Levin’s target audience is Americans because his use of American symbolism such as “July 4,” and “unconstitutional.” In addition, the United States is not the only victim of terrorist attacks. Many countries around the world also fall prey to terrorism. According to Levin, begins his essay with a brief description of how he believes that societies view the subject of torture as negative thing. He justifies his reasoning on torture by allowing it in order to save innocent lives. Levin’s second claim is that the judicial system is a slow process when time is a factor and the only way to speed it up is by torture.
We should be able to say whatever it is that we want. Even back then they shouldn't be able to put somebody into jail for saying a negative comment about the government or even a leader. They should have had the right to say what they wanted to and to express the way that they felt about it. The Patriot Act was passed for much the same reason as the Alien and Sedition Acts. It was made law in our response to the fear of terrorism caused by the events of 9/11.
On the other hand, I think that our government has the right to do everything in it’s power to ensure our safety, including spying on those in countries who have threatened our own. If the NSA could have taken a closer look or had more information about Hazmi and Midhar’s plan to travel to the United States, their trip would have never been successful. The NSA needs to focus their attention more to the other countries instead of basically wasting all of their time with U.S. citizens, and maybe slips like letting terrorist into our homeland wouldn’t happen. They are getting their systems blown up with information that is useless to them from Americans. If they didn’t have to spend the time to sort through all of America’s “evidence,” then they would probably be able to seek out and confirm the terroristic threats and evidence coming from outside of the
There are 2 main reasons for this First, terrorism causes death and violence, which leads to dehumanization. Terrorism is clearly immoral because of this, and the eradication of terrorism would lead to a more moral world. Second, terrorism also takes away the constitutional rights of life and property, which are basic fundamental rights for all people, as defined by the Constitution. Contention I: Inadequacy of due process towards terrorists has increased animosity amongst other countries and terrorists themselves. SP:A- Misapprehension of the innocent detriments connections with other countries.
The argument is usually the same: one side insists that if officials eradicated guns, thus abolishing the Second Amendment, gun violence will somehow go away. Contrarily, the pro- gun side argues that this invades our rights as humans to protect ourselves. It seems ironic that a debate about the morality of building and owning bombs doesn’t flare when a mass bombing kills dozens, sometimes hundreds. For the argument of fairness, one could suggest that purchasing the materials to build a bomb of any kind could be punishable by law regardless of knowing the intent of the individual. Just as a law abiding American citizen seeking to purchase a gun might potentially be prosecuted if the Second Amendment is dropped from the Constitution.
A method of interrogation that is used here, and many other prisons and detainee camps, is enhanced interrogation. Enhanced interrogation has been used for many years to obtain information from prisoners, but these methods should be banned because they are ineffective, torturous and have long lasting effects on the prisoners. After the 9/11 attacks the Bush Administration decided to capture convicted terrorists and bring them back to the US as “detainees,” so that they could not be protected under the Geneva Convention (Mayer). While doing this the US began establishing “black site” prison camps oversees so that they were out of reach of the US law. At the time José Rodriguez was head of the CIA and he began arguing that torturing towards the detainees was necessary to prevent further terrorist attacks.
Patrice Foster Professor Hayaud-Din Government 2301-2406 Summer I 2012 Extra Credit Abolishing The Exclusionary Rule Word Count: Patrice Foster The Exclusionary Rule The Exclusionary Rule is a senseless rule. We should get rid of it and the police and prosecutors should be able to use the evidence even if it’s obtained in violation of the rule, because we could potentially let criminals go to satisfy this rule. This rule is so full of controversy, that it is hard to support. How can we as citizens embrace this rule? A rule that does so little to protect the law as it was made.
Our government should be able to temporarily restrict our liberties for the well being and safety of all its citizens. The liberties that we have give us power such as freedom of speech this right I and of itself is a powerful authority. Freedom of speech can reveal government secrets and possible weaknesses that can be used to destabilize the government. We as humans know that surviving is a priority and that to survive we will do anything like reveal secrets to gain sanctuary from another country to survive the wrath of other countries. This can be true with Snowden revealing secrets.
Contemplating the Moral Permissibility of Torture This paper is an evaluation of a work by Henry Shue in which he writes about torture. Shue points out that while torture is a violation of most international law, it continues to be used extensively throughout the world and that its use may actually be on the rise. Governments are in effect “talking the talk” in their condemnation of torture but the reality is that they are not “walking the walk” as they institute the use of torture for various means of self preservation. Shue’s primary goal seems to be to show that torture is a special entity that is far worse than even death because it is an assault against the defenseless. Shue does not necessarily attempt to show that torture is never justified.
Is Torture Ever Justified? Terrorism and Civil Liberties The Economist In this piece “Is Torture Ever Justified?” the issue of torture being used on enemies during interrogation is the focus and it seems to me the author argues that it is not justifiable but only in certain circumstances. I would argue with him on his claim, I do not feel that torture is ever justifiable regardless of how dire the situation. According to this article torture is banned from almost everything. There are treaties set in place such as the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention against Torture that are against it “consider it along with genocide, torture is the only crime that every state must punish it no matter what”.