Checks, Balances, Reality, Myths and the Patriot Act
The Patriot Act: Does it ignore the checks and balances of the constitution and infringe on citizens’ rights? Or, does it keep the checks and balances and preserve citizens’ rights? According to Viet Dish and Michael Battle it does both. Dish and Battle believe it does not infringe on our rights but actually protects them and embodies checks and balances. Both Dish and Battle agree that it is a necessary and helpful piece of legislation. I agree that the Patriot Act preserves checks, balances, and citizens’ rights. To give a better understanding of these statements, I will summarize the arguments presented by Viet Dish and Michael Battle, and provide an analysis of their articles, discussing how each made their arguments. Then, finally, concluding with why I agree.
Viet Dish’s article appeared in the periodical Human Events on 16 May 2005 under the title “Patriot Act Exemplifies Checks and Balances.” His argument is presented as a rebuttal to a group known as the PRCB or Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances that has been running a campaign of misinformation against the Patriot Act. Dish points out in several places where the PCRB has made claims that some aspects of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional. Specifically he cites Sections 213 (“sneak and peek”), 215 (“library”), and 802 (domestic terrorism) as the prime components of the PCRB’s campaign (Dish 7). Dish discusses each section in turn and shows how the PCRB is wrong.
With something of parallel agreement, Michael Battle argues in his article, “Reality vs. Myths,” how the Patriot Act helped break through the “legal ‘wall’ that prevented law enforcement and intelligence officials from sharing information” (12a). He argues that it protects civil liberties while still allowing law enforcement and prosecutors to prevent any more violent attacks within the United States. Battle argues that “it has been critical in helping us dismantle terrorist cells, disrupt terrorist plots and capture terrorists before they have been able to strike” (12a). He further argues that the state prior to the Patriot Act was one in which a group or individual, being investigated for a variety of reasons by different sets of independent investigators, was in fact plotting actions against the US. But the legal barriers (which are never detailed) prevented the sharing of information that would enable the law enforcement and the prosecutors to prevent much worse actions than what the independent investigations were trying to find.
Throughout both of these articles each author shows a significant ethos, the appeal to the author and his authority, on the subject. Dish, a law professor, shows through his word usage and logos that he is well informed and has conducted in depth research. He says, “To date, not one court or congressional committee has found evidence of any abuse of the powers under the Patriot Act” (Dish 7). He also notes that “not one civil action has been filed against the government under Section 223, which allows citizens to seek damages for any willful violations of the act.” (Dish 7) These statements show that he has done his research and also give him a standing where ethos is concerned.
Michael Battle gives a clear statement, “As a federal prosecutor,” to establish a definitive appeal to ethos (Battle 12a). The statement tells the reader that Battle knows what he is talking about. Battle furthers this by telling us about a case he worked on, in which he was investigating a terrorist cell. In the investigation preceding the Patriot Act his teams could not communicate the information they gathered among themselves, whereas, after the Patriot Act they were able to and, consequently, were able to stop this terrorist cell.
However, Dish and Battle differed in their use of pathos and logos, in that Dish used more logos than Battle, who used pathos the most. Dish’s strong appeal to logos helps the argument that the arguments of some organizations are untrue. Dish says, “To date, not one court or congressional committee has found evidence of any abuse of the powers under the Patriot Act.” Dish continues to argue that, even if they had been used, some have been used well before the Patriot Act came into being. He states, “Law enforcement officers have in fact utilized delayed-notice search warrants for decades.” He further argues: “the provision is more protective of constitutional freedoms than ordinary criminal procedure.” Where pathos is concerned, Dish seems to not have made an attempt; however, Battle did. (Dish 7)
Battle’s attempt at Pathos is achieved by the way the article is written. Battle wrote it from a personal perspective. He tells of his experience that before the Patriot Act, law enforcement officials and prosecutors had trouble with putting all the pieces of several investigations together. This brings the reader in and calls for him/her to give sympathy to what is said and the idea behind it.
Dish and Battle made their arguments in a comparison of the sentence structures of each author. It is noticeable that Battle uses a more simple form, neither too long nor complex. Dish use more complex and longer sentences. In reading each, a reader should notice how much easier it is to follow Battle’s conversational tone than Dish’s dry and academic tone. Through the uses of these different tactics the reader will notice that the more formal language of Dish gives off the definite logos (the appeal to logic) touch that it seems Dish was after; Battle’s casual tone, sentence structure, and word usage give off the definite pathos (the appeal to the readers’ emotions or sympathy) touch.
From the arguments presented by Battle and Dish, I agree that the Patriot Act gives law enforcement the tools that they need to maintain security and stop violent acts before they happen. Dish’s article shows through logic and fact that the government is trying to be proactive rather than reactive. History, especially September 11th 2001, shows that to be reactive allows for destruction and death, where as, proactive action, however controversial, has the potential to stop destruction and death before it happens, as can be seen when you combine Battle’s and Dish’s statements and the events of September 11th 2001.
