re: #322 wheat-dogghazi-bola-trality

Excuse me, but I was busy meeting with a student. I have read the paper, since you are so keen on us doing so. I suppose one’s reaction to Dershowitz’ arguments for “torture warrants” depends on one’s acceptance of torture as a legitimate means of obtaining information. Clearly, Dershowitz has no qualms about torture being acceptable, as long as there are clear legal avenues for its use.

There are many hypotheticals in just this one extract, enough to make the entire argument pretty weak.

1. We have someone in custody who may have information about a terroristic act.
2. He refuses to cooperate.
3. There are no other possible sources of information.
4. We get a “torture warrant.”
5. He still refuses.
6. We stick needles under his fingernails.
7. He sings like a canary.
8. Problem solved!

He refers to Israeli cases in which some useful information was obtained by mild torture techniques. Then the Israeli courts declared such techniques illegal. Yet, in the same paper, using the aforesaid hypotheticals, he says basically that the Israeli Supreme Court was wrong in its decision, because torture sometimes is justified.

I don’t find his argument convincing in the least. I also find his suggestion that torture should be legally condoned abhorrent.

If that’s what you think his points are than you managed to look at the paper without reading it. You also have a knack for mischaracterizing my arguments. I guess that’s what you get when you have a pre-conceived notion, not about torture, but about Alan Dershowitz.

(My spell-checker doesn’t like pre-conceived, so when I right-clicked it one of the acceptable options was “pee-conceived.)