Select two of the following three questions to reply to. Use readings, class discussion, and audio-visual clips from class and on my website to answer the questions. The responses should be more than a couple of sentences long to get full credit. This is due Friday, April 15, 2011 the last day of the quarter.
1) Does the PATRIOT Act infringe on Americans personal civil liberties? What specific provisions do you have the biggest issue with and why?
2) Should the Guantanamo Bay prison camp be closed by the United State government? Should Guantanamo prisoners be tried in US Federal Courts or Military tribunals?
3) Are enhanced interrogation techniques torture? Should they be kept as a viable option to be used on high-value suspected terrorists?
27 comments:
Samantha Ragusa
1. The PATRIOT Act does no infringe on Americans' personal civil liberties. It is there to protect our lives and prevent terrorism. The discomfort of one person is a better alternative than the deaths of many people. I feel that all of the provisions are valid. The one that I have the most trouble with is the "sneak and peak". I would feel creeped out and violated if I found out someone had been in my home without my knowledge and looked through my personal belongings. Once again, it is helping to save the lives of Americans and prevent terrorism.
3. Enhanced interrogation techniques could be considered torture. However, it is people who did something, or are suspected of doing something, unimaginable terrible to other people. Often the techniques are used to get information out of someone. If the person is not willing to give up the information without torture, then they obviously have something to hide. They should be kept as a viable option for high-value suspected terrorists. Often times other methods fail and torture is the only way to get valued information that will prevent terrorism and save lives.
2) Should the Guantanamo Bay prison camp be closed by the United States government? Should Guantanamo prisoners be tried in US Federal Courts or Military tribunals?
• No, I believe that Guantanamo Bay prison should stay open. Guantanamo Bay prison will deter terrorists from committing any acts of terrorism against the United States. Before committing an act of terrorism, they will know that they will be detained in a military base/jail and will be tried under the military laws which are harsher. In addition, I believe that the terrorist should not be allowed on American soil. Therefore, they should be kept isolated from the United States instead of sending them to other countries where there is a “revolving door” (come in and out of prison). Guantanamo Bay prison should be the only place to keep enemy combatants to keep the terrorists isolated from the United States territory. Guantanamo prisoners should be tried in Military tribunals because the terrorists should not be allowed on American soil and the laws against terrorism are harsher.
3) Are enhanced interrogation techniques torture? Should they be kept as a viable option to be used on high-value suspected terrorists?
• Yes, I believe that enhanced interrogation techniques are considered are a form of torture. Even though these techniques are used to obtain important information, it is still inhuman to torture a human being by using techniques such as “water-boarding”, “sleep-deprivation”, etc. These techniques are not acceptable in order to protect the United States from terrorist attacks. These techniques are inhuman and should not be used. We as humans should not go down to the level of the terrorists. Other techniques such as truth-theorem, lie-detector testing, etc. should be used instead. America should not keep it as a viable option to be used on high-value suspected terrorists because it is inhuman. Even though the suspected-terrorist is probably hiding something, other methods should be used.
1) Does the PATRIOT Act infringe on Americans personal civil liberties? What specific provisions do you have the biggest issue with and why?
In my opinion, if the PATRIOT Act is used strictly for what it was intended for then it is not a infringement on personal civil liberties of this country. There are specific qualifications that need to be met before any actions can be taken that could be viewed as invasive, so as long as the government follows those requirements the Act could be helpful to the country. For example in section 206 of the PATRIOT Act it states that before investigations take place the government needs to identify the target, type of surveillance they plan to use and how and for how long it will be carried out. With steps such as this that need to be taken the government is trying to ensure that corrupt actions can and will not occur. Because of this I feel the PATRIOT Act does not infringe on any civil liberties, but because all people do not follow rules given to them there is potential for intelligence from certain investigations to be used improperly. For example, the term "tangible items" comes up quite often in the Act and some think it is too broad of a term and could lead to problems with investigations. Overall though I feel the PATRIOT Act is a good idea and helpful to our safety.
