Resolution resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance. Violations

RESOLUTION

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance.

VIOLATIONS

COMMON CRIMINAL SURVEILLANCE NOT TOPICAL

T – NOT DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE

A. COMMON CRIMES ARE NOT MATTERS OF DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE

1. DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE IS INTELLIGENCE GATHERING

The modifers "foreign" and "domestic" distinguish the type of security threat, not the geographic location of the surveillance

Before one can make any sort of assessment of domestic surveillance policies, it is first necessary to narrow the scope of the term “domestic surveillance.” Domestic surveillance is a subset of intelligence gathering. Intelligence, as it is to be understood in this context, is “information that meets the stated or understood needs of policy makers and has been collected, processed and narrowed to meet those needs” (Lowenthal 2006, 2). In essence, domestic surveillance is a means to an end; the end being intelligence. The intelligence community best understands domestic surveillance as the acquisition of nonpublic information concerning United States persons (Executive Order 12333 (3.4) (i)). With this definition domestic surveillance remains an overly broad concept. This paper’s analysis, in terms of President Bush’s policies, focuses on electronic surveillance; specifically, wiretapping phone lines and obtaining caller information from phone companies. Section f of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 defines electronic surveillance as:

2. DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE IS DISTINCT FROM ORDINARY CRIME

The Review of Litigation Winter, 2004 23 Rev. Litig. 209 NOTE: Feeling Insecure?: United States v. Bin Laden and the Merits of a Foreign-Intelligence Exception For Searches Abroad lexis

Courts regularly deal with the most difficult issues of our society. There is no reason to believe that federal judges will be insensitive to or uncomprehending of the issues involved in domestic security cases. Certainly courts can recognize that domestic surveillance involves different considerations from the surveillance of "ordinary crime." If the threat is too subtle or complex for our senior law enforcement officers to convey its significance to a court, one may question whether there is probable cause for surveillance. n141
3. THE NATURE OF THE SURVEILLANCE IS DIFFERENT

Bazan 7 Elizabeth B. Bazan, Congressional Research Service Legislative Attorney, American Law Division

CRS Report The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: An Overview of the Statutory Framework and U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review Decisions

Updated February 15, 2007 https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL30465.pdf

Investigations for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence give rise to a tension between the Government’s legitimate national security interests and the protection of privacy interests.6 The stage was set for legislation to address these competing concerns in part by Supreme Court decisions on related issues. In Katz v. United States

, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Court held that the protections of the Fourth Amendment extended to circumstances involving electronic surveillance of oral communications without physical intrusion.7 The Katz Court stated, however, that its holding did not extend to cases involving national security.8 In United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) (the Keith case), the Court regarded Katz as “implicitly recogniz[ing] that the broad and unsuspected governmental incursions into conversational privacy which electronic surveillance entails necessitate the application of Fourth Amendment safeguards.”9 Mr. Justice Powell, writing for the Keith Court, framed the matter before the Court as follows:

The issue before us is an important one for the people of our country and their Government. It involves the delicate question of the President’s power, acting through the Attorney General, to authorize electronic surveillance in internal security matters without prior judicial approval. Successive Presidents for more than one-quarter of a century have authorized such surveillance in varying degrees, without guidance from the Congress or a definitive decision of this Court. This case brings the issue here for the first time. Its resolution is a matter of national concern, requiring sensitivity both to the Government’s right to protect itself from unlawful subversion and attack and to the citizen’s right to be secure in his privacy against unreasonable Government intrusion.10

The Court held that, in the case of intelligence gathering involving domestic security surveillance, prior judicial approval was required to satisfy the Fourth Amendment.11 Justice Powell emphasized that the case before it “require[d] no judgment on the scope of the President’s surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign

powers, within or without the country.”12 The Court expressed no opinion as to “the issues which may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents.”13 However, the guidance which the Court provided in

Keith with respect to national security surveillance in a domestic context to some degree presaged the approach Congress was to take in foreign intelligence surveillance. The Keith Court observed in part:

B. THE AFFIRMATIVE INTERPRETATION IS BAD FOR DEBATE

Limits are necessary for negative preparation and clash, and their interpretation makes the topic too big. Including surveillance of common crimes adds an entirely different legal regime with different laws, judicial standards, and other issues for THOUSANDS of different crimes.

