New York Times Editorial: When Israel Confronted and Rejected Torture

New York Times Editorial: When Israel Confronted and Rejected Torture
Copyright by The New York Times
By SERGE SCHMEMANN
Published: April 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/opinion/01fri4.html?th&emc=th


Reading about the Bush administration’s convoluted attempts to justify torture takes me back to reporting I did 12 years ago on the anguished debate in Israel over its secret service’s use of violence in interrogations. That was two years before the Israeli Supreme Court banned the practice. “This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to it and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it,” wrote the president of the court, Aharon Barak.

I had interviewed Justice Barak for my article, and I recall with some shame my righteous certainty in those days that I came from a country that would never stoop to such methods.

An internationally respected jurist and a deeply patriotic Israeli, Justice Barak was acutely aware of the competing demands of what the ruling called “the harsh reality of terrorism” and a “democratic, freedom-loving society.” Certainly nobody would question the reality of the threats faced by Israel. And none of its foes share its scruples about torture, as many critics furiously pointed out to the high court (and to me after my article appeared).

Until the ruling, Israel, like the Bush administration, had insisted that methods of torment permitted in interrogating detainees were not torture and, therefore, not in violation of international and national law prohibiting the use of torture. Those methods included violent shaking, shackling prisoners to a low and tilted stool, covering their heads with urine-drenched hoods and sleep deprivation.

Israel’s official euphemism, “a moderate measure of physical pressure,” was a touch more honest than the Bush administration’s “enhanced interrogation techniques.” But the intent was the same. The United Nations Convention Against Torture, which both Israel and the United States have ratified, defines torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person” to obtain information or a confession.

Israel’s other familiar line of defense was that the country was embroiled in a “war on terrorism” (that was years before former President George W. Bush used the term) and, therefore, could not deal gently with a Palestinian who may know of a literally ticking bomb.

Having covered the gruesome aftermath of several suicide bombings, I was not unsympathetic to “ticking-bomb” arguments. But by then quite a few Israelis, including Justice Barak, had ceased to believe that the ends were justifying the violent means.

When judges or lawyers asked for evidence that “moderate physical pressure” was actually saving lives, it was always classified. Some Palestinians who had been tortured told me they waited several days in detention before their turn came to be questioned about a “ticking bomb.” Most were released.

In any case, for all their legal legerdemain, the Israelis, like the Americans, seemed always to know that abusing prisoners was morally and legally wrong. Politicians in both countries were eager to avoid a public debate.

The Israeli court decision grew out of the Supreme Court’s irritation that it was being made to shoulder an unsavory responsibility that really belonged to the legislature — “to pull Parliament’s chestnuts out of the fire,” in Justice Barak’s words. And why would the Bush administration have used “extraordinary renditions” or a prison in Cuba if it believed its actions were above board?

In both countries, whatever security benefits may have been gained by torture were far outweighed by the damage done to a nation that betrays its own values. As Justice Barak wrote in his decision in 1999, “Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand.”