Blog #7: "Law and Justice"

To begin with, the difference between law and justice is simple. Law is what the government requires us to do, and justice is what our personal set of morals tell us to do. However, the simplicity ends at that. One passage that I took to a higher meaning from the selected reading, Law and Justice, reads “Law is only a means. Government is only a means. ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ - these are the ends. And ‘whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.’” This statement definitely favors the justice side more so, stating that when the people don’t agree with the laws the government has enacted, then it is the people’s right to change to a government that better suits their needs. Above all else, it says that the basic human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness stand, and that the law and related government are only a way to ensure that those rights are met.

I believe that both law and justice are necessary. First justice is required, and then the law is a means to make sure the justice is achieved. They are dependent on each other for success. However, when the law says one thing, but your moral code says another, the question comes up “What should I do?” Many people struggle with this question. Are you loyal to your country, or to yourself? While most of us are both, sometimes that answer can only be one or the other, and it is up to the individual to decide. However, when choosing morals over the law, one must be prepared to face the consequences that go hand in hand with breaking the law.

I thought it was interesting how the article discussed the different ways the law is handled according to the accused. The passage reads “…a CIA official commits perjury and gets off with a fine (Alger Hiss spent four years in jail for perjury), a president is pardoned in advance of prosecution for acts against the law, … and others are found guilty of violating the law in the Iran-Contra affair, but none go to prison.” It also mentions the impact people with power because of their money have on the political process. While I was aware of most of this already, it just seemed different in print. The law is supposed to be uniform for everyone to ensure fairness for everyone. However, when powerful and wealthy individuals get involved, it seems as if they can buy their way out of their problems. This is not right, and my morals say something must be done about it. With the upcoming presidential election approaching closer and closer every day, we will just have to wait to see if Barack Obama or John McCain stay true to their words in dealing with the many problems they would face if elected president on November 4th.

Over time, law and justice haven’t really changed in a sense of sometimes the law says one thing, but your morals say another. However the individual incidents have changed, as history changes. As wars occur, peoples’ opinions about them change, and drafts are protested. Yet during peace times, this doesn’t occur, because it is irreverent.

In closing, law and justice are different, and when the time comes to choose between the two, only you can decide for yourself.

Blog #6: "Inherit the Wind"

In the note preceding the play, Inherit the Wind, the authors Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee state that “…The issues of their conflict have acquired new dimension and meaning in the thirty years since they clashed at the Rhea County Courthouse…The stage directions set the time as ‘Not too long ago.’ It might have been yesterday. It could be tomorrow.” This states that they believe the themes contained in Inherit the Wind are both universal and timeless.

Two themes present in this book are that of society versus the individual and a limited perspective. The first relates to the book because Cates stood up against everyone else in the town, and taught what he believed. Not that he believed, necessarily, in evolution, but that the kids should have a choice in what they believed. Not only did he teach it, but he had to stand up in court and state his views. As an individual, he stood up to society and in the end, won. Second, that of a limited perspective also ties into the trial itself. Everyone in the town was concerned with the Bible’s teachings, that they didn’t have time to listen to any other theories. Towards the end of the trial, Drummond convinced some of them that there is always more than one point of view, but for the majority of the story, they remained limited in their perspective.

I believe that playwrights imply that the themes are universal and timeless at the beginning of their plays because it states that the content of the play can be taken away from its original context, and applied to any other situation throughout history that requires it. No matter what time period, or along with it, what rules of society apply, the theme will still exist. Also, it applies to everyone, everywhere, at every time.

Today, these themes teach us. They show us the same things that are wrong with society today, as what were wrong with society 30 years ago. Hopefully we can learn from these, but as history shows itself, it tends to repeat itself. An example of the theme “Limited Perspective” that has occurred in today’s age is the war in Iraq. Most people, due to a limited perspective, believe that it is a bad idea, and that we never should have gone there in the first place. I’m not saying my opinion is either for this or against this, I’m just saying there is always more than one point of view. Perhaps if we knew what it was, we’d be able to make better decisions later in history.

Blog #5: "Should Promoting Democracy Abroad Be a Top U.S. Priority? "

After reading the Taking Sides article about promoting democracy around the world, I felt strongly about the side that favored it. In the introduction, the fact was mentioned that “democracies tend not to fight with one another and instead are generally highly integrated economically and politically with one another.” This is the cornerstone of my opinion, because I believe that the world needs less fighting and more getting along. I think that if the governments of the world could agree to not disagree to the point of fighting in a war, then we’d all be in a better global situation. In this way, democracies seem to offer the best solution to the problem.

Along with the fact that democracies don’t fight as much with one another, comes the fact that “when we consider indicators such as life expectancy, illiteracy, and access to clean drinking water…democratizers enjoy better living conditions than autocracies.” This means that the quality of life for democratic citizens is considerably better than non-democratic citizens. Everyone, regardless of nationality, should be entitled to these things because they are human-beings. These natural rights are given in democracies, and if the rest of the world realized the good they can do, maybe they would change for the better. “What is government but a mechanism by which a society orders its priorities? The more representative, transparent, and accountable this process, the more balanced the outcomes will be compared to a system that is narrowly based and lacking incentives for responsiveness to citizen interests.” A government should act in the best interest of its citizens, and in order to fully understand those interests, a government needs to listen to its people. A democracy is the only way that this will happen.

