Due before class on Sept. 13.
Remember in posting, you need to use your first name and only the last initial of your last name.
|
Select 2 of the 6 articles (pro and con) on this topic and write two rhetorical précis, representing the core argument of the authors.
Due before class on Sept. 13. Remember in posting, you need to use your first name and only the last initial of your last name.
16 Comments
Bradley Runyon
9/11/2012 03:42:58 am
Pro for Alan M. Dershowitz
Reply
Bradley Runyon
9/11/2012 03:43:30 am
First yet again i think i like this :P
Reply
A helpful student
9/11/2012 04:25:02 am
Bradley you might want to look at the task at hand again.. you will see it asks for TWO precise's and you aren't writing a pro and con on one you simply chose an article from a PRO point of view and a CON point of view.
Bradley Runyon
9/12/2012 03:32:39 am
Duely noted
Bradley Runyon
9/12/2012 03:33:01 am
BETTER?
Jena S.
9/12/2012 02:56:10 am
Clinton R. Van Zandt (persuasive essay April 2003 It Should Be Permissible to Torture Suspected Terrorists to Gather Information) makes a very direct argument of how the publics-safety is in the hands of the enemy or prisoner thats in questioning. Its explained that war against terrorism, our nation wants to gain more information as fast as possible and the human rights of another should be overlooked. To be able to receive accurate and fast information torture should be used to gather information. Its stated, " The U.S. once taught friendly governments how to extract information from prisoners by the use of coercive techniques known as "stress and duress"."
Reply
Mackenzie J.
9/12/2012 04:24:35 am
Vincent Iacopino declares in (It Should Not Be Permissible to Torture Suspected Terrorists to Gather Information) that “torture cannot be justified” and “torture does not make any one or society safer or more secure.” He clearly points out that by simply calling it something else, as for example a “stress and duress interrogation”, does not mean that torture is suddenly justified in any manner. He also adds on that the United States is under of the U.N. Convention Against Torture. U.N.C.A.T. says that any type of torture, physical or mental, for any reason is impermissible. One should not involve them self in such an inhumane thing.
Reply
Maddie B.
9/12/2012 05:53:49 am
Torture on Terrorists Précis: Pro
Reply
August "Wiffles" Witte
9/12/2012 06:03:44 am
Pro:In Clinton Van Zandt's essay on the permisiblity for the torture of suspect terrorists to gather information, Van Zandt argues that the torture of terrorist suspects should be allowed for the gathering of time sensitive information. He claims that the use of torture will garner information when the usual matter and process of interogation would not be useful. He supports this claim by first stating that through the use of torture, the gain of intelligence through an adversary will help save the lives of thousand even millions of people in a "ticking time bomb situation". Then Van Zandt goes on to say that a court should be established so that the means of torture can be determined and if they were truly necessary for the information withheld by the suspected terrorist. Finally Van Zandt concludes his argument by stating that if the application of torture in the interogation of a suspect is to be suspended, then the sensitive information held by the suspect will not be relenquished to the interrogatees, and the "seconds on the time bomb (will) tick away" which could endanger the lives of many innocent people. Van Zandts purpose is to persuade others in order to let torture become an acceptable part of the interogation method within reason. He establishes a formal tone for the purpose of ensuring the gravity of the situation is acknowledged by the audience. This work is significant because in recent events the use of torture to gather information from suspects has come under fire and is now considered by some to be barbaric, while others such as Van Zandt believe that torture should be permitted.
Reply
Ryan Mantell
9/12/2012 06:05:24 am
Vincent Lacopino claims “torture cannot be justified” and “torture does not make any one or society safer or more secure.” Lacopino suggests that using torture is an act of terrorism and should not be allowed by any means to treat someone upon.
Reply
Cassidy H.
9/12/2012 06:53:05 am
PRO: VIOLENCE IS THE ANSWER
Reply
Nicky T.
9/12/2012 08:07:58 am
Pro:
Reply
Emily Y.
9/12/2012 08:28:06 am
PRO-Torture
Reply
Evan
9/12/2012 04:01:42 pm
Pro
Reply
Cullen Ennis
9/12/2012 04:32:56 pm
Pro: Clinton R. Van Zandt's argument is that in some cases, torturing terrorist suspects should be permissible. His argument starts off shaky as he defends his belief that most civilized people would not agree with the torture of another being; but then Van Zandt continues to say torture should be permitted, under the law. He states that the U.S. should establish a court at the national level, where the government could argue whether torture was necessary to extract vital information; Vandt says in some cases, where millions of lives are at stake and there is not much time, torture should be permissible by this court. "In short, the overriding public-safety issue would take precedence over a prisoner's human rights", which Vandt believes is justified in a severe situation.
Reply
Sonja N.
9/12/2012 06:09:49 pm
Pro
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
August 2015
Categories |