2) Should the Guantanamo Bay prison camp be closed by the United State government? Should Guantanamo prisoners be tried in US Federal Courts or Military tribunals?
The United States government should close Guananamo Bay, because so many horrid events have occurred there that no matter what laws are made to prevent them the prison camp will forever have a stigma of prisoners being tortured. Despite the fact that President Obama has made a law stating that interrogation techniques can only be used when present in the Army field manual, many guards in the prison camp will probably neglect this law. This is because many of them did unethical things to the prisoners, such as water boarding, when it was morally wrong so I doubt a law would prevent this in the future. Especially when stating the law the President used the words "for now" after describing the restrictions of the interrogation techniques that can be used.
Depending on where the crimes committed by the prisoners took place should determine where they should be tried. If a crime was committed in a specific country then the accused person should be tried in that country. If the crime was international then they should be tried in Military tribunals. However, this may be difficult to do if Guantanamo is closed because Republicans in Congress created legislation that would prevent detainees from Guantanamo to enter the United States. Because of this closing the prison camp will be more difficult, but still necessary.
1.) I believe the PATRIOT Act does in many ways infringe on Americans' personal liberties. First of all, many of the specifications of the act, including what records the FBI can access and what can be classified as "material support or resources," are far too broad. So broad that they may conflict with the personal liberties Americans have protected by the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution. These vague definitions of evidence and suspicion of terrorist activities may wrongly accuse or convict innocent Americans. Not to mention the Sneak and Peak section of the PATRIOT Act that creates circumstance in which notification of a search warrant may be delayed until after the search and seizure. This is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment, with the only justification being that a suspect or suspects may hide any incriminating information before the search and seizure. That is a very weak argument for breaking into private or publicly owned property without a warrant granting the permission to do so.
3.) Enhanced interrogation techniques can absolutely be classified as torture. These methods can produce false information from those who are being interrogated under them. The treatment causes an individual to say anything in order to stop the brutal interrogation, and could waste a lot of time and energy trying to confirm the confession as the truth. There are other methods such as lie-detectors and truth-theorem that don't involve any physical aggression. However, I'm not too comfortable eliminating the option of torture on high-value terrorists at a time of crisis to get information that could save many lives. Torture is just as unreliable as any other method to get a suspect to talk, but it is the very extreme last resort that may have to be used to protect the American people.
Andrew Cusano period 6
I don't think that the PATRIOT act infringes upon American's civil liberties. The purpose of the PATRIOT act is too protect the people of the United States and if that means that certain people are to go under investigation without their knowledge then so be it. To not investigate someone and then have that person go out and hurt people is not acceptable. The PATRIOT act is a vital part of our national security and in my mind should continue to be used for years to come.
Guantanamo Bay prison camp is a touchy issue. Personally, I don't think that it should be closed. I do however feel that there needs to be a serious re-assesment of procedures regarding Guantanamo Bay. As see in the video regarding the innocent man held at Guantanamo Bay for years the procedures and personel whom carry out that procedure need to be re-assessed.
I think that Guantanamo prisoners should be tried in U.S. federal courts. Since they have been given the rights of a U.S. citizen there is no reason to treat them like they aren't one. I also think that trying them in U.S. courts will provid a more just outcome, rather than trying them in a military tribunal, where there may be a risk of corruption.
1) Although the Patriot Act was constructed as an attempt to provide Americans with great personal protection, it has come under fire for violating some of the civil liberties that American citizens hold in the highest regard. Invasion of privacy and the Fourth Amendment right preventing unreasonable search and seizures have become two of the main outcries of detractors. The Patriot Act has greatly expanded the federal government's ability to share information and pursue information with less limitations. I do believe that the Patriot Act has gone one step to far and has crossed into the dangerous territory of violating personal liberties. Personally, I take the most issue with the section of the act specifying roving wire taps. Despite the intentions of being able to listen to the conversations of suspected terrorists, a tool I believe the government should have, this part of the act also allows the government to be able to listen to the conversations of anyone who uses the phone of the suspected terrorist, even if they are an innocent bystander. Someone who is not accused of any crime should not have their rights violated. The argument of one having nothing to hide does make sense, but this intrusion could have the potential to set a precedence for even greater government involvement in the daily lives of Americans, where does it end?
