BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Circular Reasoning, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 29% saturation with 124 hits. Analysis detected 680 faulty-reasoning hits from 427 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39% and a BS Rank of 28% (14,910 of 20,517 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 72.70% of the article peer group.

WASHINGTON (AP)  The Trump administration has filed a first-ever petition to a secretive and dormant court created 30 years ago to consider government requests to deport so-called “alien terrorists” from the United States. 
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was established in 1996 but had never received a petition until this past Wednesday, when the Justice Department filed an application seeking the removal of an individual whose name is withheld from the single-page document posted on the court’s website. 
The chief judge of the five-member court, Joan Ericksen, said in a written response to the petition that a hearing was held on Thursday during which the court had “questions about the nexus that the government alleges between the actions of the respondent and the specific sections and subsections it invokes with respect to those actions. 
“The answers persuaded the Court that the Government could benefit from the opportunity for more thoughtful consideration,” wrote Ericksen, a federal judge in Minnesota. 
She directed the Justice Department to provide more information by Wednesday. 
The court’s authorities emerged from the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which permits the attorney general to file under seal applications for the deportation of a suspected “alien terrorist.” 
If an application is granted, the court must hold a public hearing at which the government has the burden to prove that the individual satisfies that definition. 
Applications must be approved by the attorney general or deputy attorney general. 
Federal law says that an individual could qualify as an “alien terrorist” by, among other factors, having “engaged in a terrorist activity,” endorsing or espousing terrorist activities and by belonging to a political or social group that encourages terrorist activity. 
The Trump administration has moved aggressively over the last year to carry out deportations, including invoking a 1798 wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to remove Venezuelan migrants who officials accuse of being part of a terrorist gang. 
During a hearing in that case last year, the Washington judge presiding over it, James Boasberg, indicated that the Alien Terrorist Removal Court would be the natural forum to consider a request for deportation on national security grounds. 
“In fact, Congress has an answer for us, doesn’t it? 
Because they created the Alien Terrorist Removal Court,” he said. 
“So if there’s a national security concern with having these hearings...you can always go to the ATRC, which would be a first, but that’s what it’s there for, right?” 
The petition was first reported by Court Watch, an independent news site. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 3.4%AP News: 2.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.5%AP News: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.8%Eric Tucker: 2.4%AP News: 2.7%Availability Heuristic10.8%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 1.2%AP News: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.8%AP News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 1.0%AP News: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 25.8%Eric Tucker: 8.8%AP News: 8.0%Framing Effect25.8%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%AP News: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.3%Eric Tucker: 0.2%AP News: 0.5%Status Quo Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.2%AP News: 2.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 1.0%AP News: 2.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.9%Eric Tucker: 12.2%AP News: 9.6%Negativity Bias16.9%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 3.1%AP News: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 1.2%AP News: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.3%AP News: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.7%AP News: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.9%AP News: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Eric Tucker: 0.6%AP News: 1.4%Halo Effect2.8%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.9%AP News: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 10.5%Eric Tucker: 0.5%AP News: 0.3%Primacy Effect10.5%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.3%AP News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 1.8%AP News: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 29.0%Eric Tucker: 2.1%AP News: 3.7%Appeal to Authority29.0%This article: 6.8%Eric Tucker: 1.3%AP News: 1.2%False Dilemma6.8%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.3%AP News: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 11.2%Eric Tucker: 0.3%AP News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning11.2%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 3.3%AP News: 2.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%AP News: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.6%AP News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 4.5%AP News: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.4%AP News: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 1.7%AP News: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.5%AP News: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.6%Eric Tucker: 0.7%AP News: 0.4%Burden of Proof2.6%This article: 6.8%Eric Tucker: 0.2%AP News: 0.1%Appeal to Nature6.8%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%AP News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.9%Eric Tucker: 0.6%AP News: 1.2%Anecdotal8.9%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.4%Eric Tucker: 1.9%AP News: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.4%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.9%AP News: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 3.0%AP News: 2.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 9.1%Eric Tucker: 3.0%AP News: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection9.1%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 7.0%AP News: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 6.3%Eric Tucker: 0.6%AP News: 0.6%Indoctrination6.3%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 2.7%AP News: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.4%AP News: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.2%AP News: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

427 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers42%attributed speech249writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageJoan Ericksen • 56 words • 0.0% coverageJoan Ericksen • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJoan Ericksen • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageJames Boasberg • 38 words • 0.0% coverageJames Boasberg • 10 words • 100.0% coverageJames Boasberg • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJames Boasberg • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

James Boasberg

100%flagged-word coverage
87 attributed words49% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Quote-first Misdirection+44.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%James Boasberg: 44.8%44.8%Indoctrination-10.8 ptsWriter: 10.8%James Boasberg: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.