UQDomestic1NCDHS attention has refocused on lone wolf now the threat is growingFobbs 14 Kevin Fobbs began writing professionally in 1975 and has been published in the "New York Times," and written for the "Detroit News," "Michigan Chronicle,", GOPUSA, "Soul Source" magazine and "Writers Digest" magazine. As the former Community Concerns columnist for 12 years with The Detroit News, Is America ready U.S. officials fear radicalized lone-wolf terrorist plots maybe soon! http://buzzpo.com/america-ready-u-s-officials-fear-radicalized-lone-wolf-terrorist-plots-maybe-soon/How prepared do you believe America is if ISIS or Al Qaeda terrorism crept into your neighborhood and attacked? Are you as afraid as many U.S. intelligence community officials are who fear radicalized citizens will carry out lone-wolf terrorist plots? Maybe you and your family should be. Because, according to PBS News, Obama administration officials are suggesting a far ranging list of threat assessments to Americas national security. But chief among them are the lone-wolf terrorist plots because, they dont require large conspiracies of people whose emails or phone calls can be intercepted. Unlike the September 11th 2001 terrorist attacks on Americas homeland, these breed of terrorists are not only well trained but they have joined or are affiliated with ISIS; a well financed terrorist organizational network. This extremist group has established a highly efficient caliphate, or Islamic state, in eastern Syrian and northern and western Iraq; it is also the group that is responsible for the beheading of American journalist James Foley. Although Obama and his administration officials appear to be discounting the seriousness of terrorist attacks on America by lone-wolf operators to the same degree as Britain, they should. On Friday, England raised its terror threat to its second highest level from substantial to severe. They have based this reaction to intelligence community information in Britain that cites that an a foreign fighter danger that made a terrorist attack highly likely, reported PBS News. America does not have to wonder if this type of terrorism can happen, because it did with the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings. Several people were killed and dozens of innocent citizens were injured. By apparent self-radicalized American brothers Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Then of course there was the New York Times bomb attempt in 2010 by Faisal Shahzad. Shahzad had received training and instructions while in Pakistan. Is America ready for this threat, even though the White House refuses to declare the jihadists and ISIS declared terrorist intentions real? This should definitely concern the nation because it only take approximately 90 seconds of period of violence to harm hundred if not thousands of Americans, from the alleged 200 plus citizens who have gone to fight for extremist terrorists in Iraq and Syria. The real pressing urgent matter lies in the terrorist trained Americans that return to American soil. Rutgers University professor John Cohen who recently left as Homeland Security Departments counterterrorism coordinator stressed that the officials worked very hard, to detect Westerners who have gone to Syria, no one knows for sure whether there are those who have gone there undetected, reported PBS News. As the 9/11 terrorist attack anniversary approaches it is probably wise for all Americans to be aware of not just the possibility that a terrorist act could occur, but to report anything suspicious to law enforcement. Remember, America does not get a second chance to get it right.

2NCPreparedness is increasing local law enforcement are ramping up vigilance Perez and Prokupecz 15 -- Evan Perez joined CNN as a justice reporter in 2013. In his current role, he regularly writes for CNN.com and appears across the network's programs to report on his findings. Shimon Prokupecz covers law enforcement for CNN and is based in New York City. FBI struggling with surge in homegrown terror cases http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/28/politics/fbi-isis-local-law-enforcement/New York (CNN)The New York Police Department and other law enforcement agencies around the nation are increasing their surveillance of ISIS supporters in the U.S., in part to aid the FBI which is struggling to keep up with a surge in the number of possible terror suspects, according to law enforcement officials. The change is part of the fallout from the terrorist attack in Garland, Texas earlier this month. The FBI says two ISIS supporters attempted a gun attack on a Prophet Mohammad cartoon contest but were killed by police. One of the attackers, Elton Simpson, was already under investigation by the FBI but managed to elude surveillance to attempt the foiled attack. FBI Director James Comey told a group of police officials around the country in a secure conference call this month that the FBI needs help to keep tabs on hundreds of suspects. As a result, some police agencies are adding surveillance teams to help the FBI monitor suspects. Teams of NYPD officers trained in surveillance are now helping the FBI's surveillance teams to better keep track of suspects, law enforcement officials say. NYPD Commissioner William Bratton has said he wants to add 450 officers to the force's counterterrorism unit, partly to counter the increasing domestic threat posed by ISIS sympathizers. The same is happening with other police departments around the country. The Los Angeles Police Department's counterterrorism unit is also beefing up its surveillance squads at the request of the FBI, law enforcement officials say. Comey said at an unrelated news conference Wednesday that he has less confidence now that the FBI can keep up with the task. "It's an extraordinarily difficult challenge task to find -- that's the first challenge -- and then assess those who may be on a journey from talking to doing and to find and assess in an environment where increasingly, as the attorney general said, their communications are unavailable to us even with court orders," Comey said. "They're on encrypted platforms, so it is an incredibly difficult task that we are enlisting all of our state, local and federal partners in and we're working on it every single day, but I can't stand here with any high confidence when I confront the world that is increasingly dark to me and tell you that I've got it all covered," he said. "We are working very, very hard on it but it is an enormous task." On Saturday, an FBI spokesman said the bureau doesn't have a shortage of resources and the Garland attack wasn't the result of lack of surveillance personnel. If agents had any indication that Simpson was moving toward an attack, they would have done everything to stop it, the spokesman said. The appeal for local help isn't intended to seek more surveillance, but more broadly to encourage local law enforcement to increase vigilance given the heightened threat, the FBI said. The Garland attack prompted a reassessment for FBI officials. Simpson's social media and other communications with known ISIS recruiters drew the FBI's interest earlier this year. FBI agents in Phoenix began regular surveillance of Simpson, though it was not round-the-clock monitoring, according to a U.S. official. The agents watching Simpson noticed he disappeared for a few days. Investigators looked into his communications and found social media postings making reference to the Garland cartoon contest. That discovery is what prompted the FBI to send a bulletin to the joint terrorism task force that was monitoring the Garland event. The bulletin arrived about three hours before the attack. Comey told reporters this month the FBI had no idea Simpson planned to attack the event or even that he had traveled from his home in Phoenix to Texas.

