Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

[Good Old Neon]

I think that Mr Dershowitz habitually and intentionally engages in public debates about Israeli policies and Palestine. He invites the very discussion you claim he is shutting down. On TV and as a lecturer. Some of his opinions are backed up by fact and others perhaps less so. But either way, it sounds to me like you think he's a douchebag because you don't agree with him. If people are "afraid" to debate him because of the difficulty of the topic, isn't that their fault and not his? Which makes "them" part of the problem and not the solution? Should he not state (or push) his opinion because you don't agree with it?

 

How can we carry on an intelligent debate if it is automatically assumed that a persons dislike of Israeli policies reflects a racist view towards Jewish folk in general? Dershowitz intentionally creates an environment in which it is assumed that anyone who questions Israeli policies towards Palestinians is racist or, at the very least, harbors anti-semetic feelings.

 

How does that make for intelligent debate?

[MattZ]

How can we carry on an intelligent debate if it is automatically assumed that a persons dislike of Israeli policies reflects a racist view towards Jewish folk in general? Dershowitz intentionally creates an environment in which it is assumed that anyone who questions Israeli policies towards Palestinians is racist or, at the very least, harbors anti-semetic feelings.

 

By getting someone to debate him, as they often do, and claim the opposite? On the very same TV programs that Dershowitz goes on? Notwithstanding your claims otherwise, it is not automatically assumed that a person who disagrees with him is anti-semitic. Whether Dershowitz assumes this or not, the viewing public would not and does not. So get someone intelligent to debate him in a forum that he welcomes.

[EL the Famous]

aren't you giving his views a little more creedence than they deserve? does one person every really create the ENTIRE atmosphere of a particular debate? you debate the person based on facts and diffuse any of the arguments that aren't grounded in irrefutable fact.

[cryptique]

Whether Dershowitz assumes this or not, the viewing public would not and does not.

Um. I think a lot of people do assume that. AIPAC and other staunchly pro-Israel groups have made it their business to shout down anyone who dares to challenge Israel in any way.

[Atticus]

his defense of conditional torture

 

his response:

Why do you defend torture?

 

I don't defend torture.

 

I am against torture as a normative matter, and I would like to see its use minimized. I believe that at least moderate forms of non-lethal torture are in fact being used by the United States and some of its allies today. I think that if we ever confronted an actual case of imminent mass terrorism that could be prevented by the infliction of torture, we would use torture (even lethal torture) and the public would favor its use. Whenever I speak about this subject, I ask my audience for a show of hands on the empirical question: "how many of you think that non-lethal torture would be used if we were ever confronted with a ticking bomb terrorist case?" Almost no one dissents from the view that torture would in fact be used, though there is widespread disagreement about whether it should be used. That is also my empirical conclusion. It is either true or false, and time will probably tell. I then present my conditional normative position, which is the central point of my chapter on torture.

 

I pose the issue as follows: If torture is, in fact, being used, and / or would, in fact, be used in an actual ticking bomb terrorist case, would it be normatively better or worse to have such torture regulated by some kind of warrant, with accountability, record-keeping, standards and limitations. This is an important debate, and a different one from the old, abstract Benthamite debate over whether torture can ever be justified. It is not so much about the substantive issue of torture, as it is over accountability, visibility and candor in a democracy that is confronting a choice of evils. For example, William Schulz, the Executive Director of Amnesty International USA, asks whether I would favor "brutality warrants," "testilying warrants" and "prisoner rape warrants." Although I strongly oppose brutality, testilying and prisoner rape, I answered Schulz with "a heuristic yes, if requiring a warrant would subject these horribly brutal activities to judicial control and accountability." In explaining my preference for a warrant, I wrote the following:

 

"The purpose of requiring judicial supervision, as the framers of our 4th Amendment understood better than Schulz does, is to assure accountability and neutrality. There is another purpose as well: it forces a democratic country to confront the choice of evils in an open way. My question back to Schulz is do you prefer the current situation in which brutality, testifying and prisoner rape are rampant, but we close our eyes to these evils?

 

There is, of course, a downside: legitimating a horrible practice that we all want to see ended or minimized. Thus we have a triangular conflict unique to democratic societies: If these horrible practices continue to operate below the radar screen of accountability, there is no legitimation, but there is continuing and ever expanding sub rosa employment of the practice. If we try to control the practice by demanding some kind of accountability, then we add a degree of legitimation to it while perhaps reducing its frequency and severity. If we do nothing, and a preventable act of nuclear terrorism occurs, then the public will demand that we constrain liberty even more. There is no easy answer.

 

I praise Amnesty for taking the high road - - that is its job, because it is not responsible for making hard judgments about choices of evil. Responsible government officials are in a somewhat different position. Professors have yet a different responsibility: to provoke debate about issues before they occur and to change absolutes."

