T

We meet
A) Oversight leads to material curtailmentthats
Healey.
B) Counter Interpretation: Curtailment includes
reducing NSA discretion over surveillanceFreedom
Act proves
Hafetz 6-7, Jonathan Hafetz is associate professor of law at Seton Hall
University School of Law. He is the author of "Habeas Corpus after 9/11:
Confronting Americas New Global Detention System." He recently served as
counsel to the New York City Bar Association in a friend-of-the-court brief
challenging bulk collection of telephony metadata, Opinion: With new NSA
rules, a shift in balance between security and privacy,
http://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-guest-writers/a-turning-point1.1350790 MWimsatt
USA Freedom Act, ending a political
standoff and paving the way for the acts passage. The vote marks the first time Congress
LAST WEEK, the Senate approved the House version of the

has

curtailed , rather than expanded, government surveillance power since 9/11. But it

remains to be seen whether the act is an isolated victory for privacy or the first step in a larger process of
surveillance reform. The USA Freedom Act principally addresses the surveillance program that provides for
the governments collection and storage of Americans phone records. Under that program, the
government has been collecting the metadata including the number a person dials, and the time, date
and length of those communications of every call made in the United States. It can then search the
database by querying it with specific telephone numbers. While the program does not allow the
government to listen to the actual content of those calls, advances in technology now enable the
government to learn a great deal about a persons private life simply from metadata. This program
operated under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, which Congress initially enacted after 9/11 and
subsequently amended. Section 215 authorized government to collect business records that are "relevant
to an authorized investigation." The government relied on this provision to engage in the dragnet
collection of phone records on the theory that those records might one day be relevant to an actual
investigation. And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a special court created in 1978 to handle
national security surveillance requests, sanctioned this collection in secret rulings, none of which was
made public. Snowden exposes secrecy But in June 2013, former NSA contractor Edward Snowden pierced
the veil of secrecy by revealing a vast network of government surveillance programs, including bulk
metadata collection under Section 215. Snowdens revelations ignited a national debate over civil liberties
and security, setting the stage for the recent battle over surveillance reform in Congress. The Section 215
program had been scheduled to expire on June 1. Without Snowdens revelations, Congress would almost
certainly have reauthorized this Patriot Act provision, as it had done seven times in the past. But those
revelations altered the landscape and reinvigorated privacy concerns that had long lain dormant. Other
developments increased the momentum for reform. In 2014, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
Board, the independent watchdog agency within the executive branch, concluded that the Section 215
program lacked an adequate legal basis and found that the program had made a concrete difference in the
outcome of a counterterrorism investigation, despite infringing the privacy of millions of Americans. And
just last month, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals became the second court to declare the Section 215
program illegal, ruling that Congress had not authorized the bulk collection of telephony metadata. The
appeals court, moreover, rejected the argument that Congress had approved the program in prior
reauthorizations, explaining that "Congress cannot reasonably be said to have ratified a program of which
many members of Congress and all members of the public were not aware." Modifications The USA
Freedom Act does not end the Section 215 program so much as modify it. Phone records will still be
collected, but they will remain in the hands of the private telecommunication companies, which typically

store them for 18 months. The government can still access those records, although it must first obtain an
order from the FISC, thus establishing a layer of judicial review that had originally been absent.
Additionally, the USA Freedom Act gives FISC judges authority to appoint a special advocate to present the
civil liberties argument in certain cases. Until now, those judges had heard only the governments side,
thus skewing decisions in its favor. The FISC will also be required to make public any major rulings.
Previously, its decisions remained hidden from the public, including the courts rulings approving the bulk
metadata collection program under Section 215, thus contributing to the creation of secret law. These
measures together have the potential to increase the fairness and transparency of the surveillance court,

The special advocate provision, for

example, should have mandated the participation of an outside attorney
although they should have been made stronger.

to present opposing arguments anytime the government sought a new authority or advanced a new

rather than leaving this participation to the

discretion of the FISC. Majority backed limitations More significant than any particular change

interpretation of current authority,

is the fact of reform itself. Despite the fear-mongering that surrounded the debate in Congress including
false claims by intelligence officials that the nation would be less safe without the Section 215 program

a majority in both houses held firm in demanding that the

presidents surveillance authority be limited. After continually titling the scales in
favor of security since 9/11, Congress finally sought to include protections for
civil liberties in the balance. It is nevertheless crucial to recognize the limits of
the USA Freedom Act. The act does not end the bulk collection and storage
of Americans phone records , but instead alters the manner

in which

those records will be stored and accessed .

Our definition is best for debate- it is the most real-world

example: the USA Freedom act is a major real-world
example of curtailment that follows the same method as
our af
Our definitions are the most precise and based in the
topic lit its tied to field context and is most predictable.
Hurts your ground
A) Allows negative state actions, kills link ground for Ks
and DA, and skirts solvency questions. Elimination
destroys mechanism debates.
B) We increase negative ground, they can PIC out of
specific agencies which checks any delimitation we
cause

They over limit taking away core afs like judicial review,
warrant requirement, and congressional oversight.
A) Process counterplans can enforce any negative
action or cuts af and ensures things like executive
flex force the af onto the negatives DA ground. That
makes being af impossible
B) Handcufs the af to the status quofreedom act cuts
solve restrictions. Oversight is the only way to
ensure those changes
C) Afs would always lose to circumvention without
oversight because they are always hollow mandates
Default to reasonability
A) No bright line for limitsdefault to a proximately
topical af and dont penalize us unless its egregious
B) Competing Interpretations provides an incentive for
the neg to avoid clash and case-specific research
theyll just manufacture a contrived interpretation
that excludes the plan.

Case

Solvency
1. FCC oversight still solves Haley 14 outlines multiple
reasons:
a. Its unique technical expertise is essential to
meaningful reviewthat revitalizes the NSA
missiontheir turns ignore FCCs track-record
keeping sensitive information under wraps
b. FCC has proven to check NSA stepping out of
bounds and ensures proper handling of data.
c. Oversight solves: meaningful review revitalizes
efectiveness towards communication means FCC
is key
2. Your evidence is not indicative of how FCC is the
oversight board instead of the executive office of
the president.
3. Even if circumvention is true, we still solve:
a. The Europe impact is predicated in large part by their
perception of the US. If they simply think that were
doing good things, we solve the impact.
b. The plan restores confidence, which is key to solving
terror.
4. Codifying FCC authority ensures efective and
transparent oversightonly Congress can do this
Healey 14, J.D. Candidate, The George Washington University Law
School, May 2015; B.A. magna cum laude, in Political Science,
concentration in Public Policy and Administration, minor Law and Public
Policy, Northeastern University, A Tale of Two Agencies: Exploring
Oversight of the National Security Administration by the Federal
Communications Commission, December 2014, Lexis, MWimsatt
IV. How the FCC Should Address the NSA Surveillance: Implementing
the Solution Congress is equipped to enact legislation codifying
FCC oversight of the NSA by virtue of both current law and the
PCLOB's recommendations. First, the Telecommunications Act can
serve as the basis for the FCC to take action to further develop its
protection of consumers on the Internet, Moreover, there has been
some movement in Congress calling on the FCC to take action
regarding the NSA phone database, indicating the possibility
of the FCC taking up an oversight role. n116 Further, Congress
gave the FCC broad investigation, regulatory, and enforcement powers,
as well as the privacy-focused directive of implementing Consumer

