Resolved: The benefits of domestic surveillance by the NSA outweigh the harms.

"On Peter Bergan's quote, he says 'traditional law enforcement methods have played the biggest role' but isn't the domestic surveillance by the NSA traditional? They have been monitoring the American people since the agency started in 1952."I feel this should be obvious to anyone reading this debate, but I feel the need to emphasize that Pro is here resorting to equivocation and sophistry to draw attention away from a valid point. Peter Bergan was clearly contrasting the use of the NSA's invasive data-mining practices with traditional law enforcement (bear in mind, the NSA is not a law-enforcement agency) techniques like stakeouts, informants, and interrogations. This is very strong evidence that the NSA's claims of having foiled many (or even any) terrorist attacks are just so much hot air. "On analyst Schneier's quote, the only point being made is that the ability to find terrorism plots is difficult. However, nowhere in the quote does it say it is impossible. The NSA has been able to foil plots since it first began (which is my next point) and they have overcome that obstacle."It should also be obvious that this difficulty, pointed out by an acknowledged global expert in the field, demonstrates that the current dearth of NSA success stories is unlikely to change. The NSA has been successful in the past. The NSA was highly successful in the Cold War. However, their current techniques are much less discriminate and discerning than in the past, and they currently maintain a Cold-War mentality that has ruinous effects on the civil liberties of Americans. "'In the fight against terrorism, intelligence-sharing is essential,' said Jean-Louis Bruguire, who served for more than two decades as a top French antiterror magistrate before retiring in 2007. (He declined to discuss the NSA's role in investigations.) 'Cooperation with American services has always been trusting and excellent.'"Please note that I'm not disputing that international cooperation is necessary. However, this quote says nothing about the need for the invasive methods used by the NSA and FBI that violate American rights. "In conclusion, because the NSA domestic surveillance program has foiled terrorism plots according to NUMEROUS sources, and the con has never presented an argument himself (other than against my case), I can only see a pro ballot. The con has not presented any harms, so the benefits must outweigh the 'nonexistent harms'. Thank you. "I'm glad you emphasized the word numerous, because it gives me an excuse to talk about etymology, which is something of a hobby of mine. The word numerous comes from the Latin numerus, meaning "a number." Now, two is certainly a number; however, two sources certainly does not meet the standard for having "NUMEROUS sources."You point out that I haven't mentioned any harms. I shouldn't have to: the burden of proof is on those who wish to claim that infringing on the rights of others is the right course of action. However, because I have a bit of space left, I will.The NSA and FBI violate 4th Amendment rights to be safe against unreasonable search. This gives the United States Executive Branch unreasonable and unconstitutional amounts of power. If they were only ever using this for fighting terrorism and it was literally impossible to use it for any other purpose, I might even accept this. However, they aren't.http://www.reuters.com...The FBI, DEA, and IRS use illegally-collected data to form the basis for seemingly-above-board investigations. I don't have much space left, so I'll just give a quick example. The NSA sees a text from you to your medical marijuana provider saying you'll buy ten grams. The friendly neighborhood DEA agent "just happens" to see "something suspicious" in your window, so they get a search warrant. This is a gross violation of your 4th Amendment rights.The "benefits" of NSA domestic surveillance do not outweigh the imposition on civil liberties.