I have a quote from the National Security Agency, “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” Resolve: The benefits of domestic surveillance by the NSA outweigh the harms. From Oxford dictionary, I have a definition of privacy: freedom from unauthorized intrusion. The 4th Amendment from the constitution, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” According to Cornell University Law School, the 4th amendment “prohibits generalized searches, unless extraordinary circumstances place the general public in danger.” Contention 1: Domestic surveillance does not violate the Constitution. The Constitution was purposely made loosely, and one hole of that looseness is the right to privacy. It is faulty to argue that domestic surveillance by the NSA without warrant is unjust because the Bill of Rights does not protect privacy. The 4th amendment does not specifically bring up the right to privacy, leaving it to be implied. Thus, implying that you have the right to privacy also means that it is NOT guaranteed. Privacy is understood as a human right, but it is not a government protected right. Therefore, domestic surveillance does not violate any laws, especially not under the Constitution. Contention 2: Domestic surveillance is justified as a defensive tactic against potential enemies. Domestic surveillance has already been used to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States. According to the NSA Intelligence officials, “the government’s sweeping surveillance efforts helped thwart “potential terrorist events” more than 50 times since 9/11.” This demonstrates how surveillance is an effect method in anti-terrorist tactics and should be continued to ensure our national security. Examples of such successful thwarted attacks with the NSA’s assistance would be the follow: the case of Najibullah Zazi, plotted to bomb the New York subway station. The NSA intercepted his email when it was sent to a known Al Qaeda figure in Pakistan, a case involving David Coleman, the Chicago man who help the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack, the NSA stopped a subsequent plot on the newspaper offices, and a case of Basaaly Moalin, who sent thousands of dollars to a terrorist group to attack an American mall (which was stopped with the use of email accounts and cell phone metadata). Lastly, a case that stopped a bombing of the New York Stock Exchange in 2010. Even the American themselves acknowledge this fact, according to the Washington Post’s poll, 56% of the polled Americans firmly believe that domestic surveillance, especially phone surveillance, is acceptable in anti-terrorists tactics. Contention 3: Stopping domestic surveillance now will be hazardous to the well-being of the United States.
According to the House members, “the NSA program is crucial to nation security.” The NSA surveillance program, if stopped, will leave a hole in the United States intelligence agency, making the United States easier to infiltrate. The NSA surveillance helps protect the United States against terrorist attacks, relating to how terrorists today relay heavily on technology for their operations. For example, according to the FBI, Al Qaeda has an online magazine for sharing ideas, information, and to invite recruits. Al Qaeda also has its own Twitter account, which has been used to taunt its enemies and encourage terrorist activity. This is why NSA domestic surveillance is necessary, to protect the United States people from terrorists, people who openly stated that all Americans are targets. Terrorists are using the internet to grow their business and to connect with like-minded individuals, but these attacks are getting blocked because the NSA domestic surveillance program is catching them. The benefits of domestic surveillance by the NSA outweighs the harms because it protects the United States citizens from terrorist attacks, and stopping the NSA would damage the U.S. national security. This is why my partner and I urge a vote in affirmation of this resolution.