Salmon Rushdie on "Extraordinary Rendition"

[aerocontrols]

John Howard is a gutless, sycophantic toadie, but only one person here has ever disagreed with me on that.

Just in case that guy is someone else, you can add me to the list.



I'm rather surprised to learn that Salman Rushdie believes that "extraordinary rendition" is new as of last year, rather than being over a decade old. Or perhaps I'm not so surprised.


Skeptic and Melendwyr, the man's name is actually أحمد سلمان رشدی. When a name originates in a language featuring a different alphabet, it's not uncommon for there to be more than one English translation. (Osama vs. Usama, for instance) While we might expect AUP to use the translation that Rushdie himself uses, it's quite likely that AUP learned the other long ago, and continues to use it out of habit.

 

[Elind]

yes, we must reject "extraordinary rendition" for what it is, kidnapping and torture.

Really. It's not capture and imprisonment? As to the "extraordinary rendition" term. I think this was invented by the newspapers as a nice catchy movie type phrase. I can just thear the CIA guys discussion plans and saying, "who are we going to extraordinarily render this week?".

Bull! They know who they are dealing with. They SPY!! (Terrible thing some seem to think). If the bad guys are found in a jeep in Afghanistan they are rendered into mincemeat by a bomb, if they can be picked up without bloodshed and sent back to where they should be, and are probably wanted for other crimes, then it's terrible kidnapping and torture, by your definition.

I prefer to fight my enemies. You want to read them the Miranda Act.

 

[Melendwyr]

Skeptic and Melendwyr, the man's name is actually أحمد سلمان رشدی. When a name originates in a language featuring a different alphabet, it's not uncommon for there to be more than one English translation. (Osama vs. Usama, for instance) While we might expect AUP to use the translation that Rushdie himself uses, it's quite likely that AUP learned the other long ago, and continues to use it out of habit.

Since that alternate spelling is also the name of a type of fish, I think a good argument can be made that 'Salman' is the desired spelling in most circumstances.

 

[zenith-nadir]

"to kidnap and covertly deliver an individual or individuals for interrogation to an undisclosed address in an unspecified country where torture is permitted"

30 November 2005, 17:19 GMT - BBC

The foreign secretary has written to Washington over claims that the CIA has used EU airports to move suspects to other countries for torture.

Jack Straw said the letter "expressed concern" on behalf of all EU countries and he was waiting for a response.

Who us...we know nothing about 'extraordinary renditions'...

December 5, 2005 - DER SPIEGEL

For weeks, concern has grown about the use of airports in Germany by the CIA for its controversial 'extraordinary renditions' program. Now, it looks like there were hundreds of such suspected flights. At least 437 according to a new list provided by German air traffic controllers.

Rice is almost certain to be asked about the flights during her visit to Germany this week.

Who us...we know nothing about 'extraordinary renditions'...

15 November 2005, 14:23 GMT - BBC

Spain is launching an investigation into claims that CIA planes carrying terror suspects made secret stopovers on Spanish soil.

Who us...we know nothing about 'extraordinary renditions'...

17 December 2005, 22:07 GMT - BBC

Ex-US Secretary of State Colin Powell has indicated that Europeans are being disingenuous when they deny knowledge of the rendition of terror suspects. Mr Powell said the recently highlighted practice of moving people to places where they are not covered by US law was neither "new or unknown" to Europe.

5 December 2005 - Amnesty International

Amnesty International today revealed that six planes used by the CIA for renditions have made some 800 flights in or out of European airspace including 50 landings at Shannon airport in the Republic of Ireland.

3:42 p.m. ET Dec. 8, 2005 - Newsweek

European politicians demanding investigations into mysterious flights into their countries by suspected CIA-operated airplanes may find their own governments are as unenthusiastic about digging into the issue as top Bush administration officials.

According to current and former U.S. counterterrorism officials, some European governments were informed of at least some of the details of the CIA flight operations before or as they happened. Other European governments operated what one U.S. counterterror official acknowledged amounted to a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding the CIA airplanes.

 

[Skeptic]

Freakshow and Skeptic: If your goal was to make me feel icky amd depressed, you succeeded.

Oh, come on, Kevin. It's not "icky and depressed" that you feel, it's smug self-satisfaction at how morally superior you are to us. You get a jolt of "damn, I'm morally superior!" every time you read one of our posts which you disagree with.

 

[Orwell]

Here is a guy you would think would know all about what is and is not justified in the WOT.

Well, simply put, that's just not true. Rushdie is an author; he is to be listened to when he talks about literature. But the ayatollah's fatwa against him doesn't give him special insight or wisdom on politics, any more than--say--Noam Chomsky's linguistic achievements qualify him as a political analyst.

