Nothing in the question states anything about profiling people of Middle Eastern origin. Yes profiling should be used, but mostly against suspicious peoples, not just ones of Middle Eastern decent, but those of Caucasian, African American, Asian, and Latino as well. And yes, anybody could be a terrorist, and profiling is no substitute for security, but looking out for ALL suspicious people, rather than all people like the Average Joe is the way to go.

Although profiling may seem to be "wrong" and "unethical" to some, it gets the job done, and that is what matters. In most cases, profiling doesn't discriminate race or religion, but it discriminates how somebody looks. The acronym "B.O.L.O" means, Be On the Look-Out, and is a very good example of profiling. It simply means to search for suspicious looking characters, whether it be an Aryan brother tatted up with Swastikas or somebody wearing an excessive amount of clothes. Anything that looks out of place should be checked, regardless if somebodies feelings are hurt. I would rather one person's feelings be hurt in vain rather than hundreds in a plane hijacking or bombing. Terrorism doesn't just mean attacks by the common image of radical Muslims, it could be a pissed off white person taking out their anger in a wrong way. Suspicious person profiling set by the B.O.L.O example is the way to go.

Although torture is inhumane, so is the plot to kill others. If somebody is plotting to kill thousands of people, that isn't human, is it? In this circumstance you must fight fire with fire.

Bargaining or reasoning may not always work, because there is only one thing that most humans value more than anything, their life. Torture is a form of bargaining, it's bargaining for their life. If somebody is going to cause death to millions of people, then why would they uncover it for just some simple bargaining or reasoning? The one thing they would protect is their life, and torture is what puts that one item at stake.

What about federal agencies using torture as a means for information to secure the safety of the public. Not all torturers' enjoy torturing people, but acknowledge that it is better to make one person suffer and save the lives of many.

While torture is inhumane and violent, it can be justified and possibly necessary in certain circumstances. When torture is used by morally corrupt people to just mess with people, it is socially accepted as wrong and disgusting. But when government forces use techniques of torture to obtain information to obtain information vital to national security, it is justified, but that does not mean it is morally correct or socially acceptable. Though some may disagree, torture is a just evil, meaning that although it is seemingly wrong, sometimes it is just necessary. Torture has led to the unveiling of plots to kill thousands of people, while the process of torture only hurts one. It is a decision worth making; make one suffer, save a thousand.

Nobody is forced to go to the Academy, ever. You apply or you don't, whether you live in South Irving or live right next to the Academy.

The analogy of the smart student in a below average school is invalid, because that allows the student to shine and be noticed above their lackluster peers. The story of smart students rising from nothing is seen a lot these days, and if a student is devoted to their education enough, it doesn't matter whether they are placed in a school or not.

If students were allowed to choose what high school they went to, that would create no balance between the populations of the multiple schools in an area. For example, if most students in Irving wanted to go to MacArthur and did, then Irving, Nimitz, and the Academy would all be underpopulated and lose funding. Schools get taxes from the certain taxpayers in their school districts, so that the parents of the student attending the school in that area are paying taxes for their specific school. Typically, the larger the population of a school, the better funding, and with a messed up balance of student population, funding would be messed up as well. Plus, in certain circumstances you can apply for a transfer anyways, which is very similar to attending the school of your choice.

The first president of the United States, George Washington, began the unspoken president of two terms as president which later evolved into a set law. Washington could have been unanimously elected to a third consecutive term, but stated to the public that "no president should serve more than two terms." One reason Washington believed this is because if somebody did, they life of presidency would cut them off from life as a normal citizen. Try to imagine being the most powerful figure in one of the most powerful countries in the world for more than eight years, then imagine going back to living a normal life as an everyday citizen. You would lose connection with the people, and this is already seen today in Congress. Millions of Americans disagree with the new public option health care bill that many polititians and even Obama are trying to pass; it hasn't even been two years since recent elections and they've already lost connection to their citizens. If anybody were allowed to serve over 8 years, the central government would shatter due to being severed from the people of this great country.