NSA Surveillance

I will use this round to defend my own case. DEFINITIONS Extend my argument that this debate focuses solely on one, limited aspect of what goes on at the NSA. Everything outside of that is not topical to this debate. This point was dropped by Con. Extend my argument that this debate MUST be evaluated from a cost-benefit standpoint. This also goes unchallenged by Con. CONTENTION ONE Firstly, Con never contests Reinares's opinion that intelligence-gathering is vital for internal security. Extend this point. Con's only complaint here is that the NSA goes about this crucial mission in an inappropriate and ineffective way. Yet, local authorities do not have the resources, manpower, or raw materiel that the NSA does. They are often unable, on their own, to do the investigative work that the NSA can, and so they NEED the NSA to play a supporting role. This requires some domestic surveillance on the part of the NSA. Moreover, by collecting data that may be invaluable to law enforcement, when investigators do need leads, there is a repository of information available that they can cross-reference with their own findings in order to supplement and build on their existing evidence. Additionally, Con drops the example Reinares's provided of Italy. Italy already has traditional investigators, yet, when it curtailed its domestic counterterrorism surveillance, it actually saw an uptick in terroristic violence. This goes to show that traditional investigation alone is insufficient, particularly in the context of terrorism. Terrorists may have contacts in the U.S., making it not just an issue for U.S. authorities, but an issue for a more globally competent authority. That authority is the NSA, as it can surveil not just the terrorists abroad, but the contacts at home. As for Carafano, his evidence is corroborated by Gen. Alexander, who "told a House committee Tuesday that more than 50 terror threats throughout the world have been disrupted with the assistance of two secret surveillance programs that were recently disclosed by former defense contractor Edward Snowden." [1] Taken alone, these reports each might be dubious at best. But one is an outside evaluation based on available evidence conducted independently of the NSA, and one is the NSA's own internal analysis. The fact that the numbers are so close reinforces the validity of both findings. Two separate reports reached similar conclusions. Additionally, Dr. Carafano is a highly qualified expert, just because he has opinions does not obviate this fact. Experts, like Schneier and Carafano, can have biases, one against and one for the motion, but still have important arguments to bring to the table. More generally though, Con did admit that intelligence-gathering was still key to domestic security, so regardless of how many attacks the NSA prevents, we can still acknowledge that having intelligence is a worthwhile pursuit, even if we disagree on how to acquire that information. CONTENTION TWO As for the Daily Mail evidence, it is corroborated by analysis done by Ars Technica. Also, I have 3 responses to Con's assertion that connecting-the-dots is "too much of a good thing." Firstly, I would rather have too much of a good thing, than too little. Secondly, the Carafano evidence attests to the fact that clearly some of this evidence is being put to good use. Thirdly, the connecting the dots analogy is imprecise, and does not really apply here. The NSA isn't randomly going out a pulling data from random people, it's pulling information for those individuals and groups that it has a reasonable suspicion might be involved in terrorist activities. So, it's less about making connections, because the connections have already been found. Rather, its about learning from those connections already in place. This is evidenced by the following: "the government may not eavesdrop on anyone's phone calls or record anything participants say. All it can do is collect phone numbers making and receiving certain calls, as well as the date, time, and duration of each call--the so called 'metadata.'...'the Government is prohibited...from indiscriminately sifting through the data. The database may only be queried for intelligence purposes by NSA analysts where there is a reasonable, articulable suspicion, based on specific facts.' If the government wants to take a closer look, any data gleaned must be associated with people or phone numbers already identified and approved by...the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. In 2012...the court approved fewer than 300 'query terms'." [2] As for Con's assertions that NSA analysts flagrantly abuse their powers, this can be easily disproved by Con's own sources. Only about one person a year violates these types of protocols, according to Con's source. And, what is more, the individuals are often caught by the agency's own mandatory polygraphs, which shows that the NSA is effectively policing its own employees. [3] In sum, such violations are exceedingly rare, and swiftly dealt with. Yes, Sir David Osmond is the former director of GCHQ, but I would argue that makes him an ideal expert witness. Few people have the type of insight to the system that he has. Furthermore, he is no longer an employee of GCHQ, and so he is free to voice his own opinions. Con further asserts that law enforcement doesn't need special powers to combat terrorism, but yet he FAILS to warrant this assertion. Con argues, citing Schneier, that the FISA court is too secret to be legitimate. Con writes that this is "a far cry from the way the usual judicial system works." Yet, this is NOT USUAL. FISA is dealing with highly classified and sensitive information that has wide-ranging repercussions on this nation's national security and defense capabilities. These are much higher stakes than the "usual," mundane criminal trial. Therefore, it is logical that some degree of secrecy be employed to prevent greater harms to that nation. But, by the same token, secrecy does not imply a lack of accountability. Simply because the average Joe is unaware of what's going on, does not mean that the courts and the legislators are not checking executive overreach behind the scenes. And, insofar as a lack oversight is Con's only objection to my point here, Con misses the crux of my argument: all branches are included, the executive is not unconstrained. Lastly, Con chastises me for using conservatives, but yet he uses the liberal Slate [4, 5] and the HuffPost, which have anti-surveillance biases. SOURCES 1 - http://www.usatoday.com... 2 - http://www.csmonitor.com... 3 - http://blogs.wsj.com... 4 - http://voices.yahoo.com... 5 - http://en.wikipedia.org...(magazine)