Salmon Rushdie on "Extraordinary Rendition"

Freakshow said:
Well said.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Orwell said:
No. Would you?
Click to expand...
In Mycroft's case, it would depend if the subject of torture were friendly or hostile towards Israel. Or any of the other causes Mycroft supports.

On a different subject: do we have sufficient evidence to conclude that Freakshow is in fact a dittohead?
 
Skeptic said:
Is that relevant? It's not as if the bien pensant crowd had ever stopped from expressing their strong distaste of perfectly domestic US issues, either, from the death penalty to race relations to spending on health care. Their anger and outrage is not due to the US is doing something that is "a global issue", but simply because the US is doing something they disagree with.

Oh, BTW: Salmon Rushdie??? Is that William Flounder's friend?
Click to expand...
D'oh, a misspelling on the internet, how odd. Isn't bien-pensant normally hyphenated?

I think his arch enemy was Baron Barracuda.
(pictured here opposite Miss Minerva, from the Diver Dan tv show)
baron1.jpg


IIRC, the other one is called Trigger Fish.
 
Orwell said:
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!
Click to expand...

I think you are nursing an untruth. I obviously doesn't work in all cases and depends a great deal on the skill of the interrogator. I don't think it works as well on religious fanatics. But to make a blanket statement that it doesn't work at all is deceiving no one but yourself.

"I thought they were bluffing and refused to provide any information beyond my name, rank and serial number, and date of birth. They knocked me around a little to force my cooperation."
The punishment finally worked, McCain said. "Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant."

Recalling how he gave up military information to his interrogators, McCain said: "I regret very much having done so. The information was of no real use to the Vietnamese, but the Code of Conduct for American Prisoners of War orders us to refrain from providing any information beyond our names, rank and serial number."
John McCain: Torture Worked on Me
Click to expand...

In all honesty, I don't care what we do with non-uniformed combatants found on the battle field. Torture them and then shoot them and set them on fire.

I have a strong objection to the kidnapping and/or torture of nationals of other sovereign nations.
 
peptoabysmal said:
I think you are nursing an untruth. I obviously doesn't work in all cases and depends a great deal on the skill of the interrogator. I don't think it works as well on religious fanatics. But to make a blanket statement that it doesn't work at all is deceiving no one but yourself.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that it "doesn't work at all". I said:"I am convinced that torture is simply not a good way of getting reliable information. " That is, I believe that information obtained by torture is unreliable, i.e. not worthy of reliance or trust. That doesn't mean that I believe that all information obtained by torture is false. It means that, since you obtained it by torture, you can't assume that it will be true, since the process itself can produce lies: anyone under enough torture will say just about anything.
 
Orwell said:
I didn't say that it "doesn't work at all". I said:"I am convinced that torture is simply not a good way of getting reliable information. " That is, I believe that information obtained by torture is unreliable, i.e. not worthy of reliance or trust. That doesn't mean that I believe that all information obtained by torture is false. It means that, since you obtained it by torture, you can't assume that it will be true, since the process itself can produce lies: anyone under enough torture will say just about anything.
Click to expand...

When the information that is sought is verifiable, reliability goes way up, the cost of being told lies goes way down, and you can repeat the process if necessary. So that argument doesn't relieve you of the burden of how to handle torture which is effective.
 
Ziggurat said:
When the information that is sought is verifiable, reliability goes way up, the cost of being told lies goes way down, and you can repeat the process if necessary. So that argument doesn't relieve you of the burden of how to handle torture which is effective.
Click to expand...

Nuking the entire world sterile would be effective. But is it the best solution? Effective and best are not synonyms.
 
Mark said:
Nuking the entire world sterile would be effective. But is it the best solution? Effective and best are not synonyms.
Click to expand...

Sure. I did not argue that effectiveness alone meant that it was preferable. My point, and my only point, in the above is that it's a copout to argue that we should never torture because torture never works, because torture CAN work. There's no clean escape from the difficult moral question of whether and when to use torture. Just as we must ask "can torture be justified since committing it is a terrible act?", we must also ask "can refraining torture be justified when the information it could obtain is incredibly necessary and urgent?" I don't believe either question has a simple answer, and I do not expect everyone's answers to be the same either.
 
Ziggurat said:
Sure. I did not argue that effectiveness alone meant that it was preferable. My point, and my only point, in the above is that it's a copout to argue that we should never torture because torture never works, because torture CAN work. There's no clean escape from the difficult moral question of whether and when to use torture. Just as we must ask "can torture be justified since committing it is a terrible act?", we must also ask "can refraining torture be justified when the information it could obtain is incredibly necessary and urgent?" I don't believe either question has a simple answer, and I do not expect everyone's answers to be the same either.
Click to expand...

