A question of morality
US president's decision to bar violent interrogations of terrorists leads one to wonder if Mr. Obama understands what morality really is
A former Shin Bet officer told me that he left the service because he found administering the harsh interrogation techniques needed to gain life saving intelligence from detainees difficult. It would be inappropriate for me to divulge the exact interrogation practices he described but suffice to say, that besides for waterboarding, they were not that different in nature to those in the recently declassified CIA memos. In fact Israel officially claims that it reserves the right to use what it terms as "moderate physical pressure" during interrogations.
Meanwhile President Barack Obama said this week that the Bush Administration’s approval of harsh interrogation techniques while dealing with terrorists reflected a temporary loss of American “moral bearings.” Clearly in Mr. Obama’s view any country, including Israel, which officially uses physical interrogation processes to protect the lives of its citizens, is immoral. Now it is obviously abhorrent and repugnant to use harsh interrogation methods when there is no present danger or threat to innocent life.
But Mr. Obama’s comments were concerning interrogation procedures the CIA used exclusively to elicit vital information from known terrorists such as al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah. This leads one to wonder if Mr. Obama understands what morality really is.
Moral obligation to save lives
In Jewish law there is a provision known as “rodef” or pursuer. This is where a bystander is obligated to do whatever it takes to save the life of one being perused by a murderer even if it means killing the pursuer (see Sanhedrin, 73a). Whilst this law has experienced some negative publicity over the years the fundamental moral principle behind it is sound. The concept is simple: each individual, when the opportunity arises, has a moral obligation to do whatever they can to protect and save the lives of innocents.It is perfectly reasonable to apply this moral truth to the case of terrorists withholding information that, if shared, will prevent future terrorist attacks and mass murders. Clearly that terrorist is in collusion with killers and is aiding and abetting mass murder. There is therefore a moral obligation to use all means, including the use of force, to elicit vital information from such a person.
Unbelievably, Jay Bybee, the federal judge who rendered a legal opinion allowing these techniques in the case of an al-Qaeda leader, is now under siege by politicians and activists who want his head to roll. They want to punish him for having the moral courage to do what was necessary to protect the American people.
We live in a dangerous world
Clearly in an ideal world none of us would want to inflict any pain on a fellow human being. But we are living in a world where people want to kill us en masse. Saying that using limited physical pressure to protect us against such people is immoral is beyond belief and, at best, demonstrates a shallow understanding of morality.
We live in a dangerous world on so many levels. Tragically with the rise of a US President and Congress that lacks the moral clarity and courage to do what is necessary to protect its own people, the world just became a lot more precarious.
Fortunately Israel now seems to have a prime minister that possesses a sense of moral clarity. Let us hope that when Netanyahu visits Obama in Washington next month he will demonstrate that clarity and does not become intimidated by those who seem to care about perception more than they do the lives on their own people.
Rabbi Levi Brackman is author of Jewish Wisdom for Business Success: Lesson from the Torah and Other Ancient Texts
