Verbatim 4.6



West Coast PublishingSurveillance 2015SeptemberEdited by Jim HansonResearchersAdam McKibben, Ben Menzies, Eric Robinson, Greta Stahl, Jonathan Barsky, Jonathan Shane, Kendra Doty, Matt Stannard, Shelby Pryor, William James TaylorThanks for using our Policy, LD, Public Forum, and Extemp Materials.Please don’t share this material with anyone outside of your schoolincluding via print, email, dropbox, google drive, the web, etc. We’re a small non-profit; please help us continue to provide our products.Contact us at jim@ Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance.SEPTEMBER EVIDENCE FILE INTROSURVEILLANCE 2015-2016WEST COAST SEPTEMBERResolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance.Finding Arguments in this FileUse the table of contents on the next pages to find the evidence you need or the navigation bar on the left. We have tried to make the table of contents as easy to use as possible. You’ll find scenario/impacts, affirmatives, disadvantages, counterplans, and kritiks listed alphabetically in their categories.Using the arguments in this FileWe encourage you to be familiar with the evidence you use. Highlight (underline) the key lines you will use in the evidence. Cut evidence from our files, incorporate your and others’ research and make new files. File the evidence so that you can easily retrieve it when you need it in debate rounds. Practice reading the evidence out-loud; Practice applying the arguments to your opponents’ positions; Practice defending your evidence in rebuttal speeches.Use West Coast Evidence as a BeginningWe hope you enjoy our evidence files and find them useful. In saying this, we want to make a strong statement that we make when we coach and that we believe is vitally important to your success: DO NOT USE THIS EVIDENCE AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Instead, let it serve as a beginning. Let it inform you of important arguments, of how to tag and organize your arguments, and to offer citations for further research. Don’t stagnate in these files--build upon them by doing your own research for updates, new strategies, and arguments that specifically apply to your opponents. In doing so, you’ll use our evidence to become a better debater.Copying West Coast EvidenceOur policy gives you the freedom to use our evidence for educational purposes without violating our hard work. You may print and copy this evidence for those on your team.You may not electronically share nor distribute this evidence with anyone other than those on your team unless you very substantially change each page of material that you share.For unusual situations, you can e-mail us at jim@ and seek our consent.Ordering West Coast Materials1. Visit the West Coast Web Page at 2. E-mail us at jim@3. Fax us at 877-781-5058Copyright 2015. West Coast Publishing. All Rights Reserved.Visit our web page! TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance. PAGEREF _Toc429743987 \h 2 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc429743988" SEPTEMBER EVIDENCE FILE INTRO PAGEREF _Toc429743988 \h 3 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc429743989" Animal Disease Treatment AFF PAGEREF _Toc429743989 \h 21ADT hurts farmers PAGEREF _Toc429743990 \h 22ADT is bad for the economy PAGEREF _Toc429743991 \h 25ADT won’t work effectively PAGEREF _Toc429743992 \h 28Cattle industry is bad PAGEREF _Toc429743993 \h 30Meat industry is bad PAGEREF _Toc429743994 \h 32ADT won’t prevent disease PAGEREF _Toc429743995 \h 34Zoonotic disease risk low PAGEREF _Toc429743996 \h 35***Phone Data Mining/ Wire Tapping Case Neg*** PAGEREF _Toc429743997 \h 361NC—Topicality PAGEREF _Toc429743998 \h 37“End” Definition—“No Longer Continue to Exist” PAGEREF _Toc429743999 \h 39***A/T Civil Liberties Adv*** PAGEREF _Toc429744000 \h 401NC—Inherency PAGEREF _Toc429744001 \h 411NC—Solvency PAGEREF _Toc429744002 \h 421NC—Impact Defense PAGEREF _Toc429744003 \h 43No Solvency—Backdoor Surveillance Power PAGEREF _Toc429744004 \h 44Impact Defense—Impact Inevitable PAGEREF _Toc429744005 \h 45No Solvency—Reform Fails PAGEREF _Toc429744006 \h 46Security O/W Civil Liberties PAGEREF _Toc429744007 \h 47***A/T Econ/ International Business Adv*** PAGEREF _Toc429744008 \h 481NC—Inherency PAGEREF _Toc429744009 \h 491NC—No Internal Link PAGEREF _Toc429744010 \h 501NC—No Impact PAGEREF _Toc429744011 \h 51UQ—US Econ High Now PAGEREF _Toc429744012 \h 52Int. Link Defense—A/T “Tech Business Key” PAGEREF _Toc429744013 \h 53Impact Defense—Interdependence Prevents War PAGEREF _Toc429744014 \h 54Int. Link Defense—A/T “Econ Decline Causes War” PAGEREF _Toc429744015 \h 55Impact Defense—US Econ Resilient PAGEREF _Toc429744016 \h 56***A/T Soft Power/ Credibility Adv*** PAGEREF _Toc429744017 \h 571NC—No Inherency PAGEREF _Toc429744018 \h 581NC—No Solvency PAGEREF _Toc429744019 \h 591NC—No Impact PAGEREF _Toc429744020 \h 61No UQ—Lack of Consistency/ Failure PAGEREF _Toc429744021 \h 62Alt Causes—Oil Export Ban PAGEREF _Toc429744022 \h 63Alt Causes—CIA Torture Report PAGEREF _Toc429744023 \h 64No Solvency—Targeted Campaigns Key PAGEREF _Toc429744024 \h 65***Generic Disad Links*** PAGEREF _Toc429744025 \h 66Terrorism Disad—Link—Wiretapping PAGEREF _Toc429744026 \h 67Crime Disad—Link—Wiretapping PAGEREF _Toc429744027 \h 68Crime/ Terrorism Disad—Link—Wiretapping PAGEREF _Toc429744028 \h 69Crime/ Terrorism Disad—Link—Wiretapping PAGEREF _Toc429744029 \h 70Crime/ Terrorism Disad—Link—Wiretapping PAGEREF _Toc429744030 \h 71***Solvency*** PAGEREF _Toc429744031 \h 721NC—Solvency PAGEREF _Toc429744032 \h 73Circumvention—Happening Now PAGEREF _Toc429744033 \h 74Circumvention—Loop Holes PAGEREF _Toc429744034 \h 75***Counter Plan*** PAGEREF _Toc429744035 \h 761NC—CP PAGEREF _Toc429744036 \h 77Solvency—Legal Authority PAGEREF _Toc429744037 \h 78Solvency—Legal Precision PAGEREF _Toc429744038 \h 79Solvency—Legal Precision PAGEREF _Toc429744039 \h 80Net Benefit—Circumvention PAGEREF _Toc429744040 \h 81Common Core Education AFF PAGEREF _Toc429744041 \h 821AC PAGEREF _Toc429744042 \h 831AC PAGEREF _Toc429744043 \h 841AC PAGEREF _Toc429744044 \h 861AC PAGEREF _Toc429744045 \h 871AC PAGEREF _Toc429744046 \h 881AC PAGEREF _Toc429744047 \h 89Common Core is Surveillance Topicality PAGEREF _Toc429744048 \h 90Common Core is “Surveillance” PAGEREF _Toc429744049 \h 91Corporate Control Internal Links PAGEREF _Toc429744050 \h 93Common Core bolsters corporate control (general) PAGEREF _Toc429744051 \h 94Common Core bolsters corporate control (general) PAGEREF _Toc429744052 \h 96Teachers are corporatized PAGEREF _Toc429744053 \h 97Privatization of education leads to extinction PAGEREF _Toc429744054 \h 98Neoliberalism – General extension PAGEREF _Toc429744055 \h 99Future workers/tools PAGEREF _Toc429744056 \h 100Neoliberalism Impacts PAGEREF _Toc429744057 \h 101Critical Thinking Extension PAGEREF _Toc429744058 \h 103Testing focus bad PAGEREF _Toc429744059 \h 104Critical thinking requires openness PAGEREF _Toc429744060 \h 105Utilitarian mindset PAGEREF _Toc429744061 \h 106Student agency PAGEREF _Toc429744062 \h 107Postmodernist Thinking PAGEREF _Toc429744063 \h 108Critical thinking impacts PAGEREF _Toc429744064 \h 109The Education Debate (case extension and will answer multiple DAs) PAGEREF _Toc429744065 \h 111Fails / Bad for education PAGEREF _Toc429744066 \h 112No textbooks PAGEREF _Toc429744067 \h 113Does not prepare for college PAGEREF _Toc429744068 \h 114No education uniformity PAGEREF _Toc429744069 \h 115Testing focus fails PAGEREF _Toc429744070 \h 116Topicality PAGEREF _Toc429744071 \h 117A2: “its” Topicality (federal program) PAGEREF _Toc429744072 \h 118A2: “its” Topicality (federal program) PAGEREF _Toc429744073 \h 120A2: Economic Competitiveness DA / Education PAGEREF _Toc429744074 \h 121Education low now PAGEREF _Toc429744075 \h 122Competitiveness low now PAGEREF _Toc429744076 \h 123Competitiveness internal link answers PAGEREF _Toc429744077 \h 124Democracy answer PAGEREF _Toc429744078 \h 125Hegemony answer PAGEREF _Toc429744079 \h 126A2: States CP PAGEREF _Toc429744080 \h 127Competitiveness turn PAGEREF _Toc429744081 \h 128Inherency Freedom-Patriot Acts AFF PAGEREF _Toc429744082 \h 129Freedom Act Makes Data Collection Easier PAGEREF _Toc429744083 \h 130Freedom Act Makes Cosmetic Changes Only PAGEREF _Toc429744084 \h 131Other Mechanisms to Collect Data Untouched by Freedom Act PAGEREF _Toc429744085 \h 133Obama Will Ignore the Freedom Act PAGEREF _Toc429744086 \h 135Most Surveillance Remains in Status Quo PAGEREF _Toc429744087 \h 136Internet Surveillance AFF PAGEREF _Toc429744088 \h 138Inherency PAGEREF _Toc429744089 \h 139Civil Liberties/Privacy Adv PAGEREF _Toc429744090 \h 141Decreased Surveillance Key to Privacy PAGEREF _Toc429744091 \h 142Tech Leadership/Credibility Adv PAGEREF _Toc429744092 \h 144Decreased Surveillance Key to Security/Privacy PAGEREF _Toc429744093 \h 145Tech Credibility Good – Repressive Regimes Internal PAGEREF _Toc429744094 \h 147International Law Adv PAGEREF _Toc429744095 \h 148Solvency – Decreased Surveillance Key PAGEREF _Toc429744096 \h 149Information Overload Adv PAGEREF _Toc429744097 \h 150Specific Targeted Searches – Key to Solve Terrorism PAGEREF _Toc429744098 \h 151No Solvency – Collect-it-All Fails PAGEREF _Toc429744099 \h 152Solvency PAGEREF _Toc429744100 \h 153Decreasing Network Surveillance Solves – Democracy/Ethics PAGEREF _Toc429744101 \h 154Decreasing Network Surveillance Solves – Fundamental Rights PAGEREF _Toc429744102 \h 155Decreased Surveillance Solves – Economy PAGEREF _Toc429744103 \h 156FG Solves – Reform Possible PAGEREF _Toc429744104 \h 157A/T Politics PAGEREF _Toc429744105 \h 158Link Turn - Plan Popular PAGEREF _Toc429744106 \h 159A/T FISA CP PAGEREF _Toc429744107 \h 160No Solvency PAGEREF _Toc429744108 \h 161Muslim Surveillance Extensions AFF PAGEREF _Toc429744109 \h 162A/T Counter Plan PAGEREF _Toc429744110 \h 163FBI surveillance of Muslims is increasing now PAGEREF _Toc429744111 \h 164FBI/DOJ profiling reforms do not decrease anti-Muslim surveillance PAGEREF _Toc429744112 \h 165FBI/DOJ profiling reforms do not decrease anti-Muslim surveillance PAGEREF _Toc429744113 \h 166The FBI is structurally racist against Muslims PAGEREF _Toc429744114 \h 167The FBI is structurally racist against Muslims PAGEREF _Toc429744115 \h 169The “no-fly” list is used for anti-Muslim surveillance PAGEREF _Toc429744116 \h 170The FBI coerces Muslims to be spies/informants PAGEREF _Toc429744117 \h 172Anti-Muslim surveillance should be rejected PAGEREF _Toc429744118 \h 173A2: Terrorism Disadvantages PAGEREF _Toc429744119 \h 175Prison Surveillance AFF PAGEREF _Toc429744120 \h 176Inherency PAGEREF _Toc429744121 \h 177Surveillance Increasing Now – Tech PAGEREF _Toc429744122 \h 178Prison Conditions – Bad Now PAGEREF _Toc429744123 \h 180Harms/Prison Surveillance Bad PAGEREF _Toc429744124 \h 181Surveillance in Prisons Bad – Psychological Pain PAGEREF _Toc429744125 \h 182Surveillance in Prisons Bad – Privacy PAGEREF _Toc429744126 \h 183Surveillance in Prisons Bad – Racism PAGEREF _Toc429744127 \h 185Surveillance in Prisons Bad – Body Cavity Searches PAGEREF _Toc429744128 \h 186Solvency PAGEREF _Toc429744129 \h 187Limiting Surveillance – Solves Civil Liberty Violations/Racism PAGEREF _Toc429744130 \h 188Limiting Surveillance – Solves Sexual Assaults PAGEREF _Toc429744131 \h 189Limiting Surveillance – Solves Prison Conditions PAGEREF _Toc429744132 \h 190A/T Politics PAGEREF _Toc429744133 \h 191Link Turn - Plan Bipartisan PAGEREF _Toc429744134 \h 192Link Turn – Plan Popular PAGEREF _Toc429744135 \h 193A/T Prison Corruption DA PAGEREF _Toc429744136 \h 194Non-Unique – Corruption High Now PAGEREF _Toc429744137 \h 195Alt Cause/No Link – Decreased Surveillance Not the Key Factor PAGEREF _Toc429744138 \h 196No Impact – Corruption Inevitable PAGEREF _Toc429744139 \h 197A/T Crime DA PAGEREF _Toc429744140 \h 198Non-Unique – Crime Rates Increasing Now PAGEREF _Toc429744141 \h 199Alt Cause – Gun Laws PAGEREF _Toc429744142 \h 200No Link - Plan Not Key PAGEREF _Toc429744143 \h 201A/T Privatization DA/CP PAGEREF _Toc429744144 \h 202No Solvency – Prison Conditions PAGEREF _Toc429744145 \h 203No Solvency – Corruption/Prison Conditions PAGEREF _Toc429744146 \h 204Circumvention AFF PAGEREF _Toc429744147 \h 205Affirmative – Top Level PAGEREF _Toc429744148 \h 2061AC/2AC – No Circumvention – Surveillance PAGEREF _Toc429744149 \h 2071AC/2AC – No Circumvention – Congress PAGEREF _Toc429744150 \h 208No Circumvention – Congress PAGEREF _Toc429744151 \h 209No Circumvention – Congress – Courts Enforce Legislation PAGEREF _Toc429744152 \h 212No Circumvention – Congress – Empirics PAGEREF _Toc429744153 \h 213No Circumvention – Congress – AT: Crises PAGEREF _Toc429744154 \h 214No Circumvention – Congress – AT: Definitions PAGEREF _Toc429744155 \h 215No Circumvention – Congress – AT: Information Deficit/Secrecy PAGEREF _Toc429744156 \h 2161AC/2AC – No Circumvention – Courts PAGEREF _Toc429744157 \h 217No Circumvention – Courts PAGEREF _Toc429744158 \h 218No Circumvention – Courts – AT: Courts Defer PAGEREF _Toc429744159 \h 219No Circumvention – AT: Posner and Vermeule PAGEREF _Toc429744160 \h 220Hegemony Bad AFF PAGEREF _Toc429744161 \h 221Hurts Soft Power PAGEREF _Toc429744162 \h 222Hurts Soft Power PAGEREF _Toc429744163 \h 223Hurts Soft Power PAGEREF _Toc429744164 \h 224Hurts Soft Power PAGEREF _Toc429744165 \h 225Hurts Economy/ Competitiveness PAGEREF _Toc429744166 \h 226Hurts Economy/ Competitiveness PAGEREF _Toc429744167 \h 227Terrorism—Surveillance Not Key PAGEREF _Toc429744168 \h 228Terrorism—Information Overload PAGEREF _Toc429744169 \h 229Terrorism—Information Overload PAGEREF _Toc429744170 \h 230Terrorism—Information Overload PAGEREF _Toc429744171 \h 231Not Key to Hegemony—Information Overload PAGEREF _Toc429744172 \h 232Not Key to Hegemony—Information Overload PAGEREF _Toc429744173 \h 233Not Key to Hegemony—No Useful Information PAGEREF _Toc429744174 \h 234Not Key to Hegemony—No Useful Information PAGEREF _Toc429744175 \h 235Not Key to Hegemony—Alt Causes PAGEREF _Toc429744176 \h 236Hegemony Bad—Doesn’t Prevent War PAGEREF _Toc429744177 \h 237Hegemony Bad—Causes War With Russia/ China PAGEREF _Toc429744178 \h 238Hegemony Bad—Causes Middle East War PAGEREF _Toc429744179 \h 239Hegemony Bad—Causes Global Violence PAGEREF _Toc429744180 \h 240Hegemony Bad—Not Effective PAGEREF _Toc429744181 \h 241Politics Iran Deal DA – Aff PAGEREF _Toc429744182 \h 242Uniqueness PAGEREF _Toc429744183 \h 2432AC – UQ Overwhelms Link PAGEREF _Toc429744184 \h 2442AC – Veto Irrelevant PAGEREF _Toc429744185 \h 245Links PAGEREF _Toc429744186 \h 2462AC – AT: Surveillance Link – Plan Popular PAGEREF _Toc429744187 \h 247Surveillance Link – Plan Popular PAGEREF _Toc429744188 \h 248Surveillance Link – Plan Popular – Drones PAGEREF _Toc429744189 \h 2492AC – AT: Losers Lose PAGEREF _Toc429744190 \h 250Internals PAGEREF _Toc429744191 \h 2512AC PC Fails PAGEREF _Toc429744192 \h 252PC Fails PAGEREF _Toc429744193 \h 2532AC PC Fails – Can’t Use It PAGEREF _Toc429744194 \h 254PC Fails – Can’t Use It PAGEREF _Toc429744195 \h 2552AC Winners Win / PC Not Key PAGEREF _Toc429744196 \h 256Winners Win PAGEREF _Toc429744197 \h 257Impacts PAGEREF _Toc429744198 \h 2592AC Deal Fails PAGEREF _Toc429744199 \h 260Deal Fails PAGEREF _Toc429744200 \h 2612AC – AT: Iran Prolif MPX PAGEREF _Toc429744201 \h 262AT: Iran Prolif – Deterrence PAGEREF _Toc429744202 \h 263AT: Iran Prolif Bad – Deterrence – Iran is Rational PAGEREF _Toc429744203 \h 264AT: Iran Prolif Bad – AT: Nuclear Terror PAGEREF _Toc429744204 \h 2652AC – AT: US-Iran War PAGEREF _Toc429744205 \h 266AT: US-Iran War PAGEREF _Toc429744206 \h 267Racist Surveillance Kritik AFF PAGEREF _Toc429744207 \h 268No Link PAGEREF _Toc429744208 \h 269No Link—Not Racist PAGEREF _Toc429744209 \h 270No Link—Privacy Good > Racism PAGEREF _Toc429744210 \h 271No Link—Privacy Good > Racism PAGEREF _Toc429744211 \h 272No Link—Privacy Good > Racism PAGEREF _Toc429744212 \h 273Link Turns PAGEREF _Toc429744213 \h 274Link Turn—Surveillance is Racist—Arabs/ Muslims PAGEREF _Toc429744214 \h 275Link Turn—Surveillance is Racist—Arabs/ Muslims PAGEREF _Toc429744215 \h 276Link Turn—A/T “New Surveillance State” PAGEREF _Toc429744216 \h 277Link Turn—Surveillance is Racist PAGEREF _Toc429744217 \h 278Link Turn—Surveillance is Racist PAGEREF _Toc429744218 \h 279Link Turn—Civil Liberties Key PAGEREF _Toc429744219 \h 280Other Turns PAGEREF _Toc429744220 \h 281Turn—Victimization PAGEREF _Toc429744221 \h 282Turn—Victimization PAGEREF _Toc429744222 \h 283Turn—Victimization PAGEREF _Toc429744223 \h 284Turn—Progress Denial PAGEREF _Toc429744224 \h 285Perms Solve PAGEREF _Toc429744225 \h 286Perm Solves—Surveillance Specific PAGEREF _Toc429744226 \h 287Perm Solves—Legal Reforms Good—Race PAGEREF _Toc429744227 \h 288Perm Solves—Legal Reforms Good—Race PAGEREF _Toc429744228 \h 289Perm Solves—Legal Reforms Good—Police Violence PAGEREF _Toc429744229 \h 290Perm Solves—Legal Reforms Good—Policies PAGEREF _Toc429744230 \h 291Impact Defense PAGEREF _Toc429744231 \h 292Police Violence PAGEREF _Toc429744232 \h 293Police Violence PAGEREF _Toc429744233 \h 294Police Violence PAGEREF _Toc429744234 \h 295Prison Population Decreasing PAGEREF _Toc429744235 \h 296Poverty Decreasing PAGEREF _Toc429744236 \h 297Education Increasing PAGEREF _Toc429744237 \h 298Racism Decreasing PAGEREF _Toc429744238 \h 299Racism Decreasing PAGEREF _Toc429744239 \h 300Racism Decreasing PAGEREF _Toc429744240 \h 301Framework PAGEREF _Toc429744241 \h 302Public Surveillance Debates Good PAGEREF _Toc429744242 \h 303Public Surveillance Debates Good PAGEREF _Toc429744243 \h 304Animal Disease Treatment NEG PAGEREF _Toc429744244 \h 305Impact on farmers overstated PAGEREF _Toc429744245 \h 306Traceability is good for the economy PAGEREF _Toc429744246 \h 310Traceability key prevent zoonosis PAGEREF _Toc429744247 \h 312Zoonotic disease prevalent PAGEREF _Toc429744248 \h 314Food contamination causes outbreaks PAGEREF _Toc429744249 \h 316Surveillance key to prevent zoonosis PAGEREF _Toc429744250 \h 317Cattle industry is environmentally friendly PAGEREF _Toc429744251 \h 319Cattle industry doesn’t cause harm PAGEREF _Toc429744252 \h 320Common Core Education NEG PAGEREF _Toc429744253 \h 322Topicality PAGEREF _Toc429744254 \h 323Common Core is not “surveillance” PAGEREF _Toc429744255 \h 324“Its” Topicality (not a federal program) PAGEREF _Toc429744256 \h 326Common Core Good PAGEREF _Toc429744257 \h 328General PAGEREF _Toc429744258 \h 329A2: Corporate Control Advantage PAGEREF _Toc429744259 \h 330Alternate causality PAGEREF _Toc429744260 \h 331Neoliberalism Answers - Link turns PAGEREF _Toc429744261 \h 332Neoliberalism Answers - Alternate causality PAGEREF _Toc429744262 \h 333Neoliberalism Good PAGEREF _Toc429744263 \h 334A2: Critical Thinking Advantage PAGEREF _Toc429744264 \h 335General / solvency answers PAGEREF _Toc429744265 \h 336Meaningless / no definition PAGEREF _Toc429744266 \h 337National standards good PAGEREF _Toc429744267 \h 338Alternate causality answers PAGEREF _Toc429744268 \h 339Economic Competitiveness Disadvantage PAGEREF _Toc429744269 \h 3401NC PAGEREF _Toc429744270 \h 3411NC PAGEREF _Toc429744271 \h 342Competitiveness high now – Obama Clean Power Plan PAGEREF _Toc429744272 \h 344College success rates PAGEREF _Toc429744273 \h 345College success rates PAGEREF _Toc429744274 \h 346Key to education uniformity PAGEREF _Toc429744275 \h 347Common Core fosters teacher control PAGEREF _Toc429744276 \h 348Education key to economic growth & competitiveness PAGEREF _Toc429744277 \h 349Education impacts PAGEREF _Toc429744278 \h 350Politics Disadvantage(s) Links PAGEREF _Toc429744279 \h 352GOP hates Common Core PAGEREF _Toc429744280 \h 353Bush likes Common Core PAGEREF _Toc429744281 \h 354Bush does not support Common Core PAGEREF _Toc429744282 \h 355Public is split PAGEREF _Toc429744283 \h 356Teachers’ unions hate Common Core PAGEREF _Toc429744284 \h 357Everyone hates Common Core PAGEREF _Toc429744285 \h 358Drunk Driving Checkpoints NEG PAGEREF _Toc429744286 \h 359AT: Aff case advantages PAGEREF _Toc429744287 \h 360AT: privacy violation PAGEREF _Toc429744288 \h 361AT: Constitutionality Adv. PAGEREF _Toc429744289 \h 363AT: Checkpoints are wasteful/expensive PAGEREF _Toc429744290 \h 365Drunk Driving Deterrence DA PAGEREF _Toc429744291 \h 366Drunk Driving DA Shell 1NC PAGEREF _Toc429744292 \h 367Uniqueness PAGEREF _Toc429744293 \h 369Links PAGEREF _Toc429744294 \h 370Impacts PAGEREF _Toc429744295 \h 374Checkpoints Good Offense PAGEREF _Toc429744296 \h 376Politics Links PAGEREF _Toc429744297 \h 377Courts CP PAGEREF _Toc429744298 \h 380Shields the Link to Politics PAGEREF _Toc429744299 \h 382Roving Patrols CP PAGEREF _Toc429744300 \h 383T – Its/USFG PAGEREF _Toc429744301 \h 384Inherency Freedom-Patriot Acts NEG PAGEREF _Toc429744302 \h 386Domestic Surveillance is Curtailed in the Status Quo PAGEREF _Toc429744303 \h 387Status Quo Has Curtailed Collection of Data and Increased Transparency PAGEREF _Toc429744304 \h 389Status Quo Has Curtailed Collection of Data and Increased Transparency PAGEREF _Toc429744305 \h 390Freedom Act Is Generally Good PAGEREF _Toc429744306 \h 391Further Restrictions Beyond Freedom Act Impending PAGEREF _Toc429744307 \h 392Further Restrictions Beyond Freedom Act Impending PAGEREF _Toc429744308 \h 393Courts Are Checking Abuse in Status Quo PAGEREF _Toc429744309 \h 394General Trend is Against Mass Surveillance PAGEREF _Toc429744310 \h 395Surveillance Hawks Losing in the Status Quo PAGEREF _Toc429744311 \h 396Transparency Increasing In Status Quo PAGEREF _Toc429744312 \h 397General Mass Data Collection is Dead in Status Quo PAGEREF _Toc429744313 \h 398Internet Surveillance NEG PAGEREF _Toc429744314 \h 399***Topicality Shell*** PAGEREF _Toc429744315 \h 4001NC Topicality PAGEREF _Toc429744316 \h 401***Inherency*** PAGEREF _Toc429744317 \h 402Decreasing Internet Surveillance – Encryption PAGEREF _Toc429744318 \h 403Decreased Internet Surveillance – VPNs Check PAGEREF _Toc429744319 \h 404Internet Surveillance Oversight – ICANN PAGEREF _Toc429744320 \h 405***A/T Civil Liberties/Privacy Adv*** PAGEREF _Toc429744321 \h 406Link Turn PAGEREF _Toc429744322 \h 407No Internal Link PAGEREF _Toc429744323 \h 408No Impact – Privacy Violations Inevitable PAGEREF _Toc429744324 \h 409No Impact – Civil Liberty Violations Inevitable PAGEREF _Toc429744325 \h 411***A/T Tech Leadership/Credibility Adv *** PAGEREF _Toc429744326 \h 413Cyber Monitoring Key – Security PAGEREF _Toc429744327 \h 414No Solvency – Disorganization PAGEREF _Toc429744328 \h 415Alt Cause – Trade Defeats PAGEREF _Toc429744329 \h 416***A/T Information Overload Adv*** PAGEREF _Toc429744330 \h 418A/T Inherency PAGEREF _Toc429744331 \h 419Link Turn – Meta Data Search/Storage Key PAGEREF _Toc429744332 \h 420No Solvency PAGEREF _Toc429744333 \h 422***A/T Solvency*** PAGEREF _Toc429744334 \h 423Plan Fails – Surveillance Self-Correcting PAGEREF _Toc429744335 \h 424Plan Fails – Co-option PAGEREF _Toc429744336 \h 425A2: Surveillance Unconstitutional PAGEREF _Toc429744337 \h 426***Generic Disad Links*** PAGEREF _Toc429744338 \h 427Politics – Plan Unpopular PAGEREF _Toc429744339 \h 428***Counter Plans*** PAGEREF _Toc429744340 \h 429FISA CP – Solvency PAGEREF _Toc429744341 \h 430Prison Surveillance NEG PAGEREF _Toc429744342 \h 431***Topicality Shell*** PAGEREF _Toc429744343 \h 4321NC Topicality PAGEREF _Toc429744344 \h 433***Inherency*** PAGEREF _Toc429744345 \h 434Privacy Reform Now – PREA PAGEREF _Toc429744346 \h 435Prison Reform Now – Diversionary Programs PAGEREF _Toc429744347 \h 436***A/T Privacy Adv*** PAGEREF _Toc429744348 \h 437No Solvency – Surveillance Key PAGEREF _Toc429744349 \h 438No Impact – Privacy Violations Inevitable PAGEREF _Toc429744350 \h 439***A/T Civil Liberty Adv *** PAGEREF _Toc429744351 \h 441Turn—Surveillance Ensures Safety PAGEREF _Toc429744352 \h 442Turn—Surveillance Ensures Safety PAGEREF _Toc429744353 \h 443Turn—Surveillance Ensures Safety PAGEREF _Toc429744354 \h 444No Solvency – Surveillance Key to Protection PAGEREF _Toc429744355 \h 445No Impact – Civil Liberty Losses Inevitable PAGEREF _Toc429744356 \h 446Alt Causes – Civil Liberty Violations PAGEREF _Toc429744357 \h 447Alt Cause—Overcrowding PAGEREF _Toc429744358 \h 448Alt Cause—Other Surveillance PAGEREF _Toc429744359 \h 449***A/T Prison Conditions Adv*** PAGEREF _Toc429744360 \h 450Internal Link Turn – Tech Catches Corrupt Guards PAGEREF _Toc429744361 \h 451No Solvency – Surveillance Key to Solve Violence PAGEREF _Toc429744362 \h 452No Impact – Bad Prison Conditions Inevitable PAGEREF _Toc429744363 \h 454Alt Causes - Prison Conditions PAGEREF _Toc429744364 \h 455Impact Inevitable – Prison Conditions PAGEREF _Toc429744365 \h 456***A/T Solvency*** PAGEREF _Toc429744366 \h 457No Solvency – Surveillance Solves Escapes/Crime PAGEREF _Toc429744367 \h 458No Solvency – Guard to Tech Transition Fails PAGEREF _Toc429744368 \h 459No Solvency – Body Cavity Searches Key to Security PAGEREF _Toc429744369 \h 462No Solvency—Reforms= Long Time Frame PAGEREF _Toc429744370 \h 463No Solvency—Reforms= Long Time Frame PAGEREF _Toc429744371 \h 464***Generic Disad Links*** PAGEREF _Toc429744372 \h 465Crimes DA – Public Safety Link PAGEREF _Toc429744373 \h 466Politics – Plan Partisan PAGEREF _Toc429744374 \h 467***Counter Plans*** PAGEREF _Toc429744375 \h 468States CP – Solvency PAGEREF _Toc429744376 \h 469States CP – Spending/Economy Net Benefit PAGEREF _Toc429744377 \h 471Privatization CP – Solvency PAGEREF _Toc429744378 \h 472Circumvention NEG PAGEREF _Toc429744379 \h 475Negative – Top Level PAGEREF _Toc429744380 \h 4761NC Circumvention – General PAGEREF _Toc429744381 \h 4772NC Circumvention – General PAGEREF _Toc429744382 \h 4781NC Circumvention – Congress PAGEREF _Toc429744383 \h 4792NC Circumvention – Congress – Surveillance PAGEREF _Toc429744384 \h 4802NC Circumvention – Congress PAGEREF _Toc429744385 \h 4822NC Circumvention – Congress – Definitions PAGEREF _Toc429744386 \h 4861NC Circumvention – Courts PAGEREF _Toc429744387 \h 4872NC Circumvention – Courts – Surveillance PAGEREF _Toc429744388 \h 4882NC Circumvention – Courts PAGEREF _Toc429744389 \h 489Negative – AT: Aff Answers PAGEREF _Toc429744390 \h 4902NC Circumvention – AT: Norms/No Motive PAGEREF _Toc429744391 \h 4912NC Circumvention – Congress – AT: Courts Enforce Legislation PAGEREF _Toc429744392 \h 4922NC Circumvention – Congress – AT: Power of the Purse PAGEREF _Toc429744393 \h 493Hegemony Good NEG PAGEREF _Toc429744394 \h 495Hegemony Good—Key to Global Order PAGEREF _Toc429744395 \h 496Hegemony Good—Key to Free Societies PAGEREF _Toc429744396 \h 497Hegemony Good—Key to Stability PAGEREF _Toc429744397 \h 498Hegemony Good—Sustainable—Laundry List PAGEREF _Toc429744398 \h 499Hegemony Good—Sustainable—China PAGEREF _Toc429744399 \h 500Hegemony Key to Soft Power PAGEREF _Toc429744400 \h 501Hegemony Key to Soft Power PAGEREF _Toc429744401 \h 502Key to Hegemony PAGEREF _Toc429744402 \h 503Key to Hegemony PAGEREF _Toc429744403 \h 504Key to Hegemony PAGEREF _Toc429744404 \h 505Key to Hegemony PAGEREF _Toc429744405 \h 506Key to Hegemony PAGEREF _Toc429744406 \h 507Terrorism—Surveillance Prevents It PAGEREF _Toc429744407 \h 508Terrorism—Surveillance Prevents It PAGEREF _Toc429744408 \h 509Terrorism—Surveillance Prevents It PAGEREF _Toc429744409 \h 510Terrorism—Destroys US Economy PAGEREF _Toc429744410 \h 511Terrorism—Destroys US Economy PAGEREF _Toc429744411 \h 512Economy Key to Hegemony PAGEREF _Toc429744412 \h 513Economy Key to Hegemony PAGEREF _Toc429744413 \h 514Helps Economy/ Competitiveness PAGEREF _Toc429744414 \h 515Politics Iran Deal DA – Neg PAGEREF _Toc429744415 \h 517Strategy Sheet PAGEREF _Toc429744416 \h 518Strategy Sheet PAGEREF _Toc429744417 \h 5191NC PAGEREF _Toc429744418 \h 5201NC PAGEREF _Toc429744419 \h 521Uniqueness PAGEREF _Toc429744420 \h 5241NC – Yes Veto PAGEREF _Toc429744421 \h 5252NC – Yes Veto PAGEREF _Toc429744422 \h 5262NC – AT: Veto Irrelevant PAGEREF _Toc429744423 \h 527Links PAGEREF _Toc429744424 \h 5281NC Surveillance Link – General PAGEREF _Toc429744425 \h 5292NC Surveillance Link – General PAGEREF _Toc429744426 \h 5302NC Surveillance Link – Drones PAGEREF _Toc429744427 \h 5342NC Surveillance Link – PRISM PAGEREF _Toc429744428 \h 5351NC Losers Lose PAGEREF _Toc429744429 \h 5362NC Losers Lose PAGEREF _Toc429744430 \h 537Losers Lose – Yes Loss PAGEREF _Toc429744431 \h 539Losers Lose – AT: Obama Likes the Plan PAGEREF _Toc429744432 \h 541Internals PAGEREF _Toc429744433 \h 5421NC PC Key PAGEREF _Toc429744434 \h 543PC Key PAGEREF _Toc429744435 \h 544PC Key – Momentum Key PAGEREF _Toc429744436 \h 5472NC – AT: PC Fails – Agenda PAGEREF _Toc429744437 \h 5482NC – AT: PC Fails – Dem Unity PAGEREF _Toc429744438 \h 5512NC – AT: PC Fails – AT: Can’t Use It – Yes Obama Push PAGEREF _Toc429744439 \h 5532NC – AT: PC Fails – AT: Can’t Use It PAGEREF _Toc429744440 \h 5542NC – AT: PC Fails - AT: Hirsh PAGEREF _Toc429744441 \h 5562NC – AT: Winners Win PAGEREF _Toc429744442 \h 557Impacts – Internals PAGEREF _Toc429744443 \h 5591NC Deal Good – Iran Prolif PAGEREF _Toc429744444 \h 5601NC Deal Good – Israel Strikes PAGEREF _Toc429744445 \h 5612NC Deal Good – AT: Deal Fails – Newest PAGEREF _Toc429744446 \h 562Deal Good – AT: Deal Fails – AT: Breakout PAGEREF _Toc429744447 \h 564Deal Good – AT: Deal Fails – AT: Centrifuges PAGEREF _Toc429744448 \h 566Deal Good – AT: Deal Fails – AT: Inspection Delays PAGEREF _Toc429744449 \h 568Deal Good – AT: Deal Fails – AT: Iran Hardliners PAGEREF _Toc429744450 \h 569Deal Good – AT: Deal Fails – AT: Secret Facilities PAGEREF _Toc429744451 \h 570Deal Good – AT: Deal Fails – Mideast War MPX PAGEREF _Toc429744452 \h 571Deal Good – AT: Deal Fails PAGEREF _Toc429744453 \h 572Deal Good – Israel Strikes PAGEREF _Toc429744454 \h 573Impacts – Terminal PAGEREF _Toc429744455 \h 5741NC Iran Prolif Bad – NW PAGEREF _Toc429744456 \h 575Iran Prolif Bad – Laundry Lists PAGEREF _Toc429744457 \h 576Iran Prolif Bad – NW PAGEREF _Toc429744458 \h 577Iran Prolif Bad – AT: Deterrence Solves PAGEREF _Toc429744459 \h 578Iran Prolif Bad – AT: Iran Is Rational PAGEREF _Toc429744460 \h 579Iran Prolif Turns Case – Econ PAGEREF _Toc429744461 \h 580Iran Prolif Turns Case – Cred/Heg PAGEREF _Toc429744462 \h 5811NC Israel Strikes Bad – NW PAGEREF _Toc429744463 \h 582Israel Strikes Bad – NW PAGEREF _Toc429744464 \h 5832NC Deal Good – Mideast War PAGEREF _Toc429744465 \h 584Racist Surveillance Kritik NEG PAGEREF _Toc429744466 \h 585Criticism Overview PAGEREF _Toc429744467 \h 586***Neg Cards*** PAGEREF _Toc429744468 \h 5871NC PAGEREF _Toc429744469 \h 5881NC—Link PAGEREF _Toc429744470 \h 5891NC—Impact PAGEREF _Toc429744471 \h 5901NC—Alternative PAGEREF _Toc429744472 \h 591Links PAGEREF _Toc429744473 \h 592“New Surveillance Sate”/ Regulations Fail PAGEREF _Toc429744474 \h 593“New Surveillance State” PAGEREF _Toc429744475 \h 594“New Surveillance State” PAGEREF _Toc429744476 \h 595False Reform PAGEREF _Toc429744477 \h 596False Reform PAGEREF _Toc429744478 \h 597Privacy—Surveillance PAGEREF _Toc429744479 \h 598Privacy—General PAGEREF _Toc429744480 \h 599Privacy—General PAGEREF _Toc429744481 \h 600Impacts PAGEREF _Toc429744482 \h 601Racism must be rejected PAGEREF _Toc429744483 \h 602Education PAGEREF _Toc429744484 \h 605Education PAGEREF _Toc429744485 \h 606Society PAGEREF _Toc429744486 \h 607Police Violence PAGEREF _Toc429744487 \h 608Police Violence PAGEREF _Toc429744488 \h 609Police Violence PAGEREF _Toc429744489 \h 610Police Violence PAGEREF _Toc429744490 \h 611Poverty PAGEREF _Toc429744491 \h 612Poverty PAGEREF _Toc429744492 \h 613Self-Fulfilling Prophecy PAGEREF _Toc429744493 \h 614Self-Fulfilling Prophecy PAGEREF _Toc429744494 \h 615Framework PAGEREF _Toc429744495 \h 616Uniqueness—Racism Increasing PAGEREF _Toc429744496 \h 617Uniqueness—Racism Increasing PAGEREF _Toc429744497 \h 618Racism Comes First PAGEREF _Toc429744498 \h 619Educational Spaces PAGEREF _Toc429744499 \h 620Educational Spaces PAGEREF _Toc429744500 \h 621Racism= Subconscious PAGEREF _Toc429744501 \h 622Racism= Subconscious PAGEREF _Toc429744502 \h 623A/T Perms PAGEREF _Toc429744503 \h 624No Solvency—If Aff Is Not About Race PAGEREF _Toc429744504 \h 625No Solvency—If Aff is Reform Good For Minorities PAGEREF _Toc429744505 \h 626No Solvency—Reform Focus Fails PAGEREF _Toc429744506 \h 627Other Neg Args PAGEREF _Toc429744507 \h 628Incarceration Rates PAGEREF _Toc429744508 \h 629Poverty Rates PAGEREF _Toc429744509 \h 630Criminality Perception—Psychology PAGEREF _Toc429744510 \h 631Criminality Perception—Children PAGEREF _Toc429744511 \h 632Criminality Perception—Jobs/ Hiring PAGEREF _Toc429744512 \h 633Criminality Perception—Police/ Black Police PAGEREF _Toc429744513 \h 634Interlocking Oppressions PAGEREF _Toc429744514 \h 635No Aff Solvency—Non Compliance PAGEREF _Toc429744515 \h 636No Aff Solvency—Attitudes PAGEREF _Toc429744516 \h 637A/T “Black Crime Responsible For Police Violence” PAGEREF _Toc429744517 \h 638Animal Disease Treatment AFFADT hurts farmersADT is designed to benefit large corporations at the expense of small farmersFood & Water Watch. November 2011. Livestock Traceability: What You Need to Know. Accessed July 23, 2015. ranchers have noted that the USDA’s proposed traceability program would likely erase these premiums by making traceability mandatory, giving corporate meatpackers export-ready beef at no cost.12 Four corporations currently slaughter more than 80 percent of the cattle in the United States.13 Such corporate concentration has been widely criticized for anti-competitive market activity that damages small producers.14 The USDA’s traceability program, by giving corporate meatpackers yet another economic advantage — paid for by livestock producers — seems designed to expand corporate concentration. This has an impact on consumers, too, who will pay higher prices and have fewer choices in the marketplace if more small producers leave the business. Nearly 20 percent of U.S. beef cow operations have disappeared over the last 25 years, ceding their market share to ever-larger operations.15 Even after this shift, 80 percent of beef cow operations still have fewer than 50 head of cattle.160 It is these small producers who are most financially vulnerable in a marketplace dominated by a few large meatpackers and who cannot afford a costly new traceability.ADT is devastating for the livestock industry and their local economiesOhio Ecological Food and Farm Association. September 13, 2012. Letter to OMB OIRA about Animal Disease Traceability Rule. Accessed July 23, 2015. ADT has been criticized by thousands of individuals and organizations because of the undue burdens that it will impose on producers. The cost of tagging and the extensive recordkeeping requirements under the rule will impact farmers and ranchers, as well as related businesses such as sale barns and veterinarians, and will ripple through our rural economies. As detailed in our letter of July 24, the USDA has significantly underestimated the costs of its rule to both cattle producers and poultry producers. While the agency claims that the costs are under $100 million annually, independent studies indicate that the costs could be three to five times that high for cattle producers alone. Moreover, the USDA failed to even attempt to estimate the costs to small-scale poultry farmers, a failure that, by itself, is sufficient cause to reject the rule. Ultimately, the cost will be more than dollars and cents. If producers cannot afford to meet the new requirements, they will be unable to purchase new animals or market their animals out of state, which could lead to more of them going out of business. Farmers and ranchers nationwide are already struggling just to keep their cattle alive through the drought. Over 75 percent of the contiguous U.S. is experiencing drought conditions, and almost half the country is in severe or worse drought, including the major farming and ranching regions. The impact on livestock and poultry producers has been devastating. The forage and feed situation is the worst this country has seen since the 1930s Depression, as producers with parched pastures, rangelands, and crops face expensive hay, grain, and shipping costs. Increased feed costs have led to a reduction in profits per livestock animal by more than $100 just since June 1. One agricultural economist has estimated that 2013 feed prices could triple the 1990-2004 average. Rapidly depleting livestock water is forcing many producers to haul water, which is also expensive and time-consuming.Failing to consider the economic impact on small producers causes ag industry collapseOhio Ecological Food and Farm Association. September 13, 2012. Letter to OMB OIRA about Animal Disease Traceability Rule. Accessed July 23, 2015. Families who have been the agricultural backbone of this nation are now at the breaking point. Many have already sold a large part of their herds, and the slaughter of many breeding age cows will mean that it will take a decade of normal rainfall to rebuild the cattle population in America. Traceability programs, such as USDA’s ADT rule, also impose costs on livestock-related businesses, such as sale barns and veterinarians. It was recently reported that sale barns in New Zealand have added a new surcharge for cattle sales due to the additional equipment, staffing and administrative costs required for their NAIT (national animal identification and tracing) program It is likely that similar costs under ADT will be passed on to U.S. farmers and ranchers. Like the sale barns, those producers who are able to stay in business will have to find a way to pass on the costs, which will mean higher prices for consumers, who are already facing higher prices at the grocery store. In contrast to the clear costs of the program, the benefits remain vague. The USDA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis focused almost entirely on the monetary benefits from exports, but this approach is fundamentally flawed for several reasons. First, the benefits are based on models of varying degrees of traceability, yet tagging is not synonymous with traceability: an animal with an ear tag attached prior to crossing state lines may become untraceable later through lost tags or poor recordkeeping by state agencies. Second, as has been shown repeatedly and acknowledged by USDA officials, market access often depends more on politics than on traceability or other measures. Finally, the financial benefits of exports accrue almost entirely to the companies who sell the exports. Since the costs of the program will rest almost entirely on livestock producers and related businesses, it is inappropriate to justify those costs on the basis of benefits to other entities. We urge you not to impose new, unnecessary costs during these difficult times. The ADT rule should be sent back to the agency for a thorough and comprehensive review of the costs of the rule on American farmers and ranchers.Small producers don’t have the technology or savings to keep up with ADT mandatesFood & Water Watch. November 2011. Livestock Traceability: What You Need to Know. Accessed July 23, 2015. previous, failed attempt by the USDA to initiate a traceability program, the National Animal Identification System, revealed that the smallest producers would pay more to participate than the largest producers, with some estimates putting the number as high as $40 per head of cattle for the smallest producers.17 These estimates did not factor in lost revenue from premiums, meaning the actual costs could be much higher. By contrast, the USMEF economic analysis found that traceability would cost the largest meatpacking plants only 16 cents per head of cattle to participate.18 Part of the reason that small producers are disproportionately affected is because of the time, labor and technology that a traceability program could require. Electronic traceability, including chipping animals with radio frequency identification decides could work well operations, which can more easily absorb the cost of setting up the system. But on small farms, adopting a host of new hi-tech infrastructure introduces significant costs, a point that both the USDA and USMEF acknowledge in their economic analyses.19Developing the livestock industry without considering small farmers is a recipe for disasterLinda Falliace. Writer at Organic Consumers Association. September 26, 2008. Vermont Farm Leader, Linda Faillace, on Why the USDA Will Not Allow US Beef Producer, Creekstone Farms, to Test Cows for Mad Cow Disease. Accessed July 23, 2015. USDA should be supporting the decentralization of the beef industry. USDA inspectors were already on site, so more inspections would not have made a difference, nor would more regulations. The best suggestion is for the USDA to support smaller slaughterhouses instead of forcing them out of business with burdensome regulations necessary for the industrial meat processors. Our family farm, which produced high quality breeding stock and gourmet cheese, experienced the USDA's ineptness and corruption first hand when they targeted our healthy flock of sheep for BSE, a disease which does not exist in sheep. Our decade-long battle with the USDA and a subsequent lawsuit has revealed a laundry list of documented misdeeds against us including: destruction of evidence, suppression of test results, extensive undercover surveillance, and misleading and false statements given to the general public and our elected officials. The most egregious was an armed invasion of our family farm and the subsequent seizure and destruction of our animals and livelihood. In an attempt to find a nonexistent disease, the USDA used every possible BSE testing method on our sheep, sometimes running five or six tests per animal, but to no avail. Our sheep were healthy. None of our sheep had BSE or any other disease. However, when a brief "enhanced" BSE surveillance program uncovered three cases of BSE in American cattle, the USDA quickly announced it would reduce testing for BSE by 90 percent, not increase-reduce. How is this protecting the American public? The USDA does not want to test American cattle for BSE and they are preventing any private company from doing so. Currently the USDA screens less than 1 percent of the cattle slaughtered each year for BSE, and this 1 percent is comprised of only downer cows-despite the fact that downers are already supposedly banned from the food chain. Therefore, not a single piece of beef destined for human consumption in the United States is tested for BSE. So while the judicial system continues to give deference to the USDA, I will give deference to those who truly deserve it-my fellow farmers who raise meat I trust. Not meat stamped with the USDA seal of approval.ADT is bad for the economyADT will incur a number of costs that make the Linda Falliace. Writer at Organic Consumers Association. September 26, 2008. Vermont Farm Leader, Linda Faillace, on Why the USDA Will Not Allow US Beef Producer, Creekstone Farms, to Test Cows for Mad Cow Disease. Accessed July 23, 2015. animal ID system imposes a variety of costs, such as for tags or other identifying devices and their application, and data systems to track animals. As the extent of traceability increases, so do likely costs. Cost estimates of a national system have varied broadly, and are not directly comparable, a reflection of estimators’ differing assumptions and of the varying designs of proposed programs. A related policy question is who should pay—the industry (and ultimately consumers), government, or both? USDA’s ideas have called for expenses to be shared (e.g., database costs funded by government and the identifying devices by producers). It has been argued that, as more tracing requirements are imposed, large retailers and meat packers will exercise market power to shift compliance costs backward to farms and ranches, making it even more difficult for the smaller, independent ones to remain in business. Larger, more vertically integrated operations are more likely to have the resources and scale economies to survive, some have argued. On the other hand, if traceability costs forced big meat plants to reduce line speeds, “smaller plants with slower fabrication speeds may be better equipped to implement traceability to the retail level and may find niche market opportunities.”50 On April 29, 2009, APHIS released a study, the KSU Benefit-Cost Study (2009), of the economic benefits and costs of adopting USDA’s NAIS.51 The research was conducted by economists at Kansas State University in collaboration with researchers from Colorado State University, Michigan State University, and Montana State University. The report represented the researchers’ best estimate of what would result from the adoption of NAIS across multiple species and at varying participation rates.Electronic tagging is inefficient and ineffectiveWyoming Livestock Roundup. 2013. Veterinarians see varied impacts of animal disease traceability rule statewide. Accessed July 23, 2015. Cobb’s perfect world, high frequency radio frequency identification tags (RFID) and electronic readers would be used to identify cattle. However, the equipment costs are expensive, and without readers, RFID tags are useless. Gould echoes Cobb, saying, “Electronic identification and the ability to read those IDs with electronic equipment is the way to go.” He adds, however, that the technology has not been perfected, and there is work to do. “Electronic identification is the best, if we’ve got the equipment to read them,” Gould says. “Right now, we don’t have that capability.” Tolman, however, emphasizes that brands remain effective for cattle identification, as well. “Wyoming identification of cattle has been by a brand on the hide,” he says. “People in bigger cities think that putting an ear tag in, using a computer and doing things electronically is the solution. They don’t realize that when cattle get out in the hills, they lose tags. They don’t lose a brand.”ADT does not help the economyJoel L. Greene. Analyst in Agricultural Policy at Congressional Research Service. November 29, 2010. Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues. Accessed July 22, 2015. critics cite the likelihood of increased producer-level costs of implementation with no guarantee of any market benefit. This concern was at least partially born out by a USDA-funded benefit-cost analysis of animal ID implementation in the United States (discussed in detail in a later section of this report) which found that over 90% of the annual cost of such a program would fall upon the cattle sector.13 In addition, the as-yet-unknown technology requirements (e.g., computer hardware/software, record keeping, radio frequency recording, etc.) could potentially increase the complexity of operations and could easily exceed an operator’s capability. Studies have shown that the cattle industry is expected to bear the brunt of the costs of implementing a national ID program, in large part because each individual animal will have to be tagged, unlike in the large, vertically integrated pork and poultry industries, where animals are usually raised and moved in lots. Critics claim that this added cost factor would unfairly disadvantage cattle producers in domestic and international meat markets. For small operators who are unable to spread such new costs over large operations, ID costs would likely erode an already thin profit margin. 4. Disadvantages family farms with a lack of market power in price structure. It has also been argued that, as more tracing requirements are imposed, large retailers and meat packers will exercise market power to shift compliance costs backward to farms and ranches, making it even more difficult for the smaller, independent ones to remain in business.ADT destroys property rightsHeather Smith Thomas. Writer for Dairy Goat Journal. 2008. The NAIS Controversy. Accessed July 21, 2015. greatest advantage America has over most other countries is our personal freedom and a free market system. Government involvement in free enterprise has always been detrimental, except when needed to ensure consumer and workplace safety and fair competition. But the NAIS (which seems to have been created to protect international markets and give unfair advantage to certain players in industry) is being forced on us in the guise of disease prevention. We were doing a good job of that already. The NAIS is not fair, nor necessary. It is un-American to impose a mandatory ID system on everyone who owns a farm animal. In essence this creates a tax on animal agriculture or requires us to "buy a license" to own an animal, since ultimately it would be illegal to not comply. Centralized control of agriculture is dictatorship, not free enterprise. The NAIS intrudes on our free enterprise system, our property rights and personal property, and in some instances our religious freedom. There are some religious groups who use animals for their own use and livelihood who do not believe in using modern technology like microchips or computers. And who will enforce the NAIS? Not everyone will comply, even if it becomes mandatory. Can the USDA make us do it? A growing number of people are taking an in-depth look at the NAIS plan, questioning not only whether it will work or be cost effective, but whether it is legal or constitutional (and whether the USDA even considered cheaper and more practical alternatives). The NAIS may violate the Fourth Amendment because USDA wants surveillance of every premises where even a single animal of any livestock species is kept, and wants RFID for every animal. There are millions of people who own a few chickens or goats, or raise a lamb or steer for themselves (or as a 4-H project) or have a horse. In these instances the premises the USDA wants to target with GPA surveillance are homes. NAIS would be intrusive to people who have done nothing more than own an animal, which is their right, under U.S. law. Forcing registration and having information about your private property (premises and animals) in a huge database is also a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Property rights are protected by our Constitution. No one can be deprived of property without due process of law. But the NAIS says USDA can remove untagged animals from a premises, with no mention of compensation for the owner. Government does not have the right, according to the Constitution, to come onto your property to inspect or tag your animal.ADT won’t work effectivelyADT can’t be implemented effectivelyUSDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. March 4, 2014. Administrator's Message: Animal Disease Traceability--Next Phase of Implementation. Accessed July 25, 2015. achieve an effective response to an animal disease outbreak, a certain level of participation is necessary. According to USDA, NAIS would have to achieve a “critical mass” level of participation to achieve its long-term goal of 48-hour traceback. USDA estimated that 70% of the animals in a specific species and/or sector would need to be identified and traceable to their premises of origin to achieve the necessary “critical mass.”37 Dr. John Clifford, USDA’s Chief Veterinary Officer for animal health, also cited a participation rate of 70% of the animals in a specific species—that could be both identified and traceable to their premises of origin—as necessary to provide an effective measure of traceability.38 However, Dr. Clifford suggested that a much higher participation rate, perhaps as high as 90%, would be necessary to ensure the full benefits of the system. Some animal ID program supporters have criticized USDA for moving too slowly and/or not setting a clearer path toward universal ID. A July 2007 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that a number of problems had hindered effective implementation of animal ID, such as no prioritization among the nine animal species to be covered to focus on those of greatest disease concern; no plan to integrate NAIS into existing USDA and state animal ID requirements; and no requirement that some types of critical data be provided to the databases, such as species or age.39 USDA’s NAIS Business Plan (2008) was intended to respond to several of the GAO criticisms. Others believe that USDA’s slow progress has simply reflected the wide differences among producers and other interests over many unresolved issues.The voluntary system that existed before ADT was sufficientHeather Smith Thomas. Writer for Dairy Goat Journal. 2008. The NAIS Controversy. Accessed July 21, 2015. already in place for tracking animal diseases and movements in this country have worked. Brand laws, health certificates, control programs for brucellosis, TB, scrapie, etc. have done a good job. We haven’t had a case of foot and mouth disease in the U.S. since 1929. BSE is a non-contagious disease caused by cattle eating feed containing body parts of cattle with BSE. The sale of feed supplements containing rendered animal parts was banned in the U.S. in 1997. The only way we can get it is by importing animals (and meat) from other countries. The best defense against foreign animal diseases is monitoring of imported animals and meat-not by making every U.S. owner ID their livestock. If some people want to export animals or meat they could voluntarily participate in value-added programs. A national ID program should be voluntary or limited to animals most likely to be included in international commerce-without government imposing an intrusive system on every premises that has a farm animal. The new USDA Undersecretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs (which include APHIS, which puts him in charge of the NAIS), Bruce Knight, stated at the hearing for his nomination that he thought the program should be kept voluntary. But this may be a ploy to pacify the growing opposition to the program. In June 2006 USDA put out a "Guide for Small Scale or Non-commercial Producers" which implies that the program is completely voluntary and has no penalties or enforcement provisions. But when pressed for comment in a news conference, USDA Secretary Johanns made it very clear that if voluntary participation was not 100 percent, he had the authority to make the program mandatory. Indeed, if USDA had no thought of making it mandatory and didn’t really care whether people participated or not, why would they be spending so much money and pushing so hard to implement it?Cattle industry is badCows use too much food and waterAalto University. August 4, 2014. Eating less meat: Solution to reduce water use? Accessed July 23, 2015. the use of animal products can have a considerable impact on areas suffering scarce water resources, as meat production requires more water than other agricultural products. "Diet change together with other actions, such as reduction of food losses and waste, may tackle the future challenges of food security," states researcher Mika Jalava from Aalto University. Growing population and climate change are likely to increase the pressure on already limited water resources and diet change has been suggested as one of the measures contributing to adequate food security for growing population. The researchers assessed the impact of diet change on global water resources over four scenarios, where the meat consumption was gradually reduced while diet recommendations in terms of energy supply, proteins and fat were followed. The study published in Environmental Research Letters is the first global-scale analysis with a focus on changes in national diets and their impact on the blue and green water use of food consumption.Cows are statistically proven to leave the largest environmental footprintMatt McGrath. Writer at BBC News. July 21, 2014. Beef environment cost 10 times that of other livestock. Accessed July 24, 2015. researchers developed a uniform methodology that they were able to apply to all five livestock categories and to four measures of environmental performance. "We have a sharp view of the comparative impact that beef, pork, poultry, dairy and eggs have in terms of land and water use, reactive nitrogen discharge, and greenhouse gas emissions," lead author Prof Gidon Eshel, from Bard College in New York, told BBC News. "The uniformity and expansive scope is novel, unique, and important," he said. The scientists used data from from 2000-2010 from the US department of agriculture to calculate the amount of resources required for all the feed consumed by edible livestock. They then worked out the amount of hay, silage and concentrates such as soybeans required by the different species to put on a kilo of weight. They also include greenhouse gas emissions not just from the production of feed for animals but from their digestion and manure. As ruminants, cattle can survive on a wide variety of plants but they have a very low energy conversion efficiency from what they eat. As a result, beef comes out clearly as the food animal with the biggest environmental impact.Cows cause global warmingMatt McGrath. Writer at BBC News. July 21, 2014. Beef environment cost 10 times that of other livestock. Accessed July 24, 2015. well as the effects on land and water, cattle release five times more greenhouse gas and consume six times more nitrogen than eggs or poultry. Cutting down on beef can have a big environmental impact they say. But the same is not true for all livestock. "One can reasonably be an environmentally mindful eater, designing one's diet with its environmental impact in mind, while not resorting to exclusive reliance on plant food sources," said Prof Eshel. "In fact, eliminating beef, and replacing it with relatively efficiency animal-based alternatives such as eggs, can achieve an environmental improvement comparable to switching to plant food source." Other researchers say the conclusions of the new study are applicable in Europe, even though the work is based on US data. "The overall environmental footprint of beef is particularly large because it combines a low production efficiency with very high volume," said Prof Mark Sutton, from the UK's Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. "The result is that the researchers estimate that over 60% of the environmental burden of livestock in the US results from beef. Although the exact numbers will be different for Europe (expecting a larger role of dairy), the overall message will be similar: Cattle dominate the livestock footprint of both Europe and US."Cows are a bigger link to global warming than carsDamian Carrington. Writer at the Guardian. December 2, 2014. Eating less meat essential to curb climate change, says report. Accessed July 25, 2015. the world’s huge and increasing appetite for meat is essential to avoid devastating climate change, according to a new report. But governments and green campaigners are doing nothing to tackle the issue due to fears of a consumer backlash, warns the analysis from the thinktank Chatham House. The global livestock industry produces more greenhouse gas emissions than all cars, planes, trains and ships combined, but a worldwide survey by Ipsos MORI in the report finds twice as many people think transport is the bigger contributor to global warming. “Preventing catastrophic warming is dependent on tackling meat and dairy consumption, but the world is doing very little,” said Rob Bailey, the report’s lead author. “A lot is being done on deforestation and transport, but there is a huge gap on the livestock sector. There is a deep reluctance to engage because of the received wisdom that it is not the place of governments or civil society to intrude into people’s lives and tell them what to eat.” The recent landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that dietary change can “substantially lower” emissions but there is no UN plan to achieve that.Meat industry is badMeat consumption demographics will make climate solutions impossibleDamian Carrington. Writer at the Guardian. December 2, 2014. Eating less meat essential to curb climate change, says report. Accessed July 25, 2015. report builds on recent scientific studies which show that soaring meat demand in China and elsewhere could tip the world’s climate into chaos. Emissions from livestock, largely from burping cows and sheep and their manure, currently make up almost 15% of global emissions. Beef and dairy alone make up 65% of all livestock emissions. Appetite for meat is rocketing as the global population swells and becomes more able to afford meat. Meat consumption is on track to rise 75% by 2050, and dairy 65%, compared with 40% for cereals. By 2020, China alone is expected to be eating 20m tonnes more of meat and dairy a year. Two recent peer-reviewed studies calculated that, without severe cuts in this trend, agricultural emissions will take up the entire world’s carbon budget by 2050, with livestock a major contributor. This would mean every other sector, including energy, industry and transport, would have to be zero carbon, which is described as “impossible”. The Chatham House report concludes: “Dietary change is essential if global warming is not to exceed 2C.”Meat industries are terrible for the environment and climateMichelle Maisto. Writer at Forbes. April 28, 2012. Eating Less Meat Is World's Best Chance For Timely Climate Change, Say Experts. Accessed July 24, 2015. companies, Goodland and Anhang believe, have at least three incentives to respond to current risks in their industry. The first is that companies already suffer from disruptive climate events — floods, hurricanes, etc. — and so it’s in their best interests to not worsen the situation. Second, they expect the demand for oil to rise to point of collapsing “many parts of today’s economy.” One way in which this will be particularly troublesome for livestock producers will be that crops grown for feed will be refocused on biofuel sources. A third incentive is to offer “alternatives to livestock products that taste similar but are easier to cook, less expensive and healthier, and so are better than livestock products.” Sales of just soy “analogs,” or alternatives to livestock products — such as ice cream, milk and cheese — totaled $1.9 billion in 2007. That same year, sales of U.S. meat and poultry products totaled $100 billion — which they optimistically suggest means there’s much room for growth. “Worldwide, the market for meat and dairy analogs is potentially almost as big as the market for livestock products,” they write.High meat prices good—deters consumptionNew Scientist. January 21, 2015. The world pays too high a price for cheap meat. Accessed July 24, 2015. long ago, a meal centred on meat was a rare treat. No longer. Most of us in the West now eat meat every day; many consume it at every meal. And people in less carnivorous cultures are getting a taste for it, too: in China it has become aspirational. Worldwide meat production has surged from 78 million tonnes per year in 1963 to 308 million tonnes in 2014. The problem, setting aside issues around the morality of eating animals, is that the planet cannot support this growing appetite. Pasture used to graze livestock already accounts for 26 per cent of the planet’s ice-free landmass; the meat industry is responsible for 15 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions. There is a strong case that meat is now too cheap, its price pushed down by ever more intensive farming practices. While that is ostensibly good for consumers, it’s bad for the environment – in terms of pollution and antibiotic resistance, as well as climate – and very often bad for animals. And it can be bad for consumers if corners are cut to keep prices low (16 February 2013, p 6). Is it possible to push the price back up? Governments have succeeded in reducing the consumption of alcohol and tobacco by taxing them. But a “sin tax” on meat lacks the clear case established for drinking and smoking: there is mixed evidence on potential links between high levels of meat consumption, cancer and heart disease. And it depends on exactly what you eat (see “Let them eat steak: How to eat meat the healthy way“). A more viable option might be to pull back on the agricultural subsidies that underpin meat production. Persuasion may work better than coercion. In the UK and US, health concerns have already reduced consumption of red and processed meat. Later this month, the US Department of Agriculture will issue its latest dietary guidelines. This time, the recommendations may address effects on the environment as well as health. The industry won’t like it, but the public may find that a lower-meat diet is more to its taste.ADT won’t prevent diseaseADT fails—no risk of disease outbreaks, it’s expensive, it doesn’t improve food safety and will crush farming economiesNational Family Farm Coalition. December 2013. Animal Disease Traceability is Flawed. Accessed July 23, 2015. quantification of the alleged benefits: USDA has made unsupported assertions that our country needs 48-hour traceback of all animal movements for disease control. Yet USDA has failed to provide any scientific basis, including risk analysis or scientific review of existing programs, to support this claim. Existing disease control programs, combined with measures such as brand registries and normal private record-keeping, provide cost-effective traceback. A new and costly program such as NAIS is unnecessary and potentially counterproductive. High costs: The costs of complying with NAIS will be unreasonably burdensome for small farmers and many other animal owners. The costs of NAIS go far beyond the tag itself, and include: premises registration database creation and updates; tags and related equipment, such as readers, computers, and software; 24-hour reporting requirements, imposing extensive paperwork burdens; labor for every stage of the program; stress on the animals; qualitative costs, from loss of religious freedoms, privacy, and trust in government; and enforcement. No food safety benefits: NAIS will not prevent foodborne illnesses from e. coli or salmonella, because the contamination occurs at the slaughterhouse, while NAIS tracking ends at the time of slaughter. Thus, NAIS will neither prevent the contamination nor increase the government’s ability to track contaminated meat back to its source. In addition, NAIS will hurt efforts to develop safer, decentralized local food systems. Unfair burdens placed on family farms and sustainable livestock operations: NAIS would also impose significant reporting and paperwork burdens on small farms. In addition, sustainable livestock operations that manage animals on pasture would face higher rates of tag losses than confinement operations, due to animals getting their tags caught on brush or fences. NAIS essentially creates incentives for CAFOs, with the accompanying social and environmental concerns.Zoonotic disease risk lowH5 outbreak is unlikely to spread or do significant harm Dan Flynn. Writer at Food Safety News. July 10, 2015. Human Food Safety Not Likely Threatened By Costly Avian Flu. Accessed July 23, 2015. highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5 epidemic spread to domestic poultry by migratory birds may have burned out without getting anywhere near the human food supply, which was said to be an extremely low possibility in the first place. No new detections of avian flu have occurred since June 17. Up until then, 223 detection reports by USDA’s National Veterinary Services Laboratories led to the destruction of more than 48 million birds. The disease was spread by wild birds along the Mississippi, Pacific, and Central flyways. Iowa and Minnesota domestic producers were the hardest hit, with 180 of the 223 detections since last December found in those two states. No human cases of the HPAI H5 viruses have been detected in the United States, Canada, or internationally, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continues to view the risk to most people of HPAI H5 infections as “generally low.” In addition to commercial poultry and backyard flocks, wild birds in four states, including captive falcons, gyrfalcons, and horned owls, were found to be infected with the HPAI H5 virus. In addition to Iowa and Minnesota, where the epidemic was concentrated, the virus was also detected in domestic flocks in 13 other states in the West and Midwest.***Phone Data Mining/ Wire Tapping Case Neg***Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance.1NC—Topicality***Assumed generic plan text: Resolved: The United States federal government should end all warrantless wiretapping surveillance in the United States. Definition—“Curtail” in the context of surveillance means to lessen the power of or to restrain. It explicitly does not mean to “end” or completely remove the power or authority Geoff Dyer, Writer for Financial Times, June 3, 2015, “Surveillance bill fails to curtail bulk of NSA activities,” Financial Times, Accessed June 11, 2015, passage of the first bill since 9/11 to curtail government surveillance represents a dramatic shift in the politics surrounding terrorism in the US, but a much less significant change in the way the intelligence community actually operates. The USA Freedom Act, which has been comfortably approved by both the Senate and the House, bars the government from collecting the phone records of millions of US citizens, a programme which became the focus of public fears about overbearing electronic surveillance. The surveillance legislation reform still leaves the US intelligence community with formidable legal powers and tools to collect data and other online information for terrorism-related investigations, however. Despite the tidal wave of revelations and public anger towards the National Security Agency following the 2013 leaks by Edward Snowden, congressional efforts to rein in the agency have so far not curtailed the bulk of its activities.Violation—The plan ends instead of curtails warrantless wiretapping surveillance by the government Reasons to Prefer—Ground- the plan has access to advantage areas based off of ending an entire category of government surveillance instead of curtailing it. This allows the Affirmative to link turn, solve for, or o/w Negative disad impacts Limits- this explodes the limits of the topic and increases the Negative research burden unfairly skewing an already Affirmative biased topic further in favor of the Negative Topicality is a voting issue for competitive equality Topicality is a procedural issue that that should be evaluated based on competing interpretations “Curtail” Definition—“To Make Less”—Surveillance Specific In the context of surveillance, “curtail” means to make less or reduce the power of. It does NOT mean to completely end the power to engage in a specific type of surveillance Jennifer Steinhauer and Johnathan Weisman, Writers for the NY Times, May 31, 2015, “Key Parts of Patriot Act Expire Temporarily as Senate Moves Toward Limits on Spying,” NY Times, Accessed June 12, 2015, government’s authority to sweep up vast quantities of phone records in the hunt for terrorists expired at 12:01 a.m. Monday after Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, blocked an extension of the program during an extraordinary and at times caustic Sunday session of the Senate. Still, the Senate signaled that it was ready to curtail the National Security Agency’s bulk data collection program with likely passage this week of legislation that would shift the storage of telephone records from the government to the phone companies. The House overwhelmingly passed that bill last month. Senators voted, 77 to 17, on Sunday to take up the House bill. Mr. Paul’s stand may have forced the temporary expiration of parts of the post-9/11 Patriot Act used by the National Security Agency to collect phone records, but he was helped by the miscalculation of Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, who sent the Senate on a weeklong vacation after blocking the House bill before Memorial Day.“Curtail” Definition—“To Make Less”“Curtail” means to make less, not to end completely Merriam-Webster Dictionary online, online dictionary, Accessed June 11, 2015, “Curtail,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Accessed June 11, 2015, Definition of CURTAIL transitive verb : to make less by or as if by cutting off or away some part <curtail the power of the executive branch> <curtail inflation> — cur·tail·er \-?tā-l?r\ noun Examples of CURTAIL The new laws are an effort to curtail illegal drug use. School activities are being curtailed due to a lack of funds. Origin of CURTAIL by folk etymology from earlier curtal to dock an animal's tail, from curtal, noun, animal with a docked tail, from Middle French courtault — more at curtal First Known Use: 1580 Related to CURTAIL Synonyms abbreviate, abridge, shorten, cut back, dock, elide, syncopate, truncate “Curtail” means to reduce or lessen , online dictionary, Accessed June 11, 2015, “Curtail,” , Accessed June 11, 2015, [ker-teyl] verb (used with object) 1. to cut short; cut off a part of; abridge; reduce; diminish.Synonyms lessen, dock. See shorten.“End” Definition—“No Longer Continue to Exist” And “End” means to no longer continue or exist, which is distinct from “curtail”Merriam-Webster Dictionary online, online dictionary, Accessed June 11, 2015, “End,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary online, Accessed June 11, 2015, noun \?end\ : a point that marks the limit of something : the point at which something no longer continues to happen or exist : the last part of a story, movie, song, etc. : the part at the edge or limit of an area “End” means to stop completely Your , online dictionary, Accessed June 11, 2015, “End,” Your Dictionary, Accessed June 11, 2015, ·ed, end·ing, endsverb, transitiveTo bring to a conclusion: Let's end this discussion. To form the last or concluding part of: the song that ended the performance. See Synonyms at complete. To destroy: ended our hopes. verb, intransitive To come to a finish; cease: The rain ended. To arrive at a place, situation, or condition as a result of a course of action. Often used with up: He ended up as an adviser to the president. The painting ended up being sold for a million dollars. To die.***A/T Civil Liberties Adv***1NC—Inherency Civil Liberties are already at an all-time low—they’re under attack in virtually every aspect of life, the plan is insufficient America’s Freedom Fighters, Organization dedicated to Civil Liberties, “URGENT: Our Individual Liberties Are UNDER ATTACK More Than Any Point In Modern History,” May 31, 2015, liberty is globally under attack in ways unprecedented in modern history. Most obvious are the predations of the terrorists and radical Muslim proselytizers operating in the less developed countries of the Middle East and Africa. But a more subtle, insidiously creeping loss of freedom is currently occurring in Western cultures, in countries once collectively referred to as the “free world”. In the United States, our liberty is being threatened to an extent not seen since the Founding Fathers declared our independence from the tyrants of an earlier Europe. Over the course of more than two centuries, we have gradually lost our freedoms through the fearful canard of government aegis, so that we can no longer escape its ubiquitous intrusions. It was determined, years ago, that anyone seeking employment would be required to obtain a Social Security identification number. These, the government assured us, would never be used for tracking an individual, nnot ever. We must now buy health insurance or pay a penalty. Decisions regarding our health and well being will soon be determined by bureaucrats who will, of necessity, ration limited health care resources. Our ability to be openly guided by the precepts of our faith outside the walls of our church or synagogue is currently threatened by the arbitrary decision of federal bureaucrats through the HHS mandate, a clear assault on the First Amendment. Even our behaviors are increasingly dictated through government coercion, legislation and regulation. The Wood-Shed School of behavior modification is passé. A parent must only correct a child’s misbehavior in socially accepted, governmentally sanctioned ways. Doing otherwise in a public venue is particularly risky. We are all told that we cannot bully or commit “hate crimes.” Of course, we all agree that such behaviors are patently reprehensible and must not be tolerated, but who is to say what constitutes criminally objectionable deeds? Who draws the line? The obvious answer is, in the current social milieu, the federal government. I am not convinced, however, that learning to confront and resist a bully is not a more valuable lesson than coming to rely on the dubious protection of a government attempting to legislatively mandate politically correct behaviors. In a country increasingly vulnerable to the caprices of the social engineer, enabled by the power of the Federal Government, we, too, as surely as the citizens of Europe, the Middle East and Africa, are increasingly without liberty. And the rate at which we are losing our individual freedoms increasingly accelerates at a vertigo-inducing rate.1NC—Solvency The plan is a drop in the bucket, other forms of domestic surveillance will still strip civil liberties David Talbot, MIT Technology Review’s chief correspondent, June 4, 2015, “Why the New NSA Restrictions Won’t Harm National Security,” Technology Review, Accessed June 11, 2015, National Security Agency lost its authority to grab the phone records of millions of Americans following this week’s change in legislation enacted after 9/11. But there is no evidence that the data produced actionable intelligence during the 13 years the government had access to it anyway. And besides, the NSA is still expanding its arsenal of Internet surveillance tools on American soil. The New York Times reported Wednesday that the Obama administration is allowing the NSA to tap Internet cables in U.S. territory to look for data about computer intrusions that are coming from overseas, and that the agency does not need a warrant to do so.1NC—Impact DefenseThe NSA uses all kinds of other authority and technology to illegally spy on us, the plan is insufficient to protect civil liberties and the impact is inevitablePhillip Bates, Freelance writer, June 1, 2015, “Tomorrow’s Surveillance: Four Technologies The NSA Will Use to Spy on You – Soon,” Make Use Of, Accessed June 11, 2015, Rubinstein, whose team designed the motion microscope software, believes that it could be used to record audio on other planets, using telescoping photography. However, the applications to surveillance are obvious. We live in a world increasingly saturated with cameras – and, due to generally low standards of computer security, those cameras are an open book to organizations like the NSA, and the motion microscope gives them yet another tool to get more out of it. Of course, security agencies won’t always be able to get at the cameras and microphones on our mobile devices. Most of us pay at least a little attention to app permissions – but sometimes, malicious apps can track you in ways you don’t expect. Your smartphone contains extremely precise gyroscopes, which let them detect the phone’s rotations. These are accurate enough to pick up the vibrations caused by sound, letting them be used as crude microphones, according to Wired. The technology is still in its infancy and needs refinement in conjunction with speech recognition algorithms, yet the potential could be there for the NSA to listen in to select conversations, given only access to the gyroscope, something that few mobile operating systems even count as a “permission” that the user needs to be aware of. Similarly, a smartphone’s accelerometer is essential for many apps, but could provide a means to track you. Notably, their unique micro- or nano-imperfections could be analysed, thus providing real-time location-based information, bypassing any in-app permissions. A team at the University of Illinois, College of Engineering found they could discriminate between sensor signals with 96% accuracy; combine this with possible fingerprints from other phone sensors and this would likely increase further. Additional research into accelerometers investigated whether vibrations during login could be used to make accurate guesses at PINs and passcodes, which could be used by criminals and security services alike. All of these are very real possibilities. Some may even be happening now. Does it matter that the NSA’s bulk phone data collection has been deemed illegal? When it comes to security and surveillance, the legal and ethical waters are murky. Security agencies will always be controversial: on one hand, they may be necessary to keep us safe from terrorism; on the other, it is dangerous to give up privacy and liberty for security.No Solvency—Backdoor Surveillance PowerObama advocates for reigning in surveillance on one hand and pushes for more surveillance without oversight on the other—he’ll backdoor more surveillance power in the world of the plan Cat Zakrzewski, Writer for Tech Crunch, June 4, 2015, “After Partial NSA Reform, Expanded Internet Surveillance Of Americans Emerges,” Tech Crunch, Accessed June 11, 2015, reflection of the many major recent cyberattacks, from those in the private sector against Sony to the sustained hacks on the State Department, it’s clear our government needs to be capable to track and attempt to prevent dangerous hackers. But those capabilities should be determined after public debate, not through a memo by secret lawyers. The report comes just two days after President Obama signed the USA FREEDOM Act into law reforming the National Security Agency’s surveillance practices. The New York Times said yesterday that by putting his signature on the FREEDOM Act, Obama was making a surveillance program that began under the Bush administration his own. The White House said the president had reined in the programs, protecting both Americans’ privacy national security interests. Today’s report underscores how surveillance has expanded under the Obama administration. Having phone companies store customers phone records rather than government agencies clearly is an important step toward reforming our current system, but it is not enough. If the president truly wants a legacy of achieving balance protecting Americans’ civil liberties and national security, he’ll have to allow for more reforms, not more secret surveillance programs.Impact Defense—Impact InevitableSurveillance isn’t the only factor striping away civil liberties—lots of alt causes Jonathan Turley, Writer for Global Research, July 04, 2014, “Fourth of July 2014: The Erosion of Civil Liberties in America,” Global Research, Accessed June 11, 2015, have long discussed the erosion of civil liberties in the United States, including the attacks on privacy and other rights by the Obama Administration. It appears that we are not alone in those concerns. A new Gallup poll shows a record drop in the satisfaction of Americans over their freedoms. The massive drop is matched in such countries as Egypt, Pakistan, and Venezuela. Seventy-nine percent of US residents are satisfied with their level of freedom. That is down from 91 percent in 2006 — a 12 point drop. We were once the highest country in the world on such polls. We have now dropped to 36th place. That mirrors other studies showing the United States dropping to the same low levels on press freedoms, Internet speech, and other rights. The White House has been adept in deflecting such criticism with a host of commentators and bloggers who deflect criticism with references to Republicans and the “red menace” or “things could be worse” spin or simply change the subject. However, the expansion of the internal security network in the United States and police powers is obviously having an impact on how Americans now view their rights. Years ago, I wrote a column entitled “10 Reasons Why The United States Is No Longer The Land of The Free.” Things have only grown worse since that column ran. The Obama Administration’s recent effort to strip citizens of privacy protections over their cellphones and records illustrates the extremism of some of these positions. That argument failed to secure a single vote on the Supreme Court for the Administration’s effort to blow a hole in American privacy protections.No Solvency—Reform Fails The Affirmative’s focus on reform is flawed—protecting Civil Liberties requires tearing down the entire Patriot Act apparatus, not incremental reform Steve Stokes, Writer for IVN the Independent Voter Project, May 31, 2015, “The Patriot Act Doesn’t Need to be Reformed — It Needs to Expire,” IVN, Accessed June 12, 2015, of the vote for the USA Freedom Act in the House was from voices for true reform that saw it as the only vehicle available for advancing some change. These representatives accepted incremental reform at the cost of a four-year Patriot Act extension. When it comes to programs that clearly violate any ordinary reading of the Constitution, we should not just alter the structure of the program — we must end the program. Individuals behave one way when they are natural and relaxed in private moments. They act quite differently when they know they are being watched. This surveillance has altered the actions and expectations of millions of innocent American citizens. Ordinary, patriotic, law-abiding citizens are now fearful of their government. This is not the America that was envisioned by our founding fathers. Many of those concerned with effecting positive change in our country are concerned that the investigative powers of the U.S. have in the past been turned against peaceful reformers like Martin Luther King Jr.Security O/W Civil LibertiesSecurity o/w civil liberties because an attack on US soil would roll back civil liberties. Phone surveillance is necessary Carmine Sabia Jr., Pundit who covers political news and current events, May 30, 2015, “Dana Perino warns if we’re hit again the attack on civil liberties will be ‘worse than you ever imagined’,” Biz Pac Review, Accessed June 12, 2015, News’ “The Five” co-host Dana Perino warned Friday of the unprecedented damage that would befall America’s civil liberties if another terrorist attack unfolds on U.S. soil. Already, she said, certain invasions of citizen privacy are necessary to prevent future attacks, including monitoring phone calls. Profiling won’t work because the demographics of terrorists often change, she said. “For example, the guy this week who was busted in Texas, arrested for trying to provide material support for ISIS: American guy, American-sounding name,” said Perino, who served as press secretary for President George W. Bush. “You wouldn’t have necessarily said, ‘I’m gonna put him on my little profile list.’” The argument for profiling is flawed, she added, because “you don’t know how to find the people that you want to profile.” She warned that civil liberties will only suffer further if a future attack is carried out. “If something happens, I guarantee you the attack on civil liberties if there’s another attack will be worse than anything you’ve ever imagined,” Perino said.***A/T Econ/ International Business Adv***1NC—InherencyNo Inherency—Financial analysis overwhelmingly predict the US economy will continue to improve Isaac M. O’Bannon, Writer for CPA Practice Advisor financial services, March 23, 2015, “83% of U.S. Finance Execs Predict Economy Will Expand,” CPA, Accessed June 10, 2015, U.S. is expected to continue its recovery from the global recession, but it may not have as much company, according to a new study from American Express and CFO Research. Seven in ten U.S. finance executives report that their companies’ revenues are higher now than a year ago, and U.S. finance leaders rank among the most optimistic in the world, with 83% predicting economic expansion. Finance executives’ confidence in the U.S. economy has grown each year for the last three years, and the current level represents a high-water mark for U.S. companies over the entire eight years of the survey. The findings in the eighth annual American Express/CFO Research Global Business and Spending Monitorare based on a sampling of 565 senior finance and corporate executives located in North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia and Australia. While the U.S. economy is climbing back steadily, Canadian finance executives are less confident in their economy than their American counterparts (73% for Canadian respondents, up significantly from 62% in 2013, vs. 83% for the U.S. in 2015). However, Canadian businesses are gearing up to invest in growth at even higher levels than in previous years. The combined outlook for the U.S. and Canada sets the North American region apart from other regions as economies and companies attempt to rebuild from the aftermath of global recession. 1NC—No Internal LinkNo Internal Link—Tech isn’t the industry propping the US economy, manufacturing is far bigger internal linkAlan Zafran, Senior managing director, First Republic Investment Management and a member of the CNBC-YPO Chief Executive Network, February 4, 2015, “CEOs bullish on the US economy and hiring: Survey,” CNBC, Accessed June 11, 2015, U.S. is currently driving the global economy, and a look at the latest YPO Global Pulse survey and confidence index show that U.S. CEOs believe their businesses are up to the task for at least a while longer. U.S. CEOs' intentions for the next 12 months revealed in the YPO survey include the following bullish indicators: 70 percent of U.S. CEOs anticipate sales increases in excess of 10 percent, whereas only 4 percent see a sales decrease in excess of 10 percent. 45 percent of U.S. CEOs anticipate increasing their employee headcounts by greater than 10 percent, whereas only 4 percent see a headcount decrease in excess of 10 percent. 47 percent of U.S. CEOs anticipate capital expenditure increases in excess of 10 percent, whereas only 5 percent see capital expenditure decreases in excess of 10 percent. Just how strong is America's economic resurgence? Whereas U.S. GDP is now about 8 percent above its pre-2008 financial-crisis peak, the economies in the Euro zone and Japan remain lower than they were at their respective peaks in early 2008. Meanwhile, China's economic growth rate is slowing, and Russia is in a recession. In fact, at a 3.6 percent projected pace of growth for 2015 per the International Monetary Fund (IMF), America's economic growth looking forward is projected to rise at almost the same pace (4.3 percent) as that of emerging market countries! That narrow 0.7 percent spread is a far cry from the 6.5 percent difference in rates of economic growth that emerging markets had over America back in 2007. Even more impressive, among the world's 10 largest exporting countries, only China now has lower average manufacturing costs than the U.S., according to the Boston Consulting Group. Indeed, American manufacturers, with an improved use of technology and elevated levels of worker productivity, even have a cost-competitive advantage over South Korea today. A confident CEO is a CEO who hires workers and buys property, plant and equipment to grow corporate operations. In turn, worker incomes rise and consumer spending increases, which leads to additional business sales and a further need to increase employment, wages and capital expenditures. A virtuous economic cycle unfolds. This virtuous cycle is beginning to unfold in America.1NC—No ImpactNo Impact—The US economy is increasingly resilient to shocks and recessions—we’ve overcome the worst recession in 80 years and will only get stronger Josh Boak, Writer for CNS News, December 26, 2014, “In 2014, US economy showed increasing resilience,” CNS News, Accessed June 10, 2015, U.S. economy flexed its old muscles in 2014. More than five years removed from the Great Recession, worries had taken hold that perhaps the world's largest economy had slid into a semi-permanent funk. Consumers, businesses and investors, after enduring a brutal winter, showed renewed vigor as the year wore on and set the United States apart from much of the world. Stocks repeatedly set record highs. Employers were on pace to add nearly 3 million jobs, the most in 15 years. Sinking oil prices cut gasoline costs to their lowest levels since May 2009. Auto sales accelerated. Inflation was a historically low sub-2 percent. The U.S. economy proved it could thrive even as the Federal Reserve ended its bond buying program, which had been intended to aid growth by holding down long-term loan rates. All told, the United States remained insulated from the financial struggles surfacing everywhere from Europe and Latin America to China, Japan and Russia. So what explained the U.S. economy's resilience this year? Economists say it largely reflected the delayed benefits of finally mending the damage from the worst downturn in nearly 80 years. Unlike past recoveries that enjoyed comparatively swift rebounds, this one proved agonizingly slow. It took 6? years to regain all the jobs lost the recession — 8.7 million — far longer than during previous recoveries. "It was a healing process from a severe recession and the financial crisis," said Richard Moody, chief economist at Regions Financial, a bank based in Alabama.UQ—US Econ High NowMost major signs point to a robust US economy David Henry and Lauren Tara LaCapra, Writers for Business Insider, April 17, 2015, “Here's another promising sign that the US economy is improving,” Business Insider, Accessed June 10, 2015, . banks are reporting that companies are tapping more of their credit lines to fund hiring and expand their businesses, a promising sign for the economy. Commercial borrowers are using two or three percentage points more of their credit lines than they were a year ago, reaching levels not seen since before the financial crisis was at its height in 2009, senior officials at a number of major banks said in interviews and on conference calls this week. Companies are using the funds for a variety of things, from boosting manufacturing capacity to investing in new businesses and building inventory as customer demand increases. "Confidence is back," said Laura Oberst, an executive vice president at Wells Fargo & Co who oversees commercial banking for the central U.S. region. "It's fragile still, but stronger than I've seen it since the meltdown of 2008.” Int. Link Defense—A/T “Tech Business Key”Job creation is keeping the US economy afloat, not tech companies Russ Koesterich, Global Chief Investment Strategist for BlackRock, Mar 25, 2015, “Why the US Economy Is Strong Relative to Other Economies,” Market Realist, Accessed June 11, 2015, Global Growth, Despite U.S. Resilience. We have been seeing countervailing forces are pulling stocks in opposite directions. Next to more evidence that the U.S. economy is improving, we are seeing several signs of slowing growth outside the United States: weak import/export data from China, multiple downgrades of global oil demand accompanied by a further plunge in prices, more stringent collateral requirements in China and renewed angst over European politics. Market Realist – The pace of job creation suggests that the US economy is strong. The United States’ economic strength has been one of the bright spots in a world that’s slowing down. The US has created over 2 million jobs in the last seven months. This economic strength has propped up the US stock markets (SPY)(IVV). However, we can’t say the same about other major economies. Europe (EZU) has entered into deflation territory, and growth has been consistently soft since the financial crisis. There are some green shoots appearing, though. Still, there’s a long way to go before we can conclusively say that the bruised economy is bottoming out.Impact Defense—Interdependence Prevents WarEconomic interdependence prevents nations from wanting to go to war—creates an incentive for restraint Loren Mooney, William D. Eberle Professor of Economics at Stanford, May 28, 2014, “Matthew O. Jackson: Can Trade Prevent War?,” Stanford Business, Accessed June 11, 2015, findings coincide with two major global trends since World War II: From 1950 to 2000, the incidence of interstate war has decreased nearly tenfold compared with the period from 1850 to 1949. At the same time, since 1950 international trade networks have increased nearly fourfold, becoming significantly more dense. "In the period before World War II, it was hard to find a stable set of alliances," says Jackson. The probability of a lasting alliance was about 60%. "You have almost a coin-flip chance that the alliance won't still be there in five years," he says. In Europe in the 1870s, for example, German chancellor Otto von Bismarck sought peace with "balance of power" diplomacy, which crumbled leading up to World War I. "Then in the past 50 years or so, there's been a surprising global stability." The impact of economic interdependence is especially apparent in Europe, Jackson says, where the Eurozone has promoted not only peace and increased trade among nations, but also labor mobility. Very costly wars still occur, of course, but Jackson notes that the most war-torn places in recent history have tended to be those with fewer global trade alliances. For example, the Second Congo War from 1998 to 2003 and beyond, which killed more than four million people and is the deadliest war since World War II, involved eight African nations with relatively few trade ties. "Then look at the Kuwait situation," says Jackson, referring to U.S. intervention in the first Gulf War to protect oil supplies. "Economic interest drives a lot of what goes on in terms of where nations are willing to exercise military strength." There are other real-world factors that have no doubt influenced war and trade trends since World War II, among them the proliferation of nuclear weapons — "Changing military technology can help maintain stable arrangements," says Jackson — the Cold War, an increase in worldwide wealth levels, and the introduction of container shipping in the 1960s, which has helped facilitate low-cost, long-range trade. Still, Jackson and Nei's theoretical model suggests that trade alliances play a critical role. And in fact economic allies may be the most worth striving for in developing areas. "Maybe wars like the Second Congo War won't be occurring in the future if there's more trade with African nations," says Jackson. "Economic interests can really help us have a more peaceful world than we already have."Int. Link Defense—A/T “Econ Decline Causes War”Economic hardship doesn’t always cause war, the equation is much more complex. The aff’s evidence doesn’t take into consideration regime type and other geopolitical factors Dale C. Copeland, Associate Professor of Government and Foreign Affairs at the University of Virginia, Accessed June 11, 2015, “Economic Interdependence and War,” Princeton.edu, Accessed June 11, 2015, book sets out to resolve this debate. It shows that commercial factors are not only far more important to the outbreak of war than either side has previously thought, but that their impact can cut both ways. Trade and investment flows can indeed moderate the likelihood of conflict between great powers, as liberals believe. Yet interdependence can also push states into crises and wars, as the critics of liberalism contend. The real puzzle to be solved thus becomes this: When and under what conditions will the trade and investment ties between nations lead to either peace or military conflict? Some crucial work has already begun on this conundrum, with scholars employing large-N data sets to identify the additional causal factors that might interact with interdependence to incline nations toward peace or war. Unfortunately, the development of deductive theories to explain the role of the added causal variables has lagged behind the empirical analysis of their significance. In terms of empirical correlation, it now seems clear that factors such as regime type, capitalism, and levels of development play important synergistic roles in shaping the impact of economic interdependence on the likelihood of war. But we still do not adequately know why they play these roles—that is, what these factors are actually doing to create the causal effects we observe. Impact Defense—US Econ ResilientThe US economy is resilient, even though things should be better, the economy is strong enough to survive hardship The Economist, Financial news and analysis, December 2, 2014, “Why so glum?,” The Economist, Accessed June 10, 2015, DUY, one of the best writers on macro policy issues, is optimistic about America's economy and wonders why more people aren't: Overall, I find the pessimism (from the right and the left) inconsistent with the fact that despite the ups and downs of the quarterly data, throughout the recovery, GDP has grown at a fairly consistent rate... The US economy is far more resilient than it is given credit for. None of the downside risks of recent years have been sufficient to derail the recovery, nor will the supposed downside risks of next year... [M]y probability of recession in the next twelve months: 0%. I would place similar odds on the following twelve months as well... Perhaps, just perhaps, the US economic expansion has been consistently undersold, and continues to be undersold. It is worth considering that maybe it is time to just accept the good news without the desperate search for every dark cloud. Have we all been too pessimistic about the American economy? What attitude should we have? One metric might be a cross-country comparison. On that score one might suppose optimism is clearly warranted. America's recovery is the envy of the rich world. On the other hand, that is not saying much. Being the best of the bunch when the bunch has done so miserably is not exactly reason for cheer. And while America is far more insulated from global ups and downs than other economies it is not immune. Poor enough performance abroad would indeed slow American growth, particularly if that poor performance were linked to a major financial meltdown. On a cross-country basis one can make a case for optimism, but it's not a strong one. An historical comparison, by contrast, leads to a much bleaker assessment of the current recovery. The employment recovery since June of 2009 is the worst of any American rebound in the postwar period, and the GDP recovery is the second worst, outdone only by the performance after the 2001 recession. America remains well below the levels of output and employment one might reasonably have expected it to attain both before the Great Recession and in its immediate aftermath. It is true that growth in GDP and employment has been surprisingly—even shockingly—steady and resilient. But that makes it all the more remarkable that America has made up so little of the ground lost since 2007.***A/T Soft Power/ Credibility Adv***1NC—No InherencyNo Inherency—Obama’s broken foreign policy promises wreck US credibility now Fred Hiatt, Editorial page editor for the Washington Post, February 22, 2015, “A credibility gap,” Washington Post, Accessed June, 10, 2015, litany of unfulfilled assurances is less a case of Nixonian deception than a product of wishful thinking and stubborn adherence to policies after they have failed. But inevitably it will affect how people hear Obama’s promises on Iran, as will his overall foreign policy record. That record includes successes, such as the killing of Osama bin Laden, warming ties with India and a potentially groundbreaking agreement with China on climate change. By most measures, though, the world has not become safer during Obama’s tenure. Islamist extremists are stronger than ever; democracy is in retreat around the globe; relations with Russia and North Korea have worsened; allies are questioning U.S. steadfastness. Openings as well as problems can appear unexpectedly in foreign affairs, but the coming two years offer only two obvious opportunities for Obama to burnish this legacy: trade deals with Europe and with Pacific nations, and a nuclear agreement with Iran. That limited field fuels worries that administration negotiators will accept the kind of deal that results from wanting it too badly.1NC—No SolvencyNo Solvency—US torture policy of enemy combatants and drone strikes has done more damage than domestic surveillance, the plan is insufficient to solve Marc Champion, International affairs writer for Bloomberg View, December 10, 2014, “CIA Tortured U.S. Soft Power,” Bloomberg View, Accessed June 10, 2015, it's an open question whether soft power can survive being used to such grotesque ends. One of the many reasons for which the torture program was a terrible idea was that once exposed it has deeply damaged the U.S. brand and thus eroded U.S. alliances: Forced rectal feeding just isn't something that most people associate with the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As many have pointed out, one great benefit of the Senate report is that it has demonstrated the ability of the U.S. political system to subject itself to scrutiny -- a test that most democracies, and all autocratic regimes, routinely fail. Taken as a whole, people aren't na?ve. They understand governments do bad things and pursue their own selfish interests abroad. So when a country confesses and tries to rectify the transgression, people are impressed. If the U.S. goes on to prosecute those who approved and used the most extreme torture methods, that would do still more to repair the damage. But it's worth remarking that torture is not the only national security policy that poses a threat to U.S. alliances. Friendly governments are still being asked to trust in the good judgment and good offices of the U.S. intelligence agencies, as well as in their effective oversight, even when there's reason to question whether that trust is being honored. One such policy is President Barack Obama's expansive use of drone strikes against suspected terrorists. The tacit rationale for this policy is that the targeted individuals are conducting activities so heinous that all nations should accept the right of the U.S. to kill these criminals without due process, wherever they may be, based on U.S. intelligence assessments. As with the arguments in support of torture, however, this justification quickly falls apart. Even Americans don't believe in it: Look at the controversy that arose when Anwar al-Awlaki, a terrorist suspect who happened to be a U.S. citizen, was targeted and killed in a drone strike. If many Americans thought al-Awaliki deserved due process, on what basis should a Yemeni, German or Pakistani national suspected of the same heinous crimes not deserve it, too? Not surprisingly, the U.S. has very little backing world-wide for drone strikes. In July's edition of the Pew Global Attitudes Research Project, there was net support for the policy in only four of 44 countries: Israel, Kenya, Nigeria and the U.S. Majorities opposed the strikes even in staunch U.S. allies such as Japan (82 percent), the U.K. (59 percent) and Poland (54 percent). The smart move for the U.S. to make long ago would have been to propose an international treaty governing the use of drone strikes. So long as it was the only country that had the capability, it could have set the terms of the rules. Soon, most countries will have armed drones and will cite U.S. practice to justify their own strikes extra-territorial, extra-judicial strikes. A second area where the U.S. is suffering severe damage to its image is from the National Security Agency's claim to have the collection of internet metadata from citizens anywhere and everywhere. As with the U.S. renditions policy, America's closest allies collude in this collection effort and have suffered a public backlash as a result. Again, the publics of these countries aren't wholly na?ve: they know that governments spy on other governments, as well as on criminals and terrorists. Indeed, they mostly support spying on terrorists. But the NSA revelations were disruptive, because they created the perception that the U.S. was using its dominance of the Internet to collect data on ordinary citizens across the globe. Again, according to the Pew global survey, majorities disapprove of the U.S. monitoring foreign citizens in all but five countries (one of which was the U.S.). Americans should hardly be surprised: More than 60 percent of them find it unacceptable for the U.S. to spy on its own citizens -- so why would Germans or Italians feel otherwise? Indeed, the only assurance foreigners have that data collected by the NSA isn't being misused is the word of the NSA. Americans at least have the protection of some due process: U.S. agencies need a court order to spy on Americans, but not foreigners. Yesterday's torture report should trigger a wider reassessment of the utility of refusing to set limits on the unique powers and capabilities the U.S. enjoys. If it doesn't, the U.S. will find itself trying to draw on ever dwindling reserves of soft power.1NC—No ImpactNo Impact—The affirmative is addicted to the notion of preserving US credibility, but credibility is an empty concept. Allies will still cooperate with the US regardless of if we obsess over pandering to credibility Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University, January 6, 2015, “The Credibility Addiction,” Foreign Policy, Accessed June 10, 2015, anyone who’s studied the history of U.S. foreign relations knows, American leaders have been obsessed with credibility ever since World War II. If other states ever doubted U.S. power or resolve, so the argument ran, communists would be emboldened, deterrence would weaken, and America’s allies would be intimidated and neutralized, leaving the United States isolated and friendless in a hostile world. This concern led American leaders to constantly reiterate their pledges to defend allies all over the world, led Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon to fight on for years in Vietnam, and drove U.S. efforts to acquire some sort of “nuclear superiority” over the USSR. Even today, whenever something bad happens almost anywhere in the world, hawkish voices will immediately proclaim that America’s credibility will collapse if Uncle Sam does not do something now. It’s not surprising that credibility looms so large in U.S. foreign-policy thinking. Because the United States is the linchpin of a vast alliance network, it has to convince lots of other countries that its promises are really believable. A lot of these countries aren’t especially powerful or strategically significant, however, so there are good reasons to wonder if it was really in America’s interest to defend them. Moreover, some of these commitments involve nuclear guarantees of one sort or another, which means they entail at least some slight risk of nuclear war. As a result, Washington has to convince allies and adversaries that it might be willing to run big risks on behalf of other countries, even when the United States is not directly threatened and the countries it has pledged to defend aren’t vital to maintaining the global balance of power or to American security more broadly. Add to these concerns the supposed “lesson” of Munich (i.e., the idea that all dictators are the equivalent of Adolf Hitler and that appeasement never, ever works), and you have a formula for viewing even trivial issues as somehow bearing on the broader question of how the United States will respond when its vital interests really are on the line. Of course, both the U.S. military and the foreign-policy elite are quick to embrace the notion that U.S credibility was both fragile and all-important, because it provided another reason for large defense budgets and another justification for getting involved all over the world. Unfortunately, this obsession with credibility was misplaced. For one thing, a state’s “reputation” for being tough or reliable didn’t work the way most foreign-policy elites thought it did. American leaders kept worrying that other states would question the United States’ resolve and capability if it ever abandoned an unimportant ally, or lost some minor scrap in the developing world. But as careful research by Ted Hopf, Jonathan Mercer, and Daryl Press has shown, states do not judge the credibility of commitments in one place by looking at how a country acted somewhere far away, especially when the two situations are quite different. In fact, when the United States did lose, or when it chose to cut its losses and liquidate some unpromising position, dominos barely fell and its core strategic relations remained unaffected.No UQ—Lack of Consistency/ Failure The US lacks credibility now because of hypocrisy and lack of favorable foreign policy outcomes—can’t get allies on board with our history of failures Musa al-Gharbi, Writer for Foreign Policy in Focus, March 10, 2015, “Why America Lacks Credibility in the Middle East,” Foreign Policy in Focus, Accessed June 10, 2015, hear politicians and beltway pundits tell it, credibility in international relations boils down to this: Do others believe that the United States is willing and able to follow through on its word? Actually, this is a sloppy and often pernicious way to think, leading policymakers to senselessly commit themselves to failing policies (like enforcing a “red line,” for instance) for the sake of “maintaining credibility” — and actually undermining it in the process. Credibility is not about resolve. Strategic credibility is actually about assuring partners that things will work out well for them if they throw their lot in with you. This perception plays a pivotal role in determining whether others will support or resist U.S. interests abroad. The primary way agents establish themselves as credible is by making good decisions, which means forming and executing policies that generate positive outcomes for the relevant stakeholders. The stronger an agent’s track record, the more likely others will be willing to get behind them — that is, the more credibility they will have. Incidentally, this is the secret to ISIS’ success: Regardless of how distasteful many find their methods and ideology, they have established themselves as one of the most effective forces at seizing territory from the governments of Iraq and Syria, making tangible progress in restoring a caliphate, and resisting the prevailing international order. America, on the other hand, has a serious credibility problem in the Middle East. The results of U.S. interventions in the region have been consistently catastrophic: Whether in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, or Syria, direct U.S. involvement is usually followed by an erosion of state governance, the empowerment of exploitative sub-state and non-state actors, and a dramatic rise in violence, civil tension, and unrest. American indirect involvement, meanwhile, tends to empower corrupt, oppressive, and undemocratic forces — such as in Pakistan, Egypt, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. In terms of achieving positive outcomes, America simply has absolutely no credibility in the Middle East. However, character is also important: Moral credibility means a nation’s intentions and motivations are more likely to be trusted. Strategic and moral credibility are interrelated: Consistently generating good outcomes goes a long way toward bolstering one’s reputation. Even if the methods for achieving an objective seem questionable, they tend to be justified retrospectively if things turn out all right. In the interim, people are much more willing to extend the benefit of doubt to those with a strong track record of success. Conversely, moral credibility can help make up for occasional bad outcomes — an agent is afforded slack when things go awry if it’s perceived as being genuinely well-intentioned. However, when there are glaring inconsistencies between a government’s declared aspirations (say, promotion of democracy and human rights) and their means of realization (imposing Western socio-economic models at the expense of indigenous self-determination) — especially when paired with a general failure to realize stated objectives (producing chaos rather than order, be it liberal or otherwise) — these generate suspicion about its real intentions and motives.Alt Causes—Oil Export Ban Ongoing factors like the crude oil ban hurt American credibility with other nations—we pretend to be in favor of free trade but restrict free trade access to oil Jim Snyder, Writer for Bloomberg News, March 19, 2015, “Former Obama Officials Say Oil Export Ban Hurts U.S. Credibility,” Bloomberg News, Accessed June 10, 2015, former Obama administration officials said a four-decade-old ban on oil exports limits U.S. geopolitical influence and makes it harder to get other nations to embrace free trade. The issue of the ban “arose constantly” in negotiations with other countries, including when the U.S. sought support for sanctions on Iran’s oil production to halt its nuclear ambitions, said Carlos Pascual, a former top energy envoy at the U.S. State Department. “It’s those kinds of restrictions that in the end affect American credibility, and in the moment when we have to put through an important policy, makes it much more difficult to negotiate,” Pascual said at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing Thursday called to build support for ending the ban in place since the 1970s Arab oil embargo. Despite a lobbying push by drillers, and steep job losses in the oil fields tied to a plunge in crude prices, there’s been no significant effort in Congress to lift the ban. Some oil refiners, who benefit from low prices, oppose ending the ban.Alt Causes—CIA Torture ReportCIA torture revelations have done and continue to do far more harm than surveillance to US credibility Brian Dooley, Director, Human Rights First's Human Rights Defenders Program, January 1, 2015, “CIA Torture's Immeasurable Damage to U.S. Global Leadership,” Huffington Post, Accessed June 10, 2015, month's revelations about CIA torture have hurt U.S. credibility worldwide. The Senate Intelligence Committee's report on CIA Interrogation concluded the program "created tensions with U.S. partners and allies...complicating bilateral intelligence relationships." It said the program caused "immeasurable damage to the United States' public standing, as well as to the United States' longstanding global leadership on human rights in general...." Immeasurable is right -- in a literal sense it's impossible to gauge just how badly Washington's international U.S. image has been hurt by the CIA's torture. The CIA was never among the world's most trusted global brands, even among U.S. allies, but torture revelations have diminished U.S. claims to moral leadership and reduced its "soft power." An editorial in influential Spanish newspaper El Pais argued that the revelations mean the U.S. can no longer present itself as "a beacon of freedom." Releasing the report isn't what's hurt America's reputation -- making public and facing up to its mistakes are generally seen as a plus -- and the backlash attacks against American embassies and personnel overseas some warned would be triggered by the report's release hasn't happened. After Abu Ghraib and earlier revelations from Guantanamo it's not much of a shock for foreigners that the CIA tortured detainees and lied about it to other parts of the U.S. government, though details of rectal feeding and other abuses refreshed memories of what went on during the Bush presidency.No Solvency—Targeted Campaigns KeyThe plan is insufficient to boost soft power/ credibility. Only targeted media campaigns can sustain high levels of soft power Kristin Lord, Writer for Foreign Policy, December 23, 2014, “Soft Power Outage,” Foreign Policy, Accessed June 10, 2015, too often — and across presidential administrations — soft power falls down the list of foreign policy priorities, underweighted in comprehensive strategies that include diplomacy and defense. Dominating the moral high ground and using it to spur social change is not at the center of national security policymaking, but it should be. Serious public engagement strategies, which are natural components of soft power, are rare. The once frequently heard term “public diplomacy” is falling into increasing disuse. A recent example of positive public engagement is the Obama administration’s creation of the Mandela Fellows Program, also known as the Young African Leaders Initiative (YALI). Inaugurated last summer at the President’s U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, the program brings 500 rising African leaders to the United States for leadership and entrepreneurship training, and also creates sustained professional development for these and many more talented young people on the ground in Africa, in concert with American universities and companies. YALI is one part of a broader strategy to invest in the potential of Africa — a strategy that serves U.S. national security, economic, and humanitarian interests. It supports people who will be friends and partners of the United States for a lifetime, not because they have somehow been coerced, but because of shared goals: a vibrant, prosperous, and just African continent governed by the rule of law. (Disclosure: My organization, the global education and development NGO IREX, is the lead partner to the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development in implementing the Mandela Fellows program.) To be effective, public engagement must be sustained. Though taxpayers may grow weary of funding international broadcasting, educational, and professional exchanges, teacher and journalist training, and mentoring of independent media outlets, such activities are high-yielding investments with costs that pale in comparison to what is spent on defense. Bringing high talent individuals to study in U.S. universities not only enriches the country’s campuses and gives future leaders real skills they can use to build their own societies, it creates a network of people around the world who understand cherished American values and often work — on their own accord — to promote them. And supporting independent, professional media sectors not only helps other nations build their own young democracies, such media outlets are better poised than governments to counter politically motivated propaganda and often do, on their own initiative.***Generic Disad Links***Terrorism Disad—Link—Wiretapping Phone surveillance is key to prevent terrorist attacks—the plan crushes counter terrorism effortsChristi Parsons and Brian Bennett, Reporters for the LA Times, May 28, 2015, “If NSA surveillance program ends, phone record trove will endure,” LA Times, Accessed June 12, 2015, National Security Agency will mothball its mammoth archive of Americans' telephone records, isolating the computer servers where they are stored and blocking investigators' access, but will not destroy the database if its legal authority to collect the material expires on schedule this Sunday, officials said Thursday. The NSA's determination to keep billions of domestic toll records for counter-terrorism and espionage investigations adds another note of uncertainty to a debate that pits the Obama administration's national security team against opponents who argue the government data trove violates Americans' privacy and civil liberties. The political and legal dispute will come to a head Sunday when the Republican-led Senate returns to work a day early to seek a resolution — hours before the law used to authorize the controversial NSA program, and several other key counter-terrorism provisions, expires at 11:59 p.m. The final eight hours — starting at 3:59 p.m. Sunday — will see a flurry of activity at U.S. phone companies and at the NSA as engineers take down servers, reconfigure monitoring software and unplug hardware from the main pipeline of telephone data traffic, according to several senior administration officials. If the Senate stalemate pushes past 7:59 p.m., holes in the incoming data will begin to appear — and will grow — until nothing is collected after midnight, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal planning. "We're in uncharted waters," one official said. "We have not had to confront addressing the terrorist threat without these authorities. And it's going to be fraught with unnecessary risk."Crime Disad—Link—Wiretapping Government surveillance wiretaps are key to bringing down major crime figuresAdriana Gomez Licon and Alicia A. Caldwell, Writers for the Associated Press, February 24, 2014, “Wiretaps, aides led to arrest of Mexican drug lord,” Police One, Accessed June 11, 2015, wiretap being monitored by ICE agents in southern Arizona provided the final clue, helping track Guzman to the beachfront condo, the officials said. The ICE wiretap proved the most crucial lead late last week as other wiretaps became useless as Guzman and his associates reacted to coming so close to being caught. "It just all came together and we got the right people to flip and we were up on good wire," the government official said. "The ICE wire was the last one standing. That wire in Nogales. That got him (Guzman) inside that hotel." Alonzo Pena, a former senior official at ICE, said wiretaps in Arizona led authorities to the Culiacan house of Guzman's ex-wife, Griselda Lopez, and to the Mazatlan hotel where Guzman was arrested. The ICE investigation started about a year ago with a tip from the agency's Atlanta office that someone was crossing the border with about $100,000 at a time, said Pena, who was briefed on the investigation. That person led investigators to another cartel operative, believed to be an aircraft broker, and that allowed them to locate Guzman's communications equipment.Crime/ Terrorism Disad—Link—Wiretapping Phone wiretapping is key to prevent crime and terrorism—it’s a key tool for law enforcement Elizabeth E. Joh, Professor of Law, U.C. Davis School of Law, March 26, 2014, “POLICING BY NUMBERS: BIG DATA AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT,” UC Davis School of Law, Accessed June 11, 2015, age of “big data” has come to policing. In Chicago, police officers are paying particular attention to members of a “heat list”: those identified by a risk analysis as most likely to be involved in future violence. In Charlotte, North Carolina, the police have compiled foreclosure data to generate a map of high-risk areas that are likely to be hit by crime. In New York City, the N.Y.P.D. has partnered with Microsoft to employ a “Domain Awareness System” that collects and links information from sources like CCTVs, license plate readers, radiation sensors, and informational databases. In Santa Cruz, California, the police have reported a dramatic reduction in burglaries after relying upon computer algorithms that predict where new burglaries are likely to occur. The Department of Homeland Security has applied computer analytics to Twitter feeds to find words like “pipe bomb,” “plume,” and “listeria.” Big data has begun to transform government in fields as diverse as public health, transportation management, and scientific research. The analysis of what were once unimaginable quantities of digitized data is likely to introduce dramatic changes to a profession which, as late as 1900, involved little more than an able-bodied man who was given a hickory club, a whistle, and a key to a call box. Real-time access to and analysis of vast quantities of information found in criminal records, police databases, and surveillance data may alter policing in the same way that big data has revolutionized areas as diverse as presidential elections, internet commerce, and language translation. Some have even heralded big data’s potential to change our assumptions about social relationships, government, scientific study, and even knowledge itself. In the private sector, retailers have harnessed big data to produce some seemingly trivial but surprising changes to their practices. A much discussed example stems from Target’s extensive use of data analytics to identify certain purchases, such as supplements commonly taken during pregnancy, to know whether a customer is pregnant, without the woman disclosing the pregnancy herself. For a retailer, pregnancy is a prime opportunity to target a consumer when shopping habits change and expand. An irate father allegedly complained to Target that his daughter was unfairly targeted as a pregnant woman with coupons only to discover, to his chagrin, that Target was better informed than he was. Similarly, Walmart, through its computerized retail tracking, has discovered that Strawberry Pop-Tarts and beer sell as briskly as flashlights when hurricanes are forecast. These products were quickly shipped to Florida Walmart stores in the path of Hurricane Frances in 2004. Yet unlike the data crunching performed by Target, Walmart, or Amazon, the introduction of big data to police work raises new and significant challenges to the regulatory framework that governs conventional policing. From one perspective, the Fourth Amendment has proven remarkably flexible over time. Constitutional law has governed ordinary policing whether the crimes involved bootlegging, numbers running, marijuana farming, or cell phones. As the sophistication of criminals has increased, so too have the tools of the police. In the twentieth century, perhaps no two tools have been as revolutionary to modern policing as the two way radio and the patrol car.Crime/ Terrorism Disad—Link—Wiretapping Wiretapping is essential for effective law enforcement—it provides the bulk data needed so detailed analysis can occurDr. A. Didar Singh, Secretary General FICCI, and Rahul Rishi, a partner at Advisory Services EY, 2014, “Homeland Security 2014 Safe and Secure Nation Intelligence-led Policing,” FICCI, Accessed June 11, 2015, of information gathered from diverse sources, for example, wiretaps, informants, banking records or surveillance, are basically of raw nature with limited inherent meaning. Intelligence requires a wide array of raw information to be assessed for validity and reliability, reviewed for materiality to the issues at question, and interpreted through the application of inductive or deductive logic. Law enforcement intelligence, therefore, is the product of an analytic process that provides an integrated perspective to disparate information about crime, crime trends, crime and security threats, and conditions associated with criminality. The need for carefully analysed and reliable information is essential because both policy and operational decisions are made using intelligence; therefore, a vigilant process must be in place to ensure that decisions are made on objective, informed criteria, rather than on presumed criteria.Crime/ Terrorism Disad—Link—Wiretapping The plan sends a bad message to the criminal element—wiretapping should be broad and expansive to prevent crime. We need more not less wiretapping Jordan Maglich, securities law attorney at Wiand Guerra King in Tampa, Florida, May 21, 2013, “Once Reserved For Drug Crimes, Wiretapping Takes Center Stage in White Collar Prosecutions,” Forbes, Accessed June 11, 2015, authorities become increasingly comfortable in using wiretaps to prosecute a growing variety of white-collar crime, the legal community is taking notice. Michael Volkov, a noted authority in the increasingly popular area of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) litigation, recently authored an article warning that wiretaps could soon extend to FCPA prosecutions. In a conversation with , Volkov noted that the FBI had recently arrested a senior executive of a mining company for FCPA and obstruction of justice violations based on recordings made by a cooperating witness. According to Volkov, “There is no question that federal prosecutors will and want to use a wiretap to investigate and prosecute high-level executives who may be violating the FCPA.” Volkov’s comments reflect + As a surge in the use of wiretaps has proven successful in rooting out white-collar crime, authorities have not only touted their successes, but also insinuated that this approach could serve as a model blueprint. U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara stated in a recent speech that “This aggressive use of wiretaps is important. It shows that we are targeting white-collar insider trading rings with the same powerful investigative tools that have worked so successfully against the mob and drug cartels.” As Bharara warned after Rajaratnam was convicted, “When sophisticated business people begin to adopt the methods of common criminals, we have no choice but to treat them as such.” However, while the future of wiretaps is certainly enticing from a prosecutorial standpoint, some have also urged restraint. Peter J. Henning, a professor at Wayne State University Law School and expert on white collar crime, authoreda blog post at the New York Times’ Dealbook urging that wiretaps be used very carefully, and warning that The Justice Department needs to be careful, however, that it does not become so enamored of this tool that prosecutors rush to use it when it will not be effective, or worse, ignore the complex requirements for tapping telephones. In closing, few can argue that authorities have amassed an impressive record fighting insider-trading that has been bolstered by the use of wiretaps. Indeed, the statistics are daunting – over seventy convictions and not a single acquittal over the past few years. However, while this streak has emboldened authorities, the war is far from over. Rajaratnam is currently appealing his conviction, arguing that the wiretaps should be thrown out. And as authorities increasingly turn to wiretap evidence, there is the chance that future court decisions will restrict, rather than increase, the use of wiretaps. Finally, there is the threat that criminals will stay a step ahead of authorities by embracing the latest and greatest technology, such as untraceable conversations or dialogues. But all can agree on one thing – the criminal activity will continue.***Solvency***1NC—Solvency NSA and other government agencies will circumvent reforms like the plan Spencer Ackerman, National security editor for Guardian US. Former senior writer for Wired, June 1, 2015, “Fears NSA will seek to undermine surveillance reform,” The Guardian, Accessed June 11, 2015, advocates fear the National Security Agency will attempt to weaken new restrictions on the bulk collection of Americans’ phone and email records with a barrage of creative legal wrangles, as the first major reform of US surveillance powers in a generation looked likely to be a foregone conclusion on Monday. The USA Freedom Act, a bill banning the NSA from collecting US phone data in bulk and compelling disclosure of any novel legal arguments for widespread surveillance before a secret court, has already been passed by the House of Representatives and on Sunday night the Senate voted 77 to 17 to proceed to debate on it. Between that bill and a landmark recent ruling from a federal appeals court that rejected a longstanding government justification for bulk surveillance, civil libertarians think they stand a chance at stopping attempts by intelligence lawyers to undermine reform in secret. Attorneys for the intelligence agencies react scornfully to the suggestion that they will stretch their authorities to the breaking point. Yet reformers remember that such legal tactics during the George W Bush administration allowed the NSA to shoehorn bulk phone records collection into the Patriot Act. Rand Paul, the Kentucky senator and Republican presidential candidate who was key to allowing sweeping US surveillance powers to lapse on Sunday night, warned that NSA lawyers would now make mincemeat of the USA Freedom Act’s prohibitions on bulk phone records collection by taking an expansive view of the bill’s definitions, thanks to a pliant, secret surveillance court. “My fear, though, is that the people who interpret this work at a place known as the rubber stamp factory, the Fisa [court],” Paul said on the Senate floor on Sunday.Circumvention—Happening Now The NSA is already ignoring specific directives from Congress not to keep bulk phone records on file Sean Adl-Tabatabai, Writer for Your News Wire, June 4, 2015. “NSA To Ignore Senate, Will Continue To Keep Phone Data ,” Your News Wire, Accessed June 11, 2015, To Ignore Senate, Will Continue To Keep Phone Data The NSA has said it will lock down and “mothball” its archive of US citizens’ phone records even though its legal authority to collect data has now officially come to an end. reports: Even if the Senate votes to renew legislation that allows for the mass surveillance program to continue, it would take three or four days to get it through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) before all the computer systems required could be rebooted. Another official said even a gap of three or four days was “playing national security roulette.” In the unlikely scenario of the Senate voting before 8pm on Sunday in favor of renewing legislation, the NSA could stop the shutdown. But there are many lawmakers that will fight against any renewal of the law. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky), who is running for a presidential nomination, told supporters on Thursday that he’s determined to “relegate the NSA’s illegal spy program to the trash bin of history where it belongs.”Circumvention—Loop HolesGovernment always looking for loopholes in surveillance restrictions, plan won’t prevent this Jeff Lyon and Donny Shaw, Writers for The Hill, May 21, 2015, “No, Congress did not just vote to end NSA spying,” The Hill, Accessed June 11, 2015, the surface, much of what’s in USA Freedom sounds good: a new public advocate for the F.I.S.C. court would increase surveillance transparency, and new restrictions on bulk data collection would seem to reign-in the N.S.A. Unfortunately, these restrictions are negated by a host of new privacy problems and loopholes. The bill expands the type of data the government access from landline call data to VoIP calls, video chats and smartphone activity. The government will still be able to use broad search terms to target large portions of the population, and they can collect even more information from contacts “connected” to those targets. Companies that hand customer data over to the government will be rewarded with blanket immunity from lawsuits, even when they violate their own privacy agreements with customers. The N.S.A. will share information with the F.B.I., which can then use the information for investigations unrelated to counterterrorism. And the government can block the F.I.S.C. advocate from seeing anything they want to keep secret.***Counter Plan***1NC—CP ***Assumed generic plan text: Resolved: The Supreme Court of the United States should end all warrantless wiretapping surveillance in the United States.The SCOTUS has the ability to rule on domestic phone surveillance CNN News, American news organization, April 18, 2014, “Supreme Court could weigh in on NSA case, justice says,” Fox Network, Accessed June 12, 2015, Supreme Court justice Thursday night suggested the legality of National Security Agency activities could be decided by the court. Three days after Pulitzers were awarded to newspapers that revealed the NSA’s surveillance activities, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg deflected a question about Edward Snowden, who leaked NSA data. When asked, “Do you believe that Snowden is a whistleblower or a traitor?” Ginsburg, who was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, told an audience at the National Press Club in Washington that she could not say. “It’s also possible, is it not,” she said, “that the question you raise could come before the court. And we are not at liberty to preview.” If Snowden is extradited to the United States and charged with federal crimes for his leaks, his case could come before the court. In June of 2013, The Guardian and The Washington Post published reports that revealed the NSA’s bulk collection of U.S. citizens’ phone records and other clandestine surveillance activities. That sparked a firestorm concerning Fourth Amendment protections for U.S. citizens from “unreasonable searches and seizures” and the issue of where that protection weighs in the balance between national security and personal privacy.The counter plan competes through net benefits and avoids any offense to Congressional action. Solvency—Legal AuthorityThe Supreme Court has the legal authority and precedent for ruling on 4th Amendment and surveillance issues Gregory McNeal, a professor at Pepperdine University and an expert in law and public policy with a specific focus on security, technology and crime, November 2014, “Drones and Aerial Surveillance,” Brookings Institute, Accessed June 12, 2015, observations of the curtilage of a home are generally not prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, so long as the government is conducting the surveillance from public navigable airspace, in a non-physically intrusive manner, and the government conduct does not reveal intimate activities traditionally associated with the use of the home. