Phrases in Dispute: Lyotard, The Differend and Taxi to the Dark-Side (2007)
The following page will consider how the HBO documentary feature Taxi to the Darkside (2007) and how it illustrates notions featured in Jean Francois Lyotard's Differend: Phrases in Dispute(1983).
The page will:
Summarise the context and content of the film, illustrating its key themes and features.
Define and explain Lyotard's concept of the Differend.
Identify and exemplify the Differend within the key themes and features of the film.
Critically analyse the representations of the Differend within the film.
The page will:
Summarise the context and content of the film, illustrating its key themes and features.
Define and explain Lyotard's concept of the Differend.
Identify and exemplify the Differend within the key themes and features of the film.
Critically analyse the representations of the Differend within the film.
Introduction: Taxi to the Dark-Side (2007)
Taxi to the Dark-Side took the Academy Award® for Best Documentary Feature as well as the Peabody Award in 2008.
It assesses the practices of the United States Military in the detention and interrogation of suspected terrorist detainees in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay in the years following 9/11.
In 2002, a young, Afghan taxi driver named Dilawar, was killed whilst being held in Bagram detention centre, Afghanistan in 2002 as a suspected terrorist.
His death revealed a US Military scandal which presented the Bush Adminstration in breach of the Geneva Convention.
The subsequent investigation revealed that Dilawar was not a terrorist and his death was deemed a homicide, allegedly attributed to brutal interrogation and detainment techniques allegedly approved by US Government and performed the by the guards at Bagram.
"Put people in crazy situations and people do crazy things." - Pfc.Damien Corsetti, Bagram, Afghanistan
It assesses the practices of the United States Military in the detention and interrogation of suspected terrorist detainees in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay in the years following 9/11.
In 2002, a young, Afghan taxi driver named Dilawar, was killed whilst being held in Bagram detention centre, Afghanistan in 2002 as a suspected terrorist.
His death revealed a US Military scandal which presented the Bush Adminstration in breach of the Geneva Convention.
The subsequent investigation revealed that Dilawar was not a terrorist and his death was deemed a homicide, allegedly attributed to brutal interrogation and detainment techniques allegedly approved by US Government and performed the by the guards at Bagram.
"Put people in crazy situations and people do crazy things." - Pfc.Damien Corsetti, Bagram, Afghanistan
The report and the subsequent evidence exposed the implementation of extreme stress positions, extended and indefinite, complete sensory deprivation, sexual humiliation and abuse, waterboarding and other interrogation techniques which violently oppose the conditions of the Geneva Convention.
The title, Taxi to the Dark Side, has a dual reference. Primarily, it refers to Dilawar, the taxi driver, who provides the focus of the investigation, but secondly it evokes a statement US Vice President Dick Cheney made to Tim Russert a few days after the 9/11 attacks.
"We also have to work the dark side, if you will... We've got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world." Dick Cheney
The title, Taxi to the Dark Side, has a dual reference. Primarily, it refers to Dilawar, the taxi driver, who provides the focus of the investigation, but secondly it evokes a statement US Vice President Dick Cheney made to Tim Russert a few days after the 9/11 attacks.
"We also have to work the dark side, if you will... We've got to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world." Dick Cheney
The film documents a proliferation of alleged abuses against terrorism suspects who had not received charge or trial in U.S. Military detention centres abroad. Stemming from the case of the accused "20th hijacker" of 9/11, Mohammad al Qahtani, detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and subjected to humiliation tactics, apparently approved by US Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld, in an attempt to gather information.
These tactics were then imported and implemented in Abu Ghraib, Iraq and Bagram, Afghanistan. |
The 'Bad Apples' of Bagram and Abu Ghraib
Diagram of Stress Position
used at Bagram
In 2004, the now infamous photographs, taken by guards at Abu Ghraib, were given wordwide publication. Both the liberal Media and Director Alex Gibney present the US Government and Military pointing the fingers of judgement at 'a few bad apples.'
The ‘bad apples’ who were almost categorically low ranking officers who defend their positions as being under recommendation from their superiors, were brought to trial, discharged and/or imprisoned. The same happened with the Dilawar case.
Following the investigation, Capt. Carolyn Wood, the ranking officer in charge at Bagram at the time of the Dilawars homocide, enjoyed a promotion to trainer in the field of interrogation whilst Dilawars body was described in witness reports to have '...looked as if it was hit by a truck...' In the presence of the Supreme Court, the then US President George W. Bush, with the help of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, successfully defeated the charges made in relation to the allegations of grievious misconduct in the detention centres, effectively sidestepping the War Crimes allegations under the Geneva Conventions (1949). The 'bad apples' were charged with the offence and sent to rot. At least that is how Taxi to the Darkside documents it.
