Salmon Rushdie on "Extraordinary Rendition"

[Mycroft]

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.

Okay, but it's also important to understand that the constitutional "due process" isn't a promise to be fair. Lot's of unfair things happen according to law. It's only a promise that whatever happens, it will be according to law. Laws are amended according to a societies needs.

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

Sure he did. Even if the torture (if there was torture) was extra-judicial, he still got "due process" in his extradition from Pakistan to Egypt, and again in his extradition from Egypt to Guantanamo Bay.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

Of course, all of which is bad for the drunk driver. But the ends, getting him off the road and making you and I safer, justifies what society does to him.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

They were never entitled to those rights in the first place.

 

[Orwell]

Who said "guilt", in the legal definition, had anything to do with it? POW's are not guilty of anything, and they are never tried before any court. Yet they are detained indefinitely. Similarly, who said torture had to be for the purposes of establishing guilt? If it is instead used to discover intelligence which will be acted upon, then "guilt" has nothing to do with it. So again, if rules are laid down establishing how and when torture can be used, there's no violation of the concept of due process at all. In case you haven't figured it out yet, that is not an argument that we SHOULD do such a thing, merely that your understanding of the problems with it is wrong.

If rules are laid down establishing how and when torture can be used, the "how and when" will involve determining who gets tortured, and that's virtually the same as figuring out guilt.

 

[Orwell]

Of course, all of which is bad for the drunk driver. But the ends, getting him off the road and making you and I safer, justifies what society does to him.

Keeping a drunk driver from injuring himself is actually good for him. And taking away his rights is only possible after "due process". There is presently no legal way of inflicting torture, even in places like Egypt I think, therefore all the torture cases we've been hearing about are, by definition, illegal, according to the laws of one country or another.

 

[Orwell]

They were never entitled to those rights in the first place.

Yeah, I know. They're not even POWs. The US gov. decided to put them in legal limbo, a decision that, to me, sounded totaliatarianish.

 

[fishbob]

I note that you are lying.

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

Judge for yourself.

 

[fishbob]

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.

Not quite. Due process is written into law in compliance with our constitutional guarantees. And that means that due process means a lot more than you seem to think it means.

 

[Orwell]

Okay, but it's also important to understand that the constitutional "due process" isn't a promise to be fair. Lot's of unfair things happen according to law. It's only a promise that whatever happens, it will be according to law. Laws are amended according to a societies needs.

As I said before, I'm not a lawyer, thank Boognish. Do you think your society need laws that allow torture of your own citizens? Wouldn't laws allowing torture be anti-constitutional? I mean, the bill of rights forbids cruel and unusual punishments. I have argued above that if rules are laid down establishing how and when torture can be used, the "how and when" will involve determining who gets tortured, and that's virtually the same as figuring out guilt and giving punishemnt.

Sure he did. Even if the torture (if there was torture) was extra-judicial, he still got "due process" in his extradition from Pakistan to Egypt, and again in his extradition from Egypt to Guantanamo Bay.

What if the guy got shipped to Gitmo because of something he said under torture? Would that still constitute "due process"?

 

[Mycroft]

Keeping a drunk driver from injuring himself is actually good for him. And taking away his rights is only possible after "due process". There is presently no legal way of inflicting torture, even in places like Egypt I think, therefore all the torture cases we've been hearing about are, by definition, illegal, according to the laws of one country or another.

You're getting our "due process" argument mixed up with the "ends justifies the means" argument.

 

[Mycroft]

Yeah, I know. They're not even POWs. The US gov. decided to put them in legal limbo, a decision that, to me, sounded totaliatarianish.

So rather than complain that they don't get "due process" (which they do) complain that the "due process" that they do get should be changed.

 

[Mycroft]

Do you think your society need laws that allow torture of your own citizens?

No, and I would strongly resist passing any laws like that.

At the same time, do I lose sleep that some Australian Jihad Joe got nabbed in Pakistan and was sent to Egypt for questioning for six months?

No.

Wouldn't laws allowing torture be anti-constitutional? I mean, the bill of rights forbids cruel and unusual punishments.

