Persuasion

I found the second essay, Inter Arma Leges, to be the most persuasive. When I started reading the essay I was already skeptical to his argument because I previously considered myself a supporter of the suspension of rights of suspected terrorists. After 9/11 and the numerous other threats from Al Qaeda and the Taliban, I felt that if someone was suspected of being a terrorist, detaining them was paramount because they could prove to be a huge threat to Americans. I also felt that since protecting Americans was the main concern of C.I.A and the government, one should not question their methods; the results were the only significant factor. However, Norman opened my eyes to the other side of the story. For every one detained, guilty terrorist, it is possible that there are two non-guilty ones in imprisonment.
While reading his argument, I found myself searching for a response or a sufficient rebuttal to all of his points. He also buffered all of his points with sufficient evidence. For example, when he said the view of America had been tarnished, he provided statistics from various polls from around the world. Norman also made sound analogies, comparing the policies of this government to the mistakes of the post- Pearl Harbor government of the Roosevelt administration. Thousands of Japanese were unjustifiably imprisoned and put into camps. This is certainly something that our government regrets, and is now repeating the same mistake.
I think Norman was successful mainly because he changed my view on the treatment of suspected terrorists. He provided reasonable arguments with evidence that specifically validated each of his points. The statistical point that really convinced me was the fact that 75% of the detainees during Vietnam were innocent. This figure was only determined through fair trial, something not possible at Guantanamo Bay due to the restraining of rights. This data put me over the edge, and now I can say that I am against the new policies on terrorists and their treatment.