If it was a war fought due to honor and glory more people would have put their lives on the line in order to maintain a presence and win. The Vietnamese people were battling for themselves; they were fighting the people attacking their homeland. Fighting on your homeland brings up many more issues of honor and gratitude to the country. Vietnam is a rigorous terrain jungle, a war zone and a mess, the expected was unknown. Scarred emotions would come up; this person
In fact, when questioned about the names of his flight squadron members, and he gave the Vietnamese names of the offensive line of the Green Bay Packers (423). The torturers can be easily fooled because they cannot reliably verify the accuracy of the information they get from a torture victim. Therefore, the problem of unreliable intelligence deals a big blow against torture. Many nations, including the United States, made torturing illegal, but if America tortures a soldier from other nations, they can do the same back to America (424). If American troops held another nation’s soldier captive, the enemy may feel they have the right to do the same.
Was the torture of the Abu Ghraib prisoners morally justifiable? How torture is defined is always a talking point as we do not know if torturing an individual for vital information is considered moral. Is it necessary to gain this information from another human being whilst also becoming a monster in the process? When do we know when to stop? These are questions I encountered along my journey in the EPQ as I not only had to delve into the justifications of torture, but also the psychological trauma the victim goes through and also the individual carrying out the torture.
Schneier shows this to prove that doing nothing can lead to trouble with blackmail or abuse with surveillance information. Schneier says that “that privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we’re doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance” (paragraph 5). This is a strong point of his argument because he wants the people to know that the government can find a way to change nothing into something. The only flaw of Schneier’s argument is that his facts are repeated and this doesn’t help because without more facts there isn’t any proof to show that the people of privacy don’t need to have constant surveillance. Now if we look to the other side we can find many aspects of what Cillizza has to say about security.
Robert McNamara should definitely take a large portion of responsibility for the Vietnam War but should also be thanked in a sense from where we can learn from his failures. McNamara is commonly known as a war criminal for having tried to win a war that was impossible to win. The war in Vietnam began with McNamara and John F. Kennedy and escalated by Lyndon B. Johnson who for the most part micro managed the entire war. Kennedy and McNamara wanted to control Vietnam because they were scared China would take over Vietnam and turn it communist and if that were to happen it was believed that all the other countries around Vietnam would fall under communist rule. The consequences and the lives lost in the Vietnam War classify as bad judgment by the masterminds of it.
If everyone got along with everyone war wouldn’t exist, but I don’t see that happening. Someone is always going to end up hating someone else because people hold grudges and that’s just what they do. People will be people. War is just a way to show other people or countries that you are better than them. When leaders fight with other leaders war is just a way of proving one’s self to another.
Meaning that the authority that was elected by the society had to be beneficial to the society; as well as the right and wrong actions depended on the effect that these actions had on the unhappiness and happiness of an individual. The Enlightenment was also based on logic and humaneness was coming in to the picture. First of all, Baccaria’s saw torture as inadequate criminal justice procedures, since torture was adopted as a common technique to determine whether an individual was guilty or innocent through use of pain. This in Baccaria’s eyes is deemed as useless. Since the tortured party can be proven guilty or innocent based on their pain tolerance, if an individual who has committed a crime and is being tortured however their pain tolerance is very high and they are able to take the pain they may be judged as innocent, however if and individual is innocent or guilty has a low pain tolerance and is not able to cope with the pain and confesses then it no longer matters whether he committed the crime or not, thus making
The Use of Torture Can Never Be Justified As a preliminary working definition sufficient for my purposes here, I agree with Michael Davis who describes torture as “the intentional infliction of extreme physical suffering on some non-consenting, defenseless, other person for the purpose of breaking their will, (Michael, Davis, 2005). Thus, a person might have been tortured, even if in fact their will has not been broken; the purpose of the practice of torture is to break the victim’s will, but this purpose does not have to be realized for a process to be an instance of torture. Is The Use of Torture Ever Justified? The question tends to provoke a "yes" or "no" answer. The use of torture is always based on the “TICKING bomb theory.” This theory describes a fictional scenario in which a massive weapon is set to go off, a prisoner in custody is known to have information on the attack that he refuses to give, and U.S. forces are faced with the question of whether to torture the prisoner or to allow untold millions to die.
Army is fighting with terrorism they are the main reason who are controlling terrorism till some extent. I feel that army is the soul of every country. Nobody can go freely within his or her country itself. There will be absolute insecurity, total disorder of law and order everywhere. We are able to enjoy freedom only because of the army who is combating the cross-border terrorism in our borders.
Our founders understood that this right was essential to our self-defense as the children of God. This right has been stretched majorly I believe, because it has come down to people owning bombs, and other dangerous weapons that the public should not have a hold of in their homes. We have more bombings, mass murders, and attacks due to the right to bear “Arms” not being defined as not owning bombs, nuclear weapons, grenades, etc. The Chief Executive believes that we can no longer rely on only our military in order to achieve our set objectives that we have set for ourselves. I do believe that the constitution is still relevant to a point, because I believe that there are some things in the constitution that should be defined or narrowed.