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

THESIS: The harm of NSA domestic surveillance outweighs the benefits. NSA spying is an ineffective tactic for anticipating terrorist attacks, reinforces long term terrorist strategies, and represents a significant violation of freedoms for Americans. I. TACTICALLY INEFFECTIVE: A. Historically, NSA spying has proved to be an ineffective tool to prevent terrorist attacks. Although U.S. citizens are prevented from knowing most of the details, AT&T affidavits affirm that NSA data gathering began as early as February 2001. [1] 1. On Oct 2nd, NSA director Keith Alexander was forced to admit under questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee that prior claims of NSA spying effectiveness were deliberately misleading and that spying had not thwarted "dozens or even several terrorist plots." Alexander admitted that only 13 of previously bragged 54 foiled terrorist plots resulted from domestic surveillance and even those "weren't all plots, and they weren't all foiled." [2] 2. In fact, by August 6, 2001 the best intelligence the NSA could offer was "bin Laden determined to strike in US" which even the NSA director dismissed as "historical information based on old reporting." NSA spying failed to predict the attacks of 9/11. Some other prominent domestic plots NSA spying failed to prevent include:2001 Shoe bomber 2001 anthrax attacks 2002 Egyptian gunman @ LAX 2009 attack at Ft. Hood 2009 Detroit Christmas bomber 2010 Times Square car bomb 2013 Boston Marathon bombing 3. In spite of black budget intelligence expenditures in excess of $500 billion since 9/11, the NSA now admits that it may not have foiled even a few plots and failed to prevent numerous prominent attacks. B. These oversights may be because the scale of data collection and the logistics of acquiring and managing such massive databases have proved to be a drain on analytic resources. Because the NSA fails to focus on likely sources of terrorism, their capacity to analyze is overwhelmed; a phenomenon the NSA refers to as "information overload." [3] C. Worse, NSA surveillance creates that singularly un-American artifact: a database of every call we make, every social network we update, and everywhere we go. However useless this preponderance of data might be for predicting attack in the short term, its existence is an almost irresistible target for abuse. We know that phone tapping has a long history of misuse. Hoover's FBI and Nixon's plumbers both used wiretaps to advance their personal political power. A letter from the NSA Inspector General to Sen. Chuck Grassley admitted to 12 known cases of abuse involving NSA surveillance. One man used the system to monitor six former girlfriends on the first day he was given access to the database. Clearly, Edward Snowden had the potential to download an astonishing range of information. How many Snowdens choose not to blow the whistle but sell select data for profit? We may never know. The NSA admits that in the wake of Snowden they are re-investigating 4,000 potential compromises of sensitive data. D. Besides which, we don't have to be intelligence experts to know that terrorists have long since stopped using electronic communication in any fashion that might reveal plot details. Most terrorists plots involve little or no contact with overseas sponsors. Those that do almost certainly limit their conversation to coded generalities. Even before this summer's Snowden leaks, we could be confident that electronic monitoring is unlikely to snare any experienced operatives.II. STRATEGICALLY INEPT A. After Osama bin Laden declared war on the U.S. in 1996, he often repeated that his strategy would not be to achieve military victory, but to provoke Americans into excessive responses to terrorism. bin Laden hoped to draw the U.S. into war in the Middle East and force the U.S. to spend itself into bankruptcy. Even after his death, bin Laden's long term strategy has succeeded beyond his wildest expectations: the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; military engagements in Libya, Syria, Yemen; and 3.3 Trillion spent in reaction to 9/11 [4] B. NSA spying plays right into the hands of terrorist long-term goals by: 1. Costing a lot with little result. For 2013, the NSA budget was $10.5 billion. The highlights this year have been a miss on the Boston bombings and a high-profile leak that undermined the entire program while dismaying the American public. 2. Projecting the U.S. as a "big brother" state which discourages allies like Germany and encourages enemies. The U.S. loses some of liberty's high ground these days when compared against surveillance states like China or Russia. 3. Corrupting American values. We no longer renounce torture in the name of security. We've given up habeas corpus in favor of Guantanamo. We've sacrificed Presumption of Innocence in favor of drone strikes on citizens abroad. A surveillance state tears at the foundations of our freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom from unreasonable search. If we prevent every attack but sacrifice our essential liberties in the process, bin Laden wins his war post-mortem.III. UNCONSTITUTIONAL A. The NSA warrantless surveillance prior to 2007 was so clearly unconstitutional that it was hard to find a constitutional scholar that would support it. Even the American Bar Association protested. But after the FISA court oversight was enacted, some semblance of legality was restored. Legal, perhaps, but certainly not constitutional. 1. Consider that more than 5,000 FISA applications have been made over the past 3 years without a single denial. Does that number suggest judicial restraint? More like a judicial rubber stamp. 2. When the NSA seeks FISA approval for data collection programs like PRISM, they aren't applying with specific targets in mind. NSA is only getting approval for the collection of data. Abusers like the guy looking up his exes don't have to apply for access to the database or describe why they want the information. Clearly, this in opposition to the intended restraint sought by the FISA act. B. The NSA is empowered to spy by the war powers granted to the executive under Article II of the Constitution. For the NSA to have jurisdiction over every American's personal information, the NSA has to project the possibility that every American citizen is a potential enemy combatant. C. NSA spying violates our First Amendment rights by inhibiting speech and assembly free from government monitoring and record-keeping. D. NSA spying violates our Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable searches. Since law has established that government wiretapping is a search restricted by the Constitution, by what standard can any continual, pervasive, and universal search of every citizen not be considered unreasonable? E. Consider further that NSA data is shared data with foreign governments, especially the UK. Can anybody really suppose that the authors of the Constitution intended our government to share data with Britain that they would not dare share with its own citizens? CONCLUSION There is no military victory in our War on Terror. There will always be terrorists adapting to our security measures and finding ways to threaten U.S. security. Think of 211B.C., when Hannibal camped 3 miles outside the gates of Rome. Every massive army Rome sent against him was defeated. Hannibal's army had spent 7 years razing the Roman countryside, trying to provoke an irrational response. But when the farm that Hannibal's army camped on came up for auction in the marketplace, the acreage sold for a normal price. Only by restraint and persistence did Rome defeat Hannibal. Likewise, the U.S. must demonstrate restraint against Terror. We cannot win by tracking down every bomb, we only win by refusing to let those bombs change us.