“Now on to Livni and a magistrate’s warrant which can be issued without evidence by politically motivated activists but has not and will not be issued to Messrs Blair, Clinton, Putin, Mugabe, Assad.”
Aside from the crass wotaboutery at the end, are you saying magistrate’s are “political activists”? The warrant must be issued by a court, not the activists.
“Were anti-semitic literature was sold in the foyers?”
I was under the impression one of the principle complaints was the description of Israel as a “racist state”, something that appears factually irrefutable.
“In there with a chance: Israel ‘threatened’ Sweden? Did they? What was the threat? And what is the cover up?”
Forgive me, Israel voiced its displeasure and politely requested the Swedish government take steps against the paper. Apologies for the error.
“An unsubstantiated accusation” – which it has now been found was pretty close to the truth.
“Try and refute or explain, it’s screaming and our Jay describes someone like me as part of ‘the absolute dregs of the Jewish diaspora’.”
I said in very plain English that those who respond to all criticism with cries of “anti-semitism” are the “dregs of the diaspora”, yes. Whats the problem, and what have you got to do with it? I didnt realise you were one of the “anti-semitic!!!!!!” crowd.
Anyway lets see what other characters are attracted to a thread like this.
Well in time honored CiF fashion, we have the Jewish conspiracy theorists:
doask
22 Dec 2009, 12:56PM
curiously israeli organ harvesting has not yet reached bbc broadcast news .. in fact nor has the continued collective punishment of gazans nor the threat by admiral mullin to iran of military action in 2010.
is the bbc reporting anything other than weather these days?
Rgk78
22 Dec 2009, 1:02PM
curiously israeli organ harvesting has not yet reached bbc broadcast news .. in fact nor has the continued collective punishment of gazans nor the threat by admiral mullin to iran of military action in 2010.
is the bbc reporting anything other than weather these days?
why has govt been silent of the israeli abuses?
My view point is that the pro-Israel Murdoch media report items in a way that is 95% bias towards Israel.
The UK government policy is about 90% pro-Israel.
The BBC is about 75% pro-Israel and this is low enough to be accused of anti-semetism.
And then there’s those that make Nazi analogies:
Rgk78
22 Dec 2009, 12:42PM
I don’t know if doctors in Israel take the Hippocratic Oath but you have to question your morals if you have any part in this. A doctor should not ever participate in anything like this.
Being complicit with the government echoes regimes that I dare not mention at the risk of being shouted down.
ThePrompter
22 Dec 2009, 1:08PM
There were people in Germany who’s indiscriminate support for the Nazi regime to a large extent allowed that regime to commit the atrocities that it did.
The un-discriminating appologists for the Israeli state are in danger of making the same mistake.
I am not saying that Israeli behavior is comparable to the behavior of Nazi Germany, but to contend that Israel doesn’t have questions to answer is just ridiculous
FrankFinlay
22 Dec 2009, 1:23PM
So are Israeli doctor’s complicit in torture or not?
The world needs an answer. My God, I hope they aren’t. If they are then the moral compass of the world has truly been inverted. Which would mean that Israel could no longer claim a special moral position because of the terrible history of the Jewish people. History does not excuse evil.
phindrup
22 Dec 2009, 3:22PM
What I’d like to know is, as far as Israelis are concerned, what isn’t antisemitic?
Odd isn?t it? Though some Jews are also Semites, many, especially the European Jews are not, and never have been.
Palestinians however, are definitely Semites, there is absolutely no doubt about this.
Isn?t it time that the charge of against anybody questioning the behaviour of Israel was described correctly? Whatever a person supporting the Palestinian cause might be, they are not anti-Semitic.
Why is Israel ?singled out? for criticism?
The fact that in 1947 Jews owned less than seven percent of the land in Palestine.
Today, Israel occupies 87 percent of Palestine. It controls the airspace, the land and sea borders and all food, water, fuel, electricity, medical supplies and access to medical aid, building materials, spare parts, etc.?Gaza is an immense concentration camp — 1.5 million people squeezed into 140 square miles hemmed in on all sides by 25-foot-high walls separated by a vast expanse of bulldozed earth. The 2005 “pull-out” left Gaza still controlled by Israel from air and sea, its entries and exits prisonlike mazes electronically controlled and under constant surveillance. Bombing it, assaulting it with tanks and Uzis, is like shooting animals in a pen.?
“Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial.” Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, 25 March, 2001
29numbers
22 Dec 2009, 4:09PM
They consider them a lesser specie but still use their organs. Hypocrites.
And then we have a commenter that uses the “chosen people” trope.
need4enlightenment
22 Dec 2009, 4:22PM
Man, I heard about the harvesting of organs…. sick bastards. By the way I am NOT calling ALL Israelis sick bastards, only those that cut numerous organs from a dying persons body, sow them back up and dump them in the street… Oh or dump phosphate on people from a great height…. oh, or blockade ports knowing full well the people will starve… yeh, if you do none of that you are a nice person, perhaps even gods-chosen…
And then there are those that think they’re history experts because they’ve read some Pappe or Shlaim:
ThePrompter
22 Dec 2009, 5:21PM
SantaMonika -
“Oh, the endless attempts here to rewrite history by the biased and ignorant” etc.
