911 Debate Evidence Print

The Forensics Files September 2011
The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures
THE FORENSICS FILES
THE PFD FILE
Resolved: The benefits of post-9/11 security measures outweigh the harms to personal freedom.
September 2011
1
Table of Contents
Topic Overview Definitions Pro Cases Con Cases Pro Extensions Con Extensions Pro Blocks Con Blocks Preflows 3 4 8 12 16 27 38 42 46
Topic Overview
At first glance, this topic appears poorly worded because it poses lots of unintended questions that will need to be answered, or at least resolved by each team, prior to constructing a case. Some questions might be: Must the benefits of post-9/11 security measures relate to personal freedom? More specifically, is the resolution asking about whether the security measures advance personal freedom more than they harm personal freedom? Alternatively, does the resolution only permit the Con side to argue the personal freedom disadvantages from the security measures to the exclusion of economic costs? Moreover, based on the generic use of the term the harms to personal freedom without a clear referent, it is not necessarily clear that the security measures must be the cause of the harm to the personal freedom. Finally, the resolution isnt 100% clear that the security measures adopted after 9/11 must have been enacted in response to the 9/11 attack or that they must be U.S. security measures; arguably, any security measure adopted by any country (or state) after 9/11 could be a topical area of analysis. For the purposes of offering the best preparation and a comprehensive set of arguments, this File interprets this resolution broadly as whether the benefits of post9/11 measures outweigh the harms with a particular emphasis on personal freedom impacts. This File takes the broad interpretation of this resolution for two reasons. First, debates on any topic will inevitable involve arguments that are not directly on topic as the resolution would be plainly and literally read. Thus, to be prepared for those arguments, this File includes evidence and analysis on them. Second, reading the resolution literally poses more questions than answers, as explained in the prior paragraph. It seems unfair to let the Pro side to argue all sorts of benefits (i.e., security, economic advantages, social morality, etc.) but to constrain the Con side to only harms relating to personal freedom. Other observations about the resolution to keep in mind are: First, the resolution talks only about post-9/11 security measures. Thus, arguably anything that existed prior to 9/11 is not pertinent. This pint could be raised by Con side to exclude security measures that were in place prior to 9-11 as a way to diminish the Pros offensive arguments why certain security measures have benefits. Second, the resolution requires that, to be true, the Pro side prove that the benefits outweigh the harms; this means that if the Pro and Con side offer the same amount of impacts and the Con side can accurately characterize the arguments made in the debate round as a wash, or in other words that the benefits and harms equal out in the end, the resolution is false and the Con side should win. The arguments in this File attempt to illustrate the benefits and disadvantages of post-9/11 security measures and are fairly self-explanatory. TFF wishes you the best of luck this month and the rest of the school year!
Definitions
Benefits
a helpful or good effect, or something intended to help the money given by the government to people who need financial help, for example because they cannot find a job Source: Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 2011 1. 2.
Benefits
something that is advantageous or good; an advantage a payment or gift, as one made to help someone or given by a benefit society, insurance company, or public agency 3. to do good to; be of service to Source: Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2011 1. 2.
Benefits
1. a helpful or good effect Source: Cambridge Dictionary of American English 2011
Post1. After; later 2. Behind; posterior to Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2011
Post1. after, or later than: used with many nouns, verbs, or adjectives Source: Macmillan Dictionary 2011
9/11
the day in 2001 when Arab suicide bombers hijacked United States airliners and used them as bombs Source: Vocabulary.com 2011 1.
9/11
1. September 11, 2001: the day on which Islamic terrorists, believed to be part of the Al-Qaeda network, hijacked four commercial airplanes and crashed two of them into the World Trade Center in New York City and a
third one into the Pentagon in Virginia: the fourth plane crashed into a field in rural Pennsylvania. Source: Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2011.
Security Measure
1. an electrical device that sets off an alarm when someone tries to break in Source: Vocabulary.com 2011; WordNet 3.0, 2006.
Security
the state of being free from danger or threat: the safety of a state or organization against criminal activity such as terrorism, theft, or espionage 3. procedures followed or measures taken to ensure the security of a state or organization 4. the state of feeling safe, stable, and free from fear or anxiety Source: Compact Oxford English Dictionary 2011 1. 2.
Security
1. Freedom from risk or danger; safety. 2. Freedom from doubt, anxiety, or fear; confidence. 3. Something that gives or assures safety Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2011
Security
safety from attack, harm, or damage connected with safety and protection a feeling of confidence and safety, or a situation in which you can feel confident and safe 4. the degree to which you can feel confident and safe Source: Macmillan Dictionary 2011 1. 2. 3.
Measure
An action taken as a means to an end; an expedient. Often used in the plural 2. A legislative bill or enactment. Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2011 1.
Measure
a step planned or taken as a means to an end; specifically : a proposed legislative act Source: Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition 2011 1.
Outweigh
1. be heavier, greater, or more significant than Source: Compact Oxford English Dictionary 2011
Outweigh
1. To weigh more than. 2. To be more significant than; exceed in value or importance Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2011
Outweigh
1. to be more important, useful, or valuable than something else Source: Macmillan Dictionary 2011
Outweigh
to exceed in weight, value, or importance to exceed in weight, value, or importance Source: Cambridge Dictionary of American English 2011 1.
Harms
1. to hurt someone or damage something Source: Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 2011
Harms
1. physical injury or mental damage; hurt 2. moral injury; evil; wrong Source: Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2011
Harms
1. physical or other injury or damage Source: Cambridge Dictionary of American English 2011
Personal
belonging to or affecting a particular person rather than anyone else done or made by a particular person; involving the actual presence or action of a particular; individual 3. of or concerning ones private life, relationships, and emotions rather than ones career or public life: 4. relating to a person's body Source: Compact Oxford English Dictionary 2011 1. 2.
Personal
Of or relating to a particular person; private Done, made, or performed in person Done to or for or directed toward a particular person Concerning a particular person and his or her private business, interests, or activities; intimate 5. Aimed pointedly at the most intimate aspects of a person, especially in a critical or hostile manner 6. Of or relating to the body or physical being Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2011 1. 2. 3. 4.
Freedom
the power or right to act , speak, or think as one wants absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved the state of being unrestricted and able to move easily (freedom from) the state of not being subject to or affected by (something undesirable) Source: Compact Oxford English Dictionary 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Freedom
The condition of being free of restraints. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression. Political independence. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly. 5. Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want. 6. The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon. 7. Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom. Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2011 1. 2. 3. 4.
Pro Cases
PRO CASE #1 [HLS 1 of 2] Because the Department of Homeland Security has significantly increased safety in the United States without sacrificing significant personal freedoms, we believe that the following resolution is true: Resolved: The benefits of post-9/11 security measures outweigh the harms to personal freedom. The thesis of our case is that the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, was created by the federal government as a post-9/11 security measure. The DHS has helped to minimize terrorist threats in numerous ways and has not had a poor track record of violating personal freedoms. But most importantly, enhanced national security justifies sacrificing the personal freedoms of a few to maximize for personal freedom for all. Thus, the security benefits of DHS outweigh the minor infringements on personal freedom. Our first contention is that the federal government created DHS as a post-9/11 security measure. Steven Miller writes in an article entitled After the 9/11 Disaster: Washington's Struggle to Improve Homeland Security in March 20031: After September 11, a horrified and frightened American public wanted something more to be done to protect the United States from terrorist attack. Responding to this overpowering public sentiment, and to the enormous sense of vulnerability revealed by the successful Al Qaeda strike against the United States, the Bush Administration scrambled to put in place a set of measures that would answer public concerns and improve the nations ability to cope with terrorism. The agenda of steps and measures that followed were regarded as a program for Homeland Security a program that was regarded, at least initially, as a major national priority. Our second contention is that homeland security prevents and responds to terrorist threats. Miller in 2003 continues: The essence of homeland security can be captured in three words: prevent, protect, and respond. The ideal objective is to prevent terrorist attacks. It is also desirable that potential targets of terrorism are not left completely vulnerable to attack, that protection is increased to the extent possible. And if prevention fails, it will be important to be able to respond effectively to terrorist attacks. It is now well understood that that so-called consequence management in the aftermath of an attack can minimize adverse effects in many conceivable scenarios. Broadly speaking, in other words, the homeland security initiatives of the Bush Administration seek to reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks and to limit the impact of any attacks that occur. From these broad objectives flow a plethora of specific policy initiatives.
(Steven E. "After the 9/11 Disaster: Washington's Struggle to Improve Homeland Security." Axess Stockholm, Sweden no. 2 (March 2003): 8-11).
The Forensics Files September 2011 PRO CASE #1 [HLS 2 of 2]
Even if there are violations of personal freedom, the US has not overstepped its boundaries and security has improved, and thereby the US has secured the personal freedoms the Con side might argue. Alan Silverman, Professor at Brown University, writes in 20032: Liberty cannot exist without order to secure it. For all practical purposes, a mans freedom to patronize the local ice cream parlor will be meaningless when crime is so rampant as to imperil everyone who dares step outside. But an excess of order constrains liberty, making life safer but less desirable. Government video cameras and miniature microphones would not be welcome additions to citizens homes, and for every person to submit thrice daily to strip-searches would make common crime lose half its grossness. Were America faced with such extremes, she would have to ask herself whether life, of itself, has no value absent the freedom to live without constraint. As matters now stand, however, there is no such dilemma. Notwithstanding the complaints of civil libertarians, our present government has not exceeded the bounds of reasonable wartime security. In conclusion, the post-9/11 security measure of the DHS has enhanced US security and reduced threats of terrorism. It has not resulted in many violations of personal freedoms, contrary to the position of the Con side. Even if there are violations of personal freedoms, these freedoms would not be possible if we were overtaken by terrorists. Thus, the security that DHS provides is a necessary pre-condtion to security. Without security, we cannot have liberty. And for these reasons, we believe that the resolution is true.
(Alan, Professor Brown University, The Brown University Spectator, Aug. 1, http://thebrownspectator.com/safety-post-9-11-security-measures-justified/)
The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures PRO CASE #2 [Security Measure Benefits 1 of 2]