The trailer for Taxi to the Darkside is below the picture of Capt. Carolyn Wood. The full feature is linked at the bottom of this page.
The ‘bad apples’ who were almost categorically low ranking officers who defend their positions as being under recommendation from their superiors, were brought to trial, discharged and/or imprisoned. The same happened with the Dilawar case.
Following the investigation, Capt. Carolyn Wood, the ranking officer in charge at Bagram at the time of the Dilawars homocide, enjoyed a promotion to trainer in the field of interrogation whilst Dilawars body was described in witness reports to have '...looked as if it was hit by a truck...' In the presence of the Supreme Court, the then US President George W. Bush, with the help of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, successfully defeated the charges made in relation to the allegations of grievious misconduct in the detention centres, effectively sidestepping the War Crimes allegations under the Geneva Conventions (1949). The 'bad apples' were charged with the offence and sent to rot. At least that is how Taxi to the Darkside documents it.
The trailer for Taxi to the Darkside is below the picture of Capt. Carolyn Wood. The full feature is linked at the bottom of this page.
The War Crime allegations made against the US Government were extremely well publicised and their conduct and the Supreme Court's decision was admist heavy criticism from the liberal Media, but the really interesting point here is the use of the term 'bad apple' and its naturalisation of use when concerning scandals within organisations with considerable economic, social, politcal or cultural power. We are still living in the wake of the 'bad apples' who promoted sub-prime mortgages and nearly crushed the Western economic market and plunged the economy into this continuiing global recession and the 'bad apples'.
The viewer of Taxi to the Darkside may leave the experience feeling as though the decision of the Supreme Court effectively sets a precedent which successfully silences an individual and their right to fair trial under Habeas Corpus and creates circumstances to which, George Bush's War on Terror can neglect to recognise the priviledges set in the Geneva Convention.
The following film is made by PBS so it is suitably dramatic but it attempts to document the decisions to neglect the Geneva Convention, albeit with the most formulaic media language possible, a formula that Charlie Brooker loosely describes underneath it.
The viewer of Taxi to the Darkside may leave the experience feeling as though the decision of the Supreme Court effectively sets a precedent which successfully silences an individual and their right to fair trial under Habeas Corpus and creates circumstances to which, George Bush's War on Terror can neglect to recognise the priviledges set in the Geneva Convention.
The following film is made by PBS so it is suitably dramatic but it attempts to document the decisions to neglect the Geneva Convention, albeit with the most formulaic media language possible, a formula that Charlie Brooker loosely describes underneath it.
Phrases in Dispute: Defining the Differend
'A differend is a case of conflict between parties that cannot be equitably resolved for lack of a rule of judgement applicable to both. In the case of a differend, the parties cannot agree on a rule or criterion by which their dispute might be decided.' http://www.iep.utm.edu/lyotard/
Phrases in Dispute: Explaining the Differend
A litigation is a dispute which can be equitably resolved because the parties involved can agree on a rule of judgement. This principle is understood universally by Western societies.
The differend is directly opposed to the principles set by a litigatiion. A litigation presents the wronged party as the plaintiff, this wronged party claims another party 'wronged' them in some way. The party who the plaintiff has attributed a wrong against is called the accused. The winner of this case would be considered a victim. Lyotard makes very clear assertions that the victim is not always the plaintiff or the winner of the case.
For Lyotard, the victim is not just a wronged party but a party who does not have the power to present this wrong in an agreed judgement system such as a court. For example, the victim could be threatened not to testify and is unable to present their argument;0 or said party could be releived of their right to a fair trail under legislation such as the Terrorism Act like Dilawar and the other Detainees of Bagram, Abu Ghraib and Guantanmo.
Much more simply this 'wrong' cannot be translated or understood by the terms of the judgement system, as in judging the worth of a lost sentimental item in monetary terms. If the victim’s wrong cannot be presented, Lyotard would describe this as a Differend.
The differend is directly opposed to the principles set by a litigatiion. A litigation presents the wronged party as the plaintiff, this wronged party claims another party 'wronged' them in some way. The party who the plaintiff has attributed a wrong against is called the accused. The winner of this case would be considered a victim. Lyotard makes very clear assertions that the victim is not always the plaintiff or the winner of the case.
