We are to keep the peace among the nations of the earth because that is our belief as a people, but we must know our enemy, we must know their intentions and what they wish to carry out. Terrorists do not adhere to the custom of respect of an individual. They act as animals, slaughtering without remorse. They do not deserve the rights of our nation or of man. The argument for the Justification of torture on terrorists is completely justifiable and the only course of action in ascertaining vital information for the nation’s defense.
“At the moment, there is a myth in circulation, a fable that goes something like this: Radical terrorists will take advantage of our fussy legality, so we may have to suspend it to beat them. Radical terrorists mock our namby-pamby prisons, so we must make them tougher. Radical terrorists are nasty, so to defeat them we have to be nastier.” (Applebaum). This is the story being used for validating of torture. There is no proof that this story has any truth.
The Real Effects of Torture “If we are unwilling to torture, we should be willing to wage modern war.”(Harris). This quote is from the article “In Defense of Torture” where author Sam Harris makes a stance stating that torture should be legal. Throughout this article Harris makes comparisons between the lives of innocent people and the lives of terrorists and other war criminals. His main point of argument is that dropping a bomb on a foreign country creates collateral damage killing some innocent people along the way, and that collateral damage is more detrimental to a foreign country than torturing people for information. Harris provides a good point of argument with these examples, however, this argument is flawed.
8. War is a blunt instrument by which to settle disputes between or within nations, and economic sanctions are rarely effective. Therefore, we should build a system of jurisprudence based on the International Court—that the U.S. has refused to support—which would hold individuals responsible for crimes against humanity. 9. If we are to deal effectively with terrorists across the globe, we must develop a sense of empathy—I don't mean "sympathy," but rather "understanding"—to counter their attacks on us and the Western World.
Lincoln Douglas Debate Case Outline Negative “Killing innocent civilians is a horrific, hideous act that no religion can approve.” It is because I agree with Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy that I feel compelled to negate today’s resolution, Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool. For clarification of today’s round, I offer the following definitions : First, I would like to define foreign policy. Foreign policy is defined by dictionary.com as a policy pursued by a nation in its dealings with other nations, designed to achieve national objectives. Targeted killing is defined as the premeditated killing of an individual by a state organization or institution outside a judicial procedure or a battlefield. The highest value in today's debate is that of utilitarianism.
Like genocide, terrorism has been used in warfare since warfare was first instituted. As the name states it is used to create a state of terror in the society that it is used against. This tactic is not only used against military targets, but also against civilian targets, in order to pressure the public against any retribution towards the group. Terrorism is very efficient and cost effective, as has been seen in recent years. As with genocide, terrorism does not create any moral dilemma to the society that implements it, yet the one that it is being used against is of the opinion that it is one of the worst things that can be used.
Partisan or Terrorist? Disregard Society, Judge it for Yourself What actions define an organization as an institution of terror? Terrorism is defined by dictionary.com as “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political reasons.” Partisanship is defined by dictionary.com as being “a member of a party of light or irregular troops [armed forces] engaged in harassing an enemy, especially a member of a guerrilla band engaged in fighting or sabotage against an occupying army.” Based on these two definitions one could make an argument that partisanship is simply a friendly word for terrorism. It is exactly this argument that this paper will dissect. The direction of this study will be to track different terrorist and
For this reason, we lashed out with a vengeance. Now, this act of violence is not considered by any means part of the spectrum of anticipation that Michael Walzer discusses in chapter 5 of “Just and Unjust Wars.” This action along with the fact that this is the same type of terrorism that we would expect from the corrupt Iraqi leadership shows why the war with Iraq would be considered a preventive war instead of the other end of the spectrum, a preemptive strike.
In the article "Understanding Terrorism" by Tori DeAngelis, states that there is no evidence that ceased from terrorism results in de-radicalization. They state the problem is individuals interpretation and perspective of things and what makes sense to us is different to what makes sense to people on the ground. Therefore they conclude that these programs will not help, but also it might bring the former terrorist and add fuel to the fire. In closing, there are many causes of terrorism , but theres also many ways to prevent it. Anti- terrorist and de-radicalization programs are designed to help people with radical thoughts to think otherwise.
The ones that are against racial profiling have thought of an alternative solution, which is behavioral profiling. Behavioral profiling, hence the name, means to base the law enforcers' suspicion according to that person’s behavior instead of race. With this more effective system, it balances our protection from both terrorism and violating someone’s civil rights. One reasonable example on why we shouldn’t racial profile is the popular bomber in United Kingdom, Richard Reid, who doesn’t fit the profile that they have created for terrorists. Individuals have also made good arguments about the negative outcome that racial profiling might bring to our society.