1NC Shells

Terrorism DA
TSA is a key part of the US protection against terrorism 9/11
happened b/c TSA didnt exist (fact, TSA was established
November 19, 2001)
DHS (Department of Homeland Security), 6-29-2015, "Preventing Terrorism and
Enhancing Security," No Publication, http://www.dhs.gov/preventing-terrorism-andenhancing-security
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its many partners across the federal government, public and private sectors,
and communities across the country and around the world have worked since 9/11 to build a new homeland
security enterprise to better mitigate and defend against dynamic threats , minimize risks,
and maximize the ability to respond and recover from attacks and disasters of all kinds. Together, these efforts have provided a
strong foundation to protect communities from terrorism and other threats, while safeguarding the fundamental rights of all
Americans. While threats persist, our nation is stronger than it was on 9/11, more prepared to confront evolving threats, and more
resilient in the face of our continued challenges. Progress Made Since 9/11 Protecting the United States from terrorism is the
founding mission of the Department of Homeland Security. While America is stronger and more resilient as a result of a strengthened
homeland security enterprise, threats from terrorism persist and continue to evolve. Today's threats do not come from any one
individual or group. They may originate in distant lands or local neighborhoods. They may be as simple as a home-made bomb or as
sophisticated as a biological threat or coordinated cyber attack. More and more, state, local, and tribal law enforcement officers, as
well as citizens, businesses, and communities are on the front lines of detection and prevention. Protecting the nation is a shared
responsibility and everyone can contribute by staying informed and aware of the threats the country faces. Homeland security starts
with hometown securityand we all have a role to play. Building the Homeland Security Enterprise Fusion Centers: DHS supports
state and major urban area fusion centers through personnel, training, technical assistance, exercise support, security clearances,
connectivity to federal systems, technology, and grant funding. Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative: An
administration effort to train state and local law enforcement to recognize behaviors and indicators related to terrorism, crime and
other threats; standardize how those observations are documented and analyzed; and enhance the sharing of those reports with law
enforcement across the country. Grant Funding: Since fiscal year 2003, DHS has awarded more than $31 billion in preparedness
grant funding based on risk to build and sustain targeted capabilities to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from
threats or acts of terrorism. Preventing Terrorist Travel and Improving Passenger Screening Advance Passenger Information and
Passenger Name Record Data: To identify high-risk travelers and facilitate legitimate travel, DHS requires airlines flying to the United
States to provide Advance Passenger Information and Passenger Name Record (PNR) Data prior to departure. During 2008 and 2009,
PNR helped the United States identify individuals with potential ties to terrorism in more than 3,000 cases, and in fiscal year 2010,
approximately one quarter of those individuals denied entry to the United States for having ties to terrorism were initially identified
through the analysis of PNR. Visa Security Program: Through the Visa Security Program (VSP), with concurrence from the
Department of State, ICE deploys trained special agents overseas to high-risk visa activity posts in order to identify potential
terrorist and criminal threats before they reach the United States. The VSP is currently deployed to 19 posts in 15 countries. PreDeparture Vetting: DHS has strengthened its in-bound targeting operations to identify high-risk travelers who are likely to be
inadmissible to the United States and to recommend to commercial carriers that those individuals not be permitted to board a
commercial aircraft through its Pre-Departure program. Since 2010, CBP has identified over 2,800 passengers who would likely have
been found inadmissible upon arrival to the United States. Secure Flight:

Fulfilling a key 9/11 Commission

recommendation, DHS fully implemented Secure Flight in 2010, in which TSA prescreens 100 percent of
passengers on flights flying to, from, or within the United States against government watchlists before travelers receive their
boarding passes. Prior to Secure Flight, airlines were responsible for checking passengers against watchlists. Through Secure
Flight, TSA now vets over 14 million passengers weekly. Enhanced Explosives Screening: Prior to 9/11, limited
federal security requirements existed for cargo or baggage screening. Today, TSA screens
100 percent of all checked and carry-on baggage for explosives. Through the Recovery Act and annual appropriations, TSA has
accelerated the deployment of new technologies to detect the next generation of
threats, including Advanced Imaging Technology units, Explosive Detection Systems, Explosives Trace Detection units, Advanced
Technology X-Ray systems, and Bottled Liquid Scanners. Strengthening Surface Transportation Security Visible Intermodal Prevention

TSA has 25 multi-modal Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response

(VIPR) Teams working in transportation sectors across the country to prevent or
disrupt potential terrorist planning activities. Since the VIPR program was created in 2008, there have been
and Response Teams:

over 17,700 operations performed. Baseline Surface Transportation Security Assessments: Since 2006, TSA has completed more
than 190 Baseline Assessments for Security Enhancement for transit, which provides a comprehensive assessment of security
programs in critical transit systems. Strengthening Global Supply Chain Security Air Cargo Screening: Fulfilling a requirement of the
9/11 Act, 100 percent of all cargo transported on passenger aircraft that depart U.S. airports is now screened commensurate with
screening of passenger checked baggage and 100 percent of high risk cargo on international flights bound for the United States is
screened. Container Security Initiative: The Container Security Initiative (CSI), currently operational in 58 foreign seaports in 32
countries, identifies and screens U.S.-bound maritime containers that pose a potential risk.

An airplane terror attack would cause a sudden recession

9/11 proves
Nanto 05 (Dick K. Nanto, Specialist in Industry and Trade, 9/11 Terrorism: Global
Economic Costs, 10/5/2005, CRS Report for Congress,
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7725/m1/1/high_res_d/RS21937_200
4Oct05.pdf, DJE)
Following the terrorist attacks, the already weak international economy was
weakened further. The aftershocks of 9/11 were felt immediately in foreign equity
markets, in tourism and travel, in consumer attitudes, and in temporary capital
flight from the United States. Central banking authorities worldwide reacted by
injecting liquidity into their financial systems. Still, the downturn in business
conditions became more generalized and most of the world dropped into a
synchronous recession from 4.1% world economic growth in 2000 to 1.4% in
2001 (a growth rate of less than 2% for the world is considered to be recessionary).
By late 2002, aggressive reflationary fiscal and monetary policy in the United States
and a booming Chinese economy led the recovery. As shown in Figure 2, the 2001
recession turned into a weak economic recovery with world growth of 1.9% in 2002
and 2.7% in 2003 still anemic when compared with the growth rate of 2.3% in
1998 during the worst of the Asian financial crisis. For 2004, the recovery picked up
speed and its strength broadened with growth at 4%, even though by mid-2004, the
world was hit with petroleum prices exceeding $40 per barrel of which $6 to $10
was a security premium caused primarily by instability and uncertainty in the
Middle East. Still, in most markets, there appeared to be a general dissipation of
geopolitical concerns and a steady decline in post-9/11 terrorism fears. How much
did 9/11 bring down world growth rates? Prior to 9/11, a major econometric
forecasting firm expected real GDP for the world (185 countries) to grow at 2.8% in
2001 and 3.1% in 2002. After 9/11, world GDP actually grew by 1.4% in 2001 and
1.9% in 2002. In the aftermath of 9/11, therefore, actual growth came in at
approximately 1 percentage point below expectations. Not all of this, of course, can
be attributed to 9/11, but a 1 percentage point decline in global GDP amounted to
about $300 billion less in world production and income in 2002. Subsequent terrorist
attacks also have affected economic growth abroad. An Australian study pointed out
the negative macroeconomic consequences of terrorism for developing nations
because of reduced trade, investments, and tourism. The 2002 Bali bombings
reduced Indonesias growth rate by an estimated 1 percentage point.

Economic decline causes war, multiple warrants and studies

Royal 10 (Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010,
Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, in Economics of War and Peace:
Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215)

periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood

of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the
Less intuitive is how

impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent stales. Research in this vein

has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the
systemic level. Pollins (20081 advances Modclski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory,

the global economy are associated with the rise and

fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one
pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could
finding that rhythms in

usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 19SJ) that leads to uncertainty about power

even a relatively
certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive
environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a
declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately. Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic
cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the
likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he
balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fcaron. 1995). Alternatively,

suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain

trade expectations
suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable
in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states.
He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific
benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future
trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline,
particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the
likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use
force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for
unknown. Second, on a dyadic level. Copeland's (1996. 2000) theory of

decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent
states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national
level. Mom berg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external

The linkage, between

internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually
reinforcing. Economic conflict lends to spawn internal conflict, which
in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends
to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts selfreinforce each other (Hlomhen? & Hess. 2(102. p. X9> Economic decline has also
been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blombcrg. Hess.
& Wee ra pan a, 2004). which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to
external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity
of a sitting government. "Diversionary theory" suggests that, when
facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting
governments have increased incentives to fabricate external
military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996),
conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write.

DcRoucn (1995), and Blombcrg. Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic
decline and use of force are at least indirecti) correlated. Gelpi (1997). Miller (1999). and Kisangani and
Pickering (2009) suggest that Ihe tendency towards diversionary tactics arc greater for democratic states
than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being
removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that

periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus

weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the
use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates
economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises,

whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with

external conflict al systemic, dyadic and national levels.' This implied connection
between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and
deserves more attention.

Politics DA
Despite TSA misconduct, Dems still strongly support airport
security- plan costs Obama his political capital
Maya Rhodan, 11-22-2010, "Partisan Divide Greets New Report on Airport
Screener Misconduct," TIME, http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/03/partisandivide-greets-new-report-on-airport-screener-misconduct/
Federal airport security screeners were investigated for misconduct 9,622 times from 2010 to 2012, after an array
incidents, from screeners falling asleep on the job to letting relatives go around screening lines to inappropriately
touching airplane passengers. Depending on whom you ask on Capitol Hill, this is either an alarming crisis or an
expected footnote for a huge workforce with an enormous task. These findings are especially hard to stomach
since so many Americans today are sick of being groped, interrogated, and treated like criminals when passing
through checkpoints, said Republican Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina, at a hearing on the Transportation
Security Agency July 31. If Integrity is truly a core value, then, TSA, prove it. TSA employee misconduct is on

said in a statement to TIME. TSAs first and

foremost responsibility is to ensure the safety and security of travelers in a professional manner and it is
simply unacceptable to allow a single bag or a single person go unscreened . Some
the rise and this is intolerable,

Democratic Rep.

Ron Barber

Democrats at the hearing, however, sided with the TSA officers, who many said were not to be judged by the

ranking Democratic member of the committee,

from Mississippi said, The vast majority of TSOs are hardworking, dedicated, diligent
federal employees. The TSA employs about 56,000 security personnel who work at 450 airports across the
actions of a few bad apples. Bennie Thompson, a

country. In a July 30 report, the Government Accountability Office found there has been a 26 percent increase in
cases of misconduct over the past three years. According to the report, the majority of the cases fell under two
categories of misconduct, attendance and leave and screening and security. Unexcused absences, tardiness,
and failure to follow leave procedure accounted for 32 %, or 3,117, of the total misconduct cases. Failure to follow
screening procedure, bypassing screening, and sleeping on duty made up 20 percent, or 1,936 total cases
according to the report. In one instance in the report, an officer was seen neglecting to stop the conveyor belt after
every piece of luggage to review the x-ray images of whats inside; in another an officer left his or her security
checkpoint to assist a family member with a bag, a bag the officer later walked through the security checkpoint
without screening and handed to the relative. The bag was found to have contained prohibited items, though the
items are not specified in the GAO report. In a statement, David Cox, the president of the American Federation of
Government Employees, the union that represents the TSA, said the report has misrepresented the conduct of TSA
employees. TSA

critics on Capitol Hill seize every opportunity to give the agency and
its dedicated workforce a black eye, even when the facts to not support their armwaving displays of false outrage, Cox said in a statement. They want to drag us back, as a
nation, to the pre-9/11 practice of using poorly trained, minimum wage rent-a-cops
to protect the flying public from terrorists . The agency has also tried to defend itself, blaming a
handful of bad apples. Every time we have one knucklehead that decides hes going to do something bad it
tarnishes the image of our organization, TSA Deputy Administrator John Halinski said at the hearing. I have my
people on the line 365 days of the year and they know if they fail someone can die. Nearly half of the reported
cases of misconduct resulted in letters of reprimand that describe the conduct and why it is subject to disciplinary
action. Thirty-one percent resulted in definite suspension, and 17% led to termination, according to the GAO. The
rest were subject to a multitude of outcomes, including indefinite suspension. I think this report shows something
very positive, says Rick Mathews, the director of the National Center for Security and Preparedness at the
University at Albany. It shows that the TSA is looking for these things and when people are doing wrong theyre
being punished. The frequency of these actions is so low that it more than likely dissuades bad people from even
trying to breach security, he added.

Elections
Curtailing TSA surveillance goes against the will of the public
they like it
Reed 12 (Ted Reed, journalist who covers the airline industry, Surprise Gallup
Poll: People Think TSA Does A Good Job, 8/9/2012,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2012/08/09/surprise-gallup-poll-people-thinktsa-does-a-good-job/, DJE)
Surprisingly, despite all of the negative Internet commentary and Congressional
complaining about the Transportation Security Administration, the majority of U.S.
travelers have a positive opinion of the agency . Not only that, but people who fly,
and who are exposed to TSA screening, have an even more positive opinion than
people who rarely or never fly. According to a Gallup poll released Wednesday, 54%
of Americans think the TSA is doing either an excellent or a good job of handling
security screening at airports. Moreover, among Americans who have flown at least
once in the past year, 57% have an excellent or good opinion of the agency. As far
as TSA effectiveness at preventing acts of terrorism on U.S. airplanes, 41% think the
screening procedures are extremely or very effective. Another 44% think the
procedures are somewhat effective. That number varies little for people who fly
somewhat regularly and people who rarely or never fly. The poll was conducted with
telephone interviews July 9th through July 12. Gallup interviewed 1,014 adults living
in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Interestingly, younger Americans have
significantly more positive opinions of the TSA than those who are older, Gallup
said, noting that 67% of people between 18 and 29 rate the agency as excellent or
good. This may be because young people fly more frequently, or it may be because
that for young people TSA screening, first implemented in 2001, has been part of
their flying experience for the majority of their lives. Criticism of the TSA seems to
come primarily from two sources. One is Internet sites, where reporting standards
are generally not at the same level as newspapers, where reporters are taught to
consider what is told to them with skepticism and to seek responses to charges. On
Wednesday, some sites were repeating charges by a man who said that his wife was
admitted to the emergency room for treatment after TSA agents at Fort LauderdaleHollywood International Airport harassed her and subjected her to closed door
screening after metal in her bra set off an alarm. The man said his wife was subject
to a brutal rape three years ago and is still recovering from the psychological
impact. Without denigrating the man or his wife in any way, it is possible to say that
the TSA is put into a difficult situation when such charges are posted with little or no
fact checking by reporters. As for Congress, the House Homeland Security
Committees Transportation Security Subcommittee recently convened a hearing on
the topic: Breach of Trust: Addressing Misconduct Among TSA Screeners.
According to About.com, It didnt take (committee chairman) Rep. Mike Rogers (RAlabama) long to set the tone for the day, saying in his opening statement:
Stealing from checked luggage; accepting bribes from drug smugglers; sleeping or
drinking while on duty this kind of criminal behavior and negligence has
contributed significantly to TSAs shattered public image. Now there is a poll to
show that in fact, TSA does not have actually have a bad public image. And here, it

is worth mentioning that the public image of Congress is not so good, perhaps
reflecting a tendency to be excessively critical of perceived enemies rather than to
seek compromise and solve problems.

