East J'lem man admits planning to bomb PM's office

A 48-year-old Palestinian man from the Old City of Jerusalem has admitted, during questioning by the Shin Bet security service, that he planned to carry out a bombing inside the grounds of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Jerusalem office.

Hussam Nablusi, who drove a mail truck and was employed by an Israeli company, had a permit to drive his vehicle into various government compounds, including the Prime Minister's Office.

Under questioning, Nablusi said he had planned to secret the bomb among the printed materials he was due to deliver. He told investigators that he planned to detonate the bomb using a mobile phone rigged to work as a remote control once he was 200 meters away.

Nablusi was arrested two weeks ago, after security services received intelligence information linking him with a plan to blow up a synagogue in the ultra-Orthodox Jerusalem neighborhood of Mea She'arim. A gag order on the case was lifted Monday.

Continued here...

Interesting, more "false intelligence" leading to an arrest and information and "false information" uncovers an actual bomb plot. "The Shin Bet never gets any truth form them, so why try to question arrested Palestinians?" end of quote /sarcasm

A 48-year-old Palestinian man from the Old City of Jerusalem has admitted, during questioning by the Shin Bet security service, that he planned to carry out a bombing inside the grounds of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Jerusalem office.

Couldn't be. Did he volunteer the information? Maybe he just woke up in his cell one day and called room service and said he had something important to say.

The news report says he was arrested on May 15. He had nearly a month to think about it. I guess he wanted to clear his conscience.

.

is just as lawful as killing Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden. Under the Geneva Conventions he's what is called a "command" target. Timed bomb assassination was attempted (lawfully) against Hitler, as I recall.

This is legitimate resistance activity, and cleaner and less destructive of both Israelis and Palestinians. ISM-style non-violent resistance is even better, but I guess Hamas won't change overnight.

May they target Ariel Sharon more and civilian bus travelers less. :toast:

The government of a democracy isn't considered a military target.

I disagree with your conclusions, but be that as it may. It is just as legitimate, assuming the resistance was legitimate, for a country to defend itself against this type of attack.

The government of a democracy isn't considered a military target.

The leader of any state that is at war is a legitimate target. It's got nothing to do with whether the form of government is a democracy or not. Trying to pass off Ariel Sharon as some sort of innocent civilian is ludicrous, but then again I've also seen equally ludicrous claims around that attacks on the IDF in the Occupied Territories is terrorism....

Violet...

Terrorist organizations are terrorist in nature and their attacks are terrorist attacks. There's nothing ludicrous about that statement.

A country "at war" has every right to interrogate terrorists at any time to protect it's citizens. Ariel Sharon isn't the only citizen in Israel, and attacks on the Knesset are attacks on citizens. Israel would have every right to bomb Arafat, as well as having the ability to do so.

Labelling attacks on them as terrorism IS totally ludicrous, and is every bit as ridiculous as saying that attacks on US troops on Iraq are acts of terrorism. Let's leave that nonsense to the freepers, eh? What you are in fact saying is that any act of resistance to an occupation is terrorism....

If Israel has the right to 'interrogate' whoever it decides to label a terrorist in order to protect it's citizens, then the same applies to Palestinians having the same right, wouldn't it?

Sharon, the corrupt weasel that he is, while being a citizen of Israel (just like IDF troops), is no more some sort of innocent civilian anymore than Saddam Hussein or Arafat are. In fact, what with Sharon being responsible for some rather nasty terrorist acts himself, it would make me wonder why people so opposed to terrorism would feel so protective of him...

Violet...

Better also to think of how unwise such an attack would be. The result of actual bombing attack, such as have not yet been seen in the West Bank and Gaza, would most likely eliminate the PLO stronghold on the Palestinians. Which may not be a bad thing, after all.

My objective in posting the article was not "feeling protective for Ariel Sharon" but to show the effectiveness of IDF and Shin Bet interrogation techniques. I think you have misread my statements.

EDITED to fix link

This case does nothing of the kind.

