The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Trials of Rasmea Odeh, Part Two -- A Bombing in Jerusalem
Rasmea Odeh organized the bombing of a Jerusalem supermarket that killed two university students. It did not take the Israeli authorities long to track her down.
This is the second of four posts on The Trials of Rasmea Odeh.
Jerusalem's Supersol was crowded on Friday morning, February 21, 1969, as shoppers hurried to get ready for the coming Sabbath. At about 11:00 a.m., a bomb exploded near the meat counter, ripping through the shelves and ceiling and sending debris flying across the store. Two botany students were killed—immigrant roommates, from South Africa and Uruguay—who were buying supplies for a coming field trip. Dozens were injured, including an Auschwitz survivor and a U.N. attache.
Israel had already been on edge, following a series of bombings and international terror attacks, and the police were reasonably fearful that "private vengeance" might be carried out against Jerusalem's Palestinian population. Roadblocks were set up outside Palestinian neighborhoods, more or less successfully preventing angry mobs from attacking their Palestinian neighbors.
The police also proudly announced a series of "round-ups," taking about 150 Palestinians into custody for questioning. Odeh's supporters later portrayed these as arbitrary arrests, but in fact they were mostly short term detentions, with the individuals quickly released after interrogation. The Palestinians, of course, did not view the mass detentions as benign, but the Israelis ultimately only charged actual suspects, against whom there was indeed evidence.
It took only a few days for Israeli security officers to show up, in the middle of the night, at the Odeh home in al-Birah. Not only was Rasmea Odeh a known PFLP associate, she had also been ratted out by a co-conspirator who gave up her name, and others, under duress and probably torture. Bombmaking equipment—including timers, detonating cords, and gelignite—was recovered from Odeh's bedroom, as was a receipt from the Supersol.
Blindfolded, Odeh was taken to Jerusalem's Russian Compound, originally a 19th century hostel, known and feared by Palestinians as "Moskobiya" or, as Odeh put it, the "torture factory."
Odeh's interrogation was brutal, she was intermittently beaten, chained to a wall, and deprived of sleep. The Israeli authorities denied using such techniques at the time, but it was later determined by an Israeli commission, among others, that those methods were then indeed common in security interrogations. Odeh also claimed to have been sexually abused, an accusation for which there is no solid extrinsic evidence.
It did not take long for Odeh to confess. She initially claimed implausibly that she had acted alone, in an attempt to shield her comrades, but the Israelis didn't buy it. They were looking for the proverbial "ticking bomb," not trying simply to secure evidence for a conviction, so they continued the interrogation until Odeh gave up the names of both her accomplices and others in her PFLP network.
The true story, which was much later confirmed in documentary interviews on Jordanian television and the Arabic language memoirs of admitted participants in the operation, was that Odeh had visited the Supersol before the date of the operation, purchasing a tin of jam. Later, the conspirators gathered at Odeh's home—her other family members were away—where the explosives were assembled and concealed in the tin. Two of her comrades then returned to the supermarket and placed the tin back on a shelf, figuring that it would not be recognized as out of place. Odeh herself later went back to Jerusalem and planted another bomb at the British consulate, which exploded without harming anyone.
Odeh's prosecution extended over months, as she vainly attempted to suppress her confession in an Israeli procedure known as a "trial within a trial." Her motion was predictably denied, as interrogators' frequent resort to torture had not yet been publicly acknowledged and the security officials lied to the court. Even without the confession, however, there was significant evidence of Odeh's guilt, such as the ordinance and receipt discovered under her bed.
She was convicted and sentenced to life in prison in January 1970.
The next post will be about Odeh's ten years in prison and eventual immigration to the United States.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Odeh also claimed to have been sexually abused, an accusation for which there is no solid extrinsic evidence."
Is this meant to imply that there actually IS some sort of evidence, just not "solid extrinsic" evidence? Because if there is evidence that claim is true, I've never heard of it. If anything, the evidence is that it was a lie.
