Fareed Zakaria: Why Edward Snowden should agree to stand trial in the U.S
The Washington Post, 23 October 2014
_________________________________________________________________________________
Last week, The Washington Post brought up the cold Edward Snowden controversy and put his reunion with the U.S into perspective. Fareed Zakaria, the journalist who chose to write on the topic, introduced the piece with a recently released documentary of Snowden's background--possibly prompting him to claim such an argument. After taking into account his "crime," Zakaria questions whether or not it would be appropriate for Snowden to return and stand trial. This decision has sparked a number of heated debates all over the nation as it concerns the honesty and compromise of American courts. Zakaria draws from other sources to assert the claim that Snowden would indeed have a fair trial, which is met by the adamant rebuttal of Thomas Drake's case (another whistle blower). With such a firm counterargument, Zakaria finds evidence supporting international surveillance such as France's former minister confessing their sedition and Beijing hacking into other computer systems. To finalize the piece, Zakaria clarifies upon Obama's need to provide Snowden an open, civilian trial in the U.S. Doing otherwise would cost him his reputation and credibility of a president.
In meaning, Zakaria's column reassesses the situation of Edward Snowden, a former U.S security agent, and synthesizes an appropriate response to the "welcoming" arms of an American trial. The post relies heavily upon quotes from other sources consisting of professors, authors, and legal scholars. With this in mind, Zakaria furthers his appeal to logos with personal opinions derived from constitutional values and certain amendments. Despite his strong rational appeal, Zakaria draws credibility through his use of certain phrases. Take, for example, the phrase: "I say this as someone who believes that Snowden broke the law and should be held accountable but." Zakaria poses himself as someone who scrutinized Snowden's position and has taken many precautions in his decision. The prolonged phrase "I say this as someone who" could have easily been said through a simple "I," but Zakaria utilizes redundancy in such a manner that enhances his credibility. When it came to formatting his paper, Zakaria decided upon a rather focused (topic-wise) piece. The introduction was not lengthy whatsoever and also shows his eagerness to jump into the conflict. However, Zakaria put a heavy emphasis upon his conclusion as it plays a large role in his piece as the ultimate claim.
I really like how your pundit includes tons of quotes from important people. It makes me feel like he knows what he's talking about. Also, that line in the beginning is great (the one where he claims his beliefs). It almost makes me want to believe what he believes. I also wonder if he posted this because Obama is mentioned, and he, right now, is one of the most controversial men, especially with the midterms going on.
ReplyDeleteComment to author:
ReplyDeleteZakaria, in this piece, you've proposed an interesting idea that puts into question the morality of our justice system. Edward Snowden's fate, before this article, seemed like something of the past and almost irrelevant when placed up against the current events of Ebola and ISIS. Bringing this controversy to the forefront really led me personally to fantasize over our own problems and whether or not we should be snooping around the middle east for oil.
I commented on Gabrielle's blog, Alex Dumas's blog, and Gavin's blog.
ReplyDeleteThis is very interesting. I had completely forgotten about Edward Snowden. However, I don't agree with the author at all. He should not come back to the U.S., because there is simply no way he could be found innocent. What he did was treason, simply put. Justified treason, but still treason. It would be idiocy to attempt a civilian trial as Snowden, as it would just help the U.S. punish it's treasonous controversial figure and repress the population.
ReplyDeleteI guess you could say I appreciate what Edward Snowden did, but I think extraditing him back here would be an awful idea for his own sake. I believe regardless of what anyone thinks happened, he will be punished if he returns. While I like your pundit and his position gives him credibility, I am tempted by my own logic to think that a fair trial still would not go his way. Asylum in Russia right now, Europe in the future as he is trying to seems like the best plan to me.
ReplyDelete