1947-49
There were indeed 7 Arab armies, however they were outnumbered by the Zionist forces. They never invaded the land that the Zionists had been given, all of the battles took place on the land that was to be the Palestinian state, and they only attacked the Zionists after the Zionists had committed a number of massacres including Deir Yassin where 100 Palestinian men, women, and children were killed, on Palestinian land. By the end of the war Israel had control of all of Palestine except The West Bank and Gaza, 750,000 Palestinians had become refugees, and over 500 Palestinian towns and villages had been obliterated. It was, and still is, the Israeli Zionists who are the aggressors.It’s all pretty well documented you know……
ONeill70 4.33pm -
You are making the same mistake as SantaMonika, I do happen to know quite a lot about Nazi Germany and the Israeli/Palestine conflict, based on a lot more than CiF or Israeli propaganda sites.
However I suggest we drop this subject because it’s getting seriously off-topic.
ThePrompter
22 Dec 2009, 3:48PM
TawdryDog -
“This forum is not appreciative when others point out the absence of criticism of ‘freedom fighters’ and their masters in Tehran”
My comment was clearly aimed at the Israeli state and it’s un-critical supporters, but even if it wasn’t clear enough for you, you should have realised what I meant because the Palestinian ‘freedom fighters’ don’t have a state, Israel nicked it 61 years ago.
And the historical distortions continue with this:
MmeEAB
22 Dec 2009, 3:43PM
Why is anybody surprised at anything horrible which is done by israelis to the original inhabitants of the land these northern european refugees occupy?
And to top if off, perhaps one of the only comments which was on-topic – in that it addressed the subject of torture raised by Antony Lerman – gets deleted. Read this comment – I can only surmise that Tom Wonacott expressed a view that did not fit in with the Guardian World Veiw. Bad boy Tom! You should know better by now.
TomWonacott
22 Dec 2009, 1:43PM
“……..Even though Israel’s supreme court in 1999 finally ruled that methods of torture used at that time by the security forces were illegal, a loophole was left for interrogators who tortured in “ticking bomb” situations, which ultimately allowed old forms of torture to creep back in by the mid-2000s, as a 2007 report by PCATI showed. So there is good reason to be seriously concerned about the use of torture today……..”
The ticking time bomb scenario is one of the most controversial “loopholes” used to condone the practice of torture. In a November 3, 2005 New York Times editorial, ?The Prison Puzzle?, the New York Times stated:
“We’re not naïve enough to believe that if the C.I.A. nabs a Qaeda operative who knows where a ticking bombs hidden, that terrorist will emerge unbruised from his interrogation…”
Thus, even the New York Times believes that under certain circumstances, torture is warranted. What leader would give in to principal when faced with the loss of a significant amount of innocent lives? For me personally, its not so much the use of torture, but when to apply the ticking time bomb scenario – and what criteria makes torture the preferred technique to gather important, life saving information.
I read the account of one suspect (Bajat Yamen) who was clearly tortured in 2004. This was done toward the end of the second intifada when more than 1100 Israelis lost their lives from suicide bombings and other attacks that targeted Israeli civilians for murder. In 2004-2005, nearly 100 Israelis lost their lives from suicide bombings alone.
Identifying Palestinian suicide bombers is difficult at best because they blend in with the population (and many look a lot like the Israeli Arabs that reside in Israel). While the use of torture is illegal, no one can blame Israel for torturing high value targets to protect their citizens during a war (at least in my opinion) -especially from those who target civilians for murder which is (just as) illegal under the Geneva Convention. Protecting Israel citizens is the number one priority of the Israel government.
Oh well. Another day in the parallel universe of the Guardian.
Hawkeye
Omar2
WellofSense
Medusa
The Alchemist
Louise
Tosca
Maimon
Telling the Truth
Israelinurse
Adam Levick
Margie in Tel Aviv
Guest/Cross Post
Hadar Sela
43 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 22, 2009 at 4:33 pm
John
Oh well done for saving Tom’s post! I was astonished when I saw it had been deleted as it was, as you say, the only post which was on topic.
You’ve got to laugh.
December 22, 2009 at 4:34 pm
BeePositive
Why did TomWanacott’s comment get deleted..?
“While the use of torture is illegal, no one can blame Israel for torturing high value targets to protect their citizens during a war”
of course he’s correct in what he says, but what the non-Israeli reads is,
“no one can blame Israel for torturing ”
..so the comment gets deleted and is lost. We have to be so careful when we phrase our comments: we’re not aiming at a pro-Israel audience, they already know what is right, we have to think of how we can convince the European. Unfortunately that often means that some things must be hidden from their eyes and instead their interest directed elsewhere..
December 22, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Margie
Hawkeye tonight you feature not the usual suspects merely, but the ringleaders. Among your bigots brigade tonight are frequent offenders. Orwellwasright, ellymiranda, and krustytheklown are all honoured by your attention. Whatever they choose to write is always in denigration of Israel often using material drawn directly from the hate sites that pollute the internet..
