"News that's not known, or not known enough." Helen & Harry Highwater's cranky weblog of news and opinion.
America needs "torture warrants",
says civil liberties leader
An astounding column by Alan M. Dershowitz
Los Angeles Times Nov. 8, 2001
The FBI's frustration over its inability to get material witnesses to talk has raised a disturbing question rarely debated in this country: When, if ever, is it justified to resort to unconventional techniques such as truth serum, moderate physical pressure and outright torture?
The constitutional answer to this question may surprise people who are not familiar with the current U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination: Any interrogation technique, including the use of truth serum or even torture, is not prohibited. All that is prohibited is the introduction into evidence of the fruits of such techniques in a criminal trial against the person on whom the techniques were used. But the evidence could be used against that suspect in a non-criminal case -- such as a deportation hearing -- or against someone else.
If a suspect is given "use immunity" -- a judicial decree announcing in advance that nothing the defendant says (or its fruits) can be used against him in a criminal case -- he can be compelled to answer all proper questions. The issue then becomes what sorts of pressures can constitutionally be used to implement that compulsion. We know that he can be imprisoned until he talks. But what if imprisonment is insufficient to compel him to do what he has a legal obligation to do? Can other techniques of compulsion be attempted?
Let's start with truth serum. What right would be violated if an immunized suspect who refused to comply with his legal obligation to answer questions truthfully were compelled to submit to an injection that made him do so?
Not his privilege against self-incrimination, since he has no such privilege now that he has been given immunity.
What about his right of bodily integrity? The involuntariness of the injection itself does not pose a constitutional barrier. No less a civil libertarian than Justice William J. Brennan rendered a decision that permitted an allegedly drunken driver to be involuntarily injected to remove blood for alcohol testing. Certainly there can be no constitutional distinction between an injection that removes a liquid and one that injects a liquid.
What about the nature of the substance injected? If it is relatively benign and creates no significant health risk, the only issue would be that it compels the recipient to do something he doesn't want to do. But he has a legal obligation to do precisely what the serum compels him to do: answer all questions truthfully.
What if the truth serum doesn't work? Could the judge issue a "torture warrant," authorizing the FBI to employ specified forms of non-lethal physical pressure to compel the immunized suspect to talk?
Here we run into another provision of the Constitution -- the due process clause, which may include a general "shock the conscience" test. And torture in general certainly shocks the conscience of most civilized nations.
But what if it were limited to the rare "ticking bomb" case -- the situation in which a captured terrorist who knows of an imminent large-scale threat refuses to
disclose it?
Would torturing one guilty terrorist to prevent the deaths of a thousand innocent civilians shock the conscience of all decent people?
To prove that it would not, consider a situation in which a kidnapped child had been buried in a box with two hours of oxygen. The kidnapper refuses to disclose its location. Should we not consider torture in that situation?
All of that said, the argument for allowing torture as an approved technique, even in a narrowly specified range of cases, is very troubling.
We know from experience that law enforcement personnel who are given limited authority to torture will expand its use. The cases that have generated the current debate over torture illustrate this problem. And, concerning the arrests made following the Sept. 11 attacks, there is no reason to believe that the detainees know about specific future terrorist targets. Yet there have been calls to torture these detainees.
I have no doubt that if an actual ticking bomb situation were to arise, our law enforcement authorities would torture. The real debate is whether such torture should take place outside of our legal system or within it. The answer to this seems clear: If we are to have torture, it should be authorized by the law.
Judges should have to issue a "torture warrant" in each case. Thus we would not be winking an eye of quiet approval at torture while publicly condemning it.
Democracy requires accountability and transparency, especially when extraordinary steps are taken. Most important, it requires compliance with the rule of law. And such compliance is impossible when an extraordinary technique, such as torture, operates outside of the law.
Alan M. Dershowitz is a Harvard law professor who has -- in the past -- used his talents, his education, his passion and prestige for good instead of evil.
He's has long been an outspoken advocate of civil rights, defending Jimmy Bakker, Patty Hearst, Mike Tyson, O.J. Simpson, and Claus von Bulow, among many other (and many non-celebrity) clients. Dershowitz has said he's "not a hired gun," and only accepts cases when he feels an important "moral or constitutional issue" is at stake.
In short, he's always been a good guy -- an outspoken advocate for the Constitutional restraints that (in theory) protect we the people from the awesome and otherwise unchecked powers of government.
We believe in the US Constitution. It is an essential bullwark against tyranny, and it wasn't written as an academic exercise. It was written by people who had been victimized by government that claimed outrageous power. They wrote the Bill of Rights to keep their new nation safe from such tyranny.
The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, and it wasn't meant to apply only in the best of times, on sunny mornings when everyone's in a good mood. It was meant to apply in America. When it doesn't apply you're not in America.
It's vitally important, especially in times of crisis, that we stop and think and not go bonkers. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the documents that make America America — and Alan Dershowitz is announcing that he's opposed to these documents and the principles they espouse. He proposes "torture warrants" asking,
Would torturing one guilty terrorist to prevent the deaths of a thousand innocent civilians shock the conscience of all decent people?
To prove that it would not, consider a situation in which a kidnapped child had been buried in a box with two hours of oxygen. The kidnapper refuses to disclose its location. Should we not consider torture in that situation?