Neolib K
Even more specifically, passing the plan favors private
contractors that would replace the TSA this promotes neolib
market competition
Dan Tracy, 9-23-2014, "Sanford International Airport to replace TSA with private
security," OrlandoSentinel, http://www.orlandosentinel.com/travel/os-tsa-sanfordprivatize-20140923-story.html
TSA going out, private contractor coming in.
Private guards will take over security at Orlando Sanford International Airport early
next year a move U.S. Rep. John Mica and airport Director Larry Dale predict will result in more
passenger-friendly service and shorter lines. But even with privatization, the people staffing the
Sanford International Airport to get private security.

security checkpoints in Sanford most likely will be the same ones who are doing it now for the federal Transportation

The main difference is they will be reporting to Trinity Technology

Group, the Manassas, Va., company that just won a $24 million, 60-month contract to check
Security Administration.

passengers before they catch their flights in Sanford. The roughly 200 TSA officers now working at Sanford must be
offered the first shot at Trinity positions, according to federal law. And Trinity is required to offer roughly equivalent
wages and benefits. Mica, a Republican from Winter Park, and Dale maintain that Trinity and other privatesecurity companies, for that matter will save money by having fewer managers as well as having more flexibility
in firing poor performers. "I just believe private industry can do better than the government," said Dale, who
predicted Trinity guards will be more courteous and attentive to passengers, and its management will be more
flexible in scheduling workers to reduce lines during peak travel times. TSA spokeswoman Sari Koshetz would not
comment on criticisms by Dale and Mica, saying only that the agency had five complaints and dozens of
compliments last year from the more than 1.8 million passengers who went through Sanford. The switch, which
includes a four-month transition that starts Oct. 1, comes more than four years after Dale started pushing to replace
TSA. TSA's pre-check screening program -- in effect at 118 U.S. airports -- aims for speedy processing of select
passengers who have paid a fee, been fingerprinted and undergone a computer security check. Trinity already
provides security at smaller airports, such as Sioux Falls, S.D.; Santa Rosa, Calif.; and Tupelo, Miss., among others.
The Sanford airport handles nearly 2 million passengers annually. Although long lines at security have rarely been a
problem in Sanford, Dale has often complained that TSA was difficult to deal with and overly bureaucratic. With the
change, the TSA will continue to oversee security at Sanford airport, but Trinity will run the day-to-day operations.
Just like TSA, the Trinity employees will confirm tickets belong to the correct travelers, as well as check passengers
for contraband, such as explosives, and run the scanning machines. Trinity officials would not comment Tuesday to
the Orlando Sentinel. TSA officers who do not sign on with Trinity can apply for other government positions or retire,
Koshetz said. With the changeover, 19 airports nationally now have private security; the largest are San Francisco
International, Kansas City International and Greater Rochester International in New York. In Florida, Key West
International Airport has a private force, and Sarasota Bradenton International Airport is moving toward one. The
board of Orlando International Airport, which 35 million travelers passed through last year, has been considering a
switch to private security for 18 months. A 10-member panel was supposed to make a recommendation last fall but
has yet to vote on a suggestion for the board. Orlando International spokeswoman Carolyn Fennell said, "They are
still evaluating the information they have gathered." At Orlando, TSA made several changes to decrease the lines
passengers face at the checkpoints after the review was started.

security more quickly

As a result, travelers move through

than in years past, according to TSA statistics. TSA usually screens 50,000 travelers
and 38,000 checked bags daily at the airport. TSA was created after the terrorists attacks of 9-11. Private security
previously worked at airports. Leading the charge against TSA has been Mica, who helped draft the legislation that
created the agency. He has been pushing Orlando International to fire TSA, too, arguing it is bloated and top-heavy
with management. Mica also was instrumental in passing a law almost two years ago that made it easier for
airports to opt out of TSA. He said he was "pleased" that Sanford was going private and hopes other airports,
including Orlando, follow.

Race Advantage
Utilitarianism is good for policy makers leads to the most
benefits over harms
Manuel Velasquez,, 8-1-2014, "Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian
Approach to Ethics," Markkula Center For Applied Ethic,
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/calculating.html
Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre,
Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer Imagine that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency gets wind of a plot to
set off a dirty bomb in a major American city. Agents capture a suspect who, they believe, has information about
where the bomb is planted. Is it permissible for them to torture the suspect into revealing the bomb's whereabouts?
Can the dignity of one individual be violated in order to save many others? Greatest Balance of Goods Over Harms If
you answered yes, you were probably using a form of moral reasoning called "utilitarianism." Stripped down to its

utilitarianism is a moral principle that holds that the morally right course of
action in any situation is the one that produces the greatest balance of benefits
over harms for everyone affected. So long as a course of action produces maximum benefits for
essentials,

everyone, utilitarianism does not care whether the benefits are produced by lies, manipulation, or coercion. Many of
us use this type of moral reasoning frequently in our daily decisions. When asked to explain why we feel we have a
moral duty to perform some action, we often point to the good that will come from the action or the harm it will

Business analysts, legislators, and scientists weigh daily the resulting benefits
and harms of policies when deciding, for example, whether to invest resources in a certain public
project, whether to approve a new drug, or whether to ban a certain pesticide. Utilitarianism offers a relatively
straightforward method for deciding the morally right course of action for any
particular situation we may find ourselves in. To discover what we ought to do in any situation, we first
prevent.

identify the various courses of action that we could perform. Second, we determine all of the foreseeable benefits
and harms that would result from each course of action for everyone affected by the action. And third, we choose
the course of action that provides the greatest benefits after the costs have been taken into account. The principle
of utilitarianism can be traced to the writings of Jeremy Bentham, who lived in England during the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. Bentham, a legal reformer, sought an objective basis that would provide a publicly acceptable
norm for determining what kinds of laws England should enact. He believed that the most promising way of
reaching such an agreement was to choose that policy that would bring about the greatest net benefits to society
once the harms had been taken into account. His motto, a familiar one now, was "the greatest good for the greatest
number." Over the years, the principle of utilitarianism has been expanded and refined so that today there are
many variations of the principle. For example, Bentham defined benefits and harms in terms of pleasure and pain.
John Stuart Mill, a great 19th century utilitarian figure, spoke of benefits and harms not in terms of pleasure and
pain alone but in terms of the quality or intensity of such pleasure and pain. Today utilitarians often describe
benefits and harms in terms of the satisfaction of personal preferences or in purely economic terms of monetary
benefits over monetary costs. Utilitarians also differ in their views about the kind of question we ought to ask
ourselves when making an ethical decision. Some utilitarians maintain that in making an ethical decision, we must
ask ourselves: "What effect will my doing this act in this situation have on the general balance of good over evil?" If
lying would produce the best consequences in a particular situation, we ought to lie. Others, known as rule
utilitarians, claim that we must choose that act that conforms to the general rule that would have the best
consequences. In other words, we must ask ourselves: "What effect would everyone's doing this kind of action have
on the general balance of good over evil?" So, for example, the rule "to always tell the truth" in general promotes
the good of everyone and therefore should always be followed, even if in a certain situation lying would produce the
best consequences. Despite such differences among utilitarians, however, most hold to the general principle that

morality must depend on balancing the beneficial and harmful consequences of our
conduct. - See more at: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/calculating.html#sthash.7QghnbgB.dpuf

TURN, stopping the NSA means an alternative which involves

even more federal surveillance and racial profiling elsewhere
those with Muslim backgrounds would be detained more than
others
Josh Gerstein, 11-24-2010, "Alternative to TSA pat-downs: More background
checks," POLITICO, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45559.html
If Americans dont want the government touching their junk to improve air
security, the alternative may well be greater scrutiny of passengers travel histories
and personal backgrounds, security experts say. The public backlash against the
aggressive pat-downs the federal government rolled out this month could put more pressure on
the government to introduce security measures previously rejected on privacy
grounds, including in-depth interrogations of travelers at airports, government
scrutiny of passengers airline information, and even creation of a secure,
standardized national ID card. The question is, which kind of privacy do you want to
have? said Stewart Baker, a top Department of Homeland Security official during the Bush administration. This
has been a pretty searing experience for DHS. Obviously, were not going to do more in this area [of physical
checks] and it would be welcome if we could do less.The

alternative is to look for terrorists in

advance. That approach to security, Baker said, calls for singling out suspicious
passengers and subjecting them to intense questioning. Were going to gather
information about people were going to encounter hours before they arrive. Well
compare names and travel partners to lists of people, not just no-fly lists, but
anyone whos suspect one way or another, Baker said. One hundred and ninety-nine people spend
30 seconds in primary [screening] getting an ID check and moved on, but one person in 200 gets an hour of
screening, reviewing their personal effects, and an interrogation thats very free ranging. This kind of system might
do away with some of the more jarring images at airport security checkpoints uniformed Transportation Security
Administration officers thoroughly frisking nuns and young children. Grandma from Dubuque is probably not going
to get identified as a risk, Baker said. She spends 30 seconds and gets waved through. With a little more
information on all passengers, and more careful screening of those who raise red flags, the TSA shakedown of
pregnant women, small children and nuns in habit could be made less necessary, or at least less intrusive,
Shannen Coffin, a former legal counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney, wrote at National Review Online. While there
have been complaints about other TSA security rules, including a requirement to remove shoes and strict limits on
liquids and gels in carry-on luggage, no TSA procedure has generated as much blowback as the newly adopted
procedures, including high-tech body scanners that can penetrate clothing and searches some passengers have
compared to sexual molestation. The use of the scanners, which produce detailed images, produced some protest
from privacy advocates and Muslim groups who object on modesty grounds. But those protests didnt receive as
much attention as the more assertive pat-downs. Fran Townsend, who was one of Bushs security advisers, said the
American psyche and culture views the laying on of hands by anyone in authority as far more serious invasion of
privacy than investigating a passengers background, submitting him or her to X-rays or searching their belongings.
We associate in this country, because of our Constitution, the physical touching of people by government or law
enforcement as a thing we do only to criminals, Townsend said. All of sudden grandma goes through and shes
getting groped. Shes resentful because its not what she thinks of as her countryI think Americans want to be
supportive of counterterror measures but they need to be persuaded that what is being asked of them is fair,
reasonable and effective. Gauging public reaction to the pat-downs and body-scans has been tricky: An ABC
News/Washington Post poll out Monday found roughly a 50-50 split on whether the pat-downs were a good idea,
with about two-thirds supporting use of the body scanners. A USA Today/Gallup poll of Americans who travel at least
twice a year found 71 percent thought use of the combined technology was worth it, but 57 percent said they
were either angry or bothered by the new pat-downs. The Obama administrations decision not to publicize the new
pat-downs in advance may also have hurt support for the technology. Gallup found travelers nearly evenly split, 48
percent to 47 percent, on whether pat-downs would or would not help find potential terrorists like the Nigerian who
allegedly boarded a Detroit-bound jetliner last Christmas Day and tried to detonate explosives hidden in his
underwear. Some dont like to be touched, but others are troubled by the idea of a security officer in a separate
room examining an image of their body. Others dont mind those intrusions, but draw the line at authorities
scrutinizing their travel history, travel partners or interrogating them about where theyre going and why. In 2003,
privacy advocates, fearing big brother intrusions, convinced Congress to block TSA access to itineraries and
related information on domestic air travelers, though the government does review information for international

flights. A new version of the domestic program gives TSA more limited information, including the names, birth dates
and gender information of passengers. One terrorism expert said the public reaction to the new pat-downs is not
surprising, but privacy advocates cannot fairly object to every technique that could be used to improve air security.
If you walk up to somebody in your office and do [a pat-down], you will be arrested. Theres something peculiar
about lots of people lining up to be sexually assaulted, noted Ben Wittes of the Brookings Institution. However,
you cant take the position that there should be no profiling, no intrusive searches, and its ridiculous to treat old
ladies the same as young men. Those three ideas will not go together, Wittes said. At some point, you have to
make honest choices about what kind of intrusions youre more or less worried about, or you have to be open and
honest about saying, Im willing to lose this number of airplanes a year.This does have a quality about it of
people flatly refusing to make serious choices. Wittes also said the overall judgment on what privacy invasions are
acceptable have to be made by society and not individual travelers. Otherwise, terrorists will choose the one most
conducive to theyre getting through, he said. Chris Calabrese of the American Civil Liberties Union said his group
supports traditional police work to keep planes safe. What weve never said no to is focusing on individual
criminals and individual dangers, going back to good old-fashioned law-enforcement techniques to arrest [suspects]
before they even get to the airport, he said. The ACLU and other groups objected to the collection of airline
itinerary information because it amounted to assembling a vast database on lawful unthreatening travelers in what
would likely be an unsuccessful effort to find a few suspected terrorists intent on doing harm. A lot of our concern
was around mass surveillance this idea that if you collect all this information on everybody and apply some
computer algorithm to it, data mine it, and suddenly signs of a terrorist are going to pop out, Calabrese said.
Theres no science to back that up. He added that grand jury subpoenas are available to seek itinerary data on
suspects in legitimate criminal investigations. The ACLU, which had for decades opposed all airport security
checkpoints as unconstitutional suspicionless searches, dropped that stance after September 11, Calabrese said.
The new battle over pat-downs and scans has allied some conservatives and civil libertarians up to a point. The
federal fondling is an unconstitutional search and seizure. We have lost a level of our freedom in order to retain a
level of our freedom and that ought to outrage every American whether you fly on an airplane or not, former Gov.
Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.) told Fox News Tuesday. Do we really think that we're going to be safer because a 5-year-old
boy has his genitals looked at? However, conservatives are again calling for profiling as an alternative to the
enhanced checks. What we've got to do, whether we like it or not, is to discern who is likely to be a person with an
intent, Huckabee said. We'd profile everybody but we would quit selling or buying machines. But Calabrese and

an identity-based system that relies on racial or religious profiles would

be ineffective and violate travelers rights. Terrorists are smart, he said. They identify and work
others warn that

around the profiling,. Moving to a system that looks more at travelers backgrounds and less at what they may be
wearing or carrying would also require another important change: greater certainty that a passenger actually is
whom he or she claims to be. Baker noted that Congresss effort to move to a more secure system based on stateissued drivers licenses, Real ID, was repeatedly rolled back by Congress and the Bush and Obama administrations.
As long as its possible to get a fake drivers license, an identity-based security system doesnt work, he said.

The TSA would just be replaced with private security which

insulates the government from accountability
Thompson 10 (Mark Thompson, writer, Profiling, Political Correctness, and
Airport Security, 11/29/2010, Ordinary Times, http://ordinarygentlemen.com/blog/2010/11/29/profiling-political-correctness-and-airport-security/,
DJE)
I must take issue with Eriks recent post on airport security in which he argued for
abolishing the TSA, replacing it with privatized airport security, and adopting an
Israeli profiling approach to airport security. With regards to Eriks points
regarding privatization, I must say that I largely agree with mistermixs response at
Balloon Juice. Erik capably answers a number of those objections in a follow-up post
here, although I think he still falls short, particularly since he seems to acknowledge
that privatized security firms would still primarily be contractors of the airports,
which are typically government or quasi-government entities unto themselves (and
which, due to their nature, are typically even more immune to democratic
accountability than other government entities). That fact is, I think, fatal to his
argument since under his proposed regime, the ultimate customer of the

contractors is a government entity rather than travellers and taxpayers. One of

these contractors primary functions would thus be to further insulate the hiring
government entity from accountability. This goes to one of my longtime hobby
horses: the benefits of the private sector are destroyed when (typically due to some
form of government intervention) the customer and the consumer are two distinctly
different entities. But I wanted to focus more on Eriks argument for Israeli-style
profiling, which he suggests is unrealistic in the US because political correctness
will not protect us from being groped, but it will protect us from being profiled.. My
issue is not so much with the concept of Israeli-style profiling as it is with the
concept that political correctness is the primary obstacle to its implementation,
which suggests race, ethnicity, or religion should be a major factor in a profiling
regime. Erik has quite rightly gotten some pushback against the notion of profiling
based on such factors; as Greg Sargent has correctly noted, such sentiments mean
that its not really accurate to say that the new conservative anthem is dont
touch my junk. Its more like, touch his junk. That doesnt seem very libertarian.

Three alt causes to racial profiling

1. Muslim profiling
Madiha Shahabuddin. 2/16/2015. The More Muslim You Are, the More Trouble
You Can Be: 1 How Government Surveillance of Muslim Americans2 Violates First
Amendment Rights. http://www.chapmanlawreview.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/Shahabuddin.pdf (really long book analysis).
in July 2014, it was revealed that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) had
at the minimumspied on five politically active Muslim American leaders ,
including a past Bush administration official, a successful attorney, a Rutgers
professor, a former California State University professor, and an executive director
of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).46 At the root of these
investigations is the tool of profiling, which allows the NYPD, FBI, or other governmental
entity to target certain groups of individuals solely based upon their religious
affiliation and pursue an almost carte blanche fishing expedition for evidence
condemning the targeted Muslim of some link to terrorist activity .47 Justification for
this treatment of Muslim American communities has come from the idea that the
post-9/11 era calls for urgent action to thwart mass destruction that can come
from a potential terror attack, and thereforeas the argument goesconstitutional
infringements like this are a small price to pay for [Americas] safety. 48
And

2. Mosque surveillance
Center for Constitutional Rights, 7-7-2014, "Suspicionless Surveillance of
Muslim Communities and the Increased Use and Abuse of Muslim Informants"
Center for Constitutional Rights,
http://www.ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/assets/files/CCR_CERD_ShadowReport_Su
rveillance-20140708.pdf. Page 3.
Since 9/11, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has greatly expanded the use of
informants who, at the FBIs behest, infiltrate communities and spy on the activities
of millions of law-abiding Americans. In 2008, the FBI disclosed that it had 15,000

informants on its payroll, the most the agency has ever had in history.13 The FBI has targeted
Arab, Muslim, and South Asian communities for surveillance and investigation by
informants.14 A vast number of the FBIs informants are recruited to infiltrate mosques,
businesses, and organizations within those communities and to report back on the activities
of innocent individuals.15 The FBI frequently asks informants to monitor activities
within the community without any reasonable suspicion that there is criminal activity afoot a
practice that is sanctioned by FBI guidelines.16 The FBI aggressively targets men of Arab, Muslim,
and South Asian descent and attempts to get them to become informants against their
own communities. Although a spokesperson for the FBI has stated that its agents are prohibited from using
threats or coercion to recruit informants, 17 the Attorney Generals guidelines regarding the use of
confidential informants do not explicitly ban this practice .18 Many individuals have publicly recounted
how FBI agents threatened them with baseless terrorism charges or deportation in an attempt to coerce them into
becoming informants, or have brought charges against them in retaliation for their refusal to work as informants.19
Organizations that engage in outreach and provide legal services to individuals within Arab, Muslim, and South
Asian communities have also reported to us that the FBIs practice of using intimidation tactics to recruit informants
among Muslim men is widespread.

