Torture

Early in the War on Terror initiated by the Bush administration after the attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush signed documents prepared by his legal advisors authorizing aggressive measures in prisoner interrogations, including practices that some consider to be torture, such as “waterboarding.” If you don’t know what waterboarding is, or have never seen it, you might be interested in a 5-minute video showing a journalist who volunteered to be waterboarded. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58.

Some people believe that the United States is morally bound to avoid questionable tactics such as waterboarding. If we are to be the leader of the world economically and militarily, it is incumbent upon us to be the moral leader as well. After all, how can we criticize other nations for torturing prisoners if we engage in torture ourselves? We have to be “The Good Guys,” setting an example of correct behavior that the rest of the world can follow.

On the other hand, some people believe that in a war where the other side follows no such rules – sending impressionable (some would say brainwashed) teenagers wrapped with explosives into crowded markets to blow themselves up, along with innocent shoppers whose only crime is buying food at the wrong place at the wrong time – we cannot afford to limit ourselves to humane interrogation tactics that might fail to stop a terrorist attack. Americans generally use the phrase “enhanced interrogation techniques” to describe tactics that most people, like U.S. Sen. John McCain (who was himself subjected to torture in North Vietnamese POW camps) consider torture and unacceptable.

President Trump is convinced torture works and should be considered a valid tool of American foreign policy. His choices to lead the Defense Department and CIA both disagree and are outspokenly against torture.

A commonly cited example is the hypothetical “ticking time bomb:” if we had good information that a terrorist group had obtained a nuclear weapon and was going to explode it in Washington D.C. within 24 hours, would we be justified in torturing a prisoner we believed had information about the attack? A pretty good Wikipedia article is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario.

Some say that torture does not result in reliable information anyway, because the person being tortured will say anything just to make the torture stop. In response, others insist that the interrogators know that will happen, that some information is better than none, and that prisoners are under too much stress to make up false stories.

What is your opinion? Should the U.S. have a firm unbreakable policy that we will never torture prisoners? Or should we have a policy that allows torture?

For a little more information, you might start by checking out the links I’ve provided. (And remember not to make any assumptions about my personal opinions based on anything I post.) Or you may look for other outside information. Be sure that, as with anything you do in any class or in life, you cite anything you use from an outside source.

Remember you need to make your “Initial Post” of at least 250 words and you need to complete at least two responses (the “Final Posts”) of at least 200 words each to classmates by the dates shown in the course schedule. 

Remember there is one date for your Initial Post and a later date for your Final Posts.

Torture DOESN’T Produce Useful Information.docx

The Myth of the Ticking Time Bomb.docx  
5 Myths About Torture and Truth.docx  
Americans Should Never Use Torture. In Any Circumstances.docx  
Cheney leads defense of CIA torture of prisoners.docx  
Does Torture Work – The C.I.A.’s Claims and What the Committee Found.docx  
The Strategic Costs of Torture.docx  
Moral injury — the quiet epidemic of soldiers haunted by what they did during wartime.docx  

Reply to posts below:

first post:

I do not feel like torturing prisoners should be allowed in the United States. We have such a significant number of reasons not to torment. It spoils those people who do it. They all guarantee to help and guard the U.S. Constitution, a report that typifies what we are, the way we are constituted. That Constitution contains the fifth Amendment, which furnishes us with the privilege to stay noiseless, the privilege not to implicate ourselves when charged. It degrades the country that approves it. It expels moral specialist and authenticity from any reason, regardless of how commendable something else. It enables and enflames the adversary and helps its motivation. It uncovered our detainees of war to the same or more regrettable treatment without plan of action on the worldwide stage. Demonstrate to me the military authority who would state that he or she is alright with American administration individuals, caught in war, being subjected to the torment procedures utilized by the CIA, and I will indicate you somebody who ought not be in charge. It disheartens me to hear our pioneers withdraw from this history, this rule, this American esteem and to guard torment. It doesn’t appear to be deserving of the Home of the Brave. On the off chance that we are overcome, similar to Washington, let us believe in our capacity to pick up the insight we require, savagely if essential, yet dependably ethically. Spend the assets fundamental, employ more individuals, create and send new advancements, frame the organizations together required.