Probably.

I have argued above that if rules are laid down establishing how and when torture can be used, the "how and when" will involve determining who gets tortured, and that's virtually the same as figuring out guilt and giving punishemnt.

I can see why you think that, but I disagree. Bad things happen to people legally all the time, especially when it involves criminal law.

What if the guy got shipped to Gitmo because of something he said under torture? Would that still constitute "due process"?

Sure. It was still a legal process. Just the same as it's still "due process" if a man gets convicted of a crime for which he's innocent. Due process doesn't promise to be fair, just according to the legal process.

 

[Orwell]

So rather than complain that they don't get "due process" (which they do) complain that the "due process" that they do get should be changed.

It might be "due process", but it is unfair: the US gov. obtained this legal limbo by abusing the letter of the law. And you agreed, I think, that countries with unfair laws tend to be totalitarian. I'm not saying that the US is presently totalitarian. But you should take these actions from your government seriously: US citizens might one day be treated like this if you just let it slide.

 

[Orwell]

You're getting our "due process" argument mixed up with the "ends justifies the means" argument.

No I'm not. Temporarily holding a drunk in "the tank" isn't punishment. Why do you say that?

 

[Freakshow]

Keeping a drunk driver from injuring himself is actually good for him. And taking away his rights is only possible after "due process".

Hmmmm...not exactly. For example, when a drunk driver is pulled over by a police officer, he isn't given a summons to appear in court, and then sent on his way home. (Which would be waiting until the full due process is completed before depriving him of any rights.) Instead, he is put in handcuffs (certainly depriving someone of rights; I know I would feel my rights were deprived if someone did that to me), he is put in jail (depriving him of rights again), and possibly kept there until trial, depending on his history, the local laws, and his ability to post bond.

So he is cuffed, transported, and tossed in jail, all before he even gets to enter a plea in court.

 

[Freakshow]

No I'm not. Temporarily holding a drunk in "the tank" isn't punishment. Why do you say that?

I sure as heck would consider it to be punishment! It certainly is not nearly as pleasant as going home to your own bed.

 

[Orwell]

Hmmmm...not exactly. For example, when a drunk driver is pulled over by a police officer, he isn't given a summons to appear in court, and then sent on his way home. (Which would be waiting until the full due process is completed before depriving him of any rights.) Instead, he is put in handcuffs (certainly depriving someone of rights; I know I would feel my rights were deprived if someone did that to me), he is put in jail (depriving him of rights again), and possibly kept there until trial, depending on his history, the local laws, and his ability to post bond.

So he is cuffed, transported, and tossed in jail, all before he even gets to enter a plea in court.

That's how you do it in the States? He doesn't have a hearing asap (typically in the next few days) were he learns of what he is accused, like other criminals? I'm sure he does. You can't hold the drunk indefinitely without telling him why he is being kept in jail, can you?

 

[Freakshow]

That's how you do it in the States? He doesn't have a hearing asap (typically in the next few days) were he learns of what he is accused, like other criminals? I'm sure he does. You can't hold the drunk indefinitely without telling him why he is being kept in jail, can you?

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

 

[Orwell]

No, and I would strongly resist passing any laws like that.

At the same time, do I lose sleep that some Australian Jihad Joe got nabbed in Pakistan and was sent to Egypt for questioning for six months?

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!

I can see why you think that, but I disagree. Bad things happen to people legally all the time, especially when it involves criminal law.

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.

Sure. It was still a legal process. Just the same as it's still "due process" if a man gets convicted of a crime for which he's innocent. Due process doesn't promise to be fair, just according to the legal process.

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

 

[Freakshow]

Well said? It was a vacuous, emotional comment devoid of any supporting facts whatsoever.

Well said?

Let's see: The Right's agenda is only designed to make themselves feel better by enslaving humanity to global corporations.

Well said, Mark.

I was actually referring to a very small set of individuals here, based on seeing many posts from them. I didn't mean my acceptance of Skeptic's statement to apply to everyone in the group he referred to. I understand how that could have been confusing, because I didn't clarify.

BTW...no, you aren't in the small set of people I was referring to.