The Drone Question Obama Hasn’t Answered

“Mr. Holder’s one-word answer — “no” — is not a step toward the greater transparency that President Obama pledged when he came into office,…”

This claim is an interesting one because it has multiple levels. It is reporting on Holder’s one word answer by saying “no.’ Here Holder is making a definitional claim, but, in addition, the author is making a claim as well. He is claiming that Mr. Holder’s transparent claim was not actually transparent and that their needs to be further clarity. He is engaging the reader to not be satisfied by Holder’s answer.

“By declining to specify what it means to be “engaged in combat,” the letter does not foreclose the possible scenario — however hypothetical — of a military drone strike, against a United States citizen, on American soil.”

This claim states that it is impossible to rule out a military drone strike on American soil. The author argues that while unlikely it could happen. It is effective because the rest of the article has slowly been building negative government feelings around this bill and now he finally comes out and says this bill could be used against Americans. Its powerful because it sets that slight rebellion fire in your soul and makes you want to speak out and get answers.

“If you put together the pieces of publicly available information, it seems that the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has acted with an overly broad definition of what it means to be engaged in combat.”

By using broad terminology the government has left a lot U.S. citizens concerned about how the drones could be used. They use the phrase “engaged in combat”, but that is applicable to so many situations I found it almost laughable they used in a bill dealing with such advanced and deadly technology. If I got into a fist fight with someone you could say I was engaged in combat. The author was clever by referencing the Bush administration using similar phrasing. A lot of Americans have negative feelings about the Bush administration and the war that they started, so by bringing back these emotions the author is able to make his point much more powerful.

Overall this article is very effective at rousing your interest and sparking negative government feelings. The author wants you to be angered by general terminology and definitely delivers on making you feel that way. He uses hypotheticals along with bringing up past feelings about the government to try and get a response that is slightly personable.