Because post-9/11 security measures have more benefits than just enhancing security against terrorist threats, we believe that the following resolution is true: Resolved: The benefits of post-9/11 security measures outweigh the harms to personal freedom. The thesis of our case is that after post-9/11 security measures were set up, we started seeing unforeseen benefits that have been actualized over the past decade. Our case outlines several of these, including benefits to the economy, minimizing the drug trade, and catching people who have been drinking and driving. The benefits are numerous and therefore, they will outweigh the minor infringements of personal freedoms that the Con side argues. Our first contention is that post-9/11 security measures have improved security in the United States and has thereby helped the US economy. An article from LancasterOnline 20113 states: Some of that spending on security may have helped the U.S. economy by preventing more terrorist attacks in the country, reasons Brock Blomberg, a Claremont McKenna College economics professor who studies the costs of terrorism. That prevention may have been worth about $60 billion to the economy, or about 15 cents on every dollar spent, says Blomberg, who was not involved in Dancs' research. This shows that spending money on post-9/11 security not only helps to prevent terrorism, but also benefits the US economy by investing money into the US security infrastructure. These two benefits would outweigh the harms to personal freedoms. Our second contention is that increased security measures along the border as a result of 9/11 has enhanced the ability to catch drunk drivers. Wilson Ring, an associated press writer, discusses how this is so in an article entitled "Post-9/11 security divides life on the northern border," on August 14, 20114 The beefed-up law enforcement presence on the border pays dividends beyond the primary goal of stopping terrorists, officials say. Customs and Border Protection agents will report suspected drunk drivers trying to enter the United States and the extra Border Patrol agents routinely help with local calls, frequently arriving at emergencies before state officers.
(Costs of 9/11 attacks still haunt US economy, Aug 19, http://lancasteronline.com/article/ap/442223_Costs-of-9-11-attacks-still-haunt-US-economy.html) 4 (The Times West Virginian, http://timeswv.com/ headlinenews/x1533029051/Post-9-11-security-divideslife-on-the-northern-border)
10
The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures PRO CASE #2 [Security Measure Benefits 2 of 2]
From this we can see that security measures against terrorism can be used to achieve many other benefits. Drunk driving is a serious problem and frequently results in deaths of people. These deaths should be considered when youre considering the harms to personal freedoms that the Con side will raise. Our third and final contention is that post 9-11 security measures help to prevent influx of drugs from Mexico into the US. Steven Miller writes in an article entitled After the 9/11 Disaster: Washington's Struggle to Improve Homeland Security in March 20035: Illegal entry into the United States of people and goods is possibly even more worrying. With its long, remote borders and lengthy coastlines, the United States faces a massive challenge in trying to prevent illicit border crossings. Serious efforts have been made over many years, in connection with drug trafficking and illegal immigration, to strengthen border patrols, to make it more difficult and risky to enter the United States in this way. As such, the benefits of post-9/11 security measures also include a reduction in drugs coming into the United States. In conclusion, we believe that there are more than just security benefits resulting from post-9/11 security measures. These measures not only improve security but also improve the economy by adding jobs and putting money into the economy, enhance our ability to catch drunk drivers and other criminals, and prevents the importation of drugs in the US. When considering all of these unintended benefits, there is only one conclusion: that the benefits of post-9/11 security measures outweigh the harms they cause to personal freedom.
11
Con Cases
CON CASE #1 [No Freedom & No Security 1 of 2] Because post-9/11 security measures significantly violate personal freedoms and actually make us more unsafe than we were before, we believe that the following resolution is false: Resolved: The benefits of post-9/11 security measures outweigh the harms to personal freedom. The thesis of our case is that post-9/11 security measures violate individual freedoms and civil liberties. Thus, the harm to personal freedoms is substantial. Conversely, there are few benefits to the security measures because they do not actually enhance security. Rather, our case will show that the post-9/11 security measures have actually decreased national security. Our first contention is that post 9/11 security measures violate individual civil liberties. Steven Miller writes in an article entitled After the 9/11 Disaster: Washington's Struggle to Improve Homeland Security in March 20036: The United States has a strong legal tradition of individual civil liberties and a long history of resistance to the expansion of the power of the state. Consequently, many measures thought desirable to strengthen the counter-terror capacities of the state more intrusive surveillance, enhanced policing powers, relaxation of restrictions on search and seizure, looser regulation of wiretapping and other invasions of privacy quickly bump up against this traditional American reticence to further empower the state (and, some would argue, up against constitutional guarantees of individual rights). Our second contention is that post-9/11 security measures dont actually make us safer because globalization has made anti-terrorism efforts in the US ineffective. Miller in 2003 continues: In the modern age, technology and politics combine to permit enormous international flows of people, ideas, and products. It is almost surely impossible to develop filters at the border that will reliably and comprehensively detect potential terrorists out of the flood of visitors and vacationers. The US government reports that 500 million people cross into the United States on an annual basis. Finding the one, or the ten, or even a few dozen, threatening individuals out of 500 million is equivalent to finding the proverbial needle in the haystack. The only exception might be cases in which known terrorists traveled undisguised but that is not likely to be common. And no system of screening or computerized databases will be helpful in the case of unknown terrorists so long as they have the wit to avoid drawing attention to themselves. . . . Globalization has made this too difficult.
6
12
The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures CON CASE #1 [No Freedom & No Security 2 of 2]
Our third and final contention is that anti-terrorism efforts post 9/11 may actually increase the risk of terrorism. An article from the Gannett News Service in 20117 explains: [T]he nature of the terrorist threat is unlike any enemy the United States and its allies have faced. Bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist network is a fragmented organization that works more as a franchise system than a top-down operation, with individual groups carrying out attacks without direct control from bin Laden or any other leader. "There are many heads of that organization," Dadosky said. "The worst thing we could do is say, 'OK, the war is over.' "This is a problem that is going to be with us for many decades." In the short term, bin Laden's death could increase the threat. Airports, some government buildings and military bases around the world all ratcheted up security Monday to prepare for potential retaliatory attacks. Based on our case, you can see that post-9/11 security measures have substantially violated personal freedoms in the United States. Moreover, they have not and will not be effective at stopping terrorism because of globalization. Finally, there is evidence that the security measures that helped to kill Osama have actually exposed the US to more terrorism. From this, there is only one conclusion, that the benefits of post-9/11 security measures do not outweigh the harms to personal freedoms.
("Death won't change post 9/11 security measures" May 2, http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110502/NEWS0108/105030317/Death-won-t-change-post-9-11security-measures?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Kentucky|s)
13
The Forensics Files September 2011 CON CASE #2 [Rights Violations 1 of 2]
Because post-9/11 security measures significantly violate individual rights and other freedoms in various ways, we believe that the following resolution is false: Resolved: The benefits of post-9/11 security measures outweigh the harms to personal freedom. The thesis of our case is that post-9/11 security measures violate individual freedoms and individual rights not only through body searches and surveillance, but also in many other ways. Because there are countless ways in which security measures violate personal freedoms, the harms to personal freedoms outweigh the benefits. Our first contention is that security measures have reduced the personal freedom of travelling. Steven Miller writes in an article entitled After the 9/11 Disaster: Washington's Struggle to Improve Homeland Security in March 20038: Improve Homeland Security." Axess Stockholm, Sweden no. 2 (March 2003): 8-11). Vast numbers of people and vast quantities of material pour into the United States on a daily basis. There is every prospect that, as in the past, terrorists could enter the United States in an open and completely legal way. But since 9/11, the process for obtaining US visas has tightened (producing long delays that have been experienced by many foreigners). There is greater scrutiny of foreign visitors at passport control. There is much greater suspicion of incoming visitors who match certain worrying profiles. Our second contention is that post-9/11 security measures violate personal freedoms of trade by slow down trade among private individuals on an international scale. An article from The Courier Post entitled U.S. ports spend huge amounts on post-9/11 security measures, states in 20119: The big challenge has been keeping a closer watch on imported cargo without imposing a costly slowdown on foreign trade. There's also a huge cost to the nation's 185 public seaports themselves, often passed along in tariffs and fees to the shippers. The Savannah port, for example, tacks on a $5.75 security fee for every cargo container it handles. It clearly is unfortunate and an extreme cost financially on international commerce," said Curtis Foltz, executive director of the Georgia Ports Authority, who can see the lines of trucks pulling their cargo through radiation scanners from his office window. "But there's no real alternative today."
(Steven E. "After the 9/11 Disaster: Washington's Struggle to Improve Homeland Security." Axess Stockholm, Sweden no. 2 (March 2003): 8-11). 9 (Gannett News, August 15, 2011, http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20110815/ BUSINESS/308160002/U-S-ports-spend-huge-amounts-post-9-11-security-measures)
14
The Forensics Files September 2011 CON CASE #2 [Rights Violations 2 of 2]
Finally, our last contention is that the United States federal government spends too much taxpayer money on post-9/11 security measures. This is violation of personal freedoms to be free from excessive taxation. This can be seen particularly in costs to implement the measures. The Courier Post concludes in 2011: The marshlands around the nation's fourth-busiest container port used to be considered enough of a barrier that Port of Savannah officials didn't bother to build a full fence around the bustling main terminal. Now security is so tight that roughly 4,000 times a day, steel containers from arriving ships are loaded onto tractor-trailers that, before hitting the highway, must pass through giant radiation detectors designed to sniff out nuclear bombs. In the 10 years since the Sept. 11 attacks, the federal government has spent $2.5 billion on a sweeping security overhaul at U.S. seaports from Seattle to New Orleans to Eastport, Maine, paying for everything from perimeter fencing to motion sensors and training for security officers. Federal agencies with a direct role in safeguarding seaports, namely the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection, have added whopping sums such as $420 million for a unified ID card system for 1.6 million truck drivers, longshoremen and other port workers nationwide. Based on the foregoing, we can tell that the resolution is false because the benefits of post-9/11 security measures do not outweigh the benefits.
15
Pro Extensions
