Salmon Rushdie on "Extraordinary Rendition"

[Orwell]

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.

What do you think of Rushdie's article?

 

[Elind]

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.

We are not begining to hear, we always hear.

I don't believe these people automatically as you do, but I find it somewhat instructive that they still have all their limbs and ability to talk to the press intact.

I have no doubt that mistakes might be made, and might have been made. That is hardly unique in war, or even normal police activity as you well know. Your problem is that you have no ability to recognize any distinction between your friends or enemies. You seem to think everyone would be your friend if it wasn't for the evil Americans. That's why I think you're a woowoo.

 

[a_unique_person]

Your problem is that

you have no ability to recognize any distinction between your friends or enemies.

You seem to think everyone would be your friend if it wasn't for the evil Americans.

Two clear claims. Prove them or retract them.

 

[Freakshow]

What do you think of Rushdie's article?

Actually, I couldn't care less about what Rushdie thinks. I don't know why AUP thinks he has some special significance. Because he pissed off a lot of muslims? Well, he can get in line. Lots of people have, and for much more significant reasons than writing a book.

But I did take a glance at it, since you asked. And I disagree with him. Especially his point of "In other words, the question isn't whether or not a given individual is "good" or "bad"." I couldn't disagree more. I think it is a critical question when choosing how to deal with people.

On a practical level, I don't think torture is a good policy. On a moral level, there are some cases where I am okay with it. But making such a policy work in the real world (where, in the long-run, it does more harm than good) is not practical.

 

[Orwell]

My objection to torture is not moral! I mean, i could reject it on moral grounds, but frankly, I don't even have to go into the squishy world or morality to reject its usage. I am convinced that torture is simply not a good way of getting reliable information. The Inquisition tortured people into confessing that they had had intercourse with devils, for crissakes! Totalitarian states used torture to produce bogus accusations and wild conspiracies!

 

[Freakshow]

My objection to torture is not moral! I mean, i could reject it on moral grounds, but frankly, I don't even have to go into the squishy world or morality to reject its usage. I am convinced that torture is simply not a good way of getting reliable information. The Inquisition tortured people into confessing that they had had intercourse with devils, for crissake! Totalitarian states used torture to produce bogus accusations and wild conspiracies.

I pretty much agree with you.

Orwell? You there? Hello? ORWELL?!?!!! (I think he just had a heart attack.)

 

[Elind]

Two clear claims. Prove them or retract them.

It's my opinion woowoo. You insult me and my own, and that's my opinion too. I hearby declare that true, and proof.

Satisfied?

 

[a_unique_person]

It's my opinion woowoo. You insult me and my own, and that's my opinion too. I hearby declare that true, and proof.

Satisfied?

I do not "insult" you. You feel free to attack me, personally, while I am aiming fairly and squarly at those behind 'extraordinary rendition'.

Woowoo? Is this the playground at recess?

 

[Mycroft]

I am convinced that torture is simply not a good way of getting reliable information.

So if torture could be shown to provide reliable information, would you approve of it?

 

[Elind]

I do not "insult" you. You feel free to attack me, personally, while I am aiming fairly and squarly at those behind 'extraordinary rendition'.

Woowoo? Is this the playground at recess?

I think you, and those others who you think are with you, who think they know how to deal with our enemies better than anyone else with pie in the sky emotions, have not the slightest hesitation to insult those that the majority of American, regardless of their political persuation, think are working in their best interests. You in particular. I can think of other terms to replace woowoo, but Linda would get on my case again. How about DooDoo?

Shall we move this to the flame section? I gave you opportunity to respond with logic earlier. You passed.

 

[a_unique_person]

I did not respond to name calling. I do note a lack of logical argument. Perhaps if you restate them.

 

[The Fool]

I think you, and those others who you think are with you, who think they know how to deal with our enemies better than anyone else with pie in the sky emotions, have not the slightest hesitation to insult those that the majority of American, regardless of their political persuation, think are working in their best interests. You in particular. I can think of other terms to replace woowoo, but Linda would get on my case again. How about DooDoo?

