Snoopy the Goon asks for my view on an article by Alan Dershowitz dealing with the question of torture. (The piece is now behind a subscription wall, but is also available here). Not to put too fine a point on it, and making use of a word he himself introduces into the discussion, my view is that what Dershowitz says about torture is revolting. Three reasons:
1) Seemingly wanting to allow, as being open to consideration, that torture could be used by those prosecuting the war on terror, he doesn't just come out and say so in explicit and affirmative mode; he's more coy about it, putting the point interrogatively:
Should the same rules that govern the interrogation of ordinary criminal suspects be applicable? Or should more latitude be afforded to interrogators in the preventive context? Should sleep deprivation be authorised? Loud music? Alternating heat and cold? Uncomfortable and/or painful seating? What about truth serum? False threats? We know that the United States has used "water boarding" - a technique that produces a near-drowning experience but no physical after-effects - on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a high-ranking al-Qa'ida detainee. Is that categorised as torture? I certainly think so, but the United States government apparently does not. We need rules even for such unpleasant practices.There's a clear answer to these questions: namely, that torture should not be used in these or any other circumstances; it is a crime against humanity and covered by the doctrine of jus cogens. If Alan Dershowitz doesn't think these norms are universally binding, if he thinks they should be relaxed to allow for (some kinds of) torture, better that his article should just say so openly.
2) Dershowitz seems to want to allow, as being open to consideration, that torture could - justifiably - be used.
3) Being an irreparable violation of the human person, this is bad enough (that is to say, it is a human outrage) applied to anybody - even someone guilty of a grave crime. But it follows from what Dershowitz himself says in the same piece that, once authorized, 'permissible' torture will violate the lives and the well-being of quite innocent people. Here is part of his description of those captured by the US and its allies:
[T]here were admitted members of al-Qa'ida... Some of the detainees are believed to have valuable real-time information that could save lives. Others are simply terrorist pawns willing to do whatever they are told, even if it entails suicide. Inevitably, some, probably, are completely innocent and not dangerous.How does an eminent liberal lawyer come to be discussing whether it might be OK to effect near-drowning experiences for people, and some of these innocent of any offence? Then there's also 'alternating heat and cold' and 'uncomfortable and/or painful seating'. Notice the precision of that and/or. Revolting.