freedom act affirmative - hss 2015

7/25/2019 Freedom Act Affirmative - HSS 2015

1/210


2/210

***Af Backlines Freedom Act

Armative - 2015

The purpose of this le is to help you address the Negs Case hit versus thevarious advantages from the Freedom Act 1AC.


3/210

Af Backlines Inherency and

Solvency


4/210

Imortant !ote "lease #ead

Apologies to students that already saw the rst two pages of this section in the 1ACle from last night.

it is duplicative !ut it made a lot of sense to me to re"include the glossary heresince its especially useful for the non"1AC #nherency and $olvency !ac%lines.


5/210

!ote to st$dents

The ne&t page presents a glossary. 'lossaries are often important for topicfamiliari(ation !ut especially so for this years topic. )eres why*

There are many di+erent ways that the A+ could argue that the current Freedom Actfails. #n fact, there are argua!ly too many.

#n some instances, the author of an article will rattle o+ four or ve di+erent reasonsthat they feel the current Freedom Act will not wor%. Then, in another article, adi+erent author may rattle o+ a di+erent laundry list of ve items where three itemsoverlap with evidence youve already read !ut two items do not.

For de!aters, this presents three concerns*

First $nnecessary d$lication%The A-rmative doesnt want to read a rdcard saying the Freedom Act fails

/!ecause it lac%s su-cient 0en egister protections2. 3nce will usually !e enough.

Second strate&ic consistency%A-rmatives will want to avoid reading inherency cards that say /Freedom Act failsdue to lac% of 0en egister protections2 if the version of the A-rmative plan !eingread fails to change 0en egister protections.

'hird con($sion%)onestly, there are so many laws and investigative tools a!out privacy that this canall turn into acronym soup. #t might !e enough for a familiari(ed A-rmative todigest !ut it could !e pu((ling to an unfamiliar 4udge or to a new novice on the

team.

3rgani(ationally, # coo%ed"up with the following solution*

For each piece of evidence in !ac%line section, # use a set of acronyms in the F5header 6the /!loc% header2 !ut not in the F7 tag8.

)opefully, this allows the student 9uic%ly di+erentiate !etween the di+erent reasonswhy the Freedom Act fails. :ut, it should also avoid situations where the student isver!ally presenting ve confusing acronyms into the tag of a ;AC card.

#n order to understand what each acronym means, # have placed a /'lossary2 onthe ne&t page.


6/210

)lossary

#f the F5 !loc% header has one or more of the following acronyms, here is what itreferencing*

'he SA F#++,. A/' A recently passed !ill that stands for "Uniting andStrengthening America by Fulflling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-

collection and nline !onitoring Act. The Act implemented many reforms !utmost prominently it 6argua!ly8 ended the a!ility of federal intelligence agencies tostore certain phone data 6/phone metadata2 see !elow8. #nstead, it re9uiredphone companies, not government agencies, to hold on to that data. Federalintelligence agencies can search the phone company records if they granted awarrant authori(ing their re9uest. The A-rmative in this pac%et will argue thatcurrent Freedom Act is insu-cient and that the original draft of the Freedom Act

provided !etter safeguards.

'he "A'#I' A/' #ts o-cial title is the . :ush in 3cto!er of;??1. #t is widely viewed as a reaction to the events of $eptem!er 11 th, ;??1. The0atriot Act does many, many things !ut, on this topic, it is perhaps most relevant!ecause it increased the authority of intelligence agencies to engage insurveillance.

+ 12 This stands for /@&ecutive 3rder2 1;. #t was signed !y 0residentonald eagan and esta!lished !road new surveillance authorities for theintelligence community, outside the scope of pu!lic law. #t was amended three times!y 0resident 'eorge >. :ush. These cards will argue that the $tatus uo fails!ecause @3 1; creates a loophole permitting e&cessive surveillance.

FAA or FAA-Section 023 /FAA2 stands for the /F#$A Amendments Act of;??B2. This an acronym within an acronym. $o, a little !ac%story*

o The F.#.$.A. is an acronym standing for $he Foreign &ntelligence

Surveillance Act o' *+.That act does many things !ut is most aptto come"up !ecause it created a separate set of =secret courts= calledthe /F#$C2 6Foreign #ntelligence $urveillance Courts8. #ts hearings areclosed to the pu!lic !ut it handles many re9uests for surveillancewarrants from federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.


7/210

o The F.#.$.A. law itself passed in 17B !ut it has often !een amended

since then.o 3ne reason that the FAA of ;??B comes up is $ection 7?; of the FAA.

$ection 7?; authori(es 0#$D 6e&plained !elow8. $ection 7?; isdesigned to gather intelligence on foreign citi(ens, !ut is often accused

of gathering intelligence on


8/210

!S46s" National $ecurity Eetters. These cards will argue that the $tatus uo fails!ecause the F:# currently has the authority to issue N$Es. These letters are servedon communications service providers 6li%e phone or internet companies8 !y the F:#to compel provision of communication or #nternet activity. An N$E cannot demandthe content of a call, !ut can compel provision of metadata. ecipients of N$Es may

!e su!4ect to a gag order that for!ids them from revealing the letters e&istence tothe pu!lic. No approval from a 4udge is re9uired for the F:# to issue an N$E, !ut therecipient of the N$E can still challenge the nondisclosure re9uirement in federalcourt.

"en #e&ister or 'ra and 'race device" A device that decodes or recordselectronic information li%e outgoing num!ers from a telephone. A /pen register2technically was a device that recorded data from telegraph machines. :ut the termhas survived and applies to modern communication. These cards will argue that the$tatus uo fails !ecause the law provides insu-cient protection against !ul%

collection of data o!tained from /0en egister or Trap and Trace2 devices.

"#IS. 0#$D is a


9/210

Inherency 7 Solvency ,istinctions


10/210

.inimiation 7 4an&$a&e 7 FAA 7 + 7 Some

Si&nal Ar&s

8 9 *** SA Freedom Act is ins$cient m$st send a :roader

si&nal oosin& mass s$rveillance%

'oomey ;15

6et alH 0atric% C. Toomey is a sta+ attorney in the ACEe cant a+ord tos9uander the opportunitythat the scheduled sunset of $ection ;1G a+ords. Than%s to $nowden, Americans now%now that the governments surveillance activities are far more e&tensive than is defensi!le in a free society. The current de!ate in

Congress reRects a growing !ipartisan consensus that reform is urgently needed.


11/210

.etadata 7 .inimiation 7 4an&$a&e 7 .$ltile

A$thorities 7 si&nal ar&$ments**/$rrent Freedom Act is not erceived as a stron& rivacy

rotection% ri&inal rotections are a :etter otion%

Shack(ord ;15

$cott $hac%ford is an associate editor at eason. This article is internally 9uoting Dar% Kayco&, alegislative analyst for the @lectronic Frontier Foundation " /#s the e Can@&pect ight NowO2 " eason " GM;? http*MMreason.comM!logM;?1GM?GM;?Mis"the"usa"freedom"act"the"!est"we"can"e

#t doesnt appear to !e easy to support the ,ra&net-/ollection> and nline .onitorin&

Act%? Lnowing the full name of the act helps e&plain why privacy supporters arent shouting from the rafters over the legislation, even if they aresupporting it. As is the case with many other !ills with ela!orate names, the


12/210

legislators to now strengthen the act. Dar% Kayco&, a legislative analyst for @FF who has !een writing a!out the ho gets to decide what a =specic selectionterm= isO The same people who determined that every single phone record of every American was =relevant= to investigating potential terrorist attac%s on

AmericansO Kayco& is aware that this a!use concern helps feed the !elief the eve seen the intelligence community and the administration stretchdenitions,= Kayco& says. =>eve seen them come up to the line and cross it completely. $ection ;1G is an e&ample. # thin% thats where thehesitancy comes from.= #ts the F#$A court that was supposed to stand in the way of the N$A a!using the language, !ut that clearly didnt happen.Congress can legislate words to !e as narrow as they li%e, Kayco& notes, =:ut at the end of the day its going to !e a 4udge thats reviewing these orders.=And thus, theres the push for more transparency and declassication of F#$A court decisions, in the hopes of ma%ing it more clear how the 4udges

themselves are interpreting the law. The modest reforms werent enough for some privacy"minded )ouse mem!ers li%e ep. Kustin Amash 6"Dich.8, ep.Thomas Dassie 6"Ly.8, and ep. Kared 0olis 6J"Colo.8. They all voted no. Amash later e&plained on Face!oo% that he feared passing the


13/210

4an&$a&e ,istinctions SS'6s and FAA a:o$t3

8 9 !e< Freedom Act has ermissive lan&$a&e on SSTs and

about targets% 'hat ens$res mass collection% ri&inal

version6s stricter lan&$a&e solves%

# ;1C

6#nternally 9uoting Cynthia D. >ong is the senior researcher on the #nternet and human rights for)uman ights >atch. :efore 4oining )uman ights >atch, >ong wor%ed as an attorney at the Centerfor Jemocracy Technology 6CJT8 and as director of their 0ro4ect on 'lo!al #nternet Freedom. $heconducted much of the organi(ations wor% promoting glo!al #nternet freedom, with a particular focuson international free e&pression and privacy. $he also served as co"chair of the 0olicy EearningCommittee of the 'lo!al Networ% #nitiative 6'N#8, a multi"sta%eholder organi(ation that advancescorporate responsi!ility and human rights in the technology sector. 0rior to 4oining CJT, >ong was theo!ert E. :ernstein #nternational )uman ights Fellow at )uman ights in China 6)#C8. There, she

contri!uted to the organi(ations wor% in the areas of !usiness and human rights and freedom ofe&pression online. >ong earned her law degree from New Ior% atch is an independent, international organi(ation that wor%s as part of a vi!rant movement touphold human dignity and advance the cause of human rights for all. /