Sure: her claim is evidence, in a legal sense, no?
The other stuff seems to have been admitted after being denied, so it's not like her captors come off as trustworthy either.
defending an admitted mass murderer. Nice. Coupled with the other defenses of Putin and Stalin you guys have been on a roll lately.
There clearly is at least some evidence that the claim is true - Odeh's own testimony. Whether an alleged victim's self-serving testimony is credible or can be independently corroborated is an entirely different question.
I've always distinguished "accusations" from "evidence", myself, but I suppose the legal system does regard accusations by themselves as having some evidentiary value.
But isn't there active evidence contradicting the claim?
Active evidence? Such as in contravening accusations?
"Is this meant to imply that there actually IS some sort of evidence"
Lubet is bending over backwards to be "evenhanded" so he uses plenty of lawyer weasel words.
Notice how he takes the torture claims as given to be true, because (his misrepresentation) of an Israeli report that said that torture had happened to other people.
He also skips right over how absurd Odeh's claims are, by very carefully not detailing any of them.
This guy is getting worse and worse - he isn't discussing the law at all so far, and is instead building up a hagiography for an openly anti-Semitic terrorist.
It has always seemed to me that torture is such an egregious violation of human rights that it should result in the entire case being thrown out. What she did was vile and deserves severe punishment; that said, state actors should be held to a higher standard.
"What she did was vile and deserves severe punishment"
Yes, life seemed appropriate.
"that said, state actors should be held to a higher standard."
Or at least some standard. Is there any evidence her torturers were punished in any way?
What if torture saves lives? It can pass the utilitarian test. Your absolutist view is ridiculous. Then so people should not be tortured for information to save lives. Some should be because they need it, as payback. To deter.
Torture is inherently unreliable because people will say anything to get the torture to stop, as amply demonstrated by the Inquisition. Even if you have a situation in which it will actually save lives, you can then separate the utilitarian function from the judicial function, save the lives, and then refuse to prosecute. The cost of engaging in torture should be high enough for state actors that they only resort to it in the most extreme of circumstances.
While it's true that people will say anything to make the torture stop, in this case it appears that what she said was the truth.
But they already had all the physical evidence they needed. The torture was completely unnecessary from a evidence/trial basis.
Matt,
I think they already had the evidence to convict her. But Israel want information about other possible future bombings, and about her fellow terrorists, and Israel was willing to torture her to get this info. (The above is *not* a defense of torture...merely an explanation as to why the torture was probably done, given the large amount of evidence against her that Israel already had.)
Except she claims she was tortured to obtain a confession - not a list of potential future targets.
Yes, and when evaluating what she claims, remember that she genuinely IS a terrorist, and she's making those claims about the country she was committing terrorism against.
One thing to bear in mind is that almost every country on earth has signed treaties confirming that torture is illegal and specifically rejecting the "ticking bomb" rationale. Now, if you still want to argue that in the most extreme situation, "you do what you have to do", that is concededly an argument, but:
1. You have to deal with the fact that the international community, which has a hard time agreeing on anything, has agreed not to accept that argument, probably because a large percentage of torturers have historically claimed the utilitarian justification and much and perhaps all of the time, the claim has been BS, and
2. You also have to deal with the fact that the utilitarian calculus can lead you to some very dark places. For instance, if the only way you can get a terrorist to admit where the ticking bomb is would be to rape his 4 year old daughter, would that be acceptable? In addition to the fact that the utilitarian argument is often BS when it is asserted, I suspect this is a major explanation for the international community's rejection of the argument. At least as to the worst forms of torture, deontology seems like a far stronger argument than utilitarianism.
"almost every country on earth has signed treaties confirming that torture is illegal"
Yes, including Cuba and China and Russia and dozens of other countries that practice torture routinely.
I don't know why "international community" impresses you.
