The Practice of Extraordinary Rendition, or, How "We" Come to Resemble "Them"

Recently much has been written about the practice of extraordinary rendition. This is the extra-judicial procedure which involves the sending of untried criminal suspects deemed 'terrorist' to countries other than the United States for imprisonment and interrogation.

Perhaps the most famous of these incidents involve Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen that was detained at Kennedy International Airport on 26 September 2002 by the US Immigration and Naturalization Service. He was taken to Jordan and then Syria, where he was interrogated and tortured by Syrian intelligence. Arar was eventually released a year later. The Canadian government lodged an official complaint with the US government protesting Arar's deportation. On September 18 2006, a Canadian public enquiry presented its findings entirely clearing Arar of any terrorist activities.

Much attention to this practice has centered on the legality of the issue. I want to talk a moment about how the practice shapes who "we" are or are becoming.

Underlying my discussion is the presupposition that identity is performed and not something that is lodged in "us." How does this practice define "us" as a polity?

The practice of extraordinary rendition, I will suggest, implies a logic of similarity or resemblance between what "we" do and what "they" do. Much rhetoric goes into defining "them" as "evil" and defining "us" as "freedom loving Americans." But this practice undermines that difference. It is a practice that makes "us" look like "them." And it is a practice that undermines "our" claim to the moral and legal high ground. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, maybe it is a duck. Similarly, if the US government kidnaps and tortures people, perhaps it too is terroristic.

If we look at the history of the word "terrorism," we see that the word emerged out of the context in which the government was doing just that--ruling through a reign of terror. It has since been inverted. It is now commonplace to frame terrorists as groups attacking the state. But we should not forget this history. The state and the territory it rules over is often subject to terrorism, a terrorism justified in the name of national security. That is, a terrorism justified in "our" name. That is basically my view of extraordinary rendition--state sanctioned terrorism in "our" name. Before long, "we" come to resemble "them."

What are we fighting for again? I think "we" are forgetting and in that process, "we" start to resemble "them."