Second post:

  I am a person with fear of violence. I do not like to watch movies that are violent, especially torture. I have heard a lot about the brutal forms of torture for prisoners of war criminals who are extremely serious, or those who take the testimony. But the results for those forms of torture are helpful or not, it depends on a lot of different opinions. It is worse for me than for the death penalty. Physical pain can cause frightened prisoners to give statements that are not true. There are many cases where innocent prisoners are tortured to death because they refuse to plead guilty or give testimony. They cannot prove themselves innocent. And there are cases until several years or decades to find clear evidence, then the innocent will have suffered a lot of unjustly. I do not dare mention the torture forms because to me it is terrible. There have been several incidents that have been discovered: torture may be the quickest way to force a felony and may well be the only way to end a case. There are many cases, while people are watching the results, only to find that the criminal committed suicide in prison and the court cannot continue. I think of these tortures. And of course, to me it is an unacceptable thing. I want the government to make the right choices rather than torture to deal with criminals and make sure there are no innocent prisoners. And I often wonder why in some European countries, the prison is almost “paradise” but the crime rate is very low.

 

This week we learned about the presidency, the powers of the presidency, and the unique way our president is elected via the Electoral College. In this assignment you will be guided in creating a complete argument regarding whether or not you think the Electoral College should be kept or eliminated.

This activity will be useful practice in how to create and present and thoughtful argument. The ability to create and communicate a thoughtful argument will help you out in future studies and in any career.

 

Follow these steps to create an argument in the form of an essay:

Step 1: In one or two very clear sentences state whether or not you think the Electoral College should be kept or eliminated. This is called writing a thesis statement.

Step 2: In three paragraphs describing three (3) arguments that support your position regarding the Electoral College. Give each argument one paragraph. Do not just list three arguments in support of your position regarding the Electoral College. You must tell the reader why each of your three arguments supports your position on the Electoral College.

Step 3: In three paragraphs describe three (3) arguments that go against your position regarding the Electoral College. This is called addressing counterarguments. Give each counterargument one paragraph. Describe the counterargument and then tell the reader of your essay why that counterargument should be dismissed.

Step 4: Write one paragraph concluding your essay. Restate your initial position on the Electoral College. And review the one or two arguments that you found to be the most compelling in support of your position.

Step 5: Write a reference list. In any good argument you will present your ideas but then include evidence from credible external sources to support your ideas. Always include a reference list.

In outline form your paper should look like this.

1. Introduction: Thesis statement of your position regarding the Electoral College.
2. Three arguments supporting your position.
   1. Describe argument 1 and why it supports your position.
   2. Describe argument 2 and why it supports your position.
   3. Describe argument 3 and why it supports your position.
3. Three counter arguments opposing your position.
   1. Describe counter argument 1 and why it is not sufficient.
   2. Describe counter argument 2 and why it is not sufficient.
   3. Describe counter argument 3 and why it is not sufficient.
4. Conclusion paragraph.

Death Penalty

Texas carries out the death penalty more than any other state.

Executions by State (since 1976)

         State                                                                                      Total Executions

         Texas                                                                                               515

         Oklahoma                                                                                  111

         Virginia                                                                                      110

          Florida                                                                                         88

          Missouri                                                                                    77

          Alabama                                                                                    56

          Georgia                                                                                      54

           Ohio                                                                                            53

           North Carolina                                                                     43

           South Carolina                                                                     43

           Arizona                                                                                     37

           Louisiana                                                                                 28

           Arkansas                                                                                  27

           Mississippi                                                                              21

           Indiana                                                                                      20

           Delaware                                                                                 16

           California                                                                                13

           Illinois                                                                                        12

           Nevada                                                                                      12

           Utah                                                                                              7

           Tennessee                                                                                 6

            Maryland                                                                                  5

            Washington                                                                            5

            Nebraska                                                                                  3

            Montana                                                                                   3

            Pennsylvania                                                                         3

