The recent revelations about the NSA surveillance programme have cause concern and outrage by citizens and politicians across the world. What has been missing, though, is any extended discussion of why the government wants the surveillance and on what basis is it authorised. For many commentators surveillance is wrong and it cannot be justified. Some commentators have argued that surveillance is intrinsic to the nature of government and its ability to deliver the public good. Few, though have looked at the surveillance within a wider context to understand how it developed. A notable exception is the work by Steven Aftergood.
In the Ethical Life, by Russ Shafer-Landau, chapters written by Michael Walzer and Alan Dershowitz express their knowledge and opinions on the topics of terrorism and torture. Is it possible to justify and defend such acts? In the chapter “Terrorism: A Critique of Excuses”, author Michael Walzer shuts down four excuses that attempt to justify terrorism. In the chapter, “Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist Be Tortured?”, Alan Dershowitz defends his theory that it is necessary to torture a terrorist if that means saving the lives of innocent people while protecting their civil liberties and human rights at the same time. Terrorism can never be moral because it violates all “excuses” and torture is an acceptable tactic to save lives.
When speaking about Martha Stewart you may view her as that style master but Martha Stewart was detained accordingly of an examination concerning an insider-exchanging plan. The case created a considerable amount of debate since Martha did not present a threat to society, and she was not indicted insider exchanging but rather of the charge of misleading government specialists. As trial lawyer Kevin Mahoney put it: It is a despicable day. The central government will detain a lady for deceiving its agents. Not a lie that rushed a nation into a superfluous war, that duped the nation of a large number of dollars or jeopardized individuals' lives.
There would be no true value of justice just like if everyone cheated on their test their would be no value in a degree. Lastly, under the principle of rights Bucket would not bribe the judge because bribes are contrary to the natural desire for justice. It would impend on the judges decision to make an ethical decision and affect other attorneys who come into contact with this judge Under outcome-based ethics Mr. Bucket would bribe the judge, however. The bribe would essentially hold the corportation responsible for all the victims it negligently injuried.
It is divided into a section for each author: Moral and ethics, legalities and the legal problems. A problem highly critiqued in the book was the executing orders of superior personnel. Prior to the Nuremberg trials it was an accepted plea however in this instance the claim was rejected. Furthermore, it was stated that the Kellogg-Briand Pact did not sufficiently accommodate to the legalities in terms of the crimes against peace. The book states that the Nuremberg trials were indeed fair to the defence however, the allies used the trials as political vengeance.
Regardless of what position of leadership one may have, a leader must make decisions which may affect many people. Leadership is a place where spontaneous acts damage, rather than help the outcome of a particular task. Good leaders must think things thoroughly and come to best possible solutions for all. A great example for this type of situation would be the President of the United States. If the President were to be infuriated by another Nation’s acts, the President might at that very moment feel like his office should send troops to that nation or drop bombs.
Stalin's purge of the army after Tukhachevsky's apparent correspondence with the Nazis shows that Stalin feared his military leaders would conspire with external forces to destroy his regime. The limitation of this source is in that it does not fully examine Stalin's psyche when he orchestrated the purge of the army. The source does not make clear if Stalin was opportunistic and took advantage of Tukhachevsky's alleged betrayal to justify existing plans to purge the army, or if Stalin truly felt threatened by the risk of his army conspiring with the Nazis. Another limitation of the source is that it was published prior to opening of the Soviet archives in 1991, thus the evidence presented is likely to have been
This pattern repeats itself an alarming number of times, another prime example being CIA activities in Guatemala. The newly elected Guatemalan government was overthrown with the support of the CIA, an action that was entirely undemocratic and stood in harsh contrast to the ideals put forward by the West. Not only would these actions result in a myriad of human rights travesties, but the reason for overthrowing this government was hugely influenced by the desire to maintain the influence of US corporations such as United Fruit within the
History is all about inspiring speeches, gruesome wars, and unexpected events that decide the course of the future. The Cold War is not an example of a war, but a highly important event, considering there was no actual fighting. The Cold War started because the Soviet 's wanted to spread communism, but America was getting in their way to stop it. Three major factors also contributed to the conflict of war, the most obvious one being the U.S. wanted to stop communism, another being both the Soviet Union and the United States were afraid of each other, and finally competition, because everyone needs some good competition. These factors are both reasons why the war started, and "weapons" that were used.