President Bush created Homeland Security in response to 9/11. Miller 2003 (Steven E. "After the 9/11 Disaster: Washington's Struggle to Improve Homeland Security." Axess Stockholm, Sweden no. 2 (March 2003): 8-11). On October 8, 2001, the President ordered the creation on the White House Staff of an Office for Homeland Security, headed by a Director for Homeland Security. The first director was the Presidents good friend, Governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, who was given full public backing by President Bush to take whatever steps necessary to protect the United States from the threat of terrorism. The President also created a Homeland Security Council, the anti-terrorism counterpart to the National Security Council. To go along with these new institutional arrangements, there was a new homeland security budget, amounting to several tens of billions of dollars. By July of 2002, the White House had issued a formal document outlining National Strategy for Homeland Security, that describes in some detail the objectives and aspirations of this new national initiative. The security responses to 9/11 were rational and understandable and are worthwhile for safety. Miller 2003 (Steven E. "After the 9/11 Disaster: Washington's Struggle to Improve Homeland Security." Axess Stockholm, Sweden no. 2 (March 2003): 8-11). The impulse to respond to 9/11 by enhancing efforts to protect the United States is perfectly natural and understandable. Further, it is both sensible and responsible to explore what steps can be prudently and feasibly taken to reduce the exposure of American society to terrorism. It is also appropriate to invest organizational and financial resources in such an endeavor. But what exactly is homeland security? The concept does not have inherent precise meaning. And how much can be accomplished by pursuing a program of homeland security? American domestic politics since 9/11 demand a program of homeland security and the deep passions associated with that tragedy compel rapid action of some sort to provide reassurance to a troubled population. But an honest and dispassionate assessment must evaluate both the opportunities for improving protection against terrorism and the limits on the ability of this or any administration to guarantee homeland security.
16
Homeland security protects against, prevents, and responds to terrorist threats. Miller 2003 (Steven E. "After the 9/11 Disaster: Washington's Struggle to Improve Homeland Security." Axess Stockholm, Sweden no. 2 (March 2003): 8-11). The essence of homeland security can be captured in three words: prevent, protect, and respond. The ideal objective is to prevent terrorist attacks. It is also desirable that potential targets of terrorism are not left completely vulnerable to attack, that protection is increased to the extent possible. And if prevention fails, it will be important to be able to respond effectively to terrorist attacks. It is now well understood that that so-called consequence management in the aftermath of an attack can minimize adverse effects in many conceivable scenarios. Broadly speaking, in other words, the homeland security initiatives of the Bush Administration seek to reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks and to limit the impact of any attacks that occur. From these broad objectives flow a plethora of specific policy initiatives. Prevention of terrorism through Homeland Security can primarily through collecting information and not invading personal freedoms. Miller 2003 (Steven E. "After the 9/11 Disaster: Washington's Struggle to Improve Homeland Security." Axess Stockholm, Sweden no. 2 (March 2003): 8-11). Preventing terrorist attacks depends almost entirely on intelligence. Obviously, if the terrorists can keep themselves and their intentions hidden, it is impossible to stop them. The nightmare for the United States or any other state threatened by terrorism is a series of unpleasant terrorist surprises (of which 9/11 was a particularly vivid example). Accordingly, the challenge of improving counter-terrorism intelligence is one of the core concerns of homeland security. Terrorist efforts have focused on visitors to the US and not US citizens. Miller 2003 (Steven E. "After the 9/11 Disaster: Washington's Struggle to Improve Homeland Security." Axess Stockholm, Sweden no. 2 (March 2003): 8-11). The individuals who carried out the 9/11 attack had lived, traveled, and trained in the United States. Some of them had even been identified as suspicious figures. This reality has made the American body politic more tolerant of empowering the government to engage in more aggressive and more intrusive surveillance of potentially threatening parties. There is a desire to keep closer tabs on visitors to the United States, to monitor foreign students more closely, to infiltrate groups that may be capable of or intent on violence. Modern information technology may be exploited to detect, collect, and assess relevant information about individuals with suspicious associations or activities. The ideal is to identify and thwart terrorists before they can strike.
17
Security measures have been widely supported by our representatives. Cable News Network July 28, 2007, Congress passes 9/11 security measures, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/28/congress-passes-911-security-measures/ The House Friday approved security legislation implementing many of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission. The vote for passage was 371-40. The Senate passed the bill Thursday by an 85-8 vote, so Friday's action means the measure goes to President Bush's desk for his signature. "With this bill, we will be keeping our promises to the families of 9/11," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "We'll be honoring the work of the 9/11 commission and we will be making the American people safer." The Patriot Act was a post-9/11 security measure. Silverman 2003 (Alan, Professor Brown University, The Brown University Spectator, Aug. 1, http://thebrownspectator.com/safety-post-9-11-security-measures-justified/) The USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America Act by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) was signed into law by President Bush on Oct. 26, 2001, to address the deficiencies in U.S. intelligence that made 9/11 possible. The obvious solution was to make the nations intelligence program more efficient. For that purpose, write Jonathan Krim and Robert OHarrow Jr. in the Washington Post, the act gives the government a freer hand to conduct searches, detain or deport suspects, eavesdrop on Internet communication, monitor financial transactions and obtain electronic records of individuals. The Patriot Act enables the US to more efficiently stop security threats. Silverman 2003 (Alan, Professor Brown University, The Brown University Spectator, Aug. 1, http://thebrownspectator.com/safety-post-9-11-security-measures-justified/) At the same time, it reduces the need for subpoenas, court orders or other legal checks to enable law enforcement to move more quickly. The Federal Bureau of Investigation can now request that employers, credit bureaus, banks, libraries, and Internet service providers furnish personal information on employees and clients suspected of working with terrorists. It can also monitor online communications when people trespass on networks (using them without authorization), with the help of a new e-mail wiretap program called Carnivore.
18
The Patriot Act has reduced useless government regulations. Silverman 2003 (Alan, Professor Brown University, The Brown University Spectator, Aug. 1, http://thebrownspectator.com/safety-post-9-11-security-measures-justified/) In addition, the PATRIOT Act does away with a host of bizarre regulations that serve no discernible purpose and hamper law enforcement. Prior to the passage of this act, a bureaucratic wall of separation at the FBI prohibited two agents working in the same office from speaking to each other about an al-Qaeda investigation if one of them were a criminal investigator and the other an intelligence investigator. This bureaucratic insanity prevented FBI agents in Minneapolis, Minnesota, from searching the computer of 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui for months before 9/11. A search would have given connections to the Hamburg, Germany terrorist cell that planned the terrorist attacks, and to two of the 9/11 hijackers specifically. The PATRIOT Act tore down that wall, and now allows federal agencies to share information within and among themselves. It also empowers the FBI to track cellular phone calls across state lines, provided that it has been granted a valid phone tap in at least one state. The dexterity with which modern terrorists have used Americas technology against her makes it all the more important for security laws to reflect twenty-first-century realitiesa purpose well served by the act. Post 9/11 security measures have affected very few people and have not violated many peoples individual freedoms. Silverman 2003 (Alan, Professor Brown University, The Brown University Spectator, Aug. 1, http://thebrownspectator.com/safety-post-9-11-security-measures-justified/) In brief, this legislation takes the War on Terror seriously. But the Left cries foul, citing an unprecedented and unnecessary breach of civil liberties. Emily Whitfield, a national spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union, has said, The Bush Administration has presented Americans with a false dichotomy that we must choose between being safe or free, That assertion is 180 degrees wrong. At no point will a significant fraction of the countrys population be under suspicion of terrorist activities. The necessary resources for intelligence agencies to monitor every persons private life a la Orwells 1984 quite simply will never exist. And however well-funded those agencies might be, investigators sworn to protect Americans will not waste their time scrutinizing people whom they consider innocuous, since doing so would fritter away opportunities to track actual terrorists. Constitutional protections still exist to prevent violations of individual freedoms. Silverman 2003 (Alan, Professor Brown University, The Brown University Spectator, Aug. 1, http://thebrownspectator.com/safety-post-9-11-security-measures-justified/) Finally, one cannot overemphasize that virtually any search or seizure by federal agents still requires authorization from a federal district court judge. Investigators are not permitted to harass civilians for their personal amusement, nor, generally, will they.
19
Detentions do not substantially violate personal freedoms. Silverman 2003 (Alan, Professor Brown University, The Brown University Spectator, Aug. 1, http://thebrownspectator.com/safety-post-9-11-security-measures-justified/) Opponents, in response to these points, call attention to the mass detentions of 2001 and 2002. The U.S. Department of Justice rounded up some 762 immigrants, almost all of them illegal, in the wake of the terrorist attacks and failed to deal speedily with them. That failure is nowhere near as pronounced as the major media have told their readership. The Los Angeles Times editorialized that federal agents held most [of the detainees] for months without charges, citing a report published by the Office of the Inspector General of the Justice Department. But that report claims that agents notified 738 of the detainees of their charges within a month. Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin writes that in the 24 other cases, the selfsame report listed numerous legitimate reasons for delay, such as logistical disruptions in New York City after Sept. 11, including electrical outages, office shutdowns and mail service cancellation that slowed delivery of charging documents. And not a single allegation by a detainee of verbal or physical abuse resulted in a criminal charge against an agent, Malkin addshardly the mark of a civil liberties emergency. Detainees complaints are largely without merit. Silverman 2003 (Alan, Professor Brown University, The Brown University Spectator, Aug. 1, http://thebrownspectator.com/safety-post-9-11-security-measures-justified/) The strong weight of evidence shows that a good many of the 34 other [detainee] complaints are utterly without merit. One of these concerned an immigration official who allegedly rudely asked a detainee if the latter wanted to kill Christians and Jews, the Associated Press reports. In light of the rhetoric put forth by Islamists, the question was certainly within reason. Failure to be sensitive is not an abuse of power, and in the course of a terrorist investigation, it will often be necessary. Another complaint, filed by a citizen of Lebanese extraction, maintains that federal agents broke into his home to look for an AK-47 assault rifle. It appears that the agents lacked the psychic capacity to determine, in advance of the raid that the information on which they acted was false. Let grievances pile up over errors such as this, and see what effect that will have on agents willingness to follow and act on any leads that do not guarantee their own accuracy. The cost, in foregone raids that would have borne fruit, will by far exceed the gain in liberty.
20