For Lyotard, the victim is not just a wronged party but a party who does not have the power to present this wrong in an agreed judgement system such as a court. For example, the victim could be threatened not to testify and is unable to present their argument;0 or said party could be releived of their right to a fair trail under legislation such as the Terrorism Act like Dilawar and the other Detainees of Bagram, Abu Ghraib and Guantanmo.
Much more simply this 'wrong' cannot be translated or understood by the terms of the judgement system, as in judging the worth of a lost sentimental item in monetary terms. If the victim’s wrong cannot be presented, Lyotard would describe this as a Differend.
The Case of the Holocaust
Lyotard exemplifies the principle of the differend with the Revisionist historian Faurisson and his demands for proof of the Holocaust. Lyotard presents how his argument presents a victim through a differend, or an inability to present ones argument due to some sort of silencing. The differend in this case is what he calls a double bind or can be more eailsy understood by the phrase popularised by Joseph Heller's wartime novel, this differend is a Catch-22. The following explanation has been taken from http://www.iep.utm.edu/lyotard/
'Faurisson will only accept proof of the existence of gas chambers from eyewitnesses who were themselves victims of the gas chambers. But of course, any such eyewitnesses are dead and are not able to testify. Faurisson concludes from this that there were no gas chambers.'
http://www.iep.utm.edu/lyotard/
Faurrison is presenting a double bind or a differend. Either there were no gas chambers and subsequently there could be no eyewitnesses to produce evidence, or there were gas chambers but no eyewitnesses to produce evidence as they would be dead. Faurisson is presenting two opposing positions which result in the same conclusion, that there were no gas chambers and therefore no Final Solution.
The following video illustrates the Revisionist argument with Faurisson himself and as I'm sure you will see at the end of the film, this argument is now the victim of to its own differend. This particular viewpoint would be completely unrecognised in a court of law in a majority of the Western countries, including the US and UK and most certainly Israel, as it is now illegal to deny the Holocaust. In fact this argument may put you in jail.
It would be interesting to aplly the differend to the current discourse surrounding the frequent accusations from the Media regarding Israel's attitude towards the Holocaust and the ongoing Palenstinan issues.
The third video is an old Pathe piece covering MP Mavis Tate with footage from her visit to Buchenwald concentration camp. She speaks very eloquently about her experience at the camp and presents an opposing viewpoint to Faurisson and the Cleric in video 2. The piece is taken from German Atrocities - Proof (1945)
'Faurisson will only accept proof of the existence of gas chambers from eyewitnesses who were themselves victims of the gas chambers. But of course, any such eyewitnesses are dead and are not able to testify. Faurisson concludes from this that there were no gas chambers.'
http://www.iep.utm.edu/lyotard/
Faurrison is presenting a double bind or a differend. Either there were no gas chambers and subsequently there could be no eyewitnesses to produce evidence, or there were gas chambers but no eyewitnesses to produce evidence as they would be dead. Faurisson is presenting two opposing positions which result in the same conclusion, that there were no gas chambers and therefore no Final Solution.
The following video illustrates the Revisionist argument with Faurisson himself and as I'm sure you will see at the end of the film, this argument is now the victim of to its own differend. This particular viewpoint would be completely unrecognised in a court of law in a majority of the Western countries, including the US and UK and most certainly Israel, as it is now illegal to deny the Holocaust. In fact this argument may put you in jail.
It would be interesting to aplly the differend to the current discourse surrounding the frequent accusations from the Media regarding Israel's attitude towards the Holocaust and the ongoing Palenstinan issues.
The third video is an old Pathe piece covering MP Mavis Tate with footage from her visit to Buchenwald concentration camp. She speaks very eloquently about her experience at the camp and presents an opposing viewpoint to Faurisson and the Cleric in video 2. The piece is taken from German Atrocities - Proof (1945)
The Case of the Aboriginal Land
Lyotard also uses the Australian Aborigines as an example. Many indigenous societies claim that land which they inhabited first is now the property of the decendants of European Colonists. They are the Plaintiff in this case. The Aboriginal people claim they are the rightful owners of the land which was taken from them wrongfully. The Aboriginals are at the mercy of the differend as the tribal laws which establish their claim of land rights are not understood or accepted in the law courts of the Australian Government. The Aboriginal Judgment System is not recognised and their viewpoitns can not be presented and as such, this party are both plaintiff and victim. They are double bound by the differend.