I believe that the world needs more democracies. Democracies give the power to the people, as it should be. A government is a representation of the people under it, and what better way to represent them, than to give them a say in what happens? Being that the United States is a leader in the world, and a prime example of the prosperity that can result from democratic rule, I believe we are more than qualified to show others this effect. In this case, I say yes, promoting democracy abroad should be a top U.S. priority.

Along with my opinion of the argument as it is, I also believe that the author of the pro-democracy gave his opinion is a stronger fashion, as well as addressing the opposition better. Joseph Siegle, the author, gives more reference to the better world that can be had, if the US helps promote democracy, as well as the effects if this is not done. He gives a more convincing argument, while the author of the “no” side, Tamara Cofman Wittes, is more confusing. While reading the opposition, it seemed as if she was confused as well. She says that “America must make [Iraq’s] success our first priority…It might provide a powerful demonstration effect to the neighborhood.” To me, this seems as if she favors spreading democracy around the world, which agrees with Siegle. That being said, I favor the argument that supports promoting democracy abroad.

Blog #4: “Is it Justified to Put Suspected Terrorists under Great Physical Duress?”

Torture: A little bit tends to spread like wildfire. As evident in the Abu Ghraib incident and following investigations, the tactic of using torture to gain information is a highly controversial and sensitive issue, as it should be. While reading this Taking Sides article, I was confused as to how I really felt. On one hand, there is the idea that in order to save the lives and safeguard the freedom of millions, it must be withheld from a few. However, on the other side, the argument stands that this is America, and we stand for freedom, not just for us, but for everyone.

Personally, I found this debate intriguing, due to the complicity of the issue at hand. During the reading, I could have picked either side for multiple reasons, but in the end, I side with the pro-torture (only in certain circumstances) side of the debate. Allow me to explain: from the reading, there are three types of war prisoners. The first is the ordinary soldier caught on the battlefield. No form of torture should ever come to him at anytime. Second is the captured terrorist, and third is the terrorist with information. Definitely number three should be subject to methods of torture in order to gain information that could lead to the saving of many other lives. However the complication comes in when determining number two from number three. Unless one is absolutely, without-a-doubt, for certain that the detainee in question holds information that could potentially save other lives, torture should not be an option. We, as America, cannot falsely torture innocent prisoners if we don’t know for certain that these prisoners hold coveted information that could save many other lives. As the opposition to this debate argues, and as it applies in this area of my opinion, “[Torture] is anti-ethical to the most basic principles for which the United States stands for.” However, as applied to the President of the United States’ standpoint, if the situation came up where information was needed, and there was a possible suspect that held that information, then “elected leaders, responsible above all for the protection of their citizens, have to do what is necessary to get information that could prevent mass murder…” and in some cases, that includes torture. Sure it is immoral, but in order to save and protect the freedom of millions, unfortunately we have to forget about a few.

The issue of September 11th came up in the article with this passage: “Have we learned nothing from 9/11?” Because September 11, 2001 was one of the darkest days in our history, and certainly in my lifetime, it is important to do whatever is necessary (again from the standpoint of the President) to prevent it from happening again. If we have learned anything from history, it is that it repeats itself. We cannot allow it to happen to us again, and as a country, we must do what is necessary to prevent that.

More debate comes from the fact that this is a very complicated issue. As the United States, freedom is our central foundation. Important documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution focus on freedom, not just for us in America, but for everyone in the world, because we are all human. However, I argue that when someone acts in a way that is sub-human, such as plotting and carrying out an event like 9/11, then they lose their so-called title of being human. Torture is seen around the world as the “anti-freedom,” and association with the United States is an oxymoron of sorts. Except that, like most countries, we have our own best interests at heart. I believe that torture should be allowed when it is used to keep the millions of Americans in this country safe and free. The old “kill one to save a million” comes back into play, and the people who threaten our freedom will have theirs stripped.

Once again, the complication comes when the absolute certainty comes along. Unless we are for-certain, we cannot torture someone who may be innocent. This is not only illegal, but highly immoral. However, in the situation of the confirmed terrorist with information, all bets are off, and the information must be learned for the good of the United States of America.

In closing, the issue of using torture to get information that could save the lives of many is both complicated and controversial. I believe that only when absolutely certain that a suspected terrorist has information, should torture be allowed. Only then, with that information, can other 9/11-plotters be stopped, and our great country kept safe. Freedom is our foundation, and we must make sure others have the same rights to it as we do, as long as they follow the “rules” and stay humane. When terrorists enter the picture, everything is distorted, and torture helps sort it out. However, as stated in the beginning, caution must be used, for a little bit of torture tends to spread like wildfire.