Propriety Network Information protection. n117 Additionally, the first

PCLOB Report calls for extensive changes in the NSA and FISA Court
regime while the second report calls expressly for industry input and
expertise: the FCC could facilitate some of the suggested changes
through its subject matter expertise. Even as the FCC is set up
to facilitate the PCLOB recommendations, Congress needs to

codify the legal authority for the FCC to do this

specifically . Granting express legal authority is key , as
organic statutes of agencies determine what a given agency
can and cannot do. Congressional authorization would be a
logical outgrowth of both the FCC's regulatory interests and
current legal recommendations regarding NSA oversight. B.
Congress should amend the organic statutes of the FCC and
NSA and encourage participation in the FISA Court. The lack of
oversight of NSA data collection practices will continue to be
problematic moving forward, as national security is an ongoing
concern and technology is a large part of life in a modern society.
There is need for efective and transparent oversight of the
NSA's data collection. As such, Congress should act by amending
the organic statutes of both the NSA and the FCC to provide
the FCC with oversight authority over the NSA , and by
allowing the FCC to participate as amicus curiae with the FISA
Court. [*112] 1. Congress should amend the NSA organic statute to
provide for collection of data by the FCC. The NSA needs
transparent and easily understood oversight . While it should
not have to disclose national security information , the agency
should be required to disclose basic statistics, such as how
much information it is gathering, similar to Recommendation 9 in
the second PCLOB Report. n118 This would at least illustrate to the
public , via the FCC, that the NSA is targeting its surveillance at
legitimate threats to national security - rather than performing
blanket surveillance of all Internet users. Further, these reforms
would comport with the PCLOB's enumerated Recommendations. n119
As of now, "lawmakers and the public do not have even a rough
estimate of how many communications of U.S. persons are acquired
under section 702." n120 Because the NSA is required to target foreign
communications in order for its surveillance to be lawful, n121 an
annual snapshot showing the volume of its surveillance will help foster
some degree of transparency, n122 helping assure citizens that
their privacy is not being intruded upon, without hampering
legitimate national security eforts . n123 This expanded role
for the FCC in relation to the NSA should be codified by

Congress . First, Congress should amend the NSA's organic statute to

require the agency to comply with FCC requests for data. Additionally,
while the FCC does not have the security clearance to review the
substance of the surveillance, such clearance is not necessary on an
agency-wide basis. Instead, Congress should require the NSA to
provide targeting statistics that could be reasonably disclosed,
or at least preliminary statistics that could focus the FCC's inquiry. This
new legislation is all that is necessary to facilitate oversight
on the NSA side , as the FCC will require most of the
congressional authorization . [*113] 2. The FCC's organic statute
should be amended to allow the FCC authority over NSA data collection
and participation in the FISA Court. To enact a solution based on FCC
oversight of NSA data collection, Congress should pass legislation
allowing the FCC to collect information from the NSA , and to
allow the FCC to submit its findings about this data to
congressional oversight committees as well as the FISA Court.
While novel, this solution is in keeping with the PCLOB
recommendations, particularly the recommendation emphasizing the
need for the NSA to publicly disclose the scope of its surveillance. n124
Moreover, it is not uncommon for agencies to have oversight
authority over other agencies. n125 Thus, this type of interagency accountability could be codified to provide the FCC with
oversight authority over NSA data collection.

Terror
Infiltration is possible and likely ISIS camps 8 miles from
the US border prove
Washington Times 4/17/15 (Islamic State operating in
Mexico just 8 miles from US border: report,
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/14/isla
mic-state-operating-in-mexico-just-8-miles-fro/>)
The Islamic State terror group is operating a camp in the northern Mexican
state of Chihuahua, just eight miles from the U.S. border, Judicial Watch
reported Tuesday. Citing sources that include a Mexican Army field grade
officer and a Mexican Federal Police Inspector, the conservative watchdog
group reported that the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, is organizing
only a few miles from El Paso, Texas, in the Anapra neighborhood of Jurez
and in Puerto Palomas. Judicial Watch sources said that coyotes working for
the notorious Juarez Cartel are smuggling Islamic State terrorists across the
U.S. border between the New Mexico cities of Santa Teresa and Sunland Park,
as well as through the porous border between Acala and Fort Hancock,
Texas. These specific areas were targeted for exploitation by ISIS because
of their understaffed municipal and county police forces, and the relative
safe-havens the areas provide for the unchecked large-scale drug smuggling
that was already ongoing, Judicial Watch reported. Mexican intelligence
sources say the Islamic State intends to exploit the railways and
airport facilities in the vicinity of Santa Teresa, New Mexico. The
sources also say that ISIS has spotters located in the East Potrillo Mountains
of New Mexico (largely managed by the Bureau of Land Management) to
assist with terrorist border crossing operations, Judicial Watch reported.
ISIS is conducting reconnaissance of regional universities; the White
Sands Missile Range; government facilities in Alamogordo, NM; Ft. Bliss; and
the electrical power facilities near Anapra and Chaparral, NM.
Mexican authorities, however, disputed the Judicial Watch findings.

