Agog with news
I do not recall a more lively news day in the past six months. To start with:
Zarqawi's dead. Killed in a US air raid near Baquba, apparently, following tip-offs from civilians. So... live by the sword, die by the sword: he went around lopping civilians' heads off and he's had his comeuppance. I don't think there's much argument to be had around that. Number two...
Massive ructions at the UN! Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown has started something of a war of words with John Bolton about the way the UN is portrayed in the US media. He has apparently characterised the administration's position as hypocritical, in the sense that it uses the UN as a foreign policy tool, yet fails to defend it at home from the attacks of commentators such as Rush Limbaugh. Bolton's response is that this was the worst mistake by a senior UN official in his experience. Blimey. There's a few ins and outs here; the mainstream US media is frequently described as ultra-right wing, violently anti-UN, boorish and flagrantly misleading. I don't know, I've never watched it. Bolton, however, described MMB's speech as an attack on the American people. That seems to be overstating things, and is only going to fuel the inevitable, enormous backlash from said media. Parlous. Next!
Concessions! Appeasement! Inevitable repeat of 1939! Apparently the latest deal to be offered Iran is that they will be allowed to enrich uranium for their own reactors as long as there are credible assurances that the programme is peaceful. Apparently this is a "right" under the non-proliferation treaty, and with reference to an earlier comment on the blog, I don't see why this debate shouldn't have some input from the "rights" lexicon. Our system of independent nation states is founded upon the right of peoples to self-determination, after all. Anyway, this process looks likely to drag. I'd prefer it to drag indefinitely than there be a war - if we stall long enough there may even be a peaceful regime change. Continuing...
Google U-turn over China. They say they might have made a mistake. No, really? It was absurdly bad PR to strike that deal with the Chinese government, and Google will never look the same again. And finally,
We drink because we're stressed. These last two aren't really in the same league as the preceding ones, but this caught my attention: one third of men in the UK drink to drown out the stress of work. If I could afford to perhaps I would too. It's way too easy to get stressed about work, and frankly my only concern about the future (apart from nuclear holocaust/global climate meltdown) is that if I get promoted, it's gonna be worse.
Zarqawi's dead. Killed in a US air raid near Baquba, apparently, following tip-offs from civilians. So... live by the sword, die by the sword: he went around lopping civilians' heads off and he's had his comeuppance. I don't think there's much argument to be had around that. Number two...
Massive ructions at the UN! Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown has started something of a war of words with John Bolton about the way the UN is portrayed in the US media. He has apparently characterised the administration's position as hypocritical, in the sense that it uses the UN as a foreign policy tool, yet fails to defend it at home from the attacks of commentators such as Rush Limbaugh. Bolton's response is that this was the worst mistake by a senior UN official in his experience. Blimey. There's a few ins and outs here; the mainstream US media is frequently described as ultra-right wing, violently anti-UN, boorish and flagrantly misleading. I don't know, I've never watched it. Bolton, however, described MMB's speech as an attack on the American people. That seems to be overstating things, and is only going to fuel the inevitable, enormous backlash from said media. Parlous. Next!
Concessions! Appeasement! Inevitable repeat of 1939! Apparently the latest deal to be offered Iran is that they will be allowed to enrich uranium for their own reactors as long as there are credible assurances that the programme is peaceful. Apparently this is a "right" under the non-proliferation treaty, and with reference to an earlier comment on the blog, I don't see why this debate shouldn't have some input from the "rights" lexicon. Our system of independent nation states is founded upon the right of peoples to self-determination, after all. Anyway, this process looks likely to drag. I'd prefer it to drag indefinitely than there be a war - if we stall long enough there may even be a peaceful regime change. Continuing...
Google U-turn over China. They say they might have made a mistake. No, really? It was absurdly bad PR to strike that deal with the Chinese government, and Google will never look the same again. And finally,
We drink because we're stressed. These last two aren't really in the same league as the preceding ones, but this caught my attention: one third of men in the UK drink to drown out the stress of work. If I could afford to perhaps I would too. It's way too easy to get stressed about work, and frankly my only concern about the future (apart from nuclear holocaust/global climate meltdown) is that if I get promoted, it's gonna be worse.
posted by Peter at 08:26
23 Comments:
In addition to Peter's news briefing, I think a word should be said regarding the CIA prison relay in the ‘war on terror’. A report on the subject published yesterday and it is likely that some European states will face significant political pressures for their collaborative role in the matter. I have included an Editorial from the FT on the subject (because their site does not allow non-subscribers to view the article) and hope that the right to information trumps the copyright. I thank them for their understanding in this crucial matter.