3. War on terror overseas

Zia Ahmad, 10-1-2014, "War on terror overseas leading to widespread
Islamophobia at home," Australasian Muslim Times,
http://www.amust.com.au/2014/10/war-on-terror-overseas-leading-to-widespreadislamophobia-at-home/
War on terror overseas leading to widespread Islamophobia at home . With the so
called war on terror ramping up in the Middle East, and in the wake of the widespread
police raids on Muslim homes in Sydney and Brisbane last month and in Melbourne this week, community
tensions seem to be on the boil. Community leaders have warned that the alarming headlines and beat
up stories in the media and vilification of Muslims by radio shock jocks and on social media is creating an
atmosphere of fear and hatred in the Australian society that may lead to violence and rioting on our
suburban streets. There have been a number of Islamophobic attacks directed specially on Muslim women who are
easily identifiable with their Islamic dress code. Since the launching of the Islamophobia Register Australia, a large
number of reports have been received ranging from verbal abuse, to threats and attacks oIDL threat imagen
property as well as assaults on persons. An anonymous threat letter was issued purportedly by Australian Defence
League threatening the bombing of the Lakemba Mosque, the Auburn Mosque and the Grand Mufti of Australia.
Since the incident of stabbing of two Victorian police officers and death of the assailant, Victorian police have
revealed a rise in unreported attacks on Muslim women. The NSW Police Force has urged the community to report
all attacks, no matter how minor or trivial, to the police and has warned that it will not tolerate targeting of
individuals on identifiable characteristics including race, religion, ethnicity etc. On 25 September a 21 year old man
was arrested and charged after walking into Al-Faisal College in Minto armed with a knife asking if it was a Muslim
School. On 26 September a 66 year old man was arrested in Logan, South of Brisbane and charged for verbally
assaulting a Muslim women wearing a niqab telling her you are a Muslim, go back to your country. To date

there

are three reports of Mosques being vandalised in Queensland, the Mareeba Mosque spray painted
with anti-Muslim slogans, Logan Mosque in Kingston dumped with anti-Muslim flyers and Holland Park Mosque in
Brisbane dumped with a dead pig head. There have been attacks on mistaken identity as well. On 25 September, a
young man with a beard, not a Muslim, was allegedly abused and threatened with beheading by a carload of AntiMuslim teens at traffic lights on a Gold Coast Street. There have also been reports of false attacks. A 41 year old
naval officer claimed last week that he was assaulted by two Middle Eastern men outside his Bella Visa home, but
the police deemed the report to be false. Islamophobia Register Australia has been launched to help capture all
incidents of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim sentiments in Australia. Submit a report (all information submitted will be
kept strictly confidential) via the Islamic Register Australia Facebook page by sending a private message:
www.fb.com/islamophobiaregisteraustralia or email islamophobiaregister@gmail.com . The register classifies
Islamophobia incidents into the following groups: Assaults or attacks on persons of Muslim background. Attacks on
Muslim property or institutions. Verbal abuse and hate speech/social media abuse. Unwarranted harassment or
interrogation at airports by authorities. Any form of discrimination in a public or private environment.

Trans Advantage
TSA changes are an improvement for transgendered travelers
Ford 13 (Zack Ford, editor of ThinkProgress LGBT at the Center for American
Progress Action Fund, Victory For Transgender Privacy: TSA Abandons Nude Body
Scanners, 1/18/2015, Think Progress,
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/01/18/1471481/victory-for-transgender-privacytsa-abandons-nude-body-scanners/, DJE)
In what is an important victory for the transgender community, the U.S.
Transportation Security Administration has announced it will remove all body
scanners that show nearly nude images from airports. The TSA had already
removed 76 of the machines and will now remove the remaining 174, though they
may still be used in other government offices where privacy is not a concern like it
is in airports. Congress had set a deadline for OSI Systems to develop software for
the scanners to produce generic passenger images instead of the the nearly nude
images, but the company was unable to meet the timeline. Scanners produced by
other companies that have managed to adjust the software will continue to be used.
The invasion of privacy caused by the machine was particularly invasive for
transgender people, who were considered suspicious if their genitalia did not match
their presentation. Even the software change utilized by the remaining body
scanners, which are manufactured by L-3, use blue and pink indicators for
gender that can still cause confusion (and thus concern) for trans passengers. As a
result, they can be disproportionately selected for invasive pat downs. The TSA is
planning to expand its PreCheck program, in which passengers share more personal
data before arriving at the airport but can then go through metal detectors instead
of body scanners.

The aff does nothing against surveillance at border

checkpoints. This is an alt cause their evidence
Redden 13
Stephanie M., Carleton University, Canada and London School of Economics and Political Science, UK,
6-1-2013, "The End Of The Line Feminist Understandings Of Resistance To Full-Body Scanning
Technology," International Feminist Journal Of Politics Issn: 1461-6742 Date: 06/2013 Volume: 15 Issue:
2 Page: 234-253 //MV
Magnet and Rodgers (2011: 1; see also Johnson 2006: 6) also make clear that it is essential to consider how this technology not only

transgender
individuals, people with disabilities, and those with particular religious affiliations
are rendered newly or differently legible . As such, their application to airport
security generates new implications for who are allowed to move through , and who
are afforded justice within, contemporary cultural and transnational spaces. (Magnet and
Rodgers 2011: 7) This differentiated legibility of bodies is nowhere more visible than in
the interactions between gender and identity at border security points . As Currah and
Mulqueen (2011: 559) have recently highlighted, the classification of individuals by the State
according to gender metrics produces less certainty for queer, transgender and
other bodies whose realities do not map onto the States dichotomous
differently affects women, but also how other marginalized subjects are affected. They note that: ...

understandings of gender, as securitizing gender does not necessarily secure

identity, and may indeed destabilize it. The intense gender-based interrogations
and pat downs that these individuals often undergo as their bodies are seen as
threatening suggest the deeply problematic and essentializing nature of full-body
scanner technologies and other security practices, whereby a clear gender marker is understood to be a
sign of positive identification. Shepherd and Sjoberg (2012: 15) importantly argue that both the introduction of WBI
scanners in airports and the ways in which this technology has been linked to transbodies are forms of discursive violence. They explain that with the use of these scanners:
the visibility of trans- bodies has become both pronounced and contested, arguing
that this is in itself a form of discursive violence and, further, that such strategies
are productive of cisprivilege, which functions to position trans- bodies as different,
deviant and dangerous and simultaneously as vulnerable and in need of protection.
(Shepherd and Sjoberg 2012: 13)

Even after the plan, the largest alt cause to transphobia still
remains religion
Cruz 15 (Eliel Cruz, writer on religious topics, The churchs devaluation of trans
lives is violence, 4/7/2015, Religion News
Service,http://elielcruz.religionnews.com/2015/04/07/churchs-devaluation-translives-violence/, DJE)
Some Christians talk on the transgender community has been nothing short of ugly.
Everyones favorite Pope has likened the trans community to nuclear weapons . The
Bible Research Institute of the Seventh-day Adventist Church called trans identities
a sophisticated form of homosexuality. And Southern Baptists have chimed in with
stern but necessary critique on trangenderism. These remarks only serve to
dehumanize the trans community and fear monger Christians into mobilizing
against them. The majority of the disagreements are against proper pronoun and
restroom usage. (It seems to the extent that LGB individuals are seen as sex acts,
trans persons are seen as genitals.) But while Christians have been busy debating
on whether or not trans persons should be allowed to gender appropriate restrooms,
trans people have been dying. A staggering nine trans persons (most of them trans
women of color) have been murdered in the United States and Canada just in 2015.
Those are just the ones recorded, as many trans individuals get misgendered
(wrongly IDd as the sex assigned at birth) and many more go unreported. Then
there are suicides. 41% of trans adults say theyve attempted suicide in their
lifetime, according to a study by the Williams Institute. Also, 57% of trans youth
have reported to have attempted suicide when coming from rejecting families. Many
report high levels of depression and other mental health issues. The stress of
gender dysphoria (having dissociation with your body) is only increased when
having to deal with workplace and societal discrimination and harassment. This
harassment is rooted in the dehumanization and devaluing of trans lives. Christians
need to end, not add to, this ugly story, a narrative that goes against the Jesus
Story. Perhaps one of the most perplexing things Jesus did while on earth was
continually surround Himself with those society marginalized. Every person is
created in the image of God and as such should be revered as a creation of our

almighty God. Undoubtedly, given His track record, Jesus would welcome in trans
persons He would house them, feed them, wash their feet. How can we defend
our anti-trans actions when looking at the Jesus story? Just last month, a debate
over bathrooms in North Carolina reached embarrassing heights. Reverend Flip
Benham and a group of Christians stood outside a womens restroom attempting
to deny entrance to trans women, Raw Story reported. The uproar was over a
nondiscrimination ordinance North Carolina proposed, and eventually voted against,
that would have allowed transgender people to use gender appropriate restrooms.
During the protests, Benham called one 17 year old trans girl a pervert and a
punk when she attempted to use the restroom. How is this reflective of the Gospel?
What this shows to the rest of the world is how completely out of depth many
Christians are with gender and sexuality conversations. This bathroom panic is
completely unfounded. Experts have thoroughly debunked the biggest myths
perpetuated about the trans community including that non trans people are in
danger with trans persons when using the same restroom. There has been not been
a single reported case of that happening. In contrast, there have been countless
cases of harassment of trans persons for using the restroom. So, when Christians
demean trans people, prohibiting them from basic rights, they are actively
contributing to the harassment trans people face. Its cause and effect . If we truly
cared about the danger the trans community faces, we wouldnt be dehumanizing
them. Instead, we would act like Jesus and invite trans people in. We would educate
ourselves to the issues surrounding the trans community, and actively work to end
disparities such as trans violence and homelessness. As it stands, we Christians
have not been known to speak out. We have been known as those who have stayed
silent to the violence and dehumanization trans people face. Weve rallied a mob
and have harassed and shunned children made in the image of God. And as a result,
trans people have died. We must step up for our trans brothers and sisters. They
cant wait any longer.

The affs criticism of the TSA fails to understand workers as

humans and replicates the same injury that they criticize
Buchanan 10 (Matt Buchanan, columnist, How TSA Agents Really Feel About
Touching Your Balls, 11/22/2010, Gizmodo, http://gizmodo.com/5696210/how-tsaagents-really-feel-about-groping-you, DJE)
Burning hatred for the TSA is easy populism. And they keep making it easier. But
how do the men and women of the TSA really feel about what they have to do?
Seventeen of them speak their mind. Here's a few of the comments agents told
Flying With Fish. One says: "It is not comfortable to come to work knowing full well
that my hands will be feeling another man's private parts, their butt, their inner
thigh. Even worse is having to try and feel inside the flab rolls of obese passengers
and we seem to get a lot of obese passengers!" And another, from a veteran now
working at the TSA: "I served a tour in Afghanistan followed by a tour in Iraq. I have
been hardened by war and in the past week I am slowly being broken by the
constant diatribe of hateful comments being lobbed at me. While many just see a
uniform with gloves feeling them for concealed items I am a person, I am a person

who has feelings. I am a person who has served this country. I am a person who
wants to continue serving his country. The constant run of hateful comments while I
perform my job will break me down faster and harder than anything I encountered
while in combat in the Army." There's far more over at Flying With Flsh, but it's
something to keep in mind this week while travelingwhile you totally have the
right to be angry about security theater, you don't have to be a prick about to the
people just doing their jobs, either. [Flying With Fish via BoingBoing]

Case Backlines

Race Advantage
The TSA would just be replaced with private security and
insulate the government from accountability
Thompson 10 (Mark Thompson, writer, Profiling, Political Correctness, and
Airport Security, 11/29/2010, Ordinary Times, http://ordinarygentlemen.com/blog/2010/11/29/profiling-political-correctness-and-airport-security/,
DJE)
I must take issue with Eriks recent post on airport security in which he argued for
abolishing the TSA, replacing it with privatized airport security, and adopting an
Israeli profiling approach to airport security. With regards to Eriks points
regarding privatization, I must say that I largely agree with mistermixs response at
Balloon Juice. Erik capably answers a number of those objections in a follow-up post
here, although I think he still falls short, particularly since he seems to acknowledge
that privatized security firms would still primarily be contractors of the airports,
which are typically government or quasi-government entities unto themselves (and
which, due to their nature, are typically even more immune to democratic
accountability than other government entities). That fact is, I think, fatal to his
argument since under his proposed regime, the ultimate customer of the
contractors is a government entity rather than travellers and taxpayers. One of
these contractors primary functions would thus be to further insulate the hiring
government entity from accountability. This goes to one of my longtime hobby
horses: the benefits of the private sector are destroyed when (typically due to some
form of government intervention) the customer and the consumer are two distinctly
different entities. But I wanted to focus more on Eriks argument for Israeli-style
profiling, which he suggests is unrealistic in the US because political correctness
will not protect us from being groped, but it will protect us from being profiled.. My
issue is not so much with the concept of Israeli-style profiling as it is with the
concept that political correctness is the primary obstacle to its implementation,
which suggests race, ethnicity, or religion should be a major factor in a profiling
regime. Erik has quite rightly gotten some pushback against the notion of profiling
based on such factors; as Greg Sargent has correctly noted, such sentiments mean
that its not really accurate to say that the new conservative anthem is dont
touch my junk. Its more like, touch his junk. That doesnt seem very libertarian.

Utilitarianism is good for policy makers leads to the most

benefits over harms
Manuel Velasquez,, 8-1-2014, "Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian
Approach to Ethics," Markkula Center For Applied Ethic,
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/calculating.html
Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics Developed by Manuel Velasquez, Claire Andre,
Thomas Shanks, S.J., and Michael J. Meyer Imagine that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency gets wind of a plot to
set off a dirty bomb in a major American city. Agents capture a suspect who, they believe, has information about
where the bomb is planted. Is it permissible for them to torture the suspect into revealing the bomb's whereabouts?
Can the dignity of one individual be violated in order to save many others? Greatest Balance of Goods Over Harms If
you answered yes, you were probably using a form of moral reasoning called "utilitarianism." Stripped down to its
essentials,

utilitarianism is a moral principle that holds that the morally right course of

action in any situation is the one that produces the greatest balance of benefits
over harms for everyone affected. So long as a course of action produces maximum benefits for
everyone, utilitarianism does not care whether the benefits are produced by lies, manipulation, or coercion. Many of
us use this type of moral reasoning frequently in our daily decisions. When asked to explain why we feel we have a
moral duty to perform some action, we often point to the good that will come from the action or the harm it will

Business analysts, legislators, and scientists weigh daily the resulting benefits
and harms of policies when deciding, for example, whether to invest resources in a certain public
project, whether to approve a new drug, or whether to ban a certain pesticide. Utilitarianism offers a relatively
straightforward method for deciding the morally right course of action for any
particular situation we may find ourselves in. To discover what we ought to do in any situation, we first
prevent.

identify the various courses of action that we could perform. Second, we determine all of the foreseeable benefits
and harms that would result from each course of action for everyone affected by the action. And third, we choose
the course of action that provides the greatest benefits after the costs have been taken into account. The principle
of utilitarianism can be traced to the writings of Jeremy Bentham, who lived in England during the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries. Bentham, a legal reformer, sought an objective basis that would provide a publicly acceptable
norm for determining what kinds of laws England should enact. He believed that the most promising way of
reaching such an agreement was to choose that policy that would bring about the greatest net benefits to society
once the harms had been taken into account. His motto, a familiar one now, was "the greatest good for the greatest
number." Over the years, the principle of utilitarianism has been expanded and refined so that today there are
many variations of the principle. For example, Bentham defined benefits and harms in terms of pleasure and pain.
John Stuart Mill, a great 19th century utilitarian figure, spoke of benefits and harms not in terms of pleasure and
pain alone but in terms of the quality or intensity of such pleasure and pain. Today utilitarians often describe
benefits and harms in terms of the satisfaction of personal preferences or in purely economic terms of monetary
benefits over monetary costs. Utilitarians also differ in their views about the kind of question we ought to ask
ourselves when making an ethical decision. Some utilitarians maintain that in making an ethical decision, we must
ask ourselves: "What effect will my doing this act in this situation have on the general balance of good over evil?" If
lying would produce the best consequences in a particular situation, we ought to lie. Others, known as rule
utilitarians, claim that we must choose that act that conforms to the general rule that would have the best
consequences. In other words, we must ask ourselves: "What effect would everyone's doing this kind of action have
on the general balance of good over evil?" So, for example, the rule "to always tell the truth" in general promotes
the good of everyone and therefore should always be followed, even if in a certain situation lying would produce the
best consequences. Despite such differences among utilitarians, however, most hold to the general principle that

morality must depend on balancing the beneficial and harmful consequences of our
conduct. - See more at: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/calculating.html#sthash.7QghnbgB.dpuf

