Further to recent comments on the ideological disdain of territory, this may be relevant. Over at Harry’s Place, David T says something I find bizarre. In discussing the Nassim Saadi deportation case and its broader implications, he says,
I think it is quite right that we should not deport individuals to countries where they will be tortured. A country which deports – or even connives in the rendition of – a person who they know or suspect will be tortured bears moral responsibility for any torture which takes place. If you oppose torture in all circumstances, as you should, then it does not do to argue that your country bears no guilt for what happens after deportation.
This is quite a remarkable bundle of claims and one that’s often asserted wholesale rather than argued. Why doesn’t it do? One might, for instance, take the view that a person of foreign citizenship convicted of serious crimes, whether they include terrorism or not, has broken a fundamental covenant with the host society. And thus, one might argue, the conditional protections extended to visitors by that society are forfeit. Tax payers could conceivably have moral objections to paying for the food, medicines and accommodation of foreign prisoners intent on doing them harm, and possibly spreading their intentions among others, either in prison or at large.
In light of that, expulsion from the host society seems a not unreasonable consequence and certainly within the realm of consideration. If a person facing expulsion runs the risk of ill-treatment, even torture, by third parties overseas, it’s not exactly clear why that should imply some vicarious moral responsibility. (Though one could argue it may discourage foreign nationals from committing serious crimes in the first place.) Awareness that such acts may or may not take place in other countries doesn’t imply that one condones those acts. It merely implies one no longer feels an obligation to protect an unwelcome and hostile visitor from the actions of third parties. Indeed, in instances of egregious criminality, including terrorism and attempted terrorism, I suspect quite a few people would be happy to see the perpetrators dropped into international waters and allowed to fend for themselves, to whatever extent they can.
Update: More in the comments.
Update 2: Over at Harry’s Place, Brett Lock is angry.
I am angry because there is more public debate about the rights of terrorists and criminals facing deportation than there seems to be for genuine, innocent and vulnerable people.
I wonder whether legitimate asylum seekers might fare better in their applications, and their welcome, if the broader public was reassured that visitors who abuse such favours could be expelled without great difficulty.
The only core western value is reciprocity.
They want to harm us, so we should have no qualms about what harm awaits them when returned.
“I think that if we are to argue for the superiority of western values, then we shouldn’t compromise them when it suits us.”
Nor should we be lily-livered bleeding hearts in our defence of them.
“There’s also the not insignificant issue of cost. Monitoring of such individuals isn’t exactly cheap and nor is confinement, and both carry risks. I’m not convinced that your concern for the wellbeing of such people justifies the expense and inconvenience (let alone the risks) that their presence entails.”
You cannot avoid the discussion of what threshold of threat or evidence warrants deportation of a ‘suspect’ by a government to another when human rights are a concern. I think Matt has pointed this out quite clearly. The obvious cases are, well, obvious. What about when this practice becomes a mere convenience for the government and is no longer questioned? Or when the foreign government begins to provide torture services to your government? Can’t do him here, get him done there kind of thing. There are a myriad of examples of this in commissions at the moment. Bad business, costing taxpayers here a f*cking fortune.
The death penalty is also an apt moral comparison. If someone commits a murder in your country do you extradite him to face the death penalty when the penalty where the crime has been committed is life in prison? Remember that it is our own standard of justice that matters, not *theirs* whoever *they* may be.
Brendan,
“The obvious cases are, well, obvious.”
Not obvious enough, I think, as recent cases seem to demonstrate. They should be obvious, of course, but sometimes clarity is avoided for reasons of vanity – of wishing to appear high-minded and compassionate. That, or the obvious can be snarled in legalese – the moral assumptions of which are not always clear, or indeed agreeable. There’s also the issue of laws that seriously impact on this country, but which the electorate is not, it seems, involved in framing.
“What about when this practice becomes a mere convenience for the government and is no longer questioned? Or when the foreign government begins to provide torture services to your government?”
