ErdmannTSDCTerrorism
Terrorism Disadvantage
Terrorism Disadvantage
Negative
1NC Shell
Uniqueness Extensions
Link Extensions
Section 702 Links
XO 12333 Links
Impact Extensions
Affirmative
Uniqueness Answers
Link Answers
Section 702 Answers
Impact Answers
Negative
1NC Shell
Uniqueness: Expiration of NSA authority is a massive signal of weakness --- terrorist groups are looking to exploit any vulnerability
Daily Mail 15, 5/31/2015. “Head of CIA warns that US is at risk of lone wolf terror attack after NSA powers to monitor all phone calls expired – as Isis ‘watch carefully’ for security gaps,”
The head of the CIA has warned that Americans are now at risk after the Senate was unable to extend laws giving authorities special powers to fight terrorists. Politicians in the upper house were unable to come to an agreement to extend key parts of the Patriot Act - that legalize controversial methods of surveillance by the National Security Agency (NSA) - which expired on Sunday. Attempts were frustrated by Presidential candidate Rand Paul, who has taken a firm stance against the extension of powers allowing the mass collection of phone records, wire taps and warrants without evidence. But the Head of the CIA John Brennan claims ordinary Americans, who expect the NSA to do their jobs, have been put at risk by 'political grandstanding and crusading for ideological causes' that fueled the debate. Speaking on CBS show Face The Nation, he warned that the US - and Europe - is now in danger from technologically 'sophisticated' terrorists who are watching developments carefully and 'looking for the seams to operate' within. He claimed that the authorities do not abuse the powers, extended in 2011 to help fight lone wolf terror suspects not connected to a specific group, and that without them, it's difficult for the NSA to protect America. Mr Brennan said: 'I think terrorist elements have watched very carefully what has happened here in the United States, whether or not it's disclosures of classified information or whether it's changes in the law and policies. They are looking for the seams to operate within. 'And this is something that we can't afford to do right now, because if you look at the horrific terrorist attacks and violence that is being perpetrated around the globe, we need to keep our country safe. And our oceans are not keeping us safe the way they did a century ago.' The Patriot Act was passed in 2001 in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks. Now that the provisions have expired, government agents will need to subpoena phone companies for the records. The White House previously justified collecting the records because of the Patriot Act's Section 215, which expired on Sunday. Two other provisions, added in 2011, also expired with it. The first is a 'roving wiretap' provision which allows government agencies to keep tracking suspects as they switch devices. The second is a 'lone wolf' clause which allows warrants to be granted without any evidence linking a suspect to a foreign power or terrorist group. Political struggles over the NSA and its data collection have become a national issue since whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed the extent of government programs in 2013. The senate's efforts to pass a replacement bill were frustrated by Kentucky's junior senator Rand Paul, who has spoken at length against the NSA's activities, which he has excoriated as illegal and unconstitutional. Paul, a Republican who is running for president, came up against members of his own party, as well as the Obama administration. With his presidential campaign waning, he has been accused of irresponsible political opportunism by opponents, by fighting a bill on ideological grounds that may put ordinary people at risk. He was criticized by the White House Sunday night, which called the Patriot Act expiration an 'irresponsible lapse'. While Brennan didn't mention Paul by name, he said on Face The Nation: 'Unfortunately I think there is a little too much political grandstanding and crusading for ideological causes that have really fuelled the debate on this issue. He added: 'These are authorities that have been used by the government to make sure that we're able to safeguard Americans. And the sad irony is that most Americans expect the government to protect them. And so although there's a lot of debate that goes on, on the Congress and the Hill on this issue, I think, when you go out to Boise or Tampa or Louisville, Americans are expecting their law enforcement and homeland security and intelligence professionals to do their work. And these authorities are important.' Paul argued 'there must be another way' but even he agrees that the lapse in these powers are likely to be temporary as politicians work on the USA Freedom Act, which is expected to pass within the next week. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called a rare Sunday session to try to pass the replacement law, but was unable to push it through in time. And although the replacement is set to pass this week, Paul said the expiration was 'a victory no matter how you look at it'. In a statement, he said: 'It might be short lived, but I hope that it provides a road for a robust debate, which will strengthen our intelligence community, while also respecting our Constitution. He added: 'The expiration of the NSA's sweeping, all-encompassing and ineffectual powers will not relinquish functions necessary for protecting national security. The expiration will instead do what we should have done all along - rely on the Constitution for these powers.' According to a top lawmaker, as of 8pm Sunday no NSA employee could access their enormous phone records database, which holds metadata on millions of phone conversations handed over by telecoms companies like Verizon and AT&T. Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr said on Sunday: 'There is no way to get any type of agreement tonight -- either an extension or passage of a bill. So at 8pm tonight, NSA employees can not query the database'. In a statement issued Sunday night, Obama's press secretary Josh Earnest, urged action to pass the USA Freedom Act as quickly as possible. He said: 'The Senate took an important - if late - step forward tonight. We call on the Senate to ensure this irresponsible lapse in authorities is as short-lived as possible. 'On a matter as critical as our national security, individual Senators must put aside their partisan motivations and act swiftly. The American people deserve nothing less.' Some lawmakers have said the lapse raises alarming questions about how US authorities can keep the homeland safe with a diminished security toolbox. 'I think it's very very unfortunate that we're in this position,' said Senator Mike Lee, a conservative Republican who supports the reform bill. 'We've known this date was coming for four years. Four years. And I think it's inexcusable that we adjourned' for a weeklong break last week without resolving the issue. Lee, too, conceded that the reform bill would most likely pass in the coming week.With the clock ticking, CIA chief John Brennan warned Sunday that allowing vital surveillance programs to lapse could increase terror threats, and argued that the phone metadata dragnet has not abused civil liberties and only serves to safeguard citizens. 'This is something that we can't afford to do right now,' Brennan said of allowing the counterterrorism provisions to expire. 'Because if you look at the horrific terrorist attacks and violence being perpetrated around the globe, we need to keep our country safe, and our oceans are not keeping us safe the way they did century ago,' he said on CBS talk show Face the Nation. Brennan added that online threats from groups like Isis would continue to grow over the next five to ten years. He said: 'Isis has been very sophisticated and adept at using the Internet to propagate its message and reach out to individuals. We see what is happening as far as thousands upon thousands of individuals, including many thousands from the West, that have traveled into Syria and Iraq. And a number of these individuals are traveling back. 'And what we see, they're also using the Internet as a way to incite and encourage individuals to carry out acts of violence.'So as the director of FBI says, you know, this use of these websites and their Internet capabilities is something of great concern. So yes, I think ISIS is a threat not just in the Middle East and South Asia and African regions but also to Europe as well as to the United States.'
Link: Warrantless mass surveillance is critical to prevent terrorism --- casting a wide net and being able to act quickly is critical to identify networks
Yoo 15 John Yoo, 5/8/2015. Emanuel Heller professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley and a Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, former official in the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice. “Will Congress reject the dangerous NSA ruling by reauthorizing the Patriot Act?” American Enterprise Institute,
Finally, the Court displays a deep misunderstanding of the challenges of counterterrorism policy, which Congress understands far better. As Judge Richard Posner has recognized, an intelligence search “is a search for the needle in a haystack.”Rather than pursue suspects who have already committed a crime and whose identity is already known, intelligence agencies must search for clues among millions of potentially innocent connections, communications, and links. “The intelligence services,” Posner writes, “must cast a wide net with a fine mesh to catch the clues that may enable the next attack to be prevented.” Our government can detect terrorists by examining phone and e-mail communications, as well as evidence of joint travel, shared assets, common histories or families, meetings, and so on. If our intelligence agents locate a lead, they must quickly follow its many possible links to identify cells and the broader network of terrorists. A database of call data would allow a fast search for possible links in the most important place — the United States, where terrorists can inflict the most damage. Most of the calling records may well be innocent (just as most of the financial records of a suspected white-collar criminal may also be innocent), but the more complete the database, the better our intelligence agencies can pursue a lead into the U.S.