3 Alt Causes to profiling

1. Muslim profiling
Madiha Shahabuddin. 2/16/2015. The More Muslim You Are, the More Trouble
You Can Be: 1 How Government Surveillance of Muslim Americans2 Violates First
Amendment Rights. http://www.chapmanlawreview.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/Shahabuddin.pdf (really long book analysis).
in July 2014, it was revealed that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) had
at the minimumspied on five politically active Muslim American leaders ,
including a past Bush administration official, a successful attorney, a Rutgers
professor, a former California State University professor, and an executive director
of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).46 At the root of these
investigations is the tool of profiling, which allows the NYPD, FBI, or other governmental
entity to target certain groups of individuals solely based upon their religious
affiliation and pursue an almost carte blanche fishing expedition for evidence
condemning the targeted Muslim of some link to terrorist activity .47 Justification for
this treatment of Muslim American communities has come from the idea that the
post-9/11 era calls for urgent action to thwart mass destruction that can come
And

from a potential terror attack, and thereforeas the argument goesconstitutional

infringements like this are a small price to pay for [Americas] safety. 48

2. Mosque surveillance
Center for Constitutional Rights, 7-7-2014, "Suspicionless Surveillance of
Muslim Communities and the Increased Use and Abuse of Muslim Informants"
Center for Constitutional Rights,
http://www.ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/assets/files/CCR_CERD_ShadowReport_Su
rveillance-20140708.pdf. Page 3.
Since 9/11, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has greatly expanded the use of
informants who, at the FBIs behest, infiltrate communities and spy on the activities
of millions of law-abiding Americans. In 2008, the FBI disclosed that it had 15,000
informants on its payroll, the most the agency has ever had in history.13 The FBI has targeted
Arab, Muslim, and South Asian communities for surveillance and investigation by
informants.14 A vast number of the FBIs informants are recruited to infiltrate mosques,
businesses, and organizations within those communities and to report back on the activities
of innocent individuals.15 The FBI frequently asks informants to monitor activities
within the community without any reasonable suspicion that there is criminal activity afoot a
practice that is sanctioned by FBI guidelines.16 The FBI aggressively targets men of Arab, Muslim,
and South Asian descent and attempts to get them to become informants against their
own communities. Although a spokesperson for the FBI has stated that its agents are prohibited from using
threats or coercion to recruit informants, 17 the Attorney Generals guidelines regarding the use of
confidential informants do not explicitly ban this practice .18 Many individuals have publicly recounted
how FBI agents threatened them with baseless terrorism charges or deportation in an attempt to coerce them into
becoming informants, or have brought charges against them in retaliation for their refusal to work as informants.19
Organizations that engage in outreach and provide legal services to individuals within Arab, Muslim, and South
Asian communities have also reported to us that the FBIs practice of using intimidation tactics to recruit informants
among Muslim men is widespread.

1. War on terror overseas

Zia Ahmad, 10-1-2014, "War on terror overseas leading to widespread
Islamophobia at home," Australasian Muslim Times,
http://www.amust.com.au/2014/10/war-on-terror-overseas-leading-to-widespreadislamophobia-at-home/
War on terror overseas leading to widespread Islamophobia at home . With the so
called war on terror ramping up in the Middle East, and in the wake of the widespread
police raids on Muslim homes in Sydney and Brisbane last month and in Melbourne this week, community
tensions seem to be on the boil. Community leaders have warned that the alarming headlines and beat
up stories in the media and vilification of Muslims by radio shock jocks and on social media is creating an
atmosphere of fear and hatred in the Australian society that may lead to violence and rioting on our
suburban streets. There have been a number of Islamophobic attacks directed specially on Muslim women who are
easily identifiable with their Islamic dress code. Since the launching of the Islamophobia Register Australia, a large
number of reports have been received ranging from verbal abuse, to threats and attacks oIDL threat imagen
property as well as assaults on persons. An anonymous threat letter was issued purportedly by Australian Defence
League threatening the bombing of the Lakemba Mosque, the Auburn Mosque and the Grand Mufti of Australia.
Since the incident of stabbing of two Victorian police officers and death of the assailant, Victorian police have
revealed a rise in unreported attacks on Muslim women. The NSW Police Force has urged the community to report
all attacks, no matter how minor or trivial, to the police and has warned that it will not tolerate targeting of
individuals on identifiable characteristics including race, religion, ethnicity etc. On 25 September a 21 year old man
was arrested and charged after walking into Al-Faisal College in Minto armed with a knife asking if it was a Muslim

School. On 26 September a 66 year old man was arrested in Logan, South of Brisbane and charged for verbally

there
are three reports of Mosques being vandalised in Queensland, the Mareeba Mosque spray painted
assaulting a Muslim women wearing a niqab telling her you are a Muslim, go back to your country. To date

with anti-Muslim slogans, Logan Mosque in Kingston dumped with anti-Muslim flyers and Holland Park Mosque in
Brisbane dumped with a dead pig head. There have been attacks on mistaken identity as well. On 25 September, a
young man with a beard, not a Muslim, was allegedly abused and threatened with beheading by a carload of AntiMuslim teens at traffic lights on a Gold Coast Street. There have also been reports of false attacks. A 41 year old
naval officer claimed last week that he was assaulted by two Middle Eastern men outside his Bella Visa home, but
the police deemed the report to be false. Islamophobia Register Australia has been launched to help capture all
incidents of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim sentiments in Australia. Submit a report (all information submitted will be
kept strictly confidential) via the Islamic Register Australia Facebook page by sending a private message:
www.fb.com/islamophobiaregisteraustralia or email islamophobiaregister@gmail.com . The register classifies
Islamophobia incidents into the following groups: Assaults or attacks on persons of Muslim background. Attacks on
Muslim property or institutions. Verbal abuse and hate speech/social media abuse. Unwarranted harassment or
interrogation at airports by authorities. Any form of discrimination in a public or private environment.

Trans Advantage
Even after the plan, the largest alt cause to transphobia still
remains religion
Cruz 15 (Eliel Cruz, writer on religious topics, The churchs devaluation of trans
lives is violence, 4/7/2015, Religion News
Service,http://elielcruz.religionnews.com/2015/04/07/churchs-devaluation-translives-violence/, DJE)
Some Christians talk on the transgender community has been nothing short of ugly.
Everyones favorite Pope has likened the trans community to nuclear weapons . The
Bible Research Institute of the Seventh-day Adventist Church called trans identities
a sophisticated form of homosexuality. And Southern Baptists have chimed in with
stern but necessary critique on trangenderism. These remarks only serve to
dehumanize the trans community and fear monger Christians into mobilizing
against them. The majority of the disagreements are against proper pronoun and
restroom usage. (It seems to the extent that LGB individuals are seen as sex acts,
trans persons are seen as genitals.) But while Christians have been busy debating
on whether or not trans persons should be allowed to gender appropriate restrooms,
trans people have been dying. A staggering nine trans persons (most of them trans
women of color) have been murdered in the United States and Canada just in 2015.
Those are just the ones recorded, as many trans individuals get misgendered
(wrongly IDd as the sex assigned at birth) and many more go unreported. Then
there are suicides. 41% of trans adults say theyve attempted suicide in their
lifetime, according to a study by the Williams Institute. Also, 57% of trans youth
have reported to have attempted suicide when coming from rejecting families. Many
report high levels of depression and other mental health issues. The stress of
gender dysphoria (having dissociation with your body) is only increased when
having to deal with workplace and societal discrimination and harassment. This
harassment is rooted in the dehumanization and devaluing of trans lives. Christians
need to end, not add to, this ugly story, a narrative that goes against the Jesus
Story. Perhaps one of the most perplexing things Jesus did while on earth was
continually surround Himself with those society marginalized. Every person is
created in the image of God and as such should be revered as a creation of our
almighty God. Undoubtedly, given His track record, Jesus would welcome in trans
persons He would house them, feed them, wash their feet. How can we defend
our anti-trans actions when looking at the Jesus story? Just last month, a debate
over bathrooms in North Carolina reached embarrassing heights. Reverend Flip
Benham and a group of Christians stood outside a womens restroom attempting
to deny entrance to trans women, Raw Story reported. The uproar was over a
nondiscrimination ordinance North Carolina proposed, and eventually voted against,
that would have allowed transgender people to use gender appropriate restrooms.
During the protests, Benham called one 17 year old trans girl a pervert and a
punk when she attempted to use the restroom. How is this reflective of the Gospel?
What this shows to the rest of the world is how completely out of depth many
Christians are with gender and sexuality conversations. This bathroom panic is

completely unfounded. Experts have thoroughly debunked the biggest myths

perpetuated about the trans community including that non trans people are in
danger with trans persons when using the same restroom. There has been not been
a single reported case of that happening. In contrast, there have been countless
cases of harassment of trans persons for using the restroom. So, when Christians
demean trans people, prohibiting them from basic rights, they are actively
contributing to the harassment trans people face. Its cause and effect . If we truly
cared about the danger the trans community faces, we wouldnt be dehumanizing
them. Instead, we would act like Jesus and invite trans people in. We would educate
ourselves to the issues surrounding the trans community, and actively work to end
disparities such as trans violence and homelessness. As it stands, we Christians
have not been known to speak out. We have been known as those who have stayed
silent to the violence and dehumanization trans people face. Weve rallied a mob
and have harassed and shunned children made in the image of God. And as a result,
trans people have died. We must step up for our trans brothers and sisters. They
cant wait any longer.

The aff does nothing against surveillance at border

checkpoints. This is an alt cause their evidence
Redden 13
Stephanie M., Carleton University, Canada and London School of Economics and Political Science, UK,
6-1-2013, "The End Of The Line Feminist Understandings Of Resistance To Full-Body Scanning
Technology," International Feminist Journal Of Politics Issn: 1461-6742 Date: 06/2013 Volume: 15 Issue:
2 Page: 234-253 //MV
Magnet and Rodgers (2011: 1; see also Johnson 2006: 6) also make clear that it is essential to consider how this technology not only

transgender
individuals, people with disabilities, and those with particular religious affiliations
are rendered newly or differently legible . As such, their application to airport
security generates new implications for who are allowed to move through , and who
are afforded justice within, contemporary cultural and transnational spaces. (Magnet and
Rodgers 2011: 7) This differentiated legibility of bodies is nowhere more visible than in
the interactions between gender and identity at border security points . As Currah and
Mulqueen (2011: 559) have recently highlighted, the classification of individuals by the State
according to gender metrics produces less certainty for queer, transgender and
other bodies whose realities do not map onto the States dichotomous
understandings of gender, as securitizing gender does not necessarily secure
identity, and may indeed destabilize it. The intense gender-based interrogations
and pat downs that these individuals often undergo as their bodies are seen as
threatening suggest the deeply problematic and essentializing nature of full-body
scanner technologies and other security practices, whereby a clear gender marker is understood to be a
sign of positive identification. Shepherd and Sjoberg (2012: 15) importantly argue that both the introduction of WBI
scanners in airports and the ways in which this technology has been linked to transbodies are forms of discursive violence. They explain that with the use of these scanners:
the visibility of trans- bodies has become both pronounced and contested, arguing
that this is in itself a form of discursive violence and, further, that such strategies
are productive of cisprivilege, which functions to position trans- bodies as different,
differently affects women, but also how other marginalized subjects are affected. They note that: ...

deviant and dangerous and simultaneously as vulnerable and in need of protection.

(Shepherd and Sjoberg 2012: 13)

TSA changes are an improvement for transgendered travelers

Ford 13 (Zack Ford, editor of ThinkProgress LGBT at the Center for American
Progress Action Fund, Victory For Transgender Privacy: TSA Abandons Nude Body
Scanners, 1/18/2015, Think Progress,
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/01/18/1471481/victory-for-transgender-privacytsa-abandons-nude-body-scanners/, DJE)
In what is an important victory for the transgender community, the U.S.
Transportation Security Administration has announced it will remove all body
scanners that show nearly nude images from airports. The TSA had already
removed 76 of the machines and will now remove the remaining 174, though they
may still be used in other government offices where privacy is not a concern like it
is in airports. Congress had set a deadline for OSI Systems to develop software for
the scanners to produce generic passenger images instead of the the nearly nude
images, but the company was unable to meet the timeline. Scanners produced by
other companies that have managed to adjust the software will continue to be used.
The invasion of privacy caused by the machine was particularly invasive for
transgender people, who were considered suspicious if their genitalia did not match
their presentation. Even the software change utilized by the remaining body
scanners, which are manufactured by L-3, use blue and pink indicators for
gender that can still cause confusion (and thus concern) for trans passengers. As a
result, they can be disproportionately selected for invasive pat downs. The TSA is
planning to expand its PreCheck program, in which passengers share more personal
data before arriving at the airport but can then go through metal detectors instead
of body scanners.

The affs blanket denouncement of the TSA fails to understand

workers as humans and replicates the same injury that they
criticize
Buchanan 10 (Matt Buchanan, columnist, How TSA Agents Really Feel About
Touching Your Balls, 11/22/2010, Gizmodo, http://gizmodo.com/5696210/how-tsaagents-really-feel-about-groping-you, DJE)
Burning hatred for the TSA is easy populism. And they keep making it easier. But
how do the men and women of the TSA really feel about what they have to do?
Seventeen of them speak their mind. Here's a few of the comments agents told
Flying With Fish. One says: "It is not comfortable to come to work knowing full well
that my hands will be feeling another man's private parts, their butt, their inner
thigh. Even worse is having to try and feel inside the flab rolls of obese passengers
and we seem to get a lot of obese passengers!" And another, from a veteran now
working at the TSA: "I served a tour in Afghanistan followed by a tour in Iraq. I have
been hardened by war and in the past week I am slowly being broken by the

constant diatribe of hateful comments being lobbed at me. While many just see a
uniform with gloves feeling them for concealed items I am a person, I am a person
who has feelings. I am a person who has served this country. I am a person who
wants to continue serving his country. The constant run of hateful comments while I
perform my job will break me down faster and harder than anything I encountered
while in combat in the Army." There's far more over at Flying With Flsh, but it's
something to keep in mind this week while travelingwhile you totally have the
right to be angry about security theater, you don't have to be a prick about to the
people just doing their jobs, either. [Flying With Fish via BoingBoing]

Solvency/Race advantage turn

TURN, stopping the NSA means an alternative which involves
even more federal surveillance and racial profiling elsewhere
those with Muslim backgrounds would be detained more than
others
Josh Gerstein, 11-24-2010, "Alternative to TSA pat-downs: More background
checks," POLITICO, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45559.html
If Americans dont want the government touching their junk to improve air
security, the alternative may well be greater scrutiny of passengers travel histories
and personal backgrounds, security experts say. The public backlash against the
aggressive pat-downs the federal government rolled out this month could put more pressure on
the government to introduce security measures previously rejected on privacy
grounds, including in-depth interrogations of travelers at airports, government
scrutiny of passengers airline information, and even creation of a secure,
standardized national ID card. The question is, which kind of privacy do you want to
have? said Stewart Baker, a top Department of Homeland Security official during the Bush administration. This
has been a pretty searing experience for DHS. Obviously, were not going to do more in this area [of physical
checks] and it would be welcome if we could do less.The

alternative is to look for terrorists in

advance. That approach to security, Baker said, calls for singling out suspicious
passengers and subjecting them to intense questioning. Were going to gather
information about people were going to encounter hours before they arrive. Well
compare names and travel partners to lists of people, not just no-fly lists, but
anyone whos suspect one way or another, Baker said. One hundred and ninety-nine people spend
30 seconds in primary [screening] getting an ID check and moved on, but one person in 200 gets an hour of
screening, reviewing their personal effects, and an interrogation thats very free ranging. This kind of system might
do away with some of the more jarring images at airport security checkpoints uniformed Transportation Security
Administration officers thoroughly frisking nuns and young children. Grandma from Dubuque is probably not going
to get identified as a risk, Baker said. She spends 30 seconds and gets waved through. With a little more
information on all passengers, and more careful screening of those who raise red flags, the TSA shakedown of
pregnant women, small children and nuns in habit could be made less necessary, or at least less intrusive,
Shannen Coffin, a former legal counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney, wrote at National Review Online. While there
have been complaints about other TSA security rules, including a requirement to remove shoes and strict limits on
liquids and gels in carry-on luggage, no TSA procedure has generated as much blowback as the newly adopted
procedures, including high-tech body scanners that can penetrate clothing and searches some passengers have
compared to sexual molestation. The use of the scanners, which produce detailed images, produced some protest
from privacy advocates and Muslim groups who object on modesty grounds. But those protests didnt receive as
much attention as the more assertive pat-downs. Fran Townsend, who was one of Bushs security advisers, said the
American psyche and culture views the laying on of hands by anyone in authority as far more serious invasion of
privacy than investigating a passengers background, submitting him or her to X-rays or searching their belongings.
We associate in this country, because of our Constitution, the physical touching of people by government or law
enforcement as a thing we do only to criminals, Townsend said. All of sudden grandma goes through and shes
getting groped. Shes resentful because its not what she thinks of as her countryI think Americans want to be
supportive of counterterror measures but they need to be persuaded that what is being asked of them is fair,
reasonable and effective. Gauging public reaction to the pat-downs and body-scans has been tricky: An ABC
News/Washington Post poll out Monday found roughly a 50-50 split on whether the pat-downs were a good idea,
with about two-thirds supporting use of the body scanners. A USA Today/Gallup poll of Americans who travel at least
twice a year found 71 percent thought use of the combined technology was worth it, but 57 percent said they
were either angry or bothered by the new pat-downs. The Obama administrations decision not to publicize the new
pat-downs in advance may also have hurt support for the technology. Gallup found travelers nearly evenly split, 48
percent to 47 percent, on whether pat-downs would or would not help find potential terrorists like the Nigerian who
allegedly boarded a Detroit-bound jetliner last Christmas Day and tried to detonate explosives hidden in his
underwear. Some dont like to be touched, but others are troubled by the idea of a security officer in a separate
room examining an image of their body. Others dont mind those intrusions, but draw the line at authorities

scrutinizing their travel history, travel partners or interrogating them about where theyre going and why. In 2003,
privacy advocates, fearing big brother intrusions, convinced Congress to block TSA access to itineraries and
related information on domestic air travelers, though the government does review information for international
flights. A new version of the domestic program gives TSA more limited information, including the names, birth dates
and gender information of passengers. One terrorism expert said the public reaction to the new pat-downs is not
surprising, but privacy advocates cannot fairly object to every technique that could be used to improve air security.
If you walk up to somebody in your office and do [a pat-down], you will be arrested. Theres something peculiar
about lots of people lining up to be sexually assaulted, noted Ben Wittes of the Brookings Institution. However,
you cant take the position that there should be no profiling, no intrusive searches, and its ridiculous to treat old
ladies the same as young men. Those three ideas will not go together, Wittes said. At some point, you have to
make honest choices about what kind of intrusions youre more or less worried about, or you have to be open and
honest about saying, Im willing to lose this number of airplanes a year.This does have a quality about it of
people flatly refusing to make serious choices. Wittes also said the overall judgment on what privacy invasions are
acceptable have to be made by society and not individual travelers. Otherwise, terrorists will choose the one most
conducive to theyre getting through, he said. Chris Calabrese of the American Civil Liberties Union said his group
supports traditional police work to keep planes safe. What weve never said no to is focusing on individual
criminals and individual dangers, going back to good old-fashioned law-enforcement techniques to arrest [suspects]
before they even get to the airport, he said. The ACLU and other groups objected to the collection of airline
itinerary information because it amounted to assembling a vast database on lawful unthreatening travelers in what
would likely be an unsuccessful effort to find a few suspected terrorists intent on doing harm. A lot of our concern
was around mass surveillance this idea that if you collect all this information on everybody and apply some
computer algorithm to it, data mine it, and suddenly signs of a terrorist are going to pop out, Calabrese said.
Theres no science to back that up. He added that grand jury subpoenas are available to seek itinerary data on
suspects in legitimate criminal investigations. The ACLU, which had for decades opposed all airport security
checkpoints as unconstitutional suspicionless searches, dropped that stance after September 11, Calabrese said.
The new battle over pat-downs and scans has allied some conservatives and civil libertarians up to a point. The
federal fondling is an unconstitutional search and seizure. We have lost a level of our freedom in order to retain a
level of our freedom and that ought to outrage every American whether you fly on an airplane or not, former Gov.
Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.) told Fox News Tuesday. Do we really think that we're going to be safer because a 5-year-old
boy has his genitals looked at? However, conservatives are again calling for profiling as an alternative to the
enhanced checks. What we've got to do, whether we like it or not, is to discern who is likely to be a person with an
intent, Huckabee said. We'd profile everybody but we would quit selling or buying machines. But Calabrese and

an identity-based system that relies on racial or religious profiles would

be ineffective and violate travelers rights. Terrorists are smart, he said. They identify and work
others warn that

around the profiling,. Moving to a system that looks more at travelers backgrounds and less at what they may be
wearing or carrying would also require another important change: greater certainty that a passenger actually is
whom he or she claims to be. Baker noted that Congresss effort to move to a more secure system based on stateissued drivers licenses, Real ID, was repeatedly rolled back by Congress and the Bush and Obama administrations.
As long as its possible to get a fake drivers license, an identity-based security system doesnt work, he said.

SPOT-only run if its the SPOT plan!

Curtailing SPOT does not solve for racial TSA security check
pat downs the two are different
Hugh Handeyside, 3-19-2015, "Be careful with your face at airports (Opinion),"
CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/19/opinions/handeyside-tsa-spot-program/
Through a program called Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques, or SPOT, the TSA employs
thousands of "behavior detection officers" who scrutinize travelers to look for signs of
"mal-intent" in airport screening areas. The officers typically spend less than 30 seconds scanning an
average passenger for over 90 behaviors the TSA associates with stress, fear or deception. When the officers
perceive clusters of such behaviors in any given individual, they refer that person for secondary inspection and

SPOT program relies on theories about "micro-expressions," involuntary

facial expressions that supposedly appear for milliseconds despite one's efforts to
conceal them. Behavior detection officers look for such micro-expressions while scanning
passengers' faces or engaging in casual conversation with them. It's as nutty as it sounds. Setting
questioning. The

aside that the officers' perception of these behaviors is inherently subjective, there's just no evidence that
deception or "mal-intent" can reliably be detected through observation, especially in an unstructured setting like an
airport screening area. The fact that many people find such settings inherently stressful only compounds the
problem. If TSA's behavior detection officers look for stress in a stressful environment, they're going to find it, along
with plenty of false positives. Just about everyone outside the TSA who has reviewed the SPOT program has decided
that it's unscientific and a waste of money. An exhaustive review by the Government Accountability Office found the
SPOT program lacked a scientific basis, that the behavioral indicators it relied on were subjective, and that the TSA
had no effective means to test its effectiveness. In no uncertain terms, the GAO recommended that Congress curtail
funding for the program. An independent scientific advisory group that reviewed the SPOT program also concluded
that "no scientific evidence exists to support the detection or inference of future behavior, including intent." And
during a congressional hearing on the program, Republican Rep. Richard Hudson of North Carolina observed, "To my
knowledge, there has not been a single instance where a behavior detection officer has referred someone to a law
enforcement officer and that individual turned out to be a terrorist." Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, the Republican
chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, stated, "I am concerned that TSA will continue to spin its
wheels with this program instead of developing a more effective and efficient approach." Despite this withering
criticism, SPOT remains in place and has cost taxpayers well over $1 billion (that's with a b) since its inception in
2007. Repeat: over a billion dollars on a misguided program that doesn't work. Equally troubling is that SPOT has
given rise to persistent allegations of racial and ethnic profiling -- an unfortunately inevitable result when law
enforcement or border agents single people out based on hasty, gut-level judgments about them. Allegations of
profiling by behavior detection officers have come not only from travelers, but also from numerous other officers.
Over 30 behavior detection officers at Boston Logan International Airport said that profiling was rampant there. One
of the officers told reporters, "They just pull aside anyone who they don't like the way they look -- if they are black
and have expensive clothes or jewelry, or if they are Hispanic." Another officer submitted an anonymous complaint
saying, "The behavior detection program is no longer a behavior-based program, but it is a racial profiling program."
The TSA has not revealed what, if any, steps it has taken to ensure that unlawful profiling does not occur in airport
screening. Nor has TSA explained why -- despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- SPOT contributes
meaningfully to aviation security. That's why the ACLU submitted an FOIA request to TSA seeking information on its
use of behavior detection. We've received no response, so we're taking the TSA to court to get the information the
public needs to fully evaluate it. People expect that when they travel, they will be screened for weapons or
explosives that could bring down an airplane. They don't expect -- nor should they -- that officers will make probing
judgments about their intentions based on little more than their facial expressions, or that they will be stopped,
questioned and perhaps even searched because of their race or ethnicity. It's time for TSA to explain and justify the
SPOT program. Or better yet, listen to those who say it's a waste of money and scrap it entirely.

Alt cause to racial profiling plan does not solve TSA pat
downs and anomalies on scanners
Drew Mackenzie, 7-22-2015, "Racial Profiling Charges Leveled over TSA Hair
Pat-Downs," Newsmax, http://www.newsmax.com/US/TSA-pat-downs-hair-AfricanAmericans/2015/04/01/id/635817/

Racial Profiling Charges Leveled over TSA Hair Pat-Downs By Drew MacKenzie | Wednesday, 01 Apr 2015 01:20 PM
Short URL| Email Article| Comment| Contact| Print| A A The Transportation Security Administration is studying its
policy on hair pat-downs after receiving complaints that

African-American women are being

targeted at airports. The TSA launched an investigation after being contacted by the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU), and now the agency has reached an informal agreement with the advocacy group "to enhance officer
training" on the pat-downs, according to The Hill. "Racial profiling is not tolerated by TSA," the agency said in a
statement. "Not only is racial profiling prohibited under DHS (Department of Homeland Security) and agency policy,
but it is also an ineffective security tactic." The ACLU office in northern California had filed a complaint on behalf of
Malaika Singleton, who claimed she was improperly singled out for searches in 2013 at airports in Los Angeles and
Minneapolis. The civil rights organization alleged that Singleton, a California resident, was targeted for extra airport

"The humiliating experience of

countless black women who are routinely targeted for hair pat-downs because their
hair is 'different' is not only wrong, but also a great misuse of TSA agents' time and
resources," said Novella Coleman, an ACLU attorney in California. TSA officials usually conduct patdowns, including possibly the probing of a woman's hair, when airport screeners
identify "anomalies" on X-ray scanners. But the ACLU said that rule left open the potential for racial
screening by TSA officials because of her hairstyle, The Hill reported.

profiling against African-American women, The Hill noted. "When TSA agents are faced with ambiguous evidence or
forced to apply subjective rules, it is more likely that they will unconsciously interpret the circumstances in a way
that is consistent with racial stereotypes," the civil liberties group said. "Both the United States and California
Constitutions prohibit unreasonable searches and selective enforcement of the law based on race. And although the
law has carved out exceptions for airport screening, a search must still be tailored to detect threats to security.
"That legal requirement cannot be satisfied when there is no clear policy for detecting threats to security. In this
case, TSA agents were unable to provide a uniform reason to justify these searches when asked to articulate such a
policy." Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/US/TSA-pat-downs-hair-AfricanAmericans/2015/04/01/id/635817/#ixzz3gfKYrXei Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

Plan does not solve racial profiling programs such as NSEERS,

OFL, and TSA screening
Wade J. Henderson, Esq., President and CEO, The Leadership Conference on Civil
and Human Rights, March 2011, "Restoring a National Consensus: The Need to End
Racial Profiling in America" The Leadership Conference,
http://www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/racialprofiling2011/racial_profiling2011.pdf
The 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were carried out by Arabs from Muslim

In response to the attacks, the federal government immediately engaged in a

sweeping counterterrorism campaign focused on Arabs and Muslims , and in some cases
on persons who were perceived to be, but in fact were not, Arabs or Muslims, such as Sikhs and other South
Asians. That focus continues to this day. The federal government claims that its anti-terrorism efforts
do not amount to racial profiling, but the singling out for questioning and detention of Arabs and
Muslims in the United States, as well as selective application of the immigration laws to
nationals of Arab and Muslim countries, belie this claim . A prime example of a federal
program that encourages racial profiling is the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System ( NSEERS),
implemented in 2002.44 NSEERS requires certain individuals from predominantly Muslim
countries to register with the federal government, as well as to be fingerprinted,
photographed, and interrogated. A report issued in 2009 by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
countries.

and the Rights Working Group had this to say about NSEERS: More than seven years after its implementation,
NSEERS continues to impact the lives of those individuals and communities subjected to it. It has led to the
prevention of naturalization and to the deportation of individuals who failed to register, either because they were
unaware of the registration requirement or because they were afraid to register after hearing stories of
interrogations, detentions and deportations of friends, family and community members. As a result, well-intentioned
individuals who failed to comply with NSEERS due to a lack of knowledge or fear have been denied "adjustment of
status" (green cards), and in some cases have been placed in removal proceedings for willfully" failing to
register."45

Despite NSEERS' near explicit profiling based on religion and national

origin, federal courts have held that the program does not violate the Equal Protection
Clause of the Constitution, and that those forced to participate in the program have not suffered violations of
their rights under the Fourth or Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which protect against unreasonable
search and seizure and guarantee due process, respectively.46

Another example of a federal program that

involves racial profiling is Operation Front Line (OFL). The stated purpose of OFL,47 which was instituted just prior
to the November 2004 presidential election, is to "detect, deter, and disrupt terror operations."48 OFL is a covert
program, the existence of which was discovered through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Yale Law School National Litigation Project.49 According to
the 2009 ACLU/Rights Working Group report, data regarding OFL obtained from the Department of Homeland

an astounding seventy-nine percent of the targets investigated were

immigrants from Muslim majority countries. Moreover, foreign nationals from Muslim-majority countries were
Security show that:

1,280 times more likely to be targeted than similarly situated individuals from other countries. Incredibly, not even

What did result,

was an intense chilling effect on the free speech and association rights of the
Muslim, Arab and South Asian communities targeted in advance of an already contentious
one terrorism-related conviction resulted from the interviews conducted under this program.
however,

presidential election.50 Lists of individuals who registered under NSEERS were apparently used to select
candidates for investigation in OFL.51 Inasmuch as the overwhelming majority of those selected were Muslims, OFL
is a clear example of a federal program that involves racial profiling. Moreover, because OFL has resulted in no
terror-related convictions, the program is also a clear example of how racial profiling uses up valuable law
enforcement resources yet fails to make our nation safer.52 Although Arabs and Muslims, and those presumed to
be Arabs or Muslims based on their appearance, have since 9/11 been targeted by law enforcement authorities in
their homes, at work, and while driving or walking,53 airports and border crossings have become especially
daunting. One reason for this is a wide-ranging and intrusive Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) guidance issued in
July 2008 that states, "in the course of a border search, and absent individualized suspicion, officers can review and
analyze the information transported by any individual attempting to enter . the United States."(Emphasis
added)54 In addition, the standard to copy documents belonging to a person seeking to enter the U.S. was lowered
from a "probable cause" to a "reasonable suspicion" standard.55 Operating under such a broad and subjective
guidance, border agents frequently stop Muslims, Arabs, and South Asians for extensive questioning about their
families, faith, political opinions, and other private matters, and subject them to intrusive searches. Often, their cell
phones, laptops, personal papers and books are taken and reviewed. The FBI's Terrorist Screening Center (TSC)
maintains a list of every person who, according to the U.S. government, has "any nexus" to terrorism.56 Because of
misidentification (i.e., mistaking non-listed persons for listed persons) and over-classification (i.e., assigning listed
persons a classification that makes them appear dangerous when they are not), this defective "watch-list" causes
many problems for Muslims, Arabs, and South Asians seeking to enter the United States, including those who are
U.S. citizens. The case of Zabaria Reed, a U.S. citizen, Gulf War veteran, 20-year member of the National Guard,
and firefighter, illustrates the problem. Trying to reenter the U.S. from Canada where he travels to visit family, Reed
is frequently detained, searched, and interrogated about his friends, politics, and reasons for converting to Islam.
Officials have handcuffed Reed in front of his children, pointed weapons at him, and denied him counsel.57 In
2005, a lawsuitRahman v. Chertoffwas filed in federal district court in Illinois by nine U.S. citizens and one lawful
permanent resident, none of whom had any connection to terrorist activity.58 The plaintiffsall of whom are of
South Asian or Middle Eastern descent alleged that they were repeatedly detained, interrogated, and humiliated
when attempting to re-enter the U.S. because their names were wrongly on the watch-list, despite the fact that they
were law abiding citizens who were always cleared for re-entry into the U.S. after these recurring and punitive
detentions.59 In May 2010, the court dismissed the case, finding that almost all of the disputed detentions were
"routine," meaning that border guards needed no suspicion at all to undertake various intrusions such as pat-down
frisks and handcuffing for a brief time.60 Further, the court held that where the stops were not routine, the
detentions, frisks, and handcuffings were justified by the placement of the individuals on the TSC's databaseeven
when the listing may have been a mistake.61 Notwithstanding the adverse decision in the Rahman case, and the
continuation of these practices on a national level, it is important to note that there have been certain positive
changes in government policy since 2005. Specifically, a standard of "reasonable suspicion" is now used before a
name can be added to the TSCs database, which marks a sharp departure from the essentially "standardless"
policy previously in effect.62 Individuals wearing Sikh turbans or Muslim head coverings are also profiled for higher
scrutiny at airports. In response to criticism from Sikh organizations,

the Transportation Security Administration

(TSA) recently revised its operating procedure for screening head coverings at airports. The current procedure
provides that: All members of the traveling public are permitted to wear head coverings (whether religious or not)

new standard procedures subject all persons wearing

head coverings to the possibility of additional security screening, which may include
a patdown search of the head covering. Individuals may be referred for additional screening if the
through the security checkpoints. The

security officer cannot reasonably determine that the head area is free of a detectable threat item. If the issue

cannot be resolved through a pat-down search, the individual will be offered the opportunity to remove the head
covering in a private screening area.63 Despite this new procedure, and TSA's assurance that in implementing it
"TSA does not conduct ethnic or religious profiling, and employs multiple checks and balances to ensure profiling

Sikh travelers report that they continue to be profiled and subject to

abuse at airports.65 Amardeep Singh, director of programs for the Sikh Coalition and a second-generation
does not happen,"64

American, recounted the following experience in his June 2010 testimony before the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties of the House Judiciary Committee: Two months ago, my family and I
were coming back to the United States from a family vacation in Playa Del Carmen, Mexico. At Fort Lauderdale
Airport, not only was I subjected to extra screening, but so was [my 18 month-old son Azaad]. I was sadly forced to
take my son, Azaad, into the infamous glass box so that he could [be] patted down. He cried while I held him. He
did not know who that stranger was who was patting him down. His bag was also thoroughly searched. His Elmo
book number one was searched. His Elmo book number two was searched. His minimail truck was searched. The
time spent waiting for me to grab him was wasted time. The time spent going through his baby books was wasted
time. I am not sure what I am going to tell him when he is old enough and asks why his father and grandfather and
soon himAmericans all threeare constantly stopped by the TSA 100% of the time at some airports.66

SPOT regulations itself are not the problem procedures are

based on facial expressions only means removing it would
not solve for racial profiling
Denver Post Editorial Board, 11-17-2013, "Face it, TSA: Behavioral screening is
failing," Denver Post, http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_24533526/face-it-tsabehavioral-screening-is-failing
Face it, TSA: Behavioral screening is failing By The Denver Post Editorial Board POSTED: 11/17/2013 05:01:00 PM MST34 COMMENTS
Lines form in the security area at Denver International Airport as Transportation Security Administration workers check passengers.
Lines form in the security area at Denver International Airport as Transportation Security Administration workers check passengers.