I see you rescued TomWonacott’s excellent ticking bomb posting from deletion. It needs to be said and to be read.
December 22, 2009 at 5:46 pm
exiledlondoner
“While the use of torture is illegal, no one can blame Israel for torturing high value targets to protect their citizens during a war”
Er, yes they can.
If you want to promote torture as a legitimate method, on your head be it (it puts in you some rather dubious company, but that’s another issue), but please don’t try to suggest that it is anything other than a crime against humanity – literally.
To hear pompous numpties pontificating about ‘blameless’ torture makes me feel sick – just pray that you never find yourself in the hands of someone with the same morality as you.
December 22, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Yohoho
exiledlondoner, do you post to CiF with a bowl next to you then? It’s miraculous you can post at all – you must be throwing up almost all the time when you read about the crimes against humanity committed by Hamas against its own people.
But all in all Hawkeye, what’s new? We know that Lerman is a wretch of the lowest order and that anything he or most of the other Guardianistas write about Israel has no relation to hard fact or truth. If it were honest at all or attempted to present a rounded argument it would not be published would it?
TomWonacott, I’m with you. After all Hamas kneecaps its enemies and gouges out their eyes in front of their families – also see http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1232292907998&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull and I’d bet that exiled and his mates don’t part with their lunches about that.
And what about this exiled?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/20/153622/060/952/672312
Are you throwing up yet and if not, why not?
And I wonder what happened to Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev whilst they were in the hands of their Hizballah captors and before they died, and what might be happening to Gilad Shalit at the hands of Hamas, if he is still alive. No-one from the Red Cross has been allowed even to see him which is distinctly suspicious and makes it look as though Hamas has a lot to hide. The conditions under which he has been held have been cruel and unusual and amount to mental torture and this is hardly civilised behaviour either is it:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1046429.html
Are you throwing up yet exiled?
December 22, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Yohoho
BeePositive, the neanderthals on CiF will misconstrue whatever is written by pro-Israeli posters, and however it’s phrased.
And read Mitnaged’s post at http://cifwatch.com/2009/12/16/the-mind-of-the-bigot-is-like-the-pupil-of-the-eye-the-more-light-you-pour-upon-it-the-more-it-will-contract-oliver-wendell-holmes/ . I agree with him/her that some people will never be capable of changing their minds because to do so will cause them too much cognitive dissonance and discomfort.
December 22, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Gábor Fränkl
The Guardian is probably the most acute and most painful EMBARRASSMENT of the British press – but at least thanks for the laugh that you gave me that Tom’s comment was deleted. ’nuff said.
December 22, 2009 at 9:16 pm
AKUS
The thread to this article was shredded by the moderators and even now I suspect the nighthawks are moving in to clean it up so it doesn’t look so bad. Its currently showing 145 comments, at a rough guess about 1/3 deleted, including the first two (see Hawkeye’s references above) which set the tone for what was to follow:
*
orwellwasright
22 Dec 2009, 12:10PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
*
ellymiranda
22 Dec 2009, 12:11PM
This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.
Not only were these two lurking as always ready to pounce on any artcile defaning israel, they were “on-board” within 10 minutes of the official “opening bell”:
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 December 2009 12.00 GMT
Which opened the door to this (almost incredible) comment, as if anyone needs more proof that the Guardian provides a convenient forum for anti-Semites
ThinkPositive
22 Dec 2009, 12:14PM
Surely there are always “double standards” where Israel is concerned.
We are only supposed to associate the name of one doctor with state torture of another ethnic group, and his name is Joseph Mengele. Only an anti-Semite could accuse the Israelis of such behaviour!
After 20 minutes of the “usual suspects” congratulating each other on their postings (looking at the timing, can anyone doubt that we are dealing with a little cabal informing each other that there’s aanother juicy bit on CIF?) and disappointed that pro-Israeli posters, who presumably have better things to do with their time, had not shown up, orwell had the cheek to then post the following (now deleted) comment:
orwellwasright
22 Dec 2009, 12:21PM
I wonder how long it’ll be until the usual suspects come here and start making excuses for this? They do it for the slaughter of children, so why not for the complicity of the medical establishment in torture or the harvesting of organs?
Of course, once that disgusting comment was deleted, it provided a good excuse to delete the following:
SantaMoniker
22 Dec 2009, 12:31PM
Orwell – here’s a reply from a usual suspect:
The usual suspects are here already, and you can see them above, always lurking:
orwellwasright (ha!)
raymonddelauney (dotty) (Ha!) (That “other site” seems to have tracked your career on CiF)
ellymiranda(dotty 2?) (Ha!)
A conference in Turkey (!!) about torture(!!).
Ha, ha, ha!
An excellent place to hold a torture conference.
They certainly know a lot about torture there!!
The hypocrisy would be unbelievable were it not so commonly diected at Israel.
As for the header to this article:
“Israel’s doctors must allay torture fears”
So, raymond, orwell, and elly – have you stopped beating your wives and husband?
