Loos, Rendition

One interesting point that Rendition and the articles show is that there is usually very little evidence to show that the person is a terrorist. The "theory" behind torture is that if the suspect is a terrorist, he will admit it under torture. Jake Gyllenhaal's character points out the flaw in this logic when he quotes Shakespeare and basically says a man being tortured will say anything just to get the torture to stop. Now, let's say there is solid evidence that this man is a terrorist. Torture should still not be used as a method to extract information, because any information would be thrown out in a court of law. There is a very interesting Criminal Minds (a show on CBS about criminal psychologists with the FBI) episode in which the team goes to Guantanamo Bay to interview a terrorist who is thought to be invovled with an anticipated terrorist attack in 24 hours. The team conducts an interview without using torture and based on little hints the terrorist unintentionally drops, extensive back group research, and the team's reasoning skills, the terrorist attack is prevented. Obviously, this is a television show, but I feel that there are more effective and more humane ways to extract information from a terrorist in the most extreme circumstances. Gyllenhaal's character uses his reasoning skills to see that Anwar is innocent and has been making up information. I think the government could extract information more efficiently and humanely if it arrests actual terrorists, not innocent men with vague ties to terrorism (as is the case with Anwar), and if it uses not intelligent methods to extract information and not brute force.