Is it possible to spot suspicious passengers at airports

based on their behavior, even their most subtle facial expressions? Not consistently or
(Kathryn Scott Osler, Denver Post file)

reliably, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office released last week that recommended funding be
discontinued for a Transportation Security Administration program that has cost nearly $1 billion. The program is called Screening

SPOT, and involves training "behavior detection officers"

and stationing them at airports. But the takeway from the report was unequivocal: See SPOT fail. After an
Passengers by Observation Technique, or

exhaustive review of existing studies, the GAO concluded there was no scientific evidence that the SPOT program worked much
better, if better at all, than chance screenings of passengers. In other words, a system that simply screens passengers based on
random automated selection, the kind of system many countries use in their customs entry points, would probably work just as well.

The underpinning of the SPOT system is based on something called FACS, or the Facial Action Coding
System, developed by psychologists in the late 1970s to identify emotions through "microexpressions" in the face. These quick, subtle expressions do seem to exist, but the science does not appear to be so
exact that emotions or motives can be read with certainty on a regular basis. "TSA has not demonstrated that (behaviordetection officers) can consistently interpret the SPOT behavioral indicators," the report said. "The subjectivity of the SPOT
behavioral indicators and variation in BDO referral rates raise questions about the continued use of behavior indicators for detecting
passengers who might pose a risk to aviation security." More troubling, though, is that TSA officials implemented the SPOT program
despite the fact there was no solid scientific foundation on which to base it.

Off Case Extras

T Substantial (Only for SPOT)

A. Interpretation:
Less than 10% is insubstantial this is the lowest percentage
we could find in a monetary context
Mickels 8 (Alissa, JD Candidate Hastings College of Law, Summary of Existing
US Law Affecting Fourth Sector Organizations, 7-17,
http://www.fourthsector.net/attachments/7/original/Summary_of_US_Law_Affecting_
FS.pdf?1229493187)
Substantial v. insubstantial: Modern courts consider competition with commercial firms as strong
evidence of a substantial nonexempt purpose. Living Faith, Inc. v. Commr, 60 T.C.M. 710, 713 (1990). Although the

the definition of insubstantial is fact specific, it has found that

less than ten percent of a charitys total efforts is insubstantial, World Family Corp. v.
tax court has held that

Commr, 78 T.C. 921 (1982), where as unrelated business activity generating one-third of an organizations revenue
does not qualify for tax-exempt status. Orange County Agric. Socy, Inc. v. Commr, 55 T.C.M. 1602, 1604 (1988),
affd 893 F.2d 647 (2d Cir. 1990). However, this may be changing after an increasing emphasis on commensurate
test.

B. Violation: The aff is insubstantial

The TSAs budget is just over 7 billion dollars this isnt even
the entirety of the US domestic surveillance budget
HBC 13 (House Budget Committee, The Transportation Security Administration
and the Aviation-Security Fee, 12/10/2013, House.gov,
http://budget.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=364049, DJE)
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was established by the Aviation
and Transportation Security Act of 2001 to protect the nations transportation
systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce. Although TSA
has security responsibilities in all forms of transportation, its main focus is aviation
security. TSA has just over 55,600 full-time equivalents (FTE), the vast majority of
which are passenger and baggage screeners in the Aviation Security program. (By
contrast, fewer than 700 FTEs are involved in Surface Transportation Security.) In
recent years, TSA has received around $5.7 billion in mandatory and discretionary
appropriations, whichtogether with spending authority from offsetting collections
gives the agency an annual budget of more than $7 billion . Aviation Security takes
the lions share of this budget, and its funding is used for passenger- and baggagescreening operations, screener salaries and benefits, and contracts with private
screeners, among other activities.

TSAs SPOT program only costs around $200 million annually.

Thats barely more than 2% of the agencys budget. There is
no way this can be considered substantial.
GAO 13 (Government Accountability Office, TSA Should Limit Future Funding for
Behavior Detection Activities, November 2013,
http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/658923.pdf, DJE)
In October 2003, TSA began testing its primary behavior detection activity, the
SPOT program, and during fiscal year 2007, TSA deployed Page Behavior Detection
Activities the program to 42 TSA regulated airports. By fiscal year 2012, about
3,000 BDOs were deployed to 176 of the more than 450 TSA regulated airports in
the United States. From fiscal years 2011 through 2012, an estimated 1.3 billion
people passed through checkpoints at the 176 SPOT airports. TSA has expended
approximately $200 million annually for the SPOT program since fiscal year 2010,
and a total of approximately $900 million since 2007. BDOs represent one of TSAs
layers of security. In addition to BDOs, other layers of security include travel
document checkers, who examine tickets, passports, and other forms of
identification; transportation security officers (TSO), who are responsible for
screening passengers and their carry-on baggage at passenger checkpoints using Xray equipment, magnetometers, advanced imaging technology, and other devices;
as well as for screening checked baggage; and random employee screening, among
others.

C. Topicality is a voter for limits they massively under-limit

the topic by allowing for reduction in surveillance of
individuals, minor alterations in texts surveillance laws,
or even miniscule budget cuts. This massively skews the
debate in the affs favor.

(more evidence contextualizing how small SPOT is)

Just one of the US domestic surveillance agencies, the NSA,

has a budget of around $10 billion
CNN 13 (CNN Money, 6/7/2013, What the NSA costs taxpayers,
http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/07/news/economy/nsa-surveillance-cost/, DJE)
The National Security Agency's activities are classified. And so is its annual budget.
As a result, it's impossible to say exactly how much money the NSA is given to
conduct its surveillance efforts -- which Americans learned this week has recently
included collecting phone call data and monitoring online activities. That's because
the NSA, a Defense Department agency created in 1952, falls under the category of

a "black" program in the federal budget, a term applied to classified efforts. The
NSA is one of at least 15 intelligence agencies, and combined the total U.S.
intelligence budget in 2012 was $75 billion, said Steve Aftergood, director of the
government secrecy program at the Federation of American Scientists, a
nonpartisan think tank that analyzes national and international security issues. The
intelligence budget includes funding for both classified and unclassified activities.
Funding for classified programs has tracked the upward trend in defense spending
over the past decade, according to an analysis of fiscal year 2012 Defense
Department budget request by Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments. Aftergood estimates about 14% of the country's total
intelligence budget -- or about $10 billion -- goes to the NSA . His reasoning: In 1996,
the NSA budget was leaked, and it accounted for about 14% of the budget that year.
"I am confident that the real figure is within $2 billion of that $10 billion estimate,"
he said. Gordon Adams, a former White House budget official for national security,
said he wouldn't be surprised if NSA's resources are "well north" of $20 billion a
year.

Terror DA Links
Terrorist threats exist now and TSA key to prevent terrorists
from bringing weapons onto planes plan eliminates this
Krishnadev Calamur, 1-23-2015, "TSA Agents Discovered 2,212 Guns At Airport
Checkpoints In 2014," NPR.org, http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwoway/2015/01/23/379325043/tsa-agents-discovered-2-212-firearms-at-airportcheckpoints-in-2014
The Transportation Security Administration found more than 2,000 firearms at the nation's airports last year the

TSA agents
discovered 2,212 firearms or a little more than six a day in carry-on bags; 83 percent of
them were loaded, the department said. The number was a 22 percent increase from 2013, when 1,813
firearms were discovered. The number of firearms discovered at TSA checkpoints has risen
nearly every year since 2005. Also last year, the department said, more than 1,400 "firearm
overwhelming majority of them loaded, the Department of Homeland Security said today.

components, replica firearms, stun guns, and other similar dangerous objects were discovered" in carry-on luggage.
The top five airports for firearms discoveries are: Dallas/Fort Worth International (120 firearms), Hartsfield-Jackson
Atlanta International Airport (109), Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (78), Houston's George Bush
Intercontinental Airport (77) and Denver International Airport (70).

Agents discovered not just small firearms,

but a grenade and an assault rifle (unloaded) with three loaded magazines. "In many cases,
people simply forgot they had these items," the TSA said in its blog reviewing the data. Agents also found a
disassembled .22-caliber gun in a carry-on bag at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport. The gun's
various components were found hidden inside a PlayStation 2 console. Agents also stopped a 94-year-old man who
tried to enter the checkpoint at New York's LaGuardia Airport with a loaded .38-caliber revolver clipped to his belt.
Other interesting discoveries: An 8.5" knife was discovered in an enchilada at the Charles M. SchulzSonoma County
Airport. The TSA noted that "While this was a great catch, the passenger's intent was delicious, not malicious, and
she was cleared for travel." A 3-inch knife concealed inside a laptop's hard drive caddy. A saw blade in a Bible, a cell
phone knife case, a lipstick stun gun.

TSA is a key part of the US protection against terrorism 9/11

happened b/c TSA didnt exist (fact, TSA was established
November 19, 2001)
DHS (Department of Homeland Security), 6-29-2015, "Preventing Terrorism and
Enhancing Security," No Publication, http://www.dhs.gov/preventing-terrorism-andenhancing-security
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its many partners across the federal government, public and private sectors,
and communities across the country and around the world have worked since 9/11 to build a new homeland
security enterprise to better mitigate and defend against dynamic threats , minimize risks,
and maximize the ability to respond and recover from attacks and disasters of all kinds. Together, these efforts have provided a
strong foundation to protect communities from terrorism and other threats, while safeguarding the fundamental rights of all
Americans. While threats persist, our nation is stronger than it was on 9/11, more prepared to confront evolving threats, and more
resilient in the face of our continued challenges. Progress Made Since 9/11 Protecting the United States from terrorism is the
founding mission of the Department of Homeland Security. While America is stronger and more resilient as a result of a strengthened
homeland security enterprise, threats from terrorism persist and continue to evolve. Today's threats do not come from any one
individual or group. They may originate in distant lands or local neighborhoods. They may be as simple as a home-made bomb or as
sophisticated as a biological threat or coordinated cyber attack. More and more, state, local, and tribal law enforcement officers, as
well as citizens, businesses, and communities are on the front lines of detection and prevention. Protecting the nation is a shared
responsibility and everyone can contribute by staying informed and aware of the threats the country faces. Homeland security starts
with hometown securityand we all have a role to play. Building the Homeland Security Enterprise Fusion Centers: DHS supports
state and major urban area fusion centers through personnel, training, technical assistance, exercise support, security clearances,
connectivity to federal systems, technology, and grant funding. Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative: An
administration effort to train state and local law enforcement to recognize behaviors and indicators related to terrorism, crime and
other threats; standardize how those observations are documented and analyzed; and enhance the sharing of those reports with law
enforcement across the country. Grant Funding: Since fiscal year 2003, DHS has awarded more than $31 billion in preparedness
grant funding based on risk to build and sustain targeted capabilities to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from
threats or acts of terrorism. Preventing Terrorist Travel and Improving Passenger Screening Advance Passenger Information and

Passenger Name Record Data: To identify high-risk travelers and facilitate legitimate travel, DHS requires airlines flying to the United
States to provide Advance Passenger Information and Passenger Name Record (PNR) Data prior to departure. During 2008 and 2009,
PNR helped the United States identify individuals with potential ties to terrorism in more than 3,000 cases, and in fiscal year 2010,
approximately one quarter of those individuals denied entry to the United States for having ties to terrorism were initially identified
through the analysis of PNR. Visa Security Program: Through the Visa Security Program (VSP), with concurrence from the
Department of State, ICE deploys trained special agents overseas to high-risk visa activity posts in order to identify potential
terrorist and criminal threats before they reach the United States. The VSP is currently deployed to 19 posts in 15 countries. PreDeparture Vetting: DHS has strengthened its in-bound targeting operations to identify high-risk travelers who are likely to be
inadmissible to the United States and to recommend to commercial carriers that those individuals not be permitted to board a
commercial aircraft through its Pre-Departure program. Since 2010, CBP has identified over 2,800 passengers who would likely have
been found inadmissible upon arrival to the United States. Secure Flight:

Fulfilling a key 9/11 Commission

recommendation, DHS fully implemented Secure Flight in 2010, in which TSA prescreens 100 percent of
passengers on flights flying to, from, or within the United States against government watchlists before travelers receive their
boarding passes. Prior to Secure Flight, airlines were responsible for checking passengers against watchlists. Through Secure
Flight, TSA now vets over 14 million passengers weekly. Enhanced Explosives Screening: Prior to 9/11, limited
federal security requirements existed for cargo or baggage screening. Today, TSA screens
100 percent of all checked and carry-on baggage for explosives. Through the Recovery Act and annual appropriations, TSA has
accelerated the deployment of new technologies to detect the next generation of
threats, including Advanced Imaging Technology units, Explosive Detection Systems, Explosives Trace Detection units, Advanced
Technology X-Ray systems, and Bottled Liquid Scanners. Strengthening Surface Transportation Security Visible Intermodal Prevention

TSA has 25 multi-modal Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response

(VIPR) Teams working in transportation sectors across the country to prevent or
disrupt potential terrorist planning activities. Since the VIPR program was created in 2008, there have been
and Response Teams:

over 17,700 operations performed. Baseline Surface Transportation Security Assessments: Since 2006, TSA has completed more
than 190 Baseline Assessments for Security Enhancement for transit, which provides a comprehensive assessment of security
programs in critical transit systems. Strengthening Global Supply Chain Security Air Cargo Screening: Fulfilling a requirement of the
9/11 Act, 100 percent of all cargo transported on passenger aircraft that depart U.S. airports is now screened commensurate with
screening of passenger checked baggage and 100 percent of high risk cargo on international flights bound for the United States is
screened. Container Security Initiative: The Container Security Initiative (CSI), currently operational in 58 foreign seaports in 32
countries, identifies and screens U.S.-bound maritime containers that pose a potential risk.

