Pros and Cons of Closing Guantanamo Bay American National Government Instructor: Nicole Reale Janet Talley October 29, 2012 Pros and Cons of Closing Guantanamo Bay After researching and much reading, I found it hard to write solely on keeping Guantanamo Bay open. Before I read all the information that I did, I was dead set that we should keep it open, but now I am not so sure about my thoughts. I do feel that we need to give the President the right to make decisions in war times and even when the United States of America has been exposed to terrorist. The Scope of the President’s independent war powers is notoriously unclear, and courts are understandably reluctant to issued constitutional rulings that might deprive the federal government as a whole the flexibility needed to respond to crises. As a result, courts often look for signs that Congress has either supported or opposed the President’s actions and rest their decisions on statutory grounds.
According to Peter Beinart, for a year and a half Tenet and the CIA repeatedly tried to temper the Pentagon and the White House hyping of the Iraq threat (2003). Perhaps if Tenet hadn’t been so patient or friendly with the White House, his voice would have been heard and respected. Additionally, Tenet loyalty to the president and his administration caused him to lose the truth and his responsibility to have the truth heard. He became too involved in the politics of the day and helping the administration use intelligence to justify a decision already made rather than informing them with data to make an informed decision. Instead of having the courage to tell what should be told, he opted to tell the parties what they wanted to hear.
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.
The policy was first endorsed after former president Bill Clinton had unsuccessfully tried to overturn a current ban on gay military members. The justification for the ban of gay service members were “that the known presence of gay men and lesbians would undermine morale and unit cohesion”, according to the New York Times article and was continually supported by President Bush during both his presidential terms. However, supporters of the law are now facing immense opposition in contrast to 18 years prior, when the law was first passed. In fact, in 2006 a poll conducted by Zogby International of 545 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans concluded that about three quarters were comfortable around gay service members; a big contrast prior years. Opponents of the law argue that to
On the other hand, Luban, would say Yoo ignores the law models and war models if they deny terrorist suspects protection as required. Yoo says, in order to convict a defendant of torture the prosecution must have establish that the torture occurred outside the United States, the defendant acted under the color of law, he victim was within the custody of the defendant, the pain or suffering should be intended. Torture is performed on victims to obtain information or confession, to punish them, for intimidation, or for discrimination. Mental pain is effected by intentional or threatened infliction of severe physical or mental pain, administration or threatened administration of mind altering substances or methods that disrupt senses or personality, threat of imminent death or threat that another person will be immediately subjected to death. Luban raised two models; first is the war model, which supports the use of lethal force on enemy troops irrespective of whether they were personally involved with the adversary.
It took William Jefferson Clinton seven month to realize that people need apologies not for the deed, but for the lies. A close look at the speech opens a wide range of elements did not manage to make it truly appealing for the citizens of the United States of America. In his speech, Mr. Clinton admitted he did a wrong thing and at the same time he did not truly show how much he regretted that his “misbehavior” lead to irreversible consequences in his private and political life. The key failure of the speech is that Mr. Clinton moved the accent away from the affair he had to the necessity to concentrate on more important things. In other words he told the society that they are stuck on unserious matters, while important political events are taking place.
This House Will Offer Dictators Immunity If They Step Down: I disagree with the statement ‘This House Will Offer Dictators Immunity if They Step Down’ and therefore, the title of my speech is ‘Dictatorial Immunity Equates to Criminal Impunity’. From a moral perspective, the answer is relatively straightforward. If the international community is at all serious about enforcing human rights then those who have engaged in repression and unlawful usurpation of power, such as Hosni Mubarak and other Arab autocrats, should face punishment. Furthermore, the obligation to bring former tyrants to justice is so great that it overrides any considerations of sovereignty, jurisdiction or amnesty. There are three main points that I would like to elaborate on.
‘Alien detention is inhumane and doesn’t have the desired effects’ With the presentation of the coalition (and ‘regeerakkoord’) in September 2010, also the new direction the just installed cabinet wants to take with regard to the treatment of asylum-seekers, refugees and aliens in The Netherlands became clear. These groups are amongst the groups that will probably feel the consequences the most. Most importantly, new Prime Minister Mark Rutte announced that his government intends to make remaining illegally in The Netherlands punishable by law. Within a few weeks the second chamber will vote for this proposition, with which not everyone agrees. Professor in criminal law and immigration law van Kalmthout, from the University of Tilburg, already in 2008 presented objections against alien detention in The Netherlands, in a report from the IOM (International Organisation Migra-tion): “Alien detention is inhumane and doesn’t have the desired effects.” After the fire in the Schiphol Detention Centre in 2006, alien detention in The Netherlands got a lot of critique from different angles, but there is still evidence that for many people in detention centres the situation didn’t improve since then.
Record the mass of the plasticine. 4. Take a measuring cylinder and fill it with 120 cm3 of water. 5. Now, take the same piece of plasticine tied with thread and immerse it into the measuring cylinder filled with water, by holding the thread.
1. Give an outline of the different views on whistleblowing presented in the texts. In the article “The NSA Leaker: Traitor or Hero?” by Teresa Welsh from US News & World Report website in June 11, 2013 it is discussed whether Edward Snowden, who leaked secret NSA surveillance programs, should be punished or applauded for being a whistleblower and bringing new information to the world. The article balances between thinking of the leaking as an act of betrayal and an act that should be rewarded. Some people believe that the Americans are now at risk and have lost their protection from terrorist threats while others believe that the Americans’ right to privacy and freedom are lost.