In closing, I find it a dangerous sign that it takes a multinational body (the Council of Europe) to report on such blatant violations and that the guilty governments seem to be doing a good job of keeping this under wraps. Even more frightening, is the complete lack of resonance of this issue in the US, where violating human rights is increasingly seen as the best way to protect such rights. I think this behaviour is likely to suffer a significant backlash in the future.
Now the article:
The Financial Times
'Rendition' hypocrisy
Published: June 8 2006 03:00
Europe's foremost guardian of human rights yesterday painted a chilling picture of how more than a dozen European countries became part of a global "spider's web" spun by the US to kidnap and transport outside the reach of the law suspects in the "war on terror". Such lawless practices, including the outsourcing of torture to friendly despots, are spreading like a lethal virus.
They amount to a moral capitulation by liberal societies and a surrender of the rule of law in the face of jihadi totalitarianism. If we behave like this, what exactly are we defending?
The Council of Europe report, while not definitive, is devastating. Dick Marty, the Swiss legislator who led the inquiry, lacked the investigatory powers to compel and compile legally watertight evidence. But his dossier leaves no doubt about the archipelago of clandestine "black sites" run by the Central Intelligence Agency, of "enhanced" interrogation techniques, and of collusion by countries including the UK and Germany, Poland and Spain, Sweden, Turkey and much of the Balkans.
Many of the cases in the Marty report were known. But their presentation as a pattern called forth a storm of bluster and obfuscation from those implicated. The Bush administration is investigating how The Washington Post obtained classified information about clandestine CIA sites in eastern Europe last November. The Swiss are investigating the leak of an intercepted Egyptian government fax about the sites.
But rather than shooting the messenger they should look at the message the west is sending by betraying the values it urges on others, a hypocrisy in no way disguised by recourse to Orwellian legalisms such as "rendition".
The purpose of this practice, the Marty report is careful to underline, is not to transport suspects across borders within a recognised legal process but "to place captured terrorist suspects outside the reach of any justice system and keep them there".
The "ghost prisoners" of the "black sites" are now a grievance to be added to Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram. All this comes hard on the heels of news of a cover-up of an alleged US Marines massacre at Haditha in Iraq, and Pentagon attempts to excise Geneva Conventions protections for prisoners under interrogation from US army rules. It is getting hard to think of what more we can do to empower al-Qaeda.
We should not need to make the case against torture. It is morally depraved. It corrodes the society that condones it. It elicits largely worthless information. As Craig Murray, the UK envoy to Uzbekistan fired for denouncing Britain's use of CIA-supplied information extracted in Uzbek jails, put it: "We are selling our souls for dross."
Sandra Day O'Connor, the retired US Supreme Court justice, summed it up well when she said we "must not wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny".
God it's sad. The FT's use of "Orwellian" is apt. I have heard few more sinister terms than "enhanced interrogation."
I'm intrigued because the arguments sound very close indeed to moral absolutes, believers in which I did not think you were.
It’s not about moral absolutes...for me it is about coherence and consistency as a means to effective policy. Hypocrisy is transparent and only sacrifices credibility. Diplomacy depends on credibility. I support diplomacy and therefore am critical of hypocrisy. I think that such hypocrisy should also lead Americans to question the actual intentions of their leaders who speak of ‘spreading freedom and liberty.’ Finally, I believe in a system governed by rules/laws, the whole point of such rules is that they apply unconditionally and are not subject to the abuse of the strong.
What is your view on the CIA’s latest methods Kevin?
You may call it "consistency" and "not effective" if you wish, but as best I can tell you are arguing that some thing is presumptively wrong to do regardless of the circumstances. That's a moral absolute. Welcome to the ranks of natural lawyers; we're glad to have you.
Unless what you're saying is that all the U.S. need do to find itself once again in your good stead on this matter is change its stated policy to align with the actions alleged to have contravened that policy. That would, after all, relieve the perceived hypocrisy.