The court of appeal in which claims to land rights are heard functions entirely according to government law, and tribal law is not considered a valid system of judgment. In the case of a dispute over a certain area of land by farmers who are descendants of colonists on the one hand, and a tribe of Aborigines on the other hand, the court of appeal will be the one which involves the law that the farmers recognise (government law), while the law that the Aborigines recognise (tribal law) will not be considered valid.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/lyotard/
The next video shows that the indigenous peoples of Australia are still battling for land they believe is theirs. This case has not had a lot of media coverage but you can follow it with a search for Northern Territory Intervention, Australia on youtube. The operative word in this case is Intervention.
The court of appeal in which claims to land rights are heard functions entirely according to government law, and tribal law is not considered a valid system of judgment. In the case of a dispute over a certain area of land by farmers who are descendants of colonists on the one hand, and a tribe of Aborigines on the other hand, the court of appeal will be the one which involves the law that the farmers recognise (government law), while the law that the Aborigines recognise (tribal law) will not be considered valid.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/lyotard/
The next video shows that the indigenous peoples of Australia are still battling for land they believe is theirs. This case has not had a lot of media coverage but you can follow it with a search for Northern Territory Intervention, Australia on youtube. The operative word in this case is Intervention.
Phrases in Dispute: Illustrating and Analysing The Differend in Taxi to the Dark-Side (2007)
Taxi to the Dark-Side attempts to present significant abuses of human rights at Bagram, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, since the US Government announced its War on Terror however, it particularly focuses on the abuses suffered by men of Arab ethnicity with Islamic belief systems, suspected of being or having affiliations with terrorism.
Almost all images of inmates in Bagram and Abu Ghraib were of men with Arab ethnicity and Muslim faith in the documentary and the prosecuting case, heard by the Supreme Court, alleged that inmates Muslim, cultural and spiritual heritage was used as a weapon of torture.
The documentary presents the Guards justifying their conduct with a report conducted by the US Government, which found that Arab men have a particular fear of dogs and are susceptible to sexual humiliation. The officers claim to have acted on this study and were subsequently punished, where the US Government claim that they did not order the techniques enforced against those suspected of crimes under the Terrorism Act. The film portrays this as the deciding factor of the trial. |
When the languages used to communicate the power relations described in the film are examined, both in the physical and linguistic behaviour of the Guards and within the discourse surrounding the evidence provided in the film, in the absence of the principles of Habeas Corpus and the Geneva Convention, we begin discover that there is little relevance in the term suspected.
The Western World would consider the principles of Habeas Corpus and the Geneva Convention to be fundamental and universal principles (or the principles of 'a right to a fair trial' and basic human rights such as the 'right to life' are accepted and believed in the Western World and are promoted as the ideals of an enlightened and civilised society) Lyotard himself would call these universal principles metanarratives.
In the circumstances the documentary presents, these universal principles or meatanarrratives do not apply and subsequently it leaves the inmates of Bagram, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo in a double bind, they are at the mercy of the differend as they do not have the rights of Habeas Corpus under the Terrorism Act. Seemingly, they are also outside of the Geneva Convention as they are not suspected solidiers, they are suspected terrorists. Said suspects are outside of the Western metanarrative of Habeas Corpus - the universal belief that all men have the right to a fair trial - or in Lyotards view, they are the victims of the differend, as they are prevented from expressing their case in a mutual Judgement system.
The obvious connotation is that to be a suspected terrorist or a suspected affiliate of a suspected terrorist is to absolve all human rights and subsequently, cease to be human, but there is an enormous discrepancy here. A discrepancy in the scenario where the suspected is not a terrorist or an affiliate of a suspected terrorist. The suspected terrorist or the suspected affiliate of a suspected terrorist, without Habeas Corpus, does not have a voice to speak out against the claims against them and is therefore, what Lyotard would consider to be a case where the parties 'cannot equitably resolve for a lack of a rule judgement', in this case a suspect does not have voice to defend himself, as to be a suspected terrorist or a suspected affiliate of a suspected terrorist means that there is a suspicion but the suspect is never charged with an accusation and never tried in a court of law which both parties have agreed as the Judgement System. Since the suspected terrorist or the suspected affiliate of a suspected terrorist will never have a trial, they are automatically a terrorist or an affilliate of a terrorist whether they actually are or not and therefore will suffer the penalties of terrorism as illustrated in Bagram, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo without the protection of the metanarratives set by the laws of the allegedly civilised, decent and the enlightened.
The Western World would consider the principles of Habeas Corpus and the Geneva Convention to be fundamental and universal principles (or the principles of 'a right to a fair trial' and basic human rights such as the 'right to life' are accepted and believed in the Western World and are promoted as the ideals of an enlightened and civilised society) Lyotard himself would call these universal principles metanarratives.