PTX
1. Congress will veto the deal Bipartisan view that its
weak
Peterson, Wall Street Journal Congressional reporter,
7/2/15
[Kristina, 7/2/15, Wall Street Journal, U.S. Lawmakers Stiffen Stance Against
Iran Nuclear Deal, http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-lawmakers-stiffen-stanceagainst-iran-nuclear-deal-1435875608, Accessed July 3 2015, A.H]
WASHINGTONDelays and unresolved disputes in international nuclear
negotiations with Iran have hardened criticism from U.S. lawmakers,
pointing to a growing likelihood that the GOP-controlled Congress
will try to undercut a final deal this summer. Republicans, who initially
reacted to the talks with skepticism, have expressed deepening doubts this
week that Obama administration officials will be able to reach an accord with
Iran that lawmakers can support. At the end of the day, they got the bomb in
North Korea because we in Congress were not forceful enough during the
Clinton administration, said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed
Royce (R., Calif.), who said lawmakers would insist key demands are met in
any final deal with Iran. If we dont push back, this will end up in the same
set of circumstances. Senior Iranian and American diplomats have been in
discussions for nearly two years on a deal aimed at blocking Irans path to
nuclear weapons in exchange for easing international sanctions. Congress in
May passed legislation preventing President Barack Obama from waiving
sanctions on Iran while lawmakers review the final deal and potentially vote
on a resolution to approve or disapprove it. Mr. Obama will be able to
implement any final deal with Iran, so long as a veto-proof majority
doesnt oppose it. As negotiations stretched past their official June 30
deadline this week, top GOP leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R., Ky.) and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.)
urged the White House to walk away from the talks in a bid to extract a better
deal from Iran. The White House seems intent on muddling toward an
unacceptable deal with Iran, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.,
Ky.) wrote in a Politico op-ed this week, warning the administration that
Congress is prepared to defend the public, even if that means working
against a bad agreement that threatens our country and our allies.
Republicans and some Democrats have said their support for any
final deal with Iran will hinge on whether Iran agrees to submit to
anywhere, anytime inspections, including at military sites, to
ensure it cant cover up nuclear activity. Many are concerned about
what kind of nuclear capabilities Iran will have a decade into the
deal. Lawmakers also have emphasized that sanctions must be lifted
gradually, rather than rolled back immediately, to keep pressure on Iran to
comply with the deal. We dont want to see a terrorist state flush with cash
after sanctions are lifted, Mr. Royce said. Under the legislation passed in

May, Congress will have to decide whether to pass a resolution approving or

disapproving the deal. Either measure would need 60 votes to clear
procedural hurdles in the Senate. One option GOP leaders are considering is
introducing a resolution of approval, under the assumption that it wouldnt
get enough votes to pass. That could convey the lackluster congressional
support more effectively than a resolution of disapproval that passes
Congress but is vetoed by Mr. Obama, a House GOP aide said. Mr. Obama said
this week that he was committed to making sure a deal prevents Iran from
obtaining a nuclear weapon. There are those in Congress and elsewhere who
have been skeptical of a diplomatic approach from the beginning, but we
would hope that all members of Congress will weigh any final deal on its
merits, National Security Council spokesman Ned Price said on Thursday. If
we can get to an agreement here, it will be one that we can defend to the
public, to the Congress, and to the world. Critics of Mr. Obamas foreign
policy said they were not expecting to see the administration seize a better
deal in the final stretch and some said they were prepared to repudiate it.
Another week of negotiations at this point is just another week for further
U.S. concessions, Sen. Marco Rubio, a Florida Republican running for
president, said in a statement. If Mr. Obama chooses to conclude a deal that
ensures that Iran will be a nuclear threshold state , I am confident that a
majority of both houses of Congress will join me in opposing it ,
which will lay the foundation for our next president to undo this
disaster. The May legislation gives lawmakers 30 days to review any final
deal if one is struck before July 9. If an accord comes after that date, the
period would lengthen to 60 days, during which Mr. Obama wouldnt be able
to roll back sanctions. Democrats who have lodged their own reservations
about the negotiations with Iran cautioned that spurning a deal could have
negative consequences, including accelerating Iranian work on developing
nuclear weapons. The ramifications potentially could be quite alarming and
Congress will have that on its hands, said Rep. Gerald Connolly (D., Va.), a
member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. A renunciation of the
agreement even if it doesnt have the force of law could persuade the
Iranians that the West negotiated in bad faith and could strengthen the
hand of the hardliners in Tehran, he said. But Democrats also noted that
Republicans increasingly caustic comments about the emerging deal were a
form of political posturing meant to emphasize their distance from Mr.
Obamas foreign policy. Ive never believed the Republicans were going to
look at this agreement without an anti-Obama lens, said Sen. Chris Murphy
(D., Conn.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

2. [No link] Obama wont spend PC on FCC deals

Judis 14 (John, Carnegie Endowment for Intl Peace, Obamas FCC Isnt Really
Doing Anything about Net Neutrality,
http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/02/21/obama-s-fcc-isn-t-really-doing-anythingabout-net-neutrality)
President Barack Obama understands that. So did former Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Julius
Genachowski and so, perhaps, does Tom Wheeler, his successor. But

Obamas FCC had done precious

little to enforce net neutrality.

This week, Wheeler introduced an outline of new regulations on

net neutrality. They are profoundly inadequate, and, in any case, will probably be thrown out in court just

Wheeler could do something, but he and Obama appear

unwilling to spend any political capital by taking a stance that is strongly
opposed by Comcast, Verizon, and other companies with powerful lobbies in
Washington. A little background is in order.
as Genachowskis were.

3. [No link] The President empirically stays out of FCC

regulatory issues
Patch 8 (John, Freedom Campaign.org, Fairness Doctrine and the Obama Transition,
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2008/12/03/fairness-doctrine-and-the-obama-transition/)

Not long ago, several Congressional Democrats called for a return to the
Fairness Doctrine. "Its time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine," said Senate Majority Whip Dick

Durbin (D-Ill.) in a 2007 interview with The Hill. "I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans
hear both sides of the story, theyre in a better position to make a decision." The issue melted into

with the financial crisis and other issues sucking up

most of the political oxygen Obama isnt likely to waste political capital on
Fairness Doctrine legislation in the foreseeable future. The battle is likely to
be in the FCC and, potentially, the courts.
obscurity before the election

4. [Link turn] Wheelers clout solves the link influence

with telecom companies and Democratic Party key
Queally 13 (Jon, staf @ Common Dreams, Obama Picks One of Telecom's Most
Powerful Industry Lobbyists to Head FCC,
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2013/05/01/obama-picks-one-telecoms-most-powerfulindustry-lobbyists-head-fcc)

The president's pick, Tom Wheeler, has served as both an informal adviser
and key fundraiser for Obama and was for many years the head of two
powerful industry associations. As the Los Angeles Times reports: From 1979 to 1984, Wheeler headed

the National Cable Television Assn., since renamed the National Cable and Telecommunications Assn. After eight years
helping to create technology companies, Wheeler took over as head of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Assn.
in 1992, leaving in 2005 to join Core Capital Partners. Wheeler has been a longtime Obama supporter, raising $200,000 to
$500,000 for the 2008 campaign and more than $500,000 for the 2012 campaign, according to Obama campaign
disclosures. If confirmed by the Senate, Wheeler would succeed outgoing Chairman Julius Genachowski, who is scheduled
to end his tenure in the coming weeks. Craig Aaron, president of the media reform group Free Press, was quick to question

with such deep ties to the telecom industry, big finance,

and the elite political machine of the Democratic Party. "The Federal Communications
the troublesome choice of someone

