There simply isn’t time to sit around and wait for a prisoner to confess the needed information to release the hostages safely. The government has to work quickly and effectively in order to ensure its citizen’s security. It is a moral duty of the governments to torture a terrorist if it means saving American lives, so therefore torture is justified in any hostage situation. Terrorists live to terrorize the civilians and so they are entitled to nothing. They are not entitled to be protected from torture as a law-abiding citizen would be because they do not abide by the law, they live to break
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).
Daniel Ellsberg learned many different lies from reading the pentagon papers and thru ought his involvement to RAND.one of the earliest lies was that, “American warships were under attack in the Tonkin gulf, off the coast of North Vietnam,” (Most Dangerous Man in America). President Lyndon B. Johnson created this lie in order to have complete control of the military. With this power, Lyndon would be able to wage war with the Vietnamese and keep capitalism intact. Another lie was Americans were being killed in the Vietnam War before Lyndon Johnson pushed for the bombing campaign. McNamara had created that lie to give Johnson a reason to bomb the Vietnamese (Most Dangerous Man in America).
More should have been done between the President, CIA, FBI and other appropriate anti-terrorism officials regarding this group and/or its leader. Some may say that the President himself was aware of Osama’s direct dwelling, but because it was a suspected site and not a validated site he withheld attacking. “…the Clinton administration knew the broad outlines in 1996 of bin Laden's capabilities and his intent, and unfortunately, almost nothing was done about it." (Lichtblau, 2005) This gave space for another attack from Al-Qaeda. On October 12, 2000 the USS Cole was attacked by suicide terrorist of Al Qaeda killing American sailors and injuring others.
The President is our Commander in Chief, taking his powers away presses him not to be able to do his sworn duties to keep our nation safe. I feel the outcome in this case was a backwards push to the Executive Branch and the Courts. A better outcome could be possible with a change in the laws that govern us. One such law is a law that would take away certain rights if you are caught fighting against your birth country. Our country has seen such stripping of rights before and if we want to win this war a new law needs to be written against citizens that
Taking away people’s right to own firearms, as Dwyer notes, is a calculated move aimed at leaving the people with no free will. Americans are no longer safe because Liberalism and its ideologies has done away with the safety measures that were aimed at keeping criminals in jail, deporting illegal migrants who are known for their unlawful activities and ensuring that mental patients remain in hospitals. These people are now freely loaming the streets, endangering people’s lives and instead of preventing and stopping this from happening, the government is only keen at imposing the gun-control law on law-abiding citizens. Crime rates are rising, many people have died in the recent years and people need to protect themselves from these criminals but with the gun control laws, no one will be
The Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right of every American to bear arms. Random acts of violence have resulted in serious injury and death to innocent people as a result of guns being in the wrong hands. When it comes to the debate over gun control, Americans for or against, are very passionate about their arguments. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, states that “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled on what this means exactly. It applies to individuals, not just militias.
Abstract Our world changed on the morning of September 11, 2001 when the world trade center and the pentagon was attacked by Islamic terrorist. Terrorism is a deliberate act of an individual to kill, intimidate or manipulate others in order to instill fear in a society. Homeland defense is a security effort to protect states against terrorist. In order to be successful in defending our country against terrorist attacks there must be processes put in place to ensure that our intelligence community is more knowledge on terrorist organizations and any possible threat they may pose. This paper will define terrorism and homeland defense, the categories of terrorism, the department of homeland security, FBI and the national incident management
Torture is sometimes used when a suspect is believed to have information on a catastrophic event or might know of a terrorist organization. The suspect is then exposed to a painful series of different mental and physical methods to give up the desired information. Torture has been used in times of war and in situations where the information could save a society form danger. However, torture should never be justifiable or acceptable because it usually doesn’t provide reliable information, the person that we want to torture might truly not know the information that we would like to obtain, and it would degrade our nations integrity. “Suspects that are inflicted with torture will say just about anything to
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.