GWOT1NCWere winning the war on terrorism now -- Continued vigilance is key Zenko 4/8/15 Zenko covers the U.S. national security debate and offers insight on developments in international security and conflict prevention. CIA Director: Were Winning the War on Terror, But It Will Never End http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2015/04/08/cia-director-were-winning-the-war-on-terror-but-it-will-never-end/Last night, Director of Central Intelligence John Brennan participated in a question-and-answer session at Harvard Kennedy Schools Institute of Politics. The first thirty-seven minutes consisted of an unusually probing exchange between Brennan and Harvard professor Graham Allison (full disclosure: Graham is a former boss of mine). Most notably, between 19:07 and 29:25 in the video, Allison pressed Brennan repeatedly about whether the United States is winning the war on terrorism and why the number of al-Qaeda-affiliated groups has only increased since 9/11: There seem to be more of them than when we startedHow are we doing? Brennan replied: If I look across the board in terms of since 9/11 at terrorist organizations, and if the United States in all of its various forms. In intelligence, military, homeland security, law enforcement, diplomacy. If we were not as engaged against the terrorists, I think we would be facing a horrendous, horrendous environment. Because they would have taken full advantage of the opportunities that they have had across the region We have worked collectively as a government but also with our international partners very hard to try and root many of them out. Might some of these actions be stimulants to others joining their ranks? Sure, thats a possibility. I think, though it has taken off of the battlefield a lot more terrorists, than it has put on. This statement is impossible to evaluate or measure because the U.S. government has consistently refused to state publicly which terrorist organizations are deemed combatants, and can therefore be taken out on the battlefield. However, relying upon the State Departments annual Country Reports on Terrorism,the estimated strength of all al-Qaeda-affiliated groups has grown or stayed the same since President Obama came into office. Of course, non-al-Qaeda-affiliated groups have arisen since 9/11, including the self-proclaimed Islamic State, which the Central Intelligence Agency estimated last September to contain up to 31,500 fighters, and Boko Haram, which has perhaps 10,000 committed members. However, the most interesting question posed to Brennan came at the very end from a Harvard freshman who identified himself as Julian: Weve been fighting the war on terror since 2001. Is there an end in sight, or should we get used to this new state of existence? Brennan replied: Its a long war, unfortunately. But its been a war that has been in existence for millennia, at the same timethe use of violence for political purposes against noncombatants by either a state actor or a subnational group. Terrorism has taken many forms over the years. What is more challenging now is, again, the technology that is available to terrorists, the great devastation that can be created by even a handful of folks, and also mass communication that just proliferates all of this activity and incitement and encouragement. So you have an environment now thats very conducive to that type of propaganda and recruitment efforts, as well as the ability to get materials that are going to kill people. And so this is going to be something, I think, that were always going to have to be vigilant about. There is evil in the world and some people just want to kill for the sake of killingThis is something that, whether its from this group right now or another group, I think the ability to cause damage and violence and kill will be with us for many years to come. We just have to not kill our way out of this because thats not going to address it. We need to stop those attacks that are in train but we also have to address some of those underlying factors and conditions. Im not saying that poverty causes somebody to become a terrorist, or a lack of governance, but they certainly do allow these terrorist organizations to grow and they take full advantage of those opportunities. To summarize, the war on terrorism is working, compared to inaction or other policies. But, the American people should expect it to continue for millennia, or as long as lethal technologies and mass communication remain available to evil people.2NC GenericCurrent strategies prevent attacks groups can still rebound intel key Pomerleau 4/24/15 Mark, bachelor's degree in Political Science from Westfield State University. a freelance journalist in Washington covering politics and policy. Is the US Winning the War on Terror? http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/blog/is-the-us-winning-the-war-on-terror/The War on Terror, or described differently, the global struggle to curb violent extremism, can be boiled down to optics and rhetoric. While military operations play a small role, the larger conflict encompasses so much more. The United States has struggled both on and off the battlefield to win this conflict but victory can be, and in this case, is subjective. Successes: The United States deposed the Taliban regime that ruled Afghanistan in the 1990s and early 2000s, that provided al-Qaeda safe-haven. The uprooting of these sanctuaries put both organizations on the run, which disrupted their long-term planning against the U.S. homeland. Drone strikes and raids have allowed the U.S. to take out several key leaders of these terrorist entities, dealing a blow to operational planning. Documents and correspondence between Osama bin Laden and his associates unveiled in the trial of an al-Qaeda member in February that the robust aerial drone campaign expanded by the Obama administration had a profound impact in limiting the movements of terrorist groups hiding out in Pakistan. The ability of drones to loiter 24/7 combined with Special Operations Forces raids allowed the United States to gain intrusive access to and vital intelligence about the inner workings of terrorist organizations. There has not been a successful attack on the homeland since 9/11, due in part to changes made to the intelligence community after 9/11 and counterterrorism operations. Additionally, the U.S. has made great strides in monitoring would-be domestic terror suspects and prosecuted them with the full extent of the law. Failures: While the U.S. was successful in degrading terrorist entities, it was unsuccessful in destroying them. Consider the Islamic State groups predecessor organization, al-Qaeda in Iraq/Islamic State of Iraq (AQI/ISI). The group was severely weakened as a result of the Iraqi Tribal Awakening Movement when Iraqi tribes joined the U.S. surge to dispel the violent insurgents. AQI/ISI was, however, never officially destroyed and its survivors were able to regroup and rebuild. Despite the demise of several key leaders of al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated groups, the strategy of leadership decapitation has not worked in dismantling these organizations. The Obama administration has made the mistake of thinking that if you sort of lop off the top of the pyramid, the whole thing crumbles, Tom Joscelyn, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies told lawmakersregarding the idea of destroying these terrorist groups by taking out their leadership. Al-Qaeda is not organized that way Joscelyn stated. However, it is also entirely possible that the U.S. is simply just trying to eliminate as many terrorists as possible in a sort-of whack-a-mole campaign, which would be equally ineffective, though the president has maintained he does not wish this as counterterrorism strategy. The drone campaign has been highly criticized by human rights groups for its collateral civilian damage. This collateral damage is also being touted as a recruiting device, which incites more people to join terrorist groups so they can retaliate against the United States. By some estimates, in confirmed strikes that have taken place in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, the number of civilians killed ranges from 237-308. A recent figure released by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, considered one of the premier sources for on-the-ground reporting in Syrias volatile civil war, 66 civilians have been killed in coalition air strikes. Though, collateral damage is expected in wars, the nature of drone strikes (e.g. zero risk to soldiers as well as controversial signature strikes that target a specific area based on behavioral patterns without knowing exactly who the targets are) obfuscates this reality. Civilians in nations where U.S. drones prominently operate have long feared succumbing to death. This reality hit home for Americans as the U.S. officially acknowledged yesterday that an American hostage and an Italian aid worker were killed in a strike that targeted a suspected militant compound. The government asserts that it was not aware the American was being held at that location. Similarly, U.S. raids by Special Operations Forces have also rendered tragic results. A U.S. raid in Yemen to rescue a U.S. hostage failed when the militants were alerted to the presence of U.S. soldiers and killed the American and a South African being held by the group, whom the U.S. did not know was present. Many of these failures boil down to intelligence and a willingness to pull the trigger. They contribute to a broader narrative of negative optics. The al-Qaeda vanguard movement was started by Osama bin Laden partially due to an undesired American presence in Muslim lands. Several groups have continued this narrative calling for lone wolf actors to incite violence inside western nations. The fact that the U.S. continues operations in these nations despite widespread reporting of collateral damage, that could preventable, only feeds this narrative. The U.S. has had great success in fighting terrorism over the last 14 years, especially in the military context. While the Islamic State group is marginally losing ground on the battlefield, governments are still struggling to figure out how to curb radical messaging and recruitment online. The U.S. battlefield successes to oust the Taliban could be for naught if, as suspected, the Afghan forces will not be able to stand up on their own against a formidable Taliban insurgency that is certain to continue to fight to reestablish their Islamic Emirate. With the online propaganda success of the Islamic State group, there has been a greater need for the non-military counterterror metrics. Many have questioned if U.S. counterterror policies (military and non-military such as controversial sting operations in American communities thought to drive non-violent individuals to commit crimes) are creating more terrorists than killing them. Despite the great successes, however, it is not overtly clear that the U.S. is winning the War on Terror.

Intel Key Well win the WOT intel gathering is key McDONOUGH 2/28/15 Doug, Citing American spy, James Olson U.S. winning the war on terror http://www.myplainview.com/news/article_c1881ec4-bf9b-11e4-a9b1-b342ff9491d6.htmlAfter spending 31 years as an American spy, James Olson is blunt in his assessment. "Make no mistake, our country is at war," he said Thursday while keynoting the annual Plainview Chamber of Commerce banquet. "It's a war on terror, and it will be long, bloody and deadly. But America will win this war because our best young people today are stepping forward in droves." While many of those are putting on uniforms and joining the ranks of the nation's combat forces on the front lines, still more are going in harm's way behind the scenes as counterintelligence operatives. "We are on the front lines in the war on terror," Olson warns. "And we will be hit again, inside our own borders. It will be a weapon of mass destruction, and no region or sector is immune from this attack. The best way to combat this threat is through good intelligence." Olson was in his final year as a law student at the University of Iowa on the fast track to fulfill his dream of practicing law in a rural town when he received a phone call one Friday afternoon.