There aren't many cases that match Dershowitz's hypothetical, but it's a tough question, and it deserves a tough answer. The answer is no.
Whether something "shocks the conscience of all decent people" is a ghastly standard -- especially in times of national hysteria, like now, in the aftermath of September 11 -- many, many otherwise decent people have put their consciences on hold.
Dershowitz, for example, seems to have forgotten the presumption of innocence. He simply assumes "the kidnapper" is guilty. Has this alleged kidnapper has had a fair trial, within Dershowitz's two-hour time frame? What if he's not the kidnapper?
It doesn't matter. There's a child's life at stake -- so this alleged kidnapper is going to be tortured whether he's guilty or not.
Which do you suppose happens more often: Government abuse of authority... or children kidnapped and held in oxygen-tight boxes?
The answer is self-evident: We have much, much more to fear from government gone wild, than from Dershowitz's hypotheticals.
As often happens when deep thinkers use "lifeboat ethics" to prove a point, what's proven is only that ethics are the first thing tossed overboard.
America is not a lifeboat.
In this national climate of near-hysteria, what Dershowitz proposes is a blueprint for state-terrorism. If, for example, torture becomes a "legal" option, and a Middle-Eastern man is arrested and officials said he held "ticking time-bomb" information, the man would be tortured. To death. And he's dead, whether he actually had the information authorities wanted, or whether he was just an unlucky enough to look like your average Abdul.
With publication of this article, of course, Alan Dershowitz loses my respect and trades it for contempt. By proposing "torture warrants," Alan Dershowitz becomes a voice for the most ghastly government abuses imaginable.
And due to his stature as a civil rights leader, people who don't care about civil rights -- and people who are flat-out opposed to civil rights -- will be quoting Dershowitz. It's as if Gloria Steinem had written that rape victims deserve it, or Larry Flynt said that offensive material should be censored.
Dershowitz has long been a public figure I've respected, and I don't respect many.
For anyone who cares about freedom or limited government, Dershowitz has trashed his life's work and flushed his reputation down the toilet.
Helen & Harry Highwater proprietors, Unknown News
Like the URL says, this website is about unknown news.
Our news comes only from mainstream, professional journalists or (rarely) other sources we trust entirely, with no nuttiness and no interest in the same news you see everywhere else.
What we believe
We believe in liberty and justice for all, so of course, we oppose many US government policies. This doesn't mean we're anti-American, redneck scum, pinko commies, militia members, or terrorist-sympathizers. It means we believe in freedom, as more than merely a cliché.
We believe you have the right to live your own life as you choose, and others have the equal right to live their lives as they choose. It's not complicated.
We believe freedom leads to peace, progress, and prosperity, while its opposite -- oppression -- leads to war, terrorism, poverty, and misery.
We believe it's preposterously stupid to hate people because of their appearance, their race or nationality, their religion or lack of religion, how they have sex with other consenting adults, etc. There are far more apropos reasons to hate most people.
We believe in questioning ourselves, our assumptions, each other -- and we especially believe in questioning authority (the more authority, the more questions). We believe obedience is a fine quality in dogs and young children, but not in adults.
Like America's right-wingers, we believe in
individual responsibility,
hard work to get ahead,
and stern punishment for serious crimes.
We believe big government should not be blindly trusted.
But unlike most right-wing leaders, we mean it.
Like America's left-wingers, we believe in
equal treatment under law,
war as a last (not first) resort,
and sensible stewardship of natural resources.
We believe big business should not be blindly trusted.
But unlike most left-wing leaders, we mean it.
Like libertarians, we believe it's wrong and reprehensible to arrest people for what they think, believe, look like, wear, eat, smoke, drink, inhale, inject, or otherwise do to themselves.
But unlike many libertarians, we're not obsessed with the gold standard, we don't believe incorporation is humanity's highest achievement, and we don't believe everything in life comes down to dollars and cents. We've read and enjoyed Ayn Rand's novels, but we understand that they're works of fiction.
We're skeptical, and we're sick of so-called 'journalists' who aren't skeptical at all.
A reader asks, what are our solutions?
We propose no solutions except common sense, which is never common. We like the principles of democracy, and the ideals broadly described as 'American'. The US Constitution is a fine and workable framework for solutions, when it's actually read and thoughtfully understood by intelligent statesmen and women. So, no manifestos from us. We don't dream that big, and if there's one thing the world doesn't need it's yet another manifesto.
Our suggestion is: think.
A fact-based instead of faith-based approach leads to solutions for most of the recurring issues of our time, from abortion to global climate change, pollution to universal health care, careful but real regulation of industry and economy, hunger, war, terror, human rights for humans not for corporations, science not religious doctrine in public schools, equal protection and prosecution under law, etc. Approach problems without glorifying stupidity, without demonizing intelligence, and answers usually come into focus.
These pages are published by Harry and Helen Highwater, happily married low-income nom de plumes and rabble-rousers from Madison, Wisconsin (with a few friends scattered around the world helping out).
We try to spotlight news that hasn't gotten enough (or appropriate) attention in American media, along with our opinions and yours.
We bang our keyboards against the wall, because it doesn't hurt as much as banging our heads.