December 22, 2009 at 9:26 pm
AKUS
By the way, SantaMoniker, who must be cutting back her surfing due to the weather, had the following couple of comments when she noted a pattern appearing of attempts to accuse Israel of not being able to prove that something that is simply alleged with no proof or evidence, never happened.
This seems to be a direct continuation of “lawfare” – “blogfare”? Throw out an accusation with no attempt to justify it or provide evidence, then ask the accused to disprove it:
On the Lerman thread:
SantaMoniker
22 Dec 2009, 12:54PM
…..
Lerman: “Israeli doctor, you must allay torture fears”
Doctor: “How?”
Lerman: “Doctor – prove you didn’t approve torture”
Doctor: “I didn’t, wasn’t there, never happened”
Lerman: “Prove it”
Doctor: “So you want me to prove that something that didn’t happen never happened?”
Recommended (18)
On the Clegg thread, we had the resident airhead, ellymiranda, in fine form, as SantaMoniker noticed:
SantaMoniker
22 Dec 2009, 1:51PM
We seem to have a fair sprinkly of “Have you stoped beating your wife” comments today on CiF:
ellymiranda
Will you join me in a demand for investigation on rapes carried out by the IDF carried out on the Westbank and Gaza? it is omitted in the Goldstein report.
Chief Investigator Elly: “So, Israeli soldier, prove you never raped anyone on the WB or in Gaza”
Israeli Soldier: “I never did”
Chief Investigator Elly: “I want you to prove that”
Israeli Soldier: “So you want me to prove that something that didn’t happen never happened?”
Chief Investigator Elly: “It is omitted in the Goldstein report and I want you to prove that it never happened and that’s why it was omitted”
———
Elly – still beating your husband?
Recommended (9)
December 22, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Gábor Fränkl
Ha ha ha! We have a proverb here in Hungary – roughly: You go further by using your brain than by your sheer power! Bravo Santa Moniker!
December 22, 2009 at 10:56 pm
isthiswadthe
DOASK,KrustyTheKlown,and ORWELLWASRIGHT,these are three brains among others that you wouldn’t want to transplant.
December 22, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Margie
SantaMoniker
The unlovely Ellymiranda has special values for the season (cheap and tinselly) just for Israel
She finds the blockade on Gaza illegal
She beggs Cleggggg to set up a blockade on Israel – which wouldn’t be illegal – why? – because it’s Israel, fool!
December 22, 2009 at 11:16 pm
isthiswadthe
This was from an article in Haaretz 12/09/08 by Antony Lerman.
This is just one bit of it.
“We Jews knew who the enemy was,Since Jews do not cause anti-Semitism,we fought those who peddled theories of the world Jewish
conspiracy,Holocaust denial,blood libels.Except at the very margins,we didn’t
fight Jews.How things have changed”.
They sure have Antony.
December 22, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Margie
Vote Santa Moniker for our local Santa rep this holiday season!
December 23, 2009 at 12:42 am
sababa
Since somebody saw it fit to mention Mengele, he was recently in the news — here’s the English version:
Why One Auschwitz Survivor Avoided Doctors for 65 Years
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,666327,00.html
exlondoner is sure it’s a “crime against humanity” to torture terrorists — ah, how easy it is to feel righteous! Ex, let’s say you are in the security services, you capture a suspicious guy, and he tells you: well, you’ve got the right guy, and I’ve it all set up, some time in the next few days, hundreds of people get blown into pieces, just like that… Then ex says: oh, would you be so kind to tell me the details? Then the guy says: hahahahahahahhahhahahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahhahahha!!!
December 23, 2009 at 12:54 am
margie
Perhaps you need to know how to ask, Sababa.
You do that ExiledLondoner frown and curl your lip with contempt and the terrorist will reply immediately with all relevant details neatly set out and. he will beg your pardon nicely too, because these aren’t the kind of terrorists we know. These are specially bred, specially trained to be responsive to the right treatment.
But would you call that torture too?
December 23, 2009 at 1:21 am
TomWonacott
ExiledLondoner
“……..If you want to promote torture as a legitimate method, on your head be it (it puts in you some rather dubious company, but that’s another issue), but please don’t try to suggest that it is anything other than a crime against humanity – literally.
To hear pompous numpties pontificating about ‘blameless’ torture makes me feel sick – just pray that you never find yourself in the hands of someone with the same morality as you…….”
I understand that this is a very controversial stand, and the issue has been debated heatedly in the US – especially over Bush’s use of torture after 911. Interestingly, the New York Times was highly critical of Bush for the use of torture – yet they support torture under the ticking time bomb scenario (as quoted from my post). In fact, most people (with any common sense) would opt to torture someone if it saved, say 1,000,000 lives. For example, if you knew that someone had a suitcase nuke, would you torture to find the location? Only a loon would absolutely never torture under any circumstance in my opinion.
The New York Times disclosed that Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) was subjected to waterboarding 183 times in 2002. If anyone qualified for the criteria that the New York Times set for torture i.e., a ticking time bomb scenario, Khalid did. He admitted planning 911. Also when I posted in the New York Times and quoted their own stand on torture, they did not delete the post.
