Constitutional Limits of Coercive Interrogation:
With the infamous "torture memos" back in the news, it seems worth noting that my former colleague, Amos Guiora, has a brand new book, Constitutional Limits on coercive Interrogation. I have yet to read it, but have every reason to expect it will be interesting and provocative like much of his other work. There are few working in this area that have anywhere near his real-world experience on the front lines of counter-terrorism work — something which makes his refusal to endorse the "we must win so everything is permitted" doctrine that much more significant.
Related Posts (on one page):
- The Payoffs of Defending the Yoo Memorandum:
- Constitutional Limits of Coercive Interrogation:
- The John Yoo Torture Memos Released:
To a certain extent, the closer the people are to the "front lines" of this stuff -- that is, the closer they are to state-sponsored torture as a bureaucratized institution rather than a ticking-bomb thought experiment -- the less likely they are to endorse that sentiment. Like that exchange from a few years ago between Alan "Needles Under the Nails" Dershowitz and a military lawyer teaching at West Point.
I'm actually inclined to agree with you -- though I don't think all coercive interrogation is "state-sponsored torture" -- but I think many would find it counter-intuitive, particularly those who endorse the "everything is permitted" approach. I also think the Israeli experience has involved more real "front lines" stuff than the U.S. experience -- as in, actual life-or-death situations involving real people where difficult decisions have to be made and defended --
perhaps a reason why Amos is regularly asked to lecture at West Point himself.
JHA
Sure, my point was just that those with more real experience will more likely be aware of the ease with which, as a matter of bureaucratic practice, the extraordinary recourse to the former can become the routine reliance on the latter.
Fair enough. I think we're on the same page.
JHA