Advantage 1 privacy (short version)



Download 0.55 Mb.
Page1/11
Date conversion29.04.2016
Size0.55 Mb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11

1AC


Plan - The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance by strengthening the USA FREEDOM Act to:

 require use of a “specific selection term” to satisfy the “reasonable, articulable suspicion standard”

 require that information collected through “pen register or trap and trace devices” via emergency authorizations be subject to the same procedural safeguards as non-emergency collections.

 require “super minimization" procedures that delete information obtained about a person not connected to the investigation.

Advantage 1 – privacy (short version)

Advantage 2 – Internet freedom (democracy scenario)



Advantage 3 – Humint

1NC



TPP



Obama’s all in on TPP, but PC key to bring deal itself across congressional finish line – it’s the mother of all trade fights because its perceived as setting the new framework for ALL FUTURE TRADE DEALS


Vinik, 15 -- Danny Vinik is a staff writer at The New Republic, New Republic, 4/8/15, http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121476/trans-pacific-partnership-foundation-all-future-trade-deals

A theme runs through these four disagreements: They're overrated. The actual effects of the TPP are exaggerated. Labor unions warn about mass job losses and the Obama Administration touts the significant labor provisions in the law, but the academic evidence largely points to small job losses or gains. The left demands a chapter on currency manipulation while knowing that the 11 other TPP countries will never accept one without significant restrictions on the Federal Reserve. Even for Washington, a town where every policy decisions becomes a massive lobbying free-for-all, the TPP seems overblown. Until, that is, you consider what’s really at stake with the TPP. "I think its larger importance is trying to establish a new framework under which global trade deals will be done, said Hanson. “Now that the [World Trade Organization] seems to be pretty much ineffective as a form for negotiating new trade deals, we need a new rubric." Looked at through that lens, it makes sense why both the unions and the Obama administration have spent so much political capital on the TPP. If the TPP sets the framework for future trade deals, it could be a long time before unions have the leverage again to push for a crackdown on currency manipulation. They understand, as the Obama Administration and many interest groups do, what much of the media doesn't: The TPP isn't just a 12-country trade deal. It's much bigger than that. When I shared this theory with Jared Bernstein, he began to rethink his position. “When you put it that way, I kind of feel myself being pulled back into the initial title of my post,” he said. “In other words, if this is the last big trade deal, then perhaps the absence of a currency chapter is a bigger deal than I thought.” If the TPP could determine the course of global trade for decades to come, then each interest group has a huge incentive to fight for every last policy concession. It explains why labor and business groups are putting huge amounts of money into this fight. That money and the accompanying rhetoric has only made it harder for policy journalists to cut through these complex debates. It may take decades before we really understand the stakes of the TPP.

Freedom act passage changed the politics – any additional new surveillance limits uniquely drains PC


Gross, 6/5 – Grant, Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for the IDG News Service, and is based in Washington, D.C., IDG News Service, PC World, 6/5/15, http://www.pcworld.com/article/2932337/dont-expect-major-changes-to-nsa-surveillance-from-congress.html

Don't expect major changes to NSA surveillance from Congress After the U.S. Congress approved what critics have called modest limits on the National Security Agency’s collection of domestic telephone records, many lawmakers may be reluctant to further change the government’s surveillance programs. The Senate this week passed the USA Freedom Act, which aims to end the NSA’s mass collection of domestic phone records, and President Barack Obama signed the bill hours later. After that action, expect Republican leaders in both the Senate and the House of Representatives to resist further calls for surveillance reform. That resistance is at odds with many rank-and-file lawmakers, including many House Republicans, who want to further limit NSA programs brought to light by former agency contractor Edward Snowden. Civil liberties groups and privacy advocates also promise to push for more changes. It may be difficult to get “broad, sweeping reform” through Congress, but many lawmakers seem ready to push for more changes, said Adam Eisgrau, managing director of the office of government relations for the American Library Association. The ALA has charged the NSA surveillance programs violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. “Congress is not allowed to be tired of surveillance reform unless it’s prepared to say it’s tired of the Fourth Amendment,” Eisgrau said. “The American public will not accept that.” Other activists are less optimistic about more congressional action. “It will a long slog getting more restraints,” J. Kirk Wiebe, a former NSA analyst and whistleblower said by email. ”The length of that journey will depend on public outcry—that is the one thing that is hard to gauge.” With the USA Freedom Act, “elected officials have opted to reach for low-hanging fruit,” said Bill Blunden, a cybersecurity researcher and surveillance critic. “The theater we’ve just witnessed allows decision makers to boast to their constituents about reforming mass surveillance while spies understand that what’s actually transpired is hardly major change.” The “actual physical mechanisms” of surveillance programs remain largely intact. Blunden added by email. “Politicians may dither around the periphery but they are unlikely to institute fundamental changes.”