9/11 has not turned the US into a surveillance state. Silverman 2003 (Alan, Professor Brown University, The Brown University Spectator, Aug. 1, http://thebrownspectator.com/safety-post-9-11-security-measures-justified/) If the Fourth or any other Amendment were more restrictive of law enforcement, then it would render the Constitution a straitjacket and would not deserve our deference. Unfortunately much of the population has come to fetishize its privacy and to dread any innovation that makes government intelligence more efficient. Particularly disturbing to such people are the provisions of the PATRIOT Act that allow the government to monitor online communications and to call on organizations to supply personal information on employees and clients. The United States is a splendid target for terrorists, with a complex web of public and private servicesloans, welfare programs, banking services, online merchants, cellular phones, libraries and Web sites filled with information about vulnerable nuclear power plants and recipes for homemade bombsthat anyone can turn against the public. So when an individual commits an act that arouses suspicion of terror ties, investigators should track his use of these services. If the authorities learned that a 30-year-old male Saudi immigrant was illegally using an Internet service provider, and that he had donated money to charities that sponsor terrorism, they would be remiss not to learn whether he were applying to flight school or researching the vulnerabilities of a local nuclear plant There can be no personal freedoms without adequate security. Silverman 2003 (Alan, Professor Brown University, The Brown University Spectator, Aug. 1, http://thebrownspectator.com/safety-post-9-11-security-measures-justified/) Whatever freedoms Americans enjoy must be balanced against the populations right to survival. If information on how to make bombs or disable intelligence agencies computer programs is readily available in bookstores, in libraries, or on the Internet, then the government has an obligation not to let civilians access that information. It is difficult to understand why anyone besides a potential terrorist would need such knowledge, and no one can pretend that it merits First Amendment protection. While, at first glance, that amendment appears to protect any information that can be labeled speech (Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech .. .), devotion to the public safety clearly forecloses the absolutist interpretation. If no law literally means no law, then federal laws against perjury, death threats against elected officials, and libel are unconstitutional. So also would be the federal law against publicly revealing undercover agents identities. Freedom of information must be limited where it might imperil the public safety, or else the same freedom will itself be insecure. Homemade bombs and accidents at power plants restrict their victims freedom of information a lot more than the PATRIOT Act.
21
Prisoners have largely been treated in a reasonable manner after 9/11. Silverman 2003 (Alan, Professor Brown University, The Brown University Spectator, Aug. 1, http://thebrownspectator.com/safety-post-9-11-security-measures-justified/) Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the present war has been the treatment of suspected terrorists whom the government has captured. Abdullah al-Muhajir, a.k.a. Jose Padilla, and Yaser Esam Hamdi are two cases in point. Both are American citizens who have waged war against the United States, the former by plotting to explode a radioactive dirty bomb on American soil, the latter by serving in a Taliban military unit in Afghanistan. The government has classed them as enemy combatants for their actions. President Bush is of the opinion that it would be safer to detain them, and enemy combatants generally, for an indefinite period {without access to counsel) than to try them immediately for their crimes, at least in part because they are believed to have important information. Wartime necessity is the rationale. When a president qua commander-in-chief orders the military to detain a combatant, the rules and rights of criminal justice do not apply. The need for information on possible future acts of terrorism justifies detention until the government is satisfied that it has learned enough. This is a perfectly sensible approach. Other countries have more serious security measures than the US. Kaplan 2006 (Eben, research associate at the Council on Foreign Relations, "Targets for Terrorists: Post-9/11 Aviation Security" Backgrounder, Council on Foreign Relations, September 7, http://www.cfr.org/air-transportation-security/targets-terrorists-post-911aviation-security/p11397) Some countries have security measures that surpass those of the United States. Tel Avivs airport is widely regarded as the safest in the world. There, airport officials interview every single passenger using the same BPR techniques that are currently being tested in the United States. Interviewing 100 percent of the passengers, Ron says, "has proven to be more effective than any other aviation security measure," but cultural and legal obstacles have prevented implementation of such a program in the United States. Post 9/11 security measures have increased jobs and increased diversity. Ring 2011 (Wilson, Associated Press Writer, "Post-9/11 security divides life on the northern border," August 14, The Times West Virginian, http://timeswv.com/ headlinenews/x1533029051/Post-9-11-security-divides-life-on-the-northern-border) The changes also diversify the region largely made up of Yankee and French Canadian farming families and their descendants. One newcomer is Raulan Masada, a Hawaii native who left the islands a decade ago to join the Border Patrol. Now he and his wife are becoming entwined in the social fabric of Vermont raising their three children in St. Albans. Hes gotten to know the back roads of northern Vermont and the people are getting to know him.
22
Even though we have killed Osama, the terrorist threat remains high because Osama bin laden is not the only terrorist. This has nothing to do with the effectiveness of post-9/11 measures. Gannett News Service 2011 ("Death won't change post 9/11 security measures" May 2, http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110502/NEWS0108/105030317/Death-won-tchange-post-9-11-security-measures?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Kentucky|s) "Our efforts to combat terrorism ... do not fixate on one individual," said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. She and others have made clear that the antiterrorism campaign adopted after 9/11 will continue, despite bin Laden's death and despite occasional criticism that some homeland security efforts have been wasteful or ineffective. Spending money on antiterrorism efforts has been effective at reducing terrorism. Gannett News Service 2011 ("Death won't change post 9/11 security measures" May 2, http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110502/NEWS0108/105030317/Death-won-tchange-post-9-11-security-measures?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Kentucky|s) Some have questioned the wisdom of purchasing billions of dollars in equipment - from decontamination trailers to night vision goggles - while others mocked such ideas as the old color-coded terror alert system as useless. But local and federal officials say the approach has helped prevent attacks and has better prepared the region to respond if an attack occurs. The FBI's terrorism task force chases tips and investigates suspects throughout the region, while the U.S. Attorneys office in southern Ohio created a legal team dedicated to prosecuting those suspects. Their work has resulted in the conviction of three Columbus-area men in recent years on charges of providing support to terrorists and, in one case, plotting to blow up shopping malls.
23
Post 9/11 measures have resulted in increased cooperation among state and local jurisdictions. Gannett News Service 2011 ("Death won't change post 9/11 security measures" May 2, http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110502/NEWS0108/105030317/Death-won-tchange-post-9-11-security-measures?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Kentucky|s) Another legacy of the 9/11 attacks is the Urban Area Security Initiative, a network of dozens of fire and police agencies in 12 counties in Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana. The agencies share homeland security equipment, conduct drills together and meet regularly to talk strategy. "Were it not for 9/11, we'd still be operating jurisdiction by jurisdiction with minimal cooperation," Dadosky said. "If there was anything good that came out of 9/11, it's that it forced jurisdictions to work more closely." Law enforcement officials say they expect that cooperation and the rest of their work to continue in much the same way for years to come, no matter who is leading al-Qaida. "Apprehending bin Laden was a top priority," said Fred Alverson, spokesman for U.S. Attorney Carter Stewart. "But there are still terrorist threats out there." TSA is a post-9/11 security measure. Blalock, et al., 2007 (Garrick, Associate Professor Department of Applied Economics and Management Cornell University, The Impact of Post-9/11 Airport Security Measures on the Demand for Air Travel, Journal of Law & Economics, Vol. 50, No. 4, Nov., http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1086/519816) In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the federal government enacted new legislation to increase air passenger safety. On November 19, 2001, Presi- dent Bush signed into law the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA). This act established a new Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which consol- idated security efforts inside the Department of Transportation (DOT). In addition, the ATSA mandated several important changes in civil aviation security procedures. The two primary changes in airport security visible to passengers were the federalization of passenger security screening at all U.S. commercial airports by November 19, 2002, and the requirement to begin screening all checked baggage by Decem- ber 31, 2002. The ATSA charged the TSA with overseeing security operations and implementing the mandates at all 429 commercial airports in the U.S.
24
Preventing terrorism is necessary to prevent additional terrorism response mechanisms. Blalock, et al., 2007 (Garrick, Associate Professor Department of Applied Economics and Management Cornell University, The Impact of Post-9/11 Airport Security Measures on the Demand for Air Travel, Journal of Law & Economics, Vol. 50, No. 4, Nov., http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1086/519816) Although we find evidence that baggage screening has reduced the demand for air travel, we recognize that any assessment of the net benefits of this procedure must balance this loss in consumer welfare against the difficult-to-measure increase in the security of air travel. Nonetheless, we believe that it is important to identify these unintended consequences of regulatory efforts to enhance security against the threats of terrorism. In addition to the lost consumer welfare, rough estimates for the 4th quarter of 2002 alone suggest that baggage screening cost the airlines over a billion dollars in lost revenue and substitution from air to road travel resulted in over 100 driving fatalities. These high costs lend evidence to the argument presented in Mueller (2004) that the greatest cost of terrorism may be the unintended consequence of responses to attacks rather than the attacks themselves. Post 9/11 measures have increased the effectiveness of the US military. Burns 2011 (Robert, The Huffington Post, 9/11 Anniversary Marks New Fight For Pentagon, August 21, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/21/911-anniversarypentagon_n_932618.html) The Sept. 11 attacks transformed the Pentagon, ravaging the iconic building itself and setting the stage for two long and costly wars that reordered the way the American military fights. Compared with a decade ago, the military is bigger, more closely connected to the CIA, more practiced at taking on terrorists and more respected by the American public. Post 9/11 measures resulted in killing Osama Bin Laden. Israel 2011 (Charlene, "U.S. Kills Osama bin Laden Decade after 9/11 Attacks" CBN Network, May 2, http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/May/Osama-bin-LadenConfirmed-Dead/) Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001 terror attacks that struck New York City and Washington, D.C., was killed in a firefight with U.S. forces in Pakistan last Monday. In a televised statement to the nation late Sunday night, President Barack Obama declared '"justice has been done," but admitted the fight against terrorism is far from over. It was a speech Americans waited years to hear. "On nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al-Qaeda's terror: Justice has been done," Obama said.
25
Terrorist attacks cripple the US economy. LancasterOnline 2011 (Costs of 9/11 attacks still haunt US economy, Aug 19, http://lancasteronline.com/article/ap/442223_Costs-of-9-11-attacks-still-haunt-USeconomy.html) It took just a few hours for the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center to destroy a symbol of U.S. capitalism. A decade later, the financial damage still ripples through the economy, as businesses, consumers and the government continue to pay terrorism's toll.
26
Con Extensions