14/210

!een re9uired to !ase any demand for phone metadataor other records on a /seci=c

selection term3 that /uni9uely descri!eUsV a person, entity, or account.2


15/210

FAA 7 !S46s 7 .eta-data distinction

Freedom Act doesn6t solve FAA or !ational Sec$rity 4etters

ostein ;15

Koshua Lopstein is a 4ournalist and researcher. )is wor% focuses on #nternet law and disorder,surveillance and government secrecy. )e has written pieces for $late Daga(ine and The New Ior%er./hile the government will no longer !ea!le to collect phone records in !ul% the way it had under $ection ;1G, it can still easily gainaccess to that and other%inds of data without a warrant several other waysQ from

National $ecurity Eetters tothe /incidental2 collectionthat occurs under $ection 7?; of the

F #$A A mendments A ct. The latter involves/


16/210

FAA-Section 02 7 .eta-data distinction

!e< Freedom Act


17/210

FAA distinction

/$rrent Freedom Act is ins$cient international s$rveillance

can still :e $sed as a :ackdoor to sy on S citiens%

Baker ;15

6et alH 0eter :a%er is an American political writer and newspaper reporter who is the >hite )ousecorrespondent for The New Ior% Times. )e won the 'erald . Ford 0ri(e for Jistinguished Coverage ofthe 0residency for his reporting on :ush, and the Aldo :ec%man Demorial Award for his coverage of3!ama. :a%er is a regular panelist on 0:$s >ashington >ee% and a fre9uent guest on other televisionand radio programs. />hy the N.$.A. #snt )owling 3ver estrictions2 New Ior% Times " DAI 1, ;?1G "http*MMwww.nytimes.comM;?1GM?GM?;MusMpoliticsMgiving"in"a"little"on"national"security"agency"data"collection.html8

For years after the attac%s of $ept. 11, ;??1, even as the National $ecurity Agency ercely defendedits secret e+orts to sweep up domestic telephone data, there were dou!ters insidethe agencywho considered the program wildly e&pensive with few successes to show for it. $o as Congress moves

to ta%e the government out of the !usiness of indiscriminate !ul% collection of domesticcalling data, the agency is hardly resisting. Former intelligence o-cials, in fact , saidFriday that the idea to store the data with telecommunications companies rather thanthe government was suggested to0resident 3!ama in ;?1!y 'en. Leith :. Ale&ander, then theN.$.A. director, who saw the change as a way for the president to respond tocriticism without losing programs the N.$.A. deemed more vital.The limits on !ul%collection are the centerpiece of legislation now advancing in the )ousethat would !e therst signicant response to the spying revelations !y @dward K. $nowden, a former N.$.A. contractor. #n addition to new restrictionson domestic data sweeps, the plan would re9uire more transparency and introduce ostensi!ly independent voices into secret

intelligence court proceedings. :ut as one recently departed senior intelligence o-cial put it on Friday, /This is hardlyma4or change.2The legislation would still leave an e&pansive surveillance apparatuscapa!le of trac%ing vast 9uantities of data. $ome of the most sweeping programsdisclosed !y Dr. $nowden, particularly those focused on international communications, wouldremain una+ected.The N.$.A. could continue e+orts to !rea% private encryption systems, and informationa!out Americans could still !e swept up if originating overseas.


18/210

SS' and FAA3 distinction

ri&inal Freedom Act solves looholes :etter deals


19/210

SS' distinction

SA Freedom alloashington 0ost, with an emphasis on cy!ersecurity,consumer privacy, transparency, surveillance and open government, >ashington 0ost, GM;;M1S /N$Areform !ill passes )ouse, despite loss of support from privacy advocates2 "http*MMwww.washingtonpost.comM!logsMthe"switchMwpM;?1SM?GM;;Mnsa"reform"!ill"passes"house"despite"loss"of"support"from"privacy"advocatesM

The !ill, %nown as the


20/210

$tephanie Condon is a political reporter for C:$ News /)ouse passes watered down N$A reform !ill2 "C:$ News" Day ;;, ;?1S " http*MMwww.c!snews.comMnewsMhouse"passes"watered"down"nsa"reform"!illM

The )ouseon Thursday passed a watered down version of the


21/210

term iss$e decried !y Eofgren.#n a statement to The >ashington 0ost after the !ills passage, :an%ston saidit was =still !etter than the #ntelligence committees competing !ill, or no !ill at all,= !ut that privacy advocates would have to wor%

hard in the $enate to reverse the changes that wea%ened the !ill. Kulian $anche(,a scholar at the Cato #nstitute wor%ing on

these issues, says a lot


22/210

SS' and 4an&$a&e ,istinction

/$rrent Freedom Act (ails it lacks Seci=c Selector3

lan&$a&e% 'hat makes it too


23/210

4an&$a&e ,istinction

/$rrent Freedom Act doesn6t solve lan&$a&e is not strict

eno$&h

'imm ;15

Trevor Timm is a co"founder and the e&ecutive director of the Freedom of the 0ress Foundation. )e is a4ournalist, activist, and lawyer who writes a twice wee%ly column for The 'uardian on privacy, freespeech, and national security. )e has contri!uted to The Atlantic, Al Ka(eera, Foreign 0olicy, )arvardEaw and 0olicy eview, 0:$ Dedia$hift, and 0olitico. )e received his K.J. from New Ior% Eaw $chool./N$A reform is unavoida!le. :ut it can !e undermined if we arent careful2 The 'uardian Day 1 "http*MMwww.theguardian.comMcommentisfreeM;?1GMmayM1Mnsa"reform"is"unavoida!le"!ut"it"can"!e"undermined"if"we"arent"careful

The pro!lem is that the


24/210

"en #e&ister ,istinction

/$rrent Freedom Act doesn6t solve metadata can no< :e re-

collected thro$&h "en #e&ister a$thority%

arris ;15

$hane )arris is a $enior #ntelligence and National $ecurity Correspondent for The Jaily :east. )e is theauthor of two !oo%s* Y>ar* The ise of the Dilitary"#nternet Comple&, and The >atchers* The ise ofAmericas $urveillance $tate, which won the New Ior% 0u!lic Ei!rarys )elen :ernstein :oo% Award for@&cellence in Kournalism. 0rior to 4oining The Jaily :east, $hane was a senior writer at Foreign 0olicymaga(ine. )e has also written for >ashingtonian Daga(ine, the National Kournal and 'overnment@&ecutive Daga(ine. $hane is the ;?1? winner of the 'erald . Ford 0ri(e for Jistinguished eportingon National Jefense. /Wom!ie 0atriot Act >ill Leep


25/210

!S46s ,istinction

/$rrent Freedom Act (ails a$thorities ar* The ise of the Dilitary"#nternet Comple&, and The >atchers* The ise ofAmericas $urveillance $tate, which won the New Ior% 0u!lic Ei!rarys )elen :ernstein :oo% Award for@&cellence in Kournalism. 0rior to 4oining The Jaily :east, $hane was a senior writer at Foreign 0olicymaga(ine. )e has also written for >ashingtonian Daga(ine, the National Kournal and 'overnment@&ecutive Daga(ine. $hane is the ;?1? winner of the 'erald . Ford 0ri(e for Jistinguished eportingon National Jefense. /Wom!ie 0atriot Act >ill Leep


26/210

A-to )rad$alism solves in the sG$o3

)rad$alism


27/210

Solvency otions


28/210

mni:$s Solvency end m$ltile a$thorities

An mni:$s :ill that ends m$ltile s$rveillance a$thorities

solves%

/ohn ;1

6et alH Cindy Cohn is the @&ecutive Jirector of the @lectronic Frontier Foundation. From ;???";?1G sheserved as @FFs Eegal Jirector as well as its 'eneral Counsel. The National Eaw Kournal named Ds.Cohn one of 1?? most inRuential lawyers in America. /N$A $pying in Congress* $top the #ntelligenceCommittee and >hat to >atch For in yden, ichard:lumenthal, Dar%


29/210

/omlete +limination is key

/omlete +limination key retainin& some o( the ro&ram on

the booksserves to le&itimie


30/210

Si&nal solvency

/$rrent S Freedom Act does not solve ori&inal version sends

a :etter si&nal%

'ho$&htorks ;1C

Thought>or%s is a software company and a community of passionate, purpose"led individuals. 3urmission is to !etter humanity through software and help drive the creation of a socially andeconomically 4ust world The organi(ation is founded !y oy $inghmane who, with more than ;?years of technology and e&ecutive management e&perience, is a glo!ally renowned informationtechnology thought leader. )e has authored technology"related columns in various industrypu!lications, and is a fre9uent spea%er at technology conferences worldwide. /Thought>or%s>ithdraws $upport for >ea%ened


31/210

ri&inal Freedom Act :etter solves $:lic

ercetion

ri&inal Freedom Act :etter solves $:lic ercetion

)ranick ;1C

Kennifer 'ranic% is the Jirector of Civil Ei!erties at the $tanford Center for #nternet and $ociety. Kenniferwas the Civil Ei!erties Jirector at the @lectronic Frontier Foundation. Kennifer practices, spea%s andwrites a!out computer crime and security, electronic surveillance, consumer privacy, data protection,copyright, trademar% and the Jigital Dillennium Copyright Act. From ;??1 to ;??7, Kennifer was@&ecutive Jirector of C#$ and taught Cy!erlaw, Computer Crime Eaw, #nternet intermediary lia!ility,and #nternet law and policy. :efore teaching at $tanford, Kennifer earned her law degree fromorse, theres deep pu!lic mistrust for the law itself, since the intelligencecommunitys /nuanced2 denitions of normal words have made the pu!lic reali(ethat they do not understand the meaning of words li%e /relevance2, /collection2, /!ul%2, or /target2.


