Discussion
The policy of rendition refers to the process through which persons, usually fugitives, are handed over by one state to the other. In the United States of America, rendition can apply in two ways. One, the person could be handed over by one state to the other, or the person, usually the fugitive in this scenario, is handed over by the Federal Government of America to another foreign nation. Usually, the first case is guided by the constitution of the United States of America, while the second is amorphous and guided through presidential decree in coordination with the American intelligence agencies but within the ambit of the law. The agencies include the Central Intelligence Agency, The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Diplomatic Security Services.
The spirit of rendition to other foreign states lies in the need to detain and interrogate the suspects without going through the judicial process in the United States of America. In the United States the law appears to be rigid and places a lot of procedural obstacles in prosecution, questioning or investigating fugitives. For purposes of expediency, the American government through the Clinton and Bush administrations devised mechanisms allowing for rendition to nations outside the jurisdiction of America. This dispenses with the need to observe the constitutional and other legal requirements. Rendition has been justified and indeed suffices for purposes of investigation of terrorism and security related matters expediently and through the suspension of the rigid American law.
Use of the enhanced techniques
The use of enhanced techniques given in the list is unjustifiable. No circumstances indeed justify the application of such ancient techniques. This is supported by the new approach pursued by the Democrat President Obama. The president issued a decree for the secret prisons located in foreign lands to be closed within the soonest time possible. In addition, the president is on record as having opposed the use of torture on any human beings. This argument is grounded on the fact that torture goes against basic human rights. The right not to be tortured is protected by treaties, conventions and domestic laws against the violation of human rights.
As to the quality of information derived from torture, one ought to appreciate that such evidence lacks credibility. This is because the tortured persons are often weakened and passed through painful processes that compromise their faith and standing. They could easily agree to the allegation so as to save their lives or induce the torturers to stop. The information derived from a tortured fugitive is compromised and not the gospel truth. On that strain, torture does not necessarily address the needs to bring to justice any criminal or offender. On the contrary, it could facilitate a miscarriage of justice. One, however, appreciates the fact that some cases of torture suffice for the purpose. In conclusion, therefore, the end does not justify the means.
The American criminal justice system
America’s criminal justice system should be looked into in two spheres. That is, the infrastructure and the body of law. In that front, one would give a comprehensive verdict of its capacity to investigate, indict and prosecute international terrorists. It is the paper’s contention that while the system’s infrastructure is up to the task, the body of law poses a number of impediments in achieving that objective. The rigid nature of the laws both at domestic and international levels frustrate the process. It is this paper’s contention that the laws should not matter. The urgency, sensitivity and complexity of terrorists and terrorism activities calls for a suspension of constitutional, treaties or provisions in any other law. This perhaps explains the path pursued by Clinton and Bush administration. The two allowed for rendition to other foreign nations and secret interrogation in offshore American cells located in foreign lands. In addition, one only needs to look at history to understand the complexity of the matter. Only a few years ago, American intelligence were forced to kill key September 11 attacks mastermind Osama Bin Laden. The law demands that such a suspect should be apprehended and prosecuted. However, this approach was almost impossible given the complexity of the matter. The laws should either be flexed to be more realistic to the situations that confront American intelligence in tackling terrorism or a total suspension ought to apply.
It, therefore, goes that the American criminal justice system in its current standing and position cannot investigate, indict and prosecute Al Qaeda terrorists. This position, as indicated, can be remedied through legal infrastructural changes designed to address the procedural challenges. However, the need to observe human rights must not be compromised by any alternative process.
References
Murray, M. J. (2011). Extraordinary Rendition and U.S. Counterterrorism Policy. Journal of Strategic Security, 4(3), 15-28.