Fair points. Threshold is everything. I doubt anyone here is in favour of the government being able to expel foreign nationals on a whim or based on someone’s bad mood; but that’s not quite the situation we’re discussing. As I understand it (and here I defer to any lawyers among us), it’s remarkably difficult to expel people who’ve betrayed their welcome and pose a serious threat if there’s a possibility of their subsequently being abused by a third party. I suspect this arrangement jars somewhat with popular sensibilities and a sense of what is just.
Jamie,
“I think that if we are to argue for the superiority of western values, then we shouldn’t compromise them when it suits us. It’s not about what they deserve. It’s about what makes us better than them.”
Again, a good point. But the issue is whether this kind of extended sympathy and forbearance is in fact a “Western value” or one we wish to have; and whether protecting at considerable expense and risk those who wish us harm is actually a mark of moral superiority, or something less noble. Clearly, it’s seen by many of our enemies as an opportunity and a sign of weakness, as it often is – tactically, at least. Is our moral standing compromised by expelling self-declared foreign enemies, or is it compromised by an urge to *look* high-minded regardless of the consequences for our own security and cohesion? Where does such forbearance and sympathy lead if our aggressor will definitely not reciprocate? If I turf out my hostile houseguest and leave him to his fate, whatever that may be, do I really become morally inferior? And if so, how?
David,
I think the question of how best to deal with foreign terrorists is a complex one that’s a little beyond my ability.
The only point I would make is that, whatever action is taken, it should chosen in as calm and rational a manner as possible. Some people here seem to think that the primary concern of the government should be to provide catharsis for the general public – inflicting the worst possible treatment on terrorists so that we might feel better about things, having vented the rage and anguish inside us. Leaving aside any moral objections (of which I believe there are some), it seems the most ineffective method of dealing with terrorism and a seriously dangerous habit to encourage in government. Imagine policy being determined by ‘The Sun’.
While deporting individuals to countries which engage in terrorism may be, in some circumstances, the best possible option. It does us no good to turn a blind eye to such practices (let alone encourage them) – which not only corrupt governments but also creates alienation in their populations, setting up a breeding ground for terrorist groups and the like, which ultimately threatens our own interests.
My objection to torture (and a refusal to condemn it where possible) is based not on any real concern for terrorists, but on enlightened self-interest.
“Some people here seem to think that the primary concern of the government should be to provide catharsis for the general public – inflicting the worst possible treatment on terrorists so that we might feel better about things, having vented the rage and anguish inside us.”
I would counter that some people here seem to want to hide their own sqeamishness behind behind sophistic phrases like “enlightened self interest”.
“calm and rational”. “inflicting the worst possible treatment”, “vented the rage and anguish inside us”, “Policy set by “The Sun”.
How subtley “identity politics” of you to attempt to dismiss views different to your own by attaching these sorts of code words and thereby deligitimize them.
How elitist: “Imagine policy being determined by ‘The Sun’.” The last time I heard a line like that was on one of Rory Bremners “Islington Dinner Party” sketches.
Imagine poor people having a say in running things/Imagine uneducated people having a say in running things/Imagine policy being determined by The Guardian etc…..
So – anyone opposed to your position is an enraged Sun reading unenlightened teroroist encourager?
Matt,
“Imagine policy being determined by ‘The Sun’.”
Or indeed the Guardian. It’s easy to recoil loftily from whatever Sun readers may want and it’s easy to dismiss the urge to deport foreign villains as emotional, cathartic or somehow less refined. (No doubt the words “Daily Mail” and “rightwing” are lurking somewhere in the bushes.) But unless we’re clear about *why* those hypothetical Sun readers are wrong, we’re left with little more than snobbery dressed up as refinement.
Deporting foreign nationals who clearly wish us harm doesn’t constitute “inflicting the worst possible treatment on terrorists” unless one has the most delicate of sensibilities or a very limited imagination. Nor is the preference for deportation necessarily based on pleasing the crowd or “venting rage” or “feeling better about things.” And whether or not deportation is “ineffective” has yet to be established (though the policy of protecting our enemies from third parties has some rather serious flaws).