32/210

/o$rt "recedent Solvency

**nless co$rts reEects the .eta-data ro&ram on Fourth

Amendment grounds> recedents yden Dar% yden, a 6/>yden"yden,emar%s as 0repared for Jelivery for the Center for American 0rogress @vent on N$A $urveillance 6Kuly ;, ;?18http*MMwww.wyden.senate.govMnewsM!logMpostMwyden"on"nsa"domestic"surveillance 6/>yden CA0 $peech28.11 Amici have not issued these warnings lightly.As disclosed in Kuly ;?1, two of amici were involved in !ringing an N$A !ul%"collection program focused on internet metadata to an end. $ee >ydena 6/U>Ve spent a signicant portion of ;?11 pressing intelligence o-cials to provide evidence of UtheprogramsV e+ectiveness. They were una!le to do so, and the program was shut down that year.28. ecent disclosures have produced even more reasonsto heed amicis words of caution. For e&ample, one document released through a Freedom of #nformation Act lawsuit pu!licly revealed that the e&ecutive!ranch has interpreted its authority under section ;1G to allow the collection of information a!out Americans locations. $ee Eetter from UedactedV,

Attorney, 3-ce of 'eneral Counsel, N$A, to $$C# at 1 6Apr. 1, ;?118, http*MM1.usa.govM1g>9iy?. And F#$C opinions continue torefer to still"undisclosed /secret law2 interpreting crucial statutory terms in F#$A related to !ul% collection as wellas addressing the compati!ility of !ul% collection with the Fourth Amendment. $ee #n re 0roduction ofTangi!le Things, ;?1 >E G7S1G7, at [5 6F#$C /has previously e&amined the issue of relevance for !ul% collections. $ee UedactedV.28. Amici have longwarned that Americans would !e /stunned,2 /angry,2 and /alarmed2 if they were to see the governments secret interpretation of section ;1G. 1G7 Cong.

ec. $B5, B 6daily ed. Day ;5, ;?118 6statements of $en. >yden $en.


33/210

years a&o . . . . ecords that once would have revealed a few scattered tiles ofinformation a!out a person now reveal an entire mosaic a vi!rant and constantlyupdating picture of the persons life .2 $mith, ;?1S


34/210

A-to .$st rove ,omestic is key3

,omestic s$rveillance incl$des meta-data o( non-S citiens%

S comanies kee records on non-S c$stomers%

#oth ;1C

Lenneth oth is the e&ecutive director of )uman ights >atch, one of the worlds leading internationalhuman rights organi(ations, which operates in more than ? countries. 0rior to 4oining )uman ights>atch in 1B7, oth served as a federal prosecutor in New Ior% and for the #ran"Contra investigation in>ashington, JC. A graduate of Iale Eaw $chool and :rown


35/210

A-to Af is ins$cient :Jc transarency is still

missin&3

ri&inal Freedom Act had transarency rovisions% 'hese


36/210


37/210

Af Backlines "rivacy

Advanta&e


38/210

I( yo$ read the shorter 1A/ versionM

then these are the four cards you didnt read in the 1AC. They could !e useful inthe ;AC.


39/210

Cth Amendment and Side /onstraints

'he CthAmendment o$t


40/210

espect forAmericans privacy is not a matter of convenience,:$t a

/onstit$tional imerative . Jespite years of receiving classied !riengsandas%ing repeated 9uestions of intelligence o-cialsin !oth private and pu!lic settings, amici

have seen no evidence that :$lk collection accomlishes

anythin& that other less intrusive surveillance authorities could not. :ul%collection is not only a signicant threat to the constitutional li!erties of Americans,!ut a needless one.


41/210

tilitarianism is :ad

#eEect $tilitarianism% It shatters all ethics and E$sti=es the

inston Churchill put the gure at a million. evisionist historianshave cast dou!t on such num!ers. >artime documents suggest that military planners e&pected around G?,??? American com!at deaths in an invasion.$till, when Kapanese casualties, military and civilian, are ta%en into account, the overall invasion death toll on !oth sides would surely have ended upsurpassing that from )iroshima and Nagasa%i. $cholars will continue to argue over whether there were other, less catastrophic ways to force To%yo to

surrender. :ut given the erce o!stinacy of the Kapanese militarists, Truman and his advisers had some grounds for !elieving that nothing short of a full"scale invasion or the annihilation of a !ig city with an apocalyptic new weapon would have succeeded. $uppose they were right. >ould this prospect have

4ustied the intentional mass %illing of the people of )iroshima and Nagasa%iO#n the de!ateover the 9uestion, participants on !othsides have !eenplaying the num!ers game. @stimate the hypothetical num!er of lives saved!y the !om!ings, then add up the actual lives lost. #f the rst num!er e&ceeds the second, then Truman did the right thingH ifthe reverse, it was wrong to have dropped the !om!s. That is one approach to the matter "" the utilitarian approach. According to utilitarianism, a form of

moral reasoning that arose in the 1th century, the goodness or evil of an action is determined solely !yits conse9uences. #f somehow you can save 1? lives !y !oiling a !a!y, go ahead

and :oil that :a:y . There is, however, an older ethical tradition , one rooted in Kudeo"Christian theology, that ta%es a 9uite di+erent view. The gist of it is e&pressed !y $t. 0auls condemnation of those who say, /Eet us do evil, that good may

come.2 $ome actions, this tradition holds, can never !e 4ustied !y their conse9uencesH they area!solutely for!idden . #t is always wrong to !oil a !a!y even if lives are saved

there!y. Applying this a!solutist morality to war can !e tric%y. >hen enemy soldiers are trying to enslave or %ill us, the principle of self"defense

permits us to %ill them 6though not to slaughter them once they are ta%en prisoner8. :ut what of those who !ac% themO Juring >orld >ar ##, propagandistsmade much of the /indivisi!ility2 of modern warfare* the idea was that since the enemy nations entire economic and social strength was deployed !ehindits military forces, the whole population was a legitimate target for o!literation. /There are no civilians in Kapan,2 declared an intelligence o-cer of theFifth Air Force shortly !efore the )iroshima !om!ing, a time when the Kapanese were popularly depicted as vermin worthy of e&termination. The !oundary!etween com!atant and noncom!atant can !e fu((y, !ut the distinction is not meaningless, as the case of small children ma%es clear. Iet is wartime%illing of those who are not trying to harm us always tantamount to murderO >hen naval doc%yards, munitions factories and supply lines are !om!ed,civilian carnage is inevita!le. The a!solutist moral tradition ac%nowledges this !y a principle %nown as dou!le e+ect* although it is always wrong to %illinnocents deli!erately, it is sometimes permissi!le to attac% a military target %nowing some noncom!atants will die as a side e+ect. The doctrine ofdou!le e+ect might even 4ustify !om!ing a hospital where )itler is lying ill. #t does not, however, apply to )iroshima and Nagasa%i. Transformed intohostages !y the technology of aerial !om!ardment, the people of those cities were intentionally e&ecuted en masse to send a message of terror to therulers of Kapan. The practice of ordering the massacre of civilians to !ring the enemy to heel scarcely !egan with Truman. Nor did the !om! result incasualties of a new order of magnitude. The earlier !om!ing of To%yo !y incendiary weapons %illed some 1??,??? people. >hat )iroshima and Nagasa%i

did mar%, !y the unprecedented need for rationali(ation they presented, was the triumph of utilitarian thin%ing in the conduct of war.Theconventional code of noncom!atant immunity "" a product of several centuries of ethical progress among nations, which had !een formali(ed !y aninternational commission in the 1;?s in the )ague "" was swept away. A simpler a&iom too% its place* since war is hell, any means necessary may !e

used to end, in Churchills words, /the vast indenite !utchery.2 #tis a moral calculus that, for all its logical consistency,

ofends our deep"seated intuitions a!out the sanctity o( li(e "" our conviction that a person is alwaysto !e treated as an end, never as a means. Eeft up to the warma%ers , moreover,