As for "rendition", I haven't had enough time to digest the facts to form an intelligent opinion (work is crazy). My instant reaction is that it's not subject to a moral absolute -- that use or not of "rendition" will depend on prudence. And prudence will include the subject being "rendered," the regime unto which he is "rendered," and the moral culpability of those doing the "rendering" for what happens after that point.
You may call it "consistency" and "not effective" if you wish, but as best I can tell you are arguing that some thing is presumptively wrong to do regardless of the circumstances. That's a moral absolute. Welcome to the ranks of natural lawyers; we're glad to have you.
Unless what you're saying is that all the U.S. need do to find itself once again in your good stead on this matter is change its stated policy to align with the actions alleged to have contravened that policy. That would, after all, relieve the perceived hypocrisy.
As for "rendition", I haven't had enough time to digest the facts to form an intelligent opinion (work is crazy). My instant reaction is that it's not subject to a moral absolute -- that use or not of "rendition" will depend on prudence. And prudence will include the subject being "rendered," the regime unto which he is "rendered," and the moral culpability of those doing the "rendering" for what happens after that point.
According to the argument I am trying to make, if the US changed its principles to align with its policy, it would be consistent and therefore acceptable. Unfortunately this would undermine the international system (setting us back quite a bit) and I think it would be quite unpopular at home. But at least is would not take us for idiots who do not see that current policy undermines the principles the US has defended since its inception.
If that's really the case and not just a clever position from which to debate, then we're a long way from being able to discuss much of anything in a meaningful way. I can't see any place to begin a conversation about CIA policy or U.S. foreign policy if you really do believe that any policy is acceptable so long as one does no more and no less than exactly what one aspires to. According to such bureaucratic logic, a genocidal regime that professes its genocide is "acceptable" as opposed to an "unacceptable" regime that professes justice and occasionally convicts an innocent man. That's simply absurd. There's no nontrivial common ground on which to hold a discussion.
Oh come on.
1) Germain, you don't actually think it would be acceptable for the US to condone torture.
2) Kevin, you clearly understand what Germain's getting at. The US is trying to have its cake and eat it - justifying the war on Iraq by saying it's removed a regime of terror, bringing terror to others by arranging for their torture.
BTW, Kevin, your earlier comment on rendition - use of rendition depends on prudence, etc. - was a great satire on Rumsfeldian rhetoric. I was reminded of the known unknowns.
Peter you are mostly right, however, it is because of Kevin’s extreme example that I said a shift in principles was less desirable than a shift in policy. Such a shift would undermine the ( Western/Judeo-Christian ideological) international system and therefore de-legitimize some of the principles I hold dear. But I would never pretend my principles to be universal or absolute.
The example itself is a fancy debating trick but in the case of the system based on 'justice' it ignores the fact that such a conviction can occur due to the necessarily imperfect nature of a legal system, while capturing people, loading them into planes that are re-fuelled and then shipping them to one of many sites for "enhanced interrogation" does not result form an imperfect legal system but from a conscious act of will holding such a system in contempt. The people doing this know it is in violation of the moral and legal codes they defend but some irrational notion of 'greater good' makes them think that they and only they have the right to ignore those codes to defend them. I think a moral absolutist should find that reprehensible and unjustifiable...
Speaking of justice and convictions, I do not understand how a man (Bush) can talk of a 'right to life' and defend capitol punishment in the same breath. The benefits of such punishment are clearly outweighed by the irreversible consequences of convicting and executing an innocent person, not, in my view, because of a right to life, but because they are innocent.
I'm trying to get at a couple of things that may have sent us down a rabbit trail (i.e. off track from the original post), but such is the course of discussion:
1. I don't think torture is subject to an absolute moral prohibition. There are natural-law types who disagree with me and most of us are not entirely confident in our answers. But if I'm right, then surely the perhaps-related-but-not-synonymous practice of rendition is also not subject to an absolute moral prohibition. You'll notice I've not addressed treaty or international legal concerns. Those would be calculations as to the prudence of an activity.
2. You guys both want to eat your cake and then still have it. If morality is just a matter of taste, like so much chocolate or vanilla ice cream, then there is no basis for asserting your opinion on matters of policy. Let me back up just a half step. It's quite because I take issues of morality seriously and because I accept that moral judgment can cross cultural lines that your opinions matter. You're intelligent, educated people whom I respect. If morality is just about taste and there are no absolutes and cultures are moral black boxes, then why would it be the case that we should have ANY reaction whatsoever to "rendition"? It would, in that case, be a morally neutral act of a state seeking effective security policy -- the only argument would be whether it was "effective" for the end of security. But you both exhibited visceral repulsions that belie any attempt to relegate the matter to such quotidian policy confines.