Homeland Security has cost a lot of money and drastically expanded the size of the federal government. Miller 2003 (Steven E. "After the 9/11 Disaster: Washington's Struggle to Improve Homeland Security." Axess Stockholm, Sweden no. 2 (March 2003): 8-11). Meanwhile, Congress was considering homeland security legislation. And indeed, by the end of 2002, the President had proposed and the Congress had approved a new cabinetlevel department, the Department of Homeland Security, headed by a new Secretary for Homeland Security. The first occupant of this post is Tom Ridge, who commands a staff of 170,000 (making it the second largest department in the federal government, second only to the Defense Department) and budget of nearly $40 billion. The creation of this department represents the largest reorganization of the US federal government in more than half a century. In Washington, homeland security was now the main game in town. Collecting intelligence is too difficult because it involves too many steps. Miller 2003 (Steven E. "After the 9/11 Disaster: Washington's Struggle to Improve Homeland Security." Axess Stockholm, Sweden no. 2 (March 2003): 8-11). This challenge, however, is daunting. Enormous amounts of raw intelligence were already being collected. Presumably this has only increased after 9/11. But collection is only one step in the process. Intelligence data must be analyzed, integrated with other intelligence and assessments, and very importantly communicated to those in a position to make effective use of it. Security measures have reduced the personal freedom of travelling. Miller 2003 (Steven E. "After the 9/11 Disaster: Washington's Struggle to Improve Homeland Security." Axess Stockholm, Sweden no. 2 (March 2003): 8-11). Vast numbers of people and vast quantities of material pour into the United States on a daily basis. There is every prospect that, as in the past, terrorists could enter the United States in an open and completely legal way. But since 9/11, the process for obtaining US visas has tightened (producing long delays that have been experienced by many foreigners). There is greater scrutiny of foreign visitors at passport control. There is much greater suspicion of incoming visitors who match certain worrying profiles.
27
Collecting intelligence is ineffective because of overlapping federal agencies. Miller 2003 (Steven E. "After the 9/11 Disaster: Washington's Struggle to Improve Homeland Security." Axess Stockholm, Sweden no. 2 (March 2003): 8-11). Because the United States has multiple (often competing but always independent) agencies engaged in various forms of intelligence activities, problems of coordination, integration, and communication abound. Because some of these agencies the FBI and the CIA, for example are themselves large bureaucracies, such problems arise within as well as between intelligence agencies. Beyond this, there has long been a strict and legally mandated separation between external intelligence operations (undertaken by the CIA and various Defense Department intelligence services) and internal investigative efforts (which are the domain of the FBI). This and the habit of poor cooperation between the CIA and the FBI has made it difficult for external intelligence to feed into domestic investigations. The FBI, the most important domestic investigative agency in the US federal government, is broadly oriented around solving crimes in the United States and hunting down criminals; it is neither organized nor optimized for the antiterrorism mission. And once potential threats have been identified, this information needs to get into the hands of the Immigration and Customs Service, the relevant police departments, and so on, if it is to be truly useful in leading to the apprehension of potential terrorists. It is impossible to monitor everyone and everything for terrorist activity. Miller 2003 (Steven E. "After the 9/11 Disaster: Washington's Struggle to Improve Homeland Security." Axess Stockholm, Sweden no. 2 (March 2003): 8-11). There is a particular fear that weapons of mass destruction might enter the United States in this fashion. Before 9/11, only a tiny percentage of goods and containers entering US territory were ever inspected, and there was little focus on finding weapons of mass destruction. The volume of trade flows makes this an enormous, perhaps intractable challenge. There is no way to prevent all threats. Miller 2003 (Steven E. "After the 9/11 Disaster: Washington's Struggle to Improve Homeland Security." Axess Stockholm, Sweden no. 2 (March 2003): 8-11). This is a large and ambitious homeland security agenda that derives from the urge to minimize the vulnerability of the United States to terrorist attack. Even if it were possible to achieve all the desired innovations and improvements, some vulnerability to terrorists would almost certainly remain.
28
There is still a need to protect civil liberties and personal freedoms. Miller 2003 (Steven E. "After the 9/11 Disaster: Washington's Struggle to Improve Homeland Security." Axess Stockholm, Sweden no. 2 (March 2003): 8-11). But once the raw emotion of 9/11 faded, these traditional concerns resurfaced, fuelled by a growing belief, as one account put it, that the Bush Administration is encroaching upon civil rights with many of its new homeland security initiatives. The Defense Department, for example, launched an anti-terrorist program called Total Information Awareness that aimed at collecting huge amounts of computerized information about US citizens and analyzing it in search of suspicious patterns. This produced a political backlash that soon stopped the program dead in the water. As New York Times columnist William Safire noted approvingly, even a Republican congress would not authorize the Bush Administration to go snooping into the private lives of innocent Americans or to treat all citizens as suspects. Perhaps future terrorist attacks with further erode the American commitment to civil liberties, but for now there is still a political need to confront the tradeoff between effectiveness against terrorism and the powerful desire of the typical American to enjoy the full protections offered by the American constitution. Despite security measures, the threat of terrorism is still high. Miller 2003 (Steven E. "After the 9/11 Disaster: Washington's Struggle to Improve Homeland Security." Axess Stockholm, Sweden no. 2 (March 2003): 8-11). The attacks of September 11 concentrated the American mind very much on the problem of homeland security. The Bush Administration has responded with a strategy that is impressive, comprehensive, sophisticated, but it has barely made a beginning in addressing the terrorism threat. Every major pronouncement so far whether from independent commissions or from the CIA has judged that the United States is more or less as vulnerable today as it was on September 10, 2001. In part this reflects the scale of the homeland security challenge. In part this reflects the difficulty in implementing large reforms. In part it reflects the power of the obstacles to effective homeland defense. Progress has been made, but no one will be surprised when the next large terrorist attack takes place on American soil. It is widely understood that this is still possible, perhaps even likely.
29
9/11 measures are not practical at preventing terrorism. Cable News Network July 28, 2007, Congress passes 9/11 security measures, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/28/congress-passes-911-security-measures/ Despite the broad bipartisan support, critics of the bill say it does not provide the right for airport screeners to unionize and that some of the rules are impractical, such as requiring all maritime cargo in three years to go through security screening. "This proposal is simply not practical because of the huge volume, some 11 million containers per year coming into our seaports," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. Despite her criticism, Collins voted for the bill. Despite security measures, airplanes are still targeted for terrorist attacks. Kaplan 2006 (Eben, research associate at the Council on Foreign Relations, "Targets for Terrorists: Post-9/11 Aviation Security" Backgrounder, Council on Foreign Relations, September 7, http://www.cfr.org/air-transportation-security/targets-terrorists-post-911aviation-security/p11397) Terrorists were targeting airliners with their attacks long before the 9/11 hijackings and the subsequent launch of the U.S. "war on terror." Despite heightened security measures, airliners remain an attractive target for terrorists, as evidenced by the revelation in August 2006 of a plot to simultaneously down as many as ten of them over the Atlantic Ocean. In order to counter the persistent and ever-changing threat of terrorism, experts say officials need to do more to ensure the safety of air travel. Post-9/11 measures have actually increased the risk of terrorism. Kaplan 2006 (Eben, research associate at the Council on Foreign Relations, "Targets for Terrorists: Post-9/11 Aviation Security" Backgrounder, Council on Foreign Relations, September 7, http://www.cfr.org/air-transportation-security/targets-terrorists-post-911aviation-security/p11397) Some critics say that by focusing so heavily on screening passengers, security officials have left aircraft vulnerable to attack in other areas. Foremost among these, experts say, is air cargo security. In addition to carrying travelers baggage, the lower deck of many airliners holds a sizeable amount of air freight. Though 100 percent of passengers checked luggage is required to be screened for explosives, according to a Congressional Research Service report (PDF), only a small portion of the air cargo is ever inspected.
30
Post 9/11 measures have decreased freedoms and increased invasions of privacy while traveling. Kaplan 2006 (Eben, research associate at the Council on Foreign Relations, "Targets for Terrorists: Post-9/11 Aviation Security" Backgrounder, Council on Foreign Relations, September 7, http://www.cfr.org/air-transportation-security/targets-terrorists-post-911aviation-security/p11397) Shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress passed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (PDF), which created the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and mandated that federal employees be in charge of airport security screening. The TSA has implemented more thorough screening procedures for passengers and their baggage, whereby passengers go through metal detectors, carry-on bags are x-rayed, and checked baggage passes through an explosive detection system. Minor changes to these proceduressuch as requiring passengers to remove their shoes or the more recent prohibition of carry-on liquidshave had some effect. But the real change, according to George Naccara, federal security director at Bostons Logan Airport, has been the institution of "many layers of security," including measures that go beyond passenger screening, such as heightened police presence outside of airports and increased cooperation between airlines and security officials. Airport security expert Norman Shanks says these changes "have raised the standard of security of all airports in the United States, which was long overdue." Post 9/11 measures do not sufficiently check airport employees. Kaplan 2006 (Eben, research associate at the Council on Foreign Relations, "Targets for Terrorists: Post-9/11 Aviation Security" Backgrounder, Council on Foreign Relations, September 7, http://www.cfr.org/air-transportation-security/targets-terrorists-post-911aviation-security/p11397) Others criticize the ease with which airline and airport employees bypass security checkpoints when entering secure areas. Some experts have called for the use of biometric identification for such access. There are also concerns over the potential of an attack by terrorists using a shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile: In 2002 terrorists fired such a missile at an Israeli charter jet as it took off from Mombasa, Kenya. The Department of Homeland Security has commissioned prototypes of anti-missile systems but it remains unclear when, if ever, such systems will be implemented.
31
Federal 9/11 measures have replaced local security measures that were more effective. The Courier Post 2011 (Gannett News, U.S. ports spend huge amounts on post-9/11 security measures, August 15, 2011, http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20110815/ BUSINESS/3081 60002/U-S-ports-spend-huge-amounts-post-9-11-security-measures) Before 9/11, state port authorities typically established their own security rules and terrorists weren't really on their radar. U.S. ports were primarily on the lookout for cargo thieves, stowaways, drug smuggling and human trafficking. In those days, there wasn't even a fence around some parts of the 6-mile perimeter of Savannah's sprawling main terminal, said Kevin Doyle, security chief for the Georgia ports. Marsh and other natural barriers in those gaps were deemed adequate. Not anymore. The fencing got replaced, or installed where there was none before, and motion sensors were added. Security cameras and patrol officers keep watch at the Savannah port's perimeter around the clock. Federal post-9/11 measures have increased costs to trade. The Courier Post 2011 (Gannett News, U.S. ports spend huge amounts on post-9/11 security measures, August 15, 2011, http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20110815/ BUSINESS/308160002/U-S-ports-spend-huge-amounts-post-9-11-security-measures) A 2007 port security law included a requirement that all overseas ports shipping goods to the U.S. must find a way to X-ray 100 percent of cargo heading to America by the end of next year. Port officials in the U.S. and overseas call the rule an unnecessary step that would increase costs, especially if U.S. trade partners then required ports here do the same thing. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said last month she's deferring the change, as allowed by the law, until 2014 at the soonest.
