Thanks to the House of Representatives and the US Senate, we are now one signature away from losing more rights and privacy. The Surveillance Bill gives greater power to the Federal government’s initiatives to spy on law-abiding Americans without court approval. It also grants protection to companies, which comply with the Federal government in violating your rights. In short, the government wants to continue to spy on you and give you little recourse, if any.
President George W. Bush is likely to sign this Surveillance Bill and continue an era where you as a private citizen may be put under intrusive investigation without a warrant. And, by the way, the surveillance warrants are available. The Bush administration just does not want to be troubled with requesting them through proper channels. Apparently, convenience trumps your Fourth Amendment rights.
July 10, 2008
May 11, 2006
NSA Is Tracking Domestic Phone Calls
Leslie Cauley of USA Today is reporting that the National Security Agency is collecting the domestic and international phone call records of most Americans. AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth are voluntary participants in the program and are federally compensated for surrendering the call records of ordinary Americans, even if those not suspected of any crime. At this point, Qwest is refusing to turn over call records to the NSA without a court order.
The NSA claims to want the information to build a database that will allow them to perform highly detailed analyses of America’s calling habits. The NSA contends that the measure is to increase national security.
Unless you are a Qwest customer, the NSA probably knows the time and date of every phone call you have made from your home, cell phone, office, etc. for the last few years. They also know the number you called and the number you called from. With that information, a simple query of public records can reveal your name and address as well as the name and address of the person you called.
You can read the entire article here.
The NSA claims to want the information to build a database that will allow them to perform highly detailed analyses of America’s calling habits. The NSA contends that the measure is to increase national security.
Unless you are a Qwest customer, the NSA probably knows the time and date of every phone call you have made from your home, cell phone, office, etc. for the last few years. They also know the number you called and the number you called from. With that information, a simple query of public records can reveal your name and address as well as the name and address of the person you called.
You can read the entire article here.
April 6, 2006
Great Political Abyss Atom/RSS Feed
The syndication (Atom/RSS) feed for Great Political Abyss is http://greatpoliticalabyss.blogspot.com/atom.xml.
February 19, 2006
Chicago Mayor Daley Wants Surveillance Cameras at Private Businesses
Chicago Mayor, Richard Daley wants to require surveillance cameras at private businesses that stay open late like bars, clubs, convenience stores, etc. The only thing worse than a politician who wants to spy on the public with cameras is the public that allows it. Haven’t we seen enough science-fiction movies to know that ubiquitous video surveillance is a bad idea?
Click the following link to read the article.
"Daley Wants Security Cameras at Bars"
Click the following link to read the article.
"Daley Wants Security Cameras at Bars"
January 21, 2006
Government Invades Privacy by Demanding User Search Data
The Federal government has once again overstepped its powers and made another chilling move into the private lives of law-abiding citizens.
The Department of Justice, under the direction of Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez, requested random samplings of user search data. So far, the cowards at Yahoo, MSN, and AOL have surrendered some or all of the requested search data. Google is standing alone in opposition to the government’s attempt to invade what little privacy we have left.
The Federal government is defending itself by saying it does not want names of individual search engine users, and they are just conducting research that will help protect children from pornography. Why does the government suddenly feel it has the duty to protect children from pornography? Parents are responsible for protecting their children from pornography. This is not the responsibility of the government.
Regardless of the government’s reasons, it has no right to make demands on companies in the private sector to aid in spying on American citizens. If the Federal government wants to spy on its citizens, it should have to do it on its own with its own resources.
Hopefully, Google will continue to oppose this ridiculous intrusion by the Federal government. The other search engine companies (i.e., Yahoo, MSN, and AOL), which so quickly baked down, should be ashamed of themselves, and they deserve to lose market share to Google.
The Department of Justice, under the direction of Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez, requested random samplings of user search data. So far, the cowards at Yahoo, MSN, and AOL have surrendered some or all of the requested search data. Google is standing alone in opposition to the government’s attempt to invade what little privacy we have left.