            U. S. Federal Gov’t                                                              3

            Kentucky                                                                                  3

            Idaho                                                                                           3

            South Dakota                                                                         3

            Oregon                                                                                       2

            Connecticut                                                                            1

            New Mexico                                                                            1

            Colorado                                                                                    1

            Wyoming                                                                                   1

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/number-executions-state-and-region-1976

And a very large majority of Texans support continued use of the death penalty. Here’s a Texas poll from 2012:

What is your opinion of the death penalty?
Strongly support:          42%
Somewhat support:       31%
Somewhat oppose:        11%
Strongly oppose:           10%
Don’t know:                    5%

SOURCE: University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll, May 2012

But we know several things:

* the death penalty is far more expensive than life imprisonment without parole;
* the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime;
* the death penalty is implemented in a racially unbalanced manner;
* the death penalty has been carried out on innocent victims.

If you don’t think those things are true, you can easily look it up to prove it to yourself.

Given that the above statements are true, why do we still have capital punishment in Texas? What justification is there – beyond simple blood-lust vengeance – for capital punishment? Is vengeance an adequate reason for the state to kill people, even if sometimes we kill someone who is innocent?

Check out this last table:

Rank                                            Country                                       Number executed in 2012[69]

1                                              People’s Republic of China     4,000+Officially not released.

2                                              Iran                                                         314+

3                                              Iraq                                                         129+

4                                              Saudi Arabia                                       79+

5                                              United States                                     43

6                                              Yemen                                                     28+

7                                              Sudan                                                       19+

8                                              Afghanistan                                          14

9                                              Gambia                                                     9

10                                           Japan                                                         7

11                                           North Korea                                          6+

12                                           Somalia                                                     6+

13                                           Palestinian Authority                       6

14                                           Republic of China (Taiwan)            6

15                                           South Sudan                                           5+

16                                           Belarus                                                      3+

17                                           Botswana                                                 2

18                                           Bangladesh                                             1

19                                           India                                                            1

20                                           Pakistan                                                    1

21                                           United Arab Emirates                       1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishmen

Does the company the US keeps by retaining the death penalty cause you to question our continuing to perform executions?

What’s your opinion?

Should Texas, and should the US, continue to carry out executions?

Yes, I know I’ve painted a completely one-sided picture of the death penalty. I haven’t, for example, provided descriptions of crimes committed that have led to executions. I haven’t provided statements from family members of murder victims. I haven’t done several things I could have done to make this a “fair” presentation. I decided not to do that because a) given that we live in Texas, I didn’t think I needed to present that side of the picture, and b) I thought some of you might not know some of those things and might not look them up before responding.

You’ll find that in this class I regularly do not give both sides of the story. My goal is to make you think — to question your assumptions. Hopefully when I present a one-sided story you’ll take the time to investigate the other side. There’s ALWAYS another side! Please do NOT assume you know what I think about this or any other issue based on the way I ask the question or based on what data I present. And please do NOT EVER tailor your answer based on what you think I want to hear. I promise you that you do not know what I want to hear, or even if I “want to hear” anything at all.

The only other rules about your responses to this and all the discussion boards are that you a) stay on topic, and b) remain respectful toward your classmates. Disrespectful posts will be deleted.

Remember you need to make your “Initial Post” of at least 250 words and you need to complete at least two responses (the “Final Posts”) of at least 200 words each to classmates by the dates shown in the course schedule.

Remember there is one date for your Initial Post and a later date for your Final Posts.

GUNS

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is the full text of the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

If anyone tells you they KNOW! definitively what it means, they are actually giving you their opinion rather than an objective fact. They can’t possibly know, because it’s inherently ambiguous, as much as some people would like to believe otherwise.

Some people say it means that the government has no constitutional authority to limit a citizen’s right to own semi-automatic handguns or an AR-15, or even a Barrett M82 50 caliber rifle. Others, however, say it means that anyone in an official “well-regulated” militia, like the National Guard, has the right to bear arms. But, the response to this goes, the “militia” really means everyone, because when the constitution was drafted, everyone was subject to being activated to repel invaders.