UQ CP 1NCThe United States federal government should Streamline funding for fusion centers Require the FBI to share relevant information with state and local law enforcement Establish an office within the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate efforts countering violent extremism

That fills the holes in counterterrorism -- Perm cant solve Inserra 15 -- David Inserrais a Research Associate for Homeland Security and Cyber Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign and National Security Policy, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation. 68th Terrorist Plot Calls for Major Counterterrorism Reforms http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/05/68th-terrorist-plot-calls-for-major-counterterrorism-reformsStrengthening the Counterterrorism Enterprise In light of these warnings, the U.S. cannot be passive. Heritage has recommended numerous counterterrorism policies for Congress to address, including: Streamlining U.S. fusion centers. Congress should limit fusion centers to the approximately 30 areas with the greatest level of risk as identified by the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI). Some exceptions might exist, such as certain fusion centers that are leading cybersecurity or other important topical efforts. The remaining centers should then be fully funded and resourced by UASI. Pushing the FBI toward being more effectively driven by intelligence. While the FBI has made high-level changes to its mission and organizational structure, the bureau is still working to integrate intelligence and law enforcement activities. This will require overcoming cultural barriers and providing FBI intelligence personnel with resources, opportunities, and the stature they need to become a more effective and integral part of the FBI. Ensuring that the FBI shares information more readily and regularly with state and local law enforcement and treats state and local partners as critical actors in the fight against terrorism. State, local, and private-sector partners must send and receive timely information from the FBI. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should play a role in supporting these partners efforts by acting as a source or conduit for information to partners and coordinating information sharing between the FBI and its partners. Designating an office in DHS to coordinate countering violent extremism (CVE) efforts. CVE efforts are spread across all levels of government and society. DHS is uniquely situated to lead the federal governments efforts to empower local partners. Currently, DHSs CVE working group coordinates efforts across DHS components, but a more substantial office will be necessary to manage this broader task. Supporting state, local, and civil society partners. Congress and the Administration should not lose sight of the fact that all of the federal governments efforts must be focused on empowering local partners. The federal government is not the tip of the spear for CVE efforts; it exists to support local partners who are in the best position to recognize and counter radicalization in their own communities. Maintaining essential counterterrorism tools. Support for important investigative tools is essential to maintaining the security of the U.S. and combating terrorist threats. Legitimate government surveillance programs are also a vital component of U.S. national security and should be allowed to continue. The need for effective counterterrorism operations, however, does not relieve the government of its obligation to follow the law and respect individual privacy and liberty. In the American system, the government must do both equally well. Ensuring Security In the midst of this surge in terrorist activity, the U.S. must recommit itself to counterterrorism efforts. Improving intelligence tools, information sharing with state and local law enforcement, and local civil society outreach to counter radicalization should be a priority for Congress.2NC -- Fusion CentersFusion centers are crucial to support investigations into potential threatsVicinanzo 15 -- HSToday, Amanda Vicinanzo, Senior Editor Gaps In Info Sharing Continue To Hinder Counterterrorism Efforts http://www.hstoday.us/briefings/daily-news-analysis/single-article/gaps-in-info-sharing-continue-to-hinder-counterterrorism-efforts/b365f132d73fa2a44e1966dfbee3340a.htmlThe September 11, 2001 attacks demonstrated the importance of information sharing between local, state, tribal and federal law enforcement and homeland security partners in the wake of a devastating terrorist attacks. However, while progress has been made, significant challenges continue to hinder state and local law enforcement from sharing information on threats to the homeland. To address remaining gaps in federal, state and local information sharing, the House Committee on Homeland Securitys Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence recently convened a hearing to examine areas where information sharing can be improved. A common trend in these different reviews is the need for federal departments and agencies to view state and local law enforcement as partners in national security and counterterrorism, the need for leadership within organizations to ensure accountability for information sharing, wider access to necessary databases, and the professionalization of analysis and information sharing, said subcommittee chairman Peter King (R-NY). Chief Richard Beary, president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), testified that the 9/11 Commission rightly asserted that ineffective information sharing severely handicapped our nations homeland security efforts. Since then, Beary explained there has been substantial movement in the right direction, but our work is not done. Beary stated IACP strongly agrees with the recommendations laid out in the report of the Business Executives for National Security (BENS), particularly the recommendation that ownership and management of the integrated fusion centers should continue to be managed by state and local stakeholders with the support of federal entities. Mike Sena, president of the National Fusion Center Association (NFCA), testified that fusion centers have played a significant role in the dramatic progress law enforcement, public safety and intelligence communities have made over the past decade in analyzing and sharing threat information. The Majority Staff Report on the National Network of Fusion Centers issued by the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence in July 2015 recognized the direct impact of fusion center information sharing on terrorism investigations. According to information provided by the FBI and Department of Justice, between December 2008 and December 2012, 176 SARs [suspicious activity reports] entered by fusion centers into the eGuardian or Shared Spaces SAR databases [] resulted in the FBI opening new terrorism investigations. In addition, 289 Terrorist Watchlist encounters reported by fusion centers enhanced existing FBI cases. Sena also agreed with many of the recommendations included in the BENS report, particularly the recommendation to establish a domestic threat framework for assessing and prioritizing threats and information needs. However, Sena disagreed with some of the assumptions made by the report. For example, the BENS report recommended establishment of regional fusion centers on top of what is already in existence today. Sena believes this recommendation is unnecessary and could have a negative impact on the ability of fusion centers in those areas to accomplish their core missions. Sena asserted fusion centers are increasingly contributing analytical and information sharing efforts to address cyber threats. For example, in late November and early December 2014 during the events in Ferguson, Missouri, the NFCA Cyber Intelligence Network hosted a virtual situational awareness room (referred to as CINAWARE) on the Homeland Security Information Network. The CINAWARE room facilitated information sharing across agencies, with more than 350 individuals from fusion centers and other federal, state and local agencies around the country participated in the CINAWARE room between mid-November and early December. That level of threat information sharing was impossible only a few years ago, yet it is becoming essential, Sena said.

2NC -- FBI Plank Info-sharing is crucial to preventing domestic lone-wolf terror decentralizes information and allows for specializationDowning 13 -- Preventing the Next Lone Wolf Terrorist Attack Requires Stronger FederalStateLocal Capabilities Michael P. Downing is Deputy Chief, Commanding Officer, Counter-Terrorism and Special Operations Bureau, Los Angeles Police Department. Matt A. Mayer is a Visiting Fellow at The Heritage Foundation and author of Homeland Security and Federalism: Protecting America from Outside the Beltway. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/06/preventing-the-next-lone-wolf-terrorist-attack-requires-stronger-federalstatelocal-capabilitiesFortunately, state and local organizations recognize that outreach and engagement strategies build trust and solve community problems at the grassroots level. Indeed, state and local law enforcement have spent years developing a relationship of trust with local leaders. No one knows this landscape better than the boots on the ground. The integration of these sometimes-isolated communities into the greater fold of society has never been more importantand is not the job of federal authorities. It is, of course, impossible to know whether all of these puzzle piecesor even some of themwould have been pieced together by the BPD and/or the FBI. Yet the goal of the U.S. domestic counterterrorism enterprise is not to provide an impenetrable defense against terrorism; rather, the objective is to give federal, state, and local law enforcement the greatest possible number of constitutionally grounded opportunities to detect and stop potential terrorists. Rather than again debate the dangerous proposal of a domestic intelligence agency, the counter-terrorism conversation should focus on how legally and ethically to take advantage of the decentralized, community-focused, and well-positioned nature of state and local law enforcement. Without question, had the FBI shared its interview actions with the BPD, local law enforcement would have had a much greater chance of detecting Tsarnaevs extremism. Federal law enforcement is not designed to fight against this kind of threat; it is built to battle against cells, against groups, and against organizations, but not against individuals. As a consequence, U.S. national strategy reinforces the community policing, outreach, and engagement model of state and local enforcement. Why do we continue to underutilize these resources? Four Key Reforms Still Needed The FBI must share more broadly with state and local law enforcement. Despite the lessons of 9/11 and other terrorist plots, the culture of the FBI continues to resist sharing information with state and local law enforcement. This culture must change, and it must change rapidly. As large-scale, complicated terrorist attacks become harder to execute, the lone wolf scenario becomes more of a threat. America therefore has to leverage the experience, capabilities, authorities, and relationships found in local law enforcement to detect budding terrorists before they strike. If the FBI believes it could not effectively share the information related to Tsarnaev because of advice provided by the United States Attorneys Office, then one of two things needs to happen: Either Congress should pass legislation allowing such information to be shared, or accountability for decision making needs to be assessed. Local cyber capabilities must be a priority. Building cyber investigation capabilities in the higher-risk urban areas must become a primary focus of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security grants. With so much terrorism-related activity occurring on the Internet, local law enforcement must have the ability to constitutionally monitor and track violent extremist activity on the Web when reasonable suspicion exists to do so. Community outreach remains a vital tool. Federal grant funds should also be used to create robust community outreach capabilities in higher-risk urban areas. Such capabilities are key to building trust in local communities, and if the United States is to thwart lone wolf terrorist attacks successfully, it must do so by putting effective community outreach operations at the tip of the spear. Re-examine the FBIs lead agency function. The lone wolf attack in Boston was first a crime and then a terrorist act. The responsibility for public safety and the investigation of crimes at the local level rests with the local police agency, except in those cases in which the FBI determines that it will assume control of the investigation. With regard to public safety information and intelligence flow, such a policy relegates both the police department and the state sovereign to a subordinateand potentially isolatedposition. Therefore, this policy should be re-examined both in terms of best practice and in terms of its legal framework. Additionally, federal entities are often reluctant to release information that may prove embarrassinga practice that may arise during an investigation in local public safety matters. Information that comes first to the entity that leads an investigation is always subject to restriction by those in charge. The decision to censor or withhold any information related to local public safety should always be in the hands of those who have the sovereign duty and obligation for public safety at the local level. Decisions related to the criminal investigations should belong to the local police department rather than the federal government.