The Federal government is defending itself by saying it does not want names of individual search engine users, and they are just conducting research that will help protect children from pornography. Why does the government suddenly feel it has the duty to protect children from pornography? Parents are responsible for protecting their children from pornography. This is not the responsibility of the government.
Regardless of the government’s reasons, it has no right to make demands on companies in the private sector to aid in spying on American citizens. If the Federal government wants to spy on its citizens, it should have to do it on its own with its own resources.
Hopefully, Google will continue to oppose this ridiculous intrusion by the Federal government. The other search engine companies (i.e., Yahoo, MSN, and AOL), which so quickly baked down, should be ashamed of themselves, and they deserve to lose market share to Google.
January 5, 2006
The Health Care Solution for America
If you have had numerous interactions with the medical industry over the last twenty years, you have certainly noticed that things have changed. In the last couple decades, technology and knowledge have fostered incredible advances in medical treatment, but the cost of health care has grown to mind-boggling levels.
As the prices continue to climb and health care becomes unaffordable for a growing number of people, many are warming up to the idea of socialized health care. The employer-funded health insurance system with low-deductibles has created a culture of people who feel entitled to medical care as if it is a right. Many people feel they should be able to walk into a doctor’s office or hospital, receive whatever treatment they need, and pay little or nothing for the service.
It is horrifying that American society has come to this, but it has. People now feel they have a right to health care just as they have a right to air. It would be wonderful if we could somehow reverse this entitlement trend and make people understand that health care is a privilege that should be self-financed, but it is highly unlikely that the current attitude will ever change. We should just accept reality and deal with it accordingly.
The sad truth is that we are already on the path to socialized health care. We already have Medicare and Medicaid. These are tax-funded programs allowing people to get health care for little to no cost. Many states have supplemental programs similar to Medicaid. Sick Americans and illegal aliens can receive spectacular emergency care in hospital emergency rooms without paying. The under-insured who do not receive health care in these ways, simply get the care, go bankrupt under the pressure of insurmountable medical bills, and then saddle the hospital with the expenses.
People getting health care from the government are a burden on society because taxpayers are funding their health care. Those getting medical care at the expense of the hospitals are a burden on society, because hospitals charge paying customers more to offset losses from non-paying customers. Regardless of the methods, many Americans end up getting health care at the expense of others even if they have to go through financial devastation to get it. The reality is that if you pay for your own health care, your employer pays for it as part of your compensation, or you pay taxes, you are currently funding a rudimentary social health care system whether you want to or not.
Given that America already has a de facto social health care system funded by the insured and taxpayers, we have very little to lose by moving to a taxpayer-funded health care system. The horrifying possibility here would be that the government could take over the medical industry to provide true socialized health care. If this happens, it will be the biggest disaster in the history of American social welfare. Imagine the staggering fraud and incompetence displayed by Medicare and Medicaid expanded to a bureaucracy serving 300 million patients. Medical costs would be up, waits for appointments would be long, service would decline, etc. The federal government has a proven track record of inefficiency and waste. How could we possibly turn over our health to the same institution that is responsible for bungling the tax code, Social Security, and immigration?
The solution to America’s inevitable future of a taxpayer-funded health care system is to take preemptive action to keep the government out of the medical industry. The only way is to provide a reasonable alternative before the system grows so desperate that people will be happy to hand it all over to the government.
Given the realities, the solution to America’s health care problems is taxpayer-funded health care insurance vouchers. Under the health care voucher system, the Federal government would create specifications for a basic health care plan that would provide sufficient general health care to anyone who wants it. The deductibles would have to be high enough to discourage abuse, fraud penalties would be extreme, lawsuits would be regulated, and the benefits would be limited. Even with these limitations, the plan would be enough to provide people with essential health care.