utilitarian calculations are suscepti!le to !ad"faith reasoning* tinker


42/210


43/210

!e& ar&s :iased inQates the terror risk

8 9 "rivacy o$t


44/210

determining whether the program was /a reasona!ly e+ective means of addressing the government interest in deterring and detecting a terrorist attac% on the su!way system,2;B thecourt refused to e&amine the data to assess the programs e+ectiveness.; The way the court analy(ed the governments side of the !alance would 4ustify nearly any search, no matterhow ine+ective. Although courts should not ta%e a %now"it"all attitude, they should not defer on such a critical 9uestion as a security measures e+ectiveness. The pro!lem with manysecurity measures is that they are not wise e&penditures of resources. A small num!er of random searches in a su!way system of over four million riders a day seems more sym!olicthan e+ective !ecause the odds of the police nding the terrorist with a !om! are very low. The government also argued that the program would deter terrorists from !ringing !om!s onsu!way trains, !ut nearly any %ind of security measure can argua!ly produce some degree of deterrence. The %ey issue, which the court did not analy(e, is whether the program wouldlead to deterrence signicant enough to outweigh the curtailment of civil li!erties. #f courts fail to 9uestion the e-cacy of security measures, then the security interest will prevail nearlyall the time. 0reventing terrorism has an immensely heavy weight, and any given security measure will provide a marginal advancement toward that goal. #n the defer"ence e9uation, themath then !ecomes easy. At this point, it is futile to even !other to loo% at the civil li!erties side of the !alance. The government side has already won. 0roponents of deference arguethat if courts did not defer, then they would !e su!stituting their 4udgment for that of e&ecutive o-cials, who have greater e&pertise in understanding security issues. $pecial e&pertise innational security, however, is often not necessary for !alancing security and li!erty. Kudges and legislators should re9uire the e&perts to persuasively 4ustify the security measures !eingdeveloped or used. 3f course, in very comple& areas of %nowledge, such as advanced physics, none&perts may nd it di-cult to understand the concepts and comprehend the

terminology. :ut it is not clear that security e&pertise involves such sophisticated %nowledge that it would !e incomprehensi!le to none&perts. Doreover, the deference argumentconRates evaluating a particular security measure with creating such a measure. The point of 4udicial review is to su!4ect the 4udgment of government o-cials to critical scrutiny ratherthan !lindly accept their authority. Critical in9uiry into f actual matters is not the imposition of the 4udges own 4udgment for that of the decisionma%er under review.? #nstead, it isforcing government o-cials to e&plain and 4ustify their policies. Few will 9uarrel with the principle that courts should not /second guess2 the decisions of policy e&perts. :ut there is adi+erence !etween not /second guessing2 and failing to critically evaluate the factual and empirical evidence 4ustifying the government programs. No!ody will contest the fact thatsecurity is a compelling interest. The %ey issue in the !alancing is the e&tent to which the security measure furthers the interest in security. As # have argued elsewhere, whenever courtsdefer to the government on the e+ectiveness of a government security measure, they are actually deferring to the government on the ultimate 9uestion as to whether the measurepasses constitutional muster.1 Jeference !y the courts or legislature is an a!dication of their function. 3ur constitutional system of government was created with three !ranches, adesign structured to esta!lish chec%s and !alances against a!uses of power. #nstitutional competence arguments are often made as if they are inelucta!le truths a!out the nature ofeach governmental !ranch. :ut the !ranches have all evolved considera!ly throughout history. To the e&tent a !ranch lac%s resources to carry out its function, the answer should not !eto diminish the power of that !ranch !ut to provide it with the necessary tools so it can more e+ectively carry out its function. Far too often, unfortunately, discussions of institutionalcompetence devolve into !road generali(ations a!out each !ranch and unsu!stantiated assertions a!out the inherent superiority of certain !ranches for ma%ing particulardeterminations. #t is true, as 0osner and Xermeule o!serve, that historically courts have !een deferential to the e&ecutive during emergencies.; 0roponents of security measures oftenadvance what # will refer to as the /pendulum theory2Qthat in times of crisis, the !alance shifts more toward security and in times of peace, the !alance shifts !ac% toward li!erty. Fore&ample, Chief Kustice ehn9uist argues that the /laws will thus not !e silent in time of war, !ut they will spea% with a somewhat di+erent voice.2 Kudge 0osner contends that theli!erties curtailed during times of crisis are often restored during times of peace.S Jeference is inevita!le, and we should accept it without !eing overly concerned, for the pendulumwill surely swing !ac%. As # argue elsewhere, however, there have !een many instances throughout e should not simply accept these mista%es as inevita!leH we should see% to prevent them from occurring. )oping that the pendulumwill swing !ac% o+ers little consolation to those whose li!erties were infringed or chilled. The protection of li!erty is most important in times of crisis, when it is under the greatest threat.Juring times of peace, when our 4udgment is not clouded !y fear, we are less li%ely to ma%e unnecessary sacrices of li!erty. The threat to li!erty is lower in peacetime, and the need toprotect it is not as dire. The greatest need for safeguarding li!erty is during times when we least want to protect it. #n order to !alance security and li!erty, we must assess the security

interest. This involves evaluating two componentsQthe gravity of the security threat and the e+ectiveness of the security measures to address it. #t is oftenmerely

assumedwithout 9uestion thatthe secu"rity threat fromterrorism is one of the gravest dangerswe facein the modern world. :ut this assumption might !e wrong.Assessing the ris% of harm from terrorism is very di-cult !ecauseterrorism is such an irregular occurrence and is constantly evolving. #f we e&amine the data from previous terrorist attac%s, however, the threat of terrorism

has :een severely overstated% For e&ample, many people fear !eing %illed in a terrorist attac%, !ut !ased on statistics fromterrorism in the hy is the government so interested indata mining if it remains unclear whether it will ever !e very accurate or wor%a!leO 0art of the governments interest in data mining stems from the aggressive mar%eting e+orts ofdata!ase companies. After $eptem!er 11, data!ase companies met with government o-cials and made a persuasive pitch a!out the virtues of data mining.S The technology sounds

9uite da((ling when presented !y s%illful mar%eters, and it can wor% 9uite well i n the commercial setting. The pro!lem, however, is that4ust !ecause data


45/210

mining might !e e+ective for !usinesses trying to predict customer !ehavior doesnot ma%e it e+ective for the government trying to predict who will engage interrorism. A high level of accuracy is not necessary when data mining is used !y !usinesses to target mar%eting to consumers, !ecause the cost of error to individuals isminimal. Ama(on.com, for e&ample, engages in data mining to determine which !oo%s its customers are li%ely to nd of interest !y comparing !oo%!uying patterns among its customers.Although it is far from precise, it need not !e !ecause there are few !ad conse9uences if it ma%es a wrong !oo% recommendation. Conversely, the conse9uences are vastly greater for

government data mining.


46/210

"rivacy :acklines


47/210

"rivacy - Imact +Ltensions

"rivacy is the to riority it6s a &ateorld eport ;?1S is )umanights >atchs ;Sth annual review of human rights practices around the glo!e. #t summari(es %ey

human rights issues in more than ? countries and territories worldwide, drawing on events throughNovem!er ;?1. )uman ights >atch is an independent, international organi(ation that wor%s as partof a vi!rant movement to uphold human dignity and advance the cause of human rights for all.http*MMwww.hrw.orgMworld"reportM;?1S

#n a world where we share our lives on social media and trade immense amounts of personal information for the ease and

convenience of online living, some have 9uestioned whether privacy is a relevant concept. It is

not 4ust relevant, !ut cr$cial% #ndeed, rivacy is a &ateatch. )er wor% has ta%en her to Cam!odia, theepu!lic of Lorea, Xietnam, former Iugoslavia and elsewhere in documenting and analy(ingcompliance with international humanitarian law, war crimes and violations of civil and political rights.$he has written on freedom of e&pression, peace"%eeping operations, international tri!unals, orld eport ;?1S is )umanights >atchs ;Sth annual review of human rights practices around the glo!e. #t summari(es %eyhuman rights issues in more than ? countries and territories worldwide, drawing on events throughNovem!er ;?1. )uman ights >atch is an independent, international organi(ation that wor%s as partof a vi!rant movement to uphold human dignity and advance the cause of human rights for all.http*MMwww.hrw.orgMworld"reportM;?1S


48/210

$ome argue we must simply live with the reality ofpervasive online surveillance, andthat pu!lic e&pectation of privacy has eroded. :ut this is neither accurate nordispositive.3ur understanding of privacy hasin fact grown far !eyond /a right to !e left

alone2 into a right of ersonal sel(-determination , em!racing the right tochoose whom we share our personal details withand what identity we pro4ect to

various communities. >hen applied to the digital world, privacy givesus some !oundariesagainst unwanted monitors, and with it the essential freedom for personaldevelopment and independent thought.


49/210

A-to /o$nter-Bias

8 9 +Ltend o$r 1A/ Solove ev it roves that sec$rity risks are

inQated and :ias% "re(er o$r ev Solove is a (oremost eLert

on rivacy and sec$rity risks%

8 9 'he str$ct$ral :ias de:ate &oes Af% Bias against rivacy

r$ns so dee that even ha


50/210

(rom terrorism% The presence of thisstrategic :ias suggests that 4udges should

perhaps :e less de(erential to the eLertise of the e&ecutive on terrorism

matters%

8 9 Bias &oes o$r


51/210

soft on Communism. 0resident 'eorge >. :ushs $eptem!er ;??1 admonition that /either you are with us, or you are with theterrorists2 appears to have an enduring legacy in media !ias.


