Unthinkable
Essay: the 6 out of 7 pages should be the essay portion, APA Format, at least 1500 words, abstract included but is not counted in word count, Title page. Instructions; Ethics in Film: After watching a movie that presents an ethical/legal dilemma, write an essay on the ethical dilemmas of the characters.
Abstract: 1 out of the 7 pages should be the abstract. It should at least include. 1. A listing of the topics for your paper and some specific ideas on how your paper will discuss each topic 2. A working thesis or thesis statement. 3. Your introductory paragraph.
Abstract
The paper looks into the issue of the handling of counterterrorism operations. The subject presents an ethical dilemma because of the brutality meted by law enforcement and military officers in the operations. The officers have a mandate to act within the confines of the law. However, the conduct of the operations requires them to use methods that contravene the inalienable rights of human beings. Terrorists receive global condemnation for engaging in the same acts that the law enforcers participate in during counterterrorism efforts. To that extent, the ethical dilemma is on whether it is right to perpetrate crimes against humanity to prevent the death of multitudes. The paper weighs in on the issue and it concludes that governments should stick to international conventions of human rights. The movie Unthinkable demonstrates the brutal use of force against a detainee and at the end; it does not yield the desired outcome because lives are lost.
Unthinkable
Since the catastrophic events of 9/11, terrorism has become the central point of discussion in all matters concerning national security. To that extent, most of the programs and movies have followed suit with scripts related to the subject of terrorism. The decision made by the Bush administration to lead the global war against terror sparked a lot of controversy in the country. Nevertheless, the happenings of the 9/11 attack strengthened the resolve of the country. Many agreed with the President that it is critical to put measures in place to preempt any form of attack again. Additionally, the government pledged to pursue the perpetrators of the attack to a logical conclusion. However, as demonstrated in the movie Unthinkable, managing the war on terror through established legal frameworks proved to be difficult. Officers in charge of the operations had to balance the ethical, legal and political domains to gain an advantage over the terror outfits.
The movie Unthinkable presented a reality and a narrative already presented by the media to the audience. The use enhanced interrogation method appeared to be the only effective method of extracting information from the terrorists (Abbas, 2019). In the conventional legal set up, it would be an abuse of human rights if an officer uses similar methods to interview an American citizen. However, it is arguable that the violation of human rights is not wrong because the victims are suspects of terror attack. America lauds itself as one of the beacons of democracy and liberty in the world. The presumption is that individuals presented to justice are innocent until they are proven guilty before a court of correct jurisdiction. Perhaps the terrorism suspects need the same standard of justice. Therefore, the movie questions the justifiable lengths that a country can reach when presented with a terrorist scenario that is time sensitive.
The movie begins with an American citizen known as Yusuf. The individual sends a video claiming to have installed three nuclear weapons in three cities in the United States (Valensia, 2012). The authorities make quick attempts to capture Yusuf. However, the plot reveals that Younger actually wanted to be in police custody. The government then calls the Los Angeles anti-terrorism unit to head the investigations. The law enforcers then employ the services of a contractor known as H. According to the script, the contractor does not have any form of affiliation with government agencies. Additionally, he is anonymous and does not appear in any of the government databases.
The special interrogator H (Samuel L Jackson) comes into a room filled with police and military officers but none of them knows his identity. H is clad in civilian clothes and only the CIA operatives that brought him into the investigation knows him. Apparently, the interrogator was in hiding because of the attempts by his enemies to eliminate him (Valensia, 2012). The role of the contractor in the investigation is to make the suspect to reveal the location of the nuclear weapons. Before commencement of the interrogation, orders from the senior officer directs most of the people to leave the room. Immediately, the cruelty of the contractor begins when he chops off one of the finger of the victim with a small hatchet. Horrified by the act, some of the officer try to stop the forms of torture but their superior inform that the potential disastrous consequences of the nuclear bombs necessitates such extreme forms of interrogation.
As the movie unfolds, Mr. H resorts to more cruel measures and until one of the senior officers realizes that, the suspect came in anticipating such forms of torture. The suspect then makes demands that the President of the United States should formally announce that the he country will not support unpopular regimes and dictatorships in Muslim nations (Valensia, 2012). Additionally, the suspect calls for the withdrawal of American troops from all Muslim nations. The members of the integration team dismiss the demands immediately by stating that the United States does not negotiate with terrorists. One of the interrogating officers then makes an argument that the suspect is lying about the nuclear weapons. According to the officer, the actions by the suspect are just an attempt to make the United States government to reexamine its moral character. The suspect then breaks down and agrees that it was indeed a false alarm. The suspect then provides the address to a room.
The law enforcement officers find a room, one of the officer tries to remove a picture attached on a socket, and it triggers an explosion in a mall nearby. The bomb kills 53 people. The investigating officer ten turns to the suspect and he cuts his chest using a scalpel (Valensia, 2012). However, the suspect is still not afraid and he demands that he officer should cut him to death. The suspect says that the dead people in the mall are a small number compared to those killed by America every day in the Middle East. The suspect also confesses that he allowed himself to be caught so that he can face the offenders.
