Is the use of torture against terrorist suspects ever justified?

Jasmin Palmer
Final Project

Torture Against Terrorist Suspects

Torture on terrorists in governments began in the 1970's and was first used on prisoners of war. The U.S. government likes to call torture "enhanced interrogation techniques" when there is not much of a difference. President George Bush ordered to use these "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as waterboarding on 9/11 suspects. However, in 2009 President Obama banned waterboarding as an interrogation technique. There are many different torture techniques that I learned about while researching for the group presentation. The historic forms include unorthodox methods such as getting crushed by elephants, pushed off cliffs, and upright torture. The more modern forms include solitary confinement, sleep deprivation, and beatings. While 59% of Americans think the CIA's treatment of suspected terrorists was justified, there are different positions people take while discussing torture. One position is the absolutist view, which is when torture is not proven to work and shouldn't be practiced. There is also torture under certain circumstances where torture may lead to information but other methods besides torture should be used. Many people believe saving lives has a higher value, and if the guilty terrorist is under torture and innocent lives were involved, torture is justified. The last position is torture warrants, where the President or General must have a warrant to torture. This happens if it is a "ticking bomb situation;" lives are endanger if the government doesn't get the information they need to shut the terrorist's threat down. There a couple ways as to how this topic of  torture against terrorist suspects is relevant in the American government and society. In the Fifth Amendment, it states that "No one should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." This used to apply only to U.S citizens, but is now to be for international people as well. It violates the Eighth Amendment because it is classified as cruel and unusual punishment and this only applies to U.S. citizens. The U.S. government likes to call "torture" an "advanced interrogation technique." However, there is not much of a difference between the two, it is just because there is no laws if it is legal or not and the name makes it justified for the U.S. As for citizens not government affiliated, some say that torture is justified because they deserve extra punishment for the death and misery they have caused. Others argue and say that it is ineffective and when people are tortured, information is falsified and the person who is being tortured just wants it to stop so they give answers, but they may not be accurate. I'm not sure if I think the use of torture against terrorist suspects is justified for the reason that it can be ineffective, but I also can argue myself with that and say they are getting the punishment they deserve for harming innocent people. I think my position on torture against terrorist suspects is the torture under certain circumstances because I don't believe that in every case torture should be used.

Video: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/01/obama-cia-torture-some-folks-brennan-spying

Sources: http://www.debate.org/torture/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-poll-finds-majority-of-americans-believe-torture-justified-after-911-attacks/2014/12/16/f6ee1208-847c-11e4-9534-f79a23c40e6c_story.html

https://www.hrw.org/news/2003/03/11/legal-prohibition-against-torture#What

The Judiciary

Jasmin Palmer
Unit 4- The Judiciary
05.01.16

Chicago's Racist Cops and Courts

Summary: 

This article was about how in Chicago, racism doesn't just come from the cops, but also reaches throughout the court. The author of this article explains how they were once a court clerk for the prosecutor's office for Cook County and witnessed many despicable things while on the job. The author said that many of the officers would sit next to the judge and make comments on how "the black men were really 'dogs'." Prosecutors and judges also participated in this behavior by mocking defendant's "black sounding names" or tried to imitate their voices using "bastardized Ebonics." When anyone with black or brown skin came into court the judges/prosecutors would try to blame the defendant for their poverty. The author also stated that the judge that was training her never taught her about the Fourth Amendment or referred to the Constitution or criminal code. 

Analysis:

I thought that this article was a good pick to use for the Judiciary webpost because it didn't just explain what the courts are doing right, but it also explains that the courts are in the wrong in some areas such as criminal cases. Colored people are more likely to have criminal cases just because of the "bad neighborhoods" they live in or because they seem more suspicious to police officers while they're only just walking down the street. This article caught my eye because I am a person of color and just this article shows that colored people are still not treated equally even in courts as well with police officers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/15/opinion/chicagos-racist-cops-and-racist-courts.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FCourts%20and%20the%20Judiciary&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection&_r=0

The Bureaucracy

Jasmin Palmer
Unit 4 Part 3
04/12/16

Its not the Economic Growth model, its you

Summary:

This article is a letter to economic and political leaders about what is wrong with the bureaucracy. It provides the definition of the word "economy" and states, using that definition, how the management of our "household that is our planet" is poor and needs to be fixed. It talks about how we need to reevaluate this system for the generations to come. It includes the complications in the system such as how the economic leaders and bureaucracies are failing at measuring the destruction of common resources. The letter concludes by explaining that they need to change the way things are set up now in order to create a well flowing system.

Analysis:

The article relates to The Bureaucracy unit by explaining what economic leaders and bureaucracies around the world are doing wrong. While explaining what they are doing wrong, it also explains what can be done in order to fix this system.

(no pictures to go with this)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/st-gallen-symposium/its-not-the-economic-grow_b_9427076.html

Obama's Endorsement of Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Jasmin Palmer
Mod 2
Unit 4- The Presidency

Obama's Endorsement

Summary:

This article is about Obama's endorsement of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The endorsement wasn't a surprise because of her position in the party, but it gave her a boost and one of the most coveted endorsements in the party. Wasserman Schultz isn't used to facing a serious primary challenger, so Canova is the first. Four days after the endorsement, Canova raised nearly $100,000. So really, Wasserman Schultz is helping Canova. Canova said that he read President Obama's and thought that it showed that Wasserman Schultz is worried about losing the race. 

