Fallacies In A Few Good Men

The film A Few Good Men touches on a trial for murder of Dawson and Downey, who are defended by Daniel Kaffee. Throughout his case, Kaffee makes his argument for the accused, utilizing pathos as well as straightforward syllogisms to support his case, but also utilizing multiple logical fallacies where evidence was flimsy. Throughout his trial, Kaffee appeals to pathos multiple times. One such instance occurs in the matter of Dawson’s character. In this scene, Kaffee is questioning a fellow marine, Howard. Kaffee asked Howard why Santiago was never given a Code Red, to which Howard responds, “Cause Dawson would beat me up, sir.” Through this quote, Kaffee brings Dawon’s character to light. Dawson defends Santiago from being given a Code

Because he has little evidence, he must use what people say to develop clear lines of reasoning. One such syllogism comes in the case of Dawson’s motive to kill Santiago. While the government argues that the illegal fence line shooting urged Dawson to kill Santiago, Kaffee argues that “it just ain’t true.” He backs this claim up with a logical argument: Dawson wasn’t charged with illegally firing the gun, he was protecting Santiago from harm, and therefore Dawson had no motive to kill Santiago. This is a very logical claim to make, as Kaffee quickly destroys the argument that Dawson had a motive. Another huge syllogism that Kaffee uses lies in the point of the Code Reds. He starts this argument with the questioning of Howard, continuing to prove his point with Kendrick’s testimony. Kaffee’s claims are that Code Reds are practiced at Guantanamo Bay when someone isn’t up to standard (as Howard said) and that Santiago wasn’t up to standard, as proven by Santiago’s “below average” ratings on his reports. Through these two claims, Kaffee reaches the conclusion that Santiago was given a Code Red. Again, his conclusion follows very logically. Both of these syllogisms show that Kaffee had to utilize the information he was given to reach conclusions that the court would be able to interpret. Kaffee knew that nobody would openly come out and say that Santiago was given a Code Red, so he had to

Throughout the trial, Kaffee utilizes many logical fallacies, many of which stem from the fact that there was little evidence in support of his case. One such example stems from a false dilemma, where Kaffee mentions that when given an order at Guantanamo Bay, “you follow it or you pack your bags.” At first glance, this seems like a truthful and powerful statement, but upon a deeper look it is flawed. Kaffee is saying that if people don’t follow orders they are forced to leave, but that is not fully truthful. In fact, later in the trial it is mentioned that Dawson got a “below average” grade because he disobeyed and order about denying another marine food. Dawson didn’t have to leave, so clearly there is an in-between ground between following orders and being forced to leave that Kaffee is leaving out for dramatic effect. Kaffee later utilizes an ad hominem fallacy in attacking the doctor’s character, saying “if you put a man with a serious coronary condition back on duty with a clean bill of health, and that man died from a heart related incident, you’d have a lot to answer for…” In this questioning, Kaffee is attacking the doctor’s for only worrying about himself and for lying on the stand. This redirects the trial away from the fact that the doctor said Santiago couldn’t have a coronary condition to the fact that the doctor might be lying to save himself. Because Kaffee