That people, including the governments of Cuba, China and Russia, don't practice what they preach doesn't mean that what they preach is a bad thing. Just as making trains run on time is not a bad thing just because Mussolini made the trains run on time.
Humans have always had loftier goals that what we appear able to live up to. So what?
Not only that, but the norm against torture specifically has led countries to enact rules that allow protection of refugees and non-deportation to places where they might be tortured, allow for prosecution of torturers, etc. There are certainly rules of international law that haven't had a lot of practical effect, but the norm against torture isn't one of them.
It does matter. I don't know about ancient kings and such, who seemed to always rule by volatile decree. But modern dictators show an amazing affinity for all the trappings of the rule of law vs rule of men. Show trials, rubber stamp legislatures, ignored constitutions -- yet dictators seem to like them, think they are necessary. Hitler had his pretexts for invading Poland, Putin had his for invading Ukraine, Xi has been cooking his for Taiwan.
It's almost as if they think it matters to the rest of the world, which means that it actually does matter in some small way.
If you captured a tyrant who killed thousands, torture would be cool to make him suffer, asking for no information.
Excuse me, but suffering is the way of death for 90% of people, severe pain, for a long time, abject humiliation, loss of everything, then death. So why are you giving bad people a painfree pass?
Why? Because they are good lawyer clients, generating lots of fees.
Another benefit of torture is social learning. Capture a tyrant. Televise the torture. Continue it over weeks. Other tyrants have to recalculate.
"Not only was Rasmea Odeh a known PFLP associate, she had also been ratted out by a co-conspirator who gave up her name, and others, under duress and probably torture. Bombmaking equipment—including timers, detonating cords, and gelignite—was recovered from Odeh's bedroom, as was a receipt from the Supersol."
Of course, torture works, you woke dipshits. When torture is possible, and not outlawed, people are grateful enought to cooperate in return for not being tortured. This woke shit, is all rent seeking lawyer crap.
For information purposes, water boarding is effective, harmless, and may continue for a long time. It should be adopted by the police departments of the USA and fully legal.
The flesh tearing Medieval torture should be restricted to punish great criminals, like oligarchs, and members of the lawyer hierarchy.
John McCain was waterboarded, and not "to see what it was like."
He was waterboarded in the Hanoi Hilton. Fer reals yo!
He said it was turture. That should be good enough for anyone.
As a side note, he was the son of an admiral, and North Vietnam wanted to release him as a token of good will. He refused, refusing to leave his men behind.
This is the guy Donald Trump called a loser for getting captured.
Read the eulogy by his chief of staff. He was a clumsy, dangerous putz. He got into the academy only on legacy. It is doubtful he was even shot down. His capture could have been one of his 4 careless, unforced fuckups and crashes. One of them happened in Philly where he wanted to attend the Army-Navy Game. He was totally irresponsible and a moron.
Well, he did pick Sarah Palin as his running mate. Wonder how many times he said "what was I thinking" about that one.
It was clear what he was thinking in picking Palin, he wanted the support of the budding populist conservative movement that was realizing the old school establishment GOP was actively working against their interests.
McCain himself was an amnesty proponent, when he was in the Senate he voted against repealing Obamacare.
McCain was a war hero, but he wasn't a conservative.
In what way was he not a conservative?
That's silly. He was thinking, "I desperately need some reason for Republican voters to take my candidacy seriously, where can I find a conservative for VP?"
Later he was thinking, "Well, this campaign is going nowhere, and that's not changing. But I've accidentally advanced the political fortunes of a conservative, and THAT I can change."
Pretty telling what counts as a conservative among some here.
Not policies, more rhetoric.
"You also have to deal with the fact that the utilitarian calculus can lead you to some very dark places."
Utilitarianism is more of a metaphor gone cancerous, than an actual theory that can be applied. "Utility" can rarely be quantified, and actually performing genuine math on it is largely hopeless.
