Rendition (2007): A Film Critique

               Under Extraordinary Rendition, “the President claims to possess inherent authority to seize individuals and transfer them to other countries for interrogation and torture” (Fisher, 2008; p. 1406). This concept/policy is presented in the film through the lives of an Egyptian-accused terrorist (Anwar El-Ibrahimi), his wife who is determined to find answers to his unexplained disappearance (Isabella El-Ibrahimi), the officer who gets to watch the suspect’s interrogation (Douglas Freeman), and the CIA executive who holds the authority to approve the rendition (Corrine Whitman).

            Perhaps only a few people are aware of such policy. Even if we were aware, we would only know it by principle and since it does not directly affect us, we dismiss it and take the usual apathetic stance. What the film did was to provide a realistic view of this phenomenon. It sends a wake-up signal—a message that glaringly stares us in our faces: “This is what’s happening.” It is no joke. The US government is resolute in its mission to fight terrorism and it will resort to all means necessary to uphold national security. However, the prime issue that arises from such use of power is the violation of human rights as a result of intentional deviation from due processes of the law.

            Analyzing the film, we will see that there were certain concepts of utmost significance, which were reflected in the film. These concepts include national security, power, and nationalism. A scholarly evaluation of these concepts will be presented in the succeeding paragraphs, with noted observations vis-a-vis the Philippine context.

            National security encompasses everyone in the country; hence, the US government makes use of the philosophy of utilitarianism—what is good for the many—to justify acts of kidnapping and inhumane interrogation of a ‘suspected’ terrorist’ for the sake of national security. What’s the problem with this picture? The problem with it is the question whether national security is truly protected in such government processes—Does the government get valuable information from these suspects? What do they do with these suspects, much less with the information they get? The world has seen how the US government has resorted to wars in its pursuit to defend national security. In this respect, I recall the line uttered by Douglas Freeman in the film: “How often can you say that we’ve produced truly legitimate intelligence? …Give me a statistic; give me a number…Anything, anything that outweighs the fact that if you torture one person you create ten, a hundred, a thousand new enemies.”

            Like in all countries, national security is a priority. In the Philippines, there is also a continuing fight against terrorism. Countless debates have been seen on the subject. It was not surprising that after the 9/11 attack, the US government would be so emotional over it. What was surprising was how the fight against terrorism suddenly shot up, taking with it all the inappropriate biases and assumptions of the government. The whole world was afflicted with this epidemic, and the Philippines was not a country to stay behind, especially under Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s administration. Persons and groups would be easily labelled as ‘terrorists’, due to even the slightest signs of rebellion. Whenever this controversial topic is brought up, our government would almost always answer with its seemingly nationalistic purpose—to protect everyone, to protect our country. Well, does it really? Or are we just caught up in the same let’s-fight-terrorism hype as espoused by the US? After all, it is not a mystery anymore that our country has ‘special relations’ with the United States.

            Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is not uncommon anymore to hear about CIA and its ‘secret’ operations. It is somehow given that people involved in this group are supposed to be discreet in what they do. However, since we associate them also with the government, we assume that they abide by the law as well. I was convinced that there was little I know about this group when I saw the film. I did not even know that a policy such as ‘extraordinary rendition’ existed. In our country, we could relate it with cases of unexplained disappearances and extrajudicial killings, with which the Philippine government is questioned by the people. Going back to the film, the government is deemed selfish and bureaucratic in its operations as it withholds information from people treated as ‘not part of the business’. This instance was seen in how the wife of Anwar failed to get information about her husband from the so-called authorities.

            All over the world, we have followed the stories of activist groups, left-wing students, union activists, priests, and all others campaigning against the government; who either disappeared or were killed. Question marks characterize these people. Rarely do these people actually return to their families. Rarely are they given justice. Worst, rarely are their causes heard and addressed. I have witnessed a considerable number of news about families worrying about their loved ones and of banners mounted on school walls about students who were allegedly seized by the government. We hear about how our administration resorts to questionable practices to monitor their so-called rebels. I remember attending a symposium once where I was informed about the use of wire-tapping devices and presence of ‘secret’ agents taking rounds around places (e.g. school campuses) where ‘acts of rebellion’ are suspected.