NSA1NCPlan allows effective cyberterrorism -- Continued NSA metadata surveillance is key the NSA will fill current gaps but the plan curtails that Goldsmith 13 -- Jack Goldsmith, a contributing editor, teaches at Harvard Law School and is a member of the Hoover Institution Task Force on National Security and Law. We Need an Invasive NSA http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115002/invasive-nsa-will-protect-us-cyber-attacksEver since stories about the National Security Agencys (NSA) electronic intelligence-gathering capabilities began tumbling out last June, The New York Times has published more than a dozen editorials excoriating the national surveillance state. It wants the NSA to end the mass warehousing of everyones data and the use of back doors to break encrypted communications. A major element of the Times critique is that the NSAs domestic sweeps are not justified by the terrorist threat they aim to prevent. At the end of August, in the midst of the Times assault on the NSA, the newspaper suffered what it described as a malicious external attack on its domain name registrar at the hands of the Syrian Electronic Army, a group of hackers who support Syrian President Bashar Al Assad. The papers website was down for several hours and, for some people, much longer. In terms of the sophistication of the attack, this is a big deal, said Marc Frons, the Times chief information officer. Ten months earlier, hackers stole the corporate passwords for every employee at the Times, accessed the computers of 53 employees, and breached the e-mail accounts of two reporters who cover China. We brought in the FBI, and the FBI said this had all the hallmarks of hacking by the Chinese military, Frons said at the time. He also acknowledged that the hackers were in the Times system on election night in 2012 and could have wreaked havoc on its coverage if they wanted. Illustration by Harry Campbell Such cyber-intrusions threaten corporate America and the U.S. government every day. Relentless assaults on Americas computer networks by China and other foreign governments, hackers and criminals have created an urgent need for safeguards to protect these vital systems, theTimes editorial page noted last year while supporting legislation encouraging the private sector to share cybersecurity information with the government. It cited General Keith Alexander, the director of the NSA, who had noted a 17-fold increase in cyber-intrusions on critical infrastructure from 2009 to 2011 and who described the losses in the United States from cyber-theft as the greatest transfer of wealth in history. If a catastrophic cyber-attack occurs, the Timesconcluded, Americans will be justified in asking why their lawmakers ... failed to protect them. When catastrophe strikes, the public will adjust its tolerance for intrusive government measures. The Times editorial board is quite right about the seriousness of the cyber- threat and the federal governments responsibility to redress it. What it does not appear to realize is the connection between the domestic NSA surveillance it detests and the governmental assistance with cybersecurity it cherishes. To keep our computer and telecommunication networks secure, the government will eventually need to monitor and collect intelligence on those networks using techniques similar to ones the Timesand many others find reprehensible when done for counterterrorism ends. The fate of domestic surveillance is today being fought around the topic of whether it is needed to stop Al Qaeda from blowing things up. But the fight tomorrow, and the more important fight, will be about whether it is necessary to protect our ways of life embedded in computer networks. Anyone anywhere with a connection to the Internet can engage in cyber-operations within the United States. Most truly harmful cyber-operations, however, require group effort and significant skill. The attacking group or nation must have clever hackers, significant computing power, and the sophisticated softwareknown as malwarethat enables the monitoring, exfiltration, or destruction of information inside a computer. The supply of all of these resources has been growing fast for many yearsin governmental labs devoted to developing these tools and on sprawling black markets on the Internet. Telecommunication networks are the channels through which malware typically travels, often anonymized or encrypted, and buried in the billions of communications that traverse the globe each day. The targets are the communications networks themselves as well as the computers they connectthings like the Times servers, the computer systems that monitor nuclear plants, classified documents on computers in the Pentagon, thenasdaq exchange, your local bank, and your social-network providers. To keep these computers and networks secure, the government needs powerful intelligence capabilities abroad so that it can learn about planned cyber-intrusions. It also needs to raise defenses at home. An important first step is to correct the market failures that plague cybersecurity. Through law or regulation, the government must improve incentives for individuals to use security software, for private firms to harden their defenses and share information with one another, and for Internet service providers to crack down on the botnetsnetworks of compromised zombie computersthat underlie many cyber-attacks. More, too, must be done to prevent insider threats like Edward Snowdens, and to control the stealth introduction of vulnerabilities during the manufacture of computer componentsvulnerabilities that can later be used as windows for cyber-attacks. And yet thats still not enough. The U.S. government can fully monitor air, space, and sea for potential attacks from abroad. But it has limited access to the channels of cyber-attack and cyber-theft, because they are owned by private telecommunication firms, and because Congress strictly limits government access to private communications. I cant defend the country until Im into all the networks, General Alexander reportedly told senior government officials a few months ago. For Alexander, being in the network means having government computers scan the content and metadata of Internet communications in the United States and store some of these communications for extended periods. Such access, he thinks, will give the government a fighting chance to find the needle of known malware in the haystack of communications so that it can block or degrade the attack or exploitation. It will also allow it to discern patterns of malicious activity in the swarm of communications, even when it doesnt possess the malwares signature. And it will better enable the government to trace back an attacks trajectory so that it can discover the identity and geographical origin of the threat. Alexanders domestic cybersecurity plans look like pumped-up versions of the NSAs counterterrorism-related homeland surveillance that has sparked so much controversy in recent months. That is why so many people in Washington think that Alexanders vision has virtually no chance of moving forward, as the Times recently reported. Whatever trust was there is now gone, a senior intelligence official told Times. There are two reasons to think that these predictions are wrong and that the government, with extensive assistance from the NSA, will one day intimately monitor private networks. The first is that the cybersecurity threat is more pervasive and severe than the terrorism threat and is somewhat easier to see. If the Times website goes down a few more times and for longer periods, and if the next penetration of its computer systems causes large intellectual property losses or a compromise in its reporting, even the editorial page would rethink the proper balance of privacy and security. The point generalizes: As cyber-theft and cyber-attacks continue to spread (and they will), and especially when they result in a catastrophic disaster (like a banking compromise that destroys market confidence, or a successful attack on an electrical grid), the public will demand government action to remedy the problem and will adjust its tolerance for intrusive government measures. At that point, the nations willingness to adopt some version of Alexanders vision will depend on the possibility of credible restraints on the NSAs activities and credible ways for the public to monitor, debate, and approve what the NSA is doing over time. Which leads to the second reason why skeptics about enhanced government involvement in the network might be wrong. The public mistrusts the NSA not just because of what it does, but also because of its extraordinary secrecy. To obtain the credibility it needs to secure permission from the American people to protect our networks, the NSA and the intelligence community must fundamentally recalibrate their attitude toward disclosure and scrutiny. There are signs that this is happeningand that, despite the undoubted damage he inflicted on our national security in other respects, we have Edward Snowden to thank. Before the unauthorized disclosures, we were always conservative about discussing specifics of our collection programs, based on the truism that the more adversaries know about what were doing, the more they can avoid our surveillance, testified Director of National Intelligence James Clapper last month. But the disclosures, for better or worse, have lowered the threshold for discussing these matters in public. In the last few weeks, the NSA has done the unthinkable in releasing dozens of documents that implicitly confirm general elements of its collection capabilities. These revelations are bewildering to most people in the intelligence community and no doubt hurt some elements of collection. But they are justified by the countervailing need for public debate about, and public confidence in, NSA activities that had run ahead of what the public expected. And they suggest that secrecy about collection capacities is one value, but not the only or even the most important one. They also show that not all revelations of NSA capabilities are equally harmful. Disclosure that it sweeps up metadata is less damaging to its mission than disclosure of the fine-grained details about how it collects and analyzes that metadata. It is unclear whether the governments new attitude toward secrecy is merely a somewhat panicked reaction to Snowden, or if its also part of a larger rethinking about the need for greater tactical openness to secure strategic political legitimacy. Let us hope, for the sake of our cybersecurity, that it is the latter.