Impact is multiple scenarios for conflict throughout asia and east asia – impact D and thumpers don’t apply – TPP is necessary AND sufficient condition, accesses every structural check – 11 reasons


  • Pivot

  • Institutions and Rules that moderate and constrain Territorial disputes and escalation

  • US regional leadership

  • Perception and credibility of US regional commitment

  • Perception and Regional credibility of US-Japan alliance effectiveness

  • Economy

  • Trade

  • Economic interdependence

  • Peaceful china rise and transition

  • Rule of law

  • Outweighs US military shift

Economist 14. [11-15-14 --- http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21631797-america-needs-push-free-trade-pact-pacific-more-vigorously-americas-big-bet]

Mr Froman, the trade tsar, puts TPP into a dauntingly ambitious context. He calls it central to America’s pivot to Asia, a chance to show the country’s commitment to creating institutions that moderate territorial disputes, and an opportunity to show emerging economies (meaning China) what economic rules the global economy should follow. “At a time when there is uncertainty about the direction of the global trading system, TPP can play a central role in setting rules of the road for a critical region in flux,” he says. The flipside of this is that failure becomes an even bigger risk, which Mr Froman acknowledges. Perhaps in an effort to prod a somnolent, introspective Congress into action, he makes the dramatic claim that failure could mean America “would forfeit its seat at the centre of the global economy”. Many pundits in Washington agree that American leadership in Asia is on the table. Michael Green of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies says TPP failure wouldundermine the impression of the United States as a Pacific power and look like an abdication of leadership”. It would also take pressure off Japan and China to reform their economies. Mireya Solís, a Japan expert at the Brookings Institution, says it would be a “devastating blow to the United States’ credibility”. Those views are echoed in East Asia. Mr Tay in Singapore says TPP failure would be a disaster:If the domestic issues of these two countries cannot be resolved, there is no sense that the US-Japan alliance can provide any kind of steerage for the region.” Deborah Elms, head of the Singapore-based Asian Trade Centre, suggests that so far the American pivot has manifested itself mainly as an extra 1,000 marines stationed in Australia. “Without TPP, all the pivot amounts to is a few extra boots on the ground in Darwin,” she says. Even members of America’s armed forces are worried. As one senior serving officer in the Pacific puts it, “the TPP unites countries that are committed to a trade-based future, transparency and the rule of law. It is the model that the United States and Europe have advanced versus that advanced by China. It is an opportunity to move the arc of Chinese development, or identify it as a non-participant.”

Nuclear war


Landay 00 (Jonathan S., National Security and Intelligence Correspondent, Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, 3-10, Lexis)

Few if any experts think China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, or India and Pakistan are spoiling to fight. But even a minor miscalculation by any of them could destabilize Asia, jolt the global economy and even start a nuclear war. India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear weapons, and North Korea may have a few, too. Asia lacks the kinds of organizations, negotiations and diplomatic relationships that helped keep an uneasy peace for five decades in Cold War Europe. “Nowhere else on Earth are the stakes as high and relationships so fragile,” said Bates Gill, director of northeast Asian policy studies at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. “We see the convergence of great power interest overlaid with lingering confrontations with no institutionalized security mechanism in place. There are elements for potential disaster.” In an effort to cool the region’s tempers, President Clinton, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger all will hopscotch Asia’s capitals this month. For America, the stakes could hardly be higher. There are 100,000 U.S. troops in Asia committed to defending Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, and the United States would instantly become embroiled if Beijing moved against Taiwan or North Korea attacked South Korea. While Washington has no defense commitments to either India or Pakistan, a conflict between the two could end the global taboo against using nuclear weapons and demolish the already shaky international nonproliferation regime. In addition, globalization has made a stable Asia, with its massive markets, cheap labor, exports and resources, indispensable to the U.S. economy. Numerous U.S. firms and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia that totaled $600 billion last year, according to the Commerce Department.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page