Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

An Alan Dershowitz Puzzle

Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz is one of many law professors who have signed the forthcoming letter protesting the abuses at Abu Ghraib. The letter criticizes the administration for violating, inter alia, the Geneva Conventions:

International humanitarian law provides that those classified as prisoners of war are entitled to special protections against such abuses under the Third Geneva Convention, ratified by the United States in 1955. Inhabitants of occupied territories are protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention, also ratified by the United States in 1955, against physical or moral coercion to obtain information from them. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ratified by the United States in 1994, requires that States party take measures to prevent both torture, and other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

The letter further, at least by implication, opposes the use of coercive interrogation techniques (technically the letter only calls for Congressional study of whether such techniques should be used, but the overall tone strongly supports an inference that the authors oppose their use). In his widely cited column on terrorism, however, Dershowitz opined:

THE GENEVA Conventions are so outdated and are written so broadly that they have become a sword used by terrorists to kill civilians, rather than a shield to protect civilians from terrorists. These international laws have become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

And, he goes on:

The treaties against all forms of torture must begin to recognize differences in degree among varying forms of rough interrogation, ranging from trickery and humiliation, on the one hand, to lethal torture on the other. They must also recognize that any country faced with a ticking-time-bomb terrorist would resort to some forms of interrogation that are today prohibited by the treaty.

Am I missing something? It's hard to believe the author of those words could sign the law professors' letter, which embraces the Geneva Conventions and the treaties against torture with such enthusiaism (not to mention advocating an expansive and disputed view of their interpretation). Could there be a little partisanship at work? (Nah. Law professors are never partisan, are they? Heh.) Personally, I'd be willing to sign a letter based on Dershowitz's measured and thoughtful column; I'd suggest he try to organize one instead of signing on to the circulating draft.