Commission needs a strong leader someone who will use this powerful position to stand up to industry giants and
protect the public interest," said Aaron. "On paper, Tom Wheeler does not appear to be that person." Free Press was not
alone in its caution. I am skeptical that the former chief lobbyist of the wireless and cable industries will be capable of
holding his former clients accountable for their ongoing shortcomings, said Sascha Meinrath, who heads the Open
Technology Institute at the New America Foundation which advocates for net neutrality, better public access and other
democratic media initiatives. Tim Winter, president of the Parents Television Council, speaking with the Los Angeles Times
also questioned the Obama's choice, saying it would be "hard to know whether Mr. Wheeler will be truly focused on
serving the interests of the American people," given his strong industry ties. As reporting at Reuters mentions, an opinion
piece by Wheeler in 2011 hinted that "he favored a controversial and ultimately shelved merger deal between AT&T and TMobile, sparking speculation that he may be open to more consolidation in the wireless industry." Putting such statements
in context for what's ahead at the FCC, the Washington Post reports: As chairman, Wheeler may also have to weigh in on
the fast-changing television landscape, where traditional business models of cable and broadcast networks are being
shaken up by online video providers. Several mergers will also come before the FCC chairman for consideration, including
a bidding war between Japans SoftBank and Dish Network over the nations third-largest wireless provider, Sprint. And
later this year, the federal appeals court will rule on arguments made by Verizon Wireless and MetroPCS that the FCC
doesnt have the ability to regulate broadband Internet providers. The agency has been under attack by phone giants who
have argued that the FCC should not strap new rules to the fast-growing broadband market. But consumer groups have
demanded more oversight of Internet service providers to prevent rising cable and wireless bills and a troubling lack of

competition. Acknowledging that

Wheeler's choice was roundly endorsed in the elite

circles of Washington,

Aaron said his group would continue to press the FCC regardless of Wheeler's

nomination and likely confirmation.

5. [Link turn] Business lobbies have massive influence

in Congress
Sasso, National Journal Technology Correspondent, 14
[Brendan, October 17 2014, National Journal, The FBI Wants More Access to
Your iPhone. Congress is Standing in the Way,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/reporters/bio/212, accessed 7/2/15, GE]
Silicon Valley and the nation's law enforcement community are in an arms
race. Tech companies like Apple and Google want to make the data
customers carry on their smartphones and computers more secure, safe from
the prying eyes of spies and identity thieves alike. But law-enforcement officialsfrom
the FBI to local policesee those same devices as treasure troves of evidence that they could be using to

As the tech giants get better at encryption, however,

law-enforcement agencies are turning to Congress for help, asking lawmakers
to make it mandatory for the tech companies to make their devices more
accessible. FBI Director James Comey made that case personally on Thursday, saying at the Brookings
stop crimes and catch criminals.

Institution that police need new legislation to help them catch criminals who are using encryption to hide
incriminating evidence. Law-enforcement agencies are accustomed to getting what they want from the
federal governmentfrom new legal authority to the type of military-grade material recently on display in

But following the broad and unflattering attention placed on

government surveillance by Edward Snowden's leaks, few on Capitol Hill are
demonstrating any appetite for further peeling back privacy protections. "I'd be
Ferguson, Mo.

surprised if more than a handful of members would support the idea of backdooring Americans' personal
property," Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat and vocal privacy advocate, said. An aide to Senate
Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said the senator is open to reviewing the FBI's proposal, but
that right now, he's focused on passing his own bill that would rein in government spying. And a House
Democratic aide said that staffers have been in touch with the FBI on the issue but that Congress is
unlikely to force technology companies to build backdoors into their networks and devices anytime soon.

"I think the combination of business and civil-liberty concerns would have
made this proposal difficult to adopt even before the Snowden disclosures, "
the aide said. "In the middle of a surveillance-reform fight, it's just that much more complicated." The FBI
director warned Thursday that encryption technologies are allowing criminals to become "beyond the law."
Even with a court order, police are unable to access information that is critical to solving crimes, he said.
"The FBI has a sworn duty to keep every American safe from crime and terrorism, and technology has
become the tool of choice for some very dangerous people," Comey said in a speech at Brookings.
"Unfortunately, the law hasn't kept pace with technology, and this disconnect has created a significant
public-safety problem." The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, a 1994 law known as
CALEA, forces telephone companies to build surveillance technologies into their networks to allow law
enforcement to install wiretaps. But the law hasn't been updated and doesn't cover new devices and online
forms of communication. Apple and Google recently announced that their new phones will feature default
encryption that will make it impossible to unlock the devices for police. "Are we so mistrustful of
governmentand of law enforcementthat we are willing to let bad guys walk away ... willing to leave
victims in search of justice?" Comey asked. He urged Congress to update CALEA to "create a level playing
field" so that companies like Google and Apple have to provide police the same access to information that

But the plan will face fierce resistance from tech

companies and privacy advocates. They warn that any backdoor for law
enforcement could also be exploited by hackers. Greg Nojeim, a senior
counsel with the Center for Democracy and Technology, said he doubts
Congress will enact legislation to make U.S. products less secure. "Who in Europe
telephone providers like AT&T do.

is going to buy these newly compromised cell phones if Congress insists that they be made with backdoors
for U.S. law enforcement?" Nojeim asked. "It's probably one of the worst job killers a member of Congress

could propose." A large majority of House members have already gone on the record opposing backdoor
access to Americans' information. In June, the House voted 293-123 to adopt an amendment to a defense
appropriations bill to cut off funds for National Security Agency projects that build vulnerabilities into
security products. Ed Black, the president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, a
lobbying group that represents Google, Facebook, Yahoo, and others, said securing customer information is
a core function of technology companies. The new encryption features are more than just marketing
gimmicks, he said. "It's not like a new color on [the customer's] phone," he said. "It's something that they
think is essential to protecting their freedom, their lives, and their privacy." In his speech Thursday, Comey
said he understands the need of businesses to compete overseas and that his goal isn't to "stifle
innovation or undermine U.S. companies." "But we have to find a way to help these companies understand
what we need, why we need it, and how they can help, while still protecting privacy rights and providing
network security and innovation," he said. "We need our private-sector partners to take a step back, to
pause, and to consider changing course."

6. [Thumper] Net neutrality is in Congress now

Thumps the DA
Davis 6-17 (Wendy, staf @ MediaPosts Daily Online policy blog, House Panel Votes To
Prevent Net Neutrality Enforcement,
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/252240/house-panel-votes-to-prevent-netneutrality-enforc.html)

Forging ahead with a plan to nix the net neutrality rules, lawmakers on the
House Appropriations Committee voted 30-20 today to approve a budget bill
that prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from enforcing the
open Internet regulations. The measure, which surfaced in a subcommittee last week, would block
enforcement until after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has decided whether the rules are legitimate. Last week, that
court rejected a request by AT&T, CenturyLink and trade associations to stay the rules, but hasn't yet decided whether the
FCC was authorized to issue the regulations.