P.S. All this talk of cake and ice cream is making me hungry.
P.P.S. Pete, I'm quite sure a comparison to Rummy is the nicest thing anyone has said to me this week.
P.P.P.S. I'm happy to explain moral arguments in favor of capital punishment whenever, but I think it's probably best saved for a separate post or email. It's a terribly complex issue and one on which I'm not entirely confident of my position.
Hello again. I think it's important to make one thing absolutely clear: the use of torture is morally bankrupt and prohibted in International Law through the Torture Convention.
The UK Human Rights group LIBERTY is currently running a campaign of NO TORTURE, NO COMPROMISE.
There are some in the United States who are trying to make a case for the use of torture. Alan Dershowitz (who's at Harvard) published a book 4 years ago called 'Why Terrorism Works' in which he tried to build a legal framework to regulate the use of torture in "war on terror" situations. He has recently published a new book 'Preemption: a knife that cuts both ways' which is about pre-empive and preventive "targeted killing" (selective assassination).
Even the suggestion that the United States uses - or condones the use of - torture fundamentally undermines its legitimacy as the leader of the free world. I am not wholly convinced that US policy sanctions torture - do not believe everything you read in the Guardian! But there is a perception, especially in the Middle East, that Western Liberal Democracy is a sham and that we are no better than Saddam, Ahmadinejad or even the Taliban. It is the responsibility of people like us to make sure that our society holds true to its core values, even in the so-say 'exceptional circumstances' of the "war on terror".
I know this is a bit long but I think it's important for people to read this statement that Condoleezza Rice made just before flying to Europe (to discuss extraordinary rendition) in December 2005.
Secretary Condoleezza Rice
As-Aired
Andrews Air Force Base
December 5, 2005
(7:15 a.m. EST)
Good morning. We have received inquiries from the European Union, the Council of Europe, and from several individual countries about media reports concerning U.S. conduct in the war on terror. I am going to respond now to those inquiries, as I depart today for Europe. And this will also essentially form the text of the letter that I will send to Secretary Straw, who wrote on behalf of the European Union as the European Union President.
The United States and many other countries are waging a war against terrorism. For our country this war often takes the form of conventional military operations in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. Sometimes this is a political struggle, a war of ideas. It is a struggle waged also by our law enforcement agencies. Often we engage the enemy through the cooperation of our intelligence services with their foreign counterparts.
We must track down terrorists who seek refuge in areas where governments cannot take effective action, including where the terrorists cannot in practice be reached by the ordinary processes of law. In such places terrorists have planned the killings of thousands of innocents – in New York City or Nairobi, in Bali or London, in Madrid or Beslan, in Casablanca or Istanbul. Just two weeks ago I also visited a hotel ballroom in Amman, viewing the silent, shattered aftermath of one of those attacks.
The United States, and those countries that share the commitment to defend their citizens, will use every lawful weapon to defeat these terrorists. Protecting citizens is the first and oldest duty of any government. Sometimes these efforts are misunderstood. I want to help all of you understand the hard choices involved, and some of the responsibilities that go with them.
One of the difficult issues in this new kind of conflict is what to do with captured individuals who we know or believe to be terrorists. The individuals come from many countries and are often captured far from their original homes. Among them are those who are effectively stateless, owing allegiance only to the extremist cause of transnational terrorism. Many are extremely dangerous. And some have information that may save lives, perhaps even thousands of lives.
The captured terrorists of the 21st century do not fit easily into traditional systems of criminal or military justice, which were designed for different needs. We have to adapt. Other governments are now also facing this challenge.
We consider the captured members of al-Qaida and its affiliates to be unlawful combatants who may be held, in accordance with the law of war, to keep them from killing innocents. We must treat them in accordance with our laws, which reflect the values of the American people. We must question them to gather potentially significant, life-saving, intelligence. We must bring terrorists to justice wherever possible.
For decades, the United States and other countries have used "renditions" to transport terrorist suspects from the country where they were captured to their home country or to other countries where they can be questioned, held, or brought to justice.