C. T IS A VOTER because the opportunity to prepare promotes better debating

BORDER SURVEILLANCE NOT TOPICAL

T – NOT DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE

A. DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE IS SURVEILLANCE OF US PERSONS

Before one can make any sort of assessment of domestic surveillance policies, it is first necessary to narrow the scope of the term “domestic surveillance.” Domestic surveillance is a subset of intelligence gathering. Intelligence, as it is to be understood in this context, is “information that meets the stated or understood needs of policy makers and has been collected, processed and narrowed to meet those needs” (Lowenthal 2006, 2). In essence, domestic surveillance is a means to an end; the end being intelligence. The intelligence community best understands domestic surveillance as the acquisition of nonpublic information concerning United States persons (Executive Order 12333 (3.4) (i)). With this definition domestic surveillance remains an overly broad concept. This paper’s analysis, in terms of President Bush’s policies, focuses on electronic surveillance; specifically, wiretapping phone lines and obtaining caller information from phone companies. Section f of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 defines electronic surveillance as:

B. UNDOCUMENTED PERSONS ARE NOT US PERSONS

The Challenge of Domestic Intelligence in a Free Society RAND 2009 BRIAN A. JACKSON, EDITOR

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG804.pdf

3 Federal law and executive order define a U.S. person as “a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an unincorporated association with a substantial number of members who are citizens of the U.S. or are aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation that is incorporated in the U.S.” (NSA, undated). Although this definition would therefore allow information to be gathered on U.S. persons located abroad, our objective was to examine the creation of a domestic intelligence organization that would focus on—and whose activities would center around—individuals and organizations located inside the United States . Though such an agency might receive information about U.S. persons that was collected abroad by other intelligence agencies, it would not collect that information itself.

C. THE AFFIRMATIVE INTERPRETATION IS BAD FOR DEBATE

Limits are necessary for negative preparation and clash, and their interpretation makes the topic too big. Immigration is a huge area, big enough to be a topic itself, and all the issues are completely different.

D. T IS A VOTER because the opportunity to prepare promotes better debating

COMMUNICATION NOT WHOLLY IN THE US IS NOT TOPICAL

T – NOT DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE

A. COMMUNICATION NOT EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE US IS NOT DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE

2. ANY FOREIGN ELEMENT IS NOT DOMESTIC

Look, your tax dollars in action. Word wealth, SAT training class. As a public service, COUNTDOWN will now review, and, where applicable, provide translations of the White House take on what “domestic” means versus what “international” means, and then we‘ll add a few bonus examples of our own.

Quoting, “Deputy Director Of National Intelligence General Michael Hayden,” semicolon; “One End Of Any Call Targeted Under This Program Is Always Outside The United States.”

This is the glass-is-half-full view of warrantless eavesdropping, much as if a U.S. soldier, who, like the average human male, has about 12 pints of blood in his body, would lose six of those pints.

Critics of the NSA terrorist surveillance program would say, That soldier is half empty. The White House would remind you that that soldier is half full.

Anyway, the press release actually gives several examples of the differences between the meanings of these two words. “Definition, Domestic Versus International. Domestic Calls are calls inside the United States. International Calls are calls either to or from the United States.”

And don‘t forget to deposit $2 for the first five minutes, and an extra $2 to cover the cost of the guy listening in at the NSA.

“Domestic Flights,” the White House reminds us, “are flights from one American city to another. International Flights are flights to or from the United States.”

So what happens if I call a domestic airline about a flight to Europe, but they‘ve outsourced their reservation agents to India? Is that a domestic call about an international flight, or an international call about a domestic flight?

Wait, there‘s more. “Domestic Mail consists of letters and packages sent within the United States,” the press release reads. “International Mail consists of letters and packages sent to or from the United States.”

And don‘t forget, we can not only open either kind, kind if we damn well feel like it, but if you‘re using an international stamp and we need it for our collection, we‘re keeping it.

One more item from the press release, “Domestic Commerce involves business within the United States. International Commerce involves business between the United States and other countries.”