And it brings with it some rather nasty incentives, to exaggerate the good that will result from your own evils, and to exaggerate the evil of anyone you oppose.
I actually think the way that utilitarianism has conquered the left is largely responsible for their tendency to view anybody who opposes them as being inhuman monsters. Fighting monsters is very freeing, if you're a utilitarian...
That's too broad-based an attack on utilitarianism. E.g., utilitarianism can also lead a person to conclusions such as "I will save more lives if I donate my money to this charity that supplies malaria nets to Africans than if I donate it to one of the two major political parties", which is a perfectly reasonable piece of moral reasoning.
Utilitarianism is a useful construct, but it isn't the sole governing principle of moral reasoning- and torture really is a good example of why.
I mean that it's useful as a metaphor, as long as you keep in mind that it IS just a metaphor, and that donating the proceeds to your local food bank doesn't actually make burglary OK because you can't do math on good and evil.
But if you take it seriously, those temptations I identified become a real problem.
One of the tenets of Utility is the requirement that the decider had personal experience with the procedure being considered. Did you know that? Lots of math can be done, for example, estimating lives, estimating costs, placing a money value on human life. Even pain levels can be measured.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/pain-scales-assessment-tools-4020329
You can even ask your opponent, am I leaving out any inputs due to my bias?
You're assuming that it's not possible to compare harms, to objectively determine what leaves us better off, and to balance competing interests. In other words, it's a lazy way to avoid having to make case by case determinations.
As for "utilitarianism has conquered the left", you're funny. I don't know if you consider me part of "the left" or not, but I'm definitely a utilitarian, as are most of the leftists I know.
"Utility" can rarely be quantified, and actually performing genuine math on it is largely hopeless.
Utility is often dealt with analytically by treating it as ordinal. "I prefer this to that."
And that's fine, so long as you're addressing your own personal preferences. But you hardly need a moral theory to make decisions that are totally self-regarding, do you? Whether it's worth stubbing your toe to eat a piece of pie isn't what utilitarianism purports to be about.
Whether your enjoyment of a piece of pie is enough to overcome MY stubbed toe is the stuff of utilitarianism, and saying "utility is ordinal" gets you nowhere once you're doing inter-personal calculations, or even trying to decide whether that piece of pie is worth 1, 2, or 3 stubbed toes. At that point you have to stop pretending you're doing math, and actually do math, and is 'utility' scalar or vector? How do you incorporate personal differences in priorities?
That's where utilitarianism stops being a metaphor, and becomes a cancerous metaphor: As soon as it becomes an actual moral theory you try to apply.
And again, you're simply not willing to do the hard work of actually analyzing whether my piece of pie is worth your stubbed toe. You're asking as if it's a rhetorical question, rather than a question with an actual answer. And here's what would go into that calculus:
If I'm willing to have your toe stubbed so I can have a piece of pie, then next week when you have the opportunity to stub my toe so you can have a piece of pie, I won't really have cause to complain. So I can't just look at the event in isolation; the real question is do I want to live in a world in which my own toe is at risk any time someone else can get a piece of pie out of it.
There's also the issue that people are happier when they're being left alone, and happier people tend to be more productive and produce fewer social problems, so the general rule is that you don't interfere in other people's lives any more than is necessary to have a civil society. But that's all about practicalities, not morality.
Oh, right, the only thing standing in the way of utility calculus is the reluctance to do the hard work.
Are you for real here?
I notice you didn't offer a substantive response.
What sort of substantive response is necessary? You weren't engaged in utilitarian math there, or any math at all. No numbers anywhere in it, or even basic arithmetic. That was more of a rejection of utilitarian reasoning, than it was an example of utilitarian reasoning.
Where is it written that utilitarianism requires actual numbers? I demonstrated how utilitarian reasoning works. I walked you through what would go into an analysis of your toe for my pie. Real numbers aren't necessary to utilitarian analysis.