Well, Skeptic is a whatever it is he does for a living; he is to be listened to when he talks about whatever it is he does for a living. But whatever he does for a living (even if it has to do with politics) doesn't give him special insight or wisdom on politics, any more than--say--Noam Chomsky's linguistic achievements qualify him as a political analyst. Fun with language, eh?

Let's consider the reverse. Suppose that a politician who had been under a fatwa by the ayatollahs for some political action says that, due to his experience, he is now qualified to tell authors how and why they should write when they write a novel about terrorism. Would you listen to him? Probably not.

Well, I would, and then I would decide if what the politician says makes any sense. There's no reason why a politician can't have an intelligent opinion on literature; there's no reason why a writer can't have an intelligent opinion on politics. I don't dismiss people's opinions juts because of a few a priori assumptions.

Personally, I agree with what Rushdie says.

 

[Orwell]

Oh, come on, Kevin. It's not "icky and depressed" that you feel, it's smug self-satisfaction at how morally superior you are to us. You get a jolt of "damn, I'm morally superior!" every time you read one of our posts which you disagree with.

Skeptic, cut down on the ad homs and stick to the subject. Were not debating "moral superiority". Were talking about very serious accusations regarding torture.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, Skeptic is a whatever it is he does for a living; he is to be listened to when he talks about whatever it is he does for a living. But whatever he does for a living (even if it has to do with politics) doesn't give him special insight or wisdom on politics, any more than--say--Noam Chomsky's linguistic achievements qualify him as a political analyst. Fun with language, eh?

I don't recall seeing Skeptic claim any particular expertise on a subject. As with most posters on this board, he tries to make his arguments stand on their own. If Rushdie's arguments stand on their own, fine. But a specific CLAIM to expertise was made on Rushdie's behalf, an expertise which we have no reason to presume exists. Skeptic's statement was therefore valid, and your counterattack irrelevant, since Skeptic hasn't lain claim to any particular expertise here.

 

[Orwell]

I don't recall seeing Skeptic claim any particular expertise on a subject. As with most posters on this board, he tries to make his arguments stand on their own. If Rushdie's arguments stand on their own, fine. But a specific CLAIM to expertise was made on Rushdie's behalf, an expertise which we have no reason to presume exists. Skeptic's statement was therefore valid, and your counterattack irrelevant, since Skeptic hasn't lain claim to any particular expertise here.

Thanks for repeating my second point, to wit:

Well, I would, and then I would decide if what the politician says makes any sense. There's no reason why a politician can't have an intelligent opinion on literature; there's no reason why a writer can't have an intelligent opinion on politics. I don't dismiss people's opinions juts because of a few a priori assumptions.

Here's once again part of what Skeptic said:

Well, simply put, that's just not true. Rushdie is an author; he is to be listened to when he talks about literature. But the ayatollah's fatwa against him doesn't give him special insight or wisdom on politics, any more than--say--Noam Chomsky's linguistic achievements qualify him as a political analyst.

He isn't saying "listen and think about the man's arguments". He's saying that Rushdie is to be "listened to when he talks about literature". If that's not what he intended to say, if he meant "listen to Rushdie and let his arguments stand on their own", then he should have made it clear.

Part of the article by Rushdie talks about the usage of the euphemism "extraordinary rendition". In other words, Rushdie also talks about language, something that even Skeptic, by is own criteria, would say he is qualified to talk about.

 

[Cleon]

So does this make Rushdie a "useful idiot" or a "moonbat?"

 

[Ziggurat]

Here's once again part of what Skeptic said: He isn't saying "listen and think about the man's arguments". He's saying that Rushdie is to be "listened to when he talks about literature".

I keep looking for where Skeptic said, "don't listen to Rushdie" and I keep not finding it. Absent a statement to that effect from Skeptic, I simply don't see you having any point.

 

[Orwell]

I keep looking for where Skeptic said, "don't listen to Rushdie" and I keep not finding it. Absent a statement to that effect from Skeptic, I simply don't see you having any point.

I'm not saying that Skeptic is saying "don't listen to Rushdie". I'm saying that because of the way how he wrote his post, it sounds like he is saying "don't listen to Rushdie", and that if there's some confusion, it is his fault: he didn't express himself clearly.

 

[jjramsey]

So does this make Rushdie a "useful idiot" or a "moonbat?"

I think it makes him a bleeding-heart Massachusetts liberal pinko commie Clinton-loving tax-and-spend Bush-hating left-wing really bad person.

 

[Skeptic]

Here's once again part of what Skeptic said: He isn't saying "listen and think about the man's arguments". He's saying that Rushdie is to be "listened to when he talks about literature". If that's not what he intended to say, if he meant "listen to Rushdie and let his arguments stand on their own", then he should have made it clear.

