Argument Analysis Applied to Homeland Security Essay

Privacy, Security, Whistleblowing

[Surveillance is a necessary evil to prevent terrorist attacks from happening.]A [For example, the secret "PRISM" effort saved New York City's subways from a 2009 terrorist plot led by a young Afghan-American, Najibullah Zazi.]

A = Main Argument

Surveillance is a necessary evil to prevent terrorist attacks

B = Level

The secret PRISM effort saved New York City's subways in 2009 from a terrorist plot.

Claim B. is Level 1 and supports Argument A, which is the main argument.

[Surveillance violates the right to privacy by citizens worldwide.]A [Of course, citizens already release their private data to government and companies alike, whether it be the tax office, health services or banks.]B [However, in all those cases, we can decide for ourselves which information is shared, so our privacy is not violated, whereas the government surveillance schemes sweep up information without our explicit permission.]C

C = Main Argument

Decide for ourselves what information to share + government surveillance sweeps without explicit permission.

B = Level 1

Surveillance violates the right to privacy by citizens.

A = Level 1

Citizens release private date to government and companies.

C is the main argument. The main argument shows that both Claim A and Claim B. occur independently at the same time. Neither Claim is dependent on the other, neither Claim restricts or facilitates the other Claim. Hence, both Claims are Level 1.

[Surveillance on the scale revealed by Snowden should be stopped.]A [Surveillance should be stopped because it can be abused by government to get back at its critics.]B [Given the past track record of U.S. Government, this is not entirely unlikely. For example:]C [Firstly, the department of Homeland Security did conduct in the past inappropriate surveillance of protesters associated with Occupy Wall Street.]D [Also, the Justice Department's inspector general found that the F.B.I. monitored a political group because of its anti-war views.]E [Finally, a former C.I.A. official says that the agency gathered information about a prominent war critic in order to discredit him.]F [Then again, potential abuse would probably stifle any government initiative.]G

G = Level 1

Potential abuse would probably stop government initiative

B = Level 1

Surveillance can be abused to get back at critics.

A = Main Argument

Surveillance on the "Snowden scale" should be stopped.

C = Level 2

There is a government track record of abuse.

F = Level 3

CIA gathered data to discredit a prominent war critic.

E = Level 3

FBI monitored anti-war political group.

D = Level 3

Inappropriate surveillance of Occupy protestors by HS.

There are three Level 3 Claims: Claim D, Claim E, and Claim F. All three Level 3 Claims support the Level 2 Claim C. since they provide an example of the more general Claim C. There are two Level 2 Claims: Claim B.….....