The reason why theres no evidence of TSA foiling plots is

because TSA acts as the root deterrent powerful terrorists no
longer try but if TSA is curtailed then terrorists would actwithout the TSA, private security fails to prevent terrorism
9/11 is the empiric proof
Joseph Straw, Corky Siemaszko, 2-8-2012, "Push for more private security
guards at airports," NY Daily News, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/privatesecurity-guards-called-airports-article-1.1019531
Private security companies like those that failed to stop the 9/11 hijackers could be manning
more airport checkpoints under a new bill heading for President Obamas desk. Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.), who wrote
the provision and whose district lost 150 people in the attacks, said it was a compromise aimed at saving the
Transportation Security Administration from Tea Party types who want to destroy the agency altogether. Some
people wanted to completely emasculate the TSA. I did it to protect the TSA this way, security ultimately remains
with the TSA, King told the Daily News. King, who heads the House Homeland Security Committee, insisted
security will not be compromised and that the TSA will still call the shots in airports that hire private screeners.
It doesnt hurt to have competition, he said. It can put some pressure on TSA to do a better job. But Kings bill is
drawing howls from critics who say weve learned nothing from 9/11. How

quickly we forget, Sen. Joseph

Lieberman (I-Conn.) said in a statement criticizing the item in the bill. We have already tried an
aviation security system run by private contractors. It very tragically did not work .
Incredulous Democrats also ripped the bill. Rep. Jerry Costello (D-Ill.), a former cop, said, I think if were going to
start contracting out the security of the flying public, then why dont we contract out the FBI or DEA or Secret
Service or Capitol Hill police? The TSA was created after the Sept. 11 attacks and took over the task of screening
passengers and luggage from the private firms hired by the airlines. In recent years, however, the TSA has been hit
with harsh criticism for intrusive searches and by Tea Party politicians who say it costs too much especially now
that the screeners are unionizing. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) recently unleashed a broadside at the TSA after he refused

to submit to a patdown and was blocked from boarding a plane. Under pressure from the right in Congress, King
drafted a bill last year requiring the Homeland Security Department to allow contract screeners unless it finds the
change would hurt security. The bill languished for months, but was dropped into unrelated Federal Aviation
Administration legislation passed by the House and Senate this month. Currently, there are private screeners at just

Many fliers at Kennedy Airport said

they dont want rent-a-cops manning security checkpoints. After what happened to
us on 9/11, I dont mind [that\] the TSA scanners are there, said Angela Franklin , 65,
16 airports, the largest of which is San Francisco International Airport.

of Freeport, L.I. I think it should stay that way. I had a son who survived 9/11.

A2: TSA doesnt evaluate effectiveness they do study shows

the effectiveness of RMAT, a terrorism risk modeling tool
Morral, Andrew R., 2012, "Modeling Terrorism Risk to the Air Transportation
System: An Independent Assessment of TSA's Risk Management Analysis Tool and
Associated Methods," No Publication,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1241.html
RAND evaluated a terrorism risk modeling tool developed by the T ransportation
Security Administration and Boeing to help guide program planning for aviation security. This tool the
Risk Management Analysis Tool, or RMAT is used by TSA to estimate the terrorism riskreduction benefits attributable to new and existing security programs, technologies,
and procedures. RMAT simulates terrorist behavior and success in attacking
vulnerabilities in the domestic commercial air transportation system, drawing on estimates
of terrorist resources, capabilities, preferences, decision processes, intelligence
collection, and operational planning. It describes how the layers of security protecting the air
Abstract

transportation system are likely to perform when confronted by more than 60 types of attacks, drawing on detailed
blast and other physical modeling to understand the damage produced by different weapons and attacks, and
calculating expected loss of life and the direct and indirect economic consequences of that damage. This report

the validity of RMAT for TSA's intended uses and its recommendations
for how TSA should perform cost-benefit analyses of its security programs. Key Findings Risk
describes RAND's conclusions about

Management Analysis Tool (RMAT) Appears to Capture the Key Features Relevant to Security at Most Airports With
good information about an adversary's capabilities and intentions, the RMAT defender model can provide credible

RMAT has proven to be of

great value to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in driving a more
sophisticated understanding of terrorism risks to the air transportation system. The
and useful estimates of the likelihood of detecting and interdicting an adversary.

RMAT Model Has Some Gaps Even if the conceptual models on which RMAT is built were sound and comprehensive,
the input data requirements exceed what subject matter experts or science can estimate with precision, and the
imprecision of those estimates is subject to unknown sources and ranges of error. RMAT may not be well suited for
the kinds of exploratory analysis required for high-stakes decision support, because of its reliance on a large
number of uncertain parameters and conceptual models.

Terror DA Impacts
Another terrorist attack involving a plane would cost the
economy billions
Balvanyos and Lave 05 (Tunde Balvanyos, Supervising Planner in the San
Diego office of Parsons Brinckerhoff, a global infrastructure strategic consulting,
planning, engineering and program/construction management organization, Lester
B. Lave, economist, THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF TERRORIST ATTACK ON
COMMERCIAL AVIATION IN THE USA, 9/4/2005,
http://www.usc.edu/dept/create/assets/002/51831.pdf, DJE)
The air transportation system is an attractive target for terrorists. Using widely
available weapons, terrorists could shoot down a passenger airliner. This disruption
would be magnified if the attack caused terror in the general population and led
government officials, the media, and the public to engage in costly preventive
actions. Although various defenses could be mounted against attacks by missiles,
rocket propelled grenades, and high powered rifles, no countermeasure could
protect against all of them or even be completely successful against MANPADS. The
immediate effect of shooting down an airliner would be hundreds of deaths and a
cost to the airline of about $1 billion for the aircraft and payments to the survivors
of deceased passengers, as well as reduced demand for all air services. Reduction
in demand for air services depends on how the government, the media and the
general public react to the attack. An unsuccessful attack could generate similar
reaction from the public resulting in similar losses in transportation and related
business. Closing an airport for more than a few days would throw thousands of
people out of work and generate losses to the surrounding businesses and those
who depend on the airport and air transport of freight. Closing US airspace
immediately after the attack would cause diversion of flights, stranded passengers,
and major costs to the airlines and travelers. There are two major components to
the economic cost of a successful terrorist attack. The direct cost for the downed
aircraft and lives lost would be about $1 billion per aircraft. The indirect cost would
result from operating losses to the airlines and loss of consumer welfare as some
people would not fly. These amounts would depend on the length of any interruption
in air travel and the publics long term reaction to terrorist threat to flying. The
indirect economic cost would be greater than the direct cost and would depend on
how the government reacts (investing in countermeasures and/or closing airports)
and how the public reacts (measured in reduction in travel demand). While the cost
of countermeasures and airport closures can be estimated, the main determinant of
long term costs, the reaction of the public, is unpredictable. If a terrorist managed
to shoot down a large passenger aircraft and this resulted in grounding all aircraft
for 2.5 days (as was the case after 9/11), the loss to the economy would be $1
billion per air craft (including compensation for the dead passengers) (RAND), $1.6
billion in reduced airline and associated spending, and $4.75 billion in losses to
business and leisure passengers. The total cost of $6.3 billion per 2.5 days (or $2.5
billion per day) makes a ground attack against commercial aircraft a tempting
target. There are few areas in the USA where a lone terrorist with readily available

weapons could inflict such a high cost on the economy, and possibly cause
widespread terror.

A 9/11 style attack would disrupt a multitude of industries

Nanto 05 (Dick K. Nanto, Specialist in Industry and Trade, 9/11 Terrorism: Global
Economic Costs, 10/5/2005, CRS Report for Congress,
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7725/m1/1/high_res_d/RS21937_200
4Oct05.pdf, DJE)
The 9/11 attacks were part of Al Qaedas strategy to disrupt Western economies and
impose both direct and secondary costs on the United States and other nations.
The immediate costs were the physical damage, loss of lives and earnings, slower
world economic growth, and capital losses on stock markets. Indirect costs include
higher insurance and shipping fees, diversion of time and resources away from
enhancing productivity to protecting and insuring property, public loss of
confidence, and reduced demand for travel and tourism . In a broader sense, the
9/11 attacks led to the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq (and the
Global War on Terrorism) and perhaps emboldened terrorists to attack in Bali, Spain,
Morocco, and Saudi Arabia. A policy question for Congress is how to evaluate the
costs and benefits of further spending to counter terrorism and its economic impact.
This report will be updated periodically.

An airplane terror attack would cause a sudden recession

9/11 proves
Nanto 05 (Dick K. Nanto, Specialist in Industry and Trade, 9/11 Terrorism: Global
Economic Costs, 10/5/2005, CRS Report for Congress,
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7725/m1/1/high_res_d/RS21937_200
4Oct05.pdf, DJE)
Following the terrorist attacks, the already weak international economy was
weakened further. The aftershocks of 9/11 were felt immediately in foreign equity
markets, in tourism and travel, in consumer attitudes, and in temporary capital
flight from the United States. Central banking authorities worldwide reacted by
injecting liquidity into their financial systems. Still, the downturn in business
conditions became more generalized and most of the world dropped into a
synchronous recession from 4.1% world economic growth in 2000 to 1.4% in
2001 (a growth rate of less than 2% for the world is considered to be recessionary).
By late 2002, aggressive reflationary fiscal and monetary policy in the United States
and a booming Chinese economy led the recovery. As shown in Figure 2, the 2001
recession turned into a weak economic recovery with world growth of 1.9% in 2002
and 2.7% in 2003 still anemic when compared with the growth rate of 2.3% in
1998 during the worst of the Asian financial crisis. For 2004, the recovery picked up
speed and its strength broadened with growth at 4%, even though by mid-2004, the
world was hit with petroleum prices exceeding $40 per barrel of which $6 to $10
was a security premium caused primarily by instability and uncertainty in the

Middle East. Still, in most markets, there appeared to be a general dissipation of

geopolitical concerns and a steady decline in post-9/11 terrorism fears. How much
did 9/11 bring down world growth rates? Prior to 9/11, a major econometric
forecasting firm expected real GDP for the world (185 countries) to grow at 2.8% in
2001 and 3.1% in 2002. After 9/11, world GDP actually grew by 1.4% in 2001 and
1.9% in 2002. In the aftermath of 9/11, therefore, actual growth came in at
approximately 1 percentage point below expectations. Not all of this, of course, can
be attributed to 9/11, but a 1 percentage point decline in global GDP amounted to
about $300 billion less in world production and income in 2002. Subsequent terrorist
attacks also have affected economic growth abroad. An Australian study pointed out
the negative macroeconomic consequences of terrorism for developing nations
because of reduced trade, investments, and tourism. The 2002 Bali bombings
reduced Indonesias growth rate by an estimated 1 percentage point.

Politics DA Links
Despite TSA misconduct, Dems still strongly support airport
security
Maya Rhodan, 11-22-2010, "Partisan Divide Greets New Report on Airport
Screener Misconduct," TIME, http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/03/partisandivide-greets-new-report-on-airport-screener-misconduct/
Federal airport security screeners were investigated for misconduct 9,622 times from 2010 to 2012, after an array
incidents, from screeners falling asleep on the job to letting relatives go around screening lines to inappropriately
touching airplane passengers. Depending on whom you ask on Capitol Hill, this is either an alarming crisis or an
expected footnote for a huge workforce with an enormous task. These findings are especially hard to stomach
since so many Americans today are sick of being groped, interrogated, and treated like criminals when passing
through checkpoints, said Republican Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina, at a hearing on the Transportation
Security Agency July 31. If Integrity is truly a core value, then, TSA, prove it. TSA employee misconduct is on

said in a statement to TIME. TSAs first and

it is
simply unacceptable to allow a single bag or a single person go unscreened. Some
the rise and this is intolerable,

Democratic Rep.

Ron Barber

foremost responsibility is to ensure the safety and security of travelers in a professional manner and

Democrats at the hearing, however, sided with the TSA officers, who many said were not to be judged by the

ranking Democratic member of the committee,

from Mississippi said, The vast majority of TSOs are hardworking, dedicated, diligent
federal employees. The TSA employs about 56,000 security personnel who work at 450 airports across the
actions of a few bad apples. Bennie Thompson, a

country. In a July 30 report, the Government Accountability Office found there has been a 26 percent increase in
cases of misconduct over the past three years. According to the report, the majority of the cases fell under two
categories of misconduct, attendance and leave and screening and security. Unexcused absences, tardiness,
and failure to follow leave procedure accounted for 32 %, or 3,117, of the total misconduct cases. Failure to follow
screening procedure, bypassing screening, and sleeping on duty made up 20 percent, or 1,936 total cases
according to the report. In one instance in the report, an officer was seen neglecting to stop the conveyor belt after
every piece of luggage to review the x-ray images of whats inside; in another an officer left his or her security
checkpoint to assist a family member with a bag, a bag the officer later walked through the security checkpoint
without screening and handed to the relative. The bag was found to have contained prohibited items, though the
items are not specified in the GAO report. In a statement, David Cox, the president of the American Federation of
Government Employees, the union that represents the TSA, said the report has misrepresented the conduct of TSA
employees. TSA

critics on Capitol Hill seize every opportunity to give the agency and
its dedicated workforce a black eye, even when the facts to not support their armwaving displays of false outrage, Cox said in a statement. They want to drag us back, as a
nation, to the pre-9/11 practice of using poorly trained, minimum wage rent-a-cops
to protect the flying public from terrorists . The agency has also tried to defend itself, blaming a
handful of bad apples. Every time we have one knucklehead that decides hes going to do something bad it
tarnishes the image of our organization, TSA Deputy Administrator John Halinski said at the hearing. I have my
people on the line 365 days of the year and they know if they fail someone can die. Nearly half of the reported
cases of misconduct resulted in letters of reprimand that describe the conduct and why it is subject to disciplinary
action. Thirty-one percent resulted in definite suspension, and 17% led to termination, according to the GAO. The
rest were subject to a multitude of outcomes, including indefinite suspension. I think this report shows something
very positive, says Rick Mathews, the director of the National Center for Security and Preparedness at the
University at Albany. It shows that the TSA is looking for these things and when people are doing wrong theyre
being punished. The frequency of these actions is so low that it more than likely dissuades bad people from even
trying to breach security, he added.

Elections Link
Curtailing TSA surveillance goes against the will of the public
they like it
Reed 12 (Ted Reed, journalist who covers the airline industry, Surprise Gallup
Poll: People Think TSA Does A Good Job, 8/9/2012,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2012/08/09/surprise-gallup-poll-people-thinktsa-does-a-good-job/, DJE)
Surprisingly, despite all of the negative Internet commentary and Congressional
complaining about the Transportation Security Administration, the majority of U.S.
travelers have a positive opinion of the agency . Not only that, but people who fly,
and who are exposed to TSA screening, have an even more positive opinion than
people who rarely or never fly. According to a Gallup poll released Wednesday, 54%
of Americans think the TSA is doing either an excellent or a good job of handling
security screening at airports. Moreover, among Americans who have flown at least
once in the past year, 57% have an excellent or good opinion of the agency. As far
as TSA effectiveness at preventing acts of terrorism on U.S. airplanes, 41% think the
screening procedures are extremely or very effective. Another 44% think the
procedures are somewhat effective. That number varies little for people who fly
somewhat regularly and people who rarely or never fly. The poll was conducted with
telephone interviews July 9th through July 12. Gallup interviewed 1,014 adults living
in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Interestingly, younger Americans have
significantly more positive opinions of the TSA than those who are older, Gallup
said, noting that 67% of people between 18 and 29 rate the agency as excellent or
good. This may be because young people fly more frequently, or it may be because
that for young people TSA screening, first implemented in 2001, has been part of
their flying experience for the majority of their lives. Criticism of the TSA seems to
come primarily from two sources. One is Internet sites, where reporting standards
are generally not at the same level as newspapers, where reporters are taught to
consider what is told to them with skepticism and to seek responses to charges. On
Wednesday, some sites were repeating charges by a man who said that his wife was
admitted to the emergency room for treatment after TSA agents at Fort LauderdaleHollywood International Airport harassed her and subjected her to closed door
screening after metal in her bra set off an alarm. The man said his wife was subject
to a brutal rape three years ago and is still recovering from the psychological
impact. Without denigrating the man or his wife in any way, it is possible to say that
the TSA is put into a difficult situation when such charges are posted with little or no
fact checking by reporters. As for Congress, the House Homeland Security
Committees Transportation Security Subcommittee recently convened a hearing on
the topic: Breach of Trust: Addressing Misconduct Among TSA Screeners.
According to About.com, It didnt take (committee chairman) Rep. Mike Rogers (RAlabama) long to set the tone for the day, saying in his opening statement:
Stealing from checked luggage; accepting bribes from drug smugglers; sleeping or
drinking while on duty this kind of criminal behavior and negligence has
contributed significantly to TSAs shattered public image. Now there is a poll to

show that in fact, TSA does not have actually have a bad public image. And here, it
is worth mentioning that the public image of Congress is not so good, perhaps
reflecting a tendency to be excessively critical of perceived enemies rather than to
seek compromise and solve problems.