52/210

A-to Sec$rity #i&hts sho$ld come =rst3

8 9 tilitarian :alancin& is o(ten &ood :$t it shouldnthold in

all instances% !arro< iss$es - s$ch as reE$diced s$rveillance -

sho$ld :e of-limits%

/larke ;1

6et alH This is the Final eport and ecommendations of The 0residents eview 'roup on #ntelligenceand Communications Technologies. 0resident 3!ama ordered a !lue"ri!!on tas% force to reviewdomestic surveillance. This report releases the ndings of that group. The report was headed !y vee&perts including ichard Alan Clar%e, who is the former National Coordinator for $ecurity,#nfrastructure 0rotection, and Counter"terrorism for the hite )ouse 3-ce of #nformation and egulatory A+airs in the 3!ama

administration and is currently a 0rofessor of Eaw at )arvard Eaw $chool. /E#:@TI ANJ $@C3EJ2 Jecem!er 1;th, ;?1 @asily o!tained via a google search.https*MMwww.google.comMurlOsaPtrctP49PesrcPssourcePwe!cdP1cadPr4auactPBvedP?C:SF4AAurlPhttps^A^;F;Fwww.whitehouse.gov^;Fsites^;Fdefault^;Fles^;Fdocs^;F;?1"1;1;rgnalreport.pdfeiPJ!?yXdJ4L#LdNtT\gWg@usgPAF4CN)?$Fodc%E!arXpiSD5p95D!vmP!v.1?711?,d.e\I8

The $:lic ocials sho$ld never en&a&e ins$rveillance in order to punish their political enemiesH to restrict freedom of speech or religionH to suppress legitimatecriticism and dissentH to help their preferred companies or industriesH to provide domestic companies with an unfair competitive advantageH or to !enet

or :$rden mem:ers o( &ro$s de=ned in terms o( reli&ion>

ethnicity> race> and &ender .
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocs%2F2013-12https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocs%2F2013-12https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocs%2F2013-12https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocs%2F2013-12https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocs%2F2013-12https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocs%2F2013-12https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocs%2F2013-12


53/210

tilitarianism and /onseG$ences )o Af

til and /onseG$entialism &oesAin this seci=c conteLt% 'he

link is (alsely ri&&ed in (avor o( sec$rity over rivacy%

Solove ;R

Janiel $olove is an Associate 0rofessor at 'eorge >ashington


54/210

A-to cororate rivacy in(rin&ements are (ar

ashington 0ost " Novem!er S, ;?1 "http*MMwww.washingtonpost.comM!logsMthe"switchMwpM;?1M11M?SMyes"there"actually"is"a"huge"di+erence"!etween"government"and"corporate"surveillanceM

Ies, there act$ally is a h$&e diference :ethen it comes toyour online privacyQ or what little is left of it Q!usinesses and governments act in some pretty similar ways.They trac% your credit card purchases.

They mineyour e"mail for information a!out you.They may even monitor your movements in the real world.

/ororate and &overnment s$rveillance also diver&e in

imortant


55/210

8 9 )overnment violations are


56/210

A-to )overnment /hecks miti&ate "rivacy

violations3

!e< "rotocols ins$cient doesn6t check the lar&e "rivacy

violation%

Smith ;1C

0eter K. $mith #X attorney for the law rm E


57/210

A-to !o Cth Amendment Tiolation .etadata is not

a search3

.eta-data is a search3 and does violate the CthAmendment%

Smith ;1C

0eter K. $mith #X attorney for the law rm Ehen the records of one individual are aggregated with the records ofmany others, the records !ecome even more revealing. $ee, e.g., Felten Jecl. `5S 6@## 1?18H Konathan Dayer 0atric% Dutchler,Deta0hone* The $ensitivity of Telephone Detadata 6Dar. 1;, ;?1S8, http*MM!it.lyM1C93a0L 6study demonstrating use of telephonymetadata to reveal who o!tained an a!ortion, who sought medical treatment, or who owns particular %inds of rearms8. Thegovernment contends that this case is controlled !y $mith v. Daryland, !ut while that case involved the collection of call records, itdid not involve the collection of call records over an e&tended period of time or in !ul%. #t held only that the Fourth Amendment is

not implicated !y the governments collection of a single criminal suspects call records over a period of a few days.TheFourth Amendmentanalysis is not indi+erent to the scale and intrusiveness of thegovernments surveillance.Kust four years after it decided $mith, the $upreme Court e&plicitly recogni(ed that thedistinction !etween narrow surveillance and dragnet surveillance is a constitutionally signicant one. $ee 0l. :r. 1B 6discussing


58/210

formerly private records would !e an unprecedented contraction ofthe privacye&pectationsof all Americans.2


59/210

B$lk collection violates Cth amendment

B$lk collection is the :i&&est internal link to rivacy violations%

4e&al recedent m$st :e $dated%

+"I/ ;1C

The @lectronic 0rivacy #nformation Center or /@0#C2 " is a pu!lic interest research center in >ashington,J.C @0#C routinely participates as amicus curiae !efore federal and state courts in cases concerningthe protection of privacy. Dem!ers of the @0#C Advisory :oard are e&pert in issues of domesticsurveillance. The @0#C amicus !rief is 4oined !y technical e&perts and legal scholars these includeseveral Eaw 0rofessors, Jistinguished $cientists, Computer $cience e&perts, 0rofessors withspeciali(ations in #nformation Eaw. Amicus :rief for Smith v. bama !efore the


60/210

A-to .eta-,ata dJn violate "rivacy - it


61/210

A-to Secial !eeds ,octrine means 'errorism

$t


62/210

A-to Af contradicts - still iss$es so

rivacy6s not a:sol$te3

'here6s no contradiction% Iss$in&


63/210

freedom, crea"tivity, and self"development. According to Kulie Cohen, /ervasive moni-

torin& of every rst move or false start will, at the margin, incline choices toward the !land and themainstream.257 Donitoring constrains the /ac"cepta!le spectrum of !elief and!ehavior,2 and it results in/a su!tle yet fundamental shift in the content of our character,

a !lunting and !lurring of rough edges and sharp lines.25B $urveillance thus /threatensnot only to chill thee&pression of eccentric individuality,!ut also, gradually, to dampen the force of our aspirations to it.25 $imilarly,0aul $chwart( ar"gues that surveillance inhi!its freedom of choice, impinging upon self"determination.7?


64/210

A-to ;hat is rivacy V%%%3 or "rivacy is a va&$e

concet3

.eta-G$estions a:o$t ashington < Eaw $chool 0u!lic Eaw esearch 0aper No. ;B availa!le from download at*http*MMpapers.ssrn.comMsolMpapers.cfmOa!stractidPBG5G

Dy purpose in advancing the ta&onomy is to shift away from the rather vague la!el of privacy in order to preventdistinct harms and pro!lems from !eing conRated or not recogni(ed. $ome might contend, however, that several ofthe pro!lems # discuss are not really /privacy2 pro!lems. :ut with no satisfactory set of necessary or su-cientconditions to dene privacy, there is no one specic criterion for inclusion or e&clusion under the ru!ric of /privacy.20rivacy violations consist of a we! of related pro!lems that are not connected !y a common element, !utnevertheless !ear some resem!lances to each other. >e can determine whether to classify something as falling inthe domain of privacy if it !ears resem!lance to other things we similarly classify. #n other words, we use a form ofanalogical reasoning in which /UtVhe %ey tas%,2 Cass $unstein o!serves, /is to decide when there are relevantsimilarities and di+erences.2G Accordingly, there are no clear !oundaries for what we should or should not refer toas /privacy.2 $ome might o!4ect to the lac% of clear !oundaries, !ut this o!4ection assumes that having denitive

!oundaries matters.The 9uestfor atraditional denition of privacy has led to a rather

fruitless and unresolved de!ate.#n the meantime, there are real ro:lems that

m$st :e addressed , !ut they areeither conRated or ignored !ecause they do not tintovarious prefa!ricated conceptions of privacy.The law often neglects to see the pro!lems andinstead ignores all things that do not fall into a particular conception of privacy. #n this way, conceptionsof privacy can prevent the e&amination of pro!lems. The pro!lems still e&istregardlessof whether we classify them as !eing /privacy2 pro!lems. A great deal of attention ise&pended trying to elucidate the concept of privacy without loo%ing at the pro!lemswe are facing. Dy goal is to !egin with the pro!lems and understand them in detail. Trying to t them into aone"si(e"ts"all conception of privacy neglects to see the pro!lems in their full dimensions or to understand themcompletely. Conceptions should help us understand and illuminate e&perienceH they should not detract frome&perience and ma%e us see and understand less.


65/210

A-to +tioni

8 9 +tioni is


66/210

A-to "$:lic "rivate ,ichotomy3

'here is no $:lic-rivate dichotomy3% e said a (orm o(

rivacy3 that doesn6t lock $s into never considerin& the

same thin& $:lic% 'he notions


67/210

/o$rt version o( Af le&al de(ense o( 215 m$st :e

str$ck-do


68/210

records as well. #t is to accept that the government mayalso create a permanent

record of every erson Americans contact :y email H every


69/210

os are key

'he ne< Freedom Act didn6t :an contact chain hos3% os

are key a sin&le search violates the rivacy o( many more%

+"I/ ;1C



70/210

"hone ,ata is key

"hone data is a h$&e internal link to rivacy% .odern .eta-

data reveals m$ch more in(ormation%

+"I/ ;1C



71/210

A-to !o "rivacy violation :Jc it6s only hone data3

8 9 "hone ,ata alone is s$cient to violate "rivacy%

Smith ;1C

0eter K. $mith #X attorney for the law rm EE ;75;B;7, at [1 6J.C. Cir. Aug. ;S, ;??8 6per curiam8 6a-rming F:#swithholding of employee phone num!ers8H $mith v. Jept of Ea!or, 7B F. $upp. ;d ;7S, ;BS 6J.J.C. ;?118 6/'enerally, personalidentifying information such as a persons name, address, phone num!er, date of !irth, criminal history, medical history, and socialsecurity num!er may !e protected under @&emption 5.28.


