When the world thinks of interrogating they just go straight to torture, but when they craw away from that, there would be no enemies due because of their grudges toward countries. When using torture on suspects not only will it not work most of the time but it will mostly resolve in someone’s death. “President Obama has done the most important thing: reversing Bush's policy and declaring, as he did last week, that torture was unequivocally wrong” (Weisberg 1). Therefore using torture is just ruining the morale of countries especially the United States because we have rules. How come they can break the rules and other citizens can’t?
This proves that torture is effective in getting information from terrorists. Alter then argues the idea of torture about how America fells about it. He says, “We can’t legalize physical torture; it’s contrary to American values … we need to keep an open mind about certain measures to fight terrorism” (2). Porter on the other hand has a different idea about torture. He states, “Torture is an absolute evil and there can be no allowances, especially in a country which stands for liberty” (2).
I show how these rigged rules are dangerous because they negatively impact the accuracy of terrorism investigations. The CSRT and military commissions actually foster the gathering of false confessions and other false information from suspected prisoners, which can mislead investigators. Part of the problem is the aforementioned fact that coercive interrogation techniques are applied to prisoners who lack relevant knowledge of terrorism. There are other problems as well. A system designed to help the government win its cases can lead investigators to apply less rigor than they would need to win in a regular court system.
To the argument that torture should be allowed in difficult and risky circumstances so as to protect against an inevitable attack: there is no evidence that torture will provide good solid information. Captives are just as inclined to give false information to stop the torture, as they are to tell what they know. To the argument that a national policy of torture should be allowed because our enemy will torture American prisoners: it is apparent from the testimonies and reports from the field combatants on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, that a policy of torture only serves to anger our enemies and to motivate others to bear arms against United States forces everywhere. None of the arguments for torture is morally justified. The moral high ground is owned by those who do not believe that it is proper for the government of a civilized nation to embrace torture as a means of gathering information from captured enemy combatants.
He makes a point that viewers are not incompetent and that they actively interpret and process violence in the media to know the reality of the violence they viewed. He argues that the studies that were done in laboratories do not relate to the real world even so much that the results are discredited and do not apply to real life experiences. Critical Analysis First Weakness The first flaw found in this article is the flaw of no
There is a subtle fallacy embedded in the traditional ‘ticking bomb’ argument for torture to save lives.” Some of the U.S. leaders use the classic torture-one-to-save-many scenario to argue that torture is justifiable and sounds plausible. Some people would agree that using torture in the “ticking time bomb” scenario is justifiable, but it is hypothetical and unrealistic and bears no relation to the circumstances. The argument is fallacious and irrelevant because these situations rarely
America has been hijacked and the people manipulated and controlled with fear. Political dissent is tantamount to treason and free speech is relegated to 'free speech zones' far away from political candidates. Whilst all of this is happening around us, the people are stuck on the impression that threats to security are merely military threats from outside sources and fail to comprehend the danger of these terrorizations brought on by our own government within our own borders. More specifically, the Patriot Act blatantly tramples on the Bill of Rights yet is tolerated and even supported by the majority of Americans as a necessary evil against terrorism. In this sense Ullman’s notion of the transaction between liberty and security is very tangible today (Ullman,
Barack Obama can write an amateur essay, yet readers are more prone to believing it than if it were written by someone unknown. The essay “A Desensitized Society Drenched in Sleaze” by Jeff Jacoby, argues X-Rated movies harm society. Jacoby argues X-rated films will desensitize and demoralize society. He explains his story of when he saw his first dirty movie, and sets a stage for the reader to refer from. “I literally couldn’t take it.
Ethics in sports is just as important as ethics in any other situation. To use steroids or any other performance enhancing drugs is just unethical and not fair to the game. Many records have been broken, but as fans how can we be sure that these records have been broken fairly? Frank Deford suggest “Maybe we’re more programmed to accept cheating in sports In this country since we grew up bitterly tolerating such utter corruption and hypocrisy in college athletes we love” (Source E) This may in fact be the sad reality. So in conclusion if Major League sports want to protect themselves for the future they must act now and enforce stricter drug testing policies.
Arguments For Torture * Greater potential to gain valuable information quickly * “ticking bomb” case * One or more innocent life is at stake * The captured prisoner has information that could save the live(s) but refuses to divulge * According to human rights activist, Areyeh Spero, “we must choose the life of the innocent over the condition of the guilty. Unlike American citizens, the terrorist has a way out” * Other countries do it * banning torture puts U.S. at a competitive disadvantage * Prisoner of war * Terrorist groups aren’t nation states and don’t deserve Geneva Convention protection * Basic human rights shouldn’t apply to prisoners that are willing to kill innocent