Salmon Rushdie on "Extraordinary Rendition"

[Mycroft]

?????

It is one thing of many. If we use torture, then we are no better than they are regarding torture. I have no idea why that is too complicated.

Okay, so that's different from saying we're no better than they are period.

 

[Orwell]

Did you mom ever have any unpleasant medical procedure done, to save her life? Maybe chemo? Or a surgery that is painful to recover from?

I've gone through lots of discomfort, to achieve an end-result that I know is better than I would get without going through the discomfort. Pretty normal part of life, actually.

Yeah, but see, doctors typically ask their patients if they wanna endure the pain of the procedure. If you ask someone "I need to torture you for your own good" and he says "ok", that's probably not torture, you know, that's just kinky sex!

 

[Mycroft]

I'll put my hand up to this one. I could approve of torture if (and only if):

1. It actually provided highly reliable information in a timely fashion.
2. Those subject to torture were only those who had been shown in a public court, beyond reasonable doubt, to have conspired to commit mass murder and to be in possession of information likely to prevent future acts of mass murder.
3. That anybody shown to have in any way sexed up evidence, lied or misled a court in order to get a torture order would get whatever the torture victim got.

Fair enough. At least you're no longer dealing in absolutes.

Actually, I could get behind torture in one other scenario.

1. The people tortured were themselves either torturers or politicians who protected torturers.

2. Making a horrible and public example of them would deter future torturers.

I'm not sure #2 would be true in the real world though, since the people who commit such crimes generally think they will get away with them and so are not deterred by legal consequences.

Now, this is disturbing. I can understand an ethical code that would only permit torture under hypothetical circumstances that are likely never to be met, but then you turn around and say you'd permit it for people who've done something you really really don't like! This is very eye-for-eye revenge kinda stuff.

 

[Mycroft]

Ok... But if the end defines the means, I also think that the means define the end. For instance, what if you have to beat up the kid in order to get the candy so that he won't get sick? In other words, what you do to accomplish an apparently desirable end defines the end. My mom used to tell me that you can't make a good cake with rotten eggs.

In both cases you're weighing the desired end versus the means you need to accomplish it. Is disapointing the child worth preventing a tummy ache? Most people would say so. Is beating him up worth it? Well, it's hard to imagine that scenario, but again most people would agree it's not worth it.

Tipping the scales one way or another doesn't change that the measurement is made, and that we do consider the ends when we judge the means.

 

[Mycroft]

You are talking about subjecting innocent people to torture so you can sleep soundly at night and then say the pain was worth it. Ask them if it was.

No, he's talking about going through the pain and discomfort of a medical procedure to achieve a positive result. You’re the one who’s extrapolating that to the torture of innocent people.

I think we can all agree that the torture of innocent people is wrong.

 

[Freakshow]

Yeah, but see, doctors typically ask their patients if they wanna endure the pain of the procedure.

True, but the legal system typically doesn't ask murderers (which many terrorists are) if they wanna endure the pain of being in prison for the rest of their lives. We often put the needs of the innocent and law-abiding ahead of the desires of criminals.

I should note, just in case you misunderstand me, I am opposed to our using torture. But it is for practical reasons, not moral reasons. On a moral basis, there are some very rare instances where I would totally approve of it. But that is different from saying that a policy of allowing torture is going to accomplish more good than harm. I am not at all convinced that it would.

If you ask someone "I need to torture you for your own good" and he says "ok", that's probably not torture, you know, that's just kinky sex!

Been there, done that. Except it was a "she", not a "he".

 

[Mycroft]

Yeah, but see, doctors typically ask their patients if they wanna endure the pain of the procedure. If you ask someone "I need to torture you for your own good" and he says "ok", that's probably not torture, you know, that's just kinky sex!

You don't ask the child if he wants you to take the candy from him, do you?

Sometimes when you weight the ends versus the means, you make a decision another person won't like.

 

[Orwell]

True, but the legal system typically doesn't ask murderers (which many terrorists are) if they wanna endure the pain of being in prison for the rest of their lives. We often put the needs of the innocent and law-abiding ahead of the desires of criminals.

Yeah, but we do this after murderers and criminals have been tried and condemned. Due process again.

I should note, just in case you misunderstand me, I am opposed to our using torture. But it is for practical reasons, not moral reasons. On a moral basis, there are some very rare instances where I would totally approve of it. But that is different from saying that a policy of allowing torture is going to accomplish more good than harm. I am not at all convinced that it would.

I know that, but thanks for clarifying.

 

[Mycroft]

Yeah, but we do this after murderers and criminals have been tried and condemned. Due process again.

As I pointed out before “due process” is just following the process set down by law. For example, police officers executing a search warrant and searching your home is “due process” even though you haven’t yet been convicted of any crime.

 

[Orwell]

In both cases you're weighing the desired end versus the means you need to accomplish it. Is disapointing the child worth preventing a tummy ache? Most people would say so. Is beating him up worth it? Well, it's hard to imagine that scenario, but again most people would agree it's not worth it.

Tipping the scales one way or another doesn't change that the measurement is made, and that we do consider the ends when we judge the means.