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue of aerial surveillance in a series of cases in the late 1980′s: In California v. Ciraolo the Supreme Court held, “The Fourth Amendment was not violated by the naked-eye aerial observation of respondent’s backyard.” In Ciraolo, the police received a tip that someone was growing marijuana in the backyard at Ciraolo’s home. A police officer attempted to observe what was growing, but his observations were obscured by a six foot high outer fence and a ten foot high inner fence. The officer, suspicious that the fences might be intended to hide the growth of marijuana, obtained a private plane and flew over the backyard of Ciraolo’s property at an altitude of 1,000 feet. That altitude was within the FAA’s definition of public navigable airspace. The Supreme Court found that this was not a search, and therefore was not prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. In so finding, Chief Justice Burger stated that in erecting a 10 foot fence, Ciraolo manifested “his own subjective intent and desire to maintain privacy as to his unlawful agriculture” but his “intent and desire” did not amount to an expectation of privacy. The Court noted that the fence “might not shield these plants from the eyes of a citizen or a policeman perched on the top of a truck or a 2-level bus.” Accordingly, “it was not ‘entirely clear’ whether [Ciraolo] maintained a ‘subjective expectation of privacy from all observations of his backyard,’ or only from ground level observations.” The Court believed that it was unreasonable for Ciraolo to expect privacy in his backyard when a routine overflight, or an observation “by a power company repair mechanic on a pole overlooking the yard” would reveal exactly what the police discovered in their overflight. At the same time that Ciraolo was decided, the Court held in Dow Chemical Co. v. United States that “the use of an aerial mapping camera to photograph an industrial manufacturing complex from navigable airspace similarly does not require a warrant under the Fourth Amendment.” In Dow Chemical Co., the Supreme Court did acknowledge that the use of technology might change the Court’s inquiry, stating “surveillance of private property by using highly sophisticated surveillance equipment not generally available to the public, such as satellite technology, might be constitutionally proscribed absent a warrant.” But then the Court dismissed the notion, stating “[a]ny person with an airplane and an aerial camera could readily duplicate” the photographs at issue. In short, the Court stated, “taking of aerial photographs of an industrial plant complex from navigable airspace is not a search prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.” Solvency—Legal PrecisionThe CP has the best solvency—the highest court in the land must weigh in on domestic surveillance to ensure precise legal interpreting of the law Andrea Peterson, Reporter for the Washington Post, May 8, 2015, “Why the ruling against the NSA’s phone records program could have huge implications,” Washington Post, Accessed June 12, 2015, court's rejection of the broad interpretation of relevance in this case could make it nearly impossible for the government to argue in favor of domestic bulk collection programs such as these without it being explicitly spelled out in the law, according to Mayer. That could have significant weight in the legislative debate over the phone records program. Section 215 is set to expire on June 1, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is pushing for a bill that would renew it. But for the phone program to continue after passage, the government would have to convince the Supreme Court to reverse the 2nd Circuit's decision. And a bill to modify the law so that, supporters argue, the NSA can get access to records while still protecting Americans’ data -- called the USA Freedom Acct -- has split privacy advocates. One coalition of privacy advocates argues that the bill essentially legalizes mass surveillance and could "eviscerate numerous court challenges" -- presumably, challenges like the one just won in the 2nd Circuit. But one of the key arguments from privacy advocates who support the bill is that it reins in bulk collection by the government, which may have continued under other authorities even if Section 215 is sunset. That argument may be less compelling to some now. "The 2nd Circuit just did a big piece of USA Freedom," Mayer said.Solvency—Legal PrecisionThe Supreme Court can rule on 4th Amendment issues and surveillance. Their rulings create the most binding and legally precise interpretations of the Constitution Nina Paul, University of California, Hastings College of the Law, and Will Trachman, J.D. University of California, Berkeley School of Law, Accessed June 12, 2015, “Fidos and Fi-don’ts: Why the Supreme Court Should Have Found a Search in Illinois v. Caballes,” Berkley, Accessed June 12, 2015, a portion of this country’s history, the Supreme Court interpreted the terms of the Fourth Amendment narrowly, often using the location of the police investigation as the dispositive determination of whether or not a “search” had occurred. This jurisprudence however—ostensibly established in the 1925 case of Olmstead v. United States—ultimately collapsed under its own weight. The Court instead gave content to the term “search” by employing a two-part test, first elaborated in Justice Harlan’s concurrence in Katz v. United States. That test requires individual litigants, in order to argue successfully that a search by state officials has occurred, to demonstrate that “[they] exhibit an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy,” and that their “expectation [is one] that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” In Katz, the defendant appealed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling allowing the introduction of evidence from “an electronic listening and recording device” that agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had attached “to the outside of the public telephone booth” from which the defendant placed calls. The Government argued that the defendant was as visible from inside the glass telephone booth as he would be from the outside. However, the Court noted: But what he sought to exclude when he entered the booth was not the intruding eye—it was the uninvited ear. He did not shed his right to do so simply because he made his calls from a place where he might be seen. Since the FBI agents in Katz ignored “the procedure of antecedent justification,” and because their surveillance led directly to the defendant’s conviction, the Court concluded that the judgment should be Benefit—Circumvention The Supreme Court must rule on phone surveillance to create legally precise language which prevents circumvention from other branches and agencies Marcy Wheeler, Writer for Salon, April 30, 2015, “Congress’s Orwellian spying “reforms”: Why the government wants to outsource its surveillance to your Internet provider,” Salon, Accessed June 12, 2015, more limiting language, then, this bill would permit the government to require providers to give analysis based on the session-identifying information from people’s smart phones, with very little oversight, and with only a reasonable suspicion (not probable cause) standard that the person in question has ties to terrorism. It would permit that, even after the Supreme Court ruled the government needs a warrant before it can search people’s smart phone. Maybe that’s why the immunity in this bill is so expansive? Though to be clear: The government would not be conducting this “connection chaining”; immunized providers would be. The government would just get a list of device identifiers of who had come up as a result of this chaining. There is good reason for the government to want to collect some data from the phone-computer activity of suspected terrorists. But the Supreme Court has already said the government can’t search smart phones based on a traffic-stop level of suspicion, which is the same level of proof required here. Effectively, by outsourcing the spying to providers, the government aims to evade that law to monitor people who have only tenuous ties to terrorism, and do so with none of the checks against abuse such spying would get in a criminal context. The government has finally hinted at what it plans to do instead of conducting an equally unconstitutional dragnet that aspired to cover all Americans. It solves one big problem. But how many new abuses is it creating?Common Core Education AFF1ACThesis: Common Core is often referred to as a “state-led” program of curriculum and testing standards reform. However, it includes a host of problematic assumptions and actions. More than “state-led”, the federal government has taken actions to cannibalize CCSS and functionally nationalize education. Even worse, it hands primary control to corporations bent on neoliberal expansion and undermines critical thinking. Affirmative politics answers are in the Negative section, depending on the specific version of the disadvantage.Observation One: Common Core standards and domestic surveillanceA. Common Core is a pretext for the nationalization of education. It is a comprehensive surveillance attack on family privacyS. Noble, Staff Writer,?July 10, 2015, “Common Core: Who Is Teaching Your Children?,” Independent Sentinel, , ACC. 8-3-2015Common Core is becoming?a rigid national scheme with backers who will make a great deal of money from it. Once fully in place, there will be no alternative. The Common Core standards are not any more effective than our current New York State curricula, but it is likely to be a costly and unfunded mandate. Privacy rights are being sacrificed. Databases are established with every piece of information on the child including personal and business data on the child’s family. Family privacy law has been gutted so information can be shared. It will result in a centralized collection of data on every child, sacrificing family privacy in the process. The Department of Education is talking about sharing the family information with the Department of Labor. The testing makes certain that it will?result in the nationalization of education.B. We should reject Common Core as a move to centralized educationMark Phillips, professor emeritus of education at San Francisco State University, July 7, 2015, “Marin Voice: Another perspective on Common Core,” Marin Independent Journal, , ACC. 8-3-2015I’m not opposed to a strong federal government that governs state and local action through legislation or presidential acts. But when I read that Common Core is the educational version of Obamacare, I find myself in the odd place of disagreeing with the analogy while agreeing with strange bedfellows that it should be eliminated. There is a place for centralized control in governance. Education is not one of those places. I believe that Common Core, which represents a set of national educational standards aimed at creating relative uniformity across the country’s schools, has substance that every school should pay attention to.1ACAdvantage One: Neoliberal EducationA. The folly of neoliberalism1. Neoliberalism infuses an ontology of capital where citizens are transformed into disposable commodities. This undermines value to lifeHenry Giroux, Global Television Network Chair Professor at McMaster University in Canada, 2003, The Abandoned generation: Democracy beyond the culture of fear, p. 157.Neoliberalism has become the most dangerous ideology of our time. 16 It assaults all things public, mystifies the basic contradiction between democratic values and market fundamentalism, and weakens any viable consideration of political agency by offering no language capable of connecting private considerations to public issues. Similarly, as Jean and John Comaroff, distinguished professors of anthropology at the University of Chicago, argue, the animating force of neoliberalism undermines any concept of the social, society, and moral community. As they point out, neoliberalism in the age of millennial capitalism works to: displace political sovereignty with the sovereignty of "the market," as if the latter had a mind and morality of its own; to reorder the ontology of production and consumption ... to encourage rapid movement of persons and goods, and sites of fabrication, thus calling into question existing forms of community; to equate freedom with choice, especially to consume, to fashion the self, to conjure with identities; to give free reign to the "forces" of hyperrationalization; to parse human beings into free-floating labor units, commodities, clients, stakeholders, strangers, their subjectivity distilled into ever more objectified ensembles of interests, entitlements, appetites, desires, purchasing "power."2. Neoliberalism dooms children and working class families to systemic inequalityHenry A. Giroux, the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and is a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Ryerson University, January 26, 2015, “Death-Dealing Politics in the Age of Extreme Violence,” TruthOut, , ACC. 8-7-2015With the social contract all but dead, children no longer count for much in a society that makes virtues out of self-interest and greed, and measures success almost entirely in terms of the accumulation of capital. Under the regime of a ruthless neoliberalism, children and their working-class families have become the new casualties of a system that brazenly disdains the rule of law, compassion and a concern for others. Systemic inequality has become one of the weapons now used not only against working families and the middle class, but also in the war on youth.We have two internal links: B. Corporate control1. Washington and corporatism are in bed together to establish nationalized Common Core standardsS. Noble, Staff Writer,?July 10, 2015, “Common Core: Who Is Teaching Your Children?,” Independent Sentinel, , ACC. 8-3-2015The Standards and the mandatory tests attached to them are?sweeping through most of?the 50 states and the SATs now make them?required for students who hope to go to college. The Standards are known as?Common Core and it is much more than a list of standards and recommended readings. It is a movement to establish a rigid curricula in every state?controlled by corporations who provide the materials. Paid for and monitored by Washington, it means Washington is teaching your children.2. Centering education on testing data is an attempt to homogenize all knowledge, which fosters social deathHenry A. Giroux, the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and is a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Ryerson University, July 1, 2014, “Anti-public intellectuals and the tyranny of manufactured forgetting,” Philosophers for Change, , ACC. 8-3-2015Under the auspices of quality control, the cult of data and high-stakes testing becomes a signpost for empirical madness and number crunching run amok. “Teaching to the test” more often than not results in miseducating students while undermining any possibility of expanding their sense of wonder, imagination, critique and social responsibility. Left unchecked, instrumental rationality parading as educational reform will homogenize all knowledge and meaning, as it becomes a machine for proliferating forms of civic and social death, deadening the spirit with the weight of dead time and a graveyard of useless testing?pedagogies. What?does this have to do with the suppression of historical consciousness and the death of politics in the broader culture? The answer becomes clearer when we analyze the relationships among critical thinking, historical consciousness, and the notions of social and self-emancipation.1AC3. A testing-based curriculum creates a neoliberal pedagogy of repressionMichael Nevradakis, Ph.D. student in media studies at the University of Texas at Austin and a US Fulbright Scholar and Henry A. Giroux, Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department & Chair in Critical Pedagogy at The McMaster Institute for Innovation & Excellence in Teaching & Learning, October 19, 2014, “Henry Giroux on the Rise of Neoliberalism (interview),” , ACC. 8-3-2015That's a terrific question. Regarding the quality, it's dumbed-down education to the point where it literally behaves in a way that's hard to fathom or understand. Education has become a site of policies that devalue learning, collapse education into training, or they are viewed as potential sites for neoliberal modes of governance and in some cases to be privatized. The radical and critical imagination is under assault in most neoliberal societies because it poses a threat as does the idea that the mission of education should have something to do with creating critically thoughtful, engaged young people who have a sense of their own agency and integrity and possibility to really believe they can make a difference in the world. Neoliberals believe that the curriculum should be organized around testing, creating passive students, and enforcing a pedagogy of repression. Most importantly, the attack on communal relationships is also an attack on democratic values and the public spaces that nourish them. These spaces are dangerous because they harbor the possibility of speaking the unspeakable, uttering critical thoughts, producing dissent, and creating critically engaged citizens.1AC4. Corporate control of state policy results in extinction Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society, holds a Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania, July 1, 2014, “America’s corporate doctrine of power a grave threat to humanity,” Salon, 01/noam_chomsky_americas_corporate_doctrine_of_power_a_grave_threat_to_humanity/, ACC. 8-7-2015There are other examples too numerous to mention, facts that are well-established and would be taught in elementary schools in free societies.There is, in other words, ample evidence that securing state power from the domestic population and securing concentrated private power are driving forces in policy formation. Of course, it is not quite that simple. There are interesting cases, some quite current, where these commitments conflict, but consider this a good first approximation and radically opposed to the received standard doctrine. Let us turn to another question: What about the security of the population? It is easy to demonstrate that this is a marginal concern of policy planners. Take two prominent current examples, global warming and nuclear weapons. As any literate person is doubtless aware, these are dire threats to the security of the population. Turning to state policy, we find that it is committed to accelerating each of those threats — in the interests of the primary concerns, protection of state power and of the concentrated private power that largely determines state policy. Consider global warming. There is now much exuberance in the United States about “100 years of energy independence” as we become “the Saudi Arabia of the next century” — perhaps the final century of human civilization if current policies persist. That illustrates very clearly the nature of the concern for security, certainly not for the population. It also illustrates the moral calculus of contemporary Anglo-American state capitalism: the fate of our grandchildren counts as nothing when compared with the imperative of higher profits tomorrow. These conclusions are fortified by a closer look at the propaganda system. There is a huge public relations campaign in the U.S., organized quite openly by Big Energy and the business world, to try to convince the public that global warming is either unreal or not a result of human activity. And it has had some impact. The U.S. ranks lower than other countries in public concern about global warming and the results are stratified: among Republicans, the party more fully dedicated to the interests of wealth and corporate power, it ranks far lower than the global norm. The current issue of the premier journal of media criticism, the Columbia Journalism Review, has an interesting article on this subject, attributing this outcome to the media doctrine of “fair and balanced.” In other words, if a journal publishes an opinion piece reflecting the conclusions of 97% of scientists, it must also run a counter-piece expressing the viewpoint of the energy corporations. That indeed is what happens, but there certainly is no “fair and balanced” doctrine. Thus, if a journal runs an opinion piece denouncing Russian President Vladimir Putin for the criminal act of taking over the Crimea, it surely does not have to run a piece pointing out that, while the act is indeed criminal, Russia has a far stronger case today than the U.S. did more than a century ago in taking over southeastern Cuba, including the country’s major port — and rejecting the Cuban demand since independence to have it returned. And the same is true of many other cases. The actual media doctrine is “fair and balanced” when the concerns of concentrated private power are involved, but surely not elsewhere. On the issue of nuclear weapons, the record is similarly interesting — and frightening. It reveals very clearly that, from the earliest days, the security of the population was a non-issue, and remains so. There is no time here to run through the shocking record, but there is little doubt that it strongly supports the lament of General Lee Butler, the last commander of the Strategic Air Command, which was armed with nuclear weapons. In his words, we have so far survived the nuclear age “by some combination of skill, luck, and divine intervention, and I suspect the latter in greatest proportion.” And we can hardly count on continued divine intervention as policymakers play roulette with the fate of the species in pursuit of the driving factors in policy formation. As we are all surely aware, we now face the most ominous decisions in human history. There are many problems that must be addressed, but two are overwhelming in their significance: environmental destruction and nuclear war. For the first time in history, we face the possibility of destroying the prospects for decent existence — and not in the distant future. For this reason alone, it is imperative to sweep away the ideological clouds and face honestly and realistically the question of how policy decisions are made, and what we can do to alter them before it is too late.1ACC. Critical thinking1. Common Core is an assault on critical thinking wrapped in a testing mania that depoliticizes massive social inequalitiesHenry A. Giroux, the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and is a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Ryerson University, July 1, 2014, “Anti-public intellectuals and the tyranny of manufactured forgetting,” Philosophers for Change, , ACC. 8-3-2015It does not seem unreasonable to conclude at this point that critical thinking as a mode of reasoning is nearing extinction in both the wider society and the sphere of public schooling and higher education in the United States. Stanley Aronowitz has written that critical thought has lost its contemplative character and “has been debased to the level of technical intelligence, subordinate to meeting operational problems.” Nowhere is this more obvious than in the reactionary reforms being pushed on public schooling. President Obama’s educational policies along with the Common Core curriculum created by Bill Gates-funded consultants are devoid of any critical content and reduce pedagogy to the dictates of instrumental standards alone. Education subjected to endless empirical assessment results only in a high-stakes testing mania – a boon, of course, for the test industries, but a devastating loss for teacher and student autonomy. In this instance, student achievement and learning are reduced to data that are completely divorced from “the inequalities of race, class and educational opportunity reflected in . . . test scores.”2. Even the very name “Common Core” represents a collectivist thinking, responsible for some of the worst dictatorships in historyMichael Hurd, PhD, Psychotherapy, March 27, 2015, “’Common Core’ Public Education vs. Critical Thinking,” Capitalism Magazine, , ACC. 8-5-2015The very name “Common Core” is collectivist (i.e. socialist, communistic) in its orientation. It’s not a conspiracy; it’s deliberate. The bureaucratic intellectuals in Washington DC and elsewhere?think this is a good thing.? They get to implement it with no prospect of going out of business or losing their funds. In fact, unlike other enterprises (even many within government, such as the space program or the military), the worse they perform, the more money and monopolistic power they will get; still more mediocrity and failure, and still more billions thrown at the problem, seemingly into infinity. The phrase “Common Core” implies that there is one way to learn, and one set of ideas and attitudes which will be imparted to students throughout the nation. This may be fine from the point-of-view of a Hitlerite or a Stalinist, twenty-first century style. As I indicated, it’s not education — it’s schooling.1AC3. Critical thinking allows us to make better decisions to prevent nuclear warMartin E. Hellman, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering at Stanford, March 28, 2014, Chris Christie’s “Bridge-Gate”: A Dangerous Lack of Critical?Thinking,” , ACC. 8-5-2015At first glance there might seem to be no connection between Defusing the Nuclear Threat and the current controversy over New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s “Bridge-Gate.” But a closer examination reveals a dangerous lack of critical thinking on the part of the media and society as a whole. As argued in my Stanford class handout, “Critical Thinking, War, and Nuclear Weapons”: Eliminating the threat posed by nuclear weapons is such a huge task that critical thinking may seem too small to be of any real value. Compared to other proposed goals, such as arms control or nuclear abolition or world peace, how could something as subtle as thinking things through more carefully possibly make a difference? Those advocating more concrete goals such as arms control, nuclear abolition, or world peace are not necessarily wrong. But none of those larger, more concrete steps is possible until society adjusts its thinking to the realities of the nuclear age. … By itself, critical thinking does nothing to change the concrete reality of how many weapons we have or the war fighting plans that are in place for using them. But, by rooting out incorrect but deeply held beliefs, critical thinking creates a firm foundation for concrete changes to occur. In the incorrect world view, those changes look dangerous and could never occur.” (ellipses in original)Common Core is Surveillance TopicalityCommon Core is “Surveillance”Common Core represents a massive invasion of privacy and totalitarian surveillancePhyllis Schlafly, American constitutional lawyer, May 13, 2013, “Backlash Against Common Core,” The Eagle Forum, , ACC. 8-9-2015Common Core means government agencies will gather and store all sorts of private information on every schoolchild into a longitudinal database from birth through all levels of schooling, plus giving government the right to share and exchange this nosy information with other government and private agencies, thus negating the federal law that now prohibits that. This type of surveillance and control of individuals is the mark of a totalitarian government. Common Core reminds us of how Communist China gathered nosy information on all its schoolchildren, stored it in manila folders called dangans, and then turned the file over to the kid’s employer when he left school. The New York Times once published a picture of a giant Chinese warehouse containing hundreds of thousands of these folders. That was in the pre-internet era when information was stored on paper; now data collection and storage are efficiently managed on computers in a greater invasion of mon Core is a surveillance policy, just like NSA programsGretchen Logue, education activist and founder of Missouri Education Watchdog, January 3, 2013, “Education Reform is Really About Surveillance, The Bell News, , ACC. 8-9-2015The method of making money (not really providing education reform for the sake of education) is in full swing. But look down the road. WHY are we experiencing this monstrous wave of centralized control? It’s for the data. The linked article explains about the surveillance of Americans via the National Security Agency (NSA) capturing email information (without Americans realizing it) and the massive storage and infrastructure needed for this activity. WHY is the government keeping your information? Michael S. Rozeff writing in : If we examine the legality of this NSA warrantless surveillance, we will quickly become mired down in abstruse issues of statutory and constitutional law. Let us not go there. That won’t give us the central answer to the question of what’s wrong with a wide network of government surveillance of Americans, with or without warrants.It’s the same for Common Core Standards. The grab of educational direction by the Department of Education is unconstitutional, but trying to get them out of your state legislatively promises to take several years. Look bigger picture. WHY is the government so interested in establishing common core standards? Like the NSA and the tracking of financial transactions, the tracking of student data will be able to determine your student’s place in a managed workforce. Your students will be placed in a position based on his/her data set.Corporate Control Internal LinksCommon Core bolsters corporate control (general)The corporatization of education through Common Core has material effects on learning and teacher job securityRobby Soave, Staff Editor, July 8, 2015, “Common Core’s Corporate Backers Admit Widespread Failure of Textbooks,” Reason, , ACC. 8-3-2015If Common Core puts the Pythagorean Theorem on the test for seventh graders, but the textbook doesn’t teach it until eighth grade, students are going to be screwed over by low test scores. That’s not fair to them, and it’s not fair to teachers whose salaries and job security rely on their students scoring well. It would appear a massive federal takeover of K-12 education that was subsequently outsourced to a confluence of pseudo-government and crony corporate interests isn’t delivering a very practical product for American children. Now who would have expected that?Common Core standards fail and bolster corporate education controlAlan Singer, Social studies educator, Hofstra University,?August 2, 2015, “What's in Store With Common Core,” Huffington Post, , ACC. 8-1-2015If you can put aside the?high-stakes testing, which admittedly is not easy to do, and if you put aside the break-up of learning into?micro-pieces, which I really cannot forgive, and if you can somehow forget the push for?corporate take over?and profit from education in the United States, there are some are some decent curriculum ideas imbedded in the national Common Core English Language standards. Unfortunately, even the better ideas, reading carefully, looking for underlying meaning in a passage, editing writing, and supporting arguments with evidence, are often laid-out and taught in ways that just do not make academic mon Core fosters a pedagogy of repression that masks social and economic inequality in favor of corporatizationMichael Nevradakis, Ph.D. student in media studies at the University of Texas at Austin and a US Fulbright Scholar and Henry A. Giroux, Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department & Chair in Critical Pedagogy at The McMaster Institute for Innovation & Excellence in Teaching & Learning, October 19, 2014, “Henry Giroux on the Rise of Neoliberalism (interview),” , ACC. 8-3-2015I don't think there's any question about this. You can pick up the paper every day and read the idiocy that comes out of the mouths of these administrators, whether you're talking about Texas or Arizona or Florida. The university is being corporatized in a way that we've never seen before. And we know what that means; we know what the conditions are that are producing this. What is particularly disturbing is how alleged reforms such as the Common Core standards, which decontextualize teaching and learning by claiming that the larger conditions that place all kinds of constraints on public schools, teaching, and how students learn do not matter. This is a very privatizing and commerce driven form of education that depoliticizes as it decontextualizes the most important aspects of schooling and pedagogy. How can we talk about learning without talking about the machinery of inequality that drives how schools are financed, the right-wing policies that are implementing the fundamentalist modes of learning such as creationism, or the deskilling of teachers by suggesting that their only role is to teach to the test? This is truly a pedagogy of repression and ironically is being championed not just conservatives, the billionaires club, but also some mon Core bolsters corporate control (general)We must speak out and expose the corporate lie of Common Core, otherwise education will failWayne Au, a former public high school social studies and language arts teacher, is an Assistant Professor in the Education Program at the University of Washington, Bothell Campus, Et al., Summer 2013, “The Trouble with the Common Core,” Rethinking Schools, 27:4, , ACC. 8-5-2015 Common Core has become part of the corporate reform project now stalking our schools. Unless we dismantle and defeat this larger effort, Common Core implementation will become another stage in the demise of public education. As schools struggle with these new mandates, we should defend our students, our schools, our communities, and ourselves by telling the truth about the Common Core. This means pushing back against implementation timelines and plans that set schools up to fail, resisting the stakes and priority attached to the tests, and exposing the truth about the commercial and political interests shaping and benefiting from this false panacea for the problems our schools face.Teachers are corporatizedCommon Core turns teachers into tools for corporate greedMyles B. Hoenig, veteran ESOL teacher in Prince George’s County, MD, April 5, 2013, “Education for Sale,” Counterpunch, , ACC. 8-3-2015Five years after President Nixon resigned no one claimed to have ever voted for him. Now, the very forces involved in destroying public education are ‘coming around’. Fox news the other day did a story on how the Common Core for curriculum was written by private interests, but endorsed by government. Joel Klein, former Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, has joined Murdoch’s News Corp’s as Executive Vice President. He also acquired Wireless Generation, the IT company that data mines NY’s schools. Bill Gates even now talks of how testing is going overboard. Could this be the aristocracy of France trying to fend off the Jacobins before their heads rolled off the guillotine? Or in more recent history is it more akin to the senior Nazi high command who switched allegiance to the Allies when Berlin was falling? Like every other public service, education is for sale. Students are widgets or commodities with a price tag. Teachers are no more than McDonald’s-like employees forced to create uniform results and discarding those who don’t make the grade. Many are leaving the profession. Those entering are now the tools of a multi-billion dollar industry. Who will win out will depend on whether or not we see a revolution in education carried out by the parents, students and teachers.Privatization of education leads to extinctionThe privatization of education is a threat to all life on EarthKristen Steele, Associate Programs Director of?Local Futures,?July 14, 2015, “Education: The Next Corporate Frontier,” Common Dreams, , ACC. 8-4-2015Education has profound implications for the economy, for human wellbeing, and for the future of life on this planet. It is about both what and how we teach children. Do we want private investors and corporations to decide that? If not, then those of us in the new economy and environmental movements need to join our voices to those of the education activists and resist further privatization.Neoliberalism – General extensionFuture workers/toolsCommon Core reduces students to future workers who don’t know the meaning of their skillsJohann N. Neem, professor of history at Western Washington University, is a visiting faculty fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture at the University of Virginia, Summer 2015, “The Common Core and Democratic Education,” The Hedgehog Review, 17:2, , ACC. 8-4-2015In our effort to evade the culture wars, we have instead embraced a managerial understanding of education shaped by agency theory and the priorities of business leaders. The Common Core offers students instrumental skills divorced from the purposes for which those skills might be used. In their book?Winner-Take-All Politics, political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson argue that partisan gridlock helps those with economic power.?The same may be true for cultural gridlock: It leaves the economic as the only common ground for policymakers to invoke. Agreeing on little, we have reduced our national aspirations to “college- and career-readiness.” Those words are evidence of a deeper emptiness.Neoliberalism ImpactsThose metrics which are central to Common Core are neoliberal tools to that strips people of their humanity. It relies on surveillance techniques that colonize identity and sacrifice the value to lifeHenry A. Giroux, the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and is a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Ryerson University, July 1, 2014, “Anti-public intellectuals and the tyranny of manufactured forgetting,” Philosophers for Change, , ACC. 8-3-2015It gets worse. Within this reality, endlessly hawked by a neoliberal brand of authoritarianism, people are turned into nothing more than “statistical units.” Individuals and marginalized groups are all but stripped of their humanity, thereby clearing the way for the growth of a formative culture that allows individuals to ignore the suffering of others and to “escape from unbearable human dilemmas . . . . Statistics become more important than real human life.” Zygmunt Bauman and David Lyons have connected the philosophical implications of experiencing a reality defined by constant measurement to how most people now allow their private expressions and activities to be monitored by the authoritarian security-surveillance state. No one is left unscathed. In the current historical conjuncture, neoliberalism’s theater of cruelty joins forces with new technologies that can easily “colonize the private” even as it holds sacrosanct the notion that any “refusal to participate in the technological innovations and social networks (so indispensable for the exercise of social and political control) . . . becomes sufficient grounds to remove all those who lag behind in the globalization process (or have disavowed its sanctified idea) to the margins of society.” Inured to data gathering and number crunching, the country’s slide into authoritarianism has become not only permissible, but participatory – bolstered by a general ignorance of how a market-driven culture induces all of us to sacrifice our secrets, private lives and very identities to social media, corporations and the surveillance state.The logic of neoliberalism prefigures all social relations and guarantees error replicationHenry A. Giroux, the Global Television Network Chair in English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University and Susan Searls Giroux, an assistant professor in the Department of English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University, February 2006,? “Challenging Neoliberalism's New World Order: The Promise of Critical Pedagogy,” Cultural Studies <=> Critical Methodologies, 6:21, vol. 6?no. 1,?pp. 21-32Neoliberalism has become one of the most pervasive and dangerous ideologies of the twenty-first century. Its pervasiveness is evident not only by its unparalleled influence on the global economy but also in its power to redefine the very nature of politics and sociality. Free market fundamentalism rather than democratic idealism is now the driving force of economics and politics in most of the world. Its logic, moreover, has insinuated itself into every social relationship, such that the specificity of relations between parents and children, doctors and patients, teachers and students has been reduced to that of supplier and customer. It is a market ideology driven not just by profits but also by an ability to reproduce itself with such success that, to paraphrase Fred Jameson, it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of neoliberal capitalism. Wedded to the belief that the market should be the organizing principle for all political, social, and economic decisions, neoliberalism wages an incessant attack on democracy, public goods, the welfare state, and noncommodified values. Under neoliberalism, everything is either for sale or is plundered for profit: Public lands are looted by logging companies and corporate ranchers; politicians willingly hand the public’s airwaves over to powerful broadcasters and large corporate interests without a dime going into the public trust; the environment is polluted and despoiled in the name of profit-making just as the government passes legislation to make it easier for corporations to do so; what public services have survived the Reagan-Bush era are gutted to lower the taxes of major corporations (or line their pockets through no-bid contracts, as in the infamous case of Halliburton); schools more closely resemble either jails or high-end shopping malls, depending on their clientele, and teachers are forced to get revenue for their school by hawking everything from hamburgers to pizza parties.Critical Thinking ExtensionTesting focus badTesting-based education undermines critical thinking and depoliticizes educationMichael Nevradakis, Ph.D. student in media studies at the University of Texas at Austin and a US Fulbright Scholar and Henry A. Giroux, Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department & Chair in Critical Pedagogy at The McMaster Institute for Innovation & Excellence in Teaching & Learning, October 19, 2014, “Henry Giroux on the Rise of Neoliberalism (interview),” , ACC. 8-3-2015What is at stake here is the notion that thinking is dangerous. It's a policy that suggests that education is not about creating critically informed young people. It's really about training for the workplace. It tends to promote a kind of political and ideological conformity; it's a depoliticizing process - and it's also oppressive, because it removes from education any sense of vision that suggests that education is really about constructing a future that doesn't repeat the worst dimensions of the present, that can see beyond the horizons of the alleged practical and possible. I think in that sense, this emphasis on rote memorization, this emphasis on testing, this emphasis on discipline...many of these schools are being turned into military academies, many high schools, particularly in mon Core reduces education to pure sophistry. Teaching to the test undermines human developmentJohann N. Neem, professor of history at Western Washington University, is a visiting faculty fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture at the University of Virginia, Summer 2015, “The Common Core and Democratic Education,” The Hedgehog Review, 17:2, , ACC. 8-4-2015By favoring skills over knowledge, the Common Core reduces education to sophistry. Common Core advocates might respond to such criticism by claiming, as Secretary of Education Arne Duncan put it in a 2013 speech in Washington, that the standards “are the goals,” whereas a curriculum “is what teachers teach.”?This distinction, while useful, is also questionable. Given the Obama administration’s embrace of high-stakes testing, the skills required by the Common Core may well push out other aspects of the curriculum; indeed, there is evidence that this is already happening and that textbook companies are designing new curricula geared to the Common Core. Because test scores appear to be objective, school leaders know that parents use them as a proxy for quality. Schools will teach to the test even if it means, as Mike Rose has written, diminishing “our definition of human development and achievement—that miraculous growth of intelligence, sensibility, and the discovery of the world—to a test score.”?Critical thinking requires opennessCritical thinking requires openness, not conformity to ideasbell hooks, Distinguished Professor in Appalachian Studies at Berea College, 2009, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom, , ACC. 8/5/2015By the time most students enter college classrooms, they have come to dread thinking. Those students who do not dread thinking often come to classes assuming that thinking will not be necessary, that all they will need to do is consume information and regurgitate it at the appropriate moments. In traditional higher education settings, students find themselves yet again in a world where independent thinking is not encouraged. Fortunately, there are some classrooms in which individual professors aim to educate as the practice of freedom. In these settings, thinking and most especially critical thinking, is what matters. Students do not become critical thinkers overnight. First they must learn to embrace the joy and power of thinking itself. Engaged pedagogy is a teaching strategy that aims to restore students’ will to think, and their will to be fully self-actualized. The central focus of engaged pedagogy is to enable students to think critically. In his essay “Critical Thinking: Why is it so Hard to Teach?” Daniel Willingham says critical thinking consists “of seeing both sides of an issue, being open to new evidence that disconfirms young ideas, reasoning dispassionately, demanding that claims be backed by evidence, deducing and inferring conclusions from available facts, solving problems, and so forth.”Openness is the bedrock of critical thinking, especially in educationbell hooks, Distinguished Professor in Appalachian Studies at Berea College, 2009, Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom, , ACC. 8/5/2015Keeping an open mind is an essential requirement of critical thinking. I often talk about radical openness because it became clear to me, after years in academic settings, that it was far too easy to become attached to and protective of one’s viewpoint, and to rule out other perspectives. So much academic training encourages teachers to assume that they must be “right” at all times. Instead, I propose that teachers must be open at all times, and we must be willing to acknowledge what we do not know. A radical commitment to openness maintains the integrity of the critical thinking process and its central role in education. This commitment requires much courage and imagination. In From Critical Thinking to Argument authors Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau emphasize that, “Critical thinking requires us to use our imagination, seeing things from perspectives other than our own and envisioning the likely consequences of our position. Therefore, critical thinking does not simply place demands on students, it also requires teachers to show by example that learning in action means that not all of us can be right all the time, and that the shape of knowledge is constantly changing.Utilitarian mindsetA utilitarian mindset to career/college readiness dominates Common Core and hollows out critical thinkingPatrick J. Deneen, Staff Writer, November 20, 2013, “Common Core and the American Republic,” The American Conservative, , ACC. 8-4-2015It is?unmistakably?the case that the most dominant voices in education today insist that education is or ought be solely about the first two pursuits—the accumulation of facts and “critical thinking,” divorced from higher ends. A wholly utilitarian mindset now informs our basic approach to education. For example, consider the basic aims expressed in the ambitions of the proposed national standards, the Core Curriculum—for every student to achieve “career and college-readiness.” Given the pressures today on colleges to retool their curricula to similarly deemphasize the liberal arts in favor of career-readiness (recall that President Obama recently delivered a speech in which he proposed a set of national standards for rating college success, tying federal aid to such measures, and that among them was a measure for how much income was secured after graduation by the graduates of various institutions), we see clearly how a basic utilitarian mindset now dominates the definition and understanding of education and how it thereby constrains, limits, and narrows the scope of education’s purposes solely to the debased end of work.Student agencyCommon Core is an attempt to remove agency and voice from students and communitiesWayne Au, a former public high school social studies and language arts teacher, is an Assistant Professor in the Education Program at the University of Washington, Bothell Campus, Et al., Summer 2013, “The Trouble with the Common Core,” Rethinking Schools, 27:4, , ACC. 8-5-2015 Rethinking Schools has always been skeptical of standards imposed from above. Too many standards projects have been efforts to move decisions about teaching and learning away from classrooms, educators, and school communities, only to put them in the hands of distant bureaucracies. Standards have often codified sanitized versions of history, politics, and culture that reinforce official myths while leaving out the voices, concerns, and realities of our students and communities. Whatever positive role standards might play in truly collaborative conversations about what our schools should teach and children should learn has been repeatedly undermined by bad process, suspect political agendas, and commercial interests. Unfortunately there's been too little honest conversation and too little democracy in the development of the Common Core. We see consultants and corporate entrepreneurs where there should be parents and teachers, and more high-stakes testing where there should be none. Until that changes, it will be hard to distinguish the “next big thing” from the last one.Postmodernist ThinkingCommon Core indoctrinates students into postmodernist thinkingRick Leonhardt, Staff Writer, May 7, 2015, “Lets Think Critically About Critical Thinking,” 2014/05/07/comment-lets-think-critically-about-critical-thinking/, ACC. 8-3-2015Just today I ran across the following article:?‘ObamaCore’? Common Core ed reforms don’t scare GOP voters, poll finds. This article talks about how conservative Jeb Bush is a fan of Common Core. Apparently Bush and other conservatives like Common Core because one of its stated goals is to increase economic competitiveness, which fits with a conservative worldview. Liberals like Common Core because one of its stated goals is to teach critical thinking to kids as young as seven or eight, maybe even younger. I’m suggesting that?critical thinking?is code for postmodernism. Ergo, postmodern liberals like Common Core because it effectively indoctrinates kids with postmodern (critical) thinking. However, the above article mentions that there is one small liberal group that is not so enamored of Common Core. Consider the following quote: Opponents on the left say the standards are developmentally inappropriate, especially in younger grades, and dislike the practice of tying teacher evaluations to new Common Core-linked mon Core’s postmodernism prevents the very things that foster critical thinkingRick Leonhardt, Staff Writer, May 7, 2015, “Lets Think Critically About Critical Thinking,” 2014/05/07/comment-lets-think-critically-about-critical-thinking/, ACC. 8-3-2015Sadly, Common Core and the postmodern worldview that it supports is not concerned with such modern concepts as evolution, biology, developmental psychology, Bowlbian attachment theory, neurology, Executive Function theory, etc. What is Common Core and postmodernism concerned with? Both are concerned with liberation from any and all constraints at all costs and at all times. Kindergarteners must be liberated from a class show so they can focus on college and careers. But what exactly is all of this liberating us to or toward? I don’t think Common Core supporters or postmodern thinkers know the answer to that question. The process of liberation has tragically become an end and not a means. On a simple level, Jeff tells us that it will get us fired. Louis C. K. suggests that it sucks the fun out of life. Bowlby’s work suggests that it could subject us to a life of insecure attachment. Neurologists like Barkley and Goldberg tell us that we may never acquire robust Executive Function skills, the same EF skills needed to engage in critical thinking in the first place. What a mess.Critical thinking impactsCritical thinking is essential to business successNicole Fallon, Assistant Editor, December 3, 2014, “Is Your Team Missing This Important Business Skill?,” Business News Daily, , ACC. 8-5-2015Critical thinking — which business consultant and author Steve Siebold?defines as the ability to remove all emotion from an issue and observe the facts objectively to make a logical decision — is clearly advantageous for business. Lawrence noted that critical thinking helps employees gather all of the information required to analyze a situation, generate optimal solutions to a problem and get feedback from all the people involved in the situation. All of these steps, she said, contribute to better business solutions overall. We need strong critical thinking to prevent nuclear war with China and Japan in the long termMartin E. Hellman, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Electrical Engineering at Stanford, March 28, 2014, Chris Christie’s “Bridge-Gate”: A Dangerous Lack of Critical?Thinking,” , ACC. 8-5-2015What’s needed is some hard-nosed critical thinking – re-examining the assumptions that underlie our current policy with respect to China and Japan. Examples of some factors?we need?to consider include: An article in TIME magazine from October 2014,?Return of the Samurai,?quotes Japanese officials as wanting their nation?to “finally evolve into a normal country with a normal armed forces.” Critical thinking would examine not only the short-term gain to our nation of that evolution, but also its?potential long-term losses. One?short-term gain might be?reduced US expenditures to protect Japan. A long-term loss might be Japan becoming more aggressive toward China and dragging us into a nuclear crisis, possibly?even a war.Critical thinking is imperative to U.S. military successColonel (Retired) Stephen J. Gerras, Ph.D. Professor of Behavioral Sciences Department of Command, Leadership, & Management U.S. Army War College, August 2008, “Thinking critically about critical thinking,” crit_thkg_gerras.pdf, ACC. 8-5-2015The development of critical thinking skills is imperative for a successful United States Army. A goal of this paper is to identify some of the concepts and terminology that can serve as a foundation for discussions about critical thinking. The benefits of critical thinking have been discussed. Some relevant issues currently facing the military would also benefit significantly from the application of critical thinking. First, as the Army tries to develop a culture of innovation across the force it needs to be emphasized that creative and out-of-the-box ideas are important and valuable, but only to the extent that critical thinking is applied to help identify viable creative solutions to real problems. Creative thinking involves a divergence of thought; critical thinking involves a convergence of thought to weed through the poor ideas in order to identify the good ones. Without critical thinking, creative thinking tends to be wasteful of time and energy.The Education Debate (case extension and will answer multiple DAs)Fails / Bad for educationCommon Core is just another bandwagon reform that will soon failMark Phillips, professor emeritus of education at San Francisco State University, July 7, 2015, “Marin Voice: Another perspective on Common Core,” Marin Independent Journal, , ACC. 8-3-2015My opposition, like that of most teachers, is based on the process, not the content. The history of educational reform in this country is characterized by successive bandwagons. In each case the new movement has been enthusiastically imposed without the prior one ever being assessed. In no case has the reform emanated from those most responsible for implementing them, closest to students, and able to identify the needs of different student populations. And every educational reform that has been imposed on local schools and teachers from above has ultimately failed. Common Core will ultimately fail within a few years.No textbooksMost available textbooks do not meet Common Core standardsRobby Soave, Staff Editor, July 8, 2015, “Common Core’s Corporate Backers Admit Widespread Failure of Textbooks,” Reason, , ACC. 8-3-2015States that adopted the Common Core national education standards still can’t provide textbooks that actually teach what the standards require. That’s a big problem for students who have to take Core-mandated standardized tests that are misaligned with their teachers’ instructional materials. An eye-opening investigation by Matt Collette of?The Daily Beast?reveals?that most textbooks don’t fully meet the standards, despite advertising themselves as Core-aligned. Collette consulted EdReports, a non-profit that evaluates textbooks; the group recently reviewed more than 80 textbooks and found that only 11 of them matched Common Core requirements.Even textbook companies tied to Common Core do not have the necessary textbooksRobby Soave, Staff Editor, July 8, 2015, “Common Core’s Corporate Backers Admit Widespread Failure of Textbooks,” Reason, , ACC. 8-3-2015Most damning of all was the fact that Pearson—a publishing giant with significant Common Core ties and exclusive contracts to develop testing materials for some Core-compliant states—“had zero textbooks evaluated as being aligned with the Common Core,” according to Collette. This means, in a sense, that the gigantic corporation making the tests is also producing textbooks that don’t teach to those tests.Does not prepare for collegeThe new version of Common Core does not prepare students for collegeJane Robbins, senior fellow at American Principles in Action, August 1, 2015, “How to hide the flaws in Common Core,” Breitbart News, , ACC. 8-1-2015The central problem for the proponents is that students trained (not educated) under the minimal, non-academic, workforce-development Common Core standards will not perform as well on legitimate tests as did their predecessors. Under the new direction of Common Core architect David Coleman, the College Board has addressed that problem by dumbing down the SAT. Making the SAT easier for Common Core victims (for example, by abolishing the writing section and the hard vocabulary words) helps them appear to be as prepared for college as were previous students.No education uniformityVariation in Common Core standards means education levels will not be uniform HYPERLINK "" Tom Loveless, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Governance Studies,? HYPERLINK "" Brown Center on Education Policy, July 9, 2015, “Implementing Common Core: The problem of instructional time,” The Brookings Center on Education Policy, , ACC. 8-1-2015As Jason Zimba points out, not everyone agrees on when the standard algorithms should be taught, the alternative algorithms that should be taught, the manner in which any algorithm should be taught, or the amount of instructional time that should be spent on computational procedures.? Such decisions are made by local educators.? Variation in these decisions will introduce variation in the implementation of the math standards.? It is true that standards, any standards, cannot control implementation, especially the twists and turns in how they are interpreted by educators and brought to life in classroom instruction.? But in this case, the standards themselves are responsible for the myriad approaches, many unproductive, that we are sure to see as schools teach various algorithms under the Common Core.Lack of uniform proficiency standards means education will vary between statesMikhail Zinshteyn, Staff Writer, July 10, 2015, “How Much Tougher Is Common Core?,” The Atlantic, , ACC. 8-1-2015 To Gary Phillips, the American Institutes for Research vice president, the varying definition of “proficient” across all states signals that many are “living in a Lake Wobegon fantasy where they say the students are above average when they’re not.” Phillips says that the range in proficiency levels is the equivalent of “about three to four grade levels in student performance. The rigor of the grade-four standards in the highest achieving states may be comparable to the rigor of the eighth-grade standards in the lowest achieving states.”Common Core math standards are not uniformTom Loveless, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Governance Studies,?Brown Center on Education Policy, May 14, 2015, “Common Core and classroom instruction: The good, the bad, and the ugly,” The Brookings Center on Education Policy, papers/2015/07/09-chalkboard-common-core-the-bad-loveless, ACC. 8-1-2015Professor Wu states the following, “The shift of emphasis from models of a fraction in the initial stage to an almost exclusive model of a fraction as a point on the number line can be done gradually and gracefully beginning somewhere in grade four. This shift is implicit in the Common Core Standards.”? I agree, but the shift is also subtle.? CCSS standards include the use of other representations—fraction strips, fraction bars, rectangles (which are excellent for showing multiplication of two fractions) and other graphical means of modeling fractions.? Some teachers will manage the shift to number lines adroitly—and others will not.? As a consequence, the quality of implementation will vary from classroom to classroom based on the instructional decisions that teachers make.Testing focus failsTougher standards do not improve performanceMikhail Zinshteyn, Staff Writer, July 10, 2015, “How Much Tougher Is Common Core?,” The Atlantic, , ACC. 8-1-2015 Still, no matter how much more work is poured into strengthening the tests, Norton cautions that tougher assessment benchmarks won’t on their own lift student scores. “The first part is adopting more challenging career-ready standards,” he said. “Then it’s important to put in a test that’s aligned to those standards with rigorous achievement [levels] … when that happens, students can begin to perform better, and that’s probably what we’ll see over time.”TopicalityA2: “its” Topicality (federal program)The federal government controls Common Core. Their Topicality argument is just more of Obama’s immaculate misconceptionWilliamson M. Evers, a Research Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, July 2015, “Federal Overreach and Common Core,” Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research, White Paper No. 133, , ACC. 8-1-2015In the plans of the Obama administration, the Common Core national standards do not escape the sin of federal control—they are now a collaboration among the states, policed by the federal government. As of this writing and in the plans of the Obama administration, the Department of Education is actively shaping the curriculum of schools nationwide. The distinction between the Obama program and past grants for development of curriculum materials or funding to develop national standards or tests, is that, in the Obama program, Department of Education policies incorporate (as Barton presciently predicted) the Common Core standards and the new tests in the required testing regime of NCLB (and whatever the successor law to NCLB is). The claims of true voluntarism are an “immaculate deception,” and the Obama administration’s plans result in federal control of testing based on what were in effect federally-endorsed curriculum-content standards—linked with federally-sponsored curriculum frameworks and materials.Congress has officially codified Common Core into national controlJane Robbins, senior fellow at American Principles in Action, August 1, 2015, “How to hide the flaws in Common Core,” Breitbart News, , ACC. 8-1-2015Within the last two weeks both houses of Congress passed legislation that will effectively cement the Common Core national standards, or something very similar, in state school systems (politicians’ claims to the contrary are unfortunately?mistaken). In light of?clear evidence?that Common Core is substandard, the creators and proponents are busily rearranging the educational furniture to hide the evidence.The federal government has incorporated Common Core within Race to the TopAlec O'Cleary Caso, Washington Scholars intern, July 19, 2015, “Tracking bipartisan opposition to Common Core,” Washington Times, , ACC. 8-3-2015The controversy over Common Core, however, is not going away anytime soon; Republican presidential wannabes crisscrossing the country are questioned about it almost every day, and their differences will no doubt highlight the early debates. While Common Core began as a nonpartisan state-led initiative, it has become a federally sponsored national curriculum as part of President Obama’s Race to the Top grant scheme.The federal government requires Common Core standards in multiple ways that show it controls the programWilliamson M. Evers, a Research Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, July 2015, “Federal Overreach and Common Core,” Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research, White Paper No. 133, , ACC. 8-1-2015Under No Child Left Behind (the 2001 iteration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act), states receiving Title I money – that is all states – had to go through a review of alignment of their standards and assessment and of the process for creating their standards and assessments. With Common Core, the federal government was now promoting a single national set of curriculum-content standards (through its Race to the Top competitive grant program and through NCLB waivers). (If you didn’t have Common Core you needed to have standards whose contents were federally approved after a federally-created process.) The federal government was funding national high-stakes tests for all students. (States not using one of the federally-funded consortia tests would still have to show test alignment with the Common Core or a federally approved set of alternative standards). These activities, in an aligned educational system, necessarily direct and control curriculum (in the narrow sense – or in the broad sense).A2: “its” Topicality (federal program)The U.S. Department of Education controls the standards and state complianceWilliamson M. Evers, a Research Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, July 2015, “Federal Overreach and Common Core,” Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research, White Paper No. 133, , ACC. 8-1-2015The main argument of Gov. Bobby Jindal – as presented by his lead attorney Jimmy Faircloth — was that three federal statutes prohibit the Department of Education from exercising “any” direction, supervision, or control over curriculum or the program of instruction in the states. Yet the Department of Education funded the national assessments and gave privileged status to the Common Core curriculum standards and strongly incentivized states to adhere to the Common Core. The Common Core and its tests are part of an aligned K-12 system in which subject-matter to be learned (curriculum-content standards); teaching techniques; lesson plans; textbooks and the like; sequencing of subject-matter; and assessment are all in line with one another. The Education Department requires that those curriculum components be aligned and enforces compliance.Even if it wasn’t an official mandate, making Common Core a part of Race to the Top functionally blackmails state participationAlec O'Cleary Caso, Washington Scholars intern, July 19, 2015, “Tracking bipartisan opposition to Common Core,” Washington Times, , ACC. 8-3-2015The Obama’s administration decision to make Common Core a part of Race to the Top may not have been a federal mandate for adoption, essentially allowed Obama Education Department officials to reward those who would go along and punish those who wouldn’t do so. To qualify for a portion of the $4 billion in additional funding available through the program, cash-starved states have been required by the administration to adopt Common Core standards, and many have done so for budgetary reasons.“State” in CCSS is a misnomer. The federal government coerces states into adopting Common CoreWayne Au, a former public high school social studies and language arts teacher, is an Assistant Professor in the Education Program at the University of Washington, Bothell Campus, Et al., Summer 2013, “The Trouble with the Common Core,” Rethinking Schools, 27:4, , ACC. 8-5-2015 For starters, the misnamed “Common Core State Standards” are not state standards. They're national standards, created by Gates-funded consultants for the National Governors Association (NGA). They were designed, in part, to circumvent federal restrictions on the adoption of a national curriculum, hence the insertion of the word “state” in the brand name. States were coerced into adopting the Common Core by requirements attached to the federal Race to the Top grants and, later, the No Child Left Behind waivers. (This is one reason many conservative groups opposed to any federal role in education policy oppose the Common Core.)A2: Economic Competitiveness DA / EducationEducation low nowU.S. education levels are low nowAlec O'Cleary Caso, Washington Scholars intern, July 19, 2015, “Tracking bipartisan opposition to Common Core,” Washington Times, , ACC. 8-3-2015A recent survey released by the American Enterprise Institute found that education ranks second behind “economy and jobs” as the most important issue facing the country today. Additionally, it found that a majority of Americans on both sides of the aisle view K-12 education as being on the “wrong track,” with the public rating the federal government’s handling of K-12 education as fair to petitiveness low nowU.S. economic competitiveness is low nowShannon K. O'Neil, Staff Writer, April 6, 2015, “Could This Be America's Best Kept Economic Secret?,” National Interest, , ACC. 8-6-2015Still, when measured against other countries, U.S. advanced industries are losing ground. Jobs and output as a share of GDP are down. This has potential knock on effects for innovation, given the dominance of these businesses in R&D spending, and for future long term economic competitiveness and growth.EPA regulations will drag down economic competitivenessRebecca Nelson and Ben Geman, Staff Writers, August 3, 2015, “Obama Reaches for Green Legacy, But Will History Books Agree?,” National Journal, , ACC. 8-6-2015William Reilly, who led EPA under President George H.W. Bush, strongly praised Obama for his steps to address global warming, especially in the face of strong opposition from congressional Republicans. Reilly credits Obama for tackling a topic that had been "suspended as a presidential priority for the previous eight years" under President George W. Bush. Reilly cited the big boost in auto mileage regulations as an example of an accomplishment that has received too little praise. "People have paid too little attention to the consequences of that," he said. Obama's GOP foes—including the ones hoping to succeed him—say the rules will leave a legacy of a different sort: one of a president willing to impose overaggressive green rules that hurt the nation's economic competitiveness. "The rule runs over state governments, will throw countless people out of work, and increases everyone's energy prices," Jeb Bush, one of the leading GOP White House contenders, said petitiveness internal link answersCommon Core math standards undermine their education internal link. Students are behind two yearsRick Cohen, executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), December 4, 2013, “Understanding the Pros and Cons of the Common Core State Standards,” Nonprofit Quarterly, CjwKEAjw6IauBRCJ3KPXkNro1BoSJAAhXxpy1Mm0-B0I1OjGasKqN88J5XcBF3hoOVo9QJuFwmIhrBoCGbfw_wcB, ACC. 8-4-2015It shouldn’t be surprising that there is significant debate as to whether the standards will really impact student achievement. Some critics believe that the need is for quality teaching, not common standards, to improve students’ school achievement. There are also concerns about the standards themselves. Stanford University math professor James Milgram, once a member of the committee to validate the Common Core, says that the math part of the Common Core standards is actually insufficient, leaving American students two years behind their peers in most high-achieving countries by the end of the seventh grade. “I think the original intent was to raise outcomes, but I think the leaders got tied up in the issue of buy-in,” Milgram is quoted to have said. “I think they made choices that would make it easier for states whose expectations in mathematics were not all that high to buy into Core standards.”Common Core undermines economic competitivenessRick Leonhardt, Staff Writer, May 7, 2015, “Lets Think Critically About Critical Thinking,” 2014/05/07/comment-lets-think-critically-about-critical-thinking/, ACC. 8-3-2015So, how will Common Core make us economically competitive if what Common Core is selling is not valued in the real world and might even get us fired from our jobs. The answer is simple really. Common Core alone will not make us economically competitive. Common Core needs a bit of Common Sense. Critical thinking must take place when it is developmentally appropriate, and when it is, well, appropriate period. As my father used to tell me based on his experiences in the army as a Second Lieutenant during WWII, “If you stop to think at the wrong time on the battlefield, it could get you killed. There are times when you have to let your training carry you through.” I think Jeff is saying the same thing: When you need to make a calculation quick, you can’t be thinking about writing a letter to Jack. As evolutionary psychologists (like Bowlby) will tell us, when you’re being chased by a lion, run first, plan for your future (an EF skill) later.?A prescription for critical thinking at all ages, and at all times, is a prescription for disaster. The key to critical thinking is to know when it is appropriate, developmentally or otherwise.Democracy answerCommon Core is no different than Mao’s Communist China indoctrinationMichael Hurd, PhD, Psychotherapy, March 27, 2015, “’Common Core’ Public Education vs. Critical Thinking,” Capitalism Magazine, , ACC. 8-5-2015Lily Tang Williams, a mother of three, testified before the Colorado State Board of Education that Common Core [the national educational curriculum for public schools) was similar to the education she received growing up in Mao’s Communist China. “Common Core, in my eyes, is the same as the Communist core I once saw in China,” Williams said. “I grew up under Mao’s regime and we had the Communist-dominated education — nationalized testing, nationalized curriculum, and nationalized indoctrination.”Hegemony answerLack of language skills and global awareness inevitably cripples U.S. military effectivenessJulia Levy, CFR Task Force Director, et al. March 2012, “U.S. Education Reform and National Security,” , ACC. 8-6-2015The lack of language skills and civic and global awareness among American citizens increasingly jeopardizes their ability to interact with local and global peers or participate meaningfully in business, diplomatic, and military situations. The United States is not producing enough foreign-language speakers to staff important posts in the U.S. Foreign Service, the intelligence community, and American companies. A GAO report found that the State Department faces “foreign language shortfalls in areas of strategic interest.” In Afghanistan, the report found, thirty-three of forty-five officers in language-designated positions did not meet the State Department’s language requirements. In Iraq, eight of fourteen officers did not have the necessary skills. Shortages in such languages as Dari, Korean, Russian, Turkish, Chinese languages, and others are substantial. This leaves the United States crippled in its ability to communicate effectively with others in diplomatic, military, intelligence, and business contexts.A2: States CPCompetitiveness turnStates would lose hundreds of millions of education dollars if they reject Common Core and testingMichael J. Petrilli, executive vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, April 28, 2014, "Common Core: The Day After," Voices, a publication of the Governing Institute, , ACC. 8-6-2015Like a dog that finally catches the bus he'd been chasing forever, what happens when opponents of the Common Core State Standards finally succeed in getting a state's policymakers to "repeal" the education initiative? Early signs from Indiana and elsewhere suggest that the opponents' stated goals are likely to get run over.We acknowledge, of course, that Common Core critics aren't monolithic, even on the right. Libertarians want states to reject standards, testing and accountability overall; conservative opponents urge states to move to what they see as "higher" standards. Both factions would like to remove the taint of federal influence from state-based reform. (On that point, we concur.) On the left, the National Education Association sees an opportunity to push back against a policy it never liked in the first place. The union is using the standards as an excise to call for a moratorium on teacher evaluations as states move to Common Core-aligned tests. Still others worry about the standards being "too hard." (On these points, we do not concur). So how's it going? Indiana has hit the reverse button hardest, enacting a bill that requires the state board of education to adopt revised standards. Oklahoma seems on the brink of doing much the same thing. No state is rejecting standards and testing entirely. That is partially because they would lose hundreds of millions of dollars of federal education funding and partially because few lawmakers trust the education system to do right by all kids once it's free from external benchmarks and measures. (Sorry, libertarians.)Education funding cuts cause economic decline and undermine competitiveness Michael Leachman, Director of State Fiscal Research with the State Fiscal Policy at Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, former policy analyst for nine years at the Oregon Center for Public Policy (OCPP), October 16, 2014, “Most States Still Funding Schools Less Than Before the Recession,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, , ACC. 8-5-2015The cuts undermine education reform and hinder school districts' ability to deliver high-quality education, with long-term negative effects on the nation's economic competitiveness. Many states and school districts have undertaken important school reform initiatives to prepare children better for the future, but deep funding cuts hamper their ability to implement many of these reforms. At a time when producing workers with high-level technical and analytical skills is increasingly important to a country's prosperity, large cuts in funding for basic education threaten to undermine the nation's economic future.Inherency Freedom-Patriot Acts AFFFreedom Act Makes Data Collection EasierFreedom Act makes phone data collection massively easier and Skype data collection continues Juan S. Galt, bitcoin and social media reporter at Cointelegraph, June 15, 2015“NSA Celebrates Passage of USA ‘Freedom’ Act, While Skype Keeps Its Spying Eyes on You,” Cointelegraph, (accessed 6/15/2015)Both privacy advocates and the NSA are celebrating the USA Freedom Act that passed the Senate on June 2. The act legalized and simplified the collecting of phone metadata for the NSA. Meanwhile Skype continues to collect voice, chat, video and other data, and deliver it to the Five Eyes international spy coalition.NSA can now give search terms to telecomm companies and they need to complyJuan S. Galt, , June 15, 2015“NSA Celebrates Passage of USA ‘Freedom’ Act, While Skype Keeps Its Spying Eyes on You,” Cointelegraph, (accessed 6/15/2015)Now the NSA can request search queries with specific “selector” terms, and have the Telecoms deliver the information to them. The selector terms are supposed to be specific, rather the broad search queries, and must be approved by the secret FISA court — the one that approved almost every warrant since its inception and is closed off from public audit.Freedom Act allows roving wiretaps, lone-wolf surveillance, secret courts, and mass spyingSaint Cloud Times Editorial Board, June 9, 2015"USA Freedom Act Should Make You Shake Your Head," Saint Cloud Times, (accessed 6/17/20150The USA Freedom Act still allows roving wiretaps, "lone wolf" surveillance authority, secret courts and other mass-spying tools granted to the National Security Agency under the Patriot Act, various executive orders and other legislation issued as far back as the 1970s.Freedom Act Makes Cosmetic Changes OnlyFreedom Act only changes the mechanisms, and still allows the same amount and type of data to be collectedAndrew P. Napolitano, former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, June 10, 2015“Lies the government is telling you,” Washington Times, (accessed 6/15/2015)Last week, Republicans and Democrats in Congress joined President Obama in congratulating themselves for taming the National Security Agency’s voracious appetite for spying. By permitting one section of the Patriot Act to expire and by replacing it with the USA Freedom Act, the federal government is taking credit for taming beasts of its own creation. In reality, nothing substantial has changed. Under the Patriot Act, the NSA had access to and possessed digital versions of the content of all telephone conversations, emails and text messages sent between and among all people in America since 2009. Under the USA Freedom Act, it has the same. The USA Freedom Act changes slightly the mechanisms for acquiring this bulk data, but it does not change the amount or nature of the data the NSA acquires.Freedom Act retains exceptions to probable cause, allowing low-threshold data acquisition for the NSAAndrew P. Napolitano, former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, June 10, 2015“Lies the government is telling you,” Washington Times, (accessed 6/15/2015)Probable cause is evidence about a person or place sufficient to permit a judge to conclude that evidence of a crime will probably be found. Both the Patriot Act and the USA Freedom Act disregard the “probable cause” standard and substitute instead a “government need” standard. This is, of course, no standard at all, as the NSA has claimed under the Patriot Act — and the FISA court bought the argument — that it needs all telephone calls, all emails and all text messages of all people in America. Today it may legally obtain them by making the same claim under the USA Freedom Act.NSA can now collect nearly unlimited data under the guise of reformElias Groll, assistant editor at Foreign Policy, June 4, 2015"Congress May Have Passed the Freedom Act, But Mass Surveillance Is Alive and Well," Foreign Policy, (accessed 6/17/2015)By changing the way the NSA examines domestic phone records, the agency is now able to make the argument that it has undergone significant reforms in the aftermath of the Edward Snowden revelations. By giving up the authority to collect all American phone records, the agency has paid a small price — and gotten rid of a program that it had come to consider a burden, anyway — to keep its most important authorities intact.Other Mechanisms to Collect Data Untouched by Freedom ActExecutive Order 123333 still allows mass surveillance of data of U.S. citizens’ overseas communication Jason M. Breslow, digital editor at Frontline, June 1, 2015“With or Without the Patriot Act, Here’s How the NSA Can Still Spy on Americans,” PBS Frontline, (accessed 6/15/2015)An even older and more obscure Regan-era law, Executive Order No. 12333, provides U.S. intelligence with nearly identical surveillance capabilities to intercept overseas communications, Vladeck said, with the same implications for privacy. “The way the government is intercepting communications under these authorities,” said Vladeck, referring to Section 702 and Executive Order 123333, “it cannot tell at the point of collection whether the actual sender or recipient is or is not a U.S. citizen.”Freedom Act allows spying under FISA 702, Executive Order 123333, and modern technology that slips through the cracksHuman Rights Watch, May 19, 2015"Strengthen the USA Freedom Act," Human Rights Watch News, (accessed 6/17/2015)The bill is no panacea and, as detailed below, would not ensure comprehensive reform. It still leaves open the possibility of large-scale data collection practices in the US under the Patriot Act. It does not constrain surveillance under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act nor Executive Order 12333, the primary legal authorities the government has used to justify mass surveillance of people outside US borders. And the bill does not address many modern surveillance capabilities, from mass cable tapping to use of malware, intercepting all mobile calls in a country, and compromising the security of mobile SIM cards and other equipment and services.The NSA can still do broad keyword searches of the data obtained by private companiesJared Polis, U.S. Representative from Colorado, June 4, 2015"A Victory for Privacy or Extension of Mass Surveillance? Co-Sponsor of USA FREEDOM Act Rejects Bill," Democracy Now, (accessed 6/17/2015)Where the bill still goes too far, in my opinion, is it allows for keywords to be used for mass surveillance of information that’s retained at the phone companies. For instance, a city or geographical term, however specific—it might be the entire state of New York or California or Los Angeles, there’s really not any specific legal parameters around this—could still be used in a government request of information that continues to be stockpiled at a private company. We would also want to make sure that security concerns are addressed with regards to how companies maintain their databases of our personal information.Obama Will Ignore the Freedom ActDespite Freedom Act and court rulings, the Obama Administration continues to assert executive authority for mass secret surveillanceKatie Lapotin, associate editor at Red Alert Politics, June 9, 2015"Obama Ended Domestic Spying Program by Signing USA Freedom Act. But Then He Did This…," International Journalism Review, (accessed 6/17/2015)The Obama administration has asked a secret surveillance court to once again grant the National Security Agency the power to collect phone records for millions of Americans, despite the fact that a federal court ruled just last month that the practice is illegal. According to The Guardian, the filing to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was made just hours after Obama signed into law the USA FREEDOM Act, which banned the bulk collection of data he asked the court to approveInterpretation is key—empirically Justice Department and other entities give interpretive leeway to the surveillance stateSheldon Richman, former vice president and editor at The Future of Freedom Foundation, June 7, 2015"The USA Freedom Act is Inscrutable--and That's How Politicians Like It," Reason, (accessed 6/17/2015)To complicate things, your interpretation of the text may differ radically from that of the secret FISA court or someone in the Justice Department. Remember, an appeals court ruled that the now-expired Section 215 of the Patriot Act did not authorize bulk-data collection—and the author of the bill agreed.Department of Justice interprets Freedom Act to allow for bulk data collectionEmily Field, reporter at Law360, June 15, 2015"DOJ Says Freedom Act Allows For Bulk Data Collection," Law360, (accessed 6/17/2015)The U.S. Department of Justice on Friday reiterated its argument to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that the USA Freedom Act allows the National Security Agency to collect bulk phone records for six more months, despite a recent Second Circuit decision that the program is unlawful. The law’s prohibition on the bulk collection of call detail records doesn’t take effect for another six months, the government said, doubling down on last week's argument that Congress intended for an “orderly” termination of the program, pointing to a debate in the U.S. Senate over the length of the transition period. Most Surveillance Remains in Status QuoMetadata is only a small portion of the total surveillance net, most of which remains in placeFred Kaplan, author of The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War, June 8, 2015"The NSA Debate We Should be Having," Slate, (accessed 6/17/2015)The NSA’s bulk collection of telephone metadata was the subject of the first news stories based on the trove of highly classified documents that Snowden leaked, and it stirred the biggest commotion. But in fact the metadata program never comprised more than a tiny percentage of the agency’s vast and global surveillance net. The new law’s reform measure—to keep the metadata stored with the telecom companies, allowing NSA access only to specified materials, and then only through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court—was first proposed not by some libertarian critic but by Gen. Keith Alexander, then-director of the NSA.NSA already has huge pools of records for analysis and further surveillance that no current law deals withPat Beall, staff writer at Palm Beach Post, June 12, 2015"Even with reform, America’s spy agency keeps vast call records," Palm Beach Post, (accessed 6/17/2015)Innocence, though, will not keep someone out of NSA’s Corporate Store. And none of the congressional revisions to key parts of the USA Patriot Act call for purging the database. The NSA retains the billions of calling records it already has — call records an appeals court last month ruled the NSA had no right to collect. That huge pool of records, in turn, enables the agency to single out still more phone records for analysis, growing the number of Americans unwittingly linked to terrorist suspects.Freedom Act allows the NSA to continue to obtain phone records, and there’s no provision for them to get rid of the data they already havePat Beall, staff writer at Palm Beach Post, June 12, 2015"Even with reform, America’s spy agency keeps vast call records," Palm Beach Post, (accessed 6/17/2015)The newly passed USA Freedom Act allows the NSA to continue to obtain phone records, but the phone companies, not the federal government, will keep them. And the agency, which did not respond to requests for comment, will need a court order before it can access the records. For now, there’s no publicly available information on what will become of NSA’s troves of existing call data, including call data in the Corporate Store. Internet Surveillance AFFInherencyInternet surveillance inevitable Daniel J. Gallington, senior policy and program adviser at the George C. Marshall Institute, September 18, 2013, “The Case for Internet Surveillance” (Accessed 7/22/2015)In addition, we Americans need to get that we are truly unique in the world because of our traditional insistence on private sector dominance in our telecommunications industry – this continues as we have gone wireless and concentrated on Internet based communications. More specifically, in most other parts of the world – democratic or not – the communications infrastructures are mostly government owned or operated, similar to (or even part of) the post office. So also, in most of the rest of the world, there is content surveillance and monitoring of Internet based traffic by one or more government intelligence or law enforcement agencies – and usually without any threshold showing or requirement for probable cause or reasonable belief to look at the substance of the communication. Similarly: Check into any hotel in Europe, and you must show your passport or your required identity card, and your personal data goes directly to the national police or internal security service for whatever checks on you they want to make. And, it goes without saying that everywhere in the undemocratic world, e.g., China, everyone is watched all the time, including all Internet activity, because all dissent is a threat to the regime in power, and that's simply how they stay in power and have always stayed in power. In the past they did it with networks of spies and informants, and now with total Internet supervision.Internet surveillance expanding nowCharlie Savage et al, Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, and Henrik Moltke, New York Times Staff Writers, “Hunting for Hackers, NSA Secretly Expands Internet Spying at US Border,” June 4, 2015 (Accessed July 22, 2015)WASHINGTON — Without public notice or debate, the Obama administration has expanded the National Security Agency‘s warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international Internet traffic to search for evidence of malicious computer hacking, according to classified N.S.A. documents. In mid-2012, Justice Department lawyers wrote two secret memos permitting the spy agency to begin hunting on Internet cables, without a warrant and on American soil, for data linked to computer intrusions originating abroad — including traffic that flows to suspicious Internet addresses or contains malware, the documents show. The Justice Department allowed the agency to monitor only addresses and “cybersignatures” — patterns associated with computer intrusions — that it could tie to foreign governments. But the documents also note that the N.S.A. sought permission to target hackers even when it could not establish any links to foreign powers.Internet surveillance is a pervasive threat to allSally Shipman Wentworth, Vice President of Global Policy Development, June 26, 2014, “Pervasive Internet Surveillance – Policy Ripples,” (Accessed 7/22/2015)It has become clear in the past year that pervasive surveillance is a threat to all users of the Internet everywhere. A little over a year ago, a series of revelations began to emerge about widespread surveillance by government national security agencies that sent shockwaves across the Internet ecosystem. The world got an initial glimpse of the scope and scale of these programs on 5 June 2013 with the first leaks from Edward Snowden. The fact that governments use surveillance tools was not a surprise. It was the scope and scale of these online surveillance programs that has been a wake-up call for the international community. Early on, the Internet Society expressed deep concerns about online surveillance, noting: “This kind of collection of user information is at odds with the commitments that governments around the world have made with respect to protection of personal data and other human rights.” Further, we highlighted the need for an open global dialogue on online privacy and security. Also, last year, the Internet Society Board of Trustees endorsed the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance from the civil society-led “Necessary and Proportionate” initiative and emphasized the importance of proportionality, due process, legality, and transparent judicial oversight.Civil Liberties/Privacy AdvDecreased Surveillance Key to PrivacyAs US surveillance increased, internet privacy continues to declineTom Risen, technology and business reporter for U.S. News & World Report, December 4, 2014, “Internet Freedom Declines in the US,” (Accessed 7/21/2015)The U.S. government created the Internet but has fallen behind as a steward of online freedom and privacy, according to an annual study that tracks international digital rights. Government surveillance of phone and Internet data, government pressure against journalists and lack of protections for privacy have eroded America’s standing on digital rights in recent years, according to an annual study from Freedom House advocacy group. [READ: Sony May Face Worst Corporate Hack Ever] The U.S. dropped to sixth place out of the 65 countries assessed by Freedom House, down from fourth place in 2013 and second place in 2012. The study also scores countries' digital rights on a scale of zero (most free) to 100 (least free); the U.S. has gone from a score of 13 in 2011 and 12 in 2012 to a score of 17 in 2013 and 19 in 2014.Decreased surveillance key to privacy and is ineffective for security purposesMathew Ingram, technology writer for the globe and mail, March 17, 2015, “We Can’t Accept Internet Surveillance as the New Normal,” (Accessed 7/25/2015)The United States has repeatedly argued that this kind of monitoring is necessary in order to detect the activities of potential threats to national security. The problem with this approach, of course, is that no one knows where those threats will appear, or how they will manifest themselves, because of the diverse nature of modern international terrorism – and so the inevitable result is a kind of ubiquitous surveillance, in which every word and photo and voicemail message is collected, just in case it might be important. One of the risks inherent in the steady flow of leaks from Mr. Snowden and others is that the new reality they portray eventually becomes accepted, if not outright banal. Of course we are being surveilled all the time; of course our location is being tracked thanks to the GPS chips in our phones; of course the NSA is installing “back door” software on our Internet devices before we even buy them. At this point, it’s hard to imagine a surveillance revelation that would actually surprise anyone, no matter how Orwellian. If nothing else, one of our duties in this kind of environment – a duty not just for journalists but for governments as well, and the Canadian government in particular – is to prevent this kind of behaviour from becoming banal, to fight the overwhelming sense of “surveillance fatigue” that each new revelation triggers, by shouting our disapproval from the rooftops if necessary. We don’t need to live in a world where the locks on our virtual doors have a secret passcode so that government forces can enter at will if they believe we are a threat to national security, or where our every click is recorded and filed away in a secret location, and our cellphones and Internet devices listen to our conversations waiting for us to utter certain red-flag trigger phrases. If our governments believe it is necessary to trade our freedom for what amounts to an illusion of security, we need to do everything in our power to convince them that this is not a trade we wish to make.Internet network surveillance undermines privacy as it crushes securitySteve Ranger, UK Editor of TechRepublic, May 23, 2015, “The Undercover War on your Internet Secrets” (Accessed 7/24/2015)NSA contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden is explaining how his former employer and other intelligence agencies have worked to undermine privacy on the internet and beyond. "We're seeing systemic attacks on the fabrics of our systems, the fabric of our communications... by undermining the security of our communications, they enable surveillance," he warns. He is speaking at the conference via a video link from Russia, where he has taken refuge after leaking the documents detailing some of the NSA's surveillance projects. The room behind him is in darkness, giving away nothing about his exact location. "Surveillance is not possible when our movements and communications are safe and protected — a satellite cannot see you when you are inside your home — but an unprotected computer with an open webcam can," he adds. Over the last two years a steady stream of documents leaked by Snowden have laid bare how intelligence agencies in the US and the UK have waged a secret war against privacy on the internet. How they have worked to undermine the technologies used by billions of people every day to protect everything from mundane messages — or webcam chats — to their most secret thoughts.Tech Leadership/Credibility AdvDecreased Surveillance Key to Security/PrivacyDecreased surveillance key to security – ineffective strategies hurt privacy and securityMike Ludwig, Truthout Staff Writer, July 11, 2014, “Experts Say NSA Surveillance Compromises Internet Security; Here's How to Protect Yourself,” (Accessed 7/22/2015)Over the weekend, The Washington Post reported that 9 out of 10 people caught in the National Security Agency's vast surveillance dragnet between 2009 and 2012 were everyday internet users with no connection to national security threats, including hundreds of US citizens. While the surveillance aided in the capture of at least a couple of suspected terrorists, the government intercepted the details of the daily lives of more than 10,000 innocent account holders in the process. Since former NSA contractor Edward Snowden began leaking the details last year of the NSA's vast surveillance capabilities, the amount of collateral damage to individual privacy at home and abroad has put the agency under intense public scrutiny. Privacy experts, however, say that the now-infamous NSA surveillance programs such as Quantum and PRISM not only threaten individual privacy; they threaten the overall security of the internet as a whole. On Monday, the New America Foundation held a panel discussion, at its offices in Washington, DC, titled, "National Insecurity Agency: How the NSA's Surveillance Programs Undermine Internet Security." The panel featured several policy and cryptology experts, including Bruce Schneier, an author and cryptologist who worked with The Guardian on the Snowden leaks. "The issue is not that the NSA is spying on whoever the bad guy is who they want to spy on," Schneier said during the talk. "The issue is that they are deliberately weakening the security of everyone else in the world in order to make that spying easier."Internet surveillance undermines the US economy and overall tech leadership Kim Zetter, Senior staff reporter, July 29, 2014, “Personal Privacy is Only One of the Costs of NSA Surveillance”, (Accessed 7/24/2015)THERE IS NO doubt the integrity of our communications and the privacy of our online activities have been the biggest casualty of the NSA’s unfettered surveillance of our digital lives. But the ongoing revelations of government eavesdropping have had a profound impact on the economy, the security of the internet and the credibility of the U.S. government’s leadership when it comes to online governance. These are among the many serious costs and consequences the NSA and those who sanctioned its activities—including the White House, the Justice Department and lawmakers like Sen. Dianne Feinstein—apparently have not considered, or acknowledged, according to a report by the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute. “Too often, we have discussed the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs through the distorting lens of a simplistic ‘security versus privacy’ narrative,” said Danielle Kehl, policy analyst at the Open Technology Institute and primary author of the report. “But if you look closer, the more accurate story is that in the name of security, we’re trading away not only privacy, but also the U.S. tech economy, internet openness, America’s foreign policy interests and cybersecurity.” Over the last year, documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, have disclosed numerous NSA spy operations that have gone beyond what many considered acceptable surveillance activity. These included infecting the computers of network administrators working for a Belgian telecom in order to undermine the company’s routers and siphon mobile traffic; working with companies to install backdoors in their products or network infrastructure or to devise ways to undermine encryption; intercepting products that U.S. companies send to customers overseas to install spy equipment in them before they reach customers. The Foundation’s report, released today, outlines some of the collateral damage of NSA surveillance in several areas, including: Economic losses to US businesses due to lost sales and declining customer trust. The deterioration of internet security as a result of the NSA stockpiling zero-day vulnerabilities, undermining encryption and installing backdoors in software and hardware products. Undermining the government’s credibility and leadership on “internet freedom” and governance issues such as censoTech Credibility Good – Repressive Regimes Internal Surveillance projects undermine US credibility – benefits repressive regimes Joel Simon, executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, February 2014, “How the United States’ Spying Strengthens China’s Hand,” (Accessed 7/24/2015)But the ever-growing revelations about the scope of digital spying carried out by the National Security Agency raise doubts about the U.S. commitment. The documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden show that some of the U.S. spying programs operated with technical support of technology companies subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The NSA took advantage of the fact that nearly all online communications passes through U.S.- based servers and switches to vacuum up a huge portion of global communication. It specifically targeted governments, including allies like Brazil, whose president, Dilma Rousseff, has taken grave offense at the invasion of her personal correspondence. By using its technological advantage and indirect control over the Internet to carry out a global surveillance operation of unprecedented scale, Gilmor told CPJ, "The U.S. has abused its position, handing repressive regimes a lot of ammunition to be clamping down even more." China has long argued that the United Nations-administered International Telecommunication Union (ITU) should assume the authority for setting technical standards that currently resides with ICANN, a quasi-private entity based in Los Angeles that operates under license from the U.S. Commerce Department. The People’s Daily editorial was intended to set the stage for the latest meeting of the ITU, which took place in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, in December 2012. At that meeting, a coalition of African and Middle Eastern countries introduced a treaty to bring Internet governance under ITU control.International Law AdvSolvency – Decreased Surveillance KeyInternet surveillance threatens international law Owen Bowcott and Spencer Ackerman, The Guardian Staff Writers, October 15, 2014, “Mass Internet Surveillance Threatens International Law, UN Report Claims, (Accessed 7/20/2015)Mass surveillance of the internet by intelligence agencies is “corrosive of online privacy” and threatens to undermine international law, according to a report to the United Nations general assembly. The critical study by Ben Emmerson QC, the UN’s special rapporteur on counter-terrorism, released on Wednesday is a response to revelations by the whistleblower Edward Snowden about the extent of monitoring carried out by GCHQ in the UK and the National Security Agency (NSA) in the US. Emmerson’s study poses a direct challenge to the claims of both governments that their bulk surveillance programs, which the barrister finds endanger the privacy of “literally every internet user,” are proportionate to the terrorist threat and robustly constrained by law. To combat the danger, Emmerson endorses the ability of Internet users to mount legal challenges to bulk surveillance. “Bulk access technology is indiscriminately corrosive of online privacy and impinges on the very essence of the right guaranteed by [the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights],” Emmerson, a prominent human rights lawyer, concludes. The programmes, he said, “pose a direct and ongoing challenge to an established norm of international law.” Article 17 of the covenant, Emmerson points out, states that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home and correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation”.Information Overload AdvSpecific Targeted Searches – Key to Solve TerrorismMass searches fail – overloads terrorist fighting effortsHenrik Alexandersson, municipal politician and daily newspaper contributor, January 10, 2015, “Report Suggests: NSA Mass Surveillance is a Waste of Resources (and will make us less safe), (Accessed 7/20/2015)And it confirms that more information from mass surveillance (a bigger haystack) only will make a system already under information overload to work even worse… “Finally, the overall problem for U.S. counterterrorism officials is not that they need vaster amounts of information from the bulk surveillance programs, but that they don’t sufficiently understand or widely share the information they already possess that was derived from conventional law enforcement and intelligence techniques.” So it seems that shifting resources from traditional (human) intelligence and law enforcement work to automated mass surveillance might make us all less safe from terrorists. But then again, this is not about terrorism. It’s about power and control.No Solvency – Collect-it-All FailsCollect it all searches fail in the effort to fight terrorismPeter Maass, New York Times Magazine writer, May 28, 2015, “Inside NSA, Officials Privately Criticize “Collect It All” Surveillance” (Accessed 7/25/2015)The document is one of about a dozen in which NSA intelligence experts express concerns usually heard from the agency’s critics: that the U.S. government’s “collect it all” strategy can undermine the effort to fight terrorism. The documents, provided to The Intercept by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, appear to contradict years of statements from senior officials who have claimed that pervasive surveillance of global communications helps the government identify terrorists before they strike or quickly find them after an attack. The Patriot Act, portions of which expire on Sunday, has been used since 2001 to conduct a number of dragnet surveillance programs, including the bulk collection of phone metadata from American companies. But the documents suggest that analysts at the NSA have drowned in data since 9/11, making it more difficult for them to find the real threats. The titles of the documents capture their overall message: “Data Is Not Intelligence,” “The Fallacies Behind the Scenes,” “Cognitive Overflow?” “Summit Fever” and “In Praise of Not Knowing.” Other titles include “Dealing With a ‘Tsunami’ of Intercept” and “Overcome by Overload?” The documents are not uniform in their positions. Some acknowledge the overload problem but say the agency is adjusting well. They do not specifically mention the Patriot Act, just the larger dilemma of cutting through a flood of incoming data. But in an apparent sign of the scale of the problem, the documents confirm that the NSA even has a special category of programs that is called “Coping With Information Overload.” The jam vs. jelly document, titled “Too Many Choices,” started off in a colorful way but ended with a fairly stark warning: “The SIGINT mission is far too vital to unnecessarily expand the haystacks while we search for the needles. Prioritization is key.” These doubts are infrequently heard from officials inside the NSA. These documents are a window into the private thinking of mid-level officials who are almost never permitted to discuss their concerns in public. AN AMUSING PARABLE circulated at the NSA a few years ago. Two people go to a farm and purchase a truckload of melons for a dollar each. They then sell the melons along a busy road for the same price, a dollar. As they drive back to the farm for another load, they realize they aren’t making a profit, so one of them suggests, “Do you think we need a bigger truck?” The parable was written by an intelligence analyst in a document dated Jan. 23, 2012 that was titled, “Do We Need a Bigger SIGINT Truck?” It expresses, in a lively fashion, a critique of the agency’s effort to collect what former NSA Director Keith Alexander referred to as “the whole haystack.” The critique goes to the heart of the agency’s drive to gather as much of the world’s communications as possible: because it may not find what it needs in a partial haystack of data, the haystack is expanded as much as possible, on the assumption that more data will eventually yield useful information. “The problem is that when you collect it all, when you monitor everyone, you understand nothing.” –Edward SnowdenSolvencyDecreasing Network Surveillance Solves – Democracy/EthicsDecreasing internet surveillance can incorporate an ethical intercultural approach Rafael Capurro, This paper was originally presented at the 2009 Global Forum on Civilization and Peace, “Digital Ethics” (Accessed 7/25/2015)An example of the relevance of the intercultural approach in digital media ethics is the discussion on the concept of privacy from a Western vs. a Buddhist perspective. While in Western cultures privacy is closely related to the self having an intrinsic value, Buddhism relies on the tenet of non-self and therefore the social perception as well as the concept of privacy are different (Nakada and Tamura 2005; Capurro 2005). However, a justification of privacy from a Buddhist perspective based on the concept of compassion seems possible and plausible (Hongladarom 2007). Digital surveillance of public spaces is supposed to ensure safety and security facing unintentional or intentional dangers for instance from criminal or terrorist attacks. But at the same time it threatens autonomy, anonymity and trust that build the basis of democratic societies. New technologies allowing the tracking of individuals through RFID or ICT implants are similarly ambiguous with regard to the implicit dangers and benefits. Therefore they need special scrutiny and monitoring (EGE 2005).Decreasing Network Surveillance Solves – Fundamental RightsChallenging mass surveillance key to asserting fundamental rightsJean Lambert, writer and contributor, September 5, 2014, “Challenging the Era of Mass Surveillance,” (Accessed 7/23/2015)Jean Lambert discusses the era of mass surveillance. She explains the need for increased awareness of our fundamental rights against the destructive effect of mass surveillance. Our relationship with the state will increasingly be shaped by the technologies we use and protecting ourselves in this Post-Snowden era is a task that should engage us all. Particularly, she questions how the EU can strengthen our current rights in light of these global changes. In just one month in 2013 the US National Security Agency (NSA) collected 97 billion pieces of intelligence from computer networks worldwide. It has snooped on 500 million German data connections–to the outrage of German nationals. The UK undertakes similar work, as Edward Snowden revealed. Our GCHQ Tempora programme neatly sidestepped national legislation to intercept transatlantic fibre-optic data cables on a mammoth scale. Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti has pointed out that states tend to have a broader license to snoop abroad than at home, so we are seeing a subcontracting out of their dirty work to others, who can then claim to be protecting their own citizens. So where do universal human rights come into play?Decreased Surveillance Solves – EconomyIncreased internet surveillance erodes consumer confidence and hurts the economyMark Chandler, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of Cisco, May 13, 2014, “Internet Security Necessary for Global Technology Economy,” (Accessed 7/21/2015)Confidence in the open, global Internet has brought enormous economic benefits to the United States and to billions around the world. This confidence has been eroded by revelations of government surveillance, by efforts of the US government to force US companies to provide access to communications of non-US citizens even when that violates the privacy laws of countries where US companies do business, and allegations that governments exploit rather than report security vulnerabilities in products. As a matter of policy and practice, Cisco does not work with any government, including the United States Government, to weaken our products. When we learn of a security vulnerability, we respond by validating it, informing our customers, and fixing it. We react the same when we find that a customer’s security has been impacted by external forces, regardless of what country or form of government or how that security breach occurred. We offer customers robust tools to defend their environments against attack, and detect attacks when they are happening. By doing these things, we have built and maintained our customers’ trust. We expect our government to value and respect this trust. This past December, eight technology companies expressed concern to the President of the United States and Members of Congress that the US government’s surveillance efforts are in fact harmful. They stated, in part, “We urge the US to take the lead and make reforms that ensure that government surveillance efforts are clearly restricted by law, proportionate to the risks, transparent and subject to independent oversight.” We agree and support these positions – without customer confidence in the privacy and security of communications, the extraordinary steps toward freedom, productivity and prosperity that is the promise of the Internet can be lost.FG Solves – Reform PossibleThe federal government’s surveillance concerns bring chances for champion reformAmanda Holpuch, Reporter at the Guardian, March 13, 2014, (Accessed 7/21/2014)“The US government should be the champion for the internet, not a threat,” Zuckerberg said in a Facebook post on Thursday. “They need to be much more transparent about what they’re doing, or otherwise people will believe the worst.” In the post, Zuckerberg said he had called Obama to express his “frustration over the damage the government is creating for all of our future” and said he was confused by the government’s actions. “The internet works because most people and companies do the same. We work together to create this secure environment and make our shared space even better for the world,” he wrote. He went on: “This is why I’ve been so confused and frustrated by the repeated reports of the behavior of the US government. When our engineers work tirelessly to improve security, we imagine we’re protecting you against criminals, not our own government.” Though Zuckerberg has been openly critical of government surveillance ,the post had a surprisingly strong tone considering Facebook has long been criticized for its privacy policies. However, Zuckerberg is part of a long list of tech giants who have condemned the extensive government surveillance programs made public by Edward Snowden in the summer of 2013.A/T PoliticsLink Turn - Plan PopularPlan is popular with the public – surveillance is unpopularJames Bamford, Reuters staff writer, May 11, 2015, “Why NSA Surveillance is Worse than You’ve Ever Imagined,” (Accessed July 24, 2015)A key factor in that decision is the American public’s attitude toward surveillance. Snowden’s revelations have clearly made a change in that attitude. In a PEW 2006 survey, for example, after the New York Times’ James Risen and Eric Lichtblau revealed the agency’s warrantless eavesdropping activities, 51 percent of the public still viewed the NSA’s surveillance programs as acceptable, while 47 percent found them unacceptable. After Snowden’s revelations, those numbers reversed. A PEW survey in March revealed that 52 percent of the public is now concerned about government surveillance, while 46 percent is not. Given the vast amount of revelations about NSA abuses, it is somewhat surprising that just slightly more than a majority of Americans seem concerned about government surveillance. Which leads to the question of why? Is there any kind of revelation that might push the poll numbers heavily against the NSA’s spying programs? Has security fully trumped privacy as far as the American public is concerned? Or is there some program that would spark genuine public outrage?NSA internet surveillance draws public supportErin Kelly, USA Today Staff Writer, June 4, 2015, “Newly Revealed NSA Surveillance Program DRas Support, Ire,” (Accessed 7/22/2015)Newly revealed NSA surveillance program draws support, ire. The Obama administration secretly expanded the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance of Americans' Internet traffic, according to a news report, drawing criticism and support from cybersecurity experts. The administration widened the NSA's surveillance in an effort to combat foreign computer hacking, The New York Times reported Thursday, citing documents provided to the paper and Pro Publica by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The revelations come amid a growing number of high-profile hack attacks against the government and the private sector. On Thursday, government officials revealed that hackers breached the computer system of the Office of Personnel Management, compromising the data of up to 4 million current and former federal employees.A/T FISA CPNo SolvencyFISA court reform is ineffective – operates in secrets and one-sided infoNadia Kayyali, is a member of EFF’s activism team, August 15, 2014, “What You Need to Know About the FISA Court – and How it Needs to Change,” (Accessed 7/22/2015)The FISA Court is very different. Created by Section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the purpose of the FISC is to “hear applications for and grant orders approving electronic surveillance anywhere within the United States.” The court makes its own rules and operates in secret. It decides matters like the now infamous Verizon order leaked by Edward Snowden, which allowed for the collection of call detail records for millions of innocent Verizon customers. It relies on a general “heightened duty of candor,” meaning that the government is supposed to go to extreme lengths to tell the court everything it ought to know to make the right decision. Now, if this was just a simple process of approving applications for surveillance, and if the evidence could later be challenged in court, this might make sense. But, as we’ve learned, this process is not so simple and can involve critical issues of constitutional law and interpretations of what Congress meant in FISA. The court must rely on one-sided information from the government and has to trust that that information is complete. And the data collected by the NSA and FBI under those applications often remains secret, even when it, or information derived from it, is used in criminal proceedings. FISA Court fails – constitutional challengesSeth Hoy, Brennan Center for Justice, March 18, 2015, “New Report: FISA Court Needs Reform to Protect Americans’ Civil Liberties,” (Accessed 7/26/2015)The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is no longer serving its constitutional function of providing a check on the executive branch’s ability to obtain Americans’ private communications, concludes a new report released today by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. What Went Wrong with the FISA Court finds that dramatic shifts in technology and law have changed the role of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) since its creation in 1978 — from reviewing government applications to collect communications in specific cases, to issuing blanket approvals of sweeping data collection programs affecting millions of Americans. These fundamental changes not only erode Americans’ civil liberties, but likely violate Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which limits courts to deciding concrete disputes between parties rather than issuing opinions on abstract questions. The FISA Court’s wholesale approval process also fails to satisfy standards set forth in the Fourth Amendment, which protect against warrantless searches and seizures. “Today’s FISA Court does not operate like a court at all, but more like an arm of the intelligence establishment,” said Elizabeth Goitein, co-author of the report and co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. “The Constitution’s vision of the judiciary does not include issuing secret orders approving mass surveillance programs. The court has veered sharply off course, and nothing less than a fundamental overhaul of surveillance oversight practices will restore it to its constitutional moorings.”Muslim Surveillance Extensions AFFA/T Counter Plan Constitutional Convention would be a last ditch effort, it would throw the entire system of government into chaosDavid O. Stewart, Writer for the Baltimore Sun, March 26, 2015, “Calls for a constitutional convention are reckless,” Baltimore Sun, Accessed July 12, 2015, , current advocates for a "balanced budget" amendment and for one to limit campaign spending — advocates from opposing ends of the political spectrum — are embracing the convention mechanism for amendment. A proposal in the Maryland General Assembly would make Maryland the fifth state to call for a convention to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United opinion, which limited Congress' power to regulate political spending. At the same time, 25 states have adopted resolutions calling for a convention to address the balanced-budget proposal. The appeal of the convention process is that it allows the advocates to evade Congress, which has no role but to call the convention. Yet few seem to understand that a second convention would be the ultimate loose cannon, able to rewrite almost every provision of the Constitution. For that reason, James Madison fought fiercely in the early years of the republic to prevent the calling of a second constitutional convention. Such a convocation, he warned, would attract people "who will essentially mutilate the system," resulting in a "dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric" of the Constitution. The Constitution is silent about the procedures, scope and nature of a second constitutional convention. It doesn't prescribe how states would choose delegates, nor how the convention would proceed, nor what its agenda can be (except that equal Senate representation for every state cannot be changed). Based on the precedent of our first Constitutional Convention, Congress cannot decide those questions. Rather, each state would choose delegates by whatever method it thought best. The state delegates would be free to choose their procedures and decide what changes they wished to make. In 1787, some states tried to limit the subjects their delegates could address at the convention. The delegates ignored their states' instructions. In short, a second convention would create extraordinary confusion. The delegates could do almost anything they wished. The sole check on the process would be that the final product must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. For those urging a single constitutional amendment — say, the balanced budget amendment or the campaign-funding proposal — this process seems profoundly unwise. In pursuit of a single policy, they propose to throw the structure of the entire government into doubt. A second convention should be a last resort, used when the government has failed so utterly that we should start over with a blank piece of paper. In 1787, many convention delegates thought the situation was that dire, that the United States soon would fracture into multiple smaller nations. Our current government, despite many dysfunctions, is hardly at such a desperate stage.FBI surveillance of Muslims is increasing nowThe FBI is increasing anti-Muslim surveillanceJosh Margolin and Brian Boss, Staff Writers, May 8, 2015, “Texas Attack Spurs Increase of FBI Surveillance on 'Marginal' Terror Threats,” ABC News, , ACC. 7/18/2015The FBI has ordered more U.S. terror suspects be put under 24/7 surveillance in the wake of the Garland, Texas shooting and a renewed emphasis by?ISIS?and other terror groups for potential American recruits to launch attacks at home, according to three FBI officials. The officials told ABC News that agents have been ordered to review the cases of so-called “marginal” or “borderline” suspects, terms that had been applied to one of the gunmen in the Texas attack, Elton Simpson of Phoenix. FBI agents were familiar with Simpson and the views he espoused, but he was not put under 24/7 surveillance. He was viewed as being “more talk than action,” one agent said.Discriminatory surveillance is the highest since J. Edger Hoover. Muslims are targeted in their daily livesMuslim Advocates, May 6, 2012, “Muslim Advocates Statement on “Racial Profiling in America,” Muslim , , ACC. 7/18/2015American Muslims have also embraced our nation’s promise of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But since 9/11, these hopes and dreams have been jeopardized, and fundamental rights infringed. Today, American Muslims face government discrimination in their everyday lives – whether they enter a mosque to pray, get on a plane, cross the border, or log onto the Internet. They worry that they will be interrogated by government agents, or worse, arrested and detained, for no reason at all. Our nation has not seen such widespread abuse, discrimination and harassment by federal law enforcement since the J. Edgar Hoover era.FBI/DOJ profiling reforms do not decrease anti-Muslim surveillanceThe revised ban on profiling still allows for FBI “flexibility” to target MuslimsEvan Perez, CNN Justice Reporter, February 2, 2015, “Expanded federal ban on profiling doesn't apply at borders, airport screening,” , ACC. 7/18/2015Despite the new broader ban on profiling, some critics aren't satisfied that it goes far enough. Rajdeep Singh, director of law and policy at the Sikh Coalition, said in a statement that "the message this continues to send is that certain communities are still suspect, and we worry this will lead to more hate crime and discrimination." Laura W. Murphy, legislative office director for the ACLU in Washington, said in a statement that the new guidance is "not an adequate response to the crisis of racial profiling in America," arguing that the new guidelines are "so loosely drafted" and contain flexibility that can affect American Muslims. The group Muslim Advocates also argued the new rules don't go far enough in protecting American Muslims from profiling by the FBI, Customs and Border Protection, and other law enforcement ernment reforms still allow law enforcement agencies to map and profile Muslim AmericansThe Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Staff Writer, December 08, 2014, “CAIR Concerned that New DOJ Guidelines Allow 'Mapping' of Muslims, Profiling at Airports, Borders,” , ACC. 7/18/2015The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today expressed concerns about the fact that the newly-released U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) revision of its "Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies" retains "Muslim" carve-outs on profiling by government agencies at airports and borders. While it is reported that the new guidelines extend the existing ban on federal law enforcement profiling on the basis of religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity, it retains exemptions for Department of Homeland Security agents' use of religion, national origin and other characteristics to profile at airports and the border and allow the FBI to "map" minority communities to place informants.The Patriot Act gives the FBI authority to target Muslims for surveillance and watchlistsArab American Institute, Staff Writers, May 16, 2015, “Surveillance,” , ACC. 7/18/2015Following the tragic attacks on 9/11, Congress passed a wave of national security legislation in response to the vulnerabilities that were exposed in the United State’s homeland security apparatus. One of the most significant pieces of legislation passed was the USA PATRIOT Act, which enormously expanded the government’s surveillance powers over U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike. Programs permitted under the Patriot Act have had grave consequences for the Arab American community, which has since been abusively surveilled, incriminated through FBI informant programs, and watch listed without the ability to contest that designation.FBI/DOJ profiling reforms do not decrease anti-Muslim surveillanceDOJ changes in profiling change nothing. They can still violate civil rights for anti-Muslim surveillanceJeremy Sleven, Staff Writer, April 21, 2014, “Does Profiling Muslims Really Stop Terrorism?,” MSNBC, , ACC. 7/18/2015Last week, The New York Times?reported?on a highly-anticipated draft memo regarding racial profiling practices at the U.S. Department Of Justice. According to the report, the changes don’t amount to much. While the new rules would expand the definition of profiling to include religion, gender and sexual orientation, they would also allow the FBI to continue many of the controversial strategies opposed by the civil rights community. These strategies include the mapping of ethnic populations and then using that data to recruit informants and open investigations. Meanwhile, the New York Police Department announced that it has closed a once-secret unit that – for more than a decade – dispatched undercover officers to spy on Muslim neighborhoods throughout the city. According to?2011 investigative reporting?by the Associated Press – which went on to win a Pulitzer Prize – the Department coordinated with the C.I.A. and used informants known as “mosque crawlers” to monitor sermons. The program included detailed files about exactly where Muslims ate, prayed, and shopped – based solely on their religion and ethnicity. According to the Department’s own testimony in federal court, the program never generated a single lead.The FBI is structurally racist against MuslimsThe FBI is structurally anti-MuslimSpencer Ackerman, Staff Writer, April 23, 2014, “No-fly list used by FBI to coerce Muslims into informing, lawsuit claims,” The Guardian, , ACC. 7/18/2015In recent years Muslim community leaders in the US have stated that they feel law enforcement at times considers them a target, particularly thanks to?mosque infiltrations?and other surveillance practices. Material demonizing Muslims and Islam?has been present in FBI counter-terrorism training, which the bureau has conceded was?inappropriate. The New York police department recently?shut down?a unit tasked with spying on Muslim businesses, mosques and community centers in New York and New Jersey.FBI analysts use crude racial stereotypes to justify anti-Muslim surveillanceBrad Knickerbocker, Staff writer, October 21, 2011, “ACLU: FBI guilty of 'industrial scale' racial profiling,” Christian Science Monitor, , ACC. 7/18/2015“The documents we have started to receive confirm our worst fears,” ACLU officials wrote to Attorney General Holder. “Although often heavily redacted, these documents, obtained from a number of different field offices, demonstrate that FBI analysts are using improper and crude racial stereotypes regarding the types of crimes committed by different racial and ethnic groups and then collecting demographic data to map where people of those racial or ethnic groups live.” The result, charges the ACLU, has been “racial profiling on an industrial scale.” For example, information obtained through one FOIA action shows that an FBI field office in?Detroit?sought authority in July 2009 to collect information and evaluate domestic terrorism threats “because?Michigan?has a large Middle-Eastern and Muslim population, [and] it is prime territory for attempted radicalization and recruitment” by State Department-designated terrorist groups originating in the?Middle East?and?Southeast Asia.The FBI sees Muslims who grow beards and wear cultural clothing as “radicals”Arun Kundnani, Adjunct Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at NYU, August 30, 2011, ?“The FBI’s ‘Good’ Muslims,” The Nation, , ACC. 7/18/2015The idea that a change in appearance is a sign that someone is drifting into terrorism has been absorbed from the FBI’s model of how radicalization works, summarized in a New York Police Department paper of 2007. That model has four stages: pre-radicalization, self-identification, indoctrination and jihadization. Growing a beard, starting to wear “traditional Islamic clothing” and becoming alienated from one’s former life are all listed as indicators of stage two, self-identification; withdrawing from a mosque is a sign of stage three, indoctrination, one level away from becoming an active terrorist.Surveillance of Muslim communities presumes their inherent criminalityBrad Knickerbocker, Staff writer, October 21, 2011, “ACLU: FBI guilty of 'industrial scale' racial profiling,” Christian Science Monitor, , ACC. 7/18/2015Arab and Muslim American officials are not satisfied with such answers. "To map Arabs and Muslims as suspect communities tells us that the FBI believes that we are predisposed to criminality, which is not only untrue but is also an inaccurate means of investigating crime,” the Michigan office of the Council on Islamic Relations said in a statement Friday. "This is nothing new," Imad Hamad, regional director of the?American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, told the?Detroit News. "We have been struggling with this issue for many years.”The FBI is structurally racist against MuslimsFBI training material is racist. Agents coerce Muslims into being informants under the threat of deportationMuslim Advocates, May 6, 2012, “Muslim Advocates Statement on “Racial Profiling in America,” Muslim , , ACC. 7/18/2015The use of bigoted trainers and materials is not only highly offensive, disparaging the faith of millions of Americans, but leads to biased policing that targets individuals and communities based on religion, not evidence of wrongdoing. Since September 11, 2001, American Muslims have been frequently approached by FBI agents for uninvited questioning at their homes and workplace and asked personal questions about their family, friends, and community acquaintances. These so-called “voluntary” interviews not only intimidate, but also cast suspicion over community members and jeopardize their personal and professional relationships. Some individuals are coerced into becoming informants in order to avoid prosecution or deprivation of immigration benefits.FBI surveillance against Muslims is based on a structural assumption of terrorist predisposition and entrapmentTodd Green,?Associate Professor of Religion at Luther College, 2015, The Fear of Islam: An Introduction to Islamophobia in the West, pp. 272-273The case raises many troubling issues concerning the government’s surveillance and profiling of Muslims. First, the case, and many others like it, crosses the line into what is legally known as entrapment. Entrapment involves the government including individuals to commit a crime they would not otherwise commit. But entrapment defenses are difficult to pull off in court. The government only has to prove that the accused were predisposed to carry out the acts, even if defendants demonstrate that the government induced them to do so. Predisposition operates on the assumption that Muslims are prone to terrorism. Juries readily embrace the notion of predisposition, and, as a result, the entrapment defense usually does not work. It did not work in the trial of the Newburgh Four. All four were found guilty, and each was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison. Second, many FBI informants are not trained as law enforcement officers and have ulterior motves for the assistance they provide. They often receive enticements, such as money or a reduction in a pending criminal sentence, in exchange for collaborating with the FBI. Hussain received $100,000, among other perks, for his work as an FBI informant in the Newburgh case. And Hussain is not alone. The FBI maintains some fifteen thousand informants, in addition to tens of thousands of unofficial informants.The “no-fly” list is used for anti-Muslim surveillanceMuslims are placed on no-fly lists by the FBI for refusing to be informantsJenifer Fenton, Staff Writer, June 11, 2015, “Does FBI use no-fly list to pressure Muslims to become informants?,” Al Jazeerz America, , ACC. 7/18/2015Tanvir v. Lynch alleges that the FBI used the no-fly list to coerce Muslims into becoming informants on their community?and that the government retaliated against them when they lawfully opted not to. “The fact that the government has confirmed that all four of our clients now can fly really affirms our claims in this lawsuit that the only reason they were ever on a no-fly list is … they were refusing to be informants. There was never any valid reason for their placement,” said Diala Shamas, a senior staff attorney at?CLEAR?(Creating Law Enforcement Accountability and Responsibility) at the City University of New York School of Law, which brought the lawsuit along with the Center for Constitutional Rights and Debevoise & Plimpton.The no-fly list is a perfect example of anti-Muslim surveillanceSpencer Ackerman, Staff Writer, April 23, 2014, “No-fly list used by FBI to coerce Muslims into informing, lawsuit claims,” The Guardian, , ACC. 7/18/2015Shinwari is one of four American Muslims in a new lawsuit who accuse the FBI of placing them on the no-fly list, either to intimidate them into becoming informants or to retaliate against them for declining. Filed on Tuesday night in the US district court for the southern district of New York, the case accuses the US attorney general, Eric Holder, the FBI director, James Comey, the homeland security secretary, Jeh Johnson, and two dozen FBI agents of creating an atmosphere in which Muslims who are not accused of wrongdoing are forbidden from flying, apparently as leverage to get them snitching on their communities. Their lawsuit seeks not only the plaintiffs’ removal from the no-fly list but also the establishment of a more robust legal mechanism to contest placement upon it. “This policy and set of practices by the FBI is part of a much broader set of policies that reflect overpolicing in Muslim-American communities,” said Diala Shamas, one of the lawyers for the four plaintiffs.Post-9/11 FBI surveillance coerces and profiles Muslims. They use the no-fly list to coerce informantsJenifer Fenton, Staff Writer, June 11, 2015, “Does FBI use no-fly list to pressure Muslims to become informants?,” Al Jazeerz America, , ACC. 7/18/2015There have long been allegations that the FBI has tried to coerce Americans, including law-abiding ones, to act as informants. Former FBI Special Agent Michael German, who is now with the?Brennan Center for Justice, said these allegations are true and are more acute for Americans living overseas.?There needs to be proper redress and stronger regulations that are “constitutionally adequate” and don’t “deprive persons of the rights that they are entitled to,” he said, adding that coercing informants should not be part of the equation. Those put on the list, he said, must also have an “adequate forum to challenge the allegations against them.” The case brought on behalf of Tanvir and the other men raises the larger issues of discriminatory policing, government surveillance and the profiling of Muslims. “Post-9/11, the FBI has been very aggressively recruiting informants within the Muslim community, and they use a number of tools,” said CUNY’s Shamas. “Among them has been the no-fly list.”The FBI coerces Muslims to be spies/informantsThe government defines “good Muslims” as informants and “bad Muslims” as those practicing their culture and religionArun Kundnani, Adjunct Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at NYU, August 30, 2011, ?“The FBI’s ‘Good’ Muslims,” The Nation, , ACC. 7/18/2015While liberal-oriented governments on both sides of the Atlantic have embraced the language of community engagement, in practice they have reduced the role that communities can play in preventing terrorism to intelligence-gathering and the self-policing of radical views. In this, they are influenced by a flawed model of radicalization that assumes dangerous ideas produce evil actions. Muslim organizations that take a civil rights stand are then rejected as partners and vilified as conveyors of the “extremist” ideas that supposedly make people into terrorists. In both Britain and the United States, governments have followed this pattern of partnering with “good Muslims” and demonizing “bad Muslims.”Anti-Muslim surveillance should be rejectedAnti-Muslim surveillance is unconstitutional. Various lists continually suppress rightsArab American Institute, Staff Writers, May 16, 2015, “Surveillance,” , ACC. 7/18/2015The bulk surveillance and collection of Americans’ data records is unconstitutional and ineffective. Congress should act to impose legal restrictions on what and how data is collected by the various government agencies engaged in such practices. Congress should additionally call for specific investigations into the many programs that target the Arab American and American Muslim communities. In 2014, leaked details about U.S. government watchlisting practices and policies revealed numerous disturbing revelations. We learned that Dearborn, Michigan – a city with less than 100,000 residents that is home to a large Arab American community – has more watchlisted individuals than any other city in the United States other than New York City. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 40 percent of Dearborn’s population is of Arab descent, demonstration that the watchlisting program is based off of racial, ethnic, national origin and religious profiling. In addition to the watchlists, there continues to be major issues concerning the no-fly list, the selectee list, and the redress process through which an individual could have their named removed from one of the aforementioned lists. In early 2015, after several lawsuits were filed against the Department of Justice (DOJ) on behalf of citizens who had been put on the no-fly list, the DOJ announced that it would be revising the process by which individuals are able to challenge their designation. While that is a welcomed announcement, the changes are not sufficient and do not extend to individuals on the selectee list, which is much larger than the no-fly list and warrants severe infringements on the civil rights of individuals “selected”.Anti-Muslim racism is a recycled form of long-term oppressionArun Kundnani, Adjunct Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at NYU, February 21, 2015, “Islamophobia is just the latest in a history of US imperialism,” , ACC. 7/18/2015Anti-Muslim racism then appears as the most recent layer in this longer history, a reworking and recycling of older logics of oppression. From this perspective, Islamophobia, like other forms of racism, should not be seen only as a problem of hate crimes committed by lone extremists. The acts of individual perpetrators can only be made sense of if they are seen as the product of a wider culture, in which glorifying racial violence is acceptable.Anti-Muslim surveillance is a human rights issue, where politics becomes a rigged game for MuslimsDelinda C. Hanley, News Editor, June-July 2012, “It's Time to End Racial, Religious and Ethnic Profiling of Americans,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs,?, ACC. 7/18/2015The persecution of Muslim Americans is the civil and human rights issue of our day. After all this mapping, counting and eavesdropping, it should come as no surprise when millions of Muslim- and?Arab-American voters and other civil rights advocates vote for candidates who promise to end profiling on the basis of religion, race or ethnicity. Perhaps it should come as no surprise if Muslims in the middle of this civil rights struggle are now wary about inviting their fellow Americans to share burgers and hot dogs this 4th of July.A2: Terrorism DisadvantagesAnti-Muslim surveillance efforts are counter-productive and put the whole country at riskArab American Institute, Staff Writers, May 16, 2015, “Surveillance,” , ACC. 7/18/2015Lastly, government agencies continue to map Arab and Muslim communities and recruit informants in those communities, despite the fact that these programs are unconstitutional, ineffective, and are counterproductive. These techniques fail to bolster U.S. national security and they also weaken the bond of trust between American citizens and the federal and local law enforcement officials who took an oath to protect them. This decreasing level of trust between law enforcement officials and American citizens puts the safety of our communities at risk.Prison Surveillance AFFInherencySurveillance Increasing Now – TechNew legislation increasing surveillance oversight nowMary Ellen Klas, staff writer at the Miami Herald, April 13, 2015, “House Proposal Offers Big Increase in Prison Oversight,” (Accessed 7/5/2015)House proposal offers big increase in prison oversight. The chief inspector general of the prison system and most of his top staff would be replaced, prison guards would wear body cameras, a hotline would log abuse claims and five regional oversight boards would conduct unannounced prison inspections under a massive rewrite of the House prison reform bill. The proposal will be offered Tuesday by House Criminal Justice Committee Chairman Carlos Trujillo as an amendment to HB 7131, in an attempt to bridge the gap between a comprehensive Senate bill and the weaker House version. Both bills are a response to allegations of abuse and corruption in Florida’s prison system. “This bill is taking us 80 percent of the way there, but it is a work in progress,’’ Trujillo told the Herald/Times of his proposal, filed late Monday. “There are other things that can’t be addressed in one bill, but it’s a start.” Trujillo said he was motivated to revise the House proposal after testimony from inmate families and prison reform advocates who pleaded with the House to strengthen its legislation. It will be voted on by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. The proposal envisions a wholesale review of all hiring practices, employee retention policies and employee training, Trujillo said. It requires that the state create five regional oversight boards, staffed by state employees whose terms would last no more than four years, and the goal would be to increase oversight and accountability at the troubled agency. “I don’t think a single person’s job is safe under our new approach,’’ Trujillo said. “Everyone has to be held accountable." Surveillance is everywhere in prisonMarlon Brock, writer and retired Federal Law Enforcement Officer, February 11, 2014, “10 Prison Techniques Being Implemented on the American People” (Accessed 7/3/2015)In federal prisons, cameras are everywhere. The reason, of course, is to help maintain security and keep track of prisoners. Inmates know that if they break any rules or policies, they can be readily identified if the event occurred in view of a camera. The cameras remind the inmates that they do not have any freedom or privacy, and that they live under total control. Unfortunately, the “free world” is now subject to the widespread use of video surveillance and movement tracking. This goes beyond cameras, which have become virtually ubiquitous now. The federal government has been handing out grants to create sophisticated surveillance grids in cities across the country. These surveillance grids frequently include license plate readers — some with the ability to log 1,200 license plates per hour, logging timestamps and location data — giving the government a way to track people and analyze their movement patterns. Some cities post license plate readers to log every single vehicle that enters or leaves its boundaries. Many cities have turned their police cars into roving data collectors by outfitting them with mobile license plate scanners. A man from California discovered that he had been photographed 112 times over the course of a couple years — from just one police cruiser mounted with a license plate scanner! The local databases of movement data are integrated with the federal government through its fusion centers located all over the country. The government also has the ability to use facial-recognition software in conjunction with its surveillance grid to instantly identify individuals by comparing their photograph to biometric databases created using BMV photographs. Facial recognition cameras can be set up to accurately identify a person against a database of millions of images in less than one second. The government can then potentially log their locations and using the data for any purpose it wants. As the usage of these technologies grows, the “authorities” will practically know where you are at any time. The British have the greatest level of electronic surveillance in the world. Their movements are said to be recorded 3,000 times a week. The United States is not that far behind. In some ways, with the numerous NSA spying programs, the USA leads the world in destroying personal privacy. Today’s youngest generation will grow up never knowing what privacy is. Prison Conditions – Bad NowPrison conditions are bad now and will continue to get worseAndrew Cohen, contributing editor at The Atlantic and legal analyst for 60 Minutes and CBS Radio News, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, and Commentary Editor at The Marshall Project, December 14, 2013, “Government Watchdog: We Have a Growing Federal Prison Crisis” (Accessed 7/3/2015)Listening to Horowitz explain the OIG's emphasis on federal prisons, it's clear that he's trying, as diplomatically as possible, to raise the alarm about the lack of progress the Justice Department—and specifically the BOP—has shown in reacting to the changing dynamics of the inmate population. "Even though the Department since 2006 has been identifying prison overcrowding and prison capacity as a material performance weakness," he told me, "over that seven year period, the numbers haven't improved, they've gotten arguably worse, and are on the path... to continue to get worse in the years ahead." Something's gotta give. One solution, Horowitz says, is for Congress to simply appropriate more money for prisons. Another is that "the Department and Congress can agree on legislation that can alter various statutes." (And, indeed, that is happening). The memo, however, is designed to focus the executive branch's attention to "what exists today. The Department does have some ability to have an impact on this current situation," he says, whether it's at the charging stage in a criminal case, the sentencing stage of such a case, or upon inmates who already are in the system.Prison Conditions and surveillance destroy human dignity Barbara Bernath, MA in Human Rights, COO of APT and previous Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs, November 12, 2013, “Balancing Security and Dignity in Prisons,” (Accessed 7/5/2015)A few years ago, I visited a prison together with a National Human Rights Commission. In this prison detention conditions were good, detainees had access to work and education and workshops were equipped with computers – but all persons were under the constant surveillance of 800 CCTV cameras. Cameras were placed everywhere: in the cells, in the bathrooms, in the room for family visits, in the courtyard, in the corridors...The atmosphere of de-humanisation of this prison left a very strong impression on me. In the name of security, detainees had not only lost their privacy but they had lost their dignity. Safety and order is essential in prison, but at what cost? Under what conditions can security measures such as body searches, isolation and classification of prisoners be considered as necessary in order to protect the security of the prison – of the detainees, of personnel and of the visitors? What is the threshold converting the use of handcuffs from a legitimate use to a humiliating or degrading treatment?Harms/Prison Surveillance BadSurveillance in Prisons Bad – Psychological PainIncreased surveillance and control dehumanizes prisoners causing psychological painMelissa De Witte, staff writer with a MA, Media Culture & Communication, New York University (2010) and BS, Sociology, London School of Economics & Political Science (2004), April 10, 2015, “Psychology and prisons expert Craig Haney talks about social injustices in U.S. prisons at Annual Faculty Research Lecture,” (Accessed 7/1/2015)In effort to maintain order over unprecedented numbers of prisoners, officials implemented harsher restrictions and increased surveillance and control. More bars, barbed wire, fencing, chains, walls, and even cages became the norm. In some places, rifle-toting guards oversee housing units. “Harsh conditions of confinement inflict forms of psychological pain on prisoners, and the trauma of solitary confinement often worsens it,” Haney argued. The long-term prison isolation that Haney has studied has severe psychological consequences. It fills many prisoners with depression, social anxiety, and what he calls an “ontological anxiety.” As Haney described it, “some isolated prisoners do not know if they still exist anymore,” Haney remarked. “Many also manifest a deep melancholia, joylessness and grief.” Solitary confinement often means that prisoners are denied any human touch, except for the incidental contact they have when an officer handcuffs them. Many isolated prisoners worry that they will never be fully functioning persons if and even when they re-enter free society. The process of adjusting to prison life in general culminates in what Haney calls prisonization. “Prisonization is a normal set of psychological responses to the abnormal situation of confinement,” he said. But the prison system has grown so vast and influential in American society that forms of prisonization extend beyond the prison walls and into aspects of our daily life outside, Haney argued further.Surveillance in Prisons Bad – PrivacyPrison surveillance creates a social existence of perpetual fear Obaid H. Siddiqui, staff writer for Islamic Monthly, January 14, 2015, “Surveillance, Spectacle and the Panoptic State,” (Accessed 6/29/2015)Though revolutionary at the time, institutionalized surveillance within a prison structure is hardly controversial. Prisons house criminals and criminals require monitoring. However, the danger in Bentham’s idea was evident in the wide gamut of institutions he proposed for implementing the panopticon design. The social implications of such were tackled by French philosopher Michel Foucault in his 1975 book, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. In a chapter titled “Panopticism,” Foucault stated that the main purpose of the panopticon was “to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power.” Surveillance in a panoptic state becomes so permanent in the minds of the surveilled that the subject fears being watched, even when he/she may not be, thereby ensuring the behavior demanded by authority, even in its absence. In turn, “the perfection of power should tend to render its actual exercise unnecessary,” Foucault wrote. “The inmates should be caught up in a power situation of which they are themselves the bearers.” Thus, the subject enforces its own obedience out of fear of being watched. Hence, the actual mechanism of power need no longer be tangible; it becomes an idea weaved into one’s social existence fueled by fear. As Bentham suggested, the subject only needed to fear being watched. “Visible: the inmate will constantly have before his eyes the tall outline of the central tower from which he is spied on. Unverifiable: the inmate must never know whether he is being looked at any moment; but he must be sure that he may always be so.” Therefore, “…panopticism constituted the technique, universally widespread, of coercion,” Foucault wrote. The all-seeing eye of surveillance, while heralded as a system to ensure safety, serves to simply enforce the rules of the watcher. Big Brother isn’t watching to make sure you are okay; he’s watching to make sure you do what he wants you to do.Culture of surveillance militarizes society and attacks privacyHenry A. Giroux, Global TV Network Chair Professorship at McMaster University in the English and Cultural Studies Department and a Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson University, February 10, 2014, “Totalitarian Paranoia in the Post-Orwellian Surveillance State,” (Accessed 6/29/2015)The dangers of the surveillance state far exceed the attack on privacy or warrant simply a discussion about balancing security against civil liberties. The latter argument fails to address how the growth of the surveillance state is connected to the rise of the punishing state, the militarization of American society, secret prisons, state-sanctioned torture, a growing culture of violence, the criminalization of social problems, the depoliticization of public memory, and one of the largest prison systems in the world, all of which "are only the most concrete, condensed manifestations of a diffuse security regime in which we are all interned and enlisted."15 The authoritarian nature of the corporate-state surveillance apparatus and security system with its "urge to surveill, eavesdrop on, spy on, monitor, record, and save every communication of any sort on the planet"16 can only be fully understood when its ubiquitous tentacles are connected to wider cultures of control and punishment, including security-patrolled corridors of public schools, the rise in super-max prisons, the hyper-militarization of local police forces, the rise of the military-industrial-academic complex, and the increasing labeling of dissent as an act of terrorism in the United States.17 Surveillance in Prisons Bad – RacismSurveillance tools are used to isolate communities of color and propogate racismMaya Schenwar, author of Locked Down, Locked Out: Why Prison Doesn't Work and How We Can Do Better and editor-in-chief of Truthout, November 11, 2014, “Prisons are Destroying Communities and Making All of Us Less Safe,” (Accessed 7/5/2015)?Scholar and activist Beth Richie uses the term “prison nation,” describing it as “a broad notion of using the arm of the law to control people, especially people who are disadvantaged and come from disadvantaged communities.” That control can take the form of prisons, jails, surveillance, policing, detention, probation, harsh restrictions on child guardianship, the militarization of schools, and other strategies of isolation and disposal particularly deployed against poor communities of color, especially black communities. Others have used “prison nation” simply to demonstrate the system’s vastness—how it infiltrates our culture and fuels our national politics, often in invisible ways. “Prison-industrial complex” (PIC) is another key term; Rachel Herzing of the prison abolitionist group Critical Resistance defines it as “the symbiotic relationship between public and private interests that employ imprisonment, policing, surveillance, the courts, and their attendant cultural apparatuses as a means of maintaining social, economic, and political inequities.” The concept emphasizes how financial and political powers use prison and punishment to maintain oppression, making it look natural and necessary. Prison doesn’t stop at the barbed wire fence, and it doesn’t end on a release date.Surveillance in Prisons Bad – Body Cavity SearchesBody Cavity strip searches in prisons cause inhumane degradation James Turnage, staff writer for Slate, January 26, 2015, “Strip Search Violates Civil Rights,” (Accessed 7/4/2015)Ask anyone who has ever had the experience and they will tell you that a strip search is degrading and inhumane. Sadly it is commonplace in prisons. Whenever inmates come in contact with visitors, they are strip searched before they return to their cells. One disturbing case of a woman visiting an inmate at a privately-run prison in Tennessee appears to be more of a personal violation than most. After she passed through necessary security checkpoints, a guard noticed something sticking out of her pocket. When she was asked what it was, she informed him that it was a sanitary napkin; she was menstruating. A female guard was summoned. She told the male guard that she would gladly leave the prison, or leave the pad behind, or even show the guard her used pad. She was informed that if she did not comply with the strip search, she would never be allowed to visit the prison again. The woman was told to go into a restroom and take down her pants and underwear. She was forced to allow the female guard to ‘inspect her genitalia.’Body Cavity strip searches contribute to high percentage of prison sexual assaults Christina Piecora, staff writer and recipient of the Justice Harold Birns Award, May 16, 2015, “Targeting the Vulnerable: Female Inmates and Prison Sexual Assault,” (Accessed 7/5/2015)The federal government has labeled the problem of prison sexual assault as an “epidemic.” Female inmates face a constant threat of sexual assault. Currently, there are over two hundred thousand women behind bars in the United States. Of these women, a reported 85-90% have a history of domestic and sexual abuse. And according to a Human Rights Watch Report anywhere from ten to forty percent of incarcerated females have been the victims of prison sexual assault. Female prisoners identifying as bisexual or lesbian are twice as likely to be abused by staff as prisoners identifying as heterosexual (8 percent for both bisexual and lesbian inmates versus 4 percent for heterosexual inmates), while transgender women were three times more likely to be sexually assaulted. Males are the perpetrators in ninety-eight percent of staff-on-inmate sexual assault of female inmates. Forty-one percent of guards in the average state correctional center who work with female inmates are men. The job entitles guards to observe prisoners in their most intimate settings and have access to the prisoners in their most vulnerable states. Furthermore, male guards in state prisons are allowed to perform strip searches and full-body cavity searches of female inmates. Therefore, it should be no surprise that although women comprise only seven percent of the state prison population, they comprise forty-six percent of sexual abuse victims in state prisons.SolvencyLimiting Surveillance – Solves Civil Liberty Violations/RacismSurveillance practices contributes to discriminate violence against persons of color and civil liberty violationsJoe Soss, Joe Soss is at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs. He is the author, most recently, of Disciplining the Poor (with Richard C. Fording and Sanford F. Schram), April 3, 2014, “How America’s Engorged Prison and Surveillance System Threatens Civic Trust and Democracy,” (Accessed 7/2/2015)The rise of mass incarceration after the 1960s is commonly explained by scholars as a political response to new social and economic insecurities, with intense party competition spurring the turn toward draconian punishments. But when scholars turn from dissecting the causes of the prison boom to exploring its consequences, politics tends to fade from view. Today, we know a lot about how the expanded operations of the criminal justice system have negative social and economic effects for disadvantaged communities. Only recently, however, have researchers begun to explore how expanded systems of policing and correctional control are reshaping civic life and democracy in the United States. Contributors to the January 2014 special issue of the Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science on “Detaining Democracy? Criminal Justice and American Civic Life” present some of the most important new research results—showing that the era of expansive policing, custody, and confinement has been politically harmful for poor and black Americans, undermining their prospects for constructive citizenship and undermining faith in U.S. public institutions. The Community Impact of Draconian Criminal Justice Important findings from recent research present a staggering picture of the ways in which the prison boom and ongoing surveillance have changed the political ecology of particular neighborhoods, communities, and states. The criminal justice system affects black and poor neighborhoods detrimentally. A careful analysis by Northwestern University political scientist Traci Burch reveals the degree to which “the criminal justice system affects black and poor neighborhoods detrimentally.” There are neighborhoods in North Carolina, she finds, where the density of adults under correctional supervision reaches a stunning 590 residents per square mile. Furthermore, as University of California, Berkeley and Yale political scientists Amy Lerman and Vesla Weaver have discovered, the same neighborhoods that have many imprisoned adults are also typically targeted for the most aggressive forms of policing. In one area of Brooklyn, New York, for example, police stopped residents at a rate of more than 500 per 1,000.Limiting Surveillance – Solves Sexual AssaultsLimiting surveillance decreases rape and sexual assaultsSean McElwee, researcher and writer for the Huffington Post, Policyshop, Salon, the Atlantic and Rolling Stone, July 1, 2013, “America’s Awful, Terrible, No Good, Very Bad Prison System,” (Accessed 7/2/2015)Dr. James Gilligan told ABC News that "the more violent, powerful inmates -- are in effect being given a bribe or a reward to cooperate with the prison authorities... as long as they cooperate, the prison authorities will permit them to have their victims." Worse, state, local and federal authorities who are aware of the problem do nothing to stop it. Back in 2009, the National Rape Elimination Commission released a set of proposed standards to reduce rape, including: make data on sexual assaults behind bars public; improve staff training, supervision and protection for vulnerable detainees; limit cross-gender searches and supervision, particularly when prisoners are undressed; and make it easier and safer for prisoners to report abuse. Here are how some correction departments responded: The New Mexico Corrections Department submitted this in response to the proposed standards: "A simple cost-benefit analysis shows that when weighed against the twelve million dollar cost of compliance, non-compliance would be much cheaper."Limiting Surveillance – Solves Prison ConditionsOpen prison structures with less surveillance improves prison conditionsRyan Jacobs, senior digital editor for Pacific Standard, June 17, 2014, “How Prison Architecture Can Transform Inmates' Lives,” (Accessed 7/2/2015)More open layouts can improve inmate-guard relations and support a culture of progress rather than fear. Like most other total institutions, prisons are colored by the interactions occupants share with their bureaucratic overlords. Previous research has suggested that when these relationships buckle amid the drudgery of isolation or the annoyance of constant surveillance, tensions can increase "psychological distress" among inmates. When the relationships are strong, though, they can translate to "less prisoner misconduct" and "less mental health problems," according to Karin Beijersbergen, a researcher at the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement. "In other words, good staff-prisoner relationships are important for the manageability and safety in prisons," Beijersbergen told Pacific Standard in an email. Though many scholars focusing on penitentiaries suspect that staff-prisoner relations are molded by institutional architecture, little empirical work has been completed on the topic. Now, a new study led by Beijersbergen and published in Crime & Delinquency has concluded that building styles, floor plans, and other design features do indeed have a significant impact on the way Dutch prisoners perceive their relationships with prison staff.A/T PoliticsLink Turn - Plan BipartisanPrison reform on surveillance has bipartisan support – coalition provesKay Whitlock, co-founder and co-editor the Criminal Injustice series, and Nancy A, Heitzeg, professor of sociology and director of the critical studies of race/ethnicity program at St. Catherine University, February 24, 2015, (Accessed 7/2/2015)"Bipartisan" Criminal Justice Reform: A Misguided Merger. A "criminal justice reform" train has been heading down the track for quite some time, and it's gaining momentum. Over the years some significant power donors, foundations, media pundits, well-known advocacy organizations and mainstream political players have jumped on board. Where is this juggernaut ultimately headed? Not exactly where its newly minted "bipartisan" front, the Coalition for Public Safety (introduced on February 19, 2015), and the powerful public relations and marketing campaigns backing it suggest. To see more stories like this, visit "Smoke and Mirrors: Inside the New 'Bipartisan Prison Reform' Agenda." The Coalition's formation represents a merger of myriad influential ideological, political and corporate interests that will certainly produce some "reforms." These reforms are predicated on privatization schemes, dominated by the anti-government right and neoliberal interests that more completely merge for-profit medical treatment and other human needs supports with the prison-industrial complex. The Coalition's rhetoric and agenda also reinterpret and attempt to tame a longstanding and evolving progressive critique of mass incarceration, police abuse and misconduct, the expansion and privatization of "community corrections" and surveillance, and the structural racism and economic violence that drive them. Introducing the Coalition The Coalition brings together, in its own words, a handful of "the nation's most prominent conservative and progressive organizations" to pursue an "aggressive criminal justice reform effort," both "pragmatic and non-ideological."Link Turn – Plan PopularPlan Popular – Reduced funding on surveillance tech with transition Kay Whitlock, co-founder and co-editor the Criminal Injustice series, and Nancy A, Heitzeg, professor of sociology and director of the critical studies of race/ethnicity program at St. Catherine University, October 30, 2014 “Smoke and Mirrors: Essential Questions about Prison Reform,” (Accessed 7/2/2015)The central argument used to promote “prison reform” is the high and unsustainable level of state spending on prisons and corrections. The implication is that money saved will go to “better uses.” Let’s ask about those “better uses”. Where will the “money saved” go? Will it go to help mitigate/dismantle the prison pipeline by reverting to human needs spending for education, housing, health care, and jobs programs? Don’t assume it will go anyplace that liberals and progressives really care about. What diversionary options are available? What is the influence of private for- profit agendas here? How much of this money will flow to private companies that increasingly contract with governments and schools to provide surveillance, monitoring, and control technologies? Is legal accountability less for private “community corrections” programs? Are private corrections initiatives permitted to circumvent non-discrimination/fair treatment statutes and policies? What’s the track record of holding private prison profiteers accountable for neglect and human and civil rights abuses? Where state laws purport to make it illegal to profit from community-based corrections, take a closer look, as in New Jersey. (See Con Artists, Profit and Community Corrections). Nonprofit organizations can be shell institutions created for the sole purpose of funneling money to profit-making individuals and companies via the ever-popular “subcontracting” route. How much public taxpayer money is already being used to subsidize for-profit entities through Social Innovation Financing in the “delivery” of community correctional programs for both juveniles and adults? What is really the bottom-line – client “success” or profit? How will the purported “savings” from these programs be invested – in communities or in the private sector? Take a look at new proposals to rely heavily on surveillance technology, ultimately replacing face to face parole/probation relationships between offenders and public officials with house arrest/tracking technologies. What companies are profiting from this? Who pays the costs of these technologies and services? More and more, those costs are being shifted to adjudicated individuals and their families. Is this part of the carceral “sleight of hand” that purports to “lower costs?” For whom? Who profits from such arrangements? How do these costs affect a person’s possibility of successful community re-entry? Is any prison-based labor used to produce this profit-making technology? What is the relationship of companies that expect to profit from “community corrections” to production of war/military technologies?A/T Prison Corruption DANon-Unique – Corruption High NowPrison Corruption High Now – character of leadership pervadesMeaghan Corzine, Washington CBS Local Staff Writer, June 16, 2015, “Prison Guard Corruption Remains Dire Issue as Advocates Work to Prevent Assaults” (Accessed 7/2/2015)It seems a week can’t go by without new allegations of prison guard abuse occurring at some correctional facility within the United States. Some cases are more severe than others, but each merits a closer look at the prison system, how these incidents occur, and why they seem to be almost expected at this point in time. Just last week, the board overseeing New York City’s jails voted unanimously to begin working on rule changes to prevent sexual assaults. A public advocate urged the board to adopt a zero-tolerance standard back in April after the Rikers Island prison reported some of the nation’s highest rates of reported attacks by guards, one of whom has repeated rape allegations against him by two inmates. The number of inmates confined in county and city jails was an estimated 744,600 as of 2014, as reported by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. In a special report from 2011, correctional administrators reported 8,763 allegations of sexual victimization in prisons, 48 percent of these incidents involving staff with inmates. “From my perspective, the single most critical factor in determining the institutional culture in a prison or jail system is the character of the top leadership,” Margaret Winter, Associate Director of the ACLU National Prison Project, tells CBSDC. “Prisons tend to be inherently dehumanizing places: locking people up and putting them completely at the mercy of other human beings and often cutting them off almost completely from communicating with anyone in the free world is practically a recipe for abuse.”Prison corruption high now – guard actions proveR. E. Trinidad, staff writer for , September 26, 2014, “STOP PRISON CORRUPTION AND PRISONER ABUSE!! TREAT INMATES LIKE HUMANS!,” (Accessed 7/2/2015)When you were a child and going to school you learned about laws and history. We were taught that prison/jail existed so that men and women who made mistakes could be rehabilitated so that one day they could become an active and productive member of society. Prison/jail did not exist so that prisoners could be tortured. Yes, it is true. These men and woman have made mistakes, some more serious than others. However, at the end of the day we are all humans. The Pledge of Allegiance says “…and JUSTICE for ALL.” There are problems within the walls of prisons that are not the fault of the inmate. The majority of fault can be placed on the guards and the private companies that the state contracts with for supposed medical treatment to be provided to inmates. Inmates are dying because they are not given the care, medication and attention that they need. The range is issues is from something as simple as blood pressure medication to giving a diabetic insulin. Why are inmates being denied medical care on a daily basis? The answer is simple; because the guards can deny them on a daily basis.Alt Cause/No Link – Decreased Surveillance Not the Key FactorAlt Causes – Politics and ideology perpetuate corruption in prisons Kay Whitlock, co-founder and co-editor the Criminal Injustice series on the Critical Mass Progress blog, November 20, 2014, “Community Corrections: Profiteering, Corruption and Widening the Net,” (Accessed 7/1/2015)How is it that promises to make the safety and educational well-being of school children a priority could so easily, if we are not vigilant and fail to be relentlessly persistent advocates, morph into spending on more armed police officers in schools [PDF] and approaches to "truancy prevention" that rely upon electronic monitoring? How is it that promises to help prisoners and former prisoners successfully transition back into their communities turn into frenzies of profiteering fraught with corruption and abuse? How is it that, as a society, we have endorsed the idea that persons in prison or under the control of "community corrections" should be seen as commodities, [PDF] and that private, for-profit services – prisons, immigrant detention centers, and "community corrections" – often rely upon quotas guaranteed by federal or state law or written into contracts? And how is it that so-called "reform" measures, marketed as reducing prison populations, will ultimately widen the net – that is, place more people, disproportionately poor and of color (especially black people), under "correctional" control in the United States? To grasp the "how," we can turn to illusionists, hucksters, and carnival pitchmen for insight. Like all forms of sleight of hand, the "how" springs from, plays to, and manipulates a variety of public perceptions, hopes, and expectations bound up in the alluring phrase "criminal justice reform." Most of us want to believe the promises to reduce the prison population, reduce public spending on incarceration, end the injustices of the so-called War on Drugs (especially for those convicted of minor offenses), and interrupt the wrongs of overzealous prosecution. And we want to believe so badly that we tend to fall for the PR talking points without asking the hard questions about the reforms. But when we don't, in the long run, the results will not be what we thought we were getting. Much of this sleight of hand is powered by the reassuring rubric of "community corrections" and "alternatives to incarceration." The implied promise is that even as thousands upon thousands of people imprisoned for minor offenses are released, hundreds of millions of dollars saved will flow seamlessly into public schools, excellent community mental health centers, and other essential forms of civic infrastructure. This is a classic example of misdirection, an art long practiced by magicians, con artists, grifters, and publicists: "People tend to think of misdirection as the art of making someone look to the left while some fast move is being pulled on the right. But really, it is more often about force-focusing your spotlight of attention to a particular place at a particular time." –Neuroscientists Stephen L. Macknik and Susana Martinez-Conde, Sleights of Mind: What the Neuroscience of Magic Reveals About Our Everyday Deceptions At the heart of misdirection is the con artist's attempt to localize our attention, to point it in a particular direction, toward a particular conceptual path, or "frame." Once focused in that direction, we have a tendency to fail to look beyond that frame. No Impact – Corruption InevitableCorruption inevitable– sociological factors of the job are key factorErin Fuchs, senior editor for Business Insider, June 22, 2015, “America's prison guards are the 'ugly stepchildren' of the criminal justice system,” (Accessed 7/1/2015)"Corrections in general is the ugly stepchild of the justice system," Bruce Bayley, a criminal justice professor at Weber State University and former correctional officer, previously told Business Insider. "Out of sight out of mind." It's not surprising that unsophisticated workers who aren't respected might be easily corrupted. Just last week, authorities said a female correction officer tried to smuggle cocaine, cellphones, and other contraband into the Manhattan Detention Complex. And last year, federal officials claimed inmates at Rikers paid sums ranging from $400 to $900 to guards who sneaked cocaine and oxycodone into the jail for them. In another case, in Texas, a correction officer reportedly told a court a couple of years ago that he got pushed around a lot as a guard and that he was glad he finally got caught smuggling contraband. Most of America's prison guards are unarmed, and they have many inmates to supervise as states deal with prison overcrowding. "Every state and municipality in the country has cut its officer staffing," criminal justice expert Martin Horn told me for a previous article. "I firmly believe that the result is officers are terrified. One way of keeping themselves safe is aligning with the inmates." A/T Crime DANon-Unique – Crime Rates Increasing NowCrime Rates increasing now due to sociological factors post-FergusonMelanie Batley, political writer at Newsmax and Huffington Post Blogger, June 4, 2015, “Sudden Spike in Violent Crime Across US Raises Alarm,” (Accessed 7/4/2014)Major cities across the United States are seeing their crime rates skyrocket, sparking alarm about the causes, particularly given that there had been a two-decade drop in crime. A city-by-city look shows: In Baltimore, shootings are up 82.5 percent, or nearly double from last year, the Baltimore Brew reported. In Chicago, there have been over 900 shootings this year, a 40 percent increase, and a 29 percent increase in homicides in the first three months of the year, USA Today reported. In New York City, murders have increased 20 percent and the mayor has already announced that he will put an additional 330 cops on the street by Monday in response to the spike in homicides and shootings. In Los Angeles, violent crime rates increased by more than 25 percent and the city is also deploying more officers to areas where crime is on the rise, The Los Angeles Times reported. And according to : In St. Louis, there have been 55 murders this year In Dallas, violent crime is up 10 percent In Atlanta, homicides are up 32 percent In Milwaukee, homicides have increased by 180 percent Some attribute the rise in crime to a "Ferguson" effect, or a rise in anti-police sentiment born out of the protests and clashes around the country that followed the deaths of unarmed black men at the hands of police, The Week reported. A dynamic may have emerged in which criminals are more brazen and police are more cautious in fighting crime. Alt Cause – Gun LawsAlt. Cause: Gun laws are associated with increased crime ratesChristopher Ingraham, writer for the Washington Post and Researcher at the Brookings Institution and Pew Researcher Center, November 14, 2014, “More guns, more crime: New research debunks a central thesis of the gun rights movement,” (Accessed 7/4/2014)Now, Stanford law professor John Donohue and his colleagues have added another full decade to the analysis, extending it through 2010, and have concluded that the opposite of Lott and Mustard's original conclusion is true: more guns equal more crime. "The totality of the evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates" of aggravated assault, robbery, rape and murder, Donohue said in an interview with the Stanford Report. The evidence suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with an 8 percent increase in the incidence of aggravated assault, according to Donohue. He says this number is likely a floor, and that some statistical methods show an increase of 33 percent in aggravated assaults involving a firearm after the passage of right-to-carry laws. These findings build on and strengthen the conclusions of Donohue's earlier research, which only used data through 2006. In addition to having nearly two decades' worth of additional data to work with, Donohue's findings also improve upon Lott and Mustard's research by using a variety of different statistical models, as well as controlling for a number of confounding factors, like the crack epidemic of the early 1990s.No Link - Plan Not KeyCrime decreasing now and prison rates/surveillance not key Inimai M. Chettiar, director of the Justice Program at New York University Law School’s Brennan Center, February 11, 2015, “The Many Causes of America’s Decline in Crime,” (Accessed 7/1/2015)The dramatic rise of incarceration and the precipitous fall in crime have shaped the landscape of American criminal justice over the last two decades. Both have been unprecedented. Many believe that the explosion in incarceration created the crime drop. In fact, the enormous growth in imprisonment only had a limited impact. And, for the past thirteen years, it has passed the point of diminishing returns, making no effective difference. We now know that we can reduce our prison populations and simultaneously reduce crime. This has profound implications for criminal justice policy: We lock up millions of people in an effort to fight crime. But this is not working. The link between rising incarceration and falling crime seems logical. Draconian penalties and a startling expansion in prison capacity were advertised as measures that would bring down crime. That’s what happened, right? Not so fast. There is wide agreement that we do not yet fully know what caused crime to drop. Theories abound, from an aging population to growing police forces to reducing lead in the air. A jumble of data and theories makes it hard to sort out this big, if happy, mystery. And it has been especially difficult to pin down the role of growing incarceration.Crime rates decreasing now – incarceration not a factorBill Chappell, Editorial Member of NPR and Staff Writer, September 23, 2014, “Crime Falls As U.S. Locks Up Fewer People, Attorney General Holder Says,” (Accessed 7/2/2015)The U.S. is seeing "historic" progress in reducing both its crime and its incarceration rates, Attorney General Eric Holder said, with the federal prison population falling by some 4,800 inmates in the past year — "the first decrease we've seen in many ?decades." The numbers reflect a reversal from predictions from as recently as last November, when the federal prison population was projected to stay level in 2014, with nearly 219,300 inmates. But the raw number fell — and Holder says the incarceration rate per 100,000 Americans did, too. Looking at both state and federal statistics, the attorney general said that in a roughly five-year span, both the overall crime rate and overall incarceration rates fell by around 10 percent, something that hadn't happened in more than 40 years, he said.A/T Privatization DA/CPNo Solvency – Prison ConditionsPrivatization fails – financial incentives plunge prison conditionsPamela Engel, reporter for Business Insider, July 21, 2014, “John Oliver Brilliantly Tears Apart America’s Broken Prison System,” (Accessed 7/1/2015)Privatization: Allowing contractors to run entire prisons presents an even broader set of problems, according to Oliver. The companies might have a financial incentive to keep people incarcerated and run the prisons as leanly as possible, so pay and staffing levels plunge and conditions sometimes become inhumane. One private prison company lost its contract with a facility in Mississippi after investigators found that physical and sexual abuse was rampant in the facility. Oliver also called out Americans for looking the other way and ignoring the pervasive problems. "The rest of us are much happier completely ignoring it, perhaps because it's so easy not to care about prisoners," he said.No Solvency – Corruption/Prison ConditionsPrivatization fails and causes poor prison conditions due to financial corruptionLlewellyn Hinkes-Jones, Washington, DC staff writer and author, January 10, 2013, “Privatized Prisons: A Human Marketplace,” (Accessed 7/3/2015)Most criticisms of privatizing prisons have come in the form of labor, management, and financial issues. This is an argument of numbers in which critics hope to show that the same cost-cutting measures that enable private prisons to be profitable are also to blame for subverting the security, accountability, and quality of life standards of those facilities. The promise of a more efficient penitentiary runs in stark contrast to various, well-publicized examples of private prisons accused of devolving into “gladiator schools” of violence and decay, run by fewer, inexperienced, undertrained, and underpaid staff who may not respond to such chaos responsibly. Cost overruns, sometimes well above what any state-run facility would charge, often eliminate any pretense of a financial benefit. Accusations of corruption, cronyism, and excessive CEO pay are commonplace. One private prison has been accused of colluding with gang members to help manage inmates and save on staffing costs. Others have actively avoided housing sick inmates, leaving the higher medical care costs that those patients might incur to the state and federal penitentiaries. The legalization of interstate prisoner exchanges has only enabled this practice further. Private prisons can now cherry-pick low-cost, low-threat inmates, not just from other state-run prisons nearby, but also from across the country, to fill empty beds and maximize cell occupancy. Prisoners can be transferred to the state with the fewest regulations on prisoner treatment and facility standards. Private prisons have also been able to profit off of their captive audience by overcharging on prison services such as interstate phone calls. Not just an overpriced luxury, phone access can be the sole source of communication between inmates and their family, friends, and legal representation, especially if they have been transferred far from the state that originally imprisoned them. The end result being that prisoners can find themselves out of contact with anybody who can advocate on their behalf, hindering the appeals process and giving them little recourse against abuse. Still, numerous studies detailing the failings of private prisons have not stood in the way of their development, largely because there is such a desperate need for prison space in the United States. America’s outsized prison population is the largest in the world, easily dwarfing that of various totalitarian regimes across the globe. The sheer quantity and percentage of those behind bars in America has grown exponentially ever since the initiation of the War on Drugs in the 1970s. The overcrowded conditions exacerbate violence on prisoners and staff alike. The prevalence of rape that has resulted, often dismissed in popular culture as an extension of justice served, is a horrible standard for any society. Circumvention AFFStrategy SheetThis file contains affirmative and negative arguments surrounding the issue of circumvention, one of the major solvency arguments on the topic. Negatives can argue that other political branches, legislatures and courts, are unable to constrain the executive because the executive can either avoid or ignore political restrictions placed on activities such as intelligence. On the other hand, affirmatives can argue that those types of restrictions would effectively curtail surveillance activities.This set of arguments is an important one. Although it can obviously be coupled with other attacks on the specific affirmative mechanism, the negative can still win that the affirmative does not solve by winning that the issue of circumvention renders the debate about the specific mechanism irrelevant. Thus, it can be a useful tool for negatives if they are less prepared to debate an affirmative case’s specific mechanism. Likewise, affirmatives need to prepare to defend the broad framework of legal constraints, in addition to the specific restrictions on surveillance that they intend to propose. Affirmative – Top Level1AC/2AC – No Circumvention – SurveillanceNo circumvention – empirically true for surveillance – legal constraints massively scaled back NSA activities and have been followed by executives for decadesDaniel Byman, Professor in the Security Studies Program in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, and Benjamin Wittes, Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, co-founder and editor of Lawfare, and member of the Hoover Institution’s Task Force on National Security and Law, May-June 2014, “Reforming the NSA: How to Spy After Snowden,” order to accomplish its missions, the NSA has built up a vast array of collection capabilities -- too vast, say the agency’s many critics at home and abroad. Americans do have good historical reasons to be suspicious. In the 1960s and 1970s, the NSA, along with other U.S. intelligence agencies, conducted abusive surveillance of journalists; members of Congress; Martin Luther King, Jr., and other civil rights leaders; and prominent opponents of the Vietnam War, such as Muhammad Ali and Benjamin Spock. After the Watergate scandal, journalists and congressional investigators eventually exposed such snooping, which led to widespread distrust of government surveillance and secrecy. (Some of the names and details of specific targets, however, were not disclosed until last year, in declassified NSA documents.) To guard against future abuses while also preserving the confidentiality that intelligence agencies require, in the late 1970s, Congress devised a series of oversight committees and other mechanisms that relied on two overarching concessions. First, the new rules granted legislators and judges more oversight over the intelligence agencies but required nearly all their reviews to take place in secret. Second, the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allowed the FBI (the NSA was not permitted to operate domestically) to target the communications of people inside the United States, including U.S. citizens, but required it to obtain approval for doing so from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, staffed by federal judges appointed by the chief justice of the United States. Other rules required the NSA to discard U.S. citizens’ communications inadvertently swept up by dragnets aimed at overseas targets, unless the agency concluded that the data had foreign intelligence value. Beginning around the same time, the White House and the Department of Justice also increased their oversight of the intelligence community. The net result of all these changes was a system in which the NSA could use its vast powers only in certain circumstances and only under the supervision of a lot of minders. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, this system seemed to work well. The agency was careful not to target U.S. citizens illegally and avoided using even its limited powers to their fullest extent. As a consequence, the NSA mostly stayed out of major controversies and behind the scenes, its operations at once robust but very much subject to the law.1AC/2AC – No Circumvention – CongressObama will comply with legislative restrictions David J. Barron, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Martin S. Lederman, Visiting Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, 2008, “The Commander in Chief at the Lowest Ebb -- A Constitutional History,” addition to offering important guidance concerning the congressional role, our historical review also illuminates the practices of the President in creating the constitutional law of war powers at the "lowest ebb." Given the apparent advantages to the Executive of possessing preclusive powers in this area, it is tempting to think that Commanders in Chief would always have claimed a unilateral and unregulable authority to determine the conduct of military operations. And yet, as we show, for most of our history, the presidential practice was otherwise. Several of our most esteemed Presidents - Washington, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts, among others - never invoked the sort of preclusive claims of authority that some modern Presidents appear to embrace without pause. In fact, no Chief Executive did so in any clear way until the onset of the Korean War, even when they confronted problematic restrictions, some of which could not be fully interpreted away and some of which even purported to regulate troop deployments and the actions of troops already deployed. Even since claims of preclusive power emerged in full, the practice within the executive branch has waxed and waned. No consensus among modern Presidents has crystallized. Indeed, rather than denying the authority of Congress to act in this area, some modern Presidents, like their predecessors, have acknowledged the constitutionality of legislative regulation. They have therefore concentrated their efforts on making effective use of other presidential authorities and institutional [*949] advantages to shape military matters to their preferred design. n11 In sum, there has been much less executive assertion of an inviolate power over the conduct of military campaigns than one might think. And, perhaps most importantly, until recently there has been almost no actual defiance of statutory limitations predicated on such a constitutional theory. This repeated, though not unbroken, deferential executive branch stance is not, we think, best understood as evidence of the timidity of prior Commanders in Chief. Nor do we think it is the accidental result of political conditions that just happened to make it expedient for all of these Executives to refrain from lodging such a constitutional objection. This consistent pattern of executive behavior is more accurately viewed as reflecting deeply rooted norms and understandings of how the Constitution structures conflict between the branches over war. In particular, this well-developed executive branch practice appears to be premised on the assumption that the constitutional plan requires the nation's chief commander to guard his supervisory powers over the military chain of command jealously, to be willing to act in times of exigency if Congress is not available for consultation, and to use the very powerful weapon of the veto to forestall unacceptable limits proposed in the midst of military conflict – but that otherwise, the Constitution compels the Commander in Chief to comply with legislative restrictions.No Circumvention – CongressPresidents follow legislative regulationsDavid J. Barron, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Martin S. Lederman, Visiting Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, 2008, “The Commander in Chief at the Lowest Ebb -- A Constitutional History,” historical review shows that the view embraced by most contemporary war powers scholars — namely, that our constitutional tradition has long established that the Commander in Chief enjoys some substantive powers that are preclusive of congressional control with respect to the command of forces and the conduct of campaigns — is unwarranted. In fact, Congress has been an active participant in setting the terms of battle and the conduct and composition of the armed forces and militia more generally, while the Executive (at least until recently) generally has accepted such legislative constraints as legitimate. Although history is not dispositive of the constitutional question, legislators and executive branch actors should not abandon two hundred years of historical practice too hastily, and should resist the new and troubling claim that the Executive is entitled to unfettered discretion in the conduct of war. Congress empirically solves circumvention – raises political costsIlya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law, 6-21-2011, “Obama, the OLC, and the Libya Intervention,” , for the foreseeable future, the main constraints on unconstitutional presidential activity must come from outside the executive branch – that is, from Congress, the courts, and public opinion. These constraints are highly imperfect. But they do impose genuine costs on presidents who cross the line. Ackerman cites the Watergate scandal, Iran-Contra and the “torture memo” as examples of the sorts of abuses of executive power that need to be restricted. True enough. But it’s worth remembering that Nixon was forced to resign over Watergate, Reagan paid a high political price for Iran-Contra, and the torture memo was a public relations disaster for Bush, whose administration eventually ended up withdrawing it (thanks in large part to the efforts of Jack Goldsmith). On the other side of the ledger, Bill Clinton paid little price for waging an illegal war in Kosovo, though he avoided it in part by keeping that conflict short and limited. It remains to be seen whether President Obama will suffer any political damage over Libya.Congress would implement oversight and sanctions that prevent circumventionNoah Feldman, constitutional law professor at Harvard, 1-8-2006, “Our Presidential Era: Who Can Check the President?” laws that bind the president are, on their own, not enough. Congress must also create meaningful oversight programs with bite to make sure the laws on the books are actually obeyed. The recent proposed bill demanding regular reports from the director of national intelligence about detentions abroad is a step in this direction, but only a step. Without specific provisions stating the content of the testimony that the executive branch must provide, Congress is just asking for the president to elicit an opinion from his lawyers permitting him to ignore the law and then to violate the law secretly. Lest that seem far-fetched, recall that such memos were in fact elicited in the war on terror, and that the violations of our anti-torture laws that took place (according to any reasonable reading of those laws) occurred in facilities whose very existence was classified as a matter of national security. Indeed, even McCain's bill, which prohibits "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment," could be gutted in practice by an interpretation limiting the meaning of those terms so as to permit existing interrogation techniques. The chief advantage of oversight hearings is that officials must appear and testify under oath as to what the administration is in fact doing. A lie to a Congressional committee constitutes perjury. Disillusioning as it may be to admit, the threat of prison is probably the only sanction that can reliably assure that executive-branch officials, protected by secrecy laws and presidential orders that may themselves be classified, will come clean about what is going on in the war on terror. Even the most conscientious officials may make ambiguous statements that disclose only part of the truth, and that misleadingly - as when Condoleezza Rice answered questions about rendition and torture at a press conference in Ukraine in December. Beyond oversight, a newly assertive Congress would also have to create ways to sanction the president if laws were violated. Ordinary criminal prosecution will rarely do the trick, since Congress cannot expect the president to initiate proceedings against himself or his employees for violating a law that he thinks is unconstitutional. The steps for enforcement should therefore come in part, at least, from Congress itself, which could specify upfront, for instance, that if a president were to violate the law, Congress would withdraw financing from certain programs or initiate impeachment proceedings.Power of the purse solves – compels legal adherenceJennifer K. Elsea et al, legislative attorney with the Congressional Research Service, 2-19-2013, “Congressional Authority to Limit Military Operations,” Purpose Statute states that funds may be used only for purposes for which they have been appropriated; by implication it precludes using funds for purposes that Congress has prohibited. When Congress states that no funds may be used for a purpose, an agency would violate the Purpose Statute if it should use funds for that purpose; it also in some circumstances could contravene a provision of the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. Section 1341. Section 1341 prohibits entering into obligations or expending funds in advance of or in excess of an amount appropriated unless authorized by law. If Congress has barred using funds for a purpose, entering into an obligation or expending any amount for it would violate the act by exceeding the amount— zero—that Congress has appropriated for the prohibited purpose.157No Circumvention – Congress – Courts Enforce LegislationCourts compel adherenceJennifer K. Elsea et al, legislative attorney with the Congressional Research Service, 2-19-2013, “Congressional Authority to Limit Military Operations,” has frequently, although not invariably, acceded to presidential initiatives involving the use of military force. While a history of congressional acquiescence may create a gloss on the constitutional allocation of powers,192 such a gloss will not necessarily withstand an express statutory mandate to the contrary. It does not appear that Congress has developed a sufficiently consistent or lengthy historical practice to have abandoned either its war power or its authority over appropriations. The executive branch has objected to legislative proposals it views as intrusive into presidential power, including limitations found in appropriations measures.193 And it remains possible to construe the function of “conducting military operations” broadly to find impermissible congressional interference in even the most mundane statutes regulating the Armed Forces. To date, however, no court has invalidated a statute passed by Congress on the basis that it impinges the constitutional authority of the Commander in Chief,194 whether directly or indirectly through appropriations. In contrast, presidential assertions of authority based on the Commander-in-Chief Clause, in excess of or contrary to congressional authority, have been struck down by the courts.195No Circumvention – Congress – EmpiricsCongress can empirically end executive programs – no presidential challenges Aziz Z. Huq, Assistant Professor of Law at University of Chicago Law School, 5-22-2012, “Binding the Executive (by Law or by Politics) The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic by Eric A. Posner; Adrian Vermeule,” ’s genuflection and Obama’s reticence, I will contend here, are symptomatic of our political system’s operation rather than being aberrational. It is generally the case that even in the heart of crisis, and even on matters where executive competence is supposedly at an acme, legislators employ formal institutional powers not only to delay executive initiatives but also affirmatively to end presidential policies.20 Numerous examples from recent events illustrate the point. Congressional adversaries of Obama, for instance, cut off his policy of emptying Guantánamo Bay via appropriations riders.21 Deficit hawks spent 2011 resisting the President’s solutions to federal debt, while the President declined to short-circuit negotiations with unilateral action.22 Even in military matters, a growing body of empirical research suggests Congress often successfully influences the course of overseas engagements to a greater degree than legal scholars have discerned or acknowledged. 23No Circumvention – Congress – AT: CrisesEstablishing Congressional regulations now prevents backsliding in crisesMarty Lederman, Professor at the Georgetown University Law School, 12-22-2013, “Highlights of the Report of the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies,” “FOUNDATIONS” THAT MIGHT WITHSTAND THE RISK OF OVERREACTION AFTER THE NEXT ATTACK A central premise of the Report is that many of the decisions the government made in the wake of 9/11 were precipitous and unbalanced, if understandable, and that it is therefore imperative to establish “secure foundations for future decisions” now, when decision-makers can assess various interests clearly and are not driven to “overreaction” in light of the inevitable fear and panic that follow catastrophic events (pp. 54, 57). This passage on page 180 is representative: [I]f a similar or worse incident or series of attacks were to occur in the future, many Americans, in the fear and heat of the moment, might support new restrictions on civil liberties and privacy. The powerful existing and potential capabilities of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies might be unleashed without adequate controls. Once unleashed, it could be difficult to roll back these sacrifices of freedom. Our recommendations about NSA are designed in part to create checks and balances that would make it more difficult in the future to impose excessive government surveillance. Of course, no structural reforms create perfect safeguards. But it is possible to make restraint more likely. Vigilance is required in every age to maintain liberty.No Circumvention – Congress – AT: DefinitionsCongress can remove ambiguity in legislation – solves issues of reinterpretationJake Laperruque, Fellow on Privacy, Surveillance, and Security at the Center for Democracy and Technology, 6-26-2014, “Key Changes Needed to the USA FREEDOM Act (H.R. 3361), Needed for the USA FREEDOM Act to Prohibit Bulk Collection While there is likely no “silver bullet” to solving the bulk collection problem, making several further revisions to the USA FREEDOM Act can alleviate the risk of overbroad collection while providing government with the necessary flexibility to protect security: New Minimization Procedures: Congress should add new minimization procedures to the bill that would limit – to the greatest degree possible – the acquisition, retention, and use of surveillance to targets of investigations, suspected agents of foreign powers, and direct contacts of such individuals. Clear Statement of Purpose: The bill’s definition of “Specific Selection Term” should clearly state that its purpose is to narrowly tailor collection to affect as few extraneous individuals as possible. Negative Clause: A non-exclusive negative clause should be added to the bill’s definition of Specific Selection Term,” clarifying it cannot be used to denote large geographic areas such as area codes, zip codes, cities, or states.No Circumvention – Congress – AT: Information Deficit/SecrecyInsiders agree – Congress can effectively oversee covert operations without exposing secret missionsSara Sorcher, writer at the National Journal, 3-30-2013, “National Security Insiders: It's Possible for Congress to Oversee Drone Program,” percent of National Journal's National Security Insiders say it's possible for members of Congress to conduct proper oversight of drone strikes, even as senators — including those cleared to know details as members of the Intelligence Committee — complain the Obama administration has stonewalled their requests for information on the targeted-killing program. "Oversight is critical, whether the issue is covert actions or drone strikes," one Insider said, "and it needs to extend to Defense Department operations of drone strikes as well. America should have no appetite for secret wars; it is a long-standing struggle in congressional-executive relations. It led to unhappy experiences in the early years of the Cold War." The White House recently told the Senate Intelligence Committee it would provide legal opinions from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel related to the targeted killing of American citizens. "Congressional intelligence committees have a long record of effectively overseeing covert actions while protecting their sensitivity, and these skills will be applicable to ensuring accountability of drone strikes.”1AC/2AC – No Circumvention – CourtsObama would comply with court decisions – violating judicial precedent has high costs, executive lawyers will shift their legal opinions to complyCraig Green, Professor of Law at Temple University , 2011, "Ending the Korematsu Era: An Early View From the War on Terror Cases," ’s hard-nosed analysis may seem intellectually bracing, but it understates the real-world power of judicial precedent to shape what is politically possible.306 Although presidential speeches occasionally declare a willingness to disobey Supreme Court rulings, actual disobedience of this sort is rare and would carry grave political consequences.307 Even President Bush’s losses in the GWOT cases did not spur serious consideration of noncompliance despite broad support from a Republican Congress.308 Likewise, from the perspective of strengthening presidential power, Korematsu-era decisions emboldened President Bush in his twenty-first-century choices about Guantánamo and military commissions.309 Thus, the modern historical record shows that judicial precedent can both expand and restrict the political sphere of presidential action. The operative influence of judicial precedent is even stronger than a court-focused record might suggest, as the past sixty years have witnessed a massive bureaucratization and legalization of all levels of executive gov- ernment.310 From the White House Counsel, to the Pentagon, to other enti- ties addressing intelligence and national security issues, lawyers now occupy such high-level governmental posts that almost no significant policy is determined without multiple layers of legal review.311 And these executive lawyers are predominantly trained to think—whatever else they may believe—that Supreme Court precedent is authoritative and binding.312No Circumvention – CourtsCourts empirically restrict the president – War on Terror rulings prove – judicial opinions create political constraints on the executiveBenjamin Kleinerman, teaches constitutional democracy at James Madison College and Michigan State University, 7-9-2011, “Book Review: The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic by Eric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule,” , for instance, they dismiss the effectiveness of the law, and of the other two branches who speak for the law, in the “war on terror” because the various judicial opinions, Hamdi, Hamdan, and Boumediene, did not have any real effect in changing the behavior of the executive branch. Instead, the Bush administration changed its behavior in the “war on terror” only after the political situation had changed because the public was no longer as willing to support the war. Moreover, in their view, these judicial opinions did not even go that far, insofar as none of them actually called for the immediate release of any prisoners. Although there is something to be said for the claim that we may put too much faith in judicial opinions as a check on executive power, however, it is simply untrue to claim that these particular opinions had no practical effect. If nothing else, the opinions contributed significantly to a changing political environment in which the unfettered action of the early Bush administration became unacceptable.Presidents will comply with court rulingsStephen I. Vladeck, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Scholarship at American University, 3-1-2009, “The Long War, the Federal Courts, and the Necessity / Legality Paradox,” , even if one believes that suspensions are unreviewable, there is a critical difference between the Suspension Clause and the issue here: at least with regard to the former, there is a colorable claim that the Constitution itself ousts the courts from reviewing whether there is a “Case[ ] of Rebellion or Invasion [where] the public Safety may require” suspension––and even then, only for the duration of the suspension.179 In contrast, Jackson’s argument sounds purely in pragmatism—courts should not review whether military necessity exists because such review will lead either to the courts affirming an unlawful policy, or to the potential that the political branches will simply ignore a judicial decision invalidating such a policy.180 Like Jackson before him, Wittes seems to believe that the threat to liberty posed by judicial deference in that situation pales in comparison to the threat posed by judicial review. The problem is that such a belief is based on a series of assumptions that Wittes does not attempt to prove. First, he assumes that the executive branch would ignore a judicial decision invalidating action that might be justified by military necessity.181 While Jackson may arguably have had credible reason to fear such conduct (given his experience with both the Gold Clause Cases182 and the “switch in time”),183 a lot has changed in the past six-and-a-half decades, to the point where I, at least, cannot imagine a contemporary President possessing the political capital to squarely refuse to comply with a Supreme Court decision. But perhaps I am na?ve.184No Circumvention – Courts – AT: Courts DeferClaims of absolute deference are wrongAshley Siegel, Associate at Cleary Gottlieb, 2012, “Some Holds Barred: Extending Executive Detention Habeas Law Beyond Guantanamo Bay,” bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/documents/SIEGEL_000.pdfThis Note explores the novel area of law extending habeas rights to war-on terror detainees, the past precedents that may suggest what direction the jurisprudence will take, and how the jurisprudence should resolve the case of a foreign detainee held by a foreign government at the behest of the United States. Part I reviews habeas law from its historical roots to its modern application in executive detention cases brought about by the United States’ detention of aliens at Guantanamo Bay. Part II examines alien detention abroad apart from the habeas context. Part III explores the likelihood and appropriateness of extending the Boumediene line of cases to scenarios of alien detainees held abroad by foreign governments at the behest of the United States. The Supreme Court has recently demonstrated a greater willingness to exert its power in the national security realm, no longer giving broad deference to the Executive’s wartime powers. The Supreme Court in this realm appears to take a functionalist, case-by-case approach that leaves open the possibility that the Court will exert itself in different executive detention contexts. Given the vital, fundamental individual rights implicated by executive detention, the Supreme Court should continue to actively review the actions of the legislative and executive branches. Further, based on the reasoning supporting its past precedents, the Court should extend jurisdiction to detainees held by foreign nations at the behest of the U.S. government.No Circumvention – AT: Posner and VermeulePosner and Vermeule’s argument relies on a straw person – legal constraints on the executive are both necessary and effective Benjamin Kleinerman, teaches constitutional democracy at James Madison College and Michigan State University, 7-9-2011, “Book Review: The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic by Eric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule,” and Vermeule’s characterization of “legal liberalism,” at least as articulated in the United States, is fundamentally misguided. Much recent scholarship has shown—and very little of which they cite—the liberal tradition is much more aware of the problems inherent in legal limitations on government than Carl Schmitt admitted or realized. Rather than blind faith that legal limitations will be enough, the liberal tradition starts from the fact that, although such legal limitations are essential, they are not self-enforcing. And, because they must be enforced by the very people who should be subject to them, liberalism must wrestle with finding a solution to this endemic problem. Although one might credibly suggest that its solutions are either insufficient or unnecessary, it is simply untrue to accuse liberalism of a blind faith in the automatic enforcement of law.Hegemony Bad AFFHurts Soft PowerUS domestic surveillance crushes our global soft power—other governments hate our practices Amnesty International, International human rights organization, March 18, 2015, “Global opposition to USA big brother mass surveillance,” Amnesty International, , accessed 4-18-2015“The United States should see this poll as a warning that surveillance is damaging its credibility. President Obama should heed the voice of people around the world and stop using the internet as a tool for collecting mass data about peoples’ private lives,” said Salil Shetty, Amnesty International’s Secretary General. “Today’s technology gives governments unprecedented power to watch what we do on the internet. We need independent scrutiny to watch the watchers so that power is not abused. Yet today there is little or no legislation in any country that really protects our human right to privacy against indiscriminate mass surveillance. Indeed, more countries are actually considering laws granting wider surveillance powers, at the expense of people’s rights.” In June 2013 whistle-blower Edward Snowden revealed that the US National Security Agency was authorised to monitor phone and internet use in 193 countries around the world. In a snapshot of the agency’s surveillance capabilities, it was revealed that it collected 5 billion records of mobile phone location a day and 42 billion internet records – including email and browsing history – a month.Hurts Soft PowerDomestic surveillance causes international backlash to US policy—China and Russia counter US policy as retaliation for spying Sputnik News, International news and media outlet, February 20, 2015, “Exposure of Alleged NSA Spying Program to Hurt US Economy, Interests,” Sputnik News, , accessed 4-19-2015The US National Security Agency’s (NSA) alleged spying program recently revealed by the Russia-based cybersecurity company Kaspersky Lab might lead to an economic setback in the United States, and also provoke resistance to the US policy from Russia and China, experts told Sputnik. “The implications are retaliation, along with the observation that the Kaspersky Lab exposure could further hurt the NSA’s surveillance abilities," David Speedie, former CIA representative told Sputnik on Thursday. "Also, since China and Russia are among the apparent targets, this may be just another impetus for bringing these two together in resisting US policy.” A third implication, Speedie added, might be a backlash against Western technologies in China, which would be a major potential US economic setback.Hurts Soft Power US domestic surveillance crushes US credibility—we’re seen as hypocrites when we challenge other nations’ actions when we disregard privacy and the law Laura K. Donohue, Professor of Law at Georgetown Law, Director of Georgetown’s Center on National Security and the Law, and Director of the Center on Privacy and Technology, September 17, 2014, “High Technology, Consumer Privacy, and U.S. National Security : Hearing Before the Subcomm. On Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade of the H. Comm. On Energy and Commerce, 113th Congress,” Georgetown Law, , accessed 4-19-2015There are various ways in which the failure to fully take account of the impact of the programs on U.S. industry may have acted to undermine U.S. security beyond weakening the economy. The revelations, for instance, may well have driven enemies of the United States to use other countries’ Internet Service Providers, thus creating a gap in our insight into their operations. They may similarly spur the initiation of encryption techniques that the NSA will have no means to address—making the country less secure because of the perceived overreach of the agency. The revelations have also undermined U.S. credibility in challenging other countries’ efforts to obtain trade secrets and other information through state surveillance. China provides one of the strongest examples. Online warfare between China and the United States has simmered in the background, until in early 2013 the Obama Administration began to make it center stage. In January 2013 the New York Times reported that Chinese hackers had infiltrated its computers following a threat that if the paper insisted on publishing a story about its prime minister, consequences would follow. 88 The following month a security firm, Mandiant, revealed that the Chinese military unit 61398 had stolen data from U.S. companies and agencies. 89 In March 2013 President Obama’s national security advisor publicly urged China to reduce its surveillance efforts—following which classified documents leaked to the public demonstrated the extent to which China had infiltrated U.S. government servers. 90 In May 2013 the National Security Advisor flew to China to lay the groundwork for a summit, in which cyber surveillance would prove center stage.91 Two days before the Obama-Xi meeting was scheduled to take place, The Guardian ran the first story on the NSA programs. 92 On June 7, when Obama raised the question of Chinese espionage, Xi responded by quoting the Guardian and suggesting that the U.S. should not be lecturing the Chinese about surveillance.93 Although differences may mark the two countries approaches to surveillance (e.g., in one case for economic advantage, in the other for political or security advantage), the broader translation for the global community has been one in which the United States has lost high ground to try to restrict cybersurveillance by other countries.Hurts Soft PowerDomestic surveillance should not include foreign businesses or leaders. This creates a system of diminishing returns that isolates trading partners and allies crushing soft power Kevin Gosztola, Writer for OpEdNews, October 25, 2013, “The Banal Justification for Directing the US Surveillance State at World Leaders,” Dissenter, , accessed 4-11-2015Even CNN host Becky Anderson said to former State Department spokesperson PJ Crowley, “So the US defense in the past has been, well everybody is doing it, is one thing, but that was when we were talking about terrorism. You’ve just alluded to the fact that you wouldn’t be surprised if other countries were spying on what was going on in Washington. I just wonder whether our viewers would be satisfied with your defense. Is it really OK to spy on the private communications of businesses and officials? These guys are supposed to be allies, PJ.” If foreign leaders understand this mass surveillance is a feature of American hegemony, all intended to maintain dominance, will they forever tolerate it? Increasingly, it would seem they do not have to submit to this surveillance. They can turn to other countries and various non-American businesses instead. Wiretapping and eavesdropping on world leaders may be required for American leaders to make the right decisions if one is solely concerned about private corporations with contracts whom rely on this snooping for profits. It may be required if one is a technocrat, who finds the software and hardware at their fingertips is an infallible solution to security. But if one recognizes that one can pay attention to news media in any country and ask people who are sympathetic to their questions for “strategic intelligence” and probably figure out what officials think they need to know without violating the privacy of anybody, it may be possible to not cling to this Anglo-centric notion that intelligence agencies are entitled to collect data on all the communications of every single person in the world, including world leaders.Hurts Economy/ CompetitivenessUS domestic surveillance destroys our competitiveness—there’s a massive backlash against US companies as retaliation for US surveillance Mieke Eoyang, Former congressional intelligence staffer and Director of Third Way's National Security Program, and Chrissy Bishai, National Security Fellow at Third Way, March 19, 2015, “Restoring Trust between U.S. Companies and Their Government on Surveillance Issues,” Third Way, of intrusive U.S. government electronic surveillance activities have raised international outcry and created antagonism between U.S. technology companies and the government. Without a bold and enduring reform, American companies will continue to suffer a competitive disadvantage from perceptions of U.S. government intrusion into their data. We propose bringing electronic surveillance collection from U.S. companies into an existing statutory framework in order to reassure international customers and to respect the rights of U.S. companies operating abroad. The Problem In the wake of the Snowden revelations, people around the world have become uneasy about the security of their communications that flow through the servers of American companies.1They now fear—not without reason—that the NSA has broad access to a wide range of their data that may not have any direct relevance to the core foreign policy or security concerns of the United States.2 Snowden has also alleged that the NSA accessed American companies’ data without their knowledge.3 American technology companies reacted with outrage to media reports that, unbeknownst to them, the U.S. government had intruded onto their networks overseas and spoofed their web pages or products.4 These stories suggested that the government created and snuck through back doors to take the data rather than come through well-established front doors.5 Beyond the broad implications for civil liberties and diplomacy, these fears led to two immediate consequences for the industry: First, many U.S. companies shifted to an adversarial relationship with their own government. They moved to secure and encrypt their data to protect the privacy rights of their customers.6 They are pushing for reform.7 They are building state-of-the-art data centers in Europe and staffing their high-paying jobs with Europeans, not Americans.8 They are challenging the government in court.9 Second, international customers of U.S. technology and communications companies began taking their business elsewhere. Brazil decided against a $4.5 billion Boeing deal and cancelled Microsoft contracts.10 Germany dropped Verizon in favor of Deutsche Telekom.11 Both of these examples suggest that if even friendly governments can go to the expense and trouble of dropping American companies, foreign individual and corporate customers could certainly decide to switch their data providers for greater privacy protection. Simply put, the reputational harm had a direct impact on American companies’ competitiveness—some estimate that it has cost U.S. tech firms $180 billion thus far.12Hurts Economy/ Competitiveness US domestic surveillance crushes two key sectors of the economy: computers and the internet Washington’s Blog, News and politics outlet, February 17, 2015, “5 Ways Mass Surveillance Is Destroying Our Economy,” Washington’s Blog, , accessed 4-19-2015Privacy is a prerequisite for a prosperous economy. Even the White House admits: People must have confidence that data will travel to its destination without disruption. Assuring the free flow of information, the security and privacy of data, and the integrity of the interconnected networks themselves are all essential to American and global economic prosperity, security, and the promotion of universal rights. Below, we discuss five ways that mass surveillance hurts our economy. 1. Foreigners Stop Buying American Foreigners are starting to shy away from U.S. Internet companies, due to the risk that American spooks will spy on them. American tech companies – including Verizon, Cisco, IBM and others – are getting hammered for cooperating with the NSA and failing to protect privacy. The costs to the U.S. economy have been estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. And see this and this. That doesn’t even take into account the just-revealed NSA program of infecting virtually all popular Western hard drives with spyware. This will cause huge markets like China to insist that locally-produced hard drives be used, to make it harder for the NSA to hack into them. So the NSA’s shenanigans are hurting dual pillars of the U.S. tech sector: computers and Internet. (The sale of mobile devices might not be far behind.)Terrorism—Surveillance Not KeySweeping domestic surveillance is not key to prevent terrorism—focus not breadth is key Edward Loomis, Former NSA cryptologist, “Curbs on Surveillance State Urged,” Consoritium News, March 5, 2015, , accessed 4-11-2015First, the homegrown and imported terrorism risk can be more effectively dealt with through more careful review of passports, including visa waiver programs, and scrutiny of other travel documentation indicating travel to/from known war zones and terrorist training areas. Second, no U.S. person is to be treated by general FISC warrants. Bulk electronic surveillance previously supported under Sec. 215 of the Patriot Act and Sec. 702 of the FAA should be banned. Storage and analysis of any U.S. person metadata and/or content previously made possible through general FISC warrants, must be conducted with a specific warrant describing the person or thing to be searched and supported by satisfaction of the probable cause standard. Application of the low standard known as “reasonable articulable suspicion” is not an acceptable metric for acquiring, storing, or analyzing the electronic communications of any U.S. person. (As defined under FISA, “United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power). Third, in the normal course of electronic surveillance activity, data associated with a private U.S. person whose communications are incidentally acquired (i.e. not intentionally targeted) in the course of an authorized and targeted collection activity is to immediately be subjected to ananonymization process. All personally identifying attributes associated with the person are thus to be encrypted and remain encrypted in storage until a specific warrant is obtained (should probable cause develop) from the FISC permitting decryption of the person’s identifying attributes (e.g. name, address, phone number, SIM card number, IP address, domain name server address). The anonymization of the data would take place prior to recording in any form of storage, and would also apply to any U.S. person engaging in communication with terrorist targets or their web sites – whether intentional or unintentional. With these few changes, sufficient security could be maintained with more focused targeting. Most pre-9/11 privacy protections could then be restored. U.S. Government data warehouses would no longer be cluttered with the electronic communications of innocent persons — shrinking the digital haystack to focus on targets for which surveillance is supported by “probable cause.”Terrorism—Information Overload Domestic surveillance causes too much intel to be gathered—we focus on the wrong things and let terrorists slip through the cracks Silkie Carlo, London based journalist and co-author of the book, Information Security for Journalists, March 5, 2015, “Seeing the Stasi Through NSA Eyes,” Consortium News, warned that not only was this kind of program unconstitutional, conjuring “the Stasi on steroids,” but would lead to “data bulk failure,” whereby real security threats would be lost in the global haystack of information. Information overload would make terrorist attacks — like the kind that would happen in Boston and Paris — more difficult to prevent. Soon after, everything changed. As three World Trade skyscrapers turned to dust on September 11, so did Americans’ sense of safety. In the days after the attacks, Bush authorized the NSA and other government agencies to begin hoovering up every bit of data they could, under a secret wartime decree that appeared to override the Constitution. In the last week of September 2001, Binney watched as piles of hardware were carried into the agency’s SIGINT Automation Research Center in Maryland. These were the instruments of a new spying system focused on domestic communications — built on the innovative architecture of ThinThread, Binney would learn.Terrorism—Information Overload Information overload destroys the effectiveness of massive domestic surveillance—makes it impossible to effectively prevent terrorist attacks Maitreya Buddha Samantaray, A contributor at the International Security Observer (ISO). Maitreya is a Manager with Global Emergency Operations Center (GEOC), February 27, 2015, “Intelligent Information in Corporate Security Risk Management,” Security Observer, , accessed 4-19-2015Various media reports including the findings of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States indicate that the information about key terrorists of the September 11, 2001 plot in the US. was already at the possession of the U.S. government prior to the attacks, and those terrorists were closely connected with each other in some form. Had the government acted on available leads when they were identified, the situation may very well have been different. There is data available in the U.S. pertaining to a number of foreigners applying to attend flight training schools there as part of their subversive planning. Based on this information, a model can be created that collects data on all of the future applicants to U.S. flight schools to ascertain whether any of them are foreigners, or share other characteristics. The aviation industry can benefit if it accepts the help of intelligence analyst who can connect the dots and based on the trends can predict. Kidnapping for Ransom Although accurate statistics are difficult to obtain, estimates indicate there are anywhere from 12,500 to 25,000 kidnappings a year globally, while many more cases go unreported. The kidnap for ransom incidents that had mainly been confined to Latin America in the last century have spread to other parts of the world including Africa, South Asia, Russia, and the Middle East. There have been several instances of corporate executives being kidnapped by Leftist rebels in rural areas of Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela and by criminal gangs in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Haiti, Brazil, and elsewhere in Latin America. Also there have been incidents of tribal gangs kidnapping multinational executives in Nigeria or the existence of protection racket syndicates in Russia and Eastern Europe. Islamic militants in the name of Jihad or to make a quick buck have also targeted business executives in the past. The gruesome beheading of freelance American journalist James Foley by a henchman affiliated with Islamic State in Iraq amplifies the concern. As the frequency of business executives traveling to high risk destinations has increased, so has the risk that they will be targeted by kidnappers.” In situations where the safety of travelers may be threatened, generally at short notice, it is essential that companies should keep trending security information always in mind and sensitize executives through pre-trip advice, safety check calls, location safety videos, and other risk mitigating measures. Especially when travelling to the destinations discussed. It is the intelligence analyst who can guide the organization to have relationships with a trusted service provider who can handle kidnapping situations involving clients if the need arises. Companies often get surprised when they encounter security situations and regret ignoring possible warning signs. It is prudent for companies to establish dedicated resources that can generate intelligence out of hordes of information and make leadership aware of the risks associated with different scenarios. In the present world of information overload, the ability to quickly analyze and determine linkages between variables—pattern analysis—is the key to mitigating risk. Pattern analysis methods include statistical analysis to locational and geographical analysis, socio-cultural and political analysis, and more.Terrorism—Information OverloadMass domestic surveillance creates information overload—analysts let vital information slip through the cracks and more terrorism occurs Washington’s Blog, News and politics outlet, November 1, 2013, “NSA Whistleblower: Government Failed to Stop Boston Bombing Because It Was Overwhelmed with Data from Mass Surveillance On Americans,” Washington’s Blog, ’ve extensively documented that mass surveillance does NOT help prevent terror attacks. Top experts have said that treating everyone like a potential terrorist WEAKENS our ability to protect America. The former head of the NSA’s global intelligence gathering operations – William Binney – says that the current spying program not only violates Americans’ privacy, but sucks up so much data that it INTERFERES with the government’s ability to catch bad guys. Binney told Washington’s Blog: The zone of suspects was for us limited to two degrees (hops). Beyond that increases the problem exponentially. So, three hops is going much too far. (Explanation of degrees and hops). In the following brief excerpt from an interview by PBS NewsHour, Binney explains that over-the-top spying actually interfered with the government’s ability to stop the Boston bombing: Judy Woodruff: You know the government says that it is only doing this to keep us safe. This is the only way we can have that information at our fingertips when we then have a reason to believe that someone would do this country or its people harm. Binney: That in my mind has been nonsense from the beginning. Because we had zero problem tracking all of these terrorists all along. We had no difficulty doing that. And I left those principles in place at the NSA when I retired there. One was to use the 2 degree principle for zones of suspicion. That is, if a terrorist called someone in the U.S., that was the first degree from the terrorist. And the second degree was who that terrorist called inside the United States. So far, all of the testimony I’ve been listening to by people down in D.C. about this program – and they refer to different cases they’ve been talking about, in terms of terrorists – everyone one fit into that zone of suspicion. None of them were outside it. The rest of it means they’re collecting more data, making the haystack so much bigger so that’s making it more difficult to find the needles. That’s why they’re missing people, like the bombers in Boston.Not Key to Hegemony—Information OverloadDomestic surveillance isn’t providing actionable information—we already know who the targets are, but we’re gathering too much information to take decisive action Mattathias Schwartz, Reporter writing for The New Yorker, January 26, 2015, “The Whole Haystack,” The New Yorker, , accessed 4-19-2015Almost every major terrorist attack on Western soil in the past fifteen years has been committed by people who were already known to law enforcement. One of the gunmen in the attack on Charlie Hebdo, in Paris, had been sent to prison for recruiting jihadist fighters. The other had reportedly studied in Yemen with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the underwear bomber, who was arrested and interrogated by the F.B.I. in 2009. The leader of the 7/7 London suicide bombings, in 2005, had been observed by British intelligence meeting with a suspected terrorist, though MI5 later said that the bombers were “not on our radar.” The men who planned the Mumbai attacks, in 2008, were under electronic surveillance by the United States, the United Kingdom, and India, and one had been an informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration. One of the brothers accused of bombing the Boston Marathon was the subject of an F.B.I. threat assessment and a warning from Russian intelligence. In each of these cases, the authorities were not wanting for data. What they failed to do was appreciate the significance of the data they already had. Nevertheless, since 9/11, the National Security Agency has sought to acquire every possible scrap of digital information—what General Keith Alexander, the agency’s former head, has called “the whole haystack.” The size of the haystack was revealed in June, 2013, by Edward Snowden. The N.S.A. vacuums up Internet searches, social-media content, and, most controversially, the records (known as metadata) of United States phone calls—who called whom, for how long, and from where. The agency stores the metadata for five years, possibly longer.Not Key to Hegemony—Information Overload Mass domestic surveillance causes “information overload”—we gather so much information that we can’t determine what is important Tom Engelhardt, Created and runs the website, a project of The Nation Institute of which he is a Fellow. Each spring he is a Teaching Fellow at the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, September 30, 2014, “We Spend $68 Billion a Year on Intelligence Agencies—and They Don’t Really Work,” The Nation, , accessed 4-18-2015In some way, the remarkable NSA revelations of Edward Snowden may have skewed our view of American intelligence. The question, after all, isn’t simply: Who did they listen in on or surveil or gather communications from? It’s also: What did they find out? What did they draw from the mountains of information, the billions of bits of intelligence data that they were collecting from individual countries monthly (Iran, 14 billion; Pakistan, 13.5 billion; Jordan, 12.7 billion, etc.)? What was their “intelligence”? And the answer seems to be that, thanks to the mind-boggling number of outfits doing America’s intelligence work and the yottabytes of data they sweep up, the IC is a morass of information overload, data flooding and collective blindness as to how our world works. You might say that the American intelligence services encourage the idea that the world is only knowable in an atmosphere of big data and a penumbra of secrecy. As it happens, an open and open-minded assessment of the planet and its dangers would undoubtedly tell any government so much more. In that sense, the system bolstered and elaborated since 9/11 seems as close to worthless in terms of bang for the buck as any you could imagine. Which means, in turn, that we outsiders should view with a jaundiced eye the latest fear-filled estimates and overblown “predictions” from the IC that, as now with the tiny (possibly fictional)terror group Khorasan, regularly fill our media with nightmarish images of American destruction.Not Key to Hegemony—No Useful Information There’s no actionable information being collected from mass domestic surveillance—best evidence concludes it won’t lead to better mission outcomes Peter Bergen, David Sterman, Emily Schneider, and Bailey Cahall, Policy analysts for National Security Program, January 2014, “Do NSA's Bulk Surveillance Programs Stop Terrorists?,” New America Foundation,, accessed 4-19-2015On June 5, 2013, the Guardian broke the first story in what would become a flood of revelations regarding the extent and nature of the NSA’s surveillance programs.1 Facing an uproar over the threat such programs posed to privacy, the Obama administration scrambled to defend them as legal and essential to U.S. national security and counterterrorism. Two weeks after the first leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden were published, President Obama defended the NSA surveillance programs during a visit to Berlin, saying: “We know of at least 50 threats that have been averted because of this information not just in the United States, but, in some cases, threats here in Germany. So lives have been saved.”2 Gen. Keith Alexander, the director of the NSA, testified before Congress that: “the information gathered from these programs provided the U.S. government with critical leads to help prevent over 50 potential terrorist events in more than 20 countries around the world.”3 Rep. Mike Rogers (RMich.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said on the House floor in July that “54 times [the NSA programs] stopped and thwarted terrorist attacks both here and in Europe – saving real lives.”4 However, our review of the government’s claims about the role that NSA “bulk” surveillance of phone and email communications records has had in keeping the United States safe from terrorism shows that these claims are overblown and even misleading.* An in-depth analysis of 225 individuals recruited by al-Qaeda or a like-minded group or inspired by al-Qaeda’s ideology, and charged in the United States with an act of terrorism since 9/11, demonstrates that traditional investigative methods, such as the use of informants, tips from local communities, and targeted intelligence operations, provided the initial impetus for investigations in the majority of cases, while the contribution of NSA’s bulk surveillance programs to these cases was minimal. Indeed, the controversial bulk collection of American telephone metadata, which includes the telephone numbers that originate and receive calls, as well as the time and date of those calls but not their content, under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, appears to have played an identifiable role in, at most, 1.8 percent of these cases. NSA programs involving the surveillance of non-U.S. persons outside of the United States under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act played a role in 4.4 percent of the terrorism cases we examined, and NSA surveillance under an unidentified authority played a role in 1.3 percent of the cases we examined. Regular FISA warrants not issued in connection with Section 215 or Section 702, which are the traditional means for investigating foreign persons, were used in at least 48 (21 percent) of the cases we looked at, although it’s unclear whether these warrants played an initiating role or were used at a later point in the investigation. (Click on the link to go to a database of all 225 individuals, complete with additional details about them and the government’s investigations of these cases: ).Not Key to Hegemony—No Useful Information There isn’t much useful information coming from domestic surveillance. We can’t get actionable information to make missions more effective Tom Engelhardt, Fellow at The National Institute, each spring he is a Teaching Fellow at the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, January 22, 2015, “Tomgram: Engelhardt, Washington's Walking Dead,” Tom Dispatch, 's_walking_dead/, accessed 4-19-2015Now, here’s another word closely associated with the last two: intelligence. Consider it sacrosanct, representing as it does the religion of the national security state. There is only one rule when it comes to intelligence: you can’t have too much of it. Hence, our 17 ever-expanding, intertwined “intelligence” agencies, a vast, still proliferating apparatus for conducting covert ops and gathering information on everyone from presidents and chancellors to peasants in the rural backlands of the planet in every form in which anyone could possibly communicate or simply express themselves or even engage in public play. This vast world of information overload has, in turn, been plunged into a world of secrecy in which, if it weren’t for leakers and whistleblowers, we would never have any intelligence that they didn’t want us to have. Over these last years, this system has proven intrusive in ways that even the totalitarian states of the previous century couldn’t have imagined, as well as abusive in ways degrading almost beyond imagination. It has also collected more information about all of us than can even be grasped; and yet, as far as we can tell, it has also been eternally a step behind in delivering actionable information to the government on just about any subject you want to mention.Not Key to Hegemony—Alt CausesDomestic surveillance cannot prop US hegemony—too many alt causes to its inevitable collapse Peter Lee, Journalist who writes about US foreign policy in Asia, January 8, 2014, “Empire Nation: America Is Hooked On Hegemony,” Alter Net, , accessed 4-11-2015It should be noted that the most striking element of the Edward Snowden NSA revelations and the Obama administration's response is that the NSA was committed to "having it all", ie complete surveillance hegemony in all non-US jurisdictions, and appears constitutionally incapable of accepting any theoretical limits on its abilities to intercept any and all communications. Hegemony is expensive to maintain, in political and social as well as financial terms. With the US share of the world economy diminishing, it's not surprising that US hegemony is challenged, more indirectly in terms of disintermediation - the rise of alternate, non-US-centric structures typified by Brazil's threat to disconnect from the North American Internet - than by direct mano-a-manoconfrontations. The result is creeping instability instead of the reassuring order that an unchallenged hegemon is expected to provide. The biggest challenge for US hegemony is Asia. In the Middle East, where the decisive regional military force was in the hands of our ally, Israel, our main designated adversary, Iran, was a distinctly third-rate power, the US had the remarkably compliant assistance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to organize and lead its allies, and campaigns against five refractory powers (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, and Libya) have largely produced outcomes that can be spun as Victory!, the United States still encountered considerable and costly resistance when trying to call the shots. What of the Obama administration's pivot into Asia, where our undesignated adversary, the People's Republic of China, has 1.6 billion people, nuclear weapons, and the world's second-largest economy, and our key ally, Japan, is emerging as an independent regional force? This is not a recipe for comfortable hegemony, either unilaterally or as master of a regional coalition. Hegemony Bad—Doesn’t Prevent WarUS hegemony is not key to global stability—the international order can maintain itself without a hegemon Dingding Chen, Assistant professor of Government and Public Administration at the University of Macau and Non-Resident Fellow at the Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) Berlin, Germany, January 14, 2015, “Relax, China Won't Challenge US Hegemony,” The Diplomat, , accessed 4-11-2015Unfortunately, the U.S. is still obsessed with the concept (or illusion) of hegemony, as Simon Reich and Richard Ned Lebow have pointed out recently. The hegemony mentality is precisely the reason why the United States has declined (slowly) in the post-Cold War era. Wrongly believing that a stable global order needs U.S. hegemony, American leaders have adopted a grand strategy of liberal interventionism, which has only caused self-inflicted wounds for the U.S. economy and its global status. The tragedy, however, is that within U.S. elite circles, this misperception about U.S. hegemony (here and here) sticks and is unlikely to go away for a long time barring a major failure or crisis. At the end of the day, our world can survive and prosper without a hegemon, regardless of whether the hegemon is American or Chinese. The sooner American leaders understand this point and believe Chinese leaders’ words, the higher the chances of peace and stability worldwide.Hegemony Bad—Causes War With Russia/ ChinaUS hegemony causes war with Russia and China—puts us on a collision course because of geostrategic pursuits Paul Craig Roberts, American economist and a columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration, May 26, 2014, “US hegemonic drive makes war with Russia/China inevitable,” Press TV, , accessible 4-18-2015Western civilization is a skeleton. It still stands, barely, but there is no life in it. The blood of liberty has departed. Western peoples look at their governments and see nothing but enemies. Why else has Washington militarized local police forces, equipping them as if they were occupying armies? Why else has Homeland Security, the Department of Agriculture, and even the Postal Service and Social Security Administration ordered billions of rounds of ammunition and even submachine guns? What is this taxpayer-paid-for arsenal for if not to suppress US citizens? As the prominent trends forecaster Gerald Celente spells out in the current Trends Journal, “uprisings span four corners of the globe.” Throughout Europe angry, desperate and outraged peoples march against EU financial policies that are driving the peoples into the ground. Despite all of Washington’s efforts with its well funded fifth columns known as NGOs to destabilize Russia and China, both the Russian and Chinese governments have far more support from their people than do the US and Europe. In the 20th century Russia and China learned what tyranny is, and they have rejected it. In the US tyranny has entered under the guise of the “war on terror,” a hoax used to scare the sheeple into abandoning their civil liberties, thus freeing Washington from accountability to law and permitting Washington to erect a militarist police state. Ever since WWII, Washington has used its financial hegemony and the “Soviet threat,” now converted into the “Russian threat,” to absorb Europe into Washington’s empire. Putin is hoping that the interests of European countries will prevail over subservience to Washington. This is Putin’s current bet. This is the reason Putin remains unprovoked by Washington’s provocations in Ukraine. If Europe fails Russia, Putin and China will prepare for the war that Washington’s drive for hegemony makes inevitable.Hegemony Bad—Causes Middle East WarUS hegemony causes endless conflict in the Middle East—US “double down” approaches will fail and cause more instability Global Times, Chinese newspaper and political news outlet about global affairs, January 1, 2015, “US hegemonic quest in Mideast creates chaos,” Global Times, , accessed 4-11-2015With the rise of the Islamic State (IS), the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, and the struggle between Iran and the West over nuclear issues, the Middle East remained chaotic in 2014. What about 2015? What kind of role will the US play in the regional political landscape? At a seminar held by the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China, Global Times (GT) reporter Liu Zhun talked to Flynt Leverett (Flynt), former senior director of Middle East Affairs at the National Security Council (NSC), and Hillary Mann Leverett (Hillary), former director of Iran, Afghanistan and Persian Gulf Affairs at the NSC, about these issues. GT: What is your forecast of the situation of the Middle East this year? Flynt: More and more negative consequences of the failed US drive for the hegemony in the Middle East will become increasingly evident. The US is struggling to come to terms with that. Washington should reconsider its basic strategy for this region, but President Barack Obama has a great belief in US' hegemonic agenda. Many analysts in the US argue that Washington should "double-down" on its strategy. But this is the wrong direction.Hegemony Bad—Causes Global ViolenceUS hegemony causes military interventions and unprecedented violence on a global scale John Horgan, Stevens Institute of Technology, January 9, 2015, “Would Global Violence Decline Faster If U.S. Was Less Militaristic?,” Scientific American, , accessed 4-11-2015The Costs of War Project, based at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies, has compiled data on wars that the U.S. has been waging since 2001 in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. (Explaining the inclusion of Pakistan, Costs of War notes: “The armed conflict in Pakistan, which the US helps the Pakistani military fight by funding, equipping and training them, is in many ways more intense than in Afghanistan although it receives less coverage in the US news.”) As the graph above shows, the three wars have claimed more than 350,000 lives so far, including “armed forces on all sides, contractors, journalists, humanitarian workers” and at least 220,000 civilians. Hundreds of thousands more civilians have died of disease, exposure, malnutrition and “indirect” consequences of the conflicts, and more than 6 million have been forced from their homes. More than 6,800 U.S. soldiers have died in the conflicts—and an almost equal number of military contractors–and more than 970,000 troops have filed disability claims. Costs of War does not estimate the number of civilians killed directly by U.S. forces. But according to the reputable group Iraq Body Count, between 2003 and 2001, U.S.-led coalition forces were directly responsible for 15,060 civilian deaths in Iraq. Rather than eliminating violent extremism, U.S. military actions have arguably exacerbated it. According to The New York Times, one of the suspects in the Charlie Hebdo massacre was allegedly radicalized by “fury over the United States’ invasion of Iraq in 2003, particularly the mistreatment of Muslims held at Abu Ghraib prison.” The U.S. contributes to violence—and the threat thereof–in other less direct ways. The U.S. is the dominant innovator, manufacturer and exporter of arms in the world. Aggressive U.S. development and deployment of drones and cyber-weapons have inspired other nations to pursue these technologies.Hegemony Bad—Not EffectiveHard power solutions are no longer effective—soft power diplomacy is the best solution to IR conflicts Jan Philipp and NE Wagner, International relations scholars, May 14, 2014, “The Effectiveness of Soft & Hard Power in Contemporary International Relations,” E International Relations, , accessed 4-18-2015Hard power is coercive power executed through military threats and economic inducements and based on tangible resources such as the army or economic strength. In contrast, soft power is persuasive power deriving from attraction and emulation and grounded on intangible resources such as culture. Although they are oppositional approaches to power, their combination, smart power, has its place in academic debate and policy making. Overall, it appears that soft power strategies are more effective in the contemporary international system than hard power strategies. The demise of hard power is caused by changes in the world order, whereas the strength of soft power is based on its endurance and sustainability. As soft power has weaknesses, too, it is worth considering the strength of smart power strategies.Politics Iran Deal DA – AffUniqueness2AC – UQ Overwhelms LinkNo chance of a veto override – it’s not even closeTed Barrett, staff writer at CNN, 8-22-2015, “Forget a veto override; Democrats hope to prevent a 'no' vote on the Iran deal” (CNN) Democrats have picked up enough congressional support for the Iran nuclear deal that they are now hoping not merely to sustain any White House veto of a resolution rejecting the agreement but also to prevent the resolution from even reaching the President's desk. All 54 Senate Republicans are expected to vote for a resolution in mid-September disapproving of the accord, but to clear a procedural hurdle so the chamber can move on the bill, they need six Democrats to join them. So far, only two Democratic senators have said they will oppose the agreement: New York's Chuck Schumer and New Jersey's Bob Menendez. While enough senators remain undecided to reach 60 votes against -- only 23 of 44 have committed to backing the Iran deal so far -- the steady trickle of support is dwindling that pool by the day. This week two key undecided Democratic senators -- Claire McCaskill of Missouri, who is close to Schumer, and Joe Donnelly of Indiana -- announced their support for the deal. The announcements had a White House official, who declined to be named, expressing increased confidence in the ultimate outcome. "If Republicans can't get conservative red-state Democrats with them, then that should say a lot," the official said, referring to Donnelly and McCaskill. The pair came out for the deal in the wake of revelations that Iranians would be participating in some inspections of a sensitive Iranian military site. Opponents seized on the development to whip up opposition, but the two senators' support was amplified by that of a key House member Friday. Democrat Jerrold Nadler of New York, known for his ties to Israel and the Jewish community, where much of the opposition to the deal has been concentrated, said he would vote for the deal.2AC – Veto IrrelevantVeto override irrelevant – Obama can implement the deal no matter whatKerry Picket, writer at the Daily Caller, 7-31-2015, “Dem: Obama Ready To Ignore Congress If Veto On Iran Deal Is Overridden,” — California Rep. Brad Sherman warns that even if Congress were to override President Obama’s veto of the Iran deal, the president could still get the deal he wants. Sherman, a Democrat who serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, grilled Sec. of State John Kerry Tuesday over whether the administration would follow the law if Congress votes against the administration’s deal with Iran and overrides the president’s veto. “So, you’re not committed to following the law if you think it’s a bad law?” Sherman asked. “No,” Kerry said. “I said I’m not going to deal with a hypothetical, that’s all.” Sherman later told reporters Wednesday that there were different options on the table that Obama could seriously consider if the Congress overrode his veto. “First, he may simply announced that every bank that does business with Iran in accordance with the deal will not face the sanctions in the Menendez-Kirk amendment, as reinstated and strengthened by the Corker deal, as activated by the veto override. So, number one, ignore U.S. statute,” Sherman explained. “Number two, he will tell the rest of the world to follow the deal and do business with Iran as specified in the deal, saying that is the reasonable thing to do.” Sherman, who is currently undecided on the deal, went further to say that Obama could go to foreign countries and persuade their governments to mandate that their banks do business with Iran even if the banks are scared to do so to the full extent of the deal. “He might go to foreign countries and say, ‘Look maybe your banks are reluctant to do business with the Iran, because they fear this Congress will somehow get them maybe they’ll need a little push, so I’ll speak to your parliament.’” Eventually, Sherman explained, it will become more difficult for the next administration to undo what was just done.Links2AC – AT: Surveillance Link – Plan PopularSurveillance reforms are popular – Snowden’s revelations changed the gameJason Pye, former Legislative Director for the Libertarian Party of Georgia, 8-20-2013, “Congressional backlash against NSA growing after latest revelations,” latest revelations concerning the National Security Agency (NSA) could potentially tip the balance in favor of a measure to prevent the intelligence agencies from broadly spying on Americans. Last week, the Washington Post reported that the NSA had broken privacy rules 2,776 times over a 12-month period dating back to May 2012, pushing key lawmakers to call for increased congressional oversight of the surveillance programs. Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) announced plans for a hearing over the programs after the latest report, according to The Hill, and expressed concerns that Congress is “still not getting straight answers” from the administration and intelligence officials. And House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called the Washington Post’s report “extremely disturbing” and called for more congressional oversight. But the most interesting comments about the latest revelations came from Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), who proposed an amendment last month that would have limited the NSA’s spying programs. The amendment, which was defeated by a very slim margin, would have denied funding to execute any FISA court order that isn’t specific to a person who is the subject of an actual investigation. During an interview this weekend with CNN’s State of the Nation, Amash indicated that moods are changing in the House and that the result the next time around could be much different. “I certainly heard from a number of my colleagues directly and through the media that they feel differently about the amendment now that if they had a second chance, yes, they might have voted yes on it,” Amash told CNN’s Candy Crowley. “I’m hopeful that we’ll have another opportunity. It might not be exactly the same amendment. This was an amendment to an appropriations bill so it had to be written in a very particular way,” said Amash. “And I’m hopeful we’ll have a way to amend some kind of policy legislation in the future.” Amash pointed out that Americans have been constantly lied to about oversight of the NSA surveillance programs by President Barack Obama, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) and the intelligence community. “The system is not working. Americans were told by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee that there were zero privacy violations, and we know that’s not true,” said Amash. “Americans were assured by the president and others that the FISA court had significant oversight, and we’ve heard from the chief judge of the FISA court who says that’s not true.” “And Americans have been told that their records have not been collected, that they had no data collected by the director of national intelligence, and we found out that wasn’t true,” he added. Some members of Congress have complained that the administration and intelligence officials have not been honest about the surveillance programs. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) expressed doubt that any of his colleagues was even briefed about the broken privacy rules before the Washington Post’s story. There have been a few different measures introduced to reform sections of the PATRIOT Act that the NSA has used far beyond congressional intent to spy on Americans. Amash and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) have introduced the LIBERT-E Act, legislation that would require intelligence and law enforcement agencies to obtain only records that are necessary to a specific investigation into terrorist activity. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), who introduced the PATRIOT Act in the days after 9/11, has suggested that Congress could refuse to renew the provisions of the law that the NSA is using to spy on Americans. Sensenbrenner contends that the NSA is misusing the law, noting the provision is written only to allow access records relevant to ongoing investigations into terrorist activity. He has also called the NSA’s seizure of Americans’ phone records “excessive and Un-American.”Surveillance Link – Plan PopularBipartisan support for surveillance reform – popular with Congress and lobbyists James Risen, writer at the New York Times, 7-17-2013, “Bipartisan Backlash Grows Against Domestic Surveillance, — The Obama administration faced a growing Congressional backlash against the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance operations on Wednesday, as lawmakers from both parties called for the vast collection of private data on millions of Americans to be scaled back. During a sometimes contentious hearing of the House Judiciary Committee, Republicans and Democrats told administration officials that they believed the government had exceeded the surveillance authorities granted by Congress, and warned that they were unlikely to be reauthorized in the future. Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, said that no one in Congress believed that the counterterrorism laws enacted since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were meant to allow for the collection of phone records of virtually everyone in America. “The government is stockpiling sensitive personal data on a grand scale,” said Representative Ted Deutch, Democrat of Florida. “Intelligence officers, contractors and personnel only need a rubber-stamp warrant from the FISA court to then learn virtually everything there is to know about an American citizen,” he said, referring to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, Republican of Wisconsin, was among the lawmakers who expressed skepticism about the collection of private data by the National Security Agency. While administration officials defended the surveillance during the hearing, several lawmakers said that the data collection was unsustainable, and that Congress would move to either revoke the legislative authorization for the bulk collection now or at least refuse to renew it when it expires in 2015. Mr. Sensenbrenner interrupted James Cole, a deputy attorney general, to say, “Unless you realize you’ve got a problem, that is not going to be renewed.” Wednesday’s hearing was part of a counteroffensive emerging against the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance since the scope of the spying operations was exposed by Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor. A coalition of Silicon Valley companies and civil liberties groups plans to press President Obama on Thursday to disclose more information about the agency’s surveillance operations so that Americans can have a more informed public debate. Much of the controversy involves the agency’s bulk collection of telephone data, which includes which numbers have called other numbers and time and length of calls, but not the content. In a letter to top administration officials, the group will ask that the government start opening up the surveillance process by allowing companies to publicly disclose the number of secret requests for data they receive from the N.S.A., the number of individuals the requests cover, and whether the requests involve the content of communications or other data, according to a draft of the letter and interviews with officials from the companies and organizations involved. The group, which includes Apple, Google, Facebook and Twitter, and organizations including the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union, urge in their letter that the government publish the same information, and that Congress should enact new legislation mandating greater openness in the surveillance process. The letter does not demand an end to the domestic surveillance. But it is still significant because it allies the corporations that are directly involved with the government’s surveillance collection with some of the most vocal critics of the administration’s efforts to keep the N.S.A. domestic spying program in the shadows. Microsoft sent a similar letter on its own to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. Senator Al Franken, Democratic of Minnesota, said in an interview that he planned to introduce legislation mandating public disclosure of programs. Credit Chip The coalition letter also comes as momentum is building in Congress to require greater public disclosure on the programs. “I am beginning to see a lot of Republicans fight on this issue,” Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat and member of the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview. “I think the situation is extremely fluid, but I know a lot of people are interested in doing something.” Senator Al Franken, Democrat of Minnesota, said in an interview that he planned to introduce legislation mandating public disclosure along the same lines as the recommendations in the coalition’s letter, while Representative Rick Larsen, a Washington Democrat, said in an interview that he was planning to introduce similar legislation in the House on Thursday. Surveillance Link – Plan Popular – DronesBipartisan support and public pressure for restricting domestic drones – it’s distinct from other surveillance issuesCatherine Crump, staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project and a nonresident fellow with the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, and Jay Stanley, senior policy analyst with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project and editor of the ACLU's Free Future blog, 2-11-2013, “Why Americans Are Saying No to Domestic Drones,” the past year, the American public has begun to pay more and more attention to the issue of domestic surveillance drones. And now, recent events suggest we might be seeing the emergence of a genuine national movement against the use of surveillance drones by law enforcement. With any luck, this may even set the stage for a wider dialogue about the increasingly intrusive technologies that are intended to catch crooks—but that all too often cast an overly broad net. Last week, after an especially raucous city council hearing, the Seattle police department terminated its drones program and agreed to return the purchased equipment to the manufacturer. This came just days after both houses of the Virginia state legislature passed historic bills imposing a two-year moratorium on the use of drones by law enforcement and regulatory agencies in the state. In Florida, a potentially even more significant bill imposing a judicial warrant requirement on police use of drones continued to march toward passage. Similar legislation has been proposed in at least 13 other state legislatures around the country so far. Of all the threats to privacy that we face today, why have drones caught the attention of the American public to such a remarkable degree? One possibility is that there’s something uniquely ominous about a robotic “eye in the sky.” Many privacy invasions are abstract and invisible—data mining, for example, or the profiling of Internet users by online advertisers. Drones, on the other hand, are concrete and real, and the threat requires no explanation. But they are just the most visible example of a host of new surveillance technologies that have the potential to fundamentally alter the balance of power between individuals and the state. Physically tailing a suspect requires teams of police officers working 24/7, but now police can slap GPS devices on a suspect’s car and then sit in the station house tracking his movements on a laptop. Now that the wholesale surveillance of American life is becoming cheap and easy, legal protections are all the more important. The drone issue has also gained momentum because the concern over it is bipartisan. While Democrats get most of the credit for pushing back on national surveillance programs, it was the Republican Party’s 2012 platform that addressed domestic surveillance drones, stating that “we support pending legislation to prevent unwarranted or unreasonable governmental intrusion through the use of aerial surveillance.” The ACLU of Virginia, for instance, teamed up with one of the state’s most conservative lawmakers to introduce a drone regulation bill in the state House of Delegates, while its Senate companion bill was introduced by a progressive. Florida’s drone regulation legislation is being almost entirely pushed by conservatives—and in most states, the legislative efforts we’ve seen so far have been conservative or bipartisan. Privacy issues are always less partisan than many other political questions, but the support for action on drones from both left and right has been remarkable.2AC – AT: Losers LoseLosers win – the less power Obama has, the better his negotiating position isCass Sunstein, former administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is the Robert Walmsley Professor at Harvard Law School, 10-14-2013, “For Obama and Boehner, Weakness Is Strength,” Bloomberg, a negotiation, you might well have more power if you are powerless. Strength can be weakness, and weakness can be strength. Since 2011, these principles have been playing a significant role in conflicts between President Barack Obama and the House of Representatives. To see the general point, suppose that you are a malpractice lawyer, representing a patient in a suit against a doctor. Your client believes that the doctor made a big mistake. He is very angry. He knows a trial wouldn’t be a lot of fun, but he likes the idea of seeing his doctor squirm on the witness stand. He is also willing to settle, but the settlement has to be on precisely his terms, which would give him a lot of money. Your client’s position means that once you begin to negotiate, your hands will be tied. You won’t be able to compromise. That puts you in an excellent position. Your client is willing to endure a trial, which the doctor might well see as a worst-case scenario and perhaps even as intolerable. Under reasonable assumptions, you should be able to obtain a generous settlement. The situation is different, and much worse, if your client tells you that he wants to avoid a trial, and if he gives you the power to take any reasonable deal. If you are so instructed, you can’t hide behind your client and insist that the only acceptable agreement is on his preferred terms. In fact, you might want your client to tie your hands, because that strengthens your position. Now turn to the current fiscal standoff. For many Republicans and many Democrats, including the president, defaulting on the national debt is a worst-case scenario. For the participants, a central question is this: What exactly does the other side have the power to do? Intransigence Effect Thomas Schelling, the recipient of the 2005 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, wrote the book on this topic. Speaking of those who represent workers in a labor-management dispute, Schelling drew attention to the strategic benefits of powerlessness on the part of labor’s representatives. If the workers are themselves intransigent, their representatives may be able to obtain an excellent deal “because they no longer control the members or because they would lose their own positions if they tried.” Schelling’s account uncannily presages the current situation in the House of Representatives. Many people believe that House Speaker John Boehner can’t control House Republicans and that if he makes certain compromises with Democrats and the president, he will jeopardize his position as speaker. In an important respect, this perception has greatly increased his authority. When House members tie his hands, they strengthen his hand. Obama can also benefit from a degree of powerlessness. Some legal scholars contend that under the 14th Amendment, the president has the power to ensure that national debts are paid, even if Congress doesn’t raise the debt limit. If they are right, his bargaining authority is weakened. The president has been claiming that without legislative action, the nation will inevitably suffer the terrible fiscal consequences of a default. If he can prevent those consequences on his own, that claim is weakened, and his bargaining position is undermined. Obama has also found it important to say publicly, and on numerous occasions, that he won’t engage in negotiations with Congress until the debt limit is raised. Such statements don’t tie his hands, but they have a similar function, because it would not be so easy for him to backtrack. In standard negotiation theory, there can be a significant bargaining advantage for the person whose hands are tied. But what if both sides end up lacking the ability to compromise? That’s a big problem.Internals2AC PC FailsPC fails – no mechanism for changing votes – pundits are wrongBrendan Nyhan, Assistant Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, 4-30-2013, “Covering ‘The American Presidency’: Fiction vs Reality in Coverage of the White House” reality, the idea that the President can force an uncooperative Congress to do his bidding has been falsified over and over again—not just during President Obama’s administration on issues like gun control, but during previous presidencies. Even Lyndon Baines Johnson, the prototypical presidential wheeler-dealer, became far less persuasive when the national political climate changed after the 1966 midterm elections (one aide commented that by the end LBJ “couldn’t get Mother’s Day through” Congress). And yet journalists and commentators still try to defend their misguided notions of presidential power, suggesting instead that, for instance, Obama is being held back by a lack of personal charm or a failure to twist enough arms in Congress. The most absurd version of the president-centric journalistic worldview was expressed in a New York Times column by Maureen Dowd, who slammed the White House for not employing “a war room full of charts with the names of pols they had to capture” as she saw in a fictional movie: The White House should have created a war room full of charts with the names of pols they had to capture, like they had in The American President. Soaring speeches have their place, but this was about blocking and tackling. Instead of the pit-bull legislative aides in Aaron Sorkin’s movie, Obama has Miguel Rodriguez, an arm-twister so genteel that The Washington Post’s Philip Rucker wrote recently that no one in Congress even knows who he is. Dowd also criticized Obama for not being tough enough on members of Congress, writing that “Obama should have called Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota over to the Oval Office and put on the squeeze” (an unrealistic Sorkin-esque monologue of political advice) and held “big rallies to get the public riled up to put pressure” on GOP senators in states he won in 2012. Dowd’s critique was dismissed by observers ranging from Salon’s Joan Walsh to National Review Online’s Robert Costa and ridiculed by President Obama at Saturday night’s White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner, where he asked Michael Douglas, who played the lead role in “The American President,” how he accomplished so much more than Obama: “Michael, what’s your secret, man? Could it be that you were an actor in an Aaron Sorkin liberal fantasy?” The tension between the Hollywood version of the presidency and the actual world runs deep in journalism. Dowd’s column was notable because it let the mask slip, showing how much coverage of the presidency is driven by assumptions that bear little resemblance to reality. In particular, much of the reporting and commentary we’ve seen blaming Obama for his stalled second-term agenda employs what I call the the underpants gnomes theory of presidential influence (in schematic form: charm offensives, arm-twisting, and war rooms -> ??? -> GOP votes for the Obama agenda!). Like the underwear-stealing “South Park” characters, proponents of the theory leave out a crucial missing step—namely, how exactly those tactics are supposed to change the votes of enough Republicans in Congress to make a difference. While some tactics might make a small difference on the margin, Obama’s powers are far more limited than most press coverage suggests—he can’t offer earmarks to legislators, the bully pulpit is typically ineffective, presidential arm-twisting rarely works, and his direct involvement in legislative debates tends to polarize the GOP against his proposals.PC FailsEmpirical studies prove PC is irrelevantBert Rockman, Purdue University Political Science professor, 2009, “Does the revolution in presidential studies mean "off with the president's head"?,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, v. 39, is. 4.)Although Neustadt shunned theory as such, his ideas could be made testable by scholars of a more scientific bent. George Edwards (e.g., 1980, 1989, 1990, 2003) and others (e.g., Bond and Fleisher 1990) have tested Neustadt's ideas about skill and prestige translating into leverage with other actors. In this, Neustadt's ideas turned out to be wrong and insufficiently specified. We know from the work of empirical scientists that public approval (prestige) by itself does little to advance a president's agenda and that the effects of approval are most keenly felt--where they are at all--among a president's support base. We know now, too, that a president's purported skills at schmoozing, twisting arms, and congressional lobbying add virtually nothing to getting what he (or she) wants from Congress. That was a lot more than we knew prior to the publication of Presidential Power. Neustadt gave us the ideas to work with, and a newer (and now older) generation of political scientists, reared on Neustadt but armed with the tools of scientific inquiry, could put some of his propositions to an empirical test. That the empirical tests demonstrate that several of these propositions are wrong comes with the territory. That is how science progresses. But the reality is that there was almost nothing of a propositional nature prior to Neustadt.PC fails – influence is a myth and Obama can’t use it anywayAnita Kumar, political analyst, 5-24-2013, “After failure on gun legislation, Obama learning limits of his power,” McClatchy, months after his triumphant re-election, President Barack Obama has run into the hard reality of the modern presidency. The cheering crowds that helped vault him into a second term in the White House mean little, if anything, back in Washington. A close look at his most recent defeat – a series of proposals intended to curb gun violence – shows that election popularity does not automatically translate into legislative success. Nor do campaign-like efforts to win a vote in Congress. Obama put more effort into the proposals than he has most issues, but he still suffered one of his biggest legislative defeats. The defeat illustrates a key truth – for all their power, presidents rarely succeed in manipulating votes on Capitol Hill. If anything, their abilities to twist arms have grown even more limited in recent years. Strained budgets leave them no extra money or pet projects to offer lawmakers in return for votes. And Obama’s detached personality and short history in Washington make him even less likely to wheel and deal with lawmakers. “There’s not much presidents can do to change votes. It’s mostly a myth,” said George Edwards, a presidential scholar at Texas A&M University. “It’s never been that way and it’s less so now.” 2AC PC Fails – Can’t Use ItObama won’t use PC - empiricsEzra Klein, editor at Wonkblog, 3-6-2013, “Obama’s just now starting to call rank-and-file Republicans?” ’s a common complaint from both Republican and Democratic legislators that Obama simply doesn’t like talking to them. Conservatives recall that Bill Clinton loved getting their opinion and would listen for as long as they wanted to talk — even while they were impeaching him. I spoke recently with a liberal senator who fondly remembered that former President Bush repeatedly invited him up to the White House even as the senator spent every single day investigating and opposing Bush in the Senate — Obama, he said, has spent less time with him than Bush did. It would be easy to discount these complaints, but as any reporter who deals often with Congress will tell you, they’re constant, and they come from both sides of the aisle. It’s the same complaint that came from wealthy liberal donors during the election. Obama just doesn’t like the grip-and-grin, small-talk side of politics and political players who are used to receiving that attention end up feeling neglected. The process that typically produces national politicians selects people who like schmoozing donors and building countless relationships and sending Christmas cards to everyone they’ve ever met and making their colleagues feel loved. But whereas Bush and Clinton and pretty much every other president had lived and excelled in that world for a very long time as a precondition for coming to the White House, Obama’s rise was so swift and unusual that he came to the White House lacking some of the typical traits of national politicians. His trajectory simply selected for different traits — including a deep impatience with the kabuki rituals of Washington politics.PC Fails – Can’t Use ItObama is disengaged – won’t use PCThe Economist, 11-23-2013, “The man who used to walk on water,” home, he seldom schmoozes with his political opponents—or even with his own side. Past presidents put in far more effort to charm and bully lawmakers, business moguls and anyone who could help them. Lyndon Johnson was famous for blackmailing congressmen to do the right thing, which is a hard art to practise if you barely know them. Mr Obama remains aloof—he has no regular breakfast or lunch even with the main Democrats in Congress. You cannot slap backs and twist arms if you are not in the same room.Obama can’t persuade legislatorsMichael Shear, writer at the New York Times, and Peter Baker, writer at the New York Times, 4-22-2013, “In Gun Bill Defeat, a President’s Distaste for Twisting Arms” trip will also reinforce for Mr. Begich and his colleagues a truth about Mr. Obama: After more than four years in the Oval Office, the president has rarely demonstrated an appetite for ruthless politics that instills fear in lawmakers. That raises a broader question: If he cannot translate the support of 90 percent of the public for background checks into a victory on Capitol Hill, what can he expect to accomplish legislatively for his remaining three and a half years in office? Robert Dallek, a historian and biographer of President Lyndon B. Johnson, said Mr. Obama seems “inclined to believe that sweet reason is what you need to use with people in high office.” That contrasts with Johnson’s belief that “what you need to do is to back people up against a wall,” Mr. Dallek said. “Obama has this more reasoned temperament,” he said. “It may well be that it’s not the prescription for making gains. It raises questions about his powers of persuasion.”2AC Winners Win / PC Not KeyWinners win and political capital theory is wrongMichael Hirsh, chief correspondent for National Journal, 2-7-2013, “There’s No Such Thing as Political Capital,” National Journal, , any president has practical and electoral limits. Does he have a majority in both chambers of Congress and a cohesive coalition behind him? Obama has neither at present. And unless a surge in the economy—at the moment, still stuck—or some other great victory gives him more momentum, it is inevitable that the closer Obama gets to the 2014 election, the less he will be able to get done. Going into the midterms, Republicans will increasingly avoid any concessions that make him (and the Democrats) stronger. But the abrupt emergence of the immigration and gun-control issues illustrates how suddenly shifts in mood can occur and how political interests can align in new ways just as suddenly. Indeed, the pseudo-concept of political capital masks a larger truth about Washington that is kindergarten simple: You just don’t know what you can do until you try. Or as Ornstein himself once wrote years ago, “Winning wins.” In theory, and in practice, depending on Obama’s handling of any particular issue, even in a polarized time, he could still deliver on a lot of his second-term goals, depending on his skill and the breaks. Unforeseen catalysts can appear, like Newtown. Epiphanies can dawn, such as when many Republican Party leaders suddenly woke up in panic to the huge disparity in the Hispanic vote. Some political scientists who study the elusive calculus of how to pass legislation and run successful presidencies say that political capital is, at best, an empty concept, and that almost nothing in the academic literature successfully quantifies or even defines it. “It can refer to a very abstract thing, like a president’s popularity, but there’s no mechanism there. That makes it kind of useless,” says Richard Bensel, a government professor at Cornell University. Even Ornstein concedes that the calculus is far more complex than the term suggests. Winning on one issue often changes the calculation for the next issue; there is never any known amount of capital. “The idea here is, if an issue comes up where the conventional wisdom is that president is not going to get what he wants, and he gets it, then each time that happens, it changes the calculus of the other actors” Ornstein says. “If they think he’s going to win, they may change positions to get on the winning side. It’s a bandwagon effect.”Winners WinEmpirics prove – wins cause bandwaggoningDavid Michael Green, professor of political science at Hofstra University, 6-11-2010, “The Do-Nothing 44th President,” , there is a continuously evolving and reciprocal relationship between presidential boldness and achievement. In the same way that nothing breeds success like success, nothing sets the president up for achieving his or her next goal better than succeeding dramatically on the last go around. This is absolutely a matter of perception, and you can see it best in the way that Congress and especially the Washington press corps fawn over bold and intimidating presidents like Reagan and George W. Bush. The political teams surrounding these presidents understood the psychology of power all too well. They knew that by simultaneously creating a steamroller effect and feigning a clubby atmosphere for Congress and the press, they could leave such hapless hangers-on with only one remaining way to pretend to preserve their dignities. By jumping on board the freight train, they could be given the illusion of being next to power, of being part of the winning team. And so, with virtually the sole exception of the now retired Helen Thomas, this is precisely what they did.Wins build momentumJeff Mason, staff writer for Reuters, 3-26-2010, “Obama's health win could boost foreign policy,” (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's domestic success on healthcare reform may pay dividends abroad as the strengthened U.S. leader taps his momentum to take on international issues with allies and adversaries. More than a dozen foreign leaders have congratulated Obama on the new healthcare law in letters and phone calls, a sign of how much attention the fight for his top domestic policy priority received in capitals around the world. Analysts and administration officials were cautious about the bump Obama could get from such a win: Iran is not going to rethink its nuclear program and North Korea is not going to return to the negotiating table simply because more Americans will get health insurance in the coming years, they said. But the perception of increased clout, after a rocky first year that produced few major domestic or foreign policy victories, could generate momentum for Obama's agenda at home and in his talks on a host of issues abroad. "It helps him domestically and I also think it helps him internationally that he was able to win and get through a major piece of legislation," said Stephen Hadley, former national security adviser to Republican President George W. Bush. "It shows political strength, and that counts when dealing with foreign leaders." Obama's deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said the Democratic president's persistence in the long healthcare battle added credibility to his rhetoric on climate change, nuclear nonproliferation and other foreign policy goals. "It sends a very important message about President Obama as a leader," Rhodes told Reuters during an interview in his West Wing office. "The criticism has been: (He) sets big goals but doesn't close the deal. So, there's no more affirmative answer to that criticism than closing the biggest deal you have going."Impacts2AC Deal FailsDeal fails – Iran will cheat – won’t solve prolifTim Davany, staff writer at the Hill, 7-19-2015, “Deal critic: Iran will cheat,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) warned Sunday that Iran will “cheat” on the nuclear agreement with the Obama administration and other power and could develop a nuclear weapon within a decade. He called on Congress to reject the Iranian nuclear deal, because the inspection, verification and enforcement procedures are “too weak” to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon. “I think we have to assume that they will cheat on the deal,” Cotton said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” "Ultimately, even if they obey every single detail of the deal, it puts them on the path to be a nuclear weapons state in eight to 10 years,” he added. Cotton, who served in the Army on tours in Iraq and Afghanistan before running for office, warned that Iran should not to be trusted. "Iran is a terror-sponsoring, anti-American, outlaw regime,” Cotton said. "They’ve got the blood of hundreds of American soldiers and Marines on their hands.” "If you think Iran is going to change their behavior in a decade, I can tell you how unlikely that is,” he added. "Because just nine years ago, they were trying to kill me and my soldiers. We were lucky, but hundreds of other American troops were not.Deal FailsThe deal fails – inspection delays let Iran cheatJohn Podhoretz, writer at Commentary, 7-14-2015, “Iran Deal: The Right to Despair,” United States and its allies have struck a deal with Iran that effectively ensures that it will be a nuclear state with ballistic missiles in 10 years, assuming Iran adheres to the deal’s terms, which is a very large assumption. And though I’ve only made a preliminary pass at the deal sheet and don’t want to make definitive calls about it, it appears from the?language that Iran will have 24 days before it has to allow inspections at its sites, none of which has been shut down or dismantled — which will make cheating unbelievably easy. And, while the president this morning declared that violations would make sanctions “snap back,” the only way they will do so is after a U.N. commission meets and agrees such violations have happened and then imposes them — which you know Russia will never allow. The president and the secretary of state are making large claims for the deal that are not true;?the same will be true of all of its signatories, who are seeing Nobel?stars in their eyes. This is an infamous day, and while those of us who see Iran’s nuclearization as the threshold threat?for the rest of?the 21st century will not be silent and will not give up the fight against it, it is appropriate to take a moment to despair that we — the United States and the West — have come to this.Iran deal won’t solve prolif Jonathan S. Tobin, Senior Editor of Commentary, 9-3-2014, “Will ISIS Help Pave Way for Iranian Nuke?” anyone doubted Iran’s resolve and its arrogant dismissal of Western attempts to monitor their nuclear program, the regime’s continued stalling of the International Atomic Energy Agency to investigate their program should convince them. Without real information about Iran’s military nuclear research any agreement, whether one with tough terms or one as weak as the document signed last fall by Kerry, will be meaningless.2AC – AT: Iran Prolif MPXIran can be deterred – no impact to Iran prolifChristopher Layne, Professor of International Studies at the University of Miami, 2007, American Empire: A Debate. pg. 79-80The same architects of illusion who fulminated for war with Iraq now are agitating for war with Iran. If Iran gets nuclear weapons they say, three bad things could happen: it could trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East; it might supply nuclear weapons to terrorists; and Tehran could use its nuclear weapons to blackmail other states in the region or to engage in aggression. Each of these scenarios, however, is improbable in the extreme. During the early 1960s, American policy-makers had similar fears that China’s acquisition of nuclear weapons would trigger a proliferation stampede, but these fears did not materialize—and a nuclear Iran will not touch off a proliferation snowball in the Middle East. Israel, of course, already is a nuclear power (as is Pakistan, another regional power). The other three states that might be tempted to go for a nuclear weapons capability are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. As MIT professor Barry Posen points out, however, each of these three states would be under strong pressure not do to 50.84 Egypt is particularly vulnerable to outside pressure to refrain from going nuclear because its shaky economy depends on foreign—especially U.S.—economic assistance. Saudi Arabia would find it hard to purchase nuclear weapons or material on the black market—which is closely watched by the United States—and, Posen notes, it would take the Saudis years to develop the industrial and engineering capabilities to develop nuclear weapons indigenously. Turkey is constrained by its membership in NATO and its quest to be admitted to membership of the European Union. Notwithstanding the near-hysterical rhetoric of the Bush administration and the neoconservatives, Iran is not going to give nuclear weapons to terrorists. This is not to say that Tehran has not abetted groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, or Hamas in the Palestinian Authority. Clearly, it has. However, there are good reasons that states—even those that have ties to terrorists—draw the line at giving them nuclear weapons (or other WMD): if the terrorists were to use these weapons against the United States or its allies, the weapons could be traced back to the donor state—which would be at risk of annihilation by an American retaliatory strike. Iran’s leaders have too much at stake to run this risk. Even if one believed the administration’s overheated rhetoric about the indifference of rogue state leaders about the fate of their populations, they do care very much about the survival of their regimes—which means that they can be deterred. For the same reason, Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons will not invest Tehran with options to attack or intimidate its neighbors. Just as it did during the Cold War, the United States can extend its own deterrence umbrella to protect its clients in the region—like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and Turkey. American security guarantees not only will dissuade Iran from acting recklessly but will also restrain proliferation by negating the incentives for states like Saudi Arabia and Turkey to build their own nuclear weapons. Given the overwhelming U.S. advantage in both nuclear and conventional military capabilities, Iran is not going to risk national suicide by challenging America’s security commitments in the region. In short, while a nuclear-armed Iran hardly is desirable, neither is it “intolerable,” because it could be contained and deterred successfully by the United States.AT: Iran Prolif – DeterrenceUS retaliation deters Iranian nuclear use, transfer of nuclear weapons, and aggressionMicah Zenko, Fellow in the Center for Preventative Action at the Council on Foreign Relations, and Michael A. Cohen, Fellow at the Century Foundation, March-April 2012, “Clear and Present Safety” course, the gravest concerns about Iran focus on its nuclear activities. Those fears have led to some of the most egregiously alarmist rhetoric: at a Republican national security debate in November, Romney claimed that an Iranian nuclear weapon is “the greatest threat the world faces.” But it remains unclear whether Tehran has even decided to pursue a bomb or has merely decided to develop a turnkey capability. Either way, Iran’s leaders have been sufficiently warned that the United States would respond with overwhelming force to the use or transfer of nuclear weapons. Although a nuclear Iran would be troubling to the region, the United States and its allies would be able to contain Tehran and deter its aggression -- and the threat to the U.S. homeland would continue to be minimal.Deterrence works – restrains IranBarry M. Blechman, Co-Founder of the Stimson Center, 4-30-2013, “Nuclear deterrence could restrain N. Korea, Iran” wait -- didn't the Soviet spout dangerous rhetoric and take deadly actions? Didn't some of their leaders threaten to "bury" America and nuke London and Paris? And let's not forget that Leonid Brezhnev launched proxy wars against U.S. friends in Latin America, Africa and Asia. Yet the Obama administration seems to think that while Soviet leaders were deterred from using their massive arsenal, the Iranians and the North Koreans might not be deterred from using a nuclear force of no more than a handful of weapons at best. North Korea's missile capabilities But if deterrence theory is valid, then this double standard is invalid. Both Iran's and North Korea's supreme leaders will be deterred, just as were successive generations of Soviet leaders. Both would not authorize the use of nuclear weapons, for fear of seeing their nations destroyed, their people wiped out, and their ambitions for themselves and their countries turned to dust.Deterrence checks Iran – they wouldn’t use nukesSeyed Hossein Mousavian, Research Scholar at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School, 12-4-2012, “Ten Reasons Iran Doesn’t Want the Bomb” major accusation levied against Iran is that once it acquires nuclear weapons, it will use it against the United States and Israel. This makes no rational sense, since any provocation by Iran against two states that possess thousands and hundreds of nuclear weapons respectively would result in Iran’s total annihilation. Iran has publically acknowledged this fact.AT: Iran Prolif Bad – Deterrence – Iran is RationalIran is rational – empirics, survival is a precondition to their objectivesColin H. Kahl, Associate Professor at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, Melissa G. Dalton, Visiting Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, and Matthew Irvine, research associate at the Center for a New American Security, June 2012, “Risk and Rivalry: Iran, Israel, and the Bomb” the Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s Michael Eisenstadt notes, the perception of Iran as irrational and undeterrable is “both anachronistic and wrong.”43 While Iran’s revolutionary leadership has repeatedly supported Islamic militancy and used violence abroad to promote its ideological agenda, Iran has also demonstrated a degree of caution, sensitivity to costs and the ability to make strategic calculations when the regime’s survival is at risk.44 There is no evidence for the claim that Iran is a suicidal state that would be willing to incur the massive retaliation that would inevitably result from the use of nuclear weapons. This is unsurprising since the continued survival of the Islamic Republic is necessary to achieve every one of the regime’s material and ideological objectives, including the success of the revolution at home and the spread of Iran’s Islamist model abroad. In this sense, in the words of former Israeli Mossad Chief Meir Dagan, “the regime in Iran is a very rational one.”45AT: Iran Prolif Bad – AT: Nuclear TerrorIran wouldn’t give nukes to terroristsJames Lindsay, CFR's Director of Studies, and Ray Takeyh, an Iranian-American Middle East scholar, former United States Department of State official, and a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, April 2010, “After Iran Gets the Bomb,” Foreign Affairs, 89.2The prospect that Iran might transfer a crude nuclear device to its terrorist protégés is another danger, but it, too, is unlikely. Such a move would place Tehran squarely in the cross hairs of the United States and Israel. Despite its messianic pretensions, Iran has observed clear limits when supporting militias and terrorist organizations in the Middle East. Iran has not provided Hezbollah with chemical or biological weapons or Iraqi militias with the means to shoot down U.S. aircraft. Iran's rulers understand that such provocative actions could imperil their rule by inviting retaliation. On the other hand, by coupling strident rhetoric with only limited support in practice, the clerical establishment is able to at once garner popular acclaim for defying the West and oppose the United States and Israel without exposing itself to severe retribution. A nuclear Iran would likely act no differently, at least given the possibility of robust U.S. retaliation. Nor is it likely that Iran would become the new Pakistan, selling nuclear fuel and materials to other states. The prospects of additional sanctions and a military confrontation with the United States are likely to deter Iran from acting impetuously. Iran won’t give weapons to terrorists – they know it’s suicide and lack of CBW transfers proveTed Galen Carpenter, Vice President of Defense at the Cato Institute, 2007, Med. Quarterly 18.1, “Toward A Grand Bargain With Iran,” how likely is it that Iran would make such a transfer? At the very least, it would be an incredibly high-risk strategy. Even the most fanatical mullahs in Tehran realize that the United States would attack the probable supplier of such a weapon—and Iran would be at the top of Washington's list of suspects. It is significant that Iran has possessed chemical weapons for decades, yet there is no indication that it has passed on any of those weapons to Hezbollah or to Palestinian groups that Tehran supports politically. Why should one assume that the mullahs would be more reckless with nuclear weapons when the prospect of devastating retaliation for an attack would be even more likely? The more logical conclusion is that Iran, like other nuclear powers, would jealously guard its arsenal.2AC – AT: US-Iran WarNo US-Iran war – deal failure won’t trigger itSuzanne Maloney, Brookings Saban Center Senior Fellow, 1-13-2014, “Six Myths about Iran Sanctions,” brookings.edu/blogs/iran-at-saban/posts/2014/01/7-iran-sanctions-nuclear-deal-myths?utm_content=bufferb5045&utm_medium=social&utm_source=&utm_campaign=buffer#Myth 6. Support for additional Iran sanctions is the equivalent of support for war. No. With all due respect to the Obama administration officials who have been making this argument, it is an overstatement and, in many cases, patently untrue and unfair. It may be effective domestic politics, given the country's understandable weariness of Middle Eastern conflicts, but it is an ugly smear to accuse all those who are skeptical about the current diplomacy or who seek additional pressure on Iran of war-mongering. More to the point, the outcome of new sanctions is almost certainly not war. Tehran has come to the negotiating table despite, and because of, severe economic pressure. Rouhani's determination to achieve a deal, the speed with which he has advanced this agenda, and the flimsy pushback (by the rough-and-tumble standards of Iranian internal politics) he has received from hard-liners suggests that there is a broad and deep consensus around ending the nuclear stand-off with the West. No one should doubt Foreign Minister Zarif's sincerity when he says sanctions will end the talks, but there is a reasonable chance that Tehran will continue to seek a diplomatic resolution under almost any circumstances — there simply is no better alternative for Iranian interests. The same is true for Washington. Few in Congress are truly eager for another costly Middle Eastern conflict, and despite the tough talk from successive U.S. presidents on preventing a nuclear Iran, there is nothing automatic about military action. Even if the current diplomacy collapses, Washington and the world will have an array of alternatives for blunting Iran's nuclear advances, including many that fall short of war.AT: US-Iran WarIran isn’t a threatAlireza Nader, Senior Policy Analyst at the RAND Corporation, and James Dobbins, former U.S. assistant Secretary of State and Director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at RAND, 1-5-2012, “Iran’s Self-Destructive Gamble”, these circumstances, it is important to realistically judge the nature and extent of the Iranian threat. For all its bluster, the Iranian regime is more vulnerable than at any time in its 32-year history. Internally, Iran is constrained by deep political divisions, civil strife and a woeful economy. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has directly challenged the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, while Khamenei has spoken of eliminating the presidency. The life of the ordinary Iranian becomes more precarious every day, with rising unemployment, inflation, state repression, and the country’s growing international isolation. The regime has maintained a superficial sense of stability through repression. Legislative elections are scheduled for early March. Leaders of the reformist Green movement are threatening to boycott the ballot, but there will still be a closely fought contest between the more religious and secularist wings of the regime. Both this election and the presidential vote next year could well become occasions for public demonstrations of the sort that threatened the regime three years ago and have since toppled several Middle East governments. Iran is on the brink of losing its only real ally, Syria, as President Bashir al-Assad looks as if he could be the next Arab dictator to fall. Tightening international sanctions are slowing Iran’s nuclear program while limiting its ability to project power. Saudi Arabia, Iran’s principal regional rival, is leading the other Gulf states in an ever more explicit anti-Iranian coalition. The United States is strengthening its military and political ties with several of these states. Iran’s leaders have watched U.S. forces topple Saddam Hussein and the Taliban with relative ease and NATO help do the same with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in Libya; Iran’s antiquated conventional forces are no match for the U.S. military. And the Iranian regime believes that the United States remains committed to a policy of regime change, even though Washington might not presently have the appetite for a new military intervention. Racist Surveillance Kritik AFFNo LinkNo Link—Not RacistThe plan is the opposite of structural racism—it puts the impetus on affluent whites to care about an issue that doesn’t directly affect themAngelina Chapin, Writer for the Huffington Post, May 20, 2014, "Don't Care About Surveillance? You're Probably White and Middle Class," Huffington Post, May 26, 2015, 'll admit it: I have to force myself to care about government surveillance. Intellectually, I get why it's important. The growing power imbalance between government and citizen is messed up. The databases are potential cesspools of discrimination. We'd live in a better world if corporations didn't turn over our private information just because the feds asked. Emotionally, I become more outraged when avocados aren't ripe at the Superstore. My reaction is no anomaly. A study by Canadian Journalists for Free Expression and Nanos found 60 per cent of Canadians would do nothing "if they suspected the government was spying on them." And we know it is. The most recent revelations about Canadian surveillance should keep us up at night. Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) used airport WiFi to track Canadian travellers. At least one telecom company allowed the government to CC itself on our emails and the NSA, the lovely U.S. government agency that can listen to phone calls and collect Americans' Internet activity without court approval, is a big ol' sugar mama to Canada's spy program. And that's just what we know (my friend reading Glenn Greenwald's book is now full-on paranoid). Yet you'll still hear educated people use "I've got nothing to hide," to explain their apathy. What that really means is "I'm too privileged to be a target." Low-income people and minorities are already caught in a surveillance tsunami. Sociologists say that unless you're a tech aficionado, it's hard to care about government spying that doesn't affect your daily life. For most white, middle-class people, data gathering seems abstract. We can't see it happen and the only manifestation is a targeted ad on our Gmail that we might dismiss with a "well, that's creepy." For poor people, surveillance is an everyday reality.No Link—Privacy Good > RacismPrivacy matters—NSA and other surveillance erodes the value of basics rights like privacy. It is something everyone should have, even in the context of offensive racist comments Jeff Jacoby, Writer for the Boston Globe, April 30, 2014, “Donald Sterling’s words were vulgar, but private,” Boston Globe, Accessed May 28, 2015, course any decent person should be disgusted by the gross things Sterling allegedly said to the girlfriend. But as former NBA star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar wrote on Monday: “Shouldn’t we be equally angered by the fact that his private, intimate conversation was taped and then leaked to the media? Didn’t we just call to task the NSA for intruding into American citizens’ privacy in such an un-American way?” There is good reason why it is illegal in many states (including California and Massachusetts) to surreptitiously record a private conversation, just as there is a good reason for the traditional common-law privilege that protects certain kinds of confidential communication — like that between husband/wife, priest/penitent, or attorney/client — from being disclosed unwillingly in court. They reflect a value critical to a free society: Private lives and private thoughts aren’t supposed to be everyone’s business. But everywhere today that value is being eroded by the intrusions modern technology makes possible. It is becoming harder than ever to be sure anything you say or do is being said or done in true privacy. Creeps with cellphone cameras take “upskirt” photos. Intimate encounters end up on YouTube. Tens of thousands of surveillance cameras combine with ever-more-sophisticated facial-recognition software, and the upshot is that no matter where you go, you’re on candid camera. And websites like TMZ encourage the exploitation of personal embarrassments for public entertainment. Prudent politicians must assume that everything they say is being recorded and may be used against them. Presidential candidates no longer have the luxury of speaking in privacy to groups of supporters, a lesson learned by Barack Obama from his “bitter clingers” experience in 2008, and by Mitt Romney when his “47 percent” remarks were secretly taped and disseminated. Louisiana Representative Vance McAllister announced on Monday that he would not run for reelection after a security surveillance camera showed him kissing a married female staffer, and someone leaked the video to a local newspaper. Do you bear in mind at all times that your words, actions, and whereabouts are being captured for posterity on security cameras? None of this is meant in defense of Sterling’s bigotry or congressional hanky-panky or any other dishonest activity. It is meant as a reminder that it isn’t only other people’s dirty laundry that the whole world can get a good look at. It is yours and mine, too. Once our privacy is gone, don’t count on getting it back.No Link—Privacy Good > RacismRacism doesn’t trump privacy, it’s a foundational right not to be needlessly surveilled by the government Peter Scheer, Writer for the First Amendment Association, April 30, 2014, “Donald Sterling may be a racist, but denial of his rights (to privacy and free speech) devalues those rights for all citizens,” First Amendment Association, Accessed May 28, 2015, to the surreptitiously-recorded conversation between octogenarian Donald Sterling and his much younger girlfriend, I felt doubly sickened: first, by the casual racism of Sterling’s comments; and second, by my own participation in an invasion of privacy on a truly massive scale. We are experiencing viral voyeurism. I can’t figure out, and don’t much care, why Sterling repeatedly pressed his girlfriend to end her association–on Instagram and in public–with black men. His words were bizarre, pathetic and, yes, plainly racist. But I was even more troubled by the coerced exposing, over the internet, of a couple’s most private, even intimate, conversations—and the resulting punishment of Sterling, including banning him from the league, a $2.5 million fine, and the destruction of his reputation–all at a speed that makes Taliban tribunals look like models of due process. That Sterling may be deserving of such mistreatment is beside the point. The point is that We, the People, are not deserving of Stirling’s mistreatment. If the rules of fundamental decency, privacy and fairness can be suaispended for Sterling, they can be suspended for all of us. The line between mob justice and the rule of law is fine—all the more so when the “mob” consists of millions of people, many of them anonymous, linked in a network of instantaneous, mass communication.No Link—Privacy Good > RacismCombating racism is important, but privacy must be upheld as well. Surveillance is a threat to foundational rights Gad Saad, Ph.D. in Psychology, April 30, 2014, “Donald Sterling: Do Racists Have a Right to Privacy?,” Psychology Today, Accessed May 28, 2015, us push the dangers of the “racism” police to its Orwellian conclusion. Suppose that in a not-too-distant future, we’ll be able to use a mind-reading machine, the Readtronic 2000, to capture each one of your fleeting thoughts. This would be a world where our most intimate sanctuary, namely our private thoughts and personhood, would no longer be safe from public scrutiny. Would this be a good thing, as it would allow us to identify and punish all bigots and racists? Beware of what you think or what you say: I have my iPhone and my Readtronic 2000 with me and I’ll use them to ruin you! To those readers who might be tempted to willfully misinterpret my position, let me be clear yet again. Mr. Sterling’s hateful bigotry is shameful and unbecoming of any member of a civilized society. My focus is on the unsavory and frankly eerie manner in which his racist views were garnered, namely via a private conversation. As a final thought, I wonder about the societal ramifications of levying financial punishments to anyone who utters racist views. It can get quite messy rather quickly. I trust then that the "proper governing authorities" would identify all organizations that are in the business of spewing anti-semitic hatred and bankrupt them accordingly? To not do so would be well anti-semitic no?Link TurnsLink Turn—Surveillance is Racist—Arabs/ MuslimsThe plan rolls back the government’s ability to racially target Laura W. Murphy, Director, ACLU Washington Legislative Office, July 9, 2014, “What’s the Government Doing Targeting Civil Rights Leaders?,” ACLU, Accessed May 28, 2015, NSA and FBI are targeting prominent American Muslims, including civil rights activists, academics, and a former government official, we learned in a troubling report released last night. Their emails have been stored, their movements have been monitored, and their relationships have been tracked. No detail has proved too remote for the prying eyes of the NSA and FBI. None have been charged with any criminal or terrorist activity, and because of the excessive secrecy of the government’s surveillance laws, the government doesn’t have to explain itself. Anyone who reads the report can’t help but worry that the government is engaging in highly invasive and personal surveillance based on activism, religion, and political belief. The story raises profound questions about the surveillance authorities of the government, including its ability to selectively target a political, ethnic, or religious group. In this case, it’s American Muslims. But we already know that the FBI is engaging in a much more expansive racial and ethnic mapping program that should worry us all. We’ve been here before. In the 1960s and 70s, civil rights organizations, activists, and minority communities were surveilled and monitored simply because their views differed from the government’s. Constitutionally protected activity had become a shibboleth. What’s going on today is reminiscent of that time. Innocent American Muslims and South Asian Americans have been repeatedly scrutinized and stigmatized ever since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. And since that time, racial profiling at the borders, the airports and in the criminal justice system has gotten worse for Latinos, Asians, African Americans, and other people of color. The Council for American Islamic Relations, for example, is the largest Muslim civil rights organization in the United States. Why is Nihad Awad, their executive director who was profiled in the report, being monitored and tracked? Discriminatory surveillance chills free speech, the right to associate freely, and religious expression.Link Turn—Surveillance is Racist—Arabs/ MuslimsGovernment surveillance is racist against Muslims and Arbas, they are disproportionately targeted for no other reason than their identity Natasha Lennard, Writer for Vice, July 9, 2014, “The NSA’s Racist Targeting of Individuals Is as Troubling as Indiscriminate Surveillance,” Vice, Accessed May 28, 2015, is anti-Muslim discrimination pure and simple. While the NSA’s broad data collection is disturbingly total and unspecific, its targeted spying is evidently racist. Another leaked document punctuates this point with a dull, disgusting thud: a 2005 training document explaining how to “properly format internal memos to justify FISA surveillance” offers a sample memo that uses “Mohammed Raghead” as the name of a fictitious terrorism suspect. Your NSA at work, ladies and gentlemen! As the existence of this document makes clear, legality is a tortured issue at the heart national security misdeeds. NSA agents are trained to ensure that their surveillance practices fall within the letter of the law — and the law here is at fault, shaped not by a spirit of justice but by surveillance-state paranoia. The Intercept report does not skirt around this point: Indeed, the government’s ability to monitor such high-profile Muslim-Americans — with or without warrants — suggests that the most alarming and invasive aspects of the NSA’s surveillance occur not because the agency breaks the law, but because it is able to exploit the law’s permissive contours. “The scandal is what Congress has made legal,” says Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU deputy legal director. “The claim that the intelligence agencies are complying with the laws is just a distraction from more urgent questions relating to the breadth of the laws themselves.” This latest Snowden leak adds a new dimension to the troubling stream of NSA revelations, illuminating an even more insidious aspect of the government’s surveillance practices. We know that through dragnet data hoarding programs like PRISM we are all always-already potential suspects. We are all watched. But who falls under the NSA microscope? Who gets to be the needles in the haystack, the targeting of which provides the official justification of total surveillance? Who gets to be “Mohammed Raghead”? Well, that’s top-secret government business. Don’t worry, though — it’s legal.Link Turn—A/T “New Surveillance State”While it’s true that surveillance isn’t new, we can create a broad anti-surveillance coalition that recognizes the surveillance state is a universal threat to us all Ryan Cooper, National correspondent at , March 14, 2014, “How to bridge the racial divide on government surveillance,” The Week, Accessed May 28, 2015, the Snowden revelations, the anti-surveillance community, which like the tech community broadly is largely white and male, has taken to citing J. Edgar Hoover's vicious harassment of Martin Luther King as an example of why unrestrained surveillance is wrong. Dragnet surveillance inevitably means abuse, which always falls disproportionately on the groups in society with the least power and influence. To many civil liberties activists, this history suggests that minority communities ought to be natural members of the anti-surveillance coalition. It's in their interest, right? But this has not exactly come to fruition. When the Snowden stories first came out, 60 percent of both blacks and Hispanics supported the NSA programs. Though support has since fallen sharply, African Americans remain the most pro-NSA major ethnicity. Why is that? I found this post by @prisonculture quite helpful in articulating why things haven't developed as one might have expected: The outcry against mass incarceration and stop and frisk is still overwhelmingly confined to people of color and other marginalized communities like LGBTQ individuals. Yet even in those communities, many have become inured to the routine violations of rights and liberties. In order to have an elusive sense of "safety," we are told by politicians and law enforcement that these practices are necessary and that they are in fact "color-blind." We mostly swallow their propaganda. It doesn't matter that incarceration and intense policing & surveillance are actually decimating black communities. Black people know that the state and its gatekeepers exert their control over all aspects of our lives. So when we mention that the NSA surveillance regime isn't new to us, the appropriate response is not to mock, ridicule, belittle and berate. No. The response that conveys solidarity and a desire to partner is to say: "Yes that's true and while I may have been personally concerned about these issues, I am sorry that more of my peers haven't been outraged for years. How can we work together to dismantle the surveillance state that harms us all?" [US Prison Culture] Or, as a reader of Andrew Sullivan's put it with respect to marijuana legalization, minorities are victimized by the state across the board. Abuse by Hoover, or wildly disproportionate rates of arrest for marijuana use, is merely part of a general pattern of oppression: African-American marijuana users aren't being arrested at higher levels. African-Americans in general are being arrested at higher levels for everything than their white counterparts. The weed is just along for the ride. [The Dish] The point is well-taken. But despite the cultural disconnect between the techbros and minority communities, I believe it is still true that minority communities will indeed be disproportionately abused by state surveillance, whether it's the NSA, the FBI, or local police who are doing the watching. There are examples more recent than Hoover to buttress that claim: witness the utterly ineffective NYPD dragnet, which ignored Wall Street money laundering while targeting innocent Muslim shopkeepers.Link Turn—Surveillance is RacistThe plan is an essential step to preventing abuses against minority populations—surveillance targets these communities and strips them of rights and privacy Irasema Garza, J.D., Policy Advisor, NCLR Policy Analysis Center, April 9, 2014, “I Have Nothing to Hide: Government Surveillance Does Not Concern Me,” Huffington Post, Accessed May 28, 2015, that crime prevention is justification for government surveillance, I wonder how many people in the " I have nothing to hide" category would feel differently if instead of unwarranted Internet or phone surveillance, police officers routinely looked into people's homes through unobstructed windows and opened doors as a way of monitoring criminal activity? What if police routinely entered homes to make sure no criminal activity was taking place? What if this practice was more common in Latino and Black neighborhoods? Most of us would find this type of unwarranted government behavior unacceptable, unconstitutional, and un-American. Yet, electronic government surveillance is as intrusive, and the criterion used to justify it just as broad. Electronic spying is simply a far more efficient way for our government to keep tabs on millions of people. But, unlike the hypothetical above where Fourth Amendment protections apply, the laws protecting Americans from electronic government spying have not kept up with the pace of technology and are weak at best. Weak regulatory oversight coupled with technology that facilitates the secret collection of detailed information about a person or group should concern all Americans, but particularly Latinos, Blacks, and other vulnerable populations. Racial profiling remains a persistent challenge in minority communities, and high-tech surveillance heightens the risk of law enforcement discriminatory practices. Most of us don't have anything to hide from the government, but we should all be concerned about the potential harm of a government monitoring us for slip-ups, or for who we associate with. To be clear, law enforcement should be able to use technology that can help prevent terrorism and other crimes, but legal and regulatory safeguards are needed to protect against constitutional violations. Unregulated mass government surveillance of Americans runs counter to the values of a democracy and a country founded on the principles of liberty and freedom from government tyranny.Link Turn—Surveillance is RacistThe plan is a crucial reform of surveillance—surveillance targets the most vulnerable communities Nadia Kayyali, Activist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, February 13, 2014, “The History of Surveillance and the Black Community,” Electronic Frontier Foundation, Accessed May 26, 2015, FBI was not alone in targeting civil rights leaders. The NSA also engaged in domestic spying that included Dr. King. In an eerily prescient statement, Senator Walter Mondale said he was concerned that the NSA “could be used by President 'A' in the future to spy upon the American people, to chill and interrupt political dissent.” The Church Committee was created in response to these and other public scandals, and was charged with getting to the bottom of the government's surveillance overreach. In response to its findings, Congress passed new laws to provide privacy safeguards, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But ever since these safeguards were put in place, the intelligence community has tried to weaken or operate around them. The NSA revelations show the urgent need to reform the laws governing surveillance and to rein in the intelligence community. Today we’re responding to those domestic surveillance abuses by an unrestrained intelligence branch. The overreach we’ve seen in the past underscores the need for reform. Especially during Black History Month, let’s not forget the speech-stifling history of US government spying that has targeted communities of color. Link Turn—Civil Liberties KeyCivil liberties are foundational—the plan supports fundamental rights that are more essential than terrorist attacksHarlan Ullman, Writer for United Press International (UPI), October 14, 2014, “Recurring terrorist nightmares,” UPI, Accessed May 28, 2015, the second anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1919 and in January 1920, Palmer struck with the so-called Palmer raids. Tens of thousands were arrested or detained without due process under the Sedition Act. And the country grew more fearful. Several hundred anarchists were eventually deported to Russia aboard a Navy warship. But none of the perpetrators of the bombings were ever identified or convicted. Yet that period, long forgotten, was the first instance of how a terror gripped nation provoked massive intrusion on individual liberties and civil rights, the largest intrusion ever since the Civil War. Could terrorists launch simultaneous massive attacks against public places such as stadia, malls, railway stations and airports? The answer is yes. Should government then be doing more to warn the nation about such contingencies? Or, without good intelligence and reliable evidence of specific plans for attacks, would such warnings do more harm than good? These are profoundly perplexing questions. Any answer has benefits and downsides, most unpredictable. But this is the shape of things to come. And even more vulnerable and potentially more damaging targets are present. Cyber attacks against financial institutions, credit cards and individual bank accounts are not only coming. They are here. Some attacks are simply hackers doing this for sport. More sinister is organized crime that is stealing billions through cyber attacks. Obviously, IS and other terrorist organizations have the potential ability to carry out a full range of financially directed cyber attacks. Other cyber attacks such as those directed against Iranian centrifuges can be physically disabling. Power grids, telecommunications centers and other key infrastructure assets are highly vulnerable to and can be incapacitated by cyber attack. How much should the public worry? All societies have frailties that can become vulnerabilities. Terrorist attacks can target them much as al-Qaida took down the Twin Towers. Two conclusions are important. First, the nation is resilient and should never panic even if these types of terrorist attacks are launched. Second, civil liberties are vital. A repeat of the Palmer Raids of 1919 and 1920 would do far more damage to the nation than any terrorist attacks. A return to that time would be the worst form of terror.Other TurnsTurn—Victimization Too often black people are told they are being oppressed and held back by the system—though oppression exists, the K exploits a victim mentality that prevents true black achievement Grace Marguerite Williams, Human rights specialist with degrees in sociology, history, and business administration, March 28, 2015, “The Victim Mentality of Black Americans,” Hub Pages, Accessed May 28, 2015, is a cry of many Black Americans that, "We have not yet reached the Promised Land." and "When will we reach our Promised Land." Guess what? This is the 21st century and those mantras are tired and worn out. We Black Americans must create our Promised Land through high intellectual and academic achievement in addition to a prodigious work ethic. Sadly, many Black Americans believe that they need a savior to help them to achieve educational and socioeconomic parity. I heard that many Black Americans state that they voted for Barack Obama to be President of the United States solely because he is Black. A lot of Black Americans pinned all of their hopes and dreams on President Obama, praying and hoping that he would get them out of a hopelessly dire socioeconomic situation and into a more affluent lifestyle. Now many Black Americans are displeased with President Obama because they believed that he did not create for them the housing and jobs that he promised that he would create. Many Black Americans contend that they are blameless for the educational and socioeconomic morass they are in. This belief and ideology are not only prevalent among lower socioeconomic classes of Black Americans but also among a few middle and upper middle socioeconomic classes of Black Americans. For example, one maternal cousin once removed, who has a Master's Degree in Psychology and is in a high-level administrative position, steadfastly maintain that "the man" is holding "us brother/sisters back". Every Saturday morning in my area(Harlem) without fail, in a park opposite that of my apartment complex, there are a group of Black Americans led by the Reverend Al Sharpton shouting repeatedly, " No justice, no peace!" as if only doing this will obtain them quality education, housing, and job equality. Many Black Americans want to be rescued. It seems that they are waiting for a Great Savior to come to Earth and make everything copacetic. Each time I go into the African-American section of Barnes & Nobles and any other book store, 75% of the books regarding the Black American cultural experience are about Black victimology and 25% of the books are about Black achievement, excellence, and self-empowerment. Many of the subjects pertaining to Black American culture on some Black-made DVDs and CDs stress Black victimology and how we are oppressed by the enemy. Seldom do I find any Black-made DVDs and CDs stressing Black education, achievement, empowerment and how to be socioeconomically successful. Finding a book on Black American culture that is not imbued with the victimization mentality is analogous to finding a needle in a haystack.Turn—Victimization We shouldn’t blame structural racism for problems in the black community, the criticism perpetuates a victim mentality that prevents material conditions from improving Patricia L. Dickson, Writer and MA in Business Administration/ Psychology, September 30, 2014, "Poverty in the Black Community is the Result of Culture, Not Racism," Stubborn Things, Accessed May 26, 2015, of the things that individuals are taught comes from the culture in which they were raised, whether it be work ethic, habits, or beliefs. Growing up in the South, my parents could not afford to buy me designer clothes and shoes. After joining the military, I purchased my first pair of designer sneakers and wore them home on my first leave after boot camp and job training. My older male cousin looked down at my sneakers and asked me what I was doing wearing them. He said that black people were not supposed to wear those type of shoes. It has been over 26 years since he made that statement and I remember it just like it was yesterday. He had been programmed by the culture that he was raised in to think that even if you have the money to purchase something, you were not supposed to have it. I often talk with successful blacks who think that they do not deserve what they have. One black male friend that lives in an affluent neighborhood told me that when he and his family are walking around in the town center, he feels that he is not supposed to be there. Until the black community looks inward to solve its problems, nothing will change. Many problems in the black community are the result of a self-imposed inferiority complex. That is why it infuriates me so much to hear race baiters telling poor blacks that they are victims. The victim mindset causes complacency and impotence of action in an individual. One reason that the black community has regressed instead of progressed is due to the victim mindset that has caused cognitive blindness and mental paralysis. Blacks cannot continue to blame society for how blacks Americans are perceived. The black community must examine its culture and its effect on the lives of the individuals in the black community.Turn—VictimizationThe criticism perpetuates a victim mentality that locks the black community into Alan Caruba, Writer for the Tea Party News Network, August 17, 2014, “Victim Mentality Afflicts Black Americans,” TPNN, Accessed May 28, 2015, amidst these events is the fact that black men are more likely to be murdered by other black men, fully 94 percent of such deaths, despite the fact that blacks are 13 percent of the population. They account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims in America, some 7,000 annually. Commentator, Juan Williams, in his book “Enough”, wrote “Very few leading black voices in the pulpit or on the political stage are focused on having black people take personal responsibility for the exorbitant amount of crime committed by black people against other black people. Today’s black leaders sing like a choir when they raise their voices against police brutality and the increasing number of black people in jail…but any mention of black American’s responsibility for committing the crimes, big and small, that lead so many to prison is barely mumbled if mentioned at all.” That puts the latest riots in Ferguson in perspective and is an indictment of men like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and others who have profited from keeping blacks in a mental state of victimization when the real problem of too many in the black community is rooted in a culture of violence and criminality. The statistics do not lie.Turn—Progress DenialEven though much still needs to be done, ignoring racial progress in the US prevents future progress from occuringZach Noble, Assistant editor for The Blaze, December 21, 2014, “If America Is So Racist, ‘Why Bother Even Working On It?’: Obama Chastises Racial Critics,” The Blaze, Accessed May 28, 2015, Barack Obama had a message for the racial discontents of America: Don’t ignore how far we’ve come. Asked by CNN’s Candy Crowley about issues of race and policing in America in a Sunday morning interview, Obama acknowledged that with his mixed racial heritage, he occupies a fairly unique place in American race relations, and he said that, while he empathizes with those outraged over the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, some protesters are ignoring the real progress that has been made in the U.S. — and that omission is damaging. “There’s no reason for folks to be patient [on improving racial issues],” Obama said. “I’m impatient.” But, Obama said progress hinges on honesty: I think an unwillingness to acknowledge that progress has been made [in race relations] cuts off the possibility of further progress. If critics want to suggest that America is inherently and irreducibly racist, then why bother even working on it? I’ve seen change in my own life, so has this country. And those who will deny that I think actually foreclose the possibility of further progress rather than advancing it. He also addressed American policing, saying: When you look at what’s happened in law enforcement across the country over the last several years, that’s not news to African-Americans. What’s different is simply that some of it is now videotaped and people see it. And the question then becomes, you know, what practical steps can we take to solve this problem. I believe that the overwhelming majority of white americans, as well as African Americans, want to see this problem solved. So I have confidence that by surfacing these issues, we’re going to be able to make progress on them.Perms SolvePerm Solves—Surveillance Specific Legal reforms in the context of surveillance are key, they are a part of overall reforms that root out policies that target minority communities Michele L. Jawando, Vice President for Legal Progress at American Progress, and Chelsea Parsons, Vice President of Guns and Crime Policy at American Progress, December 18, 2014, “4 Ideas That Could Begin to Reform the Criminal Justice System and Improve Police-Community Relations,” American Progress, Accessed May 28, 2015, are excellent steps, but they are not a panacea. More must be done to implement new innovations in policing and other aspects of the justice system that will improve police accountability and reduce the degree to which the harshest aspects of criminal justice fall disproportionately on communities of color. The United States needs to embrace a smarter approach to criminal justice that recognizes that the propensity to focus on race is not the answer to create safe communities. The failure to ensure that our judicial and legal systems treat all Americans equally has divided too many of our communities. We must give voice to the legitimate and widespread concerns about trust in the criminal justice process. As Americans, we have a responsibility to build inclusive communities where families thrive and where compassion, not fear, is the core value. This issue brief offers four ideas to reform the criminal justice system, including improved police training; data collection and accountability; repairing the fractured relationship between police and community; and, in instances where lives are taken, the promise of a diligent, independent, and thorough investigation and prosecution, when appropriate. This is certainly not intended as a final assessment of what needs to be done to reform policing and the criminal justice system in the United States, but rather as an opening salvo in an ongoing conversation about crime and justice in this country.Perm Solves—Legal Reforms Good—Race Racial inequality in the law proves the need for reform, historical failures don’t justify abandoning the law. Doing both solves best Vernellia R. Randall, Professor of Law The University of Dayton School of Law, May 4, 2015, “Eliminating Racial Discrimination in Health Care: A Call for State HealthCare Anti-discrimination Law,” , Accessed May 27, 2015, might be that civil rights laws often go unenforced; it might be that current inequities spring from past prejudice and long standing economic differences that are not entirely reachable by law; or it might be that the law sometimes fails to reflect, and consequently fails to correct, the barriers faced by people of color. --Derrick Bell. Equal access to quality health care is a crucial issue facing the United States (US). For too long, we have denied too many Americans equal access to quality health care based on race, ethnicity, and gender. Many factors contribute to inequities: cultural incompetence of health care providers, socioeconomic inequities, disparate impact of facially neutral practices and policies, inadequacy of civil rights laws and enforcement, and multiple forms of discrimination. These inequities exist in health status, access to health care services, participation in health research and receipt of health care financing. This inequity in health care is doubly significant given the devastating racial inequity in health status that exists. The combination of racial inequity in health status, institutional racism in health care and inadequate legal protection points to a need for a major civil rights law for health care.Perm Solves—Legal Reforms Good—Race Racism must be undone socially and legislatively—the permutation is the best option Denise Oliver Velez, Cultural anthropologist, activist, and Black Panther member, May 24, 2015, “How did you begin to unlearn racism?,” Daily Kos, Accessed May 28, 2015, the Overpass Light Brigade brought the message of "Unlearn Racism" to Milwaukee, they held up lights on a subject that we are confronted with daily, but are not always sure how to address as individuals. We know that anthropologists and other scientists have made it clear for years that biological "race" exists as only a social construct, but that "racism" is alive and well and none of us are unaffected by the miasma from the racial swamp we breathe in daily. So many of our efforts are focusing on protesting the more obvious deleterious effects of systemic racism—via protests and legislation—that we don't always have time to have a conversation about what to do about it, person by person. This is what Ricky Sherover-Marcuse called "attitudinal racism." Because racism is both institutional and attitudinal, effective strategies against it must recognize this dual character. The undoing of institutionalized racism must be accompanied by the unlearning of racists attitudes and beliefs. The unlearning of racists patterns of thought and action must guide the practice of political and social change.Perm Solves—Legal Reforms Good—Police ViolenceDespite problems, legal reforms are key to curb violence in minority communities Nicole Flatow, Senior Editor for Think Progress, September 11, 2014, “What Has Changed About Police Brutality In America, From Rodney King To Michael Brown,” Think Progress, Accessed May 28, 2015, Diallo. Rodney King. Timothy Thomas. Looking at where we are today in the weeks after the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, it can feel like nothing has changed in the way we police the police. Many things haven’t. Juries acquitted police. Cops got their jobs back. And brutality happened again. Some things have gotten worse. Like police militarization. But some things have gotten better, or are still moving toward reform in the wake of a prominent brutality incident. A history of these incidents reveals that some major recent police reforms got their start after highly publicized episodes of police violence. But it was only after years or decades and dogged, persistent community-building that some progress started to manifest.Perm Solves—Legal Reforms Good—Policies The permutation includes black participation in the political process which makes better progressive policies Sean McElwee, Research associate at Demos, October 30, 2014, “Black people, white government,” Al Jazeera America, Accessed May 28, 2015, are also important effects on turnout. Amir Fairdosi and Jon Rogowksi found that a black Democratic candidate on the ballot in a midterm boosts black turnout. (There is not an equivalent boost for a black Republican.) Lawrence Bobo and Franklin Gilliamfound that in areas with high levels of black political empowerment, such as having a black mayor, black political participation is higher. This conclusion has support from other studies, and the political effects of greater minority participation are substantial: A large body of research shows that a shift in the electorate turning out to vote will shift politicians’ voting preferences. When people of color become more involved in the political process, it creates a positive cycle that can bring about beneficial policies. Impact DefensePolice Violence The biggest problem facing the black community is not police violence but internal violent crimes—police presence is key to addressing the issue John Lott, President of the Crime Prevention Center, August 22, 2014, “Violent Crime, Not Police Abuse, Is The Real Threat To Black Americans,” The Daily Caller, Accessed May 28, 2015, feelings don’t come out of thin air. Black people have legitimate historical grievances over how they have been treated by police. But today the main problem facing the black community is black-on-black crime. Many black people have their lives disrupted by the criminal justice system, but the lives and property of many blacks are also protected by that same system. The average black person is 6.5 times more likely to be murdered than the average white person. But the police aren’t the ones killing blacks. Over nine out of every ten black people who were murdered were murdered by other black people. The claims of current discrimination by police are weak. Take NBC’s Meet the Press this past Sunday, Andrea Mitchell claimed she had proof of racism in Ferguson’s law enforcement: “I think with a 67 percent African American community here, Wesley, and 83 percent is the arrest rate and incarceration rate is 93 percent African American, which shows you are targeting blacks.” Unfortunately, as just noted, blacks generally commit crimes at higher rates than other groups. Indeed, if blacks in Ferguson were to commit murders at thesame per capita rate that blacks do nationally they would make up 94.2 percent of those incarcerated. If we want to protect blacks, we need more police, not fewer, in black communities. But that will mean even higher arrest rates for blacks. The question is whether we want to protect black victims or black criminals. With these murders heavily involving drug gangs, radical solutions that would take the profits out of drug gangs should be considered, including possibly legalizing drugs.Police ViolencePolice violence isn’t increasing—we just have more media coverage now Eliott C. McLaughlin, writer, producer, field reporter and blogger for CNN, April 21, 2015, “We're not seeing more police shootings, just more news coverage,” CNN, Accessed May28, 2015, feels like every week, a name is added to the list: another man, often black and unarmed, has died at the hands of police. Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Jason Harrison, Walter Scott, Eric Harris, Freddie Gray, to name a few. The headlines make it feel as if the country is experiencing an unprecedented wave of police violence, but experts say that isn't the case. We're just seeing more mainstream media coverage, and for a variety of reasons.Police ViolenceThe police are not out to get black people, it’s a complicated issue that’s more complex than just “the police are racist” The Missing Niche, Online commentary about culture and current events, August 14, 2014, “Not Everything You Read About The Police Is True,” The Missing Niche, Accessed May 28, 2015, can’t take away the human factor of the job. People fear the police. Guess what? The police also have fear – every time they put on the uniform. Every time they see another officer shot at, hit by a car, or beaten. Yes, they get beaten while working. They are humans, nothing more or less. They have fear and bias, they also have love and humor. Each position holds its own hazards, the police are in the unfortunate position of interacting in ways which sometimes require force. A police officer can take a life as easily as another citizen. More people are killed by civilians each year than by police. Think about that. If the police were truly abusing their power, wouldn’t there be more casualties? The relationship the public has with the police is a complicated and emotional one, but I truly believe it goes much deeper than race. I’m not sure what lessons will come out of Ferguson, but I hope that they are used to close the gap between the general public and the American police force. It’s time we started working together, not against each other.Prison Population DecreasingPrison population is on the decline nowLisa Riordan Seville, Writer for NBC News, September 23, 2014, “Federal Prison Population Declines for First Time in Decades,” NBC News, Accessed May 28, 2015, federal prison population has declined for the first time in 34 years as a result of the U.S. Justice Department's effort to become less dependent on incarceration as the primary approach to reducing crime, Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday. Speaking at a criminal justice conference hosted by New York University's Brennan Center for Justice, Holder said the total federal prison population had dipped by about 4,800 prisoners from last year, to a total of 215,000. That is the first annual decline in the number of federal inmates since 1980, according to Justice Department statistics, about the time when longer mandatory sentences, particularly for drug offenses, began increasing the incarceration rate. He said new projections from the federal Bureau of Prisons indicate the trend will continue, with decreases of 2,000 inmates projected for 2015 and 10,000 - the equivalent of six fully filled federal prisons - the following year.Poverty DecreasingPoverty rates are declining in the US—even though more must be done, it’s progress Dan Kedmey, Writer for Time Magazine, September 16, 2014, “The Poverty Rate Just Declined for the First Time Since 2006,” Time, Accessed May 28, 2015, percentage of Americans living in poverty declined year-over-year for the first time since 2006 last year, according to a report released Tuesday by the United States Census Bureau. 45.3 million Americans, or 14.5% of the population, lived below the poverty line in 2013, down from 15% in 2012. The percentage of children under the age of 18 living in poverty declined to 19.9% in 2013, down from 21.8% the preceding year. It was the first recorded drop in childhood poverty since 2000.Education IncreasingGraduation rates for black students are increasing nowUS Department of Education, US agency in charge of education, March 16, 2015, “Achievement Gap Narrows as High School Graduation Rates for Minority Students Improve Faster than Rest of Nation,” US Dept Edu, Accessed May 28, 2015, rates for black and Hispanic students increased by nearly 4 percentage points from 2011 to 2013, outpacing the growth for all students in the nation, according to new data from the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics. What’s more, the gap between white students and black and Hispanic students receiving high school diplomas narrowed over that time, the data show. “The hard work of America’s educators, families, communities and students is paying off. This is a vital step toward readiness for success in college and careers for every student in this country,” U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said. “While these gains are promising, we know that we have a long way to go in improving educational opportunities for every student – no matter their zip code - for the sake of our young people and our nation’s economic strength.”Racism DecreasingSome progress is still progress—though much needs to be done, racism is decreasing in America Christopher Ingraham, Reporter for the Washington Post, December 1, 2014, “Chris Rock is right: White Americans are a lot less racist than they used to be,” Washington Post, Accessed May 28, 2015, Rock wants you to stop talking about "black progress," and consider "white progress" instead. In an interview with Frank Rich of Vulture, he says "to say that black people have made progress would be to say they deserve what happened to them before." He goes on: So, to say Obama is progress is saying that he’s the first black person that is qualified to be president. That’s not black progress. That’s white progress. There’s been black people qualified to be president for hundreds of years... The question is, you know, my kids are smart, educated, beautiful, polite children. There have been smart, educated, beautiful, polite black children for hundreds of years. The advantage that my children have is that my children are encountering the nicest white people that America has ever produced. Let’s hope America keeps producing nicer white people. Those last two sentences are at once sad, hilarious and quantifiably true. If Barack Obama had been born fifty years earlier, for instance, he would literally have had zero chance of becoming president - in 1958, only 38 percent of Americans said they would vote for a black presidential candidate, according to Gallup. By 2012, that number was 96 percent. That 58 percentage point change didn't happen because blacks somehow became smarter and more qualified relative to whites during that period, but rather because many -- although by no means all -- white Americans abandoned the overt prejudices that kept talented blacks from getting ahead. The General Social Survey, a massive public opinion poll conducted since 1972, documents some of these changes in white attitudes. In 1972, for instance, nearly two-thirds of whites said homeowners should be able to discriminate against blacks when selling their homes. That number fell to 28 percent by 2008.Racism DecreasingRacial progress tends to happen in small incremental steps—it’s frustratingly slow, but progress is happening NBC News, American news organization, December 7, 2014, “Obama on Racism in U.S.: 'Things Are Better',” NBC News, Accessed May 28, 2015, Barack Obama is prescribing time and vigilance to tackle problems as entrenched in American society as racism and bias. He also is urging patience, saying progress usually comes in small steps. In an interview with BET, the president described his conversation with a group of young civil rights activists, including a leader of protests in Ferguson, Missouri, he hosted last week in the Oval Office. Obama said he told them that "this is something that is deeply rooted in our society, it's deeply rooted in our history." America has made gains, and that "gives us hope" of making more progress, he said. "We can't equate what is happening now to what was happening 50 years ago," Obama said, "and if you talk to your parents, grandparents, uncles, they'll tell you that things are better, not good in some places, but better." Obama said he is advising young people to be persistent because "typically progress is in steps, it's in increments." In dealing with something "as deeply rooted as racism or bias in any society, you've got to have vigilance but you have to recognize that it's going to take some time and you just have to be steady so that you don't give up when you don't get all the way there," Obama said.Racism DecreasingOptimism in the context of race is key—we’re making slow progress. Even if the system is inevitably doomed, the struggle for reform is justified Jamelle Bouie, Slate staff writer covering politics, policy, and race, December 31, 2014, “Why I Am Optimistic About the Future of Race Relations in America,” Slate, Accessed May 28, 2015, again, you could say the same of America in the 1950s. Blacks won major victories, but an end to Jim Crow—much less attempts to ameliorate its effects—seemed far on the horizon. By the end of the 1960s, however, we had outlawed segregation, gained voting rights, outlawed housing discrimination, and oriented the entire federal government toward securing opportunity for black Americans. Yes, there were fierce reactions from the right, and many of the policies and gains have been compromised or—in criminal justice—actively undermined. But even at the height of the post-civil rights backlash, in the conservative jubilee of the Reagan years, there was no question that blacks were better off. This isn’t the soft bigotry of low expectations—it’s meaningful change. The black struggle for equal rights—for full partnership in the American experiment—obviously isn’t over. The proof is everywhere, from an unfair criminal justice system to an economy that discards black potential. If there is a question, it goes back to optimism versus pessimism. Should our steady progression make us optimistic? Or are our short memories (“redlining” means nothing to most Americans), backsliding (“Redemption” followed Reconstruction, mass incarceration followed the end of Jim Crow), and retreat to myth (We made it on our own, why can’t they do it) cause for pessimism? As best I can, I live my life as an optimist. But there are times I’m convinced failure is inevitable, that we’ll never shake ourselves of white supremacy and its legacy. But even if that’s true—even if the struggle is doomed and that’s our tragedy as Americans—the battle is still worth fighting. To borrow from William James, “If this life be not a real fight, in which something is eternally gained for the universe by success, it is no better than a game of private theatricals from which one may withdraw at will. But it feels like a real fight—as if there were something really wild in the universe which we, with all our idealities and faithfulnesses, are needed to redeem.”FrameworkPublic Surveillance Debates Good Debates about surveillance policy are key to prevent a “spiral of silence,” the public must speak out against government practices Kristen Purcell et al., Associate director for research at Pew Research Center’s Internet Project and Ph.D. in Sociology from Rutgers University, where she specialized in mass media and cognition, August 26, 2014, “Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’,” Pew Research Center, context of the Snowden-NSA story may also have made it somewhat different from other kinds of public debates. At the time of this study, the material leaked by Edward Snowden related to NSA monitoring of communications dealt specifically with “meta-data” collected on people’s phone and internet communications. For a phone call, the meta-data collected by the NSA was described as including the duration of the call, when it happened, the numbers the call was between, but not a recording of the call. For email, meta-data would have included the sender and recipient’s email addresses and when it was sent, but not the subject or text of the email. Additional information leaked by Snowden after our study was completed suggests that Western intelligence agencies monitored and manipulated the content of online discussions and the NSA recorded the content of foreign phone calls. In reaction to these additional revelations, people may have adjusted their use of social media and their willingness to discuss a range of topics, including public issues such as government surveillance. However, given the limited extent of the information leaked by Snowden at the time the survey was fielded, it seems unlikely that the average American had extensively altered their willingness to discuss political issues. Future research may provide insight into whether Americans have become more or less willing to discuss specific issues on-and offline as a result of government surveillance programs. While this study focused on the Snowden-NSA revelations, we suspect that Americans use social media in similar ways to discuss and get news about other political issues. An informed citizenry depends on people’s exposure to information on important political issues and on their willingness to discuss these issues with those around them. The rise of social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, has introduced new spaces where political discussion and debate can take place. This report explores the degree to which social media affects a long-established human attribute—that those who think they hold minority opinions often self-censor, failing to speak out for fear of ostracism or ridicule. It is called the “spiral of silence.”Public Surveillance Debates Good Debate about privacy and surveillance are key to ensure and free and open society Adam Eisgrau, District Dispatch—branch of the American Library Association, Accessed May 28, 2015, “Privacy/ Surveillance,” ALA, Accessed May 28, 2015, began in June 2013 that the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have been obtaining and storing vast amounts of personal information about millions of innocent people. These reports about the government gaining access of this data thru the use of Section 215, often called the “library provision,” of the USA PATRIOT Act, emphasize the need to protect our constitutional rights as well as the need to stay engaged in these important debates. The revelations raise questions, not just about personal privacy and surveillance, but also about open government and transparency. The American Library Association and our nation’s libraries have long been committed to the principles of free speech, protection of privacy, open government and access to government information. These democratic principles have translated into education and advocacy within the library community and with the public, at every level of government and in all kinds of libraries. At the congressional level, following these revelations on government data mining, ALA renewed its call for reforms that would improve oversight and accountability, declassify information necessary to promote public debate and assure true oversight and transparency in this whole arena. There must be a better balance between our constitutional rights and the need to thwart terrorism. In calling for a public dialogue on privacy, ALA developed a toolkit and other resources to support librarians and others to convene forums and moderate community discussions on privacy. Libraries trusted institutions in their respective communities that can provide information, promote education and enable dialogue on this constellation of issues. There is no better community institution to begin this dialogue. Let the debate begin.Animal Disease Treatment NEGImpact on farmers overstatedThe rule is designed to ease farmers’ concernsBurt Rutherford. Writer at Beef Magazine. May 16, 2013. Cattlemen Embark On Next Chapter In Animal Disease Traceability. Accessed July 28, 2015. to Neil Hammerschmidt, USDA’s point man for animal disease traceability, the concept behind ADT is to minimize the burden on producers. Under the rule, animals moved interstate, unless exempted, must be officially and individually identified and accompanied by an interstate certificate of veterinary inspection, which is issued by an accredited veterinarian. This certificate must include the ID number, owner’s name and physical address of the location where the animals originated. The rule affects dairy cattle of all ages; all sexually intact beef cattle older than 18 months; cattle of any age used for rodeos, shows, exhibitions, competitions or recreational events; as well as sheep, goats, captive deer and elk, all equine and poultry. Currently, beef cattle under 18 months of age are exempt from the requirement. What’s more, while “official” ID consists of an official ear tag and the interstate movement certificate, the rules allow for flexibility between states. If two states, or states and tribes, agree, other means of ID, such as brands and a brand certificate, are acceptable.Traceability will be less costly for livestock farmersAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service. December 2012. Questions and Answers: Animal Disease Traceability Final Rule. Accessed July, 22 2015. animal disease traceability final rule will benefit producers in several ways. Low levels of official identification in the cattle sector require more herds and cattle—often thousands of animals—to be tested during animal disease investigations than necessary, drastically increasing an investigation’s duration. For example, bovine tuberculosis disease investigations frequently now exceed 150 days. This means USDA and State investigative teams spend substantially more time and money in conducting tracebacks. As a result of the rule, accurate traceability information will be more readily available, enabling USDA to shorten investigation timelines, more quickly control the spread of certain diseases, and reduce the number of quarantined or disposed of animals. All of these improvements will help make animal disease outbreaks less costly for producers and help interstate animal movements continue. For example, bovine tuberculosis disease investigations frequently now exceed 150 days, as USDA and State investigative teams spend substantially more time and money in conducting tracebacks. When animals cannot be traced to specific locations, epidemiologists often need to expand herd testing to ensure that cattle with any potential for exposure are tested. Also, expanded timeframes for tracebacks may cause longer, more encompassing quarantines and/or imposed limitations on animal movement. At the same time, the potential for disease spread increases.ADT is highly flexible and will largely be implemented locallySarah Gonzalez. Writer at Agri-Pulse. August 8, 2014. Industry Reacts to APHIS Animal Disease Traceability Proposal. Accessed July 22, 2015. “The system, in our view, puts us in a much better competitive circumstance than we are today,” Vilsack said. “Other countries that have traceability systems have been using that as a way of gaining market advantage. We believe this system basically takes that market advantage away.” Vilsack initially proposed a new system in Feb. 2010 to replace NAIS, which was established in 2004 by the Bush Administration. NAIS was implemented after a 2003 disease outbreak, during which the U.S. discovered its first case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as mad cow disease. Vilsack said the new system is projected to cost approximately $14.5 million a year, and that he is optimistic Congress will approve these funds due the potential increased global market competitiveness and the costs saved by preventing long periods of disease tracing. “What is certain is that animal disease traceability will be required for animals moving interstate,” reads the ADT Comprehensive Report and Implementation Plan. “However, each State and Tribal Nation will be able to determine the specific approaches and solutions it wants to use to achieve the minimum animal disease traceability performance measures. Animals not moved out of State, as well as small producers who raise animals to feed themselves, their families, and their neighbors, are not a part of the framework's scope and focus.”Many in the cattle industry support ADTSarah Gonzalez. Writer at Agri-Pulse. August 8, 2014. Industry Reacts to APHIS Animal Disease Traceability Proposal. Accessed July 22, 2015. industry groups, including the National Farmers Union (NFU), the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) and the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), praised USDA for its revision of the animal identification system. “NFU policy supports USDA's action to leave animal identification for disease management to the states,” said NFU President Roger Johnson. “We encourage USDA to move this rule through the full rulemaking and implementation process quickly.” “There's a lot of negative news floating around in this country and I think it's high time we focus on the positive aspects that America does better than anybody else,” Vilsack said. “I think we can start with agriculture. Every billion dollars in agricultural sales generates 8,400 jobs in the economy. This one of the reasons one in 12 jobs is tied to agriculture in some way, shape or form. One way we build on this success is by having a traceability system that works, that's more flexible, more responsive to producers' needs and that basically allows us to do a much better job than we've done in the past.”Non-unique—Most of ADT’s measures were already in placeJoel L. Greene. Analyst in Agricultural Policy at Congressional Research Service. November 29, 2010. Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues. Accessed July 22, 2015. farmers and ranchers already keep track of individual animals and how they are being raised, in order to identify and exploit desirable production characteristics—such as “organic” or “grass-fed” or “hormone-free”—that can command substantial price premiums in certain retail markets. Universal bar codes on processed food, including many meats, are widely used by processors and retailers to manage inventories, add value to products, and monitor consumer buying. When consumers seek meat, eggs, or milk from animals raised according to specified organic, humane treatment, or environmental standards, ID and traceability can help firms verify production methods through independent, third party audits,” according to AMS. USDA “Process Verified” suppliers can have marketing claims such as breeds and feeding practices, and so label them, under this voluntary, fee-for-service program. Other programs employing varying levels and types of traceability include the domestic origin requirement for USDA-purchased commodities used in domestic feeding programs; the national organic certification program, which AMS also oversees; and the mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) program.Traceability won’t have a big impact on the states that are unprepared for itAmy Hadachek. Writer at the Fence Post. June 3, 2013. Prevention at the heart of new Animal Disease Traceability rule. Accessed July 23, 2015. “Our import requirements to bring livestock into Kansas, have always been to show health papers and official identification for sexually intact cattle 18 months of age and older,” said Kendra Frasier, animal disease traceability coordinator for the Kansas Department of Agriculture’s Division of Animal Health. “That part is still the same for many states, including Kansas and Nebraska. However, other states have had fewer requirements up to this point, so this new federal law levels the playing field across the country. “Some states, which are primarily exporters of livestock, previously didn’t have strict import requirements, because they’re not major livestock importers,” Frasier explained. Dairy requirements more stringent The new rule is stricter on dairy import requirements. “Whereas previously, there was an exemption for dairy steers and spayed heifers to not have them individually listed on health papers, now this new law requires all dairy cattle of any age to be officially identified, and their ID’s individually listed on the accompanying health papers,” Frasier said.The pork industry proves traceability can be implemented effectively and efficientlyNational Pork Producers Council. 2014. Mandatory Animal Identification System. Accessed July 24, 2015. mandatory animal identification system plays three vital roles for America’s pork producers and consumers: strengthens the security of the nation’s livestock industry, especially in the event of an intentional introduction of a pathogen or toxin that could affect animal health; provides U.S. pork producers and federal and state animal health officials with improved tools to manage swine herd health through disease surveillance, control and eradication programs; and enables U.S. pork producers to maintain and promote access to international markets, which are critical to the continued viability of the pork industry. The U.S. pork industry has been committed to mandatory animal identification for more than 20 years. The U.S. pork industry’s commitment to mandatory identification was part of the Pseudorabies Eradication Program that created a system for identifying premises with infected and exposed animals. This ultimately led to the successful eradication of the disease from the commercial swine herd. Premises registration – knowing where U.S. pigs are raised – is the foundation of the U.S. swine identification system. Traceability is good for the economyADT makes US meat competitive on the international marketJoel L. Greene. Analyst in Agricultural Policy at Congressional Research Service. November 29, 2010. Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues. Accessed July 22, 2015. the global marketplace, animal disease programs, aided by traceability systems, are used both to reassure buyers about the health of U.S. animals and to satisfy foreign veterinary and/or food safety requirements. In addition, they assist in assuring credible attributes of animal products with consumers, thus improving opportunities for capturing value-added niche markets by certifying production processes—that is, for export programs that ensure certain aspects of the animal production process such as hormone- or antibiotic-free production. After BSE appeared in North America in 2003, USDA’s AMS developed an export verification (EV) program for U.S. plants seeking to meet the differing beef import specifications of various countries like Japan, a key foreign market for U.S. beef. AMS establishes the standards that U.S. suppliers must follow if they want to ship beef to these countries, and certifies that the proper procedures are in place. While EV is “voluntary,” it also has become a prerequisite for access to the Japanese, Korean, and other foreign markets. USDA contends that establishing an internationally recognized system of traceability is likely to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. exports of animals and animal products. In fact, the lack of a standardized, national animal identification system was one factor that prevented the United States from receiving “negligible risk” status (the best status possible under the rating system) for BSE from the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). Receiving negligible risk status would likely enhance the United States’ ability to compete internationally, but USDA contends that it would also support U.S. domestic price structures, so that all producers—regardless of their interest in international marketing—would benefit when the United States expands its export markets. The economic benefits outweigh the costsTed C. Schroeder and Dustin L. Pendell. Professors at Kansas State University. December 2007. Value of Animal Traceability Systems in Managing Contagious Animal Diseases: Final Report to the Program of Research on the Economics of Invasive Species Management. Accessed July 25, 2015. study also found that the economic benefits from NAIS with 100% participation easily exceeded the costs. Benefits included: ? substantial federal and state government savings in connection with administration of animal disease control and eradication programs due to the reduction in disease outbreaks; ? economic benefits from quickly re-establishing markets following a disease outbreak, plus possible expanded market access in the international marketplace; ? avoidance of significant losses—as great as $1.32 billion per year over a 10-year period—due mostly to lost export market access; and ? increased consumer demand resulting from higher confidence in food products. By evaluating the cost-benefit effects over a range of participation levels, the study found that implementation of NAIS would become more cost-effective as participation levels increase, and that NAIS might not be economically viable at lower participation levels.Traceability is a requirement in most major import marketsJoel L. Greene. Analyst in Agricultural Policy at Congressional Research Service. November 29, 2010. Animal Identification and Traceability: Overview and Issues. Accessed July 22, 2015. South Korean agriculture official recently reported that his government intends to impose traceability requirements on imported beef as soon as December 2010.53 Currently the EU requires individual identification and traceability for all suppliers, domestic and foreign.54 Presently, Japan does not specifically require traceability for imported beef, although imported beef is subject to several other specifications including a 20-month age limitation. The opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) has declared that, if elected, it will work toward early passage of both an existing “BSE Measures Law” and a “Beef Traceability Law” in order to subject imported beef to the same traceability requirements as domestic beef.55 On August 30, 2009, the DPJ won 308 seats in the Japanese Diet. The DPJ hopes to forge a coalition with two minor parties that would give it a two-thirds majority, enabling it to force through legislation.56 However, as the DPJ is involved with setting up its new administration and prioritizing its agenda, it is unlikely that the issue of a traceability requirement on imported meat will be addressed as an early priority. The only top tier beef exporter in the world besides the United States without a traceability system is India, which exports very low-valued canned/cooked beef. According to CattleFax analyst Brett Stuart, “While few U.S. producers are willing, or expected, to implement a system voluntarily with little direct benefit, we may be rapidly approaching a future where beef traceability is the price of admission into the global beef world.”57 The WTO’s Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures applies rules to the use of non-tariff trade barriers (e.g., traceability and identification requirements) to restrict market access. The implementation of traceability measures applied to imports must meet two requirements.58 First, any traceability requirements must be scientifically justified based on an assessment of risk to human, animal, or plant health. Second, they may be equivalent to, but not more rigorous than, the standards applied to domestic industry.59Traceability is the only way to save the export marketFood & Water Watch. November 2011. Livestock Traceability: What You Need to Know. Accessed July 23, 2015. the discovery of mad cow disease in the United States in 2003, U.S. beef exports dropped dramatically as foreign markets, like Japan, banned or restricted U.S. beef.5 The export market never fully recovered,6 and the beef industry has been pushing traceability as the way to get U.S. beef back into these markets. The U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF), a group led by published a 115-page economic analysis of traceability in 2011, funded by the USDA, that concluded that U.S. exports of beef are at risk without an animal traceability system.8 This is because some trading partners require that imported beef be traceable.9 Currently, for U.S. beef to reach strict export markets like programs that verify certain aspects of their beef, including aspects of traceability like its age or source.10 Producers who participate in these programs, which carry a cost, are rewarded with a premium — as much as $25 per head of cattle.11Traceability key prevent zoonosisADT is key to prevent foodborne diseasesAnimal and Plant Health Inspection Service. December 2012. Questions and Answers: Animal Disease Traceability Final Rule. Accessed July, 22 2015. security involves dependability in terms of supply and quality, among other attributes. Should there be an animal disease event, including zoonotic disease concerns, animal disease traceability as outlined in the final rule would allow for efficient traceback of infected animals and the rapid quarantine of potentially exposed animals. This ensures that healthy animals can continue to move freely to processing facilities, providing a dependable and affordable source for consumers as well as protecting producer’s livelihoods. At that point, FSIS’ methods for quality assurance take over and assure further safety and security of the food supply.Traceability is key to prevent an outbreakTed C. Schroeder and Dustin L. Pendell. Professors at Kansas State University. December 2007. Value of Animal Traceability Systems in Managing Contagious Animal Diseases: Final Report to the Program of Research on the Economics of Invasive Species Management. Accessed July 25, 2015. or compartmentalization is a disease management tool that contains a disease outbreak to a specific zone, while leaving the remaining areas outside of that zone free of the particular disease and not at risk for international trade restrictions. Rapid identification and compartmentalization of a disease outbreak limits both the spread of commercially harmful diseases and, thereby, the number of animals that would otherwise have to be destroyed or removed from marketing channels. Compartmentalization also facilitates re-establishing international market access and the reopening of lost export markets. The more rapid the response to a disease outbreak, the more limited the economic damage. A traceability program that follows animal products to consumers would provide post-mortem information on cattle with respect to success of various production techniques (e.g., feed types, feed-pasture ratios, or genetics). Similarly, an ID system would be ideally suited for tracking the performance history, along with other relevant criteria, of racing or show animals. It would also increase transparency in the supply chain from producers to consumers; thereby reducing the risk of unfounded liability claims against livestock producers. Finally, an animal ID and traceability program would help producers maintain records on animal movements and health, breed registries, and other marketing activities.The ability to trace is critical for containment effortsFood & Water Watch. November 2011. Livestock Traceability: What You Need to Know. Accessed July 23, 2015. and state food safety agencies collaborate with APHIS to protect the food supply from the introduction, through animals, of threats to human health, such as tuberculosis, and foodborne illnesses from bacteria like Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7.11 Generally, when local health officials can link an illness to a particular product, firms and their regulators have been able to trace that product back to the processor and/or slaughter facility. It has been more difficult to determine which particular animals, herds, or flocks were involved. Some believe that a more rigorous traceback and animal ID system would facilitate food recalls, possibly contain the spread of a foodborne illness, and help authorities stem future incidents.12 Others, particularly many within the food industry, strongly disagree, countering that such a system would not be based on sound science, and would be technically unworkable and costly.Traceability is key to identifying outbreaksNational Pork Producers Council. 2014. Mandatory Animal Identification System. Accessed July 24, 2015. the detection of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in the U.S. in 2003 and the growing number of animal disease outbreaks around the world, USDA announced the creation of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) in 2004. NAIS was developed to allow state and federal animal health officials to quickly identify livestock and poultry that may have been exposed to a disease. The database to administer premises registration numbers will be maintained by USDA and the states; the database to maintain animal identification numbers will be maintained by tag manufactures. Animal tracking databases that maintain the movement records of animals will be managed by the industry and the states. One of the key functions of the system is to identify within 48 hours all premises and animals that have had direct contact with an animal disease. This system will help ensure rapid disease containment and maximum protection of U.S. animal health. While USDA has been moving forward on NAIS, NPPC remains concerned about its lack of a coherent implementation strategy for NAIS and about how federal funding has been utilized since the animal ID system’s inception. NPPC strongly supports a mandatory animal identification system across all livestock, dairy and poultry species where each industry develops an effective and affordable ID system for its respective species. Having such a mandatory system in place would enhance U.S. animal health officials’ ability to trace diseased or exposed animals to their farm of origin and identify other potentially exposed premises within 48 hours after the discovery of a disease.Zoonotic disease prevalentAnimal pandemics are on the riseJane J. Lee. Writer at National Geographic. January 14, 2015. Mass Animal Die-Offs Are on the Rise, Killing Billions and Raising Questions. Accessed July 25, 2015. 're not talking about a few dead fish littering your local beach. Mass die-offs are individual events that kill at least a billion animals, wipe out over 90 percent of a population, or destroy 700 million tons—the equivalent weight of roughly 1,900 Empire State Buildings—worth of animals. And according to new research, such die-offs are on the rise. The study, published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is the first to examine whether mass die-offs have increased over time. Researchers reviewed historical records of 727 mass die-offs from 1940 to 2012 and found that over that time, these events have become more common for birds, marine invertebrates, and fish. The numbers remained unchanged for mammals and decreased for amphibians and reptiles. (See "What's Killing Bottlenose Dolphins? Experts Discover Cause.") Disease, human-caused disturbances, and biotoxins—like the red tides caused by algae that are prevalent along American coastlines—are three major culprits.Zoonotic disease highly prevalentJim Robbins. Writer at New York Times. July 14, 2012. The Ecology of Disease. Accessed July 24, 2015. of veterinarians and conservation biologists are in the midst of a global effort with medical doctors and epidemiologists to understand the “ecology of disease.” It is part of a project called Predict, which is financed by the United States Agency for International Development. Experts are trying to figure out, based on how people alter the landscape — with a new farm or road, for example — where the next diseases are likely to spill over into humans and how to spot them when they do emerge, before they can spread. They are gathering blood, saliva and other samples from high?risk wildlife species to create a library of viruses so that if one does infect humans, it can be more quickly identified. And they are studying ways of managing forests, wildlife and livestock to prevent diseases from leaving the woods and becoming the next pandemic. It isn’t only a public health issue, but an economic one. The World Bank has estimated that a severe influenza pandemic, for example, could cost the world economy $3 trillion. The problem is exacerbated by how livestock are kept in poor countries, which can magnify diseases borne by wild animals. A study released earlier this month by the International Livestock Research Institute found that more than two million people a year are killed by diseases that spread to humans from wild and domestic animals.Infectious diseases are highly prevalentThe National Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne, and Enteric Diseases. 2014. Confronting Infectious Diseases in an Interconnected World. Accessed July 23, 2015. diseases continue to be major causes of death, suffering, and economic loss, and we continue to confront new and potentially devastating infectious disease threats. Not surprisingly, the threat of pandemic influenza or a new outbreak like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is as high as before. Waterborne disease outbreaks are increasing in the United States, and in 2008 the United States experienced the largest recorded foodborne outbreak in the past decade. Rates of diseases like dengue fever are rising worldwide. Outbreaks of diseases like chikungunya fever are occurring in locations quite distant from previously recognized foci and pose a threat to the United States, which has competent mosquito vectors. Familiar pathogens are becoming more virulent or difficult to treat; for example, a new form of Clostridium difficile, which can cause life-threatening diarrhea, is both more lethal than previous strains and more resistant to treatment, leading to higher death rates, more severe illnesses, and higher healthcare costs. Longstanding endemic infections, like those now termed “neglected tropical diseases,” continue to have enormous impact on the health and well-being of billions of people throughout the world.Disease outbreak would have a large economic impactThe National Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne, and Enteric Diseases. 2014. Confronting Infectious Diseases in an Interconnected World. Accessed July 23, 2015. economic impact of infectious diseases includes not only direct health care costs, but also impacts on productivity (for example, when people are unable to work or contribute to the economy because of illness or death), as well as on trade and commerce. The impacts of infectious diseases on health and productivity are very large, especially in developing countries. High disease burdens strain the health care system, reduce economic activity, and potentially lead to political instability. In an ever-more interconnected world, infectious disease outbreaks that start in one country can have global economic impact. For example, worldwide there were around 9,000 cases of SARS in the 2002-2003 outbreak, but it had devastating effects on global travel and tourism. Disruption of trade from contaminated food and products are common, including trade embargoes and other costly responses to infectious agents.Food contamination causes outbreaksZoonotic pandemics could break out through food contaminationEuropean Food Information Council. January 2006. The potential impact of animal diseases on food safety. Accessed July 23, 2015. are infectious diseases that can be transmitted from animals to man. A range of infectious agents or pathogens may be involved, including bacteria, viruses, toxins, parasites and other 'unconventional' agents, such as the prion protein that is thought to be responsible for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in cattle. Although humans may acquire zoonoses through a number of different routes, infections that are transmitted in food and water are of particular concern, and are an important cause of illness in both developing and developed countries. How can food be contaminated? Food may be contaminated with zoonotic pathogens in a number of ways. If an animal is affected by a particular disease, tissues from the animal, including its meat or milk, are a potential source of human infection if allowed to enter the food chain. More commonly, however, animals can be infected with zoonotic pathogens but show little or no signs of clinical disease. These 'carrier' animals are more difficult to detect either on the farm or at the slaughterhouse, so eradication is more of a problem. Many of these organisms live in the intestinal tract of healthy animals and can spread to humans through faecal contamination of the environment or of products such as milk during milking or eggs during laying. In addition, small amounts of intestinal contents may contaminate the carcass after slaughter and be present on raw meat. Cross-contamination of other foods can occur if they come into contact with a contaminated product either directly, during storage or preparation, or indirectly via humans, work surfaces, utensils or other objects. Fruit or vegetables that have been irrigated or washed in untreated water that is contaminated with animal faeces can also be a source of human infection.Pandemics are most likely to break out from subtle connections with natureJim Robbins. Writer at New York Times. July 14, 2012. The Ecology of Disease. Accessed July 24, 2015. ’S a term biologists and economists use these days — ecosystem services — which refers to the many ways nature supports the human endeavor. Forests filter the water we drink, for example, and birds and bees pollinate crops, both of which have substantial economic as well as biological value. If we fail to understand and take care of the natural world, it can cause a breakdown of these systems and come back to haunt us in ways we know little about. A critical example is a developing model of infectious disease that shows that most epidemics — AIDS, Ebola, West Nile, SARS, Lyme disease and hundreds more that have occurred over the last several decades — don’t just happen. They are a result of things people do to nature. Disease, it turns out, is largely an environmental issue. Sixty percent of emerging infectious diseases that affect humans are zoonotic — they originate in animals. And more than two?thirds of those originate in wildlife.Surveillance key to prevent zoonosisBeing able to pinpoint outbreaks is key to containmentHanaa Kader. Professor at University of California. 2003. Animal Disease Surveillance and Survey Systems - Methods and Applications. Accessed July 24, 2015. countries in which a specific infectious disease has never been present or the last outbreak is dated generations ago (e.g. rinderpest in Northern Europe), there would be few or no professional people, farmers or veterinarians, with personal experience of the clinical signs of this disease. In addition, the diagnostic laboratories would have very little experience in the appropriate diagnostic tools. Therefore, if maintaining adequate expertise and diagnostic facilities is not part of the FAD preparedness, very little or no expertise to diagnose or control will be available in the event of an outbreak. At some point, the disease may be introduced into the population from other countries or other animal species or recur because existing agents have mutated. After this introduction, the agent (e.g., a parasite, bacterium, virus, or prion) may start to spread among animals in infected and uninfected herds.Maintaining data on disease is key to a collaborative responseThe National Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne, and Enteric Diseases. 2014. Confronting Infectious Diseases in an Interconnected World. Accessed July 23, 2015. are essential for addressing the connectedness of human, animal, and environmental health. Achieving the vision of this framework will require improved communication, cooperation, and collaboration across disciplines, institutions, and countries. It will require valuing our existing partnerships while building new ones. It will require bringing a wide range of disciplines together to address infectious disease problems. Besides epidemiologists and laboratorians from a range of fields, we need social scientists, communications specialists, information technology experts, and people with a host of other skills and experiences, working together to address infectious disease threats. We also need to work closely with those who address failures in prevention --- including health-care providers. Partnerships within the U.S. government will be critical to achieving this plan. This includes enhancing partnerships and building on successful collaborations with other CDC components, such as other CDC Centers that address infectious diseases and environmental health and partnerships across federal agencies. For example, moving upstream to reduce deaths and illnesses from foodborne diseases will require closer relationships, including enhanced data sharing, between NCZVED and the United States Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration on food and drug safety issues and the Department of the Interior on wildlife issues.Being able to pinpoint outbreaks is key to understanding how zoonotic diseases spreadHanaa Kader. Professor at University of California. 2003. Animal Disease Surveillance and Survey Systems - Methods and Applications. Accessed July 24, 2015. of a multidisciplinary, collaborative approach Increased efficiency by linking human, animal, and environmental surveillance, research, and prevention, we will increase efficiency and decrease duplication of efforts. We will create synergies, as researchers and practitioners from different fields come together to solve critical problems and share ideas and approaches. We have high-priority opportunities to integrate surveillance, research, and prevention efforts in well-defined areas such as vectorborne diseases and food safety. Systems solutions Linking efforts will also increase the likelihood of finding systems solutions. For example, linkages will facilitate the shift from addressing problems that arise in humans (such as foodborne outbreaks) to anticipating and preventing problems in the first place (as through predicting the implications of changes in food production practices on human health). The concept that integration will result in systems solutions can be visualized with the metaphor of moving upstream --- for example, protecting the watershed of the river that supplies drinking water to a town instead of relying on water treatment plants to kill contaminant organisms. For many human health problems, upstream solutions mean addressing issues related to animal health and the environment. Upstream prevention We are proposing to increase our ability to answer not only the question, “What happened?”, but also the question: “Why did it happen?” We will focus not only on human illnesses, but also on the sources of pathogens and factors that influence them. By working with our partners to integrate systems that identify, respond to, and prevent human health problems with those that address animal health and the environment, we will be able to move further upstream towards predicting risks for human health problems before they occur and putting prevention in place.Cattle industry is environmentally friendlyCows solve global warningNicolette Hahn Nimam. Writer at Wall Street Journal. December 19, 2014. Actually, Raising Beef Is Good for the Planet. Accessed July 23, 2015. ’s start with climate change. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, all of U.S. agriculture accounts for just 8% of our greenhouse emissions, with by far the largest share owing to soil management—that is, crop farming. A Union of Concerned Scientists report concluded that about 2% of U.S. greenhouse gases can be linked to cattle and that good management would diminish it further. The primary concern is methane, a potent greenhouse gas. But methane from cattle, now under vigorous study by agricultural colleges around the world, can be mitigated in several ways. Australian research shows that certain nutritional supplements can cut methane from cattle by half. Things as intuitive as good pasture management and as obscure as robust dung beetle populations have all been shown to reduce methane. At the same time, cattle are key to the world’s most promising strategy to counter global warming: restoring carbon to the soil. One-tenth of all human-caused carbon emissions since 1850 have come from soil, according to ecologist Richard Houghton of the Woods Hole Research Center. This is due to tillage, which releases carbon and strips the earth of protective vegetation, and to farming practices that fail to return nutrients and organic matter to the earth. Plant-covered land that is never plowed is ideal for recapturing carbon through photosynthesis and for holding it in stable forms.Cows create a healthy environmentNicolette Hahn Nimam. Writer at Wall Street Journal. December 19, 2014. Actually, Raising Beef Is Good for the Planet. Accessed July 23, 2015. of the world’s beef cattle are raised on grass. Their pruning mouths stimulate vegetative growth as their trampling hoofs and digestive tracts foster seed germination and nutrient recycling. These beneficial disturbances, like those once caused by wild grazing herds, prevent the encroachment of woody shrubs and are necessary for the functioning of grassland ecosystems. Research by the Soil Association in the U.K. shows that if cattle are raised primarily on grass and if good farming practices are followed, enough carbon could be sequestered to offset the methane emissions of all U.K. beef cattle and half its dairy herd. Similarly, in the U.S., the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that as much as 2% of all greenhouse gases (slightly less than what’s attributed to cattle) could be eliminated by sequestering carbon in the soils of grazing operations. Grass is also one of the best ways to generate and safeguard soil and to protect water. Grass blades shield soil from erosive wind and water, while its roots form a mat that holds soil and water in place. Soil experts have found that erosion rates from conventionally tilled agricultural fields average one to two orders of magnitude greater than erosion under native vegetation, such as what’s typically found on well-managed grazing lands.Cattle industry doesn’t cause harmCows don’t drink much waterRachel Estabrook. Writer at National Public Radio. February 1, 2012. Is Today's Beef Better For The Environment? Accessed July 23, 2015. are cattle voracious consumers of water. Some environmental critics of cattle assert that 2,500 gallons of water are required for every pound of beef. But this figure (or the even higher ones often cited by advocates of veganism) are based on the most water-intensive situations. Research at the University of California, Davis, shows that producing a typical pound of U.S. beef takes about 441 gallons of water per pound—only slightly more water than for a pound of rice—and beef is far more nutritious.Non-unique—beef consumption is dropping rapidly nowJohn Maday. Writer at Cattle Network. February 27, 2013. Meat consumption drops as prices rise. Accessed July 23, 2015. . meat consumption is down, and beef consumption in particular has lost ground, according to the 2013 “Power of Meat” study. Price is a key reason for the decline as beef prices have climbed through a period of tight consumer budgets, but other factors also are involved. The report, published by the American Meat Institute and the Food Marketing Institute with funding from Cryovac, illustrates the challenges and opportunities the beef industry faces in building sales and market share. According to the survey results, consumers on average prepare 5.1 home-cooked dinners each week, with 3.6 of those including a portion of meat or poultry, down from 4.1 meals last year. Respondents on average eat 0.9 dinners out each week and order out or carry home the remaining dinner. The report does not cover the contents of the restaurant or home-delivery meals. The number of consumers reporting they include meat in at least one dinner per week, at 93 percent, was down just one percentage point from 2012 and has held steadily at 93 or 94 percent since 2009. However, just 69 percent report including meat in dinners at least three times per week, compared with 74 percent last year, and 18 percent include a meat item six times per week compared with 23 percent in 2012.Cattle industries are key to prevent widespread hungerRachel Estabrook. Writer at National Public Radio. February 1, 2012. Is Today's Beef Better For The Environment? Accessed July 23, 2015. beef also stands accused of aggravating world hunger. This is ironic since a billion of the world’s poorest people depend on livestock. Most of the world’s cattle live on land that cannot be used for crop cultivation, and in the U.S., 85% of the land grazed by cattle cannot be farmed, according to the U.S. Beef Board. The bovine’s most striking attribute is that it can live on a simple diet of grass, which it forages for itself. And for protecting land, water, soil and climate, there is nothing better than dense grass. As we consider the long-term prospects for feeding the human race, cattle will rightly remain an essential element.Non-unique—Meat prices are going up nowMartha C. White. Writer at NBC News. July 28, 2015. Meat Prices Expected to Keep Climbing in 2015. Accessed July 23, 2015. year, beef and pork prices shot up thanks to a perfect storm of drought, disease and demand. Conditions have improved but, at best, there's a long lag time — six months to a year-and-a-half — between production increases and lower prices, and experts say it's unlikely that price decreases will be passed along as quickly or as completely as increases have been. "It takes a while… there's some stickiness to these prices coming down," said Steve Meyer, president of Paragon Economics.As of November, pork prices were up roughly 10 percent from last year, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The agency says it expects an additional increase of about 5 percent in 2015. Even eggs are more expensive: After a 7 to 8 percent increase in 2014, the price of eggs will tick up another percentage point or two in the new year. And beef is in a class by itself: "Most retail beef prices, on average, are also at record highs, even after adjusting for inflation," the U.S.D.A.'s Economic Research Service said. It predicts beef and veal prices will end up with an 11 to 12 percent increase for 2014, and will rise by another 5 percent or so in 2015. "Beef is becoming a luxury in the U.S. market at this point," said Altin Kalo, an economist at Steiner Consulting Group. "The days of simply going to the grocery store and buying a few steaks… those are going to be few and far between," he mon Core Education NEGTopicalityCommon Core is not “surveillance”Common Core is not a federal government surveillance program and FERPA prevents. It was written in response to their Schafly ’13 evidencePatricia Levesque, Chief Executive Officer at the Foundation for Excellence in Education, 2015, “Setting the Record Straight on Common Core State Standards,” , ACC. 8-9-2015The federal government does not have access to the student-level information housed in state data systems. Common Core is not a mechanism for federal data collection, nor does state implementation of Common Core and its related assessments require any data collection beyond the aggregate data authorized by No Child Left Behind. As part of broader education reform efforts, states have already adopted data systems that allow educators and parents to measure the progress of student achievement and growth from year to year. This is not a result of Common Core standards, but rather a more than decade long bipartisan effort to ensure students are learning a year’s worth of knowledge in a year’s time and that the taxpayers are seeing a return on their enormous investment in education. States and districts have the responsibility under state and federal law to protect the privacy of our students under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). This act expressly forbids the use of any personal student data without the consent of mon Core is not surveillance. There is no move toward biometrics and cost makes real surveillance a financial impossibilityBob Seay, Editor in Chief of , former teacher, August 18, 2014, “Common Core and Media Spin,” Huffington Post, , ACC. 8-9-2015What about spying and personal information? Parents are understandably worried about keeping their children's personal information private. There are laws that prevent the federal government from collecting personally identifiable information about students, including Social Security numbers and other identifiers. These laws existed before Common Core and have not been changed. Allegations that Common Core is being used for data mining are not correct. It is true that schools use tests to collect information about students. This data is used to address gaps in student achievement and for other education purposes. For example, information about race and gender of students helps to ensure that all students are learning. If a specific group of students demonstrates consistent problems with a certain part of a test, then schools and policy makers need to know that so they can address the problem. Common Core testing is not designed to collect biometric data, including any data that might be collected from cameras, chairs, computer equipment, or other devices. That particular red herring apparently originated when The Blaze reported on a draft version of a report on developing "grit, tenacity, and perseverance" in students. Given the financial realities of public education, schools are struggling to purchase enough computers for students to take take the required tests within the allotted time. Setting aside the obvious legal and ethical concerns about privacy, the use of any such advanced surveillance would simply be financially impossible. Many teachers don't even have whiteboards in their classrooms. As one teacher said, "We're not all that technologically advanced. I am still using a soft rock (chalk) to scrape out marks on a harder rock (the slate chalkboard)."“Its” Topicality (not a federal program)Federal enticement did not mandate Common Core. It’s not a federal programJoseph Rogan, professor of teacher education at Misericordia University, July 19, 2015, “Common Core provides foundation for curriculum,” News-Press, , ACC. 8-3-2015The federal government did not mandate its adoption. Via the American Recovery and Restoration Act, it made $4.35 billion available to the states. To qualify for a share, states had to agree to develop rigorous college- and career-ready standards, but not necessarily the Common Core. Because it was available, most, like Pennsylvania, opted for the Common Core.The federal government is not involved in Common CoreCherie Holton Bourg, Staff Writer, July 16, 2015, “Clearing up some misconceptions,” Houma Today, , ACC. 8-4-2015Common Core are standards, not curriculum. Curriculum represents the plans, the techniques and the materials used to meet the standards, and in our state that curriculum is developed at the local school district level and often enhanced by individual teachers. No federal government is involved. Common Core standards focus on critical thinking, strong writing skills, problem solving and providing students with a deeper understanding of what they are learning. And to what end? So they will have the real world skills needed to compete in college and succeed in their careers. Before Common Core, Louisiana was at least a year behind other states, putting our kids at a disadvantage to compete for jobs. Common Core does not have mandatory reading lists. What it does is provide samples of reading lists based upon rigor, not content. In other words, based upon what each grade level should be able to read, comprehend and analyze. The actual reading lists are compiled by the individual school districts. Once again, no federal government is involved.It’s not a federal program. Even if we closed the Department of Education, Common Core would still existJoseph Rogan, professor of teacher education at Misericordia University, July 19, 2015, “Common Core provides foundation for curriculum,” News-Press, , ACC. 8-3-2015According to an analysis completed by the Washington Post, except for Jeb Bush, all GOP candidates oppose Common Core. However, if any of them win, he or she will have difficulty eliminating it, because, unlike the Affordable Care Act, it is not based in federal law. If a new president opts instead to close the U.S. Department of Education, the Common Core, which one way or another has been solidly ensconced in every state, will be unaffected because it is not a USDE-sponsored mon Core is not a federal conspiracy to nationalize educationCherie Holton Bourg, Staff Writer, July 16, 2015, “Clearing up some misconceptions,” Houma Today, , ACC. 8-4-2015Common Core has only ever been about raising our subpar educational standards. It only deals with English language arts and math. And it was a consortium of 48 states and not the feds that developed these standards. First, leaders and education experts from the 48 participating states created the basic list of suggested standards. Then thousands of local educators and citizens provided comments and feedback, all of which was incorporated into a final draft. So enough from you critics who persist in your efforts to bamboozle, flummox and deceive the public. The curtain has been pulled back and we see what frauds you really are. Common Core is not a federal conspiracy to nationalize education. It's an attempt to get our kids up to speed, and we should all be in support of mon Core GoodGeneralMost arguments against Common Core come from vested political interestsMichael A. MacDowell, president emeritus of Misericordia University, August 2, 2015, “Guest commentary: Common Core and common sense,” Naples Daily News, , ACC. 8-3-2015While the federalization of public schools is a bad idea, the Common Core is not designed to give government more control of our educational system. It merely codifies what society believes to be the knowledge and skills students need to be productive and successful. We should not dismiss the Common Core curriculum based on the arguments raised by a variety of vested-interest groups on the right and the left. Instead, we should use the reasoning skills we gained in school to analyze what these various groups are saying. We should then determine what's appropriate for our local schools and not take a back seat to those who would use arguments against the Common Core to bend our schools to fit their particular interests.California proves Common Core can be effective if implemented wellJeff Bryant, Director of the Education Opportunity Network, April 14, 2015, “Common Core consequences: “What currently passes for reform’ has caused considerable collateral damage to schools and teachers,” , core_consequences_what_currently_passes_for_reform_has_caused_considerable_collateral_damage_to_schools_and_teachers/, ACC. 8-3-2015Many states botched the implementation of Common Core by moving too fast and tying Common Core to harsh accountability systems. The first thing we did in California was to divorce Common Core from heavy test-based accountability. We wanted instruction, not testing, to drive the effort and for Common Core to be a catalyst for collaborative efforts to improve instruction at the school site. The state also is developing an accountability system that has broader measures than just annual tests and will be primarily aimed at feeding information back to improvement efforts at the school and district. We also gave teachers breathing room by taking a longer view and postponing any accountability measures for several mon Core is better than the patchwork alternativeJoseph Rogan, professor of teacher education at Misericordia University, July 19, 2015, “Common Core provides foundation for curriculum,” News-Press, , ACC. 8-3-2015Common Core is not necessarily an improvement, because previously there were no national standards to improve upon. However, researchers, such as Stanford University’s James Milgram, suggest that the new standards are an enormous improvement over the patchwork most states had in place. Some states like California, Florida Massachusetts, Tennessee and Minnesota had rigorous standards before the onset of the Common Core, but most had weak standards or none at all.A2: Corporate Control AdvantageAlternate causalityThere are multiple alternate causes for corporate control over education the Aff. cannot solveKenneth Saltman,?professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, 2012, “Why Henry Giroux’s Democratic Pedagogy is Crucial for Confronting Failed Corporate School Reform and How Liberals Like Ravitch and Darling-Hammond Are Making Things Worse,” Policy Futures in Education, 10:6, Democratic_Pedagogy_is_Crucial_for_Confronting_Failed_Corporate_School_Reform_and_How_Liberals_Like_Ravitch_and_Darling-Hammond_Are_Making_Things_Worse, ACC. 8-5-2015In the United States, a corporate model of schooling has overtaken educational policy, practice, curriculum, and nearly all aspects of reform. While it began on the political right, the corporate school model spans the political spectrum and is aggressively embraced by both parties. Corporate school reformers champion private-sector approaches to reform including, especially, privatization, deregulation, and the importation of terms and assumptions from business, while they imagine public schools as private businesses, districts as markets, students as consumers, and knowledge as product. Corporate school reform aims to transform public schooling into a private industry nationally by replacing public schools with privately managed charter schools, voucher schemes, and tax credit scholarships for private schooling. The massive expansion of de-unionized, nonprofit, privately managed charter schools with short-term contracts is an intermediary step towards the declaration of their failure and replacement by the for-profit industry in educational management organizations (EMOs), which extract profit by cutting teacher pay and educational resources while relying on high teacher turnover and labor precarity. Corporate school reform seeks solutions to public problems in private-sector ways, from contracting out schools and services, to union-busting, a wholesale embrace of numerical benchmarking and database tracking, and the modeling of schooling and administration on multiple aspects of corporate culture. Policy hawks make demands, for example, for teacher entrepreneurialism, or insist that students dress like retail chain workers and call school heads ‘CEOs’, or assign students the task of crafting a résumé for Benjamin Franklin; the examples are endless.Education is doomed without dismantling structures of power and wealth inequalityHenry A. Giroux, the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and is a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Ryerson University, March 17, 2015, “Higher Education and the Politics of Disruption,” Truth-Out, , ACC. 8-3-2015Higher education will not fare well as a public good under such massive inequities in wealth and power. Reduced to consumers, students will fare no better and will be treated as either clients or as restless children in need of high-energy entertainment. Within such iniquitous conditions of power, access and wealth, education will not foster a sense of organized responsibility fundamental to a democracy. Instead, it encourages a sense of organized irresponsibility - a practice that underlies the economic Darwinism and civic corruption at the heart of a debased politics.Neoliberalism Answers - Link turnsThe Affirmative is just another neoliberal education reform that feeds the military-industrial complex—turns the caseMichael Nevradakis, Ph.D. student in media studies at the University of Texas at Austin and a US Fulbright Scholar and Henry A. Giroux, Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department & Chair in Critical Pedagogy at The McMaster Institute for Innovation & Excellence in Teaching & Learning, October 19, 2014, “Henry Giroux on the Rise of Neoliberalism (interview),” , ACC. 8-3-2015I think that?what neoliberal reforms do is ignore all those basic problems that matter through which schools have to be understood in order to be reformed in the interest of creating critically engaged citizens. This suggests that any attempt at reforming schools has to be connected to the wider struggles over racism, inequality, poverty, militarization and the rise of the punishing state. Kids can't learn if they're hungry. Kids can't learn if they find themselves in schools where there are no resources. Kids can't learn in classes that have 40 students in them. