Free Essay

The Iraqi War: Was It the Right Thing to Do?

In: English and Literature

Submitted By franboyd
Words 3164
Pages 13
Running head: THE IRAQI WAR: WAS IT THE RIGHT THING TO DO?

The Iraqi War: Was it the Right Thing to Do?
XXXXXX
University
Abstract
The invasion of Iraq was unconstitutional, had no real justification for happening and has severely damaged relations with our allies. Most importantly, Saddam Hussein was considered a threat and it was believed that he had weapons of mass destruction, would take on the U.S in an instant and was accused of having ties to the events of September 11, 2006 and the Al-Quaeda terrorist network. None of this could be proved and it appears as if it were all just convenient statements made by the administration to find a way to make it a justifiable cause.
The Iraqi War: Was it the Right Thing to Do? The invasion was unconstitutional, against international law, violated the Christian doctrine of "just war" and has damaged U.S. relations with its allies. It has wreaked havoc in the Muslim world, where there's plenty of havoc already, and most importantly, it has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. Frankly, it’s surprising it hasn’t resulted in dropping a nuclear bomb on Baghdad. Claims made prewar regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have all proved to be wrong; the number of terrorists in Iraq has increased rather than decreased and the abuse inflicted on Iraqi detainees contradicts the most basic values the Administration claimed it would bring to Iraq (Savoy, 2004). President Bush’s actions portray him as an individual that has the right to attack Iraq anytime he wants to due to his position. It's false, and very dangerous for a democracy. Our founding fathers gave the right to Congress and only to Congress to make the decision of whether to take the United States to war or not. It's clearly there in Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution. The founders knew that to give the President such power would risk dragging the country and its people into one senseless war after another. Unfortunately, since World War II, Presidents have usurped this power of Congress, and Congress has abdicated it. There has not been a Congressional declaration of war since December 1941, though there sure have been plenty of wars since then, most notably Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War, but also Panama, Grenada, the Dominican Republic, and a host of other nations the United States has assaulted directly or covertly over the last six decades (Rothschild, 2002). Let it first be known that as a former member of the U.S. Armed Forces, the official definition of a “war” can only be related to the fact if there is a 5 star general appointed by our Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States. Therefore, as noted earlier, references to the wars of Korea, Vietnam and the Gulf do not specifically include Panama, Grenada, and the Dominican Republic as real wars as the author if this reference stated. Wars have appointed 5 star generals and conflicts do not. Therefore, if there is no 5 star general in power, there is officially no war. There is no such appointment at this time for the Iraqi conflict. To this extent, we have a lawless Presidency. If we are to restore our democracy, we need to insist that the Constitution be followed. That means Congress, not the President, has the sole power to declare war. In the current circumstance of Iraq, the President's cronies argue that he has the authority to wage war by virtue of two Congressional acts. First, in 1991, Congress gave the President the authorization to wage war against Saddam Hussein (though technically it did not declare war). But how open-ended is this authorization? Congress did not intend to give the President a blank check to wage war against Iraq forever, or anytime he happened to feel like it. The Congress did not grant the President the right to change the regime there more than a decade later. The second Congressional act that Bush's cheerleaders cite is the September 14, 2001, use of force authorization, which allows Bush to attack any person, group, or country that he believes was involved in the attack of 9/11. Now we all know that the Bush administration has been trying their hardest to pin some of the blame for that unforgettable act on Saddam Hussein, but there's hardly a tissue connecting the two. International law is quite clear: Country A cannot attack Country B unless Country B has already attacked Country A or is about to attack country A. Iraq has not attacked the United States and it's not about to. Saddam, as brutal as he is, and even though he’s no longer in power, his history as a leader is that he loved to cling to power. He knew that attacking the United States would be suicidal. Actually, under international law, Saddam Hussein had a better case for attacking the United States today than Bush had for attacking Iraq, since Bush is threatened imminent war against Iraq. Furthermore, for the United States to take this aggressive action without the approval of the U.N. Security Council would be a violation of the U.N. charter, which the United States has ratified. To get around this, the Bush Administration hyped the danger that Saddam posed to the United States. To further blow it out of proportion, Cheney had called Saddam a "mortal threat." The United States has a $400 billion Pentagon budget; Iraq's military budget is approximately $4 billion. The United States has thousands of nuclear weapons; Iraq doesn't have one yet, much less the means to deliver it. Even if Iraq obtained one nuclear weapon or two, would that present a "mortal" danger to the United States? Remember, the United States managed to survive for four decades against an enemy with thousands of nuclear weapons aimed at us (does anyone remember the former Soviet Union?). The fact is, there is no justification under international law or under Christian "just war" theory for Bush to attack Iraq. Even the Archbishop of Canterbury has said so. There is no precipitating act that Saddam Hussein has engaged in that would justify it, nor has President Bush exhausted all peaceful means to resolve the issue, as required by just war theory. Quite the contrary: former Chief of Staff Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney were openly disdainful of getting U.N. inspectors back in, which would have been the best way to grind down whatever program Saddam Hussein had for weapons of mass destruction (Rothchild, 2002). As a sidebar, we heard a lot about Saddam Hussein kicking out weapons inspectors. But remember, President Clinton was as much to blame for those inspectors having left Iraq as anyone. Saddam did not kick them out. Clinton pulled them out right before he decided to wage his own little bombing attack on Iraq back in December 1998, to deflect attention from Monica Lewinsky (Rothschild, 2002). Whether starting a preemptive war is justified in a particular instance is not primarily a question of international law. The critical question is whether the action is one of aggression or of legitimate self-defense, and no law can answer that. There are, however, criteria for judging the action: the unwritten understandings international players reach on an ongoing basis as to what is within the boundaries. To justify a resort to preemptive war, a government needs to give reasonable evidence that the step was necessary, forced upon the initiator by its opponents, and also that it represented a lesser evil, i.e., that the dangers and evils averted by war outweighed those caused the international community by initiating it. This requires showing that the threat to be preempted is (a) clear and imminent, such that prompt action is required to meet it; (b) direct, that is, threatening the party initiating the conflict in specific concrete ways, thus entitling that party to act preemptively; (c) critical, in the sense that the vital interests of the initiating party face unacceptable harm and danger; and (d) unmanageable, meaning not capable of being deterred or dealt with by other peaceful means. These criteria are naturally open to interpretation and contest. They are stringent; most claims made to justify preemptive wars do not pass the test, which is as it should be. But the criteria are not unrealistic and do allow for preemptive war in certain particular cases. To show that the threat is clear and imminent, the president and his supporters repeatedly insisted that Saddam Hussein had long wanted weapons of mass destruction and tried to develop them. Since 1998, he has prevented the United Nations' international inspectors from returning to Iraq. So far, nothing has been found, not to say he might have been close to acquiring them since he had the capability. This proves the opposite of what is required--that the threat was not clear and imminent. It indicated what government officials must admit: we simply did not know whether Iraq had developed weapons of mass destruction, or whether it would, or when. Pleas from our closest allies, including even Tony Blair in Britain, that there must be a real effort to get UN inspectors back into Iraq before taking any other action against it, met with impatient skepticism. In short, the administration really did not know whether there was clear and imminent threat from Iraq, could not prove that one exists, and resisted proposals for finding out because the answer might undermine its plans for war. To show that the threat is direct, i.e., specific, concrete, and pointed at the United States, the administration and other advocates of preemptive war took a look at Saddam Hussein’s criminal record and character, especially the fact that he used poison gas in his war against Iran and against his own people in the 1980s and has resorted to brutal repression since, and that if and when he obtains weapons of mass destruction he could and would use them against the United States or its allies in the region. In so doing, they ignored certain inconvenient facts – that the United States generally supported Iraq in its war against Iran, may have known and winked at his use of chemical weapons, and never at that time considered Hussein’s attack on Iran or the atrocities encountered in it grounds for overthrowing him, and that the people whom Hussein brutally repressed in 1991 were mainly Kurds whom the United States encouraged to rise against him and then failed to support. The main point, however, is that again these arguments fail to prove what they are supposed to – i.e., that the threat from Iraq was concrete, specific, and directed against the United States or any American ally. They proved only what hardly needs proof, that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless individual who would do anything to stay in power, including using poison gas against external and internal enemies in a losing war. He might indeed use weapons of mass destruction against anyone for reasons of political survival – a point which counts if anything against attacking him and putting him into that kind of corner. But this says nothing about what he might do with them under other circumstances for other purposes and certainly fails to show that he would use them against the United States or its allies or allow terrorists to do so. Stalin had nuclear weapons, was more imbalanced than Hussein and even more paranoid about threats to his reign, and his record of atrocities against his own people was far worse than Hussein’s, yet none of this gave any indication whether or how he would use nuclear weapons. In fact, it is extremely unlikely that Hussein would do something so suicidal as to attack the United States or one of its allies directly, or allow a scapegoat to do so, and the administration knows it. One expert witness at the Senate hearings on the proposed campaign against Iraq, frankly admitting this, remarked that the real