Cdl core Files 2015-2016 cdl core Files
Download 1.69 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- B. Link: the Perception of Strength in surveillance operations deters terrorism
- C. Internal Link
- 2NC/1NR Extensions: National Security Letters Link
Terrorism Disadvantage1NC Terrorism DA A. Uniqueness Counterterrorism is successful now because of Obama’s tough approach Benen 15 (Steve Benen, American political writer and MSNBC contributor "The scope of Obama’s counterterrorism successes," MSNBC, www.msnbc.com/rachelmaddowshow/thescopeobamascounterterrorismsuccesses, accessed 61915] Whenever the political world’s attention turns to matters of national security and terrorism, Republican criticisms of President Obama feature familiar talking points. The president isn’t “aggressive” enough, they say. His approach must be “tougher,” like the policies adopted by the Bush/Cheney administration. Obama’s counterterrorism policies are so ineffective, the right insists, that the White House won’t even use the specific words – “radical Islamic terrorism” – that Republicans demand to hear. But the gap between GOP rhetoric and nationalsecurity reality continues to grow. We learned yesterday, for example, that a U.S. airstrike killed Nasir alWuhaysh, al Qaeda’s No. 2 official – and the top guy in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. As Rachel noted on the show last night, his death is a “huge deal,” especially given the terrorist plots al Wuhaysh has helped oversee. NBC News had a helpful report yesterday on the frequency with which U.S. strikes have successfully targeted al Qaeda’s top leaders. Since Navy SEALs killed [Osama bin Laden] in 2011, American drone strikes have taken out seven potential candidates to succeed him as the leader of what was once the mostfeared terror gang. The targeted attacks started within weeks of bin Laden’s death. Three al Qaeda higherups were killed in June, August and September of 2011, followed by another three in late 2012 and early 2013.... Now, the death of 38yearold Wuhayshi – killed in a strike on Friday – is seen by American intelligence officials as a major blow to al Qaeda, which is struggling with decimated ranks and ideological competition from the Islamic State. I’m reminded of this piece in The Atlantic last fall, when Jeffrey Goldberg, hardly a liberal, wrote, “Obama has become the greatest terrorist hunter in the history of the presidency.” It’s a detail Republicans simply don’t know what to do with, so they ignore it and pretend the president is indifferent to matters of national security, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. While GOP officials and candidates continue to insist that what really matters is wordchoice, Obama’s counterterrorism strategy includes so many successes, they no longer generate much attention. Notice, for example, just how little chatter alWuhaysh’s death garnered yesterday. 1NC Terrorism DA B. Link: the Perception of Strength in surveillance operations deters terrorismPittenger 2014 US Rep. Robert Pittenger, chair of Congressional Task Force on Terrorism, “Bipartisan bill on NSA data collection protects both privacy and national security” - Washington Examiner, 6/9/14, http://washingtonexaminer.com/rep.-robert-pittenger-bipartisan-bill-on-nsa-data-collection-protects-both-privacy-and-national-security/article/2549456?custom_click=rss&utm_campaign=Weekly+Standard+Story+Box&utm_source=weeklystandard.com&utm_medium=referral This February, I took that question to a meeting of European Ambassadors at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. During the conference, I asked three questions: 1. What is the current worldwide terrorist threat? 2. What is America’s role in addressing and mitigating this threat? 3. What role does intelligence data collection play in this process, given the multiple platforms for attack including physical assets, cyber, chemical, biological, nuclear and the electric grid? Each ambassador acknowledged the threat was greater today than before 9/11, with al Qaeda and other extreme Islamist terrorists stronger, more sophisticated, and having a dozen or more training camps throughout the Middle East and Africa. As to the role of the United States, they felt our efforts were primary and essential for peace and security around the world. Regarding the intelligence-gathering, their consensus was, “We want privacy, but we must have your intelligence.” As a European foreign minister stated to me, “Without U.S. intelligence, we are blind.” We cannot yield to those loud but misguided voices who view the world as void of the deadly and destructive intentions of unrelenting terrorists. The number of terrorism-related deaths worldwide doubled between 2012 and 2013, jumping from 10,000 to 20,000 in just one year. Now is not the time to stand down. Those who embrace an altruistic worldview should remember that vigilance and strength have deterred our enemies in the past. That same commitment is required today to defeat those who seek to destroy us and our way of life. We must make careful, prudent use of all available technology to counter their sophisticated operations if we are to maintain our freedom and liberties. 