Eve Garrard has responded to my post suggesting that she had misunderstood some recent statements by Amnesty International. I should like to note, for the record, that my post didn’t amount to an endorsement of the claim that I took Amnesty to be making, namely, that the current attack on principles of human rights is the worst for the last fifty years. Nevertheless, I have some bones to pick with Eve’s latest. The scope of the claim that Eve attributes to Amnesty varies somewhat through her piece. Sometimes Eve seems to be suggesting that Amnesty is restricting blame to America or to the liberal democracies. There may indeed by statements by Amnesty officials with this character, but the most relevant report does refer explicitly to “governments around the world” and explicitly mentions a number of countries not best described as “liberal democracies” (Russia, China, Yemen, to name but three). Additionally, Eve singles out the Patriot Act as being at the centre of any charge that human rights principles are being undermined. No doubt it forms part of any such case, but I’d have thought that such matters as the legal limbo of Guantanamo, the export of a detainee for torture by Syria, and the recent legal advice on the admissibility of torture and the (non) applicability of the Geneva conventions, make up a significant part of the picture. Finally — and I’m picking nits now — Eve writes that “the idea that the force of an argument should be materially altered by an (allegedly) misplaced comma is … delightful and charming.” It may be, but my complaint focused not on the force of the argument but on its meaning , and it is pretty commonplace that commas can and do alter the meaning of sentences: Eats, Shoots & Leaves .
She simply must not have read the original if she doesn’t think the comma is relevant to the meaning.
It does make me wonder how can anyone not acknowledge that principles matter a whole lot in terms of laws and respect of the same… I wonder if it was about, say, gun control, if cops in the US started arresting people for mere possession of any weapons in spite of what the 2nd amendment says. I’m sure we wouldn’t hear much of that “but there’s genocide in Sudan, surely that’s worse”.
the export of a detainee for torture by Syria
Seeing as this is one of three examples you offer to bolster your case that human rights principles are being undermined by the U.S., would you kindly explain how exactly the Maher Arar case (being Canadian I have followed this with some interest) is supposed to have worked. Do the Americans and Syrians have a formal agreement to this effect (i.e., do the U.S. authorities know in advance that by sending a detainee to Syria he will be tortured… and American hands will remain “clean”)? And just how do the recently imposed U.S. trade sanctions against Syria figure in all this?
… your case that human rights principles are being undermined by the U.S
No, not my case, it was one element of a list of cases which I conjectured would form part of such a case (alongside the Patriot Act).
Do the Americans and Syrians have a formal agreement to this effect (i.e., do the U.S. authorities know in advance that by sending a detainee to Syria he will be tortured… and American hands will remain “clean”)?
First, why would it have to be a formal agreement? Second, no, I don’t have access to confidential correspondence between the governments of the United States and Syria. Third, why on earth should the burden of proof fall upon indviduals criticizing governments rather than governments whose actions have led to someone being tortured?
Eve’s first post was 1,050 words, this second post is 2,100 words to argue the same point.
“Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam)” = if you say something often enough, some people will begin to believe it,
“Argument By Fast Talking” = if you go from one idea to the next quickly enough, the audience won’t have time to think,
“Argument By Prestigious Jargon” = using big complicated words so that you will seem to be an expert,
I predict 3,150 words attacking Amnesty International next time. Maybe the famous Dr Lobo could put his stamp of approval on it.
Chris,
Your first formulation was the export of a detainee for torture by Syria.
This is far more definitive than whose actions have led to someone being tortured. But the question remains, were those “actions” the deportation of Maher Arar to Syria, and precisely what violation of human rights principles did they entail (that was serious enough to be picked for your top three examples)?
“…your case that human rights principles are being undermined by the U.S”
Nope, the wording is not “the US” but “governments” and “in the name of the war on terror” - as quoted in Chris’s first post:
The current framework of international law and multilateral action is undergoing the most sustained attack since its establishment half a century ago. International human rights and humanitarian law is being directly challenged as ineffective in responding to the security issues of the present and future. In the name of the “war on terror” governments are eroding human rights principles, standards and values.
