Critical Thinking Work Intended

Question: Discuss about the Critical Thinking for Work Intended. Answer: Introduction The purpose of this essay is to critically analyse and evaluate the article by Trevor Timm, Petraeus won't serve a day in jail for his leaks. Edward Snowden shouldn't either. The article was published in The Guardian on March 5, 2015 (Timm 2015). The main argument of this article is that the Justice Department treated the former CIA director David Petraeus with leniency in comparison with whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Daniel Ellsberg (Timm 2015). Petraeus leaked classified information to his lover and biographer Paula Broadwell for which he was recommended a sentence of two years without imprisonment just because he was a CIA director (Timm 2015). My evaluation shall revolve around the penalty and leniency opted for Petraeus as unfair, since the lower level officers were punished for the espionage acts with imprisonment that had less gravity. The discussion is important because according to an old saying, all are equal before the law (Witosky and Hansen 2015). Analysis The authors main conclusion from the article is that leaking information or espionage is no longer a felony and that it is unfairly levelled for every whistleblower. The premise of this article is that Petraeus is treated exceptionally because the FBI came to know about it inadvertently. This argument is analogical because it is a comparison with other former CIA officers at a lower post who were imprisoned for their acts (Cottrell 2011). It is an inductive or real analogy because there are strong arguments to support the authors conclusion. Petraeus should have faced imprisonment for leaking classified information and the judge must not have treated him exceptionally. This is because Jeffrey Sterling, John Kiriakou, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and John M Deutch were imprisoned for the acts committed as intense or less intense by Petraeus (Timm 2015). David Petraeuss Case is worse than others It is argued that David Petraeuss case is worse than others. The argument is real or inductive in nature as it is strongly supported by evidences (Govier 2013). According to the indictment, he gave Paula eight black books containing war strategy, covert officers identity, quotes and deliberative discussions from meetings taken place at high-level National Security Council, diplomatic discussions, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, and his personal discussions with the US president (Chappell 2015). Despite his actions and improperly retaining classified information, he was recommended a sentence of two years without imprisonment just because he was a CIA director (Timm 2015). He must have been imprisoned and not recommended for probation as this was much of Top Secret. Not just Top Secret, some information was higher and was SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) (Timm 2015). Petraeus knew he is committing a crime while he is leaking information and improperly retaining clas sified information. Chelsea Manning chose to disclose nothing higher than Secret and is serving 35 years (Lewis 2013). Edward Snowden must not have been imprisoned for more than a year since he disclosed identities of covert agents to an unauthorized person that deserves a maximum sentence of one year. The justice system would never allow him to present a real defense at trial (Timm 2014). Double Standards on Investigations It is argued that FBI has used double standards on Petraeuss case. The investigation lasted about three years. The argument is real or inductive in nature and strongly supported by proofs. According to the statute, the investigation must have been conducted for ten years based on Petraeus situation (Timm 2015). A comparison can be made with Hillary Clintons email matter which was a high profile case. Clinton was accused of being extremely careless with the classified information that was flowing through her private email server (Tucker 2016). However, there was no evidence of anybody violating the law. There should have been a more lengthy investigated as Petraeus lied about disclosing confidential information to the FBI (Timm 2015). The system could have brought severe and far-reaching ramifications and criminal charges should have been brought to a new precedent so that people would treat sensitive records confidentially (Tucker 2016). Even Donald Trump tweeted about the system bei ng rigged. He stated that Petraeus got in trouble far less and that the Justice Department gave a bad judgment (McBride 2016). Evaluation David Petraeuss Case is worse than others The argument made by the author of article of Davids case being worse than others is acceptable as a factual statement. Sub-arguments are presented by the FBI officials and other political figures that make it a reasonable argument of Petraeuss case worse than others. The premise is relevant to the conclusion. The argument does not have fallacies that would persuade the audience by illogical terms (Govier 2013). The issue addressed in borne by the premises. The overall grounds of support are strong and the premises provide good reasons to accept the conclusion. The premise of Davids case being worse than other felons is the justice records and felony cases. Investigation was done for Jeffrey Sterling, John Kiriakou, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and John M Deutch and it was found that these felons created as intense or less intense crimes than Petraeus (Timm 2015). Therefore, the argument made by the author of Petraeuss case is acceptable, relevant and holds strong ground of eviden ce. The argument does not have fallacies that would persuade the audience by illogical terms. The issue addressed in borne by the premises. The overall grounds of support are strong and the premises provide good reasons to accept the conclusion (Govier 2013). Double standard on investigations The argument made by the author of the article about having double standards on FBI investigations is acceptable on the basis of factual representations. The argument is deductive