What if someone you love just disappeared? The United States used this same idea to install a program known as the extraordinary rendition. It was put in place during the Clinton administration, but became publically recognized after 9/11. In the context of the movie, Rendition, rendition refers to the transfer of suspected terrorists outside of the United States to a foreign country, where harsh interrogation and torture takes place. Although Rendition was installed to protect the United States from terrorist attacks, the rendition of Anwar El- Ibrahimi represents the government’s misuse of the program.
In the movie, Rendition, a terrorist bombing occurs in a foreign country and an American envoy is killed. An investigation is then dispatched, which leads to an Egyptian who has been living in the Unites States for many years and who is married to a United States citizen. This man, Anwar El- Ibrahimi, is then apprehended on his way home from a business meeting in Egypt. As Anwar El- Ibrahimi is now a terrorist suspect and is appeared to have gone missing on his flight back to the United States, his wife, Isabella El- Ibrahimi and a CIA analyst are trying to figure out where he is. The U.S government wants to find the mastermind who committed such terrorist attacks so they can prevent future attempts like these. In the movie, Alan Smith, CIA Analyst, confronts Corrine Williams, CIA’s Head of Operation Rendition, on human rights and she replies, “Honey, this is nasty business. There are upwards of 7,000 people in central London alive tonight, because of information that we elicited just this way. So maybe you put your head on your pillow and feel proud for saving one man while 7,000 perish, but I got grandkids in Londo...
... middle of paper ...
...of. The fact that Anwar El- Ibrahimi is abducted under reasons not justified by the cause is crossing the line. The movie Rendition exemplifies the misuse of torture as a way to show us the difference between what is right and what is wrong. Although someone seems like a terrorist, the U.S government cannot abduct such person solely on that assumption. One must look at the background and analyze their entire lives. Torture and rendition are a very sensitive and extremely controversial issue, but one must take a step back and realize what stops the government from torturing oneself.
Works Cited
"Rendition Quotes." Movie Quotes - Subzin.com. Web. 22 Dec.
2010. .
"Rendition (2007) - IMDb." The Internet Movie Database (IMDb).
Web. 22 Dec. 2010. .
This historical study will compare and contrast the depiction of the “War on Terror” in a pro-government and anti-government plot structures found in Zero Dark Thirty (2012) by Kathryn Bigelow and The Siege (1998) by Edward Zwick. The pro-government view of Zero Dark Thirty defines the use of CIA agents and military operatives to track down Osama Bin Laden in the 2000s. Bigelow appears to validate the use of torture and interrogation as a means in which to extract information in the hunt for Bin Laden. In contrast this depiction of terrorism, Zwick’s film The Siege exposes the damage that torture, kidnapping, and
When the movie was released there was a lot of criticism for this part stating that “Some critics have argued that it “glorifies torture" or even constitutes "torture porn". Director Kathryn Bigelow has replied that "depiction is not endorsement".” (Tunzelmann, Alex) These facts were drawn from a critic’s data and are pretty accurate from my point of view. The practices shown in the beginning stages of the movie with what the CIA has admitted about their enhanced interrogation techniques, or EIT, are profoundly disturbing in many ways. Historically, the torture sense are accurate as the CIA did in fact use the techniques such as waterboarding, forcing suspects into crammed spaces, and sleep
America’s Use of Torture in Interrogations of Suspected Terrorists Violates Human Rights by Lisa Hajjar
The US military base in Guantanamo Bay, which was used as detention facility and interrogation activities of suspected terrorists apprehended by US sequel to 9/11 attack in 2001, during the period, terrorist suspects witnessed a wide range of coercive interrogations and inhuman acts ratified by US government and termed “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques”. The joint armed forces and both intelligence agencies of US (CIA ad FBI) where deployed to Guanatanmo with the mandate of coercive interrogation techniques in other to ensure captured terrorists reveal actionable intelligence to unmask the 9/11 perpetrators and Al Qaeda gang, and also to prevent future attacks. During this period which was Bush administration, US became listed among countries that legalized torture and assumed the lead position among those using coercive interrogation techniques in combating terrorism and had bad popularity to the point Canadian government (US crony) stated that its has included US in list of nations that use torture against the international convention.