danger was that possessing such weapons would give Hussein and Iraq more influence in the region (a significant admission). The administration’s case thus fails both the imminence and the directness tests. Its attempts to prove that the threat is critical don’t hold water. They consist mainly of repeatedly invoking the memory of September 11, 2001 and the war on terrorism, the right of American citizens to security against terrifying new threats revealed by that attack, the duty of their government to provide that security at all costs, and (once again) the possibility that Hussein, if he does get control of nuclear or other weapons, will supply them to terrorists for use against the United States. All this lays the basis for the general doctrine that the United States has a right to prevent weapons of mass destruction from coming into the hands of evil, hostile regimes by any means necessary. The threat of international terrorism, even if it were the critical danger the administration claims it to be, did not stem from Hussein or Iraq and would not be met by ousting him. Despite many efforts, no one in the administration has ever proved there was a connection between Hussein or others in the Iraqi regime and September 11 or al-Qaeda and its terrorist activities. The evidence and probabilities, all well-known, point the other way. Hussein’s regime and his ruling party are secular rather than Islamist. He rules a country deeply divided along ethnic and religious lines, and belongs to a branch of Islam (the Sunnis) that is a minority in Iraq. Why should a ruler obsessed with maintaining his power collaborate with some of his most dangerous enemies (Schroeder, 2002)? In addition, the just war theory requires that the risks of doing more harm than good with a war must be minimal. But with this invasion those risks cannot be dismissed lightly. Let's look at some of those risks. First, on the diplomatic front, a unilateral war against Iraq--or even one with our ally Tony Blair on board--would drive a wedge between the United States and many of its allies in Europe and around the world. The German government has already said it would not support such an adventure. The French are not enthusiastic, nor are the Canadians, the Russians, and the Turks. And Saudi Arabia, whose kingdom (OK, whose oil--the United States fought to defend in the first Gulf War), wouldn't even allow U.S. troops to use its land as a staging ground. Egypt and Jordan are also opposed to this war. This was the second Muslim nation the United States has invaded in the last two years. Scenes of innocent Iraqis being killed on Al Jazeera has not enhanced the image of the United States in the Muslim world, an image already badly smeared by Ariel Sharon's offensive against the Palestinians and the 11-year embargo the U.S. insists that the U.N. impose on Iraq, an embargo that has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi kids (Rothschild, 2002). On the economic front, this conflict in Iraq has spiked the cost of oil, since Iraq is a leading oil supplier, and since other big oil suppliers--Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran --are right next door. Now our economy is not the best it could be, but the invasion of Iraq had tipped it back into a recession. Here’s what’s so ironic militarily speaking. Bush's invasion could have increased the odds that Saddam Hussein would use chemical or biological weapons. In 1991, he had chemical or biological weapons loaded onto missiles. The elder Bush warned Saddam that if he used those weapons, he would face devastating retaliation. Everyone, including Saddam, understood that to mean the U.S. would drop a nuclear bomb on him. So what did he do? He backed down and didn't use those weapons. But today, with Saddam out of power, he had no incentive not to throw whatever vials of chemical or biological weapons he might have lying around at U.S. troops or at Israel. This could have inflicted awful casualties on U.S. troops or Israeli civilians, and then what? Then, the worst case might have come true and George W. would drop a nuclear bomb on Iraq; the first time in 57 years that the world has seen such a hideous device used in warfare. The lesson of 1991 should be that Saddam Hussein knew not to use his chemical or biological weapons. What evidence was there that he was more reckless and suicidal when he was in power at the time of the invasion than when he was back in 1991? He hadn't recently invaded another country. He hadn't recently gassed the Kurds or the Iranians (which he did, but only when he was receiving military intelligence from the United States) (Rothschild, 2002). Iraq is Exhibit A. The threat from Iraq has not changed in the past year, yet it no longer seems incredible to believe that, just maybe, even before we learned there were no weapons of mass destruction, Iraq might use them against us. The Bush administration officials have said that they cannot wait until we see the mushroom cloud to act against this threat. Based on available information, however, there is no new evidence, no new precipitating event, no new threatening actions by the Iraqi government, no new reason to go to war that did not exist one, two, four, or even six years ago. It is entirely legitimate to ask, therefore: Why? What is the basis for claiming a unilateral right to use preventive force to overthrow the Iraqi regime? What would be the consequences for Iraq, the Middle East, and international relations (Powers, 2002)? We are quickly approaching nearly 3,000 U.S. casualties since the invasion in March 2003. What do we have to show for it? We have a national debt that has increased by leaps and bounds due to the cost of keeping troops on the ground over there, the chance for weakening our forces when we have greater issues with greater consequences such as North Korea looming over us, and the thousands of children who never got to know their mom or dad because they became a statistic.
References

