Liberals' DDO Tournament: NSA Surveillance

Thanks to Henry and to the Judges! I apologize for my late posting--I had a history paper due over the weekend. I will present my case at this time. FRAMEWORKI will offer some definitions to clarify the round. Should - expresses desirability. For example: "You should take out the trash" states that it is desirable to take the trash out. Surveillance - is defined by Merriam Webster as "close observation"Leaders - for the purposes of this debate I suggest we confine this term to nationally elected officials operating specifically in executive capacities: in other words, heads of government and of state. It can also refer to leaders of the EU itself. It also seems prudent to, at this time, say a word about how this round should be evaluated. Prof. Gary Woller contends: “Appeals to a priori moral principles…often fail to acknowledge that public policies inevitably entail trade-offs among competing values. Thus since policymakers cannot justify inherent value conflicts to the public in any philosophical sense…the policymakers' duty to the public interest requires them to demonstrate that…their policies are somehow to the overall advantage of society. ” This implies a discussion of pragmatism. Woller 2 observes that: “deontologically based ethical systems have severe practical limitations as a basis for public policy…a priori moral principles…do not themselves suggest appropriate public policies, and…create a regimen of regulatory unreasonableness while failing to adequately address the problem. ” Therefore, the desirability of a government or a government agency's action is best viewed through the leans of what is most pragmatic. Thus, if the NSA was acting pragmatically, it was acting desirably, and the resolution should be negated. Therefore, it is my Thesis that domestic surveillance has net benefit when compared to its potential harms. CON's CASEContention One: Surveillance is useful in combating terror. It is fairly clear that the U. S. has an interest in obtaining knowledge that may pertain to its national security. By surveilling leaders in Europe, the U. S. can acquire information that those leaders are unlikely to volunteer on their own. If Germany learned the whereabouts of a terrorist who also happened to be a German national, Merkel may want to keep that information from the U. S. and to have her own security force pursue the invesitgation. Unfortuantely, in this hypothetical, it is not just Germany that has a stake in the matter, especially if this terrorist is willing to commit international crimes. Therefore, the U. S. is justified in covertly attaining this data in order to make its own assessments regarding the sitatution. This applies not only to terrorist investigations, but to trade deals and more. In all of these things the U. S. has a vested interest--it is pragmatic for the U. S. to learn as much as it can to further it's national goals and objectives. After all, the core duty of the state is to its citizens, and this duty cannot be carried out when blindfolded. Contention Two: The extent of the surveillance is minimal. The U. K. ’s Daily Mail reports, “the Internet carries 1,826 Petabytes of information per day. In its foreign intelligence mission, NSA touches about 1.6% of that…However, of the 1.6% of the data, only 0.025% is actually selected for review. The net effect is that NSA analysts look at 0.00004% of the world's traffic in conducting their mission—that’s less than one part in a million. Put another way, if a standard basketball court represented the global communications environment, NSA's total collection would be represented by an area smaller than a dime on that basketball court. ” As Security expert Sir David Osmund notes, what the U. S. and other states need “is the possibility of accessing the communications of the terrorists…But those communications are all mixed up with everyone else's communications…So you have to have a powerful capability to find the small amount that you are looking for. But it doesn't mean that the state is reading everyone's emails, nor would that conceivably be feasible. ” Furthermore, there is oversight of the NSA designed to prevent egregious oversteps of authority. The Las Vegas Sun newspaper states, the NSA “is subject to oversight by both Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. If the effort were being operated without due regard for privacy, the other branches of government could push back. For the most part, they apparently have approved of what's gone on. ” U. S. Deputy Attorney-General James Cole testified that domestic surveillance is not “a program that has been hidden away or off the books. In fact, all three branches of government play a significant role in the oversight…the judiciary, through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court plays a role…The executive branch conducts extensive internal reviews to ensure compliance. And Congress passes the laws, oversees our implementation of those laws, and determines whether or not the current laws should be reauthorized and in what form.