Resolved: Wikileaks has threatened U.S. National Security

NC, AC, Extensions 1. Assange = good guy --> My opponent assumes that Assange has best interests at heart. Since this is unverifiable, we cannot accept the person as a warrant himself when his corporation is the center of multiple breaches of security and is being indicted. If the Assange is the guardsman of rights, who checks the guardsman? --> This point has no relevant link to the resolution. The resolution is asking if by wikileaks actions national security has been compromised. It doesnt matter if my opponent views assange as good or bad. The two are not mutually exclusive. Wikileaks could do good stuff, whilat the same time causing harm to national security. --> (Turn) Wikileaks posted clearly unnecessary information about sites, some not even dealing with the military but communication centers and health centers that could be targeted by terrorists. This directly affects the war on terror due to the fact that vital strategic centers are now at risk. Right Vision News, December 8, 2010, p. online A long list of key facilities around the world that the US describes as vital to its national security has been released by Wikileaks.The US State Department in February 2009 asked all US missions abroad to list all installations whose loss could critically affect US national security.The list includes pipelines, communication and transport hubs.Several UK sites are listed, including cable locations, satellite sites and BAE Systems plants.This is probably the most controversial document yet from the Wikileaks organisation. The definition of US national security revealed by the cable is broad and all embracing.In addition to obvious pieces of strategic infrastructure like communications hubs, gas pipelines and so on, it contains, amongst other things, a cobalt mine in Congo, an anti-snake venom factory in Australia and an insulin plant in Denmark.The US missions were asked to list all installations whose loss could critically impact the public health, economic security or national security of the United States. In Britain, for example, the list ranges from Cornwall to Scotland, including key satellite communications sites and the places where trans-Atlantic cables make landfall. Daily Mirror 2010: A number of BAE Systems plants involved in joint weapons programmes with the Americans are listed, along with a marine engineering firm in Edinburgh which is said to be "critical" for nuclear powered submarines. 2. Wikileaks doesnt undermine critical information exchange --> None of his last responses had to do with information exchange. It was just a restatement that wikileaks is a check --> EXTEND the Schoenfield analysis: countries will be less likely to reach the U.S. in cooperation due to their own interests might be at stake. --> EXTEND the Grand Rapid Press evidence: this provides empirics to this analysis. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan along with other nations are now apprehensive about sharing intelligence on terrorist activities. Pakisan is a crucial ally because they give us intel about terrorists in the FATA region. But due to wikileaks has remained silent on the issue. --> He again argues that diplomats would still have private cabels. If this were true, why would they release a cabal involving U.S. distaste with German Chancellor Merckle, or about a location of a Pakistani nuclear facility? He puts all his faith into an organization with its own agenda. At least on my side, I am protecting against threats against national security, whereas he is not. German Minister --> Ok...so the German Minister says it isnt a threat? Impact? Robert Gates --> The Department of Defense, the CIA, and the State Department all differ on the issue. The State Department links better to the AC argument because the State Department deals specifically with diplomacy and cable exchange. The DoD does not. Argument lacks any link. Wikileaks = news agencies --> Other news agencies would be indicted for using stolen information --> No impact. Who cares? If AC proves link to harm, you still vote pro 2. Points 2 and 3 irrelevant --> Cross-apply Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Points 2 and 3 deal specifically with the war on terror. --> Your check on government analysis has no warrant to it, plus you provide no brink evidence to the harm --> EXTEND Arlacchi evidence and the the State Department Evidence --> Extend the Zimmerman Evidence: Impact - as long s the AC is winning a minimal link to the impact, you still vote AC since the NC has provided no concrete material, empirics or analysis, besides simple assertions to warrant his point. Thus, any link that the AC wins to terror wins the round *What I explicitly extended, he dropped. Dont give him the ability to respond to it, since it skews the AC strategy. But at this point, NC is winning no offense anywhere in the round*