Analysis:

I think that this was a good article to pick because it shows an implied power that the president has. It shows the president's involvement in other parts of Congress. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination is expected to make it to Congress.

Rep. Nydia Velázquez-Democrat

Jasmin Palmer
Mod 2
Unit 4 Post

Rep. Nydia Velázquez-Democrat

Rep. Nydia Velázquez was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1992; this year will be her twelfth term. Before she served as a House Representative, she was appointed Special Assistant to Congressman Edolphus Towns. She was the first Puerto Rican woman to be elected into the House. Velázquez serves on two committees, House Committee on Small Business and House Committee on Financial Services. In 2006 she was named the first Latina to chair a full Congressional committee; the House Committee on Small Business. Nydia Velázquez sponsors bills such as commerce, housing and community development, health, financial and financial sector, and taxation.

Encrypt Act- I’m not sure if Nydia Velázquez would have a strong opinion on this act based on the committees she is in. Her vote could go either way on this act.

Aviation Reform Bill- This would be the same as the Encrypt Act because Nydia Velázquez isn’t involved in any committees concerning aviation. Her vote on the bill could go either way.

Sentence Reform Act- I think that Velázquez would vote for this act because of her involvement in housing community development.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump- Strong In Super Tuesday Polls

Jasmin Palmer
AP Government and Politics
Current Events- Unit Three
Date: 2/28/16

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Look Strong in Super Tuesday Polls

Summary:

In this article, it explains how Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are leading the Super Tuesday polls. As of February 26th, Super Tuesday states have looked good for Clinton because of her win in Nevada and there has not been a noticeable shift of opinion since. This looks good for Clinton once she heads into South Carolina because if she wins this, she will most likely win all of the other Super Tuesday states. As for Donald Trump, Super Tuesday polls seem to show that he is more likely to win the Super Tuesday states because when asked, people picked him over Rubio and Cruz in a poll. Super Tuesday is crucial for the running candidates and it will be interesting to see if the polls went how they were predicted.

Analysis:

I thought this was a good article to use for the unit three current events paper for numerous reasons. I think the article well explains the difference with how the Democratic party is headed and how well the Republican party is headed. This article is also related to unit three since it explains what party is leading in what state and how they have a good chance of winning.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-clinton-super-tuesday_us_56d053c4e4b03260bf766193?utm_hp_ref=elections-2016

Donald Trump Stands By Planned Parenthood-- Except On Abortion

Jasmin Palmer
AP Government and Politics
Current Event- Unit Two
Date: 2/21/16

Donald Trump Stands By Planned Parenthood-- Except On Abortion

Summary:

This article explains how Donald Trump does not support the idea of abortion, and why he does not support it anymore. Trump explains how he does support Planned Parenthood and will be funding it, he just won't be funding abortion. This article quotes Trump saying "I have many, many friends who are women who understand Planned Parenthood better than you or I will ever understand it." Trump used to be for abortion in 1999 and said he was "pro-choice in every respect." Now, he says that he is not for abortion because his friends that were going to have an abortion, had their kid and he grew up to be a a great child.

Analysis:

This article relates really well back to unit two because it is about political beliefs. The article expresses Trump's beliefs and opinions on the subject of abortion really well. However, I think that his idea of pro-life isn't smart because women who are pregnant from rape, incest, or if they are risking their own life to have this kid, don't have a say in if they want to keep the child or not. I think it should be up to the mom and not up to a president. I think that how the federal government finances abortion is the way we should keep continuing.

Obama Doesn't Want Federal Tax Dollars Paying for Any More Sports Stadiums

Jasmin Palmer

AP Government and Politics

Current Event- Unit One

Obama Doesn't Want Federal Tax Dollars Paying for Any More Sports Stadiums

Summary:

President Obama is trying to revoke a federal tax exemption on the money cities and states use to finance new stadiums. If this was repealed, cities and states can pay for stadiums with tax-free bonds and will cost federal taxpayers around $4 billion in tax money on the existing stadium debt. It would also save close to $542 million over the next decade. However, economists have made a point that when it gets into public financing deals, the cost to enter stadiums would rise. Along with the price of getting into stadiums going up, repealing this tax wouldn’t end the practice of publically financing stadiums. Obama had already proposed repealing the tax exemption in his 2016 budget, but the Republican side of Congress didn’t take it much into consideration and as a result, it did not pass.

Analysis:

                This article is a good fit for unit one because it discusses the use of federal money and taxes. It can be considered a block grant issue, even though block grants aren’t supposed to have guidelines to them. It can also express the use of grants-in-aid because the federal government is giving states tax money to help buy and upgrade sports stadiums. This article also discusses revenue by the way it talks about taxes used for the public.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-budget-taxpayers-stadiums_us_56ba3d4ee4b0c3c5504f0dc7?ir=Politics&section=us_politics&utm_hp_ref=politics