Nsa negative

The US is not a Model

(___)

(__) The US isn’t modeled and domestic surveillance isn’t key

Naughton, professor of the public understanding of technology at the Open University 2015
(John,. “Surveillance laws are being rewritten post-Snowden, but what will really change?; The ripples from the revelations of NSA surveillance can be felt around the world - but intelligence and law-enforcement agencies will carry on regardless,” Lexis Nexis, 6/17/2015)

At one level it's a significant moment: one in which - as a Guardian leader writer put it - "an outlaw rewrites the law". And in a few other countries, notably Germany, Snowden's revelations do seem to be having a demonstrable impact - as witnessed, for example, by the Bundestag's inquiry into NSA surveillance within the Federal Republic. These are non-trivial outcomes, but we shouldn't get carried away. The revelations have had close to zero effect on the way the British security agencies - and their political masters - go about things. And now that the Tories are liberated from the tiresome obsession of the Lib Dems with privacy and human rights, who knows what Theresa May and the spooks are cooking up? (The relevant passage in the Queen's speech merely says that "new legislation will modernise the law on communications data".) On the other side of the Atlantic, although the USA Freedom Act does introduce a number of reforms, the surveillance landscape remains largely unchanged. Americans' phone records will still be hoovered up - but now by the telephone companies, not the NSA - and access to them will require a warranting process. And elements of transparency around government surveillance and the operations of the secret Fisa court will be introduced. So while there is some good news for American citizens in the new legislation, the position for the rest of the world is that nothing changes. The US retains the right to snoop on us in any way it pleases - and of course to spy on any US citizen who has the misfortune to exchange a phone call or an email message with us. Edward Snowden's revelations have thus brought about some amelioration in the domestic surveillance regime within the US, but so far they have done little to protect those who live outside that benighted realm and quaintly regard privacy as a basic human right.

(__) Countries don’t model U.S. policy – it’s a myth.

Moravcsik, - Professor of Government and Director of the European Union Program at Harvard , 2005 (Andrew, University, January 31, 2005, Newsweek, “Dream On, America,” lexis)

The truth is that Americans are living in a dream world. Not only do others not share America's self-regard, they no longer aspire to emulate the country's social and economic achievements. The loss of faith in the American Dream goes beyond this swaggering administration and its war in Iraq. A President Kerry would have had to confront a similar disaffection, for it grows from the success of something America holds dear: the spread of democracy, free markets and international institutions--globalization, in a word.

Countries today have dozens of political, economic and social models to choose from. Anti-Americanism is especially virulent in Europe and Latin America, where countries have established their own distinctive ways--none made in America. Futurologist Jeremy Rifkin, in his recent book "The European Dream," hails an emerging European Union based on generous social welfare, cultural diversity and respect for international law--a model that's caught on quickly across the former nations of Eastern Europe and the Baltics. In Asia, the rise of autocratic capitalism in China or Singapore is as much a "model" for development as America's scandal-ridden corporate culture. "First we emulate," one Chinese businessman recently told the board of one U.S. multinational, "then we overtake."

Democracy doesn’t solve war- extension

(___)

(__) Democratic peace theory false- competing interests

Larison, columnist for The Week. PhD in history from the University of Chicago, 20 12.

(Daniel Larison. April 17, 2012. “Democratic Peace Theory Is False” http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/democratic-peace-theory-is-false/