(from the intro to the specific report on compliance with international law in the context of the ‘war on terror’)
Sorry to be such a pedant as to actually expect that when criticising a case made by Amnesty (not Chris) one would refer to the actual case being made by Amnesty in its own words.
More reading aid while I’m at it - List of governments named in the same page as passing laws or taking actions that have “raised human rights concerns”, in order of appearance:
- Colombia
- Russia (actions in Chechen Republic)
- Philippines
- Germany
- Mauritius
- Cuba
- Morocco
- Russian Federation, again
- South Korea
- Tunisia
…and at number 11, finally!, aren’t you happy?, the US - for - Guantanamo
- Yemen (…in 2002 the Yemeni authorities informed AI that the government had “no option” but to break its own laws and its human rights obligations in order to “fight terrorism” and contain the risk of a US military attack against Yemen… well at least Yemen admits to breaking laws, aren’t they generous)
- Pakistan
- China
- Uzbekistan
- United Kingdom
- Guyana
- India
- Jordan
- Morocco
- the USA (oi, twice! that is so antiamerican)
- Zimbabwe
- China (twice for them too, could it be antichinism?)
- Indonesia
- Australia
That’s a long list. 20-ish different countries. In all corners of the globe. Yet it’s all got to be about the US. With a little bit of effort, it even becomes anti-american or anti-western propaganda (or western-hating, or whatever she called it). This time, wordcounts are happily ignored.
Pepi, thanks for your impassioned defence of points I (at least) wasn’t questioning. My question — I promise not to count the words of anyone’s reply — involves the Maher Arar case and why it figures, next to the Patriot Act, among Chris’ top three examples of American (Western?) violations of human rights principles.
J.Johson - oh, I thought with that phrase you were referring to the wider “case” in point in this discussion, ie. Amnesty’s statements. I quoted your phrase, but was responding generally to how Garrard was qualifying the “bias” in the reports.
J. Johnson:
Aticle 3 of the Convention Against Torture:
1. No State Party shall expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
Here is a link to the USDOS’s HR Report on Syria for 2002. In that report they state that “there was credible evidence that security forces continued to use torture, although to a lesser extent than in previous years.”
If security forces continued to use torture and the USDOS makes that contention in their report, then it certainly seems that the DOJ could have consulted the State Department on Syria’s use of torture or gone to their website as I did and found a strong and “consistent pattern of gross violation of human rights.”
Johnson, pop quiz: A Cuban boat person who has lived in Miami for 20 years and who has not been involved in Cuban exile politics takes a trip to Toronto to visit his sister. When he arrives at the airport in Toronto to go home at the end of his trip, the RCMP grabs him and detains him, accusing him of being a member of some Miami-based anti-Castro terrorist movement, on the grounds that he used to work with Orlando Bosch’s brother-in-law and got him to loan him a few bucks back in the mid-90’s. Our hypothetical Miami Cuban is then denied his right to an attorney and his right to contact the US consulate. His family is not notified of his detention, and it remains unclear whether the RCMP has notified any American authorities about him, although it seems that they might have called the FBI and asked for his file. (Which he has because all immigrants to the US have an FBI record.) He is interrogated in secret and then deported to Cuba. Eventually, Cuba releases him to the US chargé d’affaires in Havana and he returns home via Mexico City.
Canada has no agreement with Cuba under which Cuba agrees to torture suspects for the RCMP. Has a major human rights violation taken place? Is it a serious matter? I should think the answer to be yes and I am certain that the American columnists and bloggers so intent on defending the US from charges of attacking human rights would do the same.
In this hypothetical case, Canada has disregarded the rights of suspects under the Canadian Charter of Rights and under the Vienna Convention. It would have also violated far more prosaic moral codes by deporting a suspect to a nation well known to regularly violate customary standards in detention, interogation and trial. Furthermore, by deporting someone with dual citizenship not to the nation in which they ordinarily reside but to a nation almost universally regarded as having a lower standard of human rights is suspicious. Furthermore, to do all this without any sort of extradition hearing, in secret and out of the public eye, is a serious breech of the principles of open and responsible government.