1NC Terrorism DA C. Internal LinkInformation we get from surveillance is vital to preventing terrorist plots, which are even more complex after 9/11. A ban would weaken our defenses.Hirsh 2013 [Michael Hirsh, chief correspondent, the National Journal, “The Next Bin Laden,” http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-next-bin-laden-20131114, November 14 2013]Ever since the death of Osama bin Laden, President Obama and his senior lieutenants have been telling war-weary Americans that the end of the nation’s longest conflict is within sight. “Core al-Qaida is a shell of its former self,” Obama said in a speech in May. “This war, like all wars, must end.” That was the triumphal tone of last year’s reelection campaign, too.The truth is much grimmer. Intelligence officials and terrorism experts today believe that the death of bin Laden and the decimation of the Qaida “core” in Pakistan only set the stage for a rebirth of al-Qaida as a global threat. Its tactics have morphed into something more insidious and increasingly dangerous as safe havens multiply in war-torn or failed states—at exactly the moment we are talking about curtailing the National Security Agency’s monitoring capability. And the jihadist who many terrorism experts believe is al-Qaida’s new strategic mastermind, Abu Musab al-Suri (a nom de guerre that means “the Syrian”), has a diametrically different approach that emphasizes quantity over quality. The red-haired, blue-eyed former mechanical engineer was born in Aleppo in 1958 as Mustafa Setmariam Nasar; he has lived in France and Spain. Al-Suri is believed to have helped plan the 2004 train bombings in Madrid and the 2005 bombings in London—and has been called the “Clausewitz” of the new al-Qaida.Whereas bin Laden preached big dramatic acts directed by him and senior Qaida leaders, al-Suri urges the creation of self-generating cells of lone terrorists or small groups in his 1,600-page Internet manifesto. They are to keep up attacks, like multiplying fleas on a dog that finds itself endlessly distracted—and ultimately dysfunctional. (A classic Western book on guerrilla warfare called The War of the Flea reportedly influenced al-Suri.) The attacks are to culminate, he hopes, in acts using weapons of mass destruction.Recent terrorist attacks against U.S. targets, from the murderous 2009 spree of Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood to the Boston Marathon bombings last year, suggest that al-Suri’s philosophy dominates al-Qaida’s newly flattened hierarchy. The late Yemeni-American imam Anwar al-Awlaki, who preached this strategy and induced Hasan’s attack, is said to have developed his ideas from al-Suri’s. Meanwhile, with new refuges in North Africa, Syria, and Yemen, jihadists have much more territory from which to hatch plots unmolested.Yet the politics at home are changing as the threat abroad is growing. The revelations dribbled out by fugitive leaker Edward Snowden have outraged members of Congress and world leaders, including those of close allies such as Germany and France. They say they are aghast at American overreach. Writing in Der Spiegel, Snowden justified himself this way: “Instead of causing damage, the usefulness of the new public knowledge for society is now clear, because reforms to politics, supervision, and laws are being suggested.” Thanks to him, Congress will almost certainly rein in the National Security Agency’s data-trolling methods—though it’s not yet clear how much.But the agency’s opponents may not realize that the practice they most hope to stop—its seemingly indiscriminate scouring of phone data and emails—is precisely what intelligence officials say they need to detect the kinds of plots al-Suri favors. For the foreseeable future, al-Suri’s approach will mean more terrorist attacks against more targets—albeit with a much lower level of organization and competence. “It’s harder to track. Future attacks against the homeland will be less sophisticated and less lethal, but there’s just going to be more of them,” says Michael Hayden, the former NSA director who steered the agency after 9/11 toward deep dives into Internet and telephonic data. Adds Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, “I think al-Qaida’s capabilities for a strike into the United States are more dangerous and more numerous than before 9/11.” For better or worse, the only hope to track them all is an exceptionally deep, organized, and free-ranging intelligence apparatus, experts say.Intelligence officials who are well briefed in the technical aspects of NSA surveillance also note