International commerce. You know, the kind of stuff Jack Abramoff did for the -- Huh, leave Abramoff out of it? Gotcha, sorry.

3. NSA TERRORISM SURVEILLANCE IS NSA NOT DOMESTIC

Mr. CASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to discuss the constitutional limitations on domestic surveillance.

I should make clear that I am speaking here on my own behalf.

Let me begin by stating that I believe President Bush was fully within his constitutional and statutory authority when he authorized the TSP. The President's critics have variously described this program as widespread, domestic and illegal. Based upon the published accounts, it is none of these things. Rather, it is a targeted program on the international communications of individuals engaged in an armed conflict with the United States and is fully consistent with FISA.

In assessing the Administration's actions here, it is important to highlight how narrow is the actual dispute over the NSA program. Few of the President's critics claim that he should not have ordered the interception of al-Qaida's global communications or that he needed the FISA Court's permission to intercept al-Qaida commu- nications abroad. It is only with respect to communications actually intercepted inside the United States or where the target is a United States person in the United States, that FISA is relevant at all to this national discussion.

B. THE AFFIRMATIVE INTERPRETATION IS BAD FOR DEBATE

Limits are necessary for negative preparation and clash, and their interpretation makes the topic too big. Including communications going outside or coming into the US expands the topic too much.

C. T IS A VOTER because the opportunity to prepare promotes better debating

FOREIGN SECURITY THREATS TO THE US NOT TOPICAL

T – NOT DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE

A. DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE DEALS WITH DOMESTIC SECURITY THREATS

1. FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC DISTINGUISHES THE THREATS, NOT THE LOCATION OF THE SURVEILLANCE

1. Foreign Intelligence Defined

The definition of "foreign intelligence" is critical to the constitutional analysis of the Protect America Act. The Act does not provide a different definition of "foreign intelligence" from the one provided in FISA; thus in interpreting the Protect America Act, FISA's definition of "foreign intelligence" applies. n84 In FISA's definition, "foreign" applies to the content of the information gathered, and not to the location in (or from) which the information is gathered, or the nationality of the sources from which it is gathered. n85 Instead, "foreign intelligence" means "information that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against ... " harms or clandestine operations against the United States. n86 The definition [*184] does not contain any language limiting the country from which the information may be collected. n87 Thus, while the Act's asserted purpose is to collect foreign intelligence, the Act's definition of foreign intelligence does not provide inherent protection against domestic surveillance - domestic surveillance is not precluded from the definition of foreign surveillance. How an act defines its terms, rather than the terms themselves out of context, dictates the Act's application; this is a critical point in understanding the Protect America Act's far-reaching implications.

2. SURVEILLANCE OF FOREIGN AGENTS IS NOT DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE, EVEN IF IN THE US

Eggen also continues the mainstream media’s propagandistic use of the term “domestic surveillance [or 'spying'] program.” In actuality, the electronic surveillance that the NSA is doing — i.e., eavesdropping on content of conversations — is not “domestic.” A call is not considered “domestic” just because one party to it happens to be inside the U.S., just as an investigation is not “domestic” just because some of the subjects of interest happen to reside inside our country. Mohammed Atta was an agent of a foreign power, al Qaeda. Surveilling him — had we done it — would not have been “domestic spying.”

That is, the Court understood what most Americans understand but what the media, civil libertarians and many members of Congress refuse to acknowledge: if we are investigating the activities of agents of foreign powers inside the United States, that is not DOMESTIC surveillance. It is FOREIGN counter-intelligence.