32
Post-9/11 security measures have heightened tensions along the Canadian border. Ring 2011 (Wilson, Associated Press Writer, "Post-9/11 security divides life on the northern border," August 14, The Times West Virginian, http://timeswv.com/ headlinenews/x1533029051/Post-9-11-security-divides-life-on-the-northern-border) A decade after 9/11, tightened security measures have divided communities on the northern border, where for centuries, people crossed back and forth to shop, work or visit relatives. Where the Green Mountains of Vermont begin to give way to the broad plains of Quebecs St. Lawrence valley, residents acknowledge the need for enhanced security, yet many are frustrated. Most agree life will never be as it was, but theyre adapting. It used to be real simple. We just went across the border. Sometimes I wouldnt even take my wallet, said Paul Martin, 59, the fire chief in Richford, a Vermont town of about 1,300 near the border. Now, Martin said, he crosses the border two or three times a week to see his girlfriend in Quebec. He never knows how difficult it will be to come back, an uncertainty that illustrates the disruption of a small-town way of life that had pervaded even across international lines. If I get somebody I went to school with, I dont have a problem, he said. If you get somebody new, they have to inspect everything. It all depends on what kind of a day the inspector is having. Within weeks of 9/11, the U.S. began increasing border security that, as one official said, hadnt changed much since the French and Indian War of the 1750s. National Guard soldiers were helping staff posts and plans were being made to increase the size and technical prowess of the Border Patrol, which has roughly tripled its staffing since. Long backups at the border became common. Once-unguarded roads were blocked. The changes disrupted the way people had always lived. Measures to increase border security have not been effective at reducing terrorist threats. Seaport Security News 2011 (decade later, post-9/11 security measures still ineffective, February 1, http://www.seaportsecuritynews.com/?p=262) National security experts agree that the millions of unscreened shipments entering U.S. ports are vulnerable for terrorist activity. But implementing screening efforts have been a debacle. In the wake of the alarming recognition of our nations vulnerabilityand a horrified post-9/11 American publicCongress frenzied throughout the last decade to ensure more superior homeland security. The result was the umbrella legislation for various smaller bills known as the 9/11 Commission Act, passed in 2007. The bill was Congress attempt to patch the large security pothole that allows volatile materials and individuals to enter and move about the U.S., as well as to heighten emergency response effectiveness.
33
Post 9/11 measures have hurt businesses along the USCanadian border. Ring 2011 (Wilson, Associated Press Writer, "Post-9/11 security divides life on the northern border," August 14, The Times West Virginian, http://timeswv.com/ headlinenews/x1533029051/Post-9-11-security-divides-life-on-the-northern-border) The first one or two years (after 9/11) it was really, really bad. It was like we were in a war zone. The delays have eased some, he said, but people who once crossed between the United States and Canada with only a nod now need expensive passports or other travel documents, such as Vermonts enhanced drivers licenses or passport cards. Still, they might have to wait or open their trunks. For the past 25 years, Rosaire St. Pierre has run the restaurant The Crossing in Richford. About half his customers come from Quebec. A few years ago, he held a contest to give away passports that usually cost 90 Canadian dollars so Quebecois would have the documents needed to come to Vermont. Yet he estimates his business remains down 30 percent. Hes frustrated by what he sees as the unreasonable demands for border-crossing documents and the overzealous nature of the border agents who, he claims, are sometimes rude to his potential customers. They dont care about business whatsoever. They think that everybody is a potential bomber, St. Pierre said. I think that the terrorists are getting us through our pockets. Concerns about agents being rude to people entering the United States should be reported to their supervisors, said CBP Acting Area Port Director Gregory Starr. Our officers take an oath. That pledge conveys great responsibility, he said. Theres a lot of balancing of facilitation and enforcement.
We are no safer than we were ten years ago. Seaport Security News 2011 (decade later, post-9/11 security measures still ineffective, February 1, http://www.seaportsecuritynews.com/?p=262) But without significant change to security procedures, Public Law 110-53 was created, a 286-page act made to implement the 9/11 Act itself and actually put into action the security recommendations put forth by the National Commission on Terrorists Attacks Upon the United States. A step in the right direction resulted from PL 110-53: Requirements were set forth upon the TSA to screen all airborne cargo prior to when it is loaded for travel in U.S. territory, requirements of which finally went into effect on August 1, 2010. Now more than six months later,security experts begin to weigh in on the decade-long efforts put forth by the TSA and Congress, as it becomes possibleto determine the results of screening requirements, and if the nation is any safer today than it was on September 11, 2001. And regrettably, the answer isno.
34
Most of the imports into the US are not screened. Seaport Security News 2011 (decade later, post-9/11 security measures still ineffective, February 1, http://www.seaportsecuritynews.com/?p=262) Even if the airborne cargo screening is effective, the monstrous majority of shipments roaming about the U.S. remain unchecked for explosives and radioactivity: Ninety-five percent of imports arrive via sea, and are not subject the TSA screening mandates. The 40-foot marine containers that have become the standard for maritime import are especially susceptible to terrorist exploitation due to their sheer volume and familiarity (i.e., each container is identical, despite whats inside). Experts agree that explosives, weapons, and nuclear or radioactive materials could be smuggled into shipping containersto be found on U.S. ships, trains, and winding down our highways on 18 wheelerscould be smuggled in containers free of screening. Osama bin Ladens death did nothing to affect security measures, indicating that we are at the same risk as we were on 9/11. Gannett News Service 2011 ("Death won't change post 9/11 security measures" May 2, http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110502/NEWS0108/105030317/Death-won-tchange-post-9-11-security-measures?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Kentucky|s) Homeland security officials took a few moments Sunday night to gather around televisions and trade emails like many other Americans after learning of Osama bin Laden's death. Then they went back to work. "We're doing the same things today that we were doing Friday afternoon," said Cincinnati FBI spokesman Mike Brooks. "His death doesn't impact that at all." From Greater Cincinnati to Washington, D.C., the massive security apparatus that came into being because of the threat from bin Laden continued to work Monday just as it had for most of the past decade. The US will continue to spend money on post-9/11 security measures even though Osama has been killed. Gannett News Service 2011 ("Death won't change post 9/11 security measures" May 2, http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110502/NEWS0108/105030317/Death-won-tchange-post-9-11-security-measures?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Kentucky|s) Anti-terrorism efforts in Greater Cincinnati alone include a federal legal team dedicated to tracking terrorists, an FBI terrorism task force made up of 20 law enforcement officers and some $70 million in government spending on armored vehicles, radiation detectors and bio-hazard suits. Neither the equipment nor the personnel is going away because the United States finally killed the world's most wanted terrorist. "I'm glad we got him. I think it's great for the country," said Ed Dadosky, a Cincinnati district fire chief who leads the city's Homeland Security Unit. "But I think it changes our world very little."
35
Increased airport security has reduced the demand for air travel. Blalock, et al., 2007 (Garrick, Associate Professor Department of Applied Economics and Management Cornell University, The Impact of Post-9/11 Airport Security Measures on the Demand for Air Travel, Journal of Law & Economics, Vol. 50, No. 4, Nov., http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1086/519816) Our results indicate that baggage screening reduced originating passenger volume by six percent at all airports and by nine percent at the nations fifty busiest airports. At the same time, we find no evidence that baggage screening reduced connecting passenger volume from the same airports, on the same flights. In addition, we observe larger declines in passengers flying shorter trips, for which passengers are more likely to substitute driving for flying following the implementation of the new security procedures. Furthermore, we find that neither contemporaneous price changes nor airline schedule changes can explain our results. Prices remain stable after the implementation of baggage screening, while frequency of service is uncorrelated with the introduction of baggage screening. These results suggest that regulatory efforts to enhance airport security, in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11, had the unintended consequence of reducing the convenience of air travel, which in turn caused a decline in the demand for air travel. Decreasing air travel has devastated the airline industry. Blalock, et al., 2007 (Garrick, Associate Professor Department of Applied Economics and Management Cornell University, The Impact of Post-9/11 Airport Security Measures on the Demand for Air Travel, Journal of Law & Economics, Vol. 50, No. 4, Nov., http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1086/519816) This decline has substantial welfare implications. Back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate that the airline industry lost about $1.1 billion in revenues due to the reduction in demand, eleven percent of the amount that the General Accounting Office estimates the industry lost because of 9/11 itself (General Accounting Office 2001). Similar calculations suggest that substitution of driving for flying by travelers seeking to avoid security inconvenience likely led to over 100 road fatalities. These unintended consequences must be weighed relative to the intended enhancements to passenger safety and confidence in order to evaluate the effectiveness of these regulatory responses.
36
TSA has reduced demand for air travel. Blalock, et al., 2007 (Garrick, Associate Professor Department of Applied Economics and Management Cornell University, The Impact of Post-9/11 Airport Security Measures on the Demand for Air Travel, Journal of Law & Economics, Vol. 50, No. 4, Nov., http://www.jstor.org/pss/10.1086/519816) We find that the introduction of baggage screening at U.S. airports reduced originating passenger volume at all airports by about six percent and by about nine percent at the nations fifty busiest airports. In contrast, baggage screening had no effect on connecting passengers, who do not need to have their baggage screened. This provides support for the view that the negative relationship between baggage screening and passenger volume is not driven by unobservable airport demand shocks. In addition, we find evidence that baggage screening reduced demand by even more on shorter flights. The federalization of passenger screening had little effect on passenger volume. Military growth over the past decade as a result of 9/11 has not been good growth because it has been uneven. Burns 2011 (Robert, The Huffington Post, 9/11 Anniversary Marks New Fight For Pentagon, August 21, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/21/911-anniversarypentagon_n_932618.html) The military grew larger over the past decade, but the growth was uneven. The Army expanded from about 480,000 in 2001 to 572,000 this year, and the Marine Corps grew from 172,000 to 200,000, although both are to begin scaling back shortly. The Air Force and Navy, by contrast, got smaller. The Air Force lost about 20,000 slots since 2001 and the Navy lost about 50,000.
37
Pro Blocks