that global communications are vastly more complex than they were as recently as 9/11, not just in terms of speed and bandwidth but also in the kinds of digital paths they can take. Messages can travel partly by air and partly by cable, for example, and the NSA must keep up. “If you take the diffuse physical environment [of more failed-state havens] and you layer that with the diffuse communications environment, and then you layer that with the diffuse ideological environment—more lone wolves, for example—that makes for a far more generally dangerous environment,” says a knowledgeable U.S. government official who asked to remain anonymous.All of which means that despite very legitimate questions about whether the National Security Agency is going beyond what the law and Constitution allow, Americans probably need the NSA now more than ever.1NC Terrorism DA D. Counter-terrorism is vital- terrorists will go nuclear if we let our guard down. New York Times 2012 (Kenneth Brill and Kenneth Luongo. March 15. “Nuclear Terrorism: A Clear Danger.” Accessed online: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/opinion/nuclear-terrorism-a-clear-danger.html?_r=0) Terrorists exploit gaps in security. The current global regime for protecting the nuclear materials that terrorists desire for their ultimate weapon is far from seamless. It is based largely on unaccountable, voluntary arrangements that are inconsistent across borders. Its weak links make it dangerous and inadequate to prevent nuclear terrorism.Later this month in Seoul, the more than 50 world leaders who will gather for the second Nuclear Security Summit need to seize the opportunity to start developing an accountable regime to prevent nuclear terrorism.There is a consensus among international leaders that the threat of nuclear terrorism is real, not a Hollywood confection. President Obama, the leaders of 46 other nations, the heads of theInternational Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations, and numerous experts have called nuclear terrorism one of the most serious threats to global security and stability. It is also preventable with more aggressive action.At least four terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda, have demonstrated interest in using a nuclear device. These groups operate in or near states with histories of questionable nuclear security practices. Terrorists do not need to steal a nuclear weapon. It is quite possible to make an improvised nuclear device from highly enriched uranium or plutonium being used for civilian purposes. And there is a black market in such material. There have been 18 confirmed thefts or loss of weapons-usable nuclear material. In 2011, the Moldovan police broke up part of a smuggling ring attempting to sell highly enriched uranium; one member is thought to remain at large with a kilogram of this materialA terrorist nuclear explosion could kill hundreds of thousands, create billions of dollars in damages and undermine the global economy. Former Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations said that an act of nuclear terrorism “would thrust tens of millions of people into dire poverty” and create “a second death toll throughout the developing world.Surely after such an event, global leaders would produce a strong global system to ensure nuclear security. There is no reason to wait for a catastrophe to build such a system.The conventional wisdom is that domestic regulations, U.N. Security Council resolutions, G-8 initiatives, I.A.E.A. activities and other voluntary efforts will prevent nuclear terrorism. But existing global arrangements for nuclear security lack uniformity and coherence.There are no globally agreed standards for effectively securing nuclear material. There is no obligation to follow the voluntary standards that do exist and no institution, not even the I.A.E.A., with a mandate to evaluate nuclear security performance.This patchwork approach provides the appearance of dealing with nuclear security; the reality is there are gaps through which a determined terrorist group could drive one or more nuclear devices.Obama’s initiative in launching the nuclear security summit process in Washington in 2010 helped focus high-level attention on nuclear security issues. Unfortunately, the actions produced by the 2010 Washington Summit and that are planned for the upcoming Seoul Summit are voluntary actions that are useful, but not sufficient to create an effective global nuclear security regime.The world cannot afford to wait for the patchwork of nuclear security arrangements to fail before they are strengthened. Instead, we need a system based on a global framework convention on nuclear security that would fill the gaps in existing voluntary arrangements. This framework convention would commit states to an effective standard of nuclear security practices, incorporate relevant existing