Torture, Terrorism, and the Halakhah 21

detainee, by contrast,“is being tortured so that he not commit a transgression(kedei shelo ya'aseh).” It is entirely up to him to choose to reveal the information, and if he does so, he will not be tortured.” He, through his silence,“is the cause of his own loss” (ihu de afsid anafsheh).” He has chosen to be tortured, and we are not responsible for that choice.

5. Jewish law permits the beit din to coerce individuals under its jurisdiction to fulfill their legal responsibilities. In Rambam ’s words, the court may“contend with, curse, beat, and pull the hair” of anyone who refuses to hearken to the law’s demands. “Likewise, he may bind a person’s hands and feet, imprison him, and cast him to the ground.” All these acts, of course, must be undertaken for“the sake of Heaven,” and the dignity of the detainee must be respected even when harsh measures must be applied against him?’ Still, the language of the Mishneh Torah indicates that if torture is the only means by which to induce proper conduct, the judge is empowered to resort to this tool.

6. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the“ideological difference” that distinguishes Torah law from the fundamental assumptions of the Western legal tradition.“In Western culture, there are no sacred values; there is no purpose to life more important than life itself.” That is to say, in Western culture there are no objective standards of truth, and in the absence of such standards, the law possesses no criteria by which to establish a preference for any one conception of truth over its rivals. The law therefore shies away from making substantive judgments on questions of value. The ultimate value is individual freedom and tolerance: every person may choose his own path of life, provided that he does not disturb his fellow citizen’s right to do the same. These modernistic tendencies have lately been fortified by postmodern thought, which has raised subjectivity“to the highest heights.” Concepts such as good and evil have become so thoroughly subjective that today,“in the secular society, it is difficult to speak of any act as‘evil’ in an absolute sense.” Even if“evil” did have an objective existence, the combined forces of deterministic psychology and Christian dogma(i.e., the doctrine of original sin) absolve the individual of any real responsibility for his sinful actions. The goal of the law is not the eradication of evil— such a task lies beyond the conceptual framework of