If Anwar El-Ibrahimi had not come back from the secret interrogation and torture to which he was subjected, I can only imagine the pain that his family would have to endure. Not knowing where your loved ones are and not knowing whether they are still alive are enough to cause a lifelong sorrow. In a way, the practice of extraordinary rendition becomes a double-edged sword. It does not only hurt the suspect, it also hurts his/her family. Whereas Anwar was physically tortured, his family back home was emotionally tortured.

            Another concept we’re dealing with in the film is ‘nationalism’. In class, we defined nationalism as taking a pro-active stance in recognizing the ills that beset our nation and doing something productive to create positive changes for it. In the fight against terrorism, I think that the concept of ‘terrorism’ should be clearly laid out first. I believe that the main problem that the government should focus on is not whether they can stop terrorism or not, but whether they can identify a ‘terrorist’ and an ‘act of terrorism’ in the first place. The concept of terrorism is vague and consequently not properly understood. On either sides of the Syrian group who initiated suicide bombing and of the US government who subjected suspected terrorists in ruthless interrogation, we may say that nationalism was isolated only to a few. Simply put, their sense of nationalism or ‘perceived’ acts of nationalism are not shared by most of the citizens. There may be people who believe in the fights of the Syrian group or the US government, but studying human nature, we know for a fact that people frown upon anything that, at first sight, is inhumane. We don’t want people dying, much less tortured. We don’t want people killing each other—a behavior explained by the simple human reasoning that killing, or violence for that matter, is never justified.  

            In real life, what the CIA does is kept confidential. Whatever the government needs to maintain its credibility and integrity is given to it in convenience. That is how powerful the government is. It can easily get away from any alleged anomalies in its system—merely because it holds supreme authority over everyone else. Moreover, the USA, in itself, is a rich country, making it unsurprisingly capable in doing whatever it desires to do.

            To symbolize how the government can make its errors go away, we see towards the end that news about the torture of Anwar immediately circulated the papers and we see Corrine Whitman preparing to answer the phone calls. It ends there. What do we think would happen? Putting forward again the issue of power, we will not suspect the US government to be sued simply because they ARE the government. Figuratively, they ARE the power. Even if, at face-value, it would tell its citizens that appropriate actions will be taken, we cannot expect them to stop the practice of extraordinary rendition just like that. Why? Tricky as it is, extraordinary rendition is supposed to be a confidential operation. No one will really ever know that is it still happening except the President and his secret committees, and unfortunately, the suspected terrorists. So if the US government denies its knowledge about such controversial operations being in practice and assure its people that appropriate actions will be taken, let’s think again. Maybe they are telling the truth; but we know that most of the times, what they say is all babble.

It pays to be critical about the happenings in our society. It pays to be to ask questions. When no answers could be provided, it pays to do what is RIGHT. The role of Douglas Freeman was symbolic of a person battling between his job and his duty. He chose the latter. He chose to save a man’s life when he knew that the torture was pointless. We don’t know what the government will do with Douglas Freeman after his controversial revelations. Certainly, the government would not risk doing anything to these people that would compromise yet again the government’s damaged reputation.

            Maybe the film was generalizing too much about these so-called ‘secret operations’. What if Anwar was really a terrorist? What if the government was right in doing what it does? What if national security was truly greatly compromised?—these are questions that we might ask ourselves in retrospect, or during the first 60 minutes of the film at the very least. Clearly, the film maintains its conviction in revealing what the US government is doing wrong, and NOT what it is doing right.

Considering either the US context or any other national context, we obtain valuable insights from the film. In a way, ‘Rendition’ is, most importantly, trying to suggest that it IS the system—the government—that is spreading terror among many of its citizens; it is the government that IS creating enemies and provoking terrorism.

Reference:

“Extraordinary Rendition: The Price of Secrecy” by Louis Fisher, American University Law Review, volume 57, number 5, June 2008. 1405, 1451