In some situations a terrorist suspect can be extradited according to traditional judicial procedures. But there have long been many other cases where, for some reason, the local government cannot detain or prosecute a suspect, and traditional extradition is not a good option. In those cases the local government can make the sovereign choice to cooperate in a rendition. Such renditions are permissible under international law and are consistent with the responsibilities of those governments to protect their citizens.
Rendition is a vital tool in combating transnational terrorism. Its use is not unique to the United States, or to the current administration. Last year, then Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet recalled that our earlier counterterrorism successes included "the rendition of many dozens of terrorists prior to September 11, 2001."
-- Ramzi Youssef masterminded the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and plotted to blow up airlines over the Pacific Ocean, killing a Japanese airline passenger in a test of one of his bombs. Once tracked down, a rendition brought him to the United States, where he now serves a life sentence.
-- One of history’s most infamous terrorists, best known as "Carlos the Jackal," had participated in murders in Europe and the Middle East. He was finally captured in Sudan in 1994. A rendition by the French government brought him to justice in France, where he is now imprisoned. Indeed, the European Commission of Human Rights rejected Carlos’ claim that his rendition from Sudan was unlawful.
Renditions take terrorists out of action, and save lives.
In conducting such renditions, it is the policy of the United States, and I presume of any other democracies who use this procedure, to comply with its laws and comply with its treaty obligations, including those under the Convention Against Torture. Torture is a term that is defined by law. We rely on our law to govern our operations. The United States does not permit, tolerate, or condone torture under any circumstances. Moreover, in accordance with the policy of this administration:
-- The United States has respected -- and will continue to respect -- the sovereignty of other countries.
-- The United States does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture.
-- The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured.
-- The United States has not transported anyone, and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured.
International law allows a state to detain enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities. Detainees may only be held for an extended period if the intelligence or other evidence against them has been carefully evaluated and supports a determination that detention is lawful. The U.S. does not seek to hold anyone for a period beyond what is necessary to evaluate the intelligence or other evidence against them, prevent further acts of terrorism, or hold them for legal proceedings.
With respect to detainees, the United States Government complies with its Constitution, its laws, and its treaty obligations. Acts of physical or mental torture are expressly prohibited. The United States Government does not authorize or condone torture of detainees. Torture, and conspiracy to commit torture, are crimes under U.S. law, wherever they may occur in the world.
Violations of these and other detention standards have been investigated and punished. There have been cases of unlawful treatment of detainees, such as the abuse of a detainee by an intelligence agency contractor in Afghanistan or the horrible mistreatment of some prisoners at Abu Ghraib that sickened us all and which arose under the different legal framework that applies to armed conflict in Iraq. In such casesthe United States has vigorously investigated, and where appropriate, prosecuted and punished those responsible. Some individuals have already been sentenced to lengthy terms in prison; others have been demoted or reprimanded.
As CIA Director Goss recently stated, our intelligence agencies have handled the gathering of intelligence from a very small number of extremely dangerous detainees, including the individuals who planned the 9/11 attacks in the United States, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and many other murders and attempted murders. It is the policy of the United States that this questioning is to be conducted within U.S. law and treaty obligations, without using torture. It is also U.S. policy that authorized interrogation will be consistent with U.S. obligations under the Convention Against Torture, which prohibit cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The intelligence so gathered has stopped terrorist attacks and saved innocent lives – in Europe as well as in the United States and other countries. The United States has fully respected the sovereignty of other countries that cooperate in these matters.
Because this war on terrorism challenges traditional norms and precedents of previous conflicts, our citizens have been discussing and debating the proper legal standards that should apply. President Bush is working with the U.S. Congress to come up with good solutions. I want to emphasize a few key points.
-- The United States is a country of laws. My colleagues and I have sworn to support and
defend the Constitution of the United States. We believe in the rule of law.
-- The United States Government must protect its citizens. We and our friends around the world have the responsibility to work together in finding practical ways to defend ourselves against ruthless enemies. And these terrorists are some of the most ruthless enemies we face.
-- We cannot discuss information that would compromise the success of intelligence, law enforcement, and military operations. We expect that other nations share this view.
Some governments choose to cooperate with the United States in intelligence, law enforcement, or military matters. That cooperation is a two-way street. We share intelligence that has helped protect European countries from attack, helping save European lives.
It is up to those governments and their citizens to decide if they wish to work with us to prevent terrorist attacks against their own country or other countries, and decide how much sensitive information they can make public. They have a sovereign right to make that choice.