As far as finding myself in the hands of “…..someone with the same morality as…” me. Uh, you mean like the Taliban, al-Qaeda, AQL, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and so on? And does anyone believe that they base their decision to torture on the Bush administration? Just ask Daniel Pearl. Additionally, I don’t want a moral President that is willing to sacrifice 100, 1,000, 10,000, or 1,000,0000 Americans if he can prevent it by torturing the suspect. Of course, torture should always be the method of last resort.
In addition, the responsibility of people in power is enormous. Its really very easy when we aren’t involved with these kinds of decisions to say, no, I never would use torture………
I would, and yes, I realize I am not on the moral high ground on this issue.
December 23, 2009 at 1:25 am
JerusalemMite
isthiswadthe – ‘This was from an article in Haaretz 12/09/08 by Antony Lerman’
Do you have a link to that. A friend in the UK posts on CIF and that would be just the comment from Saint Tony that they are looking for.
December 23, 2009 at 1:30 am
Ami
A reasonable comment in an increasingly unreasonable world TomWonacott.
December 23, 2009 at 1:48 am
isthiswadthe
JM,I Googled Antony Lerman and it came up.
“Jews attacking Jews-Haaretz-Israel news……..Gook Luck…..Cheers……
December 23, 2009 at 2:37 am
JerusalemMite
TomWonacott
I would, and yes, I realize I am not on the moral high ground on this issue.
I feel the same way Tom. In extreme circumstances torture is acceptable. Unpleasant, from some points of view unacceptable but if you have to weigh torturing a person to get information that has a good chance of saving 100 perhaps thousands of innocent people, I feel that it is justified.
December 23, 2009 at 3:09 am
exiledlondoner
Tom,
Firstly my apologies – I was reacting to one printed line here, rather than to your original post. The reason I didn’t address the post directly to you was that I was replying to those who were agreeing with that bald statement.
“I understand that this is a very controversial stand, and the issue has been debated heatedly in the US – especially over Bush’s use of torture after 911. Interestingly, the New York Times was highly critical of Bush for the use of torture – yet they support torture under the ticking time bomb scenario (as quoted from my post).”
It has been debated (largely as a result of Dershowitz’s support), but I have been horrified by the standard of the debate. Fixing the debate on “scenarios” is all very well, but I have yet to find a proponent of torture who is willing to address the wider effects.
“In fact, most people (with any common sense) would opt to torture someone if it saved, say 1,000,000 lives. For example, if you knew that someone had a suitcase nuke, would you torture to find the location? Only a loon would absolutely never torture under any circumstance in my opinion.”
So here we go with the classic debate – let’s start with the cackling James Bond villain who’s telling you “you’ll never find the nuke copper” and giggling hysterically.
Would I torture him? Probably – I’d certainly lose my cool and rough him up.
Should I be allowed to torture him? Absolutely not.
Why not? Because if you give me, or anyone else, the right to decide when to torture, then torture becomes a matter of subjective opinion. If I can make that call, why not someone in Iran’s secret police? You cannot semi-legitimise torture – the minute you say “only in exceptional circumstances”, you open up the question of what “exceptional circumstances” are? Why is your judgement on the issue any more valid than someone working in a prison in Tehran?
“The New York Times disclosed that Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) was subjected to waterboarding 183 times in 2002. If anyone qualified for the criteria that the New York Times set for torture i.e., a ticking time bomb scenario, Khalid did. He admitted planning 911. Also when I posted in the New York Times and quoted their own stand on torture, they did not delete the post.”
But he didn’t, did he? 9-11 had gone. Waterboarding was used because it gets quick results, and doesn’t leave marks, but by admitting that it was used 183 times, they effectively show that either it doesn’t work, or that they had other motives. For a “ticking timebomb”, a handful of times would have been enough – this case shows the “mission-creep” that’s inevitable when you authorise inhuman acts.
My personal opinion is that KSM’s treatment was largely an act of extra-judicial vengence, and that those responsible for ordering his torture (though not necessarily those who carried it out) should stand trial for crimes against humanity.
“As far as finding myself in the hands of “…..someone with the same morality as…” me. Uh, you mean like the Taliban, al-Qaeda, AQL, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and so on? And does anyone believe that they base their decision to torture on the Bush administration? Just ask Daniel Pearl.”
Of course not – torture has been used for centuries.
However your list is incomplete – I mean like the Taliban, al-Qaeda, AQL, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the US, Britain and so on….
Tacit acceptance of the use of torture will not influence those who already freely use it, it will influence those (and I don’t mean just countries) who currently uphold the taboo – it will effect society in general. What western supporters of torture are claiming is that it can somehow be ring-fenced to specific circumstances, authorised by ‘qualified’ people – that’s bollocks. If the message is that torture works, and that it can be justified, then why should we let the CIA keep it to themselves? If it can find a ticking timebomb, then it can help police find a body, it can make a journalist reveal his sources, it can help an abusive husband find out where his wife is hiding…
“Additionally, I don’t want a moral President that is willing to sacrifice 100, 1,000, 10,000, or 1,000,0000 Americans if he can prevent it by torturing the suspect. Of course, torture should always be the method of last resort.”
