A Few Good Men

You cant exert the truth Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls reserve to be guarded by manpower with guns. Whos gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you flagellum the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiagos death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You dont want the truth because deep raze in places you dont talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall.We use terminology like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backb nonpareil of a life fagged defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the intent to exempt myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very license that I provide, and then questions the means in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I bespeak you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I dont hark back a damn what you come back you are entitled to.RHETORICAL ANALYSIS A Few equitable Men is a film that was released in 1992, a time when the United States was between soldiers conflicts in the Persian Gulf and Kosovo. The film investigates the notions of absolute power, particularly in the military. Along with that, it also is about the heavy investigation into the mysterious death of a marine at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. At the films climax, Col. Nathan Jessup, played by Jack Nicholson, is cross-examined by JAG lawyer, Lt. Daniel Kaffee, played by Tom Cruise.Accused of playing a social occasion in the torture and death of a marine, Jessup is lay out in a position where he has to defend his actions and articulate his role of importance in the rescue of American freedom. The audience in the film which Jessup is seek to convince tha t he is absolved of any vilify doing is a jury made up of military officers. It is this group of people who decide the fate of Jessup. by means of and interesting mixture of ethos, logos and pathos, Jessup employs a short, but well-rendered monologue to appeal to the jurors.When establishing a good sense of ethos with his audience, Jessup does so simply by stating his name. As a Colonel in the United States Marine Corp. , his audience, also made up of military personnel would recognize that he is a high-ranking officer whose words and character should adopt prestige. He also establishes ethos with a series of rhetorical questions Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whos gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? When using rhetorical questions suggestring to whether or not Kaffee or his partner Weinburg would be up for the task of doing his muse, Jessup is also asking these questions of the jurors. The strategy is to get one t o ask ones self if they could handle the tremendous responsibility that comes along with Col. Jessups role of defending Americas freedom at Guantanamo Bay. Chances are that given these questions, the members of the jury would recognize, if anything, that Jessups job and title are demanding and that he is a man of honor.Similarly, when Jessup states, We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. What he his doing is attempting to run his audience by using the inclusive pronoun we and the exclusive you. By we Jessup is implying we the true members of the United States military, we who protect the freedoms of our country and we who live by the credo honor, code and loyalty. You, on the other hand, is referring to Kaffee who has the gaul to challenge Jessups role in a marines death.By implementing a we/you dialogue, Jessup is trying to appeal to his sense of credibility with the audience. Jessup also refers to the marines death as tragic. Using this type of word is important. By calling the death tragic his is exhibiting to his audience, the jury, that he is sympathetic to the loss of lifeeven when he is universe accused of causing it. Showing his audience that he can be compassionate is also a way of establishing ethos with the jury Along with ethos, Jessup uses a good amount of emotional appeal, or pathos, in this monologue.The starting signal line, for example, is You cant handle the truth This type of emotionally charged declaration is meant to inspire the emotions of the jury. By having established that he is not a man who will be pushed around on the peach stand, that he is a person who will fight back against his accusers, Jessup opens with an emotionally-loaded punch. Soon by and by, Jessup refers to his interrogator a son. period this may seem like a casual and unremarkable word, it is not. By calling Kaffee son, Jessup is again exhibit his contempt for the people who have the nerve to question his authority.In short, it is an insult. Using diminutive language to refer to someone who is in most regards Jessups peer emphasizes that while both people in this picture show are men, Jessup holds rank over Kaffee. Jessups use of the word son to mark Kaffee is an attempt to persuade the jurys view of the lawyer. In fact, may members of the audience probably out-ranked Kaffee. If they would see him also in this light, they would side with Jessup. Finally, toward the end of the monologue, Jessup states, Either way, I dont give a damn what you think you are entitled to. Listening to the words spoken, these lines are the most emotionally impactful. Jessup personally attacks Kaffees trust that he felt he was entitled to the truth. By this and the previous examples, Jessup uses pathos to try to persuade his audience. Effectively, he is exhibiting his anger and passion to the audience, the jury, to counter act any argument or evidence pres ented against him. By trying to appeal to the emotions of the jury, Jessup hopes he can out-bully his opponent. While ethos and pathos are evident in Jessups monologue, he appeal to the audiences intellect, or logos, is also present.While logos is most commonly exhibited by dint of the usage of statistical data, expert testimony and survey findings, Jessup appeals to the jurys sense of logos by constructing logical arguments. In the middle of Jessups monologue, he states, I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way. Here, Jessup is challenge to his jurys sense of logic.He is accusing Kaffee of engaging in hypocritical behavior. Jessup sees himself as almost a god-like figure, someone who provides America with safety and freedom with his actions. In Kaffee, he sees a beneficiary of that freedom who questions his authority. By trying to make Kaffee look like a hypocrite, he is attempting to persuade his audience with a logical argument. Jessup is effectively saying, all of your luxuries and freedoms are granted to you by me who are you to bite the hand that feeds you? In trying to make the jury see this logical argument, Jessup hopes he can persuade them to see things his way. by dint of an interesting mix of appeals to credibility, emotions and intellect, Jessup tried to persuade the jury to understand his point of view. By using his military clout, choosing aggressive language and constructing logical arguments, Jessup defended his actions to the jury. Though it is at times effective, it was all for naught as moments after delivering this monologue, he succumbs to all the pathos built up in his speech and admits he is guilty.