Were this to happen, I would certainly regard it as a major human rights violation by Canada and a serious blow to any Canadian claim to support human rights internationally. Furthermore, I would regard such a blantant disregard for human rights and international law by the Canadian government to be a very serious blow to the international rule of law altogether. Canada has been a very important sponsor of increasingly codified international laws and standards for human rights, and a Canadian retreat from those principles would be a serious matter. Under such circumstances, I would gladly march with the most retrograde elements of the Miami Cuban community, even the ones who have blood on their own hands, in protest against my government.
However, Canada doesn’t do these things, they are what the US did to Maher Arar. As I have recently discovered - not entriely to my surprise - I hold Canada to a higher standard of human rights than the US.
So, you may be right. America’s recent behaviour may not represent such a new threat to international human rights, but if so, it is only because America’s claim to support such rights has been a farce for a long time.
Randy,
Thanks for the clarification, but (having following the Maher Arar case fairly closely — I am practically a neighbour of the Arars) I am still mystified (and this is my main point) as to how this (still murky) incident got included on Chris’ top three list of American (for they are all clearly American) violations of human rights principles. What about this case does Chris know that I, or the Canadian press, don’t?
J.Johnson:
You are not entitled to conclude from my post that I consider this to be among the “top three” American violations of human rights. It formed part of a list of specimen cases where American committment to principles of human rights seemed weakened or abandoned. Had I carried out a comprehensive survey of such cases and thought about how to rank them, it is possible that my “top three” would be very different. The phrase “top three” is yours, not mine, and is not even weakly conversationally implied by my post.
America’s recent behaviour may not represent such a new threat to international human rights, but if so, it is only because America’s claim to support such rights has been a farce for a long time.
Are you then disputing Ms. Khan, Scott?
Your analogy doesn’t tell us anything that we don’t already know about the Maher Arar case, save perhaps that you are suggesting that the U.S. knew that Syria considered Arar a political enemy and was trying to curry favour with Assad. And, despite your ardent prose, it certainly doesn’t tell us why this incident ended up on Chris’ top three list. Oh, wait, I forgot your concluding sentence (above); by this reasoning I guess any case would do.
Had I carried out a comprehensive survey of such cases and thought about how to rank them, it is possible that my “top three” would be very different.
Chris,
Accepted (my previous post probably missed your reply because I hadn’t refreshed the page). And if you detect any snarkiness in my previous post, it was entirely inspired by the tone of Scott Martens’ “parable”, not anything you wrote.
Personally, I am still puzzled by the Maher Arar case (a journalist friend is currently working on an investigative report and I have seen some of his research) and I consider it a dubious stick with which to beat the U.S. over human rights. This hardly ranks with Guantanamo and leaves you open to the familiar charge: “If this is all he can come up with…”
J. Johnson:
The refoulement of Maher Arar is not isolated. According to this article from the Washington Post illegal renditions are not a rare occurrence.
Maher Arar is a microcosm example of this crime.
j.johnson - but even considering only that case, even if you may have your reasons to be puzzled about the case - once it’s demonstrably clear that the procedures followed went against a convention protecting human rights to which the US is signatory, well, would that not qualify as violation of international law and human rights? What is there to be puzzled about, in that respect? We don’t have to know all the behind the scenes intelligence details that we’ll never know anyway, to assess wether there was a violation or not. If what we know already shows there was a series of illegalities, then it is serious, even if it’s just about one person and not hundreds of detainees. The concern is about the principles, not just the numbers affected.
In other words, there are known unknowns, and unknown unknowns, but, er, once you got a known known…
Pepi,
I agree with you that “refoulement” to places like Syria violates human rights conventions. What I cannot agree with is your contention that it “is about principles not just the numbers affected”. There are (unwritten) scales to measure human rights violations by which genocide rightly gets ranked as a more urgent matter than others (and that is a “universal” norm). Principles are theoretical; “numbers affected” are empirical. A key point of Ms. Khan’s letter was that that human rights violations committed in the name of the “war on terror” had quantifiable consequences.
Eve really doesn’t know when to stop digging, does she?
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review