Health insurance companies would be able to voluntarily offer health care plans that meet the Federal specifications. Health care vouchers sufficient to pay for these basic plans would be available to all Americans. With the health care vouchers, Americans would be able to purchase basic health insurance or use the vouchers plus personal funds to upgrade to better plans. The result is that everyone who wants health insurance can have it. Those who want more can pay for it.
Since medical care would remain in the private sector under this system, the crucial element of free-market competition would still exist. The health care vouchers would create an enormous source of potential revenue, and insurance companies would aggressively compete for customers. This competition would demand efficiency, innovation, and service. The health insurance companies that would strive to provide the best care for the voucher amount would get the most customers. Those companies failing to provide good value would perish. This is capitalism and how America functions best.
Under the health care voucher system, companies would no longer be burdened by the paperwork and expenses of employer-provided health care. This would free up funds that could be used to raise salaries for employees. The employees could take charge of their own health insurance needs by shopping around for the plan that best suits them. This system would greatly benefit small businesses, which struggle most with the challenges of the current health care system.
Medicare and Medicaid would be obsolete under the voucher system. The emergency room loophole would be nearly eliminated. Honest, hard-working people would no longer be bankrupted by medical bills.
The only people that lose in the health care voucher system are the taxpayers. Unfortunately, most of us are taxpayers, and we would have to have to fund the health care vouchers for those who are not pulling their weight. The truth, however, is that we are already paying for their health care. Because of those burdening the current health care system, we are paying too much for our health care, our employers are paying us less to pay for our overpriced insurance plans, or we are paying taxes to support existing social health care programs. We are already paying for what practically amounts to socialized health care anyway, so we just don’t have that much to lose.
Surprisingly, no prominent politician has proposed a plan like this. Perhaps no politician has figured out that the health care voucher system is the solution to America’s health care troubles. If some politician is bold enough to develop a plan like this, that man or woman is going to be a national hero.
If you agree that this is a practical solution to America’s approaching health care crisis, use the email link below to send this to your Senators, Congressman, friends, etc.
As the prices continue to climb and health care becomes unaffordable for a growing number of people, many are warming up to the idea of socialized health care. The employer-funded health insurance system with low-deductibles has created a culture of people who feel entitled to medical care as if it is a right. Many people feel they should be able to walk into a doctor’s office or hospital, receive whatever treatment they need, and pay little or nothing for the service.
It is horrifying that American society has come to this, but it has. People now feel they have a right to health care just as they have a right to air. It would be wonderful if we could somehow reverse this entitlement trend and make people understand that health care is a privilege that should be self-financed, but it is highly unlikely that the current attitude will ever change. We should just accept reality and deal with it accordingly.
The sad truth is that we are already on the path to socialized health care. We already have Medicare and Medicaid. These are tax-funded programs allowing people to get health care for little to no cost. Many states have supplemental programs similar to Medicaid. Sick Americans and illegal aliens can receive spectacular emergency care in hospital emergency rooms without paying. The under-insured who do not receive health care in these ways, simply get the care, go bankrupt under the pressure of insurmountable medical bills, and then saddle the hospital with the expenses.
People getting health care from the government are a burden on society because taxpayers are funding their health care. Those getting medical care at the expense of the hospitals are a burden on society, because hospitals charge paying customers more to offset losses from non-paying customers. Regardless of the methods, many Americans end up getting health care at the expense of others even if they have to go through financial devastation to get it. The reality is that if you pay for your own health care, your employer pays for it as part of your compensation, or you pay taxes, you are currently funding a rudimentary social health care system whether you want to or not.
Given that America already has a de facto social health care system funded by the insured and taxpayers, we have very little to lose by moving to a taxpayer-funded health care system. The horrifying possibility here would be that the government could take over the medical industry to provide true socialized health care. If this happens, it will be the biggest disaster in the history of American social welfare. Imagine the staggering fraud and incompetence displayed by Medicare and Medicaid expanded to a bureaucracy serving 300 million patients. Medical costs would be up, waits for appointments would be long, service would decline, etc. The federal government has a proven track record of inefficiency and waste. How could we possibly turn over our health to the same institution that is responsible for bungling the tax code, Social Security, and immigration?