And, more transparency causes an increased risk in terror.
Grassley 13 (SENATOR CHARLES GRASSLEY (R-IA), July 31, 2013, Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subject: "Strengthening Privacy Rights and National Security: Oversight of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Surveillance Programs"
Finally, increased transparency is a worthy goal in general. And as I suggested before, whenever we can talk about these programs, I think there's less questions out there in the minds of people, and we probably created some public relations problems for us and for this program and for our national security community because maybe we haven't made enough information available. I say that understanding that we can't tell our enemies what we -- what tools we use. But if we consider any reform that may bring more transparency to the FISA process, we should keep in mind, then, that every piece of information we make available to the public will be read by a determined adversary, and that adversary has already demonstrated the capacity to kill thousands of Americans, even on our own soil.
Impact: A terrorist attack escalates to a global nuclear exchange
Speice 06 – 06 JD Candidate @ College of William and Mary [Patrick F. Speice, Jr., “NEGLIGENCE AND NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION: ELIMINATING THE CURRENT LIABILITY BARRIER TO BILATERAL U.S.-RUSSIAN NONPROLIFERATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS,” William & Mary Law Review, February 2006, 47 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 1427
Accordingly, there is a significant and ever-present risk that terrorists could acquire a nuclear device or fissile material from Russia as a result of the confluence of Russian economic decline and the end of stringent Soviet-era nuclear security measures. 39 Terrorist groups could acquire a nuclear weapon by a number of methods, including "steal[ing] one intact from the stockpile of a country possessing such weapons, or ... [being] sold or given one by [1438] such a country, or [buying or stealing] one from another subnational group that had obtained it in one of these ways." 40 Equally threatening, however, is the risk that terrorists will steal or purchase fissile material and construct a nuclear device on their own. Very little material is necessary to construct a highly destructive nuclear weapon. 41 Although nuclear devices are extraordinarily complex, the technical barriers to constructing a workable weapon are not significant. 42 Moreover, the sheer number of methods that could be used to deliver a nuclear device into the United States makes it incredibly likely that terrorists could successfully employ a nuclear weapon once it was built. 43 Accordingly, supply-side controls that are aimed at preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear material in the first place are the most effective means of countering the risk of nuclear terrorism. 44 Moreover, the end of the Cold War eliminated the rationale for maintaining a large military-industrial complex in Russia, and the nuclear cities were closed. 45 This resulted in at least 35,000 nuclear scientists becoming unemployed in an economy that was collapsing. 46 Although the economy has stabilized somewhat, there [1439] are still at least 20,000 former scientists who are unemployed or underpaid and who are too young to retire, 47 raising the chilling prospect that these scientists will be tempted to sell their nuclear knowledge, or steal nuclear material to sell, to states or terrorist organizations with nuclear ambitions. 48 The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. 49 Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. 50 In addition to the threat posed by terrorists, leakage of nuclear knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the barriers that states with nuclear ambitions face and may trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. 51 This proliferation will increase the risk of nuclear attacks against the United States [1440] or its allies by hostile states, 52 as well as increase the likelihood that regional conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use of nuclear weapons.
And, The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review gives the U.S. the right to retaliate with nuclear weapons. There would be extreme pressure to do so in the wake of a terrorist attack.
ISIS 10 (Institute for Science and International Security, “What the Nuclear Posture Review means for proliferation and nuclear ‘outliers,’” *bolded text preserved from article)
At the same time, the NPR makes clear that the United States reserves the right to “hold fully accountable” any state or group “that supports or enables terrorist efforts to obtain or use weapons of mass destruction, whether by facilitating, financing, or providing expertise or safe haven for such efforts.” (p. 12) The implication is that the United States reserves the right to retaliate with nuclear weapons against a state whose nuclear explosive material is used in an attack, whether by a state or terrorist group. While the NPR makes clear that the United States would only consider the use of such weapons under “extreme” circumstances, it is important to be aware that in the event of a terror attack, the use of nuclear weapons is not explicitly proscribed. This leaves a potentially dangerous opening for the use of a nuclear weapon when demands for retaliation will be especially acute and intelligence and forensic information vulnerable to misinterpretation.