Please click here.

that is entirely subjective. You claimed, or rather Barghouti claimed, that Israeli methods were torture, I did not.

I said their interrogations methods were effective.

You claimed, or rather Barghouti claimed, that Israeli methods were torture, I did not.

Dr. Barghouti indeed claims that Israeli methods are torture and I agree with him. However, since the methods which Dr. Barghouti (presumably) and I (definitely) believe constitute torture do not appear to have been used in this case, this case cannot be used to establish their effectiveness.

Once again, to prove torture is effective and used properly (if it can be used properly, which I doubt), then one needs to establish that it was used:

• In order to prevent a potentially catastrophic event in which the loss of a great number of human lives is at stake;
• the suspect's culpability is certain to a high standard of proof; and
• there is an element of urgency in that the attack is imminent and there is no time to effectively pursue other avenues of investigation.

The above standards are derived from a reading Alan Dershowitz' book Why Terrorism Works: understanding the threat, responding to the challenge (Yale University, 2002).

Not only does this case fail to establish the effectiveness of torture simply because it does not establish that torture was used, you have failed to show any case meeting that criteria in which torture has been shown to be effective, let alone a pattern to show that it is effective often enough to justify its use even urgent situations where lives are at stake.

As I said, I am not going to be able to prove that torture is effective. I am only pointing to the large number of cases that show that IDF and Shin Bet interrogations have saved lives. Of course the number of lives saved, in my opinion, is not the question. One life is sufficiently important. Your first bullet says that a catastrophic incident has to be proven to have been prevented. I disagree that it is necessary to prove that in each incident that many lives were saved. I agree that it has to be more than one interrogation to be proven. We do not have the records of this or any other interrogation, so there is no way to prove anything.

However, the number of lives saved by arresting terrorists and interrogating them could be in the hundreds, if not thousands. If I find more news reports I will post them for you to see.
While "torture" is not going to be proven, and I've said numerous times that it is not possible for me to attempt to prove this, to prove effectiveness, may be possible. Experience is on the side of the interrogators, and I have little doubt that they can treat each prisoner according to his personality and vulnerabilities.

Maybe this person was frightened by the reputation of the Shin Bet. Maybe they had only to look at him and he became terrified. Maybe he heard of the claims of Dr. Barghouti and others of the torture. Whatever. He's not the first or the last that has given responses immediately or after an interrogation. Maybe after a few hours. I'm actually surprised that you are so willing to believe that it was immediate.

One last option, he might have been forced to act as a terrorist by the Hamas because of threats against his life, in order to prove he is not a collaborator. That has also happened more than once in the past few years. The threat of torture can work both ways.

A footnote: The article said that: Under questioning, Nablusi said he had planned to secret the bomb among the printed materials he was due to deliver. It is my understanding that suspects can be interrogated prior to arrest. That is, the interrogation preceeds arrest. He may have been in detention for two weeks, under interrogation, then when he broke, he was placed under arrest. At that point he led the Shin Bet to he location of the vegetable vendors.

I am only pointing to the large number of cases that show that IDF and Shin Bet interrogations have saved lives.

Prior to the 1999 ruling, over 85% of all Shin Bet interrogations involved torture. The vast majority of them never resulted in prosecution or even arrest.

While the High Court's 1999 ruling did significantly alter how torture is used in interrogation, it did not fully legally codify it's practice nor did it stop the indiscriminate use. Dozens of prisoners are tortured each month. This is a far cry from the "ticking bomb" which the GSS admits is a rare event.


Ref: http://www.stoptorture.org.il/eng/images/uploaded/publications/13.pdf

The arrest and/or detention of suspects prior to this might be clarified by this document which was submitted to the 18th convention of the UN Committee Against Torture by the Israel Justice Minister Spokeswoman on 7 May 1997:

Since September 12, 1993, when the Declaration of Principles was signed, until today, 214 Israelis have been killed in terrorist attacks in Israel and the territories; of these, 143 were civilians, and 71 were members of the security forces. A hundred and fifty one Palestinians were killed in these attacks.

