In 2001, as a measure of security and safety following the 9/11 attacks, President Bush with the approval of the 107th Congress passed the 2001 USA PATRIOT ACT. USA PATRIOT Act is an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, but it is better known as simply the Patriot Act. While the purpose of the act is to intercept and counter terrorist threats both foreign and domestic, its' legality, effectiveness, and use has become a heavy debate topic among members of congress and the American people. Many people believe that the Patriot Acts provisions allowing unwarranted wire tapping on its' own citizens is a direct violation of the American people's privacy and freedoms. Other argue that the Patriot Act is the first line of defense in keeping the American people safe from attacks committed by terrorists both at home and abroad. The controversial nature of this issue has garnered heavy rhetorical argument on both sides of the issue.

One writer who wrote in favor of the Patriot Act was Terrence Jeffery. Jeffrey uses both logos and pathos to effectively get his message across to the reader in his article in Human Events Magazine. Jeffrey uses logos in his description of how the Patriot Act was effective in a preventing a potential terrorist plot in 2002. When discussing the failed terrorist attempt an American citizen, Jeffrey Leon Battle, Terrence Jeffrey writes about how the Patriot Act's provisions allowed the government to monitor Battle and recorded a an incriminating conversation. Jeffrey describes the conversation in his articles when he writes, "He explained to a friend how his 'burning desire' to become an Islamic martyr had inspired his aborted quest to join forces with al Qaeda in Afghanistan, where he could kill American troops." (Jeffrey.) The article goes on to say that Battle was arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to 18 years in prison for attempting to wage war on the United States. (Jeffrey.) Terrence Jeffrey successfully uses logos because he raises a thoroughly logical statement in support of the Patriot Act.

Pathos is also evoked in Terrence Jeffrey's article in which he defends the Patriot Act. He uses pathos by explaining to his audience the frightening reality that there are people out there, in our own country, who want to do us harm. He certainly evokes fear in his audience when he writes about how the case with Jeffrey Leon Battle took place in Portland, Oregon of all places. Jeffrey writes,  "After the 9/11 attacks, however, Battle and five other members of the Portland ring decided that rather than attack inside the U.S. they would travel via China and Pakistan to Afghanistan to join forces with al Qaeda there." (Jeffrey.) It is scary knowing that people in our own country, states, or cities could hurt us. Terrence Jeffrey does an excellent job of getting that point across to his audience with his powerful use of pathos.

One rhetorical argument published that was against the Patriot Act was a speech made by Congressman Bob Barr, a Democrat from Georgia, on the floor of Congress. In 2008 the Patriot Act was up for renewal. Congressman Barr was one of the many politicians who was in favor of voting against renewal and allowing the provisions of the Patriot Act to sunset. He makes a powerful argument on why the Patriot Act should not be renewed, effectively incorporating the rhetorical strategies of logos and ethos. His use of logos lies heavily in his citing of straight facts and statistics. For instance when discussing how the Department of Justice has been taking advantage of the law's provision allowing unwarranted wiretaps he says, "The Department of Justice requested and won approval of 1,754 wiretaps in 2004, following 1,724 granted requests in 2003" (Barr). He also cites a specific example when the Patriot Act failed, when in 2008 Brandon Mayfield, an Oregon lawyer, was wrongfully made the lead suspect in the Madrid bombings because he had the same name as a London based Islamic fundamentalist leader. Congressman Barr goes even further to discuss how Mayfield's home was extensively searched without a warrant. Congressman Barr describes the situation when he says, "The Justice Department acknowledged that during a covert search of his home, agents copied computer and paper files, took 355 digital photographs, seized six cigarette butts for DNA analysis, and used cotton swabs to obtain other DNA evidence" (Barr.)

Not only does Congressman Barr evoke strong arguments based in logos, he also powerfully demonstrates the use of ethos in his discussion of the ethics of the Patriot Act. Congressman Barr discusses in depth the dangers that the Patriot Act poses to our Constitutional freedoms. He notes that the Constitutional freedoms of speech, assembly, and protection from warrantless searches are all threatened by provisions under the Patriot Act. (Barr.) He closes his speech by saying, "In the name of fighting "terrorism" or any other threat posed to the good order and safety of our society, we show disdain for the fundamental underpinning of our constitutional form of government and the freedoms it enshrines" (Barr).

One of the most passionate opponents of the Patriot Act is Anita Ramasastry. She makes a zealous argument against the renewal of the Patriot Act in her articles published in Knowledge, Technology, and Policy, "Patriot II: Why It's Even Scarier Than the First Patriot Act." I her article Ramasastry heavily relies on the use of Pathos to make her argument to her reading audience. One strategy that she uses that is heavily based in Pathos is presenting possible scenarios that could happen to and American citizen under the Patriot Act. While the scenarios she present have not happened in the past, her writing is still persuasive, because she is presenting the scenarios in a sense that while they may not have already happened they will happen if we renew the Patriot Act. One possible scenario she describes that has a powerful effect on her audience is one that includes losing your American citizenship over something as minor as attending a protest (Ramasastry 11). "Suppose you, as a citizen, attended a legal protest for which one of the hosts, unbeknownst to you, is an organization the government has listed as terrorist. Under Patriot II, you may be deported and no longer deemed an American citizen" (Ramasastry 11). Ramasastry's passionate article, successfully impacts her audience because she shrewdly uses pathos to discuss the explicit dangers that could happen to any unsuspecting American under the Patriot Act.