As The Thin Man suggested earlier, the possibility of an enemy’s misfortune at the hands of others is not necessarily something one should fret about or shy from or regard as immoral. There is a notion of justice in those who wish to do us harm having a seriously bad day, and it can be arrived at by perfectly calm and rational means. Forgetting this, or pretending to be above it, seems unwise.
Thin Man,
“I would counter that some people here seem to want to hide their own sqeamishness behind behind sophistic phrases like “enlightened self interest”.”
The government does not exist to make you feel good.
If someone could prove to me that torture did more good than harm then I would support it. So far the evidence seems to suggest that not only is it ineffective but it also has a corrosive effect on states which practice it – Promoting the view that individuals are simply a means to an end. A government which has no qualms about torturing its citizens is unlikely to worry too much about basic things such as civil liberties – Which I regard as rather important.
That you dismiss enlightened self-interest so easily is pretty pathetic. I’m sure that jumping up and down in a rage while shouting at the world around you is quite enjoyable, but it’s a slightly questionable way of running a country. Don’t you think? Nor do I really need “code words” – as such a stance, throwing away reason as it does, has never bothered to legitimise itself in the first place.
“Imagine poor people having a say in running things/Imagine uneducated people having a say in running things/Imagine policy being determined by The Guardian etc…..”
So… poor people are irrational and, to borrow a phrase, emotionally incontinent? And are you really suggesting that it isn’t legitimate to regard the “uneducated” as possibly *not* the best people to be deciding policy?
I suggest that next time you try counting to ten before posting.
David,
“But unless we’re clear about *why* those hypothetical Sun readers are wrong”
I believe I was quite clear – I’m opposed to policy based on emotion rather than reason, as I don’t believe it’s in our best interest (as it often fails to consider the consequences). Nor have I ever said that there aren’t rational grounds for deportation.
Matt,
“I believe I was quite clear…”
Then I suggest you re-read this thread at some later date. For instance, you’re once again conflating a preference for deportation with unthinking emotionalism, and you’re conflating the deportation of foreign self-declared enemies with an affirmation of torture. As we’ve shown umpteen times, one doesn’t necessarily imply the other. No-one here is championing the use of torture. But an aversion to torture shouldn’t make it impossible for a society to expel those who may do much worse given half a chance. Again, deportation in these circumstances merely signifies that a hostile visitor’s protection from foreign adversity has been rescinded – and for very good reasons.
As you pointed out, torture is unreliable as a means of extracting information and it’s not exactly an ideal tool, except perhaps for sadists. But the aversion to torture “in all circumstances” has for many become a kind of shibboleth – an absolute marker of being A Good Person, or being seen to be one. Logically, the “in all circumstances” bit doesn’t hold up very well, as we’ve already discussed. No-one wants to be seen as being in *favour* of torture – it’s a hard sell, to say the very least. But avoiding any possibility of it being done by third parties to an enemy who wants to harm us leads to other, arguably more pressing, moral problems.
David,
“you’re once again conflating a preference for deportation with unthinking emotionalism”
By saying that there are rational grounds for deportation?
“But an aversion to torture shouldn’t make it impossible for a society to expel those who may do much worse given half a chance.”
Which I believe is pretty much what I’ve said various times on this thread.
“Again, deportation in these circumstances merely signifies that a hostile visitor’s protection from foreign adversity has been rescinded – and for very good reasons.”
This is where we disagree – As I see it, what happens to the individual after they’ve been deported *is* the state’s concern, as it’s a consequence of making that decision. It cannot simply wash its hands of the matter. The state is responsible for its actions.
Matt
I have NEVER claimed that the Government exists to make me feel good.