The last resort in terms of the threat, or the last resort in terms of extracting the information? The problem is that if you knew for certain that the suspect had the information, you would almost never need to torture – the ticking timebomb scenario is hypothetical.
When has a President ever been in the situation you describe? The way to protect “100, 1,000, 10,000, or 1,000,0000 Americans” will be to use torture to extract information that you don’t yet know about – hardly a last resort, and certainly not foolproof.
“In addition, the responsibility of people in power is enormous. Its really very easy when we aren’t involved with these kinds of decisions to say, no, I never would use torture………”
I could say the same for any state that uses torture. The responsibility and pressure on Hosni Mubarak is far greater than on the US President – he lives with a far greater threat to the stability of his state, and to the safety of his citizens. Ah, but Mubarak is a brutal torturer! Yes, and so was Bush…. What’s the difference? There was one, but Bush changed that.
“I would, and yes, I realize I am not on the moral high ground on this issue.”
No, but I appreciate your willinness to argue the case – unlike some of the torture cheerleaders above.
Finally, a practical question – Does torture actually work?
There’s considerable evidence that people tell their torturers what they want to hear, rather than the truth (seems like a sensible tactic?). The use of torture after 911 produced lots of names, many of whom were then themselves tortured to get more names. Many of these were innocent.
The idea of “noble” or “righteous” torture is an intoxicating one – the problem is whose idea of “noble” or “righteous” we listen to. The popular conception is that third-world torturers are evil cackling sadists, while western torturers are earnest concerned citizens – I doubt if that’s true. My guess is that the torturers who work for Syria or for Burma are every bit as sure of the rightness of what they’re doing as those who work for the CIA or MI5. Look at the recent trial of Comrade Duch in Cambodia – he tortured and killed for an ideology every bit as powerful as the ideology of the war against terror.
December 23, 2009 at 3:37 am
peterthehungarian
exiledlondoner
Er, yes they can.
If you want to promote torture as a legitimate method, on your head be it (it puts in you some rather dubious company, but that’s another issue), but please don’t try to suggest that it is anything other than a crime against humanity – literally.
Nobody wants to promote torture here. Torture is only a very last resort when any other reasonably applicable possibilities wouldn’t work and there is a great probability of an imminent catastrophe. It may be a crime against humanity but if it can prevents a worse crime then be it unacceptable legally – it is justifiable morally.
But back to Lerman’s article – in this shameful crap (shameful not for him but for the Guardian) he asserts that lacking an investigation investigating the Israeli doctors’ participation in torture every member of the Israeli medical community is under suspicion.
An interesting quote from the article:
In a presentation she made, Dr Ruchama Marton, head of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I), called for the WMA to play a central role in establishing a network “to voice complaints and provide assistance to those who are willing to struggle against torture”. National medical associations and human rights organisations should work together “to campaign against torture in general and against the participation of physicians in torture procedures”. In saying this, Marton was thinking about what some regard as the very unsatisfactory situation in Israel.
Lerman must have some extremely useful ability reading the thoughts of other persons. CIF standars of journalism?…
But the best sentences in his piece is this: “Israel therefore needs to do two things”. The poor sod needs inmediate medical help (naturally not from an Israeli doctor – they are all suspects) if he thinks that anybody (with the possible exception of Bella Rusbridger) is interested to get advice from a jerk like him. I don’t know the diagnose of this kind of mental disorder but he really thinks that he has any right to preach to Israeli doctors? Is he a medical professional? Maybe he is an Israeli?
His article proudly published on CIF has only one purpose: fueling hate anything Israeli.
December 23, 2009 at 3:49 am
JerusalemMite
Exiled.
When has a President ever been in the situation you describe? The way to protect “100, 1,000, 10,000, or 1,000,0000 Americans” will be to use torture to extract information that you don’t yet know about – hardly a last resort, and certainly not foolproof.
No. It’s not foolproof BUT, it is something that a leader would have to sanction to protect his citizens from devastating destruction.
I wouldn’t recommend torture of a thief to find out where he has hidden to goods, (unless the goods were mine of course). but I would approve of torture of a terrorist suspect if I thought that his information would stop a catastrophe. This is the reason why terrorists have a special category all to themselves when considering torture. It is not a decision to be taken lightly but is one that a political leader has to take and if he decides against and a terrorist abomination is allowed to happen, he must take the consequences.
’24 hours with Jack Bauer’ is an excellent program to illustrate the conflicts that people who have to decide are presented with under extreme conditions. I don’t envy those leaders in real life.
December 23, 2009 at 3:54 am
exiledlondoner
Hi Peter,
I suspect that our posts crossed, and that my reply to Tom covers most of the points you raise.
Just one addition – moral justification is in the eye of the beholder. Are you willing to accept that anyone can make their own call on the morality of torture?
Regarding the Lerman thread – I said my piece in my post on the thread. I’m not as irate as you are, but probably equally mystified….
December 23, 2009 at 3:54 am
John
peter
Lerman must have some extremely useful ability reading the thoughts of other persons. CIF standars of journalism?…
I thought exactly the same thing. Lousy, lousy article.