2) Barack Obama ran for office on the promise that Guantanamo Bay would be closed, but the detention facility still remains open. It appears as though even the President now considers it wise to keep Guantanamo open. I believe that it is a necessary facility in the current climate and reality that we live in. Men whom are involved in ideological crimes and that are willing to go to any length to get their message across would be a severe threat in the general population of a prison in the United States as well as back in their own countries, which most likely won't accept them anyways. Guantanamo serves the specific purpose of holding men suspected of terrorism and war crimes, and this is simply the only option we currently have. I also do not believe that the detainees should be tried in Federal courts in the United States. They have no rights in our country since they are not American citizens and as offenders of war crimes the proper place for them is military tribunals. I strongly believe in the American principles of justice and innocent until proven guilty, and I also believe that theses should be basic human rights, but the men at Guantanamo are given trials and the opportunities to be proven innocent, they are not being denied these rights.
1.) The Patriot Act does not infringe on Americans civil liberties but in fact is trying to protect Americans. The Patriot Act is to keep America safe from any terrorist or terrrorist attack. Even though it does intrude on a person's private it life, that is better than the death of many U.S. citizens. The provision that I have an issue with is the sneak and peek. I would feel very violated that someone had been in my home and went through my belongings. Though I would know about it later, I would rather have the authorities confront me with the warrant than later once they have searched my home.
3. Enhance interrogation techniques are not torture unless they are lethal to the prisoner. If lethal in one way no matter what to the detainee than the enhanced technique is torture. The techniques not in the Army Field Manual should be an option because it may have given the U.S. information needed in the past and could possibly work again.
1. The Patriot Act was truly a reaction to the horrors of 9/11, and although it was meant to fight terrorism and protect Americans, it failed and rather infringed on some of their rights. Rights that should be undeniable to all American citizens and rights that people have immigrated here for, have been violated by the Patriot Act. Parts of the act allows government agents to listen to our conversations if we are suspected terrorists. This is done without our knowledge and may impede on the rights of people around us as well. Next, “sneak and peek” allows federal agents to enter into our homes without our knowledge and look for any material they are looking for. This is a huge injustice! If the government can spy on us and search our homes, what will they do next? The government needs to have a limit on how much they can impinge upon our daily lives and the Patriot Act clearly violates our basic right to have privacy. While the Patriot Act does aim to counteract acts of terror, it has been marginally successful at best while seriously putting into question the limits of the power of the government and fears of “big brother”. Although the argument for security does have validity, the Patriot has simply gone too far.
2. Guantanamo Bay was a prison in Guantanamo opened by the US government to house “combatants of war”. Unfortunately, these people are not always held with legitimate charges, which has led to a series of embarrassing mess-ups where the US government has had to apologize to the wrongly accused. Even worse have been the accusations of torture and mistreatment of prisoners in Guantanamo. Calls for the closure of Guantanamo have been universally endorsed and it was even one of the platforms upon which our current president ran upon in his bid for the presidency in 2008. While in an ideal world the government would honor Obama’s promises, this world is far from idea. While Guantanamo bay may be hugely infamous and have many internal problems, it is the only solution to our problems. If Guantanamo was to be shut down, where would all the prisoners go? Where could we keep them? Our allies and even the countries that they originated from won’t accept them. While Guantanamo may not be the most elegant solution, it is a necessary evil. Prisoners of Guantanamo should be tried in Military tribunals because they are foreigners with no true rights in our country. But they must be guaranteed a trial, as human right.