While I can imagine extreme cases where torture might be necessary, as a general policy it should not be allowed for the simple reason that it lowers us to the worst levels of our enemies. We are supposed to be better than they are. And if we are not, what is the point?
 
Ziggurat said:
When the information that is sought is verifiable, reliability goes way up, the cost of being told lies goes way down, and you can repeat the process if necessary. So that argument doesn't relieve you of the burden of how to handle torture which is effective.
Click to expand...
I never said that torture never works: I said that it isn't good way of getting reliable information. As you pointed out, you need to verify the information obtained under torture. You are implicitly accepting that torture, as a method of obtaining information, is unreliable.

If I'm not mistaken, in most western nations, if a lawyer manages to convince a judge that his client confessed under torture, the confession is automatically thrown out.

Besides, even if torture provided reliable information under some conditions, I would still pretty much be relieved "of the burden of how to handle torture which is effective" by the simple fact that I think torture is unethical.
 
Last edited:
Orwell said:
I never said that torture never works: I said that it isn't good way of getting reliable information. As you pointed out, you need to verify the information obtained under torture. You are implicitly accepting that torture, as a method of obtaining information, is unreliable.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. Every method of information gathering is subject to error. Furthermore, the real comparison is how reliable is torture compared to the available alternatives. And in situations where the only alternative is asking nicely, then torture may in fact be more reliable.

If I'm not mistaken, in most western nations, if a lawyer manages to convince a judge that his client confessed under torture, the confession is automatically thrown out.
Click to expand...

Sure. But the value of a confession in such a criminal case comes precisely from the fact that it is not verifiable (that is, the confession itself is the only proof of guilt). The most successful uses of torture are in situations where the information obtained IS verifiable, and when that information is then verified.

Besides, even if torture provided reliable information under some conditions, I would still pretty much be relieved "of the burden of how to handle torture which is effective" by the simple fact that I think torture is unethical.
Click to expand...

That's a copout too. It's also unethical to not act to save people's lives. When the question becomes one of possibly saving lives versus committing torture, there simply are no easy answers, much as you would like to pretend otherwise.
 
Another classical "ends vs. means" discussion. If you believe that the ends can justify the means, then it is quite easy to come up with circumstances that justify torture. If you don't believe the ends can justify the means, then I don't think you'll find any such circumstances. My personal ethics are against the "ends justify means" belief. I happen to be of the opinion that rotten "means" tend to produce rotten "ends".

Another ethical hang-up I have about torture is that it excludes due process, which is the means how you figure out if someone is guilty or innocent. I figure that if torture isn't allowed in criminal cases, it should be allowed when dealing with terrorism.

I don't take very seriously the claims about torture "saving lives". How many lives did Guantanamo and Abu Grhaib save exactly? Which "successful uses of torture" are you talking about, Zig? Even if someone manages to prove a verifiable case were torture saved some lives, they will still need to demonstrate that torture, in the long run, was responsible for more good than bad. As i said above, I happen to be of the opinion that rotten "means" tend to produce rotten "ends".

If the US gov. wants to be perceived as the good guys, it should strive for the high-ground. Just think of the damage to US image caused by all of these torture allegations!
 
Last edited:
Melendwyr said:
In Mycroft's case, it would depend if the subject of torture were friendly or hostile towards Israel. Or any of the other causes Mycroft supports.

On a different subject: do we have sufficient evidence to conclude that Freakshow is in fact a dittohead?
Click to expand...

Have you given up entirely on arguing the points raised and have settled entirely on ad hominem attacks instead?
 
Mark said:
While I can imagine extreme cases where torture might be necessary, as a general policy it should not be allowed for the simple reason that it lowers us to the worst levels of our enemies. We are supposed to be better than they are. And if we are not, what is the point?
Click to expand...

I think that argument presumes that choice of methods is the only thing that can distinguish us from potential enemies, and thus it's wrong.
 
Orwell said:
If I'm not mistaken, in most western nations, if a lawyer manages to convince a judge that his client confessed under torture, the confession is automatically thrown out.
Click to expand...

Sure, but that's not because the information isn't true, it's because it was gained by incorrect procedure. There are many circumstances where perfectly valid evidence may be suppressed.
 
Mycroft said:
Sure, but that's not because the information isn't true, it's because it was gained by incorrect procedure. There are many circumstances where perfectly valid evidence may be suppressed.
Click to expand...

And the procedure is incorrect because it doesn't follow due process.
Another ethical hang-up I have about torture is that it excludes due process, which is the means how you figure out if someone is guilty or innocent. I figure that if torture isn't allowed in criminal cases, it shouldn't be allowed when dealing with terrorism.
Click to expand...
By the way, I just noticed that I made a typo on that last phrase I'm quoting. It should read "shouldn't be allowed when dealing with terrorism", obviously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom