http://www.npr.org/2013/03/10/173864536/when-rand-paul-ended-filibuster-he-left-drones-on-national-stage
This article discusses a topic that Senator Rand Paul touched upon during his 13-hour filibuster last week: the use of drones on U.S. citizens. The Senator claims that this hypothetical power to use drones on U.S. citizens is against the President's oath of office. Although the Senator also went into ethics of drones in general during his filibuster, this article explores it further, explaining that Democratic Senator Richard Durbin from Illinois will hold a hearing discussing legal authority on drone attacks overseas. However, this article mainly reacts to analysis from Paul's filibuster regarding domestic drone attacks, both positive and negative. For example, it highlights a conversation following the speech between Republican Senator Ted Cruz from Texas and Attorney General Eric Holder. Cruz illustrates a situation: "Suppose someone was sitting in a cafe, drinking a cup of coffee. Should the government be able to use a drone against that man?" To which Holder responds that the government cannot even arrest the man, let alone attack him.
This article and audio clip comes from National Public Radio, a large, credible news organization. It uses several rhetorical devices on its audience of adult readers in order to convey its purpose that our government needs to clear up its policy on overseas drone attacks. The most effective strategy is the article's use of cliffhanger at the end, leading the audience to become interested in this April hearing about drone ethics. Also, a subtopic the article mentions in the ineffectiveness of hypothetical situations such as the one Ted Cruz uses above.
This article discusses a topic that Senator Rand Paul touched upon during his 13-hour filibuster last week: the use of drones on U.S. citizens. The Senator claims that this hypothetical power to use drones on U.S. citizens is against the President's oath of office. Although the Senator also went into ethics of drones in general during his filibuster, this article explores it further, explaining that Democratic Senator Richard Durbin from Illinois will hold a hearing discussing legal authority on drone attacks overseas. However, this article mainly reacts to analysis from Paul's filibuster regarding domestic drone attacks, both positive and negative. For example, it highlights a conversation following the speech between Republican Senator Ted Cruz from Texas and Attorney General Eric Holder. Cruz illustrates a situation: "Suppose someone was sitting in a cafe, drinking a cup of coffee. Should the government be able to use a drone against that man?" To which Holder responds that the government cannot even arrest the man, let alone attack him.
This article and audio clip comes from National Public Radio, a large, credible news organization. It uses several rhetorical devices on its audience of adult readers in order to convey its purpose that our government needs to clear up its policy on overseas drone attacks. The most effective strategy is the article's use of cliffhanger at the end, leading the audience to become interested in this April hearing about drone ethics. Also, a subtopic the article mentions in the ineffectiveness of hypothetical situations such as the one Ted Cruz uses above.
No comments:
Post a Comment