Rachel Seggerman, per. 6
1. Although the Patriot Act gives the government access to large amount of citizen's personal life, I do not believe that it infringes on Americans' personal civil liberties. Protecting the country from terrorism is incredibly important, and if it takes slight invasion of privacy, then so be it. Most Americans would rather be alive and safe than have that extra bit of privacy, and personally, I believe that the Patriot Act should make Americans feel more secure. If you have nothing to hide, than you should have nothing to be worried about hiding from the government. The only part of The Patriot Act I disagree with is Sec. 203, which states that information may be shared between intelligence agencies and other parts of the government. This could cause information to be stretched and exaggerated as it travels, and create big ordeals out of issues that may not be as big as they turn out to be.
3. Yes, enhanced interrogation techniques are in fact torture, and should not be kept as a viable option used on high-value suspected terrorists. The use of there methods is not humane and unfair to the prisoners. I do not believe in revenge, no matter how terrible the crisis is. Stooping to the painful torturous levels of a terrorists makes the US just as bad as they are. If it is so difficult to get information out of prisoners, it should be evident that either they are hiding something, or truly know nothing about they topics they are being asked about. If the government were to capture someone, such as Osama bin Laden, I would hope they would treat him humane, in order to prove that our government is on a higher standard than he is. Not treat them kindly, but still as a human being.
Zach Wehner, Period 1
1. Overall, the PATRIOT Act was created in order to help to stop growing terrorism. It gives the government special privileges in order to maintain a level of national security.
For example, The Sneak and Peek Warrants: This section explains the use of delayed notification of a search warrant. This delayed notification can be granted because immediate notification may cause adverse results and the court deems it necessary if no items/info are taken during the seizure. The reason that the gov't may not want to give advance notice is because they don't want the possible terrorists to destroy any incriminating evidence.
3. I don't think that enhanced interrogation techniques are torture if they are justified. "Let the punishment fit the crime."
If under mild interrogation the criminal will not let loose any information, then the level should be amped up in order to gain the necessary info. Unless that the gov't is close to 100% sure that the interrogated individual, the torture-like interrogation isn't a viable option.
Dolores Diorio
Per.6
2) I don't believe Guantanamo Bay prison should be closed by the United States government. I think it's a safe place to keep terrorists from doing anything dangerous to America. Although, I believe that Guantanamo Bay prison should really be reassessed. I think the prisoners should be there with reasonable cause and suspicion. The video with Murat Kurnaz, who was in Guantanamo Bay prison and tortured for five years, even though there was evidence that he was innocent, really makes me believe that the United States should really reassess Guantanamo Bay, it's prisoners, and personnel. I believe that they should be tried in Federal Courts. I believe this because they already have the rights as US citizens, so they should be treated and tried as one. Also, I think that being tried in US Federal Courts would give a better outcome, while if they were tried in Military tribunals, there could be a chance of corruption.
3) I believe enhanced interrogation techniques are torture. I think they definetly go against morals and I think they're just cruel. Treating people like animals and not letting them sleep for days isn't going to get information. If a innocent detainee in Guantanamo Bay is subject to these techniques, they could really be scared for life and it would be really unnecessary. Also, if a suspected terrorist actually knows information and is getting "enhanced interrogation", they could just tell the interrogator whatever they want to hear out of desperation-even if it's false information. Overall, I believe that the techniques are torture.
If someone is a high value terrorist, then yes, I believe some of the techniques should be used to get information out. Some of these techniques could get important, life saving information. Although, if someone is a high value terrorist, such as Osama Bin Laden, then I think it'd be pretty hard to get information out of him, so the techniques could possibly be the only way to really get information out of him.
Period 1.
1) Does the PATRIOT Act infringe on Americans personal civil liberties? What specific provisions do you have the biggest issue with and why?
Yes, the PATRIOT Act does infringe on Americans’ personal civil liberties. It pushes everyone’s boundaries of privacy. The Act gives the government the right to basically investigate everything and everyone, and in sneaky ways, at that. There are, of course, the wiretaps. These not only violate the suspect’s privacy, but it also violates the privacy of anyone who else who uses the device. There are also the sneak and peeks that the government carries through that give them the right to invade our personal homes, investigate, and then inform the owners afterwards. I understand that it is to protect our country, but as Congressman Dennis Kucinich said, “We didn’t hear ‘give me liberty… or give me a wiretap’”, and “We didn’t hear ‘don’t tread on me… but it’s okay to spy’”. The PATRIOT Act invades our freedom, our rights and basically the constitution.