international agreements, and give the I.A.E.A. the mandate to support nuclear security by evaluating whether states are meeting their nuclear security obligations and providing assistance to those states that need help in doing so.Nuclear terrorism is a real and present danger for all states, not just a few. Preventing it is an achievable goal. The current focus on nuclear security through voluntary actions, however, is not commensurate with either the risk or consequences of nuclear terrorism. This must be rectified. If the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit makes this a priority, there can be an effective global nuclear security regime in place before this decade ends. 2NC/1NR Extensions: National Security Letters LinkNational Security Letters serve a very important purpose in countering terrorism and upholding national security Heritage Foundation 2008 (Charles Stimson and Andrew Grossman. March 14. “National Security Letters: Three Important Facts.” Accessed on the web: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/03/national-security-letters-three-important-facts) Fact No. 2: NSLs help the FBI to "connect the dots" by using the least invasive and most effective means possible. As noted in each of the two OIG reports, NSLs have proven to be invaluable tools in counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations. According to the FBI, the principal uses of NSLs are to:Establish evidence to support FISA applications for electronic surveillance, physical searches, or pen register/trap and trace orders;Assess communication or financial links between investigative subjects or others;Collect information sufficient to fully develop national security investigations;Generate leads for other field divisions, Joint Terrorism Task Forces, and other federal agencies or to pass to foreign governments;Develop analytical products for distribution within the FBI;Develop information that is provided to law enforcement authorities for use in criminal proceedings;Collect information sufficient to eliminate concerns about investigative subjects and thereby close national security investigations; andCorroborate information derived from other investigative techniques.[12]Information obtained from each type of NSL has allowed investigators to crack cases, especially in the realms of counterterrorism and counterintelligence. A brief examination of the success stories outlined in the OIG reports under each type of NSL proves the point. The following examples, excerpted from the OIG report, show how counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations are supported through the lawful use of NSLs:[…]As these examples illustrate, NSLs are an extremely effective method of obtaining basic data that are crucial to discovering, monitoring, and undermining terrorist activities. They can also be used to exonerate and are frequently used in place of more invasive methods, such as surveillance, searches, and seizures, that are authorized by law and often applicable. National Security Letters are an irreplaceable tool in counterterrorism efforts and the FBI is committed to using them ethically. F.B.I No date (Federal Bureau of Investigation. No date. “Response to DOJ Inspector General’s Report on FBI’s Use of National Security Letters.” Accessed online at http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/response-to-doj-inspector-general2019s-report-on-fbi2019s-use-of-national-security-letters) Washington, D.C. – In the post-9/11 world, the National Security Letter (NSL) remains an indispensable investigative tool. NSLs contribute significantly to the FBI’s ability to carry out its national security responsibilities by directly supporting its counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and intelligence missions. NSLs also allow the FBI to obtain information to eliminate concerns about individuals and close down investigations with a high degree of confidence there is no terrorism or adverse intelligence-gathering threat. We are pleased the Inspector General concurs with the FBI concerning the value of the NSL tool.“The Inspector General conducted a fair and objective review of the FBI’s use of a proven and useful investigative tool,” said Director Robert S. Mueller, III, “and his finding of deficiencies in our processes is unacceptable. We strive to exercise our authorities consistent with the privacy protections and civil liberties that we are sworn to uphold. Anything less will not be tolerated. While we’ve already taken some steps to address these shortcomings, I am ordering additional corrective measures to be taken immediately,” Mueller said. Importantly, the OIG found no deliberate or intentional misuse of authorities, whether NSL statutes or Attorney General Guidelines. Nevertheless, the OIG review identified several areas of inadequate auditing and oversight of these vital investigative