Cyber war causes nuclear lashoutFritz 9 (Jason - former Captain of the U.S. Army, July, Hacking Nuclear Command and Control)The US uses the two-man rule to achieve a higher level of security in nuclear affairs. Under this rule two authorized personnel must be present and in agreement during critical stages of nuclear command and control. The President must jointly issue a launch order with the Secretary of Defense; Minuteman missile operators must agree that the launch order is valid; and on a submarine, both the commanding officer and executive officer must agree that the order to launch is valid. In the US, in order to execute a nuclear launch, an Emergency Action Message (EAM) is needed. This is a preformatted message that directs nuclear forces to execute a specific attack. The contents of an EAM change daily and consist of a complex code read by a human voice. Regular monitoring by shortwave listeners and videos posted to YouTube provide insight into how these work. These are issued from the NMCC, or in the event of destruction, from the designated hierarchy of command and control centres. Once a command centre has confirmed the EAM, using the two-man rule, the Permissive Action Link (PAL) codes are entered to arm the weapons and the message is sent out. These messages are sent in digital format via the secure Automatic Digital Network and then relayed to aircraft via single-sideband radio transmitters of the High Frequency Global Communications System, and, at least in the past, sent to nuclear capable submarines via Very Low Frequency (Greenemeier 2008, Hardisty 1985). The technical details of VLF submarine communication methods can be found online, including PC-based VLF reception. Some reports have noted a Pentagon review, which showed a potential electronic back door into the US Navys system for broadcasting nuclear launch orders to Trident submarines (Peterson 2004). The investigation showed that cyber terrorists could potentially infiltrate this network and insert false orders for launch. The investigation led to elaborate new instructions for validating launch orders (Blair 2003). Adding further to the concern of cyber terrorists seizing control over submarine launched nuclear missiles; The Royal Navy announced in 2008 that it would be installing a Microsoft Windows operating system on its nuclear submarines (Page 2008). The choice of operating system, apparently based on Windows XP, is not as alarming as the advertising of such a system is. This may attract hackers and narrow the necessary reconnaissance to learning its details and potential exploits. It is unlikely that the operating system would play a direct role in the signal to launch, although this is far from certain. Knowledge of the operating system may lead to the insertion of malicious code, which could be used to gain accelerating privileges, tracking, valuable information, and deception that could subsequently be used to initiate a launch. Remember from Chapter 2 that the UKs nuclear submarines have the authority to launch if they believe the central command has been destroyed. Attempts by cyber terrorists to create the illusion of a decapitating strike could also be used to engage fail-deadly systems. Open source knowledge is scarce as to whether Russia continues to operate such a system. However evidence suggests that they have in the past. Perimetr, also known as Dead Hand, was an automated system set to launch a mass scale nuclear attack in the event of a decapitation strike against Soviet leadership and military. In a crisis, military officials would send a coded message to the bunkers, switching on the dead hand. If nearby ground-level sensors detected a nuclear attack on Moscow, and if a break was detected in communications links with top military commanders, the system would send low-frequency signals over underground antennas to special rockets. Flying high over missile fields and other military sites, these rockets in turn would broadcast attack orders to missiles, bombers and, via radio relays, submarines at sea. Contrary to some Western beliefs, Dr. Blair says, many of Russia's nuclear-armed missiles in underground silos and on mobile launchers can be fired automatically. (Broad 1993) Assuming such a system is still active, cyber terrorists would need to create a crisis situation in order to activate Perimetr, and then fool it into believing a decapitating strike had taken place. While this is not an easy task, the information age makes it easier. Cyber reconnaissance could help locate the machine and learn its inner workings. This could be done by targeting the computers high of level officialsanyone who has reportedly worked on such a project, or individuals involved in military operations at underground facilities, such as those reported to be located at Yamantau and Kosvinksy mountains in the central southern Urals (Rosenbaum 2007, Blair 2008) Indirect Control of Launch Cyber terrorists could cause incorrect information to be transmitted, received, or displayed at nuclear command and control centres, or shut down these centres computer networks completely. In 1995, a Norwegian scientific sounding rocket was mistaken by Russian early warning systems as a nuclear missile launched from a US submarine. A radar operator used Krokus to notify a general on duty who decided to alert the highest levels. Kavkaz was implemented, all three chegets activated, and the countdown for a nuclear decision began. It took eight minutes before the missile was properly identifieda considerable amount of time considering the speed with which a nuclear response must be decided upon (Aftergood 2000). Creating a false signal in these early warning systems would be relatively easy using computer network operations. The real difficulty would be gaining access to these systems as they are most likely on a closed network. However, if they are transmitting wirelessly, that may provide an entry point, and information gained through the internet may reveal the details, such as passwords and software, for gaining entrance to the closed network. If access was obtained, a false alarm could be followed by something like a DDoS attack, so the operators believe an attack may be imminent, yet they can no longer verify it. This could add pressure to the decision making process, and if coordinated precisely, could appear as a first round EMP burst. Terrorist groups could also attempt to launch a non-nuclear missile, such as the one used by Norway, in an attempt to fool the system. The number of states who possess such technology is far greater than the number of states who possess nuclear weapons. Obtaining them would be considerably easier, especially when enhancing operations through computer network operations. Combining traditional terrorist methods with cyber techniques opens opportunities neither could accomplish on their own. For example, radar stations might be more vulnerable to a computer attack, while satellites are more vulnerable to jamming from a laser beam, thus together they deny dual phenomenology. Mapping communications networks through cyber reconnaissance may expose weaknesses, and automated scanning devices created by more experienced hackers can be readily found on the internet. Intercepting or spoofing communications is a highly complex science. These systems are designed to protect against the worlds most powerful and well funded militaries. Yet, there are recurring gaffes, and the very nature of asymmetric warfare is to bypass complexities by finding simple loopholes. For example, commercially available software for voice-morphing could be used to capture voice commands within the command and control structure, cut these sound bytes into phonemes, and splice it back together in order to issue false voice commands (Andersen 2001, Chapter 16). Spoofing could also be used to escalate a volatile situation in the hopes of starting a nuclear war. In June 1998, a group of international hackers calling themselves Milw0rm hacked the web site of Indias Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) and put up a spoofed web page showing a mushroom cloud and the text If a nuclear war does start, you will be the first to scream (Denning 1999). Hacker web-page defacements like these are often derided by critics of cyber terrorism as simply being a nuisance which causes no significant harm. However, web-page defacements are becoming more common, and they point towards alarming possibilities in subversion. During the 2007 cyber attacks against Estonia, a counterfeit letter of apology from Prime Minister Andrus Ansip was planted on his political party website (Grant 2007). This took place amid the confusion of mass DDoS attacks, real world protests, and accusations between governments.

