|
IMDB rating: 7.10 Plot: Tony Scott torna alle atmosfere thriller e senza tregua delle sue opere precedenti con un film tutto giocato sulla critica alle possibili privazioni della liberta del cittadino comune da parte dello Stato. Robert Dean e un giovane e promettente avvocato, che si trova coinvolto in un assurdo gioco di spie, perche un vecchio amico di scuola gli infila fra i regali di Natale un dischetto contenente le immagini di un omicidio commesso da un dirigente ambizioso e senza scrupoli della National Security Agency (potente organismo governativo responsabile delle operazioni spionistiche piu complesse). La vita del protagonista e sconvolta e continuamente in pericolo. Un ex agente della NSA, interverra in aiuto del giovane. Dopo essere sfuggiti numerose volte alla morte, i due si salveranno in un finale pieno di suspense e…con un po’ di furbizia! Grande cast e grande azione per un film solido e ben girato. |
Actors: Caan Scott,Lee Jason,Hackman Gene,Wilson Stuart,Voight Jon,Pepper Barry,Smith Will,Dean Loren,Hart Ian,Busey Jake,Byrne Gabriel,LeGros James,Drama,Action,Thriller,
what arguments would you use AGAINST torture against enemies?
i’m not saying you have to agree with this state of mind. i am just curious what arguments, rebuttals, etc. you would use?
thanks! 
and also, how would you implement the geneva conventions in that argument?
haha it’s not a homework assignment, and it’s not sunday night where i am.
oh my god. did i not just say that this IS NOT a homework assignment?? i’m honestly just interested. jesus.
As I understand them, the Geneva Conventions apply only to lawful enemy combatants. Terrorists who target civilians and don’t wear uniforms aren’t subject to them.
Col. Beckwith | Nov 22, 2009
This sounds like a homework question and it is Sunday night.
But how about moral arguments? What sort of torture would Jesus use?
Annie | Nov 22, 2009
Torture doesnt solve anything, all it does is cause great pain to people we dont even know are terrorists. America probably just took random muslims and put them in GITMO. its horrible, it truly is
Payne | Nov 22, 2009
Its illegal
why? because it doesnt work and its cruel
Not to mention, George Bush tortured SUSPECTS…not CONVICTS, so in other words, you are sentencing a person to punishment ( torture) without having to convict them of anything first
Dave87gn | Nov 22, 2009
Geneva conventions = torture on prisoners is illegal.
Simple as that.
The US is taking prisoners off of US soil to defy those conventions.
Kaito says $560 | Nov 22, 2009
we would do better to just kill them they shouldnt be breathing anyway prisoners cost too much
forgive my grammer | Nov 22, 2009
sounds a lot like a homework question….the best argument used against torture is simply the truth: IT DOES NOT WORK. As for the geneva accord, pro-torture advocates split hairs, arguing it does not apply to all prisoners, just prisoners of "war", as in those with uniforms and standing armies, easily identifiable by an enemy, blah blah blah. The rebuttal for this is simply, boy george declared WAR on terror, those captured were alleged "terrorists" and as such, are entitled to protections of the geneva accord. The rest of your homework you’ll have to do yourself, lol.
good guy | Nov 22, 2009
Well, first off, I’d like to say I’m surprised to see a simple, unbiased question on here. I thought those were as dead as the dodo. So thank you.
Second, there are many reasons why torture is not good in general, and I’ll start with the Geneva Conventions. They specifically state that no country can utilize torture on prisoners. This was agreed to and signed onto by the U.S. government, and we should hold ourselves to it.
Another reason is a general "why torture can’t work" reason. Torture has been utilized on numerous occasions, and the results have been rather abysmal. The amount of useful information that’s been gained from this has been minimal at best. Don’t get me wrong – torture does get information. Most of that, however, is untrue, and forces us to go on wild goose chases that end up yielding nothing. That’s because most people being tortured don’t know anything, but also because those that do are far more likely to provide falsified information than the truth. This ends up costing us more in the end.
Another reason is basic human rights. We are the United States of America, a country that has constantly talked about how amazing we are in this area. We allow freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and numerous other basic rights to our people. Our Bill of Rights is the mold from which many other documents around the world have formed their own bills of rights. The moment we started torturing, we debased it. We tortured our own citizens, directly defying our given rights. We tortured foreign peoples, and then justified it saying that they should not have the same rights as our people. Many of these people will have physical scars that last a long time, but every single one will have mental scars that last a lifetime. Do we want to be known as the country that allowed this, after all we’ve tried to do around the world? Terrorist organizations could very well torture our own people, do we want to provide them legitimacy by saying that we’re only trying to protect ourselves? They are also only trying to protect themselves, what makes that any different?
Those are the 3 big arguments, they’re pretty decent I think. I come from a background of debating, though I know I didn’t impact these out very well, they still are good starting points.
whiteflame55 | Nov 22, 2009