TSA is popular and publicly supportedeffectiveness and

counterterrorism
Frank Newport and Steve Ander, Gallup news, Inc., 8-8-2012, "Americans'
Views of TSA More Positive Than Negative," Gallup,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/americans-views-tsa-positive-negative.aspx)//GV
Despite recent negative press, a majority of Americans, 54%, think the U.S.
Transportation Security Administration is doing either an excellent or a good job of
handling security screening at airports. At the same time, 41% think TSA screening
procedures are extremely or very effective at preventing acts of terrorism
on U.S. airplanes, with most of the rest saying they are somewhat effective. Thinking
PRINCETON, NJ --

now about the TSA, the government agency that handles security screening at U.S. airports, do you think the TSA is doing an
excellent, good, only fair, or poor job?How effective do you think the TSAs screening procedures are at preventing acts of terrorism
on U.S. airplanes? The TSA in recent months has come under increased scrutiny, with some members of Congress calling for the
agency to be privatized or disbanded. However, the current survey results, from Gallup interviewing conducted July 9-12, indicate
that the average American has a more positive than negative impression of the TSA ,
even if the average American is not totally confident in the effectiveness of its procedures. Overall, Fliers' Opinions Similar to NonFliers' Just over half of Americans report having flown at least once in the past year. These fliers have a slightly better opinion of the
job TSA is doing than those who haven't flown. Fifty-seven percent of those who have flown at least once and 57% of the smaller
group who have flown at least three times have an excellent or good opinion of the TSA's job performance. That compares with 52%
of those who have not flown in the past year. There is little difference in opinions about the effectiveness of TSA's screening
procedures by flying status; between 40% and 42% of non-fliers, as well as of those who have flown at least once and those who
have flown at least three times, believe the procedures are at least very effective. Perceptions of Transportation Security
Administration, by Number of Commercial Air Trips in Past Year Perceptions of TSA Effectiveness, by Number of Commercial Air Trips
in Past Year Parents of Minors and Non-Parents Have Similar Views Adults' opinions are not related to whether they have a child
under age 18 at home, with both parents and non-parents expressing similar views about the TSA. This is potentially important,
given that the TSA instituted revised screening procedures for children under 12 in the fall of 2011 -- the result of the agency's
efforts to establish risk-based security management for its screening operations. Perceptions of the U.S. Transportation Security
Administration, by Whether Respondent Has a Child Under 18 at Home Perceptions of TSA Screening Effectiveness, by Whether
Respondent Has a Child Under 18 at Home Opinions, Flying Behavior Vary Across Ages Younger Americans have significantly more
positive opinions of the TSA than those who are older. These differences may partly reflect substantial differences in flying
frequency, with 60% of 18- to 29-year-olds reporting having flown within the last year, compared with 33% of those 65 years and
older. Perceptions of the U.S. Transportation Security Administration, by Age Group Perceptions of TSA Screening Effectiveness, by
Age Group Flown on Commercial Airliner in Past Year, by Age Group When the TSA was formed in late 2001, Americans who are now
18 to 29 were between 7 and 18 years old, meaning that their flying experience has been mostly in an environment in which

The American public gives the

TSA a generally good report card, with a slight majority rating its overall job
performance in positive terms. The fact that Americans who fly have a slightly more positive opinion of the agency
than those who haven't flown recently suggests that experience with the TSA at airports does not
detract from this image and may enhance it. Opinions about the effectiveness of the TSA are mixed,
although most Americans and U.S. air travelers say the procedures are at least somewhat
effective at preventing terrorism.
increased airport security and TSA screening procedures are the norm. Bottom Line

TSA popularAmericans put a higher priority on combating

terrorism than protecting privacy
Jon Cohen and Ashley Halsey, Washington Post staff writers, 11-23-2010,
"Poll: Nearly two-thirds of Americans support full-body scanners at airports," No
Publication, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/11/22/AR2010112205514.html)//GV

Nearly two-thirds of Americans support the new full-body security-screening

machines at the country's airports, as most say they put higher priority on combating
terrorism than protecting personal privacy, according to a new Washington Post-ABC
News poll. THIS STORY Protests of TSA airport pat-downs, body scanners don't delay Thanksgiving travel At BWI, one man's
campaign to 'Travel With Dignity' Scanner protests appear to fizzle among holiday travelers View All Items in This Story But half of all
those polled say enhanced pat-down searches go too far. The uproar over the new generation of security technology, and the
frisking of those who refuse it, continued Monday with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano saying the new measures are
necessary for public safety. "There

is a continued threat against aviation involving those who

seek to smuggle powders and gels that can be used as explosives on airplanes ," she
said. "The new technology is designed to help us identify those individuals. " According to the
Transportation Security Administration, less than 3 percent of travelers receive the pat-downs . But
Napolitano said the TSA would "listen to concerns. Of course we will make adjustments or changes when
called upon, but not changes or adjustments that will affect the basic operational capability that we need to have to make sure that

One possibility that could generate public support is the use of

profiling at airports, where the TSA would single out specific passengers for extra
screening based on available information . Overall, 70 percent of Americans
back the idea, which has been floated as an alternative. White House spokesman Robert
air travel remains safe."

Gibbs sought to reassure the traveling public that "the evolution of the security will be done with the input of those who go through
the security." But he said that safe travel remains the higher priority . Some people upset with the
TSA's techniques have waged an Internet-based campaign urging people to refuse to use the scanners on Wednesday, one of the
busiest travel days of the year. Coupled with bad winter weather forecasts across the Midwest, their efforts may delay Thanksgiving
week travel. In response to growing criticism, two unions representing some TSA personnel are running full-page newspaper ads

While the harshest critics have suggested

that enhanced pat-downs amount to sexual assault, union officials said screeners
are merely carrying out orders issued by the TSA. More than 400 of the controversial scanning machines
Tuesday and sending e-mails defending workers to frequent fliers.

have been put to use at 70 of 450 U.S. airports since October, though the majority of passengers are not being asked to use them.
The scanners, which penetrate clothing to produce outlines of the naked human body, are in use at all three of the Washington
region's major airports. In development for several years, the machines use backscatter and millimeter wave technology intended to
reveal nonmetallic security threats that wouldn't be caught by traditional step-through metal detectors.

Complainers exaggerate when surveyed, majority of

Americans have a positive opinion of TSA public understands
TSA exists for a very important reason
Ted Reed, 10-23-2012, "Remember 9/11? TSA Finally Takes Off the Gloves,
Reminds Critics of Reality.," Forbes,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2012/10/23/remember-911-tsa-finally-takes-offthe-gloves-reminds-critics-of-reality/
The Transportation Security Administration has taken off the gloves and started to respond more aggressively to
the constant barrage of criticism as well it should. Last week, in an opinion piece in the Rockland
County Times, published in a close-in New York City suburb, TSA spokeswoman Lisa Farbstein responded to a critical column by area
resident Diane Dimond, a syndicated columnist. Perhaps

the next time Diane and her family fly out of

a New York-area airport to a fun vacation spot, theyll look out the car window at the
New York skyline minus the Twin Towers and remember some of the true facts about
TSA and why it exists, Farbstein wrote. Dimond criticized the very security measures that were designed to keep
passengers safe to help ensure that there is not another 9/11 in her back yard, said Farbstein, who answered about a dozen
criticisms, point-by-point. Among them: it is inconvenient, undignified and an invasion of your privacy to be forced to remove your
shoes, jackets and belts, take off your belt and take your computer from its case. TSA agents treat all of us like were new arrivals
at a prison camp. The lines are too long and some agents seem to stand around doing nothing. While the criticisms are familiar, the
aggressive response is new. In fact, the TSA responds to multiple daily attacks, most far less coherent than Dimonds .

Critics
include travelers who make up stories; members of Congress who seek
political gain and bloggers, tweeters and other self-promoters aware that

the best way to be noticed and collect Internet hits is to express outrage .
The outrage business, it must be said, is a growth business, thriving in the age of new media. Last week, radio talk show host Dana
Loesch tweeted about an incident at the Phoenix airport. Loesch claimed she was sexually molested after a sensor showed traces of
explosives on her. She was upset that the incident took place in private: she had requested a public screening. Earlier,in June,
Loesch and her husband were detained by the TSA in Providence, R.I., after he allegedly underwent intrusive screenings because
sensors detected traces of explosives on him. Perhaps we should conclude that TSA agents are engaged in a nationwide plot to
harass the couple whenever possible. Or perhaps explosive pixie dust suddenly finds them whenever they head to the airport.
Clearly, they are outliers among the 650 million people TSA screens annually. Last year, about one tenth of one percent of those

The truth is that, for all of the complaints, most U.S. travelers have a positive opinion of the TSA.
54% of Americans think TSA is doing either an excellent
or a good job of handling airport screening. Among Americans who have
flown at least once in the past year, 57% have an excellent or good opinion of the
agency. In other words, the more you see them, the better you like them. Of course, TSA is not perfect. It employs 62,000
filed complaints.

According to a Gallup poll released in August,

people, a few of whom have stolen from the luggage they are paid to inspect. The annual $8.1 billion budget seems high: the same
work was done for far less by private firms before Sept. 11. The firms followed federal guidelines, which sadly did not prevent box
cutters on airplanes. The TSA is very visible to millions of travelers, some of whom have had a bad day by the time they get to the

And of course the agency is overseen by a dysfunctional Congress, whose 535

members bring a love of the limelight, vastly differing agendas and an inability to
compromise. Probably the biggest problem is that, unfortunately, we really dont know how much screening is enough and
airport.

how much is too much. Eleven years later, that is something we are still learning.

Neolib Links
The affs criticism of airport security neglects to balance
privacy with other values this is dangerous because it
furthers neoliberalism
Simon Dawes. 2011. Privacy and the public/private dichotomy. University of
Georgia Libraries.
The framework of contextual integrity is outlined as a way of predicting peoples reactions to newly introduced
systems or practices. While such a system or practice that reduced control or access would normally give rise to
calls from some of an invasion of privacy, the embracing of that same technology by others would either weaken
this call or lead to the interpretation that privacy is just not that important anymore. A consideration of the integrity
of this context would, however, take into account the effect on control and access as part of a package of what
Nissenbaum refers to as values, ends and purposes, where the effect on other values such as security, ends such
as efficiency, and purposes such as communication would also be taken into account. To this framework of
contextual integrity, Nissenbaum adds an augmented approach, which does not preclude challenges to these
context-appropriate norms or internal values, ends and purposes. The augmented approach to contextual integrity
compares entrenched normative practices against novel practices resulting from newly deployed socio-technical
devices and systems on the basis of how effective each is at achieving relevant contextual values (2010: 166). A
violation of contextual integrity would be identified if the values, ends and purposes argued to be inherent to a

if a new technologically-mediated
practice led to less control over ones personal information , and increased the access of
others to that information, the integrity of the context would not necessarily have been violated
if control and access were not particularly important features of the context, or if the new practice was
more effective or efficient at achieving values that were. If the new practice was shown to harm any of the
particular context were deemed to be negatively affected. So

values, ends or purposes specific to the context, however, a violation of contextual integrity would have occurred.
This is meant to tackle head on not only the approach to privacy that focuses on control and access, but

that

which poses the problem of balancing privacy with other values (notably security). Seeing
privacy as always-already in relation to other values moves us away from having to negotiate a trade-off between
values, where

privacy may have to be sacrificed to make way for a more pressing

concern.

If one accepts privacy as a right to context-appropriate flows, then these norm-governed flows will
already have been calibrated with the entire array of context-based values, ends and purposes, such as safety and

An example cited is the increased scrutiny at airports, where travellers

have to identify themselves numerous times, have their bodies patted down by
security staff, sometimes after the removal of certain items of clothing, and have their luggage X-rayed and
control (2010: 188).

sometimes rooted through. In response to a nine-country survey on peoples views on surveillance to which

only 2 to 18 per cent felt that their privacy was not respected by
airport officials (2010: 1889). Nissenbaum suggests that this is because what we understand by
privacy is actually tempered in the specific context of air travel by our fear of terrorism and
disapproval of drug smuggling. We would interpret this kind of treatment in most other contexts, however, as
Nissenbaum refers,

an invasion of our privacy, because it would in most circumstances violate our expectations or contextual norms.

The ostensible focus on context, however, rests upon a fundamental dismissal of the
public/private dichotomy as a foundational basis for normative conceptions of privacy (2010: 116). Her
justification for this dismissal is the speed of recent technological developments, which have led to an increased
capacity to survey in public, to aggregate data from numerous public and private records, and to mediated
interactions on social networking sites which problematize categorization along public-private lines at a rate which
has produced a schism between experience and expectation (2010: 231). Technological developments in the
aggregation and dissemination of information have radically altered flows of information, and increased the amount
of information about a data subject that can be accessed, as well as the number of people who can access that

Nissenbaum is right to criticize those who seek to limit privacy concerns to

private information, because it is not the nature of the information itself (whether
highly personal or not) that is necessarily the issue, but the potential to increase the
importance of information (or for data to become knowledge). It could be impersonal information already
information.

available in public records or otherwise published, but if information is aggregated from numerous sources to create
a deep archive of information about data subjects, and then made available to a far greater number of people than
before, this could indeed cause anxieties in the name of privacy. A focus on arbitrary distinctions between private
and public information, as often happens in court proceedings, would miss the significance of these changes and
not see this as a threat to privacy, whereas approaching this within the framework of contextual integrity would
mean flagging up this kind of new practice as a violation. Because all information flows are normgoverned, whether
in our homes or in a park, contextual integrity can be maintained or violated in any context (2010: 189), so
transcending the reductive distinction between public and private places. This radical altering of flows of
information, she argues, reveals faultlines not before considered significant (2010: 119), as well as the
inconsistency of boundaries and the fuzziness of distinctions (2010: 101). It is not the social constructedness or
variability of the dichotomy which she sees as problematic (2010: 121), however, but the assumption that it
continues to be possible to divide the world into public and private in the face of socio-technical systems that so
greatly expand the power of information (2010: 126). She argues that contextual integrity displaces the
public/private framework because it resolves, for instance, the problem of privacy in public, but one could equally
resolve what is actually the problem of legal interpretations of privacy problems in public places by criticizing the
reductive reading of the dichotomy, and prescribing a more protean and mobile appreciation of the distinction2

Even more specifically, passing the plan favors private

contractors that would replace the TSA this promotes neolib
market competition
Dan Tracy, 9-23-2014, "Sanford International Airport to replace TSA with private
security," OrlandoSentinel, http://www.orlandosentinel.com/travel/os-tsa-sanfordprivatize-20140923-story.html
TSA going out, private contractor coming in.
Private guards will take over security at Orlando Sanford International Airport early
next year a move U.S. Rep. John Mica and airport Director Larry Dale predict will result in more
passenger-friendly service and shorter lines. But even with privatization, the people staffing the
Sanford International Airport to get private security.

security checkpoints in Sanford most likely will be the same ones who are doing it now for the federal Transportation

The main difference is they will be reporting to Trinity Technology

Group, the Manassas, Va., company that just won a $24 million, 60-month contract to check
Security Administration.

passengers before they catch their flights in Sanford. The roughly 200 TSA officers now working at Sanford must be
offered the first shot at Trinity positions, according to federal law. And Trinity is required to offer roughly equivalent
wages and benefits. Mica, a Republican from Winter Park, and Dale maintain that Trinity and other privatesecurity companies, for that matter will save money by having fewer managers as well as having more flexibility
in firing poor performers. "I just believe private industry can do better than the government," said Dale, who
predicted Trinity guards will be more courteous and attentive to passengers, and its management will be more
flexible in scheduling workers to reduce lines during peak travel times. TSA spokeswoman Sari Koshetz would not
comment on criticisms by Dale and Mica, saying only that the agency had five complaints and dozens of
compliments last year from the more than 1.8 million passengers who went through Sanford. The switch, which
includes a four-month transition that starts Oct. 1, comes more than four years after Dale started pushing to replace
TSA. TSA's pre-check screening program -- in effect at 118 U.S. airports -- aims for speedy processing of select
passengers who have paid a fee, been fingerprinted and undergone a computer security check. Trinity already
provides security at smaller airports, such as Sioux Falls, S.D.; Santa Rosa, Calif.; and Tupelo, Miss., among others.
The Sanford airport handles nearly 2 million passengers annually. Although long lines at security have rarely been a
problem in Sanford, Dale has often complained that TSA was difficult to deal with and overly bureaucratic. With the
change, the TSA will continue to oversee security at Sanford airport, but Trinity will run the day-to-day operations.
Just like TSA, the Trinity employees will confirm tickets belong to the correct travelers, as well as check passengers
for contraband, such as explosives, and run the scanning machines. Trinity officials would not comment Tuesday to
the Orlando Sentinel. TSA officers who do not sign on with Trinity can apply for other government positions or retire,
Koshetz said. With the changeover, 19 airports nationally now have private security; the largest are San Francisco
International, Kansas City International and Greater Rochester International in New York. In Florida, Key West
International Airport has a private force, and Sarasota Bradenton International Airport is moving toward one. The
board of Orlando International Airport, which 35 million travelers passed through last year, has been considering a
switch to private security for 18 months. A 10-member panel was supposed to make a recommendation last fall but
has yet to vote on a suggestion for the board. Orlando International spokeswoman Carolyn Fennell said, "They are
still evaluating the information they have gathered." At Orlando, TSA made several changes to decrease the lines

passengers face at the checkpoints after the review was started.

security more quickly

As a result, travelers move through

than in years past, according to TSA statistics. TSA usually screens 50,000 travelers
and 38,000 checked bags daily at the airport. TSA was created after the terrorists attacks of 9-11. Private security
previously worked at airports. Leading the charge against TSA has been Mica, who helped draft the legislation that
created the agency. He has been pushing Orlando International to fire TSA, too, arguing it is bloated and top-heavy
with management. Mica also was instrumental in passing a law almost two years ago that made it easier for
airports to opt out of TSA. He said he was "pleased" that Sanford was going private and hopes other airports,
including Orlando, follow.