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure this out. And I think that what you really need to figure out is that the right-wing knows this. This is not just a kind of willful ignorance. Schools are not being defunded because the state and federal governments don't have the money. They are being defunded because the right-wing wants them to fail. The funds are available, but they are being redirected into the military-industrial complex, into policies that lower taxes for the rich, and into the exorbitant salaries of the financial elite. This is a very systemic policy to make sure that if education is going to matter, it's going to matter for the elite. It's not going to matter for everybody else, in the sense of offering the best possible resources and capabilities that it can offer.The Affirmative is a hollow gesture. Only the alternative solves neoliberalismHenry A. Giroux, the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and is a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Ryerson University, July 1, 2014, “Anti-public intellectuals and the tyranny of manufactured forgetting,” Philosophers for Change, , ACC. 8-3-2015While it is true that critical thinking will not in and of itself change the nature of existing society, engaging in an intellectual struggle with the death-driven rationality that now fuels neoliberal capitalism will set the foundation for producing generations of young people who might launch a larger social movement. Such a movement will enable new forms of struggle, and hopefully a new future in which questions of justice, dignity, equality and compassion matter. The relationship between the wider culture of instrumental rationality, commodification and privatization, and the wider practices of public pedagogy is, in essence, a relationship between ideology and social control. The dynamic at work in this relationship is complex and diverse. To begin to understand that dynamic as a pedagogical and political issue is to understand that history is not predetermined, but waiting to be seized.Neoliberalism Answers - Alternate causalityThe Affirmative misses the root cause. It is inevitable as long as governments are involvedMichael Hurd, PhD, Psychotherapy, March 27, 2015, “’Common Core’ Public Education vs. Critical Thinking,” Capitalism Magazine, , ACC. 8-5-2015A lot of debates about Common Core get sidetracked by issues such as gay marriage or Barack Obama. These are valid issues to consider. However, they don’t address the root of the problem. The root of the problem is that so long as?government?controls what students learn, these schools will never graduate individuals with independent and critical, objective thought. Government doesn’t exist to do that. Government exists to impose, control and mandate. That’s actually a good thing, when you’re trying to restrain or punish killers, thieves or violators of property rights and contracts. But when it comes to learning, militaristic obedience and coercion are just the opposite of what’s required.The non-profit industrial complex spreads neoliberalism and undermines educationRobert D. Skeels,?Regeneración, The Association of Raza Educators Journal, July 7, 2015, “The Nonprofit Industrial Complex's Role in Imposing Neoliberalism on Public Education,” TruthOut, , ACC. 8-4-2015Those ruling society have long utilized non-profits and similar outfits as a means to further their interests, ameliorate their public image, and disseminate their ideologies. Whether we call them Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), or Non-Profit Industrial Complex (NPIC), the era of neoliberalism has seen the role of these private organizations further entrench itself in spaces that used to be that of the public commons. Perhaps the most egregious example of this is in the realm of education policy, where the activities of huge foundations, coupled with the actions of NPIC funded by those foundations, have insidiously begun to displace, replace, and even set the stage for the possible elimination of public education altogether.Neoliberalism GoodNeoliberalism prevents internal state conflictsJohn A. Tures, Assistant Professor of Political Science at LaGrange College, 2003, Economic freedom and conflict reduction,” CATO Institute, , ACC. 8-6-2015The last three decades have witnessed an unprecedented expansion of market-based reforms and the profusion of economic freedom in the international system. This shift in economic policy has sparked a debate about whether free markets are superior to state controls. Numerous studies have compared the neoliberal and statist policies on issues of production capacity, economic growth, commercial volumes, and egalitarianism. An overlooked research agenda, however, is the relationship between levels of economic freedom and violence within countries. Proponents of the statist approach might note that a strong government can bend the market to its will, directing activity toward policies necessary to achieve greater levels of gross domestic product and growth. By extracting more resources for the economy, a powerful state can redistribute benefits to keep the populace happy. Higher taxes can also pay for an army and police force that intimidate people. Such governments range from command economies of totalitarian systems to autocratic dictators and military juntas. Other economically unfree systems include some of the authoritarian “Asian tigers.” A combination of historical evidence, modern theorists, and statistical findings, however, has indicated that a reduced role for the state in regulating economic transactions is associated with a decrease in internal conflicts. Countries where the government dominates the commercial realm experience an increase in the level of domestic violence. Scholars have traced the history of revolutions to explain the relationship between statism and internal upheavals. Contemporary authors also posit a relationship between economic liberty and peace. Statistical tests show a strong connection between economic freedom and conflict reduction during the past three decades. A2: Critical Thinking AdvantageGeneral / solvency answersThe Affirmative cannot solve corporatized higher education, which means the impacts are inevitableHenry A. Giroux, the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and is a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Ryerson University, June 8, 2015, “The End of Higher Education as We Know It,” Counterpunch, , ACC. 8-3-2015The closing down of free speech in higher education, the collapse of critical thought into a repressive, privatized affective, corporatized pedagogy that celebrates ideas, values, and representations that are comforting rather than unsettling, the defunding of higher education, the rise of a corporate driven managerial administrative class, the casualization of faculty, and the now aggressive attack on tenure in Wisconsin and other places should come as no surprise to progressives. This is a truly disturbing trend and historical conjuncture because it suggests a comprehensive authoritarian politics that cannot be addressed merely through the discourses of personal injury and individual responsibility. This current attack on higher education is a central project of the financial and neoliberal elite and dates back to the Trilateral Commission and the Powell Memo of 1971.Teacher instruction & training guarantee we won’t see the benefits of critical thinkingLinda Elder, Ed.D., Educational Psychologist, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Critical Thinking,” July 2015, “Amendment Needed for Critical Thinking in Education,” , ACC. 8-5-2015Prospective teachers are still typically neither taught to think critically themselves through the instruction they receive in departments of education, nor to encourage critical thought in teaching and learning, nor to help students come to understand content as modes of thinking rather than disconnected pieces of information. Students are still failing to learn the explicit tools embedded in a rich conception of critical thinking which make for the educated person and make possible the enlightened democratic societies envisioned by our forebears.Meaningless / no definition“Critical thinking” is a meaningless term. There is no evidence and teacher training means the loss is inevitableLinda Elder, Ed.D., Educational Psychologist, Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Critical Thinking,” July 2015, “Amendment Needed for Critical Thinking in Education,” , ACC. 8-5-2015Critical thinking, arguably, is presupposed in every subject and discipline. It is necessary for reasoning skillfully through every complex problem and issue. And it is required for intelligent decision-making and higher order thinking in every domain of human thought and action. For these reasons as well as others, the expression “critical thinking” has for several decades been increasingly included in education mission statements, strategic plans and academic objectives. Unfortunately, though use of the phrase ‘critical thinking’ has mushroomed in the past half century, its meaning is often vague, narrow, or misleading in the minds of individual teachers. Again, teachers often assert that they are fostering it in their instruction when there is little evidence to support this assertion. Consequently, students predictably leave our schools, colleges and universities without developing the critical reasoning abilities they will need in all aspects of their lives.There’s no clear definition, which prevents critical thinking developmentColonel (Retired) Stephen J. Gerras, Ph.D. Professor of Behavioral Sciences Department of Command, Leadership, & Management U.S. Army War College, August 2008, “Thinking critically about critical thinking,” crit_thkg_gerras.pdf, ACC. 8-5-2015One of the main impediments to the robust understanding and use of critical thinking, both inside and outside the military, centers on a lack of a common definition. No one discipline owns the construct. Most of the material about critical thinking derives from philosophy, education, and psychology. There are, however, competing schools of thought on what critical thinking is and how to best develop it. In most cases a multidisciplinary assessment of a topic leads to a richer body of research, however, in the case of critical thinking it seems to have led to competing and incomplete views of the topic. My goal is not to evaluate various views of critical thinking. Instead, I hope to provide a guide with which to enhance an individual’s critical thinking skills.National standards goodNational standards close the demographic gap to resolve low-income variablesMichael A. MacDowell, president emeritus of Misericordia University, August 2, 2015, “Guest commentary: Common Core and common sense,” Naples Daily News, , ACC. 8-3-2015Educators also dislike Common Core testing because sometimes the results are used to partially determine how individual schools and teachers are performing and rewarded. Educators object because students often differ in their readiness for school and their willingness to learn. But national and state tests usually remove the impact of variables beyond a teacher's or school district's control in analyzing test scores. Schools that feature predominantly low-income students and other demographic variables that may cause students to do poorly on tests are considered in the results. This gap-closing technique mitigates most of the problems opponents often use as an argument against Common Core.Alternate causality answersA multitude of factors the Affirmative cannot solve guarantee the absence of critical thinkingHenry A. Giroux, the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and is a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Ryerson University, July 1, 2014, “Anti-public intellectuals and the tyranny of manufactured forgetting,” Philosophers for Change, , ACC. 8-3-2015Clearly, the attack on reason, evidence, science and critical thought has reached perilous proportions in the United States. A number of political, economic, social and technological forces now work to distort reality and keep people passive, unthinking and unable to act in a critically engaged manner. Politicians, right-wing pundits and large swaths of the American public embrace positions that support Creationism, capital punishment, torture and the denial of human-engineered climate change, any one of which not only defies human reason but stands in stark opposition to evidence-based scientific arguments. Reason now collapses into opinion, as thinking itself appears to be both dangerous and antithetical to understanding ourselves, our relations to others and the larger state of world affairs. Under such circumstances, literacy disappears not just as the practice of learning skills, but also as the foundation for taking informed action. Divorced from any sense of critical understanding and agency, the meaning of literacy is narrowed to completing basic reading, writing and numeracy tasks assigned in schools. Literacy education is similarly reduced to strictly methodological considerations and standardized assessment, rooted in test taking and deadening forms of memorization, and becomes far removed from forms of literacy that would impart an ability to raise questions about historical and social contexts.Political party dogma undermines critical thinkingFoster Gamble, Staff Writer, April 11, 2015, “Beyond left or right: Where do we get our news?,” Thrive, , ACC. 8-6-2015Meanwhile the suffering of people, the depletion of resources, the elimination of species and languages, and the degradation of the environment all grow, and yet most people continue to think that if they could only get their party in charge, things would get better. But it doesn’t. Throughout history it gets worse as the deceptions, the weapons and the tyranny grow. The bottom line is that adhering to political party dogma undermines critical thinking. It pits individuals against each other — to trap them inside a never-ending game of “I’m right and you’re wrong” so that we don’t see what is really going on and create the true, lasting solutions.Economic Competitiveness Disadvantage1NCA. Education is improving under Common Core now. The tough standards mean U.S. students can compete Sarah Garland, Executive Editor of The Hechinger Report and former Spencer Fellow in Education Reporting at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, August 17, 2014, “US education: How we got where we are today,” Christian Science Monitor, , ACC. 8-6-2015Educators and education advocates from across the political spectrum – teachers unions and their critics alike – praise this outcome of “A Nation at Risk.” Expectations for students have increased, and confronting the achievement gap between haves and have-nots has become a priority in education reform.?Principal Curtis is among those who link?this shift back to “A Nation at Risk.” Common Core is an ideal example of how expectations are rising, and she’s thrilled to witness her teachers encouraging students to think deeper and more critically. “I fundamentally agree with the premise of standards, and the Common Core standards,” she says, noting that her school has adopted the rigorous International Baccalaureate program for one of the academic “houses” students join. The curriculum is based on tough standards that call for critical thinking and creative problem-solving and have helped boost the school to new levels of success, she says. Curtis High has appeared on lists of America’s best high schools, and despite a high rate of poverty – 72 percent of its students qualify for free or reduced-price lunches – the graduation rate mirrors that of the nation as a whole, about 80 percent.B. Common Core is the crucial internal link to economic competitiveness. The standards help maximize potential, while retaining flexibilityAllie Bush, Public Policy Coordinator for the Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce, September 5, 2013, “Common Core: Giving students a competitive advantage”, mLive, students_a.html, ACC. 8-5-2015Today’s competitive and global economy requires education standards that reflect the changing realities of tomorrow’s workplace. Companies across the state and here in West Michigan look worldwide for resources and individuals to create value and deliver high-quality products and services. Regardless of business size, employers are constantly seeking the best talent. This means students need every tool and opportunity to maximize their potential. It is critical that our approach to education reflects the skills that employers are seeking. Currently in Michigan, 68 percent of third graders read proficiently, 76 percent are graduating high school, and only 20 percent of high school graduates are considered to be career- or college-ready. These statistics are a call to action. In response, Michigan adopted the Common Core State Standards in 2010 and is expected to fully implement the standards by the 2014-2015 school year. Common Core has been adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia, and was developed to provide a clear set of K-12 standards for Mathematics and English Language Arts. These standards improve upon Michigan’s previous standards and empower local schools and educators to develop their own curriculum and lesson plans to best meet the needs of their students.1NCC. Economic decline bolsters terrorism and warJedidiah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, M.Phil. Candidate at the University of New South Wales, 2010, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, Edited by Ben Goldsmith and Jurgen Brauer, pp. 214-215Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism, 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 Blomberg, Hess, 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 are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.D. The impact is extinctionMohamed Sid-Ahmed, Managing Editor for Al-Ahali, August 26-September 1, 2004, “Extinction!,” Issue no. 705, Al-Ahram Weekly, ACC. 8-6-2015A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki, even if -- and this is far from certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today, the technology is a secret for nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely changes the rules of the game. We have reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be petitiveness high now – Obama Clean Power PlanObama’s Clean Power Plan will bolster economic competitivenessJules Kortenhorst, Rocky Mountain Institute,?August 4, 2015, “Three Major Trends Driving Accelerating Change In US Energy System,” CleanTechnica, , ACC. 8-6-2015Earlier today,?the Obama administration issued its Clean Power Plan?setting out a clear direction for greenhouse gas emissions reductions from the U.S. power sector.? The plan, long under way and the subject of the most extensive consultations the EPA has ever undertaken, is a bold step to overcome congressional inaction to address climate change. In my view, although a federal cap and trade or carbon tax combined with strong efficiency regulations and measures to support renewables would have been preferable, the Clean Power Plan is a huge and important step in the right direction. However, not everyone shares the arguments supporting the urgent need for this plan. Republicans, the fossil fuel industry, and coal-producing states argue that the plan will lead to a massive increase in electricity prices, that it will put the reliability of our electricity grid at risk, and that it will costs jobs and hurt the competitiveness of the U.S. economy. Nothing is further from the truth. This plan will help the U.S. embark on an energy transformation putting it on the path towards a clean, prosperous, and secure low-carbon future.College success ratesIf we want to compete in the global economy, we need Common Core standardsAllie Bush, Public Policy Coordinator for the Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce, September 5, 2013, “Common Core: Giving students a competitive advantage”, mLive, students_a.html, ACC. 8-5-2015Opponents have also expressed concern that Common Core will “dumb down” Michigan’s standards or create a “one-size-fits-all” program. This is not the case. Common Core does not direct curriculum, but sets standards for achievement that will better prepare students for the future. Educators will continue to have the flexibility to create individualized lesson plans and may utilize non-traditional courses to help students apply their lessons to situations they will encounter after high school. If we are to remain competitive with the 21st century global economy, our students and their families deserve every opportunity to succeed. The Common Core State Standards are a piece of the larger puzzle to help ensure our children can grow and prosper. On behalf of the Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce, we urge the legislature to continue with the implementation of Common mon Core standards are the best option to improve college performance rates of low-income studentsTiffany Miller, Staff Writer, July 30, 2015, “Common Core for College Readiness,” US News & World Report, , ACC. 8-1-2015Unfortunately, this isn't new. A?study?released last month by ACT and the Council for Opportunity in Education confirms what we've known for years: First-generation students are much less prepared for college than their peers whose parents went to college. According to the report, 80 percent of first-generation students who took the ACT said they planned to go to college, yet only 9 percent met all four ACT benchmarks predictive of college success. The statistics aren't much better for low-income students. Among low-income students, 84 percent aspire to obtain a bachelor's or graduate degree yet only 11 percent met all four ACT college readiness benchmarks. This does not bode well for disadvantaged students who are hoping that going to and completing college will change their life trajectory. The assumption that disadvantaged students will go to college underprepared doesn't have to be the norm. In fact, ensuring that all students are prepared for college and career was the impetus behind the 43 states and the District of Columbia that adopted the Common Core State Standards.?Research shows that students who are exposed to rigorous curricula and the practices that the Common Core embodies are more likely to succeed in college or a career.College success ratesThe best shot for raising college success rates is Common CoreTiffany Miller, Staff Writer, July 30, 2015, “Common Core for College Readiness,” US News & World Report, , ACC. 8-1-2015The Common Core has the potential to be the biggest education reform in decades. Its promise could give many students their best shot at a productive, fulfilling future in college and career. As a first-generation student who graduated from college, I was one of the lucky ones. My high school prepared me academically. I had an incredible support system, including my family and college adviser, that encouraged and helped me with the difficult transition. But I am one of the few. I wonder if disadvantaged first generation college students in the 2015 freshman class will be as fortunate as I mon Core standards meets international benchmarks and better prepares students for collegeJulia Levy, CFR Task Force Director, et al. March 2012, “U.S. Education Reform and National Security,” , ACC. 8-6-2015The Common Core is benchmarked to international standards and establishes a “staircase” of increasing complexity for elementary and secondary students. The hope is that, each year, students will build on what they have mastered in the previous year so that they graduate ready for college, careers, or military service. The Common Core is not a prescribed curriculum, but rather a set of shared expectations for what students will learn and be able to do. It teaches fewer concepts in each grade but promotes a deeper mastery of the included topics—those that evidence shows matter most in preparing for college and careers.Key to education uniformityStandards lack uniformity now. We need clear Common Core StandardsNational Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, July 15, 2015, Mapping State Proficiency Standards Onto NAEP Scales: Results From the 2013 NAEP Reading and Mathematics Assessments, , ACC. 8-1-2015With the introduction of the Common Core State Standards, changes to curriculum and instruction are occurring at different rates across districts and schools. Moreover, until assessments designed to measure achievement on the basis of the Common Core State Standards are operational, state assessments are likely to remain aligned with their current achievement standards. Therefore, the mapping procedure likely will produce different NAEP scale equivalents for states with the same assessment and achievement standards, as well as for states that have not changed standards between two assessment years (e.g., 2011 and 2013).Common Core fosters teacher controlCommon Core forces teachers to control the classroomMaureen Magee, Staff Writer, August 1, 2015, “Teachers share Common Core experiences,” San Diego Herald-Tribune, , ACC. 8-3-2015The changes taking place in classrooms are dramatic, and the success of the new standards will largely rely on the creativity of teachers, not scripted curriculum, said Manuel Vargas, director of the School of Education at Cal State San Marcos. “With Common Core comes the need for innovation, and that should come from teachers,” Vargas said. “This really shows how teachers are taking a more prominent place when it comes to who is driving what’s happening in the classroom.”Education key to economic growth & competitivenessEducation is critical to economic competitivenessCaroline Simmons, Staff Writer, August 3, 2015, “Making Connecticut more competitive,” Stamford Advocate, , ACC. 8-6-2015Second, education is critical to economic competitiveness. Research has demonstrated that every dollar spent on education can save approximately seven dollars in the long-term. Moreover, the knowledge and skill level of graduating students is a major determinant of future business and economic growth. As such, investing in education is the smartest way we can make Connecticut more economically competitive. That is why I am so grateful to be a part of a delegation that prioritizes education. This session, the Stamford delegation fought hard to secure $61 million to build and operate a new magnet school at 200 Strawberry Hill Ave., $1.5 million in additional ECS funding for our public schools, and $75,000 for a new pre-school. This was undoubtedly the result of the tremendous effort and strength of the Stamford delegation, including leaders such as Sen. Carlo Leone, Rep. Patricia Billie Miller, Rep. William Tong, Rep. Dan Fox, and Rep. Terry Adams, with whom I was proud to join in fighting hard for Stamford?schools.Education impactsEducation is crucial to U.S. international leadershipRichard N. Haass, President Council on Foreign Relations, March 2012, “U.S. Education Reform and National Security,” , ACC. 8-6-2015The domestic consequences of a weak education system are relatively well known. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) made the decision to sponsor this Task Force to address the less well known— yet equally sobering—national security repercussions. In 2011, CFR launched its Renewing America initiative, which examines domestic issues such as infrastructure, energy security, and the federal deficit that affect the United States’ ability to conduct foreign policy and compete economically. Education is a critical component of this initiative. A world-class education system is vital to preserving not just the country’s physical security but also to reinforcing the broader components of American leadership, such as economic dynamism, an informed and active democracy, and a coterie of informed professionals willing and able to live and serve around the world.Lack of education causes U.S. isolationismJulia Levy, CFR Task Force Director, et al. March 2012, “U.S. Education Reform and National Security,” , ACC. 8-6-2015In a broader sense, the growing gap between the educated and the undereducated is creating a widening chasm that divides Americans and has the potential to tear at the fabric of society. As problems within the American education system have worsened, mobility that was possible in previous generations has waned. For the first time, most Americans think it is unlikely that today’s youth will have a better life than their parents. With wider income inequality and an increase in poverty, young people born to poor parents are now less likely to perform well in school and graduate from college than their better-off peers, and they are increasingly less likely to rise out of poverty. This trend not only causes the American Dream to appear out of reach to more citizens but also breeds isolationism and fear. The Task Force fears that this trend could cause the United States to turn inward and become less capable of being a stabilizing force in the world, which it has been since the mid-twentieth mon Core standards are key to national securityJulia Levy, CFR Task Force Director, et al. March 2012, “U.S. Education Reform and National Security,” , ACC. 8-6-2015After elucidating the linkages between education and national security, exploring the current state of education in America and international comparisons, and identifying the core skills students need to learn, the Task Force proposes three overarching policy recommendations: – Implement educational expectations and assessments in subjects vital to protecting national security. With the support of the federal government and industry partners, states should expand the Common Core State Standards, ensuring that students are mastering the skills and knowledge necessary to safeguard the country’s national security. Science, technology, and foreign languages are essential—as are creative problem-solving skills and civic awareness. Across America, and especially in underserved communities, it is essential that necessary resources accompany these enhanced standards to fuel successful implementation.Education is crucial to economic competitiveness and hegemonyAugust Cole, Adjunct Fellow at the American Security Project, November 28, 2012, “American Competitiveness: A matter of national security,” , ACC. 8-6-2015Education is also tied to a nation’s competitive position, be it the availability of engineers in technology or the number of university-level students receiving job-relevant training alongside classroom time. Many national security programs have particular requirements for citizenship, which only U.S.-citizens can work on. Education is also closely linked to the military’s ability to field a viable force.Politics Disadvantage(s) LinksGOP hates Common CoreThere is bipartisan rejection of Common Core, but the GOP hates it?Allie Gross, Staff Writer, July 6, 2015, “How the GOP Candidates Are Flailing on Common Core,” Mother Jones, , ACC. 8-3-2015When a team convened by the National Governors Association began developing the Common Core curriculum standards in 2009, politicians of both parties rallied behind them, with every governor but Rick Perry and Sarah Palin committing to crafting them. Since then, the initiative—aimed at remedying disparities among state educational standards and testing after George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind program failed to achieve its goals—has gotten?caught in the political crossfire. Both Democrats and Republicans criticized Common Core for being hastily rolled out, unfair to teachers and students, and a handout to the testing and curriculum companies, but the Republican reaction has been particularly intense. Some Republican critiques have taken the usual form, equating the standards with a big-government takeover of America's education system. Others have been more creative: Florida state Rep.?Charles Van Zant?claimed?the standards would turn kids gay.Trump, Carson, & Pataki all oppose Common Core?Allie Gross, Staff Writer, July 6, 2015, “How the GOP Candidates Are Flailing on Common Core,” Mother Jones, , ACC. 8-3-2015These three candidates?have no recent national platform from which to discuss their position on education standards. But they still have opinions. Ben Carson?has come out of the gate against Common Core. In April, the neurosurgeon and motivational speaker?wrote an op-ed?for the?Washington Times?in which he said high academic standards are important, but that having the government responsible for both creating and enforcing them "is naive." George Pataki?served as New York's governor from?1995 to 2006, so he was out of the political spotlight during much of the Common Core hullabaloo. And even though he?was in office during the introduction of No Child Left Behind, he did not speak publicly about the legislation; his education pet project was the expansion of charter schools.?When announcing his run for the Republican nomination in May, Pataki vowed to repeal "oppressive laws like Obamacare and Common Core." In a January?interview with NH1, Pataki said, "Education has always been the prerogative of the states and should continue to be that." In January,?Donald Trump?used the Iowa Freedom Summit as an opportunity to dis both Common Core and Jeb Bush. "He’s totally in favor of Common Core,"?Trump said. "That's a disaster. It's bad. It should be local and all of that."Bush likes Common CoreJeb Bush supports Common Core?Allie Gross, Staff Writer, July 6, 2015, “How the GOP Candidates Are Flailing on Common Core,” Mother Jones, , ACC. 8-3-2015Jeb Bush?is the ultimate True Believer. His nonprofit, Foundation for Excellence in Education, which crisscrosses the country touting the benefits of the Common Core, has bagged more than $4 million in Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation grants. Bush says critics who float "conspiracy theories" about the standards are "comfortable with mediocrity." In May, while speaking at a Tennessee GOP dinner, Bush wondered, "Am I supposed to back away from something that I know works?" Recently, the former governor has been more tolerant of those who want to explore non-Common Core options. When Tennessee and New Jersey (home to?newly announced opponent?Chris Christie) revealed plans to consider new standards, Bush didn't try to sway them otherwise (as he has in the past), but rather urged them to maintain high benchmarks for their students.Bush does not support Common CoreBush does not support federal involvement in Common CoreMaureen Sullivan, Staff Writer, August 7, 2015, “Marco Rubio On Common Core: The Federal Government Will 'Force It Down Our?Throats',” Forbes, , ACC. 8-7-2015The Republican presidential candidates from Florida tangled over the issue of Common Core State Standards for curriculum at the prime-time GOP debate in Cleveland on Thursday.?Senator Marco Rubio?challenged his one-time mentor, former?Governor Jeb Bush, on one of the most divisive issues in education today. Bush, an early support of Common Core, says it’s about “higher standards measured in an intellectually honest way” at the state level. “I don’t believe the federal government should be involved with the creation of standards directly or indirectly, or the creation of curriculum or content,” Bush said. “It’s clearly a state responsibility.”Public is splitThe public is evenly split on Common CoreJulia Glum, Staff Writer, July 15, 2015, “Common Core Opt-Out Debate: Parents Fight For Standardized Testing Rights,” International Business Times, , ACC. 8-3-2015Opinions of?Common Core have varied?slightly by demographic and education level. About 50 percent of all parents approved of Common Core in an?NBC News poll?taken earlier this year, but that number rose to 56 percent among black respondents. Hispanic parents had the best opinion of the standards, with?73 percent approving. White parents were the most likely to disapprove of Common Core, with 49 percent saying they opposed the national guidelines.Teachers’ unions hate Common CoreConservatives and teachers’ unions hate Common CoreMichael Coleman, Staff Writer, July 14, 2015, “Common Core under fire from both the right and left,” Albuquerque Journal, , ACC. 8-3-2015Conservatives view Common Core as a federal intrusion because the Obama administration offers financial assistance to states that adopt the standards. But left-leaning teachers unions aren’t fans of Common Core either, denouncing the amount of student testing and that teacher evaluations are based in part on that testing.Everyone hates Common CoreTeachers, students and both major parties reject Common CoreNicholas Tampio, Staff Writer, July 8, 2015, “Hillary Clinton has a Common Core problem,” Aljazeera America, , ACC. 8-3-2015Despite the Gates Foundation’s massive public relations push for the Common Core, the tide of public opinion is going the other way. Teacher support for it is?plummeting, and this spring more than 155,000 New York students boycotted?the Common Core exams. Democrat Zephyr Teachout ran a surprisingly competitive campaign against incumbent Andrew Cuomo in the 2015 gubernatorial primary, and one of her main?planks?was opposition to the Common Core. As with the Republicans, the Democratic base is turning against the Common Core.There’s massive resistance to Common Core in almost every stateJeff Bryant, Director of the Education Opportunity Network, April 14, 2015, “Common Core consequences: “What currently passes for reform’ has caused considerable collateral damage to schools and teachers,” , core_consequences_what_currently_passes_for_reform_has_caused_considerable_collateral_damage_to_schools_and_teachers/, ACC. 8-3-2015Politicians from across the political spectrum have made public schools and schoolteachers the favored whipping post of the day. In blue state New York,?Gov. Andrew Cuomo has vowed?to “bust up” public education “monopolies” and has bullied through new laws that unfairly evaluate teachers based on?wildly unreliable measures. These actions recently drove?thousands of New Yorkers?into the streets to protest the new mandates. In red state Kansas,?Gov. Sam Brownback has made massive budget cuts?to that state’s public schools,?spurring parents and school children to openly protest?his plan. Another conservative leader, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, has taken a meat cleaver to higher education budgets,?igniting a strong backlash from voters. In virtually every state, there’s a?massive resistance to standardized testing?that now dominates education practices. And rollouts of new Common Core standards continue to?spark strong anger from teachers and parents?of all political persuasions.Drunk Driving Checkpoints NEGAT: Aff case advantagesAT: privacy violationDrivers can preserve their privacy by following a simple set of procedures – ones that sober drivers should easily accomplishCurt Anderson, writer for Associated Press, February 10, 2015, “Florida lawyer sparks debate about rights at DUI checkpoints,” accessed June 14, 2015, (AP) — Drivers at drunken-driving checkpoints don't have to speak to police or even roll down their windows. They just have to place their license and registration on the glass, along with a note saying they have no comment, won't permit a search and want a lawyer. At least, that's the view of a South Florida attorney.? Warren Redlich contends the commonly-used checkpoints violate drivers' constitutional rights. He and an associate have created a website detailing their tactics. They've even made videos, one viewed more than 2 million times on the Internet, of their refusals to interact with police.? Doubts over the legality — and wisdom — of the tactics have been expressed by legal experts and local authorities.? Redlich, of Boca Raton, said his goal is not to protect drunken drivers, but to protect the innocent. He says some of his clients who passed breath-alcohol tests still faced DUI charges because the officer said he detected an odor of alcohol or the person had slurred speech.? "The point of the card is, you are affirmatively asserting your rights without having to speak to the police and without opening your window," he said.Checkpoints are well publicized and identified before hand – minimal intrusion upon privacyJames C. Fell, Elizabeth A. Langston, and A. Scott Tippetts, experts for Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, 2005, “Evaluation of Four State Impaired Driving Enforcement Demonstration Programs: Georgia, Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Louisiana,” accessed July 6, 2015, the past two decades, law enforcement in the United States has used sobriety checkpoints as a strategy to enforce impaired driving laws. At sobriety checkpoints, law enforcement officers stop all vehicles, or a systematic selection of vehicles, to evaluate drivers for signs of alcohol or other drug impairment. To minimize public concern about the activity and comply with court rulings, checkpoints typically are publicized in advance, and signs are posted at the approaches to the checkpoints warning drivers that a checkpoint is ahead. Law enforcement officers in uniform approach drivers and identify themselves, describe the purpose of the stop, and ask the driver questions designed to elicit a response that will permit the officer to observe the driver’s general demeanor. Drivers who do not appear impaired are immediately waved on; however, those who show signs of impairment are usually detained in a safe holding area where they are investigated further and either arrested or released.Checkpoints are not used for racial profilingRyan Gabrielson, writer for the California Watch, February 13, 2010, “Car seizures at DUI checkpoints prove profitable for cities, raise legal questions,” accessed July 6, 2015, , the Investigative Reporting Program’s analysis did not find evidence that police departments set up checkpoints to specifically target Hispanic neighborhoods. The operations typically take place on major thoroughfares near highways, and minority motorists are often caught in the checkpoints’ net.? “All we’re looking for is to screen for sobriety and if you have a licensed driver,” said Capt. Ralph Newcomb of the Montebello Police Department. “Where you’re from, what your status is, that never comes up.”? Additionally, the 2005 appellate court ruling includes exceptions, allowing police to seize a vehicle driven by an unlicensed motorist when abandoning it might put the public at risk. Examples include vehicles parked on a narrow shoulder or obstructing fire lanes.AT: Constitutionality Adv.Supreme Court has upheld the legality of sobriety checkpoints – only a small minority of states disagreeJames C. Fell, Elizabeth A. Langston, and A. Scott Tippetts, experts for Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, 2005, “Evaluation of Four State Impaired Driving Enforcement Demonstration Programs: Georgia, Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Louisiana,” accessed July 6, 2015, legality of sobriety checkpoints has been challenged in U.S. courts. In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints in a case that challenged them under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures (Michigan v. Sitz, 1990). The Court held that the interest in reducing the incidence of alcohol-impaired driving was sufficient to justify the brief intrusion occasioned by a properly conducted sobriety checkpoint. However, 10 States still report that sobriety checkpoints are illegal based on State law or have been ruled to violate the state constitution (Fell, Lacey and Voas, 2004).The Supreme Court agrees that the public interest in preventing drunk driving clearly outweighs minor 4th amendment intrusionJustice Rehnquist, former Supreme Court Justice, June 15, 1990, “Excerpts From Supreme Court's Decision Upholding Sobriety Checkpoints,” accessed July 6, 2015, one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the states' interest in eradicating it. Media reports of alcohol-related death and mutilation on the nation's roads are legion. The anecdotal is confirmed by the statistical. ''Drunk drivers cause an annual death toll of over 25,000 and in the same time span cause nearly one million personal injuries and more than five billion dollars in property damage.'' W. LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment (2d ed. 1987) . . .? Conversely, the weight bearing on the other scale - the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints - is slight. We reached a similar conclusion as to the intrusion on motorists subjected to a brief stop at a highway checkpoint for detecting illegal aliens. See [U.S. v.] Martinez-Fuerte [1976] . We see virtually no difference between the levels of intrusion on law-abiding motorists from the brief stops necessary to the effectuation of these two types of checkpoints, which to the average motorist would seem identical save for the nature of the questions the checkpoint officers might ask.? Experts in police science might disagree over which of several methods of apprehending drunken drivers is preferable as an ideal. But for purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis, the choice among such reasonable alternatives remains with the governmental officials who have a unique understanding of, and a responsibility for, limited public resources, including a finite number of police officers. . . Checkpoints are not unconstitutional – they are necessary safety screenings similar to airline securityLiam Dillon, senior reporter and assistant editor for Voice of San Diego, January 13, 2014, “Yes, DUI Checkpoints Are Legal,” accessed July 6, 2015, put the question to Alex Kreit, a Thomas Jefferson School of Law professor. In 1990, Kreit said, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of DUI checkpoints as one of the limited circumstances where police can pull a car over without any reasonable suspicion.? Kreit explains:? “The court held that the need to get drunk drivers off of the road, and to deter people from driving drunk in the first place, justified the use of checkpoints. The rule doesn’t permit individual officers to pull cars over in the absence of a checkpoint. Part of the rationale is that being stopped at a checkpoint is considered to be less intrusive and subject to abuse than being singled out. If the police set up a DUI checkpoint where they stop and briefly question everyone who passes through (or every fifth car, or what have you), every driver knows that they’re going to be stopped in advance and they know that they’re being stopped simply because they are driving through a checkpoint and not because the police think they’ve done anything wrong.”? Even though it’s not required by law, police agencies often give advance notice of DUI checkpoints. The California Highway Patrol tells the media the time and location of its DUI checkpoints at least 48 hours beforehand and relies the press to get the word out. The San Diego Police Department also says in advance when and where its DUI checkpoints will be. (A San Diego State University grad has developed a cell phone app that alerts people to DUI checkpoints. The grad also is suing SDPD over his treatment at a DUI checkpoint.)? Ultimately, you should think of DUI checkpoints like airport screenings, Kreit said.? “The police couldn’t stop you on the street and look through your bags for no reason. But, because of the special need to make sure dangerous weapons aren’t brought onto airplanes, they can set up security checkpoints at the airport. It’s the same sort of rationale for DUI checkpoints.”AT: Checkpoints are wasteful/expensiveCheckpoints are effective and use resources efficientlySusan A. Ferguson, James C. Fell, Allan F. Williams, AND Michele Fields, 2003, “Why Aren’t Sobriety Checkpoints Widely Adopted? as an Enforcement Strategy in the United States?” accessed July 6, 2015, In summary, states with and without frequent checkpoints are distinguished by motivational? factors and by their approaches to using financial and manpower resources. In the frequent-use? states, the motivation for checkpoints comes from a combination of support by task forces,? citizen activist groups, police officials who understand the power of checkpoints as a deterrence? strategy, and the public. In these states, police resources generally are used efficiently, and? various sources of funding are tapped. In states with infrequent checkpoints, available funds? often are not sought and too many police officers are used at checkpoints. Some of the barriers ? to checkpoints can be overcome through education and training. Enlightened task forces and? citizen activist groups can provide the motivation to use this effective enforcement tool. Checkpoints only need 3-5 officers to be effective, some policy makers assume they require 12-15Mary Anne Viverette, Chief of Police in Gaithersburg, Maryland, July 2005, “Sobriety Checkpoints:An Effective Tool to Reduce DWI Fatalities,” accessed July 6, 2015, to policy makers and law enforcement executives, sobriety checkpoints have lost their luster. In an era of tightened budgets, some may think sobriety checkpoints are too expensive, because they require overtime hours for officers, while others may feel the late-night operations are tiring to personnel and yield relatively few arrests.? These and other perceptions about sobriety checkpoints, which research shows are the most immediate method to drive down deaths and injuries from DWI, are simply wrong. For example, there is a popular notion that checkpoints require 12-15 officers; but research shows that checkpoints with three to five officers are safe and work just as well. Sobriety checkpoints also result in comparable arrest rates to DWI patrols per officer hour.? Yet considering that DWI remains one of the most commonly committed crimes, and that the hundreds of thousands of deaths and injuries could be prevented by more concerted enforcement efforts, preventing DWI should be one of the nation's top law enforcement priorities.Drunk Driving Deterrence DADrunk Driving DA Shell 1NCAlcohol involvement in fatal car accidents has declined from 60 percent in 1982 to 40 percent in 2010Blincoe, et al. L. J., Miller, T. R., Zaloshnja, E., & Lawrence, B. A., May, 2015, “The economic and societal impact of motor vehicle crashes, 2010,”Alcohol consumption is a major cause of motor vehicle crashes and injury. Over the past two decades,? about 40 percent of all motor vehicle fatalities occur in crashes in which a driver or nonoccupant has? consumed a measurable level of alcohol prior to the crash, and of these cases, 86 percent involved a? level of consumption which met the current typical legal definition for intoxication or impairment, a? blood alcohol concentration of .08 grams per deciliter or higher. Over the past two decades, there has? been an increased awareness of the problems caused by impaired driving. Many groups from NHTSA to? Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD), and State and? local agencies, have promoted the enactment of laws and implemented public awareness campaigns to? assist in combating this problem. Legal measures such as administrative license revocation/suspension? have been enacted in numerous States. As a result, there has been a marked decrease in the number of? fatalities resulting from alcohol-involved crashes. Table 7-1 displays the share of fatalities associated? with alcohol involvement (BAC>.01 g/dL) and the current definition of legal intoxication (illegal per se,? .08 g/dL) since 1982. Alcohol involvement in fatal crashes has declined from 60 percent of all fatalities in? 1982 to roughly 40 percent in 2010, while legal intoxication (defined as a BAC of .08 g/dL or greater) has? declined from 53 percent to 35 percent over the same period. While these declines are encouraging,? alcohol still remains a significant causative factor in motor vehicle crashes. Large consensus of scientific data suggests that sobriety checkpoints have a significant deterrent effect on drunk driving and reduce crashes – the plan ends checkpoints, will cause a return to 1980s levels of DUI crashesJames C. Fell, Elizabeth A. Langston, and A. Scott Tippetts, experts for Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, 2005, “Evaluation of Four State Impaired Driving Enforcement Demonstration Programs: Georgia, Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Louisiana,” accessed July 6, 2015, has indicated that sobriety checkpoints that are well publicized, conducted frequently, and have high visibility can serve as a general deterrent to impaired driving. Studies in the early 1980s found significant decreases in alcohol-related crashes associated with sobriety checkpoint programs (Epperlein, 1985; Lacey, Stewart, Marchetti, et al., 1986; Voas, Rhodenizer, & Lynn, 1985). Later studies confirmed that frequent, highly publicized checkpoint programs substantially reduced alcohol-related crashes by 10 to 20 percent (Levy, Shea, & Asch, 1988; Levy, Asch, & Shea, 1990; Wells, Preusser, & Williams, 1992). A summary of the U.S. literature, which examined nine studies through the early 1990s, concluded that the available evidence supports the hypothesis that checkpoints reduce impaired driving (Ross, 1992). A demonstration program in Tennessee (“Checkpoint Tennessee”) showed a 20 percent reduction in alcohol-related fatal crashes extending at least 21 months after conclusion of the formal program (Lacey, Jones, & Smith, 1999). A review of the latest literature on the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints and random breath testing found that sobriety checkpoints were effective in reducing alcohol-related fatalities and injuries (Peek-Asa, 1999). The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) conducted a systematic review of the evidence regarding interventions to reduce alcohol-impaired driving (Shults, Elder, Sleet, et al., 2001). Fifteen studies on the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints were summarized and showed a median reduction of 20 percent in fatal and injury crashes associated with sobriety checkpoint programs.Impact – Drunk driving kills thousands of people and wastes $60 billion a yearCDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention), 2015, “Impaired Driving: Get the Facts,” accessed June 14, 2015, day, almost 30 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 51 minutes. The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $59 billion.? Thankfully, there are effective measures that can help prevent injuries and deaths from alcohol-impaired driving.? How big is the problem?? In 2013, 10,076 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.? Of the 1,149 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2013, 200 (17%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.? Of the 200 child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2013, over half (121) were riding in the vehicle with the alcohol-impaired driver.? In 2010, over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. That's one percent of the 112 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year.? Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths. These other drugs are often used in combination with alcohol.UniquenessMany police agencies are reluctant to accept the wealth of scientific data supporting the effectiveness of checkpoints – means checkpoints are only frequently used in a minority of states – their authors are biased and ignore the dataSusan A. Ferguson, James C. Fell, Allan F. Williams, AND Michele Fields, 2003, “Why Aren’t Sobriety Checkpoints Widely Adopted? as an Enforcement Strategy in the United States?” accessed July 6, 2015, Research has indicated that sobriety checkpoints that are well publicized and have high public? visibility can serve as a general deterrent to impaired driving. A summary of the? U.S. literature examined nine studies through the early 1990s and concluded that “the cumulation? of evidence supports the hypothesis that checkpoints reduce impaired driving”. A? demonstration program in Tennessee (“Checkpoint Tennessee”) was sponsored by the National? Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 1995 to determine if highly publicized? checkpoints conducted throughout the state on a weekly basis would have an effect on impaired? driving in the state. The evaluation of that program showed a 20 percent reduction in alcohol related? fatal crashes extending at least 21 months after conclusion of the formal program. A? review of the latest literature on the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints and random breath? testing in reducing motor vehicle crash injuries was recently completed by the Centers for? Disease Control (CDC). Six studies that met the study criteria found that checkpoints were? effective in reducing alcohol-related fatalities and injuries.? Despite the evidence supporting the increased use of sobriety checkpoints and guidance on how? to conduct them, many police agencies have been unenthusiastic about adopting this practice.? Sobriety checkpoints are still underused, except in a minority of states. The present study? provided the opportunity to address the question of why this is so. The approach taken was to? attempt to determine why some states conduct checkpoints frequently while other states do not,? identifying impediments to checkpoint use as perceived by officials in low-use states. Alcohol abuse and drunk driving is popular, yet under controlRalph W. Hingson, Doctor of Science and Masters in Public Health, 2010, “Magnitude and Prevention of College Drinking and Related Problems,” accessed June 28, 2015, surveys indicate that from 1999 to 2005 (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 2000, 2002, 2006) the percentage of 18- to 24-year-old college students who drank five or more drinks on an occasion in the previous 30 days increased from 41.7 percent to 45.2 percent, a significant 8 percent proportional increase. Among 18- to 24-year-olds not in college, the percentage increased from 36.5 percent to 40.2 percent, a significant proportional 10 percent increase.? A greater percentage of 18- to 24-year-old college students compared with noncollege respondents drank five or more drinks on an occasion. However, because only one-third of 18- to 24-year-olds are in college, the number not in college who consumed five or more drinks on an occasion in 2005 exceeded the number of college students who did so (7,884,398 vs. 4,351,887). From 1999 to 2005, among 18- to 24-year-olds, the proportion of college students who drove under the influence of alcohol increased significantly from 26.1 percent to 29.2 percent. Among those in the same age-group who are not in college, the proportion also increased significantly from 19.8 percent to 22.8 percent.? Of note, the increases from 1999 to 2005 in binge drinking and driving under the influence of alcohol occurred among respondents aged 21–24, not those ages 18–20. In each year examined, a greater percentage of 21- to 24-year-olds than 18- to 20-year-olds engaged in these behaviors. Among both 21- to 24-year olds and 18- to 20-year olds, college students were more likely than same-age respondents not enrolled in college to report these behaviors (Hingson and Zha 2009).LinksLink – checkpoints significantly reduce drunk driving and crashesDUI Foundation, Anelli Xavier, a New York DWI Law Firm, 2015, “SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS,” accessed June 14, 2015, checkpoints are roadblocks on public roads at which officers systematically stop vehicles in order to investigate drivers’ sobriety. All drivers who are stopped are required to submit to a sobriety test, usually in the form of a portable breathalyzer test or field sobriety test, in order to determine possible alcohol impairment.? Sobriety checkpoints, set up at times during the day when drunk driving typically occurs, seek to deter DUIs. The Centers for Disease Control have found that in states where sobriety checkpoints are used, alcohol-related crashes have been reduced by about 20%.? Due to the invasive nature of sobriety checkpoints, many question the validity of the practice. Although courts in the majority of states have ruled that sobriety checkpoints are upheld by federal and/or state constitutions, several states consider checkpoints illegal under varying interpretations.? States that do not allow sobriety checkpoints include:? Alaska? Idaho? Iowa? Michigan? Minnesota? Oregon? Rhode Island? Texas? Washington? Wisconsin? Wyoming? The debate over the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints centers around the concept of being searched, questioned, and subjected to testing without due reasonable suspicion or probable cause–a potential violation of the Fourth Amendment. Due to this controversy, many states have amended or added specific exceptions to their normal civil protections in order to allow sobriety checkpoints in their state. Guidelines are set up in order to avoid over-intrusiveness.? Generally, sobriety checkpoints are set up on a public road at a time and location chosen due to its past record of high DUI incidence. A neutral formula is used in to order to select the vehicles to be stopped. For example, an officer may pull over every sixth car that goes by.? Officers require drivers to submit to a breath analysis test. Usually conducted with a portable breathalyzer, the test measures blood alcohol concentration by analyzing the driver’s breath. The testing procedure at sobriety checkpoints is determined on a state-by-state basis. Some routines may also include having the driver step out of the car to perform a series of field sobriety tests.? Special caution is taken at sobriety checkpoints in order to ensure that the length of detention is not too long and cumbersome of a delay. There are also limits to the length of time the checkpoints are allowed to be active on any given public road.? There’s no doubt that systematically stopping cars and conducting sobriety tests is a surefire way to prevent driving under the influence, as it is a very direct approach. However, despite efforts to make sobriety checkpoints as minimally intrusive to the driver as possible, it’s easy to see why the debate over constitutionality continues.Checkpoints create a significant deterrent to drunk drivingRandy W. Elder, et al., Ruth A. Schulz, David A. Sleet, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, James L. Nichols, National Highway Traffic Safety, Stephanie Zaza, CDC, Robert S. Thompson, Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, 2002, “Effectiveness of Sobriety Checkpoints? for Reducing Alcohol-Involved? Crashes,” accessed June 14, 2015, driving has long been recognized as a public? health problem. Attempts to address this problem through law? enforcement date back to New York’s impaired driving law of? 1910. Since their introduction in Scandinavia in the 1930s, sobriety? checkpoints have gradually become a popular enforcement? tool worldwide. At sobriety checkpoints, law enforcement officers systematically stop drivers to assess their degree of alcohol? impairment using behavioral, physiological, or chemical tests? Procedures for conducting sobriety checkpoints vary in different? countries. At random breath testing (RBT) checkpoints,? which are used in Australia and several European countries,? all drivers stopped are given breath tests for blood alcohol levels.? Issues regarding the violation of constitutional protections? against unreasonable search and seizure prevent the use of RBT? checkpoints in the United States (NHTSA, 1990), where selective? breath testing (SBT) checkpoints are used. At SBT checkpoints,? police must have reason to suspect the driver has been? drinking before they can demand that a driver take a breath? test.? Although sobriety checkpoints remove some drinking drivers? from the road, their primary goal is to deter driving after drinking? by increasing the perceived risk of arrest. This perceived risk can? be influenced by many factors in addition to the objective probability? of arrest (Ross, 1992). High levels of paid and unpaid? publicity increase the salience of checkpoint campaigns. Contact? with checkpoints, either by being stopped or passing by,? further reinforces perceptions of increased enforcement activity.? Finally, checkpoints counter drinking drivers’ beliefs that? they can drive well enough to avoid attracting attention, as? they can be pulled over regardless of their behavior (Ross,? 1992).Studies show checkpoint breath-tests reduce crashes and injuries caused by drunk drivingRandy W. Elder, et al., Ruth A. Schulz, David A. Sleet, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, James L. Nichols, National Highway Traffic Safety, Stephanie Zaza, CDC, Robert S. Thompson, Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, 2002, “Effectiveness of Sobriety Checkpoints? for Reducing Alcohol-Involved? Crashes,” accessed June 14, 2015, results provide strong evidence that both RBT [Random Breath Tests] and SBT [Selective Breath Tests]? sobriety checkpoints are effective in reducing alcohol-related? crashes and associated fatal and nonfatal injuries. The greater? sensitivity of RBT checkpoints in detecting drinking drivers? might lead one to expect a stronger deterrent effect leading to? improved effectiveness in reducing alcohol-related crashes relative? to SBT checkpoints (Homel et al., 1988). The results of this? review did not provide evidence of such differential effectiveness.? None of the studies reviewed directly compared RBT and? SBT checkpoints, however, so these results should be interpreted? cautiously.? Despite differences across studies in design, period of observation,? and outcome measures evaluated, the results were? generally consistent in direction and size. The consistency of? the results obtained was further supported by stratified analyses,? in which similar beneficial effects were obtained for crashes of? varying levels of severity and for both short-term and long-term? checkpoint programs.Checkpoints may result in fewer arrests than roving patrols but still reduce total DUI – deterrence and drinking cultureShamane Mills, writer for Wisconsin Public Radio, August 8, 2013, “How Do You Prevent Drunk Driving? Policymakers And Public Weigh Options,” accessed July 6, 2015, national office of Mothers Against Drunk Driving Sobriety supports sobriety checkpoints. It says they may result in fewer arrests than roving patrols, but that's because of their deterrent effect.? At the legislative hearing on drunk driving penalties, Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Ron Dague says checkpoints may make a dent in what he calls a cultural issue in Wisconsin:? "The Friday night activity is 'Let's go drinking'," said Dague. "But if they look at the five o'clock news and say 'Wow, they're doing sobriety checkpoints and if we drive we could get pulled over, even if we're driving okay' - that has been shown to be a huge deterrent effect."Checkpoints help accrue savings and detect other non-drinking related crimesRandy W. Elder, et al., Ruth A. Schulz, David A. Sleet, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, James L. Nichols, National Highway Traffic Safety, Stephanie Zaza, CDC, Robert S. Thompson, Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, 2002, “Effectiveness of Sobriety Checkpoints? for Reducing Alcohol-Involved? Crashes,” accessed July 6, 2015, issues may also pose barriers to the implementation of sobriety checkpoints. Checkpoints result in substantial savings relative to costs on a social basis (Mercer et al., 1996; Shults et al., 2001). However, these savings generally accrue to different sectors of society than those that expend resources to initiate and maintain the checkpoint programs. Strong public support for drinking and driving enforcement can help to ensure that law enforcement agencies have adequate funds to devote to checkpoint programs. Such support tends to increase to high levels following the introduction of checkpoint programs (Homel et al., 1988; Lacet et al., 1999). Police frustration over the low arrest rate associated with sobriety checkpoitns also can be an important barrier (Lacey & Jones, 1991). Informing police officers about the general deterrence benefit of their efforts and providing them with regular feedback linking these efforts to crash prevention may decrease this frustration (Castle et al., 1995; Hendrie et al., 1998). In addition to the benefits of preventing crashes, sobriety checkpoints often result in the arrest of drivers for other offenses such as driving with a suspended license or while carrying weapons (Lacey et al., 1999; Mercer et al., 1996; Stutser & Blowers, 1995; Voas et al., 1985).Saturation of areas with traffic patrols is strictly less effective than sobriety checkpoints, and requires more officersJames C. Fell, Elizabeth A. Langston, and A. Scott Tippetts, experts for Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, 2005, “Evaluation of Four State Impaired Driving Enforcement Demonstration Programs: Georgia, Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Louisiana,” accessed July 6, 2015, examining different alcohol-impaired driving law enforcement strategies showed that the proportion of all crashes involving alcohol declined an average of 28 percent in four communities that used publicized sobriety checkpoints compared with a 17 percent decline in communities that used only publicized roving patrols (or saturation patrols). There were no differences in effectiveness for sobriety checkpoint programs with small staffing levels (3 to 5 officers per checkpoint) compared with high staffing levels (8 to 12 officers), or for checkpoints that stayed in one location versus those that moved around (Stuster & Blowers, 1995). Law enforcement and other officials have been skeptical of the cost benefit of sobriety checkpoints, but at least one study indicates that checkpoint programs can yield considerable cost savings (Miller, Galbraith, & Lawrence, 1998).Sobriety checkpoints are the most easily publicized form of drunk driving deterrence – and is the most effective way to reduce drunk crash deaths James C. Fell, Elizabeth A. Langston, and A. Scott Tippetts, experts for Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, 2005, “Evaluation of Four State Impaired Driving Enforcement Demonstration Programs: Georgia, Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Louisiana,” accessed July 6, 2015, that did not conduct a full statewide program (Louisiana and Pennsylvania) may have had a more difficult challenge in changing driver behavior than the ones which could provide a more consistent picture of enforcement activity (Georgia and Tennessee). Additionally, checkpoints are more uniquely identified by the public as impaired driving enforcement and are more visible than other types of DUI enforcement activity. Only Georgia indicated some consistent change in reported drinking-and-driving behavior. It appears that Georgia also did more of everything compared to the other three States: more checkpoints, more publicity, more paid advertising, and more police equipment. In totality, this may have resulted in a greater effect. In summary, it appears that States can expect significant decreases in impaired driving if they use a sobriety checkpoint model that includes the following:? A statewide effort.? Numerous checkpoints conducted throughout the year.? Intensive publicity about the enforcement (especially paid advertising in Georgia’s case)? Trained and equipped law enforcement officials, as Georgia did (and to a smaller extent, Tennessee did, too).? Highly publicized sobriety checkpoints conducted weekly throughout a State appear to be one of the most effective strategies for immediately reducing impaired driving fatalities.ImpactsImpact – Drunk driving kills thousandsMatthew Chambers, Mindy Liu, AND Chip Moore, April 2012, “Drunk Driving by the Numbers,” accessed June 14, 2015, 2-hours, three people are killed in alcohol-related highway crashes. The consequences of drinking and driving are arrests, property damage, injuries, and thousands of deaths each year. An estimated 4 million U.S. adults reported driving under the influence of alcohol at least once in 2010 yielding an estimated 112 million alcohol-impaired driving episodes. Men accounted for 81 percent of these incidents.? Given the rate of driving under the influence of alcohol, it is remarkable that the fatality rate is not greater. Alcohol-related highway crashes accounted for 13,365 deaths in 2010 (as shown in figure 1). In addition, alcohol-related highway crashes annually cost Americans an estimated $37 billion.? However, drunk driving awareness and enforcement efforts such as Zero Tolerance Laws may be having a positive impact. The percentage of alcohol-related fatalities decreased from 50.6 percent in 1990 to 42 percent in 2009. And all 50 States, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, now have a 0.08 blood alcohol concentration limit for determining if drivers are driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while intoxicated (DWI), up from just 2 in 1990. Among major crimes, driving under the influence has one of the highest arrest rates with more than 1.4 million DUI arrests in 2010.Drunk driving costs the public over $100 billion a yearDUI Foundation, 2015, “Financial Cost of Drinking and Driving,” accessed July 6, 2015, the United States, the public cost of alcohol-induced traffic incidents is estimated to be around $114.3 billion. This includes $51.1 billion in monetary costs and roughly $62.3 billion in life losses. The driver is not the only one financially affected in these situations; people other than the drunk driver pay around $71.6 billion for alcohol-related crashes.? There are many factors related to drunk driving that people do not realize at the time of conviction. Some drunk driving-related fees include court costs, attorney fees, bail fees, driving under the influence education programs, and car towing or impounding. The aforementioned mandatory drunk driving education program can cost between $1,500 and $2,500.? In all 50 states, a driver temporarily loses his or her driver’s license after violating drunk driving laws. This means the offender has to rely on other methods of transportation, which can take a toll financially. There is also a $250 reinstatement fee that must be paid before a driver can return to full driving privileges.Reducing drunk driving improves the economy – creates jobs and raises GDPMary Elizabeth Dallas, writer for Health Day, April 29, 2015, “Drop in Drunk Driving Crashes May Have Boosted U.S. Economy,” accessed July 6, 2015, , April 30, 2015 (HealthDay News) -- A dramatic drop in the number of alcohol-related car accidents over the past three decades may have helped fuel the U.S. economy, a new study suggests.? "Alcohol-involved crashes drag down the U.S. economy," the study authors wrote of their research that focused on the year 2010.? In that year, just 12 percent of car crashes involved alcohol, the researchers found. That's half the rate it was in the mid-80s, they noted. Although this sharp decline didn't affect alcohol sales, it boosted the national economy by $20 billion, they said.? To estimate the impact on the economy from car accidents involving alcohol, the researchers calculated the gains and losses tied to the significant drop in these accidents since 1984. For example, they calculated costs to employers and consumers from alcohol-related crashes, including medical and legal expenses as well as lost productivity, property damage, emergency response and crash investigations.? The study suggested the dramatic decline in alcohol-related accidents led to a $6.5 billion increase in national income in 2010. The researchers also contended that the drop in alcohol-related crashes led to 215,000 new jobs.? The reduction in alcohol-related car accidents also raised U.S. gross domestic product -- or GDP (the monetary value of all finished goods and services produced in the country) -- by $10 billion, according to the researchers.? Every one of the 25.5 million miles driven by drunk drivers in 2010 cost the economy an average of 12 jobs, reduced the national economic output by 80 cents and cut the GDP by 40 cents, the researchers said.? Eliminating alcohol-related accidents would result in more economic gains, they added.Stable economy key - Economic collapse causes massive armed conflicts – extinctionPhil Kerpen, National Review Online analyst, October 29, 2008, “Don't Turn Panic Into Depression,” accessed May 24, 2015, 's important that we avoid all these policy errors - not just for the sake of our prosperity, but for our survival. The Great Depression, after all, didn't end until the advent of World War II, the most destructive war in the history of the planet. In a world of nuclear and biological weapons and non-state terrorist organizations that breed on poverty and despair, another global economic breakdown of such extended duration would risk armed conflicts on an even greater scale.Checkpoints Good OffenseCheckpoints are profitable operations that can raise significant revenue for a cityRyan Gabrielson, writer for the California Watch, February 13, 2010, “Car seizures at DUI checkpoints prove profitable for cities, raise legal questions,” accessed July 6, 2015, checkpoints in California are increasingly turning into profitable operations for local police departments that are far more likely to seize cars from unlicensed motorists than catch drunken drivers.? An investigation by the Investigative Reporting Program at UC Berkeley with California Watch has found that impounds at checkpoints in 2009 generated an estimated $40 million in towing fees and police fines – revenue that cities divide with towing firms.? Additionally, police officers received about $30 million in overtime pay for the DUI crackdowns, funded by the California Office of Traffic Safety.? In dozens of interviews over the past three months, law enforcement officials and tow truck operators say that vehicles are predominantly taken from minority motorists – often illegal immigrants.Politics LinksDUI checkpoints are publicly popularMary Anne Viverette, Chief of Police in Gaithersburg, Maryland, July 2005, “Sobriety Checkpoints:An Effective Tool to Reduce DWI Fatalities,” accessed July 6, 2015, reason some jurisdictions may opt out of checkpoints is the belief by some that the public doesn't support such operations. Yet 88 percent of respondents to a written survey in Tennessee said they approved of using checkpoints to prevent drunken driving.? In Indiana, the Governor's Council on Impaired and Dangerous Driving, which provides the leadership and training for checkpoints, helped establish the Marion County Traffic Safety Partnership that involves police representatives, citizens, and business representatives. "We've received a lot of positive comments; they mostly appreciate you out there," said Bickel, who organizes regular checkpoints between six law enforcement agencies in the Marion County. "Business people come out and offer officers coffee and they tell officers what's occurring in the neighborhood. It's very proactive."Plan is unpopular – manufacturing lobbyists love DUI checkpointsRachel Alexander, J.D., editor of The Intellectual Conservative, November 25, 2013, “DUI Checkpoints: Yay or Nay?” accessed July 6, 2015, it comes down to is follow the money. Powerful lobbyists are obtaining millions of dollars in profits for companies that manufacture ignition locks, breathalyzers and blood-testing equipment. Similarly, slick lobbyists for the wireless phone industry have carved out exceptions for hands-free wireless phone conversations while driving. It has nothing to do with safety, or the more dangerous types of distracted driving would be targeted.Checkpoints are politically popularJames Lynch, writer for Q13 FOX, December 4, 2013, “Would you favor DUI checkpoints in Washington?” accessed July 6, 2015, — Most of us would agree that driving under the influence is never a good idea.? Nothing good can ever come from it and the consequences can be devastating.? DUI CHECKPOINT The Washington Impaired Driving Work Group was created by the Legislature last year after repeat drunken driver Mark Mullan drove through a crosswalk and struck and killed Dennis and Judy Schulte and injured their daughter-n-law and grandchild.? The 33-member work group released its report on Monday with 11 ideas to for reducing the problem of drunken driving.? More than 80 percent of the work group supports the controversial sobriety checkpoints? “The research shows sobriety checkpoints are the most effective means in reducing deaths and serious injury. It’s the only thing left in Washington state we have not enacted,” State Rep. Roger Goodman, R-Kirkland, said.MADD strongly supports DUI checkpoints – they submitted a brief to the Sitz case that ruled checkpoints constitutionalRobert B. Voas and James C. Fell, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, 2006, “Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD): The First? 25 Years,” accessed July 6, 2015, (MADD)_the_first_25_years/links/0912f50c7339d46b82000000.pdfAt the community level, MADD chapters have supported police enforcement? activities by demanding strong DUI enforcement? and acknowledging police efforts through annual awards to the? officers who make the most DUI arrests. At both the local and? national levels, MADD has supported sobriety checkpoints. At? the national level they have supported special incentive funding? for checkpoints under Section 410 of the Highway Safety? Act. They also submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of? checkpoints when the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the issue? in the Sitz case. FBI crime-record data (Figure 6) indicate that? DUI arrests began to rise in 1978, before the advent of MADD,? indicating that the effort of the NHTSA to provide new tools for? the police and to finance DUI enforcement programs through the? Highway Safety Act was beginning to pay off. However, DUI? arrests reached their peak between 1982 and 1992, the years in? which MADD was most visible and politically active, so it is? probable that MADD was important in sustaining this rise in? enforcement activity.Drunk driving regulation is very popular – only 9% of people think current laws are too harshRasmussen Reports, November 15, 2012, “46% Say Drunk Driving Laws Not Tough Enough,” accessed July 6, 2015, sizable number of Americans still don't believe drunk driving laws are tough enough, but adults in this country are narrowly divided over how sentences for those crimes should be determined.? A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 46% of Americans believe current drunk driving laws are not tough enough, but 39% think they are about right. Only nine percent (9%) feel those laws are too tough. (To see survey question wording, click here.)MADD lobbying is incredibly powerful – lawmakers must answer to MADD when they consider drunk driving legislationDUIAttorney, 2015, “MADD: a powerful lobbyist group?” accessed July 6, 2015, organization Mothers Against Drunk Driving has become one of the most successful lobbyist groups in the country.? According to their annual report, MADD now employs around 450 people. The group’s network is over 3,500 strong, however, thanks to a high number of volunteer members. The annual report points to a shocking financial statistic: the group only raises about $50,000 annually in order to sustain its efforts. MADD is a non-profit organization, meaning these funds are not accumulated as wealth but spent on the group’s efforts.? Those efforts, according to MADD’s mission statement, are directed “to stop drunk driving, support the victims of this violent crime and prevent underage drinking.” Today, the group applies a variety of tactics to accomplish this goal. One of those tactics is lobbying, and MADD is among the best in the business. MADD has transformed itself from a local victim’s support and education group into a powerful political force.? Behind every proposed underage drinking or drunk driving enforcement law you will likely find a MADD spokesperson. The group uses a very effective method: speak out on behalf of victims. The emotional stories that come out of lives lost in traffic accidents make for a strong argument.? According to MADD’s annual report, the group successfully assisted in the implementation of ignition interlock requirements in “Louisiana, Illinois and Arizona.”? Currently, MADD is lobbying for drunk driving reform in a number of other states, and New York is chief among them. New York’s reputation for DWI enforcement suffered a crushing blow this summer when a DWI driver took the lives of 4 children and 4 adults, including herself, on the Taconic Parkway. This type of tragedy often peaks the interest of the public who is otherwise disinterested in tougher DWI/DUI reform.? MADD is now joining New York lawmakers, including DWI victim Assemblyman Joel Miller, in urging the passing of new legislation to crack down on drunken driving in the state. MADD has announced its intention to join forces with the lawmakers in a public statement from a local Community Action Site Leader. The new legislation being proposed, part of which requires an ignition interlock device for all DWI offenders, has already unanimously passed the Senate.? MADD, in truth, is a model for successful political lobbying. The group spends relatively little money on the effort. Many believe the method MADD has used – mobilizing local voters – is more effective than a number of high-cost lobbying techniques. The local action groups, run mostly by volunteers, use the power of empathy and emotion in order to overcome any gaps in funding.? Today, MADD has gone beyond its role as a local group for victim’s support. It is a force to be reckoned with in the United States and Canada. And lawmakers have to answer to MADD anytime they consider drunken driving legislation.Courts CPText: SCOTUS should distinguish from its ruling in Michigan vs Sitz, and rule that the 4th amendment violations presented by DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional.Nick Dial, counter terrorism and homeland security specialist, July 27, 2013, “DUI Check Points – Controversial After 23 Years,” accessed July 6, 2015, 1990, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in Michigan vs Sitz stating that DUI checkpoints were, in fact, unconstitutional. This case found its way to the Supreme Court, and in a split decision, overturned Michigan’s ruling. The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision ruled that they were acceptable. However, they did not exactly state they were “constitutional.” In fact, they acknowledged they were not. Chief Justice Rehnquist made the following statements concerning their decision,? “No one can seriously dispute the magnitude of the drunken driving problem or the states’ interest in eradicating it. Media reports of alcohol-related death and mutilation on the nation’s roads are legion.”? “Conversely, the weight bearing on the other scale – the measure of the intrusion on motorists stopped briefly at sobriety checkpoints – is slight”? “In sum, the balance of the state’s interest in preventing drunken driving, the extent to which this system can reasonably be said to advance that interest, and the degree of intrusion upon individual motorists who are briefly stopped, weighs in favor of the state program. We therefore hold that it is consistent with the Fourth Amendment. . . .” So basically, they just said the ends justify the means and gave a statement acknowledging a constitutional violation in the name of public interest. This is odd, considering the amendment state no such flexibility, and the Constitution makes no such exceptions. Perhaps they should have looked to Benjamin Franklin, a founding father, for enlightenment on such an issue before ruling.Judicial activism is good – the court is well suited to defend basic constitutional rightsGeoffrey R. Stone, University of Chicago Professor of Law, April 13, 2012, “When Is Judicial Activism Appropriate?” accessed July 6, 2015, central question in constitutional law is: When is judicial activism appropriate? The best answer, which is grounded in the vision of the framers and has been a central part of constitutional law for more than 70 years, is that judicial activism is appropriate when there is good reason not to trust the judgment or fairness of the majority. It is in that situation when it is most important for judges to intervene to enforce the guarantees of the Constitution.? As Alexander Hamilton observed in the Federalist Papers, we must rely upon judges who have life tenure and are thus insulated from political pressure to protect "the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humours which ... sometimes disseminate among the people." In other words, judicial deference is inappropriate when there is good reason to believe that prejudice, intolerance or bigotry has tainted the fairness of the political process.? Invoking this understanding of judicial responsibility, the Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions that have faithfully interpreted and applied the Constitution in circumstances in which judicial activism was necessary to guard against such majoritarian dysfunction. These decisions ended racial segregation, recognized the principle of "one person, one vote," forbade government suppression of political dissenters, established an effective right to counsel for persons accused of crime, struck down government discrimination against women and upheld the right of "enemy combatants" to due process of law, to cite just a few examples. What these decisions have in common is that they protect the rights of the disadvantaged and the oppressed. Such decisions animate the most fundamental aspirations of our Constitution and are necessary and proper examples of judicial activism.Supreme court has the authority to determine scope of 4th amendment protections – history and rulings in other contexts proveHanni Fakhoury, staff attorney with the electronic frontier foundation, March 5, 2014, “Will Supreme Court Bring the Fourth Amendment into the 21st Century?” accessed July 6, 2015, US Supreme Court recently agreed to review two cases—United States v. Wurie and Riley v. California—dealing with the Fourth Amendment's application to new technologies. The specific issue in each case is whether police can search a cell phone, without a search warrant, after arresting someone. But while the issue may seem narrow, these cases provide the court with another opportunity to decide what the Fourth Amendment means in the 21st century.? Is a Cell Phone a Pack of Cigarettes?? The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits "unreasonable" searches, which generally means that police must have a warrant before "searching" a person or their "houses, papers, and effects." But there are a number of exceptions to the warrant requirement, one of which permits police to search someone incidental to their arrest. These searches are "reasonable" because of the need for officers to protect themselves from hidden weapons and to secure any contraband or evidence that could be destroyed.CP Solves – Supreme Court’s ruling is binding on all lower courtsRobyn Painter and Kate Mayer, Georgetown University Law, 2004, “WHICH COURT IS BINDING?” accessed July 6, 2015, , higher courts bind lower courts within their particular state or circuit. With the? exception of the U.S. Supreme Court, courts of appeals and state courts do not bind courts? outside the state or circuit in which they are located. That is, a federal Supreme Court decision is? mandatory on all lower federal courts, both courts of appeals and district courts. A federal? circuit decision is mandatory on all federal courts within its circuit, but not federal courts in other? circuits. For example, a 9th Circuit decision binds the U.S. district courts within the 9th Circuit,? but not federal courts in any other circuit. However, a district court or trial court decision would? not bind higher courts. A state supreme court decision is mandatory on all appeals courts and? trial courts in that state, but not on state courts in other states, and a state court of appeals’? decision binds state trial courts in that state.Shields the Link to PoliticsDeference to the Supreme Court shields the executive and legislative branches with political coverJennifer Greenstein Altmann, assistant editor for the Princeton Weekly Bulletin, June 4, 2007, “Pillars or politicos? Whittington examines high court justices,” accessed July 6, 2015, his new book, "Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History," Whittington argues that in recent years the court has become the key player in an important political tussle: Who has the final say in constitutional matters? Whittington asserts that the court has become the final arbiter, but that status did not result from a power grab by the court. Its power, remarkably, has come from politicians, who have pushed onto the court the responsibility for making final rulings on constitutional matters because, paradoxically, it benefits the politicians.? "Presidents are mostly deferential to the court," said Whittington. "They have pushed constitutional issues into the courts for resolution and encouraged others to do the same. That has led to an acceptance of the court's role in these issues."? It seems counterintuitive that politicians would want to defer to the court on some of the most high-stakes decisions in government, but Whittington has found that they do so because the court often rules in the ways that presidents want — and provides politicians with the political cover they need.? In 1995, the Clinton administration faced a proposal from the Senate to regulate pornography on the Internet. The president thought the bill was unconstitutional, but he didn't want to risk appearing lenient on such a hot-button issue right before he was up for re-election, Whittington said. Clinton signed the legislation with the hope that the Supreme Court would strike it down as unconstitutional, which it later did.? The gradual shift of constitutional decision-making to the court began in the 1850s, when both parties were internally divided by the issue of slavery.? "That was the first major issue that cut through existing political coalitions, and politicians didn't want to vote and risk alienating any part of their coalition," Whittington said. "There was a preference for letting the court make decisions, and that gradually became the norm. There wasn't a single turning point — it was an evolution."? But the court was more than willing to accept the power bestowed on it, Whittington pointed out. "Justices often seize opportunities to expand their power. They want their branch of government to be strong."Roving Patrols CPText: The USFG should divert all funding for sobriety checkpoints into roving patrol programsSolvency: Roving patrols are a much more cost effective means of taking drunk drivers off the road – avoids the Aff’s constitutional and privacy questions Sarah Longwell, managing director of the American Beverage Institute, November 26, 2013, “Scrap holiday sobriety checkpoints; use roving patrols,” accessed June 14, 2015, more cost-effective strategy would eliminate sobriety checkpoints in favor of increasing roving patrols. Such a strategy would not only take more drunk drivers off the road, but would also snatch drivers engaging in a wide array of other dangerous activities, from reckless speeding to aggressive driving to texting behind the wheel.? This latter point — snatching other dangerous drivers — is important, as a number of these bad actors can be far more dangerous than drivers who had a glass of wine with Thanksgiving dinner. Statistics show that talking on a cell phone, driving while sleepy or speeding by a mere 7 mph results in more accidents than driving with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08, the legal threshold at which one is presumed intoxicated.? So this holiday season, rather than pestering law-abiding citizens with ineffective and costly sobriety checkpoints, let’s instead devote our resources to more efficient tactics. After all, while checkpoints won’t catch people driving under the influence of turkey, roving patrols could protect us from drivers suffering from Tryptophan-induced food comas.Roving Patrols are an efficient means of cracking down on DUIsSarah Longwell, writer for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, September 1, 2014, “DUI checkpoints fail test; roving patrols better answer,” accessed July 6, 2015, states really want to crack down on drunken driving, they should scrap sobriety checkpoints in favor of roving patrols — where police officers actively patrol to seek out drunken and dangerous drivers. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, active roving patrols can be 10 times more effective than passive sobriety checkpoints. In addition to better targeting drunken drivers, roving patrols also tackle the risks posed by other dangerous driving behaviors, such as speeding or distracted driving.? And they aren’t just more productive; roving patrols are far more cost-effective than the checkpoint system. Each roving patrol costs about $300, while a single sobriety checkpoint can cost between $8,000 and $10,000.T – Its/USFGIts is possessive – refers to the USFGMerriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2015, or relating to it or itself especially as possessor, agent, or object of an action <going to its kennel> <a child proud of its first drawings> <its final enactment into law>DUI checkpoints are a matter of state law and jurisdiction – each has its own policy – 38 states currently conduct checkpointsGovernors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), July 2015, “Sobriety Checkpoint Laws,” accessed July 6, 2015, with no explicit statutory authority may or may not conduct checkpoints. In many states, the judiciary has stepped in to uphold or restrict sobriety checkpoints based on interpretation of state or federal Constitutions.? 38 states, the District of Columbia, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands conduct sobriety checkpoints.? In 12 states, sobriety checkpoints are not conducted. Some states prohibit them by state law or Constitution (or interpretation of state law or Constitution). Texas prohibits them based on the its interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.Violation: The aff fails to reduce any surveillance done by the United States federal government. They only curtail surveillance done by state police forces.Standards-Limits – They explode limits of the topic. If the aff isn’t restricted to limiting surveillance done by the federal government, they justify an infinite number of other actors who could potentially surveil the US population – State, local, municipality surveillance, even private surveillance from corporations or random people. Clear limits on the topic are the only way to ensure preparation for both sides and reasonable clash in the debate.Ground – Testing private, state, and any other non-federal actors should be negative ground. They fail to test whether the USFG should curtail surveillance.Extra Topical – They go far beyond the resolution, allowing any aff to include components far beyond the resolution. This justifies inflated and unpredictable advantages that the neg cannot outweighEducation – Absence of predicted topic discussion makes it impossible for the neg to engage in the debate, destroying the chance for any educationVoters – T is a priori and a voter for fairness and educationInherency Freedom-Patriot Acts NEGDomestic Surveillance is Curtailed in the Status QuoThe Freedom Act curtails domestic surveillance in the United StatesJennifer Steinhauer and Jonathan Weisman, Congressional correspondents for the New York Times, June 2, 2015“U.S. Surveillance in Place Since 9/11 Is Sharply Limited,” The New York Times (accessed 6/17/2015)In a significant scaling back of national security policy formed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Senate on Tuesday approved legislation curtailing the federal government’s sweeping surveillance of American phone records, and President Obama signed the measure hours later. The passage of the bill — achieved over the fierce opposition of the Senate majority leader — will allow the government to restart surveillance operations, but with new restrictions. The legislation signaled a cultural turning point for the nation, almost 14 years after the Sept. 11 attacks heralded the construction of a powerful national security apparatus. The shift against the security state began with the revelation by Edward J. Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor, about the bulk collection of phone records. The backlash was aided by the growth of interconnected communication networks run by companies that have felt manhandled by government prying.The new legislation is a qualitative and quantitative curtailment—it restricts large-scale grabs, mandates court review, and ends unfettered collectionLuke Messer, United States Representative from Indiana's Sixth District, June 16, 2015"Finding the Balance Between Liberty and Security," Greensburgh Daily News, (accessed 6/17/2015)Most importantly, the USA Freedom Act puts an end to the NSA’s unfettered data collection and phone record storage program once and for all. Within six months after the President’s signature, the NSA will no longer collect and store phone data. Instead, that data will be held by private companies. If the government wants access to it, it must obtain a court order first. In addition, the law prohibits the collection of any metadata collected from large-scale data grabs from an entire state, city, or zip code.Congress banned the mass collection of phone recordsDavid Welna, National Security Correspondent for National Public Radio, June 9, 2015“Latest Domestic Surveillance Issues Conjure Up Church Committee's Probe,” National Public Radio, (accessed 6/15/2015)Congress passed a law last week to end the government's mass collection of individuals’ phone records. It came after years of public outrage over domestic surveillance, stories of overreach by U.S. intelligence agencies and lawmakers in the dark about what spies are really up to. Forty years ago, many of those same concerns gave rise to the Church Committee. It was the first inquiry by the Senate into abuse by the nation's spymasters and also the first real attempt by Congress to rein them in. Status Quo Has Curtailed Collection of Data and Increased TransparencyFreedom Act doesn’t compel telecoms to provide data, and transparency allows citizens to lobby FISA Courts for declassificationThe Bell Jar, June 15, 2015“Questions and Answers About Newly Approved USA Freedom Act,” The Bell Jar, (accessed 6/15/2015)The bill was transparent about how government could request data, he said, and it “firmly rejects the idea that Verizon or any other communications providers, be compelled to retain and collect data beyond that needed for business purposes”. In terms of transparency, the act requires the intelligence community to be more open about how much data it’s collecting and allow businesses to divulge how often they give information to the government, creating “a new opportunity for civil liberties defenders to lobby the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and force the government to declassify major new opinions from FISC judges”, the article states.The Freedom Act recognizes court decisions against bulk data collectionJoseph Perkins, staff columnist at Orange County Register, June 5, 2015"History has vindicated Snowden, not authorities," Orange County Register, (accessed 6/17/2015)The USA Freedom Act reins in NSA’s bulk collection of phone records under Section 215 of the 2001 Patriot Act – one month after a federal appeals court ruled that the 14-year-old law went far beyond the parameters Congress originally authorized.Freedom Act pulls back from unlimited data access and requires court approval for all metadataThe Globe and Mail, June 14, 2015“The end of US ‘bulk telephony collection,’ and the lessons for Canada,” (accessed 6/15/2015)The upshot – under the new U.S.A. Freedom Act (officially, the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring Act of 2015”) – is that phone companies, not the NSA and the FBI, will record and store all the metadata for all phone calls. Those agencies will no longer be able to get at that kind of data at will, indiscriminately. The security agencies will have to apply to the FISC court for metadata, too. Status Quo Has Curtailed Collection of Data and Increased TransparencyFreedom Act is a restriction on NSA data collection and contains requirements for transparencyScott Lemieux , assistant professor of political science at the College of Saint Rose, June 8, 2015“How Congress learned to stop bowing to President Obama on national security,” The Week, a result, Congress finally acted to restrict the NSA's powers. The USA Freedom Act, signed into law by President Obama, contains two significant reforms. First of all, the NSA will not be permitted to collect bulk telephone and internet records. And second, at least some decisions of the FISA court that oversees NSA surveillance will be made transparent to the public, rather than be classified.NSA can no longer use Section 215 of the Patriot Act to justify bulk data colectionKate Knibbs, staff writer for Gizmodo, June 3, 2015"Obama Took a Tiny Step Towards Reform By Signing the USA Freedom Act," Gizmodo, (accessed 6/17/2015)The USA Freedom Act renews Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which has been used (under dubious legal circumstance) to justify the NSA’s bulk metadata collection program. In renewing Section 215, the bill prohibits the NSA from using it to justify its bulk data collection program. The bill also declassifies major FISA court opinions, throwing an extra iota of sunshine on a shadowy corner of the legal system.Freedom Act Is Generally GoodFreedom Act balances liberty and securityWashington Post Editorial Board, June 1, 2015"Rand Paul should stop stalling the USA Freedom Act," Washington Post, (accessed 6/17/2015)Denouncing fear and paranoia about terrorism, Mr. Paul sows fear and paranoia about government. Today, as always, the Constitution calls on us to balance liberty and security democratically. This is what the USA Freedom Act will do, just as soon as Mr. Paul stops grandstanding and lets his colleagues vote on it.Freedom Act demands a higher burden of proof for access to dataEd Ferrara, principal analyst at Forrester Research, June 5, 2015"5 Things You Need to Know about the USA Freedom Act," Tech Insider, (accessed 6/17/2015)The Freedom Act adds a higher burden of proof for agencies seeking to place a U.S. citizen, group or company under surveillance. The updated legislation will no longer require private firms to retain data such as subscriber phone records and more clearly defines the rationale required to allow surveillance activities.Individual corporations collect the data but don’t routinely turn data over to NSA absent specific findingsJoe Millis, night editor at International Business Times, June 3, 2015 “Barack Obama signs into law Bill reforming electronic surveillance programme,” International Business Times, (accessed 6/17/2015)The new law would require communications providers to collect and store telephone records the same way that they do now for billing purposes. But instead of routinely giving US intelligence agencies such data, they now have to turn it over only in response to a government request approved by the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.Further Restrictions Beyond Freedom Act ImpendingNew legislation in motion to protect private information outside the scope of the Freedom ActScott Shackford, associate editor at , June 12, 2015"House Votes to Slam Some Surveillance ‘Back Doors’ Shut," Reason, (accessed 6/17/2015)Yesterday afternoon she made good on that pledge, working with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) to again pass an amendment placing further restrictions on federal surveillance against Americans. Congress passed, 255-174, an amendment to a defense appropriations bill that defunds any efforts by the National Security Agency (NSA) to bypass any warrant requirements for gathering data and correspondence produced by Americans by trying to collect it from overseas sources. Because of the nature of the Internet, information passing from person to person, even domestically, may end up digitally travelling through foreign countries during the communication process or being stored in foreign countries. Federal snoops have been using the fact that private information outside the United States doesn't get the same legal protection that it does within the United States to try to get easier access. This tactic has been used not under the just-expired Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, but under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act and was not affected by the new data collection restrictions of the USA Freedom Act.House members are pushing an amendment to stop the NSA from compromising encryption standardsJoshua Kopstein, cyberculture and internet law reporter for Al Jazeera, June 2, 2015"USA Freedom Act gives NSA everything it wants — and less," Al Jazeera, (accessed 6/17/2015)In the House, Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Zoe Lofgren, D-Ca., are already proposing an amendment to an upcoming “must-pass” Department of Justice appropriations bill that would stop the agency from compromising encryption standards, a measure that was removed from the original Freedom Act. (In September of 2013, Snowden revealed that the NSA and its British counterpart GCHQ routinely inject vulnerabilities into commonly used encryption software and influence the development of crypto standards from within the scientific community.)Further Restrictions Beyond Freedom Act ImpendingSenate and House are both working on more restrictions to surveillanceJennifer Steinhauer and Jonathan Weisman, Congressional correspondents for the New York Times, June 2, 2015“U.S. Surveillance in Place Since 9/11 Is Sharply Limited,” The New York Times (accessed 6/17/2015)Senator Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, and Senator Leahy made it clear after passage that curtailing the phone sweeps might be only the beginning. The two are collaborating on legislation to undo a provision in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 that allows the government to read the contents of email over six months old. House members and senators from both parties are already eyeing a section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that they say has also been abused by the government.Twitter and other U.S. firms are informing surveillance targets and refusing to turn over dataJames Slack and Mia De Graaf, staffwriters for Daily Mail, June 12, 2015"Twitter will TIP OFF terror suspects being investigated by NSA because their 'brand is more important than security'," Daily Mail, (accessed 6/17/2015)Twitter said its policy was to ‘notify users of requests for their account information, which includes a copy of the request, prior to disclosure unless we are prohibited from doing so’. The astonishing revelations come in a report by British judge David Anderson QC, warning that intelligence agencies and the police are losing their ability to electronically track terrorists and criminals. Mr Anderson concluded that as a result of the furore caused by Snowden’s leaks to the Guardian newspaper, US firms were not as willing to provide vital information to the authorities. Courts Are Checking Abuse in Status QuoCourt orders must be more specific and targeted nowJoshua Kopstein, cyberculture and internet law reporter for Al Jazeera, June 2, 2015"USA Freedom Act gives NSA everything it wants — and less," Al Jazeera, (accessed 6/17/2015)That's because the Freedom Act has focused almost exclusively on ending one single National Security Agency program under one single authority: The secret bulk collection of Americans' phone records under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, revealed almost exactly two years ago by Edward Snowden. Section 215 and two other “emergency” post-9/11 surveillance provisions briefly lapsed Sunday night after the Senate failed to reauthorize them. The new law replaces the NSA’s bulk data collection with a program that requires telecom companies to retain the data and grant access to intelligence agencies through more targeted court orders.Freedom Act increases judicial reviewChris Morran, Staff writer for Consumerist, June 12, 2015 “Judge Says USA FREEDOM Act May Scuttle Twitter’s Transparency Lawsuit,” Consumerist, June 3, the day after President Obama signed the FREEDOM Act, which is intended to add more transparency to the national security request process, recently appointed Attorney General Loretta Lynch filed a notice [PDF] with the court to point out that the new legislation includes some new banding options for disclosure reports that allow companies to report data in bands as small as 100 requests. Lynch also noted that the FREEDOM Act allows recipients of these requests to obtain judicial review, something Twitter had taken issue with in its original complaint.General Trend is Against Mass SurveillanceTrend of both courts and legislation is against mass surveillanceDavid Cole, Professor of Law and Public Policy at Georgetown University Law Center, June 2, 2015“Reining in the NSA,” New York Review of Books, (accessed 6/17/2015)Congress’s almost reflexive support for Section 215 only changed with Snowden’s leaks, which in turn prompted every branch of government to alter its approach toward the NSA’s phone data collection. President Obama, who had previously adopted the program wholesale from his predecessor, imposed a number of restraints unilaterally. A federal district court ruled that the NSA’s bulk collection was likely unconstitutional, and a federal court of appeals more recently ruled that the program was never authorized by Section 215 in the first place. And now Congress has ended bulk collection altogether, by enacting the USA Freedom Act.Freedom Act is a turning pointDave Neal, reporter at the Inquirer and V3, June 3, 2015"NSA phone surveillance limited by USA Freedom Act," V3, (accessed 6/17/2015)The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) had an equally mixed response. "It's not the bill the EFF would have written, and ... we withdrew our support from the bill in an effort to spur Congress to strengthen some of its privacy protections and out of concern about language added to the bill at the behest of the intelligence community," it said. "Even so, we're celebrating because, however small, this bill marks a day that some said could never happen, a day when the NSA saw its surveillance power reduced by Congress. And we're hoping that this could be a turning point in the fight to rein in the NSA."Surveillance Hawks Losing in the Status QuoSurveillance hawks are losingSean Cockerham and William Douglas, Reporters with McClatchy Washington Bureau, June 2, 2015"Congress curbs NSA access to phone records while resurrecting spying powers," The News & Observer, (accessed 6/17/2015)But hawks in the Senate, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., made a final attempt Tuesday to change the bill, pushing to delay the transition to the new phone record collection system and remove a requirement that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court make some surveillance orders public. The Senate voted down each of McConnell’s amendments, another major defeat for the powerful majority leader, who was first outmaneuvered by Paul into letting the NSA spy powers lapse and then forced to accept a bill he didn’t like.Surveillance hawks were defeated in the SenateThe Guardian, June 2, 2015"NSA reform: USA Freedom Act passes first surveillance reform in decade – as it happened," The Guardian, (accessed 6/17/2015)The Senate passed the USA Freedom Act without any amendments, on a vote of 67-32, and sent the bill to Barack Obama to sign into law. The bill will end the mass collection of Americans’ phone records by the NSA, restore some expired powers to security agencies, place record storage in private companies’ hands, create a public-interest advocate for the secret Fisa court that oversees surveillance programs, and require the court to notify Congress when it reinterprets law. The NSA set in motion plans to restart its mass collection of American phone records, in accordance with the six-month “transition” period prescribed in the bill. The powers are scheduled to formally end in December. The Senate emphatically rejected three pro-surveillance amendments proposed by majority leader Mitch McConnell, denying his attempts to change the terms of Fisa court and record retention provisions in the bill.Transparency Increasing In Status QuoTransparency checks NSA abuseKTVZ News, June 2, 2015"Wyden: Freedom Act biggest privacy win in a decade," KTVZ News (Oregon), (accessed 6/17/2015)Under the new legislation, the FISA Court will be required to declassify or provide a declassified summary of any opinion that includes a significant construction or interpretation of any provision of law. If national security is determined to be at risk in declassifying such a decision or summary, the Director of National Intelligence can waive disclosure of those documents, but must still make public an unclassified statement prepared by the Attorney General that summarizes the significant construction or interpretation of any provision of law.Freedom Act increases transparencyCindy Cohn, executive director at Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Rainey Reitman, activism director at Electronic Frontier Foundation, June 2, 2015Electronic Frontier Foundation Freedom Act Passes: What We Celebrate, What We Mourn, and Where We Go From HereThe Senate passed the USA Freedom Act today by 67-32, marking the first time in over thirty years that both houses of Congress have approved a bill placing real restrictions and oversight on the National Security Agency’s surveillance powers. The weakening amendments to the legislation proposed by NSA defender Senate Majority Mitch McConnell were defeated, and we have every reason to believe that President Obama will sign USA Freedom into law. Technology users everywhere should celebrate, knowing that the NSA will be a little more hampered in its surveillance overreach, and both the NSA and the FISA court will be more transparent and accountable than it was before the USA Freedom Act.General Mass Data Collection is Dead in Status QuoAll requests for data must be specificJournal Star Editorial Board, June 2, 2015"A Reckless Way to Govern," Lincoln Journal-Star, (accessed 6/17/2015)The Freedom Act puts needed new restrictions in place on electronic surveillance. One important provision is that the federal government could no longer store phone and email data on its own servers. That information would remain with private companies, and could be turned over only after the NSA won approval for specific requests from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.Data can now only be acquired on a case-by-case basisCarly Page, News Editor at the Inquirer, June 3, 2015"NSA Surveillance Powers Curtailed as Senate Passes USA Freedom Act," The Inquirer. (accessed 6/17/2015)The U.S. Senate approved the USA Freedom Act on Tuesday which will end the National Security Agency's (NSA) bulk collection of millions of Americans' phone records. The bill was passed by a 67-32 vote, and will reverse Section 215 of the Patriot Act - the policy that enabled the NSA to collect phone records en masse - after it expired earlier this week. The USA Freedom Act will go into force in six months' time, and requires federal agencies to seek a court order on a case-by-case basis to obtain call data from telephone companies.Internet Surveillance NEG***Topicality Shell*** 1NC TopicalityInterpretation/Definition –Network Surveillance is intelligence information gathered from communications intelligence or electronics intelligence or telemetry intelligenceThe Free Dictionary, Accessed 7/25/2015 (redirected from Network surveillance) Noun 1. SIGINT - intelligence information gathered from communications intelligence or electronics intelligence or telemetry intelligence signals intelligence intelligence activity, intelligence operation, intelligence - the operation of gathering information about an enemy electronics intelligence, ELINT - intelligence derived from electromagnetic radiations from foreign sources (other than radioactive sources) COMINT, communications intelligence - technical and intelligence information derived from foreign communications by other than the intended recipients telemetry intelligence, TELINT - intelligence derived from the interception and processing and analysis of foreign telemetryViolation—The plan eliminates targeted internet surveillance and mass internet surveillanceReasons to PreferGround/Limits- the plan has access to advantages based off mass surveillance and infinite methods of retrieving data creating an unpredictable basis for negative researching and unfairly skewing an already Affirmative biased topic further in favor of the Negative. Education – Allowing all sizes and forms of surveillance of the network decreases topic specific education and in round– not just exploding the topic but also destroying negative disad and cp ground. Topicality is a voting issue for competitive equality. Topicality is a procedural issue that should be evaluated based on competing interpretations.***Inherency***Decreasing Internet Surveillance – EncryptionNew encryption tech is providing an alternative to mass internet surveillance nowEleanor Saitta, security engineer, artist, and writer, May 27, 2015, “The Key to Ending Mass Surveillance? Math.” (Accessed 7/24/2015)What if all of this data was properly encrypted? If this were the case, the individual communicating hosts would have to be individually compromised. This is an active attack, only feasible against small numbers of targets instead of all of us at once in giant sweeps. The cost and risk of discovery relegates it to high-value targets—exactly the situation we want. Protecting metadata is more complex, but the same pattern applies. Commercial businesses are already implementing better encryption to protect their information from spying, as seen with Apple’s decision to encrypt data stored on iPhones by default and Google’s improvements in security between its data centers. However, privacy should be easily accessible for everyone, and most of these changes neither protect communications metadata nor stop companies from snooping on their customers for advertising purposes, which still allows the government to collect data in bulk. ?The challenge of protecting the average citizen’s metadata is currently best handled by tools like the Tor project, an international network of volunteer proxies with an associated browser and other client software. Tor is used by journalists, activists, domestic-violence victims, and even US government investigators—all groups for whom surveillance can have serious consequences. Tor encrypts traffic and bounces it between several relays, ensuring that the relay a user connects to doesn’t know where the traffic is going, and the relay passing the traffic to its final destination doesn’t know the source. Decentralized approaches like Tor’s, in which security is designed into the system and there is no central party to coerce or subvert, are as necessary a response to surveillance as encryption is.Decreased Internet Surveillance – VPNs CheckVPNs check internet surveillance effortsDann Albright, Freelance writer and blogger, January 25, 2015, “Avoiding Internet Surveillance: The Complete Guide,” (Accessed 7/22/2015)One of the simplest ways to go about concealing your actions on the web is to use a virtual private network, or VPN. When you’re engaging in unsecured browsing, your computer reaches out, through your ISP, across the Internet, to another site. Once you’ve made this connection, you can view that site. However, if anyone is looking closely, they can see that connection. A VPN inserts an intermediary server between you and the site you’re connecting to—if someone is looking now, all they’ll see is a connection from the VPN server to the site on the other end. Your connection to the VPN server is encrypted, concealing your identity. There are quite a few VPNs that are free, which is great if you don’t use them all the time—many people only use them to access region-blocked video when they want to watch Netflix from another country, for example. If you’re interested in getting a higher bandwidth limit, more speed, and no ads, you should look into paying for a VPN—we have a list of the best VPN services that you can check out. In most cases, it’s as simple as downloading a browser extension or an app, running a five-minute setup, and you’ll be on your way.Internet Surveillance Oversight – ICANNICANN oversight on internet surveillance will protect the future of internet securityCraig Timberg, reporter for the Washington Post, March 14, 2014, “US to Relinquish Remaining Control Over the Internet,” (Accessed 7/21/2015)U.S. officials said their decision had nothing to do with the NSA spying revelations and the worldwide controversy they sparked, saying there had been plans since ICANN’s creation in 1998 to eventually migrate it to international control. “The timing is now right to start this transition both because ICANN as an organization has matured, and international support continues to grow for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance,” Strickling said in a statement. Although ICANN is based in Southern California, governments worldwide have a say in the group’s decisions through an oversight body. ICANN in 2009 made an “Affirmation of Commitments” to the Commerce Department that covers several key issues. Fadi Chehade, president of ICANN, disputed many of the complaints about the transition plan and promised an open, inclusive process to find a new international oversight structure for the group. “Nothing will be done in any way to jeopardize the security and stability of the Internet,” he said. The United States has long maintained authority over elements of the Internet, which grew from a Defense Department program that started in the 1960s. The relationship between the United States and ICANN has drawn wider international criticism in recent years, in part because big American companies such as Google, Facebook and Microsoft play such a central role in the Internet’s worldwide functioning. The NSA revelations exacerbated those concerns. “This is a step in the right direction to resolve important international disputes about how the Internet is governed,” said Gene Kimmelman, president of Public Knowledge, a group that promotes open access to the Internet.***A/T Civil Liberties/Privacy Adv***Link TurnPrivacy and Civil Liberties board says surveillance is legitimate and protects civil libertiesGregory S. McNeal, Forbes Contributor, July 1, 2014, “Privacy And Civil Liberties Board Goes Easy On NSA, Finds 'No Trace' Of Illegitimate Activity,” (Accessed 7/21/2015)Privacy And Civil Liberties Board Goes Easy On NSA, Finds 'No Trace' Of Illegitimate Activity In a big victory for the NSA, and a seeming rebuke to critics of the agency, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), found very little wrong with surveillance conducted under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The PCLOB, an independent government watchdog, released an unofficial version of its report on NSA surveillance programs stating “the protections contained in the Section 702 minimization procedures are reasonably designed and implemented to ward against the exploitation of information acquired under the program for illegitimate purposes. The Board has seen no trace of any such illegitimate activity associated with the program , or any attempt to intentionally circumvent legal limits.” Last week the government released a “Statistical Transparency Report Regarding Use of National Security Authorities.” The report provides details about the number of surveillance orders the agency has acted on for 2013. With regard to Section 702 of FISA, the government revealed that it operated under one FISA order affecting 89,138 targets. Despite the seemingly wide scope of surveillance conducted pursuant to that authority, the PCLOB found the program largely protects civil liberties, making only minor recommendations for reform of the program.Internet surveillance programs use safeguards to strengthen privacyKukil Bora, Web journalist, July 2, 2014, “NSA Internet Surveillance is Legal, A Presidential Privacy Board Concludes,” (Accessed 7/20/2015)A bipartisan presidential commission has concluded that the National Security Agency has been acting in the national interest in pursuing a widespread and controversial set of surveillance programs. A five-member Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, appointed by President Barack Obama, concluded on Tuesday that NSA programs designed to collect chunks of Internet data within the U.S. use “reasonable” safeguards to protect the rights of Americans. The board also offered a series of policy recommendations to strengthen privacy safeguards. “Overall, the Board has found that the information the program collects has been valuable and effective in protecting the nation’s security and producing useful foreign intelligence,” the board said in a report, which will be voted on at a public meeting on Wednesday in Washington. “Operation of the Section 702 program has been subject to judicial oversight and extensive internal supervision, and the Board has found no evidence of intentional abuse.”No Internal LinkOversight protects civil liberties – adapting policies proveJulia Angwin and Jeff Larson, Julia Angwin is a senior reporter and Jeff Larson is the Data Editor at ProPublica, June 10, 2015, “Secret Memos Reveal Warrantless Surveillance of Internet Activity,” (Accessed 7/20/2015)The disclosure that the NSA and the FBI have expanded their cybersurveillance adds a dimension to a recurring debate over the post-September 11 expansion of government spying powers: Information about Americans sometimes gets swept up incidentally when foreigners are targeted, and prosecutors can use that information in criminal cases. Citing the potential for a copy of data “exfiltrated” by a hacker to contain “so much” information about Americans, one NSA lawyer suggested keeping the stolen data out of the agency’s regular repository for information collected by surveillance so that analysts working on unrelated issues could not query it, a 2010 training document showed. But it is not clear whether the agency or the FBI has imposed any additional limits on the data of hacking victims. In a response to questions for this article, the FBI pointed to its existing procedures for protecting victims’ data acquired during investigations, but also said it continually reviewed its policies “to adapt to these changing threats while protecting civil liberties and the interests of victims of cybercrimes.”No Impact – Privacy Violations InevitablePrivacy violations are inevitable – mass surveillance powers extendedCynthia M. Wong, Senior Researcher, Internet and Human Rights, 2015 “Internet at a Crossroads” (Accessed 7/26/2015)While many governments expressed outrage over snooping by the NSA and GCHQ, many may have also responded privately with envy. Though few can match the resources of the NSA or GCHQ, governments everywhere are expanding their own mass surveillance capacity, and are likely emulating the US and UK. Left unchecked, this dynamic could soon produce a world in which every online search, electronic contact, email, or transaction is stored away in one or more government databases. With no government able to ensure the privacy of its own citizens from foreign snooping and intelligence agencies teaming up to share data about the citizens of other countries, a truly Orwellian scenario could unfold. While the US asserts it will not use intelligence gathering to quash dissent or discriminate, governments have repeatedly used surveillance to these ends. President Obama has welcomed a debate about modern surveillance, but talk of safeguards and reform in the US has led to little or no discernible change for global Internet users. The Obama administration has committed to additional protections for personal information it has collected but has done little to rein in the sheer scale of surveillance the NSA conducts, especially abroad. The UK, for its part, has refused to answer even the most basic questions about its intelligence gathering practices and, in an astounding act of hubris and blatant disregard for rights, rushed through a law in July 2014 that extends its surveillance powers. In defending its program, neither government has been fully willing to recognize the privacy interests of people outside its munications inevitably susceptible to the US – FISA AmendmentsJason M. Breslow, PBS staff writer, June 1, 2015, “With or Without the Patriot Act, Here’s How the NSA Can Still Spy on Americans,” (Accessed 7/22/2015)For now, the stall in the Senate means the NSA can’t collect any newly created telephone records. Under the now-lapsed Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the NSA gathered metadata such as who called whom, the time the call was placed and how long the conversation lasted. Also lapsed are provisions of the law that allowed for wiretap orders on “lone wolf” terrorism suspects; that permitted roving wiretaps that follow suspects from device to device as they change phones; and that compelled businesses to turn over records deemed relevant to a national security investigation. But these Patriot Act provisions represent just one component of the NSA surveillance capabilities exposed in 2013 by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Under an entirely separate law, the 2008 FISA Amendments Act, the government still has the authority to access the communications of users of popular Internet sites such as Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo. Section 702 of the law, which does not expire until 2017, gives the government the ability to collect the content of an Internet user’s actual communications — not just metadata. The law is geared towards non-citizens outside of the U.S., but as privacy advocates argue, it is inevitable that the communications of U.S. citizens and those of non-citizens lawfully living in the U.S. are swept up by the program.US leadership makes role in censorship inevitable due to security concernsJessica Sims, tech expert blogger, September 13, 2014, “Is Internet Censorship Inevitable?” (Accessed 7/27/2015)Could The U.S. Follow Suit? The million dollar question is whether the U.S. will jump on the Internet censorship bandwagon in any meaningful way. There are some strong arguments that the United States needs to take a more active role in securing the Internet, especially in light of recent security and preparedness reviews by third parties hired by the government. In short, the U.S. is very dependent on the Internet, and stands a lot to lose by leaving it unprotected from a security standpoint. Will getting these security holes plugged require a country-wide firewall similar to the Great Firewall of China? If so, would censorship be part of the package in the U.S. too? These are certainly questions to ponder, but one thing is clear: in light of security breaches, it is probably only a matter of time until the ‘net in the U.S. becomes hardened and protected. When they happens, the censorship debate is almost certain to heat up. It does not matter which side of the argument one happens to be on, there is a good chance that the future of the Internet might be changing rapidly. Will that change be for the best? It is hard to say, and no two people are likely to agree to what they consider ‘best’ in this regard.No Impact – Civil Liberty Violations Inevitable Civil liberties are under attack – alt causes mean the aff can’t solveRichard Eskow, writer, a former Wall Street executive, a consultant, October 27, 2014, “So Long, Liberty: 10 Ways Americans Have Lost Their Rights,” (Accessed 7/21/2015)Our most fundamental rights—to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness—are under assault. But the adversary is Big Wealth, not Big Government, as conservatives like to claim. Consider: Life? The differences in life expectancy between wealthier and lower-income Americans are increasing, not decreasing. Liberty? Digital corporations are assaulting our privacy, while banks trap us in indebtedness that approaches indentured servitude. The shrunken ranks of working Americans are being robbed of their essential liberties – including the right to use the bathroom. The pursuit of happiness? Social mobility in the United States is dead. Career choices are increasingly limited. As for working hard and earning more, consider this: Between 1969 and 2008 the average US income went up by $11,684. How much of that went to the top 10? All of it. Income for the remaining 90 percent actually went down. These changes didn't just happen. Wealthy individuals and corporations made it happen – and they're still at it. Meanwhile, Corporate America's wholesale theft of your individual liberties has been rebranded as a fight for … the corporation's individual liberty.No limitations on storage/sharing - alt causes and misuse makes violations inevitableMarguerite Rigoglioso, Stanford Lawyer Writer, November 17, 2014, “Civil Liberties and Law in the Era of Surveillance,” (Accessed 7/27/2015)While capturing the license plate information, ALPR can also capture photos of the cars—and often the occupants, as well as where they live, where they shop, and where they drive. Put together, this technology can tell a story of how we go about our daily lives. “Civil liberties problems arise when you engage in the mass tracking of hundreds of millions of Americans, most of whom are completely innocent of any wrongdoing,” says Catherine Crump, JD ’04 (BA ’00), who joined the Berkeley Law faculty this year as an assistant clinical professor of law and associate director of the Samuelson Clinic. She explains that technology is enabling the mass collection of data that can paint a detailed picture of how we interact, gleaning facts about us that the state couldn’t previously collect. As data storage has become more available and affordable, police departments are increasingly sharing gathered data regionally, and with the federal government, creating large databases of citizens, most of them law-abiding. “No one denies that a license plate reader can be a useful investigative tool and it’s valuable to law enforcement to be able to check to see if a particular vehicle is stolen or associated with a suspected criminal,” says Crump, who was a staff attorney at the ACLU focusing on issues of government surveillance until earlier this year. “The civil liberties objection arises when law enforcement starts to pool massive amounts of location data and keep it for long periods of time based on the mere possibility that it might be useful someday. Because then you have a large database tracking people’s movements and that’s the type of information that can be misused.” RELATED LINKS ON CATHERINE CRUMP: Watch a CSPAN report on Technology and Police Surveillance View a panel discussion about WikiLeaks And currently, there are few regulations for how the data is used and how long it can be kept. “There are no generally applicable laws placing limits, there are no federal laws,” she says. “In general it’s up to each state and law enforcement agency to come up with its own rules.”Traffic Shaping helps the NSA evade legal oversight – violations are inevitableBruce Schneier, Chief Technology Officer of Resilient Systems, A Fellow at Harvard’s Berkman Center, July 1, 2014, “How Traffic Shaping Can Help the NSA Evade Legal Oversight,” (Accessed 7/21/2015)New research paper on how the NSA can evade legal prohibitions against collecting Internet data and metadata on Americans by forcing domestic traffic to leave and return to the US. The general technique is called "traffic shaping," and has legitimate uses in network management. From a news article: The Obama administration previously said there had been Congressional and Judicial oversight of these surveillance laws -- notably Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which authorized the collection of Americans' phone records; and Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which authorized the controversial PRISM program to access non-U.S. residents' emails, social networking, and cloud-stored data. But the researchers behind this new study say that the lesser-known Executive Order (EO) 12333, which remains solely the domain of the Executive Branch -- along with United States Signals Intelligence Directive (USSID) 18, designed to regulate the collection of American's data from surveillance conducted on foreign soil -- can be used as a legal basis for vast and near-unrestricted domestic surveillance on Americans. The legal provisions offered under EO 12333, which the researchers say "explicitly allows for intentional targeting of U.S. persons" for surveillance purposes when FISA protections do not apply, was the basis of the authority that reportedly allowed the NSA to tap into the fiber cables that connected Google and Yahoo's overseas to U.S. data centers. An estimated 180 million user records, regardless of citizenship, were collected from Google and Yahoo data centers each month, according to the leaked documents. The program, known as Operation MUSCULAR, was authorized because the collection was carried out overseas and not on U.S. soil, the researchers say. The paper also said surveillance can also be carried out across the wider Internet by routing network traffic overseas so it no longer falls within the protection of the Fourth Amendment. We saw a clumsy example of this in 2013, when a bunch of Internet traffic was mysteriously routed through Iceland. That one was the result of hacking the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP). I assure you that the NSA's techniques are more effective and less obvious.