Archive for February, 2008
The free world must speak out against extraordinary rendition
First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Communist.Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up,
because I wasn’t a Jew.Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left
to speak up for me.
David Miliband has today been forced to apologise to the Commons that two US flights of extraordinary rendition did indeed land and refuel upon British soil, and it seems likely that over time more such flights will emerge. The process of extraordinary rendition, as presently used by the US as part of the ‘war on terror’, is the kidnapping of suspected terrorists for transport to and interrogation in countries where torture is not illegal in order that they may be tortured and otherwise interrogated outside of the United States. To me, this is a typical American hypocracy that undermines its credibility yet further of being ‘the land of the free’. By using torture, in addition to opening itself up to all kinds of empirical problems, the US lowers itself to the level of what it is trying to fight. You cannot justify torture for precisely the same reasons that I champion liberty – “[t]hose who would give up liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither” ~ Benjamin Franklin. Fundamentally the issue is that torture may well give temporary security in the form of getting a little more information about terrorist activities. But even though with this I ignore all the practical problems with the approach, we undermine the freedom to a fair trail and presumption of innocence that are so important to the maintenance of a free society. I don’t need to give you the classic arguments.
The reason I included that poem at the top of this post was to make the point about how at present countries such as the UK conveniently sidestep the issue of extraordinary rendition and how this undermines their duties of upholding the conventions that they have signed up to. At present, the UK government has been forced into ensuring that at no costs should American ‘planes carrying prisoners to so-called ‘black sites’ be allowed to land on British soil. But while the First Report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee said
52. We conclude that the Government has a duty to enquire into the allegations of extraordinary rendition and black sites under the Convention against Torture, and to make clear to the USA that any extraordinary rendition to states where suspects may be tortured is completely unacceptable.
Source
no real ground has been made. The US has denied allegations of torture and Europe has left it at that (while investigative journalism has continued to show otherwise). In order to protect our own freedom and integrity, our governments must speak out at the callous abuses of the US administration, and must fight back against what they clearly do not, in the main, agree with, as shown above.
Trip to Oxford
After a previous visit to Cambridge, this half-term I was lucky enough to be taken to Oxford by my grandparents on what proved to be a highly successful and informative trip. We stayed one night in a nearby Travel Lodge and spent the day in the city, visiting colleges and museums. I had asked my form tutor previously whether she had any good suggestions for places to visit in the city, since she went to university there, and I collected quite a list, with the vague suggestion of telephoning ahead to arrange a tour around a college as a prospective student. After attempting to arrange such a tour and finding ourselves only able to get through to the college porter at Balliol, we turned up after lunch hour and went inside (ushered straight past the no visitors sign). I walked into the admissions office and asked for a prospectus, totally unprepared for the welcome: they had known we were coming and had arranged a short tour. A friendly history researcher then gave me the opportunity to ask many questions and find out a great deal. This experience was invaluable, and the researched kindly gave me her e-mail address so that I may ask further questions.
My main question at this point was selecting a college from the huge number that the universities have between them. It seems that the general feel of the college is important and their outlook on the world, and the way to get this is to read the alternative prospectus, produced by students, and to take a look at the various student-run newspapers of the University, getting a feel for things. As usual University websites prove to be the best source for this, being excellently rich and detailed. At this point I need to do a good deal more research on the web, picking up information. In terms of courses, it seems that Oxford offer a joint Maths and Philosophy course that Cambridge does not, the latter only really having a pure maths course. The advantages of the former are also that there is little/none applied maths which I do not generally like as much, and of course it is a wider subject encompassing more skills. I will need to look into this in more detail, but it is pretty exciting at present. When I was asked what I wished to do, I said maths or philosophy, and the reply came “you know you can do both?”
Oxford also has some other attractions for the intellectual, and we had a good look round the Natural History Museum and the History of Science Museum, which were interesting. The Oxford Blackwells bookshop has a huge room of non-fiction in the basement that my grandfather and I spent a great deal of time in, finding a huge range of interesting titles to look at. Then on the second day we went on a guided tour of the Bodleian library, which was essentially the original bit of the university that is now its main library. The tour was facinating in terms of the history of the place, and the stonework was very impressive. The guide kept singling me out, as the only person under fifty, and pointed out the silly rivalries between Oxford and Cambridge which were rather amusing.
All in all, the trip was a brilliant opportunity and has set me on a better direction with collegiate research where before I was floundering somewhat. I also need to do research into second choices, should I fail to get into Oxbridge which is a very real possibility. Also, while in WH Smith in Oxford, I picked up a replacement fountain pen in a model I have been searching for for some time, which rounded off the trip very well!
British Parliamentary debating
Last Friday I was drafted in for another debating competition at the last minute, in fact the one that we tried to get involved in back when the formal debating community was about six of us, a few years ago – the Oxford Union Schools Debating Competition, open to any age in schooling. This competition is an old, very formal style that involves two teams of two on the proposition and then another two on the opposition duking it out – this makes it noticeably different from what we are used to. The other big difference is that there is no fortnight of research and preparation – you get fifteen minutes to get your case together before the debate begins. Personally, I think this results in a lower-quality debate and is thus not as involving for the audience as other formats as it can be vague. On the other hand, it can produce some good material and avoids a focus on reeling off statistics – but only the poorer teams do this anyway. The more formal air was seen when we were criticised by a judge for not addressing the chair and instead talking more to the other side; this would not be a problem in other competitions.
I was in general dissapointed with my performance as it was below my usual standard, but as usual at the moment it was because I seem to have lost my ability to be awake and mentally able as solidly as I used to. Mr Moore-Bridger remarked that I was ‘not quite in touch’ owtte with what was going on, and that pretty much summer it up – I was not on the ball in the way I usually am. This led to me not getting as much out of the session as I had hoped, but as always it is always worth practicing one’s skills. I am far more looking forward to the next round of the English Speaking Union’s Mace competition, which does include points for style which to me is pretty important. One thing that was very positive about this heat was that we got some real enthusiasm out of our budding year ten team. Debating has really taken off now that we are involving lots of different people; I am proud and glad that I started it off. Mixed teams are a most successful idea – as it has been noted, by the time they get up to the sixth form competitions they will be incredible. In the second debate we participated in we were drawn directly opposed to the other Silverdale team and this showed their skill.
One thing that was highlighted in the feedback from the judges is that structure and in some cases actual argument content was something that we all generally struggle with. However much we tell each other to signpost, it is in fact really hard to actually remember to do it in the middle of a debate. It is all too easy to forget your careful self-training and end up rambling on about some train of thought, only to then lose your audience. Keeping yourself on track when you are also having points of information hurled at you is difficult: we need to get better at it. The basic principle is to carefully lead your audience through an argument, avoiding leaps that make it in any way hard to follow and ensuring that they do not have to think to hard. Judges, apparently, look for three clear points and clear introductions and endings to each one: it must be obvious. So that was the most important thing for me about this competition; a solid target to aim for in improving the squad’s skills.