 

link to more complete response

[Good Old Neon]

Um. I think a lot of people do assume that. AIPAC and other staunchly pro-Israel groups have made it their business to shout down anyone who dares to challenge Israel in any way.

 

My point exactly.

 

Thank you.

[Atticus]

an excerpt from Dershowitz's website concerning the israeli-palestinian conflict:

 

Is peace possible in the Middle East?

 

Yes!

 

The Arab-Israeli conflict should end with a two-state solution under which all the Arab and Muslim states-indeed the entire world-acknowledge Israel's right to continue to exist as an independent, democratic, Jewish state with secure and defensible boundaries and free of terrorism. In exchange, Israel should recognize the right of Palestinians to establish an independent, democratic, Palestinian state with politically and economically viable boundaries. For these mutually compatible goals to be achieved, extremists on both sides must give up what they each claim are their God-given or nationalistic rights. Israeli extremists must give up their claimed right to all of biblical Eretz Yisrael (the land of Israel), and their claimed right to maintain Jewish settlements on, or to continue the military occupation of, disputed areas that would be allocated to the Palestinian state. Palestinian extremists must give up their claimed right to all of "Palestine," including what is now Israel, as well as the alleged right of millions of descendants of those who left or were forced out of what is now Israel during the war of 1947-1949 to "return" to their "ancestral homes" in Israel. Unless these claimed rights are mutually surrendered in the interest of achieving a pragmatic, compromise resolution to the conflict, there can be no enduring peace. But if these claimed rights are surrendered, peace can be achieved. The remaining disputes-and there are many-will be much easier to resolve if agreement is reached on these fundamental issues.

 

link to two chapters of his book re same

 

granted, I've not read his book(s) concerning this issue, but it seems to me that he's not without an understanding that there are at least two sides to the issue.

[Good Old Neon]

his response:

link to more complete response

 

Amnesty International:

 

Alan Dershowitz posed a version of this question (Los Angeles Times, November 8), when he asked:

 

"But what if (torture) were limited to the rare "ticking bomb" case--the situation in which a captured terrorist who knows of an imminent large-scale threat refuses to disclose it?

 

Would torturing one guilty terrorist to prevent the deaths of a thousand innocent civilians shock the conscience of all decent people?

 

To prove that it would not, consider a situation in which a kidnapped child had been buried in a box with two hours of oxygen. The kidnapper refuses to disclose its location. Should we not consider torture in that situation?"

 

Answering his own question (San Francisco Chronicle, November 8), he added:

 

"Everybody says they're opposed to torture. But everyone would do it personally if they knew it could save the life of a kidnapped child who had only two hours of oxygen left before death. And it would be the right thing to do."

 

The supporters of this conclusion base their view on a belief that torture can be effective, and that it's use - in a utilitarian calculation of doing bad for a greater good - can be permitted.

 

It isn't realistic

William J. Aceves, an international law and human rights professor at California Western School of Law in San Diego, wrote in the San Diego Tribune on November 21, 2001 that:

 

"[The ticking bomb scenario] falls apart upon careful scrutiny. It assumes that law enforcement has the right person in custody. That is, the suspect knows where the bomb is and when it is scheduled to detonate. What if there is only a 50 percent chance that the suspect knows the information? What if this number is only 10 percent? Second, it assumes that torture will be effective in gaining access to the critical information. In fact, however, torture is notoriously unreliable. What if there is only a 60 percent chance that the suspect will reveal accurate information? How about 20 percent? How low are we willing to go? How should we make the decision whether to torture? How many people must be endangered before the torture option can be considered?"

 

It hides the true cost of torture

The cost-benefit analysis suggested by the question - torture one to save the many - hides the true cost of using torture.

 

As Alexander Cockburn wrote in 'The Nation' (November 26): "Start torturing, and it's easy to get carried away. Torture destroys the tortured and corrupts the society that sanctions it."

 

The US does not exist in an isolated corner of the world where use torture might go unnoticed. Any approval of torture by the U.S. - including extradition of suspects to countries where they are likely to face torture - sends a dangerous message of tolerance of torture that will be heard around the world. Amnesty International's 40 years of experience fighting torture shows that once torture has been legitimized, even on a small scale, the use of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading practices inevitably expands to include countless other victims, and ultimately erodes the moral and legal principles on which society depends.

 

For example, the Israeli government legalized "moderate physical pressure," with controls to limit its use. However, once permitted, thousands of "suspects" were tortured for stone-throwing and other routine offenses, and the practice became routine and systematic. Even though the Israeli High Court banned the practice in 1999, Amnesty International continues to document Israeli authorities' use of torture. Could the US condemn others for using torture, including when it is used against US citizens, if it sanctions it's use at home?

