Andrew Sullivan now seeks to invest his hyperventilating stance on torture with the dignity of a papal encyclical. He complains: “The point of torture is to violate the integrity of the human person and to coerce the will itself.” As I’ve already told you, I have the impression that much of the prosecutorial fervor on this subject, while it includes some genuine moral anguish, is also an extension of a general vindictiveness that “Fathers” in the political realm evoke from “Sons.” 

Furthermore, the protection of our own soldiers and civilians undoubtedly trumps the claims of human dignity by those who seek to do us evil. International law, which Jewish law generally expects its adherents to obey, is limited in its scope to those who pledge themselves to its obedience. Neither Hezbollah nor Hamas nor al Qaeda are signatories to the Geneva Convention and do not conduct themselves in accordance with its provisions. They certainly do not treat prisoners they capture in accordance with its requirements (as shown by the recent murder of two captured American soldiers in Iraq). Thus we are not required as a matter of international law to treat their prisoners in accordance with the convention on the treatment of prisoners.

In sum, according to Jewish law and ethics, torture in the context of war is no more problematic than death itself, and is permitted by the general license to wage war. There is no logical reason that halacha would categorically prohibit duly authorized wartime torture as a method for acquiring information otherwise not available, in order to save lives in the future. Of course, not all conduct permitted as a matter of Jewish law is wise or prudent; the consideration of which policies work in what settings is fundamentally not a question of Jewish law or ethics, but one for military and political leadership.