in nature as investigations were conducted about the same (Govier 2013). The media has reported the same in newspapers and television channels after communicating with the political and jurisdiction system that makes the argument acceptable. It is seen that FBI director explains the differences between Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus investigations (Smith 2016). The FBI also explained that David admitted his intention of misconduct due to which a perfect illustration of the case was obtained. However, it is not justified that FBI would not conduct further investigation since it was a crime (Apuzzo 2015). The other lower level officials in the previous times were thoroughly investigated. Based on the given situation and leaking eight black books, an investigation of ten years should have been conducted (G ovier 2013). The above two arguments of David Petraeuss Case being worse than others and Double standard on investigations contributes to the main argument of the article (Govier 2013). The main argument of the article was that Justice Department treated the former CIA director David Petraeus with leniency in comparison with whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Daniel Ellsberg. Both the arguments are acceptable, relevant and are supported with strong grounds of evidence (Smith 2016). The arguments make the audience question about the unlevelled jurisdiction system. The old saying, all are equal before law and not supported because of the judgment passed by the judicial system (Witosky and Hansen 2015). Since the other felons got imprisonment for their misconduct and improper handling of classified information, David is let gone too easy. The arguments are strong and it can be claimed that there is a two-tiered system in the justice for leakers. The low-level officials have to undergo the charges and get prosecuted under the Espionage Act (Timm 2015). However, the strong and powerful officials who hold a higher position in the system do not have to worry about charges at all. The author provides a strong argument to support this view as John Brennan reported about a double agent disrupting a bomb plot in Yemen. Another low level official went to jail for the same story, but Brennan not only escaped the punishment, but was rewarded with a promotion (Timm 2015). The author makes strong arguments about the differences and partiality in the jurisdiction system where the low-level officials are prosecuted under the Espionage Act. While, the high level officials can assume that they would be pardoned and not prosecuted for any misconduct (Maurer 2015). Conclusion In my opinion, the authors argument worked as it was intended. It is because he has provided not one or two, but multiple examples and cases of felons committing misconduct and handling classified information carelessly. My evaluation for the given case is in alignment with that of the author of the article, Trevor Timm. The argument of high officials getting a simple slap on the wrist while the whistleblowers prosecuted and spending time in jail is unfair. However, the author could improve his arguments by focusing and stressing on the laws and prosecution under Espionage Act in detail. He could have quoted the sentences about imprisonment, penalty and liability in his article as stated in the law. This would have added weight in the article as facts and figures supported by the law would have a greater impact on the readers. References Apuzzo, M. 2015.F.B.I. and Justice Dept. Said to Seek Charges for Petraeus. [online] Nytimes.com. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/10/us/politics/prosecutors-said-to-recommend-charges-against-former-gen-david-petraeus.html?_r=0 [Accessed 28 Jul. 2016]. Chappell, B. 2015.Petraeus Sentenced To 2 Years' Probation, Fine For Sharing Classified Info. [online] NPR.org. Available at: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/04/23/401672264/gen-david-petraeus-will-be-sentenced-thursday-over-secret-notebooks [Accessed 28 Jul. 2016]. Cottrell, S. 2011.Critical thinking skills. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Govier, T. 2013.A practical study of argument. Australia: Thomson/Wadsworth. Lewis, P. 2013.Bradley Manning given 35-year prison term for passing files to WikiLeaks. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/bradley-manning-35-years-prison-wikileaks-sentence [Accessed 28 Jul. 2016]. Maurer, K. 2015.How the David Petraeus Prosecution Backfired. [online] The Daily Beast. Available at: https://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/22/the-double-standard-for-david-petraeus.html [Accessed 28 Jul. 2016]. McBride, J. 2016.David Petraeus: Why He was Charged Hillary Clinton Wasnt. [online] Heavy.com. Available at: https://heavy.com/news/2016/07/david-petraeus-hillary-clinton-james-comey-press-statement-classified-information-scandal-no-charges-charged-criminal-charges-emails-paula-broadwell-affair-donald-trump-reaction/ [Accessed 28 Jul. 2016]. Smith, A. 2016.FBI director explains 'distinction' between Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus investigations. [online] Business Insider. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.in/FBI-director-explains-distinction-between-Hillary-Clinton-and-David-Petraeus-investigations/articleshow/53103535.cms [Accessed 28 Jul. 2016]. Timm, T. 2014.More people than ever oppose the NSA practices Edward Snowden revealed. Why should he spend his life in prison? | Trevor Timm. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/19/edward-snowden-case-amnesty [Accessed 28 Jul. 2016]. Timm, T. 2015.Petraeus won't serve a day in jail for his leaks. Edward Snowden shouldn't either. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/05/petraeus-jail-leaks-edward-snowden [Accessed 28 Jul. 2016]. Tucker, E. 2016.Similarities lacking in Clinton, Petraeus investigations. [online] PBS NewsHour. Available at: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/similarities-lacking-in-clinton-petraeus-investigations/ [Accessed 28 Jul. 2016]. Witosky, T. and Hansen, M. 2015.Equal before the law. USA: University of Iowa Press.