In the same period, 1,343 Israelis were injured as a result terrorist attacks; of these, 669 were civilians and 674 were members of the security services. Two hundred and thirty-nine Palestinians were injured as a result of terrorist attacks.

....

The State of Israel categorically deplores and prohibits the practice of torture, including, of course that against persons under interrogation. Torture is prohibited under Israel Law. Even if there were no statutory provisions prohibiting it, the State of Israel would honor the universal prohibition on the use of torture...

....

That said, in interrogation whose object is the prevention of acts of terrorism, investigators are permitted, in certain exceptional cases, to uses methods which would be normally regarded as unacceptable in regular interrogations in Israel. While we realize that these methods are unpleasant, none of them come anywhere near what would constitute torture under the UN Convention, nor can they possibly constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Israel has made explicit declarations to this effect in reports presented to its Supreme Court ad to this Committee. Consequently, we hold that the State of Israel complies with the terms of the Convention.

....

Under these restrictions and scrutiny, the work of the investigators has helped avert a great many disasters. Through the work of the investigators, some 90 plans for carrying out large-scale terrorist attacks have been foiled at the last minute in the past two years, as noted in paragraph 24 of the special report:

"...Among these planned attacks are some 10 suicide bombings, 7 car bombings: 15 kidnappings of soldiers and civilians and some 60 attacks of different types including shootings of soldiers and civilians, hijacking of buses, stabbing and murder of Israelis, placing of explosives, etc."

....

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign+Relations/Israel+and+the+UN/Speeches+-+statements/STATEMENT+BY+ISRAELI+REPRESENTATIVE+TO+UN+COMMITTE.htm">Ministry of Foreign Affairs

I would also add, that the methods described by the Public Committee Against Torture have been used within the law in US Prisons, Federal Penitentiaries for decades. Those include solitary confinement, inhumane conditions, subject to heat and cold, being forced into painful positions like the squatting.

(These so-called inhumane treatments are certainly unpleasant, and one anyone would like to avoid. However, most of us encounter them in the course of a lifetime, forced upon us by fate alone.)

Also, after 9/11 in the US, detention without charge for weeks and months occurred in the US. Israel has as much right as the US to use exceptional when national security is at stake.

The inclusion of the terrorist onslaught is therefore not a "red herring" and is directly related to the methods being implemented.

Golda Meir once said that it is not as much that Jewish soldiers are being killed that bothers her, but even more that the conflict forces Jews to kill.

While excessive force has undoubtedly been used, some of the statements given by the Palestinians to the Committee are also embellished. The two boys statements in this report were the most believable.

I would also add, that the methods described by the Public Committee Against Torture have been used within the law in US Prisons, Federal Penitentiaries for decades.

No matter what fuzzy math you use, two wrongs do not make a right. The use of such methods in the US does not make them right. If you don't like me accusing you of using tu quoque fallacies, then learn to stop using them.

Also, after 9/11 in the US, detention without charge for weeks and months occurred in the US.

That is something that we hope will change after the November elections. The Patriot Act, which authorizes indefinite detention and other police state measures, is the most odious piece of legislation passed by Congress since the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850. As with the Fugitive Slave Act, many communities and even some state legislatures have passed resolutions condemning the Patriot Act; some of these even direct local government to not cooperate with federal agents conducting a Patriot Act investigation. For my part, in the unlikely event that I were to come across information concerning a Patriot Act investigation, I would publicize it in defiance of the act and I urge others to do likewise.

The fact is that we have a racist, incompetent Attorney General who doesn't know how to prosecute terrorists. He hasn't nailed one yet. He thinks any Muslim immigrant is a terrorist suspect. He finds it easier to throw a one in the slammer after a minor visa violation and throw away the key and pretend he's doing something than really do something. That's why Ashcroft needs the Patriot Act.

Perhaps Israel needs to use some exceptional measures in the face of her security problems. However, citing the Patriot Act as justification is an argument wholly without merit.