The provision I have the biggest problem with is the sneak and peeks. Not only does the government not have the decency to tell us when they are searching our house, but they also have the nerve to tell us way after they already searched. To me, this is creepy and kind of disturbing that the government would invade our personal homes without notice and search. I feel that the least they can do is come to the door and tell us our home has to be search, then have the person watched, since one of the arguments is that the suspect would have time to hide or erase documents.
2) Should the Guantanamo Bay prison camp be closed by the United State government? Should Guantanamo prisoners be tried in US Federal Courts or Military tribunals?
The Guantanamo Bay prison should be closed by the U.S. government. A video I watched showed the torturous techniques soldiers did to the suspected terrorists, such as water boarding, and electric shocking. These techniques, to me, are very extreme and unnecessary. Yes, we are trying to get answers out of them, but it’s disgraceful for our country for people to know how we are approaching this delicate, awful situation. We can open up a different place to put the prisoners and lay down some definite rules and restrictions so that the suspects are treated ridiculously badly.
The prisoners should be given the U.S. right of trial in U.S. Federal Courts. First of all, everyone deserves the right to be tried; our country stands by that rule. Also, I feel that Federal Courts would be slightly less biased than the Military Tribunals. At this point, it seems all the military want to do is torture the answers out of the prisoners, and would probably be against trying them in court. The Federal Courts would at least not have the mindset, hopefully, and be more open-minded and intuitive.
2. I do not believe that the Guantanamo Bay prison camp should be closed by the United States government. I think this because without this prison, there is no place to put the future and past suspected terrorists. You cannot put them in a American jail because they're too dangerous and you cannot send them back to where they were because they'll go back to what they were doing before. And i don't think they should be tried in an American Court, because they are not American citizens and should not get the rights of an American citizen especially when trying to kill American citizens.
3. I think these enhanced interrogation techniques are considered a form of torture; this is because they are still doing things to make the suspected terrorists do what they want or tell them what they need to know. And even though they aren't doing any permanent damage to them, they are still hurting them and making them uncomfortable and terrified especially when performing such techniques as “water-boarding”, “sleep-deprivation”, etc.
I don't think they should use these techniques to get information from high valued suspected terrorists. I think they should do whatever it takes to find out whatever information is needed to keep our country safe.
Nikki Crose
Period 4
1) Does the PATRIOT Act 1) Does the PATRIOT Act infringe on Americans personal civil liberties? What specific provisions do you have the biggest issue with and why?
i do feel that it is a infringe on Americans personal civil liberties. IT is as such do to the "sneak and peak". I feel that it is not only extreamly wrong it is exreamly creepy. i dont know about you but i would never want eny one snopping throw my stuff.
2) Should the Guantanamo Bay prison camp be closed by the United State government? Should Guantanamo prisoners be tried in US Federal Courts or Military tribunals?
Guantanamo Bay prison camp should be closed by the United State government why should our tax money go to feeding terrorists? we feed and house a hole bunch of bad people that have been conficded of terrorism and they get to just sit in a cell by themselfs and eat there three meals and never have to worry about taxes or paying bills. i saythey shouls be shot on site.
As for bring tryed in Federal Courts or millitary? I feel that they shouls be tried but millitay corts. why would you want to let a acused terrorist on out home soil? i dont know about you but i think that is avary bad idea. the Federal Courts are way to leanyent. milletary would conviced them farly not just slap them on the wrists.
Chris Moruzzi
Period 1
1. The PATRIOT act does infringe on the civil liberties of U.S. citizens. We have a right to privacy and the government is neglecting that right to fight terrorism. They have access to phone calls, e-mails, and other private information. Although it is a violation of our right to privacy, I believe it is a necessary sacrifice. If the U.S. government wasn't protecting it's citizens from terrorists then it would not be going its job. I, personally, would sacrifice my privacy for the wellbeing of the country but I see why others would not.
