“Rendition,” a practice of the CIA, is when a captured terrorist suspect is sent to other countries for interrogation. As reported by David Ignatius in the Washington Post, the reason for this practice is that the nations these suspects are sent to have torture as a readily available option.
A piece in The New Yorker recounts the case of Maher Arar, who was a Syrian-born terrorist suspect. He was seized at New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport in September 2002 as he was merely heading to his home in Canada.
Arar was sent to Syria under the “extraordinary rendition” program and was whipped on the hands with electrical cords during questioning until he confessed. He was later released when Syria found he was in fact innocent. There are a couple of problems with this program. One is it is not limited to known terrorists. It includes people who are suspected of terrorism or even suspected associates of terrorists. Now, what is a terrorist exactly? A terrorist is a faceless, often nation-less warrior for a certain cause. A terrorist could be pretty much anyone. A suspect could be anyone as well. Their goal is to strike fear into the hearts of the masses and instill doubt in the abilities of the protective ruling body. What is the problem with using force during interrogations, and how would one know if what the terror suspect says is actually true? A suspect being tortured could just be trying to stop their pain whether they know something or not. Torture, although occasionally bringing favorable results in terms of intelligence, is not always the best way to gather intelligence and also takes too much time.
First, you have to break the person. Secondly, you then have to investigate whether or not the information is correct. Then, you would have to act on it.
The problems with getting intelligence diplomatically are the same as the problems of force. The difference is that the element of pain and fear are taken away. In a perfect world, even interrogation probably wouldn’t be necessary. Then again, this is reality and it is nowhere near perfect. There are people who can and will use fear to be able to strengthen and enforce their own agenda at the expense of others.
Sadly, with the state of the world, sometimes security from that fear comes with a price, and some may become a victim of that price. Some intelligence operatives will have to compromise societal, global, and sometimes their own morals and ethics to be able to get results. The question is, will they be able to live with that choice?