The inclusion of the terrorist onslaught is therefore not a "red herring" and is directly related to the methods being implemented.

Again, Israel's security problem is an enthymeme in this discussion. If it were no problem, Israel would not take measures to solve it. That does not preclude a discussion as to whether the measures are consistent with the norms of modern civilization or whether they are practical. The fact that a terrorist blew up a market last week does not justify the use of abominable measures that don't work.

I did not use math, and was not saying one justifies the other. I am only mentioning this as a fact. The use of solitary and other coercive measures inside the US Penitentiary system has been used as a means of control, and only secondary to interrogation. Use of inhibitory and psychotic-inducing drugs has also been used for control of inmates. It isn't right, and has been used merely to inflict pain and punishment. That is far worse than for a goal to save lives.

It indicates a double-standard is being applied, and that Israel is being held to a higher standard than any other country has been in this respect.

He thinks any Muslim immigrant is a terrorist suspect.

Not only Muslims, but Israeli Jews were detained without charge for months after 9/11, and that was before the Patriot Act, as that Act was enacted to legitimize the treatments that were taking place. Israeli Jews continue to be harassed wherever they travel, apparently. The reaction to a speeding ticket to equate a charge of terrorism has appeared on DU forums. 'Israeli Jew, watch out', is the message.


The fact that a terrorist blew up a market last week does not justify the use of abominable measures that don't work.

What I'm pointing out is that Israeli investigators use interrogation to prevent attacks and that the investigative techniques have been streamlined and upgraded to fit the situation. Over the years, the experience in this effort to stop terrorist attacks has developed a highly professional approach to the efforts. (See the WasthingtonPost.com article for coverage on this aspect). The efforts have proved highly successful as well.

Ma'am, I am opposed to torture and indefinite dentention. It seems the Bush administration doesn't have a problem with either.

The Wahington Post article doesn't impress me in terms of your arguments. It underscores that the GSS is using some methods that should be used with caution and others that should not be used at all.

Once again, the criteria here is effective and necessary. If the authorities have time to torture a suspect at length, including sleep deprivation, then they have time to investigate leads. That indicates such methods are not necessary.

I also agree that torture and detention without charge is against our ethical codes. It should not be allowed anywhere by anyone. The double-standard is when one country uses the methods while it denounces another for doing so. Or where one country is selected to be denounced for practices which all others are using.

Of course the Washington Post article doesn't help your argument. I pointed to one incident where vital information which was needed immediately was produced by using forceful interrogation methods, which some would classify as torture. You have said over and over that it is not possible. It doesn't work. Here is proof that it does.

The criteria is effective and necessary, not effective or necessary.

If they had time to use some of the methods on Mr. Labadeh that they used, then they had time to do a conventional investigation insterad of stooping to this level.

I am not convinced that this was effective and necessary.

However, in a true debate there would be outside judges. Every debater sticks to his or her arguments.

You cannot be debater and also judge.

Torture is an abomination. If it is to be used, it should only be used when there is a reasonable chance that it would be effective. That is why Mr. Dershowitz would only sue torture with a warrant from a judge and preclude any charges against the suspect. However, there is no reason to believe that it is effective in any case. Why embrace it?

In this post and several others on this thread and the other, you have not proved that torture is effective. You have not cited one case where you can say for certain that it has been effective. You have admitted that you cannot prove it is effective. You have offered nothing but speculation about what might have been the case.

I still submit that the reason you cannot cite a case where you can prove torture is effective and necessary is the same reason that you cannot produce for us a real, live unicorn: There aren't any.

The article said that Mr. Nablusi led authorities to his accomplices upon arrest. It is my understanding that to be detained by authorities is to be under arrest. It is an oxymoron to speak of a situation where a suspect could be subjected to the kind of treatment of which we are speaking, such as sleep deprivation, and he still not be under arrest. Therefore, my interpretation of the facts as stated by Haaretz is that, for whatever reason, Mr. Nablusi chose to cooperate with the authorities of his own free will. I am more certain that he was not tortured than you are that he was.

