Resolved : The benefits of post- 9/11 security measures outweigh the harms to personal freedoms.
Debate Rounds (4)
The TSA is ineffective and infringes on the rights given to us by the Constitution. The TSA has been operating since November 2001 and has failed to produce any real evidence that it is actually working. According to IVN.org TSA"s screen program is being funded billions of dollars a year but has failed to produce any results. According to a Hawaii Institute; the TSA is infringing on or fourth amendment right this amendment was put in place to protect Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. Purchasing an airline ticket ought not to be grounds for rescinding this basic right, yet that is exactly the power TSA presumptuously assumes for itself. In the 1979 case of Torres v. Puerto Rico, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to search and seize the bags of Terry Torres, even though law enforcement officials said he was noticeably nervous. This proves that the TSA is infringing on Americans rights. Also the TSA has failed to provide any evidence to warrant this infringement on the constitution. The have actually proved that they are ineffective and a waste of money when on November 1st 2013 they failed to stop a man getting through security with a gun. Almost immediately after the man got through security he pulled out the gun and started shooting at the TSA officers killing one and injuring 7 more. All of this proves that the benefits of this post 9/11 security measure do not outweigh the harms.
NSA surveillance encourages selective interpretation of the constitution. The ACLU has stated "In a detailed, legal critique of the NSA program, the ACLU warned that such long-term surveillance "permits the government to assemble a richly detailed profile of every person living in the United States and to draw a comprehensive map of their associations with one another." They also reported that "The National Security Agency's mass tracking and collection of Americans' phone call data violates the constitution, has a chilling effect on first amendment rights and should be halted" It has been proven that the NSA violates the constitution at whim. This raises a much larger issue of selective interpretation of the constitution. This means that since the NSA believes they can violate certain parts of the constitution, they believe they can violate others. Our rights to speech, to bear arms, to religion, basically violating anything that is in the government"s best interest.
NSA domestic surveillance does not prevent terrorism. In an October 2 hearing of the Senate judiciary committee, General Keith Alexander confirmed that there is only one or two examples where collection of bulk data is what stopped a terrorist activity. Furthermore, he actually references one of the terrorist attacks and names the perpetrator. His name was Basaaly Moalin. Moalin was a cab driver from San Diego and he was convicted of transferring $8,500 to Al-Shabaab in Somalia. Although many people may say that Al-Shabaab is a terrorist organization, al-Shabaab is involved in a local war, and is not invested in attacking the US homeland. The indictment against Moalin explicitly stated that al-Shabaab's enemies were the present Somali government and "its Ethiopian and African Union supporters". The second incident that the NSA allegedly stopped is the attempted subway bombing by Najibullah Zazi. Zazi, as Goldman and Matt Apuzzo explain, was foiled when officials intercepted an email to a Yahoo email address in September of 2009. Although 2007 and 2008 laws gave the FBI the go-ahead to monitor email accounts linked to known terrorists without a warrant, investigators would have easily gotten a warrant to monitor the account in question anyway: "To get a warrant, the law requires that the government show that the target is a suspected member of a terrorist group or foreign government, something that had been well established at that point in the Zazi case." From this, we can tell the Zazi plot does little to justify blanket surveillance of millions of phone and email accounts without a warrant, because authorities found the email address they needed without PRISM, and could have monitored that account without it, too.
For the patriots of 1776 did not just blindly believed in the rights of man, they realized that as America changes so do the laws that govern us. After 9/11, it was a very scary time. The President wanted to defeat these terrorists while respecting the laws of this nation. So, Congress passed the patriot act and made the TSA. Now, back when the the United states Constitution was written, we did not have phones. So the supreme court stepped in to decide whether or not this is right. They ruled it is okay to wiretap phones.
First, he says that the constitution was written 200 years ago so it doesn't matter anymore, and we should just wave our rights because they don't apply anymore. This is simply not how it is, yes this document was written 200 years ago, but it still applies. We run our whole Gov. using this doc. So if we let these programs violate is right, what stops them from violating all of the rest.
Second, Congress did pass the patriot act, but this was in a time of war. Seeing that this was in a time of war it no longer applies. Agencies like the NSA are violating our rights left and right with their blanket surveillance of everything we put on the internet everyday. All of this surveillance is unwarranted and violates the constitution.
Third, My opponents brought up that congress ruled that wiretapping is allowed, but what they failed to mention is that this requires a warrant that the NSA does not have. Also the blanket surveillance of everything you have on the internet is also unwarranted and therefore violates the constitution and our rights.
yannikmarazia forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nulosaur 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro FF'd. Con wins by default.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.