Back to Clive Crook's blog homepage
Dershowitz on torture
November 8, 2007
Alan Dershowitz advises the Democrats not to look soft on national security–and not to rule out torture in all conceivable circumstances. He approves of the (Bill) Clinton doctrine on the issue:
Consider, for example, the contentious and emotionally laden issue of the use of torture in securing preventive intelligence information about imminent acts of terrorism–the so-called "ticking bomb" scenario. I am not now talking about the routine use of torture in interrogation of suspects or the humiliating misuse of sexual taunting that infamously occurred at Abu Ghraib. I am talking about that rare situation described by former President Clinton in an interview with National Public Radio:
"You picked up someone you know is the No. 2 aide to Osama bin Laden. And you know they have an operation planned for the United States or some European capital in the next three days. And you know this guy knows it. Right, that’s the clearest example. And you think you can only get it out of this guy by shooting him full of some drugs or waterboarding him or otherwise working him over."
He said Congress should draw a narrow statute "which would permit the president to make a finding in a case like I just outlined, and then that finding could be submitted even if after the fact to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court." The president would have to "take personal responsibility" for authorizing torture in such an extreme situation. Sen. John McCain has also said that as president he would take responsibility for authorizing torture in that "one in a million" situation.
I disagree with that solution, for reasons I have already discussed–though Dershowitz is certainly right about the danger Democrats face if they seem soft on security. This is the Republicans’ best hope next year. But what I found most interesting about Dershowitz’s article was the paragraph that follows the ones I just quoted:
Although I am personally opposed to the use of torture, I have no doubt that any president–indeed any leader of a democratic nation–would in fact authorize some forms of torture against a captured terrorist if he believed that this was the only way of securing information necessary to prevent an imminent mass casualty attack. The only dispute is whether he would do so openly with accountability or secretly with deniability. The former seems more consistent with democratic theory, the latter with typical political hypocrisy.
"Although I am personally opposed to the use of torture…" What an extraordinary evasion. Talk about ethical dissonance. He is opposed to torture–apparently in all and any circumstances–but urges the next president not to be! Truly, lawyers are not like the rest of us.
Au contraire, Mr Crook–Mr Dershowitz has demonstrated a sense of reality lacking in so many who are accurately labelled and dismissed as ‘liberals’, whose principles and arguments boil down to
| I *personally* believe in A and oppose B.
| Ergo, my choices should be applied as restrictions
| on everyone else, *regardless* of circumstances
| and *no matter what* their responsibilities.
It would be absurd for anyone even as brilliant as Mr Dershowitz to believe that his own choices and capacities, while they serve him well as a lawyer, would not encumber someone with the responsibilities of the office of President of the United States.
And without sense of reality, idealism in any argument simply robs it of credibility.
Posted by: J Michael, private banker, 38 | November 8th, 2007 at 10:31 am | Report this commentJ. Michael’s comment exudes an aura of profound factlessness. His `description’ of “liberals” contains not a single concrete fact, and of course the sense of “reality” behind the argument for torture is based on, guess what, a totally contrived scenario from hypothetical-land with no facts.
“He is opposed to torture — apparently in all and any circumstances — but urges the next president not to be!”
Hmm, for a moment I thought that torture has become some sort of personal lifestyle choice. If torture is illegalized, next thing you know the judges will be telling us what drinks we’re allowed to drink!
Posted by: bi | November 8th, 2007 at 6:14 pm | Report this commentEXAMPLE: I can imagine circumstances under which abortion is the lesser of two evils. But being male and unaware of mother, sister, wife or daughter having ever been faced with the decision, do not dare assume that I know all the relevant factors enough to be able to tell them how to decide, much less make judgements on their respective choices.
In the same manner, it would be absurd for me to think that I could take the most complex decisions in my life and simply extrapolate it to know all the decisions the President of the United States has to make.
Thus my own–and Mr Dershowitz’s–refusal to equate *personal* capacities and choices with that of someone else who is faced with far greater responsibilities under entirely different circumstances.
I shun epithets in political discussions. But if an extremist Elephant mouths ideals with no eye for reality, or a Donkey does the same on the other end, then ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ are accurate descriptions of those whose arguments lack credibility.
Posted by: J Michael | November 10th, 2007 at 3:23 am | Report this comment“If torture is illegalized [sic], next thing you know the judges will be telling us what drinks we’re allowed to drink!”
Proof that
Posted by: J Michael, private banker, 38 | November 10th, 2007 at 3:29 am | Report this comment1 reckless extrapolation invalidates the conclusion
2 dramatics robs an argument of its credibility.
Alan Dershowitz is a hard line Zionist and Israel apologist, and given Israels prediliction for torture, Mr. Dershowitz would have a very hard time being against it, under any circumstances.
Posted by: steve jennings | November 10th, 2007 at 9:34 pm | Report this commentMr. Jennings should explain how phrases like “prediliction for torture” on the part of “Zionist” Israel are meant to be anything other than anti-semitic code words. It is one thing to condemn Israel or any other country, including most of Israel’s Arab neighbors, for using torture. But it quite something else to imply that the people of a certain nation have a “prediliction” for using torture. Jews have been accused of having too many “predilictions” during the past two thousand years for Mr. Jenning’s comments to be acceptable.
Having said this, I strongly disagree with Mr. Dershowitz on the use of torture. Torture is never acceptable in a democracy. Mr. Dershowitz’s example of the captured terrorist with information that could prevent mass destruction in a terrorist attack is nothing more than a red herring. Those are not the types of people that the US has been torturing at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo. Nor do victims of the infamous “rendition” program, such as the innocent Canadian citizen who was sent to Syria, a distinctly non-Zionist country, to be tortured because of mistaken identity, fit Mr. Dershowitz’ example.
Raising this red herring only serves to obscure the real issue raised by torture, and in this sense, Mr. Dershowitz once again shows himself to be a skillful lawyer. The real issue is that torture is the ultimate method of state intimidation. Once it is becomes accepted as something that can be used against anyone the president chooses to label as a terrorist, it can, and if recent history is any guide, will, also be used against anyone else, including political opponents. At that point, it will be difficult to distinguish America’s form of government from that of Burma or Zimbabwe.
I might add, in keeping with Mr. Jenning’s comments, that I personally am no supporter of either Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians or of Mr. Dershowitz’s attitude of Israel right or wrong. But these issues are irrelevant to the question whether torture in any form, and under any circumstances, is consistent with America’s survival as a democratic nation. It is not.
As a final comment, I am not aware that Vice-President Dick Cheney, America’s main proponent of torture, is Jewish. Neither is another well known apologist for torture, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. And President Bush himself, who bears the ultimate responsibility for the use of torture on his watch, is, of course, a born again Christian. Mr. Jennings would do well to spare us the innuendo, which has no place in a forum such as this one.
Posted by: Roger Algase | November 12th, 2007 at 12:26 am | Report this comment