In the article “The Case for Torture”, Michael Levin argues that the use of torture as a way to save lives is justifiable and necessary. Levin draws a series of cases where torture might be acceptable so as to set certain precedent for the justification of torture in more realistic cases. HoweverLevin illustrates three cases where torture might be justifiable.he describes a terrorist keeping city of millions hostage to an atomic bomb, the second, a terrorist who has implanted remote bombs on a plane and the third, a terrorist who has kidnapped a baby. torture and its consequences have been recorded in countries around of world over a vast span of time, and for a variety of reasons. Levin makes no such attempt to expand his article beyond
We have fierce debates today concerning war tactics, drone strikes on Americans, torture, military tribunals, citizens’ rights during wartime, and how to reconcile the needs of the national defense with liberty and self-rule. Does the president have a constitutional power to torture foreign enemy combatants? Overrule Congress on war tactics? Deny formal trials to enemies?
“No president who performs his duties faithfully and conscientiously can have any leisure” (Shattan, 32). Polk's presidency (A forgotten one) has impacted America in a variety of positive ways because Polk was determined and a workaholic. President Polk, considered one of the “higher quality” presidencies has been long forgotten for no apparent reason. This man has accomplished a great deal during the four years he served this country. The 11th president of the United states impacted America positively with his exceptional leadership and diplomatic astuteness.
(Pitts, “Torture”). Throughout the article, Pitt’s explains that although torture may work, it is not necessarily in line with the morals of the United States, and if the US were to condone torture, then there would be nothing left to keep the country in check. With his last sentence, Pitt’s is able to pull all of his
Mahatma Gandhi, the preeminent leader of the Indian independence movement states “You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind.” This is important because torture is brutal on the body and mind. The article “Torture’s Terrible Toll” by John McCain is more convincing then the article “The Case for Torture” by Michael Levin because McCain provides more logical reasoning, he adds his own personal experience of being a captured prisoner during the Vietnam War, and he creates an emotional bond with people around the world. Through more logical reasoning McCain Argument is more valid than Levin.
After nearly fifty days in the White House, President Trump has done an excellent job. On his second day in office he vowed to destroy the Islamic State, and on his ninth day he fulfilled his promise of a 5 year-ban on officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government, and a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government, which was a promise kept. (foxnews.com) My favorite quote by my President Trump is “My policy is to learn from the past, focus on the present, and dream about the future. " I think that this quote describes him perfectly as a president.
The most important issue that must be addressed in this case is the principle of the “evolving standards of decency” and the uses of a national consensus. The “evolving standards of decency” were developed by Trop v. Dulles and have been implemented in one way or another in all of the precedents dealing with “cruel and unusual” punishment. It is important to treat these principles as an important aspect of “cruel and unusual” punishment jurisprudence, therefore turning from these set of principles would be foolish and a disregard for every precedent. However, it is important to acknowledge that each case satisfies the standards by using a different method; some use the presence or lack of state legislature as a judgment of consensus while others look at foreign countries.
In Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture”, he uses many cases of emotional appeal to persuade the reader that torture is necessary in extreme cases. There are many terms/statements that stick with the reader throughout the essay so that they will have more attachment to what is being said. Levin is particularly leaning to an audience based in the United States because he uses an allusion to reference an event that happened within the states and will better relate to the people that were impacted by it. The emotional appeals used in this essay are used for the purpose of persuading the reader to agree that in extreme instances torture is necessary and the United States should begin considering it as a tactic for future cases of extremity. One major eye catching factor of this essay is the repetitive use of words that imply certain stigmas.
The candidates that are running for president are terrible. I wouldn’t want to picky any of them. However, if I had to pick a certain celebrity, it would only come close to Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney seems to show as the only person that could actually run in this election and be professional.
While analyzing “The Torture Myth” and “The Case for Torture”, it is very clear to see the type of rhetorical appeals used to persuade the audience. Anne Applebaum, the writer of “The Torture Myth” --in context of the decision of electing a new Attorney General--would argue that torture is very seldomly effective, violates a person’s rights, and should be outlawed due to the irrational need upon which physical torture is used. On the other hand, Michael Levin strongly argues that physical torture is crucial to solving every imminent danger to civilians. Levin claims that if you don’t physically torture someone, you are being weak and want to allow innocent people to die over something that could have been simply done.
In medieval times, torture was used to punish criminals, deter crime, and gather information. There were many different types of tortures, most of which were brutal and painful. At the time, torture was deemed necessary to maintain order. Laws were harsh and torture was severe, but effective form of punishment. Despite its effectiveness, torture was often an unfair and extremely cruel punishment, and should have been eliminated in all forms.
Lawful interrogations are being made to detainees to know their intentions. Edwin Meese III comments, “We have learned a great deal from them during long-term, lawful interrogations.” This shows that the interrogations worked. Without these interrogations, the United States wouldn’t be aware of the intentions of the terrorists and it wouldn’t be possible to defeat the enemy. Guantanamo Bay is the safest interrogation center for detainees.
”. If a man or woman had a gun held to your head, would you want somebody to help you or save you, or would you want someone to leave you be, to possibly die. If you do, my apologies. If not, well… the act of torture for a nation's security is simply the protection of a person's or a multitudinous group of people's lives. Imagine this, you wake up in the morning and do your morning routine, and in your car ride for work or school, you see someone being threatened.
There are environments in the world such as the Middle East where sometimes extreme measures are called for to prevent extreme consequences. With all this said, there should also be guidelines in order to to keep this method in check and so that only qualified individuals with clearance are allowed to carry out such interrogation methods. Therefore torture should be allowed and only allowed when the subject refuses to answer questions that follow the Geneva Convention’s guidelines which are defined as a,”series of treaties signed (1864–1949) in Geneva, Switzerland, providing for humane treatment of
There are ethical issues that need to be recognized in interrogation which are, the use of false evidence, the use of torture, and deceptive promises. Starting off an interrogation, police will usually comfort a suspect by giving evidence that is not true, with the intention to make the suspect end up voluntarily confessing. Giving false evidence has a number of planning’s. One with the officer telling the suspect that he or
