E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
In my post on Monday, I observed that public support for torturing terrorism suspects is likely to increase following the location and killing of Osama bin Laden. Deborah Pearlstein's thoughtful plea that we not "talk about torture" has fallen on deaf ears.
The front page of the New York Times today has an article about the renewed debate bin Laden's death has triggered over the use of "harsh methods of questioning." The Times announces that "harsh techniques played a small role at most in identifying Bin Laden's trusted courier and exposing his hide-out" but it goes onto observe that detainees who provided information were at least at one point slammed into walls, shackled in stress positions, and subject to waterboarding, among other forms of "rough treatment." John Yoo, back in the limelight, has written that the "tough decisions taken by the Bush administration" were what led to bin Laden's location, thereby allowing Obama to complete the "comparatively easy" task of "pull[ing] the trigger. And Jose Rodriguez, the former head of counter-terrorism at the CIA has announced flat out that harsh interrogation techniques produced the information that led directly to bin Laden's death.
The White House, not surprisingly, downplays any reliance upon information obtained from coercive interrogation even as reports now make clear that some of the detainees who gave up the name of bin Laden's courier were questioned in black sites in eastern Europe where we simply have no idea just how brutal interrogation techniques were.
Whatever the mix of circumstances that led to locating bin Laden, the public is very likely to focus on the torture connection. This is because simpler explanations are always preferred. It's easier to understand a name being obtained through waterboarding than it is to make sense of a complex intelligence gathering operation with many players, much patience, and false leads. Moreover, once the idea that torture turned up bin Laden is put in play, it is almost impossible to produce evidence that will dispel that belief. Numerous psychological studies demonstrate that the more that corrections to false or incomplete understandings are put forward (in the press, by public officials), the more firmly the false belief or incomplete understanding takes hold. In other words, the more we hear about torture as a possible element in finding bin Laden, the more the public will believe that torture is what did it.