7. Bottom of the docket The plan is placed at the

bottom of the legislative docket so it doesnt drain
political capital this would be normal means
8. Winners Win
Kuttner, American Prospect co-founder, 11
(Robert, co-founder and current co-editor of The American Prospect, cofounder and director of the Economic Policy Institute, and Demos research
and policy center Distinguished Senior Fellow; 5/10/11, The American
Prospect, Barack Obamas Theory of Power, http://prospect.org/cs/articles?
article=barack_obamas_theory_of_power, Accessed 7/3/15, AEG)
Obama's critics contend that his prolonged fantasy of bipartisanship, his
failure to lay the blame for the depressed economy squarely on the
Republicans, and his reluctance to use his bully pulpit to tell a coherent story,
particularly about jobs, needlessly weakened the Democrats and led to
avoidable losses in the 2010 midterm. More fundamentally, under Obama
government has lost credibility as a necessary force for economic recovery
and fairness, undermining the Democrats' core appeal to voters. At the very
least, Obama failed to drive the agenda or exploit the full possibilities of
presidential leadership in a crisis. In the formulation of the political historian
James MacGregor Burns, Obama ran and inspired voters as a

"transformational" figure but governed as a "transactional" one.

Notwithstanding a vow to profoundly change Washington, Obama took the
Washington power constellation as a given. Despite an economic emergency,
he moved neither Congress nor public opinion very much and only seldom
used his oratorical gifts. "He is so damned smart and confident that he thinks
he just has to explain things to the American people once," says former
House Appropriations Chair David Obey. "He doesn't appreciate that you have
to reinforce a message 50 times." Obama's reticence, his reluctance to lay
blame, make sharp partisan distinctions, or practice a politics of class,
reflects the interplay of his personality and his tacit theory of power -- one
that emphasizes building bridges to opponents, defying ideological
categories, shying away from the kind of mass mobilization that swept him
into office, and practicing a kind of Zen detachment. At moments in American
history, that conception of the presidency has suited the times. This doesn't
seem to be one of those moments. Yet in the third year of his presidency,
there are signs of a learning curve. It may be that Obama is playing his own
elegant brand of rope-a-dope, biding his time, letting the Republicans lead
with their chins, waiting for just the right moment to dramatize their
extremism and exploit their schisms -- then demonstrating a toughness that
has largely eluded him until now and reshaping the political center as a more
progressive one. The hope of a new, more combative Obama was kindled by
portions of his April 13 speech at George Washington University, which
showed an Obama that we've seldom seen during his presidency. "The man
America elected president has re-emerged," exulted The New York Times'
lead editorial. Obama departed from his usual reluctance to be partisan,
explicitly criticizing the self-annihilating Republican designs so usefully
spelled out in Rep. Paul Ryan's proposed 10-year budget. The president
resorted to a formulation he seldom uses -- the injustices of class: "The top 1
percent saw their income rise by an average of more than a quarter of a
million dollars each. That's who needs to pay less taxes?" Obama said. "They
want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut that's paid for by asking 33
seniors each to pay $6,000 more in health costs. That's not right. And it's not
going to happen as long as I'm president." At last, Obama shifted the mindnumbing debate from the scale of the budget and its deficits to its content
and political meaning. He did what his progressive critics have long
advocated, drawing a clear, bright, partisan line and pledging to defend
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. But the budgetary details of the
speech showed an Obama who was still the transactional leader of the Burns
paradigm. Obama devoted most of the speech to his own plans for cutting
the deficit. Jobs and recovery were hardly mentioned. Most of the proposed
deficit reductions came from cuts to programs rather than from tax increases.
And Obama was far too generous with the word, we. As in: But after
Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s,
we lost our way in the decade that followed. We increased spending
dramatically for two wars and an expensive prescription-drug program -- but
wedidn't pay for any of this new spending. Instead, we made the problem
worse with trillions of dollars in unpaid-for tax cuts. [Emphasis added.] As

Tonto said to the Lone Ranger, What do you mean, we? This fiscal
deterioration, of course, was the Republicans' handiwork. Why not point that
out? Obama seemed to come to his partisanship reluctantly, almost
apologetically. At one point in the speech, having just flayed the Republicans
for their sheer extremism, he added, "I'm eager to hear other ideas from all
ends of the political spectrum." He further mixed his own message by
declaring, "We will all need to make sacrifices." Indeed, the main ideological
themes of the speech had been undermined by Obama's earlier
compromises. The left pole that Obama defined in the budget debate had
already been moved to the right by his yearlong emphasis on deficit
reduction; his prior concessions in the December 2010 tax deal, which failed
to restore higher tax rates on the rich; and the 2011 budget deal, which cut
$38 billion in programs. If the bipartisan Gang of Six, spawn of Obama's own
Bowles-Simpson commission, does reach agreement, it will only add pressure
to alter Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for the worse -- thus fatally
blurring Obama's bright line. Was Obama's speech -- the most resolutely
political, partisan, progressive, and effective in recent memory -- a turning
point or a one-off? Is Obama now revising his theory and practice of
presidential power? As the political scientist Richard Neustadt observed in his
classic work, Presidential Power, a book that had great influence on President
John F. Kennedy, the essence of a president's power is "the power to
persuade." Because our divided constitutional system does not allow the
president to lead by commanding, presidents amass power by making
strategic choices about when to use the latent authority of the presidency to
move public and elite opinion and then use that added prestige as clout to
move Congress. In one of Neustadt's classic case studies, Harry Truman, a
president widely considered a lame duck, nonetheless persuaded the broad
public and a Republican Congress in 1947-1948 that the Marshall Plan was a
worthy idea. As Neustadt and Burns both observed, though an American chief
executive is weak by constitutional design, a president possesses several
points of leverage. He can play an effective outside game, motivating and
shaping public sentiment, making clear the differences between his values
and those of his opposition, and using popular support to box in his
opponents and move them in his direction. He can complement the outside
bully pulpit with a nimble inside game, uniting his legislative party, bestowing
or withholding benefits on opposition legislators, forcing them to take
awkward votes, and using the veto. He can also enlist the support of interest
groups to pressure Congress, and use media to validate his framing of
choices. Done well, all of this signals leadership that often moves the public
agenda. The most effective presidents have worked all these levers. Think of
Franklin Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan, or Lyndon B. Johnson during the era of
the War on Poverty and the civil-rights crusade. But except in the endgame of
the battle for health care and his recent turnabout in defending Medicare,
Obama has been relatively disengaged on all of these fronts. He left the
details of his signature legislation and attendant bargaining to his staff. Says
a senior Democrat who speaks frequently to Obama, "He is just not someone
who enjoys what most of presidential politics entails." Reviewing Obama's