Shall we move this to the flame section? I gave you opportunity to respond with logic earlier. You passed.

Lol...have you been tagged? It seems you feel it its your turn.

 

[a_unique_person]

What's wrong with this kind of thinking is that, as Isabel Hilton of The Guardian wrote last July: "The delusion that officeholders know better than the law is an occupational hazard of the powerful and one to which those of an imperial cast of mind are especially prone … When disappearance became state practice across Latin America in the '70s it aroused revulsion in democratic countries, where it is a fundamental tenet of legitimate government that no state actor may detain — or kill — another human being without having to answer to the law."
In other words, the question isn't whether or not a given individual is "good" or "bad". The question is whether or not we are — whether or not our governments have dragged us into immorality by discarding due process of law, which is generally accorded to be second only to individual rights as the most important pillar of a free society.

This is not the ignorant rambling of an air-headed popstar. It raises vital questions about modern western society.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I don't believe these people automatically as you do, but I find it somewhat instructive that they still have all their limbs and ability to talk to the press intact.

Is it your position based on the available evidence that extraordinary rendition does not take place? Or that based on the available evidence only people who genuinely deserve to be kidnapped and tortured extralegally are captured and tortured extralegally?

Or are you just saying that you don't necessarily believe that these particular people are being entirely honest?

If you are going to argue that illegally kindapping and torturing innocent people is necessary to some greater good, I would like to see evidence. If you have no evidence, I would like to think that you would have to agree that kidnapping and torturing people on the off-chance it will do some good is very evil behaviour indeed.

I have no doubt that mistakes might be made, and might have been made. That is hardly unique in war, or even normal police activity as you well know.

Nor is it unique in criminal activity, which is a much more relevant point of comparison seeing that unlike war or police action "extraordinary rendition" is illegal.

Your problem is that you have no ability to recognize any distinction between your friends or enemies.

This is a baseless ad hominem attack. Shame on you.

There are civilised ways and barbaric ways of dealing with those people that we all agree are our enemies.

You seem to think everyone would be your friend if it wasn't for the evil Americans. That's why I think you're a woowoo.

You seem to make up convenient lies about other posters. I refer to your last three sentences, and your refusal to substantiate them, as evidence of this behaviour. Why do you do this?

 

[fishbob]

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

We are not talking about battling enemies. We are talking about the legality, ethics, and practicality of beating the snot out of prisoners.

I prefer to to fight my enemies and make them surrender. You want to see how much fear and misery you can inflict on a confined man after he has surrendered.

 

[Skeptic]

I agree. Thank you for clarifying.

Perhaps what I'm trying to say is not that one shouldn't LISTEN to Rushdie on politics, but that one shouldn't RELY on Rushdie in forming political opinion.

 

[a_unique_person]

Perhaps what I'm trying to say is not that one shouldn't LISTEN to Rushdie on politics, but that one shouldn't RELY on Rushdie in forming political opinion.

No one is asking you to do that. He has made some points that I believe are important. Perhaps you could address them instead.

 

[Skeptic]

No one is asking you to do that (rely on Rushdie).

Oh really? Your original post said about him:

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

If he knows "all about what is and is not justified in the WOT", then he is an expert on the subject and is view should be relied on. After all, surely if one should rely on anybody's view about "what is and is not justified in the WOT", it is the guy who knows all about it, right?

 

[Elind]

Lol...have you been tagged? It seems you feel it its your turn.

Now where did you pop up from? I could have sworn there was nobody but what's his name there. Have a smell for brimstone and fire do you? Happy New Year.

 

[a_unique_person]

Oh really? Your original post said about him:

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

If he knows "all about what is and is not justified in the WOT", then he is an expert on the subject and is view should be relied on. After all, surely if one should rely on anybody's view about "what is and is not justified in the WOT", it is the guy who knows all about it, right?

He made several intelligent points, do you think you could respond to just one?

I was putting forth his position as someone who has had his life threatened by extremists, not as a celebrity airhead.