A/T 1. 2. Detainee Treatment They are just highlighting the worst examples of detainee treatment. They present no evidence that all detainees are treated poorly. Detainees complaints are largely without merit. Silverman 2003 (Alan, Professor Brown University, The Brown University Spectator, Aug. 1, http://thebrownspectator.com/safety-post-9-11-security-measures-justified/) The strong weight of evidence shows that a good many of the 34 other [detainee] complaints are utterly without merit. One of these concerned an immigration official who allegedly rudely asked a detainee if the latter wanted to kill Christians and Jews, the Associated Press reports. In light of the rhetoric put forth by Islamists, the question was certainly within reason. Failure to be sensitive is not an abuse of power, and in the course of a terrorist investigation, it will often be necessary. Another complaint, filed by a citizen of Lebanese extraction, maintains that federal agents broke into his home to look for an AK-47 assault rifle. It appears that the agents lacked the psychic capacity to determine, in advance of the raid that the information on which they acted was false. Let grievances pile up over errors such as this, and see what effect that will have on agents willingness to follow and act on any leads that do not guarantee their own accuracy. The cost, in foregone raids that would have borne fruit, will by far exceed the gain in liberty. 3. Detentions do not substantially violate personal freedoms. Silverman 2003 (Alan, Professor Brown University, The Brown University Spectator, Aug. 1, http://thebrownspectator.com/safety-post-9-11-security-measures-justified/) Opponents, in response to these points, call attention to the mass detentions of 2001 and 2002. The U.S. Department of Justice rounded up some 762 immigrants, almost all of them illegal, in the wake of the terrorist attacks and failed to deal speedily with them. That failure is nowhere near as pronounced as the major media have told their readership. The Los Angeles Times editorialized that federal agents held most [of the detainees] for months without charges, citing a report published by the Office of the Inspector General of the Justice Department. But that report claims that agents notified 738 of the detainees of their charges within a month. Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin writes that in the 24 other cases, the selfsame report listed numerous legitimate reasons for delay, such as logistical disruptions in New York City after Sept. 11, including electrical outages, office shutdowns and mail service cancellation that slowed delivery of charging documents. And not a single allegation by a detainee of verbal or physical abuse resulted in a criminal charge against an agent, Malkin adds hardly the mark of a civil liberties emergency.
38
Pro Blocks
A/T 1. Surveillance Violates Rights Not all surveillance violates personal freedoms. Public surveillance does not violate personal freedoms when we are in public because we can essentially be watched by anyone and everyone else around. 9/11 has not turned the US into a surveillance state. Silverman 2003 (Alan, Professor Brown University, The Brown University Spectator, Aug. 1, http://thebrownspectator.com/safety-post-9-11-securitymeasures-justified/) If the Fourth or any other Amendment were more restrictive of law enforcement, then it would render the Constitution a straitjacket and would not deserve our deference. Unfortunately much of the population has come to fetishize its privacy and to dread any innovation that makes government intelligence more efficient. Particularly disturbing to such people are the provisions of the PATRIOT Act that allow the government to monitor online communications and to call on organizations to supply personal information on employees and clients. The United States is a splendid target for terrorists, with a complex web of public and private servicesloans, welfare programs, banking services, online merchants, cellular phones, libraries and Web sites filled with information about vulnerable nuclear power plants and recipes for homemade bombsthat anyone can turn against the public. So when an individual commits an act that arouses suspicion of terror ties, investigators should track his use of these services. If the authorities learned that a 30-yearold male Saudi immigrant was illegally using an Internet service provider, and that he had donated money to charities that sponsor terrorism, they would be remiss not to learn whether he were applying to flight school or researching the vulnerabilities of a local nuclear plant
2.
39
Pro Blocks
A/T Were Still Insecure After Osamas Death 1. This argument goes to prove our point. Our post-9/11 security measures were effective at finding and killing Osama. Post 9/11 measures resulted in killing Osama Bin Laden. Israel 2011 (Charlene, "U.S. Kills Osama bin Laden Decade after 9/11 Attacks" CBN Network, May 2, http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/May/Osama-bin-Laden-ConfirmedDead/) Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001 terror attacks that struck New York City and Washington, D.C., was killed in a firefight with U.S. forces in Pakistan last Monday. In a televised statement to the nation late Sunday night, President Barack Obama declared '"justice has been done," but admitted the fight against terrorism is far from over. It was a speech Americans waited years to hear. "On nights like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved ones to al-Qaeda's terror: Justice has been done," Obama said. 2. Even though we have killed Osama, the terrorist threat remains high because Osama bin laden is not the only terrorist. This has nothing to do with the effectiveness of post-9/11 measures. Gannett News Service 2011 ("Death won't change post 9/11 security measures" May 2, http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110502/NEWS0108/105030317/ Death-won-t-change-post-9-11-security measures?odyssey=mod|newswell|text| Kentucky|s) "Our efforts to combat terrorism ... do not fixate on one individual," said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. She and others have made clear that the anti-terrorism campaign adopted after 9/11 will continue, despite bin Laden's death and despite occasional criticism that some homeland security efforts have been wasteful or ineffective.
40
Pro Blocks
A/T Spending 1. Just because we spend money on security measures doesnt mean that that spending violates personal freedoms. The resolution requires the Con side to prove that the security measures violate personal freedoms, not just that they might have other harms. 2. Spending money on antiterrorism efforts has been effective at reducing terrorism. Gannett News Service 2011 ("Death won't change post 9/11 security measures" May 2, http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110502/NEWS0108/105030317/ Death-won-t-change-post-9-11-security-measures?odyssey=mod|newswell|text| Kentucky|s) Some have questioned the wisdom of purchasing billions of dollars in equipment from decontamination trailers to night vision goggles - while others mocked such ideas as the old color-coded terror alert system as useless. But local and federal officials say the approach has helped prevent attacks and has better prepared the region to respond if an attack occurs. The FBI's terrorism task force chases tips and investigates suspects throughout the region, while the U.S. Attorneys office in southern Ohio created a legal team dedicated to prosecuting those suspects. Their work has resulted in the conviction of three Columbus-area men in recent years on charges of providing support to terrorists and, in one case, plotting to blow up shopping malls.
41
Con Blocks
A/T Security Measures Improved the Military 1. Just because the military has increased in size does not mean that we are safer. 2. Post 9-11 has stretched our military thin after fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. How can they say that our military is more ready now than it was prior to these two, long wars? 3. Military growth over the past decade as a result of 9/11 has not been good growth because it has been uneven. Burns 2011 (Robert, The Huffington Post, 9/11 Anniversary Marks New Fight For Pentagon, August 21, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/21/911anniversary-pentagon_n_932618.html) The military grew larger over the past decade, but the growth was uneven. The Army expanded from about 480,000 in 2001 to 572,000 this year, and the Marine Corps grew from 172,000 to 200,000, although both are to begin scaling back shortly. The Air Force and Navy, by contrast, got smaller. The Air Force lost about 20,000 slots since 2001 and the Navy lost about 50,000.
42
Con Blocks
A/T Osamas Death Made Us Safer
1. Osama bin Ladens death did nothing to affect security measures, indicating that we are at the same risk as we were on 9/11. Gannett News Service 2011 ("Death won't change post 9/11 security measures" May 2, http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110502/NEWS0108/105030317/Death-won-tchange-post-9-11-security-measures?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Kentucky|s) Homeland security officials took a few moments Sunday night to gather around televisions and trade emails like many other Americans after learning of Osama bin Laden's death. Then they went back to work. "We're doing the same things today that we were doing Friday afternoon," said Cincinnati FBI spokesman Mike Brooks. "His death doesn't impact that at all." From Greater Cincinnati to Washington, D.C., the massive security apparatus that came into being because of the threat from bin Laden continued to work Monday just as it had for most of the past decade. 2. The US will continue to spend money on post-9/11 security measures even though Osama has been killed. Gannett News Service 2011 ("Death won't change post 9/11 security measures" May 2, http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110502/NEWS0108/105030317/Death-won-tchange-post-9-11-security-measures?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Kentucky|s) Anti-terrorism efforts in Greater Cincinnati alone include a federal legal team dedicated to tracking terrorists, an FBI terrorism task force made up of 20 law enforcement officers and some $70 million in government spending on armored vehicles, radiation detectors and bio-hazard suits. Neither the equipment nor the personnel is going away because the United States finally killed the world's most wanted terrorist. "I'm glad we got him. I think it's great for the country," said Ed Dadosky, a Cincinnati district fire chief who leads the city's Homeland Security Unit. "But I think it changes our world very little."
43
Con Blocks
A/T Collecting Intelligence is effective 1. Collecting intelligence is too difficult because it involves too many steps. Miller 2003 (Steven E. "After the 9/11 Disaster: Washington's Struggle to Improve Homeland Security." Axess Stockholm, Sweden no. 2 (March 2003): 8-11). This challenge, however, is daunting. Enormous amounts of raw intelligence were already being collected. Presumably this has only increased after 9/11. But collection is only one step in the process. Intelligence data must be analyzed, integrated with other intelligence and assessments, and very importantly communicated to those in a position to make effective use of it. 2. Collecting intelligence is ineffective because of overlapping federal agencies. Miller 2003 (Steven E. "After the 9/11 Disaster: Washington's Struggle to Improve Homeland Security." Axess Stockholm, Sweden no. 2 (March 2003): 8-11). Because the United States has multiple (often competing but always independent) agencies engaged in various forms of intelligence activities, problems of coordination, integration, and communication abound. Because some of these agencies the FBI and the CIA, for example are themselves large bureaucracies, such problems arise within as well as between intelligence agencies. Beyond this, there has long been a strict and legally mandated separation between external intelligence operations (undertaken by the CIA and various Defense Department intelligence services) and internal investigative efforts (which are the domain of the FBI). This and the habit of poor cooperation between the CIA and the FBI has made it difficult for external intelligence to feed into domestic investigations. The FBI, the most important domestic investigative agency in the US federal government, is broadly oriented around solving crimes in the United States and hunting down criminals; it is neither organized nor optimized for the antiterrorism mission. And once potential threats have been identified, this information needs to get into the hands of the Immigration and Customs Service, the relevant police departments, and so on, if it is to be truly useful in leading to the apprehension of potential terrorists.
44
Con Blocks
A/T 1. 2. Homeland Security Has Been Effective Even if Homeland Security has been effective, there has still be substantial rights violations that must be considered. Homeland Security has cost a lot of money and drastically expanded the size of the federal government. Miller 2003 (Steven E. "After the 9/11 Disaster: Washington's Struggle to Improve Homeland Security." Axess Stockholm, Sweden no. 2 (March 2003): 811). Meanwhile, Congress was considering homeland security legislation. And indeed, by the end of 2002, the President had proposed and the Congress had approved a new cabinet-level department, the Department of Homeland Security, headed by a new Secretary for Homeland Security. The first occupant of this post is Tom Ridge, who commands a staff of 170,000 (making it the second largest department in the federal government, second only to the Defense Department) and budget of nearly $40 billion. The creation of this department represents the largest reorganization of the US federal government in more than half a century. In Washington, homeland security was now the main game in town.
45
The Forensics Files September 2011 PRO CASE #1 PREFLOW

