While researching the USA PATRIOT Act, I found that one of the most common arguments made by those against the Patriot Act, was the idea that some of the basic rights guaranteed to the American people under the Constitution would be taken away by certain provisions in the Patriot Act. Two of the sources I used "Patriot II: The Sequel - Why It's Even Scarier than the First Patriot Act," and  "The USA PATRIOT Act: Implications for Private E-Mail" both discuss in depth the dangers that some our basic rights are in. Both sources utilize some of the major concepts of rhetorical arguments, however they incorporate them in their respectively unique ways.

In Anita Ramasatry's article published in Knowledge, Technology, and Policy, "Patriot II: The Sequel - Why It's Even Scarier than the First Patriot Act," she takes a firm stand against the Patriot Act and any new provisions and proposed additions to the act. This source does an excellent job of using pathos to reach the reader. While Ramasatry does back up her arguments using some factual evidence, a great deal of her arguments are passionate predictions and scenarios of how an American citizen could be unfairly prosecuted under the Patriot Act without probable cause. While the scenarios she presents are well deducted they are still just that, hypothetical scenarios. However she doe an excellent job of almost presenting these scenarios as factually accurate predictions, because she is able to reach the readers on such a high emotional level by putting them in certain situations, and describing what would happen under the Patriot Act. For example, she writes, "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" (Ramasatry 11). This citation is a general idea of what the whole article is like. There does not present many factual examples that have previously occurred, rather she presents hypothetical scenarios that may happen if the Patriot Act is renewed. However she is able to get her argument across to the reader, because she places them in a very real and frightening situations that play on the readers emotions. I think the argument of "what could happen" seems to be much stronger than the argument of "what will happen" in this case, because we fear what we don't know. Also notice how in the second sentence of the quoted material she says, "you may be deported" that is another example of Ramasatry using hypotheticals. Another way that Ramasatry is able to play on the reader's emotions is presenting arguments in a very hyperbolic sense. At one point in her article she discusses how the government would respond if you were to oppose the Patriot Act, "If you do not like the government's policies, including these, Patriot II says: 'Too bad. Don't try to make a federal case out of it -- we'll bar you at the courthouse door'" (Ramasatry 9). While a federal case against the Patriot Act would most likely not be heard in any circuit or Supreme Court, the government would not physically prevent you from entering the building at the courthouse doors.

One aspect of her article, which I believe hurt her argument was her use of Kairos. "Patriot II: The Sequel - Why It's Even Scarier than the First Patriot Act" was written in September of 2003, two years after the 9/11 attacks and just 6 months after the war in Iraq began. There was a lot of uncertainty in the country at the time. We believed that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was building nuclear weapons and Al-Qaeda ringleader Osama Bin Laden was still on the run. The audience that would have read Ramasatry's article during this time, may have been less likely to agree with her, than a reading audience today or even in 2007. When she mentions how the government would monitor e-mails and track suspects electronically, you have to remember that the Internet and social media were not as developed as they are today. Sites like Facebook and Twitter had not even been invented yet. So when Ramasatry writes "What is most shocking about the new encryption crime is that it is not limited to terrorism. It is the first attempt to regulate encryption of electronic files" (Ramasatry 10). the reaction of the reading audience might be one of indifference because there wasn't as much of people's lives on line as there is today. I think that if this article were to be re-released in a newspaper or magazine today it would be met with greater support in the wake of the NSA scandal and the information brought forth by Edward Snowden.

Unlike ""Patriot II: The Sequel - Why It's Even Scarier than the First Patriot Act" which tries to persuade the reader using pathos, Tina Ebenger's article "The USA PATRIOT Act: Implications for Private E-Mail," tries to reach her audience using logos. Ebenger presents the facts as is, and tries to help the reader become well informed on the issues while also presenting her point of view. Ebenger's arguments are strongly supported with hard factual evidence and statistics, as well as legitimate sources. One of the most swaying parts of her argument is when she discusses how the Patriot Act breaks The Electronic Communications and Privacy Act, a law renewed into effect by the same Congress which passed the Patriot Act. She writes, "The [Eelectronic Communications Privacy Act] provides for the privacy of electronic communications and prohibits (with some exceptions) the intentional interception, access, or disclosure of private electronic communications" (Ebenger 48). However where her argument is strong with logos it lacks in pathos. While Ebenger presents a great deal of factual evidence in opposition of the Patriot Act, her tone in the essay is not very convincing. Her arguments lack passion and are almost overly objective for an essay that is trying to warn an audience of the dangers and corruptions of the Patriot Act. For instance when discussing in depth the aloofness of Congress and the Courts regarding privacy protection, she ends a convincing paragraph by saying "Congress has shown a willingness to enhance privacy protections" (Ebenger 62). While Ebenger is able to win over the reader on a rational standpoint, the article struggles to play on the reader's emotions.

"The USA PATRIOT Act: Implications for Private E-Mail" mostly discusses privacy as it pertains to E-mail and personal electronics is violated by the Patriot Act. Therefore the use of Kairos certainly effected how her audience received her argument. Ebenger's piece was published in December of 2007. At this point in time a great deal of people's lives are on line and on their devices. In 2007 Facebook and Twitter are increasingly popular, and the iPhone is sweeping the nation. Naturally, at that point people are more concerned with their personal privacy as it pertains to these devices.  Therefore, when Ebenger's argues that "The assertions that an individual's e-mail can be read by anyone as it crosses the Internet are overstated because copies of e-mail are not retained by the sender's mail server, relay mail servers, or routers" (Ebenger 48). her message would likely have been well received and well supported. Ebenger also benefits from the fact that her article is published six years after the 9/11 attacks. People's fear of terrorism has watered down after six years without attack. As the fear fades their support of a terrorist prevention act that allows the government to monitor its own citizens also fades. Also working in her favor is enough time has passed that there have been several investigations and findings that pertain to the 9/11 attacks and terrorism in general.  This helps her argument as to why it is unnecessary to monitor e-mails to prevent terrorist attacks, "As far as the investigation has revealed so far, computer crime played no role in the September 11, 2001 attack or in any previous terrorist attacks suffered by the United States" (Ebenger 49). Ebenger does an excellent job of being aware of the state of her audience when writing this piece. She understands that people are becoming more savvy when it comes to technology and their privacy, as well as the fact that it has been six years since the 9/11 attacks and people are far less willing to trade their privacy for their security.

Both articles take a strong stand against the Patriot Act and cite the invasion of personal privacy as their reason why. However the way the methods in which they get their points across are distinctly unique. While both use some of the key components of rhetorical argument, ""Patriot II: The Sequel--Why It's Even Scarier Than The First Patriot Act" seems to favor the use of pathos while "The USA PATRIOT Act: Implications For Private E-Mail" definitely favors a factual based argument rooted in logos. While "Implications for Private E-Mail" does a better job of using Kairos than "Patriot II: The Sequel" it had a strong effect on both of their arguments. These sources when read separately are informative and helpful, but they can best be appreciated when read together.
