Americans should demand the Patriot act and the NDAA be repealed

I am genuinely impressed at their knowledge of war on terror legislation, and have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion. With that in mind, since my opponent conceded argument number one, I would like to focus on their final two arguments. 2. Repealing the specific offending provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and the 2012 NDAA would be better than leaving them in place. I'm an avid poker player, so I think why this concept is incorrect might be best explained with a card game analogy. The President and the American people are sitting at the poker table. There are three aces down, and one more needed to win the hand. However, the last ace in the deck has already been played, and discarded. The President makes a move to pull another ace out of his sleeve, and Casino security (Congress) catches him red-handed, throws the card away (repeals the 2012 NDAA), and then. .. walks away from the table. One problem. .. the President has an entire deck full of aces (claimed powers) to play, and will win the hand every time. Better yet, the American people won't catch it, because they have been told by Casino security that everything is now alright. Repealing the detention provisions of the 2012 NDAA is like taking away one of the President's aces. Until an official body completely prohibits the powers of the law of war, there will always be another ace to play, and taking away one ace not only doesn't do the American people a lick of good, it gives them a false sense of security that the President has no more aces to play. .. which only makes it easier to play those aces at any time. Repealing the NDAA makes it easier to detain someone using the military, because it leaves people with a false sense of security while doing nothing to prohibit the claimed powers. That's why it shouldn't be repealed. 3. My opponent states: "In the recent Boston bombing, the city was in a de facto state of martial law. The military and local law enforcement locked down the city and conducted warrantless searches of peoples homes. The government used the word "terrorist" and local law enforcement was more than willing not only to cooperate but assist in the illegal searches. The Boston bombing was proof that local law enforcement will go along with illegal activities conducted by the government under the premise of catching "terrorists". " There are two parts to my opponent's statement. The first is somewhat confusing. My opponent essentially saying that we shouldn't makes something illegal because people will just ignore it. If we were to follow this logic, there should be no laws against murder. There should be no laws against theft. There should be no laws against assault. Obviously, this is not a society any of us would want to live, because it is a society without standards. Yet my opponent wants to also repeal the offending provisions of both the USA PATRIOT Act and the 2012 NDAA, which would be in their mind removing the legal cover given to such unConstitutional activity. Removing the legal cover is making something (il)legal, therefore my opponent is contradicting himself. The second is assuming that local law enforcement would cooperate regardless of the law, unlike the Federal government. Essentially, if the 2012 NDAA were repealed, the Federal government would not use the claimed power, but if a local jurisdiction were to do the same, they would ignore their own statements and help the Federal government anyway. Even though this concern stretches beyond the scope of the original debate assertion, which I have proven false by showing that repealing the provisions above was more likely to cause harm than do nothing, and definitely would not help, I it is still misguided. It is well known that people defend the lives and liberties of those closest to them. This is why, in war, it is desirable to make the enemy faceless, evil, and nothing more than a dog in the minds of the soldier. The closer a soldier gets to interacting in a peaceful manner with those they are told are their "enemies," the less likely he is to murder, assault, and hurt them. . http://www.davidbirkin.co.uk... (P. 2-3) Once they understand the threat, local police are much more likely to defend their citizens than a federal agent, or member of the Armed Forces. Especially in a small town. Is it easier to detain and murder your neighbor, or a faceless human being someone called a "terrorist? " Further, it is much easier to pressure local police to uphold the law than it is to pressure a Federal agency to do the same, and much easier to punish the former for violating it. Local police will face pressure from citizens who helped make the activity unlawful in the first place. Local police will face pressure from elected officials, such as a city council, who passed the law in the first place. When and if that law is violated, local police will face angry citizens, while Federal agents will go home to a place where no one knows what they did. Local police may face a high-pressure lawsuit, and could lose the trust of the public, which they rely on, while Federal agents face no personal or professional repercussions for doing a job in a city 800 miles away. My opponent points to Boston as the reason local police are likely to cooperate with Federal agents when asked to violate another's rights. Boston is not anywhere near a good example because: 1. There was no local law on the books banning that action, as I advocated. 2. Since a law had not been passed banning that action, the support necessary to get a law passed was not there, and thus there was little to no local opposition. 3. Since a law had not been passed banning that action, police officers assumed there would be no repercussions for the wholesale violation of rights. This led them to take these actions without the pause and second thought breaking the law ensures. Even further, Federal agents, for the reasons I outlined above, are STILL more likely to violate our rights than a local officer. Thus, the correct, more effective, and workable tactic is to focus on local government and local police to reject the law, having a much better chance at success than repealing the law at a Federal level. To recap, I again note my original my points of contention. 1. Neither of these laws are wholly unConstitutional. 2. Repealing the 2012 NDAA would have no effect on the powers within, and therefore be a wasted effort. 3. Repealing federal laws in general is not effective or a worthy use of time, and particularly with laws related to National Security, has not made nearly any progress since 9-11. It would be better for the American people to demand their states and local governments recognize the law as unConstitutional and refuse to allow it to be enforced if the end goal is to block the power from being utilized. Since neither of these statements has been effectively answered, and my opponent conceded the first, it is now up to the debate. org community to pick the winner.