Final answer:
The use of extraordinary rendition by the government must balance national security needs and the protection of human rights. Practices like the WWII internment of Japanese Americans and Guantanamo detainments raise ethical concerns and have faced legal challenges, reflecting the complexity of this issue.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether the government should be allowed to use extraordinary rendition touches on complex issues related to national security, human rights, and legal ethics. During wartime or in the context of the war on terror, governments have occasionally suspended civil liberties. For instance, the U.S. used extraordinary rendition to transfer terrorism suspects to locations where they could be interrogated using methods not permitted under U.S. law. This practice, however, raises significant concerns regarding the violation of human rights and potential abuses.
In the case of the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, the Supreme Court upheld the government's actions for the sake of national security, but this has been widely criticized in hindsight. Furthermore, the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay has been controversial, with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that certain practices there violated U.S. law and international treaties.
When considering if the government should use extraordinary rendition, one has to weigh the importance of protecting citizens from threats and the need to uphold the core values and legal principles of the nation, including the protection of individual rights. Therefore, the answer to this question may vary depending on one's perspective on the balance between national security and civil liberties.