I also find it interesting that you continue to assert that my views must be somehow motivated by rage. They are not. These views have been arrived at calmly and with no little consideration. I am not jumping up and down shouting at the world. I am perfectly at rest. I have not thrown away reason – reason motivates my choices. Reason to me says that you do not protect the innocent and good by allowing the guilty and evil to survive.
I simply accept that violence is sometimes required of good people in order that the world does not descend into chaos and anarchy. In order for good to thrive, evil must be destroyed. And if the facility exists to “outsource” that violence so much the better.
Should outsourcing not be available, I am fully prepared to see such people executed right here in the UK.
Matt,
“By saying that there are rational grounds for deportation?”
Again, you may want to re-read your own posts, which are more shifting and ambiguous than you seem to realise. For instance, in response to the subject of deportation, you said, “If someone could prove to me that torture did more good than harm then I would support it.” This suggests a conflation of the preference for deportation with torture or its affirmation. Likewise, you said, “Nor have I ever said that there aren’t rational grounds for deportation.” Yet you’ve rather hurriedly characterised the endorsement of deportation as either constituting “the worst possible treatment of terrorists” or as being driven by an urge to do just that, or as “venting rage”, “feeling better about things”, etc.
Hence the confusion.
Thin Man,
“I also find it interesting that you continue to assert that my views must be somehow motivated by rage.”
This “assertion” is based on the fact that you seem to have difficulty with my argument that policy decisions should be calm and rational rather than emotionally-driven. If you’re not opposed to this idea then I’m at a loss as to what the point of your 13:34 comment was.
“I simply accept that violence is sometimes required of good people in order that the world does not descend into chaos and anarchy.”
Which is what I’ve argued.
David,
“This suggests a conflation of the preference for deportation with torture or its affirmation.”
If torture is a likely consequence of deportation than preference for deportation *does* entail a preference for torture in that circumstance. The state is saying that the individual concerned being tortured is preferable to them being locked up here / allowed to roam free. There are circumstances were this preference is completely rational. So I fail to see what the problem is.
“Yet you’ve rather hurriedly characterised the endorsement of deportation as either constituting “the worst possible treatment of terrorists” or as being driven by an urge to do just that, or as “venting rage”, “feeling better about things”, etc.”
I looked over my comment referred to here in case I’d been sloppy or vague in writing it – but I honestly can’t see how you’d read it as condemning *all* endorsement of deportation as that way. There is, I think it’s hard to deny, a strain of argument for things such as deportation derived not from rational consideration but from emotion – and it’s *that* I’m opposed to, not deportation or even torture itself.
Matt,
“If torture is a likely consequence of deportation than preference for deportation *does* entail a preference for torture in that circumstance.”
Even if we assume that deportation and its possible consequences amounts to an evil, albeit a lesser one, choosing the lesser evil doesn’t in itself constitute an affirmation of it. What third parties may do to my enemy once banished is not necessarily synonymous with my own moral ideals. No longer feeling a duty to protect a hostile guest is not synonymous with torture, or an endorsement of such. The banishment of my enemy may be a moral imperative – and the very act of banishment suggests to me that one is by definition no longer concerned with his welfare. Quite rightly, in my view.
“There is, I think it’s hard to deny, a strain of argument for things such as deportation derived not from rational consideration but from emotion – and it’s *that* I’m opposed to, not deportation or even torture itself.”
No argument there. But, again, your readiness to assume – assert – that this must be the motive here suggested otherwise. And I think I (and others) can be forgiven for misunderstanding you occasionally. At times, the ground has seemed to be a-shifting. For instance, your assertion that London Transport “hold some responsibility for what happened” on 7/7 suggests you’re assigning responsibility in ways that are peculiar, and which don’t stand scrutiny. (Presumably, by the same logic, people who chose to travel by bus that day were also “responsible” for the horrors inflicted on them.) Indeed, the rather elastic and nebulous use of the word “responsibility” has caused much of the confusion.
