BK Reads (off-site)
04/27/2008 - 2:00pm
04/27/2008 - 4:00pm
Briefly, here's what the Supreme Court decides. First, it concludes that there is no authority for torturing or brutalizing prisoners in Israeli law. This decision is in sharp contrast to the apparent position of the Bush Administration, which seems to feel that the President has inherent constitutional power to authorize the CIA's use of techniques like waterboarding.
However, the contrast is not complete, because the second decision the Israeli Supreme Court reaches is that "if a GSS investigator - who applied physical interrogation methods for the purpose of saving human life - is criminally indicted, the 'necessity' defense is likely to be open to him in the appropriate circumstances." (¶ 34 of the decision) The Court quotes the language of Article 34(1) of Israel's Penal Law, defining the necessity defense:
"A person will not bear criminal liability for committing any act immediately necessary for the purpose of saving the life, liberty, body or property, of either himself or his fellow person, from substantial danger of serious harm, imminent from the particular state of things [circumstances], at the requisite timing, and absent alternative means for avoiding the harm."
One of the notorious "torture memos" from the Bush Administration's Justice Department made much the same argument about US law.
So: we will discuss whether the reasoning of the Israeli Supreme Court is right or wrong, for Israel itself but also for the United States.
For a copy of the decision in English, you can download it from http://www.derechos.org/human-rights/mena/doc/torture.html, or e-mail Steve Ellmann.