72/210

Af Backlines Bi&otry

Advanta&e


73/210

I( yo$ read the shorter 1A/ versionM

then these are the cards you didnt read in the 1AC. They could !e useful in the;AC.


74/210

!SA s$rveillance #acist> .$st /enter #acial

Imacts

arrantless mass s$rveillance is racist% Tote Af to rioritie

these $nder-reresented imacts in $:lic de:ates%

$mar K $ndnani ;15

Jeepa Lumar is an associate professor of Dedia $tudies and Diddle @ast $tudies at utgers


75/210


76/210

S$rveillance #acist

S$rveillance is racist it6s the modern /I!'+4"#% #eEect the

sec$rity E$sti=cations that ro-$ these (orms o( violence%

$mar K $ndnani ;15

Jeepa Lumar is an associate professor of Dedia $tudies and Diddle @ast $tudies at utgers ith new provisions in the Clinton administrations 15Antiterrorism and @+ective Jeath 0enalty Act, the F:# can launch investigations of a suspected individual or organi(ation simply forproviding /material support2 to terrorismQa vague term that could include ideological activity unrelated to any actual plot to carry

out violence. >hile C3#NT@E03 violated federal laws, today similar %inds ofinvestigation and criminali(ation of political dissent can !e carried out legitimately inthe name of countering terror ism.


77/210

ritik o( the !e&6s Sec$rity ,isad

e reEect the racialied notions o( S$rveillance and Sec$rity%

'hese ractices (alsely constr$ct threats and sh$t-doashingtons army in the American

evolution. $tate surveillance regimes have always sought to monitor and penali(e a e arguethat raciali(ed groupings are produced in the very act of collecting information a!out

certain groups deemed as /threats2 !y the national security stateQthe Bro


78/210

Bi&otry Advanta&e - Backlines


79/210

A-to /o$nter-Bias

8 9 'he co$nter-:ias cards


80/210

and 71 percent disagreed with warrantless monitoring of estern 4ournalistsand media outlets may still6even more than adecade after M118 !e wary of appearingto !e /soft on terror,2 much as they once were a!out appearing to !esoft on Communism. 0resident 'eorge >. :ushs $eptem!er ;??1 admonition that /either you are with us, or you are with theterrorists2 appears to have an enduring legacy in media !ias.


81/210

tilitarianism is :ad

#eEect $tilitarianism% It shatters all ethics and E$sti=es the

inston Churchill put the gure at a million. evisionist historianshave cast dou!t on such num!ers. >artime documents suggest that military planners e&pected around G?,??? American com!at deaths in an invasion.$till, when Kapanese casualties, military and civilian, are ta%en into account, the overall invasion death toll on !oth sides would surely have ended upsurpassing that from )iroshima and Nagasa%i. $cholars will continue to argue over whether there were other, less catastrophic ways to force To%yo to

surrender. :ut given the erce o!stinacy of the Kapanese militarists, Truman and his advisers had some grounds for !elieving that nothing short of a full"scale invasion or the annihilation of a !ig city with an apocalyptic new weapon would have succeeded. $uppose they were right. >ould this prospect have

4ustied the intentional mass %illing of the people of )iroshima and Nagasa%iO#n the de!ateover the 9uestion, participants on !othsides have !eenplaying the num!ers game. @stimate the hypothetical num!er of lives saved!y the !om!ings, then add up the actual lives lost. #f the rst num!er e&ceeds the second, then Truman did the right thingH ifthe reverse, it was wrong to have dropped the !om!s. That is one approach to the matter "" the utilitarian approach. According to utilitarianism, a form of

moral reasoning that arose in the 1th century, the goodness or evil of an action is determined solely !yits conse9uences. #f somehow you can save 1? lives !y !oiling a !a!y, go ahead

and :oil that :a:y . There is, however, an older ethical tradition , one rooted in Kudeo"Christian theology, that ta%es a 9uite di+erent view. The gist of it is e&pressed !y $t. 0auls condemnation of those who say, /Eet us do evil, that good may

come.2 $ome actions, this tradition holds, can never !e 4ustied !y their conse9uencesH they area!solutely for!idden . #t is always wrong to !oil a !a!y even if lives are saved

there!y. Applying this a!solutist morality to war can !e tric%y. >hen enemy soldiers are trying to enslave or %ill us, the principle of self"defense

permits us to %ill them 6though not to slaughter them once they are ta%en prisoner8. :ut what of those who !ac% themO Juring >orld >ar ##, propagandistsmade much of the /indivisi!ility2 of modern warfare* the idea was that since the enemy nations entire economic and social strength was deployed !ehindits military forces, the whole population was a legitimate target for o!literation. /There are no civilians in Kapan,2 declared an intelligence o-cer of theFifth Air Force shortly !efore the )iroshima !om!ing, a time when the Kapanese were popularly depicted as vermin worthy of e&termination. The !oundary!etween com!atant and noncom!atant can !e fu((y, !ut the distinction is not meaningless, as the case of small children ma%es clear. Iet is wartime%illing of those who are not trying to harm us always tantamount to murderO >hen naval doc%yards, munitions factories and supply lines are !om!ed,civilian carnage is inevita!le. The a!solutist moral tradition ac%nowledges this !y a principle %nown as dou!le e+ect* although it is always wrong to %illinnocents deli!erately, it is sometimes permissi!le to attac% a military target %nowing some noncom!atants will die as a side e+ect. The doctrine ofdou!le e+ect might even 4ustify !om!ing a hospital where )itler is lying ill. #t does not, however, apply to )iroshima and Nagasa%i. Transformed intohostages !y the technology of aerial !om!ardment, the people of those cities were intentionally e&ecuted en masse to send a message of terror to therulers of Kapan. The practice of ordering the massacre of civilians to !ring the enemy to heel scarcely !egan with Truman. Nor did the !om! result incasualties of a new order of magnitude. The earlier !om!ing of To%yo !y incendiary weapons %illed some 1??,??? people. >hat )iroshima and Nagasa%i

did mar%, !y the unprecedented need for rationali(ation they presented, was the triumph of utilitarian thin%ing in the conduct of war.Theconventional code of noncom!atant immunity "" a product of several centuries of ethical progress among nations, which had !een formali(ed !y aninternational commission in the 1;?s in the )ague "" was swept away. A simpler a&iom too% its place* since war is hell, any means necessary may !e

used to end, in Churchills words, /the vast indenite !utchery.2 #tis a moral calculus that, for all its logical consistency,

ofends our deep"seated intuitions a!out the sanctity o( li(e "" our conviction that a person is alwaysto !e treated as an end, never as a means. Eeft up to the warma%ers , moreover,

utilitarian calculations are suscepti!le to !ad"faith reasoning* tinker


82/210


83/210

A-to 4e&alism> 4a<

8 9 erm do the Alternative% "lan did not commit to more 4ae!ers classicsociological understanding of the state as =a human community that 6successfully8 claims the monopoly of thelegitimate use of physical force within a given territory.=1S >e!er !elieved that the state could not !e dened

sociologically in terms of its ends[ only formally as an organi(ation in terms of the particular means that arepeculiar to it.1G Doreover his concept of legitimacy was merely concerned with whether rules were accepted !ysu!4ects as valid 6for whatever reason8H he did not o+er a normative theory as to the circumstances when particular

rules ought to !e accepted or whether !eliefs a!out the validity of rules were 4ustied. Eegitimacy was acontin&ent (act, and in view of his understanding of politics as a struggle for power in the conte&t of anincreasingly disenchanted world, li%ely to !ecome an increasingly unsta!le achievement.15 #n contrast to >e!er,my approach to the state is e&plicitly normative and e&plicitly concerned with the purpose of states, and thedemocratic !asis of their legitimacy. #t focuses on the limitations of li!eral normative theories of the state 6andassociated ideals of a 4ust constitutional arrangement8, and it proposes instead an alternative green theory thatsee%s to redress the deciencies in li!eral theory. Nor is my account as !lea% as >e!ers. The fact that statespossess a monopoly of control over the means of coercion is a most serious matter, !ut it does not necessarily


87/210

imply that they must have fre9uent recourse to that power. #n any event, whether the use of the statescoercive powers is to !e deplored or welcomed turns onthe purposes for which that power is

e&ercised, the manner in hile the state is certainly not =healthy= at the present historical 4uncture, in this !oo% # nonetheless 4oin 0oggi !yo+ering =a timid two cheers for the old !east,= at least as a potentially more signicant ally in the green cause.17


88/210

A-to !ot sinister - checks solve3

/hecks3 and s$rveillance re(orms3


89/210

A-to .ass s$rveillance &ood solves o


90/210

conversation included the organi(ations si(e, purpose, and activities. n1;1 The memo, which included the students social securitynum!er, telephone num!er, and address, was su!mitted to the F:# in >ashington, JC. n1;; Additionally, in $an Francisco, the F:#su!mitted a ;??7 and ;??B report that detailed F:# spy e+orts at amadan #ftar dinners. n1; #n the reports, the F:# documentedthe names of attendees, the contents of various conversations and presentations, a photo of dinner participants, and other

information. n1;S :oth of the reports indicate that the information was disseminated outside of the F:#. n1;GThere areseveralother instances, similar to these, in which the F:#utili(edindividuals race or ethnicity as a!asis for monitoring.n1;5The A merican C ivil E i!erties < nion andU[SG;V other

organi(ations have protested the wide"sweeping authority that has !een granted tothe national government to monitor domestic individuals , especially those that are notsuspected of terror ism or criminal activity.n1;7