***A/T Tech Leadership/Credibility Adv ***Cyber Monitoring Key – SecurityCyber security threats are increasing – permeating national securityGrace Wyler, Contributor, January 13, 2014, “The Scariest Thing About Cybersecurity is How Unprepared We Are,” (Accessed 7/22/2015)Once relegated to the opaque realm of IT geeks and reclusive white-hat hackers, the idea of cybersecurity became ubiquitous in 2013, permeating the way we think about national security, foreign policy, and our own safety and privacy. In many respects, the trend was inevitable—the logical expansion of a dark cyber underworld that has thrived on hidden sites and in secret government offices since the early days of the internet. But for most of the unassuming public, the emergence of cyber threats has been sudden and pervasive, with each wave of credit card data thefts, national security leaks, and Silk Road arrests making it clear that the full spectrum of illicit activities—from intellectual property theft to drug dealing, bank robbery, and warfare—have moved online. And the threats will only worsen in 2014. According to a poll of military and defense industry insiders released last week, cyber warfare has now replaced terrorism as the biggest threat facing the United States. Another recent survey, from the web security firm IID, predicts that murder via the internet and hacked security system burglaries will emerge as credible cyber threats by the end of this year. But what is most alarming about the growing cyber threat is how ill-equipped we really are to deal with it. That’s the most striking takeaway from a new book, Cybersecurity and Cyberwar: What Everyone Needs To Know, authored by Brookings Institution researchers Peter Singer and Allan Friedman. “Basic terms and essential concepts that define what is possible and proper are being missed, or even worse, distorted,” Singer and Friedman explain in their introduction. “Past myth and future hype often weave together, obscuring what actually happened and where we really are now. Some threats are overblown and overreacted to, while others are ignored.”No Solvency – DisorganizationPlan doesn’t solve – lack of clear oversight and leadershipJames Norton, homeland security and public safety policy expert, June 15, 2015, “Cyber Responsibility Needs Urgency and Leadership,” (Accessed 7/22/2015)It is distressing that it seems any urgency for increased cyber security at federal agencies has been short-lived or for show. Every year there is a flurry of legislative and regulatory activity, but very rarely does anything get signed into law or enacted. Even if it does it lacks a clear mandate. Current cyber legislative proposals are geared towards providing liability protection for corporations, and while these are critically important, they do not address the root causes of the federal government’s inability to secure the its own information. As we sift through the wreckage, Congress should begin with determining who is responsible for agencies’ cyber-security. The lack of identifiable leadership has allowed for finger pointing. While some have argued DHS should be responsible, the experience of recent years has shown the DHS cannot and should not be expected to prevent cyber attacks across the federal government; funding issues, turf wars, and information gaps contribute to the impossibility of such a mission. Each agency is its own silo, with its own networks, budget, procurement processes, and unique challenges. The cyber security buck for each agency should stop with the head of the agency. Congress should then be rigorous in exercising oversight over the agencies to ensure they are meeting security standards and complying with the law. With clear responsibility and accountability will come true urgency and real action. Just as today’s CEOs must understand cyber threats facing their corporations, instill security in their employees, and allocate proper funding to secure networks to prevent attacks that could cost them their jobs, so too must our cabinet-level officials take personal ownership of their agencies’ cyber security. For the federal government to prevail, cyber must become an across-the-board issue with each agency striving to maintain security in a culture of awareness and preparedness. There is no silver bullet to the complex problem of cyber attacks on the federal government but identifying who is responsible and prodding them to act through legislation and oversight is a first step to stop the bleeding.Alt Cause – Trade DefeatsTrade defeats overwhelm US economic competitiveness and leadershipJohn Hudson, senior reporter at Foreign Policy, June 12, 2015, “Obama’s Trade Defeat Imperils US Credibility in Asia,” (Accessed 7/20/2015)Lawmakers from both major American political parties joined forces Friday to defeat a trade bill that would have delivered a potentially legacy-defining victory for the president. But Friday’s lopsided vote wasn’t simply a humiliating blow for President Barack Obama, who invested significant amounts of political capital in a high-profile, last-minute lobbying effort that would help him complete a landmark trade pact with 11 other Pacific Rim nations. The biggest consequences could instead be felt in Asia, where jittery U.S. allies are already afraid that Washington is neglecting the region while China continues to expand its economic and military influence there. The potential demise of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would further embolden Pacific leaders who believe their countries would be better off siding with China than with a United States increasingly seen as rudderless and disengaged. “This will be a blow to American credibility beyond just trade,” Michael Green, an Asia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Foreign Policy. “Asian leaders will question whether the American political system has the ability to implement the Asia pivot.” Since the beginning of his presidency, Obama has struggled to implement a planned strategic shift toward Asia, because crises in the Middle East and Eastern Europe have dominated his agenda and forced the administration to stay heavily engaged in parts of the world where it had hoped to gradually reduce Washington’s political and military involvement. The president had pitched the TPP pact as a way to establish rules to guarantee America’s economic primacy across a region that covers 40 percent of the world’s gross domestic product.Financial markets tanking credibility now Investment Research Dynamics, July 17, 2015 “U.S. Financial Markets Have Lost All Credibility” (Accessed 7/22/2015)U.S. Financial Markets Have Lost All Credibility The Fed no longer has credibility, and you can see that. The divergence between the futures markets and the Fed’s own projections about what they’re going to do about interest rates—this is a huge problem,” he told CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” – Senator Pat Toomey on CNBC Sorry Pat, the entire U.S. financial system has lost all credibility. While the economic condition of the United States continues to deteriorate rather quickly, the S&P 500 and Nasdaq continue to push insanely higher on a historically unprecedented tidal wave of printed money. “Printed money” is electronic money that is created BOTH by the Fed’s electronic printing press AND the electronic printing press that creates debt certificates. Why the latter? Because debt behaves like money until that debt is repaid. Simply printing money to repay existing debt while printing enough to issue more debt is not the definition of “repayment.” This process in fact forces even more “printed” electronic money into the system. This is why the broad measures of the stock market are moving higher despite deteriorating real economic fundamentals and it’s why housing prices have soared, despite mediocre transaction volume and a recent influx of supply. All of that printed money is going into paper financial assets. After all, with the financialization of mortgages, the housing market itself has become “financialized.” Just ask the Fed, it’s injected $1.7 trillion of printed money into the housing market via financialized mortgage paper.Science and Tech leadership key to US CredibilityE. William Colglazier and Elizabeth E. Lyons, E. William Colglazier is the science and technology adviser to the U.S. secretary of state. Elizabeth E. Lyons is a senior adviser in the U.S. Department of State’s Office of the Science and Technology Adviser and its Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, July 8, 2014, “ The US Looks to the Global Science, Technology, and Innovation Horizon,” (Accessed 7/20/2015)U.S. STI (science, technology, and innovation) excellence and leadership are essential for national interests, e.g., economy, health, security, and environment. It is also important to U.S. diplomacy, its soft power, and efforts to advance peace, prosperity, and security around the world. Therefore, the U.S. STI enterprise will need to adapt to new opportunities and changes in the current landscape of global science. To be most effective, the response should include embracing a strategy of international STI research cooperation and utilizing STI knowledge strategically by looking out, up, around, and forward. This can empower the U.S. STI enterprise, especially its decentralized academic components, to engage globally.1 We discuss a knowledge framework that could facilitate strategic international STI cooperation. Embracing a National Strategy of International STI Research Cooperation The overwhelming U.S. dominance in scientific research in the last half of the twentieth century is being replaced by a more multipolar landscape2 of science, technology, and innovation, with the United States remaining a very strong force. The new data presented in the National Science Board’s Science and Engineering Indicators 2014 confirms what we already know—the United States is becoming less dominant in STI and there are substantial and increasing STI investments, linkages, and capacities now dispersed around the world. While the United States saw 4.9 percent growth from 2009 to 2011 in total research and development (R&D) expenditures, worldwide R&D spending increased over the same period by 15 percent. The U.S. share of worldwide R&D expenditures continued its decline; in 2000 it was 38 percent and in 2011 it stood at 30 percent. ***A/T Information Overload Adv***A/T InherencyTargeted searches for computer intrusions nowCharlie Savage, Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, and Henrik Moltke, NYT staff writers, June 4, 2015, “Hunting for Hackers, NSA Secretly Expands Internet Spying at US Border,” (Accessed 7/21/2015)WASHINGTON — Without public notice or debate, the Obama administration has expanded the National Security Agency‘s warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international Internet traffic to search for evidence of malicious computer hacking, according to classified N.S.A. documents. In mid-2012, Justice Department lawyers wrote two secret memos permitting the spy agency to begin hunting on Internet cables, without a warrant and on American soil, for data linked to computer intrusions originating abroad — including traffic that flows to suspicious Internet addresses or contains malware, the documents show. The Justice Department allowed the agency to monitor only addresses and “cybersignatures” — patterns associated with computer intrusions — that it could tie to foreign governments. But the documents also note that the N.S.A. sought permission to target hackers even when it could not establish any links to foreign powers.Link Turn – Meta Data Search/Storage KeyMeta-Data collateral search and storage solve terrorism – empirical examples proveMattathias Schwartz, New Yorker staff writer, January 26, 2015, “The Whole Haystack,” (Accessed 7/22/2015)The metadata program remains the point of greatest apparent friction between the N.S.A. and the Constitution. It is carried out under Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows the government to collect “books, records, papers, documents, and other items” that are “relevant” to “an authorized investigation.” While debating the Patriot Act in 2001, Senator Russ Feingold worried about the government’s powers to collect “the personal records of anyone—perhaps someone who worked with, or lived next door to . . . the target of the investigation.” Snowden revealed that the N.S.A. goes much further. Metadata for every domestic phone call from Verizon and other carriers, hundreds of billions of records in all, are considered “relevant” under Section 215. The N.S.A. collects them on an “ongoing, daily basis.” The N.S.A. asserts that it uses the metadata to learn whether anyone inside the U.S. is in contact with high-priority terrorism suspects, colloquially referred to as “known bad guys.” Michael Hayden, the former C.I.A. and N.S.A. director, has said, “We kill people based on metadata.” He then added, “But that’s not what we do with this metadata,” referring to Section 215. Soon after Snowden’s revelations, Alexander said that the N.S.A.’s surveillance programs have stopped “fifty-four different terrorist-related activities.” Most of these were “terrorist plots.” Thirteen involved the United States. Credit for foiling these plots, he continued, was partly due to the metadata program, intended to “find the terrorist that walks among us.” President Obama also quantified the benefits of the metadata program. That June, in a press conference with Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, Obama said, “We know of at least fifty threats that have been averted because of this information.” He continued, “Lives have been saved.”Large cache searches necessary to thwart terrorism – empirical examplesBarton Gellman, Julie Tate, and Ashkan Soltani, Washington Post staff writers, July 5, 2014, “In NSA-Intercepted Data, Those Not Targed Far Outnumber the Foreigners Who Are,” (Accessed 7/22/2015)Nine of 10 account holders found in a large cache of intercepted conversations, which former NSA contractor Edward Snowden provided in full to The Post, were not the intended surveillance targets but were caught in a net the agency had cast for somebody else. Many of them were Americans. Nearly half of the surveillance files, a strikingly high proportion, contained names, e-mail addresses or other details that the NSA marked as belonging to U.S. citizens or residents. NSA analysts masked, or “minimized,” more than 65,000 such references to protect Americans’ privacy, but The Post found nearly 900 additional e-mail addresses, unmasked in the files, that could be strongly linked to U.S. citizens or U.S.residents. (How 160,000 intercepted conversations led to The Post’s latest NSA story) The surveillance files highlight a policy dilemma that has been aired only abstractly in public. There are discoveries of considerable intelligence value in the intercepted messages — and collateral harm to privacy on a scale that the Obama administration has not been willing to address. VIEW GRAPHIC Among the most valuable contents — which The Post will not describe in detail, to avoid interfering with ongoing operations — are fresh revelations about a secret overseas nuclear project, double-dealing by an ostensible ally, a military calamity that befell an unfriendly power, and the identities of aggressive intruders into U.S. computer networks. Months of tracking communications across more than 50 alias accounts, the files show, led directly to the 2011 capture in Abbottabad of Muhammad Tahir Shahzad, a Pakistan-based bomb builder, and Umar Patek, a suspect in a 2002 terrorist bombing on the Indonesian island of Bali. At the request of CIA officials, The Post is withholding other examples that officials said would compromise ongoing operations.No SolvencyThe plan over-compensates – thwarts content sharingJanna Anderson and Lee Rainie, Pew Research Center, July 3, 2014, “Net Threats,” (Accessed 7/24/2015)Efforts to fix the TMI (too much information) problem might over-compensate and actually thwart content sharing. Another concern is that people’s attempts to cope with information overload will lead to constraints on content flows. They argue that algorithm-based filtering systems inspired by attempts to cope with large amounts of information can have as many negative consequences for the Internet as positives, especially when most companies providing filtering services have economic incentives to present information in a particular way. Joel Halpern, a distinguished engineer at Ericsson, wrote, “While there are pressures to constrain information sharing (from governments and from traditional content sources), the trend towards making information more widely and easily reached, consumed, modified, and redistributed is likely to continue in 2025 … The biggest challenge is likely to be the problem of finding interesting and meaningful content when you want it. While this is particularly important when you are looking for scientific or medical information, it is equally applicable when looking for restaurants, music, or other things that are matters of taste. While big-data analysis has the promise of helping this, there are many limitations and risks (including mismatched incentives) with those tools.” Jonathan Grudin, principal researcher at Microsoft Research, predicted, “To help people realize their fullest potential, an industry of ‘personal information trainers’—by analogy to personal trainers for fitness—will form to help people find and access information that is interesting and useful for them. Reference librarians played this role when we went to the information repository called a library. As the volume of information continues to grow exponentially, personal information trainers will help us with the much more daunting task of creating a virtual dashboard to access the information of value to us, much of which we did not know was out there.” There was no explicit counter-argument to this theme, but some respondents’ answers implied that they felt algorithms and analytics and people’s own search strategies would improve and produce a relatively happy equilibrium where people got what they wanted and also were exposed to new ideas and material that they would appreciate.Limiting information overload fails – the new threatQuentin Hardy, staff writer, July 5, 2014, “They Have Seen the Future of the Internet and it is Dark,” (Accessed 7/21/2015)There are even dangers from the personalization of content: That customization, a way of limiting information overload, was also seen as a threat to healthy serendipity in what we read, watch and think about. “We asked about the threats and opportunities to free content on the Internet, and we got all these elaborate answers,” said Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Internet Project and a co-author of the report. Compared with the past, he said, “there is a more palpable sense of dread” about what may happen to life online. This troubling view emerged when the group, many of whose members were initially positive about the future, was asked by Pew to describe “the most serious threats to the most effective accessing and sharing and content on the Internet.” It may not be surprising, then, that the word “threat” appears 57 times in the report, while “hope” or variants show up just 12 times. “Corporate” and “corporation” appear 31 times, only once in a positive sense.***A/T Solvency***Plan Fails – Surveillance Self-CorrectingDecreased internet surveillance fails – surveillance tech spurs crafty solutions Timothy C. Mack, president of the World Future Society and executive editor of World Future Review, February 2014, “Privacy and the Surveillance Explosion,” (Accessed 7/23/2015)From Big Brother to E-Government The growth of e-government initiatives around the world has been steady and transformative. Starting in cities such as London, the initial role of surveillance was largely related to public and traffic safety. But with the growth of Smart Cities and other technology-driven policy endeavors, the integration of interactive video into a wide range of governmental services seems very likely. Some analysts see 2020 as the year where broadband connectivity hits the 4G level (100+mbps) for all smart personal devices worldwide, allowing public interfaces to function at a new level. This is already being demonstrated in the growing cloud capacity of governments, such as the UK’s G Cloud. It would also enable the fully measured society and the Internet of Things planetwide. A sensor network like the one being prototyped by HP Labs—where such factors as light, temperature, humidity pathogens, pesticides, etc., can be measured and recorded at nearly every point on the globe—will enable us to test models and monitor patterns in a wide range of fields. Zoom panoramic technology capturing actual cityscapes could be combined with digital modeling to update planning documents in real time. On the interactive side, smartphone application interfaces could enable two-way citizen input and dialogue. Civic organizations providing repositories for crowdsourced data could serve as “urban observatories.” Systems already in place include LIVE Singapore!, which runs real-time open data streams that allow city residents to tag and track trash pickups. Transport systems for food, energy, or water services could also become part of a transparent tracking system as the world’s cities get smarter. One of the few downsides to this vision is that most of this tracking will likely be done via the Internet. While management of the Internet is internationalized, its regulation and restrictions are still largely national. What’s next for e-government at the regional and global level remains unclear. However, both the governmental and market-based motivations are robust, and solutions are likely to be crafted in relatively short order.Plan Fails – Co-optionInternet surveillance reform fails - cooptionGlenn Greenwald, journalist, constitutional lawyer, and author of four New York Times best-selling books on politics and law, November 19, 2014, “Congress is Irrelevant on Mass Surveillance. Here’s What Matters Instead.” (Accessed 7/21/2015)All of that illustrates what is, to me, the most important point from all of this: the last place one should look to impose limits on the powers of the U.S. government is . . . the U.S. government. Governments don’t walk around trying to figure out how to limit their own power, and that’s particularly true of empires. The entire system in D.C. is designed at its core to prevent real reform. This Congress is not going to enact anything resembling fundamental limits on the NSA’s powers of mass surveillance. Even if it somehow did, this White House would never sign it. Even if all that miraculously happened, the fact that the U.S. intelligence community and National Security State operates with no limits and no oversight means they’d easily co-opt the entire reform process. That’s what happened after the eavesdropping scandals of the mid-1970s led to the establishment of congressional intelligence committees and a special FISA “oversight” court—the committees were instantly captured by putting in charge supreme servants of the intelligence community like Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chambliss, and Congressmen Mike Rogers and “Dutch” Ruppersberger, while the court quickly became a rubber stamp with subservient judges who operate in total secrecy.A2: Surveillance UnconstitutionalNational security fears and recent court decisions support surveillance constitutionality Dustin Volz, staff correspondent for National Journal covering tech policy, February 10, 2015, “Judge Dismisses Challenge to NSA Internet Surveillance,” (Accessed 7/20/2015)The court could not rule whether the NSA's collection of Internet and phone content under a program known as Upstream violates the Fourth Amendment's protection from unreasonable search and seizures due to a need to protect "state secret information," Judge Jeffrey White ruled in a 10-page decision. Moreover, the arguments against the NSA's program raised by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital-rights group, aren't factually correct, White, a George W. Bush appointee, said. But just precisely what details from EFF about the NSA's Internet surveillance are inaccurate was not clear in White's opinion, which invoked national security to claim that he could not provide a clearer assessment of the facts of the case. "Without disclosing any of the classified content ... the Court can confirm that the Plaintiffs' version of the significant operational details of the Upstream collection process is substantially inaccurate," White wrote. In addition, White said that EFF lacked legal standing to present its case "regarding the possible interception of their Internet communications." "The Court is frustrated by the prospect of deciding the current motions without full public disclosure of the Court's analysis and reasoning," White wrote. "However, it is a necessary by-product of the types of concerns raised by this case. Although partially not accessible to the Plaintiffs or the public, the record contains the full materials reviewed by the Court. The Court is persuaded that its decision is correct both legally and factually and furthermore is required by the interests of national security."***Generic Disad Links***Politics – Plan UnpopularPublic supports surveillance over privacy concerns due to security concernsPew Research Center, June 10, 2013, “Majority Views NSA Phone Tracking as Acceptable Anti-terror Tactic,” (Accessed 7/21/2015)The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults, finds no indications that last week’s revelations of the government’s collection of phone records and internet data have altered fundamental public views about the tradeoff between investigating possible terrorism and protecting personal privacy. 6-10-13 #2Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats. These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post survey in January 2006. Currently, there are only modest partisan differences in these opinions: 69% of Democrats say it is more important for the government to investigate terrorist threats, even at the expense of personal privacy, as do 62% of Republicans and 59% of independents.***Counter Plans***?FISA CP – SolvencyFISA Reforms capable of changing mass internet surveillanceMark Jaycox and Nadia Kayyali, Electronic Frontier Foundation Staff Writers, July 29, 2014, “The New Senate USA FREEDOM Act: A First Step Towards Reforming Mass Surveillance,” (Accessed 7/23/2015) The new legislation also has some small improvements to the initiation and judicial review procedure for national security letters—secretive FBI orders for data that are accompanied by gag orders—as well as pen register and trap-and-trace devices. The bill creates new reporting requirements for the government—including a requirement that the government estimate how many U.S. persons have been affected by backdoor warrantless searches of information collected under the authority of Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. And finally, the bill creates a new option for companies to report on national security requests. What the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014 doesn't do First and foremost, the USA FREEDOM Act of 2014 does not adequately address Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, the problematic 2008 law that the government argues gives it the right to engage in mass Internet surveillance. We remain committed to reform of Section 702. We intend to pursue further reforms to end the NSA’s abuse of this authority.FISA courts solve – statistics proveAndrew Weissmann, teaches national security law at NYU School of Law, June 12, 2014 “The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court: Is Reform Needed?” (Accessed 7/21/2015)Post the Snowden leaks, the issue has arisen whether an institutionalized amicus or special advocate could play a useful function in the FISC, setting forth arguments that may not be evident to the FISC judges or its permanent staff. This outside voice would not represent a particular target, for the reasons noted. Such a system thus would not lead to the tipping off a target; and if structured in a manner akin to the Senator Blumenthal FISC reform bill, would not risk delay where speed is necessary (since the FISC would retain wide latitude, e.g. it could decline to await the advocate’s submission or hear it after the fact – though the need for speed hardly arises when considering the bulk collection authorities that have come to light, since those are re-presented to the FISC like clockwork every 90 days). The FISC and Article III Courts A principal argument made by advocates for the status quo – including by an eminent former FISC presiding judge – is that the process is working as evidenced by the statistics. These statistics were laid out for first time by then-Judge Walton in his 7/29/13 letter to Congress. In footnote 6, he noted a slightly lower rate of approval of FISA warrants than for Article III criminal warrants, although both are over 99%. A high rate of approval in both settings is understandable — the government seeks to present that which will succeed, whether it is a search warrant, Title III wiretap, or FISA electronic warrant. If you are in the government, you know the standard you must meet and you do your best to meet it and you do not present the matter until you believe you have the goods.Prison Surveillance NEG***Topicality Shell*** 1NC TopicalityInterpretation/Definition - Surveillance is close watching by authorities through electronics such as cameras. , Accessed July 5, 2015 Many times, a person suspected of something illegal by the authorities is placed under surveillance, meaning he or she is closely watched to see if their suspicions are well-founded. If you break down the word surveillance you get the prefix sur, from the French word for "over" and the root veiller, meaning "to watch." All of which is a roundabout way of saying that if you are under surveillance, you are being closely watched — usually by the authorities, and usually not for a good reason! Those surveillance cameras in banks and stores are put there in the hopes of both preventing crimes and recognizing criminals after a crime has been committed.Violation—The plan decreases guard monitoring and not electronic surveillance. Reasons to PreferGround/Limits- the plan has access to advantages based off specific guards at different prisons creating an unpredictable basis for negative researching and unfairly skewing an already Affirmative biased topic further in favor of the Negative. Bidirectional – Allowing guards to be included with surveillance skews the topic allowing affs to claim the plan decreases guard surveillance, but an effect of the plan is increasing electronic surveillance – not just exploding the topic but also destroying negative disad and cp ground. Topicality is a voting issue for competitive equality. Topicality is a procedural issue that that should be evaluated based on competing interpretations.***Inherency***Privacy Reform Now – PREAPREA solves the aff – new reform solves privacy and gender issuesAlysia Santo, staff writer for the Albany Times Union and previously an assistant editor for Columbia Journalism Review, and holds a master’s degree from Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism, December 17, 2014, “Peeping Toms,” (Accessed 7/1/2015)Do prison inmates have a right to privacy? The United States is one of the few developed countries in the world that allow men to guard women and women to guard men in prison living quarters. And over the decades states have created a patchwork of policies governing privacy when inmates are using the bathroom or sleeping, and when they are patted down for security. There are no national rules for cross-gender supervision, so when a state or a county has overhauled its practices it has usually been a result of “litigation and scandal,” said Brenda Smith, a member of the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission. That is supposed to change in August, when the cross-gender rules of the Prison Rape Elimination Act are to TAKE EFFECT1. The law, which sets standards for preventing and responding to sexual abuse, mandates that inmates must be able to shower and go to the bathroom without being watched by non-medical staff of another gender. In addition, male officers will be prohibited from patting down female inmates except in emergency situations. Two facilities 190 miles apart illustrate the extremes -- one falling far short of the impending rules, and one that goes beyond them.At the Muskegon County Jail in Michigan, according to a federal lawsuit filed this month, male officers and some male inmates can see women naked, because many of the toilets and showers inside the cells are visible from hallways. According to the inmates’ attorneys, this lack of privacy is a violation of their right to privacy.A three-hour drive away, at the Huron Valley Correctional Facility—Michigan’s only women’s state prison—the rules are much more strict. In 2005, male officers were completely removed from women's living quarters. The change was part of a settlement with the U.S. Justice Department, based on a federal investigation into sexual abuse of female prisoners. Later, the state agreed to pay $100 million to settle a class-action lawsuit by more than 500 female prisoners who said they were sexually assaulted by prison guards. According to the lawsuit, most of the abuse occurred where the women slept and bathed.Prison Reform Now – Diversionary ProgramsStatus Quo Prison reform solves privacy issues - transition from surveilling and jailing to diversionary programs Erica Goode, New York Times staff writer, July 25, 2013, “US Prison Populations Decline, Reflecting New Approach to Crime,” (Accessed 6/27/2015)Marc Levin, senior policy adviser for Right on Crime, described the change in conservatives’ position on parole violators: It used to be “Trail ’em, nail ’em and jail ’em,” he said, “but there’s been a move to say, ‘Yes, there’s a surveillance function, but we also want them to succeed.’ ” Some of the most substantial prison reductions have taken place in conservative states like Texas, which reduced the number of inmates in its prisons by more than 5,000 in 2012. In 2007, when the state faced a lack of 17,000 beds for inmates, the State Legislature decided to change its approach to parole violations and provide drug treatment for nonviolent offenders instead of building more prisons. In Arkansas, which reduced its prison population by just over 1,400 inmates in 2012, legislators in 2011 also passed a package of laws softening sentencing guidelines for low-level offenders and steering them to diversion programs. “It’s a great example of a state that made some deliberate policy choices to say we can actually reduce recidivism and cut our prison group at the same time,” Mr. Gelb said. Joan Petersilia, a law professor at Stanford and a co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, said in an interview last year that she thought Americans had “gotten the message that locking up a lot of people doesn’t necessarily bring public safety.” California’s example, she said, has also spurred other states to consider downsizing for fear of facing similar litigation.***A/T Privacy Adv***No Solvency – Surveillance KeyMixture of guard and tech surveillance is key to balance privacy and securityKelsey Stein, writer for AL News and The Birmingham News, July 31, 2014, “New surveillance system at Tutwiler prison could be 'model for the country'” (Accessed 7/3/2015)The consultants emphasized that while updated technology and camera training are important, prison staff must know how to use video surveillance to maintain a balance between privacy and security. "It's not expensive cameras – it's what you do with them," Dennis said. A camera system is just one component of the complicated security protocol at a prison, Moss said, cautioning Alabama officials not to become overly dependent on technology. Instead, cameras should augment security at the facility. Another vital ingredient is having knowledgeable employees to manage the surveillance system because "nothing replaces good supervision skills," Moss said. Eight sergeant positions have been added to staff the video surveillance monitoring room, Williams said. When camera systems are installed inside prisons, staff and inmates alike sometimes respond with doubt and defensiveness, Moss said. "Staff says 'Are we not really trusted?' and with the inmate population it's like 'They're going to watch me in the bathroom," she said. Those concerns can be alleviated by honest dialogue outlining how the system will be used, Moss said. Determining whether a facility is sexually safe goes far beyond making sure it complies with federal laws like the Prison Rape Elimination Act, Moss said. "I do think it's true that cameras are not the silver bullet," Moss said. "No one thing we're doing at Tutwiler or nationally to address sexual safety" will be the solution.No Impact – Privacy Violations InevitablePrivacy violations are inevitable – there is no turning backMac Slavo, editor of and news writer, March 4, 2015, “Creepy Tracking Tech Gone Too Far: “Police Surveillance Now Fully Automated and Integrated Into Wireless Networks” (Accessed 7/2/2015)? “Eye in the Sky” – also included an “Eye in the Sky” HD camera mounted inside a Cessna-style aircraft that flies over a city locale for up to six hours, recording everything that takes place in the community – with options to zoom in on areas of interest in live-time and play back to review what officers weren’t focusing on. The Atlantic reported on how the device was used secretly in Compton, California, and only revealed to the public years afterwards – kept hush hush by law enforcement to quell privacy concerns: In a secret test of mass surveillance technology, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department sent a civilian aircraft* over Compton, California, capturing high-resolution video of everything that happened inside that 10-square-mile municipality. Compton residents weren’t told about the spying, which happened in 2012. “We literally watched all of Compton during the times that we were flying, so we could zoom in anywhere within the city of Compton and follow cars and see people,” Ross McNutt of Persistence Surveillance Systems told the Center for Investigative Reporting, which unearthed and did the first reporting on this important story. The technology he’s trying to sell to police departments all over America can stay aloft for up to six hours. Like Google Earth, it enables police to zoom in on certain areas. And like TiVo, it permits them to rewind, so that they can look back and see what happened anywhere they weren’t watching in real time. The question is, where does it all end? Are there any limits to how far police or government authorities will go or can go? The Fourth Amendment seems clear enough in its intent to protect people from unwarranted searches and seizure, but it has been all but trashed and scrapped in the wake of the paranoid War on Terrorism and unparalleled mass surveillance technologies. The problem is that there may simply be no turning back. Expectation of privacy are now as low as a fat, bald, unemployed dude hoping for a date with a supermodel. Basically, freedom is dormant and privacy is, for the time being, now all but nonexistent.No privacy in prisons now – cultureMelissa De Witte, staff writer with a MA, Media Culture & Communication, New York University (2010) and BS, Sociology, London School of Economics & Political Science (2004), April 10, 2015, “Psychology and prisons expert Craig Haney talks about social injustices in U.S. prisons at Annual Faculty Research Lecture,” (Accessed 7/1/2015)The United States has the highest rate of imprisonment in the world, UC Santa Cruz Professor Craig Haney said during his Faculty Research Lecture Tuesday, April 7. Compared to other Western countries, America is an outlier. The data are startling. Over the four decades that Haney has studied prisons, the criminal justice system has radically shifted the way it responds to criminal behavior. “We should respond to crime in a way that is consistent with our values,” said Haney, a distinguished professor of psychology and director of the legal studies program. Instead, we have locked up prisoners and thrown away the key. Since the 1970s, the U.S. incarceration rate has increased sevenfold. To handle the rapid growth, inmates in many prison systems were double and even triple bunked in cells intended for one person. Prisons turned gymnasiums into dormitories; other social spaces were stripped bare. As prisoners were crammed together in overcrowded prisons, means “prison is always with you,” Haney observed. “There is always the presence of another prisoner and no privacy or respite.”***A/T Civil Liberty Adv ***Turn—Surveillance Ensures Safety Surveillance is key to preventing prisoner abuse and escapes—the plan rolls back vital safeguards Sarah Shourd, Journalist, UC Berkley Visiting Scholar and a Contributing Editor at Solitary Watch, September 29, 2014, “‘Progressive Jail’ Is a 21st-Century Hell, Inmates Complain,” The Daily Beast, Accessed July 2, 2015, are many things about Cheshire County Jail that you’d be hard-pressed to find in any other carceral space in the country. The warden, Rick Van Wickler, prides himself on the building’s environmental design—complete with a geo-thermic heating and cooling system—and overall low-carbon footprint. The correctional officers insist that there’s “very little conflict” between the 150 prisoners currently being held at this 240-bed facility. They also claim that they’ve had relatively few issues with contraband and zero escapes in the 4 years of the jail’s existence, thanks in part to high-tech surveillance and the 118 cameras spread throughout the site. Boasting accessible health and psychiatric services, over 100 community volunteers and the strict enforcement of U.N. standards on the use of solitary confinement, which limit isolating a prisoner to 15 days, Cheshire County Jail has attracted national attention as a rare model of progressive incarceration.Turn—Surveillance Ensures Safety Prisons must decrease blind spots with more surveillance, the aff cuts surveillance when surveillance is what prisoners need most P.K. Reilly, Writer for Lancaster news online, September 11, 2013, “County prison to add more cameras to reduce 'blind spots',” Lancaster News online, Accessed July 2, 2015, County commissioners Wednesday are expected to approve a $250,000 upgrade to the video-surveillance system used at the county prison. Included in the project is the addition of 85 more cameras that will be deployed to monitor areas previously considered "blind spots" in the prison. "You have to keep pace with technology, and if technology affords you the ability to create a safer, more accountable facility, you have to take advantage of it," commissioners Chairman Scott Martin said. In recent years, the county prison, its guards and its administrators have been targeted in a growing number of lawsuits alleging abuse and neglect in the treatment of prisoners. The family of Luis David Villafane in one suit alleges Villafane was beaten by guards and later ignored as he committed suicide in a prison cell in November 2008. An investigation of the incident ordered by Lancaster County Prison Board found a troubling lack of video documentation showing what did or did not happen to Villafane. Reducing the number of blind spots in the prison was a recommendation of that investigation.Turn—Surveillance Ensures Safety Cameras surveillance is essential to maintain livable conditions and safety for guards and inmates Jillian Jorgensen, Writer for The Observer news, March 25, 2015, “Meet The Marine Charged With Cleaning Up the Infamous Rikers Island,” Observer News, Accessed July 2, 2015, recent months, the city’s Department of Investigation discovered that more than a third of 150 recent hires had what it deems serious red flags—ranging from gang ties to prior arrests to family who were incarcerated at Rikers—but were hired anyway. In a separate investigation, a DOI investigator disguised as an officer tried six times to sneak in contraband like razors, booze and drugs—and got through security every single time. The city has promised better vetting of candidates to weed out bad actors, with an additional $3.6 million in this year’s city budget for that purpose. Mr. de Blasio recently announced plans to crack down on contraband flowing to the island, a major source of violence, but they focused largely on visitors, not officers. Still, he and Mr. Ponte said they will increase the screening of officers—including the random use of contraband-sniffing dogs and what Mr. de Blasio called “TSA-like” security. Hundreds more cameras are coming to the city’s jails. But as Legal Aid’s Mr. Boston noted, few other reforms have been aimed at officers. No Solvency – Surveillance Key to ProtectionSurveillance used to expose abuse and generate reformJessica Glenza, breaking news reporter at the Guardian US, April 24, 2015, “Abuse of teen inmate at Rikers Island prison caught on surveillance cameras,” (Accessed 6/29/2015)Footage obtained by New Yorker magazine shows Kalief Browder slammed to the ground in September 2012 during three-year stay for stealing a backpack. Rarely seen surveillance camera footage from Rikers Island prison in New York shows a teenager being slammed to the ground by a security guard and two years earlier being beaten by a group of inmates. The footage obtained by the New Yorker magazine depicts the sometimes violent atmosphere inside the jail. Conditions inside the detention center have been roundly criticized over the past year, and targeted for reform by both federal authorities and the jail’s oversight committee. The video focuses on Kalief Browder, who was 16 when he was sent to Rikers Island in May 2010, for allegedly stealing a backpack in the Bronx, the New Yorker reports.No Impact – Civil Liberty Losses InevitableSadism and Brutality in prison inevitable – cultural dispositions proveRadley Balko, Washington Post staff writer, November 11, 2014, “The Inhumanity of How We Incarcerate,” (Accessed 7/2/2015)It’s no doubt a difficult task to run a prison. We ask prison officials to keep guards and inmates safe and to keep dangerous people away from society, and to do it all in a way that’s humane. That last component is perhaps the most difficult to retain. It’s certainly the easiest of the three to compromise. But it’s also critically important. You can tell a lot about a society’s values by how well it treats its incarcerated. But then, look at our values. Americans not only accept violence and sexual assault in our prisons, but also a large part of the population considers it a given — it’s just another part of a convict’s punishment. We’re not just comfortable with prison rape, we often find it humorous (even SpongeBob once made a prison rape joke), or we revel in the thought of inflicting it on people we abhor, members of groups we consider the enemy, or stand-ins for groups of people we find distasteful. (It’s a common sentiment to wish prison rape upon political opponents, particularly those who have been accused or convicted of crimes.) If those of us far removed from prisons don’t take the humanity of the incarcerated seriously, we shouldn’t be surprised to see the officials we ask to actually run the prisons engage in the sort of sadism and brutality we see in these stories.Violations in prison are chilling – societal beliefs make violations inevitableAndrew Gumbel, AlterNet Contributor and Co-Author of Honor Bound, October 11, 2013, “How Did a Form of Torture Become Policy in America’s Prison System?” (Accessed 7/1/2015)This Orwellian redefinition of punishment — what Colin Dayan of Vanderbilt University has termed the Supreme Court’s “allowable suffering paradigm” — has given prison officials license to treat prisoners far beyond the limits of decency, even to consider them beyond rights at all. When a similar standard was applied to the “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo Bay, it was commonly held to be a new departure from the US’s constitutional norms, and provoked widespread indignation both domestically and overseas. In truth, though, it wasn’t a new idea, because the US prison system had already been denying basic rights to inmates, and finding justification to do so from the highest court in the land. *** Prisons, as we learn from Dostoevsky and Foucault, can be metaphors for the nature of society at large. The metaphor now appears particularly chilling: we live in world of unprecedented surveillance and control, beyond the accustomed democratic checks and balances, where certain categories of people are now disowned and subject to shocking punishments beyond our view. When a federal judge examined conditions at Pelican Bay in 1995, the prisoners exercising alone in their yards left an impression “hauntingly similar to that of caged felines pacing in a zoo.” And he found the prison’s conditions hovering “on the edge of what is humanly tolerable.” Yet he felt constitutionally unable to close the prison or order any significant modification, because of the “legitimate penological interest” standard imposed by the Supreme Court.Alt Causes – Civil Liberty ViolationsPlan does not reform common prisoner civil rights violations Roxanne Minott, LegalMatch Legal Writer and Attorney at Law, April 28, 2014, “Prisoner Rights Violations,” (Accessed 6/28/2015)Prisoner Rights Violations Everyone is entitled to their civil rights, including prisoners. Unfortunately, many forms of civil rights abuses do occur in prisons. Common prisoner rights violations include: Holding prisoners in outdated prisons that are unsanitary or unsafe The sexual harassment or assault of prisoners by prison guards Preventing a prisoner from complaining about prison conditions to outside parties, such as the courts Punishing a prisoner for complaining about the prison to outside parties Subjecting a prisoner to torture or other forms of cruel and unusual punishment Denying a prisoner medical attention, or providing inadequate medical attention or facilities Denying a disabled prisoner the access guaranteed them under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Alt Cause—Overcrowding Prison overcrowding makes the impact inevitableACLU, American Civil Liberties Union, Accessed July 2, 2015, “Overcrowding and the Other Threats to Health and Safety,” ACLU, Accessed July 2, 2015, overcrowding leads to increased violence, the inability to provide necessary medical care and other essential services, and degrading practices like requiring prisoners to sleep on the floor. Many prisons and jails expose prisoners to dangerous environmental conditions like extreme heat or cold, contaminated food, and a lack of basic sanitation.Alt Cause—Other Surveillance Even in the context of surveillance, other government practices are bigger threats to civil libertiesRachel Stern, Digital new specialist at the University of Buffalo, June 4, 2015, “NSA expands Internet spying that poses “serious threat to American civil liberties,” UB expert says,” University of Buffalo, Accessed July1, 2015, is no arguing the fact that hacking is a serious national security issue, says Mark Bartholomew, University at Buffalo associate professor of law, but expansion of the National Security Agency’s surveillance of Americans’ international Internet traffic is troubling for two reasons. “First, there is an intentional lack of transparency,” said Bartholomew, whose research focuses on cyber law and cybersecurity. “Despite the recent revelations about the expanded NSA program, we still don’t know exactly how and why someone may become a target of the program.” Even in the middle of an increased public awareness, and resistance to government surveillance, Bartholomew said, this warrantless program was expanded without public notice or debate. Most likely, the government decided to conduct this type of surveillance without a warrant because that request must be reasonable and specific, usually targeting a particular defined group or individual, he said. It also seems like this surveillance program is more broad, looking for patterns across a wide variety of digital chatter, he added. “Another potential for programs like this is that it can become a back-door method of policing against garden-variety criminal offenses,” he said. “Without a clear line preventing the data obtained from monitoring international cyberthreats from being used to prosecute unrelated offenses, this kind of surveillance creep poses a serious threat to American civil liberties.”***A/T Prison Conditions Adv***Internal Link Turn – Tech Catches Corrupt GuardsSurveillance key to check prison conditions – recent report provesJohn Lash, executive director of Georgia Conflict Center and graduate of the Master in Conflict Management program at Kennesaw State University, August 8, 2014, “We Must Stop Accepting Violence in Prisons,” (Accessed 7/1/2015)The report specifically criticized the tactics of extraction teams, who regularly beat even subdued or compliant inmates while yelling “stop resisting!” and the frequent uses of force that occur in areas where there are no surveillance cameras. Systemic deficiencies that support the deeply entrenched culture of violence were also noted. Inadequate reporting and investigation of violence of all sorts is common, as is a lack of discipline for staff and inmates who perpetrate violence and a general lack of supervision of inmates. Another factor was the regular placement of the most inexperienced guards in the adolescent housing areas and schools. Inmates were frequently beaten for falling asleep in class, cursing at guards and other minor infractions. One student who fell asleep in class was punched in the face by a guard using handcuffs as brass knuckles. When he cursed at her she dragged him into the hall and along with several other guards beat, kicked and maced the boy. Sometimes after kids were beaten they would be taken to a holding area where another group of officers, often investigators, would beat them again.No Solvency – Surveillance Key to Solve ViolenceIncreased surveillance prevents violence through harsh punitive modelAbigail Ronck, journalist and editor with a graduate degree from Columbia University School of Journalism, June 16, 2015, “NY Prison Break: 6 High-Tech Security Measures that Might have Foiled it,” (Accessed 7/1/2015)While the 170-year-old Clinton Correctional Facility — where two convicts recently drilled out of their cells and passed through an underground steam pipe to the other side of a concrete wall — may be undergoing constant renovations, the largest maximum security prison in New York State hasn’t yet joined the judicial, tech arms race. Innovations inside the world’s newest lockdown facilities offer formidable physical design, radio-frequency inmate tracking, and omnipresent surveillance that make escape nearly impossible. These super high-tech securities surely would have prevented the breakout by Richard Matt and David Sweat — and yet, maybe it’s only a matter of time before they’re hacked through, too.1) The only (known) way is up Clinton Correctional Facility is massive and disconnected, its main building and annex separated by sprawling distances that don’t allow for full camera surveillance. While other brigs built around the same time used Panopticon principles involving circular constructions so staff could see all cells from a central control, Matt and Sweat had enough privacy to bore themselves out. Compare this to the meticulously modern design of ADX Florence in Colorado, a Supermax built in 1994 that houses the United States’ most dangerous criminals. Once inside, disorientation reigns supreme, as there’s no way of knowing north from east or west. Inside cells, ceiling-window slits measuring 4 feet by 4 inches face upward to the sky; outside, recreation in a concrete pit similarly makes understanding your location to map an escape virtually impossible. While the prison’s blueprint is severe, likely too much so for a place like Clinton, senior counsel for Human Rights Watch Jamie Fellner is on record as saying, “The Bureau of Prisons has taken a harsh punitive model and implemented it as well as anybody I know.”2) Track me here, track me there Clinton is no Supermax, but as early as 2002 prisons of its ilk introduced pilot programs using radio-frequency identification tags to track prisoners. RFID is not a new technology — it hit the commercial market in the 1970s following automobiles to market and now enables mobile payments. In prisons, transmitters inside wristbands ping a central database that records an inmate’s location every two seconds. If the band is tampered with, cut, or otherwise removed, an alarm triggers a central monitoring station.Surveillance key to efficiency and good conditions – privacy concerns do not outweighAndre Dao, Editor-at-Large and winner of Express Media’s Best Non-Fiction Piece in 2012, August 6, 2013, “Our Surveillance Society,” (Accessed 7/2/2015)First, surveillance makes it possible to draw up differences – to mark each prisoner as an individual. In the dungeons of medieval Europe, prisoners were indistinguishable in their dark, overcrowded dungeons. In the panopticon, every detail of each prisoner’s life is meticulously recorded, their progress tracked by innumerable metrics. All the while, the prison authorities are able to exert more control whilst expending less and less resources. They can do away with spectacles of extreme torture (which are politically ever more costly) and even most of the watchers – for as long as the prisoner believes they are being watched, then they become the agent of their own surveillance. From here, the prisoner slowly becomes a more useful individual, as they modify their behaviour on the assumption of an omniscient gaze. Surveillance is therefore a mechanism of efficiency – it allows authority to track and modify the behaviour of its subjects, without seeming to exert undue power at all. It projects order onto chaos and so could never have been kept confined to the criminal justice system. For Foucault, surveillance becomes a principle – perhaps the principle – behind the organisation of modern society. The idea of a surveillance society isn’t new – George Orwell published Nineteen Eighty-Four in 1949 – but we may have reached a watershed in its reification. In May this year, a former FBI counterterrorism agent admitted that all digital communications – from phone calls to emails – are automatically recorded and stored and accessible to the government after the fact. When I spoke to Professor Simon Chesterman, an Australian academic and Dean of the Law School at the National University of Singapore, he felt that if “anyone with a phone can take a picture of you on the street”, then “fights over the very existence of a file are losing fights”. In part, this is about a generation gap – Chesterman argued that it was activists in the 1960s who resisted all surveillance in the name of privacy, whereas “people these days are pretty fatalistic about privacy issues”.No Impact – Bad Prison Conditions InevitablePoor prison conditions attributed to subhuman view of prisoners Andrew Cohen, contributing editor at The Atlantic, June 9, 2013 “One of the Darkest Periods in the History of American Prisons,” (Accessed 7/2/2015)It has been an extraordinary three weeks in the history of the American penal system, perhaps one of the darkest periods on record. In four states, from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, from the Gulf of Mexico to the Great Lakes, the systemic abuse and neglect of inmates, and especially mentally ill inmates, has been investigated, chronicled and disclosed in grim detail to the world by lawyers, government investigators and one federal judge. The conclusions are inescapable: In our zeal to dehumanize criminals we have allowed our prisons to become medieval places of unspeakable cruelty so far beyond constitutional norms that they are barely recognizable. First, on May 22, the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department released a report highlighting the unconstitutional conditions of a county prison in Florida. Then, on May 30th, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit alleging atrocious conditions at a state prison in Mississippi. One day later, the feds again sounded out on behalf of inmates, this time against profound abuse and neglect at a Pennsylvania prison. Finally, last week, a federal judge issued an order describing the unconstitutional "brutality" of the prison in Orleans Parish, Louisiana. There were many common themes in the reports. In each instance, the mistreatment of mentally ill inmates was highlighted. Prison officials have failed to provide a constitutional level of care in virtually every respect, from providing medication and treatment to protecting the men from committing suicide. In the Louisiana court order, one prison expert is quoted by the judge as describing an "extraordinary and horrific" situation with the prison there. In the Florida investigation, federal investigators noted that local prison officials "have elected to ignore obvious and serious systemic deficiencies" in the jail's mental health services.Alt Causes - Prison ConditionsLists of prison condition horrors the aff cannot solveJill Filipovic, staff writer with a JD and BA from NYU, June 13, 2013, “America’s Private Prison System is a National Disgrace” (Accessed 7/1/2015)Some of those realities are highlighted in a recent lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of prisoners at the East Mississippi Correctional Facility (EMCF). EMCF houses severely mentally ill prisoners, with the supposed intent of providing both incarceration and treatment. Instead, the ACLU contends, the facility, which is operated by private contractors, is rife with horrific abuses. As the ACLU states, it is "an extremely dangerous facility operating in a perpetual state of crisis, where prisoners live in barbaric and horrific conditions and their basic human rights are violated daily." The complaint lists a litany of such horrors, but here are a few highlights: rampant rapes. Placing prisoners in solitary confinement for weeks, months or even years at a time, where the only way to get a guard's attention in an emergency is to set a fire. Rat infestations so bad that vermin crawl over prisoners; sometimes, the rats are captured, put on leashes and sold as pets to the most severely mentally ill inmates. Many suicide attempts, some successful. The untreated mentally ill throw feces, scream, start fires, electrocute themselves and self-mutilate. Denying or delaying treatment for infections and even cancer. Stabbings, beatings and other acts of violence. Juveniles being housed with adults, including one 16-year-old who was sexually assaulted by his adult cell mate. Malnourishment and chronic hunger. Officers who deal with prisoners by using physical violence. One prisoner allegedly attempted to hang himself. He was cut down by guards, given oxygen and put on supervision, but wasn't taken to an emergency room, let alone given psychiatric care during the suicide watch. Without seeing a psychiatrist, his medication dosage was increased.Alt Causes to prison condition include funding and union issuesAndrew Cohen, contributing editor at The Atlantic, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, and a legal analyst for 60 Minutes and CBS Radio News, March 5, 2014, “Why America Still Fails to Reform its Horrible Prisons,” (Accessed 7/4/2015)All of this is bad — immoral, really. But what makes it so much worse is how common it is. Not just the deplorable conditions in which the nation's incarcerated are held, but the impotency with which the courts deal with these acknowledged constitutional violations. Even when civil rights lawsuits against prisons succeed in identifying unconstitutional conduct, the inmates and their advocates end up having to continue to litigate, sometimes for decades, to press prison officials to do what they are legally bound to do. It's not just Mississippi. It's also Pennsylvania, Arizona (where Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio refuses to comply with his constitutional obligations), and, famously, California. The executive branch, which is primarily responsible for prisons, never wants to reform them as quickly as the law requires for the same reasons that the conditions in these facilities are so deplorable in the first place. There is little political upside in doing so. Even if there were the political will to quickly implement reform in these facilities — and there almost always isn't — there would be practical obstacles. The prison guards' union would object. Or maybe there wouldn't be enough money in the budget for adequate staffing of the facilities or for the training of corrections officials or doctors.Impact Inevitable – Prison ConditionsOvercrowding, sanitation issues, and sentencing perpetuate poor conditionsJodie Gummow, senior fellow and staff writer at AlterNet, March 14, 2014, “10 Shameful Ways America Abuses its Own Citizens,” (Accessed 7/5/2015)Abysmal prison conditions. Prison conditions continue to be typified by overcrowding, rampant physical abuse, prison rape, barely edible food, unsanitary conditions and inadequate access to medical and mental healthcare facilities for inmates. Likewise, lengthy sentences have resulted in a growing number of elderly incarcerated people posing serious health challenges to correctional authorities ill-equipped to handle the aging prison population. Over 26,000 persons aged 65 and older were incarcerated in state and federal prisons in 2011, representing a 62 percent increase over five years. Last year, 30,000 inmates of a California state prison went on a hunger strike to rally against inhumane conditions and the use of solitary confinement in jails. Still, prisoners continue to be held in the Special Housing Unit, or the SHU, often for weeks or months on end. Prolonged solitary confinement amounts to “cruel punishment or torture” under international law and is scientifically proven to cause serious mental and physical suffering.Poor Prison conditions are inevitable – inconsistent goalsNancy Dubler, Consultant for Bioethics at the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation and Professor Emerita at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and former director of the Division of Bioethics at Montefiore Medical Center and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine., March 10, 2014, “Ethical Dilemmas in Prison and Jail Health Care,” (Accessed 7/5/2015)The Eighth Amendment’s deliberate indifference standard, forbidding cruel and unusual punishment, presents a relatively demanding standard for proving liabil?ity. The Eighth Amendment, as interpreted by the federal courts, does not render prison officials or staff liable in federal cases for malpractice or accidents, nor does it resolve inter-professional disputes — or patient-professional disputes — about the best choice of treatment. It does require, however, that sufficient resources be made available to implement three basic rights: the right to access to care, the right to care that is ordered, and the right to a professional medical judgment. The mission of medical care is to diagnose, comfort, and cure; the goal of a prison or jail is to con?ne, punish, and, almost accidently these days, rehabilitate. There is an inevitable collision between these two sets of goals, exacerbated because correctional facilities are “inherently coercive institutions that for security reasons must exercise nearly total control over their residents’ lives and the activities within their con?nes.” Medical providers are accustomed to directing care provided according to their orders and designed to be in the best interests of the patient. In correctional settings medical orders are often an irritant to correctional authorities who might need to reorder schedules to accommodate medical needs or augment or change diets, thus deviating from pre-determined systems and rules.***A/T Solvency***No Solvency – Surveillance Solves Escapes/CrimeIncreased surveillance can target predicted escapes to deter escapes and crimeLauren Kirchner, Author for Columbia Journalism Review, Capital New York, the Slate, the Awl, etc., October 2, 2014, “Can Prisons Predict Which Inmates Will Try to Escape?”, Pacific Standard Magazine, (Accessed June 24, 2015)The women who escaped (or tried to) "tended to be younger, tended to have longer sentences, and generally experienced more adjustment problems than non-escapees." Christopher Beam broke down the categories of frequent prison-escape methods a few years ago in a list for Slate: cutting holes in the roof, impersonating someone other than an inmate and walking out, brute force, getting help from the outside, and, yes, very slowly digging a tunnel from a cell (which he calls “The Shawshank-esque redemption”). The methods may differ, but the motive, of course, is always the same. To prevent escapes, prison administrators can increase the facility’s security, decrease the amount of unstructured time outside, staff up on guards, and maybe even try to manipulate prison architecture to discourage risky behavior among inmates. But can anyone predict which prisoners will be most likely to attempt an escape?No Solvency – Guard to Tech Transition FailsDecreased guard surveillance fails – tech insufficientDavid Weber, senior cross media news reporter, May 16, 2014, “Prison attack sparks call for surveillance camera reform in WA jails,” (Accessed 7/1/2015)"Clearly we're very worried that if you're intending to replace actual prison officers with modern technology, whether that be video surveillance or other forms of surveillance, it has to be fit for purpose," he said. "You need to either have staff who are physically able to monitor the unit themselves ... or have cameras that can do that in an efficient fashion. "The outcome of this case shows us that Acacia wasn't able to do that." Mr Welch said staff could also be at risk when cameras which record were not in the right places. "Cameras need to be correctly positioned, functioning all of the time, and have staff able to respond," he said. "Obviously we hope changes that have been made at Acacia Prison to improve video surveillance will improve things for our members, but ultimately if you don't provide the necessary staff ... what you end up with is an inability to properly provide the coverage and the supervision that is necessary." "Cameras that will automatically record is obviously a step forward but it doesn't resolve the problem that there simply, in our view, are not the necessary number of staff to provide the supervision."Tech monitoring transition doesn’t solve the aff - leads to less rights James Kilgore, researcher, educator and social justice activist, July 30, 2014 “The Spread of Electronic Monitoring: No Quick Fix for Mass Incarceration,” (Accessed 7/1/2015)The Monitored: Fewer Rights Than Prisoners While the techno-geeks will likely address these glitches at some point, human rights questions and financial issues loom much larger. Surprisingly, those on monitors have fewer legal entitlements and rights than people in prison. While prisoners normally have entitlements such as the right to access legal materials along with daily quotas for caloric provision and exercise time, those on monitors have few, if any, such guarantees. The heart of the matter is that whether a person is on an ankle bracelet for parole, probation or pre-trial release, the default position in most instances is house arrest. In legalese, this is deprivation of liberty by technological means. To leave home, a person on a monitor needs permission for "movement" from their supervising officer and that permission has to be programmed into their device. Moreover, parole or probation officers typically have the power to impose a "lockdown"- confining the person to their house 24 hours a day for any period without any judicial process. Furthermore, neither a decision to impose a lockdown nor deny movement offers channels of appeal for the monitored person.Electronic monitoring fails to resolve crime and is not cost-saving Kim Soffen, staff writer for the Harvard Political Review, July 14, 2014, “The Price of Electronic Prison,” (Accessed 7/5/2015)Although in the end, the cost would likely still be lower than that of imprisonment, it is not the huge savings it appears to be at first glance. Moreover, the shift may reduce incentives for policy makers to reduce the overall number of inmates and thus increase total costs. Prison overcrowding, prevalent throughout the United States, causes many convicts to get truncated prison sentences or no prison time at all, as a means of freeing up space for another offender. With imprisonment switched to an electronic monitoring system, physical space in prisons would no longer be a constraint. This may well make it more common for criminals to finish their sentence imprisoned in its entirety. With longer sentences, the state would be responsible for more prisoners at any given time. The result: higher costs. Further increases in the number of prisoners could be caused by house arrest being a less effective deterrent against crime than prison is, or by abuse of the system, purposefully committing crimes to gain the associated welfare benefits (as is currently documented in the homeless population). Still, the number of prisoners could decrease because of the lower incidence of recidivism present in electronic monitoring systems. With these competing forces, it is unclear whether the state would be responsible for more or fewer prisoners under an electronic monitoring system. And, if there were more prisoners, it is unclear whether the increase would be enough to counteract the decrease in cost for prisoner, perhaps leading to an overall increase in cost. With a murky conclusion as to whether electronic monitoring saves money, one can turn to the other benefits provided by each system. Is the decreased prisoner-on-prisoner assault and recidivism worth the inequality of imprisonment conditions? People who committed the same crime could serve their sentence playing bridge on their porch in the Hamptons or desperately trying to keep warm in their overcrowded apartment in the Projects. Is it worth the lessening of the feeling of justice for the victim of the crime?Video surveillance used to prolong and justify SHU re-creating medieval crueltyBrandon Keim, Wired Science reporter and freelance journalist, July 11, 2013, “The Horrible Psychology of Solitary Confinement,” (Accessed 7/2/2015)What's emerged from the reports and testimonies reads like a mix of medieval cruelty and sci-fi dystopia. For 23 hours or more per day, in what's euphemistically called "administrative segregation" or "special housing," prisoners are kept in bathroom-sized cells, under fluorescent lights that never shut off. Video surveillance is constant. Social contact is restricted to rare glimpses of other prisoners, encounters with guards, and brief video conferences with friends or family. For stimulation, prisoners might have a few books; often they don't have television, or even a radio. In 2011, another hunger strike among California's prisoners secured such amenities as wool hats in cold weather and wall calendars. The enforced solitude can last for years, even decades. These horrors are best understood by listening to people who've endured them. As one Florida teenager described in a report on solitary confinement in juvenile prisoners, "The only thing left to do is go crazy." To some ears, though, stories will always be anecdotes, potentially misleading, possibly powerful, but not necessarily representative. That's where science enters the picture. "What we often hear from corrections officials is that inmates are feigning mental illness," said Heather Rice, a prison policy expert at the National Religious Campaign Against Torture. "To actually hear the hard science is very powerful." "It destroys one's capacity to relate socially, to work, to play, to hold a job or enjoy life" Terry Kupers, Psychiatrist and critic of solitary confinement Scientific studies of solitary confinement and its damages have actually come in waves, first emerging in the mid-19th century, when the practice fell from widespread favour in the United States and Europe. More study came in the 1950s, as a response to reports of prisoner isolation and brainwashing during the Korean War. The renewed popularity of solitary confinement in the United States, which dates to the prison overcrowding and rehabilitation program cuts of the 1980s, spurred the most recent research.No Solvency – Body Cavity Searches Key to SecurityBody Cavity searches are necessary to maintain securityKevin McGill, associated press newsperson staff writer, October 30, 2014, “Prisoner Says State Conducts Illegal Body Cavity Searches,” (Accessed 7/2/2015)NEW ORLEANS (AP) — Lawyers for a Louisiana prison inmate whose conviction in the 1972 death of a guard was overturned say he has been subjected to illegal “body cavity searches” while he awaits the next step in his prosecution. The inmate is 67-year-old Albert Woodfox, one of the prisoners supporters have dubbed the “Angola Three,” owing to their long stretches in solitary confinement at the state penitentiary in Angola. State officials say the searches are necessary to maintain security and that Woodfox is not treated any differently than other maximum security prisoners. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Wednesday on the body search issue but the three-judge panel gave no indication when it would rule. A decision is pending from the same appeals court on state efforts to reinstate Woodfox’s murder conviction.No Solvency—Reforms= Long Time FramePrison reforms routinely take decades to take effect—the plan is slow to solveAndrew Cohen, Writer for The Week, March 5, 2014, “Why America still fails to reform its horrible prisons,” The Week, Accessed July 3, 2015, , right? Wrong. Hinds County's utter capitulation in the lawsuit, including the stipulation that it needed to fix scores of problems within the facility, has accomplished virtually nothing in two years. So little progress has been made, in fact, that reform advocates had to go back to court last week and seek to hold county officials in contempt for their lack of action. The contempt motion is profoundly frustrating to read. Following his last of five visits to the facility since 2012, the court-appointed monitor revealed that the county still has not reached substantial compliance "with any of the 71 provisions set forth in the settlement agreement." Even in those areas in which the county initially improved conditions, the special monitor says there is evidence of backsliding. The "facility is dirty again and unkempt. The units have a strong odor of urine. There is also graffiti resurfacing in the rooms and on the units." Dangerous conditions still exist inside the facility. One female youth was reportedly bitten by a staff member during an altercation. Another staff member "instructed a youth to clean up another youth's blood without being provided proper protective gear" and, perhaps most important, mental health care for these young people is virtually non-existent, in part because there isn't enough staff inside this facility, and the staff that is there is woefully undertrained for the job. On and on it goes. All of this is bad — immoral, really. But what makes it so much worse is how common it is. Not just the deplorable conditions in which the nation's incarcerated are held, but the impotency with which the courts deal with these acknowledged constitutional violations. Even when civil rights lawsuits against prisons succeed in identifying unconstitutional conduct, the inmates and their advocates end up having to continue to litigate, sometimes for decades, to press prison officials to do what they are legally bound to do. It's not just Mississippi. It's also Pennsylvania, Arizona (where Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio refuses to comply with his constitutional obligations), and, famously, California.No Solvency—Reforms= Long Time FrameThe plan assumes legal reforms in prison are simple to implement—history and bureaucratic blowback make reform slow and difficult to actually implement Andrew O' Donohue, Writer for the Harvard Political Review, November 14, 2014, “Rikers and the Limits of Prison Reform,” Harvard Political Review, Accessed July 1, 2015, a federal investigation discovered a “deep-seated culture of violence” against teenage inmates at Rikers, the U.S. Attorney’s Office issued the City of New York an ultimatum: reform Rikers within 49 days, or face a federal lawsuit. Yet despite pressure from the courts, media, mayor, and public, the pace of reform has been agonizingly slow for the 11,500 inmates at Rikers; this weak response casts major doubts on the possibility of any successful reform in the justice system. While the story of Rikers reveals that a pernicious lack of accountability threatens reforms, the limits of reform can, in large part, be traced back to a single man: Norman Seabrook. “You push me, I push back,” Seabrook, president of the Correction Officer’s Benevolent Association, stated in an interview with the New York Times. “This jail belongs to us.” While other public figures have coalesced around a consensus to reduce solitary confinement for juveniles, Mr. Seabrook has advocated increasing it. While the corrections commissioner Joseph Ponte successfully worked with unions to create reform at his previous position in Maine, the union there was one-fifteenth the size of New York’s. Mr. Seabrook ranks among the most powerful union leaders in the state. “There is no question in my mind that Norman Seabrook and the correction officer’s union is a very significant, if not the most significant, factor impeding progress in how the jail is managed,” Mr. Schindler commented. “I’m someone who is very supportive of the labor movement, but unions are often clinging to the status quo and resistant to changes that would take them out of a comfort zone. The union’s leadership may hold views that are not always representative of the majority of the union members. Often what they are more representative of is a vocal and upset minority,” he added. Although the union continues to obstruct reforms, the government itself has failed to craft effective policies and respond effectively. “The correctional union has been very resistant, but they’ve also been set up to fail,” Mr. Schindler stated. “When you place young people in adult facilities, it’s a recipe for disaster because you’re exacerbating an already challenging situation, and you’re oftentimes—and this is definitely the case in New York City—giving the task of supervising those young people to correctional officers who are not trained to deal with adolescents.”***Generic Disad Links***Crimes DA – Public Safety LinkExpanded surveillance necessary to prevent illegal activities and protect societyBrandon Kenney, Managing Editor of Penn Program on Regulation at Penn Law, April 17, 2014, “Agency Seeks Total Monitoring of Inmates,” (Accessed 7/2/2015)The Bureau of Prisons is seeking to expand surveillance on prisoners who pose a threat to society from behind bars. INMATE MONITORING The agency recently closed the comment period on a proposed rule that would establish guidelines for sending inmates to isolated incarceration units where federal officials would monitor nearly all prisoner communications and restrict communication with those outside the penitentiary. The regulation would target prisoners with terrorist links as well as those who have attempted to carry out illegal activities from prison, such as contacting victims or ordering murders. The Bureau stated that the new rule is “necessary to ensure the safety, security, and orderly operation of correctional facilities, and protect the public.” The Prison Bureau hopes the new rule will assist officials in combating the criminal activities of these high-risk prisoners by making communications easier to monitor. Two of these units, known as Communication Management Units (CMUs), already exist in Illinois and Indiana. An antiterrorism task force monitors all prisoner communications in the units, from chatter in the cellblock to conversations in the prison yard and religious worship. The rule would officially codify these ongoing practices and make it easier for officials to open additional units.Politics – Plan PartisanSurveillance and prison reform causes party competitionJoe Soss, Cowles Professor for the Study of Public Service, April 2, 2014, “America’s prison system and its relationship to civic trust and democracy: Research brief,” (Accessed 6/29/2015)The rise of mass incarceration after the 1960s is commonly explained by scholars as a political response to new social and economic insecurities, with intense party competition spurring the turn toward draconian punishments. But when scholars turn from dissecting the causes of the prison boom to exploring its consequences, politics tends to fade from view. Today, we know a lot about how the expanded operations of the criminal justice system have negative social and economic effects for disadvantaged communities. Only recently, however, have researchers begun to explore how expanded systems of policing and correctional control are reshaping civic life and democracy in the United States. Contributors to the January 2014 special issue of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science on “Detaining Democracy? Criminal Justice and American Civic Life” present some of the most important new research results – showing that the era of expansive policing, custody, and confinement has been politically harmful for poor and black Americans, undermining their prospects for constructive citizenship and undermining faith in U.S. public institutions.***Counter Plans***?States CP – SolvencyStates should lead the way for prison reform, most effective and ensures preservation of federalism Newt Gingrich and Van Jones, Writers for CNN, December 5, 2014, “Seize the moment to reform our failed prison system,” CNN, Accessed July 1, 2015, As a corrections system, this makes no sense. We must rethink our approach from the ground up. And for federal crimes, we can start by building on bipartisan reforms that are spreading across the country at the state level. In the true spirit of federalism, states have led the way in passing reforms that protect public safety, more effectively punish and correct nonviolent offenders, save taxpayers money and ensure hardened and violent criminals remain behind bars. In Georgia, Gov. Nathan Deal has implemented a bold overhaul of the state's criminal justice system, slashing prison spending and reducing harsh penalties for nonviolent offenses. The result has been a 20% reduction over five years in the number of African-American men incarcerated. In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry has been so successful at using probation, parole and sentencing reform to both reduce the prison population while also reducing crime that people have termed his approach the "Texas Model." Out west, California recently passed one of the most transformational examples of bipartisan criminal justice reform. Proposition 47, the "Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act," was a sensible measure to reduce incarceration for nonviolent crimes and to increase investments in crime prevention, treatment and education.States can take the lead on prison reform to save money and lesson prison populations Vauhini Vara, Writer for the New Yorker, November 7, 2014, “Will California Again Lead the Way on Prison Reform?,” New Yorker, Accessed July 1, 2015, Tuesday, California voters went further still, passing a ballot measure, Proposition 47, that will turn certain felonies that often result in state-prison sentences into misdemeanors, which are typically punished by lower-level sentences, such as time in county jail. The measure passed by a wide margin, with fifty-eight per cent in favor and forty-two per cent opposed. The development has been widely celebrated in criminal-justice circles and seen as a continuation of Californians’ repudiation of the tough-on-crime age. “There’s a shift in the national consciousness,” Allen Hopper, the criminal-justice and drug-policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of California, toldthe Sacramento Bee. “I think that ‘smart on crime’ sort of captures the mood of the nation now.” Though this may be true, the outcome of Prop. 47’s passage is uncertain. The measure’s opponents had argued, for example, that the muted deterrence effect would lead to more crimes. This could well happen. But Hayley Munguia, of , looked on Thursday at similar laws that have recently passed in other states—Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, and Texas—and found that, in three of the four states, crime rates had decreased afterward. Since California started enacting reforms, in 2011, its rate of violent crimes has fallen, too, from four hundred and thirty-nine per hundred thousand residents, in 2010, to under four hundred, in 2013. (This continued a general decline since 1992, when the rate hit a record of eleven hundred.)States can and should lead the way on prison reform—best empirical successes have begun at the state level Luke Whelan, Editorial fellow at Mother Jones, February 13, 2015, “5 States Where Republicans Are Getting Serious About Criminal Justice Reform,” Mother Jones, Accessed July 1, 2015, At the state level, Republicans have already been taking on the issue. Here are five states where Republican governors and their fellow GOP lawmakers are taking on broken prison systems and the harsh laws that have fueled the incarceration boom: Nebraska: Members of Nebraska's legislature have introduced several bills that address the state's overcrowded prisons. These include two bills introduced Wednesday, which would do away with mandatory minimum sentences for a slew of crimes (including distributing cocaine and heroin) and limit Nebraska's "three-strikes" law to violent crimes. While the Cornhusker State's legislature is nonpartisan, a majority of bills' cosponsors are affiliated with the Republican Party, including Sen. Jim Smith, the head of the state branch of the American Legislative Exchange Council. Republican Governor Pete Ricketts reportedly supports the push for prison reform, as does the Omaha-based Platte Institute, a conservative think tank that recently released recommendations for decreasing incarceration that have drawn support from the Nebraska ACLU. Utah: Republican state Representative Eric Hutchings is sponsoring legislation that aims to reduce Utah's prison population and decrease recidivism. The bill, which has yet to be publicly released, would decrease the charge for drug possession from a felony to a misdemeanor. Governor Gary Herbert, also a Republican, hasput aside $10.5 million for recidivism reform. Illinois: Governor Bruce Rauner's agenda includes a plan to keep nonviolent offenders out of prison by instead sending them to community programs. Earlier this week, he created a commission of lawmakers, cops, and activists to recommend reforms to the state's criminal justice system. More details about his plan will come out when he releases his 2016 budget recommendations next week. Alabama: The legislature-appointed Alabama Prison Reform Task Force is gearing up to propose a new bill for the next legislative session, which begins in March. Led by Republican state Senator Cam Ward, an outspoken Second Amendment defender, the task force is seeking ways to cut down the state's prison population, which is more twice its intended size. One of Ward's ideas? Making re-entry easier by throwing out draconian laws for ex-felons, like those preventing them from getting driver's licenses. Georgia: A similar task force, the Georgia Council on Criminal Justice Reform, has been recommending reforms to lawmakers. Formed in 2011 by Republican Governor Nathan Deal, the group has pushed the state to stop imprisoning juveniles and reform sentencing for nonviolent offenders, which slashed $20 million off the cost to house inmates in Georgia. The council's current agenda includes initiatives to improve reentry for ex-felons.States CP – Spending/Economy Net BenefitState reform frees up funds for educational programs to benefit minorities and boosts state economiesAriana Witt, communications associate for Alliance and STEM programs and social media intern for the American Association of University Women, November 19, 2014, “CHANGING PRIORITIES: State Prison Reform Would Make More Funding Available for Education, Says New Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Report,” (Accessed 6/30/2015)A report released October 28 by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) suggests that state criminal justice reform would free up millions of general fund dollars that states could use to improve their preschool, K–12, and higher education systems, especially for low-income areas. “Even as states spend more on corrections, they are underinvesting in educating children and young adults, especially those in high-poverty neighborhoods,” the report notes. “This is not sound policy. State economies would be much stronger over time if states invested more in education and other areas that can boost long-term economic growth and less in maintaining extremely high prison populations.” Reordering state criminal justice systems and investing in education would make it possible to combat several disadvantages that students face, according to the report, specifically for students in low-income areas who tend to face the most drawbacks from budget cuts. Namely, the increase in available funding could help expand access to high-quality preschool; reduce class sizes in high-poverty schools; revise state funding formulas that counteract inequities created by schools receiving most of their local funds from property tax (which heavily favors wealthier districts); and increase college enrollment and graduation rates—as more state funding would be available, keeping the cost of tuition for students and their families low.Privatization CP – SolvencyPrivatized prisons are cost effective and transparentJohn Kavanagh, chairman of the Arizona House Appropriations Committee, January 10, 2014, “Private Prisons Really Are Cheaper for Taxpayers,” (Accessed 7/2/2015)Because no study is better than a flawed and misleading one, we stopped the charade. In addition, prison costs are not volatile, so we still felt comfortable using the more complete and accurate 2010 JLBC adjusted figures on the DOC that demonstrate private prisons are less expensive. The criticism of the guaranteed occupancy rate of 90 percent that the state includes in private-prison contracts is also unjustified. Montini inexplicably calls this communism. However, under communism, the state seizes control of private businesses and makes them government operations. In this case, the guarantee enables a government operation to be privatized. That’s the opposite of communism. Besides, what rational business would spend $50 million building a private prison for the state to house its prisoners without a guarantee from the state that it would use the prison? The contracts also call for the private-prison company to deed the prison over to the state after 20 years. The state then saves even more money because it then charges the private operator rent. The charge that private prisons lack transparency is also bogus. All state contracts with private prisons require on-site state inspectors to have full access at all times, and we station three state inspectors at every private prison to ensure that the terms of the contract are fulfilled. Can it get any more transparent than that? Maybe Montini would like to go undercover as a prisoner? I would love to arrange that!Privatized prison industry is strong and has the power to institute reformAaron Cantu, associate researcher for Project CBD and a former intern at The Nation, May 3, 2014, “4 disturbing reasons private prisons are so powerful” (Accessed 7/3/2015)One major cause of the industry's staying power? It's woven itself into the fabric of our public institutions Since the early 1980’s, incoming revenue for private prison corporations has steadily grown, even through times of deep recession. As long as lawmakers were passing punitive laws to keep mostly young men locked in cages indefinitely, it seemed like the party would never end. However, there’s been something of an awakening in the last few years. Today over 2.3 million people are locked away in prisons, a number so extreme that lawmakers are now actually considering piecemeal changes to the system of mass incarceration. And just last week, three major corporations (Scopia Capital Management, DSM North America, and Amica Mutual Insurance) announced that they were divesting $60 million from the two largest prison corporations in the nation thanks to a Color of Change campaign urging companies to drop their private prison investments: Corrections Corporation of America and the GEO Group, worth $3.2 billion in total. As a consequence of all this movement, some have portended the eventual demise of the private prison industry. This idea overlooks just how dynamic and resilient the private prison industry actually is. It has survived public vitriol, lawsuits from shareholders, poor press for prisoner abuse and, over the last few years, shaky revenue flows. The prospect of renewed demand for detention centers (especially if Congress passes immigration reform) is another reason not to presume the industry’s end just yet. A major cause of the industry’s staying power is how deeply it has woven itself into the fabric of our public institutions and channels. What follows are some of the most invisible yet effective ways that the incarceration business embeds itself in our society like a splinter under the skin. West Coast PublishingPolicy 2015-16Right wing militias NegEdited by Jim HansonResearch assistance byJonathan ShaneThanks for using our Policy, LD, Public Forum, and Extemp Materials.Please don’t share this material with anyone outside of your schoolincluding via print, email, dropbox, google drive, the web, etc. We’re a small non-profit; please help us continue to provide our products.Contact us at jim@ Circumvention NEGNegative – Top Level1NC Circumvention – GeneralThe President can justify surveillance measures by responding to emergencies – circumvents legislative and judicial oversightEric Posner, Professor at the University of Chicago Law School, and Adrian Vermeule, Professor at Harvard Law School, March 2011, The Executive Unbound, pg. 9-10One of our main claims is that these approaches are palliatives that have proven largely ineffective, and that fail to cure the underlying ills of liberal legalism. The same institutional and economic forces that produce the problems of delegation and emergencies also work to undermine legalistic constraints on the executive. The complexity of policy problems, especially in economic domains, the need for secrecy in many matters of security and foreign affairs, and the sheer speed of policy response necessary in crises combine to make meaningful legislative and judicial oversight of delegated authority difficult in the best of circumstances. In emergencies, the difficulties become insuperable—even under the most favorable constellation of political forces, in which the independently elected executive is from a different party than the majority of the Congress. Liberal legalism, in short, has proven unable to reconcile the administrative state with the Madisonian origins of American government. The constitutional framework and the separation-of-powers system generate only weak and defeasible constraints on executive action. Madisonian oversight has largely failed, and it has failed for institutional reasons. Both Congress and the judiciary labor under an informational deficit that oversight cannot remedy, especially in matters of national security and foreign policy, and both institutions experience problems of collective action and internal coordination that the relatively more hierarchical executive can better avoid. Moreover, political parties, uniting officeholders within different institutions, often hobble the institutional competition on which Madisonian theorizing relies.'8 Congressional oversight does sometimes serve purely political functions—legislators, particularly legislators from opposing parties, can thwart presidential initiatives that are unpopular—but as a legal mechanism for ensuring that the executive remains within the bounds of law, oversight is largely a failure. The same holds for statutory constraints on the executive—unsurprisingly, as these constraints are the product of the very Madisonian system whose failure is apparent at the constitutional level. In the terms of the legal theorist David Dyzenhaus, the APA creates a series of legal "black holes" and "grey holes" that either de jure or de facto exempt presidential and administrative action from ordinary legal requirements, and hence from (one conception of) the rule of law.19 The scope of these exemptions waxes and wanes with circumstances, expanding during emergencies and contracting during normal times, but it is never trivial, and the administrative state has never been brought wholly under the rule of law; periodically the shackles slip off altogether.2NC Circumvention – GeneralOther branches can’t check the executiveAziz Z. Huq, Assistant Professor of Law at University of Chicago Law School, 5-22-2012, “Binding the Executive (by Law or by Politics) The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic by Eric A. Posner; Adrian Vermeule,” first the case PV make against law and legal institutions as bulwarks against the executive. Their central argument rests on a logic of comparative institutional competence. Congress and judges alike, they argue, lack incentives or ability to gather and process information necessary to act quickly or to engage in oversight. Courts suffer from a “legitimacy deficit,” which dampens judicial willingness to intervene (pp 30–31, 57–58). And the Separation Of Powers system can be gamed by an executive using a strategy of “divide and conquer” against the two other branches (pp 19–31).38 The net result is that Congress fails to anticipate crises and then is forced to delegate broad new powers after the fact (pp 43–52), while courts lag far behind executive initiatives.1NC Circumvention – Congress The President will circumvent Congressional restrictions – delegation and emergenciesEric Posner, Professor at the University of Chicago Law School, and Adrian Vermeule, Professor at Harvard Law School, March 2011, The Executive Unbound, pg. 7Having defined our terms as far as possible, our main critical thesis is that liberal legalism has proven unable to generate meaningful constraints on the executive. Two problems bedevil liberal legalism: delegation and emergencies. The first arises when legislatures enact statutes that grant the executive authority to regulate or otherwise determine policy, the second when external shocks require new policies to be adopted and executed with great speed. Both situations undermine the simplest version of liberal legalism, in which legislatures themselves create rules that the executive enforces, subject to review by the courts. Delegation suggests that the legislature has ceded lawmaking authority to the executive, de facto if not de jure,14 while in emergencies, only the executive can supply new policies and real-world action with sufficient speed to manage events. The two problems are related in practice. When emergencies occur, legislatures acting under real constraints of time, expertise, and institutional energy typically face the choice between doing nothing at all or delegating new powers to the executive to manage the crisis. As we will see, legislatures often manage to do both things; they stand aside passively while the executive handles the first wave of the crisis, and then come on the scene only later, to expand the executive's de jure powers, sometimes matching or even expanding the de facto powers the executive has already assumed.2NC Circumvention – Congress – SurveillanceCongress can’t enforce controls on surveillance policy William Bendix, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Keene State College, and Paul J. Quirk, Phi Lind Chair in U.S. Politics and Representation at the University of British Columbia and a former research associate at the Brookings Institution, March 2015, “Secrecy and Negligence: How Congress Lost Control of Domestic Surveillance,” the last five years of legislative debates over the PATRIOT Act, Congress has failed to define or control surveillance policy. Prior to the Snowden leaks, most members had little awareness of NSA activities and Congress had little capacity to impose constraints. Now, more than 18 months after Snowden exposed the mass seizure of phone records, not much has changed. To a great extent, the source of difficulty has been the inadequacy of the institutional arrangements for legislative deliberation on secret programs. Some members have declined opportunity to learn about domestic-spying practices, while others have opposed placing restrictions on the NSA for fear of giving terrorists any tactical advantage. President circumvents Congress on surveillance – invokes the need for executive secrecy to avoid oversightEric Posner, Professor at the University of Chicago Law School, and Adrian Vermeule, Professor at Harvard Law School, March 2011, The Executive Unbound, pg. 24Monitoring the executive requires expertise in the area being monitored. In many cases, Congress lacks the information necessary to monitor discretionary policy choices by the executive. Although the committee system has the effect, among others, of generating legislative information and expertise,18 and although Congress has a large internal staff, there are domains in which no amount of legislative expertise suffices for effective oversight. Prime among these are areas of foreign policy and national security. Here the relative lack of legislative expertise is only part of the problem; what makes it worse is that the legislature lacks the raw information that experts need to make assessments. The problem would disappear if legislators could cheaply acquire information from the president, but they cannot. One obstacle is a suite of legal doctrines protecting executive secrecy and creating deliberative privileges— doctrines that may or may not be justified from some higher-order systemic point of view as means for producing optimal deliberation within the executive branch. Although such privileges are waivable, the executive often fears to set a bad institutional precedent. Another obstacle is the standard executive claim that Congress leaks like a sieve, so that sharing secret information with legislators will result in public disclosure. The problem becomes most acute when, as in the recent controversy over surveillance by the National Security Agency, the executive claims that the very scope or rationale of a program cannot be discussed with Congress, because to do so would vitiate the very secrecy that makes the program possible and beneficial. In any particular case the claim might be right or wrong; legislators have no real way to judge, and they know that the claim might be made either by a well-motivated executive or by an ill-motivated executive, albeit for very different reasons.2NC Circumvention – CongressCongress can’t enforce restrictions – collective-action problems, partisanship, too costly, courts won’t interveneDouglas Kriner, Assistant Profess of Political Science at Boston University, 2010, After the Rubicon: Congress, Presidents, and the Politics of Waging War, p. 41-42If the only way in which Congress can affect the president's strategic calculus in the military arena is by legally compelling him to abandon his preferred policies, then Congress is indeed all but impotent in military affairs. A host of factors combine to hinder Congress from acting legislatively to constrain the commander in chief. Collective-action problems necessarily plague any effort by 535 atomized, individual ac tors to protect their institutional prerogatives as legislators in military affairs.6 More importantly, the partisan incentives of many members of Congress to support a president of their own party often overwhelm their interest in maintaining the power stakes of their institution. This reality, coupled with a legislative process riddled with transaction costs and supermajoritarian requirements, virtually precludes Congress from building the requisite majorities, or in some cases supermajorities, needed to chart a military course independent of the president.' Finally, the courts have long been reticent to intervene and protect legislative prerogatives in war powers that Congress itself is loath to assert.8 For all of these reasons, presidents act in the military arena secure in the knowledge that they can operate as they please with little risk of Congress exercising its constitutional and statutory prerogatives to compel them to do otherwise. If Congress does retain any influence in the military arena, it must be able to affect presidents' decision calculus through other, more indirect means.Congress can’t check – partisanship Neal Devins, Professor of Government at William and Mary, 2009, “Presidential Unilateralism and Political Polarization: Why Today's Congress Lacks the Will and the Way to Stop Presidential Initiatives”, highlighting differences between the Watergate-era Congress and the modem Congress, Part III will examine the profound role that political polarization has played in defining today's Congress. Initially, I will call attention to how political polarization makes it impossible for Democrats and Republicans in Congress to work together. I will then extend that lesson to the highly partisan impeachment of President Clinton and, more importantly, to the ways in which modem day Presidents have assumed more and more power through unilateral action. Making matters worse (at least if you think Congress should stand as a check to presidential unilateralism), members of Congress see little personal gain in standing together to assert Congress's institutional prerogatives. On national security matters, today's Congress-unlike the post-1969 Viet Nam era Congress-sees little benefit in asserting legislative prerogatives. Put another way: Today's Congress, unlike the Watergate-era, has neither the will nor the way to check presidential initiatives.Congress is too incompetent to check the president – War Powers Resolution provesJudah A. Druck, Law Associate at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Cornell Law School graduate, magna cum laude graduate from Brandeis University, 2012, “Droning On: The War Powers Resolution and the Numbing Effect of Technology-Driven Warfare,” has been criticized for doing little to enforce the WPR in using other Article I tools, such as the “power of the purse,”76 or by closing the loopholes frequently used by presidents to avoid the WPR in the first place.77 Furthermore, in those situations where Congress has decided to act, it has done so in such a disjointed manner as to render any possible check on the President useless. For example, during President Reagan’s invasion of Grenada, Congress failed to reach an agreement to declare the WPR’s sixty-day clock operative,78 and later faced similar “deadlock” in deciding how best to respond to President Reagan’s actions in the Persian Gulf, eventually settling for a bill that reflected congressional “ambivalence.”79 Thus, between the lack of a “backbone” to check rogue presidential action and general ineptitude when it actually decides to act, Congress has demonstrated its inability to remedy WPR violations. Worse yet, much of Congress’s interest in the WPR is politically motivated, leading to inconsistent review of presidential military decisions filled with post-hoc rationalizations. Given the political risk associated with wartime decisions,81 Congress lacks any incentive to act unless and until it can gauge public reaction—a process that often occurs after the fact.82 As a result, missions deemed successful by the public will rarely provoke “serious congressional concern” about presidential compliance with the WPR, while failures will draw scrutiny.83 For example, in the case of the Mayaguez, “liberals in the Congress generally praised [President Gerald Ford’s] performance” despite the constitutional questions surrounding the conflict, simply because the public deemed it a success.84 Thus, even if Congress was effective at checking potentially unconstitutional presidential action, it would only act when politically safe to do so. This result should be unsurprising: making a wartime decision provides little advantage for politicians, especially if the resulting action succeeds.85 Consequently, Congress itself has taken a role in the continued disregard for WPR enforcement. The current WPR framework is broken: presidents avoid it, courts will not rule on it, and Congress will not enforce it. This cycle has culminated in President Obama’s recent use of force in Libya, which created little, if any, controversy,86 and it provides a clear pass to future presidents, judges, and congresspersons looking to continue the system of passivity and deferment. Congress empirically can’t keep up with executive ingenuityTodd David Peterson, Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School, 2009, “Protecting the Appropriations Power: Why Congress Should Care About Settlements at the Department of Justice,” spite of this authority, or perhaps indeed because of Congress's great power, the executive branch has sought ways to circumvent congressional control over the federal purse and achieve its own ends outside of the will of Congress. Most famously in recent years, the Reagan Administration sought to avoid the Boland Amendment - a congressional restriction on aiding the Nicaraguan Contras - through the use of funds obtained from the covert sale of arms to Iran. 20 But executive efforts to evade congressional control over the appropriations process go back much further than the Iran-Contra affair. During the nineteenth century, executive agencies, particularly the War Department, routinely entered into contracts for which there were no appropriations and put Congress in the awkward position of having to fund the contract or tell government contractors that they were not going to be paid for material delivered to the federal government. In response, Congress enacted the Antideficiency Act to prohibit the obligation of federal funds for which there was no existing appropriation. 21 Executive branch contracting officials proved so adept at avoiding or just plain ignoring the Antideficiency Act, however, that Congress found it necessary to amend the Act multiple times. 22 Finally, Congress became so fed up with the evasion of its appropriations authority [*331] that it amended the Act to provide criminal sanctions for the violation of its provisions. 23 Because that did not exhaust the ingenuity of executive officials in finding innovative ways around the appropriations process, Congress adopted other statutes to enforce its exclusive authority over the appropriations process. For example, the Miscellaneous Receipts Act requires executive branch agencies to deposit any monies collected by the agency in the general Treasury account, which prevents the agencies from supplementing their appropriations budget. 24Presidents won’t back down – they increase unilateral measures to get around Congressional oppositionRyan J. Barilleaux, Professor of Political Science at the University of Miami, Ohio, and Christopher S. Kelley, Lecturer in Political Science at the University of Miami, Ohio, 2010, The Unitary Executive and the Modern Presidency, pg. 225-226Congress, following the logic of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's "Iron Law of Emulation" (which holds that what one branch of government does will be emulated by another), responded to the enlargement of the presidency and its powers by undertaking a number of actions in the 1970s to enable itself to be a more active and assertive player in the making of national policy.11 It gave itself a large professional staff, reformed its budget process, developed tools for more oversight of the executive, passed legislation to gain more information about the conduct of foreign policy and influence over it (the Case-Zablocki Act, the War Powers Resolution, and other laws), and at times acted aggressively to challenge presidential policy (in the mid-1970s and again in the late 1990s and after the 2006 midterm elections). In less than forty years, Congress has moved toward impeaching one president (Nixon, whom it ultimately drove from office), legislated an end to the Vietnam War, prohibited American intervention in the civil war in Angola (1975), impeached another president (Clinton), shut down the government in a duel with the White House over the federal budget (1995), investigated the Iran-Contra affair and other incidents, passed a bill to require a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq (2007), tried several times to bring the president to heel on the use of force, and balked when the Bush administration tried to have its first financial industry bailout plan passed summarily in 2008. These and other incidents have made the legislature a full player in the separated system of American government, but they have also stimulated presidents to seek greater autonomy from legislative constraints. The unilateral presidency is the result of this stimulation. Barack Obama follows in this line of presidents seeking to accomplish something in office and feeling the urgency of their task. In his victory speech on election night in 2008, he told the assembled crowd that "this is our time—to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth—that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes We Can."12 There is no reason to think that he or any subsequent president will be passive in the conduct of office. Congressional responses to executive unilateralism will be too late and too strong and will in turn stimulate a new round of executive assertiveness. In the 1960s and 1970s Congress bridled at the growth of presidential power but acquiesced to it until legislators finally decided that they had seen enough. Beginning in the mid-1970s, Congress reacted with a spate of president-curbing legislation (the War Powers Resolution, the Case Zablocki Act, the Budget and Impoundment Act), the near-impeachment of Richard Nixon, a legislated end to the Vietnam War, an investigation of the CIA, and other actions to restrict presidential autonomy. The consequence, to some extent described in this volume, was the rise of executive unilateralism as a way to circumvent Congress. 2NC Circumvention – Congress – DefinitionsExecutive lawyers can arbitrarily redefine words to avoid Congressional enforcementGordon Lederman, head of the Project of National Security Reform’s Legal Working Group, 2009, “National Security Reform for the Twenty-first Century: A New National Security Act and Reflections on Legislation’s Role in Organizational Change,” language often is a ball shot into the pinball game of the executive branch. It is not always clear or under Congress’s control how statutory language will be interpreted by executive branch actors. Vague language can be molded, interpreted within a cultural context, misinterpreted, and manipulated for bureaucratic ends. Legislative drafters must be focused on how departments will interpret statutory text in practice and must be aware of the conventions that have developed regarding particular language.1NC Circumvention – CourtsCourts can’t check the President – the plan’s precedent only lasts until the next crisis, which makes judicial deference inevitableEric Posner, Professor at the University of Chicago Law School, and Adrian Vermeule, Professor at Harvard Law School, March 2011, The Executive Unbound, pg. 52We now turn from Congress to the courts, the other main hope of liberal legalism. In both economic and security crises, courts are marginal participants. Here two Schmittian themes are relevant: that courts come too late to the crisis to make a real difference in many cases, and that courts have pragmatic and political incentives to defer to the executive, whatever the nominal standard of review. The largest problem, underlying these mechanisms, is that courts possess legal authority but not robust political legitimacy. Legality and legitimacy diverge in crisis conditions, and the divergence causes courts to assume a restrained role. We take up these points in turn.2NC Circumvention – Courts – Surveillance No Court oversight – judges are picked for being pro-executive hacks – empirically true for domestic surveillance cases Michael J. Glennon, Professor of International Law at Tufts, January 2014, “National Security and Double Government,” courts, which Hamilton called the “least dangerous” branch, 243 pose the least danger to the silent transfer of power from the nation’s Madisonian institutions to the Trumanite network. Federal judicial appointees are selected, and vetted along the way, by those whose cases they will later hear: the Trumanites and their associates in the White House and Justice Department. Before an individual is named to the federal bench, a careful investigation takes place to ensure that that individual is dependable. What this means, in practice, is that appointees end up as trusted friends of the Trumanites in matters touching upon national security. Presidents do not appoint individuals who are hostile to the Trumanites, nor does the Senate confirm them. The deck is stacked from the start against challenges to Trumanite policies. A prominent example was former Chief Justice William Rehnquist.245 Before his 1971 appointment to the Supreme Court by President Richard Nixon, Justice Rehnquist served as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) under Attorney General John Mitchell.246 In that capacity, Rehnquist participated directly in military surveillance of domestic political groups, including the preparation of a memorandum for Mitchell in 1969 dealing with the Army’s role in the collection of intelligence on civilians in the United States.247 He also “played a critical role in drafting the 1969 presidential order that established the division of responsibility between the military and the Justice Department for gathering of intelligence concerning during civil disturbances.”248 He testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights in March 1971 that there were no serious constitutional problems with respect to collecting data or keeping under surveillance persons who are merely exercising their right of a peaceful assembly or petition to redress a grievance.249 After his confirmation hearings to become Chief Justice, however, he wrote in August 1986 in response to written questions from Senator Mathias that he could not recall participating in the formulation of policy concerning the military surveillance of civilian activities.250 The Senate confirmed his appointment by a vote of sixty-eight to twenty-six on December 10, 1971.251 Shortly thereafter, the Court began considering Laird v. Tatum, 252 a case involving the lawfulness of Army surveillance of civilians who were engaged in political activities critical of the government.253 Justice Rehnquist declined to recuse himself, and the case was decided five to four.254 The result was that the case was not sent back to the trial court to determine, as the Court of Appeals had ordered, the nature and extent of military surveillance of civilian groups.255 Instead, Justice Rehnquist’s vote most likely prevented the discovery of his own prior role and that of his Justice Department colleagues in developing the Nixon Administration’s military surveillance policy.2562NC Circumvention – Courts President can circumvent the Courts – judges can’t control implementationMark Tushnet, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, 2007, “The Political Constitution of Emergency Powers: Some Lessons from Hamdan,” , suppose that—one, two, or more years from now—the courts definitively resolve the constitutional questions against the President. What happens next? Not necessarily the implementation of the (hypothesized) statutory procedures. A President in a weak political position would of course have to implement those procedures, as would a President (remember, we might be dealing with the person in office in 2009 or after) who agreed that the congressionally prescribed procedures were good policy. What, though, of a President who both rejected those procedures and was in a strong political position? Such a President would, I am sure, propose new legislation to deal with enemy combatants, and might obtain it because of the political strength of his or her position. To return to Justice Jackson’s analysis, I have argued that the way in which tests of power are resolved when Congress purports to restrict the President’s powers is indistinguishable from the way in which they are resolved in the “zone of twilight.” Everything will “depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables,” not “law” in the usual sense. Or, put another way, and as I would prefer, the interplay of events and contemporary imponderables—that is, politics—is constitutional law in this domain.Judicial review is too slow – courts won’t roll back emergency measuresEric Posner, Professor at the University of Chicago Law School, and Adrian Vermeule, Professor at Harvard Law School, March 2011, The Executive Unbound, pg. 52-53A basic feature of judicial review in most Anglo-American legal systems is that courts rely upon the initiative of private parties to bring suits, which the courts then adjudicate as “cases and controversies” rather than as abstract legal questions. This means that there is always a time lag, of greater or lesser duration, between the adoption of controversial government measures and the issuance of judicial opinions on their legal validity ensures that courts are less likely to set precedents while crises are hot, precedents that will be warped by the emotions of the day or by the political power of aroused majorities.70 Delayed review has severe costs, however. For one thing, courts often face a fait accompli. Although it is sometimes possible to strangle new programs in the crib, once those measures are up and running, it is all the more difficult for courts to order that they be abolished. This may be because new measures create new constituencies or otherwise entrench themselves, creating a ratchet effect, but the simpler hypothesis is just that officials and the public believe that the measures have worked well enough. Most simply, returning to the pre-emergency status quo by judicial order seems unthinkable; doing so would just re-create the conditions that led the legislature and executive to take emergency measures in the first place. Negative – AT: Aff Answers2NC Circumvention – AT: Norms/No MotiveObama would circumvent to retain authority – wants a strong presidencyGordon Silverstein, UC Berkeley Assistant Professor, December 2009, “Bush, Cheney, and the Separation of Powers: A Lasting Legal Legacy?,” than six months into the new administration, many of Obama’s staunch supporters have been surprised—even appalled—that the new president not only had failed to fully repudiate many of the Bush-Cheney legal policies, but in some instances, actually seems to be embracing and extending those policy choices (Gerstein 2009; Goldsmith 2009a, 2009b; Greenwald 2009a, 2009b; Herbert 2009; Savage 2009a). In areas ranging from the assertion of the state secrets privilege in efforts to shut down lawsuits over warrantless wiretapping (Al-Haramain v. Obama; Jewel v. NSA) and extraordinary rendition (Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan) to those concerning lawsuits over detention and treatment at Guanta?namo (Bostan v. Obama) and the reach of habeas corpus to Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan (Al Maqaleh v. Gates), as well as the continuing use of signing statements, the new Obama administration’s policies in a number of areas that were of intense interest during the campaign certainly do appear less dramatically different than one might have expected. Does this suggest that Obama actually will salvage and enhance the Bush-Cheney legal legacy? Early evidence suggests the answer is no. There is a critical difference between policy and the legal foundation on which that policy is constructed. The policies may be quite similar, at least in the first few months of the new administration, but the legal legacy will turn on the underlying legal arguments, the legal foundation on which these policies are built. Here we find a dramatic difference between Obama and Bush. Both are clearly interested in maintaining strong executive power, but whereas Bush built his claims on broad constitutional arguments, insisting that the executive could act largely unhampered by the other branches of government, the Obama administration has made clear that its claims to power are built on statutes passed by Congress, along with interpretations and applications of existing judicial doctrines. It may be the case, as one of the Bush administration’s leading Office of Legal Counsel attorneys argued, that far from reversing Bush-era policies, the new administration “has copied most of the Bush program, has expanded some of it, and has narrowed only a bit” (Goldsmith 2009a). But what is profoundly different are the constitutional and legal default foundations on which these policies, and the assertions of executive power to enforce them, are built. Obama, like virtually every chief executive in American History, seems committed to building and holding executive power. But unlike Bush, Obama is developing a far more traditional approach to this task, building his claims not on constitutional assertions of inherent power, but rather interpreting and applying existing statutes and judicial doctrines or, where needed, seeking fresh and expansive legislative support for his claims.2NC Circumvention – Congress – AT: Courts Enforce LegislationThe Supreme Court won’t hear Congressional lawsuits about executive powers – Congress doesn’t have standingJames Lindsay, Senior Vice President, Director of Studies, and Maurice R. Greenberg Chair at the Council on Foreign Relations, 4-5-2011, “Is Operation Odyssey Dawn Constitutional? Part V,” modern Supreme Court, however, generally shies away from wading into war powers cases. The Court offers several reasons for its reluctance. One reason is the courts’ preference to hear only lawsuits brought by someone who has legal standing, which is defined as having suffered concrete personal harm. Traditionally, the courts have held that neither Congress nor the president suffers concrete personal injury when the other branch tries to usurp its authority. So it is generally (though not always) the case, as the late great legal scholar Louis Henkin put it, that “the president himself cannot bring a judicial proceeding to challenge alleged usurpation of his authority by Congress, nor can Congress (or members of Congress) sue to enjoin an alleged usurpation by the president.” For example, when twenty-six members of the House of Representatives sued Bill Clinton in 1999 for ordering the bombing of Serbia without congressional authorization, the lower federal courts dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the legislators did not have legal standing. The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal. 2NC Circumvention – Congress – AT: Power of the PurseCongress takes years to exercise the power of the purse, even when it disagrees with the PresidentAdam Heder, J.D., magna cum laude , J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, 2010, “The Power to End War: The Extent and Limits of Congressional Power,” can end a war, therefore, through use of the appropriation power or by dissolving the army. 21 However, Congress [*452] routinely shirks the exercise of its appropriation power, likely for political purposes. Few members of Congress would want to cut funding for a war effort, which could endanger the lives of their soldier constituents and lead many to label the legislators as defeatists. 22 This was no more evident than in the later stages of the Vietnam War. Disapproving of the war effort generally, and of the President's handling of it more specifically, Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which had been its initial authorization for war. 23 Nevertheless, Congress could not muster the political will to cut appropriations for the war effort until years later. 24 A more recent example occurred in May 2009, when Congress approved funding bills for President Obama's proposed troop buildup in Afghanistan, even while some members of Congress expressed doubts that the plan would work. 25 In a stark illustration of Congress's unwillingness to flex its appropriation-power muscles, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey stated, "I frankly have very little faith that it will work;" he nonetheless voted for the appropriations bill. 26President will circumvent – they can rely on slush funds or reallocation if Congress withholds fundingAdam Heder, J.D., magna cum laude , J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, 2010, “The Power to End War: The Extent and Limits of Congressional Power,” , Congress's appropriation power may not be an altogether effective or efficient tool with which to limit or end a war. Professor Louis Fisher strenuously makes this point. He points out that, despite Congress's best efforts to ensure otherwise, the Reagan Administration secured financing for the Nicaraguan Contras for many years before it finally was forced to stop. 27 [*453] Congress not only denied the President any appropriations for the operations, but also held hearings to ensure the President was not securing funding from other sources. 28 While arguing that the President's arguments and actions were unconstitutional, Fisher points out that the Administration was able to accomplish its goals for some time even in the absence of properly appropriated funds. 29 Indeed, he points out in a later article that at any given time a President has "billions of dollars in previously appropriated funds" and always can reallocate money from other accounts to achieve his purposes. 30 Assuming the President and Congress disagree about how and whether a war ought to be concluded, Congress's appropriation power is not always an effective limit on the President's powers. 