This document posted in #15 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs does present evidence. It is the closest that has been located as of now:

Under these restrictions and scrutiny, the work of the investigators has helped avert a great many disasters. Through the work of the investigators, some 90 plans for carrying out large-scale terrorist attacks have been foiled at the last minute in the past two years, as noted in paragraph 24 of the special report:

"...Among these planned attacks are some 10 suicide bombings, 7 car bombings: 15 kidnappings of soldiers and civilians and some 60 attacks of different types including shootings of soldiers and civilians, hijacking of buses, stabbing and murder of Israelis, placing of explosives, etc."

The statement says that torture is prohibited under Israeli law and claims that Israel does not use it. This is apparently a denial that sleep deprivation, extended periods in solitary confinement or tying the suspect in contorted positions is torture.

I am not convinced that these methods meet the criteria in my bulleted points, or that they could. To repeat those points, they ask whether torture is justified:

• In order to prevent a potentially catastrophic event in which the loss of a great number of human lives is at stake;
• the suspect's culpability is certain to a high standard of proof; and
• there is an element of urgency in that the attack is imminent and there is no time to effectively pursue other avenues of investigation.

Please note the use of the conjunctive and rather than the disjunctive or; all of these conditions must be met before torture can be considered. Then it is a question of whether it is reliable enough to justify.

If the authorities have the time to use sleep deprivation on a suspect, then they have the time to pursue leads using conventional investigative methods. As I stated in my critique of Dershowitz' argument, in the Marud case (the one real-life case he used to make his points), the authorities beat him for 67 days to extract information about a plan to blow up passenger jets over the Pacific Ocean. Obviously, the length of time the suspect was held and tortured precludes any notion that the situation was urgent. Torture was not justified in this case. It cannot be said with certainty that torture in this instance saved lives, since it is possible that conventional investigative methods would have exposed the plot.

Without a definition of torture that we can agree on there will be no proof. A more comprehensive definition has been applied independently by some groups.

The posted article does contain a statement which that using methods of moderate physical and psychological force in interrogation, in 90 cases it prevented attacks which would have resulted in multiple murders, such as bus bombings, car bombings, kidnappings of soldiers and civilians, as well as sniper killings.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs (This is a good link. Sorry that the link on my other post didn't work.)

In the case of Waxman, an Israeli soldier who was kidnapped and murdered, the driver, according to then Prime Minister Itzhak Rabin, was interrogated using force, and revealed the location of the kidnapped soldier. The IDF was unable to rescue Nahson Waxman, but the information was obtained because of the urgency of the situation (quickly) and proved correct.

The information on Rabin's statement on the Waxman case can be found on Page one link here

Also on the thread: here


The 90 cases where the methods were used in urgent situations, and the case of Waxman where the situation was urgent satisfy your three main criterion.

* number of casualties prevented
* culpability (the first criteria would prove this also)
* urgency of the situation

As I have written several times in my other posts, more details cannot be obtained from classified information.

This should satisfy the "proof" requirements at this level of debate.

A final footnote: About the Waxman case - The author Naomi Ragen has a new book coming out in the US in September about this experience. She stayed with the Waxman family throughout the ordeal. The book The Covenant is already out in Hebrew translation. She claims that there is nothing fictitious in the book. A slice of life in Israel.

It the authorities had time to use sleep deprivation, then they had time to investigate leads without resorting to such measures.

As you say, the details are not provided. The Israeli authorities admit that they use these methods. It is up to them to show they are effective and necessary.

They haven't.

Also, the Washington Post seems to suggest that the Israelis are better and more effective than the Bushies in Iraq. One should think that a proud nation should aspire to a ambitious goal. The best the neocons can say for their rule in Iraq is that they employ a kinder, gentler torture than Saddam. Yes, better than Saddam. A real high standard of civilization, that.

than a bus...