Powers, G.F. (2002, December 17). Essay read at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Washington, D.C. [Transcript]. Retrieved December 4, 2006, from http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/peace/powers.htm
Rothschild, M. (2002, August). The case against the Iraq war. The Progressive. Retrieved November 28, 2006, from http://progressive.org/node/1476
Savoy, P. (2004, May). The moral case against the Iraq war. The Nation. Retrieved November 28, 2006, from http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040531/savoy
Schroeder, P.W. (2002, October 21). Iraq: The case against preemptive war. The American Conservative. Retrieved November 30, 2006, from http://www.amconmag.com/2002/2002_10_21/iraq.html…...

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Do the Right Thing

...DO THE RIGHT THING by Spike Lee Second Draft March 1, 1988; Brooklyn, N.Y. Forty Acres and a Mule Filmworks, Inc. YA-DIG SHO-NUFF BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY WGA #45816 INT: WE LOVE RADIO STATION STOREFRONT--DAY EXTREME CLOSE UP MISTER SEÑOR LOVE DADDY Waaaake up! Wake up! Wake up! Wake up! Up ya wake! Up ya wake! Up ya wake! CAMERA MOVES BACK SLOWLY TO REVEAL MISTER SEÑOR LOVE DADDY, a DJ, a radio personality, behind a microphone. MISTER SEÑOR LOVE DADDY This is Mister Señor Love Daddy. Your voice of choice. The world's only twelve-hour strongman, here on WE LOVE radio, 108 FM. The last on your dial, but the first in ya hearts, and that's the truth, Ruth! The CAMERA, which is STILL PULLING BACK, shows that Mister Señor Love Daddy is actually sitting in a storefront window. The control booth looks directly out onto the street. This is WE LOVE RADIO, a modest station with a loyal following, right in the heart of the neighborhood. The OPENING SHOT will be a TRICK SHOT--the CAMERA PULLING BACK through the storefront window. MISTER SEÑOR LOVE DADDY Here I am. Am I here? Y'know it. It ya know. This is Mister Señor Love Daddy, doing the nasty to ya ears, ya ears to the nasty. I'se play only da platters dat matter, da matters dat platter and that's the truth, Ruth. He hits the cart machine and we hear a......

