airliners was in fact obtained within minutes of his arrest – his laptop computer contained details of the plot. A Philippine police officer later testified in court that most of the details Murad provided under torture were in fact fabrications fed to him by his torturers.37 Similarly, all of the useful information obtained from Abu Zubaida, the CIA’s first “high-level” captive, was obtained before he was subjected to waterboarding and other torture. Information Abu Zubaida provided under torture did not, according to former senior US government officials, thwart any significant plots and in fact included false leads.38 The experience of Israel demonstrates the dangers of enacting policies based on the hypothetical ticking bomb. In 1987 the Israeli government introduced guidelines permitting “moderate physical pressure” as well as psychological pressure during interrogations to supposedly prevent imminent terrorist attacks. The guidelines were based on the recommendations of a Commission of Inquiry, headed by former Supreme Court president Moshe Landau, which concluded that some degree of coercion was permissible in order to prevent terrorist acts, provided it was subject to supervision and clear limits. Over the next twelve years, until the Supreme Court banned the policy in 1999, the General Security Services (commonly known as Shin Bet) institutionalized the use of coercive interrogation methods, including violent shaking, prolonged sleep deprivation, hooding with a sack whilst seated with hands behind the back in a low chair tilted forward (the “Shabach position”), the “frog” crouch, and exposure to loud noises and extreme temperatures. What was intended as an exceptional measure became the norm, leading to widespread torture and ill-treatment of detainees far beyond the limits of what had been initially authorized. 39 The Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that these physical means of interrogation were unlawful insofar as they were not part of a reasonable interrogation and violate human dignity. Sleep deprivation, the Court said, was lawful if a “side effect” of the interrogation but would be unlawful if employed with the intention of tiring or “breaking” the detainee.40 The Court 37 Ibid. See also Terestchenko, “De l’utilité de la torture,” for a discussion of this case. 38 Peter Finn and Joby Warrick, “Detainee’s harsh treatment foiled no plots,” Washington Post, March 29, 2009, http;//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html (accessed February 24, 2010). 39 See Eitan Felner, “Torture and Terrorism: Painful Lessons from Israel,” in Roth and Worden, eds., Torture: does it make us safer? (The New Press, 2005), pp. 28-43. 40 H.C. 5100/94 Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. The State of Israel and the General Security Service H.C. 4054/95 The Association for Civil Rights in Israel v. The Prime Minister of Israel, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Police, the Minister of the Environment and the Head of the General Security Service. H.C. 6536/95 Hat’m Abu Zayda v. The General Security Service. “No Questions Asked” 16