Salmon Rushdie on "Extraordinary Rendition"

[Orwell]

Not indefinately, no. But can't any time spent in cuffs or in jail be considered to be depriving the person of some rights?

Yeah, I admit it can. But thats nothing but an inconvenience when compared to torture. Torture involves effectively depriving someone of almost every single right.

 

[Orwell]

Ok, I'm going to be, nighty night.

See, we actually managed to have a discussion without name calling and heaps of fallacies. Now wasn't that nice?

 

[Freakshow]

Ok, I'm going to be, nighty night.

See, we actually managed to have a discussion without name calling and heaps of fallacies. Now wasn't that nice?

You are a poopie-head. And since all A's are B's, then that means all B's are A's.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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

In the real world I might as well be. The difference between my position and an absolute opposition to torture is almost completely philosophical.

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.

It might look like that, but it isn't.

I believe in utilitarianism tempered by fairness. To really oversimplify.

Torturing people who might be innocent is incompatible with fairness, but torturing people who are themselves mass murderers or torturers does not violate fairness in the same way. If we lived in a world where torturing a torturer would save innocent people from torture, that would be a good deal in utilitarian terms and would not violate my intuitions about fairness.

As I stated before since the theoretical gain of deterrence would not be realised, in practise I'm (virtually) absolutely against torturing your government's torturers as well.

 

[a_unique_person]

Judge for yourself.

He wants to fight his enemies, yet he has no qualms about creating enemies to fight.

 

[Mycroft]

In the real world I might as well be. The difference between my position and an absolute opposition to torture is almost completely philosophical.



It might look like that, but it isn't.

I believe in utilitarianism tempered by fairness. To really oversimplify.

Torturing people who might be innocent is incompatible with fairness, but torturing people who are themselves mass murderers or torturers does not violate fairness in the same way. If we lived in a world where torturing a torturer would save innocent people from torture, that would be a good deal in utilitarian terms and would not violate my intuitions about fairness.

As I stated before since the theoretical gain of deterrence would not be realised, in practise I'm (virtually) absolutely against torturing your government's torturers as well.

So would you be for torture so long as you were sure of the guilt of the guy being tortured? It would satisfy both your utilitarianism and your sense of fairness.

 

[Mycroft]

So you oppose laws allowing torture, but you don't mind your government handing out people to governments that you know will practice torture. Heck, it seems to me that your government is handing this guy to Egypt precisely because Egypt practices torture!

In the example I cited, it was the Pakistani government that captured him and handed him over to Egypt. If someone wants to complain about his treatment, it's Egypt they need to complain to, and Egypt that needs to be pressed for reform.

There are bad things and then there are bad things, Mycroft! We're talking about torture! It's one of the worse things a state can do to an individual.

The difference is a matter of scale.

But torture isn't included or accepted as a legal processes by the US and, probably, by Egypt.

Remember, the question isn't if it's fair, it's if it's due process or not.

 

[Mycroft]

See, we actually managed to have a discussion without name calling and heaps of fallacies. Now wasn't that nice?

Keep it up, it's a welcome improvement.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So would you be for torture so long as you were sure of the guilt of the guy being tortured? It would satisfy both your utilitarianism and your sense of fairness.

No. Absolutely not.

If I was sure that the guy being tortured was guilty of terribly heinous crimes, and sure that torturing that guy would save innocent people from future heinous crimes (it's that second clause that satisfies utilitarianism) then I would be for torture.

The first clause is unsatisfied in the real world because torture is conducted illegally, secretly and with no accountability.

The second clause is unsatisfied because there is no evidence that torturing people does in fact lead to the prevention of heinous crimes.

Really I might as well say "If kicking Rolf Harris in the crotch could bring about world peace, and Rolf Harris deserved to be kicked in the crotch, then I would be in favour of crotch-kicking Rolf". It's equally unrealistic.

 

[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.

So, plenty of points about Rushdie, celebrity, etc. How about a response to the actual points the article raises?

 

[epepke]

Sigh. The problem is not that a society abrogates rights for some other reason. Every society does that, to a more or lesser degree. Once that has become established, then debate can ensue about what extent is justifiable.

The problem is when someone takes what is done in their society and then declares, for reasons of purest self-interest, that some things that are done magically become not an abrogation of rights.

Putting someone in a drunk tank is certainly an abrogation of rights, whether it's for four hours or 24 hours or what. It just is.

 

[Mycroft]

No. Absolutely not.

If I was sure that the guy being tortured was guilty of terribly heinous crimes, and sure that torturing that guy would save innocent people from future heinous crimes (it's that second clause that satisfies utilitarianism) then I would be for torture.

Well, the second clause seems pretty weak in your revenge scenario.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Well, the second clause seems pretty weak in your revenge scenario.

How do you construe that?

I said I would favour torture if conditions A and B are both met. I gave you two different, equally fanciful scenarios in which A and B would both be met.

I can say that A and B were met in my scenarios, because they were my scenarios and I get to define them. So you can't be basing your statement on the idea that defining B as being met was somehow "weak". It's not weak, it's made up.

Nor can you be thinking that B would not be met in the real world, and that this makes it "weak", because I explicitly stated that in neither case in the real world were A or B true. So it would make no sense to pick out one instance of B and say it was weaker than anything else in these hypothetical scenarios.

So I really can't follow what you think you are saying.

It seems to me that you just think it would be more fun if I was in favour of torturing people that I don't like, because then you would have the moral high ground, so you are doing your best to paint things that way.

 

[Mycroft]

It seems to me that you just think it would be more fun if I was in favour of torturing people that I don't like, because then you would have the moral high ground, so you are doing your best to paint things that way.

Isn't that the case? The only thing stopping you from torturing torturers and politicians that allow torture is your own skepticism that such a thing would prevent future tortures.

 

[Elind]

Judge for yourself.

Why don't you drop it bobby. Read your own statement and tell us if your so called "paraphrasing" has any relevance to what I've said.

As to your judicial preferences, why don't you check is if the laws you keep quoting cover reading Miranda or similar protections afforded Americans in the US apply to foreign combatants?

I called your comment a lie (I think the first time I've had to in 5 years), because even you are smart enough to know that was not what I said, or meant.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Isn't that the case? The only thing stopping you from torturing torturers and politicians that allow torture is your own skepticism that such a thing would prevent future tortures.

The only thing stopping me torturing a guilty-beyond-all-doubt terrorist would be my skepticism that such a thing would prevent future acts of mass murder.

I don't see the two positions as being significantly different.

I suppose there would be a difference if you liked people who organise for masses of other human beings to be illegally kidnapped and tortured in secret prisons, but you didn't like people who organise for masses of other human beings to be blown up. I dislike them both, you see.

 

[fishbob]

Why don't you drop it bobby. Read your own statement and tell us if your so called "paraphrasing" has any relevance to what I've said.

As to your judicial preferences, why don't you check is if the laws you keep quoting cover reading Miranda or similar protections afforded Americans in the US apply to foreign combatants?

I called your comment a lie (I think the first time I've had to in 5 years), because even you are smart enough to know that was not what I said, or meant.

Read what you wrote lindy. Read your own words and tell me how they differ from my clarification. I am sick and damn tired of you telling me, deliberately incorrectly, what I think. Turnabout makes you awfully whiney.

Oh, and darn those pesky facts - I didn't quote any laws lately either.