Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald and NSA reporting provided an overwhelming benefit to US public

Thanks to Pro for this debate!PRO's CASEPro provides a laundry-list of programs in which the NSA engages in data collection. There are three easy responses to make here:1. Pro is unable to demonstrate how many U.S. citizens are impacted, and how many suffered violations of their rights. Without being able to quantify how many Americans are actually impacted, it is impossible for Pro to meet his BOP of showing an overwhelming benefit.2. The NSA's collection abilities are overblown. “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.” [1]3. These programs have lead to actionable intelligence. “There’s no denying that PRISM’s mining of emails and other Internet messages has produced a mother lode of useful information. An internal NSA document leaked by Snowden described the program as ‘the most prolific contributor to the President’s Daily Brief’ and the NSA’s ‘leading source of raw material, accounting for nearly one in seven [of all the intelligence community’s secret] reports.’ More to the point, PRISM has often contributed to the collection of actionable intelligence used in the fight against terrorism. Even Wyden, the NSA’s strongest congressional critic, acknowledges as much. He and his ally on the surveillance issue, Senator Mark Udall, said in a joint statement last summer that ‘multiple terrorist plots have been disrupted at least in part because of information obtained under Section 702.’” [2]The two examples of Schimdt and Zuckerberg are more rhetorical points than substantive arguments. As for the claim that the NSA's programs are irrelevant to national security, these claims are patently false. Firstly, Greenwald as a clear bias in that he wishes to create the most sensational news story possible--he is predisposed to want to make the NSA seem more abusive or Orwellian than it actually is. Secondly, the leaks made by Snowden and other have had serious, deleterious impacts on U.S. national security."Most of the estimated 1.7 million classified documents that officials say Snowden copied from NSA computers involve U.S. military operations...'As a result of these disclosures, terrorists and their support networks now have a better understanding of our collection methods and, make no mistake about it, they are taking counter measures.'" [3] The gist of this idea is that while most news stories about the leaks focus on eavesdropping and espionage activities conducted by the NSA, these stories neglected to address the far more numerous leaks that disclosed operational intelligence and tactical information that could be used by terrorist organizations to thwart U.S. security efforts on the ground.In fact, the Snowden leaks, "'tipped off our adversaries to the sources and methods of our defense, and hurt US allies helping us with counterterrorism; cybercrime; human and narcotics trafficking; and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.'" [4] Intelligence organizations have even observed changes in terrorists' activities designed to make it more difficult for them to be surveilled. [5] With such practical changes being implemented, the safety of nations that are prime terror targets such as the U.S. are now placed in greater jeopardy due to these leaks.CON's CASEPro cites Alan Grayson to rebut my first contention. Grayson made his reputation as anti anti-Iraq War advocate, and as positioned himself as someone who rejects what he sees as government hawkishness. [6] He is someone who is likely to be incredibly biased against the NSA, whose mission is to provide actionable intelligence on foreign targets who posed threats to American security. His reports should thus be viewed as less credible than that on my sources, which include an impartial newspaper analysis and a review by the non-partisan Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.Moreover, Pro does concede that the members of the Intelligence Committees are privy to much of the information needed to review these programs. That committee is free to make recommendation to the rest of Congress regarding the adoptability of these surveillance programs. As for the remarks Pro makes regarding Sen. Feinstein, her comments are not as grave as Pro makes them out to be. Keep in mind that the NSA's mission is to spy on foreigners; any organization whose Congressionally-approved mandate includes this directive is likely to spy on allies as well as enemies, because even allies can withhold useful or important security information.Finally, Pro totally drops my evidence about the success of FISA, so this type of oversight stands un-rebutted in this debate.Pro entirely misunderstands my 9/11 argument. I agree that the Bush administration was aware that Bin Laden was "determined to strike in U.S.," but that they could have know when that attack was about to occur had they had better intelligence. My source underscores that, had more surveillance been available, security agencies in the U.S. would have been more likely to know that the 9/11 plan had gone operational. So, Pro's argument is non-responsive to my point. Yes, the Bush administration knew that terrorists wanted to target the U.S., but better intelligence may have told the administration when and where the attack was going to take place. My point stands: better intelligence would have reduced the chances that 9/11 would've occurred.I also cited earlier in this round evidence of how Udall and Wyden concede that surveillance has led to actionable intelligence, helping ensure the security of the U.S.Other points that Pro has dropped: (1) terrorism is a major threat, (2) reliable intelligence has had empiric success in preventing terror (e.g. Italy), and (3) that 60 terrorist plots were thwarted through actionable intelligence acquired by surveillance programs.Regarding wikileaks, insofar as wikileaks engages in "NSA reporting," it is Pro's ground. Pro has to defend leaks of NSA information not simply from Greenwald and Snowden, but from any entity reporting on the issue. It's all fair game. And yes, wikileaks does report on the NSA's activities. [7] Thus, my third contention is entirely dropped. This brings up two key points in my favor: (1) a harm to security and to people involved in ensuring security (names not redacted, etc.), and (2) a harm to scholarship.Ultimately, Pro has failed to address the impact the leaks have had on security in the U.S. Even most Americans agree that those leaks did more harm than good to U.S. security. [8] Dropped evidence and further analysis in this round only confirm that the leaks were harmful in terms of insuring the safety of the U.S. and its residents.VOTING ISSUESPro has conceded that he bears the sole BOP (he failed to address this point.) 1. Pro has failed to show how many Americans have actually been impacted by these leaks in a positive way, and so Pro cannot demonstrate an "overwhelming" benefit--which is his BOP in this round.2. Oversight mitigates Pro's impacts. Even if you believe these leaks called attention to government abuse, Pro has not once shown during this entire debate how these leaks have changed government for the better. Furthermore, existing oversight mechanisms like FISA have at least some level of effectiveness in curbing abuse, therefore reducing any potential benefits Pro make attempt to link into.3. Pro drops the arguments about a harm to scholarship. While small, this evidence further chips away at the scope of the benefits Pro may attempt to link into, by showing how they generate ancillary problems.4. Leaks have damaged U.S. Security. Terrorism is a massive threat, as Pro has conceded. Therefore, imperiling our defense against and ability to cope with this danger--as these leaks have done--is harmful, not beneficial. This is really where Pro's case falls apart, as the evidence I have provided within this round shows.Thus, Pro has failed to meet his BOP. Please VOTE CON. Thank you!SOURCES1 - http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 20132 - http://www.brookings.edu...3 - http://articles.latimes.com...4 - http://www.cnet.com...5 - http://home.bt.com...6 - http://en.wikipedia.org...7 - http://rt.com...8 - http://abcnews.go.com...