The ruling by the panel of Central District Court judges not to admit the confessions extracted from the Duma arson suspects – through illegal methods, incidentally – is a clear expression of Israel's Jewish and democratic values. Values that uphold human dignity, the right to a fair trial and reasonable questioning tactics employed by police and Shin Bet investigators.
Values that must be safeguarded and meticulously implemented, even when it comes to suspects accused of committing the most heinous of crimes, such as those who threw Molotov cocktails into the Dawabsheh family home, killing three family members sleeping inside.
A democratic society that cherishes liberty isn't supposed to allow investigators to use any and all tools without restrictions and proportionality, even if their objective is to discover the truth. It is imperative to strike an appropriate balance between preserving human dignity and the public's right to live in safety from the criminals and terrorists who threaten it.
When it comes to high-profile cases, investigators are sometimes overly eager to end the investigation and bring the guilty to justice. Because their job takes place under heavy media and public scrutiny, investigators might feel justified in deviating from accepted norms of interrogation and in using certain methods that contradict the fundamental values of a civilized society.
Thus, for example, dubious state's witnesses are given peculiar benefits for providing supposedly incriminating testimony; or the suspect is subjected to strenuous shaking, sleep deprivation, performing "frog crouches" and other tortuous positions in order to extract a confession. Beyond violating the suspect's human dignity, it is extremely likely that anyone subjected to such methods will confess to things they didn't do, just to make the abuse and torture stop.
Since its inception, Israel's security reality has always presented difficult and complex moral and ethical dilemmas. In many countries across the globe, there is no understanding of the operational and moral challenges involved in having to fight abhorrent terrorists whose only desire is to sow death and despair.
To my regret, in recent decades this fight has expanded to dealing with Jews who decided to take the law into their own hands by perpetrating "price tag" revenge attacks. This reality poses difficult challenges to law enforcement agencies. With that, it is important to keep in mind that the true test of a democracy is how it deals with extreme, heart-wrenching cases. These cases lie at the very heart of a democracy.
As early as 1987, detailed interrogation guidelines were established by the Commission of Inquiry into the Methods of Investigation of the General Security Service Regarding Hostile Terrorist Activity, headed by former Supreme Court Justice Moshe Landau.
These principles were adopted by the Supreme Court following a petition by the Public Committee against Torture in Israel. An expanded panel of justices ruled that psychological and a moderate measure of physical pressure are permissible when a "ticking time bomb" has to be neutralized to save lives. The Shin Bet interrogators who questioned the Duma arson suspects apparently never internalized the significance of the Supreme Court's ruling. It is critical, therefore, that the Central District Court struck the testimonies extracted illegally. Justice must also be pursued justly.
With that, we must remember that the fight against terror is not over. The peace doves fled the smoke billowing in the south, carrying their scorched olive branches with them. The Supreme Court was right to avoid sweeping applications in its ruling. Each interrogation must be scrutinized in its own right, particularly when the purpose is to neutralize a lethal threat.
