Torture and National Security in

Torture and National Security In the inherently volatile arena of national security concerns in regard to terrorism, it may be asserted that no issue generates greater controversy than that of state-sanctioned torture. The practice may be viewed, in fact, as a "bottom line" consideration, in that torture is uniformly held by the vast majority of nations to be an unconscionable act. Consequently, investigating it as an option in the war against terrorism serves to underscore how deeply felt national securities are.

A prominent voice in the debates is that of celebrated attorney and political commentator Alan Dershowitz, who reflects at length upon his perceived support of torture as an effective means of terrorism prevention in "The Torture Warrant: A Response to Professor Strauss." The article is fascinating, and not least because of Dershowitz's oblique approach to the subject. After addressing -- and clearly resenting -- myriad associations of himself as a proponent of torture, he takes this occasion to clarify what he feels are inaccurate interpretations of his stance.

This takes the form of a strikingly pragmatic presentation of, not necessarily advocating torture, but addressing it in as normative a fashion as possible. The contention of Dershowitz is that, remonstrations and denials notwithstanding, torture is indeed practiced by industrialized nations, and that the only ethical and sensible approach is to define its parameters and apply standards to its use. For example, and again rebutting claims made which the author feels misrepresent him, Dershowitz strongly advocates a judicial warrant procedure before torture be carried out.

He cites viewpoints which perceive such a process as encouraging a more random use of torture, but he adamantly denies this as a probability. For Dershowitz, somewhat sanguinely accepting of torture as mandated by emergent circumstances, it is all about governmental accountability. Moreover, he insists on the warrant as a control measure by virtue of its specificity, which is far more ethical than a generalized sanctioning (Dershowitz 283).

Interestingly, the views put forth in Sung's "Torturing the Ticking Bomb Terrorist: An Analysis of Judicially Sanctioned Torture in the Context of Terrorism" refute Dershowitz on a terrain he himself abandons, that of a greater moral imperative. Sung accomplishes the refutation by the simple means of refusing to allow Dershowitz to stand on his assumptions of what permits so radical a circumstance. For example, Sung directly addresses Dershowitz's claim that terrorists are not implicitly owed protection of human dignity rights by virtue of their activities.

Dershowitz does make a compelling argument for this but, as Sung points out, he is not actually enabled to take such a position because the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments have already made that decision (Sung 202). Due process is built into the law to protect all, and deliberately so; Sung implies, in fact, that the protections are likely in place to avert just such extreme eventualities. Then, Sung challenges the use of judicial warrants as an inherently contrary action, aside from the fundamental illegality.

To legally warrant torture is, in Sung's view, to "legitimize" the practice, and this is clearly a catastrophic course for a nation founded on principles of personal liberty and human rights. As Sung avers, any sanctioned use of torture by the United States must effectively eviscerate the nation's global standing. Dershowitz and Sung provide a comprehensive and highly-charged debate on the issue of torture, and the views of the.