H then makes a decision to capture the wife of the suspect and bring her in front of him. H then attempts to mutilate the wife with the husband watching. However, one of the investigating officers begins to take the wife of the suspect away in disgust of the actions by H. However, out of desperation, H slashes her throat and the suspect watches as his wife bleeds to death (Ragazzi, 2016). H then instructs officers to bring the children of the suspect and he promises that will not harm them in any way. When the children come to the interrogation room, H informs the suspect that he will torture the children if he fails to reveal the location of the bombs. The suspect then reveals three addresses but H insists that he wants more information. According to H, the information provided by the suspect is incomplete because it cannot account for all the nuclear material at his disposal.
H reveals that everything done by suspect so far is part of an elaborate plan. Therefore, the suspect had anticipated that torture might break him and he planted a fourth bomb as insurance. The preceding form of torture was now not against the suspect, rather, it was a clear message of what could happen to the children if he failed to cooperate (Valensia, 2012). However, the officer in charge is not comfortable with bringing the children back in the interrogation room. The situation escalates and H unstraps the suspect from where he was sitting. According to H, the failure to push for more answers is as good as setting the suspect free. In the moment of confrontation, the suspect grabs the gun of one of the officers a shoots himself. In the next scene, the officers recover the three nuclear bombs from the locations provided. However, fourth bomb counts down to zero.
Torture as a theme appears on many movies and television programs involving terrorists. However, the approach of the subject is not critical. Nevertheless, some productions see the issue as a problematic area and criticize the effectiveness of the methods coupled with the ethical puzzled deployed in the war against terror (van Gorp, & Hoorens, 2017). The story line of the movie perpetuates an ethical dilemma that involves the choice of saving lives from the threat of an imminent attack against physically abusing an individual who has the relevant information to stop the attack. The terrorist in the film also has the protection of the inalienable rights of human beings. In particular, the rights prohibit the perpetration of torture against individuals. In the international legal conventions, the prohibition of torture is an order called ius cogens. In 1984, the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment became the dedicated international instrument against the abuse of such rights.
Similar to the domestic laws of the United States, international legal frameworks also ban all forms of torture and activities that derogate from the agreed instrument. However, it is difficult to understand why state forces fail to prosecute obvious cases of torture against terrorism suspects. Some arguments put it that the term ius cogens is vague and it allows agencies to wiggle out in an attempt to produce an accurate definition (van Gorp, & Hoorens, 2017). For example, the United States reduced international pressure by categorically stating that there is clear difference between torture and methods of enhanced interrogation. Authorities in the United States believe that methods such as waterboarding should not fall under forms of torture. Additionally, there is a challenge is enforcing the instruments against torture before the acts take place. Individuals considered as terrorized do not even have the opportunity to have lawyers in the room during investigations. Therefore, the officers can get away with many excesses.
Further, if a country perpetrates such crimes, then which body has the legal mandate to bring them to book for such actions? In that question, the subject of sovereignty comes to the fore. Sovereignty is the ability to acts exceptionally (van Gorp, & Hoorens, 2017). States draw the mandate to act from the sovereign wills of the people because it is supreme. Therefore, sovereignty has the ability to cast aside some of the written laws because it is the balance between the politics and the law. If a majority of the constituents feels that the country can break certain laws due to some exceptional occurrences, then the concept of sovereignty applies. In that regard, the decision by the state to perpetrate torture may be the will of the sovereign.
Unthinkable also demonstrates that the law enforcement officers and the military and indifferent to the law. The officers only follow instructions from the senior officers in unique circumstances (van Gorp, & Hoorens, 2017). In numerous scenes, officers from the FBI are fully aware of the rights of the suspect but they still watch the perpetration of acts of torture against him because he is a suspected terrorist. Under the military jurisdiction, suspects do not have the same rights as individuals held by domestic law enforcement officers. The waiver of human rights is under the powers from the Military Commission Act. The Act is against the Geneva Convention on habeas corpus.
Therefore, the movie demonstrates the exceptional nature of the United States in its counterterrorism efforts. The country does not follow the same rules as other nations. To that extent, it is also possible to conclude that the country perceives itself as a sovereign and that it can contravene the international legal orders without consequence . The viewers of the movie have the opportunity to understand the semi-martial regime instilled in the United States after the 9/11 attacks. The acts of torture against the suspects are an ethical gray area that informs the counterterrorism operations. The exceptionality of the potential of harm that can occur from the terrorist attacks makes it difficult to sympathize with individuals facing torture. However, it is imperative to understand that two wrong undertakings do not make a right.
References
Abbas, M. S. (2019). Producing ‘internal suspect bodies’: divisive effects of UK counter‐terrorism measures on Muslim communities in Leeds and Bradford. The British journal of sociology, 70(1), 261-282.
Ragazzi, F. (2016). Suspect community or suspect category? The impact of counter-terrorism as ‘policed multiculturalism’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(5), 724-741.
Valensia, F P. P. (2012). Investigating Interrogation System In Gregor Jordan’s Unthinkable Movie (2010): A Humanistic Approach (Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta).
van Gorp, A., & Hoorens, S. (2017). Methods to address ethical issues in Counterterrorism: An overview of methods and tools used to address and manage ethical issues in healthcare, social work, police and the military. Ethics of Counterterrorism, 69-92.