31Congress won’t use the power of the purse – afraid of appearing weak in crisesMarvin Kalb, James Clark Welling Fellow at George Washington University and Guest Scholar in Foreign Policy at Brookings, 5-31-2013, “They’re the Deciders” Congress still provides the money for war, a kind of legislative benediction when the decision is made by the president to go to war, but it does little else. It rarely if ever has challenged a president, using its powerful purse strings, on the decision to go to war. During the Cold War and the current war against global terrorism, Congress appears content to nibble at the edges of a war policy, to debate the merits of a presidential decision to go to war, to vote yes or no on a resolution of approval, but never to challenge the decision itself by withholding funds to pay for the war. No congressman or senator wants to be on record as denying troops the money or the means to fight a war, no matter how controversial the decision to go to war.Hegemony Good NEGHegemony Good—Key to Global OrderUS hegemony keeps the lid on Pandora’s Box—absent US power, the international order is warlike and chaotic Robert Kagan, Senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing editor at The New Republic, May 26, 2014, “Superpowers Don't Get to Retire What our tired country still owes the world,” New Republic, , 4-11-2015 The dates when these changes supposedly began ought to be a tip-off. Is it a coincidence that these happy trends began when the American world order was established after World War II, or that they accelerated in the last two decades of the twentieth century, when America’s only serious competitor collapsed? Imagine strolling through Central Park and, after noting how much safer it had become, deciding that humanity must simply have become less violent—without thinking that perhaps the New York Police Department had something to do with it. In fact, the world “as it is” is a dangerous and often brutal place. There has been no transformation in human behavior or in international relations. In the twenty-first century, no less than in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, force remains the ultima ratio. The question, today as in the past, is not whether nations are willing to resort to force but whether they believe they can get away with it when they do. If there has been less aggression, less ethnic cleansing, less territorial conquest over the past 70 years, it is because the United States and its allies have both punished and deterred aggression, have intervened, sometimes, to prevent ethnic cleansing, and have gone to war to reverse territorial conquest. The restraint showed by other nations has not been a sign of human progress, the strengthening of international institutions, or the triumph of the rule of law. It has been a response to a global configuration of power that, until recently, has made restraint seem the safer course. When Vladimir Putin failed to achieve his goals in Ukraine through political and economic means, he turned to force, because he believed that he could. He will continue to use force so long as he believes that the payoff exceeds the cost. Nor is he unique in this respect. What might China do were it not hemmed in by a ring of powerful nations backed by the United States? For that matter, what would Japan do if it were much more powerful and much less dependent on the United States for its security? We have not had to find out the answers to these questions, not yet, because American predominance, the American alliance system, and the economic, political, and institutional aspects of the present order, all ultimately dependent on power, have mostly kept the lid closed on this Pandora’s box. Hegemony Good—Key to Free SocietiesProgressive ideals require a strong US military to ensure free societies David Russell, Contributor to The Hill and managing director of Cove Hill Advisory Services, January 14, 2015, “The progressive agenda requires a strong military,” The Hill, , accessed 4-11-2015It is too often said of progressives that they are so obsessed with their opposition to the military industrial complex they completely disregard the fact that a strong military is required for democratic forms of government to persist. While that often sounds like it is the case, any serious student of history or advocate for the continuation of democratic forms of government recognizes the need but also recognizes the need to balance the military's autocratic structure with strong connections to civil society. In the case of the United States, the need is accentuated because the U.S. has established itself as the hegemonic power which adds self-imposed global responsibilities to secure allies, trade routes and access to resources. The need for the U.S., therefore, is for a much larger military than required for countries with lesser ambition. Too often progressives misjudge the malevolence of those outside U.S. borders while focusing on the malevolence of policymakers and military influences contained within our own borders. This leads to hostility toward the American military establishment that is not wholly deserved. In a similar vein, liberals worry constantly that the political influence of the military disproportionately sways decisions that adversely impact on personal freedom and civil liberties; create and sustain a national sense of anxiety, fear or anger; or keep the country continuously engaged in wars.Hegemony Good—Key to Stability US hegemony still ensures global stability, we shouldn’t “lead from behind” but show military strength to prevent conflicts from arising Daniel Larison, Senior editor at The American Conservative, November 3, 2014, “The Real Reason the U.S. Can’t Stop Free-Riding,” The American Conservative, , accessed 4-18-2015This is a very strange way to think about what makes an alliance “work.” The U.S. has a lot of allies and clients, many of which do little or nothing useful for the U.S. and rely entirely on the U.S. to bail them out in the event of a regional crisis. These allies and clients naturally prefer that the U.S. take responsibility for “solving the problem,” since it means that they can avoid the risks and costs that “solving the problem” entails, and Washington for the most part indulges them in this. However, these allies and clients will also often view the “problem” differently than Washington does, and they will complain and drag their feet until the U.S. agrees to do whatever it is that they think needs to be done. That is what is happening in the case of the relationship with Turkey: Turkey is resisting U.S. pressure to contribute to the campaign against ISIS on its doorstep until the U.S. agrees to indulge its preoccupation with regime change in Syria. When judged from the American perspective, these relationships aren’t “working” very well at all, but they often are “working” very well for the allies and clients at our expense. As long as the allies and clients aren’t whining, the relationships are are perceived to be functioning properly, but this gets everything backwards. The U.S. maintains these relationships because they are supposed to benefit American interests in some way, but far too often maintaining the relationship becomes an end in itself and pushes the U.S. into pursuing policies that have nothing to do with U.S. security. In fact, these relationships are frequently lopsided and dysfunctional, and the American insistence on “leading” in response to virtually every crisis is partly to blame. The reality is that the U.S. has too many security dependents that could be doing a lot more for their own security and the security of their respective regions, but they are actively discouraged from picking up more of the slack whenever American politicians insist that the U.S. must bear the burdens of “leadership.” Sestanovich maintains that Obama has been trying to reduce free-riding, he can’t have been trying very hard. Obama has erred in his management of these relationships, but his error has usually been to cave in to allied and client demands too often and to have the U.S. play the part of “indispensable nation.” If Obama had really been interested in reducing the cheap- or free-riding tendencies of allies and clients, he wouldn’t have facilitated a Libyan war that France and Britain wanted but could not have waged without U.S. support. He wouldn’t rush off to “reassure” supposedly nervous allies and clients of undying American support whenever they make noises about being neglected. This is the real absurdity of the “leading from behind” slogan: the U.S. is still the one doing almost all of the work in “solving the problem,” but wants to be perceived as sharing the burden with a large number of “partners.” We are seeing something like this on display again in the war against ISIS: the bombing campaign is predominantly an American operation, but one that is vaguely “supported” by many others. The U.S. is still being played for a sucker, but at least Americans can console ourselves that the other governments playing us for suckers are no longer complaining about our waning “credibility.” Needless to say, encouraging more of this behavior by allies and clients is the last thing the U.S. should be doing.Hegemony Good—Sustainable—Laundry List US hegemony is sustainable—challengers, finances, and political influence can all be maintained because of comparative advantages. Changes to the international order to not mean collapse of US power Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence Council, is University Professor at Harvard University and a member of the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on the Future of Government, March 9, 2015, “American Hegemony or American Primacy?,” Project Syndicate, , accessed 4-11-2015But, when it comes to the era of supposed US hegemony, there has always been a lot of fiction mixed in with the facts. It was less a global order than a group of like-minded countries, largely in the Americas and Western Europe, which comprised less than half of the world. And its effects on non-members – including significant powers like China, India, Indonesia, and the Soviet bloc – were not always benign. Given this, the US position in the world could more accurately be called a “half-hegemony.” Of course, America did maintain economic dominance after 1945: the devastation of WWII in so many countries meant that the US produced nearly half of global GDP. That position lasted until 1970, when the US share of global GDP fell to its pre-war level of one-quarter. But, from a political or military standpoint, the world was bipolar, with the Soviet Union balancing America’s power. Indeed, during this period, the US often could not defend its interests: the Soviet Union acquired nuclear weapons; communist takeovers occurred in China, Cuba, and half of Vietnam; the Korean War ended in a stalemate; and revolts in Hungary and Czechoslovakia were repressed. Against this background, “primacy” seems like a more accurate description of a country’s disproportionate (and measurable) share of all three kinds of power resources: military, economic, and soft. The question now is whether the era of US primacy is coming to an end. Given the unpredictability of global developments, it is, of course, impossible to answer this question definitively. The rise of transnational forces and non-state actors, not to mention emerging powers like China, suggests that there are big changes on the horizon. But there is still reason to believe that, at least in the first half of this century, the US will retain its primacy in power resources and continue to play the central role in the global balance of power.Hegemony Good—Sustainable—China China can’t replace the US as the global hegemon—military and economic limitations even in the long term Wu Zurong, Research Fellow at the China Foundation for Int'l Studies, March 04, 2015, “The Assumption that a Rising China Seeks Hegemony is Wrong,” China US Focus, , accessed 4-11-2015China’s rise is inevitable, which can never be stopped by any force in the world. China had been the largest economy in the world for centuries before prior to the 19th century, but lagged behind in the early 19th century, and the gap with the rising world powers became larger after the Opium War in 1840. It is not a surprise that China will again be the largest economy in the world in the near future. China has two “hundred-year dreams,” one is from 1921 to 2021, that is the dream of the 100 years of the Communist Party of China（CPC）, the goal of which is for China to resolve the problems of food, clothing, housing and daily necessities for its entire population, and the other is from 1949 to 2049, that is the dream of the 100 years of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the goal of which is for China to reach a middle-level for developed countries in terms of economics and social development. Even by 2049, there will still be a big gap between China and the U.S., and there will be no such a thing as China’s replacement of the U.S. as the global superpower. China’s population is four times that of the U.S. When will per capita GDP of China be equal to that of the U.S.? Perhaps, the answer will not be available for a fairly long historical period. Therefore, it is purely an illusory assumption that China has a “secret strategy” to replace the U.S. as the global superpower in 2049, not to mention China does not have that intention at all. With a Cold War mentality and zero-sum game logic, such a stale approach to observing China often leads to misunderstanding and misjudgments, resulting in the theory of China threat. Neglecting all the important characteristics of China’s rise are among the main causes for the blemish in observation and research. China is doing its utmost to make her rise peaceful and beneficial to all, believing that all countries, big or small, are equal in international affairs, and big powers, including China and the U.S., should and can build a new type of relations based on mutual benefit and win-win cooperation. A rising China can not only live in peace with the U.S., but also work together with the U.S. to realize the long-term goal of sustainable common security and common prosperity for the whole world.Hegemony Key to Soft Power Effective soft power and diplomacy require hegemony—we can only have effective policies around the world if other respect our military strength Peter Morici, Served as Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission from 1993 to 1995. He is an economist and professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, May 28, 2014, “Mr. Obama, a strong foreign policy requires a strong economy, credible military,” Fox News, , accessed 4-19-2105In Europe, the United States now lacks assets on the ground to effectively challenge Russia’s incursions into the Ukraine. And German Chancellor Angela Merkel can’t rally domestic support for stronger economic sanctions against Moscow, because German multinationals are fearful of losing too much business. In the Pacific, the president is refusing to commit American naval resources to confront Chinese ships that run off Philippine fishermen and harass Japanese vessels, and generally violate international law guaranteeing freedom of navigation. Moscow wants to reclaim several parts of its lost empire and to challenge U.S. objectives in places like Syria and Iran. Beijing is seeking dominance in the eastern Pacific and to assert its authoritarian political system as a viable alternative to American-style democracy. Unless American diplomacy is backed up by a credible U.S. military commitment, and an economy that can support it, Moscow and Beijing will succeed to the peril of U.S. interests and our allies in Europe and the Pacific. In the end, U.S. presidents can’t continue to pursue foolish international trade and energy policies, and sacrifice military spending to increase entitlements popular with voters, without ending up living in a much more dangerous world.Hegemony Key to Soft Power Effective diplomacy requires credible hard power to back it up—hegemony doesn’t trade off with soft power, it makes it work better Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D. in History and Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, and William Inboden, Ph.D. in History and Executive Director of the William P. Clements, Jr. Center for History, Strategy, and Statecraft at the University of Texas-Austin, October 10, 2014, “The United States Needs A New Foreign Policy Agenda for 2016 (Part Three of Four),” Heritage Foundation,, accessed 4-19-2105At the strategic level, America's technological prowess has made our signals intelligence capabilities second to none, and our human intelligence collectors have rebounded from the budget and bureaucratic strictures of the 1990s and are now among the world's leaders. For all of the internal and external challenges facing the intelligence community, it is still on balance an underappreciated national resource. In the realm of diplomacy, the problem is partly one of diminished capacity, but the more fundamental deficiency has been the misdirection of U.S. policy. Yes, we do ask the State Department to do too much with too little. Yet our bigger failure has been inadequately integrating our diplomacy with hard power. Diplomacy is far more effective when it is backed up by and in harmony with U.S. military policy; indeed it often fails when it is divorced from the realities of military power-as it was, for example, amid the hasty retreat from Iraq, the inconstant threats of force against Syria, our conciliatory policy towards Iran, or our ineffective protests against Russian and Chinese territorial aggression.Key to HegemonyIntel gathering makes US power projection effective, missions cannot succeed without actionable information Walter Pincus, Reporter for the Washington Times, January 19, 2015, “It’s time for some intelligent intelligence gathering in Washington,” Washington Post, , accessed 4-18-2015“Our combatant commanders expect and demand the unique ISR capabilities that only the Air Force can provide,” James said, praising how those who fly the remotely piloted aircraft, or drones, work at an “unrelenting” pace. Not mentioned were the intelligence analysts who work with the Air Force’s distributed common ground system (DCGS). The DCGS instantly feeds data from airborne ISR-manned and unmanned craft to “several core [ground] sites and over 30 smaller sites both within the United States and around the globe,” according to an Air Force-sponsored 2012 Rand Corp. study. James talked about the pressures on Air Force drone pilots and the plan to train more of them and increase their pay. Welsh said there may be a look at other services that “might be divesting themselves of aviation assets and see if there’s an interest in those crews” moving to the Air Force program. He also said the Air Force could adopt the Army practice of allowing noncommissioned officers to serve as drone pilots. The Rand study dealt primarily with the burn-out rate and health issues among analysts working long hours to pull together the data from ISR collectors and to prepare intelligence assessments. Rand proposed prioritizing “the retention of trained intelligence analysts” in place of normal tours that military personnel have in their various assignments. I remember talking to former CIA director David Petraeus in early 2011. He marveled about being able to deal with CIA analysts whose knowledge came from working on a country or problem for 10 or more years, as compared with military intelligence officers who rotated after a year or two to another position. But the current ISR setup has another element that would make change difficult. Each service not only has its own ISR programs, but its own facilities, too. In December, as the Army held nationwide hearings on possible downsizing, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the new chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sought consideration of “the far-reaching negative effects” that would come from cutting anything at Fort Huachuca in Sierra Vista, Ariz. The critical element at Huachuca, McCain said, was the “Army’s unmatched leaders, capabilities and platforms in the areas of cybersecurity, network communications, unmanned platforms and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance [that] are forged right here at Fort Huachuca.”Key to Hegemony Military missions are most effective when intelligence gathering is high Eric Lowry, Team chief LTC Eric Lowry serves as team chief of TCM-Reconnaissance in the MCoE’s Capabilities Development and Integration Directorate, June 24, 2014, “Tagging, Tracking and Locating: Intelligence-Gathering in Support of Army 2020,” US Army Fort Benning, , accessed 4-18-2015As the Army continues to define the structure and doctrine of Army 2020, lessons-learned from 13 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan – and applying these lessons to wide-area security, stability and combined-arms maneuver operations – have become a cornerstone of building that Army. The counterinsurgency (COIN) environment generated new processes and programs across the doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leader development, personnel and facilities (DOTMLPF) domains. Intelligence-gathering is no exception; the insurgent / counterinsurgent environment drove the need for audiovisual, tagging, tracking and locating (TTL) capabilities. These capabilities provided the combat commander with the ability to pinpoint and remove hostile forces embedded in civilian populations while reducing collateral damage and building a network of information addressing all aspects of the COIN fight.Key to HegemonyDomestic surveillance provides the US with key intelligence which allows us to stay a step ahead of military and economic challengers Marc Ambinder, Former White House correspondent and political writer, October 13, 2013, “Why the NSA spies on France and Germany,” The Week,, accessed 4-11-2015David Addington, Cheney's chief of staff, thought that the NSA should use its technology to intercept emails and telephone calls sent from one domestic terminal to another, and was upset to learn that Hayden thought differently. That was a line he would only cross, deliberately, with court and congressional approval. Addington dropped the idea, but as we now know, the agency added to its portfolio a mandate to monitor suspicious communications that transited the border of the United States, and later began to collect reams of metadata in order to analyze it. Hayden wasn't being cautious just for the record: NSA's job was to collect foreign intelligence — to steal stuff, or purloin letters, real and digital, in order to provide policymakers with a decision advantage. The advantage the NSA provided was accurate information about what people who interacted with the United States said in private about their intentions; that gap between saying and doing, and the ability to predict action from it, allows the president of the United States to stay a step ahead. This is a proposition that most of us don't question. It's black and white. Global terrorist networks, criminal conspiracies, nations like China that are strategic competitors, nations like Iran and North Korea that actively seek to damage U.S. interests and threaten the body of its people, spies, proliferators of weapons of mass destruction. These folks are legit targets.Key to HegemonyIntelligence is key to on-the-ground decision making—military power can only be effective if intelligence is accurate Oriana Pawlyk, Staff writer for Air Force Times, November 18, 2014, “Air Force ISR mission grows with threats from Islamic State,” Air Force Times, , accessed 4-18-2015In the fight against Islamic State militants, the Air Force's ISR role is impeded because there are no supporting troops on the ground in hostile areas between Syria and Iraq. One problem in particular, Carlisle said, is identifying activities on the ground. "If you're looking at the ground and watching folks moving on the ground, to tell a Shia from a Sunni, it's pretty hard to do," Carlisle said. "Unless ISIS is actually flying a flag that says ISIS across the top if it ... these guys are trying to determine with everything that we have available given the restrictions that are placed on us ,... how do we positively identify where we're going or who we're going to hit?" he said. But airmen are committed to the fight, Carlisle said. Compared to 10 years ago, today's ISR teams have greater resources, and are more educated and trained in their career fields and on the systems they work with. Airmen working on the Distributed Common Ground System, or DCGS weapon system, the Air Force's primary ISR collection system, produce intelligence information from the data collected in the skies in just minutes. "The ability to provide the warfighter the ability to transfer capability depending on where the greatest need is — whether it's a nuke going off in North Korea or it's ISIS or it's Afghanistan or it's the Horn of Africa — the agility of this system is amazing," Carlisle said. While the information "doesn't really mean a whole lot unless you do something with it," he said, "what [these airmen] do and the way they produce a product that is so incredibly good, it just means the demand continues to go up."Key to Hegemony Intelligence gathering makes military missions more effective and reduces body count Victor R. Morris, Former US Army Captain and Company Commander and currently a CIED and Irregular Warfare instructor at the US Army Europe’s Joint Multinational Readiness Centre (JMRC) in Hohenfels, Germany, March 25 2015, “Why COIST Matters,” Small Wars Journal, printpdf/22913, accessed 4-18-2015One of the current challenges involving COISTs stems from an overall military shift. This shift involves the reduction of counterinsurgency operations world-wide, increase of Decisive Action Training Environment rotations (DATE) and global employment utilizing Regionally Aligned Forces (RAF). The DATE rotations support conducting Unified Land Operations in a Hybrid Threat Environment. There is a perception that COISTs are only relevant in an irregular warfare model during counterinsurgency and stability operations. Other challenges to COIST future applicability involve a lack of doctrine and ineffective task organization. The current company COIST model is not conducive to effectively engaging diverse combinations of regular and irregular forces simultaneously. Future security challenges will include multi-faceted, uncertain, complex and chaotic environments, and will require more support to information and intelligence requirements at all echelons. The initial, sustainment and pre-deployment training must be a command priority and must for formalized for future management during Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) cycles. Finally, teams must become better integrated into company command posts during training and be better supported through more emphasis on overall mission command. COISTs must not only be maintained for future conflicts, but adapted to be better integrated and transitional within company mission command systems during Unified Land Operations involving a hybrid threat. The complexity of irregular warfare necessitated the need to have more enhanced intelligence capability at the small unit level. In conventional operations, intelligence is disseminated from higher to lower headquarters based on the presence of intelligence gathering resources. In counterinsurgency or other decentralized operations, information flows in the opposite direction, where small units gather raw information based on their operational environment. Recent counterinsurgency operations assessed that company formations needed the ability to produce intelligence to drive their operations and support higher echelon common operational picture (COP) development. This assessment was refined and given the designation “COIST” with the following mission: serve as the primary source of information and intelligence that the company commander needs to make timely accurate decisions (CALL COIST Handbook). Post-deployment after action reviews (AARs) and training assessments dictated the employment of COISTs and greatly enhanced the company’s ability to analyze, produce and disseminate accurate information and intelligence in a counterinsurgency environment. They also facilitated better situational awareness and more effective lethal and non-lethal targeting in support of the commander’s intent and overall mission.Terrorism—Surveillance Prevents ItDomestic surveillance is a key tool against terrorist attacks—provides essential intelligence Paul Mirengoff, J.D. and political analyst, “Domestic Surveillance- We Need It Now More Than Ever,” Power Line Blog, January 15, 2015, , accessed 4-11-2015In his observations on terrorism in Belgium, John writes that electronic surveillance of some sort very likely played a role in enabling the authorities to strike before the terrorists could carry out their planned attack. John is right. But we don’t need to look to Belgium to see the critical role such surveillance plays in protecting against terrorism. Recently, authorities here in the U.S. were able to prevent an attack on the Capitol building. According to John Boehner, electronic surveillance was instrumental in the discovery learning of the planned attack: [Boehner] said law enforcement officials “would have never known” about the Capitol Hill threat without the program, in which U.S. intelligence officials collect information under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The law lets investigators eavesdrop on Americans under certain conditions. Boehner’s comment reflects a renewed respect for our surveillance programs on Capitol Hill: While steady leaks about the scope of the NSA program — which collects data on Americans’ Internet and cell phone use — have resulted in a national debate over the balance between privacy and security, recent developments have shifted the tone in Washington. The political class, it seems, has been mugged by reality. But how is it that so many in the political class began blocking out the reality of the terrorist threat within a half dozen or so years after 9/11? The answer, I suppose, is a double dose of wishful thinking. Everyone wishes (1) that the threat of domestic terrorism were de minimis and (2) that this threat, at whatever level it may rise to, could be effectively countered with no infringement on privacy.Terrorism—Surveillance Prevents It Domestic surveillance is effective—allows analysts to create a “wide net” strategy that catches domestic targets plotting with foreign co-conspirators Phillip Swarts, Investigative reporter for The Washington Times, covering fiscal waste, fraud and political ethics, February 23, 2015, “Mike Rogers, NSA chief, says Edward Snowden’s revelations hurt counterterrorism capabilities,” Washington Times, , accessed 4-19-2015The nation has lost counterterrorism and surveillance capabilities due to the revelations by leaker Edward Snowden, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency, said Monday at a cybersecurity forum. “Do I think we have lost capabilities we had prior to the revelations? Yes,” said Adm. Rogers, who added that the disclosures had a “material impact” on U.S. information gathering. He spoke at a forum hosted by think-tank New America. Mr. Snowden, a former contractor with the NSA, revealed in 2013 that the federal government was collecting bulk data on phone records, including the connections of millions of Americans. Adm. Rogers said the phone collection was not a “silver bullet,” but one tool that allows counter-terrorism officials to stop attacks. The phone surveillance was authorized in director response to the 9/11 attacks, he said. “You have, in at least one instance, phone connectivity between one of the plotters and someone overseas,” Adm Rogers said. “That was the genesis of the idea ‘how do we create a legal framework that will help us access phone network data?’”Terrorism—Surveillance Prevents ItDomestic surveillance is key to prevent terrorist attacks—empirically proven Donna Cassata, Writer for Yahoo News, June 13, 2013, “NSA head says spy programs thwarted terror attacks,” Yahoo News, , accessed 4-11-2015Once-secret surveillance programs were crucial in enabling the U.S. government to thwart dozens of terrorist attacks, says the director of the National Security Agency in a forceful defense of spy operations that have stirred fears of government snooping and violations of privacy rights. Army Gen. Keith Alexander, in his first congressional testimony since disclosure of the secretive programs, offered few details on Wednesday about the disrupted terror plots but asserted that the two government programs — they have collected millions of telephone records and kept tabs on Internet activity — were imperative in the terror fight. The director of national intelligence has declassified some details on two thwarted attacks — Najibullah Zazi's foiled plot to bomb the New York subways and the case of David Coleman Headley, a Pakistani-American who used his U.S. passport to travel frequently to India, where he allegedly scouted out venues for terror attacks on behalf of the Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist organization.Terrorism—Destroys US Economy The nation’s energy grid is vulnerable—a terrorist attack would crush the economy Michael Maloof, Senior staff writer for national security affairs for WND and a former senior security policy analyst in the office of the secretary of defense, January 3, 2013, “A Nation Forsaken,” World Net Daily, , accessed 4-19-2015Scientists and other experts have warned for years that the nation’s electrical grid system, together with other critical infrastructures that have an almost complete dependency on electricity and electronic components, are highly vulnerable to an electromagnetic pulse event, either from natural or man-made causes. However, Congress and the administrations of previous and current presidents largely have ignored those warnings. Events such as the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the United States, and then the devastating Hurricane Katrina that revealed vulnerabilities to those infrastructures, for a time heightened that concern. Due to the lapse of time and a relatively calm period since those disasters, policymakers have been lulled back into complacency rather than taking preventative action against what could be the biggest threat to U.S. national and economic security in our lifetime. An electromagnetic pulse attack on our critical infrastructures, either from an impending solar storm of serious intensity expected between 2012 and 2014 or from a high-altitude nuclear explosion, could have long-term catastrophic consequences for our society and our way of life.Terrorism—Destroys US Economy A terrorist attack on the US power grid would destroy the US economy—the system is vulnerable and being probed now The Secure the Grid Coalition, An ad hoc group of policy, energy, and national security experts, legislators, and industry insiders who are dedicated to strengthening America’s electrical grid. The Coalition aims to raise awareness to the national and international threat of EMP as well as pass legislation to strengthen the grid, May 4, 2014, “The Basics of Grid Security,” The Secure the Grid Coalition, , accessed 4-19-2015The April 2013 attack on an electrical substation near San Jose, California demonstrates both the vulnerability of our physical grid infrastructure as well as the fact that terrorists also have been thinking about multiple ways to attack us. Assailants who were never apprehended attacked the Pacific Gas and Electric Metcalf substation with automatic rifle fire on the night of 16 April 2013. Firing more than 100 shots altogether, they knocked out 17 transformers and, even though electric officials were able to avert a blackout, the damage took 27 days to repair. Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at the time, called the attack “the most significant incident of domestic terrorism involving the U.S. power grid that has ever occurred.” The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reports that cyber attacks on the electric grid system are increasing in both frequency and sophistication. Such attacks come from a variety of different sources, including nation states and sub-national terrorist organizations. Concern over their ability to hack into U.S. power grid software and possibly disrupt the electrical supply system is growing because such an attack could be one of the quickest ways to destroy the U.S. economy.Economy Key to Hegemony A strong US economy is key to keep military spending high—high military spending ensures US hegemony is sustainable and effective Minoru Matsutani, Staff writer for the Japan Times, January 9, 2015, “U.S. economy, military remain strong,” Japan Times, , accessed 4-19-2015She began with graph showing U.S. military spending trends between 1988 and 2013, with the spending low being about $370 billion in 1999. Since then, it increased to about $700 billion in 2010 before dropping to about $600 billion in 2013. U.S. defense spending as a percentage of GDP has been basically on a steady decline between 1952 and 2000, with a slight increase since then. U.S. military spending as a percentage of the entire world’s spending has swung between about 34 percent and 41 percent, with a recent peak of slightly over 41 percent in 2010. It fell to around 36 percent in 2013. “Military spending has been falling, but the U.S. still spends more than next 10 countries combined,” she said, adding that the gap between the U.S. and China has been narrowing. Economically, Kreps showed a sensational article headline that read, “America usurped: China becomes world’s largest economy, putting USA in second place for the first time in 142 years,” as the International Monetary Fund released the estimate in October that China’s GDP, adjusted for the purchasing power of currency, will surpass the U.S. in 2014. But Kreps is “not worried” because the U.S. economy is still much stronger than China by different economic indicators. In real GDP terms, the U.S. overwhelmingly commands first place with $14.26 trillion, followed by Japan with $5.07 trillion and China with $4.52 trillion in 2014, according to her presentation. Chinese per capita GDP is far lower than that of the U.S., Japan, Germany and Russia, according to the presentation. Considering public opinion in other countries, she said strong majorities oppose policies such as surveillance and drone strikes, but generally some 65 percent of countries hold a positive opinion of the U.S. She showed a diagram of U.S. favorability by countries, which indicate Russia had the biggest drop of U.S. favorability, 28 percentage points, from 51 percent in 2013 to 23 percent in 2014, apparently due to economic sanctions imposed on Russia over its aggression in Ukraine. Uganda saw the second biggest drop in percentage points, with 11, followed by Brazil’s 8 and Senegal’s 7. She also showed poll results indicating Americans are still, although to a lesser extent, willing to intervene in other countries’ conflicts. “The bottom line is that the U.S. will continue to play a central role in the world,” she said.Economy Key to Hegemony A strong US economy is key to invest in military spending and effectiveness. The economy props US hegemony Diem Nguyen Salmon, Fellow at the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation, January 30, 2015, “A Proposal for the FY 2016 Defense Budget,” Heritage Foundation, , accessed 4-19-2015Defense spending cannot be considered in a vacuum. Greater fiscal responsibility is essential. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections show that the publicly held federal debt will be 73.2 percent of GDP in 2015. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn33" [33] The debt is projected to rise to 86 percent of GDP by the end of the decade. Economists posit that such high and growing levels of debt have lasting negative impacts on the economy. HYPERLINK "" \l "_ftn34" [34] Higher debt is the result of out-of-control spending, particularly on entitlement programs. Tax increases would be counterproductive because they would reduce economic growth, possibly elevating the level of debt as a percentage of GDP even further. American strength, and by extension security, relies on a strong economy. Not only does economic strength enable the U.S. to invest in military strength, it is an effective tool in achieving U.S. foreign policy objectives. Rebuilding the military cannot be done at the expense of the economy. Failing to prioritize spending responsibly will harm long-term American security as much as neglecting the military. Congress should adopt reforms to entitlement programs, cut non-defense discretionary spending, and find savings within the DOD.Helps Economy/ Competitiveness US domestic surveillance is used to give US businesses a global competitive edgeEric Draitser, Independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City and the founder of , May 23, 2014, “?China v America’s cyber-hegemony,” , accessed 4-10-2015In discussing the indictment and allegations, US Attorney General Eric Holder stated, “The range of trade secrets and other sensitive business information stolen in this case is significant and demands an aggressive response. Success in the global marketplace should be based solely on a company’s ability to innovate and compete, not on a sponsor government’s ability to spy and steal business secrets. This administration will not tolerate actions by any nation that seeks to illegally sabotage American companies and undermine the integrity of fair competition in the operation of the free market.” Undoubtedly, Holder would be loath to admit that the United States has been engaged in precisely this sort of activity for years, “undermining the integrity of fair competition” when it suits its economic and geopolitical purposes. As the Edward Snowden revelations demonstrated clearly, the US intelligence and surveillance apparatus works directly with US corporate interests to give them an unfair advantage. One particularly egregious case that has had negative political ramifications is the case of Brazilian oil company Petrobras. Politics Iran Deal DA – NegStrategy SheetStrategy SheetThis disadvantage argues that Obama’s political capital is important to maintain a veto override of a Congressional resolution to disapprove the Iran deal. The veto override will prevent Republicans in Congress from tanking the Iran deal, which will allow the international community to put in place mechanisms to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, in exchange for relief from sanctions. There are two link arguments. The first is that reducing surveillance is controversial and will cause fights that drain Obama’s political capital. The second link argument is known as ‘losers lose,’ which argues that the plan – which is a Congressional restriction on Obama’s anti-terror powers – will make Obama look like a weak president, and thus prevent him from lobbying Congress to support him in the Iran vote.1NC1NCVeto override will be close, but Obama is winning nowAdam E. Berkowitz, staff writer, 8-23-2015, “Iranian Deal Expected to Be A Close Call in Senate” Breaking Israel News, President Barack Obama has promised to use his veto to override a vote by both chambers which are expected to reject the Iran nuclear deal, however a recent analysis shows it will be a very close call as to whether a veto will hold or not. The Washington Post broke down the numbers in a recent article. All 54 Republican senators are expected to oppose the deal. Two Democrat senators have announced they will cross party lines and reject the deal; Senator Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and SenatorBob Menendez (N.J.). This compares to 31 Democrats in the Senate who are expected to vote for passing the resolution. A total of 60 votes are required to reject it. In both houses, it seems clear the all 246 Republicans will vote against the deal, plus 12 Democrats who are also expected to reject it, for a total of 258 nays. Only 218 votes are needed to for a vote of disapproval. But to overcome the anticipated presidential veto will require 290 votes, a number that most think unlikely at this time. Nonetheless, for those who don’t give up so easily, an additional 6 Democrats are considered negatively predisposed towards the deal, and 88 are unknown or undecided.Passage of the Freedom Act sapped momentum for surveillance reform – any further changes to surveillance programs will be met with resistance in Congress Grant Gross, writer at IDG News Service, 6-5-2015, “Don't expect major changes to NSA surveillance from Congress,” article/2932337/dont-expect-major-changes-to-nsa-surveillance-from-congress.htmlAfter the U.S. Congress approved what critics have called modest limits on the National Security Agency’s collection of domestic telephone records, many lawmakers may be reluctant to further change the government’s surveillance programs. The Senate this week passed the USA Freedom Act, which aims to end the NSA’s mass collection of domestic phone records, and President Barack Obama signed the bill hours later. After that action, expect Republican leaders in both the Senate and the House of Representatives to resist further calls for surveillance reform. That resistance is at odds with many rank-and-file lawmakers, including many House Republicans, who want to further limit NSA programs brought to light by former agency contractor Edward Snowden. Civil liberties groups and privacy advocates also promise to push for more changes. It may be difficult to get “broad, sweeping reform” through Congress, but many lawmakers seem ready to push for more changes, said Adam Eisgrau, managing director of the office of government relations for the American Library Association. The ALA has charged the NSA surveillance programs violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. “Congress is not allowed to be tired of surveillance reform unless it’s prepared to say it’s tired of the Fourth Amendment,” Eisgrau said. “The American public will not accept that.” Other activists are less optimistic about more congressional action. “It will be a long slog getting more restraints,” J. Kirk Wiebe, a former NSA analyst and whistleblower said by email. ”The length of that journey will depend on public outcry—that is the one thing that is hard to gauge.” With the USA Freedom Act, “elected officials have opted to reach for low-hanging fruit,” said Bill Blunden, a cybersecurity researcher and surveillance critic. “The theater we’ve just witnessed allows decision makers to boast to their constituents about reforming mass surveillance while spies understand that what’s actually transpired is hardly major change.” The “actual physical mechanisms” of surveillance programs remain largely intact. Blunden added by email. “Politicians may dither around the periphery but they are unlikely to institute fundamental changes.”Obama’s political capital is key to maintain a veto-overrideJordan Fabian, writer at the Hill, 7-24-2015, “Obama confident Iran deal will survive Congress,” Obama on Thursday expressed confidence he will be able to prevent Congress from sinking the Iran nuclear agreement. “In Congress, I'm confident that we're going to be able to make sure that the deal sticks,” Obama said in an interview with the BBC. The White House has launched an aggressive lobbying blitz to ward off congressional opposition to the Iran nuclear deal. The agreement would lift economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program. Criticism on the Republican side has grown in recent days, making it increasingly likely the GOP-controlled Congress will vote to oppose the deal. The White House has been determined to unify Democrats around the agreement, and perhaps win over some on the GOP side, in order to sustain an Obama veto. Diplomacy solves Iran prolif Colin H. Kahl, Associate Professor in the Security Studies Program in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, 1-7-2014, “Still Not Time to Attack Iran,” my article “Not Time to Attack Iran” (March/April 2012), I made the case for pursuing a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear challenge, arguing that, because of the risks and costs associated with military action, “force is, and should remain, a last resort, not a first choice.” Key developments in 2013 -- namely, the election of Hassan Rouhani, a moderate, as Iran’s new president and the signing of an interim nuclear deal by Iran and the United States and its negotiating partners -- reinforce this conclusion. Whatever hawks such as Reuel Marc Gerecht or Matthew Kroenig might argue, it is still not time to attack Iran. Indeed, the prospects for reaching a comprehensive agreement to resolve the nuclear impasse peacefully, while far from guaranteed, have never been brighter. After decades of isolation, the Iranian regime may finally be willing to place meaningful limits on its nuclear program in exchange for relief from punishing economic sanctions. In Iran’s June 2013 presidential election, Rouhani handily defeated a slate of conservative opponents, including the hard-line nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, who had campaigned on continuing Iran’s strategy of “nuclear resistance.” Rouhani, in contrast, pledged to reach a nuclear accommodation with the West and free Iran from the economic burden imposed by sanctions. Rouhani, also a former nuclear negotiator, believes he has the support of the Iranian people and a green light from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to reach a comprehensive nuclear accord with the United States and the other members of the P5+1 (Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia). The first step on the road to a comprehensive deal came in November 2013 with an interim agreement in Geneva, in which Tehran agreed to freeze and modestly roll back its nuclear program in exchange for a pause in new international sanctions and a suspension of some existing penalties. The deal represents the most meaningful move toward a denuclearized Iran in more than a decade. It neutralizes Iran’s stockpile of 20 percent uranium and therefore modestly lengthens Iran’s “breakout” timeline -- the time required to enrich uranium to weapons grade -- by one or two months. A new inspections regime also means any breakout attempt would be detected soon enough for the international community to react, and expanded International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will make it more difficult for Iran to divert critical technology and materials to new secret sites. The terms also preclude the new plutonium reactor at Arak from becoming operational, halting the risk that Iran could soon use plutonium to build a bomb.Iran prolif causes a laundry list of impacts – escalates to nuclear warMatthew Kroenig, Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, January/February 2012, “Time to Attack Iran” published in Foreign Affairs; accessed through EbscoSome states in the region are doubting U.S. resolve to stop the program and are shifting their allegiances to Tehran. Others have begun to discuss launching their own nuclear initiatives to counter a possible Iranian bomb. For those nations and the United States itself, the threat will only continue to grow as Tehran moves closer to its goal. A nuclear-armed Iran would immediately limit U.S. freedom of action in the Middle East. With atomic power behind it, Iran could threaten any U.S. political or military initiative in the Middle East with nuclear war, forcing Washington to think twice before acting in the region. Iran's regional rivals, such as Saudi Arabia, would likely decide to acquire their own nuclear arsenals, sparking an arms race. To constrain its geopolitical rivals, Iran could choose to spur proliferation by transferring nuclear technology to its allies--other countries and terrorist groups alike. Having the bomb would give Iran greater cover for conventional aggression and coercive diplomacy, and the battles between its terrorist proxies and Israel, for example, could escalate. And Iran and Israel lack nearly all the safeguards that helped the United States and the Soviet Union avoid a nuclear exchange during the Cold War--secure second-strike capabilities, clear lines of communication, long flight times for ballistic missiles from one country to the other, and experience managing nuclear arsenals. To be sure, a nuclear-armed Iran would not intentionally launch a suicidal nuclear war. But the volatile nuclear balance between Iran and Israel could easily spiral out of control as a crisis unfolds, resulting in a nuclear exchange between the two countries that could draw the United States in, as well.Uniqueness1NC – Yes VetoVeto override will be close, but Obama is winning nowAdam E. Berkowitz, staff writer, 8-23-2015, “Iranian Deal Expected to Be A Close Call in Senate” Breaking Israel News, President Barack Obama has promised to use his veto to override a vote by both chambers which are expected to reject the Iran nuclear deal, however a recent analysis shows it will be a very close call as to whether a veto will hold or not. The Washington Post broke down the numbers in a recent article. All 54 Republican senators are expected to oppose the deal. Two Democrat senators have announced they will cross party lines and reject the deal; Senator Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and SenatorBob Menendez (N.J.). This compares to 31 Democrats in the Senate who are expected to vote for passing the resolution. A total of 60 votes are required to reject it. In both houses, it seems clear the all 246 Republicans will vote against the deal, plus 12 Democrats who are also expected to reject it, for a total of 258 nays. Only 218 votes are needed to for a vote of disapproval. But to overcome the anticipated presidential veto will require 290 votes, a number that most think unlikely at this time. Nonetheless, for those who don’t give up so easily, an additional 6 Democrats are considered negatively predisposed towards the deal, and 88 are unknown or undecided.2NC – Yes VetoObama’s hold on the veto override is slipping – PC is key for Obama to save the Iran deal from Congressional meddlingCalev Ben-David, staff writer at Business Week, 8-11-2015, “House GOP Leader Sees Chance to Override Obama Veto on Iran Vote,” Republican Majority leader Kevin McCarthy says there’s a chance Congress can muster enough Democratic votes to override a presidential veto in support of the Iran nuclear deal. “I’m basing that on what I hear from the other side of the aisle, from individual members who talk to me,” McCarthy, who is leading a visit of 36 GOP House members to Israel, said Tuesday in an interview in Jerusalem. Obama has threatened to override Congress if it votes against the accord world powers reached with Iran last month. If the Republican majorities in Congress vote as a bloc against it, they will need 44 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 13 in the Senate to knock down the veto. At least seven House Democrats, including New York Representative Eliot Engel, and that state’s senior Democratic senator, Charles Schumer, have announced they will oppose the agreement. “When you look at an Eliot Engel or a Schumer, they are leaders in their caucus, this is an issue they lead on when it comes to foreign policy,” said McCarthy, a California lawmaker. Obama’s remarks last week characterizing opponents of the Iran deal as preferring war to diplomacy show he is desperately “trying to focus mainly on just holding enough Democrats to beat a veto.”Override possible – Obama’s momentum is keyTal Kopan, politics reporter, and Deirdre Walsh, senior congressional producer, 8-13-2015, “More lawmakers pick sides on Iran nuclear deal” CNN, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy claimed Thursday that Republicans still have a strong possibility of getting enough votes to override a presidential veto of a bill rejecting the Iran nuclear deal -- though the President also continued to pick up key supporters and deployed one of his top surrogates to convince naysayers that afternoon. Speaking at a news conference during an annual congressional trip to Israel, McCarthy said there's "very [much] a possibility" that there could be enough votes for the override, which the administration has said would sink the deal.2NC – AT: Veto IrrelevantObama would have to obey a veto overrideDavid Harsanyi, senior editor at the Federalist, 8-13-2015, “No, Obama Can’t Salvage The Iran Deal Without The Senate” does all this handwringing and bogus opposition to the Iran nuclear deal really matter if Barack Obama can do whatever he likes even if the Senate miraculously finds the votes to override his veto? It’s not difficult to imagine Obama making the case that he needs to institute broad powers because so many of these #warmongering politicians have defected and forced his hand. But even as comfortable and skilled as Obama might be in exercising unilateral power, it seems implausible he could pull it off. First, a patchwork of actions could easily be undone should a Republican somehow win the presidency. (Yes, this necessitates that we imagine the GOP keeping its promises and winning elections.) Without an Iran-U.S. agreement, even a Democrat could far more easily reinstate sanctions once the Islamic Republic breaks any of the provisions in its deals UN. Domestic support for the deal is predicated on partisanship and the idea the very vague idea that diplomacy is always more productive than war. If neither of these factors are involved anymore, public support for boosting Iranian interests would complete crater. Second, Obama would not only be forced to argue that he has wide discretion over existing legislation — as he always does—but that he has the power to ignore the law and that he was ignoring that law based solely on a pinky swear Iran made to the United Nations. I doubt even he could get away with that, As Politico points out, Obama would grant relief to Iranian banks and businesses by “de-listing” them as targets of the congressional law. Obama has argued that he can treat provisions punishing foreign institutions for doing business with Iran as “non-binding.” (This is basically the president’s position on all laws he dislikes.) But this strategy would likely open the deal up to an array of Constitutional lawsuits—and even one loss would probably crater the entire strategy. Then, there is public opinion. Although Obama no longer has to concern himself with public support, the Democratic Party does have elections to contend with. And, as deal supporter Ruth Marcus wrote today, an embittered Obama isn’t making a compelling argument. She’s being kind. Obama’s pitch is a hodgepodge of ad hominem attacks and ugly insinuations meant to intimidate those still on the fence. Polling since the agreement was announced shows that support for the deal has steadily eroded. The more specific the questions, the less support it enjoys. A recent poll of New York City voters by Quinnipiac University found that the agreement is opposed by 43 percent and supported by only 36 percent. If support for pro-Iranian policies continues to drop, even in liberal cities, and the Senate can override a veto, it would not only be a devastating defeat for Obama, but an unprecedented defeat for any president on foreign policy.Links1NC Surveillance Link – GeneralPassage of the Freedom Act sapped momentum for surveillance reform – any further changes to surveillance programs will be met with resistance in Congress Grant Gross, writer at IDG News Service, 6-5-2015, “Don't expect major changes to NSA surveillance from Congress,” article/2932337/dont-expect-major-changes-to-nsa-surveillance-from-congress.htmlAfter the U.S. Congress approved what critics have called modest limits on the National Security Agency’s collection of domestic telephone records, many lawmakers may be reluctant to further change the government’s surveillance programs. The Senate this week passed the USA Freedom Act, which aims to end the NSA’s mass collection of domestic phone records, and President Barack Obama signed the bill hours later. After that action, expect Republican leaders in both the Senate and the House of Representatives to resist further calls for surveillance reform. That resistance is at odds with many rank-and-file lawmakers, including many House Republicans, who want to further limit NSA programs brought to light by former agency contractor Edward Snowden. Civil liberties groups and privacy advocates also promise to push for more changes. It may be difficult to get “broad, sweeping reform” through Congress, but many lawmakers seem ready to push for more changes, said Adam Eisgrau, managing director of the office of government relations for the American Library Association. The ALA has charged the NSA surveillance programs violate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. “Congress is not allowed to be tired of surveillance reform unless it’s prepared to say it’s tired of the Fourth Amendment,” Eisgrau said. “The American public will not accept that.” Other activists are less optimistic about more congressional action. “It will be a long slog getting more restraints,” J. Kirk Wiebe, a former NSA analyst and whistleblower said by email. ”The length of that journey will depend on public outcry—that is the one thing that is hard to gauge.” With the USA Freedom Act, “elected officials have opted to reach for low-hanging fruit,” said Bill Blunden, a cybersecurity researcher and surveillance critic. “The theater we’ve just witnessed allows decision makers to boast to their constituents about reforming mass surveillance while spies understand that what’s actually transpired is hardly major change.” The “actual physical mechanisms” of surveillance programs remain largely intact. Blunden added by email. “Politicians may dither around the periphery but they are unlikely to institute fundamental changes.”2NC Surveillance Link – GeneralPlan causes huge fights – Congress is divided on surveillance reformFrancine Kiefer, writer at the Christian Science Monitor, 1-17-2014, “NSA reform? Obama faces headwinds in a Congress divided on surveillance policy,” )President Obama says he’d like to put the US government out of the business of storing Americans’ phone records – though he maintains it’s still necessary to collect those records en masse for anti-terrorism purposes. To make this and other suggested changes to the National Security Agency's surveillance system, he’ll need the help of Congress. Capitol Hill, however, is as divided on the subject as is the American public. Libertarian-minded conservatives align with liberals in opposing the phone-dragnet program altogether, while other Republicans and Democrats largely support it. Last July, the House fell short of ending the NSA’s bulk collection of phone records, on a close, bipartisan vote. On the key House and Senate committees responsible for drafting relevant legislation, members of the judiciary panels tend to want wholesale changes, while those dealing with intelligence want only tweaks. But even that is a bit of a generalization, as division also marks the committees. The upshot is that Congress could well have a tough time agreeing on the legislation required to alter the program. President Obama proposes that the government stop holding phone records. In making this recommendation, the president followed the advice of a blue-chip review panel he convened after the furor over massive leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Although the panel found no intentional abuse of the records so far – and the NSA collects data about a phone call but not its content – it warned that the government's storage of the data creates the potential for abuse and public mistrust. Mr. Obama has asked the attorney general to come up with an alternative storage arrangement. The panel suggested either keeping it with the phone companies or entrusting it with a third party. "While I am encouraged the president is addressing the NSA spying program because of pressure from Congress and the American people, I am disappointed in the details,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky, in a statement. The senator, a tea party favorite, described Obama’s solution as “the same unconstitutional program with a new configuration.” In the end, Senator Paul told CNN, little changes: Private records will still be collected without a search warrant. He gave Obama an “A for effort” though. In the House, Rep. Adam Schiff (D) of California, a senior member of the Intelligence Committee, welcomed the changes. But in a statement – and in legislation he introduced – the congressman says the government should obtain an individualized court order to get at phone records “already held by phone companies as part of their normal business practices.” He opposes a third party holding records because it would be “perceived as a subsidiary of the NSA and would do little to build public confidence.” Conversely, letting the phone companies store the records “may create as many privacy problems as it solves,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) of Iowa, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this week. He pointed to recent examples of hacking at Target and Neiman Marcus. Rep. Peter King (R) of New York, a strong defender of the NSA's bulk data collection, tweeted, in part: “Pres Obama NSA speech better than expected. Most programs left intact.” Indeed, the need to keep up the mass collection of phone records has staunch defenders on Capitol Hill, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California, the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. She says that collecting phone records is “important to prevent another [9/11] attack.” House Speaker John Boehner (R) of Ohio took on a cautionary tone. "When lives are at stake, the president must not allow politics to cloud his judgment," he said, in a written response. "The House will review any legislative reforms proposed by the administration, but we will not erode the operational integrity of critical programs that have helped keep America safe." An independent voice The president also seeks to change the workings of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA), the secret court that provides judicial review of the NSA phone collection program. Obama wants Congress to “authorize the establishment of a panel of advocates from outside government to provide an independent voice in significant cases” before the court. This, too, drew criticism from the Hill. Such a “public advocate” can’t be trusted if it even works for the government or is appointed by the government, said Senator Paul. Representative Schiff echoed that an advocate panel must be “truly independent.” On the other hand, legislation passed by Senator Feinstein’s committee last year gives the FISA court the ability to select a more sympathetic panel – “friends of the court” – to argue for privacy or to provide an independent legal perspective. In Congress, it seems, there are as many views about how to proceed as there are members.Obama has to spend PC to overcome Congressional inertiaPeter Feaver, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at Duke University and Director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies and Director, Program in American Grand Strategy Foreign Policy, 1-17-2014, “Obama Finally Joins the Debate He Called For,” President Barack Obama finally joins the national debate he called for a long time ago but then abandoned: the debate about how best to balance national security and civil liberty. As I outlined in NPR's scene-setter this morning, this debate is a tricky one for a president who wants to lead from behind. The public's view shifts markedly in response to perceptions of the threat, so a political leader who is only following the public mood will crisscross himself repeatedly. Changing one's mind and shifting the policy is not inherently a bad thing to do. There is no absolute and timeless right answer, because this is about trading off different risks. The risk profile itself shifts in response to our actions. When security is improving and the terrorist threat is receding, one set of trade-offs is appropriate. When security is worsening and the terrorist threat is worsening, another might be. It is likely, however, that the optimal answer is not the one advocated by the most fringe position. A National Security Agency (NSA) hobbled to the point that some on the far left (and, it must be conceded, the libertarian right) are demanding would be a mistake that the country would regret every bit as much as we would regret an NSA without any checks or balances or constraints. Getting this right will require inspired and active political leadership. To date, Obama has preferred to stay far removed from the debate swirling around the Snowden leaks. This president relishes opportunities to spend political capital on behalf of policies that disturb Republicans, but, as former Defense Secretary Robert Gates's memoir details, Obama has been very reluctant to expend political capital on behalf of national security policies that disturb his base. Today Obama is finally engaging. It will be interesting to see how he threads the political needle and, just as importantly, how much political capital he is willing to spend in the months ahead to defend his policies.Attempts to wind down surveillance are a political nightmare – politicians fear being blamed for future terrorist attacksAusten Givens, Professor at Utica College, July 2013, “The NSA Surveillance Controversy: How the Ratchet Effect Can Impact Anti-Terrorism Laws,” ratchet effect can occur because elected officials do not want to risk repealing anti-terrorism laws. Here is a political nightmare: for whatever reason, a legislator or government executive spearheads an effort to reverse an anti-terrorism law. The anti-terrorism law is repealed. Within a week, a terrorist attack occurs. Being wrong about terrorism can carry devastating political consequences for incumbents. But being specifically identified as the one who “turned off the alarm system” is a political death sentence. Under this scenario, even if there is no direct causal link between the law’s repeal and the attack, the two are easily correlated because of their temporal proximity to each other. It makes no sense for an elected official to open herself to the possibility of this scenario without a clear, compelling reason—and, even then, scaling back an anti-terrorism law may still be too politically risky a proposition to entertain seriously. For these reasons, anti-terrorism laws can remain in effect beyond the end of the crisis that brought them into existence. Surveillance reforms cost political capital – Republicans oppose further restrictionsDan Roberts, writer at the Guardian, 6-1-2015, “Charges Against Edward Snowen Stand Despite Telephone Surveillance Ban,” )But the White House placed itself firmly on the side of NSA reform, when asked if the president was “taking ownership” of the USA Freedom Act, which is expected to pass Congress later this week. “To the extent that we’re talking about the president’s legacy, I would suspect [it] would be a logical conclusion from some historians that the president ended some of these programmes,” replied Earnest. “This is consistent with the reforms that the president advocated a year and a half ago. And these are reforms that required the president and his team to expend significant amounts of political capital to achieve over the objection of Republicans.” The administration also avoided four separate opportunities to warn that the temporary loss of separate Patriot Act surveillance provisions that expired alongside bulk collection on Sunday night had put the safety of Americans at risk, as some have claimed. “All I can do is I can illustrate to you very clearly that there are tools that had previously been available to our national security professionals that are not available today because the Senate didn’t do their job,” said Earnest. “As a result, there are programmes and tools that our national security professionals themselves say are important to their work that are not available to them right now, as we speak.” Plan is a heavy lift – must overcome bipartisan oppositionJames Antle, writer at the Daily Caller, 3-4-2013, "Congress Goes Bipartisan—Against Civil Liberties," articles/the-drone-consensus313Congress Goes Bipartisan—Against Civil Liberties The parties collude to defeat accountability for the national-security state. Civil liberties are theoretically a bipartisan concern. Conservative Republicans who don’t like Obamacare’s “death panels” should be outraged by presidential kill lists. Liberal Democrats who defend due process ought to be offended by secret surveillance law. Protectors of the First and Second Amendments should have a high regard for the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth. Yet restricting civil liberties is what actually commands bipartisan support in Washington. The same Congress that barely averted the fiscal cliff swiftly passed extensions of warrantless wiretapping and indefinite detention, assuring Americans that only the bad guys will be affected but evincing little interest in establishing whether this is really the case. The same Congress that failed to come up with an agreement to avoid sequestration appears to have bipartisan majorities in favor of profligate drone use at home and abroad. Lawmakers are generally less exercised about the confirmation of likely CIA chief John Brennan than Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. At the very time it appears Washington is so dysfunctional that the two parties cannot get anything done, Democrats and Republicans cooperate regularly—when it it comes to jailing, spying on, and meting out extrajudicial punishments in ways that on their face contradict the Bill of Rights. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid argued that preserving the Bush administration’s national surveillance program—now for the benefit of the Obama administration—was more important than Christmas. Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss didn’t even want any amendments. The Senate overwhelmingly rejected an amendment that would apply the same protections against unlawful search and seizure to emails and text messages that already exist for letters, phone calls, and presumably the carrier pigeon. Despite deep divisions over taxes and domestic spending, members of both parties tend to sing from the same song sheet about the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amendments. So much for the Democrats’ bedrock belief in the right to privacy or Republicans’ convictions about limited government.2NC Surveillance Link – DronesRegulations on domestic drones are unpopular – influential lobbyists will put up a massive fightDavid Morgan, writer at Reuters, and Deepa Seetharaman, writer at Reuters, 2-23-2015, “Industry lobbyists take aim at proposed FAA drone rules,” hoping to capitalize on the commercial potential of drones are preparing to push back against proposed regulations that would strictly limit how the aircraft can be used. During a 60-day public comment period on the rules, lobbyists representing a range of industries, from Internet giants Inc and Google Inc to aerospace firms and the news media, say they will try to convince regulators that cutting-edge technologies make some of the limitations proposed last week by the Federal Aviation Administration unnecessary. Spending on lobbying by special interests that list drones as an issue surged from $20,000 in 2001 to $35 million in 2011 to more than $186 million in 2014, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks lobbying activity. And the proposed rules provide a new focus of lobbying efforts. If approved as written, the new FAA rules would lift the current near-ban on flying drones for commercial purposes, but its restrictions would make many business applications, such as package delivery, unfeasible. Among other constraints, the proposed rules would limit commercial drones to an altitude of 500 feet, allow flights only during daytime hours and require operators to keep the aircraft in their sights at all times. Drones could not be flown near airports or directly over humans. Officials say these precautions are needed for safety. But drone makers and other firms with a stake in unmanned aircraft technology say they are already working on features that would allow drones to "sense and avoid" obstacles including other aircraft and prevent link disruptions that could cause a drone to lose contact with ground operations. For example, is developing autonomous drones that would navigate via GPS and use redundant safety mechanisms and sensor arrays to avoid accidents as part of a "Prime Air" drone delivery service it hopes to launch. Industry representatives say they will use the 60-day comment period to try to convince regulators that breakthrough safety features could make drone flights safe and dependable. "This is the chance for all the parties who think the FAA got it wrong to come forward and say why," said Jack Schenendorf, a former House Transportation Committee staff member who now works for law firm Covington & Burling. The current ban on most commercial drone flights will stay in place until the FAA finalizes its proposed rules -- which could take anywhere from nine months to three years. During that period, companies can continue to apply for exemptions to use drones under strict rules. But the FAA has so far granted only 28 of more than 325 exemption requests, according to government documents. Amazon, which applied for an exemption to allow outdoor testing at its own U.S. facilities last summer, says it has not yet received approval from the agency. It has been testing a number of drone configurations at facilities in Washington state, Britain and Israel. But only in the Britain has the company been able to conduct outdoor tests that it says are vital to its goal of developing a prototype that can be demonstrated to the FAA. Meanwhile, a coalition of news media companies including NBC, the New York Times and Thomson Reuters hopes to test news-gathering drones in coming months at an FAA site in Virginia. Separate forecasts by government and industry officials expect businesses to invest nearly $90 billion in drones worldwide over the next 10 years, as the technology takes root in hundreds of markets that now rely on manned flights or ground operations for activities ranging from pipeline inspections to aerial photography. The number of companies and groups involved in drone lobbying now exceeds 50. Senate documents show a broad range of parties from high-tech and aerospace manufacturers to electric utilities, realtors, filmmakers, universities, labor unions, state governments and broadcasters. Business interests have a potentially powerful lever in Congress, which must reauthorize the FAA’s funding and regulatory direction by the end of September. That process allows lawmakers to direct regulatory agencies to take specific actions. For example, the last reauthorization in 2012 directed the FAA to pursue rulemaking on drones. Some influential allies in Congress have already begun questioning the proposed rules. U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer said last week the FAA's "line of sight" rule appears to be a "concerning limitation on commercial usage, and this proposed rule should be modified."2NC Surveillance Link – PRISMPRISM reforms are unpopular – Republicans oppose any changes to the program Grant Gross, writer at IDG News Service, 6-5-2015, “Don't expect major changes to NSA surveillance from Congress,” article/2932337/dont-expect-major-changes-to-nsa-surveillance-from-congress.htmlThe USA Freedom Act also does nothing to limit the NSA’s surveillance of overseas Internet traffic, including the content of emails and IP voice calls. Significantly limiting that NSA program, called Prism in 2013 Snowden leaks, will be a difficult task in Congress, with many lawmakers unconcerned about the privacy rights of people who don’t vote in U.S. elections. Still, the section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that authorizes those NSA foreign surveillance programs sunsets in 2017, and that deadline will force Congress to look at FISA, although lawmakers may wait until the last minute, as they did with the expiring sections of the Patriot Act covered in the USA Freedom Act. The House Judiciary Committee will continue its oversight of U.S. surveillance programs, and the committee will address FISA before its provisions expire, an aide to the committee said. Republican leaders opposed to more changes Supporters of new reforms will have to bypass congressional leadership, however. Senate Republican leaders attempted to derail even the USA Freedom Act and refused to allow amendments that would require further changes at the NSA.1NC Losers LoseThe plan is a signal of Congressional disapproval, which is a loss for Obama – derails the agenda – best polisciDouglas Kriner, Associate Professor of Political Science at Boston University, 2010, After the Rubicon: Congress, Presidents, and the Politics of Waging War, pg. 67-68Shaping both real and anticipated public opinion are two important ways in which Congress can raise or lower the political costs of a military action for the president. However, focusing exclusively on opinion dynamics threatens to obscure the much broader political consequences of domestic reaction – particularly congressional opposition – to presidential foreign policies. At least since Richard Neustadt’s seminal work Presidential Power, presidency scholars have warned that costly political battles in one policy arena frequently have significant ramifications for presidential power in other realms. Indeed, two of Neustadt’s three “cases of command” – Truman’s seizure of the steel mills and firing of General Douglas MacArthur – explicitly discussed the broader political consequences of stiff domestic resistance to presidential assertions of commander-in-chief power. In both cases, Truman emerged victorious in the case at hand – yet, Neustadt argues, each victory cost Truman dearly in terms of his future power prospects and leeway in other policy areas, many of which were more important to the president than achieving unconditional victory over North Korea. While congressional support leaves the president’s reserve of political capital intact, congressional criticism saps energy from other initiatives on the home front by forcing the president to expend energy and effort defending his international agenda. Political capital spent shoring up support for a president’s foreign policies is capital that is unavailable for his future policy initiatives . Moreover, any weakening in the president’s political clout may have immediate ramifications for his reelection prospects, as well as indirect consequences for congressional races.59 Indeed, Democratic efforts to tie congressional Republican incumbents to President George W. Bush and his war policies paid immediate political dividends in the 2006 midterms, particularly in states, districts, and counties that had suffered the highest casualty rates in the Iraq War. 60 In addition to boding ill for the president’s perceived political capital and reputation, such partisan losses in Congress only further imperil his programmatic agenda, both international and domestic. Scholars have long noted that President Lyndon Johnson’s dream of a Great Society also perished in the rice paddies of Vietnam. Lacking the requisite funds in a war-depleted treasury and the political capital needed to sustain his legislative vision, Johnson gradually let his domestic goals slip away as he hunkered down in an effort first to win and then to end the Vietnam War. In the same way, many of President Bush’s highest second-term domestic proprieties, such as Social Security and immigration reform, failed perhaps in large part because the administration had to expend so much energy and effort waging a rear-guard action against congressional critics of the war in Iraq.61 When making their cost-benefit calculations, presidents surely consider these wider political costs of congressional opposition to their military policies. If congressional opposition in the military arena stands to derail other elements of his agenda, all else being equal, the president will be more likely to judge the benefits of military action insufficient to its costs than if Congress stood behind him in the international arena.2NC Losers LoseLosers lose – drains PC and reverses bandwagoningAndrew Loomis, Professor in the Department of Government at Georgetown University, 3-2-2007, “Leveraging legitimacy in the crafting of U.S. foreign policy” political analyst Norman Ornstein writes of the domestic context, In a system where a President has limited formal power, perception matters. The reputation for success—the belief by other political actors that even when he looks down, a president will find a way to pull out a victory—is the most valuable resource a chief executive can have. Conversely, the widespread belief that the Oval Office occupant is on the defensive, on the wane or without the ability to win under adversity can lead to disaster, as individual lawmakers calculate who will be on the winning side and negotiate accordingly. In simple terms, winners win and losers lose more often than not. Failure begets failure. In short, a president experiencing declining amounts of political capital has diminished capacity to advance his goals. As a result, political allies perceive a decreasing benefit in publicly tying themselves to the president, and an increasing benefit in allying with rising centers of authority. A president’s incapacity and his record of success are interlocked and reinforce each other. Incapacity leads to political failure, which reinforces perceptions of incapacity. This feedback loop accelerates decay both in leadership capacity and defection by key allies. Presidents need to avoid losses – they destroy the ability to set the agendaJames Meernik, Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of North Texas, and Michael Ault, Professor in the Department of Political Science at California State University, Bakersfield, 2005, “The Diverted President: The Domestic Agenda and Foreign Policy” assume presidents attempt to maximize their influence over other policy actors by both attending to areas where they seek to increase their support, while also downplaying any apparent weaknesses. As boundedly rational decision-makers, presidents must remain aware of their primary constituency. In this sense, presidential agenda-setting at the tactical level is a function of the White House’s need to maintain control over the issue agenda and presidential support. Thus, even after we factor in the extent to which the issue agenda at any one moment may be determined by events beyond the president’s control, and the set of issue priorities the president has staked his administration’s success on, there is significant room for political manipulation of the issue agenda. Presidents operate in a political context in which they seek to maintain control over the agenda and prevent their political opponents from either changing the subject or accentuating the weak and negative aspects of the president’s record.Reputation matters – past failures influence a president’s capacity for leadershipCharles Jones, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin - Madison, June 2001, “Professional reputation and the Neustadt formulation” published in Presidential Studies Quarterly, accessed through ProQuestb. "The greatest danger to a President's potential influence with them is not the show of incapacity he makes today, but its apparent kinship to what happened yesterday, last month, last year. For if his failures seem to form a pattern, the consequence is bound to be a loss of faith in his effectiveness next time" (p. 53). These propositions introduce a collective perception, which seemingly can have an independent effect. Power holders will assess the president's reputation in acting on a particular matter, but that judgment may well be within the context of a "dominant tone" that is a consequence of collective viewing, presumably then formed and shaped by communication within the community (itself an intriguing subject for research). Is there a lag effect of a dominant tone, either positively or negatively? Power holders may have to resolve a number of issues at this point, assessing their own judgment about the president with regard to the matter at hand while balancing that appraisal against the dominant tone and anticipating the president's reaction to their decisions. Are these various perceptions discoverable? Only their intricacy stands in the way. Surely, if we are able to probe the perceptual forces at work on voters in national elections, we should be able to design research for plumbing the manner in which members of the Washington community perceive the president and his capacity for using his bargaining advantages.Losers Lose – Yes LossThe plan is a loss – Obama empirically supports broad surveillance powers and is not willing to push for reformsMichael Shear, staff writer at the New York Times, 6-3-2015, “In Pushing for Revised Surveillance Program, Obama Strikes His Own Balance,” — For more than six years, President Obama has directed his national security team to chase terrorists around the globe by scooping up vast amounts of telephone records with a program that was conceived and put in place by his predecessor after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Now, after successfully badgering Congress into reauthorizing the program, with new safeguards the president says will protect privacy, Mr. Obama has left little question that he owns it. The new surveillance program created by the USA Freedom Act will end more than a decade of bulk collection of telephone records by the National Security Agency. But it will make records already held by telephone companies available for broad searches by government officials with a court order. “The reforms that have now been enacted are exactly the reforms the president called for over a year and a half ago,” said Lisa Monaco, the president’s top counterterrorism adviser. She called the bill the product of a “robust public debate” and said the White House was “gratified that the Senate finally passed it.” The president is trying to balance national security and civil liberties to put into practice the kind of equilibrium he has talked about since he was in the Senate, when he expressed support for surveillance programs but also vowed to rein in what he called government overreach. Mr. Obama entered the Oval Office with what he called “a healthy skepticism” about the system of surveillance at his command. But Ms. Monaco said that, in part because of his often grim daily intelligence briefing, the president was also “very, very focused on the threats” to Americans. “He weighs the balance every day,” she said. The compromise on collections of telephone records may end up being too restrictive for the president’s counterterrorism professionals, as some Republicans predict. Or, as others vehemently insisted in congressional debate during the past week, it may leave in place too much surveillance that can intrude on the lives of innocent Americans. Either way, Mr. Obama’s signature on the law late Tuesday night ensures that he will deliver to the next president a method of hunting for terrorist threats despite widespread privacy concerns that emerged after Edward J. Snowden, a former N.S.A. contractor, revealed the existence of the telephone program. “He owned it in 2009,” said Michael V. Hayden, a former N.S.A. director under President George W. Bush, who oversaw the surveillance programs for years. “He just didn’t want anyone to know he owned it.” Jameel Jaffer, the deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the USA Freedom Act “a step forward in some respects,” but “a very small step forward.” He said his organization would continue to demand that the president and Congress scale back other government surveillance programs. “Obama has been presented with this choice: Are you going to defend these programs or are you going to change them?” Mr. Jaffer said. “Thus far, we haven’t seen a lot of evidence that the president is willing to spend political capital changing those programs.” In the case of the telephone program, Mr. Obama’s preferred compromise was originally the brainchild of his N.S.A. officials, who embraced it as a way to satisfy the public’s privacy concerns without losing the agency’s ability to conduct surveillance more broadly. In the lead-up to last week’s congressional showdown, Mr. Obama and his national security team insisted that broad surveillance powers were vital to tracking terrorist threats, while admitting that the new approach to data collection would not harm that effort. White House officials said Mr. Obama was comfortable that history would show that he struck the right balance. “To the extent that we’re talking about the president’s legacy, I would suspect that that would be a logical conclusion from some historians,” said Josh Earnest, the president’s press secretary. Mr. Earnest said the compromise addressed anxiety about privacy but still gave the government access to needed records. “This is the kind of rigorous oversight and, essentially, a rules architecture that the president does believe is important,” Mr. Earnest said. “And that is materially different than the program that he inherited.” Recent FISA request proves Obama will oppose restrictions on his anti-terror powersSpencer Ackerman, national security editor for the Guardian, 6-9-2015, “Obama lawyers asked secret court to ignore public court's decision on spying”, Obama administration has asked a secret surveillance court to ignore a federal court that found bulk surveillance illegal and to once again grant the National Security Agency the power to collect the phone records of millions of Americans for six months. The legal request, filed nearly four hours after Barack Obama vowed to sign a new law banning precisely the bulk collection he asks the secret court to approve, also suggests that the administration may not necessarily comply with any potential court order demanding that the collection stop. US officials confirmed last week that they would ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court – better known as the Fisa court, a panel that meets in secret as a step in the surveillance process and thus far has only ever had the government argue before it – to turn the domestic bulk collection spigot back on.Losers Lose – AT: Obama Likes the PlanEven if Obama likes the plan, he’ll fight to try and maintain his anti-terror powers Gregory D. Johnsen, Michael Hastings National Security Fellow at Buzzfeed, 1-16-2014, “60 Words And A War Without End: The Untold Story Of The Most Dangerous Sentence In U.S. History,” like his Guantanamo pledge five years earlier, this was more rhetoric than reality. In the more than seven months since Obama gave that speech, the White House has taken no public steps to roll back the AUMF. From the outside, the string of unfilled promises looked like a president who wants to end the war without giving up his powers to wage war. It’s easy to see why.Internals1NC PC KeyObama’s political capital is key to maintain a veto-overrideJordan Fabian, writer at the Hill, 7-24-2015, “Obama confident Iran deal will survive Congress,” Obama on Thursday expressed confidence he will be able to prevent Congress from sinking the Iran nuclear agreement. “In Congress, I'm confident that we're going to be able to make sure that the deal sticks,” Obama said in an interview with the BBC. The White House has launched an aggressive lobbying blitz to ward off congressional opposition to the Iran nuclear deal. The agreement would lift economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program. Criticism on the Republican side has grown in recent days, making it increasingly likely the GOP-controlled Congress will vote to oppose the deal. The White House has been determined to unify Democrats around the agreement, and perhaps win over some on the GOP side, in order to sustain an Obama veto. PC KeyPolitical capital is key to democratic support – support is increasing now because Obama is winning over lawmakersRebecca Ballhaus, writer at the Wall Street Journal, 7-23-2015, “Capital Journal Daybreak: Uptick in Support for Iran Deal,” IN DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT FOR IRAN DEAL: The White House’s efforts to sell Congress on its nuclear accord with Iran produced a small uptick in support from the administration’s allies this week, though many of the Democrats key to the deal’s future remained on the fence. One week after six global powers reached an agreement with Iran imposing strict limits on its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, a trickle of Democratic support began to emerge for the pact in a counterweight to widespread GOP opposition. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, a member of Democratic leadership, gave the first Senate floor speech backing the accord Tuesday evening. On Wednesday, Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) advocated for a diplomatic solution in a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, though he stopped short of saying he would vote for the deal. The nascent Democratic support came from lawmakers considered likely to back the administration’s diplomatic efforts. The White House has yet to win over bellwethers in the debate, most notably Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, who is poised to become the next Senate Democratic leader. Until recently, most Democrats had remained neutral, saying they needed time to review the details. Republicans meanwhile, immediately criticized the deal, saying it wouldn’t prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, among other concerns. PC key – it’s the deciding factor for undecided votesPatricia Zengerle, staff writer at Reuters, and Idrees Ali, staff writer at Reuters, 7-23-2015, “Obama administration takes Iran nuclear deal fight public,” uk.article/2015/07/23/uk-iran-nuclear-congress-idUKKCN0PX0CB20150723U.S. lawmakers skeptical about the nuclear deal with Iran promised to press senior Obama administration officials to make more information about it public at a Senate hearing on Thursday as Congress begins its two-month review of the agreement. Secretary of State John Kerry, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz will testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the first such public appearance by the cabinet officials since the deal was announced on July 14. They briefed the entire Senate and House of Representatives in separate closed-door sessions on Wednesday, and administration officials have held a series of private telephone conversations and meetings with lawmakers. Among other issues, lawmakers said they wanted more information about the timing of sanctions relief and ability to "snap back" sanctions if Iran cheats, clarity on the timing of inspections and more answers about how much money would go to Iran. "We have leverage, but in nine months, they'll have their cash and all the sanctions will be relieved. People will be in there signing contracts, and then the leverage sort of shifts to them," said Senator Bob Corker, the Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Corker has said he is skeptical about the agreement, but would wait until he knows more before deciding whether to vote against the deal. Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on the panel, said the closed-door briefing had been useful but questions remained. "There are many areas of concern that we want to get clarified," he said. Cardin is one of many Democrats who have not yet decided how they would vote on the deal. Under a bill President Barack Obama signed into law in May, Congress has until Sept. 17 to approve or reject the agreement, in which Iran agreed to rein in its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. With many Republicans lining up to oppose it, Obama needs to convince as many of his fellow Democrats as possible to back the deal. If a disapproval resolution passes Congress and survives a veto, Obama would be unable to waive most of the U.S. sanctions imposed on Iran, which could cripple the nuclear pact.PC is key to hold off a veto-proof majorityZack Beauchamp, World Correspondent at Vox, M.Sc in International Relations from the London School of Economics, BAs in Philosophy and Political Science from Brown University, and the Suspendered Avenger, 11-6-2014, “How the New GOP Majority Could Destroy Obama’s Nuclear Deal with Iran,” 's true that Obama could veto any Congressional efforts to blow up an Iran deal with sanctions. But a two-thirds vote could override any veto — and, according to Sofer, an override is entirely within the realm of possibility. "There are plenty of Democrats that will probably side with Republicans if they try to push a harder line on Iran," Sofer says. For a variety of reasons, including deep skepticism of Iran's intentions and strong Democratic support for Israel, whose government opposes the negotiations, Congressional Democrats are not as open to making a deal with Iran as Obama is. Many will likely defect to the GOP side out of principle. The real fight, Sofer says, will be among the Democrats — those who are willing to take the administration's side in theory, but don't necessarily think a deal with Iran is legislative priority number one, and maybe don't want to open themselves up to the political risk. These Democrats "can make it harder: you can filibuster, if you're Obama you can veto — you can make it impossible for a full bill to be passed out of Congress on Iran," Sofer says. But it'd be a really tough battle, one that would consume a lot of energy and lobbying effort that Democrats might prefer to spend pushing on other issues. "I'm not really sure they're going to be willing to take on a fight about an Iran sanctions bill," Sofer concludes. "I'm not really sure that the Democrats who support [a deal] are really fully behind it enough that they'll be willing to give up leverage on, you know, unemployment insurance or immigration status — these bigger issues for most Democrats." So if the new Republican Senate prioritizes destroying an Iran deal, Obama will have to fight very hard to keep it — without necessarily being able to count on his own party for support. And the stakes are enormous: if Iran's nuclear program isn't stopped peacefully, then the most likely outcomes are either Iran going nuclear, or war with Iran. The administration believes a deal with Iran is their only way to avoid this horrible choice. That's why it's been one of the administration's top priorities since day one. It's also why this could become one of the biggest legislative fights of Obama's last two years.PC Key – Momentum KeyObama’s political current momentum is allowing him to kneecap congress – supercharges losers loseRich Lowry, staff writer, 7-24-2015, “Obama kneecaps Congress on Iran agreement,” Sentinel Source, only President Barack Obama were as hard-nosed and clever in undermining our adversaries as he is in kneecapping the U.S. Congress, the country’s strategic position might be transformed. The Iran deal went to the United Nations Security Council for approval Monday, months before Congress will vote on it, and got unanimous approval. The U.N. vote doesn’t bind Congress, but it boxes it in and minimizes it — with malice aforethought. Republicans and Democrats in Congress issued sharply worded statements about getting pre-empted by Turtle Bay, although the vast international machinery that has been set in motion won’t be deflected by a few sharp words from people under the misapprehension that they occupy a coequal branch of the American government. What are congressional hearings and the U.S. domestic political debate compared with the “international community”? Shortly after the U.N. vote, President Obama urged Congress to get with the program: “There is broad international consensus around this issue,” he said, adding that his “assumption is that Congress will pay attention to that broad-based consensus.” In other words, follow the lead of the United Nations on a matter of utmost importance to the national interest of the United States. Secretary of State John Kerry issued his own warning over the weekend about the dangers of going our own way: “If Congress says ‘no’ to this deal, then there will be no restraints on Iran. There will be no sanctions left. Our friends in this effort will desert us.” And who’s responsible for that? The Obama administration cut a deal eviscerating the international sanctions regime and got it blessed by the U.N., then turns around and tells Congress it has no alternative but to assent because there will be no meaningful sanctions regime left regardless. The agreement is written to favor business with Iran. It grandfathers in all commercial deals cut after the initial lifting of the sanctions, even in the unlikely event they are reimposed. Plus, Iran isn’t going to give back its windfall of tens of billions of dollars handed to it under the agreement. Kerry over the weekend seemed offended by the notion that Congress should get to vote before everyone else locks the Iran agreement into place: “It is presumptuous of some people to say that France, Russia, China, Germany, Britain ought to do what the Congress tells them to do.” This is admirably internationalist, but Kerry is supposed to be the secretary of state of the United States, not a representative of the interests and prerogatives of its allies and adversaries. The New York Times reports that during the negotiations, Kerry actually pushed to delay a U.N. vote until Congress reviewed the deal. How sporting of him. It must have been vestigial loyalty to the Congress he served in for several decades. Predictably, the Iranians balked (they’re not fools), and so did the Russians and the Europeans. Equally predictably, Kerry resorted to his solution to most every knotty negotiating problem — he caved. Amazingly enough, the agreement with Iran doesn’t mention the U.S. Congress or its review of the deal, but specifically cites the Iranian Parliament and its role in approving the so-called additional protocol of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. At least someone is willing to stick up for Iran’s (wholly fraudulent) legislative branch. It is President Obama’s curse that he doesn’t have a legislature as compliant as that of Iran’s supreme leader. The president clearly disdains Congress as a body that harbors several hundred Republicans and that can only complicate his grand legacy-defining initiatives. He didn’t want Congress to have a say at all over the Iran deal, but accepted the Corker bill that requires a near-impossible two-thirds vote to block it. The administration’s message to opponents is that even that supermajority would be too little, too late. Submission is the only option.2NC – AT: PC Fails – Agenda PC theory is true – best scholarshipMatthew N. Beckmann and Vimal Kumar, Profs Department of Political Science, @ University of California Irvine, 2011, "How Presidents Push, When Presidents Win" Journal of Theoretical Politics 2011 23: 3 SAGEBefore developing presidents’ lobbying options for building winning coalitions on Capitol Hill, it is instructive to consider cases where the president has no political capital and no viable lobbying options. In such circumstances of imposed passivity (beyond offering a proposal), a president’s fate is clear: his proposals are subject to pivotal voters’ preferences. So if a president lacking political capital proposes to change some far-off status quo, that is, one on the opposite side of the median or otherwise pivotal voter, a (Condorcet) winner always exists, and it coincides with the pivot’s predisposition (Brady and Volden, 1998; Krehbiel, 1998) (see also Black (1948) and Downs (1957)). Considering that there tends to be substantial ideological distance between presidents and pivotal voters, positive presidential in?uence without lobbying, then, is not much in?uence at all. As with all lobbyists, presidents looking to push legislation must do so indirectly by pushing the lawmakers whom they need to pass it. Or, as Richard Nesustadt artfully explained: The essence of a President’s persuasive task, with congressmen and everybody else, is to induce them to believe that what he wants of them is what their own appraisal of their own responsibilities requires them to do in their interest, not his…Persuasion deals in the coin of self-interest with men who have some freedom to reject what they ?nd counterfeit. (Neustadt, 1990: 40) Fortunately for contemporary presidents, today’s White House affords its occupants an unrivaled supply of persuasive carrots and sticks. Beyond the of?ce’s unique visibility and prestige, among both citizens and their representatives in Congress, presidents may also sway lawmakers by using their discretion in budgeting and/or rulemaking, unique fundraising and campaigning capacity, control over executive and judicial nominations, veto power, or numerous other options under the chief executive’s control. Plainly, when it comes to the arm-twisting, brow-beating, and horse-trading that so often characterizes legislative battles, modern presidents are uniquely well equipped for the ?ght. In the following we employ the omnibus concept of ‘presidential political capital’ to capture this conception of presidents’ positive power as persuasive bargaining. Speci?- cally, we de?ne presidents’ political capital as the class of tactics White House of?cials employ to induce changes in lawmakers’ behavior. Importantly, this conception of presidents’ positive power as persuasive bargaining not only meshes with previous scholarship on lobbying (see, e.g., Austen-Smith and Wright (1994), Groseclose and Snyder (1996), Krehbiel (1998: ch. 7), and Snyder (1991)), but also presidential practice. For example, Goodwin recounts how President Lyndon Johnson routinely allocated ‘rewards’ to ‘cooperative’ members: The rewards themselves (and the withholding of rewards) . . . might be something as unobtrusive as receiving an invitation to join the President in a walk around the White House grounds, knowing that pictures of the event would be sent to hometown newspapers . . . [or something as pointed as] public works projects, military bases, educational research grants, poverty projects, appointments of local men to national commissions, the granting of pardons, and more. (Goodwin, 1991: 237) Of course, presidential political capital is a scarce commodity with a ?oating value. Even a favorably situated president enjoys only a ?nite supply of political capital; he can only promise or pressure so much. What is more, this capital ebbs and ?ows as realities and/or perceptions change. So, similarly to Edwards (1989), we believe presidents’ bargaining resources cannot fundamentally alter legislators’ predispositions, but rather operate ‘at the margins’ of US lawmaking, however important those margins may be (see also Bond and Fleisher (1990), Peterson (1990), Kingdon (1989), Jones (1994), and Rudalevige (2002)). Indeed, our aim is to explicate those margins and show how presidents may systematically in?uence them.PC works – persuasion and ability to bargain are keyJonathan Bernstein, Assistant Professor of Political Science at UTSA, 1-28-2013, “On immigration, Obama should opt for a persuasive vagueness,” political scientist Richard Neustadt said that the power of the presidency really just meant the power to persuade. But by that he didn’t really mean winning debate-style arguments. Yes, that can happen, but usually presidents persuade by bargaining — by capitalizing on all the things presidents can do to convince others that they should do what the president wants them to do. In this instance, if Klein is correct — and I’m pretty sure he is — the way for Obama to “persuade” is to be as vague about the new bipartisan Senate proposal as he can, at least in public. At the same time, the White House may need to push for specific provisions behind the scenes. And the dance is probably more complicated than that, because it’s not just presidents who polarize, after all. A full-throated embrace of the bipartisan deal by the “usual suspect” liberal groups could easy scare off Republican support; on the other hand, if they oppose the deal, it could make it hard for mainstream liberals to support it. Assuming that the administration both wants the bipartisan package to be the basis for a bill that passes — but that the president also has preferences on details that are up for grabs — he may have strong preferences on how liberal groups react. And yet the president cannot force them to do what he wants; he can only, yes, persuade them. In doing so, he may call upon whatever trust they have in their past history together, or he may be bargaining with them. After all, each group involved has other things they want from the Obama Administration. All of which is only to say that the correct steps for the president are usually difficult to find. The president needs the cooperation of all sorts of people (not just Members of Congress) who don’t have to do what he wants; then again, no one else in the American political system has more potential ways to influence (“persuade”) others. And from the outside, not only is it sometimes hard to know what the president should be doing to persuade — but it’s not even always obvious who needs persuading (Members of Congress? Which ones? Interest groups? Again, which ones? Parts of the bureaucracy?). PC is key – enables the president to switch votes at the finish lineMatthew Beckmann, Associate Professor of Political Science at UC Irvine, and Vimal Kumar, Associate Professor of Economics at the Indian Institute of Technology, January 2011, “How Presidents Push, When Presidents Win: A Model of Positive Presidential Power in US Lawmaking” published in the Journal of Theoretical PoliticsAgreeing that presidents’ strategic options in Congress do indeed depend heavily on factors beyond their control, our model’s ?rst insight is explicating the two systematic strategies presidents have available for exerting in?uence in Congress: they can target marginal voters to shift the preference distribution on roll-call votes and they can target congressional leaders to censor the policy alternatives making it that far. While the ?rst of these is widely recognized and studied, the second is not. By detailing the actual mechanisms of president-led coalition building on Capitol Hill, ours is a theory that puts positive presidential power on a ?rmer conceptual footing; legislative opportunities are predictable (if not controllable) and capitalizing on them depends on nothing more heroic than the normal grist of legislative politics: arm-twisting, brow-beating, and horse-trading. In this way, we subscribe to President Eisenhower’s observation: ‘I’ll tell you what leadership is: it’s persuasion, and conciliation, and education, and patience. It’s long, slow, tough work’ (Hughes, 1963: 124).2NC – AT: PC Fails – Dem UnityPC is key to the agenda – creates party unity and bipartisan consensusKevin Drum, writer at Mother Jones, 3-12-2012, “Presidents and the Bully Pulpit”, also think that Ezra doesn't really grapple with the strongest arguments on the other side. For one thing, although there are examples of presidential offensives that failed (George Bush on Social Security privatization), there are also example of presidential offensives that succeeded (George Bush on going to war with Iraq). The same is true for broader themes. For example, Edwards found that "surveys of public opinion have found that support for regulatory programs and spending on health care, welfare, urban problems, education, environmental protection and aid to minorities increased rather than decreased during Reagan’s tenure." OK. But what about the notion that tax cuts are good for the economy? The public may have already been primed to believe this by the tax revolts of the late '70s, but I'll bet Reagan did a lot to cement public opinion on the subject. And the Republican tax jihad has been one of the most influential political movements of the past three decades. More generally, I think it's a mistake to focus narrowly on presidential speeches about specific pieces of legislation. Maybe those really don't do any good. But presidents do have the ability to rally their own troops, and that matters. That's largely what Obama has done in the contraception debate. Presidents also have the ability to set agendas. Nobody was talking about invading Iraq until George Bush revved up his marketing campaign in 2002, and after that it suddenly seemed like the most natural thing in the world to a lot of people. Beyond that, it's too cramped to think of the bully pulpit as just the president, just giving a few speeches. It's more than that. It's a president mobilizing his party and his supporters and doing it over the course of years. That's harder to measure, and I can't prove that presidents have as much influence there as I think they do. But I confess that I think they do. Truman made containment national policy for 40 years, JFK made the moon program a bipartisan national aspiration, Nixon made working-class resentment the driving spirit of the Republican Party, Reagan channeled the rising tide of the Christian right and turned that resentment into the modern-day culture wars, and George Bush forged a bipartisan consensus that the threat of terrorism justifies nearly any defense. It's true that in all of these cases presidents were working with public opinion, not against it, but I think it's also true that different presidents might have shaped different consensuses.Obama is key to Dem unity – key to the agendaDavid Lauter, writer at the LA Times, 2-12-2013, “State of the Union: The not so bully pulpit” a president can do is rally his supporters to follow him by making an issue more prominent. Sometimes, he can also bring along those on the fence. The same poll showed evidence of how that can work. When asked if they supported a ban on assault weapons, 45% of those surveyed said yes. When asked the same question but with Obama’s name attached to the proposal, support rose to 54%. That’s because a significant number of Democrats and independents don’t have a strongly held view on the ban and were willing to support it once they knew Obama was a supporter. Republican views didn’t shift because most Republicans already had strongly negative views about weapons bans. That polarization means that with a divided government, in which no legislation passes without at least some support in each party, Obama can get his priorities through Congress in one of two ways. He can “lead from behind,” cheering on legislative action on a proposal but being careful not to identify it too prominently as his. Or he can lay out his own plan, rally his supporters, and see if pressure from the public can force Republicans to bend.2NC – AT: PC Fails – AT: Can’t Use It – Yes Obama PushObama is personally lobbying – that’s key to passageJulian Hattem, staff writer at the Hill, 7-27-2015, “Dem poll finds broad support for Iran deal,” poll was commissioned by Americans United for Change, a liberal organization. It comes in the beginning stages of a heated lobbying blitz on Capitol Hill, where Democrats will be split between their allegiances to the White House and skepticism from critics of the deal, such as Israel. In September, Congress will vote to block the deal, and Democrats will need to serve as a buffer against Republican opposition, which appears united. The White House has launched an aggressive campaign to sway on-the-fence Democrats, which has included personal outreach from President Obama on down. 2NC – AT: PC Fails – AT: Can’t Use ItEmpirical research proves the president’s personality is irrelevantMatthew Beckmann, Associate Professor of Political Science at UC Irvine, 2010, Pushing the Agenda: Presidential Leadership in US Lawmaking, 1953-2004, ?nal empirical point deserving mention has been re?ected throughout this chapter: studying presidents’ positive role in lawmaking does not require accounting for each president’s personal experience or idiosyncratic traits. The reason is that presidents’ strategic opportunities are constrained, their tactical resources limited (see Edwards 1989; Jones 1994); therefore, as self-interested strategic actors confronting a constrained-optimization problem, “most presidents [will] behave similarly in similar contexts” (Hager and Sullivan 1994,1081). This is especially true as all modern presidents have ?lled their lobbying shop with Washington’s most experienced, successful operatives (Collier 1997). Accordingly, even “outsider” presidents enjoy ample access to “insider” know-how and can act accordingly.Obama’s first term says you’re wrongSteve Benen, writer at Maddowblog, 4-22-2013, “Blame where blame isn’t due” hates selling. He thinks people should just accept the right thing to do. Right, which is why Obama failed to pass the Recovery Act, health care reform, Wall Street reform, DADT repeal, student loan reform, New START ratification, credit card reforms, and food-safety reforms. Oh wait, Obama actually passed all of those things, suggesting the president's "hatred" of "selling" isn't really the problem.Second term proves Obama is willing to use PCAnita Kumar, political analyst, 5-24-2013, “After failure on gun legislation, Obama learning limits of his power,” McClatchy, unveiled his sweeping package of executive actions and proposed legislation in January. He immediately began trying to sell it. By the standards of a campaign, he did everything right. Obama and Biden gave more than 30 speeches, interviews and online chats, oftentimes with families of gun victims at their side. First lady Michelle Obama made a rare foray into the debate by delivering an emotional speech in her hometown of Chicago. Obama’s political organization, Organizing for Action, held dozens of events, including candlelight vigils, rallies and meetings across the nation pushing the legislation. Obama flew Newtown families to Washington to lobby senators and turned over his radio address for the first time to the parents of a slain child. He did not win support for a proposal to renew a ban on assault weapons or to limit ammunition in clips. But support for greater background checks for gun purchases topped 90 percent in the polls. If it were an election with voters choosing whether to pass background checks, Obama would have won a landslide. But it was not an either-or choice. Congress could choose to do nothing. In March and April, Obama and Biden spoke to nearly 30 senators in 45 meetings or phone calls, according to the White House. The president stressed gun control proposals at a pair of dinners with Republican senators. In the final days before the vote, Obama’s chief of staff, Denis McDonough, visited an undecided Democratic senator, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, but failed to convince her to vote for the background check legislation.2NC – AT: PC Fails - AT: HirshHirsh concedes it’s realMichael Hirsh, chief correspondent for National Journal, 2-7-2013, “There’s No Such Thing as Political Capital,” National Journal, point is not that “political capital” is a meaningless term. Often it is a synonym for “mandate” or “momentum” in the aftermath of a decisive election—and just about every politician ever elected has tried to claim more of a mandate than he actually has. Certainly, Obama can say that because he was elected and Romney wasn’t, he has a better claim on the country’s mood and direction. Many pundits still defend political capital as a useful metaphor at least. “It’s an unquantifiable but meaningful concept,” says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. “You can’t really look at a president and say he’s got 37 ounces of political capital. But the fact is, it’s a concept that matters, if you have popularity and some momentum on your side.”2NC – AT: Winners WinWinners lose – true for ObamaTodd Eberly, Coordinator of Public Policy Studies and Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at St. Mary’s College of Maryland, 1-21-2013, “The Presidential Power Trap” Obama's election in 2008 seemed to signal a change. Mr. Obama's popular vote majority was the largest for any president since 1988, and he was the first Democrat to clear the 50 percent mark since Lyndon Johnson. The president initially enjoyed strong public approval and, with a Democratic Congress, was able to produce an impressive string of legislative accomplishments during his first year and early into his second, capped by enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. But with each legislative battle and success, his political capital waned. His impressive successes with Congress in 2009 and 2010 were accompanied by a shift in the public mood against him, evident in the rise of the tea party movement, the collapse in his approval rating, and the large GOP gains in the 2010 elections, which brought a return to divided government.Our link outweighs the turn – takes too long to rebuild PCWilliam David Anderson, PhD Candidate in Political Science at Ohio State University, 2005, “The President’s Agenda: Position-Taking, Legislative Support, and the Persistence of Time,” policy congruence and taking advantage of policy windows, presidents build their personal skills while solidifying in their own minds the risks they are willing to accept as they take positions on bills and lobby before Congress. Like members of the House (Fenno 1978), presidents move through expansionist and protectionist periods during their administrations, with expansionist periods more likely to immediately follow the election when political capital is high and legislative deference more common. The president’s coalition is larger, and he has more latitude to even further expand that coalition—a tactic that may serve him well during the next electoral cycle. Presidential capital, however, erodes over time: a president’s mistakes during the term erode political capital more than victories replenish it, and activist presidents expose themselves to greater “capital risk” than reticent executives. Thus, the president’s accumulated legislative record from earlier in the term may harm his legislative and electoral chances later in the term (Light 1999). The early months of the first Clinton term illustrate how difficult it is to seize on the momentum elections provide. Clinton’s struggles with health care reform and his missteps with peripheral issues—that eventually harmed agenda items more germane to his presidential platform—suggest how important early presidential momentum is in shaping subsequent relations between Congress and the president.Fights bleed momentumJohn Harris and Carol Lee, Staff writers for Politico, 1-20-2010, Obama’s first year, Politico, believed that early success would be self-reinforcing, building a powerful momentum for bold government action. This belief was the essence of the White House’s theory of the “big bang” — that success in passing a big stimulus package would lead to success in passing health care, which in turn would clear the way for major cap-and-trade environmental legislation and “re-regulation” of the financial services sector — all in the first year. This proved to be a radical misreading of the dynamics of power. The massive cost of the stimulus package and industry bailouts — combined with the inconvenient fact that unemployment went up after their passage — meant that Obama spent the year bleeding momentum rather than steadily increasing public confidence in his larger governing vision. That vision was further obscured for many Americans by the smoke from the bitter and seemingly endless legislative battle on Capitol Hill over health care. Not true for a second term presidentAndrew Hammond, former US Editor at Oxford Analytics and a special advisor in the UK government, 2-27-2013, “Foreign policy key to Obama legacy” fact that Mr Obama's second term, from the vantage point of domestic policy, may not be a productive one is not unusual for re-elected incumbents. During their first period in the White House, presidents usually succeed in enacting several core priorities (as Mr Obama did with healthcare and his economic stimulus package). To be sure, Mr Obama will achieve some further domestic policy success over the next four years, including the possibility of agreement with Congress on immigration reform. However, many re-elected presidents in the postwar era have found it difficult to acquire momentum behind an array of significant new legislative measures, and Mr Obama will probably be no different.Impacts – Internals 1NC Deal Good – Iran ProlifDiplomacy solves Iran prolif Colin H. Kahl, Associate Professor in the Security Studies Program in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, 1-7-2014, “Still Not Time to Attack Iran,” my article “Not Time to Attack Iran” (March/April 2012), I made the case for pursuing a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear challenge, arguing that, because of the risks and costs associated with military action, “force is, and should remain, a last resort, not a first choice.” Key developments in 2013 -- namely, the election of Hassan Rouhani, a moderate, as Iran’s new president and the signing of an interim nuclear deal by Iran and the United States and its negotiating partners -- reinforce this conclusion. Whatever hawks such as Reuel Marc Gerecht or Matthew Kroenig might argue, it is still not time to attack Iran. Indeed, the prospects for reaching a comprehensive agreement to resolve the nuclear impasse peacefully, while far from guaranteed, have never been brighter. After decades of isolation, the Iranian regime may finally be willing to place meaningful limits on its nuclear program in exchange for relief from punishing economic sanctions. In Iran’s June 2013 presidential election, Rouhani handily defeated a slate of conservative opponents, including the hard-line nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, who had campaigned on continuing Iran’s strategy of “nuclear resistance.” Rouhani, in contrast, pledged to reach a nuclear accommodation with the West and free Iran from the economic burden imposed by sanctions. Rouhani, also a former nuclear negotiator, believes he has the support of the Iranian people and a green light from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to reach a comprehensive nuclear accord with the United States and the other members of the P5+1 (Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia). The first step on the road to a comprehensive deal came in November 2013 with an interim agreement in Geneva, in which Tehran agreed to freeze and modestly roll back its nuclear program in exchange for a pause in new international sanctions and a suspension of some existing penalties. The deal represents the most meaningful move toward a denuclearized Iran in more than a decade. It neutralizes Iran’s stockpile of 20 percent uranium and therefore modestly lengthens Iran’s “breakout” timeline -- the time required to enrich uranium to weapons grade -- by one or two months. A new inspections regime also means any breakout attempt would be detected soon enough for the international community to react, and expanded International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will make it more difficult for Iran to divert critical technology and materials to new secret sites. The terms also preclude the new plutonium reactor at Arak from becoming operational, halting the risk that Iran could soon use plutonium to build a bomb.1NC Deal Good – Israel StrikesFailure of the Iran deal makes Israeli strikes inevitable – expert consensus – it also bolsters Iran prolifJeffrey Goldberg, writer at Bloomberg, 1-14-2014, “An Iran Hawk's Case Against New Iran Sanctions,” , at least in the short term, negotiations remain the best way to stop Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold. And U.S. President Barack Obama cannot be hamstrung in discussions by a group of senators who will pay no price for causing the collapse of negotiations between Iran and the P5 + 1, the five permanent members of the security council, plus Germany. “You have a large group of senators who are completely discounting the views of the administration, the actual negotiators, the rest of the P5 + 1, the intelligence community and almost every Iran analyst on earth,” said Colin Kahl, who, as a deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East during Obama’s first term, was responsible for preparing all of the options that the President says are still on the table. If these negotiations were to collapse -- and collapsing the negotiations is the goal of some of the most hawkish hawks -- the most plausible alternative left to stop Iran would be a preventative military strike, either by the U.S. or by Israel (Arab states, which are agitating for an American strike, wouldn’t dare take on the risk of attacking Iran themselves). Such a strike might end in disaster. While it could set back (though not destroy) Iran’s nuclear program, it could also lead to the complete collapse of whatever sanctions remained in place. In addition, it could unify the Iranian people behind their country’s unelected leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei -- a particularly perverse outcome. And in some ways, an attack would justify Iran’s paranoia and pursuit of nuclear weapons: After all, the regime could somewhat plausibly argue, post-attack, that it needs to defend itself against further aggression. A military campaign should be considered only when everything else has failed, and Iran is at the very cusp of gaining a deliverable nuclear weapon.2NC Deal Good – AT: Deal Fails – NewestThe deal will successfully prevent Iran from building nukes James Acton, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 7-16-2015, “Iran Ain’t Gonna Sneak Out Under This Deal, , where verification is concerned, the details do matter, and we really should be debating the finer points of the Iran deal’s verification provisions. (See: Annex I, Sections L, M, N, O, P, Q, and R — yes, it’s that detailed.) In assessing whether these arrangements are “good enough,” the best place to start is with the following question: If Iran decided to cheat, how would it go about doing so? Iran’s leadership would have three options, and in deciding between them, it would presumably choose the pathway that maximized its chances of success. First, Iran could overtly renounce all its nonproliferation commitments, chuck out international inspectors, and build the bomb loudly and proudly. