Political Science

A Rhetorical Analysis
Michael B. Mukasey in his article  Civilian Courts Are No Place to Try Terrorists  lays out a rhetorical claim that terrorists should not be tried in United States civilian courts with an appeal to emotion and less of an appeal to logic.  The byline of the article catches the eye of the reader with an emotional flashback to the attacks of 911 and the impact on American lives.  As a former Attorney General, Mukasey does present himself as an authority on court procedure, however his logic is flawed in that he is biased and demonstrates a bias throughout the article.  This logical fallacy through his use of argument of authority is more obvious than his fallacy of false cause, also referred to as a non sequitur.  What Mukasey tries to argue is that if terrorists are tried in the United States then this would be an attractive venue for terrorists to target, but this does not follow any form of logic.  The argument and the claim should be about the legality and morality of the trials and not about any emotional appeals, bias through an argument of authority, or a non sequitur argument that these civilian trials will lead to more attacks.  Looking at a more balanced argument from Andrew P. Napolitano in  The Case Against Military Tribunals  is helpful to look at to see the pros and cons of this issue, as well as balancing Mukasey s article to help form an own opinion.

In Mukasey s byline, he opens the article with his appeal to emotion, saying,  we tried the first World Trade Center bombers in civilian courts. In return we got 911 and the murder of nearly 3,000 innocents  (October 19, 2009).  This is both an appeal to emotion and a non sequitur fallacy, as trying the first bombers in a civilian court did not cause the 911 attacks.  In addition this statement seems to imply that the first bombers were not in fact terrorists and that this civilian court proceeding against this first group actually created terrorists.  Mukasey continues his emotional appeal, after his reminder of the lives lost during the 911 attacks to incite fear into his audience from his angle of an authority.  Although his former post as an Attorney General does not make him an expert on terrorism, international relations, or the way that military tribunals are conducted.

Mukasey does make the point that protecting judges, jurors, and others will be an issue with civilian proceedings, however this is the case with other trials as well that have nothing to do with terrorism.  Trying white collar criminals or individuals in a mafia or gangs would pose similar dangers.  This is the nature of the courts and as an authority, Mukasey should acknowledge this.  He says,  moreover, there is every reason to believe that the places of both trial and confinement for such defendants would become attractive targets for others intent on creating mayhem (October 19, 2009).  The use of the word  mayhem  evokes emotional and, therefore is an emotional appeal.  His idea that other terrorists might create casualties in the local population is unfounded and part of his ad sequitur fallacy.  This simply does not follow and is pure speculation on the part of the writer.

Though this is an op-ed piece, there are still reasons to hope that Mukasey would stand on the ground of logic and not the other fallacies he relies upon.  After he speaks of the inherent danger of the local populace in these civilian trials, he also admits that some of the  mayhem  as he calls it might be from lawyers insisting on adhering to the Constitution of the United States.  It seems strange that this supposed authority would not consider the legal issues surrounding the trial, however using law and logic does not seem to be a big part of this piece.  Mukasey does make a strong point however, about the cons of civilian courts and that has to do with the disclosure of evidence.  He points out that while the courts must disclose all evidence against a suspected terrorist, they will be also naming co-conspirators that may have not been apprehended.  This is explained by the author to be helpful to a terrorist organization, because at that point this group will know what the prosecution knows and be forewarned.  However, as stated before this is a similar conundrum when prosecuting other networks of criminals and, therefore, is strictly an issue with the procedures of the court.  It does not follow that terrorists should not be given a civilian trial, simply due to the nature of the process of discovery and disclosure.

Andrew P. Napolitano in his article  The Case Against Military Tribunals , does tie in the Constitution of the United States of America with this debate.  This is a good source for an individual to balance Mukasey s view, which is essentially flawed but interesting to ponder.  As far as a rhetorical analysis is concerned, it is not uncommon for writers like Mukasey to inject emotion into their pieces, but it is inherently dangerous for an audience to accept his argument of authority and his non sequitur arguments to be fact.  For any audience to form an opinion, a variety of sources need to be reviewed and it is unfortunate that Mukasey is using his experience as a former Attorney General to push his opinions as facts.

Napolitano s piece is also an op-ed article, however he looks closely at the history and legal issues surrounding terrorist trials and only seems to inject emotion when he makes accusations about the United States government and their mishandling and mislabeling of war crimes, when war had not been declared.  His point that is made in his byline and throughout the article is simply,  its a violation of the Constitution to use the panels military tribunals without a declaration of war -- and just calling it a war on terror doesnt count  (November 29, 2009).  It is refreshing to see the facts laid out in Napolitano s article as to the legal ramifications of trying terrorists in a military tribunal rather than in the correct court, which would be the United States civilian court system.

Napolitano addresses even the logical fallacies in the claims made by former president George W. Bush.   He made these extra-constitutional claims based, he said, on the inherent powers of the commander in chief in wartime. But in the Supreme Court, he lost all five substantive challenges to his authority brought by detainees  (November 29, 2009).  Due to Bush s claims that defied logic, as well as his own argument of authority and executive powers, it seems that Mukasey is following in Bush s rhetorical footsteps.  It is true that there are inherent dangers in allowing terrorists to know what evidence the United States government has in terms of their activities and their connections, but as previously stated this is a product of the design of the courts.  The design of the courts then in addition to the design of the Constitution is the only considerations that need to be made and ad sequitur claims and arguments in addition to intrusions from authorities such as the former president and Mukasey deflect away from this important information.

In conclusion, it is obvious that Mukasey uses his authority much like the former president to present and support a claim that holds many logical fallacies, including an appeal to emotion and his non sequitur arguments.  Though there are cons to the civilian process, this is not a solid or sound reason to bar terrorists who were not acting during a time of war, to be banished to military tribunals instead of being placed in the proper courts.  The laws of the United States as outlined in the Constitution are to be upheld at whatever price, if these laws are ever compromised then America is in itself compromised.