Reasoned Criticism of Classmate's Commentary (Political Propaganda Free Press)

I agree with you on many things you mentioned, but to offer some constructive criticism, a number of words and statements written in this commentary are unclear and need to be clarified.

You mention that Bush “miraculously granted himself the right to detain any person that was considered an enemy combatant of the United States.” But that isn’t necessarily the entire truth because Congress indirectly granted the president this power through S. J. RES. 23 also known as Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) which in general states

“That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html

This in turn gave President Bush all the control and authorization he needed to issue a Military Order on November 13, 2001 which entails the “Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/print/20011113-27.html

This power didn’t just happen to fall in Bush’s lap, but it was the result of a sequence of events that led to what is occurring today.

Also, in your second paragraph, you write “President Bush can and has detained two people on the American mainland.” The way this topic sentence is worded hurts your case of persuasion on this issue because you make it sound like two and only two people have been detained by the United States. When in fact we know that hundreds of people have been detained, including those whose names have not been released to the public.

In addition, one of the detainees you mention is Jose Padilla. Yet Padilla was found guilty by a federal jury on conspiracy to commit many terrorist acts. It’s unwise to place his name in your commentary from the simple fact that this guy was not innocent, and one can counterattack your argument by saying that it was significant that we caught him before any harm was done. Ali Al-Mari was a perfect example to mention in this commentary, but you forgot to point out that he was held at Guantanamo Bay which could of aided your argument by including how the negative aura of Guantanamo Bay has damaged people’s trust in government domestically and hurt our reputation abroad.

In conclusion, your last statement, “Wow what is going on with our government these days?” This statement diminishes your stance on the issue because the reader can interpret that statement in many ways. Is he confused…? Baffled…? Unaware…?
Now this doesn’t mean its true, but this will leave your opinion defenseless against an academic audience.