Intellectual Consistency

From The Euston Manifesto:

The violation of basic human rights standards at Abu Ghraib, at Guantanamo, and by the practice of "rendition", must be roundly condemned for what it is: a departure from universal principles, for the establishment of which the democratic countries themselves, and in particular the United States of America, bear the greater part of the historical credit.

OK, that sentence after "principles" is pure baloney (perhaps Geras passed the pen to Johnson or vice versa). The import is clear enough: "... the practice of "rendition" ... must be roundly condemned..." I suppose there is a loophole - rendition which does not violate basic human rights standards does not need to be condemned, but I can't see how kidnapping can be in accordance with the human rights of the kidnapee.

There's a helpful list of "Eustonian Blogs". Guess what? Go on try. No really. Oliver Kamm's is among them. This Oliver Kamm:

Rendition is justifiable because it interdicts terrorists, and terrorism is not merely a problem of law enforcement.

I had to look up a word in ter dictionary, and for the life of me, I think interdict can only be used in the sense of 'restrain' when followed by an action. (Shorter OED, definition 2.) Ie '... it interdicts terrorists from eating deep-fried Mars bars'. A simpler word like 'arrest' is out of course, because rendition does not arrest anyone. Perhaps Mr Kamm means 'Rendition [of terrorists] is justifiable because it renders terrorists ...'

Update First, I should admit that I can't remember if Oliver Kamm signed the EM or not; and the page which listed signatories seems to have disappeared.

Second, via Matthew Turner, I see that Norman Geras has posted at length on this and moved Oliver Kamm to reply. I think Norman Geras's case is convincing. Matthew considers Oliver's defence to be 'powerful'. I don't. I could spend all night thinking of appropriate adjectives, but 'powerful' is not among them.

Norman might counter that French justice is a case apart from states where human rights violations and even torture occur. But that surely supports my argument: the proper objection is to abuses of rendition, and the role of European governments is to anticipate and prevent them.

Norman has already countered with "[Eichmann was] made subject to due legal process in a country [Israel] that took seriously its obligation to afford him this." And he was clear about this: Eichmann was put on trial; Islamist terrorism suspects have been denied trials whether they were taken to Cuba or sent to god-knows-where like Syria or Saudi Arabia. Oliver then goes on to change the subject: he raises the usual idiots who comment on CiF as if being attacked by a looney is some kind of justification. And he concludes with a weak and unconvincing argument (which still ignores Norman Geras's righteous indignation):

In my view, the most powerful argument against renditions is that, because they require a lower standard of evidence than a criminal court, then abuses - against the guilty, never mind the innocent - are much more likely to occur.

*If* we were talking about renditions such as those of Carlos the Jackal and Eichmann, then the rendees (or whatever the term is) would end up in court. I may be wrong here, but I think there's a parallel with arrest, which in civilised countries (such as ours) also requires a lower standard of evidence than a court does for a jail sentence. If abuses happen, they can be ameliorated with compensation and the abusers tried themselves. This isn't the argument against the renditions Oliver seemed to be defending. Those renditions are entirely in bad faith: the suspects won't be put before a court, although they're accused of a serious crime. I think renditions are dodgy anyway, but I think I've written enough for now here, and I'd need to prepare a better researched argument for why I think the whole idea stinks besides the very good arguments that Norman Geras gives.