One event that has raised a lot of debate over the effectiveness of the Patriot Act is the Boston Bombings in 2012. Michael Muskal of the Los Angeles Times took the opportunity to raise points regarding the failure of the Patriot Act to successfully counter the attack on Boston, in his articles "Krystle M. Campbell Mourned as 2nd Boston Bombing Victim." Based on time table of events, Muskal benefits from Kairos by writing to audience that wants answers as to how the government failed to prevent the bombings with all the provisions the Patriot Act allows, for the sole reason of counter terrorism and national defense. Perhaps the most incriminating quote that Muskal uses in his questioning of how the government failed to pick up on this terrorist plot, is given by Congressman Peter King of New York "There was "no intelligence that seemed to be out there. Now people will look back and see if something was missed. I don't know if there was or not" (Muskal). While Muskal points out the flaws of the Patriot Act and its failures in this situation, he also notes that this should be a wake up call that the fear of terrorism if far from eliminated (Muska).

One aspect of the Patriot Act that has been unclear since its inception in 2001 is whom the government defines as an "enemy of the state." French journalist Jean-Claude Paye discusses that topic in his article "Merging the Law of War with Criminal War." Paye's article is deeply rooted in logos and he discusses the act from a global standpoint. One way he evokes logos in his article is by sighting whom the United States officially declared war on in 2001. He says "The interpretation of this resolution made by successive U.S. administrations is that the state is at war, not against other nations, but against organizations that are not linked to a foreign government, or against private individuals" (Paye 129). Another point that Paye raises is that the Patriot Act was originally supposed to just be a war time piece of legislation, that once the war on terror is over there would be no need keep the Patriot Act in use because their would no longer be a war on private individuals. He cites the fact that both England and France had legislation similar to the Patriot Act in place, but abolished when they pulled out of the Iraq War (Paye 129). Paye does an excellent job of educating his audience on the circumstances that surround the Patriot Act. His use of logos effectively relays information to his audience that presents a more clear understanding of who the Patriot Act targets.

One aspect of the Patriot Act that constantly comes under fire is where the lines need to be drawn monitoring foreign suspects and domestic suspects in preventing terrorist attacks under the Patriot Act. Daniel Lungren discusses this issue in the Notre Dame Journal of Law and Public Policy. While discussing this controversial issues Lungren uses rhetorical argument strongly rooted in ethos. He uses ethos when he discuses why it is ethically okay for the government to use the Patriot Act to monitor citizens suspected of terrorist activity in counter terrorism cases. He offers refreshing take on the issue is when he says "That is why, when government is fighting terrorism rather than ordinary crime, the emphasis shifts from punishment to prevention." (Lungren 428.) Lungren defends the ethics of the Patriot Act, by relating to his audience the fact that punishment often does not deter those who intend to commit acts of terror, and the only way to stop these acts is to prevent them from happening in their early stages of development (Lungren 434).

Christopher Banks, the author of the article "Security and Freedom After September 11," is strong opponent of the Patriot Act. His argument reveals a strong use of pathos particularly in his criticism of President Bush. He tries to present President Bush to the audience in a less than flattering light. He does this by playing on their emotions by trying to convince them that Bush overstepped his Constitutional privilege because he wanted more power. Banks argues that Bush passed the Patriot Act to make his office more powerful. Banks writes "Bush relied on White House advisers and legal interpretations by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel to bolster his presidential powers under Article II of the Constitution and expand them unilaterally" ( Banks 7.) Banks also notes how the minimal checks on the Presidents authority regarding the Patriot Act, allow him to waive standard criminal investigation proceedings (Banks 2). He also talks about President Bush's failed attempt to add even more provisions to the Patriot Act the first time it was up for reneweal. (Banks 4) Though Banks does an good job of playing on the readers emotions and convincing them that Bush may have had ulterior motives, his argument is hurt by kairos. His argument was published in 2011, by this time President Bush was out of office and Barack Obama was in the White House. Further more he fails to mention that in May of 2010, it was President Obama who signed the renewal of the Patriot Act. Had he written this article in 2007 or 2008 when the Patriot Act was a hot topic and President Bush's approval ratings were bottoming out, his argument may have been met with more agreement from his audience.

Tina Ebenger discusses how the Patriot Act and how it specially effects our online privacy. She makes a strong and well-timed argument using logos and benefitting from kairos. She uses logos in her statement as to why e-mail is a private service. She says, "It is private technologically in that encryption can keep prying eyes from your private e-mails" (Ebenger 48). She also cites new felonies added under the Patriot Act that include, hacking federal systems, untraceable transfers of funds, and internet piracy (Ebenger 52). Ebenger does a good job of describing to her audience what is the government considers to be terrorist activity on the Internet. Ebenger's argument also strongly benefits from kairos. At the time it was written social media and online activity were increasingly popular.  Since this was a new concept, people were naive as to what was private and what was public, as well as what the government to hack into without your knowing under the Patriot Act. She does a good job of using logos to help clarify that question for her audience. Tina Ebenger presents insightful take that she extensively supports with factual statements and statistics.

While all of the articles and arguments discussed above have different takes on the Patriot Act, and use different strategies in discussing them, they all have one thing in common. They are all well written and do an excellent job of really getting through to their audience. While the proponents and the opponents discussed above may not agree on the use of the Patriot Act, they all agree that they have the American peoples best interest at heart, however what those interests are is up for debate.