In the circumstances the documentary presents, these universal principles or meatanarrratives do not apply and subsequently it leaves the inmates of Bagram, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo in a double bind, they are at the mercy of the differend as they do not have the rights of Habeas Corpus under the Terrorism Act. Seemingly, they are also outside of the Geneva Convention as they are not suspected solidiers, they are suspected terrorists. Said suspects are outside of the Western metanarrative of Habeas Corpus - the universal belief that all men have the right to a fair trial - or in Lyotards view, they are the victims of the differend, as they are prevented from expressing their case in a mutual Judgement system.
The obvious connotation is that to be a suspected terrorist or a suspected affiliate of a suspected terrorist is to absolve all human rights and subsequently, cease to be human, but there is an enormous discrepancy here. A discrepancy in the scenario where the suspected is not a terrorist or an affiliate of a suspected terrorist. The suspected terrorist or the suspected affiliate of a suspected terrorist, without Habeas Corpus, does not have a voice to speak out against the claims against them and is therefore, what Lyotard would consider to be a case where the parties 'cannot equitably resolve for a lack of a rule judgement', in this case a suspect does not have voice to defend himself, as to be a suspected terrorist or a suspected affiliate of a suspected terrorist means that there is a suspicion but the suspect is never charged with an accusation and never tried in a court of law which both parties have agreed as the Judgement System. Since the suspected terrorist or the suspected affiliate of a suspected terrorist will never have a trial, they are automatically a terrorist or an affilliate of a terrorist whether they actually are or not and therefore will suffer the penalties of terrorism as illustrated in Bagram, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo without the protection of the metanarratives set by the laws of the allegedly civilised, decent and the enlightened.
There are, of course, echoes of Edward Said's Orientalism, and as all the featured men in the documentary are Arab and Muslim an audience can quite easily reflect Said's expositions of the West as Orientalist, in that, as all the suspected terrorists who are portrayed in Bagram, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are Arab and Muslim, that all terrorists since 9/11 are Arab and Muslim, or even that all Arabs and Muslims are terrorists however, we need to look at the structure of the process which, enables and enforces the illustrations Said proposed.
The term suspected suggests an understanding of a person being 'wronged' by another party, with an additional understanding of the realities that the suspect may or may not be guilty. This may be brought to the attention of a court of law and the suspect becomes the accused. |
In the absence of Habeas Corpus, the term suspected is redunant but still used. This actively silences the suspect by
affording said person the moniker of suspect and not accussed, subsequently suggesting a right to a fair trial if it is brought to court, however, the actions of releiving the suspected of the right to Habeas Corpus means that they are never the accused, justifed by the US Government in this instance, through the Terrorism Act, an act which was was proposed and passed to ensure the safety of the people of its country and more importantly, the ideals that describe it as a civilised and enlightened society, such as the right to a fair trail and the right to life.
The suspect is now a victim of the differend, if he is an Arab and a Muslim who is a terrorist he will be detained at Bagram, Abu Ghraib or Guantanmo, if he is an Arab and a Muslim who is a not a terrorist he will still be detained at Bagram, Abu Ghraib or Guantanmo. Two opposing ideas are subject to the same results - detention in a US Detention Centre. Seemingly, the documentary presents Muslims and Arabs that are suspected with terrorism particularly, if they live or travels in the regions of Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan and subsequently, the right to Habeas Corpus is waivered if this description is applicable.
The following four videos are from a pretty cheesy documentart series but you won't have to suffer for long as the films are mostly Edward Said, discussing his thoughts on Orientalism. The fifth video is from Charlie Brookers Newswipe. Its Doug Stanhopes ideas on American News and Fear. Both men are incredibly bright but don't take their word for it, read their criticisms too, there's lot of them, particularly with Said. The picture after the video's really sums up the documentary's exposition of the subject and presents a great illustration of Lyotards Differend.
affording said person the moniker of suspect and not accussed, subsequently suggesting a right to a fair trial if it is brought to court, however, the actions of releiving the suspected of the right to Habeas Corpus means that they are never the accused, justifed by the US Government in this instance, through the Terrorism Act, an act which was was proposed and passed to ensure the safety of the people of its country and more importantly, the ideals that describe it as a civilised and enlightened society, such as the right to a fair trail and the right to life.