6Note to students* /J#3'2 an acronym in this piece of evidence stands for theFederal :ureau of #nvestigations /Jomestic #nvestigations and 3perations 'uide2.8


91/210

A-to '$rn lan stos 4e&al .ariE$ana3

8 9 'heir ev ass$mes an ideal


92/210

su!mitted a ;??7 and ;??B report that detailed F:# spy e+orts at amadan #ftar dinners. n1; #n the reports, the F:# documentedthe names of attendees, the contents of various conversations and presentations, a photo of dinner participants, and other

information. n1;S :oth of the reports indicate that the information was disseminated outside of the F:#. n1;GThere areseveralother instances, similar to these, in which the F:#utili(edindividuals race or ethnicity as a!asis for monitoring.n1;5The A merican C ivil E i!erties < nion andU[SG;V otherorgani(ations have protested the wide"sweeping authority that has !een granted to

the national government to monitor domestic individuals , especially those that are notsuspected of terror ism or criminal activity.n1;7

6Note to students* /J#3'2 an acronym in this piece of evidence stands for theFederal :ureau of #nvestigations /Jomestic #nvestigations and 3perations 'uide2.8

Federal mariE$ana le&aliation @X#@> " Xol. 1 "http*MMlaw.uoregon.eduMorgMolrMvolumesM1MSMdocumentsMXitiello.pdf8

The rst!rief moment when the federal government seemed readyto reevaluate itsposition on mari4uana occurred during Kimmy Carters presidency. 0resident Carter called for itsdecriminali(ation. Also during the Carter presidency, the government implemented a compassionate use program, allowing some seriously ill patients

access to mari4uana through a carefully controlled federal program.G7 :egun duringichard Ni&ons presidency,GB the >aron Jrugsproliferatedduring onald eagans presidency.G 0enalties were increased, often with mandatory minimum sentences.5? Andthose laws were enforced, often vigorously.51


93/210

dealers sell drugs within pro&imity to schools.7; Finally, the #nternal evenue $ervice has $rs$ed

le&itimate3 disensaries% The #$s position is especially threatening to states hopes of raising ta& revenues.eagan"era legislation ma%es it unlawful for drug dealers to deduct ordinary !usiness e&penses, including salaries paid to sta+.7 At least according tonews reports, the #$ has targeted some of the most law"a!iding dispensaries in California.7S That stance, if upheld !y the courts,7G has a potentiallyperverse e+ect* dispensary owners most interested in complying with the law would !e forced out of !usiness, while those who are interested in usingmedical mari4uana laws as a cover for drug tra-c%ing may !e a!le to remain in !usiness. $ome o!servers e&press little surprise in the 3!amaadministrations shift in its position.75 An outsider might conclude that the 3!ama administration discovered a reality of modern government*

change is hard !ecause of inertia res$ltin& (rom entrenched vestedinterests o( &overnmental a&encies .Thus, the administrations policy

shift may have resulted from a conQict !etween 3!amas more tolerant positiontowards mari4uana and o-cials in the 3-ce of National Jrug 0olicy, the J@A, andother law enforcement agencies.77


94/210

appropriate security and security plans with =satisfactory proof of the nancial a!ility of the licensee to provide forthat security=H 1SS and S8 compliance with other employment, 1SG inspection, 1S5 and record%eeping 1S7

measures.These !usiness andlicensing regulations providedno assistance toentrepreneurs with littleor nostart"up capital.Therefore, mari4uana, if legali(ed in theCalifornia fashion, while !ecoming the nations ne&t cash crop and a tremendous source ofwealth, could potentially !e so for mainly non"minorities, ones who have the

nancial means and !usiness savvy to initiate such production.>orsening this dilemma, most of the moneyRowing into the minority communities from the illegal sale of mari4uana would !e diverted into the !an% accounts

of the new class of =mari4uana !usinessman.= 1SB Dinority community leaders should !emindful of this potential money drain, and wary of its wide range of e+ects on theircommunities. 1S


95/210

o( Sec$rity disads

'he very notion o( sec$rity3 is racist and m$st :e reEected%

'heir ass$mtions o( sec$rity3 ($el deportationand mass

incarceration% 'hese ca$se more real violence than the disad%

$mar K $ndnani ;15

Jeepa Lumar is an associate professor of Dedia $tudies and Diddle @ast $tudies at utgers hat !rings togetherthese di+erent systems of racial

oppressionQmass incarceration , mass s$rveillance , andmass

deortationQis a sec$rity lo&ic that holds theimperial state as necessary to%eeping/American families2 6coded white8 safe from threatsa!road and at home. The ideological wor% of the last fewdecades has cultivated not only racial security fears !ut also an assumption that the security state is necessary to %eep /us2 safe.

#n this sense, security has !ecome the new psychological wage to aid thereallocation of the welfare states social wage toward homeland security and to win

support for empire in the age of neoli!eralism . 'hro$&h the notion o(

sec$rity> social and economic an&ietiesgenerated !y the unraveling of the Leynesian social compact have!een channeled toward the :lac% or :rown street criminal, welfare recipient,orterrorist.#n addition, as $usan Faludi has argued, since M11, this homeland in need of security has !een sym!oli(ed, a!ove all,!y the white domestic hearth of the prefeminist fties, once again threatened !y mythical frontier enemies, hidden su!versives, andracial aggressors. That this idea of the homeland coincides culturally with /the denigration of capa!le women, the magnication ofmanly men, the heightened call for domesticity, the search for and sanctication of helpless girls2 points to the ways it is genderedas well as raciali(ed.57


96/210

A-to 'error ,isad

#acialied s$rveillance ca$ses terror attacks% It kills la it is a

str$&&le to :e $ndertaken


98/210

strongest. 3ne day, perhaps, the roles will !e reversed. All un4ust society contains


99/210

.eta-,ata checks a:$ses on the :asis o( identity

8 9 4imitin& meta-data is vital to rotectin& a:$ses on the

:asis o( identity%

"oemner ;1C

Jinah 0oLempner is general counsel of )uman ights >atch. )er wor% has ta%en her to Cam!odia, theepu!lic of Lorea, Xietnam, former Iugoslavia and elsewhere in documenting and analy(ingcompliance with international humanitarian law, war crimes and violations of civil and political rights.$he has written on freedom of e&pression, peace"%eeping operations, international tri!unals, orld eport ;?1S is )umanights >atchs ;Sth annual review of human rights practices around the glo!e. #t summari(es %eyhuman rights issues in more than ? countries and territories worldwide, drawing on events throughNovem!er ;?1. )uman ights >atch is an independent, international organi(ation that wor%s as part

of a vi!rant movement to uphold human dignity and advance the cause of human rights for all.http*MMwww.hrw.orgMworld"reportM;?1S

Argua!ly, collecting and !an%ing mass personal dataover time confers such power totrac%,analy(e, and e&pose peoples livesthat it should !e thought of as a form of /e+ective control.2$ome of us may not care a!out who sees our Face!oo% postings, !ut thesecurity andhuman dignity of many people all over the world depends on the a!ility to limit who%nows a!out their political preferences, se&ual orientation, religious a-liation, andmore.


100/210

Af Backlines o$rnalism

Advanta&e


101/210

Backlines


102/210

S$rveillance key to chillin& Eo$rnalism

S$rveillance is the vital internal link to chillin&% It si&ni=cantly

hamers a&&ressive Eo$rnalism%

Sinha ;1C

6et alH Authors #nclude* '. Ale& $inha, Aryeh Neier fellow with the atchand the )uman ights 0rogram at the American Civil Ei!erties #T) E#:@TI T3 D3N#T3 AEE )ow Earge"$cale


103/210

S$rveillance [ chills> no &overnment

acco$nta:ilityS$rveillance hamers the $:lic6s a:ility to chan&e the

&overnment :y holdin& it acco$nta:le%

# ;1C

6)uman ights >atch is an independent, international organi(ation that wor%s as part of a vi!rantmovement to uphold human dignity and advance the cause of human rights for all. This evidence isinternally 9uoting Ale& $inha, Aryeh Neier Fellow at )uman ights >atch and the American CivilEi!erties ith Ei!erty to Donitor All* )owEarge"$cale ith Ei!erty to Donitor All* )ow Earge"$cale


104/210

8 9 :$lk s$rveillance chills a&&ressive Eo$rnalism%

Brohite 0aper* :ul% Collection of Telephony Detadata


105/210

#n short, /UtVhe :ill of ights was fashioned against the !ac%ground of %nowledge that unrestricted power of searchand sei(urecould also!e an instrument forstiRing li!erty of e&pression,2 Darcus v. $earch >arrant, 57 hile the government may now pro+er di+erent 4ustications than /the search for thenonconformist that led :ritish o-cials to ransac% private homes2 in 175G, Fran% v. Daryland, G