Look at it this way: Suppose I offer you fifty cents for the life of your son. You can't place an actual number -- a hard dollar value -- on the life of your son, but you know he's worth a hell of a lot more than fifty cents. And anyone who objected, "But you haven't given me a precise dollar amount for how much he's worth," would be rightly written off as a nutcase.
So, by "utilitarianism" you mean some vague application of moral intuition, rather than the moral theory by that name propounded by Jeremy Bentham?
I'm actually more of a Bentham as amended by David Hume, but be that as it may: Bentham did not require numbers. What he said is you look at the factors on each side and determine which is more important. For which numbers are not necessary. Do you seriously think that just because I can't quantify it with precise numbers, that it's in any real dispute that the life of a child is worth more than an additional dollar per corporate shareholder profit at the end of the year?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that does seem to be your argument: Unless I can put an actual number on it, it's meaningless for utilitarian analysis. And if that's your argument, you're simply misrepresenting utilitarianism.
"Do you seriously think that just because I can't quantify it with precise numbers, that it's in any real dispute that the life of a child is worth more than an additional dollar per corporate shareholder profit at the end of the year?"
Doesn't that kind of depend on how many corporate shareholders there are? And how the life of that child is causally linked to the bottom line? And a lot of other things?
I mean, it's one thing if you're going to kidnap that kid and break them down for transplant parts. It's quite another if you're just arguing that the company should take its profits and give them to your favorite charity rather than distributing them to the stockholders.
From a crude utilitarian standpoint, the argument is the same. From a crude utilitarian standpoint, you should live in a cardboard box and eat instant ramen, so your surplus income can go to feed starving children in some third word hell hole.
But I'm a deontologist, and it very much matters to me what linkage you're proposing here.
"Doesn't that kind of depend on how many corporate shareholders there are? And how the life of that child is causally linked to the bottom line? And a lot of other things?"
Not really, but for the sake of argument assume that it does. All you've done is to add layers to the analysis. That does not mean that you can't analyze all those factors and still come up with an answer.
You're using a broad, sweeping brush to describe something that is far more nuanced than you're giving it credit for. The world is not stark black and white. You've chosen to reject case by case analysis in favor of a rather breathtaking example of the false alternative. Which, granted, spares you from having to do the actual work of analysis.
Some people say "nuanced", other people say "Squishy". You're appealing to a version of 'utilitarianism' that's really too vague for two people to apply and both get the same answer outside of circumstances where most people who weren't utilitarians would arrive at the same conclusion.
I think maybe you're using "utilitarian" to just mean "consequentialist"?
Brett, under a utilitarian approach, there will be close questions in which reasonable minds reach different conclusions, but that's true of Kantian (or Biblical, depending on your preference) deontology too. How do you decide a situation in which people will die no matter which decision you make, including refusing to decide? Life is hard and it sometimes presents us with difficult choices. But we don't just throw up our hands and say that conclusions can't be reached.
And to the extent anything I've said is vague, it's because this is a blog comment and not a doctoral thesis. Millions of words have been written applying utilitarianism to this or that. In response, however, I don't see that you've even tried to articulate a basis for claiming that deontology is superior to utilitarianism for any given question.
There is some overlap between utilitarianism and consequentialism, but they are different, and on those differences I'm more of a utilitarian.
But don't we often make utilitarian calculations in setting policy?
What is weighing lives against costs, for example?
The EPA values life at $6 million which is a gross over-estimate.
KryKry. Your stubbed toe has a cost. Medical, loss of work, and pain. All can be measured. Of course, the piece of pie has a market price. So the analysis is totally doable.
Authoritarian aspys doing utilitarian calculus with people's lives? What could go wrong?
A lot, which is why I reject utilitarianism.
No, that's not why you reject utilitarianism. You reject utilitarianism because you don't understand it. It may be that if you did understand it you'd still reject it, but I'm not inclined to give much weight to the opinion of someone who's spent this entire thread broadcasting the fact that he's clueless as to the actual tenets of utilitarianism.