The solution to America’s inevitable future of a taxpayer-funded health care system is to take preemptive action to keep the government out of the medical industry. The only way is to provide a reasonable alternative before the system grows so desperate that people will be happy to hand it all over to the government.
Given the realities, the solution to America’s health care problems is taxpayer-funded health care insurance vouchers. Under the health care voucher system, the Federal government would create specifications for a basic health care plan that would provide sufficient general health care to anyone who wants it. The deductibles would have to be high enough to discourage abuse, fraud penalties would be extreme, lawsuits would be regulated, and the benefits would be limited. Even with these limitations, the plan would be enough to provide people with essential health care.
Health insurance companies would be able to voluntarily offer health care plans that meet the Federal specifications. Health care vouchers sufficient to pay for these basic plans would be available to all Americans. With the health care vouchers, Americans would be able to purchase basic health insurance or use the vouchers plus personal funds to upgrade to better plans. The result is that everyone who wants health insurance can have it. Those who want more can pay for it.
Since medical care would remain in the private sector under this system, the crucial element of free-market competition would still exist. The health care vouchers would create an enormous source of potential revenue, and insurance companies would aggressively compete for customers. This competition would demand efficiency, innovation, and service. The health insurance companies that would strive to provide the best care for the voucher amount would get the most customers. Those companies failing to provide good value would perish. This is capitalism and how America functions best.
Under the health care voucher system, companies would no longer be burdened by the paperwork and expenses of employer-provided health care. This would free up funds that could be used to raise salaries for employees. The employees could take charge of their own health insurance needs by shopping around for the plan that best suits them. This system would greatly benefit small businesses, which struggle most with the challenges of the current health care system.
Medicare and Medicaid would be obsolete under the voucher system. The emergency room loophole would be nearly eliminated. Honest, hard-working people would no longer be bankrupted by medical bills.
The only people that lose in the health care voucher system are the taxpayers. Unfortunately, most of us are taxpayers, and we would have to have to fund the health care vouchers for those who are not pulling their weight. The truth, however, is that we are already paying for their health care. Because of those burdening the current health care system, we are paying too much for our health care, our employers are paying us less to pay for our overpriced insurance plans, or we are paying taxes to support existing social health care programs. We are already paying for what practically amounts to socialized health care anyway, so we just don’t have that much to lose.
Surprisingly, no prominent politician has proposed a plan like this. Perhaps no politician has figured out that the health care voucher system is the solution to America’s health care troubles. If some politician is bold enough to develop a plan like this, that man or woman is going to be a national hero.
If you agree that this is a practical solution to America’s approaching health care crisis, use the email link below to send this to your Senators, Congressman, friends, etc.
December 21, 2005
Giuliani - Jeb vs. Hillary - Obama: The 2008 Election Dream Teams
Certainly, the Republicans and Democrats have done extensive research on their prospects for the 2008 election. With President George W. Bush retiring and Vice-President Dick Cheney unlikely to run, the power vacuum in Washington D.C. is bound to be enormous, and each party is going to have to come up with some heavy hitters to impress the voters.
For the Democrats, the choice for President is obvious. Hillary Clinton has been preparing for the 2008 election since the day Al Gore lost to George W. Bush in the 2000 election. She has been acting like a Presidential candidate, her party is largely behind her, she has an existing campaign infrastructure from Bill Clinton’s decades of elections, she is rich, she is from a major Democrat state with valuable electoral votes, she energizes much of the Democrat base, and she has tremendous name recognition. These are just some of the factors that make Hillary Clinton an extremely strong candidate for President.