3. Enhanced interrogation techniques are undoubtedly torture. The reason they are enhanced is because they include inflicting pain on the suspect until they give desired information. The methods are cruel and inhumane, and that is not how we want the U.S. to be seen. What happens if a suspect is not guilty? Is the U.S. supposed to say "sorry about the water boarding" and that's all? No, there is no way you can take back the physical and mental toll you have inflicted on the subject. Or even if the subject is not guilty, do we want to be seen as a barbaric nation who harms people until they give information? Or do we want to be seen as the reasonable nation who understands and acts humanely towards its people?
Wendy Fang
Period 1
1. I believe that there are definite provisions in the PATRIOT Act that infringe of basic American civil liberties. In particular I have the biggest issue with the “sneak and peak” provision. I don’t feel like federal agencies have the right to break into my house while I’m not there and make me feel like I’m more endanger of other break-ins, even if they have a warrant.
2. I think that the Guantanamo Bay prison should be closed because I believe that what the guards there are doing infringes on the morals humans value the most; kindness and compassion. I also believe that there is little control over what happens in Guantanamo concerning the detainees. Having the prison in Cuba makes it seem like it’s not an issue close to home and that it doesn’t really matter, but it does. Concerning the manner in which to try the prisoners, I’m undecided on what I prefer because there are numerous pros and cons to both methods.
3. I believe that enhanced interrogation techniques are a form of torture because prisons are being held in extremely uncomfortable and painful positions in which they become vulnerable and are subject to humiliation and degradation. I don’t believe any human deserves that type of treatment, no matter how important the information may be because when one looks to the bottom of it the human race has innately evil components that encourage us to murder, cause terror, and torture others. The detainees, guards, and politicians involved in Guantanamo are all examples of what potentials humans have for committing evil acts. As such, these so called enhanced interrogation techniques are viable when one considers human nature, but completely uncalled for concerning the moral code of conduct and the ideals American stands for. There is never a guarantee that subjecting a person to torture gets them to talk the truth, as demonstrated in numerous psychology studies in which a person under such extreme stress, such as that of torture victims, will tell the torturer what they want to hear even if it is a lie just to alleviate the pain. Hence, torturing these prisoners is wrong.
Josh Squire
2. I do not think that the Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp should be closed. Supposed terrorists and threats to our country will not be on American soil. They do not have the rights that American prisoners would in federal prisons. This is a good thing because they should not be treated like regular prisoners. All of the non innocent prisoners are practically brainwashed animals that would do anything to harm America and its people. This brings me to my next point that prisoners in Guantanamo should not be tried in US federal courts. These savages do not deserve to be tried and defended in the American federal court system. That is practically an embarrassment on which the grounds of American Law was built.
3. Enhanced interrogation techniques are torture. But who ever said that it was a bad thing. If it helps save American lives and stop all attempts at terrorism, then why not use these techniques effectively. Now I'm against any torture for the sake of torture but if there is a great chance to receive important information from these terrorists, then I'm down.
1.I think that The PATRIOT Act doesn't infringe on Americans' personal civil liberties because it is for American citizens safety and it's mainly about protecting them not taking away their liberty.there should be some changes in it but mailny it's all for protecting Americans.the "sneak and peak" is the only thing i have issue with because it makes people feel unsafe and worried that "What if some one breaks into my house?"thath's the only thing I think should change about it.
2-There are many things taht we don't know about what's going on in that prison and what's the situation over there,but I think It's better too keep it open and in Cuba because if a prisoner breaks out there will be no harm to America.Maybe a little bit more controll over it by America would be better.
