Rhetorical appeals are persuasion methods that are often used by speakers to convince their audience. A person can use any appeals depending on the context or people he or she is addressing. In his court ruling, Judge Pauley used logical appeal to guide his final verdict in the case of American Civil Liberties Union v. James R. Clapper, et al. The article by Alex Abdo and Patrick Toomey used the same rhetorical appeal to have a contrary opinion regarding the ruling. In comparing the verdict and the article, Alex and Patrick’s text is more compelling than the judge’s verdict though they were both meant to convince the audience.
Judge Pauley’s verdict uses the logical appeal to demonstrate that the National Security Agency (NSA) was right in collecting personal data. The information gathered could have been used to pre-empt a criminal activity that would have consumed many people’s lives. Additionally, the judge argued that the Fourth Amendment only applies in some instances. “The right to be free from searches and seizures is fundamental, but not absolute” (Pauley, n.d.). Besides, the government only uses the data obtained for investigation purposes and curbing terrorism. In other words, the judge alludes that laws can be broken if they are meant to protect the public.
However, Abdo and Toomey’s article uses logical appeal to indicate that even though NSA might have had a good intention, its method of collecting personal information was wrong. NSA should have followed the law as stipulated in The Fourth Amendment. “There is no “five-second rule” for Fourth Amendment violations” (Abdo & Toomey, n.d.). The authors believe that there is no excuse for going against the law. The law must be followed even if going against it will safeguard the ordinary citizens. Personal information is crucial and should only be obtained by any third party by use of legal means such as court systems. Besides, any person whose information is being given out should be notified.
Consequently, Abdo and Toomey’s text effectively uses rhetoric and persuasive language compared to judge Pauley’s ruling. Although the judge might have seen right in NSA’s action of trying to prevent criminal activities, Abdo and Toomey demonstrate that NSA should have followed due process. Conducting an illegal method to correct a vice should not be warrantied since it invalidates the whole action. Moreover, it explicitly explains why the fourth amendment was put in place, and therefore there is no need for the government to go against the same law it passed. Hence, the article written by Abdo and Toomey is more appealing than the court verdict.
Succinctly, even though rhetorical appeals are used to persuade the audience, some speakers can effectively appeal to them. Alex and Patrick’s text is more convincing than the verdict of judge Pauley. Although the magistrate might have had good intentions, his reasoning is not compelling. He encourages total disregard of the law with an excuse of protecting the public. In case the public is safeguarded, as he alleges, then the law should be scrapped from the constitution instead of having it only be broken. If a law cannot be followed, then there is no need to have it at all. The article provides detailed reasons that can easily convince the reader. Besides, it points explicitly out some instances which the judge might have overlooked.
References
Abdo, A. & Toomey, Patrick. (n.d.). The NSA is turning the internet into a total surveillance system. The Guardian. Web.
Pauley, W.H., (n.d.). American Civil Liberties Union v. James R. Clapper et al. United States district court southern district of New York. Web.