Hillary Clinton does come with some major problems. Her behavior during the Monica Lewinsky scandal made her look pathetic, clueless, and naive. She will find it difficult to shed this image. Hillary’s biggest obstacle, however, is that she is stuffy, cold, shrill, and unlikable to a great number of people. Hillary’s lousy personality alone is enough to turn away a droves of voters.
Given Hillary Clinton’s personality deficit, she needs a running mate that will be able to tap into demographics that normally do not vote in high percentages: young people and minorities. When one thinks of youth and minorities, one does not have to think long before Barack Obama comes to mind.
Barack Obama is a relatively young black man and is a rising star in the Democratic party. His full name, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., is terribly unfortunate given current international realities, but he does have charisma, is aware of the issues, presents himself well, and has an image of competence. If Barack Obama cannot energize youth and minorities, no Democrat can.
A key factor that makes Barack Obama a strong choice for Vice-President is his home state of Illinois. Illinois has some valuable electoral votes that could easily swing the 2008 election. The Democrats need those votes, and Barack could deliver them.
Barack Obama has another thing going for him. He is a bit conservative for a Democrat, and this is another area of weakness for Hillary. Hillary Clinton is a true-blue liberal. She has been pretending to be a conservative for the last few years, but--in reality--she is deeply liberal, and her disastrous past as de facto co-President during Bill Clinton’s Presidency is going to come back to haunt her in 2008.
Assuming that the Democrats will be able to assemble their 2008 Dream Team, the Republicans have to reach for the stars to fight off this incredibly strong Democrat ticket.
John McCain is a candidate with enough clout to beat Hillary, but he is a little risky. McCain is unpredictable and has alienated a lot of Republicans. John McCain can certainly energize moderates, but he will have a very difficult time energizing the Republican base. After all, elephants are known for long memories, and McCain has angered a lot of elephants.
Rudy Giuliani is the clear Republican choice for President for one main reason: Rudy Giuliani can beat Hillary Clinton. After 9/11, Giuliani, arose as a great leader. His bravery and bold leadership as Mayor after the 9/11 attack gave him national recognition and respect. Since 9/11, Giuliani has had a very high profile and draws massive crowds wherever he goes. Giuliani always has the common man on his side. Even the Democrats that do not like Giuliani’s politics, still respect him as a man.
A significant factor that makes Rudy Giuliani a strong contender for 2008 is that he can take New York’s electoral votes. If the Republicans win New York, they will almost definitely win the nation. The Democrats simply cannot spare New York’s electoral votes.
Giuliani is also very popular among the California moderates, and his popularity will put California’s huge block of electoral votes in play. The Democrats cannot win the nation without California, and they will have to spend a massive amount of campaign money to secure the state.
Rudy Giuliani’s biggest problem is that he is a moderate. The Republican conservatives are going to begin grumbling when they start learning about Giuliani’s liberal positions on social issues. A lot of conservatives are not going to like Giuliani, so the GOP will need to find someone to appease that huge portion of the base.
Nothing appeases conservatives like a Bush. Fortunately, the Bush family has a new Bush coming up in the current growing season: Jeb Bush. Jeb Bush may not be as conservative as his brother, President George W. Bush, but he is a solid Republican with a proven track record as Governor of Florida. Governor Bush is a good public speaker, is respected, and is highly popular in Florida. Jeb Bush will soon be stepping down as Governor, and he will be looking for the next big job.
As the candidate for Vice-President, Jeb Bush could easily carry the swing state of Florida. Florida could decide the 2008 election. If Jeb Bush can take Florida, the Democrats will have to work very hard in the other swing states.
Furthermore, Jeb Bush is a rather young man, and he has a strong appeal to younger people. He also has a Mexican wife and speaks fluent Spanish. Jeb Bush’s Hispanic connections will help the Republicans appeal to the growing group of Latino voters.