Goldsmith Impact Overview 1). Cyberterror causes nuclear war terrorists use spoofing to fool radars and make it look like an attack is taking place causes miscalc and escalation thats Fritz2). Turns econ terrorist attacks wreck market confidence and deter investment -- thats Goldsmith -- Best studies prove growth solves conflictJedidiah Royal 10, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, Economic Integration, Economic Signalling And The Problem Of Economic Crises, in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215Second, on a dyadic level. Copeland's (1996. 2000) theory of 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 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. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession lends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-rein force each other. (Blombcrj! & Hess. 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg. Hess. & Weerapana, 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), DeRouen (1995), and Blombcrg. Mess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999). and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics arr 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.3). Terrorists could target the grid thats goldsmith causes extinction WND 9/4 (WND, WorldNetDaily News Company, ISIS THREAT LOOMS OVER U.S. HOMELAND, http://mobile.wnd.com/2014/09/isis-threat-looms-over-u-s-homeland/, September 9, 2014)*edited for language 'Militants expressing increased interest in notion they could infiltrate' ISIS bluster that threatens the U.S. Long-known al-Qaida links to south-of-the-border drug cartels. A porous U.S-Mexico border. Gunshots at a California power plant. The individual reports may not cause immediate alarm, but a panel of experts who have connected the dots on threats against the U.S. is warning that the nation needs to be looking at the big picture and preparing its defenses appropriately. Now. The warnings come from a panel set up by the Secure the Grid Coalition at the Washington-based Center for Security Policy. At a National Press Club news conference this week were Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs and now president of the CSP; threat expert Dr. Peter Vincent Pry; Ambassador Henry F. Cooper; actress and activist Kelly Carson; and F. Michael Maloof, a former senior security policy analyst in the office of the secretary of defense and now a senior writer with WND. Hes authored A Nation Forsaken on the dangers to the U.S. from an attack on its power grid, especially from electromagnetic pulse. There have been multiple reports of ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria making statements threatening an attack on the U.S. homeland. And its well-documented that al-Qaida, the Muslim terror worlds bad boy before ISIS arrived, is linked closely with drug cartels, many of which have a presence inside some 1,200 of Americas large cities. Further, the U.S. southern border now easily can be crossed illegally. And there already may have been a dry run attack on the U.S. power grid, which, in a collapse, would leave Americas defense capabilities severely handicapped. Such concerns have been underscored in recent days by an interview Judicial Watch had with U.S. intelligence officials and the Texas Department Safety. It confirmed that ISIS is present across the Texas border in Juarez, Mexico, where an intelligence unit has picked up increased chatter in recent days. While Mexican authorities have denied ISIS presence in Mexico and its ability to illegally enter the U.S., Maloof pointed out that three hardened Ukrainian criminals walked into the U.S. from Mexico undetected and have yet to be apprehended. Similarly, there has been evidence uncovered that various nationalities from Pakistan and various Arab countries have entered the U.S. undetected, taking advantage of the porous southern border. Put it all together, panel members said at a news conference in Washington on Wednesday, and the threat the U.S. is facing should be considered immediate and substantial. Its all related, Maloof said. One thing leads to another Its the domino effect. He noted a series of incidents at a Metcalf power plant in San Jose, California, that suggest someone still unknown has been exploring what it takes to bring down a major component of the nations grid. Former Rep. Allen West bluntly called the situation a dry run for something bigger. WND reported the utility company, whose operation was disabled in the attack, has offered a $250,000 reward for the arrest and conviction of the perpetrators. West explained, On April 16, 2013, snipers waged a 52-minute attack on a central California electrical substation. According to reports by Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, the sniper attack started when at least one person entered an underground vault to cut telephone cables, and attackers fired more than 100 shots into Pacific Gas & Electrics Metcalf transmission substation, knocking out 17 transformers. Electric officials were able to avert a blackout, but it took 27 days to repair the damage, he wrote. My concern is that this may have been a dry run for something far bigger. We should be demanding an update on the investigation as to the perpetrators of this attack who escaped without detection, he said. WB248Pry pointed out that jihadists already are aware of the vulnerability of a countrys grid system by having knocked out completely the entire grid of the country of Yemen last June. Read the book thats documenting the worry about the EMP threat, A Nation Forsaken. The Metcalf attack came one day after the Boston Marathon bombing that killed three people and wounded 264 others. The Boston Marathon suspects are from the Russian North Caucasus, which prompted the Federal Bureau of Investigation to get involved in the investigation of the sniper attack on the transformers. There is a large community of Chechen and North Caucasus immigrants in the San Jose area. Chechen jihadists also have been very prominent in Syria where it is battling to overthrow the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. There also were reports only days after the California sniper attack of a shoot-out when a security guard at the TVA Watts Bar Nuclear Plant in Spring City, Tennessee, was confronted by a suspect at 2 a.m. TVA spokesperson Jim Hopson said the subject traveled up to the plant on a boat and walked onto the property. When the officer questioned the suspect, the individual fired multiple shots at the officer. The officer shot back, and when he called for backup, the suspect sped away on his boat, reports said. And just a few days ago, the California plant, after spending millions of dollars on heightened security, again was targeted by a break-in attempt, authorities have reported. Maloof explained after the news conference that the big picture underscores the potential for an ISIS threat on the grid. He pointed out how al-Qaida, which is known to have drug cartel links and likely sleeper agents in the United States through those organizations, has been morphing into ISIS, and the belligerent threats made against the U.S. by that group. And he noted that the U.S. grid remains vulnerable and taking it down in any significant way could cause calamities for the U.S., since the nations food, fuel, energy, banking and communications industries all are dependent on electricity. Whenever you start tampering with the grid, youre affecting the life-sustaining critical infrastructures, Maloof said. Our entire survival is based on technology and electronics that, in turn, are based on the electrical flow. If thats interrupted for any period of time, there are catastrophes over a wide geographic area. Reports just this week revealed social media chatter shows Islamic State militants are keenly aware of the porous U.S.-Mexico border, and are expressing an increased interest in crossing over to carry out a terrorist attack. A law enforcement advisory said, A review of ISIS social media messaging during the week ending August 26 shows that militants are expressing an increased interest in the notion that they could clandestinely infiltrate the southwest border of U.S., for [a] terror attack. Maloof explained at the news conference that Americas enemies know the vulnerabilities of our grid they will at some point try to attack. The threat is there, he said. ISIS operatives can easily come through the [southern] border. And because they [ISIS] have proxies in the U.S., the potential for a catastrophe exists. The president could take his pen and make [the problem] a priority, he said. At the federal level they dont have a plan, so the state and local level wont have a plan.

4). Could also target nuclear plants thats goldsmith causes extinction Wasserman 2, Harvey Wasserman, Senior Editor The Free Press, Americas Self-Imposed Terror Threat, The Earth Island Journal, Spring 2002, http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal...7&journalID=63As US bombs and missiles began to rain on Afghanistan, the certainty of terror retaliation inside the US has turned our 103 nuclear powerplants into potential weapons of apocalyptic destruction, just waiting to be used against us. One or both planes that crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11 could have easily obliterated the two atomic reactors now operating at Indian Point, about 40 miles up the Hudson River. Indian Point Unit One was shut long ago by public outcry. But Units 2 and 3 have operated since the 1970s. Reactor containment domes were built to withstand a jetliner crash but today's jumbo jets are far larger than the planes that were flying in the 1970s. Had one of those hijacked jets hit one of the operating reactors at Indian Point, the ensuing cloud of radiation would have dwarfed the ones at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The intense radioactive heat within today's operating reactors is the hottest anywhere on the planet. Because Indian Point has operated so long, its accumulated radioactive burden far exceeds that of Chernobyl. The safety systems are extremely complex and virtually indefensible. One or more could be wiped out with a small aircraft, ground-based weapons, truck bombs or even chemical/biological assaults aimed at the work force. A terrorist assault at Indian Point could yield three infernal fireballs of molten radioactive lava burning through the earth and into the aquifer and the river. Striking water, they would blast gigantic billows of horribly radioactive steam into the atmosphere. Thousands of square miles would be saturated with the most lethal clouds ever created, depositing relentless genetic poisons that would kill forever. Infants and small children would quickly die en masse. Pregnant women would spontaneously abort or give birth to horribly deformed offspring. Ghastly sores, rashes, ulcerations and burns would afflict the skin of millions. Heart attacks, stroke and multiple organ failure would kill thousands on the spot. Emphysema, hair loss, nausea, inability to eat or drink or swallow, diarrhea and incontinence, sterility and impotence, asthma and blindness would afflict hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Then comes the wave of cancers, leukemias, lymphomas, tumors and hellish diseases for which new names will have to be invented. Evacuation would be impossible, but thousands would die trying. Attempts to quench the fires would be futile. More than 800,000 Soviet draftees forced through Chernobyl's seething remains in a futile attempt to clean it up are still dying from their exposure. At Indian Point, the molten cores would burn uncontrolled for days, weeks and years. Who would volunteer for such an American task force? The immediate damage from an Indian Point attack (or a domestic accident) would render all five boroughs of New York City an apocalyptic wasteland. As at Three Mile Island, where thousands of farm and wild animals died in heaps, natural ecosystems would be permanently and irrevocably destroyed. Spiritually, psychologically, financially and ecologically, our nation would never recover. This is what we missed by a mere 40 miles on September 11. Now that we are at war, this is what could be happening as you read this. There are 103 of these potential Bombs of the Apocalypse operating in the US. They generate a mere 8 percent of our total energy. Since its deregulation crisis, California cut its electric consumption by some 15 percent. Within a year, the US could cheaply replace virtually all the reactors with increased efficiency. Yet, as the terror escalates, Congress is fast-tracking the extension of the Price-Anderson Act, a form of legal immunity that protects reactor operators from liability in case of a meltdown or terrorist attack. Do we take this war seriously? Are we committed to the survival of our nation? If so, the ticking reactor bombs that could obliterate the very core of our life and of all future generations must be shut down.