Re. torture – and the ticking bomb scenario; see here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/world/kidnapping-has-germans-debating-police-torture.html?pagewanted=1
This case has always haunted me.
December 23, 2009 at 3:55 am
peterthehungarian
exiled
he tortured and killed for an ideology every bit as powerful as the ideology of the war against terror.
Wishing to prevent a terror attack is an ideology
An other important thing: After applying a HTML code you have to close it with a command.
December 23, 2009 at 3:56 am
peterthehungarian
Again
An other important thing: After applying a HTML code you have to close it with a / command.
December 23, 2009 at 3:59 am
John
Off topic: to edit a post:
1. Choose a paragraph, sentence or word that you want to italicise or make bold (embolden?)
2. Put this at the beginning of the para, sentence word and when you want the italic or bold to end, put
December 23, 2009 at 4:01 am
peterthehungarian
exiled
yes, I sent my post before seeing your answer to Tom.
Just one addition – moral justification is in the eye of the beholder. Are you willing to accept that anyone can make their own call on the morality of torture?
Certainly not anyone, but there are different independent bodies with high moral authority to define the circumstances and the limits.
December 23, 2009 at 4:03 am
John
Ah – the symbols did not come through.
Choose para word etc then put only one of these at the beginnng < < >>> at the end.
When you want the italic or bold to end, put one of these at the end <<>>>
Dearie me.
December 23, 2009 at 4:04 am
exiledlondoner
JerusalemMite,
“but I would approve of torture of a terrorist suspect if I thought that his information would stop a catastrophe.”
If you thought? What about if I thought? Or how about if anyone else thought? Who is qualified to make those decisions?
“This is the reason why terrorists have a special category all to themselves when considering torture.”
Why? Terrorism merely describes a method. There are people with information that could potentially save just as many lives – should we torture the leaders of enemy armies for their plans?
“‘24 hours with Jack Bauer’ is an excellent program to illustrate the conflicts that people who have to decide are presented with under extreme conditions. I don’t envy those leaders in real life.”
If you want to build your position on torture on a TV program, that’s your affair, but I would regard 24 hours as no more illuminating on the subject than the Sound of Music – it’s entertainment, and badly constructed ammoral entertainment at that. A modern day Chuck Norris fantasy.
December 23, 2009 at 4:07 am
exiledlondoner
Peter and John,
Many thanks for your attempts to educate this luddite – I will go back to the link Peter sent when I have time.
Anyway, I’ve a days work to do, and a plane to catch, so if we don’t speak again, have a great holiday.
December 23, 2009 at 4:07 am
John
Sorry exiled – I can’t get to demonstrate. To end the italics or bold, you need to put that triangle symbol – <<<>>>>>>
Honestly!
December 23, 2009 at 4:12 am
John
Yep – you need to go back to the link – my efforts to illustrate just disappear! All I can say is you need a triangle, followed by a forward slash followed by the relevant initial followed by a triangle the other way round. If this doesn’t work, I’m going to torture my cat.
December 23, 2009 at 4:30 am
peterthehungarian
exiled
Every reasonable society makes a lot of legally justified but morally pretty doubtful things in order to prevent the occurence of other probably worse things.
Throwing someone in a cell for years is a very brutal and inhuman action. Most prison inmates even didn’t endanger human life.
Do you have a better and realistic solution to protect society against crime?
Naturally not everyone is licensed to put people in prisons, and every democratic society assigns a lot of human and financial resources to prevent the abuse of the system.
The problem is not the existence of prisons but who decide about putting someone inside ande why.
December 23, 2009 at 6:54 am
margie
It is extremely difficult to decide who to allow to practise the kind of persuasion necessary to reveal where a potentially disastrous bomb is planted and when it will go off. Here we discuss how one individual should be permitted to exercise control over another individual who has aarently already admitted that he intends to destroy large numbers of the population.
However there is no discussion about who should be allowed to be in charge of a far more powerful weapon – media and websites that can potentially damage the morale of a whole population, corrupt the minds of its citizens and feed them deliberately skewed information designed to make them hate people who are merely protecting their population from a barbarian community.
December 23, 2009 at 8:31 am
Melchior
At least Hamas and Hezbollah don’t harvest organs.
They donate them.
Or should that be “detonate” them?
December 23, 2009 at 10:52 am
TomWonacott
ExiedLondoner
“……So here we go with the classic debate – let’s start with the cackling James Bond villain who’s telling you “you’ll never find the nuke copper” and giggling hysterically.
Would I torture him? Probably – I’d certainly lose my cool and rough him up.
Should I be allowed to torture him? Absolutely not…..”
To me, that’s pretty much it in a nutshell. That’s all I expect of the people in charge. Lose their cool, and use methods they normally abhor because there are too many innocent lives at stake.
“……..You cannot semi-legitimise torture – the minute you say “only in exceptional circumstances”, you open up the question of what “exceptional circumstances” are?…..”
