TT2 Expert Final: U.S. militia groups pose a greater threat to our national security than do FTOs

Thanks, Whiteflame, for a superb debate! CON's CASEHistory of HarmBy the numbersTrends 1 + 2. Pro has failed to justify why this trend is going to continue--we can't simply assume that it will. Con needs to show why it will continue since he is the one making claiming that it's valid. Regardless, attacks against U.S. diplomats (a prime target of FTOs) have been falling [20], USMGs are becoming more active and numerous, [12] and right-wing terror in the U.S. is said to be "resurgent." [32] These are all reasons to believe that the trend isn't going to continue. From Con's own source: Regarding the CNN source, it provides links to its own sources within its text. If Con had clicked on the words "by contrast" he could've looked at the primary source data. Thus, Con's main objection here is moot. Con also says I over-limit the data and that we can't delineate between attacks on troops abroad and our national security. Again, though, threats to the way we protect national security and threat to national security are different; if I am a random lunatic who kills a soldier, I am not threatening national security as an institution, even though I've harmed the way we protect national security. The two concepts are distinct.3. Con agrees on a holistic assessment.4. I do provide evidence on how USMGs are becoming more of a threat. Fear 1. The FBI writes, USMGs target "law enforcement personnel, representatives of the courts, and other public officials, along with government buildings." [13] This expert analysis should be preferred here.2. USMGs are not the primary focus of the counterterrorism effort; that means that they will continue to proliferate with less hindrance from authorities until one of their big attacks works. In the meantime, they will continue to engage in small attacks that slowly add to their body count. Con says that many USMG attacks are disrupted by law-enforcement--this is non-unique, as many FTO attacks are disrupted too. [20, 21] 3. Con's evidence from 2009 is too old as the trend that it is attempting to establish is void due to the recent proliferation of USMGs. The fact that USMGs are violent hasn't changed. I can cite several incidents, such as the Oklahoma City Bombing, the attempted Cyanide Bombing, an attempt to kill dozens of police officers in Michigan, and a shooting spree at the Holocaust Memorial Museum, that all underscore the potential for explosive violence. [12]4. PTSD is not an impact weighable under the resolution. Con never disputes that fear does not indicate an actual threat to national security. Also remember that post 9/11, the nation was incredibly united against terrorism--9/11 did more to galvanize the War on Terror than anything else. In that sense, FTOs have only made us stronger. My evidence shows that USMGs are organized groups that are often racist. [12] The Islamophobia that FTOs have inspired in the U.S. (Con never denies that FTOs have intensified anti-Muslim feeling in the U.S) is only stoking the fires of racist USMGs. So international terrorism does promote organized domestic terrorism.MediaCon drops that right-wing media is promoting radical ideology. Propaganda about how government is a threat to our liberty has measurably increased fear of the federal government. 37% of voters now fear it and 54% consider it a threat to liberty (up from just 45% in 2012). [33] The danger here is that this fear will fuel anti-government USMGs.Gravity of AttacksI already defended my CNN evidence.Not all weapons owned by USMGs are illegal, probable cause would still be needed to search stockpiles, and only some of the offenders are caught. There are likely stockpiles out there that have not yet been discovered. Just look at the massive amount of weaponry present at the Bundy Ranch--it shows that USMGs can muster large amounts of weaponry and men within U.S. borders. Con has not shown that FTOs have any comparable capability. In fact, my evidence shows that of all 200 FTO members caught in the U.S., a single USMG was better armed. [12] Con says this doesn't show that FTOs lack arms, but it does imply that FTO members have fewer weapons inside the U.S.Going ForwardCon has offered no evidence to suggest that FTOs have been able to smuggle weapons in significant amounts into the U.S. In fact, my earlier source about the 200 FTO members implies that they can't. Also, the border is more secure than it was 20 years ago, and tighter security is credited "for one-third of the drop in migration between the late 1990s and 2010." [34] So yes, distance does hinder FTOs ability to attack the U.S. because it is getting progressively harder for people to penetrate our borders.Con's source says the NSA wiretapped citizens making overseas phone calls or who had known associations with FTOs; that's inside the