Words: 15149 - Pages: 61

Free Essay

The Jurisdiction of Rights Allotted to Prisoner of War

...Jurisdiction of Rights Allotted to Prisoner of War Shane Smith Abstract The jurisdiction and control of prisoners of war have historically been left solely to the military forces that held them captive; the application of rights and treatment being guided and controlled by various treaties and conventions signed by governments. This straightforward, conventional process was, and is, undisputable and logical in its application when it is applied in a conventional ‘civilized’ war; there is room for improvement, but it works. On the contrary, when fighting an unconventional war, with non-state sponsored combatants, the policies need to be reassessed. The Jurisdiction of Rights Allotted to Prisoner of War Our history shows a pattern of war making that is clearly defined, easy to follow, and reasonably undisputable: declaration of war, combat, surrender, treaties and or rebuilding. During the combat phase enemy combatant prisoners are taken, either by force or surrender, and both sides can agree that this is a better alternative to killing. With the exception of prisoner exchanges, these prisoners are held until the conflict is completed. At that time the general prisoners are released and those accused of war crimes are tried. Note that this is not policy, just a general pattern, but it works for a conventional war, a war where the losing side surrenders and both sides announce a cease fire. The problems arise when fighting an unconventional war, such as......

Words: 1937 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

Was the Iraq War Justified

...Was the invasion of Iraq, justified? That is a question that American society struggles with today. It is a highly debatable issue, with some for and some against. But what led up to it and why did we invade Iraq? In this paper, I will look at the facts, rumors, and mere coincidences that overshadow this highly controversial debate. I will also speak on personal experience, when I was deployed to that region. As we all know, in September of 2001 a great tragedy struck this great nation. On the morning of September 11th, terrorists hijacked four passenger planes. Two of the planes, struck one of the World Trade Center Tower’s. One plane hit the pentagon, while the fourth plane was enroute to Washington D.C., crashed in Pennsylvania. Nearly three thousand people lost their lives in these horrible events. It has been since Pearl Harbor since that large of an attack happened on American soil. President George W. Bush was our Commander-in- Chief, his approval ratings before these attacks were not bad, but not great. His rating, which was done by the Gallup poll was around 55%, give or take. The economy was heading into a recession. How this all comes into play, is the theory that war boosts the economy. Companies are given contracts to build equipment and clothing for the military in return they hire more employees to keep up with the demand. Not only do unemployment numbers decrease, spending increases which help boost an ailing economy. There are a lot of conspiracy......

Words: 1995 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

Do the Right Thing Analysis

...Demetria Brown COM 2010: Intro to Film Term Paper Assignment Spike Lee’s: “Do the Right Thing” Film Analysis: Do the Right Thing Spike Lee's 1989 film, Do the Right Thing is able to effectively explore the problem of racial conflict in America by skillfully manipulating cinematic devices such as staging, narrative, cinematography, editing and sound. The concentration and emphasis on characters' certain physical attributes with the use of photography and camera framing, the fast-pace editing style and manipulation of sound all contribute to film's overall meaning. In analyzing the short sequence beginning with a small girl drawing a chalk painting on the road and ending with Sal, the local pizzeria owner, making Radio Raheem, "a hulking misunderstood home-boy" , two slices of pizza, these devices are seen to illustrate the hostility between Black and Italian working class Americans. The narrative style in this double scene sequence encapsulates the major oppositions at work in the film, which is racial acceptance and alienation. This can be seen in the juxtaposition of two scenes that show Radio Raheem's acceptance of his Black friend Mookie and his rejection and disdain of the White Italian pizzeria owners. The story is told within the course of one day and scenes follow each other sequentially. This particular sequence begins with Mookie treading over the young girl's drawing of a harmonious scene with the sun shining and people smiling, implying to the......

Words: 1859 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

What Is the Right Thing to Do?