I agree, but I still want someone to make that decision based on what he interprets to be “exceptional circumstances” because that person deems the potential loss of life as “extraordinary”. But, you are entirely right. Its subjective. Hopefully, other legal, more legitimate methods of torture would get the required information (after all, what constitutes torture is controversial as well – and highly debatable).
“……..But he didn’t, did he? 9-11 had gone. Waterboarding was used because it gets quick results, and doesn’t leave marks, but by admitting that it was used 183 times, they effectively show that either it doesn’t work, or that they had other motives. For a “ticking timebomb”, a handful of times would have been enough – this case shows the “mission-creep” that’s inevitable when you authorise inhuman acts……”
A handful? Maybe, maybe not. Did he have information about a second al-Qaeda plot? Three thousand lives and a trillion dollars (or whatever) cost to the economy constituted exceptional circumstances to the Bush administration.
“…….My personal opinion is that KSM’s treatment was largely an act of extra-judicial vengence, and that those responsible for ordering his torture (though not necessarily those who carried it out) should stand trial for crimes against humanity……”
Well, this certainly would make the next guy think twice about the use of torture as a last possible means to extract information. It would, more than likely, serve the purpose of ending illegal torture But at what cost?
“…….What western supporters of torture are claiming is that it can somehow be ring-fenced to specific circumstances, authorised by ‘qualified’ people – that’s bollocks. If the message is that torture works, and that it can be justified, then why should we let the CIA keep it to themselves? If it can find a ticking timebomb, then it can help police find a body, it can make a journalist reveal his sources, it can help an abusive husband find out where his wife is hiding…….”
Well, in affect, you are right. Did you ever see “Dirty Harry”? The use of torture under exceptional circumstances is a societal debate, and not just confined to KSM-type individuals. Society wrestles with the ramifications – just like we are. Yet, the New York Times and the Israeli Supreme Court believe that there are circumstances that warrant the use of torture (we all do). The difference is that the Israeli Supreme Court decided they did not want to be responsible for the deaths of innocents and, therefore, allowed some wiggle room (because they were in a real life and death scenario in Israel during the second intifada).
“………Ah, but Mubarak is a brutal torturer! Yes, and so was Bush…. What’s the difference? There was one, but Bush changed that……”
Well, Mubarak is a brutal torturer. Even Clinton recognized that. That’s why he sent (rendered) suspects to Egypt to extract information. Under extraordinary circumstances such as the murder of 3000 people, I expect that any President (Bush, Clinton or Obama) will become more like Mubarak (including passing legislation like the Patriot Act). Yet, because President Bush used water boarding as a method to extract information from people that could save lives, our society, in general, hasn’t changed. Police don’t use torture to search for bodies, or torture journalist to reveal their sources. On the other hand, we cannot keep a husband from torturing someone to reveal where his wife is hiding. Extraordinary circumstances required extraordinary measures.
So, in my opinion, there is a great deal of difference between Bush and Mubarak as well as between Egypt and the US. Just because we have the Patriot Act doesn’t mean that we are no more democratic than Egypt. We didn’t suddenly cash in our liberal democracy because we water boarded KSM 182 times.
“…….. Does torture actually work?………There’s considerable evidence that people tell their torturers what they want to hear, rather than the truth (seems like a sensible tactic?). The use of torture after 911 produced lots of names, many of whom were then themselves tortured to get more names. Many of these were innocent……”
No question that it works, yet there is no doubt that prisoners will give incorrect information as well. If it never worked then all torture is just for revenge, but I don’t believe that.
“………Comrade Duch in Cambodia – he tortured and killed for an ideology every bit as powerful as the ideology of the war against terror…….”
In some ways, they are comparable even if the circumstances are completely different. No one can deny that. However, the Khmer Rouge were responsible for the murder of millions. Bush isn’t Comrade Duch.
December 23, 2009 at 11:08 am
TomWonacott
Also Hawkeye – an exceptional job of putting together another string of comments that cross the line. In addition, its more proof (as if we needed anymore) that moderators delete post based on a set of standards, but unfortunately, all too often, its a set of political standards.
December 23, 2009 at 1:10 pm
HairShirt
Yohoho, I take your point in your post to exiledlondoner, but aren’t you a little confused? Since when has CiF ever mentioned, let alone gone into detail about Hamas’ crimes against humanity and actually admitted that they were crimes?
December 23, 2009 at 7:04 pm
TomWonacott
Yohoho
You might be making me lose my lunch. These are the most brutal of people. Its easy to see why there is no real peace movement by Gazans (as VoiceofIsrael points out on the Gordon thread today). No one dares cross Hamas………
Thanks for the post Yohoho !!
December 24, 2009 at 1:17 am
JerusalemMite
exiledlondoner
If you want to build your position on torture on a TV program, that’s your affair, but I would regard 24 hours as no more illuminating on the subject than the Sound of Music – it’s entertainment, and badly constructed ammoral entertainment at that. A modern day Chuck Norris fantasy
I am very well aware that it is fantasy but it does illustrate the choices available and how sometimes, the choices don’t pan out. But the basic concept that political leaders must weigh carefully whether to use torture or not is compelling whether fantasy or not.