The Department of Homeland Security has significantly increased safety in the United States without sacrificing significant personal freedoms, I. Our first contention is that the federal government created DHS as a post-9/11 security measure. Miller 2003
II. Our second contention is that homeland security prevents and responds to terrorist threats. Miller 2003
III. Even if there are violations of personal freedom, the US has not overstepped its boundaries and security has improved, and thereby the US has secured the personal freedoms the Con side might argue. Silverman 2003
46
The Forensics Files September 2011 PRO CASE #2 PREFLOW

Post-9/11 security measures have more benefits than just enhancing security against terrorist threats. I. Our first contention is that post-9/11 security measures have improved security in the United States and has thereby helped the US economy. LancasterOnline 2011
II. Our second contention is that increased security measures along the border as a result of 9/11 has enhanced the ability to catch drunk drivers. Ring 2011 III. Our third and final contention is that post 911 security measures help to prevent influx of drugs from Mexico into the US. Miller 2003
47
The Forensics Files September 2011 CON CASE #1 PREFLOW

Post-9/11 security measures significantly violate personal freedoms and actually make us more unsafe than we were before. I. Our first contention is that post 9/11 security measures violate individual civil liberties. Miller 2003 II. Our second contention is that post-9/11 security measures dont actually make us safer because globalization has made anti-terrorism efforts in the US ineffective. Miller 2003 III. Our third and final contention is that antiterrorism efforts post 9/11 may actually increase the risk of terrorism. Gannett News Service in 2011
48
The Forensics Files September 2011 CON CASE #2 PREFLOW

Post-9/11 security measures significantly violate individual rights and other freedoms in various ways
I. Our first contention is that security measures have reduced the personal freedom of travelling. Miller 2003 II. Our second contention is that post-9/11 security measures violate personal freedoms of trade by slow down trade among private individuals on an international scale. The Courier Post 2011
III. Finally, our last contention is that the United States federal government spends too much taxpayer money on post-9/11 security measures. This is violation of personal freedoms to be free from excessive taxation. This can be seen particularly in costs to implement the measures. The Courier Post 2011
49

911 Debate Evidence Print

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

911 Debate Evidence Print

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

THE FORENSICS FILES

THE PFD FILE

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011 PRO CASE #1 [HLS 2 of 2]

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

The Forensics Files September 2011

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

("Death won't change post 9/11 security measures" May 2, http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110502/NEWS0108/105030317/Death-won-t-change-post-9-11security-measures?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Kentucky|s)

The Forensics Files September 2011 CON CASE #2 [Rights Violations 1 of 2]

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011 CON CASE #2 [Rights Violations 2 of 2]

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011

The PFD File Post 9-11 Security Measures

The Forensics Files September 2011