A Comparative Constitutional Analysis of the Judicial Treatment of Torture Between Israel and the United States: Navigating the Contentious Issue of Legality vs Policy in National Security Matters

• Main Author: Willschick, Elliott
• Other Authors: Weinrib, Lorraine
• Language: en_ca
• Published: 2010
• Subjects: Terrorism; torture; national security; Supreme Court; 0398
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/1807/25515

This comparative legal analysis evaluates the issue of terrorism and how it has been dealt with respectively by the United States and Israeli Supreme Courts. Since the events of 9/11, combating terrorism has become one of the primary concerns of the US government while it is a matter that has pervaded Israeli policy since its birth as a nation-state. The analysis is centered on examining how each state‘s Supreme Court has confronted the issue with the Israeli Supreme Court using a ―Business as Usual‖ model and the US taking an ―Emergency Powers‖ approach. It is argued that terrorism is an ongoing issue that cannot be justified as an emergency and the US Court would do better in adopting Israel‘s method of adjudication in these matters. It is also suggested that the US could learn from Israel‘s policy towards torture as the US policy has largely been cruel and unsuccessful.