B. THE AFFIRMATIVE INTERPRETATION IS BAD FOR DEBATE

Limits are necessary for negative preparation and clash, and their interpretation makes the topic too big. They make the domestic limit meaningless. All surveillance becomes topical by their standards

C. T IS A VOTER because the opportunity to prepare promotes better debating

BANNING DRONES NOT TOPICAL

T – NOT CURTAIL SURVEILLANCE

A. INTERPRETATION

The topic requires the affirmative to reduce surveillance itself, not to just limit the methods of surveillance

1. CURTAIL MEANS DECREASE

B. PLAN VIOLATES

Limiting use of drones restricts the techniques for surveillance, but not the process itself. Nothing under the plan stops gathering information in other ways

C. THE AFFIRMATIVE INTERPRETATION IS BAD FOR DEBATE

Limits are necessary for negative preparation and clash, and their interpretation makes the topic too big. Permitting limits on methods of surveillance, but not surveillance itself, permits the affirmative to avoid the issues of less surveillance and forces the negative to debate a huge number of different techniques

18. The term "surveillance" is used in different ways. A literal definition of surveillance as "watching over" indicates monitoring the behaviour of persons, objects, or systems. However surveillance is not only a visual process which involves looking at people and things. Surveillance can be undertaken in a wide range of ways involving a variety of technologies. The instruments of surveillance include closed-circuit television (CCTV), the interception of telecommunications ("wiretapping"), covert activities by human agents, heat-seeking and other sensing devices, body scans, technology for tracking movement, and many others.

D. T IS A VOTER because the opportunity to prepare promotes better debating

REGULATIONS / STANDARDS NOT TOPICAL

T – NOT CURTAIL

A. CURTAIL REQUIRES THAT THE PLAN, ON FACE, REDUCES SURVEILLANCE

B. THE PLAN DOES NOT CURTAIL ON FACE

The plan itself does not cut short. Merely looking at the plan does not indicate a reduction. All surveillance could continue if it meets the regulatory standards. It could even increase. At most, there might be a decrease by effects, But not by the plan itself. Curtail goes beyond regulation

Ximex Delivery Express, Inc. (XDE) said the transportation agencies went beyond their mandate as the order does not regulate but instead "curtails" an individual's right to earn a living.

"[The new rules] deprive the owners of the fleets ... from pursuing what could be the only means of livelihood that they know," XDE said..

C. THE AFFIRMATIVE INTERPRETATION IS BAD FOR DEBATE

Limits are necessary for negative preparation and clash, and their interpretation makes the topic too big. Permitting reduction by effect is unlimiting. All sorts of things affect surveillance. For example, the economy affects government spending and budgeting for surveillance, and just about everything affects the economy.

D. T IS A VOTER because the opportunity to prepare promotes better debating

NOT SUBSTANTIALLY NOT TOPICAL

T – SUBSTANTIALLY

A. SUBSTANTIALLY REQUIRES AT LEAST A 2% REDUCTION --- THIS IS THE SMALLEST PERCENTAGE WE COULD FIND

 'Substantial" means "of real worth and importance; of considerable value; valuable." Bequest to charitable institution, making 1/48 of expenditures in state, held exempt from taxation; such expenditures constituting "substantial" part of its activities. Tax Commission of Ohio v. American Humane Education Soc., 181 N.E. 557, 42 Ohio App.

B. PLAN VIOLATES

It isn't even 2% of the billions of instances of surveillance that occur daily

Massive amounts of raw Internet traffic The NSA intercepts huge amounts of raw data, and stores billions of communication records per day in its databases. Using the NSA’s XKEYSCORE software, analysts can see “nearly everything a user does on the Internet” including emails, social media posts, web sites you visit, addresses typed into Google Maps, files sent, and more. Currently the NSA is only authorized to intercept Internet communications with at least one end outside the U.S., though the domestic collection program used to be broader. But because there is no fully reliable automatic way to separate domestic from international communications, this program also captures some amount of U.S. citizens’ purely domestic Internet activity, such as emails, social media posts, instant messages, the sites you visit and online purchases you make.

C. THE AFFIRMATIVE MUST DEFEND AN INTERPRETATION

They cannot just quibble with our deinition. They have to counter-define and defend the limits of their definition. Substantially must be given meaning

“Substantially. A relative and elastic term which should be interpreted in accordance with the context in which it isused. While it must be employed with care and discrimination, it must, nevertheless, be given effect.” 48

D. THE AFFIRMATIVE INTERPRETATION IS BAD FOR DEBATE

Limits are necessary for negative preparation and clash, and their interpretation makes the topic too big. Permitting minor changes like the plan permits a huge number of cases.

E. T IS A VOTER because the opportunity to prepare promotes better debating