Perhaps that’s the “nuance” you were talking about? 🙂
David,
“Even if we assume that deportation and its possible consequences amounts to an evil, albeit a lesser one, choosing the lesser evil doesn’t in itself constitute an affirmation of it.”
I think it does – but only *in those circumstances*. (Can you not enable HTML formatting? I’m sure the ability to italicise words would help convey the nuance of my position better). As I’ve explained, I’m opposed to torture, but I still believe that in some circumstances it may be the preferable thing to do (as a “good” option isn’t always available). It’s like shooting a mentally unbalanced individual to prevent them bringing about an even greater loss of life. I’m generally opposed to shooting the mentally-ill, but would affirm it in those specific circumstances.
“your readiness to assume – assert – that this must be the motive here suggested otherwise”
I don’t believe I did assert that it *must* be so. I said that it *seems* to be the case with *some* people here – I was engaging in crude pop-psychology (and qualified it appropriately) in order to make a wider point.
“Indeed, the rather elastic and nebulous use of the word “responsibility” has caused much of the confusion.”
If that is the case then I apologise – although I’m not sure it’s been as ill-defined as you say. My argument is simply that we are responsible for our actions and the foreseeable consequences of them. When a state deports someone to a country where torture is likely then then it should accept responsibility for doing so.
Matt,
It’s important to understand that I don’t regard it as terribly admirable to be concerned for the welfare of one’s individual mortal enemies. If someone declares their ambition to do me harm, or attempts to bring that harm about, I feel no obligation to go out of my way to protect them or fret about their health. Making great efforts to spare those individuals from misfortune or degradation at the hands of others is not, I think, something one should take tremendous pride in.
“Can you not enable HTML formatting? I’m sure the ability to italicise words would help convey the nuance of my position better”
‘Tis Better to be thought a fool than to italicise and remove all doubt. /sarcasm
David,
“Making great efforts to spare those individuals from misfortune or degradation at the hands of others is not, I think, something one should take tremendous pride in.”
I’m not sure where I’ve suggested otherwise – Where I’ve stated my reasons for opposing torture I’ve done so on the basis of the threat posed to the rest of us.
it seems matt m’s argument is merely an academic one, no?
correct me if i’m wrong,… but if we are presented with options akin to ‘sophie’s choice’, and have to make an unpalatable decision one way or the other, then notions of responsibility (or does he mean guilt) for the deemed lesser evil, is purely a matter for discussions amongst the peecee islington dinner cicuit and the like, and needn’t inform/paralyse our effective decision-making in any way.
“…responsibility (or does he mean guilt)…”
There’s the nub of it. Tickle it gently.
I think to concern oneself with the fate of people beyond ones’ own jurisdiction smacks too much of the absolutism of the precautionary principal – it gives too much weight to the possible downside of an action without giving due consideration to the upside.
I understand why rendition is very hard to accept, but I am reminded of the effect that the precautionary principal had when applied to DDT and the eradication of Malaria – Rachel Carson, with the best of intentions, got a worldwide ban on DDT – but this action has led to many, many preventable deaths. If she had been prepared to moderate her position and allow for limited use of DDT I wonder how many millions would still be alive.
I also wonder how many innocent people will die when terrorists are released from incarceration and go on to commit further terrorist acts, as is well documented in former gitmo detainees and under the catch and release policies in Yemen and Saudi Arabia.
Another good argument against rendition. Some of these countries can’t be counted on to keep these guys.
“I also wonder how many innocent people will die when terrorists are released from incarceration and go on to commit further terrorist acts, as is well documented in former gitmo detainees and under the catch and release policies in Yemen and Saudi Arabia”
This post at Harry’s Place caught my eye:
“I am angry because there is more public debate about the rights of terrorists and criminals facing deportation than there seems to be for genuine, innocent and vulnerable people.”
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2008/03/06/uk_will_send_teenager_to_his_death.php
I wonder whether legitimate asylum seekers might fare better in their applications, and their welcome, if the broader public was reassured that visitors who abuse such favours could be expelled without great difficulty.