relatively short career, a few core principles emerge in which he deeply

believes. These have remained constants. Building Bridges. Obama,
famously, is convinced both by his life journey and his prior experience in
politics that he can persuade almost any adversary to find areas of common
ground. "Much of Obama's self-confidence," wrote David Remnick in his
biography of Obama, The Bridge, "resided in his belief that he could walk into
a room, with any sort of people, and forge a relationship and even persuade
those people of the rightness of his position." From the Harvard Law Review,
to the Illinois Senate, to the Iowa precinct caucuses, Obama's political life
before his presidency only strengthened that conviction. Obama has a deep
certitude that the voters, especially political independents, are sick of
partisan division and want a leader who will rise above it to solve practical
problems. In service of that goal, he has bent over backward to praise his
opposition rather than attack it, frequently offering concessions in advance.
Mostly, he has pursued common ground by giving ground. The experience of
his first two years, when Republicans wanted nothing so much as to destroy
him, did not shake Obama from these strategic beliefs. "He doesn't have a
fighter's instinct, but he is in the middle of a hugely consequential fight," says
a veteran Senate Democrat. "They will keep pushing him as long as he keeps
backing up." His drawing of bright lines in the April 13 speech was very much
the exception. Defying Categories. This core political instinct interacts with,
and is reinforced by, Obama's personal reticence and determination not to be
the angry black man. From his first entry into electoral politics, he defined
himself as a different sort of African American and a different sort of liberal.
Even though his voting record as a U.S. senator was one of the most
progressive, as president he has almost gone out of his way to distance
himself from the liberal base. In an interview with The New York Times' Peter
Baker on the eve of the 2010 elections, Obama expressed regrets for looking
too much like "the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat." Courting Elites,
Wary of Mass Mobilization. Obama and his campaign staff brilliantly enlisted
an army of volunteers who thought of themselves as a movement built on the
values of sweeping change and the tactics of community organizing. Obama
repeatedly vowed that he would use these engaged citizens to press
Congress to enact health reform and other urgent priorities. But once elected,
Obama's political staff quickly downgraded Obama for America into
Organizing for America, a denatured arm of the Democratic National
Committee -- out of concern that an independent movement might be more
of a pressure group than an amen chorus. While he has maintained a close -and politically damaging -- alliance with Wall Street (and lately, under Chief of
Staff Bill Daley's tutelage, has reached out to the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce), Obama has been detached from the one recent popular rising
that could help him win lost ground in the crucial states of the Midwest -- the
backlash against union busting and draconian budget cuts by Midwestern
Republican governors and legislators. Though the line attributed to FDR
speaking to supporters -- "Now, make me do it" -- is probably apocryphal,
Roosevelt did make good use of popular groups to his left, as did Lyndon
Johnson in his complex alliance with Martin Luther King. Obama and his

political staff are distinctly uncomfortable with independent mobilizations

making him do anything. At a time when progressive movements lack the
energy of the 1930s or 1960s, the president has not chosen to help animate
them. Zen Leadership. The adjectives widely used to describe Obama are
words like diffident, detached, aloof, professorial. Obama practices restraint
to a fault. As a policy expert and intellectual, he is hands-on when it comes to
White House deliberation but mostly hands-off with Congress. As Burns
demonstrated, power is enhanced in the course of its exercise. But Obama,
despite his eloquence and capacity to motivate, seems to believe that power
should be conserved and presidential leadership reserved for emergencies.
He waited long and disabling months before becoming personally engaged in
the health-reform battle. This left the details obscure, voters anxious, and
Democrats at the August 2009 town meetings playing the role of pinata. By
the time the bill finally passed, the victory was politically Pyrrhic. An
exasperated David Obey told me, "Obama sat and let Jubilation T. Cornpone
tie up Max Baucus for all those months. Hell, Chuck Grassley made it clear to
me that he'd never vote for the thing." Obama and his team never embraced
such strategies as forcing Republicans (and conservative Democrats) to take
awkward votes or using the veto to define clear and principled differences.
David Axelrod told me that the White House considered it futile and selfdefeating to bring up measures in the Senate that couldn't win. This stance,
the opposite of Harry Truman's, has infuriated Obama's allies in the House.
During the last session, important progressive legislation on jobs and energy
independence passed the House but was never even brought to a vote in the
Senate. In one emblematic episode in December 2009, House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi pulled out all the stops to get the House to narrowly pass a $154 billion
public-investment, jobs, and unemployment-extension bill. The White House,
however, rebuffed Pelosi's entreaties to urge Majority Leader Harry Reid to
bring the measure to a vote in the Senate. At the time, Obama's aides were
convinced that job growth was around the corner, had already moved on to
deficit reduction as the theme of the 2010 State of the Union address, and
were laying plans for "Recovery Summer," a conceit that entirely backfired.
Except on such rare occasions at late stages of the health debate, it was not
Obama's style to call in wavering Democrats to give them an LBJ-style
treatment -- or to call them in at all, even to discuss major pending policy
decisions. A number of senior Democrats were livid that they were kept in the
dark about the April 13 budget speech, which had evidently been months in
preparation. They first heard about it when David Plouffe, the White House
political director, made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows, three days
before the speech. "You've heard of the 'great man' theory," says Robert
Borosage, who co-directs the progressive Campaign for America's Future.
"They believe in the 'great speech' theory." Obama's stirring speech at the
2004 Democratic National Convention established the novice as presidential
timber. During the campaign, his superb address on race, a subject he dearly
wanted to avoid, saved his candidacy from being destroyed by the
controversy over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But as president, much of the time
Obama has been AWOL rather than a defining presence driving the debate .

His great speeches, like April's budget address, often come late in the game,
after concessions have been made and damage done. Obama seems to relish
demonstrating that he can score the occasional touchdown run starting from
his own end zone. But politics, like football, is a game of cumulative scoring.
If you keep giving ground, the clock eventually runs ou t. Hands off, above the
fray, turning the other cheek, representing decency and common purpose,
conserving rather than wielding power, uncomfortable with popular
movements he doesn't control -- by some alchemy, this style of leadership is
expected to produce the voter approval that puts polite pressure on the other
party to join the quest for consensus. Reciprocity and compromise then result
in effective government and popular adulation. This has been Obama's
operating theory of power. For the most part, it hasn't worked.