The suspect is now a victim of the differend, if he is an Arab and a Muslim who is a terrorist he will be detained at Bagram, Abu Ghraib or Guantanmo, if he is an Arab and a Muslim who is a not a terrorist he will still be detained at Bagram, Abu Ghraib or Guantanmo. Two opposing ideas are subject to the same results - detention in a US Detention Centre. Seemingly, the documentary presents Muslims and Arabs that are suspected with terrorism particularly, if they live or travels in the regions of Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan and subsequently, the right to Habeas Corpus is waivered if this description is applicable.
The following four videos are from a pretty cheesy documentart series but you won't have to suffer for long as the films are mostly Edward Said, discussing his thoughts on Orientalism. The fifth video is from Charlie Brookers Newswipe. Its Doug Stanhopes ideas on American News and Fear. Both men are incredibly bright but don't take their word for it, read their criticisms too, there's lot of them, particularly with Said. The picture after the video's really sums up the documentary's exposition of the subject and presents a great illustration of Lyotards Differend.
|
|
|
|
This effectively renders said suspect into the savage and barbaric descriptions afforded by Edward Said's Oreintalism and re-inforced by the fact that all said suspects were Muslim by faith and Arab by ethnicity. Perhaps, even more disturbingly, the documentary revealed that of the 83,000 inmates at Bagram only 2% were suspected of being directly involved in terrorism.
|
|
|
|
In Jean Francios Lyotard's words, the presentations of events in Taxi to the Dark-Side are all differends, the ideas presented by the film are, as with the captives of Auswitz, who could not contest their persecution in the gas chambers to Faurission, as they were not alive to testify to the fact, the Muslim, given certain parameters, no longer has a voice beyond that of a suspected terrorist who do not have the right to speak in their own defence within an agreed judgement system as they are liberated of Habeas Corpus and the conditions of priviledge illustrated by the Geneva Convention.
The differend in the Taxi to the Darkside is evident everywhere in the film. Dilawar was killed by interrogation a word which can be defined as 'formal questioning.' The War on Terror is manifested with US justifications of the terror of war, peace is proclaimed with violence, the suspected are silenced through the unrecognised right of Habeas Corpus, the soldiers enlisted to protect a culture from terrorism, become terrorists and like Orientalist discourse suggests, all terrorists are the enemy of the West and they are silenced and individualised from their own collective identity through the moniker bad apple, effectively distancing the collective from the individual as a binary opposition which echos Said's opinions of the Derrida's binary opposition between West and the Orient where the dominant power, the West assume the moniker of hero where, in this case, the Muslim is positioned as the villain.
Taxi to the Darkside presents its evidence and its representations as very clear Phrases in Dispute and as such, we are faced with the differend of representation, a term with its own disputes in meaning when facing universal principles such as truth and justice. At the end of Taxi to the Darkside, British Muslim Moazamm Begg commented on his release from Guantanamo Bay, following his excessive period of detention, which was proved, wrongly attributed. The officer said when he left, 'if you weren't a terrorist coming in, you will be going out.' Sometimes, the differend is even at odds with itself. The differend which seems to have been created in this instance, to control terrorism, it seems, is in fact creating just as much terrorism if not more terrorism and this documentary lays claim to this particular rhetoric.
The differend in the Taxi to the Darkside is evident everywhere in the film. Dilawar was killed by interrogation a word which can be defined as 'formal questioning.' The War on Terror is manifested with US justifications of the terror of war, peace is proclaimed with violence, the suspected are silenced through the unrecognised right of Habeas Corpus, the soldiers enlisted to protect a culture from terrorism, become terrorists and like Orientalist discourse suggests, all terrorists are the enemy of the West and they are silenced and individualised from their own collective identity through the moniker bad apple, effectively distancing the collective from the individual as a binary opposition which echos Said's opinions of the Derrida's binary opposition between West and the Orient where the dominant power, the West assume the moniker of hero where, in this case, the Muslim is positioned as the villain.
Taxi to the Darkside presents its evidence and its representations as very clear Phrases in Dispute and as such, we are faced with the differend of representation, a term with its own disputes in meaning when facing universal principles such as truth and justice. At the end of Taxi to the Darkside, British Muslim Moazamm Begg commented on his release from Guantanamo Bay, following his excessive period of detention, which was proved, wrongly attributed. The officer said when he left, 'if you weren't a terrorist coming in, you will be going out.' Sometimes, the differend is even at odds with itself. The differend which seems to have been created in this instance, to control terrorism, it seems, is in fact creating just as much terrorism if not more terrorism and this documentary lays claim to this particular rhetoric.