1
Opinion
Editorials are posted and archived on JNonline.us.
Greenberg's View
Editorial
The Morality
Of Torture
I
t is the unthinkable issue that must
be thought about although even to
initiate the discussion marks one, in
some minds, as a sadist and moral outcast.
But the question of whether there is
ever a permissible situation to use torture
as a tool of interrogation is not going away.
Not in this age of terrorism.
For a time last month it appeared that
the classic scenario, the "ticking time
bomb',' eliciting information under duress
during an immediate threat, was taking
shape in Britain. After a thwarted ter-
ror attack in the heart of London and a
comparatively harmless assault on the
Glasgow airport, British authorities said
that other plans were in the operational
stage and that arrests had been made.
The methods used in questioning these
prisoners have not been revealed although
it is fair to suppose they were not alto-
gether gentle.
This is exactly the sort of case that
some legal authorities, including Israel's
Supreme Court and Harvard University
professor Alan Dershowitz, say would form
the exception to a total ban on torture.
In its 1999 decision, the court, while
admitting that Israel had "unique secu-
rity problems:' voted unanimously to bar
practices such as violent
shaking of suspects, forc-
ing them into distorted
positions and hooding
them. Routine torture
"does not constitute a
reasonable investigation
practice," the court said in
its opinion.
However, it added that
if the Shin Bet, Israel's
security agency, believes
it must use torture to
reveal the location of a
"ticking time bomb',' the
torturer would be put on
trial, and a court would decide whether
the use of physical force was necessary.
Palestinian commentators, of course,
immediately charged the court with con-
doning these practices by raising such
exceptions. Coming from a culture of ter-
rorism, in which torture is employed for
the sheer joy of it, the charge rings a bit
hollow.
Dershowitz has added that while tor-
ture must not be normative, if there is
transparency and accountability, and it is
clear that the highest government authori-
ties had approved its use, then a warrant
5teveCeOgreenbeng -art.com
2007; JJLA
grOokery—r
o
1) U5T
ItY, IP YOU CA
110 LE avASATA4TS Wt-to
151-rrEgIR RE5F-141 YOUR
14::014111F.-0 EY.6 -1010E,
(4140 CAA/ Y0011Z05-0
YoU CAA
w_ No Mai
TORROP1544...
\,
?9o/Ai % ?
rti
could be issued to permit it. Again, the
case must be urgent and deadly with the
potential of a calamitous loss of life to
condone it.
The United Nations Declaration of
Human Rights, as well as the Geneva
Conventions on prisoners of war, declare
that inflicting severe pain and suffering
on someone to extract information or a
confession, for punishment or to coerce
information from a third person, is pro-
hibited. Repugnance toward the practice is
almost universal although public opinion
polls since 9-11 have indicated increasing
acceptance of it.
If techniques such as water-boarding
are used on prisoners or if prisoners are
farmed out to other countries that have no
compunction about torture, that is unac-
ceptable and debases the standards of the
nation that employs such practices.
But what of the relentless "tick-tick-tick"
of the terror already set in place? That is
the question that must be satisfied to truly
understand where the moral boundary
lies. i t
E-mail letters of no more than 150 words to:
letters@thejewishnews.com .
Reality Check
Nasty Neo-Cons
T
with the neo-cons on Iraq. That
he classic definition of a neo-
conservative is "a liberal who was ought to tell you something.
No matter. They're outta here.
mugged by reality."
But it only begs the larger
How the war in Iraq has changed things.
question. Who does speak for
Neo-con is now a dirty word in many cir-
cles. In an article headlined "The Neo-Cons the American Jewish commu-
Do Not Speak for Us" Albert Vorspan, direc- nity? That's a pretty bold claim
to put forth.
tor emeritus of the Commission on Social
I attend meetings of orga-
Action of Reform Judaism, pretty much
nizations purporting to speak
casts the Neo-cons out of the temples.
for this community who seem
"Unfortunately' writes Vorspan in the
to regard themselves as arms
magazine Reform Judaism, "it is widely
of the Democratic Party. Many
believed that these Neo-cons represent the
of these meetings are held in a building
views of American Jewry." Given the voting
named for Max Fisher, a GOP stalwart
patterns of the Jewish community I can't
imagine anyone silly enough to believe that. for decades and a man recognized as a
patriarch of this community. The irony is
Still the neo-con movement was largely
delightful but seems to be lost on everyone
formed by a small group of Jewish intel-
but
me, which is why I don't attend many
lectuals in the early 1970s. Their main
of
these
meetings.
organ, Commentary magazine, was
I
hesitate
to put labels on anyone but
then published by the American Jewish
over
the
past
35 years or so I suppose I'd
Committee. It is also worth noting that the
call
myself
a
Neo-con.
I am not (ah, the
majority of Israelis in recent polls agree
18
Juiy 12 . 2007
horror!) a Republican, but
usually favor candidates who
indicate they understand that
big government creates more
problems than it solves.
That was the essence of
the Reagan Revolution. More
people, including a good many
Jews, found themselves hin-
dered rather than helped by an
increasingly intrusive federal
government. It really symbol-
ized the end, after almost 50
years, of the New Deal.
The central blunder of the Bush admin-
istration is that under the rubric of fight-
ing terrorism it has raised federal intru-
siveness to new levels of stupidity. That
isn't neo-conservatism. That is panic.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't
much care for reflexive politics at either end
of the political spectrum. But I know so
many people in our community who accept
the standard Democratic line uncritically,
without a trace of skepticism, which I
believe should be the defining characteris-
tic of voters in any democratic society.
For me, the contradictions are most
intense in regard to Israel. There are many
Jews who refuse to admit that the left wing
of the Democratic Party is intensely hos-
tile to the Jewish state. It is not a simple
misunderstanding that can be cleared up
with letters to the editor and a few educa-
tional programs. It is in the bone.
That's why impeccable liberals like Joe
Lieberman and Carl Levin are being tar-
geted by Moveon.com . Their strong sup-
port for Israel and reluctance to vote for
an immediate shutdown of the Iraq war
are anathema to the left.
Reality does have a way of mugging you
sometimes.
George Cantor's e-mail address is
gcantor614@aol.com .