Some will argue that Jeb Bush’s worst asset is his last name. Liberals have grown to hate the Bush family name, and they will instinctively vote against any ballot entry where that name appears. The sad fact for the liberals is the Republicans do not care about them. Anyone who hates George W. Bush so passionately probably would never vote Republican anyway, so the potential loss of votes is minimal. The fact is that conservatives love the Bush name like a trusted brand. Many conservatives will instinctively vote for any ballot entry where that name appears.
With Rudy Giuliani and Jeb Bush on the ticket, the Republicans will be incredibly strong in 2008, and they will need to be. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be a huge force to be reckoned with. With these two Dream Teams in place, the 2008 election is bound to be a close race, and this matchup may lead to the most exiting election season in modern history.
For the Democrats, the choice for President is obvious. Hillary Clinton has been preparing for the 2008 election since the day Al Gore lost to George W. Bush in the 2000 election. She has been acting like a Presidential candidate, her party is largely behind her, she has an existing campaign infrastructure from Bill Clinton’s decades of elections, she is rich, she is from a major Democrat state with valuable electoral votes, she energizes much of the Democrat base, and she has tremendous name recognition. These are just some of the factors that make Hillary Clinton an extremely strong candidate for President.
Hillary Clinton does come with some major problems. Her behavior during the Monica Lewinsky scandal made her look pathetic, clueless, and naive. She will find it difficult to shed this image. Hillary’s biggest obstacle, however, is that she is stuffy, cold, shrill, and unlikable to a great number of people. Hillary’s lousy personality alone is enough to turn away a droves of voters.
Given Hillary Clinton’s personality deficit, she needs a running mate that will be able to tap into demographics that normally do not vote in high percentages: young people and minorities. When one thinks of youth and minorities, one does not have to think long before Barack Obama comes to mind.
Barack Obama is a relatively young black man and is a rising star in the Democratic party. His full name, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., is terribly unfortunate given current international realities, but he does have charisma, is aware of the issues, presents himself well, and has an image of competence. If Barack Obama cannot energize youth and minorities, no Democrat can.
A key factor that makes Barack Obama a strong choice for Vice-President is his home state of Illinois. Illinois has some valuable electoral votes that could easily swing the 2008 election. The Democrats need those votes, and Barack could deliver them.
Barack Obama has another thing going for him. He is a bit conservative for a Democrat, and this is another area of weakness for Hillary. Hillary Clinton is a true-blue liberal. She has been pretending to be a conservative for the last few years, but--in reality--she is deeply liberal, and her disastrous past as de facto co-President during Bill Clinton’s Presidency is going to come back to haunt her in 2008.
Assuming that the Democrats will be able to assemble their 2008 Dream Team, the Republicans have to reach for the stars to fight off this incredibly strong Democrat ticket.
John McCain is a candidate with enough clout to beat Hillary, but he is a little risky. McCain is unpredictable and has alienated a lot of Republicans. John McCain can certainly energize moderates, but he will have a very difficult time energizing the Republican base. After all, elephants are known for long memories, and McCain has angered a lot of elephants.
Rudy Giuliani is the clear Republican choice for President for one main reason: Rudy Giuliani can beat Hillary Clinton. After 9/11, Giuliani, arose as a great leader. His bravery and bold leadership as Mayor after the 9/11 attack gave him national recognition and respect. Since 9/11, Giuliani has had a very high profile and draws massive crowds wherever he goes. Giuliani always has the common man on his side. Even the Democrats that do not like Giuliani’s politics, still respect him as a man.
A significant factor that makes Rudy Giuliani a strong contender for 2008 is that he can take New York’s electoral votes. If the Republicans win New York, they will almost definitely win the nation. The Democrats simply cannot spare New York’s electoral votes.
Giuliani is also very popular among the California moderates, and his popularity will put California’s huge block of electoral votes in play. The Democrats cannot win the nation without California, and they will have to spend a massive amount of campaign money to secure the state.