Many historians think evidence points to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment was ratified *not* to guarantee an individual right to be continually armed, but because there was widespread opposition to a standing army, so state militias were necessary and should not be disarmed. Or, probably more commonly, constitutional historians accept that the right is an individual right, but is conditioned upon the assumption of participation in a militia, and since militias no longer exist, the individual right to keep and bear arms consequently no longer exists.

One example may be found in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court (page 36) in 2008:

“…the authors of the Second Amendment would be flabbergasted to learn that in endorsing the republican principle of a well-regulated militia, they were also precluding restrictions on such potentially dangerous property as firearms, which governments had always regulated when there was “real danger of public injury from individuals.”

Other people may have other interpretations of the 2nd amendment. So when your great uncle Norman (I hope no one actually has a great uncle Norman!) tells you the 2nd amendment gives him a constitutionally guaranteed right to have that AR-15, or even a machine gun, the truth is…. maybe, maybe not.

As it happens, the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals held in an opinion issued on June 9, 2016, that the Second Amendment does not ensure an individual right to bear arms in public. At that link you can download the opinion and also listen to, or even watch video of, the oral argument that led to it.

The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that the Constitution protects and individual right to own a handgun in the home for self-protection. In contrast, this 9th Circuit opinion (Peruta v. County of San Diego) bears on weapons outside the home. Here is one of many news stories about Peruta. And here is the case page for the Heller decision.

According to Peruta, individuals are not constitutionally barred from carrying weapons, but states or other political subdivisions do not violate constitutional rights by requiring individuals to demonstrate a strong need to have a firearm before issuing a license.

That decision was appealed, but the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, leaving the decision’s restriction on public carrying of firearms in place.

What do you think? Should there be stricter limits on gun ownership and carrying?

Whatever your opinion of gun ownership, carrying and regulation, you should remember that, as documented by the Gun Violence Archive, there were 385 mass shootings in the US in 2016 and 344 in 2017. There have been 5 so far in 2018, and 15 children aged 0-15 killed or injured by gun violence as of January 10, 2018.

I’m including more text and some more links below, in case you’d find it helpful.

Remember that our discussion boards are not typical online forums where insults, name-calling and snide dismissiveness are acceptable. We are in a scholarly academic environment, and you are required to reflect that attitude in discussion board posts, as with everything you do in this or any class.

And remember that I ask questions attempting to create discussions. Do not assume you know my personal position, and do not consider whether you will agree with me, or not, in your posts.

Remember you need to make your “Initial Post” of at least 250 words and you need to complete at least two responses (the “Final Posts”) of at least 200 words each to classmates by the dates shown in the course schedule.

Remember there is one date for your Initial Post and a later date for your Final Posts.

Lots of folks say they want to have guns to protect themselves. We know, though, that having a gun makes someone much, much more likely to die from guns than to protect themselves with guns.

Consider:

Despite the widely held belief that guns are effective for protection, our results suggest that they actually pose a substantial threat to members of the household. People who keep guns in their homes appear to be at greater risk of homicide in the home than people who do not. Most of this risk is due to a substantially greater risk of homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance. We did not find evidence of a protective effect of keeping a gun in the home, even in the small subgroup of cases that involved forced entry.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506#t=article

So, statistically, people who have guns are actually far more likely to die from guns. People who do not have guns are actually far safer from guns than people who have them. Especially for women, who are many times more likely to be shot by a member of her household than by an intruder.

It is certainly true that sometimes a person does actually protect themselves with a gun. It is also true that sometimes someone is trapped in a car by a seatbelt when they would otherwise be able to escape.

A popularly-cited factoid among defenders of the 2nd amendment is that guns are used over 2 million times per year in self-defense. This factoid has been strongly challenged, or here, however, as it is plagued by self-reporting error and faulty statistical methods.

In fact, it is entirely clear, beyond any real debate, that not having a gun, wearing a seatbelt, and getting your vaccinations are vastly more likely to result in positive outcomes for individuals.