9. Fiat shields the link We should assume that the

plan passes instantly without the legislative process
so we can have better debates about the efects of
the plan not the process.
10.
Iran wouldnt use nukes-their main concern is
having power, not bringing about their own
destruction
Pincus, Washington Post reporter on intelligence,
defense, and foreign policy, 12
[Walter, 3/19/12, Washington Post, How bad would Iran be with the bomb?,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/walter-pincus, Accessed July 2 2015,
A.H]
However, within the intelli-gence community and among its retirees there are
some ex-perienced analysts who believe that Irans leaders with nuclear
weapons wouldnt be much different than they are today, with their first
concern being holding on to power, not using a weapon to wipe out
Israel and thereby bring about their own destruction. That approach
has been sensibly argued by Paul Pillar, a former senior CIA intelligence
analyst and a national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia
from 2000 to 2005. He was deeply involved back then when internal doubts
about Saddam Husseins weapons of mass destruction programs were lowkeyed by CIA leaders and ignored by the George W. Bush White House. An
Iran with a bomb would not be anywhere near as dangerous as most
people assume, and a war to try to stop it from acquiring one would
be less successful and far more costly than most people imagine ,
Pillar writes in the current issue of Washington Monthly. Pillar, who teaches at
Georgetown University, points out that despite all the belli-cosity and
political rhetoric about the issue, the idea of an Iran with the bomb has
been subjected to precious little careful analysis. Conventional wisdom is
that Tehrans leaders would become more dangerous to their neighbors and

the United States, Pillar states. He cites the repeated stereotyping that Irans
rulers are religious fanatics who value martyrdom more than life, cannot be
counted on to act rationally and, therefore, cannot be deterred. Pillar notes
that the past 30 years have proved that although they promote martyrdom to
defend the homeland, they have never given any indication of
wanting to become martyrs themselves. Pillar says that since the 1979
revolution against Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Islamic Republic of Iran
has conducted a cautious policy toward the world. He acknowledges
targeted assassinations in the 1980s and 1990s of exiled dissidents, but
avoids mentioning Tehrans anti-Americanism, its threats to Israel and its
support of Hamas and Hezbollah, groups the United States and Israel
consider terrorist organizations. He also fails to mention Irans military aid to
dissident forces in Iraq.

11.
If Iran violates the deal, Russia and China would
block snapback sanctions no enforcement
Fabien, The Hill White House correspondent, 6/29/15
[Jordan, 6/29/15, White House confident final Iran nuclear deal is in reach,
http://thehill.com/policy/international/246475-white-house-confident-finaliran-nuclear-deal-is-in-reach, Accessed July 2 2015, A.H]
Those concerns were heightened when Irans Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei said last week he would not allow inspections of military sites
allegedly involved with the countrys nuclear program. He also demanded the
U.S. and its negotiating partners the United Kingdom, France, Germany,
Russia and China lift all sanctions immediately after the deal is reached . A
senior U.S. official said Monday that negotiators offered language that would
allow the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.s nuclear watchdog,
to inspect all sites in Iran suspected of nuclear activity, including military
installations. But not all of Irans military facilities may be open to inspectors.
We have worked out a process that we believe will ensure that the IAEA has
the access it needs, the administration official told reporters in Vienna. The
entry point isn't, we must be able to get into every military site, because the
United States of America wouldn't allow anybody to get into every military
site, so that's not appropriate. Irans negotiating partners have demanded
that sanctions relief be gradually implemented as inspectors verify Tehran is
abiding by the terms of the agreement. The U.S. also wants sanctions to be
able to be snapped back if Iran violates the deal . But opponents worry
sanctions wont be easily snapped back. Theres some internal tension among
the negotiating partners over reimposing economic penalties. Russia and
China, who are veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council, are eager
to do business with Tehran. Even if Iran is found to violate the deal, it could
be difficult to get all countries to agree to bring back sanctions . There is an
inherent asymmetry in the deal between an Iranian nuclear program that
expands over time and Western economic leverage that diminishes over
time, Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation of Defense of

Democracies, told The Hill. The problem is, it will be like a slow motion train
wreck, he added. It wont be obvious the train is crashing.

Executive Power
Non-UQfreedom act proves no spillover and applications
already require council.
Vladeck 14 (Stephen, Pf of Law American U., Judge Bates (Unintentionally) Makes the
Case for FISC Reform, http://justsecurity.org/13816/judge-bates-fisc-reform/)

allowing a
security cleared outside amicus to participate before the FISA Court will
somehow affect the governments duty of candor to the tribunal, or otherwise
disrupt the (apparently quite congenial) relationship between the FISC and the
relevant government stakeholders. Indeed, Congress has already provided for
security cleared private counsel to participate in FISA Court proceedings in
the contexts of applications under section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and section 702 of FISA
First, on the informational point, Judge Bates offers no evidence in support of his claim that

(as amended by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008). Does Judge Bates object to those provisions, as well?

why would a security cleared special advocate be any different in this

regard than a security cleared private lawyer for the recipient of a section
215 production order or section 702 directive ? Judge Bates doesnt say, nor does he offer
If not,

any examples in which security cleared private counsel who have had access to classified information have
unlawfully disclosed such information. Why would FISA proceedings be any different in this regard from,
say, the Guantnamo habeas litigation? And insofar as the concern stems from reliance upon unclassified

how is the Senate bill any different from the well-established rules
under the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA)?
summaries,

Link turnstreamline information to find 4th gen threats

faster af is a prerequisite, information before action
thats 1ac Gross evidence
No linkExigent circumstances check the DA
Seamon 8 Professor, University of Idaho College of Law (Richard,
Domestic Surveillance for International Terrorists: Presidential Power and
Fourth Amendment Limits, Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Spring
2008,
http://www.hastingsconlawquarterly.org/archives/V35/I3/seamon.pdf)//DBI
The hypothetical surveillance order described above, covering all cell phone calls to and from the doomed
Flight 93, falls not only within the intrinsic limits of the President's powers under Article II but also within
the extrinsic limits imposed by the Fourth Amendment. Ordinarily, the Fourth Amendment requires the
government to get a warrant before electronically intercepting phone calls or reading their mail
(presumably including their e-mail). 146 In addition, the Fourth Amendment ordinarily requires a
particularized showing that the monitoring of each phone user is likely to reveal evidence of crime. 147
The traditional Fourth Amendment requirements of a warrant and an individualized showing of probable

The exigent circumstances

doctrine of Fourth Amendment law justifies immediate, warrantless
surveillance of all cell phone users on board the flight.148 Moreover, although the exigent
circumstances doctrine normally requires a particularized showing of probable cause of
criminal activity, 149 that showing is unnecessary when "special needs, beyond the
normal need for law enforcement," make the probable cause requirement
cause for a search do not, however, apply to our Flight 93 scenario.

