This article explores the questions raised by the issuance of the Landau Commission Report: What is the legal and moral status of torture of terrorist suspects and others, when that torture is engaged in by the Investigation Unit of the General Security Service (GSS) of the State of Israel for the purpose of extracting information potentially saving many Israeli lives? More specifically, was the Commission right in its retrospective conclusion that “the methods of interrogation … employed [in the past by the GSS] … are largely to be defended, both morally and legally …” (R., 4)? Was the Commission right in its prospective conclusion that no new legislation is needed to deal with the methods of interrogation of the GSS because “the GSS can turn a new leaf … within the framework of the existing law …” (R., 82)?

The Report of the Landau Commission puts a painful question for public debate: can it ever be morally acceptable in a liberal democracy for the state to use cruel measures against a person to compel him to reveal information needed to prevent grave harms, such as the loss of lives? The question, of course, belongs to a class of questions that has baffled and divided people for generations. Are some actions inherently and intrinsically wrong, so that they may not be redeemed by the net good consequences they produce on balance? Even if this is the case in general, can it be true regardless of the enormity of the consequences? Battle lines in moral philosophy are drawn in terms of how these questions are answered. For consequentialists the morality of all actions is solely determined by their consequences, near and long term. For deontologists the morality of all actions is always determined, at least in part, by their intrinsic wrongness, so that if they are wrong they are not made right by their desirable consequences. Each side has, so it seems, an unanswerable objection to the position of the other. Deontologists ask: then you mean you are ready to declare, for example, that punishment of innocent persons may be morally justified if it is necessary to prevent crime? And consequentialists (without answering) ask in turn: then you mean that even if the life of thousands and the preservation of the basic freedoms of a democratic community depend on it, you would regard it as morally prohibited to use any force against a single innocent person?

These questions are among the hardest of all hard questions. But they become even harder when they are asked in the context of a public debate over how a government should act in some immediate crisis.

The Commission of Inquiry into the Methods of Investigation of the General Security Service regarding Hostile Terrorist Activity dealt with the investigation methods which were practiced by the General Security Service (GSS) and which impinged on the rights of suspects.

Suspects under interrogation have a number of rights: the right not to be physically or mentally injured or otherwise mistreated, the privilege against self-incrimination and a number of ancillary procedural rights, such as the right to consult a lawyer. The Commission concluded that the interests of combatting terrorism justify the suspension of these rights in whole or in part. It thought that the privilege against self-incrimination need not be accorded to terrorist suspects and, furthermore, that psychological and physical forms of pressure may be exerted on suspects in order to overcome their resistance to interrogation. The Commission accepted that a civilised criminal procedure has to reflect minimal standards of respect for the integrity of individuals. However, it found justification for the departure from normal procedures in an analogy to the doctrines of necessity and self-defence.

The State of Israel came into being forty years ago. Its Declaration of Independence proclaimed that the State “shall guarantee complete equal social and political rights to all its citizens without regard to religion, race or sex”. At the time there was a war being waged for Israel's independence, a war which is not yet over. The threat to Israel's security, both from within and without, is still very real. The struggle for security has been going on, unabated, for forty years, and it exacts a price. Among other things, it exacts a price in human rights. Freedom of expression, for example, is subject to military censorship. As a British judge once remarked, war is not waged in accord with the principles of the Magna Carta.