ALAN DERSHOWITZ,
Madam, - In his review of my book Why Terrorism Works (Books, December 14th), Deaglán de Bréadún totally distorts its thrust. He describes the "controversial thesis" of my book as: "The United States should legalise torture to extract information from terrorist suspects." This is almost the exact opposite of what I argue.
In the first place, the entire discussion of torture occupies about 30 pages of a 271-page book. In the second place, the chapter on torture begins with the following: "Authorising torture is a bad and dangerous idea that can easily be made to sound plausible. There is a subtle fallacy embedded in the traditional 'ticking bomb' argument for torture to save lives." The thrust of the chapter explains why I am against the use of torture, but it explores, in a heuristic fashion, the classic arguments for and against the use of non-lethal torture against guilty terrorists to extract information necessary to save the lives of hundreds of innocent people.
I conclude that the best way of assuring that torture is not used is to require judges to grant torture warrants as a prerequisite to its use. Since judges would not be willing to issue any such warrants, such a requirement would eliminate, or severely limit, any resort to torture. Under our current hypocritical approach, we declare torture illegal and yet most countries in the world employ it under the table and without accountability. My proposed procedure would make that hypocritical approach more difficult to justify.
Your readers are entitled to a fair and accurate description of my book, so that they can make their own judgments about it. Deaglán de Bréadún's false description fails the most basic test required of any reviewer: first describe the book fairly, and then criticise it. - Yours, etc.,
ALAN DERSHOWITZ,
Cambridge,
Massachusetts,
USA.
Deaglán de Bréadún writes: Prof Dershowitz appears to distort his own book. On Page 158 he writes that most judges "would require compelling evidence" before authorising torture. However, his letter states that judges "would not be willing" to issue any such warrants.
His book also appears to envisage a system of torture warrants where "the judge rarely turns down a request". He also admits that he "certainly cannot prove" that legalising torture would reduce the level of physical violence against suspects.