“Analyzing the Text” Michael Levin’s, “The Case for Torture” argues that there are various reasons for allowing torture in the United States of America. Michael Levin believes that torture is justified when victims are at risk, claiming that torture is not merely permissible but morally mandatory. The author makes hypothetical scenarios in which people’s lives are in danger and preventing future events from occurring. Then stating his position on torture when people’s lives are placed in danger. 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.
Perspectives on Torture and the War on Terrorism Perspectives on Torture and the War on Terrorism Yoo defined torture as an act committed upon a person with specific intensions to cause him/her severe mental or physical pain or suffering by another person acting under the color of law, and has his custody or physical control. This pain must not be as a result of lawful sanctions. This type of definition that Yoo uses is “threatening” and is unlawful. President Obama however, would oppose the use of torture. On the other hand, Luban, would say Yoo ignores the law models and war models if they deny terrorist suspects protection as required.
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”.
First of all, if the NSA were to pursue major invasions of privacy to American’s, they would be obstructing rights set forth by the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits non-reasonable search and seizure. If there is no probable cause for the government to search for evidence on an individual, then their legal rights should not be violated. I personally have nothing to hide, but being spied on would make me questions the true ethics of this country. 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.
Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are prime examples of how the use of torture can become unlawful if not properly controlled. Despite the unethical and questionable methods of torturous counterinsurgency committed in the past, there are still occasions when torture could be necessary in order to achieve a specific goal. In this paper I will argue that torture can be morally justified in extreme emergencies, and only as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted. However, I will also argue that despite its moral permissibility, torture should not to be legalized or otherwise institutionalized. In order to fully understand why torture may be morally justifiable we must first have a firm understanding of what torture is, and how it may also be morally impermissible.
Perceiving the situation from the NSA’s point of view made me think outside the box for some time, though I’m still very mad… But being at this psychological state of mind will not lead anyone to a better thinking process. Anyways, closer to what I wanted to share with you guys. My guess is that the government is using this technique to actually capture terrorists. As funny as this sounds, I am happy that the government works this way. After all, if not the NSA, then who has the power to prevent terrorists from this country?
Interrogators also use the “ticking time bomb theory”. The theory being, if a terrorist has planted a bomb and the only way to find it is to torture the terrorist, then torture is necessary to save innocent lives. Those who stand behind torture, rely on this theory because it is so persuasive. The ticking time bomb has three rationalizations; torture is justified because of the innocent lives that will be saved, torture should be attempted in extreme cases and, torture is a defense action, similar to fighting a war against a country that posses a imitate threat
I believe that convicted felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison because they exercise good judgment: in addition, withholding their rights to vote would be a violation of the United States Voting Rights act of 1965 and the eighth amendment of the Constitution. I think that some, but not all ex-convicts should be allowed to reinstate their voting rights. This should be judged on a case by case basis according to the crime they committed. Also, it should be based on the magnitude and severity of their crime. At the very least, they should attend and complete a special designed program, go through a waiting period, and take a drug-screened testing regularly before they get their privileges restored.
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.
Part 1: Whether the prosecution is allowed to adduce the statements made by Toh or Suresh at the trial? A. Application 1: Toh’s statement * Toh’s statement was made under a threat/inducement by Sgt Ahmad and should be excluded at the trial * Applying Chien chien wei kelvin - * [Objective test] Whether there was an inducement sufficient in the court’s opinion to lead the accused reasonably to suppose that he would gain an advantage/ avoid an evil to himself * Identify the threat/inducement: “Understand your mother is ill…imagine how she would feel if we were to tell her that…” * Accessed objectively, this statement amounts to a threat because by making such a remark, Sgt Ahmad had forced Toh to consider the consequence of his mother hearing about his arrest and alleged offence * A reasonable person in Toh’s position would feel that he would gain an advantage of not having his mother’s condition deteriorate by reason of Sgt Ahmad informing his mother about his involvement in the robbery * [Subjective test] Whether the inducement operated on Toh’s mind so as to cause him to confess * There are no facts to suggest that Toh did not trust the police, therefore the threat operated on his mind ( * The threat to tell Toh’s mother of Toh’s plight does not have “reference to his charge” * Therefore, a strict application of s.258(3) of the CPC would mean that Toh’s statement was made voluntary * However, applying the purposive interpretation in Poh Kay Keong, the purpose of Sgt Ahmad’s threat was to induce Toh to make the statement * Also, the CA in Poh was of the view that threat relating to a “collateral” matter may be ‘far the more power’ and more effective in inducing the accused to make such statements * The question of whether a “person in authority” delivered the inducement, threat or