Resolved: Post 9.11 security measures outweigh the harms to personel freedom

First i would like to state that i stand in the strong affirmation of Resolved: The benefits of post 9.11 security measures outweigh the harms to personal freedom. Contention 1. Is AgroTerrorism The potential of terrorist attacks against agricultural targets (agroterrorism) has increasingly captured the attention of national security analysts, especially after the events of September 11, 2001. In this context, agroterrorism is defined as the deliberate introduction of an animal or plant disease with the goal of generating fear, causing economic losses, and/or undermining stability. Agroterrorism is a subset of the more general issues of terrorism and bioterrorism (see CRS Report RL32521(pdf)). Although agroterrorism has been recognized as a possible threat for many years, the issue has received increased attention over the past year. Two bills, S. 427 and S. 430, have been introduced in the 108th Congress to improve preparedness for agroterrorism. On November 19, 2003, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs held heari ngs on agroterrorism. On January 30, 2004, the White House released a homeland security presidential directive, HSPD-9, to establish a national policy to protect against terrorist attacks on agriculture and food systems. On December 17, 2003, HSPD-7 added agriculture to the list of critical infrastructure for protection against terrorist attack. Now this is what you have to understand the u.s. agricultural industry produces over 100 Billion in pure profit gains and without these post 9.11 security measures we would have lost a key part of our econemy, heck you all know the economic mess were in right now just imagine if 2 or three attempts had gone through. It would have been disastrous for our econemy. Contention 2. Maslow's hierarchy of needs If your not familiar with this then just let me give you a brief overview- Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory of human needs it states that first for humanity to survive we need food, water, sex, sleep. then we need security of body and employment. Notice how FOOD COMES FIRST this is a key componet of my first two contentions basicly it's saying that food comes before security so you must vote for the affirmation because without food we would have nothing to secure and if we didn't have the security we wouldn't have survived. Contention 3. The Patriot Act Before 9/11, our law enforcement and intelligence agencies were limited by law in what information they could share with each other. The Patriot Act tore down that wall -- and officials have praised the act's value. As former Attorney General Janet Reno told the 9/11 commission, "Generally everything that's been done in the Patriot Act has been helpful, I think, while at the same time maintaining the balance with respect to civil liberties." And as Attorney General John Ashcroft's recent report to Congress makes clear, this change in the law has real, practical consequences. Information-sharing facilitated by the Patriot Act, for example, was critical to the successful dismantling of terror cells in Portland, Ore., Lackawanna, N.Y., and Virginia. Likewise, the information-sharing provisions contained in the act assisted the prosecution in San Diego of those involved with an al-Qaida drugs-for-weapons plot involving "Stinger" anti-aircraft missiles. It also aided in the prosecution of Enaam Arnaout, an individual who had a long-standing relationship with Osama bin Laden and who used his charity organization to obtain funds illicitly from unsuspecting Americans for terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaida, and to serve as a channel for people to contribute money knowingly to such groups. These are not trivial successes. On the contrary, they're part of an enormous, ongoing effort to protect America from further terrorist attacks. We cannot, of course, say that the Patriot Act alone can stop terrorism. But every time we successfully use the new tools at our disposal to thwart a terrorist organization, that's a victory. Yet, remarkably, some of these vital provisions allowing the exchange of information between law enforcement and intelligence agencies will expire at the end of next year. So here's a second truth: If Congress does nothing, then parts of the law will return to where they were on the day before 9/11 -- to a time when our government couldn't, by law, connect all the dots. Nobody wants a return to those days, but that is where we are headed if Congress does not set aside its partisan debates. But what of the abuses, you ask? Time for a third truth: There is no abuse of the Patriot Act. None. The Justice Department's inspector general (who is required by the Patriot Act to examine the use of the act and report any abuse twice a year) has reported that there have been no instances in which the Patriot Act has been invoked to infringe on civil rights or civil liberties. Others agree. For example, at a Judiciary Committee hearing on the Patriot Act, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California said: "I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me. My staff . . . asked (the ACLU) for instances of actual abuses. They . . . said they had none." So the fiction of abuse can be laid to rest. The government is not, to take but one popular myth, invading libraries and scouring your book records. It's a convenient fiction that calls to mind (as Joseph Bottum, a contributor to The Weekly Standard, has written) the appealing image of "white-haired and apple-cheeked (librarians) resisting as best they can the terrible forces of McCarthyism, evangelical Christian book-burning, middle-class hypocrisy, and Big Brother government." But no matter how appealing the image, it has no more reality than any good Hollywood movie. Government's obligation is a dual one: to provide security against violence and to preserve civil liberty. This is not a zero-sum game. We can achieve both goals if we empower government to do sensible things while exercising oversight to prevent any real abuses of authority. The Patriot Act, with its reasonable extension of authority to allow the government to act effectively with appropriate oversight rules, meets this goal. And the truth eventually catches up to the fiction. (Rosenzweig, an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University, is a senior legal research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.) So now you can clearly see that the patriot act has done nothing but do good things for America like "Find and detain 3 major terror cells." And notice how the how the America Civil Liberty Union "ACLU" when asked could not find ONE instance where an american citizen had been truely stripped of there liberties BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T! Now for the reasons encompassed i see no other alternative then to vote for that of the affirmation. Sources: http://www.spokesmanreview.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_hierarchy_of_needs