Links Generic Domestic surveillance is key to intel gathering allows effective executive decision-making Bolton 13 -- John Bolton,a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, served as US ambassador to the United Nations in 2005-06. 3 views on NSA reform after Snowden leaks http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/One-Minute-Debate-3-Views/2013/0926/3-views-on-NSA-reform-after-Snowden-leaks/Don-t-overreact-Anger-over-abuses-must-not-harm-NSA-capabilities-secrecyFor years, America's enemies have yearned to cripple its foreign electronic intelligence-gathering capabilities. Now, the ongoing furor over the National Security Agency (NSA) gives them the chance. Outright falsehoods, distortions, and hysteria have unfortunately been fueled by actual abuses and mistakes. We face a general debate about whether vital electronic-surveillance programs should be substantially curtailed. We must prevent hype and anger over specific abuses from harming the NSA's actual capabilities and the secrecy needed to protect them. Intelligence exists not for its own sake but to support executive decisionmaking. Accordingly, President Obama is principally responsible for explaining and advocating clandestine activities. This, he appallingly failed to do. Mr. Obama must act like a president, leading the defense of our embattled capabilities. The inevitable congressional proceedings must not repeat the irreparable damage that the 1970s-era congressional investigative committees caused the CIA. Deficiencies there were, but our enemies were the principal beneficiaries of the committees' destructive investigations. Most important, whatever fixes are made today must not deny America the tools to protect itself from terrorists, their state sponsors, and foreign adversaries, many of which are developing massive cyberwarfare programs. Moreover, the largely preventable or imaginary invasions of privacy pale before security breakdowns that have allowed serious intelligence leaks. The NSA's opponents should be put on notice: If you materially restrict surveillance capabilities, you risk having American blood on your hands. Yes, stop the abuses, increase constitutional oversight, tighten NSA security, and demand accountability. But do not render America deaf and blind.Thats key the president is the cornerstone of national securityBerman 13 -- Emily Berman, Assistant Professor, Brooklyn Law School. New York University School of Law, LL.M. 2011, J.D. 2005. THE PARADOX OF COUNTERTERRORISM SUNSET PROVISIONS http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4863&context=flr One crucial element of any discussion of counterterrorism powers goes unaddressed in the accounts of legislators and commentators who favor sunsets: the President dominates the formulation of national security and foreign affairs policy in ways that he does not in any other policy area. This domination arises from many sources, including the drastic expansion of presidential power in the post-war era, which is most highly pronounced in the national security context;228 the advantage that accompanies the Presidents position as first mover in responding to crises; the ability to act quickly and secretly; the Presidents role as the sole organ of U.S. foreign affairs;229 the executives information monopoly; substantive expertise in military and security matters; and a norm of executive primacy that fosters expectations that the President will take the lead in national security.230Domestic Surveillance is necessary to stop terror and foreign espionage the NSA has found a happy medium between privacy and security now Honorof 13 Marshall How the NSA's Spying Keeps You Safe http://www.tomsguide.com/us/nsa-spying-keeps-safe,review-1899.htmlThe U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) may have taken some fairly extreme liberties when it comes to collecting user data, but the organization hasn't acted on a whim. Call the NSA's surveillance unethical or unconstitutional or dangerous, but it has a responsibility to protect the United States with every tool at its disposal. If you haven't been keeping up with the issue, Americans and Britons are very angry with their governments right now. Reports from The Guardian and The New York Times indicate that the NSA and its British counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), have the capacity to intercept just about everything their citizens do online, from social media information to encrypted emails. While this anger is both understandable and justifiable, relatively few people have stopped to consider the other side of the coin. You can have total privacy or total national security, but you cannot have both. A modern democratic society requires a compromise between the two extremes. The most important thing to keep in mind is that there is, at present, absolutely no indication that the NSA has done anything illegal or outside the parameters of its mission statement. The NSA monitors external threats to the U.S., and, in theory, does not turn its attention to American citizens without probable cause. There is no evidence to the contrary among the documents that Edward Snowden leaked. "How do we protect our nation? How do we defend it?" asked Gen. Keith Alexander, the NSA's director, at the Black Hat 2013 security conference, held in Las Vegas in July. "[This information] is not classified to keep it from you: a good person. It's classified because sitting among you are people who wish us harm." While the thought of the NSA controlling every bit of information that the average American citizen posts online is disconcerting, Alexander maintained that a terrorist attack is even worse for a country's basic freedoms. "What we're talking about is future terrorist attacks," Alexander said, discussing a number of planned attacks that the NSA foiled over the last 10 years. "It is worth considering what would have happened in the world if those attacks 42 of those 54 were terrorist plots if they were successfully executed. What would that mean to our civil liberties and privacy?" James Lewis, a researcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, agrees. "The NSA said there were 54 cases where they were able to detect plans and stop them, and 50 of them led to arrests," Lewis told Tom's Guide. "Fifty doesn't sound like a lot compared to the number of records [the NSA collected], but would you have preferred to have 50 more Boston bombings?" Counterterrorism is not the only function of the NSA's widespread surveillance. Although it cannot report exact numbers, Lewis theorizes that the data-mining has allowed the NSA to put a stop to a number of international espionage plots. "The original intent of all these programs was to find foreign spies," he said. "They haven't talked about that, but presumably there have been some successes there, too. A lot of times when you see things and there doesn't appear to be any explanation of how we seemed to magically know about it, it might very well be espionage." As an example of how domestic surveillance can unearth international plots, Lewis pointed to the North Korean ship stopped in Panama in August 2013. The vessel turned out to be smuggling illegal arms from Cuba. "The Panamanians just woke up one day and decided to look in their ship? I think not," Lewis said. The NSA is not the only government in the world that runs surveillance programs. In fact, if the NSA is keeping tabs on you, there's a good chance that other countries are as well. If you're lucky, they'll be Germany and Australia; if not, then Russia and China may have you under the microscope. Robert David Graham, founder and chief executive officer of Errata Security, spoke with Tom's Guide about how countries leverage surveillance data. "There are two parts to the information," he said. "Information about foreigners and information about your own citizens. The information you get about your own citizens affects political processes within your own country." He went on to explain that if you stir up negative sentiment about Germany, for example, the Germans can hoard your emails just the same as the NSA. Just like the NSA, though, they are unlikely to do anything with those emails unless you represent some kind of clear threat. "The Russians and the Chinese don't have anything to learn about how to do surveillance from us," Lewis said. He explained that the Scandinavian countries and Australia have programs that rival the NSA's as well. "It's just par for the course everywhere in the world." Lewis believes that the NSA's surveillance is much less problematic than its transparency on the issue. "[Security and privacy] have to be balanced, and the debate has largely been 'they should stop doing this,'" he said. "It's weird seeing Rand Paul and the ACLU getting together [to condemn the NSA]. If Rand Paul is for it, it's probably a bad idea." The NSA is also taking the lion's share of the blame for a problem that began at the dawn of the consumer Internet age, got worse after 9/11, and still continues to this day: Internet privacy, or more accurately, the almost total lack thereof. "There really isn't any privacy anymore, and I don't think Americans have realized that," Lewis said. Credit card companies, for example, know just about everything about you, right down to what street you've lived on every year of your life. "This was commercial The NSA just happens to be the poster child for this at the moment." There's one thing on which both staunch critics like Graham and fierce proponents like Lewis agree: The U.S. government must be clear and open with its citizens regarding the need for security, even when that security becomes invasive. "Total security means zero privacy. Total privacy means zero security," Graham said. "The extremes are what we have to fear The NSA should be monitoring people. It's just the issue of monitoring Americans without probable cause that really bothers the heck out of me." "If you have the right rules, if you have the right laws, if you have the right amount of transparency, you can feel comfortable with this," Lewis said. "Comfortable" is a very strong word, but if the choice is between invasive surveillance and the very real threats of terrorism and espionage, it's not so easy to write the NSA off entirely.Even altering metadata policy would eviscerate counterterrorism effortsWiser 15 Daniel Wiser is a staff writer for the Washington Free Beacon. U.S. Surveillance Programs Could Expire, Despite Terror Threat http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-surveillance-programs-could-expire-despite-terror-threat/The decreased authorities for counterterrorism agents would come as the FBI is reportedly scrambling to cope with a proliferation of terror suspects inspired by the Islamic State (IS). Two IS sympathizersincluding one who was monitored by the FBIwere killed by police in Garland, Texas, earlier this month before they could attack a Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest. James Comey, director of the FBI, said at a press conference on Wednesday that terror suspects are increasingly using encrypted platforms to evade U.S. surveillance. I cant stand here with any high confidence when I confront the world that is increasingly dark to me and tell you that Ive got it all covered, he said. We are working very, very hard on it but it is an enormous task. The House-passed USA Freedom Actwhich has the backing of the Obama administration and would transfer metadata storage from the government to telephone companiesappears to have the best chance of passage before the deadline. But it is not without critics. Sen. Richard Burr (R., N.C.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said earlier this month that the House bill provided illusory protection because it did not require telecommunications companies to retain data. He has since introduced a bill that would gradually shift the storage of metadata to corporations but require them to inform the government before they alter their data retention policies. Sen. Dan Coats (R., Ind.), another member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote in a recent op-ed that the transfer of data to phone companies would require an expansive regulatory system and might be operationally useless. I am deeply concerned that ending the current program would render our counterterrorism tools less agile and unreliable, he said. The remaining capability would be less responsive, if not operationally useless. The Patriot Act fight is likely to last right until the deadline, as proponents of the surveillance programs try to corral supporters during a congressional recess. Its all very up in the air right now, said one Senate aide tracking the debate.

