"Rendition"

I just watched “Rendition”. It was to me an intellectual shock, at the same time, a feeling of feeble of being a human. The movie's background was after 911, the national security policy was beefed up to the highest level, at the same time the terrorist activities were ever more intensified. One chemical engineer, An Egyptian, the green card holder, was mistakenly taken as an “important link”. He was mystically disappeared.

No matter who you are, you are really no in control what happens next moment. Not Kelli, the devoted extremist, not his girlfriend, rebelled against arranged marriage, without knowing her own father was the target of suicide attacks; Not Anwar an Egyptian with green card, nor his wife, Isabella an American, their innocent and peaceful life was so easily smashed by some kind of “mistakes”.

This movie fits well into Weber’s theoretic framework of ethic of ultimate end and ethic of responsibility. The suicide bombers, with ethic of ultimate end of doing the will of “GOD” and of entering into the “heaven” as faithful fighters, their means were to kill using their own bodies; Ellen the head of CIA (central intelligence agency?) and her teams, with ethic of ultimate end of “national security”, their means was to search any suspects of terrorism without necessary jurisdiction evidence and procedure. For Ellen, she would not care about a bit what suffering Anwar and his wife went thought, unless, “One of her grandkids were Anwar.”

The result was human tragedy….

When one takes the ethic of ultimate end without choosing the right means, Weber says “The ethic of ultimate ends apparently must go to pieces on the problem of the justification of means by ends. As a matter of fact, logically it has only the possibility of rejecting all action that employs morally dangerous means- in theory! In the world of realities, as a rule, we encounter the ever-renewed experience that the adherent of an ethic of ultimate ends turns suddenly into a chiliastic prophet.”

It however took one man with ethic of responsibility to save one man. Douglas, a new guy, inexperience, (in other words), his human personality had not become “bureaucratic personality”. Unable to stand as “observer” to witness the inhuman tortures laid upon Anwar, he took the matter to his own hand and freed Anwar. We often take for granted when we come home safely, and being with our love ones, for Anwar, it was like a long nightmare. What a sight and feeling for him, when he reunited with his wife and son and being home. But I wonder whether Anwar and his family will ever walk through the shadow of this nightmare; who should be responsible for their agony and suffering?

What would happen to Douglas, we don’t know. But one thing for sure that he will never be a successful politician. Remember, Weber in his “politics as a vocation” pointed out “No ethics in the world can dodge the fact that in numerous instances the attainment of ‘good’ ends is bound to the fact that one must be willing to pay the price of using morally dubious means or at least dangerous ones- and facing the possibility or even the probability of evil ramification.” “Whoever wants to engage in politics at all, and especially in politics as a vocation, has to realize these ethical paradoxes. He must know that he is responsible for what may become of himself under the impact of these paradoxes. He let himself in for the diabolic forces lurking in all violence.”

This is really good movie evokes sociological thinking and discussion.