Tortured Reasoning
Alan Dershowitz
Although this is a book about the substantive issues surrounding the use of physical
torture as a means to obtain information deemed necessary to prevent terrorism, I have decided
to write any essay about the tortured reasoning and arguments that tend to typify much of the
debate about this emotionally laden issue. I have already expressed my views with regard to
controlling and limiting the use of torture by means of a warrant or some other mechanism of
accountability, and these views are easily accessible to anyone who wishes to read and criticize
them.1
Here, in a nutshell, is my position.
Non-lethal torture is currently being used by the U.S. in an effort to secure information
deemed necessary to prevent acts of terrorism. It is being done below the radar screen, without
political accountability, and indeed with plausible deniability. All forms of torture are
widespread among nations that have signed treaties prohibiting all torture. The current situation
is unacceptable: it tolerates torture without accountability and encourages hypocritical posturing.
I would like to see improvement in the current situation by reducing or eliminating torture, while
increasing visibility and accountability. I am opposed to torture as a normative matter, but I
know it is taking place today and believe that it would certainly be employed if we ever
experienced an imminent threat of mass casualty biological, chemical or nuclear terrorism. If I
am correct, then it is important to ask the following question: if torture is or will be practiced, is
it worse to close our eyes to it and tolerate its use by low level law enforcement officials without