...1. Explain, as clearly and completely as possible, Kant’s answer to “What is the right thing to do?” Are there any problems with this answer? According to Immanuel Kant, doing right and moral things are the right thing to do, which means we have the choices to choose what to do or what to respect the moral law which is expressing our goals. Also, we have to do something for the cause of the principle by doing the right things. By doing the right things and following the moral principle is what Kent called good will. Although one cannot achieve what he or she wants, he or she is still doing the right thing because he or she is intended of doing the right things. As you can see, doing something morally good, notwithstanding of its results are the right thing to do because it is his or her jobs. However, doing right and moral things may cause the problem of inclination. It is because people might think doing the good will is our jobs, we must do it. They will never think that they are more proposed to do the good-will because it rewards that it has involved in the thing. If it is like this, it cannot account for the good-will because there are not many people think that they must do it because it is their job instead of thinking how much intention that they want to do for goodwill. Thus, the problem may result of inclination. ...

Words: 253 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Do the Right Thing Film Analysis

...The first time we saw each other after seeing Spike Lee's movie Do the Right Thing, my sister and I had a fight over lunch. It was one of those things you do with a lover, or sometimes with a close friend about politics, where the terms you disagree on are too buried to perceive or even to guess, at the time, that they're there. You can be agreeing about all the superficial details and about the largest of generalizations all along--my sister and I both found the film powerfully moving--and still wind up fighting about ... something--one of those disagreements that leave you dissatisfied and unexplainably angry. Her arguments weren't unfamiliar. I had run into very similar concerns, interpretations, and vocabulary in some of the mainstream criticism on the film. But it was only after stewing about our lunch for a couple of days that I began to figure out how completely at odds with the movie I saw was the one she--and those critics--had seen. The more I thought about it, the more I could see that these were no idiosyncratic subjective responses. Rather, our differences were bound up with Spike Lee's mix of styles of representation, which my sister and I responded to selectively and from very different perspectives. While Lee's representation of the Italians was moving and meaningful to her, she could find nothing in his portrayal of the black community that would provide for the same feelings. For, I came to see, while Lee uses to elaborate his white characters methods and......

Words: 7201 - Pages: 29

Premium Essay

What Is the Right Things to Do?

...taking a life to save five others. People always think about their own personal gain first whether it involves money, property or something else. Therefore, these dilemmas were not easy to solve, somebody has to sacrifice something. If we were to ask any number of people the question: “What is the right thing for me to do?” they would have different answer according to their own beliefs. The beliefs that people value are the structures in which they live by. “Morals are personal beliefs, and ethics are those beliefs and rules, which are set by a larger group of people for the greater good” (Butts & Karen, 2013). Ethics are in place to prevent endangerment of others wellbeing. Although one person can hold their own personal morals and values above others, society will always expect someone to conduct themselves in an ethical manner according to their rules and standards. Despite the fact that people have a set of beliefs, they may violate them in different situations. A person who is deemed innocent and honorable based on what their society believes are the right standards, are thought to be the ones that determine natural justice. Natural justice is known to be right or wrong. There were many examples specified in Michael Sandel's Harvard video but he discusses more on the following topics. First, given an abstract choice between the death of 1 person and the deaths of 5 people, almost everyone will choose the 1 person. However, given a more......

Words: 1022 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Tyco: Did Kozlowski Do Not the Easy Thing, but the Right Thing

...UNIT VI - CASE STUDY TYCO: DID KOZLOWSKI DO NOT THE EASY THING, BUT THE RIGHT THING Student name: Chi Huong Nguyen Student I.D.: 217505 Columbia Southern University Case Summary Once talking to the graduates at St. Anselm’s College in Manchester, New Hampshire about moral standard, Dennis Kozlowski’s advice to them was to do not the easy thing, but the right thing. The later Tyco scandal pointed out “the right thing” of Dennis Kozlowski seems to be too far away to morals. Since Dennis Kozlowski became CEO of Tyco until he was demanded to step down on June 3, 2002, he wrote a story of a greed and arrogance man who not only used the money of his company for personal wants and desires but also to turn him into a king. He threw Tyco money into buying things for himself, which were luxury houses, yachts, car, and famous paintings. Besides of assets, he used Tyco money for royal parties, which the most famous was his wife’s birthday where everyone dressed in Roman togas while an ice sculpture of David urinates Vodka into a crystal bowl. Dennis Kozlowski created his era at Tyco. It was Tyco’s luck or due to Kozlowski’ insatiable greed or both, Tyco scandal started when rich stingy guy Kozlowski, who had all the best things in life with Tyco money, still did not find the necessary to pay taxes. In avoiding taxes on impressionist paintings that he brought in Manhattan, he had the clerk to write out the bill of sale to make those paintings appeared to be shipped to......