If I take into account all the consequences of torture (the PR problems, the hatred it engenders, its unreliability, the moral effect on the torturers, the abuse of procedure that it engenders, etc.) I come to the conclusion that torture, just like beating up a child to prevent a tummy ache, is not worth it.

 

[Orwell]

As I pointed out before “due process” is just following the process set down by law. For example, police officers executing a search warrant and searching your home is “due process” even though you haven’t yet been convicted of any crime.

Search warrants don't typically cause extreme pain. Search warrants aren't punishments.

 

[Mycroft]

Search warrants don't typically cause extreme pain. Search warrants aren't punishments.

But they are due process, and the guy hasn't been convicted yet.

I'm just trying to get you to pay a little more attention to the meanings of the terms you use. "Due process" doesn't mean the guy gets treated fairly, according to the standards of a US citizen accused of a crime. All it meanse is that what does happen to him is as written in some law somewhere.

Consider this: That Australian guy who was nabbed in Pakistan, extradited to Egypt for six months of “questioning” before being forwarded to Gitmo got “due process.” Just not a process many people would like.

 

[Orwell]

You don't ask the child if he wants you to take the candy from him, do you?

Yeah, and that's why this child analogy doesn't work. You don't torture someone for their own good, your torture someone for your own good (or the good of your group), and that makes all the difference in the world.

Sometimes when you weight the ends versus the means, you make a decision another person won't like.

Many political leaders through history have weighed the ends versus the means, and made the decisions that a lot of persons didn't like. I'm sure that Saddam Hussein thought he was torturing and killing for the good of all Iraqis. (Don't take this as a direct comparison, it is not, it's an example). After all, you can't bake a bad cake without breaking a few rotten eggs, eh?

 

[Orwell]

But they are due process, and the guy hasn't been convicted yet.

I'm just trying to get you to pay a little more attention to the meanings of the terms you use. "Due process" doesn't mean the guy gets treated fairly, according to the standards of a US citizen accused of a crime. All it meanse is that what does happen to him is as written in some law somewhere.

I'm not implying the "getting treated fairly" bit: I'm saying that torture constitutes punishment, and you are not supposed to punish without a conviction, at least not according to the laws of most western countries. That's the "due process" I'm talking about.

Consider this: That Australian guy who was nabbed in Pakistan, extradited to Egypt for six months of “questioning” before being forwarded to Gitmo got “due process.” Just not a process many people would like.

Did he? Is torture something that is legal according to Egyptian law? I mean, I know they practice it, but is it officially accepted as a legitimate means of obtaining convictions and information? Is torture in Egyptian law books?

 

[Mycroft]

Yeah, and that's why this child analogy doesn't work. You don't torture someone for their own good, your torture someone for your own good (or the good of your group), and that makes all the difference in the world.

Okay, so instead of a child it's a drunk driver. Instead of taking away his candy, we're taking away his car, his drivers license, and we're putting him in jail.

Is it against his will? Yes. It it for the good of myself and my group? Yes.

So what?

 

[Mycroft]

I'm not implying the "getting treated fairly" bit: I'm saying that torture constitutes punishment, and you are not supposed to punish without a conviction, at least not according to the laws of most western countries. That's the "due process" I'm talking about.

Okay, so now you're arguing for a specific due process, not just any due process. Now you want it to be fair, like you would expect from a Western Democracy.

Did he? Is torture something that is legal according to Egyptian law? I mean, I know they practice it, but is it officially accepted as a legitimate means of obtaining convictions and information? Is torture in Egyptian law books?

In theory, Egypt agreed to stop torturing people a couple decades ago when they signed a UN agreement against it. I don't know if they changed their local laws to reflect that or not.

 

[Orwell]

Okay, so now you're arguing for a specific due process, not just any due process. Now you want it to be fair, like you would expect from a Western Democracy.

Ok, I'll accept the "it has to be fair" part. I admit that I've always been arguing for that kind of "due process". I mean, the only places with unfair "due process" are, by definition, states with totalitarian tendencies. One of the reasons why they are totalitarian is because they have an unfair justice system. One that accepts evidence obtained with torture, for instance.

In theory, Egypt agreed to stop torturing people a couple decades ago when they signed a UN agreement against it. I don't know if they changed their local laws to reflect that or not.

Therefore, even according to the little we know about Egyptian law, there's a good chance he didn't get "due process".

 

[Orwell]

Okay, so instead of a child it's a drunk driver. Instead of taking away his candy, we're taking away his car, his drivers license, and we're putting him in jail.

Is it against his will? Yes. It it for the good of myself and my group? Yes.

So what?

Well, you have to prosecute a drunk driver and get a conviction before you can permanently take away his car and drivers licence. Holding him in a cell while he is drunk isn't, strictly speaking, punishment: it's keeping him from injuring himself and others.

 

[a_unique_person]

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.

He has effectively done that, having commented on everything but the content of the article.

 

[Orwell]

But this legal discussion is quite besides the point: as you well know, the US gov. has decided not to extend to foreign terrorists the legal rights most Americans take for granted. What is fair for american citizens doesn't apply to foreigners.