tools, as well as inappropriate processes, and these are findings of significant concern.As a result, Director Mueller is implementing reforms to the process designed to correct those deficiencies identified – with accountability. Those steps include strengthening internal controls, changing policies and procedures to improve oversight of the NSL approval process, barring certain practices identified in the Inspector General’s report, and ordering an expedited inspection.The FBI will work together with DOJ’s National Security Division and the Privacy and Civil Liberties Office to implement these reforms. Throughout this process, the FBI will continue to work closely with the OIG to gauge progress and consider any additional reforms. National Security Letters are necessary to keep America safe Heritage Foundation 2008 (Charles Stimson and Andrew Grossman. March 14. “National Security Letters: Three Important Facts.” Accessed on the web: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/03/national-security-letters-three-important-facts) In sum, there are extensive judicial, statutory, regulatory, and institutional protections in place to ensure that NSLs are not misused and do not violate Americans' privacy rights. With the number of NSLs issued every year, it is inevitable that there will be some mistakes; but as the OIG report recognizes, the FBI has taken major steps to improve protections and reduce their number.Conclusion Congress authorized the FBI to use NSLs in counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations. Both OIG reports related to the FBI's use of NSLs unequivocally state that NSLs are an indispensable tool in national security investigations. Law enforcement officials, working closely with the intelligence community, need the tools contained within those authorized NSLs to keep Americans safe and to prevent future terrorist attacks. 2NC/1NR Extensions: StingRay Link The current state of national security in the United States makes data collection measures like StingRay necessary. Banning them will destroy our ability to fight terrorism and protect our citizens. Sulmasy 13 (Glenn Sulmasy 2013 for CNN “Why We Need Government Surveillance” Online http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/10/opinion/sulmasy-nsa-snowden/) The current threat by al Qaeda and jihadists is one that requires aggressive intelligence collection and efforts. One has to look no further than the disruption of the New York City subway bombers (the one being touted by DNI Clapper) or the Boston Marathon bombers to know that the war on al Qaeda is coming home to us, to our citizens, to our students, to our streets and our subways.This 21st century war is different and requires new ways and methods of gathering information. As technology has increased, so has our ability to gather valuable, often actionable, intelligence. However, the move toward "home-grown" terror will necessarily require, by accident or purposefully, collections of U.S. citizens' conversations with potential overseas persons of interest.An open society, such as the United States, ironically needs to use this technology to protect itself. This truth is naturally uncomfortable for a country with a Constitution that prevents the federal government from conducting "unreasonable searches and seizures." American historical resistance towards such activities is a bedrock of our laws, policies and police procedures.But what might have been reasonable 10 years ago is not the same any longer. The constant armed struggle against the jihadists has adjusted our beliefs on what we think our government can, and must, do in order to protect its citizens.However, when we hear of programs such PRISM, or the Department of Justice getting phone records of scores of citizens without any signs of suspicious activities nor indications of probable cause that they might be involved in terrorist related activities, the American demand for privacy naturally emerges to challenge such "trolling" measures or data-mining.The executive branch, although particularly powerful in this arena, must ensure the Congress is kept abreast of activities such as these surveillance programs. The need for enhanced intelligence activities is a necessary part of the war on al Qaeda, but abuse can occur without ensuring the legislative branch has awareness of aggressive tactics such as these.Our Founding Fathers, aware of the need to have an energetic, vibrant executive branch in foreign affairs, still anticipated checks upon the presidency by the legislature. Working together, the two branches can ensure that both legally, and by policy, this is what the citizens desire of their government -- and that leaks such as Snowden's won't have the impact and damage that his leaks are likely to cause.As for Snowden, regardless of how any of us feel about the national security surveillance programs at issue, he