On the beautiful afternoon of September 15, 2008, the Program on the Legal Profession kicked off the new PLP Speaker Series with a talk by Professor Phillippe Sands of University College London. There were more than 130 students, faculty members, and special guests in attendance. Based on his recent publication “Torture Team: Rumsfeld’s Memo and the Betrayal of American Values,” Professor Sands contrasted the history of the United States’ leading roles and engagement in international constitutional order with its documented approval of harsh interrogation techniques, which not only violates the American values on human rights but also potentially promotes divergence from the Geneva Conventions world-wide. In addition, Professor Sands further examined the role of lawyers in constructing narratives for arguably (or at least seemingly) immoral practices and discussed the negative implications of institutionalizing torture practices.
Professor Sands’ remarks were followed by a commentary by Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School. Professor Dershowitz challenged Professor Sands by arguing that less torture had occurred in the Iraq War than any previous war. He also introduced a hypothetical ticking-bomb situation, where torture might be the only way to remove a threat. Professor Dershowitz further argued that increasing visibility and limitability should be a key priority and that creating clear legal standards (e.g. allowing torture only in exceptional cases such as national security emergencies) could effectively decrease the use of torture. Professor Dershowitz’s commentary ignited a fierce debate between him and members of the audience, the majority of whom seemed to favor Professor Sands’ core argument that torture should never be institutionalized.
Professor Sands said “the moment you opened the door beyond the limit, it is impossible to close.” Given the importance of the U.S. in the global political sphere, even a partial and exceptional approval of torture in the U.S. may cause a serious reversal of the global human rights movement.
During the discussion, I thought of Jack Bauer, a fictional counter-terrorist agent and hero of the television series 24. Though Bauer is a staunch patriot and a highly effective agent, he has resorted to torturing a suspected terrorist in a “ticking-bomb” situation. I have never seen the character as unethical because his action was motivated by the many lives at stake. Naturally, I asked myself, “Will the institutionalization of interrogation techniques help Jack Bauer?” My conclusion is ‘no’ because many terrorists will be able to effectively prepare for tougher interrogation techniques. If torture becomes acceptable in the U.S., then the inevitable global diffusion of interrogation practices will make vulnerable Jack Bauer and all of his colleagues.
All in all, I really enjoyed the discussion and I believe that the other attendees found it engaging. Information about Professor Sands’ book is available at Amazon.com.
A video of the event itself is available on the Program on the Legal Profession’s website.