Professor Alan Dershowitz has always been one of the most prominent defenders of Israel, but more recently he has also become one of the most prominent advocates for the legalisation of torture.
What is the reason for this? Well, his argument goes something like this: torture happens, it always has and it always will. It happens in democracies, it happens in dictatorships, it happens in Iran, and it happens in the U.S. Thus, he says:
Every democracy, including our own, has employed torture outside of the law. Throughout the years, police officers have tortured murder and rape suspects into confessing — sometimes truthfully, sometimes not truthfully.From this, he concludes the choice is not between torture or no torture, but between whether we want torture to be regulated and happen within the law, or to continue as it is and be outside the law:
Either police would torture below the radar screen of accountability, or theNow, let’s review his argument: because torture is inevitable, we should legalise it to at least ensure it is regulated and only happens in extreme “ticking bomb” cases. There are several flaws in this argument, even if we assume its premises to be correct. But first let’s examine the premises themselves:
judge who issued the warrant would be accountable. Which would be more
consistent with democratic values?
I share Seth Finkelstein’s position:
I stand in awe of Dershowitz’s focus on legal authorization of torture as theDershowitz is making a huge assumption here: that torture goes on and will always go on, and cannot be stopped. He doesn’t justify this assumption at all, which is amazing since it underpins his entire argument. Without it, he has no case. I reject the assumption we will never be rid of torture. Imagine if everyone had thought like this about slavery in America. Imagine an Alan Dershowitz pointing to all previous societies, to Ancient Egypt and Rome and the British Empire, and saying ‘look, we’ve always had slaves, and we always will, so let’s at least make the best of it’. The fact is that, by mass popular pressure, slavery was overthrown. You get rid of brutality and injustice by fighting for what’s right, not by giving in with resignation.
“real debate”. All the moral and practical questions are swept away by his
assumption of inevitability. We are left only to consider how to deal with what, if any, judicial procedures should surround torture.
Article comments
1 - Bliffle
Torture doesn't work.
Legalizing torture just legitimizes the nefarious activities of sadists - people who like to torture other people. It's stupid. Are we going to create Civil Service grades for torturers? Torturer 1st Class, Torturer 2nd Class, Chief Of Torturers, Supreme Torturer? What madness.
2 - Dean
I nominate Professor Alan Dershowitz to be a Torturer 1st Class.
3 - Dave Nalle
I think Dershowitz likes to take these bizarre contrarian positions and defend them on legal grounds in order to draw attention to himself. It's some sort of emotional disorder.
Dave
4 - Mohjho
I hope you are right Dave. It's amazing how an otherwise rational and intelligent person could so callously promote something that would debase our society. We do not recognize the use of torture because it is fundamentally abhorrent to most decent people, not because of the legal ramifications.
5 - melech gendin
the benefits of torture are obviouse, in that they may seem wrong, but when used to save lives by "preventing a bomb from going off," for example, its simply choosing the lesser of two evils. Rather than refusing to torture and allowing the bomb to go off killing off thousands. A great man once said "true evil is when good men do nothing."
You've certainly done a good job of demonizing dershowitz. But he makes a strong case. You should attach his entire case to your blog so people can read it entirely, im confident they will change their minds. Rather than applying your censorship by taking his points out of context.
6 - gonzo marx
there is NO case FOR torture in a civilized society...
as is pointed out in the Article... we have Constitutional safeguards against "cruel and unusual punishment"
as well as the absolute Fact that over the course of our history, law enforcement personnel have indeed taken it upon themselves in a hostage/ticking bomb scenario... and then immediately confessed and submitted themselves for prosecution
that IS the Ethical stance, to do less makes the U.S. no better than those we fight against
and it is never *good* to sink to the level of those you oppose
your mileage may vary
Excelsior?
7 - Melech Gendin
No less than who we fight against??? Who are you?? May I suggest you read this book, you have clearly missed the point here. Take active steps to educate yourself before forming embarresing opinions.
Peace
8 - Les Slater
From a legal perspective the idea that someone's constitutional rights can be violated if any information garnered is not used in a trial is grotesque.
The implication here is that it is permissible to use such practices even if the target is never brought to trial. Cops already are seldom prosecuted for just blowing people away based on their claim that ‘they thought…’something or other. Such actions, including torture, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.