No author identified.
The Washington Post
February 15, 2008; Page A20
Recently there has been much debate over the tortureous actions the United States has taken against terrorists in jail, such as waterboarding. This article examines the new legislation proposed to ban these actions by U.S. personnel. The author then proposes that our president will stand in the way of a ban on torture. The author says that if legislation ever made it to the Oval Office that "[. . .] to the great detriment of the United States and to his legacy, (President Bush) is likely to veto it." He says that we as citizens should not let this happen since the United States has stood for so many years as a nation that believes in rights and moral authority.
The author was biased in the way he presented this information; however, I found he made an effective argument. His claims were supported by reliable evidence, and he gave the reader information on what to do to try and stop this from happening. Most biased articles are not very effective to me; however, this one was because the author did not alienate his audience.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I agree that the article does seem biased, but i understand how it presents a good argument and the author does a good job by presenting the information.
I think this is one instance where using an emotional argument would be useful but the author shouldn't let their emotions influence the work.
It's good that they can present the information in a biased way, yet still make a good job presenting the arguement and information. It's hard to do that when you write a biased article.
I think the government needs to look into it on the levels of torture that can be done to prisoners. But honestly the government is going to do what it needs to do to get the information for the country's well being. Setting up the laws is just so we don't look like we aren't looking into the issue. And I agree that we need to get the information just don't let others know about it.
Post a Comment