Law Applicability to Post 9, 11 Extraordinary Renditions - Assignment Example

OF THE PRESENTED TO ASSIGNMENT OF THE Law applicability to Post 9/11 Extraordinary Renditions The September 11 attacks on the United States shocked the defense system of the nation. The concerned party had to review the system for loop holes. This led to the launching of the extraordinary rendition program under President Bush administration. This program was in existence before the September attacks, but it was simply referred to as rendition. The apprehension of suspects was done formally with regard to the law. In extraordinary rendition there seems to be a disregard of the statutes and laws in place. The extraordinary rendition allows detaining of suspected terrorists outside the United States1. This move by the Bush administration was necessary in the war to combat terrorism. Stringent measure should be taken when the situation demands. As such the administration of the day has to do everything possible to protect the nation from terrorist attacks. The court procedure and formal charging of suspects of crime requires concrete evidence and is time consuming. In the terrorist event circumstantial evidence to incriminate a suspect is not evident. Information concerning the suspect and contacts that they make is what confirms an individual as a terrorist2. This information has to be gotten through interrogation. The suspect has to be picked without a court order. Then detention or transfer to alien country has to follow. This process is arguably unlawful as it violates the right of an individual to right to a free and fair trial. However, the persons involved in these operations are the intelligent service of the nation. They carry out through investigation into an individual before they make an arrest. The 9/11 legislation is designed for use in the cases of terrorist believed to be dangerous. Further, the use of this legislation to acquire valuable information on terrorism attacks. Handing over individual suspect of terrorist to the states that need them is important in the creation of international peace. The practice works in safeguarding of national security. Critics have it that the rendition program has a potential to violate human rights. This argument is sensible; however, the greater good of the society has to be considered against the odds of a terrorism suspect. The rendition program has been set up to fight terrorism. As a tool, it offers needed solutions in the war against terrorism. The terrorist are not just ordinary men and women protecting their cause3. They are a belligerent group of hardliner who disregard the lives of others in bid to achieve their goals. Taking an example of the Al –Qaeda group, they cannot be dealt with in the realms of the sentiments of human right activist. I am not advocating for rough tactics, but when it becomes an issue of national security torture is permissible. The 9/11 legislation on rendition has it flaws. It is this flaws that raise legal concerns on the applicability of the rendition in a democratic nation. The United State must maintain a high moral ground in its fight against terrorism. Components of the rendition program such arbitrary detention of the suspect and torture is in contradiction with this standing. Further, the program permits foreigner to interrogate suspects and extract information from them4. It is important to note that the state does not torture, but surrenders suspect to states that practice torture and use information acquired through such means. This is an escape from accountability. In conclusion, it is vital to analyze whether rendition violates the law. The extraordinary renditions do not violate the State’s law. This is because the persons involved in the programs side steps the law by sending the suspects to foreign territories were the state law does not cover them. It is from this alien land that interrogation is done. The renditions violate the United Nations Conventions against torture. The United States is a signatory and is bound to respect and uphold that convention. The rendition violates this law. The Geneva conventions are against the extraordinary renditions. T he United States justifies their stand by claiming that the conventions were not meant for terrorist war. The legality of the renditions, therefore, remains contentious. Legal and Ethical consideration in U.S. Covert Operations The congressional oversight committee has responsibility of controlling and directing the activities of the intelligence. The directives on the course of action to be taken by the intelligence service should come from the congressional oversight. The signed findings that are not subject to congressional oversight are therefore in contradiction of the established order. This means that a high ranking official within the government is authorizing operations of the intelligence. This raise questions why congressional oversights are left out. Thus, the operation becomes covert. The covert actions of the state are held in secrecy. This makes it difficult to have a concrete account of the covert; however this does not mean that they are not there5. C overt actions of the state have always been subject to attacks and disapproval by the public. Most Americans holds doctrines that are against spying. They believe that the government should not make interventions that interfere with the affair of another state. Every nation has international responsibility this era of terrorism. Therefore, the United State has to have an arm that can act independently in cases of emergency interventions. Engaging in covert actions, in a state, is sometimes in the interest of public. The gravity of the issues makes it to be necessary for this measure to be done secretly. The state actions should be checked for legality. This is sometimes difficult because the difference between illegal and legitimate intervention is narrow. Violent interventions and dictatorship in the affairs of another nation is against the law. However, other subtle type of interventions such as funding of political parties is not easy to term as legal or illegal. Covert operations have largely been associated with threats and use of force. This has led to misunderstanding of the concept of covert operations. The operations are shrouded in secrecy, and when information leak to the public it is wrongly interpreted by the media. The intelligence involves in operations that uphold democratic values. The environments within which they operate demand a certain level of undercover activities in order to succeed. This is consistent with the professional code of conduct and, therefore, legal. In the carrying out of covert operations, ethical considerations have to be taken into account. This is because the responsibility of the outcome of these operations is important to persons or agency authorizing them6. The objective of the operation has to be identified. The cause of the operation has to be clear in order to justify involvement. The intentions of the operation and other alternative options that can be adopted to achieve the objectives should be considered. In conclusion, the covert actions by the United States are in conflict with the congressional oversight. However, this does not make them illegal. The operations can only be judged on case to case basis7. The activities that are undertaken during the operation is they obey the natural law then they are legal. In cases where morality is compromised we have to look at what were the other options. If it is to be determined that it is a choice between two evils then the choice of the lesser evil is legal. The war against terrorism has to be approached with intelligence and secrecy. It calls for covert operation thus the United States has to keep employing this method. Bibliography Perry, David L. Partly Cloudy: Ethics in War, Espionage, Covert Action, and Interrogation. Lanham, Md: Scarecrow Press, 2009. Gustafson, Kristian. Hostile Intent: U.S. Covert Operations in Chile, 1964-1974. Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books, 2007. United States, and National Intelligence Council (U.S.). U.S. Covert Actions by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Chile (Including the "Assassination" of Salvador Allende) 1963 to1973: The Church Committee Report and the Hinchey Report As Presented to the U.S. Congress. Rockville, MD: Arc Manor, 2008. Clarke, Alan W. Rendition to Torture. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2012. Reisman, W. Michael.Regulating Covert Action. [S.l.]: Yale Univ Press, 2011. United States. Extraordinary Rendition in U.S. Counterterrorism Policy: The Impact on Transatlantic Relations : Joint Hearing Before the Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight and the Subcommittee on Europe of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, First Session, April 17, 2007. Washington: U.S. G.P.O., 2007 Read More