Debate in and among democracies is natural and healthy. I hope that that debate also includes a healthy regard for the responsibilities of governments to protect their citizens.
Four years after September 11, most of our populations are asking us if we are doing all that we can to protect them. I know what it is like to face an inquiry into whether everything was done that could have been done. So now, before the next attack, we should all consider the hard choices that democratic governments must face. And we can all best meet this danger if we work together.
Thank you.
2005/1130 (FINAL)
Released on December 5, 2005
I, like many today, have trouble taking official statements from the US Administration on face value; it's unfortunate but its true. I also wonder why the Council of Europe would criticize the rendition programme if its implementation fully respected international agreements. Finally, if the US is fighting the war on terror while respecting human rights as per their legal and moral engagements, then why does Ms Rice claim that we need to adapt to this 'new kind of conflict' (which in fact is not all that new)? In other words, if the fight against terrorism is sucessul all the while respecting treaties and laws, then why is there is need for adapting? Is it perhaps because those who are captured are not given full recourse to a legal system? Is it because they are detained in unacceptable conditions? Is it because they are sent to countries where they happen to be tortured by mistake? In short, I find this kind of sensationalist and exagerated rhetoric to be very dangerous and acting upon it threatens the integrity of the liberty, freedom, and democracy the US is claiming to defend.
Kevin, I am quite surprised that, for you, torture is not "subject to an absolute moral prohibition." I wonder, then, what would be subject to such a prohibition, other than killing.
As for chocolate and vanilla, well the only point I am making is that if you say you prefer chocolate and tell your friends ('the people') that, than it can only surprise them when you end up choosing vanilla. It is even more surprising if you choose vanilla and insist that it is in fact chocolate.
Henry: it's begging the question to assert that terrorism is morally bankrupt and provide no argument to support that claim.
Germain: Well, as it happens, killing is not prohibited by a moral absolute either. And it's not about whether it's that way "for me" but whether it really is that way.
Sure, I'd be surprised if you said you preferred vanilla and ate chocolate, but I would not have any reaction resembling the one you and Peter have had to the allegations about U.S. policy. I can only conclude that both of you really do not think this is simply a matter of asserting a consistent preference. Some things are objectively right and others wrong, and your reactions belie any claim you make to the contrary. And there are other fundamental problems with the supposition of morality as merely the codification of personal preferences. It holds only so long as what I like/want matches up with what I think is right. What happens to the position when I say, "I don't like X and don't want to do X, but X is the right thing to do?" It dissolves before our very eyes.
Ok well I am happy to know that I can contradict myself when it comes to ice-cream but to me that was a metaphor for torture vs human rights; in which case I like to think that the reaction to a contradiction would be quite a bit stronger from anyone purporting to value human life.
I do not know for Peter but I refuse to allow you consistently try to place me into your vision of the world. I am not a moral absolutist and so I speak deliberately when I say 'how things are for you' and refuse the view that things just are! You can continue to criticise my position and disagree with me but please do not take our disagreement as though it were your victory de facto.
My personal values would be offended by a US policy of torture. But if the US did not espouse laws and values against such treatment, it would be much harder for me to criticize them. At that point I could only criticize on the basis of my own principles, presently I can criticize on the basis that they contradict their own principles, and mislead their public. Such visible hypocrisy also short-circuits the effectiveness of US and Western foreign policy objectives and needlessly costs human lives. It is a counter-productive policy, as the FT article attempted to demonstrate.
Hypocrisy's a thin reed on which to base your criticism of the U.S. Again, it puts your right back where neither Peter nor I believe you really are -- in a position of saying that if only the U.S.'s stated policy matched its alleged actions, all would be strawberries and cream and you would have no rational basis for criticism. After all, why should someone else's government's transgression of your unjustified, randomly chosen, otherwise-meaningless values be an issue? Why would it matter?
Kevin: I do not see how you can question the idea that 'torture is morally bankrupt'?
It is not only morally wrong, it is illegal in both International Law (1984 Convention Against Torture) and in the domestic law of every UN member state (although practices may obviously be very different to law). Torture is also likely to be counter-productive in terms of the 'war on terror' because people inevitably say what their 'interrogators' want to hear, instead of providing meaningful intelligence. If torture worked, and the US had been using it since 9/11 (or even before), surely we would have already captured Bin Laden?
