Letter to Senator Landrieu
Dear Senator Landrieu:
One subject of heated debate today is that of what to do about the detainees currently being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. One extreme is the idea [IP1]that freedom in the United States must be defended at all costs, even if that means arresting anyone perceived as being even remotely suspicious and holding them for an indefinite period of time without fair trial. The other side is that these people who are being held captive should have the right to defend themselves in at least some kind of court, and should be treated humanely. It is my opinion that although the current system has some things that work, it is overall insufficient and some major changes must be made.[IP2]
Currently, there are about 660 detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay. There are detainees from 42 countries, including the U.S.(Horrock and Iqbal)[IP3] Many of them were captured in Afghanistan for being suspected terrorists.[IP4] Donald Rumsfeld insists that the detainees are being treated humanely (Review), but there are other opinions and observations that do not fall in line with that.[IP5] For one, some released detainees have reported brutal treatment (Lewis).[IP6] Also, the Red Cross, which has thus far not publicly made claims of physical abuse, has said that “lengthy detention without hope, trial, charges, or human contact outside of guards and interrogators has caused a ‘worrying deterioration' in the prisoners' mental health.”(Horrock and Iqbal) In fact, some of the detainees at Guantanamo have already been there for two years (Lewis) with still no hope of release. Rumsfeld has even said that some of the detainees could be held “for the duration of the conflict”,[IP7] which, in the war on terror, could be forever.(Review) Also, the detainees are allowed to be questioned up to twice a day for periods of up to 5 hours, which can also be psychologically damaging.(Lewis)[IP8] Already, 21 of the detainees have attempted suicide and a guard must patrol the halls to make sure no one else does. Now, if we were sure that all of these detainees were terrorists with malicious intentions, then none of this would be a big deal. [IP9]But the truth of the matter is that some of those people are not terrorists, and even if they can provide useful information, they deserve to be able to defend themselves fairly and be treated humanely.[IP10] In fact, according to a recent Mother Jones article, “Maj. General Michael E. Dunlavey, even traveled to Afghanistan in 2002 to complain that too many ‘Mickey Mouse' detainees were being sent his way.”[IP11](Horrock and Iqbal) Also, some of the people who have been captured include a man with a severe head wound who was unable to provide intelligence, kidnapped taxi drivers, an Al Jazeera cameraman, farmers, several Afghan religious students, a man in his 90's, and a deaf man. Many of these people claim that they were wrongfully handed over to the Americans by Afghan warlords and commanders to “appease the Americans or to settle personal scores”. It is obvious that mistakes are being made in the kind of people being detained and that therefore the screening processes must be more thorough and the treatment of those captured more humane.[IP12]
While I do believe that there is a need to defend ourselves and our freedom from terrorists, I also believe that there are better ways of going about it without potentially harming non-terrorists on the way. One incident at Guntanamo that I believe could have been handled better involved three young boys between the ages of 12 and 15. Their names were Asadullah (the youngest), his friend Naquibullah, and Ismail (the oldest).[IP13] The Americans claim that two of the boys were captured in raids on Taliban camps and another was trying to get weapons to fight against American forces. The boys on the other hand had very different stories. Asadullah and Naquibullah claim that they were basically captured for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and Ismail claims to have been handed over to Americans by Afghan troops who falsely told the Americans that he was a member of the Taliban.[IP14][IP15]Regardless, the boys were held in Bagram before being transferred to Guantanamo for 11 months. There, they were kept separate from the adult prisoners and appear to have been well taken care of, even given an education. While their treatment at Guantanamo appeared to be very nice compared to that of the adult detainees, the fact of the matter is that these boys were not terrorists. And although, they were eventually allowed to return home, the captures of these boys turned their and their families' lives upside down. Their families spent much time and money searching for them after they went missing, before finally being notified of their sons' whereabouts months later after some had gone as far as selling their mortgage [IP16]and going into debt in order to fund the searches.(Gall) I believe that the United States should generously compensate these people for their lost time and money, as well as for the emotional distress caused by the length of time before the families were even notified about their sons' whereabouts.[IP17]