Terrorists are paying attention to metadata collection if it stops theyll exploit holes Newsmax 15 Citing CIA Chief John Brennan CIA Chief: Ending NSA Spying Would Boost Terror Threat http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/john-brennan-patriot-act-terrorism/2015/05/31/id/647804/CIA chief John Brennan warned Sunday that allowing vital surveillance programs to expire could increase terror threats, as the US Senate convened for a crunch debate on whether to renew the controversial provisions. With key counterterrorism programs set to expire at midnight Sunday, the top intelligence official made a final pitch to senators, arguing that the bulk data collection of telephone records of millions of Americans unconnected to terrorism has not abused civil liberties and only serves to safeguard citizens. "This is something that we can't afford to do right now," Brennan said of allowing the expiration of counterterrorism provisions, which "sunset" at the end of May 31. "Because if you look at the horrific terrorist attacks and violence being perpetrated around the globe, we need to keep our country safe, and our oceans are not keeping us safe the way they did century ago," he said CBS' "Face the Nation" talk show. Brennan added that groups like Islamic State have followed the developments "very carefully" and are "looking for the seams to operate." The House has already passed a reform bill, the USA Freedom Act, that would end the telephone data dragnet by the National Security Agency and require a court order for the NSA to access specific records from the vast data base retained by telecommunications companies. If no action is taken by the Senate Sunday, authorities will be forced to shut down the bulk collection program and two other provisions, which allow roving wiretaps of terror suspects who change their mobile phone numbers and the tracking of lone-wolf suspects. Senator Rand Paul, a Republican 2016 presidential candidate adamantly opposed to reauthorizing the surveillance, is threatening to delay votes on the reform bill or an extension of the original USA Patriot Act. That would force the counterterrorism provisions to lapse until at least Wednesday. Former NSA chief Michael Hayden, who is also a former CIA director, equated such a temporary lapse as "giving up threads" in a broader protective fabric. "It may not make a difference for a while. Then again, it might," he told CNN's State of the Union. "Over the longer term, I'm willing to wager, it will indeed make a difference."

Domestic surveillance is a key link informs troops on the ground McLaughlin 14 -- John McLaughlin teaches at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He was deputy director and acting director of the CIA from 2000 to 2004. NSA intelligence-gathering programs keep us safe http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/nsa-intelligence-gathering-programs-keep-us-safe/2014/01/02/0fd51b22-7173-11e3-8b3f-b1666705ca3b_story.htmlIts time we all came to our senses about the National Security Agency (NSA). If it is true, as many allege, that the United States went a little nuts in its all-out pursuit of al-Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, it is equally true that we are going a little nuts again in our dogged pursuit of the post-Snowden NSA. Those who advocate sharply limiting the agencys activities ought to consider that its work is the very foundation of U.S. intelligence. I dont mean to diminish the role of other intelligence agencies, and I say this as a 30-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency who is CIA through and through. But in most cases, the NSA is the starting point for determining what holes need to be filled through other means of intelligence-collection. Thats because its information on foreign developments is so comprehensive and generally so reliable. It is the core of intelligence support to U.S. troops in battle. Any efforts to rein in the agency must allow for the possibility that change risks serious damage to U.S. security and the countrys ability to navigate in an increasingly uncertain world. The presumption that the NSA spies on Americans should also be challenged. In my experience, NSA analysts err on the side of caution before touching any data having to do with U.S. citizens. In 2010, at the request of then-Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, I chaired a panel investigating the intelligence communitys failure to be aware of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the underwear bomber who tried to blow up a commercial plane over Detroit on Dec. 25, 2009. The overall report remains classified, but I can say that the government lost vital time because of the extraordinary care the NSA and others took in handling any data involving a U.S. person. (Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian, was recruited and trained by the late Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen based in Yemen.) Regarding outrage over the NSAs collection of telephone calling records, or metadata, I dont know why anyone would have greater confidence in this information being held by private companies. And given the perceived threat to privacy, its astonishing how little attention has been paid to the Senate commerce committees recent report on companies that gather personal information on hundreds of millions of Americans and sell it to marketers, often highlighting people with financial vulnerability. Some companies group the data into categories including rural and barely making it, retiring on empty and credit crunched: city families. The aim is often to sell financially risky products to transient consumers with low incomes, the report found. Thats a real scandal and a universe away from the NSAs ethical standards and congressional oversight. The NSA, of course, is not perfect. But it is less a victim of its actions theindependent commission appointed by President Obama found no illegality or abuses than of the broad distrust of government that has taken root in the United States in recent decades. Studies by Pew and others show distrust of government around 80 percent, an all-time high. This distrust is the only logical explanation I see for fear of data being held by the government and its not a circumstance the NSA created. Although our society lauds, in almost Stepford Wives-like fashion, the merits of transparency, it lacks a collective, mature understanding of how intelligence works, how it integrates with foreign policy and how it contributes to the national welfare. Meanwhile, prurient interest in the details of leaked intelligence skyrockets, and people devour material that is not evidence of abuse but merely fascinating and even more fascinating to U.S. adversaries. So what makes sense going forward? Clearly, the widespread perception that there is at least the potential for abuse when the government holds information even as limited as telephone call metadata must be addressed. The recent presidential commission recommended adding a public privacy advocate to the deliberation process of courts that approve warrants one proposal that would do no harm. But as the administration contemplates reform, it must reject any ideas that add time and process between the moment the NSA picks up a lead overseas and the time it can cross-check records to determine whether there is a domestic dimension to overseas plotting. As our debate continues, the terrorist threat is not receding but transforming. The core leadership of al-Qaeda has been degraded and remains under pressure, but robust al-Qaeda affiliates have multiplied. With the decline of central government authority in the Middle East and North Africa in the wake of the Arab Spring and the war in Syria, terrorists have the largest havens and areas for operational planning in a decade. If anything, the atomization of the movement has made the job of intelligence more labor-intensive, more detail-oriented and more demanding. Now is not the time to give up any tool in the counterterrorism arsenal.

--CyberLong list of potential state-sponsored cyber-attackers the NSA is keyVan Cleave 13 -- Michelle Van Cleave served as the head of US counterintelligence under President George W. Bush and is now a principal with the Jack Kemp Foundation. What It Takes: In Defense of the NSA http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/what-it-takes-defense-nsaThe United States has built a global intelligence apparatus because it has global interests and global responsibilities. We have taken seriously the duties of leader of the free world, as two world wars, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and freedom fighters in many parts of the world can att