Regarding the Rice statement, are any of you lawyers? I think the statement is an interesting document because it contains both clear assertions such as:
'The United States Government does not authorize or condone torture of detainees. Torture, and conspiracy to commit torture, are crimes under U.S. law, wherever they may occur in the world.'
But is also ambigious because it fails to define exactly what we mean by 'torture'. Since 9/11 US government lawyers have narrowed the definition of torture in order to make some practices (e.g. 'water boarding') no longer illegal at least in terms of US law (although it is arguably still prohibited under the terms of the 1984 Convention Against Torture).
I strongly believe that to sanction or condone the use of torture in any context is morally wrong and politically retarded. On what possible grounds can you justify torture?
First, I agree with Henry, I believe torture to be morally wrong. But, and Ill say it a third time, I also believe that if the US decided to openly condone such a practice, I could criticize them on moral grounds rather than legal ones. Such a moral ground is a weaker position to argue from because, as you know, I do not believe that morality is universal.
The problem here Kevin, and I think you are being slightly insincere in not acknowledging it, is that the US claims its values (liberty, freedom, democracy...human rights) to be universal and justifies its actions on this basis all the while violating its own principles (Henry is correct to highlight the re-definition of 'torture' as a dubious and dishonest game to play).
Thus, the Administration is not only lying to the people it claims to represent, contradicting its own stated 'core' values, and offending my personal moral beliefs, but, more importantly, it is undermining an international legal system which it established based on its own values while trying to convince us that this is not the case. Thin reed; really?
Henry: Again, you haven't offered any argument to back the assertion that torture is absolutely morally prohibited. Make your argument and maybe it will be so compelling that I'll change my mind.
Also, you've gotten some of the facts wrong, i.e. intense interrogation (some of which may be regarded as torture pending definitional matters) has yielded a bounty of valuable intelligence since 9/11. Just Google for stories about the capture of KSM and some of the info the U.S. obtained from him. But the practical matter would be irrelevant if you're right and the practice is subject to an absolute moral prohibition.
Germain: Yes, hypocrisy is a mighty thin reed, not least because it is a charge that can be leveled at nearly any country, e.g. France professes to be against unilateral military action, but frequently gets involved in Africa unilaterally and without UN endorsement. Also because, on principle, instances of falling short of the virtues to which we aspire do not negate our other attempts to uphold them. Forgive me if because of that I find breathless accusations of hypocrisy pretty boring. That is, sure, I'll admit that not only is the U.S. hypocritical, so am I. It's the nature of being human or a human institution. So now what?
And another question: why is it a matter of importance that U.S. policy violates what you regard as merely your personal, arbitrary, contingent, perspectivist moral "values"?
Well Kevin we are spinning in circles. My point goes much further than hypocracy but you refuse to see how. I never once claimed France was a shining example in terms of foreign policy but we do not invade countries on inconclusive evidence.
As for the information gathered from torture, intense interrorigation or whatever PC term you veil the disregard of the values the US claims to uphold, I do not think it justifies overiding principles one person or one society defends. You know you have principles when you stand behind them when they are most at risk. But I, AGAIN, am repeating myself, and I assume that you, AGAIN, will not be convinced. History (if documents stop being re-classified) will show how this all ends, even if we unfortunately may not live long enough to know who owes who a pint when faced with the result.
I remain surprised and somewhat disappointed that (some) moral absolutists are not against torture and killing; then again I suppose that may be part of the reason why I am not one of them...
Germain, among the logical fallacies you have engaged I count ad hominem, category error, equivocation, missing premises, begging the question, and out-and-out not understanding a philosophical theory you rail against (not to mention those you seem to endorse). What else did you expect me to do except repeat myself until we reach understanding? What else should I do?
You want to make strong accusations, but you cannot justify them rationally. You take strong philosophical positions, but they always collapse into a rat's nest of incoherent assertions.
That's why I push harder and harder on the same points. I'm trying to follow them out to their logical ends.
Thanks for your generous and critical help Kevin, I hope that you will not hold my disregard for the rules of logic 101 or my inability to comprehend your criticisms against me, I just may not be that smart.
I hope that you will one day show me how to construct a proper argument.
In the meantime I will have to continue living in my rats nest not even understanding what it is that I am saying...I suppose ignorance is bliss.
Post a Comment
<< Home