must be extradited back to the U.S. for interviews and potential trial -- if for no other reason than to deter others from feeling emboldened to break the law in the same way in the future. Phone surveillance is necessary; arguments to the contrary ignore the very real threat of a terrorist attack. Walpin 13 (Gerald Walpin for The National Review “We Need NSA Surveillance” Online http://www.nationalreview.com/article/355959/we-need-nsa-surveillance-gerald-walpin) After repeatedly, and correctly, proclaiming that phone and e-mail surveillance by the NSA is both necessary and constitutional, the president has succumbed to left and libertarian pressure: He has proposed installation in NSA of “a full-time civil-liberties and privacy officer” and other mechanisms in “the transparency community.” A “transparency community” within an “intelligence community” is an unworkable oxymoron. Any “civil-liberties and privacy” officer installed in NSA would, to show that he is performing, have to impede intelligence activities — a burden we do not need in our already difficult war on terrorism. Our Constitution’s authors and proponents warned against bowing to the sort of demagoguery that lies behind attacks on the NSA program as an unconstitutional invasion of our rights. The Federalist Papers — the bible of the Constitution’s meaning — warn at the outset (No. 1) of those who invoke supposed rights of the people to oppose the government’s efforts to defeat an enemy seeking to destroy us: “A dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people, than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.” Continuing, “Publius” (probably Alexander Hamilton) explains why: “History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing Demagogues and ending Tyrants.” This warning is repeated: The Government’s “powers” for “the common defense . . . ought to exist without limitation: because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them” (No. 23). Again, our Founding Fathers opposed “every project that is calculated to disarm the government of a single weapon, which in any possible contingency might be usefully employed for the general defense and security” (No. 36). Abraham Lincoln reiterated that view when attacked for violating constitutional rights by suspending habeas corpus: “Would not the official oath be broken, if the government should be overthrown, when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it?” Our Founders’ and Lincoln’s teaching is even stronger when applied to the NSA: Its surveillance program violates no constitutional provision. It examines only the addressee and sender on e-mails, and telephone numbers called and called from. The Supreme Court has long held that such information is not privacy-protected by the Fourth Amendment. As a former federal prosecutor, I often obtained such evidence, through law-enforcement tools known as pen registers and mail covers. Consider this real-life event: Over weeks, twelve jewelry stores in different locations are robbed, apparently by one group of unidentified robbers. Police obtain from telephone companies cell-phone records to locate any phone(s) used within 30 minutes’ distance of each robbery. Analyzing the data, they identify robbery suspects. No claim of “violation” of constitutional rights would void the suspects’ conviction. No reason to treat better those attempting to destroy this country. That enemy exists, the evidence for it consisting of 3,000 lives lost on 9/11, the Boston Marathon massacre, and even the unsuccessful terrorist attacks on our airplanes and at Times Square. The NSA program is logical. Our intelligence people know phone numbers or area codes used by terrorists in various world locations. Wouldn’t you want our intelligence services to know who in the United States called those numbers and area codes and to examine the information to determine whether those calls were innocent or not? I certainly would. If this program had been applied to identify the Boston bombers, that attack could have been prevented. Apparently recognizing that their constitutional argument on the NSA program itself is meritless, many opponents insist on a slippery slope of imagined horribles. They assert that, while using sender and recipient identities for security purposes is lawful, possessing the content of the messages would enable that to be used too, unconstitutionally — despite NSA’s denial that it has been done, and despite the absence of contrary evidence. That imagined horrible is akin to depriving all soldiers and police officers of their guns because it is conceivable that some power-hungry president or governor could, in the future, employ armed soldiers or police to seize autocratic power. Imagined horribles do not supersede the reality of terrorists seeking to destroy us. StingRay type surveillance is necessary. Banning it will destroy our ability to fight