I understood it enough to ace my philosophy and ethics elective in college. What I primarily understand is that utilitarianism pretends to engage in the sort of analysis it can't actually engage in, because the "hedonistic calculus" is impossible to actually carry out.
At best it's a way of approaching moral intuitions, a metaphor.
I got an A in civil procedure but over the years I've occasionally misread a rule here or there. And it's not that utilitarianism can't make the analysis, it's that you don't want it to, because your deontology is then the only thing left standing.
It's the same dynamic as Christians who tell us there is no basis for morality apart from the Bible. Right, and I'm the Queen of Romania.
KryKry. Any Rule that exceeds the sixth grade in reading level is void for failure to give notice. If trained people make mistakes in reading a rule, it is void and unconstitutional.
Hey, lawyer dipshits. Memoery is not a recording. That includes confessions. Np witness testimony without physical evidence. The lawyer is too stupid for that rule.
Then, when you execute repeat violent offenders, you end a lot of big problems. Why not? Because they make lawyer jobs. So we have to endure this worthless life and its horrible results. This life is not just worthless. It is actively toxic and costly. All for lawyer jobs.
"Memoery is not a recording."
Heck, it's not even a word.
"Np witness testimony "
Maybe take a second and let the morning meds kick in Dave!
"Why not? Because they make lawyer jobs."
Yes, because the only people against the death penalty are 'the lawyers.' Bonkers Behar strikes again!
Hi, Queenie. Great editing comments. What is your race? It is for the letter of recommendation.
I'm neurotypical. Different race from you.
Hi, Queenie. What color is your skin? I want to include it in the letter.
If Israel had the death penalty, she would be long dead and she couldn't have duped hapless Americans.
Its a giant own goal, it encourages future terrorism to free the prior terrorists. It happens over and over again.
And if Israel had the death penalty it would be seen as a one-way ticket to martyrdom with the resulting 80 virgins (or whatever the number is). Not only would it not be a deterrent to the true believers; if anything it would be an incentive.
KryKry. The sole mature purpose of the criminal law is incapacitation. The deceased have a low recidivism rate.
I am with Saddam. When you have a person, you have a problem. When there is no person, your problem is solved. So why take a chance?
I oppose the death penalty in the USA. It is a lawyer scam to generate $billion appellate business.
It violates some basic peinciples. The dose response curve. A few death penalties a year are worthless for any purpose of the criminal law. The delay of punishment for years makes it worthless. It has been replaced by the overdose crisis, killing 100000 criminals a year. Get rid of it.
"I am with Saddam."
That's not surprising.
Queenie. What is your gender identification, for the letter?
"if anything it would be an incentive"
Odeh, the PPLF and the PLO aren't motivated by nutty religious beliefs.
I think the people who run the PPLF and the PLO know better than to take nutty religious beliefs seriously -- and I suspect that of the pope as well -- but your average suicide bomber? Most of them are motivated by nutty religious beliefs.
Your average suicide bomber is in short enough supply that terrorists mostly make do planting bombs they won't be around for the detonation of, and strapping radio controlled bombs onto Downs syndrome suffers.
It's interesting how of the 19 9-11 hijackers, only the four leaders knew it was a suicide mission; they apparently didn't think their useful idiots would go along with the plot if they had known that.
And since there have been only two -- the shoe and underwear wannabes, who were too incompetent to do much more than provide late night laughs.
It's almost as if "suicide bomber" is not a popular job.
Not all terrorists are suicide bombers.
Hamas routinely tries to kidnap soldiers to trade for imprisoned terrorists. Dead terrorists can't be traded.
Of course, killing terrorists is a waste of time, since there is no shortage of them. The people to capture and to torture to death are their oligarch funders in Iran and in Saidi Arabia. That would have a bigger impact. Livestream the torture. To deter.
Very few terrorists indeed are suicide bombers.