...s invaluable. The efficacy of torture can be seen in the capture of Zubaydah and the prevention of the “Dirty bomber,” Jose Padilla. Effectiveness has also been proven; it has hypothetically saved many lives and has prevented many plots known to the general public. Ex-Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech in 2009 that the “enhanced interrogation” of detainees “prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people” (“The Report of The Constitution Project's Task Force on Detainee Treatment”, 1). Since it has been deemed illegal by the UN it has to be done in secrecy. In result, it cannot be deduced how much has been prevented by this procedure since that information is classified. However, it is irrefutable that torture, in its essence, is beneficial and should be accepted as a means of ensuring public safety.
Essay 2 RD 1: Should the US stop using Guantanamo Bay as a detention facility for suspected terrorist?
Torture may be an inhumane way to get the information needed to keep the citizens of the United States safe from the attacks that are threatened against them, but there is rarely a course of action that will ensure the safety of a nation’s citizens that doesn’t compromise the safety of another group of people. Nevertheless, we must conserve as much humanity as possible by looking at the situation we are in and ensure that we are approaching the torture in an ethical manner. Although torture is valid on moral grounds, there are many who oppose it, such as Jamie Mayerfeld as he states in his 2009 article “In Defense of the Absolute Prohibition of Torture”.
Torture: the action or practice of inflicting severe pain for punishment or to force them to say or do something (Oxford Dictionary). Torture can be mental or physical , but is it alright to use torture at all or is it inhumane? If a terrorist knew where the bombs placed throughout America were located. This man is refusing to give any information to any of the interrogation techniques. Just hours away there will be an explosion killing millions of people throughout America alone. Every detective working (secretly) on this case has tried every interrogation technique they were ever taught, even some they made up their self. Although there is one that they have not done. Would torture save the lives of millions of innocent men, women and children? This essay is going to state the reasons why torture should be acceptable in certain situations.
Torture is the act of inflicting severe physical or psychological pain, and/or injury to a person (or animal) usually to one who is physically restrained and is unable to defend against what is being done to them. It has ancient origins and still continues today. The torture debate is a controversial subject to modern society. Because it is such a complex subject, many debatable issues come from it. For example, many have debated whether torture is effective in obtaining the truth, affects the torturers, threatens the international standing of the United States, or undermines justice. Others include what qualifies as torture, or whether or not the United States should set an example by not torturing. The two opposing claims to this topic would be: (a) that torture should always be illegal because it is immoral and cruel and goes against the international treaties signed by the U.S. and torture and inhuman treatment, and (b) yes, torture is acceptable when needed. Why not do to terrorists what they are so good at doing to so many others?
In the article, “The Torture Myth,” Anne Applebaum explores the controversial topic of torture practices, focused primarily in The United States. The article was published on January 12, 2005, inspired by the dramatic increase of tensions between terrorist organizations and The United States. Applebaum explores three equality titillating concepts within the article. Applebaum's questions the actual effectiveness of using torture as a means of obtaining valuable information in urgent times. Applebaum explores the ways in which she feels that the United States’ torture policy ultimately produces negative effects upon the country. Applebaum's final question is if torture is not optimally successful, why so much of society believes it works efficiently.
The moral issue of torture is one that has come under scrutiny by many national and international organizations as of late. To talk about torture one must really understand what torture is. As taken from Dictionary.com “1.a. Infliction or severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. 2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony. 3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.” This is just the literal meaning of the word but doesn’t entail the great horror that usually accompanies torture. As stated in the “Ticking Bomb” example given on the instruction sheets, “The interrogation won’t be pretty, and the prisoner may never recover. Shall we do whatever is necessary?” On what moral level is bringing a human being to humiliation, unbearable physical and mental abuse, and most of the time an ultimate end ever an acceptable practice? Torture should be as unthinkable as slavery. In principle it is: since World War II, governments the world over have agreed to ban torture without exception, even when at war or facing acts of terrorism. International treaties banning torture and other, inhuman, and degrading practices are among the most widely ratified treaties in existence. It is not just the United States that endorses these practices; it is over 150 counties according to the United Nations expert on torture Theo van Boven. Since the United States has gone to “war on terror” in Afghanistan, the president and other top officials seem to think that we are not actually “at war” rather these detainees are outside the realm of prisoners of war (POW) status and they don’t have rights under the Geneva Conventions. Now governments are returning alleged terrorists or national security suspects to countries where they are at risk of torture or ill treatment. This is just a reminder as to why the U.S. did not join the International Criminal Court because they have the “bad man” mindset knowing that they will or already use these tactics. There are many reasons as to why torture is immoral and three of these such reasons are; torture is an unreliable source of information and can work against a government, torture is illegal under most every nations’ laws, and torture is just plain immoral and that is the reason it is illegal.