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty contains a clause that allows states to withdraw under “extraordinary” circumstances, and even though the JCPOA doesn’t have any such provision, there can be no certainty that Iran won’t abrogate it anyway. No verification system can prevent this scenario, but what almost certainly can deter it is the threat of American weaponry hitting Iran before Ayatollah Ali Khamenei can say, “Death to.” The second, more likely scenario would be for Iran to use its declared nuclear materials and facilities for bomb-building: the much-discussed “breakout scenario.” Many of the Iran deal’s limits are intended to make breakout much more time-consuming than it would currently be — and that’s a good thing. Ultimately, however, breakout still isn’t all that likely. Declared facilities are subject to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring. As a result, Iran understands it would almost certainly be caught quickly if it attempted breakout. Iran’s third option would be to build a secret parallel nuclear program dedicated to military purposes — sneak-out. Detecting small clandestine enrichment plants is difficult, and Tehran might view sneak-out as its most attractive option. Indeed, Iran has tried to sneak out before. Repeatedly. It failed to declare three out of the four facilities in which it has enriched uranium (the Kalaye Electric Company, the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant near Qom, and the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz) in accordance with IAEA rules. “Anytime, anywhere” access is often advocated as the solution to detecting secret facilities — in fact, U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, an MIT physicist and one of the U.S. negotiators, said back in April that the United States expected it. The Iran deal doesn’t provide for it, however, as critics, including Sen. Tom Cotton, have noted (rather gleefully, at that). So, what access provisions does the deal contain? It does allow the IAEA to go anywhere — including military sites — if there is evidence of undeclared facilities hosting nuclear activities. But, if Iran declined to grant access, a complicated dispute-resolution negotiation process would ensue under which Iran would have to negotiate first with the IAEA and then with the Joint Commission created to oversee implementation of the deal. This process could take up to 24 days. (On day 25, if Iran still refused access, it would be in noncompliance with the agreement, and sanctions could be reintroduced.) Fortunately for the JCPOA, the refrain of an “anytime, anywhere” access may make for a great sound bite, but its utility is overstated by Cotton and other critics of the agreement. An access delay — even one of 24 days — wouldn’t make any material difference to the IAEA’s ability to detect undeclared nuclear activities. When IAEA inspectors search for undeclared nuclear activities, they look for tiny traces of nuclear material on surfaces. Fortunately for them, nuclear material lingers. And, modern detection technology is so amazingly effective that minuscule traces of nuclear material can be detected years after nuclear activities took place. Countries have tried to sanitize facilities completely to remove every last trace of nuclear material. Iran did so at the Kalaye Electric Company after its secret nuclear program was revealed in 2002. Syria tried the same thing in 2007 after Israel bombed its plutonium-production reactor at al-Kibar. In both cases, the IAEA still managed to detect nuclear material. Those findings were critical to persuading the organization’s governing body to make a formal finding of noncompliance against both Iran and Syria. Perhaps Iran has learned from its past mistakes and could do a better job of cleaning up nuclear material in the future and keeping its program secret. But, what’s clear is that perfect cleanup — if it were possible — would take many months. After just 24 days, the IAEA would have little difficulty detecting the residue from undeclared nuclear activities. So, here’s the bottom line: The Iran deal doesn’t provide for anytime, anywhere access, but it does facilitate timely access anywhere — and that’s what needed for effective verification.Inspections are robust – the deal prevents virtually all chances of Iran prolifMax Fisher, Foreign Editor at Vox, 7-16-2015, “This is an astoundingly good Iran deal,” "I would give it an A," Stein said, in April, of the framework. When I asked why: "Because of the inspections and transparency." There are two reasons inspections are so important. The first is that super-stringent inspections are a deterrent: If the Iranians know that any deviation is going to be quickly caught, they have much less incentive to try to cheat, and much more incentive to uphold their side of the deal. The second is that if Iran were to try a build a nuclear weapon now, it likely wouldn't use the material that's already known to the world and being monitored. Rather, the Iranians would secretly manufacture some off-the-books centrifuges, secretly mine some off-the-books uranium, and squirrel it all away to a new, secret underground facility somewhere. That would be the only way for Iran to build up enough of an arsenal such that by the time the world found out, it would be too late to do anything about it. Really robust inspections would be the best way stop that from happening. They would prevent Iran from sneaking off centrifuges or siphoning away uranium that could be used to build an off-the-grid nuclear weapons program, without the world finding out. Under this deal, the inspections are so strong, Stein said, that if Iran tried to cheat on the deal, "the likelihood of getting caught is near 100 percent."Experts agree – the deal prevents Iran prolif for decades – arms control experts agreeMax Fisher, Foreign Editor at Vox, 7-16-2015, “This is an astoundingly good Iran deal,” full, final Iran nuclear deal "exceeds in all areas," Stein said on Tuesday. "It makes the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear weapon in the next 25 years extremely remote." Like many observers, I doubted in recent months that Iran and world powers would ever reach this stage; the setbacks and delays had simply been too many. Now here we are, and the terms are astoundingly favorable to the United States. Arms control and nuclear nonproliferation experts are heralding it as a huge success. The deal requires Iran to surrender some crucial components of its nuclear program, in part or even in whole. Here are the highlights: Iran will give up about 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges. Iran will give up all but its most rudimentary, outdated centrifuges: Its first-generation IR-1s, knockoffs of 1970s European models, are all it gets to keep. It will not be allowed to build or develop newer models. Iran will give up 97 percent of its enriched uranium; it will hold on to only 300 kilograms of its 10,000-kilogram stockpile in its current form. Iran will destroy or export the core of its plutonium plant at Arak, and replace it with a new core that cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. It will ship out all spent nuclear fuel. Iran would simply not have much of its nuclear program left after all this.Deal Good – AT: Deal Fails – AT: BreakoutNo Iran breakout – timeframe is too long, global economic and military pressure check, the deal solvesPaul R. Pillar, Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University, Nonresident Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, and editor at the National Interest, 7-15-2014, “Breakout, Shmeakout: The Wrong Way to Assess a Nuclear Deal with Iran,” failure to understand this infects discussion of the nuclear negotiations with Iran, and may have infected the U.S. negotiating position. There is a preoccupation with “breakout”—a scenario in which an Iran supposedly determined to violate an agreement suddenly races to build a nuclear weapon—and with stripping away Iranian capabilities in order to lengthen the time required under such a scenario for Iran to produce enough fissile material for a weapon. The fixation with breakout, with the repeated references to it as a supposed reason to be wary of any agreement with Iran, is misplaced for several reasons. One is that any conceivable agreement would entail a longer breakout time than without an agreement. That time already has been lengthened by the preliminary agreement reached last year, under which Iran has eliminated its stock of medium-enriched uranium and stopped making any more of it, as well as capping its supply of low-enriched uranium. In any event, breakout time is immaterial when, under the extensive and unprecedented monitoring arrangements that will be a central feature of the agreement and a major reason for concluding it, any Iranian cheating in its use of permitted nuclear facilities would immediately be detected. As Greg Thielmann and Robert Wright have noted, whether breakout time is two months or six months or something else makes no difference when any U.S. or other foreign response to cheating, including a possible military response, could be mounted within a couple of weeks. If there were any prospect of Iran using clandestine, undeclared facilities to build a bomb—which is the way all past proliferators have made their bombs—this would be at least as much of a possibility without an agreement, and without the expanded inspections that go with it, than with an agreement. The most fundamental reason the narrow focus on breakout is misplaced is that it disregards Iranian intentions and motivations. A successful agreement will be one that codifies a shared interest in an Iran whose nuclear program stays entirely peaceful and is a normal member of the community of nations, not subject to the debilitating economic sanctions that the United States has maintained at significant political and economic cost to itself. A successful agreement also will be one that each side, including Iran, will have strong motivation to maintain because it is clearly more in its interests than a breakdown of the agreement would be. Largely missing from discussion of Iran breaking out of such an agreement is attention to whether Iran would have the incentive to do so. It would not. Doing so would subject Iran to far more disadvantageous conditions than it would have under an accord, without gaining any strategic advantage. A single nuclear device, or even a few, would serve no purpose for Iran when even the mere attempt to flaunt such a device for influence would imply willingness to escalate an issue to the nuclear level, and escalation would face the reality of vastly superior nuclear weapons arsenals owned by the countries Iran would most likely confront. Cheating, or disavowing the agreement, would immediately—even before completing a single nuclear weapon—throw Iran back into the worst costs and consequences of being an international pariah, from which it has been working so hard to free itself. The U.S. Congress undoubtedly would enact, as fast as clerks could call the roll, anti-Iranian sanctions more severe than ever before. A military attack on Iran also would suddenly become much more likely than before. Those in the United States and Israel who have argued for an attack on grounds that negotiating with duplicitous Iranians is a mistake would now start winning the argument—and the Iranians are smart enough to realize that. In short, breakout is a scary fantasy, but no more than that. It is a badly flawed standard for formulating a negotiating position or for evaluating a deal with Iran.No deal means no monitoring – makes breakout more likelyGreg Thielmann, Senior Fellow at the Arms Control Association, and Robert Wright, writer at Slate, 6-18-2014, “The Trouble With ‘Breakout Capacity’,” if there is no deal, and hence no prospect of further sanctions relief, Iran could be expected to return to the weaker monitoring regime that preceded the interim deal or to abandon that regime entirely. Then there might be no way of knowing if or when breakout had started. And, over time, as the Iranian nuclear program evolved in darkness, there would be less and less certainty about the best way to disrupt a dash for the bomb in the event that such a dash became apparent.Deal Good – AT: Deal Fails – AT: CentrifugesImplementation will address centrifuges – Iran has already ceased operationShemuel Meir, Former IDF analyst in the Strategic Planning Department and associate researcher at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, 12-22-2013, “An important year for Iran nuclear talks: What Israel got wrong”, Geneva Agreement completely removes the quick-and-dangerous route to 20-percent uranium enrichment in the underground fortified facility in Fordo (“the immunity area” in Ehud Barak’s preventive strike scenario) and enshrines the “zero enrichment” to 20 percent in the permanent agreement. This constitutes not only a “freezing” but also a rolling back of a central element with military potential. All the existing stock of 20-percent enriched uranium will undergo a process of conversion into nuclear fuel which does not enable further enrichment. Already in the first agreement, Iran has undertaken not to operate three-quarters of its 2,700 centrifuges in Fordo. At the Saban Forum earlier this month President Obama hinted that it was possible that Fordo would not be allowed to remain as a centrifuge site. This means that the U.S. is striving to physically remove the centrifuges and to transform the site to other permitted and monitored activities. Regarding the main centrifuge site in Natanz (where uranium enrichments is up to 3.5 percent), it was agreed that at this stage Iran will be permitted to operate only half of the centrifuges at the site – (8,700 out of 18,000) and that there would be no deviation from the stock of uranium as it stands to date, i.e. 7,150 kilograms. From the paragraph in the agreement that speaks of “practical limits” regarding uranium enrichment in a future permanent agreement, we can conclude that the number of centrifuges will be decreased. The important point regarding Natanz – the 1,000 “second generation” fast centrifuges will not be connected and will not operate. These advanced fast centrifuges were a crucial element in the scenarios of “a quick breakout capability in 6 weeks” developed by think tanks and the Prime Minister’s Office.Verification solves Shemuel Meir, Former IDF analyst in the Strategic Planning Department and associate researcher at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, 12-22-2013, “An important year for Iran nuclear talks: What Israel got wrong”, his answer to General Yadlin, President Obama explained that theoretically, Iran could have “the breakout capability.” But in practical terms, the strict limitations on its low-level enrichment program and the intrusive IAEA monitoring provide a good guarantee that Iran would not have a “breakout capability.” According to the agreement, Iran will be placed under a “unique and unprecedented” verification and monitoring mechanism. Already in the first stage, IAEA monitors will be given access on a daily basis to the centrifuge sites, to the facilities for the production and storage of centrifuges (that until today were “off limits” to the IAEA). In this way, Iran undertakes already in the first stage some elements of the “Additional Protocol” (based on the lessons learned from Saddam Hussein’s clandestine program) which permits intrusive snap inspections at short notice, including at undeclared suspected sites which will prevent the possibility of secret stockpiling of fissile material for a bomb going unperceived by the inspectors. This will prevent the possibility of a clandestine route to nuclear weapons. It is worth remembering that to date, Iran is the most monitored country in the world – inspectors are permanently and continually in place in Iran, video cameras broadcast directly to the IAEA headquarters in Vienna. The US intelligence effort through satellites recall operations over Soviet territory during the Cold War. The satellite coverage is more than photography and includes the collection and interpretation of activities on the basis of samples of material released into the atmosphere. In addition, there is the NSA tracking of signals. In the nuclear context, tight monitoring is the best confidence-building measure. The second point explicitly emphasized by President Obama in his speech at the Saban Forum was that the North Korean model was not applicable to Iran and that there is no room for comparison between the two cases. President Obama emphasized the fact (based on intelligence material) that when the U.S. entered into negotiations with North Korea – the latter already had fissile material for nuclear weapons. North Korea had never been a full member of the NPT. It entered the treaty in an irregular and late manner, withdrew in 2003 and carried out its first nuclear explosion in 2006. The huge difference between Iran and North Korea can be found on the declarative level: North Korea according to its constitution is “a state armed with nuclear weapons” while Iran is an NPT country which, in the Geneva Agreement, has reaffirmed that it will not develop nuclear weapons. President Obama thus put an end to the North Korea spin. At Saban Forum, President Obama tried to signal (with admirable tact) to Israeli leaders that the prevalent concept according to which “there is nothing new in Iran” should be reexamined. That the importance of the political change in Iran should not be underestimated. President Rouhani’s sweeping electoral victory reflects a change of direction in Iran. An understanding of the global reality of the NPT regime (no to nuclear weapons, yes to civil nuclear programs) and the reality of the new Iran – these explain what happened in Geneva. The explanation is not to be found in an imagined US. naiveté. President Shimon Peres, who recently said in public that Iran is not an enemy state, seems to share President Obama’s assessment.Deal Good – AT: Deal Fails – AT: Inspection DelaysEven with delays, we can detect Iranian cheatingMichael R. Gordon, writer at the New York Times, 7-22-2015, “Verification Process in Iran Deal is Questioned by Some Experts,” Department officials assert that 24 days is not too long to wait for an inspection, because Iran would not be able to scrub away all signs of prohibited work. “If they actually tested any centrifuges or did uranium conversion or did actual production of uranium metals, these types of activities generate contamination,” said an Energy Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the negotiations. “That is a very difficult thing to clean up. It is like trying to get all the grease off your car and your car has 100,000 miles on it.”Deal Good – AT: Deal Fails – AT: Iran HardlinersIranian moderates and conservatives are on board for the dealFarzan Sabet, PhD Candidate in International History at the Graduate Institute, Geneva, member of the Woodrow Wilson Cener’s Nuclear Proliferation International History Project, and Aaron Stein, Associate Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, PhD Candidate at King’s College, London, and researcher specializing in proliferation in the Middle East at the Istanbul-based Center for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies, 5-29-2014, “Iran’s Delicate Nuclear Consensus,” is little doubt that Iran’s moderate camp is committed to the nuclear negotiations. The negotiations are a lynchpin of the centrist Rouhani’s agenda to ease tensions abroad and improve the economy at home. Key reformist figures, such as former president Mohammad Khatami and 2013 presidential candidate Mohammad Reza Aref, have also endorsed the current talks. The moderate camp has been a consistent advocate of a negotiated resolution to the nuclear issue. The conservative scene, while more complex, underscores the tenuous consensus to negotiate. At the apex of the conservative pyramid is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Despite serious reservations about negotiating with the United States, Khamenei has nonetheless called for “heroic flexibility” during the EU3+3 talks. Moreover, subsequent to the drafting of the November 2013 Joint Plan of Action (JPOA), he called the Iranian negotiating team “children of the revolution” and criticized those who sought to label Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and other members of the negotiating team as “collaborators” with the west. Ali Larijani, the influential traditional principalist speaker of the parliament, has also supported Iran’s negotiating team. While acknowledging that there are differences of opinion on this issue, Larijani has nonetheless emphasized that “on national interests there is a consensus” and that overall parliament “supports the negotiations.” The same can be said of traditional principalist senior foreign policy adviser to the supreme leader and 2013 presidential candidate Ali Akbar Velayati, who has criticized the previous nuclear negotiating team led by the hawkish Saeed Jalili. Velayati explained, “I did not accept the previous method of negotiations…the method which our negotiators pursue at present is a method which speaks to their experience in negotiations…we are assured of our work and our negotiators.” And what of the hawkish neo-principalists whose resistance could supposedly derail talks? The most hardline of these voices have, for the moment, been discredited. Jalili’s disastrously failed presidential campaign has shown the limits of their electoral clout. This political weakness extends to the hardline Ayatollah Mohammad-Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, his parliamentary faction the Persevering Front of the Islamic Revolution (PFIR), and their supporters, who have turned to vocal demonstrations and anti-negotiation billboards to express their demands. The failure of these tactics underscores the most hardline neo-principalists’ inability to affect change through the use of traditional levers of power at the moment. Moreover, Jalili, who had long resisted publically supporting negotiations, recently joined all of the other 2013 presidential election candidates in backing the talks, declaring: “The nuclear negotiation team must be allowed to advance their program in the framework of the principle of ‘heroic flexibility,’ and everyone must help them in the path of attaining the [nuclear] right of the nation.” Finally, the most relevant neo-principalists, especially in the senior leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), have given their grudging support for the negotiations. For example, IRGC commander Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari has recently said “Because of the sensitive period during which negotiations must advance, we must remain silent for the time being and hold back our tears so that we give excuses to no one.” He added, “It is very sensitive work and the actual goal is removing economic pressure on the people which is very important, so we must progress with care.” In fact, it appears that where the hawkish neo-principalist current in Tehran diverges from the other political currents is on the question of the “day after” a deal. The neo-principalists do not want the resolution of the nuclear issue to lead to a general rapprochement with the United States, increased foreign pressure over human rights, or a rapid influx of foreign firms, among other possible outcomes. The idea that Iranian political elites have closed ranks and are moving forward in negotiations from a common playbook has also been confirmed by the influential Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the head of the parliament’s important foreign policy and national security committee. While discussing the various “links” in the “chain” of Iranian foreign and security policymaking, Boroujerdi noted that the “last link” in this process “is the session formed before the supreme leader and in this session the framework of the negotiations has been finalized and the negotiating team negotiates within this framework.” Perhaps the clearest indication that seriously engaging in nuclear negotiations is not merely a priority of Rouhani is the fact that the groundwork for the success achieved thus far was laid several months prior to the 2013 presidential election in secret back-channel talks between the United States and Iran in Oman.Deal Good – AT: Deal Fails – AT: Secret FacilitiesSquo solves secret facilities – and the deal makes intel gathering and deterrence even more effectiveGraham Allison, Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School, 8-4-2015, “9 Reasons to Support the Iran Deal,” what about secret facilities? The brute fact about unknown facilities is that we cannot know what we don’t know. No agreement can provide 100-percent confidence that Iran will not cheat at a secret facility. Indeed, no one can have 100-percent confidence today that Iran has not already built a nuclear bomb at a secret facility. What has prevented the Iranians from doing this so far has been Tehran’s judgment that such an undertaking would be discovered and that the United States would act decisively to deny them success. The keys to sustaining effective deterrence are (1) rigorous efforts by the intelligence agencies of the United States and its allies, and (2) a credible military capability to act if Iran dashes toward a bomb. Since the agreement imposes the most intrusive verification and inspection regime ever negotiated, it will significantly add to the ability of intelligence officials to discover any prohibited activity and enhance the legitimacy of U.S. or other countries’ military actions to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons should it violate its commitments. Nonetheless, as experts and so-called experts debate a 24-day delay for direct inspections of suspicious activity, or insufficient answers about Iran’s earlier nuclear pursuits, no one should miss the larger truth: 99 percent of the work to assure that any Iranian cheating is discovered will be done by U.S. intelligence agencies and those of allies. That was true before the agreement and will remain so after—even though the new inspections regime will provide some helpful information and observations that would otherwise be unavailable.Deal Good – AT: Deal Fails – Mideast War MPXEven if the deal is flawed, keeping it alive prevents quick military escalationTerry Atlas, writer at Bloomberg, 10-23-2014, “Escalation Likely If Iran Talks Fail, U.S. Official Says,” alternatives to an international accord preventing Iran from producing nuclear weapons are “quite terrible,” the chief U.S. negotiator in talks with Iran said. Even so, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman said yesterday, the U.S. won’t accept “a bad deal or even a half-bad deal” to avoid failure. Sherman said in Washington that she can’t predict the outcome of the negotiations as they head toward a Nov. 24 deadline with six nations and Iran still jockeying over constraints on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear activities and the terms for lifting economic sanctions. U.S. lawmakers on key committees are preparing legislation to impose tougher economic sanctions on Iran if there’s no deal by that date, and Iran’s interim commitment to curtail uranium-enrichment would expire with the end of the negotiations. Barring an agreement to extend the talks for a second time, the stage would be set for events that could lead to military attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the U.S. or Israel. “There’s no question that, if everything goes away, escalation will be the name of the game on all sides, and none of that is good,” Sherman said at a conference on Iran held in Washington by Syracuse University’s Moynihan Institute of Global Affairs and the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. “It’s why I say the stakes are high.” Deal Good – AT: Deal FailsIran deal solves Iranian prolifThe Economist 11-30-2013 “Well begun, not nearly done” interim deal concluded on November 24th between six world powers and Iran is much better than its many critics allow. In return for six months of “limited, temporary…and reversible” relief from some international sanctions, Iran has said it will not just freeze its progress towards a possible nuclear bomb, but actually take a few steps back. This, too, is limited, temporary and reversible; nothing is being decommissioned, and six months is a short time. But if further negotiations can cement the gains in place, they would mark a turning point in efforts to stop nuclear proliferation—and perhaps in regional politics more broadly (see article). The agreement was brought about by a multilateral process in Geneva and secret parallel discussions between the Obama administration and Iran which began in August, when Iran’s new president, Hassan Rohani, took office. Both sets of negotiations were conducted in an atmosphere of constructive endeavour, a far cry from the sterile declarations and mutual suspicion of the past. A nuclear-weapons programme needs either uranium which has been highly enriched—something achieved by passing the stuff repeatedly through cascades of whirling centrifuges—or plutonium. At present the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reckons that Iran has almost 200kg of 20%-enriched uranium in a form that could easily be enriched up to the 90% or so needed for a bomb. Under the terms of the deal (see table on next page) Iran will get rid of this stock, either by putting it in a form that is hard to enrich further or by mixing it with unenriched uranium, thus diluting it to less than 5%. At the same time it will freeze its enrichment capabilities at their current capacity, undertake no further enrichment beyond the 5% level, and do nothing to increase the 7,200kg stockpile of low-enriched uranium that is currently in a form that can easily be further enriched. Mark Fitzpatrick of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a think-tank in London, believes that the effect of the deal is to double the “breakout time” it would take Iran to produce enough material for a few nuclear weapons. Before the deal this was estimated at perhaps six weeks, and was steadily shortening. The deal addresses the other possible route to the bomb by stopping most work on a reactor at Arak which was to have been ready for commissioning late next year. The Arak reactor is of a design particularly well suited to producing plutonium, and needs no enriched uranium in order to do so. Once the reactor is fuelled up, any attack on it would release a plume of radioactivity; this makes its commissioning something of a point of no return as far as military action against Iran is concerned. The deal also stops all work on facilities that might be used to extract plutonium from its spent fuel. These constraints are in large measure thanks to the French, whose objections to insufficient action on Arak prevented an agreement from being reached two weeks earlier. Iran has also said it will co-operate with a far more intrusive inspection regime; this makes the deal very different from the one reached with North Korea in 2005, which the Koreans then broke. Iran has promised to answer all the questions posed by the IAEA about what the agency refers to as the “possible military dimensions” of its nuclear programme. It will provide access to nuclear sites hitherto off-limits, possibly including the Parchin military base where Western intelligence agencies think it tested a detonation system for a bomb.Deal Good – Israel StrikesDiplomacy solves Israel strikes – no deal emboldens Iranian hardliners, which causes strikesEurasia Group, 2014, “Top Risks: 2014,” diplomacy fails, the world would face a greater threat of Israeli and/or US military strikes, though immediate military action would remain improbable. Iran’s breakout time—how long it would take for it to build a bomb—would stand at roughly two months. Under the ascendance of hardliners, Tehran would likely return to “pedal-to-the-metal” development of the nuclear program and adopt a belligerent foreign policy, increasing the likelihood of strikes. Should strikes not occur, Iran would be on a direct path toward becoming a nuclear-weapons-capable power, though one under severe sanctions and with a sclerotic economy. In response, Saudi Arabia would probably obtain nuclear weapons itself, and/or lead the world to believe it had them.Deal prevents Israel strikesEzra Klein, editor of Wonkblog and Joseph Cirincione, President of the Ploughshares Fund and a member of Secretary of State John Kerry’s International Security Advisory Board and the Council on Foreign Relations, 11-25-2013, “If You Don’t Like Negotiating with Iran, What You’re Really Saying Is You Want to Go to War,” : One argument that Jeffrey Goldberg makes is that another objective of this deal was stopping Israel from making any sudden moves. Now that there’s a deal in place, Israel can’t simply blow up the international community’s negotiations and launch an attack. Do you agree? JC: I think it’s almost impossible for Israel to launch a military strike on Iran right now. They're isolated. The prime minister is issuing some very tough statements but as far as I can see, he’s the only world leader issuing them. Even Saudi Arabia, which has serious qualms about the deal, is issuing positive statements at the start.Impacts – Terminal 1NC Iran Prolif Bad – NWIran prolif causes a laundry list of impacts – escalates to nuclear warMatthew Kroenig, Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, January/February 2012, “Time to Attack Iran” published in Foreign Affairs; accessed through EbscoSome states in the region are doubting U.S. resolve to stop the program and are shifting their allegiances to Tehran. Others have begun to discuss launching their own nuclear initiatives to counter a possible Iranian bomb. For those nations and the United States itself, the threat will only continue to grow as Tehran moves closer to its goal. A nuclear-armed Iran would immediately limit U.S. freedom of action in the Middle East. With atomic power behind it, Iran could threaten any U.S. political or military initiative in the Middle East with nuclear war, forcing Washington to think twice before acting in the region. Iran's regional rivals, such as Saudi Arabia, would likely decide to acquire their own nuclear arsenals, sparking an arms race. To constrain its geopolitical rivals, Iran could choose to spur proliferation by transferring nuclear technology to its allies--other countries and terrorist groups alike. Having the bomb would give Iran greater cover for conventional aggression and coercive diplomacy, and the battles between its terrorist proxies and Israel, for example, could escalate. And Iran and Israel lack nearly all the safeguards that helped the United States and the Soviet Union avoid a nuclear exchange during the Cold War--secure second-strike capabilities, clear lines of communication, long flight times for ballistic missiles from one country to the other, and experience managing nuclear arsenals. To be sure, a nuclear-armed Iran would not intentionally launch a suicidal nuclear war. But the volatile nuclear balance between Iran and Israel could easily spiral out of control as a crisis unfolds, resulting in a nuclear exchange between the two countries that could draw the United States in, as well.Iran Prolif Bad – Laundry ListsIran prolif leads to nuclear war with Israel, wildfire Mideast prolif and increases the risk of nuclear terrorConrad Black, Masters in History from McGill University and member of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada, 8-9-2012, “Israel Confronts Iran: Taking the Iranian Nuclear Threat Seriously” Obama administration has clearly agonized over what to do about Iran after the abject failure of its attempted “engagement” with that country. The parallel failure of the “reset” with Russia was highlighted at the same time as the full empowering of Israel by congressional approval of a bill prohibiting the sharing of anti-missile technology with the Russians, whom Obama, in the open-microphone exchange with then-Russian President Medvedev earlier this year, seemed to approve as rightful permanent holders of a nuclear first-strike capacity against the West. The administration’s reluctance to plunge into a new Near Eastern conflict is understandable, after 13 years, 7,000 lives, and $2 trillion expended for unclear results in Afghanistan and Iraq. But if Iran acquires nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them, Israel is in mortal danger, though it would reply to an attack with the nuclear obliteration of Iran. All neighbouring states, including Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, would alter course to reflect the Iranian nuclear capability. All would probably move to acquire the same nuclear-strike capacity; and the chances that terrorists will get their hands on nuclear weapons would be greatly enhanced.Iran Prolif Bad – NWIran prolif causes an arms race – draws in great powers and leads to nuclear warIan Johnston, writer at the Independent, 1-5-2014, “Is It 1914 All Over Again? We Are In Danger of Repeating the Mistakes That Started WWI, Says A Leading Historian,” never repeats itself, but it sure does rhyme, it has been said. Now an internationally respected historian is warning that today's world bears a number of striking similarities with the build-up to the First World War. The newly mechanised armies of the early 20th century produced unprecedented slaughter on the battlefields of the "war to end all wars" after a spark lit in the Balkans with the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Empire's Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Professor Margaret MacMillan, of the University of Cambridge, argues that the Middle East could be viewed as the modern-day equivalent of this turbulent region. A nuclear arms race that would be likely to start if Iran developed a bomb "would make for a very dangerous world indeed, which could lead to a recreation of the kind of tinderbox that exploded in the Balkans 100 years ago – only this time with mushroom clouds," she writes in an essay for the Brookings Institution, a leading US think-tank. "While history does not repeat itself precisely, the Middle East today bears a worrying resemblance to the Balkans then," she says. "A similar mix of toxic nationalisms threatens to draw in outside powers as the US, Turkey, Russia, and Iran look to protect their interests and clients."Iran prolif leads to nuclear war with IsraelColin H. Kahl, Associate Professor at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, Melissa G. Dalton, Visiting Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, and Matthew Irvine, research associate at the Center for a New American Security, 6-7-2012, “Red, Red Lines” the same time, a nuclear-armed Iran would be a much more dangerous adversary. Believing that its nuclear deterrent immunized it against retaliation, the Iranian regime would probably increase lethal support to proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas and commit more brazen acts of terrorism abroad. The already-tense Israeli-Iranian rivalry would become more crisis-prone, and these crises would entail some inherent risk of inadvertent nuclear war. Iran Prolif Bad – AT: Deterrence SolvesHigh risk of nuclear war in a world of Iran prolif – deterrence doesn’t checkHenry Kissinger, former Secretary of State and PhD in International Relations, 11-16-2012, “Iran must be President Obama’s immediate priority” Some have argued that even in the worst-case scenario, a nuclear Iran could be deterred. Yet this ignores the immensely costly, complex and tension-ridden realities of Cold War-era deterrence, the apocalyptic strain in the Iranian theocracy and the near-certainty that several regional powers will go nuclear if Iran does. Once nuclear balances are forged in conditions where tensions are no longer purely bilateral, as in the Cold War, and in still-developing countries whose technology to prevent accidents is rudimentary, the likelihood of some nuclear exchange will mount dramatically.Iran Prolif Bad – AT: Iran Is RationalIran isn’t a rational actor – religion, nationalism, Iran-Iraq conflict provesShmuel Bar, Director of Studies at the Institute of Policy and Strategy in Herzliya, Israel, Published in 2011, “Can Cold War Deterrence Apply to a Nuclear Iran?” factor which raises doubts about the validity of the rational-actor model in the case of Iran is the centrality of the ethos of martyrdom for the Iranian regime, which may well contribute to escalatory rhetoric and action through subversion and even conventional military action. Religion and nationalistic fervor have contributed in the past to a predilection by the Iranian regime for brinkmanship and for perseverance in conflicts despite rational considerations against such behavior. A case in point is the continuation of the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s with enormous costs in human lives and material due to Khomeini’s insistence that the elimination of Saddam Hussein was a religious duty and that the war could not end without achieving that goal. There are no grounds to believe that the possession of nuclear weapons will fundamentally change these patterns of behavior.Iran Prolif Turns Case – Econ Iran prolif causes oil price spikes – uncertainty and disruption of oil flows – tanks the global economy Charles S. Robb, Co-Leader of the National Security Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center, former US Senator from Virginia, and former co-chair of the Iraq Intelligence Commission, and Charles Wald, Board Member of the Bipartisan Policy Center, Retired General and Former Deputy Commander of U.S. European Command, October 2012, “The Price of Inaction: Analysis of Energy and Economic Effects of a Nuclear Iran” If Iran achieves nuclear weapons capability, widespread instability could aggravate uncertainty about the security of energy production and transport, raising oil prices for the long term and negatively impacting the U.S. economy. It would also increase the likelihood of disruptions to the flow of oil, having a material negative impact on the U.S. economy. Middle East oil is critical to the global economy. Exports from the region—more than half of which come from Saudi Arabia—fulfill nearly 20 percent of global daily oil demand, and 35 percent of all seaborne-traded oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz. The Persian Gulf— Saudi Arabia in particular—is also home to nearly all the world’s spare production capacity. If oil production or exports from the region are interrupted, the rest of the world would have a difficult time replacing those supplies, driving prices up. Such oil-supply disruptions—and their attendant price spike—have occurred periodically during the last halfcentury. Military conflict blocked vital oil chokepoints during the Suez Crisis (1956–1957), contributing directly to a price jump of 9 percent during the conflict. Other conflicts have damaged major oilfields and facilities, or cut them off from world markets, as during the Iranian general strike and Revolution (1978–1979), Iraq’s invasion of Iran’s oil-producing regions (1980), Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait (1990), and the opening phase of the Iraq War (2003).Iran Prolif Turns Case – Cred/Heg Iran prolif kills heg and credibility Jaime Daremblum, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow, 10-25-2011, “Iran Dangerous Now, Imagine it Nuclear,” Real Clear World, would it mean if such a regime went nuclear? Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a nuclear-armed Iran would never use its atomic weapons or give them to terrorists. Even under that optimistic scenario, Tehran's acquisition of nukes would make the world an infinitely more dangerous place. For one thing, it would surely spark a wave of proliferation throughout the Greater Middle East, with the likes of Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia - all Sunni-majority Muslim countries - going nuclear to counter the threat posed by Shiite Persian Iran. For another, it would gravely weaken the credibility of U.S. security guarantees. After all, Washington has repeatedly said that the Islamic Republic will not be permitted to get nukes. If Tehran demonstrated that these warnings were utterly hollow, rival governments and rogue regimes would conclude that America is a paper tiger. Once Tehran obtained nuclear weapons, it would have the ultimate trump card, the ultimate protection against outside attack. Feeling secure behind their nuclear shield, the Iranians would almost certainly increase their support for global terrorism and anti-American dictatorships. They would no longer have to fear a U.S. or Israeli military strike. Much like nuclear-armed North Korea today, Iran would be able to flout international law with virtual impunity. If America sought to curb Iranian misbehavior through economic sanctions, Tehran might well respond by flexing its muscles in the Strait of Hormuz. As political scientist Caitlin Talmadge explained in a 2008 analysis, "Iranian closure of the Strait of Hormuz tops the list of global energy security nightmares. Roughly 90 percent of all Persian Gulf oil leaves the region on tankers that must pass through this narrow waterway opposite the Iranian coast, and land pipelines do not provide sufficient alternative export routes. Extended closure of the strait would remove roughly a quarter of the world's oil from the market, causing a supply shock of the type not seen since the glory days of OPEC." Think about that: The world's leading state sponsor of terrorism has the ability to paralyze destabilize the global economy, and, if not stopped, it may soon have nuclear weapons. As a nuclear-armed Iran steadily expanded its international terror network, the Western Hemisphere would likely witness a significant jump in terrorist activity. Tehran has established a strategic alliance with Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez, and it has also developed warm relations with Chávez acolytes in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua while pursuing new arrangements with Argentina as an additional beachhead in Latin America Three years ago, the U.S. Treasury Department accused the Venezuelan government of "employing and providing safe harbor to Hezbollah facilitators and fundraisers." More recently, in July 2011, Peru's former military chief of staff, Gen. Francisco Contreras, told the Jerusalem Post that "Iranian organizations" are aiding and cooperating with other terrorist groups in South America. According to Israeli intelligence, the Islamic Republic has been getting uranium from both Venezuela and Bolivia. Remember: Tehran has engaged in this provocative behavior without nuclear weapons. Imagine how much more aggressive the Iranian dictatorship might be after crossing the nuclear Rubicon. It is an ideologically driven theocracy intent on spreading a radical Islamist revolution across the globe. As the Saudi plot demonstrates, no amount of conciliatory Western diplomacy can change the fundamental nature of a regime that is defined by anti-Western hatred and religious fanaticism. 1NC Israel Strikes Bad – NWIsrael strikes trigger multiple scenarios for nuclear warRafael Reuveny, professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University, 8-9-2010, “Unilateral strike on Iran could trigger world depression” unilateral Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would likely have dire consequences, including a regional war, global economic collapse and a major power clash. For an Israeli campaign to succeed, it must be quick and decisive. This requires an attack that would be so overwhelming that Iran would not dare to respond in full force. Such an outcome is extremely unlikely since the locations of some of Iran’s nuclear facilities are not fully known and known facilities are buried deep underground. All of these widely spread facilities are shielded by elaborate air defense systems constructed not only by the Iranians, but also the Chinese and, likely, the Russians as well. By now, Iran has also built redundant command and control systems and nuclear facilities, developed early-warning systems, acquired ballistic and cruise missiles and upgraded and enlarged its armed forces. Because Iran is well-prepared, a single, conventional Israeli strike — or even numerous strikes — could not destroy all of its capabilities, giving Iran time to respond. A regional war Unlike Iraq, whose nuclear program Israel destroyed in 1981, Iran has a second-strike capability comprised of a coalition of Iranian, Syrian, Lebanese, Hezbollah, Hamas, and, perhaps, Turkish forces. Internal pressure might compel Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinian Authority to join the assault, turning a bad situation into a regional war. During the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, at the apex of its power, Israel was saved from defeat by President Nixon’s shipment of weapons and planes. Today, Israel’s numerical inferiority is greater, and it faces more determined and better-equipped opponents. Despite Israel’s touted defense systems, Iranian coalition missiles, armed forces, and terrorist attacks would likely wreak havoc on its enemy, leading to a prolonged tit-for-tat. In the absence of massive U.S. assistance, Israel’s military resources may quickly dwindle, forcing it to use its alleged nuclear weapons, as it had reportedly almost done in 1973. An Israeli nuclear attack would likely destroy most of Iran’s capabilities, but a crippled Iran and its coalition could still attack neighboring oil facilities, unleash global terrorism, plant mines in the Persian Gulf and impair maritime trade in the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Indian Ocean. Middle Eastern oil shipments would likely slow to a trickle as production declines due to the war and insurance companies decide to drop their risky Middle Eastern clients. Iran and Venezuela would likely stop selling oil to the United States and Europe. The world economy would head into a tailspin; international acrimony would rise; and Iraqi and Afghani citizens might fully turn on the United States, immediately requiring the deployment of more American troops. Russia, China, Venezuela, and maybe Brazil and Turkey — all of which essentially support Iran — could be tempted to form an alliance and openly challenge the U.S. hegemony. Replaying Nixon’s nightmare Russia and China might rearm their injured Iranian protege overnight, just as Nixon rearmed Israel, and threaten to intervene, just as the U.S.S.R. threatened to join Egypt and Syria in 1973. President Obama’s response would likely put U.S. forces on nuclear alert, replaying Nixon’s nightmarish scenario. Iran may well feel duty-bound to respond to a unilateral attack by its Israeli archenemy, but it knows that it could not take on the United States head-to-head. In contrast, if the United States leads the attack, Iran’s response would likely be muted. If Iran chooses to absorb an American-led strike, its allies would likely protest and send weapons, but would probably not risk using force. While no one has a crystal ball, leaders should be risk-averse when choosing war as a foreign policy tool. If attacking Iran is deemed necessary, Israel must wait for an American green light. A unilateral Israeli strike could ultimately spark World War III.Israel Strikes Bad – NWIsrael strikes cause nuclear escalation and extinctionJohn Scales Avery, Associate Professor at the University of Copenhagen, 11-6-2013, “An Attack on Iran Could Escalate into Global Nuclear War,” the willingness of Iran's new President, Hassan Rouhani to make all reasonable concessions to US demands, Israeli pressure groups in Washington continue to demand an attack on Iran. But such an attack might escalate into a global nuclear war, with catastrophic consequences. As we approach the 100th anniversary World War I, we should remember that this colossal disaster escalated uncontrollably from what was intended to be a minor conflict. There is a danger that an attack on Iran would escalate into a large-scale war in the Middle East, entirely destabilizing a region that is already deep in problems. The unstable government of Pakistan might be overthrown, and the revolutionary Pakistani government might enter the war on the side of Iran, thus introducing nuclear weapons into the conflict. Russia and China, firm allies of Iran, might also be drawn into a general war in the Middle East. Since much of the world's oil comes from the region, such a war would certainly cause the price of oil to reach unheard-of heights, with catastrophic effects on the global economy. In the dangerous situation that could potentially result from an attack on Iran, there is a risk that nuclear weapons would be used, either intentionally, or by accident or miscalculation. Recent research has shown that besides making large areas of the world uninhabitable through long-lasting radioactive contamination, a nuclear war would damage global agriculture to such a extent that a global famine of previously unknown proportions would result. Thus, nuclear war is the ultimate ecological catastrophe. It could destroy human civilization and much of the biosphere. To risk such a war would be an unforgivable offense against the lives and future of all the peoples of the world, US citizens included.2NC Deal Good – Mideast WarNegotiation collapse causes nuclear escalation Philip Stevens, associate editor and chief political commentator at the Financial Times, 11-14-2013, “The Four Big Truths that are Shaping the Iran Talks,” who-said-what game about last weekend’s talks in Geneva has become a distraction. The six-power negotiations with Tehran to curb Iran’s nuclear programme may yet succeed or fail. But wrangling between the US and France on the terms of an acceptable deal should not allow the trees to obscure the forest. The organising facts shaping the negotiations have not changed. The first of these is that Tehran’s acquisition of a bomb would be more than dangerous for the Middle East and for wider international security. It would most likely set off a nuclear arms race that would see Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt signing up to the nuclear club. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty would be shattered. A future regional conflict could draw Israel into launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike. This is not a region obviously susceptible to cold war disciplines of deterrence. Draws in great powers – causes nuclear warPressTV, 11-13-2013, “Global nuclear conflict between US, Russia, China likely if Iran talks fail,” PressTV, global conflict between the US, Russia, and China is likely in the coming months should the world powers fail to reach a nuclear deal with Iran, an American analyst says. “If the talks fail, if the agreements being pursued are not successfully carried forward and implemented, then there would be enormous international pressure to drive towards a conflict with Iran before [US President Barack] Obama leaves office and that’s a very great danger that no one can underestimate the importance of,” senior editor at the Executive Intelligence Review Jeff Steinberg told Press TV on Wednesday. “The United States could find itself on one side and Russia and China on the other and those are the kinds of conditions that can lead to miscalculation and general roar,” Steinberg said. “So the danger in this situation is that if these talks don’t go forward, we could be facing a global conflict in the coming months and years and that’s got to be avoided at all costs when you’ve got countries like the United States, Russia, and China with their arsenals of nuclear weapons, he warned. Racist Surveillance Kritik NEGResolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance.Criticism OverviewThis criticism focuses on the justifications and motivations behind the affirmative. Most affirmatives, both policy and critical, will make mention of the “sudden” and “surprising” way the government oversteps its bounds with contemporary surveillance tactics. The criticism is designed to question why the affirmative depicts the surveillance state as new. Minorities (blacks, Hispanics, Muslims/ Arabs) have long lived with daily and disproportionate surveillance. However, most commentators discuss the issue of surveillance as if NOW it is so egregious. But what about the decades of surveillance of minorities that so few spoke out against? Now that privileged “non-criminal” types are also being surveilled, it is a serious issue. The impact claims are largely systemic and allow the Neg to tap into structural issues surrounding race, poverty, education, and police violence. The alternative is an intellectual/ academic endorsement addressing material conditions based on race. Focusing on the Framework of the debate will allow the Neg to control the impact framing of the round. ***Neg Cards***1NC1NC—Link The affirmative’s criticism of surveillance is problematic and racist—it ignores the racist historical context of surveillance. Privileged people only speak out about surveillance in a world where they realize they are now also targets of government regulation Malkia Amala Cyril, Founder and executive director of the Center for Media Justice (CMJ) and co-founder of the Media Action Grassroots Network, March 30, 2015, “Black America's State of Surveillance,” Progressive, Accessed May 19, 2015, years ago, on Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, my mother, a former Black Panther, died from complications of sickle cell anemia. Weeks before she died, the FBI came knocking at our door, demanding that my mother testify in a secret trial proceeding against other former Panthers or face arrest. My mother, unable to walk, refused. The detectives told my mother as they left that they would be watching her. They didn’t get to do that. My mother died just two weeks later. My mother was not the only black person to come under the watchful eye of American law enforcement for perceived and actual dissidence. Nor is dissidence always a requirement for being subject to spying. Files obtained during a break-in at an FBI office in 1971 revealed that African Americans, J. Edger Hoover’s largest target group, didn’t have to be perceived as dissident to warrant surveillance. They just had to be black. As I write this, the same philosophy is driving the increasing adoption and use of surveillance technologies by local law enforcement agencies across the United States. Today, media reporting on government surveillance is laser-focused on the revelations by Edward Snowden that millions of Americans were being spied on by the NSA. Yet my mother’s visit from the FBI reminds me that, from the slave pass system to laws that deputized white civilians as enforcers of Jim Crow, black people and other people of color have lived for centuries with surveillance practices aimed at maintaining a racial hierarchy. It’s time for journalists to tell a new story that does not start the clock when privileged classes learn they are targets of surveillance. We need to understand that data has historically been overused to repress dissidence, monitor perceived criminality, and perpetually maintain an impoverished underclass. In an era of big data, the Internet has increased the speed and secrecy of data collection. Thanks to new surveillance technologies, law enforcement agencies are now able to collect massive amounts of indiscriminate data. Yet legal protections and policies have not caught up to this technological advance. Concerned advocates see mass surveillance as the problem and protecting privacy as the goal. Targeted surveillance is an obvious answer—it may be discriminatory, but it helps protect the privacy perceived as an earned privilege of the inherently innocent. The trouble is, targeted surveillance frequently includes the indiscriminate collection of the private data of people targeted by race but not involved in any crime. For targeted communities, there is little to no expectation of privacy from government or corporate surveillance. 1NC—Impact Racism is systemic and societal—generations of inequality and negative perceptions have lead to material conditions that place black people in constant dangerDolores Cox, Writer for , September 8, 2014, “Walking while Black — U.S. society divided by racism,” Workers, Accessed May 21, 2015, “crime” of walking while Black — and driving, shopping, sitting, standing and merely existing while Black — in the United States is often punishable by death. This means death by police bullets from cops trained to shoot and kill. Control of and infringement on the right to freedom of movement is common. Too often, police targets are African-American men and youth. People with Brown skin have always been targets of white hatred and terrorism in the U.S. Compared to the value of white lives, Black lives do not matter now and have never mattered. Throughout U.S. history, the murdering of Blacks — as well as the existence of racist power structures and policies — has been tolerated and accepted. White society too often and too readily justifies the killings and other harm done to Blacks. However, neither whites nor any groupings of people, including members of the Black community, can accept the killing of their children. Systemic and individual indifference and disdain towards people of African descent have always existed and are still prevalent. Discriminatory, racist practices are entrenched and are rarely challenged by a majority of whites who harbor deep-seated, fixed negative attitudes and opinions regarding the value of Black people. They appear to resist a willingness to change. Blacks and whites live in two different realities, with whites, in general, being unwilling to confront the realities of Black life. Many deny the racist component of police killings of Blacks. Racist inequality systemic Centuries-long political, social and economic inequalities and disparities between Black and white people’s lives reflect the depth and persistence of white power, domination, privilege and preference. Many whites deny that they benefit from the second-class status of Blacks, who have limited opportunities, and whose dreams are deferred or denied because they have the “wrong” skin color. Because there has never been a level playing field either in the past or in the present day, it will take an enormous amount of time for Blacks even to come close to catching up to the status of whites. That will only be realized if race and class cease to underlie the social and economic structure of society — which is based on capitalism. There must be a shift in the culture of white supremacy — and it must be ended altogether. Racism is a disease of epidemic proportions. The doctrine of white supremacy reflects a pathological need to feel superior. It is often coupled with the need to harm people of color and the refusal to recognize their humanity. Guns have always been a weapon utilized to maintain white supremacy, whether under slavery, Jim Crow or today in the hands of racist police and “stand your ground” right-wingers.1NC—Alternative The 1AC is an attempt to appear “not racist.” Instead of paying racial lip service, we should endorse “low bar” conceptions of racism—racism should be thought of as a material not philosophical condition. It’s not enough for the aff to claim it isn’t racist, we must strive to make material conditions for minorities equal Kenneth W. Stikkers, Professor of Philosophy and Africana Studies at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Fall 2014, “… But I’m Not Racist”: Toward a Pragmatic Conception of “Racism,” The Pluralist journal of philosophy, Accessed May 21, 2015, , and relatedly, one might object, again, especially white persons, that by this definition, despite even heroic efforts to combat prejudice and racialized inequality, one might still be called a “racist.” Why should one fight for racial justice if, in the end and despite possibly Herculean efforts, one will still be called “racist”? Indeed, I have often heard liberal and progressive whites complain that despite what they consider to be valiant anti-racist efforts, some non-whites still consider them to be racist. Hidden, however, in this objection, is a confession that we ought to find extremely disturbing: that is, in raising this objection does not one secretly admit that one’s primary motive in fighting for racial justice is to avoid being called “racist”? As we saw, the sting of being labeled “racist” is such that even those taken to epitomize “racism” want to avoid it. If that is the case, then white people who buy the objection have been seduced by the Ring of Gyges (and I confess that I was initially so seduced): they see the crime of “racism” as one of appearing and hence being called “racist” and not as one of being implicated in an unjust system. Fighting racism is not about creating a legacy for white people or making them feel better about themselves for being “non-” or “anti-racist”: it is about making life better for those who have suffered injustice. So, the pragmatic reasons for accepting this “low bar” definition of “racism” are fundamentally three: that is, three positive consequences will follow, helping to promote racial progress, as I have defined it. First, the “low bar” definition locates “racism” where it belongs, not in white intentions but in the concrete conditions of life as experienced by racial minorities, and hence it gauges racial progress not by improvement in white attitudes, beliefs, and intentions, but by real improvement in the concrete lives of those who suffer from that racism. Second, the “low bar” definition challenges white people to look more honestly within themselves so as to ask whether their professed anti-racism truly seeks to overcome racial injustice or merely to avoid the sting of being[End Page 15] called “racist.” They are challenged to focus more squarely on what will actually promote racial justice rather than on what merely allows them to appear non-racist and thereby to evade the “racist” label. In this way, then, too, my proposed definition unsettles epistemologies of ignorance that enable one to detach his or her racialized privilege from others’ disadvantages and thus better realize that racial progress will cost white America something—there are no free lunches when it comes to racial progress, and hence achieving racial equality requires that white America let go of the privileges it has come to take for granted. Third, the “low bar” definition of “racism,” in making clear that no white person escapes implication in the social web of white racism, makes equally clear that no white person fully deserves not to be called “racist” until all the deeply institutionalized patterns of racism in which he or she inescapably participates and from which he or she invariably benefits are eliminated—nothing less will do. Is not such radical eradication of racial injustice precisely what we pragmatists should set as our goal?Links“New Surveillance Sate”/ Regulations FailThe aff has an incomplete understanding of surveillance history. Minority communities have always been illegally surveilled, the government always finds a way around regulations on surveillance Laura W. Murphy, Director, ACLU Washington Legislative Office, and Sandra Fulton, ACLU Washington Legislative Office, November 13, 2013, “Big Brother's Always Been Watching Some of U.S.,” ACLU, Accessed May 27, 2015, revelations from whistleblower Edward Snowden continue to mount, Americans have been shocked by the NSA's incredible invasions of privacy - some more so than others. There has been a noticeable difference between the reactions of minority groups and that of white and privileged Americans. While both have been incredibly vocal—calling for an immediate restoration of our Fourth Amendment protections—minority groups have been far less stunned by our government's "new" invasions of privacy. And this should come as no surprise. The United States government has a long history of circumventing constitutional protections to spy on its citizens. And while whites and non-whites have all been victims of these practices, minority communities have always been harder hit. One of the most infamous covert, unconstitutional projects – FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover'sCOINTELPRO - was used to crack down on peaceful political dissent of all races nationwide. But Hoover was particularly obsessed with organizations he associated with the civil rights movement. In the 1960s, the FBI targeted groups it labeled "Black Nationalists," including the NAACP, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee, and the Black Panthers. In the name of national security, the bureau planted illegal wiretaps, sabotaged communications in order to cause distrust among allies, conducted warrantless physical searches, and a variety of other dirty tricks. In addition to African American organizations, the FBI disproportionately targeted groups involved in the growing American Indian Movement as well as Arab-American populations. While federal regulations have been put in place to guard against investigations based on race or ethnicity, the FBI has found its way around such protections. After the September 11th attacks, the FBI began "mapping" Muslim communities and spying on mosques based on unfounded and prejudiced concepts like "radicalization." And, in a disturbing relapse of the illegal investigations of the 60s, recent FBI training materials have warned against a "Black Separatist" threat.“New Surveillance State”The affirmative perpetuates a narrative where the surveillance state is somehow an emerging feature—racist surveillance is not new, it’s only new to whites who enjoyed the privilege of not being watchedZachary Gallant, Writer for Foreign Policy in Focus, June 25, 2013, “Surveillance State Is Only New to Whites,” Foreign Policy in Focus, May 26, 2015, past three weeks have been a bombardment of information regarding the US Surveillance State. I was tempted to say “a bombardment of revelations,” but that would have implied it was surprising, and to anyone paying attention for the past decade, that would have been disingenuous. It’s not surprising that the NSA has been collecting metadata on our communications, and it’s equally unsurprising that they’ve been lying about it. It’s not surprising that the FBI has been using drones to spy on US soil, that the US hacks Chinese computers and cell phones, or that the British had spied on foreign diplomats at the G-20. But it is groundbreaking that this information is now confirmed. Disregarding my own cynicism (I know I should be shocked, shocked!), there is something deeply insidious about the outrage being expressed. Not just the hero-worship or vilification of Edward Snowden. Despite this author’s opinion that, sunlight being the best disinfectant, these leaks are good for the American people, Snowden and the leak process is not the story. The story is the confirmation of an unconstitutional surveillance state to which Americans never consented, never even got the opportunity to debate how many of our civil liberties we’re willing to forgo in the name of security. No, the insidiousness is in the outrage over the surveillance state itself. Now it’s a big deal, now that they’re spying on us. But where was the outrage over Stop And Frisk or any of New York’s other recent surveillance and anti-whistleblowing excesses? Oh, that just happened to Blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims. Where was the outrage when we were openly intercepting the e-mail and phone communication of all non-Americans regardless of probable cause? Oh, that just happened to foreigners, they’re not protected by our laws. These inherently xenophobic reactions, which of course are nothing new, highlight our problem: the surveillance state stops being ok when it goes from racist to all-encompassing. The surveillance state is not a new problem; it’s a new problem for white people. The surveillance state has been a daily thorn in the lives of New York’s minorities for years, but it’s not just inconvenient. The surveillance state as a racist institution has been destroying the economy of majority-black cities and non-white neighborhoods for decades.“New Surveillance State”Surveillance is nothing new—the aff’s assumption that the surveillance state hasn’t always existed is rooted in white privilege and racial bias Joseph Torres, Lobbyist for media reform, November 1, 2013, “Panelists Say Surveillance Is Nothing New for Communities of Color,” Free Press, May 26, 2015, Masozi of the Bill of Rights Defense League said the illegal actions taken in the FBI’s COINTELPRO operations, which sought to discredit and destroy movements led by people of color from the 1950s through the early '70s, have “been made legal” through the passage of federal laws like the Patriot Act. Former Black Panther Party leader and political prisoner Dhoruba Bin-Wahad said that “the United States has moved into a full garrison state mode ... it is a police state.” ACLU D.C. Program Director Seema Sadanandan noted the white community’s reaction to the Snowden leaks: The Snowden revelations really represent a terrifying moment for white people in this country, not just white people, but middle-class people, upper-middle class people, people who essentially on some level — consciously or subconsciously — believed in the document, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, and believed that these were realities that were protecting their everyday lives. For people of color, particularly for people coming from communities with a history of discrimination, with a history of being surveilled, with a history of second-class citizenship, with a history of the type of economic oppression that prevents one from realizing any of those rights on a day-to-day basis, I think it was a little annoying and frustrating, like I told you so, I told you they were listening to all of our phone calls.False ReformThe plan is woefully insufficient lip service to surveillance reform—it doesn’t address broader socio-racial issues related to surveillance that are at the core of propping up the racist surveillance state. Blacks, Muslims, and Latinos don’t benefit from the plan, only the alternative addresses the deeper issues Joe Levy, Internet Campaign Director at Free Press, November 5, 2013, “For Communities Of Color, Mass Surveillance Is All Too Familiar,” Talking Points Memo, Accessed May 27, 2015, while the NSA was the rally's official target, many of the speakers discussed events that predate the agency's post-9/11 spying programs. In fact, the mass surveillance of innocent people has been a problem for years. Communities of color, immigrants and Muslim Americans have experienced the destructive effects of surveillance -- in all its forms -- for decades. In the 1950s and ??60s, the FBI spied on leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. to try to discredit and destroy the civil rights movement. Anti-immigrant policing policies have empowered law enforcement throughout the U.S. -- but especially in the Southwest -- to target Latinos, who are subject to sweeping deportations and a prejudicial criminal justice system. Similarly, police in New York City and elsewhere use stop-and-frisk practices to racially profile African-Americans and other people of color. And since 9/11, the FBI has infiltrated Muslim-American communities, particularly in New York. Edward Snowden's revelations about the NSA's programs shocked us all. But given that millions have lived with these kinds of unconstitutional intrusions for years, we need to recognize that the surveillance state operates online and offline and affects everyone. The more that we object to living in a surveillance state -- in all its forms -- the more that we can build the kind of diverse coalition we'll need to truly stop the surveillance. Already the StopWatching.Us coalition has united progressives and libertarians, Republicans and Democrats and others in this fight. But we have a lot more work to do. If we're serious about rolling back the surveillance, we'll have to think bigger than just reforming the NSA (though that alone could take years). We'll also have to turn our attention to the broader culture of surveillance. We'll need to address not only the federal government's interception of digital data, but also local law enforcement's reliance on racial profiling, stop and frisk and other discriminatory tactics. We'll have to reform the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act to safeguard our ability to communicate in private, and we'll have to reform the state- and city-level versions of these laws. And we'll need to build a movement so big and so broad that it spurs a national conversation about the role of political dissent in our democracy and the importance of open, accountable communications systems that are free from prying eyes and are built to serve the public -- not government agencies and the companies they collude with.False ReformThe plan doesn’t end all surveillance, rather, it refines it to “acceptable” instances which are mainly minorities. They don’t really care about surveillance reform, just making sure whites aren’t targeted Ola Svenonius, Assistant Professor of Political Science at S?dert?rn University in Stockholm, Sweden, and Ellen Edlundh is an MA student in Political Science at Stockholm University and research assistant in the project Like Fish in Water: Surveillance in Post-communist Societies, May 20, 2014, “Mass surveillance and institutional racism: two sides of the Swedish coin,” Open Democracy, Accessed May 27, 2015, two surveillance events also have their significant differences when it comes to who expresses the problematic nature of surveillance. During the FRA debate and the debate following Edward Snowden’s revelations the journalists themselves, oftentimes in the editorials, express their concern about the surveillance. With regard to the Roma registry the problem is often formulated during interviews with Roma representatives who have been subjected to surveillance themselves. On the one hand, giving the concerned party the right to express their views publicly may be something positive. On the other, the newspaper editors place the responsibility for convincing the readership that this was indeed something of great concern onto the victims of surveillance themselves, while at the same time lamenting about the fact that something like this could have happened in Sweden. Given the Swedish history of institutional surveillance and racism it is actually not that surprising, but rather a sign of continuity of a long tradition of oppression of, among others, Roma people, as the more recent coverage of the Roma registry has shown. Doing unto others The effect here is that surveillance becomes limited to a particular level. It never elevates to some level of generality, as in the case of the FRA or NSA surveillance, where news coverage instead focuses on the threat to privacy of all people. This ‘particularity’ de-politicises the matter and actively removes the debate from the general level that acknowledges each and every person’s right to privacy, down to the level of a particular police district’s lack of knowledge about the long tradition of Swedish oppression of the Roma. The fact that we find almost nothing written about the Roma registry that indicated that the surveillance in itself was problematic shows the accuracy of earlier research in Canada and the UK. This is also the Swedish case: when surveillance is applied to the Others it is no longer problematic. Notwithstanding the essential fact that the Roma registry is a modern expression of age-old antiziganism, we believe that the coverage by Swedish mainstream media clearly displays (and reproduces!) the view that Roma people, in 2013, still do not qualify for the status of Swedish citizens. In Swedish coverage the right to privacy and integrity, guaranteed for all citizens, are not considered essential democratic rights. While in fact intimately tied to the very rights designed to protect every citizen against discriminatory practices, the institutional racism of the police is viewed as completely separate from the problematic of surveillance. This disregard for the police’s modus operandi, which on a more general level is a threat to the rights of every Swedish citizen, may result in a failure to address the mechanisms by which the Roma registry was created and maintained in the first place, i.e. the vast surveillance infrastructure in the hands of Swedish authorities. We wonder how it can be that the newspaper editors’ and politicians’ We are only victims of state mass surveillance, while the Others are targets for a racist ‘anomaly’ by the police?Privacy—Surveillance The 1AC’s focus on liberty and rights is insufficient—a historical understanding of racism encoded in surveillance is keyArun Kundnani, teaches at New York University, and Deepa Kumar, Associate professor of Media Studies and Middle East Studies at Rutgers University, Spring 2015, “Race, surveillance, and empire,” International Socialist Review, May 26, 2015, any objective standard, these were major news stories that ought to have attracted as much attention as the earlier revelations. Yet the stories barely registered in the corporate media landscape. The “tech community,” which had earlier expressed outrage at the NSA’s mass digital surveillance, seemed to be indifferent when details emerged of the targeted surveillance of Muslims. The explanation for this reaction is not hard to find. While many object to the US government collecting private data on “ordinary” people, Muslims tend to be seen as reasonable targets of suspicion. A July 2014 poll for the Arab American Institute found that 42 percent of Americans think it is justifiable for law enforcement agencies to profile Arab Americans or American Muslims.3 In what follows, we argue that the debate on national security surveillance that has emerged in the United States since the summer of 2013 is woefully inadequate, due to its failure to place questions of race and empire at the center of its analysis. It is racist ideas that form the basis for the ways national security surveillance is organized and deployed, racist fears that are whipped up to legitimize this surveillance to the American public, and the disproportionately targeted racialized groups that have been most effective in making sense of it and organizing opposition. This is as true today as it has been historically: race and state surveillance are intertwined in the history of US capitalism. Likewise, we argue that the history of national security surveillance in the United States is inseparable from the history of US colonialism and empire. Privacy—General The aff’s appeal to privacy is rooted in white privilege—privileging privacy is the way the system maintains racist practices Olivia A Cole, Writer for The Daily Dot, March 13, 2015, “Why the racist students behind the Oklahoma frat video don't deserve privacy,” The Daily Dot, Accessed May 26, 2015, , in terms of privacy, 87 percent of those targeted by New York City's stop and frisk policy were blacks and Latinos; 85 percent of those people were frisked, compared to a mere 8 percent of the white people stopped. This is despite the fact that stops of white people were twice as likely to yield a weapon and a third more likely to yield some form of contraband as compared to stops of black people. Surely if black and brown men can have identification demanded of them for merely walking down the street, we can demand identification of men on tape for chanting about lynching black people. In some cases, racists have been identified and punished, even when choosing avenues of expression more covert than singing at the top of their lungs on a bus full of people. Doxing, by its most common definition, exposes someone who has previously been anonymous: putting a name and an identity to someone who would rather remain hidden for various reasons, both innocent and not. A wildly popular Tumblr, for example, called Racists Getting Fired, doxes racists spreading their bile on the Internet and provides the means to contact their employers, school, or parents to inform them of the subject’s actions online. Many of these cases have led to the subject being fired, expelled, or suspended without pay. This exposure, or doxing, has been met with criticism, especially in the context of people like Hunter Moore, the “revenge porn” magnate whose websites posted nude pictures of women without their knowledge or consent, photos that were most often provided by ex-boyfriends for “breakup revenge.” Moore and his followers then doxed those women, releasing addresses and employer information, and encouraged viewers to contact the women’s jobs and get them fired for being “whores.” This is the context of doxing that is most common: Internet creeps taking their troll games to the real world, where they have real-world consequences. These real-world consequences don’t often catch up to racists (particularly Internet racists), which is why Racists Getting Fired was so popular. It promoted real-life consequences for people living in the delusional world of white supremacy. But is it really justice, this intermittent taking down of individual racists in the context of a greater racist society? It’s a side of the SAE scandal that Zak Cheney-Rice at Mic says is being overlooked: Racism is bigger than a video. Racism is the legacy of being ‘the only national fraternity founded in the antebellum South,’ with a Civil War-era membership class of 400, of whom 369 fought for the Confederacy. Racism is a school housing an organization with a documented history of racial abuse; SAE chapters in St. Louis, Memphis, Clemson, South Carolina and elsewhere have all been embroiled in racism controversies. Racism is the truth behind the frat brother's song, that there probably never was a ‘n----’ at SAE, or at least none in significant numbers. He’s right, of course, and goes on to say: “Americans have no idea what to do about racism. But ‘racists?’ We can handle those.” And does publicly naming (and shaming) racists even work? Cole Stryker at the Nation says no, arguing that these tactics only serve to make racists “resentful toward those who’ve punished [them], perhaps even more sure of [their] sundry prejudices.” But this perspective seems more concerned with finding a way for racists to be better, happier people rather than considering what a relief it must be for black OU students to be rid of the likes of Parker Rice. And on a larger scale, we must ask: For those who still deny that racism is alive and well, how can they argue with a video like this this one? While the fear of humiliation may drive some racists further into their dank holes, the widespread outrage in response to Rice’s chant might also teach another lesson: This behavior is not acceptable. You will be held accountable.Privacy—General The idea of a right to privacy has a racist legal past—privacy is a tool used by racists to legally defend their ability to spread racist ideas Danielle Citron, Lois K. Macht Research Professor & Professor of Law at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, December 21, 2009, “The Tort of Privacy’s Racist Past,” Concurring Opinions, Accessed May 19, 2015, New York Times v. Sullivan made clear, defamation has a bigoted past. There, Montgomery, Alabama’s police commissioner brought a defamation suit against The New York Times after it published an advertisement, “Heed Their Rising Voices,” which suggested law enforcement’s interference with civil rights protests. Sullivan based his defamation suit on this premise: accusations of racism hurt my reputation in Montgomery, Alabama. At the time, it was a truly laughable proposition given the racial hatred so prevalent in the white community there. No matter, Sullivan and others after him tried to use the law of defamation to silence mostly Northern papers writing about Southern bigotry and officially sanctioned violence against civil rights leaders and others. In writing a piece entitled Mainstreaming the Tort of Privacy (forthcoming Cal. L. Rev.), I stumbled across Afro-American Publishing v. Jaffe, 366 F.2d 649 (D.C. Cir. 1966), a case that told a Sullivan-esque story but with a privacy twist. A white drug store owner sued the Washington Afro-American (the “Afro”), a D.C.-based, bi-weekly paper, for invasion of privacy and libel. The plaintiff sold the Afro in his drugstore, and canceled it because the paper “spread racial hatred and distrust.” In the October 14, 1961 edition of the Afro, the paper covered plaintiff’s cancellation of the Afro, noting that plaintiff had told Afro’s editor that his black customers had a “low level of intelligence” and were ignorant. Plaintiff prevailed at trial on the privacy and libel claims. The D.C. Circuit, writing en banc, recognized the common law right to privacy in the District of Columbia based on the Warren and Brandeis formulation of a person’s “right of private personality,” the “right to be let alone.” The court noted that much like in 1890 when Warren and Brandeis wrote The Right to Privacy, the “communications explosion” and “mechanical and electronic devices for snooping” of the 1960s imperiled privacy. Although the D.C. Circuit noted that the right of privacy stands on “high ground, cognate to the values and concerns protected by constitutional guarantees,” it is not absolute and must permit the press to publish discussions vital to democracy. As the court held, “[w]hen a proprietor of a news vending outlet in a predominantly Negro neighborhood discontinues the handling of a newspaper oriented to Negro readers, the matter is appropriate for newspaper discussion . . . without fear of an overhanging action for invasion of privacy.” This case reminds us that just as batterers invoked the mantle of privacy to hide domestic violence, some used the tort of privacy to silence media attention to bigotry. (There are no doubt better cases for the point, but I use this one just because I found it seredipitiously). This case brings to mind Lior Strahelivitz’s important work in Reputation Nation: Law in an Era of Ubiquitous Personal Information, 102 Northwestern L. Rev. 1667 (2008), where he explores how information privacy protections can undermine antidiscrimination law and how government can in certain circumstances reduce the prevalence of unlawful discrimination by publicizing previously private information about individuals. A fascinating read on the promise of sunlight.ImpactsRacism must be rejectedRacism is constructed socially through rhetoric and human interaction. We can and must take every opportunity to dismantle the structures of oppression that organize daily lifeDavid Hall, JD, University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law School, Summer, 1999, “Giving Birth to a Racially Just Society in the 21st Century,” University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review, 21 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 927, 21+U.+Ark.+Little+Rock+L.+Rev.+927&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=7128c39417584ebb5f524e6401917bdc, ACC. 9-5-2015The history of racism and racial discrimination in this society is a classic example of this cycle of frustration and dashed hopes. As we approach the close of the 20th Century a retrospective analysis would provide numerous examples of what some have come to call the civil rights shuffle-one step forward, two steps backwards, side step, side step. This dance was eloquently and consistently choreographed for the last one hundred years and beyond. This dance does not negate or belittle the important and significant progress which was made during this century, but one could accurately say at the dawning of the 21st Century what W.E.B. DuBois said about the 20th Century-the issue of the century will be the color line. Therefore it is critically important and appropriate to not only learn lessons from the mistakes of this closing century, but to find the spiritual will to bring an end to this dance. Though a seminal symposium on race creates important opportunities to discuss these critical matters, one has to wonder if we are only engaged in a ritualistic exercise that pacifies our insecurities as the world around us gets worse. In the midst of those moments of sobering reflection, one must realize that each opportunity we have in life to touch each other's souls, to challenge each other's minds, and to lift each other's spirits, is a precious gift. The mere possibility that words and human interaction can make a difference in the reality of the world is what should inspire our future efforts and dedication, even when there is very little tangible evidence of progress.Racism is a material threat to survival and is inherently unjust. It must be dismantled brick by brickJoseph Barndt, educator and Reverend, 2007, Understanding & Dismantling Racism: the twenty-first century challenge to white America, pp.219-220To study racism is to study walls. In every chapter of this book, we have looked at barriers and fences, restraints and limitations, ghettos and prisons, bars and curtains. We have examined a prison of racism that confines us all—people of color and white people alike. Victimizers as well as victims are in shackles. The walls of the prison forcibly separate communities of color and white communities from each other, as well as divide communities of color from each other. In our separate prisons we are all shut off from each other.?The constraints imposed on people of color by subservience, powerlessness, and poverty are inhuman and unjust; but the effects of uncontrolled power, privilege, and greed that are the marks of?our?white prison inevitably destroy white people as well. To dismantle racism is to tear down walls.?The walls of racism can be dismantled. We are not condemned to an inexorable fate, but are offered the vision and the possibility of freedom.?Brick by brick, stone by stone, the prison of individual, institutional, and cultural racism can be destroyed. It is an organizing task that can be accomplished.?You and I are urgently called to join the efforts of those who know it is time to tear down, once and for all the walls of racism.?The walls of racism must be dismantled.?Facing up to these realities offers new possibilities, but refusing to face them threatens yet greater dangers. The results of centuries of national and worldwide colonial conquest and racial domination, of military buildups and violent aggression, of over-consumption and environmental destruction may be reaching a point of no return. The moment of self-destruction seems to be drawing ever more near, nationally and globally.?A small and predominantly white minority of the global population derives its power and privilege from the sufferings of the vast majority of peoples of color.?For the sake of the world and ourselves, we dare not allow it to continue. Dismantling racism?also means building something new it?means building an antiracist society.?The bricks that were used to build the walls of the prison must now be used for a better purpose. Just as we must tear down the wall brick by brick, so also?we must build new structures of power and justice. Although we still need many more reminders that we cannot build a multiracial and multicultural society without tearing down the walls of racism, this negative reminder must be turned around and stated in reverse:?we cannot tear down the walls without building new antiracist structures of power in our institutions and communities. Transforming and building anti-racist institutions is the path to a racism-free society.?Colorblindness causes people to internalize racial biases. Studies prove anti-racism takes a persistent and conscious effortTim Wise, international lecturer and anti-racist essayist, June 18, 2010, “Colorblind Ambition: The Rise of Post Racial Politics and the Retreat from Racial Equity,” , ACC. 9-5-2015The research in this area is clear: only by recognizing the extent to which we have been conditioned to internalize racial biases can we hope to check and interrupt discriminatory behaviors. According to the best available evidence, when we make race salient, and raise the specter of possible racism (in a jury deliberation, job interview process, or other settings) we are actually more careful to act fairly and deliberately, and take special pains not to discriminate. Studies have found, for instance, that large numbers of whites (and even large numbers of people of color) have deep-seated implicit biases against blacks and in favor of whites. Because these are often held subconsciously they are difficult if not impossible to notice or interrupt unless one has been trained to think about them, excavate them and challenge them. But this necessitates, quite obviously, a race-conscious, not colorblind or race-neutral approach. The good news is, when we call out racial biases in society and ourselves, we can in fact reduce the likelihood of acting on the basis of those biases. Anti-racism, in other words, takes practice. It takes deliberate efforts to check ourselves at every possible turn: as teachers in the classroom, employers during a job interview, police officers on the street, loan officers at the bank, and as parents in our homes.Racism is un-American! It is a human rights travesty that should be rejectedResponsible for Equality and Liberty (R.E.A.L. Staff Writers), June 23, 2015, “American Patriots Must Reject Racism,” Real Courage, , ACC. 9-5-2015The United States of America has had for too many years a long standing human rights problem with white supremacist racism. It is a shame and disgrace to a great nation, founded on the ideals of equality and liberty. As the President recently indicated, this human rights travesty is one that has taken generations to change and continues to require our commitment to change. Americans must step up to this human rights challenge to end such?racial inequality, discrimination, hatred, and violence, and leave it in the past. Respect for racial equality, dignity, justice, and liberty remains one of the most important patriotic values for Americans. American patriots cannot hate people because of their race or identity group. Such racial hatred is contempt for the “truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Such white supremacist racial hatred is a denial of the very identity of America itself.EducationRacism destroys students and educators’ ability to effectively learn and disseminate knowledgeAll Together Now, Organization working to combat racism in education and society in Australia, October 8, 2014, “Racism Disrupts Students’ Education,” All Together Now, Accessed May 21, 2015, racism in schools Racism occurs in explicit forms such as name-calling, teasing, exclusion, verbal abuse and bullying. It is also commonly and indirectly presented through prejudiced attitudes, lack of recognition of cultural diversity and culturally biased practices. It has been acknowledged racism can have a profound effect on students, teachers and generally affects the overall school atmosphere. The following effects have been identified by the NSW Government’s project ‘Racism. No Way!’. Students who experience racism might be afraid of going to school have trouble studying and concentrating in class stay away from school feel anxious and unhappy have trouble making friends fall behind in schoolwork get lower results in their exams not speak their first language for fear of being teased or picked on reject their own culture and parental values be confused about their own identity be aggressive or disruptive. Teachers who experience racism might not want to go to work each day lose confidence in their ability to teach feel anxious and unhappy stay away from school lose enjoyment in teaching Effects on the whole school students making friends only with others from the same background fights in playground between students from different cultural or linguistic groups conflict between staff and students from different backgrounds unfriendly school environment parents not having confidence in the school and education system Racism causing students to doubt themselves: the evidence Successful learning experiences are dependent on the sustained engagement of students which racism has proven to limit and disrupt. New research by Dr. Bodkin-Andrews of Macquarie University has highlighted such experiences could also negatively impact students’ academic performance. In a sample of more than 500 high school students more than half the Indigenous and Asian students reported experiencing racism. Results suggest that greater experiences of racism are significantly associated with increased levels of hopelessness across all groups and lower level math and English ratings. One in three students from Anglo backgrounds reported experiencing racism and lower university aspirations, however, endured less of the negative effects of racism due to a strong sense of identity and perceived cultural respect. This further emphasises inequities faced by Indigenous Australians high school students who on average miss one day of school per week and remain 2.5 years behind their peer.EducationLatent biases in educational structures hinders development of black childrenAma Mazama, Associate professor and the director of graduate programs for the department of African-American Studies at Temple University, April 10, 2015, “Racism in schools is pushing more black families to homeschool their children,” , the attitudes and actions of white teachers (who make up 85 percent of all public school teachers) were questioned by many of the African-American parents with whom I spoke. They consistently portrayed white teachers as overly critical, unresponsive, unqualified, insensitive, offensive, mean, hypocritical, and using double standards. Indeed, many white teachers seem to bring into the schools the many racist stereotypes and attitudes that have been ingrained in them, in particular the notions that blacks lack in intelligence, or are notoriously lazy and bent on criminality. Studies of the impact of negative white teachers’ attitudes on the school experience of black children reveal that there are two areas where teachers’ unchecked prejudices have been particularly visible and tragic: the over-referral of black students to special education programs and to the criminal system. African-American students are more than twice as likely to be labeled cognitively “deficient” than white American students. Although they only make up 17 percent of the student population, they nonetheless represent 33 percent of those enrolled in programs for the mentally challenged. What appears to be a false and incorrect labeling, has a dire impact on the ability of black students to attend college and achieve social mobility.SocietyRacism is a moral wrong that undermines the core of society making human interactions at best unproductive and at worst violent Liza Lugo, J.D.— legal scholar and published author with expertise in Constitutional law, international human rights law, civil liberties, and criminal law, February 23, 2015, “Racism and Its Effect on Society,” Law Doctor Lee, Accessed May 21, 2015, Racism is Allowed to Thrive Racism does not allow for a collective contribution of its citizens, which is a critical component of a country’s development and success. If a class of people is not allowed to be educated, they cannot make important contributions to society in technological, economical, and medical arenas. The denial of quality education to certain groups of people only serves to obstruct the economic progress of a nation. If a class of people is not allowed to participate culturally, we fail to understand and appreciate our differences and similarities. We become increasingly ethnocentric. We fail to develop socially, unable to get along with our fellow man. No matter how hard a society might try to separate classes or races, the bottom line is that, eventually, we will, at least on some occasions, share the same space. Therefore, it is imperative that we are accepting, not merely tolerant, of others. The connotation for tolerance is that one must acknowledge the other, whereas acceptance encourages complete participation and fellowship. Racism destroys our morality. No matter what a person’s culture or religious belief, racism is based on hypocrisy. To illustrate this point, the Christians have a commandment, issued by Jesus, to “love your neighbor as you love yourself.” Most religions have similar philosophies governing their social morality. Yet, there is the hypocrisy in going out into the night to burn crosses or participating in hate crimes. Racism is powerful enough to undermine their Golden Rule and turn it upside down. Many times we, as societies and individuals, think that racism will dissipate on its own; so, we ignore it, repeatedly. In 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr., made a profound statement in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”: "When you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year old daughter why she can’t go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see the tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people, you will understand why we find it difficult to wait (for change)." His message is so clear that racism is most damaging to the children in the society in which they live. The pathology is dehumanization. The cure is humanism.Police Violence Societal systems are a rigged game against minorities. Police violence is coded as a societal response to that which is deemed outside the white norm. Normalized racism crushes police/ community relations in the areas where law enforcement is needed most Eric Zorn, Op-ed columnist and daily blogger for the Chicago Tribune who specializes in local news and politics, November 24, 2014, “Zorn: Ferguson and the malignant impact of racism,” Chicago Tribune, Accessed May 21, 2015, system, in which prosecutors are to bring only charges they can prove in good faith, seems to have worked. But, to the second premise, it worked in what looks like a cultural and social vacuum. It worked for a white cop who shot a black man in a community where majority black residents have long complained about poor treatment from the nearly all-white police force. It worked for a white cop when it gave him the presumption of innocence and benefit of a full grand jury review of exculpatory evidence prior to indictment — an appropriate benefit but one so seldom granted to civilian suspects of any color that some see it as scandalous here. It worked for a white man in a nation that is systematically enacting laws making it harder for black people to vote, and where the black unemployment rate is more than twice that for whites and the black poverty rate is nearly twice the rate for the general population. It worked for a white man in a nation where the "war on drugs" and sentencing policies are particular cancers on minority communities and where young black men are killed by police, almost always with impunity, at 21 times the rate of young white men. By that light, the explosion of outrage online and in the streets at Monday's announcement is not only understandable but overdue. The exoneration of Brown's killer doesn't have to be an ideal parable illustrating the continuing malignant impact of racism on society for it to be a fitting spark for peaceful protest and catalyst for change. (Though I have to add that if this is like any one of a number of "national conversations about race" that have preceded it, I don't have a lot of hope for real progress.) I'll give the last word about what really matters here to President Barack Obama. "The situation in Ferguson speaks to broader challenges that we still face as a nation," he said in an address to the nation Monday night. "The fact is, in too many parts of this country, a deep distrust exists between law enforcement and communities of color. Some of this is the result of the legacy of racial discrimination in this country. And this is tragic, because nobody needs good policing more than poor communities with higher crime rates."Police ViolencePolice are trained to see minority communities as combat zones—this oppositional outlook ensures police brutality continues Vincent Warren, Executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, December 26, 2014, “Structural and Institutional Racism Exists Within Police Forces,” NY Times, Accessed May 21, 2015, Ferguson grand jury operated in an unorthodox way in the Darren Wilson case: The prosecutor, Robert McCullough, presented all the evidence and then took a hands-off approach designed to shift responsibility for securing an indictment from himself – the government – to a group of citizens. That’s not a legal failure, that’s politics. Police officers are so rarely held accountable for killing even unarmed black and brown people, that no one was really surprised at the outcome this time. People have lost faith in the system, which repeatedly tells them black lives don’t matter. But even if the grand jury had indicted Darren Wilson for killing Mike Brown, even if the grand jury in Staten Island indicts Daniel Pantaleo for killing Eric Garner, it wouldn’t resolve the structural and institutional racism that underlies police violence against black people. Yes, more officers should be held accountable for killing unarmed young men, but it isn’t a few bad apples, it’s the way that police are trained to see communities of color as war zones and to behave like occupying forces. In his testimony, Wilson called the neighborhood a “hostile environment” and told the grand jury, “it is just not a very well-liked community.” Black people are angry because of the way we're treated, the way the police, who are sworn to protect us and uphold the law, are so often above the law. What we are seeing in Ferguson is a pro-democracy protest like other pro-democracy protests we’ve cheered worldwide in recent years. The people are saying that justice ultimately cannot spring from the status quo, so it must be dismantled. As Martin Luther King said, "Riot is the language of the unheard." Someone needs to take responsibility for the state of policing. Gov. Jay Nixon isn’t, McCullough isn’t, nor is the department of justice, at least as of yet. Government failure has yet again shifted responsibility to the citizenry. And this is what democracy looks like.Police ViolenceSociety sends implicit messages about what is good and bad, safe and unsafe. Minorities are thought of as inherently unsafe which makes police violence against them far more likely Chris Mooney, Science journalist and podcaster for Mother Jones and host of Climate Desk Live, December 1, 2014, “The Science of Why Cops Shoot Young Black Men,” Mother Jones, Accessed May 21, 2015, WENT TO NYU to learn what psychologists could tell me about racial prejudice in the wake of the shooting of a black teenager, Michael Brown, by a white police officer, Darren Wilson, in Ferguson, Missouri. We may never really know the exact sequence of events and assumptions that led to the moment when Brown, unarmed and, according to witnesses, with his hands in the air, was shot multiple times. But the incident is the latest embodiment of America's racial paradox: On the one hand, overt expressions of prejudice have grown markedly less common than they were in the Archie Bunker era. We elected, and reelected, a black president. In many parts of the country, hardly anyone bats an eye at interracial relationships. Most people do not consider racial hostility acceptable. That's why it was so shocking when Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling was caught telling his girlfriend not to bring black people to games—and why those comments led the NBA to ban Sterling for life. And yet, the killings of Michael Brown, Jordan Davis, Renisha McBride, Trayvon Martin, and so many others remind us that we are far from a prejudice-free society. Science offers an explanation for this paradox—albeit a very uncomfortable one. An impressive body of psychological research suggests that the men who killed Brown and Martin need not have been conscious, overt racists to do what they did (though they may have been). The same goes for the crowds that flock to support the shooter each time these tragedies become public, or the birthers whose racially tinged conspiracy theories paint President Obama as a usurper. These people who voice mind-boggling opinions while swearing they're not racist at all—they make sense to science, because the paradigm for understanding prejudice has evolved. There "doesn't need to be intent, doesn't need to be desire; there could even be desire in the opposite direction," explains University of Virginia psychologist Brian Nosek, a prominent IAT researcher. "But biased results can still occur." The IAT is the most famous demonstration of this reality, but it's just one of many similar tools. Through them, psychologists have chased prejudice back to its lair—the human brain. We're not born with racial prejudices. We may never even have been "taught" them. Rather, explains Nosek, prejudice draws on "many of the same tools that help our minds figure out what's good and what's bad." In evolutionary terms, it's efficient to quickly classify a grizzly bear as "dangerous." The trouble comes when the brain uses similar processes to form negative views about groups of people. But here's the good news: Research suggests that once we understand the psychological pathways that lead to prejudice, we just might be able to train our brains to go in the opposite direction.Police ViolenceRacism frames the police mindset toward minority communities—police are taught to think minorities are dangerous which results in disproportionate killings of young minorities Frederick Reese, Lead staff writer for Mint Press specializing in race, poverty, congressional oversight and technology, October 14, 2014, “Racism And Unchecked Police Violence: An American Epidemic,” Mint Press News, Accessed May 21, 2015, “I take what is happening in Ferguson and elsewhere as being symptomatic of implicit racism,” said Lecia Brooks, outreach director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, to MintPress News. “People across the board have these biases and with law enforcement — with this heightened sense of security and environmental awareness — are being seen to act on these biases with the shootings of African-Americans and Latinos.” This recent situation reflects an evolving issue in which St. Louis — arguably the most racially segregated metropolitan area in the United States — is being forced to deal with the realities of race and racism. With the police being the public-facing presence of most communities, this reality is increasingly being played out in sometimes fatal, typically avoidable escalations between local law enforcement and the community of color in Ferguson and across the nation. In 2013, the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement claimed on Democracy Now! that a black person is shot extrajudicially every 28 hours. Yet no one truly knows how often black men are shot or killed by police action. The FBI only collects information on “justifiable homicides,” defined as police-related shootings in which the firing officer had a clear and distinct rationale for using deadly force, such as protecting a life. Non-justified police shootings are classified as accidents or are not recorded in police statistics at all. However, based on available data collected by the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Report, a white police officer killed a black person — on average — twice a week, every week for a seven-year period ending in 2012. Among the shootings that resulted in death, 18 percent of those killed were under the age of 21. These numbers come from voluntary submissions from just 750 of the nation’s 17,000 law enforcement agencies. If these numbers were to be taken as an indicator of the state of the current relationship between the police and the community of color (due to the limited size of the FBI report’s sampling range, it is understood that the report does not adequately offer a valid statistical model for police-related homicides), it would suggest that law enforcement is a source of grave concern for the nation. These numbers — taken as they are — also suggest a willingness among the police to deal with the community of color not from a community-oriented point of view, but from an absolute “nuisance-remedy” point-of-view. This change in philosophy has been credited — in part — to the “militarization” of the police.Poverty Intentionally racist policies create and sustain poverty ensuring systemic suffering and violence Richard Rothstein, Research associate at the Economic Policy Institute and senior fellow at the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy at U.C. Berkeley, May 1, 2015, “The Poverty and Segregation in Baltimore and Ferguson- It is All Connected to Racist U.S. Housing Policies,” Alternet, Accessed May 26, 2015, 1968, following hundreds of similar riots nationwide, a commission appointed by President Lyndon Johnson concluded that “[o]ur nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal” and that “[s]egregation and poverty have created in the racial ghetto a destructive environment totally unknown to most white Americans.” The Kerner Commission (headed by Illinois Governor Otto Kerner) added that “[w]hat white Americans have never fully understood—but what the Negro can never forget—is that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it.” In the last 50 years, the two societies have become even more unequal. Although a relatively small black middle class has been permitted to integrate itself into mainstream America, those left behind are more segregated now than they were in 1968. When the Kerner Commission blamed “white society” and “white institutions,” it employed euphemisms to avoid naming the culprits everyone knew at the time. It was not a vague white society that created ghettos but government—federal, state, and local—that employed explicitly racial laws, policies, and regulations to ensure that black Americans would live impoverished, and separately from whites. Baltimore’s ghetto was not created by private discrimination, income differences, personal preferences, or demographic trends, but by purposeful action of government in violation of the Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. These constitutional violations have never been remedied, and we are paying the price in the violence we saw this week.PovertyRacist policies caused generational poverty. Poverty causes high incarceration rates and violence Robert Korstad, Professor at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy and in the Department of History. He is also co-chair of the Network on Racial and Ethnic Inequality, and Adrienne Harreveld, Program coordinator for the Network, May 11, 2015, “Want to stop violent crime and racist policing? Fight poverty first,” News Observer, Accessed May 26, 2015, quality education isn’t the only solution. Union membership nationwide is at 11 percent – the lowest in history – and in a right-to-work state like North Carolina, union rates are even more dismal. Access to good working conditions and a living wage are key elements of escaping poverty. A successful anti-poverty program would also include reparative measures to account for generations of wage theft. An example of this could be providing “baby bonds” to children born into poverty. The bonds would be accessible when the child turned 18, and the money could be used toward education or job training. Issues of race, poverty and education levels come to a crux at the criminal justice system. Histories of racist private and public policies compound, and we are left at a moment of crisis. Durham has taken an important step in reviewing the police department and crime. But until we address poverty, we will continue to confront extreme violence in our communities and leave our children vulnerable and ill-equipped for the future.Self-Fulfilling ProphecyRacist stereotypes can create self-fulfilling prophecies—they turn minorities into the worst assumptions of white society Eric Cooper, Founder, President of the National Urban Alliance for Effective Education, December 8, 2014, “Institutions, Schools and Parents Must Reject or Change Stereotypes that Foster Racism,” Huffington Post, Accessed May 27, 2015, these are the types of stereotypical assumptions black males face 24/7, 365 days a year -- expectations that, sadly, can become self-fulfilling prophecies. In "Whistling Vivaldi and Other Clues to How Stereotypes Affect Us," author Claude Steele shares the story of black students at prestigious Stanford University. When told a math test would measure their intelligence, their scores plummeted. When intelligence was not mentioned, they received marks of A's and B's on a math test of equal difficulty. His research suggested that black Stanford students' fears were triggered by the extant stereotype about intelligence -- that they were not as smart as their white classmates. It is time for Americans to recognize that racism is very much alive in our country -- and to do something about it. The path to change begins with education, social interventions and honest reflection. Self-Fulfilling ProphecyRacist perceptions create a self-fulfilling prophecy damaging to minorities Perception Institute, Organization working to change racist perceptions in society, November 13, 2014, “Stereotype Threat,” Accessed May 27, 2015, it is: “Stereotype threat” is like a self-fulfilling prophecy. When we worry that our behavior may confirm stereotypes about a group we belong to, our attention splits between the task at hand and our anxieties, often causing us to behave in ways that confirm the very stereotypes at the root of our anxieties. When we experience stereotype threat, we get distracted and our bodies undergo temporary changes. This can have serious consequences. In one study, black Stanford students were given a test; the group that was told the test was measuring intellectual ability scored far worse than the group who were told they were merely problem solving. For the first group, a “threat” existed, the threat of confirming harmful and inaccurate stereotypes about black intelligence. Why it matters: Stereotype threat is particularly relevant to education, where students are frequently told their abilities and intelligence are being tested. Studies have demonstrated that stereotype threat influences performance as early as middle school. As we rely more and more on high-stakes standardized testing, we are also creating more and more opportunities for stereotype threat to manifest. Stereotype threat can affect white people as well. White people can become so concerned about appearing to be prejudiced, that they avoid meaningful contact with people of color. This means that white teachers of black or Latino students are less likely to give critical feedback on assignments for fear of appearing racist.FrameworkUniqueness—Racism IncreasingRacism is actually getting worse in the US, the need for the alternative is highGary Younge, Alfred Knobler Journalism Fellow at The Nation Institute, is the New York correspondent for the Guardian, May 21, 2014, “The Truth About Race In America: It’s Getting Worse, Not Better,” The Nation, Accessed May 27, 2015, could argue with that? Half a century ago, America was officially an apartheid state, with black people denied the basic rights of citizenship in large swaths of the country. Then the signs came down; the laws were overturned; the doors to the polling stations were prized open. The notion that the work is proceeding perpetuates the myth: America has no reverse gear—we just keep going forward. But the awkward truth is that when it comes to the goals laid down by the civil rights movement in general and Brown in particular, America is actually going backward. Schools are resegregating, legislation is being gutted, it’s getting harder to vote, large numbers are being deprived of their basic rights through incarceration, and the economic disparities between black and white are growing. In many areas, America is becoming more separate and less equal. According to research recently conducted by ProPublica, “black children across the South now attend majority-black schools at levels not seen in four decades.” A recent Nation article illustrated how this trend is largely by design. In suburbs across the region, wealthier whites have been seceding from their inner- city school districts and setting up academic laagers of their own. The result is a concentration of race and class disadvantage in a system with far fewer resources. In a 2012 report, UCLA’s Civil Rights Project noted: “Nationwide, the typical black student is now in a school where almost two out of every three classmates (64%) are low-income.” The discrepancy between black and white unemployment is the same as it was in 1963. According to the Institute on Assets and Social Policy at Brandeis University, between 1984 and 2007 the black-white wealth gap quadrupled. The Supreme Court is dismantling affirmative action and gutting voting rights. Meanwhile, incarceration disparities are higher than they were in the 1960s. And as Michelle Alexander points out in The New Jim Crow: “Once you’re labeled a felon, the old forms of discrimination—employment discrimination, housing discrimination, denial of the right to vote, denial of educational opportunity, denial of food stamps and other public benefits, and exclusion from jury service—are suddenly legal. As a criminal, you have scarcely more rights, and arguably less respect, than a black man living in Alabama at the height of Jim Crow. We have not ended racial caste in America; we have merely redesigned it.” This is not to say that we have literally reverted to a bygone era. “No man ever steps in the same river twice,” goes the proverb. “For it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.” We have a black president, a black attorney general and a black editor of The New York Times; there’s a growing trend to interracial relationships; suburbs are becoming more diverse. If the civil rights movement had been about getting black faces in new and high places, its work would now be done. But it wasn’t. It was about equality. And the problem is not that we still have a great deal of progress to be made or that progress is too slow—it’s that we are regressing.Uniqueness—Racism IncreasingMore and more Americans are realizing racism is a problem Sarah Begley, Culture and breaking news reporter for TIME, December 19, 2014, “Race Concerns Americans More Than It Has in 2 Decades,” Time, Accessed May 27, 2015, percentage of Americans who consider “race relations” or “racism” to be the biggest problem facing the country is at its highest level since 1992,according to a new Gallup poll. At 13%, the current rate is only two points behind its peak two decades ago, in the aftermath of the riots that followed the Rodney King verdict. Just last month, only 1% of Americans viewed race as the top concern, proving what an enormous impact the Michael Brown, Eric Garner and Tamir Rice cases have had on the public. Among nonwhites, 22% named race relations or racism as the country’s biggest problem; among whites, it was only 9%. “The economy” ties with race among those polled, and the highest-ranked concern is “government” at 15%.Racism Comes First Racism is the biggest threat facing America todayDante Wright, Writer for the Christian Examiner, March 16, 2015, “'Weapon of massive racism' worse than ISIS threat, Black preacher says,” Christian Examiner, Accessed May 27, 2015, when we thought our common enemy of yesterday was slowly fading away, its evil and divisive spirit has come back to open up old wounds and haunt our hills of today. The greatest threat against America today is not ISIS or weapons of mass destruction, but in my humble opinion, the greatest threat against America is the weapon of massive racism. There is no subject that can be more troublesome, emotionally explosive and divisive than a discussion about race in America. Just reflect back on recent events with Michael Brown and Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Mo.; Eric Garner and the police department in New York City; and Tamir Rice and the police officer in Cleveland, Ohio. The prophetic words of Billy Graham, still ring true today, "Racial and ethnic hostility is the foremost social problem facing our world today." The awareness of racial division in America has been communicated by many observers in our society. Michael Emerson, in Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race, said, "For race is intimately tied to the American experience." Other nations have also observed the racial problems in our nation. The astute Swedish scholar and researcher, Gunnar Myrdal, described America's racial problem as, "an American dilemma."Educational SpacesWe have a unique responsibility to reject racism in educational spaces—schools are key sights for education and learning behaviors and practices we carry with us throughout life Organize 2020, the social justice caucus of the North Carolina Association of Educators, January 5, 2015, “Educators must stand against racism,” Socialist , Accessed May 27, 2015, PUBLIC school educators, we are, first and foremost, facilitators of the near-limitless growth potential of human beings. We wake up early, stay up late, and pour every ounce of creativity and energy that we have into the task of helping young people find and achieve their purpose. That is our lives' purpose, and it is guided by the belief that every human life is sacred, and each of our students can leave their communities better than they found them. In the past few weeks, this vocation has been particularly heartbreaking. The failure of grand juries to indict the murderers of both Michael Brown and Eric Garner, in addition to the police violence that has claimed the lives of 12-year-old Tamir Rice, Akai Gurley and too many others to name here has left us facing classrooms of young people searching for answers to incredibly complicated and infuriating questions: Why does this keep happening? If these are the people who are supposed to protect me, how can I ever feel safe? We have cried for and with our students. We have created space for them to talk. We have created lessons that challenged their assumptions. We have helped them try to understand truths that are challenging for even us to face. But most importantly, we have affirmed that their lives matter and that we are committed to their emotional and physical safety. Without affirmation and safety, no student can achieve their potential. Thus, Organize 2020 is endorsing the nationwide effort to assert a fact that is obvious, yet sadly controversial: Black Lives Matter.Educational SpacesEducational spaces cultivate skills and practices necessary for combating racism throughout life—teachers play a unique role and have an obligation Gary Hamilton, Special education teacher and America Achieves Fellow, a teacher trainer for the Flamboyan Foundation, and a Teacher Selection Ambassador for the District of Columbia Public Schools, April 29, 2015, “A Teacher's Role in Fighting Racism,” Education Week, Accessed May 27, 2015, educators, we can do more to help ensure that our students are not walking into the streets of Baltimore, or any other city, rioting with their displaced anger. Our children need a place to understand and channel these emotions. It is important that we see our students and the heartbeat of the communities we serve. Understanding who they are and where they come from is vital to their, and our, success. It is not enough to just tell them the brutal truth. We must help children find ways to process complex emotions and be change agents in this world. Study civil rights movements by engaging students in a local campaign and find parallels. Show them heroes of all races working together to combat injustice, and point this out explicitly. Have students work on real projects to help in their communities, so they can channel their feelings into positive actions. Allow them to address their confusion. If you don’t provide children with safe places to talk, process, and act, who will? Race is something that can't be avoided and it is better understood when discussed honestly. Children are social beings, sensitive, and easily influenced. When teaching sensitive lessons such as civil rights, we cannot step away from the truth, but we must provide space to talk and ask questions. You do not have to be an expert to do this, as there are great online resources to help you facilitate conversations with your students. By providing education that moves beyond the facts, we help promote character traits like the empathy to identify with the humanity in others, the courage that it takes to be upstanders, and the resilience and perseverance to keep pushing when the odds feel against you. Emphasizing race as a social construct is meaningless when there are more and more videos of unarmed black men dying. We can't combat the totality of racism, injustice, or inequality, but as teachers we do hold the key to the heart and minds of future adults who I believe can change this country.Racism= SubconsciousRacism can operate at the subconscious level—we might not even be aware of our own biases Linda R. Tropp, Professor in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences and Director of the Psychology of Peace and Violence Program at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and Rachel D. Godsil, Director of Research at the Perception Institute and Eleanor Bontecou Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law, Jan 08, 2015, “Resolving the Paradox of Race,” Psychology Today, Accessed May 27, 2015, white Americans, examining their own values and belief systems, genuinely believe themselves to be non-racist. They conclude that race has diminished in significance–and point to such high-profile examples as the election of a black president to confirm their belief that race has ceased to be an important factor in American society. Yet people of color–particularly black people–often have a very different view of how much race affects their lives and opportunities. In a 2013 Gallup poll(link is external), 68 percent of African Americans and 40 percent of Hispanics stated that the American justice system is biased against black people, compared to only 25 percent of non-Hispanic whites. Black similarly feel they are at a disadvantage getting jobs. This is the central paradox of race today: White people genuinely believe that they and most other whites are not “racist,” while most African Americans and Latinos believe that America continues to be biased against them. What accounts for this difference? Of course, it's possible that one side is either wrong or simply lying. But we believe a better explanation for the coexistence of these two contradictory ideas is that most whites are not consciously and deliberately racist, but harbor implicit racial biases that operate at a subconscious level. For example, whites may consciously reject the association of blacks with criminality. But they may subconsciously hold on to such stereotypes in ways that negatively affect their behavior toward blacks. Because these biases are implicit—that is to say, subconscious—most whites aren’t even aware of holding them.Racism= SubconsciousEven if overt racism is on the decline, subconscious racial bias is still pervasive. People hold implicit racial biases they might not even know are there PBS, Public Broadcast Service—information and educational resource, March 30, 2015 , “How the biases in the back of your mind affect how you feel about race,” PBS, Accessed May 27, 2015, MENTOR: There is less racism, but the racism that does still pervade everyday interactions with people, it’s so much more subtle and quiet. And it’s almost like: “I don’t like black people. Oh hey, Shaquan, how are you? Welcome to the office.” HARI SREENIVASAN: A 2010 report by the Pew Research Center noted that the millennial generation, ages 18 to 29, was more racially diverse, better educated, and seen as more racially tolerant than their parents and grandparents. But while millennials are more likely to say they’re not racist or use racist expressions, some psychologists say that they often show the same subconscious prejudices as their parents. David Amodio, a psychologist at New York University, studies racial biases. DAVID AMODIO, New York University: If you’re an American, you’re exposed to similar culture, similar information in the media, similar social structures. And it seems that all of those influences come into the mind. You could be passive and these things will come in. Memory is kind of like a sponge. And it gets into your mind. Once it’s there, it might come out. HARI SREENIVASAN: When these prejudices soak up in the mind, they’re what psychologists call implicit biases, unconscious thoughts that shape our actions. They are harder to observe and study than explicit biases, like a racist chant on a bus. So Amodio tests subjects by forcing them to act on instinct, to make quick racial judgments in a controlled setting. It is a way to see just what has been soaked up in that mental sponge, regardless of generation. I decided to give it a try.A/T PermsNo Solvency—If Aff Is Not About RaceThe 1AC does not take into consideration material conditions of racism, they can’t advocate for reform without beginning with this analysis Nancy A. Heitzeg, Ph.D and professor of sociology and director of the critical studies of race/ethnicity program at St. Catherine University, December 4, 2014, “The Fallacy of Right-Wing Appeals to Race in Criminal Justice Reform,” Truth Out, Accessed May 27, 2015, 2014. Ferguson and cities across the world took to the streets in continued protest of the police homicide of Mike Brown and a seemingly endless list of mostly young Black males killed by police — 1 every 28 hours. The events in Ferguson had shone a light – not just on the anti-Blackness that shapes policing/police killings in the U.S.A., but towards the entire criminal legal system, one emergent out of slavery and always attendant to policing and punishment by race, class, and gender. The Ferguson Movement had sparked, too, not just demands for the indictment of Darren Wilson or reforms of the police, but calls for - finally! – an uprooting of the structural inequality which shapes and pervades the system. Worlds apart, in sterile San Diego hotel conference rooms, "policy makers, experts, and other key decision makers from more than 30 states... [met] to discuss the past, present, and future of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI)" convened at the Justice Reinvestment National Summit. "Success" in "reform" was touted by reference to a checklist, one devoid of the devilish details of definitions (Mississippi's reclassification of drug offenses actually increased penalties) or actual incarceration outcomes (a tiny footnote states "The number of policy reforms in a state does not correspond with the impact on prison populations or costs"). One devoid too of discussion of demographics or any indication that actual people — overwhelming people of color, the poor and those otherwise outside the bounds of "normative" white middle/upper class hetero-patriarchy – are the subject/object of these policies. How is it possible to advocate for criminal justice reform without taking account of the central role that race and class play in shaping the past and present of criminal injustice? No Solvency—If Aff is Reform Good For Minorities The 1AC has an unmitigated faith in liberal legal reform—this faith is what props the failed system of liberal democracy which only allows revolutionary politics so far as they produce better liberal subjectsArun Kundani, teaches at New York University, November 3, 2014, “There’s no such thing as a liberal anti-racist,” Open Democracy, Accessed May 27, 2015, liberal individualism is also the ideology of a social system—capitalism—that sustains itself through marginalising racial groups, through class exploitation, and through the drive to imperial expansion; thus the cultures of racialised groups and exploited classes inevitably become politically insurgent. The liberal demand to depoliticise culture, to abandon “dangerous ideas”, is then highly political and leads liberals to consider all manner of coercive initiatives to engineer the liberal subjects they feel are missing among oppressed groups. Liberalism then becomes a peculiarly cultural project that aims at upholding a “way of life”, if necessary through what Harris calls a “war of ideas” – and he does not use the word “war” metaphorically. What this means is that the liberal principles that lead Maher to call for cannabis to be legalised (tolerate my choice to smoke what I like!) also lead him to Islamophobia (no tolerance for the intolerant!). It is also this same logic that has provided a rationale for colonialism for centuries and today shapes the perception of a “Muslim problem”. It is the same logic that leads liberals to think that the appropriate response to police killings of black people in Ferguson is to say that we need to be more tolerant or better educated into liberal norms. For liberals, if the system is producing social conflict, the problem is that some group of people is not liberal enough. But the system is the problem. Maher seems to think racism in America is a Republican Party problem or a southern states problem. If only. Anti-racist politics is not a demand for liberal tolerance. It understands that having one’s culture tolerated is very different from equal participation in shaping the future of society. Martin Luther King never called for tolerance; he called for racial equality and an end to poverty and war because he understood all three were intertwined products of the same system. There’s no such thing as a liberal anti-racist.No Solvency—Reform Focus FailsThe aff’s focus on legal reform trades off with mass protests necessary to fight historically continuing racism Socialist Alternative, Independent socialist organization advocating in the US, January 2002, “USA Patriot Act: An Attack on All Our Rights,” Socialist Alternative, Accessed May 27, 2015, libertarians and liberals also have a failed strategy about how to fight this assault on our civil liberties. They focus their efforts on congratulating the few Democrats who voted against these bills and challenging the constitutionality of these new laws in the courts. However the courts have consistently defended all the repressive laws that are already on books, such as those which restrict the right of workers to effectively picket, and he clampdown on the right to march during the Seattle WTO protests. Although legal tactics can be one tactic among many, the central way to reverse this onslaught of repressive new laws is to build mass protests on the streets and to educate people about what is being done to all of our rights so as to build a stronger protest movement. Activists also have to work towards launching a new independent political party that fights big business and the government and bases itself on the majority of the population – the working class. How can we rely on the Democrats when they enthusiastically supported these attacks on civil liberties and voted for the Patriot Act? Civil libertarians and liberals make moral appeals about “democracy” being undermined, but these appeals are incapable of linking up with broader working class. Only by linking these attacks on civil liberties to fundamental social and class interests, can a broad mass movement be built.Other Neg ArgsIncarceration RatesBlack people are six times as likely to be incarcerated as whites George Gao, Researcher at PEW Research, July 18, 2014, “Chart of the Week: The black-white gap in incarceration rates,” Pew Research chart is based on a study by University of Chicago economists Derek Neal and Armin Rick, who tabulated Census Long Form data from 1960 to 2000, and American Community Survey data from 2010. Neal and Rick’s study was in part a follow-up to a1989 paper by James Smith of the RAND Corporation and Finis Welch of UCLA, which found substantial progress in closing the black-white gap in education, employment and earnings from 1940 to 1980. But in the U. Chicago study, Neal and Rick concluded that progress on similar measures have sputtered since 1980, in part because of the disproportionately high incarceration rates. They noted, for example, that while employment rates for all men had declined since 1980, “these declines in employment and increases in incarceration have been much more dramatic among black men than white men.” The authors attributed part of this trend to the change in prison policies in the 1970s and 80s. In 2010, all black men were six times as likely as all white men to be incarcerated in federal, state and local jails, according to a 2013 Pew Research Center study. We also found that black-white gaps in median household income and wealth had widened in recent decades, while gaps in high school completion and life expectancy had narrowed. In last year’s survey, fewer than half of all Americans (45%) said the country has made substantial progress toward racial equality, and 49% said “a lot more” remains to be done.Poverty RatesBlack people are substantially more likely to be in poverty Tami Luhby, CNNMoney Senior Writer, August 21, 2014, “5 disturbing stats on black-white inequality,” CNN Money, Accessed May 26, 2015, figures are staggering. A typical black household has accumulated less than one-tenth of the wealth of a typical white one. And it's only getting worse. Over the past 25 years, the wealth gap between blacks and whites has nearly tripled, according to research by Brandeis University. That's in large part because home ownership among blacks is so much lower. Housing is often Americans' greatest asset and a major component of their overall wealth. Blacks also typically have lower incomes than whites, which also makes it harder for them to save and build wealth. The median income for black households is less than 60% that of white ones. Unemployment is also a major problem. The jobless rate for blacks is twice that of whites. The gap has been at least that large for years. All of these factors combine to push many blacks into poverty. America's 15% poverty rate masks the underlying racial differences. More than one in four blacks live in poverty, while fewer than one in 10 whites do. The economic situation in Ferguson mirrors the national picture, with poverty, unemployment and low income pervasive among its black residents. Criminality Perception—Psychology Blackness is conflated with criminality—whites view blacks as inherently criminals Rebecca C. Hetey and Jennifer L. Eberhardt, Researchers at Stanford University, May 23, 2014, “Racial Disparities in Incarceration Increase Acceptance of Punitive Policies,” Association for Psychological Science, Accessed May 26, 2014, in the more-Black condition were significantly more concerned about crime (M = 3.98, SD = 1.40) than were participants in the less-Black condition (M = 3.52, SD = 1.51), t(162) = ?1.998, p = .047. Further, controlling for condition, we found that crime concern predicted reported petition signing, β = 0.630, SE = 0.153, p < .0005. The more participants worried about crime, the less likely they were to say they would sign a petition to end the stop-and-frisk policy. To test whether fear of crime mediated the relationship between perceptions of institutional Blackness and acceptance of the stop-and-frisk policy, we ran a bootstrap-based, bias-corrected mediation analysis (Hayes, 2013). Using 5,000 bootstrap samples, we calculated the 95% confidence interval for our proposed model. Zero was not included in the confidence interval [.03, .73], which demonstrates that the effect of exposure to racial disparities in incarceration on petition signing was driven, in part, by crime concern (see Fig. 3; see the Supplemental Material for additional analyses). The prison boom is one of the largest social transformations in American history, yet experimental studies examining the psychological impact of this expansion on the broader public are almost entirely absent. Using a novel methodology, we manipulated the information participants received about this structural shift: We led participants to believe that the racial disparities that have resulted from the prison boom were more or less extreme. We found that exposing people to extreme racial disparities in the prison population heightened their fear of crime and increased acceptance of the very policies that lead to those disparities. Thus, institutionalized disparities can be self-perpetuating. Across the country, and increasingly throughout the Western world (Wacquant, 1999), punitive criminal-justice policies have a grossly disproportionate impact on racial minorities (Bobo & Thompson, 2006). Many legal advocates and social activists assume that bombarding the public with images and statistics documenting the plight of minorities will motivate people to fight inequality. Our results call this assumption into question. We demonstrated that exposure to extreme racial disparities may make the public less, not more, responsive to attempts to lessen the severity of policies that help maintain those disparities—even when people agree that such policies are too punitive. This produces quite a challenge for those striving to create a more equal and just society. Perhaps motivating the public to work toward an equal society requires something more than the evidence of inequality itself.Criminality Perception—Children Even black children are seen as criminalsTerrell Jermaine Starr , Senior editor at AlterNet, January 19, 2015, “This Country Is All Too Ready to See Black Children as Criminals,” AlterNet, May 27, 2015, is the life of a black child in America’s criminal justice system. Of the 2,500 kids serving life without parole for crimes committed under the age of 18 in America, 60 percent of them are black. Florida, Curtis and Catherine Jones' home state, leads the nation in charging children as adults. It has a “direct file” statute that allows prosecutors to transfer juvenile cases straight to criminal courts without input from a judge. More than 50 percent of children transferred are black; 24 percent are white. A 2014 study titled, “The Essence of Innocence: The Consequences of Dehumanizing Black Children,” might explain what’s behind the impulse to push young black offenders into adulthood. According to the study, white people consistently view black children as less innocent than white children.Criminality Perception—Jobs/ HiringRacial bias is so prevalent, blacks are only seen as equally likely to be hired as whites with felony convictions Shaun King, Daily Kos staff writer, April 27, 2015, “Black men w/ no criminal record applying for jobs treated same as white men fresh out of prison,” Daily Kos, Accessed May 27, 2015, sociologist Devah Pager, a Harvard professor who has meticulously researched the effect of race on hiring policies, has also shown that stereotypes have a powerful effect on job possibilities. In one widely cited study, she sent carefully selected test applicants with equivalent résumés to apply for low-level jobs with hundreds of employers. Ms. Pager found that criminal convictions for black men seeking employment were virtually impossible to overcome in many contexts, partly because convictions reinforced powerful, longstanding stereotypes. The stigma of a criminal record was less damaging for white testers. In fact, those who said that they were just out of prison were as likely to be called back for a second interview as black men who had no criminal history at all. “Being black in America today is just about the same as having a felony conviction in terms of one’s chances of finding a job,” she wrote in her book, “Marked: Race, Crime and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration.”Criminality Perception—Police/ Black PoliceRacial bias is so powerful it even effects blacks—black police are also much more likely to view as default black people as criminals German Lopez, staff writer for Vox, May 7, 2015, “How systemic racism entangles all police officers — even black cops,” Vox, Accessed May 27, 2015, Franklin is a black man. But he'll admit that after decades of working at the Baltimore Police Department and Maryland State Police, he harbored a strong bias against young black men. Franklin, now executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, which opposes the war on drugs, explained, "When I'd see a young black male in a particular neighborhood, or his pants were sagging a little bit, or he walked a certain way … my first thoughts were, 'Oh, I wonder if he's selling drugs.'" As the media has increased its scrutiny of police killings of black men, some of the cases have involved black police officers. In the case of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, for example, three of the six police officers charged for Gray's death are black. This has led to some questions about whether racial bias is really at play — can a black cop be racist against his own racial group? But social psychologists and criminal justice experts say this question fundamentally misunderstands how institutional racism affects everyone, regardless of race. Racial bias isn't necessarily about how a person views himself in terms of race, but how he views others in terms of race, particularly in different roles throughout his everyday life. And systemic racism, which has been part of the US since its founding, can corrupt anyone's view of minorities in America.Interlocking OppressionsWe are an indictment of an interlocking system of oppression—the aff’s politics are trapped in a racially coded mentality that sustains violent police practices Adam Hudson, Writer for Truth Out, April 2014, “UN Human Rights Committee Finds US in Violation on 25 Counts,” Truth Out, Accessed May 19, 2015, the report's 25 issues, four looked at racial disparities within the United States' criminal justice system and law enforcement practices. It denounced the "racial disparities at different stages in the criminal justice system, sentencing disparities and the overrepresentation of individuals belonging to racial and ethnic minorities in prisons and jails." The committee condemned racial profiling by police and FBI/NYPD surveillance of Muslims - but it did welcome plans to reform New York City's "stop and frisk" program. It also denounced the continuing use of the death penalty and "racial disparities in its imposition that affects disproportionately African Americans." Finally, it expressed concern at "the still high number of fatal shootings by certain police forces" and "reports of excessive use of force by certain law enforcement officers including the deadly use of tasers, which have a disparate impact on African Americans, and the use of lethal force by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers at the US-Mexico border." The United States contains the largest prison population in the world, holding over 2.4 million people in domestic jails and prisons, immigration detention centers, military prisons, civil commitment centers and juvenile correctional facilities. Its prison population is even larger than those of authoritarian governments like China and Russia, which, respectively, hold 1,640,000 and 681,600 prisoners, according to the International Centre for Prison Studies. More than 60 percent of the US prison population are people of color. African Americans, while 13 percent of the national population, constitute nearly 40 percent of the prison population. Moreover, one in every three black males can expect to go to prison in their lifetime, compared to one in every six Latino males, and one in every 17 white males. Thus, black men are six times more likely to be incarcerated than white men. Even though whites and blacks use drugs at roughly the same rates, African Americans are more likely to be imprisoned for drug-related offenses than whites. Every 28 hours, a black person is killed by a police officer, security guard, or self-appointed vigilante, according to a report by the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement. Recently in New York City, NYPD brutalized two teenage African-American girls at a Chinese restaurant in Brooklyn. A 16-year-old girl's face was slammed against the floor, while police threw the 15-year-old through the restaurant's window, shattering it as a result. The incident started when police ordered everyone to leave the restaurant, but one of the girls refused. No Aff Solvency—Non Compliance There’s no reason to think the government will actually comply with the plan, the Obama administration has a history of cracking down on whistleblowers who try to expose racism in surveillance Gary Lapon, Writer for Socialist Worker.og, March 5, 2014, “A green light to target Muslims,” Socialist , Accessed May 27, 2015, 'S RULING that the harm caused by the knowledge of the surveillance and infiltration of Muslim communities in the Northeast by the NYPD is a result not of the spying but of the reporting on the spying is indicative of the increasingly brazen surveillance state that the US has become. The U.S. government at all levels has used the threat of terrorism to construct an apparatus of surveillance and repression that is used to target not only Arabs and Muslims, but millions of others in the U.S. and around the world. When whistleblowers have exposed wrongdoing, the government has gone after the whistleblowers themselves rather than the crimes they exposed. The Obama administration has engaged in an unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers. Chelsea Manning was subject to treatment that the UN special rapporteur on torture called cruel and inhumane, yet the war criminals she exposed remain free. Last spring, it was revealed that the Department of Justice had spied on journalists, including from AP and Fox News. The ruling that AP, not the NYPD, is responsible for the damage caused by NYPD spying sets a dangerous precedent that can only further serve to discourage investigative journalism that seeks to shed light on secret government programs.No Aff Solvency—AttitudesThe plan is in-name-only reform, it won’t change attitudes toward minorities who are disproportionately spied onArun Kundnani, Political commentator and author of The Muslims are Coming! Islamophobia, Extremism, and the Domestic War on Terror, March 28, 2014, “No NSA reform can fix the American Islamophobic surveillance complex,” The Guardian, Accessed May 27, 2015, oversight of the sprawling American national security apparatus may finally be coming: President Obama and the House Intelligence Committee unveiled plans this week to reduce bulk collection of telephone records. The debate opened up by Edward Snowden's whistle-blowing is about to get even more legalistic than all the parsing of hops and stores and metadata. These reforms may be reassuring, if sketchy. But for those living in so-called "suspect communities" – Muslim Americans, left-wing campaigners, "radical" journalists – the days of living on the receiving end of excessive spying won’t end there. How come when we talk about spying we don't talk about the lives of ordinary people being spied upon? While we have been rightly outraged at the government's warehousing of troves of data, we have been less interested in the consequences of mass surveillance for those most affected by it – such as Muslim Americans.A/T “Black Crime Responsible For Police Violence” We cannot blame black communities for high rates of police violence—blaming blacks ignores the ways whites played a major role in creating high crime black communities Steve Chapman, Writer for Reason magazine online, December 8, 2014, "The Problem With Blaming Black Crime for Police Shootings," Reason, Accessed May 27, 2015, a white cop kills an unarmed black man, many blacks see a pattern of prejudice that generates official suspicion, hostility and abuse based on skin color. Many whites, however, say it's the fault of blacks. If they didn't commit so much crime, they wouldn't get so much attention from police. This is not just a favorite theme of overt bigots and Internet trolls. It's the view of Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor and Republican presidential candidate, and many other whites. Black-on-black crime "is the reason for the heavy police presence in the black community," he asserted on NBC's Meet the Press. "So why don't (they) cut it down so so many white police officers don't have to be in black areas?" In this view, African Americans have only themselves to blame for the presence and behavior of cops in their neighborhoods. If they would get serious about cleaning up the problems in their own communities, police would not be arresting or killing so many black people. There's an element of truth to this line of argument. Violent crime rates are far higher among blacks than among whites and other groups. One reason cops have a disproportionate number of interactions with African-American males is that these men commit a disproportionate number of offenses. Where the argument fails is in its assumption that blacks are complacent about these realities and that whites are blameless. The gist of the message is that blacks created the problem and blacks need to solve it. But the problem didn't originate recently. In 1958—a time of lynchings, universal discrimination and legal segregation—Timemagazine reported that in big cities, the "biggest and most worrisome problem is the crime rate among Negroes" and said Negro leaders and civil rights groups should start "accepting responsibility in an area where they habitually look the other way." The common impulse of whites, then and now, was to blame blacks for pathologies that whites played a central role in creating. Criminologist Charles Silberman wrote in 1978 that "it would be hard to imagine an environment better calculated to evoke violence than the one in which black Americans have lived." Pretending black crime is a black-created problem is like pretending New Orleans never got hit by a hurricane. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download