Words: 1061 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

The Right Thing to Do

...What is the right thing to do? Some people believe in doing what is right all the time, some don’t. In this situation my partner and the two boys didn’t do what was right, they both broke the law. I would challenge my partner about what happened in the interview room, because what he did was wrong, unprofessional and unethical. The boys are fourteen, which means when being interviewed by the police their parents should be called and the interview should be recorded. My partner didn’t do either one of these. He should have called the parents and recorded the interview in order to get the admission on tape. I think regardless if the parents were there or not the boys would have still admitted that they were guilty. My partner did it to scare them into admitting that they did it, I think with the parents being there they would have still admitted to their guilt because the parents also have a way of intimidating their children. If my partner would have did what he was supposed to there would be no reason to question him. Being professional is one of the main characteristics in a job, especially the one of a Detective. My partner was not professional in the particular situation. Not only didn’t he call the parents, he didn’t record the interview. That is the worst part because if he would have then we could have shown the parents and had evidence for the admission. It will be hard in court to say that they admitted being guilty. The boys can easily say......

Words: 559 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

The American Civil War Was an Irrepressible Conflict. Do You Agree?

...‘The American Civil War was an irrepressible conflict.’ Do you agree? The American Civil war is one of the most studied topics in American history. Yet still, a definitive answer cannot be found as to why the war broke out. Many of the interpretations can be grouped into two major schools of thought: the irrepressible conflict or the Blundering Generation. It was certainly true that the North and South were becoming increasingly different during this period. Slavery being the most fundamental of these, however there was also variances in the economies and culture. This would support the idea that the war was inevitable as the differences were too great. However, it can be argued that radically different societies can co-exist without going to war. Instead, a series of mistakes and misjudgements were made by blundering politicians. There are numerous examples of this; the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Act to name just a few. In my view, the American Civil War was an irrepressible conflict since compromise on the slavery issue was impossible. Blundering politicians acted as catalysts to ignite the flames of war, however they did not create the differences which acted as the foundation for the irrepressible conflict. The issue of slavery is often cited as the most significant cause of the war. By 1860 the issue of slavery had become too great and compromise was impossible. As Frederick Douglass stated, ‘the more the issue is settled, the more it needs......

Words: 2087 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

Business Ethics: Corporations Gearing Up to Do the Right Thing

...lying to customers, taking money out of the cash register, or taking home some of the inventory or supplies, you cannot be surprised if your employees follow your lead. Your family members may see the business as their own and take things that really belong to the business. Employees may see this as being dishonest, or as a conflict with their needs for a raise in pay. We have seen successful businesses fail, we have witnessed profitably running businesses suffer from a downfall and some seemingly effective corporate receive a great fall in their profits and popularity. One of the main reasons behind these surprising failures was the lack of business ethics. A true understanding of the right and the wrong and the ability to distinguish between them is ethics. Ethics is an important part of life and running a successful business is no exception to this. To become successful, a business needs to be driven by strong ethical values. The mindset of a businessman creates a mindset for his/her company, which in turn sets the work culture of the business organization. For a business to prosper and maintain its wealth, it ought to be founded on certain ethical principles. A business that is based on ethics can run successfully for long years. Moneymakers who do not heed to ethical values can only earn a short-lived success. To last long in the market, business ethics is essential. According to the survey, 60% have codes of ethics, 33% have training in business conduct and 33%......