Terrorism has been affecting the world for many years, but most especially since September 11th. Countless amounts of time and money have been spent; many soldiers and American resources have gone out try to stop the problem, but what happens to the terrorists after they have been captured? A basic level of humane treatment needs to be given to all people even those suspected of or convicted of terroristic offences. Using torture to attempt to find more information is not the most helpful or effective method that could be applied. Although the War on Terrorism is different than any war seen before in history, it is still a war against the United States government and the Geneva Convention needs to protect these war criminals. Those suspected of, or convicted of, terroristic offences should receive the same protections under the Geneva Convention that apply to prisoners of war because they are prisoners of war and their basic human rights need to be respected, torture has been proven to be rarely effective, and their roles, as terrorists, fit into the Geneva Convention criterion.
After the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, terrorism has come to the forefront of the American picture. Levin published his essay in 1982, at a time when terrorism was something that was feared, but not at the intense level that it is currently. One of the main reasons Levin advocates for torture is that thinks that it will help, “...for preventing future evils” (689). Before terrorism was rampant in the world, this idea may have held some merit. If, after smaller attacks, terrorists were tortured, they may have given away information that would have been viable for preventing future, more detrimental attacks. Nowadays torturing a terrorist may have more consequences than benefits. Attacks nowadays are set up by large, intricate, dangerous groups of terrorists. So, if a member of one of these terrorist groups was tortured, that may make the groups want to retaliate even more strongly. Essentially, torturing a terrorist may perpetuate more hatred for the target country. Another point Levin makes is that, “The name of their [the terrorists] game is public recognition” (690). He explains how one of the main motives behind terrorism is being as infamous as possible by, for example, being on every news broadcast or newspaper. The idea of public recognition being a motivation for terrorism is something that did make sense in 1982, but in today’s technologically advance world, this feat is less than a goal and almost a guarantee. With the rise of social media, getting publicly recognized is not something very difficult to do. News spreads like wildfire; so if a terrorist has plans to do anything remotely damaging, and is able to carry it out, it will most likely garner some media attention. Although some of Levin’s points had credibility during the time when his essay was published, they are not contemporary enough to be applicable to
“International norms in this array of treaties and customary international law impose ranges of obligations on states. For instance, states must not only refrain from using torture, they must also take strong positive measures to prevent and punish torture” (McKay, 2005, pg.1037). If we have the right to be free from torture in here in America we believe that we as Americans shall not be tortured by anyone else in any other country even if it is in a time of war. We believe that people that are in the custody of the American’s shall have the same basic rights that we give our citizens. This means that someone that is a person of high interest or value they shall not be tortured for the simple fact that they may have information that is being looked for. For the longest time torture is something that all nations view as wrong no matter what is going on. Most nations also want what is right for most people and most nations do now want people to be tortured. This means that all nations need to come together and figure out how they feel about torture and work together to make sure that this form of punishment is not being carried out. Everyone has to be onboard for torture to stop
...viewer recognizes that agencies, such as the CIA, are valuable in the War on Terror for the data collecting they’re involved in. On examining of the film, the movie’s setting, agencies involved, and the subject matter targeted, the appropriate historical and social themes were connected to the plot. The circumstances in the film depicting the aftermath of September 11th attacks and the U.S. government’s role in tracking Osama Bin Laden were realistic. After the 9/11 attacks, Americans felt that radicalized Islamic groups and their leaders that encouraged these followers to attack America were enemies to their country. Therefore, the film didn’t have to have a poster of Al-Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden to be used as propaganda to make the point that the radicalized Islamic group was the enemy of the United States; this decision had already been made by the United States.