106/210

/on=dentiality o( So$rces is key to a&&ressive

Eo$rnalism

8 9 /on=dentiality is key and the sG$o chills it on many iss$es%

Broas ]Jeep Throat* Dar% Felt @nds ?"Iear Dystery of The 0osts >atergate $ource, >ash. 0ost 6Kune 1, ;??G8,http*MMwapo.stMKElIvW. :ernstein has said, /Almost all of the articles # coauthored with Dr. >oodward on >atergate could not have!een reported or pu!lished without the assistance of our condential sources and without the a!ility to grant them anonymity,including the individual %nown as Jeep Throat.2 #n e 'rand Kury $u!poenas to Dar% Fainaru">ada and Eance >illiams, No. C"?5"?;;G"K$> 6N.J. Cal. Kune 1G, ;??5, a-davit in support of motion to 9uash su!poenas8. 3ther ma4or stories have similarly relied oncondential sources. The New Ior% Times used these contacts to !rea% the story that long !efore the scope of the currentsurveillance came to light the N$A had an i llegal wiretapping program that monitored phone calls and e"mail messages involvingsuspected terrorist operatives without the approval of federal courts. $ee Kames isen @ric Eicht!lau, :ush Eets ithout Courts, N.I. Times 6Jec. 15, ;??G8, http*MMnyti.msMne#D#:.; The Times also used condential sources to report on the harshinterrogations that terrorism suspects in ash. 0ost 6Nov. ;, ;??G8,http*MMwapo.stM


107/210

news organi(ations have personally told me it has intimidated sources fromspea%ing to them.2 #d. )e continued, /#n some cases, government employees that we oncechec%ed in with regularly will no longer spea% to us !y phone and some arereluctant to meet in person.2 $ee Eindy oyce" :artlett, Eea% 0ro!e )as Chilled $ources, A0 @&ec $ays, CNN 6Kune 1,;?18, http*MM!it.lyM11N'!3). East year, the pu!lic also learned that the F:# identied Fo& News 4ournalist Kames osen as a /co"conspirator2 in a search warrant application so that it could o!tain his e"mails relating to the criminal investigation of a source. $eeApplication for $earch >arrant for @"mail Account UredactedVYgmail.com, No. 1*1?"m4"??;1"AL 6J.J.C., A-davit in support ofapplication for search warrant, unsealed Nov. 7, ;?118. Dany commentators have e&plored the connection !etween the osen caseand an overall chill on the willingness of sources to come forward. $ee @ditorial, Another Chilling Eea% #nvestigation, N.I. Times 6Day;1, ;?18, http*MMnyti.msM1Sv4JlG 6/>ith the decision to la!el a Fo& News television reporter a possi!le ]co"conspirator in a criminalinvestigation of a news lea%, the 3!ama administration has moved !eyond protecting government secrets to threateningfundamental freedoms of the press to gather news.28H see also @ugene o!inson, 3!ama Administration Dista%es Kournalism for@spionage, >ash. 0ost 6Day ;?, ;?18, http*MM!it.lyM1vWrc 6/The 3!ama administration has no !usiness rummaging through

4ournalists phone records, perusing their emails and trac%ing their movements in an attempt to %eep them from gathering news.This heavyhanded !usiness isnt chilling, its 4ust plain cold.28.


108/210

.ass S$rveillance is a :i&&er deterrent than

s$:oenas

8 9 .ass S$rveillance o$t


109/210

/hillin& imact

S$ch chillin& disco$ra&es s$icide> a:$se> and addiction

revention%

+"I/ ;1C



110/210

/hillin& violates 1st Amendment

.eta-,ata indeendently violates the 1stAmendment it chills

seech and reli&io$s (reedom%

.edine ;15

Javid Dedine chairs of the 0rivacy and Civil Ei!erties 3versight :oard. The 0rivacy and Civil Ei!erties3versight :oard is an independent agency within the e&ecutive !ranch of the hite )ouse, where he advised !oth the 0resident and the Assistant to the 0resident for@conomic 0olicy, coordinated Administration policies on such issues as privacy, nancial institutions,and e&panding capital investment in under"served areas. :efore wor%ing at the >hite )ouse, Dr.

Dedine was the Associate Jirector for Financial 0ractices, :ureau of Consumer 0rotection for theFederal Trade Commission, where he was responsi!le for de!t collection enforcement. /)ard National$ecurity Choices N$As $ection ;1G Telephony Detadata 0rogram $hould and Can :e $hut Jown2 Eawfare " Fe! 1th" http*MMwww.lawfare!log.comM;?1GM?;Mnsas"section";1G"telephony"metadata"program"should"and"can"!e"shut"downM

#n its $ection ;1G report, 0CE3: found that!ul% collection of Americans phone call metadatawas not e+ective in identifying terrorist plotsor terrorists, concluding there was /littleevidence that the uni9ue capa!ilitiesprovided !y the N$As !ul% collection of telephone records actuallyhave yielded material counterterrorism results that could not have !een achievedwithoutthe N$As $ection ;1Gprogram.2 :alanced against this slim record of e-cacy, thegovernments collection of information a!out countless private interactions!etween

people not suspected of any wrongdoing clearly ris%s chilling freedom of seech>association and reli&ion , and as well as riskin& ($t$re data a:$se

:y &overnment ocials% The NCchose not to address this policy de!ate and also devoted littlee+ort to considering alternatives to !ul% collection that would !e compara!ly e+ective and !etter protect privacy and civil li!erties,

ac%nowledging it /did not investigate the full range of alternatives that intelligenceagencies could !ring to !ear.2


111/210

)overnment Acco$nta:ility imact

4ack o( acco$nta:le &overnance ens$res the all $treet Kournal,:usiness >ee%, and $cripps )oward News $ervice. )e has testied !efore congressional committeeson ? occasions and formerly served as an Assistant $ecretary of the Treasury. )e holds a 0h.J. fromthe a"!y"0aul"Craig"o!erts"1?B1"17.html

#f an American citi(en lies to a federal investigator, even if not under oath, the citi(en can !e arrested, prosecuted, and sent to prison. Iet, these same

federal personnel can lie to Congress and to citi(ens with impunity. >hatever the American political system is, it

has nothingwhatsoever to do atergate !urglary. To avoid impeachment, Ni&on resigned. #n the 1?s, the )ouse impeached 0resident :ill Cl inton for lyinga!out his se&ual a+air with a >hite )ouse intern. The $enate failed to convict, no dou!t as many had se&ual a+airs of their own and didnt want to !e heldaccounta!le themselves. #n the 17?s when # was on the $enate sta+, corporate lo!!yists would send attractive women to seduce $enators so that theinterest groups could !lac%mail the $enators to do their !idding. Jont !e surprised if the N$A has adopted this corporate practice. The improprieties ofNi&on and Clinton were minor, indeed of little conse9uence, when compared to the crimes of 'eorge >. :ush and 3!ama, their vice presidents, and the!ul% of their presidential appointees. Iet, impeachment is =o+ the ta!le,= as Nancy 0elosi infamously declared. >hy do Californian voters send a person toCongress who refuses to protect them from an unaccounta!le e&ecutive !ranchO >ho does Nancy 0elosi serveO Certainly not the people of California. Dostcertainly not the ill Californians re"elect her yet againO Eittle wonder America is failing.

The 9uestion demanding to !e as%ed is* >hat is the purpose of the domestic surveillance of allAmericansOThis is surveillance out of all proportion to the alleged terroristthreat. The hyO Joes the hat is this agendaO >hose agenda is more important than the


112/210

%eep the =terrorist threat= alive in the pu!lics mind. At last count, there have !een 1G? =sting operations= in which the F:# recruits people, who are out oftouch with reality, to engage in a well"paid F:# designed plot. 3nce the dupes agree, they are arrested as terrorists and the plot revealed, always with theaccompanying statement that the pu!lic was never in any danger as the F:# was in control. >hen percent of all terrorism is organi(ed !y the F:#, whydo we need N$A spying on every communication of every American and on people in the rest of the worldO Terrorism seldom comes from outside. Thesource almost always is the government in power. The C(arist secret police set o+ !om!s in order to !lame and arrest la!or agitators. The Na(is !urned

down the eichstag in order to decimate the communists and assume unaccounta!le power in the name of =pu!lic safety.= An alleged terroristthreat is a way of using fear to !loc% popular o!4ection to the e&ercise of ar!itrarygovernment power. #n order to !e =safe from terrorists,= the ashington,4ustied !y its =e&ceptionalism,= has the right to attac% populations in countries with which >ashington is not at war, such as 0a%istan and Iemen.>ashington is using the cover of its =e&ceptionalism= to murder people in many countries. )itler tried to mar%et the e&ceptionalism of the 'erman people,

!ut he lac%ed >ashingtons Dadison Avenue s%ills. >ashington is always morally right, whatever it does, and thosewho report its crimes are traitors who, stripped of theircoddling !y civil li!erties, are loc%ed away and a!useduntil they confess to their crimes against the state. Anyone who tells the truth, such as:radley Danning, Kulian Assange, and@dward $nowden, are !randed enemies of the stateand are ruthlessly persecuted. )ow does the =indispensa!le,e&ceptional nation= have a diplomatic policyO )ow can a neoconi(ed $tate Jepartment !e !ased on anything e&cept coercionO #t cant. That is why>ashington produces nothing !ut war and threats of war. >herever a person loo%s, whatever a person hears, it is >ashingtons threat "" =we are going to!om! you into the stone age= if you dont do what we want and agree to what we re9uire. >e are going to impose =sanctions,= >ashingtons euphemismfor em!argoes, and starve your women and children to death, permit no medical supplies, !an you from the international payments system unless yourelent and consent to !eing >ashingtons puppet, and !an you from posting your news !roadcasts

freedom act affirmative - hss 2015

Documents