Rudy Giuliani’s biggest problem is that he is a moderate. The Republican conservatives are going to begin grumbling when they start learning about Giuliani’s liberal positions on social issues. A lot of conservatives are not going to like Giuliani, so the GOP will need to find someone to appease that huge portion of the base.
Nothing appeases conservatives like a Bush. Fortunately, the Bush family has a new Bush coming up in the current growing season: Jeb Bush. Jeb Bush may not be as conservative as his brother, President George W. Bush, but he is a solid Republican with a proven track record as Governor of Florida. Governor Bush is a good public speaker, is respected, and is highly popular in Florida. Jeb Bush will soon be stepping down as Governor, and he will be looking for the next big job.
As the candidate for Vice-President, Jeb Bush could easily carry the swing state of Florida. Florida could decide the 2008 election. If Jeb Bush can take Florida, the Democrats will have to work very hard in the other swing states.
Furthermore, Jeb Bush is a rather young man, and he has a strong appeal to younger people. He also has a Mexican wife and speaks fluent Spanish. Jeb Bush’s Hispanic connections will help the Republicans appeal to the growing group of Latino voters.
Some will argue that Jeb Bush’s worst asset is his last name. Liberals have grown to hate the Bush family name, and they will instinctively vote against any ballot entry where that name appears. The sad fact for the liberals is the Republicans do not care about them. Anyone who hates George W. Bush so passionately probably would never vote Republican anyway, so the potential loss of votes is minimal. The fact is that conservatives love the Bush name like a trusted brand. Many conservatives will instinctively vote for any ballot entry where that name appears.
With Rudy Giuliani and Jeb Bush on the ticket, the Republicans will be incredibly strong in 2008, and they will need to be. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be a huge force to be reckoned with. With these two Dream Teams in place, the 2008 election is bound to be a close race, and this matchup may lead to the most exiting election season in modern history.
December 19, 2005
Patriot Act Opinion
What is your opinion of the Patriot Act? Is it violating the rights of American citizens? Can we fight terrorism without it?
December 18, 2005
Eavesdropping on American Citizens without Court Orders
Should the government be allowed to eavesdrop on American citizens without court approval? What is your opinion?
December 16, 2005
Should America Torture Terrorists for Information?
Since 9/11 a question has been floating around about whether or not America should torture terrorists to extract information. There are two camps on this issue. John McCain, who was tortured himself as a P.O.W., says that torture is immoral and should not be allowed. The other camp says that torture should be allowed in some circumstances.
This is a very complicated issue, and many things have to be considered when reaching a conclusion about whether or not torture should be allowed. Here are a few questions to consider.
If America tortures terrorists, will it deter potential terrorists from attacking Americans?
Does legalized torture of terrorists hurt America’s international standing?
Does legalized torture of terrorists put our troops in more or less jeopardy?
Is the torture of terrorists beneath the dignity of America?
If we had captured Mohamed Atta, at 11:00PM on September 10, 2001, would it have been okay to torture him to find out which flights his fellow terrorist were going to hijack?
If a terrorist group hid a dirty bomb somewhere in Manhattan, and the FBI had one hour find it, would it be okay to use torture to find the bomb?
Please think about these questions and post your thoughts, by clicking on Comments below.
This is a very complicated issue, and many things have to be considered when reaching a conclusion about whether or not torture should be allowed. Here are a few questions to consider.
If America tortures terrorists, will it deter potential terrorists from attacking Americans?
Does legalized torture of terrorists hurt America’s international standing?
Does legalized torture of terrorists put our troops in more or less jeopardy?
Is the torture of terrorists beneath the dignity of America?
If we had captured Mohamed Atta, at 11:00PM on September 10, 2001, would it have been okay to torture him to find out which flights his fellow terrorist were going to hijack?
If a terrorist group hid a dirty bomb somewhere in Manhattan, and the FBI had one hour find it, would it be okay to use torture to find the bomb?
Please think about these questions and post your thoughts, by clicking on Comments below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)