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. Many countries around the world also fall prey to terrorism. According to Levin, begins his essay with a brief description of how he believes that societies view the subject of torture as negative thing. He justifies his reasoning on torture by allowing it in order to save innocent lives. Levin’s second claim is that the judicial system is a slow process when time is a factor and the only way to speed it up is by torture.
In the essay “Why Fear National ID Cards?” by Alan Dershowitz, Dershowitz elaborates his views on national identity cards and the benefits of having one. He sums it up by stating “A little less anonymity for a lot more security.” With that being said what makes him so sure that something as simple as a national identity card would make society secure? What would stop a person with a national ID from committing a crime or other acts of terror? Yes having one would make it easier to pin point a suspected terrorist but the reality of the situation is there would be no change in the level of security with or without a national identity card. Dershowitz makes it clear that he is skeptical about the idea of national ID cards and states that he supports national identity cards with chips matching a person’s fingerprints.
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.
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. If the NSA could have taken a closer look or had more information about Hazmi and Midhar’s plan to travel to the United States, their trip would have never been successful. The NSA needs to focus their attention more to the other countries instead of basically wasting all of their time with U.S. citizens, and maybe slips like letting terrorist into our homeland wouldn’t happen. They are getting their systems blown up with information that is useless to them from Americans. If they didn’t have to spend the time to sort through all of America’s “evidence,” then they would probably be able to seek out and confirm the terroristic threats and evidence coming from outside of the
Patrice Foster Professor Hayaud-Din Government 2301-2406 Summer I 2012 Extra Credit Abolishing The Exclusionary Rule Word Count: Patrice Foster The Exclusionary Rule The Exclusionary Rule is a senseless rule. We should get rid of it and the police and prosecutors should be able to use the evidence even if it’s obtained in violation of the rule, because we could potentially let criminals go to satisfy this rule. This rule is so full of controversy, that it is hard to support. How can we as citizens embrace this rule? A rule that does so little to protect the law as it was made.
Shue does not necessarily attempt to show that torture is never justified. In fact, he admits that he “can see no way to deny the permissibility of torture in a case just like this” (Shue, pg 141) as he portrays a scenario involving the destruction of the city of Paris and most of its population. Its fate hangs in the balance and can be potentially avoided by the torturing an individual confirmed to have planted a nuclear weapon within its confines to ascertain its whereabouts. In his explanation of why torture is morally reprehensible Shue discusses the laws of war which exist that determine what he calls the “proper conduct of the killing of other people” (Shue, pg 127). He explains that a basic principle is the distinction between combatants and noncombatants.
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”.
It is imperative that Americans form their own opinions and not the media for them. It is also very necessary that the news media report truthfully. No false pictures. On (on http://www.ehow.com/info_8101130_media-social-responsibility.html) it says, “Saying or printing something knowingly untrue or making accusations without evidence or attribution is illegal”. This is so important.
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?
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.