It seems that Bush is just trying to keep everything in a gray area in order to avoid actually having to follow the strict rules that come with being in either the black or white. For example, we are in a “war” supposedly, but he has not claimed war officially; so one must ask: “What rules apply then?”[IP18] He also does this with Guantanamo Bay itself. The detainees are being held outside of the United States in order to avoid falling into the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts, but although they are held in Cuba, they are not under Cuba's jurisdiction either.(Rosen) So, these prisoners are not entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention, which is only applicable for those prisoners held in the U.S. or places where the U.S. is sovereign, which supposedly Guantanamo Bay is not.(Horrock and Iqbal) It appears as though Guantanamo Bay exists as its own self-proclaimed country where no official rules of any other existing country apply. [IP19]
Also, Bush is giving himself too much power and stepping over his bounds[IP20], completely undermining the concept of checks and balances. He is doing this in part by having the fate of these detainees determined by a panel appointed by himself.(Review)[IP21] The Supreme Court has even stated that,
The moment the President ventures beyond detaining enemy combatants as prisoners of war to actually meting out punishment, however, he has moved outside the perimeters of his role as Commander in Chief and entered a zone that involves judging and punishing.(Black Hole)
The military should be the one to ultimately handle this part of the situation for better or for worse[IP22], because in any case Bush has too much power in the direction we are heading now[IP23]. If Bush is given what he wants, then any American citizen, or any citizen of the world for that matter, could be ordered by the President of the United States to be taken off the street and sent to Guantanamo to await judgment, without a fair trial, and ultimately, have their fate dictated by our President.(Rosen) [IP24]
There are all kinds of freedom to be defended, and while our freedom from terror is important to maintain, it cannot be done “at any cost” without potentially jeopardizing other freedoms that we and others hold dear. I hope that in reading this you will consider some of the changes that I have proposed and take action as you see fit. [IP25]Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
VS
End of essay 15036]-
Final Comment: Given the difficulty students have with this genre, this is a reasonably strong argument. The writer gives us a reasonably good introduction, providing us with a context and moving fairly smoothly to her thesis: some changes are due, even if she fails to follow through on her promise of proposing changes. In fact, her thesis is that the President has overstepped by claiming the right to incarcerate people without giving them legal rights.
We were impressed by the writer’s control of her information. She had clearly read the material carefully and organized it so that she knew what to summarize and when to provide specific information. The details she gives makes us feel confident about her authority—that is, that she knows what she’s writing about. In a short paper, this writer provides a significant amount of information of which most readers will be unaware.
The writer scored very high on her sophisticated analysis of the issue. A good analysis has to develop from an undistorted presentation of the information and then speculated on the implications of the information. This analysis leads her to the central insight of her argument: that the President’s claim that he must have the right to treat suspected terrorists as he sees fit in order to protect our freedom in fact is a threat to our freedom. That is the insight that lies at the heart of her argument. Being able to understand a deep-level contradiction (and the irony involved in the claim) is the mark of a sophisticated analysis.
Most writers responding to this task engaged in wildly over-generalized and under-supported claims. Strong writers are sensitive to the problematic nature of some of their claims, and they are quick to provide substantiation in the form of evidence (information) and reasons that tie the evidence to the claim.
A key to successful argumentation is, as we have argued above, an awareness of problematic claims and an ability to support those claims with evidence and reasons that tie the evidence to the claims. Although some of her claims cried for elaboration and support she failed to provide, we thought that she generally recognized her problematic claims and hurried to support them with evidence and reasons linking the evidence to the claims. The weaker papers, by contrast, tended to make strong claims without recognizing that discerning readers might question those claims and wonder, “how do you know?”
This writer was clearly sensitive to oppositional points of view. Although her thesis placed her at odds with the Administration’s policy, it seems as if she tried to represent them fairly. We didn’t find any places in which she misstated the administration’s claims and logic; this kind of misstatement and decontextualized statements are the hallmark of weak argumentative writing (moving it more toward persuasive discourse). We didn’t find any places where this writer had distorted information to bolster her case.