1) Does the PATRIOT Act infringe on Americans personal civil liberties? What specific provisions do you have the biggest issue with and why?
the patriot act is very much so an infringment on americans civil liberties. in particular the roving wire tap alows the government access to the entire phone line not just the certain persons conversations so anyone on that line's conversations are also being monitered which is a giant breach in privacy to those who have nothing to do with the case in point. and also the "sneak and peak" giving government officials the right to enter a house with probable cause but not telling you about their entering of ur home until days or even weeks later. in my oppinion thats going way top far because its to the point of messing with peoples sense of security. this is america and we have the right to our private property and its bad enough when criminals take away our sense of security but now our government is too.. i just feel thats wrong
3) Are enhanced interrogation techniques torture? Should they be kept as a viable option to be used on high-value suspected terrorists?
yes they can be clasified as torturous however i feel they are very viable means of interogation that should be exercised in appropriate situations. hardened criminals have nothing to gain by confessing and they know it and with out an insentive to confess they wont say anything. with the feel of iminant death right infront of them they are very likely to spill the beans and cut a deal and flip on others. this method was used for thousands of years and it worked so why change what works? basic rights? in my oppinion when people become a part of these groups or even partake in these acts of terror they are signing away their rights as a human, they become nothing more then any material object with no more rights then a rock.
Ashley Splain
Period 6
2. The prison at Guantanamo Bay should not be closed by the United States government. While some may see the presence of this establishment as a sore spot against American ideals, there comes a time when one has to put safety over morals. And though this may not be the best way to fight terrorism or the most ethical the truth is that the presence of the prison and the continued holding of the suspected terrorists is the best way that at the time being we can try to keep our country safe and prevent future terrorist attacks. In the future if a better proposal is made or the war on terror ends the closing of the establishment can then be considered, but for now it is a necessity to our safety. Also I do not think that we should try the prisoners in Federal courts. As a nation I do not think that we want these people directly on our soil nor do we want to have to pay and provide protection to them in order to have them transported for trial. They are enemy combatants and should be treated as such and tried in the best way possible for the safety of the country, and that is in military tribunals.
3. The enhanced interrogation techniques are torture. They are the repeated and intense causing of physical pain and harm. They are immoral and whether or not the prisoner’s should be given rights as American citizens in the court system may be up for debate, the right to not be tortured is basic humanity and should be abided by. This should be no matter what and should not be kept as a viable option in the future.
Mike Heafy
2.) I believe that the Guantanamo Bay prison camp should be closed. Most of the prisoners being held there are not even guilty of any crimes besides just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Also, we are torturing people there, which goes against a deal that we made with the UN which specifically told countries not to perform inhuman acts on other human beings. Also, we don't even allow the prisoners a trial in a U.S. federal court. These people at least deserve the right to a lawyer and court.
3.) Yes, enhanced interrogation methods are torture. Any sort of technique used to draw information from someone should not leave the person with long lasting physical or psychological pain. If a person is being tortured, then they will confess to something that they did not do, just to make the pain stop, and that is a flaw in the torture system. torture should never be used, unless in extreme circumstances. Using a lie detector will have a better result as to determining who is and is not a terrorist, and does not torture them.
Dan Grant - Per. 6
1. I do not believe that the PATRIOT Act infringes on the personal civil liberties of Americans. It is written as to ensure that only those who have reason to be searched will be searched and is done appropriately and within the confines of the law. I do not have any issue with any of the provisions.
3. Enhanced Interrogation techniques are not torture. Although they may seem extremely harsh, they are done under the consultation of Doctors to ensure that the person receiving the techniques do not endure lasting effects. The techniques are for the most part brief and end as soon as they interrogator receives the information they are looking for.
I don't think that it infringes upon civil liberties. The PATRIOT act is in place to catch threats and they have to have some sort of evidence to act upon it. If they neglec to investigate a possible terrorist then they will have a major problem when something goes wrong rather then them finding out it's nothing. The PATRIOT act is simply helping out our national security.
I think Guantanamo Bay should be only for convicted terrorists because they don't desereve anything better. I think that Guantanamo bay is good for terrorists. I think that suspected terrorists should be allowed to go on trial and havethe rights of US citizens because they shouldn't be automatically assumed guilty.