impracticable. 50 The Flight 93 scenario thus illustrates the linkage between the President's
congressionally irreducible, intrinsic power under Article II to respond to genuine national security
emergencies and extrinsic limits on that power imposed by the Fourth Amendment. In

a "genuine
emergency," the President can take immediate action reasonably necessary
to protect national security-even if the action violates statutory
restrictions-and, if the President's action entails a search or seizure (as does
Presidentially authorized electronic surveillance), exigent circumstances in the "special
needs" context of national security will often excuse ordinary Fourth
Amendment requirements. In short, the President's power reasonably to respond to a genuine
national security emergency not only is irreducible by Congress but also satisfies the Fourth Amendmenteven if the response entails warrantless, suspicionless searches and seizures-as long as that response is
reasonably justified by the emergency. 51

Executive is slow and Congress is fast

Diehl and Ginsburg 6 (Paul, Henning Larson Professor of Political Science,
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Tom, Professor of Law and Political
Science, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, "Irrational War and
Constitutional Design: A Reply to Professors Nzelibe and Yoo", Michigan
Journal of International Law, Summer, 27, Page 7-8, NKF)
Given the advantages of deliberation and our constitutional tradition of checks and
balances, Nzelibe and Yoo must provide convincing evidence of the advantages
of their proposed system of executive centrality. The authors examine the relative
institutional competencies of Congress and the president and conclude that the president is better situated
to be the center of a war-making system for three main reasons: the president can act quickly, has better
access to information, and is more accountable to the public. We take each of their three arguments in

congressional involvement may be suboptimal is

that it may clash with the need to act quickly in some international crises .17
Nzelibe and Yoo assert that the president is better situated in this regard, and
they imply that ex ante congressional involvement could hinder or delay
good wars. They share certain assumptions with proponents of congressional ex ante approval, such
as John Hart Ely, who argue that deliberation can also prevent or delay bad wars.18 Recent events,
however, belie the claim that Congress plays a role in delaying war and thus call
into question the assumptions on both sides of this debate. For example, Congress passed the
Authorization for the Use of Military Force within a week of the September 11
attacks, yet several weeks passed before large numbers of troops were
actually deployed in Afghanistan. The delay in launching the invasion of Iraq was due not
to any congressional opposition or authorization process, but rather resulted from
the Presidents explicit choice to seek United Nations Security Council
approval after obtaining congressional support. Recent experience thus
demonstrates that unilateral presidential initiatives need not proceed in a
speedy fashion, and that congressional approval ex ante may not delay
essential hostilities.
turn. A. Speed One reason ex ante

Congressional deterrence is key to stopping conflict and

policy failure
Dueck 10 (Colin, Associate Professor of Public and International Affairs,
George Mason University, "Regaining a Realistic Foreign
Policy,http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/43426, NKF)
Fifth, think of diplomacy as simply one tool in Americas foreign policy toolkit , to
be used in coordination with other instruments. In itself, diplomacy is neither good nor bad. Diplomacy or
negotiations alone cannot transform hostile regimes, and it is useless in the absence of material power. At

conservative realists recognize that there is nothing inherently

objectionable about using tough negotiations in concert with other policy
instruments to pressure hostile regimes. Indeed, to avoid negotiations altogether would be
to surrender a form of power that America possesses. The key under such circumstances is
to bargain from strength, and to secure worthwhile concessions in exchange
for whatever is given. Sixth, recognize that deterrence and containment are not entirely outmoded
as strategic options in the 21st century. Certainly, suicide bombers cannot be deterred . But
the governing elites of Tehran and Pyongyang, however despicable, hope for
survival and not for death. The distinction is crucial. It is the reason why
deterrence can still work in relation to existing rogue states such as North Korea and
the same time,

Iran. The U.S. can exhaust, contain, and wear down these regimes. They will break down before the United
States does. Seventh, with regard to military intervention, the U .S.

should be much more

careful than it has been over the past 20 years about intervening abroad, and
at the same time much more capable, overwhelming, and relentless when it chooses to do
so. From Somalia to Iraq, the pattern must be broken of initially inadequate
interventions in peripheral locations of questionable centrality to U.S. security.
Picking fights in unpromising locations only encourages the impression of
weakness when these fights go badly. Once American forces are committed, however,
there can hardly be anything more important than winning the wars the U.S. is
actually fighting. This means, among other things, building on the dramatic improvements in recent years

If the United States is going to

intervene militarily abroad, it must be adequately prepared for the
constabulary and reconstruction duties that inevitably follow, or it will only
invite humiliation.
in American capacities when it comes to counter-insurgency.

Executive Post Counterplan

1. Permutation do both the CP removes FISA courts which
makes the af a dead letter because there are no more courts
means there is literally no chance of the politics Disad
2. Solvency deficit
a. Cant solve terrorism Healy evidence is ULTRA specific
to how only FCC oversight can solve via having the
technical expertise to know where to isolate data and
communication channels and being able to gather and
link data efficiently their evidence is ONLY specific to
citizens civil liberties.
b. They don't solve for NSA secrecy from the public and
executive branch means no exclusive NB to the CP
3. Also the Status quo solved the internal links to their alt cause
claims the USA Freedom Act creates amicus curiaes which
removed the ability of the FISC courts to cheat the system and
forces them to have attorneys for their targets

thats

basic legal knowledge.

4. Links to the DA
a. Ex Flex

And the counterplan links to the net benefit- Obama and

the Department of Justice hate Article 3 courts- restricts
their authority
Breglio, Yale Law graduate, 3
[Nola, 9-24-13, Yale Law Journal, Leaving FISA Behind: the Need to Return to
Warrantless Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, pg. 208,
http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/432_82yj9cqx.pdf, accessed 7-7-15, JF]
such a course of action would doubtless bring a firestorm of
protest from the executive branch. The President would contest the
imposition of strict judicial supervision over foreign intelligence surveillance,
pointing to the Keith decision, along with his constitutionally designated role as
Commander in Chief155 and the longstanding tradition of deference to the Executive in the realm
of foreign affairs and national security.156 The Department of Justice would argue that
submitting foreign intelligence surveillance to Article III courts would
hamstring its investigators in the very area where they need more flexibility,
and defeat the purpose of the USA PATRIOT Act amendments. It is thus highly unlikely that
legislators would support a proposal to increase the bureaucratic
requirements in this context. Additionally, this option presupposes the legitimacy of Title III
itself. As discussed above, some would argue that surveillance should be removed
from the judicial context entirelyat least until the target has contested it
and transformed the issue into an adversary proceeding. These practical and
constitutional considerations counsel against a return to Title III.
But

b. Politics = [same link argument as theirs I guess spin

something]

5. Perm Do the The Af : and all combination of the

planks .
6. Perm The United States federal government should
require that the Federal Communications Commission
curtail the National Security Agencys requests for
warrants for domestic surveillance in the FISA court
through oversight. The FCC will provide adversarial
testimony and present data regarding the adverse
impacts of surveillance requests by the NSA to the
FISA court and afterwords shift the action then
transfer action towards acting towards the title 3
courts .