It’s a good question. Let’s assume for argument’s sake that torture—the “time-tested technique for loosening tongues,” as Dershowitz has called it—will inevitably occur in “ticking bomb” scenarios. Let’s even assume it’s morally justifiable, and that the information obtained is reliable (a claim that many dispute). Isn’t it better to have the use of torture governed by a judicial system subject to democratic checks than by the whims of individual agents?

At least some (apparently rational) people don’t think so. Ames Professor of Law Phillip B. Heymann offered me a series of objections to the systemization of torture.

To begin with, there is concern that judicial authorization would make torture a common practice as investigators turn away from other techniques. That worry seems especially plausible if judges don’t turn down requests for “torture warrants” frequently enough to discourage agents from resorting to torture except as a last resort. And even when judges do say no, there’s no guarantee that agents won’t torture illegally (as Dershowitz accuses them of doing currently).

Heymann also worries about global repercussions. “If we approve torture in one set of circumstances,” he asks, “isn’t every country then free to define its own exceptions?”

Fair enough. But does that mean our only option for diffusing the “ticking bomb” is to torture secretly and illegally?

Not necessarily. The “ticking bomb” scenario is only a theoretical model. Some doubt the probability that a situation would arise in which torture is the only avenue available. Heymann suggests conducting “emergency searches” and inducing suspects to reveal information over tapped lines. And he would prevent the “ticking bomb” scenario in the first place by allowing “freer electronic surveillance of non-citizen visitors who we have reason to suspect are terrorists”—something he says he wouldn’t have supported before Sept. 11.

Which brings us to the crux of the matter. The horrific attacks of Sept. 11 produced unprecedented questions about the balance between civil liberties and national security. That the use of torture has become palatable enough for Harvard’s legal scholars to debate its merits is testament to that fact. And no matter where the debate ends up, Alan Dershowitz is sure to play a central role in getting it there. So don’t bother writing to tell him how disappointed you are.

Unless, of course, you are his mother.

Jason L. Steorts ’01-’03 is a philosophy concentrator in Dunster House. His column appears on alternate Fridays.