1) The Patriot Act does infringe on many personal civil liberties of Americans. Although the Act was passed to help prevent terrorism, it has, in some cases, been taken to extremes. For example, the whole concept of providing "material support or resources" is far too vague. The biggest concern with this is that charity groups may be accused and penalized because the government feels they are supplying resources to terrorists. Also, one of the biggest issues with the PATRIOT Act is its almost complete disregard for privacy, which everyone is entitled to. Although it is argued that this shouldn't matter to people who have nothing to hide, that doesn't change the fact that some people like to keep certain things quiet.
3) In my opinion, there are definitely some forms of enhanced interrogation that could be classified as torture, such as waterboarding. Something like this, although not fatal, is still causing fear and pain, which torture is intended to do. Also, I do feel that torture should be kept as a viable option, but for a much smaller group of suspected terrorists. I feel torture is a last resort, especially when you have no proof that someone is a terrorist. In other cases, though, when there is sufficient evidence, torture should be used.
1)Yes, the PATRIOT ACT infringes on Americans civil liberties. Spying, wire tapping, and searching a person's home, very often without their knowledge is a violation of civil liberties. Despite this fact, i do support the PATRIOT Act. It is a necessary measure to find information from suspected terrorist and prevent possible future attacks. If there is probable cause i value protecting our country or violating one person's civil liberties.
3) Based on my definition of torture, enhanced interrogation should be considered torture. However, i do support torture on suspected terrorists. It is necessary to protect our nation from possible future attacks, aid the war cause, and find other possible terrorists.
The Patriot Act does infringe on Americans’ personal civil liberties. Many clauses of the law that specifically are in conflict with the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. For example, government officials are allowed to wiretap anyone’s phone calls. They do not need any concrete evidence before the government gives these intelligence agents permission to intrude on one’s personal life. What is more upsetting is that the government agents are allowed to access any sort of personal records, even including medical ones. Personally, I think it’s offensive to have someone reading over my medical record. I would not want to have anyone to know what type of surgery or what type of medication that I’ve had. Even though I have nothing to hide from, I still wouldn’t feel comfortable with the notion of having strangers to know any part of my personal life.
I don’t think that Guantanamo Bay prison should be completely closed by the U.S. government out of safety reasons. It is important to make sure that these people who have tried to harm innocent lives have no ways of harming other lives. Although I think lowly of the murderous, violent actions that they have done in the past, I still regard these terrorists to be people. Since they are human beings, I believe that they should some basic rights guaranteed by the law. They should, at least have the access to be tried in the US federal Courts or military tribunals despite of their foreign citizenship and criminal actions. The United States have always been the leading figure in championing for equality and basic human rights. I think it would be a bit hypocritical of us if we deprived these prisoners of the most valuable rights that we have always enjoyed. As long as that they are considered as people, which is fact that I doubt will ever change, these prisoners should have access to a court system.
I do consider enhanced interrogation techniques as a form of torture. I cannot express how distasteful I am of any form of torture. I don’t believe in violating the prisoners, because they are still considered to be human beings, just like every one of us despite their criminal past. Even if they have been murders, we have forgotten there are many reasons that have led them into taking such an extreme route. They may have been brainwashed into following orders. These prisoners are not inherently bad people, I firmly believe. I may sound too optimistic and unworldly, but I believe in the power of the situation. Every single one of us has the capacity of doing what they have done under similar circumstances--out of fear and obedience. Of course, I don’t deny the possibility that there are some sadist people and I would call them the master mind. As long as that they have been proven guilty of initiating terrorist attacks such as 9-11, they should be punished. The question whether torture should be used or not should be answered by someone who is well-versed in military strategies. I abstain from expressing my opinions on such matter.
1. The PATRIOT Act doesn't necessarily infringe on American's person civil liberties. This act was established to protect us from terrorists. I feel that this act isn't infringing on our civil liberties because there is nothing wrong with being diligent towards certain people because you never know what someone might do.
2. i don't believe Guantanamo Bay should be closed because this prison is for the most dangerous terrorists and criminals. if we let these prisoners out of the institution then they will feel as though they can do it again. i don't think Guantanamo Bay prisoners should be tried in US federal courts because then we are giving them rights as citizens which they are not.
Post a Comment