Uniqueness Extensions
Offensive cyber operations are limited now, but mobility is key to prevent national security threats
Fisher 2013 (Max, Washington Post Staff, 2013, "Leaked documents hint at Obama’s emerging cyberwar doctrine",
President Obama has tasked senior national security and intelligence officials with preparing a list of potential overseas targets for U.S. cyber attacks, the Guardian reports, the latest in a series of stories sourced to leaked documents. The story offers a rare glimpse into the Obama administration’s cyber offensive planning and the contours of when it is and isn’t willing to use those capabilities. The leaked government documents portray the Obama administration as willing to hack foreign targets to preempt perceived threats against U.S. interests. Attacks in foreign countries without that country’s consent are permissible, they say, when “U.S. national interests and equities” are at stake or as “anticipatory action taken against imminent threats.” According to the Guardian, the documents reference offensive cyber capabilities by the U.S. military and state “several times that cyber operations are to be used only in conjunction with other national tools and within the confines of law.” And it’s worth noting that preparing a potential target list is not the same thing as planning to strike those targets; for many years, the Pentagon maintained worst-case-scenario plans for invading Canada. The Obama administration, based on these documents, seems to see offensive cyber attacks as most appropriate when used to preempt a possible incoming attack. In this sense, their cyber doctrine bears a striking resemblance to Obama’s case for the use of drone strikes, which he articulated in a recent speech. Drones, he argues, are justified on the one hand by the need to remove impending national security threats and, on the other, by the fact that all other options would be much costlier. Of course, as with drone strikes, preemptive cyber attacks risk collateral damage and mistakenly targeting someone who was not actually a threat. The document does not appear to reference any planned or recent attacks. But the most famous U.S. cyber attack is of course Stuxnet, the virus developed and deployed in conjunction with Israel to set back Iran’s nuclear program. The virus was a remarkable success, sending Iranian centrifuges spinning out of control, before it began spreading across the Internet by mistake, ultimately outing the program. Stuxnet appears consistent with the contours of a cyber doctrine hinted at in these documents. It was meant to preempt an impending national security threat – Iran’s nuclear program – worked in secret and was certainly offensive. It was part of a larger effort that included diplomacy, sanctions and the threat of physical strikes. It’s also worth noting what Stuxnet was not: a revenge attack meant to punish Iran. The virus was meant to work in secret; ideally, the Iranians were not even to know it had been deployed. Similarly, the Obama administration has insisted that it deploys drone strikes only against people who pose an ongoing threat to the U.S. rather than as “revenge” strikes. (Many critics of the drone program doubt this.)This apparent cyber doctrine of quiet, drone-like preemption differs widely from another cyber strategy that many observers have believed the U.S. would or should take: deterrence.In this thinking, the U.S. would counter the growing threat of foreign hackers by, essentially, scaring them away from even trying. This would mean developing offensive cyber capabilities that could be used to hit back at hackers who attempt to breach U.S. systems and then making sure that foreign hackers understand they’re putting themselves at risk by even trying. In this way, offensive cyber capabilities would be kind of like nuclear weapons, which exist primarily to deter adversaries from using their weapons first. After all, preemptive cyber attacks might be able to slow Iranian centrifuges but they’re much less suited to, say, shutting down Chinese military hackers. Nor are simple cyber defenses up to that task; because foreign hackers risk little in trying to tap into sensitive U.S. servers; merely building more protections is only going to extend the time it takes them to finally succeed. This is why many U.S. companies already want to develop “hacking back” capabilities, something that is forbidden under U.S. law.