But what about the point raised by those opposing restrictions on gun ownership and possession that “mass shooters look for gun free zones?” Actually, there’s quite a bit of research indicating that it’s not true. Some researchers argue that the vast majority of mass shootings occur in “gun allowing” zones.

According to the National Rifle Association, the most prominent group advocating for 2nd amendment rights, the answer to gun violence is for more people to have guns. “An armed society is a polite society.” Try telling that to the Sheriffs of Dodge City and Tombstone in the Wild West era. Essentially everyone owned handguns then, but carrying them in town – at least the part of town where the locals lived – was strictly prohibited. Or here.

And America is certainly a leader in gun violence.

Using the most recent CDC estimates for yearly deaths by guns in the United States, it is likely that as of 1/25/2014, roughly 37,569 people had died from guns in the U.S. since the Newtown shootings. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html)

Yes, it’s true that nearly two thirds of those deaths are suicides. But that doesn’t seem to be an effective argument. If people didn’t have guns they would not be nearly so successful at killing themselves. People are “successful” at suicide by gun over 90% of the time, but with drug overdoses perhaps as little as 6% of the time. It may be that drug overdoses and slashing wrists are as much a cry for help as a real suicide attempt. But with a gun, no help is possible. Add this to the fact that the presence of guns makes people more aggressive, and there doesn’t seem to be a sensible reason to exclude suicides from gun violence totals.

Over 37,000 gun deaths in a year. And the solution is more guns?

Of course, it’s hard to know the full truth about gun violence, because a 1996 amendment (the “Dickey Amendment”) to an appropriations bill effectively ended most scientific inquiry into gun violence.

So what do you think? Should we have more rules about gun ownership, such as closing the “gun-show loophole?” (Some people object to this description, but it seems reasonably accurate and it’s in wide usage.) Should we require gun manufacturers to make guns safer? Or would those things violate our inalienable rights?

Yes, I know I’ve painted a very one-sided picture of this debate. As usual, I’m not trying to fool anyone or brainwash anyone. I’m just providing a starting point. Anyone wanting information on “the other side” can check out the NRA or Gun Owners of America or the National Association of Gun Rights or the John Birch Society or a bunch of others.

There is a whole library of writing and probably a gazillion hours of YouTube on this issue. I encourage you to further research the issue before posting. I warn you as you are researching that much of what you see will be more politically motivated than scientifically researched. As always on any topic: Be Careful!

You will write a 4–5-page research paper covering the most controversial of all the rights in the Bill of Rights—the right to privacy. The purpose of this assignment is to help you analyze this right and its legacy as well as to think through the issues surrounding this right in the context of our legal, constitutional, and religious history.

The right to privacy was first created by the Supreme Court in its 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut ruling. Eight years later, the Court determined that the right to privacy was broad enough to include the right to an abortion.

Access Griswold v. Connecticut from any reputable website (two excellent websites are http://www.oyez.org/ and https://www.law.cornell.edu/). Analyze this case from both a loose constructionist and a strict interpretationist perspective. Apply the principles and knowledge that you have gained in this course regarding America’s religious and legal history. In light of our Constitutional heritage and principles that you have learned in this course, which side is more consistent with our Constitutional heritage? Explain and discuss. Follow current Turabian formatting.

 

BUT BEFORE YOU SUBMIT THE ABOVE PAPER WHICH I WILL NEED NEXT WEEKEND, I WILL NEED THIS FIRST

 

This assignment is designed to help you approach your first research paper. Beginning to work on your research paper early will help you avoid rushing things near the end of the course. Using current Turabian format, develop a 1-page document that includes the following aspects:

1)    A thesis statement

2)    A 1-paragraph discussion of where you see your paper going

3)    An outline of your paper. At this point, 2–3 main points and the 2–3 subpoints under each main point will suffice. For example:

I.

A.

B.

II.

A.

B.

III.

A.

B.

4)    At least 5 quality sources that you expect to use

5)    Any questions or challenges that you would like guidance on

 

Note: your focus may change as you move deeper into the research, but this assignment will at least get you thinking and moving in the right direction.