With the election of 2016 approaching quickly, many important issues in America have arisen through debate. One of the more prominent controversies is whether Edward Snowden should be pardoned or not. In 2013, Edward Snowden, a former CIA and NSA contractor, collected confidential documents regarding NSA domestic surveillance practices and leaked them to the public. As a result, he was marked an outlaw and is now residing in Russia. His actions have sparked many changes within the American government and have created the ongoing debate of whether what he has done is a criminal offense or a heroic move for the American public. The articles “No Pardon for Snowden” by The Editors of the National Review and “Pardon Edward Snowden” by Kenneth Roth and Salil Shetty from The New York Times, are prime examples of how each side views the topic. While they both
…show more content…
Instead of using fear, however, Roth and Shetty attempt to elicit sympathy from the reader. The authors describe Snowden’s situation in a pitiful light, asserting that “The law the Obama administration wants to use to prosecute him takes no account of whether revealing this information was a public service.” In other words, Roth and Shetty are urging that the Obama administration is ruthlessly indicting Snowden. Through their harsh wording, Roth and Shetty attempt to show Snowden in a piteous light. Not only is this a non-factual claim, but fear is a stronger emotion than sympathy.
Both articles,“No Pardon for Snowden” and “Pardon Edward Snowden”, provide strong arguments for whether Snowden deserves to be recognized as a hero or criminal. However, there were several flaws: the lack of credible evidence and a weaker use of pathos, within the latter article made “No Pardon for Snowden” a more convincing read. While Snowden’s actions were of drastic measures, most can agree that they have sparked one of the biggest debates since the turn of the
Instead of using fear, however, Roth and Shetty attempt to elicit sympathy from the reader. The authors describe Snowden’s situation in a pitiful light, asserting that “The law the Obama administration wants to use to prosecute him takes no account of whether revealing this information was a public service.” In other words, Roth and Shetty are urging that the Obama administration is ruthlessly indicting Snowden. Through their harsh wording, Roth and Shetty attempt to show Snowden in a piteous light. Not only is this a non-factual claim, but fear is a stronger emotion than sympathy.
Both articles,“No Pardon for Snowden” and “Pardon Edward Snowden”, provide strong arguments for whether Snowden deserves to be recognized as a hero or criminal. However, there were several flaws: the lack of credible evidence and a weaker use of pathos, within the latter article made “No Pardon for Snowden” a more convincing read. While Snowden’s actions were of drastic measures, most can agree that they have sparked one of the biggest debates since the turn of the