terrorism and protect our citizens. Sulmasy 13 (Glenn Sulmasy 2013 for CNN “Why We Need Government Surveillance” Online http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/10/opinion/sulmasy nsasnowden/) The current threat by al Qaeda and jihadists is one that requires aggressive intelligence collection and efforts. One has to look no further than the disruption of the New York City subway bombers (the one being touted by DNI Clapper) or the Boston Marathon bombers to know that the war on al Qaeda is coming home to us, to our citizens, to our students, to our streets and our subways.This 21st century war is different and requires new ways and methods of gathering information. As technology has increased, so has our ability to gather valuable, often actionable, intelligence. However, the move toward "homegrown" terror will necessarily require, by accident or purposefully, collections of U.S.   citizens' conversations with potential overseas persons of interest. An open society, such as the United States, ironically needs to use this technology to protect itself. This truth is naturally uncomfortable for a country with a Constitution that prevents the federal government from conducting "unreasonable searches and seizures." American historical resistance towards such activities is a bedrock of our laws, policies and police procedures.But what might have been reasonable 10 years ago is not the same any longer. The constant armed struggle against the jihadists has adjusted our beliefs on what we think our government can, and must, do in order to protect its citizens. However, when we hear of programs such PRISM, or the Department of Justice getting phone records of scores of citizens without any signs of suspicious activities nor indications of probable cause that they might be involved in terrorist related activities, the American demand for privacy naturally emerges to challenge such "trolling" measures or datamining.The executive branch, although particularly powerful in this arena, must ensure the Congress is kept abreast of activities such as these surveillance programs. The need for enhanced intelligence activities is a necessary part of the war on al Qaeda, but abuse can occur without ensuring the legislative branch has awareness of aggressive tactics such as these.Our Founding Fathers, aware of the need to have an energetic, vibrant executive branch in foreign affairs, still anticipated checks upon the presidency by the legislature. Working together, the two branches can ensure that both legally, and by policy, this is what the citizens desire of their government and that leaks such as Snowden's won't have the impact and damage that his leaks are likely to cause.As for Snowden, regardless of how any of us feel about the national security surveillance programs at issue, he must be extradited back to the U.S. for interviews and potential trial if for no other reason than to deter others from feeling emboldened to break the law in the same way in the future.
2NC/1NR Extensions: StingRay Link Information we get from surveillance is vital to preventing terrorist plots, which are even more complex after 9/11. A ban would weaken our defenses. Hirsh 2013 [Michael Hirsh, chief correspondent, the National Journal, “The Next Bin Laden,” http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/thenextbin laden20131114, November 14 2013] Ever since the death of Osama bin Laden, President Obama and his senior lieutenants have been telling warweary Americans that the end of the nation’s longest conflict is within sight. “Core alQaida is a shell of its former self,” Obama said in a speech in May. “This war, like all wars, must end.” That was the triumphal tone of last year’s reelection campaign, too.The truth is much grimmer. Intelligence officials and terrorism experts today believe that the death of bin Laden and the decimation of the Qaida “core” in Pakistan only set the stage for a rebirth of alQaida as a global threat. Its tactics have morphed into something more insidious and increasingly dangerous as safe havens multiply in wartorn or failed states—at exactly the moment we are talking about curtailing the National Security Agency’s monitoring capability. And the jihadist who many terrorism experts believe is alQaida’s new strategic mastermind, Abu Musab alSuri (a nom de guerre that means “the Syrian”), has a diametrically different approach that emphasizes quantity over quality. The redhaired, blueeyed former mechanical engineer was born in Aleppo in 1958 as Mustafa Setmariam Nasar; he has lived in France and Spain. AlSuri is believed to have helped plan the 2004 train bombings in Madrid and the 2005 bombings in London—and has been called the “Clausewitz” of the new al Qaida.Whereas bin Laden preached big dramatic acts directed by him and senior Qaida leaders, alSuri urges the creation of selfgenerating cells of lone terrorists