Should Extraordinary Reduction Ever Be Justified?

Question 1: Extraordinary rendition is a practice that has been apparent in its violations to human rights, including the right to due process and the right not to be subjected to torture. Over the past few decades this practice has been garnering greater attention and has put pressure on countries such as the United States. This practice generally implies that suspects are transferred from their country in which they were detained to a country that has less strict laws. The transferred suspects have no access to the judicial system of the sending state to challenge their transfer. These countries with less stricter laws are noted to use torture and other harsh interrogation techniques prohibited under the sending country’s laws. Using two of the main theories of International Relations, realism and liberalism, I will provide each theory’s position on the issue and whether extraordinary rendition can ever be justified. Extraordinary rendition is a practice that would never be justified under the liberalist view. One example of this is the United Nations, …show more content…
However, extraordinary rendition can never be justified no matter the information the torturers receive. People will make stories after years of torture to escape, they will either lie so they can get killed, or lie just so the torture will stop. Either way the facts should be dismissed. Kidnapping and torturing people for information should never be justified. No person should ever be detained and transferred from their homes to other countries on the assumption that they may be part of a terrorist organization. There must be concrete evidence before anyone should ever by tried in the court of law and later convicted for his or her actions. Extraordinary rendition neither stops nor prevents attacks from happening; rather it may aggravate people more to create acts of