NSA's purview. However, the NSA cannot randomly intercept domestic communications, such as those of USMGs. [35] Con asserts that no one in the U.S. government is supporting USMGs. Yet, my source reads, "LePage and [the USMG] discussed...the group's push to have two top Democrats in the legislature...arrested for 'high treason.' In response, LePage then apparently said 'they"re talking about hanging them.'" Gov. LePage then helped the group "in their effort to make this happen by trying to enlist a county sheriff to intervene with the state attorney general." [16] I showed last round indicates that FTOs are no longer focusing on the U.S., and Con never disputes that FTOs engage in infighting as well, so that's non-unique.NBCsI talked about Nuclear weapons in R4.1. Con's source 26 never says that NBCs are likely to fall into FTO hands from states; Con's source 27 is a Russian News Agency that supports Assad, and claims that Assad's opponents used NBCs--it's not a credible source. Con's source number 5 admits that there is no trend indicating that FTOs will successfully acquire NBCs.2. I already defended this.3. My source 12 warrants it.Lastly, even if FTOs acquired NBCs, Con has offered no credible evidence that they could effectively use NBCs.VOTING ISSUES1. Trends Con dropped evidence that showed that USMGs have been emboldened since the Bundy Ranch incident, [7] that USMGs were more numerous and vastly more active since 2008, [12] that the DHS considers right-wing terror to be "resurgent," [32] and that in the last four years, domestic terror plots have dramatically increased in number. [1] I've also shown that right-wing terrorists have killed more people since 2001 than FTOs or their followers. [15] These are all reasons to believe that USMGs are becoming more and more of a threat. Conversely, FTOs are becoming less of a threat; Con concedes that attacks on diplomats are declining [20], and I've shown evidence that the U.S. is becoming more able to respond to terror [25] and Con has show evidence that international terrorism is actually in decline. [21] Con talks about the importance of trends; the trends actually show that USMGs are waxing and FTOs are waning. 2. USMGs are harder to Combat Con agrees that U.S. citizens have privacy rights, and his one attempt to rebut this (the NSA example) failed because Con's source showed that U.S. citizens were only directly targeted when they had known ties to FTOs. Therefore, there is no real evidence against the fact that the privacy rights of USMGs hinder government's ability to surveil and respond to threats posed by them, whereas the government faces no such restrictions in dealing with FTOs. 3. USMGs' Proximity To first attack the homeland, FTOs must get through our borders or inspire converts. Many lone wolves associated with FTOs are targets for the NSA because they have those associations. Our borders are more secure than they've been in years, and Con has offered no evidence to show that an FTO could successfully carry out another larger-scale attack in the United States. USMGs, however, are already here. Their lone wolves are targets for surveillance and they have stockpiles of weapons and hundreds of men already within our borders. These are all advantages that USMGs have which FTOs don't. 4. Political Influence USMGs and extreme right-wing ideologues have been garnering increasing influence in the United States. [14] They have even involved high level government officials in plots to hold illegal kangaroo courts to try elected officials for "high treason." [16] Their influence in certain quarters of our political landscape in itself makes them dangerous as they can leverage this influence to try to prosecute terror. 5. USMGs are better Armed Con has not shown that FTOs are likely to attain NBCs--at most, Con has shown that in extremely rare cases NBCs can be acquired. Con does not even respond to my evidence about how unlikely it is that FTOs could attain nuclear weapons. I have shown that USMGs have not only acquired NBCs, but have possessed them within U.S. borders. [15] Also, besides NBCs, USMGs are likely to be better armed within the U.S. They have stockpiles of weapons, whereas known FTO associates were lightly armed by comparison. [12] Since Con offers no competing evidence to show that FTOs are actually better armed, prefer mine. The trends favor USMGs. USMGs exist within our borders, are protected by our due process and gun rights, and are militantly anti-government. They are well-positioned to use their caches of weapons, paramilitary training, and fanaticism to carry out devastating attacks within the U.S. Also, in the past 13 years, USMGs have killed more people in the U.S. than have FTOs. Thus, USMGs are the bigger threat. Please VOTE PRO! Thank you!SOURCES33 - http://www.rasmussenreports.com...34 - http://www.economist.com...35 - https://www.hsdl.org...