Viet Dish’s citations of the most controversial elements of the Patriot Act bring to light the pro-activeness which allowed Michael Battle’s investigation to succeed. Michael Battle’s investigation supports Viet Dish’s argument, thus, giving a reasonable argument supporting the necessity and validity of the Patriot Act, and giving rise to my agreement and support of it.
Viet Dish’s article appeared in the periodical Human Events on 16 May 2005 under the title “Patriot Act Exemplifies Checks and Balances.” His argument is presented as a rebuttal to a group known as the PRCB or Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances that has been running a campaign of misinformation against the Patriot Act. Dish points out in several places where the PCRB has made claims that some aspects of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional. Specifically he cites Sections 213 (“sneak and peek”), 215 (“library”), and 802 (domestic terrorism) as the prime components of the PCRB’s campaign (Dish 7). Dish discusses each section in turn and shows how the PCRB is wrong.
With something of parallel agreement, Michael Battle argues in his article, “Reality vs. Myths,” how the Patriot Act helped break through the “legal ‘wall’ that prevented law enforcement and intelligence officials from sharing information” (12a). He argues that it protects civil liberties while still allowing law enforcement and prosecutors to prevent any more violent attacks within the United States. Battle argues that “it has been critical in helping us dismantle terrorist cells, disrupt terrorist plots and capture terrorists before they have been able to strike” (12a). He further argues that the state prior to the Patriot Act was one in which a group or individual, being investigated for a variety of reasons by different sets of independent investigators, was in fact plotting actions against the US. But the legal barriers (which are never detailed) prevented the sharing of information that would enable the law enforcement and the prosecutors to prevent much worse actions than what the independent investigations were trying to find.
Throughout both of these articles each author shows a significant ethos, the appeal to the author and his authority, on the subject. Dish, a law professor, shows through his word usage and logos that he is well informed and has conducted in depth research. He says, “To date, not one court or congressional committee has found evidence of any abuse of the powers under the Patriot Act” (Dish 7). He also notes that “not one civil action has been filed against the government under Section 223, which allows citizens to seek damages for any willful violations of the act.” (Dish 7) These statements show that he has done his research and also give him a standing where ethos is concerned.
Michael Battle gives a clear statement, “As a federal prosecutor,” to establish a definitive appeal to ethos (Battle 12a). The statement tells the reader that Battle knows what he is talking about. Battle furthers this by telling us about a case he worked on, in which he was investigating a terrorist cell. In the investigation preceding the Patriot Act his teams could not communicate the information they gathered among themselves, whereas, after the Patriot Act they were able to and, consequently, were able to stop this terrorist cell.
However, Dish and Battle differed in their use of pathos and logos, in that Dish used more logos than Battle, who used pathos the most. Dish’s strong appeal to logos helps the argument that the arguments of some organizations are untrue. Dish says, “To date, not one court or congressional committee has found evidence of any abuse of the powers under the Patriot Act.” Dish continues to argue that, even if they had been used, some have been used well before the Patriot Act came into being. He states, “Law enforcement officers have in fact utilized delayed-notice search warrants for decades.” He further argues: “the provision is more protective of constitutional freedoms than ordinary criminal procedure.” Where pathos is concerned, Dish seems to not have made an attempt; however, Battle did. (Dish 7)
Battle’s attempt at Pathos is achieved by the way the article is written. Battle wrote it from a personal perspective. He tells of his experience that before the Patriot Act, law enforcement officials and prosecutors had trouble with putting all the pieces of several investigations together. This brings the reader in and calls for him/her to give sympathy to what is said and the idea behind it.
Dish and Battle made their arguments in a comparison of the sentence structures of each author. It is noticeable that Battle uses a more simple form, neither too long nor complex. Dish use more complex and longer sentences. In reading each, a reader should notice how much easier it is to follow Battle’s conversational tone than Dish’s dry and academic tone. Through the uses of these different tactics the reader will notice that the more formal language of Dish gives off the definite logos (the appeal to logic) touch that it seems Dish was after; Battle’s casual tone, sentence structure, and word usage give off the definite pathos (the appeal to the readers’ emotions or sympathy) touch.
From the arguments presented by Battle and Dish, I agree that the Patriot Act gives law enforcement the tools that they need to maintain security and stop violent acts before they happen. Dish’s article shows through logic and fact that the government is trying to be proactive rather than reactive. History, especially September 11th 2001, shows that to be reactive allows for destruction and death, where as, proactive action, however controversial, has the potential to stop destruction and death before it happens, as can be seen when you combine Battle’s and Dish’s statements and the events of September 11th 2001.
Viet Dish’s citations of the most controversial elements of the Patriot Act bring to light the pro-activeness which allowed Michael Battle’s investigation to succeed. Michael Battle’s investigation supports Viet Dish’s argument, thus, giving a reasonable argument supporting the necessity and validity of the Patriot Act, and giving rise to my agreement and support of it.
posted by Luke at 3:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home