 

Torture is a problem, not a solution

Torture is a real problem around the world with many hundreds of thousands of victims. Amnesty International has documented torture in more than 150 countries, including the United States. In more than 70 countries, it is widespread. People in 80 countries have died as a result of torture. The victims are mainly detained on minor criminal charges, including women and children, and the methods include rape and brutal violence.

 

Torture is illegal

The use of torture would violate countless international agreements the United States has signed and ratified, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention against Torture. The pre-eminent human rights document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states that "no one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." There are no exceptions. Fundamental to the very idea of human rights is that they are universal, rights for all that are not to be abridged or waived, not in war or during any other crisis.

[MattZ]

Um. I think a lot of people do assume that. AIPAC and other staunchly pro-Israel groups have made it their business to shout down anyone who dares to challenge Israel in any way.

 

 

My point exactly.

 

You are right and I spoke too broadly. Dershowitz and AIPAC have the own opinions and agendas. And so far as I know, Dershowitz welcomes debate on the subject. So long as Dershowitz has an opinion and is willing to debate the point, I dont see what makes him anything other than a person with an opinion you don't agree with.

[Atticus]

I dont see what makes him anything other than a person with an opinion you don't agree with.

 

= (apparently) douchebag

[EL the Famous]

Alan Dershowitz posed a version of this question (Los Angeles Times, November 8), when he asked:

 

"But what if (torture) were limited to the rare "ticking bomb" case--the situation in which a captured terrorist who knows of an imminent large-scale threat refuses to disclose it?

 

Would torturing one guilty terrorist to prevent the deaths of a thousand innocent civilians shock the conscience of all decent people?

 

To prove that it would not, consider a situation in which a kidnapped child had been buried in a box with two hours of oxygen. The kidnapper refuses to disclose its location. Should we not consider torture in that situation?"

 

Answering his own question (San Francisco Chronicle, November 8), he added:

 

"Everybody says they're opposed to torture. But everyone would do it personally if they knew it could save the life of a kidnapped child who had only two hours of oxygen left before death. And it would be the right thing to do."

 

You know, you are calling this guy a douchebag for doing something extremely similar to you or whomever that guy was you like to quote during the whole 'petri dish in a burning building' debacle.

[Good Old Neon]

You are right and I spoke too broadly. Dershowitz and AIPAC have the own opinions and agendas. And so far as I know, Dershowitz welcomes debate on the subject. So long as Dershowitz has an opinion and is willing to debate the point, I dont see what makes him anything other than a person with an opinion you don't agree with.

 

 

Fair enough - I can agree with that.

 

If you're interested, following is a link to a debate between Mr. Chomsky and Mr. Dershowitz regarding this very issue. Audio and video are available.

 

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/23/1450216

[Good Old Neon]

You know, you are calling this guy a douchebag for doing something extremely similar to you or womever that guy was you like to quote during the whole 'perti dish in a burning building' debacle.

 

Really, how so?

[Atticus]

Amnesty International:

 

Alan Dershowitz posed a version of this question (Los Angeles Times, November 8), when he asked:

 

"But what if (torture) were limited to the rare "ticking bomb" case--the situation in which a captured terrorist who knows of an imminent large-scale threat refuses to disclose it?

 

Would torturing one guilty terrorist to prevent the deaths of a thousand innocent civilians shock the conscience of all decent people?

 

To prove that it would not, consider a situation in which a kidnapped child had been buried in a box with two hours of oxygen. The kidnapper refuses to disclose its location. Should we not consider torture in that situation?"

 

Answering his own question (San Francisco Chronicle, November 8), he added:

 

"Everybody says they're opposed to torture. But everyone would do it personally if they knew it could save the life of a kidnapped child who had only two hours of oxygen left before death. And it would be the right thing to do."

 

The supporters of this conclusion base their view on a belief that torture can be effective, and that it's use - in a utilitarian calculation of doing bad for a greater good - can be permitted.

 

It isn't realistic

William J. Aceves, an international law and human rights professor at California Western School of Law in San Diego, wrote in the San Diego Tribune on November 21, 2001 that:

 

"[The ticking bomb scenario] falls apart upon careful scrutiny. It assumes that law enforcement has the right person in custody. That is, the suspect knows where the bomb is and when it is scheduled to detonate. What if there is only a 50 percent chance that the suspect knows the information? What if this number is only 10 percent? Second, it assumes that torture will be effective in gaining access to the critical information. In fact, however, torture is notoriously unreliable. What if there is only a 60 percent chance that the suspect will reveal accurate information? How about 20 percent? How low are we willing to go? How should we make the decision whether to torture? How many people must be endangered before the torture option can be considered?"

