Profiling can be extremely useful in the detection of terrorists, but should not be used exclusively. Even though it may not seem politically correct, stopping a suspicious man or woman going to or coming from the Middle East, despite race, may be the only way to catch terrorists, and any suspicious behavior in an airport should be investigated and dealt with swiftly. The fact is, though, the majority of past hijackers have come from the Middle East. If trained airport officials can pick out these terrorists and save lives, profiling is more than justified. Though not all hijackers will fit into the airports' "profiles", profiling can be a useful tool in preventing terrorism.
If there is a state of national emergency, and a terrorist or criminal has vital information the United states needs, torture may be necessary to save the country from terrorist attack or worse. I will say, though, the rampant use of torture in this day and age is morally wrong. There has been a world-wide precendent of breaking the Geneva laws rather than following them. Toture should be only used on terrorists and criminals, people who make a living on hurting others, and it should be used for information, not out of hatred or anger. Yes, torture is justified, but only in extreme and dire situations.
Students definitely have the right to go to any public they want. The transfer system should still be in place, but students shouldn't have to renew it every year and hope they're accepted. Students may move to a different part of town, placing them in another school zone, but the friendships they've made don't disappear. It would be somewhat cruel to keep those few kids from seeing their friends on a day to day basis. The truth is that only a small percentage of students apply for transfers, and even less get them. Students will not be transfering schools wildly and randomly because most, those who don't move and whose houses are in the correct school zone, will want to go to a school with the friends they've known since elementary and middle school.
If a president is making much needed reforms, shouldn't we keep him for another term? He may need 12 years to complete his work. This may be necessary because not much can really change in 8 years; a president really can only set plans in motion. Sometimes change isn't always what we need.
Two terms for Presidents is the only fair solution. Even if the President is phenomenal, and makes much-needed reforms, he could still be followed by a horrible president that crashes the economy and embroils us in a pointless and bloody war. The less time that horrible President has to worsen the state of our country, the better, but that also means that the excellent President must have the same limits on his time in office. In my opinion, it's always better to elect new presidents every four to eight years. Even if we're in a dire war situation, or the economy is about to collapse, the rules must stay in place. Sometimes new presidents can bring fresh ideas to the office, especially after an especially hard term for the previous.