Words: 1115 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

The Right Thing to Do

...Abstract The objective of this assignment is to prove that diversity in the workplace is the right thing to do and it is imperative for the organizations to embrace it. Six papers aligned with this concept were added to give justification for the analysis   From a legal standpoint, companies are illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information, (Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices). Faurecia, for example, clearly specifies on its code of ethics that in its recruitment actions and career management everybody should receive equal treatment. (Faurecia Code of Ethics and Rules of Business Conduct, 2007) Since diversity is not a choice, in order to be viable it needs to bring some benefits to the organization. According to (Johnson, Meeting the Ethical Challenges of Leadership, 2012), some interesting facts about the diversity in the organizations are: a) Greater cultural diversity is one product of the globalization b) Non-whites account for most of the population growth in the United States c) Women are participating in the labor force at historically high rates, since they are no longer dropping out after marriage d) Managing diversity is the core of modern organizational leadership. In my opinion, the benefits of a diversity workforce go beyond that the author says, for example it they can affect: a)...

Words: 784 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing Reaction Paper

...Reaction Paper #1 2/27/15 Spike Lee’s “Do The Right Thing” In director and actor Spike Lee’s “Do The Right Thing,” presents his views on race relations in the 80s in the US. This film portrays the discrimination of African Americans in the United States and shows the many racial altercations that took place during this time period and even still to this day. The concept of the movie I liked; however, I did not like how it was executed. I thought that the acting was fairly poor but I did like how he would center in on one person and get their takes on things throughout the movie. One big thing that stood out to me that I thought was rather ironic was the intense fight scene towards the end of the movie. I thought that was pretty ironic due to the fact that another African American man was choked to death by a white cop in New York City just a few months ago. After watching a few of the Hitchcock movies thus far, I can see huge difference in the making of movies through different time periods. In my opinion, I thought that each of the Hitchcock films were far better directed and acted than that of Spike Lee’s Do The Right Think. I felt that Alfred Hitchcock brought the films more to life and made the scenes stand out than what Spike Lee has. I mean I liked where he was going with the film by digging into a touchy subject like racial altercations in the way that he did during that time period but I just was not a fan of the movie. I was almost falling asleep during......

Words: 297 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Justice- What’s the Right Thing to Do?by: Michael J. Sandel

...Justice- What’s the right thing to do?By: Michael J. Sandel | Chapter 2: Utilitarianism | Bentham's explanation of Utilitarianism is “the right thing to do is whatever will maximize utility.” (Sandel p.g.34) which means that the right thing to is always whatever produces the greatest amount of happiness and whatever is necessary to prevent unhappiness. Suppose you are walking and someone stops you to take a poll; they ask you if you rather have an animal center where you can pet animals, or if you would have a school for special children. Which would you choose? Most people would choose the school because there are children involved, but according to Bentham and his theory, there should be an animal center because it is what makes people happy. In our scenario, what makes people happy are animals therefore he would say to build a pet center because the people would be the happiest, hence maximizing utility. There is an objection in Bentham’s theory in his example of “the city of happiness”. In this example there is a girl in which she is locked away, where she should stay forever. In the city just outside of her home everyone is living a happy, joyous and life. In this room, the little girl is sad and miserable all the time, but because of her misery, the city can be happy. Is it wrong to have the girl locked up to maximize happiness throughout the city? Sandel goes to say “It would be wrong to violate the rights of an innocent child, even for the sake of the......

Words: 649 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Things to Do

...POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER Abstract This paper offers a clear understanding of posttraumatic stress disorder. Its signs, symptoms, treatment, and preventions. This disorder is commonly known to affect individuals who have been in wars and/or affected by a death of a beloved one. The disorder however varies from person to person in which each uses a different method of approach. It is believed Posttraumatic Disorder (PTSD) is mostly cured through therapeutic treatments, while many of these patients are on antipsychotic drugs which futermore produces unwanted side effects. Individuals with PTSD tend to have problems with transferring short-term to long-term memory. However, there is not a specific way patient memories are affected. PTSD affects more than 3 million people in the U.S alone. This paper will further analyze insights and reports from other experts on managing Posttraumatic stress disorder more proficiently. Introduction This topic center concerns mental and emotional problems people experience in the wake of 'trauma', where trauma is understood to refer to an event involving being a victim of or witness to atrocity, violence, true horror and/or the death of another or near death of one’s self. Examples might include rape, murder, torture, accidents, terrorism, etc. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) describes two trauma disorders: acute stress disorder,......

Words: 1813 - Pages: 8