 

It hides the true cost of torture

The cost-benefit analysis suggested by the question - torture one to save the many - hides the true cost of using torture.

 

As Alexander Cockburn wrote in 'The Nation' (November 26): "Start torturing, and it's easy to get carried away. Torture destroys the tortured and corrupts the society that sanctions it."

 

The US does not exist in an isolated corner of the world where use torture might go unnoticed. Any approval of torture by the U.S. - including extradition of suspects to countries where they are likely to face torture - sends a dangerous message of tolerance of torture that will be heard around the world. Amnesty International's 40 years of experience fighting torture shows that once torture has been legitimized, even on a small scale, the use of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading practices inevitably expands to include countless other victims, and ultimately erodes the moral and legal principles on which society depends.

 

For example, the Israeli government legalized "moderate physical pressure," with controls to limit its use. However, once permitted, thousands of "suspects" were tortured for stone-throwing and other routine offenses, and the practice became routine and systematic. Even though the Israeli High Court banned the practice in 1999, Amnesty International continues to document Israeli authorities' use of torture. Could the US condemn others for using torture, including when it is used against US citizens, if it sanctions it's use at home?

 

Torture is a problem, not a solution

Torture is a real problem around the world with many hundreds of thousands of victims. Amnesty International has documented torture in more than 150 countries, including the United States. In more than 70 countries, it is widespread. People in 80 countries have died as a result of torture. The victims are mainly detained on minor criminal charges, including women and children, and the methods include rape and brutal violence.

 

Torture is illegal

The use of torture would violate countless international agreements the United States has signed and ratified, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention against Torture. The pre-eminent human rights document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states that "no one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." There are no exceptions. Fundamental to the very idea of human rights is that they are universal, rights for all that are not to be abridged or waived, not in war or during any other crisis.

 

I'm still a bit ill and dizzy so I got lost in which quote was attributable to whom, but I thought in both of Dershowitz's examples there was no issue of mistaken identity. I think it's also important in these debates to define what "torture" is. From the brief excerpts I read it appears that Dershowitz supports minimalizing torture as much as possible (in other words, I don't think he's arguing with the quotes you included concerning the overuse of torture worldwide) and making its use transparent and holding those employing it accountable. But most importantly, I can't support anyone's argument if it includes the misuse of "it's."

 

(still, they're just his opinions. why does that make him a douchebag?)

[EL the Famous]

the 'saving a petri dish versus full grown human' scenario wasn't really relevant to the actual discussion/point of contention at hand...except in severe medical cases where the mother's life is in jeapordy, it isn't a case of one or the other.

 

in dershowitz's scenario, if he is indeed using that example to justify Israeli sanctioned torturing, it's making a completely different (and extremely melodramatic) point as counterpoint to a different discussion.

 

the only difference for me, is that i don't think the terrorist/kidnapping example is completely bunk.

[Big Perm]

THIS JUST IN -

 

"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announces candidacy for the 2008 election"

[JUDE]

[EL the Famous]

THIS JUST IN -

 

"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announces candidacy for the 2008 election"

 

$5 that someone here posts it couldn't be any worse than bush.

[Good Old Neon]

the 'saving a petri dish versus full grown human' scenario wasn't really relevant to the actual discussion/point of contention at hand...except in severe medical cases where the mother's life is in jeapordy, it isn't a case of one or the other.

 

in dershowitz's scenario, if he is indeed using that example to justify Israeli sanctioned torturing, it's making a completely different (and extremely melodramatic) point as counterpoint to a different discussion.

 

the only difference for me, is that i don't think the terrorist/kidnapping example is completely bunk.

 

The debacle as you call it, from where I

[JUDE]

$5 that someone here posts it couldn't be any worse than bush.

 

LOL.

[JerseyMike]

it couldn't be any worse than bush...now give me that $5!!!

 

 

Dershowitz defended OJ, did he not? Doesn't that kind of make him a douchebag??

[EL the Famous]

The debacle as you call it, from where I

[bjorn_skurj]

it couldn't be any worse than bush...now give me that $5!!!Dershowitz defended OJ, did he not? Doesn't that kind of make him a douchebag??

Even douchebags are entitled to due process. Part of due process is having a defense lawyer or lawyers.And torture has never been proven to be a reliable method of extracting useful information, I understand. So why use something that's ineffective and morally repugnant to boot? The only possible answer is sadism.

[JerseyMike]

And torture has never been proven to be a reliable method of extracting useful information, I understand.

 

That is quite true, according to the experts.

[MrRain422]

Sure, but why should we trust the experts?