This article is absolute nonsense. Let's objectively prove this using a little bit of grading. We'll be nice and give it 10 points. We'll subtract a point for each thing it does wrong. Let's go.
1. The image has nothing to do with the bill. The bill supposedly claims to want to jail and interrogate innocent Americans. The article makes no reference to public protest, or anything of the sort. In fact, these people are protesting the government. The article talks about the other thing around: the government detaining people for no real reason. This image is only being used to enrage the reader and put them up in arms. It succeeded, but it would fail a journalism class. -1 point
2. Poor appeal to authority. EVEN WIRED agrees with this journalist? Last I checked, WIRED was about technology and its place in society. WIRED's opinion on public bills should carry very little weight as that is not what they specialize in. If this journalist were to actually care about getting a credible quote from an expert, WIRED is not a good place to look. The reporter from WIRED they did quote, Spencer Ackerman, has a reputation of being extreme and "randomly picking conservatives -- Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares -- and call them racists." (Ann Coulter). Probably not the first guy you want to be quoting... -1 point
3. Incorrect use of a quote. They prefaced the WIRED quote as being "outraged". There is no outrage to be found... just the writer pointing out the irony in the act and possible areas of confusion. Ackerman took a more sarcastic approach to the bill. There was no rage in his words, just confusion and sarcasm.
Here's the full article if you care to read it -1 point
4. Bin Laden Bread? This picture is absolutely pointless and has nothing to do with the current article. The article the Bin Laden Bread refers to is how it is dangerous to name products after famous terrorists. This has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the current article. It does stir some emotional response in the reader as Americans typically see Bin Laden as a bad guy. It gets Americans even more up-in-arms. The careful reader will figure out that this has nothing to do with the article and is not even mentioned. -1 point.
5. Where's the proof? This article actually fails to prove anything. It makes a claim about how bad this bill is, but it never actually quotes the bill. If we got a paragraph from the bill, we might be more inclined to oppose the bill. This article fails to cite any of the provisions so that we may read them up on our own. We'll just have to go through the entire act to find the parts that the writer doesn't like. Also, the writer forgets to mention that we can actually read up on the article in pdf form... It is a long act, and most readers don't want to look at the entire thing. Assuming that the journalist read the entire thing (as he should have to get a gist of the act), he could have saved us some time by linking to sections that he didn't like. -1 point
6. Background. The author of this section forgets to mention the background of this act. It has been passed every year for the past 48 years. What it generally does is form the annual budget for the Department of Defense. Perhaps he could have pointed out that this was a weird inclusion to an otherwise normal act. He makes it sound like this is the worst thing ever. In actuality, he only dislikes a portion of the act as opposed to the whole thing. Once again, in text citations would help us big time. -1 point
7. Putting words into the Act. This article's title claims that the Senate wants to make USA a "battleground" The author then says that the bill declares USA as a battleground. After a quick ctrl + f of the act, I can tell you this is absolutely false. They never used the word. Adams also claims that the bill says that it can apply to Americans "if we want it to". I can tell you for a fact that those words were never used in the act, and Adams should use more descriptive words if he wants to be accurate. USE EXACT QUOTES if it is that bad. Because he did not use exact quotes or do a line citation, it is clear that he is incorrectly paraphrasing the text. -1 point
8. Failure to take government into account. Adams claims that this bill will "shred the remaining tenants of the Bill of Rights". Little does he know, that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution (Article VI Clause 2) declares that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Because the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution, it isn't going anywhere. Shredding tenants of the Bill of Rights is absurd as the Bill of Rights (and any other Amendments to the Constitution) are superior to any law or act not Amended to the Constitution. This has been proved time and time again by supreme court cases, and it will continue to be proven. -1 point
9. Loaded words. Adams used quite a few big words that create negative emotion in the reader's heart. Adams claims that " If this is signed into law, it will ... unleash upon America a total military dictatorship, complete with secret arrests, secret prisons, unlawful interrogations, indefinite detainment without ever being charged with a crime". That is a pretty big claim... especially with no preface. He is bringing these things up for the first time in this list without any explanation. In most English classes, the first lesson you learn is to back up your claims. We never hear anything about secrecy in this article nor will we ever after this quote. Moreover, he has not proven to us that this act can make America into a "military dictatorship". In fact, he has implied quite the opposite. A military dictatorship is when a country is ruled by its military. The fact that CONGRESS is making this act happen shows that they still have power in the government, and they will be elected as they always have been. Americans typically oppose dictatorship, so they would react negatively to this quote. -1 point
10. Posse Comitatus? This is a fairly minor point, but Adams claims that the act overrides
Posse Comitatus. In actuality, this is an act from congress, so it does not come close to overriding Posse Comitatus. Moreover, Posse Comitatus only applies to when the military is being used to execute laws. This applied to certain cases, but not this one. Think more along the lines of Little Rock 9. If what Adams is claiming is true, this would give military the ability to detain citizens for no reason... that isn't executing laws, so it doesn't apply. -1 Point.
So this article's grand total score is 0/10. GREAT JOB! I could have deducted more, but I'll leave it as it stands now. These were, for the most part, objective criticisms about the article based on Adams' own words. The article is clearly not credible in any way, so don't take it seriously. If Adams cared about making it more credible, he would have worked harder to fix some of the obvious issues.
I've already pretty conclusively proven that the original article was unreliable and poorly written. You have yet to prove that you should be taken seriously... It is clear that a majority of congressmen think that this is a good idea -- regardless of party. It can't be that bad if you have 93 people with different affiliations and beliefs agreeing on this law.