Somewhat in line with a fair presentation of the different perspectives on the issue and with her control of information, the writer Used her Sources skillfully. As we have often said, knowing how to integrate others’ words into your own is a mark of skilled academic writing, and this writer has come close. Along with most first-year writers, she doesn’t seem to choose wisely when to directly quote or summarize (several of the direct quotes seem gratuitous), but she slides into and away from these quotes smoothly. She also has some sense of appropriate documentation strategies—but she should have know by the end of English 1002 that the periods in MLA style go outside the parenthetical documentation. One could ask: what’s the difference? An interesting question.
The strong point of most high-scoring essays was organization. An effective organization takes up one point at a time, completes the discussion on that point, and moves to a related point while being careful with transitional devices to establish the connections between the two points. Weaker papers tend to mix topics together. They will move from one topic to another without completely developing the first, only to pick the first topic up again several paragraphs later—as if the development were an afterthought. This kind of lackadaisical organization is really a failure to rewrite, a failure to recognize that parts of the essay have to be re-organized.
Here is a link to the essay with a summary of the topics in the left margin. This analysis demonstrates the writer’s control of her organization.
Essay 15036 with paragraph analysis
The writer falls down a bit in the category of clarity and style. We feel readers can understand the writer’s central argument and claims, although the writer occasionally lapses into vague phrases, at times as if she were trying to write in language that is not fully hers. This slight disconnect with language seems to be a general condition of student writing when they are asked to argue about issues about which they may be unfamiliar. Student writers who can write strong position papers with clear language and in their own voices are truly exceptional.
Finally, we were impressed with this writer’s command of conventions. The few errors she made could be easily corrected. We were confident that this writer would quickly learn where to put her periods when using parenthetical documentation.
[IP1]Called an error in predication—which everyone should look up. Basically, the two terms linked by the linking verb (is) don’t match. An “idea” is not an “extreme.” She could have said: “Some people take the extreme position that freedom . . .” The writer makes the same error in the next sentence with “side” being equated to a long noun clause beginning with “that . . .” To her credit, the writer has staked out the extreme positions clearly.
[IP2]Very clear context; sets out the two sides of the issue, offers a nuanced position instead of resorting to the black and white positioning.
[IP3]Period goes after parenthetical reference.
[IP4]Being in possession of details adds to the writer’s authority.
[IP5]“do not fall in line with that” is vague language this writer could learn how to clean up.
[IP6]Why not document the brutal treatment? Details help.
[IP7]Always put commas inside quotes.
[IP8]The writer needs to learn that the periods go outside.
[IP9]This has so far been a coherent argument: the claim is that they are not being treated humanely—a contradiction of Rumsfeld’s claim. The writer then gives evidence to support her implied contrary claim.
[IP10]Here she makes a claim that needs to be supported: . . . they deserve. Why do “they deserve”? This needs to be argued.
[IP11]Her logic is falling down a bit—mostly, she doesn’t supply the links. The link is that there are many detainees being incarcerated with no purpose to their detention. Dunlavey’s claim is the evidence (she should explain who Dunlavey is to give him credence). She does at any rate offer concrete evidence of the people who have been wrongfully detained.
[IP12]The paragraph needs to be split
[IP13]The writer’s use of specific details gives her authority.
[IP14]The writer could have added that the tribespeople were given money to hand people over (that was in the article).
[IP15] Here is the rub: how do we determine who is telling the truer story?
[IP16]Selling their mortgage?
[IP17] This is a coherent argument against the policy of unlimited detention.
[IP18]An interesting argument: really the crux of the issue, but the writer leaves it unexplored here. The administration claims we are at war, so certain violations of normal behavior are legitimated, but it is a war unlike any other war, so the rules of war don’t apply. This might be the line of argument she is implying.
[IP19]A very good argument—but it could be clarified a bit more.
[IP20]repetition
[IP21]needs elaboration
[IP22]Imprecise, wordy
[IP23]A bit incoherent, mostly because of vague language
[IP24]We don’t believe the writer has made this case as a possibility—certainly not in this essay.
[IP25]Only one specific change seem to have been proposed (the compensation). She is really arguing for a change in policy.