or small groups in his 1,600page Internet manifesto. They are to keep up attacks, like multiplying fleas on a dog that finds itself endlessly distracted—and ultimately dysfunctional. (A classic Western book on guerrilla warfare called The War of the Flea reportedly influenced alSuri.) The attacks are to culminate, he hopes, in acts using weapons of mass destruction. Recent terrorist attacks against U.S. targets, from the murderous 2009 spree of Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood to the Boston Marathon bombings last year, suggest that alSuri’s philosophy dominates alQaida’s newly flattened hierarchy. The late YemeniAmerican imam Anwar alAwlaki, who preached this strategy and induced Hasan’s attack, is said to have developed his ideas from alSuri’s. Meanwhile, with new refuges in North Africa, Syria, and Yemen, jihadists have much more territory from which to hatch plots unmolested.Yet the politics at home are changing as the threat abroad is growing. The revelations dribbled out by fugitive leaker Edward Snowden have outraged members of Congress and world leaders, including those of close allies such as Germany and France. They say they are aghast at American overreach. Writing in Der Spiegel, Snowden justified himself this way: “Instead of causing damage, the usefulness of the new public knowledge for society is now clear, because reforms to politics, supervision, and laws are being suggested.” Thanks to him, Congress will almost certainly rein in the National Security Agency’s datatrolling methods—though it’s not yet clear how much.But the agency’s opponents may not realize that the practice they most hope to stop—its seemingly indiscriminate scouring of phone data and emails—is precisely what intelligence officials say they need to detect the kinds of plots alSuri favors. For the foreseeable future, alSuri’s approach will mean more terrorist attacks against more targets—albeit with a much lower level of organization and competence. “It’s harder to track. Future attacks against the homeland will be less sophisticated and less lethal, but there’s just going to be more of them,” says Michael Hayden, the former NSA director who steered the agency after 9/11 toward deep dives into Internet and telephonic data. Adds Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, “I think alQaida’s capabilities for a strike into the United States are more dangerous and more numerous than before 9/11.” For better or worse, the only hope to track them all is an exceptionally deep, organized, and freeranging intelligence apparatus, experts say.Intelligence officials who are well briefed in the technical aspects of NSA surveillance also note that global communications are vastly more complex than they were as recently as 9/11, not just in terms of speed and bandwidth but also in the kinds of digital paths they can take. Messages can travel partly by air and partly by cable, for example, and the NSA must keep up. “If you take the diffuse physical environment [of more failedstate havens] and you layer that with the diffuse communications environment, and then you layer that with the diffuse ideological environment—more lone wolves, for example—that makes for a far more generally dangerous environment,” says a knowledgeable U.S. government official who asked to remain anonymous. All of which means that despite very legitimate questions about whether the National Security Agency is going beyond what the law and Constitution allow, Americans probably need the NSA now more than ever. 2NC/1NR Extensions: StingRay Link Without Stingray style surveillance devices, terrorists will be able to remain anonymous Gamma Group 11 (manufacturer of a Stingray style device. “3GGSM Tactical Interception and Target Location” https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/810727772gammagroupcatalogue3ggsmtactical.html) Cellular networks have created a haven for criminals and terrorists. Over GSM & 3G networks, criminals and terrorist can remain anonymous, able to continue illegal activities on a global scale without fear of action because:
Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2015 2015 -> Police Militarization 2015 -> 2015 ihbb championships: hs history Bowl Round 4 – Prelims First Quarter 2015 -> Wrtp/big step · 3841 W. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, wi 53208 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 December 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Darton College 2015 -> Training Workshop on Planning and Implementation of Multi-Sectoral Development Programme (MsDP) in Bihar Date : 6th 2015 -> Rao bulletin 15 June 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 September 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 August 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Science, and transportation united states senate Download 1.69 Mb. Share with your friends:
|