Well, Orwell, AUP's claim is that Rushdie's argument should be listened to BECAUSE of the Ayatollah Humeini's fatwa against him. I was disagreeing with that. My point is not that Rushdie is necessarily wrong. My point is that his opinion is no more deserving of crediblity than the opinion of any other layman on the subject.

This means that one need not pay his political views any particular attention. Mind you, I repeatedly said that I think this is the case for right-wing journalists, for example, Bill O'Reilly. I don't listen to his views either: for what on earth makes a journalist better than anybody else in politics? Now, Clinton, who I often disagree with, deserves listening to, since he was president of the USA and therefore is an expert on politics.

When I say I don't listen to Rushdie or to O'Reilly I am not saying they are necessarily wrong automatically about everything. I simply mean that since both are speaking as laymen, I fail to see the profit in looking in their particular arguments as opposed to that of Joe Schmoe of the street. The difference between O'Reilly and Rushdie and Joe Schmoe is not that they are experts on the subject and he isn't; it is merely that they are celebrities and he isn't. My point is that relying on celebrities for reliable opinion is a bad strategy.

 

[Orwell]

Well, Orwell, AUP's claim is that Rushdie's argument should be listened to BECAUSE of the Ayatollah Humeini's fatwa against him. I was disagreeing with that. My point is not that Rushdie is necessarily wrong. My point is that his opinion is no more deserving of crediblity than the opinion of any other layman on the subject.

This means that one need not pay his political views any particular attention. Mind you, I repeatedly said that I think this is the case for right-wing journalists, for example, Bill O'Reilly. I don't listen to his views either: for what on earth makes a journalist better than anybody else in politics? Now, Clinton, who I often disagree with, deserves listening to, since he was president of the USA and therefore is an expert on politics.

When I say I don't listen to Rushdie or to O'Reilly I am not saying they are necessarily wrong automatically about everything. I simply mean that since both are speaking as laymen, I fail to see the profit in looking in their particular arguments as opposed to that of Joe Schmoe of the street. The difference between O'Reilly and Rushdie and Joe Schmoe is not that they are experts on the subject and he isn't; it is merely that they are celebrities and he isn't. My point is that relying on celebrities for reliable opinion is a bad strategy.

I agree. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[a_unique_person]

It is commendable. "They" should be "picked up". Your ability to be amazed is amazing.

We are beginning to hear the names and stories of men seized and transported in this fashion: Maher Arar, a Canadian-Syrian, was captured by the CIA on his way to the United States and taken via Jordan to Syria where, according to his lawyer, he was "brutally physically tortured". Khaled el-Masri, a German citizen of Kuwaiti-Lebanese origin, was kidnapped in Macedonia and taken for interrogation to Afghanistan, he says, where he was repeatedly beaten. Syrian-born Mohammed Haydar Zammar says that he was grabbed in Morocco and then spent four years in a Syrian dungeon.

Global.

 

[hammegk]

Send the waaaaambulance. Do you drive, or is Kevin or Zep?

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, Orwell, AUP's claim is that Rushdie's argument should be listened to BECAUSE of the Ayatollah Humeini's fatwa against him. I was disagreeing with that. My point is not that Rushdie is necessarily wrong. My point is that his opinion is no more deserving of crediblity than the opinion of any other layman on the subject.

This means that one need not pay his political views any particular attention. Mind you, I repeatedly said that I think this is the case for right-wing journalists, for example, Bill O'Reilly. I don't listen to his views either: for what on earth makes a journalist better than anybody else in politics? Now, Clinton, who I often disagree with, deserves listening to, since he was president of the USA and therefore is an expert on politics.

When I say I don't listen to Rushdie or to O'Reilly I am not saying they are necessarily wrong automatically about everything. I simply mean that since both are speaking as laymen, I fail to see the profit in looking in their particular arguments as opposed to that of Joe Schmoe of the street. The difference between O'Reilly and Rushdie and Joe Schmoe is not that they are experts on the subject and he isn't; it is merely that they are celebrities and he isn't. My point is that relying on celebrities for reliable opinion is a bad strategy.

No, I said he was someone who, having been under a Fatwah calling for his death, (Fatwahs have also been decreed calling for people to vote in the Iraqi elections), would know what it is like to be on the wrong end of Islamic extremism. Despite that, he sticks to his principles, and gives a well reasoned and logical attack on "extreme rendition".

 

[Freakshow]

Skeptic, cut down on the ad homs and stick to the subject. Were not debating "moral superiority". Were talking about very serious accusations regarding torture.

No, it was extreme left-wing babbling, by someone who just desperately wants to whine about the US. It was not a "very serious accusation". "New regime of global torture" is not a serious accusation. It is an emotional overreaction.

 

[Freakshow]

Freakshow and Skeptic: If your goal was to make me feel icky amd depressed, you succeeded.

Your emotional fragility isn't a problem I can help you with. You'll have to figure that out on your own. Sorry.