Due to the semantic field of fear and terror running throughout the discourses of Bush and Blair their choice of lexis is crucial in conveying their political ideologies. The introduction of Bush’s speech was of dire importance. Antithesis is being used within the first sentence; Bush begins his discourse “… Our fellow citizens, our way of life…”, and then ends with “deadly terrorist acts”. Due to the contrasting image portrayed listeners feel their “way of life”, they, as individuals and citizens of America are at threat, of “deadly and deliberate terrorist attacks”. This further promotes the global normalisation of terrorism and the “War on terror”.
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.
Iranians saw the asylum granted by the U.S. as American complicity in the atrocities the Shah had committed. In the United States, the hostage-taking was seen as an egregious violation of the principles of international law which granted diplomats immunity from arrest and diplomatic compounds' inviolability. [4][5] The hostage crisis reached a climax when, after failed attempts to negotiate a release of the hostages, the United States military attempted a rescue operation using ships such as the USS Nimitz and USS Coral
Pros and Cons of Closing Guantanamo Bay American National Government Instructor: Nicole Reale Janet Talley October 29, 2012 Pros and Cons of Closing Guantanamo Bay After researching and much reading, I found it hard to write solely on keeping Guantanamo Bay open. Before I read all the information that I did, I was dead set that we should keep it open, but now I am not so sure about my thoughts. I do feel that we need to give the President the right to make decisions in war times and even when the United States of America has been exposed to terrorist. The Scope of the President’s independent war powers is notoriously unclear, and courts are understandably reluctant to issued constitutional rulings that might deprive the federal government as a whole the flexibility needed to respond to crises. As a result, courts often look for signs that Congress has either supported or opposed the President’s actions and rest their decisions on statutory grounds.
The tone that Alter uses is positive, yet remains firm. He focuses on trying to convince his audience that torture should be legal in some circumstances. He uses a tone that elicits patriotism from readers because he wants to provoke them so they will take his side. When he state “torture, ok, not cattle prods or rubber hoses, but something to jump-start the stalled investigation of the greatest crime in American history.” he is referencing the September 11th attacks, and asserts that nothing has really been done about the individuals responsible. And in order for this tone to work, Alter needs to have a specific audience in mind.
On the other hand, Luban, would say Yoo ignores the law models and war models if they deny terrorist suspects protection as required. Yoo says, in order to convict a defendant of torture the prosecution must have establish that the torture occurred outside the United States, the defendant acted under the color of law, he victim was within the custody of the defendant, the pain or suffering should be intended. Torture is performed on victims to obtain information or confession, to punish them, for intimidation, or for discrimination. Mental pain is effected by intentional or threatened infliction of severe physical or mental pain, administration or threatened administration of mind altering substances or methods that disrupt senses or personality, threat of imminent death or threat that another person will be immediately subjected to death. Luban raised two models; first is the war model, which supports the use of lethal force on enemy troops irrespective of whether they were personally involved with the adversary.
By displaying this collection of extensive research, the author hopes to communicate to the reader that the efforts of Halliburton are deleterious in a multitude of ways, and that its contract with the military needs to be stopped. Granted, with the help from Halliburton, the military enjoys some luxury of not having to directly provide essential needs for the soldiers. However, this book outlines the management corruption and overall excessive costs of contracting with Halliburton. Also in his book, Pratap Chatterjee discusses the relevance of the Global War on Terror and how it interrelates with the operations of Halliburton. In the last 20 years, Halliburton has been heavily involved in helping the military.
Being a war-opponent and social activist, Howard Zinn’s most likely intention in writing “Unsung Heroes” was to educate people about the mistakes (and deliberate lies) that are, in his opinion, very common in the perception of American history. Also, he likely wanted to direct attention towards the un-credited but “true” heroes who may not be shining enough to fit the common definition of a hero, but who have made meaningful contributions and therefore deserve to be remembered. In any case, they are people who are not responsible for killings of native Americans or the suppressing of minorities. Despite the popularity of Zinn’s views and of “A Peoples History of the United States”, there is an opinion that Zinn is overly pessimistic in his interpretation of the past. Further, some people complain, as he states himself, that they feel “thoroughly alienated and depressed” after reading the book.
Schenck said he was protected under first amendment rights. At the end of the trial, the Supreme Court ruled that Schenck was guilty because his actions created clear and present danger to the country. This is why someone cannot shout “fire” in a crowded theater. The book Hitman created a clear and present danger to citizens. It created trained killers and told them how to get away and not get caught.
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”.