Rojas’ claim depends entirely on the meaning of “genuine democracy.” Even though there are numerous examples of wars between states with universal male suffrage and elected governments (including that little dust-up known as WWI), the states in question probably don’t qualify as “genuine” democracies and so can’t be used as counter-examples. Regardless, democratic peace theory draws broad conclusions from a short period in modern history with very few cases before the 20th century. The core of democratic peace theory as I understand it is that democratic governments are more accountable to their populations, and because the people will bear the costs of the war they are going to be less willing to support a war policy. This supposedly keeps democratic states from waging wars against one another because of the built-in electoral and institutional checks on government power. One small problem with this is that it is rubbish. Democracies in antiquity fought against one another. Political equality and voting do not abolish conflicts of interest between competing states. Democratic peace theory doesn’t account for the effects of nationalist and imperialist ideologies on the way democratic nations think about war. Democratic nations that have professional armies to do the fighting for them are often enthusiastic about overseas wars. The Conservative-Unionist government that waged the South African War (against two states with elected governments, I might add) enjoyed great popular support and won a huge majority in the “Khaki” election that followed. As long as it goes well and doesn’t have too many costs, war can be quite popular, and even if the war is costly it may still be popular if it is fought for nationalist reasons that appeal to a majority of the public. If the public is whipped into thinking that there is an intolerable foreign threat or if they believe that their country can gain something at relatively low cost by going to war, the type of government they have really is irrelevant. Unless a democratic public believes that a military conflict will go badly for their military, they may be ready to welcome the outbreak of a war that they expect to win. Setting aside the flaws and failures of U.S.-led democracy promotion for a moment, the idea that reducing the number of non-democracies makes war less likely is just fantasy. Clashing interests between states aren’t going away, and the more democratic states there are in the world the more likely it is that two or more of them will eventually fight one another.

Democracy doesn’t solve war- extension

(___)

(__) Democracy doesn’t prevent war.

Goldstein, professor emeritus of international relations at American University,2011

(Joshua, is and author of Winning the War on War: The Decline of Armed Conflict Worldwide, Sept/Oct 2011, “Think Again: War. World peace could be closer than you think”, Foreign Policy)

"A More Democratic World Will Be a More Peaceful One." Not necessarily. The well-worn observation that real democracies almost never fight each other is historically correct, but it's also true that democracies have always been perfectly willing to fight nondemocracies. In fact, democracy can heighten conflict by amplifying ethnic and nationalist forces, pushing leaders to appease belligerent sentiment in order to stay in power. Thomas Paine and Immanuel Kant both believed that selfish autocrats caused wars, whereas the common people, who bear the costs, would be loath to fight. But try telling that to the leaders of authoritarian China, who are struggling to hold in check, not inflame, a popular undercurrent of nationalism against Japanese and American historical enemies. Public opinion in tentatively democratic Egypt is far more hostile toward Israel than the authoritarian government of Hosni Mubarak ever was (though being hostile and actually going to war are quite different things). Why then do democracies limit their wars to non-democracies rather than fight each other? Nobody really knows As the University of Chicago's Charles Lipson once quipped about the notion of a democratic peace, "We know it works in practice. Now we have to see if it works in theory!" The best explanation is that of political scientists Bruce Russett and John Oneal, who argue that three elements -- democracy, economic interdependence (especially trade), and the growth of international organizations -- are mutually supportive of each other and of peace within the community of democratic countries. Democratic leaders, then, see themselves as having less to lose in going to war with autocracies.

(__) Democracy doesn’t prevent the main threats to peace

Ostrowski, columnist at Lew Rockwell, 2002

(James, Staff – Rockwell, “The Myth of Democratic Peace, Spring, http://www.lewrockwell.com/ ostrowski/ostrowski72.html)

Spencer R. Weart alleges that democracies rarely if ever go to war with each other. Even if this is true, it distorts reality and makes people far too sanguine about democracy’s ability to deliver the world’s greatest need today – peace. In reality, the main threat to world peace today is not war between two nation-states, but (1) nuclear arms proliferation; (2) terrorism; and (3) ethnic and religious conflict within states. As this paper was being written, India, the world’s largest democracy, appeared to be itching to start a war with Pakistan, bringing the world closer to nuclear war than it has been for many years. The United States, the world’s leading democracy, is waging war in Afghanistan, which war relates to the second and third threats noted above – terrorism and ethnic/religious conflict. If the terrorists are to be believed – and why would they lie?─they struck at the United States on September 11th because of its democratically-induced interventions into ethnic/religious disputes in their parts of the world.

ⁱ