National Security ought to be valued above Freedom of the Press

As the affirmative today I am upholding National Security over Freedom of the Press. Before I go any further though, I want to address something. When we hear National Security, we have a tendency to think of bad people in dark rooms with evil laughs making what we call national security decisions that are really just them planning their next big way to invade our privacy. Please, judge, remove that preconceived notion of what national security is, and any others that you might have. That's not reality, that's Hollywood. When we're talking about National Security, we're talking about the protection of lives. Let me go ahead and define a couple things first. National Security: relates only to those activities which are directly concerned with the nation's safety (Cole v. Young, . http://definitions.uslegal.com...)Freedom of the Press: the right to publish news and opinions in the press without the government removing any of the information (. http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com...)the Press: newspapers, magazines, and other businesses that communicate news to the public by print, television, or radio. .. (. http://dictionary.cambridge.org...)Ought: moral obligation (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...)With that out of the way I'd like to clarify that we are discussing the Resolution within the context of Government, as they are the only ones capable of restricting the free press or making national security decisions. My value or end goal in today's debate round is LIFE. My criterion, or the reason why Life is valuable is the NATURAL RIGHTS THEORY. I know my criterion sounds complex but it really isn't. All the Natural Rights Theory says is that by observing nature we can discern certain rights that belong fundamentally to every person. Furthermore, we can observe that life is the most foundational and most important of these rights, and I'll illustrate why this is with a simple example. If a criminal walked onto your property and pointed a gun at you, what would you be worried about more? The fact that he's infringing on your right to property, or the fact that you're about to get shot? Yes, he is infringing on your property, but the bigger problem is that he's pointing a gun at you, about to take away your life. Our natural tendency will be to save our lives first, then worry about our property later. Through this, it's clear that Life is what we naturally value highest. So let's move now to my three contentions. CONTENTION OR MAIN ARGUMENT 1: LIFE MUST BE UPHELDWe've already established that life is the most foundational right belonging to each person, and I think we can accept that individuals must uphold life. But do governments have this obligation too? Absolutely, Governments are morally obligated to uphold life. This obligation stems from two places. Sub-point A: The Social ContractThomas Hobbes, one of the foremost Social Contract theorists said "The condition of man. .. is a condition of war of everyone against everyone. (. http://www.brainyquote.com...) " He then goes on to say "[before government men lived] "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short [lives]. (. http://www.thisnation.com...) " The Social Contract was the solution to this problem. It outlined the commitments governments made to their citizens. It made clear that men gave up some of their liberties, like the ability to go as fast as they want in their cars, in order to have their lives protected. It follows then that a government is obligated to protect the lives of their citizens because of the contract between a government and the people. Sub-point B: Natural LawThe Natural Rights Theory is a sort of subset of Natural Law. Natural Law states that we can discern moral obligations from nature itself. Because of the value of Life, Natural Law says that we have a responsibility to protect life to the best of our abilities. This responsibility applies to governments as well since they are moral agents. These two sources of moral obligation clearly allow us to say that governments are morally obligated to uphold life. So how do they do this? CONTENTION OR MAIN ARGUMENT 2: SUCCESSFUL NATIONAL SECURITY UPHOLDS LIFEBy definition National Security is concerned with the nations safety, and included in that is the safety of that nation's citizens. National Security then is the method used by governments to fulfill their obligations stemming from the Social Contract, and Natural Law. If we refuse to allow the Government to keep secrets in order to protect life, we take away the tool they use to fulfill the obligations they have. In order for this to be justified there must be a massive benefit that comes with restricting a government's ability to uphold life. CONTENTION OR MAIN ARGUMENT 3: FREEDOM OF THE PRESS DOESN'T UPHOLD A NATURAL RIGHTFreedom of the Press isn't a natural right, and it doesn't uphold a natural right. What it does do is keep a government accountable, hopefully. Now this is definitely a nice thing, but we have to place limits on it. We have to allow the government to fulfill the commitments we've given them, and sometimes this necessitates keeping secrets. To sum it all up, National Security upholds a foundational natural right, whereas Freedom of the Press upholds an accountable government which, while nice, is by no means a natural right or more important than Life. Therefore, I agree with the resolution and stand Resolved: National Security ought to be valued above Freedom of the Press. I urge you to do the same by voting Affirmative. Thank you.